Why is the genealogy in Luke different from Matthew's account? Nature of the Question Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38 both trace the ancestry of Jesus, yet from David onward they list markedly different names. Skeptics cite this as a contradiction; believers recognize complementary purposes. Scripture affirms, “The entirety of Your word is truth” (Psalm 119:160). Therefore, apparent disharmony must be reconciled within the text itself. Overview of the Two Genealogies • Matthew begins with Abraham, descends to Joseph, and structures the list into three groups of fourteen (Matthew 1:17). • Luke begins with Jesus, ascends past David to Adam, emphasizing universal redemption (Luke 3:38). • From Abraham to David both lists agree; after David they diverge—Matthew follows Solomon, Luke follows Nathan. Different Audiences, Different Aims Matthew writes to a primarily Jewish readership, proving Jesus’ legal right to David’s throne. Luke writes for a broader Greco-Roman audience, highlighting Jesus as the Second Adam and Savior of all humanity. The Holy Spirit inspired each author to select the line best suited to his purpose without error. Matthew: The Royal, Legal Line through Solomon 1. The evangelist follows the succession of kings: David → Solomon → Rehoboam → … → Jeconiah → Shealtiel → Zerubbabel → … → Jacob → Joseph (Matthew 1:6-16). 2. This line answers the prophetic requirement that Messiah be heir to David’s throne (2 Samuel 7:12-16; Isaiah 9:6-7). 3. It also records the “Jeconiah curse” (Jeremiah 22:30). By ending the physical seed through Jeconiah, God preserved the legal claim while preventing a biological transmission of the curse to Jesus, who was not Joseph’s physical son (Matthew 1:18-25). Luke: The Biological Line through Nathan—Most Likely Mary’s Genealogy 1. Luke writes, “Jesus… being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Heli” (Luke 3:23). The Greek ὢν υἱός (being son) allows “son-in-law” where no specific word exists. 2. Early Christian historian Julius Africanus (c. AD 200) records that Heli died childless; his half-brother Jacob (Matthew’s list) married Heli’s widow under the Levirate law (Deuteronomy 25:5-6). Thus Joseph was Jacob’s natural son and Heli’s legal son, giving rise to two legitimate genealogies. 3. This satisfies prophetic nuance: Messiah is the “seed of David” (Romans 1:3) through Mary, bypassing Jeconiah’s line while still legally inheriting David’s throne via Joseph. The Levirate Marriage Solution Explained According to Africanus (Epistle to Aristides 2-4): • Matthan (descendant of Solomon) begot Jacob. • Melchi (descendant of Nathan) begot Heli. • When Heli died childless, Jacob raised offspring in his brother’s name; the child was Joseph. Thus Joseph legally belongs to Heli’s line (Luke) while naturally descending from Jacob (Matthew)—a perfect fit with Mosaic law. Bypassing the Jeconiah Curse Jeremiah 22:30 declares none of Jeconiah’s physical seed would prosper on David’s throne. Matthew records the cursed line to prove Jesus is not physically descended from Jeconiah, because of the virgin birth (Matthew 1:25; Luke 1:34-35). Luke’s Mary-through-Nathan genealogy provides the biological descent free from the curse, fulfilling Isaiah 11:1 (“a shoot will spring up from the stump of Jesse”). Theological Significance • Messiah’s dual qualification: legally through Joseph, physically through Mary. • Universal scope: Luke traces to Adam, underscoring Christ as Redeemer of all peoples (Romans 5:12-19). • Covenantal faithfulness: God preserves David’s line despite human sin and exile (2 Samuel 7:16). Chronological Implications for a Young Earth Adding Luke’s 77 generations to the chronologies of Genesis 5 and 11 yields roughly 4,000 years from Adam to Christ, dovetailing with Ussher’s 4004 BC creation model and reinforcing a coherent biblical timeline. Answering Common Objections 1. “Why call both lists Joseph’s genealogy?” Because Jewish custom identified lineage through the male head even when tracing maternal ancestry; naming the husband avoided public dishonor to women in patriarchal culture. 2. “Isn’t Luke’s inclusion of ‘Cainan’ between Arphaxad and Shelah (Luke 3:36) a Septuagint copyist error?” The name appears in Genesis 11 LXX, demonstrating Luke’s faithfulness to the Greek Scriptures familiar to his audience. Its absence in the Masoretic Text does not diminish inerrancy; it reflects a textual variant with no doctrinal impact. 3. “Would Romans consider adoption legally binding?” Yes; under Roman law (adoptio plena) the adoptee obtained full inheritance rights, paralleling Joseph’s legal fatherhood of Jesus. Conclusion Matthew and Luke present two complementary genealogies: Matthew supplies the royal succession proving Jesus’ legal right to David’s throne; Luke records the physical descent (probably through Mary) affirming Jesus as David’s genuine offspring while avoiding the Jeconiah curse. Together they confirm prophetic fulfillment, uphold scriptural integrity, and showcase the meticulous providence of God in redemptive history. |
    |