On the Harmony of Matthew and Luke in the Genealogy of Christ

In the generation of Christ, Matthew and Luke seem to disagree, because while one, that is, Matthew, weaves the series of that same generation by descending, the other, that is, Luke, does so by ascending. Matthew indeed, taking the beginning of his narration from Abraham, and descending as far as David, then draws the line down through Solomon to Joseph: but Luke, beginning from Joseph, ascends through Nathan to David, and from David to Abraham, and finally from Abraham to Adam, unwinding the order of generation upward. Whence it happens that, from David downward, since the one draws the path of generation through Nathan, the other through Solomon, almost the whole order of the computation disagrees. But since sacred Scripture sometimes admits diverse things, yet never admits contrary things, while we are not permitted to believe in contradiction, we are compelled to seek out the hidden truth.

Matthew, therefore, computes the generation of Christ by descending, showing that the Son of God, through the assumption of flesh, was made the Son of man: Luke weaves the same by ascending, demonstrating that the sons of men are made sons of God through the grace of adoption. For this reason also, Matthew, wishing to bring the series of generation down to the birth of Christ, began not from the first parent Adam, but from Abraham; so as to show that the assumption of flesh in the Son of God was not the institution of the first creation, but the fulfillment of a promise made afterward. But Luke, beginning from Christ baptized, made an end not in David or in Abraham, nor even in Adam: but passing through David and Abraham and Adam, he ascended to God; so as to make it plainly understood that those who by carnal generation are sons of men, pass over by the regeneration of baptism into the adoption of the Godhead.

Therefore Matthew wished to count in the genealogy none but natural sons: but Luke enrolls among the natural ones also the adopted; so that it might be shown both that in the Christ who was born there was a true assumption of flesh, and that in us, being reborn, adoption comes about not by nature but by grace. This, then, was the reason why in the series of generation Matthew set down some fathers, and Luke others; because the one, as we have said, counted only the natural, but the other numbered along with the natural ones also the adopted. That this may be made plainer, let us compare the narration of each.

The order of the generation of Christ according to Matthew is this: Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, Jacob begot Judah, Judah begot Phares, Phares begot Esron, Esron begot Aram, Aram begot Aminadab, Aminadab begot Naasson, Naasson begot Salmon, Salmon begot Booz, Booz begot Obed, Obed begot Isai, 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. Here the Evangelist omitted three, that is, Ozias or Ochosias, and Joas, and Amasias; for Joram in the first place begot Ochozias, and Ochosias begot Joas, and Joas begot Amasias, and Amasias at last begot Ozias, of whom it is now said: Joram begot Ozias. This is to be understood thus: he begot him, that is, by the mediation of the aforesaid; because through them he proceeded from his seed.

But the Evangelist omitted these either so that the number of the fourth decade might be made equal; or because Joram had joined himself in marriage with Jezabel; and it had been said through the prophet that none of the house of Achab should reign, save in the fourth generation: and therefore his memory is removed thus far from the holy generation. Ozias then, who is also Azarias, begot Joatham, Joatham begot Achaz, Achaz begot Ezechias, Ezechias begot Manasses, Manasses begot Amon, Amon begot Josias, Josias begot Jechonias, Jechonias begot Salathiel. The truth of history holds that Josias begot Eliachim, who is also called Joachim, or Jechonias: and Eliachim begot Joachim, who himself also, like his father, was called Jechonias: this one at last begot Salathiel.

We shall say, therefore, either that one was omitted for the aforesaid reason, or for some other cause whatsoever; or that this Jechonias, of whom it is said, Josias begot Jechonias, is not the same as that one of whom it is said, After the transmigration of Babylon Jechonias begot Salathiel: but that the former is the father, the latter the son; and that because of the separation and disjunction of the transmigration, the connection of generation between them was not repeated, as if it were said, Jechonias begot Jechonias. Jechonias, then, begot Salathiel, Salathiel begot Zorobabel, Zorobabel begot Abiud. Thus far the order of generation is woven from the old 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.

In this manner we believe the generation to have descended naturally; now let us unroll the series of generation according to Luke. Luke speaks thus: Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, who was the son of Heli, who was the son of Matthat. At first sight a contradiction seems to arise. 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 such a solution to this question is given by the Fathers: that Matthan, who descended through Solomon, had a wife named Esthan; from whom he begot a son Jacob, and when he died, Matthat, who descended through Nathan, took the same wife, and begot from her a son Heli. Thus, then, Heli and Jacob were uterine brothers, born of one mother, not of one father.

Heli first took a wife, and died without children: afterward Jacob took his brother's wife, that he might raise up seed for his brother, from whom he begot Joseph. Joseph, therefore, is the son of Jacob according to generation, but the son of Heli according to the Law. Then the order of generation is woven. Joseph, who was the son of Heli, who was the son of Matthat, who was the son of Levi, who was the son of Melchi, who was the son of Janne, who was the son of Joseph, who was the son of Matthathias, who was the son of Amos, who was the son of Nahum, who was the son of Hesli, who was the son of Nangae, who was the son of Matth, who was the son of Mathathias, who was the son of Semei, who was the son of Joseph, who was the son of Judah, who was the son of Johanna, who was the son of Resa, who was the son of Zorobabel, who was the son of Salathiel.

I do not think that this is the same Zorobabel or Salathiel who were numbered above in the series of generation according to Matthew; since that Salathiel was not the son of Neri, but the son of Jechonias: and that Zorobabel did not beget Resa, but Abiu and the rest, among whom Resa is not numbered; or if they are the same, it must be said that here first the lines of both computations run together into one, and then presently, according to the manner which we noted at the head of this generation, they are drawn apart from each other.

Who was the son of Neri, who was the son of Melchi, who was the son of Addi, who was the son of Cosam, who was the son of Elmodan, who was the son of Her, who was the son of Jesu, who was the son of Eliezer, who was the son of Jorim, who was the son of Matthat, who was the son of Levi, who was the son of Symeon, who was the son of Judah, who was the son of Joseph, who was the son of Jona, who was the son of Eliachin, who was the son of Melcha, who was the son of Menan, who was the son of Matthata, who was the son of Nathan, who was the son of David. What follows next, as far as Abraham, is the same in both.

Indeed, that more generations are numbered in the very line of descent 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 increased more manifoldly in that part where, the fathers dying off more quickly, the sons succeeded them in greater number.