• The genealogy written in Matthew chapter 1 is Joseph’s side, husband of Mary. Luke 3:23 is referencing Mary’s, mother of Jesus, lineage. It was customary to list the lineage through males, so Mary’s name was omitted and replaced with Joseph. Heli was father to Mary, father-in-law of Joseph.
    • bostjan64
      But Jesus wasn't related to Joseph, right?
    • LizzyP
      Jesus did not have a blood relation to Mary or Joseph. An adopted child is not biologically connected to his/her parents, however, they are considered the legal parents of the child because they have been given the legal rights to raise the adopted child as their own. Just as the government allows qualified individuals to adopt a child, God allowed Mary and Joseph to raise His son. God chose Mary, who was already engaged to Joseph, to be the woman to give birth to & raise Jesus according to the high standards of our God. In Biblical times, Jewish leaders kept thorough records of family lines, names, city of origin etc. Chapter 26 of Numbers is dedicated to a detailed census of the Israelites age 20 and up. King David ordered a census in 2 Samuel 24. The genealogy of Mary and Joseph also showed the prophetic heritage of the promised Messiah. Daniel 9, Micah 5:2 & 4, 2 Samuel 7:12 & 16, 1 Kings 9:3-5, Isaiah 9:6,7.
    • bostjan64
      But that still doesn't address the question. Why would anyone say "this is Jesus's genealogy," when there was no relation? Also, Luke's genealogy is clearly not through Mary, it's through Joseph, so that's just not a true statement. (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," - it says Joseph)
  • Part of an article from 2017 Matthew’s account about the events related to Jesus’ birth and early life differs somewhat from Luke’s account because the Gospel writers told the events from different perspectives. Matthew’s account focuses on events that involved Joseph. It relates Joseph’s initial reaction to Mary’s pregnancy, his dream in which an angel explained the situation, and the acceptance of that explanation. (Matt. 1:19-25) Matthew goes on to tell about Joseph’s dream in which an angel urged him to flee to Egypt, his flight with his family, his dream in which an angel told him to return to the land of Israel, his return, and his decision to settle his family in Nazareth. (Matt. 2:13, 14, 19-23) In the opening chapters of Matthew’s Gospel, Joseph’s name is mentioned eight times, but Mary’s, only four. On the other hand, Luke’s account is much more focused on Mary. It includes Mary’s being visited by the angel Gabriel, her visit to her relative Elizabeth, and Mary’s expression of praise to Jehovah. (Luke 1:26-56) Luke also mentions Simeon’s words to Mary regarding Jesus’ future sufferings. Even in the account of her family’s visit to the temple when Jesus was 12 years old, Luke quotes the words of Mary, not those of Joseph. Luke adds that Mary was deeply affected by all these events. (Luke 2:19, 34, 35, 48, 51) In the first two chapters of Luke’s Gospel, Mary’s name is mentioned 12 times, but Joseph’s, only 3. So, then, Matthew describes more of Joseph’s concerns and activities while Luke gives more details about Mary’s role and experiences. Likewise, the genealogies supplied by the two Gospel writers differ. Matthew traces Joseph’s ancestry and shows that Jesus as Joseph’s adopted son was the legal heir to David’s kingship. Why? Because Joseph was a descendant of King David through the line of David’s son Solomon. (Matt. 1:6, 16) However, Luke evidently traces Mary’s ancestry and shows that Jesus was the natural heir, “according to the flesh,” to David’s kingship. (Rom. 1:3) Why? Because Mary was a descendant of King David through the line of David’s son Nathan. (Luke 3:31) But why does Luke not list Mary in his genealogy as the daughter of Heli, her father? Because official genealogies were generally traced through the men. So when Luke lists Joseph and describes him as the son of Heli, it was understood to mean that Joseph was Heli’s son-in-law.—Luke 3:23. The genealogical lists by Matthew and Luke clearly establish that Jesus was the foretold Messiah. In fact, the truth about Jesus’ genealogy was so well-known that even the Pharisees and Sadducees could not deny it. Today, both Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogical records remain a part of the foundation of our faith and a testimony to the sureness of the promises of God.
    • bostjan64
      "So when Luke lists Joseph and describes him as the son of Heli, it was understood to mean that Joseph was Heli’s son-in-law.—Luke 3:23." Why don't modern translations say "son-in-law?"
    • Texasescimo
      Hebrew syntax didn't always call son in laws, son in laws or adoptive children, adoptive children. Before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., Jews did their lineage through their paternal lines as shown throughout the Bible. Now, it is my understanding that they go by maternal lines. Notice that Jeconiah is the fleshly father of Shealtiel as shown both in 1 Chronicles 3:17 and in Matthew 1:12. His wife's father Neri is listed at Luke 3:27. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. (Luke 3:27) son of Jo?anʹan, son of Rheʹsa, son of Ze?rubʹba?bel, son of She?alʹti?el, son of Neʹri, (1 Chronicles 3:17) The sons of Jec?o?niʹah the prisoner were She?alʹti?el, (Matthew 1:12) After the deportation to Babylon, Jec?o?niʹah became father to She?alʹti?el; She?alʹti?el became father to Ze?rubʹba?bel; (Romans 1:3) concerning his Son, who came to be from the offspring of David according to the flesh, The following article touches on it a bit: : : :Who was Joseph?s father? Joseph, the carpenter of Nazareth, was the adoptive father of Jesus. But who was Joseph?s father? Jesus? genealogy in Matthew?s Gospel names a certain Jacob, whereas Luke?s says that Joseph was ?son of Heli.? Why the seeming discrepancy??Luke 3:23; Matthew 1:16. Matthew?s account reads: ?Jacob became father to Joseph,? employing a Greek term indicating clearly that Jacob was Joseph?s natural father. So Matthew was tracing Joseph?s natural genealogy, the kingly line of David, through which the legal right to the throne passed to Joseph?s adoptive son, Jesus. On the other hand, Luke?s account says: ?Joseph, son of Heli.? That expression, ?son of,? can be understood as ?son-in-law of.? A similar case is found at Luke 3:27, where Shealtiel, whose real father was Jeconiah, is listed as ?son of Neri.? (1?Chronicles 3:17; Matthew 1:12) Shealtiel was likely married to an unnamed daughter of Neri, thus becoming his son-in-law. Joseph was in the same sense ?son? of Heli, as he married Heli?s daughter Mary. So Luke traces Jesus? natural lineage ?according to the flesh,? through his biological mother, Mary. (Romans 1:3) The Bible thus gives us two distinct and useful genealogies for Jesus.

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy