The genealogy of Christ: he is conceived and born of a virgin.
The pedegree of Iesus, to shew that he is Christ, promised to ⸬ Abraham and Dauid. 18. That he was conceiued and borne of a Virgin, as Esay prophecied of him.
1The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham:Libro della generazione di Gesù Cristo figliuolo di David, figliuolo d'Abramo.THE booke of the generation of IESVS Christ, the sonne of Dauid, the sonne of Abraham.Liber generationis Jesu Christi filii David, filii Abraham. 2Abraham begot Isaac. And Isaac begot Jacob. And Jacob begot Judas and his brethren.Abramo generò Isacco: Isacco generò Giacobbe: Giacobbe generò Giuda, e i suoi fratelli.Abraham begat Isaac, And Isaac begat Iacob. And Iacob begat Iudas and his brethren:Abraham genuit Isaac. Isaac autem genuit Jacob. Jacob autem genuit Judam, et fratres ejus. 3And Judas begot Phares and Zara of Thamar. And Phares begot Esron. And Esron begot Aram.Giuda ebbe di Tamar Fares, e Zara: Fares generò Esron: Esron generò Aram.And Iudas begat Phares and Zaram of Thamer. And Phares begat Esron. And Esron begat Aram.Judas autem genuit Phares, et Zaram de Thamar. Phares autem genuit Esron. Esron autem genuit Aram. 4And Aram begot Aminadab. And Aminadab begot Naasson. And Naasson begot Salmon.Aram generò Aminadab: Aminadab generò Naasson: Naasson generò Salmon.And Aram begat Aminadab. And Aminadab begat Naasson. And Naasson begat Salmon.Aram autem genuit Aminadab. Aminadab autem genuit Naasson. Naasson autem genuit Salmon. 5And Salmon begot Booz of Rahab. And Booz begot Obed of Ruth. And Obed begot Jesse.Salmon ebbe di Raab Booz: Booz ebbe di Ruth Obed: Obed generò Jesse: e Jesse generò David Re.And Salmon begat Booz of Raab. And Booz begat Obed of Ruth. And Obed begat lesse.Salmon autem genuit Booz de Rahab. Booz autem genuit Obed ex Ruth. Obed autem genuit Jesse. Jesse autem genuit David regem. 6And Jesse begot David the king. And David the king begot Solomon, of her that had been the wife of Urias.David Re ebbe Salomone di quella, che era stata (moglie) d'Uria.And lesse begat Dauid the King. And Dauid the King begat Salomon of her that was the vvife of Vrias.David autem rex genuit Salomonem ex ea quæ fuit Uriæ. 7And Solomon begot Roboam. And Roboam begot Abia. And Abia begot Asa.Salomone generò Roboamo: Roboamo generò Abìa: Abìa generò Asa.And Salomon begat Roboam. And Roboam begat Abia. And Abia begat Asa.Salomon autem genuit Roboam. Roboam autem genuit Abiam. Abias autem genuit Asa. 8And Asa begot Josaphat. And Josaphat begot Joram. And Joram begot Ozias.Asa generò Giosafatte: Giosafatte generò Joram: Joram generò Ozia.And Asa begat Iosaphat. And Iosaphat begat Ioram. And Ioram begat Ozias.Asa autem genuit Josophat. Josophat autem genuit Joram. Joram autem genuit Oziam.
9And Ozias begot Joatham. And Joatham begot Achaz. And Achaz begot Ezechias.Ozia generò Gioatam: Gioatam generò Achaz: e Achaz generò Ezechìa.And Ozias begat Ioatham. And Ioatham begat Achaz. And Achaz begat Ezechias.Ozias autem genuit Joatham. Joatham autem genuit Achaz. Achaz autem genuit Ezechiam. 10And Ezechias begot Manasses. And Manasses begot Amon. And Amon begot Josias.Ezechìa generò Manasse: Manasse generò Amon: Amon generò Giosia.And Ezechias begat Manasses. And Manasses begat Amon. And Amon begat Iosias.Ezechias autem genuit Manassen. Manasses autem genuit Amon. Amon autem genuit Josiam. 11And Josias begot Jechonias and his brethren in the transmigration of Babylon.Giosìa generò Gieconia, e i suoi fratelli imminente la trasmigrazione in Babilonia.And Iosias begat Iechonias & his brethren in the Transmigration of Babylon.Josias autem genuit Jechoniam, et fratres ejus in transmigratione Babylonis. 12And after the transmigration of Babylon, Jechonias begot Salathiel. And Salathiel begot Zorobabel.E dopo la trasmigrazione di Babilonia Gieconia generò Salatici: Salatici generò Zorobabel.And after the Transmigration of Babylon, Iechonias begat Salathiel. And Salathiel begat Zorobabel.Et post transmigrationem Babylonis: Jechonias genuit Salathiel. Salathiel autem genuit Zorobabel. 13And Zorobabel begot Abiud. And Abiud begot Eliacim. And Eliacim begot Azor.Zorobabel generò Abiud: Abiud generò Eliacim: Eliacim generò Azor.And Zorobabel begat Abiud. And Abiud begat Eliacim. And Eliacim begat Azor.Zorobabel autem genuit Abiud. Abiud autem genuit Eliacim. Eliacim autem genuit Azor. 14And Azor begot Sadoc. And Sadoc begot Achim. And Achim begot Eliud.Azor generò Sadoc: Sadoc generò Achim: Achim generò Eliud.And Azor begat Sadoc. And Sadoc begat Achim. And Achim begat Eliud.Azor autem genuit Sadoc. Sadoc autem genuit Achim. Achim autem genuit Eliud. 15And Eliud begot Eleazar. And Eleazar begot Mathan. And Mathan begot Jacob.Eliud generò Eleazar: Eleazar generò Matan: Matan generò Giacobbe.And Eliud begat Eleazar. And Eleazar begat Mathan. And Mathan begat Iacob.Eliud autem genuit Eleazar. Eleazar autem genuit Mathan. Mathan autem genuit Jacob. 16And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.Giacobbe generò Giuseppe, sposo di Maria: della quale nacque Gesù chiamato il Cristo.And Iacob begat Ioseph the husband of MARIE: of vvhom vvas borne IESVS, vvho is called CHRIST.Jacob autem genuit Joseph virum Mariæ, de qua natus est Jesus, qui vocatur Christus. 17So 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.Da Abramo dunque sino a Davidde sono in tutto quattordici generazioni: da Davidde sino alla trasmigrazione di Babilonia quattordici generazioni: e dalla trasmigrazione di Babilonia sino a Cristo quattordici generazioni.Therefore al the generations from Abraham vnto Dauid, fourtene generations. And from Dauid to the Transmigration of Babylon, fourtene generations. And from the Transmigration of Babylon vnto CHRIST, fourtene generations.Omnes itaque generationes ab Abraham usque ad David, generationes quatuordecim: et a David usque ad transmigrationem Babylonis, generationes quatuordecim: et a transmigratione Bayblonis usque ad Christum, generationes quatuordecim.
18Now 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.La nascita di Gesù Cristo fu in questo modo. Essendo stata la madre di lui Maria sposata a Giuseppe, si scoperse gravida di Spirito santo, prima che stessero insieme.And the generation of CHRIST vvas in this vvise. When his mother MARIE vvas spoused to Ioseph, before they came together, she vvas found to be vvith childe by the Holy Ghost.Christi autem generatio sic erat: cum esset desponsata mater ejus Maria Joseph, antequam convenirent inventa est in utero habens de Spiritu Sancto. 19Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately.Or Giuseppe marito di lei, essendo uomo giusto, e non volendo esporla all'infamia, prese consiglio di segretamente rimandarla.Wherevpon Ioseph, for that he vvas a iust man, & vvould not put her to open shame: vvas minded secretely to dimisse her.Joseph autem vir ejus cum esset justus, et nollet eam traducere, voluit occulte dimittere eam. 20But 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.Ma, mentre egli stava in questo pensiero, un Angelo del Signore gli apparve in sogno, dicendo: Giuseppe, figliuolo di Davidde, non temere di prendere Maria tua consorte: imperocché ciò, che in essa è stato conceputo, è dallo Spirito santo.But as he vvas thus thinking, behold the Angel of our Lord appeared to him in sleepe saying: Ioseph sonne of Dauid, feare not to take MARIE thy vvife. for that vvhich is borne in her, is of the Holy Ghost.Hæc autem eo cogitante, ecce angelus Domini apparuit in somnis ei, dicens: Joseph, fili David, noli timere accipere Mariam conjugem tuam: quod enim in ea natum est, de Spiritu Sancto est. 21And she shall bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus. For he shall save his people from their sins.Ella partorirà un figliuolo, cui tu porrai nome Gesù; imperocché ei sarà, che libererà il suo popolo da' suoi peccati.And she shal bring forth a sonne: and thou shalt call his name IESVS. For he shal saue his people from their sinnes.Pariet autem filium: et vocabis nomen ejus Jesum: ipse enim salvum faciet populum suum a peccatis eorum. 22Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying:Tutto questo segui, affinchè si adempisse, quanto era stato detto dal Signore per mezzo del Profeta, che dice:And al this vvas done that it might be fulfilled vvhich our Lord spake by the Prophet saying.Hoc autem totum factum est, ut adimpleretur quod dictum est a Domino per prophetam dicentem:
23Behold 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.Ecco che la Vergine sarà gravida: e partorirà un figliuolo, e lo chiameranno per nome Emanuele: che interpretato significa Dio con noi.Behold a Virgin shal be vvith childe, and bring forth a sonne, and they shal call his name Emmanuel, vvhich being interpreted is, God vvith vs.Ecce virgo in utero habebit, et pariet filium: et vocabunt nomen ejus Emmanuel, quod est interpretatum Nobiscum Deus. 24And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife.Risvegliatosi adunque Giuseppe dal sonno, fece come ordinato gli avea l'Angelo del Signore, e prese con seco la sua consorte.And Ioseph rising vp from sleepe, did as the Angel of our Lord cōmaunded him, and tooke his vvife.Exsurgens autem Joseph a somno, fecit sicut præcepit ei angelus Domini, et accepit conjugem suam. 25And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born son: and he called his name Jesus.Ed egli non la conosceva, sino a quando partorì il suo figliuolo primogenito, e chiamollo per nome Gesù.And he knevv her not til she brought forth her first borne sonne: and called his name IESVS.Et non cognoscebat eam donec peperit filium suum primogenitum: et vocavit nomen ejus Jesum.
1:1
Haydock
The first English Testament, divided into verses, was that printed at Geneva, by Conrad Badius, in the year 1557. (Haydock)
Estius
"The book of the Generation," is not referred to the whole gospel, but to the beginning, as in Genesis 5. "This is the book of the generation of Adam." (Estius)
Witham
The book of the[Ver. 1. Liber Generationis. Biblos geneseos. So Genesis 5:1. Hic est liber generationis Adam, Biblos, etc.] Generation, that is the genealogy or pedigree, which is here set down in the first sixteen verses. In the style of the Scriptures any short schedule or roll is called a book, as the bill or short writing of a divorce, is called a little book. (Matthew 5:31.) (Witham)
Estius
Jesus, in Hebrew Jesuah, is the proper name of Him, who was born of the Virgin Mary, who was also the Son of God, "a name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb." (Luke ii.) It signifies Saviour, "because he was to save his people from their sins." He was also called Christ, which signifies anointed; for though in the Old Testament kings, priests, and prophets were anointed, and though many were then designated by the name of Jesus, properly, and by an invariable custom of the New Testament, that person is exclusively signified, who, on account of the union of the divine and human nature, was anointed by the Holy Ghost above all his fellows. (Psalm xliv. and Hebrews 1:9.) Whence in this turn the hypostasis is understood, in which the two natures, the divine and human, meet. (Estius)
1:2
Theophylactus
He begins with Abraham, the father of the faithful, because to him the promise was made, that all generations should be blessed in his seed. (Theophylactus)
1:3
Haydock
See Genesis xxxviii, ver. 6. et dein., and Zara of Thamar, her daughter-in-law. (Haydock)
1:5
Haydock
See Josue, Matthew 2:et dein. We nowhere else find the marriage of Salmon with Rahab; but this event might have been known by tradition, the truth of which the divinely inspired evangelist here confirms. (Bible de Vence) Rahab was a debauched woman, preserved in the pillage of Jericho, where she had been born. In this genealogy only four women are mentioned, of which two are Gentiles, and two adulteresses. Here the greatest sinners may find grounds for confidence in the mercies of Jesus Christ, and hopes of pardon, when they observed how the Lord of life and glory, to cure our pride, not only humbled himself by taking upon himself the likeness of sinful flesh, but by deriving his descent from sinners, and inspiring the holy evangelist to record the same to all posterity. (Haydock)
1:6
Extract from St. Chrysostom's first Homil. upon the first chapter of St. Matthew: "How, you say, does it appear that Christ descended from David? For if he be born not of man, but of a virgin, concerning whose genealogy nothing is said, how shall we know that he is of the family of David? We have here two difficulties to explain. Why is the genealogy of the Virgin passed over in silence, and why is Joseph's mentioned, as Christ did not descend from him?...How shall we know that the Virgin is descended from David? Hear the words of the Almighty addressed to the archangel Gabriel: 'Go to a virgin espoused to a man, whose name is Joseph, of the house and family of David.' What could you wish plainer that this, when you hear that the Virgin is of the family of David? Hence it also appears that Joseph was of the same house, for there was a law which commanded them not to marry any one but of the same tribe....But whether these words, of the house and family of David, be applied to the Virgin or to Joseph, the argument is equally strong. For if he was of the family of David, he did not take a wife but out of the same tribe, from which he had descended. Perhaps you will say he transgressed this law. But the evangelist has prevented such a suspicion, by testifying beforehand that Joseph was a just man. Beware how you attach crime to him, whose virtue is thus publicly acknowledged....It was not the custom among the Hebrews to keep the genealogies of women. The evangelist conformed to this custom, that he might not at the very beginning of the gospel offend by transgressing ancient rites, and introducing novelty."
1:8
Witham
Joram begot Ozias, three generations are omitted, as we find in 2 Paraliponenon xxii; for there, Joram begot Ochozias, and Ochozias begot Joas, and Joas begot Amazias, and Amazias begot Ozias. This omission is not material, the design of St. Matthew being only to shew the Jews that Jesus, their Messias, was of the family of David; and he is equally the son, or the descendent of David, though the said three generations be left out: for Ozias may be called the son of Joram, though Joram was his great-grandfather. (Witham)
Calmet
It is thought that St. Matthew omitted these three kings, Ochozias, Joas, and Amazias, to preserve the distribution of his genealogy into three parts, each of fourteen generations; and, perhaps, also on account of their impiety, or rather on account of the sentence pronounced against the house of Achab, from which they were descended by their mother Athalia. (3 Kings 21:21.) (Calmet)
1:11
Witham
Josias begot[Ver. 11. See St. Epiphanius, haer. vi. pag. 21. Edit. Petav. epeide tines etc.] Jechonias, etc. The genealogy of Christ, as it appears by the 17th verse, is divided by the evangelist into thrice fourteen generations, and so it is to contain 42 persons. The first class of fourteen begins with Abraham, and ends with David. The second class begins with Solomon, and ends with Jechonias. The third class is supposed to begin with Salathiel, and to end, says St. Jerome, with our Saviour Christ. But thus we shall only find in the third class thirteen generations, and in all only forty-one, instead of forty-two. Not to mention in these short notes other interpretations, the conjecture of St. Epiphanius seems to most probable, that we are to understand two Jechonias's, the father and the son, who had the same name. So that the true reading should be, Josias begot Jechonias and his brethren, and Jechonias begot Jechonias, and Jechonias begot Salathiel. Thus Jechonias named in the 12th verse is not the same, but the son of him that was named in the 11th verse; and from Jechonias the son, begins the third class, and so Christ himself will be the last or 14th person in that last series or class. There are several difficulties about reconciling this genealogy in St. Matthew with that in St. Luke, Matthew 3. But without insisting on all the particulars in these short notes, I hope it may suffice to take notice, that no one can reasonably doubt that both the evangelists copied out the genealogical tables, as they were then extant, and carefully preserved by the Jews, and especially by those families that were of the tribe of Juda, and of the family of David, of which the Messias was to be born. For if the evangelists had either falsified, or made any mistake as to these genealogies, the Jews undoubtedly would have objected this against their gospels, which they never did. (Witham)
Haydock
The difficulties here are: 1. Why does St. Matthew give the genealogy of Joseph and not of Mary? 2. How is it inferred that Jesus is descended from David and Solomon, because Joseph is the son of David? 3. How can Joseph have two men for his father, Jacob of the race of Solomon, and Heli of the race of Nathan? To the 1st it is generally answered, that it was not customary with the Jews to draw out the genealogies of women; to the 2nd, that Jesus being the son of Joseph, either by adoption, or simply as the son of Mary his wife, he entered by that circumstance into all the rights of the family of Joseph; moreover, Mary was of the same tribe and family of Joseph, and thus the heir of the branch of Solomon marrying with the heiress of the branch of Nathan, the rights of the two families united in Joseph and Mary, were transmitted through them to Jesus, their son and heir; to the 3rd, that Jacob was the father of Joseph according to nature, and Heli his father according to law; or that Joseph was the son of the latter by adoption, and of the former by nature. (Haydock)
Witham
In the transmigration,[[Ver. 11.] In transmigratione, epi tes metoikesias, i.e., circa tempus transmigrationis.] transportation to Babylon; that is about the time the Jews were carried away captives to Babylon. For Josias died before their transportation. See 4 Kings xxiv. (Witham)
Haydock
Some think we are to read: Josias begot Joakim and his brethren; and Joakim begot Joachim, or Jechonias. Jechonias was son to Joakim, and grandson to Josias. The brothers of Jechonias are not known, but those of Joakim are known. (1 Paralipomenon 3:15, 16.) Besides this reading give the number 14. (Haydock)
Estius
St. Jerome says that Jechonias, the son of Josias, is a different person from Jechonias who begot Salathiel, for the latter was son of the former; see 1 Paralipomenon iii., where it is said that Zorobabel was son of Phadaia; but Phadaia is the same as Salathiel. (Estius)
Mat. Polus affirms that every one the least conversant in Jewish story, must know that several genealogies which appear to contradict each other, do not in reality. (Synop. Crit. 5:4, p. 12.)
1:12
Bible de Vence
By the text of the first book of Paralipomenon 3:17, 19., it appears that Zorobabel was grandson to Salathiel. In comparing the present genealogy with that of St. Luke, (Luke 3.) we find that in this last part St. Matthew has suppressed many generations, to bring the list to the number 14; for there are a greater number from Zorobabel to Jesus Christ in St. Luke, but in a different branch. (Bible de Vence)
Haydock
The evangelist was well aware that the suppressed names could be easily supplied from the Jewish records; and that every person could reply most satisfactorily to any objection on that head, who was the least acquainted with the Jewish tables. In the first fourteen of these generations, we see the family of David rising to the throne; in the second, a race of kings descending from him; in the last, the royal family descending to a poor carpenter. Yet, when every human appearance of restoring the kingdom to David's house was at an end, Jesus arose to sit on his father's throne, (Luke 1:32.) and of his kingdom there shall be no end. (Haydock)
1:16
Challoner
The husband of Mary. The evangelist gives us rather the pedigree of St. Joseph, than that of the blessed Virgin, to conform to the custom of the Hebrews, who in their genealogies took no notice of women: but as they near akin, the pedigree of the one sheweth that of the other. (Challoner)
Witham
Joseph the husband of Mary.[Ver. 16. Joseph virum Mariae, ton andra Marias. And Ver. 19, vir ejus, aner autes. But Ver. 18, mnesteutheises, desponsata, mnesteuomai, is not properly the same as gamein.] So he is again called, ver. 19: but in ver. 18, we read, when Mary his mother was espoused to Joseph. These different expressions of being husband, and being espoused, have occasioned different interpretations. Some think that Joseph and the blessed Virgin were truly married at the time of Christ's conception: others, that they were only then espoused, or engaged by a promise to marry afterwards. St. Jerome says, when you hear the name of husband, do not from thence imagine them to be married, but remember the custom of the Scriptures, according to which, they who are espoused only, are called husbands and wives. (Witham)
Estius
That Jesus, who is called Christ, was of the seed of David, is also evident, as St. Augustine affirms from various texts of the holy Scriptures, as in the epistle to the Romans, where St. Paul, (chap. 1.) speaking of the Son of God, says, who was made to Him of the seed of David, according to the flesh. See also the promises made to David, 2 Kings 7.; Psalm 88.; Psalm 131. and spoken of Solomon, as a figure of Jesus Christ. (Estius)
1:18
Estius
The account of the birth of Jesus Christ follows his genealogy. From these words, "before they came together," Helvidius and others have started objections, which have been answered long ago by St. Jerome, where he shews in many examples from Scripture, that the words before and until do not signify what happened afterwards; for that point is left indefinite, but only what was done before, or not done. Thus when it is said, Sit thou at my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool, Psalm cix, by no means signifies, that after the subjection of his enemies, the Son of God is no longer to sit at the right hand of his Father. In common conversation, when we say that a man died before he reached his 30th year, we do not mean that he afterwards attained it. Or, should we say that Helvidius died before he did penance, we cannot mean that he afterwards did penance: the same conclusion should be deduced from the words, "before they came together," the end being accomplished by the power of the operation of the Holy Ghost, without their going together. If we should advance, that such a man was cured before he went to a physician, the natural inference would be, that he did not go to a physician at all. Thus also in the language of Scripture, the word first-begotten does not mean after whom others were born, but before whom no one was born, whether there were further issue or not. And the reason is, because the law required that a sacrifice should be offered for the first-born, and that he should be redeemed very soon after his birth; nor did it allow the parents to wait and see if any other son should be born. (Estius)
Bristow
True and perfect marriage, and continual living in the same, without knowing each other. (St. Augustine, lib. 2:Consen. Evang. ch. I.) (Bristow)
1:19
Haydock
And Joseph her husband, knowing her strict virtue, was surprised at this her pregnancy, but "being a just man," and not willing to expose her, by denouncing her, or giving her a bill of divorce, he had a mind to dismiss her privately, committing the whole cause to God. Let us learn from Joseph to be ever tender of our neighbour's reputation, and never to entertain any injurious thoughts, or any suspicions to his prejudice. (Haydock)
1:20
Witham
Fear not to take, etc. i.e., fear not to marry her, if we suppose them not yet married, or if married already, the sense is, fear not to keep and remain with thy chaste wife; lay aside all thoughts of dismissing and leaving her. (Witham)
Estius in diff. loca
As the incarnation of the Son of God was effected by the whole blessed Trinity, it may be asked why this operation is peculiarly attributed to the Holy Ghost, not only here, but in Luke 2:and in the apostles' creed? The answer is, because as power is attributed to the Father, wisdom to the Son, so goodness is attributed to the Holy Ghost, and the gifts of grace which proceed from it. (Estius in diff. loca.)
1:21
Haydock
Jesus....he shall save, etc. The characteristic name of Saviour was peculiar to the Messias, by which he was distinguished, as well as by the adorable name of Jesus. The expectations of both Jew and Gentile looked forward to a saviour. St. Augustine, in the 18th book, 23rd chapter, de Civitate Dei, introduces a curious anecdote. He mentions there, that he received from the eloquent and learned Proconsul Flactianus, a book containing in Greek the verses of one of the Sybils, which related to the coming of Christ. The substance of them is much the same as occurs in the prophecies of Isaiah, from which Virgil has likewise copied into his Pollio, many of the sublime thoughts which we find in that beautiful eclogue. It is remarkable that of the initials of these verses, St. Augustine had formed an acrostic to the following import, Iesous Christos Deos uios soter; that is, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, Saviour. (Haydock)
1:22
The Greeks in general, after St. John Chrysostom, look upon this as a continuation of the angel's speech to St. Joseph. The other Fathers and commentators think it a reflection of the evangelist.
1:23
Witham
Behold a virgin,[Ver. 23. Ecce Virgo, idou e parthenos. So is it read, not only here in St. Matthew but in the Septuagint, Isaias vii. St. Hier.[St. Jerome] lib. 1. Contra Jovin. tom. iv. parte 2. pag. 174. Ostendant mihi, ubi hoc Verbo (Alma) appellentur et nuptae, et imperitiam confitebor.] etc. The Jews sometimes objected, as we see in St. Justin's dialogue with Tryphon, that the Hebrew word alma, in the prophet Isaias, signified no more than a young woman. But St. Jerome tells us that alma signifies a virgin kept close up. Let the Jews, says he, shew me any place in which the Hebrew word alma, is applied to any one that is not a virgin, and I will own my ignorance. Besides the very circumstances in the text of the prophet, are more than a sufficient confutation of this Jewish exposition; for there a sign, or miracle, is promised to Achaz; and what miracle would it be for a young woman to have a child, when she had ceased to be a virgin? (Witham)
Estius
How happens it that nowhere in the gospels, or in any other part, do we find Christ called Emmanuel? I answer, that in the Greek expression the name is given for the thing signified; and the meaning is: He shall be a true Emmanuel, i.e., a God with us, true God and true man. (Estius)
Haydock
The text says, they shall call, i.e., all men shall look upon Him as an Emmanuel. Again, his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty, the Prince of peace, etc., i.e., He shall be all these, not so much nominally, as really and in effect. (Haydock)
1:24
Haydock
The heretic Helvidius argues from this text, and from what we read in the gospel of Christ's brethren, that Christ had brothers, and Mary other sons. But it is evident that in the style of the Scriptures, they who were no more than cousins were called brothers and sisters. (Haydock)
1:25
See note on ver. 18.
Haydock
St. Jerome assures us, that St. Joseph always preserved his virginal chastity. It is "of faith" that nothing contrary thereto ever took place with his chaste spouse, the blessed Virgin Mary. St. Joseph was given her by heaven to be the protector of her chastity, to secure her from calumnies in the birth of the Son of God, to assist her in her flight into Egypt, etc. etc. We cannot sufficiently admire the modest reserve of both parties. Mary does not venture to explain to her troubled husband the mystery of her pregnancy; and Joseph is afraid of mentioning his uneasiness and doubts, for fear of troubling her delicate mind and wounding her exquisite feelings. So great modesty, reserve and silence, are sure to be approved by heaven; and God sends an angel to Joseph in his sleep, to dissipate his doubts, and to expound to him the mystery of the incarnation. (Haydock)
1:16
1:25
Till she brought forth her firstborn son.... From these words Helvidius and other heretics most impiously inferred that the blessed Virgin Mary had other children besides Christ; but St. Jerome shews, by divers examples, that this expression of the Evangelist was a manner of speaking usual among the Hebrews, to denote by the word until, only what is done, without any regard to the future. Thus it is said, Genesis 8. 6 and 7, that Noe sent forth a raven, which went forth, and did not return till the waters were dried up on the earth. That is, did not return any more. Also Isaias 46. 4, God says: I am till you grow old. Who dare infer that God should then cease to be: Also in the first book of Machabees 5. 54, And they went up to mount Sion with joy and gladness, and offered holocausts, because not one of them was slain till they had returned in peace. That is, not one was slain before or after they had returned. God saith to his divine Son: Sit on my right hand till I make thy enemies thy footstool. Shall he sit no longer after his enemies are subdued? Yea and for all eternity. St. Jerome also proves by Scripture examples, that an only begotten son, was also called firstborn, or first begotten: because according to the law, the firstborn males were to be consecrated to God; Sanctify unto me, saith the Lord, every firstborn that openeth the womb among the children of Israel, etc. Ex. 13. 2.
1:1
1. Thamar.] Christ abhorred not to take flesh of some that were il, as he chose Iudas among his Apostles: Let not vs disdaine to receaue our spiritual birth and sustenance of such as be not alwayes good.
Concordance Luc. 3, 31.
This Gospel is most solemly sung in holy Church at Mattins vpō Christmas day.
1:2
Concordance Gen. 21. 29. 38.
As also it is the Gospel of the Cōception and Natiuitie of our B. Lady: because here is declared the pedegree of her also.
1:3
Concordance 1 Par. 2, 5.
1:4
Concordance Ruth. 4, 18.
1:6
Concordance 2 Re. 12, 24.
1:7
Concordance 1 Par. 3, 10.
1:10
Concordance 4 Reg. 24.
1:11
Concordance 2. Par. 36.
1:12
Concordance 1 Par. 3.
Concordance 1 Esd. 3.
1:16
16. Ioseph.] Ioseph marying our Lady as neere of kinne (for so was the Nu. 36. law) by his pedegree sheweth hers, and consequently Christs pedegree from Dauid.
16. Husband.] True and perfect mariage, and continual liuing in the same, without carnal copulation. Aug. lib. 2. Consen. Euang. c. 1.
de qua.
1:18
In the liturgy The Gospel vpō Christmas eue. and Vpon S. Iosephs day the 19 of Marche.
1:19
Concordance Deut 24, 1.
1:20
20. Borne in her.] The triple good or perfection of mariage accomplished in the parents of Christ, to wit, Issue, Fidelitie, Sacrament. Aug. de nup. & conc. li. 1. c. 11.
1:21
IESVS an Hebrue word, in English SAVIOVR.
1:22
Concordance Esa. 7, 14.
1:23
23. A Virgin.] Our Sauiour borne in mariage, Virginitie preferred. but yet of a Virgin, would honour both states: and withal, teacheth vs agaynst Iouinian the old Heretike and these of our time, that virginity and the continent life are preferred before mariage that hath carnal copulation, See S. Hierom. adu. Iouin. and S. Greg. Nazianz. Ser. 20. de studio in pauperes, in initio.
23. A Virgin.] As our Ladie both a virgin and a mother, brought forth Christ the head corporally: so the Churche a virgin and a mother, bringeth forth the members of this head spiritually. Aug. li. de Virg. ca. 2.
23. And bring forth.] The Heretike Ioulnian is here refuted, Our B. Ladies perpetual virginity. holding that her virginity was corrupted in bringing forth Christ. Aug. har. 28. Li. 1 cont. Iulian. c. 2.
1:25
25. Til, First-borne.] Heluidius of old abused these wordes, Tradition. til, and, first-borne, agaynst the perpetual virginity of our B. Ladie. Hiero. cont. Helu. which truth though not expressed in Scripture, yet our Aduersaries also do graunt, and Heluidius for denial therof was condemned for an heretike by tradition only. Aug. har. 14.
1:1
St Ignatius of Antioch † AD 108 Epistle to the Antiochians 4
… The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made.” And concerning the incarnation: “The Word,” says [the Scripture], “became flesh, and dwelt among us.” And again: “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.”
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 2
… She shall bear a son, and thou shalt [5] call his name Jesus, and he shall save his people from their sins. And all this was that the saying from the Lord by the prophet might be fulfilled:
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 3.11.8
… For now was made ready the fatted calf, about to be immolated for the finding again of the younger son. Matthew, again, relates His generation as a man, saying, “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham;”
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 3.16.2
… “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.”
Tertullian † AD 220 On the Flesh of Christ 22
… There is, first of all, Matthew, that most faithful chronicler of the Gospel, because the companion of the Lord; for no other reason in the world than to show us clearly the fleshly original of Christ, he thus begins his Gospel : “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 1.6
… For Matthew, writing for the Hebrews who looked for Him who was to come of the line of Abraham and of David, says:
St Dionysius of Alexandria † AD 265 Exegetical Fragments 1.1
In like manner also Matthew calls the Lord the son of David.
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 11.5
5. If then thou hear the Gospel saying, The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 7
… and further the promises about these things had come to both of them. And this is why Matthew in the first beginning of his Gospel mentions both of these first, and then brings forward in order the forefathers. For after saying, “the Book of the Generation of Jesus Christ” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 17.9
… His seed also will I set for ever and ever, and his throne as the days of heaven.” Which words, when rightly understood, are all understood to be about the Lord Jesus Christ, under the name of David, on account of the form of a servant, which the same Mediator assumed from the virgin of the seed of David.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 2.1
… This I do not believe; because Christ does not say that He was born of men, and the gospel, both in name and in fact, begins with Christ’s preaching. As for the genealogy, the author himself does not venture to call it the gospel. For what did he write? "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ the Son of David."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 23.1
… Of which of these do you ask whether I believe him to have been born of Mary? His answer was, The Son of God, of course. On what evidence, said I, oral or written, am I to believe this? He replied, On the authority of Matthew. What, said I, did Matthew write? He replied, "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham" (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 2.1
2. The evangelist Matthew has commenced his narrative in these terms: “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 2.3
5. Furthermore, as to those critics who find a difficulty in the circumstance that Matthew enumerates one series of ancestors, beginning with David and travelling downwards to Joseph,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 1.7
7. As then I had begun to say, thus do they cavil. “Matthew,” say they, “is an Evangelist, and you believe him?” Immediately that we acknowledge him to be an Evangelist, we necessarily believe him. Attend then to the generations of Christ, which Matthew has set down. “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the son of Abraham.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 33.5
5. What then, Brethren, is the meaning of “seventy times seven”? Hear, for it is a great mystery, a wonderful sacrament. When the Lord was baptized, the Evangelist St. Luke has in that place commemorated His generations in the regular order, series, and line in which they had come down to that generation in which Christ was born. Matthew begins at Abraham,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 110.2
… For if what the .Jews answered be asked of us, whether we confess or deny it; God forbid that we should deny it. If it be said to us, Is Christ the Son of David, or not? if we reply, No, we contradict the Gospel for the Gospel of St. Matthew thus beginneth, “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David.”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Seven Books of John Cassian on the Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius 7.15
How does he say that the Lord was “without genealogy,” when the Gospel of the Evangelist Matthew begins with the Saviour’s genealogy, saying: “The book of the generations of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham”?
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 2
Orth. —Hear then John saying “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made” and so on. Hear too Matthew, “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, Son of David,—Son of Abraham,”—and so on.
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 147
These are the lessons we have learnt from the divine Apostles; this is the teaching given us by John and Matthew, those mighty rivers of the gospel message. The latter says “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham;”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 152
… from the dead according to my gospel.” And to the Romans he writes “Concerning His son Jesus Christ…which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.” And again “Whose are the fathers and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came.” And the Evangelist writes “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham,”
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Letters 28
… And when Matthew speaks of “the Book of the Generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Letters 31
But it is of no avail to say that our Lord , the Son of the blessed Virgin Mary, was true and perfect man, if He is not believed to be Man of that stock which is attributed to Him in the Gospel. For Matthew says, “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Letters 139
… For in no way is He outside our true bodily nature, of Whom the Evangelist in beginning his story says, “the book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham
1:2
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 1.7
… and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; and Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; and Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; and Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; and Jesse begat David the king.”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 1
… It is enough to say “according to the Flesh” to declare the Godhead which is not expressed in terms. When speaking of a relationship of man in general I do not say the son of such an one “according to the flesh,” but simply “son,” so the divine Evangelist writing his genealogy says “Abraham begat Isaac”
1:3
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 3
3. “And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar.”
1:5
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 39.5
… Naomi, fleeing because of famine to the land of Moab, there lost her husband and her sons. Yet when she was thus deprived of her natural protectors, Ruth, a stranger, never left her side. And see what a great thing it is to comfort a lonely woman! Ruth, for her reward, is made an ancestress of Christ.
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 17.17
… But if she had preferred to speak the truth and to regard the safety of the citizens, there is no doubt that she and all her house would not have escaped the coming destruction, nor would it have been vouchsafed to her to be inserted in the progenitors of our Lord’s nativity,
1:6
Eusebius of Caesarea † AD 339 The Church History of Eusebius 1.7.9
9. Thus we shall find the two, Jacob and Eli, although belonging to different families, yet brethren by the same mother. Of these the one, Jacob, when his brother Eli had died childless, took the latter’s wife and begat by her a son Joseph, his own son by nature and in accordance with reason. Wherefore also it is written: ‘Jacob begat Joseph.’
St Jerome † AD 420 Against Jovinianus 1.23
… And much fruit truly did Samuel reap from his children! he himself pleased God, but begat such children as displeased the Lord. But if in support of second marriage, he urges the instance of Boaz and Ruth, let him know that in the Gospel (S.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 1.2
… That genealogy, too, he has brought to a point in Nathan the son of David, which person likewise was no king. It is not thus, however, with Matthew. For in tracing the lineage along through Solomon the king,
1:7
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 1.8
… and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.” Then in order to tell us how Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, he went on and said, “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise;”
1:12
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 3.21.9
9. But besides, if indeed He had been the son of Joseph, He could not, according to Jeremiah, be either king or heir. For Joseph is shown to be the son of Joachim and Jechoniah, as also Matthew sets forth in his pedigree.
1:16
Tertullian † AD 220 On the Flesh of Christ 20
… The angel’s expression, therefore, “in her,” has precisely the same meaning as the phrase “of her.” It is, however, a fortunate circumstance that Matthew also, when tracing down the Lord’s descent from Abraham to Mary, says, “Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Christ.”
Julius Africanus † AD 240 Julius Africanus 1.1
[Africanus on the Genealogy in the Holy Gospels .
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Marriage and Concupiscence 1.12
… Now, since she bore Him without his engendering, they could not surely have both been His parents, of that form of a servant, if they had not been conjugally united, though without carnal connection. Accordingly the genealogical series (although both parents of Christ are mentioned together in the succession)
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 48.2
… For that is our city, if we are members of the King, who is the head of the same city.…For there was a certain corner-stone contemptible, whereat the Jews stumbled, cut out of a certain mountain without hands, that is, coming of the kingdom of the Jews without hands, because human operation went not with Mary of whom was born Christ.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 79.2
… concerning whom even the Lord Himself saith, “I am not sent but to the sheep which have been lost of the house of Israel,” the same are they that out of them are the sons of promise; the same are counted for a seed; the same do belong to the inheritance of God. From hence are Joseph that just man, and the Virgin Mary who bore Christ:
1:17
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 4.15
… and that He it was who was in being before Abraham came to be. For, says Scripture, Jesus said to them, ‘Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am .’ And is it not absurd to say, as they do, that one who came of the seed of Abraham after two and forty generations
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 51.6
… “Flesh…with the blood thereof shall ye not eat. And surely your blood will I require at the hand of every man that sheddeth it; for in the image of God have I made man.” From Noah to Abraham ten generations passed away, and from Abraham’s time to David’s, fourteen more,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 4.4
… memorable and remarkable epochs or turning-points of time in the divine Scriptures, so that the first age is to be found from Adam until Noah, and the second thence onwards to Abraham, and then next, after the division of Matthew the evangelist, from Abraham to David, from David to the carrying away to Babylon, and from thence to the travail of the Virgin,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Catechising of the Uninstructed 22
… from which people also Christ the Saviour was decreed to come according to the flesh. For these turning-points of those two ages occupy an eminent place in the ancient books. On the other hand, those of the other three ages are also declared in the Gospel,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 2.4
… Thus the evangelist did indeed mark out fourteen generations in each of three several members, stating that from Abraham until David there were fourteen generations, and from David until the carrying away into Babylon other fourteen generations, and another fourteen from that period on to the nativity of Christ.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 9.6
… The first age is reckoned from Adam to Noah; the second, from Noah to Abraham; and, as Matthew the evangelist duly follows and distinguishes, the third, from Abraham to David; the fourth, from David to the carrying away into Babylon; the fifth, from the carrying away into Babylon to John the Baptist;
1:18
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 2
… She shall bear a son, and thou shalt [5] call his name Jesus, and he shall save his people from their sins. And all this was that the saying from the Lord by the prophet might be fulfilled:
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 3.16.2
… “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.” Then, that he might free our mind from suspicion regarding Joseph, he says: “But the birth of Christ
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 3.21.4
… To this effect they testify, [saying,] that before Joseph had come together with Mary, while she therefore remained in virginity, “she was found with child of the Holy Ghost;”
St Methodius † AD 311 The Banquet of the Ten Virgins; or Concerning Chastity 11.2
Thekla . 18. The parent of Thy life, that unspotted Grace
Eusebius of Caesarea † AD 339 The Church History of Eusebius 2.1.2
… This James was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph, and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ, because the Virgin, being betrothed to him, “was found with child by the Holy Ghost before they came together,”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Holy Spirit 2.5
41. So, then, we cannot doubt that the Spirit is Creator, Whom we know as the Author of the Lord’s Incarnation. For who can doubt when you find in the commencement of the Gospel that the generation of Jesus Christ was on this wise: “When Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of [ ex ] the Holy Spirit.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Holy Spirit 2.6
… and so too we read that Christ Himself created His own Body. For the Father created it, as it is written: “The Lord created Me,” and in another place, “God sent His Son, made of a woman, made under the law.” And the Spirit created the whole mystery, according to that which we read, for “Mary was found with child of the Holy Spirit.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Mysteries 9
… And again, it is not always the course of nature which brings about conception, for we confess that Christ the Lord was conceived of a Virgin, and reject the order of nature. For Mary conceived not of man, but was with child of the Holy Spirit, as Matthew says: “She was found with child of the Holy Spirit.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 3
Nay, be not troubled at the strangeness of the saying. For it is no statement of mine, but of our fathers, wonderful and illustrious men.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 4
… “Thou hast heard,” saith he, “of an husband, thou hast heard of a mother, thou hast heard a name assigned to the child, therefore hear the manner too of the birth.” “The birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 53
… For straightway when thou hast opened the Book thou shalt see the name of Christ there, and shalt hear one say, “The birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise. When His mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, she was found with Child of the Holy Ghost.” (
St Jerome † AD 420 The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary 1
1. The first of these occupies ch. 3–8. It turns upon the record in
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 2.5
… but also because it is most plainly and expressly said in the Gospel in answer to the Virgin Mary, when she asked of the angel, “How shall this be?” “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee.” And Matthew says, “She was found with child of the Holy Ghost.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 2.5
14. After the enumeration of the generations, Matthew proceeds thus: Now the birth of Christ was on this wise. Whereas His mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Counter-statements of Theodoret 1
… therefore also that holy thing that shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” And to Joseph he said, “Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” And the Evangelist says, “When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph…she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.”
1:19
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 2
[1] [Arabic, p. 7] Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah was on this wise: In the time when his mother was given in marriage to Joseph, before they came together, [2] she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 4
7. “And Joseph her husband, being,” saith he “a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 2.5
… Then Joseph, being raised from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife; and knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son; and he called His name Jesus. Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judæa, in the days of Herod the king, and so forth.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 1.9
… Then Joseph her husband being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 1.30
… Why do not the generations ascend and descend through me?” Shall we say to him, “Because thou didst not beget Him by the operation of thy flesh?” Surely he will answer, “And is it by the operation of the flesh that the Virgin bare Him? What the Holy Spirit wrought, He wrought for both.” “Being a just man,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 32.10
… because he perceived that she was with child, and he knew that he had not come in unto her. There remained then an unavoidable suspicion of adultery, and yet because he only had perceived, he only knew it, what does the Gospel say of him? “Then Joseph being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example.”
1:20
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 2
[1] [Arabic, p. 7] Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah was on this wise: In the time when his mother was given in marriage to Joseph, before they came together, [2] she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. And Joseph her husband was a just man and did not wish to expose her, and he purposed to put her away secretly. [3]
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 3.9.2
2. Then again Matthew, when speaking of the angel, says, “The angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in sleep.”
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 4.23
… “Fear not to take to thee Mary thy wife; for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. For she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His name Jesus; for He shall save His people from their sins.”
Tertullian † AD 220 On the Flesh of Christ 20
… You say that He was born through a virgin, not of a virgin, and in a womb, not of a womb, because the angel in the dream said to Joseph, “That which is born in her” (not of her) “is of the Holy Ghost.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus i.66
… And in like manner it was necessary that He should be taken away by His parents, acting under the instructions of an angel from heaven, who communicated to them the divine will, saying on the first occasion, “Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife; for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost;”
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews 2.8
… “Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife. For that which shall be born to her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His name Jesus; for He shall save His people from their sins.”
St Gregory Thaumaturgus † AD 270 Twelve Topics on the Faith 4
… therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of the Highest.” And to Joseph he says, “Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and they shall call His name Jesus: for He shall save His people from their sins.”
St Basil the Great † AD 379 De Spiritu Sancto 5
… “He that soweth to the spirit,” it is said, “shall of the spirit reap life everlasting.” John too writes, “Hereby we know that he abideth in us by ( ἐκ ) the spirit which he hath given us.” “That which is conceived in her,” says the angel, “is of the Holy Ghost,”
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 10.12
… But He was openly called Jesus not by men, but by an Angel, who came not by his own authority, but was sent by the power of God, and said to Joseph, Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife; for that which is con ceivedin her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a Son, and thou shalt call His name Jesus
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 4.1
… It was so made, then, and there is none who denies it. How then was it that “God was manifested in the flesh ”? “By birth,” of course you will say. But what sort of birth do you speak of? Surely it is clear that you speak of that from the virginity, and that “that which was conceived in her was of the Holy Ghost
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Holy Spirit 2.5
… since the Lord Himself, Whom the Angels serve, was begotten by the Holy Spirit coming upon the Virgin, as, according to Matthew, the Angel said to Joseph: “Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take Mary thy wife, for that which shall be born of her is of the Holy Spirit.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Holy Spirit 2.9
95. In like manner that you may recognize the Unity, it is also said of the Spirit: “For he that soweth in the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap eternal life.” And John says: “Hereby we know that He is in us because He hath given us of His Spirit.” And the Angel says: “That Which shall be born of her is of the Holy Spirit.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 4
10. The angel then comes, when Joseph is troubled. For in addition to the causes mentioned, with a view also to the manifestation of his self-command, he defers his coming. But when the thing was on the point of taking place, then at last he presents himself. “While he thought on these things, an angel appeareth to Joseph in a dream.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 2
Everywhere it is Angels as at the Nativity, “for that which is conceived in her,” saith one, “is by the Holy Ghost” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 34
… to this end the Holy Ghost reveals it to him. Thus also it was then with Peter, “Arise, go down.” ( ch. x. 20 .) For of course the Holy Spirit did not work what was otherwise easy: but (here) even a dream sufficed him. And to Joseph also, as being readily moved to compliance, the appearance is in a dream, but to the rest in waking vision. (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 5
… i. 1 , &c.); and in another place, “For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things.” ( Rom. xi. 26 .) Neither is the expression “from whom,” assigned to the Son only, but also to the Spirit; for the angel said to Joseph, “Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 15
“That is, not of this creation.” See how [it was] “greater.” For it would not have been “of the Spirit” (
St Jerome † AD 420 The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary 4
… The Evangelists call Joseph father: Mary confesses he was father. Not (as I said before) that Joseph was really the father of the Saviour: but that, to preserve the reputation of Mary, he was regarded by all as his father, although, before he heard the admonition of the angel,
St Jerome † AD 420 The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary 8
8. In short, what I want to know is why Joseph refrained until the day of her delivery? Helvidius will of course reply, because he heard the angel say,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 158.9
9. These dreams suggest another question. I do not at this moment concern myself about the mere creations of fancy, which are formed by the emotions of the uneducated. I speak of visitations in sleep, such as the apparition to Joseph
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Enchiridion 37
… therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” And when Joseph was minded to put her away, suspecting her of adultery, as he knew she was not with child by himself, he was told by the angel, “Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife; for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost:”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Enchiridion 59
… or appear to men in sleep, and make communications through dreams, as we read in the Gospel, “Behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying”?
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Marriage and Concupiscence 1.12
… Nay, it will be only a firmer one, whereby they have exchanged pledges together, which will have to be kept by an especial endearment and concord,—not by the voluptuous links of bodies, but by the voluntary affections of souls. For it was not deceitfully that the angel said to Joseph: “Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 1.10
10. For the Evangelist goes on to say, “While he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in sleep, saying, Joseph, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife; for That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 1.16
… “It ought not to be,” they say, “through Joseph.” And why not? Was not Joseph the husband of Mary? “No,” they say. Who says so? For the Scripture saith by the authority of the Angel that he was her husband. “Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 1.30
… for That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a Son, and thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 32.10
… “Then Joseph being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example.” The husband’s grief sought no revenge; he wished to profit, not to punish the sinner. “And not willing to make her a public example, he was minded to put her away privily.” But while he thought on these things, “behold, the Angel of the Lord appeared unto him,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 58.4
… For not only out of bowels a man is born, but also in bowels. First he is born in bowels, in order that he may be able to be born of bowels. Wherefore it hath been said even to Mary, “For that which is born in thee, is of the Holy Spirit.”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Seven Books of John Cassian on the Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius 6.16
… You say “a mere man,” according to that which He Himself said: “That which is born of the flesh, is flesh.” But He cannot be called a mere man who was begotten not after the law of human creation alone. “For that which is conceived in her,” said the angel, “is of the Holy Ghost.”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Seven Books of John Cassian on the Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius 7.17
You say then in another discussion, nay rather in another blasphemy of yours, “and He separated the Spirit from the Divine nature Who created His humanity. For Scripture says that that which was born of Mary is of the Holy Ghost.
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Counter-statements of Theodoret 1
… therefore also that holy thing that shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” And to Joseph he said, “Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 1
… for that which is generated in her is of the Holy Ghost.”
1:21
St Justin Martyr † AD 165 The First Apology 33
… And the angel of God who was sent to the same virgin at that time brought her good news, saying, “Behold, thou shalt conceive of the Holy Ghost, and shalt bear a Son, and He shall be called the Son of the Highest, and thou shalt call His name Jesus; for He shall save His people from their sins,”
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 2
… And Joseph her husband was a just man and did not wish to expose her, and he purposed to put her away secretly. [3] But when he thought of this, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, and said unto him, Joseph, son of David, fear not to take Mary thy wife, for that [4] which is begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit.
Tertullian † AD 220 The Five Books Against Marcion 4.7
… For he remembered how that the prophet had prophesied of “the Holy One” of God, and how that God’s name of “Jesus” was in the son of Nun. These facts he had also received from the angel, according to our Gospel: “Wherefore that which shall be born of thee shall be called the Holy One , the Son of God;” and, “Thou shalt call his name Jesus .”
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 11.17
… When he speaks of Him as Jesus Christ, he mentions His God: when his theme is the glory of Christ, he calls God His Father. To Christ, as having glory, God is Father: to Christ, as being Jesus, God is God. For the angel, when speaking of Christ the Lord, Who should be born of Mary, calls Him by the name ‘Jesus
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 4
Or rather, not by things past only, but like wise by things to come, he wins him over. “And she shall bring forth,” saith he, “a Son, and thou shalt call His name Jesus .”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 7
… But not even so have they given heed, although the advantage passes on to themselves. Yea, and because of this the prophets at the beginning discourse nowhere so much of His dignity, as touching the benefit which accrued to them by Him. For so, when the Virgin was bearing the child, he saith, “Thou shalt call His name Jesus;”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 1
But the Name of the Son, as well as that of the Father, had been sufficient to declare to them these blessings. This will appear, if we consider the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ with attention; for it is said, “thou shalt call His Name Jesus; for it is He that shall save His people from their sins;” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Ephesians 7
… What then? Did not even Archangels know it? No, nor even they. But whence were they going to know it? Who was to reveal it? When we were taught it, then were they also by us. For hear what the Angel saith to Joseph; “Thou shalt call His Name Jesus, for it is He that shall save His people from their sins.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Colossians 1
A little above he said, “our Lord.” “He,” saith he, “is Lord, not the servants.” “Of Jesus Christ.” These names also are symbols of His benefit to us, for “He,” it means, “shall save His people from their sins.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 5
Why said he not, of the world, instead of “the people”? for He bare away the sins of all. Because thus far his discourse was concerning them [the Hebrews]. Since the Angel also said to Joseph, “Thou shalt call His name Jesus , for He shall save His people.” (
Rufinus of Aquileia † AD 411 A Commentary on the Apostles' Creed 10
10. Starting from this point you may understand the majesty of the Holy Ghost also. For the Gospel witnesses of Him that when the angel said to the Virgin, “Thou shalt bring forth a Son and shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 17.18
… For the God of salvation is the Lord Jesus, which is interpreted Saviour, or Healing One. For this reason this name was given, when it was said before He was born of the virgin: “Thou shall bring forth a Son, and shalt call His name Jesus; for He shall save His people from their sins.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants 2.48
He is therefore the Saviour at once of infants and of adults, of whom the angel said, “There is born unto you this day a Saviour;” and concerning whom it was declared to the Virgin Mary,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants 3.8
… “Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God?” Is this, again, ambiguous: “Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Nature and Grace 22
Now, do you not perceive the tendency and direction of this controversy? Even to render of none effect the Scripture where it is said “Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Nature and Grace 23
But observe how, by specious arguments, he continues to oppose the truth of Holy Scripture. The Lord Jesus, who is called Jesus because He saves His people from their sins,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Marriage and Concupiscence 2.60
… and as he confesses that all things were made by Him, in that He is God the Word, so let him acknowledge that infants, too, are saved by Him in that He is Jesus; let him, I say, do this if he would be a catholic Christian. For thus it is written in the Gospel: “And they shall call His name Jesus; for He shall save His people from their sins”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 1.10
… for That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a Son, and thou shalt call His name Jesus.” Why Jesus? “for He shall save His people from their sins.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 1.16
… “No,” they say. Who says so? For the Scripture saith by the authority of the Angel that he was her husband. “Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” Again, he was commanded to name the Child, though He was not born of his seed; “She shall bring forth a Son, and thou shalt call His name Jesus.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 85.6
… When He calls thee, He converts thee: when He converts thee, He healeth thee: when He hath healed thee, thou shalt see thy Converter, unto whom it is said, “Show us Thy mercy, O Lord, and grant us Thy salvation” ( ver. 7 ): Thy salvation, that is, Thy Christ.
John Cassian † AD 435 The Seven Books of John Cassian on the Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius 4.12
… for surely the Saviour is the same as Christ, as the angel says: “For to you is born this day a Saviour who is Christ the Lord.” For everybody knows that in Hebrew “Jesus” means “Saviour,” as the angel announced to the holy Virgin Mary, saying: “And thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He it is that shall save His people from their sins.”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 2
Orth. —By neither name alone, but by both. For the Divine Man after being made man was named Jesus Christ. “For,” it is written, “Thou shalt call His name Jesus for he shall save His people from their sins,”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 131
… And, again, Gabriel says to the blessed Virgin, “Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son and shalt call His name Jesus” “for He shall save His people from their sins.”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 147
… For the same before the ages was only begotten Son and God the Word, and after the resurrection He was called Jesus and Christ, receiving the names from the facts. Jesus means Saviour; “Thou shalt call His name Jesus for He shall save His people from their sins.”
St John of Damascus † AD 749 An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 3.2
… And bearing glad tidings to her, he said, Hail thou highly favoured one, the Lord is with thee . And she was troubled at his word, and the angel said to her, Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found favour with God, and shalt bring forth a Son and shalt call His name Jesus ; for He shall save His people from their sins
1:22
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 2
… [3] But when he thought of this, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, and said unto him, Joseph, son of David, fear not to take Mary thy wife, for that [4] which is begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit. She shall bear a son, and thou shalt [5] call his name Jesus, and he shall save his people from their sins.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 16
And how, one may ask, did He not destroy it? in what way did He rather fulfill either the law or the prophets? The prophets He fulfilled, inasmuch as He confirmed by His actions all that had been said concerning Him; wherefore also the evangelist used to say in each case, “That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet.” Both when He was born,
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 13
… The other Evangelists make mention of the older prophets, and at each successive thing that took place respecting Him refer the hearer to them. Thus when the Child is born, they say, “Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esias the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with Child, and shall bring forth a Son” (
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 57.8
8. Let us pass on to other passages, for the brief limits of a letter do not suffer us to dwell too long on any one point. The same Matthew says:—“Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet saying, Behold a virgin shall be with child and shall bring forth a son and they shall call his name Emmanuel.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 137.16
16. Accordingly Christ comes: in His birth, life, words, deeds, sufferings, death, resurrection, ascension, all which the prophets had foretold is fulfilled.
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Sermons 23
… For her virginity was violated neither at the conception nor at the birth: “that it might be fulfilled,” as the Evangelist says, “which was spoken by the Lord through Isaiah the prophet, saying, behold the virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which is interpreted, God with us
1:23
St Ignatius of Antioch † AD 108 Epistle to the Ephesians: Shorter and Longer Versions 18
… For says [the Scripture], “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and He shall be called Immanuel.”
St Ignatius of Antioch † AD 108 Epistle to the Antiochians 3
… “A Son,” they say, has been given to us, on whose shoulder the government is from above; and His name is called the Angel of great counsel, Wonderful, Counsellor, the strong and mighty God.” And concerning His incarnation, “Behold, a virgin shall be with Child, and shall bring forth a Son; and they shall call his name Immanuel.”
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 2
[6] Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 3.9.2
… “That it may be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, Out of Egypt have I called my son.” “Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us.”
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 3.21.4
… therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God;” and that the angel said to Joseph in a dream, “Now this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, Behold, a virgin shall be with child.”
Tertullian † AD 220 An Answer to the Jews 9
… as Isaiah ( e.g. ,) foretells, “Hear ye, house of David; no petty contest have ye with men, since God is proposing a struggle. Therefore God Himself will give you a sign; Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and ye shall call his name Emmanuel” (which is, interpreted, “God with us”
Tertullian † AD 220 On the Flesh of Christ 17
… He who was going to consecrate a new order of birth, must Himself be born after a novel fashion, concerning which Isaiah foretold how that the Lord Himself would give the sign. What, then, is the sign? “Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son.” Accordingly, a virgin did conceive and bear “Emmanuel, God with us.”
Tertullian † AD 220 Against Praxeas 27
… For it was certainly of the Holy Spirit that the virgin conceived; and that which He conceived, she brought forth. That, therefore, had to be born which was conceived and was to be brought forth; that is to say, the Spirit, whose “name should be called Emmanuel which, being interpreted, is, God with us.”
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews 2.7
… But if I do not the works of my Father, believe me not; but if I do, and ye will not believe me, believe the works, and know that the Father is in me, and I in Him.” Also in the Gospel according to Matthew: “And ye shall call His name Emmanuel, which is, being interpreted, God with us.”
Novatian † AD 258 A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity 24
… by which they strive to exclude, “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” “And ye shall call His name Emmanuel; which is, interpreted, God with us.”
Eusebius of Caesarea † AD 339 The Church History of Eusebius 5.8.10
“God in truth became man, and the Lord himself saved us, giving the sign of the virgin; but not as some say, who now venture to translate the Scripture, ‘Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bring forth a son,’
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 10.7
… For when God was born to be man the purpose was not that the Godhead should be lost, but that, the Godhead remaining, man should be born to be God. Thus Emmanuel is His name, which is God with us
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 On the Incarnation of the Word 32
… 3. For Jews in their incredulity may be refuted from the Scriptures, which even themselves read; for this text and that, and, in a word, the whole inspired Scripture, cries aloud concerning these things, as even its express words abundantly shew. For prophets proclaimed beforehand concerning the wonder of the Virgin and the birth from her, saying: “Lo, the
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 1.13
… and the Galatians were after the time, in making much of circumcision now. And to miss the person was the lot of the Jews, and is still, who think that of one of themselves is said, ‘Behold, the Virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and they shall call his Name Emmanuel, which is being interpreted, God with us
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 3.26
… ‘Let there be a firmament,’ and ‘Let us make man ;’ but in fulness of the ages, He sent Him into the world, not that He might judge the world, but that the world by Him might be saved, and how it is written ‘Behold, the Virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a Son, and they shall call his Name Emmanuel, which, being interpreted, is God with us
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 59
10. For this reason they also will henceforth keep silence, who once said that He who proceeded from Mary is not very Christ, or Lord, or God. For if He were not God in the Body, how came He, upon proceeding from Mary, straightway to be called ‘Emmanuel, which is being interpreted God with us
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 60
… But our faith is right, and starts from the teaching of the Apostles and tradition of the fathers, being confirmed both by the New Testament and the Old. For the Prophets say: ‘Send out Thy Word and Thy Truth ,’ and ‘Behold the Virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which is being interpreted God with us
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 11.14
… but the Father, being Eternal, eternally and ineffably begat One Only Son, who has no brother. Nor are there two first principles; but the Father is the head of the Son ; the beginning is One. For the Father begot the Son Very God , called Emmanuel; and Emmanuel being interpreted is, God with us
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 5
And the angel proceeds to refer Joseph to Isaiah; in order that even if he should, when awakened, forget his own words, as newly spoken, he might by being reminded of those of the prophet, with which he had been nourished up continually, retain likewise the substance of what he had said.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 18.46
… For so had the prophet foretold: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and bring forth a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel, which, being interpreted, is, God with us.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Concerning Faith of Things Not Seen 5
… and do ye still fear to believe in Him, in Whom ye ought rather to have feared not to believe? What? doubt ye, or refuse ye to believe, the travail of a Virgin, whereas ye ought rather to believe that it was fitting that so God should be born Man. For this also receive ye to have been foretold by the Prophet;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin 2.29
… Whence the apostle also says: “We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believe, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak.” Out of very faith was it said, “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel,” “which is, being interpreted, God with us.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 2.5
… and His name shall be called Emmanuel, which, being interpreted, is, God with us. Then Joseph, being raised from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife; and knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son;
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Counter-statements of Theodoret 1
… Moreover if He that was fashioned in the Virgin’s womb was not man but God the Word Who is before the ages, then God the Word is a creature of the Holy Ghost. For that which was conceived in her, says Gabriel, is of the Holy Ghost.
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 3
Orth. —The term Christ in the case of our Lord and Saviour signifies the incarnate Word the Immanuel, God with us,
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 152
… They shall make supplication unto thee saying, surely God is in thee and there is none else, there is no God. Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour.” The name Emmanuel, however, indicates both God and man, for it is interpreted in the Gospel to mean “God with us,”
1:24
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 2
[7] which is, being interpreted, With us is our God.
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 12.31
31. Let us remember these things, brethren: let us use these weapons in our defence. Let us not endure those heretics who teach Christ’s coming as a phantom. Let us abhor those also who say that the Saviour’s birth was of husband and wife; who have dared to say that He was the child of Joseph and Mary, because it is written, And he took unto him his wife
St Jerome † AD 420 The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary 3
… And the Evangelist would not have said before they came together if they were not to come together, for no one would use the phrase before he dined of a man who was not going to dine. Then, again, the angel calls her wife and speaks of her as united to Joseph. We are next invited to listen to the declaration of Scripture:
1:25
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 2
[7] which is, being interpreted, With us is our God. And when Joseph arose from his [8] sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took his wife;
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 2.21
… For therefore the union was of this kind, that He might unite what is man by nature to Him who is in the nature of the Godhead, and his salvation and deification might be sure. Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to His Essence, deny also that He took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 7.9
… For like as Mary was called the mother of John, because of her parental affection, not from having given him birth, so Joseph also was called the father of Christ, not from having begotten Him (for he knew her not , as the Gospel says, until she had brought forth her first-born Son
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 29.3
… If they had so much regard for the authority of the evangelist as to oblige them to admit that Christ suffered, at least in appearance, it is the same authority which testifies to His birth. Two evangelists, indeed, give the story of the birth;
St John of Damascus † AD 749 An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4.14
The ever-virgin One thus remains even after the birth still virgin, having never at any time up till death consorted with a man. For although it is written, And knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born Son
1:1
St Jerome † AD 420 Prolog. in Comm. in Matt.
‘The face of a man’ (in Ezekiel’s vision [Ez. 1:5]) signifies Matthew, who accordingly opens his Gospel with the human genealogy of Christ.
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
By this exordium he shews that it is the birth of Christ according to the flesh that he has undertaken to narrate.
Pseudo-Chrysostom Homil. in Matt. Hom. i.
Matthew wrote for the Jews, and in Hebrewa; to them it was unnecessary to explain the divinity which they recognized; but necessary to unfold the mystery of the Incarnation. John wrote in Greek for the Gentiles who knew nothing of a Son of God. They required therefore to be told first, that the Son of God was God, then that this Deity was incarnate.
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
Though the genealogy occupies only a small part of the volume, he yet begins thus, The book of the generation. For it is the manner of the Hebrews to name their books from that with which they open; as Genesis.
The Gloss Ordinaria.
The full expression would be This is the book of the generation; but this is a usual ellipse; e. g. The vision of Isaiah, for, ‘This is the vision.’ Generation, he says in the singular number, though there be many here given in succession, as it is for the sake of the one generation of Christ that the rest are here introduced.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. in Matt. Hom. ii.
Or he therefore entitles it, The book of the generation, because this is the sum of the whole dispensation, the root of all its blessings; viz. that God became man; for this once effected, all other things followed of course.
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
He says, The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, because he knew it was written, ‘The book of the generation of Adam.’ He begins thus then, that he may oppose book to book, the new Adam to the old Adam, for by the one were all things restored which had been corrupted by the other.
St Jerome † AD 420 Comm. in Matt. ch. 1.
We read in Isaiah, Who shall declare His generation? (Is. 53:8.) But it does not follow that the Evangelist contradicts the Prophet, or undertakes what he declares impossible; for Isaiah is speaking of the generation of the Divine nature; St. Matthew of the incarnation of the human.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
And do not consider this genealogy a small thing to hear: for truly it is a marvellous thing that God should descend to be born of a woman, and to have as His ancestors David and Abraham.
Remigius † AD 908
Though any affirm that the prophet (Isaiah) does speak of His human generation, we need not answer to his enquiry, Who shall declare it? “No man;” but, “Very few;” because Matthew and Luke have.
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
By saying, of Jesus Christ, he expresses both the kingly and priestly office to be in Him, for Jesus, who first bore this name, was after Moses, the first who was leader of the children of Israel; and Aaron, anointed by the mystical ointment, was the first priest under the Law.
St Hilary † AD 367 Quæst. Nov. et Vet. Test. q. 49.
What God conferred on those, who, by the anointing of oil were consecrated as kings or priests, this the Holy Spirit conferred on the Man Christ; adding moreover a purification. The Holy Spirit cleansed that which taken of the Virgin Mary was exalted into the Body of the Saviour, and this is that anointing of the Body of the Saviour’s flesh whence He was called Christb. Because the impious craft of the Jews denied that Jesus was born of the seed of David, he adds, The son of David, the son of Abraham.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
But why would it not have been enough to name one of them, David alone, or Abraham alone? Because the promise had been made to both of Christ to be born of their seed. To Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth he blessed. (Gen. 22:18.) To David, Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy seat. (Ps. 132:11.) He therefore calls Christ the Son of both, to shew that in Him was fulfilled the promise to both. Also because Christ was to have three dignities; King, Prophet, Priest; but Abraham was prophet and priest; priest, as God says to him in Genesis, Take an heifer; (Gen. 15:9.) Prophet, as the Lord said to Abimelech concerning him, He is a prophet, and shall pray for thee. (Gen. 20:7.) David was king and prophet, but not priest. Thus He is expressly called the son of both, that the threefold dignity of His forefathers might be recognized by hereditary right in Christ.
St Ambrose † AD 397 in Luc. c. iii.
He therefore names specially two authors of His birth—one who received the promise concerning the kindreds of the people, the other who obtained the oracle concerning the generation of Christ; and though he is later in order of succession is yet first named, inasmuch as it is greater to have received the promise concerning Christ than concerning the Church, which is through Christ; for greater is He who saves than that which is saved.
St Jerome † AD 420
The order of the names is inverted, but of necessity; for had he written Abraham first, and David afterwards, he would have to repeat Abraham again to preserve the series of the genealogy.
Pseudo-Chrysostom
Another reason is that royal dignity is above natural, though Abraham was first in time, yet David in honour.
The Gloss
But since from this title it appears that the whole book is concerning Jesus Christ, it is necessary first to know what we must think concerning Him; for so shall be better explained what this book relates of Him.
St Augustine † AD 430 de Hær. 8, et 10.
Cerinthus then and Ebion made Jesus Christ only man; Paul of Samosata, following them, asserted Christ not to have had an existence from eternity, but to have begun to be from His birth of the Virgin Mary; he also thought Him nothing more than man. This heresy was afterwards confirmed by Photinus.
Pseudo-Athanasius Vigil. Tapsens. [Athan. Ed. Ben. vol. ii. p. 646.]
The Apostle John, seeing long before by the Holy Spirit this man’s madness, rouses him from his deep sleep of error by the preaching of his voice, saying, In the beginning was the Word. (John 1:1.) He therefore, who in the beginning was with God, could not in this last time take the beginning of His being from man. He says further, (let Photinus hear his words,) Father, glorify Me with that glory which I had with Thee before the world was. (John 17:5.)
St Augustine † AD 430 de Hæres. 19.
The error of Nestorius was, that he taught that a man only was born of the Blessed Virgin Mary, whom the Word of God received not into Unity of person and inseparable fellowship; a doctrine which Catholic ears could not endure.
St Cyril of Alexandria † AD 444 Ep. i. ad Monachos Egypti.
Saith the Apostle of the Only-begotten, Who being in the form of God, thought it no robbery to be equal with God (Phil. 2:6). Who then is this who is in the form of God? or how emptied He Himself, and humbled Himself to the likeness of man? If the above-mentioned heretics dividing Christ into two parts, i. e. the Man and the Word, affirm that it was the Man that was emptied of glory, they must first shew what form and equality with the Father are understood to be, and did exist, which might suffer any manner of emptying. But there is no creature, in its own proper nature, equal with the Father; how then can any creature be said to be emptied? or from what eminence to descend to become man? Or how can he be understood to have taken upon Him, as though He had not at first, the form of a servant? But, they say, the Word being equal with the Father dwelt in Man born of a woman, and this is the emptying. I hear the Son truly saying to the Holy Apostles, If any man love Me, he will keep My saying; and My Father will lore him, and We will come unto him, and make Our abode with him. (John 14:23.) Hear how He saith that He and the Father will dwell in them that love Him. Do you then suppose that we shall grant that He is there emptied of His glory, and has taken upon Him the form of a servant, when He makes His abode in the hearts of them that love Him? Or the Holy Spirit, does He fulfil an assumption of human flesh, when He dwells in our hearts?
St Isidore of Pelusium † AD 450 Epist. lib. iv. 166.
But not to mention all arguments, let us bring forward that one to which all arguments point, that, for one who was God to assume a lowly guise both has an obvious use, and is an adaptation and in nothing contradicts the course of nature. But for one who is man to speak things divine and supernatural is the highest presumption; for though a king may humble himself a common soldier may not take on him the state of an emperor. So, if He were God made man, all lowly things have place; but if mere man, high things have none.
St Augustine † AD 430 de Hæres. 41.
Sabellius they say was a disciple of Noetus, who taught that the same Christ was one and the same Father and Holy Spirit.
Pseudo-Athanasius Vigil. Tapsens. [ibid. p. 644.]
The audaciousness of this most insane error I will curb by the authority of the heavenly testimonies, and demonstrate the distinct personality of the proper substance, of the Son. I shall not produce things which are liable to be, explained away as agreeable to the assumption of human; nature; but shall offer such passages as all will allow to be decisive in proof of His divine nature. In Genesis we find God saying, Let Us make man in Our own Image. By this plural number shewing, that there was some other person to whom He spoke. Had He been one, He would have been said to have made Him in His own Image, but there is another; and He is said to have made man in the Image of that other.
The Gloss non occ.
Others denied the reality of Christ’s human nature. Valentinus said, that Christ sent from the Father, carried about a spiritual or celestial body, and took nothing of the Virgin, but passed through her as through a channel, taking nothing of her flesh. But we do not therefore believe Him to have been born of the Virgin, because by no other means He could have truly lived in the flesh, and appeared among men; but because it is so written in the Scripture, which if we believe not we cannot either be Christians, or be saved. But even a body taken of spiritual, or ethereal, or clayey substance, had He willed to change into the true and very quality of human flesh, who will deny His power to do this? The Manichæans said that the Lord Jesus Christ was a phantasm, and could not be born of the womb of a woman. But if the body of Christ was a phantasm, He was a deceiver, and if a deceiver, then He was not the truth. But Christ is the Truth; therefore His Body was not a phantasm.
The Gloss non occ.
And as the opening both of this Gospel, and of that according to Luke, manifestly proves Christ’s birth of a woman, and hence His real humanity, they reject the beginning of both these Gospels.
St Augustine † AD 430 cont. Faust. ii. 1.
Faustus affirms, that “the Gospel both begins, and begins to be so called, from the preaching of Christc, in which He no where affirms Himself to have been born of men. Nay, so far is this genealogy from being part of the Gospel, that the writer does not venture so to entitle it; beginning, ‘The book of the generation,’ not ‘The book of the Gospel.’ Mark again, who cared not to write of the generation, but only of the preaching of the Son of God, which is properly The Gospel, begins thus accordingly, The Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God. Thus then, all that we read in Matthew before the words, Jesus began to preach the Gospel of the kingdom, (Matt. 4:17.) is a part of the genealogy, not of the Gospel. I therefore betook myself to Mark and John, with whose prefaces I had good reason to be satisfied, as they introduce neither David, nor Mary, nor Joseph.” To which Augustine replies, What will he say then to the Apostle’s words, Remember the resurrection of Jesus Christ of the seed of David according to my Gospel. (2 Tim. 2:8.) But the Gospel of the Apostle Paul was likewise that of the other Apostles, and of all the faithful, as he says, Whether I, or they, thus have we preached the Gospel.
St Augustine † AD 430 de Hær. 49.
The Arians will not have the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, to be of one and the same substance, nature, and existence; but that the Son is a creature of the Father, and the Holy Spirit a creature of a creature, i. e. created by the Son; further, they think that Christ took the flesh without a soul.
St Augustine † AD 430 de Trin. i. 6.
But John declares the Son to be not only God, but even of the same substance as the Father; for when he had said, The Word was God, he added, all things were made by Him; whence it is clear that He was not made by Whom all things were made; and if not made, then not created; and therefore of one substance with the Father, for all that is not of one substance with the Father is creature.
St Augustine † AD 430 cont. Fel. 13.
I know not what benefit the person of the Mediator has conferred upon us, if He redeemed not our better part, but took upon Him our flesh only, which without the soul cannot have consciousness of the benefit. But if Christ came to save that which had perished, the whole man had perished, and therefore needs a Saviour; Christ then in coming saves the whole man, taking on Him both soul and body.
St Augustine † AD 430 Lib. 83. Quæst. q. 80.
How too do they answer innumerable objections from the Gospel Scriptures, in which the Lord speaks so many things manifestly contrary to them? as is that, My soul is sorrowful even unto death, (Matt. 26:38.) and, I have power to lay down My life; (John 10:18.) and many more things of the like kind. Should they say that He spoke thus in parables, we have at hand proofs from the Evangelists themselves, who in relating His actions, bear witness as to the reality of His body, so of His soul, by mention of passions which cannot be without a soul; as when they say, Jesus wondered, was angry, and others of like kind.
St Augustine † AD 430 de Hæres. 55.
The Apollinarians also as the Arians affirmed that Christ had taken the human flesh without the soul. But overthrown on this point by the weight of Scripture proof, they then said that that part which is the rational soul of man was wanting to the soul of Christ, and that its place was filled by the Word itself. But if it be so, then we must believe that the Word of God took on Him the nature of some brute with a human shape and appearance. But even concerning the nature of Christ’s body, there are some who have so far swerved from the right faith, as to say, that the flesh and the Word were of one and the same substance, most perversely insisting on that expression, The Word was made flesh; which they interpret that some portion of the Word was changed into flesh, not that He took to Him flesh of the flesh of the Virgind.
St Cyril of Alexandria † AD 444 Ep. ad Joan. Antioch. tom. 6. Ep. 107.
We account those persons mad who have suspected that so much as the shadow of change could take place in the nature of the Divine Word; it abides what it ever was, neither is nor can be changed.
St Leo the Great † AD 461 Epist. 59. ad Const. Id. Ep. 83. ad Palest.
We do not speak of Christ as man in such a sort as to allow that any thing was wanting to Him, which it is certain pertains to human nature, whether soul, or rational mind, or flesh, and flesh such as was taken of the Woman, not gained by a change or conversion of the Word into flesh. These three several errors, that thrice false heresy of the Apollinarists has brought forward. Eutyches also chose out this third dogma of Apollinaris, which denying the verity of the human body and soul, maintained that our Lord Jesus Christ was wholly and entirely of one nature, as though the Divine Word had changed itself into flesh and soul, and as though the conception, birth, growth, and such like, had been undergone by that Divine Essence, which was incapable of any such changes with the very and true flesh; for such as is the nature of the Only-begotten, such is the nature of the Father, and such is the nature of the Holy Ghost, both impassible and eternal. But if to avoid being driven to the conclusion that the Godhead could feel suffering and death, he departs from the corruption of Apollinaris, and should still dare to affirm the nature of the incarnate Word, that is of the Word and the flesh, to be the same, he clearly falls into the insane notions of Manichæus and Marcion, and believes that the Lord Jesus Christ did all His actions with a false appearance, that His body was not a human body, but a phantasm, which imposed on the eyes of the beholders.
St Leo the Great † AD 461 Ep. 35. ad Julian.
But what Eutyches ventured to pronounce as an episcopal decision, that in Christ before His incarnation were two natures, but after His incarnation only one, it behoved that he should have been urgently pressed to give the reason of this his belief. I suppose that in using such language he supposed the soul which the Saviour took, to have had its abode in heaven before it was born of the Virgin Marye. This Catholic hearts and ears endure not, for that the Lord when He came down from heaven shewed nothing of the condition of human nature, nor did He take on Him any soul that had existed before, nor any flesh that was not taken of the flesh of His mother. Thus what was justly condemned in Origenf, must needs be rebuked in Eutyches, to wit, that our souls before they were placed in our bodies had actions not only wonderful but various.
Remigius † AD 908
These heresies therefore the Apostles overthrow in the opening of their Gospels, as Matthew in relating how He derived His descent from the kings of the Jews proves Him to have been truly man and to have had true flesh. Likewise Luke, when he describes the priestly stock and person; Mark when he says, The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God; and John when lie says, In the beginning was the Word; both shew Him to have been before all ages God, with God the Father.
The Latin text
Hieronymus
Quia faciem hominis Matthaeus significat, quasi de homine exorsus est scribere, dicens liber generationis
Rabanus Maurus
Quo exordio satis ostendit generationem Christi secundum carnem suscepisse narrandam
Chrysostomus, super Matth
Iudaeis enim Evangelium scripsit, quibus superfluum erat exponere divinitatis naturam, quam cognoscebant; necessarium autem fuit eis mysterium incarnationis ostendere. Ioannes autem cum gentibus Evangelium scripsit, quae non cognoscebant si Deus filium habet; ideo necessarium fuit primum illis ostendere quia est filius Dei Deus, deinde quia carnem suscepit
Rabanus Maurus
Cum autem parvam libri particulam teneat generatio, dixit liber generationis. Consuetudo enim Haebraeorum est ut voluminibus ex eorum principiis imponant nomina, ut est Genesis
Glossa
Planior autem sensus esset: hic est liber generationis, sed hic est mos in multis, ut visio Isaiae, subaudis: haec est: generationis autem singulariter dicitur, quamvis multae per ordinem replicentur, quia propter Christi generationem ceterae hic indicuntur
Chrysostomus in Matth
Vel ideo librum hunc generationis nominat, quia haec est totius dispensationis summa, et radix bonorum omnium, Deum hominem factum esse: hoc enim facto alia secundum rationem sequebantur
Remigius
Dicit autem liber generationis Iesu Christi quia noverat scriptum esse: liber generationis Adae; et ideo sic exorsus est, ut opponeret librum libro. Adam novum Adae veteri, quia omnia per istum sunt restaurata quae per illum sunt corrupta
Hieronymus in Matth
In Isaia autem legimus: generationem eius quis enarrabit? Non ergo putemus Evangelistam prophetae esse contrarium, ut quod ille impossibile dixit esse effatu, hic narrare incipiat, quia ibi de generatione divinitatis, hic de incarnatione dictum est
Chrysostomus in Matth
Nec tamen parva aestimes te audire, hanc audiens generationem. Est enim valde auditu mirabile quod ineffabilis Deus ex muliere nasci dignatus est, et habere progenitores David et Abraham
Remigius
Si autem aliquis dixerit quia propheta de nativitate humanitatis dixit, non est respondendum ad interrogationem prophetae. Nullus generationem domini narravit, sed perrarus, quia Matthaeus et Lucas
Rabanus Maurus
In hoc autem quod dicit Iesu Christi, regalem et sacerdotalem in eo exprimit dignitatem; nam Iesus, qui nominis huius praesagium praetulit, primus post Moysen in populo Israel ducatum tenuit; Aaron vero mystico consecratus unguento, primus in lege sacerdos fuit
Augustinus de quaest. novi et veteris testamenti
Quod autem per olei unctionem praestabat Deus illis qui in reges vel sacerdotes ungebantur, hoc praestitit spiritus sanctus homini Christo, addita expiatione: spiritus enim sanctus purificavit quod de Maria virgine in corpus salvatoris profecit; et haec est unctio corporis salvatoris, quare Christus est appellatus
Chrysostomus super Matth
Quia vero impia prudentia Iudaeorum negabat Iesum de David semine esse natum, subdit filii David, filii Abraham. Quare autem non sufficiebat dicere illum filium Abrahae solius, aut David solius? Quia ad ambos de Christo nascituro ex eis promissio fuerat facta: ad Abraham quidem sic: et in semine tuo benedicentur omnes gentes terrae; ad David autem ita: de fructu ventris tui ponam super sedem tuam. Ideo ergo utriusque filium dixit, ut utriusque promissiones in Christo adimpletas ostenderet. Deinde, quia Christus tres dignitates fuerat habiturus: rex, propheta, sacerdos. Abraham propheta fuit et sacerdos, sicut Deus ad illum dicit in Genesi: accipe mihi vaccam triennem; propheta autem, sicut ait dominus ad Abimelech de illo: propheta est, et orabit pro te. David rex fuit et propheta; sacerdos autem non fuit. Ideo ergo amborum filius nominatus est, ut utriusque patris triplex dignitas originali iure recognosceretur in Christo
Ambrosius super Lucam
Ideo etiam duos generis auctores elegit: unum qui de cognatione populorum promissum accepit, alterum qui de generatione Christi oraculum consecutus est. Et ideo, licet sit ordine successionis posterior, prior tamen describitur quia plus est, promissum accepisse de Christo, quam de Ecclesia, quae est per Christum potior est enim qui salvat eo quod salvatur
Hieronymus in Matth
Ordo etiam praeposterus, sed necessario commutatus. Si enim primum posuisset Abraham, et postea David, rursus ei repetendus fuisset Abraham, ut generationis series texeretur
Chrysostomus super Matth
Altera autem ratio est, quia regni dignitas maior est quam naturae, nam etsi Abraham praecedat in tempore, David praecedebat in dignitate
Glossa
Quia vero ex hoc titulo apparet totum hunc librum conscribi de Iesu Christo, necessarium est praecognoscere quid sit sentiendum de ipso, sic enim melius exponi poterunt quae in hoc libro de eo dicuntur
Augustinus de quaest. Evang
Error autem haereticorum de Christo tribus generibus terminatur: aut de divinitate, aut de humanitate, aut de utroque falluntur
Augustinus de Haeres
Cerinthus ergo et Ebion Iesum Christum hominem tantum fuisse dixerunt, quos secutus Paulus Samosatenus, Christum non semper fuisse, sed eius initium, ex quo de Maria natus est, asseverat, nec enim aliquid amplius quam hominem putat; et haec haeresis postea a Photino confirmata est
Athanasius contra Haeret
Ioannes autem apostolus istius insaniam longe ante spiritu sancto conspiciens, eum alto imperitiae sopore demersum suae vocis praeconio excitat, dicens: in principio erat verbum. Ei ergo quod in principio erat apud Deum non relinquitur in novissimo tempore ut originis suae ab homine principium sumpserit. Item inquit: pater, clarifica me illa gloria quam habui apud te priusquam mundus fieret. Audiat Photinus eum gloriam ante principium possedisse
Augustinus de Haeres
Nestorii autem perversitas fuit ut hominem tantummodo ex beata Maria virgine genitum praedicaret, quem verbum Dei non in unitatem personae, et in societatem inseparabilem recepisset; quod Catholicorum aures nequaquam ferre potuerunt
Cyrillus Alex. ad monachos Aegypti
Ait enim apostolus de unigenito quod cum in forma Dei esset, non rapinam arbitratus est esse se aequalem Deo. Quis est ergo ille qui est in forma Dei? Aut quomodo exinanitus est, et descendit ad humilitatem secundum hominis formam? Et quidem si praedicti haeretici in duo dividentes Christum, idest in hominem et verbum, hominem dicunt sustinuisse exinanitionem, separantes ab eo Dei verbum, praeostendendum est quia in forma et in aequalitate intelligitur et fuit patris sui, ut exinanitionis sustineret modum. Sed nihil creaturarum est, si secundum propriam intelligatur naturam, in patris aequalitate quomodo ergo exinanitus dicitur, et ex qua eminentia ut esset homo descendit? Aut quomodo intelligitur assumpsisse tamquam non habens in principio servi formam? Sed aiunt quod verbum patri aequale existens habitavit in homine nato per mulierem: et haec exinanitio. Certe audio filium dicentem sanctis apostolis: si quis diligit me, verbum meum custodiet, et pater meus diliget eum, et ad eum veniemus, et mansionem apud eum faciemus. Audis quomodo in eis qui se diligunt, se et sibi cohabitare dixit Deum patrem? Putas ergo, ipsum exinanitum et vacuatum dabimus et servi formam accepisse, quia in diligentium se animabus facit mansionem? Quid autem spiritus habitans in nobis, putatis, et ipse humanationis dispensationem adimplet?
Abbas Isidorus ad Atribium presbyterum
Verum ne universa annumeremus, unum, ad quod universa intendunt, dicemus quia illum qui Deus erat, humilia loqui, et dispensativum simul et utile est, et nihil inviolabili naturae praeiudicat. Eum vero qui homo est, divina et supernaturalia quaedam loqui summae praesumptionis est malum; nam regi quidem licet etiam et humiliter agere, militi vero non licet imperiales voces emittere. Si igitur Deus erat humanatus, etiam humilia locum habent; si vero homo tantum erat, excelsa non habent locum
Augustinus de Haeres
Sabellium discipulum Noeti quidam perhibent, qui dicebat Christum eumdem et patrem et spiritum sanctum
Athanasius contra Haeret
huius autem insanissimi furoris audaciam caelestium testimoniorum auctoritate frenabo ad demonstrandum propriae substantiae filii personam, non illa quae homini suscepto congruere cavillatur, assumens, sed illa in medium proferens testimonia, quae sine ullo ancipitis intelligentiae scrupulo divinitati eius competere omnes pariter confitentur. In Genesi enim Deum dixisse legimus: faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram. Ecce pluraliter dicit faciamus, alium videlicet indicans ad quem loquentis factus est sermo. Si unus est, ad imaginem suam fecisse diceretur; nunc autem alius et alterius imaginem apertius fecisse describitur
Glossa
Alii vero veram Christi humanitatem negaverunt. Valentinus enim dixit Christum a patre missum spiritale vel caeleste corpus attulisse, nihilque assumpsisse de Maria virgine, sed per illam tamquam per rivum aut fistulam sine assumpta carne transisse. Nos autem non ideo credimus natum ex Maria virgine, quod aliter in vera carne existere atque hominibus apparere non posset, sed quia sic scriptum est in ea Scriptura, cui nisi crediderimus, nec Christiani nec salvi esse poterimus. Si autem de caelesti, vel aerea, vel humida creatura corpus assumptum vellet commutare in humanae carnis verissimam qualitatem, hoc eum potuisse facere quis negaret?
Augustinus de Haeres
Manichaei vero dixerunt, phantasma esse dominum Iesum Christum, nec femineo posse nasci ex utero
Augustinus, Lib. 83 quaest
Sed si phantasma fuit corpus Christi, fefellit Christus; et si fallit, veritas non est. Est autem veritas Christus; non ergo phantasma fuit corpus eius
Glossa
Et quia principium huius Evangelii, et etiam Evangelii secundum Lucam, manifeste ostendit Christum natum ex femina, ex quo apparet vera Christi humanitas, ergo utriusque Evangelii principia negant
Augustinus contra Faustum
Unde Faustus dicit: Evangelium quidem a praedicatione Christi et esse coepit et nominari, in quo ipse nusquam se natum ex hominibus dicit. At vero genealogia adeo non est Evangelium, ut nec eius scriptor ausus fuerit eam Evangelium nominare. Quid enim scribit? Liber generationis Iesu Christi filii David; non ergo liber Evangelii Iesu Christi, sed liber generationis. At vero Marcus, quia generationem scribere non curavit, sed tantum praedicationem filii Dei, quod est Evangelium, vide quam competenter sit exorsus: Evangelium, inquit, Iesu Christi filii Dei, ut hinc satis appareat genealogiam non esse Evangelium; namque et in ipso Matthaeo, post inclusum Ioannem in carcere, tunc legitur Iesum coepisse praedicare Evangelium regni. Ergo quicquid ante hoc narratur, genealogiam esse constat, non Evangelium. Ad Ioannem ergo et Marcum me contuli, quorum mihi principia non immerito placuerunt, quia nec David nec Mariam inducunt, nec Ioseph
Contra quem Augustinus
quid ergo respondebit apostolo dicenti: memor esto Iesum Christum resurrexisse a mortuis, ex semine David, secundum Evangelium meum? Quod autem erat apostoli Pauli Evangelium, hoc etiam ceterorum apostolorum et omnium fidelium; hoc enim alibi dicit: sive ego, sive illi Evangelium praedicaverunt
Augustinus de Haeres
Ariani autem patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum nolunt esse unius eiusdemque substantiae, naturae, aut existentiae; sed esse filium creaturam patris, spiritum vero sanctum creaturam creaturae, hoc est, ab ipso filio creatum volunt. Christum etiam sine anima carnem suscepisse arbitrantur
Augustinus de Trinit
Sed Ioannes in eo declarat filium non tantum Deum esse, sed etiam eiusdem cum patre substantiae, quia cum dixisset: et Deus erat verbum, addidit: omnia per ipsum facta sunt. Unde apparet ipsum factum non esse, per quem facta sunt omnia; et si factus non est, creatus non est; et sic eiusdem cum patre substantiae est; omnis enim substantia quae Deus non est, creatura est
Augustinus contra Felicianum
Nescio enim quid nobis mediatoris persona contulerit, qui melius nostrum non redimens, carnem, quae sine anima nec beneficium possit sentire, suscepit. Si enim venit Christus salvum facere quod perierat, quia totus homo periit, totus beneficio salvatoris indiget; et ideo Christus veniendo, totum salvat, corpus et animam assumendo
Augustinus Lib. 83 quaest
Quomodo etiam ipsi respondent tam manifestis obiectionibus ex evangelica Scriptura, in qua contra eos dominus tam multa commemorat? Ut est illud: tristis est anima mea usque ad mortem; et: potestatem habeo ponendi animam meam; et multa huiusmodi. Qui si dicant in parabolis eum locutum esse, habemus Evangelistarum rationes, qui res gestas narrantes, sicut eum corpus habuisse testantur, sic eum indicant habere animam per affectiones quae non possunt esse nisi in anima. Eis enim narrantibus legimus: et miratus est Iesus, et iratus, et multa huiusmodi
Augustinus de Haeres
Apollinaristae autem sicut Ariani, Christum dixerunt carnem solam sine anima suscepisse. In qua quaestione testimoniis evangelicis victi, mentem, quae rationalis est anima hominis, defuisse animae Christi, sed pro hac ipsum verbum in ea fuisse dixerunt
Augustinus Lib. 83 quaest
Sed si ita est, belluam quamdam cum figura humani corporis Dei verbum suscepisse crederetur
Augustinus de Haeres
De ipsa vero eius carne sic a recta fide dissensisse perhibentur ut dicerent carnem illam et verbum unius eiusdemque substantiae esse, contentiosissime asseverantes verbum carnem factum, hoc est; verbi aliquid in carnem fuisse mutatum atque conversum, non autem carnem de Mariae carne suscepisse
Cyrillus ad Ioannem Antiochenum
Furere autem arbitramur eos qui suspicati sunt, quod mutationis obumbratio circa divinam verbi naturam potest contingere: manet enim quod est semper, et non mutatur, nec conversionis est capax
Leo ad Constantinopolitanos
Nos autem non ita dicimus Christum hominem ut aliquid ei desit quod ad humanam certum est pertinere naturam, sive animam sive mentem rationabilem, sive carnem, quae non de femina sumpta sit, sed facta de verbo in carnem converso atque mutato. Quae ter falsa Apollinaristarum haeresis tres varias protulit partes
Leo ad Palaestinos
Eutyches quoque tertium Apollinaris dogma delegit, ut, negata humanae carnis atque animae veritate, totum dominum nostrum Iesum Christum unius assereret esse naturae, tamquam verbi divinitas ipsa se in carnem animamque verteret, et concipi, nasci aut nutriri, et cetera huiusmodi, eius tantum essentiae fuerit, scilicet divinae, quae nihil horum in se sine carnis recepit veritate, quoniam natura unigeniti, natura est patris, natura est spiritus sancti, simul impassibilis et sempiterna. Verum si ab Apollinaris perversitate haereticus iste decesserit, ne convinceretur deitatem passibilem sentire atque mortalem, et tamen verbi incarnati, id est verbi et carnis, unam audet pronuntiare naturam; non dubie in Manichaei et Marcionis transit insaniam, et dominum Iesum Christum simultorie omnia credit egisse, nec humanum ipsum corpus, sed phantasticam corporis speciem oculis apparuisse cernentium
Idem ad Iulianum
In eo vero quod Eutyches in episcopali iudicio ausus est dicere ante incarnationem duas fuisse in Christo naturas, post incarnationem autem unam, necessarium fuit ut ad reddendam rationem professionis suae sollicitis interrogationibus urgeretur. Arbitror enim eum talia loquentem hoc habere persuasum quod anima quam salvator assumpsit, prius in caelis sit commorata quam de Maria virgine nasceretur. Sed hoc Catholicae mentes auresque non tolerant, quia nil secum dominus de caelo veniens nostrae conditionis exhibuit, nec animam eius, quae anterior extitisset, nec carnem, quae non materni corporis esset, accepit. Unde quod in Origene merito damnatum est, qui animarum antequam corporibus insererentur non solum miras, sed et diversas fuisse asseruit actiones, necesse est quod in isto plectatur
Remigius
Has igitur haereses in principio Evangelii sui Evangelistae destruunt, nam Matthaeus cum narrat eum duxisse originem per reges Iudaeorum, verum hominem eum ostendit, et veram carnem habuisse. Similiter et Lucas, qui sacerdotalem stirpem et personam describit. Marcus autem, cum ait: initium Evangelii Iesu Christi filii Dei, et Ioannes cum ait: in principio erat verbum manifestant eum ante omnia saecula semper fuisse Deum apud Deum patrem
1:2
St Augustine † AD 430 De Cons. Evan. ii. 1.
Matthew, by beginning with Christ’s genealogy, shews that he has undertaken to relate Christ’s birth according to the flesh. But Luke, as rather describing Him as a Priest for the atonement of sin, gives Christ’s genealogy not in the beginning of his Gospel, but at His baptism, when John bare that testimony, Lo, He that taketh away the sins of the world. (John 1:29.) In the genealogy of Matthew is figured to us the taking on Him of our sins by the Lord Christ; in the genealogy of Luke, the taking away of our sins by the same; hence Matthew gives them in a descending, Luke in an ascending, series. But Matthew, describing Christ’s human generation in descending order, begins his enumeration with Abraham.
St Ambrose † AD 397 in Luc. cap. 3. lib. iii. n. 7, 8.
For Abraham was the first who deserved the witness of faith; He believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. It behoved therefore that he should be set forth as the first in the line of descent, who was the first to deserve the promise of the restoration of the Church, In thee shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. And it is again brought to a period in David, for that Jesus should be called his Son; hence to him is preserved the privilege, that from him should come the beginning of the Lord’s genealogy.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. iii.
Matthew then, desiring to preserve in memory the lineage of the Lord’s humanity through the succession of His parents, begins with Abraham, saying, Abraham begat Isaac. Why does he not mention lsmael, his first-born? And again, Isaac begat Jacob; why does he not speak of Esau his first-born? Because through them he could not have come down to David.
The Gloss
Yet he names all the brethren of Judah with him in the lineage. lsmael and Esau had not remained in the worship of the true God; but the brethren of Judah were reckoned in God’s people.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. iii.
Or, he names all the twelve Patriarchs that he may lower that pride which is drawn from a line of noble ancestry. For many of these were born of maidservants, and yet were Patriarchs and heads of tribes.
The Gloss
But Judah is the only one mentioned by name, and that because the Lord was descended from him only. But in each of the Patriarchs we must note not their history only, but the allegorical and moral meaning to be drawn from them; allegory, in seeing whom each of the Fathers foreshewed; moral instruction in that through each one of the Fathers some virtue may be edified in us either through the signification of his name, or through his exampleg. Abraham is in many respects a figure of Christ, and chiefly in his name, which is interpreted the Father of many nations, and Christ is Father of many believers. Abraham moreover went out from his own kindred, and abode in a strange land; in like manner Christ, leaving the Jewish nation, went by His preachers throughout the Gentiles.
Pseudo-Chrysostom
Isaac is interpreted ‘laughter,’ but the laughter of the saints is not the foolish convulsion of the lips, but the rational joy of the heart, which was the mystery of Christ. For as he was granted to his parents in their extreme age to their great joy, that it might be known that he was not the child of nature, but of grace, thus Christ also in this last time came of a Jewish mother to be the joy of the whole earth; the one of a virgin, the other of a woman past the age, both contrary to the expectation of nature.
Remigius † AD 908
Jacob is interpreted ‘supplanter,’ and it is said of Christ, Thou hast cast down beneath Me them that rose up against Me. (Ps. 18:43.)
Pseudo-Chrysostom
Our Jacob in like manner begot the twelve Apostles in the Spirit, not in the flesh; in word, not in blood. Judah is interpreted ‘confessor,’ for he was a type of Christ who was to be the confessor of His Father, as He spake, I confess to Thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth.
The Gloss
Morally; Abraham signifies to us the virtue of faith in Christ, as an example himself, as it is said of him, Abraham believed God, and it was accounted unto Him for righteousness. Isaac may represent hope; for Isaac is interpreted ‘laughter,’ as he was the joy of his parents; and hope is our joy, making ns to hope for eternal blessings and to joy in them. Abraham begat Isaac, and faith begets hope. Jacob signifies ‘love,’ for love embraces two lives; active in the love of our neighbour, contemplative in the love of God; the active is signified by Leah, the contemplative by Rachel. For Leah is interpreted. ‘labouringh,’ for she is active in labour; Racheli ‘having seen the beginning,’ because by the contemplative, the beginning, that is God, is seen. Jacob is born of two parents, as love is born of faith and hope; for what we believe, we both hope for and love.
The Latin text
Augustinus de Cons. Evang
Matthaeus Evangelista ostendit generationem Christi secundum carnem se suscepisse narrandam, quia genealogiam Christi exorsus est. Lucas autem tamquam sacerdotem in expiandis peccatis magis assignans, non ab initio Evangelii sui, sed a Baptismo Christi generationes enarrat, ubi testimonium Ioannes perhibuit dicens: ecce qui tollit peccata mundi. In generationibus etiam Matthaei significatur nostrorum susceptio peccatorum a domino Christo. In generationibus autem Lucae significatur abolitio nostrorum peccatorum ab ipso, ideo generationes Christi Matthaeus descendens enarrat, Lucas autem ascendens. Humanam autem Christi generationem Matthaeus descendendo describens, ab Abraham generationes commemorat
Ambrosius super Lucam
Prior enim Abraham meruit fidei testimonium, quia credidit Deo, et reputatum est ei ad iustitiam. Ideo etiam auctor generis debuit significari, quia instaurandae Ecclesiae sponsionem primus emeruit, cum dicitur: benedicentur in te omnes tribus terrae. Et iterum David delatum est quod Iesus filius eius diceretur, unde huic praerogativa servatur ut ab eo generationis dominicae manaret exordium
Chrysostomus in Matth
Evangelista igitur Matthaeus generationem dominicae carnis per seriem parentum volens commendare memoriae, ordiens a patre Abraham, dicit Abraham genuit Isaac. Cur non dixit: Ismael, quem primitus genuit? Sequitur Isaac autem genuit Iacob. Cur non dixit: Esau, qui eius primogenitus fuit? Quia scilicet per illos ad David pervenire non posset
Glossa
Omnes tamen fratres Iudae, cum ipso in generatione computat, quod etiam ideo factum est, quia Ismael et Esau non remanserunt in cultu unius Dei; fratres vero Iudae in populo sunt computati
Chrysostomus in Matth
Vel propterea duodecim patriarcharum meminit, ut eam quae ex progenitorum nobilitate est, elationem auferret. Etenim multi horum ex ancillis nati fuerunt, sed omnes similiter erant patriarchae et tribuum principes
Glossa
Ideo autem Iudam nominatim posuit, quia de illo tantum dominus descendit. In singulis autem patribus non solum debet notari historia, sed allegoria et moralitas: allegoria quidem in quo unusquisque patrum Christum praefiguret; moralitas in hoc notatur quod ex singulis patribus in nobis aliqua virtus per significationem nominis vel exemplum aedificetur. Abraham ergo in multis locis figuram Christi portat, et praeterea in nomine: Abraham enim pater multarum gentium interpretatur, et Christus est pater multorum fidelium. Abraham etiam de cognatione sua exiit, et in terra aliena demoratus est, et Christus, derelicto Iudaico populo, ad gentes per praedicatores suos exivit
Chrysostomus super Matth
Isaac autem interpretatur risus. Risus autem sanctorum est, non stulta cachinnatio labiorum, sed rationabile gaudium cordis, quod fuit mysterium Christi. Sicut enim ille parentibus in ultima senectute donatus est laetitia suis, ut cognoscatur quia non erat filius naturae, sed gratiae, sic et Christus in novissimo fine productus est a matre Iudaea gaudium cunctis; sed iste per virginem, ille de anu, ambo contra spem naturae
Remigius
Iacob supplantator interpretatur, et de Christo dicitur: supplantasti insurgentes in me subtus me. Iacob genuit Iudas et fratres eius
Chrysostomus super Matth
Et noster Iacob genuit duodecim apostolos in spiritu, non in carne; verbo, non in sanguine. Iudas autem interpretatur confessor, quoniam Christi erat imago, qui confessor patris erat futurus, dicens: confiteor tibi, pater, domine caeli et terrae
Glossa
Moraliter autem Abraham nobis virtutem fidei per exempla Christi significat, cum de eo legatur: Abraham credidit Deo, et reputatum est ei ad iustitiam. Isaac significat spem, quia interpretatur risus, fuit enim gaudium parentum; spes vero similiter est gaudium nostrum, dum aeterna bona sperare facit et de eis gaudere. Abraham ergo genuit Isaac quia fides generat spem. Iacob autem significat caritatem. Caritas enim amplectitur duas vitas: activam per dilectionem proximi, contemplativam per dilectionem Dei; activa per Liam, contemplativa per Rachel significatur. Lia enim laborans interpretatur, quia activa in labore est; Rachel visum principium, quia per contemplativam principium, id est Deus, videtur. Nascitur ergo Iacob de duobus parentibus, quia caritas nascitur de fide et spe; quod enim credimus et speramus, diligimus
1:5
The Gloss
Passing over the other sons of Jacob, the Evangelist follows the family of Judah, saying, But Judah begat Phares and Zara of Thamar.
St Augustine † AD 430 de Civ. Dei, xv. 15.
Neither was Judah himself a first-born, nor of these two sons was either his first-born; he had already had three before them. So that he keeps in that line of descent, by which he shall arrive at David, and from him whither he purposed.
St Jerome † AD 420
It should be noted, that none of the holy women are taken into the Saviour’s genealogy, but rather such as Scripture has condemned, that He who came for sinners being born of sinners might so put away the sins of all; thus Ruth the Moabitess follows among the rest.
St Ambrose † AD 397 in Luc. c. 3.
But Luke has avoided the mention of these, that he might set forth the series of the priestly race immaculate. But the plan of St. Matthew did not exclude the righteousness of natural reason; for when he wrote in his Gospel, that He who should take on Him the sins of all, was born in the flesh, was subject to wrongs and pain, he did not think it any detraction from His holiness that He did not refuse the further humiliation of a sinful parentage. Nor, again, would it shame the Church to be gathered from among sinners, when the Lord Himself was born of sinners; and, lastly, that the benefits of redemption might have their beginning with His own forefathers: and that none might imagine that a stain in their blood was any hindrance to virtue, nor again any pride themselves insolently on nobility of birth.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
Besides this, it shews that all are equally liable to sin; for here is Thamar accusing Judah of incest, and David begat Solomon with a woman with whom he had committed adultery. But if the Law was not fulfilled by these great ones, neither could it be by their less great posterity, and so all have sinned, and the presence of Christ is become necessary.
St Ambrose † AD 397 ubi sup.
Observe that Matthew does not name both without a meaning; for though the object of his writing only required the mention of Phares, yet in the twins a mystery is signified; namely, the double life of the nations, one by the Law, the other by Faith.
Pseudo-Chrysostom
By Zarah is denoted the people of the Jews, which first appeared in the light of faith, coming out of the dark womb of the world, and was therefore marked with the scarlet thread of the circumciser, for all supposed that they were to be God’s people; but the Law was set before their face as it had been a wall or hedge. Thus the Jews were hindered by the Law, but in the times of Christ’s coming the hedge of the Law was broken down that was between Jews and Gentiles, as the Apostle speaks, Breaking down the middle wall of partition; (Eph. 2:14.) and thus it fell out that the Gentiles, who were signified by Phares, as soon as the Law was broken through by Christ’s commandments, first entered into the faith, and after followed the Jews.
The Gloss
Judah begat Phares and Zarah before he went into Egypt, whither they both accompanied their father. In Egypt, Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; Aram begat Aminadab; Aminadab begat Naasson; and then Moses led them out of Egypt. Naasson was head of the tribe of Judah under Moses in the desert, where he begat Salmon; and this Salmon it was who, as prince of the tribe of Judah, entered the land of promise with Joshua.
Pseudo-Chrysostom
But as we believe that the names of these Fathers were given for some special reason under the providence of God, it follows, but Naasson begat Salmon. This Salmon after his father’s death entered the promised land with Joshua as prince of the tribe of Judah. He took a wife of the name of Rahab. This Rahab is said to have been that Rahab the harlot of Jericho who entertained the spies of the children of Israel, and hid them safely. For Salmon being noble among the children of Israel, inasmuch as he was of the tribe of Judah, and son of the prince thereof, beheld Rahab so ennobled through her great faith, that she was worthy whom he should take to wife. Salmon is interpreted ‘receive a vesselk,’ perhaps as if invited in God’s providence by his very name to receive Rahab a vessel of election.
The Gloss
This Salmon in the promised land begat Booz of this Rahab. Booz begat Obeth of Ruth.
Pseudo-Chrysostom
How Booz took to wife a Moabitess whose name was Ruth, I thought it needless to tell, seeing the Scripture concerning them is open to all. We need but say thus much, that Ruth married Booz for the reward of her faith, for that she had cast off the gods of her forefathers, and had chosen the living God. And Booz received her to wife for reward of his faith, that from such sanctified wedlock might be descended a kingly race.
St Ambrose † AD 397 ubi sup.
But how did Ruth who was an alien marry a man that was a Jew? and wherefore in Christ’s genealogy did His Evangelist so much as mention a union, which in the eye of the law was bastard? Thus the Saviour’s birth of a parentage not admitted by the law appears to us monstrous, until we attend to that declaration of the Apostle, The Law was not given for the righteous, but for the unrighteous. (1 Tim. 1:9.) For this woman who was an alien, a Moabitess, a nation with whom the Mosaic Law forbad all intermarriage, and shut them totally out of the Church, how did she enter into the Church, unless that she were holy and unstained in her life above the Law? Therefore she was exempt from this restriction of the Law, and deserved to be numbered in the Lord’s lineage, chosen from the kindred of her mind, not of her body. To us she is a great example, for that in her was prefigured the entrance into the Lord’s Church of all of us who are gathered out of the Gentiles.
St Jerome † AD 420
Ruth the Moabitess fulfils the prophecy of Isaiah, Send forth, O Lord, the Lamb that shall rule over the earth, out of the rock of the desert to the mount of the daughter of Sion. (Is. 16:1.)
The Gloss
Jesse, the father of David, has two names, being more frequently called Isai. But the Prophet says, There shall come a rod from the stem of Jesse; (Is. 11:1.) therefore to shew that this prophecy was fulfilled in Mary and Christ, the Evangelist puts Jesse.
Remigius † AD 908
It is asked, why this epithet King is thus given by the holy Evangelist to David alone? Because he was the first king in the tribe of Judah. Christ Himself is Phares ‘the divider,’ as it is written, Thou shalt divide the sheep from the goats; (Mat. 25:33.) He is Zaraml, ‘the east,’ Lo the man, the east is His name; (Zech. 6:12.) He is Esromm, ‘an arrow,’ He hath set me as a polished shaft. (Is. 49:2.)
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
Or following another interpretation, according to the abundance of grace, and the width of love. He isn Aram the chosen, according to that, Behold my Servant whom I have chosen. (Is. 42:1.) He is Aminadab, that is ‘willingo,’ in that He says, I will freely sacrifice to Thee. (Is. 54:6.) Also He is Naassonp, i. e. ‘augury,’ as He knows the past, the present, and the future; or, ‘like a serpent,’ according to that, Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness. (John 3:14.) He isq Salmon, i. e. ‘that feeleth,’as He said, I feel that power is gone forth out of me. (Luke 8:46.)
The Gloss
Christ Himself espouses Rahab, i. e. the Gentile Church; for Rahabr is interpreted either ‘hunger,’ or ‘breadth,’ or ‘might;’ for the Church of the Gentiles hungers and thirsts after righteousness, and converts philosophers and kings by the might of her doctrine. Ruth is interpreted either ‘seeing’ or ‘hastenings’ and denotes the Church which in purity of heart sees God, and hastens to the prize of the heavenly call.
Remigius † AD 908
Christ is also Boozt, because He is strength, for, When I am lifted up, I will draw all men unto Me. (John 12:32.) He is Obeth. ‘a servantu,’ for, the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister. (Mat. 20:28.) He is Jesse, or ‘burntx,’ for, I am come to send fire on earth. (Luke 12:49.) He is Davidy, ‘mighty in arm,’ for, the Lord is great and powerful; (Ps. 24:8.) ‘desirable,’ for, He shall come, the Desire of all nations; (Hag. 2:7.) ‘beautiful to behold,’ according to that, Beautiful in form before the sons of men. (Ps. 45:3.)
The Gloss
Let us now see what virtues they be which these fathers edify in us; for faith, hope, and charity are the foundation of all virtues; those that follow are like additions over and above them. Judah is interpreted ‘confession,’ of which there are two kinds, confession of faith, and of sin. If then, after we be endowed with the three forementioned virtues, we sin, confession not of faith only but of sin is needful for us. Phares is interpreted ‘division,’ Zamar ‘the east,’ and Thamar ‘bitternessz.’ Thus confession begets separation from vice, the rise of virtue, and the bitterness of repentance. After Phares follows Esron, ‘an arrow,’ for when one is separated from vice and secular pursuits, he should become a dart wherewith to slay by preaching the vices of others. Aram is interpreted ‘elect’ or ‘loftya,’ for as soon as one is detached from this world, and profiteth for another, he must needs be held to be elect of God, famous amongst men, high in virtue. Naasson is ‘augury,’ but this augury is of heaven, not of earth. It is that of which Joseph boasted when he said, Ye have taken away the cup of my Lord, where with He is wont to divine. (Gen. 44:5.) The cup is the divine Scripture wherein is the draught of wisdom; by this the wise man divines, since in it he sees things future, that is, heavenly things. Next is Salomonb, ‘that perceiveth,’ for he who studies divine Scripture becomes perceiving, that is, he discerns by the taste of reason, good from bad, sweet from bitter. Next is Booz, that is ‘brave,’ for who is well taught in Scripture becomes brave to endure all adversity.
Pseudo-Chrysostom
This brave one is the son of Rahab, that is, of the Church; for Rahab signifies ‘breadth’ or ‘spread out,’ for because the Church of the Gentiles was called from all quarters of the earth, it is called ‘breadth.’
The Gloss
Then follows Obeth, i. e. ‘servitude,’ for which none is fit but he who is strong; and this servitude is begotten of Ruth, that is ‘haste,’ for it behoves a slave to be quick, not slow.
Pseudo-Chrysostom
They who look to wealth and not temper, to beauty and not faith, and require in a wife such endowments as are required in harlots, will not beget sons obedient to their parents or to God, but rebellious to both; that their children may be punishment of their ungodly wedlock. Obeth begat Jesse, that is ‘refreshment,’ for whoever is subject to God and his parents, begets such children as prove his ‘refreshment.’
The Gloss
Or Jesse may be interpreted ‘incensec.’ For it we serve God in love and fear, there will be a devotion in the heart, which in the heat and desire of the heart offers the sweetest incense to God. But when one is become a fit servant, and a sacrifice of incense to God, it follows that he becomes David, (i. e. ‘of a strong hand,’) who fought mightily against his enemies, and made the Idumeans tributary. In like manner ought he to subdue carnal men to God by teaching and example.
The Latin text
Glossa
Praetermissis aliis filiis Iacob, Evangelista Iudae prosequitur generationem dicens Iudas autem genuit Phares et Zaram de Thamar
Augustinus de Civit. Dei
Nec Iudas primogenitus, nec istorum geminorum aliquis fuit primogenitus Iudae; sed ante illos iam tres genuerat. Eos itaque tenuit in ordine generationum per quos ad David, atque inde quo intenderet, perveniret
Hieronymus
Notandum autem in genealogia salvatoris nullam sanctarum assumi mulierum, sed eas quas Scriptura reprehendit, ut qui propter peccatores venerat, de peccatoribus nascens, omnium peccata deleret, unde et in sequentibus Ruth Moabitis ponitur
Ambrosius super Lucam
Lucas autem has declinavit, ut immaculatam sacerdotalis generis seriem declararet. Sed sancti Matthaei consilium a rationis iustitia non abhorret, nam cum evangelizaret secundum carnem generatum esse qui omnium peccata susciperet, subiectum iniuriis, subditum passioni. Nec hoc quidem putavit exortem asserendum esse pietatis, ut maculatae quoque originis non recusaret iniuriam; simul ne puderet Ecclesiam de peccatoribus congregari, cum dominus de peccatoribus nasceretur; postremo ut beneficium redemptionis etiam a suis maioribus inchoaret, ne quis putaret originis maculam impedimento posse esse virtuti, nec se insolens de sui nobilitate iactaret
Chrysostomus in Matth
Post hoc monstratur omnes obnoxios fuisse peccatis: instat enim Thamar fornicatio Iudam accusans, et David a fornicaria muliere genuit Salomonem. Si autem a magnis lex non est impleta, nec a minoribus; et sic omnes peccaverunt, et necessaria facta est Christi praesentia
Ambrosius super Lucam
Vide autem quia non otiose Matthaeus utrumque significavit, cum Phares tantummodo commemorationem causa deposceret, quia hic in utroque mysterium est. Per geminos enim gemina describitur vita populorum: una secundum legem, altera secundum fidem
Chrysostomus super Matth
Per Zaram enim significatur Iudaicus populus, qui primus apparuit in luce fidei, quasi de vulva tenebrosa mundi procedens. Et ideo significatus est cocco circumcisionis, putantibus omnibus, quia ipse populus Dei erat futurus, sed posita est ante faciem eius lex, quasi sepes vel maceria. Sic ergo impeditus est populus Iudaicus per legem, sed temporibus Christi rupta est sepes legis, quae erat inter Iudaeos et gentes, sicut ait apostolus: medium parietem maceriae solvens. Sic factum est ut gentilis per Phares significatus, postquam rupta est lex per Christi mandata, primus ad fidem procedat; et postea sequitur Iudaicus populus. Sequitur Phares autem genuit Esron
Glossa
Iudas genuit Phares et Zaram antequam intraret Aegyptum, in quam ambo postea cum patre transierunt. In Aegypto vero Phares genuit Esron. Esron autem genuit aram. Aram autem genuit Aminadab, Aminadab autem genuit Naasson; et tunc Moyses eduxit eos de Aegypto. Naasson autem fuit dux sub Moyse in tribu Iuda per desertum, in quo genuit Salmon. Iste Salmon fuit princeps de tribu Iuda, qui cum Iosue terram promissionis intravit
Chrysostomus super Matth
Quoniam autem ex aliqua causa, secundum providentiam Dei, posita horum patrum nomina credimus. Sequitur Naasson autem genuit Salmon. Iste Salmon mortuo patre fuit princeps in tribu Iuda, qui cum Iosue terram promissionis intravit
Chrysostomus super Matth
Accepit autem uxorem nomine Rahab. Haec autem Rahab dicitur fuisse Rahab meretrix de Iericho, quae suscepit exploratores filiorum Israel, abscondit eos, et servavit incolumes. Cum autem Salmon nobilis esset inter filios Israel, quia de tribu erat Iuda et quia filius principis erat, vidit Rahab sic fidelem quasi magnam aliquam constitutam, meruit accipere in uxorem. Forsitan autem et ideo interpretatur Salmon, quasi per ipsum nomen invitaretur a providentia Dei ut acciperet vas electionis Rahab. Interpretatur enim Salmon accipe vas. Sequitur Salmon autem genuit Booz de Rahab
Glossa
Iste Salmon in terra promissionis genuit de illa Rahab Booz. Booz autem genuit Obed ex Ruth
Chrysostomus super Matth
Quomodo autem Booz accepit uxorem Moabitidem nomine Ruth, exponere aestimavi superfluum, cum de his Scriptura sit omnibus manifesta. Hoc autem dicimus solum, quoniam Ruth, pro merito fidei suae nupsit Booz, quia deos patrum suorum repulit et Deum viventem elegit. Et Booz pro merito fidei suae illam accepit uxorem, ut ex coniugio tali sanctificato genus nasceretur regale
Ambrosius super Luc
Quomodo autem Ruth, cum esset alienigena, Iudaeo nupsit, et qua ratione in Christi generatione eius putaverit Evangelista copulae commemorationem esse faciendam, quae legis serie moechabatur? Quia ergo non de legitima salvator generatione manavit, videtur esse deforme, nisi ad apostolicam sententiam revertatis, quia non est lex posita iustis, sed iniustis. Haec enim cum esset alienigena et Moabitis, praesertim cum lex Moysi prohiberet has nuptias, Moabitasque excluderet ab Ecclesia, quomodo introivit in Ecclesiam nisi quia sancta et immaculata moribus supra legem facta est? Destinationem ergo legis excessit et meruit inter maiores dominici generis computari, propter cognationem mentis electam, non corporis. Magnum autem nobis exemplum est quod in illa nostrum omnium, qui ex gentibus collecti sumus, ingrediendi in Ecclesiam domini figura praecessit
Hieronymus in epistola ad Paulinum
Ruth etiam Moabitis Isaiae explet vaticinium dicentis: emitte agnum, domine, dominatorem terrae, de petra deserti ad montem filiae Sion. Sequitur Obed autem genuit Iesse
Glossa
Iesse pater David binomius est, quia frequentius vocatus est Isai. Sed quia propheta vocat eum non Isai, sed Iesse, dicens: egredietur virga de radice Iesse ut ostenderet illam prophetiam completam in Maria et in Christo, Evangelista posuit Iesse. Sequitur Iesse autem genuit David regem
Remigius
Sed quaerendum est quare sanctus Evangelista solum David nominaverit regem, quod ideo dixit ut ostenderet eum primum fuisse regem in tribu Iuda. Ipse autem Christus est Phares divisor, ut est illud: dividet agnos ab haedis. Est et Zaram oriens, ut est illud: ecce vir, oriens nomen eius. Est Esron sagitta, ut est illud: posuit me sicut sagittam electam
Rabanus Maurus
Vel atrium, propter abundantiam gratiae et latitudinem caritatis. Aram electus, secundum illud: ecce puer meus electus: vel excelsus, secundum illud: excelsus super omnes gentes dominus. Ipse est Aminadab, idest voluntarius, qui dicit: voluntarie sacrificabo tibi. Idem est et Naasson, idest augurium, qui novit praeterita, praesentia et futura. Vel serpentinus, secundum illud: Moyses exaltavit serpentem in deserto: est et Salmon, id est sensibilis, qui dicit: ego sensi de me virtutem exisse
Glossa
Ipse accipit Rahab, id est Ecclesiam de gentibus. Rahab enim fames, vel latitudo, vel impetus, quia Ecclesia gentium esurit et sitit iustitiam et impetu doctrinae philosophos et reges convertit. Ruth etiam interpretatur videns vel festinans, et significat Ecclesiam, quae puro corde videt Deum et festinat ad bravium supernae vocationis
Remigius
Est et Booz in quo robur, ut est illud: cum exaltatus fuero a terra, omnia traham ad me. Est et Obed serviens, ut est illud. Filius hominis non venit ministrari, sed ministrare. Est et Iesse incensum, secundum illud: ignem veni mittere in terram. Ipse est David manu fortis, secundum illud: dominus fortis et potens; desiderabilis, secundum illud: veniet desideratus cunctis gentibus; pulcher aspectu, secundum illud: speciosus forma prae filiis hominum
Glossa
Interim videamus quas virtutes isti patres in nobis aedificent, quia fides, spes et caritas omnium virtutum sunt fundamentum. Sequentes virtutes sunt quasi superadditiones. Iudas interpretatur confessio. Duplex est autem confessio: est altera fidei, altera peccatorum. Si ergo post tres supradictas virtutes peccatur, necessaria est non solum fidei, sed peccatorum confessio. Post Iudam sequitur Phares et Zaram. Phares divisio, Zaram oriens interpretatur, et Thamar amaritudo. Confessio enim generat divisionem a vitiis, et ortum virtutum, et amaritudinem poenitentiae. Post Phares sequitur Esron, qui sagitta interpretatur, postquam enim aliquis divisus est a vitiis et saecularibus debet fieri sagitta, ut in aliis vitia praedicando perimat. Sequitur aram, qui interpretatur electus, vel excelsus, quia postquam aliquis a mundo remotus est, et aliis proficit, necesse est ut Deo electus, hominibus celebris, excelsus in virtutibus habeatur. Naasson interpretatur augurium, hoc autem augurium non est saeculare, sed caeleste. De hoc gloriabatur Ioseph, fratribus mandans: vos detulistis scyphum domini mei, in quo augurari solebat. Scyphus est divina Scriptura, ubi est potus sapientiae, in hac auguratur sapiens, quia ibi videt futura, id est caelestia. Sequitur Salmon, idest sensibilis. Postquam enim aliquis studet in divina Scriptura, fit sensibilis, idest discernens gustu rationis, quid bonum, quid malum, quid dulce, quid amarum. Sequitur Booz, idest fortis. Instructus enim in Scripturis, fit ad omnia adversa toleranda fortis
Chrysostomus super Matth
Iste autem fortis est filius Rahab, id est Ecclesiae. Rahab enim interpretatur latitudo vel dilatata, quia enim ex omnibus finibus terrae vocata est Ecclesia gentium, latitudo appellatur
Rabanus Maurus
Sequitur Obed, id est servitus. Non enim idoneus est ad servitutem nisi qui fortis est; quae servitus generatur ex Ruth, idest festinantia. Oportet enim promptum esse servum, non pigrum
Chrysostomus super Matth
Nunc autem qui divitias et non mores, pulchritudinem et non fidem, et quod in meretricibus quaeri solet, hoc in coniugibus optant, non generant subditos filios vel sibi vel Deo, sed contumaces et contra se et contra Deum, ut filii eorum sint poena irreligiositatis eorum. Iste Obed genuit Iesse, id est refrigerium, nam quicumque est subditus Deo et parentibus suis, tales filios generat, Deo praestante, a quibus refrigeratur
Glossa
Vel Iesse, id est incensum. Si enim servimus ex amore et timore, erit devotio in corde, quae ex igne et desiderio cordis suavissimum incensum offert Deo. Postquam autem aliquis idoneus est servus et sacrificium Deo factus, sequitur ut sit David, id est manu fortis qui contra hostes fortiter dimicavit et Idumaeos tributarios fecit. Similiter ipse debet carnales, id est homines, verbo et exemplo Deo subiugare
1:6
The Evangelist has now finished the first fourteen generations, and is come to the second, which consists of royal personages, and therefore beginning with David, who was the first king in the tribe of Judah, he calls him David the king.
St Augustine † AD 430 De Cons. Ev. ii. 4.
Since in Matthew’s genealogy is shewed forth the taking on Him by Christ of our sins, therefore he descends from David to Solomon, in whose mother David had sinned. Luke ascends to David through Nathan, for through Nathan the prophet God punished David’s sin; because Luke’s genealogy is to shew the putting away of our sins.
St Augustine † AD 430 Lib. Retract. ii. 16.
That is it, must be said, through a prophet of the same name, for it was not Nathan the son of David who reproved him, but a prophet of the same name.
Remigius † AD 908
Let us enquire why Matthew does not mention Bathsheba by name as he does the other women. Because the others, though deserving of much blame, were yet commendable for many virtues. But Bathsheba was not only consenting in the adultery, but in the murder of her husband, hence her name is not introduced in the Lord’s genealogy.
The Gloss
Besides, he does not name Bathsheba, that, by naming Urias, he may recal to memory that great wickedness which she was guilty of towards him.
St Ambrose † AD 397 ubi sup.
But the holy David is the more excellent in this, that he confessed himself to be but man, and neglected not to wash out with the tears of repentance the sin of which he had been guilty, in so taking away Urias’ wife. Herein shewing us that none ought to trust in his own strength, for we have a mighty adversary whom we cannot overcome without God’s aid. And you will commonly observe very heavy sins befalling to the share of illustrious men, that they may not from their other excellent virtues be thought more than men, but that you may see that as men they yield to temptation.
Pseudo-Chrysostom
Solomon is interpreted ‘peacemaker,’ because having subdued all the nations round about, and made them tributary, he had a peaceful reign. Roboam is interpreted ‘by a multitude of people,’ for multitude is the mother of sedition; for where many are joined in a crime, that is commonly unpunishable. But a limit in numbers is the mistress of good order.
The Latin text
Glossa
Secundi quaterdenarii generationis seriem Evangelista decurrit, quae a regibus continetur; et ideo a David incipit qui primus in tribu Iudae regnavit, dicens David rex genuit Salomonem ex ea quae fuit Uriae
Augustinus de Cons. Evang
Quia enim in generationibus Matthaei significatur nostrorum susceptio peccatorum, ideo ipse a David per Salomonem descendit, in cuius matre ille peccavit. Lucas vero ad David per Nathan ascendit, per quem prophetam Deus peccatum illius expiavit, quia in generationibus Lucae significatur abolitio peccatorum
Augustinus in libro Retract
Dicendum tamen fuit per cuius nominis prophetam, ne putaretur idem fuisse homo, cum alter fuerit, quamvis et ipse hoc nomine vocaretur
Remigius
Quaerendum est autem quare Evangelista Bersabee proprio nomine non nominavit sicut ceteras mulieres. Quod ideo est quia ceterae mulieres quamvis reprehensibiles fuissent, tamen laudabiles erant virtutibus. Bersabee vero non solum fuit conscia adulterii, sed etiam homicidii mariti sui, et ideo proprio nomine eam non nominavit in genealogia domini
Glossa
Tacet etiam nomen Bersabee, ut nominando Uriam, reducat ad memoriam illud maximum scelus quod in eum fecit
Ambrosius super Lucam
At vero sanctus David in eo est praecellentior quod hominem se ipse cognovit, et commissum super arrepta Uriae uxore peccatum poenitentiae curavit lacrymis abluendum, ostendens nobis neminem propriae virtuti debere confidere; habemus enim adversarium magnum, qui vinci a nobis sine Dei adiutorio non possit. Et plerumque in illustribus viris gravia peccata reperies, ut quasi homines tentationi potuisse succumbere cognoscas, ne virtutibus egregiis plusquam homines crederentur
Chrysostomus super Matth
Salomon autem interpretatur pacificus, quoniam omnibus in circuitu gentibus pacificatis et tributa reddentibus pacificum habuit regnum. Salomon autem genuit Roboam. Roboam interpretatur a multitudine populi. Multitudo enim mater est seditionis, quia quod a pluribus peccatur, plerumque manet invindicabile. Paucitas autem magistra est disciplinae
1:8
St Jerome † AD 420
In the fourth book of Kings we read, that Ochozias was the son of Joram. On his death, Josabeth, sister of Ochozias and daughter of Joram, took Joash, her brother’s son, and preserved him from the slaughter of the royal seed by Athalias. To Joash succeeded his son Amasias; after him his son Azarias, who is called Ozias; after him his son Joatham. Thus you see according to historical truth there were three intervening kings, who are omitted by the Evangelist. Joram, moreover, begot not Ozias, but Ochozias, and the rest as we have related. But because it was the purpose of the Evangelist to make each of the three periods consist of fourteen generations, and because Joram had connected himself with Jezebel’s most impious race, therefore his posterity to the third generation is omitted in tracing the lineage of the holy birth.
St Hilary † AD 367
Thus the stain of the Gentile alliance being purged, the royal race is again taken up in the fourth following generation.
Pseudo-Chrysostom
What the Holy Spirit testified through the Prophet, saying, that He would cut off every male from the house of Ahab, and Jezebel, that Jehu the son of Nausi fulfilled, and received the promise that his children to the fourth generation should sit on the throne of Israel. As great a blessing then as was given upon the house of Ahab, so great a curse was given on the house of Joram, because of the wicked daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, that his sons to the fourth generation should be cut out of the number of the Kings. Thus his sin descended on his posterity as it had been written, I will visit the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation. (Exod. 20:5.) Thus see how dangerous it is to marry with the seed of the ungodly.
St Augustine † AD 430 Hilar. Amast. V. et N. Test. q. 85.
Or, Ochozias, Joash, and Amasias, were excluded from the number, because their wickedness was continuous and without interval. For Solomon was suffered to hold the kingdom for his father’s deserts, Roboam for his son’s. But these three doing evil successively were excluded. This then is an example how a race is cut off when wickedness is shewn therein in perpetual succession. And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias.
The Gloss
This Ezekias was he to whom, when he had no children, it was said, Set thy house in order, for thou shalt die. (Is. 38:1.) He wept, not from desire of longer life, for he knew that Solomon had thereby pleased God, that he had not asked length of days; but he wept, for he feared that God’s promise should not be fulfilled, when himself, being in the line of David of whom Christ should come, was without children. And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias.
Pseudo-Chrysostom
But the order in the Book of Kings (2 Kings 23.) is different, thus namely; Josias begot Eliakim, afterwards called Joakim; Joakim begot Jechonias. But Joakim is not reckoned among the Kings in the genealogy, because God’s people had not set him on the throne, but Pharaoh by his might. For if it were just that only for their intermixture with the race of Ahab, three kings should be shut out of the number in the genealogy, was it not just that Joakim should be likewise shut out, whom Pharaoh had set up as king by hostile force? And thus Jechonias, who is the son of Joakim, and the grandson of Josiah, is reckoned among the kings as the son of Josiah, in place of his father who is omitted.
St Jerome † AD 420
Otherwise, we may consider the first Jeconias to be the same as Joakim, and the second to be the son not the father, the one being spelt with k and m, the second by ch and n. This distinction has been confounded both by Greeks and Latins, by the fault of writers and the lapse of time.
St Ambrose † AD 397 In Luc. cap. 2.
That there were two kings of the name of Joakim, is clear from the Book of Kings. And Joakim slept with his fathers, and Joachin his son reigned, in his stead. (2 Kings 24:6.) This son is the same whom Jeremiah calls Jeconias. And rightly did St. Matthew purpose to differ from the Prophet, because he sought to shew therein the great abundance of the Lord’s mercies. For the Lord did not seek among men nobility of race, but suitably chose to be born of captives and of sinners, as He came to preach remission of sin to the captives. The Evangelist therefore did not conceal either of these; but rather shewed them both, inasmuch as both were called Jeconias.
Remigius † AD 908
But it may be asked, why the Evangelist says they were born in the carrying away, when they were born before the carrying away. He says this because they were born for this purpose, that they should be led captive, from the dominion of the whole nation, for their own and others’ sins. And because God foreknew that they were to be carried away captive, therefore he says, they were born in the carrying away to Babylon. But of those whom the holy Evangelist places together in the Lord’s genealogy, it should be known, that they were alike in good or ill fame. Judas and his brethren were notable for good, in like manner Phares and Zara, Jechonias and his brethren, were notable for evil.
The Gloss
Mystically, David is Christ, who overcame Golias, that is, the Devil. Urias, i. e. God is my light, is the Devil who says, I will be like the Highest. (Is. 14:14.) To Him the Church was married, when Christ on the Throne of the majesty of His Father loved her, and having made her beautiful, united her to Himself in wedlock. Or Urias is the Jewish nation who through the Law boasted of their light. From them Christ took away the Law, having taught it to speak of Himself. Bersabee is ‘the well of satiety,’ that is, the abundance of spiritual grace.
Remigius † AD 908
Bersabee is interpreted ‘the seventh well,’ or ‘the well of the oathc;’ by which is signified the grant of baptism, in which is given the gift of the sevenfold Spirit, and the oath against the Devil is made. Christ is also Solomon, i. e. the peaceful, according to that of the Apostle, He is our peace. (Eph. 2:14.) Roboamd is, ‘the breadth of the people,’ according to that, Many shall come from the East and from the West.
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
Or; ‘the might of the people,’ because he quickly converts the people to the faith.
Remigius † AD 908
He is also Abias, that is, ‘the Lord Father,’ according to that, One is your Father who is in heaven. (Mat. 23:9.) And again, Ye call me Master and Lord. (John 13:13.) He is also Asae, that is, ‘lifting up,’ according to that, Who taketh away the sins of the world. (John 1:29.) He is also Josaphat, that is, ‘judging,’ for, The Father hath committed all judgment unto the Son. (John 5:22.) He is also Joram, that is, ‘lofty,’ according to that, No man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven. (John 3:13.) He is also Ozias, that is, ‘the Lord’s strength,’ for The Lord is my strength and my praise. (Ps. 118:14.) He is also Jothamf, that is, ‘completed,’ or ‘perfected,’ for Christ is the end of the Law. (Rom. 10:4.) He is also Ahazg, that is, ‘turning,’ according to that, Be ye turned to Me. (Zech. 1:3.)
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
Or, ‘embracing,’ because None knoweth the Father but the Son. (Matt. 11:27.)
Remigius † AD 908
He is also Ezekias, that is, ‘the strong Lord,’ or, ‘the Lord shall comfort;’ according to that, Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world. (John 16:33.) He is also Manasses, that is, ‘forgetful,’ or, ‘forgotten,’ according to that, I will not remember your sins any more. (Ezek. 28.) He is also Aaronh, that is,’ faithful,’ according to that, The Lord is faithful in all His words. (Ps. 145:17.) He is also Josias, that is, ‘the incense of the Lordi,’ as, And being in an agony, He prayed more earnestly. (Luke 22:44.)
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
And that incense signifies prayer, the Psalmist witnesses, saying, Let my prayer come up as incense before Thee. (Ps. 141:2.) Or, ‘The salvation of the Lord,’ according to that, My salvation is for ever. (Is. 55.)
Remigius † AD 908
He is Jechoniask, that is, ‘preparing,’ or ‘the Lord’s preparation,’ according to that, If I shall depart, I will also prepare a place for you. (John 14:3.)
The Gloss
Morally; After David follows Solomon, which is interpreted, ‘peaceful.’ For one then becomes peaceful, when unlawful motions being composed, and being as it were already set in the everlasting rest, he serves God, and turns others to Him. Then follows Roboam, that is ‘the breadth of the people.’ For when there is no longer any thing to overcome within himself, it behoves a man to look abroad to others, and to draw with him the people of God to heavenly things. Next is Abias, that is, ‘the Lord Father,’ for these things premised, He may proclaim Himself the Son of God, and then He will be Asa, that is, ‘raising up,’ and will ascend to His Father from virtue to virtue: and He will become Josaphat, that is, ‘judging,’ for He will judge others, and will be judged of none. Thus he becomes Joram, that is, ‘lofty,’ as it were dwelling on high; and is made Oziah, that is, ‘the strong One of the Lord,’ as attributing all his strength to God, and persevering in his path. Then follows Jotham, that is, ‘perfect,’ for he groweth daily to greater perfection. And thus he becomes Ahaz, that is, ‘embracing,’ for by obedience knowledge is increased according to that, They have proclaimed the worship of the Lord, and have understood His doings. Then follows Ezekias, that is, ‘the Lord is strong,’ because he understands that God is strong, and so turning to His love, he becomes Manasses, ‘forgetful,’ because he gives up as forgotten all worldly things; and is made thereby Amon, that is, ‘faithful,’ for whoso despises all temporal things, defrauds no man of his goods. Thus he is made Josias, that is, ‘in certain hope of the Lord’s salvation;’ for Josias is interpreted ‘the salvation of the Lord.’
The Latin text
Hieronymus
In quarto autem regum volumine legimus de Ioram Ochoziam fuisse generatum. Quo mortuo, Iosabeth filia Ioram regis, soror Ochoziae, tulit Ioas filium fratris sui, et eum internecioni, quae exercebatur ab Athalia, subtraxit. Cui successit in regnum filius eius Amasias. Post quem regnavit filius eius Azarias, qui appellatur Ozias, cui successit Ioatham filius eius. Cernis ergo quod, secundum fidem historiae, tres reges in medio fuerunt, quos Evangelista praetermisit. Ioram quoque non genuit Oziam, sed Ochoziam et reliquos quos numeravimus. Verum quia Evangelistae propositum erat tessaradecades in diverso temporis statu ponere, et quia Ioram generi se miscuerat impiissimae Iezabelis, idcirco usque ad tertiam generationem eius memoria tollitur, ne in sanctae nativitatis ordine poneretur
Hilarius in Matth
Purgata vero labe familiae gentilis, iam regalis in quarta generationum consequentium origo numeratur
Chrysostomus super Matth
Quod spiritus sanctus per prophetam contestatus est, dicens ut dispergeret omnem masculum de domo Achab et Iezabel, implevit Iehu filius Nansi, et accepit promissionem, ut usque ad quartam generationem sedeant filii eius in sede regni supra Israel. Quanta ergo benedictio facta est super domum Achab, tanta maledictio facta est super domum Ioram propter filiam iniqui Achab et Iezabel, ut usque ad quartam generationem praecidantur filii eius de regum numero, et sic peccatum eius descendit in filios eius, sicut fuerat scriptum: reddam peccata patrum in filios, usque ad tertiam et quartam generationem. Videte ergo quam periculosum est inire coniugia ex genere impiorum
Augustinus de quaest. novi et Vet. testamenti
Vel non immerito sublati sunt de numero ceterorum Ochozias, Ioas et Amasias. Sic enim eorum continuavit impietas, ut nullum intervallum haberet. Salomon autem merito patris dimissum in regno est; Roboam autem merito filii; illi autem tres maligne agentes erasi sunt. Ad perditionem enim generis exemplum est quando iugiter malignitas panditur. Sequitur Ozias autem genuit Ioatham. Ioatham autem genuit Achaz. Achaz autem genuit Ezechiam
Glossa
Cui, cum esset sine liberis, dictum est: dispone domui tuae, quia morieris. Ideo flevit non propter longiorem vitam, cum sciret inde Salomonem placuisse Deo, quod non petiisset ampliores annos, sed quia dubitabat ne promissio Dei impleretur, cum se sciret esse de David, per quem oportebat venire Christum, et ipse erat sine liberis. Sequitur Ezechias autem genuit Manassen. Manasses autem genuit Amon. Amon autem genuit Iosiam. Iosias autem genuit Iechoniam et fratres eius in transmigratione Babylonis
Chrysostomus super Matth
Sed non sic positum est in libro regum, ubi talis est ordo: Iosias genuit Eliacim, postea vocatum Ioakim; Ioakim autem genuit Ieconiam. Sed Ioakim sublatus est de numero regum, quia non populus Dei constituerat eum in regnum, sed Pharao per potentatum. Si enim iustum fuit ut propter solam commixtionem generis Achab tollerentur tres reges de numero regum, quare non erat iustum ut similiter tolleretur Ioakim, quem Pharao vi hostili fecerat regem? Et sic Iechonias, qui est filius Ioakim, nepos autem Iosiae, sublato patre de numero regum, ipse est positus pro eo, quasi filius Iosiae
Hieronymus
Vel aliter. Sciamus Iechoniam priorem ipsum esse qui Ioakim, secundum autem filium, non patrem: quorum primus per k et m, secundus per ch et n scribitur. Quod scriptorum vitio et longitudine temporum apud Graecos Latinosque confusum est
Ambrosius super Lucam
Duos enim fuisse Ioakim regnorum libri indicant, sic enim scriptum est: dormivit Ioakim cum patribus eius, et regnavit Ioachin filius eius pro eo. Filius autem est cui Ieremias nomen imposuit Iechoniam. Et bene s. Matthaeus a propheta voluit discrepare, ut non Ioachin et Iechoniam vocaret simul, quia maiorem fructum dominicae pietatis astruxit. Generis enim nobilitatem dominus in hominibus non requisivit, sed de captivis et peccatoribus congrue nasci voluit qui remissionem veniebat praedicare captivis. Non igitur suppressit alterum Evangelista, sed utrumque significavit quod uterque Iechonias dictus sit
Remigius
Sed quaeri potest quare dicat Evangelista eos natos in transmigratione, cum nati fuissent antequam transmigratio fuerit facta. Ideo autem dicit hoc quia ad hoc nati sunt ut de regno totius populi pro suis et aliorum peccatis captivi ducerentur. Et quia praescius erat Deus eos esse ducendos captivos, idcirco dixit eos natos in transmigratione. De his autem quos sanctus Evangelista in genealogia domini simul ponit, sciendum quia aut similes fuerunt fama aut infamia: Iudas et fratres eius laudabiles fuerunt fama; similiter Phares et Zara, Iechonias et fratres eius notabiles fuerunt infamia
Glossa
Mystice autem David est Christus, qui Goliam, id est Diabolum, superavit. Urias autem, id est lux mea Deus, est Diabolus, qui dicit. Similis ero altissimo; cui Ecclesiam coniugatam Christus de solario paternae maiestatis adamavit, et pulchram factam sibi matrimonio copulavit. Vel Urias, id est Iudaicus populus, qui per legem de luce gloriatur. Sed huic Christus legem abstulit, quam de se loqui docuit. Bersabee autem est puteus satietatis, id est abundantia gratiae spiritualis
Remigius
Vel Bersabee interpretatur puteus septimus, sive puteus iuramenti, per quod significatur fons Baptismatis, in quo datur donum spiritus septiformis et fit ibi adiuratio contra Diabolum. Est et Christus Salomon pacificus, secundum illud apostoli: ipse est pax nostra. Est Roboam latitudo populi, secundum illud: multi venient ab oriente et ab occidente
Rabanus Maurus
Vel impetus populi, quia velociter populus convertit ad fidem
Remigius
Ipse est Abias, id est pater dominus, secundum illud: unus est pater vester qui in caelis est; et iterum: vos vocatis me magister et domine. Est et Asa, idest attollens, secundum illud: qui tollit peccata mundi. Est et Iosaphat, idest iudicans, secundum illud: pater omne iudicium dedit filio. Est et Ioram, id est excelsus, secundum illud: nemo ascendit in caelum, nisi qui de caelo descendit. Est et Ozias, idest robustus domini, secundum illud: fortitudo mea et laus mea dominus. Est et Ioatham consummatus vel perfectus, secundum illud apostoli: finis legis, Christus. Est et Achaz convertens, secundum illud: convertimini ad me
Rabanus Maurus
Vel comprehendens, quia nemo novit patrem nisi filius
Remigius
Est et Ezechias fortis dominus vel dominus confortavit, secundum illud: confidite, ego vici mundum. Ipse est Manasses obliviosus sive oblitus, secundum illud: peccatorum vestrorum non recordabor amplius. Est et Amon fidelis, secundum illud: fidelis dominus in omnibus verbis suis. Est et Iosias, ubi est incensum domini, secundum illud: factus in agonia, prolixius orabat
Rabanus Maurus
Quod vero incensum orationem significat, Psalmista testatur dicens: dirigatur oratio mea sicut incensum in conspectu tuo. Vel domini salus, secundum illud: salus autem mea in sempiternum erit
Remigius
Ipse Iechonias praeparans, vel domini praeparatio, secundum illud: si abiero, et praeparavero locum
Glossa
Moraliter autem post David sequitur Salomon, qui interpretatur pacificus. Tunc enim aliquis fit pacificus, motibus sedatis illicitis, et quasi iam in aeterna tranquillitate positus, cum Deo servit et alios ad eum convertit. Sequitur Roboam, id est populi latitudo: postquam enim non habet quod in se vincat, amplecti alios debet et late populum Dei ad superna trahere secum. Sequitur Abias, idest pater dominus: his enim praemissis potest se profiteri filium Dei, et tunc esse Asa, idest attollens, ut de virtute in virtutem ad patrem suum ascendat; et tunc erit Iosaphat, idest iudicans, ut alios iudicet et a nemine iudicetur. Ita fit Ioram, idest excelsus, quasi in caelestibus habitans; unde efficitur Ozias, idest robustus domini, quasi robur suum Deo attribuens et in suo proposito perseverans. Et sequitur Ioathan, idest perfectus, quia quotidie in maius proficit. Et sic fit Achaz, idest comprehendens: ex operatione enim augmentatur agnitio, secundum illud: annuntiaverunt opera Dei, et facta eius intellexerunt. Sequitur Ezechias, idest fortis dominus, quia Deum fortem esse intelligit; et ideo in amorem eius conversus fit Manasses, idest obliviosus, temporalia tradens oblivioni; et ex hoc fit Amon, idest fidelis: qui enim temporalia contemnit, neminem in re sua defraudat. Et fit Iosias, idest salutem domini secure expectans: Iosias enim salus domini interpretatur
1:14
Pseudo-Chrysostom ubi sup.
After the carrying away, he sets Jeconiah again, as now become a private person.
St Ambrose † AD 397
Of whom Jeremiah speaks. Write this man dethroned; for there shall not spring of his seed one sitting on the throne of David. (Jer. 22:30.) How is this said of the Prophet, that none of the seed of Jeconias should reign? For if Christ reigned, and Christ was of the seed of Jeconiah, then has the Prophet spoken falsely. But it is not there declared that there shall be none of the seed of Jeconiah, and so Christ is of his seed; and that Christ did reign, is not in contradiction to the prophecy; for He did not reign with worldly honours, as He said, My kingdom is not of this world. (John 18:36.)
Pseudo-Chrysostom
Concerning Salathiell, we have read nothing either good or bad, but we suppose him to have been a holy man, and in the captivity to have constantly besought God in behalf of afflicted Israel, and that hence he was named Salathiel, ‘the petition of Godm.’ Salathiel begot Zorobabel, which is interpreted, ‘flowing postponed,’ or, ‘of the confusion,’ or here, ‘the doctor of Babylonn.’ I have read, but know not whether it be true, that both the priestly line and the royal line were united in Zorobabel; and that it was through him that the children of Israel returned into their own country. For that in a disputation held between three, of whom Zorobabel was one, each defending his own opinion, Zorobabel’s sentence, that Truth was the strongest thing, prevailed; and that for this Darius granted him that the children of Israel should return to their country; and therefore after this providence of God, he was rightly called Zorobabel, ‘the doctor of Babylon.’ For what doctrine greater than to shew that Truth is the mistress of all things?
The Gloss
But this seems to contradict the genealogy which is read in Chronicles (1 Chron. 3:17.). For there it is said, that Jeconias begot Salathiel and Phadaias, and Phadaias begot Zorobabel, and Zorobabel Mosollah, Ananias, and Salomith their sister. But we know that many parts of the Chronicles have been corrupted by time, and error of transcribers. Hence come many and controverted questions of genealogies which the Apostle bids us avoid (1 Tim. 1:4.). Or it may be said, that Salathiel and Phadaias are the same man under two different names. Or that Salathiel and Phadaias were brothers, and both had sons of the same name, and that the writer of the history followed the genealogy of Zorobabel, the son of Salathiel. From Abiud down to Joseph, no history is found in the Chronicles; but we read that the Hebrews had many other annals, which were called the Words of the Days, of which much was burned by Herod, who was a foreigner, in order to confound the descent of the royal line. And perhaps Joseph had read in them the names of his ancestors, or knew them from some other source. And thus the Evangelist could learn the succession of this genealogy. It should be noted, that the first Jeconiah is called the resurrection of the Lord, the second, the preparation of the Lord. Both are very applicable to the Lord Christ, who declares, I am the resurrection, and the life; (John 11:25.) and, I go to prepare a place for you. (John 14:2.) Salathiel, i. e. ‘the Lord is my petition,’ is suitable to Him who said, Holy Father, keep them whom Thou hast given Me. (John 17:11.)
Remigius † AD 908
He is also Zorobabel, that is, ‘the master of confusion,’ according to that, Your Master eateth with publicans and sinners. (Matt. 9:11.) He is Abiud, that is, ‘He is my Father,’ according to that, I and the Father are One. (John 10:30.) He is also Eliacimo, that is, ‘God the Reviver,’ according to that, I will revive him again in the last day. (John 6:54.) He is also Azor, that is, ‘aided,’ according to that, He who sent Me is with Me. (John 8:29.) He is also Sadoch, that is, ‘the just,’ or, ‘the justified,’ according to that, He was delivered, the just for the unjust. (1 Pet. 3:18.) He is also Achim, that is, ‘my brother is He,’ according to that, Whoso doeth the will of My Father, he is My brother. (Matt. 12:50.) He is also Eliud, that is, ‘He is my God,’ according to that, My Lord, and my God. (John 20:28.)
The Gloss
He is also Eleazar, i. e. ‘God is my helper,’ as in the seventeenth Psalm, My God, my helper. He is also Mathan, that is, ‘giving,’ or, ‘given,’ for, He gave gifts for men; (Eph. 4:8.) and, God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son. (John 3:16.)
Remigius † AD 908
He is also Jacob, ‘that supplanteth,’ for not only hath He supplanted the Devil, but hath given His power to His faithful people; as, Behold I have given you power to tread upon serpents. (Luke 10:19.) He is also Joseph, that is, ‘adding,’ according to that, I came that they might have life, and that they might have it abundantly. (John 10:10.)
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
But let us see what moral signification these names contain. After Jeconias, which means ‘the preparation of the Lord,’ follows Salathiel, i. e. ‘God is my petition,’ for he who is rightly prepared, prays not but of God. Again, he becomes Zorobabel, ‘the master of Babylon,’ that is, of the men of the earth, whom he makes to know concerning God, that He is their Father, which is signified in Abiud. Then that people rise again from their vices, whence follows Eliacim, ‘the resurrection;’ and thence rise to good works, which is Azor, and becomes Sadoch, i. e. ‘righteous;’ and then they are taught the love of their neighbour. He is my brother, which is signified in Achim; and through love to God he says of Him, ‘My God,’ which Eliud signifies. Then follows Eleazar, i. e. ‘God is my helper;’ he recognizes God as his helper. But whereto he tends is shewn in Matthan, which is interpreted ‘gift,’ or ‘giving;’ for he looks to God as his benefactor; and as he wrestled with and overcame his vices in the beginning, so he does in the end of life, which belongs to Jacob, and thus he reaches Joseph, that is, ‘The increase of virtues.’
The Latin text
Chrysostomus super Matth
Post transmigrationem inter privatas personas primo ponit Iechoniam quasi privatum et ipsum
Ambrosius super Lucam
De quo Ieremias dicit: scribe virum istum abdicatum: quia non exsurget ex semine eius sedens in throno David. Quomodo autem ex semine Iechoniae nullus regnaturus dicitur per prophetam? Si enim Christus regnavit, ex semine autem Iechoniae Christus est, propheta mentitus est. Sed illic futuros ex semine Iechoniae non negatur; et ideo de semine eius Christus est; et quod regnaverit Christus, non contra prophetam est: non enim saeculari honore regnavit; ipse enim dixit: regnum meum non est de hoc mundo. Iechonias autem genuit Salathiel
Chrysostomus super Matth
De Salathiel quidem nihil legimus vel boni vel mali; tamen putamus sanctum eum fuisse, et in captivitate assidue Deum petiisse pro ipsa calamitate quae contigerat Israel: ideo petitionem Dei eum appellatum fuisse; interpretatur enim petitio Dei. Salathiel autem genuit Zorobabel, qui interpretatur fluitio postposita, vel ex commixtione, vel hic doctor Babyloniae. Legi (si verum est nescio) quia sacerdotale et regale genus mixtum est in Zorobabel. Propter istum autem reversi sunt filii Israel in terram propriam quia cum contenderent tres pro sua sententia, vicit Zorobabel, et pronuntiata est omnibus fortior veritas esse; propter quod Darius concessit ei filios Israel redire in sua; et ideo recte secundum providentiam Dei nominatus est Zorobabel, idest doctor Babyloniae. Quae enim maior doctrina quam ostendere veritatem dominatricem esse omnium rerum?
Glossa
Sed hoc videtur esse contrarium generationi quae legitur in Paralipomenon. Dicitur enim ibi Iechonias genuisse Salathiel et Phadaia, et Phadaia Zorobabel, et Zorobabel Mosollam, Ananiam et Salamith sororem eorum. Sed scimus multa in Paralipomenon vitio scriptorum depravata. Unde multae et indeterminatae genealogiarum veniunt quaestiones, quas iubet apostolus evitari. Vel potest dici Salathiel et Phadaia eumdem esse, quasi binomium. Vel Salathiel et Phadaia fratres esse, et filios eiusdem nominis habuisse; et historiographum secutum fuisse generationem Zorobabel filii Salathiel. De Abiud usque ad Ioseph nulla historia invenitur in Paralipomenon; sed alii multi annales leguntur fuisse apud Hebraeos, qui dicebantur verba dierum, de quibus Herodes rex alienigena dicitur multos combussisse ut ordo regiae stirpis confunderetur. Et forsitan Ioseph nomina parentum ibi legerat, vel alio quoquo modo retinuerat. Unde Evangelista seriem istius generationis poterat scire. Notandum tamen, quod prior Iechonias domini resurrectio, sequens domini praeparatio dicitur. Utrumque autem convenit domino Christo, qui dicit: ego sum resurrectio et vita; et: vado parare vobis locum. Salathiel, idest petitio mea Deus, illi convenit qui dicit: pater sancte, serva illos quos dedisti mihi
Remigius
Est etiam Zorobabel, idest magister confusionis, secundum illud: magister vester cum publicanis et peccatoribus manducat. Ipse est Abiud, idest pater meus iste, secundum illud: ego et pater unum sumus. Est et Eliacim, idest Deus resuscitans, secundum illud: resuscitabo eum in novissimo die. Est et Azor, idest adiutus, secundum illud: qui me misit, mecum est. Ipse est et Sadoch iustus, sive iustificatus, secundum illud: traditus iustus pro iniustis. Est et Achim, idest frater meus iste, secundum illud: qui fecerit voluntatem patris mei, hic meus frater est. Est etiam Eliud, idest Deus meus iste, secundum illud: Deus meus et dominus meus
Glossa
Est et Eleazar, idest Deus meus adiutor, secundum illud: Deus meus adiutor meus. Est et Mathan, idest donans vel donatus, secundum illud: dedit dona hominibus et: sic Deus dilexit mundum ut filium suum daret unigenitum
Remigius
Est et Iacob supplantans, quia non solum ipse supplantavit Diabolum, sed et huius potestatem suis fidelibus dedit, secundum illud: ecce dedi vobis potestatem calcandi supra serpentes. Est et Ioseph, idest apponens, secundum illud: ego veni ut vitam habeant, et abundantius habeant
Rabanus Maurus
Sed videamus quid moraliter isti patres significent: quia post Iechoniam, qui dicitur praeparatio domini, sequitur Salathiel, idest petitio mea Deus; qui enim praeparatus est non petit nisi solum Deum. Sed iterum fit Zorobabel, idest magister Babylonis, scilicet terrenorum hominum, quos facit cognoscere de Deo quod pater est, quod sonat Abiud; et tunc ille populus resurgit a vitiis: unde sequitur Eliacim, qui resurrectio interpretatur. Et idem ad bene operandum adiutus, quod sonat Azor, fit Sadoch, idest iustus; et tunc dicit fidelis dilectionem proximi. Ipse est frater meus, quod sonat Achim; et per dilectionem Dei dicit Deus meus, quod sonat Eliud. Et sequitur Eleazar, idest Deus meus adiutor, quia recognoscit Deum suum adiutorem. Ad quid autem tendit, ostendit Mathan, qui dicitur donum vel donans: expectat enim Deum datorem; et sicut luctatus est in principio et vitia supplantavit, sic et in fine vitae, quod ad Iacob pertinet; et sic pervenitur ad Ioseph, idest ad augmentum virtutum
1:16
The Gloss
In the last place, after all the patriarchs, he sets down Joseph the husband of Mary, for whose sake all the rest are introduced, saying, But Jacob begot Joseph.
St Jerome † AD 420
This passage is objected to us by the Emperor Julian in his Discrepancy of the Evangelists. Matthew calls Joseph the son of Jacob, Luke makes him the son of Heli. He did not know the Scripture manner, one was his father by nature, the other by law. For we know that God commanded by Moses, that if a brother or near kinsman died without children, another should take his wife, to raise up seed to his brother or kinsman. (Deut. 25.) But of this matter Africanus the chronologistp, and Eusebius of Cæsarca, have disputed more fully.
Eusebius † AD 339 Hist. Eccles. 1.7.
For Matthan and Melchi at different periods had each a son by one and the same wife Jesca. Matthan, who traced through Solomon, first had her, and died leaving one son, Jacob by name. As the Law forbade not a widow, either dismissed from her husband, or after the death of her husband, to be married to another, so Melchi, who traced through Matthan, being of the same tribe but of another race, took this widow to his wife, and begat Heli his son. Thus shall we find Jacob and Heli, though of a different race, yet by the same mother, to have been brethren. One of whom, namely Jacob, after Heli his brother was deceased without issue, married his wife, and begat on her the third, Joseph, by nature indeed and reason his own son; whereupon also it is written, And Jacob begat Joseph. But by the Law, he was the son of Heli; for Jacob, being his brother, raised up seed to him. Thus the genealogy, both as recited by Matthew, and by Luke, stands right and true; Matthew saying, And Jacob begot Joseph; Luke saying, Which was the son, as it was supposed, (for he adds this withal,) of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, which was the son of Melchi. Nor could he have more significantly or properly expressed that way of generation according to the Law, which was made by a certain adoption that had respect to the dead, carefully leaving out the word begetting throughout even to the end.
St Augustine † AD 430 De Cons. Evang. ii. 2.
He is more properly called his son, by whom he was adopted, than had he been said to have been begotten of him of whose flesh he was not born. Wherefore Matthew, in saying Abraham begot Isaac, and continuing the same phrase throughout down to Jacob begot Joseph, sufficiently declares that he gives the father according to the order of nature, so as that we must hold Joseph to have been begotten, not adopted, by Jacob. Though even if Luke had used the word begotten, we need not have thought it any serious objection; for it is not absurd to say of an adopted son that he is begotten, not after the flesh, but by affection.
Eusebius † AD 339 ubi sup.
Neither does this lack good authority; nor has it been suddenly devised by us for this purpose. For the kinsmen of our Saviour according to the flesh, either out of desire to shew forth this their so great nobility of stock, or simply for the truth’s sake, have delivered it unto us.
St Augustine † AD 430 De Cons. Evang. ii. 4.
And suitably does Luke, who relates Christ’s ancestry not in the opening of his Gospel, but at his baptism, follow the line of adoption, as thus more clearly pointing Him out as the Priest that should make atonement for sin. For by adoption we are made the sons of God, by believing in the Son of God. But by the descent according to the flesh which Matthew follows, we rather see that the Son of God was for us made man. Luke sufficiently shews that he called Joseph the son of Heli, because he was adopted by Heli, by his calling Adam the son of God, which he was by grace, as he was set in Paradise, though he lost it afterwards by sinning.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. iv.
Having gone through all the ancestry, and ended in Joseph, he adds, The husband of Mary, thereby declaring that it was for her sake that he was included in the genealogy.
St Jerome † AD 420
When you hear this word husband, do not straight bethink you of wedlock, but remember the Scripture manner, which calls persons only betrothed husband and wife.
Gennadius De Eccles. Dog. 2.
The Son of God was born of human flesh, that is of Mary, and not by man after the way of nature, as Ebion says; and accordingly it is significantly added, Of her Jesus was born.
St Augustine † AD 430 De Hæres. ii.
This is said against Valentinus, who taught that Christ took nothing of the Virgin Mary, but passed through her as through a channel or pipe.
St Augustine † AD 430
Wherefore it pleased Him to take flesh of the womb of a woman, is known in His own secret counsels; whether that He might confer honour on both sexes alike, by taking the form of a man, and being born of a woman, or from some other reason which I would not hastily pronounce on.
St Hilary † AD 367 Quæst. Nov. et Vet. Test. q. 49.
What God conveyed by the anointing of oil to those who were anointed to be kings, this the Holy Spirit conveyed upon the man Christ, adding thereto the expiation; wherefore when born He was called Christ; and thus it proceeds, who is called Christ.
St Augustine † AD 430 De Cons. Evang. ii. 1.
It was not lawful that he should think to separate himself from Mary for this, that she brought forth Christ as yet a Virgin. And herein may the faithful gather, that if they be married, and preserve strict continence on both sides, yet may their wedlock hold with union of love only, without carnal; for here they see that it is possible that a son be born without carnal embrace.
St Augustine † AD 430 De Nupt. et Concup. i. 11.
In Christ’s parents was accomplished every good benefit of marriage, fidelity, progeny, and a sacrament. The progeny we see in the Lord Himself; fidelity, for there was no adultery; sacrament, for there was no divorce.
St Jerome † AD 420
The attentive reader may ask, Seeing Joseph was not the father of the Lord and Saviour, how does his genealogy traced down to him in order pertain to the Lord? We will answer, first, that it is not the practice of Scripture to follow the female line in its genealogies; secondly, that Joseph and Mary were of the same tribe, and that he was thence compelled to take her to wife as a kinsman, and they were enrolled together at Bethlehem, as being come of one stock.
St Augustine † AD 430 ubi sup.
Also, the line of descent ought to be brought down to Joseph, that in wedlock no wrong might be done to the male sex, as the more worthy, provided only nothing was taken away from the truth; because Mary was of the seed of David.
St Augustine † AD 430 Id. non occ.
Hence then we believe that Mary was in the line of David; namely, because we believe the Scripture which affirms two things, both that Christ was of the seed of David according to the flesh, and that He should be conceived of Mary not by knowledge of man, but as yet a virgin.
The Council of Ephesus † AD 431
Herein we must beware of the error of Nestorius, who thus speaks; “When Divine Scripture is to speak either of the birth of Christ which is of the Virgin Mary, or His death, it is never seen to put God, but either, Christ, or Son, or Lord; since these three are significative of the two natures, sometimes of this, sometimes of that, and sometimes of both this and that together. And here is a testimony to this, Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. For God the Word needed not a second birth of a woman.”
Pseudo-Augustine Vigil. Cont. Fel. 12. ap. Aug. t. 8. p. 45.
But not one was the Son of God, and another the son of a man; but the same Christ was the Son of both God and man. And as in one man, the soul is one and the body is another, so in the mediator between God and man, the Son of God was one, and the son of man another; yet of both together was one Christ the Lord. Two in distinction of substance, one in unity of Person. But the heretic objects; “how can you teach Him to have been born in time whom you say was before coeternal with His Father? For birth is as it were a motion of a thing not in being, before it be born, bringing about this, that by benefit of birth it come into being. Whence it is concluded, that He who was in being cannot be born; if He could be born He was not in being.” (To this it is replied by Augustine;) Let us imagine, as many will have it, that the universe has a general soul, which by some unspeakable motion gives life to all seeds, so as that itself is not mixed up with the things it produces. When this then passes forth into the womb to form passible matter to its own uses, it makes one with itself the person of that thing which it is clear has not the same substance. And thus, the soul being active and the matter passive, of two substances is made one man, the soul and the flesh being distinct; thus it is that our confession is, that that soul is born of the womb which in coming to the womb we say conferred life on the thing conceived. He, I say, is said to be born of His mother, who shaped to Himself a body out of her, in which He might be born; not as though before He was born, His mother might, as far as pertained to Him, not have been in being. In like manner, yea in a manner yet more incomprehensible and sublime, the Son of God was born, by taking on Him perfect manhood of his Mother. He who by his singular almighty power is the cause of their being born to all things that are born.
The Latin text
Glossa
Post omnes generationes patrum ponit ultimo generationem Ioseph viri Mariae, propter quam omnes aliae introducuntur, dicens Iacob autem genuit Ioseph
Hieronymus
Hunc locum obiicit nobis Iulianus Augustus de dissonantia Evangelistarum: cur Matthaeus Ioseph filium dixit Iacob, et Lucas filium eum appellaverit Heli; non intelligens consuetudinem Scripturarum, quod alter secundum naturam, alter secundum legem ei pater sit. Scimus enim hoc per Moysen Deo iubente praeceptum, ut si frater aut propinquus absque liberis mortuus fuerit, alius eius accipiat uxorem ad suscitandum semen fratris vel propinqui sui. Super hoc Africanus, temporum scriptor, et Eusebius Caesariensis plenius disputaverunt
Ex historia autem ecclesiastica
Mathan enim et Melchi diversis temporibus ex una eademque uxore Iescha nomine singulos filios procrearunt. Quia Mathan per Salomonem descendit, uxorem eam primum ceperat, et relicto filio uno Iacob nomine, defunctus est. Post cuius obitum, quoniam lex viduam alii viro non vetat nubere, Melchi, qui per Mathan genus ducit, cum esset ex eadem tribu, sed non ex eodem genere, relictam Mathan accepit uxorem, ex qua ipse suscepit filium nomine Heli, per quos ex diverso patrum genere efficiuntur Iacob et Heli uterini fratres; quorum alter, idest Iacob, fratris Heli sine liberis defuncti uxorem ex mandato legis accipiens, genuit Ioseph, natura quidem generis suum filium; propter quod et scribitur Iacob autem genuit Ioseph. Secundum legis vero praeceptum, Heli efficitur filius Iacob quia frater erat et ad suscitandum fratris semen acceperat uxorem eius. Et per hoc recta invenitur atque integra generatio et ea quam Matthaeus enumerat et ea quam Lucas, qui legalem successionem, quae velut adoptione quadam erga defunctos constat, competenti satis per hoc designavit indicio, observans ne in huiusmodi successionibus genuisse aliquem nominaret
Augustinus de Cons. Evang
Commodius enim filius eius dictus est a quo fuerat adoptatus, quam si diceretur ab illo genitus cuius carne non erat natus. Matthaeus autem dicens Abraham genuit Isaac, et in hoc perseverans donec diceret Iacob genuit Ioseph, satis expressit eum patrem produxisse secundum ordinem generationum a quo Ioseph non adoptatus, sed genitus erat. Quamquam si etiam Lucas genitum diceret Ioseph ab Heli, nec sic nos hoc verbum perturbare deberet; neque enim absurde quisquam dicitur non carne sed caritate genuisse quem sibi filium adoptaverit
Ex historia Eccles
Haec autem non nobis ad lubitum reperta aut absque ullis auctoribus commentata sunt, sed ipsi salvatoris nostri secundum carnem propinqui, seu studio tanti seminis demonstrandi, seu edocendi quae secundum veritatem gesta sunt, haec tradiderunt
Augustinus de Cons. Evang
Merito autem Lucas, qui non ab initio Evangelii sui sed a Baptismo Christi generationes enarrat tamquam sacerdotem in expiandis peccatis magis assignans, adoptionis originem ipse suscepit, quia per adoptionem efficimur filii Dei credendo in filium Dei. Per carnalem vero generationem, quam Matthaeus prosequitur, filius Dei potius propter nos homo factus est. Satis autem ostendit Lucas se dixisse Ioseph filium Heli, quod illi fuerit adoptatus, cum Adam filium dixerit Dei per gratiam, quam postea peccando amisit, tamquam filius in Paradiso constitutus sit
Chrysostomus in Matth
Positis igitur progenitoribus universis et finiens in Ioseph, addit virum Mariae, monstrans quod propter illam et hunc in genealogia posuit
Hieronymus
Cum autem virum audieris, tibi suspicio non subeat nuptiarum; sed recordare consuetudinis Scripturarum, quod sponsae uxores, et sponsi viri vocantur
Gennadius de ecclesiasticis dogmatibus
Natus est autem Dei filius ex homine, idest ex Maria, et non per hominem, idest ex viri coitu, sicut Ebion dicit; unde signanter subdit de qua natus est Iesus
Augustinus de Haeres
Quod est contra Valentinum, qui dixit Christum nihil assumpsisse de virgine, sed per illam tamquam per rivum aut fistulam pertransisse
Augustinus contra Faustum
Cur autem carnem ex utero feminae assumere voluerit, summa consilii penes ipsum est: sive quod utrumque sexum hoc modo honorandum iudicavit assumendo formam viri et nascendo de femina, sive aliqua alia causa quam non temere dixerim
Augustinus de quaest. novi et Vet. Testam
Quod autem per olei unctionem praestabat Deus his qui in reges ungebantur, hoc praestitit spiritus sanctus homini Christo addita expiatione; quare natus, Christus est appellatus; et hoc est quod dicitur qui vocatur Christus
Augustinus de Cons. Evang
Non tamen erat fas ut eum ob hoc a coniugio Mariae separandum putaret quod non ex eius concubitu, sed virgo peperit Christum; hoc enim exemplo magnifice insinuatur fidelibus coniugatis et servata pari consensu continentia, posse permanere coniugium non permixto corporis sexu, sed custodito mentis affectu; praesertim quia nasci eis filius potuit sine ullo complexu carnali
Augustinus de Nupt. et Conc
Omne autem nuptiarum bonum impletum est in illis parentibus Christi: fides, proles et sacramentum; prolem cognoscimus ipsum dominum, fidem quia nullum adulterium, sacramentum quia nullum divortium
Hieronymus
Quaerat autem diligens lector, et dicat: cum Ioseph non sit pater domini salvatoris, quid pertinet ad dominum generationis ordo deductus usque ad Ioseph? Cui respondebimus primo, non esse consuetudinis Scripturarum ut mulierum in generationibus ordo texatur, deinde ex una tribu fuisse Ioseph et Mariam unde ex lege eam accipere cogebatur ut propinquam et quod simul censentur in Bethlehem, ut de una videlicet stirpe generati
Augustinus de Nupt. et Conc
Fuit et series generationis usque ad Ioseph producenda ne in illo coniugio virili sexui, utique potiori, fieret iniuria, cum veritati nihil deperiret quia ex semine David erat Maria
Augustinus contra Faustum
Nos ergo credimus etiam Mariam fuisse in cognatione David quia eis Scripturis credimus quae utrumque dicunt: et Christum ex semine David secundum carnem, et eius matrem Mariam, non cum viro concumbendo, sed virginem
Concilium Ephesinum
Cavendus autem est hic Nestorii error qui sic dicit: cum divina Scriptura dictura est aut nativitatem Christi, quae ex Maria virgine est, aut mortem, nusquam videtur ponens Deus, sed aut Christus aut filius aut dominus, quoniam haec tria naturarum significativa duarum: aliquando quidem huius, aliquando vero illius, aliquando autem et illius et istius. Accipe autem ad hoc testimonium: Iacob genuit Ioseph virum Mariae, de qua natus est Iesus qui dicitur Christus. Deus enim verbum secunda ex muliere non eguit nativitate
Augustinus contra Felicianum
Sed non alius Dei et alius hominis, sed idem Christus Dei et hominis filius fuit. Et sicut in uno homine aliud animus et aliud corpus, sic in mediatore Dei et hominum aliud Dei filius, aliud hominis filius fuit, unus tamen ex utroque Christus dominus fuit. Aliud, inquam, pro discretione substantiae, non alius pro unitate personae
Sed obiicit haereticus
nescio quomodo natum doceatis ex tempore quem coaeternum patri dicitis iam fuisse. Nasci enim est velut quidam motus rei non extantis antequam nascatur, id agens beneficio nativitatis ut sit. Quo colligitur, eum qui erat nasci non potuisse, et si nasci potuit, non fuisse
Ad quod respondetur ab Augustino
Fingamus, sicut plerique volunt, esse in mundo animam generalem quae sic ineffabili motu semina cuncta vivificet ut non sit concreta cum genitis; nempe cum haec in uterum passibilem materiam ad usus suos formatura pervenerit, unam facit secum esse personam eius rei, quam non eamdem constat habere substantiam; et fit, operante anima et patiente materia, ex duabus substantiis unus homo, cum anima aliud doceatur esse, aliud caro. Sicque animam nasci fatemur ex utero, quam ad uterum venientem vitam dicimus contulisse concepto. Nasci, inquam, ex matre dicitur qui ex hac sibi corpus aptavit in quo nasci posset, non quia antequam nasceretur, quantum ad se attinet, ipsa penitus non fuisset. Sic ergo, immo multo incomprehensibilius atque sublimius, natus est susceptione perfecti hominis de matre filius Dei, qui per omnipotentiam singularem omnibus genitis est causa nascendi
1:17
Pseudo-Chrysostom
Having enumerated the generations from Abraham to Christ, he divides them into three divisions of fourteen generations, because three times at the end of fourteen generations the state of the people of the Jews was changed. From Abraham to David they were under Judges; from David to the carrying away into Babylon under Kings; from the carrying away to Christ under the High Priests. What he would shew then is this; like as ever at the end of fourteen generations the state of men has changed, so there being fourteen generations completed from the carrying away to Christ, it must needs be that the state of men be changed by Christ. And so since Christ all the Gentiles have been made under one Christ Judge, King, and Priest. And for that Judges, Kings, and Priests prefigured Christ’s dignity, their beginnings were always in a type of Christ; the first of the Judges was Joshua the son of Nave; the first of the Kings, David; the first of the Priests, Jesus son of Josedech. That this was typical of Christ none doubts.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
Or he divided the whole genealogy into three parts, to shew that not even by the change of their government were they made better, but under Judges, Kings, High Priests, and Priests, held the same evil course. For which cause also he mentions the captivity in Babylon, shewing that neither by this were they corrected. But the going down into Egypt is not mentioned, because they were not still in terror of the Egyptians as they were of the Assyrians or Parthians; and because that was a remote, but this a recent event; and because they had not been carried thither for sin as they had to Babylon.
St Ambrose † AD 397 in Luc. c. 3.
Let us not think this is to be overlooked, that though there were seventeen Kings of Judæa between David and Jeconiah, Matthew only recounts fourteen. We must observe that there might be many more successions to the throne than generations of men; for some may live longer and beget children later; or might be altogether without seed; thence the number of Kings and of generations would not coincide.
The Gloss
Or we may say, that there are three Kings overlooked, as was said above.
St Ambrose † AD 397 ubi sup.
Again, from Jeconiah to Joseph are computed twelve generations; yet he afterwards calls these also fourteen. But if you look attentively, you will be able to discover the method by which fourteen are reckoned here. Twelve are reckoned including Joseph, and Christ is the thirteenth; and history declares that there were two Joakims, that is two Jeconiahs, father and son. The Evangelist has not passed over either of these, but has named them both. Thus, adding the younger Jeconiah, fourteen generations are computed.
Pseudo-Chrysostom
Or, the same Jeconiah is counted twice in the Gospel, once before the carrying away, and again after the carrying away. For this Jeconiah being one person had two different conditions; before the carrying away he was King, as being made King by the people of God; but he became a private man at the carrying away; hence he is reckoned once among the Kings before the carrying away; and after the carrying away once among private men.
St Augustine † AD 430 De Cons. Ev. ii. 4.
Or, one of Christ’s forefathers is counted twice, because in him, Jeconiah to wit, there was made a passing off to strange nations since he was carried to Babylon. Wherever a series turns out of the right line to go in any other direction there is an angle made, and that part that is in the angle is reckoned twice. Thus here is a figure of Christ, who passes from the circumcision to the uncircumcision, and is made a cornerstone.
Remigius † AD 908
He made fourteen generations, because the ten denotes the decalogue, and the four the four books of the Gospel; whence this shews the agreement of the Law and the Gospel. And he put the fourteen three times over, that he might shew that the perfection of law, prophecy, and grace, consists in the faith of the Holy Trinity.
The Gloss
Or in this number is signified the sevenfold grace of the Holy Spirit. The number is made up of seven, doubled, to shew that the grace of the Holy Spirit is needed both for soul and body to salvation. Also the genealogy is divided into three portions of fourteen thus. The first from Abraham to David, so as that David is included in it; the second from David to the carrying away, in which David is not included, but the carrying away is included; the third is from the carrying away to Christ, in which if we say that Jeconiah is included, then the carrying away is included. In the first are denoted the men before the Law, in which you will find some of the men of the Law of nature, such as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, all as far as Solomon. In the second are denoted the men under the Law; for all who are included in it were under the Law. In the third are found the men of grace; for it is finished in Christ, who was the giver of grace; and because in it was the deliverance from Babylon, signifying the deliverance from captivity that was made by Christ.
St Augustine † AD 430 ubi sup.
After having divided the whole into three periods of fourteen generations, he does not sum them all up and say, The sum of the whole is forty and two; because one of those fathers, that is Jeconiah, is reckoned twice; so that they do not amount to forty-two, as three times fourteen does, but because one is reckoned twice over, there are only forty-one generations. Matthew therefore, whose purpose was to draw out Christ’s kingly character, counts forty successions in the genealogy exclusive of Christ. This number denotes the time for which we must be governed by Christ in this world, according to that painful discipline which is signified by the iron rod of which it is written in the Psalms, Thou shall rule them with a rod of iron. That this number should denote this our temporal life, a reason offers at hand, in this, that the seasons of the year are four, and that the world itself is bounded by four sides, the east, and west, the north, and the south. But forty contains ten four times. Moreover, ten itself is made up by a number proceeding from one to four.
The Gloss
Or, the ten refers to the decalogue, the four to this life present, which passes through four seasons; or by the ten is meant the Old Testament, by the four the New.
Remigius † AD 908
But if any, maintaining that it is not the same Jeconiah, but two different persons, make the number forty and two, we then shall say that the Holy Church is signified; for this number is the product of seven, and six; (for six times seven make forty-two;) the six denotes labour, and the seven rest.
The Latin text
Chrysostomus super Matth
Positis generationibus ab Abraham usque ad Christum, eas in tres partes divisit per generationes quatuordecim quia ter completis quatuordecim generationibus mutatus est in Iudaeis status hominum. Ab Abraham enim usque ad David fuerunt sub iudicibus, a David usque ad transmigrationem Babylonis sub regibus, a transmigratione usque ad Christum sub pontificibus. Hoc ergo vult demonstrare: sicut semper completis quatuordecim generationibus mutatus est hominum status, sic completis quatuordecim generationibus a transmigratione ad Christum necesse est a Christo mutari similiter hominum statum; quod et factum est. Post Christum enim omnes gentes sub uno Christo iudice, rege et pontifice factae sunt; unde quando iudices, reges et pontifices Christi dignitatem praefigurabant, semper principia eorum in figura fuerunt Christi: primus iudicum Iesus Nave, primus regum David, primus pontificum Iesus filius Iosedech. Hoc in figura Christi fuisse, dubitat nemo
Chrysostomus in Matth
Vel ideo in tres partes divisit omnes generationes demonstrans quod neque regimine transmutato facti sunt meliores, sed sub iudicibus, regibus, pontificibus et sacerdotibus in eisdem permanserunt malis; propter quod et captivitatem Babylonis commemorat manifestans quod neque ex hoc sunt correcti. Descensus autem in Aegyptum non meminit quia Aegyptios non timebant sicut Babylonios vel Assyrios, et quia illud erat antiquum, hoc autem recens et quia illuc non propter peccata deducti fuerant sicut in Babylonem
Ambrosius super Lucam
Illud autem non praetermittendum putamus quod a David temporibus usque ad Iechoniam, cum septemdecim fuerint reges Iudaeae, quatuordecim generationes Matthaeus posuit. Oportet autem cognoscere, posse plures esse successiones, pauciores generationes; possunt enim diutius vivere aliqui et serius generare, aut certe penitus exortes generationis existere; itaque non quae regum, eadem generationum tempora
Glossa
Vel potest dici tres reges esse praetermissos, ut superius dictum est
Ambrosius super Lucam
Rursus ergo cum a Iechonia usque ad Ioseph generationes duodecim computentur, postea quatuordecim generationes descriptas esse commemoravit. Sed si diligenter advertas, hic quoque quatuordecim generationum poteris invenire rationem. Duodecim enim a Ioseph numerantur, tertiadecima est Christus; duos autem Ioakim, idest duos Iechonias fuisse historia indicat, patrem et filium. Non igitur suppressit alterum Evangelista, sed utrumque significat. Ita, addito minori Iechonia, generationes quatuordecim computantur
Chrysostomus super Matth
Vel unus Iechonias bis numeratur in Evangelio, semel ante transmigrationem, iterum autem post transmigrationem. Hic enim Iechonias, cum esset unus, duas habuit conditiones: fuit enim et rex ante transmigrationem, quasi rex factus a populo Dei; factus est et privatus post transmigrationem. Ideo ante transmigrationem numeratur inter reges quasi rex, post transmigrationem autem inter privatos
Augustinus de Cons. Evang
Vel ideo unus in illis progenitoribus bis numeratur, idest Iechonias, a quo facta est quaedam in extraneas gentes deflexio quoniam in Babyloniam transmigratus est. Ubi autem ordo a rectitudine flectitur ut eat in diversum, tamquam angulum facit; illud autem quod in angulo est bis numeratur. Et hic iam Christum praefigurat a circumcisione ad praeputium migraturum, et lapidem angularem futurum
Remigius
Ideo autem quatuordecim posuit generationes quia denarius significat Decalogum, quaternarius vero quatuor libros Evangelii; unde in hoc ostendit concordiam legis et Evangelii. Ideo etiam quaterdenarium numerum triplicavit, ut ostenderet quia perfectio legis, prophetiae et gratiae, in fide sanctae Trinitatis consistit
Glossa
Vel in hoc numero septiformis gratia spiritus sancti significatur; hic enim numerus ex septem conficitur; quod autem geminatur significat gratiam spiritus sancti corpori et animae esse necessariam ad salutem. Sic ergo haec generatio dividitur in tres tessaradecades: prima est ab Abraham usque ad David, ita quod David ibi includitur; sed secunda a David usque ad transmigrationem, ita quod David ibi non includitur, sed transmigratio sub eo continetur; tertia est a transmigratione usque ad Christum, in qua si dicamus Iechoniam bis numeratum, transmigratio inclusa est. In prima significantur homines ante legem, in qua quosdam homines naturalis legis invenies, scilicet Abraham, Isaac et Iacob, usque ad Salomonem; in secunda significantur homines sub lege: omnes enim qui in ea inveniuntur sub lege fuerunt; in tertia homines gratiae quia terminatur ad Christum qui gratiae dator fuit, in qua etiam liberatio a captivitate Babyloniae facta est significans liberationem a captivitate per Christum factam
Augustinus de Cons. Evang
Cum autem quaterdenas generationes tribus distinxisset articulis, non tamen eas dixit in summa, ut diceret: fiunt omnes quadraginta et duae. Unus enim in illis progenitoribus bis numeratur, scilicet Iechonias; sic ergo non quadraginta et duae, quod faciunt ter quatuordecim, sed propter unam bis numeratam quadraginta et una generationes fiunt. Matthaeus igitur, qui regiam in Christo constituerat insinuare personam, excepto Christo quadraginta homines in generationum serie numeravit. Numerus enim iste illud tempus significat quo in hoc saeculo regi nos oportet a Christo, secundum disciplinam laboriosam, quam significat illa virga ferrea de qua in Psalmis legitur: reges eos in virga ferrea. Quod autem numerus iste hanc temporalem vitam aeternamque significet, illa interim causa de proximo occurrit, quod et tempora annorum quadripartitis vicibus currunt, et mundus ipse quatuor partibus terminatur, ab oriente et occidente, Aquilone et meridie. Quadraginta autem quatuor habent decem. Porro ipsa decem ab uno usque ad quatuor progrediente numero consummantur
Glossa
Vel denarius ad Decalogum refertur, quaternarius ad praesentem vitam quae per quatuor tempora transit; vel per decem vetus testamentum, per quatuor novum
Remigius
Si quis autem voluerit dicere quod sunt quadraginta et duae generationes, quia non est unus Iechonias, sed duo, dicendum est quod et iste numerus congruit sanctae Ecclesiae; nascitur enim a septenario et senario: nam sexies septem quadraginta et duo faciunt. Senarius refertur ad laborem, septenarius vero ad requiem
1:18
Pseudo-Chrysostom
Having said above, And Jacob begat Joseph, to whom Mary being espoused bare Jesus; that none who heard should suppose that His birth was as that of any of the forementioned fathers, he cuts off the thread of his narrative, saying, But Christ’s generation was thus. As though he were to say, The generation of all these fathers was as I have related it; but Christ’s was not so, but as follows, His mother Mary being espoused.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
He announces that he is to relate the manner of the generation, shewing therein that he is about to speak some new thing; that you may not suppose when you hear mention of Mary’s husband, that Christ was born by the law of nature.
Remigius † AD 908
Yet it might be referred to the foregoing in this way, The generation of Christ was, as I have related, thus, Abraham begat Isaac.
St Jerome † AD 420
But why is He conceived not of a Virgin merely, but of a Virgin espoused? First, that by the descent of Joseph, Mary’s family might be made known; secondly, that she might not be stoned by the Jews as an adulteress; thirdly, that in her flight into Egypt she might have the comfort of a husband. The Martyr Ignatius (vid. Ign. ad Eph. 19.) adds yet a fourth reason, namely, that his birth might be hid from the Devil, looking for Him to be born of a wife and not of a virgin.
Pseudo-Chrysostom
Therefore both espoused and yet remaining at home; for as in her who should conceive in the house of her husband, is understood natural conception; so in her who conceives before she be taken to her husband, there is suspicion of infidelity.
St Jerome † AD 420 cont. Helvid. in princ.
It is to be known, that Helvidius, a certain turbulent man, having got matter of disputation, takes in hand to blaspheme against the Mother of God. His first proposition was, Matthew begins thus, When she was espoused. Behold, he says, you have her espoused, but, as ye say, not yet committed; but surely not espoused for any other reason than as being to be married.
Origen † AD 253 non occ.
She was indeed espoused to Joseph, but not united in wedlock; that is to say, His mother immaculate, His mother incorrupt, His mother pure. His mother! Whose mother? The mother of God, of the Only-begotten, of the Lord, of the King, of the Maker of all things, and the Redeemer of all.
St Cyril of Alexandria † AD 444 Epist. ad Monach. Egypt. [Ep. p. 7.]
What will any one see in the Blessed Virgin more than in other mothers, if she be not the mother of God, but of Christ, or the Lord, as Nestorius says? For it would not be absurd should any one please to name the mother of any anointed person, the mother of Christ. Yet she alone and more than they is called the Holy Virgin, and the mother of Christ. For she bare not a simple man as ye say, but rather the Word incarnate, and made man of God the Father. But perhaps you say, Tell me, do you think the Virgin was made the mother of His divinity? To this also we say, that the Word was born of the very substance of God Himself, and without beginning of time always coexisted with the Father. But in these last times when He was made flesh, that is united to flesh, having a rational soul, He is said to be born of a woman after the flesh. Yet is this sacrament in a manner brought out like to birth among us; for the mothers of earthly children impart to their nature that flesh that is to be perfected by degrees in the human form; but God sends the life into the animal. But though these are mothers only of the earthly bodies, yet when they bear children, they are said to bear the whole animal, and not a part of it only. Such do we see to have been done in the birth of Emmanuel; the Word of God was born of the substance of His Father; but because He took on Him flesh, making it His own, it is necessary to confess that He was born of a woman according to the flesh. Where seeing He is truly God, how shall any one doubt to call the Holy Virgin the Mother of God?
St Peter Chrysologus † AD 450 Serm. 148.
If you are not confounded when you hear of the birth of God, let not His conception disturb you, seeing the pure virginity of the mother removes all that might shock human reverence. And what offence against our awe and reverence is there, when the Deity entered into union with purity that was always dear to Him, where an Angel is mediator, faith is bridemaid, where chastity is the giving away, virtue the gift, conscience the judge, God the cause; where the conception is inviolateness, the birth virginity, and the mother a virginq.
St Cyril of Alexandria † AD 444 Epist. ad Joan Antioch [Ep. p. 107.]
But if we were to say that the holy Body of Christ came down from heaven, and was not made of His mother, as Valentinus does, in what sense could Mary be the Mother of God?
The Gloss
The name of His Mother is added, Mary.
St Bede † AD 735 in Luc. c. 3.
Mary is interpreted, ‘Star of the Sea,’ after the Hebrew; ‘Mistress,’ after the Syriac; as she bare into the world the Light of salvation, and the Lordr.
The Gloss
And to whom she was betrothed is shewn, Joseph.
Pseudo-Chrysostom
Mary was therefore betrothed to a carpenter, because Christ the Spouse of the Church was to work the salvation of all men through the wood of the Cross.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
What follows, Before they came together, does not mean before she was brought to the bridegroom’s house, for she was already within. For it was a frequent custom among the ancients to have their betrothed wives home to their house before marriage; as we see done now also, and as the sons-in-law of Lot were with him in the house.
The Gloss
But the words denote carnal knowledge.
Pseudo-Chrysostom
That He should not be born of passion, of flesh and blood, who was therefore born that He might take away all passion of flesh and blood.
St Augustine † AD 430 De Nupt. et Concup. i. 12.
There was no carnal knowledge in this wedlock, because in sinful flesh this could not be without carnal desire which came of sin, and which He would be without, who was to be without sin; and that hence He might teach us that all flesh which is born of sexual union is sinful flesh, seeing that Flesh alone was without sin, which was not so born.
Pseudo-Augustine in App. 122 et al.
Christ was also born of a pure virgin, because it was not holy that virtue should be born of pleasure, chastity of self-indulgence, incorruption of corruption. Nor could He come from heaven but after some new manner, who came to destroy the ancient empire of death. Therefore she received the crown of virginity who bare the King of chastity. Farther, our Lord sought out for Himself a virgin abode, wherein to be received, that He might shew us that God ought to be borne in a chaste body. Therefore He that wrote on tables of stone without an iron pen, the same wrought in Mary by the Holy Spirit; She was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
St Jerome † AD 420
And found by none other than by Joseph, who knew all, as being her espoused husband.
Pseudo-Chrysostom
For, as a not incredible account relates, Joseph was absent when the things were done which Luke writes. For it is not easy to suppose that the Angel came to Mary and said those words, and Mary made her answer when Joseph was present. And even if we suppose thus much to have been possible, yet it could not be that she should have gone into the hill country, and abode there three months when Joseph was present, because he must needs have enquired the causes of her departure and long stay. And so when after so many months he returned from abroad, he found her manifestly with child.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
He says exactly was found, for so we use to say of things not thought of. And that you should not molest the Evangelist by asking in what way was this birth of a virgin, he clears himself shortly, saying, Of the Holy Ghost. As much as to say, it was the Holy Ghost that wrought this miracle. For neither Gabriel nor Matthew could say any further.
The Gloss ap. Anselm.
Therefore the words, Is of the Holy Ghost, were set down by the Evangelist, to the end, that when it was said that she was with child, all wrong suspicion should be removed from the minds of the hearers.
Pseudo-Augustine Serm. 236. in App.
But not, as some impiously think, are we to suppose, that the Holy Spirit was as seed, but we say that He wrought with the power and might of a Creators.
St Ambrose † AD 397 De Spir. Sanct. ii. 5.
That which is of any thing is either of the substance or the power of that thing; of the substance, as the Son who is of the Father; of the power, as all things are of God, even as Mary was with child of the Holy Spirit.
St Augustine † AD 430 Enchir c. 40.
Furthermore, this manner in which Christ was born of the Holy Spirit suggests to us the grace of God, by which man without any previous merits, in the very beginning of his nature, was united with the Word of God into so great unity of person, that he was also made son of God. (c. 38.). But inasmuch as the whole Trinity wrought to make this creature which was conceived of the Virgin, though pertaining only to the person of the Son, (for the works of the Trinity are indivisible,) why is the Holy Spirit only named in this work? Must we always, when one of the Three is named in any work, understand that the whole Trinity worked in that?
St Jerome † AD 420 Cont. Helvid. in princip.
But says Helvidius; Neither would the Evangelist have said Before they came together, if they were not to come together afterwards; as none would say, Before dinner, where there was to be no dinner. As if one should say, Before I dined in harbour, I set sail for Africa, would this have no meaning in it, unless he were at some time or other to dine in the harbour? Surely we must either understand it thus,—that before, though it often implies something to follow, yet often is said of things that follow only in thought; and it is not necessary that the things so thought of should take place, for that something else has happened to prevent them from taking place.
St Jerome † AD 420
Therefore it by no means follows that they did come together afterwards; Scripture however shews not what did happen.
Remigius † AD 908
Or the word come together may not mean carnal knowledge, but may refer to the time of the nuptials, when she who was betrothed begins to be wife. Thus, before they came together, may mean before they solemnly celebrated the nuptial rites.
St Augustine † AD 430 De Cons. Evang. ii. 5.
How this was done Matthew omits to write, but Luke relates after the conception of John, In the sixth month the Angel was sent; and again, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee. This is what Matthew relates in these words, She was found with child of the Holy Ghost. And it is no contradiction that Luke has described what Matthew omits; or again that Matthew relates what Luke has omitted; that namely which follows, from Now Joseph her husband being a just man, to that place where it is said of the Magi, that They returned into their own country another way. If one desired to digest into one narrative the two accounts of Christ’s birth, he would arrange thus; beginning with Matthew’s words, Now the birth of Christ was on this wise; (Luke 1:5.) then taking up with Luke, from There was in the days of Herod, to, Mary abode with her three months, and returned to her house; then taking up again Matthew, add, She was found with child of the Holy Ghost. (Mat. 1:10.)
The Latin text
Chrysostomus super Matth
Quoniam superius dixerat Iacob autem genuit Ioseph cui desponsata Maria genuit Iesum, ne aliquis audientium sic aestimaret esse nativitatem quomodo praecedentium patrum, ipse ordinem narrationis suae praecidens dicit Christi autem generatio sic erat, ac si dicat: generatio quidem eorum quos exposuimus patrum sic fuit quemadmodum retuli; Christi autem generatio non sic, sed ita erat: cum esset desponsata mater
Chrysostomus in Matth
Quasi enim aliquid novum dicturus praemittit modum generationis dicere, ne audiens virum Mariae aestimes natum esse lege naturae
Remigius
Potest autem ad superiora referri hoc modo: sic erat Christi generatio sicut dixi; idest: Abraham genuit Isaac
Hieronymus
Sed quare non de simplici virgine, sed de desponsata concipitur? Primum, ut per generationem Ioseph origo Mariae monstraretur; secundo, ne lapidaretur a Iudaeis ut adultera; tertio, ut in Aegyptum fugiens haberet solatium mariti. Martyr etiam Ignatius quartam addit causam: ut partus, inquiens, eius celaretur Diabolo, dum eum putat non de virgine, sed de uxore generatum
Chrysostomus super Matth
Ideo autem et desponsata et domi habita: nam quemadmodum in ea quae in domo viri concipit, intelligitur conceptio naturalis, ita in ea quae extra domum concepit, est suspecta coniunctio
Hieronymus contra Helvidium
Sciendum autem quod Helvidius, quidam homo turbulentus, accepta materia disputandi, blasphemare contra Dei matrem incepit; cuius prima propositio fuit: Matthaeus loquitur sic: cum esset desponsata. Ecce, inquit, habes desponsatam, non commendatam, ut dicitis; et utique non ob aliud desponsatam nisi quoniam nupturam
Origenes
Desponsata fuit quidem Ioseph, non tamen in concupiscentia iuncta. Mater eius, inquit, mater immaculata, mater incorrupta, mater intacta. Mater eius; cuius eius? Mater est Dei, unigeniti, domini, regis, omnium plasmatoris et redemptoris cunctorum
Cyrillus ad Ioannem Antioch
Quid enim videbit aliquis in sancta virgine praeter alias? Si Dei mater non sit, sed Christi vel domini, ut Nestorius dicit, nihil enim absurdum est etiam si voluerit quis matrem uniuscuiusque unctorum Christi nominare genitricem. Sola vero praeter illas sancta virgo et Christi genitrix intelligitur ac dicitur. Genuit enim non purum hominem, secundum vos, sed incarnatum potius, et hominem factum ex Deo patre verbum. Sed forsitan illud ais: dic mihi, putasne divinitatis mater facta est virgo? Et ad hoc quoque dicimus quia natum est ex ipsa Dei substantia eius verbum et sine principio temporis semper coexistens genitori; in novissimis autem temporibus, quoniam caro factum est, hoc est unitum carni animam habenti rationalem, natum etiam dicitur carnaliter per mulierem. Assimilatur autem quodammodo nativitati quae est secundum nos, hoc sacramentum; matres etenim terrenorum ministrant naturae coagulatam paulatim carnem perficiendam in specie humana. Immittit autem animali spiritum Deus. Sed licet sint istae solummodo terrenorum corporum matres, attamen parientes, totum animal et non partem peperisse dicuntur. Tale autem aliquid gestum percipimus in generatione Emmanuel; natum enim est ex patris substantia Dei verbum; quia vero carnem assumpsit propriam eam faciens, necessarium est confiteri quia natus est secundum carnem per mulierem. Quia igitur et Deus vere est, quomodo dubitabit quispiam sanctam virginem Dei dicere genitricem?
Leo Papa in sermone de Nativ
Non autem te Dei conceptus turbet, partus te non confundat auditus, quando virginitas quicquid est humani pudoris excusat. Aut quae hic verecundiae laesio, ubi iniit deitas cum amica sibi semper integritate consortium, ubi est interpres Angelus, fides pronuba, dispensatio castitas, donatio virtus, iudex conscientia, causa Deus, conceptio integritas, virginitas partus, virgo mater?
Cyrillus ad Ioannem Antioch
Sed si de caelo et non ex ipsa sanctum corpus Christi factum esse diceremus, ut Valentinus, quomodo intelligeretur Dei genitrix Maria? Nomen autem matris ostendit cum subdit Maria
Beda super Lucam
Interpretatur autem Maria stella maris Hebraice, domina Syriace, quia et lucem salutis et dominum mundo edidit. Cui autem desponsata fuerit ostendit subdens Ioseph
Chrysostomus super Matth
Ideoque fabro lignario Maria desponsata erat, quoniam Christus Ecclesiae sponsus omnium salutem hominum operaturus erat per lignum crucis
Chrysostomus in Matth
Quod autem sequitur antequam convenirent, non dicitur: antequam duceretur in domum sponsi; etenim iam intus erat. Consuetudo enim multoties veteribus erat in domo desponsatas habere, quod et nunc quoque fieri videtur, et generi Lot intus cum ipso erant
Glossa
Sed dicitur antequam convenirent ad carnis commixtionem
Chrysostomus super Matth
Ut non ex compassione carnis et sanguinis nasceretur, qui ideo natus est ut carnis et sanguinis solveret passionem
Augustinus de Nupt. et Concup
Nuptialis etiam concubitus ibi non fuit quia in carne peccati fieri non poterat sine ulla carnis concupiscentia quae accidit ex peccato, sine qua concipi voluit qui futurus erat sine peccato, ut hinc etiam doceret omnem quae de concubitu nascitur, carnem esse peccati; quandoquidem sola, quae non inde nata est, non fuit caro peccati
Augustinus in sermone 6 de Nativ
Nascitur etiam ab intacta femina Christus quia fas non erat ut virtus per voluptatem, castitas per luxuriam, per corruptionem incorruptio nasceretur. Nec poterat nisi novo ordine adventare de caelo qui vetustum mortis destruere veniebat imperium. Regnum igitur tenuit virginitatis quae regem genuit castitatis. Ideo etiam dominus noster virgineum sibi requisivit hospitium habitandi, ut nobis ostenderet Deum in casto corpore portari debere. Ergo qui scripsit lapideas tabulas sine stylo ferreo, ipse gravidavit Mariam spiritu sancto; unde dicitur inventa est in utero habens de spiritu sancto
Hieronymus
Non ab alio inventa est nisi a Ioseph, qui pene licentia maritali omnia noverat
Chrysostomus super Matth
Nam, sicut historia non incredibilis docet, quando gesta sunt quae refert Lucas, Ioseph absens erat; nec enim conveniens est putare praesente Ioseph introisse Angelum ad Mariam et dixisse quae dixit, et Mariam respondisse quaecumque respondit. Et si credamus Angelum potuisse intrare ad eam et loqui, plane tamen Mariam abiisse in montana et mansisse cum Elisabeth mensibus tribus possibile non fuit praesente Ioseph, quia necesse erat ut absentationis eius et mansionis diutinae requireret causas. Postquam autem rediit peregre post tot menses, invenit eam gravidam manifeste
Chrysostomus in Matth
Proprie autem dicit inventa est, quod de non excogitatis dici consuetum est. Ne autem molestes Evangelistam interrogando qualiter sit natus ex virgine, breviter expedivit se dicens de spiritu sancto; quasi dicat: spiritus sanctus est qui est hoc miraculum operatus. Neque enim Gabriel neque Matthaeus amplius dicere potuerunt
Glossa
Hoc ergo quod dicitur est ex spiritu sancto, Evangelista ex parte sua adduxit, ut cum diceretur habere in utero, omnis mala removeretur suspicio a mentibus audientium
Augustinus in sermone de Trin
Non autem, sicut quidam sceleratissime opinantur, spiritum sanctum dicimus fuisse pro semine, sed potentia ac virtute creatoris dicimus operatum
Ambrosius de spiritu sancto
Quod enim ex aliquo est, aut ex substantia est aut ex potestate eius est: ex substantia, sicut filius qui a patre; ex potestate, sicut ex Deo omnia, quomodo et in utero habuit Maria ex spiritu sancto
Augustinus Ench. ad Laurentium
Profecto autem iste modus quo natus est Christus de spiritu sancto insinuat nobis gratiam Dei, qua homo nullis praecedentibus meritis, in ipso exordio naturae suae quo esse coepit, verbo Dei copularetur in tantam personae unitatem ut idem ipse esset filius Dei. Sed cum illam creaturam quam virgo concepit et peperit, quamvis ad solam personam filii pertinentem tota Trinitas fecerit (neque enim separabilia sunt opera Trinitatis), cur in ea facienda solus spiritus sanctus nominatus est? An et quando unus trium in aliquo opere nominatur, universa operari Trinitas intelligitur?
Hieronymus contra Helvidium. Sed inquit Helvidius
neque de non conventuris Evangelista dixisset priusquam convenirent, quia nemo de non pransuro dicit: antequam pranderet; quasi si quis diceret: antequam in portu pranderem ad Africam navigavi, non posset stare sententia nisi ei in portu prandendum sit quandoque; aut non potius sit intelligendum sic quod ante, licet saepe et sequentia indicet, tamen nonnumquam ea tantum quae prius cogitabantur ostendit; nec necesse sit ut cogitata fiant cum ideo aliud intervenerit ne ea quae cogitata sunt fierent
Hieronymus
Non ergo sequitur ut postea convenerint, sed Scriptura quod factum non sit ostendit
Remigius
Vel hoc verbum conveniendi, non ipsum concubitum, sed tempus significat nuptiarum, idest quando ea quae fuerat sponsa incipit esse uxor. Est enim sensus antequam convenirent, idest antequam rite solemnia nuptiarum celebrarent
Augustinus de Cons. Evang
Hoc quemadmodum factum sit, quod hic praetermisit, Lucas exponit post commemoratum conceptum Ioannis ita enarrans: in mense autem sexto missus est Angelus; et infra: spiritus sanctus superveniet in te. Hoc ergo est quod Matthaeus commemoravit dicens inventa est in utero habens de spiritu sancto. Nec contrarium est, quia Lucas exposuit quod Matthaeus praetermisit; sicut non est contrarium, quia Matthaeus deinceps continet quod Lucas praetermisit. Sequitur enim Ioseph autem vir eius cum esset iustus, usque ad eum locum ubi scriptum est de magis quod per aliam viam reversi sunt in regionem suam. Si quis autem velit unam narrationem ex omnibus quae de Christi nativitate dicuntur ab alterutro, si haec praetermittuntur, ordinare sic potest: Christi generatio sic erat: fuit in diebus Herodis usque ibi: mansit autem Maria cum illa quasi mensibus tribus, et reversa est in domum suam. Et tunc addendum est quod hic dicitur: et inventa est in utero habens de spiritu sancto
1:19
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
The Evangelist having said that she was found with child of the Holy Ghost, and without knowledge of man, that you should not herein suspect Christ’s disciple of inventing wonders in honour of his Master, brings forward Joseph confirming the history by his own share in it; Now Joseph her husband, being a just man.
Pseudo-Augustine Serm. in App. s. 195.
Joseph, understanding that Mary was with child, is perplexed that it should be thus with her whom he had received from the temple of the Lord, and had not yet known, and resolved within himself, saying, What shall I do? Shall I proclaim it, or shall I overlook it? If I proclaim it, I am indeed not consenting to the adultery; but I am running into the guilt of cruelty, for by Moses’ law she must be stoned. If I overlook it, I am consenting to the crime, and take my portion with the adulterers. Since then it is an evil to overlook the thing, and worse to proclaim the adultery, I will put her away from being my wife.
St Ambrose † AD 397 in Luc. ii. 5.
St. Matthew has beautifully taught how a righteous man ought to act, who has detected his wife’s disgrace; so as at once to keep himself guiltless of her blood, and yet pure from her defilements; therefore it is he says, Being a just man. Thus is preserved throughout in Joseph the gracious character of a righteous man, that his testimony may be the more approved; for, the tongue of the just speaketh the judgment of truth.
St Jerome † AD 420
But how is Joseph thus called just, when he is ready to hide his wife’s sin? For the Law enacts, that not only the doers of evil, but they who are privy to any evil done, shall be held to be guilty.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
But it should be known, that just here is used to denote one who is in all things virtuous. For there is a particular justice, namely, the being free from covetousness; and another universal virtue, in which sense Scripture generally uses the word justice. Therefore being just, that is kind, merciful, he was minded to put away privily her who according to the Law was liable not only to dismissal, but to death. But Joseph remitted both, as though living above the Law. For as the sun lightens up the world, before he shews his rays, so Christ before He was born caused many wonders to be seen.
St Augustine † AD 430
Otherwise; if you alone have knowledge of a sin that any has committed against you, and desire to accuse him thereof before men, you do not herein correct, but rather betray him. But Joseph, being a just man, with great mercy spared his wife, in this great crime of which he suspected her. The seeming certainty of her unchastity tormented him, and yet because he alone knew of it, he was willing not to publish it, but to send her away privily; seeking rather the benefit than the punishment of the sinner.
St Jerome † AD 420
Or this may be considered a testimony to Mary, that Joseph, confident in her purity, and wondering at what had happened, covered in silence that mystery which he could not explain.
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
He beheld her to be with child, whom he knew to be chaste; and because he had read, There shall come a Rod out of the stem of Jesse, (Is. 11:1.) of which he knew that Mary was comes, and had also read, Behold, a virgin shall conceive, (Is. 7:14.) he did not doubt that this prophecy should be fulfilled in her.
Origen † AD 253
But if he had no suspicion of her, how could he be a just man, and yet seek to put her away, being immaculate? He sought, to put her away, because he saw in her a great sacrament, to approach which he thought himself unworthy.
The Gloss ap. Anselm.
Or, in seeking to put her away, he was just; in that he sought it privily, is shewn his mercy, defending her from disgrace; Being a just man, he was minded to put her away; and being unwilling to expose her in public, and so to disgrace her, he sought to do it privily.
St Ambrose † AD 397 in Luc. ii. 1.
But as no one puts away what he has not received; in that he was minded to put her away, he admits to have received her.
The Gloss part ap. Anselm. part in Ord.
Or, being unwilling to bring her home to his house to live with him for ever, he was minded to put her away privily; that is, to change the time of their marriage. For that is true virtue, when neither mercy is observed without justice, nor justice without mercy; both which vanish when severed one from the other. Or he was just because of his faith, in that he believed that Christ should be born of a virgin; wherefore he wished to humble himself before so great a favour.
The Latin text
Chrysostomus in Matth
Cum dixisset Evangelista quod ex spiritu sancto et sine concubitu inventa est in utero habens, ne suspectum habeas Christi discipulum quasi grandia de suo magistro fingentem, introducit Ioseph per ea quae passus est, ad fidem quae dicta sunt conferentem; unde dicit Ioseph autem vir eius cum esset iustus
Augustinus in Serm. 14 de Nativ
Intelligens enim Ioseph Mariae uterum gravidari, turbatur quod Mariam quam de templo domini acceperat et nondum cognoverat gravidam sentiebat; secumque aestuabat disputans et dicens: quid faciam? Prodo aut taceo? Si prodidero, adulterio non consentio, sed vitium crudelitatis incurro quia secundum Moysi sententiam lapidandam eam esse cognosco. Si tacuero, malo consentio et cum adulteris portionem meam pono. Quoniam ergo tacere malum est, adulterium prodere peius est, dimittam eam a coniugio
Ambrosius super Lucam
Pulchre autem docuit sanctus Matthaeus quid facere debeat iustus qui opprobrium coniugis deprehenderit, ut incruentum ab homicidio, castum ab adulterio praestare se debeat. Et ideo dicit cum esset iustus. Ubique ergo in Ioseph iusti gratia et persona servatur ut testis ornetur; lingua enim iusti loquitur iudicium veritatis
Hieronymus
Sed quomodo Ioseph, cum crimen celet uxoris, iustus describitur? In lege enim praeceptum est non solum reos, sed conscios criminis obnoxios esse peccato
Chrysostomus in Matth
Sed sciendum quod iustum hic virtuosum in omnibus dicit. Est enim iustitia specialis quaedam, ut avaritiam non habere, et altera universalis virtus; et sic nomine iustitiae maxime utitur Scriptura. Iustus igitur existens, idest benignus et mitis, voluit occulte dimittere eam, quae non solum traductioni, sed etiam poenae secundum legem obnoxia videbatur. Sed Ioseph utrumque remisit quasi supra legem vivens. Sicut enim sol antequam radios monstret mundum clarificat, sic et Christus antequam nasceretur multa signa perfectae virtutis apparere fecit
Augustinus de Verb. Dom
Vel aliter: si solus nosti quia aliquis peccaverit in te, eum vis coram hominibus arguere, non es corrector sed proditor. Unde vir iustus Ioseph tanto flagitio quod de uxore fuerat suspicatus, magna benignitate pepercit. Aestuabat utique certa adulterii suspicio; et tamen, quia ipse solus sciebat, noluit eam divulgare sed occulte dimittere, volens prodesse peccanti, non punire peccantem
Hieronymus
Vel hoc testimonium Mariae est quod Ioseph sciens illius castitatem et admirans quod evenerat, celat silentio cuius mysterium nesciebat
Remigius
Videbat enim gravidam quam noverat castam; et quia legerat: egredietur virga de radice Iesse, unde novit Mariam duxisse originem et legerat etiam: ecce virgo concipiet, non diffidebat hanc prophetiam in ea esse implendam
Origenes
Sed si suspicionem in ea non habebat, quomodo iustus erat ut immaculatam dimitteret? Ideo ergo dimittere volebat quoniam magnum sacramentum in ea esse cognoscebat cui approximare se indignum aestimabat
Glossa
Vel cum vellet eam dimittere iustus erat; cum occulte, pius notatur, eam ab infamia defendens. Et hoc est: cum esset iustus voluit dimittere eam; cum nollet eam traducere in publicum, idest diffamare, voluit hoc facere occulte
Ambrosius super Lucam
Nemo autem quam non accepit, dimittit; et ideo quam volebat dimittere, fatebatur acceptam
Glossa
Vel cum nollet eam traducere in domum suam ad cohabitationem assiduam voluit occulte dimittere eam, idest tempus nuptiarum mutare; vera enim virtus est cum nec pietas sine iustitia nec sine pietate servatur iustitia, quae separatae ab invicem dilabuntur. Vel iustus erat per fidem, qua credebat Christum de virgine nasciturum; unde voluit se humiliare ante tantam gratiam
1:20
Remigius † AD 908
Because Joseph was minded, as has been said, to put Mary away privily, which if he had done, there would have been few who would not rather have thought her a harlot than a virgin, therefore this purpose of Joseph was changed by Divine revelation, whence it is said, While he thought on these things.
The Gloss ap. Ans.
In this is to be noted the wise soul that desires to undertake nothing rashly.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
Also observe the mercifulness of Joseph, that he imparted his suspicions to none, not even to her whom he suspected, but kept them within himself.
Pseudo-Augustine Serm. in App. 195.
Yet though Joseph think on these things, let not Mary the daughter of David be troubled; as the word of the Prophet brought pardon to David, so the Angel of the Saviour delivers Mary. Behold, again appears Gabriel the bridesman of this Virgin; as it follows, Behold the Angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph.
St Ambrose † AD 397
In this word appeared is conveyed the power of Him that did appear, allowing Himself to be seen where and how He pleases.
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
How the Angel appeared to Joseph is declared in the words, In his sleep; that is, as Jacob saw the ladder offered by a kind of imagining to the eyes of his heart.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
He did not appear so openly to Joseph as to the Shepherds, because he was faithful; the shepherds needed it, because they were ignorant. The Virgin also needed it, as she had first to be instructed in these mighty wonders. In like manner Zacharias needed the wonderful vision before the conception of his son.
The Gloss part Int. part Anselm.
The Angel appearing calls him by name, and adds his descent, in order to banish fear, Joseph, son of David; Joseph, as though he were known to him by name and his familiar friend.
Pseudo-Chrysostom
By addressing him as son of David, he sought to recal to his memory the promise of God to David, that of his seed should Christ be born.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
But by saying, Be not afraid, he shews him to be in fear that he had offended God, by having an adulteress; for only as such would he have ever thought of putting her away.
St Peter Chrysologus † AD 450
As her betrothed husband also he is admonished not to be afraid; for the mind that compassionates has most fear; as though he were to say, Here is no cause of death, but of life; she that brings forth life, does not deserve death.
Pseudo-Chrysostom
Also by the words, Fear not, he desired to shew that he knew the heart; that by this he might have the more faith in those good things to come, which he was about to speak concerning Christ.
St Ambrose † AD 397 in Luc. ii. 5.
Be not troubled that he calls her his wife; for she is not herein robbed of her virginity, but her wedlock is witnessed to, and the celebration of her marriage is declared.
St Jerome † AD 420
But we are not to think that she ceased to be betrothed, because she is here called wife, since we know that this is the Scripture manner to call the man and woman, when espoused, husband and wife; and this is confirmed by that text in Deuteronomy, If one find a virgin that is betrothed to a man in the field, and offer violence to her, and lie with her, he shall die, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife. (Deut. 22:23.)
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
He says, Fear not to take unto thee; that is, to keep at home; for in thought she was already dismissed.
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
Or, to take her, that is, in marriage union and continual converse.
Pseudo-Chrysostom
There were three reasons why the Angel appeared to Joseph with this message. First, that a just man might not be led into an unjust action, with just intentions. Secondly, for the honour of the mother herself, for had she been put away, she could not have been free from evil suspicion among the unbelievers. Thirdly, that Joseph, understanding the holy conception, might keep himself from her with more care than before He did not appear to Joseph before the conception, that he should not think those things that Zacharias thought, nor suffer what he suffered in falling into the sin of unbelief concerning the conception of his wife in her old age. For it was yet more incredible that a virgin should conceive, than that a woman past the age should conceive.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
Or, The Angel appeared to Joseph when he was in this perplexity, that his wisdom might be apparent to Joseph, and that this might be a proof to him of those things that he spoke. For when lie heard out of the mouth of the Angel those very things that he thought within himself, this was an undoubted proof, that he was a messenger from God, who alone knows the secrets of the heart. Also the account of the Evangelist is beyond suspicion, as he describes Joseph feeling all that a husband was likely to feel. The Virgin also by this was more removed from suspicion, in that her husband had felt jealousy, yet took her home, and kept her with him after her conception. She had not told Joseph the things that the Angel had said to her, because she did not suppose that she should be believed by her husband, especially as he had begun to have suspicions concerning her. But to the Virgin the Angel announced her conception before it took place, lest if he should defer it till afterwards she should be in straits. And it behoved that Mother who was to receive the Maker of all things to be kept free from all trouble. Not only does the Angel vindicate the Virgin from all impurity, but shews that the conception was supernatural, not removing his fears only, but adding matter of joy; saying, That which is born in her is of the Holy Spirit.
The Gloss ord.
To be born in her, and born of her, are two different things; to be born of her is to come into the world; to be born in her, is the same as to be conceived. Or the word born is used according to the foreknowledge of the Angel which he has of God, to whom the future is as the past.
Pseudo-Augustine Hil. Quæst. N. et V. Test. qu. 52.
But if Christ was born by the agency of the Holy Ghost, how is that said, Wisdom hath built herself an house? (Prov. 9:1.) That house may be taken in two meanings. First, the house of Christ is the Church, which He built with His own blood; and secondly, His body may be called His house, as it is called His temple. But the work of the Holy Spirit, is also the work of the Son of God, because of the unity of their nature and their will; for whether it be the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, that doeth it, it is the Trinity that works, and what the Three do, is of One God.
St Augustine † AD 430 Enchir. 38.
But shall we therefore say that the Holy Spirit is the Father of the man Christ, that as God the Father begot the Word, so the Holy Spirit begot the man? This is such an absurdity, that the ears of the faithful cannot bear it. How then do we say that Christ was born by the Holy Spirit, if the Holy Spirit did not beget Him? Did He create Him? For so far as He is man He was created, as the Apostle speaks; He was made of the seed of David according to the flesh. (Rom. 1:3.) For though God made the world, yet is it not right to say that it is the Son of God, or born by Him, but that it was made, or created, or formed by Him. But seeing that we confess Christ to have been born by the Holy Spirit, and of the Virgin Mary, how is He not the Son of the Holy Spirit, and is the Son of the Virgin? It does not follow, that whatever is born by any thing, is therefore to be called the son of that thing; for, not to say that of man is born in one sense a son, in another a hair, or vermin, or a worm, none of which are his son, certainly those that are born of water and the Spirit none would call sons of water; but sons of God their Father, and their Mother the Church. Thus Christ was born of the Holy Spirit, and yet is the Son of God the Father, not of the Holy Spirit.
The Latin text
Remigius
Quia, sicut dictum est, cogitabat Ioseph occulte Mariam dimittere, hoc autem si fecisset perpauci essent qui non magis suspicarentur eam esse meretricem quam virginem, idcirco repente consilium Ioseph divino mutatum est consilio; unde dicitur: haec autem eo cogitante
Glossa
In quo notatur animus sapientis, qui nihil temere vult incipere
Chrysostomus in Matth
Notatur etiam mansuetudo Ioseph quia nulli enarravit suam suspicionem, neque ei quae suspecta erat; sed in se cogitabat
Augustinus in Serm. 14 de Nativ
Sed Ioseph ista cogitante, non timeat Maria David filia, quoniam sicut David veniam contulit sermo propheticus, sic Mariam liberat Angelus salvatoris. Ecce enim iterum virginis ille paranymphus Gabriel advenit; unde sequitur ecce Angelus domini apparuit Ioseph
Glossa
Hoc igitur verbo apparuit significatur potestas apparentis, qui quando vult et quomodo, exhibet se videndum
Rabanus Maurus
Quomodo autem Angelus Ioseph apparuerit, demonstratur cum dicitur in somnis, idest quomodo Iacob scalam vidit per imaginationem quamdam oculis cordis ostensam
Chrysostomus in Matth
Ideo autem non apparuit manifeste Ioseph sicut pastoribus quia valde fidelis erat; pastores autem indigebant quasi rudes. Virgo autem indiguit quasi primo de maximis instruenda. Similiter etiam Zacharias indiguit ante conceptionem prolis mirabili visione
Glossa
Apparens Angelus nomen exprimit, genus commemorat et timorem excludit dicens: Ioseph fili David. Ioseph, eum ex nomine quasi notum et familiarem sibi ostendit
Chrysostomus super Matth
Filium David eum nominans, voluit eum adducere in memoriam promissionis Dei ad David, ut de semine eius Christus nasceretur
Chrysostomus in Matth
Dicens autem noli timere, monstrat eum iam timere ne offenderet Deum quasi adulteram habens; alias neque cogitasset eam expellere
Severian of Gabala
Sponsus etiam ne timeat admonetur quia pius animus, dum compatitur, plus pavescit, ac si dicat: hic non est mortis causa, sed vitae, quia quae vitam parturit non meretur occidi
Chrysostomus super Matth
Dicens etiam ne timeas, cognitionem se cordis eius ostendere voluit, ut per hoc futurorum bonorum, quae de Christo erat dicturus, faceret fidem
Ambrosius super Lucam
Non autem te moveat quod eam coniugem vocat; non enim virginitatis ereptio, sed coniugii testificatio, nuptiarum celebratio declaratur
Hieronymus contra Helvidium
Non tamen est putandum quod ex eo quod uxor est appellata, sponsa esse desierit, cum hanc esse consuetudinem Scripturae noverimus, quod sponsos viros, et sponsas appellet uxores sicut Deuteronomii testimonio approbatur: si quis (inquit) invenerit virginem desponsatam viro in campo, et vim faciens dormierit cum ea, moriatur, quia humiliavit uxorem proximi sui
Chrysostomus in Matth
Dicit autem noli timere accipere, idest domi retinere; iam enim mente dimissa erat
Rabanus Maurus
Vel noli timere accipere eam nuptiali conventu et assidua cohabitatione
Chrysostomus super Matth
Propter tres autem causas apparuit Angelus Ioseph hoc dicens ei. Primo, ne iustus homo ignorans faceret rem iniustam ex proposito iusto. Deinde propter honorem ipsius matris; nam si dimissa fuisset, apud infideles turpi suspicione carere non poterat. Tertio, ut intelligens Ioseph sanctam conceptionem, diligentius se custodiret ab illa quam prius. Ideo tamen non ante conceptionem virginis venit ad Ioseph, ut nec cogitaret haec quae cogitavit nec pateretur quae passus est Zacharias culpam infidelitatis incurrens de conceptione coniugis iam longaevae; incredibilior enim erat res virginem posse concipere quam anum
Chrysostomus in Matth
Vel ideo turbato iam Ioseph Angelus venit ut appareat Ioseph sapientia, et ut hoc ipsum fieret ei eorum quae dicebantur demonstratio. Dum enim audit ab Angelo quae intra se cogitaverat, indubitabile signum erat quod a Deo mitteretur, cuius solius est scire cordis secreta. Sermo etiam Evangelistae insuspicabilis fit, demonstrans Ioseph passum quod probabile est virum pati. Virgo etiam omnem malam suspicionem effugit, ex hoc quod vir qui zelotypiam passus est, eam suscepit et post conceptionem servavit. Ideo autem virgo Ioseph haec quae Angelus nuntiarat, non dixit, quia non aestimabat sibi credi a sponso et maxime iam in suspicionem adducto. Virgini autem ante conceptionem annuntiat Angelus, ne si post conceptionem differret, in angustia esset. Oportebat autem extra turbationem esse illam matrem quae omnium conditorem recepit. Non solum autem Angelus ab iniqua commixtione virginem excusat, sed et supra naturam concepisse demonstrat, non solum timorem auferens, sed et laetitiam addens; unde subdit quod enim in ea natum est, de spiritu sancto est
Glossa
Aliud est nasci in ea, et aliud ab ea: nasci ab ea, est prodire in lucem; nasci in ea est idem quod concipi. Vel secundum praesentiam Angeli quam habet ex Deo, cui futurum quasi praeteritum est, natum dicitur
Augustinus de quaest. Nov. et Vet. Testam
Sed si de spiritu sancto natus est Christus, cur dictum est: sapientia aedificavit sibi domum? Domus ista gemina ratione debet intelligi. Primum enim domus Christi Ecclesia est, quam aedificavit sibi sanguine suo; deinde potest et corpus eius dici domus eius, sicut dicitur templum eius. Factum autem spiritus sancti, factum filii Dei est, propter naturae et voluntatis unitatem; sive enim pater faciat sive filius sive spiritus sanctus, Trinitas est quae operatur; et quidquid tres fecerint, Dei unius est
Augustinus Enchir
Numquid tamen ideo dicturi sumus patrem hominis Christi esse spiritum sanctum, ut Deus pater verbum genuerit, spiritus sanctus hominem? Quod ita absurdum est, ut nullae fideles aures id valeant sustinere. Quomodo ergo dicimus Christum natum de spiritu sancto, si non eum genuit spiritus sanctus? An quia fecit eum? Inquantum enim homo est, factus est, sicut apostolus dicit: factus ex semine David, secundum carnem. Neque enim quia mundum istum fecit Deus, dici eum fas est Dei filium aut natum ex Deo, sed factum vel creatum vel conditum. Hic autem, cum confiteamur eum natum de spiritu sancto et Maria virgine, quomodo non sit filius spiritus sancti, et sit filius Mariae virginis? Non ergo concedendum est quicquid de aliqua re nascitur, continuo eiusdem rei filium nuncupandum. Ut enim omittam aliter de homine nasci filium, aliter capillum, pediculum et lumbricum, quorum nihil est filius, certe homines qui nascuntur ex aqua et spiritu, non aquae filios recte eos dixerit quispiam, sed Dei patris, et matris Ecclesiae. Sic ergo de spiritu sancto natus est et filius Dei patris est, non spiritus sancti
1:21
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
What the Angel thus told Joseph, was beyond human thought, and the law of nature, therefore he confirms his speech not only by revealing to him what was past, but also what was to come; She shall bring forth a Son.
The Gloss ap. Anselm.
That Joseph should not suppose that he was no longer needed in this wedlock, seeing the conception had taken place without his intervention, the Angel declares to him, that though there had been no need of him in the conception, yet there was need of his guardianship; for the Virgin should bear a Son, and then he would be necessary both to the Mother and her Son; to the Mother to screen her from disgrace, to the Son to bring Him up and to circumcise Him. The circumcision is meant when he says, And thou, shalt call His name Jesus; for it was usual to give the name in circumcision.
Pseudo-Chrysostom
He said not, Shall bear thee a Son, as to Zacharias, Behold, Elisabeth thy wife shall bear thee a son. For the woman who conceives of her husband, bears the son to her husband, because he is more of him than of herself; but she who had not conceived of man, did not bear the Son to her husband, but to herself.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
Or, he left it unappropriated, to shew that she bare Him to the whole world.
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
Thou shalt call His name, he says, and not, “shalt give Him a name,” for His name had been given from all eternity.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
This further shews that this birth should be wonderful, because it is God that sends down His name from above by His Angel; and that not any name, but one which is a treasure of infinite good. Therefore also the Angel interprets it, suggesting good hope, and by this induces him to believe what was spoken. For we lean more easily to prosperous things, and yield our belief more readily to good fortune.
St Jerome † AD 420
Jesus is a Hebrew word, meaning Saviour. He points to the etymology of the name, saying, For He shall save His people from their sins.
Remigius † AD 908
He shews the same man to be the Saviour of the whole world, and the Author of our salvation. He saves indeed not the unbelieving, but His people; that is, He saves those that believe on Him, not so much from visible as from invisible enemies; that is, from their sins, not by fighting with arms, but by remitting their sins.
St Peter Chrysologus † AD 450
Let them approach to hear this, who ask, Who is He that Mary bare? He shall save His people; not any other man’s people; from what? from their sins. That it is God that forgives sins, if you do not believe the Christians so affirming, believe the infidels, or the Jews who say, None can forgive sins but God only. (Luke 5:1.)
The Latin text
Chrysostomus in Matth
Quia hoc quod Angelus ad Ioseph dixerat supra humanam cogitationem et legem naturae erat, non solum ex praeteritorum revelatione confirmat quae dixerat, sed etiam ex futuris, dicens pariet autem filium
Glossa
Ut enim non videretur Ioseph amplius coniugio non esse necessarius cum conceptio esset facta sine eius auxilio, ostendit quod quamvis non sit necessarius conceptui, tamen utilis est procurationi quia ipsa pariet filium, et tunc matri et filio erit necessarius: matri, ut ab infamia defendat, filio, ut eum nutriat et circumcidat; quae circumcisio notatur ubi dicit et vocabis nomen eius Iesum. In circumcisione enim solet dari nomen
Chrysostomus super Matth
Non autem dixit: pariet tibi filium sicut ad Zachariam: ecce Elisabeth uxor tua pariet tibi filium; quia mulier quae ex viro concipit, marito suo filium parit, quia magis ex illo est quam de ipsa; haec autem quae non de viro conceperat, non viro filium peperit, sed sibi tantummodo
Chrysostomus in Matth
Vel indeterminate hoc posuit ut ostendat quod eum peperit orbi terrarum universo
Rabanus Maurus
Dicit autem vocabis nomen, et non imponens, quia ab aeterno impositum est
Chrysostomus in Matth
Hinc autem ostendit admirabilem esse partum, quia Deus est qui nomen desuper per Angelum mittit, nec nomen quodcumque, sed quod est infinitorum bonorum thesaurus. Ideoque interpretatur illud Angelus, bonam substituens spem, et ex hoc ad credendum quod dicebatur inducit. Facilius namque sollicitamur ad prospera et promptius fidem accommodamus secundis
Hieronymus
Iesus enim Hebraeo sermone salvator dicitur. Etymologiam ergo nominis significat dicens ipse enim salvum faciet populum suum a peccatis eorum
Remigius
Ostendit enim eumdem totius mundi salvatorem, et nostrae salutis auctorem. Salvat quidem non incredulos, sed populum suum, hoc est in se credentes salvat non tam a visibilibus hostibus quam potius invisibilibus; hoc est, a peccatis salvat non armis pugnando sed peccata relaxando
Severian of Gabala
Veniant et audiant qui requirunt: quis est quem Maria genuit? Ipse enim salvum faciet populum suum, non alterius salvum faciet populum. Unde? A peccatis eorum. Esse Deum qui peccata donat si Christianis non credis, crede infidelibus, vel Iudaeis dicentibus: nemo potest peccata dimittere nisi solus Deus
1:22
Remigius † AD 908
It is the custom of the Evangelist to confirm what he says out of the Old Testament, for the sake of those Jews who believed on Christ, that they might recognize as fulfilled in the grace of the Gospel, the things that were foretold in the Old Testament; therefore he adds, Now all this was done. Here we must enquire why he should say all this was done, when above he has only related the conception. It should be known that he says this to shew, that in the presence of God all this was done before it was done among men. Or he says, all this was done, because he is relating past events; for when he wrote, it was all done.
The Gloss ap. Anselm.
Or, he says, all this was done, meaning, the Virgin was betrothed, she was kept chaste, she was found with child, the revelation was made by the Angel, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken. For that the Virgin should conceive and should bring forth would never have been fulfilled, had she not been espoused that she should not be stoned; and had not her secret been disclosed by the Angel, and so Joseph taken her unto him, that she was not dismissed to disgrace and to perish by stoning. So had she perished before the birth, that prophecy would have been made void which says, She shall bring forth a Son. (Isa. 7:14.)
The Gloss non occ.
Or it may be said, that the word that does not here denote the cause; for the prophecy was not fulfilled merely because it was to be fulfilled. But it is put consecutively, as in Genesis, He hung the other on the gallows, that the truth of the interpreter might be proved; (Gen. 40:22.) since by the weighing of one, truth is established. So also in this place we must understand it as if it were, that which was foretold being done, the prophecy was accomplished.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
Otherwise; the Angel seeing the depths of the Divine mercy, the laws of nature broken through and reconciliation made, He who was above all made lower than all; all these wonders, all this he comprises in that one saying, Now all this hath happened; as though he had said, Do not suppose that this is newly devised of God, it was determined of old. And he rightly cites the Prophet not to the Virgin, who as a maiden was untaught in such things, but to Joseph, as to one much versed in the Prophets. And at first he had spoken of Mary as thy wife, but now in the words of the Prophet he brings in the word “Virgin,” that he might hear this from the Prophet, as a thing long before determined. Therefore to confirm what he had said, he introduces Isaiah, or rather God; for he does not say, Which was spoken by Isaiah, but, Which was spoken of the Lord by the Prophet.
St Jerome † AD 420 In Is. 7:14.
Since it is introduced in the Prophet by the words, The Lord Himself shall give you a sign, it ought to be something new and wonderful. But if it be, as the Jews will have it, a young woman, or a girl shall bring forth, and not a virgin, what wonder is this, since these are words signifying age and not purity? Indeed the Hebrew word signifying Virgin (Bethula) is not used in this place, but instead the word ‘Halmaa,’ which except the LXX all render ‘girl.’ But the word ‘Halma’ has a twofold meaning; it signifies both ‘girl,’ and ‘hidden;’ therefore ‘Halma’ denotes not only ‘maiden’ or ‘virgin,’ but ‘hidden,’ ‘secret;’ that is, one never exposed to the gaze of men, but kept under close custody by her parents. In the Punic tongue also, which is said to be derived from Hebrew sources, a virgin is properly called ‘Halma.’ In our tongue also ‘Halma’ means holy; and the Hebrews use words of nearly all languages; and as far as my memory will serve me, I do not think I ever met with Halma used of a married woman, but of her that is a virgin, and such that she be not merely a virgin, but in the age of youth; for it is possible for an old woman to be a maid. But this was a virgin in years of youth, or at least a virgin, and not a child too young for marriage.
St Jerome † AD 420 In loc.
For that which Matthew the Evangelist says, Shall have in her womb, the Prophet who is foretelling something future, writes, shall receive. The Evangelist, not foretelling the future but describing the past, changes shall receive, into shall have; but he who has, cannot after receive that he has. He says, Lo, a Virgin shall hare in her womb, and shall bear a Son.
St Leo the Great † AD 461 Serm. xxiii. 1.
The conception was by the Holy Spirit within the womb of the Virgin; who, as she conceived in perfect chastity, in like manner brought forth her Son.
Pseudo-Augustine in App. s. 123.
He, who by a touch could heal the severed limbs of others, how much more could He, in His own birth, preserve whole that which He found whole? In this parturition, soundness of the Mother’s body was rather strengthened than weakened, and her virginity rather confirmed than lost.
Theodotus Hom. 1 and 2. in Conc. Eph. ap. Hard. t. i. pp. 1643. 1655.
Inasmuch as Photinus affirms that He that was now born was mere man, not allowing the divine birth, and maintains that He who now issued from the womb was the man separate from the God; let him shew how it was possible that human nature, born of the Virgin’s womb, should have preserved the virginity of that womb uncorrupted; for the mother of no man ever yet remained a virgin. But forasmuch as it was God the Word who was now born in the flesh, He shewed Himself to be the Word, in that He preserved His mother’s virginity. For as our word when it is begot does not destroy the mind, so neither does God the Word in choosing His birth destroy the virginity.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
As it is the manner of Scripture to convey a knowledge of events under the form of a name, so here, They shall call His name Emmanuel, means nothing else than, They shall see God among men. Whence he says not, ‘Thou shalt call,’ but, They shall call.
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
First, Angels hymning, secondly, Apostles preaching, then Holy Martyrs, and lastly, all believers.
St Jerome † AD 420 in Is. 7:14.
The LXX and three others translate, ‘Thou shalt call,’ instead of which we have here, They shall call, which is not so in the Hebrew; for the word ‘Charathib,’ which all render Thou shalt call, may mean, ‘And she shall call,’ that is, The Virgin that shall conceive and shall bear Christ, shall call His name Emmanuel, which is interpreted, ‘God with us.’
Remigius † AD 908
It is a question, who interpreted this name? The Prophet, or the Evangelist, or some translator? It should be known then, that the Prophet did not interpret it; and what need had the Holy Evangelist to do so, seeing he wrote in the Hebrew tongue? Perhaps that was a difficult and rare word in Hebrew, and therefore needed interpretation. It is more probable that some translator interpreted it, that the Latins might not be perplexed by an unintelligible word. In this name are conveyed at once the two substances, the Divinity and Humanity in the one Person of the Lord Jesus Christ. He who before all time was begot in an unspeakable manner by God the Father, the same in the end of time was made Emmanuel, that is, God with us, of a Virgin Mother. This God with us may be understood in this way. He was made with us, passible, mortal, and in all things like unto us without sin; or because our frail substance which He took on Him, He joined in one Person to His Divine substance.
St Jerome † AD 420 ubi sup.
It should be known, that the Hebrews believe this prophecy to refer to Ezekias the son of Ahaz, because in his reign Samaria was taken; but this cannot be established. Ahaz son of Jotham reigned over Judæa and Jerusalem sixteen years, and was succeeded by his son Ezekias, who was twenty-three years old, and reigned over Judæa and Jerusalem twenty-nine years; how then can a prophecy prophesied in the first year of Ahaz refer to the conception and birth of Ezekias, when he was already nine years of age? Unless perhaps the sixth year of the reign of Ezekias, in which Samaria was taken, they think is here called his infancy, that is, the infancy of his reign, not of his age; which even a fool must see to be hard and forced. A certain one of our interpreters contends, that the Prophet Isaiah had two sons, Jashub and Emmanuel; and that Emmanuel was born of his wife the Prophetess as a type of the Lord and Saviour. But this is a fabulous tale.
Petrus Alfonsus Dial. tit. 7.
For we know not that any man of that day was called Emmanuel. But the Hebrew objects, How can it be that this was said on account of Christ and Mary, when many centuries intervened between Ahaz and Mary? But though the Prophet was speaking to Ahaz, the prophecy was yet not spoken to him only or of his time only; for it is introduced, Hear, O house of David; (Isa. 7:13.) not, ‘Hear, O Ahaz.’ Again, The Lord Himself shall give you a sign; meaning He, and none other; from which we may understand that the Lord Himself should be the sign. And that he says to you, (plur.) and not ‘to thee,’ shews that this was not spoken to Ahaz, or on his account only.
St Jerome † AD 420 ubi sup.
What is spoken to Ahaz then is to be thus understood. This Child, that shall be born of a Virgin of the house of David, shall now be called Emmanuel, that is, God with us, because the events (perhaps delivery from the two hostile kings) will make it appear that you have God present with you. But after He shall be called Jesus, that is, Saviour, because He shall save the whole human race. Wonder not, therefore, O house of David, at the newness of this thing, that a Virgin should bring forth a God, seeing He has so great might that though yet to be born after a long while, He delivers you now when you call upon Him.
St Augustine † AD 430 Cont. Faust. 12. 45, and 13. 7.
Who so mad as to say with Manichæus, that it is a weak faith not to believe in Christ without a witness; whereas the Apostle says, How shall they believe on Him of whom they have not heard? Or how shall they hear without a preacher? (Rom. 10:14.) That those things which were preached by the Apostles might not be contemned, nor thought to be fables, they are proved to have been foretold by the Prophets. For though attested by miracles, yet there would not have been wanting men to ascribe them all to magical power, had not such suggestions been overcome by the additional testimony of prophecy. For none could suppose that long before He was born, He had raised up by magic prophets to prophesy of Him. For if we say to a Gentile, Believe on Christ that He is God, and he should answer, Whence is it that I should believe on Him? we might allege the authority of the Prophets. Should he refuse assent to this, we establish their credit from their having foretold things to come, and those things having truly come to pass. I suppose he could not but know how great persecutions the Christian religion has formerly suffered from the Kings of this world; let him now behold those very Kings submitting to the kingdom of Christ, and all nations serving the same; all which things the Prophets foretold. He then hearing these things out of the Scriptures of the Prophets, and beholding them accomplished throughout the whole earth, would be moved to faith.
The Gloss ap. Anselm.
This error then is barred by the Evangelist saying, That it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the Prophet. Now one kind of prophecy is by the preordination of God, and must needs be fulfilled, and that without any free choice on our part. Such is that of which we now speak; wherefore he says, Lo, to shew the certainty of prophecy. There is another kind of prophecy which is by the foreknowledge of God, and with this our free will is mixed up; wherein by grace working with us we obtain reward, or if justly deserted by it, torment. Another is not of foreknowledge, but is a kind of threat made after the manner of men; as that, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown: (Jonah 3.) understanding, unless the Ninevites amend themselves.
The Latin text
Remigius
Mos fuit Evangelistae, ea quae dicit, de veteri testamento confirmare propter Iudaeos qui in Christum crediderant, ut agnoscerent ea esse completa in gratia Evangelii quae praedicta fuerant in veteri testamento; et subdit hoc autem totum factum est. Quaerendum autem est in hoc loco quare dixerit hoc totum factum esse, cum superius solam conceptionem narraverit. Sed sciendum quod hoc ideo dixit, ut demonstraret quod ante in praesentia Dei factum fuit quam fieret apud homines. Sive quia praeteritarum rerum erat narrator, totum factum esse dixit, quia quando hoc scripsit, iam totum factum erat
Rabanus Maurus
Vel hoc totum factum esse dicit, quod virgo desponsaretur, quod casta servaretur, quod gravida inveniretur, quod per Angelum revelaretur ut adimpleretur quod dictum est. Non enim hoc impleretur quod virgo conciperet et pareret, nisi desponsata esset, ne lapidaretur, et nisi ab Angelo secretum detegeretur, et ita eam Ioseph acciperet, ne dimissa per infamiam efflueret et lapidatione periret. Si ergo ante partum periret, cessaretur prophetia quae ait: pariet filium
Glossa
Vel potest dici quod ut non ponitur causaliter: non enim ideo impletum est quia implendum erat; ponitur autem consecutive sicut et in Genesi: suspendit alterum in patibulo, ut coniectoris veritas probaretur, quia uno suspenso, coniectoris veritas est probata; sic et in hoc loco intelligendum est, quod hoc facto quod praedictum est, prophetia impleta est
Chrysostomus in Matth
Vel aliter. Quia vidit Angelus abyssum divinae misericordiae, naturae leges solutas, et eum qui erat omnibus superior, ad hominem, qui erat omnibus inferior, descendisse, haec et huiusmodi uno verbo ostendit dicens hoc autem totum factum est, quasi dicat: ne putes quod haec nunc tantum Deo placeant, olim praeordinata sunt; decenter enim Angelus non virgini, sed Ioseph prophetiam inducit, quasi in prophetis meditanti et experto. Et primo quidem virginem coniugem appellaverat, nunc autem virginem propheta inducit, ut hoc etiam a propheta audiret quasi diu praemeditatum. Unde ad fidem eorum quae dicebantur inducit Isaiam, vel magis Deum; non enim dicit: ut impleretur quod dictum est ab Isaia, sed quod dictum est a domino per Isaiam
Hieronymus super Isaiam
Quoniam autem praemittitur in propheta: dabit dominus ipse vobis signum, novum debet esse atque mirabile. Si autem iuvencula vel puella, ut Iudaei volunt, et non virgo pariat, quale signum poterat appellari, cum hoc nomen aetatis sit, non integritatis? Et revera virgo Hebraice bethula appellatur, quae in praesenti loco non scribitur in propheta; sed pro hoc verbo positum est halma, quod praeter Lxx omnes adolescentulam transtulerunt. Porro halma apud eos ambiguum est; dicitur enim et adolescentula et abscondita; ergo halma non solum puella vel virgo, sed virgo abscondita dicitur, et secreta, quae nunquam virorum patuerit aspectibus, sed magna parentum diligentia custodita sit. Lingua quoque Punica, quae de Hebraeorum fontibus manare dicitur, proprie virgo halma appellatur. In nostro quoque sermone halma dicitur sancta; omniumque pene linguarum verbis utuntur Hebraei; et quantum cum mea pugno memoria, numquam me arbitror halma de muliere nupta legisse, sed de ea quae est virgo, ut non virgo solummodo sit, sed in annis adolescentiae; potest enim fieri ut virgo sit vetula. Ista autem virgo erat in annis puellaribus, vel certe virgo, non puella quae adhuc virum nosse non posset
Hieronymus
Pro eo autem quod Evangelista Matthaeus dicit in utero habebit, in propheta, quia futurum praedicit, significat quod futurum sit: et scripsit accipiet; Evangelista autem, quia non de futuro, sed de praeterito narrat historiam, mutavit accipiet et posuit habebit; qui autem habet, nequaquam accepturus est. Dicit autem ecce virgo in utero habebit, et pariet filium
Leo ad Flavianum
Conceptus quippe est de spiritu sancto intra uterum virginis matris, quae ita illum salva virginitate edidit, quemadmodum salva virginitate concepit
Augustinus in Serm. 11 de Nativ
Qui enim dirupta corporum membra in aliis poterat reintegrare tangendo, quanto magis in sua matre quod invenit integrum non violavit nascendo? Crevit enim in eius partu corporis integritas potius quam decrevit, et virginitas ampliata est potius quam fugata
Theodotus in Serm. Ephesini Concilii
Quia vero Photinus purum hominem dicit qui natus est, Dei non dicens partum, et qui ex vulva processit hominem proponit a Deo divisum, dicat nunc quomodo natura humana per vulvam virginalem nata, virginitatem vulvae servavit incorruptam? Nullius enim hominis mater virgo permansit. Sed quia natus est carne Deus verbum, custodit virginitatem, seipsum verbum esse ostendens; neque enim nostrum verbum cum paritur corrumpit mentem, neque Deus verbum partum eligens peremit virginitatem. Sequitur et vocabunt nomen eius Emmanuel
Chrysostomus in Matth
Consuetudo quidem est Scripturae res quae contingunt pro nominibus ponere. Nihil ergo est aliud quod dicit vocabunt nomen eius Emmanuel, quam videbunt Deum cum hominibus; unde non dicit vocabis sed vocabunt
Rabanus Maurus
Primo quidem Angeli psallentes, secundo apostoli praedicantes, adhuc et sancti martyres, deinde cuncti credentes
Hieronymus super Isaiam
Septuaginta autem et tres reliqui transtulerunt similiter vocabis, pro quo hic scriptum est vocabunt; quod in Hebraeo non habetur; verbum enim charatim, quod omnes interpretati sunt vocabis, potest intelligi et vocabit, quod ipsa scilicet virgo quae concipiet et pariet Christum, Emmanuel appellatura sit nomine, quod interpretatur nobiscum Deus
Remigius
Quaerendum autem est quis est interpretatus hoc nomen: propheta aut Evangelista aut aliquis translator? Sed sciendum quod propheta non est interpretatus, sancto autem Evangelistae quid necesse fuerat interpretari, cum scriberet Hebraeo sermone? Fortassis quia hoc nomen obscurum erat apud Hebraeos, idcirco dignum erat interpretatione. Sed magis credendum est quod aliquis translator sit interpretatus ne haberetur hoc nomen obscurum apud Latinos. Hoc denique nomine duae substantiae, divinitatis scilicet et humanitatis, in una persona domini Iesu Christi designantur, quia qui ante omnia saecula ineffabiliter genitus est a Deo patre, idem ipse in fine temporum factus est Emmanuel, idest nobiscum Deus, ex virgine matre. Quod autem dicitur nobiscum Deus, potest intelligi hoc modo: nobiscum factus est, idest passibilis mortalis et per omnia nostri similis absque peccato, sive quia substantiam nostrae fragilitatis quam assumpsit, substantiae suae divinitatis in unitate personae coniunxit
Hieronymus super Isaiam
Sed sciendum quod Hebraei hoc de Ezechia filio Achaz prophetari arbitrantur, quod ipso regnante capta sit Samaria; quod omnino probari non potest. Siquidem Achaz filius Ioathan regnavit super Iudaeam et Ierusalem annis sexdecim, cui successit in regnum filius eius Ezechias annos natus viginti tres, et regnavit super Iudaeam et Ierosolymam annis viginti novem; quomodo ergo quam vidit primo anno Achaz prophetiam, de Ezechiae conceptu dicitur et nativitate, cum eo tempore cum regnare coeperat Achaz, iam novem esset Ezechias annorum? Nisi forte sextum Ezechiae regni annum quo capta est Samaria, infantiam eius appellari dicant, non aetatis, sed imperii; quod coactum esse ac violentum etiam stultis patet. Quidam de nostris Isaiam prophetam duos filios habuisse contendit, Iasub et Emmanuel, et Emmanuel de prophetissa uxore sua esse generatum in typum domini salvatoris. Hoc autem fabulosum est
Petrus Alphonsus
Non enim scitur quod aliquis homo illius temporis Emmanuel sit vocatus
Sed obiicit Hebraeus
quomodo stare poterit quod hoc propter Christum dictum sit et Mariam, cum ab Achaz usque ad Mariam multa centena annorum transierunt? Sed licet ad Achaz loqueretur propheta, non solum tamen ad eum vel de suo tempore dicta est prophetia. Propter hoc enim dictum est: audite domus David, non: audite Achaz. Iterum: dabit dominus ipse vobis signum; addit ipse, ac si diceret: non alius; ex quo potest intelligi ipsum dominum signum esse futurum. Quod etiam pluraliter ait vobis et non tibi, innuit non propter Achaz vel ad ipsum solum hoc dictum fuisse
Hieronymus super Isaiam
Est ergo sic intelligendum quod dicitur ad Achaz: iste puer qui nascetur ex virgine, domus David, nunc appelletur Emmanuel, idest nobiscum Deus, quia a rebus ipsis (probabiliter, a duobus regibus inimicis liberata) patebit Deum te habere praesentem. Postea autem vocabitur Iesus, idest salvator, eo quod universum genus homini sit salvaturus. Non mireris ergo, o domus David, ad rei novitatem, si virgo Deum pariat quae tantam habeat potestatem ut multo post tempore nasciturus te nunc liberet invocatus
Augustinus contra Faustum
Quis autem dementissimus diceret cum Manichaeo, enervis esse fidei de Christo sine teste non credere, cum apostolus dicat: quomodo credent ei quem non audierunt? Aut quomodo audient sine praedicante? Ut autem non contemnerentur neque fabulosa ducerentur quae apostoli nuntiabant, demonstrantur haec a prophetis fuisse praedicta, quia etsi attestabantur miracula, non defuissent qui magicae potentiae cuncta illi tribuerent, nisi talis eorum cogitatio contestatione prophetica vinceretur. Magicis enim artibus longe antequam nasceretur, prophetas sibi constituere a quibus praenuntiaretur, nemo utique diceret: si etiam dixerimus homini gentili crede Christo quia Deus est et responderit: unde credo? Prolataque auctoritate prophetarum, eis se nolle credere dixerit, ostendimus fidem prophetarum ex his quae ventura cecinerunt et venisse cernuntur. Credo enim quod eum non lateret quantas a regibus huius saeculi persecutiones prius pertulerit Christiana religio; videat nunc ipsos reges terrae Christi imperio subiugatos omnesque gentes eidem servientes, quae omnia per prophetas fuerunt praedicta. Hoc ergo audiens de Scriptura prophetica et cernens in universa terra completa, moveretur ad fidem
Glossa
Horum ergo errorem Evangelista excludit dicens ut adimpleretur quod dictum est a domino per prophetam. Prophetia autem alia est ex praedestinatione Dei, quam necessarium est evenire omnibus modis ut sine nostro impleatur arbitrio, ut illa de qua modo agimus: unde dicit ecce, ad demonstrandum certitudinem prophetiae; alia est ex praescientia Dei, cui nostrum admiscetur arbitrium et cooperante gratia consequimur praemium, vel ab ea iuste relicti tormentum; alia non ex praescientia, sed est quaedam comminatio more humano facta, sicut illud: adhuc quadraginta dies et Ninive subvertetur, intelligendo nisi Ninivitae corrigantur
1:24
Remigius † AD 908
Life returned by the same entrance through which death had entered in. By Adam’s disobedience we were ruined, by Joseph’s obedience we all begin to be recalled to our former condition; for in these words is commended to us the great virtue of obedience, when it is said, And Joseph rising from sleep, did as the Angel of the Lord had commanded him.
The Gloss ord. et ap. Anselm ex Beda cit.
He not only did what the Angel commanded, but as he commanded it. Let each one who is warned of God, in like manner, break off all delays, rise from sleep, and do that which is commanded him.
Pseudo-Chrysostom
Took unto him, not took home to him; for he had not sent her away; he had put her away in thought only, and now took her again in thought.
Remigius † AD 908
Or, Took her so far, as that the nuptial rites being complete, she was called his wife; but not so far as to lie with her, as it follows, And knew her not.
St Jerome † AD 420 Cont. Helvid. c. 5.
Helvidius is at much superfluous trouble to make this word know refer to carnal knowledge rather than to acquaintance, as though any had ever denied that; or as if the follies to which he replies had ever occurred to any person of common understanding. He then goes on to say, that the adverb ‘until’ denotes a fixed time when that should take place, which had not taken place before; so that here from the words, He knew her not until she had brought forth her first-born Son, it is clear, he says, that after that he did know her. And in proof of this he heaps together many instances from Scripture. To all this we answer, that the word ‘until’ is to be understood in two senses in Scripture. And concerning the expression, knew her not, he has himself shewn, that it must be referred to carnal knowledge, none doubting that it is often used of acquaintance, as in that, The child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem, and His parents knew not of it. (Luke 2:43.) In like manner ‘until’ often denotes in Scripture, as he has shewn, a fixed period, but often also an infinite time, as in that, Even to your old age I am He. (Isa. 46:4.) Will God then cease to be when they are grown old? Also the Saviour in the Gospel, Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of this world. (Mat. 28:20.) Will He then leave His disciples at the end of the world? Again, the Apostle says, He must reign till He has put His enemies under His feel. (1 Cor. 15:25.) Be it understood then, that that which if it had not been written might have been doubted of, is expressly declared to us; other things are left to our own understandingc. So here the Evangelist informs us, in that wherein there might have been room for error, that she was not known by her husband until the birth of her Son, that we might thence infer that much less was she known afterwards.
Pseudo-Chrysostom
As one might say, ‘He told it not so long as he lived;’ would this imply that he told it after his death? Impossible. So it were credible that Joseph might have known her before the birth, while he was yet ignorant of the great mystery; but after that he understood how she had been made a temple of the Only-begotten of God, how could he occupy that? The followers of Eunomius think, as they have dared to assert this, that Joseph also dared to do it, just as the insane think all men equally mad with themselves.
St Jerome † AD 420 cont. Helvid. 8.
Lastly, I would ask, Why then did Joseph abstain at all up to the day of birth? He will surely answer, Because of the Angel’s words, That which is born in her, &c. He then who gave so much heed to a vision as not to dare to touch his wife, would he, after he had heard the shepherds, seen the Magi, and known so many miracles, dare to approach the temple of God, the seat of the Holy Ghost, the Mother of his Lord?
Pseudo-Chrysostom
It may be said, that know here signifies simply, to understand; that whereas before he had not understood how great her dignity, after the birth he then knew that she had been made more honourable and worthy than the whole world, who had carried in her womb Him whom the whole world could not contain.
The Gloss
Otherwise; On account of the glorification of the most holy Mary, she could not be known by Joseph until the birth; for she who had the Lord of glory in her womb, how should she be known? If the face of Moses talking with God was made glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look thereon, how much more could not Mary be known, or even looked upon, who bare the Lord of glory in her womb? After the birth she was known of Joseph to the beholding of her face, but not to be approached carnally.
St Jerome † AD 420
From the words, her firstborn Son, some most erroneously suspect that Mary had other sons, saying that first-born can only be said of one that has brethren. But this is the manner of Scripture, to call the first-born not only one who is followed by brethren, but the first-birth of the mother.
St Jerome † AD 420 Cont. Helvid. 10.
For if he only was first-born who was followed by other brethren, then no first-birth could be due to the Priests, till such time as the second birth took place.
The Gloss Ord.
Or; He is first-born among the elect by grace; but by nature the Only-begotten of God the Father, the only Son of Mary. And called His name Jesus, on the eighth day on which the circumcision took place, and the Name was given.
Remigius † AD 908
It is clear that this Name was well known to the Holy Fathers and the Prophets of God, but to him above all, who spake, My soul fainted for Thy salvation; (Ps. 119:81.) and, My soul hath rejoiced in Thy salvation. Also to him who spake, I will joy in God my Saviour. (Ps. 13:5. Hab. 3:18.)
The Latin text
Remigius
Eo audito rediit vita quo ingressa est mors. Per inobedientiam enim Adae omnes perditi sumus, per obedientiam Ioseph omnes ad pristinum statum incipimus revocari; nam his verbis magna nobis virtus obedientiae commendatur, quibus dicitur exurgens autem Ioseph fecit sicut praeceperat ei Angelus domini
Glossa
Non tantum quod praecepit Angelus fecit, sed etiam sicut praecepit. Quisquis etiam a Deo monetur, solvat moras, surgat a somno, faciat quod iubetur. Et accepit Mariam coniugem suam
Chrysostomus super Matth
Non in domum accepit eam, nec enim adhuc dimiserat eam de domo, sed de animo suo deposuerat eam, et iterum in animum suum eam recepit
Remigius
Vel accepit celebratis nuptiis ut coniux vocaretur, non tamen ut concumberet, quia sequitur et non cognoscebat eam
Hieronymus contra Helvidium
Sed Helvidius superfluo labore desudat, cognoscendi verbum ad coitum magis quam ad scientiam esse referendum, quasi hoc quisquam negaverit et eas ineptias quas redarguit aliquando prudens quispiam suspicari potuerit. Deinde vult dicere quod donec sive usque adverbium certum tempus significet, quo completo fiat aliud quod usque ad illud tempus non fiebat, ut hic: non cognoscebat eam donec peperit filium. Apparet, inquit, cognitam esse post partum, cuius cognitionem filii tantum generatio differebat. Et ad hoc approbandum congerit de Scripturis exempla quam plurima. Ad quod respondemus: et non cognoscebat, et usque, vel donec in Scripturis dupliciter intelligenda. Et de eo quidem scriptum est, non cognoscebat, ad coitum esse referendum ipse disseruit, nullo dubitante quin ad scientiam saepe referatur, ut ibi: remansit puer Iesus in Ierusalem et non cognoverunt parentes eius. Sic etiam donec in Scriptura saepe certum tempus, sicut ipse disseruit, significat, saepe infinitum, ut est illud: donec consenescatis, ego sum. Numquid postquam illi senuerint, Deus desistit? Et salvator in Evangelio: ecce ego vobiscum sum usque ad consummationem saeculi. Ergo post consummationem saeculi a discipulis abscedet? Et apostolus: oportet illum regnare donec ponat inimicos sub pedibus eius. Numquid postquam illi sub pedibus erunt, regnare desistet? Intelligat ergo ea de quibus posset ambigi, si non fuissent scripta, significari, cetera vero nostrae intelligentiae derelinqui; iuxta quod Evangelista illud indicat de quo scandalum poterat moveri, non eam cognitam esse a viro usque ad partum, ut multo magis intelligeremus cognitam non fuisse post partum
Chrysostomus super Matth
Ut si quis dicat: donec ille vixit, non est hoc locutus, numquid per hoc significavit quia post mortem ille locutus est? Quod fieri non potest. Sic et Ioseph ante partum credibile fuit ut non cognosceret eam quia nondum cognoscebat mysterii dignitatem; postquam vero cognovit quia est facta unigeniti Dei templum, quomodo poterat hoc usurpare? Sed sequentes Eunomium putant, quia illi ausi sunt hoc dicere, quod Ioseph hoc ausus fuit, sicut insanus neminem reputat esse sanum
Hieronymus contra Helvidium
Ad summum illud requiro, cur se abstinuerit Ioseph usque ad partus diem. Respondebit utique: quia Angelum audierat dicentem quod in ea natum est. Qui ergo somnio tantum credidit ut uxorem non auderet tangere, hic postquam pastores audierat, magos viderat, miracula tanta cognoverat, templum Dei, spiritus sancti sedem, domini sui matrem audebat attingere?
Chrysostomus super Matth
Potest etiam dici quod verbum cognoscendi hic accipitur pro agnitione; vere enim non agnovit eam ante, cuius fuerat dignitatis; et postquam peperit, tunc cognovit eam, qua speciosior et dignior facta fuerat quam totus mundus, quia quem totus mundus capere non poterat, in angusto cubiculo uteri sui sola suscepit
Hilarius
Vel aliter. Propter sanctissimae Mariae glorificationem a Ioseph cognosci non potuit donec peperit; dominum enim gloriae habens in utero quomodo cognosceretur? Si Moysi cum Deo colloquentis glorificata est facies ut non possent intendere in eum filii Israel, quanto magis Maria agnosci vel intueri non poterat, quae dominum potentiae in utero habebat? Post partum autem a Ioseph agnita invenitur specie faciei, non tactu libidinis
Hieronymus in Matthaeum
Ex hoc autem quod dicitur filium suum primogenitum, quidam perversissime suspicantur et alios filios habuisse Mariam dicentes primogenitum non dici nisi qui habeat et fratres, cum hic mos Scripturarum sit ut primogenitum non eum vocent quem fratres sequuntur, sed eum qui primus natus sit
Hieronymus contra Helvidium
Alioquin si non est primogenitus nisi quem sequuntur et fratres, tamdiu sacerdotibus primogenita non debentur quamdiu et alia fuerint procreata
Glossa
Vel primogenitus dicitur inter omnes electos per gratiam; proprie autem unigenitus Dei patris vel Mariae dicitur. Sequitur et vocavit nomen eius Iesum, die octavo quo fiebat circumcisio et nomen imponebatur
Remigius
Liquet autem hoc nomen fuisse notissimum sanctis patribus et Dei prophetis, maxime illi qui dicebat: defecit in salutari tuo anima mea; et: exultavit cor meum in salutari tuo; et illi qui dicebat: exultabo in Deo Iesu meo
1:1
The book of the generation. Thus it is verbally in the Greek, Latin, Syrian, Arabic, Egyptian, Persian texts. But the Ethiopian has the genealogy of Jesus Christ. Matthew here seems to imitate Moses. Listen to what blessed Peter Damian says in his Sermon on S. Matthew: "As Moses is not improperly placed before the prophets and all who have written anything in the Old Testament, so Matthew rightly takes precedence of all who are found to have written in the New Testament. For as Moses compiled (texit) an account of the origin of the world, so has Matthew described the rising newness of the Church, as it were of a spiritual world. Hence it has been provided that, the Holy Spirit guiding the pen, both Moses and S. Matthew placed the same commencement to their respective works, saying, 'The Book of the Generation.'" So far Damian. Now Moses, in Gen. v. 1, thus begins the account of the genealogy and race of Adam, the first formed man The Book of generation of Adam: for Adam was a type of Christ. For as Adam was the father of the mortal life of all men, so is Christ the Father of the immortal life of the faithful, as S. Paul teaches, Rom 5:14, &c., and 1Co 15:47 et seq. The Hebrew is ϊεμγεϊ ρτψ sepher toledoth, i.e., the book, or catalogue, and enumeration of the generations of Adam. For, in the 5th of Genesis, many, indeed all the generations are given by which the human race was propagated from Adam to Noah and the Flood, whence it is probable that S. Matthew, who alludes to Moses, wrote likewise in Hebrew, in this passage, sepher toledoth, i.e., the book of the generations, in the plural. The LXX, however, in Gen. v., have translated גגכןע דוםףושע, the Book of the generation, in the singular, because the generation of Adam was one, by which he, as it were the patriarch of the whole human race, begat Seth, which generation was afterwards continued by Seth and his posterity, and was propagated as far as Noah. The Greek interpreter of S. Matthew, and the Latin Vulgate, which was translated from the Greek, here followed the LXX, because properly there is related the generation of Christ alone, whose origin indeed is derived from Abraham, through many generations of forefathers, and is brought down to Christ. As, therefore, Adam was the beginning or origin of the old world, so is Christ of the new and better world, whence he is called by Isaiah (ix. 6), "The Father of the coming age." (Vulgate). Hence also Virgil, following the Cumæan Sibyl, sings thus concerning Him, Eclogue iv.:— and adds: It is plain that these things were spoken by the Sibyl concerning Christ; but Virgil, either through ignorance or flattery, has transferred them to Pollio, the son of Asinius Pollio, the Roman Consul. Note, 1st, Book here is the same as catalogue, or enumeration, or description, whence the Syriac translation, λϊλΰ, ketobo, i.e., a description, or writing. For this is the exact meaning of the Hebrew, sepher, to which the Greek גגכןע and Latin liber correspond. In a like sense, the paper in which was recorded the putting away of a wife by her husband was called a Book of divorcement. So the Book of the righteous is the catalogue in which the names and acts of the righteous are recorded. The Book of Life is the catalogue of the elect, who are written in the mind of God as in a book. Cicero called a catalogue of names, a book of names. Note, 2nd, the word generation. First, and most evidently, it is the same as the race, or genealogy of Christ. Second, the generation of Christ is the conception and birth of Christ. See ver. 18. The birth (דםםחףיע) of Jesus Christ was on this wise. Third, as Maldonatus observes, "the generation of Christ is the life of Christ." For Matthew, in the Gospel, relates the history of the whole course of the life of Christ. Fourth, the Hebrew toledoth properly signifies generations, many of which intervened between Adam and Christ. The steps in Jacob's ladder, above which God stood, represented these generations those steps, I mean, by which the angels ascended from earth to heaven. For as this ladder joined, as it were, earth to heaven, and Jacob to God, so this series of generations united all the patriarchs to Christ, who was made Flesh, and so united all men to Himself and to God.
Son of David, i.e., descendant of David: for the Hebrews call all male lineal descendants, sons. The Evangelist places David first, then Abraham: 1st, because David was the nearer to Christ, and through him Christ reaches to Abraham; 2nd, because thus, in a more compendious manner, without repetition, Christ's genealogy is stated. He wished to impress this fact, that Christ was descended from Abraham through David. So S. Jerome. 3rd, and chiefly, because the promise of God made to David concerning Christ, as about to be born of his posterity, was the later, more special, and more glorious promise, as S. Chrysostom, Theophilus, Euthym., teach. Hence the Jews constantly call their Messiah the Son of David. Hence on Palm Sunday, when Christ entered into Jerusalem, they hailed Him as Messiah: Hosanna to the Son of David, i.e., O Lord, save our Messiah, speaking of Him as David's son and heir. Lastly, by the title, Son of David, the nobility of the race from whence Messiah sprung is hinted at, as also His kingdom, viz., that He too should be a king, as being the Son of David, a king, according to that divine voice 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 unto him the throne of David his father: and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. And of his kingdom there shall be no end." (S. Luk 1:31.) For this reason the prophets everywhere speak of Christ as David's son and heir, thus Isa 9:7, Isa 45:3; Jer 25:5; Eze 34:23, Eze 37:25, &c. The first promise which was made to David concerning Christ, that He should spring from him, and reign for ever, is found 2Sa 7:12; the same was confirmed, Ps. lxxxviii. and cxxxi.; and repeated to Solomon, David's Son, 1 Kings ix. 5. When, therefore, S. Matthew says, Jesus Christ the Son of David, he means that all these promises were now fulfilled in Christ. Thus S. Chrysostom 2; Theophilus, Euthym.; Irenæus, lib. 8, c. 8; S. Ambrose, lib. 3 in Luc., c. 3; and others.
Son of Abraham. The word Son here may be referred either to David or to Christ. For David, as well as Christ, was a son, i.e. a descendant, of Abraham. It signifies, therefore, that Christ, through David His father, was also the Son of Abraham, who was the father of them that believe, and of the ancient Church. The first express promise concerning Christ was made to him. (Gen 22:18.) Now, from the birth of Abraham to the birth of Christ there were 2,000 years; from the death of David to Christ, 1,013 years. So great was the antiquity of the oracles and promises of God concerning Christ; so constant and sure was God's faithfulness in fulfilling them. And this is why S. Matthew so carefully derives the genealogy of Christ from Abraham, even through forty-two generations, in order that he might show the Jews that Jesus Christ was the true Messiah promised to Abraham, and that He was the Son of Abraham and the rest of the patriarchs; and that He might therefore, as such, be received, cherished, and worshipped by the Jews.
1:2
Ver. 2. Abraham begat Isaac. These two, with those who came after them, were the first patriarchs, the founders of the synagogue and people of God, and of the Kingdom of Christ. They, as types, foreshadowed Him. (See comment on Genesis, where I have unfolded their genealogies.) I will not here repeat what has been said. God constantly calls Himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and even makes a boast, so to say, of this title. Wherefore He chose the posterity of Abraham, descending through Isaac and Jacob, for His own family and Church, and gave them the sign and pledge of circumcision. Wherefore God changed Abraham's name from Abram, i.e., a high father, to Abraham, that is to say, ΰα ψα δξζο, ab rab hamon, or the father of a great multitude viz., of the believing people that should be born of him according to the flesh; in like manner as of Christ, both Jews and Gentiles, who believe in Him, are born according to the Spirit. Now Isaac i.e. laughter about to be offered up by his father on Mount Moriah, clearly represented Christ, who was crucified on the same mount, and brought salvation and joy to the whole world.
1:3
Ver. 3. And Judah begat Pharez and Zara of Thamar. (See what I have said on Tamar, Gen 38:29.) Observe that in the genealogy of Christ, with the exception of His Blessed Mother, only four females are made mention of, three of them harlots Thamar, Rahab, and Bathsheba and the fourth a Gentile, Ruth the Moabitess. Rahab, too, was a Gentile, being an inhabitant of Jericho. If the reason of all this be asked, SS. Jerome, Chrysostom, Ambrose answer, that it was so because Christ would signify that "He who came for the abolishing and putting away of sins wished to be born of sinners." This reason is true, but allegorical. The literal and simple reason is, that these women were united to their husbands, not in the ordinary way, but after a new and extraordinary manner; and so they became types of the Church of Christ, which, when the Jews were rejected, was gathered out of the Gentiles by a new vocation, and after a new manner. Tamar, because Shelah was denied her in marriage, or rather because her union with him was deferred, using deceit, prostituted herself to Judah. Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah, was united to David, first by adultery, then in marriage. Rahab married Salmon because she hospitably received and protected the Hebrew spies who were sent by Joshua to Jericho, and so she became of the same faith and religion. Ruth married Boaz when she had passed with her mother-in-law, Naomi, from Moab into Judæa. The tropological sense is to show us the vanity of pride of birth, and that true nobility consists, not in ancestry, but in our own good disposition and virtues. Thus S. Chrysostom. Wherefore let no one be ashamed of his birth, nor even of vile and wicked ancestors; but let us say with Cicero, "I have outshone my forefathers in virtue." There can be no doubt that there are in the ancestry of the most exalted persons, forasmuch as they are sprung from Adam, many ignoble, worthless, wicked, and infamous persons. Plato, according to Seneca (Epis. 44), is of opinion that all kings are descended from servants, and that all servants are sprung from kings; that there is no king who has been entirely free from the plough, and no ploughman who has not been mixed up with kings. Lastly, Solomon, amongst the other vanities and uncertainties of the world, reckons this: "Because out of prison and chains sometimes a man cometh forth to a kingdom: and another born king is consumed with poverty." (Ecc 4:14.)
1:4
Aminadab. He was prince of the tribe of Judah when the Israelites came out of Egypt, who, when the rest stood still, fearing to go into the Red Sea, although God had made dry ground through the midst of it, courageously entered into it, and brought his own tribe safely through, and then the other princes and tribes followed. This is a Hebrew tradition. To this alludes the verse, Son 6:12, "My soul made me like the chariots of Aminadab." His son Naasson succeeded him in the headship of the tribe.
1:5
1:6
Of her which had been the wife of Urias. After Uriah's death, David married his wife, and of her he begat Solomon, for Solomon was not born of adultery, but in wedlock. In this passage it is intimated that God did not recall the promises which He had made to David on account of his adultery with Bathsheba, but, on their repentance, He confirmed His promises. Whence from Bathsheba and her son Solomon Christ was descended. In truth, Bathsheba herself became a saintly penitent, and brought up Solomon her son in a holy manner. Yea, she became illustrious for the spirit of prophecy, as I have shown in Pro 31:1, on the words, "The words of king Lemuel. The vision which his mother taught him." (Vulgate.)
1:8
Now Joram begat Ozias not directly, but with three generations intervening; for Joram was really the father of Ahaziah, Ahaziah of Joash, Joash of Amaziah, Amaziah of Azariah or Uzziah, for he had both names. (See 1Ch 3:12, &c.) It is asked why S. Matthew here omits these three links in the genealogy. S. Jerome answers, because the Evangelist wished to form three exact series of fourteen generations each, on which see ver. 17. And because Jehoram had allied himself to the most wicked Jezebel and to Ahab, in taking Ahab's sister, the impious Athaliah, to wife; for God had sworn that, on account of Ahab's impiety and idolatry, He would blot out all his posterity. (1Ki 21:21, &c.) Posterity in Scripture is reckoned to the fourth generation. Here, then, it is blotted out, forasmuch as it is omitted and obliterated by S. Matthew. Thus S. Hilary, S. Thomas, Jansen, &c. Gaspar Sanchez gives another reason. He conjectures that Matthew actually wrote as follows: "Joram begat Ochoziah, Ochoziah begat Joash, Joash begat Amaziah, Amaziah begat Oziah;" but that the copyist, misled by the similarity between Ochoziah and Oziah, as the names are written in Greek, by a slip of his eye passed over from Ahaziah to Uzziah. Thus Gaspar. But this would be an enormous blunder, and though one copyist might fall into such an error, it was scarcely possible that all could. All extant MSS. and Versions are alike here Greek, Syriac, Latin, Arabic, &c. " Joram begat Ozias," not Ahaziah. Besides, if these three generations were inserted, they would make seventeen generations, whereas S. Matthew says expressly there were fourteen generations.
1:11
Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren. Josias begat four sons. The first was Johanan; the second, Jehoiakim, who is also Eliakim; the third, Jehoahaz, also called Shallum; the fourth, Zedekiah, who is also Mattaniah. Jehoahaz, although the third son, succeeded his father Josias immediately upon his death; but Pharaoh, King of Egypt, removed him, and placed his brother Jehoiakim upon the throne. After he had reigned eleven years, Nebuchadnezzar slew him, and gave the crown to his son Jehoiachin. Him he shortly afterwards dethroned, and made his uncle Zedekiah king. When Zedekiah rebelled, he took him captive, and put out his eyes; and in him that branch of David's royal line came to an end. The carrying away to Babylon Greek ו̉ני̀ פע לופןיךוףבע ֲבגץכםןע that is, about the time of the transmigration to Babylon, or the Babylonish captivity, in which the Jews were carried away by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon. The transmigration of the Jews to Babylon took place at three different times. The first was in the eleventh year of King Jehoiakim, when Daniel and Ezekiel were carried away. The second was three months afterwards, when Mordecai, Esther's uncle, was carried away, together with Jehoiachin, the son of Jehoiakim. The third, and most complete, captivity was eleven years afterwards, under King Zedekiah, when almost all the people who were left were taken away.
1:12
Ver. 12. Jeconias begat Salathiel. There is a great difficulty here, which Porphyry, the enemy of Christ and of Christians, was in the habit of bringing forward as insuperable. For this Jeconias, the father of Salathiel, was not the Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, who is spoken of in the preceding verse, but the son of that Jehoiakim, and the grandson of Josiah, and consequently there are only thirteen generations, instead of fourteen, as S. Matthew enumerates. S. Jerome replies that this Jeconias is a different person from Jeconias, the son of Josiah. The former was Jehoiakim, or Jechonias, and Jeconias by a corruption. The latter is properly Jehoiachin. Josiah begat Jehoiakim, and Jehoiakim begat Jehoiachin. One generation must, therefore, be supplied in this place. " Now Jeconias begat Jechonias," as some Greek and Latin MSS. do read. That what has been said is correct, is clear from 1Ch 3:15, 1Ch 3:16, and 2Ki xxiii. and xxiv. The generation in question was omitted, either by S. Matthew himself, in order to avoid the repetition of the two similar names, as S. Augustine thinks, or, more probably, through the fault and ignorance of transcribers, who, mistaking Jechonias for Jeconias, thought that one of the two was redundant, and so omitted it. This was the opinion of S. Epiphanius.
1:16
Ver. 16. Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary. You may ask, why is the generation of Christ here derived from the genealogy of Joseph? Christ was the Son, not of Joseph, but of the Virgin Mary, especially if S. Mary were able, as it might appear, to marry a man of another tribe, as her cousin Elizabeth, who was of the tribe of Judah, like Mary herself, married Zachariah, a priest, and therefore of the tribe of Levi. The answer is, that Jewish women might, indeed, marry into another tribe: but if they themselves, in the failure of heirs male, became heiresses of their fathers, they were in that case obliged to marry husbands of their own tribe and family, that their inheritance might not pass by marriage into another tribe. (See the last chapter of Numbers, ver. 7.) Joakim, the father of the Blessed Virgin, had no male children, a fact which S. Matthew here omits, as something perfectly well known in the age in which he writes. Hence it became the duty of S. Mary to marry a husband of her own tribe and family, that is to say, Joseph. Thus the genealogy of Joseph became the genealogy of the Blessed Virgin, and consequently of Christ, the Lord. Thus, too, it is, that the Fathers teach universally that Joseph and Mary were of the same tribe and family. It may be yet further asked, why S. Matthew unfolded the genealogy of Joseph rather than of Mary, since Christ was born of her alone, being a Virgin? I answer: First, because among the Jews, and other nations, genealogy is customarily reckoned through fathers and husbands, not through mothers and wives. Second, because Joseph was the true and lawful father of Christ, after the manner which I shall explain presently. And Christ was the heir of David's throne and sceptre, not through Mary, but through Joseph, according to God's promise to David, 2Sa 8:12; Ps. lxxxviii. and cxxxi. The sceptre, therefore, of Judah devolved upon Jesus Christ, not only by the promise and gift of God, but by the right of hereditary succession. For if, by common right, sons succeed to their fathers' inheritance, when they are only accounted their sons by common repute, how much more was Christ Joseph's, His father's, heir, since He was the Son of his wife, by the power and the gift of the Holy Ghost? Wherefore as Joseph had a parent's right over Christ, indeed, all rights which parents have over sons, so on the other hand, Christ had, with reference to Joseph, all the rights which sons have in respect to their parents. He had therefore a right to the kingdom of Israel after Joseph's death. Hence the question of the Magi (ii. 2), "Where is he that is born King of the Jews?" This was what S. Matthew wished to demonstrate, who, as S. Augustine says, insists, most of all the Evangelists, upon the kingship of Christ. And this explains why he gives the genealogy of Joseph, rather than of Mary. For she could not be the heiress of the kingdom, so long as heirs male, like Joseph and others, survived. Whence also it must be said, as a consequence, that the father and other ancestors of Joseph were first-born, or at least eldest surviving sons of their fathers, so that the right of reigning devolved upon them. This is what is meant in the first chapter of S. Luke by the words, "And the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father." So likewise in Gen 49:10, "The sceptre shall not be taken away from Judah, nor a ruler from his thigh, till he come that is to be sent:" that is, Christ, who was to restore to Judah the sceptre, iniquitously taken away by Herod; yea, who was to raise their kingdom to a far higher grandeur, by making it spiritual instead of corporeal, heavenly instead of earthly, and, instead of temporal, eternal. Observe the expression, Joseph the husband of Mary. The Arabic has the spouse of Mary. From this we may gather that S. Joseph had all the rights of a real husband with regard to the Virgin, and consequently is rightly and truly called the father of Christ. This is pointed out by S. Augustine. 1. Christ may be said to be the fruit of the marriage of Joseph and Mary, because He was born in wedlock, though not of wedlock. He may therefore be ascribed either to His father or His mother. 2. Forasmuch as a man and his wife are made one by marriage, as it were but one person in the eye of the law, therefore they have everything in common, and so all their legitimate children: for I except children born of adultery. They have the adulterer as their father, and belong to him. Christ, then, who was the Son of the Virgin Mother of God, was also the Son of Joseph, who was her husband, and therefore the partner of all her honours and blessings. Joseph was more truly the father of Christ than one who adopts a son is the father of that son. He is only a father by adoption, but Joseph was father of Christ by marriage. Hence it follows that Joseph had a father's authority over Christ, and therefore the utmost solicitude and affection for him. And Christ in return cherished, loved, and honoured Joseph as a father, and was obedient to him, as is plain from Luk 2:51. "This subjection," as Gerson says, "marks at once the unspeakable humility of Christ, and the incomparable dignity of Joseph and Mary." 3. Because Christ properly belonged to the family of Joseph: for He belonged to His mother's family as His mother herself belonged to Joseph's. There was therefore upon earth one most noble, yea, divine and heavenly family, of which the father and ruler was Joseph; the mother, the Blessed Virgin; the son, Christ. In it were the three most exalted and excellent persons of the whole world; first, Christ, both God and man; secondly, the Virgin Mother of God, most closely united to Christ; and thirdly, Joseph, the father of Christ by marriage. The common herd of men, yea, many of this world's wise ones, think of Joseph only as a poor and despised carpenter. But the more despised and unknown he was upon earth, so much the greater is his glory in heaven. Wherefore Gregory XV. hath lately decreed that his Festival shall be celebrated as a Double by the whole Church on the 19th of March. And this is a well deserved honour; for consider, from what I am about to subjoin, how great were his prerogatives, his office, and dignity above all other men. 1. 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 both of the Virgin, and of Christ as He was man. Hence, 2. There was singular love and reverence, on the part both of the Blessed Virgin and of Christ, towards Joseph. Whence John Gerson, Chancellor of Paris (Serm. de Nativ. B.V.M.), exclaims, "O, altogether wonderful is thy exaltation, O Joseph, incomparable thy dignity, that the Mother of God, the Queen of Heaven, the lady of the world, should not disdain to call thee lord!" S. Gregory Nazianzen (Orat. 11), denotes and celebrates the excellence of the husband of his sister, Gorgonia, by this one title, that he was Gorgonia's husband. "Do you wish," he says, "that I should describe the man? He was her husband, and I know of nothing more that I need say." You may say the same of S. Joseph. Do you desire to know who and how great he was? He was the husband of the Mother of God. 3. The ministry and office of Joseph was most noble, in that it pertains to the order of the hypostatic union of the Word with our flesh. For Joseph exercised all his labours and actions in immediate proximity to the Person of Christ. He nourished, cherished, and guarded Christ, and taught Him his art as a carpenter, according to the common opinion of the Doctors. Hear Franc. Suarez (3 part. quæst. 29, disp. 8, sect. 1): "There are some offices which pertain directly to the order of grace making grateful, and in this the Apostles hold the highest rank, and therefore need greater assistance of grace than all others. There are, again, other offices which pertain to the order of the hypostatic union, which is in genere a higher order, as is plain from the motherhood of God in the Blessed Virgin. And in this order S. Joseph exercised his ministry." 4. Joseph, by his familiar and constant companionship with Christ and the Blessed Virgin, was made a sharer in their divine secrets, and daily beheld and imitated their lofty virtues. 5. Joseph was a person of the utmost sanctity, and endowed by God with singular gifts, both of nature and grace, so that in that age there was no man more holy, or more worthy the betrothal of the Mother of God. Whence Suarez thinks it probable that Joseph was superior to the Apostles and John the Baptist in grace and glory, because his office was more excellent than theirs; for it is more to be the father and governor of Christ than His preacher and forerunner. He adds that when Joseph espoused the Blessed Virgin, he was of mature age, and died before the Crucifixion. This is why in the Passion of Christ no mention is made of Joseph. Lastly, he rose with Christ in common with the rest of the patriarchs, of whom mention is made in Matt. xxvii. 52 "Many bodies of the saints which slept arose." These are the things in which Joseph was pre-eminent.
Of whom was born Jesus. The form of expression is here changed The Evangelist does not say, Joseph begat Jesus, as he had said of Abraham and the rest. Neither does he say, Mary begat Jesus, but of whom was born Jesus. By this expression he signifies 1. That Jesus was born of Mary, not by natural means, but by supernatural that is to say, by the operation of the Holy Ghost. 2. That Jesus was not sprung from His father Joseph, but born of His mother alone, she being a virgin, and therefore that Joseph had no other connection with the genealogy of Christ than by right of his wife, the Virgin Mary. Well does S. Bernard say (Hom. 1 super Missus est) "Very beautiful was the mingling of humility and virginity; nor is that soul in only a slight degree pleasing unto God, in which humility commends virginity, and virginity adorns humility; but of what veneration must she be worthy whose fruitfulness exalteth humility, and childbirth consecrates virginity?" And again "Such a nativity became God, that He should not be born save of a Virgin: such a birth became a Virgin, that she should bring forth only God." It was fitting that, as Christ had a Father in heaven, He should have no father upon earth, but only a mother; for He who was without a mother in heaven (Gr. ב̉לפשס) was without a father on earth (Gr. ב̉נפשס). For it behoved that the Conception and the Birth of Christ should be removed as far as possible from original sin that as it was not right that He should contract it, so neither should it be possible. And in this He was superior to His mother; for she, although conceived without sin by the singular preservation of God, nevertheless was bound, through that natural conception of herself whereby she was born of Joachim and Anna by natural generation from Adam, to have contracted it, unless it had been prevented by the grace of God. Lastly, it behoved that the Birth of Christ should be most divinely pure, that it might powerfully commend virginity and chastity to us. Whence S. Gregory Nazianzen (Orat. 38, de Nativ. in principio) says, "Christ was born of a virgin: O ye women, do ye then cherish virginity, that ye may be able to be mothers of Christ." And Cyril of Jerusalem says, "Christ was born that He might make virgins; much more, therefore, ought a virgin to keep chaste her body." 2. The expression Of whom was born Jesus signifies that the Virgin was the real mother of Jesus i.e., of that Man who, being hypostatically united with God, was both God and man. Therefore was she truly the mother of God. For although she was not the mother of Deity, yet did she give birth to God, because she was mother of that Man. For that Man was God, therefore the Blessed Virgin was mother of God. The reason, à priori, is identity of Person, because there is but one Person, and that a Divine Person, in Christ. Hence the attributes of either nature can be predicated of Him; and there becomes a joint participation of the peculiarities of each; so that this Man may be called God, and in return, God may be called Man, the Son of the Virgin, and it can be said that God suffered and was crucified, &c. For one Person is presupposed in these expressions, who gathereth up into Himself all the actions and passions of both natures. Wherefore the Person of the Son of God, who is God, is rightly spoken of as born of the Virgin Mary, but according to His human, not His divine nature. The surpassing dignity, therefore, of the Blessed Virgin is here indicated: for such is the motherhood of God, that from her He received His own, that is to say, His human substances, such as flesh, bones, blood; and received it in such sort that He cherished, loved, and reverenced her as His mother, and was obedient to her as a mother, and spoke of her as "mother." Whence S. Bernard exclaims in admiration, "A twofold wonder, a twofold miracle; God obeys a woman humility without a parallel; and a woman is the head of God dignity beyond compare!" The Virgin Mother of God possessed the same right and authority over Christ which other mothers have over their own sons. Yea, she had more than other mothers have, because she was more the mother of Christ than other women are mothers of their sons, for a reason which I shall adduce presently. S. Thomas (I part. quæst. 25, art. 6) teaches that God could not perform a greater work than the Incarnation of the Word, and the maternity of the Blessed Virgin, because she is the very Mother of God God than whom nothing greater can be imagined. Hence Bede saith, "O most blessed Virgin, in thee alone that rich, yea, more than rich, King emptied Himself." For to be Mother of God is the highest affinity, consanguinity, and union with God. By that motherhood the Blessed Virgin Mary is in as close relationship with God as a mother is with her son. From this dignity of Mother of God, there follow all the gifts and privileges which have been granted to the Blessed Virgin by God above all men and angels. For as the Humanity of Christ, being united to the Word, receiveth from the Word such gifts and privileges as are becoming to such a union I mean such as may exalt that Humanity, and render It, as it were, worthy of union with the Word; so, in like manner, God showered upon Mary all the gifts and graces which befitted such a Mother of Christ and Spouse of God. Whence you may draw this conclusion Mary is the Mother of God, therefore she is far more excellent than all the angels, even the Cherubim and Seraphim. She is the Mother of God, therefore she is Queen and Lady of heaven and earth. She is the Mother of God, therefore whatsoever privilege has been granted to any of the Saints, that she obtains in a more excellent degree. 3. Of whom was born Jesus, signifies that He was born of His Mother only, so that she alone contributed to Christ all that flesh and substance which other fathers and mothers are wont to contribute conjointly to their children. For sons derive a portion of their substance from their fathers, a portion from their mothers. Wherefore the Blessed Virgin contributed more to Christ than other mothers are wont to contribute to their sons, because she alone was, in a manner, both father and mother of Christ. Hence it follows 1. That the Blessed Virgin hath more right in Christ than other mothers have in their sons. 2. That Mary had far greater love for Christ, and Christ for her, than other mothers have for their sons, and other sons for their mothers, both because she alone bare (genuit) Him, as well as because she bare Him not after the natural, but after the supernatural and divine order. So, too, the love which, in other sons, is divided between father and mother, in Christ was united, and applied wholly to His Mother. And thus she felt, as it were, with a duplicated grief the pains of Christ upon the Cross, and experienced a duplicated joy at His Resurrection. 4. The expression, of whom was born, signifies that the Holy Ghost was the most potent and efficient cause of the Nativity of Christ, who, within the Blessed Virgin, of her most pure blood, formed the Body of Christ, organized It, and gave It life, and hypostatically united It to the Word in the first moment of Its conception. Still the Blessed Virgin was a secondary cause, and a true Mother of Christ for the purpose of generation, not merely as passively furnishing the material, but as actively concurring therein by way of forming, disposing, and organizing that material. See Francis Suarez, 3 p., q. 3, 2 art., 4 ac., q. 33, art. 4, where he teaches that Christ's generation of the Virgin was supernatural, as far as its manner and swiftness were concerned, because, in one moment, it was perfected by the Holy Ghost as the efficient cause. And so the action whereby Mary became a mother was natural; the mode was supernatural.
Was born Jesus. The Word was made Flesh. God became Man. The Son of God was made the Son of the Virgin. This, as S. Thomas teaches at length, was the highest and greatest of all the works of God. At this work the Angels and all the Saints have ever been and are amazed in wonder. For in It God manifested His highest power by uniting man to God, clay to the Word, earth to heaven. He manifested also the highest wisdom, that He, who in His Godhead might not suffer to redeem us, put on, in the Virgin's womb, flesh, whereby He might be able to suffer, and to make satisfaction to the Father for our sins. He manifested also the highest justice, because by reason of the dignity of His Person, He makes satisfaction upon equal terms, as it were, to the wrath and justice of God, by suffering death upon the Cross. And He manifested the utmost goodness, because He emptied Himself, that He might replenish us with His gifts. He was made the Son of man that He might make us sons of God, as S. Augustine says. He was born on earth, that man might be born in heaven, as S. Gregory says.
Who is called Christ: that is, who is the Messiah, or the Christ, the Redeemer of the world, promised to the Fathers. And henceforth He can and ought to be called Messiah, or Christ in His own right, and therefore now He is verily so called by all the faithful. How this genealogy of S. Matthew is reconcilable with that of S. Luke, I will unfold in my commentary on the third chapter of S. Luke.
1:17
Therefore all the generations from Abraham to David, are fourteen generations. And from David to the transmigration (the Syriac has exile) of Babylon are fourteen generations: and from the transmigration of Babylon to Christ are fourteen generations. From Abraham, therefore, unto Christ are forty-two generations. S. Luke (chap. iii.) enumerates seventy-seven generations, but he places no stress upon the number as S. Matthew does. Though S. Augustine, c. 2, de consensu Evang., c. 4., is of opinion that entire remission and abolition of all sins, which is effected through Christ, is denoted by the seventy-seven generations. Whence Christ commanded that forgiveness should be extended to an erring brother seventy times seven. (Mat 18:22.) By generations, you must understand all the persons, both those begetting and those begotten. These are the fourteen. For the Greek is not דםוףיע, i.e. generation, properly called, but דוםב, i.e. offspring, race, family, and children, the duration of the life of one man. For the generations, exactly numbered, are only thirteen in the first Tesseradecade, as you will see if you count the recurrence of the word "begat;" which word is repeated thirteen times; because in it alone Abraham is reckoned the first, and David the last generation. But in the second Tesseradecade, David, the first in it, is not reckoned; nor yet in the third, Jeconias the first name; because those persons have been already named and enumerated as the last in the second and third Tesseradecades. Therefore, in the third Tesseradecade, one generation must be added namely, Jehoiakim begat Jehoiachin in order that it may consist of fourteen generations; that is to say, of fourteen persons begetting and begotten, as I have already said. All the generations then are precisely forty-one; but the persons begetting and begotten are forty-two, because the generation of the first namely, Abraham is not reckoned here, but is presupposed as being known from the Book of Genesis. You may ask, with what object S. Matthew so accurately enumerates these three Tesseradecades of generations? The answer is, because he wishes to pass in review the threefold condition of the Jewish people the first, the quasi democratic state under the several Patriarchs and Judges, such as Othniel, Gideon, Samson, Eli, Samuel, &c., who presided over Israel from Abraham to David; the second, the monarchical, under kings, as David and his descendants, until the captivity; the third, the aristocratic, under dukes and pontiffs, as Judas, Jonathan, Simon, and the rest of the Maccabees, from the Babylonish captivity unto Christ. Matthew signifies that this threefold condition and government of the people was thrice changed, and must be a fourth time changed by Christ, and ended in Christ, who brought in an eternal kingdom. Thus the Fathers and commentators passim. Whence Nazianzen, in his poem on the genealogy of Christ says: "Thus he deduced a royal race, and kingly sceptre." Maldonatus adds a medical analogy. In fevers, and other diseases, physicians call the fourteenth the critical day, and the most perilous. Agreeably, therefore, to the nature of man, after each period of fourteen generations, God seems to have wished to change the condition of His people, that one form of government, as it were, growing sick and failing, a better one might be born and succeed it, until, through Christ, the best of all should be substituted, which should heal and correct the defects and weakness of the three preceding, and establish the kingdom of the Church, flourishing, sound, and eternal. Lastly, Matthew enumerates forty-two generations by three Tesseradecades, so as to make it a probable conjecture in the mind of his reader, that it was fitting that Christ should come after this exact number of generations. For as there were fourteen generations before the kingdom of the Jews was established, fourteen during its continuance, after which, during fourteen generations, it evidently declined, so, by a probable conjecture, it might be supposed, that after these last fourteen generations, the kingdom fading away, it was to be restored to a better state by Messiah. For as there were fourteen generations before, and fourteen in the kingdom, so there were as many after the kingdom of Israel until Christ. Again, before the kingdom the promise of Christ was made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; in the kingdom to David and Solomon; after the kingdom the same promise was repeated to Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, &c., that there might be a feeling that all the promises made concerning Christ, both before, during, and after the kingdom were ended and fulfilled in Christ. Abraham begins, David ends the first Tesseradecade; Solomon begins, Jehoiakim or Jehoiachin ends the second; Jehoiakim or Jehoiachin begins, Christ ends the third. And He is the end of the law, and the deliverer of the captive people and the captive world. So Francisc. Lucas. For the Jews knew from the decline and failure of their commonwealth, and especially when the sceptre was taken away from Judah by Herod, according to the prophecy of Jacob, Gen 49:10, that the Advent of Messiah might certainly be expected. Whence their kingdom being broken up, and this sceptre transferred, S. Matthew here teaches that Messiah was now come, and was none other than Jesus Christ. And thus he would persuade the Jews to believe in Him. Symbolically, Origen (Hom. 27 in Num.) and S. Jerome (Epist. ad Fabiolam de 42 Mansion.), remark, that those forty-two generations correspond to the forty-two stations of the Israelites in the wilderness, by which they arrived at the land of Canaan promised to Abraham. Similarly, through the forty-two generations we arrive at the Messiah, or the Christ, promised to the same Abraham, and through Christ, at the land of the living, promised to the saints in heaven. Again, the number fourteen, because it contains twice seven, by which the sevenfold grace of the Holy Ghost is signified, denotes the gift of the same Holy Spirit in two-fold abundance to man, as it was in Christ, who, indeed, by a like symbol, having suffered on the fourteenth day of the month Nisan, when the moon was full, redeemed us by His death, and merited abundance of graces for us. Wherefore the Psalmist sings concerning Him, Ps. lxxi.: "In his days shall the righteous flourish, yea and abundance of peace, so long as the moon endureth." Listen to S. Ambrose, Oration on the death of Theodosius: "In the number fourteen we have received man's perfection; whence the Lord's Passover received the form of its celebration, on the fourteenth day of the moon. Wherefore he who celebrates the Passover ought to be perfect, ought to love the Lord Jesus, who, loving His own people with a perfect love, offered Himself to His Passion. A notable mystery is in the number, since the Father delivered up his only Son for us all, when the moon was shining with a full orb of light. For like this is the Church, which piously celebrates the Passover of our Lord Jesus Christ. It abideth for ever, like the moon at the full. Whosoever shall well celebrate here the Lord's Passover, shall be in light, everlastingly." Anagogically, the number forty-two is composed of six into seven, For six times seven makes forty-two. The six denotes the labours of this life, whereby we come to the seven, or the sabbath of rest and eternal felicity. For in the six first days of the world God made all things in heaven and earth; but in the seventh day, or the sabbath, He rested from all His work. Tropologically, by this forty-fold number of generations is signified the life of the body, as compounded of the four elements. For this life standeth in keeping the ten commandments of God, which are perfected by the four Gospels. For ten into four makes forty. So Salmeron, so even S. Augustine, and from him Peter Bongus, On the Mysteries of Numbers, Num. XIV.: "The three divisions," he says, "in the generation of Christ, hint at the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, which is laid down concordantly by the Law and the Gospel. For three signifies faith in the Trinity, four the evangelical doctrine, ten the institution of the Law." The same author adds shortly afterwards: "That the number fourteen should be thrice repeated signifies true religion. For four and ten indicate the New and Old Testament. For the way to Christ is preached through the Ten Commandments of the Law, and the four Gospels; so, however, that we should consecrate whatever is ascribed to the Trinity, that is, to God, because no commandment is fulfilled unless this number is preserved in the worship of God. By the type of this number, moreover, Ezekiel (chap. xl.) beheld in the fourteenth year after the smiting of the city, a new city, even the Church, which Christ, born and dying, founded in the fourteenth generation after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldees, as Cassiodorus remarks (in Ps. xiv., sub finem). Lastly, in the forty second year after Christ's Passion, Jerusalem was utterly destroyed by Titus and Vespasian to avenge His death as S. Jerome observes on the words of the Psalm: "In the next generation let his name be clean put out."
1:18
Ver. 18. Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. The Birth of Christ happened in this manner. For Birth, the Greek has not γένεσις, i.e., generation, properly so called, but γέννησις, i.e., rise, conception, generation, nativity. When any one arises he is conceived, is begotten, is born.
When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost. Syriac, " of the Spirit of holiness " that is, the Spirit who is holy, and the Author and Fountain of all holiness. God willed the Blessed Virgin to be betrothed to Joseph 1. Because Joseph appears to have been the nearest heir of David's kingdom, that it might devolve from him upon Christ, as from a father to a son, by due order and right of succession, as I have said, ver. 16. 2. Because Joseph was a most holy man, like unto the patriarch Joseph, of whose chastity and virtue he partook, as well as of his name. He was called Joseph i.e., increased for he was enriched with great gifts and graces from God. Thus S. Bernard, Hom. 2 super Missus est. You may ask whether it be here meant that the Blessed Virgin was espoused to Joseph only by betrothal, or by an actual marriage contract and celebration of nuptials; and so, whether Christ was incarnate, and conceived of a virgin who was betrothed only, or of one who was actually married? For to a virgin thus betrothed Gabriel was sent to announce the Incarnation of Christ. (Luke i. 38.) And the Virgin, consenting to his message, and saying, "Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it done to me according to thy word," immediately, in that very instant, conceived Christ. Many are of opinion that the Blessed Virgin was only espoused by betrothal, or per verba de futuro, by which only a promise of marriage takes place. So S. Hilary, in loc.; S. Basil, Hom. on the Human Generation of Christ; Origen, Hom. I, on divers passages of the Gospels. But others think, with better reason, that the Virgin was espoused not merely by betrothal, but by marriage, per verba de præsenti by an actual nuptial contract. This is proved: 1. Because Joseph is called in the verse following, and in ver. 16, the husband of Mary. This must mean that he had married her. 2. Joseph wished to put her away, as being with child, as it is said in the verse following. He had therefore taken her to him to wife; for no one puts away what he has not. 3. Because "betrothed" (Luk 2:5) is interpreted to mean married. Yea, Joseph called her his wife. She was therefore already married, and introduced into the house of her husband, Joseph, as his wife, that, by this means, Joseph might be the attesting witness of her virginity, and the guardian and nourisher both of herself and her Child Jesus. Consider, also, that the Blessed Virgin, as soon as she had received Gabriel's message, being now full of the Word, visited Elizabeth, and abode with her three months. From whence it does not seem that she there celebrated her marriage with Joseph, nor yet after her return to Nazareth, for there exists no trace of such an event. So that she must have celebrated this marriage before Gabriel's message, and the Incarnation of the Word. Neither would it have been becoming that an unmarried virgin should undertake so great a journey into a mountainous country, without a husband, or companion, or without her guardian sending a maid, or some female relation with her. 4. Because it was plainly befitting that Christ should be born of a woman who was actually married, in order that he might not be despised by the Jews as illegitimate, but might be received as a legitimate son. And this is why Joseph is called Christ's father. Finally, offspring is the proper fruit of wedlock. Thus Jerome, Haymo, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Ambrose, Jansenius, Suarez, and others, passim. It may be objected 1. That the angel says to Joseph, "Fear not to take Mary thy wife." Therefore, he had not taken her to wife, but only espoused her by betrothal. I reply to take, here means the same thing as to keep, and retain: for the angel calls her his wife. They were therefore married. The Hebrew verbs often signify not only inchoate, but continuous action. The meaning, therefore, is "Dismiss not, O Joseph, thy wife Mary, but keep and retain her." For nothing is put away save what has been received and possessed. 2. The Virgin is here called betrothed, before they came together, therefore before marriage. In reply, I deny the consequence. To come together does not here signify to contract marriage, nor yet to cohabit, but to make use of marriage already contracted. 3. Why is she here spoken of, not as married, but as espoused? I reply, she is called espoused or betrothed, because her husband had not known her; and therefore she was as a bride, not yet married to her husband, but only promised. So S. Chrysostom. Hence Peter Chrysologus (Serm. 175) says, Joseph was a husband in name only, by consent of his spouse; that is, he was accounted her husband by the bond, not the consummation of marriage. That there was, however, a real marriage between Joseph and the Blessed Virgin is certain from the words of the Gospel, and the common agreement of theologians; and the axiom of lawyers, that "Consent, not consummation, validates marriage." Whence S. Augustine (lib. 1, de Nuptiis, c. 11) says "The good of marriage was fulfilled in those parents of Christ. There was offspring, fidelity, a sacrament (for these are the three goods of marriage). We recognize the offspring, the Lord Jesus Himself; the fidelity, for there was no adultery; the sacrament, for there was no divorce." He teaches the same more at large against Julian the Pelagian (lib. 5), who denied the marriage of Joseph and Mary. In chap. 9, he maintains that the jus matrimonii is not repugnant to a vow of chastity. By marriage, I possess a right over my wife, but because of my vow, I cannot use that right lawfully. If I do use it, I sin against my vow, not my marriage. That is, I do what is, technically, an irreligious, not an unjust act. For there is not adultery, as it would be, if the wife were joined in marriage. Joseph, therefore, had by matrimony, a power over the Blessed Virgin, but by his purpose, and as it would seem by his vow of chastity, he would not use this power. To have a right or power to do a thing, and to use that power, are wholly different things. The first is necessary for valid matrimony, but not the second. This right of cohabitation, and quasi dominion over a wife, in the case of married virgins, has several true and real, not fictitious consequences. The first is, that a virgin bride cannot marry another husband. The second is, that although the vow be broken by cohabitation, it is not fornication. The third, that offspring divinely granted and born (as Christ in the present instance was conceived of the Holy Ghost) is accounted legitimate as being born in wedlock. From all this, it may be gathered that the marriage of the Blessed Virgin Mary with Joseph was not only real matrimony, but lawful, yea, holy real, because the essence of wedlock consists in the mutual delivery of power over each other's body, even though this power be never exercised. And a vow of virginity takes away this power and right from no one, but only renders its exercise unlawful. It is after a similar manner that the power is separated from the use of a thing, in the case of certain religious, who remain owners of their paternal inheritance, but who, on account of their vow of poverty, are not able to make use of it. It was lawful marriage, because, although the Blessed Virgin had made a vow of virginity, yet she lawfully, and without peril of a breach of her vow, engaged in marriage, because she knew by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, that Joseph would never use his power and marital rights to the detriment of her vow. So S. Augustine, de S. Virgin., c. 4, and theologians, passim. It is, moreover, probable that the Blessed Virgin Mary had revealed this, her vow, to Joseph before marriage, and that he had consented to it. Some add, that he had promised to be the guardian of her vow. It was holy marriage, because by means of it Joseph protected the good repute and the virginity of Blessed Mary; and became the guardian, nourisher, and educator of the Child Jesus. What were more holy than this? See S. Thomas, 3 part 29. 2. 1. in corpore, where he assigns many reasons why Christ was born of an espoused virgin. And he adds that there might be a fifth reason why the Mother of the Lord was espoused and a virgin, in order that in her person both virginity and matrimony might be honoured against the heretics, who attack either one or the other. The holy martyr Ignatius, cited by S. Jerome, gives yet another reason in order that her child-bearing might be concealed from the devil, so that he thought that Christ was not born of a virgin, but of a wife. Observe here, tropologically, in the Blessed Virgin and Joseph the utmost height of angelic purity and virginity. And thus, the Blessed Virgin has communicated this gift of conjugal chastity to several eminent persons, specially devoted to her, as to S. Pulcheria, and Martian, to SS. Julian and Basilissa, to whom, in the first night after their vow of chastity, Christ appeared, accompanied by a vast throng of men in white robes, on the one hand, and the Blessed Virgin, girt about with a virgin throng, on the other hand. They who were with Christ chanted forth "Thou hast conquered Julian, thou hast conquered." And they who were with the Blessed Virgin replied "Blessed art thou, Basilissa, who hast despised earthly marriage, and prepared thyself for eternal glory." Wherefore Julian was the spiritual ancestor of innumerable believers in Christ and martyrs, and Basilissa, by word and example, was the mother of innumerable virgins of Christ. Also S. Henry I., or as some say, II., Emperor of Germany led such a life with his wife Cunegundes, of whom, when he was dying, he said to her parents "Lo! a virgin I received her from you, a virgin I restore her to you." Such, too, were S. Cæcilia, with her spouse Valerian, to whom the Blessed Virgin sent by the hands of angels crowns of roses and lilies. Symbolically, in this marriage and family union of Joseph with Mary there was an image of the Sacred Trinity. For Joseph represented the Eternal Father, the Blessed Virgin the Holy Ghost, both because she was most holy, and because she had conceived by the Holy Spirit. Christ represented Himself, even the Son of God. Whence, 1. As there is in the Sacred Trinity an essence of Deity in Three Persons, so here was there one marriage and one perfect family, consisting of three persons, namely, Joseph, Mary, and Christ. 2. As in the Holy Trinity the Father spiritually begets the Son, and breathes the Holy Ghost, so here the Blessed Virgin spiritually not carnally, but by the power of the Holy Ghost conceived and brought forth Christ. 3. In the Holy Trinity, the Father begets the Son, as light emits light: whence we sing in the Creed, "Light of Light, very God of very God;" so the Blessed Virgin, as the Star of the Sea, brought forth Christ, who is "the Brightness of Eternal Light," and the "Mirror without a spot." (Wisd. vii. 25.) Whence, like as a star, without any diminution of itself, sends forth its rays, so did the Blessed Virgin, without any derogation to herself, bring forth Christ the Light of the world. "Neither do the star's rays diminish its lustre, nor did the Son of the Virgin take away her maiden purity and integrity," says S. Bernard. (Hom. 2 super Missus est) Whence also those words of Simeon concerning Christ, "A Light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of Thy people Israel." This family was then, as it were, a heaven upon earth a family, not so much of three human persons as of three embodied angels yea, symbolically, as it were, of three Divine Persons. Therefore it is not doubtful that it was thronged with angels, ministering to the Virgin, as Queen of Heaven, and to Christ, as their Lord and their God. Yea, they were amazed, and had the utmost desire to behold the Word Incarnate. Therefore, that house, as it were heaven, was concealing an admirable mystery. Black without, but fair within, "as the tents of Cedar, as the curtains of Solomon" (Song i. 5), says Rupert. Whence John Gerson (Sermon on the Nativity) exclaims in wonder "O, how delectable to the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, was that house's Trinity, Christ, Mary, Joseph. Nothing dearer, nothing better, nothing on earth more excellent. Heaven envied earth such inhabitants inhabitants more befitting heaven than earth." Tropologically, Let husbands and wives imitate the Blessed Virgin and Joseph in purity, in sanctity, in patience, and charity, bearing one another's burdens. There was in this family of Joseph, Mary, and Christ, the utmost concord amongst all, the utmost love, the utmost reverence, humility, piety, help, and mutual compliance. From it, not only all bickering was absent, but even the very lightest suspicion of any evil thing. Hence such a family deserved to have Christ, the Holy of Holies, for its offspring. In our day, there are often in families depraved, disobedient, proud, quarrelsome, impure children, because their parents are such. Like father, like child. What he sees and hears his father and mother do, that he also imitates and imbibes. Children ever ape their parents.
Before they came together. Understand this not as though they afterwards came together for the marital debt, as the impure Helvidius maintained, who denied that the Blessed Virgin was always a virgin, and asserted that she afterwards became by Joseph the mother of those who, in the Gospel, are called the Lord's brethren. S. Jerome confutes him at length, and shows that nothing is meant here except the miraculous conception of Christ by a pure virgin. Thus we say in common speech, "Such a one had grey hairs before he was an old man," meaning that it was remarkable that he was early grey-headed, even though he never became an old man, but died before he came to old age. Similarly also we say, "His boy was wise before he came to man's estate," meaning that he was of precocious intellect, even though he died before he was of mature age; as those who are precocious do thus often die. Moreover, the brethren of the Lord are called His kinsmen. For, as S. Jerome says (Cont. Helvid.), brethren are so called in four ways: by nature, race, relationship, affection. People are brethren by nature, who are born of the same parents, by race, who belong to the same nation, as S. Paul calls the Jews his brethren (Rom. ix. I), by kinship, as cousins are called brethren in Scripture, by affection, as when Christians love one another with mutual fraternal love. For this is the love of the brotherhood, which S. Paul so often commands.
She was found with child, by the Holy Ghost. Observe that Joseph understood by her appearance, that his wife, the Blessed Virgin, had conceived. But whether he knew that she was with child by the Holy Ghost, or not, is doubtful. S. Basil, Origen, Theophylact, and others, hold the affirmative. But the contrary is more probable, because Joseph wished to put her away, but is forbidden by the angel, who removes his scruple, adding, "That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." Therefore, before the revelation of the angel, he did not know this, because had he known it, he would not have wished to put her away. It is said, therefore, that the Blessed Virgin was found with child of the Holy Ghost, because she had verily conceived by Him. The expression, by the Holy Ghost, must be referred to the words with child, not to was found. So the rest of the Fathers and Interpreters, passim. Origen adds that, "She was found by the angels, for they knew that she had conceived by the Holy Ghost."
Of the Holy Ghost. Not as though Christ were framed of the substance of the Holy Spirit, as is the case with other offspring, nor of the Holy Ghost as a father; because Christ, quà man, was not like to the Holy Ghost, who in His nature is God; but of the Holy Ghost as an agent and artificer. Thus S. Ambrose, in Luc. i. 35. Of the Holy Ghost, not, therefore, as of the Father, but, as it were, supplying the concourse of the father. For the Holy Ghost supplied the place of a father to Christ, through His power and operation. So S. Ambrose c. 2, de Spiritu Sancto, c. 5, and S. Augustine, Enchiridion, c. 39. For the substance of our Lord's body was supplied by the Blessed Virgin, as His only human parent. Strictly speaking, by denotes the efficient cause, of the material cause as we say in the Creed: "Conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary." You may ask why does not Matthew say also, "With child by the Eternal Father, and by the Son. as well as by the Holy Ghost?" It is replied that he might have said this with equal truth. For it is an axiom among Theologians, that the operations of the Holy Trinity, ad extra that is, with reference to the universe of created things are common to all the Three Divine Persons. But he preferred to say, "By the Holy Ghost," because, as power is appropriated to the Father, and wisdom to the Son, so love, goodness, and grace, which especially shine forth in this work of the Incarnation, are attributed to the Holy Ghost. For the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son by spiration, being, as it were, the term of the ideal love of the Father and the Son. Moreover S. Thomas (3 part, quæst. 32, art. 1 et seq) teaches that the words "by the Holy Ghost" signify three things: 1. That of the pure love of God and the Holy Spirit, without any human merits, the Incarnation of the Lord was accomplished. 2. Of the same Grace of God and the Holy Spirit, without previous merits, He was conceived. Whence S. Augustine, c. de Prædest. Sanct. c. 15, proposes Christ, as it were, the ideal of election and the elect. "Whatsoever man is a Christian, he becomes such from the beginning of his faith by that self-same grace by which, at the first, Christ was made man: by the same Spirit a Christian is born again, by whom Christ was born; remission of sins is effected in us by the self-same Spirit by whom it was brought about that Christ should have no sin." 3. Christ was holy, by virtue of his conception. For, like as a man, who, by ordinary generation, is propagated from Adam, a sinner, is by virtue of his conception born a sinner, so Christ, who was conceived, and, as it were, propagated by the Holy Ghost, was conceived holy by virtue of his conception. For that which the Holy Ghost worketh can be nothing else save warmth and fire. 4. By the Holy Ghost, signifies that He, in the formation of the Humanity of Christ, transposed all His sanctity into It (so far as a creature's capacity would allow of such a thing, and so far as a creature can become like the Creator), and, as it were, transformed It into Himself: so that, next to Himself, He made It to be a pattern and prototype of holiness, that from It and according to It He might, as it were, express and depict all other holiness, both of all angels, and all men. Therefore the humanity of Christ was the most perfect, special, and most holy work of the Holy Ghost, in which He Himself constituted a fount of all sanctity, which, by its own purity, might wash away the filth of all sins, and, so far as it is concerned, sanctify all sinners. Moreover, S. Thomas (quæst. 32, art. 2) teaches that the preposition "by," in the expression by the Holy Ghost, signifies that Christ is consubstantial with the Holy Ghost, as touching his Godhead, not as touching his manhood, which He wrought in Christ. This, however, S. Augustine denies.
1:19
Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily 1. S. Chrysostom (in loco), S. Augustine (Epist. 52, ad Macedon.), Justin M. (contra Tryphon.), are of opinion, that Joseph suspected evil of the Blessed Virgin, as though she had conceived by another man. They think that this is hinted at in the expression, make her a public example. But we say, far be any such suspicions concerning a virgin so holy, or a man so just. How, indeed, could Joseph have suspected adultery in such a wife, or uncleanness in her parents' house? 2. Others think that Joseph wished to put away the Blessed Virgin out of extreme reverence, because he thought himself unworthy to have to wife one who was with child by the Holy Ghost. Whence they are also of opinion that S. Joseph accompanied the Blessed Virgin when she visited Elizabeth, and heard her saluted as Mother of God, and therefore thought himself unworthy of her. This is the opinion of Origen, S. Basil, Theophylact, S. Bernard (Hom. 2 super Missus est). S. Brigit asserts that the same was revealed to her (lib. 7, Revelat. c. 25). Whence Salmeron (lib. 3, c. 30) supports the same opinion by thirteen reasons. But, 3, plainly and surely, Joseph, seeing the Blessed Virgin with child, was astonished at the novelty of the thing, and his mind was agitated by contending and fluctuating emotions, and he reasoned somewhat in this way: "I know that this Virgin is most holy, wherefore I do not believe that she has been false to her troth, plighted to me. Still, she is with child, and I know not by me. But by whom I know not. Can it be by a former husband? Or can she have suffered violence on her journey, when she went to visit Elizabeth? Can she have suffered illusion from some spirit during sleep? Or, what would be more consonant with her sanctity, is she with child by an angel, or by the Deity Himself? Well, however the case may be, I am unwilling to retain her, if an angel, or God Himself, desires to have her. Wherefore I will resign her, and put her away from me." God permitted this to take place in order that the conception of the Blessed Virgin by the Holy Ghost might be attested unto all, both by Joseph and by the Angel. Thus God permitted S. Thomas to doubt concerning Christ's Resurrection, that he, touching Christ's very wounds, might bear an irrefragable testimony to the same Resurrection. Joseph, who was a righteous man, teaches husbands and believers not to suspect evil concerning just and holy persons upon slight grounds, but to wait for proofs. They should not be too ready to infer guilt, but should put the most favourable construction they can upon everything. You may ask, why did not Joseph interrogate the Blessed Virgin, wherefore, and by whom she was with child? I reply, that it is merely the first thought which arose in Joseph's mind, which is referred to, and which, out of modesty, he kept to himself. And he was shortly afterwards anticipated by the Angel, who answered in behalf of the Virgin, and exonerated him by saying that she had conceived by the Holy Ghost. The Blessed Virgin was unwilling, of her own accord, to make known this divine secret to Joseph, in order that she might not seem to boast of her own gifts, so wonderful and so divine; but she confided all to God, and God's providential care, most certainly trusting that God would defend her good repute and her innocence, and either in His own time open out the whole matter, as she had seen that He had lately done in the case of her cousin Elizabeth, or else would order all things to His own greater glory, and therefore to the greater honour and reverence of this, her conception. From whence, see here and admire the greatness of soul, and the lofty resignation and confidence of the Blessed Virgin in God, whereby she put away from her all this peril and fear of dark suspicion and infamy. And herein she has given a singular example of equanimity and confidence to wives who have jealous husbands, that they, too, should put their trust in God, that God will make clear their innocence and chastity, will protect them, and make them a praise, as he did in this case of the Blessed Virgin. Thus S. Jerome says: "This is the testimony to Mary's purity, that Joseph, knowing her chastity, and wondering at what had happened, hides in silence the mystery of which he was ignorant." And S. Ambrose (in Luc. i.) says: "The Lord preferred that some should rather doubt concerning His own generation, than concerning His Mother's purity." It appears from all this that Joseph did not accompany the Blessed Virgin when she, very shortly after her Conception of Christ, visited S. Elizabeth. For if he had been in her company, and had seen and heard the great and wonderful things which befell her, they would have removed all his scruples, and he would not have thought of putting her away. And especially when S. Elizabeth said to the Blessed Virgin: "Whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? He would have known from thence, that not only had she conceived of God, but that she had conceived God Himself, and that she was carrying Him in her womb. Observe that Joseph is here called just that is, a man of probity forasmuch as he was one who wished, out of charity, to consult for the good fame, yea, even for the dignity of his spouse, when he thinks of putting away privily one whom he thought himself unworthy of. S. Jerome and Theophylact think that husbands were commanded by the old law to traduce and accuse before the judges their wives, if they were guilty of adultery. But they adduce no place in which such a precept is given. For the passage in Num. v. 2 only permits such a thing to be done, but does not order it. To make her a public example. Not, to send her away to her own house, as Abul. thinks. For the Greek is, παραδειγμάτισαι that is, to disgrace, to defame, or, as S. Augustine (Epist. 59, ad Paulinum) says, rendering literally, " to make an example of." It was the custom in Crete to lead adulteresses through the midst of the streets, as they did captives at Rome, that they might be gazed at and derided. Whence that ancient punishment by law against bawds: "Let bawds and adulterers be caned through the public streets of the city, that they may be reviled and derided." And the line of Propertius: "Not even if the infamous one should traverse the whole city."
Was minded to put her away privily. By the way of secret divorce, giving her privily a bill of divorcement, as Abul. says on the passage, quæst. 39; or rather, and in a more honourable way for her, by leaving her on the plea of travel, as going away into a far country. So Maldonatus. Whence the Syriac translates: " And he thought of leaving her secretly:" and the Arabic, " Since he did not wish to put her to public shame, he thought upon a private dismissal."
1:20
But while he thought on these things. He had evidently not resolved upon them. For this was his first thought, and, as it were, the first motive of his mind. Behold the angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
Conceived: that is at one and the same time, conceived, formed, and animated, for this is the proper meaning of γεννηθέν that is, begotten, born. See Abul., quæst. 52, and S. Thomas, 3 part. quæst. 33 & 34, where he teaches that the Body of Christ was in the very instant of its Conception, as regarded all its members, 1, perfectly formed and organized by the Holy Ghost; 2, animated with a reasonable soul; 3, assumed by the Word. 4. That the soul of Christ was filled with all wisdom, and the grace of that Headship which flows from thence into all the members i.e., to all the faithful. 5. That the same soul saw God through the Beatific Vision. 6. That the same had the use of reason, even apart from the Beatific Vision, by means of infused knowledge, and that, in this way, It knew that It was hypostatically united to the Word, and therefore gave God highest thanks because of this vision and exaltation: and that God revealed to the soul of Christ His own will, concerning His death upon the Cross, that He might thereby redeem and save mankind; and that the soul of Christ forthwith accepted this, and offered himself to God as a whole burnt-offering, a victim for sin for the salvation of the world, with the utmost humility, obedience, reverence, love, exultation, and joyfulness of mind, saying "Lo, I come; in the volume of the book it is written of me, that I should do thy will. Yea, O my God, I am content to do it: Thy law is written in my heart." (Ps. xxxix. 8, and Heb. x. 7.)
1:21
She shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins. If Jesus, as follows from this, is Emmanuel, that is, God with us; if He is the offspring and the Son of Blessed Mary, as is here said, then she is not only Mother of Christ but Mother of God, as defined by the Council of Ephesus against Nestorius. For Mother and Son are relative terms. Moreover, Valentinus is condemned by this passage, who taught that Christ brought down a celestial body from heaven, and passed through the Blessed Virgin as through a conduit-pipe. But she who bears a son is really the mother of the son; and furnishes, and indeed provides his body and all his limbs.
Jesus, that is, Saviour. This was Christ's proper name, here foretold by the Angel, but given Him at circumcision, a name which signifies and represents His office and dignity yea, compendiously His whole life.
1:23
Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet saying, 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. The Syriac is: And they shall call his name Amanuil, which is explained, God with us. The Persian has, Immanuil, that is, because God dwelleth in us. The Egyptian version And they shall give him the name Emmanuel, the interpretation of which is, for God is with us. S. Matthew to the reader, or, as some think, the Angel to Joseph, here brings forward the prophecy in Isa. vii. 14, to signify that it was now being fulfilled in this Conception of the Blessed Virgin, his wife, and would be perfectly fulfilled when she brought forth. And therefore he called Joseph the son of David, because the same thing was promised by God to David. I have fully expounded this prophecy in my commentary on Isa. vii., which see.
Behold. A word exacting attention, consideration, and admiration. As it were, "Behold, O ye angels, and all mankind, see and admire a new and wonderful thing, a thing unheard of in all ages. For a virgin shall conceive and bring forth Emmanuel, that is, God made man." Whence Jeremiah, overcome with astonishment at the same event, exclaims (xxxi. 22), "The Lord hath created a new thing upon the earth: a woman shall compass a man." Cyrus, the first king of Persia, according to the testimony of Xenophon, never admired, and taught his friends to admire nothing on earth. For this is the mark of a great and a regal mind, to despise all things as being beneath him, as being of less importance than himself. And Seneca said that a wise man admired nothing, because, being above the earth, he despised all things lower than himself. But in Divine matters all things are worthy of admiration; because they are great, yea, the greatest things, especially the mystery of Emmanuel, because it is the great mystery of Divine Godliness, as the Apostle says, 1 Tim. iii. 10. Therefore, the goodness of the great God is a thing to be astonished at and admired. "Who through the bowels of his mercy visited us, the day-spring from on high." "Behold, therefore, the infant Word, the wise Child, the God-Man," says S. Bernard. Theologians and contemplative writers teach that we can consider and meditate upon this mystery in various ways, as by the method of compassion, of joy, of thanksgiving, of love, of imitation, but most loftily by wonder, as though we were always stumbling, amazed and astounded at this so great condescension of our God, whereby He deigned to descend to us worms of the earth so as to become a worm with us; and this, not for His own sake, but for ours, that He might unite men as worms to Himself, and make them gods. Thus the Blessed Virgin was amazed, and thus, too, S. Paul, S. Bernard, and Francis, and other especially saintly persons, who plainly and entirely despised the world, and all the things which are in the world, as being petty, brief, and transitory, and fixed their whole love, thought, and amazement on the Word Incarnate, and had their conversation always with Jesus, despising all other things.
Emmanuel. The Syriac has Amman Elohan i.e., our God with us; but the word our is not in the Hebrew Emmanuel. From the Syriac it appears possible that S. Matthew, if he wrote in Syriac (as, many think, because the Jews for whom he was writing, in the time of Christ spoke in Syriac), interpreted the Hebrew Emmanuel by the Syriac Emman Eloha, or God with us. Munster, and others who have translated the Gospel of S. Matthew out of Latin into Hebrew, render the single Hebrew word Emmanuel by two, Immanu Elohim. Some think that this interpretation was made by the Greek translator, who was followed by the Latin. The French shorten Emmanuel into Noel, which they duplicate and sing at Christmastide. Now, the name Emmanuel signifies the Incarnation of the Word, and His whole Economy in the Flesh, because by It He was properly and physically God with us, by means of His flesh and His conversation, and ethically by reconciliation and grace. So S. Chrysostom. You may say: How is the name Jesus the same as Emmanuel, as S. Matthew here intimates? Tertullian (lib. contra Judæos) answers that it is the same in sense if not in sound. For that God should be with us is the same thing as that a Saviour i.e., Jesus should be with us. For none other than God could be our Saviour. Observe the Hebraism by which called is put for be. He shall be called Emmanuel, that is, He shall be Emmanuel. This is by the figure of speech metonymy, to which the following passages are clearly similar: Jer. xxiii. 6, Zech. viii. 3, and Is. ix. 6 "And his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, God: the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of peace." For all these things are signified, either explicitly or implicitly by the name of Jesus. Note, also, that Christ is not called by Matthew and Isaiah Emmanu Jehovah, or Emmanu Adonai or Elohim, though all these are names of God, because Jehovah connotes the essence of God, or signifies God as He is the first, chief, and uncircumscribable Entity, from whom all other entities derive their existence. Adonai connotes the dominion of God, and signifies God as He is the Ruler, the Judge, and the Avenger of all things. But El connotes the might and omnipotence of God, and signifies God as He is strong and omnipotent, because God manifested His utmost might and power in the Incarnation, and in Christ, for through Christ He hath vanquished His strongest enemies, even the devils, hell, death, and sin, yea, and all sins and vices, however many and however great. Whence, also, the Angel who announced this mystery, was called Gabriel i.e., the strength of God. Hence, also, tropologically, observe: God is with us, not only in essence, presence, and power, as He is in all and every creature; but by the Incarnation He is also with us truly, properly, and really, as a Brother, living, speaking with us in the human nature assumed by Him, Therefore 2, He is with us, as a Head with its members. For Christ, as the Head of the faithful, causes to flow into them spiritual sense and motion, together with direction and government. 3. The Same, being Incarnate, is with us in the Eucharist, as it were our Food, feeding us with his own Flesh, and giving us to drink of His own Blood. So far, physically. 4. Christ, ethically, is with the Church as a bridegroom with a bride, assisting, protecting, sustaining, adorning, making her fruitful. Whence the Psalmist: "For though I should walk in the midst of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for thou art with me." (Ps. xxii. 4.) Therefore the believer, in every difficulty, labour, or tribulation, invokes Emmanuel, that is, God with us, conversant in our flesh. And joyfully he cries, "The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall lack nothing. He shall lead me in a green pasture, and lead me forth beside the waters of comfort." And, Ps. xxvii. 1, "The Lord is my light and my salvation, whom, then, shall I fear? The Lord is the protector of my life, of whom shall I be afraid? If armies in camp should stand together against me, my heart shall not fear; if a battle should rise up against me, in this will I be confident." And with Paul, "If God be for us, who is against us?" so now, to any believer, but especially to a saint or a martyr, it is lawful to say what the Angel said to Gideon, "The Lord is with thee, O most valiant man." (Judges vi. 12.)
1:24
And Joseph rising from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: that is, did not put her away, but retained her with him, for this was what the Angel commanded him.
1:25
And knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: and he called his name Jesus. 1. S. Hilary, in loc., cited by S. Thomas in Catena, Dionys. Carthus., and Gagneius expound as follows: As the Jews were not able to look upon and recognize the face of Moses on account of the rays of light which God had, as it were, breathed into him when He talked with him on Mount Sinai, so neither was Joseph able to look upon and to know the Blessed Virgin, forasmuch as she had God in her womb, and therefore her face was most radiant. But after Christ was born, this glory and effulgence left her face, and then she could be seen and known by Joseph. 2. On the contrary S. Epiphanius, Hæresi 30 that is, his treatise against the Ebionites expounds thus: Joseph knew her not in mind. He did not discover the sanctity and the dignity of the Blessed Virgin, his wife, until she brought forth Christ. But these expositions are either incorrect or else symbolical and mystical. 3. According, therefore, to the true literal meaning, to know one's wife signifies in Scripture the conjugal act. This, therefore, is excluded with reference to Christ, so as to signify that He was not conceived of Joseph, but by the Holy Ghost.
Until. From hence the heretics have taken occasion to say that Joseph knew her after she had brought forth her Son. Whence they deny that the Blessed Virgin always remained a Virgin, and that after bearing her Child she lost her virginity. Thus Helvidius, Jovinian, the Ebionites, and the rest of the Antidicomariani, who are confuted by S. Epiphanius, S. Jerome, S. Augustine and others, who teach that the word until, in this place, only signifies what took place up to the time of the birth, not what happened after the birth, which is not here referred to. For by this word until, Matthew wished to assert a wonderful thing a thing hitherto unheard of, and, according to nature, incredible even the Conception of Christ, without a father, by a virgin mother. Similarly, until is used, Psa 110:1., "Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thy enemies thy footstool," not because Thou shalt not after that sit any longer, but because Thou shalt then sit far more gloriously, as victor and triumphant at my right hand. And in Mat 5:26, "Thou shalt not go out from thence until thou shalt pay the last farthing;" that is, thou shalt never come out from the fire of hell. And 2Sa 6:23, "Therefore Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child unto the day of her death," i.e., never. And, Gen 8:7, concerning the raven, which Noah sent forth out of the ark: "Which went forth and did not return until the waters were dried up;" i.e., it never returned. Thus, too, we say, "S. Agnes continued a virgin until death;" i.e., she always remained a virgin, for she could not lose her virginity after she was dead. You may urge, S. Matthew says, until she brought forth her firstborn son; therefore she had other sons, by Joseph, namely those who in the Gospel are called the Lord's brethren. I reply by denying the conclusion. For, in Scripture, any one is called a first-born son, who has no elder brothers, even though he be an only son. This is plain from Exo 4:22, and 14:2. The word "first" denies the existence of any previous sons, but does not require, or presuppose, that there were any subsequent. Thus, an only son is even now called the first-born. Therefore it is a doctrine of the faith that the Blessed Virgin always remained a virgin, as is plain from S. Luk 1:34, Eze 44:2, and by the universal consent of the Fathers, and the common consent, and perpetual tradition of the Church. (See S. Jerome, contra Helvid., init. tom. 2.)
1:1
Inter Evangelistas Matthaeus praecipue versatur circa humanitatem Christi: unde secundum Gregorium per hominem significatur in figura quatuor animalium. Per humanitatem autem Christus in mundum introivit, progressus est, et exivit. Et ideo dividitur totum Evangelium in tres partes. Primo enim agit Evangelista de Christi humanitatis in mundum ingressu; secundo de eius processu; tertio de eius egressu. Secunda pars incipit cap. III, 1, ibi in diebus autem illis venit Ioannes Baptista praedicans in deserto Iudaeae. Tertia, capite XXI, 1 et cum appropinquassent Ierosolymis et venissent Bethphage ad montem oliveti. In prima parte duo facit: primo describitur Christi generatio; secundo ipsius generationis subditur manifestatio, cap. II, ibi cum natus esset Iesus in Bethlehem Iudae in diebus Herodis regis. In prima parte tria facit: primo enim quasi titulus totius libri praeponitur, cum dicitur liber generationis Iesu Christi; secundo patrum series texitur, Abraham genuit Isaac; tertio cum dicitur Christi autem generatio sic erat, generatio Christi in speciali describitur. Titulus autem qui praemittitur, est iste liber generationis Iesu Christi. Et videtur esse oratio imperfecta. Ponitur enim ibi nominativus sine verbo; sed non est. Matthaeus enim Evangelium Hebraeis conscripsit, et ideo in scribendo morem Iudaeorum servavit. Consuetum est autem apud Hebraeos sic loqui, sicut cum dicitur: visio Isaiae filii Amos, subauditur, haec est nec oportet apponere. Ita hic cum dicitur liber generationis, subauditur, hic est. Et hic etiam modus loquendi consuetus est apud nos: si enim velimus aliquem librum intitulare, dicitur Priscianus maior vel minor; nec oportet apponere hic est vel incipit. Item quaeritur, cum parva particula istius libri sit de generatione Christi, quare intitulavit librum suum sic. Et dicendum, quod Matthaeus, qui scripsit Hebraeis, in scribendo modum Hebraeorum servavit. Consuetum est autem apud Hebraeos libros suos a principio intitulare, sicut dicitur Genesis, quia ibi agitur de generatione; unde Gen. V, 1: hic est liber generationis Adam. Et liber Exodi, quia in prima parte agitur de exitu filiorum Israel de Aegypto. Sed quaeritur quare additur Iesu Christi. Et dicendum quod secundum apostolum, I Corinth. XV, 22, sicut in Adam omnes moriuntur, ita in Christo omnes vivificabuntur. Viderat autem Matthaeus librum primum veteris testamenti, in quo agitur de generatione, in quo dictum est cap. V, 1, hic est liber generationis Adam. Ut ergo novum testamentum, in quo agitur de regeneratione et restauratione, ei responderet per oppositum, dicit liber generationis Iesu Christi, ut ostenderet quod idem est auctor utriusque. Hic autem quaeritur de hoc quod hic dicitur liber generationis Iesu Christi. Contrarium enim habetur Isa. LIII, 8, ubi dicitur, generationem eius quis enarrabit? Sed sensus est, secundum Hieronymum, quod in Christo est duplex generatio. Scilicet divina, quae enarrari non potest: quia etsi aliquo modo dicimus filium genitum, modum tamen quo gignitur, nec homo, nec Angelus potest comprehendere. Alia autem est humana, de qua agit, sed tamen in hac etiam generatione sunt multa difficilia. Et ideo, secundum Remigium, perpauci sunt qui possint eam enarrare. Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit generationis, cum hic plures texantur generationes. Sed dicendum, quod licet multae enumerentur generationes, omnes tamen introducuntur propter unam, scilicet propter generationem Christi, de qua inferius: Christi autem generatio sic erat. Describitur autem ille cuius generatio texitur primo a nomine, cum dicitur Iesu; secundo ab officio, cum dicitur Christi; tertio ab origine, cum dicitur filii David, filii Abraham. Quamvis autem fuerint et alii, qui vocati sunt Iesus, sicut Iesus filius Nave, de quo Eccli. XLVI, 1: fortis in bello Iesus Nave successor Moysi in prophetis, et alius circa aedificationem templi, de quo in Zach. III, 1, isti tamen fuerunt Iesus nominales et figurales, inquantum scilicet figurabant istum. Ille Iesus introduxit populum Israel in terram promissionis; sed iste Iesus, idest salvator noster, non in terram carnalem, sed introducit nos in caelestem; Hebr. XII, 2: ipsum enim habemus auctorem, et consummatorem in sanguine eius et cetera. Et recte dicitur Iesu, quod nomen convenit ei secundum utramque naturam, scilicet divinam et humanam. Secundum quidem humanam in carne sua passus est, et explevit mysterium nostrae redemptionis: et cum passio illa non haberet efficaciam nisi ex virtute divinitatis adiunctae, propter hoc dicitur infra: vocabitur nomen eius Iesus: ipse enim salvum faciet populum suum a peccatis eorum. Sed quaeritur quare dicit Christi. Nonne suffecisset Iesu? Respondeo, hoc ideo factum esse, quia, ut dictum est, et alii vocati sunt Iesus. Ab officio autem describit eum, cum dicit Christi, idest uncti. Nota autem tres unctiones in veteri lege. Unctus enim est Aaron in sacerdotem, Levit. VIII, 11. Unctus est Saul a Samuele in regem, I Reg. X, 1, et David, I Reg. XVI, 13. Unctus est et Eliseus in prophetam, III Reg. c. XIX, 16. Quia ergo Christus fuit verus sacerdos in Psal. CIX, 4: tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech etc., et rex et propheta, ideo dicitur recte Christus, propter tria officia quae ipse exercuit. Filii David, filii Abraham. Hic est duplex quaestio, scilicet de numero, et de ordine. Ad primum, quare istos duos nominavit. Propter illam rationem quae in prologo dicta est, quod Abraham propheta fuit. Gen. XX, 7 dixit dominus ad Abimelech regem Gerarae: redde uxorem viro suo, quia propheta est. Item fuit sacerdos, Genes. XV, 9, dum implevit officium sacerdotis, offerendo scilicet hostiam domino: sume, inquit, mihi vaccam triennem et cetera. David autem propheta fuit, sicut patet Act. II, 30. Fuit etiam rex, sicut patet II Reg. II, 4. Quia ergo Christus fuit rex, et propheta, et sacerdos; ideo recte dicitur filius istorum. Si enim solum Abraham nominasset, non signaretur quod Christus rex fuisset. Item si solum David, non denotaretur in Christo sacerdotalis dignitas; et ideo utrumque posuit. Ad secundum dicendum quod, secundum Hieronymum, David praeponitur, et commutatur ordo propter necessitatem texendi genealogiam; si enim primo diceret filii Abraham, secundo filii David, oporteret secundo repetere Abraham, ut continuaretur ordo genealogiae. Secundum Ambrosium autem dicendum, quod David praeponitur ratione dignitatis; ad David enim facta est repromissio de ipso capite, cum dicitur Ps. CXXXI, 11: de fructu ventris tui ponam super sedem tuam. Sed ad Abraham de membris, scilicet de Ecclesia; unde Genes. XXII, 18: in semine tuo benedicentur omnes gentes terrae. Hic notandum, quod multi fuerunt terrores de Christo. Quidam enim erraverunt circa eius divinitatem, sicut Paulus Samosatenus, Photinus, et Sabellius; quidam circa humanitatem; et quidam circa utramque. Alii autem erraverunt circa eius personam. Circa humanitatem eius primus erravit Manichaeus, qui dixit eum non verum corpus, sed phantasticum accepisse. Contra quod est quod dicit dominus Luc. ult., 39: palpate, et videte, quia spiritus carnem et ossa non habet, sicut me videtis habere. Secundo post eum erravit Valentinus, qui dixit eum corpus caeleste secum attulisse, non de virgine assumpsisse, sed per eam sicut aquam per canale transisse. Sed contra est quod dicitur Rom. c. I, 3: qui factus est ei ex semine David secundum carnem. Tertius error fuit Apollinaris, qui dixit eum tantum accepisse corpus, et non animam, sed loco animae habuisse divinitatem. Sed contra est quod frequenter dicitur: nunc anima mea turbata est. Sed propter hoc ipse idem mutavit postea opinionem, et dixit Christum habuisse animam vegetabilem et sensibilem, non tamen rationalem, sed loco eius divinitatem. Sed tunc sequeretur inconveniens, quod Christus non esset plus homo quam unum brutum. Hos autem errores quasi quadam sorte diviserunt sibi quatuor Evangelistae. Marcus enim et Ioannes principaliter errores illos, qui sunt circa divinitatem, destruxerunt; unde Ioannes in principio statim dixit: in principio erat verbum. Et Marcus exorsus est sic: initium Evangelii Iesu Christi filii Dei, non dixit filii Abraham. Matthaeus autem et Lucas illos, qui circa eius humanitatem sunt errores, destruunt in principio. Unde nota quod in hoc quod dicitur filii David, filii Abraham, omnes errores qui fuerunt circa Christi humanitatem excluduntur. Filius enim non dicitur alicuius aliquis, nisi per generationem univocam, quae est secundum convenientiam in specie. Quantumcumque enim aliquid generetur ex homine, nisi participet eamdem specie naturam, numquam dicitur filius, sicut patet de pediculis et huiusmodi. Si igitur Christus est filius David et Abraham, oportet eum habere eamdem naturam ratione eiusdem speciei; non autem haberet eamdem naturam secundum speciem, si non haberet corpus verum et naturale, nec si illud de caelo attulisset; nec etiam si careret anima sensitiva, sive rationali. Unde patet exclusio omnis erroris.
1:2
Proposito titulo, hic series genealogiae texitur: et dividitur in partes tres, secundum tres quaterdenarios quibus dicta genealogiae series texitur. Primus quaterdenarius est ab Abraham usque ad David, qui procedit per patriarchas. Secundus procedit a David usque ad transmigrationem Babylonis, qui procedit per reges. Tertius a transmigratione Babylonis usque ad Christum, qui incipit a ducibus, et procedit per personas privatas. Secunda, ibi David autem rex genuit Salomonem. Tertia, ibi et post transmigrationem Babylonis et cetera. Prima dividitur in tres. Primo enim ponuntur patres qui fuerunt ante ingressum in Aegyptum; secundo ponuntur illi qui fuerunt in ipso exitu, et terrae promissionis ingressu; tertio illi qui fuerunt post ingressum terrae promissionis. Dicit ergo primo Abraham genuit Isaac. Hic considerandum est, antequam ulterius procedamus, quod duo Evangelistae generationem Christi secundum carnem prosequuntur, scilicet Lucas, et Matthaeus; sed differenter. Et haec differentia attenditur quantum ad quinque. Primo enim differunt quantum ad situm; secundo quantum ad ordinem; tertio quantum ad modum; quarto quantum ad terminum; quinto quantum ad personas numeratas. Primo dico quod differunt quantum ad situm: quia Matthaeus generationem Christi in principio Evangelii incipit texere; Lucas autem non in principio, sed post Baptismum. Et ratio huius est, secundum Augustinum, quoniam Matthaeus generationem Christi carnalem suscepit describendam, et ideo statim in principio debuit eam ponere. Lucas autem maxime intendit commendare in Christo personam sacerdotalem: ad sacerdotem autem pertinet expiatio peccatorum, et ideo post Baptismum, in quo fit peccatorum expiatio, convenienter a Luca ponitur Christi generatio. Secundo autem, Lucas et Matthaeus in texendo genealogiam Christi differunt quantum ad ordinem: quia Matthaeus texit Christi generationem incipiendo ab Abraham, et descendendo usque ad Christum, Lucas autem incipit a Christo et ascendendo procedit usque ad Abraham et etiam ultra. Et ratio est quia, secundum apostolum, Rom. IV, 25, in Christo fuerunt duo, scilicet humilitas suscipiendi defectus naturae nostrae, et potestas divinitatis et gratiae, per quam nos ab huius defectibus expiavit; Rom. VIII, 3: misit Deus filium suum in similitudinem carnis peccati, propter primum, et de peccato damnavit peccatum in carne, propter secundum. Matthaeus ergo, qui intendit generationem Christi carnalem, per quam descendit usque ad infirmitatis nostrae assumptionem, congrue eius generationem descendendo describit. Sed Lucas, qui in ipso commendat sacerdotalem dignitatem, per quam Deo reconciliamur, et ipsi Christo unimur, congrue ascendendo procedit. Tertio differunt quantum ad modum: quia in enarratione genealogiae Matthaeus utitur hoc verbo genuit, sed Lucas hoc verbo fuit. Et hoc est, quia Matthaeus in tota enarratione sua non ponit nisi patres carnales; sed Lucas ponit multos patres secundum legem, sive per adoptionem. Praeceptum enim fuit in lege quod si aliquis moreretur sine filiis, quod frater eius acciperet sponsam eius, et generaret sibi filios: unde filii illi non erant eius qui generabat, sed per quamdam adoptionem imputabantur priori. Unde Lucas, qui ponit multos filios genitos per adoptionem, non dicit genuit, sed fuit; quia quamvis ipsi eos non generassent, eorum tamen per quamdam adoptionem erant. Matthaeus autem, qui ponit solum patres carnales, dicit genuit. Ratio autem huius est quia, sicut dictum est, Matthaeus versatur maxime circa Christi humanitatem. Et quia secundum carnem natus est ex patribus carnalibus, ideo in genealogia Matthaei nullus ponitur, qui non fuerit pater carnalis. Lucas autem commendat maxime in Christo sacerdotalem dignitatem, per quam adoptamur in filios Dei; et ideo non solum carnales, sed etiam legales patres posuit. Quarto differunt quantum ad terminum: quia Matthaeus generationem suam incipit ab Abraham, et protendit usque ad Christum; Lucas autem a Christo, non solum usque ad Abraham, sed etiam usque ad Deum. Cuius ratio potest sumi ex hoc quod Matthaeus scripsit Hebraeis. Hebraei autem maxime gloriabantur de Abraham, Ioan. VIII, 33: semen Abrahae sumus, qui fuit primum credendi principium; et ideo Matthaeus ab Abraham incepit. Lucas autem scripsit Graecis, qui nihil de Abraham sciebant nisi per Christum: si enim non fuisset Christus, nihil unquam scivissent de Abraham; et ideo Lucas incepit a Christo, et terminavit non solum in Abraham, sed in Deum. Quinto differunt quantum ad personas enumeratas: quia in tota serie genealogiae Lucae nulla prorsus de muliere fit mentio; in Matthaeo autem aliquae interponuntur mulieres. Cuius ratio est, secundum Ambrosium, quia Lucas, sicut dictum est, commendat maxime sacerdotalem dignitatem; in sacerdote autem maxima requiritur puritas. Matthaeus autem eius texit generationem carnalem: et ideo ibi ponuntur aliquae mulieres. Notandum tamen quod in tota genealogia Matthaei non ponuntur nisi mulieres peccatrices, vel quae in aliquo fuerant peccato notatae, sicut Thamar, quae fornicata est, Gen. XXXVIII, 24, et Ruth, quae fuit idololatra, quia gentilis, et uxor Uriae, quae fuit adultera, II Reg. XI, 2 ss. Et hoc ad designandum, secundum Hieronymum, quod ille cuius genealogia texitur, intravit propter peccatores redimendos. Alia ratio tangitur ab Ambrosio, scilicet ut tolleretur confusio Ecclesiae. Si enim Christus ex peccatoribus nasci voluit, non debent infideles irridere, si peccatores ad Ecclesiam veniant. Alia ratio potest assignari, credo secundum Chrysostomum, ut ostendatur imperfectio legis: et quod Christus venit legem implere. Per hoc enim quod tanguntur quaedam mulieres peccatrices, denotatur quod illi, qui erant maximi in lege, erant peccatores; sicut David et Iudas. Et in hoc designat imperfectionem aliorum. Si enim isti fuerunt peccatores, multo magis et alii; Rom. III, 23: omnes peccaverunt, et egent gloria Dei. Et ideo isti ponuntur in generatione Christi, ut designetur, quod ipse legem impleverat. Nota tamen quod istae mulieres quamvis fuerint omnes peccatrices, non tamen pro tempore illo quo texitur earum genealogia, sed iam erant mundatae per poenitentiam. Dicit ergo Abraham genuit Isaac. Notandum primo, quod hic duo sunt consideranda secundum litteram, sive sensum litteralem. Primo, quod per patres istos positos designatur Christus; secundo, quod etiam ista referuntur, et possunt referri, ad instructionem nostram. Dicit ergo primo Abraham genuit Isaac. Et hoc habetur Genes. XXI. Isaac autem genuit Iacob, Genes. XXV. Iacob autem genuit Iudam et fratres eius. Hic quaeritur, cum Abraham alium habuerit filium quam Isaac, scilicet Ismael, et similiter Isaac, quare non fit mentio de eis, sicut hic dicitur Iudam et fratres. Item, quare magis exprimitur Iudas ex nomine, quam alii. Ratio est, quia Iudas et fratres eius sub cultura unius Dei permanserunt: et ideo de eis fit mentio in generatione Christi, non autem Isaac, et Ismael, nec Iacob, et Esau. Ad secundum, quod hoc fuit ut impleri ostenderetur in Christo prophetia Iacob, Genes. XLIX, 10: non auferetur sceptrum de Iuda, et dux de femore eius, donec veniat, qui mittendus est: et ipse erit expectatio gentium. Manifestum enim est quod de Iuda ortus est dominus, ut dicitur Hebr. VII, 14; et ideo fit magis mentio de ipso quam de aliis.
1:3
Iudas autem genuit Phares et cetera. Hic quaeritur, cum dominus non sit natus de Zaram, sed de Phares, quare fit mentio de eo. Item, quare nominaliter exprimitur. Prius enim dixit fratres eius, quare ergo expressit nomen Zaram? Et dicendum, secundum Ambrosium, quod hoc in mysterio factum est. Ad cuius evidentiam nota historiam, quae habetur Genes. XXXVIII, quod in partu Thamar prior apparuit Zaram, in cuius manu obstetrix ligavit filum coccineum dicens: iste egredietur prior, et ideo vocavit nomen eius Zaram: postea illo retrahente manum egressus est alter, dicente obstetrice: quare propter te divisa est maceria? Zaram autem, qui prior apparuit, significat populum Iudaeorum, in cuius manu obstetrix filum coccineum ligavit, hoc est circumcisionem, quae fiebat cum sanguinis effusione. Sed illo retrahente manum etc. egressus est alter: quia caecitas ex parte contigit in Iudaeis. Sic enim populus gentilis divisus intravit in lucem fidei, egressus de vulva ignorantiae et infidelitatis. Secundo notandum, quod per patres positos in generatione Christi signatur Christus ratione vel nominis, vel facti, vel alicuius alterius, sicut per se patet. Abraham enim interpretatur pater multarum gentium, et significat Christum, de quo Hebr. c. II, 10: qui multos filios in gloriam adduxerat. Item Abraham ex praecepto domini exivit de terra sua, Gen. XII, 4, et Christus est, qui dixit, Ierem. XII, 17: reliqui domum meam, dimisi haereditatem meam et cetera. Similiter Abraham, qui risit dicendo: nunc risum fecit mihi dominus, Gen. XXI, 6, et Christus est, in cuius nativitate non solum uni personae, sed toti mundo gaudium nuntiatur; Luc. II, 10: ecce evangelizo vobis gaudium magnum, quod erit omni populo, quia natus est vobis hodie salvator, qui est Christus dominus. Similiter per Iacob, et ratione interpretationis, et ratione facti, sicut patet in hoc, quod supposuit lapidem, idest duritiem crucis, capiti suo. Similiter per Iudam, et Phares, qui interpretatur divisio: ipse enim dividet oves ab hoedis, infra XXV, 32. Moraliter autem in istis generationibus designatur status nostrae iustificationis, secundum sex quae requiruntur ad iustificationem. Scilicet fides per Abraham iustificatum ex fidei iustitia; alibi enim ipse principium dicitur fidei; Rom. IV, 11: ut sit pater omnium credentium per praeputium. Isaac spes, quia interpretatur risus; Rom. XII, 12: spe gaudentes. Iacob caritas, qui duxit duas uxores, Liam, quae interpretatur laborans, et Rachel; idest duas vitas, quae sunt in caritate secundum duo praecepta: contemplativa enim delectatur in Deo, activa autem est per quam subvenitur proximo. Iudas, confessio, quae duplex est: fidei, Rom. X, 10: corde creditur ad iustitiam; ore autem confessio fit ad salutem, et peccatorum: confitemini alterutrum peccata vestra, Iac. V, 16. Ex hoc autem sequitur duplex effectus, scilicet destructio vitiorum, quae per Phares designatur, et origo virtutum, quae significatur per Zaram. Et ista oriuntur de Thamar, quae interpretatur amaritudo; Isa. XXXVIII, 15: recogitabo tibi omnes annos meos in amaritudine animae meae. Phares autem genuit Esron. Hic ponitur series genealogiae patrum, qui nati sunt in Aegypto, vel in exitu eius. Sicut enim per Phares, qui interpretatur divisio, significatur Christus, infra XXV, 32: separabit agnos ab hoedis, ita per Esron, qui interpretatur sagitta, vel atrium. Dicitur enim sagitta propter efficaciam praedicationis, qua audientium corda penetravit; Psalm. XLIV, 6: sagittae tuae acutae, populi sub te cadent in corda inimicorum regis. Atrium autem propter latitudinem caritatis, qua non solum amicos, sed etiam inimicos dilexit; Rom. V, 10: cum inimici essemus, reconciliati sumus Deo per mortem filii eius; Isa. LIII, 12: ipse pro transgressoribus rogavit; et idem Luc. XXIII, 34: pater, dimitte illis: non enim sciunt quid faciunt. Esron autem genuit aram. Aram autem interpretatur electus, vel excelsus: Isa. XLII, 1: ecce puer meus, et ipse est excelsus super omnes; Ephes. I, 21: ipsum constituit super omnem principatum.
1:4
Aram autem genuit Aminadab, qui interpretatur spontaneus. Ipse est in cuius persona dicit Psalmista LIII, 8: voluntarie sacrificabo tibi, et confitebor nomini tuo, quoniam bonum est, domine; et Isa. LIII, 7: oblatus est, quia ipse voluit, et non aperuit os suum etc., Io. VI, 38: non veni facere voluntatem meam, sed eius qui misit me. Aminadab autem genuit Naasson, qui interpretatur augurium vel serpentinum: quia Christus non solum praesentia, sed etiam praeterita, et futura cognovit; ad Hebr. IV, 13: omnia nuda et aperta sunt oculis eius. Item serpentinum propter prudentiam; prudentia enim attribuitur serpenti, infra X, 16: estote prudentes sicut serpentes; Iob XII, 16: ipse novit decipientem et eum qui decipitur. Nota quod iste Naasson fuit in tempore Moysi, et exivit cum eo de Aegypto, et fuit unus princeps in tribu Iuda in deserto, sicut habetur in Numer. I, 7. Sed advertendum, quod Exodi XIII, 18, ubi nostra littera habet, filii Israel ascenderunt armati de Aegypto, aquila transtulit instructi, propter aequivocationem; melior est autem littera Septuaginta: filii Israel quinta generatione exierunt de Aegypto. Sed contra. Naasson iste non fuit quintus a Iacob, sed septimus, sicut patet computando Iacob, Iudam etc. usque ad Naasson. Ergo non quinta, sed septima generatione. Sed dicitur quod non est computandum per tribum Iuda, sed per tribum levi, sub cuius ductu exierunt filii Israel de Aegypto; Ps. LXXVI, 21: deduxisti sicut oves populum tuum in manu Moysi et Aaron. Et patet quod tantum sunt quinque generationes. Iacob enim genuit levi, levi autem genuit Caath, Caath genuit Amram, Amram autem genuit Moysen et Aaron, sicut patet Exod. II; et sub Moyse exierunt de Aegypto. Ubi nota quod inter omnes tribus magis multiplicabatur tribus Iuda: et hoc quia ex ea erant reges futuri, qui debebant pugnare. Inter omnes autem minus multiplicabatur tribus levi: et hoc quia praeordinata erat ad officium divinum, et sacerdotium, ad quod pauciores sufficiebant. Et ideo vult quod etiam computando per tribum Iuda, sit verum quod dicitur Gen. XV, 16: quinta generatione revertentur huc. Dicit ergo Hieronymus, illud quod ibi dicitur, intelligendum esse computando per tribum levi; quod autem hic dicitur, per tribum Iuda. Phares enim ipse cum Iacob et Iuda patre suo intravit in Aegyptum. Et ideo istae generationes non sunt computandae a Iacob, sed a Phares, qui et ipse intravit in Aegyptum. Et patet quod Naasson fuit quintus a Phares. Similiter levi ipse intravit in Aegyptum cum patre suo Iacob. Et ideo a levi, et non a Iacob, computandae sunt generationes. Clarum autem est quod Moyses fuit quartus a levi. Naasson autem genuit Salmon. Salmon interpretatur sensibilis: et significat Christum, in quo sunt omnes thesauri sapientiae et scientiae absconditi. Moraliter hic notandum, quod sicut in prima generatione significatur ordo nostrae iustificationis quantum ad statum incipientium; ita in ista secunda generatione, quae similiter continet quinque, significatur profectus proficientium. Primum enim quod sequitur ex quo homo est iustificatus a peccato, est quod ipse habet zelum animarum. Et ideo bene Phares genuit Esron, qui interpretatur sagitta, propter efficaciam praedicationis qua penetrantur corda auditorum; Isa. XLIX, 2: posuit me quasi sagittam electam. Et ita adapta alia. Salmon autem genuit Booz et cetera. Hic ponuntur patres qui fuerunt nati post ingressum terrae promissionis. Salmon enim fuit genitus in deserto, et intravit cum Iosue in terram promissionis, et accepit uxorem Rahab meretricem, de qua genuit Booz. Booz interpretatur fortis; Ier. XVI, 19: dominus fortitudo mea et robur meum. Rahab autem interpretatur fames, vel latitudo: et significat Ecclesiam, quia ad ipsam pertinet illa beatitudo, Matth. V, 6: beati qui esuriunt, et sitiunt iustitiam, quoniam ipsi saturabuntur et cetera. Interpretatur etiam latitudo, quia Ecclesia per totum orbem dilatata est; Isa. LIV, 2: dilata locum tentorii tui, et pelles tabernaculorum tuorum extende et cetera. Item interpretatur impetus, quia impetu praedicationis reges et philosophos convertit. Item significat Ecclesiam ratione facti. Rahab filum coccineum misit in fenestram, per quem liberata est a subversione Iericho, Iosue II, 21. Fenestra nostra est os: filum ergo in fenestra est confessio passionis Christi, per quam Ecclesia liberata est a morte. Item ratione coniugii, quia sicut Rahab iuncta est in matrimonio Salmon, qui fuit princeps in tribu Iuda; sic Christus desponsavit sibi Ecclesiam; II Cor. c. XI, 2: despondi enim vos uni viro virginem castam exhibere Christo. Sed hic quaeritur, secundum litteram, cum Rahab fuerit meretrix, quomodo tanto principi, qui erat maior inter alios, desponsata est? Et est dicendum, quod Rahab maximum quid fecit, eo quod contempto populo suo et ritu paterno, cultum Dei Israel elegit. Et ideo quasi pro maximo honore nobilissimo principi data fuit.
1:5
Booz autem genuit Obed ex Ruth. Hoc habetur Ruth ult. cap. Obed interpretatur serviens vel servitus: et significat Christum, de quo per prophetam: servire me fecistis peccatis vestris, Is. XLIII, 24. Ruth autem significat Ecclesiam de gentibus natam ratione loci: fuit enim Moabitis. Moab interpretatur ex patre; Io. VIII, 44: vos ex patre Diabolo estis; et iterum ratione coniugii, ut patet in Glossa. Sed quaeritur, quare istae mulieres hic nominantur, cum fuerint peccatrices. Hieronymus assignat rationem de Ruth, ut scilicet impleretur vaticinium Isa. XVI, 1: emitte agnum, domine, dominatorem terrae de petra deserti. Petra deserti est, scilicet mali, et significatur Ruth Moabitis. Ambrosius autem assignat rationem dicens: futurum enim erat ut Ecclesia congregaretur de gentibus infidelibus; et ideo poterat erubescere et confundi, nisi viderent Christum etiam de peccatricibus nasci. Unde ut tolleretur eorum erubescentia, et confusio, nominandae sunt. Sed quaeritur, Deut. XXIII, 3 dicitur: Moabitae et Ammonitae non intrabunt Ecclesiam; cum ergo Ruth fuerit Moabitis, quomodo recepta est in Ecclesiam? Sed dicendum per apostolum ad Gal. V, 18, quod qui spiritu ducuntur, non sunt sub lege: semper enim in lege magis debet observari intentio legislatoris quam verba legis. Quae enim fuit causa quare prohibuit dominus ut non intrarent Ecclesiam? Quia scilicet invenit in eis idololatriam, ne scilicet pertraherent Iudaeos ad idololatriam. Unde ista, quae iam erat conversa, non erat idololatra; et ideo non erat subiecta prohibitioni. Obed autem genuit Iesse, Ruth ultim. Iesse autem interpretatur sacrificium vel incendium; et significat eum qui obtulit semetipsum hostiam Deo in odorem suavitatis. Sed quaeritur: cum iste alio nomine vocatus sit Isai, sicut patet I Reg. in multis locis, et illud nomen esset solemnius, quare non nominavit eum Evangelista sic? Et dicendum, quod hoc fuit ut ostenderetur in Christo impletum esse quod dictum est per prophetam Isaiam, XI, 1: egredietur virga de radice Iesse. Iesse autem genuit David regem. David interpretatur manu fortis et aspectu desiderabilis; quae omnia competunt Christo, sicut patet. Ipse enim fortis est qui Diabolum superavit; Luc. XI, 22: si autem fortior illo superveniens vicerit eum, universa arma eius auferet, in quibus confidebat, et spolia eius distribuet. Item ipse speciosus forma prae filiis hominum, Psal. XLIV, 3. Sed hic quaeritur: cum plures alii fuerint reges, quare solus iste dicitur rex? Et dicendum quod iste primus rex fuit in tribu Iuda, de qua ortus est dominus: quamvis enim Saul fuerit rex, ipse tamen fuit de tribu Beniamin. Secunda ratio, quia alii propter meritum ipsius David regnaverunt; Psal. LXXXVIII, 30: et ponam in saeculum saeculi semen eius, et thronum eius sicut dies caeli. Tertia ratio, ut ostenderetur impleta prophetia Ier. XXIII, 5: suscitabo David germen iustum, et regnabit rex, et sapiens erit, et faciet iudicium, et iustitiam in terra; Isa. c. IX, 7: super solium David, et super regnum eius sedebit et cetera. Moraliter vero in ista generatione designatur fructus perfectorum, sicut in aliis fructus incipientium, et proficientium. Primum enim quod requiritur in homine perfecto est quod ipse sit fortis ad aggrediendum adversa, ut scilicet non retardetur propter aliquam difficultatem: et hoc significatur per Booz; interpretatur enim fortis; Isa. XL, 31: qui sperant in domino, mutabunt fortitudinem, assument pennas sicut aquilae; current, et non laborabunt, ambulabunt, et non deficient; Prov. ult., 10: mulierem fortem quis inveniet? et cetera. Secundum est humilitas servientis, ut quanto scilicet magnus est, tanto humiliet se in omnibus; et hoc significatur per Obed, qui et ipse interpretatur serviens vel servitus; Luc. c. XXII, 26: qui maior est vestrum, fiat sicut minister. Tertium est fervor caritatis, quod significatur per Iesse, qui interpretatur incensum vel incendium; Psal. CXL, 2: dirigatur oratio mea sicut incensum in conspectu tuo et cetera. Et ex hoc pervenitur ad regnum, et ad gloriam: quia Iesse genuit David regem; Apoc. c. V, 10: fecit nos Deo nostro regnum, et sacerdotes Deo patri suo; I Petr. II, 9: vos estis genus electum, regale sacerdotium, gens sancta, populus acquisitionis.
1:7
Posita serie genealogiae patrum, quae cucurrit per patriarchas, hic ponit seriem patrum, quae procedit per reges: et dividitur in duo. Primo ponuntur reges, qui nati sunt ex Israel sine commixtione seminis alieni; secundo ponuntur reges, qui secuti sunt coniunctionem alienae copulae, ibi Ioram autem genuit Oziam. Hic est duplex quaestio. Lucas enim computando generationem Christi ascendit per Nathan; Matthaeus autem descendendo procedit a David ad Christum per Salomonem: unde videtur esse quaedam contrarietas. Sed dicendum, sicut dictum est, Lucas in genealogia Christi ponit multos patres, qui non fuerunt patres carnalis originis per propagationem, sed secundum legalem adoptionem; Matthaeus autem nullum ponit, qui non fuerit pater carnalis. Et verum est quod secundum carnem dominus descendit a David per Salomonem, et non per Nathan; et tamen, secundum Augustinum, non vacat mysterio quod Matthaeus a David per Salomonem descendit ad Christum, Lucas autem a Christo ad David per Nathan ascendit. Matthaeus enim generationem Christi carnalem susceperat describendam, secundum quam Christus usque ad similitudinem carnis peccati descendit: et ideo recte Matthaeus in eius generatione a David per Salomonem descendit, cum cuius matre ipse David peccavit; Lucas autem, qui maxime commendare intendit in Christo sacerdotalem dignitatem, per quam fuit peccatorum expiatio, recte per Nathan ad David ascendit, qui fuit vir sanctus. Nota tamen quod secundum eumdem Augustinum in libro Retractationum, non est intelligendum quod idem fuit Nathan propheta, qui eum reprehendit, et filius quem genuit; sed solum quod fuerunt similes in nomine. Secundo quaeritur quare Bersabee non nominatur ex nomine, sicut Thamar, Rahab et Ruth. Et dicendum, quod aliae, quamvis per aliquod tempus fuerint peccatrices, tamen postea fuerunt conversae et poenitentes; haec autem turpiter peccavit crimen adulterii et in consensu homicidii: et ideo propter verecundiam subticetur eius nomen. Nota tamen quod in Scriptura recitantur aliquando peccata magnorum, sicut David et aliorum; et hoc, quia Diabolus non solum parvos et inferiores, sed etiam magnos prostravit: adversarius enim noster est. Et ideo propter cautelam recitantur, ut qui stat videat ne cadat. Alia ratio est, ne aliquis putaret eos plusquam homines esse. Si enim aliquis solam in eis perfectionem consideraret, decipi posset per idololatriam; sed cum videt eos per peccatum corruisse, non credit iam aliquid amplius ab homine in eis esse. Nota etiam hoc, secundum Gregorium, quod aliquando factum litterale est malum et significatum est bonum; aliquando vero factum bonum et significatum malum. Urias enim fuit vir bonus et iustus, nec de aliquo in Scriptura reprehenditur; et tamen significat Diabolum. Bersabee autem fuit peccatrix; et tamen rem bonam significat, scilicet Ecclesiam, ut notat Glossa II Reg. XII, et etiam Glossa quae dicitur exponere figuram secundum sensum allegoricum. Urias enim interpretatur lux mea Deus, et significat Diabolum, qui lucem divinitatis appetivit; Isa. XIV, 14: ero similis altissimo. Bersabee interpretatur puteus septem, vel puteus societatis; et significat Ecclesiam de gentibus, propter septiformem gratiam baptismalem. Hanc sibi desponsaverat primo Diabolus; sed David, idest Christus, abstulit eam ab eo, et copulavit sibi, et ipsum Diabolum interfecit. Aliter Bersabee significat legem, per cuius vias populus inductus est, qui non vult ingredi in domum per spiritualem intelligentiam, et ideo defert litteras mortis suae, quia littera occidit, II Cor. III, 6. Sed David, idest Christus, abstulit a Iudaeis legem, quando docuit eam spiritualiter intelligendam. Salomon autem genuit Roboam et cetera. Sicut autem David interpretatur manu fortis, vel aspectu desiderabilis, ita Salomon pacificus: et hoc est rectum, quia ex fortitudine operationis bonae provenit pax conscientiae; Ps. CXVIII, 165: pax multa diligentibus legem tuam. Contingit autem quod ex pace conscientiae homo velit alios ad bonum venire. Unde Salomon genuit Roboam, qui interpretatur impetus: quia impetu praedicationis movetur, habens pacem conscientiae ad dilatandum nomen Christi; sicut legitur de apostolis, Is. XXVII, 6: qui ingrediuntur impetu ad Iacob, florebit et germinabit Israel, et implebunt faciem orbis semine. Utrumque autem significat Christum, quia ipse est pax. Item ipse Roboam, qui populum impetu praedicationis convertit. Roboam autem genuit Abiam, qui interpretatur pater Deus: quia ex hoc quod homo studet ad profectum aliorum spiritualem, vel corporalem per opera misericordiae, efficitur dignus paternitate Dei, ut infra V, 44: benefacite his qui oderunt vos, ut sitis filii patris vestri, qui in caelis est et cetera. Et Luc. VI, 36: estote misericordes. Hoc etiam competit Christo, cui dicitur: ego ero illi in patrem, et ipse erit mihi in filium. Abias autem genuit Asa, qui interpretatur attollens: quia quandoque homo ex hoc quod efficitur pater et superior aliorum, incurrit quamdam negligentiam securitatis; ideo Abias genuit Asa, ut scilicet homo sit in continuo profectu, et attollat se semper ad maiora. Hoc etiam competit Christo, qui dicitur attollens, idest crescens; Luc. II, 40: puer autem crescebat. Vel attollens, quia abstulit peccata mundi. Asa autem genuit Iosaphat, qui interpretatur iudicans, quia ex hoc quod semper crescit homo spiritualis, efficitur iudicans; I Cor. II, 15: spiritualis homo omnia diiudicat. Et hoc Christo competit, quia pater omne iudicium dedit filio. Iosaphat autem genuit Ioram, qui interpretatur habitans in excelsis; quia ille qui iudex constituitur, debet in excelsis habitare; Isa. XXXIII, 16: iste in excelsis habitabit. Quomodo autem hoc sit, dicit apostolus: nostra conversatio in caelis est. Et hoc competit Christo, quia excelsus super omnes gentes dominus, Psal. CXII, 4.
1:8
Ioram autem genuit Oziam. Hic est quaestio litteralis. Nam I Par. III, 11 dicitur quod Ioram genuit Ochoziam. Ochozias autem genuit Ioram. Ioras autem genuit Amasiam, qui et Azarias dicitur. Amasias autem genuit Oziam. In duobus ergo videtur Evangelista in genealogiae serie defecisse. Primo quia Ioram non genuit Oziam, sed Amasiam; secundo, quia omisit tres generationes. Et dicendum ad primum, quod generare aliquem alium potest intelligi dupliciter, mediate vel immediate: immediate, sicut pater carnalis immediate generat filium; et sic Ioram non genuit Oziam. Alio modo mediate, sicut nos dicimur filii Adam; et sic filius potest dici genitus ab avo vel proavo, quia ab ipso per generationem mediatam descendit. Quare autem omisit tres reges, triplex ratio assignatur. Prima a Hieronymo; qui dicit (sicut scriptum est Exod. XX, 5): dominus visitat peccata patrum in tertiam et quartam generationem, his qui patrum sceleris efficiuntur imitatores. Ioram autem duxit uxorem filiam Iezabel, scilicet Athaliam, quae traxit eum ad idololatriam. Ochozias etiam magis quam pater idololatriae deditus fuit. Et similiter Ioras, qui cum scelere idololatriae etiam Zachariam filium Ioiadae occidit: et ideo isti tres quasi indigni excluduntur a generatione Christi. Chrysostomus aliam assignat rationem. Praecepit enim dominus IV Reg. IX Iehu filio Nansi, quod ipse extirparet domum Achab, qui diligens fuit in executione praecepti, et tamen a cultura deorum non recessit: adoravit enim vitulos conflatiles. Et quia diligenter perfecit domini imperium destruendo domum Achab, dictum est ad eum, quod filii eius usque in quartam generationem sederent super thronum domus Israel; unde sicut Iehu meruit regnum Israel usque in tertiam vel quartam generationem, ita per oppositum Ioram, qui commiscuit se feminis gentilibus, et transtulit iniquitatem domus Israel ad domum Iuda, debuit amittere nomen posteritatis in genealogia Christi usque in quartam generationem, facta expiatione peccati. Augustinus in quaest. novi et Vet. Test. aliam assignat rationem. Dicit enim, quod quidam fuerunt boni, et bonos invenerunt patres, sicut Isaac et Iacob; quidam mali, et tamen bonos invenerunt patres, sicut Salomon, qui peccator fuit, et tamen David virum iustum et sanctum habuit patrem; quidam nec boni fuerunt, nec bonos patres habuerunt, sicut fuerunt isti tres, ut patet per praedicta. Ioram peccavit, et peccatum eius continuatum fuit usque ad Oziam, qui pene nihil mali fecit, nisi quod incensum adolevit; continuatio autem peccati causa vel ratio est destructionis. Et ideo isti tres qui in peccato idololatriae permanserunt, excluduntur a genealogia Christi. Ratio autem mystice assignatur propter tres quaterdenarios, per quos Matthaeus genealogiam Christi describere intendit. Ozias autem interpretatur robustus domini; et signat Christum, de quo in Psal. CXVII, 14: fortitudo mea, et laus dominus, factus est mihi in salutem et cetera. Mystice autem Ioram genuit Oziam, quia qui in excelso habitant, debent esse fortiter operantes. Nota quod sub hoc Ozia prophetavit Isaias, ut patet Isa. I, 1. Propter enim peccatum principum, et regum, et etiam populi, abstulit Deus prophetiam et doctrinam; unde sub rege bono coepit iterum emanatio prophetiae.
1:9
Ozias autem genuit Ioatham, qui interpretatur profectus; et significat Christum, per quem Ecclesia proficit quotidie. Et sic bene Ozias genuit Ioatham quia qui fortiter operantur, sunt in continuo profectu; Psalmi LXXXIII, 8: ibunt de virtute in virtutem. Ioatham autem genuit Achaz, qui interpretatur comprehendens; quia per continuum profectum virtutum venit homo ad cognitionem Dei; Ps. CXVIII, 104: a mandatis tuis intellexi, propterea odivi omnem viam iniquitatis; Ps. LXIII, 10: annuntiaverunt opera Dei, ostendendo in opere, et facta eius intellexerunt. Propter quod Paulus ad Philippenses III, 12: sequor, si quo modo comprehendam, in quo et comprehensus sum a Christo Iesu. Et hoc competit Christo, qui solus perfecte divinitatem comprehendit; Lc. X, 22: nemo novit patrem nisi filius. Achaz autem genuit Ezechiam, idest fortis dominus: quia talis habet fortitudinem a domino; II regum XXII, 2: dominus fortitudo mea, et robur meum. Et hoc competit Christo, qui fortis est in praelio.
1:10
Ezechias autem genuit Manassen, et interpretatur oblivio: quia qui iam perfecte Deum cognoscit, istorum temporalium obliviscitur; Ps. XLIV, 11: obliviscere populum tuum, et domum patris tui; Gen. XLI, 51: oblivisci me fecit dominus Deus omnium laborum meorum. Et hoc Christo convenit, de quo dicitur Ez. XVIII, 21: si impius egerit poenitentiam ab omnibus peccatis suis, quae operatus est, omnium iniquitatum eius, quas operatus est, non recordabor. Manasses autem genuit Amon, idest fidelis et nutriens: quia vere est ille fidelis qui contemnit temporalia. Secundum enim Gregorium, fraus est filia avaritiae: et ideo qui temporalia perfecte contemnit, iam non curat de infidelitate. Unde recte Manasses genuit Amon. Hoc etiam interpretatur nutriens: quia qui temporalia contemnit, debet inde nutrire pauperes per misericordiam; infra XIX, 21: si vis perfectus esse, vade, et vende omnia quae habes, ecce contemptus, et da pauperibus, ecce nutrimentum. Hoc autem Christo competit, qui vere fidelis est, Ps. CXLIV, 13: fidelis dominus in omnibus verbis suis, et iterum nutritius, Os. XI, 3: ego qui nutritius Ephraim, portabam eos in brachiis meis, et nescierunt quod curarem eos; infra XXIII, 37: quoties volui congregare filios tuos quemadmodum gallinae congregant pullos suos sub alas, et noluisti? Amon autem genuit Iosiam, qui interpretatur salus domini, vel incensum; quia ex hoc consequitur homo salutem, quod etiam temporalia obliviscitur et largitur, sive distribuit. Vel incensum. Hoc competit Christo; Ps. LXXIII, 12: qui operatus est salutem in medio terrae, et se obtulit sacrificium Deo in odorem suavitatis, Eph. V, 2. Iosias autem genuit Iechoniam et fratres eius, qui interpretatur praeparatio domini, vel resurrectio; et significat Christum, qui praeparavit nobis locum, Ioan. XIV, 2, et qui dicit Ioan. XI, 25: ego sum resurrectio et vita, et per hanc venimus ad resurrectionem. Hic autem triplex est quaestio secundum litteram. Primo quaeritur, quomodo dicatur Iosias genuisse Iechoniam; et tamen non ipsum, sed patrem eius Ioakim genuit. Et ad hoc est duplex responsio. Secundum enim Chrysostomum, cui consentit Augustinus, nomen Ioakim praetermittitur omnino; et hoc quia non per divinam ordinationem regnavit, sed per Pharaonis potentiam, qui ipsum in regno instituit, incarcerato primogenito fratre eius Ioathan, qui regnaverat ante eum. Et ad hoc nota historiam IV Reg. XXII, et II Paral. XXXVI, 1 ss. Habuit etiam Iosias tres filios, Ioathan, Ioakim, qui et Eliacim, et Sedeciam. Si enim, ut dicit Augustinus, illi tres reges removentur de genealogia, quia per idololatriae depravati sunt, quanto magis iste, qui non per Deum, vel prophetam, sed per gentilis hominis positionem institutus est in regno? Sententia est non verba Hieronymi, ut vult et ei consentit Ambrosius, quod uterque dictus est Ioakim, et ille qui ponitur in fine quaterdenarii, et qui ponitur in principio tertii, et uterque Iechonias et Ioakim idem sunt. Unde notandum, quod Iosias tres habuit filios, Ioakim, qui et Eliacim, Ioathan, et Sedeciam. Mortuo autem Iosia regnavit pro eo Ioathas, medius scilicet filius; quo capto a Pharaone rege Aegypti, et incarcerato, constituit fratrem eius primogenitum Ioakim regem, imponens ei tributum; postea Nabuchodonosor rex Babylonis, superato rege Aegypti, obsedit Ierusalem, et cepit Ioakim, quem sub tributo remisit in Ierusalem. Postea autem cum vellet Ioakim rebellare contra regem Babylonis, confisus de auxilio regis Aegypti, ascendit Nabuchodonosor Ierusalem, et cepit eum, et occidit, et constituit filium eius pro eo Ioachim, quem et Iechoniam nominavit nomine patris; quo facto timens Nabuchodonosor, ne iste memor mortis patris confoederaretur cum rege Aegypti, rediit in Ierusalem, et obsedit eam; et Iechonias, vel Ioachim iste, filius scilicet alterius, de consilio Ieremiae tradidit se regi Nabuchodonosor, et uxorem, et filios; et isti proprie dicuntur transmigrasse in transmigrationem. Nabuchodonosor vero constituit regem eius Sedeciam fratrem patris eius, et ipsum Ioachim duxit in Babylonem; et ille est de quo dicitur post: et post transmigrationem. Sed quare nominatus est Iechonias, cum nomen eius fuerit Ioachim? Et dicendum, quod istud nomen impositum fuit a propheta, scilicet Ieremia; Ier. XXII, 24: haec dicit dominus: si fuerit Iechonias filius Ioakim regis Iuda, annulus in manu dextera mea, inde evellam eum; et infra: numquid vas fictile atque contritum vir iste Iechonias? Et ideo potius nominatur ab Evangelista tali nomine, ut ostendatur Evangelistam concordare cum propheta. Nota etiam quod quamvis idem sit nomen, diversimode tamen scribitur. Primi enim Ioakim nomen scribitur per k, et videtur dici Ioakim; sed secundi scribitur per ghimel, unde dicitur Ioachim: et ideo diversas habent interpretationes. Primum enim interpretatur resurrectio; secundum vero praeparatio domini.
1:11
Secundo quaeritur quare dicitur Iechoniam et fratres eius. Multi enim fuerunt de regibus qui fratres habuerunt, sed numquam dicitur, vel fit mentio de fratribus. Et dicendum, secundum Ambrosium, quod ubicumque fit mentio de fratribus, sicut cum dicitur Iudam et fratres eius, et Phares et Zaram de Thamar, hoc significat quod aequales fuerunt in sanctitate, vel malitia. Isti autem tres omnes sunt mali. Aliter potest dici, quod ideo quia istorum fratrum quilibet regnavit, sicut patet per ea quae dicta sunt, sic autem non fuit de fratribus aliorum regum. Tertio quaeritur de hoc quod dicitur in transmigratione. Videtur falsum, quia Iosias numquam transmigravit. Et dicendum hoc accipiendum esse secundum praescientiam divinam, secundum quam ordinatum erat eos quos tunc generabat, transmigrandos esse. Vel dicendum, quod in transmigratione idem est ac prope transmigrationem, sive iam imminente.
1:12
Hic ponitur tertius quaterdenarius generationis Christi, qui procedit per personas privatas. De isto Iechonia, sicut dictum est supra, fuit duplex opinio. Hieronymus enim et Ambrosius volunt quod alter fuerit ille qui ponitur in fine primi quaterdenarii et vocatus est Ioakim; alter vero qui dictus est Ioachim. Secundum vero Augustinum, ut supra. Ista enim transmigratio filiorum Israel significat translationem fidei ad gentes; Act. XIII, v. 46: vobis oportebat primum loqui verbum Dei. In illa transmigratione facta est quasi quaedam reflexio Iudaeorum ad gentes. Unde quasi quidam constituitur angulus; et ideo Iechonias iste significat Christum, qui factus est lapis angularis, in seipso utrumque copulans populum, Iudaeorum et gentium; Ps. CXVII, v. 22: lapidem quem reprobaverunt aedificantes, hic factus est in caput anguli. Sed hic quaeritur, Ier. XXII, 30 dicitur: scribe virum istum, Sedeciam, virum sterilem, qui in diebus suis non prosperabitur; nec enim erit qui sedeat de semine eius super solium David. Quomodo ergo dicitur Christus descendisse a David per Sedeciam, cum de Christo scripserit sic Is. IX, 2: super solium David, et super regnum eius sedebit? Et dicendum, secundum Ambrosium, quod cum Christus dicitur sedere super solium, intelligitur de regno spirituali, non corporali, nisi inquantum per regnum David corporale significatur spirituale. Salathiel autem genuit Zorobabel. Contra: I Paralipom. III, 17 dicitur, quod filii Iechoniae fuerunt Asir, Salathiel, et Melchiram, et Phadaia. Phadaia autem filios habuit Zorobabel, et Semei; de Abiud autem nulla prorsus fit ibi mentio. Ergo videtur, quod male dicit Evangelista, quod Salathiel genuit Zorobabel, et quod Zorobabel genuit Abiud. Ad hoc tripliciter respondetur in Glossa. Una responsio, quod in libro Paralipomenon multa depravata sunt vitio scriptorum, praecipue de his quae pertinent ad numerum et ad nomina. Unde istis generationibus vitiatis prohibet apostolus intendere, quae magis quaestionem quam utilitatem inducunt, I Tim. I, 4. Alia est responsio, quod Salathiel binomius fuit: vocatus est enim Salathiel, et Caphadara; et ideo liber Paralipomenon dicit Zorobabel filium Capha, Evangelista vero filium Salathiel. Nulla est ergo contrarietas. Tertia est responsio, et verior, quod Salathiel, et Caphadara fuerunt fratres, sicut dicit liber Paralipomenon. Caphadara autem genuit filium quem vocavit eodem nomine, scilicet Zorobabel, et iste genuit Abiud. Dicendum etiam quod liber Paralipomenon narrat genealogiam ipsius Capha; Evangelista generationem Salathiel, quia de eo erat Christus nasciturus. Notandum autem quod de illis qui fuerunt ab Abiud usque ad Ioseph, nulla fit mentio in libris sacrae Scripturae, sed ex annalibus Hebraeorum, quos Herodes pro magna parte comburi fecit ut occultaretur ignobilitas sui generis, accepta sunt. Patet littera. Sensum mysticum prosequamur. Nota ergo quod in hac parte genealogiae ponuntur tres ordines. Primus est ordo doctorum, et continet quatuor generationes. Ante orationem enim requiritur praeparatio, secundum illud Eccli. XVIII, 23: ante orationem praepara animam tuam; et ideo de Iechonia, qui interpretatur praeparatio domini, sequitur Salathiel, qui interpretatur petitio mea; et designant Christum, qui in omnibus exauditus est pro sua reverentia, Hebr. V, 7. Oratio autem debet praecedere doctrinam, secundum illud ad Eph. VI, 19: orate, ut detur sermo in apertione oris mei; et ideo Salathiel sequitur Zorobabel, qui interpretatur magister Babel, idest confusionis; quia per doctrinam et praedicationem apostolorum revocatae sunt gentes ad Deum verum, et hoc fuit ad confusionem idololatriae; et hoc competit principaliter Christo, qui dicit: vocatis me, magister, et domine, et bene dicitis, Io. XIII, v. 13. Per doctrinam autem, et praedicationem acquirit homo patris dignitatem; unde patres dicuntur eorum qui instruuntur spiritualiter; I Cor. IV, 15: nam et si decem millia paedagogorum habeatis in Christo, sed non multos patres: in Christo enim Iesu per Evangelium filii sumus.
1:13
Et ideo sequitur Zorobabel autem genuit Abiud, qui interpretatur pater meus iste; et hoc competit Christo; Ps. LXXXVIII, 27: ipse invocabit me, pater meus es tu. Abiud autem genuit Eliacim. Hic designatur ordo incipientium, scilicet auditorum. Primum autem quod fit per praedicationem in auditore, et quod debet praedicator intendere, est quod resurgat a vitiis ad virtutes, secundum illud Eph. V, 4: surge qui dormis; et ideo Abiud genuit Eliacim, qui interpretatur resurrectio; et competit Christo, qui dicit, Io. XI, 26: omnis qui credit in me, habet vitam aeternam. Non autem resurgens potest pervenire ad statum iustitiae nisi per auxilium Dei: et ideo, postquam resurrexit, indiget homo auxilio Dei, secundum illud Ps. CXX, 2: auxilium meum a domino; et ideo sequitur Eliacim autem genuit Azor, qui interpretatur adiutus. Et hoc etiam competit Christo, de quo in Ps. XXVI, 9: adiutor meus esto, domine. Et per hoc auxilium devenitur ad iustitiam: unde Azor genuit Sadoch, qui interpretatur iustus; Rom. III, v. 22: iustitia Dei per fidem Iesu Christi in omnes, et super omnes qui credunt in eum. Consummatio autem iustitiae sive finis, est caritas: finis iustitiae Christus, finis praecepti est caritas, I Tim. I, 5. Tantum sunt duo praecepta, scilicet dilectio Dei, et proximi; I Io. c. IV, 21: et hoc mandatum habemus a Deo, ut qui diligit Deum, diligat et fratrem suum. Et ideo Sadoch sequitur Achim, et Achim Eliud. Achim interpretatur frater meus: unde signat dilectionem proximi; Ps. CXXXII, 1: ecce quam bonum et quam iucundum habitare fratres in unum. Hoc competit Christo, qui caro, et frater noster est.
1:14
Et quia dilectio proximi non potest esse sine dilectione Dei, ideo sequitur Eliud autem genuit Achim. Eliud interpretatur Deus meus; Ps. XVII, 2: diligam te, domine: et hoc competit Christo; Ps. XXX, v. 15: Deus meus es tu.
1:15
Achim autem genuit Eleazar. Hic designatur ordo proficientium. Non potest autem profici sine auxilio divino, unde primum quod requiritur ad proficiendum est auxilium divinum; et ideo Eliud recte sequitur Eleazar, qui interpretatur Deus meus adiutor; Ps. LXXXIII, 6: beatus vir cuius est auxilium abs te. Sed quia Deus multis modis potest iuvare ad salutem, ut removendo prohibentia et dando occasiones, potissimum adiutorium est per donum gratiae suae; I Cor. c. XV, 10: gratia Dei sum id quod sum. Et ideo Eleazar, idest adiutorium Dei, sequitur Mathan, qui interpretatur donum, scilicet gratiae divinae: et hoc competit Christo, qui est etiam donans; Io. III, 16: sic Deus dilexit mundum, ut filium suum unigenitum daret; Eph. IV, 8: dedit dona hominibus. Sed quia homo posset tantum confidere de dono gratiae, quod ipse incideret in negligentiam, non cooperando per liberum arbitrium gratiae, ideo sequitur Iacob, qui interpretatur luctator; propter hoc I Cor. XV, 10: gratia Dei sum id quod sum, et sequitur: et gratia eius in me vacua non fuit; II Cor. VI, 1: hortamur vos ne in vacuum gratiam Dei recipiatis. Nunc autem sequitur Ioseph, idest augmentum, quia per gratiam, et liberi arbitrii conatum venit homo ad augmentum; Prov. IV, 8: iustorum semita quasi lux splendens procedit, et crescit usque ad perfectam diem. Unde Iacob genuit Ioseph virum Mariae. Sed hic oritur duplex quaestio. Primo enim quaeritur de contrarietate quae videtur esse inter Lucam et Matthaeum: Lucas enim dicit quod Ioseph fuit Heli, qui fuit Mathat; Matthaeus autem dicit quod fuit Iacob: ergo videtur esse contrarietas inter eos. Sed dicendum est ad hoc, quod duo fuerunt de eadem stirpe, sed non de eadem familia, scilicet Mathan et Mathat. Fuerunt enim de stirpe David; sed unus descendit de stirpe David per Salomonem, scilicet Mathan; alius per Nathan, scilicet Mathat. Accepit ergo Mathan uxorem Hesta nomine, ex qua genuit Iacob; mortuo autem Mathan, quia lex non prohibebat viduam nubere, nupsit fratri eius Mathat, qui genuit de ea Heli. Unde Iacob et Heli fuerunt fratres de eadem matre, sed non de eodem patre. Accepit autem Heli uxorem, et mortuus est sine liberis; unde Iacob, ut suscitaret semen fratri suo, accepit eamdem uxorem, et genuit Ioseph. Unde Ioseph fuit filius Iacob secundum carnem, sed filius Heli secundum adoptionem. Et ideo Matthaeus, qui ponit in genealogia Christi solum patres carnales, dicit Ioseph filium Iacob; Lucas autem, qui ponit multos qui non fuerunt patres carnales, dicit eum filium Heli. Ratio autem huius diversitatis dicta est superius. Notandum autem quod quando frater accipiebat uxorem fratris, ut suscitaret nomen eius, non est ita intelligendum quod filius ille qui generabatur, vocaretur nomine fratris defuncti: Booz enim qui accepit Ruth, ut suscitaret semen Elimelech, genuit filium, quem non vocavit Elimelech, sed Obed; sed pro tanto dicitur suscitare nomen eius, quia filius ille ei adscribebatur secundum legem: nec est hoc inconveniens, quia, sicut dicitur in ecclesiastica historia, ipsi apostoli et Evangelistae fuerunt instructi a proximis parentibus Christi de genealogia Christi, qui eam partim memoria, partim ex dictis libris Paralipom. corde tenebant. Secunda quaestio est: Matthaeus intendit scribere generationem Christi. Cum ergo Christus non fuerit filius Ioseph, sed solum Mariae, ad quid necesse fuit protendere generationem Christi ab Abraham usque ad Ioseph? Ad quod dicendum, quod consuetum fuit apud Iudaeos, et est usque hodie, accipere uxorem de tribu sua, unde Num. XXXVI, 7 dicitur quod accipiat uxorem quisque de tribu et cognatione sua. Et quamvis hoc non necessario observaretur, tamen ex consuetudine observabatur. Unde Ioseph Mariam tamquam sibi propinquissimam duxit uxorem. Et ideo quia erant de eodem genere, per hoc quod ostenditur Ioseph a David descendisse, ostenditur etiam Mariam et Christum de semine David fuisse. Sed unde potest haberi hoc quod Ioseph et Maria fuerint de eadem tribu? Patet ex hoc quod habetur Luc. II, 4, quia cum debuisset fieri descriptio, ascendit ipse Ioseph et Maria in civitatem David, quae est Bethlehem. Unde per hoc quod eam duxit secum, patet quod de eadem erant familia. Sed quaeritur quare per Mariam non ostendit Christi generationem ex David. Dicendum quod non est consuetum apud Hebraeos, nec etiam gentiles, genealogiam texere per mulieres; unde Christus, qui venerat pro salute hominum, voluit in hoc imitari, vel observare mores hominum; et sic non per feminas eius genealogia describitur, praecipue cum sine periculo veritatis posset per viros eius genealogia cognosci. Virum Mariae. Hieronymus: cum audieris virum, suspicio non oriatur nuptiarum. Contra. Nonne fuit verum matrimonium? Dicendum quod sic, quia ibi fuerunt tria bona matrimonii: proles, ipse Deus; fides, quia nullum adulterium; et sacramentum, quia indivisibilis coniunctio animarum. Quid ergo dicendum? Hoc intelligitur quantum ad nuptiarum complementum, quod est per carnalem copulam. Ideo autem, ut dicit Augustinus, nominatur vir Mariae, ut ostendatur matrimonium esse inter pari voto continentes. Sed quomodo fuit matrimonium? Votum enim impedit matrimonium contrahendum et dirimit contractum. Cum ergo beata virgo voverit virginitatem, nullum videtur fuisse matrimonium. Praeterea. Consensit in carnalem copulam, si fuit matrimonium. Sed dicendum quod beata virgo angebatur inter duo: ex una enim parte angebatur propter maledictum legis, cui subiacebat sterilis; ex alia parte angebatur propter propositum servandae castitatis; et ideo virginitatem proposuit, nisi dominus aliter ordinaret; unde divinae dispositioni se commisit. Quod dicitur, quod consensit in carnalem copulam, dicendum quod non; sed in matrimonium directe, in carnalem autem copulam quasi implicite, si Deus voluisset.
1:16
De qua natus est Iesus qui vocatur Christus. Hic duplex error excluditur. Unus qui dicit Christum fuisse filium Ioseph: et hoc excluditur per hoc quod dicitur de qua. Si enim fuisset filius Ioseph, dixisset de quo, vel saltem de quibus. Alius excluditur error, scilicet Valentini, qui dicit Christum non assumpsisse corpus de beata virgine sed de caelo apportasse, et per beatam virginem, sicut per canale, transisse. Contra est quod dicitur de qua. Si enim ita esset sicut dicit, dixisset Evangelista non de qua, sed per quam, vel a qua, vel ex qua, vel aliquid tale. Haec enim praepositio de semper notat consubstantialitatem; non autem haec praepositio ex; unde potest dici: ex mane fit dies, et quod arca procedit ex artifice, numquam dicitur, de artifice. Unde per hoc quod dicit de, denotat quod de corpore b. virginis formatum est corpus Christi; Gal. IV, 4: misit Deus filium suum factum ex muliere, factum sub lege. Hic cavendus est error Nestorii, qui duas in Christo personas posuit, et ideo non concedit Deum natum, vel passum; nec alia quae sunt Dei, ut esse ab aeterno, vel creasse stellas, attribuit homini. Unde in quadam sua epistola accipit istam auctoritatem ad confirmationem sui erroris: de qua natus est Iesus, non dicit Deus, sed Iesus: quod est nomen hominis, et Christus. Sed secundum hoc nulla esset unio in Christo, nec Christus diceretur unus. Unde nota, quod in Christo, quia fit unio duarum naturarum in una persona, fit communicatio idiomatum, ut illa quae sunt Dei attribuantur homini, et e converso. Et potest poni exemplum qualecumque de duobus accidentibus in subiecto, sicut pomum dicitur album et saporosum. Et quantum ad saporosum dicitur album, ratione qua pomum est album, et e converso. Qui vocatur Christus. Nota. Simpliciter dicitur Christus sine additione, ad denotandum quod oleo invisibili unctus est, non materiali, sicut reges, vel prophetae in lege. Ps. XLIV, 8: unxit te Deus, Deus tuus oleo laetitiae prae consortibus tuis. Omnes ergo generationes. Posita generatione Christi, hic concludit numerum generationum: et dividit eas per tres quaterdenarios.
1:17
Primus quaterdenarius est ab Abraham usque ad David inclusive, ut scilicet David numeretur in illo primo quaterdenario; et hoc est omnes ergo generationes. Secundus quaterdenarius protenditur a David exclusive, ita scilicet quod ipse David non numeretur, sed incipiatur a Salomone, et terminatur ad transmigrationem Babylonis; et hoc est et a David usque ad transmigrationem Babylonis. Tertius incipit a transmigratione Babylonis, et terminatur in Christum, ita quod Christus sit quaterdenarius. Sed quaeritur quare Evangelista ita diligenter et attente distinxit generationem Christi per tres quaterdenarios. Chrysostomus assignat rationem: quia in istis tribus quaterdenariis semper facta est aliqua mutatio in populo Israel. In primo enim quaterdenario fuerunt sub ducibus; in secundo sub regibus; in tertio sub pontificibus. Et ipse Christus est dux, et rex, et pontifex; Is. XXXIII, 22: dominus iudex noster, dominus legifer noster, dominus rex noster. Et de eius sacerdotio dicitur in Ps. CIX, 4: tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech. Aliam rationem assignat ipse, ut scilicet ostenderetur necessitas adventus Christi. In primo enim quaterdenario petierunt regem contra voluntatem Dei, et legem transgressi sunt. In secundo autem propter peccata sua ducti sunt in captivitatem. Sed in tertio per Christum ab omni culpa, et miseria, et a servitute peccati spirituali liberamur. Hieronymus tertiam assignat rationem, quia per istos signantur tria tempora, quibus omnium hominum vita ducitur. Per primum enim quaterdenarium signatur tempus ante legem, quia in illo ponuntur aliqui patres qui fuerunt ante legem; per secundum, tempus sub lege, quia omnes illi qui ponuntur sunt sub lege; per tertium autem, tempus gratiae, quia terminatur ad Christum, per quem scilicet gratia et veritas facta est, Io. I, 17. Congruit etiam ista distinctio mysterio: quia quaterdenarius est numerus compositum ex quatuor et decem. Per decem ergo vetus intelligitur testamentum, quod datum est in decem mandatis. Per quatuor autem, Evangelium, quod in quatuor libris distinguitur. Tres autem quaterdenarii designant fidem Trinitatis. Unde per hoc quod Matthaeus genealogiam in tres quaterdenarios dividit, designatur quod per novum et vetus testamentum in fide Trinitatis pervenitur ad Christum. De numero autem generationum est duplex opinio. Secundum enim Hieronymum, qui dicit quod alius est Iechonias in fine primi quaterdenarii et in principio secundi, sunt quadraginta duae generationes: tot enim faciunt quaterdenarii tres. Sed secundum Augustinum non sunt nisi quadraginta una; et quod Christus sit ille unus. Et hoc competit mysterio. Quadragenarius enim numerus consurgit ex ductu quatuor in decem, et e converso. Secundum autem Platonicos, quatuor est numerus corporum: corpus enim componitur ex quatuor elementis; decem autem est numerus, qui consurgit ex aggregatione numerorum linealium: unus enim, duo, tres et quatuor faciunt decem. Et quia Matthaeus intendit declarare quomodo Christus linealiter descendit ad nos, ideo per quadraginta generationes venit ad nos Christus. Lucas autem qui intendit in Christo commendare sacerdotalem dignitatem, cui competit expiatio peccatorum infra XVIII, 22: non dico tibi usque septies, sed usque septuagies septies etc. ponit generationes septuaginta septem; consurgit enim iste numerus ex ductu septem in undecim: septies enim undecim sunt septuaginta septem. Per undecim ergo intelligitur transgressio Decalogi; per septem autem septiformis gratia, per quam fit remissio peccatorum. Quod autem secundum Hieronymum sunt quadraginta duae generationes, etiam non vacat a mysterio, quia per illas duas intelliguntur duo praecepta caritatis; vel duo testamenta: novum et vetus. Christi autem generatio sic erat. Posita genealogia Christi in generali, hic describitur generatio eius in speciali: et dividitur in tres partes. Primo ponit quemdam titulum; secundo Evangelista describit generationis modum, ibi cum esset desponsata mater eius Maria Ioseph: tertio probat generationis modum, ibi Ioseph autem vir eius. Dicit ergo Christi autem. Hoc dupliciter legitur. Secundum Chrysostomum enim est quasi quidam prologus dicendorum; sed secundum Remigium est quidam epilogus dictorum. Primo modo legitur sic: ita dictum est de genealogia Christi, quomodo Abraham genuit Isaac etc. per carnalem admixtionem, sed Christi generatio sic erat, supple: sicut dicetur in sequentibus. Secundo modo legitur sic, ut sit epilogus praecedentium: ita Abraham etc. usque ad Christum. Christi autem generatio sic erat; supple: ut ab Abraham per David et alios protenderetur ad Christum.
1:18
Consequenter describit generationis modum; et primo describit personam generantem, cum dicit cum esset desponsata; secundo ipsam Christi generationem, cum dicit antequam convenirent inventa est in utero habens; tertio generationis actorem, de spiritu sancto. Personam generantem describit a tribus. Primo a conditione, cum dicit desponsata (...) Ioseph; secundo a dignitate mater eius; tertio a proprio nomine Maria. Dicit ergo cum esset desponsata mater eius Maria Ioseph. Sed hic statim oritur quaestio. Cum Christus voluerit nasci de virgine, quare voluit matrem suam desponsari? Ratio, secundum Hieronymum, triplex assignatur. Prima est ut credibilius esset testimonium virginitatis eius. Si enim non fuisset desponsata, et diceret se esse virginem, cum esset impraegnata, non videretur ob aliud dicere, nisi ut celaret crimen adulterii. Sed cum desponsata erat, non habebat necesse mentiri. Et ideo magis esset credendum ei; Ps. XCII, 5: testimonia tua credibilia facta sunt nimis. Alia ratio est ut haberet praesidium viri, sive cum fugeret in Aegyptum, sive cum inde rediret. Tertia fuit, ut partus eius Diabolo celaretur, ne scilicet si ipse sciret, impediret passionem eius, et fructum nostrae redemptionis; I Cor. II, 8: si enim cognovissent, numquam dominum gloriae crucifixissent; exponitur de Daemone, idest non crucifigi permisisset. Sed contra. Diabolus numquid non cognoscit an ista est virgo? Virginitas enim eius erat in carne non corrupta. Ergo Diabolus potuit scire eam esse virginem. Sed dicendum, secundum Ambrosium, qui etiam istam rationem assignat, quod Diaboli possunt aliqua subtilitate naturae, quae tamen non possunt nisi divina permissione. Unde Diabolus eius virginitatem cognosceret, nisi a diligenti consideratione divinitus fuisset prohibitus. Secundum Ambrosium assignatur triplex ratio. Prima est propter honorem matris domini conservandum: maluit dominus de ortu suo homines dubitare, quam de pudicitia matris. Et ideo voluit eam desponsari, ut tolleretur suspicio adulterii: ipse enim venerat legem adimplere, non solvere; Matth. V, 17: non veni solvere, sed adimplere; Ex. XX, 12 dicitur, honora patrem tuum et matrem tuam. Alia ratio est, ut virginibus notatis de adulterio auferretur excusatio: si enim mater domini non fuisset desponsata, et tamen gravida, possent similiter se per eam excusare; Ps. CXL, 4: non declines cor meum in verba malitiae, ad excusandas excusationes in peccatis. Tertia ratio, quia Christus Ecclesiam sibi desponsavit, quae virgo est; II Cor. II, 2: despondi enim vos. Et ideo de virgine desponsata nasci voluit in signum quod Ecclesiam sibi desponsavit. Cum ergo esset desponsata. Sed cui? Ioseph. Secundum Chrysostomum, Ioseph fuit faber lignarius; et signat Christum, qui per lignum crucis omnia restauravit, caelestia et cetera. Mater eius, idest Dei. Hic ostenditur eius dignitas: nulli enim creaturae hoc concessum est, nec homini, nec Angelo, ut esset pater, aut mater Dei; sed hoc fuit privilegium gratiae singularis, ut non solum hominis, sed Dei mater fieret; et ideo in Apoc. c. XII, 1 dicitur: mulier amicta sole, quasi tota repleta divinitate. Quod negavit Nestorius; et hoc quia divinitas non fuit accepta a virgine. Contra quem Ignatius martyr pulchro exemplo utitur ad ostendendum quod fuit mater Dei. Constat, inquit, quod in generatione hominum communium mulier dicitur mater: et tamen mulier non dat animam rationalem, quae a Deo est, sed ministrat substantiam ad corporis formationem. Sic igitur mulier dicitur mater totius hominis, quia id quod sumptum est de ea, unitur animae rationali. Similiter cum humanitas Christi sumpta sit de beata virgine, propter unionem ad divinitatem dicitur beata virgo non solum mater hominis, sed etiam Dei; quamvis ab ipsa non sumatur divinitas; sicut nec in aliis anima rationalis sumitur a matre. Maria, proprium nomen. Interpretatur maris stella, vel illuminatrix, et suo sermone domina: unde in Apoc. XII, 1 describitur luna sub pedibus eius. Antequam convenirent et cetera. Hic obiicit Elvidius: si antequam convenirent, ergo aliquando convenerunt. Unde iste negavit virginitatem matris Christi: non ante partum, nec in partu, sed post partum dicit quod fuit cognita a viro. Et respondet Hieronymus, quod sine dubio hoc quod dicitur antequam, semper importat ordinem ad futurum. Sed hoc potest esse dupliciter: vel secundum rationem, vel secundum intellectus acceptionem. Si enim dicatur: antequam comederem in portu Romae, navigavi ad Africam, non est intelligendum quod postquam navigaverim ad Africam comederim; sed quia proposueram comedere, et praeventus navigatione non comedi. Ita est hic. Non est ita intelligendum quod postea realiter convenirent, sicut dicit impius ille; sed quia ex hoc ipso quod sibi desponsata erat secundum communem opinionem, licebat eis aliquando convenire, quamvis numquam convenerint. Remigius aliter exponit, ut intelligatur de solemni celebratione nuptiarum: ante enim erat et fiebat per aliquos dies desponsatio, et interim sponsa non erat sub custodia viri; postea autem fiebat solemnis celebratio nuptiarum, et tunc traducebatur ad domum viri. De his nuptiis loquitur Evangelista hic. Et secundum hoc non habet locum obiectio Elvidii. Nota proprietatem verbi: proprie enim illud inventum dicitur, de quo non sperabatur, nec putabatur; et Ioseph tantam habebat opinionem de pudicitia Mariae, quod praeter aestimationem eius fuit quod invenit eam gravidam. In utero habens, supple ab ipso Ioseph, qui, sicut dicit Hieronymus, maritali licentia pene omnia secreta eius rimabatur. De spiritu sancto. Hic tangitur actor conceptionis. Hoc autem legendum est divisim ab illo praecedenti. Non enim legendum est, aut intelligendum quod Ioseph invenerit eam habentem in utero de spiritu sancto; sed solum quod invenit eam gravidam. Et ne oriretur auditoribus interim suspicio adulterii, addidit de spiritu sancto, idest de virtute spiritus sancti, non de substantia, ne filius spiritus sancti credatur; Luc. I, 35: spiritus sanctus superveniet in te, et virtus altissimi obumbravit tibi. Quamvis autem secundum Augustinum indivisibilia sint opera Trinitatis, et ideo ipsam conceptionem non solum spiritus sanctus, sed etiam pater et filius operati sint; tamen per quamdam appropriationem spiritui sancto attribuitur. Et hoc tribus rationibus. Prima ratio est, quia spiritus sanctus amor est. Hoc autem fuit signum maximi amoris, quod Deus filium suum incarnari voluerit; Io. III, 16: sic Deus dilexit mundum, ut filium suum unigenitum daret. Secunda, quia spiritui sancto attribuitur gratia; I Cor. XII, 4: divisiones gratiarum sunt, idem autem spiritus; et hoc fuit maxima gratia. Tertia ratio assignatur in gestis Nicaeni Concilii, et est, quod in nobis est duplex verbum: verbum cordis et verbum vocis. Verbum cordis est ipsa conceptio intellectus, quae occulta est hominibus, nisi quatenus per vocem exprimitur, sive per verbum vocis. Verbo autem cordis comparatur verbum aeternum ante incarnationem, quando erat apud patrem, et nobis absconditum; sed verbo vocis comparatur verbum incarnatum quod iam nobis apparuit, et manifestum est. Verbum autem cordis non coniungitur voci nisi mediante spiritu; et ideo recte incarnatio verbi, per quam nobis visibile apparuit, mediante spiritu sancto facta est. Nota hic quatuor rationes quare Christus de virgine nasci voluit. Quarum prima fuit, quia peccatum originale contrahitur in prole ex commixtione viri et mulieris: unde si Christus natus fuisset de concubitu coniugali, peccatum originale contraxisset. Hoc autem esset inconveniens, cum ipse ad hoc venisset in mundum ut peccata nostra tolleret: unde peccati contagione infici non debuit. Secunda, quia Christus praecipuus fuit doctor castitatis; infra XIX, 12: sunt eunuchi qui se castraverunt propter regnum caelorum. Tertia propter puritatem et munditiam. In malevolam animam non introibit sapientia, Sap. I, 4. Unde decuit ut venter matris eius nulla corruptione pollueretur. Quarta propter proprietatem verbi: quia sicut verbum sine corruptione cordis emanat a corde, ita Christus de virgine nasci voluit et debuit sine corruptione.
1:19
Ioseph autem vir eius cum esset iustus. Postquam posuit generationis modum, hic confirmat ipsum per testimonium. Cum enim supra dixerit Evangelista, quod mater Iesu inventa est in utero habens, et quod hoc erat de spiritu sancto, posset aliquis credere quod Evangelista hoc apposuisset ob gratiam magistri; ideo hic Evangelista confirmat generationis modum supradictum. Et primo praenuntiatione prophetica, hoc autem factum est; secundo revelatione angelica, ibi exurgens autem Ioseph. In prima parte sunt tria. Primo introducitur persona, cui facta est revelatio; secundo persona revelans, ibi haec autem eo cogitante, ecce Angelus domini apparuit; tertio ponuntur verba revelationis, ibi Ioseph fili David. Persona autem, cui fit revelatio, commendatur ex duobus, scilicet ex hoc quod est iustus, et ideo non mentiretur; secundo ex hoc quod sponsus, sive vir, et ideo crimen in ea non pateretur; Prov. VI, 34: zelus et furor viri non parcet in die vindictae. Dicit ergo ita: inventa est a Ioseph habens in utero, sed Ioseph vir eius cum esset iustus, et nollet eam traducere. Hic est duplex sanctorum sententia, Ambrosii videlicet, et Augustini. Augustinus enim vult, quod Ioseph, qui non erat praesens, quando facta est Annuntiatio angelica, rediens, et inveniens eam gravidam, habuit suspicionem adulterii. Sed tunc statim oritur quaestio: quomodo iustus erat, si eam quam suspectam habebat de adulterio, nolebat traducere, idest crimen ipsius propalare? In hoc enim videbatur ei in peccato consentire, et Rom. I, 32 dicitur, quod non solum qui faciunt, sed etiam qui consentiunt facientibus, digni sunt morte. Sed ad hoc est triplex responsio. Prima est secundum Chrysostomum, quod duplex est iustitia: una enim est iustitia, quae est virtus cardinalis, quae dicitur iustitia specialis; alia est iustitia legalis, quae includit omnem virtutem, et pietatem, et clementiam, et huiusmodi. Quando ergo dicitur quod Ioseph iustus erat, intelligendum est de iustitia generali, ut iustitia accipiatur pro pietate. Unde quia iustus erat, idest pius, noluit eam traducere. Alia est responsio Augustini, qui dicit, quod duplex est peccatum, scilicet peccatum occultum et peccatum manifestum: peccatum enim occultum non est publice arguendum, sed aliter est ei remedium adhibendum. Suspicio ergo adulterii, quam habuit Ioseph, erat suspicio peccati occulti, et non manifesti, quia ipse solus sciebat; et iterum si alii scirent eam gravidam, non possent opinari nisi quod de ipso esset; et ideo crimen eius non debuisset propalasse. Tertia vero responsio est Rabani, quod etiam Ioseph iustus fuit et pius: in hoc enim quod pius, non voluit crimen propalare; sed in hoc quod voluit eam dimittere, apparuit iustus: sciebat enim quod qui tenet adulteram, stultus et insipiens est, ut dicitur Prov. XVIII, 22. Secundum autem Hieronymum et Origenem non habuit suspicionem adulterii. Noverat enim Ioseph pudicitiam Mariae; legerat in Scriptura quod virgo concipiet, Is. VII, 14 et cap. XI, 1: egredietur virga de radice Iesse, et flos de radice eius ascendet etc.; noverat etiam Mariam de David generatione descendisse. Unde facilius credebat hoc in ea impletum esse, quam ipsam fornicatam fuisse. Et ideo indignum reputans se tantae cohabitare sanctitati, voluit occulte dimittere eam, sicut Petrus dixit: exi a me, domine, quia homo peccator sum, Luc. V, 8. Unde nolebat eam traducere, idest ad se ducere, et in coniugem accipere, se indignum reputans. Vel, secundum aliorum sententiam, ignorans finem, ne tamquam reus haberetur si celaret, et secum eam teneret. Haec autem eo cogitante. Hic persona revelans introducitur: et tanguntur tria. Primo enim tangitur tempus; secundo persona revelans introducitur; ecce Angelus: tertio revelationis modus exprimitur, apparuit in somnis. Dicit ergo haec autem eo cogitante, idest dum ista secum in mente revolveret, ecce Angelus domini apparuit. Nota quod duo commendantur hic de Ioseph, scilicet sapientia et clementia. Sapientia quidem in hoc, quod ipse antequam ageret, deliberavit; Prov. IV, 25: palpebrae tuae praecedant gressus tuos: hoc est, nihil facias sine iudicio et deliberatione rationis. Item, clementia sive pietas in hoc quod factum eius non propalavit, vel promulgavit, contra multos qui statim illud quod habent in corde, volunt exterius publicare; Prov. XXV, 28: sicut urbs patens, et absque murorum ambitu, ita vir, qui non potest in loquendo cohibere spiritum suum. Et ideo meruit instrui, sive consolari. Unde sequitur ecce Angelus domini apparuit: quasi in promptu sit adiutorium Dei; Ps. IX, 10: adiutor in opportunitatibus, in tribulatione; Ps. LIII, 6: ecce enim Deus adiuvat me, et dominus susceptor est animae meae. Angelus domini: nihil enim melius potuit excusare, quam ille qui conscius erat virginitatis servatae. Unde ille idem Angelus qui missus est ad Mariam, Luc. I, 26, creditur missus ad Ioseph, Ps. XXXIII, 8: immittet Angelus domini in circuitu timentium eum, scilicet Mariae, et Ioseph, ut ipsam liberaret ab infamia, et Ioseph in perturbatione non dimitteret. Sed hic quaeritur, quare non a principio facta est Ioseph revelatio, antequam ita perturbaretur. Item, quare Maria ei non revelavit Annuntiationem angelicam, quae sibi facta fuerat. Et dicendum ad primum, quod hoc fecit ut testimonium eius esset credibilius. Sicut enim dominus Thomam apostolum permisit dubitare de sua resurrectione, ut scilicet dubitans palparet, et palpans crederet, et credendo infidelitatis in nobis vulnus amoveret; sic permisit dominus Ioseph de pudicitia Mariae dubitare, ut dubitans revelationem angelicam acciperet, et accipiendo firmius crederet. Ad hoc quod quaeritur secundo, dicendum, quod si Maria ei dixisset, ipse non credidisset. Apparuit ei in somnis: ecce modus revelationis. Nota quod apparere proprie est illius rei, quae de natura sua est invisibilis, tamen in potestate sua est ut videatur: sicut est Deus, vel Angelus; illa enim quae de sui natura habent ut videantur, proprie apparere non dicuntur: unde dicitur apparitio divina, vel angelica. Unde proprie loquitur. Apparuit in somnis. Sed hic quaeritur quare in somnis. Ratio redditur in Glossa, quia Ioseph quodammodo dubitans erat: unde quasi quodammodo dormiebat, et ideo recte in somnis dicitur Angelus apparuisse ei. Alia ratio potest assignari melior, sicut enim dicit apostolus, I Cor. XIV, 22, prophetia data est fidelibus, signa autem infidelibus. Proprie autem revelatio, quae dicitur prophetica, fit in somnis; Num. XII, 6: si quis fuerit inter vos propheta domini, in visione apparebo ei, vel per somnium loquar ad illum: et ideo quia Ioseph iustus erat, et fidelis, ipsi tamquam fideli debuit fieri apparitio, quae competit credentibus, scilicet revelatio quasi prophetica. Quia vero apparitio corporalis est miraculosa, talis apparitio sibi non competebat, cum ipse crederet, et esset fidelis. Sed tunc quaeritur, quare Mariae facta est visibilis apparitio, cum ipsa esset fidelissima. Et dicendum est, quod mysterium incarnationis a principio revelatum est virgini Mariae, quando difficilius erat ad credendum; et ideo oportuit quod sibi fieret apparitio visibilis. Ipsi vero Ioseph non est revelatum a principio, sed magis quando iam pro magna parte erat impletum, cum iam videret alvum eius intumescere, unde facilius poterat credere; et ideo sufficiebat sibi apparitio quae fit in somnis. Ioseph fili David.
1:20
Hic revelationis verba ponuntur: et dividitur in tres partes, secundum tria quae facit Angelus: primo enim Mariae et Ioseph prohibet divortium; secundo incarnationis aperit mysterium, cum dicit quod in ea natum est, de spiritu sancto est; tertio ipsius Ioseph futurum praenuntiat obsequium, quod scilicet puero exhibebat, ibi pariet autem filium. Dicit igitur Ioseph. Vocat eum ut reddat eum attentum ad audiendum, et ut revocet eum ad seipsum. Hoc commune est in Scriptura, quod scilicet quando praemittitur apparitio, quae est de superius, requirit in auditore quamdam mentis elevationem, et attentionem; Ez. II, 1: fili hominis, sta super pedes tuos, et loquar tecum, et infra, fili hominis, audi quaecumque loquor ad te, et noli esse exasperans. Hab. II, 1: super custodiam meam stabo. Fili David. Ideo genus exprimit ut avertat illud quod dicitur Is. VII, 13: audite, domus David: numquid parum est molestos esse hominibus, quia molesti estis et Deo meo? et cetera. Signum enim datum fuit non uni personae, sed toti tribui sive domui: unde quia de hoc debebat eum instruere, iubetur in expressione generis sui vaticinium prophetae ad memoriam reducere. Noli timere. Omnis apparitio, sive sit boni, vel mali Angeli, timorem quemdam incutit: et hoc, quia talis apparitio est inconsueta, et quasi extranea naturae hominis; et ideo ponit hominem quasi extra se. Sed in hoc est differentia, quia apparitio mali Angeli terrorem incutit, et in ipso terrore hominem dimittit, ut scilicet hominem quasi extra se positum facilius pertrahat ad peccatum; sed boni Angeli apparitio, quamvis terrorem incutiat, tamen statim subditur conclusio, et assecutio consolationis, ut scilicet homo ad se redeat, et quae sibi dicuntur advertat; unde Luc. I, ubi dicitur quod apparuit Angelus Zachariae, statim sequitur: ne timeas, Zacharia, et similiter in eodem: ne timeas, Maria. Unde post apparitionem factam Ioseph statim subditur consolatio. Duplicem habebat iste timorem, scilicet Dei, et etiam peccati, ne scilicet Mariae cohabitando peccaret tamquam conscius peccati, et ideo, ne timeas, subditur, scilicet metu peccati, accipere Mariam coniugem tuam. Nota quod coniux dicitur, non propter matrimonium, sed propter desponsationem: consuetudo enim est Scripturae et sponsas vocare coniuges, et coniuges sponsas. Sed quaeritur, quomodo iubet eam accipere, cum eam nondum dimisisset. Et dicendum quod licet eam corporaliter non dimisisset, tamen in animo eam dimiserat: et ideo iubetur eam accipere. Vel ne timeas accipere quantum ad solemnitatem, et nuptiarum celebrationem. Quod enim in ea natum est, de spiritu sancto est. Hic aperit incarnationis mysterium. Et nota quod cum tria ibi fuerint, scilicet ipsa virgo concipiens, filius Dei conceptus, et virtus activa spiritus sancti; duo bene exprimit Angelus, scilicet concipientem, et conceptionis actorem; sed tertium, ipsum Dei filium conceptum, non exprimit nisi indefinite: quod enim, inquit, in ea natum est: et hoc ut denotetur quod ipsum est ineffabile et incomprehensibile, non solum homini, sed etiam ipsis Angelis. Quod enim, inquit, in ea natum est, non dicit, de ea, quia nasci de matre est in lucem prodire: in matre nasci est ipsum concipi, de spiritu sancto est. Hoc est ergo testimonium angelicum, quod inducit Evangelista ad probandum quod supra dixerat inventa est in utero habens de spiritu sancto. Nota quod in conceptione aliarum mulierum, in semine viri est virtus formativa, cuius subiectum est semen, et per hanc virtutem formatur foetus, et vegetatur in corpore mulieris. Hanc autem supplevit virtus spiritus sancti. Et ideo aliquando invenitur dictum a sanctis, quod spiritus sanctus fuit ibi pro semine, aliquando tamen dicitur quod non fuit ibi semen. Et hoc est, quia in semine viri sunt duo, scilicet ipsa corrupta substantia, quae descendit a corpore viri, et ipsa formativa virtus. Dicendum ergo, quod spiritus sanctus fuit pro semine quantum ad virtutem formativam; sed non fuit ibi pro semine quantum ad corpulentam substantiam, quia non de substantia spiritus sancti facta est caro Christi, vel conceptio eius. Et ideo patet, quod spiritus sanctus non potest dici pater Christi, quia nec secundum divinam naturam, nec secundum humanam. Secundum divinam naturam quidem, quia quamvis Christus sit eiusdem gloriae cum spiritu sancto, filius tamen secundum divinam naturam nihil accipit a spiritu sancto: et ideo non potest dici filius eius; filius enim aliquid accipit a patre. Similiter nec secundum humanam, quia pater et filius debent convenire in substantia; Christus autem, quamvis sit conceptus virtute spiritus sancti, non tamen de substantia spiritus sancti. Sed contra hoc quod dicitur de spiritu sancto est, quod Prov. IX, 1 dicitur, quod sapientia aedificavit sibi domum. Ergo videtur quod ipsamet divina sapientia, idest Dei filius, sibi humanam naturam univit, et ita non est facta virtute spiritus sancti. Sed duplex est responsio, secundum Augustinum. Prima, quod verbum illud quod scribitur Prov. IX, 1, intelligitur de Ecclesia, quam Christus in sanguine suo fundavit. Alia est, quod indivisa sunt opera Trinitatis: et ideo illud quod facit filius, facit etiam spiritus sanctus, sed tamen per quamdam appropriationem attribuitur spiritui sancto. Et ratio huius dicta fuit superius.
1:21
Pariet autem filium. Hic praenuntiat obsequium, quod exhibebit Ioseph puero iam nato, et facit tria: primo enim praenuntiat virginis partum; secundo praemonstrat obsequium ab ipso Ioseph puero exhibendum, cum dicit et vocabis nomen; tertio aperit nomen impositum ipsi puero, cum dicit Iesum. Dicit ergo pariet. Ita concepit de spiritu sancto quidem primo, sed pariet filium. Non dicit tibi, quia ipse puerum non genuit. Luc. I, 13 dictum est Zachariae: uxor tua pariet tibi filium, quia ipsum Zacharias genuit. Vel ideo non dicit, tibi, ut ostendatur, quod pro omnibus natus est: non solum tibi, vel ipsi pariet filium, sed toti mundo; Luc. II, 10: ecce annuntio vobis gaudium magnum, quia natus est vobis hodie salvator, qui est Christus dominus in civitate David et cetera. Sed quia Ioseph posset dicere: ita concepit ipsa de spiritu sancto, et pariet filium, quid ergo ad me? In nullo sum ei necessarius. Ideo subdit ipsius Ioseph obsequium vocabis nomen eius. Consuetudo erat apud Hebraeos, et est hodie, quod die octavo circumcidebant puerum, et tunc imponebant ei nomen; et hoc factum est per Ioseph: unde in hoc opere minister fuit. Unde dicitur ei vocabis; non dicitur impones, quia iam est sibi impositum; Is. LXII, 2: vocabitur tibi nomen novum, quod os domini nominavit. Iesum, hoc est nomen a Deo impositum. Et reddit causam ipse enim salvum faciet populum suum, quem sibi acquisivit sanguine suo, hoc est populum eius. Dan. IX, v. 26 dicitur: non erit populus eius, qui est eum negaturus; unde est populus domini per fidem; I Petr. II, 9: vos estis genus electum, regale sacerdotium, gens sancta, populus acquisitionis. A peccatis eorum. In libro Iudic. frequenter dicitur quod talis, vel talis salvavit Israel: sed a quibus? Ab inimicis carnalibus; hic autem a peccatis, remittendo peccata, quod soli Deo competit. Luc. V, 24: ut autem sciatis, quia filius hominis habet potestatem in terra dimittendi peccata. Nota, quod hic confunditur Nestorius, qui dicebat, quod illa, quae Dei sunt, ut esse ab aeterno, esse omnipotens, vel huiusmodi, non conveniunt illi homini. Ecce quod ille idem homo, qui natus est de virgine, qui vocatur Iesus, ipse salvum faciet populum suum a peccatis eorum. Unde cum peccata dimittere non possit nisi solus Deus, oportet dicere quod iste homo sit Deus, et quod ea, quae Dei sunt, ei verissime conveniunt.
1:22
Praemiserat Evangelista, quod mater Dei inventa est in utero habens de spiritu sancto, et hoc supra probavit per angelicam revelationem, hic probat per prophetiae praenuntiationem; unde dicit hoc totum factum est ut adimpleretur quod dictum est a domino per prophetam. Et sciendum quod ista particula dupliciter potest introduci hic. Chrysostomus enim vult quod totum hoc dixerit Angelus et prophetiam introduxerit. Et ratio est, quia ipse, ne quod praenuntiabat videretur novum, subito voluit ostendere quod ab antiquo praenuntiatum erat; Is. XLVIII, 3: qui fecit iam quod futurum est, secundum aliam translationem. Alii dicunt, et credo melius, quod istud, scilicet hoc totum factum est etc., sunt verba Evangelistae. Nam ibi terminantur verba Angeli: et ipse salvum faciet et cetera. Et inducit ea Evangelista propter tria. Primo, ut ostendat quod vetus testamentum est de Christo; Act. c. X, 43: huic omnes prophetae testimonium perhibent, remissionem peccatorum accipere per nomen eius omnes qui credunt in eum. Secundo ut facilius Christo credant: Io. V, 46: si crederetis Moysi, crederetis forsitan et mihi: de me enim ille scripsit. Tertio ad ostendendum conformitatem veteris et novi testamenti; Col. II, 17: quae sunt umbra futurorum, corpus autem Christi. Sed ad hoc quod sciatur quid in ista prophetia contineatur, sciendum quod tria annuntiat Angelus. Primo enim dixit quod in ea natum est etc.; secundo pariet filium; tertio vocabitur nomen eius Iesum. Ista per ordinem in prophetia continentur. Et primum probat quod dicit ecce virgo; secundo pariet autem; tertio et vocabitur. Ergo de spiritu sancto erat, quod per virginitatem concepit. Et hoc est, quod dicitur in prophetia, ecce virgo concipiet; Is. XXXV, 2: germinans germinabit, et exultabit laetabunda, et laudans et cetera. Item virgo pariet filium, quia in pariendo in nullo laesa est virginitas; Is. XI, 1: egredietur virga de radice Iesse, et flos de radice eius ascendet et cetera. Christus quidem flos est. Ergo in nullo laesa est virginitas.
1:23
Sequitur et vocabitur nomen eius Emmanuel. Sed quaeritur, quare non consonat hoc cum verbis Angeli, dicendo et vocabitur Iesus? Dicendum, quod ista repromissio facta fuit Iudaeis, qui ex adventu Christi salutem haberent. Et Iesus salvator interpretatur, quod idem est quod Emmanuel, nobiscum Deus. Est enim Deus nobiscum quatuor modis: per naturae assumptionem, Io. I, 14: verbum caro factum est, per naturae conformitatem, quia in omnibus similis, Phil. II, 7: in similitudinem hominum factus, et habitu inventus ut homo, per conversationem corporalem, Bar. III, 38: post hoc in terris visus est, et cum hominibus conversatus est, per spiritualem conversationem, infra ult., 20: ecce ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus usque ad consummationem saeculi. Sed quaerendum, circa litteram, cur Evangelista non utitur eisdem verbis cum propheta, sed utitur nomine Iesu. Sed dicendum, quod eodem spiritu loquebatur. Tamen Hieronymus dicit quod ideo Evangelista dixit habebit, quia iam de facto loquebatur. Item quaerendum, cur in Isaia dicitur et vocabitur, hic autem dicitur et vocabunt. Sed Hieronymus dicit, quod hic dicitur vocabunt, quia quod primo Angeli vocaverunt annuntiando, Luc. II, 21, postea apostoli vocaverunt praedicando et magnificando. Ut in nomine Iesu omne genu flectatur etc., Phil. c. II, 10. Quod est interpretatum nobiscum Deus. Sed quaeritur, quis apposuit hanc interpretationem prophetiae nobiscum Deus, propheta, an Evangelista? Et videtur quod non Evangelista, quia hac non indiguit, quia scripsit in Hebraeo. Sed dicendum, uno modo, quia Emmanuel est nomen compositum, ideo Evangelista illud etiam in Hebraeo interpretatus est. Vel dicendum, quod ille, qui primo transtulit de Hebraeo, interpretatus est. Et notandum, quod in Glossa dicitur quod triplex est species prophetiae, scilicet praedestinationis, praescientiae et comminationis; et differunt. Prophetia enim dicitur praenuntiatio eorum, quae sunt procul, idest futurorum; sed futurorum quaedam sunt quae solus Deus facit; quaedam vero, etsi Deus facit, tamen fiunt per nos et per alias etiam creaturas; quaedam autem sunt quae nullo modo Deus facit, ut mala. Praenuntiatio illorum, quae solus Deus facit vocatur prophetia praedestinationis, sicut conceptus virginis; unde illud Is. VII, 14: ecce virgo concipiet, est prophetia praedestinationis. Sed ea quae fiunt a causis secundis, possunt dupliciter considerari. Primo, secundum quod sunt in praescientia Dei, verbi gratia de Lazaro; si enim aliquis consideret causas naturales, diceret quod numquam surgeret, et verum diceret: cum tamen deberet resuscitari secundum ordinem divinae praescientiae. Ergo quando prophetia est praenuntiatio secundum quod est in praescientia divina, semper impletur; quando autem secundum ordinem causarum inferiorum, non semper, sicut patet Is. XXXVIII, v. 1, quando Isaias ad Ezechiam dixit: dispone domui tuae, quoniam morieris tu, et non vives et cetera. Sed numquid prophetia imponit necessitatem praescientiae? Et dicendum quod non; quia prophetia est quoddam signum divinae praescientiae, quae non imponit necessitatem rebus praescitis, quia considerat futura in sua praesentialitate. Quicquid enim agitur, est Deo praesens, quia eius intuitus se extendit ad omne tempus; si enim video aliquid praesens, non imponit necessitatem meus intuitus, sicut quando aliquem sedere video. Et hoc modo istas prophetias, quae in isto libro inducuntur, intelleximus. Considerandum est enim tres errores fuisse. Unus Manichaeorum dicentium, quod in toto veteri testamento non invenitur prophetia de Christo: et quicquid inductum est in novo testamento de veteri, totum est ex corruptione. Contra quod Rom. I, 1: Paulus servus Christi, vocatus apostolus, segregatus in Evangelium Dei, quod ante promiserat per prophetas suos et cetera. Et quod loquatur de Iudaeorum prophetiis, patet infra c. IX, 5: quorum patres, ex quibus est Christus secundum carnem et cetera. Alius fuit Theodori dicentis, quod nihil eorum quae inducuntur de veteri testamento, sunt ad litteram de Christo, sed sunt adaptata, sicut quando inducunt illud Virgilii talia pendebat memorans, fixusque manebat hoc enim adaptatum est de Christo; et tunc illud ut adimpleretur, debet sic exponi, quasi diceret Evangelista: et hoc potest adaptari. Contra quod Lc. ult., 44: oportet impleri omnia quae scripta sunt in lege Moysi, et prophetis, et Psalmis de me. Et sciendum quod in veteri testamento aliqua sunt quae referuntur ad Christum, et de eo solo dicuntur, sicut illud ecce virgo in utero concipiet, et pariet filium, Is. VII, 14; et illud Ps. XXI, 2: Deus, Deus meus, respice in me, quare me dereliquisti? et cetera. Et si quis alium sensum litteralem poneret, esset haereticus, et haeresis damnata est. Sed quia non solum verba veteris testamenti, sed etiam facta significant de Christo, aliquando dicuntur aliqua ad litteram de aliquibus aliis, sed referuntur ad Christum, inquantum illa gerunt figuram Christi, sicut de Salomone dicitur: et dominabitur a mari usque ad mare etc.; hoc enim non fuit impletum in eo. Tertius error fuit Iudaeorum. Sciendum autem, quod Iudaei specialiter obiiciunt contra istam auctoritatem, quia in Hebraeo non habetur virgo, sed alma, quod idem est quod adolescentula. Unde ad litteram non sunt dicta de Christo sed de Emmanuel, vel de quodam filio Isaiae, secundum alios. Sed contra hos obiicit Hieronymus: et quod de filio Isaiae non potuerit dici, probatur, quia iam erat natus, quando hoc dictum fuit. Item non invenitur aliquis famosus fuisse tempore illo, qui vocaretur Emmanuel. Item non est signum quod iuvencula pariat. Unde dicit Hieronymus, quod alma est aequivocum, et significat quandoque aetatem, quandoque absconditam, et tunc significat virginem studiose conservatam; et sic significat hic. Item obiiciunt Iudaei, quod illud datum fuit ut signum. Is. VII, 3: venient duo reges contra Achaz etc., et promisit quod liberarentur ab his dando hoc signum ad Achaz. Sed dicendum, quod dedit hoc signum non solum ad Achaz, sed etiam ad domum David, quia dicit audite ergo, domus David; quasi dicat propheta: dominus adiuvabit te contra istum regem, quia ipse multo maiora faciet, quia non solum ipsius liberatio erit, sed totius mundi. Sed revertamur ad litteram. Hoc totum factum est. Sed contra. Angelus multa praemiserat, scilicet quod in ea natum est etc., pariet etc., et iterum, vocabitur et cetera. Hoc vero non totum factum erat. Sed dicendum uno modo, secundum Rabanum, ut hoc totum factum etc. referatur ad praeterita facta, quod Angelus apparuit virgini, et dixit illa verba, hoc totum factum fuit, ad conservationem virginis, ut ly ut teneatur causaliter. Vel refertur ad ea quae praenuntiaverat; et potest dici totum factum propter praedestinationem. Vel dicendum, quod Evangelista scribebat quando totum factum erat; et ideo refertur ad id. Unde ly ut tenetur consecutive, quia non voluit Deus incarnari propter hoc ut impleretur prophetia, quasi vetus testamentum dignius sit novo; sed consecutum est ad prophetiam hoc quod Christus incarnaretur.
1:24
Supra probavit Evangelista, quod mater Dei de spiritu sancto concepit, ex duobus, scilicet ex revelatione Angeli, et ex praenuntiatione prophetae, hoc idem intendit ostendere ex obedientia Ioseph, qui non acquievisset verbis Angeli, ut Mariam susciperet in sponsam, nisi cognovisset eam impraegnatam de spiritu sancto. Et circa hoc duo facit: primo ponitur obedientia ipsius sponsi ad Angelum; secundo describitur obedientiae modus, ibi et accepit. Et nota quod quia per inobedientiam primi hominis prolapsi sumus in peccatum, Rom. V, 19: per inobedientiam unius hominis peccatores constituti sunt multi, ideo in principio reparationis nostrae proponitur obedientia. Et possumus quatuor notare, quae sunt necessaria ad obedientiam. Primum est ut sit ordinata. Et dico ordinata, quia primo deserenda sunt vitia, et postea obediendum est ad operationem virtutum; Hier. IV, 3: novate vobis novale, et nolite serere super spinas et cetera. Et ideo hic dicitur, quod Ioseph exurgens a somno, pigritiae scilicet et dubietatis. De hoc somno dicitur Eph. V, 14: surge qui dormis, et exurge a mortuis. Secundum vero est, quod debet esse festina: et hoc est quod dicitur Eccli. V, 8: non differas de die in diem, non tardes converti ad dominum. Subito enim veniet ira illius. Et ideo hic dicitur quod statim fecit sicut praecepit ei. Glossa: quisquis a Deo monetur, solvat moras, surgat a somno, faciat quod iubetur. Tertium vero, quod debet esse perfecta, ut non solum quod iubetur, sed eo modo quo iubetur fiat et quo eis imperatur. Unde hic dicitur sicut praeceperat. Glossa: perfecta obedientia. Col. c. III, 20: filii, obedite parentibus per omnia. Quartum, quod debet esse discreta, ut obediatur cui obediendum est, et in quo, ut non fiat aliquid contra Deum: unde dicit quod fecit sicut praecepit ei Angelus, non malus sed Dei. I Io. IV, 1: nolite omni spiritui credere, sed probate spiritus, si ex Deo sint, quoniam multi pseudoprophetae exierunt in mundum et cetera. Et accepit. Hic ostenditur in quibus obedivit: et ponuntur tria. Primo obedientia quam exhibuit ad Angelum; secundo reverentia quam exhibuit ad matrem; tertio obsequium quod exhibuit Christo nato. Angelus praecepit Ioseph noli timere accipere Mariam coniugem tuam. Et fecit Ioseph sicut praecepit et cetera. Ubi patet quod invenit mulierem bonam. Sed numquid non habebat eam in domo? Quare ergo dicit, exurgens (...) accepit? Respondet Chrysostomus: quia eam non eiecerat a domo, sed a corde. Vel quia primo ducebatur, sed postea celebrandae sunt nuptiae, et tunc dicitur, et est coniux. Et ne aliquis suspicaretur quod copula carnalis interveniret, subiungit et non cognoscebat eam. Ubi sciendum quod hoc verbum cognoscere dupliciter accipitur in sacra Scriptura: quandoque pro agnitione, Io. XIV, 7: et amodo cognoscetis eum et vidistis eum, aliquando pro carnali copula, sicut Gen. IV, 1: Adam vero cognovit uxorem suam Evam etc., scilicet carnaliter. Sed obiicitur, quia non dicitur simpliciter cognoscebat etc., sed, donec peperit filium suum. Ergo postea cognovit; unde etiam dixit Elvidius: quamvis virgo concepit Christum, tamen postea habuit alios filios ex Ioseph. Et ideo dicit Hieronymus, quod donec aliquando significat aliquid finitum, et determinatum, sicut dicam non veniam donec comedo quia postea significo me venturum; quandoque significat infinite, et indeterminate, verbi gratia I Cor. XV, 25: oportet et illum regnare, donec ponat omnes inimicos sub pedibus eius. Numquid postea non regnabit? Immo: sed utitur Scriptura tali modo loquendi quia intendit removere illud quod potest esse dubium. Dubium enim esse poterat utrum regnaret, quando non posuerat inimicos sub pedibus. Item dubium esse poterat, cum beata virgo peperisset, an ante partum fuisset cognita a Ioseph, quia primum nulli debebat venire in dubium; scilicet quoniam Angeli decantaverunt: gloria in excelsis Deo, et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis, Lc. II, 14. Et ideo hoc intendit Evangelista. Et argumentatur optime Hieronymus contra Elvidium: tu dicis, Elvidi, quod ante non cognovit Ioseph, quia fuit admonitus in somnis ab Angelo. Si ergo admonitio in somnis tantum valuit quod non coniungeret se Mariae, quanto magis Angelorum cognitio, pastorum et magorum adoratio? Chrysostomus autem accepit cognitionem pro agnitione intellectuali. Non cognoscebat scilicet quantae dignitatis esset; sed postquam peperit, cognovit. Alii dicunt quod accipitur pro agnitione sensibili; et sic est satis probabilis horum opinio. Dicunt enim quod Moyses ex locutione domini habuit tantam claritatem in facie, ut filii Israel non posset intendere in faciem eius, II Cor. III, 7. Ergo si ex consortio Dei hoc habuit Moyses, multo magis haec beata virgo, quae portavit eum in utero, habuit tantam claritatem in facie quod Ioseph non cognoscebat eam. Sed prima expositio est magis litteralis.
1:25
Item dicit Elvidius quod littera dicit, donec peperit filium suum primogenitum. Primum dicitur respectu posterioris. Ergo habuit alios. Respondet Hieronymus, quod consuetum est in sacra Scriptura quod primogeniti vocantur illi, quos alii non praecedunt: Ex. XIII, 12 dicitur quod primogeniti Iudaeorum offerrentur domino. Quaerit Hieronymus: numquid oportebat expectare quod non offerrentur donec nasceretur secundus? Ergo primogeniti dicuntur quos alii non praecedunt; et sic intelligitur hic. Sequitur obsequium. Lc. II, 21, plenius exequitur hoc, sed Matthaeus breviter tangit. Ita enim vult spiritus sanctus, quod quae unus dixit, alius taceat. Vocavit nomen eius Iesum; istud quidem nomen non parum celebre fuit apud antiquos et desideratum; Gen. XLIX, 18: salutare tuum expectabo, domine. Et Hab. III, 18: ego autem in domino gaudebo, et exultabo in Deo Iesu meo.
1:1
The Book of the Generation. Some think that this is not the title of the whole book, but the beginning of the genealogy of Jesus Christ alone. They explain the words to mean here " The Narration," as the Hebrew "IDD (Gen. v. i). This is the book of the generation of Adam — that is, the relation of the genealogy deduced from Adam — as we read of Liber Justorum and Liber Dei, in which the names and acts of the just are related (Exod. xxxii. 33 \Josue x. 13 ; 2 Kings \. 18). Others think it the title of the book, but taken from what is related in the beginning — that is, the genealogy of Christ — as the book of Genesis, or the generation of all things, is so termed, although this particular subject is treated of in the first chapter alone. This is the opinion of the greatest number of authors, and of those of the greatest weight (S. Augustin, u. 6, Cont. Faustuni}. Others, again, think it to be not merely a part of the book, but the expression of the whole subject ; for the Hebrew word JTlvin (yei/eo-is in Greek) signifies not only the generation, but the whole life, of a man, and all that happens in the course of it — as Gen. vi. 9 : " Noe was a just and perfect man in his generations," that is, in all parts of his life ; as if it were said here, " The Book of the Life of Jesus Christ". This opinion seems better than that of the others, because it agrees with the Hebrew, and is more full.
Of Jesus Christ. Jesus means Saviour and Christ anointed, thus signifying that Messiah for whom the Jews looked so earnestly. The Evangelist appears to have wished to excite the people's minds and gain their goodwill, by saying that he was giving them the history of that Saviour whom they so desired and so looked for. This appears from the words of chapters i. 16; u. 4 ; xvi. 16, 20; xxvii. 17, 22; ,S. Luke iii. 15; w. 41 ; xxii. 66 ; xxiii. 2 ; xxxv. 9.
The Son of David, the Son of Abraham. There are three questions here : i. Why the Evangelist names these two especially, out of a long series of the fore fathers of Christ ? 2. Why David, the younger, is put before Abraham the elder ? 3. To whom the genitive case, the Son (filii\ refers — whether to Christ or to David ? 1. On the first question all authorities agree. To these two most especially the promise that Christ should be born of them was made. To Abraham (Gen. xii. 13 ; xxii. 18), which S. Paul teaches us to understand of Christ (Galatians iii. 17): to David (2 Kings vu. 12 ; I Paralip. xvii. 1 1 ; Psalm Ixxxviii. 4 ; cxxxi. n). For the condition which follows verse 12 does not apply to Christ as if He were not to reign if the sons of David did not keep the commandments of God. The kingdom was rent because they did not keep them (3 Kings xii. 20). The promises were made to David and Abraham by name, because the promises of the Messiah, which, as the Jews knew were made to them, were, as S. Matthew taught, fulfilled in Christ. This was the Gospel, the good message which He brought to them. So say S. IREN/EUS (viii. 18), S. AMBROSE (Comment, on S. Luke iii.), S. CHRYSOSTOM (Horn. u. on S. Matt/tew), S. JEROME (in loc.). 2. To the second question all do not give the same answer. Some say that when the Evangelist had named Christ, and sought to ascend to the first source, Abraham, he in the ascent found David, as it were another fountain from which Christ the living water flowed, and he necessarily named him. This opinion S. Chrysostom mentions (Horn. u. on S. Matthew) and refutes, because, in the same manner, S. Luke would have related the generations of Christ, whilst it appears that he followed the contrary plan. S. Luke ascends from Christ to God, not that he may descend again, but that he may remain there. Against which plan, Moses, when he had come, as it were, from heaven to earth as by one bound, saying, " In the beginning God created heaven and earth," again ascended from earth to heaven pedetentim (step by step), through the generation of each created object. The earth was void and empty. S. JEROME thinks that this was done lest, if S. Matthew had named Abraham before David, Abraham would have had to be named again, that the steps of the descent might be derived from him ; and the Evangelist would have been compelled to return again from David to Abraham, and from Abraham again to David — the son of Abraham ; the son of David ; " but Abraham begat," &c. This view has its supporters, but it does not appear satisfactory. The Hebrews certainly in enumerations often put the names of those last from whom they begin ; as, " In the beginning God created heaven and earth : and the earth," &c. S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthymius give a better reason : that although there was a promise both to Abraham and to David, that to David was higher and greater than that to Abraham, and was therefore more pleasing to, and more valued by, the Jews. The promise to Abraham was of a multitude of descendants ; to David, of a perfect throne and a kingdom which the King of kings and the Lord of lords should possess for ever, who should save His people and break in pieces the Gentiles. All therefore knew that the Messiah was to be the Son of David. The Pharisees, when asked by Christ (S. Matthew xxii. 42), " What think you of Christ, whose Son is He ? " immediately answered, " David's ". The multitude, when they saw the wonderful works of Christ, said, " Is not this the Son of David ? " and, therefore, when He entered Jerusalem, they cried out, " Osanna to the Son of David ". And it may be observed, that all who sought any good from Christ termed Him " the Son of David," to show that He was the Messiah who would heap benefits on His people (S. Matthew ix. 27 ; xv. 22 ; xx. 30, 31 ; S. Mark x. 47, 48, et passim). When, therefore, God said that His kingdom should endure for ever, He said so not for the sake of Abraham, but of David (3 Kings xi. 12, 13, 32, 34 ; xv. 4, et a/.). When, then, the Evangelist had mentioned Christ, he immediately added, "the Son of David," to show that he did not speak of any Christ whatever, but of Him only who was so looked for, and who was to be the Son and successor of David in his kingdom for ever. 3. To the third question, many say that the genitive Filii refers to Christ ; as if S. Matthew had said, "The Book of the generations of Jesus Christ, who was the Son of David and Abraham ". S. Jerome so understood it ; but the Hebrew idiom is against this, which S. Matthew no doubt followed here. The Hebrews always, in recounting their genealogies, refer the last genitive to the nearest father (e.g., i Kings i. I ; I Paralip. \. 47, et at.). Why does S. Matthew call David the son of Abraham, when the genealogy is not of David, but of Christ ? He does so of necessity, because when he desired to ascend from David to Abraham he was compelled to say that David was the son of Abraham, lest he should be going up extra viam out of the track.
1:2
Abraham begat Isaac. There is no mention of Ishmael or Esau, because Christ was not descended from them. S. Chrysostom and Euthymius say that the brothers of Judas are named generally because they were Patriarchs, each of his own tribe, and were as the twelve columns of the Jewish people and of the Kingdom of Christ, and were the builders of His Kingdom. They were not, therefore, described by name as Judas was, but generally, and, as S. Chrysostom observes, as the companions of Judas. S. Ambrose thinks that Phares was named to signify the mystery of the fruitfulness of the Jewish people, because he and Zara were born at one birth. But by this reasoning Esau should have been named with Jacob. S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and Theophylact say that it was to show the mystery of the two peoples, the Jews and Gentiles, so that they would be under the twofold law ot Moses and the Gospel. But the same reason would hold good also with Jacob and Esau, and even the more, because this latter mystery is described in Scripture (Gen. xxv. 22, 23) ; the former is not. The true reason would appear to be that, in their birth, Zama put forth his hand first, though Pharez was born first. For the infants seem to have contended even in utero matris as to which should be the first born and the forefather of Christ, and thus the Evangelist wished to share the honour, in a manner, between them, so numbering Pharez in the genealogy of Christ, as not to exclude Zara, but by his narration to reserve for him his own rights that he appeared to have, in the one way in which he was able to do so. For it was great praise to have been so nearly the forefather of Christ. A similar event happened in the birth of Esau and Jacob : for Jacob, in his mother's womb, held the heel of Esau, as if endeavouring to be born first ; but he did not succeed like Pharez, nor did he gain the primogeniture by right or his own strength, but by the stratagem of his mother, the grace of God, and the fault of his brother. There was another reason why Zara should be numbered rather than Esau : Esau not only recklessly sold his right to the ancestorship of Christ, but he also, still more reck lessly, separated himself from the Body of Christ, which is the Church, and founded a people alien to the people of God, and, as it were, another Church, as the heretics have done.
1:3
Of TJiamar. S. Jerome has observed that, in the whole genealogy of Christ, excepting only His most holy Mother, who was named of necessity, there is no mention of holy women, but of such only as Holy Scripture reprehends : Thamar, who acted to Juda as a harlot; Ruth, who, before her lawful marriage, lay with Booz ; Bersabee, who committed adultery with David. The reason of this may have been that of the other women there need be no doubt, because they were all Jewish women and lawful wives, and none can doubt that the sons mentioned by the Evangelist were born of them. He may have doubted of Rahab, because she was an alien and a harlot ; of Bersabee, because she was an adultress ; of Ruth, because she was a Moabitess; of Thamar, because she conceived extra legitimum. He passed by what was ordinary and to be understood per se, but he states at length all that was singular and doubtful. This he has done in other passages than this (e.g., infra, verse 25).
1:5
And Salmon begat Booz of RaJiab. A doubt has been raised here as to whether or not this were the Rahab of Jericho (Joshua u. i, 2), or another of the same name. She is named only as having been a harlot, a stranger, and a benefactor of the Jews. A few have thought that she was not a harlot, but a publican, which the Hebrew would allow. But there is no sufficient proof of this, and the probabilities are against it (e.g., the LXX. ; Heb. xi. 31 ; 5. James u. 25) and the Chaldean version which these Apostles follow. Kimshi adds that the publican women were often harlots. But here arises another question : How did Salmon marry Rahab, an alien and a harlot ? — a thing prohibited by the law (Exod. xxxiv. 16 ; Deut. vu. 3 ; 3 Kings xi. 2). It has been answered that, though she had been a harlot, she had ceased to be such, and then Salmon might have married her. For the prohibition was not of Gentile women, as such, but as they were idolaters, and Rahab would appear to have renounced idolatry and become a Hebrew woman (Jos/Mia u. n). David married Maacha, the daughter of Tholmal, King of Gessur (2 Kings iii. 3). The same would apply to Ruth as a Moabitess.
And Obed begat Jesse. It has been doubted how, between Salmon and David, there are mentioned only three names — Booz, Obed, Jesse — for it appears that there were 366 years between them. For the building of the Temple was begun 480 years after the Exodus, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign. Subtract from these 480 years, four of Solomon's reign after the death of David (3 Kings vi. i), the 70 years of David's life, the 40 years' wandering in the desert before Jericho was taken, which happened immediately on their having crossed the Jordan (Joshua vi. i, 5), and the result will be 366. The truth probably is, that those four, especially in those times, lived for the space of 366 years, and if we include Salmon, and he was probably a young man when he married Rahab, they would have lived less than 100 years each. Moses at the same time (140 years before), with all his cares and labours, had lived to 120 (Dent, xxxiv. 7). Jesse seems to have been in a humble position, as Saul often called David, as a disgrace, the Son of Jesse — as in i Kings xx. 27-30, 31 ; xxii. 7, 8, 9, et al. He was chosen to be a root of the kingdom of CHRIST, as in Isaiali xi. i.
1:6
David the King. David is called "the king," although there were many others who are numbered among the kings, because to him first, and alone, the promise of a perpetual kingdom was given (2 Kings vu. 12; Psalm Ixxxviii. 4; cxxxi. 11). Saul reigned before David, but he did not belong to the flock of Christ, and he was chosen, not by the divine will, but by the desire of the headstrong people : so as to appear the king, not of the kingdom of GOD, but of the Jews, and as if he had been given by GOD for a time until David grew up, who, as GOD knew, would be a king after His own heart ; and that the Jews might appear to have brought a yoke upon themselves, and not had it forced upon them by GOD.
Of her that had been the wife of Urias. It may appear strange why the Evangelist did not call Bethsabee by her name, but used a form of circumlocution to describe her. The reasons may have been (i) that he wished to relate the event truly as it happened : that Solomon was born of Bethsabee, who, although she had previously been the wife of Urias, was not so then, but the lawful wife of David, as Solomon was born of her ; and (2) that it might not be thought that he was born in adultery. Thus some think that the meaning would have been clearer if it had been rendered "fuerat" instead of " fuit uxor Uriae". For if it had been said of her "erat," it might have been supposed that she was the wife of Uria when Solomon was conceived by her ; but the first renders it clear that she had been such previously, but was not such when she conceived Solomon. There is, therefore, no fault in our version, though, as before said, we may confess that it might have been better to read " fuerat ".
1:8
And J or am begat Ozias. Joram did not beget Ozias but Ochozias, and Ochozias Joas, and Joas Amasia, and Amasia Ozias, who is said to have been begot by Joram (4 Kings viii. 24 ; xi. 2 ; xii. 21 ; xiv. 21 ; I Paralip. iii. I ; xxxvi. i). Ozias was called also Azarias. Two questions arise here: (i) Why the Evangelist passed over three kings in the direct line of the genealogy, Ocho zias, Joas, and Amasia? (2) How he says that Joram begat Ozias, when Ozias was begotten, not by Joram but by Amasia? Answer to Question i. — One answer is that the Evangelist did this to include all the generations to Christ in fourteen, and that these were passed over rather than others, because they were sinners and had mixed the royal blood of Judah with that of Achab. This is the opinion of S. Hilary and S. Jerome, and it is followed by others. It may be thought that they should rather have been excluded because they were born of the seed of Achab, for Joram begat Ochozias of the daughter of Achab, and Ochozias begat Joas, and Joas Amasia, and Amasia Ozia, and therefore they seem to have been passed over, not for their own sins so much as for the sins of Achab, or, to speak more truly, because of the word of God when He threatened, by Elias, to cut off the posterity of Achab for ever (3 Kings xxi. 2), that is to the fourth generation, which ended in Amasias. For the wife of Joram, the daughter of Achab, was the first generation, Ochozias the second, Joas the third, Amasias the fourth. So on the contrary Jehu, though a wicked king, because he cut off the posterity of Achab, was promised the throne to the fourth generation. These three kings, then, were not mentioned because, although they lived and reigned, they were slain, and condemned by divine judgment as civilly dead. But another question yet remains : Ochozias is not said in Scripture to have been the son of the daughter of Achab, but of Athalia, the daughter of Amri, King of Israel (4 Kings viii. 26 ; xi. I ; 2 Paralip. xxii. 2, 10). If so neither Ochozias nor Joas and Amasias, who followed him, were of the line of Achab, and therefore were not passed over on that account. The answer is that Athalia, the mother of Ochozias, was not the real daughter of Amri, but of Achab, and was called the daughter of Amri, being his granddaughter. This is a common Hebraism. For Achab was the son of Amri (3 Kings xvi. 29). The reasons of the above answer are: (i) Scripture says plainly that Joram married the daughter of Achab (4 Kings viii. 1 8), and he had no other wife of whom Ochozias could be born ; (2) That Jehu, in obedience to the divine command to cut off the house of Achab, slew Ochozias, King of Judah (4 Kings ix. 27). He would not have done this had Ochozias not been of the family of Achab, especially when he had no hostility against him. Scripture, perhaps, would not have Athalia called the daughter of Achab, but rather of Amri, because the memory of Achab was execrated ; and it would not appear to contradict itself when it said that all its posterity were cut off. For all were cut off who were in Samaria ; but Athalia, who was in Jerusalem, could not be put to death by Jehu, although she did not escape the divine justice; for soon after, when Joas, her son, entered on the kingdom, she was put to death (i Kings xi. 1 6). R. R. David and Levi, among others, take this view. There is another difficulty still remaining : How Joram is said to have begotten Ozias, when not he but Amasia did so? The answer may be that the word " begot " is to be taken not literally but in a general sense ; as when Adam is said to have been the father of all men, that is, not ipse per sese, but through his sons and descendants.
1:11
And Josias begot Jechonias and his brethren. This passage is more difficult than is generally supposed. Infidels have taken advantage of it. Porphyry especially urged it against the Christians as unanswerable (S. Jerome on Dan. i.). Josias was especially commended (4 Kings xxii. 2 ; 2 Paralip. xxxiv. 2). He revived the temple worship, abolished idolatry, restored the Book of the Law through Helcias the high priest (4 Kings xxii. 8 ; 2 Paralip. xxxiv. 14), and it is said that Jeremiah wrote the Book of Lamentations on his death. He had four sons (i Paralip. iii. 15) : (i) Johanan, also called Joachaz (4 Kings xxiii. 30, 31); (2) Joachin ; (3) Sedecias, previously called Matthanias (4 Kings xxiv. 17) ; (4) Sellum. Hence the question : How is lie (Josias) here said to have begotten Jechonias, as none of his sons were so called? S. Ambrose (Comment, on S. Luke, lib. iii.); S. Epiphanius (H<zr. in Sect. Epicur^] ; S. Augustin (De Cons., u. 4) ; Euthymius (in loc.\ with many others of authority, both ancient and modern, think that Joachim, the second son of Josias, was also called Jechonias. But we do not find in the Canonical Scriptures that Joachim, the son of Josias, was ever called Jechonias. He was previously called Eliacim (4 Kings xxiii. 34). But Pharaoh Necho, King of Egypt, when he had killed his father Josias, bound Joachaz, Josias' eldest son, and led him away to Egypt, making Eliacim King of Judah, and changing his name to Joakim. He had a son Joakin, the same name, except that the father's name was written with a p and the son's with 3 ; and he is called Jechonias (i Paralip. iii. 16 ; Jeremiah xxii. 24, 28 ; xxiv. i ; xxvii. 20 ; xxviii. 4 ; xxix. 2 ; xxxi. i), but he had no brethren. For Nebuchodonosor, King of Babylon, when he had brought him to Babylon, made his uncle, Matthanias, king, changing his name to Sedecias (4 Kings xxiv. 17), but Pharaoh would doubtless have made a brother king, if Joakin had had one. These facts almost compel us to believe that we ought to read, "Josl'as begat Joakim and his brothers ". For, as many admit the passage to be corrupt, and that one generation is wanting, as we shall shortly state, it appears the duty both of prudence and religion not to invent names for the correction of particular passages, but to take them from the Sacred Writings. Esdras, indeed, calls Joacim the son of Josias Jechonias (iii. ; Esdras i. 34). Euthymius cites this, from which we find that he had that book in Greek, which we want,, unless he, as a Greek, read the Latin as we Latins read the Greek. But the book has no ecclesiastical authority, and in all copies Jechonias is erroneously written for Jeconias. For if the name had to be enlarged, as from Joachim is produced Jechonias, so should Jechonias, or rather Jeconias, have been produced from Joacim. And as this latter mistake has crept into the text, the former might have done the same, and Jechonias have been written for Joacim. All is correct if we read, "Josias begot Joacim and his brethren". What arises from the explanation of the second question, which has its origin from this, is more clear. All authorities justly wonder how it is that when the Evangelist says that he has recounted thrice fourteen (that is, forty- two) generations from Abraham to Christ, forty-one only are found. The second question, therefore, is : Is there any generation wanting ? Some answer in the negative ; but they do not all prove it in the same manner. For some say that David must be mentioned twice, that he may be the end of the first and the beginning of the second tessaradecad, and also that Josias is the end of the second, and the beginning of the third. If so, and Christ be not counted, there will be no gap, for the Evangelist did not speak of forty-two persons, but of forty-two generations. Others include Christ, but think that Jechonias must be numbered twice : the father at the end of the second, and the son who is the beginning of the third tassaradecad (S. Augustin, De Cons., u. 4 ; S. Jerome, On Dan. i.). Others, like Theophylact, think that the Captivity should be taken as one person, and then there would be no deficiency. The opinion of SS. Ambrose, Epiphanius, and Euthymius seems better : that there is one generation wanting. But this is not in the first tessaradecad, which is from Abraham to David, nor does the gap occur at the point of junction between the second and third tessaradecad. The third question is : Whether the deficiency is in the second or third tessaradecad? If we reckon the second from Solomon to Jechonias, who is here called " the father of Salathiel," there will be a deficiency of one generation in the third tessaradecad. If we put Jechonias, the father of Salathiel, in the third, there will be a gap in the second tessaradecad. Many, therefore, think that the deficiency is here. This seems more probable, because the Evangelist describes the people under three governments : Judges, Kings, Rulers. Jechonias, the father of Salathiel, was under the kings, and was himself a king. He therefore belongs to the second and not to the third tessaradecad. On the other hand, if Jechonias is put in the second tessaradecad, then, counting Joachim and his brethren, there would be, not fourteen, but fifteen in it. Hence, some think that the deficiency is in the second and not in the third tessaradecad, and these put Jechonias, the father of Salathiel, in the third. For, though Jechonias was a king, yet, after his father Joachim, or rather Josias his grand father, the three kings, Joachim, Jechonias, and Sedecias, reigned, not as kings, but as servants of the king of Babylon. Nor is it necessary that all in the first tessaradecad should have been under judges, nor all in the second under kings, nor all in the third under governors. For, in the times of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, there were no judges, and these came under the first tessaradecad. In fact, the gap seems to have been neither in the second nor third tessaradecad, but in the space between the two. For, if there are fourteen from Solomon to Jechonias (or rather Joakim and his brethren), although from Jechonias, the father of Salathiel, to Christ, we find other fourteen generations, yet between the two tessaradecads, the words, "Joakim begat Jechonias," are wanting, which belong to neither tessaradecad, because Joakim, or Jechonias, had been already numbered in the second, and Jechonias is immediately numbered in the third. Hence arises the fourth question : How the omission came to exist? Was it (i) by the Evangelist purposely ? or (2) from the unusual similarity of names? or (3) by mystery? or (4) by the fault of the transcriber ? As many as are the parts of the question, so many have been the opinions on it. Some think that it was done with intention, and that Joachim was omitted because he was made king, not by the people, but by Pharaoh Necho (4 Kings xxiii. 34 ; 2 Paralip. xxxvi. 4). Others, that it was because, as there was mention of Jechonias, father and son, the same name had to be read twice. And thus, though it does not appear, two persons, father and son, are meant by the same name, Jechonias. So says S. Augustin (De Cons., u. 4). He says: "This was properly done, as in the corner of the second and third tessaradecad, for when, in numbering the stones of a building, we come to the corner, we count the corner stone twice ". Many agree with this, and the name of an author so great must carry much weight. The third explanation, also that of S. Augustin, is that there was a mystery in Jechonias having been mentioned twice, as if to show, at the corner, a turning to the Gentiles. The fourth explanation is that of S. Epiphanius. He says, and many moderns agree with him, that it was the result of the transcriber's want of care. He says that after the words, "Jechonias and his brethren in the transmigration of Babylon" the words, "Jechonias begat Jechonias," have dropped out, for when the name of Jechonias was repeated four times, the transcribers, being ignorant that both father and son were called Jechonias, and thinking the words a redundancy, omitted them. S. Epiphanius seems right in thinking the transcriber in fault, and that some words have dropped out, by which it was signified that Joachim, the son of Josia, begat Jechonia. It would appear that there is an omission, but the words dropped out were probably "Joakim begat Jechonias". For, as said above, Joakim, the son of Josias, is never called Jechonias, and thus the entire passage would be, "Josias begat Joacim and his brethren in the transmigration of Babylon"; as Stapulensis says he read in an ancient Greek codex, " But Joachim begat Jechonias ".
And his brethren. They are called brethren because, although Christ did not come of them, they all held His kingdom. For Joachaz,. called also, as above, Johanas, reigned three months (4 Kings xxiii. 30, 31 ; 2 Paralip. xxxvi. i, 2) ; and Mattathias, called also Sedecias, eleven years (4 Kings xxiv. 17, 18; 2 Paralip. xxxvi. n) ; Sellum only did not reign, because before he could do so, the kingdom was destroyed (4 Kings xxv. 7 ; Jeremiah, however (xxii. 1 1), says that he did reign, as we have shown in loc^}.
In the transmigration of Babylon. While the transmigration was imminent ; for when Josias begat Joachim and his brethren, the people had not migrated to Babylon. The transmigration took place in the third month of the reign of Jechonias, the son of Joachim (4 Kings xxiv. 12 ; 2 Paralip. xxvi. 10). Between the birth of Joachim, therefore, and the transmigration was a space of thirty-six years and three months. For Joachim was twenty-five years old when he began to reign, and he reigned eleven years (4 Kings xxiii. 36 ; 2 Paralip. xxxvi. 5). But all this time is called the time of the transmigration, whether because, in comparison with the kingdom, it is short ; or because the kingdom of Juda had not yet fallen, but was trembling. This is properly called eVt rr/9 peroiKeaCa^ sub transmigration*™ — that is, a little before it. It is a point of no great consequence, yet it should not be passed over, that the Evangelist reads as above, not captivity, but transmigration ; because the two tribes of which the kingdom of Juda consisted were twice transferred to Babylon. The first was in the reign of Jechonia (4 Kings xxiv. 12 ; 2 Paralip. xxxvi. 10); then in that of Sedecia (4 Kings xxv. 7 ; Jerem. xxxix. 7 ; Hi. 4). The former is properly called in Hebrew Trh$ and in the Latin and Greek "transmigration," and not "captivity". The second is called in Hebrew "the captivity," because in the first, Jechonias, with all the people, freely gave himself up at the advice of Jeremiah, and went to Babylon (4 Kings xxiv. 12). But in the latter, in which the kingdom was utterly destroyed, the people did not give themselves up voluntarily, but were forcibly taken captive to Babylon (4 Kings xxv. 8 ; Jerem. xxxix. 7). It is a distinction, however, not always observed. Sometimes (as Esdras u. i) the two words are used, airo 7-779 al^aXwcrew^ 7-779 unoi/cias ; but as the Evangelist desired to preserve the distinction, the heretic Beza ought not to tender it, "the deportation" (Beza, /;/ /^.).
1:12
Jechonias begat Salathiel. In i Paralip. iii. 17, 18, eight sons of Jechonias are enumerated, of whom the second is named Salathiel. In many other places Salathiel is called the son of Jechonia. But there is a question from Jerem. xxii. 30 : " Write this man barren ". This does not mean that he should be childless, as in the same chapter (verse 28) we read, " he and his seed," but that none of his children should sit on the throne. There is another question, namely, How Jechonia when in captivity could beget sons? The answer is that, Evil Merodach, after the death of his father Nebuchodonosor, brought Jechoniah out of prison, and treated him like a king (4 Kings xxv. 27, 28 ; Jerem. lu. 31, 37), in the thirty-seventh year of the transmigration, when he begat sons who are said to have been " cast into a land which they know not " (Jerem. xxii. 28), because they were born in captivity. For at the time of the transmigration Jechonia had a wife (4 Kings xxiv. 15), but probably not till then children, or Nebuchodonosor would not have put Mathanias, his uncle, on the throne, but one of his sons (4 Kings xxiv. 17). Thus it may have been that his grandson, Zorobabel, the son of Salathiel, may have lived on till the time of the restoration, and, when returned from captivity, have been made a ruler (i Esdras iii. 2 ; v. 2 ; 2 Esdras xii. i). Thus the history is perfectly self-consistent.
1:16
And Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary. Now follow the two questions : (i) Of the genealogy of Christ; (2) Of the agreement of the two Evangelists SS. Matthew and Luke. The first question is this : If Christ were not the son of Joseph, as He was not, what has the genealogy of Joseph to Abraham to do with Him? For it was not the genealogy of Joseph, but of Christ, that was in question.* All the Ancients answer, as one, that Joseph, and Mary the Mother * The 8vo omits all that follows to the words : " It is clear," p. 21. of Christ were of the same tribe and family, and therefore that when SS. Matthew and Luke recount the genealogy of Joseph, they recount that of Mary and Christ also. (S. Irenaeus, iii. 18; Tertullian, Cont.Jud.; S. Athanasius, Epistle to Epictetus ; S. Ambrose, De Pcen., u. 8 ; Comm. in Luc.y lib. iii. ; S. Augustin, Quest, 47 in Jud., and qq. in Nov. Test. 86 ; Cont. Faust., xxiii. 3, 4; S. Jerome, in loc.; S. Greg. Nyss., Orat. de Nativ. ; Juvencus Poet., Quest. 9 in Nov. Test. ; Damasc., w. 15, De Fide.) The opponents of the Christian faith — the Jews, Celsus, Julian, Porphyry, and others — denied this, and affirmed that Mary the Mother of God was of the tribe of Levi. For shewas of kin to Elizabeth the wife of Zecharias (S. Luke i. 36), who was of the daughters of Aaron, and she was not, therefore, of the tribe of Juda, and much less of the family of David, like Joseph. Our authorities most certainly show that she was of the family of David, and of the tribe of Juda. For the Evangelist S. Matthew himself, who says (i. 20) that Mary conceived, not of Joseph, but of the Holy Ghost, calls Christ the son of David (verse i). But he could not be the son of David except through His Mother ; she was, therefore, of the house of David. Besides, S. Luke (i. 35) says that Christ was born of the Virgin Mary without man, of the Holy Ghost, and (i. 23) that He was supposed to be, that is, He was not in truth the son of Joseph. The angel says the same (chap. i. 32), and Zacharias (verse 39) the same. Chap. u. 4 says that Joseph and Mary went up out of Galilee to the city of Jerusalem, to be enrolled there, because they were of the family of David ; and in the books of the New Testament, He is everywhere said, not by the multitude but by the Apostles, to be the son of David (Rom. i. 3 ; 2 Tim. u. 8 ; Apoc. xxii. 16). How, then, was Mary kin to Elizabeth? S. Augustin (Quest. 47 on Judges) answers rightly that a man of the tribe of Juda, and the family of David, married a wife of the tribe of Levi, of which marriage Mary was born. How marriages could be made among different tribes shall be explained hereafter. Thus far it is clear, that when the Evangelists relate the genealogy of Joseph, they relate that of Mary also. The second question arises here, Why did not the Evangelists bring down the genealogy to Mary, rather than to Joseph, which would have been no more difficult in itself, and much clearer to the understanding of the descent of Christ ? The Ancients gave two reasons for this : (i) It was not the custom of the Hebrews to deduce genealogies through females. But this genealogy might have been deduced to Mary per vires. And Mary herself, because she conceived of the Holy Ghost prceter consuetudinem, might have been numbered prczter consuetudinem. (2) This reason, which, however, is not sufficient of itself, is strengthened by another, that it was the law (Numb, xxxvi. 7) that a man should marry his wife from his own tribe, that the property might not be diverted from one tribe to another. Joseph, as a just man, would have observed this. So say SS. Jerome, Ambrose, Augustin, and others, as above. But this law was not observed even by the most just. For the parents of Mary, the most holy Mother of Christ, were just persons, yet, though they were of the tribe of Judah, they contracted marriage with that of Levi. David was a just man, yet, though he was of the tribe of Juda, he married Michol the daughter of Saul, who was of the tribe of Benjamin (i Kings viii. 27 ; ix. i). Joiada the high priest was a just man, and yet he received in marriage the daughter of Joram the king, of the royal tribe of Juda (2 Paralip. xxii. n). Moreover, the law applied only to women who, not having brothers, succeeded to the heritage (S. Ambrose, In Luc., lib. iii.). Thus it must be proved that Mary was an heiress for her to be unable to marry out of her own tribe. But even this would not be sufficient to solve the question ; for if Blessed Mary were of the same tribe, it does not follow that she was of the same family. The answer is, that the law and its interpretation were true, and that the marriages which are alleged by the opponents were formed among different tribes, because in them the requirements of the law had no place. But it was so well known that Joseph and Mary were not only of the same tribe, but also of the same family, that the Evangelists have not mentioned it. The law (Numb, xxxvi. 6, 7) is to be understood not only of the same tribe, but of the same family, that when a woman is sole heiress, she could only be married to a man of the same family, and who was also her nearest relative. It prohibited marriages out of the same tribe, lest the possessions, which, by the will of God, had been equally distributed among the tribes (Jos/uta xix.), should be disturbed. The same rule held in each family, which had received equal portions of land in the same tribe. This is the meaning of the frequent expression of Josue, per cognationes suas. S. Hilary (Can. in Matt) says that Mary was married to Joseph, ex lege. Eucherius (ix. 2, On S. Matt), Theophylact, Euthymius (/;/ Comm.), explain the law not of the same family ; but Holy Scripture itself decides the question (Numb, xxxvi. 8).* It is clear both from tradition and Scripture that the Blessed Virgin had no brothers, or Scripture would have mentioned them. The conclusion, then, is that the Evangelists were content with giving the genealogy of Joseph, which was certain, and well known to be the same as that of the Blessed Virgin, and in this SS. Matthew and Luke agree. Let us now come to those points on which the Evangelists seem to differ. They are many in number. * The 8vo here returns to the text of the folio. 1. S. Matthew calls Joseph the son of Jacob : S. Luke of Heli. 2. From Joseph to Zorobabel, S. Luke gives different names of the forefathers of Christ to those of S. Matthew. 3. S. Matthew gives only nine generations from Joseph to Zorobabel : S. Luke eighteen. 4. S. Matthew calls Salathiel the son of Jechonia: S. Luke of Neri. 5. From Salathiel to David, S. Matthew gives different names to S. Luke ; and S. Matthew reaches David through Solomon, S. Luke through Nathan. 6. S. Matthew stops at Abraham : S. Luke goes up to Adam and God. 7. S. Matthew comes down from father to son : S. Luke goes up from son to father. For the first divarication, S. Augustin (Quest. 5 de Evang. and Consens., u. 2, 3) says that it may be answered in three ways : i. That Heli is called the father of Joseph by S. Luke, not as having actually been so, but because he was the father-in-law of Joseph, and the father of Mary ; and Jacob, by S. Matthew, because he was his actual father. Others have followed S. Augustin. But it is clear that the Evangelists desired to describe the true descent of Joseph. 2. The second answer of S. Augustin is, that Joseph was the son of one by nature, and of the other by adoption, like Ephraim and Manasses (Gen. xlviii. 5. 6), who were the sons of Joseph by nature, and of Jacob by adoption, and therefore, like the other Patriarchs, each formed his own tribe. This is at least probable, and may be received, if no better explanation offer. 3. The third answer is, that Joseph was the actual son of one, and the son by the law of the other ; for Jacob and Heli were brothers, and one died without children, and the other married his widow according to the law (Dent. xxv. 5). From this marriage Joseph was born, who is, therefore, called the son, sometimes of his actual father, and sometimes of him whose wife was his mother. This explanation was generally received by the kindred of Christ themselves, as Africanus says. He adds, in a letter to Aristides, that it was also approved by the Ancients (S. Justin, Mart, Quest. 66 ad Orth. ; Eusebius, History, i. 7 ; S. Jerome, in loc. ; S. Ambrose, On Luke iii. ; Eucherius, Quest. 3 on Matthew ; Damas, De Fide, w. 15; Bede, On S. Luke x.; Theophylact, On S. Luke iii). The only wonder is that S. Augustin alone did not receive it (Quest. 5 de Evang.), at least until the end of his life (Retract., u. 7). It is often asked whether Jacob or Heli were the actual father of Joseph. Some say that Heli was the actual, and Jacob the legal, father; as, among the Ancients, S. Ambrose, and others mentioned by S. Augustin in Quest. 56 in Nov. Test., and many others more recent. But these are among heretics who gladly turn from the via regia. All others think that Jacob was the actual, and Heli the legal, father. Mathan, who is called by S. Matthew the father of Jacob, and Matthat, whom S. Luke calls the father of Heli, had the same wife, whom, as a widow, or as having been put away by one, the other married ; by her Mathan had Jacob, and Matthat Heli. These, Jacob and Heli, were therefore brothers by the same mother, whose name was said to have been Hesta, but not by the same father. Heli married and died without children ; Jacob, according to the law, married his widow and had Joseph. This opinion, both as having more and greater authorities, and a better basis, seems much the more probable. It is clear that S. Matthew, by his mention at the beginning of David, intended to show the continuation of the royal line to Christ, which would be proved much more clearly if Jacob were the actual than if he were the legal father of Joseph. Then again, as S. Augustin and Africanus have observed, S. Matthew has used deliberately the word "begat"; S. Luke seems, equally de industria, to have avoided it. This, though not conclusive, renders it probable that S. Matthew wrote earlier than S. Luke ; and it is also probable that he who did this would have named the actual father ; and the other, after mention of the actual, have inserted the name of the legal father. For the second divarication three reasons are generally given. Some think that S. Luke mentioned different names of the ancestors of Christ from Joseph to Zorobabel to those of S. Matthew, because the persons enumerated had two names, and that S. Matthew gives one, and S. Luke the other. This opinion has the authority of Philo. There were, no doubt, many who had two names, but this would involve not merely a few but all having had such. Others say that S. Matthew gives the royal, and S. Luke the priestly, line (S. Augustin, Cons., i. 2; S. Ambrose, iii., On Luke; Pomerius, ditto). But it does not appear that Christ had any part in the tribe of Levi, and many eminently learned Catholics have expressly denied it, because S. Paul (Hebrews vu.) denies it through the whole chapter. The assertion (in Luke i. 36) that the Blessed Virgin was related to Elizabeth can easily be explained by saying that the father or grandfather of Elizabeth, a priest of the tribe of Levi, married a wife of the tribe of Juda and of the family of David, from which Elizabeth was born ; and she was thus related to the Blessed Virgin on that side, as she was of the family of David : but not on the other, on which she was of the tribe of Levi. And S. Ambrose supposes Elizabeth to have been related to the Blessed Virgin in no other way than as each was of the tribe of Juda. Again, we do not find that any of those whom S. Luke mentions as her parents was a priest. But if he had been giving a priestly history, he ought to have mentioned priests first of all. 3. The third reason is, that one of the Evangelists relates the natural, and the other the legal, origin of Christ. This opinion appears to be, in genere, one, but in specie and development, threefold, for — (a) Some say that S. Matthew gives the natural, S. Luke the legal, source ; the former through Solomon, the son of David, naturally : the latter through Nathan, the son by adoption. This is the opinion of N. de Lyra; but whence derived I know not, for Scripture makes Nathan, not the legal, but the actual son of David. (£) Others think that S. Luke relates the natural, and S. Matthew the legal, ancestors, and, therefore, that there are fewer in S. Matthew than in S. Luke, because legal ancestors are always fewer than natural. The followers of this opinion would have those who are mentioned by S. Matthew to be called legal ancestors, because the successors of Solomon came to an end in King Ochozia (4 Kings ix. 27); for Joas, who reigned after him (4 Kings xi. 12; 2 Paralip. xxiii. 11), although called the son of Ochozia, was not the true son, but, because he was born from David through Nathan, and touched Ochozia in the nearest degree, he was called his son. There remains, however, the third opinion (e), which seems the most probable of any, that S. Matthew recounts the natural, S. Luke the legal, genealogy ; not that all whom S. Luke mentions were legal ancestors, but that S. Matthew numbers Jacob, who was the natural, and S. Luke Heli, who was the legal, father of Joseph. The third divarication has been answered in different ways. The idea of those mentioned above, that fewer ancestors of Christ are mentioned by S. Matthew than by S. Luke, because the latter speaks of the natural, and S. Matthew of the legal, parents, who as such are fewer in number than the natural, however easy, has no sure foundation, and therefore cannot be received. S. Ambrose (iii., On S. Luke] and S. Augustin (lib. i., Quest, in Gen., q. 121) think, with much more reason, that those whom S. Matthew enumerates were of longer life than those who are mentioned by S. Luke. Besides, S. Matthew has designedly passed over three kings (verse 8). The fourth divarication has commonly been answered thus. Salathiel was the son of Jechonia naturally, but of Neri by adoption. More probably, perhaps, it was that Jechonia, though Scripture does not say so, married the daughter of Neri, who was descended from David through Nathan, and from this marriage was born Salathiel, who was really the son of Jechonia, but is called the son of Neri as being the son of his daughter, as is stated in verse 8. It is said that Athalia was the daughter of Amri, because she was his granddaughter. When S. Luke, therefore, saw that S. Matthew had carefully brought down the origin of Christ from David through Solomon, he desired to show the same through Nathan, to prove that Christ was every way the son of David, and either way the successor to his kingdom. But when he came to Salathiel, who derived his origin from David only on the mother's side through Nathan, he would not mention his mother, according to the custom mentioned above, but he counted his grandfather as his father. The fifth divarication can be answered in the same way as the second. The sixth divarication — Why S. Matthew stops at Abraham, while S. Luke goes up to God, has been answered thus : S. Luke desired to show that Christ had no other father than God, and therefore stopped at God. But S. Matthew took into account the promises that had been made to David and Abraham, as has been said on verse I (S. Ambrose, In Luc., lib. i., and Theophylact, in loc.). Three other reasons suggest themselves. i. That S. Luke desired to show his diligence and good faith. For the tracing of the history of Christ from the beginning of the world was a proof of the former, and it increases the trustworthiness of history. 2. He regarded the first promise in Genesis iii. 15, "He shall crush thy heel," and wished to go back to Adam, as by his sin the original cause of the coming of Christ (i Cor. xv. 47). He may also have had in his mind the manner of the births, for Adam was made of virgin earth, and Christ of the Virgin Mary, and each had God alone for his Father. 3. He wished to trace back the advent of Christ, not to natural causes, but to the eternal predestination of God ; for the Son of God was predestinated from all eternity ; the Lamb was slain from the beginning of the world (Rom. i. 4 ; Apoc. xiii. 8). The seventh divarication is easy. It was the custom of the Jews, when recounting genealogies, to begin with the last named — as, out of many others, I Paralip. v. When, therefore, S. Matthew, for reasons explained on verse I, had named Abraham last, he proceeded downwards to Christ ; but S. Luke, when he had said, " And Jesus Himself was beginning about the age of thirty years" (iii. 23), continued the account by ascending to God.
1:17
So all the Generations. i. Two points have to be explained to make the meaning clear. (1) Why all the generations are divided into three tessaradecads. (2) Why there is a direction to this, which every reader could see for himself by counting. One reason for this is given by all authorities ; other reasons are given by others. The one reason is, that S. Matthew wished to show the threefold state of the people under — (i) judges, (2) kings, (3) rulers and priests — a sufficiently clear and obvious reason, and the more probable because so many different opinions have concurred on it But other reasons, which have been suggested by other authorities, must not be over looked. S. Augustin thinks it a mystery, in which our whole life is shown by the number forty. For if Christ be not numbered, and Jechonias, whom he thinks to be numbered twice, be numbered but once, there will be found to be forty persons. But Origen and S. Jerome think with greater probability that these forty-two generations answer to the forty-two mansions or journeys of the Israelites in their passage from Egypt to the Promised Land. For by so many generations, like steps, the children of Abraham reached the promised haven of safety. But S. Chrysostom (Horn. w. on S. Matt.) seems to come the nearest to the truth. He says that the Evangelist desired to show that God, before He sent His Son, had tried all ways of ruling His people, and keeping them to their duty by all classes of rulers — by judges, by kings, by leaders, and by priests ; and when nothing succeeded, He sent His Son. This agrees with the parable (S. Matthew xxi. 33 ; 5. Luke xx. 9), where the Lord sent three classes of servants into the vineyard, and when they failed, at last He sent His Son. 2. Two reasons may be given why the Evangelist most especially gave a summary of the generations: (i) That we might understand that there was a mystery in it; (2) that no one might think that he had passed over those three kings from error or forgetfulness. He might also have wished to prevent the generations of Christ from being corrupted by diminutions or additions.
1:18
Now the Generations of Christ. Some Greek copies add 'Irjcrov, but S. Chrysostom and Theophylact do not read it. Euthymius, however, does. The present version seems preferable as being more ancient and agreeing better with what has gone before, from the transmigration of Babylon to Christ. Because the Evangelist had numbered the generation of Christ with that of others, lest any should think that He was born in the same manner as they, he describes the peculiar method of His birth. " Now the generation of Christ was in this wise," i.e., not as others. "When as His Mother Mary." To the same effect he speaks of Christ's Mother, signifying that He had no father, and, with the same care as he had said (in verse 1 6), "Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who was called Christ ".
When as His Mother Mary was espoused. The Greek reads /j,vr]crTev0elcrr)s yap, but the word yap is not in our version, and rather interferes with the meaning. Some, consideringthestrictmeaningof the word /uLvrjo-reveaOai and ya/jLelv, think that the Blessed Virgin, when she conceived Christ, was not married, but only betrothed. For the Greek words fjivrjarevecrOaL and 7a/xeZi' differ like the Latin desponderi and nubere. These think that Joseph had not yet brought Mary home, and that this is the meaning of verse 20, as if he had not yet married her. Of this opinion were Origen (Homily in Evang.\ S. Hilary (in loc.\ S. Basil (Hum. Nat. Christi), S. Epiphanius (Her., Ixxxviii.); but the opinion of S. Chrysostom, The Author (Horn, i.), S. Ambrose (u., In Luc.\ Theophylact (in loc.\ and almost all others, that shewas then married, is to be preferred. The Holy Spirit willed Christ to be born of a married woman, to preserve the honour of the Blessed Virgin, which would not have been done if she had only been espoused ; and Joseph is called avrjp avrfjs (verse 19), not vvpfaos, or sponsus, while she is called yvvrj, wife of Joseph (verse 20). S. Matthew, therefore, uses the word fjuwrja-revQelcrav, sponsam, of the Blessed Virgin, not as if she were not married, but, as S. Chrysostom very rightly observes, because she was not known by her husband, otherwise than sponsce^ who are not yet married. But we cannot accept the view of SS. Chrysostom and Bernard when they say that it was the custom of the Hebrews for sons-in-law to live in the houses of their fathers-in-law before marriage. They urge the case of the sons-in-law of Lot (Gen. xix. 14) as their authority, but Scripture does not say that they lived in his house. Doubtless then, as all, or the best, authorities hold, the marriage of Joseph and Mary when Christ was conceived was a true one ; as S. Augustin proves against Julian the Pelagian, who defined marriage to be concubitus. Why Christ pleased to be born ex nupta is easily under stood, but there zxe five especial reasons for it. 1. That given by S. Ambrose : Christ would rather that His own birth should be doubted than His mother's honour. " For He preferred to be thought the son of Joseph to being thought the son of an immodest mother." 2. That He might not appear to be spurius. For if the Jews despised Him as the son of a carpenter, what would they not have done in this case ? 3. That Joseph and Mary might have the care and custody of the Infant. Thus when anything was to be done, the word of the Lord came to Joseph, and not to Mary (S. Matt. u. 13, 19) ; and when the Child was lost, He was sought for by Joseph (5. Luke u. 48). 4. That Joseph might be a witness to the virginity of Mary. For no one could have been so worthy of belief in asserting her chastity as he who was her guardian. He ought to have known, and he could have known it better than- any other. For it would have been more likely that Joseph, with the natural zeal of a husband, would have suspected unchastity where it was not, than have defended it where it was. 5. The fifth reason, acknowledged by almost all authorities, is that the mystery of Christ's birth might be concealed from the devil, lest he should lay snares for the Infant. But the question is, how the devil could be ignorant of the virginity of the Blessed Virgin when he could have seen that she was pure and incorrupt though married.
Before they came together. S. Hilary explains this to mean, before they had come together in conjugis nomen. But it has been shown that they were fully married, and therefore the words "came together" must mean here, as S. Jerome says, rent matrimonii exercere. The Evangelist wished to give the reason of Joseph's desire of putting Mary away privately before they came together. This was the argument chiefly relied upon by those who were afterwards called antidicomarianitce by S. Epiphanius (Her.^ Ixxviii.), by Jovinianus (S. Augustin, De Hczresib.}, and by Helvidius (S. Jerome, Lib. Cont. Helvid.}. They believed that after the birth of Christ the Blessed Virgin had sons by Joseph, who were the persons called the brothers of Christ (S. Matt. xii. 46-7 ; xiii. 55 ; 5. Mark xiii. 31, 33 ; 5. Luke viii. 19, 20). This error has been so thoroughly confuted by S. Jerome, that to attempt it again would be actum agere. The result is, that to say of non factum esse ante, is not to say f actum est post. To use an example of S. Jerome, when we say that heretics will not perform penance before they die, we do not mean that they will do so afterwards ; but we are silent on a matter that is certain, we speak of one that is doubtful. No man, assuredly, can perform penance after his death (Psalm vi. 6), but it is unknown whether he will do so before it. It is certain that Joseph knew not Mary after the birth of Christ, for she had no other son than Christ ; of Him there was no question. The question was, whether He were conceived by Joseph or the Holy Ghost. This was doubtful, and needed explanation. The Evangelist, then,, explained what was doubtful and necessary to be known ; he passed over what was not inquired about, and was not necessary to be told. How these persons were called the brothers of Christ shall be explained in chap. xii. 46.
She was found. Origen (Horn. i. in Evang.} and S. Jerome (in loc.) say that Joseph so found her, as being her husband. But the Greek evp€07j does not mean finding a thing by seeking and inquiring, but rather by not seeking and not thinking, and contrarily to all opinion and expectation ; as has been observed by S. Chrysostom, a good judge of the Greek language. Joseph then found the Blessed Virgin with child, not by investigation, or inquiry, or contact, but by an observation most pure and free from all curiosity. Nor is it signified that she was so found by Joseph rather than by any other, but that she suddenly and unexpectedly presented such a personal appearance that all who saw her could perceive her condition.
Of the Holy Ghost. Some unite these words to those immediately preceding, understanding by them that Joseph not only found that Mary was with child, but that she was so by the Holy Ghost. For it is clear from what follows that he did not know by whom she had conceived, and he therefore wished to put her away. Upon this he was informed of the truth by the Angel. In this all the authorities agree.
Of the Holy Ghost. Not that the Holy Ghost was the Father of Christ, as some, according to S. Jerome, formerly thought, but that it was caused by the power of the Holy Ghost, that Mary should conceive sine mro. Nor is Christ said to have been conceived by the Holy Ghost, as if He only, and not the Father and the Son Himself, who was begotten, caused His birth. For that is a true law of the ancient Fathers, and retained by the Schoolmen, that " all the acts of the Trinity, out of Itself, were common to all the Persons". Christ is said to have been conceived by the Holy Ghost by that " attribution " which is commonly spoken of in Holy Scripture, and by which what is common to the THREE PERSONS is, on account of office or peculiar act, ascribed to one only ; as the office and power of govern ment is ascribed to the Father, of wisdom to the Son, of love, kindness, beneficence, liberality, fecundity to the Holy Ghost. For two reasons, therefore, the conception of Christ is attributed to the Holy Ghost, both because He is the highest goodness, and the head of all benefits to men, and also because He is the work of fecundity, and He is the Life-giver. For the Holy Ghost is as a divine seed, by which all things are made fruitful, as Gen. i. 2 : " The spirit of God moved over the waters" is often explained, and is, as it were, the life and soul by which all things are animated and vivified (Psalm ciii. 31 ; S. John vi. 64). There is a strong resemblance between Christ and Christians, that is, between the head and the members, which almost all ancient writers, SS. Ambrose, Augustin, Leo, have observed. Christ was born of the Blessed Virgin, Christians of the Virgin Church. The Church is the Virgin and Mother, without spot or wrinkle, like Mary (Ephes. v. 27). The womb is the fount of baptism ; the seed of the Church is water, which produces the living soul ; the Holy Ghost is the seed. As, therefore, Christ was born of the Blessed Virgin and the Holy Ghost, so Christians, that is, the members of Christ, ought to be reborn of water and the Holy Ghost. So S. John iii. 5. We may observe that one version uses the word "De" "De Spiritu Sancto" when we should rather have looked for "£"," as in verses 3, 5, 1 6, 20; xviii. n, and others. "E" would have expressed better than " De " the idea of a material source.
1:19
Being a just man. The Greek and Latin versions both admit a double meaning to these words: (i) Although he was; (2) because he was. The Latin cum ; cum esset Justus, is a causal word. The cause of the events that follow is given. The cause of each event is given, as two events follow ; (i) He would not expose her; (2) he wished to put her away privately. Some, like S. Chrysostom, think that the cause of the second clause is given, and that he wished to put her away because he was just, and would not retain one whom he suspected of adultery. SS. Chrysostom, Jerome, and others of authority, thought that it was not lawful for a man to put away a wife who was an adulteress. And it was ordered by some decrees of the Church that this should not be done. Others, SS. Jerome, Ambrose, Theophylact, think that the reason of the first clause is given. This seems much more probable. For the words, "He woidd not expose her!' are opposed egrjyrjTiica)? to saying, " He was a just man" and therefore would not expose her, but began to think of some other manner of putting her away. The opinion of S. Chrysostom is abandoned, not only by divines, but by the whole Church. For the law permitted the putting away of an adulteress, but did not command it, Christ Himself so explaining it (S. Matt. xix. 8 ; 5. Mark It will be said, If the law permitted it, it was lawful to accuse the adulteress. Hence Joseph, though a just man, was able, salva justitia, to do this. Joseph was called a just man, not because he was endowed with justice, one of the four moral virtues, but because, as S. Chrysostom says, he possessed, as a heap, every species of virtue. Whoever js of such a nature follows S. Paul, and says (i Cor. x. 22), " All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient ". Joseph, therefore, had the power to expose her, but he ought not to have done so, because it was an act of greater charity to put her away privately. Because he was a just man, that is, endowed with great charity, he would not do what justice indeed, a single virtue, allowed, but what charity, the queen of all virtues, demanded.
Publicly to expose her. Traducere, 7rapa$eiy/j,aTi(Tai, to see punished by public example, to accuse ignominiously. In a word, S. Augustin explains it by exemplare (Ep. 59), although he elsewhere paraphrases it by divulgare solet. S. Joseph would have done this if he had called her to judgment, and set her out before all men as an adulteress. S. Paul uses the same word (Heb. vi. 6), where our version reads ostentatui Jiabentes, making Him a mockery. The LXX. uses the word in the same sense (Numb. xxiv. 4 ; Esther xiv. 8).
Was minded to put her away privately. Origen (Horn. i. onEvang^ S. Jerome(C0mment.)t S. Bernard (in loc), and others, think that Joseph wished to put her away, because he knew that she had conceived by the Holy Ghost, and that he was therefore unworthy of her society ; as S. Peter said to Christ, " Depart from me " (S. Luke v. 8), and the centurion, " Lord, I am not worthy " (S. Matt viii. 8). Others, on the contrary, as S. Chrysostom (in loc.), S. Augustin (Ep. $4,Serm. xvi. de Temp.: if his),Theophylact and Euthymius think that he would have put her away as suspecting her of adultery, and that Joseph, thinking that she had conceived, not of the Holy Ghost, but of adultery, feared to receive her, lest he might either appear to approve of her crime, or because he was unwilling to bear the injury he supposed done to him (S. Chrysostom, in loc., and De S. Susanna ; S. Augustin, Ep. 54, Serm. xvi. De verb. Dom., Serm. XVU'L de Temp.; Theophylact and Euthymius, Comment.). Joseph's reason for thinking of putting her away privately is uncertain. The reason of Abulensis, that he thought to give her a writing of divorcement privately, does not seem good, for, however privately he m ight have given it, every writing is, sua natura, public. Besides, the divorce and disgrace could not be concealed, if, after living in the same house, they had been separated, private judicio, and especially at a time when Mary's condition was apparent. The opinion of those, therefore, who say that Joseph thought of retiring into a voluntary exile, under pretence of taking a journey, that he might appear not to have put her away for any fault, but to have left her from necessity, seems more probable. Not only does the \d0pa, but also a7ro\vaai, seems to warrant this.
1:20
But while he thought of these things. How he should put her away privately, before he had found any plan for doing so, or had followed out his design. The Evangelist seems to signify that God awaited a fit moment to send the angel. If He had sent him before Joseph knew the condition of Mary, Joseph perhaps, like Zacharias, would not have believed him. If sent after Joseph had left her, the angel would have been sent too late. God, therefore, sends the physician to the sick man neither before he begins to be amiss nor after he has died and ceased to be so. The same authors give another reason why Joseph would not have been so good a witness of the virginity of Mary if he had been warned by the angel before he thought of putting her away. For who would not have believed a husband who bore witness of the purity of his wife, and a husband who had gone so far as to suspect her of adultery, and to meditate a divorce ? It is Divine Providence which permits one man to be sick, that from his disease it may make medicine for many. It was this which permitted S. Peter and S. Thomas to fall in the faith, that we might not fall. It waited until Joseph doubted of the chastity of Mary, lest we should doubt, as we have said on verse 19 from S. Bernard.
Why, again, was the angel sent to Mary before she conceived ? 1. Probably because her consent was to be obtained before she could become the spouse of the Holy Ghost and conceive by Him. 2. Because it was not fitting that she should be ignorant whom she bore in her womb, and whence she had conceived. 3. Before that warning she could not have become the mother of Christ her Son (S. Augustin, De Virg. Sanct ; S. Leo, Serin, de Nat. Dom.}. She knew Christ by faith before she conceived Him in her body, whom, unless so warned, she could not have possessed. It has also been asked, why the angel was sent to Mary when watching and to Joseph when sleeping? Apparently faith and consent were required from Mary, as has been said. The question of Joseph is not so easy. S. Chrysostom says, with much reason, that Joseph was a just man, whom it was sufficient to warn in sleep. Again, knowing the condition of Mary, and doubting about her, he might in a moment be led to believe that it was the work of the Holy Ghost. It may seem very strange that the Blessed Virgin did not acquaint her husband with what the angel had said to her, that she might free herself from the risk of infamy, and her husband from sinister suspicion. Here again S. Chrysostom answers, that Joseph, whilst in doubt about the purity of his wife, would not have believed her own testimony, however holy she were, of herself — as, what husband, uninformed by God, would have done so ? That which is conceived in her. The words of the angel are directed to comfort Joseph, who was then in trouble and perplexity, and to prove to him that it was needless for him to doubt or despond, but that he should rejoice that his wife was about to be the mother of that Messiah who had been so long looked for. The angel calls Joseph the Son of David, not only as it was a title of honour, but also to show that He who was conceived of the Blessed Virgin was of the same family, and was that Messiah who was to be the Son of David. He wished also to bring to Joseph's mind the words of Isaiah vu. 14, " Behold, a Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son," that he might believe and rejoice that this was accomplished in his wife.
1:21
And she shall bring forth a Son. Teftrat Se — Be seems put for yap — pro, for (as in xxiii. 5, and many other passages) the words appear to have been spoken by the angel to confirm the faith of Joseph. As if he had said : " Your wife is not the adulteress you fear, but she is that most spotless Virgin of whom Isaiah spoke (vu. 14). She shall bring forth a Son, not a daughter, and when you see this, you will not doubt that He was conceived by the Holy Ghost. For when you see that what I have foretold you as future, has come to pass, you will believe that the past, of which I have told you, is also true."
And thou shalt call His name Jesus. This additional honour was bestowed upon Joseph, that he should give His name to Him who was born not of himself, but of the Holy Ghost, as if He had been his own son. Some have said that this was done merely as it was the custom for fathers to give the children their names. This may have been the general custom, but it was not universal, for Rachel called her son Benoni (Gen. xxxv. 1 8), and his mother, not his father, gave Jabes his name, " Because I bore him with sorrow" (i Paralip. w. 9). And what is here said to Joseph is said to Mary (S. Luke i. 32).
And tJwu shall call His name Jesus. This is certain proof that the angel wished to honour Joseph with the duty of a father, and at the same time to prove what he had said — that the child was conceived not of him but of the Holy Ghost, and from heaven, as His name was given from heaven. To those who are conceived divinitus names are given before their birth from heaven. So Isaac (Gen. xvii. 17), S. John Baptist (S. Luke i. 13). From His name we are taught what manner of Infant He would be, that is, He who was sent to free His people from their sins. That is, ^WlIT Jesus the Saviour. It is certain that the name Jesus was borrowed by the Greeks from the Hebrews, and by the Latins from the Greeks ; for every where in the Old Testament ^WlJT is used as a proper name. The LXX. have rendered it by "Irjo-ovs, adapting the Hebrew word to the Greek, as they could, or as they knew how. In i Paralip. vu. 27 the reading is "Irjaovs. The word signifies Salvation or Saviour ; and although we read of many so called, as Jesus the son of Nave, and the son of Josedech the priest (Agg. i. 12-14), the name was given to them by accident, but to Christ by design, and not by human but divine design : truly saviours, but Christ was more than it signifies. In others, therefore, the name was in some sense common and usual. In Christ it was peculiar, and as the Prophet had foretold, new and singular, because in the sense in which it was used of Christ, it was used of no other ; because in no other is there salvation ; and by it His divine and human natures are both signified, as well as His most excellent office of Redeemer (Philipp. u. 10). It has been rightly observed, therefore, that the Evangelists, when they desire to describe our Saviour by His proper name, call Him, not Christ, but Jesus, as in this passage and in 5. Luke i. 31 ; iii. 23 ; w. I. Christ is the name of His office, Jesus of His natures and person. It has been asked how the angel ordered Him to becalled Jesus, when Isaiah had said that His name should be Emmanuel ? The Jews are the most persistent objectors to this, to prove that that prophecy does not apply to Christ. But ancient Fathers have answered the question most completely (S. Justin Mart, Quest. 131 ad OrtJiad. ; Tertullian, Adv. Marc., lib. iii. ; Lactantius, w. 12, De Ver. Sact.; S. Chrysostom, De Incarn., chap. u.). The Prophet desired to describe Him, who was to be called Christ, but who was yet to be ; the Evangelist to declare Him, who was both to be called and to be Christ. The Prophet wishes to say, not that the proper name of Christ should be Emmanuel, but that the thing meant by it should fit Him, and that He should be called by it. As the same Prophet had foretold of Jerusalem (i. 26), not that it was to be called by that name, in fact, but that it should be such a city that it might be so called. In the same way he had said (Ix. 14), "They shall call thee the City of the Lord, the Sion of the holy one of Israel," when it never would bear that name. Like examples are found \i\Jeremiah iii. 175 Zach. viii. 3 ; and of Christ Himself (Isaiah ix. 6), not that He was to have so many names, but so many offices (Jerem. xxiii. 6) ; also, " The Lord our just one/' for Christ the Lord was truly "the just one," and also truly Emmanuel, which is " God with us ". It is clear that the Evangelist understood that passage of Isaiah in that sense, from the fact that when he had said, " Thou shalt call His name Jesus," he cited the passage of Isaiah, " His name shall becalled Emmanuel" (vu. 14). He is therefore Jesus and Emmanuel, for He is God with us, which is Emmanuel, and God our Saviour, which is the meaning of Jesus.
1:22
Now all this. S. Augustin, Theophylact, and Euthymius think these .the words of the angel ; but they are, beyond doubt, those of the Evangelist, who wished to prove his faith by the testimony of the Prophet.
All. That the Blessed Virgin should conceive, and that the Infant, not yet born, should be called Jesus.
1:23
Behold a Virgin. The Jews bring FIVE arguments against this passage. 1. Isaiah has not H^ini which is properly a virgin, but nft^yn which means not a virgin but a young girl, and refers to age, not condition. To this no one has replied with more effect than S. Jerome (In tmdit. Heb. in Gen. ; lib. i., Cont. Jovinian ; and in his Comment, on Isaiah vu.). He says that TTfchy means not only a virgin, but more even than that, a young girl (puella) who has been hidden and kept carefully ; who has not even met the eyes of any man, and who, not only in person but in aspect, is chaste. The origin of the word shows this; for she was called T^hy which is to hide as a virgin, to be concealed or secluded. Nor is the word ever used in Scripture of any but a virgin, as (Gen. xxiv. 16) of Rebecca. She is called HftSy (v. 43). The same of Mary, the sister of Moses (Exod. u. 8), in the Punic language, which derives its origin from the Hebrew. Thus, rninn means virginity alone, Tfchty virginity and age together. And this is emphatically the meaning of the Prophet, namely, that a virgin, tender as yet, and who has not met even the gaze of men, should conceive. Some add that the particle of emphasis H is added in this place to the word lift 7^ which has a like force to that of the Greek article 6, signifying here, as S. Chrysostom observes, a virgin of the highest worth — one most especially a virgin. 2. The SECOND argument is that it is against all common sense to say that a virgin, remaining such, should conceive ; but one who having been a virgin before should afterwards do so. The ancient Fathers reject this as not only false, but also absurd and ridiculous ; for in this case there would have been no sign, and no miracle. The Prophet intended to show a sign before unheard of and most wonderful, as inverses 7, 10, 14. So say S. Justin Mart, Against Tryplio ; Tertullian, Against the Jews, and III., Against Marcion ; S. Basil (Horn, on the Human Generation of Christ) ; S. Epiphanius, Against Ebionites ; S. Cyril Alexand. and S. Chrysostom, On Isaiah vu. 3. The THIRD objection is from Isaiah, from the name Emmanuel, which Christ had not. This objection has been answered on verse 21. 4. The FOURTH objection is that from the circumstances of place. It appears that this prophecy was uttered of the wife of Achaz and his son Ezechia, whom she was about to bring forth. S. Epiphanius and S. Jerome greatly deride this idea, for the prophecy was uttered when Achaz was reigning, and it was therefore directed to him as king. Assuming it to have been uttered in the first year of his reign, Ezechia would have been nine years old at least ; for Achaz reigned sixteen years (4 Kings xvi. 2 ; 2 Paralip. xxviii. i), on whose death his son Ezechia reigned at once (4 Kings xvi. 20) ; for he was twenty-five when he began to reign (4 Kings xviii. 2 ; 2 Paralip. xxix. i). Nor is there any more in what some others say, that it was spoken of the wife of Isaiah, for she was neither a virgin, nor ever brought forth a son who was, or was called, Emmanuel. 5. The FIFTH objection is one raised by the more modern Jews. The ancients have scarcely noticed it. It was not possible that the sign could have been given to Achaz, because he would not be able to see it, for it was not to happen for eighty years. S. Chrysostom, in his Commentary in loc., answers that the sign was not given to Achaz, but to the house of David, which was not only to endure to the time of Christ, but was to produce Christ Himself. In the beginning the Prophet offered the condition of a sign to Achab, that he should ask whatever he would ; from which he might understand that God would be with him against the king of Assyria (vu. n) ; and when Achaz would not ask, the Prophet changed his language, and foretold another and greater sign than that which Achaz did not venture to ask, an argument of a greater liberation, that God would give, not to Achaz, but to the house of David (verses 1 3, 14). As if he had said : "Because you do not care to ask God, God will give you, of His own free-will, not such a gift as I offered to the king, that God would deliver him out of the hands of the king of Assyria ; but a far greater one, that He would deliver His people from sin and the tyranny of the devil". From the major is proved the minor.
And they shall call. Some have wondered that Isaiah says " Thou shalt call," and that the Evangelist says here " They shall call," but it is of no moment, because, as S. Jerome says, the Evangelists frequently give the meaning rather than the words. Whether he had said KaXecret?, thou shalt call, or /caXecret, he shall call, or KdXeaovcn, they shall call, the meaning would be the same.
Which being interpreted is, God with us. It has been a question how these words should be under stood. Some, with whom we cannot agree, think that they have a spiritual meaning alone — God with us, God reconciled with us (Coloss. w. 2) — because our sins had separated us from Him (Isaiah lix. 2). But S. Chrysostom and others think, more correctly, that the words are intended to convey the doctrine of the actual incarnation of the Son of God. For God is with us not only as He gives us help and puts away our sins — in which manner He was with the ancient Jews also — but He was the Word made flesh. Some infer from this passage that S. Matthew did not write in Hebrew, but we have answered this in the Preface, chap. v.
1:25
And he knew her not. The Jovinians, the Helvidians, the Ebionites, and, as Auctor Imperfecti Operis says, the Eunomians, take occasion from these words to assail the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin after the birth of Christ (v. 18). But it need only be said that the particles "before," "before that," "until" — antequam, prius quam, donee, usque, and the like, do not always convey an affirmation of the thing in question afterwards, if a negative has preceded, nor a denial when an affirmative has been given before, as S. Jerome against Helvidius, and S. Chrysostom on this passage have shown by many examples. 6". Matthew xxviii. 30 does not mean that He would not be present afterwards, but much more present ; 2 Kings vi. 23 does not mean that Michal had a child after her death ; Psalm cix. I, 2, is not as if He would not sit at the right hand afterwards; 5. Matthew v. 18 not that that word should perish after heaven and earth should have passed away. In all these cases that which is doubtful is expressed, that which is uncertain is left unsaid.
Her first-born Son. It was another argument of the opponents of the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin, that the Evangelist calls Christ the first-born, as if after Him she had other sons, and as if there could be no first-born unless there were a second-born. S. Jerome against Helvidius rightly says that Christ is called the first-born of Mary, not because there was another son after Him, but because before Him there had been none. For it is the custom of Scripture to call the only-born the first-born, because he who is unigenitus is necessarily before others ; that is, no one else could have been before him, and this is to be the first-born. So (Exodus w. 22) God calls the people of Israel His first born, as He had no others, and (xii. 29) He is said to have slain all the first-born of the land of Egypt ; among these, beyond doubt, were many only-born ; and (xiii. 2 ; xxii. 29) He commanded all the first-born to be sanctified to Him, among whom were included the only-born, otherwise such must have been waited for until others were born after wards. S. Paul (Heb. i. 6) calls Christ the first-born, for the only-born of God. The Evangelist used the expression first-born to show, probably, that Mary not only conceived but also brought forth as a virgin. For he had said of the conception (v. 18), "Before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Ghost," and he now says of the birth (v. 25), " He knew her not till she brought forth her first-born son ". That is, when Joseph had not known her, she brought forth her Son, who, being her only Son, is therefore most properly called her first-born, for he who opened the womb was the first-born (Exodus xiii. 2 ; xxxiv. 19) ; and he only opened it who found it closed, ashas been said by Tertullian. The words " to have opened " should be taken not as if He literally opened it, but opened it, as it were, by being truly born.
1:1
h-1,7 δὲ ἄπο. 59: Ochoziam, Ochozias genuit Ioas, loas genuit Amasjam, - 88 genuit. Item in v. 11 inseritur : Ioakim, Ioakim autem genuit Iechoniam, Liber generationis, βίδλος γενέσεως, liber originis; hoc nomine ipsa iéalogia quae subséquitur designatur et inscriptio haec titulus est, αἱ indicat cuius genealogia recenseatur. Sensus igitur est ac si i is catalogus progenitorum. Neque obstat nomen libri; nam iusmodi enumerationem vel tabulas vel album vocari apud Hebraeos το libram, habes Neh. 1,5 trn 320 librum census i. e. tabulas quibus inscripti erant qui ascenderant primum lerusalem, et similiter Esdr. 2,62 de scriptura genealogiae 35 mentio fit qua sacerdos originem "guam ex familia sacerdotali probare debuit. Insuper vox Neh. 7.5 - sdhibità originem vel ortum dicit et similiter Esdr. 2,62; quare liber ;originis vel generationis apud Matth. illi dictioni plane congruit. - Congruit graeca vox etiam magis dictioni graecae Gen. 2,& et 5,1 , €t terrae et ortus hominum eorumque ab Adam per varias generationis descensus inducitur. Cum domui David tam insignia promissa quoque quae Iosephus : ;sua de se refert et genere suo. ». Codices et libellos genealogicos sémel "asseritur. (cf. LigAtfoot, Hor. hebr. in Matth. 1,1). Cum . rS. Matthaeus librum suum hominibus ex gente iudaica destipud quos eiusmodi libri generationis in usu, erant, .dictioad: s Husum, catalogum referenda erit t neque ulterius loc | totius " disperisationis caput est atque principium nobis et radix esse. Neque: enim frustra et icássum seipsum ita humiliasset, nisi. nos exaltaturüs esset; natus est. enim secundum carnem, at τὰ naci scereris secundum spiritum ». Uti in Davide familia, ita in Aliráham tota. gens deis, Cui ' hi duo commemorentur, rationem afferunt quia iis praeprimis data /sint promissa messiana (Mad. Ians.. Sylv. Lap. ) et Abraham quidem tainquam capiti et parenti totius populi qui.ratione singulari electus ; S. t: modo vires naturae excedehte a.Deo est. constitutus: pater et. , triarcha gentis. Ei.quippe dicebatur : in te, in seminé tuo-benedi ür- :omnes .gentes (cfr: Gen. 12,3; 18,48; 92 ,18); quae promi: . prim ' dáta" est eique: in fils Isàac et Iacob confirmata ; ergó de promissione Abrahami fit mentio et non de aliis quae; uni ;veluti'continuatio ac confirmatio illius'» (Sij/v.) eique sollem: modo, cum iuramento facta est: ; promissio (Gen. 26,3) :sicuti.-D: quoque. (Ps. 88,39; 131,11). Aliam rationem afferunt 4/5:
1:5
5. 7 in Davide scil. regiam Christi dignitatem declarari, in Abraham qui fuerit sacerdos et sacrificaverit (Gen. 15,9; 22,2.13) eius sacerdotiunr. ; 'Sed ea sententia supponitur ΙΔ Abraham referri immediate ad 1e; 'sum qui ex aequo dicatur filius David et filius Abráham. Ita quidem multi explicant v. g. S. Hier. Theoph. Rab. Pasch.: Bed. Alb. T. hom: : Dion. Bar. Sylv. Calm.. Reischl. At merito iam monet Mad. ei acceptioni obstare Hebraeorum.consuetudinem quam dubium non essé : ; Matthaeum - hoc loco voluisse imitari; « solent enim illi. in recensendis genealogiis ultimum genetivum filii ad proximum referre; cuiüs rei docti exemplis non egent; alii legant exempla 1 Reg. 1,1. 1 Par. 4,97; 5,8.15; 6,35-50 ». Quare explicare oportet : Iesu filii David qui David fuit filius Abraham; et hoc modo ratio dicendi cum ceteris." genealogiis congruit, proul verba concipiunt Euh. Cai. Ians. Schegg, Patr. Schanz., Fil. Keil ,- Weiss aliique.. Fit autem mentio τ ea quia iam Abraham dictum erat : reges ex te egredientur (Gen; - 1 17, 6), id quod stabili ratione in Davide impletum est, qui igitor. c iure quodam praecipuo filius Abraham vocatur. Ipsa genealogia in tres partes divisa est; primus qualerdenarius, ut S. TAom. loquitur, procedit per patriarchas ab Abraham ad David usque, secundus per reges a David usque ad. transmigrationenr *. Babylonis, tertius incipit a ducibus et procedit pér personas privatas (sim. Sy/v.). Unde in genealogia variae populi sortes adumbrantur : : electio in Abraham facta, familiae patriarcharum, incrementum po-. . puli, regnum demum et regum series, exsilium, reditus, conditio humilis qua tabernaculum Dàvid ceciderat (Am. 9,11). Sed simul ux de femore eius etc. (Gen.: (Euth. 5. Thom. Pasch. Ci 5,5) et :- manifestum. est. ;quod ex Iuda P ad illum" dignitatis gradum est evecta. (et. Iud. 1,2) et'cum David rex a Domino eligeretur, ipse dixit: de Iuda enim elegit principes (1 Par. 28,4); erat enim Iudas fortissimus inter: fratres suos, de stirpe eius principes germinati sunt (f Par. 5, 2 ) et Iuda rex meus Ps. 59,9. Nominantur autem et fratres eius non quasi Christi pro- ' Φ ;genitores, sed tamquam regni eius et reipublicae conditores (Mald.) ; ; um eta (Déut.:95,6 ἃ Iudas quoque agnovit dicens re comiustior mie "Thaipar) quia non tradidi eam Sela filio meo ᾿ 58,96). lila itaque lege. Phares censetur filius Iler primogeniti Tecerisetur. Iam' quid de. Thamar eiusque agendi ratione judicabimus? Certe dicendum erit eum S. Amórosio (in Luc. lib. 3 h «-non temporalis. usum libidinis requisivit, sed successionis gratiam cóncupivit; erat enim deforme liberos non hanitatis, nondum viduitatis ante Christi adventum ac typo: : convenit. In eadem ΡῈ viro, Mariae cernimus qui ipse patriarcha 'qui nomeír im ipsus narratui stat enim Tha- 'ocáturus erat. 'ad ἄχ ϑν bonos et malos, etiam nalis » ». En, quot docurnenta e ex, hac SUE Aram et Aminadabi Simili-módo per membra' pauciora texitur:Mo; evi, Cath, xAmrdni diei et Stier 1 in aliis, in: iam v inde' idus /quia alias Levi cui cónstante tres soluii.filiiadscribuntur.censendus esset proavus viginti duorum millium trecentorum pronepotum, “νοὶ Caath cui filii quatuor attri. buuntur:avus:esse 'deberet octo millium sexcentorum nepotum, .vel Gersóm cum.filiis.-duobus avus septem millium ducentorum nepotum: . :'Céterum'in genealogiis membra quaedam omitti multis exemplis potest demonstràri;.cfi.1:Par. 26,94. Esdr. 7,3 cum 1 Par. 6,7-14. Num. '- 8,24. 30. 32 elc. (vide. Stimmen aus Maria Laach VI 187 p. 303 seq.) νον Hie itaque 8. Matttneus, genealogiam descripsit; "uti iam alibi , exhibe-j: Y PÜbatur — 599 s ii Naasson autem genuit Salmon; Salmón autem Booz de μαλαῦ; Boo: aulem genuit Obed ez Ruth; 1 Par.:2,11 vocatur Salma, vio; Ruth 4,90 Salmon yícbiz et v., 20 25i. Ubi haec genealogia in vetere te- ' stamento describitur, mulierum nomina non apponuntur. Quemadmo-.. dum enim, ut EutA. dicit, moris erat per mares genealogias texere vel ut S. "Arübrosius dicit, viri semper originem quaerere, ita quoque' mulierum vel matrum nomina non leguntur in genealogiis. Quod igitur hic adscribuntur, ex eo discimus Matthaeum nor simpliciter tabulas has aliunde desumptas transscripsisse, sicut ScAegg existimat, sed .. consulto nomina haec addidisse, uti etiam nomen Thamar certo consilio adiecit. Atque profecto quod mulieres istae in genealogia Messiae tur, ἃ S. Paulo illa inter heroes fidei enumeratur Hebr. 11,31, a S. Iacobo eius fides simul cum fide Abraham in exemplum affertur quod fidei opera sunt adiungenda ad iustificationem habendam. Haec potius insignia sunt mulieris encomia. Proinde in Ruth et Rahab illud cernamus praefiguratum quod S. Petrus monuit : in omni gente qui timet Deum et operatur iustitiam acceptus est illi (Act. 10,35) et Christum Ecclesiam suam colligere etiam ex gentibus; salus igitur Christi adumbratur quae sit universalis et statim a limine ingressus in terram promissam ostenditur Israelitis in Rahab Deum etiam gentium saluti prospicere et electos ex gentibus suo populo inserere, excluditur quoque admiratio illa primorum ex Iudaismo Christianorum : quare introisti ad viros praeputium habentes et manducasti cum illis? (Act. 11,3). Quod autem dicitur : Salmon genuit Booz de Rahab, etiam tempus Booz et Ruth ad initia ingressus in Palaestinam esse referendum declaratur; nam, ut bene notat de Hummelauer (Comment. τη]. Iud. et Ruth p. 402) : « licet sententia : Salmon genuit Booz, de generatione mediata intelligi posset, at nequaquam haec altera : Salmon genuit de Rahab; avus paternus nequaquam potest dici gignere de matre; ergo Booz imperante losue natus est ». Igitur quod Iosephus tempus eius ad Heli pontificem refert omnino negligendum est. Porro sequitur inter Obed et Iesse patrem Davidis membra plura 1 Par. 3,13 et Ruth &,99 et hic esse omissa. Nam : Obed autem genuit Iesse; Iesse autem genuit David regem ; **, apud LXX Ἴεσσαί, unde apud S. Hier. quandoque lesse Is. 11,1. 10 et Luc. 3,32. Act. 13,22. Rom. 15,192; cf. Ps. 11,90 et Eccli. 35,31; at communiter Isai libris historicis vet. test. Ruth &,1'T. 92. 1 Reg. 16,1 etc. 2 Reg. 20,1. 1 Par. 2,12 etc. 2 Par. 10,16. David vero dicitur rex, quia in eo tribus luda ad dignitatem a Iacob promissam (Gen. 49,10) pervenit, in eo sceptrum traditum est Iudae; David primus fuit ex tribu Iuda rex regumque caput et fons a quo reliqui eiusdem tribus sceptrum hereditario iure acceperunt (Bar. similiter Rab. Thom. Cai. Fil.); sub David quoque novus status, status regni stabili modo in populo incepit (Jans.) et quam praeclarum locum David obtineat et quam merito ipse solus ex omnibus titulo regis ornetur elucet ex promissione de throno et regno aeterno ipsi a Deo facta (2 Reg. 7,14), ex qua promissione consequitur alios fuisse reges et servatos in regno propter David (Pasch. A/ó. Thom.), uti saepius declaratur : noluit autem Dominus disperdere ludam propter David servum suum, sicut promiserat ei utdaret illi lucernam et filiis eius cunctis diebus 4 Reg. 8,19; cf. 3 Reg. 11,13. 32. 3*; 15,4. 5; & Reg. 19,34. 9 Par. 21,7. Et propter promissionem illam de regno et throno aeterno quae est messiana et per Messiam regem demum in opus deducenda,, David rex typus est Christi et ipse Messias vocatur David (Ez. 35,93. Os. 3,5) et dicitur sessurus super solium David et super regnum eius, ut confirmet illud et corroboret usque in sempiternum (Is. 9,7. Pasch.). Praeclarum itaque prae omnibus locum David occupat propter promissa messiana et rationem typi (Grimm, Schanz), regnum in Iuda erat vero sensu davidicum ; unde iure ille solus in genealogia rex dicitur. David autem rez genuit Salomonem ez ea quae fuit Uriae ; scil. ex Bethsabee; de peccato David vide 2 Reg. 11,2 seq.; a Nathan monitus egit poenitentiam. Deus autem insignem suam ostendit in Davidem de peccato dolentem misericordiam , quia non abstulit promissa, verum filium Davidis ex Bethsabee, tunc legitima Davidis uxore, natum, Salomonem et sibi amabilem vocavit et regni ac promissionum heredem instituit (cf. 9 Reg. 12,25. 3 Reg. 9,5. 1 Par. 22,9. 10; 28,5). Unde in huius misericordiae documentum perenne, quo fidelitas Dei et gratia maximopere elucet , ea quae fuit Uriae in genealogia nominatur. Peccato enim Davidis quanta sit Dei benignitas ac miseratio commendatur illustri modo, prout ipse David confitetur : ut iustificeris in sermonibus tuis et vincas cum iudicaris (Ps. 50,6. Rom. 8,4). Apposite ea de re iam scribitur inter Quaestiones et responsiones ad orthodoxos qu. 18: « habens honorem poenitentiae Deus in filiis ex Uriae uxore genitis genus Davidis constituit et Christum ex illa ob eandem causam originem ducere voluit » (M. 6,1320) ; similiter Sy/v. Bar. et merito Ians. Dei clementiam ostendi ait et S. Pasch. maxima indulgentiarum beneficia praefigurari. Atque A/ó. : « ut ergo sciatur quod peccatum non praeiudicavit veritati promissionis, ideo per eandem mulierem implevit promissionis veritatem et mentio eius fit ab evangelista, ubi ostenditur impleta veritas ». David itaque acta poenitentia progenitor fit Messiae qui venturus est vocare peccatores ad poenitentiam ; et Davidis poenitentia promissa esse stabilita, etiam s. auctor indicare videtur: Dominus purgavit peccata ipsius et exaltavit in aeternum cornu eius ct dedit illi testamentum regni et sedem gloriae in Israel Eccli. 47,13. In regibus regia Messiae dignitas adumbratur. Unde progenitores eius reges Iuda recensentur : Salomon autem genuit Roboam et ita porro per Abiam , Asa, Iosaphat, loram. Inter loram autem et Oziam, qui Azarias quoque vocatur, tres reges omittuntur : Ochozias, Ioas, Aimasias. Eos consulto omitti, ita ut ex genealogia Christi omnino deleti et expuncti habeantur, inde patet quia Matthaeus explicite statuit v. 17 a David usque ad transmigrationem numerari quatuordecim generationes; eae autem solum habentur, si tres illi plane excluduntur. Unde quaerendum est cur trium illorum nomina deleta sint ex Israel, propter naturalem impotentiam generandi haec deletio fieret, legem statuisset leviratus. Rationem merito in eo cernunt quod Ioram filiam Achab in matrimonium duxit et ita posteros suos innexuit maledictioni contra domum Achab per Eliam pronuntiatae (3 Reg. 91,91), scil. ut plane deleretur domus Achab. Quare filius Athaliae filiae Achab et enim Dominus iniquitatem in tertiam et quartam generationem eorum qui oderunt eum (Ex. 20,5) neque tres illi sua pietate eam maledictionem a se averterunt, e contra eam peccatis suis polius confirmarunt. 'Ochozias enim ambulavit in viis domus Achab et fécit quod malum est coram Domino sicut domus Achab; gener enim domus Achab fuit (& Reg. 8,27); Ioas quidem ab initio rectum fecit coram Domino (4 Reg. 12,2); at post mortem Ioiadae idololatriam latissime serpere permisit, Zachariam prophetam filium loiadae qui idololatras redarguit lapidari iussit (2 Par. 25,17-92); Amasias quoque bene quidem incepit (& Reg. 14,3. 2 Par. 25,2); at « post caedem Idumaeorum et allatos deos filiorum Seir statuit illos in deos sibi et adorabat eos et illis adolebat incensum » et prophetam ad se a Deo missum dure repulit (2 Par. 25,15-17). Tres isti reges morte quoque vi et insidiis illata interempti sunt. | Bene notant Cai. lans. : « sicut enim Iehu qui delevit domum Achab promeruit benedictionem a Deo usque in quartam generationem, . it& Ioram quod se miscuisset ethnico generi maledictionem usque in quartam generationem; dicit enim Dominus se visitare iniquitatem patrum usque in quartam generationem ». Similiter Rab. Pasch.; séd addi debet cum Dión. Maid. Sylv. Lap. Calm. comminatio illa 3. Reg. 21,21 de domo et familia Achab plane delenda. Quare Iehu quoque occidit Ochoziam filium Athaliae (& Reg. 9,277), ut Maid. bene adnotat. Propter illam maledictionem erant tres illi quasi capite minuti et divina sententia condemnati , quodammodo civiliter mortui (Mald.). Veram igitur rationem omissionis reddunt veteres qui plerumque cum S. Hier. dicunt : loram generi se miscuerat impiissimae lezabel; idcirco usque ad tertiam generationem eius memoria tollitur, ne in sanctae nativitatis ordine poneretur (cf. Hzl. Rab. Pasch. Bed. Alb. Thom.). Odium itaque in scelera domus Achab (Bar.) et impia domus davidicae cum sanguine illo coniunctio ea omissione declaratur. Qua explicatione cum Maid. debemus esse contenti, dum melior invenitur, uti Maid. ait; neque tamen alia vel melior a recentissimis est proposita (cf. Grimm, FW. Schanz). - Quaestionem cur reges sint omissi S.: Chrys. quidem ponit; at dicit hom. 4,44 : « vobis solvendam relinquo, non enim omnia solvere vobis necesse est, ne vobis fastidium generemus »; in cat. Cr. ratio legitur διὰ τὴν ὑπερθάλλουσαν αὐτῶν ἀσέθειαν ; eandem rationem ibi afferre dicitur Africanus in quinto libro Chronicon διὰ τὴν ἄγαν δυσσέδειαν. Sed recte notat S. Chrys. hom. 1,6: « si eorum utpote admodum impiorum nomina tacuit, neque Ὁ ipsis.similes commemorare oportuit ». At Eu£A. scribit : « qua causa tres reges praetermissi sint, nullus hactenus dixit; valde enim perplexa est ratio his qui nostris nati sunt temporibus, quia nemo ante nos hanc solvit quaestionem ». Alii, ut TAeopA. de ea re tacent. Alia ratio affertur in opere Quaestionum vet. et novi testamenti quod olim S. Augustino adscribebatur, eos scil. poni in*genealogia qui vel boni sint aut a bonis geniti aut qui bonos genuerint; illos tres autem nec ipsos bonos fuisse neque exbonis natos; quam rationem quoque adoptarunt Pasch. Alb. Thom. Sylv., sed quae est magis subtilis quam vera. Recte monet Salm. eos non esse exclusos solum propterea quod essent peccatores. Nam peiores illis in genealogia numerantur. Ioas et Amasias ne omni quidem laude carent, dum de aliis qui recensentur simpliciter dicitur : et fecit malum coram Domino, ambulavit in omnibus peccatis patris sui etc.; ita de Roboam 3 Reg. 14,22 seq. 2 Par. 12,1; de Abia 3 Reg. 15,3; de Ioram 4 Reg. 8,18; de Achaz 16,2; de Manasse 21,2; de Amon 21,20; de Iechonia 24,9. Qui placitum et rectum fecerunt coram Domino laudantur Asa, Iosaphat, Ozias, lIoatham, Ezechias, Iosias. Quare ea ipsa genealogia in regibus satis ostenditur Christum non erubuisse descendere a peccatoribus. Putavit Sanctius ad 4 Reg. 14,18 non a Matthaeo illos tres esse omissos, sed solum errore descriptorum qui oculis fallentibus ab Ochozia filio Ioram aberraverint ad Oziam propter quandam nominum similitudinem. Id refutatur tum aliis tum praesertim quia in v. 17 solum quatuordecim generationes numerantur. Interpretes protestantes aliqui eundem errorem ipsi Matthaeo impingunt; sed vario modo. Vel eum. ab Ochozia aberrasse ad Oziam — sed id dici nequit; in textu enim hebr. ista similitudo non exsistit inter 3mN mmy neque in LXX, cum ibi Azarias legatur — vel in exemplari quo usus sit lectum esse cum aliis quoque 1 Par. 3,11 Ozias filiüs eius (Ioram), uti vult Weiss; at gratis supponitur idem mendum iam exstitisse in LXX; dein constat Matthaeum non scripsisse graece, ergo etiam vix censeri posse usum esse versione graeca, quae insuper 4 Par. 3,12 Azariam praebet. Quare ut ea sententia admitti nequit cum Matthaeo errorem impingat auctori inspirato, ita uterque modus errorem explicandi pariter est ineptus. Restat igitur, ut Matthaeus consulto eos deleverit vel potius intellexerit eos esse iudicio divino delelos ex Israel et ex genealogia Christi. Ab Ozia (Azaria) usque ad Iosiam series regum continua recensetur. losias ultimus rex erat vere pius qui pietate sua ac correctione et emendatione morum et cultus divini restitutione et innovatione foederis sollemni ruinam regni imminentem et iram Dei avertere studebat; ac frustra. Post eum filius eius loachaz ἃ Nechao rege captivus in Aegyptum ductus est ibique diem obiit; in eius loco Nechao alium losiae filium, Eliacim, regem constituit et mutatione nominis in loakim facta suam ostendit in regnum davidicum dominationem. Praeterea Ioakim ἃ Nabuchodonosor est victus et superatus, lerusalem capta, pars vasorum templi ablata (Dan. 1,1 seq.) et cum rebel- Moabitis, Ammonitis misere vastabatur (& Reg. 24,9). Mortuo Ioakim successit lechonias (Ioachin) filius eius qui mox cum principibus et decem millibus ex populo in Babyloniam captivus ductus est (& Reg. 24,19). Tempus hoc quo tabernaculum David concidit et cidaris et corona sublata est (cf. Ez. 21,96. 97), quo igitur minae illae 2 Reg. tem. genuit lechoniam et fratres eius in. transmigratione Babylonis i. e. quorum tempore fuit transmigratio Babylonis (Caz.), quae scil. sub rege loakim incepit (Dan. 1,2) et sub Iechonia et Sedecia absoluta fuit; cf. & Reg. 294. 95. ler. 52,98-30. Dicitur ἐπὶ τῆς i. e. tempore transmigrationis, prout ἐπί et apud scriptores profanos et sacros (Marc. 2,26. Luc. 3,2. Act. 11,28) de tempore alicuius regis vel eventus adhibetur. lechonias primus rex fuit qui abductus est in captivitatem, idemque qui trigesimo septimo suae transmigrationis thronus positus est super thronos regum qui erant in Babylone (cf. & Reg. 25,27. ler. 52,31). Unde in eorege figuratur et ruina domus David et simul misericordia illa quam Dominus nunquam se ablaturum esse spoponderat, etsi filii David propter peccata in virga et plagis fuerint castigandi (2 Reg. 7,14. 15. Ps. 88,30-354). In illa enim elevatione regis melioris temporis praesagium cernitur et certa spes pro familia David (vide quae dixi in Comment. ler. p. 607). De Iechonia dicit Dominus : terra, terra, terra, audi sermonem Domini! scribe virum istum sterilem... nec enim erit de semine eius vir qui sedeat super solium David (Ier. 22, 29. 30). In eo ergo hac comminatione et abductione in Babyloniam poena exhibetur et regni davidici ruina; sed quod idem transmigratione facta stirpem davidicam propagat, documento est misericordiae Dei qui de cedro succisa surculum servat iterumque in monte Israel plantat (Ez. 17,22. 23). Quare Iechonias aptissime et seriem regum concludit et seriem tertiam quae est series surculi illius latentis νοὶ trunci arboris lechonias erat nepos losiae regis. Quare hic quoqué unum membrum, loakim, omittitur. Cur sit omissus, in op. imp. ratio affertur satis probabilis : « quia non populus Dei constituerat eum in regnum sicut erat consuetudo in regibus constituendis, sed Pharao per potentiam; ideo quantum ad eum non fuit rex Ioakim. Si enim iustum fuerit, ut propter solam commixtionem generis Achab et Iezabel tollerentur de numero regum supradicti tres reges, quamvis ἃ populo legibus fuerant constituti in regno, quare non erat iustum ut similiter tolleretur et Ioakim quem Pharao vi hostili fecerat regem et non populus praevio iure »? Quam rationem etiam. adoptant S. Pasch. Thom. in com. et cat. Salm. — Fratres autem lechoniae intellige eius patruos more- Hebraeorum quo cognati etiam fratres vocantur. Fratres enim lechoniae nullibi commemorantur. Nominat autem evangelista cognatos i. e. totam familiam regiam, ut indicet totam stirpem regiam esse regno privatam et captivitate oppressam in regionem alienigenarum esse deportatam. Significatur itaque in deportatione babylonica, quomodo regia domus conciderit foedere violato. MI ADS S HAREN ERE f UDWE it US RAUM ide dero ξύν & qam in addito illo : tempore deportationis babylonicae. Ibi series regum clauditur quae iam non est aperienda nisi per solum Messiam, prout iam Ezechiel vaticinatus est (19,14 et 21,27). Dixerat Deus per leremiam : cognoscam transmigrationem [uda in bonum, et ponam oculos meos super eos ad placandum (ler. 94,5. 6); id quoque manifestat in familia David a qua misericordiam suam i. e. promissionem illam gratiosam non aufert; id indicatur : et post transmigrationem Babylonis i. e. post deportationem, dum moraretur Babylone, Jechonias genuit. Salathzel ; cf. 1 Par. 3,171. Ex Bar. 1,3 elucet Iechoniam non duro carcere esse inclusum, sed aliqua saltem libertate esse potitum ; vide quae ad Bar. 1,3 adnotavi. Quare minime opus est ut cum Mald. Schanz censeamus eum non potuisse filios generare nisi postquam ab Evilmerodach fuerit liberatus, quia detentis in carcere non fuerit opportunitas rei uxoriae operam dandi. Proinde ea diffieultas quam aliqui urgerit duas generationes arcto spatio 26 annorum includi non exsistit; neque enim ullo pacto opus est asserere Salathiel non esse natum nisi circa annum 26 ante reditum et quaerere quomodo igitur Zorobabel, filius Salathiel, dux esse potuerit eorum qui ex Babylone in patriam redierint. lechonias cum uxoribus translatus est Babylonem (& Reg. 25,15) circa annum 598 vel 597; itaque anno 538 i. e. post sexaginta annos nepos eius Zorobabel filius Salathiel, uti repetito dicitur Agg. B 1,1. 19. 14; 9,3. 94. Esdr. 3,9. 8; 5,9. Neh. 12,1, omnino dux esse T potuit redeuntium. Cum Matthaeus ubique, quantum scire possumus | et ex ipsa voce genutt concludere, eos nominet qui vere genuerint et insuper Zorobabel toties filius dicatur Salathiel, existimo eum vere a Salathiel genitum esse. Quod 1 Par. 3,19 filius dicatur Phadaiae, fratris Salathiel, ad errorem amanuensium referri potest eo facilius quia nominum quaedam corruptio et confusio in Par. haud semel deprehenditur. an in una mendacium sit »; sed statim duos Iechonias statuens, patrem et filium, nodum solvit (in Luc. lib. 3,46). S. Augustinus qui unum Iechoniam bis poni rite docet in eo invenit solutionem, quod evangelista quidem quaterdenas generationes tribus distinxisset articulis, nec tamen eas duxisset in summam ut diceret : fiunt omnes quadraginta duae; proinde propter unum bis numeratum fieri generationes 41, si et ipsum Christum annumeremus « qui huic regendae vitae nostrae temporali atque terrenae tamquam numero quadragenario regaliter praesidet ». Cur autem lechonias bis numeretur, ita explicat : a Iechonia « facta est quaedam in extraneas gentes deflexio, quando in Babyloniam transmigratum est; ubi autem ordo a rectitudine flectitur atque ut eat in diversum , tamquam angulum facit, illud quod in angulo est bis numeratur, in fine scil. prioris ordinis et in capite ipsius deflexionis » (de consensu evang. 2,4. 40; M. 34,1076). S. Chrys. Euth. Theoph. ipsum captivitatis tempus pro una generatione numerari existimant. Neque defuerunt qui ad complendum numerum Mariam censeri posse opinarentur; sed bene notant TÁeopA. Salm. mulieres numerari essé insolens et a ratione genealogiae alienum. Alii Davidem bis numerari volunt, ut Sa/m., semel ut hominem privatum, semel ut regem; sed repugnat textus. Ipsis vero verbis textus satis indicatur lechoniam et secundam tessaradecadem claudere et tertiam incipere; quae res satis iam. explicatur in op. imp. : « hic enim Iechonias duas habuit conditiones : fuit enim et rex ante transmigrationem , factus est et privatus post transmigrationem; ideo ante transmigrationem quidem computatur inter reges quasi rex, post transmigrationem computatur inter privatos quasi privatus » (M. 56,628). In Zorobabel quam maxime apparet Deum a stirpe David non abstulisse promissionem gratiosam. Vocatur ille magna cum emphasi dux Iuda Agg. 1,1. 14; 2,3. 22; de Iechonia dictum erat : « vivo ego, dicit Dominus, quia si fuerit lechonias... annulus in manu dextera mea, inde evellam eum » (ler. 22,94); ille abiectus est ita ut de eius posteris iam nemo sederet in throno David , donec is venturus sit qui eius throni ius habet (ler. 22,30. Ez. 21,27). Verum promissio instauratar in Zorobabel iis verbis quibus a contrario lechonias erat repudiatus : « Zorobabel fili Salathiel, serve meus, dicit Dominus, et ponam fe quasi signaculum, quia te elegi, dicit Dominus exercituum » (Agg. 2,25). Et ad quid et quomodo dux luda esse debeat, praeclare ostenditur et Agg. 1,2 seq. 2,3 seq. et praesertim Zach. 4,6-10 (cf. quae ad hos locos notavi in Comment. in proph. min. II). Insigni modo itaque reditu facto domum David in Zorobabel antiqua sua dignitate non excidisse ostenditur. At hac quasi confirmatione facta familia regia magis magisque obscuritate et humilitate obvolvitur. Cuius rei signum quoque est, quod de generationibus subsequentibus nihil memoriae proditum sit. Non quidem oblivioni dabatur Davidi regnum aeternum esse promissum; ea enim promissio recolitur Eccli. 294,34; 45,31; 47,13. 24; idem professus est Mathathias iamiam moriturus : David in sua misericordia consecutus est sedem regni in saecula (1 Mach. 9,57) et quando necessarium putabatur tempore Machabaeorum potestatem administrandae reipublicae etiam transferre in summum sacerdotem, id solum statutum est donec surgat propheta fidelis (1 Mach. 15,51), qui scil. nomine Dei id vel sanciret vel aboleret; dubitabant enim essetne talis translatio potestatis legitima. Cur autem dubitabant? quia promissio illa domui Davidis data nota erat. Verum ex hac ipsa translatione discimus stirpem davidicam magis magisque in conditionem humilem esse . delapsam. Istud enim tempus quam maxime prae se fert indolem illam quam iam Isaias vaticinatus erat : et egredietur surculus de trunco lesse (11,1) i. e. de cedro sublimi David non remanet nisi truncus humo absconditus et ex hac conditione humili surget Messias tamquam radix, surculus de terra arida (Is. 53,2). Atque hoc tempus collapsi tabernaculi David nobis describitur in genealogiae serie tertia usque ad Ioseph virum Mariae, qui cum esset faber nec a suis cognatis in Bethlehem hospitio exciperetur, in se clarissime ostendit quantopere propter peccata regum splendor externus recesserit a domo David. Christus igitur in tanta paupertate et humilitate apparuit verissime propter peccata progenitorum.
1:8
Iacob autem genuit Ioseph vtrum Mariae, de qua natus est Iesus qui vocatur Christus; « pulchre posuit non de quibus, sed de qua, id est, sola virgine » ut scil. de sola virgine natum demonstraret (Bed. Rab. Thom. Salm.). Ea enim mutatione dictionis in fine genealogiae virgineum conceptum et partum iam clare indicat evangelista. Iosephum vocat virum Mariae propter ea quae in v. 20. 24 narrantur. Atque hoc additur, ut S. Chrys. Euth. dicunt, ad ostendendum propter Mariam esse genealogiam positam. Verum cur ponitur genealogia losephi qui tamen nihil ad Christi nativitatem contribuit? Respondent sat multi non esse consuetudinem s. Scripturae genealogias texere mulierum vel genus alicuius ex genere matris determinare (cf. S. Ambr. in Luc. lib. 3,3. 4. Hier. Pasch.. Thom. Salm. Ians. Sylv. eic.); verum bene notat Maid. hoc responsum non sufficere, sed debere addi id quod veteres omnes uno quasi ore affirment, Mariam quoque ex familia David originem ducere. Origo autem davidica Mariae non ex eo patet quia desponsata erat viro ex familia David; nam nulla lege tenebantur virgines viris tribus suae vel stirpis nubere, nisi essent filiae heredes, uti iam bene monent S. Ambrosius , Alb. Ians. Mald. Sylv. provocantes ad Num. 36,6 qua lege in filiabus heredibus cavetur, ut hereditas permaneat in familia eadem. Mariam vero ex familia David ortum ducere haud immerito S. Ambr. 1. c. &, Hier. Pasch. Thom. Salm. Mald. aliique ex eo quoque affirmant quia cum Ioseph in Bethlehem profecta est quando census agebatur Luc. 2,4. 5. Mariam filiam heredem fuisse et proinde viro agnato debuisse nubere, sententia est apud veteres pervulgata (cf. Patr. dissert. ΥἹ p. 15) quam inde quoque. confirmant quod quamvis in evangeliis sermo fiat de fratribus Christi, de sorore Mariae, tamen nunquam de íratribus Mariae mentio inferatur. Si fratres habuisset, cur eius cura [Ioanni, homini alieno, commendaretur (Ioan. 19,26)? Ex verbis eius : quomodo fiet istud quoniam virum non cognosco (Luc. 1,34) omnino concludi oportet ipsam virginitatem Deo vovisse. lam .vero si virginitatem Deo voverat, quomodo nuptiis cum loseph contrahendis.annueret? causa nulla alia esse potuit, respondet Pa/r., nisi quia ad id lege cogeretur iubente filias heredes alicui agnato nubere. Mariam virginem ex genere davidico esse ortam, clare quoque enuntiatur a S. Paulo Scribente : de Filio suo qui factus est ei ex semine David secundum carnem (Rom. 1,3). Nam, ut iam Tertullianus : « ergo ex semine David caro Christi, sed secundum Mariae carnem ex semine David, ergo ex Mariae carne est, dum ex semine est David; quocumque detorseris dictum, aut ex carne est Mariae quod ex semine est David, aut ex David semine est.quod ex carne est Mariae » (de carne Christi 92; M. 2, 189); atque similiter arguit S. Augustinus : « cum evidenter dicat apostolus Paulus ex semine David secundum carnem Christum, ipsam quoque Mariam de stirpe David aliquam consanguinitatem duxisse, dubitare utique non debemus » (de cons. evang. 2,2. &; M. 34,1072); et similiter contra Faustum 23,9. Verum quamquam Maria virgo est ex stirpe David, id nondum sufficit ut explanetur cur genealogia Ioseph recenseatur. Haec autem merito recensetur et est simul genealogia Christi, quia inter loseph et Mariam virginem verum exstitit coniugium et Christus ex coniuge Iosephi tamquam filius legitimus ex matre legitima natus est. Id iure effert S. Augustinus : « exsequitur humanam generationem Christi Matthaeus ab Abraham generatores commemorans quos perducit ad loseph virum Mariae; neque enim fas erat ut ob hoc eum ἃ coniugio Mariae separandum putaret quod non ex eius concubitu sed virgo peperit Christum » (de cons. evang. 2,1. 2) et monet ab ipso S. Luca qui Mariam virginem peperisse clarissime doceat Ioseph tamen vocari patrem Iesu; unde autem hoc? « nisi quia et virum "ERU egens NEUSS aaa NUSQCESUMSHEHAHRUE Mariae recte intelligimus sine commixtione carnis ipsa copulatione coniugii et ob hoc etiam Christi patrem multo coniunctius qui ez etus coniuge natus sit quam si esset aliunde adoptatus » (l. c. 2,1. 3). ldem de vero coniugio quo Ioseph fiat pater Christi legitimus docent S. Pasch. Thom. Dion. lans. Bar. Lap. aliique et ex recentioribus Patr. Cornely et praesertim Grimm (p. 939 et I, 192. 206) et Funk (Zeitschrift f. kath. Theologie, 1888 p. 657). Et merito adnotat Lap. Iosephum magis fuisse patrem Christi quam pater adoptans sit pater filii adoptati. Christus enim natus est in utriusque coniugio; Ioseph per coniugium corporis b. virginis quasi dominus effectus est, ergo et fructus corporis b. virginis ad eum pertinuit; porro proles quae ex coniugio legitimo nascitur, coniugum est, sicut seges nata in agro meo sterili supranaturaliter mea est; ergo ex iure coniugii Christus est filius Ioseph; vir et uxor fiunt unum, quasi una persona civilis, quare prolem legitime natam habent communem. Ita ille. Atque Deum posse et velle alicui qui ipse non genuerit dare filium, id iam efformatum vidimus in lege leviratus. Unde haud immerito concludunt S. Aug. Pasch. Christum ex hac sola veri coniugii ratione dici posse et debere propter Ioseph filium David, etsi Maria mater nullam ex David consanguinitatis originem duxisset. De genealogia quam S. Lucas recenset tractandi locus proprius est in commentario evangelii eiusdem S. Lucae; ceterum vide quae Cornely, Introd. III p. 193 seq. de conciliandis Christi genealogiis disputat vel quae Patritius, diss. 9 cap. 19. 20 de duarum genealogiarum comparatione et compositione exponit. Nomen Mariae idem esse ac Q'1D nomen sororis Moysis et Aaron (Ex. 13,20), quam LXX Μαριάμ, losephus Μαριάμμη vocant, omnes facile concedunt. Sed quae sit eius nominis significatio certo dici nequit. Variae quidem a veteribus et recentioribus explicationes afferuntur; at ipsa copia et varietas nos inopes reddit ac perplexos. Iam .5. Hier. in libro interpretationis hebraicorum nominum, interpret. de Exodo quattuor affert : Maria illuminatrix mca, vel illuminans eos aut smyrna maris aut stella maris. Praeterea alio loco : illuminata, illuminans (cf. de Lagarde, Onomast. s. 14,7; 70,4; 14,21) et πικρὰ θάλασσα (1. c. 203,14), Quae explicationes aliam et aliam etymologiam supponunt; illuminare videtur referendum ad hiphil verbi 5x3; participium "NTD, quod verbum apud LXX saepius φωτίζειν vertitur. lam secundum formationem aramaicam participium aphel femin. formatur in N^; unde ergo illa explicatio petita videtur. Smyrna maris decla- ratur ex 35 myrrha, smyrna et c' mare. Stella maris (si revera stella qui slellam antiquo errore pro stilla positum esse vellent; atque revera stillam praebet codex babenbergensis saeculi 9 exeuntis libri interpretationis hebraicorum nominum, altero loco in quo S. Hier. iterum nomen Mariae explicat, scil. de evangelio Matthaei. Sed eo quoque loco cum reliquis omnibus testibus criticis de Lagarde servat in textu stellam (p. 93). Verum est in utroque loco S. Hier. stellam maris ita coniungere, ut potius exspectares stillam. Priore loco adiungit ad smyrnam maris, altero loco : melius est autem ut dicamus sonare eam stellam maris sive amarum mare; iam *5 est amarum et guía, stilla cf. Is. 40,15; ecce gentes quasi stilla situlae, ut S. Hier. vertit. Quare complures existimant S. Hier. scripsisse stillam maris, et cum Isidorus hispalensis (Etymol. 7,10; M. 82,289) nomen Mariae interpretetur stellam maris, Isidorum emendasse stellam (in alio loco, de ortu et obitu Patrum cap. 67 solum interpretatur dominam, illuminatricem ; M. 83,148). Vide ea de re Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenlaendischen Gesellschaft 1877 p. 183; Theologisch — practische Quartalschrift, Linz 4880 p. 58-64; Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie, lonsbruck 1880 p. 387. In ultimo periodico p. 389 etiam refertur Lauth in libro : Moses-Osarsiph (München 1879) contendere inveniri in inscriptionibus hieroglyphicis nomen feminae Minur-juma et post Minur poni signum determinativum stellae; unde Minurjam — stella maris. Praeterea altero hoc loco libri interpretationis hebr. nominum haec habet S. Hier.:« Mariam plerique aestimant interpretari : illuminant me isti vel illuminatrix vel smyrna maris. Sed mihi nequaquam videtur; melius est autem ut dicamus sonare eam stellam maris sive amarum mare, sciendumque quod Maria sermone syro domina nuncupatur ». En, habes iam sex explicationes! Apud Syros dominus dicitur 3D, ΚἼΩ. Ad eandem dominae notionem alii pervenire conantur nomen derivantes ab hebr. ΠΩ cui notionem dominandi attribuunt (cf. Bisp.). Alii praeferunt notionem amaram (cf. Grimm I p. 422); Gesenius Thes. ling. hebr. p. 819 explanat vocem : contumacia; Fürst in concord. hebr. p. 1985 : afflicta, infelix; sed in lexico : pinguis, robusta. Grimm 1. c. exponit qua ratione Mirjam soror Moysis typus sit Mariae; vide quoque Zschokke, Biblische Frauen p. 155. lam si de istis explicationibus aliquod iudicium ferendum est, illae certe quae nomen esse compositum volunt et mare ibi reperiunt, omnino relinquendae sunt. Neque probabile videtur alicui puellae recenter natae nomen indi vel contumaciae, rebellis, vel amarae, afflictae. Eam vocari robustam, dominantem, facilius concedendum est vel quod aliis quoque visum est exaltatam, sublimem (a Q31?). Nomen myrrhae ex eo multum commendatur, quia puellarum nomina ex arboribus plantisque deprompta revera in usu erant; ita Esther in domo paterna vocabatur n7: murtus : Susanna nomen habet lilii; Basemat a calamo odorifero, balsamo, Zelpha 8 succo myrrhae, Sarvia (ny) a balsamo, Thamar a palma. Demum in v. 17 evangelista monet tres temporis conditiones populum percurrisse; tres scil. distinguuntur gubernandi modi, iudicum, regum, sacerdotum (cf. Euth. Theoph. op. imp. lans. Sylv. Schanz), triplex itaque cernitur historiae populi Dei distinctio (Pasch. Bed.) et unaquaque periodo populus moribus suis satis superque ostendit quantopere opus haberent doctore Christo et adiutore (cf. S. Chrys. Theoph.). Triplici itaque statu reipublicae tres illae periodi ad extremum filium suum. Ita Deus omnes quasi vias tentavit, ut posaradecade insignem promissionem de Messia esse datam; in prima Abraham, in altera David, in tertia per Aggaeum et Zachariam Zorobabeli duci Iudae et summo sacerdoti. Explicite monet evangelista in unaquaque periodo quatuordecim esse generationes. Cur eas tam diligenter enumeret, variae rationes afferuntur. Exilior videtur ratio illa quae placuit Calm. Patr. id fieri quo memoriae melius consulat, forsitan etiam "ut obsecundetur gustui Iudaeorum quos huiusmodi numerorum analogiae et proportiones delectent. Meliorem reddidit Cai. , ne scil? quisquam putaret ipsum ex oblivione aliquid reliquisse ; proinde omissiones esse consulto factas et ex industria (sim. Sylv.) et certe addi debet cum Maid. in ista aequalitate et in ipso numero intelligendum esse aliquid subesse mysterii. Poterat ex ipsa aequalitate haud improbabiliter concludi iam novum instare rerum ordinem. Nam ab Abraham post 1& generationes populus Davide rege in novum melioremque ordinem est redactus; magna iterum mutatio facta est post 1& generationes : respublica est collapsa; iam post ruinam factam iterum decima quarta exsistit generatio; ergo novus rerum ordo, magna quaedam immutatio iure videtur exspectanda. lam quaenam? cerie non alia nisi quae promissa erat, scil. ut tabernaculum David quod cecidit erigeretur, ut corona abiecta per 14 generationes ei daretur cuius est ius (Ani. 9,11. Ez. 21,97). Similiter Lap. existimat.
1:18
v. 18 iam dictum est, sensus est quem ver- nuptiarum celebrare (S. Thom.). Quare etiam contugem tuam appositio est ad declarandum qua in conditione Maria iam fuerit ante aliquam accipere tamquam uxorem (cf. Schanz). Cur non debeat dubitare vel vereri, additur : quia quod in ea generatum est τὸ iv αὐτῇ γεννηθέν, de (ix) Spiritu sancto est; quasi dicat : nitum est, sed de Spiritu sancto est (Patr.). Ad quod responsum bene hoc agnovisset et ea de causa cum Virgine permanere et cohabitare timuisset » et eodem modo notat Bar. hac angeli responsione illam sententiam explodi; « respondere enim posset Ioseph : ideo ego illam dimittere volo quia ex Sancto concepit; non enim cum ea habitare audeo quae tantae est sanctitatis et dignitatis. Si ille timebat ob dignitatem tantae matris cum ea habitare, quorsum redditur ab angelo haec causa, cur dimittere non debeat »? et eodem modo Sylv. : « quod vero ante angeli apparitionem loseph non agnovisset mysterium Incarnationis, mihi manifeste ostendit dictum angeli totam rem revelantis; ad quid haec angelus diceret, si iam revelata erant » ὃ Unde dicamus cum Maid. illam interpretationem, losephum i iam antea scivisse mysterium Incarnationis, loco non convenire, sed concedamus cum eodem eorum tamen auctorum pietati maxime convenire. At nobis quaerendum est semper et ubique quid sit verum. Dignitas Iosephi v. 20 declaratur ex sublimitate sponsae. Accedit quod ei honor et cura et officium demandatur patris, in v. 91 : pariet flum ; advertunt non addi uti Luc. 1,13. de Zacharia, 115i; filius enim Mariae toti mundo nascitur (S. Thom. Saím. Ians. Bar.), uti dicitur Is. 9,5 : parvulus natus est nobis et filius datus est nobis. Sed cum eius sponsa pariat filium isque in matrimonio legitimo nascatur, singulari ratione loseph iura habet paterna. Ea angelus quoque asserit dicens et vocats nomen eius Iesum ; cum id antea iam matri dictum sit (Luc. 1,31), 'nunc autem Iosepho quoque dicatur, ostenditur eum habere in filium iura paterna, sicut mater habet materna ; proinde vero quodam sensu Iesum esse filium eius et Iosephum etiam in nominis impositione individuam cum matre vitae societatem profiteri. Nomina liberis imponi et a matre et a patre exemplis docemur; cf. Gen. &,1; 5,29; 19,37. 38; 21,3; 29,39-35; 30,6 seq. Ex. 2,22 ete. Iesus, Ἰησοῦς, hebr. yv forma est apocopata quae tempore posteriore usu invaluit pro forma pleniore atque antiquiore yy? i. e. Iahve est salus; est idem nomen ac Iosue qui apud LXX et in vulgata quoque aliquoties Iesus appellatur (Eccli. 46,4. 1 Mach. 2,55. 2 Mach. 19,15. Act. 7,5. Hebr. ς 38) et de quo Eccli. &6,1 ὃς ἐγένετο κατὰ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ μέγας ἐπὶ σωnpa ἐχλεχτῶν αὐτοῦ. Neh. 8,17 Iosue filius Nun iam forma breviore vocatur 5^ ; simili modo summus sacerdos aequalis Zorobabelis modo forma pleniore yUfn vocatür (Agg. 1,1. 12; Zach. 3,1; 6,11) modo breviore ys» (Esdr. 2, 2; 3,2. Neh. 7, .39; 12,1. 10. 26) et haec nominis forma brevior satis usitata crebo viris indebatur; cf. 1 Par. 24,11. 9 Par. 31,15. Esdr. 2,40; 8,33. Neh. 7,83; 8,7; 9,&. 5 elc. Est itaque nomen compositum ex appellatione apocopata 3) — lIahve et y1 — YU; unde ny1?n et yv liberatio, auxilium, salus (cf. Gesenius Thes. P- 639 seq. et 1380). Quare rite nomen 'Incox (Iosue) exponit Philo σωτηρία χυρίου (de nominum mutatione ὃ 21 ; Opera Philonis, ed. Pfeiffer vol. & p. 375) et Eusebius : Ἰωσουὲ δέ ἐστιν ᾿Ιαὼ σωτηρία i, 6. Θεοῦ σωτήριον et idem significare dicit Iesu nomen (Demonst. ev. lib &.in fine; M. 22,333) et S. Chrys. hom. 2,2 monet nomen hoc non esse graecum , sed hebraicum et significare σωτήρ. Ex graecis tamen aliqui nomen explicarunt a voce ἰάομα: (cf. ἰάσιμος, ἴασις, ᾿Ιασώ); ita Clemens alex. (Paedag. 3,12; M. 8,677) Iesum vocat τὸν ἰώμενον et similiter S. Cyrillus hieros. qui tamen addit secundum hebraicum eum dici σωτήρ (Catech. 10,13; M. 33,677); alia vide in Suiceri Thesauro p. 1448. Itaque angelus significationem nominis reipsa declarat dicens : ipse enim salvum faciet (σώσει; hebr. yc in hiphil) populum suum a peccatis eorum. Qua explicatione addita munus Messiae servatoris quam optime designatur. Unicum enim quod omni modo malum nominari debet est peccatum; peccatum miseros reddit et singulos et populos ; iniquitates vestrae diviserunt inter vos et Deum vestrum et peccata vestra absconderunt faciem eius a vobis (Is. 59,2); peccatis sumus filii irae, obnoxii interitui. Hac porro explicatione summam quoque tangit oraculorum messianorum; iis enim nihil frequentius promittitur quam fore ut tempore messiano peccata deleantur et sanctitas cognitione Dei exorta et nutrita regnet, cuius signum et argumentum erit pax, culis messianis populus Messiae iam declarantur gentes omnes; cf. Ps. 2,8; 91,28; 11,8-11; 86,4-6, Is. 11,9. 10; 52,4. 6; 49,6: 52,15; 60,6 seq. etc.; quare merito cum S. Chrys. Pasch. interpretabimur populum eius omnes credentes. Quod in prophetis toties adverti potest, efferri scil. indolem spiritualem regni messiani, id angelus quoque unice enuntiat. Et cum duo filio nascituro adscribat quae ceteroquin de.Deo solo dici solent, salvum facere ἃ peccatis et populum Dei populum vocet ipsius, haud immerito dicemus cum S. CArys. Ians. Bar. Sylv. satis innui divinam eius pueri naturam. Denique non est omittendum nomen hoc de coelo allatum (S. Chrys. Maid.) benignitatem Messiae describere qui totus in usus nostros se exhibet. Poterant Messiae indi multa nomina maiestate plena; eam eligit ex omnibus apcentiam, ut solo iam nomine omnium animos in suum rapiat amorem et firmissimam omnibus inspiret fiduciam. Quam vero insigni modo nomen suum vita et opere expresseril exprimatque continuo, non est huius loci pluribus exponere; sufficiat in memoriam revocasse expiationem in cruce peractam, institutionem sacramentorum , perennem gratiae suae influxum. Denique in hoc quoque eventu videmus angelos esse internuntios, esse spiritus administratorios in ministerium missos propter eos qui hereditatem capient salutis (Hebr. 1,14). Nede partu virgineoexsistere possit ambiguitas (S. Hil.), S. Matthaeus nobis ostendit sponsum haesitantem , volentem dimittere, ab angelo edoctum. Nam, ut S. Chrys. rem perpendit, « quando ille qui plus quam omnes zelotypia corripi poterat, videbatur eam non modo non traducere nec inhonorare, sed etiam in consortium accipere ipsique ministrare praegnanti , palam est eum non sic facturum , nisi persuasum habuisset eam ex Spiritu sancto concepisse; alioquin illam nec apud se retinuisset nec in aliis suo esset ministerio dignatus». Quare S. Gregorius (hom. 96 in evang. M. 76,1201) apposite monet, sicuti dubitatione Thomae fides nostra in resurrectionem sit firmata, ita nos etiam dubitatione S. Ioseph reddi certiores de conceptu virgineo; et similiter S. Thom. et Maid. quoque advertit : quis marito non credat de sponsae integritate testanti et illi qui eo usque processerit, ut de divortio cogitaverit? divina est providentia quae aegrotare unum permittit, ut multis ex eius morbo medicinam faciat. Sic ille. Huic argumento evangelista aliud adiungit ex prophetia petitum v. 22 ostendens conceptum ac partum virgineum iam a Domino per: Isaiam 7,14 esse praedictum et proin nos in b. Virgine eius vaticinii cernere impletionem. Sunt qui etiam v. 22. 23 ab angelo dici existiment; ita iam S. Irenaeus (adv. haer. 4,23; M. 1,1048), S. Chrys. Euth. Theoph. et inter recentiores Patr. (diss. 15 cap. 6 p. 133) Arποία, Weiss, in quam sententiam etiam inclinat Morales (lib. & tract. 1^; tom. 2 p. 70) et uti videtur Grzmm (I p. 930). At merito attribuunt haec verba plerique ipsi evangelistae; nam uti iam Rab. advertit, « huic evangelistae moris est omnia quae narrat etiam propheticis affirmare testimoniis », idemque monent Haymo, Salm. Sylv. et recentiores; atque profecto ipsa formula Aoc factum est ut impleretur adeo familiaris est evangelistae, ut eius statim admoneamur. Neque sane opus erat ut angelus sibi apud Iosephum quasi fidem faceret recitato oraculo. Aliter autem res se habet, si evangelista scribit. Hic scil. eventum omni ex parte certo studet probare , hic intimum illum nexum pandere vult qui est inter testamentum vetus ac novum, hic, ut Cat. gelum esse revelatum, verum iam diu antea esse a Deo praedictum. Vaticinia autem exhibent nobis normas Dei in rerum administratione, eius voluntatem, consilia, promissiones; quare iure dici potest : qui praedixerat quia facere statuerat , facit quta praedixerat ideo ut verax sit. Idque eo magis quoque de iis vaticiniis valet quibus inducendi sumus ad veritatem et revelationem divinam cognoscendam. Ita v. δ. Christus ex vaticiniis docet apostolos se debuisse pati (Luc. 24,96. &6) et Paulus indicat mysterium redemptionis nunc esse patefactum per scripturas prophetarum (Rom. 16,296) et uti ex Act. et epistolis apostolorum patet vaticinia adhibentur ad doctrinae veritatem stabiliendam; immo iam apud Isaiam non semel ex oraculis datis:impletisque arguitur pro vera divinitate Iahve (&1,91-99, 43,9; 45,91; 46,9; 48,5). ᾿ Hisce considerationibus factis dubitari nequit quin dictio ἵνα πλη- ρωθῇ «t adimpleretur obvio suo'ac nativo sensu explicari debeat i. e. ἵνα significet deo wt et nullatenus solum 1/a ut; aliis verbis, ut loqui solent, ἵνα non est ἐχθατιχῶς, sed τελιχῶς. Quare haud recte Calm. adnotat : « haec phrasis non semper ad amussim litterae accipitur, ac si res praenuntiata ratio esset eorum quae acciderunt, sive res quae accidit recta sequatur ex iis quae praedicta sunt ». Melius Pasc., : « rectum erat ut ex plenitudine praescientiae Dei plenitudo promissorum in plenitudine temporis impleretur; alioquin omnium prophetarum eloquia vacua remanerent ; sed quia in veritate vaticinia prophetarum de fonte veritatis fuerant perhausta, aliud devenire non poterat, nisi exhibitum esset quod promiserant ». Bene quoque SS. TAom. oraculum ATTE. 4, 22: ᾿ | e — 773 dicit induci ab evangelista propter tria : ut ostendatur vetus testamentum esse de Christo, ut facilius Christo credant , ut conformitas utriusque testamenti: pateat. Pariter observat Salm. : « in iis quae praenuntiantur ut a Deo statuta et praeordinata ut certo modo fiant, recte dicuntur ideo facta esse:ut impleretur quod praedictum erat, id est, ut dispositio Dei et consilium suum sortiretur effectum ; ac proinde illa coniunctio μέ: proprie dicitur per modum causae sive efficientiae, quandoquidem in his intelligitur non solum Dei praevisio, sed etiam provisio ut sic eveniat » (similiter Bar. contra Titelmannum et Tost.). Sunt enim, ut Patr. monet, prophetiae quaedam .Dei promissiones quibus: spondet se aliquid praestaturum, nec secus sentire oportet de typis quibus Deus futura designabat; proinde sicut qui aliquid promisit, illud praestat etiam ut promissum impleat, ita quae praedicta fuerant eveniunt ideo ut oracula impleantur. Atque merito iam Haymo ex eo arguit quod sibi evangelista proposuit : « scripsit evangelium eorum maxime causa qui ex ludaeis credebant ... et propterea satagebat eos ad spiritualem legis sensum erigere, quatenus fidei christianae sacramenta tanto securius perciperent quanto haec non alia esse quam quae prophetae praedixerant cognoscerent ». Quare audiendi non sunt qui quandoque obiiciunt : non quia praedicta sunt, facta: sunt, sed potius quia omnino futura erant, ideo Deus praedixit (cf. S. Chrys.. hom. 97,2 in 1 Cor. ; Theoph. in Matth. 13,35; Tost. Dion. Kuinoel, Berlepsch).. Verum melius rem concepit auctor op. imp. : « gratia a prophetis testimonium habet vel ideo ut vetus et novum. consonet testamentum vel ut infirmitati eruditorum satisfaciat vel ut non mox temere videretur erumpere quod tanto ante tempore praedictum est ». Veram inspirationis notionem nobis suggerit evangelista dicens : quod dictum est a Domino per prophetam; ita quippe Deus per auctorem inspiratum ad nos loquitur, ut quaecumque auctor nobis dicat eadem a Deo per ipsum nobis dicantur. Vaticinio summa conciliatur auctoritas, cum ipse- Deus eius nuntius et praeco dicatur; depromptum est ex Is. 7,154; « hoc ipsum quod dicit ecce admirantis est tanti mysterii magnitudinem, ut omnes velut ex somno suscitati ad hoc dictum evigilent » (Haó.). Haec prophetia directe et immediate est messiana neque ullo pacto admitti potest cum Lamy, Schegg, ΕἸ." et multis protestantibus, verba ea immediate dici de puella quadam vel coniuge Isaiae quae mox paritura sit filium et solum mediate et .iypice de Messia. Huic.opinioni et verba prophetae et ratio signi ct totus repugnat contextus. Unum hic idque efficacissimum ac facillimum argumentum commemorare sufficiat : quis sit Emmanuel 7, 15, ipse propheta clarissime docet in sequentibus 8,8. 10 (hebr.)'et 9,6. 7; qui autem 9,6. 7 describitur, idem est qui 11,1-10 praedicitur. Sed. nemo poterit adeo insanire, ut in 8,8. 10 et 9,6. 7 et 11, 1-10 filium Isaiae agnoscat. Ceterum vide quae de eo oraculo dixi in Comment. Is. 1 p. 165-185 et cf. Pa/r. diss. 16. Quare cum catholicis ᾿ Hengstenberg , Oehler, Kueper, Delitzsch, Engelhardt, Keil, Weiss, Kay, Mansel etc.) tenendum ést vaticinium unice et directe spectare Messiam. et conceptum ac partum praedici virgineum , sicut evangelista explicat. De appellatione Emmanuel iam notat TAheopA. divinam Scripturam ex operibus imponere nomina et ex operibus Christi demonstratum esse eum Deum esse et nobiscum conversari , atque eodem modo monuit S. Chrys. : « hic est mos Scripturae res quae contingunt pro nomine ponere; nihil enim aliud est illud vocabunt Emmanuel quam videbunt Deum cum hominibus... ideoque rem quae circa ipsum contigit quasi nomen ipsi imponit » idque inter alia illustrat ex Is. 1,26 : civitas vocabitur civitas iustitiae... « et nusquam invenimus Sion fuisse vocatam iustitiam , sed nomen ipsi mansit Ierosolyma, verum quia ipsa in melius commutata hoc ipsi accidit, ideo ipsam ita vocari dixit; ubi enim contingit quoddam praeclarum facinus,... nomen eius appellat ipsam rei quae facta est veritatem ». Vaticinium fere recitatur ex versione graeca LXX, solum apud LXX legitur λήψεται et καλέσεις, hic vero ἕξει et χαλέσουσιν (cum cod. plerisque). Quod nomen Emmanuel explicatur μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν ὁ Θεός, ab interprete graeco additum est. Quam insigni modo hoc nomen ἴῃ Christum conveniat et opus eius exprimat, manifestum est; « qui enim ante tempora natus ex Patre Deus est, ipse in plenitudine temporum Emmanuel, nobiscum Deus, in utero matris factus est, quia nostrae fragilitatem naturae in unitatem suae personae suscipere dignatus est, quando Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis » (Haymo, hom. 8); sim. Raó. PascA. Ians. et opere messiano id effectum est ut reconciliatione et expiatione facta iam Deus tamquam sui ipsius suorumque bonorum largitor nobiscum uniretur et in sui consortium redemptos assumeret. | Subiungit evangelista obedientiam Iosephi ad angeli vocem eamque obedientiam describit promptam (TAeoph. Aib.) et perfectàm quia id facit et eo modo quo ab angelo iussus erat (S. Pasch. Thom.) et accepit. coniugem suam i. e. in suam induxit domum nuptiis more solito celebratis, ex quo tempore eodem in domicilio habitabant. Ad v. 95 et non cognoscebat eam etc. bene oportet advertere quale scribendi consilium evangelista sequatur et quid sibi in limine libri praestituerit. Neque enim, ut Cai. monet, vitam Mariae scribere intendit, sed modum quo Christus intraverit in mundum. Quare bene dicit S. Bruno : «tota intentio evangelistae haec erat ut ista dicendo filium Ioseph Christum non esse monstraret ». lam de conceptu virginali satis constabat ex re narrata v. 18-20; « ut scias igitur virginem usque ad partum intactam fuisse, donec dixit, ut quae partum antecedebant firmaret; quod enim ab eo tibi discendum erat hoc dixit, nempe virginem usque ad partum intactam mansisse » (S. Chrys.); restabat scil. nihil aliud nisi ut de partu virginali mentionem faceret (Maid. Ians. Bar. Sylv.) neque immerito observat Tost. Mariam non habuisse nisi unum filium Iesum, idque iis quibus scribat Matthaeus plane notum fuisse; proinde non apparuisse aliquam rationem ut diceretur an loseph cognosset Mariam postea, cum post Christum Maria nullum peperisset. Proinde de hac re, ut iudicemus, « et quod ex dictis consequi et in confesso esse videbatur, hoc tibi intelligendum reliquit » ut S. Chrys. dicit et post eum μέλ. Cai. altique. Protestantes quidem haud pauci negant propter hunc loquendi modum Mariam mansisse virginem post partum (cf. Keil, Weiss); at isti non attendunt quid sibi velint verba Virginis ad angelum : quomodo fiet istud, quoniam virum non cognosco (Luc. 1,38)? Hisce post desponsationem firmam suam declarat voluntatem , immo firmissimam, ita ut honori quoque matris Messiae renuntiare parata sit potius quam hanc suam voluntatem determinatam relinquere. lam quis sibi persuadebit talem virginem nato filio ab ea voluntate recessisse? profecto nisi quis opinione praeiudicata obcaecatus est (quia vult doctrinam Ecclesiae catholicae impugnare), vocem virginis : quoniam virum non cognosco, cum tota antiquitate fatebitur valere et voluntatem declarare pro tota vita. Praeterea Iosephum nullo pacto ausurum fuisse iura coniugii postulare, validis rationibus veteres ostendere solebant. [ta S. Chrys. per seintelligi debere docet virum illum iustum eam quae sic mater effecta sit et tam novo et insolito puerperio dignata fuerit tangere non' ausüm fuisse; similiter EutA. et S. Hier. scribit contra Helvidium : « ad summam illud requiro, quare se abstinuerit loseph usque ad partus diem? respondebit utique (Helvidius), quia angelum audierat dicentem : quod in ea natum est, de Spiritu sancto est. Pulchre; qui ergo somnio tantum credidit, ut uxorem non auderet attingere, is postquam pastorum voce cognoverat angelum Domini venisse de coelis et dixisse ad eos : natus est salvator Christus Dominus, et cum eo laudes militiae concinuisse coelestis; qui Simeonem iustum inter amplexus parvuli viderat praedicantem, qui Annam prophetissam , magos, stellam, Herodem , angelos viderat, qui, inquam, miracula tanta cognoverat, Dei templum, Spiritus sancti sedem, Domini sui matrem audebat attingere » (M. 23, 190)? Et similiter arguit auctor op. imp. : « postquam cognovit quia. facta est unigeniti Dei templum, quo modo poterat hoc usurpare? quod antea facere noluit vir religiosus , postea facturus fuerat »? Atque merito notat Cai. : « nisi desipiamus, intelligere tenemur quod cognitis et visis tot. mysteriis Ioseph et Maria nec etiam cogitaverunt de copula ». Qualis sit finis Auius coniugii, losepho per angelum significatum est v. 20. 21; virginitas docente Paulo perfectior est (1 Cor. 7,1. 7. 8. 39-35). Haec duo iam sufficiunt ut doceamur quid sentiendum sit. Neque obstat modus loquendi donec peperit. Nam.cur Matthaeus id unum efferat, ratio iam reddita est, Iesu enim conceptum et partum exponere et in tuto vult collocare; dein, ut auctor op. imp. advertit, potuisset alicui videri credibile ante partum, quia nondum plene cognovisset mysterii dignitatem ;. verum id quod fieri nullatenus posset exponere non opus fuisse. Assignatur itaque terminus; quid ultra hunc terminum acciderit, illa particula donec per se neque asseritur neque negatur. Multa iam S. Hier. et veteres afferunt exempla ut demonstrent usum particulae in s. litteris nequaquam ad unum restringi sensum. Ita Helvidio opponit S. Hier. illud Is. 6,8 (ex LXX) : « ego sum, ego sum, et donec senescatis ego sum; numquid postquam illi senuerint Deus esse desistet? Et Salvator in evangelio ad apostolos, ecce ego, inquit, vobiscum sum omnibus diebus usque ad consummationem saeculi. Ergo post consummationem saeculi ἃ discipulis suis Dominus abscedet? oportet Christum regnare, donec ponat omnes inimicos eius sub pedibus eius (1 Cor. 15,25); numquid regnare desistet postquam illi sub pedibus fuerint, cum utique tunc magis regnare incipiet »? Hisce aliisque exemplis v. g. Gen. 8,7. Ps. 71,7; 109, 1 S. Chrys. Theoph. Euth. Bed. Pasch. Alb. Thom. etc. idem demonstrant. Multo minus obstat lectio satis recepta filium suum primogenitum (vide notam crit.). Nam contra Helvidium iam notat S. Hier. : « primogenitus est non tantum post quem et alii, sed : ante quem nullus ». Et hoc : ante quem nullus, censeri potest evangelistam (si lectio est genuina) voluisse effere, ut matrem virginem , non viduam, Omni ex parte assereret. Dein optime monet S. Hier. in lege prae- Scribi ut omne primogenitum Domino offeratur, redimatur (Ex. 35,19. 20. Num. 18,15); « definit sermo Dei quid sit primogenitum : omne, inquit, quod aperit vulvam; alioqui si non est primogenitus, nisi is tantum quem sequuatur fratres, tamdiu sacerdotibus primogenita non debentur quamdiu et alia fuerint procreata?... nonne mihi ipsi apices loquentur et me stultitiae redarguent, eum esse dictum primogenitum qui aperiat vulvam, non qui habeat et fra- S. Bruno, Pasch. Haymo, Alb. Thom. etc. Praeterea alii, quod utique opus non est, primogenitum explicant mystice quoque : primogenitus in multis fratribus devicta morte surrexit, vel, quia quotquot receperunt eum dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri, quorum recte primogenitus appellatur, vel merito virtutis et regni primogenitus omnium nostrum, vel primogenitus ante omnem creaturam, secundum id quod de Sepientia dicitur Eccli. 26,5; cf. Col. 1,15 (Bed. Raà. Haymo , Pasch. Alb. Sylv.); ita quoque Grimm I p. 939 : primogenitus qui multos fratres de plenitudine vitae suae vita donat, primogenitus ex mortuis, primogenitus quem Iahve sibi per virginem ex Abraham praeparaverit, ob quem et ipse populus Israel vocetur filius primogenitus Dei (Ex. &,22) et tamquam talis sit populus sanctus sacerdotalis. Verum haec omnia hoc loco non veniunt in consi- T. S. Epiphanius (haeres. 78,17; M. 42,728) multum momenti in eo ponit quod dicitur -τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς τὸν πρωτότοχον, non primogenitum suum : « hic est enim ille quem primogenitum omnis creaturae apo- 8tolus nominat, qui ante eas omnes originém accepit ». Tribus itaque argumentis, ut S. Thom. advertit, probat evangeli- Sta matrem Dei de Spiritu sancto concepisse ex revelatione angeli, ex praenuntiatione prophetae, ex obedientia loseph, « qui non acquievisset verbis angeli ut Mariam susciperet in sponsam, nisi cognovisset eam impraegnatam de Spiritu sancto ». In nominis impositione (Luc. 2,91) ius paternum exercet secundum angeli praeceptum. — Quod protestantes obiiciunt propter fratres Christi qui dicuntur, non est huius loci discutere ; ceterum vide Cornely, Introd. Ill p. 595. "MATT. d. — δὰ EMINUS Us Ἢ 'Nominatis in Christi genealogia Rahab et Ruth evangelista jam innuerat id quod prophetae de Messia frequenter praedicaverant eum salutem esse allaturum omnibus; idem nunc ostendit narrans adventum et adorationem magorum. Hi enim erant uti fere nomen et modus quaerendi v. 2 indical ex gentibus; sunt itaque, ut iam veteres loqui solebant, primitiae gentium ; ita S.. Augustinus , serm. 900, 1 et 202,1 (in Epiph. 2 et &; M. 38,1098. 1033), Bruno, Pasch. Aib. Thom. in comment. et in 3 p. qu. 36 art. 8 aliique. Primo quidem in pastoribus et in Simeone et Anna se manifestat Messias natus Iudaeis; hi enim erant populus. cui credita sunt eloquia Dei et Iudaeo primum evangelium erat ahnuntiandum (Rom. 1,16; cf. Act. 13,46); at-uti Abrahamo iam dictum erat, simul cum ipsis omnes gentes benedictionem erant accepturae. Quod itaque Simeon in templo dixerat lumen ad revelationem gentium (Luc. 2,32), id in vocatione magorum expressum cernimus. Quia.enim adveniens ille, ita S. CArys., vetus institutum abrogaturus orbemque ad unum eundemque cultum . deducturus ipseque in mari et terra ubique adorandus erat, ab ipsis statim initiis ostium gentibus aperit, ut alienorum exemplo suos etiam erudiret. Verum in hisce statim primordiis etiam: illud expressum habetur : multi ab oriente et:occidente venient et recumbent in regno coelorum, filii autem regni eiicientur (Matth. 8,11; 21,31. 43). Fides enim, studium, obedientia, adoratio magorum maxime condemnat negligentiam, torporem, contumaciam Iudaeorum. Venerunt quippe magi gentium « fidem prophetantes futuram et istorum incredulitatem condemnantes praesentem; o beati magi, qui ex omnibus gentibus primitiae fidelium fieri meruerunt! illi enim magi futurae Ecclesiae formam portabant; sicut enim illi regem quem non viderant credentes quaerebant et confitebantur, sic et nos qui sumus ex gentibus Dominum quem nunquam vidimus credentes quotidie quaerimus et confitemur potestatem ipsius » (op.. tmp.). Praeterea quemadmodum in magis figuratur vocatio et illuminatio gentium (S. Leo, serm. 35,1 et 38,1; M. 54,250. 260 etc.), ita in iisdem etiam gloria declaratur Messiae. Stella enim fulgente proditur, animos longe absentium sui desiderio et amore implet, humile suum domicilium subito thesauris exornat. Bene S. Augustus : « in alto fulget, in humili latet; quis est iste rex tam parvus, tam magnus; nondum in terris loquens, iam in coeli9 edicta proponens » (serm. 199,2; in Epiph. 1,2)? Ea narratione evangelista .quoque illustrat, quomodo intelligi debeat populus Messiae quem a.peccatis sit salvaturus 1,21. Quo tempore magi advenerint, satis clare in ipsa narratione indicatur. Herodes enim secundum tempüs quod eiquisierat a magis a bimatu et infra occidi iussit puerulos. Proinde duobus fere annis, etsi concesseris Herodem maioris securitatis causa tempus nonnihil extendisse, ante occisionem stella visa est magis. Stellam autem apparuisse eo-tempore quo Christus natus sit communis est et vera sententia. Fugam porro in Aegyptum. susceptam esse statim post discessum magorum, et.verba ipsa evangelistae omnino suadent v. 13 et rerum conditione plane exigitur. Cum enim Bethlehem in tanta esset vicinitate lerusalem, Herodem omnino non potuit latere magos esse profectos; et cum plenus esset timoris et suspicionis, certe non diu distulit decretum .occisionis, verum statim apparitores suos misit in . Bethlehem. Quare .necesse est adventum- -magornm.-ponere aliquo tempore post. praesentationem in templo. Atque ea in re iam veteres aliqui praeierunt. Ita iam in Tatiani harmonia, cui nomen est diatessaron , adventus magorum ponitur post praesentationem in templo (cf. Ciasca, Tatiani evangeliorum harmonia arabice, Romae 1888 p. 5, et Ammonii slexandrini evangeliorum harmonia interprete Victore capuano, M. 68,260); idem quoque arguit Eusebius ex tempore quod Herodes exquisierat a magis: « biennium ergo elapsum fuerata Iesu nativitate ad magorum adventum » (Quaest. evang. ad Steph. qu. 16:; M. 22,933) et vide quoque Mai, Nova Patrum bibl. tom. & p. 280; eodem modo collocat narrationem luvencus lib. 1 v. 960 (M. 19,95) et adventum magorum biennio post nativitatem poni etiam éernimus in Eusebii Chron. apud S. Hier. M. 27,562; idem legimus apud. Epiphanium, haer. 51,9 (M. 51,904) : « Matthaeus narrata nativitate statim ad secundum annum se contulit et quae post biennium acciderint declarat ». At non integrum biennium esse interponendum iam dictum est. Atque eam sententiam de adventu magorum seriore in antiqua Ecclesia satis fuisse communem etiam ostenditur imaginibus, quibus magi dona offerentes cernuntur depicti. Unam eniin imaginem si exceperis in qua divinus infans pannis involutus cernitur, in reliquis apparet iam grandiusculus vel sedens in matris gremio vel etiam sedens solus in throno; cf. Garrucci, Storia dell'arte christiana, tav. 213. 455; Kraus, Realencyclopaedie der christlichen Alterthümer Il p. 350, ubi refertur eum tamquam puerulum quinque vel sex annos natum communiter e& in. scena repraesentari; vide quoque? Lehner, Marienverehrung in den ersten Jahrhunderten p.:33&. Magos advenisse post praesentationem in templo etiam Fab. tenet et Estius sententiam existimat probabiliorem eamque recentiores fere omnes tuentur. Immo Patr. scribit: « vix ést opere pretium referre sententiam putantium ante Mariae purificationem et magos advenisse et Christum in Aegyptum deductum indeque reductum ».(diss. 27 cap. 3 p. 326). Sententiam quam. veram censeo bene proponunt ac defendunt Grimm I p. 327, Cornely, Introd. lil p. 203, FZ. | . Verum altera sententia magos advenisse die tertio decimo post nativitatem erat pervulgata. Eam proponit S. Augustinus serm. 203,1 : « Dominus noster Iesus Christus ante dies tredecim natus a magis hodie traditur adoratus » et eodem sermone n. 3 ait numerum duodenarium universi orbis salutem praefigurare, « ideo fortasse post natalem Domini duodecim diebus'additis magi primitiae gentium ad Christum videndum adorandumque venerunt » (M. 38,1035. 1036). Atque in libro de consensu evangelistarum adventum magorum.ponit circumcisione narrata (2,5. 17; M. 34,1082). Eadem sententia proponitur in glossa ordinaria (M. 114,73), a S. Pasch. Thom. in comment. et in 3 p. qu. 36 art. 6, Tost. Mald. lans. Bar. Lap. eandemque sententiam Suarez quoque communiorem et verisimiliorem appellat. Generatim provocant ad traditionem in Ecclesia communem quam ex eo derivant quia, uti circumcisio die octavo post nativitatem et purificatio die quadragesimo celebretur, ita magorüm adventus die tertio decimo; ergo inferunt : sicut illi dies rei gestae vere respondent, ita hic quoque (cf. Baron. n. 34 ad annum 4 Chr.). Quam illationem esse fallacem facile patet. Nam fac magos advenisse post annum et 13 dies a nativitate, nonne sollemnis commemoratio eodem die quo nunc erat celebranda? siquidem Ecclesia singulis annis omnia celebrat mysteria. Porro eodem die 6 mensis ianuarii etiam celebratur commemoratio baptismi Christi et miraculi in Cana patrati. Num haec propterea credenda sint post annos triginta eodem die 6 mensis evenisse? neutiquam! Nam miraculum in Cana non factum esse uno anno post Christi baptisma ex evangelio Ioannis evidenter patet. Immerito igitur opinantur sensum Ecclesiae eum esse, ut commemoratio mysterii eodem die flat quo mysterium olim factum est. Mirum est quod aliqui hanc quoque rationem in medium afferunt : si magi post annum venissent, puerulum iam non in Bethlehem invenissent, sed in Aegypto! Alii obiiciunt post purificationem sacram familiam concessisse in Nazareth Luc. 2,39; ergo si magi venissent post eam caerimoniam, iam non inventuros fuisse puerulum in Bethlehem. At ratio haec ex Lucae narratione deprompta rem non evincit. Cum enim S. Lucas de adventu magorum, de fuga in Aegyptum et de reditu nil referat, ab eius narrandi modo non abhorret, ut quae post illos eventus contigerint, statim adiungat " omissis intermediis; cf. Act. 1,9 et Luc. 24,50; Act. 9,99. 23 et Gal. 1,17. Sed ex Matth. 2,22 colligitur certo Iosephum ante fugam domicilium suum in Bethlehem transtulisse ; quare valde probabile est eum post puriticationem rediisse Nazareth et rebus ibi compositis transmigrasse Bethlehem, ut ibi sedem figeret stabilem (cf. Cornely l. c.). In versione graeca Danielis quae est Theodotionis et quae in usu erat et.est Ecclesiae graecae μάγοι dicuntur ii qui hebr. tnu appellantur; ita Dan. 1,90; 2,9. 27; &,&; 5,7. 11. 15; semel etiam in versione Danielis quae est LXX, scil. 2,9. Qua voce ordo quidam sapientum, incantatorum, rerum secretarum. scrutatorum in aula Nabuchodonosor regis designatur!. Praestigia incantatorum aegyptiorum ad artem magicam referuntur Sap. 17,7 et Act. 13,6 Barjesu magus pseudopropheta appellatur et Elymas quoque magus nomina- Persarum magi vocantur, qui regum consiliarii, rerum naturalium studiosi et voluntatis deorum conscii habebantur; nomen quoque de omni genere praestigiatorum et incantatorum usurpabatur. Idem nomen apud Medos quoque in usu erat et apud Babylonios; Ier. 39,3. 13 principem magorum nominari communis fert explicatio. Apud Platonem, Porphyrium, Apuleium aliosque magi tamquam rerum divinarum conscii et cultores deorum describuntur (cf. Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenl. Gesellschaft XX p. 69; Realencyclopaédie für prot. Theologie 2 ed, IX p. 128; Parr. diss. 17). Consuetudo autem et sermo communis, inquit S. Hier. ad Dan. 2,2, magos pro maleficis accipit, qui aliter habentur. apud gentem suam eo quod sint philosophi Chaldaeorum et ad artis huius scientiam reges quoque et principes eiusdem gentis omnia faciunt; unde et in nativitate Domini salvatoris ipsi primum ortum eius intellexerunt. Fuerunt quoque qui nomen magorum apud evangelistam malo sensu interpretarentur. Ita S. Iustinus c. Tryph. n. 78 : « magi qui ut spolia rapti fuerant ad malas quasque actiones ad quas eos ille daemon impellebat, ubi Christum adoratum venerunt, defecerunt, uti manifestum est ab ea quae illos ut spolia rapuerat potestate » (M. 6, 660) et S. Augustinus, serm. 20,3. & : « manifestatus est, nec illis doctis (pastoribus), nec istis iustis; praevalet namque imperitia in rusticitate pastorum, et impietas in sacrilegiis magorum ; utrosque sibi lapis ille angularis applicuit, quippe qui venit stulta mundi eligere ut confunderet sapientes et non vocare iustos , sed peccatores » (de Epiph. 2; M. 38,1030); immo S. Hier. ad Is. 19,1 non dubitat scribere magos de oriente doctos a daemonibus vel iuxta prophetiam Balaam (Num. 925,17) intelligentes natum Filium Dei qui omnem artis eorum destrueret potestatem venisse Bethlehem (M. 925,250), quae scripsisse videtur imitatus Origenem c. Cels. 1,60 qui existimat magos cum facere tentassent frustra quae prius per incantationes arcanaque magica cum daemomiis commercium habentes facere solerent, eius rei causam inquisivisse et viso in coelis prodigio memores vaticinii Balaami coniecisse, illum qui cum stella praenuntiatus fuisset in lucem prodiisse eumque daemoniis omnibus esse potentiorem, δά cuius quippe adventum daemoniorum vires corruissent (M. 11,769 seq.). Neque &b ea opinione multum abludit S. Thom. 3 p. qu. 36 art. 3 ad 2 qui verba recitat ex sermone S. Augustini secundo fuerunt malefici, sed sapientes astrologi qui apud Persas vel Chaldaeos magi vocantur ». | . Atque profecto nihil. est praeten, nomen (quod eo tempore per imperium .romanum plerumque. male famosum erat) quo eis labes quaedam aspergatur, sat multa vero.sunt, quibus omnino commendari videntur tamquam viri pii, sapientes, nobiles. Tales etiam a plerisque habentur; idque merito. Digni enim habebantur revelatione divina, ut in stella apparente agnoscerent natum regem Iudaeorum; vocationi coelesti obsequuntur neque Iudaeotum neglectione absterrentür, puerulum exquirunt, adorant, muneribus honorant. In quibus omnibus praeclara virorum indoles pietasque spectatur. Nomine igitur in bonam partem accepto. (quo usus sit Matthaeus aramaice scribens nescimus) designantur.viri sapientiae studio dediti, rerum nafuralium periti, siderum. contemplationis. studiosi, ex ordine illorum qui apud Persas consiliarii regum esse solebant magna praediti auctoritate. -Fueruntne reges? id.fert opinio popularis, multique censent eam sententiam tamquam piam et probabilem esse defendendam; cf. Baron. n. 30 ad annum 1 Chr. Suarez in 3 p. disp. 15, sect. 2 n. &. At obstant haud pauca neque levia. Evangelista a quo solo de eo eventu edocemur nihil de regia dignitate innuit, quamvis haec et ad inchoatam vaticiniorum impletionem et ad Messiae gloriam aliquid conferre videretur. Et idem evangelista Herpdi titulum regium tribuit; cur tandem illis negaret? et negaret constanter? In priscis monumentis nunquam regiis insignibus depinguntur; e contra plerumque pileum gestant ea forma qua in regno Persarum etiamnum gestare solent magi, cum sacra faciunt (cf. Patr. 1. c. p. 318. 320; Garruccil. c. Kraus l. c.); unde necessario concludere oportet primis saeculis rei christianae eam. opinionem de regia dignitate omnino exsulasse. Neque àlia ex antiquitate pro ea sententia exsistunt testimonia vel documenta. Quare Lamy eos dicit scientia potius quam sceptro claros et recte Jans. eo solum sensu eos reges vocari posse concedit qüia fuerint viri potentes et propter sapientiam soliti sint adstare regibus; simili modo alii quoque interpretes regiam dignitatem valde imminuunt eos vocantes regulos, principes (Maid.) parvos quuntur et tàmen eos reges non appellant, sed'eos describunt viros orientales, sapientes, amatores mysteriorum coelestium etc. per se iam estar- ὦ gumentum in antiquissima traditione nihil contineri de regia dignitate. Verum postmodum haec opinio evasit satis communis. Ita in glossa ord. : « fuerunt de terra Persarum... iuxta quam et Arabia est, ubi magi fuerunt reges »; et S. Pasch.: « in his régionibus ad orientalem: plagam Hierosolymorum magos reges exstitisse nemo qui historias legit gentilium. ignorat »; et Theoph. ad v. 3 :'« oportebat gaudere potius quod regem ipsi habituri essent qui a: persicis regibus adoraretur »;: Idem auctor sermonis - de baptismo Christi, qui censetur Arnaldus abbas bonaevall., S. Bernardi — : amicus, stellam regibus apparuisse dicit (cf. Opera S. Cypriani, ed. maur; in fine p. XCIV) qui locus saepius sub Cypriani. nomine laudatur; etiam auctor sermonum ad fratres in eremo, qui apud nonnullos habebatur S. Augustinus (at perperam omnino) dicit serm. 43 : « audistis sanctissimos reges Dominum diligenter quaesivisse »-(M. 40,1317). Perperam autem pro ea sententia ab aliquibus allegatur auctor de mirabilibus s. Scrip turae (inter opera S.. Augustini ed. maurin. t. 3 in append. p. 28; HM. 35,2194) qui 3,4 dicat : reges alacres pergunt; sed legitür in textu : « inventis Israelitarum oraculis vatum de eodem nato, ubi nascendi locum acciperet, monente subdolo sermone rege, alàcres pergunt ». Sed recte laudari potest pro ea opinione auctor homiliarum de evangelio Lucae quae olim ferebantur inter scripta Chrysostomi et quarum auctor nihil suggerit, ut Patr. dicit l. c. p. 824, ex quo coniiciamus eum vixisse post saeculum 6 : « et.ideo sancti viri, reges et patres Sabba venerunt ipsi magi » (S. Chrys. opp. t. 2 p. 1111; Paris. 1570 apud Patr. 1. c.). Haec sententia maxime orta videtur ex verbis Ps.. 71,10, quae veteres quidem explicant de gentibus universis, at quae mox etiam ad magos applicabantur, qui gentium regumque typum tenuisse monstrantur, uti in breviario ad Psalterium Hieronymo falso adscripto legitur (M. 26, 4029). Verum quod ibi legimus in magorum muneribus inchoatum, alii, uti Haymo dicit, considerabant tamquam prophetiam in magis ad litteram impletam : reges l Trharsis et insulae munera offerent, reges Arabum et Saba dona adducent. ^ X Fortasse haec opinio etiam inde fulciebatur quia tempore dominationis " Sassanidarum princeps magorum inter regni primores recensebatur et in certa quadam ditione tamquam priüceps imperabat; princeps enim regionis Dembavend titulo Masmaghan i. e. principis magorum appellatur (cf. Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenlaendischen Gesellschaft 4884, 35 vol. p. 629). . Evangelista magos ab oriente ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν a. regionibus orientalibus venisse dicit, quo nomine per se omnis regio a Palaestina orientem versus sita intelliigi potest. Eo nomine in s. litteris Arabia quoque designatur (cf. cp et filii orientis appellantur: Arabes).. At ipsum nomen magorum, modus quo in antiquis imaginibus pileumge- stantes depinguntur et plerique ex veteribus nos ad Persidem amandant. Persas eos vocant Clemens alexandrinus, Strom. 1,15" (M. 8, T1), Diodorus tarsensis (uti refert Photius, Bibl.'cod. 223; M. 103, 818), S. Ephraem hym. 15, CAyrs. Iuvencus lib.1 v. 216; S. Cyrillus alexandrinus, in Is. 49,12 (lib. & or: &; M. 70,1061), auctor op. imp., auctor homiliae in s. Christi generationém quae olim Basilio. adscribebatur (in 9 tomo p. 600 ed. maurin.), Prudentius , Cathemer. 49 v. 95 (M. 59,902), Euth. Pasch. glossa.ord. Dion. Cai. Mald; Patr. Schanz; alii Babyloniam: vel. Chaldaeam assignant; ita S. Mazimus taurinensis eós -frequenter Chaldaeos vocat-hom..18-28.in Epiph. (M. 57,262.s6q.);:similiter auctor quaestionum veteris: et;novi testamenti, qui:63 (inter opera S. Augustini;:M. 35,2258) et Theodotus arcyranus hom. 1 de nativitate n. 10 (M. 71,1365), Rabi Tans. Ed. Ip. 203; Grimim I p. 332. Alii ex veteribus Arabiam nominant; ita saepius S. Iustinus c. Tryph. ΤΊ. 78. 88 etc. (M. 6,657 seq.), Teriullianus ádv. Iud. 9; adv. Marc. 3,13 (M. 2,939.619) «S. Epiphanius , exposit, fidei 8 (M. 42,785), Sedatus, hom. de Epiph. (M. 72,773), Baron. Suarez in 3 p. disp. 1& sect. 3 n. 5, Lap. Schegg; etiam Lamy eos Persas vel. Arabes fuisse existimat, Keil. autem eos venisse vel ex Arabia vel Babylonia. In sermone quodam olim S. Augustino at- - tributo legitur eos ex Aethiopia advenisse (cf. Maz, nova Patrum biblioth. [' p. 226; serm. 139; alias opiniones vide in tom. VI p. 2 p. XXXIII). Demum. Tos. Sylv. Mar. Gord. Bar. Mesopotamiam, Calm. Arabiam desertam, Mesopotamiam et Chaldaeam: nomine orientis designari cóntendunt (cf. 'Calmet, dissertationes, Jat. litt. traditae a Mansi, Wirceburgi 1789 tom. 3 p. 98). “ ' Pariter satis incertum est quot fuerint. Communis quidem opinio hodie fert fuisse tres; at monumenta antiquitatis hunc numerum non reddunt indubium. Origenes quidem primus hunc numerum indicare videtur, cum hom. in Gen., hom. 15,3 dicat tres istos (Abimelech, Ochozath, Phicol) figuram gessisse magorum. Sequitur S. Mazimus 4aurinensis hom. 17, de Epiph. 1 : venit ergo Bethlehem tunc in tribus magis sola gentilitas (M. 57,259) et S. Leo, qui sermonibus de Epiphania repetito tres magos adorasse affirmat (serm. 31. 36. 37. 38; M. ὅς, 935. 255. 2571. 260). In monumentis sacris antiquitatis communiter quidem tres viri dona offerentes depinguntur ;'sed etiam solum duo, vel quattuor vel etiam sex conspiciuntur (cf. Garrucci, l. c. I p. 365). Tres esse depictos ex numero ternario donorum facile explicatur, quare valde dubium est subfueritne certa quaedam traditio. Quod dubium eo.quoque augetur, quia apud Patres primorum saeculorum de numero altum est silentium et saeculis subsequentibus alia et alia litteris consignata reperiuntur. Et auctor quidem op. imp. ex libro apocrypho nomine Seth refert duodecim magos esse electos qui stellam ex antiquo vaticinio apparituram observarent et postquam apparuisset eos esse profectos. Quo narrandi modo indicare videtur omnes duodecim se itineri dedisse. Atque hunc numerum apud Syros servatum invenimus; ita tradit Salomon, episcopus Bassorae circa an. 1922, quem numerum etiam confirmat lacobus edessenus apud Barhebraeum qui refert in Horreo mysteriorum , comment. in ev. Matthaei : « nonnulli affirmant tres principes cum mille viris advenisse; Iacobus vero episcopus duodecim ait principes eos füisse » (Assemani, Bibl. or. III 1.0. 309. 316). Idem numerus duodecim principum etiam legitur in menologio armeno die 6 ianuarii (cf. Journal asiatique 1867, Février- Mars, p. 159). De tribus autem mentio fit in compluribus sermonibus qui in appendice sermonum 5. Augustini leguntur; ita in sermone 133,1; 136,4; 139,9 (M. 39,2008. 20154. 9018) qui ultimus sermo Caesario arelatensi attribuitur, medius Eusebio emiseno, primus autem S. Leoni. | | Haec autem dubitatio de numero ternario non tollitur, verum augetur, si consideraveris quibus de causis tres magos fuisse asseratur. Neque eniin ad certam quandam traditionem vel ad monumenta provocant, sed ex rationibus aliis numerum hunc derivasse videntur. lta v. g. legitur in sermone 136,4 : « in eo enim quod tria offeruntur, Trinitas intelligitur; in eo vero quod tres sunt et singuli singula offerunt, in Trinitate unitas declaratur, non ideo non plures quam tres fuisse probantur, sed ut per eos gentes quae ex tribus filiis Noe natae sunt, venturae ad fidem praefigurentur »; idem dicit S. Pasch. provocans ad traditionem maiorum, ut per eos gentium multitudo quae de tribus filiis Noe enascitur ad fidem Christi ventura praesignetur. Alii numerum ex muneribus colligunt; ita S. TAom. : « videtur secundum munera quod fuerunt tres reges, quamvis plures alii in eis repraesentabantur », et Suarez l. c. quoque ait ex muneribus coniecturam desumi posse; eadem ratio a Baron. n. 30 et ab interpretibus quoque redditur; ita Maid. . « credibilius enim est diversa quam eadem omnes munera dedisse, quod id magis sit usitatum et gratius accipientibus, honorificentius dantibus esse soleat; certe haec opinio aliqua, aliae nulla ratione probari possunt ». Sed de re incerta haec sufficiunt. lam si de nominibus quoque quaesieris, res est etiam multo magis incerta. Et Patres quidem nulla afferunt nomina, quamvis sermo saepissime incidat de magis. Id quod iam documento est nihil de nominibus certa quadam traditione innotuisse. Nomina quaedam primo reperiuntur in codice quodam bibliothecae parisiensis, uti refert Nestle (vide Schanz p. 96), qui codex exeunti saeculo 7 vel ineunti 8 adscribitur; ibi magi vocantur ct ERE . VR "A 72. va . PORE ΜΉ I ORC UTERE ECPSESETEE S RERO EO OPEISLESIT PT evolvens Lexicon heptaglotton auctore Castello t. 2. col. 1989. 1994 s. v. ὉΔῸ et van et Journal asiatique l. c. p. 160 not. 3. Quae si lustraveris haud aegre consenties cum scriptore bollandiano in Áct. Sanctorum tomo 1 Maii p. VII VIII omnia scil. hallucinationibus confingi. Etsi nomina quoque quae hodie communiter feruntur incerta sunt, eo tamen venerationi magorum quae in ecclesiis quibusdam particularibus fleri solet nihil praeiudicii affertur. Opus quippe erat ut sub certis nominimina an alia; sufficit pro cultu ut magi qui Christum adoraverunt his nominibus designentur et his nominibus pia memoria celebrentur. Antiqui quoque christiani quandoque nomina indiderunt sanctis martyribus quorum vera nomina ignorabant pro lubitu, ita exsistit martyr S. Adauctus. — Ceterum de eorum cultu vide in Act. Sanctorum bollandianis tom. 4 die ianuarii 4. 6. 11 p. 8. 323. 664. Nomina quae hodie communiter feruntur apte ita explicari possunt, ut id iis exprimatur quod veteres aliqui in tribus magis, gentium primitiis, cernebant; scil. eos in se repraesentare gentes ex tribus filiis Noe ortas; Casparius enim nomine suo nos remittere videtur ad mare caspicum et familiam aricam !, ergo ad posteros Iapheth, Melchior (malchi-or) rex lucis, ad regiones meridionales, ad Aegyptum, Aethiopiam, ubi posteri Cham degebant, Balthasar, nomen chaldaicum vel Danielis vel regis de quo Dan. cap. 5 ad regiones babylonicas, quas posteri Sem incolebant. Quare haec nomina symbola sunt apta ad mysterium Epiphaniae declarandum. Particula δὲ (vulg. ergo), uti moris est, narratio continuatur vel alius eventus ad priora annectitur. Dicitur Bethlehem τῆς Ιουδαίας, i. e. in tribu Iuda, in regione olim tribui Iuda assignata, unde Bethlehem Iuda Iud. 17,9; 19,1. 1 Sam. 17,12, etiam olim Ephrata Gen. 35,16. 19. Additur autem Iuda, ut distinguatur a Bethlehem in tribu Zabulon Ios. 19,15. Distabat a lerusalem meridiem versus sex millia passuum. Cum tempore post exsilium Iudaea arctiore sensu adhiberetur pro regione Palaestinae meridionalis cis Iordanem et a Galilaea et Samaria distingueretur (cf. Matth. &,25. Marc. 3,7. Luc, 2,5. Ioan. 5,3. bI. 5h. Act. 8,1), etiam hoc loco lectio Ιουδαίας recte ponitur, uti alibi in vulg. quoque Iudaea eodem sensu restricto legitur. Messias natus est in Bethlehem, in civitate David, ut sicut David ex Bethlehem oriundus pastor vocatus est a Deo ut pasceret' populum Dei , ita Messias, filius David, ex eadem humili civitàté δέ conditione ad regnum suum fundandum prodiret. Non. enim nascitur in urbe regia, sed in vico, ut ipso loco nativitatis declararetur regiam domum David concidisse et ut surculus egrederetur de trunco lesse (Is. 11,1) i. e. de domo- Iesse iterum ad humilem conditionem redacta, prout David quoque ex humili statu erat exaltatus. Ita alter David, Messias, qui eo nomine jam prophetis innotuit (0s. 3,2. Ez. 34,93), ad modum prioris David , "typi sui, ex eadem civitate prodiit; in diebus Herodis, qui cognominatus est magnus, filii Antipatri, qui a setíatu romano regio titulo est. ornatus ; in diebus cf. Gen. 26,1. 9 Reg. 21,1; 3 Reg. 10,21. Sententia est apud plerosque recepta Herodem regem diem obiisse anno 750 u..c.; alii annum 753 u. c. assignant; cf. ΕἸ: Riess, Das Geburtsjahr Christi p. 13 seq. 192 seq. et ab eodem : Nochmals das Geburtsjahr - Christi; priorem sententiam defendit ScAegg , Das Todesjahr des Koenigs Herodes. Cum de eo anno aliter ab aliis statuatur, etiam annus Christi natalis varie assignatur 748-752 u. c., quam rem chronologicis relinquendam esse mecum censebis. Cum evangelista dicat : ecce magi, aliqui concluserunt eum indicare velle magos statim post nativitatem advenisse (op. imp. Baron. n. 31. Salm. Mald. Ians. Lamy) ; at non est haec eius vocis significatio, sed solum attentio excitatur ad rem gravem, miram inducendam. Narrationem ea voci non arcte adiungi ad antecedentia discimus iam ex 8,2 et cum Matthaeus ereberrime ea voce utatur (fere sexagies) ad eventum introducendum nihil aliud quam rei gravitatem denotare voluisse censendus est. Posse iungi duplici modo μάγοι ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν παρεγένοντο i. e. vel magi orientales advenerunt, vel magi venerunt &b oriente, ab aliis notari iam Lamy advertit; priori modo ipse adstipulatur et Arn. Weiss; alterum plerumque sequuntur; cum ἀπὸ coniungi soleat cum. verbis veniendi, discedendi etc., hoc videtur praeferendum. Magi eo tempore per totum imperium romanum et fere ubique inveniebantur artes exercentes magicas; cum dicatur advenisse eos ex regionibus orientalibus etiam orientales magos intelligi fere consequens est. Eos non fuisse ludaeos patet ex modo quo de rege ludaeorum, non de rege Israel, vel de rege nostro quaerunt. Bene dicunt, ut Mazimus taurinensis notat hom. 27 (de Ephiph. 11; M. 57,285), stellam eius, « quia quamvis omnes ab eodem creatae stellae ipsius sunt, haec tamen proprie Christi erat quae specialiter eius nuntiabat adventum ; et ceterae quidem factae sunt stellae , ut mundi istius temmundi Dominum et regni coelestis adesse tempus ostenderet » et hom. 98 : « necesse erat ut coelorum Dominum testimonium coeleste praecederet et auctorem lucis signum lucis revelaret; apud Iudaeos sordebat in pannis, apud gentiles fulgebat in gloria; apud Iudaeam in praesepi pastoribus vagiebat, et in Chaldaea magorum oculis inter sidera coruscabat ». Balaam, propheta ex Mesopotamia (Deut. 23,4), vaticinatus erat : orietur stella ex Iacob etc. Num. 25,17; ex hoc vaticinio in oriente per multas generationes conservato magos quoque de nova stella plerisque proposita; ita v. g. Origenes, in Num. hom. 13,7 et hom. eruditos (M. 12,675. 689) ; similiter S. Amórosius, Hier. Leo (serm. 34), auctor de mirabilibus s. Scripturae, Hab. Pasch. Bed. Euth. Theoph. Alb. Thom. Tost. Dion. Maid. lans. Lap. Lamy ec. Verum istud vaticinium et tempus magorum nimio intervallo distant quam ut credibile sit exspectationem regis Iudaeorum ad illud esse referendam. Neque eo vaticinio opus habemus, ut hanc exspectationem adfuisse I p. 334), versione graeca s. Scripturae, oraculis illis sibyllinis quae ab anno 140 a. Ch. et deinceps in lucem prodierunt (Sibyll. Ilf, v. 652-194 ; III, 36-92) aliisque libris (libro Henoch , psalmis salomonicis — cf. Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter J. Ch. 9 ed. II p. 497 seq.) exspectatio Messiae longe lateque inter Hellenistas gentesque per orientem erat sparsa. Cuius rei testes quoque sunt Tacitus et Suetonius!. Unde in patria quoque magorum eiusmodi exspectationem viguisse facile tibi persuaseris. Hominis autem sortem dirigi stellis, regis potentis nativitatem stellis quoque nuntiari, opinio erat popularis, contra quam frequenter agunt S. Patres. Quare apparitione novae stellae et insolitae magi sideribus contemplandis dediti de eventu miro et de ortu regis potentis admoniti sunt. Huic signo externo quod ad eorum mores et cogitandi rationem aptum erat accedebat illustratio interna Dei gratia facta qua demum vere cognoscerent quid splendore illo portenderetur. « Nam ipse novam stellam declaravit natus qui antiquum solem obscuravit occisus » (S. Aug. serm. 201 ; in Epiph. 3) et S. Leo : « praeter illam stellae speciem quae cor- porum incitavit obtutum fulgentior veritatis radius eorum corda perdocuit » (serm. 34; in Epiph. 5,3). Ipso hoc signo quo Deus utebatur ad eos edocendos discimus quam suaviter Dei gratia agat et quomodo indoli, consuetudini, moribus sese quasi aptet et. accommodet. Deus qui dives est in misericordia alios alia via ad Christum redemptorem invitat et adducit. Duo de hac stella ex verbis evangelistae discimus. Prius ex verbis magorum colligitur : vidimus stellam eius in oriente et venimus.adorare eum; unde unum asserunt, stellam a se esse visam dv τῇ ἀνατολῇ ideoque se venisse. Nihil dicunt de stella duce itineris, qua comite profecti iter-in Ierusalem instituerint. Haec opinio ipsis verbis. excluditur, cum solum asserant se vidisse stellam zn oriente ; si stellam: habuissent ducem et comitem perpetuam, id tamquam maximum nati regis documentum non tacuissent. Dein tale miraculum plane abundat. Nam edocti de rege Iudaeorum nato etiam sciebant eum esse in Iudaea quaerendum, et quia de rege agebatur collegerunt eum esse quaerendum in urbe principe. Sed iter in Iudaeam instituere et in urbem Ierusalem pervenire facillime poterant sine duce coelesti. lam , aliqui veteres, uti Anselmus laudunensis, viderunt illud in oriente posse intelligi vel : nos exsistentes in oriente vidimus stellam, vel : vidimus stellam positam in orientáli coeli plaga; prius sequuntur multi (cf. Sylv. Grimm, Keil), alterum alii (cf. Mald. Lap. Lamy); tertium Ed. 1. p. 204 Weiss proponunt in ortu. Quodcumque praefertur, non dicunt se continuo iter facientes stellam spectasse. Alterum quod de stella discimus, continetur v. 9 : stetit scil. supra, ubi erat puer. Ad quem locum iam optime advertit S. Pasch. : « quod autem sidereas vias non tenuerit ostenditur ex hoc quod stetisse supra ubi erat puer narratur; quia si in summa coeli arce inter ceteras sita esset, unicui- . que domui in omni illa civitate supra verticem stare videretur; unde patenter insinuat multum eam domui vicinam in qua puer" erat stetisse ». Atque profecto ste//a ita debet concipi , ut staret supra domum, et prout ex v. 11 sequitur, ut domum eam magis demonstraret ad inveniendum puerum. Signum itaque hoc coeleste eo momento iis iterum: exhibetur, ne paupertate et humili conditione pueri in viculo domoque paupere latentis absterreantur, sed ut confortati hac quasi voce superna puerum adorarent. Proinde cogitari debet apparitio quaedam luminosa stellae formam praebens in inferiore hoc nostro aere et terrae satis vicina. Ita stellam plerique explicant; ef. S. Chrys. Euth. glossa ord. Thom. p. 3 qu. 39 art. 7, Cai. Ians. Fab. Lap. Suarez l. c. disp. 1& sect. 5 Grimm, Schanz, Ed. Fil. Didon. Plerique interpretum stellam ducem itineris ac comitem fuisse viamque demonstrasse affirmant. Ita iam S. CArys. stellam eam comparat nubis columnae quae Iudaeis in deserto viam monstrabat (et ex hoc stellae officio, motu, statione demonstrat non potuisse esse unam ex coelestibus) et similiter docent Beda, Euth. auctor op. imp. Haymo, Thom. Fab. Tost. Dion. Sylv. Lap. et censetur a Suarez salis verisimile et a recentioribus Reischl, Bisp. At merito iam monuit auctor de mirabilibus s. Scripturae eos qui id affirment ex evangelica auctoritate firmare non posse (3,4; M. 35, 2194) et bene quoque scripsit S. Pasch. :« sed si diligentius inspiciatur, nequaquam evangelii veritas probare videtur quod ad Iudaeam eos perduxe- intellexere natum in Iudaea; propter quod illi statim ut conspiciunt Iudaeam petunt ». Et Jans. notat ad v. 9 : « ex his apparet stellam non fuisse reliqui itineris. ducem, quemadmodum communiter putatur; alioquin enim non tam. vehementer gavisi essent hac visa nec dixisset evangelista solum -et ecce stella quam viderant in oriente etc. sed et quae comitata eos ion addunt se eam ducem itineris habuisse, quod ut maius fuisset miraculum, ita imprimis fuerat commemorandum ». Eadem monet Bar. quoque qui tamén oppositam quoque sententiam probabilem esse opinatur. Stellam autem ducem fuisse bene negant Cai. Sa, Lamy, Patr. Arn. Fil. Grimm I p. 351 aliique. vitate Chaldaeos astrologiae peritos, at de re aliqua certa in individuo non ' monuit; postquam vero se in aerem demittere et sensim occidentem versus progredi coepit tandemque in occidentem recepta disparuit, tum demum magi consilium sequendi ceperunt veneruntque memoria itineris stellae in Iudaeam » (Kepleri, opera omnia IV, 346; vide Grimm I p. 348 seq.; Friedlieb, Das Leben Jesu Chr. 2 ed. p. 308; Ed. I p. 212 seq.). Kepler itaque stellam magorum ab illa coniunctione planetarum omnino distinctam esse docet; dein assumit in ea stella id quod in sidere fleri nequit quod sese in aerem demiserit et miro hoc motu demum magos de re nova et mira edocuerit. Proinde i ipsi sola illa planetarum coniunctione minime est satisfactum. Quod. S. Ignatius dicit : reliqua astra cum sole et luna chorus fuere stellae, in illa planetarum coniunctione de qua Kepler pro anno 748 u. c. statuit forte aliqua ratione reperiri potest; nam secundum ipsum mense martio ad Iovem et Saturnum accessit Mars planeta et post mensem mar- . tium ad hos accessit sol cum Venere et Mercurio, ita ut mensibus martio, aprili, maio coniunctio eorum siderum haberetur perfecta (cf. Sepp, Leben Jesu I 4 p. 167). Quidquid est de tali coniunctione, ea sola nullo modo sufficit, ut narratio evangelistae explanetur. Si autem praeter illam aliam novam stellam oportet in auxilium vocare, hanc stellam designasse censendus est evangelista, cum solum de ea loquatur et nihil praeteréa de - Stellam intelligendam esse veram stellam in sublimi coelo lucentem vel saltem cometen, non autem phaenomenon quoddam stellae simile et terinopinato stellam iterum conspexisse et exinde conclusisse in hac ipsa domo esse.eum quom quaererent. Sed ex narrationo puerum invenerunt, quia stella stabat supra; non autem quia stella conspecta iter suum et investigationem ad flnem pervenisse arbitrati sunt. Regem natum magi summo honore venerari volunt; adorare προσχυ- νεῖν est sese prosternere. coram aliquo in signum honoris, humi pro- Ὁ stratum venereri;ita Abraham adoravit populum terrae, filios Heth . Gen. 23,7; cf. 19,1; 42,6 etc.; eo modo praecipue honor Deo pen- Jditur, itaque adoratio Sensu stricto. Quo sensu magi adoraverint, ex muneribus quoque oblatis colligi oporlet; vide ad. v. 11. Herodes alienigena, Idumaeus, iniustitia et crudelitate regnum occupaverat 8c. tenebat; quare « audiens regem natum Iudaeis ex genere ludaeo-. rum turbabatur, ne regno revolufo iterum ad Iudaeos et ipse ἃ Iudaeis expelleretur et. semen eius post i| ipsum praecideretur a regno »'- (op. imp.). Tyranni enim semper suspiciosi sunt et Herodes, morum ethnicorum, imitator ac promotor, quicumque ex populo legi paternae erant dediti, suos considerabat adversarios. Verum in quanium iam multos ad guas partes et .ad morum licentiam pertraxisset, evangelista. ostendit dicens : et omnis lerosolyma cum illo, μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ; ipsa. particula exprimitur Societas, consortium, consensus cum He- Tode. Praeprimis ab eius partibus erant ii qui Herodiani vocabantur (Matth. 22,16. Marc. 3,6; 12,13) et Sadducaei, qui.a vera indole théocratica longe aberant et ethnicam vivendi rationem appetebant. Iam manifestat evangelista in hac cum impio rege consensione inimicitias principum magnaeque partis populi adversus Messiam. Nam omnes optime intellexisse agi in quaestione a magis propo- Sita de Messia rege, elucet ex v. &. Triste sane spectaculum quod illi qui maxime gaudere debebant quod tandem promissiones magnificae prophetarum implentur adyentu Messiae, cum rege impio de tali nuntio terrentur eumque aegre ferunt. In propria venit et sui eum non receperunt; sed. de adventu iusti non poterant gaudere impii (op. tmp.). Sed ministris sacrorum ,quoque et doctoribus et interpretibus legis minime erat curae nuntius adeo faustus et a saeculis exoptatus; eum negligunt maxima socordia et contemptu; facti sunt, ut S. Augustinus εἰ Haymo loquuntur, « tamquam lapides ad milliaria; viato- Tibus ambulantibus aliquid ostenderunt, sed ipsi stolidi atque immobiles remanserunt; aliis demonstrato vitae fonte, ipsi sunt mortui siccitate » (serm. 199; in Epiph. 1; M. 38,1027; 118,109). Interrogatum erat a magis : ubi est ille natus rex ludaeorum, ὁ τεχθεὶς βασι- λεύς; quaestio optime intelligitur ab Herode, non posse esse serrnonem nisi de uno illo ex Davidis domo cui est ius throni aeterni; quare & Herodes Christum requirit; ipsum igitur regem de quo interrogat confitetur; deinde cum ubi nasci haberet inquiritur, utique praenuntiatus ostenditur, neque enim quaeri poterat, qui non erat nuntiatus » (S. Amórosius, in Luc. lib. 2 n. 49). Cum agatur de re theo- / logica, Herodes convocat omnes princtpes sacerdotum et scribas populi ; ἀρχιερεῖς nominantur is qui summo sacerdotio fungitur et qui iquando fungebantur; cum enim eo tempore crebro pontifices inter 80 succederent, semper" plures aderant eo inunere functi; praeterea ' ex modo loquendi quo utitur Iosephus (de bello iud. 6,2. 2) colligi oportet etiam filios familiarum ex quibus aliqui munus illud gesserant vel ex quibus pontifices seligi solebant appellatos esse eo nomine (ef. Schürer 1. c. 175). Insuper aliqui existimant etiam principes familiarum vel ordinum sacerdotalium qui erant viginti qüattuor eodem nomine esse honoratos (cf. Patr. diss. 98; Arn. Reischl, Bisp. Fil. Bleek, Ewald, Sevin) aliis vel dubitantibus (Schanz) vel negantibus (Schürer, Keil, Weiss). Ab anno 37 a. Ch. usque ad annum 6 p. Ch. numerantur pontifices undecim quos Herodes et Archelaus constituebant, ille octo, Ares hic. Scribae, γραμματεῖς, dicebantur legis periti, qui studium ;peculiare ponebant in explicatione legis et.in eius ad singulos vitae 'easus applicatione, hebr. n"j21, quo nomine Esdras, scriba velox inlege Moysi (Esdr. 7,6), iam insignitus est. Vocantur etiam νομιχοί, νομοδιδάσκαλοι, legis doctores Matth. 99,35. Luc. 5,17; 7,30; 10,95; 11,45 seq. 15,3. Act. 5,3& qualis erat Gamaliel. Salutabantur titulo rabbi; losephus eos vocat πατρίων ἐξηγητὰς νόμων (Ant. 17,6. 9; 18,3. 5). Quanta auctoritate sint potiti, etiam ex Matth. 23,2. 3 elucet; verum etiam ex evangeliis satis liquet quomodo suam iustitiam volentes statuere iustitiae Dei non fuerint subiecti et quomodo suis interpretationibus onera populo imposuerint (cf. Matth. 23,5-35). Dubium est convocaritne Herodes summum Iudaeorum magistratum, συνέδριον, sanhedrin. Ad hoc consilium etiam seniores πρεσδύτεροι accensebantur qui hoc loco non nominantur. Etiam alibi quandoque non omnes tres ordines synedrii nominantur (cf. 26,3; 27,1). Cum hic agatur de quaestione theologica et seniores non dicantur congre- . gati, iis erit'assentiendum qui solos sacerdotum principes et legis doctores convocatos esse censent; hisce enim quaestiones de doctrina proponi solebant; seniores potius munere iudicum fungebantur resque civiles administrabant. Cum S. Matthaeus magnum ponat momentum in vaticiniis adimpletis, insigne hoc testimonium a principibus sacerdotum.et scribis 89. datum, qui verba Michaeae de Messia esse intelligenda sine ulla haesitatione docent, litteris consignatum voluit. Vide quae dixi ad Mich. 5,9 seq. Discrimen.quod cernitur inter verba prophetae et verba apud evangelistam ita erit explicandum, ut dicamus, sacerdotes et scribas eo modo oraculum recitasse quo legimus in evangelio. Ex eo enim. quod ex Bethlehem egressurus sit Dominator, Messias, singularis quaedam gloria in civitatem David redundat, ita ut propterea inter principes Iuda princeps familiarum Bethlehem nequaquam ultimo loco sit collocandus. Proinde etsi Bethlehem vicus sit parvus neque ad mille familias pertingat (Mich. 5,2), tamen valet et ex illo oraculo consequitur, quod Prudentius canit : o sola magnarum urbium maior Bethlehem, cui contigit ducem salutis coelitus incorporatum gignere! Eiusmodi enim textus explicatio ex consequenti facta non abhorret ab * indole rabbinorum et saepius in targumim deprehenditur; immo in targum ad eum Michaeae locum iam videtur exstare, cum verti pos- . sit: fere es ut numereris inter millia domus Iuda (cf. yr? targum. ad Ps. 73,2 et Os. 1,&; Lightfoot, Horae hebr. p. 260). Quidquid autem est de sensu illius targum, dicendum est cum Raó. glossa ord. Pasch. Thom. Bar. Maid. Patr. id quod S. Hier. iam censuit recitari verba eo modo quo a scribis prolata sunt, uti ipso textu clare indicatur : at illi dixerunt ei. Quare varii modi quibus utrumque textum conciliare studuerunt (v. g. legentes per interrogationem) tuto possunt omitti. Pro magis autem istud oraculum praeclaram continet doctrinam. Egregie enim confirmantur in fide de rege Iudaeorum. Poterat fieri ut magi cum urbem ingressi plane nihil de rege recenter nato audirent, nonnihil mirarentur vel etiam haererent; at omni titubatione excussa ionem ponunt remque tamquam certam enuntiant et ad suum magnum solatium audiunt iam ab antiquo tempore per prophetam locum esse celebratum ex quo rex ille sit egressurus. Bene rem expendit S. CArys. : « hic mihi vide quam mira, quam stupenda provideantur! mutuas sibi commodant notitias barbari et Iudaei et inter se docent. ludaei a magis didicerunt quod stella ipsum in Persarum regione praedicaverit; magi a Iudaeis acceperunt eum ipsum quem stella praedicaverat iam a multis retro temporibus per prophetas praenuntiatum fuisse, atque interrogationis occasio clarioris et accuratioris doctrinae demonstratio utrisque fuit ». Adventus magorum et nuntius Herodi maxime ingratus fuit. Timet ne adversarii sui i. e. quicumque pii erant inter Iudaeos et legis observantes ea opportunitate usi contra se exsurgant. Unde et rem quantum potest silentio opprimere studet et necem meditatur regis nati. Ad quod magos c/am vocat, exquirit et. diligenter discit.tempus stellae lucentis i. e quando iis sit visa, ut ex hoc tempore discat aetatem pueri; magos autem iubet proficisci, puerum quaerere et sibi renuntiare, ubi sit. Curat quoque, ut soli proficiscantur, .ne quis ex urbe eos comitetur; vult enim quantum fieri potest cavere ne populi exspectatio excitetur. Herodem in hoc cum magis colloquio iam necem meditatum esse pueri certum videtur; « diligenter didicit tempus stellae quia necem Salvatoris meditabatur in mente; finxit se vultu et verbis eum adorare velle, quem invida cogitatione tractabat occidere » (Rab. sim. Br. Haymo). In v. 1 ἠχρίδωσε i, e. ἀχριδῶς ἔμαθεν (Euth. Theoph.) et bene vulg. diligenter didicit (Keil, Weiss), ad quem sensum παρὰ praeprimis congruit; magi itaque nihil sinistri suspicantes cuncta ei fideliter exponunt. Non est expli-' candum : accurate inquisivit; ad id enim requireretur περί, Herodes enim , prout opinio popularis secundum astrologiae placita ferebat, merito supposuit tunc procul dubio Christum esse natum quando stella apparuerat (Euth.), uti S. lustinus quoque dicit apparuisse stellam ἅμα τῷ γεννηθῆναι (c. Tryph. 106 ; M. 6, 724). Tempus exquirit τοῦ φαινομένου ἀστέρος i. e. quamdiu stella luceat, ex quo tempore fulgeat; ex participio graeco sequi Herodem supponere stellam tum D etiam continuo in coelo lucere, aliqui concludunt (cf. Weiss). Insipientiam hominis malis cupiditatibus exagitati bene perstringit S. Chrys. : « eiusmodi est malignitas; in se ipsa impingit et res quae perfici nequeunt aggreditur. Perpende stultitiam : si prophetiae credebat illamque immotam ac firmam putabat, palam est eum impossibilia conatum esse; quod si non credebat nec putabat ea quae dicebantur eventura esse, metuere vel timere non oportuit nec ea de causa puero insidiari; ex utraque igitur parte superfluus erat dolus ». Iubet eos inquirere de puero; « non dixit de rege; neque enim nomen ferre poterat; unde manifestat quantum contra illum insaniat » (TAeopA.). Cum adeo accurate tempus exquirat, iam videtur suspicari fieri posse ut magi non redeant (Haymo, Schanz) vel ex ipsa aetate pueri metiri vult periculum quod sibi immineat. Censet.S. Chrys. magos potuisse suspicionem concipere ex hoc agendi modo : « si enim ex veritatis affectu loqueris, cur clam interrogas? sin insidias paras, cur non cogitas magos cum te videant clam interrogare dolum esse suspicaturos? sed, ut dixi, anima semel malignitate correpta omnium insipientissima evadit ». Edocti de loco nativitatis proficiscuntur Bethlehem. Cum mentio fiat stellae visae, putant aliqui eos noctu iter instituisse (Schanz, Keil, Weiss). At in hac sententia supponi videtur stellam in summo coelo. positam esse:visam. Sed talem non fuisse stellam magorum, ex. hoc ipso v. 9:indubie constat; quomodo enim eiusmodi stella locum potuisset designare ubi puer erat? In quam rem advertit Theoph. :.« nam. si ex summitate: apparuisset, quomodo certiores fieri potuissent de loco in quo esset Christus? stellae enim multum locum comprehendunt. Unde tu supra domum tuam vides lunam forte et ego.eandém video supra domum meam et unicuique videtur stare super:domum suam » et glossa ord. : « non tenuit aethereas:vias, sed.imultum domui vicina; aliter non discernerent domum-»; similiter Haymo; Anselmus (M. 118,11&; 162,1956) etc. Cum. itaque-stella. fuerit phaenomenon lucidum in aere inferiore, nihil'obstat quominus .dicamus cum S. CArys. eos in medio die iter bethlehemitioum ,esse ingressos. Tamquam rem stupore plenam δέ ecce narrat evangelista stellam quam viderant in oriente eos ante- €essisse^etc. :Bene notandum. est, ut iam Jans. monet, dici stellam in:oriente .visam: proin declarari in itinere et prope ludaeam et lerusalem. eam non esse conspectam, verum nunc demum eandem stellam. quam prius viderant ἐν τῇ ἀνατολῇ (cf. v. 2) iterum eis apparere. . 55s u -::Cum dicatur antecedebat eos προῆγεν αὐτούς, multi censent stellam. postquam. egressi sint ex urbe ducem illis fuisse itineris Bethlehem prius; nam ad viam illam inveniendam, uti patet, non opus erat miraculo; non alterum ; προάγειν τινά frequenter eo sensu adhibetur, ut significet solum aliquem praegredi ita ut eo prior in locum quendam venist; vide.v: g. Matth. 15,99 praecedere eum προάγειν αὐτόν trans fretum, quo loco Christus vult, ut discipuli antequam ipse abeat navim solvant. Eodem modo fere 21,31 : publicani praecedent vosin regnum Dei; 26,32 : praecedam vos in Galilaeam; 98, : praecedit vos in Galilaeam ; item Marc. 6,45; 15,28; 16,7; in nullo horum locorum subest notio ita aliquem praecedere, ut ei via monstretur. Proinde etiam hoc loco concipi omnino potest : stella praecucurrit eos usque dum... uti Ro/h 1. c. p. 10 verba explicat : stellam in oriente conspectam eos, dum in itinere essent, iam praecucurrisse et praevenisse, ita ut, cum Bethlehemi ad domum in qua puer erat pervenissent, eam iterum subito apparentem et ad perpendiculum super domum ante quam versabantur commorantem viderent. Atque huic explicationi prorsus favet nexus qui est inter v. 10 et 11 : videntes stellam maximo perfunduntur gaudio et intrant domum; itaque ex stella quam subito conspiciunt stantem supra domum ad quam pervenerant concludunt ibi esse puerum regem. Dum evangelista r'antecessit eos stella, populari modo loquendi utitur, ut explicet, quomodo stella quam viderant in oriente nunc conspiciatur 'stare super domum bethlehemiticam, cum magi adveniant. Ad hoc enim debuit stella quasi praecurrere et anteillos advenire, ut possit ibi iam stare dum illi appropinquant ad domum. ͵ * Gaudium magorum exhibet evangelista maximum; quod gaudium ;/ adeo magnum documento est illis rem accidisse inopinatam et im- "provisam; quare maxima haec laetitia etiam ostendit stellam in iünere non esse visam. Nam si stellam semper vidissent usque ad | Ierusalem etsolum eius aspectu privati fuissent per breve illud tempus ; commorationis in urbe, potuissent merito exspectare se iterum τ visuros esse stellam, nec intelligeretur tanta exsultatio de re cui iam iu'essent assueti. Mira autem providentia divina fit, ut sellam quam iderant in oriente iterum conspiciant supra domum ubi erat puer. Tta coelitus discunt ubi sit; ita animi eorum coelitus muniuntur et docentur, ne haesitent, dum nihil regiae pompae, sed magnam 12. pueri infantis matrisque paupertatem inveniunt. Ad rem S. CArys. : ;quid opus erat stella? ut puer videri possit; nihil quippe erat quod :ipsum ostenderet ; nam neque domus erat conspicua neque mater eius «quasi clara quaedam ac nobilis celebrabatur » (sim. Euth.) et op. imp.:« et per mysterium (ministerium) stellae intelligebant quoniam --- ignitas.tunc nati regis excedebat mensuram omnium mundalium Tegum; necesse enim erat, ut gloriosiorem putarent regem illum quam stellam, cui stella sic devote obsequebatur; aut quomodo non » crederent ei subdendos homines, cui jetiam coeli ornamenta subdita esse videbant »? Et, quemadmodum /ans. adnotat, plurimum tentata erat fides magorum eo quod in urbe regia eum quem quaerebant plane esse incognitum, immo ludaeos conturbatos et talis nuntii negligentes esse viderunt; quare nunc Deus eorum fidem roborat et quasi praemio quodam collaudat atque approbat; dein stellae indicio edocti iam non opus habebant inquirere ulterius apud Bethlehemitas qui ne ipsi quidem fortasse noverunt quisnam apud ipsos moraretur. Quare ex omni parte suavis Dei providentia elucet. lta coelitus edocti invenerunt, vel ex textu graeco, viderunt é X^. puerulum (εἶδον τὸ παιδίον) cum Maria matre eius; cum multitudo 1 hominum quae census causa confluxerat, mox a Bethlehem recessisset, beata Virgo in aliquam domum migrare potuit; unde h. 1. ἐλθόντες εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν. Putant quidem puerulum a magis esse inventum in stabulo, ubi natus erat (S. Augustinus, serm. 200,1 in Epiph. 2; M. 38,1029; op. imp. Dion. Euth. Raó.); at certe dicendum. cum Maid. necessitatem illam in stabulo commorandi cessisse et Mariam et Iosephum commodiorem quaesivisse locum suaderi ipsorum pietate; ita Maid. iam pro die tertio decimo a nativitate statuit. Idem ipsa voce domus commendatur et id censent Eusebius, quaest. ad Steph. 16, S. Ephraem , hym. de Maria et magis v. 9 (Lamy 1. c. p. 131), Epiphanius, haer. 20,3; 51,9; TAeoph. cat. Cr. lans. Fab. Est. Patr. et plerique recentiorum. — Beata Virgo simul cum infante divino nobis ab evangelista sistitur; in eius sinu et amplexu pueru-. lus quiescit, apud eam per quam voluit intrare in mundum etiam reperitur; quis talem matrem non dicet beatam? quis potest filium .. adorare in sinu matris recumbentem ita ut non etiam eius ma! / veneretur et celebret? 7 Puero exhibent honorem divinum e£ procidentes adoraverunt eum. v. 14, προσχυνεῖν apud scriptores graecos dicitur de prostratione et adoratione quam reges Persarum postulabant, sed quam v. 'g. Lace- - daemones regi Persarum exhibere renuebant asserentes eo modo se solos colere deos (Herod. 7,136), dein verbum constanter adhibetur de cultu et adoratione deorum (exempla praebent Par. diss. 97 et Cremer, Biblisch-theol. Woerterb. s. v.). In versione graeca veteris testamenti frequentissime usurpatur de adoratione Deo exhibita, de cultu qui soli Deo est pendendus; cf. Ex. 4,31; 12,97; 20,5; 93,24; 24,1; 32,8; 35,8. Lev. 26,1. Num. 25,2 etc., etc. Idem usus cernitur in libris novi testamenti v. g. Matth. 4,10. Luc. 4,8. Ioan. 4,91. Act. 8,27 et frequenter in Apocalypsi. Quamvis vox etiam adhibeatur in vetere testamento de veneratione homini exhibita (Gen. 27,99; 33,3. 6. 7; 31,7; 42,6 etc.) nostro tamen loco de veneratione alia eaque . divina vox erit explicanda. Id autem suadetur ex eo quod apparitione stellae iam erant edocti hunc puerum non in ordine et censu humanae solius naturae esse habendum et quia offerunt thus, quod apud Iudaeos cultui divino et sacrificiis Deo oblatis inserviebat. Alius enim usus thuris nisi ad Dei cultum in s. litteris certo non commemoratur. Quare haud immerito agnoscunt S. Patres 'et interpretes communiter in oblatione thuris declarari a magis divinitatem pueri vel ei thus offerri tamquam Deo; cf. S. Irenaeus, adv. haer. 3,9. 2; M. "1,871; Origenes, c. Cels. 1,60; M. 11,772; Hilarius : in thure Deum confitendo ; Juvencus, lib. 1 v. 285; Hier. Amórosius : aurum regi, thus Deo, myrrha defuncto; aliud enim regis insigne, aliud divinae sacrificium potestatis, aliud est honor sepulturae quae non corrumpat corpus mortui sed reservet (in Luc. lib. 3 n. 44; M. 15, 1569); item CArys. op. imp. Leo, serm. 33; Mazimus taurinensis, hom. 99. 26; M. 57,272. 283; item in cat. Cr. et Prudentius : regem Deumque aununtiant thesaurus et fragrans odor thuris sabaei (Cathemer. 12 de Epiph. v. 33), S. CArysologus, serm. 158.160; M.52,619. 622; Sedatus , hom. de Epiph. M. 72,713; Gregorius , hom. in evang. 10 n. 6; M. 76,1112. Idem communiter monent interpretes. Generatim unanimis est veterum sententia puerulum a magis vera adoratione esse cultum; de qua re fusius Patr. agit diss. 27 p. 348. Pari consensu docent in auro regiam dignitatem celebrari in myrrha autem hominem agnosci mortalem et mortem eius et sepulturam praefigurari; ita iam S. Irenaeus l. c, Myrrha adhibebatar ut domus vestesque grato perfunderentur odore (Ps.. &5,9. Prov: 1,11), ut unguenta pretiosa conficerentur (Ex. 80,23..Cant. 5,5.:Esth: 2,19), ut corpora mortuorum condirentur (Ioan. 19,39).-Etiam vino quandoqueadmiscebatur ad vinum medicatum, aromatiten, efficiendum. Au- ;rum itaque et myrrha splendori regio et, honori convenire videntur, sicuti thus maiestati divinae; ita munera explicare licet, uti-magi ea obtulerunt. Praeterea autem occulto Dei consilio in: myrrha mortem Christi et sepulturam praefigurari, ex rei eventu cui accedat acceptio Patrum et interpretum adeo communis assuniere decet. — Alii in thure Christum sacerdotem demonstrari volunt (Mazimus taur. hom. 91; M. 51,270; Beda ; serm. de magis, in appendice operum S. Cypriani, ed. maurin. Parisiis 1726 p. XC), cui sententiae etiam .ScAhegg-subséribit. Adnotat Maid. solum S. Bernardum cum alias totus mysticus esse soleat hic nullum agnoscere mysterium, sed putare aurum paupertati, myrrham consolidandis infantilibus membris; thus loci foetori mitigando esse datum. Alii dubitant quandoqué vel negant magos munerum rationem intellexisse (cf. op. imp. Maid: Schanz); at ab is puerulum tamquam regem et Deum esse adoratum et congruis muneribus honoratum certum esse videtur (Grimm I p. 369). In horum donorum ad nostram imitationem et pietatem accommodatione veteres etiam haud raro versantur. Pauca afferam. Sedatus l. c. monet ut nos offeramus aurum fidei , pietatis aromata, castitatis holocausta; auctor op. imp. fidei sapientiarn esse offerendam tamquam aurum, orationem tamquam thus, opera bona ut myrrham ; sim. S..Gregorius, hom. in evang. 10, sedin myrrha mortificationem intelligit carnis ; Euthymius pro auro splendorem operum, pro thure orationem, pro myrrha mortificationem affectuum esse offerendam qua scil. conservetur animae substantia et suavi impleatur odore. Demum v. 12 divinitus monentur ne redeant, cursum reflectant (ἀνακάμψαι) ad Herodem ; χρηματισθέντες i. e." oraculo divino donati vel edocti; vi vocis non requiritur ut ipsi antea a Deo efflagitarint quid Sibi esset faciendum. De usu vocis vide 2,92. Luc. 2,26. Act. 10,22. "Hebr. 8,5; 11,7 ex quibus locis apparet responsum posse accipi (uti Tristis iam cernitur praelusio et exemplum eius quod postmodum contigit : ludaei repellunt Messiam, eius caedem machinantur, regnum Dei a se repellunt ad gentes. In ipsis igitur primordiis clare praeformatur et exprimitur rerum eventus. Et cum talia exsistant initia et germina, iam non erit mirandum de fatali exitu. Itaque evangelista haec enarrans firmum illud consilium quod libro suo sibi proposuit ob oculos habet; simul quoque oracula in puero Iesu esse impleta demonstrans statim a limine fortiter persuadet eum puerum revera esse Messiam. Unde patet haec apte ad id quod evangelista intendit litteris esse consignata. losephum de fuga capienda monitum esse statim ἃ magorum profectione ἰδοὺ φαίνεται ecce apparet angelus tempore praesenti indicari videtur; eo enim ressubito facta menti suggeritur. Etiam magis idem suadeturrerum conditione considerata. Bethlehem enim vicus est haud ita distans a lerusalem, sex enim numerantur millia passuum, iter horarum duarum. In quam domum ingressi essent magi, in oppido illo latere neminem potuit; illo enim magorum adventu omnium incolarum animos maxima esse exspectatione et admiratione. suspensos, quis in quaestionem vocabit, cum eventus insolitus quo oppidum est minus eo magis innotescere et fama celebrari soleat? Magos esse profectos pariter statim per regionem totam perferebatur, quomodo id Herodem diutius latere potuit? qui profecto, uti suspiciosi et solliciti homines solent, magno studio totam rem animo pertractabat. Quare valde probabile videtur magos in somnio admonitos statim noctu clam profectos esse, ut qua via redirent maneret incognitum, atque eadem nocte etiam angelum Iosepho adstitisse fugamque praecepisse. Nuntius autem affertur Iosepho, utpote capiti familiae sanctissimae (Tost. Bar.), qui ut talis et ut patris ac tutoris munere fungens a coelo agnoscitur; ut vir Mariae ei quoque quid faciendum sit mandata perfert. Iosephi fidem et obedientiam meritis laudibus celebrat S. CArys. : « his auditis Ioseph non offensus est neque dixit : aenigma est hoc, tu nuper dicebas : salvum faciet populum suum, nunc autem ne seipsum quidem potest salvare, sed fuga nobis opus est et peregrinatione ac longinqua transmigratione? contraria sunt haec promissioni tuae. Sed nihil huiusmodi dixit; fidelis enim vir erat, neque reversionis tempus inquirit, etiamsi angelus indefinite locutus est; verum ille non ideo segnior factus est, sed paret et obtemperat tentationesque omnes cum , gaudiotolerat » (sim. Euth. Ians. Lap.). Cur autem infans divinus fuga servari debeat, cum innumera Deo subsidia praesto essent, variis rationibus declarant. Monet S. CArys. ad Dei potentiam quoque pertinere non modo, inimicos palam profligare sed etiam facile decipere; porro cum Filium suum voluerit indui humana natura eaque infantili aetate ei conditioni quoque accommodatum erat, ut eo modo servaretur quo puerulus insidiis subtrahi solet; ita simul veram eius humanitatem comprobari docent S. CArys. op. imp. Thom. Bar. et puerulum iam suo exemplo demonstrare suosque edocere quod postmodum verbis iniunxit : cum vos persecuti fuerint in una civitate, fugite in aliam (Matth. 10,23; op. imp. Rab. Pasch. Thom. Ians. Bar.). Haec fuga pariter est praelusio quaedam ac praecursio odii et persecutionis in Messiam ; iam incipit oraculum Simeonis impleri : positus est in signum cui contradicetur (Luc. 2,38). Atque nos inde quoque docemur, ut S. Chrys. ait, ab ipso initio tentationes et pericula esse exspectanda (sim. EutA. Ians.) et electos saepius suis effugatum iri sedibus vel etiam exsilio damnatum (Raó.); nam si me persecuti sunt, et vos persequentur (Ioan. 15,20). losephus fugere iubetur in Aegyptum; in quam regionem itinere octo vel decem dierum pervenire poterat (Grimm) et cum ibi multi Iudaeorum incolerent, etiam facilius victum sibi comparare laboribus apud contribules susceptis potuit. Et cum docente S. Paulo vetus testamentum sit umbra, corpus autem quod illam proiecerit umbram sit Christi (Col. 2,17), merito monent S. Chrys. Br. lans. Maid. Lap. Grimm aliique patriarchas quoque famis depellendae vitaeque servandae causa in Aegyptum descendisse; ita Abrabam, ita filii Iacob et demum tota familia illuc secesserunt; tempore quoque urbis destructae multi in Aegyptum fugerunt et posteriore tempore Iudaeorum plurimi in Aegypto morabantur. Messiae in Aegyptum profeclionem appellat S. CArys. bonae spei prooemium ; erant enim Babylonia.et Aegyptus prae aliis regionibus impietate et vitiis infectae, Christus autem ex illa regione advocans magos et in hanc sese recipiens declarat se ambas regiones emendaturum omnibusque gentibus esse bona exspectanda (sim. EutA. Theoph. Ians.). Atque Aegypto quidem iam per Isaiam 19,18 seq. promissiones messianae ea in regione commorationem haud immerito multi referunt, inter alia immensa illa anachoretarum turba ostenditur, de qua S. CArys. : « nunc certe si pergas in desertum Aegypti, quovis paradiso prae- Stantiorem solitadinem invenies, sexcentos angelorum choros humana forma, martyrum populos, coetus virginum, Christi regnum coruscans... per totam enim regionem istam videre est Christi exercitum , regiumque gregem supernarumque virtutum vitam, idque non apud viros tantum sed et in muliebri sexu reperias », et S. PascA. adnotat : « quae qui nosse voluerit legat.Vitas Patrum, satis abundeque clarebit Christum non abs re descendisse in Aegyptum ». Regio itaque alienigenarum id praestat Messiae quod apud suos jam non invenit; quare in ea fuga praefigurari haud immerito censetur transitus evangelii et regni Dei ad gentes (Bed. Rab. Thom.); eam enim persecutionem Messiae esse etiam, ut S. Hil. loquitur, Iudaeorum insectationem, et cerni in exstinguendo eo profanae plebis assensum indubie colligitur ex 2,3, ubi adeo significanter Matthaeus monet omnem civitatem cum Herode esse turbatam nuntio de rege Messia nato. — In v. 1& ipsa narratione declaratur obedientia losephi perfecta et promptissima. Eadem nocte iter aggreditur; difficilior fiat » (S. Br.). In ea fuga et in periculo vitae Iesu imminente et in itineris molestia beata Virgo etiam in se cernit inchoari impletionem vaticinii : tuam ipsius animam doloris gladius pertransibit, et profecto non minimo ipsi erat dolori quod iam tum puerulus quaerebatur ad necem. In fuga adeo celeriter arrepta paupertatem parentum Christi satis notari posse ans. advertit, neque enim ante fugam sarcinas diu colligendas fuisse aut facultates disponendas; cerni quoque providentiam divinam in eo quod donariis magorum δὰ hoc exsilium Deus filium suum cum matre et nutricio communivisset (Fab.). Quamdiu sancta familia in Aegypto commorata sit incertum est. Sententias varias de annis 2-8 referunt partim Ma/d. partim Suarez in 3 p. 4. 37 disp. 17 s. 2; in gl. ord. septem anni statuuntur; quare facile intelligitur cur ea sententia valde communis evaserit. At potius assentiendum erit Lamy qui Christum paucis mensibus ibi habitasse autumat; nam etsi rationes chronologicae non satis exploratae sunt, tamen cum magi uno anno et aliquibus mensibus post Christum natum advenerint (cf. v. 16), certum est obitum Herodis non adeo longo intervallo subsequi potuisse. Pariter incertum in qua parte regionis sacra familia habitaverit; terram Gessen (Gosen) in qua. olim Israelitae incolebant ex ipso situ probabiliter assignare poteris (Grimm); fertur quoque fama satis incerta de Heliopoli, de Matarea prope Memphin vel Leontopolim (cf. Faó. Patr. diss. 31 p. 373). Ad istum pueri Iesu ingressum in Aegyptum frequenter quoque applicant verba apud Is. 19,1 : ecce Dominus ascendet super nubem levem οἵ ingredietur Aegyptum et, commovebuntur.simulacra Aegypti a facie eius (cf. S. Hier. ad Is. 19, 1; op. imp. gl. ord. Pasch. Br. Thom. Bar. Lap.); at de ea re non ibi institui sermonem certum est, uti bene ans. quoque contendit, et « quae dicuntur de simulacris Aegypti collapsis ad corporalem Christi ingressum aliisque miraculis fabulosa plane videntur » (Ians.); de iis multa referunt (et apud quos legantur adnotant) Bar. Sylv.; eadem reperiuntur in apocryphis evangeliis Pseudo-Matthaei et infantiae (cf. TiscAendorf, Evang. apocr. p. 85. 183). Eo autem eventu impleta quoque est prophetia, uti v. 15 dicitur. Verba deprompta sunt ex Osee 11,1 secundum textum hebr.; apud LXX enim legitur τὰ τέχνα αὐτοῦ. Unde S. Hier. : « respondeant qui hebraeorum voluminum denegant veritatem , ubi hoc in LXX legatur interpretibus; quod cum non invenerint, nos eis dicemus in Osee propheta scriptum, sicut et exemplaria probare possunt quae nuper edidimus » et subdit « propter contentiosos » locum etiam peti posse ex Num. 23,92 (sim. g/. ord. Rab. Pasch.). Apud Osee sermo est de populo Israel et de eductione eius ex Aegypto; populus enim Israel utpote populus a Deo speciali ratione electus et adoptatus vocatur saepius a Deo filius (Ex. 4,23. Is. 1,2. Ier. 3,15; 31,20); quare S. Paulus inter favores praecipuos Israelitis praestitos recenset adoptionem filiorum i. e. filiationem adoptivam υἱοθεσίαν (Rom. 9,4). lam haec adoptio praelusio quaedam erat et quasi praeparatio ad illam humanae naturae assumptionem quam a Verbo divino, a Filio Dei factam cernimus in s. Incarnatione. Uti in illa adoptione Deus unionem quandam gratiae et commercium iniit cum populo, ita multo excellentius ac sublimius unio est effecta cum natura humana in Incarnationis mysterio adeo ut homo ille Christus Iesus sit sensu verissimo filius Dei, non adoptivus sed naturalis. Praeterea ex Dei ordinatione vetus testamentum umbra est corporis venturi i. e. Christi (Col. 2,17) et proinde ita constitutum, ut suis quasi lineamentis Christum referret et in figura et typo eum repraesentaret atque exprimeret qui populi pars et propago futurus esset nobilissima. Quare Deus, quemadmodum totum vetus testamentum tamquam prophetiam et praeparationem novi foederis sublimioris instituit, ita in populo quoque in Aegyptum descendente et ex Aegypto educto prophetiam dedit ipso rerum cursu expressam de Filio suo humana natura ex Israel vestito. Sunt itaque verba illa sensu litterali dicta de populo Israel, sensu autem typico de Christo Filio Dei. Vide quae ad Osee 11,1 adnotavi i in comment. in Proph. min. 1 p. 141 et cf. Cornely, Introd. I p. 530. Si igitur evangelista dicit μέ adimpleretur, ἵνα πληρωθῇ, veram eo loco contineri docet prophetiam re ipsa et eventu illo designatam et verum argumentum proferre vult ad demonstrandum puerulum illum Iesu nomine esse Messiam et ea in ipso cerni documenta , eas sortes, eas conditiones quae ab ipso Deo aut verbis planis (uti habemus 1,92) aut ipso rerum cursu declarantur Messiae inesse debere. Ex qua argumentandi ratione simul illud elucet ludaeis typicam illam veteris foederis significationem non fuisse incognitam. Vult enim Matthaeus persuadere et probare Iesum esse Messiam ; iam ad hoc iis argumentis utatur oportet quae apta sint ad convincendum i. e. quorum probandi vis ab aliis percipiatur et concedatur. Cum itaque ex sensu typico haud semel arguat, sensus typicus Iudaeis innotuerit necesse esí. Idem quoque sequitur ex argumentis quae alii etiam auctores sacri proferunt; cf. loan. 19,36. 1 Cor. 10,6. Hebr. 8,5; 9, 9 etc.; immo ex illis ipsis quae de se Christus docuit Ioan. 13,18; 15, 25. Itaque sensus typicus erat notus. Neque desunt in veteris foederis libris ea quibus sensus typicus indicetur. Nam Messias designatur nomine David (Os. 3,5. Ez. 34,93; 37,94), pax et felicitas messiana verbis iis describitur quibus prosperitas regni Salomonis declaratur (Mich. 4,4), regni messiani conditio suscitatione tabernaculi David quod decidit fieri dicitur (Am. 9,11), liberatio messiana eo modo describitur quo liberatio ex Aegypto olim facta narrari solet (Is. 11, 15; 48,2. 17. Os. 2,15. Mich. 7,15), regnum Messiae nomine lerusalem, Sion appellatur etc.; hisce autem et similibus viam parari sensus typici quis negare poterit? Sensu autem typico maximam constitui Christi gloriam in aperto est positum. Eo enim apparet Christum esse normam et mensuram ex qua omnia ἃ Deo ordinentur, eum esse centrum ad quod res omnium saeculorum referantur. Uti enim Ecclesia Christ est corpus Christ mysticum eiusque in se éxprimit vitam et eius opus continuat, ita vetus foedus quoque institutum ; Christus igitur regula est et forma saeculorum. Atque multiplex similitudo in illo eventu deprehenditur. Israel fame coactus in Aegyptum descendit, igitur etiam ad vitae periculum vitandum; utrimque maxima cernitur Dei providentia in conservatione populi et pueruli; servitus populi et conditio afflicta etiam in humili conditione et paupere cernitur qua Christus in Aegypto degit; neque omittendum est et Israelem et Messiam habuisse pro tutore et nutricio Iosephum; quod Pharao oppressor populo erat, id Herodes Messiae; caedes puerorum ex edicto Pharaonis respondet infanticidio bethlehemitico; uti Deus illuserat Pharaoni per Moysen, sic Herodi per magos; et populus et puerulus rege persecutore interempto educuntur atque educuntur angeli monitu (cf. ans. Lamy et praesertim. Frassen, disquisitiones bibl. IV 6 n. 40 ed. 2; Lucae ᾿ 4169; I p. 397). Cum 8. Matthaeus dicat μέ adimpleretur, verum ab eo adduci argumentum et veram designari prophetiam sententia est longe communissima inter interpretes catholicos. Quae sententia ex ipso verbo adimplere, ex mentione id ἃ Domino dictum esse per prophetam et ex ipso illo consilio confirmatur quod sibi evangelista proposuit. Paucissimi sunt qui adimpletionem ad aliquam fere verborum accommodationem reducere videntur; eo modo loquitur ans. : « non quod peculiare fuerit de Christo ex Aegypto vocando vaticinium, sicut illud Michaeae de nascituro Christo in Bethlehem aut illud Isaiae de nascituro ipso ex virgine, sed quod id quod nominatim fuit scriptum de populo israelitico apposite etiam competat in Christum, immo verius et perfectius in eo impleatur et verificetur, ut qui verior sit Dei filius a quo alii habent quod filii Dei censentur. Proinde quod evangelista ait, perinde est ac si dixisset : ut et de puero Iesu illud prophetae verificaretur; ut si quis verba faciens de patre aliquo mire sollicito pro filio diceret : vidisses amore desiderioque filii non posse consistere... ut impleretur in eo illud Maronis : omnis in Ascanio cari stat cura parentis ». Haec explicatio utique admitti nequit, quia ut exemplo osten- rationem Suarez (l. c. disp. 17, s. 4 n. 4) nimis liberam (ne dicam temerariam) vocat. Neque tamen /ans. in ea sistit; statim enim subdit posse etiam dici populum israeliticum typum quendam praetulisse Christi ac proinde quae de Israele dicta sint sub nomine filii Dei etiam praedicta fuisse de Christo adumbrato per Israelem sub illa appellatione. Atque haec acceptio prae priore retineatur oportet. Itaque quemadmodum Is. 49,3 Messias Israel compellatur, qua compellatione ratio typica populi innuitur sicut etiam Is. 52,14, ita Israel quoque Os. 11,1 : quia puer Israel et dilexi eum, praeter sensum litteralem exprimit sensum typicum. nes illae : ut impleretur, sicut scriptum est, de mera accommodatione et similitudine quadam usurpantur. Huius rei exempla utique plurima afferri possunt. [ta in vita S. Ephraem legitur eum ab angelo monitum esse, ne praecepto divino sese subtraheret : cave ne de te dicatur : Ephraim vitula, iugum ab humero repulit (Os. 10,11; Assemani, Bibl. or. I cap. 6 8 12) atque Hegesippus de ludaeis lacobum fratrem Domini occidentibus scribit : et impleverunt Scripturam ex Isaia : tollamus e medio iustum, quia molestus est nobis (Euseb. hist. eccl. 2,23; M. 20,201). Praecipue autem rabbinis ea dicendi ratio probata erat. Exempla sat multa reperies v. g. apud Wiseman, Zusammenhang der Ergebnisse etc. 10. Vorlesung, et apud Tholuck, Das alte Testament im neuen Test. 5 ed. p. 16 seq. Verum facile patet ex usu et consuetudine quadam posterius invalescente nihil sequi pro tempore anteriore; pariter manifestum est illos scriptores minime affirmare velle veram editam esse de illis rebus prophetiam, sed id solum in- "tendere ut insinuent verbis sacris posse eventum quendam describi vel id . ; iterum iterumque fieri cuius simile iam habeatur in s. litteris. Idem cernitur apud scriptores graecos qui locos poetarum, Homeri praeprimis, variis eventibus adaptare solebant; cf. Plutarchus, Symposiaca 9,4. At plane aliud prosecutum esse evangelistam hodie vix est qui neget (cf. Keil, Weiss, Mansel). . Locum ex Osee 11,1 sensu litterali de uno Messia dici ex veteribus contendit Eusebius, Demonstr. evang. 9,4; M. 22,665 et ex posterioribus interpretibus Tostatus qu. 57, qui statuit : si solum intelligeretur de eo in sensu mystico, cum non sit intentio prophetiae id quod significatur in sensu mystico, non diceretur prophetia compleri. Insuper contendit, ut vera adsit prophetia, debuisse ipsum prophetam intelligere ea quae dicat. Utrumque aütem a vero abest. Nam sensus typicus etiam veram continet prophetiam verumque subministrat argumentum; neque tamen opus est ut ipse propheta omnia intelligat quae verbis suis ex Dei auctoris primarii intentione insunt; e contra sensu typico Deus auctor princeps s. litterarum egregie demonstratur; cf. comment. in Proph. min. I p. 141; Cornely, Introd. I p. 537. 11 2 p. 295. 297. Atque prophetas non omnia intellexisse neque id ullo pacto verae officere prophetiae potuit Tos(atus discere ex multis locis v. g. ler. 23,20; 30,24. Dan. 8,27; 12,8. Ioan. 11,49. 4 Petr. 1,10-12. Rom. 16,25. Eph. 3,10. Col. 4 Herodes ex loci vicinitate mox comperit magos esse profectos ita ut ad urbem non redirent, et qua erat sollicitudine et perturbatione propter regem ludaeorum natum, animum ad id advertisse censendus erit statim. Spe itaque sua deiectus et mandatum suum a magis esse neglectum ac spretum cernens, sibi igitur ab eis esse illusum putans iratus est valde v. 16 et impotenti furore abreptus statuit ut omnes puéruli in Bethlehem et in omnibus finibus eius i. e. in toto eius territorio quod ad oppidum pertineret occiderentur, ne unus ille evaderet. Advertit S. CArys. potuisse et debuisse Herodem ex eo quod magi non ad eum redibant intelligere se rem tentare quam perficere non valeret; « at ille non coercetur; quando enim improbus animus et insanabilis est, nulli cedit a Deo concessae medicinae ». Atque revera in eo quod magi praeter exspectationem ad eum non revertebantur, iam satis aperte admonetur exsistere numen divinum ad consilium suum evertendum (cf. Ians.). Et merito exagitant S. CÁrys. auctor op. imp. Theoph. aliique Herodis ea in re insaniam; « quid agit insensata ira tua? si non credis verbis quae magi dixerunt de rege futuro, quare sine causa insanis in pueros? si autem credis verum esse quod dictum est de puero et de stella, numquid potes tu mutare sententiam Dei aut perdere illum quem Deus defendit » (op. imp.)? Audivit insuper verba prophetae; iam Deum non esse permissurum, ut Christus ab Herode e medio tollatur et vaticinia messiana concidant, Herodes perspicere debuit. Sed furor et pessimae cupiditates animum obcaecant; « ipse sapientissimus Salomon cum propter peccatum suum audisset a propheta leroboam regem futurum, posuit persequi eum putans posse perdere eum quem Deus producit; quid mirum, si Herodes putavit se posse mutare consilium Dei » (op. imp. Dion.? Herodes autem mittens occidit , missis satellitibus suis occidi iussit pueros. losephus narrans de Herodis funere hos militum eius ordines recenset : δορυφόρους, τὸ Θράκιον (agmen thracicum), Γερμανοὺς xai τὸ Γαλατιχόν (Antiq. 17,8. 3); ex hisce igitur probabile est illos quoque carnifices ad stragem edendam esse selectos. Occidit autem a δὲς matu et infra ἀπὸ διετοῦς καὶ χατωτέρω i. e. a bienni (puerulo) vel ἃ bimulo, a bimulis et minoribus (Vatablus); eodem modo iam Syrus quoque vocem graecam intellexit vertens a filio duorum annorum , quae interpretatio retinenda est (Arn. Schegg, Schanz, Keil, Weiss); ea enim ad usum hebr. est exacta, ex quo in versione graeca quoque reperitur v. g. Num. 1,3. 20 ἀπὸ εἰχοσαετοῦς xai ἐπάνω, 1 Par. 27,93; 92 Par. 31,16 τριετοῦς xal ἐπάνω, Esdr. 3,8. Quibus exemplis simul ostenditur non obstare numerum singularem a Dienni; cf. hebr. 130, Cur autem eam aetatem selegerit tyrannus, ratio redditur secundum tempus quod ezquisierat a magis, ἠχρίδωσε cf. v. "I. diligenter didicit. Tempus stellae inquisivit, quando scil. primo ab eis visa esset; stellam autem apparuisse simul cum nato puerulo sententia est vera et a plerisque accepta (cf. S. August. serm. 202; M. 38, 1033; Tost. Cai. Mald. Ians. Lap. etc.); aliqui tempus annuntiationis assignant (Man- - sel); satis arbitrerium est quod aliis placuit stellam duobus annis vel octodecim mensibus (Patr. p. 334) ante Christum natum apparuisse. certius inter reliquos illum unum interficeret, profecto assumendum erit Herodem tempus a magis exquisitum aliquatenus extendisse. lungit Euth. et explicat ita : « suspicabatur non statim apparuisse magis stellam sed fortassis puerum ante eius apparitionem natum fuisse; ideo securitatis. causa-tempus anticipavit; eos ergo qui bimuli erant occidit, ut tempus ampliationem haberet, illos vero qui minoris erant aetatis, secundum tempus quod exquisierat a magis »; eodem modo iungunt Jans. Sylv. ; at certe cum plerisque tota dictio a bimatu et infra referri debet ad tempus quod exquisierat, prout verborum nexu et sensu obvio suadetur. : Numerum puerorum occisorum non potuisse esse magnum, ex ipsa vici Bethlehem parvitate colligitur, ex qua simul sequitur fines quoque i. e. eius territorium quod ad oppidum pertinebat satis fuisse exiguos. Ea ratione habita et parvo incolarum numero considerato recentiores haud improbabiliter pueros duodecim vel quindecim ad summum viginti (Ed. I p. 215) occisos esse coniiciunt. Hos persecutor occidendo vita donavit (op. imp.) et propter insignem martyrii gloriam quam adepti sunt proprio sanguine quasi baptizati illos non tam iniuria affectos esse quam coronas meruisse TAeoph. Euth. aliique dicunt; « passi sunt ut. martyres et Christum moriendo confessi sunt quamvis non loquendo » (S. Thom.). Cur Deus ut occiderentur permiserit variae afferuntur rationes : bonum puerorum, Christum statim ab initio docere voluisse se socios habere persecutionis, conseerari primordia martyrum (S. Pasch. Aib.). S. Chrys. eam quoque causam affert eos esse abreptos quia Deus praevidisset eos nihil magni esse effecturos; Salm. punitum esse inter alia vult amorem carnalem et peccata parentum, quoniam ii Messiam inter ipsos natum ignorassent nec locum nmascenti illi dedissent. Aliud in hac caede et in illa lamentatione praefiguratum nobis revelat evangelista in v. 11. 18. Rationalistae haud raro hoc facinus infanticidii ad fabulas reiiciunt, quia. losephus de eo nil refert (Strauss) et quia modus ille agendi est nimis stultus et insanus (Keim, in Bibellexicon ed. Schenkel, Il p. 37). Ad prius illud optime monet Fil. primo, si ea res apud scriptorem profanum narrata esset futurum fuisse ut omnes sibi. gratularentur et scriptorem laudarent quod rem ab aliis vel ignoratam vel omissam nostrae servasset memoriae et talem rem quae ad Herodis mores cognoscendos et eius regnandi cupiditatem describendam adeo esset apta; verum quia res haec a sacro auctore sit litteris consignata, rationalistas statim eam arguere falsitatis. Ita est. Adeo iniquo modo revera de sacris auctoribus iudicant idque contra eos sibi impune permittunt quod si quis contra Livium, Tacitum, Polybium etc. auderet, de hominis stupore menteque crassa conclamarent. Dein cur Iosephus hoc facinus omiserit facile explicatur. Nam ea quae ad Christum referuntur, generatim silentio premit; dein inter ceteras Hérodis crudelitates haec aliquorum puerorum peremptio non tanti aestimari potest, ut eius memoriam historiae generalis actis e& monumentis debuerit inserere; ultimo tempore Herodis eius saevitiae οἱ insani furoris tot ex- Stabant documenta et exempla, ut huius rei memoriam maioribus illis fuisse obrutam facile tibi persuadeas. Ceterum facinus tale esse plane conforme indoli Herodis et ceteris eius saevitiis quis iure negaverit? Ipse Keim 1. c. profitetur exspectationem messianam eo tempore regem habuisse sollicitum eumque reddidisse suspiciosum et crudelem; insuper losephus refert pharisaeos praedixisse fore ut Herodes eiusque progenies Dei decreto imperium amitterent, quare eorum nocentissimos ab Herode esse interfectos simul cum Bagoa eunucho quem patrem beneficumque appellatum iri praedixerant eius qui ex eorum praedictione creandus esset rex (Antiq. 17,2. 4). Haec autem sive tempus sive causam spectaveris iam vehementer suadent Herodem de rege Iudaeorum nato certiorem factum nihil relinquere intentatum, ut illum tollat e medio. Quomodo enim is parceret paucis infantibus, qui Keim fatente iam integras familias exstirpaverat, mulieres tormentis addixerat, in proprias uxores et filios immani furore saevierat, in aula et in urbibus plus quam credi potest crudelitate, tormentis, caedibus omnia repleverat. Sed modum eum dicunt esse imprudentem, insanum; cur non unum exquireret quem facile potuisset invenire, cum latere non posset in quam domum inirassent magi? Si quis talem investigationem praeviam de uno illo factam requirit, nihil statuit quod narratione sacra excluditur; immo poterit pro se provocare ad angeli verba : futurum est enim ut Herodes quaerat puerum ad perdendum eum; qua investigatione incassum facta omnes pueros cccidendos curasse censeri tum debet. Neque tamen id necesse est. Nam pro suspicione eius et crudelitate et furore probabilius videtur, ut statim. id elegerit quod maxime ad rem videbatur, scil. ut ex improviso omnes necarentur, ne perquisitione facta suspicio hominum excitaretur et ideo forte unus ille clam subduceretur. Id ad rabiem illam qua ultimo vitae tempore incitabatur furens tyrannus magis congruit. reiectum, sede sua pulsum, dignitate sua theocratica spoliatum , eiectum inter gentes (cfr. meum comment. in Ieremiam p. 381 seq). Hunc igitur Rachel matris dolorem evangelista dicit impletum in caede infantium. Ex contextu apud Ieremiam manifestum est ibi non afferri oraculum quod sensu litterali vel primo et directe infanticidium illud et matrum eiulationes praedicat. Cum tamen evangelista loquatur de impletione, necesse est in illo eventu typicam cerni rationem et verba oraculi ita esse selecta ut in sensu litterali exhibeant simul apte alterum eventum eumque adumbrent. Id igitur ut investigemus, argumentatione evangelistae excitamur et plane cogimur. Ut unus eventus alterius sit typus vel ut id quod antea factum sit, - iterum fieri, a£ plenius fieri, i. e. impleri dici possit, quaedam similitudo rerum ac conditionum intercedat necesse est. lam hanc deprehendere hoc loco non est difficile. Etenim apud leremiam Rachel plorat de foedere Dei a populo violato, de populi ruina et expulsione a terra Domini; sed in fuga Messiae quem Herodes non sine populi consensu (2,3) persequitur et ad mortem quaerit, violatio pacti divini, populi ruina et eiectio multo magis perficitur. Eo enim quod Messiam non suscipiunt, immo ad necem quaerunt (ideoque Messias e terra sua fugere cogitur), manifestum est foedus cum Deo turpissime ab iis destrui eosque sibi ruinam extremam et exitium comparare. Quare si Rachel ploravit priorem illam ruinam, multo magis plorare debet hanc quae est illius ruinae fastigium ac culmen. Vel imagine poetica relicta : dolor ille in Rama olim editus de ruina populi priore typus est et figura illius calamitatis quae exsistet in ultima populi ruina. Hanc vero ruinam populus sibi ipsi infert repudiato Messia. Quare Rachel plorat filios suos et non vult consolationem accipere quia non sunt , quia populus ille repudians Messiam iam non in censu Dei computatur. Eo autem quod Messiam reiiciunt, se ipsi interitui mancipant atque huius destructionis qua in se ipsos saeviunt praeludium et praesagium est infanticidium illud et luctus ac ploratus matrum. In hoc ploratu qui auditur in Israel postquam Messias fugam capere debuit exsistere nos docet evangelista initium et quasi prooemium illius eiulationis qua demum populi apostatae exitium deplorandum erit. Unde si illam apud Ieremiam considerationem ob oculos habemus merito dici potest, dolorem Rachel matris in Rama continuari et augeri cum Messias fugere debeat; populi miseriam in ruina priore inceptam absolvi et ad fastigium perduci Messia reiecto; Apte quoque et poetice exprimitur matrum bethlehemiticarum plorstus in ploratu Rachel, cuius sepulerum prope Bethlehem esse (Gen. 35,19) iam veteres monent (EutA. Theoph. op. imp. S. Hier. Bed. Rab. Pasch. Alb. Thom. lans.) et recentiores confirmant (cf. Guérzn, Description de la Palestine, Judée I p. 225-936). Cum dicatur voz in Rama audita est statim indicatur oraculum non sensu litterali de eiulatu bethlehemitico proferri. Est enim Rama oppidum quadraginta distans; unde evidens est clamorem in Bethlehem sublatum non posse "ullo pacto pervenire usque Rama. — Rachel plorans χλαίουσα ab aliquibus iungitur cum ἠκούσθη (Schanz , Weiss) id quod fieri potest, attionem pro verbo finito adhibetur; immo idem quandoque apud Scriptores graecos (cf.Wner, Grammatik des neutest. Sprachidioms, 8 45,6). Ab explicatione proposita prope abesse videntur qui in Rachel personam repraesentari volunt Ecclesiae plorantis reiectionem Iudaeorum. Ita SS. Hil. : « Ecclesiae ploratus ex filiis non idcirco, quia peremptos dolebat auditur, sed quia ab his perimebantur quos primum genitos filios retinere quamvis de infantibus dicía non fuerit multo tamen aptius de illis quam de captivis ludaeis dici potuisse », et similiter Calm. quoque. Etiam Lamy solum admittit allusionem : « tunc bethlehemiticis mulieribus accidit quidpiam simile quod olim beniamiticis... Iudaei reprobare non possunt has allusiones qua disserendi ratione nihil apud eos sollemnius ». | Sunt qui contendant narrationem de infanticidio ortam esse ex hoc oraculo Ieremiae; verum quam male hoc sit excogitatum facile patet. Nam locus ille Ieremiae ita est conformatus ut legenti nihil vaticinii in posterum implendi offerat, sed ut totus in calamitate illa abductionis in exsilium exhauriri videatur. Si inspirationem s. auctoris interea omittimus, uti rationalistae omittunt, nihil aliud restat quam ut dicamus lamentatione illa matrum bethlehemiticarum solum evenire potuisse, ut quis in loco Ieremiae deprehendere sibi videretur vaticinium recolens Rachel prope Bethlehem esse sepultam. Quare ex ipsa iudicandi norma rationali- Starum fateri cogimur nullam posse excogitari rationem cur ista narratio conficta sit ad prophetiam implendam, verum solum ex infanticidio iam noto explicari posse. cur verbis illis Ieremiae nova quaedam impletio possit deprehendi; proinde non esse ortam narrationem ex oraculo, sed e contra ibi oraculum de re futura edici a nullo potuisse intelligi nisi caede illa perpetrata. | Herodes dignam tyranno mortem obiit anno aetatis septuagesimo eamque horrore plenam, de qua Iosephus Antiq. 17,6. 5; 8,1; eam Theoph. breviter describit : « amara morte periit, febri et intestinorum cruciatu et scabie et podagra et putredine verendorum vermes generante et spirandi difficultate et tremore et contractione memscelerum illius exigente. Herodes aliquo tempore ante pascha ezstinctus est. Statim ab eius morte variae perturbationes et iurgia exorta sunt quae Augustus imperator ita composuit, ut autumno eiusdem anni regnum Herodis in tres divisum partes tribus Herodis filiis attribueret. Archelaus accepit Iudaeam, Idumaeam, Samariam et titulum ethnarchae spe proposita regii nominis honorisque si dignam rege virtutem praestitisset (Antiq. 17,11. ἃ); Antipas sortitus est Gálilaeam et Peraeam, Philippus Bataneam, Trachonitidem, Auranitidem. Cum itaque v. 22 Archelaus dicatur regnare in Iudaea, apparet non statim post mortem Herodis Iosephum ab angelo monitum esse ut rediret ἐπ (terram Israel, in regionem populo Dei assignatam; Israel nomen est honoris quo in memoriam revocantur patriarchae Iacob obedientia, desiderium benedictionis coelestis, pietas, promissiones divinae (vide quae notavi ad Os. 12,4). Quia dicitur
notuit omnibus et qui simul erat Messias, hac ratione evenit : non communi hominum modo conceptus est, sed eius conceptio effecta est de Spiritu sancto. Bene. ostendit nexum cum antecedentibus . S. Chrys. : « ne audiens virum Mariae putares communi naturae lege Christum natum esse, adverte quomodo ea addat quae opinionem istam corrigant; audisti, inquit, virum , audisti matrem, audisti nomen puero datum, audi etiam generationis (γεννήσεως) modum ». Haec tamen verba : Christi generatio sic erat, ad antecedentia refert S. Hier., item videtur Origenes hom. 28 in Lucam (M. 13,1872); posse referri vel ad antecedentia vel ad subsequentia Bed. Hab. exi- ᾿ stimant. Sed communissima eaque vera sententia est, ut ad subse- E quentia pertinere dicantur; cur enim Matthaeus absoluta genealogia — - adnotaret eam ita esse sicut ipse eam retulerit (Patr. diss. 15 p. 193)? 3 id quod plane abundat; verum e re erat, ne quis existimaret Chri-- Εν stum eodem modo quo alii genitum esse, modum quo genitus esset ex- | r. plicare, ut eum cuius generationem cum aliorum generationibus E connumerarat, tamen singularem habere originem demonstraretur vA (Maid). | 8 Vox desponsata in propria sua et nativa significatione, uti graecum 3 μνηστευθείσης, retineri debet; scil. sponsalia esse inita inter Mariam E et Ioseph. Verum simul oportet adverti apud Iudaeos sponsis iam Uli eadem iura fuisse quae esse solent matrimonio iunctis. Proinde etiam antequam sponsa pompa sollemni in domum sponsi duceretur et nuptiae festive celebrarentur, sponsus et sponsa impune tamquam vir et mulier inter se agere poterant. Atque desponsam haberi sicuti | nuptam, etiam ex Deut. 92,93-98 statim colligitur. Ad eum morem ν legitimum non attendentes aliqui putarunt, ut honori virginis esset consultum, desponsatam hoc loco accipi debere in notione nuptae. Ita videtur S. Ambroszus (in Luc. lib. 2,2) accepisse, cum dicat par- οι tum innuptae lege damnari; ita Maid. lans. Sylv. alique. Re d quidem vere sentiunt quia sponsus et sponsa si vellent iam uti possent omnibus matrimonii iuribus, proinde iam exsistere verum coniugium existimari potest; at a verbi proprietate recedunt. Desponsatione facta iis iura coniugum propria fuisse, etiam modo loquendi evangelistae satis declaratur; nam v. 19 Ioseph dicitur vir eius; sermo est de dimissione; angelus v. 20 Mariam vocat coniugem τὴν γυναῖκα losephi. Quare merito S. Hier. ad v. 17 monet: « recordare consuetudinis Scripturarum, quod sponsi viri et sponsae vocantur uxores ». De qua re bene tractant Calm. Patr. diss. 15 p. 127; Grimm I p. 194.919; Flunk 1. c. Cur Deus voluerit filium suum concipi a virgine desponsata, ratio in aperto est. Ita enim mysterio Incarnationis quod non statim manifestari et intelligi potuit consulitur, providetur quoque honori virginis; de qua re S. Amór. l. c. dicit : « maluit Dominus aliquos de suo ortu quam de matris pudore dubitare; sciebat enim teneram esse virginis verecundiam et lubricam famam pudoris ». Praeterea merito addunt virgini auxilium in sponso et solatium dari debuisse; Iosephum testem et custodem esse virginitatis Mariae. Notum est quod scribit S. Hier. : « martyr Ignatius etiam quartam addit causam, cur a desponsata conceptus sit, ut partus, inquiens, eius celareter diabolo, dum eum putat non de virgine sed de. uxore generatum ». Eandem affert S. Amór. lib. 2 n. 3 quoque : « non mediocris causa est, ut virginitas Mariae falleret principem mundi, qui cum desponsatam viro cerneret, partum non potuit habere suspecin Summae p. 3 qu. 29 art. 1; Sylv. Suarez in ὃ partem S. Thomae qu. 29. Contra quam sententiam varia movent Scotus (in & librum sentent. dist. 30. qu. 2) et Tostatus (qu. 31 in 1 cap. Matth.) et Sa/m. et Maid. : diabolum potuisse omnino viribus naturalibus cognoscere Mariam virginem esse; ergo debuisse virtute divina ne adverteret prohiberi; iam si peculiari Dei interventu opus fuerit, eodem interventu potuisse diabolum impediri ne.cognosceret quomodo concepisset etsi non fuisset desponsata; proinde illam rationem ne diabolus partum suspicaretur virgineum esse inefficacem. Porro multo insigniora documenta quam sit partus virgineus diabolo non esse abscondita ex quibus quis esset Iesus coniectare posset; talia esse angelorum annuntiationem ad pastores factam, stellam et adventum et adorationem magorum, vocem de coelo lapsam in Christi baptismate, testimonia loannis baptistae etc.; quae omnia cum nemo dixerit diabolo esse occultata, vix assumi posse Deum miraculo intervenisse ne partum virgineum cognosceret. — Aliam quoque rationem reddit potius significat non quaerendo, non cogitando, praeter opinionem aliquid invenire, ut Chrys. idoneus graeci sermonis testis adnotavit; non ergo loseph vestigando, sed non quaerendo, visu eoque purissimo minimeque curioso Mariam praegnantem invenit » (Ma/d.), scil. sicuti quivis qui modo oculos adiiceret videre posset eam esse gravidam. Illud autem. de Spzritu sancto « Matthaeus ardenti probatur amore praeveniendo addidisse, antequam angelus id exponeret, maxime ne lectoris animum mox subreperet suspicio quae postea dictis angelicis purganda esset » (S. Pasch. Thom.). Est igitur exponendum : inventa est, apparuit gravida, at habebat in utero (filium Dei conceptum) de Spiritu sancto (Bar. lans. Lap. etc.). Et eam explicationem quam plerique sequuntur veram esse, haud difficile probatur. Exceptis enim Elisabeth et Zacharia nemo sciebat modum quo b, Virgo supernaturaliter conceperat; iam quomodo alii in eius notitiam venirent, dum tacente Maria id ne ipse quidem sponsus eius cognosceret? losephum autem modum conceptionis ignorasse, iam Alb. Mald. Ians. ex sermone angeli omnino constare asserunt, cum. tandem angelus eum doceat de Spiritu sancto esse quod in ea natum sit. times adiungi illi utpote quae ex Spiritu s. conceperit, sed ne timeas eam domi tenere; hic vero : ne timeas eam accipere in coniugem ob hanc cau- 'sam quia quod natum est in ea de Spiritu s. est, sed cognosce in hac re necessariam esse operam tuam, ut ei officia patris exhibeas. Dein haec sententia nequit componi cum v. 19 quem vide. Contendit Grimm l. c. eam explicationem iam dari ab Origene, Basilio, "Hilario. Hoc perperam dicitur. Loci qui afferuntur sunt ex homiliis quae Origeni et Basilio olim adscribebantur. Neque Hilarius eius explicationis »patronus dici potest. Immo ex Hilario contrarium sequitur. Dicit enim : « noli timere accipere Mariam coniugem tuam, dictum est Ioseph volenti eam abiicere, quia iustus ipse nollet in eam lege decerni; igitur ne qua de partu eius ambiguitas exsisteret, ipse concepti ex Spiritu s. Christi testis assumitur; dehinc quia desponsata esset, in coniugem recipitur ». Ex quibus duo aperte consequuntur : Ioseph noluit in eam lege decerni; sed qui ita mentem Iosephi explicat censet Mariam apud eum in suspicione admissi facinoris fuisse;:quomodo enim si iam cognovisset eam concepisse de Spiritu s., ipsi in mentem venire. potuisset in eam lege decerni? Dein si S. Hilarius dicit Iosephum assumi testem concepti ex Spiritu s. Christi, id dicit, postquam angeli verba recitavit; ergo ex angeli verbis fit testis interprete S. Hilario et gratuito et falso ei alia sententia attribuitur. Notissimum est theologorum axioma : omnia opera ad extra tribus -Personis ss. Trinitatis sunt communia; at nihilominus singula singulis Personis appropriantur secundum quandam similitudinem quam "pera habent cum proprietate personali. Ratio proxima cur Matthaeus scripserit Zn tero habens de Spiritu s., certe agnoscenda 'erit in verbis angeli annuntiantis Incarnationis !mysterium (Luc. (1,35). Ipse igitur nuntius coelestis nos modum docet loquendi. At tamen quaerere licet cum Rab. : « cum illam creaturam quam virgo concepit et peperit quamvis ad solam personam Filii pertinentem tota Trinitas fecerit, neque enim separabilia sunt opera Trinitatis, cur in ea facienda solus Spiritus s. nominatus est »? Huius autem loquendi modi optimas rationes adducit, ut ait Suarez (in 3 p. qu. 32 art. 1), S. Thomas et adeo perspicue ut nihil addere oporteat. -Affert autem tres : primo quia id congruit causae Incarnationis quae "consideratur ex parte Dei; Spiritus enim sanctus est amor Patris et Filii; Incarnatio autem maxima est Dei erga nos amoris exhibitio. Secundo id congruit causae Incarnationis ex parte naturae assumptae; humana natura est enim assumpta a Filio Dei in unitatem personae ex sola gratia, gratia autem attribuitur Spiritui sancto. Tertio hoc congruit termino Incarnationis i. e. ut homo ille qui concipiebatur .esset sanctus et Filius Dei; utrumque autem horum attribuitur Spiritui sancto; nam per ipsum efficiuntur homines filii Dei (Gal. &,6) et ipse est etiam Spiritus sanctificationis; sicut ergo alii per Spiritum s. sanctificantur spiritualiter, ut sint filii Dei adoptivi, ita Christus per Spiritum s. est in sanctitate conceptus, ut esset Filius Dei naturalis. Vide Summam.p. 3 qu. 32 art. 1. Spiritus enim sanctus per viam amoris consummantis ac perficientis vias productionis aeternas procedit in ss. Trinitate; quare opera amoris, benignitatis, liberalitatis . ei attribuuntur; iam vero Incarnatio est summum erga nos beneficium omniumque beneficiorum caput; dein Spiritus s. est quoddam .semen divinum quo omnia fecundantur, est quasi anima qua animantur et vivificantur omnia (cf. Gen. 1,9. Ps. 103,30. Ioan. 6,63), unde Incarnatio, opus fecunditatis et'vivificationis, ei attribuitur (cf. Salm. Maid.). Potissimam rationem Ra. cernit in gratia, Beda vero quia Christus adventu suo donum Spiritus s. in se credentibus large ministravit. Dicitur itaque zn utero habens de (ix) Spiritu sancto , quia Spiritus s. sua potentia et virtute creatrice id supplevit et effecit quod ad conceptionem requirebatur; vide Luc. 1,35. Quid Ioseph, cum sponsam ab Elisabeth reducem cerneret praegnantem? Matthaeus virum nobis describit ?ustum i. e. qui legis divinae normam presse sequitur etin vita sua exprimit et qui simul apud se statuere non potuit, vel id a se impetrare non potuit (μὴ θέλων) , ut eam palam faceret scil. quod non a se, a sponso concepisset; cum itaque ex una parte legem sequeretur ducem ac normam, ex altera parte animo esset maxime benigno ac miti, qui animus describitur quia noluit sponsam δειγματίσαι, id quo et iustitiae et suo animo benigno, sibi et sponsae emolumento maxime consultum esset facere intendit (ἐδουλήθη) i. e. voluit, de ea re secum cogitavit, ut occulte eam dimitteret. Hic est sensus verborum obvius. Iam singula sunt consideranda. Vidit sponsam esse gravidam; nescit a quo; Maria silet, rem Deo committens, qui sicut Elisabeth edocuerat, ita si ei placitum fuerit Iosephum reddet certiorem. Mariae silentium de mysterio in se peracto non cum aliquibus inde explicabimus quia putaret fore ut losephus sibi non crederet asserenti id quod excedere videretur testimonium unius puellae , sed ex eo quod totum negotium subiecit divinae providentiae, ut Deus disponeret id quod sibi magis esset beneplacitum, certissima tenens fiducia fore ut Deus ab hac afflictione quam ipsa ex turbatione loseph sponsi experiebatur se liberaret. Ut autem sibi cum silentio rem Deo esse relinquendam existimaret, omnino induci poterat, immo fere debebat eo quod Deus ipse mysterium revelasset Elisabeth. Inde merito concludebat Deum qui rem adeo stupendam operatus sit etiam sibi soli reservare curam eam patefaciendi quando et quibus voluisset. Ita fere fans. Bar. Sylv. Lap. Keppler l. c. p. 5758. Magnam autem hoc silentio Iosepho additam esse afflictionem neminem latere potest atque ipsam quoque b. Virginem ea sponsi turbatione multum expertam esse doloris ac moestitiae pariter certum est. Haerebat quippe Iosephus anxius; exspectat rem declarari & sponsa. Culpam eius subesse, propter perspectos eius mores et vitae integritatem, modestiam , sanctitatem admittere animus eius refugit; sed si invita vim est experta, cur non rem pandit? Quomodo res sit explananda nescit; quare id consilii animo volvit quo et sibi et sponsae optime consulat, scil. ut eam occulte dimittat. Sibi consulit; nescit quippe quid acciderit; si vim passa est ante desponsationem, is qui [intulit tenebatur eam dotare et uxorem habere (Ex. 22,16. Deut. 22,28); si postea, cum ipsa sponsa nihil de se aperiat, etiam maxime consultum videbatur, ut ei plenam restitueret libertatem seseque ab omni molestia liberaret quae exoriri posset ἃ sponsa gravida aliunde. Ita.-ergo omni ex parte iustitiae consulit. Quare iustus vocatur, utpote qui normam iusti sequitur et recti; quare haec appellatio ust? ad alterum versus membrum, ad ipsam dimissionem potius pertinet, uti S. Chrys. Patr. explicant, non ut Mald. Ians. volunt ad prius, quo magis eius pietas commendatur. Sunt qui iustum explicent benignum, mitem, pium (S. Chrys.). At ad eam notionem vocem deflectere non est opus. Nam pium ac mitem se demonstrat, dum eam non vult traducere (S. Pasch.). Voluit enim, ut Eu/h. dicit, sponsam a malorum perpessione servare quia id quod factum erat non manifestabat. Tamquam sponsus Stricto iure poterat sponsam accusare, in ius vocare, ut de sua conditione rationem redderet et pro merito vel alius vel ipsa vel ambo punirentur. Verum cum adverteret sponsam ne sibi, sponso, quidem rem declarare velle, omnino abhorruit rem ad iudices deferre. Noluit eam δειγματίσαι i. e. ut Euseb. 1. c. explicat τὸ φανερὸν ἁπλῶς ποιῆσαι et notat idem non dici ab evangelista παραδειγματίσαι quod significet τὴν ἐπὶ χαχῶς πράξαντι εἰς πάντας φανέρωσιν, sed bene adhibitam esse vocem multo mitiorem. Non solum igitur eam noluit accusare, verum etiam noluit notum fieri quantum in se esset, eam non a se concepisse. Eodem modo explica (raducere, noluit eam diffamare, in publicum sermonem vulgi efferre (Salm. Ians.), vel ut S. Augustinus dicit : noluit eam divulgare (ep. ad Macedonium, ep. 153 cap. 4,9; olim ep. 54). Dicitur enim etiam apud Livium traducere per ora hominum i. e. aliquem publicae ignominiae exponere. Rem itaque quae ipsum reddebat anxium ac sollicitum nolebat. efferri in vulgus, sed cogitabat eam occulte dimittere. lam Esttus adnotat .discrimen | . MATTH. 4, 19. 55 inter θέλειν et βούλεσθαι ; significare βούλεσθαι cogitationem, deliberationem, rem animo versare, consilium capere, dum θέλειν magis dicat voluntatem firmam et fixam. Similiter recentiores quoque vim verborum explicant : prius magis efferre notionem generalem : animo volvere, intendere; alterum : apud se constitutum habere (cf. Cremer, Biblisch-theolog. Woerterb. p. 176). Voluit itaque sponsae plenam ac integram restituere libertatem, ut plane sui iuris de se liberrime posset disponere; id autem eo niodo, ut cur id faceret nemini innotesceret. Bene dicit Aib, : « sicut iustus cogitavit dimittere, sicut piüs disposuit non accüsare, et sicut sapiens voluit id facere occulte, quia hoc fuit tutius quod consilio humano poterat invenire ». , Qua ratione occulta dimissio fieri potuerit, varie explicant. Fortasse loseph in animo habebat e loco discedere, in. aliam proficisci regionem, id quod censent Tost. Maid. Lap. Ttr. Men. Calm. Grimm I p. 223; Keppler. Alii existimant dimissionem fieri debuisse tradito in manum mulieris libello repudii; hoc autem fieri potuisse vel publice coram iudicibus causa discussa, velsecreto coram duobus testibus causa repudii non patefacta. Ita Salm. Bar. Ians. Lamy, Patr. Schegg, Bisp. Fil. Ed. Yp. 154, Wünsche p. 9, Mansel. At alii negant . lege fuisse statutum , ut etiam sponsa solum libello repudii dato dimitteretur et proinde Iosephum non de libello repudii cogitasse ; ita Tost. Maid. Grimm, Schanz , Keppler, Weiss. Atque profecto lex Deut. 94, 1 118 verbis statuitur, ut de uxore quam vir iam cognovit sermo sit (cf. 7572). Quod rabbini posteriores eam legem. de sponsalibus quoque explicaverunt, uti Abarbanel (vide Kez), nullo modo potest esse argumento idem iam tempore Christi in usu fuisse; idem dic de Maimonide qui etiam pro desponsata libellum repudii postulat (cf. Lightfoot, Horae hebr. in Matth. 1,19.93). Ceterum in libello repudii cuius exemplar iuxta Maimonidem datur 8 Surenhusio (ad Mischn. tr. Gittin; tom. IlI p. 393. 325) nulla repudii causa exprimitur, sed solum mulieri facultas tribuitur, ut nubat cuicumque visum fuerit viro. Proinde etiam in sententia eorum qui libellum repudii ex rabbinorum placitis necessarium putant potuit dimissio fieri satis secreto causa non indicata. — Cum itaque loseph firmo consilio apud se statuisset sponsam suam non traducere, in publicum sermonem efferre vulgi, certe censeri debet eum timuisse ne ex hac manifestatione quidquam sinistri et molesti sponsae eveniret. Suo agendi modo sponsae voluit consulere, id facere quod illi non esset periculosum (S. Bruno, Cai.). Unde simul patet eum nondum scivisse Mariam de Spiritu s. concepisse. Nam si hoc scivisset, de accusatione vel opprobrio sponsae ei non potuisset ' quidquam in mentem venire; et si conscius fuisset mysterii, etiam intelligere debuit non casu et fortuito virginem esse electam desponsatam ; quomodo ergo potuisset velle eam relinquere et ita famam eius periculo exponere? cf. Keppler p. 572. prudentis, cedit postremo in ignominiam ipsius Christi , cuius gloria est habere matrem gloriosam et patrem putativum pium, prudentem, gloriosum ». Num itaque ad eam accedemus qua statuitur iam ad v. 18 Iosephum comperisse conceptionem factam de Spiritu sancto? Sed prohibemur v. 49 οἱ 20. Neque id opus est. Mediam quandam viam quae nec a pietate nec a veritate iudice Maid. discedat iam ostendit S. Hier. in h..1. : « quomodo Ioseph cum crimen celet uxoris iustus scribitur? sed hoc testimonium Mariae est quod Ioseph sciens illius castitatem et admirans quod evenerat celat silentio cuius mysterium nesciebat ». Et similiter legitur in op. imp. - « o inaestimabilis laus Mariae! magis credebat castitati eius quam utero eius et plus gratiae quam naturae. Conceptionem manifeste videbat et fornicationem suspicari non poterat; possibilius esse credebat mulierem sine viro posse concipere quam Mariam posse peccare » (M. 56, 633). Et S. Petrus Chrysologus, serm. 145 (M. 52,588) ita loquitur : « aestuabat animus sanctus negotii novitate perculsus, stabat sponsa praegnans, sed virgo; stabat plena pignore, sed non vacua pudore; stabat de concep- . tu sollicita, sed de integritate secura; stabat vestita materno munere, sed - non bonore virginitatis exclusa. Sponsus quid faceret ad ista? accusaret de ^: crimine? sed erat ipse innocentiae testis; culpam diceret? sed erat ipse : x custos pudoris; urgeret adulterium? sed erat ipse virginitatis assertor. ."4 Quid faceret ad ista? cogitat dimittere, quia non poterat vel foris prodere ] n vel intus quod evenerat continere; cogitat dimittere et dicit Deo totum I5 quia quod homini diceret non habebat ». Verba tamen angeli ita explicat, o quasi Ioseph crimen sit suspicatus : « noli timere; quam vides virtus est EN ista, non crimen; hic non humanus lapsus est, sed est divinus illapsus; hic - 3 praemium est, non reatus; hic incrementum coeli est, non corporis detri- B mentum » etc. Similiter quoque S. Pasch. : « sed quid sit quod Ioseph Bub recte iustus vocatur, qui non modo castitatis non accenditur zelo, verum τὰ nec causam exquirit, pudoris utique Mariae est testimonium quam inno- -. - .“ centem noverat, ut eam servando iustus valeat appellari... eam traducere nolebat ad poenam, in qua noverat non esse traditionis infamiam... iustum E fuit ne eam ipse traduceret quia castitatis eius conscius erat ». Etiam in E Glossa ordinaria legitur : « sciebat illam esse inculpabilem, sed unde vel quid esset ignorabat » (M. 114,70). Eandem sententiam proponit Aaymo, episcopus halberstatensis, hom. 8 in vigiliis nativ. D. : « nam et in Isaia legerat virginem de domo David esse concepturam et parituram Deum de qua etiam domo noverat genus duxisse Mariam, atque ideo non discredebat in το σι ea prophetiam hanc fuisse complendam » (M. 118, 48) et iterum : « quae- ' ritur, si inventa est a loseph habens de Spiritu sancto, cur dimittere eam voluit? ideo scilicet quia nec totum scivit, nec totum ignoravit. Noverat in utero habentem, non de carnali concubitu, sed spiritali virtute; de quo vero spiritu conceperit ignorabat » l. c. 52. Iosephum non habuisse suspicionem etiam b. A/b. existimat, « quia credebat possibilius esse quod virgo concepisset quam quod nefas perpetrasset » ; sed etiam addit : « potest tamen etiam dici secundum alios quod iustus in dubiis non statim prodit ». Et S. Bernardinus senensis profitetur in sermone primo de S. Iosepho (in tomo 4, Venetiis 1145 p. 233) se magis adhaerere sententiae eorum qui dicunt, « quod vir iste utraque parte concussus et pro utraque parte allegans neutri parti simpliciter adhaerebat, sed stabat mente attonitus et suspensus. Nam ex una parte erat fortissimum argumentum naturae, quamvis illud non esset sibi notum, nisi in sola exteriori tumefactione uteri aut aliorum consimilium signorum. Ex altera parte pugnabant omnia quae ab initio de virginis sanctitate viderat et audierat et quae per specialem experientiam acceperat et gustaverat...; ex stupore igitur utriusque partis simul sumptae volebat occulte dimittere eam tamquam rem sibi ignotam et suum iudicium transcendentem ». Atque S. Bonaventura quo: que non dubitat sua facere verba illa quae in op. imp. legimus et quae ipse utique S. Chrysostomi esse putat : o ineffabilis laus Mariae, magis credebat Ioseph castitati eius etc. (Speculum b. Mariae V. lect. 17; opera S. Bon. ed. Peltier, Parisiis 1868, tom. 14 p. 288). . Eandem sententiam etiam proponit Suarez in 3 p. qu. 29 art. 2; disp. 1 sect. 2:n. 6 scil. Iosephum ante angeli revelationem nihil mali de Maria | iudicasse aut suspicatum esse; eandemque ex interpretibus sequuntur Sylv. Lap. Tir. Men. Calm.; ita v. g. Sylv. (lib. 1 cap. 10 qu. 7): « tertia sententia et vera meo iudicio affirmat b. Ioseph nihil mali de b. Virgine fuisse suspicatum et illum latuisse Incarnationis mysterium ac proinde nec bonum nec malum existimasse, sed maxima dubietate iudicium suspendisse » ; et Men. : « non iudicavit Virginem ex adulterio concepisse ; sed unde aut quomodo concepisset dubitavit, et quia non ex se concepisse certo sciebat, dimittere voluit in aliquam aliam regionem proficisci cogitans »; et. Calm. : « ante angeli affatum cum Mariae pudicitiam et sanctitatem sciret illam neque damnare neque uti adulteram traducere ausus est; vim potius passam esse credidit aut ignota aliqua ex causa ortum esse id quod cernebat quam ex turpi illius consuetudine. Id solum a se praestari posse putavit ex aequitatis legibus, ut ne quid iudicaret atque e patrio solo aliquid causatus discederet, vel clam geminis tantum testibus divortii libellum Mariae exhiberet, non palam et cum probro ». In eandem fere sententiam etiam Schegg explicat et Meschler (Leben unseres Herrn ὁ. Ch. I p. 113). Iosepho omnino de innocentia Virginis persuasum fuisse Keppler quoque tenet et insuper addit valde esse probabile, eum aliquid miraculi et mysterii divini coniecisse; verum ex eo quod Deus tali miraculo Virginem honorasset sibi esse recedendum existimasse, ut Deus libere de ea disponeret ; eum scil. ex eo quod ipsi de illo mysterio nihil annuntiaretur collegisse foedus suum cum Maria per ipsum Deum solvi. — Verum si is erat animi eius sensus , iam non intelligitur, quomodo explicari possit : et nollet eam traducere. Beata Virgo secreta coelestia manifestare non erat iussa ab angelo; experta est in domo Zachariae Deum ipsum mysterium communicare quibus voluerit; dicens ecce ancilla Domini sese plane Deo commisit qui uti opus incepit, ita exsequetur. pro sua sapientia; noluit, uti olim fecerant Sara, Rebecca, divinum consilium sibi manifestatum quasi proprio marte promovere. Vidit loseph anxium ac dubitantem; utriusque animus profecto non mediocrem dolorem ex ea rerum conditione hausit. At Deus qui neminem nimium affligi permittit, sed ipsa afflictione virtutem electorum probat et manifestat, mox utriusque moestitiam convertit in laetitiam ac consolationem. Quamdiu permiserit utrumque turbari non constat. Sunt qui opinentur statim nocte sequenti post dubitationis diem angelum esse missum ad lose- | phum; ita. S. Chrys. hom. 8 n. 3 : « videt virginem uterum ge- B stantem; ea de re turbatur et admodum anxius est (adulteram enim ^ — esse puellam suspicabatur) , sed statim adstitit angelus »; ita quoque Tost. qu. &3 et Morales (lib. & tract. 5 p. 4&9). Quidquid est, cum Ioseph rem tacitus secum perpenderet, tempus erat quam maxime opportunum ad eum edocendum, quia ipsa dubitatione animus iam paratus erat ad dubii solutionem amplectendam. Opinio est haud improbabilis quam SS. Bruno, Thom. Salm. amplectuntur, missum esse angelum Gabriel; is enim mysterii Incarnationis est nuntius; uti - olim Danieli tempus messianum quando futurum esset declaravit (Dan. 9, 94 seq.), ita mysterium iamiam perficiendum b. Virgini nuntiat, quem nuntium quasi complet edocens eum ad quem post b. matrem exsecutio divini consilii quam maxime spectare videtur. . Cum itaque talia (v. 19) animo volveret, v. 90 ecce, qua particula apud Matthaeum frequenti res inexspectata, gravis, omni attentione digna inducitur, angelus Domini apparuit ei κατ᾽ ὄναρ i. e. non ut aliqui volunt per modum somnii (Bzsp. Meyer, Sevin), sed sensu temporali , uti χατὰ quoque apud scriptores sacros et profanos adhibetur!, per somnium, inter somnium. Virgini quae suum debebat consensum dare apparuit vigili, Iosepho qui solum de dubio erat edocendus apparet in somnio, nam prophetis quoque per somnium se locuturum esse Dominus promiserat (Num. 12, 6; S. Thom.) et : per somnium in visione nocturna quando irruit sopor super homines et dormiunt in lectulo, tunc aperit aures virorum et erudiens eos instruit disciplina (Iob 33, 15. 16; Jans.). Quomodo apparuerit, aliqui quaerunt el opinantur angelum non apparuisse in propria persona neque in assumpta visibili forma, sed visum esse et locutum per Species in phantasia formatas quae angelum praesentem et colloquentem repraesentassent (Tos/. qu. 56. Ians. Bar.). Sed verbis planis angelus apparuit ἐφάνη haec acceptio non commendatur. Angelus Iosephum familiariter compellat nomine prolato et addito dignitatis documento fili David; nam quae nuntiaturus est impletionem continent promissionum Davidi datarum et ipsi Iosepho fit nuntius, quia ut filius David a Deo electus est cui in sponsa sua legitima detur Messias filius David. Cuius appellationis vim ac significationem veteres bene declararunt; ita v. g. Eusebius (quaest. evang. ad Steph. qu. 1; M. 22, 886); « videsis ut a principio filium Davidis hunc appellat scil. eundem revocans ad progenitorem propter eum quem a Davidis genere omnes exspectabant et significans qui Davidi promissus fuerat hunc esse quem prodigiose Maria conceperat » et S. PascA. : « recognosce quid dictum sit domui David ; quia quod ibi promissum est ex prophetia, iam sane completum est per Mariam »; sim. S. CArys. Theoph. Euth. Alb. Thom. Salm. Ians. Mald. Sylv. etc. Ipso itaque nomine David prolato et monens Iosephum de stirpe davidica eius animum praeparat, ut de promissis Davidi implendis agi statim animo praesagiat. Idque eo magis illa compellatione effecisse putandus est, quia exspectatio Messiae apud pios eo iam tempore vigebat (cf. Luc. 2, 26). Dum autem angelus ipsa allocutione et admonitione prodit se esse cognitorem cordis afflictionisque cuius nemo hominum gnarus erat, simul se tamquam legitimum ac veracem nuntium coelestem cui omnino fidendum sit probat (op. imp. Saím.), alterumque suae missionis divinae argumentum edit prophetans de filio nascituro, uti Theoph. Alb. monent. Iam omnem timorem et dubitationem eum deponere iubet; immo ut in magnam erumpat laetitiam (S. CArys.) indicat, omnia enim quae dicit eo pertinent ut tristem et incertum consilii consoletur eique persuadeat non doloris sed laetitiae ingenlis materiam eum habere (Ma/d.), quia et Mariam coniugem suam in domum suam deducere et individuam vitae societatem cum ea instituere iubetur quam profecto carissimam iam habet propter animi corporisque perfectionem eximiam, et quod summum est, quia haec eius sponsa mater est Messiae effecta modo plane mirabili, et qualis honor ipsi sit a Deo decretus, iam ex sponsae dignitate elucet et ab angelo plane confirmatur, cum dicat ei vocabis nomen eius... i. e. et honorem et officium curamque patris et capitis eius familiae ei demandet quae ex Messia eiusque matre constituta est. Nam , ut S. CÁrys. dicit, « ne putes quia ex Spiritu sancto est te ideo alienum esse a ministerio tantae dispensationis; tu paternam illius gere curam, ideo vel ab ipsa nominis impositione, nato te parentis loco adiungo » et similiter EutA. Theoph. Salm. Ians. Maid. Calm. — li qui συνελθεῖν v. 18 de congressu maritali explicant, hoc loco accipere παραλαθεῖν explicant domi retinere; animo enim dicunt eam iam dimiserat (S. Chrys. Euth. Maid. lans. Bar. Sylv.); verum παραλαδεῖν non dicit domi retinere; proinde, uti ad
1:1
Titre. Βίδλος γενέσεως, comme Gen. π, 4; v, À en grec. Dans ces endroits le titre commande toute une histoire. On pourrait dire que c’est le :cas ici, s’il n'y avait un autre titre au v. 18. . Donc celui-ci ne comprend que la généalogie, dont il indique les trois chaînons principaux. Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, expression rare, qui revient peut-être 1, 18; XVI, 21, et Μο. τ, ἃ; Jo. τ, 17; xvur, 3, non pas dans Le., mais Act. n, 38 etc. et souvent dans Paul. Elle ἃ quelque chose de solennel et presque de protocolaire. Si Paul l'emploie souvent, on ne saurait dire qu'il l’a frappée le premier. Les évangélistes-Mt. et Mc. se sont conformés à l'usage de leur temps en la plaçant dans le titre, à l'usage du temps de Jésus en l'évitant dansde cours de l'évangile. — υἱὸς Δαυίδ était le nom le plus courant du Messie, surtout depuis que :la haine des Pharisiens pour les Hasmonéens avait ravivé les espérances fondées d'après les-Écritures sur la dynastie de David et son rejeton qui:devait être le Messie, c’est-à-dire le (roi) oint de Lahvé (Le Messianisme.…, Ὁ. 316). Fils de David, Jésus-Christ est aussi fils d'Abraham, étant directement l'héritier de la promesse (Gal. 1, 16) faite à l'ancêtre du peuple juif, tandis que David n'a aucun lien particulier avec Abraham. 1 va sans dire que David descend d'Abraham, mais ce qui importe dans ce titre, c'est de rattacher Jésus-Christ à ces deux grands ancêtres (korum ‘filium Jér. contre Mald. Holtz. Knab. Loisy etc.).
1:2
Les frères de Juda sont nommés comme les ancêtres du peuple juif.
1:3
On s'était habitué à nommer Zara avec Pharès, son frère jumeau I Chr. u,4, elle nom des deux frères amenait aussi celui de leur mère.
1:4
La liste s’en tient à l’essentiel, plus courte même que celle de‘1 Chr. πὶ, 40.
1:5
Paxé$ ne peut être que la Pad6 des LXX, que Josèphe nomme ‘Padén, ou Ἰωβὴδ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν ᾿Ιεσσαί, ὃ Ἰεσσαὶ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Δαυὶδ τὸν βασιλέα. . Δαυὶδ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Σολομῶνα ἐχ τῆς τοῦ Οὐρίου, Ἵ Σολομὼν δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν ἹῬοβοάμ, Ῥοβοὰμ. δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν ᾿Αβιά, ᾿Αβιὰ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν ᾿Ασά, 8 A δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ιωσαφάτ, Ἰωσαφὰτ ὃὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν "lus, Ἰωρὰμ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ὀζίαν, 9 Ὀζίας δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ιωαθάμ, Ἰωαθὰμ, δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν "Aya, "Aya δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν ᾿Εἰζεχίαν, 10 “ΒΕ ζεχίας δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Μανασσῆ, Μανασσῆς δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν ᾿Αμών, ᾿Αμὼν δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ιωσίαν, 1 Ἰωσίας δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν ᾿Ιεχονίαν χαὶ τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τῆς μετοικεσίας Βαβυλῶνος. 7 s. σα plutôt que Acap (THSV). 1, 2), et qu'on retrouve sous la forme Ῥαάδ dans (variantes) Ραχάδη (Ant. V, Heb. x1, 31; Jac. 11, 20. Cette femme qui avait rendu service aux Israélites et confessé sa foi en leur Dieu était le type des prosélytes. Le rabbinisme l'a donnée comme femme à Josué, et l’a regardée comme l'ancêtre de plusieurs prophètes {Lightfoot). On ignore d'après quelle autorité Mt. en fait la femme de Salmon, père de. Booz d'après I Chr. n, 41 et Ruth 1v, 21. Cette généalogie, si elle était complète, supposerait que la période des Juges ἃ été très courte. Mais on ne prétendait pas indiquer tous les anneaux. Ruth, autre type de prosélyte.
1:6
Thamar, Rahab, Ruth, avaient usé d’une industrie très intentionnelle pour obtenir les bonnes grâces de la lignée messianique; mais on ne peut en dire autant de Ja femme d'Urie, ainsi nommée soit pour rappeler sa faute, soit pour éviter de prononcer son nom. Elle figure ici à cause de la compétition dont le trône fut alors l’objet, et qui amena une décision formelle de David, d'accord avec le prophète Nathan (1 Reg. ἡ. Mt, à la différence de Le., s'en est tenu à la ligne de succession royale. David seul est nommé roi, mais il inaugure une dynastie bien connue par la Bible. 1 s.) La critique textuelle (THS) se prononce pour la leçon Asa, d'après l'accord de l'Égypte avec D [dans Le.] k ὁ g 4. D'autant que Asa d’Antioche et des syrr. avec it. et vg. peut passer pour une correction d'après l'A. T. — Mais la critique littéraire ne peut admettre que l’auteur, qui n’a pu rédiger cette liste sans consulter l'A. T., ait mis le nom d’un psalmiste au lieu d'un roi de Juda. Cette confusion est plutôt le fait d’un copiste. Il faut donc admettre que As«s est une très ancienne erreur. Zahn attribue l'erreur au traducteur de Ma. ; lui aussi eût dù s'informer.
1:8
Dans l’histoire des Rois (Il Reg. vus ss.) Joram a pour successeur Ochozias, père de Joas, qui fut père d'Amasias, lequel fut père d’Azarias ou Ozias. Mt. ἃ donc omis trois noms, ajoutés par Aphraate, syreur. éth. D. (dans Luc.). Jér Verum quia Evangelistae propositum erat tres tessaresdecades in diverso temporum statu ponere, et Joram generi se miscuerat impüissimae Tezabel, idcirco usque ad tertiam generationem eïus memoria tollitur. Et en effet Athalie, mère d'Ochozias, était fille de Jézabel. Ce n’est pas l’origine païenne de cette dernière qui la rendait odieuse, mais ses persécutions contre les prophètes pour abolir le culte de Iahvé. Il est vrai que Manassé se conduisit très mal, mais il avait fait pénitence (II Chr. xxxu, 48). Il est même possible (mais non aussi assuré que le dit Hger, Bibl. Stud. xv, 129 ss.) que celte damnatio memoriae, erasio nominis, ait été pratiquée par la Synagogue, de telle sorte que ces noms ne -figurassent pas dans les listes généalogiques. D'après Holtz., Mt. a lu Ὀζίας (cod. À) au lieu de Ὀχοζίας dans 1 Chr. ui, 41, ce qui supposerait une distraction invraisemblable puisqu'en tout cas les deux autres noms omis se trouvaient dans ce passage. — Mt. a retenu la forme ’Ofias pour ‘Ouzziah (IL Reg. xv, 13. 30); le même qui est appelé ailleurs ‘Azaryiah (II Reg. χιν, 21 etc.).
1:10
Αμων (bis) plutôt que Αμως (THSV).
’Auws (au lieu d'’Apwv ou Ἀμνών) à peu près d'après les mêmes autorités que ᾿Ασάφ au v. 7. Le cas doit être résolu de la même manière.
1:11
D'après l'A. T., Josias ἃ pour fils loagim, père de Ioakin ou Jéchonias Ioaqim a des frères (II Chr. xxxvr, 10), dont Sédécias, le dernier roi de Jérusalem au temps de la captivité, tandis que cela n'est dit nulle part de Jéchonias. On serait donc tenté de dire avec Jérôme que le Jéchonias de Mt. représente une première fois loaqim, la seconde fois son fils; cf. v. 17. Quant à insérer εγεννησὲν τον loaxe, Ἰωακειμ δὲ avec 8 etc. et Ir. in, 21, 9 : Ioseph enim loachim et Iechonine filius ostenditur, quemadmodum et Matthaeus generationem eius exponit, c'est corriger Mi. d'après II Reg. xxiv ss.; Jér. ται, 31. Jérémie xx, 29 ne dit pas précisément que Jéchonias n'aura pas d'enfants du tout, mais plutôt que nul de ses descendants ne montera sur 16 trône de David 160. τὸν ἀνδρα-.. Χριστος (THV) et non Ἰωσὴφ] δὲ w εμνηστευθη παρθενος Μαριαμ eyevνήησεν᾽ Insouv τον λέγϑμενον Χριστον (8). (Condamin, αὦ h: 1.). Jéchonias avait, semble-t-il, 48 ans lorsqu'il fut emmené en captivité. D'ailleurs l’intention de Mt. est seulement de dire qu'une nouvelle série commence après le début. (non le retour) de la captivité; μετοικεσία (moins usité que μετοίκησις) est l'émigration, la. transportation.
1:12
Jéchonias fut tenu en prison durant trente-sept ans, et rendu à son rang royal par Evil-Mérodach, successeur de Nabuchodonosor (II Reg. xxiv, 8-47: 40}, ur, 34-34). Son fils Salathiel est indiqué par 1 Par. m1, 17. Au même endroit (v. 19), dans le grec, Zorobabel est fils de Salathiel, tandis que dans l’hébreu il est fils de Padaïah. Mt. se rencontre sur ces deux noms avec Le. m1, 27, puis tous deux commencent une série. de noms qui ne sont pas nommés dans la Bible: Mais Le. ἃ dix-huit intermédiaires entre Zorobabel et: Joseph. On ne saii à quel endroit la liste de Mt. a été abrégée; ce qui est clair c'est que Mt. n'a pas tenu.compte des descendants de Zorobahel dont la liste figurait dans 1 Par. in, 21-24.
1:16
On ne nie pas qu'une généalogie existant séparément ait pu se terminer par ces mots’: «or Joseph engendra Jésus», soit qu'on ignorät alors La conception miraculeuse, soit qu’on entendit « engendra » au sens légal. Mais c'est le texte de Mt. qu'il faut fixer, et il n’est pas douteux qu'il ait porté après Joseph : τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας, ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη ᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός. C'est la leçon des trois recensions de Soden, c'est-à-dire de toute la tradition manuscrite, sauf ce qui va être dit. IL est d’ailleurs très plausible que Mt., anticipant sur les faits, ait nommé Joseph l'époux de Marie, puisque c'était seulement à titre d’époux que Joseph pouvait, dans l'apinion de Mi. sur la conception virginale, figurer comme un anneau dans la généalogie de Jésus. Le passif éÿewlôn pouvait s'entendre sans difficulté de la naissance d'un enfant par rapport à la mère. Le nom propre de Jésus devait terminer la généalogie; Mt. y ajoute « dit le Christ pour justifier le titre du v. 1. — λεγόμενος n'est omis que par Tert. Καὶ dsyrcur. Mais le titre d’époux de Marie dans ce contexte pouvait laisser supposer — à qui n'aurait pas expliqué ce v. d’après la suite — que Jésus était né de. Joseph par Marie. C’est pour éviter ce sens, par un scrupule, et pour préciser dès ce moment la virginité de Marie, que le texte a été transformé par Θ et le groupe Ferrar en & μνηστευθεῖσα παρθένος Μαριὰμ. ἐγέννησεν Ἰησοῦν τὸν λεγόμενον. Χριστόν, Les termes de fiancée el de vierge sont assez clairs comme manifestation de ce serupule. De même arm. k et it. Seulement en latin ὃ ayant ajouté erat à desponsata, il a dû reprendre la phrase Muria autem; et genuit ayant paru moins propre pour une femme, ὦ ἃ écrit peperit ; qui est peut-être la traduction de ἔτεχεν si ce mot se trouvait dans D (lacuneux). Syreur. a combiné les méthodes de. ὃ et de d : « lui à qui était fiancée Marie la Vierge, laquelle enfania Jésus- Christ ». Ces variations sont un indice évident de l'embarras où l’on s'était mis en altérant le texte. La fameuse lecon du syrsin. n'est qu'une autre manière d'en sortir : « Joseph auquel était fiancée Marie la Vierge engendra. Jésus qui est nommé le Messie ». C'est-à-dire que lisant ἐγέννησεν avec Le groupe Ferrar, il Ya entendu de Joseph comme dans tous les cas précédents, ce qui l'a obligé à supposer ἐμνηστεύθη au lieu de μνηστευθεῖσα, exactement comme ὃ. Ni le syriaque sin. ni ὁ ne supposent un autre texte primitif que celui du groupe Ferrar, visiblement retouché. Il est bien clair qu'il ne saurait représenter ni le texte de Mt. ni un autre texte où Joseph eût été le père naturel, puisqu'il contient 168: mots de fiancé et de vierge Marie. En traduisant ce texte en grec, et en le donnant comme celui de M, Soden a commis une énormité critique. Encore est-il que tel quel il ne peut s'entendre que d’une filiation légale, ce qui explique l'adhésion de M. Heer (Bibl. Stud. xv, 4159 55.) En laissant τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας, avec ἐγέννησεν (comme ἃ lu Barsalibi), on arrivait au texte du ms. À de Ciasca (dans Burkitt, Ev. da Meph. ", 264) : « Jacob engendra Joseph, époux de Marie, qui d'elle engendra Jésus-Christ », qui ne peut passer ni pour authentique, ni pour judéo-chrétien (Barsalibi!). mais seulement pour une nouvelle combinaison, marque de l'embarras où cet ἐγέννησεν. devait jeter les Sémites. Soden ἃ sagement renoncé à argumenter du dialogue de Timothée et Aquila (ed. Convseane, Anecdota Oxoniensia, classical series, p. vu), À la p. 76, le Juif essaye de tirer parti du texte de Mt. qu'il cite : τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας: ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη τς ὃ λεγόμενος ἃς, car il ajoute aussitôt καὶ. Ἰωσὴφ ἐγέννησεν τὸν ἰν τὸν λεγόμενον γν, περὶ οὗ νῦν ὁ λύγος, φησὶν ἐγέννησεν Ex τῆς Μαρίας, C'est-à-dire : « donc Joseph ἃ engendré Jésus, puisqu'il dit qu'il l’a engendré de Marie ». C'est précisément celte conclusion, avons-nous dit, qu'on a voulu éviter en écrivant : « auquel était fiancée Marie la Vierge ». Aussi le chrétien n'admet pas l'argumentation, et reprend le texte en le lisant : ᾧ μνηστευθεῖσα Μαρία" ἐξ ἧς x. τ. λ., qu'il justifie en ajoutant le v. {7. A la page 88 le texte est cité : τὸν Ἰωσὴφ τὸν μνηστευσάμενον Μαριάμ, ἐξ ἧς, nouvelle manière d'éliminer τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας! Dans toute cette pullulation de variantes. syrsin. étant le seul à reprendre Joseph est parfaitement négligeable. L'union est demeurée parfaite en Somme, sur une lecon qui a paru difficile; c'est un double indice d’authenticité (cf. ΑΒ. 1920, p. 351 s.).
1:17
Il y ἃ quatorze générations dans la première liste en comptant David à la fin; quatorze dans la seconde en comptant Jéchonias, mais non David; dans la troisième, pour atteindre le chiffre de quatorze, il faut compter de nouveau Jéchonias et enfin Jésus. Comme l’auteur ne peut s'être trompé sur le nombre des générations qu'il indique expressément, il faut donc que le Jéchonias du v. 41 soit un autre que celui du v. 12, c’est-à-dire en réalité Joaqim. Le traducteur grec a pu se contenter, pour des noms assez semblables, de la forme Jéchonias. On ne peut guère, nous l'avons dit, supposer une erreur des mss. En tout cas l’omission serait fort ancienne, car Porphyre tablait déjà sur le texte actuel (Comm. de Jér. sur Dan. c. ἡ
1:18
χριστοῦ seul n'est guère atteslé que par les ἰαΐέ, et syr. (sc), mais se rattache très bien au v. 16. D'autant que Ἰησοῦ est ajouté soit après (B et Or. gr.), soit avant, par (ous les autres, mais contrairement à l'usage qui n'a jamais l'article devant [. X. — γένεσις est la lecon de THSY d'après NBCPSZABW et d’autres, bo. Eus. — γέννησις Ir. gr. (ur, 41) Antioche, se. et comme on peut croire latt. el syrr. Gette dernière lecon est commandée par le sens (Zahn). Après le livret d'origine (γένεσις), vient la révélation sur le mode de la génération (yévνησις), Les copistes ont pu se laisser aller à ramener le mot du titre (v. 1)» plutôt qu'ils n'ont eu l'esprit de pénétrer le sens du morceau et de corriger dans ce sens. οὕτως indique une explication. Or cette explication ne porte pas sur 165 circonstances de la naissance, puisque le lieu même ne sera nommé qu’à la péricope suivante; elle porte donc sur la conception miraculeuse, ce qui confirme γέννησις, et prouve que γένεσις n’a rien à faire ici, même au sens de naïissance (Le. 1, 14). 180) Mt. parle d'une fiancée, puis d'un mari (v. 49) et d’une femme (v. 20), en parfaite harmonie avec le droit hébreu sur le mariage. Notre conception des fiançailles suppose l'égalité entre les futurs époux; on dit un fiancé, comme une fiancée. Dans l'antiquité hébraïque, la femme passait de la puissance d’un agnat, ordinairement le père, sous la puissance du mari. Elle n'était pas fiancée, mais accordée, pour ne pas dire cédée moyennant une somme d'argent. Avec le temps son consentement fut requis, et il l'était au temps de Jésus, mais dès qu’elle était accordée, elle avait un Seigneur (5ÿ2) qui pouvait la nommer sa femme. Dans l'A. T., on suppose seulement que le futur se procure une accordée (ΣΝ. quelle que soit l’étymologie du mot), ou qu’une fille est accordée. Le mot grec est μνηστεύω, à la voix moyenne pour celui qui s'assure une femme, au passif pour la jeune fille qui est accordée. Son futur mari qui est déjà son Seigneur peut toujours la prendre chez lui (II Sam. mr, 14). Il y a seulement cette différence entre le droit hébreu et le droit romain (quid du droit hellénistique?) que dans le droit romain du temps d'Auguste, les fiançailles mettaient plus d'égalité entre les parties et pouvaient toujours être rompues. On ne pouvait pas encore parler de mari et de femme. Tandis que chez les Juifs 16 mari avait déjà vraiment acquis sa femme. Il était sans doute libre de la répudier; mais il avait ce droit même après le mariage! Après les seules fiançailles il y fallait déjà un écrit, et si le mari mourait avant le mariage, l'accordée était censée veuve (Michna Oiddouchin αι, 10; Gté. vin, 9; Ketubot, 1, 2; nr, 3, et Maimonide cité par Selden, uxor Hebraica, p. 93). Pourtant le mariage n'était tout à fait conclu que lorsque l'accordée avait été mise réellement à la disposition du mari. Normalement c'était chez Les Romains par la deductio in domum, mais cette formalité n'était pas essentielle (Guo, Les institutions juridiques des Romains, u, p. 86). Les Juifs se servaient d'une formule plus compréhensive : le mari prenait la femme (nissouin), et cette prise de possession était essentielle au mariage. Elle pouvait s'accomplir même chez le beau-père, pourvu que la femme fût introduite dans une chambre particulière où son mari pourrait venir la trouver (Tobie, νπι, 15 ss.) Ces points connus — et ils ne sont pas douteux —, on voit que ME. ἃ voulu se placer d'abord dans la situation où Marie élait accordée, mais où le mariage γαστρὶ ἔχουσχ ἔχ πνεύματος ἁγίου. 19 Ἰωσὴφ ὃξ ὁ ἀνὴρ αὐτῇ ς, διγαιος (OV n'était pas encore conclu comme mariage, parce que Joseph ne l'avait pas introduite chez lui. C’est le sens de πρὶν ἢ συνελθεῖν αὐτούς. Les mots grecs peuvent signifier les rapports entre époux, comme ont compris Jér. Chrys. etc., mais ils eussent été irréguliers avant le nissouin (παραλαδεῖν, v. 20) et il est peu probable que Mt. ait voulu écarter cette éventualité directement. Il entend bien dire que la conception miraculeuse s'est produite avant que de pareils rapports aient eu lieu, mais il suffisait pour cela de marquer qu'ils étaient exclus par la situation légale. Dans Tebt. 334 1. 4 σ[ζυ]νῆλθον πρὸς γάμον signifie simplement « je me suis mariée». Ὁ — εὑρέθη dans le sens de Ny%21, « il se trouva que », « il fut constaté »; le texte ne dit pas-que ce fut par Joseph, et certainement les paroles de Jérôme à ce sujet manquent d'exactitude (non ab alio inventa est nisi a Joseph), d'autant que Marie n'habitait pas chez lui, et que la grossesse dut être remarquée d’abord par les parents de Marie, par sa mère avant tous. Les femmes ne sont-elles pas les premières à saisir ces symptômes chez d'autres femmes? Mais Joseph devait être averti et. il le fut. On s'étonne qu'il ne l'ait pas été par Marie. Dans l'intention de-Mt. c'est parce qu’il devait être éclairé par un ange. Εἰ puisque Dieu avait-pris l'initiative, Marie devait lui laisser le soin de tout conduire. Mt. ajoute que la conception était « d'esprit saint ». Quelques anciens et même des modernes (ap. Κη.) ont compris que dès lors il fut reconnu que Marie: avait conçu de l'Esprit-Saint. Ce pourrait être le sens du grec; le surnaturel ne pouvait être constaté, mais aurait pu être cru d’après l'affirmation de Marie, le témoignage d'Élisabeth, une révélation etc. Mais ce ne doit pas être la pensée de Mt. qui réserve cette révélation à l'ange (v. 20). 1] s'exprime done d'après la foi de son temps qui croyait au caractère surnaturel de la conception, pour ne pas laisser le lecteur en suspens sur ce point. Mf. fait abstraction de l'annonciation de l’Ange Gabriel à Marie, parce qu'il ne s'occupe ici que de la: situation légale de Jésus par rapport à Joseph qui devra accepter la paternité officielle. D'ailleurs il est en parfaite harmonie avec Le. τ, 35, même pour les termes, ce qui est à noter, car x πνεύματος ἁγίου n'est nullement une expression courante pour désigner une conception miraculeuse. Dans aucun des deux textes il n'y a d'article. L'Esprit-Saint n’est donc pas personnifié; c’est plutôt une expression pour marquer l’action divine qui donne la vie et qui féconde. Aussi bien la théologie attribue à Dieu et non à l’une des personnes divines les actions ad eætra. — Le géniüif absolu qui commence la phrase déroge à l'usage grec, puisque Marie revient ensuite comme sujet (cf. Gen. σχεῖν, 4); il y ἃ des exemples classiques dans K.-G. $ 494. Le but de cette construction anormale est de mettre en vedette la situation; ici l'irrégularité est diminuée par l’incise mpiv τ. À, qui éloigne le sujet.
1:19
δειγματισαι (Tél) οὐ παραδειγματισχι (SV).
Joseph est nommé mari, d’après le droit hébreu sur les fiançailles, Quel était le droit et le devoir d'un époux si sa fiancée commettait une faute? Cette faute était assimilée à l'adultère, et punie de mort selon la rigueur de la Loi (Dt. xx, 23 s.). L'époux avait incontestablement le droit de se porter accusateur et de faire condamner son accordée. Cette hypothèse est exposée par Josèphe (Ant. IV, vin, 23), qui semble même lui en faire un devoir. Toutefois cette obligation n’est pas inscrite dans la loi. C’est par un contresens qu’Abarbanel a entendu Dt. xxrwv, 1 des fiançailles (cf. Buxronr, de sponsalibus, Ὁ. 86 s.). La: Michna ne pose pas le cas. Aussi il semble que Jérôme ἃ exagéré en fondant l'obligation sur la loi : non solum reos, sed et: conscios criminum obnoxios: esse peccati, allusion à Lév. v, 4 qui est trop vague pour régir ce cas. Or, dans cette hypothèse délicate, quand le texte de la loi n’est pas formel, il y ἃ comme un accord de la coutume pour laïsser le mari maître de céder de son droit, On ne peut done pas dire que Joseph avait une obligation de justice légale à dénoncer sa fiancée, s’il l’eût crue coupable. Mais d'autre part il serait absurde de dire que c’est par justice qu'il ne l’a pas dénoncée — à moins que précisément il:ne l'eùt pas crue coupable! Nous pouvons maintenant aborder le texte. Trois partis s’offraient à Joseph dénoncer Marie; la répudier secrètement; la prendre avec lui, ce qui rendait le mariage définitif. La plupart des modernes (même Κα.) interprètent : étant juste (il ne pouvait songer à la prendre); d'autre part il ne voulait pas la dénoncer, il se résolut donc à la renvoyer secrètement. Mais il n'y a pas trace dans le texte d’une opposition entre les deux premiers termes. Mt. n’a pas écrit : δίκαιος μὲν ὦν, μὴ θέλων δέ, « étant juste et cependant ne voulant pas » comme il eût dû le faire pour exprimer l'opposition, mais δίκαιος ὧν xat μὴ θέλων, c'est-à-dire : « étant juste, et par conséquent ne voulant pas », comme a compris Éphrem (Moes. 22) guamobrem ex justitin cogitavit, ut tacite eam dimitteret. De mêmé Chrys. et Jér., les versions syrr. arm.,.et l’on peut dire aussi latt. et copies. C’est encore l'opinion de J. Weiss, Er. Klostermann, enfin Merx, qui ἃ même écrit : « ἢ croyait à son innocence, malgré les apparences qui étaient contre elle, et était persuadé de l'opération de l'Esprit-Saint, de sorte que précisément parce qu'il était juste, il.ne voulait pas la dénoncer » (p. 23). Il est exagéré de dire que Joseph était dès lors persuadé de l'opération de l’'Esprit-Saint (Éphrem}, mais Jér. a donné la note juste : « quomodo Joseph cum crimen celet (ou celaret) uxoris,. iustus scribitur ? sed hoc testimonium Mariae est, quod Joseph sciens illius castitatem, et admirans quod evenerat, celat silentio, cuius mysterium nesciebat. On ne-peut se dérober à la rigueur de cet argument qu'en traduisant juste par bon, doux, comme Chrys. (et encore Klost.). Joseph aurait pris son parti par bonté d'âme, un peu au détriment de la justice légale. Mais ce ne peut être le sens de δίκαιος en grec. Et nous ne prétendons pas non plus que δίκαιος signifie juste au sens purement légal. Joseph était juste comme les Israélites soucieux de rendre à Dieu et au prochain ce qui leur était dù. Quoi qu’il en soit du devoir légal qui eût incombé à un époux persuadé du tort de sa fiancée, Joseph se laissait guider par la justice envers elle. Cette justice exigeait d’abord qu'il ne la dénonçât pas, et sur ce 20. Moptav (Η) ou Μαριαμ (TSV). point l'intention de Joseph était ferme. En effet μὴ θέλων indique un point sur lequel Joseph est fixé : il ne veut pas dénoncer Marie publiquement. δειγματίζειν est un terme plus rare (MM.) que παραδειγματίζειν, et dont le sens est moins fort, comme Eusèbe (Quaest. ad Steph. 221) l’a expliqué : τὸ μὲν γὰρ παραδεῖγμα τὴν ἐπὶ κακῶς πράξαντι εἰς πάντας φανέρωσίν te χαὶ διαδολὴν ὁποδάλλει νοεῖν, τὸ δὲ δεῖγμα τὸ φανερὸν ἁπλῶς ποιῆσαι, donc faire un exemple infamant, ou bien simplement livrer à la publicité. On peut juger que le terme le moins fort et 16 plus rare est l'original, d'après B Z N° Pap.-0x. et fam. 1, probablement avec syrr. et sa. Donc, non seulement Joseph ne veut pas mettre en mouvement l’action publique, ce qui eût pu entraîner une peine capitale, et en tout cas l’infamie, mais il ne veut même pas qu'une répudiation publique expose au grand jour la situation de Marie. Que faire? « il se proposa » (ἐδουλήθη) marque le point auquel il s'arrêta par un jugement pratique, sans toutefois avoir pris une décision irrévocable, comme le prouve la suite. — ἀπολῦσαι est le terme grec le plus approchant du terme technique w3, répudier, comme Joseph avait le droit de le faire s'étant fiancé Marie, et comme il devait le faire afin qu’elle füt libre - d'en épouser un autre. Au point où en étaient les choses, une répudiation publique eût amené aussitôt un scandale. Il n'en était pas de même si Joseph donnait secrètement un dibellum repudii, sans date, et l'on pouvait compter que l'autorité publique n'interviendrait pas. — Mais le scandale n'était-il pas à la fin inévitable, et Joseph pouvait-il ainsi gagner autre chose qu'un délai? On peut toujours répondre que cela n'était plus son affaire. En réalité son moyen eût été très efficace, s'il eût cru Marie enceinte d'un autre. Car son affection pour elle, sa débonnaireté, si elle l'eût empêché de la livrer au jugement des hommes, eût dû lui suggérer à tout le moins des circonstances alténuantes et même excusantes. Il ἃ pu supposer que sa fiancée avait été induite par ses parents à d’autres noces. Si lui, par vertu, cédait de son droit et s'effaçait, rendre Ja liberté à sa fiancée n'était pas l’exposer au déshonneur; c'était plutôt laisser à un autre la possibilité de faire son devoir en épousant Marie. Mais nous avons déjà exclu ce soupcon, puisque dans ce cas la répudiation discrète pouvait bien être l'acte d’un homme indulgent, mais n’eût pas dû être attribuée à un sentiment de justice ou simplement de vertu. Joseph s'en rapportait à Dieu et Mt. n’insiste pas sur des conséquences que l'intervention de Dieu va rendre inuliles.
1:20
ἐνθυμεῖσθαι, s'arrêter à un plan. Le dessein était formé, et cependant Joseph hésitait à l'accomplir, puisque l'ange lui dit : « Ne crains pas de prendre avec toi Marie », comme s’il ÿ songeait encore, quoiqu'il y vit difficulté. Il est interpellé : « Fils de David », parce qu'en prenant Marie il va ranger le Messie dans la lignée de David en sa personne, en acceptant d'être son père officiellement. C'est là surtout ce que Mt. avait à cœur. Mais s’il attache beaucoup d'importance à l'attestation surnaturelle, décisive pour fixer Joseph, il n'affirme nullement que Joseph n'avait rien soupçonné de tel. Il est juste, et il se demande encore s’il ne va pas introduire chez lui une jeune femme qui lui aurait été infidèle! Ce mot de juste suffit pour exclure une pareille compromission. — παραλαθεῖν était l'acte propre du nissouin par lequel le mariage était définitivement contracté, et par le fait Marie devenait sa femme τὴν yuvaîxé σου, qualité qu’elle avait déjà en partie comme fiancée d'après le droit hébreu. — γεννηθέν, au neutre; cf. Le. 1, 35; c'est le thème de la péricope, qui commence par γέννησις selon nous. Joseph n’a donc qu'à se prêter au plan divin, auquel il se trouve associé. Son adhésion n’est demandée qu'au moment où cela est nécessaire. Déjà par son vertueux silence il s'est montré digne du dépôt que Dieu lui confie : et blandientis affectu ei per somnium angelus loquitur, ut iustitiam silentii comprobaret (Jér.). — C’est ici le premier avertissement donné par Dieu à Joseph en songe (π, 13.19.22). Un songe ἃ peu d'importance. Aussi Mt. a soin de dire que l'ange a apparu, comme tel; et rien n'empêche que Dieu donne la certitude de sa parole dans le sommeil comme dans l’état de veille. Mais le sommeil a quelque chose de plus passif. Joseph n'intervient pas, ne donne pas la réplique à l'ange. C’est ensuite qu'il obéit. Gette attitude convient à son rôle effacé. Combien est plus solennelle l'ambassade de l'ange Gabriel auprès de Marie pour solliciter son consentement dans la lumière d’une intelligence croissante du mystère! — ὄναρ ne se trouve que dans Mt. sous la forme χατ᾽ ὄναρ. Les attiques disaient seulement ὄναρ; χατῖο. est dans une inscription de Pergame. Nous- concluons qu'on ἃ exagéré de deux façons en prétendant pénétrer par l'exégèse dans les sentiments de Joseph. Il n'a pas manqué de Pères (Justin, Ambr. Aug. Chrys.) ayant déduit du texte qu’il avait soupçonné Marie d'adultère. Par exemple Augustin (ad Maced. ep. 153, 6. τν, 9) : Joseph... cum eam comperisset essepraegnantem cui se noverat non esse commixtum et ob hoc nühil aliud quam adulteram credidisset, puniri famen eam noluit; nec approbutor flagitii fuit. D'autre part des écrivains anciens (Ps.-Bas.; Ps.-Orig. ap. Kn.) et de nombreux modernes ont interprété le v. 18 comme si Joseph avait été instruit de l'opération du Saint-Esprit. Or si Joseph avait eu la fâcheuse opinion, le texte ne dirait pas qu'étant juste il n'a pas voulu révéler la situation de Marie, car la justice lui en faisait plutôt un devoir s'il croyait Marie coupable. Et 51} avait été au courant, l'ange ne le fixerait pas en lui apprenant que l'enfant est conçu du Saint-Esprit. Ces deux excès viennent de ce qu'on a voulu tirer du texte autre chose que ce qu'il dit, et on ne peut savoir cela même qu'en tenant compte du but de l'auteur et de l'esprit dans lequel il ἃ écrit. Mt. se préoccupe uniquement de faire de Joseph un témoin de la conception miraculeuse, librement associé à la naissance légale de Jésus, témoin qui a reçu sa conviclion d'en haut, par le ministère d’un ange. Joseph est donc celui qui doit être éclairé. En attendant, que fait-il? Il est disposé à se retirer, bien résolu à ne rien faire qui attire l’attention sur le cas de Marie. L'auteur ἃ conscience que la situation est surnaturelle et mystérieuse, que les personnages sont dans une atmosphère de miracle, et eux-mêmes doivent le savoir ou du moins s’en douter. Peu importe que le premier dessein de Joseph ait été plus ou moins bien calculé pour conserver le secret, puisqu'il est corrigé par l'intervention de l'ange. Son attitude est déjà celle des disciples qui auront toujours besoin d'être rassurés en présence du surnaturel. Nous avons donc parfaitement le droit d'estimer avec Éphrem, Jérôme et tant de pieux auteurs, que Joseph n’a pas cessé de croire à l'innocence de sa très pure fiancée. Zahn ἃ noté avec raison que Joseph ne manifeste ni colère, ni reproches. La conclusion qui semblait s'imposer était combattue dans son esprit par ce qu'il avait compris de la pureté et de la fidélité de Marie. Au lieu de lui attribuer seulement un grossier bon sens, incapable de mettre les réalités spirituelles en balance avec celles de l’ordre matériel, un chrétien ne peut aborder le sanctuaire de ces âmes très pures sans-le respect qu’exigent les principes mêmes de la foi, et la situation qui leur a été faite dans le mystère de l’Incarnation..ll fait accepter et appliquer dans toute son étendue le principe de Ghrysostome : Joseph s'élève au-dessus de la loi ancienne, « car la grâce étant déjà présente, il devait apparaître des signes d'une conduite plus relevée. De même que le soleil, encore qu’il ne montre pas ses rayons, éclaire déjà d’avance.les régions de sa lumière, ainsi le Christ éclairait le monde dès le sein de sa mère
1:21
La formule rappelle Gen. xvu, 19 (Isaac) et Gen. xvi, 41 (Ismaël), 16 futur καλέσεις équivalant à un ordre. De même dans Le. 1, 13, le:nom de Jean est indiqué d'avance. C'était la .prédestination à de grandes choses; d'après Pirgè de Rabbi Eliézer 32 : « six personnes ont recu leur nom avant leur naïssance : Isaac, Ismaël, Moïse notre docteur, Salomon, .Josias et le nom du Messie » (Ps. zxxr, 17). D'après.Le. 1, 31, c'est Marie qui devait donner le nom de Jésus. Ici c'est Joseph parce qu'il transmet le droit messianique de David à l'enfant. Dans l'A. T., c’est tantôt le père, tantôt la mère, et il est naturel qu'ils se soient entendus. Le nom de Jésus en hébreu 34% cst rétabli par les versions syriennes (sauf la palestinienne), car on savait parfaitement l'é valence de l’hébreu et de la forme grecque. Aussi Mt. se dispense d’ indiquer l'interprétation, qui était bien connue Ἰησοῦς δὲ (ἑρμηνεύεται) σωτηρία χυρίου (PHILON, de Mut. nom. 21). — αὐτὸς γάρ en vedette, « car c'est lui qui ». — τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ n'est pas le monde entier ou les fidèles dans l'Église (contre En.), mais le peuple d'Israël, #3Moici que la Vierge concevra et enfantera un fils, et on lui donnera le nom d'Emmanuel car Jésus devait être présenté à Joseph comme le Messie davidique, envoyé d'abord dans l'intérêt des Israélites qui eomposaient ou devaient composer son peuple. D’aulre part ce n’est pas le Messie de ceux qui révaient du triomphe d'Israël sur ses ennemis politiques (Le Messianisme... Ὁ. 103, 121, 230, etc.), mais il sauvera son peuple de ses péchés (cf. Le. 1, 77). Comment? il n’est question ni de la prédication de la pénitence, ni de la morl rédemptrice. Ces précisions sont réservées à l'avenir. Mais on est frappé de la ressemblance de cette formule avec celle de Ps. cxxrx (cxxx), 8 qui parle de Dieu : καὶ αὐτὸς λυτρώσεται τὸν Ἰσραὴλ ἐχ πασῶν τῶν ἀνομιῶν αὐτοῦ. Jésus fera donc ce qu'on attendait de Dieu, et cela n’est point étonnant puisque son origine «est toute surnaturelle.
1:22
C'est un commentaire de l’évangéliste (tous les modernes, sauf Weiss) et non une suite des paroles de l’ange (Chrys.), car cette formule est tout à fait dans sa manière. Il aiine à montrer dans les faits du N. T.l’accomplissement ἡ d’une prophétie, ἵνα πληρωθῇ τ, 22; 11, 153 1v, 445 χη, 17; χχι, 4; χχνι, 56, ou ὅπως πληρωθῇ 1, 23; vi, 17; xn1, 35; ou encore τότε ἐπληρώθη, τι, 17; XxvIT, 9. Il est difficile de penser qu'il a mis une grande différence entre ce dernier mode, qui constate simplement l'accomplissement, et ἵνα où ὅπως. Les deux conjonctions sont employées dans la Koiné au lieu du simple infinitif (πληρωθῆναι ΠῚ Regn. τι, 27). Le sens de causalité finale est donc ‘peu marqué. On ne-saurait dire en «effet que la prophétie est la cause du fait qu’elle annonce, ni par conséquent que le fait dût avoir pour but de réaliser une prophétie. Le fait surnaturel ἃ sa cause dans les desseins de Dieu. Seulement dans certains cas il a plu à Dieu d'annoncer ses desseins, de les indiquer d'avance, soit en les esquissant dans d'autres faits (sens spirituel}, soit en les annonçant d'avance directement (sens litiéral). C'est ce lien entre les deux Testaments que Mt. ἃ voulu mettre en relief, en montrant que les réalités du Nouveau étaient comme le terme «et la plénitude de l'Ancien. ἵνα est donc à prendre non pas tout à fait ἐκδατικῶς « de facon que », mais très modérément τελικᾶς, « pour » el non pas « dans le but de », ni même « afin que » avec le subjonctif. Gf. VONIY A1 op) (Bacher, die Agada der Tan. τι, 176 note 6) pour l'accomplissement de Jér. 1x, 9. — ὅλον est surtout la conception surnaturelle, maïs le rôle de Joseph y est compris, puisque c'est lui qui donnera le nom de l'enfant. — Le parf. γέγονεν est pris par quelques-uns au sens de l’aoriste (cf. ἐγένετο... ἵνα... πληρωθῇ Jo. xx, 36), mais ici l'incarnation est un fait permanent qui justifie l'emploi du parfait (Deb. 8 348, 3). — Allusion à Is. vir, 14, oracle prononcé spécialement comme une.promesse du Dieu d'Israël. .
1:23
On ne saurait dire si Isaïe est cité d’après les Septante ou d’après Quant à la relation de la prophétie à l'événement, il faut d'abord constater que Mt. tenait la conception surnaturelle comme un fait, et que ce n'est pas le texte d'Isaïe qui lui en a suggéré l'idée. C'est ce que pensent non seulement les catholiques, mais aussi les autres (Holtz., etc.). Le fait admis, ΜΕ. l'a vu prophétisé dans les paroles d'Isaïe, et à très juste titre, car Isaïe parlait certainement d’un sauveur divin, et Michée v, 3-5 fait allusion à la même croyance. Tôus les deux attendent le salut d'Israël d'un enfant issu d’une origine mystérieuse et parlent à ce propos de la mère, qu'Isaïe désigne même comme « la jeune fille », ce qui, pour nous encore, pratiquement signifie « la vierge La traduction des LXX prouve qu'on l’entendait ainsi, car il n'y ἃ pas de discussion possible sur le sens de παρθένος. Que les Juifs aient ensuite prétendu que l'Emmanuel était Ezéchias, nous le savons par Justin (Dial. xLuI, LxVII 5. Lxxi, Lxxvu), mais cette interprétation d'Isaïe ne saurait sesoutenir. D'aprèsJér. (surls.): Quidam de nostris Isaiam prophetam duos filios habuisse contendunt, Iasub et Emmanuel : et Emmanuel de prophelissa uxore eius esse generatum, in typum domini Salvatoris. Mais cette explication méconnaît deux poinis : le premier qu'Isaïe parle de la Vierge avec une solennité particulière, ou comme a très bien dit Gressmann (Der Ursprung der Israelitisch-jüdischen Eschatologie, P. 273) ἐν μυστηρίῳ; le second qu'isaïe a eu en effet un enfant comme signe de la dévastation assyrienne, mais il l'a nommé Maher-chalal-hach-baz. Les deux enfants d'Isaïe sont par leurs noms les signes présents du salut réservé à Emmanuel qui viendra plus tard (vu, 18). Ces points sont suffisamment clairs (cf. ΗΒ. 1892, p. 486 58.), dans un texte très obscur parce que les perspectives sont sur le même plan. Si Gressmann peut dire que « le mieux est de traiter chaque verset pour lui-même » (4. 4. Ρ. 277), Mt. avait bien le droit de s'attacher à la figure du Sauveur d'Israël sans expliquer dans quelle mesure elle était engagée ou non dans les événements contemporains d'Isaïe. Le fait assuré de la conception miraculeuse suffit à constater que la prophétie mystérieuse d'Isaïe est désormais comprise et accomplie. Gressmann (ἰ. L. p. 283) à supposé qu'isaie était l'écho d’une ancienne tradition mythologique, mais il doit avouer qu'elle aurait complètement disparu. Chose étrange, les apocalypses juives qui exaltent le plus le Messie futur ont négligé de parler de sa naissance, parce qu'elles le tenaient pour un être préexistant auprès de Dieu qui apparaîtrait en force et en gloire. Les autres qui le croyaient d’origine humaine n'avaient pas à insister sur sa naissance qui ne pouvait avoir d'efficacité particulière. De sorte que l'oracle d'Isaïe est resté isolé dans le judaïsme, en attendant sa réalisation divine. Les rois égyptiens et syriens se croyant d'origine divine devaient regarder le jour de leur naissance comme une manifestation de leur divinité, mais Jésus ne naissait pas sur le trône, et c'est bien d'Isaïe (aussi de Michée) que Mt. se réclame à bon droit. Sur Virgile, cf. ΒΒ. octobre, 1922 Le prétendu Messianisme de Virgile. . S'il nest question nulle part de parthénogénèse dans les écrits juifs, c'est peut-être parce qu'on y tenait mordicus à la descente charnelle de David. Aussi Mt. a-t-il insisté sur le rôle paternel de Joseph qui résolvait la difficulté. — Emmanuel, « Dieu avec nous », nom qui sort complètement du grand nombre de noms propres où entre le nom divin. Mt. n'a pas songé à remplacer Jésus par Emmanuel. Les deux données, réelle et prophétique, se complètent mutuellement. Même en écrivant en araméen, Mi. avait à expliquer ce nom, comme a fait la version syriaque, tandis qu’il n'avait pas à expliquer yw, nom propre dont le sens était bien connu des Juifs même parlant araméen, quoique l’araméen n’employât pas Yw* pour « sauver
1:24
ἐγέρθεις (THV) plutôt que διαγερθεις (8). — ο a. Ιωσηφ (HV) plutôt que om. (TS). l'hébreu, — ἕξει avec les mss. ΝΑῸ (B λήμψεται), mais qui ont pu être corrigés d'après Mt. Au lieu de : « elle nommera », lecon de l’hébreu, le grec avait χαλέσεις, simple contre-sens, corrigé par Mt. (le ms. l'a καλέσουσιν, probablement d’après Mt.), comme il devait nécessairement le faire, puisque l'ange avait dit καλέσεις à Joseph avec le nom de Jésus. Le pluriel καλέσουσιν étant indéterminé, s'entend des fidèles qui reconnaïtront en Jésus l’'Emmanuel. Le Targum est la transcription littérale de l’hébreu.
Π n'est pas dit expressément que Joseph ait accompli l'ordre 16 jour même; cependant les termes indiquent un grand empressement. Joseph obéit promptement à un ordre qui répondait à sa conviction de l'innocence de Marie. Elle est désormais sa femme. L’aor. προσέταξεν répond à notre plus-que-parfait il est normal en grec quand l’action ne se prolonge pas. .
1:25
Jér. qui lisait filium suum primogenitum a fait remarquer avec raison cum hic mos sit divinarum Scripturarum, ut primogenitum non eum vocent, quem fratres sequuntur, sed eum qui primus natus sit. D'ailleurs τὸν πρωτότοχον, inséré probablement d’après Le. n, 7, est omis avec raison par les éditions critiques (T HS). On est donc encore moins autorisé à avancer (Holtz. Allen, etc.) que l'union exclue en ce moment eut lieu plus tard, M. Loisy ἃ dit beaucoup mieux : « Cette remarque. ne contient pas une négation formelle de la virginité subséquentè de Marie, la préoccupation de son auteur étant tournée tout enlière vers la naissance de Jésus » (τ, 341). La remarque n'était pas indispensable, le lecteur eût bien supposé que Joseph aurait respecté la pureté de Marie. Si Mt. a appuyé sur ce trait, c’est peut-être parce que les Juifs avaient commencé leurs calomnies connues d'Origène (Contra (εἶδ. 1, 40). — Sur la tournure, cf. Gen. vi, 7 : le corbeau ne revint pas jusqu'à ce que la terre fût sèche, mais il ne revint pas non plus après. — C'est Joseph qui est le sujet de ἐκάλεσεν, En donnant à l'enfant le nom de ÉVANCILE SELON SAINT MATTHIEU. 2 Jésus, il montre qu'il est instruit du plan divin et qu'il y entre librement. Ayant pris Marie pour femme, il accepte la paternité légale de Jésus, qui en réalité est conçu du Saint-Esprit. Le miracle ne devait se produire qu'une fois, mais il suffisait pour que Marie fût désormais et à jamais épouse du Saint-Esprit. Les situations étaient fixées. De BeruLéem à Nazanera. — Dans le chapitre qui suit on pourrait distinguer la venue et l'hommage des Mages (1-12), la fuite en Égypte (13-45); .le massacre des Innocents (16-18), le retour, οἱ l'installation à Nazareth (19-23). Mais ces divers épisodes sont étroitement unis dans la même trame. C'est la venue des Mages qui oblige à préciser que Jésus est né à Bethléem, selon les Écritures, qui motive la fuite en Égypte et le massacre. Le retour n’est qu'une conséquence nécessaire, et l'établissement à Nazareth le pendant de la naissance à Bethléem. L'évangéliste montre une autre unité dans le dessein de Dieu qui avait prévu et vouluces faits, qui les avait laissé pressentir par les Écritures, plus formelles et solennellement constatées quant au lieu de la nativité du Messie. Sur leur caractère historique, voir la note à la fin du chapitre.
1:1
In the New Testament, the Virgin Mary and Zechariah sing of the promises and the covenant of God with A. (Lk. 1, 55-73), which are fulfilled in Jesus, "son" of the patriarch (Mt. 1, 1; Lk. 3, 34). Jesus himself gives to a sick woman and to Zacchaeus this title "son of A.," of which the Jews were particularly proud (Lk. 13, 16; 10, 9; Mt. 3, 9; Lk. 3, 8; Jn. 8, 39), …
… The compound name Ἰησοῦς Χριστός occurs only 4 times in the Gospels (Mt. 1:1; Mc. 1:1; Io. 1:17; 17:3), is rare elsewhere (Act. 3:6; 4:10; 9:34; Apoc. 1:1, 2, 3), while it is very frequent in the epistles of Paul and Peter.
David (Heb. Dāwīdh "Beloved, Dear")
… The act of faith in the messiahship of Jesus (born of Davidic stock; cf. Mt. 1:1) was expressed in the cry: "Son of David!" (Mk. 10:48; 11:10).
… radice Jesse et flos de radice eius ascendet" (11:1), medieval iconography has imagined the patriarch J. mostly lying on a bed or sleeping; from him rises a great tree whose branches support the kings who are his descendants, according to the genealogy of Mt. 1:1-17 or Lk. 3:23-32, up to Joseph, the spouse of Mary, and to Jesus Christ. …
… J., it appears that he inserted himself into the history of man by descending from the family of David and of Abraham, in which weaknesses are not lacking: the sinful women Thamar, Rahab and "the one of Uriah." There are two genealogies, contained in Mt. 1:1-16 and Lk. 3:23-38, and they seem to report conflicting data. …
… As the Gospel pericope the story of the Visitation generally served (Lk 1:39-47), later replaced by the genealogy of Mt 1:1-16. The lection varied greatly until Pius V. The spread of the feast was slow and uneven. …
… Stranger still are the differences among the Synoptics even in the points where the greatest verbal consonance would be expected; for example, in the genealogies (v.) of Jesus (Mt. 1:1-17 and Lk. 3:23-38), in the Pater noster (Mt. 6:9-13 and Lk. 11:2-4), in the words of the consecration where Matthew (26:26-28; cf. Mk. 14:22-24) diverges from Luke (22:19-20); in the …
… It is known in fact that in it there were missing, for example, the genealogies of Jesus (Mt. 1:1-7; Lk. 3:23-38) and whatever could reveal a human origin of the Savior. …
Of the "insular" codices, mention should be made of: the Lichfeldensis (siglum L), in Lichfield in England, of the 7th-8th century, containing only Mt. 1:1 - Lk. 3:9; the Dublinensis (siglum D), also called Book of Armagh, of 812; the Kenanensis (siglum Q) or Book of Kells, likewise preserved in Dublin, of the 7th-8th century; …
1:3
… By Tamar he had Perez (Gen. 38; cf. Revue biblique, 34 [1925], pp. 524-46), ancestor of Jesus (Mt. 1:3 ff.). …
… 38:29). This and other details are given by the sacred text because of the importance of the rights of primogeniture, which were granted to him and not to Zerah, since he is always remembered first in the genealogies (ibid. 46:12; Num. 26:20; 1 Chron. 2:4; Matt. 1:3). His descendants were blessed by God (Ruth 4:12). For the genealogy see Ruth 4:18-22 and 1 Chron. 2:5, 9-3:24. In the time of Zerubbabel 468 descendants of P. lived in Jerusalem (Neh. …
… The right of the woman had prevailed (cf. Ruth 4:12) to give a legal descendant to her first husband; in Pharez the direct line of the Judeo-Davidic genealogy was preserved (Mt. 1:3).
1:5
… admiration for the woman's piety toward her mother-in-law, he showed her particular attentions (Ruth 2). When the kinship relations between the two families became known, B. married Ruth, and from their union was born Obed, the grandfather of David (Mt. 1:5), probably not in the immediate line. …
… fulfilled the agreed condition (a red cord at the window) and the promise was kept (Josh. 2:2-21; 6:17-25). Converted to the Israelite religion, she married Salmon of the tribe of Judah and had as her son Boaz, the future husband of Ruth (Ruth 4:21; Matt. 1:5). Her faith was praised in writings of the New Testament (Heb. 11:31; James 2:25).
1:6
Bethsabee (Hebrew Bath-Sheba'; Septuagint: Βηραθβέε and Βηθαθβέε)
… She is also mentioned in the New Testament, in the genealogy of Jesus Christ (Mt. 1, 6).
1:8
… The omission of intermediate members, and the attribution of the term son or the like to grandsons and great-grandsons, is in accordance with the Semitic conception (cf. Mt. 1, 8).
Ozias (Azarias; Heb. 'Uzzijjah)
… In II Kings 14:21; 15:1-7 he is also called Azariah; but the name U. is more frequent (ibid. 15:13, 30-34; II Chron. 26; Is. 6:1 and other prophets; Mt. 1:8).
1:11
(cf. Matt. 1:11-12). It is not known how many more years he survived and when he died.
1:12
Salathiel (Heb. Sē'alt'ēl - «Asked of God»)
… Sē'alt'ēl - «Asked of God»). - Father of Zerubbabel (v.) in Ezra 3:2; 5:2; Neh. 12:1; Hag. 1:1, 12, 14; 2:3, 24; 1 Chron. 3:17 and in the genealogies of Jesus (Matt. 1:12; Luke 3:27).
1:13
To the age of Augustus must also be referred the coming to Egypt of the Virgin Mary with Jesus to escape Herod the Great's decree against the newborn children of Bethlehem (Mt. 1, 13): it was probably 3 B.C., but the stay in Egypt cannot have lasted more than a few months, we do not know where, because the Angel (Mt. 2, 20) ordered Joseph to return to the land of Israel.
Zerubbabel (Heb. Zerubbābel, Babylonian name, Zir-Babili, "Seed" or "Sprout of Babel")
ZERUBBABEL (Heb. Zerubbābel, a name of Babylonian origin, zir-Babili, "seed" or "scion of Babel"). - Prince of Judah, son of Shealtiel and descendant of King Jehoiachin (v.) imprisoned in Babylon; he is among the ancestors of the Messiah (Mt. 1:13; Lk. 3:27). He directed the return of the Jews from the Babylonian exile and the rebuilding of the Temple of Jerusalem. …
1:16
… The absence of the article (even in the Babylonian Talmud māfiah occurs without the article), although not decisive, usually indicates that Χριστός is used as a simple name or surname (Mt. 1:16; Ἰησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός) of Jesus. …
… However, it disagrees with this in not a few cases, for example, in the famous reading of Mt. 1:16 ἐμνηστευθεῖα (as in the Syro-Curetonian). …
I. IN HOLY SCRIPTURE. - The name of St. J. appears in the genealogy of Christ as a direct descendant of David (Mt. 1:16), hence "son of David" (Mt. 1:20; cf. Lk. 2:4; 3:23 ff.), a messianic title that he legitimately transmitted to his legal Son, Jesus (v. JESUS CHRIST, genealogy).
I. HOLY SCRIPTURE. - In Mt. 1:16 the parallelism of the narrative, preserved in the three series of genealogies of Jesus' ancestors, is abruptly broken off at the name of Joseph: "the husband of Mary, of whom was …
1:17
… But even alone, ὁ Χριστός expresses the whole faith in the nature and mission of Jesus (Mc. 8:29b). The appellation ὁ Χριστός designates Jesus in the mouth of believers in his transcendent messiahship (Mt. 1:17; 11:2; Act. 8:5; St. Paul) or of unbelievers who mock him (Mt. 26:68; 27:17 and 22 with ὁ λεγόμενος). …
1:18
The Holy Spirit, even if his personality is not indicated with unequivocal clarity in the Incarnation of the Word (Lk. 1:35; Mt. 1:18), is certainly attested in connection with John the Baptist (Lk. 1:15), with Simeon (Lk. 2:25), with the baptism of Jesus (Mk. 1:9-11), with the blasphemy against him (Mt. …
… But a careful exegesis of the Gospel text (Mt. 1:18-23) allows this second interpretation to be excluded. …
… The combined accounts of Luke 1:26-38 and Matt. 1:18-25 allow us to conclude that the heavenly message was communicated to her in the time, ordinarily a year, that elapsed between the marriage, which for the Hebrews
1:19
… Moreover, in Mt. 1:19 there is found an explicit eulogy, which is a panegyric: "cum esset iustus." Even if one wishes to understand the word in the restricted sense of a faithful observer of the law, from …
… In this sense, in fact, St. Joseph is called «just» (Mt. 1, 19) and St. Peter reproaches the Hebrews for having put to death the one who had fulfilled justice as no one else (Act. 3, 14 ff.); in this sense Jesus is called «just» by Pilate (Mt. …
1:20
… ANGELO DI JAMNIEH; TROFANIA) or by the angels; the angel Raphael appears to Tobit and accompanies him on the journey (Tob. 5, 5-12, 22); Gabriel appears to Zechariah (Lk. 1, 8-22), and to Mary (Lk. 1, 26-38); an angel appears several times to St. Joseph (Mt. 1, 20; 2, 13); the angels announce to the shepherds the birth of Jesus (Lk. 2, 8-15); an angel comforts Jesus in the agony of Gethsemane (Lk. 22, 43); an angel announces to the pious women …
Holiness of Christ and of Mary
… He is the Christ, that is, the Anointed, the consecrated one (Dan. 9:25-26; Ps. 2:2), the righteous one (Is. 53:11), filled with the Holy Spirit (Is. 11:2; 42:1; 61:1-2). The New Testament explicitly ratifies these essential data (Mt. 1:20; Lk. 1:35: the conception of Christ. …
I. IN HOLY SCRIPTURE. - The name of St. J. appears in the genealogy of Christ as a direct descendant of David (Mt. 1:16), hence "son of David" (Mt. 1:20; cf. Lk. 2:4; 3:23 ff.), a messianic title that he legitimately transmitted to his legal Son, Jesus (v. JESUS CHRIST, genealogy).
… Sometimes, for His communications, God makes use of dreams; thus with the Patriarchs (cf., for St. Joseph, Mt. 1:20; 2:13). In His action, finally, God adapts Himself to the mentality of the prophet; He chooses images familiar to him. The divine suggestions were associated with the ideas and sentiments …
… Joseph was reassured by a heavenly revelation: "Do not fear to take to you your wife Mary, for what has been conceived in her is the work of the Holy Spirit" (Mt. 1:20). Luke relates that the angel "was sent to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David - the virgin's name was Mary - to announce to her: You shall conceive and …
1:21
… him Jesus." Formulated with phrases and concepts from ancient prophecies (cf., e.g., II Sam. 7, 16; Ps. 88, 30-37; Is. 9, 7 [Hebr. 6]; Mic. 4, 7; Dan. 7, 14-27), the angelic announcement outlines the figure and the task of the promised Redeemer (cf. Mt. 1, 21).
… If the prophetic name of Emmanuel alludes directly to the mystery of the divine Incarnation that was still to be accomplished, that of Jesus, announced by the Angel (Lk. 1:31; 2:21), better expresses the task of the Messiah already come among men as "savior" (Mt. 1:21-25; Lk. 2:11); but, with Cornelius a Lapide, Knabenbauer, Holzmeister, it must immediately be noted (cf. Mt. 1:22-23) that the name of Emmanuel, "God with us," that is, "God who is …
… The Angel, in enjoining the Saint to give the Child his name (Mt. 1:21), confirmed the office and
… Since the Apostles must continue the same mission of Christ, the «forgiving of sins» must be interpreted in the sense in which he forgives sin (Jn. 1:29; Mt. 1:21; 9:3; Lk. 7:47-49). This power, called by Westcott the «magna charta» of the Church of Christ, is conferred not on all the faithful indiscriminately, but on the Apostles alone; thus …
… integral concept, according to the divine good pleasure, at the hour willed by God (Col. 1:26), with Christianity, which is a great announcement and message of salvation (Luke 2:11; Rom. 8:3; Col. 1:13-14; Heb. 1:1-3; John 1:29, 36). Jesus came as Savior (Matt. 1:21; Luke 2:25, 30), and presented himself as such (Matt. 15:24; Mark 2:17; Luke 19:10; cf. Matt. 18:12-23; Luke 15:1-8). This is the very substance of his mission: to heal, to save the …
1:22
… accomplished, that of Jesus, announced by the Angel (Lk. 1:31; 2:21), better expresses the task of the Messiah already come among men as "savior" (Mt. 1:21-25; Lk. 2:11); but, with Cornelius a Lapide, Knabenbauer, Holzmeister, it must immediately be noted (cf. Mt. 1:22-23) that the name of Emmanuel, "God with us," that is, "God who is present to help and to save," is, formally, the same as Jesus ("God is salvation"): the holiest, the sweetest, the …
… For example, in Mt. 1:22 God "through" (βίᾳ) the prophet Isaiah (8:8; cf. Mt. 2:15) foretells of the Virgin who will give birth; in Lk. 1:70 He speaks "through the mouth (βίᾳ στόματος) of the holy prophets"; …
… displayed rather liberal principles of interpretation, caring little for the unanimous consent of the Fathers; he stirred up the celebrated controversy concerning Is. 7:14, of which text he denied any messianic sense, notwithstanding its citation in Mt. 1:22 ff. (v. EMMANUEL).
From these mysterious remotenesses there emerges clearly on the messianic horizon, in the time of Isaiah (734 B.C.), the figure of the Virgin-Mother of the Emmanuel (Is. 7, 14; v. EMANUELE), and the prophecy is explicitly cited by Mt. 1, 22 in direct relation to M. To assure king Ahaz (v.) of God's help, the prophet proposes to him a "sign" which the king hypocritically rejected. …
1:23
Emmanuel (Hebrew 'Immanā'ēl "God [is] with us", Septuagint 'Εμμανουήλ)
… In the Gospel (Mt. 1:23) it is referred, with a quotation of Is. 7:14, to Jesus.
… The name of J. therefore means: "Yahweh is salvation." Fundamentally it is the same name announced by Is. (7:14): Emmanuel (v.), "God with us" (Mt. 1:23 sees in the fact of the imposition of the name of J. commanded to St. Joseph the fulfillment of the prophecy of the name "Emmanuel"). …
The characteristics of the M. will be: a) he is of the stock of David: Is. 11, 1; Jer. 23, 5; 33, 15; Ez. 17, 22 (cf. Lk. 1, 32); b) he will be born in Bethlehem: Mic. 5, 1 = Mt. 2, 6; c) of a Virgin: Is. 7, 14 b = Mt. 1, 23; cf. Mic. 5, 2 (the pearl of the messianic prophecies; the sign offered to Ahaz is the son of Is. 7, 3, 16 [Sē'ār jātiūb], like the other son in Is. 8, 4; "before he reaches the age …
1:24
greatness of St. J. The truth of this marriage is clearly attested in the Gospel, which calls J. "husband of Mary" (Mt. 1:19: ἀνὴρ) and Mary "consort of J." (ibid. 1:20-24; cf. Lk. 1:27; 2:5). J. and Mary, already betrothed at the time of the Annunciation, then inaugurate their living together (Mt. 1:24) and continue it forever (betrothal and leading of the bride into the bridegroom's house: the two constitutive acts of marriage, in full effect, in Hebrew custom): they were therefore true spouses. …
1:26
… He will be great... son of the Most High... he will reign forever over the house of Jacob" (ibid. 1:26-33). This was a clear identification of the Messiah through the appeal to the prophecy of Is. 7:14: "A virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name (= and he) shall be Emmanuel …
Douay-Rheims (Challoner) · Vulgata Clementina · original Douay-Rheims (Rheims 1582), transcription by EEBO-TCP (CC0) · La Sacra Bibbia, tradotta dalla Volgata da Antonio Martini (1769-1781) (LaParola (laparola.net), Martini OSIS text, Public domain (LaParola's electronic edition marks it 'Dominio pubblico')). Public domain.