Christians, why is it often said that the two genealogies are different because one is Joseph and one is Mary?

Rayford Latz: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3bsAMyRwbw

Robt Betker: Census and genealogy were conducted through the male head. It was a legality then.

Carolynn Testani: Try reading it again.............om 9:8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.Gal 3:14That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.Gal 3:29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise....Show more

Rosie Travino: In Matthew 1:16. Joseph, the husband of Mary, was legally but not physically the father of Jesus (vv18-25). Though a carpenter in Nazareth (13:55) he was a legal heir of King David (vv. 5-16, 20). He was a just and God-fearing man who faithfully carried out God's commands regarding Mary and the birth of Jesus (vv. 19-25). "Joseph the husband o! f Mary": The wording carefully avoids giving the impression that Joseph was the natural father of Jesus. As the husband of Mary, he was Jesus' legal father and the one through whom He had a right to David's throne. Matthew's "Son of David" traces Jesus' royal heritage back to King David, through the line of Davidic kings. The genealogy here is that of Joseph. Whereas the genealogy of Luke 3:23-38 is that of Mary, His actual parent, showing His bloodline back to David. The author's purpose is to show that the messianic promises made to David's line are fulfilled in Jesus. Matthew emphasized Jesus' Jewish parentage for his Jewish audience. Luke 3:23-38: Whereas Matthew gives a list of those standing in the legal line of descent from David, those who were heirs to the throne, generation by generation. Luke then gives the actual descendants of David who were ancestors in Joseph's particular branch of the Davidic line. Others argue that Luke's list gives Jesus' ancestry through ! the forebears of Mary. Luke is concerned to demonstrate that J! esus is a Son of both David and Abraham. Even more important, however, seems to be that Luke, in tracing Jesus' line back to Adam and God, makes two points. First, Jesus had an ancient place in the race of man. Second, as God's anointed Deliverer, Jesus has significance for all humanity and not just for the people of Israel. In Genesis 3:15:" And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." The representative see of the woman (which is a human woman Mary the mother of the Saviour Jesus Christ) would deliver the deathblow to Satan. The Holy Spirit of God, is the most important bloodline here, in the understanding of the sacredness of the Immaculate Conception of Jesus Christ the Son of God, who became man born of a virgin. The human beings are to be minimized so God can get the glory. Matthew's genealogy deals thoroughly with the women Tamar, Rachab, Ruth and wife of Uriah (king So! lomon's mother) It was not customary to list the names of women in a genealogy. The inclusion of these names were deliberate on the part of Matthew....Show more

Mack Ukich: The genealogy in Matthew is Joseph's, the one in Luke is Mary's.Mary's name was not mentioned because she is a woman.

Hobert Dula: Matthew and Luke signify that Joseph was not Jesus’ actual father but only his adoptive father, giving him legal right. Matthew departs from the style used throughout his genealogy when he comes to Jesus, saying: “Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.” (Mt 1:16) Notice that he does not say ‘Joseph became father to Jesus’ but that he was “the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born.” Luke is even more pointed when, after showing earlier that Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary (Lu 1:32-35), he says: “Jesus . . . being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of Heli.”â€"Lu 3:23.! Since Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph but was the Son of God, L! uke’s genealogy of Jesus would prove that he was, by human birth, a son of David through his natural mother Mary. Regarding the genealogies of Jesus given by Matthew and by Luke, Frederic Louis Godet wrote: “This study of the text in detail leads us in this way to admitâ€"1. That the genealogical register of Luke is that of Heli, the grandfather of Jesus; 2. That, this affiliation of Jesus by Heli being expressly opposed to His affiliation by Joseph, the document which he has preserved for us can be nothing else in his view than the genealogy of Jesus through Mary. But why does not Luke name Mary, and why pass immediately from Jesus to His grandfather? Ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link. Among the Greeks a man was the son of his father, not of his mother; and among the Jews the adage was: ‘Genus matris non vocatur genus [“The descendant of the mother is not called (her) descendant”]’ (‘Baba bathra,’ 110! , a).”â€"Commentary on Luke, 1981, p. 129.Actually each genealogy (Matthew’s table and Luke’s) shows descent from David, through Solomon and through Nathan. (Mt 1:6; Lu 3:31) In examining the lists of Matthew and Luke, we find that after diverging at Solomon and Nathan, they come together again in two persons, Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. This can be explained in the following way: Shealtiel was the son of Jeconiah; perhaps by marriage to the daughter of Neri he became Neri’s son-in-law, thus being called the “son of Neri.” It is possible as well that Neri had no sons, so that Shealtiel was counted as his “son” for that reason also. Zerubbabel, who was likely the actual son of Pedaiah, was legally reckoned as the son of Shealtiel, as stated earlier.â€"Compare Mt 1:12; Lu 3:27; 1Ch 3:17-19.Then the accounts indicate that Zerubbabel had two sons, Rhesa and Abiud, the lines diverging again at this point. (These could have been, not actual sons, but descendants, or! one, at least, could have been a son-in-law. Compare 1Ch 3:19.) (Lu 3:! 27; Mt 1:13) Both Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies of Jesus vary here from that found in 1 Chronicles chapter 3. This may be because a number of names were purposely left out by Matthew and possibly also by Luke. But the fact should be kept in mind that such differences in the genealogical lists of Matthew and Luke are very likely those already present in the genealogical registers then in use and fully accepted by the Jews and were not changes made by Matthew and Luke.We may conclude, therefore, that the two lists of Matthew and Luke fuse together the two truths, namely, (1) that Jesus was actually the Son of God and the natural heir to the Kingdom by miraculous birth through the virgin girl Mary, of David’s line, and (2) that Jesus was also the legal heir in the male line of descent from David and Solomon through his adoptive father Joseph. (Lu 1:32, 35; Ro 1:1-4) If there was any accusation made by hostile Jews that Jesus’ birth was illegitimate, the fact that! Joseph, aware of the circumstances, married Mary and gave her the protection of his good name and royal lineage refutes such slander....Show more

Teodoro Lamond: Matthew gives Joseph's lineage and Luke gives Mary's lineage. If you look through other passages in the Bible, sons-in-law were often called simply sons. The reason a genealogy was given for Mary was to show that Jesus was related to humankind through Adam and therefore filled the primary requirement to be humanity's kinsman redeemer. Joseph's line (which was important for other reasons, not least of which his relation to King David) could not show that because he was not physically related to Jesus....Show more

Fritz Hawkey: There was no genealogy through Mary. No society in that part of the world has ever traced genealogies through the maternal line.

Verena Koop: @Andie: examples of the Bible referring to sons-in-law as sons?

Melissa Lavallie: @The Calvinist: so the Bible is just wrong i! n attributing Luke's genealogy to Joseph? And not only is it wrong, it'! s wrong for sexist reasons?

Gregory Dilg: It was a common Hebrew custom for the father of the bride to adopt the groom as his son. That is where we get the term "son-in-law". You have the genealogy of both Mary and Joseph in the two gospels. The genealogy of Joseph and his ancestors are in Matthew. The genealogy of Mary is listed in Luke.