The genealogies of our Lord given in Matt. 1 and Luke 3 were no doubt copied from existing registers, which were carefully preserved by the Jews. This in no way clashes with the writers being inspired and being led what to copy.
Any one comparing them will see at once that, for the same period given in both, the list in Luke is much fuller than the one in Matthew. In order to bring the list in Matthew into three "fourteen generations" some names are omitted. Thus Ozias is placed as the son of Joram, but on consulting 1 Chron. 3:11,1211Joram his son, Ahaziah his son, Joash his son, 12Amaziah his son, Azariah his son, Jotham his son, (1 Chronicles 3:11‑12) it will be seen that three kings are here omitted, Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah. These kings being well known are here omitted; but this omission is not contrary to the usage of the Jews. In 2 Chronicles 22:99And he sought Ahaziah: and they caught him, (for he was hid in Samaria,) and brought him to Jehu: and when they had slain him, they buried him: Because, said they, he is the son of Jehoshaphat, who sought the Lord with all his heart. So the house of Ahaziah had no power to keep still the kingdom. (2 Chronicles 22:9) Ahaziah is called the son of Jehoshaphat, whereas he was his grandson. Compare also the pedigree in 1 Chron. 6:3-153And the children of Amram; Aaron, and Moses, and Miriam. The sons also of Aaron; Nadab, and Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar. 4Eleazar begat Phinehas, Phinehas begat Abishua, 5And Abishua begat Bukki, and Bukki begat Uzzi, 6And Uzzi begat Zerahiah, and Zerahiah begat Meraioth, 7Meraioth begat Amariah, and Amariah begat Ahitub, 8And Ahitub begat Zadok, and Zadok begat Ahimaaz, 9And Ahimaaz begat Azariah, and Azariah begat Johanan, 10And Johanan begat Azariah, (he it is that executed the priest's office in the temple that Solomon built in Jerusalem:) 11And Azariah begat Amariah, and Amariah begat Ahitub, 12And Ahitub begat Zadok, and Zadok begat Shallum, 13And Shallum begat Hilkiah, and Hilkiah begat Azariah, 14And Azariah begat Seraiah, and Seraiah begat Jehozadak, 15And Jehozadak went into captivity, when the Lord carried away Judah and Jerusalem by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar. (1 Chronicles 6:3‑15) with Ezra 7:1-5,1Now after these things, in the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, Ezra the son of Seraiah, the son of Azariah, the son of Hilkiah, 2The son of Shallum, the son of Zadok, the son of Ahitub, 3The son of Amariah, the son of Azariah, the son of Meraioth, 4The son of Zerahiah, the son of Uzzi, the son of Bukki, 5The son of Abishua, the son of Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the chief priest: (Ezra 7:1‑5) where seven generations will be found to be omitted.
There has been much written as to why the two lists are given in the gospels, and what is to be gathered from them.
On the face of them there is this difference, that in the Gospel of Matthew, wherein Christ is emphatically the Messiah and Son of David, the genealogy stops at Abraham; whereas in Luke, where Christ is Son of man, the list is traced up to "Adam, who was son of God."
A reference to the well-known rule in the Jewish ritual, that if a married man died childless, his brother had to raise up seed to the deceased by the widow, will show that a son might naturally be called the son of the living man, though legally he would be son of the deceased. So that the same person may be called the son of either if the distinction between legal and lineal, or actual, be kept in view.
It will be noted that in Matthew the word begat is used, " Abraham begat Isaac," &c., whereas in Luke it is more indefinite, " Isaac was of Abraham:" from which it has been inferred that Matthew gives the lineal descent, and Luke the legal; but this does not appear to be the case, for in Luke it is said that Jesus was supposed to be the son of Joseph; if it were the legal list He would be the son; then, as we have seen, in one place in Matthew three kings are omitted. The list in Matthew is the royal line which must also be the legal line. In the Old Testament we find that Jechonias was to have no lineal descendant on the throne (Jer. 22:24,25,28-30; 36:30, 3124As I live, saith the Lord, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence; 25And I will give thee into the hand of them that seek thy life, and into the hand of them whose face thou fearest, even into the hand of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, and into the hand of the Chaldeans. (Jeremiah 22:24‑25)
28Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not? 29O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord. 30Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah. (Jeremiah 22:28‑30)
30Therefore thus saith the Lord of Jehoiakim king of Judah; He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David: and his dead body shall be cast out in the day to the heat, and in the night to the frost. 31And I will punish him and his seed and his servants for their iniquity; and I will bring upon them, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and upon the men of Judah, all the evil that I have pronounced against them; but they hearkened not. (Jeremiah 36:30‑31)), and yet Salathiel is said to be begotten by him in the royal line.
From all this we gather that Matthew gives the royal and the legal (as recognized by the Jews) descent of Jesus from Abraham, and thence to David. The Jews never disputed that He was-as indeed He was often called-the Son of David.
If this is so, the question returns What is the nature of the genealogy in Luke? It is believed by some to be the lineal descent of Joseph; by others, to be that of Mary. If the former, it would follow that Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus, was the legal son of Jacob, but the lineal son of Heli, which would be possible according to the rule before mentioned. If Luke gives us the genealogy of Mary, it would not name her, for a woman's name is never mentioned in the lists as a link in the succession; then Heli may have been the father of Mary and the father-in law of Joseph her husband.
It seems preferable to regard the list in Luke as the genealogy of Mary, because our Lord is said to be of the seed of the woman (Gen. 3:1515And 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. (Genesis 3:15); Luke 1:3535And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. (Luke 1:35)), made of a woman (Gal. 4:44But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, (Galatians 4:4)), and to he the seed of Abraham (Heb. 2:1616For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. (Hebrews 2:16)), and the seed of David according to the flesh (Rom. 1:33Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; (Romans 1:3); 2 Tim. 2:88Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel: (2 Timothy 2:8)), the offspring of David. (Rev. 22:1616I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. (Revelation 22:16)) And as the Lord was not really the Son of Joseph, these scriptures can only be fulfilled through His mother, who must have been a lineal descendant of David, Abraham, and Adam, which are all shown in Luke, and the last not named in Matthew at all. Whereas, if Luke gives the lineal descent of Joseph, we have no account of how the scriptures quoted have been fulfilled.
There can be no doubt therefore that Matthew gives the legal and royal descent of our Lord through Joseph, and Luke the lineal descent through Mary.