Матеј 1:16 Коментар

This evangelist begins with the account of Christ's parentage and birth, the ancestors from whom he descended, and the manner of his entry into the world, to make it appear that he was indeed the Messiah promised, for it was foretold that he should be the son of David, and should be born of a virgin; and that he was so is here plainly shown; for here is, I. His pedigree from Abraham in forty-two generations, three fourteens (v. 1-17). II. An account of the circumstances of his birth, so far as was requisite to show that he was born of a virgin (Mat 1:18-25). Thus methodically is the life of our blessed Saviour written, as lives should be written, for the clearer proposing of the example of them.

Matthew 1:1 mat 1:1 mat 1:1 mat 1:1The book of the generation of Jesus Christ,.... This is the genuine title of the book, which was put to it by the Evangelist himself; for the former seems to be done by another hand. This book is an account, not of the divine, but human generation of Christ; and not merely of his birth, which lies in a very little compass; nor of his genealogy, which is contained in this chapter; but also of his whole life and actions, of what was said, done, and suffered by him. It is an Hebrew way of speaking, much like that in Gen 5:1 and which the Septuagint render by the same phrase as here; and as that was the book of the generation of the first Adam; this is the book of the generation of the second Adam. The Jews call their blasphemous history of the life of Jesus, "The book of the generations of Jesus" (o). This account of Christ begins with the name of the Messiah, well known to the Jews, the son of David; not only to the Scribes and Pharisees, the more learned part of the nation, but to the common people, even to persons of the meanest rank and figure among them. See Mat 9:27. Nothing is more common in the Jewish writings, than for "the son of David" to stand alone for the Messiah; it would be endless to cite or refer to all the testimonies of this kind; only take the following (p), "R. Jochanan says, in the generation in which "the son of David" comes, the disciples of the wise men shall be lessened, and the rest, their eyes shall fail with grief and sorrow, and many calamities and severe decrees shall be renewed; when the first visitation is gone, a second will hasten to come. It is a tradition of the Rabbins (about) the week (of years) in which "the son of David" comes, that in the first year this scripture will be fulfilled, Amo 4:7. "I will rain upon one city", &c. in the second, arrows of famine will be sent forth; in the third there will be a great famine, and men, women and children, holy men and men of business will die, and the law will be forgotten by those who learn it; in the fourth there will be plenty and not plenty; in the fifth there will be great plenty, and they shall eat and drink and rejoice, and the law shall return to them that learn it; in the sixth there will be voices (or thunders;) in the seventh there will be wars; and in the going out of the seventh the "son of David" comes. The tradition of R. Judah says, In the generation in which "the son of David" comes, the house of the congregation (the school or synagogue) shall become a brothel house, Galilee shall be destroyed, and Gabalene shall become desolate; and the men of Gabul (or the border) shall go about from city to city, and shall find no mercy; and the wisdom of the scribes shall stink; and they that are afraid to sin shall be despised; and the face of that generation shall be as the face of a dog, and truth shall fail, as it is said, Isa 59:15 --The tradition of R. Nehorai says, In the generation in which "the son of David" comes, young men shall make ashamed the faces of old men, and old men shall stand before young men, the daughter shall rise up against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; nor will a son reverence his father. The tradition of R. Nehemiah says, In the generation in which "the son of David" comes, impudence will increase, and the honourable will deal wickedly, and the whole kingdom will return to the opinion of the Sadducees, and there will be no reproof. --It is a tradition of the Rabbins, that "the son of David" will not come, until traitorous practices are increased, or the disciples are lessened or until the smallest piece of money fails from the purse, or until redemption is despaired of.'' In which passage, besides the proof for which it is cited, may be observed, how exactly the description of the age of the Messiah, as given by the Jews themselves, agrees with the generation in which Jesus the true Messiah came; who as he was promised to David, and it was expected he should descend from him, so he did according to the flesh; God raised him up of his seed, Rom 1:3 it follows, The son of Abraham. Abraham was the first to whom a particular promise was made, that the Messiah should spring from, Gen 22:18. The first promise in Gen 3:15 only signified that he should be the seed of the woman; and it would have been sufficient for the fulfilment of it, if he had been born of any woman, in whatsoever nation, tribe, or family; but by the promise made to Abraham he was to descend from him, as Jesus did; who took upon him the seed of Abraham, Heb 2:16 or assumed an human nature which sprung from him, and is therefore truly the son of Abraham. The reason why Christ is first called the son of David, and then the son of Abraham, is partly because the former was a more known name of the Messiah; and partly that the transition to the genealogy of Christ might be more easy and natural, beginning with Abraham, whom the Jews call (q) the "head of the genealogy", and the root and foundation of it, as Matthew here makes him to be; wherefore a Jew cannot be displeased with the Evangelist for beginning the genealogy of our Lord at, Abraham. (o) Apud Wagenseil. Tela Ignea. (p) T. Bab. Sanhedrim, fol. 97. 1. Shir Hashirim Rabba, fol. 11. 4. (q) Juchasin, fol. 8. 1. Tzeror Hammor. fol. 29. 3. & 154. 4.

And Jacob begat Joseph,.... According to an old tradition mentioned by (p) Epiphanins, this Jacob, the father of Joseph, was named Panther, and which name perhaps is originally Jewish; and it may be observed, that Joseph is sometimes called by the Jewish writers Pandera (q), and Jesus , the son of Pandira (r). It has created some difficulty with interpreters that Jacob should be here said to beget Joseph, when Joseph in Luke is said to be the son of Eli. Some have thought Joseph's father had two names, one was Jacob, and the other Eli; others take them to be two different persons, and suppose that Joseph was the natural son of the one, and the legal son of the other, either by marriage, or by adoption, or by the law of the brother's wife, Deu 25:5. But the truth of the matter is, that not Joseph, but Jesus, is by Luke called the son of Eli, as will be made to appear in its proper place. Joseph, who is here called the husband of Mary, because he not only espoused her, but, upon the advice and encouragement of the Angel, took her to be his wife, was, as is evident by this genealogy, of the house and lineage of David; though a mean and obscure person, and by trade a carpenter. Mary, which is the same name with Miriam in Hebrew, was a poor virgin that dwelt at Nazareth, a city of Galilee; yet also of the family of David, and belonged to the city of Bethlehem; of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ, or Messiah; being that illustrious person, who was spoken of by the Prophets of the Old Testament under that name, and whom the Jews expected. We may learn from hence, what a low condition the family of David was in, when the true Messiah came; according to ancient prophecy, it was like a stump of a tree, or like to a tree cut down to the root, Isa 11:1 and Christ who sprung from it was like a root out of a dry ground, Isa 53:2. From the whole of this genealogy it appears, that Jesus was of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Judah, and of the family of David; whereby several ancient prophecies have their accomplishment, and therefore he ought to be acknowledged as the true Messiah: and also that he was of the blood royal, and had his descent from the kings of Judah, and was heir apparent to the throne and kingdom of his father David. The Talmudic Jews own that Jesus, or Jesu, as they call him, was put to death because he (s), "was nigh to the kingdom", or nearly related to it. Yea, even in that malicious book (t) they have written of his life, they represent him as akin to queen Helena, who they say, on that account, would have saved his life. And this was so clear a point, and their forefathers were so thoroughly convinced of this matter, that they would have took him by force and made him a king, Joh 6:15 but his kingdom was to be of another kind, a spiritual, and not a temporal one. (p) Contra Haeres. l. 3. Haeres. 78. (q) Toldos Jesu, p. 3. (r) T. Hieros. Avoda Zara, fol. 40. 4. T. Bab. Sabbat, fol. 14. 2. & Midrash Kohelet, fol. 81. 1. (s) T. Bab. Sanhed. fol. 43. 1. (t) Toldos Jesu, p. 10.

But to what shifts you resort, in your attempt to rob the syllable ex (of) of its proper force as a preposition, and to substitute another for it in a sense not found throughout the Holy Scriptures! You say that He was born through a virgin, not of a virgin, and in a womb, not of a womb, because the angel in the dream said to Joseph, "That which is born in her" (not of her) "is of the Holy Ghost." But the fact is, if he had meant "of her," he must have said "in her; "for that which was of her, was also in her. The angel's expression, therefore, "in her," has precisely the same meaning as the phrase "of her." It is, however, a fortunate circumstance that Matthew also, when tracing down the Lord's descent from Abraham to Mary, says, "Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Christ."

(Hist. Eccles. 1.7.) For Matthan and Melchi at different periods had each a son by one and the same wife Jesca. Matthan, who traced through Solomon, first had her, and died leaving one son, Jacob by name. As the Law forbade not a widow, either dismissed from her husband, or after the death of her husband, to be married to another, so Melchi, who traced through Matthan, being of the same tribe but of another race, took this widow to his wife, and begat Heli his son. Thus shall we find Jacob and Heli, though of a different race, yet by the same mother, to have been brethren. One of whom, namely Jacob, after Heli his brother was deceased without issue, married his wife, and begat on her the third, Joseph, by nature indeed and reason his own son; whereupon also it is written, And Jacob begat Joseph. But by the Law, he was the son of Heli; for Jacob, being his brother, raised up seed to him. Thus the genealogy, both as recited by Matthew, and by Luke, stands right and true; Matthew saying, And Jacob begot Joseph; Luke saying, Which was the son, as it was supposed, (for he adds this withal,) of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, which was the son of Melchi. Nor could he have more significantly or properly expressed that way of generation according to the Law, which was made by a certain adoption that had respect to the dead, carefully leaving out the word begetting throughout even to the end. (ubi sup.) Neither does this lack good authority; nor has it been suddenly devised by us for this purpose. For the kinsmen of our Saviour according to the flesh, either out of desire to show forth this their so great nobility of stock, or simply for the truth's sake, have delivered it unto us.

(Quæst. Nov. et Vet. Test. q. 49.) What God conveyed by the anointing of oil to those who were anointed to be kings, this the Holy Spirit conveyed upon the man Christ, adding thereto the expiation; wherefore when born He was called Christ; and thus it proceeds, who is called Christ.

Having then mentioned all His forefathers, and ending with Joseph, he did not stop at this, but added, "Joseph the husband of Mary;" intimating that it was for her sake he traced his genealogy also. Then, lest when thou hast heard of the "husband of Mary," thou shouldest suppose that Christ was born after the common law of nature, mark, how he sets it right by that which follows. "Thou hast heard," saith he, "of an husband, thou hast heard of a mother, thou hast heard a name assigned to the child, therefore hear the manner too of the birth."

This passage is objected to us by the Emperor Julian in his Discrepancy of the Evangelists. Matthew calls Joseph the son of Jacob, Luke makes him the son of Heli. He did not know the Scripture manner, one was his father by nature, the other by law. For we know that God commanded by Moses, that if a brother or near kinsman died without children, another should take his wife, to raise up seed to his brother or kinsman. (Deut. 25.) But of this matter Africanus the chronologistp, and Eusebius of Cæsarca, have disputed more fully. When you hear this word husband, do not straight bethink you of wedlock, but remember the Scripture manner, which calls persons only betrothed husband and wife. The attentive reader may ask, Seeing Joseph was not the father of the Lord and Saviour, how does his genealogy traced down to him in order pertain to the Lord? We will answer, first, that it is not the practice of Scripture to follow the female line in its genealogies; secondly, that Joseph and Mary were of the same tribe, and that he was thence compelled to take her to wife as a kinsman, and they were enrolled together at Bethlehem, as being come of one stock.

(Ver. 16) But Jacob begot Joseph. Here Julianus Augustus has presented to us the disagreement of the Evangelists, why the evangelist Matthew called Joseph the son of Jacob, and Luke called him the son of Heli; not understanding the custom of the Scriptures, that one is according to nature, the other according to the Law his father. For we know this by the command of God given through Moses, that if a brother or relative without children dies, another should take his wife to raise up offspring for his brother or relative (Deut. II). Both Africanus, a historian of the time, and Eusebius of Caesarea extensively debated in their books the discrepancies in the Gospels.

(De Cons. Evang. ii. 2.) He is more properly called his son, by whom he was adopted, than had he been said to have been begotten of him of whose flesh he was not born. Wherefore Matthew, in saying Abraham begot Isaac, and continuing the same phrase throughout down to Jacob begot Joseph, sufficiently declares that he gives the father according to the order of nature, so as that we must hold Joseph to have been begotten, not adopted, by Jacob. Though even if Luke had used the word begotten, we need not have thought it any serious objection; for it is not absurd to say of an adopted son that he is begotten, not after the flesh, but by affection. (De Cons. Evang. ii. 4.) And suitably does Luke, who relates Christ's ancestry not in the opening of his Gospel, but at his baptism, follow the line of adoption, as thus more clearly pointing Him out as the Priest that should make atonement for sin. For by adoption we are made the sons of God, by believing in the Son of God. But by the descent according to the flesh which Matthew follows, we rather see that the Son of God was for us made man. Luke sufficiently shows that he called Joseph the son of Heli, because he was adopted by Heli, by his calling Adam the son of God, which he was by grace, as he was set in Paradise, though he lost it afterwards by sinning. (De Hæres. ii.) This is said against Valentinus, who taught that Christ took nothing of the Virgin Mary, but passed through her as through a channel or pipe. Wherefore it pleased Him to take flesh of the womb of a woman, is known in His own secret counsels; whether that He might confer honour on both sexes alike, by taking the form of a man, and being born of a woman, or from some other reason which I would not hastily pronounce on. (De Cons. Evang. ii. 1.) It was not lawful that he should think to separate himself from Mary for this, that she brought forth Christ as yet a Virgin. And herein may the faithful gather, that if they be married, and preserve strict continence on both sides, yet may their wedlock hold with union of love only, without carnal; for here they see that it is possible that a son be born without carnal embrace. (De Nupt. et Concup. i. 11.) In Christ's parents was accomplished every good benefit of marriage, fidelity, progeny, and a sacrament. The progeny we see in the Lord Himself; fidelity, for there was no adultery; sacrament, for there was no divorce. (ubi sup.) Also, the line of descent ought to be brought down to Joseph, that in wedlock no wrong might be done to the male sex, as the more worthy, provided only nothing was taken away from the truth; because Mary was of the seed of David. (Id. non occ.) Hence then we believe that Mary was in the line of David; namely, because we believe the Scripture which affirms two things, both that Christ was of the seed of David according to the flesh, and that He should be conceived of Mary not by knowledge of man, but as yet a virgin.

Matthew relates the human lineage of Christ in this way: After recounting the fathers from Abraham, he continues to Joseph, the husband of Mary, from whom Jesus was born. It is not fitting to think of Joseph apart from his marriage to Mary, who bore Christ as a virgin and not from intercourse with him. For by his example an incomparable commendation is made to faithful married persons of the principle that even when by common consent they maintain their continence, the marital relation can still remain steadfast and still be rightly called one of wedlock, not by virtue of physical intercourse but by the heart’s affection. This is especially so because it was possible for a son to be born to them without bodily embrace, which is intended within the purpose of procreation. Furthermore, Joseph should not have been denied being called Christ’s father on the basis that he did not beget him through intercourse. For if he had adopted a child from another, he would have rightly been the father of one who was not even born from his own wife.Indeed, Christ was even considered by some to be the son of Joseph, just as if he had been simply born of his flesh. But this was believed by those who did not know of Mary’s virginity. Luke says, “Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph.” Instead of naming Mary his only parent, he had not the slightest hesitation in also speaking of both parties as his parents when he says, “And the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom; and the favor of God was upon him. Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover.” Lest any imagine that by the “parents” here was meant only Mary and her blood relations, we do well to recall that preceding word of Luke: “And his father and mother marveled at what was said about him.”

Since he thus related that Christ was born from Mary as a virgin and not as a result of intercourse with Joseph, for what reason does Matthew call him his father, if not because we understand Joseph to be truly the husband of Mary, not through intercourse of the flesh but in virtue of the genuine spiritual union of marriage?… All this suggests that Luke’s phrase, “as was supposed,” was inserted with a view of correcting those of the opinion that he was born from Joseph in the same way that others are born.

Herein we must beware of the error of Nestorius, who thus speaks; "When Divine Scripture is to speak either of the birth of Christ which is of the Virgin Mary, or His death, it is never seen to put God, but either, Christ, or Son, or Lord; since these three are significative of the two natures, sometimes of this, sometimes of that, and sometimes of both this and that together. And here is a testimony to this, Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. For God the Word needed not a second birth of a woman."

(Vigil. Cont. Fel. 12. ap. Aug. t. 8. p. 45.) But not one was the Son of God, and another the son of a man; but the same Christ was the Son of both God and man. And as in one man, the soul is one and the body is another, so in the mediator between God and man, the Son of God was one, and the son of man another; yet of both together was one Christ the Lord. Two in distinction of substance, one in unity of Person. But the heretic objects; "how can you teach Him to have been born in time whom you say was before coeternal with His Father? For birth is as it were a motion of a thing not in being, before it be born, bringing about this, that by benefit of birth it come into being. Whence it is concluded, that He who was in being cannot be born; if He could be born He was not in being." (To this it is replied by Augustine;) Let us imagine, as many will have it, that the universe has a general soul, which by some unspeakable motion gives life to all seeds, so as that itself is not mixed up with the things it produces. When this then passes forth into the womb to form passible matter to its own uses, it makes one with itself the person of that thing which it is clear has not the same substance. And thus, the soul being active and the matter passive, of two substances is made one man, the soul and the flesh being distinct; thus it is that our confession is, that that soul is born of the womb which in coming to the womb we say conferred life on the thing conceived. He, I say, is said to be born of His mother, who shaped to Himself a body out of her, in which He might be born; not as though before He was born, His mother might, as far as pertained to Him, not have been in being. In like manner, yea in a manner yet more incomprehensible and sublime, the Son of God was born, by taking on Him perfect manhood of his Mother. He who by his singular almighty power is the cause of their being born to all things that are born.

(De Eccles. Dog. 2.) The Son of God was born of human flesh, that is of Mary, and not by man after the way of nature, as Ebion says; and accordingly it is significantly added, Of her Jesus was born.

He is also Joseph, that is, 'adding,' according to that, I came that they might have life, and that they might have it abundantly. (John 10:10.)

But let us see what moral signification these names contain. After Jeconias, which means 'the preparation of the Lord,' follows Salathiel, i. e. 'God is my petition,' for he who is rightly prepared, prays not but of God. Again, he becomes Zorobabel, 'the master of Babylon,' that is, of the men of the earth, whom he makes to know concerning God, that He is their Father, which is signified in Abiud. Then that people rise again from their vices, whence follows Eliacim, 'the resurrection;' and thence rise to good works, which is Azor, and becomes Sadoch, i. e. 'righteous;' and then they are taught the love of their neighbour. He is my brother, which is signified in Achim; and through love to God he says of Him, 'My God,' which Eliud signifies. Then follows Eleazar, i. e. 'God is my helper;' he recognizes God as his helper. But whereto he tends is shown in Matthan, which is interpreted 'gift,' or 'giving;' for he looks to God as his benefactor; and as he wrestled with and overcame his vices in the beginning, so he does in the end of life, which belongs to Jacob, and thus he reaches Joseph, that is, 'The increase of virtues.'

But let us see what moral signification these names contain. After Jeconias, which means 'the preparation of the Lord,' follows Salathiel, i. e. 'God is my petition,' for he who is rightly prepared, prays not but of God. Again, he becomes Zorobabel, 'the master of Babylon,' that is, of the men of the earth, whom he makes to know concerning God, that He is their Father, which is signified in Abiud. Then that people rise again from their vices, whence follows Eliacim, 'the resurrection;' and thence rise to good works, which is Azor, and becomes Sadoch, i. e. 'righteous;' and then they are taught the love of their neighbour. He is my brother, which is signified in Achim; and through love to God he says of Him, 'My God,' which Eliud signifies. Then follows Eleazar, i. e. 'God is my helper;' he recognizes God as his helper. But whereto he tends is shown in Matthan, which is interpreted 'gift,' or 'giving;' for he looks to God as his benefactor; and as he wrestled with and overcame his vices in the beginning, so he does in the end of life, which belongs to Jacob, and thus he reaches Joseph, that is, 'The increase of virtues.'

Why does he give the genealogy of Joseph and not of Mary, the Theotokos? What participation did Joseph have in that seedless birth giving? Surely Joseph was not the true father of Jesus, so that Matthew could give Christ's genealogy through Joseph? Listen then: Joseph truly had no share in the birth of Christ; and therefore the genealogy of the Theotokos ought to have been given. But as it was not lawful to reckon ancestry through the mother, he did not give the genealogy of the Virgin. And yet, by giving the genealogy of Joseph, Matthew gave her genealogy as well. For it was the law that a woman was not to be taken as wife by a man who was of a different tribe and who was not of her father's lineage (Num. 36:8-9). This being the law, it is obvious that Joseph's genealogy includes that of the Theotokos, for she was of the same tribe and the same lineage. If she were not, she could not have been betrothed to him. So the evangelist both kept the law which forbade the reckoning of ancestry through the mother, and at the same time provided the genealogy of the Theotokos by giving the genealogy of Joseph. He calls Joseph "the husband of Mary," according to the common practice. For we are accustomed to call the man who is betrothed the "husband" of her who is betrothed, even before the marriage has taken place.

In the last place, after all the patriarchs, he sets down Joseph the husband of Mary, for whose sake all the rest are introduced, saying, But Jacob begot Joseph.

But two questions arise here. The first concerns the contrariety which seems to exist between Luke and Matthew: for Luke says that Joseph was from Eli, who was from Matthat; but Matthew says that he was from Jacob. Therefore, there seems to be contrariety between them. The answer is that the two were from the same stock but not from the same family, namely Matthan and Matthat. Matthan married Hesta, from whom Jacob was born. But when Matthan died, because the Law did not forbid a widow to marry, she married his brother Matthat, who begot Eli through her. Hence, Jacob and Eli were brothers from the same mother but not from the same father. Eli took a wife and died without children; hence, Jacob, to raise up seed to his brother, took the same wife and begot Joseph. Consequently, Joseph was Jacob's son according to the flesh, but Eli's by adoption. Therefore, Matthew, who mentions only fathers according to the flesh in his genealogy, says that Joseph was the son of Jacob; but Luke, who mentions many fathers not according to the flesh, calls him the son of Eli. The reason for this diversity has been explained above. But it should be noted that when a brother took the wife of his brother, in order to restore his name, it should not be supposed that the son produced was called by the name of the dead brother. For Boaz, who took Ruth to raise up seed to Elimelech, begot a son, whom he did not call Elimelech but Obed. However, he is said to have revived this name, because that son was ascribed to him according to the Law. This is not unbelievable; because, as we read in the history of the Church, the apostles and evangelists were instructed about the genealogy of Christ by his immediate parents, who got some of it from their memory and some from the books of Chronicles. The second question is this: Matthew intended to write the genealogy of Christ; therefore, since Christ was not the son of Joseph but only of Mary, why was it necessary to extend the genealogy of Christ from Abraham to Joseph? The answer is that it was customary among the Jews, and still is to this day, to take one's wife from his own tribe. Hence, it says in Num (36:7) that each one took a wife from his own tribe and relatives. And although this was not necessary to observe, yet from custom it was observed. Hence, Joseph took as his wife, Mary, who was his closest relative. And therefore, because they were from the same stock, this shows that since Joseph descended from David, also Mary and Christ were from the seed of David. But where does it say that Joseph and Mary were from the same tribe? The answer is clear from Luke (2:4), because at the time of the census Joseph and Mary went into the city of David, which is Bethlehem. Hence, the fact that he took her with him shows that they were from the same family. But why does he not show Christ's genealogy from David through Mary? The answer is that it was not the custom among the Hebrews or even the gentiles to weave a genealogy through the woman. Hence, Christ, who had come for the salvation of men, willed in this matter to observe the customs of men. And so his genealogy is described not through women, especially since without danger to the truth his genealogy through men could be known. The husband of Mary. Jerome says: "When you hear 'husband', suspicion should not be aroused about the wedding." But wasn't it a true marriage? The answer is that it was, because the three goods of marriage were there: the child, God himself; fidelity, because no adultery; and sacrament, because it was an indissoluble union of souls. What then is to be said? This is understood in regard to the completion of the wedding, which is by carnal union. But, as Augustine says, he is called the husband of Mary to show that the marriage is between two who vowed to be continent. But how was it a marriage? For the vow is an obstacle to contracting marriage and destroys the contract. Therefore, since the Blessed Virgin had vowed virginity, there seems to have been no marriage. Furthermore, there was consent to carnal union, if it was a marriage. The answer is that the Blessed Virgin faced a dilemma. For on the one hand was the Law's curse, to which a sterile woman was subject; on the other hand was her proposal to observe virginity, unless the Lord should ordain otherwise. Hence, she committed herself to the divine arrangement. As far as the statement that she consented to carnal union is concerned, it must be denied; but she consented to marriage directly and to carnal union, as it were, implicitly, if God willed it. Of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ. Here two errors are excluded: one of them says that Christ was the son of Joseph. This is excluded by the fact that it says of whom [de qua]. For if he had been the son of Joseph, he would have said of whom [de quo] or at least of whom [de quibus]. Valentine's error is also excluded, for he said that Christ did not assume a body from the Blessed Virgin, but that he brought it from heaven and it passed through the Blessed Virgin as through a channel. Opposed to this is the fact that it says of whom. For if the case were as Valentine said, the evangelist would not have said of whom but "through whom" or "from whom", or something of that sort. For this preposition "de" in de qua always denotes consubstantiality. Hence, by the fact that he says de, he denotes that the body of Christ was from the body of the Blessed Virgin: "God sent his Son, born of woman, born under the law" (Gal 4:4). Here one must avoid Nestorius' error, who put two persons in Christ. Consequently, he did not admit that God was born and suffered. Neither did he attribute to the man things of God, such as to be eternal or to have created the stars. Hence in one of his letters he takes that text to confirm his error: of whom Jesus was born. He does not say "God" but Jesus, which is a man's name, and Christ. But according to this there would be no union in Christ, nor would Christ be described as one. Hence, note that in Christ, because there is a union of two natures in one person, there is a "communication of idioms", so that things of God are attributed to the man, and conversely. And any example can be given of two accidents in a subject, as an apple is said to be white and tasty. As to the tasty thing, it is said to be white by reason of the fact that the apple is white, and conversely. Who is called Christ. Note that he is simply called Christ without any addition. This denotes that he has been anointed with an invisible oil, not with a material oil as the kings and prophets in the Law: "Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows" (Ps 45:7).

GENEALOGY OF CHRIST. ( = Luke 3:23-38). (Mat. 1:1-17) The book of the generation--an expression purely Jewish; meaning, "table of the genealogy." In Gen 5:1 the same expression occurs in this sense. We have here, then, the title, not of this whole Gospel of Matthew, but only of the first seventeen verses. of Jesus Christ--For the meaning of these glorious words, see on Mat 1:16; Mat 1:21. "Jesus," the name given to our Lord at His circumcision (Luk 2:21), was that by which He was familiarly known while on earth. The word "Christ"--though applied to Him as a proper name by the angel who announced His birth to the shepherds (Luk 2:11), and once or twice used in this sense by our Lord Himself (Mat 23:8, Mat 23:10; Mar 9:41) --only began to be so used by others about the very close of His earthly career (Mat 26:68; Mat 27:17). The full form, "Jesus Christ," though once used by Himself in His Intercessory Prayer (Joh 17:3), was never used by others till after His ascension and the formation of churches in His name. Its use, then, in the opening words of this Gospel (and in Mat 1:17-18) is in the style of the late period when our Evangelist wrote, rather than of the events he was going to record. the son of David, the son of Abraham--As Abraham was the first from whose family it was predicted that Messiah should spring (Gen 22:18), so David was the last. To a Jewish reader, accordingly, these behooved to be the two great starting-points of any true genealogy of the promised Messiah; and thus this opening verse, as it stamps the first Gospel as one peculiarly Jewish, would at once tend to conciliate the writer's people. From the nearest of those two fathers came that familiar name of the promised Messiah, "the son of David" (Luk 20:41), which was applied to Jesus, either in devout acknowledgment of His rightful claim to it (Mat 9:27; Mat 20:31), or in the way of insinuating inquiry whether such were the case (see on Joh 4:29; Mat 12:23).

And Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus--From this it is clear that the genealogy here given is not that of Mary, but of Joseph; nor has this ever been questioned. And yet it is here studiously proclaimed that Joseph was not the natural, but only the legal father of our Lord. His birth of a virgin was known only to a few; but the acknowledged descent of his legal father from David secured that the descent of Jesus Himself from David should never be questioned. See on Mat 1:20. who is called Christ--signifying "anointed." It is applied in the Old Testament to the kings (Sa1 24:6, Sa1 24:10); to the priests (Lev 4:5, Lev 4:16, &c.); and to the prophets (Kg1 19:16) --these all being anointed will oil, the symbol of the needful spiritual gifts to consecrate them to their respective offices; and it was applied, in its most sublime and comprehensive sense, to the promised Deliverer, inasmuch as He was to be consecrated to an office embracing all three by the immeasurable anointing of the Holy Ghost (Isa 61:1; compare Joh 3:34).