# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1902_S31
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

of the Ev. Luth. Synodical Conference of North America. 1902. 31

[With this] the list of Jesus' forefathers in Luke closes; it thus goes backward from Jesus to Adam, whereas Matthew goes forward from Abraham to Jesus.

If now a reasonably attentive Bible reader reverses the list of the evangelist Luke and compares the names between Abraham and Jesus with the names in Matthew, he finds that the names from Abraham to David agree, but not between David and Jesus. In Matthew Solomon is named as the son of David from whom Jesus descends, in Luke, however, Nathan. Naturally the names then diverge further on, come together again at Salathiel and Zerubbabel, diverge again, and whereas in Matthew it says: "Jacob begat Joseph," Joseph in Luke is called a son of Heli. One may well come to wonder how that can be reconciled. Joseph cannot have had two natural fathers, one of whom was called Jacob, the other Heli. He cannot at the same time descend from two different sons of David, of whom one is called Nathan, the other Solomon. And how is it also possible that in the one evangelist fourteen, in the other nineteen generations are counted from David to the Babylonian captivity? The enemies of the Word of God are of course at once there with the answer: Of course that does not reconcile; here there are simply contradictions, irresolvable contradictions, and that is all the worse when something of the kind is found, so to speak, right at the door of the New Testament.

But when a Christian hears such an inference, he does not say Yes to it at once in his heart. Even if it disturbs him because he cannot at once reconcile the statements of the evangelists, he still does not give room to the thought: Because I do not understand this, there are certainly insoluble contradictions present. Rather a Christian is then concerned to resolve the difficulty, and searches diligently. And if he searches in the right place, God lets him find what he must have, so that he does not suffer harm to his faith and to his soul.

So here too the solution of the apparent contradictions is not at all so difficult. In a sermon on the day of the Annunciation of Mary on Luke 1:26-38 (it stands in the House Postil as the first sermon and dates from the year 1522) Luther says these remarkable words: "Now the evangelist does not mention a word of who the virgin was as to her descent or her tribe; of Joseph, however, to whom she was betrothed, he says that he was of the tribe of David; though we are not concerned with that. What matters, however, is that one know that the virgin Mary was of the house of David. But the evangelist considers it unnecessary to state this, since it had been indicated beforehand in the prophets that Jesus was to come from the house of David and be called David's son, as, among other prophecies, this also is Isa. 11:1: 'There