De Concordia Matthaei Et Lucae In Genealogia Christi

The Concord of Matthew and Luke on the Genealogy of Christ. In the generation of Christ, Matthew and Luke appear to disagree, because one—that is, Matthew—descending, the other—that is, Luke—ascending, weaves the series of the same generation. Matthew, indeed, taking the beginning of his narrative from Abraham and descending as far as David, then through Solomon leads the line down to Joseph: Luke, on the other hand, beginning from Joseph, through Nathan to David, and from David as far as Abraham, finally from Abraham as far as Adam, ascends by revolving the order of the generation. Hence it happens that from David downward, since the one traces the path of generation through Nathan, the other through Solomon, almost the entire order of the computation is at variance. But because sacred Scripture sometimes admits different things, but never admits contradictory ones; while we are not permitted to believe in contrariety, we are compelled to seek the hidden truth. Matthew, therefore, computes the generation of Christ descending, showing that the Son of God, through the assumption of flesh, became the Son of Man: Luke weaves the same ascending, demonstrating that sons of men become sons of God through the grace of adoption.

Therefore, Matthew, wishing to lead the series of generation up to the birth of Christ, did not begin from the first parent Adam, but from Abraham, in order to show that the assumption of flesh in the Son of God was not an institution of the original condition, but the fulfillment of a promise made afterward. Luke, however, beginning from the baptized Christ, did not end with David or Abraham, nor even with Adam, but passing through David, Abraham, and Adam, ascended to God, so as to make it clearly understood that those who are sons of men through generation of the flesh pass, through regeneration of baptism, into the adoption of divinity. For this reason, Matthew in his genealogy wished to count only natural sons; Luke, however, includes among the natural also the adoptive, in order to show that in Christ being born there was a true assumption of flesh, and in us being reborn adoption comes not through nature but through grace. This, therefore, was the reason why in the series of generation Matthew placed some fathers and Luke others: because the former, as we have said, listed only natural ones; the latter, however, counted even adoptive ones together with the natural. So that this may be more clearly evident, let us compare the accounts of both.

The order of Christ's generation according to Matthew is as follows: Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, Jacob begot Judah, Judah begot Phares, Phares begot Esron, Esron begot Aram, Aram begot Aminadab, Aminadab begot Naason, Naason begot Salmon, Salmon begot Booz, Booz begot Obed, Obed begot Jesse, or Jesse, Jesse begot David, David begot Solomon, Solomon begot Roboam, Roboam begot Abiam, Abia begot Asa, Asa begot Josaphat, Josaphat begot Joram, Joram begot Ozias (Matthew 1:1 and following). Here the Evangelist omitted three, that is, Ozias or Ochozias, and Joas, and Amasias; for Joram first begot Ochozias, and Ochozias begot Joas, and Joas begot Amasias, and Amasias finally begot Ozias, of whom it is now said: Joram begot Ozias. This is to be understood as meaning that he begot him through the mediation of those mentioned above, because through them his seed proceeded. The Evangelist omitted these either so that the number of the decade might be equalized, or because Joram mingled his line with Jezebel, and it had been said by the prophet that no one from the house of Ahab would reign except in the fourth generation, and therefore his memory is removed, so that it is excluded from the holy generation. Ozias, therefore, who is also Azarias, begot Joatham, Joatham begot Achaz, Achaz begot Ezechiam, Ezechias begot Manassen, Manasses begot Amon, Amon begot Josiam, Josias begot Jechoniam, Jechonias begot Salathiel.

The truth of the history holds that Josias begot Eleachim, who is also called Joachim or Jechonias; Eleachim, however, begot Joachim, who, like his father, was also called Jechonias; this one finally begot Salathiel. We will therefore say that one ancestor was omitted for the reason stated above, or for some other cause; or that the Jechonias of whom it is said "Josias begot Jechonias" is not the same as the one of whom it is said "After the Babylonian captivity Jechonias begot Salathiel"; but that the first is the father, the second is the son; and that because of the separation and disruption of the captivity, the connection of generation between them was not repeated, so that it would be said "Jechonias begot Jechonias." Therefore Jechonias begot Salathiel, Salathiel begot Zorobabel, Zorobabel begot Abiud. Up to this point the order of generation is woven from the ancient books; what follows is confirmed by the authority of the evangelist. Abiud begot Eliachim, Eliachim begot Azor, Azor begot Sadoc, Sadoc begot Achim, Achim begot Eliud, Eliud begot Eleazar, Eleazar begot Mathan, Mathan begot Jacob, Jacob begot Joseph. We believe that the generation descended in this way naturally; now let us unfold the series of generation according to Luke. Luke says thus: "Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, as was thought, the son of Joseph, who was of Heli, who was of Matthat." (Luke 3:23). At first glance a contradiction seems to occur.

Matthew says that Joseph was the son of Jacob, and Jacob the son of Matthan; Luke says that Joseph was the son of Heli, and Heli the son not of Matthan, but of Matthat. But a solution to this question is given by the Fathers as follows: Matthan, who descends through Solomon, had a wife named Estha, from whom he begot a son Jacob. When he died, Matthat, who descends through Nathan, married the same wife, and begot from her a son Heli. Thus Heli and Jacob were uterine brothers, born of the same mother but not the same father. Heli first married a wife and died without children; afterwards Jacob took his brother’s wife to raise up seed for his brother, from whom he begot Joseph. Joseph, therefore, is the son of Jacob by generation, the son of Heli by law. Then the order of the genealogy is woven. Joseph, who was of Heli, who was of Matthat, who was of Levi, who was of Melchi, who was of Janna, who was of Joseph, who was of Mattathias, who was of Amos, who was of Nahum, who was of Hesli, who was of Nagge, who was of Maath, who was of Mattathias, who was of Semei, who was of Joseph, who was of Judah, who was of Joanna, who was of Rhesa, who was of Zorobabel, who was of Salathiel (Ibid., et seq.).

I do not think that this Zorobabel or Salathiel is the same as those who were counted above in the line of generation according to Matthew; since that Salathiel was not the son of Neri, but the son of Jechoniah; and Zorobabel was not Resa, but Abiu, and he begot the others, among whom Resa is not counted: or if they are the same, it must be said that here first the line of both computations comes together, and then soon after, according to the method which we indicated at the head of this generation, they are drawn apart from each other. Who was Neri, who was Melchi, who was Addi, who was Cosam, who was Elmodan, who was Her, who was Jesu, who was Eliezer, who was Jorim, who was Matthat, who was Levi, who was Symeon, who was Juda, who was Joseph, who was Jona, who was Eliachin, who was Melcha, who was Menan, who was Matthata, who was Nathan, who was David (Ibid., and following). What follows thereafter up to Abraham is the same in both. Certainly, that in the line of generation itself more are counted according to Luke from Joseph up to David than according to Matthew from David up to Joseph, ought not to seem contrary, since the successions of generations themselves have increased more abundantly in that part where, with fathers dying earlier, sons succeeded more numerously.