Luke 3:24

Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,.... These two, Grotius says, are omitted in the ancient exemplars; and he thinks they ought to be left out; and for which he mentions the

Ver. 24-38 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 between them, which even many sober writers have thought it no easy matter to reconcile. The apostle hath cautioned us against giving too much heed to endless genealogies, which minister questions rather than godly edifying which is in faith, ; 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), as, 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 lineally 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, ,33, and to Abraham, . Their disagreement lieth in four things. 1. In the form of the pedigree; Matthew beginning with those who were first, Luke with those who 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 sits down our Saviour’ s genealogy before he tells us any thing of his conception or birth; Luke, after his relation of his conception, birth, and baptism. 4. Matthew derives our Saviour’ s 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 information of the whole world, derives him from the common father of mankind. By which means he also showeth the antiquity of the gospel, and lets us know that Christ was he who was promised to Adam, before Abraham’ s time, and that the grace of the gospel is not limited to the seed of Abraham. Thus also Luke supplieth what was wanting in Matthew, and truly derives 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.

24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, Ver. 24. St Luke reckoneth from the last of Christ’ s progenitors to the first. And first he mentioneth private men, not read of in the Scriptures. 2. Captains after the Babylonish captivity. 3. Kings and men of great name in and before the captivity. 4. Private persons again before David up to the patriarchs. 5. Lastly, the patriarchs themselves up to Adam the protoplast, the first and common parent.

See, on this genealogy, the notes at Mat. 1:1-16.