Having considered all the previously stated views, I will attempt to arrive at a sound conclusion of how to treat the Matthew-Luke discrepancy of the genealogy of Jesus. Above all, there are multiple possible explanations. None of them are fool proof, and none of them solve all the questions. Yet all are indeed possible, meaning an absolute contradiction in the genealogies is not mandated. The actual resolution may never be known; there is no definite argument for any. What shall be presented is the most likely explanation in regards to the context of each Gospel, and the expectations about the Messiah.[1]
The context of the genealogies within the Gospels directs the readers in a particular direction. In both Gospels, Jesus is implicitly stated as coming only from Mary, and not at all from Joseph. Matthew introduces Jesus’ genealogy to show that Jesus was the heir of Abraham and David through Joseph. Since he is called the husband of Mary even before they came together, his legal position is transferred to his wife’s son as if to his own son. If, for the sake of argument, Mary was the daughter of Jacob, then the legality of his ‘title’ would not have passed to Mary but to her husband and then their son. Jesus’ right to the throne is set (the Jews were not completely aware of the implications of this). As the years pass and David’s decedents increase in number, the significance of Joseph perhaps fades. There would have been hundreds or thousands of others were just as defended from David. There is little question as to Matthew’s context; it is primarily about the kingship title.
Luke, for his part, focuses more on Mary than Matthew does. Where Joseph was a central figure in Matthew’s opening, Luke expands more on Mary and her side of the story. Nothing is said of Joseph except that he is from David (1:27 and 2:4). Luke, therefore, also identifies that Joseph is from David and that Mary was being registered with him in Bethlehem. By chapter three, Luke begins to show Jesus as both the Son of Man and the Son of God. God identifies Jesus as his son when he is baptized, Luke shows Jesus is the son of Adam who is also in his own way from God. Afterward, Satan challenges Jesus’ son-ship of God. Throughout the book there is a struggle between the people’s understanding and the reader’s point of view. The people assume and suppose that Jesus is the son of Joseph. Over and over they come back to this point as the reason why Jesus cannot be the Messiah. Luke in his genealogy stresses that Jesus is not from Joseph but from God. This context should slowly move the reader to think that Luke is not intending to bring up Joseph’s genealogy, since Jesus was never from Joseph to begin with. Why would Luke extensively research the background of a man whom Jesus was never from? This is the man Jesus was allegedly from, yet the genealogy goes back to God Himself. If Luke is trying to distance Jesus from Joseph, it does not seem as likely that he would try to show Joseph as a viable father to the messiah. Rather it is more likely in context that Luke is directing attention to Jesus’ spiritual and physical nature, both of which trace back to God.
The Hebrew writer says of Jesus that “it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah” (Heb 7:14). If both Matthew and Luke represented genealogies extending through Joseph and yet Jesus was never from Joseph, how would it have been evident to all that Jesus was from the line of Judah? One fact can be stated upon this verse and Peters use of Psalm 132 in Acts 2: Jesus was from the line of Judah, and decedent of David. This means that Mary had to be defended from David. Mary’s ancestry to David is a necessary implication of Jesus’ descendency from him. The Gospels are not required to give Mary’s genealogy. The authors of Scripture may have left the implication as it was. But since Mary was from David, and Joseph was from David, what need would Luke have to use Joseph’s line instead of Mary’s? This question proves nothing, but adds heavy weight to the scales. I believe the context of Luke’s genealogy focuses on Mary and Jesus’ physicality, and the expectation of Scripture about the messiah was that his own flesh and blood would be David’s.
The result of the two contexts would by themselves bend the reader in the direction of Matthew showing Jesus’ right to be called king, and Luke showing Jesus’ right to be called both God and man (which cannot be shown through Joseph). Luke already established that Joseph was from David, so he would not have needed to present the genealogy for that purpose. He had previously shown that Mary was Jesus’ only earthly parent, so he may not have needed to clarify the genealogy any more than he already did. Without a reason to produce Joseph’s line, it is highly unlikely that Luke does so.
We must recognize that there are differences in the genealogies. We must pursue an explanation based on the purpose of each gospel. The Levirate and Historicity explanation do not have the factual data to support their views consistently. The Joseph solution and Mary solution agree on Matthew’s account. Luke’s account is then the one in question. The Joseph solution cannot provide any satisfactory explanation toward context and purpose. It seems to me, then, that if our explanation is to based on purpose, then the Mary view is the only one that meets this end. Therefore the most probable explanation is that Matthew presents Joseph’s line of inheritance, and Luke, not needing to reproduce Joseph’s line, produces Mary’s through her husband’s name in order to show Jesus’ own line back to David and Adam. Jesus’ blood line would have been very crucial to understand who Jesus was and where he comes from, which is the focal point of both gospels. We can rest assured about Jesus’ right to the throne, and his right to messiahship. Both gospels work together to show that Jesus is the Son of David, the ‘son of man’, and the son of God.
[1] The issues of Shealtiel to Jeconiah or Neri have been adequately dealt with in their own way. This author is open to legal vs. literal, levirate law, and in-law interpretations as equally valid contextual suggestions in that case. The most consistent option is to choose the same preference as the conclusions about Jesus’ own genealogy.
