One popular resolution to the Matthew-Luke genealogy difference is that Matthew presents the full line of Joseph and Luke presents the full line of Mary. This view can be found as early as Hilary of Poitiers in the fourth century AD [1]. We don’t really know how popular this view was before this. There are several reasons to suggest this view. First, one must consider the genealogical format of the time. Nowhere else in scripture do we read of a genealogy from a woman. This does not mean that women did not have recorded heritage, it just means that in format, they were traced through men. In some cases where a man has only daughters, he will find a son to adopt through a daughter to carry the family name (see 1 Chronicles 2:34-41). Although the genealogy would have the man’s name, the woman was the blood relation. Since a son-in-law is just as legitimately an heir to the family, if the genealogy was through Mary, then Luke might not have used Mary’s name as a link anyway, in keeping with the custom of the day. This is different from Matthew’s use of women. Matthew never took a bloodline through the woman, but rather supplemented the woman onto the male’s line.
Additionally one can argue for a royal vs literal line difference between Matthew and Luke. The royal line is passed on to Jesus through Joseph who was the “husband of Mary” as Matthew states. Luke on his part also separates Jesus from Joseph at the start by called Jesus the “supposed” son of Joseph. This separation from Joseph makes it less likely that a physical genealogy would prove any good. Whats the use of tracing Joseph’s lineage if Jesus wasn’t from him anyway? Rather if Matthew was using a royal heir line, then Jesus receives that title as legally adopted son of Joseph, while Luke can focus on the biological seed promise.
There are some who focus on linguistics. Linguistically, since Joseph’s name is the only name in Luke’s genealogy without the reoccurring article introducing it, some say Joseph’s name should be taken out as a candidate for the genealogy itself. The article in front of Heli’s name would then identify not with “Joseph” but with “the son”. The reference to Joseph in our English format should then be in parentheses. By this reasoning one could try to show that Luke is intending to linguistically bypass Joseph and call Jesus the son of Heli. If Heli is the father of Mary, then Jesus is his son also. This resolves the two lines extending back to David.
As to the problem with Zerubbabel’s father(s), the same supporters of this current train of thought would consistently apply the same to Neri and Jeconiah. If Jeconiah was the legal father of Shealtiel (Royal title, adoption, or association), then Neri could be the actual father, or father in Law (biology still passes through mother while crown through father). Jeremiah did make a point about Jeconiah having no child who would ever sit on the throne. Luke, who may have seen this as a potential problem, decides to trace through another side of the family and still end with David.
There are strengths and flaws with every position. As for this first argument, that Luke presents Mary’s line, the biggest weakness is in the lack of information. There must be an assumption made that cannot be supported through any other scripture. Both texts appear to show that Joseph came from two men. The linguistic points are merely an interpretation of the grammar. Nothing is exclusive in the argument. This being said, similar assumptions must be made to entertain the other solutions as well. The greatest strength with the Mary view of Luke is that it provides the least friction between accounts, and allows for Jesus’ bloodline to extend back to David and Abraham, from whom God said the seed would come from their “very being.”
1 – Hilary of Poitiers, in Angelo Mai ed., Novae Patrum Bibliothecae (Rome: Propaganda Fide, 1852), pp. 477-478.