Abraham begot Isaac. And Isaac begot Jacob. And Jacob begot Judas and his brethren.

“(in Luc. cap. 3. lib. iii. n. 7, 8.) For Abraham was the first who deserved the witness of faith; He believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. It behoved therefore that he should be set forth as the first in the line of descent, who was the first to deserve the promise of the restoration of the Church, In thee shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. And it is again brought to a period in David, for that Jesus should be called his Son; hence to him is preserved the privilege, that from him should come the beginning of the Lord’s genealogy.”

“(Hom. iii.) Matthew then, desiring to preserve in memory the lineage of the Lord’s humanity through the succession of His parents, begins with Abraham, saying, Abraham begat Isaac. Why does he not mention lsmael, his first-born? And again, Isaac begat Jacob; why does he not speak of Esau his first-born? Because through them he could not have come down to David.”

“(De Cons. Evan. ii. 1.) Matthew, by beginning with Christ’s genealogy, shews that he has undertaken to relate Christ’s birth according to the flesh. But Luke, as rather describing Him as a Priest for the atonement of sin, gives Christ’s genealogy not in the beginning of his Gospel, but at His baptism, when John bare that testimony, Lo, He that taketh away the sins of the world. (John 1:29.) In the genealogy of Matthew is figured to us the taking on Him of our sins by the Lord Christ; in the genealogy of Luke, the taking away of our sins by the same; hence Matthew gives them in a descending, Luke in an ascending, series. But Matthew, describing Christ’s human generation in descending order, begins his enumeration with Abraham.”

“With the title proposed, here the sequence of the genealogy is woven together; and it is divided into three parts, according to the three sets of fourteen by which the said sequence of the genealogy is woven. The first set of fourteen is from Abraham up to David, which proceeds through the patriarchs. The second proceeds from David up to the transmigration of Babylon, which proceeds through the kings. The third, from the transmigration of Babylon up to Christ, begins from leaders and proceeds through private persons. The second part is there where it says, "David the king begot Solomon." The third is there where it says, "And after the transmigration of Babylon," and so on. The first part is divided into three. For first are set down the fathers who were before the entrance into Egypt; second are set down those who were in the very going out, and the entrance into the land of promise; third, those who were after the entrance into the land of promise. He says therefore first, "Abraham begot Isaac." Here it must be considered, before we proceed further, that two Evangelists pursue the generation of Christ according to the flesh, namely Luke and Matthew, but differently. And this difference is observed with respect to five things. For first they differ as to placement; second as to order; third as to manner; fourth as to terminus; fifth as to the persons enumerated. First I say that they differ as to placement, because Matthew begins to weave the generation of Christ at the beginning of the Gospel, but Luke does so not at the beginning, but after the Baptism. And the reason for this, according to Augustine, is that Matthew took up the carnal generation of Christ to describe, and therefore he had to set it down immediately at the beginning. But Luke intends above all to commend in Christ the priestly person; now to a priest belongs the expiation of sins, and therefore Christ's generation is fittingly set down by Luke after the Baptism, in which the expiation of sins takes place. Second, Luke and Matthew differ in weaving the genealogy of Christ as to order: because Matthew weaves the generation of Christ beginning from Abraham and descending down to Christ, but Luke begins from Christ and proceeds ascending up to Abraham and even beyond. And the reason is that, according to the Apostle, Romans 4:25, in Christ there were two things, namely the humility of taking up the defect of our nature, and the power of divinity and of grace, by which he expiated us from the defects of this nature; Romans 8:3: "God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh," on account of the first, and "of sin he condemned sin in the flesh," on account of the second. Matthew therefore, who intends the carnal generation of Christ, through which he descended even to the assumption of our infirmity, fittingly describes his generation by descending. But Luke, who commends in him the priestly dignity, through which we are reconciled to God and are united to Christ himself, fittingly proceeds by ascending. Third, they differ as to manner: because in narrating the genealogy Matthew uses this word "begot," but Luke this word "was." And this is because Matthew in his whole narration sets down only carnal fathers; but Luke sets down many fathers according to the law, or by adoption. For it was commanded in the law that if someone died without children, his brother should take his bride, and beget children for him; hence those children were not the children of him who begot them, but by a certain adoption were imputed to the former. Hence Luke, who sets down many sons begotten by adoption, does not say "begot," but "was," because although they themselves had not begotten them, yet by a certain adoption those sons were theirs. But Matthew, who sets down only carnal fathers, says "begot." The reason for this is that, as has been said, Matthew is occupied above all with the humanity of Christ. And because according to the flesh he was born of carnal fathers, therefore in the genealogy of Matthew no one is set down who was not a carnal father. But Luke commends above all in Christ the priestly dignity, through which we are adopted as sons of God; and therefore he set down not only carnal but also legal fathers. Fourth, they differ as to terminus: because Matthew begins his generation from Abraham, and extends it up to Christ; but Luke, from Christ, extends not only up to Abraham, but even up to God. The reason for this can be taken from the fact that Matthew wrote to the Hebrews. Now the Hebrews gloried above all in Abraham, John 8:33: "We are the seed of Abraham," who was the first principle of believing; and therefore Matthew began from Abraham. But Luke wrote to the Greeks, who knew nothing about Abraham except through Christ: for if Christ had not existed, they would never have known anything about Abraham; and therefore Luke began from Christ, and terminated not only in Abraham, but in God. Fifth, they differ as to the persons enumerated: because in the whole sequence of Luke's genealogy no mention at all is made of a woman; but in Matthew certain women are inserted. The reason for this is, according to Ambrose, that Luke, as has been said, commends above all the priestly dignity; but in a priest the greatest purity is required. But Matthew weaves his carnal generation; and therefore certain women are set down there. It must be noted, however, that in the whole genealogy of Matthew only sinful women are set down, or those who had been marked by some sin, such as Tamar, who committed fornication, Genesis 38:24, and Ruth, who was an idolatress, being a Gentile, and the wife of Uriah, who was an adulteress, 2 Kings 11:2ff. And this is to designate, according to Jerome, that he whose genealogy is woven entered in order to redeem sinners. Another reason is touched on by Ambrose, namely so that the confusion of the Church might be removed. For if Christ willed to be born of sinners, unbelievers ought not to mock, if sinners come to the Church. Another reason can be assigned, I believe according to Chrysostom, so that the imperfection of the law might be shown, and that Christ came to fulfill the law. For by the fact that certain sinful women are touched on, it is denoted that those who were the greatest in the law were sinners, such as David and Judah. And in this he designates the imperfection of the others. For if these were sinners, much more were the others; Romans 3:23: "All have sinned, and are in need of the glory of God." And therefore these are set down in the generation of Christ, so that it may be designated that he himself had fulfilled the law. Note, however, that although these women were all sinners, yet not at the time when their genealogy is being woven, but they had already been cleansed by penance. He says therefore, "Abraham begot Isaac." It must be noted first that here two things are to be considered according to the letter, or the literal sense: first, that through these fathers set down Christ is designated; second, that these things are also referred, and can be referred, to our instruction. He says therefore first, "Abraham begot Isaac." And this is had in Genesis 21. "And Isaac begot Jacob," Genesis 25. "And Jacob begot Judah and his brothers." Here it is asked, since Abraham had another son besides Isaac, namely Ishmael, and likewise Isaac had another, why no mention is made of them, as here it says "Judah and his brothers." Likewise, why Judah is expressed by name more than the others. The reason is that Judah and his brothers remained under the worship of the one God; and therefore mention is made of them in the generation of Christ, but not of Isaac and Ishmael, nor of Jacob and Esau. To the second, this was so that it might be shown fulfilled in Christ the prophecy of Jacob, Genesis 49:10: "The scepter shall not be taken away from Judah, nor a ruler from his thigh, until he come who is to be sent: and he shall be the expectation of the nations." For it is manifest that "the Lord arose out of Judah," as is said in Hebrews 7:14; and therefore more mention is made of him than of the others. "And Judah begot Perez," and so on. Here it is asked, since the Lord was not born of Zerah, but of Perez, why mention is made of him. Likewise, why he is expressed by name. For before it said "his brothers"; why then did it express the name of Zerah? And it must be said, according to Ambrose, that this was done as a mystery. For evidence of this, note the history, which is had in Genesis 38, that in the birth of Tamar, Zerah appeared first, on whose hand the midwife bound a scarlet thread, saying, "This one shall come out first," and therefore she called his name Zerah; afterward, as he drew back his hand, the other came out, the midwife saying, "Why is the wall divided on account of you?" Now Zerah, who appeared first, signifies the Jewish people, on whose hand the midwife bound the scarlet thread, that is, circumcision, which was done with the shedding of blood. But as he drew back his hand, etc., the other came out, because blindness happened in part to the Jews. For thus the Gentile people, divided, entered into the light of faith, having come forth from the womb of ignorance and unbelief. Second, it must be noted that through the fathers set down in the generation of Christ, Christ is signified by reason of the name, or of the deed, or of something else, as is evident of itself. For Abraham is interpreted "father of many nations," and signifies Christ, of whom it is said in Hebrews 2:10: "who had brought many sons unto glory." Likewise Abraham went out from his land at the Lord's command, Genesis 12:4, and it is Christ who said, Jeremiah 12:17: "I have left my house, I have abandoned my inheritance," and so on. Likewise Abraham, who laughed, saying, "Now the Lord has made laughter for me," Genesis 21:6, and it is Christ, at whose nativity joy is announced not only to one person, but to the whole world; Luke 2:10: "Behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all the people, for unto you is born this day a savior, who is Christ the Lord." Likewise through Jacob, both by reason of the interpretation and by reason of the deed, as is evident in this, that he placed a stone, that is, the hardness of the cross, under his head. Likewise through Judah, and through Perez, who is interpreted "division," for he himself shall divide the sheep from the goats, below, 25:32. Morally, however, in these generations is designated the state of our justification, according to six things which are required for justification. Namely, faith through Abraham, who was justified by the righteousness of faith; for elsewhere he himself is called the principle of faith; Romans 4:11: "that he might be the father of all who believe, though uncircumcised." Isaac, hope, because he is interpreted "laughter"; Romans 12:12: "rejoicing in hope." Jacob, charity, who took two wives, Leah, who is interpreted "laboring," and Rachel, that is, two lives, which are in charity according to the two precepts: for the contemplative life delights in God, and the active life is that by which one comes to the aid of one's neighbor. Judah, confession, which is twofold: of faith, Romans 10:10, "with the heart one believes unto righteousness; but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation," and of sins, "confess your sins one to another," James 5:16. From this, moreover, follows a twofold effect, namely the destruction of vices, which is designated through Perez, and the origin of the virtues, which is signified through Zerah. And these arise from Tamar, who is interpreted "bitterness"; Isaiah 38:15: "I will recall to thee all my years in the bitterness of my soul." "And Perez begot Hezron." Here is set down the sequence of the genealogy of the fathers who were born in Egypt, or in its exodus. For just as through Perez, who is interpreted "division," Christ is signified, below, 25:32, "he shall separate the lambs from the goats," so through Hezron, who is interpreted "arrow," or "court." For he is called "arrow" on account of the efficacy of preaching, by which he penetrated the hearts of his hearers; Psalm 44:6: "Thy arrows are sharp, the peoples shall fall under thee into the hearts of the king's enemies." And "court," on account of the breadth of charity, by which he loved not only friends, but even enemies; Romans 5:10: "when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son"; Isaiah 53:12: "he made intercession for the transgressors"; and likewise Luke 23:34: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." "And Hezron begot Ram." Now Ram is interpreted "chosen," or "exalted": Isaiah 42:1, "Behold my servant, and he himself is exalted above all"; Ephesians 1:21, "he set him above every principality." "And Ram begot Amminadab," who is interpreted "spontaneous." He it is in whose person the Psalmist says, Psalm 53:8, "I will freely sacrifice to thee, and will confess to thy name, for it is good, O Lord"; and Isaiah 53:7, "he was offered because he himself willed it, and he opened not his mouth," and so on; John 6:38, "I came not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me." "And Amminadab begot Nahshon," who is interpreted "augury" or "serpentine," because Christ knew not only present things, but also past and future ones; Hebrews 4:13, "all things are naked and open to his eyes." Likewise, "serpentine" on account of prudence, for prudence is attributed to the serpent, below, 10:16, "be ye prudent as serpents"; Job 12:16, "he himself knows the one deceiving and the one who is deceived." Note that this Nahshon was in the time of Moses, and went out with him from Egypt, and was one prince in the tribe of Judah in the desert, as is had in Numbers 1:7. But it must be observed that in Exodus 13:18, where our text has "the sons of Israel went up armed out of Egypt," the eagle translated it as "equipped," on account of an ambiguity; but better is the reading of the Septuagint, "the sons of Israel went out of Egypt in the fifth generation." But against this: this Nahshon was not the fifth from Jacob, but the seventh, as is evident by counting Jacob, Judah, and so on, up to Nahshon. Therefore it was not the fifth, but the seventh generation. But it is said that the count is not to be made through the tribe of Judah, but through the tribe of Levi, under whose leadership the sons of Israel went out from Egypt; Psalm 76:21, "thou didst lead thy people like sheep by the hand of Moses and Aaron." And it is evident that there are only five generations. For Jacob begot Levi, and Levi begot Kohath, Kohath begot Amram, and Amram begot Moses and Aaron, as is evident in Exodus 2; and under Moses they went out from Egypt. Here note that among all the tribes the tribe of Judah multiplied the most, and this because from it the future kings were to come, who had to fight. But among all, the tribe of Levi multiplied the least, and this because it was preordained to the divine office and the priesthood, for which fewer sufficed. And therefore he wants that also by counting through the tribe of Judah, what is said in Genesis 15:16 should be true, "in the fifth generation they shall return here." Jerome therefore says that what is said there is to be understood by counting through the tribe of Levi, but what is said here, through the tribe of Judah. For Perez himself entered into Egypt with Jacob and Judah his father. And therefore these generations are not to be counted from Jacob, but from Perez, who himself also entered into Egypt. And it is evident that Nahshon was the fifth from Perez. Likewise Levi himself entered into Egypt with his father Jacob. And therefore the generations are to be counted from Levi, and not from Jacob. Now it is clear that Moses was the fourth from Levi. "And Nahshon begot Salmon." Salmon is interpreted "sensible," and signifies Christ, in whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden. Morally it must be noted here that just as in the first generation is signified the order of our justification with respect to the state of beginners, so in this second generation, which likewise contains five, is signified the progress of those advancing. For the first thing that follows from the fact that a man is justified from sin is that he has zeal for souls. And therefore it is well said that Perez begot Hezron, who is interpreted "arrow," on account of the efficacy of preaching by which the hearts of hearers are pierced; Isaiah 49:2, "he made me as a chosen arrow." And so adapt the rest. "And Salmon begot Boaz," and so on. Here are set down the fathers who were born after the entrance into the land of promise. For Salmon was begotten in the desert, and entered with Joshua into the land of promise, and took as wife Rahab the harlot, of whom he begot Boaz. Boaz is interpreted "strong"; Jeremiah 16:19, "the Lord is my strength and my might." Rahab, however, is interpreted "hunger," or "breadth": and signifies the Church, because to her belongs that beatitude, Matthew 5:6, "blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice, for they shall be satisfied," and so on. It is also interpreted "breadth," because the Church has been spread throughout the whole world; Isaiah 54:2, "enlarge the place of thy tent, and stretch out the skins of thy tabernacles," and so on. Likewise it is interpreted "impetus," because by the impetus of preaching it converted kings and philosophers. Likewise it signifies the Church by reason of the deed. Rahab sent a scarlet thread into the window, by which she was freed from the overthrow of Jericho, Joshua 2:21. Our window is the mouth: the thread, then, in the window is the confession of the passion of Christ, by which the Church has been freed from death. Likewise by reason of marriage, because just as Rahab was joined in marriage to Salmon, who was a prince in the tribe of Judah, so Christ betrothed the Church to himself; 2 Corinthians 11:2, "I have espoused you to one husband, that I might present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." But here it is asked, according to the letter, since Rahab was a harlot, how was she betrothed to so great a prince, who was greater than the others? And it must be said that Rahab did a very great thing, in that, scorning her own people and her father's rite, she chose the worship of the God of Israel. And therefore she was given, as it were for the greatest honor, to a most noble prince. "And Boaz begot Obed of Ruth." This is had in the last chapter of Ruth. Obed is interpreted "serving," or "servitude": and signifies Christ, of whom through the prophet, "you have made me serve in your sins," Isaiah 43:24. Ruth, however, signifies the Church born of the Gentiles, by reason of place: for she was a Moabite. Moab is interpreted "from the father"; John 8:44, "you are of your father the devil"; and again by reason of marriage, as is evident in the Gloss. But it is asked why these women are named here, since they were sinners. Jerome assigns the reason concerning Ruth, namely so that the prophecy of Isaiah 16:1 might be fulfilled: "send forth the lamb, O Lord, the ruler of the land, from the rock of the desert." The rock of the desert is, namely, of evil, and Ruth the Moabite is signified. Ambrose, however, assigns the reason, saying: it was to be that the Church would be gathered from unbelieving nations; and therefore she could be ashamed and confounded, unless they saw that Christ was born even of sinful women. Hence, so that their shame and confusion might be removed, they had to be named. But it is asked: Deuteronomy 23:3 says, "the Moabites and Ammonites shall not enter the Church"; since therefore Ruth was a Moabite, how was she received into the Church? But it must be said, through the Apostle, to the Galatians 5:18, that those who are led by the Spirit are not under the law: for in the law the intention of the lawgiver ought always to be observed more than the words of the law. For what was the reason why the Lord forbade them to enter the Church? Namely because he found idolatry in them, lest they draw the Jews to idolatry. Hence this woman, who was already converted, was not an idolatress; and therefore she was not subject to the prohibition. "And Obed begot Jesse," last chapter of Ruth. Jesse, moreover, is interpreted "sacrifice" or "burning"; and signifies him who offered himself as a victim to God in an odor of sweetness. But it is asked: since this man was called by another name, Isai, as is evident in 1 Kings in many places, and that name was more solemn, why did the Evangelist not name him thus? And it must be said that this was so that it might be shown fulfilled in Christ what was said through the prophet Isaiah, 11:1: "there shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse." "And Jesse begot David the king." David is interpreted "strong of hand and desirable in appearance"; all of which befit Christ, as is evident. For he himself is strong who overcame the devil; Luke 11:22, "but if a stronger than he coming upon him overcome him, he will take away all his armor wherein he trusted, and will distribute his spoils." Likewise he himself is "beautiful in form beyond the sons of men," Psalm 44:3. But here it is asked: since there were several other kings, why is this one alone called "the king"? And it must be said that this man was the first king in the tribe of Judah, from which the Lord arose: for although Saul was king, he was nevertheless of the tribe of Benjamin. The second reason is that the others reigned on account of the merit of David himself; Psalm 88:30, "and I will set his seed for evermore, and his throne as the days of heaven." The third reason is so that the prophecy of Jeremiah 23:5 might be shown fulfilled: "I will raise up to David a righteous branch, and a king shall reign, and shall be wise, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth"; Isaiah 9:7, "he shall sit upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom," and so on. Morally, indeed, in this generation is designated the fruit of the perfect, just as in the others the fruit of beginners and of those advancing. For the first thing required in the perfect man is that he be strong to undertake adversities, so that, namely, he is not held back on account of some difficulty; and this is signified through Boaz, for he is interpreted "strong"; Isaiah 40:31, "they that hope in the Lord shall change their strength, they shall take wings as eagles, they shall run and not labor, they shall walk and not faint"; Proverbs, last chapter, 10, "who shall find a strong woman?" and so on. The second is the humility of one serving, namely that the greater he is, the more he humbles himself in all things; and this is signified through Obed, who himself is interpreted "serving" or "servitude"; Luke 22:26, "he that is greatest among you, let him become as the servant." The third is the fervor of charity, which is signified through Jesse, who is interpreted "incense" or "burning"; Psalm 140:2, "let my prayer be directed as incense in thy sight," and so on. And from this one arrives at the kingdom, and at glory: because Jesse begot David the king; Revelation 5:10, "he has made us a kingdom to our God, and priests to God his Father"; 1 Peter 2:9, "you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of acquisition."”

“Abraham begat Isaac,.... The descent of Christ from Abraham is in the line of Isaac; Abraham begat Ishmael before Isaac, and others after him, but they are not mentioned; because the Messiah was not to spring from any of them, but from Isaac, of whom it is said, "in Isaac shall thy seed be called", Gen 21:12 and who, as he was a progenitor, so an eminent type of Christ; being Abraham's only beloved son; and particularly in the binding, sacrifice and deliverance of him. Isaac begat Jacob. The genealogy of Christ proceeds from Isaac, in the line of Jacob. Isaac begat Esau, as well as Jacob, and they two were twins, but one was loved, and the other hated; wherefore no mention is made of Esau, he had no concern in the Messiah, nor was he to spring from him, but from Jacob, or Israel, by whose name he is sometimes called, Isa 49:3 Jacob begat Judas and his brethren. The lineage of Christ is carried on from Jacob in the line of Judah; the reason of which is, because it was particularly prophesied that the Messiah, Shiloh, the prince and chief ruler, should be of him, Gen 49:10 Ch1 5:2. And it is evident beyond all contradiction, that our Lord sprung from his tribe, Heb 7:14. The reason why the brethren of Judah, who were eleven in number, are mentioned, when the brethren of Isaac and Jacob are not, is, because though the Messiah did not spring from them, yet the promise of him was made to the twelve tribes, who all expected him, and to whom he was sent, and came. These made but one body of men, and therefore, though the Messiah came from the tribe of Judah, yet he is said to be of them all, Rom 9:4.”

“Isaac is interpreted ‘laughter,’ but the laughter of the saints is not the foolish convulsion of the lips, but the rational joy of the heart, which was the mystery of Christ. For as he was granted to his parents in their extreme age to their great joy, that it might be known that he was not the child of nature, but of grace, thus Christ also in this last time came of a Jewish mother to be the joy of the whole earth; the one of a virgin, the other of a woman past the age, both contrary to the expectation of nature.”

“Morally; Abraham signifies to us the virtue of faith in Christ, as an example himself, as it is said of him, Abraham believed God, and it was accounted unto Him for righteousness. Isaac may represent hope; for Isaac is interpreted ‘laughter,’ as he was the joy of his parents; and hope is our joy, making ns to hope for eternal blessings and to joy in them. Abraham begat Isaac, and faith begets hope. Jacob signifies ‘love,’ for love embraces two lives; active in the love of our neighbour, contemplative in the love of God; the active is signified by Leah, the contemplative by Rachel. For Leah is interpreted. ‘labouringh,’ for she is active in labour; Racheli ‘having seen the beginning,’ because by the contemplative, the beginning, that is God, is seen. Jacob is born of two parents, as love is born of faith and hope; for what we believe, we both hope for and love.”