Apparent Bible Contradiction - Geneology of Jesus

Hello fellow FReepers! I was wondering if any of you might be able to help me answer this question. I've been spending a great deal of time struggling with the following issue, and I was hoping you might give some insight. In my study of this issue, I came across this website, specifically the following page:

After reading it, it's clear the author put much thought into the issue of Jesus' geneology, yet my main question remains unanswered. My main question is thus:

Comparing Matt 1:6-11 to 1Chron 3:10-17 would seem to indicate there is a discrepency between Matthew's geneology of Jesus and Ezra's, specifically, 3 are ommitted which are: Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah.

Now, in Matt 1:17, the language is clear, at least it seems to be, as Matthew says, "Therefore, ALL the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the time of Christ fourteen generations."

The word "all" is the same in all the translations I've found so far except for the NLT. In the NLT, it doesn't seem to indicate that this is a complete representation of all the generations, unlike all the other versions. From the NLT:

All those listed above include fourteen generations from Abraham to King David, and fourteen from David's time to the Babylonian exile, and fourteen from the Babylonian exile to the Messiah.

Note the use of the word "include" to modify the "all", meaning it's not "all of them" but rather all the generations listed above "include, but aren't limited to..." all the generations of Jesus. At any rate, this is a side issue, in my opinion, as all of the rest of the commonly accepted versions are clear in the use of all, and no other modifier.

A studious examination of the word "generations", as it's used in that verse (Matt 1:17), from the original Greek also seems to indicate that the way it's used there, it's meant to imply that it's a "successive line", meaning "continuous", or "no breaks". (From Thayer's Lexicon, see Strong's Number 1074, "genea"; as Thayer says, in that particular verse, the meaning is supposed to be taken as, "the several ranks of natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy". Thayer specifically mentions Matthew 1:17 in saying when it's appropriate to use that particular definition of "genea")

Thus, the basic conclusion one is to draw from the first chapter of Matthew up to and through verse 17 is that it (those first 16 verses) are a complete record of Jesus' geneology (specifically from the time of David until the exile to Babylon), yet, again, comparing it to 1Chr 3:10-17 shows that it is not a complete, i.e. successive, record in that time frame.

Let me tell you something about myself now, before you think I'm just writing to "start a fight". I am a Christian. I believe in Jesus as my Savior. I don't affiliate myself with any denomination. I want to believe in all my heart and soul that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. However, after having encountered this problem, I must admit my faith is shaken a bit.

The website mentioned above goes on to explain that there are instances in the Bible where there are incomplete geneologies, and I agree with that.

However, I cannot find anywhere in the Bible, other than in Matthew, where there is an example of BOTH an incomplete geneology AND a claim that the geneology is complete, in the same chapter.

Could you help me to understand how to get beyond this apparent serious contradiction?

Following is the speculation from the footnotes of the NAB.

I would hesitate to place too literalistic an emphasis on the word 'all'. Don't we also read that 'all' Jerusalem came out to be baptized by John the Baptist? Did 'all' include every single person in Jerusalem?

5 [17] Matthew is concerned with fourteen generations, probably because fourteen is the numerical value of the Hebrew letters forming the name of David. In the second section of the genealogy (Matthew 1:6b-11), three kings of Judah, Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah, have been omitted (see 1 Chron 3:11-12), so that there are fourteen generations in that section. Yet the third (Matthew 1:12-16) apparently has only thirteen. Since Matthew here emphasizes that each section has fourteen, it is unlikely that the thirteen of the last was due to his oversight. Some scholars suggest that Jesus who is called the Messiah (Matthew 1:16b) doubles the final member of the chain: Jesus, born within the family of David, opens up the new age as Messiah, so that in fact there are fourteen generations in the third section. This is perhaps too subtle, and the hypothesis of a slip not on the part of Matthew but of a later scribe seems likely.

Part of the problem is translational. English texts say, "...was the father of..." The actual Greek word is akin to "generated," and would probably best be translated as, "brought forth." Hence, Matthew can skip a generation, or even jump a branch in the family tree, to bring about the deeper, symbolic meanings of the origins of Christ.

The geneaology of Luke is even far more dissimilar to that of Matthew. After King David, the two geneaologies bear no resemblance whatsoever. BUT The English texts often say "...who was the son of...". No such words exist in the bible at all!

At least some King James' bibles at least write, "...which was [the son] of...", suggesting that the English translators are adding the words, "the son." But the words, "which were" are also added. The Greek text only lists the names, "Joseph, of Heli, of Matthat, of Melchi, ..." A son is often spoken of relative to his father, but not ncessarily.

For instance, one woman is described as being "[mother] of James," "[mother] of Joses," and "[wife] of Clophas," While James, is described as being "[son] of Alphaeus," "[brother] of Joses," and "[brother] of Jesus." (Some Catholics have identified these references to James as being all to the same person, and these references to Mary as being all to the same person, which would establish that James actually was Jesus' cousin.)

If Luke does not mean "the son of," what does he mean by "of"? Frankly, I've yet to read an explanation which identifies these people to my satisfaction.

Endless Genealogies and Foolish Questions

Neither give heed to . . . endless genealogies, which
minister QUESTIONS rather than godly edifying which is IN
FAITH: SO DO. -- 1 Tim. 1:4

. . . AVOID FOOLISH QUESTIONS, and GENEALOGIES
. . . for they are UNPROFITABLE and VAIN . . . -- Titus 3:9

After this lived Job a hundred and forty years, and
saw his sons, and his sons' sons, even four GENERATIONS
[not genealogies and not hardly successive] . . . Job 42:10

. . . we will show forth thy praise to ALL GENERATIONS
[not genealogies and not necessarily successive] . . .
--Psa. 79:13

. . . from henceforth ALL GENERATIONS shall call me
blessed [not all genealogies and hardly not successive] . . .
--Luke 1:48

. . . There shall no sign be given to THIS GENERATION
[not this genealogy]. -- Mark 8:12

The Book of the GENERATION of Jesus Christ, the
son of David, the son of Abraham. -- Matt. 1:1

So all Israel were reckoned by GENEALOGIES [not
generations]; and, behold, they were written in the book of
the kinks of Israel AND JUDAH . . . --1 Chron. 9:1 (5:1)

And the number of them, AFTER THEIR GENEALOGY
BY THEIR GENERATIONS . . . was . . . twenty thousand
and two hundred [an obvious difference between a genealogy
and a generation]. 1 Chron. 7:9

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. -- Matt. 1:17

Dear ____,

Thank you for your interest. In regard to your alleged
mistake in Matthew, chapter one, regarding the 14 plus
14 plus 14 generations, your first mistake is to assume a
"genealogy" and a "generation" to be synonymous, and
then to argue in a circle. Your second mistake is to regard
Thayer's Greek interpretation above the inspired record in
Matthew, chapter one. Your third mistake is to demand that
there be a name for each and every generation, recorded
in Matthew. Your fourth mistake is to demand that the
generations be successive, contrary to the normal usage
of the word. The primary idea in a "generation" is time as
opposed to names or descent. Still, many will quibble about
the timeinvolved, yet others will not pay attention to the
warnings about getting involved in questions about endless
genealogies.

You may have noted that there is one name per each
of the 14 generations in the first group of ordinary
generations. You may also have noted that there is one name
per each of the 14 royal generations in the second royal
group. Nevertheless, you may not have noted that the third
group of ordinary generations contains only 13 names, a total
of 41 and not 42 as you would expect, if your theory was
correct. Although these generations DO show descent, they do
not necessarily show successive or continuous descent in that
Jesus Christ in his generation was said to be the son of David
as well as the son of Abraham (Matt. 1:1). That which follows
are a number of "begat's, i.e., Abraham begat or generated
Isaac, and etc., which all loosely allow sons and even
grandsons to be sons and to be begotten or generated per
Jewish usage.

Now, the mechanics of Kings and Chronicles as to
dating and other things is very complicated to the Gentile
mind, which seems to be more of a problem to them than to
the Jew. It is compounded by the name changes, adoptions,
usurpations, murdered kings, deposed kings, co-regencies,
and etc. You will note that the Jehoachin of Chronicles is the
Jeconiah of Matthew, and Pedaiah of Chronicles is the
Shealtiel of Matthew (and also Chronicles). If there would
have been a problem with Matthew's generations, we would
have heard about it in the first century from those eager to
dispute the Lord Jesus Christ's genealogical credentials.

Now, this is already enough to prove that the absence
of Ahaziah, Azariah, and Joash is not an error nor a problem.
It is an intentional exclusion for whatever reason. Still, you
have not noted that Jeconiah's (Jehoachin) father Jehoakim
is also in Chronicles and not in Matthew, a total of 18 in the
second grouping of Chronicles as opposed to the 14 in
Matthew.

Matthew's recorded names were intended for one
reason and one reason alone to demonstrate the messianic
credentials of Jesus Christ not an overlay of something in the
Book of Chronicles. He chose to do so in a symmetrical
fashion with inspired knowledge as to the dividing line for
each of the 3 groups of 14 generations. Your problem is not
with the genealogies but with QUESTIONS about them rather
than GODLY EDIFYING IN FAITH. This is not the last word
on this, as I am sure that some astute Bible student can find
out the reasons for at least some of the exclusions. Believe the
Book. It is the only thing that can throughly furnish the man
of God in doctrine, reproof, and instruction in righteousness.

Sincerely,

Herb Evans

P.S. Matthew, Gospel of the King, is the royal line
through Joseph and is not genetic. But the Royalty
is secured by Jesus' Stepfather. The genetic line
to Adam is found in Luke.

Another answer by George Calvas:

The line from David to the carrying away to Babylon is "incomplete"
and therefore the "all" the Lord is talking about are "all" he is
concerned about! The word "all" does not necessarily imply EVERY
SINGLE genereation (ex: And there went out unto him ALL the land of
Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were ALL baptized of him in the
river of Jordan, confessing their sins). Therefore, the INTERESTING
aspect is to know why between Joram(Jehoram) who it says begat Ozias
(Uzziah), three kings were not mentioned (there was Athaliah [2 Ki
11:3]who reigned as the mother of Ahaziah, but not to be included
as "the seed"). Also you must note that between Josias (Josiah) and
Jechonias (Jeconiah), two kings are missing, Jehoahaz (2 Ki 23:31)
and Jehoiakim (2 Ki 23:36). Those two were actually the sons of
Josiah, while Jeconiah was the son of Jehoiakim (Josiah's grandson).
I am not sure what that all means, but 3 times 14 (7 x 2) generations
are mentioned. I personally do not see any problem at all. Maybe it
was that the connection of the number 14 offered some proof
concerning the accuracy of this reckoning of the geneologies?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.