Chapter III.—A Statement of the Reason Why Matthew Enumerates One Succession of Ancestors for Christ, and Luke Another.

5. Furthermore, as to those critics who find a difficulty in the circumstance that Matthew enumerates one series of ancestors, beginning with David and travelling downwards to Joseph,174    Matt. i. 1–16.    Matt. xxvi. 36–46. while Luke specifies a different succession, tracing it from Joseph upwards as far as to David,175    Luke iii. 23–38.    Mark xiv. 32–42. they might easily perceive that Joseph may have had two fathers,—namely, one by whom he was begotten, and a second by whom he may have been adopted.176    In the Retractations (ii. 16), Augustin alludes to this passage with the view of correcting his statement regarding the adoption. He tells us that, in speaking of the two several fathers whom Joseph may have had, he should not have said that there “was one by whom Joseph was begotten, and another by whom he may have been adopted,” but should rather have put it thus: “one by whom he was begotten, and another unto whom he was adopted” (alteri instead of ab altero adoptatus). And the reason indicated for the correction is the probability that the father who begat Joseph was the mother’s second husband, who, according to the Levirate law, had married her on the death of his brother without issue. [That Luke gives the lineage of Mary, who was the daughter of Heli, has been held by many scholars. Weiss, in his edition of Meyer’s Commentary, claims that this is the only grammatical view: see Robinson’s Greek Harmony, rev. ed. pp. 207, 208. Augustin passes over this solution apparently because he was more concerned to press the priestly lineage of Mary.—R.]    Luke xxii. 39–46. For it was an ancient custom also among that people to adopt children with the view of making sons for themselves of those whom they had not begotten. For, leaving out of sight the fact that Pharaoh’s daughter177    Ex. ii. 10.    John xviii. 1. adopted Moses (as she was a foreigner), Jacob himself adopted his own grandsons, the sons of Joseph, in these very intelligible terms: “Now, therefore, thy two sons which were born unto thee before I came unto thee, are mine: Ephraim and Manasseh shall be mine, as Reuben and Simeon: and thy issue which thou begettest after them shall be thine.”178    Gen. xlviii. 5, 6.    [“Go yonder and pray;” so the Latin, as well as the Greek text. Comp. Revised Version, which in some other instances, in the passage here cited, agrees more closely with Augustin’s text than does the Authorized Version.—R.] Whence also it came to pass that there were twelve tribes of Israel, although the tribe of Levi was omitted, which did service in the temple; for along with that one the whole number was thirteen, the sons of Jacob themselves being twelve. Thus, too, we can understand how Luke, in the genealogy contained in his Gospel, has named a father for Joseph, not in the person of the father by whom he was begotten, but in that of the father by whom he was adopted, tracing the list of the progenitors upwards until David is reached. For, seeing that there is a necessity, as both evangelists give a true narrative,—to wit, both Matthew and Luke,—that one of them should hold by the line of the father who begat Joseph, and the other by the line of the father who adopted him, whom should we suppose more likely to have preserved the lineage of the adopting father, than that evangelist who has declined to speak of Joseph as begotten by the person whose son he has nevertheless reported him to be? For it is more appropriate that one should have been called the son of the man by whom he was adopted, than that he should be said to have been begotten by the man of whose flesh he was not descended. Now when Matthew, accordingly, used the phrases, “Abraham begat Isaac,” “Isaac begat Jacob,” and so on, keeping steadily by the term “begat,” until he said at the close, “and Jacob begat Joseph,” he gave us to know with sufficient clearness, that he had traced out the order 179    Reading ordinem; others have originem, descent.    Matt. xxvi. 36–46. of ancestors on to that father by whom Joseph was not adopted, but begotten.

6. But even although Luke had said that Joseph was begotten by Heli, that expression ought not to disturb us to such an extent as to lead us to believe anything else than that by the one evangelist the father begetting was mentioned, and by the other the father adopting. For there is nothing absurd in saying that a person has begotten, not after the flesh, it may be, but in love, one whom he has adopted as a son. Those of us, to wit, to whom God has given power to become His sons, He did not beget of His own nature and substance, as was the case with His only Son; but He did indeed adopt us in His love. And this phrase the apostle is seen repeatedly to employ just in order to distinguish from us the only-begotten Son who is before every creature, by whom all things were made, who alone is begotten of the substance of the Father; who, in accordance with the equality of divinity, is absolutely what the Father is, and who is declared to have been sent with the view of assuming to Himself the flesh proper to that race to which we too belong according to our nature, in order that by His participation in our mortality, through His love for us, He might make us partakers of His own divinity in the way of adoption. For the apostle speaks thus: “But when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive180    Reciperemus. Most of the older mss. give recipiamus, may receive.    Mark xiv. 41. [On the various explanations of this difficult passage, see commentaries.—R.] the adoption of sons.”181    Gal. iv. 4, 5.    See Eph. ii. 11–22. And yet we are also said to be born of God,—that is to say, in so far as we, who already were men, have received power to be made the sons of God,—to be made such, moreover, by grace, and not by nature. For if we were sons by nature, we never could have been aught else. But when John said, “To them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name,” he proceeded at once to add these words, “which were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”182    John i. 12, 13.    Rom. viii. 15. Thus, of the same persons he said, first, that having received power they became the sons of God, which is what is meant by that adoption which Paul mentions; and secondly, that they were born of God. And in order the more plainly to show by what grace this is effected, he continued thus: “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,”183    John i. 14.    Gal. iv. 6.—as if he meant to say, What wonder is it that those should have been made sons of God, although they were flesh, on whose behalf the only Son was made flesh, although He was the Word? Howbeit there is this vast difference between the two cases, that when we are made the sons of God we are changed for the better; but when the Son of God was made the son of man, He was not indeed changed into the worse, but He did certainly assume to Himself what was below Him. James also speaks to this effect: “Of His own will begat He us by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first fruits184    Initium, beginning.    Or = having compassion on the more infirm; infirmioribus compatiens. of His creatures.”185    Jas. i. 18.    John x. 16. And to preclude our supposing, as it might appear from the use of this term “begat,” that we are made what He is Himself, he here points out very plainly, that what is conceded to us in virtue of this adoption, is a kind of headship186    Principatum. among the creatures.

7. It would be no departure from the truth, therefore, even had Luke said that Joseph was begotten by the person by whom he was really adopted. Even in that way he did in fact beget him, not indeed to be a man, but certainly to be a son; just as God has begotten us to be His sons, whom He had previously made to the effect of being men. But He begat only one to be not simply the Son, which the Father is not, but also God, which the Father in like manner is. At the same time, it is evident that if Luke had employed that phraseology, it would be altogether a matter of dubiety as to which of the two writers mentioned the father adopting, and which the father begetting of his own flesh; just as, on the other hand, although neither of them had used the word “begat,” and although the former evangelist had called him the son of the one person, and the latter the son of the other, it would nevertheless be doubtful which of them named the father by whom he was begotten, and which the father by whom he was adopted. As the case stands now, however,—the one evangelist saying that “Jacob begat Joseph,” and the other speaking of “Joseph who was the son of Heli,”—by the very distinction which they have made between the expressions, they have elegantly indicated the different objects which they have taken in hand. But surely it might easily suggest itself, as I have said, to a man of piety decided enough to make him consider it right to seek some worthier explanation than that of simply crediting the evangelist with stating what is false; it might, I repeat, readily suggest itself to such a person to examine what reasons there might be for one man being (supposed) capable of having two fathers. This, indeed, might have suggested itself even to those detractors, were it not that they preferred contention to consideration.

CAPUT III. Quare alios progeneratores Christi Matthaeus enumerat, alios Lucas.

5. Quos autem movet, quod alios progeneratores Matthaeus enumerat, descendens a David usque ad Joseph (Matth. I, 1-16), alios autem Lucas ascendens a Joseph usque ad David (Luc. III, 23-38), facile est, ut advertant duos patres habere potuisse Joseph, unum a quo genitus, alterum a quo fuerit adoptatus . Antiqua est enim consuetudo adoptandi etiam 1073 in illo populo Dei, ut sibi filios facerent quos non ipsi genuissent. Nam excepto quod filia Pharaonis Moysen adoptaverat (Exod. II, 10) (illa quippe alienigena fuit), ipse Jacob nepotes suos ex Joseph natos, verbis manifestissimis adoptavit dicens: Nunc itaque filii tui duo, qui facti sunt tibi priusquam ad te venirem, mei sunt: Ephraem et Manasse, tanquam Ruben et Simeon erunt mihi. Natos autem si genueris postea, tibi erunt (Gen. XLVIII, 5, 6). Unde etiam factum est ut duodecim tribus essent Israel, excepta tribu Levi, quae templo serviebat; cum ea quippe tredecim fuerunt, cum duodecim fuissent filii Jacob. Unde intelligitur Lucas patrem Joseph, non a quo genitus, sed a quo fuerat adoptatus, suscepisse in Evangelio suo, cujus progenitores sursum versus commemoraret, donec exiret ad David. Cum enim necesse sit, utroque evangelista vera narrante, et Matthaeo scilicet et Luca, ut unus eorum ejus patris originem tenuerit qui genuerat, alter ejus qui adoptaverat Joseph, quem probabilius intelligimus adoptantis originem tenuisse, quam eum qui noluit Joseph genitum dicere ab illo cujus eum filium esse narrabat? Commodius enim filius ejus dictus est, a quo fuerat adoptatus, quam diceretur ab illo genitus cujus carne non erat natus. Matthaeus autem dicens, Abraham genuit Isaac, Isaac genuit Jacob, atque ita in hoc verbo quod est, genuit, perseverans donec in ultimo diceret, Jacob autem genuit Joseph; satis expressit ad eum patrem se perduxisse ordinem generantium, a quo Joseph non adoptatus, sed genitus erat.

6. Quanquam si etiam Lucas genitum diceret Joseph ab Heli, nec sic nos hoc verbum perturbare deberet, ut aliud crederemus quam ab uno evangelista gignentem, ab altero adoptantem patrem fuisse commemoratum. Neque enim absurde quisque dicitur non carne, sed charitate genuisse, quem filium sibi adoptaverit: aut vero etiam nos quibus dedit Deus potestatem filios ejus fieri, de natura atque substantia sua nos genuit, sicut unicum Filium, sed utique dilectione adoptavit. Quo verbo Apostolus saepe uti non ob aliud intelligitur (Rom. VIII, 15, et II, 4), nisi ad discernendum Unigenitum ante omnem creaturam, per quem facta sunt omnia, qui solus de substantia Patris natus est, secundum aequalitatem divinitatis hoc omnino quod Pater: quem missum dicit ad suscipiendam carnem ex illo genere, quo et nos secundum naturam nostram sumus, ut illo participante mortalitatem nostram per dilectionem, nos efficeret participes divinitatis suae per adoptionem. Ita enim dicit: Cum autem venit plenitudo temporis, misit Deus Filium suum factum ex muliere, factum sub Lege, ut eos qui sub Lege erant redimeret, ut adoptionem filiorum reciperemus (Galat. IV, 4, 5). Et tamen dicimur etiam nati ex Deo, id est, accepta potestate ut filii ejus efficiamur, qui jam homines eramus: efficiamur autem per gratiam, non per naturam. Nam si per naturam filii essemus, nunquam aliud fuissemus. Cum 1074 enim dixisset Joannes, Dedit eis potestatem Filios Dei fieri, iis qui credunt in nomine ejus; secutus ait, Qui non ex sanguinibus, neque ex voluntate carnis, neque ex voluntate viri, sed ex Deo nati sunt. Ita quos dixit accepta potestate factos Dei filios, quod illa adoptio significat quam Paulus commemorat, eosdem dixit natos ex Deo. Atque ut apertius ostenderet qua gratia factum sit, Et Verbum, inquit, caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis (Joan. I, 12-14): tanquam diceret, Quid mirum si filii Dei facti sunt cum caro essent, propter quos unicus caro factus est, cum Verbum esset? Hac sane magna distantia, quia nos effecti filii Dei mutamur in melius, ille autem Filius Dei cum filius hominis factus esset, non est mutatus in deterius, sed assumpsit quod erat inferius. Dicit et Jacobus: Voluntarie genuit nos verbo veritatis, ut simus initium aliquod creaturae ejus (Jacobi I, 18). Ne scilicet in eo quod ait, genuit, hoc nos fieri putaremus quod ipse est, ideo principatum quemdam in creatura nobis hac adoptione concessum satis ostendit.

7. Non ergo alienum esset a veritate, etiamsi Lucas ab illo esse Joseph genitum diceret, a quo fuerat adoptatus. Etiam sic quippe genuit eum, non ut homo esset, sed ut filius esset: sicut nos genuit Deus, ut filii ejus simus, quos fecerat ut homines essemus. Unicum autem genuit, non solum ut Filius esset, quod Pater non est; sed etiam ut Deus esset, quod et Pater est. Sed plane si hoc verbo etiam Lucas uteretur, omni modo esset ambiguum quis eorum adoptantem, quis ex propria carne gignentem patrem commemorasset: quomodo etsi neuter eorum diceret, genuit, sed et iste eum filium illius, et ille illius diceret, nihilominus esset ambiguum quis eorum illum de quo natus, quis illum a quo adoptatus erat commemorasset. Nunc vero cum alter dicit, Jacob genuit Joseph; alter, Joseph qui fuit filius Heli: etiam ipsa verborum differentia quid singuli suscepissent eleganter intimaverunt. Sed hoc facile sane, ut dixi, posset occurrere homini religioso, qui quodlibet aliud quaerendum potius judicaret, quam evangelistam crederet esse mentitum; facile, inquam, occurreret, ut videret quibus causis unus homo duos patres habere potuerit: hoc et illis calumniosis occurreret, nisi litigare quam considerare maluissent.