In light of the Christmas season we are tackling “Christmas” related Bible Contradictions. For today’s post we will look at a question that the Skeptic Annotated Bible asked concerning the two genealogies of Jesus found in Matthew and Luke: “Who was Jesus’s paternal grandfather?”
Here are the two answers which the skeptic believes shows a Bible contradiction:
Jacob.
Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah. (Matthew 1:16)
Heli.
When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli, (Luke 3:23)
(All Scriptural quotation comes from the New American Standard Bible)
Side Note: The Skeptic Annotated Bible uses the name “Heli” for Luke 3:23 whereas the NASB translate it as “Eli.” The Skeptic Annotated Bible is going with the King James Version pronunciation and there is no major difficulties here, its just an issue of pronunciation. I will use the name “Heli” because it better captures the sound in my opinion and the term would be used interchangeably when I quote the NASB.
Here’s a closer look at whether or not there is a contradiction:
- When dealing with skeptics’ claim of Bible contradictions it seems one can never be reminded enough of what exactly is a contradiction. A contradiction occurs when two or more claims conflict with one another so that they cannot simultaneously be true in the same sense and at the same time.
- There are so many possible ways in which this alleged contradiction can turn out to be not a contradiction in terms of different senses and different timing of when the names were fathers to Jesus.
- First it is a possibility that the name Heli and Jacob can be different names referring to the same person. Don’t we see in Scripture instances in which an individual can have different names? So it is possible that this father of Joseph who is also the son of Mattat/Matthan (variation of the name) might have two different names. I don’t necessarily think this is the case but I want to bring this possibility up as an example of possible ways this contradiction can be resolved. I bring this up because when the skeptic claims there’s a Bible contradiction, to make a claim of a contradiction is to say that that there are claims with no possible solutions of reconciliation since the definition of contradiction itself states that the claims of a state of affairs cannot possibly be true. Yet we illustrate how there are possibilities that the two claims can be true.
- Let’s say the names of Jacob and Heli are referring to different individuals which I am inclined to agree with. But here we don’t see that there must necessarily be a contradiction either. Remember that there are different ways to become someone son: One can be begotten physically by a human father and secondly one might legally become a father to someone legally whether through adoption or some other means. Thus, we might not necessarily have a contradiction here when we see different means of both men being fathers to Joseph.
- Point number 4 in the above is not just baseless speculation. Looking at Matthew 1:16 and Luke 3:23 in the Greek we see that it is possible that there might not necessarily be a contradiction between the two men being fathers in different ways.
- In Matthew 1:16 when it describes “Jacob was the father of Joseph” the Greek verb for “was the father” is ἐγέννησεν and speaks of literal and biologically fathering. Put another way, Jacob begotten Joseph.
- However when we look at Luke 3:23 it is more general: “Joseph, the son of Eli.” It doesn’t say “begotten.”
- Thus it is possible that Joseph had Heli as a father in another sense than the way Jacob was his father. Which means there’s not necessarily a contradiction in terms of it conflicting in the same sense.
- Nor does it mean there’s necessarily a contradiction in terms of the two claims conflicting at same time if Heli and Jacob were fathers to Joseph in different senses. From Luke 3:23 we can establish that Jacob was the biological father. But then something happened in which Heli became generally speaking the father; very likely it is through adoption. And that takes place in another time than when Jacob was the father to Joseph. So there’s not necessarily a contradiction in terms of timing of when the two were fathers either.
- See Who was Uzziah’s father? that further substantiate that γεννάω doesn’t necessarily mean being a direct biological parent of a particular child but can at times mean simple direct descent. One can be “grandfathered” and “great-grandfathered” to someone using this verb.
- The skeptic of course could say all the above might be possible but not necessarily plausible. Which should lead us to ask the question of whether any arguments can be given that this was the case historically, or something close to it. An early church figure who wrote on church history name Eusebius gives the following account:
Matthan and Melchi having married in succession the same woman, begat children who were uterine brothers, for the law did not prohibit a widow, whether such by divorce or by the death of her husband, from marrying another.
8. By Estha then (for this was the woman’s name according to tradition) Matthan, a descendant of Solomon, first begat Jacob.
And when Matthan was dead, Melchi, who traced his descent back to Nathan, being of the same tribe but of another family, married her as before said, and begat a son Eli.
9. Thus we shall find the two, Jacob and Eli, although belonging to different families, yet brethren by the same mother. Of these the one, Jacob, when his brother Eli had died childless, took the latter’s wife and begat by her a son Joseph, his own son by nature and in accordance with reason. Wherefore also it is written: ‘Jacob begat Joseph.’ But according to law he was the son of Eli, for Jacob, being the brother of the latter, raised up seed to him.(SOURCE)
- The above quote from Eusebius is practicing the custom of levirate marriage. It can be found in the Old Testament laws in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 and description of the understanding of this practice in Genesis 38:1-30. It is familiar even in Jesus’ days as some of Jesus’ enemies used this practice to try to argue against Jesus. This is described within the book of Matthew itself in Matthew 22:23-28 and in Luke 20:27-33. It is significant to note that both books that have genealogies also have accounts of the understanding of levirate marriages.
- While Church history is not infallible, yet here we do see that it adds to the plausibility that the explanation that I prefer of Heli and Jacob being fathers in different senses because of the different means and at different times.
- Again, we must not forget that the skeptic’s claim of a contradiction means they have the burden of proof that there is no possible and no plausible explanation in which Heli and Jacob can’t be fathers in different times and in different senses/means. The above answers here are defeaters to the skeptics’ claims.
No contradiction here.
[…] Who was Jesus’s paternal grandfather? […]
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging.
Thanks Vincent for the reblog! How are you doing dear brother?
You’re very welcome Pastor Jim 😎 spams are, still can’t continue with the cardio rehab
Not only did Eusebius address this, but I recently read Augustin’s comments on the same alleged contradiction. Augustin viewed Matthew as following the legal line of descent, including adoptions, that ran from David through Solomon and down the royal line from Jacob to Joseph to Jesus; he viewed Luke as describing the biological line from David through Nathan and down from Heli to Joseph to Jesus. Skeptics were raising the same question many centuries ago, and Augustin thought that the question was spurious, given that the idea of adoption was well-known in Biblical times. J.
Wow thanks J for sharing this. Did you meant Augustine of Hippo? I appreciate you sharing this for the other reason that I’m still trying to make sense of the genealogies.
Yes–Augustine of Hippo. Matthew does some really interesting things with his genealogies, including the forty-two generations from Abraham to the Christ. While Luke is more literal with the biological line, he does trace it through Joseph–a boy would inherit nothing through his mother in that culture. And we know that Mary is kin to Elizabeth, wife of Zechariah, both of the tribe of Levi. J.
There is another explanation, which I think is the correct one. Luke gives us the genealogy of Mary and Joseph was the son -in -law of Heli. Luke seems to have explained the birth from Mary’s point of view, telling us how Gabriel revealed to her that Jesus would be born and also revealing that John the Baptist was related to Jesus through her. Matthew tells us nothing about Mary except for Joseph’s reaction when he learned she was pregnant. In the light of these facts it seems reasonable to me that Matthew would give Joseph’s genealogy while Luke gives us Mary’s.
Thank you for sharing this. I delayed putting the reference to Luke’s genealogy being referring to Mary’s line and hence Joseph was the son in law of Heli since I felt I still need to study up more on this explanation before I can put it up. But thank you Clyde, really, as I really appreciated learning from you from this comment brother. Thank you. And thank you for reading this!
Thank you for clarifications.:) Have a blessed day. ~ Fran
Thank you Fran for reading this, may you have a blessed day as well!
Come ON guys!?! How desperate can you be? Clearly this is an open and shut contradiction that overthrows the ENTIRE Bible and proves, once and for all, that it’s a work of fiction written at the Council of Nicea!
I mean, adoption?
Leviticus and rules about brothers marrying their sister in law?
Now you’re just making things up and stuff!
But seriously, good post.
The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible is a cacophony of idiocy. Anyone who believes the elementary-school-level theological and exegetical commentary in the work shows their they’re so desperate to disbelieve the Scripture that they’re willing to swallow any stupid ideas as long as it fuels their disbelief.
Brother thanks for your input. I agree with that skeptics annotated Bible is “elementary-school-level theological and exegetical commentary in the work.” And yet I’m mystified with how people continues to use and cite their lists still to this day. I also think there might be a place for better responses to some of their contradictions…now I don’t want to complain but I think some of the Christian answers out there can work with the passages of Scripture better. I realize I too at times can miss things as well and I welcome others’ comments that help strengthen the refutation according to the context.
A little bit of a tangent but sometimes I think the biggest fake news out there on social media is that the Bible has all these contradictions that’s ripped from sites like Skeptic Annotated Bible or other juvenile sites.
Thanks for the research, Jim!
You’re welcome! Hope you are having a blessed day brother!
Thanks, brother Jim! Hope you’re having a blessed day as well. I’ll be interested to know your views down the road on the Matthew/Joseph and Luke/Mary genealogy claims.
[…] Who was Jesus’s paternal grandfather? […]
Very good analysis for sure. The best I have seen on this ‘contradiction’, and the Eusebius quote was informative too.
Thank you so much brother for reading this and your comment! Been a little while, how are you doing?
Doing great bro! Every once in a while I go through your blog and it has some very useful information. God’s blessings be with you. 🙂
[…] Who was Jesus’s paternal grandfather? […]
[…] Who was Jesus’s paternal grandfather? […]
The fact that Portuguese newspaper O Jogo believes the Red Devils will sign Swedish centre-back Victor Lindelof in the summer should worry Smalling.
Timely in light of Christmas
My first message did not go through: Timely in light of Christmas
Thank you for sharing your ideas
This is impressive
This is timely as we head towards Christmas
He said he wanted to take this opportunity and I supported that.
209.90.225.146
209.90.225.146
209.90.225.146
I’m going to use it for family devotional for this Advent!
DWC that’s a good idea
Respect for you for writing this. Blessings.
Wow skeptics, really?
I turn 19 on Christmas
You should email Skeptic Annotated Bible this article and say “Merry Christmas!!!”
Good techniques responding to this alleged contradiction. Thank you!
Good day! Do you use Twitter? I’d like to follow you if that would be okay. I’m absolutely enjoying your blog and look forward to new posts.
a normale ma è emerso che ci sono ragazzi che stanno crescendo e che stanno facendo molto bene.
Hi! This is my 1st comment here so I just wanted to give a quick shout out and tell you I really enjoy reading your articles. Can you suggest any other blogs/websites/forums that cover the same subjects? Appreciate it!
AFC,
I enjoy Tekton Education and Apologetic Ministry, there is a lot on their website: http://tektonics.org/
Both Tekton and Domain For Truth are rigorous in their argumentation but Tekton has been around longer. Still Domain for Truth has a lot of good points that make in their responses. Use both of them.
Christian Apologetics Research Ministry (CARM) is another good site on Bible difficulties: https://carm.org/bible-difficulties
Tektonics is good too AFC.
You Christians are trying too hard lol
Stefano C you are not even trying in your attack on Christianity
The Bible has contradictions and you David are in denial.
I disagree. We are not in denial. This article is very well written. But maybe you could connect with it better. You know read it. You’ve got an awful lot of rudeness. Can you respond to what is said here?
Have you ever thought about creating an ebook? I would be interested and it might generate more of a larger audience.
An E-book of this? LOL
Sharing this
4일 방영된 SBS 예능프로그램 ‘미운우리새끼’에서는 태진아가 자신의 집을 찾은 후배 가수 김건모, 김흥국, 이무송을 위해 요리해주는 모습이 전파를 탔다.
Stefano
You may mock and you may laugh but you still haven’t shown how the arguments here is invalid. That’s not rational.
David I agree
Thank you for answering. Merry Christmas
Emmanuel here’s another contradiction: Who carried Jesus’ cross?
Stefano C funny I found an answer on the very blog you are commenting at: https://veritasdomain.wordpress.com/2017/06/23/bible-contradiction-who-carried-jesus-cross/
Jersey 94,
High five!
No problem I figure this blog specializing in answering these contradictions would likely have an answer. So I did a quick search.
I’m definitely glad I found these responses and I’ll be book-marking and checking back frequently!
이승훈·정재원 매스스타트 ‘탱크 논란’…"종목 특성상 불가피" VS "탱크보다 역할 분담 과정이 본질".
What does that guy’s comment above mine say? LOL
Thanks for one’s marvelous posting! I truly enjoyed reading it, you happen to be a great author.I will make sure to bookmark your blog and will come back someday. I want to encourage you to ultimately continue your great writing, have a nice evening!
Yours is the best internet response to this skeptic objection. Found this through Duckduckgo.
Interesting. There are several different theories, none of which I’ve personally settled on definitely (although I did develop my own version that I have yet to see anyone suggest). But there’s no definite contradiction.
Would like to hear your take on it brother
The theory I came up with (I have no idea whether it’s true or false, and don’t staunchly hold to it, although I still count it as a possibility), is based on the NT being originally written in Hebrew and Aramaic, rather than Greek. It’d take some explaining.
Two Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew read “Jacob fathered Joseph, the father of Mary” (rather than “Jacob fathered Joseph, the husband of Mary”), while the Aramaic uses a rather vague term that COULD mean “father”, but could also mean “kinsman redeemer”, “oldest man in the family”, “guardian”, etc. Most medieval accounts describe Joseph of Arimathea as either Mary’s uncle or Joseph’s uncle (they differed not only as to which one he was uncle to, but which side – their mother or father – he was uncle on). He is described as “taking in” Mary and the kids after Joseph’s death – which fits a “kinsman redeemer/guardian” role, especially if he was one of Joseph the Carpenter’s closest relatives (although I doubt Joseph of Arimathea actually married Mary). While the earliest church father and other writings differed significantly in their explanations for the lineages, there was a record of a Jewish tradition that Mary’s father was Joachim (common ancient tradition), but that his father was Panther, the son of Levi and brother of Matthat (the same Levi and Matthat mentioned in Luke 3).
So, the theory I came up with was this:
– Joseph and Mary’s mothers were sisters, that Joseph of Arimathea was their brother (and thus the uncle to BOTH Mary and Joseph), and that he is the Joseph at the end of the Matthew 1 lineage.
– Mary and Joseph’s father’s were cousins – that Mary was the daughter of Joachim son of Panther son of Levi, while Joseph was the son of Heli son of Matthat son of Levi
– that therefore Matthew 1 was both Mary and Joseph’s shared maternal lineage, while Luke 3 is both their shared paternal lineage (told from Joseph’s side)
jmshistorycorner your theory also shows another way why its not a contradiction.
[…] Who was Jesus’s paternal grandfather? […]
Thanks for the informative post. I always learn something new from Veritas Domain
Neat that you quoted Eusebius.
Ok I won’t say this is a contradiction anymore
Merry Christmas! And thanks for the great response showing this isn’t a contradiction. Yesterday I was just eating my way through the day, and looking on my phone here and there about apologetics on this post-Christmas day. Then I had a heated conversation on Facebook with a guy that says this is a contradiction. So I googled it and found your response. Thanks for this post!
The skeptics are not even near the neighborhood of being right
[…] “Who was Jesus’ paternal grandfather?” But as shown in the link, it is not a contradiction for several reasons. […]
[…] Who was Jesus’s paternal grandfather? […]
To utter that this is a contradiction is a product of a feeble mind whose ideas about the Bible is incredibly shallow, and who ignore details and characteristics in their context. The next teenager who troll online using this from the atheist online list should be hit on the head with a wooden stick while the words “Read👏the👏Bible👏 shouted at him.
The sheer naivety by the skeptics about what the Bible is saying is truly astounding. All time dumbest thing in the internet must be Skeptic Annotated Bible’s list of contradictions.
[…] Who was Jesus’s paternal grandfather? […]
I thought this was a trick question. Since GOD was Jesus’ Father, He had no paternal grandfather. 😉
Ah that’s true; good point you observed. Merry Christmas by the way, how is this year’s Christmas going for you guys??
Wonderful! Since my husband and I have had … (The “C” word) we have some immunity for a while, so we are freer to see children and grandchildren.
I hope your Christmas is blessed, as well.
[…] Who was Jesus’s paternal grandfather? […]
[…] Who was Jesus’s paternal grandfather? that further substantiate that γεννάω doesn’t necessarily mean being a direct biological […]
[…] Who was Jesus’s paternal grandfather? […]
[…] One can be “grandfathered” and “great-grandfathered” to someone using this verb. See Who was Jesus’s paternal grandfather?, Was Jeconiah the son or grandson of Josiah?, and Who was […]
[…] Who was Jesus’s paternal grandfather? […]