Lecture 1 — The generation of Christ

^1:1^ The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham: [n. 12]

11. Among the evangelists, Matthew is especially concerned with the humanity of Christ; hence according to Gregory he is signified by a man in the figure of the four animals. (Gregory the Great, Homilies on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel (CPL 1710), bk. 4.) Now, it is through his humanity that Christ entered, advanced in, and left the world.

And for this reason the whole Gospel is divided into three parts.

For the Evangelist treats first of Christ’s entrance into the world through his humanity;

second, of his advance;

third, of his departure.

The second part begins at **and in those days came John the Baptist preaching in the desert of Judea **(Matt 3:1). The third part begins at **and when they drew near to Jerusalem, and had come to Bethphage, unto Mount Olivet **(Matt 21:1).

In the first part he does two things:

first, he describes the generation of Christ;

second, he adds a manifestation of that generation, at when Jesus therefore was born in Bethlehem of Judah, in the days of King Herod (Matt 2:1).

In the first part, he does three things:

first, he prefaces a title as it were of the whole book, when he says, the book of the generation of Jesus Christ;

second, the series of fathers is put together, **Abraham begot Isaac **(Matt 1:2);

third, when it says but the generation of Christ was thus, the generation of Christ is described in particular.

12. Now the title prefaced is this: the book of the generation of Jesus Christ.

It seems to be an imperfect sentence, since a nominative is set down there without a verb, but it is not. For Matthew wrote his Gospel for the Hebrews, and so in his writing he followed the custom of the Jews. Now it is customary among the Hebrews to speak this way; for example, when it is said: the vision of Isaiah the son of Amos (Isa 1:1), the phrase this is is understood, and does not need to be added. So here when it says, the book of the generation, this is is understood.

And this way of speaking is also customary among us. For if we wish to give a title to some book, it is called Priscianus the Greater or Lesser, nor is it necessary to add this is or here begins.

13. It is also asked, why did he title his book this way, when a very small portion of this book is about the generation of Christ?

And one should say that Matthew, who wrote to the Hebrews, followed the style of the Hebrews in his writing. Now, the Hebrews customarily title books from their beginnings, as Genesis is called Genesis because it treats there of generation; hence we find, this is the book of the generation of Adam (Gen 5:1). And so also the book of Exodus, which in the first part treats of the exodus of the children of Israel out of Egypt.

14. But it is asked why of Jesus Christ is added.

One should say that according to the Apostle: as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive (1 Cor 15:22). Now, Matthew had seen that in the first book of the Old Testament, which treats of generation, it says: this is the book of the generation of Adam (Gen 5:1). In order therefore that the New Testament, which treats of regeneration and repair, might correspond to the Old Testament by contrast, he says, the book of the generation of Jesus Christ; and to show that the same one is author of both Testaments.

15. But here a question is asked about the fact that it says, the book of the generation of Jesus Christ. For this is contrary to Isaiah: who will declare his generation? (Isa 53:8).

According to Jerome, the sense of this quotation is that there is a twofold generation in Christ. (Jerome, Commentary on Matthew (CPL 0590), bk. 1, par. 1.) There is the divine generation, of course, which cannot be recounted; even if in some way we call the Son begotten, neither man nor angel can comprehend the manner in which he is begotten. The other is the human generation, which Matthew considers, yet there are many difficulties in this generation as well. And this is why, according to Remigius, there are very few who could recount it. (Remigius of Auxerre (c. 841–908) was a Benedictine grammarist who wrote many commentaries and glosses which are mostly lost or untranslated. For the quotation alluded to here, see Thomas Aquinas, Catena Aurea on Matthew ch. 1, lect. l.)

16. Again, a question is asked about the fact that he says of the generation, when multiple generations are put together here.

One should say that, although many generations are enumerated, still all are included for the sake of one, namely for the sake of the generation of Christ, concerning which it says below, but the generation of Christ was thus.

17. Now, he whose generation is put together is described first by name, when it says Jesus; second by office, when it says Christ; third by origin, when it says, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

18. There have been others who were also called Jesus, like Jesus the son of Nave, of whom it is said: valiant in war was Jesus the son of Nave, who was successor of Moses among the prophets (Sir 46:1); there was also another around the time of the building of the temple (Zech 3:1). But those men were Jesus in name and figure, namely insofar as they prefigured him.

That Jesus led the people of Israel into the land of the promise; but this Jesus, i.e., our Savior, led us not into a fleshly land, but into a heavenly land. For we have him as the author and finisher in his blood (Heb 12:2).

And he is rightly called Jesus. This name befits him according to either nature, whether the divine or the human. Through the human he suffered in his flesh and completed the mystery of our redemption; but since that suffering would have had no efficacy except by the power of the divinity joined to it, it says below: **you will call his name Jesus. For he will save his people from their sins **(Matt 1:21).

But it is asked why he says, Christ. Would not Jesus have been enough? I respond that he said this because others were also called Jesus.

19. Moreover he describes him by office when he says, Christ, i.e., the anointed.

Note that there were three anointings in the old law. For Aaron was anointed as a priest (Lev 8:11–12). Saul was anointed by Samuel as a king (1 Sam 10:1), and then David (1 Sam 16:13). Eliseus was also anointed as a prophet: Eliseus the son of Saphat, of Abelmeula, you will anoint to be prophet (1 Kgs 19:16). Since therefore Christ was a true priest, according to the Psalm: you are a priest for ever (Ps 109:4), and a king and a prophet, he is rightly called Christ, on account of the three offices which he exercised.

20. The son of David, the son of Abraham. Here there are two questions, namely about number and order.

Regarding the first, the question is why he named these two. Besides the reason given in the prologue, one should say that Abraham was a prophet. The Lord said to Abimelech the king of Gerar, now therefore restore the man his wife, for he is a prophet (Gen 20:7). Similarly, he was a priest inasmuch as he exercised the function of a priest, namely by offering a victim to the Lord; and the Lord answered, and said: take me a cow of three years old (Gen 15:9). Moreover, David was a prophet (Acts 2:30) and he was also a king (2 Sam 2:4). Since therefore Christ was a king and a prophet and a priest, he is rightly called the son of these men. For had he named only Abraham, it would not have indicated that Christ was a king; while if David alone had been named, it would not have shown the priestly dignity in Christ. This is why he put down both.

As regards the second question, according to Jerome one should say that David is put first and the order changed because he needed to put together the genealogy. (Jerome, Commentary on Matthew (CPL 0590), bk. 1, par. 1.) For if he had said first the son of Abraham, and second the son of David, he would have had to repeat Abraham a second time to continue the order of the genealogy. But according to Ambrose, David was named first by reason of dignity. (Ambrose of Milan, Commentary on Luke (CPL 0143), bk. 3, par. 10.) For a promise concerning the head himself was made to David, when it is said: of the fruit of your womb I will set upon your throne (Ps 131:11). But to Abraham a promise was made concerning the members, that is, concerning the Church; hence: and in your seed will all the nations of the earth be blessed (Gen 22:18).

21. Here it should be noted that there have been many errors about Christ.

For some have erred about his divinity, as did Paul of Samosata, Photinus, and Sabellius; some have erred about his humanity; and some have erred about both. Others have erred about his person.

The first to err about his humanity was Manichaeus, who said that he took up, not a true body, but the appearance of a body. Contrary to this is what the Lord says: handle, and see: for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see me to have (Luke 24:39). Second, after Manichaeus, Valentinus erred, who said that he took for himself a celestial body, and that he did not take it up from the Virgin but rather passed through her like water through a canal. (Valentinus was a prominent second-century gnostic-Christian theologian who fused elements of Christian theology into a broadly gnostic and middle-Platonist cosmology with their typically dualist outlook. Among other heresies, Valentinus is well-known for his view that Jesus' body was of a substance different from that of ordinary human bodies. Hence his apparent birth and generation from Mary constituted a kind of illusion, for Valentinus.) But contrary to this it is said: who was made to him of the seed of David, according to the flesh (Rom 1:3). The third error was that of Apollinaris, who said that he took only a body and not a soul, but that he had the divinity in place of a soul. (Apollinaris (the Younger) was a fourth-century bishop of Laodicea (near the West coast of modern-day Turkey) who attempted to solve the conceptual puzzle of the idea that Christ is a union of two different and ontologically complete things (God and man) by denying that Christ had all of the attributes of a human being. More specifically, he made conceptual space for the Logos by denying that Jesus had a human soul. He imagined, moreover, that the Logos, in some sense, was Jesus' soul. His view was condemned at the Council of Constantinople (381).) But contrary to this is what is frequently said: now is my soul troubled. But because of this saying, Apollinarus himself later changed his position and said that Christ had a vegetative and a sensitive soul, but nonetheless not a rational soul, but rather in its place the divinity. But in this case something unfitting would follow, namely that Christ would be no more a man than one of the brutes.

Now, the four evangelists have divided these errors among themselves by lot, so to speak. For Mark and John have destroyed chiefly those errors which concern the divinity. Hence John says right away at the beginning of his Gospel: in the beginning was the Word. And Mark starts this way: the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; he does not say, the son of Abraham. But Matthew and Luke at the beginning of their Gospels destroy those errors which concern his humanity.

22. So notice that when it says here, the son of David, the son of Abraham, all errors which concern Christ’s humanity are excluded.

For one is only called someone’s son through a univocal generation, which is according to a sameness in species. For however much a thing may be generated from a man, it will never be called a son unless it shares the same nature in species, as is clear from the case of lice and other such creatures. If therefore Christ is the son of David and of Abraham, he must have the same nature as they do by reason of the same species; moreover, he would not have the same nature according to species if he did not have a true and natural body, nor if he had taken it from heaven, nor if he had lacked a sensitive soul, or a rational soul. Hence the exclusion of every error is clear.