Remarkably Compatible Genealogies

"I invite you to compare the genealogy in Matthew 1:1-17 to the genealogy in Luke 3:23-28. They are remarkably incompatible, and one wonders how you can call the Bible, in this case, anything but utter confusion. Perhaps, though, you can answer a question I've had for a long time. How can Jesus be the son of Joseph, as both these genealogies attest? Wasn't God his father? Aren't these genealogies, in fact, entirely pointless? And isn't the prophecy that the Messiah would descend from the line of David thus unfulfilled?" eugyppius

Study the wording in Luke 3:23 closely. It says "as was supposed" or "what was thought to be the son of Joseph." He wasn’t. He was the Son of God (God manifest in human form). Then carefully look at the wording of Matthew 1:16. It says, "Joseph the husband of Mary." In neither case is Joseph called the father of Jesus.

In both of these cases, the genealogy goes through the lineage of David (Luke 3:31 and Matthew 1:6). There is no confusion at all in these lists. If names in both don’t reconcile, there are rational explanations. For example, in Matthew we are told that "Jacob begot Joseph," but Luke 3:23 says, "Joseph, the son of Heli." Luke’s record was "according to Law" (a literal translation of "so it was thought" in Luke 3:23), indicating that Joseph was not actually the son of Heli but was reckoned his son according to the Law. Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli, Mary’s father.

Please don’t get your information from atheist websites. They hold up the same old mistaken arguments, and they never seek an answer. Imagine if you reject God’s gift of everlasting life and end up (being justly punished for your sins), solely because you believed what some stranger said on an atheist website, instead of sincerely looking into it yourself. What a tragedy.