Different geneolgoies of Jesus?

[TruthSeeker123]

A friend asked me about this a while ago and I couldn't answer her. Could you plase explain to me why the geneolgies of Jesus in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38 differ?

[Gail]

Because one account follows through Jesus' bloodline and the other through the royal line of the house of David.

[Gerr]

I have studied that several times. I have no explanation. All the commentators' explanations have been unsatisfactory. That's one of those things I'll have to wait for for a better explanation.

[John317]

I think I found a reasonable explanation in a harmony of the Gospels, titled The Life of Christ In Stereo. In Appendix III of that volume, it says,

Quote:

The solution to this seeming discrepancy is quite simple as shown in this combination, and it only involves a change in the punctuation of one sentence to make the solution apparent. The crucial passage in question is 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 is to be noted that there is nothing sacred about traditional punctuation, for it was not part of the original text. With a change of two commas in punctuation and a proper recognition of the emphatic words in the original text, the verse is rendered thus:

Now Jesus, beginning His ministry at about thirty years of age, being the son supposedly of Joseph, was Himself descended from Heli.

Luke's point here is that Jesus was descended "from Heli" through Mary, not through Joseph. This explains the differing genealogies in Matthew and Luke. Matthew traces the genealogy of Jospeh to establish Jesus' legal right to the throne. He purposely does this through Joseph to Solomon and David, for the kingly line had to come through Solomon, not Nathan the progenitor of Mary. Luke, on the other hand, emphasizes the true humanity of Jesus, and therefore traces His physical descent through Mary to Adam.

Thus, the seeming discrepancies of the genealogies are seen to be non-existent and the purpose of each Gospel is fulfilled.

[phkrause]

That's really John. I was young but can remember a Jewish/Adventist pastor mentioning something to that effect. also I believe Pastor Batchelor also has answered this on his TV/evangelistic shows?

[TruthSeeker123]

Thank you, John, for your response. I heard something to that effect but didn't find a satisfactory explanation.