Matthew 1 & Luke 3: Difference in geneologies

These two chapters go to great length to describe the genealogy connecting Jesus to important people in the old testament (OT). There are some differences in the two lists which might affect how to go about answering this question:

Is Jesus biologically the great, great, great … grand son of Abraham / Adam?

I am currently reading an essay that states “…God himself created the genetic contribution to Jesus’ begetting, since Mary could not provide both sets of chromosomes…”. This suggests that Joseph did not contribute biologically to Jesus’ birth. Both lineages in Matthew and Luke describe the connecting human between Jesus and the important OT people as Joseph. So my current thought to my question is “no” – am I missing something in interpreting the Bible or the theology of the virgin birth that can help understand the big picture of Jesus’ lineage? Does the promise of a Messiah from the line of David need to be fulfilled biologically?


@Teasley this is a very good question. Have a read of this source:

and this thread:

and let me know if they answer your question :handshake: As you will see the first source believes that both Joseph and Mary could be traced back to David.


@brianlalor Thanks for your reply and the links!


I have some questions from a friend about the genealogies:
Who was Seth’s wife?
Judaism is passed mother to child, so why wouldn’t Mary’s name be included in a genealogy?
What did the early church believe about the differences in the two genealogies?
How did they keep the record of descent when they were slaves in Egypt?

My friend believes that the Bible is allegory and so the conversation has been about the historical accuracy of the genealogies.