Why do the genealogies of Jesus Christ as given by Matthew and by Luke differ?

Bettye Arre: The difference in nearly all the names in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew’s is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David’s son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Lu 3:31; Mt 1:6, 7) Luke evidently follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus’ natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus’ legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus’ father. Both Matthew and Luke signify that Joseph was not Jesus’ actual father but only his adoptive father, giving him legal right. Matthew departs from the style used throughout his genealogy when he comes to Jesus, saying: “Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.” (Mt 1:16) Notice that he does not say ‘Joseph became father to Jesus’ but that he was “the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born.”...Show more

Ulrike Hert: Lu! ke is even more pointed when, after showing earlier that Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary (Lu 1:32-35), he says: “Jesus . . . being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of Heli.”â€"Lu 3:23.

Jill Thomer: Difference does not mean contradiction.

Claude Gloden: You answered your own question - why?

Clinton Migliori: As you said, Matthew follows Jesus'' genealogy from his step-father, Joseph, who was his legal father on earth, thus proving Jesus was the rightful heir to David's throne as foretold. He descended from David through his son Solomon, who followed David as King of Israel.Luke follows his genealogy through Jesus' mother instead, going on to describe how Jesus' actual Father was Jehovah God, impregnated by use of the Holy Spirit. As Jehovah was the first and true King of the ancient Israelites, Jesus was rightfully the Messiah and final King of the Jewish nation, having the legal and natural right to the throne. But rather than! rule as King here on earth, Jesus' gave up his life on earth ! to ransom believing humankind and reigns as King of God's Kingdom in heaven....Show more

Charline Granes: Oh this is awesome. Another real theological question. I love these. They differ because Matthew had to create a numerological significance to Jesus' genealogy while Luke used fact. Matthew trimmed off three generations to create 14 instead of the actual 17. If you look at Luke's genealogy, I think it is Innuzuit that is different. Luke uses scripture to support his genealogy. He uses Chronicles and gets the right answer. Matthew is wrong....Show more

Lynn Hollars: properly, of course they did not have get entry to to this variety of documents and had to get inventive. this is unlike Joseph's or Mary's families have been large rich and had their kin timber documented. The truly unusual area is the diversities *before* King David's kin, that would desire to have been common to easily carry from a million Chronicles. Makes you ask your self whether they even h! ad get entry to to the "previous" testomony.

Debora Soliani: You're just scratching the surface with those examples. There are lots more if you really compare the two Gospels.Adn as to why?Well, isn't it obvious?

Valentine Willinger: This only proves that there was no collusion in the whole Gospel story, otherwise, why would they make their stories different?

Hope Lundmark: So in a nutshell, because the story says that the holy ghost impregnated Mary and not Joseph, the entire genealogy is bullshit.Legal =/= genealogical