“Aren’t the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke a contradiction? They give different names for Joseph’s father and after that, the rest of the lineage is also listed differently.”
On a first glance, this does indeed look like a contradiction:
Matt 1:16
16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Luke 3:23-24
23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat, …….
In all probability, Luke is giving us Mary’s genealogy rather than Joseph’s.
“But it doesn’t say that. Luke also calls Jesus ‘the son of Joseph.’ ”
In ancient Judaism, if a man had no son, his son –in-law was viewed as his son and this same man received his inheritance. Therefore, Heli might actually be the father of Mary and it would have been considered just as proper to call him the father of Joseph, especially in a genealogy. Evidence for this plausible theory can be found by turning to the pages of the Jerusalem Talmud, an ancient rabbinical commentary that tends to paint Jesus and his mother, Mary with derogatory strokes. In the Talmud, Mary is actually referred to as the daughter of Heli.1
“Why would God have given us both genealogies?”
This excellent question has a fascinating answer. Although not his blood father, Joseph was Jesus’ legal father and Joseph was related to King David. David, of course, had many wives and therefore, many children. As a result, not all of his offspring were in the kingly line. But the Messiah had to be both a blood descendent of King David and legal heir through the kingly line (Jer 23:5).
Now then, Mary was also related to King David, but not through the kingly line. The two genealogies tell us something very interesting about Jesus’ credentials. Jesus was a literal blood descendent of King David (not through the kingly line) because of His mother Mary. He was also a legal descendent of David (though the kingly line) due to his adaptive father, Joseph.
Why is all of this relevant? Because the last king of Judah (prior to the destruction of the nation at the hands of the Babylonians) was a man named King Jehoiachin. Jehoiachin did not walk with God and as a result, God predicted (through the prophet Jeremiah) that none of Jehoiachin’s descendents would ever sit on the thrown of Israel.
Jer 22:28-30
28 Is this man Jehoiachin a despised, broken pot,
an object no one wants?
Why will he and his children be hurled out,
cast into a land they do not know?
29 O land, land, land,
hear the word of the LORD!
30 This is what the LORD says:
“Record this man as if childless,
a man who will not prosper in his lifetime,
for none of his offspring will prosper,
none will sit on the throne of David
or rule anymore in Judah.”
Now we have an even bigger paradox: If the Messiah must be related to King David and legal heir through the kingly line, then he must also be related to King Jehoichin. But the Jehoichin curse prohibits further kings of Israel, for none of Jehoichin’s children can sit on the thrown.
The Virgin Birth solves our paradox. Jesus is a literal blood descendent of King David, but not through the kingly line. Therefore, the Jerhoichin curse does not affect him. Still, the Messiah had to be legal heir to the thrown, and Jesus is legally related to David through Joseph. But since it is legal only, and not a blood relation, the Jehoichin curse still does not touch him.
Conclusion:
The Bible has been around a long time. Often, what seems like a contradiction to us, is worked out by a wonderful God who loves to startle and amaze His followers. Messianic prophecy has been fulfilled through the miracle of the Virgin Birth. That seems to be the reason for the two different genealogies and that is one of the reasons why the Messiah needed to be born of a Virgin.
Scripture taken from THE HOLY BIBLE
New International Version NIV
Copyright 1973, 1979, 1984 by International Bible Society
Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House.
All rights reserved.
Share this on
