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

Latin Text from public domain Migne Editors, Patrologiae Cursus Completus.

Translated into English using ChatGPT.

Table of Contents On the Harmony of Matthew and Luke in the Genealogy of Christ.

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

In the genealogy of Christ, Matthew and Luke seem to differ, because while one, that is, Matthew, traces the lineage downwards, the other, that is, Luke, traces it upwards, forming the sequence of the same genealogy. Indeed, Matthew begins the narrative from Abraham and descends to David, then through Solomon to Joseph, tracing the line. But Luke, starting from Joseph, goes through Nathan to David, and from David to Abraham, and finally, by retracing the order of the genealogy, goes from Abraham to Adam. Hence it happens that from David downwards, when he traces the line through Nathan and this [Luke] through Solomon, the entire order of the computation is almost inconsistent. But because Holy Scripture sometimes presents different things, but never accepts what is contrary, since we are not permitted to believe inconsistency, we are compelled to seek the truth that is hidden. Therefore, Matthew computes the descent of the genealogy of Christ, showing that the Son of God became the Son of Man through the assumption of flesh; Luke weaves the same genealogy by ascending, demonstrating that the sons of men through the grace of adoption become sons of God.


Therefore, Matthew, also wanting to trace the line of generations up to the birth of Christ, did not start from the first parent Adam, but from Abraham; in order to show that the assumption of flesh in the Son of God was not the beginning of the first condition, but the fulfillment of a promise made later. However, Luke, starting from Christ being baptized, did not end in David or Abraham, nor in Adam; but passing through David, Abraham, and Adam, he ascended to God; in order to clearly demonstrate that those who are sons of men through the generation of flesh, pass through the regeneration of baptism into the adoption of divinity. Therefore, Matthew wanted to include only natural sons in the genealogy, while Luke also includes adoptive sons, to demonstrate that in the birth of Christ there was a true assumption of flesh, and in our rebirth we are adopted not by nature, but by grace. This is why Matthew placed some fathers in the series of generations and Luke placed others, because Matthew, as we have said, included only natural sons, while Luke included both natural and adoptive sons. In order to better understand, let us compare both narratives.

The genealogy of Christ according to Matthew is as follows: Abraham begat Isaac, Isaac begat Jacob, Jacob begat Judah, Judah begat Perez, Perez begat Hezron, Hezron begat Aram, Aram begat Amminadab, Amminadab begat Nahshon, Nahshon begat Salmon, Salmon begat Boaz, Boaz begat Obed, Obed begat Jesse, Jesse begat David, David begat Solomon, Solomon begat Rehoboam, Rehoboam begat Abijah, Abijah begat Asa, Asa begat Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat begat Joram, Joram begat Uzziah (Matt. 1:2 et seq.). Here the evangelist skips three generations, that is, Ahaziah or Jehoahaz, Jehoash, and Amaziah; for Joram first begot Ahaziah, and Ahaziah begot Jehoash, and Jehoash begot Amaziah, and Amaziah finally begot Ahaz. This is to be understood, namely, that he begot through the aforementioned, because they descended from his seed. But the evangelist omitted them either so that the number of the ten decades would be equal, or because Joram joined himself to Jezebel by marriage; 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, even to the holy generation. Therefore Ozias, who is also called 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 story is that Josias begot Eleachim, who is also called Joachim or Jechonias. Eleachim begot Joachim, who is also called Jechonias just like his father. Finally, he begot Salathiel. Therefore, we will say either one for the aforementioned reason, or for any other reason omitted: either he is not the same Jechoniah about whom it is said, 'Josiah begot Jechoniah,' and the one about whom it is said, 'After the Babylonian exile, Jechoniah begot Salathiel,' but that the former is the father and the latter is the son; however, due to the separation and disjunction of the exile, the generational connection between them is not repeated, so that it could be said, 'Jechoniah begot Jechoniah, Jechoniah therefore begot Salathiel, Salathiel begot Zerubbabel, Zerubbabel begot Abiud.' This is the order of the generations from the ancient books: 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. This is how we believe the generation naturally descended; now let us examine the series of generations according to Luke.


So Luke says: Jesus himself was beginning, as it was thought, about thirty years old, the son of Joseph, who was the son of Heli, who was the son of Matthat. (Luke III, 23). At first glance, there seems to be a contradiction. Matthew says that Joseph was the son of Jacob, and Jacob was the son of Matthan; Luke says that Joseph was the son of Heli, and Heli was not the son of Matthan, but of Matthat. But such a question is solved by the Fathers as follows: Matthan, who descended through Solomon, had a wife named Esthan; from her he begot a son, Jacob. After Jacob's death, Matthat, who descended through Nathan, married the same wife and begot a son, Heli. So, Heli and Jacob were uterine brothers, born from the same mother but not the same father. First, Heli married a wife and died without children. Then Jacob took the wife of his brother in order to raise up offspring for his brother, from whom he begot Joseph. Therefore, Joseph is the son of Jacob in terms of lineage, and the son of Heli according to the Law. Then the order of generation continues. Joseph, who was son of Heli, who was son of Matthat, who was son of Levi, who was son of Melchi, who was son of Janne, who was son of Joseph, who was son of Matthias, who was son of Amos, who was son of Nahum, who was son of Esli, who was son of Nagge, who was son of Mattathias, who was son of Semei, who was son of Joseph, who was son of Judah, who was son of Joanna, who was son of Rhesa, who was son of Zerubbabel, who was son of Shealtiel (Ibid., 23 et seq.). I do not believe that this is the same Zorobabel or Salathiel who were numbered earlier in the genealogy according to Matthew; for Salathiel was not the son of Neri, but the son of Jechoniah, and Zorobabel did not generate Resa, but Abiu and others, among whom Resa is not included. Or if they are the same, it must be said that here the first line of each computation converges into one, and then they are subsequently deduced from each other according to the method that we have marked at the beginning of this genealogy. He 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 Elmodam, who was the son of Er, who was the son of Jesus, 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 Simeon, who was the son of Judah, who was the son of Joseph, who was the son of Jonan, who was the son of Eliakim, who was the son of Melea, who was the son of Menan, who was the son of Mattatha, who was the son of Nathan, who was the son of David (ibid., 27 et seq.). The next ones that follow up to Abraham are the same in both. It should not be considered contradictory that there are more generations from Joseph to David according to Luke than from David to Joseph according to Matthew, since the successions of generations multiplied more in that part where, as fathers died earlier, sons succeeded in greater numbers.