Re-worded: why is Joseph's genealogy used instead of Mary's?

Question

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, (etc)...

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

Both CLEARLY state they are Joseph's genealogy, so why did people keep answering saying that Luke used Mary's genealogy?

This is very obviously not the case, unless somebody can explain how "the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli" somehow means the genealogy of Mary.

Peace.

Answer 1

Miss Voluneer Teacher has answered well.

I could not improve on that.

Answer 2

One thing you might take a look at is that Matthew's account, which is the genealogy of Joseph is recording events tied in with Joseph.

Now also take a look at Luke's account, which is the genealogy of Mary and is a recording of events tied in with Mary.

Heredity was figured from the man. The account in Luke (which was Mary's) adds the little statement "the supposed son of". This is another clue that it is Mary's genealogy.

Jesus had to be able to prove to the opposers (the Pharisees et al.) that he had the legal and natural right to be the Messiah through David's line. If that was not available from both sides of the family, this would have been brought up in his public ministry by those desiring to discredit him.

These records were available to the public at the Temple. So both Matthew and Luke researched this and added both lists to their accounts.  

Answer 3

I believe Jesus stands on his own merits and prophecies etc. are unnecessary.  Most rational people recognize that prophecies are vague and inexact.  This sort of thing leads to errors and misconceptions.  

I think if you put things into the context of the time it might help.  I think the notion that Jesus was formed from God impregnating Mary was an invention of the early church formers. I do not think they were being deceptive they were just confused because of the vague notions surrounding prophecy.

Answer 4

Well what does that time period tell us about the consideration of women??  

Answer 5

The Bible acknowledging the importance of a woman?! I don't think so.

Answer 6

Joseph was a man, so he rules the genealogy, just like marriage names go down the man rather than the woman.

It's all about that men > women thing religions have.

About it being Mary in Luke, the character Mary has been very big in Catholicsism, which was the first organised form of Christianity, so it would be a common asumption that Mary is the most highlighted new testament Bible character than Joseph.

Answer 7

Matthew traces the descendants of Solomon down to Joseph, the adoptive father of Jesus, thus demonstrating that Jesus had the legal right to the throne of David through the kingly line. (Mt 1:7, 16)

Luke traces Jesus’ lineage to Heli (apparently the father of Mary) through Nathan, who was another son of David and Bath-sheba and therefore Solomon’s full brother. (Lu 3:23, 31) Both lines of descent merge in Zerubbabel and Shealtiel and again branch out into two lines of descent. (Mt 1:13; Lu 3:27) Mary the mother of Jesus was a descendant through Nathan, and Joseph his adoptive father descended through Solomon, so that Jesus was both the natural and legal descendant of David, with full right to the throne.

Answer 8

They have to explain away the fact that the two genealogies are different.  They do it by saying that "son" really meant "son-in-law" and insist that it was a common practice of the time.

No, it doesn't make sense.  No, I've never seen any evidence that the words son and son-in-law were really interchangeable.

Answer 9

One is Joseph's, the other Mary's. When a Jewish woman marries she takes her husband's genealogy.

Answer 10

From a Jewish perspective the use of Josephs lineage is wrong to trace back to David. The lineage should be traced back through Mary.

Later addition.

If Mary conceives throgh God's intervention, how is it possible for Jesus to be descendent through Joseph's lineage?

What were the adoption policies or cuckoldry policies of the Jews of that time?

Answer 11

Surely you will choose wisely when you pick your best answer and choose "Volunteer Teacher" as best answer.

It is flawless.

Besides all of that, geneaology was determined through the man's bloodline- not the woman's. It was a patriarchal society then.

Answer 12

Stating the obvious... Jesus = Jew = patriarchal society.

Answer 13

  but where does brian fit into all of this

Answer 14

The answer is in your question...

"the son of" is refering to Joseph the son in law of Heli (who was Mary's father)

this is a fair usage of the term in a genealogy of the time.

EDIT - it only doesn't make sense if we try and force them to be politically correct in the 21st century... it was not considered a slight on Mary to share her genealogy this way.. Joseph was her husband and that bond meant a lot more to them than it does to many people today.  The "two become one" idea is Jewish in origin and they believed it.

EDIT - A person may (I say may) be considered Jewish because of the mother rather than the father (if that was so back then it would possibly be because you could prove who the mother was but not the father) BUT it was clearly a Patriarchal society...  from them all being children of Abraham (not "children of Sarah") to the "twelve Patriarchs".  The father was considered the head of the household and it would not be wierd to do the genealogy this way...

Answer 15

That is the standard response of all apologists. It's the only one they've got and they will keep repeating it for centuries to come. Truth has nothing to do with apologetics.

Answer 16

They must've been brother and sister, and the early Christian editors decided that was too hinky.

Answer 17

Maybe Joseph's genealogy was the one that was known.

Answer 18

Luke does NOT say it is Joseph's genealogy.

In the Greek we find the word nomizo, which means "assumed", "thought to be",supposed" so the passage says literally "being the son, it was thought or assumed of Joseph."

Answer 19

The point is who was chosen to be in the genealogies, and their meaning to the Life of Jesus..."chosen" by an author, for allegorical purposes..

literalism is killing belief, not enhancing it...

and many of your responders parroting another response as correct should not influence who you believe should win Best Answer...if the answer is non-sensical, it doesn't suddenly make sense because a few parrots champion it...The early Church Father's named Mary's parents as Anne and Joachim...if the Bible and early church saw a contradiction here, they would have at least addressed it...so a comment along the lines of "maybe Joseph's father-in-law" is pretty meaningless...also side-stepping the question by saying that it "was assumed" is equally meaningless and simply means that one of the gospel writers got it wrong, or was at least one was worried he got it wrong so he included a vague statement to cover himself.  Irregardless, both give the name who they believe was Joseph's father - one says Jacob, the other says Heli.  I don't see why that's so hard to admit.

EDIT:  If Heli was the name of Mary's father, prove it.  I can produce the documents of Early Church Fathers that say otherwise.  Why don't you just say something like "both genealogies are the same, it's just that people in the ancient world used two names and Luke has one set of them and Matthew has the other set."  ???

I get the feeling a lot of people's belief's are made up as they go along...

Answer 20

Both Joseph and Mary were of the tribe of Judah, Joseph was in direct line of the king of Judah, David who's lineage goes back to Abraham. That was to fulfill the prophecy given to Abraham that threw his seed would come the Messiah. So by these Bible writers writing down the lineage of Jesus, it would prove that Jesus was this promised Messiah.