It has been suggested to me that the genealogy given of Jesus in the Bible contains numerous contradictions and errors. So I thought we would look at it for another blog post, let's examine some of these suggested contradictions and see if we can unravel the mystery. The first point that was brought to my attention was that two different fathers were listed for Joseph. If you read the accounts in Matthew and then the one in Luke, they do indeed list two different fathers and obviously, you can't have two. So one or both accounts must be wrong was the charge being brought.
Our first task is to apply some hermeneutics, for a brief explanation of hermeneutics see Hermeneutics.
We need to pay close attention to the wording we are given in the text itself. Matthew says: {Matthew 1:16 KJV(16) And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. And Luke says: Luke 3:23 KJV(23) And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,}
Matthew specifically says that Jacob begat Joseph, no ambiguity there. But notice how Luke puts it, he does not use the word begat (ἀναγεννάω) which means son, but simply Heli. The phrase "which was the son of " is not there in the original language. The phrase "which was the son of" was added by the translators to make it read more smoothly in English. Luke's account is of the lineage of Mary, so the language and customer of the time would place Heli the father-in-law in the list, not Jacob. To say that Luke's genealogy is overtly stating it is tracing Joseph is simply not supported by the text. With a little work one can clear up what appears to be a contradiction is really an accurate account of the genealogy.
It was pointed out that Matthew's account lists 25 names while Luke's account has 40. This is somehow supposed to invalidate the genealogical account. The list is two different lists of two different genealogical lines by two different writers. Nothing suggests or would one expect them to be the same in number. If it is the margin of difference that is being pointed to, that suggests nothing out of the ordinary either. It was common in Jewish tradition to refer to the grandson as the son of the grandfather. Jesus was said to be the son of David, which was a huge generational skip, but keeping with the cultural norm the meaning was understood and accurate. This practice would naturally make one list longer than the other depending on how the writer chose to establish his account. This charge of contradiction has no merit and is a straw argument.
It is then pointed out that both genealogies contain a couple of the same names. I have to ask, "are you serious?" How do both genealogies having some of the same names discredit anything? In my family, there are 5 Johns in two different lines. I must assume this statement was made out of absurd ignorance or a direct attempt to embellish his argument deceitfully. This really shouldn't require any attention or explanation, so we will quickly move on.
The charge is then made that the Bible can't even get simply arithmetic correct. He states that Matthew contradicts himself by claiming 42 generations from Abraham to Jesus, but when you count the names you only have 41. Again, I am suspicious of deceit, for the Bible does not claim 42 generations between Abraham and Jesus, which is stated nowhere in the text. Here is the full text from Matthew in question.
Matthew 1:17 KJV
(17) So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.
If you simply read the text you can see that 42 generations are never mentioned. What is mentioned in verse 17 is three different lists with each list containing 14 generations. If you count each list, you will discover each has 14 names for each different time period addressed just as Matthew stated in the text. Since David appears in two of the three lists, when you count a straight count you have 41 names, however, when you divide the single list into three separate lists as Matthew did in verse 17, and count them separately with David's name appearing in two of the three you have 42 names, why that makes a contradiction escapes one's imagination. There is no contradiction in the text and the count is accurate. The supposed contradiction is simply a sleight of hand deception taking a list of names from two different categories of thought and creating one.
The Bible provides us with two lengthy genealogies of Christ. Matthew traces the legal line from Abraham through David, then Solomon and the royal line, to Joseph, the legal father of Jesus (Matthew 1:1-17) and the husband of Mary. Luke traces the bloodline from Adam and once Luke gets to Abraham, the genealogy is identical to Matthew’s up to the House of David. Then Luke goes from David, through Nathan (a different son of David) to Mary, the mother of Jesus (Luke 3:23-38).
It was also suggested the list in Matthew does not match the list in the Old Testament, 1 Chronicles 3:11-12. There were 4 names left out by Matthew, this however presents no problem since we have already established previously the custom of skipping generations when creating lists. I only mention it because he used it to embellish his argument again.
His next charge was to suggest the Bible contradicts itself by saying that Jesus would be the son of David and from his loins while holding that Mary conceived of the Holy Spirit and not Joseph. Therefore, Joseph not being his father Jesus could not be of the lineage of David, and the Prophecies therefore wrong. Why he would attempt to make an argument of point here I am quite surprised. It seems that making a real argument is not the main overlying motivation driving his discussion. Embellishing his arguments with statements that hold no merit knowing most of his listeners will simply believe what he is saying. The genealogy of Mary is traced back to David through Nathan, Jesus being born physically of Mary connects Jesus to David in the natural line of the human lineage. There was not a single contradiction in any of his arguments whatsoever, they were all straw man arguments presented to hold his audience at bay.
Remember, the Gospel is clear and concise, salvation is found in Christ and Christ alone. Recognizing your inability to answer the demands of God's perfection, laying aside all attempts to do so, and putting your trust in the complete work of Christ on the cross to redeem you and place you within his elect people. The work of understanding the deep mysteries of who God is and how this all works itself out in your life is a wonderful journey the Christian then has the pleasure of enjoying for the rest of their lives.
1 Corinthians 15:1-11 ESV
(1) Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand,
(2) and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
(3) For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
(4) that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,
(5) and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
(6) Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
(7) Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
(8) Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
(9) For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
(10) But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.
(11) Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.
May the grace of God be with each of you,
David
No comments:
Post a Comment