Is there encoded in Matthew’s Genealogy of Jesus a dense, letter-level, mathematically interlocking heptadic system that proves divine inspiration? Part 2

In Part 1, we saw that Ivan Panin’s famous claim — that Matthew 1 hides a perfect seven-based mathematical structure — does not survive careful counting of the Greek text as we have it today (for example, in NA28).

But some readers reasonably ask:

“What if Panin was counting differently — and more charitably?”

That’s a fair question. So in this article, we’ll look at the main alternative counting methods people propose, show how they work in Greek, and explain why they still fail to rescue Panin’s thesis.

The Greek Text We Are Talking About

Here is Matthew 1:1 in Greek (NA28):

Βίβλος γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ Δαυὶδ υἱοῦ Ἀβραάμ.

Already, you can see the challenge. Greek is precise, but it is also explicit. Every word is written. Every letter counts.

Panin’s system depends on counting:

• words

• letters

• vowels

• consonants

• names

• grammatical categories

So the first question is not whether to count Greek — but how.

1. Counting “Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ” as One Name Instead of Two

In Greek, “Jesus Christ” is clearly two words:

• Ἰησοῦ (Jesus)

• Χριστοῦ (Christ / Messiah)

Panin counts them as two names, because they are two written words. But some defenders say:

“Surely Matthew thought of this as one title — Jesus the Messiah.”

That’s reasonable at a conceptual level.

If we count Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ as one name-unit, some totals shift. For example:

• the number of “names” decreases by one

• the number of words remains the same

• the number of letters does not change

So one category improves slightly — but others do not.

More importantly, the Greek text gives us two distinct genitives, not a compound noun. Once we treat two written words as one unit, we are no longer counting the text — we are interpreting it and then counting our interpretation.

That may be meaningful theology, but it is not stable mathematics.

2. Counting Word Families Instead of Word Forms

Another proposal concerns repeated words, especially the verb “begat.”

In Matthew 1, the genealogy repeatedly uses the verb:

ἐγέννησεν (“he begat”)

For example:

Ἀβραὰμ ἐγέννησεν τὸν ἸσαάκἸσαὰκ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰακώβ

Panin sometimes treats repeated words as:

• separate occurrences (when that helps)

• a single word-family (when that helps)

Charitable defenders suggest:“Why not count ἐγέννησεν only once, since it’s the same word?”

But the Greek text doesn’t do that. Each occurrence is:

• written separately

• counted separately

• copied separately by scribes

If we collapse repeated words into one, then:

• total word counts change

• vowel and consonant counts change

• grammatical-category counts change

And crucially: there is no principled stopping point.

Should we also collapse:

• repeated names like Δαυίδ?

• repeated articles like ὁ / τοῦ?

• repeated conjunctions like δέ?

Once again, the rules shift depending on which number we want to reach.

3. Ignoring “Small” Words (Articles, Conjunctions, Prepositions)

This is one of the most common adjustments.

Greek uses many small but essential words:

• ὁ / τοῦ / τὸν (the)

• καί (and)

• δέ (but/now)

• ἐκ (from)

For example, Matthew 1:2:

Ἀβραὰμ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰσαάκ

If we remove τὸν (“the”), the numbers change.

Panin often excludes such words from certain counts, calling them “non-essential.” But in Greek, articles are not optional. They mark case, meaning, and structure.

Ancient scribes counted them.Ancient grammarians taught them.Ancient readers expected them.

Ignoring them is not neutral — it is selective.

And once they are removed, almost any numerical pattern can be manufactured.

4. Counting Sounds Instead of Letters

Greek letters also function as numbers. For example:

• α = 1

• β = 2

• γ = 3

• … and so on

This system counts written letters, not sounds.

Yet Panin sometimes treats combinations like:

• ει

• ου

as if they were single units because they form one sound.

But Greek alphanumeric values do not work that way.They never have.

If we count pronunciation instead of spelling, then:

• dialect matters

• historical pronunciation matters

• modern reconstructions matter

And suddenly, the numbers depend on how we think Greek sounded — not on what is written on the page.

That defeats the entire premise of an objective numerical structure.

The Core Problem: Too Many Valid-Looking Options

Each of these adjustments sounds reasonable in isolation.

But taken together, they create a serious problem:

There are too many ways to count the same text.

And when there are too many ways to count, the numbers stop proving anything.

A real mathematical structure should still work when:

• the rules are fixed

• the text is counted as written

• the method does not change midstream

Panin’s system does not meet that standard.

What Can Still Be Affirmed

None of this means Matthew didn’t care about numbers.

He clearly did.

Matthew explicitly structures the genealogy into:

three groups of fourteen generations (Matthew 1:17)

That is deliberate. That is visible. That is textual.

But the claim that Matthew embedded a flawless, letter-by-letter seven-based code beneath the Greek text — one that proves divine inspiration — simply does not hold up when the Greek is counted consistently.

A Better Way Forward

The Bible does not need hidden arithmetic to be meaningful or inspired.

Its power lies in what it says, how it shapes history, and how it tells the story of Jesus — not in fragile numerical systems that collapse under scrutiny.

Letting go of Panin’s method does not weaken faith.

It strengthens honesty.