Who Was Jesus' Grandfather? | Desiring God Who Was Jesus' Grandfather? Arrow Founder & Teacher, desiringGod.org Doubts about God's word can arise when we find apparent contradictions and don't see immediate solutions. For example, who was Jesus's grandfather? We know that, although Jesus was supernaturally conceived by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:34f), his earthly, legal father was Joseph. But Luke says that Joseph is the son of Heli (3:23), while Matthew says that he was the son of Jacob (1:16). One of the best treatments of this problem is The Virgin Birth of Christ by J. Gresham Machen (New York: Harper Brothers, 1930). The solution Machen argues for is that "while the Matthean genealogy traces the successive heirs to the throne of David from David to Joseph, the Lucan genealogy traces the ancestors of Joseph back to David." (p. 206). He explains, "The Lucan genealogy, in other words, starts with the question, 'Who was Josheph's "father"?' the answer to that question is, 'Heli.' . . .

In the Matthean genealogy, on the other hand, we start with the question, 'Who was the heir to David's throne?' The answer is, "Solomon,' and so on down to Joseph." (p. 207). You can see the signal that something like this is happening by comparing how the genealogies are the same from Abraham to king David, and then they diverge. For example, in Luke 3:31 it says that Nathan is David's son, while in Matthew 1:6 it says that David was the father of Solomon. Now we know from 2 Samuel 5:14 that Nathan and Solomon were both sons of David. But only Solomon was the heir of the throne (1 Kings 1:13). So the possible solution to why the genealogies are different from David down to Joseph is that Luke is giving the physical ancestors (or in one or two cases a very close adoptive relation), while Matthew is most interested in showing that the father of Jesus is the legal heir to the throne of David.

The correctness of this view of the purpose and the meaning of each genealogy is confirmed by the fact that the genealogy in Luke begins at the end and works backward, whereas the genealogy in Matthew begins at the beginning. Where the point was to trace the actual descent of Joseph back to David that could be done by recording the tradition of the family as to his actual father, Heli, and the actual father of Heli, and so on up to Nathan the son of David. But where the point was to mention the successive heirs of the Davidic throne, it was natural to begin with David and work down. (p. 207). What then actually happened in the generations just before Jesus? Here is one possible scenario. And that is all we can do is offer plausible solutions since the actual facts are hidden from us. Matthew's genealogy The Genealogy of Jesus - Compare Matthew's to Luke's The Genealogy of Jesus Sign Up for Our Free Newsletters Thanks, You're in! Health Tip of the Day Recipe of the Day There was an error. Please try again. Please select a newsletter. Please enter a valid email address. Did you mean ? Genealogy of Jesus from the Book of Kells.

Public Domain Updated November 15, 2016. There are two records in the Bible of the genealogy of Jesus Christ . One is in the Gospel of Matthew , chapter 1, the other is in the Gospel of Luke , chapter 3. Matthew's account traces the line of descent from Abraham to Jesus, while Luke's account follows the ancestry from Adam to Jesus. Quite a few differences and discrepancy exist between the two records. Most startling is that from King David to Jesus the lineages are entirely different. The Differences: Matthew 's account traces the lineage from Abraham to Jesus (41 generations), while Luke records the ancestry from Adam to Jesus (76 generations). Matthew's genealogy is condensed and divided into three groups of 14, representing a movement through three time periods. The first group lists the patriarchs, the second names the kings, and the third contains private citizens. The intent was not to give a strict record, but rather, present the historical progression. It begins by highlighting the family origin, then the rise to power through the Davidic throne, and eventually the decline from royalty to the humble birth of the promised Messiah.

Luke 's account is unusual in that is begins with Jesus and progresses backward through history, rather than following the order of chronological succession. Some suggest that Luke's purpose in presenting a "regression" was to magnify attention on Jesus. Though nearly identical from Abraham to David, the two accounts are entirely different from David to Jesus. After David, only the names of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel appear on both lists. Throughout the ages, scholars have pondered and argued over the reasons for the conflicting genealogies of Matthew and Luke, particularly since Jewish scribes were known for their precise and detailed record keeping. Skeptics are usually quick to attribute these differences to biblical errors. Reasons For the Differing Accounts: According to one of the oldest theories, some scholars assign the differences in genealogies to the "Levirate marriage" tradition. This custom said that if a man died without bearing any sons, his brother could then marry his widow, and their sons would carry on the dead man's name. For this theory to hold up, it would mean that Joseph, the father of Jesus , had both a legal father (Heli) and a biological father (Jacob), through a Levirate marriage.

The theory suggests that Joseph's grandfathers (Matthan according to Matthew; Matthat according to Luke) were brothers, both married to the same woman, one after the other. This would make Matthan's son (Jacob) Joseph's biological father, and Matthat's son (Heli) Joseph's legal father. Matthew's account would trace Jesus' primary (biological) lineage, and Luke's record would follow Jesus' legal lineage. An alternative theory with very little acceptance among theologians and historians alike, proposes that Jacob and Heli are actually one and the same. One of the most widely held theories suggests that Matthew's account follows the lineage of Joseph, while Luke's genealogy is that of Mary, the mother of Jesus . This interpretation would mean that Jacob was Joseph's biological father, and Heli (Mary's biological father) became Joseph's surrogate father, thus making Joseph Heli's heir through his marriage to Mary. If Heli had no sons, this would have been the normal custom. Also, if Mary and Joseph lived under the same roof with Heli, his "son-in-law" would have been called "son" and considered a descendent.

Although it would have been unusual to trace a genealogy from the maternal side, there was nothing usual about the virgin birth. Additionally, if Mary (Jesus' blood relative) was indeed a direct descendant of David, this would make her son "the seed of David" in keeping with Messianic prophecies. There are other more complicated theories, and with each there seems to remain an unresolvable problem. Yet in both genealogies we do see that Jesus is a descendant of King David, qualifying him, according to Messianic prophecies, as the Messiah. One interesting commentary points out that by beginning with Abraham, the father of the Jewish nation, Matthew's genealogy shows the relationship of Jesus to all Jews—he is their Messiah. This coincides with the overarching theme and purpose of the book of Matthew—to prove that Jesus is the Messiah. On the other hand, the overriding purpose of the book of Luke is to give a precise record of the life of Christ as the perfect human Savior. Therefore, the genealogy of Luke traces all the way back to Adam, demonstrating the relationship of Jesus to all of mankind—he is the Savior of the world.

The Genealogy of Jesus Contact Us The Genealogy of Jesus The information in this section originally appeared in an article by the professor (R.P. Nettelhorst) published in the June 1988 issue of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. An old problem for expositors has been the contradictory genealogies of Christ given in Matthew and Luke. Matthew traces Jesus' lineage through forty-two generations from Abraham to Christ. Luke traces it from Adam to Christ, for more than seventy generations. It is unnecessary to examine in detail the genealogy between Adam and Abraham in Luke. That genealogy appears to derive from the Old Testament (1 Chr 1:1-4, 24-27; Gen 5:3-32;11:10-26). Matthew gives no listing from Adam to Abraham, so no problems there. Both Matthew and Luke list the people from Abraham to David, but again there is no problem: the two genealogies are nearly identical at that point. No, the problem that has confounded readers of the New Testament is found in the listing of names between David and Joseph. Matthew traces Joseph's line through Solomon and the successive kings of Judah.

But Luke gives a completely different account, tracing Joseph's line through Nathan, Solomon's brother: The Genealogies Joseph Jesus Clearly there is a difference between these two genealogies. They both start with David and they both end with Jesus, but the names in between are completely different. There aren't even the same number of names in the two lists. Matthew Henry, at the beginning of the eighteenth century, wrote: The difference between the two evangelists in the genealogy of Christ, has been a stumbling block to infidels that cavil at the word...[Matthew Henry, An Exposition of the Old and New Testaments. Vol. V. Philadelphia: Towar & Hogan, 1828, p. 482] Skeptics have looked at these differences and have arrived at a simple solution to the problem: the genealogies are, in essence, pious fiction. They are not really genealogies of Christ, but have been composed, perhaps from other sources, so as to try to legitimize Jesus' claim to Messiahship. [Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX. Anchor Bible.

Garden City: Doubleday, 1981, pp. 499-500; Michael Arnheim, Is Christianity True? Buffalo:Prometheus, 1984, pp. 13-16] This explanation has been generally accepted outside of evangelical circles, but as an explanation, it does not satisfy those with a high view of scriptural integrity. However, if the two lists are not mere invention, then how else can they be reconciled? They don't even agree on Joseph's father, a fact which should not have been much of a mystery. Since first proposed by Annius of Viterbo (c. AD 1490) [I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (The New International Greek Testament Commentary). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978, p. 158], the most common explanation for the discrepancy, at least among evangelicals, has been to assume that Matthew's genealogy traces the lineage of Jesus through Joseph, while the one in Luke actually traces it through Mary. (An appendix in Robertson's Harmony of the Gospels lists eleven scholars, including Martin Luther, who accepted this explanation. [A.T.

Robertson, A Harmony of the Gospels. New York: Harper and Row, 1950, pp. 261-262]) At first thought, this seems an admirable explanation. (Of more modern proponents of the theory note: Robert Gundry, A Survey of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970, pp. 118-119; John MacArthur, Jr. Matthew 1-7. The MacArthur New Testament Commentary. Chicago: Moody Press, 1985, p. 3; Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982, p. 316) After all, everyone has two parents and, therefore, two genealogies. Jesus would be no different. (see also Charles Ryrie, Ryrie Study Bible. note on Luke 3:23 and Matt 1:1; C.I. Scofield, New Scofield Reference Bible, note on Luke 3:23; cf.

note on Matt 1:1.) However, this explanation is nothing but wishful thinking, as any reading of the texts involved can demonstrate: Matthew 1:15b-16a: Matthan the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Joseph... Luke 3:23b: He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat... The attempted explanation by proponents of the view -- if they attempt to explain it -- is that Luke 3:23b should be understood as "he was the son--so it was thought of Joseph--the son of Heli, the son of Matthat..." Heli is then Christ's grandfather, and Mary is simply unmentioned. The Greek is nearly stretched beyond what is possible; the reading is very unnatural and forced. (Notice the rather quick dismissal of the position by J. Gresham Machen. The Virgin Birth of Christ. New York: Harper and Row, 1930. pp. 203-204; see also I. Howard Marshall, 158) It is clear from the text that both genealogies claim to be genealogies of Christ through Joseph.

So, back to square one. According to I. Howard Marshall (Marshall, 158; see also A.T. Robertson, 261.) Julius Africanus, as cited in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 1.7, 2-15, utilized the custom of levirate marriage as described in Deut 25:5-6 (see also Gen 38:8-10 and Ruth) to explain the apparent discrepancy in the genealogies. (See also Joseph A. Fitzmyer, 499-500. A.T. Robertson lists nine proponents of this view.) The proponents of this explanation argue that Matthan in Matt 1:15 (Joseph's grandfather) and Matthat in Luke 3:24 (his grandfather there, too) are one and the same man. It is then further supposed that Jacob, Joseph's "father" in Matthew died without children, and that his nephew, the son of Heli (Joseph's father in Luke) became his heir. Right. A view akin to the above is that of Lord A.

Hervey, which Marshall argues "has gained [the] most support in modern times" (Marshall, 158). Machen argues quite forcefully for Hervey's idea (Machen, 202-209,229-232; see also F.F. Bruce in The New Bible Dictionary, 458-459). Hervey argued that Matthew gives the legal line of descent from David, giving the legal heir of the throne in each case. Luke, on the other hand, gives David's actual, physical descendants. Marshall writes that this "solution depends upon conjecture, and there is no way of knowing whether the conjectures correspond to reality." (Marshall, 159) It should also be noted that the position is rather complicated, and requires an odd understanding of "begot". I believe that such complicated methods of figuring out the relationship between the two genealogies are unnecessary. An extremely simple explanation is readily available, and it involves no strange customs or textual twists at all. Both genealogies are clearly through Joseph. I believe that one traces the lineage back through Joseph's father, and that the other traces back through Joseph's mother.

However, the maternal genealogy drops the name of Joseph's mother, and instead skips back to her father. Which is which? I believe that the genealogy in Luke is through Joseph's father. I believe the one in Matthew is through Joseph's maternal grandfather. Matthew's Genealogy Mary JESUS That Matthew should skip Joseph's mother in the genealogical listing is not peculiar since it is readily apparent that Matthew skips a number of people in his genealogy. For instance, in Matt 1:8 he writes: "Joram the father of Uzziah". But when his statement is compared with 1 Chr 3:10-12, the reader sees that three people have been left out of Matthew's genealogy: Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah. Why did Matthew leave names out? So he could get the structural symmetry he desired. In Matt 1:17 he records: Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to Christ. Therefore, it would not be unreasonable to suppose that Matthew might leave out the name of Joseph's mother so he could get the structural format he desired.

Furthermore, this genealogy does list four women: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba, which lends, I think, some support to the idea that this might be a woman's genealogy. I believe this explanation for the two genealogies has the advantage of simplicity, and that this explanation also has the textual support which the other common theories lack. Jesus’ Grandfather – Redeemer Church, Santa Maria, CA by Joshua Martin Uncategorized . Merry Christmas! Although we have no indication that Jesus Christ was actually born on December 25th, the birth of Jesus is relayed in the New Testament with plenty of historical detail (e.g. Lk 2:1-2). In fact, the Gospels Matthew and Luke each provide a lengthy genealogy – tracing Jesus’ ancestry back through King David and Abraham (Matt 1:1-16; Lk 3:23-38). Higher-critics and skeptics, however, suggest that these two genealogical lists demonstrate that the New Testament contains fanciful and legendary details as history. In fact, the genealogies of Jesus always make the “short list” of alleged contradictions contained within the Bible.

At first glance the argument may seem formidable. All acknowledge that these lists are not comprehensive – grandsons may be listed as “sons,” etc. This is a common feature of such genealogies. Yet this cannot explain the divergences between Matthew and Luke. While both Evangelists agree that Jesus was a descendant of King David, Matthew traces Jesus’ family tree through King Solomon while Luke traces it through David’s obscure son, Nathan (2 Sam 5:14). Matthew continues his list with the Kings of Judah, while Luke continues to name those who didn’t rule. The two lists converge with Shealtiel and his son Zerubbabel (a governor of Judea after the exile). Then they part ways again. Matthew cites Jesus’ grandfather as “Jacob,” while Luke claims it is “Heli.” Is this a cut-and-dry case of hopeless contradiction? Hardly! The answer is obvious and simple. Throughout the centuries Christians have offered several explanations. Only one is correct. My impression is that the most popular theory today is that Matthew follows the paternal line of Joseph, while Luke follows the maternal line of Mary. This theory, though simple and elegant, strikes me as unlikely.

Luke never suggests that Mary is a descendant of David, although he does emphasize the Davidic lineage of her husband Joseph (Lk 1:27). In fact, Mary’s cousin Elizabeth was a descendant of the priestly tribe of Aaron (1:5). It is still possible that Mary was a descendant of David, but this is speculation. Moreover, Luke gives no indication that he is presenting Jesus’ maternal family tree. He simply writes, “He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,” etc. A second common explanation is that Joseph was the product of a levirate marriage (Deut 25:5-6). If a man dies leaving his wife childless his brother or closest relative (Ruth 3:12) must marry his widow in order to produce an heir in his brother’s name. According to the law Joseph should be named for his mother’s first husband, but apparently this law was not commonly observed (Ruth 4:17). In such cases, the genealogical record could reflect the legal inheritance (Deut 25:5-6) or the biological descent (Ruth 4:18-22).

A variation of this theory may offer a simpler explanation. That is, Joseph’s natural father, Heli, died and his mother remarried a man named Jacob. If this were the case, however, it strikes me as strange that Matthew would trace Joseph’s line through his step-father. Although possible, the levirate theory is also speculative. The obvious answer lies on the face of Matthew’s account. Matthew’s object is to trace the dynastic succession of David’s sons (Calvin, Machen). In this case the relationship of “father” and “son” speaks of those who were next in line for the throne. Matthew departs from Joseph’s natural lineage when he sites David’s son, Solomon, since his object is to reckon up the legal genealogy. He records not the persons from whom Joseph was born, but to the manner in which he was descended from the kings of Israel, so that is son would be their lawful successor. It is common for such lists to contain a broad use of the word “father.” We have examples of this in 1 Chron 4:4, 12, 14, 17, 18 and possibly elsewhere.

This is undoubtedly the meaning of Daniel 5:1, which refers to Nebuchadnezzar as Belshazzar’s “father.” Nebuchadnezzar was neither the father nor the grandfather of his successor. He wasn’t even of the same Dynasty! Yet in keeping with common usage, Belshazzar was the “son” of Nebuchadnezzar in the sense that he was the next to occupy the throne (as vice-regent) of Babylon. Depending on one’s exegesis it is possible that King Jeconiah was the end of Solomon’s royal line (Jer 22:24,30, 23:5) and that Zerubbabel was the “branch” descended from David’s son, Nathan (Jer 23:5; Hos 2:23; Zech 3:8; Lk 3:27). If this is the case then we have another instance of the Dynastic use of “father” (1 Chron 3:17-19; Matthew 1:12).

Therefore, I believe that although we know nothing of Mary’s immediate ancestors, we know that Joseph’s father, and Jesus’ paternal grandfather was a fellow by the name of Heli. Is Mary’s lineage in one of the Gospels? | Bible.org Is Mary’s lineage in one of the Gospels? Here is the comment of Ryrie in the “Ryrie Study Bible.” The genealogy in Matt. 1:1f is traced through Joseph, Jesus’ legal (though not natural) father, and it establishes His claim and right to the throne of David (v. 6). The genealogy in Luke 3:23-38 is evidently that of Mary, though some believe it is also Joseph’s, by assuming that Matthan (Matt 1:15) and Matthat (Luke 3:24) were the same person and Jacob (Matt 1:16) and Eli (Luke 3:23) were brothers (one being Joseph’s father and the other his uncle). See note on Luke 3:23. Many conservative scholars have taken this view because of the many differences in the names between the two accounts. The biggest difference is that after David, many of the names are different.

It would seem best to explain the difference by viewing Luke’s genealogy as tracing the physical ancestors of Christ through Mary, while Matthew’s genealogy traces the kingly line of Christ through Joseph. The following is the comment from The Bible Knowledge Commentary: In addition Luke’s and Matthew’s lists from David to Shealtiel (during the time of the Exile) differ. That is because the lists trace different lines. Luke traced David’s line through Nathan, whereas Matthew traced it through Solomon. Following Shealtiel’s son, Zerubbabel, the lists once again differ until both lists unite at Joseph whom, Luke noted, was “thought” to be the father of Jesus. Little doubt exists that Matthew’s genealogy traced the kingly line of David—the royal legal line. The question is, What is the significance of Luke’s genealogy? Two main possibilities exist. 1. Luke was tracing the line of Mary. Many interpreters argue that Luke was giving the genealogy of Mary, showing that she also was in the line of David and that therefore Jesus was qualified as the Messiah not only through Joseph (since he was the oldest legal heir) but also through Mary. 2. Luke was tracing the actual line of Joseph.

This view maintains that the legal line and the actual line of David through which Jesus came met at Joseph, the supposed father of Jesus. In this view Jacob, Joseph’s uncle, would have died childless and therefore Joseph would have been the closest living heir. Thus Joseph and then Jesus would have been brought into the royal line. Both views have problems which are difficult to answer, not the least of which is the fact that the two genealogies meet at Shealtiel and Zerubbabel and then split a second time only to come together at Joseph and Jesus. (Cf. comments on Matt. 1:12.) Regardless of one’s view it is important to note an important aspect of the theology Luke expressed in his genealogy. He related Jesus not only to Abraham but all the way back to Adam and to God. This is an indication of the universal offer of salvation, which is common to his Gospel—that Jesus came to save all people—Gentiles as well as the nation of Israel (cf. Luke 2:32).

Luke 3:23 says, “And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli.” Many believe that Luke is saying that Jesus was the grandson of Eli or Heli through Mary. Eli was Mary’s father and Jesus’ grandfather. By contrast, Joseph was son of Jacob according to Matthew. There is another argument that comes from the theme, purpose, and audience of the two gospels. Matthew was written to the Jews to prove that Jesus was in the legal line of David by adoption through Joseph. However, this was not Luke’s purpose. Luke was writing to show and emphasize the humanity of Christ. He was writing to Gentiles or Greeks to show Jesus’ involvement with the needs of men. In keeping with this focus, we might naturally expect Luke, the doctor, to present the genealogy of Jesus through Mary, the source of his true humanity. For further study you might check out the studies on “ Prophecies of the Birth of Christ ” on of our web site.

Blacks in Biblical Antiquity | Resources | American Bible Society Blacks in Biblical Antiquity Audience: Youth Individuals Adult Format: Web The view of Africa that has evolved in recent centuries has little or no historical integrity inasmuch as it reflects Eurocentric interpretations of the Bible. However, new light is shining on biblical antiquity, and layers of unfavorable biases are being peeled away. In their place is a more congenial basis for inclusiveness and reconciliation in conjunction with an emergence of critical studies on the Black presence in the Bible and the recovering of ancient African heritage in the Scriptures. Consequently, persons of African descent now have the opportunity to rediscover consistent and favorable mentioning of their forebears within the pages of the Bible. The presence of Blacks in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible is rather substantial; fortunately ours is an age that increasingly allows such an important fact to be acknowledged more widely than perhaps ever before. This topic has long been studied by Dr.

Gene Rice, Professor of Old Testament, and he has supplied a representative listing of key Old Testament passages that mention, indeed often celebrate, the Black biblical presence: Nimrod, son of Cush, "the first on earth to become a mighty warrior." Nimrod is also credited with founding and ruling the principal cities of Mesopotamia (Genesis 10:8-12). Hagar, the Egyptian maid of Sarah (Genesis 16; 21:8-21). If Abraham had had his way, Hagar would have become the forebear of the covenant people (Genesis 17:18). Asenath, daughter of Potiphera, priest of On (Heliopolis), wife of Joseph and mother of Ephraim and Manasseh (Genesis 41:45, 51, 52; 46:20), whom Jacob claimed and adopted. (Genesis 48). Moses' Cushite wife (Numbers 12:1). She was prpbably Zipporah of the Kenite clan of the Midianites (Exodus 2:21-23).

If Moses' Cushite wife is indeed Zipporah, then her father, Jethro, (also called Reuel), would also have been an African. Since Jethro was the priest of Midian (Exodus 2:16; 3:1; 18:1) and the mountain of God where Moses was called was located in Midian (Exodus 3:1; 18:5), and Jethro presided at a meal where Aaron and the elders of Israel were guests (Exodus 18:12), the Kenites may have been the original worshipers of God by the name of the LORD, that is Yahweh (YHWH). Jethro also instructed Moses in the governance of the newly liberated Israelites (Exodus 8:13-27). Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron and a high priest (Exodus 6:25). The name, Phinehas, is Egyptian and means literally, "The Nubian," or "The Dark-skinned One." The "mixed multitude that accompanied the Israelites when they left Egypt undoubtedly included various Africans and Asian peoples (Exodus 12:38).

The unnamed Cushite soldier in David's army. He bore the news of Absalom's death to David, and, in contrast to Ahimaaz, had the courage to tell David the truth about Absalom (2 Samuel 18:21, 31, 32). Solomon's Egyptian wife. She was an Egyptian princess and by his marriage to her, Solomon sealed an alliance with Egypt. (1 Kings 3:1; 11:1). The Queen of Sheba. She ruled a kingdom that included territory in both Arabia and Africa. When she visited Solomon, she was accorded the dignity and status of a head of state (1 Kings 10:1-13). Zerah, the Ethiopian. He commanded a military garrison at Gerar in SW Palestine and fought against King Asa of Judah and almost defeated him (2 Chronicles 14:9-15). After Egyptian influence ceased in Palestine, the Cushite soldiers stationed at Gerar settled down and became farmers.

Some two centuries after the time of Zerah, the Simeonites took over Gerar "where they found rich, good pasture, and the land was very broad, quiet, and peaceful; for the former inhabitants there belonged to Ham" (2 Chronicles 4:40). Cush, a Benjaminite (heading to Psalm 7). He is identified as Saul in the Talmud. The Ethiopian ambassadors who came to Jerusalem to establish diplomatic relations with Judah (Isaiah 18:1,2). They represented the Ethiopian Pharaoh, Shabaka (716-702) of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty of Egypt. The Ethiopian, Taharqa, spelled Tirhakah in the Bible. When Hezekiah revolted against Assyria in 705 B.C., he did so with the support of Shaboka and Shebitku (702-690), rulers of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty of Egypt. Tirhakah led an army in support of Judah during Hezekiah's revolt against Assyria (2 Kings 19:9; Isaiah 37:9). Tirhakah later ruled Egypt from 690-664.

The Prophet Zephaniah. Zephaniah's father was Cushi, his grandfather Gedaliah, his great-grandfather Amariah, and his great-great-grandfather (King) Hezekiah (Zephaniah 1:1). Zephaniah was active about 630 B.C. and sparked a religious revival in Judah. Jehudi ben Nathaniah ben Shlemiah ben Cushi. The context in Jeremiah 36 indicates that Jehudi was a trusted member of the cabinet of King Jehoiakim of Judah (Jeremiah 36:14, 21, 23). Ebed-melech ("Royal Servant"), the Ethiopian. He was an officer of King Zedekiah who, at great risk to himself, saved Jeremiah's life (Jeremiah 38:7-13)., and was blessed by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 39:15-18). The African presence in the Bible is not limited to the Old Testament. Indeed many Jews of the first century lived in regions where Africans intermingled freely with other racial and ethnic types.

We too easily forget today that miscegenation or interracial marriage was an explicit part of Alexander the Great's policy; he wanted all subjects to have Greek blood flowing through their veins! Of course there was no notion of the modern idea of "race" during that time, but suffice it to say that the ancients had no problem with Black people nor did the Greeks and Romans consider them to be inferior. In the Gospel of Matthew, we find the quotation from Hosea 11:1 which reads, "out of Egypt I called my son." The passage is part of the notorious "Flight into Egypt" that describes the way in which Mary and Joseph fled to Egypt to hide the one that King Herod feared would displace him. Assuming that we can lend some historical credence to this report, it is difficult imagining, if the holy family were indeed persons who looked like typical "Europeans," that they could effectively "hide" in Africa. One must remember and take most seriously the fact that Egypt has always been and remains part of Africa. Her indigenous people are noticeably different from the European types, notwithstanding the Hellenistic cultural incursions, beginning in earnest just over 300 B.C.

In fact, it has only been in recent centuries that the Egyptians and other North Americans have been officially racially classified as "Caucasian." Nevertheless, for thousands of years, Africans have migrated out of biblical Ethiopia and Egypt and have passed through Palestine en route to the Fertile Crescent or Mesopotamia. Thus, the term Afro-Asiatic emerged, and it is a fitting description of persons from Abraham to Jesus and his disciples. For the most part by modern standards of ethnicity, first-century Jews could be considered Afro-Asiatics. This is to say that Jesus, his family, his disciples and, doubtless, most of the fellow Jews he encountered in his public ministry, were persons of color. They would certainly not be Europeans. The point is made because it has become virtually axiomatic for people today to envision that somehow the ancient people of the New Testament were all Europeans. Without much reflection or critical analysis, people tend to project modern Jews back into antiquity as if two thousand years of assimilation never occurred. Having established this important interpretative principle, we can identify a few New Testament passages where there is an explicit African presence.

Matthew 1:1-14 - The genealogy of Jesus, in which four Afro-Asiatic women are included: Rahab, Tamar, Ruth, and Bathsheba. Matthew 2:13-18 - Out of Egypt (Africa) have I called my son (see Hosea 11:1). Matthew 12:42 - The Queen of the South, meaning "the Queen of Sheba" (parallel reference in Luke 11:31; compare 1 Kings 10:1-10 and 2 Chronicles 9:1-9). Matthew 27:32 - Simon of Cyrene compelled to carry the cross (parallel accounts in Mark 15:21 and Luke 23:26). Mark 1:3 - Note the mentioning of "the wilderness" or desert as a reminder of the geographical context for the gospel and most of the biblical narratives. Luke 13:29 - Luke instructs us through his more inclusive editing of Jesus' sayings found in Matthew 8:11.

Here, Luke adds "north and south," thereby underscoring the Lukan universalism of both the gospel and the plan of salvation. Luke 19:41-44 - Jesus weeps over the city and initiates change. Acts 2:9-10 - The Jewish pilgrims gathered at Pentecost included persons of African descent, notably the Elamites of Mesopotamia and those from Egypt, Libya, and Cyrene. Acts 8:26-40 - The Ethiopian Finance Minister on a mission for the Queen of the Ethiopians, the Kandake or Candace; he is baptized as perhaps the first non-Jew (an early tradition that rivals the baptism of Cornelius). Acts 13:1 - Two of the four prophets and teachers at Antioch (where persons of the Way were first called Christians--11:26) were Africans, namely Lucius of Cyrene and Simeon who was called Niger, a Latinism for "the Black Man." Acts 18:24,25 - Apollos, the Jew of Alexandria in North Africa, becomes converted (1 Corinthians 3).

John 4:7-39 - The Samaritan as ancient outcast and here a metaphor for victims of racial, and ethnic, and gender bias today. John 8:32 - "You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." Galatians 5:1 - "For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery." 1 Corinthians 3:11 - Apollos, the African Preacher (he was from Alexandria on the Nile Delta.) 1 Corinthians 7:21c - Further evidence of Paul's dislike of slavery: "If you are able to gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity" (2 Corinthians 11:20 and the Epistle to Philemon). James 2:1-8 - Outward appearances can lead to fraudulent judgments about people. (Although James principally has in mind class distinctions, the principle supports a wider application). 1 Peter 2:4-10 - Those who believe and do the will of God through humble service and self-sacrifice are the "Chosen People" and the true "royal priesthood" and the recipients of God's mercy.

There is no racial or ethnic basis for divine election. As the Holy Scriptures testify, all people of faith are "one in Christ Jesus" and "heirs according to the promise" (Galatians 3:28,29). And as the apostle Paul stated, "From now on, therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view; even though we once knew Christ from a human point of view, we know him no longer in that way. So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us" (2 Corinthians 5:16-19). Thus, the Word of God shows itself to be a truly universal, inclusive, and multicultural message of salvation for the human race. This is an excerpt from a longer article by Dr.

Cain Hope Felder, Professor of New Testament Language and Literature at the Howard University School of Divinity in Washington D.C., which appeared in the African American Jubilee Bible, published by the American Bible Society (1999). Scripture citations are from the New Revised Standard Version. Thanks to the support of our faithful financial partners, American Bible Society has been engaging people with the life-changing message of God’s Word for nearly 200 years. Help us share God's Word where needed most. Sign up to receive regular email updates from the Bible Resource Center. Also receive Bible-reading tips, tools and resources.

Question: According to the Bible, what was the name of Jesus maternal grandfather?
Answer: Heli