The first post in this series can be found here.
Personally, I think this is one of the clearest contradictions in the Bible. Why does the Bible give us Jesus’ genealogy? I can think of no other reason than for it to serve as proof of his descent from David. But it fails this purpose since we’re given two differing genealogies that both claim to come through Joseph.
Some have tried to answer this by saying that Matthew 1:1-16 records Joseph’s true genealogy and Luke 3:23-38 records Mary’s. They surmise that Mary must have been the only daughter of Heli (Luke 3:23); therefore, Joseph counts as his only heir, or “son.” They make the case that since Mary was a woman, she would not have been included in this genealogy. But if that’s the case, why does Matthew’s genealogy mention Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba (listed as the “wife of Uriah”), and even Mary herself?
Others have said that the genealogy has nothing to do with Mary, but that Joseph has a real father and a “legal” father due to a levirate marriage. This view contends that Luke’s genealogy is the legal, but not biological genealogy of Joseph.
But if either of these scenarios is true, why doesn’t the Bible simply say so? I’ve had some people tell me that these differences weren’t important to ancient readers of the 1st and 2nd centuries, and if we could look at it from their perspective, we wouldn’t be bothered either. However, this is absolutely untrue. We have writings from several different early Christians (as early as the 2nd century) that try to hide or explain the divergence in various ways [src1, src2]. If ancient people were truly not concerned with this issue, then why waste time explaining it?
Regardless, even if this hadn’t been an issue for ancient readers, God would know that it would be an issue in more modern times. Why not offer a little more explanation in Matthew or Luke so that we could know how these genealogies fit together? As it stands, we have no evidence to help us make sense of them. The only way that this won’t bother someone is if they choose to ignore it. Or they could use the circular argument that God doesn’t make mistakes, and since he authored these passages, they don’t contain mistakes either. Of course, this is no better than clamping your hands over your ears and screaming “I can’t hear you! I can’t hear you!” whenever someone says something you don’t want to hear. I think if the Koran offered such different genealogies for Muhammad, Christians would say it was proof that the Koran was not inspired. Why should we give the Bible a pass?
Even worse is the fact that neither of these genealogies matches the Old Testament (1 Chron 1-3). Matthew’s comes closest, but it’s still different in several areas. He actually omits several names from his list: Ahaziah, Jehoash, Amaziah, and Jehoiakim. This might not be such a problem, but it becomes more of one when we read verse 17:
So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations.
The statement here is not true. First of all, according to Matthew’s list, there are only 13 generations between the deportation and Christ, unless you count Jechoniah again. But the bigger problem is that Matthew presents this statement as though this were a divinely guided pattern showing us that Christ truly came at the appointed time. But he only gets these numbers by omitting people from the genealogy. Therefore, his statement is not factually true. There was no pattern in the genealogy as it is recorded in the Old Testament.
Why would a divinely inspired writer lie about the number of generations? If God had really wanted the genealogy to come out to this neat 14, 14, 14 division, why didn’t he just make it happen that way? Instead, this does nothing but confuse those who think the Bible is supposed to be completely true and inerrant. Matthew is obviously manipulating the records to add validity to the claim that Jesus was the Messiah. In other words, he’s lying.
As we said at the beginning of this post, the primary purpose for including the genealogy is to show that Christ really came from the line of David. But when the two genealogies disagree with no explanation to reconcile them, and when Matthew slyly manipulates the list to make a theological point, how do these genealogies fulfill their goal? There would essentially be no point in including them. The Bible says that God is not the author of confusion. Therefore, I don’t see how he could be the author of these genealogies. It seems to me that the two genealogies are different because they were written by two different people from two different traditions, and they didn’t expect their writings to be put into the same book. They probably weren’t even aware of one another.
If you believe that the Bible is God’s word, then you should also believe that he wants people to understand and believe it. How is that possible in the face of such contradictions? Would a loving God really operate this way?
We’ll examine another contradiction in the next post.
Finding Truth 
Laurie, did i miss something, or are you saying that mathew’s genealogy is through mary? I thought most believers claimed luke’s went through Mary, although I dont get either assertion – both say through Joseph, the father of jesus…
Have i missed something?
LikeLike
William, Laurie is saying that Jehoram married Ahab’s daughter, thus the union of those two lines.
LikeLike
what a confusing mess… at least I take comfort in knowing god is not the author of confusion.
LikeLike
Yes. Matthew was giving the genealogy through Mary.
LikeLike
The Messiah must come through Solomon and not Nathan. In Aramaic it is the father of Mary named Joseph
LikeLike
I had not heard that before. And in the current bible it doesnt appear this way, but one derived from an aramaic text? What verses show it was through mary?
LikeLike
Matt 1:16
LikeLike
This text says that yosip was her guardian, and this is takin from the word gowra.
Do you believe the NT is scripture?
LikeLike
I used to, but do not believe that any longer.
Hmm, so you’re saying that in aramaic, the word that was translated as husband could mean father? interesting.
I’ll try to look that up. I do wonder if Aramaic had a word specific for “father” and if so, why it wasn’t used… I’ll research it.
Do you know whether luke’s genealogy would be different if interpreted from aramaic rather than greek?
LikeLike
There are over 600 errors in the Greek new testament, that can be resolved translated back into Aramaic, but this is not why the Bible seems so hard to understand. Since you no longer believe, I will tell you what I think.
LikeLike
A brief search, and i located the article or essay I assume you’re quoting from regarding “Gowra.” http://tushiyah.org/TheGowra.pdf
After perusing that essay (and I’m not done yet) I read where the author says that Gowra basically means, as you said, “protector” and that in different stages of a females life it could refer to different people: when she’s a child or unmarried, it would mean her father, when she was married it would refer to her husband, if her husband died, it would refer to whatever male was caring for her at that time.
Without dwelling on the fact that if what you suggest is true, there is a very easy way to have said it better, eliminating this area of debate, you’re saying that it makes the most sense for Gowra, in mathew 1:16, to mean father? Where the term father is used in every other instance in mathew 1, was it gowra or another term? Why wasnt gowra used for those if it was intended to mean father? And If another term existed that better represented “father” (as was sued in every other instance of matthew’s genealogy), then why not use that term between Joseph and Mary in verse 16?
certainly, if an instance existed where Marry’s father/guardian and husband had the same name, a little more care would have been observed in clarifying the difference.
I believe that Abba was an aramaic term that means “father,” and there may even be more terms that would better convey “father” than gowra besides abba.
I suspect, but plan on researching more, that the author of the essay only looked to explain the mathew/luke genealogy problem because there is a matthew/luke genealogy problem.
without any semblance of an error, no one would even have to try to solve it or to explain it. Again, this particular issue could have been negated so easily if the author of mathew and luke simply explained their own differences, explained what they meant exactly. If god was truly behind it, surely he would have foreseen the resulting issues and could have prevented it if he was so inclined.
LikeLike
Yeshua warns in Rev 2 that there are false apostles and then gives a list of ways to identify them. They are liars, they teach to eat meat sacrificed to idols, they have a story that is similar to balaam.
The Torah tells us that God will send a false prophet to test us to see if we will keep his commandments. It also tells us about the ravenous wolves that Yeshua spoke of, and that they are from the tribe of Benjamin.
Yeshua had 12 apostles, and he said that the new Jerusalem would have twelve gates with their names, and they would sit on twelve thrones. Also their would be, 12 foundations.
LikeLike
Stay with me for a second, cause this will eventually answer your question
LikeLike
To most people bound by tradition this would sound crazy, and I’d probably be hung for heresy, but if you search for the truth, the truth will set you free.
Paul was the creator of Christianity, and he along with Titus, Timothy, and the author of Hebrews are the very ones that Yeshua spent so much time warning us about.
Take them out, and all of a sudden everything makes sense.
Please give me the opportunity to prove this to you
LikeLike
Before I get into that, assume I am right, and I will explain the genealogy.
LikeLike
Laurie, I am intrigued and would like to hear more.
LikeLike
Here goes! What do we know about the Messiah and his lineage? We know that he will be like Melchizedik. What do we know about him? We know nothing about him, except he was a king and priest. How could any mortal man be both king and priest when there are laws to prevent a male from the tribe of Levi from marrying a woman from another, tribe? This has never happened since the law was in place and God promised that Levi would always have a priest to serve in the temple, and David was promised likewise a son on the throne. *pause
LikeLike
Any good Christian scholar will now point out that according to Hebrews, Yeshuas was not from the tribe of Levi, which is why we have a new priest and new law
Is that right? No it is not. Elizabeth was a daughter of Aaron, that means that Mary was a Levite by blood.
LikeLike
So why is Joseph her guardian? Because she was his adopted daughter and he had no son to carry on his name, by levirate law with no son to be heir the daughter can pass the lineage, where in all other cases that is not so.
So in any other instance the Messiah could not fulfill the OT prophesies concerning himself. He had to have no biological father. Now we see he is exactly half Judah and half levi
LikeLike
Read Jeremiah 33:14-18
Zechariah 6:12-13
Hosea 3:4-5
And Ezekiel 45:17 in that order, and then read Hebrews 7
LikeLike
But Hebrews takes great pains to point out why Jesus was a priest according to the order of Melchizedek. Melchizedek, as Hebrews argues, was not a priest because of his lineage, but because God found him worthy. In the same way, Jesus was able to be high priest — not by the Levitical priesthood, but through the “order of Melchizedek.” And since Melchizedek was a priest before Levi was even born (and before the Law of Moses), then Hebrews argues that Melchizedek’s priesthood was “better,” especially since Abraham offered a tithe to Melchizedek, and Melchizedek bestowed a blessing upon him. As Hebrews 7:7 says, “It is beyond dispute that the inferior is blessed by the superior.”
I don’t think Jesus had to have ties to Levi for his priesthood — at least according to the Hebrews writer, he didn’t.
LikeLike
The Jewish people will never recognize their Messiah, because here we are teaching that he doesn’t fulfill the prophecy clearly laid out in scripture. In each passage you can see that it is talking about the branch who is a priest on the throne. Does that make sense?
LikeLike
The author of Hebrews is wrong. On many levels not just this one.
Was Sarah givin the promise because of her faith? Was Abraham righteous because of his faith?
LikeLike
Forget about Paul for a moment, and read it out of the Torah.
Sarah laughed at God, and so did Abraham.
Why did God say Abraham was righteous?
LikeLike
“because he kept my statutes, judgments and my commandments”
This is why YHWY told Isaac his father was righteous.
LikeLike