|
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's genealogy is not suitably
traced by the Evangelists. For it is written (Is. 53:8):
"Who shall declare His generation?" Therefore Christ's genealogy
should not have been set down.
Objection 2: Further, one man cannot possibly have two fathers.
But Matthew says that "Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of
Mary": whereas Luke says that Joseph was the son of Heli.
Therefore they contradict one another.
Objection 3: Further, there seem to be divergencies between them on
several points. For Matthew, at the commencement of his book,
beginning from Abraham and coming down to Joseph, enumerates
forty-two generations. Whereas Luke sets down Christ's genealogy
after His Baptism, and beginning from Christ traces the series of
generations back to God, counting in all seventy-seven generations,
the first and last included. It seems therefore that their accounts of
Christ's genealogy do not agree.
Objection 4: Further, we read (4 Kgs. 8:24) that Joram
begot Ochozias, who was succeeded by his son Joas: who was succeeded
by his son Amasius: after whom reigned his son Azarias, called
Ozias; who was succeeded by his son Joathan. But Matthew says that
Joram begot Ozias. Therefore it seems that his account of Christ's
genealogy is unsuitable, since he omits three kings in the middle
thereof.
Objection 5: Further, all those who are mentioned in Christ's
genealogy had both a father and a mother, and many of them had brothers
also. Now in Christ's genealogy Matthew mentions only three
mothers---namely, Thamar, Ruth, and the wife of Urias. He
also mentions the brothers of Judas and Jechonias, and also Phares
and Zara. But Luke mentions none of these. Therefore the
evangelists seem to have described the genealogy of Christ in an
unsuitable manner.
On the contrary, The authority of Scripture suffices.
I answer that, As is written (2 Tim. 3:16), "All Holy
Scripture is inspired of God, etc. Now what is done by God is done
in perfect order, according to Rm. 13:1: "Those that are of
God are ordained. Therefore Christ's genealogy is set down by the
evangelists in a suitable order.
Reply to Objection 1: As Jerome says on Mt. 1, Isaias speaks
of the generation of Christ's Godhead. Whereas Matthew relates the
generation of Christ in His humanity; not indeed by explaining the
manner of the Incarnation, which is also unspeakable; but by
enumerating Christ's forefathers from whom He was descended according
to the flesh.
Reply to Objection 2: Various answers have been made by certain
writers to this objection which was raised by Julian the Apostate;
for some, as Gregory of Nazianzum, say that the people mentioned by
the two evangelists are the same, but under different names, as though
they each had two. But this will not stand: because Matthew mentions
one of David's sons---namely, Solomon; whereas Luke mentions
another---namely, Nathan, who according to the history of the
kings (2 Kgs. 5:14) were clearly brothers.
Wherefore others said that Matthew gave the true genealogy of
Christ: while Luke gave the supposititious genealogy; hence he
began: "Being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph." For
among the Jews there were some who believed that, on account of the
crimes of the kings of Juda, Christ would be born of the family of
David, not through the kings, but through some other line of private
individuals.
Others again have supposed that Matthew gave the forefathers according
to the flesh: whereas Luke gave these according to the spirit, that
is, righteous men, who are called (Christ's) forefathers by
likeness of virtue.
But an answer is given in the Qq. Vet. et Nov. Test. [Part
i, qu. lvi; part 2, qu. vi] to the effect that we are not to
understand that Joseph is said by Luke to be the son of Heli: but
that at the time of Christ, Heli and Joseph were differently
descended from David. Hence Christ is said to have been supposed to
be the son of Joseph, and also to have been the son of Heli as though
(the Evangelist) were to say that Christ, from the fact that He
was the son of Joseph, could be called the son of Heli and of all
those who were descended from David; as the Apostle says (Rm.
9:5): "Of whom" (viz. the Jews) "is Christ according to
the flesh."
Augustine again gives three solutions (De Qq. Evang. ii),
saying: "There are three motives by one or other of which the
evangelist was guided. For either one evangelist mentions Joseph's
father of whom he was begotten; whilst the other gives either his
maternal grandfather or some other of his later forefathers; or one was
Joseph's natural father: the other is father by adoption. Or,
according to the Jewish custom, one of those having died without
children, a near relation of his married his wife, the son born of the
latter union being reckoned as the son of the former": which is a kind
of legal adoption, as Augustine himself says (De Consensu Evang.
ii, Cf. Retract. ii).
This last motive is the truest: Jerome also gives it commenting on
Mt. 1:16; and Eusebius of Caesarea in his Church history
(I, vii), says that it is given by Africanus the historian. For
these writers says that Mathan and Melchi, at different times, each
begot a son of one and the same wife, named Estha. For Mathan, who
traced his descent through Solomon, had married her first, and died,
leaving one son, whose name was Jacob: and after his death, as the
law did not forbid his widow to remarry, Melchi, who traced his
descent through Mathan, being of the same tribe though not of the same
family as Mathan, married his widow, who bore him a son, called
Heli; so that Jacob and Heli were uterine brothers born to different
fathers. Now one of these, Jacob, on his brother Heli dying
without issue, married the latter's widow, according to the
prescription of the law, of whom he had a son, Joseph, who by nature
was his own son, but by law was accounted the son of Heli. Wherefore
Matthew says "Jacob begot Joseph": whereas Luke, who was giving
the legal genealogy, speaks of no one as begetting.
And although Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv) says that the Blessed
Virgin Mary was connected with Joseph in as far as Heli was
accounted as his father, for he says that she was descended from
Melchi: yet must we also believe that she was in some way descended
from Solomon through those patriarchs enumerated by Matthew, who is
said to have set down Christ's genealogy according to the flesh; and
all the more since Ambrose states that Christ was of the seed of
Jechonias.
Reply to Objection 3: According to Augustine (De Consensu
Evang. ii) "Matthew purposed to delineate the royal personality of
Christ; Luke the priestly personality: so that in Matthew's
genealogy is signified the assumption of our sins by our Lord Jesus
Christ": inasmuch as by his carnal origin "He assumed 'the
likeness of sinful flesh.' But in Luke's genealogy the washing away
of our sins is signified," which is effected by Christ's sacrifice.
"For which reason Matthew traces the generations downwards, Luke
upwards." For the same reason too "Matthew descends from David
through Solomon, in whose mother David sinned; whereas Luke ascends
to David through Nathan, through whose namesake, the prophet, God
expiated his sin." And hence it is also that, because "Matthew
wished to signify that Christ had condescended to our mortal nature,
he set down the genealogy of Christ at the very outset of his Gospel,
beginning with Abraham and descending to Joseph and the birth of
Christ Himself. Luke, on the contrary, sets forth Christ's
genealogy not at the outset, but after Christ's Baptism, and not in
the descending but in the ascending order: as though giving prominence
to the office of the priest in expiating our sins, to which John bore
witness, saying: 'Behold Him who taketh away the sin of the
world.' And in the ascending order, he passes Abraham and continues
up to God, to whom we are reconciled by cleansing and expiating.
With reason too he follows the origin of adoption; because by adoption
we become children of God: whereas by carnal generation the Son of
God became the Son of Man. Moreover he shows sufficiently that he
does not say that Joseph was the son of Heli as though begotten by
him, but because he was adopted by him, since he says that Adam was
the son of God, inasmuch as he was created by God."
Again, the number forty pertains to the time of our present life:
because of the four parts of the world in which we pass this mortal life
under the rule of Christ. And forty is the product of four multiplied
by ten: while ten is the sum of the numbers from one to four. The
number ten may also refer to the decalogue; and the number four to the
present life; or again to the four Gospels, according to which
Christ reigns in us. And thus "Matthew, putting forward the royal
personality of Christ, enumerates forty persons not counting Him"
(cf. Augustine, De Consensu Evang. ii). But this is to be
taken on the supposition that it be the same Jechonias at the end of
the second, and at the commencement of the third series of fourteen,
as Augustine understands it. According to him this was done in order
to signify "that under Jechonias there was a certain defection to
strange nations during the Babylonian captivity; which also
foreshadowed the fact that Christ would pass from the Jews to the
Gentiles."
On the other hand, Jerome (on Mt. 1:12-15) says that there
were two Joachims---that is, Jechonias, father and son: both of
whom are mentioned in Christ's genealogy, so as to make clear the
distinction of the generations, which the evangelist divides into three
series of fourteen; which amounts in all to forty-two persons. Which
number may also be applied to the Holy Church: for it is the product
of six, which signifies the labor of the present life, and seven,
which signifies the rest of the life to come: for six times seven are
forty-two. The number fourteen, which is the sum of ten and four,
can also be given the same signification as that given to the number
forty, which is the product of the same numbers by multiplication.
But the number used by Luke in Christ's genealogy signifies the
generality of sins. "For the number ten is shown in the ten precepts
of the Law to be the number of righteousness. Now, to sin is to go
beyond the restriction of the Law. And eleven is the number beyond
ten." And seven signifies universality: because "universal time is
involved in seven days." Now seven times eleven are seventy-seven:
so that this number signifies the generality of sins which are taken
away by Christ.
Reply to Objection 4: As Jerome says on Mt. 1:8,11:
"Because Joram allied himself with the family of the most wicked
Jezabel, therefore his memory is omitted down to the third
generation, lest it should be inserted among the holy predecessors of
the Nativity." Hence as Chrysostom [Opus Imperf. in Matth.
Hom. i] says: "Just as great was the blessing conferred on Jehu,
who wrought vengeance on the house of Achab and Jezabel, so also
great was the curse on the house of Joram, through the wicked daughter
of Achab and Jezabel, so that until the fourth generation his
posterity is cut off from the number of kings, according to Ex.
20:5: I shall visit the iniquity of the fathers upon the children
unto the third and fourth generations."
It must also be observed that there were other kings who sinned and are
mentioned in Christ's genealogy: but their impiety was not
continuous. For, as it is stated in the book De Qq. Vet. et
Nov. Test. qu. lxxxv: "Solomon through his father's merits is
included in the series of kings; and Roboam . . . through the
merits of Asa," who was son of his (Roboam's) son, Abiam.
"But the impiety of those three [Ochozias, Joas, and Amasias]
was continuous."
Reply to Objection 5: As Jerome says on Mt. 1:3: "None of
the holy women are mentioned in the Saviour's genealogy, but only
those whom Scripture censures, so that He who came for the sake of
sinners, by being born of sinners, might blot out all sin." Thus
Thamar is mentioned, who is censured for her sin with her
father-in-law; Rahab who was a whore; Ruth who was a foreigner;
and Bethsabee, the wife of Urias, who was an adulteress. The
last, however, is not mentioned by name, but is designated through
her husband; both on account of his sin, for he was cognizant of the
adultery and murder; and further in order that, by mentioning the
husband by name, David's sin might be recalled. And because Luke
purposes to delineate Christ as the expiator of our sins, he makes no
mention of these women. But he does mention Juda's brethren, in
order to show that they belong to God's people: whereas Ismael, the
brother of Isaac, and Esau, Jacob's brother, were cut off from
God's people, and for this reason are not mentioned in Christ's
genealogy. Another motive was to show the emptiness of pride of
birth: for many of Juda's brethren were born of hand-maidens, and
yet all were patriarchs and heads of tribes. Phares and Zara are
mentioned together, because, as Ambrose says on Lk. 3:23,
"they are the type of the twofold life of man: one, according to the
Law," signified by Zara; "the other by Faith," of which Phares
is the type. The brethren of Jechonias are included, because they
all reigned at various times: which was not the case with other kings:
or, again, because they were alike in wickedness and misfortune.
|
|