Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

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. 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 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 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.

Articulus 3

Argumentum 1

Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod genealogia christi inconvenienter ab evangelistis texatur.

Dicitur enim Isaiae LIII de christo, generationem eius quis enarrabit? ergo non fuit christi generatio enarranda.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, impossibile est unum hominem duos patres habere.

Sed matthaeus dicit quod Iacob genuit ioseph, virum mariae, Lucas autem dicit ioseph fuisse filium Heli.

Ergo contraria sibi invicem scribunt.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, videntur in quibusdam a se invicem diversificari.

Matthaeus enim, in principio libri incipiens ab Abraham, descendendo usque ad ioseph, quadraginta duas generationes enumerat.

Lucas autem post baptismum christi generationem christi ponit, incipiens a christo et perducens generationum numerum usque ad deum, ponens generationes septuaginta septem, utroque extremo computato.

Videtur ergo quod inconvenienter generationem christi describant.

Argumentum 4

Praeterea, IV Reg. VIII legitur quod ioram genuit Ochoziam; cui successit ioas, filius eius; huic autem successit filius eius Amasias; postea regnavit filius eius Azarias, qui appellatur Ozias; cui successit ioathan, filius eius.

Matthaeus autem dicit quod ioram genuit Oziam.

Ergo videtur inconvenienter generationem christi describere, tres reges in medio praetermittens.

Argumentum 5

Praeterea, omnes qui in christi generatione describuntur patres habuerunt et matres, et plurimi etiam ex eis fratres habuerunt.

Matthaeus autem in generatione christi tres tantum matres nominat scilicet thamar, Ruth et uxorem uriae. Fratres autem nominat Iudae et iechoniae, et iterum Phares et zaram.

Quorum nihil posuit Lucas.

Ergo videntur evangelistae inconvenienter genealogiam christi descripsisse.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est auctoritas Scripturae.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dicitur II Tim. III, omnis Scriptura sacra est divinitus inspirata.

Quae autem divinitus fiunt ordinatissime fiunt, secundum illud Rom. XIII, quae a deo sunt, ordinata sunt.

Unde convenienti ordine genealogia christi est ab evangelistis descripta.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Hieronymus dicit, super Matth., Isaias loquitur de generatione divinitatis christi. Matthaeus autem enarrat generationem christi secundum humanitatem, non quidem explicans modum incarnationis, quia hoc etiam est ineffabile; sed enumerat patres ex quibus christus secundum carnem processit.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod ad hanc obiectionem, quam movit Iulianus apostata, diversimode ab aliquibus respondetur.

Quidam enim, ut Gregorius Nazianzenus dicit, dicunt eosdem esse quos uterque evangelista enumerat, sed sub diversis nominibus, quasi binomios.

Sed hoc stare non potest, quia matthaeus ponit unum filiorum David scilicet Salomonem, Lucas autem ponit alium, scilicet Nathan, quos secundum historiam libri regum constat fratres fuisse.

Unde alii dixerunt quod matthaeus veram genealogiam christi tradidit, Lucas autem putativam, unde incoepit, ut putabatur, filius ioseph.

Erant enim aliqui ex Iudaeis qui, propter peccata regum Iuda, credebant christum ex David non per reges, sed per aliam eius stirpem hominum privatorum, esse nasciturum.

Alii vero dixerunt quod matthaeus posuit patres carnales, Lucas autem posuit patres spirituales, scilicet iustos viros, qui dicuntur patres propter similitudinem honestatis.

In libro vero de quaest. Nov. Et vet. Test., respondetur quod non est intelligendum quod ioseph a Luca dicatur esse filius Heli, sed quia Heli et ioseph fuerunt tempore christi diversimode a David descendentes. Unde de christo dicitur quod putabatur filius ioseph, et quod ipse etiam christus fuit Heli filius, quasi diceret quod christus ea ratione qua dicitur filius ioseph, potest dici filius Heli, et omnium eorum qui ex stirpe David descendunt; sicut apostolus dicit, Rom. IX, ex quibus, scilicet Iudaeis, christus est secundum carnem.

Augustinus vero, in libro de quaest. Evang., tripliciter solvit, dicens, tres causae occurrunt, quarum aliquam evangelista secutus est.

Aut enim unus evangelista patrem ioseph a quo genitus est, nominavit, alter vero vel avum maternum, vel aliquem de cognatis maioribus posuit. Aut unus erat ioseph naturalis pater, et alter eum adoptaverat. Aut, more Iudaeorum, cum sine filiis unus decessisset, eius uxorem propinquus accipiens, filium quem genuit propinquo mortuo deputavit, quod etiam quoddam genus adoptionis legalis est, ut ipse Augustinus dicit, in II de consensu evang.. Et haec ultima causa est verior, quam etiam Hieronymus, super Matth., ponit; et eusebius caesariensis, in ecclesiastica historia, ab Africano historiographo traditum asserit. Dicunt enim quod mathan et melchi diversis temporibus de una eademque uxore, estha nomine, singulos filios procrearunt. Quia mathan, qui per Salomonem descendit, uxorem eam primum ceperat, et, relicto filio uno, Iacob nomine, defunctus est; post cuius obitum, quoniam lex viduam alii viro non vetat nubere, melchi, qui per Nathan genus ducit, cum esset ex eadem tribu sed non ex eodem genere, relictam mathan accepit uxorem, ex qua et ipse suscepit filium, nomine Heli; et sic ex diverso patrum genere efficiuntur Iacob et Heli uterini fratres. Quorum alter, idest Iacob, fratris sui Heli, sine liberis defuncti, ex mandato legis accipiens uxorem, genuit ioseph, natura quidem generis suum filium, secundum vero legis praeceptum, Heli efficitur filius.

Et ideo matthaeus dicit, Iacob genuit ioseph, sed Lucas, quia legalem generationem describit, nullum nominat aliquem genuisse.

Et quamvis Damascenus dicat quod beata virgo maria ioseph attinebat secundum illam originem qua pater eius dicitur Heli, quia dicit eam ex melchi descendisse, tamen credendum est quod etiam ex Salomone originem duxerit, secundum aliquem modum, per illos patres quos enumerat matthaeus, qui carnalem christi generationem dicitur enarrare; praesertim cum Ambrosius dicat christum de semine iechoniae descendisse.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, in libro de consensu evang., matthaeus regiam in christo instituerat insinuare personam, Lucas autem sacerdotalem. Unde in generationibus matthaei significatur nostrorum susceptio peccatorum a domino iesu christo, inquantum scilicet per carnis originem similitudinem carnis peccati assumpsit.

In generationibus autem Lucae significatur nostrorum ablutio peccatorum, quae est per sacrificium christi.

Et ideo generationes matthaeus descendens enumerat, Lucas autem ascendens.

Inde etiam est quod matthaeus ab ipso David per Salomonem descendit, in cuius matre ille peccavit, Lucas vero ad ipsum David per Nathan ascendit per cuius nominis prophetam deus peccatum illius expiavit.

Et inde est etiam quod, quia matthaeus ad mortalitatem nostram christum descendentem voluit significare, ipsas generationes ab Abraham usque ad ioseph, et usque ad ipsius christi nativitatem, descendendo commemoravit ab initio evangelii sui. Lucas autem non ab initio, sed a baptismo christi generationem narrat, nec descendendo, sed ascendendo, tanquam sacerdotem in expiandis peccatis magis assignans ubi testimonium ioannes perhibuit, dicens, ecce qui tollit peccatum mundi. Ascendendo autem, transit Abraham et pervenit ad deum, cui mundati et expiati reconciliamur. Merito etiam adoptionis originem ipse suscepit, quia per adoptionem efficimur filii dei; per carnalem vero generationem filius dei filius hominis factus est. Satis autem demonstravit non se ideo dixisse ioseph filium Heli quod de illo sit genitus, sed quod ab illo fuerat adoptatus, cum et ipsum Adam filium dei dixit, cum sit factus a deo.

Numerus etiam quadragenarius ad tempus praesentis vitae pertinet, propter quatuor partes mundi, in quo mortalem vitam ducimus sub christo regnante. Quadraginta autem quater habent decem, et ipsa decem ab uno usque ad quatuor progrediente numero consummantur.

Posset etiam denarius ad Decalogum referri, et quaternarius ad praesentem vitam; vel etiam ad quatuor evangelia, secundum quod christus regnat in nobis. Et ideo matthaeus, regiam personam christi commendans, quadraginta personas posuit excepto ipso.

Sed hoc intelligendum est si sit idem iechonias qui ponitur in fine secundi quaterdenarii et in principio tertii, ut Augustinus vult. Quod dicit factum esse ad significandum quod in iechonia facta est quaedam deflexio ad extraneas gentes, quando in Babyloniam transmigratum est, quod etiam praefigurabat christum a circumcisione ad praeputium migraturum.

Hieronymus autem dicit duos fuisse ioachim, idest iechonias, patrem scilicet et filium, quorum uterque in generatione christi assumitur, ut constet distinctio generationum, quas evangelista per tres quaterdenarios distinguit.

Quod ascendit ad quadraginta duas personas.

Qui etiam numerus convenit sanctae ecclesiae. Hic enim numerus consurgit ex senario, qui significat laborem praesentis vitae, et septenario, qui significat quietem vitae futurae, sexies enim septem sunt quadraginta duo. Ipse etiam quaterdenarius, qui ex denario et quaternario constituitur per aggregationem, ad eandem significationem pertinere potest quae attributa est quadragenario qui consurgit ex eisdem numeris secundum multiplicationem.

Numerus autem quo Lucas utitur in generationibus christi, significat universitatem peccatorum.

Denarius enim, tanquam iustitiae numerus, in decem praeceptis legis ostenditur. Peccatum autem est legis transgressio.

Denarii vero numeri transgressio est undenarius.

Septenarius autem significat universitatem, quia universum tempus septenario dierum numero volvitur. Septies autem undecim sunt septuaginta septem. Et ita per hoc significatur universitas peccatorum, quae per christum tolluntur.

Ad 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod, sicut Hieronymus, super Matth., dicit, quia ioram rex generi se miscuerat impiissimae iezabel, idcirco usque ad tertiam generationem eius memoria tollitur, ne in sancto nativitatis ordine poneretur.

Et ita, ut chrysostomus dicit, quanta benedictio facta est super iehu, qui vindictam fecerat super domum Achab et iezabel, tanta est maledictio super domum ioram, propter filiam iniqui Achab et iezabel, ut usque ad quartam generationem praecidantur filii eius de numero regum, sicut scriptum est Exod. XX, reddam peccatum parentum in filios usque ad tertiam et quartam generationem.

Est etiam attendendum quod et alii reges fuerunt peccatores, qui in genealogia christi ponuntur, sed non fuit eorum continua impietas.

Nam, ut dicitur in libro quaest. Novi et vet. Test., Salomon merito patris sui remissus in regno est, Roboam merito Asae, filii Abiae, filii sui. Horum autem trium continua fuit impietas.

Ad 5

Ad quintum dicendum quod, sicut Hieronymus dicit, super Matth., in genealogia salvatoris nulla sanctarum mulierum assumitur, sed eas quas Scriptura reprehendit, ut qui propter peccatores venerat, de peccatoribus nascens, omnium peccata deleret.

Unde ponitur thamar, quae reprehenditur de socerino concubitu; et Rahab, quae fuit meretrix; et Ruth, quae fuit alienigena; et bethsabee, uxor uriae, quae fuit adultera. Quae tamen proprio nomine non ponitur, sed ex nomine viri designatur, tum propter peccatum ipsius, quia fuit adulterii et homicidii conscia; tum etiam ut, nominato viro, peccatum David ad memoriam revocetur.

Et quia Lucas christum designare intendit ut peccatorum expiatorem, talium mulierum mentionem non facit. Fratres autem Iudae commemorat, ut ostendat eos ad dei populum pertinere, cum tamen Ismael, frater Isaac, et esau, frater Iacob, a populo dei fuerint separati; propter quod in generatione christi non commemorantur. Et etiam ut superbiam de nobilitate excludat, multi enim fratrum Iudae ex ancillis nati fuerunt, sed omnes simul erant patriarchae et tribuum principes.

Phares autem et zaram simul nominantur, ut Ambrosius dicit, super Luc., quia per eos gemina describitur vita populorum, una secundum legem, quae significatur per zaram; altera per fidem, quae significatur per Phares.

Fratres autem iechoniae ponit, quia omnes regnaverunt diversis temporibus, quod in aliis regibus non acciderat. Vel quia eorum similis fuit et iniquitas et miseria.