The Genealogy of Christ

St Luke Chapter III : Verses 23-38

Contents

• Luke iii. 23-38.  Douay-Rheims (Challoner) text & Latin text (Vulgate).
• Annotations
• Further Notes on the Genealogy of Christ

Luke iii. 23-38.

St Joachim & St Anne with Mary. 17th Century. Willem van Herp.
Haggerty Museum (Milwaukee).

23 And Jesus himself was beginning about the age of thirty years; being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was of Heli, who was of Mathat,

Et ipse Jesus erat incipiens quasi annorum triginta, ut putabatur, filius Joseph, qui fuit Heli, qui fuit Mathat,

24 Who was of Levi, who was of Melchi, who was of Janne, who was of Joseph,

qui fuit Levi, qui fuit Melchi, qui fuit Janne, qui fuit Joseph,

25 Who was of Mathathias, who was of Amos, who was of Nahum, who was of Hesli, who was of Nagge,

qui fuit Mathathiæ, qui fuit Amos, qui fuit Nahum, qui fuit Hesli, qui fuit Nagge,

26 Who was of Mahath, who was of Mathathias, who was of Semei, who was of Joseph, who was of Juda,

qui fuit Mahath, qui fuit Mathathiæ, qui fuit Semei, qui fuit Joseph, qui fuit Juda,

27 Who was of Joanna, who was of Reza, who was of Zorobabel, who was of Salathiel, who was of Neri,

qui fuit Joanna, qui fuit Resa, qui fuit Zorobabel, qui fuit Salathiel, qui fuit Neri,

28 Who was of Melchi, who was of Addi, who was of Cosan, who was of Helmadan, who was of Her,

qui fuit Melchi, qui fuit Addi, qui fuit Cosan, qui fuit Elmadan, qui fuit Her,

29 Who was of Jesus, who was of Eliezer, who was of Jorim, who was of Mathat, who was of Levi,

qui fuit Jesu, qui fuit Eliezer, qui fuit Jorim, qui fuit Mathat, qui fuit Levi,

30 Who was of Simeon, who was of Judas, who was of Joseph, who was of Jona, who was of Eliakim,

qui fuit Simeon, qui fuit Juda, qui fuit Joseph, qui fuit Jona, qui fuit Eliakim,

31 Who was of Melea, who was of Menna, who was of Mathatha, who was of Nathan, who was of David,

qui fuit Melea, qui fuit Menna, qui fuit Mathatha, qui fuit Natham, qui fuit David,

32 Who was of Jesse, who was of Obed, who was of Booz, who was of Salmon, who was of Naasson,

qui fuit Jesse, qui fuit Obed, qui fuit Booz, qui fuit Salmon, qui fuit Naasson,

33 Who was of Aminadab, who was of Aram, who was of Esron, who was of Phares, who was of Judas,

qui fuit Aminadab, qui fuit Aram, qui fuit Esron, qui fuit Phares, qui fuit Judæ,

34 Who was of Jacob, who was of Isaac, who was of Abraham, who was of Thare, who was of Nachor,

qui fuit Jacob, qui fuit Isaac, qui fuit Abrahæ, qui fuit Thare, qui fuit Nachor,

35 Who was of Sarug, who was of Ragau, who was of Phaleg, who was of Heber, who was of Sale,

qui fuit Sarug, qui fuit Ragau, qui fuit Phaleg, qui fuit Heber, qui fuit Sale,

36 Who was of Cainan, who was of Arphaxad, who was of Sem, who was of Noe, who was of Lamech,

qui fuit Cainan, qui fuit Arphaxad, qui fuit Sem, qui fuit Noe, qui fuit Lamech,

37 Who was of Mathusale, who was of Henoch, who was of Jared, who was of Malaleel, who was of Cainan,

qui fuit Methusale, qui fuit Henoch, qui fuit Jared, qui fuit Malaleel, qui fuit Cainan,

38 Who was of Henos, who was of Seth, who was of Adam, who was of God.

qui fuit Henos, qui fuit Seth, qui fuit Adam, qui fuit Dei.

Annotations

    23. who was of Heli. The “who” may refer to Joseph, thus—Joseph was the son, i.e., son-in-law of Heli (or Joachim), because he married his daughter, the Blessed Virgin, and therefore Luke does not use the verb “begat” as S. Matthew does, but the verb “was” (fuit). And again the pronoun “who” may in the Greek clearly be taken with “Jesus”—Jesus was the son, i.e., the grandson of Heli, or Joachim, because He was his offspring, as from a grandfather, through the Blessed Virgin. For having premised that Joseph was not the real, but only the supposed, father of Christ, there was no reason why S. Luke should immediately subjoin the genealogy of Joseph. But rather S. Luke, as well as S. Matthew, means to describe the descent of the Blessed Virgin and Christ according to the flesh, and this is the end and aim of each genealogy—so says S. Augustine (or whoever is the author of the Quæst. veteris et novi Testamenti, bk. i. q. lvi., and bk. ii. q. vi).

    24. who was of Janne,—Janneus, the second Hyrcanus, if we are to believe Annius and Philo, who was the last leader of the Jews of the line of David, and was of the stock of the Asmonsei, or Maccabees; Josephus mentions him in bk. xii. ch. iv. and v., and Eusebius in his Chronicle. For Christ was descended both from high priests, such as Judas, Jonathas, and Simon Maccabæus, and from kings, He being King and High Priest, as S. Thomas, and Bonaventure teach, and among the fathers, Nazianzen and Augustine, whom Suarez (loc. cit.) quotes and follows. The Kings of Judah used to take as their wives the daughters of the high priests.

    27. who was of Zorobabel, who was of Salathiel. These two are quite distinct from the Zorobabel and Salathiel mentioned by S. Matthew (ch. 1.), and described by him as descended from David through Solomon; for these mentioned by S. Luke descend from David through Nathan. So think Pereira, Toletus, Francis Lucas, and others. Perhaps these two descendants of Nathan, being raised to the princely dignity, borrowed the names of those of Solomon’s family who were illustrious in that state.

    31. who was of Nathan, who was of David. Some think that this Nathan was the prophet who reprehended David for his adultery with Bathsheba (2 Kings xii.1.) So think Origen, N. de Lyra, Burgensis, Albertus Magnus, and also S. Augustine (bk. lxxxviii. q. lxi). But S. Augustine (Retract. bk. i. ch. xxvi.) rightly withdraws this theory, for this Nathan was born of David and Bathsheba when they were joined in lawful marriage, as appears from 2 Sam. v. 14 and 1 Chron. iii. 5.

    38. who was of God.—as handiwork, not as son; for God, even as a potter, formed and fashioned Adam the first man out of the earth. And hence the Arabic version renders “who was from God,” whereas, in other cases, it renders, for “who was,” “son,” S. Luke, then, brings the genealogy of Christ up to Adam, but S. Matthew only to Abraham—the father of the faithful, and founder of the Synagogue.

Why does S. Luke make this addition?

    1. S. Athanasius (Discourse on “All things are given unto Me by My Father”) says. “Luke, beginning with the Son of God, went back up to Adam, to show that the body which Jesus assumed had its origin from Adam, who was formed by God.”

    2. S. Irenæus (book iii. ch. xxxiii.) says, “So was Christ made the beginning of the living, since Adam was made the beginning of the dead; for this cause also S. Luke, beginning the commencement of the generation with the Lord, brings it back to Adam, signifying that they did not regenerate Him, but He them, into the Gospel of life.”

    3. S. Leo (Serm. x. De Nativitate Domini) says, “The evangelist Luke traced the genealogy of the Lord’s race from His birth, to show that even those ages which came before the deluge were joined to this mystery and that all the steps of the succession tended to Him in whom alone was the salvation of all.”

    4. Francis Lucas says that it was in order that S. Luke might signify that through Jesus men are led back to God, having been through Adam led away from God.

    Symbolically, Euthymius says, “Luke, beginning from the humanity of Christ, leads back to His Divinity, showing that Christ indeed began as man, but that as God He was without beginning.

    5. S. Ambrose gives another reason, “Now, what could be more fair and fitting with respect to Adam who, according to the Apostle, received the figure of Christ, than that the sacred generation should begin with the Son of God and end with the Son of God; and that he that was created should precede in figure, that He that was born might follow in truth; and that he who was made in the image of God should go before, for whose sake the likeness of God came down.”

    6. S. Augustine (de Consens. Evang. book ii. ch. iv.) recounts the seventy-seven generations here given, by which, he says, is signified the remission and abolition of all sins whatever, to be made by the Saviour Jesus, according to the words of Christ, “I say not to thee, till seven times; but till seventy times seven times.” [Matt. xviii.22]

    Lastly, notice here the noble pedigree of Christ which S. Luke and S. Matthew trace from Jesus Himself through so many kings, prophets, and patriarchs to Adam, the first made—nay, to God Himself, through four thousand years, in one unbroken line. For there is no prince or king in all the world who can trace his descent in a straight line for a thousand years. As to why Christ deferred His coming and incarnation for so long, Barradi gives ten moral reasons in vol. i., book v., ch. xxxi.

    This generation of Christ was prefigured by Jacob’s ladder. So says Rupertus (on Matt. i.), “This generation is Jacob’s ladder; and the sides of the ladder are the princes and fathers of the generation, Abraham and David, to whom the promise was made. The last step, on which the Lord leaned, is the Blessed Joseph, He leaned on him as a pupil on his master.”

    Tropologically, “who was” is significant of the vanity of this world, the life of man passes away, generation by generation, and is straightway turned from the present into the past, from “is” to “was.”—So the poet sings:

    Adieu to Ilium (fuit Ilium) and the high renown of Teucer’s race.

Further Notes

[Ed. The following comments are taken from the commentary on St Matthew's Gospel by Madame Cecilia, in her series of Catholic Scripture Manuals, published in 1906.]

    In the gospels we find two tables of genealogy, one given by St Matthew and the other by St Luke ; these tables differ considerably, and this difference presents a difficulty which has given rise to much discussion. Comparing the two accounts, we notice that —

    St Matthew.

1. St Matthew places the genealogy of Christ first. As he wrote for the Jews, his object was evidently to prove that the prophecies were fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ.

2. The genealogy descends from Abraham to Jesus, hence the word ‘‘begot” continually recurs.

3. St Matthew wrote for the Jews only, therefore he limits himself to tracing the descent of Christ from Abraham.

    St Luke.

1. St Luke places the genealogy of our Lord after the account of His Baptism, and just before the narration of His Public Life, as though the Evangelist would give the credentials of the Messias before relating His mission.

2. St Luke ascends the family line, hence the words “was (son) of” is fitly employed.

3. St Luke wrote to prove the Divine Paternity of God, consequently he traces the descent of our Lord from “ Adam,” who was “of God.”

    So far we meet with no special difficulty, but when we compare the genealogies we find various apparent contradictions, for, with the exception of the names of Salathiel and Zorobabel, the lists differ completely, and this question needs careful study.

    The genealogies may be divided into four parts :—

I.   Adam to Abraham.

II.  Abraham to David.

III. David to the Captivity.

IV. The Captivity to Joseph.

    Of these divisions —

I. is peculiar to St Luke.

II. is common to both Evangelists, and there is perfect agreement.

III. gives totally different names, with the exception of two, and St Matthew’s list is shorter.

IV. has only one name common to both, that of “Joseph,” and St Matthew gives fewer names.

    The various solutions to these difficulties may be reduced to four. The following table will enable the student to grasp them readily.

    First Explanation. This is the most ancient, and it is based on the Jewish Levirate Law, which runs thus : “ When brethren dwell together and one of them dieth without children, the wife of the deceased shall not marry to another, but his brother shall take her and shall raise up seed for his brother’' (Deut. xxv. 5) . . . . This explanation was the received tradition for many centuries, and has the support of many of the Fathers. St Ambrose, St Jerome, and St Augustine prefer the view that both Salathiel and St Joseph were adopted sons, but this opinion leads to precisely the same conclusion, i.e. of legal relationship.

    Second Explanation. As in the previous solution, both the Evangelists give St Joseph’s genealogy, but St Matthew gives his royal descent, and St Luke his natural descent.

    Third Explanation. Both Evangelists give the lineage of the Blessed Virgin. St Matthew traces her ancestors “ex latere materno” (through the mother), St Luke traces them “ ex latere paterno ” (through the father). Godet, discussing the genealogy as given by St Luke, writes : “ With the participle ‘ being ’ (‘ as it was supposed ’) there is a transition which we owe to the pen of Luke. How far does it extend, and where does the genealogical register properly begin? This is a nice and important question. We have only a hint for its solution. This is the absence of the article ‘τοῦ’ (the) before the name Joseph. This word is found before all the names belonging to the genealogical series. In the genealogy of Matthew, the article is put in the same way before each proper name, which, clearly proves that it was the ordinary form in vogue in this kind of document. . . . The absence of the article puts the name of Joseph outside the genealogical series, properly so called, and assigns to it a peculiar position. We must conclude from it that —

1st. This name belongs rather to the sentence introduced by Luke.

2nd. That the genealogical document which he consulted began with the name of Heli.

3rd. Consequently this piece was not originally the genealogy of Jesus or of Joseph, but of Heli (Godet, St Luke, p. 199).

    Hence the family tree would stand thus : —

This agrees with the tradition that Joseph and Mary were cousins. There is, it is true, a tradition which gives . “ Joachim ” as the father of our Blessed Lady, but the names Joachim and Heli (or Eliachim) seem interchangeable, as we see from the book of Judith, where the high-priest Elia (iv. 5 and 10) is also called Joachim (xv. 9). According to the Talmud, Heli was the father of our Lady.

    Fourth Explanation. St Matthew gives St Joseph’s ancestors, and St Luke gives the Blessed Virgin’s. This solution is based on the tradition that the Blessed Virgin was an heiress, and therefore obliged to marry in her own tribe. In this case, the husband inherited the titles and property of his wife, and was regarded as the legal descendant of his father-in-law. This would explain why St Joseph is called both “the son of Jacob” and “the son of Heli,” Jacob being his actual father, and Heli his legal father. It was contrary to Jewish custom to trace the genealogy through a woman ( “ Genus patris vocatur genus : genus matris non vocatur genus ” ). Modern exegetical writers favour this view (Lightfoot, Bengel, Godet, Plumptre, Lange, etc.)

[Ed. Fifth possibility. It would seem that the Third and Fourth Explanations are not mutually exclusive. This would entail the following, which is my preferred approach:

    1. St Luke traces Mary's ancestors on the side of her father (“ Heli ” or “ Joachim ”)

    2. St Matthew traces 

        a) Mary's ancestors on the side of her mother (Anne)

        b) Joseph's ancestors on his father's side (Jacob). [This agrees with the tradition that Joseph and Mary were cousins.]

    This view is supported by the following arguments:

        (a) If both lists refer to St Joseph, the supposed father of Jesus, then Jesus was descended from David only by a kind of legal fiction.

        (b) St Luke gives great prominence to the Blessed Virgin [by tradition, having interviewed Mary so as to obtain the details he alone includes in the first chapters of his Gospel], and carefully points out Jesus as the “supposed ” son of Joseph. This being the case, how could he consistently identify the ancestors of Christ only with those of His reputed father ?

        (c) The registers of births were carefully preserved by the Jews, and therefore it is perfectly natural (particularly in the case of the royal race of David) that in the Holy Family two genealogical documents existed, the one giving the ancestors of St Joseph, the other that of Heli (or Joachim).

        (d) “We should expect to have had preserved both the relationship through Joseph, the representative of the civil, national, theocratic side, and the descent through Mary, the organ of the real human relationship. Was not Jesus at once to appear and to be the son of David ? — to appear such through him whom the people regarded as His father ; to be such through her from whom He really derived His human existence ? The two affiliations answered to these two requirements ” (Godet, St Luke, p. 204).]

+       +        +

The Vladimirskaya Icon. >12th century.

SUB tuum præsidium confugimus, Sancta Dei Genitrix. Nostras deprecationes ne despicias in necessitatibus, sed a periculis cunctis libera nos semper, Virgo gloriosa et benedicta. Amen.

 

 

Totus tuus ego sum

Et omnia mea tua sunt;

Tecum semper tutus sum:

Ad Jesum per Mariam.