FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   326   327   328   329   330   331   332   333   334   335   336   337   338   339   340   341   342   343   344   345   346   347   348   349   350  
351   352   353   354   355   356   357   358   359   360   361   362   363   364   365   366   367   368   369   370   371   372   373   374   375   >>   >|  
d of God']." Therefore Christ's genealogy is set down by the evangelists in a suitable order. Reply Obj. 1: As Jerome says on Matt. 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 Obj. 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 Kings 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. [*Part i, qu. lvi; part 2, qu. vi] 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 (Rom. 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 mater
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   326   327   328   329   330   331   332   333   334   335   336   337   338   339   340   341   342   343   344   345   346   347   348   349   350  
351   352   353   354   355   356   357   358   359   360   361   362   363   364   365   366   367   368   369   370   371   372   373   374   375   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Christ

 

Joseph

 
Matthew
 

genealogy

 
descended
 

supposed

 
forefathers
 

mentions

 
called
 

evangelists


evangelist

 
generation
 

spirit

 
family
 
private
 

virtue

 

likeness

 

answer

 

righteous

 

Others


individuals
 

solutions

 
Augustine
 
motives
 

whilst

 
begotten
 

father

 

guided

 

understand

 
effect

differently
 

Apostle

 
Evangelist
 

Julian

 

Apostate

 
raised
 

objection

 

writers

 

Gregory

 

mentioned


people

 

Nazianzum

 

suitable

 

answers

 

relates

 
humanity
 

Whereas

 

speaks

 

Godhead

 
explaining