Christ Came Through Solomon and Bathsheba. How did David's Son Nathan Come in to It? Reconcile the Genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3?
1) Direct answer
There is no contradiction. Matthew gives the royal, legal line to Joseph through David’s son Solomon. Luke gives the natural, blood line to Mary through David’s son Nathan. Joseph is named in Luke “as was supposed” because he was the husband, the legal head; but the descent there runs through Mary, whose father was Heli. So Jesus has the legal right to David’s throne through Joseph (Solomon’s line) and the blood of David through Mary (Nathan’s line), all without being Joseph’s physical son.
2) Scriptural explanation
- Matthew’s record: “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Matthew 1:1), traces from Abraham down to “Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus” (Matthew 1:16). Notice it never says Joseph begat Jesus. It’s the royal succession through Solomon (Matthew 1:6-7).
- Luke’s record: “Jesus… being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli” (Luke 3:23), then traces back through Nathan, not Solomon (Luke 3:31). “As was supposed” marks that men thought Joseph was the father, but he was not.
- The virgin birth: “A virgin shall conceive” (Isaiah 7:14). “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee… that holy thing… shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). So Jesus is not Joseph’s seed.
- Yet He must be David’s seed: “Made of the seed of David according to the flesh” (Romans 1:3). Mary is of David (Luke 1:27), and the Lord gives Him “the throne of His father David” (Luke 1:32).
- The Jeconiah barrier: God said of Coniah/Jeconiah, “no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David” (Jeremiah 22:30). Matthew’s legal line runs through Jeconiah (Matthew 1:11-12). If Jesus were Joseph’s physical son, He would be under that judgment. But He wasn’t Joseph’s seed; He was born of a virgin. Thus:
- Legal right comes by Joseph’s line through Solomon (Matthew).
- Blood descent comes by Mary’s line through Nathan (Luke), bypassing Jeconiah.
3) Simple clarifying logic
- Two sons of David cannot both be Joseph’s fathers. So one record is Joseph’s legal line (Matthew), and the other is Mary’s natural line (Luke), with Joseph named as “son” of Heli by marriage (a son-in-law). That fits the wording “as was supposed.”
- Matthew is about the throne—kingship—so it follows Solomon. Luke is about true humanity all the way to Adam, so it follows Mary’s bloodline through Nathan.
- God guarded the promise perfectly: Jesus is truly David’s Son by Mary, yet not under Jeconiah’s curse; and He holds the legal title through Joseph.
4) Reinforcing statement
You see, the Bible fits like a glove. The virgin birth, Davidic promises, and the two branches—Solomon and Nathan—come together in Christ without a single break in the Scripture.
Ask a Follow-up Question
What did the Laodicean Church Age (our age) Angel (- messenger) Say about this?
Ranked passages from the local William Branham sermon and Church Age Book database. Relevance is relative, not a statement of doctrinal certainty.
God's provided way of dealing with sin
54-0305 §47
When Philip found Nathanael, he said, "Come, see who we have found: Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." He said, "Could anything good come out of Nazareth?" Said, "Come, see." And when he came into the prayer line, (now listen), Jesus said, "Behold an Israelite in whom there is no guile." It astonished him. He said, "Whence knowest thou me, Rabbi?" Said, "Before Philip called you, when you were under the tree." He said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."
As I thought on my ways
59-0814 §37
It was the patriarch David. When he was sitting before the prophet Nathan, and Nathan revealed to him his own sinful ways. And when David begin to think on his ways, that he'd taken that lovely friend of his, Uriah, took the pretty Bathsheba, his wife. And she was then to be mother. And tried to get him to come in and live with his wife so he could lay it on to her, that it was his baby ... or, lay it ... say it was Uriah's child. But Uriah, that gallant soldier, being yet only a proselyte... He was a Gentile, a Hi...
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever
61-0205E §48
Well, there's something about it. When a man gets a hold of God, and God gets a hold of a man, he went right straight to the point. Said, "Come see who we have found. Come and see Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." And now, you know, Nathanael was a staunch Orthodox believer. Said, "Now wait a minute, Philip. I know you to be a good solid man. But could there come any good thing out of Nazareth?" Now I think he gave him the best answer that any man could give. Don't sit home and criticize it; come see. Come loo...
Why little Bethlehem?
63-1214 §32
Naomi, representing the orthodox church, went away on the account of a famine, went over into the land of Moab; like the scattering of Israel, all out among the nations. And then as she came back, she brought back Ruth, the Moabite, and she returned just in barley season, just the gathering in of the first barley. That is that the Gentile church coming to God just at barley season again. What a beautiful picture there. And then she and Boaz being married, and their famous son, Obed, was begotten there, and also bor...
A Greater than Solomon is here
62-0725 §82
Isn't that the same God that was in Christ, that knowed the secrets of the heart? What did she say? She turned (now, being a heathen), she turned, and she said, "All that I heard was right, and more than that." It'd been done to her, you see. She was a witness of it. The same thing that Nathanael and them saw (last night), and Jesus doing the same thing, revealing the secrets of the heart. Here twenty-five hundred years before... no, about eight hundred years before it happened, here stood Solomon doing the same th...