Why Are Jesus' Genealogies In Matthew And Luke Different?

The birth narratives in both Matthew and Luke help answer the question, “Who is Jesus and where did he come from?” One of the ways each book does this is by recounting Jesus’ genealogy. The problem is: the genealogies are different.

The Old Testament predicted that the Messiah would come from the line of David. Both Matthew and Luke provide genealogies of Jesus that confirm he was a descendent of David—therefore, a legitimate Messiah. He was a legitimate claimant to the throne of Israel.

But they differ in an important way: Matthew follows the line of David’s son Solomon, while Luke follows the line of Nathan, another Son of David. The end result is two distinct genealogies. How do we account for this?

Some argue that either Matthew or Luke got it wrong. They created or borrowed a genealogy in order to provide Jesus with a legitimate ancestry. Or they accuse later Christians for artificially creating a genealogy to provide Jesus with a Davidic lineage after the fact.

Yet there are three other possible explanations for the two different genealogies. Let’s explore these below.

#1. One of the genealogies is actually Mary's. The simplest solution is that we have genealogies of both parents of Jesus—Joseph and Mary.

In this case, Luke gives us Mary’s genealogy, while Matthew gives us Joseph’s genealogy. This makes good sense, since Luke’s birth narrative focuses on Mary. Luke tells the story from her perspective.

This proposal is sometimes linked to the judgment pronounced against the line of Solomon by Jeremiah, who prophesied that no descendant of Jehoiakim (Jeremiah 36:30) "Therefore this is what the Lord says concerning Jehoiakim king of Judah: “He shall have no one to sit on the throne of David, and his dead body shall be thrown out to the heat of the day and the frost of the night."

or his son Jechoniah (Jeremiah 22:24–30)

22 The wind will sweep away all your shepherds, And your lovers will go into captivity; Then you will certainly be ashamed and humiliated Because of all your wickedness.

23 You who live in Lebanon, Nested in the cedars, How you will groan when sharp pains come on you, Pain like a woman in childbirth!

24 “As I live,” declares the Lord, “even if [g]Coniah (JEHOIACHIN) the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were a signet ring on My right hand, yet I would pull [h](JEHOIACHIN) you [i]off (FROM THERE);

25 and I will hand you over to those who are seeking your life, yes, to those of whom you are frightened, that is, to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and the Chaldeans.

26 I will hurl you and your mother who gave birth to you into another country where you were not born, and there you will die.

27 But as for the land to which they long to return, they will not return to it.

28 Is this man Coniah a despised, shattered jar? Or is he an undesirable vessel? Why have he and his descendants been hurled out And cast into a land that they had not known?

29 O land, land, land, Hear the word of the Lord!

30 This is what the Lord says: ‘Write this man down as childless, A man who will not prosper in his days; For no man among his descendants will prosper Sitting on the throne of David Or ruling again in Judah.’”

would sit on the throne of David. Jesus avoided this judgment because he was the legal descendant—i.e. through Mary—rather than the physical descendant of David—through Joseph. Matthew, on the other hand, follows Joseph’s side of the story. Matthew’s narrative moves through the dreams Joseph has.

One problem with this suggestion is that throughout Luke’s birth narrative, he stresses that Joseph is a descendent of David. He never mentions Mary’s Davidic descent. So, despite Luke’s emphasis on Mary in his birth narrative, it would be surprising if his genealogy is Mary's.

#2. One genealogy is a royal or legal genealogy, and the other is a physical genealogy. Another possible explanation for the two different genealogies is that Matthew presents a royal or legal genealogy, while Luke gives a physical, or actual, genealogy.

In other words, Matthew lists the official line of Davidic kings, not Jesus’ actual ancestors. His point is to show that Joseph is related to that line.

In this view, Luke would be giving us the actual, physical descendants—in other words, a genealogy in the way we’re accustomed to thinking about it.

This may help provide a theological point, but it doesn’t solve the larger problem created by having two genealogies: Joseph can’t have two fathers.

#3. Joseph had two fathers. How can someone have two fathers? That’s a fair question—it’s not physically possible.

However, there are two reasons the text can actually be read this way.