Do the Gospels Contradict One Another?

Every-so-often, we receive questions about apparent gospel contradictions. Here’s one we recently received by one of our YouTube viewers:

“How about the genealogy of Jesus: Matthew 1:1-17 lists 28 generations from David to Jesus, naming Solomon as the son of David, while Luke 3:23-38 lists 43 generations and traces the lineage through Nathan, another son of David. They disagree on who was Joseph’s father. 

How about the Nativity Story: Matthew 2:13-23 describes Joseph, Mary, and Jesus fleeing to Egypt to escape Herod. Luke 2:21-39 says they stayed in Bethlehem for rituals, returned to Jerusalem, and then went back to Nazareth without any mention of Egypt or a mass killing.

How about the Sign of Jonah: In Mark 8:12, Jesus says ‘no sign shall be given to this generation’. Conversely, in Matthew 12:39-40, Jesus says the only sign given will be the ‘sign of Jonah’.”

In this brief article, I’d like to respond to these specific questions and illustrate some general principles for dealing with apparent gospel contradictions.

Principle 1: The gospel authors had specific teaching objectives and, therefore, were selective in the material they included and how they presented it.

Sometimes, we wrongly assume the gospels were written like a meticulously chronicled catalogue of known details and facts about Jesus. Modern scholars, however, widely identify the gospels within the literary genre of ancient Greco-Roman biography. Unlike modern biographies whose focus is the developmental, environmental, and psychological factors shaping the person into who they became, ancient biographies “sought to narrate the sayings and deeds of the biographee that illuminated his character.”¹ This, in part, explains why the gospels contain virtually no account of Jesus’ childhood or upbringing. More important, however, is that the goal of ancient biographers was painting their own literary portrait of the subject for an intended audience. This didn’t mean misrepresenting the facts, but it did mean being highly selective about what material to include and how to present it. This is certainly true of the gospel accounts of Jesus.

“…the goal of ancient biographers was painting their own literary portrait of the subject for an intended audience. This didn’t mean misrepresenting the facts, but it did mean being highly selective about what material to include and how to present it.”

Dr. Mark L. Strauss shows how the gospels contain precisely the kinds of variations you’d expect from four different authors writing to four different audiences with four different thematic and theological goals. He provides the following chart to help illustrate this. (Note: I’ve added audience considerations also)

Gospel	Theme	Presentation	Intended Audience
Matthew	The gospel of the Messiah	Most structured	Jewish Christians
Mark	The gospel of the suffering Son of God	Most dramatic	Gentile/Roman Christians
Luke	The gospel of the Saviour for all people	Most thematic	Gentile/Greek Audience
John	The gospel of the divine Son who reveals the Father	Most theological	Broad Christian Audience (Jew and Greeks)

 

When such differences are considered, what at first glance appears like a contradiction can be quickly identified as a simple difference. 

Looking at the first question concerning Matthew and Luke’s genealogies will help illustrate this.

“How about the genealogy of Jesus: Matthew 1:1-17 lists 28 generations from David to Jesus, naming Solomon as the son of David, while Luke 3:23-38 lists 43 generations and traces the lineage through Nathan, another son of David. They disagree on who was Joseph’s father.”

In the case of Matthew and Luke’s genealogies, both the themes and intended audiences explain many of the differences. Matthew is presenting Jesus to his Jewish audience as the fulfillment of God’s promised Messiah. Since the context of this promise is God’s covenant with Abraham, this is where Matthew begins his genealogy. Likewise, it runs through David’s line to include God’s covenant promise that the Messiah would come from David’s royal line.

Luke, who is writing to non-Jews, is interested in highlighting Jesus as the Saviour of the whole human race. He therefore crafts his genealogy to trace Jesus back to Adam. Luke’s genealogy also runs in reverse order, typical of how Greeks (like Luke and his readers) presented genealogical material.²

But what about the difference in length between their genealogies? For that, we must continue to set our modern expectations aside and allow ancient writers to use the accepted literary conventions of their time. A common convention in biblical and ancient genealogies is called “telescoping”. This is where a biographer will skip over or omit one (or even multiple) generations. A clear example is in how the prophet Ezra skipped over generations when recording his own genealogy, as the following chart shows:

Ezra 7:1-5	1 Chronicles 6:3-15
Aaron	Aaron
Eleazar	Eleazar
Phinehas	Phinehas
Abishua	Abishua
Bukki	Bukki
Uzzi	Uzzi
Zerahiah	Zerahiah
Meraioth	Meraioth
	Amariah
	Ahitub
	Zadok
	Ahimaaz
	Azariah
	Johanan
Azariah	Azariah
Amariah	Amariah
Ahitub	Ahitub
Zadok	Zadok
Shallum	Shallum
Hilkiah	Hilkiah
Azariah	Azariah
Seraiah	Seraiah
	Jehozadak
Ezra

 

While this may ruffle our modern demands for meticulous precision, we must remember that the primary concern in Jewish and ancient biographies was ancestral and legal descent, not direct birth descent. This gave authors flexibility when crafting genealogies that would establish ancestral and legal legitimacy. In Matthew’s Gospel, this is clearly the case. Matthew selectively structures his genealogy around three groups of fourteen generations, using a combination of the biblically significant number 3. It also used a Jewish literary practice known as Gematria³. This was where numerical values were assigned to letters according to their place in the Hebrew alphabet. This was often used by authors to add additional layers of meaning to the structure and composition of their writing. In Matthew’s case, he used three groups of 14 generations because King David’s name is associated with the number 14 (diagram below). 

ד (D) + ו (V) + ד (D) = 4 + 6 + 4 = 14

Matthew’s purpose was to embed the significance of Jesus’ fulfillment of God’s Messianic promises through Abraham and David, not only in the genealogical record, but in its structure also.

As to Matthew and Luke’s disagreement about Joseph’s father, there have been many proposed solutions. Once again, we must avoid importing our modern expectations into ancient writing. Modern genealogies are essentially family trees, the point and interest being direct lines of birth descent. But as we mentioned, biblical genealogies focus mainly on ancestral and/or legal descent. This means the difference of Joseph’s father’s name (“Jacob” in Matthew and “Heli” in Luke) could be chalked up to any of the following:

1. Jacob and Heli were half-brothers. (Same mother, different fathers) So, while physically descended from one, Joseph could be the legal descendent of the other.
2. Levirate marriage meant that, if a man died without an heir, his next brother was to sire an heir with his widow to continue his family line. Again, this could establish one as the physical and another as the legal father of Joseph.
3. Adoption is yet another possibility whereby Joseph’s physical descent could come from one and legal from the other.

Whatever the case, the differences between biblical genealogies didn’t present any difficulty for the receiving audience to understand the gospel writer’s point, which was, as Darrell Bock states; “that Jesus had legal claim to the throne through David and is related to all humanity through Adam.”⁴

Principle 2: The gospel authors often re-ordered and omitted various accounts of Jesus’ life and ministry according to their perspective and teaching objectives. 

What if I told you I met a guy for breakfast last Saturday who turns out was a long-lost cousin of mine? Over bacon and eggs, we discovered we had the same great-grandfather who immigrated from Scotland in the 1800s. But the next day you run into a mutual friend who reports having gone to breakfast with seven other men on Saturday, and he names me as among the party. Would you say those were contradictory accounts? In my story, I had breakfast with one guy, but our mutual friend’s story named me as one of seven men. Is one of us lying? What gives? Who’s telling the truth?

Obviously, we’re both telling the truth. The accounts don’t contradict. They just differ. My story focused on my discovery of a long-lost cousin. That we were both part of a breakfast group was merely incidental, so I didn’t mention it.

“…the gospel writers show flexibility and selectivity in what they include and how they present the events of Jesus’ life and ministry. These differences depended on what they viewed as most important to their overall message and purpose for writing.”

In the same way, the gospel writers show flexibility and selectivity in what they include and how they present the events of Jesus’ life and ministry. These differences depended on what they viewed as most important to their overall message and purpose for writing. This doesn’t mean they are intentionally misleading us by making things up. Rather, they are simply portraying the same events in very different ways to highlight what they deemed as most significant.

So, let’s look at the second question about the way Matthew and Luke’s Nativity stories don’t line up. The question was:

“How about the Nativity Story: Matthew 2:13-23 describes Joseph, Mary, and Jesus fleeing to Egypt to escape Herod. Luke 2:21-39 says they stayed in Bethlehem for rituals, returned to Jerusalem, and then went back to Nazareth without any mention of Egypt or a mass killing.”

If you line up Matthew and Luke’s accounts side by side, they do appear very different. However, there is nothing between them that contradicts each other’s account. In the following table, we place the two narratives side by side to show that, while differing in detail, the overall picture and chronology of events harmonize. 

Matthew’s account – 2:1-23	Luke’s account – 2:1-39
2:1 – “After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod,…”	2:1-20 – Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Manger narrative)
	2:21 – On the eighth day, Baby Jesus was circumcised and named
	2:22-38 – After forty days of purification, baby Jesus was presented at the temple
There is no information regarding the time directly following Jesus’ birth. Luke’s account says that, after Joseph and Mary did everything according to the law as far as dedicating a baby to the Lord, they returned and settled in Nazareth. But Luke doesn’t say how long after. It’s likely that Joseph and Mary remained in Bethlehem for a time, possibly up to two years. This explains why, in Matthew’s account, Joseph and Mary were living in a house when the Magi visited. (Matt. 2:11) This would also make sense of Herod’s brutal edict to murder every boy in Bethlehem two years and younger to eliminate the perceived threat of a rival king.
2:1b-11- Magi from the east came to Jerusalem, had exchange with Herod, then brought gifts to Jesus in Bethlehem (narrative)
2:12 – Magi were warned by God in a dream to return home, avoiding Herod
2:13-15 – Joseph was warned by God and fled to Egypt with Mary and Jesus
2: 16-18 – Herod discovered the Magi’s betrayal and ordered the death of all boys in Bethlehem two years and younger
2:19-21 – Herod died, and Joseph was told by God in a dream to return to Israel, presumably Bethlehem
2:22 – Joseph was warned in a dream to leave Judea and settle in the region of Galilee
2:23 – Joseph settled with Mary and Jesus in Nazareth in Galilee	2:39 – Joseph and Mary returned with Jesus to Nazareth in Galilee

 

As you can see, Matthew and Luke’s accounts of Jesus’ birth line up in terms of where he was born, (Bethlehem) and where he ended up (Nazareth). But they differ completely in terms of the detail they include in between. But this can be explained due to their own thematic and theological interests. The details they include are not the same, but they in no way contradict another.

Principle 3: It’s always important to read and understand any given gospel account within its context in the broader text.

The last question is regarding Jesus’ words about “signs” and the apparent contradiction between Mark and Matthew: 

“How about the Sign of Jonah: In Mark 8:12, Jesus says ‘no sign shall be given to this generation’. Conversely, in Matthew 12:39-40, Jesus says the only sign given will be the ‘sign of Jonah’.”

Both Mark and Matthew have Jesus saying, “No sign will be given this generation”, but Matthew adds Jesus saying, “but the sign of Jonah the prophet.” So, in one sense, they have Jesus saying the same thing, but, in another sense, not. What’s going on here? In both cases, Jesus is confronted by the Pharisees who demand he produce a sign. (i.e. miracle) The context of both encounters, however, is very different.

In Mark’s account, Jesus has just miraculously fed the four thousand. From there, Jesus and his disciples move on, and Mark records that: 

¹¹ The Pharisees came out and began to argue with Him, seeking from Him a sign from heaven to test Him. ¹² Sighing deeply in His spirit, He said, “Why does this generation seek for a sign? Truly I say to you, no sign will be given to this generation.” ¹³ Leaving them, He again embarked and went away to the other side.

Through the entire chapter, Mark is trying to convey what Jesus revealed about spiritual blindness. The disciples had witnessed the miracle of Jesus feeding the four thousand, but their hearts will still dark and dull. The Pharisees were just plain hard-hearted. His point was that no number of miracles from heaven could cure spiritual blindness. A “sign from heaven” wasn’t enough. Only faith in Jesus would bring spiritual sight. 

In Matthew’s account, Jesus refuses a sign in response to the Pharisees’ denial and opposition to Jesus’ authority. They’d just witnessed his demonstration of God’s authority through his miracle of driving out demons. (Matthew 12:22-29) But the Pharisees accused him of using Satan’s authority. Jesus refutes them by pointing out how ridiculous it is to suggest that Satan is opposing Satan. (“…a house divided against itself cannot stand…”) Disregarding their own eyes and common sense, the Pharisees demand more proof. “Teacher, we want to see a sign from You!” (Notice that in Mark’s account, they are asking for a “sign from heaven”) But Jesus has already demonstrated his divine power and authority. Another miracle is pointless. Like Mark, Matthew has Jesus insisting that no miracle can cure spiritual blindness, and so no sign will be given. However, Matthew’s Jesus adds a caveat: no sign will be given to make them believe, but there will be a sign to bring them under God’s judgment. The sign of Jonah refers to Jonah’s time spent in the belly of the whale. After three days and three nights, Jonah was essentially raised from the dead, bringing God’s message of judgment and call for repentance to Ninevah. In Ninevah’s case, the people listened, repented, and were delivered from the immediate threat of God’s judgment. But for “an evil and adulterous generation” (12:39) that witnesses God’s power in action and credits it to Satan, (i.e. the Pharisees) Jesus is saying that, while there will be no sign to cause belief in them, there will be a sign that will result in their judgment. Jesus will be that sign himself.

“…when we look more closely at the context of both Mark and Matthew’s accounts, we don’t have one account told in two different ways. We have two different accounts that share elements of the same teaching.”

So, when we look more closely at the context of both Mark and Matthew’s accounts, we don’t have one account told in two different ways. We have two different accounts that share elements of the same teaching. Both Mark and Matthew record Jesus essentially saying, “No sign will be given that can open spiritually blind eyes.” But Matthew goes on to add another insight from Jesus whereby he also says, “one sign will be given (the sign of Jonah) that will bring spiritual judgment against those who deny him.”

Conclusion

It’s important that we avoid bringing the wrong expectations to the gospels when we read them. What we should marvel at is their broad agreement in presenting a unified vision of Jesus as God’s chosen one (Messiah). The gospels all portray Jesus proclaiming God’s kingdom reign in the arrival of his Son, declare the good news of God’s blessing of salvation to the nations that God promised to Abraham, and show how God accomplished it through Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross and glorious resurrection from the dead.

“It’s important that we avoid bringing the wrong expectations to the gospels when we read them.”

But there are many differences between these accounts because each of the authors had their own perspective, purpose, theological goals, and intended audience to consider as they complied their accounting of Jesus’ life. When we take the time to consider these, however, what can so quickly be called “contradictions” turn into simple differences.

Footnotes

¹ Mike Licona, Jesus, Contradicted: Why the Gospels Tell the Same Story Differently, (Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan, 2024), p. 57.

² Luke may also have a theological purpose in placing Adam’s name at the end of the genealogy, right against Jesus’ temptation narrative that follows in chapter 4. This serves to set Adam’s failure and Jesus’ victory over Satan’s temptation in stark contrast.

³ Wes Huff, “Why are the genealogies in Matthew and Luke different?”, www.wesleyhuff.com. (The practice of Gematria and further explanations regarding the differences between Matthew and Luke’s genealogies are explained further in this great article by Wes Huff)

⁴ Darrell L. Bock, Luke: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI, Baker Books, 1994), p. 923.