Matthew vs Luke in the Question of Genealogies
Video: “13 More Bible Contradictions” by Holy Koolaid
The texts in question are Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38
Below are Mr. Koolaid’s statements (in bold) followed by my response.
“So when the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were written, both authors attempted to tie Jesus back to king David to show that He was of royal descent.”
Sort of, but not quite. Both Matthew and Luke are actually showing the messianic lines. Virtually any descendant of David could claim to be of royal descent. But not every one of David’s descendants could claim to be in the messianic line. More about this will follow below.
“There are just a couple problems. The genealogies are radically different.”
Well, it’s true that there are some problems but not what you think.
“To rectify this Christians often claim that one is for Jesus’ mom, Mary, and the other is for His dad, Joseph…”
I always try to make it clear that what “Christians say” or what “Christians claim” is irrelevant. The only relevant thing that matters is what the Bible says.
“…but this doesn’t work at all because both overtly say that they’re tracing the line of Joseph.”
Only Matthew is tracing the line of Joseph (more on this below).
Luke is not tracing the line of Joseph. It is assumed that the reader has already read what we now know as chapters one and two of his Gospel and are familiar with the virgin birth. Luke is focusing on Mary, rather than Joseph, in those two chapters. When he begins his genealogy Luke 3:23 states, “When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph…” The literal Greek rendering of “as was supposed” is “as it was being thought,” indicating that although Luke had already pointed out that Joseph wasn’t Jesus’ father, it would seem to those who are unfamiliar with Jesus’ conception by the Holy Spirit would assume Joseph was Jesus’ father. Luke is showing Jesus’ messianic line through Mary, and moreover, there is no connection between Joseph and Jesus in Matthew’s genealogy.
“In Matthew’s account, Joseph’s biological father is listed as Jacob; in Luke’s account, it’s Heli. You can’t have two different biological dads.”
The statement I already made above should make it clear that Heli is not related to Joseph.
“Matthew’s genealogy has twenty five generations between Joseph and King David; Luke’s account has forty.”
Whoop-de-doo. They are two different genealogies dealing with the messianic lines, written by two different writers for similar but different reasons. The two different genealogies are basically apples and oranges by comparison. But it’s nice to know you can count.
“And it’s weird because a couple of names in the middle are the same in both genealogies [Salathiel and Zorobabel]…”
It could be the same two people or it could be two different people with the same names. We don’t know. Either way, it’s not a big deal.
“…and the Matthew account literally contradicts itself by claiming that there were forty-two generations from Abraham to Jesus, specifically fourteen from Abraham to David; fourteen more from David to the Babylonian exile; and another fourteen to Jesus. But the names that it lists only add up to 41.”
This is a sloppy way to paraphrase what Matthew wrote. Here’s Matthew 1:17: “So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations.” Matthew made no claim of a total of 42 generations from Abraham to Jesus. He specifically stated that there are 14 generations in each grouping. Group two ends with “the deportation to Babylon” and group three begins with “the deportation to Babylon.” This indicates that he counted Jeconiah (also known as Jehoiachin) twice, once each in groups two and three. Why Matthew did his genealogy in that fashion I don’t know, but that’s how he wrote it: fourteen generations in groups of three.
“This is basic arithmetic. The Bible literally fails at counting.”
Mr. Koolaid failed at reading the text carefully. Obviously.
“And if you compare Matthew’s genealogy to the Old Testament genealogies, they majorly contradict each other. 1 Chronicles 3 [3:10-24?] and Matthew both follow the line of David through Solomon; they start off identical with Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jorham, and then Matthew completely skips over three people [yada, yada, yada]…”
It’s true that Matthew broke with strict Jewish practices of listing chronologies. He included women in this genealogy, which is a no-no for Jewish genealogies. He omitted some of the wicked kings of Judah, but for what reason I don’t know. To suggest that Matthew had 1 Chronicles 3 in mind is speculation at best. He might have, he might not have. To compare them is interesting yet rather irrelevant as far as Joseph’s genealogy is concerned. Matthew had another purpose in mind.
The problem I mentioned at the beginning of this post, as I said, isn’t what you think. At least not from a casual reading of this particular genealogy. The problem with Matthew’s genealogy lies in the king named Jeconiah in his genealogy. Matthew knew what he was doing when he wrote this genealogy. By tracing Joseph’s genealogy to Jeconiah, he was eliminating Joseph from being Jesus’ father—because Joseph is disqualified from the messianic line by being a descendant of Jeconiah. He then goes on to solve that particular problem by writing about the virgin birth in verses 1:18-25 of his Gospel. That’s why the genealogy ends with “…Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah,” and immediately continued on to the virgin birth to solve the problem of Joseph’s disqualification.
In Jeremiah 22:24-30, God told him that “none of his [Jehoiachin’s] offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah” (italics mine). Jehoiachin is the same man listed as Jeconiah in Matthew’s genealogy, and since Joseph is a direct descendant, he is eliminated from contention in the messianic line. So now you should be able to see what I was talking about when I mentioned that there’s a problem in Matthew’s genealogy.
That should also make it clear why Luke’s genealogy is totally different from Matthew’s, and are apples and oranges in comparison. They are not the same and it’s a moot point to compare them with each other because they refer to two different people’s genealogies—Joseph and Mary.
Luke followed a strict Jewish procedure and custom in his genealogy in that he listed only men. That’s why he said that it was thought that Joseph was Jesus’ father, because he only listed men in his genealogy to keep it within strict Jewish custom. That would be a clue, since he already wrote about the virgin birth and his readers would already know that Joseph was of no relation to Jesus.
In addition, Luke not only showed that Jesus’ birth through Mary put Him in the messianic line, but also showed fulfillment of at least three different promises made by God in the Old Testament. One is the Davidic covenant (2 Samuel 7:8-16 and Jeremiah 33:17), another was the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 12:1–3), and the other was a prophecy made just after the fall Genesis 3:15). That’s one good reason why Luke’s genealogy goes all the way back to Adam.
“But, at the same time, Matthew and Luke both claim that Mary was not impregnated by Joseph, but by the Holy Spirit of God, which would mean that Jesus was not the fruit of king David’s loins.”
Now that we’ve settled the issue of Matthew and Luke having different genealogies—that of Joseph and Mary respectively—the quote above is easy to answer. Yes, Mary became pregnant through the power and creative work of the Holy Spirit. But since she’s Jesus’ mother in the line of the messianic promise, Jesus is directly related to David and has the right to be called the Son of David, one of the Messianic titles used of Him throughout the Gospels.
I think it’s worth repeating just in case you forgot already: Luke not only showed that Jesus’ birth through Mary put Him in the messianic line, but also showed fulfillment of at least three different promises made by God in the Old Testament. One is the Davidic covenant (2 Samuel 7:8-16 and Jeremiah 33:17), another was the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 12:1–3), and the other was a prophecy made just after the fall Genesis 3:15).