Cornelius a Lapide
Table of Contents
Synopsis of the Chapter
The genealogy of Christ is described from Abraham up to Himself. Then from verse 18, His conception by the Holy Spirit and His birth from the Virgin Mother of God.
Vulgate Text: Matthew 1:1-25
1. The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. 2. Abraham begot Isaac. And Isaac begot Jacob. And Jacob begot Judas and his brethren. 3. And Judas begot Phares and Zara of Thamar. And Phares begot Esron. And Esron begot Aram. 4. And Aram begot Aminadab. And Aminadab begot Naasson. And Naasson begot Salmon. 5. And Salmon begot Booz of Rahab. And Booz begot Obed of Ruth. And Obed begot Jesse. 6. And Jesse begot David the king. And David the king begot Solomon, of her that had been the wife of Urias. 7. And Solomon begot Roboam. And Roboam begot Abia. And Abia begot Asa. 8. And Asa begot Josaphat. And Josaphat begot Joram. And Joram begot Ozias. 9. And Ozias begot Joatham. And Joatham begot Achaz. And Achaz begot Ezechias. 10. And Ezechias begot Manasses. And Manasses begot Amon. And Amon begot Josias. 11. And Josias begot Jechonias and his brethren in the transmigration of Babylon. 12. And after the transmigration of Babylon, Jechonias begot Salathiel. And Salathiel begot Zorobabel. 13. And Zorobabel begot Abiud. And Abiud begot Eliacim. And Eliacim begot Azor. 14. And Azor begot Sadoc. And Sadoc begot Achim. And Achim begot Eliud. 15. And Eliud begot Eleazar. And Eleazar begot Mathan. And Mathan begot Jacob. 16. And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. 17. So all the generations, from Abraham to David, are fourteen generations. And from David to the transmigration of Babylon, are fourteen generations: and from the transmigration of Babylon to Christ are fourteen generations. 18. Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. When as His mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost. 19. Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately. 20. But while he thought on these things, behold the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost. 21. And she shall bring forth a son: and thou shalt call His name Jesus. For He shall save His people from their sins. 22. Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying: 23. Behold a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. 24. And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the Angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife. 25. And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called His name Jesus.
Verse 1: The Book of the Generation of Jesus Christ
1. THE BOOK OF THE GENERATION. — So reads the text word for word in Greek, Latin, Syriac, Arabic, Egyptian, and Persian. The Ethiopic version, however, has: The Genealogy of Jesus Christ. Moreover, Matthew imitates Moses. Hear Blessed Peter Damian, in his sermon on St. Matthew: "Just as Moses is not unreasonably placed before the Prophets and all who wrote anything in the Old Testament, so Matthew justly excels all who are found to have written in the New; for as the former wove the origin of the nascent world, so the latter, as it were, described the dawn of a certain spiritual world — the newness of the Church. Hence, with the Holy Spirit tempering his pen, it was provided that each should place at the beginning of his book not a different, but one and the same opening, saying: The book of the generation." So says Damian. "For Moses, in Genesis chapter 5, verse 1, begins the genealogy and lineage of Adam, the first-formed, and his posterity thus: This is the book of the generation of Adam;" for Adam was a type of Christ. For just as Adam was the father of mortal life to all men, so Christ is the father of immortal life to the faithful, as the Apostle teaches, Romans 5:14 and following; 1 Corinthians 15:47 and following.
In Hebrew it is sepher toledoth, that is, book, or catalogue and enumeration of the generations of Adam. For in Genesis 5, many — indeed all — generations are recorded by which the human race was propagated from Adam to Noah and the flood. Hence it is probable that St. Matthew, who alludes to Moses, likewise wrote in Hebrew sepher toledoth, that is, Book of the generations, in the plural. The Septuagint, however, at Genesis 5, translated biblos geneseos, that is, Book of the generation, in the singular, because there was one generation of Adam, by which he, as the patriarch of the whole human race, begot Seth, which line was then continued and propagated from Seth and his posterity down to Noah. The Septuagint, being Greeks, was followed here by the Greek translator of St. Matthew, and the Latin Vulgate was translated from the Greek, because properly what is described here is the generation and lineage of Christ alone, which nevertheless through many generations of fathers and ancestors is derived from Abraham and continued down to Christ. Therefore, just as Adam was the origin of the old world, so Christ is the origin of the new and better world. Hence by Isaiah, chapter 9, verse 6, He is called "the father of the age to come." From this, drawing on the Cumaean Sibyl, Virgil in his Fourth Eclogue thus sang of Him:
Now the last age of the Cumaean song has come;
The great order of the ages is born anew.
Now the Virgin returns, the Saturnian reign returns;
Now a new offspring is sent down from high heaven.
As he adds:
Dear child of the gods, great increase of Jove (more truly, of the Father)!
Begin, little boy, to recognize your mother with a smile.
For it is clear that these things were spoken of Christ by the Sibyl; but Virgil, either ignorant or flattering, transferred them to Pollio, the son of Asinius Pollio, the Roman consul.
Note first: the word "book" here means the same as catalogue, or enumeration or description. Hence the Syriac translates ketobo, that is, a description in writing. For this is what the Hebrew sepher properly signifies, to which corresponds the Greek biblos and the Latin liber, from the root saphar, that is, to enumerate, to record. Hence some derive from saphar the words siphra or cifra, that is, number and computation. In a similar sense, the bill of divorce was called a document in which the repudiation of a wife by her husband was described. Likewise, the book of the just is called a catalogue in which the names and deeds of the just were recorded. So also the book of life is the catalogue of the elect, who in the mind of God are, as it were, inscribed in a book and destined for eternal life. Thus Cicero called a book of names a catalogue of names. Thus finally it is said in Psalm 70:16: "Because I have not known learning, I will enter into the mighty works of the Lord." Learning — in Hebrew sephorot, that is, books, catalogues, computations. Hence the Septuagint translates grammateias, which our translator renders as "learning," for which some read pragmateias, that is, business transactions. The meaning is, as if David were saying: "Because I have not known secular learning" — computations, that is, and the business of this world which distract the mind from God — "hence I will approach to penetrate and celebrate the power of God and His beneficence toward me."
Note second: the word "generation" first and most plainly means the same as the lineage or genealogy of Christ; for this is what is recorded here. For this is what the Hebrew toledoth and the Syriac jelidoutho signify, to which corresponds the Greek genesis. Second, "generation" means the conception and birth of Christ. For in this sense He will soon explain Himself, at verse 18, saying: "Now the generation of Christ was in this manner," that is, it happened in this way. Third, Maldonatus says: "Generation, that is, of the life of Christ." For Matthew in this Gospel describes the entire course of Christ's life as a history. Thus in Genesis 6:9, Noah is said to be "perfect in his generations," that is, in all the parts of his life. But there, for "his generations," the Hebrew does not have toledoth but dorotav, that is, in his ages — as if to say: Noah, among the most corrupt men of his age and century, was just and perfect, and therefore shone among them like a most brilliant star. Fourth, the Hebrew word toledoth properly signifies the generations, which were many from Adam to Christ. Hence in them the word "begot" is so often repeated. These generations were represented by the steps of Jacob's ladder, on which God rested, and by which Angels ascended from earth to heaven. For just as this ladder, as it were, joined earth to heaven and Jacob to God, so this series of generations united all the Patriarchs to Christ, who, having become flesh, joined all men to Himself and to God. See what was said at Genesis 28:12.
SON OF DAVID. — Son, that is, descendant. For the Hebrews call all descendants in the direct line of generation descending from grandfathers and great-grandfathers "sons." First, he places David before Abraham, both because David was nearer to Christ, and through him Christ reaches back to Abraham; and also because in this way the series of Christ's genealogy is woven more briefly and conveniently without repetition. Second, if he had placed Abraham first, he could not have added "son of David," for Abraham was not the son of David. He would have had to say at length: Abraham was the father of David, from whom Christ descended; for he wished to say that Christ descended from Abraham through David. So says St. Jerome. Third, and especially because the promise of God made to David concerning Christ to be born from his posterity was more recent, more specific, and more honorable, as St. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthymius teach. Hence the Jews commonly called their Messiah the son of David. Thus on Palm Sunday, when Christ entered Jerusalem, they acclaimed Him as the Messiah, crying: "Hosanna to the son of David," that is: Save, O Lord, our Messiah, as the son and heir of David. Finally, by the name "son of David," the nobility of the Messiah's lineage is indicated — that is, of Christ — and His kingdom, namely that He, as the son of David the king, was to be a future king, according to that oracle of the Archangel Gabriel to the Blessed Virgin: "He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God shall give Him the throne of David His father, and He shall reign in the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there shall be no end" (Luke 1:31). For this reason the Prophets everywhere prophesied of Christ as the son and heir of David, as Isaiah, chapter 9:7, and chapter 55:3; Jeremiah, chapter 23:5; Ezekiel, chapter 34:23, and chapter 37:25; Amos, chapter 9:11, etc. Moreover, the first promise made to David concerning Christ to be born from him and to reign forever is found at 1 Samuel 7:12. The same was confirmed by God in Psalms 88 and 131, and repeated to Solomon, the son of David, at 1 Kings 9:5. Therefore Matthew, by saying "of Jesus Christ, the son of David," signifies that all these promises have now been fulfilled in Christ. So say St. Chrysostom, Homily 2; Theophylact; Euthymius; Irenaeus, Book 8, chapter 18; St. Ambrose, Book 3 on Luke, chapter 3, and others.
SON OF ABRAHAM. — The word "son" may be referred both to Christ and to David; for both David and Christ were the son, that is, the descendant of Abraham, as having descended from him. It signifies therefore that Christ, through David His father, was also the son of Abraham, who was the father of believers and of the ancient Church, to whom the first explicit promise concerning Christ was made, in Genesis 22:18. Moreover, from the birth of Abraham to the birthday of Christ, 2,001 years elapsed; and from the death of David to Christ, 1,013 years elapsed. So ancient were the divine oracles that promised Christ, and so constant and certain was His faithfulness in fulfilling them! And this is the reason why St. Matthew carefully traces Christ's genealogy back to Abraham, through 42 continuous generations — namely, to show the Jews that Jesus Christ is the true Messiah promised to Abraham, and the son of him and of the other Patriarchs, and therefore to be received, venerated, and worshipped by the Jews as such.
Verse 2: Abraham Begot Isaac
2. ABRAHAM BEGOT ISAAC. — These two, as well as those who follow, were the first patriarchs, the founders of the Synagogue and of the people of God and of the kingdom of Christ; they therefore prefigured Him as types. See what was said in Genesis, where I explained these genealogies of theirs, and so I will not repeat them here. Hence God everywhere calls Himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and glories in this. Accordingly He also chose the posterity of Abraham, descending through Isaac and Jacob, as His own family and Church, and gave circumcision as its sign and token. For this reason God changed Abraham's name, so that instead of Abram, that is, "exalted father," he would be called Abraham, as if from ab rab hamon, that is, "father of a great multitude" — namely, of the faithful people to be born from him according to the flesh; just as from Christ, both Jews and Gentiles who believe in Him are born according to the spirit. Isaac, moreover, whose name means "laughter," about to be offered in sacrifice by his father Abraham on Mount Moriah, clearly represented Christ, who on that same mount was crucified and brought salvation and joy to the whole world. Genesis 22:2 and following.
Verse 3: Judah Begot Phares and Zara by Thamar
3. AND JUDAH BEGOT PHARES AND ZARA BY THAMAR. — See what I said about Thamar at Genesis 38:29. Note that in the genealogy of Christ no women are named (apart from His most holy mother) except four, and those sinful women — namely three harlots: Thamar, Bathsheba, and Rahab (of whom see Joshua 2), and the fourth a Gentile, namely Ruth the Moabite. Rahab was also a Gentile, being from Jericho. But what is the reason for this? St. Jerome, Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Euthymius answer here that this was done to signify that Christ, who came to dissolve and diminish sins, willed to be born from sinners. This reason is true, but it is allegorical. The literal and simple reason, therefore, is that these women were joined to their husbands not in the ordinary way, as other women, but by an extraordinary and novel occurrence, and therefore they were types of the Church of Christ to be gathered from the Gentiles (with the Jews rejected) by a new calling and a new manner. For Thamar, because Shelah, the husband promised to her by his father Judah, was denied to her — or rather delayed — deceitfully prostituted herself to him, because she sought offspring from his line, as that of Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham. Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah, was joined to David, first through adultery, then through marriage. Rahab married Salmon because she received and protected the Hebrew spies sent by Joshua into Jericho, and therefore she passed into their faith and religion. Ruth married Booz because with her mother-in-law Naomi she passed from Moab into Judea. See the Book of Ruth.
The tropological reason is to show the vanity of lineage and ancestry, and that nobility consists not in the family tree of one's forebears, but in one's own character and virtue. So says St. Chrysostom. Therefore no one should blush at his birth or at ancestors who are obscure, lowly, or wicked, but should say with Cicero: "I by my virtue have shed luster on my ancestors." Indeed, there is no doubt that in the lineage of even the noblest person, if it be traced back to Adam, or even just a few centuries, many fathers and mothers who were ignoble, abject, criminal, and infamous have intervened. Certainly Plato, as Seneca attests in Epistle 44, asserts that all kings were born from slaves, and all slaves descended from kings, and that no king of old was a stranger to the hoe, nor conversely any laborer to whom the scepter had not at some time belonged. It is well known that Camillus, Curio, Fabricius, and the early Roman generals were called from the hoe and the plow to the governance and summit of Rome.
Finally, Solomon, among the other vanities and inconstancies of the world, lists this one: "That sometimes a man goes from prison and chains to a kingdom, and another born in a kingdom is consumed by poverty" (Ecclesiastes 4:14). See what was said there.
Verse 4: Aminadab
4. AMINADAB. — He was the leader of the tribe of Judah at the departure of the children of Israel from Egypt, who when the rest were hesitating to enter the Red Sea — although its channel had been opened by God, divided, and made dry — he was the first to enter it boldly and led his tribe through it unharmed, after which the other leaders and tribes followed him, as the Hebrews relate, and from them Lyranus. Hence in the Song of Songs, chapter 6:11, it is said of him: "My soul troubled me because of the chariots of Aminadab." See what was said there. His son Naasson succeeded him in the leadership in the desert, as is clear from Numbers 1:7 and following.
Verse 5: Booz and Jesse
5. BOOZ. — Lyranus thinks there were several men named Booz, but it is clear that there was only one, namely him who is mentioned in Ruth, chapter 4:21, and 1 Chronicles, chapter 2:11-12.
JESSE — or with other vowel points, Isai — was the father of David, who by his very name prefigured Jesus Christ to be born from him. For Jesse and Jesus are virtually the same name if you consider the Hebrew root of both (which is yasha, that is, "to save"), that is, if you add to Jesse the omitted yod.
Verse 6: By Her Who Had Been the Wife of Uriah
6. BY HER WHO HAD BEEN THE WIFE OF URIAH. — In Greek ek tes tou Ouriou, that is, "by her who was of Uriah," namely, who had been his wife. For after Uriah died, David married her, and from her he begot Solomon — lest anyone think that Solomon, born of adultery, was illegitimate, since he was born of lawful marriage. For by this statement it is signified that God did not revoke the promises given to David on account of his adultery with Bathsheba, but rather confirmed them because of the repentance of both. Hence from Bathsheba and her son Solomon, Christ was descended. Indeed, Bathsheba, having repented, became holy and raised her son Solomon in holiness; she even shone with the prophetic spirit, as I said at Proverbs 31:1, commenting on: "The words of King Lemuel: The vision with which his mother instructed him."
Verse 7: Joram Begot Ozias
7. AND JORAM BEGOT OZIAS — not immediately, but through three intervening generations; for Joram directly begot Ahaziah, Ahaziah begot Joash, Joash begot Amaziah, and Amaziah begot Azariah, or Ozias (for he had two names), as is clear from 1 Chronicles 3:11 and 2 Chronicles 22 and following.
You ask why St. Matthew omits the three intervening kings here, namely Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah. St. Jerome answers here that he did this because his plan was to assign precisely three groups of fourteen generations, as explained at verse 17, and because Joram had allied himself with the most wicked Jezebel, by taking as his wife Athaliah, the wicked sister of Ahab (who killed all her own sons, except Joash, who was hidden by his aunt, in order to reign alone). For God had sworn that He would destroy all the posterity of Ahab because of his wickedness and idolatry (1 Kings 21:22). Moreover, posterity in Scripture is reckoned up to the fourth generation, as is clear from Exodus 20:5 and 2 Kings 10:30. Therefore the posterity is here deleted, being omitted and blotted out by Matthew. So also St. Hilary, St. Thomas, Jansenius, Salmeron, Barradius, Abulensis, and others.
Gaspar Sanchez answers differently in his commentary on 2 Kings, chapter 8:18, namely that Matthew did not omit these three but had included them, and wrote in this manner: "And Joram begot Ahaziah, and Ahaziah begot Joash, and Joash begot Amaziah, and Amaziah begot Ozias." But a copyist of Matthew, because of the similarity between the names Ahaziah and Ozias, with his eye slipping, jumped from Ahaziah to Ozias and wrote "Joram begot Ozias" instead of Ahaziah. For similarly at verse 12: "Jechonias begot Salathiel" — the copyist skipped over the intermediate Jeconiah, thinking he was the same as Jechoniah. But this leap is too great and enormous, and even if one copyist with a wandering eye had committed it, others would have detected and corrected it. Moreover, all existing manuscripts — Greek, Latin, Syriac, Arabic, etc. — have: "And Joram begot Ozias," not Ahaziah, etc. Finally, if these three — namely Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah — were inserted, there would be seventeen generations from David to the exile to Babylon, whereas Matthew explicitly counts only fourteen at verse 17 and insists on the triple set of fourteen generations.
Verse 11: Josias Begot Jechonias and His Brothers
11. AND JOSIAS BEGOT JECHONIAS AND HIS BROTHERS. — Josias begot four sons: the first was Johanan; the second Eliakim, who is also Joakim; the third Joachas, who is also Shallum; the fourth Zedekiah, who is also Mattaniah. Now Joachas, although the third-born, directly succeeded his father Josias who was slain; but Pharaoh, king of Egypt, removed him and put in his place the second-born brother, namely Joakim. After eleven years of reign, Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, captured and killed him, and substituted his son named Joachin, whom after three months he carried off to Babylon, and placed in the kingdom Joakim's uncle, namely Zedekiah, whom he finally led away and blinded when he rebelled, and with him the royal line of David came to an end. Hence of Joachin God said, Jeremiah chapter 22:30: "Write this man childless, etc., for there shall not be of his seed a man that shall sit upon the throne of David." Therefore the Jechonias mentioned here is Joakim, the second-born son of Josias, who had two brothers who were kings, and who was the father of Joachin, who is also called Jechonias. Read the history at 1 Chronicles 3:15-16, and 2 Kings, chapters 23-24.
Therefore, although the father Joakim should properly have been called Jeconias with a k, and his son Joachin Jechonias with ch, both were nevertheless called Jechonias — for indeed in proper names we see many such even greater alterations. Thus both the father Joakim and the son Joachin are called Jechonias, but here the father is meant; for he had three brothers.
AT THE TIME OF THE EXILE TO BABYLON. — In Greek epi tes metoikesias Babylonos, that is, at or around the time of the exile to Babylon, that is, during the Babylonian captivity, in which the Jews, captured by Nebuchadnezzar, were carried off to Babylon. The exile of the Jews to Babylon — that is, the Babylonian exile or the exile into Babylon — was threefold. The first occurred in the eleventh year of King Joakim, in which Daniel and Ezekiel were carried away. The second occurred three months later, in which, together with King Joachin, the son of Joakim, Mordecai, the uncle of Esther, was carried away. The third and most complete took place after eleven years, namely in the eleventh and last year of King Zedekiah, in which nearly all the remaining people were carried away. See what was said at Daniel 1:1 and Jeremiah 52:4.
Verse 12: Jechonias Begot Salathiel
12. AND JECHONIAS BEGOT SALATHIEL. — Here there is a serious difficulty, which Porphyry, the enemy of Christ and Christians, used to raise against them as inextricable: namely, that this Jechonias, the father of Salathiel, was not the Jechonias who was the son of Josias, of whom it was said in the preceding verse, but the grandson of Josias through his father Joakim or Jechoniah, and consequently that only thirteen generations are counted here, not fourteen, although St. Matthew counts fourteen at verse 17. St. Jerome answers that this Jechonias is different from the Jechoniah, son of Josias, mentioned in the preceding verse: for the preceding one was called Joakim and Jechonias, and corruptly Jeconias, and was the father of this one; for this one was properly called Joachin and Jechonias. Thus Josias begot Joakim or Jeconias, and Joakim begot Joachin or Jechonias. Therefore one generation must be supplied here — namely, before verse 12 you should add: "And Jeconias begot Jechonias," as some Greek and Latin codices do add. That this is so is clear from 1 Chronicles 3:15-16 and 2 Kings, chapters 23-24.
This generation was omitted either by Matthew himself, so as not to repeat the name Jechonias twice, as St. Augustine holds in Book 2 of On the Harmony of the Gospels, chapter 4; or rather through the fault and ignorance of copyists, who thought that Joakim and Joachin — or Jeconias and Jechonias — were the same person, especially since they saw that Jeconias was also called Jechonias, and so they struck out one as redundant. So says St. Epiphanius in his work on the Sect of the Epicureans.
AND SALATHIEL BEGOT ZOROBABEL. — Who this Zorobabel was, what sort of man he was, and how great he was — the leader of the Jews returning from Babylon, as from exile to their homeland, namely Judea, and therefore a type of Christ — I have discussed at length at Haggai 1:1.
Verse 16: Jacob Begot Joseph the Husband of Mary
16. AND JACOB BEGOT JOSEPH THE HUSBAND OF MARY. — You will ask how from the genealogy of Joseph the genealogy of Christ is here gathered, since Christ was the son of the Virgin Mary and not of Joseph — especially since, as it seems, the Blessed Mary could have married a man not of her own tribe but of another, just as Elizabeth her kinswoman, and therefore sprung from the tribe of Judah, married Zechariah the priest, and therefore a man from the tribe of Levi. The answer is that women among the Jews could indeed marry a man of another tribe; but if they, in the absence of male offspring, succeeded to their father's inheritance, then lest that inheritance pass through marriage to another tribe, they were required by law (Numbers, last chapter, verse 7) to marry a man of the same tribe and family. Now Joachim, the father of the Blessed Virgin, had no male sons, as St. Matthew here presupposes — it being well known and publicly established in that age, both from common report and from the extremely exact genealogical and marriage records that existed among the Jews. Therefore the Blessed Virgin was obliged to marry a man of the same tribe and family, namely Joseph. Hence his genealogy is likewise the genealogy of the Blessed Mary, and consequently of Christ the Lord. See what was said at Numbers, last chapter, verse 7. Hence the Fathers commonly teach that Joseph and the Blessed Mary were of the same tribe and family.
You will press further: why did St. Matthew trace the lineage of Joseph rather than of the Blessed Mary, since Christ was born of her alone, she being a virgin? I answer: First, because among the Jews and other nations genealogy was customarily traced through fathers and men, not through mothers and women. Second, because Joseph was the true and legitimate father of Christ, by the reason and manner which I shall soon explain, and through Joseph, not through the Blessed Mary, Christ was the heir of the scepter and throne of David, as God had promised David (2 Samuel 7:12; Psalms 88 and 131, and again 1 Kings 9:5). Therefore the scepter of Judah came to Jesus Christ through Joseph not only by God's promise and gift, but also by the hereditary right of succession. For if by common law children who are merely reputed to be sons by public reputation succeed to their parents' inheritance, and likewise those who are adopted by their parents, how much more did Christ succeed to Joseph His father, having been born of his wife by the power and gift of the Holy Spirit! Therefore, just as Joseph had paternal right over Christ — that is, all the rights that fathers have over sons — so conversely Christ had filial right toward Joseph, namely all the rights that sons have with respect to parents, and consequently also the right to the kingdom of Judah after Joseph's death. Hence in chapter 2:2, the Magi say: "Where is He who is born King of the Jews?" — and since St. Matthew wished to demonstrate this, and as St. Augustine says, he pursues above all other Evangelists the royal dignity of Christ, for this reason he had to weave the genealogy of Joseph, not of the Blessed Virgin, since she, while men survived (such as Joseph) who were descended from David and the kings, could not be heir to the kingdom. So says Franciscus Lucas, and this is sufficiently probable.
Whence it must consequently be said that Joseph's father and forefathers were firstborn, or the eldest, so that the right to the kingdom devolved upon them — God so ordaining — just as He ordained that Rehoboam, Asa, Josaphat, and the other descendants of David down to Jechonias were firstborn, and that Christ would be born from them, and so become the legitimate successor and heir of David's throne. For to this end God ordained and aptly arranged all these generations, as He did all other things, for the greater glory of Christ and His right to the kingdom and royal dignity. And this was very easy for God. For He did the same with Joakim, Zedekiah, and other wicked kings; therefore much more so with Christ. This is what is said in Luke 1: "And the Lord shall give Him the throne of David His Father." And in Genesis 49:10: "The scepter shall not be taken away from Judah, nor a ruler from his thigh, until He comes who is to be sent" — namely Christ, who would restore the scepter unjustly taken from Judah by Herod, and would be King of the Jews — indeed, He would elevate their kingdom and transform it into a far more sublime state: from bodily to spiritual, from earthly to heavenly, from temporal to eternal. So say Franciscus Lucas and others who have profoundly investigated these matters. Therefore some theologians reject this opinion about Christ's hereditary right to the kingdom of Judah without good reason.
Note the phrase "Joseph, the husband of Mary," that is, the spouse of Mary; the Arabic version has "the betrothed of Mary." From this, gather that St. Joseph possessed all the rights of a true husband over the Virgin, and consequently that he is rightly and truly called the father of Christ, as Franciscus Lucas teaches; Suarez, Part 3, Question 29, Disputation 8, Section 1, and following; and St. Augustine indicates.
This is proved, first, because Christ was the fruit of the marriage of Joseph and Mary; for having been born within the marriage of both, He is to be ascribed by right to both, as to father and mother. The a priori reason is that Joseph, through marriage, became, as it were, the lord of the body of the Blessed Virgin; therefore the fruit of the body of the Blessed Virgin — namely Christ — also belonged to Joseph, just as metals born in a field belong to the owner of the field. For what is born in my field is mine, says the Jurist.
You will object: This offspring — namely Christ — was born from the marriage of Joseph with Mary not naturally, but supernaturally, that is, by the power not of Joseph but of the Holy Spirit making the Virgin fruitful; therefore He cannot be attributed to Joseph. I answer by denying the consequence; for offspring that is legitimately born from a marriage belongs to the spouses regardless of whence and how it is born, just as a crop supernaturally produced in my barren field is mine. Therefore, just as Christ is truly the son of the Blessed Virgin, even though He was not born from her naturally but miraculously, so likewise by the right of marriage He is the son of Joseph, even though He was not naturally but miraculously begotten in the marriage — indeed all the more wonderfully is He the son of Joseph, because God, as a reward for the virginity preserved in their marriage, gave and bestowed upon Joseph this miraculous fruit of their virginal marriage, just as if God had produced a harvest without seed in his field and given it to him.
Second, because husband and wife through marriage become one, and as it were one civil person; therefore they have all things in common, including legitimately born offspring (for I except offspring born of adultery — these have the adulterer as their father, and belong to him). Therefore Christ, the son of the Mother of God, was also the son of Joseph, who was her husband, and therefore the sharer and participant in all her goods. So says Franciscus Suarez, at the passage cited, Question 29.
Joseph, therefore, was more truly the father of Christ than an adopting father becomes the father of an adopted son. For the latter is merely an adoptive father, but Joseph was the matrimonial father of Christ. Hence it follows that Joseph had, as it were, a father's authority over Christ, and therefore the greatest affection, care, and solicitude toward Him; and conversely Christ honored, loved, and venerated Joseph as His father and obeyed him, as is clear from Luke 2:51: "And He was subject to them." And "this subjection," says Gerson, "just as it indicates inestimable humility in Christ, so it marks an incomparable dignity in Joseph and Mary."
Third, because Christ properly belonged to the family of Joseph; for He belonged to the family of His mother, and His mother to the family of Joseph her husband. Therefore there was on earth one most worthy — indeed heavenly and divine — family, in which the head of the household, and therefore its chief and ruler, was Joseph; the mother of the household was the Blessed Virgin; and the son was Christ. In this family, then, there were the three greatest and most excellent persons in the entire world: the first was Christ, as God and man; the second was the Virgin Mother of God, most closely united to Christ, as His natural mother; the third was Joseph, as the matrimonial father of Christ. For this reason, to Christ is owed the worship of adoration and latria; to the Blessed Virgin, hyperdulia; to Joseph, the highest dulia. Therefore the common crowd of men is mistaken — indeed many who are wise in the world — who esteem St. Joseph little, as a simple and lowly carpenter. Neglected indeed he was, and unknown on earth until now, but all the more glorious was he in heaven. Nevertheless, learned men demonstrating his excellence have drawn many to admire and venerate him. Hence recently Pope Gregory XV ordered that his feast be celebrated solemnly with the double rite by all the people and the entire Church annually on March 19th. And rightly so: for consider how great was his prerogative, dignity, and office above all men, from what I now add.
First, St. Joseph was the husband of the Blessed Virgin and the father of Christ, as I have already shown; he was therefore the head and superior of both the Blessed Virgin and Christ, as man. Hence,
Second, the love and reverence of both the Blessed Virgin and Christ toward Joseph were singular. Hence John Gerson, Chancellor of Paris, in his sermon on the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin, says: "O truly wondrous, Joseph, is your sublimity, O incomparable dignity, that the Mother of God, the Queen of heaven, the Lady of the world did not think it unworthy to call you Lord!" St. Gregory Nazianzen, in Oration 11, indicates and celebrates the excellence of Gorgonia his sister's husband by this one title alone — that he was the husband and spouse of Gorgonia: "Do you wish," he says, "that I describe her husband in a single word? He is the husband of Gorgonia; for I do not know what more needs to be said." Say the same of St. Joseph. Do you wish to know who, what kind of man, and how great St. Joseph was? He was the husband of the Mother of God.
Third, the ministry and office of Joseph was most noble, because it touched upon the order of the hypostatic union of the Word with our flesh, as well as the maternity of the Blessed Virgin. For Joseph exercised all his labors and actions directly around the person of Christ. Hence he nourished, cherished, and guarded Christ, and directed Him in the carpenter's trade to be practiced alongside himself, as the common opinion of the Doctors holds. Hear Francis Suarez, III Part, Question XXIX, Disputation VIII, Section 1: Certain ministries, he says, pertain precisely to the order of sanctifying grace, and in this the Apostles hold the supreme summit, and therefore they required more abundant helps of grace (especially of gratuitous gifts and wisdom) than others. But there are other ministries that touch upon the order of the hypostatic union, which is of its nature more perfect, as is evident from the maternity of God in the Blessed Virgin. And in this order stands the ministry of St. Joseph, which therefore surpasses the former.
Fourth, through familiar and continual association with Christ and the Blessed Virgin, Joseph became a sharer in divine secrets and a daily observer and imitator of the supreme virtues of both.
Fifth, Joseph was of extraordinary holiness, and endowed by God with extraordinary gifts of nature and grace, so that in that age there was no holier or worthier man to whom the Mother of God might be betrothed. Hence Francis Suarez, III Part, Question XXIX, Disputation VIII, Section 1, holds it probable that Joseph surpassed the Apostles and John the Baptist in grace and glory, because his office excelled theirs. For it is a greater thing to be the father and guardian of Christ than His herald and forerunner. He adds that Joseph, when he married the Blessed Virgin, was of mature age, neither youthful nor elderly, and that he died before the death of Christ and the Blessed Virgin. Hence in the Passion of Christ no mention is made of Joseph. Finally, that after death he rose with Christ among the other Patriarchs, of whom it is said in Matthew XXVII, 52: "Many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep arose." Among all of these, he himself was preeminent.
Furthermore, our own Barradius and Ribadeneira, on the feast of St. Joseph, learnedly and solidly prove that he was of eminent holiness. First, from his office, because he was the father of Christ and the spouse of the Blessed Virgin; and between spouses there is usually equality, that is, proportion, so that the marriage may be fitting and suitable: therefore above all others Joseph approached the holiness of the Blessed Virgin. Hence the Fathers consider that Joseph was a virgin, and by his virginity merited, as it were, to become the spouse of the Virgin Mother of God. Hear St. Jerome, in his book Against Helvidius: "You say that Mary did not remain a virgin; I claim even more, that Joseph too was a virgin through Mary, so that from a virginal marriage a virgin Son might be born." And St. Augustine, Sermon 24 on the Nativity of the Lord: "Possess, O Joseph, with Mary your wife, a common virginity of members, because from virginal members the virtue of angels is born. Let Mary be the bride of Christ in her flesh, with virginity preserved; and be you also the father of Christ, through the care of chastity and the honor of virginity, so that from the virginal members of the Mother there may be no jealousy throughout the Christian ages." And shortly after: "Rejoice therefore, Joseph, and rejoice exceedingly in the virginity of Mary, you who alone merited to possess the virginal affection of marriage. Because through the merit of virginity you have been so separated from marital relations with your wife, that you are called the father of the Savior."
So also the rest. Hence Blessed Peter Damian, Epistle 11, says that the faith of the Church holds that not only the Mother of God, but also Joseph, her husband and the foster-father of Christ, is to be considered a virgin.
Second, because the Blessed Virgin by a single greeting sanctified John the Baptist, and as it were consecrated him as Christ's forerunner and groomsman: how much holiness therefore did she breathe upon Joseph by frequent greeting, indeed by continual association and conversation over so many years!
Third, because Joseph daily seeing and hearing Christ, and drinking in His divine words, gestures, and spirit, was wonderfully inflamed with love and reverence for Him. Moreover, Christ, nourished by Joseph bodily, in turn — indeed much more — nourished him spiritually, and filled his mind with spiritual banquets and graces.
Fourth, because all of Joseph's actions were directed toward the incarnate Word, and were therefore heavenly and divine: he was therefore an angel rather than a man.
For this reason, Blessed Teresa honored St. Joseph with wonderful devotion, and commended him to all, declaring that through the intercession of St. Joseph she had obtained from God many and great things, indeed everything that she had.
Our own Sebastian Barradius lists many prerogatives and dignities of St. Joseph, Book VI, Chapter VIII.
Finally, Gerson, in his Homily on the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin, and in Part III, Alphabet 59, Book II, holds that St. Joseph was sanctified in his mother's womb, where he says the same is asserted in the Office of Jerusalem, and James of Valencia writing on the Magnificat. Hegesippus, cited by St. Jerome in his book On Ecclesiastical Writers under James, and Epiphanius, Heresy 29, hold the same about St. James, the brother of the Lord, who for this reason was called the Just. St. Antoninus, III Part of the Summa, Title 18, Chapter XV, Section 6, suspects the same about St. Nicholas and St. Dominic. St. Ambrose, Book IV On the Faith, Chapter IV, and Ecclesiastical History, Chapter LXVI on Genesis, holds the same about the Patriarch Jacob, who struggled with Esau in his mother's womb and supplanted him; as does Dionysius the Carthusian on Genesis, Chapters XXV and XXVIII, where he cites St. Augustine for the same opinion. The same regarding Moses, as St. Ephrem holds in his oration on the Transfiguration of Christ. Others give the same privilege to Samson, because it is said of him in Judges XIII: "And he shall be a Nazarite (that is, separated and consecrated) of God from his infancy, and from his mother's womb." But these things are uncertain, and the privilege of exemption from the common law of sin and tainted birth should be granted to no one unless it is established from Sacred Scripture or tradition. Here, however, nothing of the sort is established of anyone except Jeremiah, Chapter 1, verse 5, and John the Baptist, Luke 1:44. So Barradius, Book VII of the Concordance of the Gospels, Chapter XII; and Francis Suarez, I Part, Question XXVII, Disputation VIII, Section 1. I except Christ by virtue of His conception, because He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. Likewise the Blessed Virgin, as the Mother of God, as the tradition of the Church holds. God could have given this privilege to many, but whether He actually did, we do not know. Certainly if after the Blessed Virgin He gave it to any other of those listed above, He seems not to have denied the same to St. Joseph, her spouse.
OF WHOM WAS BORN JESUS. — He changes the phrasing, for he does not say: Joseph begot Jesus, as he said of the others: "Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, Jacob begot Judah," etc., nor does he even say: "Mary begot Jesus," although that is true, but: "Of whom was born Jesus," by which phrase he signifies:
First, that Jesus was born of Mary not by natural power, but by supernatural power, by the force and operation of the Holy Spirit. Second, that Jesus was not begotten by His father Joseph but was born from His mother alone, and therefore from a virgin, and consequently Joseph belongs to the genealogy of Christ only by reason of his wife, namely the Blessed Mary, of whom Christ was born.
St. Bernard beautifully says, Homily 1 on Missus Est: "Beautiful," he says, "is the mingling of virginity and humility; and not moderately does that soul please God in which humility commends virginity and virginity adorns humility; but how great a veneration is she worthy of, in whom fruitfulness exalts humility and childbirth consecrates virginity!" And again: "Such a birth," he says, "befitted God, that He should be born only of a virgin: such a delivery befitted a virgin, that she should bear only God," both because it was fitting that Christ, having a Father in heaven, should not have a father on earth, but only a mother, so that He who in heaven was without a mother might on earth be without a father; and because the conception and birth of Christ had to be most remote from original sin, so that He neither owed it nor could contract it, and in this He would surpass His mother, who, although she was conceived without sin by a singular preservation of God, nevertheless by the force of her conception — by which she was born of Adam by natural generation from Joachim and Anne — would have contracted it, had she not been forestalled by God and His grace; and because this birth had to be most pure and divine; and finally, so that He might earnestly commend virginity and chastity to us. Hence St. Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 38 on the Nativity, at the beginning: "Christ," he says, "is born from a virgin; women, cultivate virginity, so that you may be mothers of Christ." And Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis, Chapter XII: "Christ," he says, "was born in order to make virgins: much more, then, did He have to preserve a virginal body."
Second, this phrase "of whom was born Jesus" signifies that the Blessed Virgin is truly the mother of Jesus, that is, of this man who is hypostatically united to God and is at once God and man: and therefore that she is truly the Mother of God; for although she did not beget the Divinity, she nevertheless begot God, because she begot this man: but this man is God; therefore the Blessed Virgin begot God. The a priori reason is the identity of the person; for since there is one person, and that a divine one, in Christ, the attributes of both natures belong to Him, and the communication of idioms takes place, so that this man is called God, and conversely God is called man, the Son of the Virgin who suffered, was crucified, etc. For the person is the suppositum receiving in itself all the actions and sufferings of both natures; therefore the person of the Son of God, who is God, is truly said to have been born of the Virgin Mary, but according to His human nature, not the divine. Here, then, is indicated the immense dignity of the Blessed Virgin; for such is the maternity of God, through which the Son of God received from her His being and human substance — namely flesh, bones, blood, etc. — so that He honored, loved, and reverenced her as a mother, and obeyed her as a mother in all things, continually addressing her: "My Mother." Hence St. Bernard, Homily 1 on Missus Est, marveling at this, exclaims: "On both sides astonishment, on both sides a miracle; both that God obeys a woman — humility without example — and that a woman commands God — sublimity without equal."
For the Virgin Mother of God had the right and maternal authority over Christ, just as other mothers have over their children whom they have borne — indeed more than other mothers, because she was more truly the mother of Christ than other mothers are of their children, for the reason which I shall shortly give. Hence St. Thomas, I Part, Question XXV, Article 6, teaches that God cannot make a work greater than the Incarnation of the Word and the maternity of the Blessed Virgin, because she is the Mother of God, than which nothing greater can be conceived; hence Bede: "O most blessed Virgin," he says, "in you alone was that rich and most rich King emptied of Himself;" for the maternity of God is the supreme affinity, kinship, and union with God: through it therefore the Blessed Virgin is as closely related and akin to God as a mother to her son.
From this dignity of the maternity of God follow all the gifts and privileges granted by God to the Blessed Virgin above all men and angels. For just as the humanity of Christ, because united to the Word, received from Him endowments and privileges worthy of such a union and bond — namely, those that befitted such a humanity thus exalted and united to the Word, indeed those that would exalt it and render it, as it were, worthy of the union with the Word — so likewise God bestowed upon the Blessed Virgin all the charisms and beauties that befitted such a mother of Christ and bride of God. Hence conclude thus: The Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God; therefore she is far more excellent than all the angels, even the Seraphim and Cherubim. She is the Mother of God; therefore she is most pure and most holy, so much so that no greater purity beneath God can be conceived, says St. Anselm, in his book On the Excellence of the Virgin. She is the Mother of God; therefore whatever privilege has been granted to any of the saints, she possesses above all others.
Third, the phrase "of whom was born Jesus" signifies that He was born of His mother alone, and therefore that she alone gave to Christ all the flesh and substance which in other children is given by father and mother jointly; for children receive part of their substance from the father, part from the mother — indeed they receive more from the father than from the mother, for the father is a more principal cause of the generation of a child than the mother. Therefore the Blessed Virgin gave more to Christ than other mothers give to their children, because she also gave what the father usually gives. Hence she is more truly the mother of Christ than other mothers are of their children, because she alone was both father and mother of Christ.
From this it follows, first, that the Blessed Virgin had a greater right over Christ than other mothers have over their children. Second, that the Blessed Virgin loved Christ far more, and Christ in turn loved the Blessed Virgin, than other mothers love their children and children in turn love their mothers; both because she alone bore Him, and because she bore Him not in a natural manner but in a supernatural and divine one. Therefore the love which in other children is divided between father and mother, in Christ was united and directed entirely toward His mother: the mother in turn loved Christ with a doubled love, as it were, of both father and mother, and therefore with a doubled sense, as it were, she felt the sufferings of Christ on the cross, and conversely the joys of the resurrection.
Fourth, the phrase "of whom was born" signifies that the chief cause and active power in the nativity of Christ was the Holy Spirit, who in the Blessed Virgin from her most pure blood formed, organized, animated the body of Christ, and hypostatically united it to the Word in the first instant of His conception. The Blessed Virgin, however, also cooperated as a secondary cause and true mother in the generation of Christ, not only passively by supplying the matter, but also actively by forming, disposing, and organizing it. See Francis Suarez, III Part, Question XXXII, Article 4, and Question XXXI, Article 4, where he teaches that the generation of Christ from the Virgin was supernatural as to its manner and speed, because it was completed in an instant by the Holy Spirit as the efficient cause. But the same was natural as to the matter, the power of origin, and the terminus, because the terminus was offspring — namely Christ born of His mother, as her natural son, like other children who are naturally begotten and born of their mothers. Therefore the action of giving birth in her was natural, but the manner was supernatural.
JESUS WAS BORN. — That is to say: The Word was made flesh, God became man, the Son of God became the Son of the Virgin. This, as St. Thomas teaches at length, III Part, Question 1, Article 1, was the greatest and highest of all God's works, and therefore the angels and all the saints were and are astonished at it. For in it God showed His supreme power by uniting man to God, clay to the Word, earth to heaven; and His supreme wisdom, so that He who could not suffer or redeem us in His divinity might take on flesh in the Virgin, by which He could suffer and make satisfaction to God the Father for our sins; also His supreme justice, because by the dignity of the person He made satisfaction, as it were equally, for the wrath and vengeance of God by dying on the cross; also His supreme goodness, because He emptied Himself so that He might fill us with His gifts; "and was made the son of man, so that He might make us children of God," as St. Augustine says. "He was born on earth, so that man might be born in heaven," as St. Gregory says.
WHO IS CALLED CHRIST — that is, who is the Messiah or Christ, the redeemer of the world promised to the Fathers, and therefore the Messiah or Christ can and ought rightly to be called by His name, and so He is now actually called by all the faithful. I spoke about the name of Jesus and Christ in the title of the book.
How this genealogy of Christ agrees with that of St. Luke, Chapter III, verse 23, I shall explain there.
Verse 17: All the Generations from Abraham to Christ
17. ALL THE GENERATIONS THEREFORE FROM ABRAHAM TO DAVID, FOURTEEN GENERATIONS; AND FROM DAVID TO THE TRANSMIGRATION (the Syriac: to the exile of Babylon), FOURTEEN GENERATIONS; AND FROM THE TRANSMIGRATION OF BABYLON TO CHRIST, FOURTEEN GENERATIONS.
From Abraham therefore to Christ there are 42 generations, for three times 14 makes 42. Luke, Chapter III, counts 77 generations, but places no emphasis on the number, as St. Matthew does here; St. Augustine, however, in Book II On the Harmony of the Gospels, Chapter 17, holds that by 77 generations is denoted the full remission and abolition of all sins, which was accomplished through Christ: hence Christ commanded that a sinning brother should be forgiven seventy times seven. Matthew XVIII, 22. By generations, understand and count all persons both generating and generated: for these are 14. For in Greek it is not genesis, that is, generation; but genea, that is, progeny, race, family and children, the age of one man's life.
For the generations themselves are precisely only 13 in the first group of fourteen, as you will see if you count the word "begot"; for it is repeated in it 13 times, because in it alone both the first, Abraham, and the last, David, are counted: but in the second group of fourteen the first in it, David, is not counted; nor in the third is the first in it, Jechoniah, because these have already been named and counted as the last in the second and third groups of fourteen. Therefore in the third group of fourteen one generation must be added, namely: "Jechoniah begot Jechoniah," so that there may be 14 generations in it, that is, 14 persons both generating and generated, as I said above. The generations themselves, then, are precisely 41; but the persons generating and generated are 42, because the generation of the first, namely Abraham, is not listed here, but is presupposed as known from Genesis.
You ask to what end St. Matthew so carefully enumerated these three sets of fourteen generations? The answer is that he wished to review the threefold state of the Jewish people: the first, as it were democratic, under individual Patriarchs and Judges, such as Othniel, Gideon, Samson, Eli, Samuel, etc., who governed Israel from Abraham to David; the second, as it were monarchic, under kings, as it was under David and his descendants until the Babylonian captivity; the third, as it were aristocratic, under leaders and high priests, such as Judas, Jonathan, Simon, and the other Maccabees, as it was from the Babylonian captivity to Christ. Matthew therefore signifies that this threefold state and government of the people, changed for a third time, had to be changed a fourth time through Christ and terminated in Christ, who brought an eternal kingdom. So commonly the Fathers and commentators; hence Nazianzen in his poem on the Genealogy of Christ says:
Thus he traced the royal race and the proud scepter.
Maldonatus adds a medical analogy: for physicians in fevers and diseases call the fourteenth day the critical day, and declare it to be the most dangerous of all. It seems therefore appropriate to the nature of man that at every fourteenth generation — that is, at every human age and century — God wished to change the state of His people, so that when one commonwealth was, as it were, ailing and failing, another might be born and succeed it as something better, until the best was substituted through Christ, which would heal and correct the defects and infirmities of the three preceding ones, and establish the kingdom of the Church as vigorous, healthy, and eternal.
Finally, Matthew enumerates 42 generations in three sets of fourteen, in order to give the reader a probable conjecture that Christ had to come after this number of generations was completed. For just as there were 14 generations before the kingdom of the Jews was established, 14 during the kingdom — after which through 14 generations it gradually and completely declined — so by a plausible conjecture it could be gathered that after these 14 generations the declining and tottering kingdom was to be restored to something better by the Messiah. For just as there were 14 generations before the kingdom, and the same number during the kingdom, so there were the same number after the kingdom of Israel until Christ. Again, before the kingdom the promise of Christ was made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; during the kingdom, to David and Solomon; after the kingdom, the same was repeated through Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, etc., so that the meaning is, as if to say: All the prophecies made about Christ, both before the kingdom and during the kingdom and after the kingdom, were terminated and fulfilled in Christ. The first group of fourteen begins with Abraham and ends with David; the second begins with Solomon and ends with Joachim, or Jechoniah; the third begins with Joachim, or Jechoniah, and ends with Christ, who is the end of the law, and the liberator of the entire people and captive world. So Francis Lucas. For the Jews, from the decline and fall of their commonwealth, and especially from the fact that the scepter had been taken from Judah by Herod, according to the prophecy of Jacob in Genesis XLIX, 10, knew and confidently expected the coming of the Messiah. Hence from this same collapse and the transfer of the scepter, St. Matthew here teaches that the Messiah had already come and was none other than Jesus Christ, in order to persuade the Jews to faith in Christ.
Symbolically, Origen, Homily 27 on Numbers, and St. Jerome, in his Epistle to Fabiola on the 42 Stations, note that these 42 generations correspond to the 42 stations of the Hebrews in the desert, by which they arrived at the land of Canaan promised by God to Abraham. For in a similar manner, through these 42 generations one arrives at the Messiah, or Christ, promised to the same, and through Him at the land of the living promised to the saints in heaven.
Again, the number 14, because it contains a doubled seven by which the sevenfold grace of the Holy Spirit is signified, designates the doubled generosity of the same Spirit in man, such as was in Christ, who accordingly by the same symbol on the 14th day of the month of Nisan, when the moon is full — that is, at Passover — by suffering redeemed us by His death and merited for us an abundance of graces. Hence the Psalmist sings of Him, Psalm LXXI: "In His days shall justice arise, and abundance of peace, until the moon be taken away." Hear St. Ambrose in his oration on the death of the Emperor Theodosius: "On the fourteenth day we received the perfection of man, etc. Hence the Lord's Passover received the form of its celebration on the 14th moon. For he who celebrates the Passover must be perfect, must love the Lord Jesus, who, loving His people with perfect charity, offered Himself to His Passion. Great is the mystery of this number, when the Father delivered His only Son for us all, while the moon shone with the full orb of its light. For such is the Church, which devoutly celebrates the Passover of our Lord Jesus Christ; just as the perfect moon remains forever, whoever here celebrates the Lord's Passover well will be in perpetual light."
Anagogically, the number 42 consists of six and seven; for six times seven makes 42. The number six signifies the labors of this life, by which one arrives at the number seven — that is, at the sabbath of rest and eternal happiness; for in the first six days of the world God performed all His works in heaven and on earth; but on the seventh day, namely the Sabbath, He rested from all His work. Genesis I.
Tropologically, by this number of forty generations is signified our life in a body composed of four elements. For this life consists in the observance of the ten commandments of God, which are perfected by the four Gospels; for multiply four by ten and you produce forty. So Salmeron, indeed St. Augustine, and from him Peter Bongus, in his book On the Mysteries of Numbers. Number XIV: "The three divisions," he says, "in the genealogy of Christ mystically suggest the faith of the Holy Trinity, which the doctrine of the Law and the Gospel harmoniously establishes. For three signifies faith in the Trinity; four, the Gospel doctrine; ten, the institution of the Law." The same author also shortly after: "That three times fourteen is set down signifies the true religion. For four and ten indicate the New and Old Testament, because the way to Christ is preached through the ten words of the Law and the four Gospels; yet in such a way that whatever is ascribed to the Trinity, who is God, we consecrate, because no precept is fulfilled unless this number of worshiping God is maintained." By this same numerical figure, in Ezekiel Chapter IV, he saw in the fourteenth year after the destruction of the city a new city — namely the Church — which Christ, being born and dying, founded in the fourteenth generation after Jerusalem was destroyed by the Chaldeans, as Cassiodorus noted on Psalm XIV, near the end. Finally, in the 42nd year after the Passion of Christ, as His vengeance, Jerusalem was destroyed by Titus and Vespasian, as St. Jerome notes on Psalm CVIII at the words: "In one generation let his name be blotted out;" and then the Church of Christ began to flourish. So Bongus.
Verse 18: Now the Generation of Christ
18. NOW THE GENERATION OF CHRIST WAS IN THIS MANNER. — That is to say: The birth of Christ occurred in this manner: for the word translated as "generation" is not in Greek genesis in the strict sense, that is, generation properly so called, but genesis, that is, origin, conception, generation, nativity — by which someone arises, is conceived, is begotten, is born.
WHEN HIS MOTHER MARY WAS BETROTHED TO JOSEPH, BEFORE THEY CAME TOGETHER (were united in the conjugal act; the Arabic: before they knew each other), SHE WAS FOUND TO BE WITH CHILD (bearing a womb, being pregnant and with child) OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. The Syriac: "Of the Spirit of holiness," that is, the holy one and the author and source of all holiness.
God willed that the Blessed Virgin be betrothed to Joseph: First, because Joseph appears to have been the nearest heir to the Davidic kingdom, so that it might devolve from him to Christ as from father to son by the right order and law of succession, as I said at verse 16. Second, because Joseph was a most holy man, as I said there, like the Patriarch Joseph, whose name and therefore also whose chastity and virtue he received, and was called Joseph, that is, "increased," and was filled with great gifts and virtues from God. So St. Bernard, Homily 2 on Missus Est. See what was said at Genesis XXX, 24 and Chapter XXXIX, 20.
You ask whether the Blessed Virgin was here betrothed to Joseph merely by betrothal alone, or also by a marriage actually contracted and a wedding celebrated; and consequently, whether Christ was incarnate and conceived of a Virgin who was only betrothed, or also married? For to the Virgin thus betrothed, Gabriel was sent announcing the Incarnation of Christ, Luke 1:27; and the Virgin, consenting to his message and saying: "Behold the handmaid of the Lord, let it be done to me according to your word," immediately at that very instant conceived Christ. Many hold that the Blessed Virgin was only betrothed by sponsalia, that is, by words of future intent, by which only a promise of marriage is made. So St. Hilary here; St. Basil, Homily on the Human Generation of Christ; Origen, Homily 1 on various Gospel passages; Cyril, Catechesis 12; Abulensis and Cajetan.
But others more correctly hold that the Blessed Virgin was betrothed not only by sponsalia, but also by marriage through words of present consent, and a wedding actually contracted. This is proved: First, because in the following verse and verse 16, Joseph is called the husband, that is, the spouse of Mary. Therefore he had already married her by matrimony. Second, Joseph wished to dismiss her, as she was pregnant, as is said in the following verse. Therefore he had already received her as his wife; for no one dismisses what he does not have. Third, because "betrothed" in Luke, Chapter II, verse 5, is interpreted as "married," and indeed he calls her the wife of Joseph. She had therefore already been taken and brought into the house of her spouse Joseph as his wife, so that Joseph would be a witness to her virginity, and equally a guardian and foster-father of both her and the child Jesus. Add that the Blessed Virgin, immediately upon receiving Gabriel's message and already full of the Word, visited Elizabeth and stayed with her three months; hence she does not seem to have celebrated a marriage with Joseph there, nor after her return to Nazareth, since no trace of it exists: therefore she celebrated this marriage before Gabriel's message and the Incarnation of the Word; nor was it fitting for an unmarried Virgin to make such a journey into the hill country without a husband, or companion, or rather a guide providing her with a maid or faithful kinswoman. Fourth, because if she had not been married, the Jews, seeing her belly swelling, would have charged her with fornication, indeed adultery, and would have stoned her. Fifth, because clearly it was fitting that Christ be born of a married woman within marriage, lest He be despised by the Jews as illegitimate, but rather accepted as legitimate. And for this reason Joseph is called the father of Christ. Finally, offspring is the proper fruit of marriage. So St. Jerome, Haymo, and St. Chrysostom here, Homily 4; Theophylact; St. Ambrose, Book II on Luke; Jansenius, Suarez, and others passim.
You object first: The Angel here says to Joseph: "Do not be afraid to take Mary your wife;" therefore he had not yet taken her as his wife, but had only betrothed her through sponsalia. The answer is that "to take" here means the same as "to keep and retain what has been taken;" for he says and calls her "your wife." She was therefore already married. For Hebrew verbs often signify not an action begun but one continued, as I said in Canon 12. The sense therefore is, as if to say: Do not, O Joseph, dismiss Mary your wife, but keep and retain her whom you have received. For one does not dismiss what has not already been received and possessed.
You object second: The Blessed Virgin is here said to have been betrothed before they came together, therefore before marriage. The answer is: I deny the consequence, because "to come together" here does not mean to contract marriage, nor to cohabit, but to make use of a contracted marriage; for it denotes the coming together and the marital act, about which more shortly.
You object third: Why then is she not called married here, but betrothed? The answer is: She is called betrothed because, being unknown to her husband, she was like a bride who has not yet been married to her husband but has only been promised. So St. Chrysostom. Hence Blessed Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 175: "Joseph," he says, "was a husband in name only, in conscience a spouse," that is, a spouse by a ratified marriage, but not a husband by a consummated one, that is, by carnal union. And St. Bernard, Homily 2 on Missus Est: "She calls him a man because he was a man of virtue, not because he was a husband."
Furthermore, that there was a true marriage between Joseph and the Blessed Virgin is certain from what has been said and from the common axiom of theologians and jurists: "It is not carnal union that makes a marriage, but consent." Hence St. Augustine, Book I On Marriage and Concupiscence, Chapter XI: "The good of marriage," he says, "was fulfilled in those parents of Christ: offspring, fidelity, sacrament (for these are the three goods of marriage which theologians everywhere assign to it following St. Augustine): the offspring we recognize as the Lord Jesus Himself; fidelity, because there was no adultery; sacrament, because there was no divorce." The same he teaches more fully in Book V Against Julian the Pelagian (who denied the marriage of Joseph and Mary), Chapter IX, for the right of marriage is not incompatible with religion and a vow of chastity. From marriage I have a right to my wife, but from my vow I cannot lawfully use that right. If I use it, I sin against the vow, not against the marriage — that is, I commit an irreligious act, but not an unjust one; for it is not adultery, as it would be if she were a wife united to another in marriage. Joseph therefore through marriage had a right to the Blessed Virgin, so that he could use the marital act, but through the resolve of chastity, and, as it seems, a vow, he did not use this right of his, nor did he wish to use it: for these two things are very distinct — to have the right to marital relations, and to make use of them; the former is required for marriage, not the latter.
Now this right to marital relations, and as it were the dominion over the spouse, in married virgins has certain effects that are not fictitious but true and real. The first is that a virgin spouse cannot marry another. The second is that, although they violate their vow through marital relations, it is nevertheless not fornication. The third is that offspring divinely given and born (as Christ was here conceived of the Holy Spirit) is and is held to be legitimate, as having been born of a legitimate marriage. So Suarez, III Part, Question XXIX, Article 1, Section 1.
From what has been said, gather that the marriage of the Blessed Virgin Mary with Joseph was not only true, but also lawful, indeed holy. True, because the essence of marriage consists in the mutual giving and power over bodies, even if this power is never reduced to act; and a vow of virginity takes away from no one this right and power, but only makes its use unlawful. Just as ownership is separated from use in certain religious, who remain the owners of their paternal inheritance but because of a vow of poverty cannot use it; so the same ownership is separated from use in the marriage of virgins. Lawful, because, although the Blessed Virgin had vowed virginity, she lawfully and without danger of violating the vow entered into marriage with Joseph; because by the instinct of the Holy Spirit she knew that Joseph would never use his power and marital right to break this vow. So St. Augustine, Book On Holy Virginity, Chapter IV, and theologians commonly. And it is probable that the Blessed Virgin revealed this vow of hers to Joseph before the marriage, and that Joseph consented to it. Some add that he also promised to keep it. Holy, because through this marriage Joseph protected the reputation and virginity of the Blessed Virgin, and guarded, nourished, and raised the child Jesus. What could be holier than this?
See St. Thomas, III Part, Question XXIX, Article 1, in the body, where he gives many reasons why Christ was born of a betrothed Virgin. And he adds: There can also be a fifth reason, that the Mother of the Lord was both betrothed and a virgin: because in her person both virginity and marriage are honored, against heretics who detract from either of these. St. Ignatius the martyr, whom St. Jerome cites here, adds another reason: "So that her childbirth," he says, "might be hidden from the devil, while he thought that He was born not of a virgin but of a wife" — God, that is, preventing the devil from seeing what he could naturally see, namely what was going on between the Blessed Virgin and Joseph — namely, that they lived chastely and continently.
Tropologically: note here in the Blessed Virgin and Joseph the supreme degree of angelic chastity and virginity. For other virgins flee from men and preserve their virginity in cloisters and communities of virgins. But the Blessed Virgin in marriage itself, constantly living with a man, preserved her virginity inviolate, which amounts to the same as going hungry amid banquets, shivering amid garments, humbling oneself amid honors — indeed dwelling in fire and not being burned. For, as St. Bernard says, Sermon 65 on the Song of Songs: "To always be with a woman, and not to know a woman — is that not greater than raising the dead?" Wherefore the Blessed Virgin communicated this gift of continence in marriage to certain distinguished persons devoted to her, such as St. Pulcheria and Emperor Marcian, and Saints Julian and Basilissa, to whom on their first night after taking the vow of continence there appeared on one side Christ attended by a great chorus of those robed in white, and on the other the Blessed Virgin surrounded by a company of virgins. Those who were with Christ sang: "You have conquered, Julian, you have conquered." Those who were with the Blessed Virgin sang: "Blessed are you, Basilissa, who spurning earthly nuptials, have prepared yourself for eternal glory." Wherefore Julian begot innumerable faithful and martyrs for Christ; Basilissa likewise begot innumerable virgins for Christ by word and example. Thus the virginity of married couples is not sterile but most fruitful, as it was in the Mother of God, who bore Jesus, both man and God. See their life in Surius under January 9. Likewise St. Edward, King of England, wonderfully devoted to the Blessed Virgin, preserved the unblemished flower of chastity with his wife Editha in imitation of her. Hence he was called forth by her through St. John the Evangelist and taken up into heaven in the year of the Lord 1066, on January 5. The same did St. Cecilia with her spouse Valerian, to whom accordingly the Blessed Virgin sent through Angels crowns of lilies and heavenly roses. Likewise St. Henry I, or as others reckon, II, Emperor, with his wife Cunegunde, whom on his deathbed he returned to her parents saying: "Behold, I received a virgin from you; I return a virgin."
Symbolically: in this marriage and family of Joseph with Mary there was an image of the Holy Trinity. For Joseph represented the Eternal Father, the Blessed Virgin the Holy Spirit, because she was most holy and because she had conceived by the Holy Spirit; Christ represented Himself, that is, the Son of God. Whence first: just as in the Holy Trinity there is one essence of the divinity in three persons, so here there was one marriage and one perfect family of three persons, namely Joseph, Mary, and Christ. Second, just as in the Holy Trinity the Father spiritually begets the Son and breathes forth the Holy Spirit, so here the Blessed Virgin spiritually, not carnally — that is, by the power of the Holy Spirit — conceived and bore Christ. Third, in the Holy Trinity the Father begets the Son as light emits radiance; hence in the Creed we sing: "Light from Light, true God from true God." So the Blessed Virgin, like the star of the sea, bore Christ, who is "the brightness of eternal light and a spotless mirror" (Wisdom 7:25). Hence just as a shining star sends forth its ray without any corruption of itself, so without any injury to herself the Virgin bore Christ, who is the light of the world: "Neither does the ray diminish the star's brightness, nor the Son the Virgin's integrity," says St. Bernard, Homily 2 on the Missus est. Hence that saying of St. Simeon concerning Christ: "A light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for the glory of Your people Israel" (Luke 2:32).
This family was therefore like a certain earthly heaven, of three not so much human beings as corporeal Angels, indeed symbolically of three quasi-divine persons. Wherefore there is no doubt that it was full of Angels ministering to the Virgin as Queen of Heaven, and to Christ as their Lord and God: for they were amazed and supremely desired to see the Word incarnate. Therefore that household was like an admirable heaven concealing a mystery: "Black outside, but beautiful within, like the tents of Cedar, like the curtains of Solomon" (Song of Songs 1:5), says Rupert. Whence John Gerson, in his sermon on the Nativity, as if astonished, exclaims: "O how beloved by the Trinity — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit — was that household Trinity: Christ, Mary, Joseph! Nothing dearer, nothing better, nothing more excellent existed on earth. Heaven envied the earth such inhabitants, who were indeed more worthy of heaven than of earth."
Tropologically: married couples should imitate the Blessed Virgin and Joseph in chastity, holiness, patience, and charity, so that each may bear the other's burdens. For in the family of Joseph, Mary, and Christ there was the greatest harmony of all, the greatest love, the greatest reverence, humility, piety, mutual help, and service. Far removed from it was not only quarreling, but even the slightest suspicion of any evil. Hence they merited to beget Christ, the Holy of Holies. Now often in families the children are wicked, disobedient, proud, quarrelsome, and obscene, because such are the parents. For the offspring follows the father, and what it sees and hears from father and mother, this it imitates and absorbs; for children are the apes of their parents.
BEFORE THEY CAME TOGETHER.
ANTEQUAM CONVENIRENT. — That is, before marital congress and the conjugal act, not as though they came together afterward, as the impure Helvidius inferred, who denied that the Blessed Virgin was always a virgin, and asserted that she afterward conceived from Joseph and bore those who are called brothers of the Lord in the Gospel. St. Jerome refutes him at length — but the phrase is used only to indicate the miraculous conception of Christ from a Virgin without the agency of a man. Thus we commonly say: "So-and-so had gray hair before he grew old," meaning it was remarkable that gray hair appeared on the man, even if he never actually grew old but died before old age; for we are only stating what happened before old age, not what happened in or after old age — that being irrelevant, we pass over it in silence. It is similar when we say: "This boy is wise before his manhood," that is, he is of precocious intellect, even if he dies before reaching manhood, as precocious children often do. Moreover, the "brothers of the Lord" are called relatives of Christ. For, as St. Jerome says in his book Against Helvidius, "brothers" is used in four senses: by nature, by nation, by kinship, and by affection. Brothers by nature are those born of the same parents; by nation, those who come from the same people. Thus Paul calls the Jews his brothers (Romans 9:1 and following); by kinship, because relatives are called brothers in Scripture; by affection, as when Christians love one another with fraternal love — for this is the love of brotherhood which St. Paul so often commends.
INVENTA EST IN UTERO HABENS DE SPIRITU SANCTO.
SHE WAS FOUND TO BE WITH CHILD ("pregnant," as the Arabic version renders it) OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. — Note that Joseph discovered from the swelling of her womb that the Blessed Virgin, his wife, had conceived, but whether he knew that she had conceived by the Holy Spirit is doubtful. St. Basil, Origen, Theophylact, and others cited above affirm it. The contrary is more true, because Joseph, wishing to dismiss her in the following verse, is forbidden by an Angel, who removing his scruple adds: "For that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit." Therefore before the Angel's revelation he did not know this; for if he had known it, he would not have wished to dismiss her.
The Blessed Virgin is therefore said to have been "found with child of the Holy Spirit," because she had indeed conceived by the Holy Spirit. Hence the phrase "of the Holy Spirit" is to be referred to "with child," not to "found." So the other Fathers and interpreters commonly hold. Origen adds that she was discovered by the Angels, for they knew she had conceived by the Holy Spirit.
DE SPIRITU SANCTO.
DE SPIRITU SANCTO. — Not as though Christ was severed from the substance of the Holy Spirit, as happens with other offspring who are separated from their parents; nor "of the Holy Spirit" as from a father, because Christ, as man, was not similar to the Holy Spirit, who is God by nature; but "of the Holy Spirit" as from a craftsman and artisan. So St. Ambrose on Luke 1:35. Therefore "of the Holy Spirit" not as from a father, but as from one supplying the father's contribution; for what the father does in the mother, this the Holy Spirit did in the Virgin by forming Jesus through His power and operation, says St. Ambrose, Book II On the Holy Spirit, chapter 5, and St. Augustine in the Enchiridion, chapter 39. For the bodily material which in other children is supplied by both father and mother, this the Blessed Virgin alone supplied to her Son. See Francisco Suarez, Part III, Question 29, article 1 — where properly "of" signifies the efficient cause, and "from" the material cause. Hence Christ is said in the Creed to be "conceived of the Holy Spirit, born from the Virgin Mary."
You may ask why Matthew does not equally say "with child of the Eternal Father" or "of the Son," as he says "with child of the Holy Spirit." The answer is that he could have said so equally truly. For it is an axiom of theologians that the works of the Holy Trinity ad extra (in creatures) are common to all three divine persons. But he preferred to say "of the Holy Spirit" because just as power is appropriated to the Father, and wisdom to the Son (as the Word), so love, goodness, and grace — which shine forth especially in this work of the Incarnation — are attributed to the Holy Spirit. For the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son through spiration, as the terminus of the notional love of the Father and the Son.
Furthermore, St. Thomas, Part III, Question 32, articles 1 and following, together with Suarez in the same place, teach that the phrase "of the Holy Spirit" signifies three things. First, that the Incarnation of the Word was accomplished from the pure love of God and the Holy Spirit, without human merits. Second, that He was conceived by the same grace of God and the Holy Spirit, without any prior merits on His part. Hence St. Augustine, in the book On the Predestination of the Saints, chapter 15, proposing Christ as the model of predestination and of the predestined, says: "By that grace every Christian becomes a man from the beginning of his faith, by which grace that man from His beginning was made Christ; from the same Spirit this one is reborn, from whom that One was born; by the same Spirit the remission of sins is accomplished in us, by which Spirit it was brought about that He had no sin." Third, that Christ was holy by the very force of His conception; for just as a man who is propagated through ordinary generation from Adam the sinner is born a sinner by the force of his conception, so Christ, who was conceived and as it were propagated from the Holy Spirit, was conceived holy by the force of His conception; for what the Holy Spirit produces can be nothing other than holy, just as fire produces nothing other than heat and fire. Fourth, the phrase "of the Holy Spirit" signifies that the Holy Spirit, in forming the humanity of Christ, poured all His holiness into it (insofar as a creature is capable and can be assimilated to its Creator) and as it were transformed it into Himself, so that afterward He made it the exemplar and prototype of holiness, from which and according to which He would then depict and express all the holiness of all Angels and human beings alike. The humanity of Christ was therefore the supreme, proper, and most holy work of the Holy Spirit, in which He established the fountain of all holiness, which by its purity would wash away all the filth of sins and sanctify all sinners (insofar as lies in its power).
Furthermore, St. Thomas, Part III, Question 32 already cited, article 2, teaches that the preposition "of" (de), when it is said "of the Holy Spirit," signifies that Christ is consubstantial with the Holy Spirit as to His divinity, not as to the humanity which the Holy Spirit formed in Him. But St. Augustine denies this in the Enchiridion, chapter 39: "For," he says, "from a man are born hair, a louse, and a worm, none of which is his son, because they are of a different substance from the man." Therefore the preposition "of" does not signify that the thing made is consubstantial with its maker.
In article 4, however, St. Thomas teaches, following Aristotle, and Suarez following both, that the Blessed Virgin concurred only materially in the generation of Christ by supplying to His body the material, namely blood, not efficiently, because in that case seed would have been emitted, which seems to be contrary to her most pure virginity. But St. Bonaventure and Scotus hold the contrary view following Galen, who teaches that the mother concurs in the generation of offspring not only materially but also efficiently (though by a weaker action than the father). Therefore it is very probable that the Blessed Virgin also efficiently concurred in the generation of Christ, because in this way she was more truly the mother of Christ than if she had only supplied the material. Nor does this conflict with her unblemished virginity, because without any concupiscence, with the Holy Spirit cooperating, her most pure blood (which took the place of seed) was separated to form the body of Christ.
Verse 19: Joseph Her Husband, Being a Just Man
19. NOW JOSEPH HER HUSBAND, BEING A JUST MAN, AND NOT WILLING TO EXPOSE HER, WAS MINDED TO PUT HER AWAY PRIVATELY.
First, St. Chrysostom here, St. Augustine in Epistle 52 to Macedonius, St. Justin in Against Trypho, and Francisco Lucas here think that Joseph suspected ill of the Blessed Virgin, namely that she had conceived from another man; for the word "expose" seems to imply this. But far be such a suspicion from so upright a man regarding so holy a virgin. For how could Joseph have suspected such a one of having committed adultery or having fornicated in her parents' house?
Second, others think that Joseph wished to dismiss the Blessed Virgin out of reverence, because he judged himself unworthy of her whom God had made fruitful. Hence they likewise think that St. Joseph accompanied the Blessed Virgin when she visited Elizabeth, and from her heard the Blessed Virgin greeted as the Mother of God, and therefore considered himself unworthy of her. So Origen and St. Basil in the places already cited, Theophylact here, and St. Bernard, Homily 2 on the Missus est. St. Bridget asserts that this was revealed to her, Book VII of the Revelations, chapter 25; whence our Salmeron, Book III, chapter 30, confirms this very point with thirteen reasons.
Third, plainly and genuinely, Joseph seeing the Blessed Virgin pregnant was astonished by the novelty of the thing, and in suspense felt various motions and surges of mind, from which he reasoned thus: I know this Virgin to be most holy; hence I do not believe she has betrayed the fidelity pledged to me. Yet she is pregnant — I know not from me; from whom, I know not. Perhaps from some prior betrothed? Or on the journey to visit Elizabeth, did she suffer violence from someone? Or while sleeping, was she deceived by some spirit? Or rather, as her holiness suggests, was she made pregnant by an Angel or by God Himself? If so, I would not wish to detain her whom an Angel or God claims for Himself. I am unworthy of one who is worthy of God or an Angel; therefore I will resign her to Him and dismiss her from me. God permitted this so that the Virgin's conception by the Holy Spirit might be attested to all, both by Joseph and by the Angel — just as He permitted St. Thomas to doubt the resurrection of Christ, so that Thomas himself, touching Christ's wounds, might become an irrefutable witness of that same resurrection.
Joseph therefore, a just man, teaches married couples and the faithful not to suspect evil of upright and holy persons on the basis of mere indications, but to stop at the indications and not go further to draw the conclusion of a crime, but rather to interpret those signs in the better part.
You will say: Why did Joseph not ask the Blessed Virgin what the swelling of her womb meant, and from whom she was pregnant? The answer is: This was the first, as it were, impulse of Joseph's mind, which out of modesty he kept silent about; soon he was anticipated by the Angel, who answered on behalf of the Virgin and vindicated her, saying that she had conceived by the Holy Spirit.
But the Blessed Virgin, out of modesty, did not wish to reveal this divine secret to Joseph on her own initiative, lest she seem to boast of such great and divine gifts. Instead, she resigned the matter to God and to the providence and care of God, whose entire work this was, most firmly trusting that God would protect her innocence and reputation, and would either reveal the whole matter at the opportune time — as she had experienced Him doing shortly before with her kinswoman Elizabeth — or would direct everything to His greater glory, and consequently to the greater honor and veneration of this conception. Hence see here and marvel at the magnanimity and the magnanimous resignation and confidence of the Blessed Virgin in God, by which she dispelled all this danger and fear of sinister suspicion and infamy. In this she gave a rare example of equanimity and constancy to wives who have jealous husbands, as well as of trust in God, that they may hope that God will reveal, protect, and celebrate their innocence and chastity, as He did here for the Blessed Virgin. Thus St. Jerome says: "This is the testimony regarding Mary, that Joseph, knowing her chastity and marveling at what had happened, concealed in silence the mystery he did not understand." And St. Ambrose on Luke chapter 1: "The Lord preferred," he says, "that some should doubt about His own generation, rather than about His mother's honor."
Hence it seems that St. Joseph did not accompany the Blessed Virgin when she, soon after the conception of Christ, visited St. Elizabeth; for if he had accompanied her, he would have seen and heard the great and wondrous things said of the Blessed Virgin that would have removed every scruple from him, and he would not have thought of dismissing her — especially that saying of St. Elizabeth to the Blessed Virgin: "How is it granted to me that the Mother of my Lord should come to me?" For from this he would have known that the Blessed Virgin had not only conceived from God, but had conceived God Himself, and was carrying Him in her womb. Note that Joseph is here called "just," that is, upright, inasmuch as he wished out of charity to safeguard the reputation, indeed even the dignity, of his wife, when he planned to dismiss her secretly because he thought himself unworthy of her. St. Jerome and Theophylact think it was commanded by the old law that husbands should expose their wives if they had committed adultery, and accuse them before judges and hand them over for punishment. But they cite no passage where this was commanded. For the passage in Numbers 5:2 only permits this, but does not command it. But as I said, this crime was far from the Blessed Virgin, and suspicion of it far from Joseph.
TRADUCERE.
TRADUCERE — not "to bring into his house," as Abulensis would have it. For in Greek it is paradeigmatisai, that is, to defame, to make public, to make a public example, and, as St. Augustine, Epistle 50 to Paulinus, renders it word for word, "to make an example of." For it was customary to lead adulterers in Greece, as captives in Rome, through the middle of the city for the people to gaze at and mock; hence "to expose" means to divulge, to defame. Whence that old law and punishment against procuresses: "Procuresses and polygamists, wearing the mithella, are paraded through the public places of the city so that they may be mocked and derided." And Propertius:
Nor would she thus, disgraced, be paraded through the whole city.
See Budaeus on the Pandects, page 263, under the word katameidiao, that is, "I mock, I expose."
He wished to put her away secretly — by a secret divorce, giving her privately a bill of repudiation, says Abulensis here, Question 39; or rather, and more honorably, by withdrawing from her under the pretext of a journey, as if about to go to a distant region. So Maldonatus. Hence the Syriac renders: "And he was thinking of leaving her secretly;" the Arabic: "Since he did not wish to expose her, he thought of dismissing her secretly."
Verse 20: The Angel of the Lord Appeared to Him in a Dream
20. BUT WHILE HE THOUGHT ON THESE THINGS, BEHOLD, AN ANGEL OF THE LORD APPEARED TO HIM IN A DREAM, SAYING: JOSEPH, SON OF DAVID, DO NOT BE AFRAID TO TAKE MARY YOUR WIFE, FOR THAT WHICH IS CONCEIVED IN HER IS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.
BUT WHILE HE THOUGHT ON THESE THINGS (not firmly resolving — for this was a first thought and, as it were, a first impulse of the mind), behold, an Angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying: Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take (that is, to retain her whom he had already received, and henceforth to remain inseparably united with her, for he had already taken her as his wife, as I said at verse 18) Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.
"Conceived" — that is, at one and the same time conceived, formed, and animated; for this is properly called "begotten," that is, generated and born. See Abulensis, Question 53, and St. Thomas, Part III, Question 33, where he teaches that the body of Christ from the first instant of His conception as to all its members was: First, perfectly formed and organized; second, animated by a rational soul; third, assumed by the Word; fourth, that Christ's soul was filled with all wisdom and the grace of the Head, which He would pour into all members, that is, into all the faithful; fifth, that the same soul saw God through the beatific vision; sixth, that the same soul used reason apart from the beatific vision, through infused knowledge, and through it knew itself to be united to the Word hypostatically, and therefore gave supreme thanks to God for this union and exaltation; and that God revealed to it His will concerning His death and cross, so that through it He might redeem and save mankind; and that the soul immediately accepted this, and offered itself to God as a holocaust and victim for sin for the salvation of the world, willingly, with the greatest humility, obedience, reverence, love, exultation, and joy of mind, saying: "Behold, I come; in the scroll of the book it is written of me, that I should do Your will. O my God, I have willed it, and Your law is in the midst of my heart" (Psalm 40:8 and Hebrews 10:7). See what was said there.
OF THE HOLY SPIRIT — who in an ineffable and divine manner wrought all these things that I have described in the Blessed Virgin. St. Augustine says beautifully, Epistle 34 to Macedonius: "An Angel appeared to him to teach him that what he had thought to be a crime was of the Deity." For St. Augustine thinks that Joseph wished to dismiss the Blessed Virgin because of a suspicion of adultery, as I said above.
Verse 21: You Shall Call His Name Jesus
21. AND SHE SHALL BRING FORTH A SON, AND YOU SHALL CALL HIS NAME JESUS; FOR HE SHALL SAVE HIS PEOPLE FROM THEIR SINS.
If Jesus, who, as follows, is Emmanuel, that is, "God with us," is the offspring and son of the Blessed Mary, as is said here, then she is His mother, and therefore not only the bearer of Christ (Christipara) but also the Mother of God (Deipara), as the Council of Ephesus defined against Nestorius; for mother and son are correlatives. Again, Valentinus is condemned here, who taught that Christ brought down a heavenly body from heaven and merely passed through the Blessed Virgin as through a channel — because she who gives birth to a son is truly the mother of her son, and supplies him with a body and all its members, indeed forms them.
JESUS — that is, Savior. This name was proper to Christ, here foretold by the Angel, but given to Him at the circumcision, which signifies and represents in summary, as it were, His office, dignity, indeed His entire life. See what I said about this name at Numbers 13:17, and St. Bernard, Sermon 15 on the Song of Songs.
Verse 22: That It Might Be Fulfilled
22. NOW ALL THIS WAS DONE THAT IT MIGHT BE FULFILLED WHICH WAS SPOKEN BY THE LORD THROUGH THE PROPHET, SAYING: BEHOLD, A VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BRING FORTH A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME EMMANUEL, WHICH IS INTERPRETED "GOD WITH US."
The Syriac: "And they shall call His name Amanuel, which is interpreted, God is with us." The Persian: "Immanuel, that is, that God may dwell in us." The Egyptian (Coptic): "And they shall place upon him the name Emmanuel, the interpretation of which is, that God is with us."
St. Matthew for the reader, or, as others think, the Angel for Joseph, recalls the oracle of Isaiah, chapter 7:14, to signify that it was now fulfilled in this conception of the Blessed Virgin his betrothed, and would be fully fulfilled in her delivery; and therefore he called Joseph a son of David, because this very thing had been promised by God to David. I have expounded this oracle at Isaiah chapter 7. See what was said there, lest I be compelled to repeat the same here.
Ecce — this is a word that arouses attention, consideration, and admiration, as if to say: Behold, O Angels, O all humanity, see and marvel at something new, wonderful, and unheard of in all ages — that a Virgin shall conceive and bring forth Emmanuel, that is, God made man. Hence Jeremiah, astonished at the same thing, exclaims in chapter 31:22: "The Lord has created a new thing on the earth: a woman shall encompass a man." Cyrus, the first king of the Persians, according to Xenophon, marveled at nothing and taught his people "to marvel at nothing on earth." For this, he said, belongs to a great and kingly spirit: to look down upon everything as placed beneath oneself, as petty and inferior. And Seneca said the wise man marvels at nothing, because, loftier than earthly things, he looks down on everything beneath him. But in divine matters all things are to be marveled at, because they are great, indeed the greatest — especially this mystery of Emmanuel, which is the great sacrament of divine mercy, as the Apostle says (1 Timothy 3:16). Therefore the mercy of the great God, who through the bowels of His compassion has visited us, rising from on high, is to be wondered at and marveled at. "Behold therefore the Word as an infant, the Child who is wise, God who is man," says St. Bernard. Theologians and contemplative men teach that we can consider and meditate on this mystery in various ways: by way of compassion, joy, thanksgiving, love, imitation — but most sublimely by way of stupor, so that, as it were, stupefied and astonished, we may continually stand in awe at such condescension of our God, who deigned to descend to us, worms of the earth, and to become a worm with us — and this not for His own sake, but for ours, in order to unite human beings, mere worms as they are, to Himself and make them gods. So marveled the Blessed Virgin, St. Paul, St. Bernard, St. Francis, and other great Saints, who utterly and completely despised the world and everything in it as trifling, brief, and passing, and fixed all their love, thought, and wonder on the Word incarnate, and dwelt continually with Jesus, despising all other things.
EMMANUEL.
EMMANUEL — The Syriac interprets it as: "Amman Elohan, that is, God is with us," but the word "our" is not in the Hebrew Emmanuel. From the Syriac it is clear that St. Matthew, if he wrote in Syriac (as many think, because the Jews, for whom he was writing, spoke Syriac in the time of Christ), could have interpreted the Hebrew Emmanuel in Syriac as Amman Eloha, that is, "God with us." Indeed Munster and others who translate the Gospel of St. Matthew from Latin into Hebrew interpret the single Hebrew word Emmanuel by two words; hence they have: "Emmanuel, which is interpreted Immanu Elohim," that is, "God with us."
Others think this interpretation was made by the Greek translator himself, and then by the Latin. The French shortened Emmanuel by aphaeresis into "Noel," which they sing and repeat at Christmas. Now the name Emmanuel, that is "God with us," signifies the Incarnation of the Word and His entire economy in the flesh. So St. Chrysostom, because through it God was properly and physically with us through the flesh and His human life; and ethically, through reconciliation and grace.
You will say: How is the name Jesus the same as Emmanuel, as St. Matthew implies here? Tertullian, in his book Against the Jews, answers that they are the same not in sound but in meaning. For to have God with us (which Emmanuel signifies) is the same as to have Jesus, that is, the Savior; for no one other than God could be our Savior. Note the Hebraism by which "to be called" is taken for "to be," as if to say: He shall be called Jesus, that is, He shall be Emmanuel, because in Him and through Him God will be with us, so that He may rightly be called Emmanuel. It is a metonymy, to which the following are entirely similar: Jeremiah 23:6, Zechariah 8:3, and Isaiah 9:6: "And His name shall be called," he says, "Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Father of the age to come, Prince of Peace." For all these things are signified either explicitly or implicitly by the name of Jesus, that is, Savior. See what was said there.
Note: Christ is called by Isaiah and Matthew not "Emmanu Jehova," nor "Emmanu Adonai," nor "Emmanu Elohim," but "Emmanu El," even though all of these are names of God. Because Jehova denotes the essence of God and signifies God insofar as He is the first, supreme, and immense being from whom all beings participate their existence. Adonai denotes God's dominion and signifies God insofar as He is the supreme Lord of all. Elohim denotes God's providence and signifies God insofar as He is the governor, judge, and avenger of all. But El denotes God's strength and omnipotence, and signifies God insofar as He is strong and almighty; because God in the Incarnation and in Christ displayed His supreme strength and power, when through Christ He vanquished the most powerful enemies — namely demons, hell, death, and sin; indeed, all sins and vices however enormous and numerous. Hence the Angel announcing this mystery was called Gabriel, that is, "the strength of God."
Hence note also the tropological meaning: First, God is with us — not only through His essence, presence, and power, as He is in each and every creature, but also through the Incarnation He is truly, properly, and really with us as a brother, living, speaking, and dwelling with us in the human nature He assumed. Second, He is with us as a head with its members; for Christ is the Head of the faithful, pouring into them spiritual sensation and movement, as well as direction and governance. Third, the same Christ, now incarnate, is with us in the Eucharist, as food nourishing us with His flesh and giving us drink with His blood. These are physical modes. Fourth, ethically, Christ is with the Church as a bridegroom with his bride, assisting, protecting, sustaining, adorning, and making her fruitful. Hence the Psalmist says: "Though I walk in the midst of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for You are with me" (Psalm 22:4). Therefore the faithful person, in any difficulty, labor, or tribulation, should call upon Emmanuel, that is, God with us dwelling in the flesh, and joyfully say: "The Lord rules me, and I shall want for nothing; in a place of pasture, there He has placed me, etc.; He has led me along the paths of justice" (ibid., 1). And Psalm 26:1: "The Lord is my light and my salvation — whom shall I fear? The Lord is the protector of my life — of whom shall I be afraid? Though an army encamp against me, my heart shall not fear. Though war rise up against me, in this I will hope" (Psalm 27:1-3). And with Paul: "If God is for us (indeed, with us), who is against us?" (Romans 8:31). Now therefore any faithful person, especially a saint or martyr, may say what the Angel said to Gideon, Judges 6:12: "The Lord is with you, mighty man of valor."
Verse 24: Rising from Sleep, He Did as the Angel Commanded
24. AND JOSEPH, RISING (in Greek diegertheis, that is, "awakened, aroused") FROM SLEEP, DID AS THE ANGEL OF THE LORD HAD COMMANDED HIM, AND TOOK — that is, did not dismiss her whom he had already received, but retained — HIS WIFE. For this is what the Angel had commanded him.
Verse 25: He Knew Her Not Till She Brought Forth Her Firstborn Son
25. AND HE KNEW HER NOT, TILL SHE BROUGHT FORTH HER FIRSTBORN SON; AND HE CALLED HIS NAME JESUS.
First, St. Hilary, cited here by St. Thomas in the Catena, Denis the Carthusian, and Gagneius explain it thus, as if to say: Just as the Jews could not look upon and recognize the face of Moses because of the rays of light which God had breathed upon him like horns while He conversed with him on Sinai (Exodus 34:29 and following), so neither could Joseph gaze upon and recognize the Blessed Virgin, inasmuch as she had God in her womb and therefore her face was most radiant; but after Christ was born, this radiance and glory of her face ceased, and then she could be seen and recognized by Joseph. So they say.
Second, on the contrary, St. Epiphanius, in Heresy 30, which is that of the Ebionites, explains it thus, as if to say: Joseph did not mentally know or penetrate the holiness and dignity of the Blessed Virgin his spouse until she gave birth to Christ. But these interpretations are either foreign to the text, or symbolic and mystical.
Third, therefore, literally and genuinely, "to know" one's wife in Scripture means the marital union, or the conjugal act; for this is what is excluded from Christ, to signify that He was conceived not from Joseph but from the Holy Spirit.
DONEC.
DONEC. — From this the heretics inferred: therefore after she gave birth to her son, Joseph knew her. Hence they denied that the Blessed Virgin always remained a virgin, and asserted that she lost her virginity after the delivery. So Helvidius, Jovinian, the Ebionites, and the other Antidicomarianites, whom St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, and others refute. They teach that the word "until" (donec) only signifies what happened before the delivery, not what happened after it; for this was irrelevant to the present passage. By this word "until," Matthew only wished to assert something marvelous, unheard of, and naturally incredible — namely, the conception of Christ without a father, from a virgin mother alone. In a similar way the word "until" or "up to" is used in Psalm 110:2: "Sit at My right hand, until I make Your enemies the footstool of Your feet" — not that then You will no longer sit, but that then You will sit at My right hand far more gloriously, as victor and triumphant. And Matthew 5:26: "You shall not go out from there until you repay the last penny" — that is, you will never leave the prison of Gehenna. And 2 Samuel 6:23: "To Michal the daughter of Saul no son was born until the day of her death" — that is, never. And Genesis 8:7, of the raven sent out by Noah from the ark it is said: "It did not return until the waters dried up" — that is, it never returned. Similarly we say: St. Agnes remained a virgin until she died, that is, she always remained a virgin; for after death she could not lose her virginity.
You will press the point: St. Matthew says, "Until she brought forth her firstborn son;" therefore others were afterward born of her from Joseph, namely those who in the Gospel are called brothers of the Lord. I reply: I deny the consequence. For "firstborn" in Scripture means anyone before whom no one was born, even if he is the only-begotten, as is clear from Exodus 4:22 and chapter 13:2; for the prefix "first" only denies that there were earlier sons, and does not require or presuppose that later ones existed. Thus even now the one who is an only child is called "firstborn."
Therefore that the Blessed Virgin always remained a virgin is a dogma of faith, as is clear from Luke 1:34, Ezekiel 44:2, and from the consensus of all the Fathers and the common sense of the Church, and its perpetual tradition. See St. Jerome, book Against Helvidius, at the beginning of volume 2.