Letters & Polemics (CSEL) 30 part 5/14

But as for those who are troubled that Matthew enumerates one set of progenitors, descending from David down to Joseph, while Luke enumerates another, ascending from Joseph up to David — it is easy for them to observe that Joseph could have had two fathers: one by whom he was begotten, another by whom he was adopted. For the custom of adopting is ancient even among that people of God, that they might make sons for themselves whom they had not themselves begotten. For, apart from the fact that Pharaoh's daughter adopted Moses — she indeed was a foreigner — Jacob himself, in the plainest words, adopted his grandsons born of Joseph, saying: 'Now therefore thy two sons, who were born to thee before I came to thee, are mine, Ephraim and Manasseh; as Reuben and Simeon they shall be to me.'

'But the children whom thou shalt beget afterward shall be thine.' Whence it also came about that there were twelve tribes of Israel, apart from the tribe of Levi, which served the temple; for with it there were thirteen, whereas the sons of Jacob had been twelve. From this it is understood that Luke received into his Gospel as the father of Joseph not the one by whom he was begotten, but the one by whom he had been adopted, when he recorded his progenitors in the upward direction, until he came to David.

For since it is necessary, both evangelists narrating truly — namely both Matthew and Luke — that one of them held the lineage of that father who had begotten Joseph, the other of the father who had adopted him: whom do we more probably understand to have held the lineage of the adopter than the one who refused to say that Joseph was begotten by him whose son he declared him to be? For he was more suitably called the son of the one by whom he had been adopted, than that he should be said to have been begotten by the one of whose flesh he was not born. Now Matthew, saying 'Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob,' and thus persevering in this word 'begot,' until at the last he said:

'And Jacob begot Joseph' — he expressed sufficiently that he had brought the order of begetters down to that father by whom Joseph was not adopted but begotten. And yet, even if Luke had said that Joseph was begotten by Eli, not even so ought this word to disturb us, so that we should believe anything other than that by one evangelist a begetting father, by the other an adopting father, had been recorded. For it is not absurdly said that anyone begot, not by flesh but by love, one whom he has adopted as a son to himself; or indeed even us, to whom God gave the power to become His sons, He did not beget of His own nature and substance, as the only-begotten Son, but assuredly He adopted us by love.

By which word the apostle is understood often to use for no other reason than to distinguish the Only-begotten before every creature, through whom all things were made, who alone was born of the substance of the Father, according to the equality of the divinity being wholly that which the Father is — whom he says was sent to take on flesh from that stock of which we too are according to our nature, so that, He partaking of our mortality, He might make us partakers of His divinity through adoption. For thus he says: 'But when the fullness of time came, God sent His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, that He might redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.'

And yet we are also said to be born of God — that is, having received the power to become His sons, we who were already men — but we are made so through grace, not through nature. For if we were sons through nature, we should never have been anything else. For when John had said, 'He gave them power to become sons of God, to those who believe in His name,' he went on to say: 'who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.' Thus those whom he said were made sons of God by the power they received — which that adoption signifies that Paul mentions — these same he said were born of God. And in order to show more openly by what grace it was done, he says, 'And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us,' as though he said:

What wonder if they were made sons of God, though they were flesh, for whose sake the Only-begotten was made flesh, though He was the Word? With this great difference, however, that we, being made sons of God, are changed for the better, whereas He, the Son of God, when He was made the Son of Man, was not changed for the worse, but took on what was inferior. James too says: 'Of His own will He begot us by the word of truth, that we might be some beginning of His creation.' Namely, lest by his saying 'He begot' we should think that we become what He Himself is, he therefore shows sufficiently that a certain preeminence in creation was granted to us by this adoption. It would not therefore be foreign to the truth, even if Luke had said that Joseph was begotten by him by whom he had been adopted.

For even so He begot him, not that he might be a man, but that he might be a son — just as God begot us, that we might be His sons, whom He had made that we might be men. But the Only-begotten He begot not only that He might be a Son, which the Father is not, but also that He might be God, which the Father also is. But clearly, if Luke too had used this word ('begot'), it would in every way be ambiguous which of them had recorded the adopting father, which the father begetting of his own flesh — just as, even if neither of them had said 'begot,' but the one called Him the son of that man and the other called Him the son of another, it would no less be ambiguous which of them had recorded the man of whom He was born, which the man by whom He had been adopted. But now, since one says 'Jacob begot Joseph,' the other:

'Joseph, who was the son of Eli,' by this very difference of words they have elegantly intimated what each of them undertook. But this, as I have said, could easily occur to a religious man, who would judge that anything else whatever ought rather to be sought than that he should believe the evangelist to have lied; easily, I say, would it occur to him to see by what causes one man could have two fathers. This would occur even to those slanderous men, had they not preferred to wrangle rather than to consider. IV. But that which is next to be intimated truly required a most attentive and diligent reader, that it might be noticed and seen.

For it has been keenly observed that Matthew, who had set out to intimate the royal person in Christ, named, apart from Christ Himself, forty men in the series of the generations. Now this number signifies that time in which, in this world and on this earth, we ought to be ruled by Christ according to a laborious discipline, by which, as it is written, God scourges every son whom He receives; concerning which the apostle says that through tribulation we must enter into the kingdom of God. This is signified also by that iron rod, of which we read in the psalm: 'Thou shalt rule them with a rod of iron,' when He had said above: 'But I have been established by Him as king over Sion, His holy mountain.' For even the good are ruled with a rod of iron, of whom it is said:

'It is time that judgment should begin at the house of the Lord; and if it begin first at us, what shall be the end of those who do not believe the gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely shall be saved, where shall the sinner and the ungodly appear?' To whom pertains that which follows: 'As a potter's vessel thou shalt shatter them.' For the good are ruled through this discipline, while the wicked are crushed to pieces — who are mentioned as though the same, because of the one and the same sacraments which the wicked hold in common with the good.

Since therefore this number is the sacrament of this laborious time, in which under the discipline of the King Christ we fight against the devil, that also declares it which both the law and the prophets consecrated through the forty-day fast — that is, the humbling of the soul — through Moses and Elijah, who fasted forty days each, and the gospel through the Lord's own fast, during which forty days He was also tempted by the devil. What else does this prefigure than the temptation, throughout all the time of this world, in His own flesh, which He deigned to take on from our mortality?

After the resurrection too He willed to be with His disciples on this earth no more than forty days, still mingled by human intercourse with this life of theirs, and receiving with them the food of mortals — though now no longer about to die — so that through those very forty days He might signify that by a hidden presence He would fulfill what He had promised when He said: 'Behold, I am with you even to the consummation of the age.'

But why this number should signify this temporal and earthly life — meanwhile that reason readily presents itself from close at hand, though there may perhaps be another more hidden — namely, that both the seasons of the year run in a fourfold alternation, and the world itself is bounded by four quarters, which Scripture sometimes mentions under the name of the winds: from the east and west, from the north and south. Now forty has four times ten. Further, ten itself is completed by a number progressing from one up to four. To this world, therefore, and to this earthly and mortal life of men, King Christ coming to rule us as we labor amid temptation, Matthew, receiving Him, began from Abraham and enumerated forty men.

For from that very Hebrew nation, which God, that it might be distinguished from the other nations, separated by taking Abraham out of his own land and his own kindred, Christ came in the flesh, so that this too might most especially pertain to His being more distinctly prophesied and foretold, namely from what nation He was promised as about to come. For when Matthew had distinguished the four-times-ten generations by three sections, saying that from Abraham to David there were fourteen generations, and from David to the transmigration to Babylon another fourteen, and just as many others up to the nativity of Christ, yet he did not bring them into a sum so as to say: 'They amount in all to forty-two.'

For one of those progenitors is counted twice, namely Jechoniah, at whom a certain bending toward foreign nations took place, when there was the transmigration into Babylon. Now where an order is bent from a straight line and, so as to go in a different direction, as it were makes a corner, that which is at the corner is counted twice — namely at the end of the prior order and at the head of the bending itself. And this very thing also prefigured that Christ would in a manner migrate from circumcision to uncircumcision, as though from Jerusalem to Babylon, and that from both sides He would become, as it were, a cornerstone for those believing in Him on both sides. These things God then prepared in figure, as things to come in truth.

For Jechoniah himself, at whom that corner was prefigured, is interpreted 'the preparation of God.' Thus therefore they become now not forty-two, which is three times fourteen, but, on account of the one counted twice, forty-one generations — if we count in Christ Himself, who royally presides, as it were by the number forty, over this temporal and earthly life of ours that is to be ruled. And because Matthew willed to signify Him as descending to share this mortality with us, he therefore also recorded the generations themselves in descending order, from Abraham down to Joseph and down to the nativity of Christ Himself, from the beginning of his Gospel.

But Luke narrates the generations not from the beginning, but from Christ's baptism, and not by descending but by ascending — signifying Him rather as a priest in the expiation of sins, where the voice from heaven declared Him, where John bore witness to Him, saying: 'Behold Him who takes away the sins of the world.' By ascending, moreover, he passes even Abraham and reaches God, to whom, cleansed and expiated, we are reconciled. Fittingly he also took up the origin of adoption, because through adoption we are made sons of God by believing in the Son of God. But through carnal generation the Son of God rather, for our sake, was made the Son of Man.

And he showed sufficiently that he did not on that account call Joseph the son of Eli because he was begotten of him, but because he had been adopted by him, since he also called Adam himself the son of God, though he was made by God — but through the grace which he afterward lost by sinning, he was established, as it were, as a son in paradise. Wherefore, in Matthew's generations is signified the taking-up of our sins by the Lord Christ, but in Luke's generations is signified the abolition of our sins by the Lord Christ. Therefore the one narrates them descending, the other ascending. For what the apostle says, 'God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh,' this is the taking-up of sins; but what he adds:

'that of sin He might condemn sin in the flesh' — this is the expiation of sins. Accordingly Matthew descends from David himself through Solomon, in whose mother David sinned; but Luke ascends to David himself through Nathan, through which prophet God expiated David's sin. The very number too which Luke traces indicates most certainly indeed the abolition of sins. For since some iniquity of Christ — who had none — is by no means joined to the iniquities of men which He took upon His own flesh, therefore the number in Matthew, apart from Christ, is forty. But since He joins us to Himself, expiated and cleansed from all sin by His own and the Father's righteousness, that what the apostle says may come to pass:

'But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit' — therefore in that number which is in Luke, both Christ Himself, from whom the enumeration begins, and God, at whom it arrives, are counted together, and the number becomes seventy-seven, by which is signified the utterly complete remission and abolition of all sins. Which the Lord Himself also evidently expressed through the mystery of this number, saying that one must forgive the sinner not only seven times, but even seventy times seven. Nor is it in vain that this number pertains to the cleansing of all sins, if it be inquired into more diligently. For the number ten, as it were the number of righteousness, is shown in the ten precepts of the law.

Further, sin is the transgression of the law, and the transgression of the number ten is fittingly figured by the number eleven — whence also the sackcloth curtains are commanded to be made eleven in the tabernacle. And who would doubt that sackcloth pertains to the signification of sin? And through this, since the whole of time revolves in the sevenfold number of days, eleven multiplied sevenfold conveniently brings all sins to the seventy-seventh number. In which number also full remission of sins is made, our High Priest's flesh expiating us — from whom now this number begins — and reconciling us to God, at whom now this number arrives, through the Holy Spirit, who in the appearance of a dove appeared at this baptism, where this number is mentioned.

After the generations have been enumerated, Matthew continues thus: '. . . of the Most High shall overshadow thee; and therefore also that holy thing which shall be born shall be called the Son of God' — and the rest, which do not pertain to what is now being discussed. This, then, Matthew recorded concerning Mary: 'She was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit'; nor is it contrary that Luke set forth what Matthew passed over, since both testify that Mary conceived of the Holy Spirit — just as it is not contrary that Matthew thereafter connects what Luke passes over. For Matthew follows and says: 'in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king,' and the rest. Concerning the city of Bethlehem Matthew and Luke agree;

but how and for what cause Joseph and Mary came to it, Luke sets forth while Matthew passes over. On the other hand, concerning the magi coming from the east, Luke is silent while Matthew tells it, weaving in thus: he relates that they brought Him to Jerusalem, and about Simeon and Anna — what they said about Him in the temple after they had recognized Him, being filled with the Holy Spirit. All these things Matthew passes over in silence. Whence it is rightly asked when these things happened — both those which Matthew passes over and Luke tells, and those which Luke passes over and Matthew tells.

Since indeed Matthew, after the magi who had come from the east returned to their own country, continues and narrates that Joseph was admonished by an angel to flee with the infant into Egypt, lest He be slain by Herod; then that Herod, not finding Him, killed the boys from two years old and under; but that, Herod having died, they returned from Egypt, and, having heard that Archelaus reigned in Judea in place of his father Herod, dwelt with the child in the region of Galilee, in the city of Nazareth — all of which Luke passes over in silence. Nor on that account can it seem contradictory that either the one tells what the other passes over, or the other mentions what this one does not tell. But the question is:

when could those things have happened which Matthew weaves together concerning the departure into Egypt and the return thence after Herod's death, so that they were now dwelling in the city of Nazareth — whither Luke records that they returned after they had accomplished in the temple all things concerning the child according to the law of the Lord? Here accordingly must be recognized what may hold good thereafter for other such cases, lest they similarly disturb and confound the mind — namely, that each evangelist so weaves his own narration that the arranged series may appear as of one omitting nothing; for, keeping silent about what he does not wish to say, he so joins what he wishes to say to those things which he was saying, that they seem to follow immediately.

But when one evangelist relates what another has passed over in silence, a careful consideration of the order shows the place where the one who omitted it could pass over it, so that he might link what he intended to say to what preceded, as though those very things followed with nothing interposed. And by this it is understood that Matthew, where he says that the Magi were warned in a dream not to return by way of Herod and went back to their own country by another road, there passed over what Luke narrated concerning the Lord in the temple, and the words spoken by Simeon and Anna; whereas Luke in turn, passing over the departure into Egypt which Matthew narrates, wove together, as though it were continuous, the return to the city of Nazareth.

But if anyone should wish to construct a single narrative out of all that is either told or passed over by each in the two accounts concerning Christ's nativity, infancy, and childhood, he may arrange it thus: walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord without blame; for I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in her days. When she had seen him, she was troubled at his saying, and pondered what manner of salutation this should be. The infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit for ever. Zechariah. Of his holy covenant, that he should be of the house and family of David, which has come to pass, which the Lord has shown to us. For thus it is written by the prophet:

having lived many years with her husband, seven years from her virginity; a great wailing, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted because they are not. And it came to pass that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, hearing them and asking them questions. For thus he began: the four most eminent evangelists, after he (John) spoke of the Word of God, who is himself the Son before all ages of creation, since all things were made through him, at once added concerning John's preaching and testimony, saying: there was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

Hence we must now consider concerning John himself how the narratives of the four evangelists do not disagree with one another — not that this should be required or demanded of us in every particular, as we have just now done concerning the beginnings of Christ born of Mary, how Matthew and Luke agree with each other, so that out of the account of both we made one, showing the slower-minded that when any one of them mentions what another passes over in silence, or by his silence about what another mentions, this does not hinder the understanding of the truthful narrative of the other; so that from this example — whether it be as I have done it, or in some other way more conveniently done — everyone may see that in other such passages what is here perceived to have been done can also be done.

Now therefore, as I said, let us see the agreement of the four evangelists concerning John the Baptist. Matthew continues thus: and in those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea. Mark did not say 'in those days,' because he had premised no series of events in whose days it might be understood he was speaking, if he had said 'in those days.' Luke, however, expressed the very times of John's preaching and baptism more significantly by means of the earthly powers, saying: the time when John began to preach and to baptize, at which time Christ's youthful age is found, since he and John were contemporaries, and he is said to have been about thirty years old when he was baptized by him.

But plainly the matter of Herod is wont to trouble not a few: that Luke narrated that in the days of John's baptism Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, when the Lord too as a young man was baptized, whereas Matthew says that after Herod's death the boy returned from Egypt — both of which cannot be true unless it be understood that there were two Herods. Since no one is ignorant that this could be, with what blindness do they rave who are more prone to calumniate the truth of the Gospel than to be a little more considerate, so as to understand that two men were called by the same name! Of which thing all things are full of examples.

For this later Herod is reported to have been the son of the former Herod, as also was Archelaus, whom Matthew records as having succeeded his dead father in the kingdom of Judea, as also was Philip, whom Luke intimates to have been the brother of Herod the tetrarch and himself tetrarch of Iturea. For that Herod who sought the life of the boy Christ was a king; but the other Herod, his son, was called not king but tetrarch — a Greek word which resounds as denoting a fourth part of the kingdom. VIII. Unless perhaps someone should again be troubled on this point:

since Matthew said that Joseph, returning with the boy, feared to go into Judea because Archelaus his son reigned there in place of his father Herod, how could he go into Galilee, where another son of his, Herod the tetrarch, ruled — as Luke testifies? As if indeed the times when the boy was then feared for were the same as those which Luke now records, which had changed so far that in Judea itself Archelaus was no longer king, but Pontius Pilate was — not king of the Jews, but governor — in whose times the sons of the elder Herod, acting under Tiberius Caesar, did not hold a kingdom but a tetrarchy.

which had certainly not yet come to pass when Joseph, fearing Archelaus reigning in Judea, betook himself with the boy into Galilee, where also his city Nazareth was. IX. Or does this perhaps trouble someone: how Matthew says that the parents went with the boy Jesus into Galilee for this reason, that through fear of Archelaus they were unwilling to go into Judea, whereas they seem rather to have gone into Galilee because their city was Nazareth of Galilee, as Luke did not fail to state? But it is to be understood that when the angel in a dream in Egypt said to Joseph:

arise and take the boy and his mother and go into the land of Israel — this was first so understood by Joseph that he thought he was commanded to proceed into Judea, for that could at first be understood as the land of Israel; but afterwards, when he learned that Herod's son Archelaus reigned there, he was unwilling to expose himself to that danger, since the land of Israel could also be understood in such a way that Galilee too was reckoned there, because the people of Israel inhabited it as well. Although this question can also be resolved in another way.

For it could have seemed to Christ's parents that, with a boy concerning whom they had learned such things through angelic responses, they ought not to dwell except in Jerusalem, where the Lord's temple was; and therefore, returning from Egypt, they would have gone there and dwelt there, had they not been frightened by the presence of Archelaus. For they were not divinely commanded to dwell there, so that they ought to have despised what they feared concerning Archelaus. Or does someone say this too: how then, as Luke narrates, did his parents go up to Jerusalem every year throughout Christ's childhood, if they were prevented by fear of Archelaus from approaching there? This it would not be difficult for me to resolve, even had none of the evangelists stated how long Archelaus reigned there.

For it could have happened that on a feast day, amid so vast a crowd, they went up secretly, soon to return, though on other days they were afraid to dwell there; so that neither by omitting the solemnity might they be irreligious, nor by continual residence be conspicuous. But since concerning the reign of Archelaus too, how long it lasted, all have kept silence, this understanding also lies open: that what Luke says, that they were accustomed to go up to Jerusalem every year, we may take to have been done at the time when Archelaus was no longer feared.

But if any history besides the Gospel, to which faith should seem to be given, reports that Archelaus's reign was somewhat longer, then what I said above will suffice: that the parents of the boy so feared dwelling in Jerusalem that nevertheless, for the fear of God, they would not omit the solemn festival, in which they could most easily lie hidden. For it is not incredible that men, having seized upon opportune times whether of days or of hours, should approach those places in which they are afraid to be. XI.

Hence too is resolved that question, if it troubles anyone: since the elder Herod was already anxious, struck by the report of the Magi that a king of the Jews had been born, how could they, when the days of his mother's purification were completed, safely go up with him into the temple, to do concerning him according to the law of the Lord the things which Luke records? For who does not see that even on that one day the king, occupied with many affairs, could have been unaware of it?

But if this seems improbable — that Herod, who most anxiously awaited what the Magi would report to him concerning the boy, only after so many days perceived himself deluded, so that after the time of his mother's purification had passed and the solemnity of the firstborn had been performed concerning the infant in the temple at Jerusalem, and after their departure into Egypt as well, it came into his mind to seek the boy's life and to slay so many little ones — if, therefore, this troubles anyone, I forbear to say with how many and how great occupations the royal care could be distended, and for very many days either wholly diverted or hindered from that intent.