Why are the genealogies for Jesus in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 different? I realize that Matthew runs from David and Luke all the way from Adam, but the people are different, right down to Joseph’s father!
Furthermore, the notes to one of the Bibles I use said in a foot note that Luke 3 makes Jesus a descendent of Nathan the Prophet. Totally wrong – he is listed as a descendent from Nathan, David’s Son! How could that be since Solomon, Nathan’s older brother, is listed in Matthew as Jesus’ forefather. Why the confusion?
Assuming we have a correct genealogy somewhere, I still wonder how Jesus could be of the tribe of Judah if he was not really Joseph’s true born son? He could not do it through Mary because she was (likely) of the tribe of Levi. So – We have a faulty genealogies and nothing that points to Jesus being a “natural” born part of Judah. If anything ever cried out for latter-day revelation, this is it! Has there been any or do we have to wait?
Although both genealogies are accurate, neither is the genealogy of Jesus Christ, but of Joseph, the husband of Mary, the mother of the Savior. The true genealogy of Jesus has been expressed on a number of occasions by his Father, who is God, the Father—
The two different genealogies of Joseph, Mary’s husband, have been adequately explained by James E. Talmage, in Jesus the Christ: A Study of the Messiah and His Mission According to Holy Scriptures Both Ancient and Modern, p.84)
“It is now almost certain that the genealogies in both Gospels are genealogies of Joseph, which if we may rely on early traditions of their consanguinity involve genealogies of Mary also. The Davidic descent of Mary is implied in Acts 2:30; 13:23; Rom. 1:3; Luke 1:32, etc. St. Matthew gives the legal descent of Joseph through the elder and regal line, as heir to the throne of David; St. Luke gives the natural descent. Thus, the real father of Salathiel was heir of the house of Nathan, but the childless Jeconiah (Jer. 22:30) was the last lineal representative of the elder kingly line. The omission of some obscure names and the symmetrical arrangement into tesseradecads were common Jewish customs. It is not too much to say that after the labors of Mill (On the Mythical Interpretation of the Gospels, pp. 147-217) and Lord A. C. Hervey (On the Genealogies of Our Lord, 1853) scarcely a single difficulty remains in reconciling the apparent divergencies. And thus in this as in so many other instances, the very discrepancies which appear to be most irreconcilable, and most fatal to the historic accuracy of the four evangelists, turn out, on closer and more patient investigation, to be fresh proofs that they are not only entirely independent, but also entirely trustworthy.”