Genealogy in Matthew
14 names instead of 18, and in saying that there were only fourteen generations.
Matthew has omitted three kings, but this does not prove he made a mistake in doing so. The point he is showing is Christ’s legal connection with the throne of David. The term “begat” is employed in Hebrew for a descendant. Matthew left out three kings, the children of an apostate woman, recommencing with him in whose reign the prophecies of Messiah dawned brightly on Israel, and he has counted his genealogies correctly.
Inconsistency in names e.g. Ahaziah and Uzziah
Little problem when looking at the Hebrew and its transliteration into Greek.
Was Jesus the biological son of Joseph?
The legal descent is evident. Matthew does not for a moment leave a cloud on the fact that Jesus was not Joseph’s son. He says, “The husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.” He is not giving the natural descent, and Christ’s miraculous birth follows.
Different genealogy in Luke
Luke gives that of Mary. If Mary had no brother and was the daughter of Eli, the Lord was descended from Eli; and Joseph would be called τοῦ Ηλὶ (tou Eli) as heir and representative of Eli.
Summary by Sosthenes of J.N. Darby’s original article. For the source please click here.
