[Music] supposed Bible contradiction Matthew's genealogy versus Luke's genealogy in the different gospels of Matthew and Luke we are given the genealogies of Joseph the adoptive father of Christ however they differ on who the father in line of Joseph was Matthew says Jacob was the father of Joseph and as a line going back to Abraham but Luke says heli is the father of Joseph and as a line going back to Adam these are not different names of the same people they are completely different genealogies so do we have a contradiction not so fast there are two
ways of handling this the first and most common argument is the genealogy of Luke was Mary's line heli was the father of Mary who became the father-in-law of Joseph thus making Joseph his son as well this would be consistent with the idea that some Scholars have suggested that Luke used a relative of Mary's side of the family as a source for his birth narrative so he would have taken that genealogy instead and since there is no Greek word for son-in-law Joseph is simply called the son of heli that is perfect acceptable by most Scholars as
there is no indication Mary had any brothers but only a sister thus if there were no sons of heli Joseph would become the legal heir to heli's inheritance thus his Heir by law this would also make sense with the fact that Mary wed within the family of David to ensure heli's inheritance remained among those of the same household which is in accordance with the laws of numbers 36 1-12 however there's another possible explanation that was given to us by the early church historian Yus he he argues from an epistle by africanis that both lines were
of Joseph one legal and one biological in book one of ecclesiastical history he writes heli and Jacob were thus uteran Brothers heli having died childless Jacob raised up seed to him begetting Joseph his own son by nature but by law the son of heli thus Joseph was the son of both thus far africanis so what is he saying well according to the law of Deuteronomy 25 5-6 if two brothers dwell together and one is childless his brother is to take his widow as his wife and the first son born to them shall be his brother's
legal Heir so that his name shall not be blotted out of Israel so basically if a man dies childless his widow is to marry his living brother and the first son born to them will carry on the name of the deceased husband even though the living brother is the biological father thus the child legally is to be the son of the Dead brother if this is what happened it means Matthew is correct when he says Jacob got Joseph while Luke is correct when he records he was the son of heli and uus refers to Africanus
who points out that in the Greek it says Jacob fathered or begot Joseph whereas Luke says who Joseph was the son of but isn't the father of Jacob methan and the father of heli math well yes but remember uus records that Jacob and heli were half Brothers of the same mother so to give a visual this means methan married a woman and had Jacob but later died so since he already had a son to carry on his name his widow was free to remarry whoever and thus she married methat with a different genealogy of that
of her first son Jacob and then she bore heli therefore Jacob and heli were half Brothers by the same mother when they grew up HEI married a woman but died childless and then Jacob became her husband fulfilling the law of Deuteronomy 255 and the first son born to them was Joseph who became the legal son of heli but by Nature the son of Jacob thus Jacob fed Joseph but legally was the son of heli and neither genealogy makes an error in what it records Jacob begot Joseph but Joseph was the son of heli so there
are two completely cogent ways to resolve this supposed contradiction and since both are entirely possible this Bible contradiction can be addressed and resolved [Music]
