Lecture 4 — Babylonian exile to Christ

^1:12^ And after the transmigration of Babylon, Jechonias begot Salathiel. And Salathiel begot Zorobabel. [n. 80]

^1:13^ And Zorobabel begot Abiud. And Abiud begot Eliacim. And Eliacim begot Azor. [n. 84]

^1:14^ And Azor begot Sadoc. And Sadoc begot Achim. And Achim begot Eliud. [n. 85]

^1:15^ And Eliud begot Eleazar. And Eleazar begot Mathan. And Mathan begot Jacob. [n. 86]

^1:16^ And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. [n. 92]

^1:17^ So all the generations, from Abraham to David, are fourteen generations. And from David to the transmigration of Babylon are fourteen generations: and from the transmigration of Babylon to Christ are fourteen generations. [n. 98]

^1:18^ But the generation of Christ was thus: when his mother, Mary, was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Spirit. [n. 102]

^1:19^ Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to expose her publicly, wanted to put her away privately. [n. 114]

^1:20^ But while he thought on these things, behold the angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take unto you Mary your wife, for he who is born in her, is of the Holy Spirit. [n. 119]

^1:21^ And she will bring forth a son: and you will call his name Jesus. For he will save his people from their sins. [n. 134]

80. Here he sets out the third fourteen of Christ’s generation, which proceeds through private persons.

As was said above, there are two opinions about this man Jechonias. For Jerome and Ambrose would have it that there is one man who is placed in the end of the first fourteen and is called Joakim, and another who is called Joachim. According to Augustine, however, see above.

For the transmigration of the sons of Israel signifies the transfer of the faith to the gentiles; to you it behoved us first to speak the word of God (Acts 13:46). In the transmigration there happened so to speak a certain return of the Jews to the gentiles. Hence it was established as a certain corner, so to speak; and for this reason, this man Jechonias signifies Christ, who was made the cornerstone, joining in himself both peoples, the Jews and the gentiles; the stone which the builders rejected; the same is become the head of the corner (Ps 117:22).

81. But there is a question here: write this man, Sedecias, barren, a man that will not prosper in his days: for there will not be a man of his seed that will sit upon the throne of David (Jer 22:30). So how is Christ said to have descended from David through Sedecias, since it is written of Christ: he will sit upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom? (Isa 9:2)

And one should say, according to Ambrose, that since Christ is said to sit above the throne, this is understood as concerning a spiritual kingdom, not a corporeal one, except insofar as the spiritual is signified through the corporeal kingdom of David.

82. And Salathiel begot Zorobabel. On the contrary: it is said that the sons of Jechonias were Asir, Salathiel, and Melchiram, and Phadaia (1 Chr 3:17). And Phadaia had sons, Zorobabel and Semei; but of Abiud no mention is made at all. So it seems that the Evangelist speaks badly, saying that Salathiel begot Zorobabel, and that Zorobabel begot Abiud.

The Gloss responds to this in three ways. One response is that in the book of Chronicles many things are corrupted by the fault of the scribes, and principally in those things which pertain to numbers and names. Hence the Apostle forbids any attention being given to those corrupted generations, which bring in more questions than usefulness (1 Tim 1:4).

There is another response, that Salathiel had two names; for he was called Salathiel and Caphadara; and hence the book of Chronicles calls Zorobabel the son of Capha, and the Evangelist calls him the son of Salathiel. Therefore there is no contrariety.

There is a third response, and a truer one, that Salathiel and Caphadara were brothers, as is said in the book of Chronicles. Now, Caphadara begot a son whom he named by the same name, i.e., Zorobabel, and this man begot Abiud. It should also be said that the Book of Chronicles tells the genealogy of this Capha; the Evangelist tells the generation of Salathiel, because Christ was to be born from him.

83. Now it should be noted that no mention is made in the books of Sacred Scripture of those who were from Abiud to Joseph, but they were taken from the annals of the Hebrews, which for the most part Herod burned to hide the ignobility of his own ancestry. The meaning of the letter is clear here.

84. Let us pursue the mystical sense.

Note then that in this part of the genealogy three orders are placed. The first is the order of teachers, and it contains four generations.

For preparation is required before prayer: before prayer prepare your soul (Sir 18:23); and hence from Jechonias, who is interpreted as ‘the preparation of the Lord’, comes Salathiel, who is interpreted as ‘my prayer’; and he indicates Christ, who in all things was heard because of his reverence (Heb 5:7).

Now prayer ought to precede teaching: and pray for me, that speech may be given me, that I may open my mouth with confidence (Eph 6:19); and so Salathiel is followed by Zorobabel, who is interpreted ‘the teacher of Babel’, i.e., ‘of confusion’; because through the doctrine and preaching of the apostles the nations were called back to the true God, and this was to the confusion of idolatry; and this belongs principally to Christ, who says: you call me Master, and Lord; and you say well, for so I am (John 13:13).

Further, through teaching and preaching a man acquires the dignity of a father; hence they are called fathers of those who are spiritually instructed: for if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the Gospel, we are sons (1 Cor 4:15). And so there follows Zorobabel begot Abiud, who is interpreted as ‘my father’; and this belongs to Christ; he will cry out to me: you are my father (Ps 88:27).

85. And Abiud begot Eliacim. Here the order of beginners, i.e., of listeners, is indicated.

Now the first thing which comes about in the listener through preaching, and that at which the preacher should aim, is that he rise again from vices to virtues: rise you who sleep (Eph 5:14); and so Abiud begot Eliacim, who is interpreted as ‘the resurrection’; and this belongs to Christ, who says, he who believes in me, has everlasting life (John 6:47).

Now, the one rising again cannot attain to the state of justice except through the help of God; and therefore, after he has risen, a man needs the help of God: my help is from the Lord (Ps 120:2); and so there follows Eliacim begot Azor, who is interpreted as ‘one helped’. And this also belongs to Christ, of whom it is said: be my helper . . . O God my Savior (Ps 26:9). And through this help one comes to justice; hence Azor begot Sadoc, who is interpreted as ‘the just’; the justice of God, by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe in him (Rom 3:22).

Further, the consummation of justice, or the end, is charity: the end of justice is Christ; the end of the commandment is charity (1 Tim 1:5). There are only two commandments, namely the love of God and the love of neighbor; and this commandment we have from God, that he, who loves God, love also his brother (1 John 4:21). And therefore Sadoc is followed by Achim, and Achim by Eliud. Achim is interpreted as ‘my brother’; hence he signifies love of neighbor; behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell in unity (Ps 132:1). This belongs to Christ, who is our flesh and our brother. And because love of neighbor cannot be without love of God, there follows Achim begot Eliud. Eliud is interpreted as ‘my God’; I will love you, O Lord (Ps 17:2); and this belongs to Christ: you are my God (Ps 30:15).

86. Eliud begot Eleazar. Here the order of proficients is indicated.

Now, one cannot advance without the help of God; hence the first thing required for advancing is the help of God; and so Eliud is rightly followed by Eleazar, who is interpreted ‘God my helper’; blessed is the man whose help is from you (Ps 83:6). But since God can help one toward health in many ways, as by removing obstacles and providing occasions, the most powerful of helps is through the gift of his grace; but by the grace of God, I am what I am (1 Cor 15:10). And so Eleazar, i.e., the help of God, is followed by Mathan, who is interpreted as ‘gift’, namely the gift of divine grace; and this belongs to Christ, who is also one who gives; for God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son (John 3:16); he gave gifts to men (Eph 4:8). But because a man can have so much confidence in the gift of grace that he falls into negligence, by not cooperating with grace through free judgment, there follows Jacob, who is interpreted as ‘wrestler’; on account of this it is said: but by the grace of God, I am what I am, and then follows, his grace in me has not been void (1 Cor 15:10); and we helping do exhort you, that you receive not the grace of God in vain (2 Cor 6:1). Further, there now follows Joseph, i.e., ‘increase’, because a man comes to increase through grace and the effort of the free judgment; but the path of the just, as a shining light, goes forwards and increases even to perfect day (Prov 4:18). Hence Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary.

87. But here there arises a twofold question. For first, there is a question about a seeming contrariety between Luke and Matthew; for Luke says that Joseph was of Heli, who was of Mathat (Luke 3:23); but Matthew says that he was of Jacob; so there seems to be a contrariety between them.

But to this it should be said that there were two of the same root, but not of the same family, namely Mathan and Mathat. For they were from the root of David, but one descended from the root of David through Solomon, namely Mathan; the other descended through Nathan, namely Mathat. So Mathan took a wife by the name of Hesta, out of whom he begot Jacob; Mathan having died, since the law did not prohibit a widow from marrying, she married his cousin Mathat, who begot Heli from her. Hence Jacob and Heli were brothers from the same mother, but not from the same father. Now, Heli took a wife, and died without children; hence Jacob, that he might raise up seed for his brother, took the same wife, and begot Joseph. Hence Joseph was the son of Jacob according to the flesh, but the son of Heli according to adoption. And so Matthew, who places in the genealogy of Christ only the fathers according to the flesh, says that Joseph was the son of Jacob; but Luke, who places many in the genealogy who were not fathers according to the flesh, says that he was the son of Heli. The reason for this difference was stated above.

88. But it should be noted that when a brother took the wife of his brother to sustain his name, it should not be taken in such a way that the son who was begotten would be called by the name of the dead brother; for Booz who took Ruth, that he might raise up seed for Elimelech, begot a son who was not called Elimelech, but Obed; but he is said to sustain his name to this extent, that the son is attributed to him according to law. Nor is this unfitting, because, as is said in Church History, the apostles and evangelists themselves were taught by the immediate parents of Christ about the genealogy of Christ, who held it in their hearts partly by memory, and partly from the aforementioned books of the Chronicles.

89. The second question is this: Matthew intended to write down the generation of Christ. So since Christ was not the son of Joseph, but only of Mary, why was it necessary to trace the generation of Christ from Abraham to Joseph?

To which it should be said that it was the custom among the Jews, and is so even today, to take a wife from one’s own tribe, hence it is said that all men will marry wives of their own tribe and kindred (Num 36:7). And although this was not observed out of necessity, still it was observed by custom. Hence Joseph took Mary his wife as the one closest to himself. And so, since they were of the same stock, from the fact that Joseph is shown to have descended from David, Mary and Christ are shown to have been of the seed of David as well.

90. But how can it be known that Joseph and Mary were of the same tribe? It is clear from what is said in Luke, because when there was to be an enrollment, Joseph and Mary went up into the city of David, which is Bethlehem (Luke 2:4). Hence by fact that he brought her with him, it is clear that they were of the same family.

91. But it is asked why he did not show the generation of Christ from David through Mary.

It should be said that it is not the custom among the Hebrews, nor even among the gentiles, to put together a genealogy through women; hence Christ, who had come for the salvation of man, wished in this to imitate or observe the customs of men; and so his genealogy is not traced through women, especially since his genealogy can be known through men without risk to the truth.

92. The husband of Mary. Jerome: when you hear ‘husband’, let not a suspicion of nuptials arise.

On the contrary: was there not a true marriage? One should say so, because the three goods of marriage were present: children, God himself; faith, because neither committed adultery; and the sacrament, because of the indivisible conjoining of souls.

What then should be said? This statement of Jerome’s is understood as regarding the completion of marriage, which is bodily union. Now, he is named the husband of Mary, as Augustine says, that the marriage might be shown to be between those continuing in a mutual vow.

93. But how was there a marriage? For a vow impedes the contracting of matrimony and breaks off the thing contracted. Since therefore the Blessed Virgin vowed virginity, it seems that there would have been no marriage.

Furthermore, if there was a marriage, she consented to a bodily union.

But one should say that the Blessed Virgin was hard pressed between two things: for on the one hand she was pressed by the curse of the law, to which the infertile woman was subject; on the other hand, she was pressed by the plan of serving chastity; and so she planned on virginity, unless the Lord should arrange otherwise; hence she entrusted herself to the divine arrangement.

To what is said, that she consented to a bodily union, one should say that she did not; she consented to marriage directly, but to a bodily union implicitly, so to speak, if God should will it.

94. Of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. Here two errors are excluded. One, which says that Christ was the son of Joseph; and this is excluded by the fact that it says de qua. For if he had been the son of Joseph, it would have said de quo, or at least de quibus.

The other error is also excluded, namely the error of Valentinus, who said that Christ did not take up a body from the Blessed Virgin, but rather brought a body down from heaven, and passed through the Blessed Virgin as through a canal. Against this is what is said here, of whom. For if it were as he says, the Evangelist would not have said of whom, but through whom, or by whom, or out of whom, or something like this. For this preposition ‘of’ always specifies consubstantiality; but not this preposition ‘out of’; hence one can say, out of the morning comes the day, and that the box proceeds out of the builder; but one never says of the builder. Hence by that fact that he says of, he specifies that the body of Christ was formed of the body of the Blessed Virgin; God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law (Gal 4:4).

95. Here one must beware the error of Nestorius, who placed two persons in Christ, and so did not admit that God was born, or suffered; nor did he attribute to a man the other things which belong to God, such as to be eternal, or to have created the stars. Hence in a certain letter of his he takes this Scriptural text as a confirmation of his own error: of whom was born Jesus, it does not say God, but Jesus, which is the name of a man, and Christ.

But according to this there would be no union in Christ, nor would Christ be called one.

96. Hence note that in Christ, since there came about a union of two natures in one person, there also came about a communication of idioms, so that those things which belong to God are attributed to a man, and vice versa. And whatever example can be taken from two accidents in one subject: a fruit is called white and tasty; and it is called white with regard to the tasty, for the reason that the fruit is white, and vice versa.

97. Who is called Christ. Note: he is called Christ simply, with nothing added, to mark that he is anointed with an invisible oil, not with a material oil as were the kings or the prophets in the law. God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows (Ps 44:8).

98. So all the generations. The generation of Christ having been set down, here he concludes the number of the generations; and he divides them into three fourteens.

The first fourteen is from Abraham to David, inclusively, I mean so that David is included in the first fourteen; and so this is all the generations. The second fourteen is extended from David exclusively, I mean so that David is not numbered, but rather it begins from Solomon, and ends at the transmigration of Babylon; and this is and from David to the transmigration of Babylon. The third begins from the transmigration of Babylon and ends in Christ, so that Christ is the fourteenth.

99. But it is asked why the Evangelist so diligently and attentively distinguished the generation of Christ into three fourteens.

Chrysostom gives a reason: because in these three fourteens some change always happens in the people of Israel. For in the first fourteen they were under leaders; in the second, under the kings; in the third, under the high priests; for the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king (Isa 33:22). And it says about his priesthood: you are a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech (Ps 109:4).

He gives another reason, namely to show the necessity of the coming of Christ. For in the first fourteen they asked for a king against the will of God, and went against the law. Moreover, in the second fourteen they were led into captivity. But in the third we were liberated from all guilt, and misery, and from the spiritual servitude of sin through Christ.

Jerome gives a third reason, that through these three fourteens are indicated three times in which the life of all men is led. For the time before the law is signified by the first fourteen, because some fathers who were before the law are placed in it; the time under the law is indicated by the second fourteen, because all those who are put there are under the law; and the time of grace is indicated by the third fourteen, because it ends at Christ, through whom came grace and truth (John 1:17).

100. This distinction also fits together with a mystery, because fourteen is a number composed out of four and ten. So by ten the Old Testament is understood, which was given in ten commandments. And by four is understood the Gospel, which is distinguished into four books. Moreover, the three fourteens indicate the faith of the Trinity. Hence by the fact that Matthew divides the genealogy into three fourteens, he indicates that through the New and the Old Testament we come to Christ in the faith of the Trinity.

101. Now there are three opinions about the number of the generations. For according to Jerome, who says that the Jechonias at the end of the first fourteen and the Jechonias in the beginning of the second are different, there are forty-two generations; for three fourteens makes that many. But according to Augustine there are only forty-one; and Christ himself is the one.

And this harmonizes with a mystery. For the number forty arises from four led into ten, and vice versa. Now, according to the Platonists, four is the number of the body, for the body is composed of four elements; but ten is the number which arises from the addition of the linear numbers: for one, two, three, and four make ten. And because he intended to explain how Christ descended linearly to us, he came to Christ through forty generations. But Luke, who intended to set forth the priestly dignity, to which pertains the expiation of sins below: I do not say to you, till seven times; but till seventy times seven times (Matt 18:22), sets down seventy-seven generations; for this number arises from seven led into eleven, for seven elevens are seventy-seven. So through eleven the breaking of the ten commandments is understood, and through seven the sevenfold grace, through which comes the remission of sins.

But that there are forty-two generations according to Jerome does not lack a mystery either, because through those two the two precepts of charity are understood; or the two Testaments, the Old and the New.

102. But the generation of Christ was thus. Having set down the genealogy of Christ in general, here he describes his generation in particular. And it is divided into three parts.

First, he sets down a certain title;

second, the Evangelist describes the manner of the generation, at when his mother, Mary, was espoused to Joseph;

third, he confirms the manner of the generation, at whereupon Joseph her husband.

103. So he says, but the generation of Christ was thus. This is read in two ways. For according to Chrysostom it is as it were a certain prologue to what will be said; but according to Remigius it is a certain epilogue to what was said before. In the first way, it is read thus: this was recounted about the genealogy of Christ, how Abraham begot Isaac through bodily mingling, but the generation of Christ was thus, supply: as will be said in what follows. In the second way, it is read so as to be an epilogue to what comes before: Abraham, and in this way until Christ. Now the generation of Christ was thus, supply: so as to extend from Abraham through David to Christ.

104. Next, he describes the manner of the generation;

and first he describes the person generating, when he says, when as his mother Mary was espoused;

second, he describes the very generation of Christ, when he says, before they came together, she was found with child;

third, he describes the author of the generation, of the Holy Spirit.

He describes the person generating by three things.

First, by condition, when he says, espoused to Joseph;

second, by dignity, his mother;

third, by proper name, Mary.

105. He says then, when as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph.

But here a question arises at once. Since Christ wished to be born of a virgin, why did he wish his mother to be espoused?

According to Jerome, three reasons are given. The first is so that the testimony of her virginity might be believable. For if she had not been espoused, and had said that she was a virgin while she was pregnant, she would seem to say this for no other reason than to hide the crime of adultery. But since she had been espoused, she had no need to lie. And therefore it would be more worthy of belief from her; your testimonies are become exceedingly credible (Ps 92:5). Another reason is so that she would have the protection of a man, both when she fled into Egypt and when she returned from there. The third was so that his birth would be hidden from the devil, lest he should impede Christ’s passion and the fruit of our redemption if he knew; for if they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory (1 Cor 2:8); this is interpreted as concerning the demon, i.e., he would not have permitted Christ to be crucified.

106. On the contrary, did not the devil know whether she was a virgin? For her virginity in her body was not corrupted. So the devil could know that she was a virgin.

But one should say, according to Ambrose, who also gives this reason, that some things are possible to the devil by the subtility of his nature which nevertheless are only possible by divine permission. Hence the devil would have known her virginity, if he had not been divinely restrained from diligent examination.

According to Ambrose, three reasons are given. The first is for the sake of the honor of the Lord’s mother, which had to be preserved; the Lord preferred that men have doubts about his own origin rather than about the chastity of his mother. And so he wished her to be espoused, so that the suspicion of adultery would be taken away, for he came to fulfill the law, not to destroy it; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill (Matt 5:17); honor your father and your mother (Exod 20:12). Another reason is so that, once her virginity was recorded, an excuse would be taken away from the adulterer; for if the mother of the Lord had not been espoused, and yet was pregnant, they could in a similar manner excuse themselves through her. Incline not my heart to evil words; to make excuses in sins (Ps 140:4). The third reason is because Christ espoused to himself the Church, which is a virgin; for I have espoused you to one husband that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ (2 Cor 11:2). And so he wished to be born of an espoused virgin as a sign that he espoused the Church to himself.

107. When his mother, Mary, was espoused. To whom? To Joseph.

According to Chrysostom, Joseph was a craftsman, a carpenter; and he signifies Christ, who through the wood of the cross restored all things, heavenly.

108. His mother, i.e., God’s mother. Here her dignity is shown, for it is not permitted to any creature, neither man nor angel, that he should be the father or the mother of God, but this was a privilege of singular grace, that she should become the mother not only of a man, but of God; and so it is said, a woman clothed with the sun (Rev 12:1), as though entirely filled with divinity. Nestorius denied this, because the divinity was not taken from the Virgin. Against which Ignatius Martyr used a beautiful example to show that she was the mother of God. It is agreed, he said, that in the generation of common men the woman is called the mother; and yet the mother does not give the rational soul, which is from God, but rather supplies the substance for the formation of the body. So in this way the woman is called the mother of the whole man because that which is taken from her is united to the rational soul. Similarly, since the humanity of Christ was taken from the Blessed Virgin, the Blessed Virgin is called the mother not only of a man, but also of God, on account of the union with the divinity, although the divinity is not taken from her, just as the rational soul is not taken from the mother in others.

109. Mary, her proper name. It is interpreted as ‘star of the sea’, or ‘illuminatrix’, and by her own language ‘Lady’, whence in Rev 12:1 a moon is described as under her feet.

110. Before they came together.

Here Helvidius objected: if this was before they came together, then at sometime they came together. Hence he denied the virginity of Christ’s mother; not before the birth, nor during the birth, but after the birth he says that she was known by a man.

And Jerome responds that, without a doubt, this before which is said here always brings in an order to the future. But this can be in either of two ways: either according to ratio, or according to the intellect’s reception. For if it be said, before I was eating in the port of Rome, I sailed to Africa, it should not be understood that after I sailed to Africa I ate; but that I had proposed to eat, and being prevented by the sailing I did not eat. And so it is here. It should not be understood in this way, that afterward they really came together, as that impious man says; but that by the very fact that she was espoused to him according to common opinion, it was lawful for them to come together, although they never did come together.

Remigius explains it in another way, so that it is understood of the solemn celebration of nuptials; for beforehand she was and remained for some days espoused, and meanwhile the spouse was not under the man’s care; but after the solemn celebration of the nuptials happened, then she was led to the man’s home. It is of these nuptials that the Evangelist speaks here. And according to this the objection of Helvidius has no place.

She was found with child. Notice the character of the word: for that is properly called ‘found’ about which one neither hopes nor supposes; and Joseph had only an opinion about the chastity of Mary, because, contrary to his expectation, it happened that he found her pregnant.

111. She was found with child, supply by Joseph himself, who, as Jerome says, with marital freedom was searching out almost all her secrets. Of the Holy Spirit. Here the Author of the conception is touched upon.

Now, this should be read separately from that which comes before. For it should not be read or understood that Joseph found her with child of the Holy Spirit, but only that he found her pregnant. And lest there arise meanwhile in the hearers a suspicion of adultery, he added of the Holy Spirit, i.e., of the power of the Holy Spirit, not of the substance, nor should he be thought to be the son of the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you (Luke 1:35).

112. Now, although according to St. Augustine the works of the Trinity are indivisible, and not only the Holy Spirit brought about the conception, but the Father and the Son as well, nevertheless it is attributed to the Holy Spirit by a certain appropriation. And this is for three reasons. The first reason is that the Holy Spirit is love: and this is a sign of the greatest love, that God willed that his own Son should be incarnated; for God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son (John 3:16). Second, because grace is attributed to the Holy Spirit; now there are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit (1 Cor 12:4); and this was the greatest grace. The third reason is given in the acts of the Nicene Council, and is that there are two words in us: that of the heart, and that of the voice. The word of the heart is the very concept of the intellect, which is hidden to men, except insofar as it is expressed through the voice, or through the word of the voice. Now, the word of the heart is compared to the eternal Word before the incarnation, when he was with the Father and hidden to us; but the word of the voice is compared to the incarnate Word which then appeared to us and was manifest. But the word of the heart is not joined to the word of the voice except by the mediation of the spirit; and therefore the incarnation of the Word, through which he appeared visibly to us, is rightly done by the mediation of the Spirit.

113. Note here four reasons why Christ wished to be born of a virgin. The first of the four was that original sin is contracted in a child from the mingling of a man and a woman; hence if Christ had been born of the conjugal act, he would have contracted original sin. But this would be unfitting, since he had come into the world to take away our sins; hence he should not have been infected by the touch of sin.

Second, because Christ was a particular teacher of chastity; below: there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven (Matt 19:12).

Third, on account of purity and modesty. *For wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins (*Wis 1:4). Hence it was proper that the womb of his mother be polluted by no corruption.

Fourth, on account of the special character of the Word; because just as the Word comes forth from the heart without corruption of the heart, so Christ wished to be born of a virgin without corruption of the virgin.

114. Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man. Having set out the mode of the generation, here he confirms it by testimony. For since the Evangelist had said above that the mother of Jesus was found with child, and that this was of the Holy Spirit, someone could think that the Evangelist had set this to favor his Teacher; so the Evangelist confirms here the manner of generation mentioned before.

And first, by a prophetic foretelling, **now all this was done **(Matt 1:22);

second, by the angelic revelation, at, **and Joseph rising up from sleep **(Matt 1:24).

In the first part, there are three things.

First, the person to whom the revelation was made is introduced;

second, the person revealing is introduced, at, but while he thought on these things, behold the angel of the Lord appeared to him;

third, the words of the revelation are set out, at Joseph, son of David.

115. Now the person to whom the revelation was made is commended by two things, namely by the fact that he is just, and therefore would not lie; second by the fact that he is the spouse, or husband, and therefore would not suffer a crime in her; the jealousy and rage of the husband will not spare in the day of revenge (Prov 6:34).

So he speaks in this way: she was found by Joseph, to be with child, but Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to expose her publicly.

Here there are two opinions of the saints, namely that of Ambrose and that of Augustine.

116. For Augustine would have it that Joseph, who was not present when the angelic announcement was made, returning and finding her pregnant, had a suspicion of adultery.

But then right away a question arises: how was he just, if he did not wish to hand over her whom he suspected of adultery, i.e., to make her crime known? For by this he seemed to consent to her sin, and it is said that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do it, but they also that consent to them that do (Rom 1:32).

But there are three responses to this. The first is, following Chrysostom, that justice is twofold: for there is one justice which is a cardinal virtue, which is called special justice; another is legal justice, which includes all virtues: piety, and mercy, and such. So when it is said that Joseph was just, this should be understood of justice in general, as justice is taken for piety. Hence since he was just, i.e., pious, he did not wish to hand her over. Another response is that of Augustine, who says that sin is twofold, namely hidden sin and manifest sin; for hidden sin should not be publicly disclosed, but a remedy should be applied to it in some other way. So the suspicion of adultery which Joseph had was a suspicion of a hidden sin, and not of a manifest one, because he alone knew; and again, if others were to know that she was pregnant, they could only suppose that it was from him. And therefore her crime ought not to have been made known. The third response is that of Rabanus, that Joseph was both just and pious, for by the fact that he did not wish to make her crime known, he was pious, but by the fact that he wished to send her away, he appeared just; for he knew that he who keeps an adulteress, is foolish and wicked (Prov 18:22).

117. But according to Jerome and Origen, he had no suspicion of adultery. For Joseph knew Mary’s chastity; he had read in the Scriptures that a virgin will conceive (Isa 7:14), and, 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); he also knew that Mary was descended from David. Hence he more easily believed that this had been fulfilled in her than that she had fornicated. And therefore, considering himself unworthy to live with such great sanctity, he wished to hide her away, just as Peter said, depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord (Luke 5:8). Hence he did not wish to hand her over, i.e., to take her to himself, and receive her in marriage, considering himself unworthy.

Or according to the opinion of others, not knowing the end, lest he be held accountable if he were to conceal it, and keep her with himself.

118. But while he thought on these things. Here he introduces the person revealing. And he touches upon three things.

For first, he touches upon the time;

second, the person revealing is introduced, behold the angel of the Lord;

third, the mode of the revelation is expressed, appeared to him in his sleep.

119. So he says, but while he thought on these things, i.e., while he turned these things over in his mind, behold the angel of the Lord appeared.

Notice that two things are commended here about Joseph, namely wisdom and mercy. Wisdom indeed in the fact that he deliberated before he acted; let your eyes look straight on, and let your eyelids go before your steps (Prov 4:25): this means, do nothing without the judgment and deliberation of reason. Similarly, mercy or piety in the fact that he did not make known or proclaim her deed, as opposed to many men who want to announce immediately that which they have in their heart; as a city that lies open and is not compassed with walls, so is a man that cannot refrain his own spirit in speaking (Prov 25:28).

And therefore he deserved to be instructed, or consoled.

120. Hence follows behold the angel of the Lord appeared, the help of God being, so to speak, ready at hand; and the Lord is become . . . a helper in due time in tribulation (Ps 9:10); for behold God is my helper: and the Lord is the protector of my soul (Ps 53:6).

The angel of the Lord, for none could better excuse her than he who was aware of her protected virginity. Hence that same angel who was sent to Mary (Luke 1:26), is believed to have been sent to Joseph; the angel of the Lord will encamp round about them (Ps 33:8), namely Mary and Joseph, so as to rescue her from infamy, and so as not to abandon Joseph in turmoil.

121. But here it is asked why a revelation was not made to Joseph from the beginning, before he was disturbed in this way.

Similarly, why did not Mary reveal to him the angelic announcement which had been made to her?

And to the first, one should say that this was done so that his testimony would be more believable. For as the Lord permitted the apostle Thomas to doubt his resurrection, so that he might touch, and touching, believe, and by believing he might remove the wound of unbelief in us; in the same way the Lord permitted Joseph to doubt the chastity of Mary so that, doubting, he might receive the angelic revelation, and by receiving it believe more firmly.

To the second question it should be said that if Mary had spoken to him, he would not have believed her.

122. Appeared to him in his sleep: behold, the mode of revelation.

Note that to appear is proper to that which of its own nature is invisible, yet has it within its power that it be seen, as is God, or an angel; for those things which have it of their own nature that they are seen are not properly said to appear. Hence it is called a divine apparition, or an angelic apparition. Hence this is properly spoken.

123. Appeared to him in his sleep.

But here it is asked, why in his sleep?

And a reason is given in the Gloss, namely that Joseph was in a certain way doubting; hence he was in a certain way sleeping, so to speak, and therefore rightly is the angel said to have appeared to him in his sleep.

Another and better reason can be given, for as the Apostle says, tongues are for a sign, not to believers, but to unbelievers; but prophecies not to unbelievers, but to believers (1 Cor 14:22). Now a revelation, which is called a prophecy, properly happens in sleep; if there be among you a prophet of the Lord, I will appear to him in a vision, or I will speak to him in a dream (Num 12:6); and so since Joseph was just and faithful, there should have come to him, as to one who is faithful, an apparition, as befits those who believe; that is, a prophetic revelation, as it were. Since indeed a bodily apparition is miraculous, such an apparition did not befit him, since he believed, and was faithful.

124. But then it is asked why a visible apparition was made to Mary, since she was most faithful.

And one should say that the mystery of the incarnation was revealed to the Virgin Mary in the beginning, when it was most difficult to believe; and so it was necessary that a visible apparition be made to her. However, it was not revealed to Joseph in the beginning, but rather when it was for the most part completed already, since he already saw her womb to have grown big; hence he was more easily able to believe, and so an apparition which came in his sleep was enough for him.

125. Joseph, son of David. Here the words of the revelation are set down; and it is divided into three parts, according to the three things which the angel does.

For first, he forbids the separation of Mary and Joseph;

second, he opens the mystery of the incarnation, when he says, he who is born in her, is of the Holy Spirit;

third, he foretells the future service of Joseph himself, namely that which he showed to the child, at she will bring forth a son.

126. He says then, Joseph. He calls him so as to render him attentive for listening, and so as to recall him to himself. This is common in the Scriptures, namely that when an apparition is sent which is from someone higher, he seeks in the hearer a certain elevation of the mind, and attention; son of man, stand upon your feet, and I will speak to you (Ezek 2:1). And below that, but you, O son of man, hear all that I say to you: and do not provoke me. And: I will stand upon my watch, and fix my foot upon the tower: and I will watch, to see what will be said to me (Hab 2:1).

127. Son of David. He pronounced the name of the family so that he might ward off that which is said: hear therefore, O house of David: is it a small thing for you to be grievous to men, that you are grievous to my God also? (Isa 7:13). For the sign was given not to one person, but to an entire tribe or house; hence because he was supposed to instruct him about this, Joseph is commanded by the pronunciation of his family name to recall to remember the prophet’s saying.

128. Do not fear. Every apparition, whether it be of a good angel or a bad one, instills a certain fear; and this is because such an apparition is against the custom and outside the nature of man, so to speak, and so it places a man outside of himself, so to speak. But there is this difference, that the apparition of a bad angel instills terror, and leaves a man in that terror, namely to draw the man placed as it were outside of himself more easily to sin; but in the apparition of a good angel, although it instills terror, yet at once an end of the terror is given, and a gain in consolation, namely that the man might be led back into himself, and attend to what is said to him. Hence in Luke, where it says that an angel appeared to Zachary, there follows at once, do not fear, Zachary, and likewise in the same chapter, do not fear, Mary (Luke 1:13, 30).

129. Hence after the apparition Joseph is given consolation at once. He had a twofold fear, namely of God and also of sin, that is, he feared lest he should sin by living with Mary as if co-aware of sin, and so next is added fear not, namely with a dread of sin, to take unto you Mary your wife.

Note that wife is said, not on account of matrimony, but on account of espousal; for it is the custom of Scripture both to call the espoused married, and the married espoused.

130. But it is asked, how he could command Joseph to take her, since he had not sent her away?

And one should say that although he had not sent her away bodily, nevertheless he had sent her away in his soul; and therefore he is commanded to take her. Or do not fear to take her as regards the solemnity and the celebration of nuptials.

131. For he who is born in her, is of the Holy Spirit. Here he opens the mystery of the incarnation.

And notice that since three things were there, namely the Virgin conceiving, the Son of God conceived, and the active power of the Holy Spirit, the angel expressed two of them well, namely the one conceiving and the author of the conception; but the third, the Son of God conceived, he only expresses indefinitely: for he who, he says, is born in her, and this is done to indicate that he is ineffable and incomprehensible, not only to men, but even to the angels. He who, he says, is born in her, he does not say, of her, because to be born of a mother is to advance into the light, while to be born in a mother is to be conceived, is of the Holy Spirit.

So this is the angelic testimony which the Evangelist brings in to confirm what he had said, that she was found with child, of the Holy Spirit.

132. Note that in the conception of other women, the formative power is in the seed of the man, the subject of which power is the seed, and through this power the fetus is formed and enlivened in the body of the woman. But the Holy Spirit supplied this. And for this reason the saints are sometimes found to say that the Holy Spirit was there instead of seed, while sometimes they say that no seed was there. And this is because there are two things in the seed of a man, namely the corrupted substance which comes down from the body of the man, and the formative power itself.

It should be said therefore that the Holy Spirit was instead of seed as regards the formative power; but he was not there instead of seed as regards bodily substance, because neither the flesh of Christ nor his conception was made from the substance of the Holy Spirit. And so it is clear that the Holy Spirit cannot be called the father of Christ, because he is a father neither according to the divine nature, nor according to the human. Indeed, not according to the divine nature, because although Christ is of the same glory with the Holy Spirit, yet the Son according to the divine nature takes nothing from the Holy Spirit, and so cannot be called his son, for a son takes something from the father. Likewise not according to the human, because father and son ought to agree in substance; but although Christ was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, nevertheless he is not of the substance of the Holy Spirit.

133. But against what is said, is of the Holy Spirit, it is said that Wisdom has built herself a house (Prov 9:1). So it seems that the Divine Wisdom itself, i.e., the Son of God, united himself to human nature, and thus is not made by the power of the Holy Spirit.

But there are two responses, according to Augustine. First, that what is written in Proverbs 9:1 is understood of the Church, which Christ founded in his own blood. Another is that the works of the Trinity are indivisible, and therefore what the Son does, the Holy Spirit does also, and yet this action is attributed to the Holy Spirit by a certain appropriation. And the reason for this was stated above.

134. She will bring forth a son. Here he foretells the service which Joseph will show to the child when born, and he does three things:

for first, he foretells the Virgin’s labor;

second, he reveals beforehand the service which Joseph himself was to show the child when he says, and you will call his name;

third, he discloses the name given to the child, when he says Jesus.

135. He says then, she will bring forth. Thus indeed she conceived of the Holy Spirit at first, but she will bring forth. He does not say for you, because Joseph himself did not beget the child. it is said to Zachary: your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son (Luke 1:13), because Zachary himself begot him. Or he does not say for you to show that he was born for all: she will not bear a son only for you, or for this man, but for the whole world; behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, that will be to all the people: for, this day, is born to you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord, in the city of David (Luke 2:10).

136. But because Joseph could say, she conceived of the Holy Spirit in this way, and she will bear a son; what then is there for me? I am not necessary to her at all, he adds Joseph’s own service: you will call his name.

It was the custom among the Hebrews, and still is today, that they circumcised the child on the eighth day, and at that time gave him a name; and this was done by Joseph. So he was the agent in this work. Hence it is said to him, you will call; it is not said, you will give, because it is already given to him; you will be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord will name (Isa 62:2).

137. Jesus, this is the name given by God. And he gives the cause: for he will save his people; what he will acquire for himself by his own blood is his people. The people that will deny him will not be his (Dan 9:26); hence it is the people of the Lord through faith. But you are a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people (1 Pet 2:9).

From their sins. In the book of Judges it frequently says that such or such a one will save Israel: but from what? From bodily enemies in that case, but here from sins, by the forgiveness of sins, which belongs to God alone. But that you may know that the Son of man has power on earth to forgive sins (Luke 5:24).

138. Note that Nestorius is confounded here, who said that those things which are of God, as to be eternal, to be omnipotent, or so on, do not belong to this man. Behold, this same man, who was born of the Virgin, who is called Jesus, he will save his people from their sins. Hence, since no once can forgive sins but God alone, it is necessary to say that this man is God, and that those things which are of God most truly belong to him.