Written by Gregory R. Lanier |
Friday, June 10, 2022
It can be intimidating to try to wrap our heads around the genealogies of Matthew and Luke. We should not ignore the differences. But we also should avoid the trap of automatically assuming that such differences are unsolvable contradictions or errors. With various tools or principles in place, plausible explanations are out there.

Several times the New Testament declares Jesus to be the heir of King David and, thus, the descendant of Abraham (e.g., John 7:42; Rom. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8; Rev. 5:5). But only twice do we get a lengthy genealogy tracing the steps down to Jesus: Matthew 1:1–17 and Luke 3:23–38.
Without ancestry.com and 23andme.com, it is not surprising that these two genealogies differ. Some differences are mere spelling variations. But sometimes they involve whole sections of names. It may be surprising to learn that the genealogies in Matthew and Luke align for only approximately seventeen names out of one hundred. But do such differences mean that the genealogies contradict each other? Are there errors, or can the genealogies be reconciled?
Skeptics have attacked Scripture on this point since the AD 200s (e.g., Porphyry and Julian the Apostate), and theologians have responded with various solutions (e.g., Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Ambrose, and Augustine). No comprehensive solution has won the day, but that does not mean there is none. It just means we must keep working at it. To that end, keep in mind four things when navigating the genealogies.
Intention of the Authors
A genealogy is a compact narrative. The names bring with them the stories. If so, then both Matthew and Luke have authorial freedom in how to tell the genealogical story:

Matthew uses descending order ending with Jesus (A “begat” B), while Luke uses ascending order starting from Jesus (B “son of” A).
Matthew selects Abraham as the starting point, while Luke starts back at Adam.
Matthew places his genealogy at the beginning (Matt. 1), while Luke places it after Jesus’ baptism (Luke 3).
Matthew organizes the names in a 14/14/14 scheme (Matt. 1:17), while Luke may be adopting a subtle 11×7 scheme.

These choices are not contradictions. They simply reflect how the two evangelists have different goals. Matthew, for instance, stresses the Abraham–David–Jesus linkage (Matt. 1:1), while Luke stresses Jesus as “son of God” via Adam (Luke 3:38).
Read More
Related Posts:

Allowing for remarriage in exceptional cases where reconciliation is impossible and where the marriage union truly cannot be remedied by either the church or the civil magistrate—either because the former spouse has already died, already remarried, or perpetually refuses reconciliation even where clear evidence of genuine repentance is present—does not in itself necessarily imply that any divorce apart from exceptional cases such as adultery or desertion are legitimate divorces. And it most certainly does not imply that divorce, which is a form of covenant breaking, is permissible when, say, the husband and wife do not get along. The principle is only relevant to cases where the divorce has already taken place.

Throughout history, the Christian Church has rightly recognized marriage as a lifelong commitment between one man and one woman in accordance with Scripture (Romans 7:2). Jesus Himself accordingly teaches that when a man and a woman are joined together in holy matrimony, the two become “one flesh” (Genesis 2:24; Mark 10:9).
Christ is also very clear on the fact that because the marriage union has been instituted and ordained by God, there is no human authority by which a marriage can be dissolved: “Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate” (Mark 10:9). Because marriage is a “holy institution” for the purpose of covenantally advancing Christ’s Kingdom through “godly offspring” (Malachi 2:11, 15), divorce is an abomination committed against God—a wicked attempt to overthrow His authority and destroy his Kingdom (Malachi 2:16).
Are you irritated by your spouse? Do you long to be with someone else? Are you longing for the privileges of being single again? God expects you not only to maintain and work on your marriage, but also to produce godly offspring. Under no circumstances may you abandon your spouse for your own sake.
Exceptions for Divorce?
However, it is universally recognized that Scripture does allow for divorce in those exceptional circumstances where sin has caused irreparable damage to the marriage union. Deuteronomy 24:1-3 officially recognizes a certificate of divorce as a legal document disbanding a marriage. Our infallible interpreter, Jesus Christ, however, tells us that this certificate of divorce is only recognized “because of the hardness of your heart” (Mark 10:5), thereby amplifying the divine intention behind marriage as being a lifelong commitment from both parties (Mark 10:6-9).
What is significant about Christ’s explanation of this law is the fact that it shows how even the Mosaic law made certain accommodations for the sake of our weaknesses and our sinfulness, evidently implying that the law of God is not merely some abstract standard of justice, but a very real and practical standard for our moral conduct as Christians. Furthermore, Christ Himself simultaneously confirms both the divine intention behind the institution of marriage as well as the law’s recognition of the permissibility of divorce in exceptional circumstances. Thus, while divorce in principle is forbidden by God, Jesus Himself recognizes sexual immorality as an exceptional circumstance in which divorce would be permissible (Matthew 5:32; 19:9).[1]
Restrictive Views on Remarriage After Divorce
Most Christian denominations and theologians recognize the reality that exceptional circumstances do exist in which divorce is permissible. However, a number of denominations completely oppose remarriage after divorce on the grounds of Jesus’ claims recorded in the three synoptic Gospels. In Matthew 19:9 (NKJV), we read the following words of Christ:
And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.[2]
In Mark 10:11-12 Jesus says:
Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.
In Luke 16:18, the words of Jesus is recorded as follows:
Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery.
Thus, while recognizing exceptional circumstances for divorce, the Roman Catholic Church, for example, does not recognize remarriage as permissible. The canon law of the Church of England also historically allowed only for separation of husband and wife in the case of adultery, but never for remarriage.[3]  There are even some Reformed denominations that share this view, such as the Protestant Reformed Churches in America,[4] while most Presbyterian denominations, in an attempt to follow the Westminster Confession of Faith article 24.5 adhere to the principle that only the innocent party, in the case of adultery, may remarry.[5] The New Testament scholar from Capital Bible Seminary in Lanham, Maryland, Thomas R. Edgar, has also referred to this latter position as “the standard Protestant view.”[6] Some scholars have suggested that remarriage may also be permissible for the guilty party once they repent and ask forgiveness, as they then are then transformed by God’s grace into an innocent (or guilt-free) party.[7] However, in such cases there would be no need for remarriage, as repentance from the guilty party and forgiveness from the offended party should of course lead to reconciliation.
Seeing Jesus’ Words More Narrowly
However, it must be taken into consideration that neither the Westminster Confession nor Scripture claims adultery to be the sole legitimate grounds for divorce (see WCF 24.6 and 1 Corinthians 7:15). The reality is also that there are many divorcees who may have been guilty in causing their divorce, but did not commit adultery in the process leading up to the divorce, such as when the divorce was caused by abandonment. There may also be cases in which both parties are equally guilty in terms of causing the divorce, whether or not adultery had occurred. Would there be any circumstances in which remarriage would be biblically permissible in such cases? Another question the Westminster Confession leaves unanswered is whether an adulterer who has repented and come to faith may then marry again.
In addressing these questions, there are a number of Scriptural considerations to be taken into account:
Firstly, it is important to recognize that biblical law itself recognizes the possibility of a legitimate remarriage on the part of even the guilty party and even in cases of sexual immorality (Deuteronomy 24:1-2). If Christ’s commands in Matthew 5:32 and Luke 16:18 are taken as injunctions against all remarriage on the part of the guilty party, it would seem to be at odds with His own recognition of the law’s recognition of such marriages in Mark 10:5.
Secondly, biblical law itself, while requiring the death penalty for adultery (Leviticus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 11:20-25), legally distinguishes remarriage after divorce from adultery prior to divorce (Deuteronomy 24:2-4).
Third, the Scottish Presbyterian theologian and professor of Westminster Theological Seminary, John Murray (1898–1975) has convincingly shown how the Greek verb used in Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11-12, and Luke 16:18, μοιχεύει (moicheuei), modifies both preceding actions together, “divorcing” as well as “remarrying,” as opposed to these actions taken individually.[8]
Read More
Related Posts:

Do you struggle with guilt? Do you sometimes wonder how God could possibly love such a wretched sinner as you? Do you ever get depressed because you feel as though you don’t “measure up”?
Many Christians wrestle with these feelings, even though they started their spiritual journey by acknowledging that all their sins are forgiven through Jesus’ sacrificial death. We learn this key truth from such passages as 1 Peter 2:24 (“He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree”) and from Isaiah 53:

But he was pierced for our transgressions;he was crushed for our iniquities;upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,and with his wounds we are healed. (Isa. 53:5)

While these verses explain how can we be reconciled to God even though we are sinners who fail to keep his law, how does God remove the burden of depressing guilt over our sin?
Believers are declared righteous in Christ.
The answer is that rather than making us holy and sinless persons, God declares us righteous based not on our works but instead on what Christ did for us. In other words, it is not our works that remove our guilt and save us. Instead, it is what Christ did—that is, the work he did for us in both his life and death. Our receiving and benefiting from the work of Jesus for our salvation is often referred to by the term “imputation,” a word that describes the act of assigning or attributing something to someone else.
Understanding the word imputation is essential to resting in Christ.
We find three areas of imputation in the Bible, and understanding each of them helps us not to worry about whether we have enough righteousness for God to be pleased with us or whether we are truly saved.

Imputation #1: Adam’s first sin is imputed (credited or counted) to all his posterity—as described at length in Romans 5: We “all sinned” when Adam did, and thus, “by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners” (vv. 12-19). The theologian John Murray is helpful here, explaining how the Greek word for “made” (kathestemi) is better translated as “constituted,” meaning that we “were placed in the category of sinners.” [1]

Imputation #2: In this case, our sins are imputed to Christ, and he suffers the penalty due for sin in our place. Thus, the apostle Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 5:21: “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin,” fulfilling Isaiah’s earlier words: “The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isa. 53:6). Since Christ has been “offered once to bear the sins of many” (Heb. 9:28), we no longer need to fear God’s wrath for our failures and transgressions.

Imputation #3: Jesus’ perfect obedience and righteousness are imputed to all believers in Christ, so that we stand before the Father, not merely forgiven for our sins, but also bearing the spotless perfection of Christ’s lifelong obedience—as though we ourselves had also lived that flawless and exemplary life (Rom. 5:17-19; 3:21-24; 10:5-13).

This crucial third imputation listed above regarding Christ’s righteousness is stressed in several passages of Scripture. In Romans 5:19, right after indicating that we were “made sinners” in Adam, Paul concludes that in the same way, “many will be made righteous” (now placed in the category of the righteous) by “the one man’s obedience.” Similarly, Isaiah 53:11 declares, “By his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous.” And 2 Corinthians 5:21 links the two imputations in one glorious verse: “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”
Imputation is an important core doctrine of the historical church.
The Westminster Confession of Faith, a summary of Christian doctrine written in the seventeenth-century, stressed the importance of the doctrine of imputation in its chapter on justification: