WHO WAS JOSEPH’S FATHER?

by

Eric Lyons, M.Min.

In his book, The Encyclopedia of
Biblical Errancy, skeptic Dennis McKinsey confidently
asserted that the “contradictory” genealogies found in Matthew
1 and Luke 3 open up “a Pandora’s box that apologists would
just as soon remained closed forever” (1995, p. 46). One
“contradiction” he cited (p. 80) revolves around the father of
Joseph. Whereas Matthew 1:16 states that “Jacob begot
Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is
called Christ” (emp. added), Luke 3:23 says, “Jesus Himself
began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was
supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli” (emp.
added). How is it that Joseph could be the son of both Jacob
and Heli? Is Mr. McKinsey correct? Do Christian apologists
really shudder at the sound of Matthew 1 and Luke 3? Do we
cower at the thought of having to explain their differences?
Not at all.

The answer to this supposed contradiction is relatively
simple: the first seventeen verses in the first chapter of
Matthew give the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph, while Luke
3 presents the genealogy of Jesus through Mary. Hence, Jacob
is the father of Joseph (Matthew 1:16), while Heli is the
father of Mary (Luke 3:23). If this is true, the logical
question that both critics and serious Bible students ask is
why Mary is not mentioned in Luke’s genealogy? The answer is
again quite simple: Luke follows the strict Hebrew tradition
of mentioning only the names of males. Therefore, in this
case, Mary is designated by her husband’s name.

Lest you think it is unreasonable to conclude that a
son-in-law could be called a son, remember that it is recorded
in 1 Samuel 24:16 that King Saul (David’s father-in-law—1
Samuel 18:27) called David “son.” The term “son” actually has
a variety of meanings in the Bible. It can signify: (1) son by
actual birth; (2) grandson; (3) descendent; (4) son-in-law; or
(5) son by creation, as in the case of Adam (Luke 3:38). All
indications are that in Luke 3:23, the phrase “son of Heli”
(literally “of Heli”) refers to Heli’s son-in-law, Joseph. The
following evidence clearly supports this rationale.

The two narrations of the virgin birth are from two
different perspectives. Matthew 1:18-25 tells the story only
from Joseph’s perspective, while Luke 1:26-56 is told wholly
from Mary’s point of view. It makes sense, then, that
Matthew focused on Joseph’s lineage in his genealogy,
whereas Luke paid careful attention to Mary’s ancestors.

Because the phrase “as was supposed” (Luke 3:23) is used
to describe Jesus’ relationship with his earthly father, one
automatically should see that something is different about
this genealogy from the one recorded in Matthew chapter one.
The phrase “Jesus…being (as was supposed) the son of
Joseph” (emp. added) is indicating that He was not really
one of Joseph’s biological sons, even though the public
commonly assumed such.

Every name in the Greek text of Luke’s genealogy,
with the exception of Joseph, is preceded by the
definite article “the” (e.g. the Heli, the Matthat).
Although not obvious in our English translations, this
stands out to anyone reading the Greek. As
nineteenth-century biblical scholar Frederic Godet stated:
“The omission of the article puts the name (Joseph)
outside of the genealogical series” (1890, 1:198,
emp. added). In fact, the parentheses in our versions
containing the words “(as was supposed),” most likely should
be extended to include the name “Joseph” (Lenski, 1961, p.
220). [Remember that parentheses have been added in our
English Bibles by translators for the sake of “clarity.” In
this situation, however, it seems translators should have
extended the parentheses so that the text reads: “And Jesus
Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age,
being (as was supposed of Joseph) the son of Heli,
the son of Matthat….”] When one’s studies take him beyond
our English translations into the original language of
Scripture (in this case, Greek), he begins to realize all
the more that Luke’s genealogy is tracing the line of
Joseph’s wife, even though Joseph’s name is used.

These two separate genealogies of Jesus Christ were, in
fact, absolutely necessary in the establishment of Christ as
the Messiah. The Messianic title, “Son of David,” that so
frequently was applied to Christ, required dual proof that:
(1) He was entitled to the throne, as Matthew’s genealogy
indicates; and (2) He literally had descended from David, as
Luke’s genealogy demonstrates. The verses in Matthew clearly
establish Christ as the legal heir to the throne by tracing
His ancestry down through the royal line of the kings of
Israel, with Luke’s account demonstrating that He was an
actual descendant of David (through Nathan, the brother of
Solomon—1 Chronicles 3:5). Jesus literally was born from one
of David’s virgin “daughters.”

REFERENCES

Godet, Frederic (1890), Gospel of Luke (Edinburgh:
T&T Clark).

Lenski, R.C.H. (1961), The Interpretation of the St.
Luke’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).

McKinsey, C. Dennis (1995), The Encyclopedia of Biblical
Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus).

Copyright © 2003 Apologetics Press, Inc. All
rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the “Alleged
Bible Discrepancies” section to be reproduced in their
entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed:
(1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original
publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must
remain attached to the materials; (4) any references,
footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be
included with any written reproduction of the article; (5)
alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g.,
photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be
reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6)
serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in
several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the
material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable
length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be
offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and
(8) articles may not be reproduced in electronic form for
posting on Web sites (although links to articles on the
Apologetics Press Web site are permitted).

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery,
Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334)
272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org