Lecture 2 — Abraham to David

^1:2^ Abraham begot Isaac. And Isaac begot Jacob. And Jacob begot Judas and his brethren. [n. 24]

^1:3^ And Judas begot Phares and Zara of Thamar. And Phares begot Esron. And Esron begot Aram. [n. 33]

^1:4^ And Aram begot Aminadab. And Aminadab begot Naasson. And Naasson begot Salmon. [n. 38]

^1:5^ And Salmon begot Booz of Rahab. And Booz begot Obed of Ruth. And Obed begot Jesse. [n. 45]

^1:6^ And Jesse begot David the King. And David the King begot Solomon, of her that had been the wife of Urias. [n. 51]

23. Having set down the title, here he puts together the series of the genealogy. And it is divided into three parts, according to the three fourteens by which the aforesaid genealogical series is put together.

The first fourteen is from Abraham to David, which proceeds through the patriarchs. The second is from David to the deportation to Babylon, and proceeds through the kings. The third is from the Babylonian deportation to Christ, and, beginning from leaders, it proceeds through private persons.

The second begins at David the King begot Solomon. The third, at and after the transmigration of Babylon (Matt 1:12).

The first is divided into three parts. For the fathers who lived before the entrance into Egypt are placed first; second are placed those who lived at the time of the exodus and of the entrance into the promised land; third, those who lived after the entrance into the promised land.

24. He says then first, Abraham begot Isaac.

Before we proceed further, recall that two of the evangelists trace Christ’s generation according to the flesh, namely Luke and Matthew; but each traces it differently. There are differences between them in five respects. For they differ: first, as regards location in the Gospel; second, as regards the order of names; third, as regards the manner of expression; fourth, as regards the point where they end; fifth, as regards the persons enumerated.

25. First, I say that they differ according to location in the Gospel. For Matthew commences putting together the generation of Christ at the beginning of his Gospel; Luke places it, not at the beginning, but after the baptism.

According to Augustine, the reason for this is that Matthew took up the fleshly generation of Christ as the thing to be described, and so he had to put it right at the beginning. Luke however intended most of all to set forward in Christ a priestly person; now the expiation of sins pertains to a priest, and so Luke fittingly places the generation of Christ after a baptism, in which the expiation of sins takes place.

26. Second, Luke and Matthew differ in putting together Christ’s genealogy as regards order. For Matthew puts together Christ’s generation by beginning with Abraham and descending to Christ, while Luke begins from Christ and, ascending, proceeds to Abraham and beyond.

The reason is that, as the Apostle says (Rom 4:25), there are two things in Christ, namely the humility of accepting the defects of our nature, and the power of the divinity and of grace through which he purified us from such defects; God sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh and of sin, because of the first, and has condemned sin in the flesh (Rom 8:3), because of the second. Matthew, therefore, who aims at the fleshly generation of Christ, through which he descended even to the assumption of our weakness, fittingly describes his generation by descending. But Luke, who sets forward his priestly dignity, through which we are reconciled to God and united to Christ himself, fittingly proceeds by ascending.

27. Third, they differ as regards manner. For in recounting the genealogy Matthew uses the verb begot while Luke uses the verb was. And this is because in his entire account Matthew includes only those who were fathers according to the flesh, while Luke includes many who were fathers according to law, or adoption. For the law commanded that if someone were to die without children, his brother should take his wife and beget children for him; hence those children did not belong to the one who begot them, but rather by a kind of adoption they were imputed to the first man. Hence Luke, who includes more than one son begotten by adoption, does not say begot, but who was; because although they had not begotten those men, nevertheless those men were theirs by a kind of adoption. But Matthew, who put down only fathers according to the flesh, says begot.

Now the reason for this is that, as was said, Matthew is concerned with Christ’s humanity. And since according to the flesh he was born of fathers according to the flesh, Matthew placed none in the genealogy who were not fathers according to the flesh. But Luke emphasizes Christ’s priestly dignity, through which we are adopted as sons of God, and so he puts down not only fleshly but also legal fathers.

28. Fourth, they differ as regards the ending point. For Matthew begins his generation from Abraham and extends it to Christ; Luke however extends his genealogy from Christ, not only to Abraham, but even to God.

The reason for this can be found in the fact that Matthew wrote to the Hebrews. Now the Hebrews prided themselves chiefly on Abraham. We are the seed of Abraham (John 8:33), who was the first beginning of believing. And so Matthew began from Abraham. But Luke wrote to the Greeks, who knew nothing of Abraham except through Christ; for if there had not been Christ, they would never have known anything about Abraham. And so Luke began from Christ, and ended not merely in Abraham, but in God.

29. Fifth, they differ as regards the persons enumerated. For in the whole series of the genealogy Luke mentions absolutely nothing about a woman, but in Matthew some women are interspersed.

According to Ambrose, the reason for this is that Luke, as was said, sets forward most of all the priestly dignity. Now in a priest, purity is required most of all. But Matthew puts together his generation according to the flesh, and for this reason some women are set down there.

30. Yet one should notice that in the entire genealogy of Matthew the only women set down are sinners, or those who were known for some sin, as was Thamar who fornicated (Gen 38), and Ruth who was an idolater because she was a gentile, and the wife of Urias who was an adulteress (2 Sam 11). And according to Jerome, this is to point out that he whose genealogy is put together here entered for the sake of redeeming sinners.

Ambrose touches upon another reason, namely to remove the Church’s embarrassment. For if Christ willed to be born of sinners, unbelievers ought not to laugh if sinners come to the Church.

Another reason can be given, I believe according to Chrysostom, namely to show the imperfection of the law, and to show that Christ came to fulfill the law. For the fact that certain sinful women are mentioned points out that those who were greatest in the law were sinners, such as David and Judas. And by this he points out the imperfection of the others; for if those men were sinners, much more the others as well. All have sinned (Rom 3:23). And so these are placed in the generation of Christ to indicate that he himself had fulfilled the law.

Yet notice that those women, however much they may all have been sinners, still they were not sinners during the time in which their genealogy was put together, but were already cleansed through penitence.

31. He says then, Abraham begot Isaac. One should note first that there are three things here to be considered: the letter, or the literal sense; second, that the fathers who are set down designate Christ; third, that even they are referred, or can be referred, to our instruction.

He says then first, Abraham begot Isaac. And this is found elsewhere in Scripture (Gen 21). And Isaac begot Jacob (Gen 25).

32. Jacob begot Judas and his brethren. Here it is asked, since Abraham had another son besides Isaac, namely Ishmael, and similarly Isaac had other sons, why does he not mention them the way it says here, Judas and his brethren?

Similarly, why is Judas mentioned by name any more than the others?

The reason is that Judas and his brothers remained under the worship of the one God, and this is why they are mentioned in the generation of Christ. And it does not say, Isaac and Ishmael, or Jacob and Esau.

As regards the second question, this was to show that the prophecy of Jacob was fulfilled in Christ: the sceptre will not be taken away from Judah, nor a ruler from his thigh, till he come that is to be sent, and he will be the expectation of nations (Gen 49:10). For it is evident that our Lord sprung out of Judah (Heb 7:14). For this reason he is mentioned rather than the others.

33. And Judas begot Phares and Zara of Thamar. Here it is asked, since the Lord was not born of Zara, but of Phares, why he is mentioned.

And why he is described by name? For previously it said, his brethren. So why does he mention the name of Zara?

And one should say, according to Ambrose, that this was done in a mystery. To make this clear, notice the history, that in Thamar’s labor Zara appeared first (Gen 38). The midwife tied a scarlet thread onto his hand, saying, this will come forth the first, and so she called his name Zara. Later, he drawing back his hand, the other came forth, and the midwife said, why is the partition divided for you? Now Zara, who appeared first, signifies the people of the Jews, onto whose hand the midwife tied a scarlet thread, that is, circumcision, which was accompanied by a flow of blood. But he drawing back his hand, the other came forth (2 Cor 1), because blindness in part has happened in Israel (Rom 11:25). For in this way the gentile people, separated from God’s people, entered into the light of faith. It came forth from the womb of ignorance and unbelief.

34. Second, one should note that Christ is signified by the fathers set down in the generation of Christ by reason either of name, or of deed, or of some other thing, as is self-evident.

Abraham is interpreted ‘father of many nations’. He signifies Christ, about whom it is said, who had brought many children into glory (Heb 2:10). Again, Abraham left his own land at the Lord’s command (Gen 12:4), and it is Christ who said: I have forsaken my house (Jer 12:7). Similarly it was Abraham who laughed, saying: God has made a laughter for me (Gen 21:6), and it is Christ at whose birth joy was announced, not to one person only, but to the whole world. Behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, that shall be to all the people (Luke 2:10). Similarly, Christ is signified by Jacob, both because of the interpretation of his name and because of what he did, as is clear in the fact that he placed a stone, i.e., the severity of the cross, beneath his head. Similarly by Judas and Phares, who is interpreted ‘division’; for he will divide the sheep from the goats (Matt 25:32).

35. Now the status of our justification is indicated morally in these generations, according to the six things required for justification.

Namely, faith is signifed by Abraham, who was justified by the justice of faith. For elsewhere he is called a beginning of faith for others; which is in the flesh of our circumcision (Rom 4:11). Isaac signifies hope, because he is interpreted as ‘laughter’; rejoicing in hope (Rom 12:12). Love is signified by Jacob, who took two wives, Lia, whose name means ‘laboring’, and Rachel; two lives, which are lived in love in keeping with the two precepts: the contemplative life, which delights in God, and the active life, through which one’s neighbor is helped. Judas signifies confession, which is twofold: the confession of faith: with the heart, we believe (Rom 10:10); and the confession of sinners: confess therefore your sins one to another (Jas 5:16). Now two effects follow from this, namely the destruction of vice, which is signified by Phares, and the beginning of virtue, which is signified by Zara. And these arise from Thamar, who is interpreted ‘bitterness’; I will recount to you all my years in the bitterness of my soul (Isa 38:15).

36. And Phares begot Esron. Here is set down the series of the genealogy of the fathers who were born in Egypt or in the exodus. For as Christ is signified through Phares, who is interpreted as ‘division’: he will separate them one from another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats (Matt 25:32), so he is also signified through Esron, who is interpreted ‘arrow’, or ‘hall’. For he is called ‘arrow’ on account of the efficacy of his preaching, by which he pierced the hearts of those who heard: your arrows are sharp (Ps 44:6). He is called ‘hall’ on account of the breadth of his charity, by which he loved not only friends, but even enemies: when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son (Rom 5:10); *he has prayed for the transgressors (*Isa 53:12); and: Father, forgive them: for they know not what they do (Luke 23:34).

37. And Esron begot Aram. Now Aram is interpreted ‘elect’, or ‘exalted’. Behold my servant, and he is exalted above all (Isa 42:1); *setting him on his right hand in the heavenly places, above all principality (*Eph 1:21).

38. And Aram begot Aminadab, who is interpreted ‘spontaneous’. It is in his person that the Psalmist says: I will freely sacrifice to you, and will give praise, O God, to your name: because it is good (Ps 53:8); and: he has borne the sins of many, and has prayed for the transgressors (Isa 53:12); I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me (John 6:38).

39. And Aminadab begot Naasson, who is interpreted ‘omen’ or ‘serpent-like’, because Christ knew not only the present but also the past and the future; all things are naked and open to his eyes (Heb 4:13). Similarly, ‘serpent-like’ because of prudence, for prudence is attributed to the serpent. Below: be therefore wise as serpents (Matt 10:16); with him is strength and wisdom: he knows both the deceiver, and him who is deceived (Job 12:16).

40. Note that this man Naasson lived in the time of Moses, and came out with him from Egypt, and was one of the princes of the tribe of Judah in the desert (Num 1:7).

But one should be aware that where our texts have, the children of Israel went up armed out of the land of Egypt (Exod 13:18), Aquila translated it as instructed, owing to an equivocation. But the text of the Septuagint is better: the children of Israel went up out of Egypt in the fifth generation.

41. On the contrary: Naasson was not the fifth from Jacob, but the seventh, as is clear by counting up Jacob, Judas, and so on, down to Naasson. Therefore it was not in the fifth, but in the seventh generation.

But it is said that it should not be calculated through the tribe of Judas, but through the tribe of Levi, under whose leadership the children of Israel went up out of Egypt; you have conducted your people like sheep, by the hand of Moses and Aaron (Ps 76:21). And it is clear that there were only five generations counting this way: for Jacob begot Levi, and Levi begot Caath, and Caath begot Amram, and Amram begot Moses and Aaron (Exod 6:20). And under Moses they went up from the land of Egypt.

42. Note here that, among all the tribes, the tribe of Judas was multiplying the most, because from that tribe were to come kings, who were supposed to fight. But among them all, the tribe of Levi was multiplying the least, because it was preordained to the divine service and to the priesthood, for which a smaller number sufficed. But Jerome would have it that they went up in the fifth generation even calculating through the tribe of Judas. In the fifth generation they will return hither (Gen 15:16). Therefore, Jerome says, what is said there should be understood by calculating through the tribe of Levi, but what is said here should be understood by calculating through the tribe of Judas. For Phares himself entered into Egypt with Jacob and his father Judas. And it is clear that Naasson was the fifth from Phares. Similarly, Levi himself entered into Egypt with his father Jacob. And therefore the generations should be calculated from Levi, and not from Jacob. And it is clear that Moses was the fourth from Levi.

43. And Naasson begot Salmon. Salmon is interpreted ‘sensitive’; and he signifies Christ, in whom all treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden (Col 2:3).

44. Morally, one should note here that as in the first generation the order of our justification as regards the status of the beginner is signified, so in this second generation, which similarly contains five, the progress of the proficient is signified. For the first thing following from the fact that a man is justified from sin is that he has zeal for souls. And therefore well did Phares beget Esron, who is interpreted ‘arrow’, owing to the efficacy of the preaching by which the hearts of those who hear are pierced; *he . . . has made me as a chosen arrow (*Isa 49:2). And the others fit in the same way.

45. And Salmon begot Booz. Here are placed the fathers who were born after the entrance into the land of promise. For Salmon was begotten in the desert, and entered with Josue into the land of promise, and took Rahab the harlot as his wife, from whom he begot Booz.

Booz is interpreted ‘strong’; *O Lord, my might, and my strength (*Jer 16:19). Rahab is interpreted as ‘hunger’ or ‘width’; and she signifies the Church, because to her pertains that beatitude: blessed are they who hunger and thirst (Matt 5:6). She is also interpreted as ‘width’, because the Church is spread throughout the whole world; stretch out the skins of your tabernacles (Isa 54:2). Similarly, she is interpreted as ‘attack’, because by the attack of preaching she has converted kings and philosophers. Again, she signifies the Church by reason of deed. Rahab put a scarlet rope in her window, through which she was freed from the sacking of Jericho (Jos 2:21). Our window is the mouth; therefore the rope in the window is the confession of Christ’s passion, through which the Church is freed from death. Again by reason of her spouse, because as Rahab was joined in marriage to Salmon, who was a prince of the tribe of Judah, so Christ has espoused the Church to himself; for I have espoused you to one husband that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ (2 Cor 11:2).

46. But it is asked, according to the letter, since Rahab was a harlot, how was she espoused to so great a prince, who was great among other princes?

And one should say that what Rahab did was most great, because she chose the worship of the God of Israel in contempt of her own people and of the rite of her fathers. And therefore as a most great honor, as it were, she was given to a most noble prince.

47. And Booz begot Obed of Ruth. This is found in the last chapter of Ruth. Obed is interpreted ‘serving’ or ‘servant’; and he signifies Christ, of whom it was said through the prophet: but you have made me to serve with your sins (Isa 43:24). Moreover, Ruth signifies the Church born from the gentiles by reason of place, for she was a Moabitess. Moab is interpreted ‘from father’; you are of your father the devil (John 8:44); and again by reason of her spouse, as is clear in the Gloss.

48. But it is asked why these women are named here, since they were sinners.

Jerome gives a reason for Ruth, namely that the prophesy of Isaiah might be fulfilled: send forth, O Lord, the lamb, the ruler of the earth, from Petra of the desert (Isa 16:1). Petra is from the desert, that is from evil, and signifies Ruth the Moabitess. Ambrose also gives a reason, saying: for it was going to happen that the Church would be gathered together from the unbelieving nations; and so the Church could have blushed and been embarrassed if they had not seen that even Christ was born from sinners. Hence to remove the blushing and embarrassment, these sinners had to be named.

49. But it is asked: the Ammonite and the Moabite, even after the tenth generation will not enter into the Church of the Lord for ever (Deut 23:3); so since Ruth was a Moabitess, how was she received into the Church?

But one should say through the Apostle, that if you are led by the spirit, you are not under the law (Gal 5:18); for in a law, the intention of the legislator ought always to be observed more than the words of the law. For what was the reason why the Lord commanded that the Ammonites and Moabites not enter the Church? Clearly, because he found idolatry in them, i.e., lest they drag the Jews into idolatry. Hence this woman, who was already converted, was not an idolater, and so was not subject to the prohibition.

50. **And Obed begot Jesse **(also Ruth 4:22). Now Jesse is interpreted as ‘sacrifice’ or ‘burning’; and he signifies him who offered himself as a victim to God in the odor of sweetness.

But it is asked: since this man is called by another name, Isai, as is clear in many places in 1 Samuel, and this name is more solemn, why did the Evangelist not name him this way?

And one should say that this was done to show that the prophecy which was spoken through the prophet Isaiah was fulfilled in Christ: and there will come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse, and a flower will rise up out of his root (Isa 11:1).

51. And Jesse begot David the King. David is interpreted as ‘strong of hand’ and ‘desirable in appearance’; all of which belongs to Christ, as is clear. For he who overcame the devil is strong; but if a stronger one than he come upon him, and overcome him; he will take away all his armour in which he trusted, and will distribute his spoils (Luke 11:22). Similarly, he is beautiful above the sons of men (Ps 44:3).

52. But here it is asked: since there were many other kings, why is only this man called a king? And one should say that this man was the first king in the tribe of Judas, from whom the Lord is descended; for although Saul was a king, yet he was of the tribe of Benjamin. A second reason, because it was owing to the merit of David himself that the others reigned; and I will make his seed to endure for evermore: and his throne as the days of heaven (Ps 88:30). A third reason, to show that the prophecy of Jeremiah was fulfilled: I will raise up to David a just branch: and a king will reign, and will be wise, and will execute judgment and justice in the earth (Jer 23:5); he will sit upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom (Isa 9:7).

53. But morally, the fruit of those who are perfect is indicated in this generation, as in the others the fruits of the beginners and of the proficients are indicated.

For the first thing which is required in a perfect man is that he be strong in attacking adversities, so that he will not be held back on account of some difficulty; and this is signified through Booz, who is interpreted as ‘strong’; but they that hope in the Lord will renew their strength, they will take wings as eagles, they will run and not be weary, they will walk and not faint (Isa 40:31); who will find a valiant woman? (Prov 31:10). The second thing required is the humility of one who serves, so that to the degree he is great, to that degree he will humble himself in all things; and this is signified through Obed, who is interpreted as ‘the one serving’ or ‘servant’; he who is the greatest among you will be your servant (Matt 23:11). The third thing required is fervor of charity, which is signified through Jesse, who is interpreted as ‘burnt’, or ‘burning’; let my prayer be directed as incense in thy sight (Ps 140:2). And from this, one comes to the kingdom and to glory, for Jesse begot David the King: and has made us to our God a kingdom and priests (Rev 5:10); but you are a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people (1 Pet 2:9).