Difference between Matthew and Luke geneology

AnewcreationinJesus

Soon and very soon ....
I don't think I'd spotted this before but was perplexed when studying the messianic line yesterday to see the genealogy in Matthew and Luke both seeming to trace through Joseph son of Jacob in Matthew, but son of Heli in Luke and one line going through Solomon (Matthew) and the other through Nathan (Luke)... Have read the Matthew explains the Joseph family tree while the Luke explains the Mary one, but it says "supposedly son of Joseph" in Luke....

I don't think I've come across this before.... Any thoughts anyone???

I've really been enjoying looking at the people in the Matthew genealogy... For example, learning more about Nahshon and where he appears in the OT!
 
Last edited:

Kaatje

My soul waits for the Lord, and in His Word I hope
I don't think I'd spotted this before but was perplexed when studying the messianic line yesterday to see the genealogy in Matthew and Luke both seeming to trace through Joseph son of Jacob in Matthew, but son of Heli in Luke and one line going through Solomon (Matthew) and the other through Nathan (Luke)... Have read the Matthew explains the Joseph family tree while the Luke explains the Mary one, but it says "supposedly son of Joseph" in Luke....

I don't think I've come across this before.... Any thoughts anyone???

I've really been enjoying looking at the people in the Matthew genealogy... For example, learning more about Nahshon and where he appears in the OT!

Hi AnciJ, Dr. David Reagan writes about this issue, maybe that helps?


Q: Where in the Bible can one find the genealogy of Mary the Mother of Christ?

A: I am convinced that Luke gives the genealogy of Jesus through Mary. Notice how this genealogy begins:
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,

Two things we need to recognize. First, the Bible usage of the phrase, the son of, is not nearly as strong as the direct word "begat" which is used in the genealogy found in the first chapter of Matthew. One who is the son of someone in the Bible may be a grandson, a descendant of many generations, an adopted son, or a son-in-law. Therefore, Joseph could easily be the son-in-law of Heli and the wording would be accurate. Second, since genealogies were naturally given through the fathers, it would be understandable for Joseph to stand in for his wife Mary when her genealogy was given.

Matthew 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
You can see that the wording of Matthew is much stronger and could not refer to Mary's genealogy. At the end of the line, Jacob begat Joseph. That is a statement which definitely refers to biological birth. This Joseph was the husband of the Mary of whom Jesus was born.

But there are other reasons for accepting the genealogy of Luke as that of Mary. For one thing, the two genealogies are so different that they have to be of different lines. Since they both point to Jesus, one has to be that of Joseph and the other of Mary. As already argued, Luke's has wording that much more readily admits the possibility of being Mary's line. Yet, there is another major point. Consider these passages:

Jer 36:29-30 And thou shalt say to Jehoiakim king of Judah, Thus saith the LORD; Thou hast burned this roll, saying, Why hast thou written therein, saying, The king of Babylon shall certainly come and destroy this land, and shall cause to cease from thence man and beast? Therefore thus saith the LORD of Jehoiakim king of Judah; He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David: and his dead body shall be cast out in the day to the heat, and in the night to the frost.

Jeremiah 22:28-30 Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not? O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD. Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

Jehoiakim was the father of Coniah (also called Jeconiah, Jechonias, and Jehoiachin). Coniah did sit for a time on the throne of Jehoiakim, though only for about three months. However, there seems to be a cutting off of the line with these curses from the prophecy of Jeremiah. The descendants of these men will never sit on the throne of David again. However, the genealogical line of Joesph in Matthew (1:11-12) includes Jechonias. Therefore the Messiah, though He must come of the line of David, cannot come through the line of Jehoiakim and Coniah. That is exactly what the New Testament allows with the two genealogies.

The genealogy of Matthew deals with the official line and the legal right of Jesus to be King of the Jews through Joseph His supposed father. This would satisfy the Jewish traditions. However, Luke gives His right to reign in God's eyes through Mary who provides His human nature. This line bypasses the ancient royal lineup entirely and comes through David's son Nathan (Luke 3:31). In this manner, Jesus was both legally qualified (through Joseph's line) and spiritual qualified (through Mary's line) to be the King of the Jews. How wonderfully the Bible brings all of these truths together! God bless.
Till He comes,

Pastor David Reagan

http://www.learnthebible.org/q-a-genealogy-of-jesus-through-mary.htm
 

DaveS

Well-Known Member
Here's a brief exerpt from Dr. Fruchtenbaum's teaching of the Genealogy of Jesus (concerning Matthew). I've read different views, personally I find his to be the most persuasive (link to the full article below).

According to Matthew’s genealogy, Joseph had the blood of Jeconiah in his veins. He was not qualified to sit on David’s throne. He was not the heir apparent. This would also mean that no real son of Joseph would have the right to claim the throne of David. Therefore if Jesus were the real son of Joseph, he would have been disqualified from sitting on David’s throne. Neither could he claim the right to David’s throne by virtue of his adoption by Joseph, since Joseph was not the heir apparent.

The purpose of Matthew’s genealogy, then, is to show why Yeshua could not be king if he were really Joseph’s son. The purpose was not to show the royal line. For this reason, Matthew starts his Gospel with the genealogy, presents the Jeconiah problem, and then proceeds with the account of the virgin birth which, from Matthew’s viewpoint, is the solution to the Jeconiah problem. In summary, Matthew deduces that if Jesus were really Joseph’s son, he could not claim to sit on David’s throne because of the Jeconiah curse; but Jesus was not Joseph’s son, for he was born of the virgin Miriam (Matthew 1:18-25). ~ Fruchtenbaum: The Genealogy of the Messiah.


https://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/issues-v05-n06/the-genealogy-of-the-messiah/
 

mattfivefour

Well-Known Member
Here's a brief exert from Dr. Fruchtenbaum's teaching of the Genealogy of Jesus (concerning Matthew). I've read different views, personally I find his to be the most persuasive (link to the full article below).

According to Matthew’s genealogy, Joseph had the blood of Jeconiah in his veins. He was not qualified to sit on David’s throne. He was not the heir apparent. This would also mean that no real son of Joseph would have the right to claim the throne of David. Therefore if Jesus were the real son of Joseph, he would have been disqualified from sitting on David’s throne. Neither could he claim the right to David’s throne by virtue of his adoption by Joseph, since Joseph was not the heir apparent.

The purpose of Matthew’s genealogy, then, is to show why Yeshua could not be king if he were really Joseph’s son. The purpose was not to show the royal line. For this reason, Matthew starts his Gospel with the genealogy, presents the Jeconiah problem, and then proceeds with the account of the virgin birth which, from Matthew’s viewpoint, is the solution to the Jeconiah problem. In summary, Matthew deduces that if Jesus were really Joseph’s son, he could not claim to sit on David’s throne because of the Jeconiah curse; but Jesus was not Joseph’s son, for he was born of the virgin Miriam (Matthew 1:18-25). ~ Fruchtenbaum: The Genealogy of the Messiah.


https://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/issues-v05-n06/the-genealogy-of-the-messiah/
:thumbup Which --although written for a different purpose-- accords perfectly with Doctor David Regan's view. Btw, Dr. Fruchtenbaum's teachings are always so fascinating: opening up areas we have not considered before. The excerpt above is just one more example of this.
 

DaveS

Well-Known Member
:thumbup Which --although written for a different purpose-- accords perfectly with Doctor David Regan's view. Btw, Dr. Fruchtenbaum's teachings are always so fascinating: opening up areas we have not considered before. The excerpt above is just one more example of this.

Hmmm... Maybe I'm too stupid to understand what Reagan was saying, but it didn't seem to agree with Fruchtenbaum to me.

This is what Reagan says "Jesus was both legally qualified (through Joseph's line) and spiritual qualified (through Mary's line) to be the King of the Jews. "
 

Kaatje

My soul waits for the Lord, and in His Word I hope
Here's a brief exerpt from Dr. Fruchtenbaum's teaching of the Genealogy of Jesus (concerning Matthew). I've read different views, personally I find his to be the most persuasive (link to the full article below).

According to Matthew’s genealogy, Joseph had the blood of Jeconiah in his veins. He was not qualified to sit on David’s throne. He was not the heir apparent. This would also mean that no real son of Joseph would have the right to claim the throne of David. Therefore if Jesus were the real son of Joseph, he would have been disqualified from sitting on David’s throne. Neither could he claim the right to David’s throne by virtue of his adoption by Joseph, since Joseph was not the heir apparent.

The purpose of Matthew’s genealogy, then, is to show why Yeshua could not be king if he were really Joseph’s son. The purpose was not to show the royal line. For this reason, Matthew starts his Gospel with the genealogy, presents the Jeconiah problem, and then proceeds with the account of the virgin birth which, from Matthew’s viewpoint, is the solution to the Jeconiah problem. In summary, Matthew deduces that if Jesus were really Joseph’s son, he could not claim to sit on David’s throne because of the Jeconiah curse; but Jesus was not Joseph’s son, for he was born of the virgin Miriam (Matthew 1:18-25). ~ Fruchtenbaum: The Genealogy of the Messiah.


https://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/issues-v05-n06/the-genealogy-of-the-messiah/
Very good explanation. Excellent, excellent!
 

DaveS

Well-Known Member
I was referring to the fact that Dr Reagan also refers to the curse on the seed of Jehoiakim as precluding Joseph's physical seed from the Messianic line.

Yeah... that's where Reagan lost me. It seems he (Reagan) acknowledges the curse, but then asserts that Jesus was "legally" qualified through the Genealogy in Matthew (Joseph's line). He makes an assertion (as best I can tell), that the two Genealogies is what counters this obvious paradox (or at least a paradox to me).

I had heard explanations similar to this one for years... I was very relieved to find Dr.F's explanation, as paradox bothers me (like fingernails on a chalk board).


Very good explanation. Excellent, excellent!

There's a lot written by Fruchtenbaum... I've probably read everything he's written. If you haven't checked him out, well, I'd say you should (as if I were anyone to say... :) )
 

Steve53

Well-Known Member
https://gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bible-teacher/the-lineage-of-jesus/

Q
The question I have is this; family lineage was traced through the father, not the mother, if I am not mistaken. Since Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus, why is Jesus considered to be descended from the house of David? A friend of mine recently asked me this question, and I found that I did not have an answer. I think that I must be missing something, I just don’t know what it is. Thank you very much.

A
From the genealogies of Matthew 1 and Luke 3 we know that both Joseph and Mary were from the tribe of Judah and the House of David.

Joseph was a descendant of Solomon’s (Matt. 1:6) and therefore a member of the royal line (Luke 2:4). But at the time of the Babylonian captivity the Lord had cursed the royal line, saying no son of Jehoiachin’s would ever sit on the throne of David (Jeremiah 22:30). This disqualified all of his descendants, including Joseph.

Mary was from the line of Solomon’s brother Nathan, (Luke 3:31). So she was also of the house of David, although not in the royal line.

When they married, Joseph became the Lord’s legal father, in effect adopting Him. Being the biological son of Mary, He was of the house of David. As the adopted son of Joseph, Jesus gained legal standing in the lineage of David as well. But since He was not Joseph’s biological son he escaped the curse and became the only man in the last 2600 years qualified to take the throne of His ancestor David, as the angel Gabriel promised He would (Luke 1:32).
 

DanLMP

Well-Known Member
https://gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bible-teacher/the-lineage-of-jesus/

Q
The question I have is this; family lineage was traced through the father, not the mother, if I am not mistaken. Since Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus, why is Jesus considered to be descended from the house of David? A friend of mine recently asked me this question, and I found that I did not have an answer. I think that I must be missing something, I just don’t know what it is. Thank you very much.

A
From the genealogies of Matthew 1 and Luke 3 we know that both Joseph and Mary were from the tribe of Judah and the House of David.

Joseph was a descendant of Solomon’s (Matt. 1:6) and therefore a member of the royal line (Luke 2:4). But at the time of the Babylonian captivity the Lord had cursed the royal line, saying no son of Jehoiachin’s would ever sit on the throne of David (Jeremiah 22:30). This disqualified all of his descendants, including Joseph.

Mary was from the line of Solomon’s brother Nathan, (Luke 3:31). So she was also of the house of David, although not in the royal line.

When they married, Joseph became the Lord’s legal father, in effect adopting Him. Being the biological son of Mary, He was of the house of David. As the adopted son of Joseph, Jesus gained legal standing in the lineage of David as well. But since He was not Joseph’s biological son he escaped the curse and became the only man in the last 2600 years qualified to take the throne of His ancestor David, as the angel Gabriel promised He would (Luke 1:32).

The other important qualification to remember is that it is believed that Mary had no brothers and that she was the first born. Under those conditions she became her fathers inheritor, as if she were a first born son. That adjustment to inheritance rights was made during the time of Moses when the issue came up for people who only birthed daughters. I forget the Scripture passage, as if there was a chance that I would remember.

Jesus, being Mary's first born son, would have been her inheritor.
 

Kaatje

My soul waits for the Lord, and in His Word I hope
The other important qualification to remember is that it is believed that Mary had no brothers and that she was the first born. Under those conditions she became her fathers inheritor, as if she were a first born son. That adjustment to inheritance rights was made during the time of Moses when the issue came up for people who only birthed daughters. I forget the Scripture passage, as if there was a chance that I would remember.

Jesus, being Mary's first born son, would have been her inheritor.
The Scripture you are looking for, is Numbers 27. :book
 

antitox

Well-Known Member
Matthew 1 is the genealogy from Joseph. Luke 3 is through Mary. Mary descended from David's son Nathan and Joseph descended from David 's son Solomon. They were both of the Davidic line born in Jerusalem. That's why Ps 87 says "this one and that one were born in her."
 
Hi, if I am not mistaken these are the only two genealogies that have survived. How would anyone prove they were from the priestly line, thanks
 
Back
Top