Lecture 3 — David to the Babylonian exile

^1:6^ And Jesse begot David the King. And David the King begot Solomon, of her that had been the wife of Urias. [n. 55]

^1:7^ And Solomon begot Roboam. And Roboam begot Abia. And Abia begot Asa. [n. 59]

^1:8^ And Asa begot Josaphat. And Josaphat begot Joram. And Joram begot Ozias. [n. 62]

^1:9^ And Ozias begot Joatham. And Joatham begot Achaz. And Achaz begot Ezechias. [n. 68]

^1:10^ And Ezechias begot Manasses. And Manesses begot Amon. And Amon begot Josias. [n. 71]

^1:11^ And Josias begot Jechonias and his brethren in the transmigration of Babylon. [n. 74]

54. The series of the genealogy of the fathers which ran through the patriarchs having been set down, here he sets down the series of the fathers which proceeds through the kings. And it is divided into two parts.

First, he sets down the kings who were born from Israel, without mixture of alien seed; second, he sets down the kings who came from a foreign marriage, at Joram begot Ozias.

55. Here there is a twofold question. For Luke, working out the generation of Christ, ascends through Nathan; but Matthew, descending, proceeds from David to Christ through Solomon. Hence there seems to be a certain contrariety.

But one should say, as was said before, that Luke places many fathers in Christ’s genealogy who were not fathers according to fleshly origin, through propogation, but according to legal adoption; but Matthew set down no one who was not a father according to the flesh.

And it is true that, according to the flesh, the Lord descended from David through Solomon, and not through Nathan; and nevertheless, according to Augustine, it is not an empty mystery that Matthew descends from David to Christ through Solomon, while Luke ascends from Christ to David through Nathan. For Matthew undertook to describe the fleshly generation of Christ, according to which Christ descended even to the likeness of the body of sin (Rom 8:3); and so Matthew rightly descends from David through Solomon in his generation, with whose mother David sinned; but Luke, who aimed most of all at the priestly dignity of Christ, through which the expiation of sins came about, rightly ascends to David through Nathan, who was a holy man.

But note that according to the same Augustine in the Book of Retractions, one should not understand that Nathan the prophet, who reproached him, and the son whom he bore were the same man, but only that they were alike in name.

56. Second, it is asked why Bathshebah is not named by her name, the way Thamar, Rahab, and Ruth were.

And one should say that the others, although they may have been sinners for some time, still afterwards they were converted and repentant; this one, however, basely sinned in the crime of adultery and in consent to a murder; and so her name is veiled for modesty’s sake.

57. Yet notice that in Scripture the sins of the great are sometimes recounted, like those of David and of others; and this is because the devil overthrows not only the small and lesser, but even the great, for he is our adversary. And so they are recounted for caution’s sake, that he who stands may watch lest he fall.

Another reason is so that no one will think them to be more than men. For if someone were to contemplate only the perfection in them, he could be deceived through idolatry; but when he sees them fall through sin, then he does not believe that there is anything more than man in them.

58. Note this also, according to Gregory: sometimes a thing done literally is bad and the thing signified is good; while sometimes the thing done is good and the thing signified is bad.

For Urias was a good man and just, nor was he blamed for anything in Scripture; and yet he signifies the devil. Bathshebah was a sinner, and yet she signifies a good thing, namely the Church, as the Gloss notes on 2 Samuel 12, and also the Gloss which is said to explain the figure according to the allegorical sense.

For Urias is interpreted as ‘God my light’, and signifies the devil, who desired the light of divinity; I will be like the Most High (Isa 14:14). Bathshebah is interpreted as ‘seven wells’, or ‘the well of society’; and she signifies the Church, gathered from the gentiles, because of the sevenfold grace of baptism. She first espoused herself to the devil; but David, i.e., Christ, took her away from him, and joined her to himself, and killed the devil. In another way, Bathshebah signifies the law, through whose paths the people were brought in, who did not wish to enter into the house through spiritual understanding, and therefore carried the letter of their own death, because the letter kills (2 Cor 3:6). But David, i.e., Christ, took the law away from the Jews, when he taught that it should be understood spiritually.

59. And Solomon begot Roboam. Now, as David is interpreted ‘strong of hand’, or ‘desirable in appearance’, so Solomon is interpreted ‘peaceful’: and this is right, because out of the strength of good works comes peace of conscience; much peace have they who love your law (Ps 118:165). Now, it happens that out of peace of conscience a man wishes others to come to the good.

Hence Solomon begot Roboam, who is interpreted ‘force’, because the one who has peace of conscience is moved by the force of preaching to spread the name of Christ; as is written about the apostles: when they will rush in unto Jacob, Israel will blossom and bud, and they will fill the face of the world with seed (Isa 27:6).

Moreover, either name signifies Christ, who is himself peace. Similarly, he who converted the people by the force of preaching is himself Roboam.

60. And Roboam begot Abia, who is interpreted ‘God the Father’; because by the fact that a man is eager for the spiritual profit of others, or for the corporeal profit of others through works of mercy, he is made worthy of the fatherhood of God, as is said below: **pray for those who persecute and calumniate you: that you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven **(Matt 5:44). And: be therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful (Luke 6:36).

This also belongs to Christ, to whom it is said: I will be to him a Father, and he will be to me a Son (Heb 1:5).

61. And Abia begot Asa, who is interpreted ‘lifting up’; because sometimes by the fact that a man is made a father and superior to others, he falls into a certain negligence out of security; this is why Abia begot Asa, that is, in order that a man may be continually perfected, and lift himself up toward greater things.

This also belongs to Christ, who is called ‘one lifting up’, i.e., growing; *and the child grew (*Luke 2:40). Or ‘one lifting up’, because he lifts away the sins of the world.

62. And Asa begot Josaphat, who is interpreted ‘one judging’, because when a man is always growing spiritually, he is made one who judges; *but the spiritual man judges all things (*1 Cor 2:15).

And this belongs to Christ, because the Father has given all judgment to the Son (John 5:22).

63. And Josaphat begot Joram, who is interpreted, ‘one dwelling on high’, because he who is made a judge ought to dwell on high; he will dwell on high (Isa 33:16). And the Apostle says how this should be: but our conversation is in heaven (Phil 3:20).

And this belongs to Christ, because he is high above all nations (Ps 112:4).

64. And Joram begot Ozias. Here there is a literal question. For it is said that Joram begot Ochozias (1 Chr 3:11). Now Ochozias begot Joas, and Joas begot Amasias, who is also called Azarias. And Amasias begot Ozias. So the Evangelist seems to have been mistaken in two things. First, because Joram did not beget Ozias, but rather Amasias did; second, because he omits three generations.

And with regard to the first difficulty, one should say that for someone to beget someone can be understood in two ways, mediately and immediately: immediately, as a fleshly father immediately begets his son; and in this way Joram did not beget Ozias. In another way mediately, as we are called sons of Adam; and in this way a son can be said to be begotten by his grandfather or his great grandfather, because he descended from him through an intermediate generation.

65. And as to why he omits three kings, three reasons can be given. First, by Jerome, who says, as it is also written: the Lord visits the sins of the fathers on the third and the fourth generation, on those who are made imitaters of their fathers’ crimes (Exod 20:5). Now, Joram took as a wife the daughter of Jezabel, namely Athalia, who drew him into idolatry. Ochozias was given to idolatry even more than his father. And likewise with Joas, who along with the crime of idolatry also killed Zacharias the son of Joiada; and for this reason these three are excluded from the Christ’s generation, as though unworthy.

Chrysostom gives another reason. For the Lord commanded Jehu the son of Namsi to wipe out the house of Achab (2 Kgs 9); he was diligent in carrying out the command, but still he did not withdraw from the worship of the gods, for he adored molten bulls. And because he diligently performed the command of the Lord by destroying the house of Achab, he was told that his sons would sit on the throne of Israel until the fourth generation; hence as Jehu merited the kingdom of Israel until the third or fourth generation, so in the opposite way Joram, who mixed himself with gentile women, and carried the iniquity of the house of Israel over into the house of Judah, had to lose the name of his posterity in Christ’s genealogy until the fourth generation, expiation for the sin having then been made.

Augustine gives another reason in Questions on the Old and New Testaments. For he says that some men were good, and had good men as fathers, like Isaac and Jacob; some men were evil, and yet had good men as fathers, like Solomon, who was a sinner, and yet had David as a father, a man just and holy; some men were neither good nor had good men as fathers, as were these three, as is clear from what has been said. Joram sinned, and his sin was continued until Ozias, who did almost nothing bad, except that he burned incense; but the continuation of sin is the cause or reason for destruction. And so these three who persisted in the sin of idolatry are excluded from Christ’s genealogy.

66. Moreover, mystically, a reason is given on account of the three fourteens, through which Matthew intended to trace out the genealogy of Christ. Now, Ozias is interpreted ‘strong one of the Lord’; and he signifies Christ, of whom it is said: the Lord is my strength and my praise: and he is become my salvation (Ps 117:14). Further, Joram begot Ozias mystically, because he who dwells on high ought to work strongly.

67. Note that Isaiah prophesied under Ozias, as is clear from: the vision of Isaiah the son of Amos, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Ozias, Joathan, Achaz, and Ezechias, kings of Judah (Isa 1:1). For owing to the sin of the princes, and the kings, and even the people, God took away prophecy and teaching; hence under a good king the flow of prophecy began again.

68. And Ozias begot Joatham, who is interpreted ‘advance’; and he signifies Christ, through whom the Church makes advances daily. And thus well did Ozias beget Joatham, because he who works strongly is continually advancing; they will go from virtue to virtue (Ps 83:8).

69. And Joatham begot Achaz, who is interpreted as ‘one who comprehends’; because through unceasing advance in virtue a man comes to the knowledge of God; by your commandments I have had understanding: therefore have I hated every way of iniquity (Ps 118:104); and they declared the works of God: and understood his doings (Ps 63:10). On account of which Paul says: I follow after, if I may by any means apprehend, wherein I am also apprehended by Christ Jesus (Phil 3:12). And this belongs to Christ, who alone perfectly comprehends the divinity; Matt 11:27, Neither does any one know the Father, but the Son.

70. And Achaz begot Ezechias, that is, ‘strong one of the Lord’; because such a one has strength from the Lord; the Lord is my rock, and my strength, and my savior (2 Sam 22:2). And this belongs to Christ, who is strong in battle (Ps 23:8).

71. And Ezechias begot Manasses, and he is interpreted ‘forgetfulness’, because he who knows God perfectly is forgetful of temporal things; forget your people and your father’s house (Ps 44:11); and he called the name of the first born Manasses, saying, God has made me to forget all my labors, and my father’s house (Gen 41:51).

And this belongs to Christ, of whom it is said: but if the wicked does penance for all his sins which he has committed . . . I will not remember all his iniquities that he has done (Ezek 18:21–22).

72. And Manesses begot Amon, i.e., ‘faithful’ and ‘nourisher’; because he is truly faithful who despises temporal things. For according to Gregory, fraud is the daughter of avarice, and so he who perfectly despises temporal things no longer wishes to be unfaithful. Hence it is right that Manesses begot Amon. He is also interpreted as ‘nourisher’ because he who despises temporal things ought from there to nourish the poor out of mercy; below: if you will be perfect, go sell what you have, behold, the contempt, and give to the poor, behold, the nourishment (Matt 19:21).

And this belongs to Christ, who is truly faithful: the Lord is faithful in all his words (Ps 144:13), and likewise a nourisher: and I was like a nourisher to Ephraim, I carried them in my arms: and they knew not that I healed them (Hos 11:3); and below: how often would I have gathered together your children, as the hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and you would not? (Matt 23:37).

73. And Amon begot Josias, who is interpreted as ‘health of the Lord’, or ‘incense’; because a man obtains health from the fact that that he is forgetful of temporal things and gives or distributes them freely. Or ‘incense’.

This belongs to Christ: he has wrought salvation in the midst of the earth (Ps 73:12); and he offered himself as a sacrifice to God in the odor of sweetness (Eph 5:2).

74. And Josias begot Jechonias and his brethren, who is interpreted as ‘the preparation of the Lord’, or ‘the resurrection’; and he signifies Christ, who prepared a place for us (John 14:2), and who said: I am the resurrection and the life (John 11:25), and through him we come to the resurrection.

75. Now there are three questions here according to the letter. First, it is asked how Josias is said to have begotten Jechonias; and yet he did not beget Jechonias himself, but rather begot his father Joakim.

And to this there are two responses. For according Chrysostom, with whom Augustine agrees, the name Joakim is omitted altogether; and this is because he did not reign by divine ordination, but through the power of Pharaoh, who established him in the kingdom, his first-born brother Joathas who reigned before him having been thrown in prison. And note the history about this (2 Kgs 22; 2 Chr 36). Josias also had three sons: Joathas, Joakim, who was also called Eliakim, and Sedecias. For if, as Augustine says, those three kings were removed from the genealogy because they were corrupted by idolotry, how much more this man, who was not established in the kingdom by God, or by a prophet, but was placed there by a gentile man?

This opinion is not what Jerome says, since he would have it, and Ambrose agrees with him, that both are called Joakim, both he who is placed at the end of the fourteen, and he who is placed in the beginning of the third, and that both Jechonias and Joakim are the same. Hence one should note that Josias had three sons: Joakim, who was also called Eliakim, Joathas, and Sedecias. Josias having died, Joathas reigned in his stead, that is, the middle son. When he was captured by Pharaoh the king of Egypt and thrown in prison, Pharaoh established his brother Joakim, the first-born, as king, imposing a tribute on him. Later, Nabuchodonosor the king of Babylon, having defeated the king of Egypt, laid siege to Jerusalem, and captured Joachim, whom he released into Jerusalem under tribute.

But later, when Joakim wished to rebel against the king of Babylon, relying on the help of the king of Egypt, Nabuchodonosor went up to Jerusalem and captured and killed him, and established his son Joachim in his stead, whom he named Jechonias as well, with the name of his father. After he had done this, Nabuchodonosor, fearing that he would remember his father’s death and make an alliance with the king of Egypt, returned to Jerusalem and besieged her; and Jechonias, or Joachim, namely the son of the other, gave himself up to Nabuchodonosor on the advice of Jeremiah, together with his wife and children; and these are properly said to have transmigrated in the transmigration. But Nabuchodonosor established Sedecias the brother of his father as his king, and led Joachim himself into Babylon; and it is he of whom it is said afterwards: and after the transmigration (Matt 1:12).

76. But why was he named Jechonias, since his name was Joachim?

And one should say that this name was given by a prophet, namely by Jeremiah; as I live, says the Lord, if Jechonias the son of Joakim the king of Judah were a ring on my right hand, I would pluck him thence (Jer 22:24); and below: *is this man Jechonias an earthen and a broken vessel? (*Jer 22:28). And so the Evangelist prefers to name him this way, so that the Evangelist might be seen to be in harmony with the prophet.

77. Notice also that although the name is the same, still it is written in different ways. For the name of the first Joakim is written with a ‘k’, and seems to be said Joakim; but the name of the second is written with a ghimel, and hence is said Joachim; and so they have different interpretations. For the first is interpreted as ‘the resurrection’, the second as ‘the preparation of the Lord’.

78. Second, it is asked why it says, Jechonias and his brethren. For there were many of the kings who had brothers, but it never speaks or makes mention of the brothers.

And one should say, according to Ambrose, that wherever mention is made of brothers, as when it says, Judas and his brethren, and Phares and Zara of Thamar, this indicates that they were equal in sanctity or wickedness. Now, these three were wicked.

In another way, one can say that it is because each of these brothers reigned, as is clear from what has been said, but this was not the case with the brothers of the other kings.

79. Third, there is a question concerning what is said about the deportation. It seems to be false, because Josias was never deported.

And one should say that this should be taken according to God’s foreknowledge, according to which it had been ordained that those who were begotten at that time should be deported. Or, one should say that after the transmigration is the same as near the deportation, or with the deportation already drawing near.