Matthew Poole and continuators on Luke 3:38

38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God,

There have been great Disputes, about the Genealogy of our Saviour, as recorded both by Matthew and Luke. The Adversaries of Christian Religion have taken no small advantage, from the seeming difference betwixt them, which even many Sober Writers▪ have thought it no easie matter to Reconcile. The Apostle hath cautioned us against giving too much heed to endless Genealogies, which minister Questions rather then Godly Edif[illegible: 1 letter]ing, [illegible: 2 letters]ich is in Faith, 1 Tim. 1.4. yet certainly it is our Duty, as well for the stopping the Mouths of such as would Clamour against the truth of the whole Scripture (if not of the whole Christian Religion) [illegible: 1 letter]s so far as we can to Vindicate holy Writ from their little Cavils, and thereby also to confirm those who are Weak in Faith. To make these things as clear as we can: It is plain that both the Evangelists agree in their Design▪ by setting down the Genealogy of our Saviour, to prove him Leneally descended both from Abraham, and David, the two Persons to whom was made the promise of the Messiah, and the Stability of his Kingdom, and also in the Names of the first fourteen Generations, mentioned by Matthew and here by Luke, v. 32, 33. and to Abraham, v. 34. Their disagreement lyeth in four things 1. In the form of the Pedegree. Matthew, beginning with those who were first, Luke with those that were last in order of time. But this is no valuable Exception, one Evangelist counts forward, another backward. 2. Matthew counts by three Periods, each consisting of fourteen Generations, Luke doth not, but neither is this of any Moment. 3. Matthew sets down our Saviours Genealogy, before he tells us any thing of his Concept[illegible: 1 letter]on or Birth. Luke after his Relation of his Conception, Birth, and Baptisme. 4. Matthew deriveth our Saviours Genealogy but from Abraham, Luke from Adam. All these differences, lay no Foundation for any Exception. Several accounts are given, why Luke carrieth up the Genealogy to Adam, the best seemeth to be this: That Matthew intending his History Primarily for the Jews, judged it enough to prove Christ, the Son of Abraham, and the Son of David; but Luke designing the in[illegible: 1 letter]ormation of the whole World, deriveth him from the common Father of Mankind By which means he also sheweth, the Antiquity of the Gospel, and lets us know that Christ was he who was promised to Adam, before Abrahams time, and that the Grace of the Gospel is not limited to the Seed of Abraham. Thus also Luke supplyeth what was wanting in Matthew, and truly deriveth both the first, and second Act from God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of us all. But besides these differences (hardly worth the taking notice of under that notion) there are some seeming contradictions in the Genealogies, yet not such, but I think a fair account may be given of, to any who will but first consider, 1. That they all lye, in what Luke hath from v. 23. to v. 32 and from the latter end of v. 34. to the end. So that in v. 32.33. and part of 34. we have nothing to reconcile. 2. That these Words [the Son] is in the Greek only v. 23. where Christ is said to be the Son of Ioseph, but ever after it is supplyed by the Translators. So as the Greek runs thus. The Son of Joseph, which was of Heli, which was of Matthat, which was of Levi, which was of Melchi, &c. Which consideration cuts off the first cavil how Ioseph could be the Son of Iacob ▪ (as Matthew saith) and the Son of Heli, as Luke saith; for indeed Luke saith no more than, v. 23. And Iesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed the Son of Joseph,) which was the Son of Heli. That is, Christ was of Heli, the supposed Son of Ioseph, but truly of Heli, the Father of Mary, his Mother. I know that some think that Iacob was also called Heli, (as it was ordinary with the Jews to have two Names,) others think that Ioseph is called the Son, because he was the Son-in-Law of Heli, by the Marriage of the Virgin Mary his Daughter, (Naomi calleth those her Daughters, which were but her legal Daughters Ruth 1.11.) in this the most agree, but I must confess I think it is Christ, who is here said to be of Heli, (tho he was reputed, and generally taken to be the Son of Ioseph.) 3. That Luke is here deriving our Saviour, not from his supposed Father Ioseph, but from Mary his true Mother. It is not to be conceived that Luke after such a narration of the predictions of his conception as he had given us in the first Chap. should go to derive Christ from Ioseph, and this gives us a fair account why the Names are so different from Davids time to the Birth of Christ. Ioseph (whose pedigree Matthew relates) deriving from Solomon who was the Son of David succeeding him in the Kingdom. Mary (whose pedigree Luke relates) descending from Nathan v. 31. 1 Chron. 3.5. tells us he was another Son of David. So as after Davids time, the Persons named which before were the same in our Saviours Pedigree became diverse, some the Progenitors of Ioseph, whom▪ Matthew reckons, others the Progenitors of Mary, whom Luke nameth. This answereth the objection, from the differing number of the Persons from Ioseph to Zorobabel, (excluding them both) Matthew reckoneth but nine, Luke here reckoneth 18▪ in v. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28. From Zorobabel to David Luke reckons 22 Progenitors, Matthew but 14. (leaving out three Kings o[illegible: 1 letter] the hal[illegible: 1 letter] Blood of A[illegible: 3 letters], of which we gave an account in our Notes o[illegible: 1 letter] Matthew 1.) so as the Scripture nameth 17. tho Matthew leaves out 3. in two different Lines; it is not impossible that one person in so many years might have so many more Progenitors than another, supposing Matthew designed to reckon all, which it is plain from his leaving out three Kings named in Scripture that he did not. 4. That ordinarily the Jews had two Names, sometimes three, all Iosiahs Sons had each of them two at least. Matthew had also the Name of Levi, &c. This solves the difference from v. 27. where Rhesa is said to be the Son of Zorobabel, when as Matthew saith ch. 1.13. Zorobabel begat Abiud. That Abraham was the Son of Terah or Thara, and Terah the Son of Nachor, appeareth from Gen. 11.24. 26. That Saruch or Sarug, was the Son of Reu or Ragau, appeareth from Gen. 11.20. 1 Chron. 1.25. that Reu was the Son of Peleg, (here called Phalec) and Peleg the Son of Eber, and Eber the Son of Sala appears from Gen. 11.18. 1 Chron. 1.25. But in Genesis 11. we read, that Sala was the Son of Arphaxad v. 12. whereas he is here said to be the Son of Cainan, and Cainan is made the Son of Arphaxed. So as Luke maketh Sala Grandchild to Arphaxad, Moses makes no mention of Cainan at all, but mentions Salah, as begotten by Arphaxad. Those who are curious to know what is said for the resolution of this difficulty, may read it largely both in Spanheims dubia Evangelica, and Mr. Pools Synopsis Criticorum. It is a difficulty which hath exercised many very learned Men, and I doubt whether ever any yet satisfied himself in the resolution of it. It is not probable that Luke should correct what Moses said, the best account I can give of it is, the Septuagint in Gen. 11, 12. have it just as Luke here hath it, and it is certain, that Luke in his quotations out of the old Testament, doth generally follow the Septuagint, (being the translation most in use among them) Beza tells us of an ancient Copy of the Gospel he had, which mentioneth no Cainan. The best of it is, that it is a matter of no great moment, for the Question is not, whether Sala was the Son of Arphaxad, (for so he was, tho Arphaxad was his Grandfather, in the same sense that Christ is called the Son of Abraham, and the Son of David, and Elizabeth the Daughter of Aaron ch. 1.1.) but whether he was the immediate Son of Arphaxad, or Cainan, whether Moses omitted Cainan, or some transcriber of Luke added Cainan out of the Septuagint (being then the current Translation among them) the last is most probable. For the other part of the Genealogy v. 36, 37, 38. it plainly agreeth with Gen. 5, 6, &c. & 6.10. So that I must profess I see no great difficulty to reconcile the Genealogies, admitting the one to give the Genealogy of Ioseph, and the other, to give the Genealogy of Mary; that indeed Mary was the Daughter of Heli, is not to be proved by Scripture, nor yet contradicted, but it is very probably judged so. And tho we cannot prove that Cainan, mentioned v. 36. was added out of some latter Copies of the Septuagint, yet it is more than probable it was so; which two things if we admit, I see no great difficulty remaining, but a fair agreement betwixt both the Evangelists. For I presume none will stumble at the alteration of some letter, or omission of some letter in a Name, or addition to it in the end; there is nothing more ordinary than that, when Names are mentioned in several Languages.