Cornelius a Lapide
Table of Contents
Synopsis of the Chapter
First, he describes the preaching and baptism of John the Baptist, by which he disposed men for the grace of Christ and pointed Him out to them. Second, in verse 21, he relates that Christ was baptized by John, when the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in the form of a dove, and the voice of the Father was heard: Thou art My beloved Son. Third, in verse 23, he traces the genealogy of Jesus from Joseph back to Adam.
I have for the most part explained the first and second on Matthew III: therefore the third remains.
Vulgate Text: Luke 3:1-38
1. Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being procurator of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and Philip his brother tetrarch of Ituraea and the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, 2. under the high priests Annas and Caiaphas: the word of the Lord came to John, the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness. 3. And he came into all the country about the Jordan, preaching the baptism of penance for the remission of sins, 4. as it is written in the book of the words of Isaias the prophet: A voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight His paths; 5. every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low, and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways plain: 6. and all flesh shall see the salvation of God. 7. He said therefore to the multitudes that went forth to be baptized by him: Ye offspring of vipers, who hath shewed you to flee from the wrath to come? 8. Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of penance, and do not begin to say: We have Abraham for our father. For I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham. 9. For now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that doth not yield good fruit, shall be cut down and cast into the fire. 10. And the people asked him, saying: What then shall we do? 11. And he answering, said to them: He that hath two coats, let him give to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do in like manner. 12. And the publicans also came to be baptized, and said to him: Master, what shall we do? 13. But he said to them: Do nothing more than that which is appointed you. 14. And the soldiers also asked him, saying: What shall we do? And he said to them: Do violence to no man, neither calumniate any man; and be content with your pay. 15. And as the people were of opinion, and all were thinking in their hearts of John, lest perhaps he himself were the Christ; 16. John answered, saying unto all: I indeed baptize you with water; but there shall come one mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to loose: He shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and with fire; 17. whose fan is in His hand, and He will purge His floor, and will gather the wheat into His barn; but the chaff He will burn with unquenchable fire. 18. And many other things exhorting, did he preach to the people. 19. But Herod the tetrarch, when he was reproved by him for Herodias, his brother's wife, and for all the evils which Herod had done, 20. added this also above all, and shut up John in prison. 21. Now it came to pass, when all the people were baptized, that Jesus also being baptized and praying, heaven was opened: 22. and the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape, as a dove upon Him; and a voice came from heaven: Thou art My beloved Son, in Thee I am well pleased. 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, 24. who was of Levi, who was of Melchi, who was of Janne, who was of Joseph, 25. who was of Mathathias, who was of Amos, who was of Nahum, who was of Hesli, who was of Nagge, 26. who was of Mahath, who was of Mathathias, who was of Semei, who was of Joseph, who was of Juda, 27. who was of Joanna, who was of Resa, who was of Zorobabel, who was of Salathiel, who was of Neri, 28. who was of Melchi, who was of Addi, who was of Cosan, who was of Elmadan, who was of Her, 29. who was of Jesu, who was of Eliezer, who was of Jorim, who was of Mathat, who was of Levi, 30. who was of Simeon, who was of Juda, who was of Joseph, who was of Jona, who was of Eliakim, 31. who was of Melea, who was of Menna, who was of Mathatha, who was of Nathan, who was of David, 32. who was of Jesse, who was of Obed, who was of Booz, who was of Salmon, who was of Naasson, 33. who was of Aminadab, who was of Aram, who was of Esron, who was of Phares, who was of Judas, 34. who was of Jacob, who was of Isaac, who was of Abraham, who was of Thare, who was of Nachor, 35. who was of Sarug, who was of Ragau, who was of Phaleg, who was of Heber, who was of Sale, 36. who was of Cainan, who was of Arphaxad, who was of Sem, who was of Noe, who was of Lamech, 37. who was of Mathusale, who was of Henoch, who was of Jared, who was of Malaleel, who was of Cainan, 38. who was of Henos, who was of Seth, who was of Adam, who was of God.
Verses 1-2: In the Fifteenth Year of the Reign of Tiberius Caesar
1. NOW IN THE FIFTEENTH YEAR OF THE REIGN OF TIBERIUS CAESAR, PONTIUS PILATE BEING PROCURATOR OF JUDAEA, AND HEROD BEING TETRARCH OF GALILEE, AND PHILIP HIS BROTHER TETRARCH OF ITURAEA AND THE REGION OF TRACHONITIS, AND LYSANIAS TETRARCH OF ABILENE, 2. UNDER THE HIGH PRIESTS ANNAS AND CAIAPHAS: THE WORD OF THE LORD CAME TO JOHN, THE SON OF ZACHARIAS, IN THE WILDERNESS. — From the twelfth year of Christ Luke passes to His thirtieth year, in which, according to the custom of the Hebrews, He began to exercise the office of teacher and redeemer and to preach publicly.
OF THE REIGN OF TIBERIUS. — This Tiberius, as is clear from Suetonius in his Life, was the son of Livia, who, after she bore Tiberius, married Augustus Caesar; who therefore, when his grandsons by his daughter Julia, Caius and Lucius, had died, adopted Tiberius as a stepson into a son, and made him heir and successor of the empire. Augustus reigned 57 years from the murder of Julius Caesar, and died on the 19th of August, when Tiberius succeeded him: therefore the last year of Augustus was not entire, but half; consequently the first of Tiberius was likewise of five months, namely from the month of August until January, from which the Romans used to begin and number the year. This Tiberius, from the Acts of Pilate, hearing wonderful things about the sanctity and miracles of Christ, wished to enroll Him among the gods, but the Roman senate opposed him, because he had attempted it without consulting them, as I said on Matt. XXVII, 24.
PONTIUS PILATE BEING PROCURATOR OF JUDAEA. — Note: Archelaus, son of Herod the Great (the infanticide), on account of his tyranny was expelled by Augustus Caesar from his Tetrarchy and driven into exile in the 10th year of his tetrarchy, which was, as some exact chronologers maintain, the 52nd year of Augustus and the 12th year of Christ's life. Wherefore Augustus, having taken Judaea (that is, the two tribes, namely Judah and Benjamin) from Archelaus, added it to the province of Syria and its governor, who was then Quirinus, or, as Luke calls him, Cyrinus, who entrusted the administration of Judaea to Coponius, and through him confiscated the goods of Archelaus; for which reason the governors of Judaea were called procurators or administrators, although in reality they were its governors. Hence Pilate is here called by Luke in Greek hēgemoneuōn, that is, ruler, leader, governor, prince; and the Arabic renders it, in the dominion of Pontius Pilate over Judaea.
Furthermore, to Coponius, the first procurator or governor of Judaea, was substituted by Augustus the second, M. Ambivius; then the third, Annius Rufus, under whom Augustus died: whom Tiberius succeeded and made Valerius Gratus the fourth governor of Judaea, then the fifth Pontius Pilate, in the 13th year of his reign. Moreover, Pilate ruled Judaea for 9 years, and in his second year Christ was baptized, and in the fifth from him was crucified and died. Wherefore by the avenging God, Pilate was sent into exile by Tiberius in the 23rd year of his reign, that is, the last. Pilate was succeeded by the sixth, Marcellus; the seventh, Cumanus; the eighth, Claudius Felix; the ninth, Porcius Festus (before these two St. Paul, in chains, pleaded his case, Acts XXIII, 24, and the whole of ch. XXIV); the tenth, Albinus; the eleventh, Florus, in whose second year, which was the 12th of Nero's reign, the Jews began to rebel against the Romans, and in the fifth year after, Jerusalem was taken by Titus and all Judaea subdued. Josephus relates all these things at length in book XVIII of Antiquities, ch. I and following.
AND HEROD BEING TETRARCH OF GALILEE. — The Arabic: in the dominion of Herod prince over a fourth of Galilee, and of Philip his brother prince over a fourth of Ituraea. For a tetrarch is one who presides over a fourth part (for tetra in composition signifies four, archē is rule) of some province or kingdom. Hence by Theodoret he is called "quadruplar."
That you may understand this history from the egg, note: Herod the infanticide, dying on the fifth day after the infanticide, in the second year of Christ, left three surviving sons (for he killed the others while still alive, and Antipater indeed during the infanticide itself), namely Archelaus, Herod Antipas, and Philip. While these were contending among themselves about the succession in their father Herod's kingdom, Augustus divided the kingdom into four parts or tetrarchies, over which he set the same number of tetrarchs, or princes, or dynasts: namely, he assigned Judaea to Archelaus, and after he was expelled, to Coponius; Galilee to Herod Antipas; to Philip, Ituraea and Trachonitis; to Lysanias the foreigner, Abilene. These tetrarchies were great and like a kingdom, as Pliny teaches in book V, 18. Hence Herod Antipas, although he is called tetrarch by Matthew, ch. XIV, 1, is nevertheless called king by Mark, ch. VI, 14, as I said on Matt. XIV. So also both Herod Agrippas, that is, the father and the son, who were grandsons of Herod Antipas, being descended from his brother Aristobulus, obtained the name of king from C. Caligula and Claudius the Emperor, as is clear from Acts XII, 1, and ch. XXV, v. 23.
AND PHILIP HIS BROTHER TETRARCH OF ITURAEA and the region of Trachonitis. — Ituraea, says Adrichomius in Descript. Terrae sanctae, p. 110, no. 60, is so called from Iethur or Ithur, son of Ishmael; it is a mountainous and wooded "region, stretching lengthwise to the foot of Mount Lebanon. For taking its beginning from the river Jordan, alongside the same Lebanon toward the West it extends as far as the mountains of the Sidonians and the Tyrians; sometimes it is also called the forest of Lebanon."
Trachon, or Trachonitis, like a kingdom, says Pliny, lib. V, ch. XVIII, is a region situated across the Jordan between Palestine and Coele-Syria, bordering on the desert of Arabia from the East, on Damascus from the North, which the half-tribe of Manasseh occupied. Now this region is called Trachonitis because it is rocky and rough, and abounds in underground passages and caverns; for trachōn in Greek signifies a rocky place, and trachones also signifies hidden underground passages and caves. This region is utterly without springs and streams, and so the inhabitants carefully collect rainwater through trachones, that is, underground passages, into pools both natural and artificially made, and most of them dwell in trachones, that is, in caves and burrows, and lurk in the manner of wild beasts. They live willingly by plunder. So Adrichomius from Josephus, William of Tyre, and others.
AND LYSANIAS, TETRARCH OF ABILENE. — Bede and Adrichomius think that this Lysanias was the fourth son of Herod the infanticide, and therefore the brother of Archelaus, Herod Antipas, and Philip, the three other tetrarchs. But the contrary is taught by Josephus, almost their contemporary, namely that this Lysanias was the son of the elder Lysanias, who, the elder, was the son of Ptolemy Mennaeus, ruler in Chalcis near Mount Lebanon, and on his death his son succeeded him in the kingdom, before Herod the infanticide was designated king of Judaea by the Romans. So Josephus, book XIV of Antiq., ch. XXI. This elder Lysanias was killed by Antony, the triumvir and colleague of Augustus Caesar and Lepidus, at the instigation of Cleopatra, Antony's mistress, who, gaping after Lysanias's kingdom, was eager to join it to her ancestral kingdom of Egypt; he was killed, I say, 30 years before the nativity of Christ, as Josephus testifies, book XV of Antiq., ch. IV. This elder Lysanias therefore left a son with the same name, the younger Lysanias, who tried to restore Antigonus to the kingdom of Judaea and to expel Hyrcanus, whom Herod the infanticide favored; for which reason Herod was created king of Judaea by the Roman senate, with Antony and Augustus Caesar urging it, both Antigonus and Hyrcanus being excluded, as Josephus relates in book I of Bell., ch. XI, who also in book XIX of Antiq., ch. IV, asserts that the whole of Lysanias's region was called Lysania from him.
OF ABILENE. — Abila, otherwise Abyla and Abela, is a notable city of Coele-Syria, situated near Mount Lebanon, from which the region of Abilene, or Abilina, took its name, which from the East borders Damascus, from the West Chalcis, from the North Lebanon. Over this therefore Lysanias was set by the Romans. So Adrichomius from Josephus.
Moreover, Luke here so laboriously enumerates the princes, both secular and ecclesiastical, that is, the pontiffs Annas and Caiaphas: First, in order distinctly and solidly to assign the time and year in which John, and from there Christ, began to preach. Second, to signify that the scepter had already departed from Judah through Herod the foreigner and his sons the tetrarchs, and through Tiberius and the Romans ruling Judaea, and therefore that the Messiah or Christ had now come, the beginning of whose preaching he recounts in this chapter, according to the oracle of Jacob, Gen. XLIX, 10. Third, to suggest that Israel, divided among so many princes — some unfaithful, some impious — needed the coming of the Messiah to restore and save it. Fourth, because these princes had a great part in the deeds of John and of Christ, which Luke will hereafter narrate: for Tiberius, as I said, wished to enroll Christ among the gods; Pilate crucified Him, but compelled by the Jews, although he had previously several times protested that He was innocent; Herod Antipas snatched away Herodias, his brother Philip's wife, and therefore, being reproved by John, killed him, and mocked Christ clothed in a white robe; Annas and Caiaphas persecuted Christ even to the cross, just as they did the Apostles after Christ's death.
Under the high priests Annas and Caiaphas. — He joins ecclesiastical princes to the secular princes, namely the high priests. You will say: There was only one high priest of the Jews, as is clear from Josephus and others; how then are two named here? Eusebius, book I Hist., ch. X, replies that John the Baptist began to preach under Annas, and continued until the pontificate of Caiaphas. Others reply that Annas and Caiaphas held the pontificate alternately year by year. But Josephus refutes all these things in book XVIII, ch. I and V, who places many pontiffs in between Annas and Caiaphas, and asserts that Caiaphas was made high priest by Valerius Gratus, who immediately preceded Pilate, and persevered the whole time of Pilate, until the end of the reign of Tiberius Caesar.
I reply therefore that there was only one high priest of the Jews, namely Caiaphas, but there were several princes, that is, chiefs of the priests, as is clear from Matt. XXVI, 3, and in the passion of Christ the princes of the priests, or pontiffs, who accused, condemned, mocked Christ before Pilate, etc., are named throughout. Among these princes, then, the chief were Caiaphas and Annas: Caiaphas, because he was pontiff; Annas, because he was Caiaphas's father-in-law, and because he himself had been pontiff, and was of the greatest authority among the Jews. Hence after him he had five sons as pontiffs, as Josephus testifies, book XX Antiq., ch. VIII. For this reason Christ, when seized by the Jews in the garden, was first led to Annas, then to Caiaphas, Matt. XXVI.
THE WORD (that is, command, imperative, order) OF THE LORD CAME UPON (that is, to) JOHN, THE SON OF ZACHARIAS. — q.d., God commanded John the Baptist in the 15th year of Tiberius to preach and baptize. He commanded, I say, by internal inspiration, perhaps also by the external voice of an angel, announcing this to him on God's behalf with his own mouth.
Verse 3: And He Came into All the Country About the Jordan
3. AND HE CAME INTO ALL THE COUNTRY ABOUT THE JORDAN, PREACHING THE BAPTISM OF PENANCE (that is, urging them to do penance) FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS, — namely to be received in the baptism of Christ; q.d., John was preaching penance, so that through it they might dispose themselves to receive pardon and grace from Christ. See what was said on Matt. III.
Verses 4-6: As It Is Written in the Book of the Words of Isaias
4. AS IT IS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE WORDS OF ISAIAS THE PROPHET: A VOICE OF ONE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS: PREPARE YE THE WAY OF THE LORD, MAKE STRAIGHT HIS PATHS. 5, 6. Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways plain: and all flesh shall see the salvation of God. — I have explained all these things on Isaiah XL, 2. Furthermore St. Gregory, homily 20 on the Gospel; St. Augustine, St. Chrysostom, Bede, and others expound them thus, q.d.: Everyone who exalts himself shall be humbled; and he who humbles himself shall be exalted, as Christ says. But this sense is not the genuine one for this passage, both because the valleys here are not called humble, but rather faint-hearted; and because it is the discourse of John not foretelling future things, but exhorting to a change of life and morals, q.d.: Prepare, O Jews, the way for Christ, as if your Messiah were now about to come to you: wherefore "every valley shall be filled," that is, let it be filled; "and every mountain and hill shall be brought low," that is, let it be made low; "and there shall be," that is, let them become or be, "the crooked," that is, oblique and winding ways, "made straight, and the rough ways plain," that is, level all the ways for Christ as for a king now about to come, as is wont to be done for kings about to be inaugurated, that the rough ways may be made plain and even, q.d.: Take away from your minds everything that is crooked, distorted, uneven, too high or too low; e.g., he who carries the mountain of pride in his heart, let him press down this swelling; he who contains in himself the valley of faintheartedness and acedia, let him fill, raise, and level it through magnanimity and trust in God; he whose morals are rough, let him compose himself to gentleness and modesty.
AND ALL FLESH SHALL SEE (that is, it shall come to pass that) ALL FLESH (that is, every man shall see, that is shall be able to see, with the eyes both of the body and rather of the mind) THE SALVATION OF GOD, — that is, the Savior Christ; let him see, I say, that is, let him feel in himself and experience the salvation and the power of the grace brought by Christ.
Hear St. Gregory, hom. 20 on the Gospel: "Every valley shall be filled. For, he says, the humble receive the gift, which the hearts of the proud repel from themselves. The crooked are made straight, when the hearts of evil men, distorted by injustice, are directed to the rule of justice; and the rough ways are changed into plain ways, when harsh and wrathful minds, through the infusion of supernal grace, return to the gentleness of meekness."
We have heard the rest from verse 7 to verse 10 on Matt. III, 7, where I explained them.
Verse 10: And the People Asked Him: What Then Shall We Do?
10. AND THE PEOPLE ASKED HIM: WHAT THEN SHALL WE DO? — that we may bring forth worthy fruits of penance, and so escape the destruction threatened by you, and obtain eternal salvation, that is, lest we be cut off and cast into eternal fire, says the Interlinear. John had reproved the Pharisees and the multitudes, but the Pharisees "despised the counsel of God," ch. VII, 30, and therefore the discourse of John; but the crowd and the common people, moved and pricked by his force, ask the manner of penance for grasping John's commands, and offer themselves to him ready and prepared. So also today commoners more easily grasp the admonitions of preachers than the powerful, and therefore are saved before them.
Verse 11: He That Hath Two Coats, Let Him Give to Him That Hath None
11. AND HE ANSWERING SAID TO THEM: HE THAT HATH TWO COATS, LET HIM GIVE TO HIM THAT HATH NONE; AND HE THAT HATH MEAT, LET HIM DO IN LIKE MANNER. — It is a synecdoche: for from one species more common and necessary, such as clothing and feeding the poor, he understands every kind of almsgiving. "Two," namely so that one suffices for clothing and warming the body, and therefore the other is superfluous; let him "give that one to him who has none," that is, having none at all, but naked and needy: for if both are necessary to him who has them, he is not bound to bestow the other on the poor. So St. Jerome, Quaest. 1 ad Hedibiam, and St. Ambrose here, whom hear: "Of mercy," he says, "the measure is preserved according to the possibility of the human condition, so that no one should snatch all for himself, but should share what he has with the poor." And he adds: "Let him therefore bring forth the fruit of grace who can; the fruit of penance, who must. The use of mercy is common, therefore the precept is common; mercy is the fullness of virtues." And St. Gregory: "Therefore the precept is given concerning the dividing of tunics, because if one is divided, no one is clothed;" but if two are divided, two are clothed. And St. Basil: "We are taught," he says, "that from all that abounds, we ought to bestow upon him who has not." This therefore is one of the worthy fruits of penance, namely the act of mercy and almsgiving, according to the counsel of Daniel, IV, 24, to Nebuchadnezzar: "Redeem thy sins with alms, and thy iniquities with mercies to the poor." See what is said there. Add: almsgiving rightly composes life to every virtue. For every virtue is either due or undue and gratuitous: the due is justice; the undue, mercy; wherefore mercy satisfies both for itself and for justice, both because he who gives his own will not seize but will restore what is another's; and because he who gives what is undue and gratuitous will much more pay what is due, to which he is bound by justice or some other virtue; and because mercy is done from love and charity: but charity is the fullness of the law. For "he who loves has fulfilled the law," Rom. XIII. Wherefore Euthymius aptly says: "He enjoins on the multitudes that they embrace one another with mutual benevolence, and that they relieve one another with mutual works." For the multitudes easily grasp acts of mercy and incline toward them, since they are difficult and often unfit for prayer, fastings, and works of penance.
Verse 12: And the Publicans Also Came to Be Baptized
12. AND THE PUBLICANS ALSO CAME TO BE BAPTIZED, AND SAID TO HIM: MASTER, WHAT SHALL WE DO? — that we may save our souls. Here is fulfilled that saying of Christ: "The publicans and the harlots go before you (O Scribes) into the kingdom of God," Matt. XXI, 31. For sinners, reproved with great spirit by John, were pricked, acknowledged their fault, and sought penance; but the proud Scribes, thinking themselves to be just and wise, scorned it.
Verse 13: Do Nothing More Than That Which Is Appointed You
13. BUT HE SAID TO THEM: DO NOTHING MORE THAN THAT WHICH IS APPOINTED YOU, — in the exaction of taxes; for the Greek is prassete, which can be rendered both "do" and "exact," but here more clearly "exact," as the Syriac and the Greeks interpret it. So Jansenius, Maldonatus, Franciscus Lucas and others. For publicans are wont through avarice to increase the tax, and exact more than has been appointed by the prince, which is theft or robbery: wherefore John here censures it. "He commands moderately," says St. Augustine, sermon 3 On Various Subjects, "so that injustice may have no place, and the appointed tax may have effect." "Thus the Baptist gives a fitting answer to the individual generations of men," says St. Ambrose. Let the preacher do the same, so that he prescribes in particular to wives, husbands, children, maidservants, servants, merchants, farmers, lawyers, etc., what they ought to do, and hands down to each their own precepts of life.
Verse 14: And the Soldiers Also Asked Him
14. AND THE SOLDIERS ALSO ASKED HIM, SAYING: WHAT SHALL WE DO? AND HE SAID TO THEM: DO VIOLENCE TO NO MAN, NEITHER CALUMNIATE ANY MAN; AND BE CONTENT WITH YOUR PAY. SOLDIERS. — Some serving under Herod Antipas against Aretas, king of the Arabs; some under the prefect of the temple; some under Pilate, the Roman governor; these, hearing John thundering against vices and threatening them with hell, conscious of their own robberies and other crimes which soldiers are wont to commit, pricked by John's voice, like the publicans, ask of him a remedy of penance, of an honest life and of salvation: to whom John assigns three things opposed to the three vices of soldiers, of which the first is violence; the second, calumny; the third, plunder. John excludes violence, saying: "Do violence to no man," that is, inflict force on no one. He excludes calumny, saying: "Neither calumniate any man," Greek mēde sykophantēsēte, that is, do not be sycophants, so as to fasten some crime upon the harmless, accusing them of being supporters of the enemy, hostile, plotters, in order to despoil them or seize their goods. He forbids therefore that "by calumniating they should seek as plunder from those whom by their soldiering they ought to have helped," says Bede. He excludes plunder, saying: "Be content with your pay."
In like manner the Emperor Aurelian, most loving of fairness, says Vopiscus in his Life, writing to his vicar: "If you wish to be a tribune," he says, "or rather if you wish to live, restrain the hands of the soldiers. Let no one snatch another's chick; let no one touch a sheep. Let no one carry off a grape, let no one trample a crop, let no one exact oil, salt, or wood; let him be content with his own provisions. Let him have his fill from the plunder of the enemy, not from the tears of the provincials; let arms be polished, ironwork burnished, sandals strong. Let new clothing put off old clothing; let him keep his pay in his belt, not in the tavern; let him put on the bracelet and ring; let him groom his own pack-horse, not sell a captured animal, let him kindly care for the centurion's mule. Let one obey the other as a servant; let them be treated by physicians free of charge. Let them give nothing to soothsayers; let them behave chastely in lodgings; whoever causes a quarrel, let him be flogged."
John therefore tacitly insinuates that, with these three conditions laid down, it is lawful to serve as a soldier, and that war is lawful, as St. Ambrose teaches in sermon 7, and St. Augustine in book XXII Against Faustus, ch. LXXIV.
There exists a notable little book of Ferrandus, Deacon of Carthage, who flourished in the year of Christ 500, and was a friend and intimate of St. Fulgentius, bishop of Ruspe, addressed to Count Reginus, in which to a soldier — indeed a leader of soldiers, such as Reginus was — he gives these seven precepts of innocence:
"The first rule of innocence," he says, "which you ought to keep amid military acts, is this: that you, in pride, ascribe nothing to your own strength, but refer all that you do wisely or bravely or successfully to the praise of the most powerful Creator. The second rule of innocence for one occupied with military acts is that, as in a mirror, the soldiers should see in him what they ought to do, and that imitation should rouse them to good more than power does. For a wise leader ought to go where he wishes to lead his subjects: for he is therefore called a leader because he leads. Be thou therefore a standard-bearer of most holy discipline; raise up the trophy of virtue continually for others to behold; appear thou as one to be imitated," especially in those three things which the Baptist here enjoins, and which Ferrandus there explains and amplifies at length. The third rule of innocence is, if you preside, that you may benefit: now you will appear to benefit if you understand the time and place of your administration," which he then declares in particular. "The fourth rule is that you love the commonwealth as yourself with free charity," as Moses loved it, praying that he might be blotted out of the book of life for the people, Exod. XXXII, and David in the plague saying to the smiting angel: "Let thy hand be turned against me, and against my father's house. As for these who are sheep, what have they done?" 2 Kings XXIV. "The fifth rule is: Let the synagogue of sinners diminish in the times of your administration, let the number of the elect increase. Rejoice over the gains of Christ; grieve at the losses. The sixth rule is: Whatever you say, do, or think, do it so that you may please God and men, and through the fervor of charity wonderfully exclude the cold of iniquity. Be not too just, neither be wise more than is necessary." He explains it: "Be just, that you may rebuke the unquiet; be not too just, that you may console the faint-hearted, that you may take up the weak, and be patient toward all. Consider therefore those whom you command, and how hard hearts you wish to bend, so that now by threatening, now by striking, now by granting pardon, you in no way let the sins of the soldiers remain unpunished; nor however always retribute punishments fitting to their excesses, saying to yourself: Be not too just."
Verses 15-16: As the People Were Supposing, John Answered
15. As the people were supposing (in Greek προσδοκῶντος, that is, suspecting, supposing, expecting, as Vatablus translates, hoping, or with hope, with the people in suspense from desire and expectation) AND ALL WERE THINKING IN THEIR HEARTS CONCERNING JOHN, WHETHER PERHAPS HE HIMSELF MIGHT BE THE CHRIST — namely the Messiah promised to the fathers, and so eagerly and certainly awaited by all the Jews at this time, when the scepter had been transferred from Judah, and Daniel's seventy weeks foretelling Christ had been fulfilled. Hence, when the people were spreading this rumor about John, the leaders of the Jews themselves at length sent legates to him, to ask whether he himself were the Christ. John I:19. So holy was John. Thus St. Ambrose, Bede, and others.
16. JOHN ANSWERED, SAYING TO ALL: I INDEED BAPTIZE YOU WITH WATER, BUT THERE WILL COME ONE STRONGER THAN I — namely the Messiah. The rest which Luke adds here, I have explained at Matthew III, 11.
Morally, Origen: Preachers are admonished here, he says, not to allow themselves to be too greatly praised or honored by the people, but to suppress these praises and honors and refer them to Christ, lest because of pride they be deprived of these by Christ.
Verse 23: The Genealogy of Christ — He Was the Son of Joseph, Who Was of Heli
23. AND JESUS HIMSELF WAS BEGINNING ABOUT THIRTY YEARS OLD. — Do not refer the word "beginning" to the phrase "thirty years old," for thus the word "about" would be redundant; but [refer it] to the public preaching of Jesus, to which He had been sent by the Father, as if to say: when Jesus, in His baptism through the dove and the voice of the Father, was declared to be the Messiah, teacher of the world, lawgiver and Savior, and therefore began to exercise this office and duty of His, and publicly to teach and preach the Gospel law, He "was about thirty years old." This is clear from the Greek, which has: And Jesus was about thirty years old beginning, that is, when He was beginning to fulfill His office and to preach. Thus Jansenius, Baronius, and others.
Note: the word "about" means approximately; for it does not define whether Jesus was precisely 30 years old. For if we say Jesus was born in the 42nd year of Augustus, Jesus in this year of His baptism — which was the fifteenth of the Emperor Tiberius — was completing His 29th year of age and beginning His thirtieth. But if we say He was born in the 41st year of Augustus, He was completing His thirtieth year. But if we say He was born in the 40th year of Augustus, He was completing His 31st year and beginning His 32nd by 43 days. For Augustus reigned 57 years, but his last year was only half, because he died in August, and then Tiberius succeeded him; thus likewise Tiberius's first year was not whole, but half, namely from the month of August until January, when the new year by Roman custom — and so the second year of Tiberius — began to be reckoned. But Christ was born at the end of the 40th year of Augustus, namely on December 25. Add the sixteen remaining years of Augustus and the fifteen of Tiberius, and you have 31 years of Christ's life; and thus Luke adds the word "about," that is, approximately, more or less. See what was said at chap. II, verse 1.
Thirty Years Old. — As if to say: John, and a little later Christ, began to preach not prematurely, but at the proper age. For the Hebrews hand down that before the thirtieth year it was lawful to no one to teach publicly; for then the age is virile and settled, and the judgment is fully mature and perfect, and this is sufficiently gathered from 1 Chronicles XXIII, 3.
AS WAS SUPPOSED, THE SON OF JOSEPH, WHO WAS (the Arabic adds "son" here and in all that follows) OF HELI, WHO WAS OF MATHAT. — From this passage Porphyry and Julian the Apostate accused Luke of falsehood, on the ground that Joseph was not the son of Heli, but of Jacob, as Matthew says in chapter I; and that Luke names the rest of the progenitors of Joseph and Heli quite differently from those whom Matthew names. Add that these things bear upon the genealogy of Jesus, who was not the son of Joseph, but was born of the Virgin Mary.
First, St. Augustine answers, in book II On the Consensus of the Evangelists, chapter XIII, that Joseph was the natural son of Jacob, but the adopted son of Heli. But he retracts this in book I of his Retractations, chapter VII, and rightly. For here natural sons are sought, not adopted: otherwise Jesus would not be the natural son of David and of Abraham, but only adopted.
Second, St. Hilary on Matthew I, and St. Ambrose here, answer that Matthew narrates Christ's royal generation, that is, from kings; Luke indeed the priestly, that is, from the priests; but this is equally obscure, difficult, and insufficient.
Third, others answer that Joseph was the natural son of Jacob, but the legal son of Heli: for by the old law, Deuteronomy XXV, 5, when a brother had died without children (as Heli seems to have done), the surviving brother (as Jacob seems here to have been) had to raise up seed, that is sons, whose deceased brother who died childless was deemed to be their legal father. Namely, Jesca, says Euthymius, married Mathat, and from him bore Heli; then the same married Mathan, and from him bore Jacob. Furthermore, Heli died without children: thus his brother Jacob took his wife according to the law, and from her begot Joseph, who therefore was the natural son of Jacob, but the legal son of Heli: thus Heli is here called the legal father of Joseph. So the ancients in many places, such as Justin, Julius Africanus, St. Jerome, Eusebius, Nazianzen, St. Augustine in book II of the Retractations, chap. VII; St. Ambrose, St. Thomas, Anselm, Bede, Damascene, Salmeron, whom Maldonatus and Suarez at length cite here, III part, Question XXVII, art. 1. But these are forced to assert that Heli and Jacob were brothers only by the same mother, namely because they had the same mother, for they had different fathers: for the father of Heli was Mathat, as Luke says; but the father of Jacob was Mathan, as Matthew says; and all the rest of the grandfathers and great-grandfathers of these two are quite other and different in Luke from those whom Matthew assigns. But the law commanding that seed be raised up to a brother who has died without children speaks of brothers not by the same mother only, but full brothers born from the same father. For these alone retained the name and inheritance of the father. Add that Jesca is here introduced irrelevantly. For granted that as a mother in her, Jacob and Heli came together as brothers by the same mother, yet they cannot come together in Mathat and Mathan and the rest of their ancestors up to David. Therefore these things do nothing here for the purpose, namely for the genealogy of Blessed Mary and of Christ, so that from them it would be shown that Jesus is sprung from the seed of David according to the flesh. For if Jesus was born from Jesca and Mathat, the same could not be begotten from Jesca and Mathan: how then is Jesus set down as the son both of Mathan and of Mathat?
Fourth, others answer that Luke, because he writes for the Gentiles, traces Jesus's own lineage through the Virgin mother, whose husband was Joseph: therefore Joseph, they say, is called son, that is son-in-law, of Heli; for Heli is the same as Joachim, who was the father of the Blessed Virgin; but Matthew, because he writes for the Jews, traces Christ's lineage in their manner through Joseph, who was the putative father of Christ.
But neither does this satisfy: for thus the genealogy which Matthew weaves will truly not pertain to Christ, since He was truly not the son of Joseph, but of the Virgin alone; and consequently Christ truly did not descend through Solomon (which, though a learned man may concede it, yet Scripture suggests the contrary, 2 Samuel VII, 12; and Psalm LXXXVIII, 37), as Matthew has it, but through Nathan, as Luke has it.
I say therefore: It is very likely that in Christ's time it was very well known that Mathan had been the common grandfather of Joseph and the Blessed Virgin; and that Jacob, who was the father of Joseph, and Heli or Joachim (who was the father of the Blessed Virgin) had been full brothers, as Franciscus Lucas holds, or rather that Jacob was the brother of St. Anne, who was the wife of Heli or Joachim, from whom the Blessed Virgin was born: thus when the genealogy of one is described, that of the other is also described. For the Blessed Virgin through her mother Anne descended naturally from Jacob, Mathan, and Solomon; but through her father Heli or Joachim, she descended from Mathat and Nathan. Matthew therefore wove the genealogy of the Blessed Virgin, and that of her Son Christ through the mother, namely St. Anne, who was the sister of Jacob and the daughter of Mathan, and married Heli or Joachim, and from him bore the Blessed Mary; but Luke wove [it] through the father, namely through Heli, that is Joachim, so that it might be shown that Christ descends both through the father and through the mother from the seed of David.
This opinion is proved first, from the refutation of the others.
Second, because there is no more fitting way of reconciling the genealogies of Matthew and Luke, except this; therefore Matthew and Luke compel us to it: for otherwise either genealogy, namely either Matthew's or Luke's, will pertain in nothing to the Blessed Virgin and Christ, but only to Joseph, who truly was not the father of Christ. Therefore, since each of these genealogies is brought forward by Luke and Matthew so that through both it may be shown that Christ truly and naturally is descended from the seed of David, as Scripture asserts, it must necessarily be said that the Blessed Virgin and Christ are descended from each, not legally, but naturally according to the flesh.
Third, because it is the common opinion of the Doctors — of St. Augustine, Dionysius the Carthusian, Cajetan, Jansenius, Palacios, Gagnée, Galatinus, Driedo, Canisius, Melchior Cano, Dominic Soto, whom Suarez cites and follows, III part, Question XXVII, art. 1, disp. 3, sect. 2 — that Luke weaves Christ's genealogy through His grandfather Heli or Joachim, the husband of St. Anne and father of the Blessed Virgin. Therefore it must necessarily be said that Matthew's genealogy is woven through St. Anne, and that she was the daughter of Mathan: otherwise all her grandfathers and great-grandfathers, whom Matthew lists, will pertain only to Joseph, but not to the Blessed Virgin and Christ.
Fourth, this opinion is favored by the fact that, in Numbers XXXVI, 7, women who, in default of male offspring, are heirs of their parents, are commanded to marry not only in the same tribe, but also in the same kinship and nearest family, namely so that the inheritance may not pass to those far off, but to the nearest, who have the closest right to it. Therefore Mary (who was the only daughter of Joachim and Anne, and so their heir) and Joseph were of the same family, namely sons — that is, grandchildren — of Mathan their grandfather. Therefore, when Matthew had woven Christ's genealogy through the grandmother Anne up to Solomon and David, Luke wished to weave the same [genealogy] through Nathan and David, in order to show that by a twofold title Jesus was the son of David, and by a twofold right had succeeded to David's kingdom. For Nathan had been next to Solomon for the kingship. For it is the common opinion of the Fathers and Doctors — such as St. Ambrose, book III on Luke; St. Jerome and Theodoret on chapter XXII of Jeremiah; St. Bernard on the words "A great sign"; Suarez, and others — that the Blessed Virgin and Christ drew their lineage from kings, namely from Solomon and David. Therefore the Blessed Virgin through her mother Anne descended from Nathan and Solomon, as Matthew has it. For Luke does not name Solomon, but in his place puts Nathan. Indeed, Scripture itself suggests this, Psalm CXXXI: "From the fruit of your womb (O David) I will set upon your throne," that is: Christ your son, O David, I will substitute for you in your kingdom. And Luke I: "He has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of David His servant"; for the house of David is the royal stock of David.
Therefore Matthew weaves Christ's genealogy through Joseph the father, Luke through Mary the mother; each meets in David, but is divided from him through two of his sons, Solomon and Nathan, into two lines of descendants on each side, continuously to Joseph and Mary. Through Solomon, Matthew leads it down; through Nathan, Luke. Heli, then, is called the father of Joseph; "father," that is, father-in-law: for Heli by apocope is the same as Eliachim or Joachim, husband of St. Anne and father of the Blessed Virgin, whose husband was Joseph, and so [Joseph was] son-in-law of Joachim and Anne. Thus Joachim, king of Judah, is called Eliachim, 2 Kings XXIII, 34, and 2 Chronicles XXXVI, 4; and the high priest Eliachim is called Joachim, Judith IV. For just as Jehovah or Jo in Joachim is a name of God, so also El is a name of God in the name Eliachim: thus the Rabbis and Hilary.
Furthermore, the lines of Christ's genealogy, which Luke weaves through Nathan, and Matthew through Solomon, come together in St. Anne, who was the daughter of Mathan and sister of Jacob, the father of Joseph. For Anne married Heli or Joachim, who descended from Nathan. And Anne was the mother of the Blessed Virgin, who married Joseph, who was the son of Jacob, of Mathan, of Eleazar, and so on, up to Solomon.
Take this table, in which you will see at a glance the entire genealogy of Christ and the line and degree of His kinsmen, drawn from the Fathers and the moderns — and especially from Christoph a Castro, chap. I On the Mother of God — composed probably but accurately.
Table of the Genealogy of Christ from SS. Matthew and Luke
DAVID. — From him were born: Nathan, Solomon. [Genealogy of Christ according to St. Luke:] Mathatha, Menna, Melca, Eliakim, etc., Eliud. [Genealogy of Christ according to St. Matthew:] Roboam, Abia, Josaphat, Joram, etc. — Levi. — Eleazar. — Mathat. — Mathan, from whom were born Jacob and Anne. Anne married Heli, that is Joachim; and [also] Sobe. From them was born Mary, mother of Jesus Christ. Sobe bore Elizabeth, wife of Zechariah and mother of John the Baptist. Jacob begot Joseph, whose wife was Mary; and Cleophas or Alphaeus, whose wife was Mary, from whom were born: James the Less, Apostle, brother (or so surnamed) of the Lord, called [the son] of Alphaeus, first Bishop of Jerusalem, Acts I, 13; Mark XV, 40; Galatians I. — Jude Apostle, surnamed Thaddaeus and Lebbaeus, brother of James the Less, author of the Catholic Epistle, Acts I, 13; Luke VI, 16; Matthew X, 3. — Joses or Joseph, Matthew XXVII, verse 56; Mark XV, verse 40. — Simeon, Matthew XXVIII, who succeeded his brother James in the Episcopate of Jerusalem, and died a martyr in the 10th year of Trajan, when he was 120 years old. — Mary, Mark VI, 3. — Salome, wife of Zebedee, from whom were born James the Greater and John the Evangelist.
From this table it is clear that the Blessed Virgin, through her mother St. Anne, descends through Mathan from Solomon, just as Joseph descends; but through her father Heli, or Joachim, she descends from Nathan, who was the brother of Solomon and the son of David. Again, from it, it is clear that St. Anne was the sister of Jacob and the paternal aunt of Joseph; and therefore St. Mary, through her mother Anne, and Joseph through his father Jacob, have the same grandfather Mathan, the same other ancestors all the way up to Solomon and David: thus Matthew, while he weaves the genealogy of Joseph through Jacob and Mathan, also weaves the genealogy of Mary and of Christ, who through His mother and grandmother Anne descends in a direct line from Mathan and the others up to Nathan.
Furthermore, the Menaeum (that is, the Ecclesiastical Office of the Greeks) on September 8, where they celebrate with hymns and praises the Blessed Virgin's birth, parents, and ancestors, assigns to Mathan as father the sons just mentioned. Cajetan and Lyranus here, likewise Joannes Annius in his Commentary on Philo; Joannes Lucidus; Pietro Galatino, On the Mysteries of the Faith, and others; indeed even St. Hippolytus, bishop of Portus and martyr, in Nicephorus, book II, chap. III, gives Mathan two daughters: namely Sobe, the mother of St. Elizabeth, from whom John the Baptist was born; and Anne, the mother of the Blessed Virgin, from whom Jesus was born. That Cleophas was the brother of St. Joseph, the spouse of the Blessed Virgin, Hegesippus, who lived in the time of the Apostles, expressly teaches in Eusebius, book III, chap. X and XI; and to Cleophas as father, the sons just listed are attributed by St. Epiphanius, St. Chrysostom, Hegesippus, Eusebius, Theodoret, Bede, Nicephorus, and others whom our Christoph a Castro cites in his History of the Blessed Virgin, chap. I.
Hence, although Baronius thinks that the Mary of Cleophas who was the mother of St. Simeon, bishop of Jerusalem, is different from the Mary, mother of James and Joseph, the authors just cited teach that she is one and the same, as do St. Jerome Against Helvidius, Isidore, Bede, and Anselm, whom Christoph a Castro cites in chap. III, p. 426. That Salome, however, was the wife of Zebedee, and bore from him James and John, is taught by St. Epiphanius, Origen, Theodoret, the Author of the Imperfect, Theophylact, Euthymius, and others, whom a Castro cites in On the Mother of God, chap. I. Indeed, St. Mark in chap. XV, 40, calls her Salome, whom St. Matthew in chap. XXVII, 56, calls "the mother of the sons of Zebedee."
From what has been said, it is clear that St. Elizabeth was the cousin of the Blessed Virgin, and the granddaughter of St. Anne through her sister called Sobe — whom Sigebert and others call Esmeria; again, that St. James the Less and St. Jude the Apostles, and St. Simeon, Bishop of Jerusalem, were Christ's cousins in the first degree, because they were the sons of Cleophas, brother of Joseph the spouse of the Blessed Virgin, who was the mother of Christ; and that James the Greater and John the Evangelist were Christ's cousins in the second degree, because Salome their mother was the sister of St. James the Less, St. Jude, and St. Simeon. But of all [the cousins of Christ], the great-aunt was St. Anne, the mother of the Blessed Virgin; for St. Anne was the sister of Jacob the elder, son of Mathan; and this Jacob was the father of Joseph and Cleophas, and Cleophas begot St. James, St. Jude, St. Simeon, and Salome, whose sons (Salome's) were St. James the Greater and St. John the Evangelist; and consequently St. Anne was the great-great-aunt of these two. Therefore James the Less was the uncle of James the Greater, and older than him; yet the latter is called the Greater not by age, but by Christ's election and calling.
Finally, Simeon, brother of SS. James and Jude, is distinct from Simon the Canaanite Apostle, although Bede once held the contrary view, but afterwards retracted it. For the former originated from Nazareth, this latter from Cana of Galilee; the former was Bishop of Jerusalem after his brother St. James, the latter an Apostle; the former died a martyr under Trajan on February 18, the latter much earlier on October 28, when the Church celebrates their feasts.
Now the sisters of James, Joseph, Jude, and Simeon — from the same father Cleophas and his wife Mary — whom Matthew mentions in XIII, 55, and Mark in VI, 3, were two, as Hippolytus reports in Nicephorus, book II, chap. III. The name of one was Esther, of the other Tamar. But St. Epiphanius, in heresy 78, and Theophylact on chap. XIII of Matthew, call them Mary and Salome — names which can be gathered from the Gospel not obscurely, says a Castro, chap. I On the Mother of God, p. 49.
WHO WAS OF HELI. — The word "who" can be referred to Joseph, as if to say: Joseph was son — that is, son-in-law — of Heli, that is Joachim, because he took his daughter, namely the Blessed Virgin Mary, as wife; and therefore Luke does not use the verb "begot," as Matthew does, but the verb "was"; namely, either son-in-law, or natural son, or even work and creation, as when it is said of Adam in the last verse, "who was of God," namely [as] His creation; for Adam was not the Son of God, but was created and formed by God.
Again, you may quite plainly refer the pronoun "who" from the Greek to "Jesus"; as if to say: Jesus was the son — that is, the grandson — of Heli or Joachim, because He was begotten from him as from a grandfather, through the Blessed Virgin as His mother. For since Luke had laid down beforehand that Joseph was not the true father of Christ, but only His putative father, there was no reason why he should immediately subjoin the genealogy of Joseph; but rather the lineage of the Blessed Virgin and of Christ according to the flesh: for this is what Luke intends to describe, just as Matthew does; and this is the end and scope of both genealogies. Thus St. Augustine (or whoever the Author is, for it does not seem to be St. Augustine's), in book I of Questions on the Old and New Testament, Question LVI, and in book II, Question VI.
Verse 24: Who Was of Janne
24. WHO WAS OF JANNE. — This is Jannaeus; the second Hyrcanus, if we may believe Annius and his Philo, the last leader of the Jews from the lineage of David and the stock of the Hasmoneans or Maccabees, concerning whom Josephus speaks in book XII, chap. IV and V, and Eusebius in the Chronicle. For Christ descends both from priests, such as were Judas, Jonathan, and Simon Maccabee, and from kings, as it were as king and priest, as Doctor Thomas, Bonaventure, and among the Fathers St. Nazianzen and Augustine teach, whom Suarez cites and follows in the passage cited. For the kings of Judah used to take as wives the daughters of the priests.
Verse 27: Who Was of Zorobabel, Who Was of Salathiel
27. WHO WAS OF ZOROBABEL, WHO WAS OF SALATHIEL. — These two are different and distinct from the Zorobabel and Salathiel whom Matthew lists in chap. I, and says were begotten from David through Solomon; whereas Luke's [Zorobabel and Salathiel] descend from David through Nathan, and consequently have all their grandfathers and great-grandfathers different from those of Matthew. Thus Toletus, Pererius, Franciscus Lucas, and others. Perhaps these Lucan descendants from Nathan, taken up to leadership, borrowed the names of those who from Solomon's family had become illustrious in the principate.
Verse 31: Who Was of Nathan, Who Was of David
31. WHO WAS OF NATHAN, WHO WAS OF DAVID. — Some think that this Nathan is that prophet who rebuked David for the adultery committed with Bathsheba, 2 Samuel XII, 1. Thus Origen, Lyranus, Burgensis, Albertus Magnus, and even St. Augustine in book LXXXVIII, Question LXI. But the same St. Augustine rightly retracts this in book I of the Retractations, chap. XXVI, because this Nathan was born from David and Bathsheba after the adultery, when they were now joined in lawful matrimony, as is clear from 2 Samuel V, 14; and 1 Chronicles III, 5.
Verse 36: Who Was of Cainan
36. WHO WAS OF CAINAN. — This Cainan is omitted and stricken out by the Hebrew and the Chaldee, Genesis XI, 12; and 1 Chronicles I, 18 and 24. But the Septuagint adds the same one in those places, and Luke from them adds him here. It is therefore a chronological problem, whether this Cainan is to be inserted into the genealogy and chronology of Christ along with the Septuagint and Luke, or rather to be omitted with Moses? In Genesis I stood with Moses for Moses, and I brought forward reasons why Cainan should seem to be omitted. Now in Luke I will stand for Luke, and I will bring forward reasons why he should be inserted. Let the reader judge and choose what seems to him more probable.
Berosus, Philo, Josephus, Theophilus of Antioch, Africanus, Orosius, Procopius, St. Jerome, Gregory of Tours, Isidore, Ado, Bede, the Abulensis, Eugubinus, Genebrardus in his Chronology on Genesis XI, 12, and Jansenius and Cajetan here all hold that Cainan should be omitted. If you object to them that Luke here does not omit but inserts Cainan, they respond that Luke, simply because he was writing for the Gentiles — to whom only the Greek Septuagint version was known, and not Moses's Hebrew itself — inserts Cainan from the Septuagint, lest he be charged by the Gentiles with falsehood or ignorance, by omitting Cainan against the trustworthiness of the Greek Bibles, which alone they knew. So St. Jerome answers in his Questions on Genesis, giving the reason why Luke in Acts VII says, from the Septuagint, that 75 souls entered Egypt with Jacob, when Moses (Genesis XLVI, 27) assigns only 70. "The excuse is easy," says Jerome; "for St. Luke, who is the writer of that history, when issuing the volume of the Acts of the Apostles to the Gentiles, ought not to have written anything contrary to that Scripture which had already been published to the Gentiles: and indeed at that time the authority of the Seventy Translators was held in greater esteem than that of Luke, who was considered unknown and obscure and of no great trustworthiness among the nations. This must be observed generally: that wherever the holy Apostles or apostolic men speak to peoples, they generally make use of those testimonies which had already been published among the Gentiles, although many hand down that Luke the Evangelist, as a proselyte, was ignorant of Hebrew letters." Thus far St. Jerome.
Wherefore, these authors say, in Luke there is nothing false, no falsehood, when from the Septuagint he interposes Cainan — whether true, or fictitious and false — because he does this not of himself, but from the Septuagint, which by common custom he follows; as if to say: I, Luke, recite to you, O Gentiles, the genealogy of Christ according to the catalog of generations woven by the Seventy, which has been received by you throughout the whole world, in which Cainan is inserted — granting that according to the Hebrew truth he should be omitted. For this opinion is true and irreproachable, even if the Seventy had erred or varied. For he who in chronology, or in any other matter, brings forward the common opinion of weighty authors does not err, since that opinion is probable, even if on the side of the matter itself it should be less true or false. Thus the Church, consigning in the Martyrology on December 25 the year of Christ's Nativity and saying that Christ was born in the year 5199 from the creation of the world, does not err, because it does this according to the mind of the Seventy, who assign that many years, which formerly the whole world followed; granted that in these years there would seem to be in fact, according to the Hebrew truth, an error, as I have shown from St. Augustine on Genesis V. For the authority of the Seventy Translators in chronology makes the opinion probable, which anyone may safely follow and cite as probable, indeed in that age as common. For one must speak as the many, but think as the few. For often Scripture and the canonical authors speak from the common sense of others and the opinion of the masses, and not from the truth of the matter. Not to go far afield, there is an example in Luke himself, who elsewhere and in chap. II calls Joseph the father of Christ, when in reality he was not his father, but only thought by the masses to be his father. Thus those authors — Eugubinus, Cajetan, Genebrardus, Jansenius — more freely and boldly.
Others, more mildly and reverently, attribute this error (if indeed it is an error) in inserting Cainan not to the Seventy themselves, but to their copyists, who, by a slip of the eyes, seeing Cainan placed shortly before in the genealogy of Adam before the flood, repeated the same one here after the flood. For how corrupt the codices of the Seventy were of old through their negligence, especially in genealogies and proper names, St. Jerome is a weighty witness, in his epistle to Domnio and Rogatianus.
On the opposite side, Eusebius, St. Augustine, Nazianzen, Sulpitius, Hugh, Dionysius, Lipomanus, Melchior Cano, Delrio, Toletus, Barradius and other moderns generally hold that Cainan should be inserted. The reason is that all the copies insert him here — Latin, Syriac, Persian, Egyptian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Greek (with one exception). At Rome I consulted the codices, the most ancient manuscripts in the Vatican Library, in the basilica of St. Paul, in the Oratory of Cardinal Baronius, where I saw Bibles written by hand 800 years ago, of Alcuin and of Charlemagne, in all of which I found Cainan inserted in this place. Therefore I have a scruple about departing from St. Luke's sacred text in a matter so constant and certain: for I think I owe this reverence to St. Luke and to the sacred books, especially since it is less inconvenient to say that Cainan was passed over by Moses for reasons unknown to us, than that he crept into Luke, or that he is set down falsely in St. Luke's sacred text, and so to make the trustworthiness of all the copies suspect in this passage. Indeed Albertus Magnus, the Gloss, and Toletus suspect that Cainan was once present in the Hebrew text of Genesis XI, 12, and that thence the Seventy translated him into Greek. Others think the Seventy added him for a mystery which is hidden from us. Lyranus thinks that Cainan was the son of Arphaxad not naturally but by adoption. Others think Cainan to be the same as Sala. Hence Lipomanus on Genesis XI, Johannes Nauclerus, and Johannes Lucidus read here: "Who was of Sala, who was also Cainan," but against the trustworthiness of all the codices. Wherefore I think Cainan must here certainly be retained, as I held also at Genesis XI, 12. Whether he is to be inserted into the chronology, and if so whether 30 years should be added, as for the others, or not, the opinions of the chronologers vary, some adding these 30 years, others omitting them. For perhaps for some other reason the Seventy and Luke from them inserted him. For this is, as I have said, a problem of chronology. Hence Luke does not say "who begot," but "who was Cainan," which can be explained variously, and much more so the Greek τοῦ Καϊνάν.
In a similar way, the Seventy elsewhere supply and add many things which are not in the Hebrew, and from it they often vary. For they were not only translators, but also seers strong in the prophetic spirit, as St. Jerome attests, and St. Augustine in book II On the Consensus of the Evangelists, chap. LXVI, and more fully in his Questions on Genesis, in Question CLXIX.
Verse 38: Who Was of God
38. WHO WAS OF GOD. — namely as His creation, not as His son; as if to say: God from the earth, like a potter, formed and fashioned the first man Adam. Hence the Arabic translates: "who was from God"; whereas in the rest it translates the phrase "who was" as "son." Therefore Luke leads down Christ's genealogy as far as Adam, but Matthew only as far as Abraham, who was the father of believers and founder of the Synagogue; hence there are more generations in Luke than in Matthew. Why does Luke add this? Some give as the first cause that he might weave the entire and complete genealogy of Christ from Jesus to the first Adam, and even up to God the Maker of Adam.
St. Athanasius gives the second [reason], in his oration on the words "All things have been handed over to me by my Father." "Luke," he says, "having begun from the Son of God, runs back up to Adam, in order to show that the body which Jesus assumed draws its origin from Adam, who was formed by God."
St. Irenaeus gives the third, in book III, chap. XXXIII: "Thus," he says, "Christ has been made the beginning of those that live, because Adam was made the beginning of those that die; on this account Luke also, beginning the start of the generation from the Lord, traced it back to Adam, signifying that not they regenerated Him, but He regenerated them, into the Gospel of life."
St. Leo gives the fourth, in sermon X On the Nativity of the Lord: "Luke the Evangelist wove back the line of His lineage upwards from the Lord's very birth, so that he might teach that even those ages which preceded the flood are connected to this mystery, and that all the degrees of succession from the beginning have stretched towards Him, in whom alone was the salvation of all."
Franciscus Lucas gives the fifth: that Luke might signify that, through Jesus, men are led back upwards to God, [men] who through Adam had been led downwards away from God.
Symbolically, Euthymius: Luke, he says, beginning the discourse from Christ's humanity, leads it back to His divinity, demonstrating that Christ indeed began as man, but as God lacks a beginning.
St. Ambrose gives another cause: "Now," he says, "of Adam himself, who according to the Apostle received the figure of Christ, what more beautiful thing could have been fitting than that the most sacred generation should begin from the Son of God, and be led back as far as the Son of God; and that he who was created should go before in figure, that He who was born might follow in truth; that he who was made to the image of God should go before, on whose account the image of God should descend?"
Furthermore, St. Augustine, in book II On the Consensus of the Evangelists, chap. IV, counts here 77 generations, by which is signified, he says, the utter remission and abolition of all sins to be wrought through Jesus the Savior, according to that saying of Christ: "I do not say to you, until seven times, but until seventy times seven," Matthew XVIII, 22.
Finally, see here the noble lineage of Christ, which Luke and Matthew lead forth from Jesus Himself through so many Kings, Prophets, and Patriarchs to Adam himself, the first-formed, indeed to God Himself, through four thousand years, in an unbroken series of generations. For there is no prince or king in the whole world who could weave and lead his own lineage in a continuous series back a thousand years. Why Christ delayed His coming and incarnation so long, our Barradius brings forward ten reasons for the delay, in vol. I, book V, chap. XXXI.
Finally, this genealogy of Christ was prefigured by Jacob's ladder. Thus Rupert on chap. I of St. Matthew: "Jacob's ladder," he says, "is this very generation; and the sides of the ladder are the fathers or chief ones of this generation, Abraham and David, to whom the promise was made. The highest step on which the Lord leans is the blessed Joseph: leaning, we ceased to be." Hence Gregory Nazianzen, in his poem On the Vileness of the External Man, sings thus: "That very fact that I live is like a most rapid stream, / Which, rising upward, ever flows downward." And, with some lines interposed: "from tomb to tomb I make my way," that is, being born from my mother's womb, I tend toward death and the sepulchre, according to that saying of Job 1: "Naked I came forth from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither;" "so that the time of this life is nothing else but a course unto death," says St. Augustine, City of God, book XIII, chapter X; daily we die: for daily some portion of life is taken away, and even when we are growing, life is decreasing: this very day which we are spending, we share with death, etc. Therefore, as soon as we enter life, we straightway begin to tend toward death and to depart from life. Live therefore for eternity, in which is perpetual being, perpetual stability and constancy of all things. Hence the impious complain, Wisdom V: "We who were born have at once ceased to be," as I say, like a ward to his guardian.
Wherefore St. Bernard, in Sermon 1 On the Advent, says that these Patriarchs are like mountains, upon which Christ, leaping, came to us: "Behold He comes leaping upon the mountains, skipping over the hills"; take the mountains and hills as the Patriarchs and Prophets, and read in the book of the generation how He came leaping and skipping over: "Abraham begat Isaac, Isaac begat Jacob," etc. From these mountains came forth the root of Jesse.
Tropologically: "who was" signifies the vanity of this age, namely that the life of men and each generation passes away, and is at once turned from the present into the past, that is, from "is" into "was," according to that line: We have been Trojans, Ilium has been, and the mighty / Glory of the Teucrians.