Why are there are differences in the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke?

A question that has been answered a thousand times:

HUMANIST ALLEGED CONTRADICTION: In the New Testament, there are contradictions between the genealogies of Jesus given in the first chapter of Matthew and the third chapter of Luke.

Both genealogies begin with Jesus’ father, who is identified as Joseph (which is curious, given that Mary was supposedly impregnated by the Holy Ghost). But Matthew says Joseph’s father was Jacob, while Luke claims he was Heli. Matthew lists 26 generations between Jesus and King David, whereas Luke records 41. Matthew runs Jesus’ line of descent through David’s son Solomon, while Luke has it going through David’s son Nathan.

I am going to put the two genealogies on the next two opposite pages so they will be easy to compare.

As swe have done before, we start with the question: What does scripture say? First, notice, unlike what the humanists say, one genealogy starts with Abraham and the other with Joseph. There is a reason for this.

Yes, there are obviously differences in the two genealogies, but instead of just proclaiming there are differences, and stopping there, we should ask why.

Also, consider this, if what the humanist claims are true, this is an obvious and glaring contradiction. Why wasn't it noticed 2000 years ago? You will get answers, but first read the genealogies on the next two pages.

At the time Matthew and Luke wrote, genealogical records were very important to the Jews. They determined inheritance rights. They played a role in taxation. They were the basis for the principle of kinsmen redemption. In addition, your genealogy determined your rights to own land, based on the original division of the land among the twelve tribes. Because of their importance, the Jews kept detailed genealogical records. People needed access to these records, so they were publicly available in the Temple in Jerusalem. Both Matthew and Luke most likely based their genealogies on those records, and it would have been very easy for anyone to check what Matthew and Luke wrote with the public records. If there were any errors, they would be glaring and obvious

In the first century Christianity’s enemies would have used any-thing they could to destroy Christianity. This fact alone is enough to end this discussion. It is impossible for there to be a contradiction in the genealogies. If there were, the obvious genealogical misrepresen-tation (lie) would have been quickly revealed 2000 years ago. Christi-anity would have been dead before it got started.

Yes, the two genealogies are different. That is because they are looking at two different lines. There are important reasons for this.

Background

Matthew and Luke are writing to different groups of people, who have different ways of looking at history. Matthew is writing to the Jews and Luke is writing to Gentiles (non-Jews).

Matthew starts with Abraham, and goes forward to the birth of Jesus. Luke starts with the birth of Jesus and goes backwards to the first man, Adam. Why do they do this?

Matthew’s Genealogy

Who was Abraham? He is the father of the Jewish nation. The Jews trace their heritage back to Abraham. It was important for Matthew, who was writing to Jews, to start Jesus’ genealogy with Abraham.

Notice that Matthew's genealogy ends in verse 16 with Joseph. It is the genealogy of Joseph, the husband of Mary. However, Jo-seph was not the biological father of Jesus, and scripture never iden-tifies him as the biological father. Keep in mind words are im-portant. Read scripture carefully. Notice that in verse 16 Matthew does not identify Joseph as the father of Jesus, as the humanists claim, but as “the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born.”

However, Matthew’s genealogy ends with Joseph, identifying it as the genealogy of Joseph. What is Matthew saying? He traces Je-sus' line from Abraham to Joseph, who was Jesus' LEGAL father, although not his natural father. Jesus is legally the first son of Jo-seph. This establishes Jesus' legal right as king of Israel. That is im-portant, as the Messiah is the king of the Jews. The king must legally be from the line of David:

[Jesus speaking] "You correctly say that I am king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world." - John 18:13

Luke's Genealogy

Luke, writing to the Gentiles, had a different purpose. He is showing Jesus' solidarity with the entire human race. That is why he takes the genealogy back to Adam, and thus ultimately God. Luke does this by giving us the genealogy of Mary. Here comes that "W" question again... why?

Luke is demonstrating that the bloodline of Jesus is a human bloodline. Jesus is related by blood to all of us, through Adam. This is his racial lineage. To what race does Jesus belong? The human race.

Notice in Luke verse 23 that Jesus is described as the "sup-posed" son of Joseph. Neither Matthew nor Luke identify Jesus as the physical son of Joseph. However, Jesus is a physical “son” of Adam.

Finally notice the sections in bold in the two genealogies. They are nearly identical. The lineages of both Joseph and Mary pass through David. The Messiah had to be a son of David, and Jesus is of the line of David… on both sides of His family. There is no doubt, based on His genealogy, Jesus is qualified to be the Messiah.

But Matthew says Joseph’s Father was Jacob, While Luke Claims he was Heli.

This is a legitimate question. Let’s put these two sections of scrip-ture right next to each other so we can clearly see why the humanists are raising a question:

Luke: Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Heli,

Matthew: Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born,

It does look as though there is some confusion about Joseph’s father… but there is not.

Who were Heli and Jacob? Heli is Mary’s father and Jacob was Joesph’s father.

In the Greek there is an article before each son in Luke’s record, except for one. It says “the son of…” except for Heli. It literally reads as: “Joseph, son of Heli.” This indicates the relationship is not as close as a biological father and son. In addition, there is no word for “son-in-law” in ancient Greek. The “son-in-law” is considered a son by marriage. This now brings us back to the importance of Jesus being a descendant of David. He was the son of Jacob (father of Joseph), who was in the line of David. He was also son of Heli (fa-ther of Mary), who was also in the line of David. This is the point both Matthew and Luke are making. Jesus is a descendant of David and thus is qualified to be king and Messiah.

What did we find out here? There are no contradiction in the genealogies of Jesus.

Next question...

The story of Jesus’ birth is also contradictory. Matthew 2:13-15 depicts Joseph and Mary as fleeing to Egypt with the baby Jesus immediately after the wise men from the east had brought gifts. But Luke 2:22-40 claims that after the birth of Jesus, his parents remained in Bethlehem for the time of Mary’s purification (which was 40 days, under the Mosaic law).

And here is the answer...