Thomas Aquinas

Here is set out the third set of fourteen generations of Christ, which proceeds through private persons. Concerning this Jeconiah, as was said above, there was a twofold opinion. For Jerome and Ambrose hold that one man was he who is placed at the end of the first set of fourteen and was called Joakim, and another was he who was called Jechoniah. But according to Augustine, as above. For that transmigration of the sons of Israel signifies the transfer of the faith to the Gentiles; Acts 13:46: "It was necessary that the word of God should first be spoken to you." In that transmigration there was made, as it were, a certain turning back of the Jews toward the Gentiles. Whence a kind of corner is constituted, as it were; and therefore this Jechoniah signifies Christ, who was made the cornerstone, joining in himself both peoples, of the Jews and of the Gentiles; Psalm 117:22: "The stone which the builders rejected, this has been made the head of the corner." But here it is asked: at Jeremiah 22:30 it is said, "Write this man," Zedekiah, "a childless man, who shall not prosper in his days; for there shall not be a man of his seed that shall sit upon the throne of David." How then is it said that Christ descended from David through Zedekiah, since Isaiah 9:2 writes thus of Christ: "He shall sit upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom"? And it must be said, according to Ambrose, that when Christ is said to sit upon the throne, it is understood of the spiritual kingdom, not the bodily one, except insofar as the spiritual kingdom is signified through the bodily kingdom of David.

"And Shealtiel begot Zerubbabel." To the contrary: it is said at 1 Chronicles 3:17 that the sons of Jeconiah were Assir, Shealtiel, and Malchiram, and Pedaiah; but Pedaiah had sons Zerubbabel and Shimei, and of Abiud no mention at all is made there. Therefore it seems that the Evangelist speaks wrongly in saying that Shealtiel begot Zerubbabel, and that Zerubbabel begot Abiud. To this a threefold response is given in the Gloss. One response is that in the book of Chronicles many things have been corrupted by the fault of the scribes, especially concerning matters pertaining to numbers and names. Whence the Apostle forbids attending to these corrupted generations, which induce controversy rather than usefulness, 1 Timothy 1:4. Another response is that Shealtiel had two names: for he was called Shealtiel, and Caphadara; and therefore the book of Chronicles calls Zerubbabel the son of Capha, but the Evangelist calls him the son of Shealtiel. There is therefore no contradiction. The third response, and the truer one, is that Shealtiel and Caphadara were brothers, as the book of Chronicles says. But Caphadara begot a son whom he called by the same name, namely Zerubbabel, and this one begot Abiud. It must also be said that the book of Chronicles narrates the genealogy of Capha himself, while the Evangelist narrates the generation of Shealtiel, because Christ was to be born from him. It should be noted that concerning those who were from Abiud up to Joseph, no mention is made in the books of sacred Scripture, but they were taken from the annals of the Hebrews, which Herod had for the most part burned so that the ignobility of his own lineage might be concealed. The letter is clear.

Let us pursue the mystical sense. Note therefore that in this part of the genealogy three orders are set forth. The first is the order of teachers, and contains four generations. For before prayer, preparation is required, according to Ecclesiasticus 18:23: "Before prayer prepare your soul"; and therefore after Jeconiah, who is interpreted "preparation of the Lord," follows Shealtiel, who is interpreted "my petition"; and they designate Christ, who was heard in all things for his reverence, Hebrews 5:7. But prayer ought to precede teaching, according to Ephesians 6:19: "Pray, that speech may be given me in the opening of my mouth"; and therefore Shealtiel is followed by Zerubbabel, who is interpreted "master of Babel," that is, of confusion, because through the teaching and preaching of the apostles the Gentiles were recalled to the true God, and this was to the confusion of idolatry; and this belongs chiefly to Christ, who says: "You call me Master, and Lord, and you say well," John 13:13. But through teaching and preaching a man acquires the dignity of a father; whence those who instruct spiritually are called fathers; 1 Corinthians 4:15: "For though you should have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus, by the Gospel, we are sons." And therefore there follows, "And Zerubbabel begot Abiud," who is interpreted "this one is my father"; and this belongs to Christ; Psalm 88:27: "He shall call upon me: You are my father." "And Abiud begot Eliakim." Here is designated the order of beginners, namely of hearers. Now the first thing that is accomplished through preaching in the hearer, and what the preacher ought to intend, is that he should rise from vices to virtues, according to Ephesians 5:14: "Rise, you who sleep"; and therefore Abiud begot Eliakim, who is interpreted "resurrection," and this belongs to Christ, who says, John 11:26: "Everyone who believes in me has eternal life." But one who has risen cannot arrive at the state of justice except through the help of God; and therefore, after he has risen, man needs the help of God, according to Psalm 120:2: "My help is from the Lord"; and therefore there follows, "And Eliakim begot Azor," who is interpreted "helped." And this too belongs to Christ, concerning whom it is said in Psalm 26:9: "Be my helper, O Lord." And through this help one arrives at justice; whence "Azor begot Zadok," who is interpreted "just"; Romans 3:22: "The justice of God through faith in Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all who believe in him." But the consummation of justice, or its end, is charity: "the end of the law is Christ," "the end of the commandment is charity," 1 Timothy 1:5. There are only two commandments, namely the love of God and of neighbor; 1 John 4:21: "And this commandment we have from God, that he who loves God should love his brother also." And therefore Zadok is followed by Achim, and Achim by Eliud. Achim is interpreted "my brother," whence it signifies the love of neighbor; Psalm 132:1: "Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in one." This belongs to Christ, who is our flesh and our brother. And because the love of neighbor cannot be without the love of God, there follows, "And Eliud begot Achim." Eliud is interpreted "my God"; Psalm 17:2: "I will love you, O Lord," and this belongs to Christ; Psalm 30:15: "You are my God." "And Achim begot Eleazar." Here is designated the order of those who are advancing. But one cannot advance without divine help, whence the first thing required for advancing is divine help; and therefore Eliud is rightly followed by Eleazar, who is interpreted "my God is my helper"; Psalm 83:6: "Blessed is the man whose help is from you." But because God can help toward salvation in many ways, as by removing obstacles and giving occasions, the greatest help is through the gift of his grace; 1 Corinthians 15:10: "By the grace of God I am what I am." And therefore Eleazar, that is, the help of God, is followed by Matthan, who is interpreted "gift," namely of divine grace; and this belongs to Christ, who is also one who gives; John 3:16: "So God loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son"; Ephesians 4:8: "He gave gifts to men." But because a man could presume so much upon the gift of grace that he himself would fall into negligence, not cooperating with grace through free will, there follows Jacob, who is interpreted "wrestler"; on account of this, 1 Corinthians 15:10: "By the grace of God I am what I am," and it continues, "and his grace in me has not been void"; 2 Corinthians 6:1: "We exhort you that you receive not the grace of God in vain." Now there follows Joseph, that is, "increase," because through grace and the effort of free will man comes to increase; Proverbs 4:18: "The path of the just, as a shining light, goes forward and increases even to perfect day." Whence "Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary."

But here a twofold question arises. First, it is asked concerning the seeming contradiction between Luke and Matthew: for Luke says that Joseph was the son of Heli, who was the son of Mathat; but Matthew says that he was the son of Jacob: therefore there seems to be a contradiction between them. But it must be said to this, that there were two men of the same stock, but not of the same family, namely Matthan and Mathat. For they were of the stock of David; but one descended from the stock of David through Solomon, namely Matthan; the other through Nathan, namely Mathat. Matthan therefore took a wife named Estha, from whom he begot Jacob; but when Matthan died, since the law did not forbid a widow to marry, she married his brother Mathat, who begot of her Heli. Whence Jacob and Heli were brothers by the same mother, but not by the same father. But Heli took a wife, and died without children; whence Jacob, in order to raise up seed for his brother, took the same wife, and begot Joseph. Whence Joseph was the son of Jacob according to the flesh, but the son of Heli according to adoption. And therefore Matthew, who sets forth in the genealogy of Christ only the fathers according to the flesh, calls Joseph the son of Jacob; but Luke, who sets forth many who were not fathers according to the flesh, calls him the son of Heli. The reason for this diversity was stated above. It should also be noted that when a brother took the wife of his brother, in order to raise up his name, it is not to be understood that the son who was begotten would be called by the name of the deceased brother: for Boaz, who took Ruth in order to raise up the seed of Elimelech, begot a son whom he did not call Elimelech, but Obed; but he is said to raise up his name only insofar as that son was ascribed to him according to the law: nor is this incongruous, because, as is said in the ecclesiastical history, the apostles and Evangelists themselves were instructed by the close relatives of Christ concerning the genealogy of Christ, which they held in mind partly by memory, partly from the said books of Chronicles.

The second question is: Matthew intends to write the generation of Christ. Since therefore Christ was not the son of Joseph, but only of Mary, why was it necessary to extend the generation of Christ from Abraham down to Joseph? To this it must be said, that it was customary among the Jews, and is so even today, to take a wife from one's own tribe, whence Numbers 36:7 says that each one should take a wife from his own tribe and kindred. And although this was not necessarily observed, nevertheless it was observed by custom. Whence Joseph took Mary as his wife as being most closely related to himself. And therefore, because they were of the same lineage, through the fact that Joseph is shown to have descended from David, it is also shown that Mary and Christ were of the seed of David. But whence can it be had that Joseph and Mary were of the same tribe? It is clear from what is found at Luke 2:4, that when the census had to be made, Joseph himself went up, and Mary, into the city of David, which is Bethlehem. Whence, from the fact that he took her with him, it is clear that they were of the same family. But it is asked why he did not show the generation of Christ from David through Mary. It must be said that it is not customary among the Hebrews, nor even among the Gentiles, to weave a genealogy through women; whence Christ, who had come for the salvation of men, wished in this to imitate, or to observe, the customs of men; and thus his genealogy is not described through females, especially since his genealogy could be known through the males without danger to the truth.

"The husband of Mary." Jerome: "When you hear 'husband,' let no suspicion of marriage arise." To the contrary: was it not a true marriage? It must be said that yes, because there the three goods of marriage were present: offspring, namely God himself; fidelity, because there was no adultery; and sacrament, because there was an indivisible union of souls. What then must be said? This is understood as regards the completion of the marriage, which is through carnal union. Therefore, as Augustine says, Mary's husband is named, so that it might be shown that there was a marriage between those bound by an equal vow. But how was it a marriage? For a vow impedes the contracting of marriage and dissolves the contract once made. Since then the Blessed Virgin had vowed virginity, there seems to have been no marriage. Moreover, she consented to carnal union, if there was a marriage. But it must be said that the Blessed Virgin was anguished between two things: on the one hand she was anguished on account of the curse of the law, to which the barren woman was subject; on the other hand she was anguished on account of her resolve to preserve chastity; and therefore she resolved on virginity, unless the Lord should ordain otherwise; whence she committed herself to the divine disposition. As for what is said, that she consented to carnal union, it must be said that she did not; but she consented to marriage directly, and to carnal union only implicitly, if God should so will.

"Of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ." Here a twofold error is excluded. One, which says that Christ was the son of Joseph: and this is excluded by what is said, "of whom." For if he had been the son of Joseph, it would have said "of whom" in the masculine, or at least "of whom" in the plural. The other error excluded is that of Valentinus, who says that Christ did not assume a body from the Blessed Virgin but brought it down from heaven, and passed through the Blessed Virgin as through a channel. Against this is what is said, "of whom." For if it were as he says, the Evangelist would have said not "of whom" but "through whom," or "from whom," or "out of whom," or something of that sort. For this preposition "of" always denotes consubstantiality; but not the preposition "from"; whence one can say that day comes from morning, and that a chest proceeds from its maker, but it is never said that a chest is made "of" its maker. Whence, by saying "of," he denotes that the body of Christ was formed of the body of the Blessed Virgin; Galatians 4:4: "God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law." Here the error of Nestorius must be guarded against, who posited two persons in Christ, and therefore does not grant that God was born, or suffered; nor does he attribute to the man the other things that are God's, such as to be from eternity, or to have created the stars. Whence in a certain letter of his he takes this authority to confirm his error: "of whom was born Jesus" — it does not say "God," but "Jesus," which is the name of the man, and "Christ." But according to this there would be no union in Christ, nor would Christ be said to be one. Whence note, that in Christ, because a union of two natures comes about in one person, there comes about a communication of idioms, so that the things that are God's are attributed to the man, and conversely. And an example, of whatever sort, can be given from two accidents in one subject, as an apple is said to be white and flavorful; and as regards its flavor it is called white, by reason of the fact that the apple is white, and conversely.

"Who is called Christ." Note this: he is called simply "Christ" without addition, to denote that he was anointed with an invisible oil, not a material one, as kings or prophets were under the law. Psalm 44:8: "God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows."

"All the generations therefore." The generation of Christ having been set forth, here he concludes the number of the generations, and he divides them into three sets of fourteen. The first set of fourteen is from Abraham up to and including David, so that David is counted in that first set of fourteen; and this is "all the generations therefore." The second set of fourteen extends from David, exclusive, so that David himself is not counted, but it begins from Solomon, and ends at the transmigration of Babylon; and this is "and from David unto the transmigration of Babylon." The third begins from the transmigration of Babylon, and ends in Christ, so that Christ is the fourteenth. But it is asked why the Evangelist so diligently and attentively divided the generation of Christ into three sets of fourteen. Chrysostom assigns the reason: because in these three sets of fourteen there was always made some change in the people of Israel. For in the first set of fourteen they were under judges; in the second, under kings; in the third, under priests. And Christ himself is judge, and king, and priest; Isaiah 33:22: "The Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king." And concerning his priesthood it is said in Psalm 109:4: "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." He assigns another reason, namely, that the necessity of the coming of Christ might be shown. For in the first set of fourteen they sought a king against the will of God, and transgressed the law. In the second, on account of their sins they were led into captivity. But in the third, through Christ we are freed from all guilt, and misery, and from the spiritual servitude of sin. Jerome assigns a third reason, that by these are signified the three times through which the life of all men is led. For by the first set of fourteen is signified the time before the law, because in it are placed certain fathers who were before the law; by the second, the time under the law, because all those who are placed there are under the law; but by the third, the time of grace, because it terminates in Christ, through whom, namely, "grace and truth came to be," John 1:17. This distinction also fits the mystery, because fourteen is a number composed of four and ten. By ten, then, is understood the Old Testament, which was given in the ten commandments. By four, however, the Gospel, which is divided into four books. But the three sets of fourteen designate the faith of the Trinity. Whence, by the fact that Matthew divides the genealogy into three sets of fourteen, it is designated that through the New and Old Testament, in the faith of the Trinity, one arrives at Christ. Concerning the number of the generations, however, there is a twofold opinion. For according to Jerome, who says that the Jeconiah at the end of the first set of fourteen and at the beginning of the second is a different one, there are forty-two generations, for that is the total made by three sets of fourteen. But according to Augustine there are only forty-one, and Christ is that one. And this fits the mystery. For the number forty arises from the multiplication of four by ten, and conversely. But according to the Platonists, four is the number of bodies, for a body is composed of four elements; ten, however, is the number that arises from the aggregation of the linear numbers, for one, two, three, and four make ten. And because Matthew intends to declare how Christ descends to us in a line, therefore through forty generations Christ comes to us. But Luke, who intends to commend in Christ the priestly dignity, to which belongs the expiation of sins — below, 18:22: "I say not to you, until seven times, but until seventy times seven," etc. — sets forth seventy-seven generations, for this number arises from the multiplication of seven by eleven, since seven times eleven is seventy-seven. By eleven, then, is understood the transgression of the Decalogue; by seven, however, the sevenfold grace, through which the remission of sins comes about. But the fact that, according to Jerome, there are forty-two generations, is also not without a mystery, because by those two are understood the two precepts of charity, or the two Testaments, the New and the Old.

"Now the generation of Christ was in this way." The genealogy of Christ having been set forth in general, here his generation is described in particular, and it is divided into three parts. First he sets forth a certain heading; second the Evangelist describes the manner of the generation, at "when his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph"; third he proves the manner of the generation, at "but Joseph her husband." He says therefore, "now the generation of Christ." This is read in two ways. For according to Chrysostom it is, as it were, a certain prologue to what is to be said; but according to Remigius it is a certain epilogue of what has been said. In the first way it is read thus: thus it has been said concerning the genealogy of Christ, how Abraham begot Isaac, etc., through carnal admixture, but the generation of Christ was in this way — supply: as will be said in what follows. In the second way it is read thus, so that it is an epilogue of what precedes: thus Abraham, etc., down to Christ. "Now the generation of Christ was in this way" — supply: that it was extended from Abraham through David and others down to Christ. Next he describes the manner of the generation; and first he describes the person generating, when he says "when his mother was espoused"; second, the generation of Christ itself, when he says "before they came together she was found to be with child"; third, the agent of the generation, "of the Holy Spirit." He describes the person generating from three things: first from her condition, when he says "espoused ... to Joseph"; second from her dignity, "his mother"; third from her proper name, "Mary." He says therefore, "when his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph."

But here a question at once arises. Since Christ wished to be born of a virgin, why did he wish his mother to be espoused? The reason, according to Jerome, is threefold. The first is so that the testimony of her virginity might be more credible. For if she had not been espoused, and said she was a virgin, when she was pregnant, it would seem she was saying this for no other reason than to conceal the crime of adultery. But since she was espoused, she had no need to lie. And therefore she would be believed the more; Psalm 92:5: "Your testimonies have become exceedingly credible." Another reason is so that she might have the protection of a husband, whether when she fled into Egypt, or when she returned from there. The third was, so that her childbearing might be concealed from the Devil, lest, that is, if he himself knew, he might impede his Passion, and the fruit of our redemption; 1 Corinthians 2:8: "For if they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory" — this is explained of the Demon, that is, he would not have permitted him to be crucified. But to the contrary: does the Devil not know whether this woman is a virgin? For her virginity was in flesh not corrupted. Therefore the Devil could know her to be a virgin. But it must be said, according to Ambrose, who also assigns this reason, that devils can know some things by a certain subtlety of nature, which nevertheless they cannot know except by divine permission. Whence the Devil would have known her virginity, had he not been divinely prevented from careful consideration. According to Ambrose a threefold reason is assigned. The first is for the preservation of the honor of the Lord's mother: the Lord preferred that men should be in doubt about his origin, rather than about the chastity of his mother. And therefore he wished her to be espoused, so that the suspicion of adultery might be removed: for he had come to fulfill the law, not to dissolve it; Matthew 5:17: "I have not come to destroy, but to fulfill"; Exodus 20:12 says, "Honor your father and your mother." Another reason is, so that an excuse might be taken away from virgins noted for adultery: for if the Lord's mother had not been espoused, and yet pregnant, they could excuse themselves in like manner through her example; Psalm 140:4: "Incline not my heart to evil words, to make excuses in sins." The third reason is, because Christ espoused the Church to himself, which is a virgin; 2 Corinthians 2:2: "For I have espoused you." And therefore he wished to be born of an espoused virgin, as a sign that he had espoused the Church to himself.

"When therefore she was espoused" — but to whom? To Joseph. According to Chrysostom, Joseph was a carpenter; and this signifies Christ, who through the wood of the cross restored all things, both heavenly and the rest. "His mother," that is, the mother of God. Here her dignity is shown: for this was granted to no creature, neither to man nor to an angel, to be the father, or the mother, of God; but this was the privilege of a singular grace, that she should become the mother not only of a man, but of God; and therefore in Apocalypse 12:1 it is said: "A woman clothed with the sun," as it were wholly filled with divinity. This Nestorius denied, and this because the divinity was not received from the virgin. Against him Ignatius the martyr uses a beautiful example to show that she was the mother of God. It is agreed, he says, that in the generation of ordinary men the woman is called the mother, and yet the woman does not give the rational soul, which is from God, but supplies the substance for the formation of the body. Thus, therefore, the woman is called the mother of the whole man, because that which is taken from her is united to the rational soul. Likewise, since the humanity of Christ was taken from the Blessed Virgin, on account of the union to the divinity the Blessed Virgin is said to be the mother not only of the man, but also of God; although the divinity is not taken from her, just as in other cases the rational soul is not taken from the mother. "Mary," her proper name. It is interpreted "star of the sea," or "illuminatrix," and in her own language "lady"; whence in Apocalypse 12:1 the moon is described under her feet.

"Before they came together," etc. Here Helvidius objects: if "before they came together," then at some point they did come together. Whence he denied the virginity of the mother of Christ: he says that not before the birth, nor in the birth, but after the birth, she was known by her husband. And Jerome answers, that without doubt this word "before" always imports an order toward the future. But this can happen in two ways: either according to reason, or according to the acceptance of the understanding. For if it is said, "before I dined in the port of Rome, I sailed to Africa," it is not to be understood that after I had sailed to Africa I dined; but that I had intended to dine, and, being forestalled by the voyage, I did not dine. So it is here. It is not to be understood that afterward they really came together, as that impious man says; but because, from this very fact that she was espoused to him according to common opinion, it was lawful for them at some point to come together, although they never did come together. Remigius explains it otherwise, so that it be understood of the solemn celebration of the wedding: for beforehand there was, and for some days there took place, the espousal, and meanwhile the bride was not under the guardianship of the husband; but afterward there took place the solemn celebration of the wedding, and then she was led into the house of the husband. Of this wedding the Evangelist speaks here. And according to this the objection of Helvidius has no place. Note the propriety of the word: for properly that is said to be "found" which was not hoped for, nor thought; and Joseph had such an opinion of the chastity of Mary, that it was beyond his estimation that he found her pregnant. "With child" — supply: by Joseph himself, who, as Jerome says, by marital license searched out almost all her secrets.

"Of the Holy Spirit." Here the agent of the conception is touched upon. But this must be read separately from what precedes. For it is not to be read, or understood, that Joseph found her having in the womb of the Holy Spirit; but only that he found her pregnant. And lest suspicion of adultery should arise among the hearers meanwhile, he added "of the Holy Spirit," that is, of the power of the Holy Spirit, not of his substance, lest he be believed to be the son of the Holy Spirit; Luke 1:35: "The Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you." Although, however, according to Augustine, the works of the Trinity are undivided, and therefore this conception itself was wrought not only by the Holy Spirit, but also by the Father and the Son; nevertheless by a certain appropriation it is attributed to the Holy Spirit. And this for three reasons. The first reason is, because the Holy Spirit is love. Now this was a sign of the greatest love, that God willed his Son to become incarnate; John 3:16: "So God loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son." The second, because grace is attributed to the Holy Spirit; 1 Corinthians 12:4: "There are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit"; and this was the greatest grace. The third reason is assigned in the acts of the Council of Nicaea, and is, that in us there is a twofold word: the word of the heart and the word of the voice. The word of the heart is the very conception of the intellect, which is hidden to men, except insofar as it is expressed through the voice, or through the spoken word. Now to the word of the heart is compared the eternal Word before the incarnation, when it was with the Father, and hidden from us; but to the word of the voice is compared the incarnate Word, which has now appeared to us, and is manifest. Now the word of the heart is not joined to the voice except by the mediation of the spirit; and therefore rightly was the incarnation of the Word, through which it appeared visible to us, brought about by the mediation of the Holy Spirit. Note here four reasons why Christ wished to be born of a virgin. Of these the first was, that original sin is contracted in offspring from the commingling of man and woman: whence if Christ had been born from conjugal intercourse, he would have contracted original sin. But this would have been unfitting, since he himself had come into the world for this purpose, that he might take away our sins: whence he ought not to have been infected by the contagion of sin. The second, because Christ was the foremost teacher of chastity; below, 19:12: "There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven." The third, on account of purity and cleanness: "Wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul," Wisdom 1:4. Whence it was fitting that the womb of his mother should be defiled by no corruption. The fourth, on account of the propriety of the word: because just as the word emanates from the heart without corruption of the heart, so Christ willed and ought to be born of a virgin without corruption.

"But Joseph her husband, being a just man." After he had set forth the manner of the generation, here he confirms it through testimony. For since the Evangelist had said above that the mother of Jesus was found to be with child, and that this was of the Holy Spirit, someone might believe that the Evangelist had added this out of favor to the Master; therefore here the Evangelist confirms the aforesaid manner of the generation. And first by prophetic foretelling, "now this was done"; second by angelic revelation, at "and Joseph arising." In the first part there are three things. First the person is introduced to whom the revelation was made; second the person revealing, at "and while he thought on these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared"; third the words of the revelation are set forth, at "Joseph, son of David." Now the person to whom the revelation is made is commended from two things: namely, from the fact that he is just, and therefore would not lie; second from the fact that he is her betrothed, or husband, and therefore would not tolerate a crime in her; Proverbs 6:34: "The jealousy and rage of the husband will not spare in the day of vengeance." He says therefore thus: she was found by Joseph to have conceived in the womb, "but Joseph her husband, being a just man, and unwilling to expose her." Here there is a twofold opinion of the saints, namely of Ambrose, and of Augustine. For Augustine holds that Joseph, who was not present when the angelic Annunciation was made, returning, and finding her pregnant, had a suspicion of adultery. But then at once a question arises: how was he just, if, holding her suspect of adultery, he was unwilling to expose her, that is, to publish her crime? For in this he seemed to consent to sin in her, and it is said at Romans 1:32, that "not only they that do such things, but they also that consent to them that do them, are worthy of death." But to this there is a threefold response. The first is according to Chrysostom, that justice is twofold: for one is the justice that is a cardinal virtue, which is called special justice; the other is legal justice, which includes every virtue, and piety, and clemency, and things of this kind. When therefore it is said that Joseph was just, it is to be understood of general justice, so that justice is taken for piety. Whence, because he was just, that is, pious, he was unwilling to expose her. The other response is that of Augustine, who says that sin is twofold, namely hidden sin and manifest sin: for hidden sin is not to be publicly denounced, but a remedy is to be applied to it in another way. The suspicion of adultery, then, which Joseph had, was a suspicion of a hidden sin, and not a manifest one, because he alone knew it; and again, if others knew her to be pregnant, they could only suppose that it was by him; and therefore he ought not to have published her crime. But the third response is that of Rabanus, that Joseph was both just and pious: for in this, that he was pious, he did not wish to publish the crime; but in this, that he wished to send her away, he showed himself just: for he knew that "he who holds an adulteress is foolish and unwise," as is said at Proverbs 18:22. But according to Jerome and Origen he had no suspicion of adultery. For Joseph knew the chastity of Mary; he had read in Scripture that a virgin would conceive, Isaiah 7:14, and chapter 11:1: "There shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise up out of his root," etc.; he also knew that Mary was descended from the lineage of David. Whence he more readily believed that this had been fulfilled in her, than that she had committed fornication. And therefore, judging himself unworthy to dwell with such great sanctity, he wished to send her away secretly, just as Peter said: "Depart from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man," Luke 5:8. Whence he was unwilling to expose her, that is, to lead her to himself, and to take her as a wife, judging himself unworthy. Or, according to the opinion of others, being ignorant of the outcome, lest he be held guilty if he concealed it and kept her with him.

"But while he thought on these things." Here the person revealing is introduced: and three things are touched upon. For first the time is touched upon; second the person revealing is introduced, "behold, an angel"; third the manner of the revelation is expressed, "appeared in sleep." He says therefore, "but while he thought on these things," that is, while he turned these things over in his mind, "behold, an angel of the Lord appeared." Note that two things are commended here concerning Joseph, namely wisdom and clemency. Wisdom indeed in this, that he deliberated before he acted; Proverbs 4:25: "Let your eyelids go before your steps": that is, do nothing without judgment and deliberation of reason. Likewise, clemency or piety in this, that he did not publish or promulgate his deed, unlike many who wish immediately to publish outwardly what they have in their heart; Proverbs 25:28: "As a city that lies open and is without the compass of walls, so is a man that cannot restrain his own spirit in speaking." And therefore he deserved to be instructed, or consoled. Whence there follows, "behold, an angel of the Lord appeared": as though the help of God were, as it were, at hand; Psalm 9:10: "A helper in due time, in tribulation"; Psalm 53:6: "For behold, God is my helper, and the Lord is the protector of my soul." "An angel of the Lord": for nothing could better excuse her than one who was privy to the virginity that was kept. Whence it is believed that the same angel who was sent to Mary, Luke 1:26, was sent to Joseph, Psalm 33:8: "The angel of the Lord shall encamp round about them that fear him," namely Mary, and Joseph, to deliver her from infamy, and not to leave Joseph in perturbation. But here it is asked, why the revelation was not made to Joseph from the beginning, before he was thus perturbed. Likewise, why Mary did not reveal to him the angelic Annunciation, which had been made to her. And it must be said to the first, that this was done so that his testimony might be more credible. For just as the Lord permitted the apostle Thomas to doubt concerning his resurrection, so that, doubting, he might touch, and touching, might believe, and by believing might remove from us the wound of unbelief; so the Lord permitted Joseph to doubt concerning the chastity of Mary, so that, doubting, he might receive the angelic revelation, and by receiving it might believe the more firmly. To the second question, it must be said, that if Mary had told him, he would not have believed.

"He appeared to him in sleep": behold the manner of the revelation. Note that to "appear" properly belongs to that thing which is by its nature invisible, yet it is in its power to be seen: as is the case with God, or an angel; for those things which by their nature are such as to be seen are not properly said to appear: whence one speaks of a divine, or angelic, apparition. Whence he speaks properly, "he appeared in sleep." But here it is asked why in sleep. A reason is given in the Gloss, because Joseph was in a certain way doubting: whence he was, as it were, in a way asleep, and therefore the angel is rightly said to have appeared to him in sleep. Another, better reason can be assigned: for as the Apostle says, 1 Corinthians 14:22, "Prophecy is given to believers, but signs to unbelievers." Now properly the revelation which is called prophetic occurs in sleep; Numbers 12:6: "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"; and therefore, because Joseph was just, and faithful, the apparition that belongs to believers ought to be made to him as to one faithful, namely a revelation as it were prophetic. But because a bodily apparition is miraculous, such an apparition did not befit him, since he believed, and was faithful. But then it is asked, why a visible apparition was made to Mary, since she was most faithful. And it must be said, that the mystery of the incarnation was revealed to the Virgin Mary from the beginning, when it was more difficult to believe; and therefore it was necessary that a visible apparition be made to her. But to Joseph it was not revealed from the beginning, but rather when it was already for the most part fulfilled, when he could already see her womb swelling, whence he could more easily believe; and therefore an apparition which occurs in sleep sufficed for him.

"Joseph, son of David." Here the words of the revelation are set forth: and it is divided into three parts, according to the three things the angel does: first he forbids the divorce of Mary and Joseph; second he opens the mystery of the incarnation, when he says, "that which is born in her is of the Holy Spirit"; third he foretells the future service of Joseph himself, namely which he was to render to the child, at "and she shall bring forth a son." He says therefore, "Joseph." He calls him by name so as to render him attentive to listening, and to recall him to himself. This is common in Scripture, that when an apparition is announced, which is from above, it requires in the hearer a certain elevation of mind, and attention; Ezekiel 2:1: "Son of man, stand upon your feet, and I will speak to you," and below, "Son of man, hear all that I say to you, and be not rebellious." Habakkuk 2:1: "I will stand upon my watch." "Son of David." He expresses his lineage for this reason, to turn away that which is said at Isaiah 7:13: "Hear, O house of David: is it a small thing for you to be grievous to men, that you are grievous to my God also?" etc. For the sign was given not to one person, but to the whole tribe or house: whence, because he was to instruct him concerning this, he is bidden, in the expression of his lineage, to recall the prophecy of the prophet to memory. "Fear not." Every apparition, whether of a good, or of an evil angel, strikes a certain fear: and this, because such an apparition is unaccustomed, and as it were foreign to man's nature; and therefore it puts a man, as it were, outside himself. But in this there is a difference, because the apparition of an evil angel strikes terror, and leaves the man in that very terror, so that, the man being placed as it were outside himself, it may draw him more easily to sin; but the apparition of a good angel, although it strikes terror, nevertheless there is immediately added a conclusion, and the attainment of consolation, so that the man returns to himself, and attends to what is said to him; whence at Luke 1, where it is said that an angel appeared to Zechariah, there immediately follows, "Fear not, Zechariah," and likewise in the same place, "Fear not, Mary." Whence, after the apparition made to Joseph, consolation is immediately added. He had a twofold fear, namely of God, and also of sin, lest, that is, by dwelling with Mary he should sin as one privy to sin; and therefore, "fear not" is added, namely from fear of sin, "to take unto you Mary your wife." Note that she is called "wife," not on account of the marriage, but on account of the espousal: for it is the custom of Scripture to call betrothed women wives, and wives betrothed. But it is asked, how does he bid him take her, when he had not yet sent her away? And it must be said that although he had not sent her away bodily, nevertheless he had sent her away in his mind: and therefore he is bidden to take her. Or, "fear not to take her" as regards the solemnity, and the celebration of the wedding.

"For that which is born in her, is of the Holy Spirit." Here he opens the mystery of the incarnation. And note that, whereas there were three things there, namely the virgin herself conceiving, the Son of God conceived, and the active power of the Holy Spirit, the angel expresses two well, namely the one conceiving, and the agent of the conception; but the third, the very Son of God conceived, he expresses only indefinitely: for he says, "that which is born in her"; and this so that it might be denoted that this is ineffable and incomprehensible, not only to man, but even to the angels themselves. For where he says "that which is born in her," he does not say "of her," because to be born of a mother is to come forth into the light: to be born in a mother is to be conceived, "is of the Holy Spirit." This, then, is the angelic testimony, which the Evangelist adduces to prove what he had said above, "she was found to have conceived in the womb of the Holy Spirit." Note that in the conception of other women, in the seed of the man there is a formative power, whose subject is the seed, and through this power the fetus is formed, and nourished in the body of the woman. But this was supplied by the power of the Holy Spirit. And therefore it is sometimes found said by the saints, that the Holy Spirit was there in place of the seed, yet sometimes it is said that there was no seed there. And this is because in the seed of the man there are two things, namely the corrupted substance itself, which descends from the body of the man, and the formative power itself. It must be said, therefore, that the Holy Spirit was in place of the seed as regards the formative power; but was not there in place of the seed as regards the corporeal substance, because the flesh of Christ, or his conception, was not made of the substance of the Holy Spirit. And therefore it is clear that the Holy Spirit cannot be called the father of Christ, because neither according to the divine nature, nor according to the human. According to the divine nature indeed, because although Christ is of the same glory as the Holy Spirit, yet the Son according to the divine nature receives nothing from the Holy Spirit: and therefore he cannot be called his son; for a son receives something from a father. Likewise not according to the human nature, because father and son ought to agree in substance; but Christ, although he was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, was not, however, conceived of the substance of the Holy Spirit. But against what is said, "is of the Holy Spirit," there is what is said at Proverbs 9:1, that "Wisdom has built herself a house." Therefore it seems that the divine Wisdom itself, that is, the Son of God, united a human nature to himself, and thus it was not made by the power of the Holy Spirit. But there is a twofold response, according to Augustine. The first, that that word which is written at Proverbs 9:1 is understood of the Church, which Christ founded in his blood. The other is, that the works of the Trinity are undivided: and therefore that which the Son does, the Holy Spirit also does, but nevertheless by a certain appropriation it is attributed to the Holy Spirit. And the reason for this was stated above.