An excellent resource book is called “Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible”, John W. Haley, Baker Book House. The unbeliever likes to point out every "Alleged Discrepancy" in the Scriptures in an effort to justify their way of life. One of the "discrepancies" is the genealogies of Jesus Christ as shown in Matthew and Luke. The two appear to place the lineage of Christ through two different lines. John W. Haley explains the alleged discrepancy this way (pages 325-326):

Matthew 1:16  And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Luke 3:23  And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

There are two principal theories respecting these genealogies.

1. That held by Alford, Ellicott, Hervey, Meyer, Mill, Patritius, Wordsworth, and others -that both genealogies are Joseph's ; Matthew exhibiting him as the legal heir to the throne of David, that is, naming the successive heirs of the kingdom from David to Jesus the reputed son of Joseph; while Luke gives Joseph's private genealogy or actual descent.  This theory is very ingeniously and elaborately set forth in Lord Arthur Hervey's work {" The Genealogies of our Lord," London, 1853.  See on the other side, Mr.  Holmes in Kitto, ii. 92-102 (last edition).  Also, Ebrard, " The Gospel History," pp. 149-163.} upon the subject, to which the reader is referred.

2. That held by Auberlen, Ebrard, Greswell, Kurtz, Lange, Lightfoot, Michaelis, Neander, Robinson, Surenhusius, Wieseler, and others - that Matthew gives Joseph's, and Luke, Mary’s  genealogy.  Although the alleged discrepancies may be removed upon either hypothesis, yet we must give the preference to the second, for the following reasons.

(1) The latter theory seems supported by several early Christian writers, - Origen, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Athanasius, and Justin Martyr. {See Kitto, ii. 92-94, 547}

(2) It is indirectly confirmed by Jewish tradition.  Lightfoot {Horae Hebraicae on Luke iii. 28} cites from the Talmudic writers concerning the pains of hell, the statement that Mary the daughter of Heli was seen in the infernal regions, suffering horrid tortures. {“Suspensam per glandulas mammarum," etc.} This statement illustrates, not only the bitter animosity of the Jews toward the Christian religion, but also the fact that, according to received Jewish tradition, Mary was the daughter of Heli; hence, that it is her genealogy which we find in Luke.

(3) This theory shows us in what way Christ was the “Son of David." If Mary was the daughter of Heli, then Jesus was strictly a descendant of David, not only legally, through his reputed father, but actually, by direct personal descent, through his mother.  The latter consideration is one of the very first interest and importance.

(4) This theory affords a very simple explanation of the whole matter. Mary, since she had no brothers, was an heiress; therefore her husband, according to Jewish law, was reckoned among her father's family, as his son.  So that Joseph was the actual son of Jacob, and the legal son of Heli.  In a word, Matthew sets forth Jesus' right to the theocratic crown; Luke, his natural pedigree.  The latter employs Joseph's name, instead of Mary's, in accordance with the Israelite law that “genealogies must be reckoned by fathers, not mothers.

RETURN TO MAIN STUDY