2 genealogies of Christ

Matthew 1.1-16  and Luke 3.23-38. 

There are similarities and significant differences.  The best solution sees Matthew as the legal and royal line and the Luke as the biological line.  There are some different solutions in those 2 views.

The Matthew line is clearly with reference to the kings of Judah. There is the issue of the Jeconiah curse in Jeremiah--that none of King Jeconiah’s descendants would ever sit on the throne of Israel.  Luke would provide a biological connection to David, bypassing Jeconiah in Matthew's genealogy. 

The similarities of the two genealogies are with reference to Abraham to David and with Zerrubbabel and his father but they differ before and after that.  So after David they differ. 

There may be some issues with Levirate activity: a man fulfills his duty to have a child with his brother’s widow.  It seems to get a little complicated. I had this kind of sorted out at one time, but didn’t keep my notes. I think the Levirate approach is necessary to have Luke’s genealogy not be Mary’s but Jesus’ because of a Levirate union.  I suppose it would be Joseph's biological line through Luke's and his legal line through Matthew's.

There are some gaps in the record, but a “son of’ can mean a “descendant of”--as  we see in Daniel concerning Belshazzar (the son of Nebuchadnezzar, but was a descendant).

Matthew includes 4 women in the list--who may be all gentiles:  Matthew, a Jew, writing to Jews maybe sneaking in the blessing of the Abrahamic covenant that in him all nations are blessed by faith.

However one understands the difference in the two genealogies… Jesus is the son of David, the seed (singular) of Abraham.  2 Sam 7.12-16; Is 9.6-7  /  Gen 22.12-18; 26.4-5 (to Isaac).