“Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. (Matt 2:2)
Problem: The Bible condemns the use of astrology (see Lev. 19:26; Deut. 18:10; Isa. 8:19), yet God blessed the wise men (Magi) for using a star to indicate the birth of Christ.
“Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. (Matt 1:23)
The way the critics flock to this passage, we might think that it was a central prophecy of the NT! In reality, it is cited only once—here in Matthew (Mt. 1:23). And yet, Matthew had good reason for citing it. Let’s consider a number of criticisms hurled against this passage.
Problem: Mary was betrothed to Joseph, and yet, God impregnated Mary. God tells us that we should not commit adultery (Ex. 20:14), but God also takes Joseph’s wife in order to impregnate her. Isn’t this a moral failing?: While God did impregnate Mary, there are a number of problems with calling this adultery:
“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. (Matthew 1:17)”
Problem: Matthew and Luke both write a genealogy for Jesus, but these are different from one another. Once Matthew and Luke reach David, they diverge from one another rapidly. Matthew has 26 names and Luke has 41 names (between David and Jesus).
“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)
Problem: Matthew says the generations “from the captivity in Babylon until the Christ are fourteen generations” (1:17). However, he lists only 13 names after the captivity is counted. So, which is correct, 13 or 14 ?
“And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; (Matt 1:12)”
Matthew: Jeconiah, Shealtiel, then Zerubbabel (Mt. 1:12).
Luke: Neri, Shealtiel, then Zerubbabel (Lk. 3:27).
Is this a contradiction?
Solution: There are two ways to solve this difficulty:
OPTION #1: These are different Shealtiel’s
Advocates of this view note that this was a common name at the time, and there are multiple repetitions of names in these genealogies (e.g. Joseph, Mattathias, Judah).
OPTION #2: This is the case of a Levirate marriage
1 Chronicles 3:17-19 states that Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel and Pedaiah. But then the text says that Pedaiah’s son was also called Zerubbabel! But other passages state that Shealtiel was the father of Zerubbabel (Ezra 3:2; Neh. 12:1; Hag. 1:1). This shows that this could have been a case of levirate marriage (see Gen. 38:8-9; Deut. 25:5-10). A widow of a childless man could marry his brother. When the woman gave birth, he would carry on his deceased father’s name. This was the case so a man’s name could go on—even if he died prematurely. Michael Brown writes, “In the case of Zerubabbel, it would appear that his biological father was Pedaiah, the younger brother of Shealtiel who died childless. Pedaiah then married the widow of Shealtiel, in accordance with the laws of levirate marriage, and his firstborn son, Zerubabbel, was counted as the son of his deceased brother, Shealtiel, to ‘build up his brother’s family line’ (Deut. 25:9).”[1]
[1] Brown, Michael L. Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: New Testament Objections. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2006. 79.
“And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; (Matt 1:12)”
Problem: God cursed the descendants of King Jehoiachin (or Jeconiah) saying, “Write this man down childless, a man who will not prosper in his days; for no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah” (Jer. 22:30). Yet, Matthew writes that Jesus was a descendant of Jehoiachin. Critics argue that this disqualifies Jesus from the Messianic lS: A number of responses can be made.
“And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias; (Matt 1:9)”
Problem: In 2 Kings 15:1–7, the Bible mentions the father of Jotham as Azariah, and in 2 Kings 15:32 and 34, Jotham’s father is named Uzziah. Some have concluded that the Bible made a mistake by listing two different people as the father of Jotham.
“And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; (Matt 1:8)”
Problem: Matthew says “Joram begot Uzziah.” However, 1 Chronicles 3:11 lists “Joram [and then] his son, Ahaziah.” Which one is correct?