Thomas Aquinas

Among the Evangelists, Matthew is principally occupied with the humanity of Christ: whence, according to Gregory, he is signified by the man in the figure of the four animals. Now through his humanity Christ entered into the world, advanced through it, and went forth from it. And therefore the whole Gospel is divided into three parts. For first the Evangelist treats of the entrance of Christ's humanity into the world; second, of its advance; third, of its departure. The second part begins at chapter 3:1, where it says, "In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the desert of Judea." The third begins at chapter 21:1, "And when they drew near to Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto mount Olivet." In the first part he does two things: first Christ's generation is described; second, the manifestation of that same generation is added, at chapter 2, where it says, "When Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judah in the days of Herod the king." In the first part he does three things: first, as it were the title of the whole book is set before it, when it says, "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ"; second, the series of the fathers is woven together, "Abraham begot Isaac"; third, when it says, "Now the generation of Christ was in this wise," the generation of Christ is described in particular.

Now the title which is set at the beginning is this: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ." And it seems to be an incomplete sentence. For a nominative is placed there without a verb; but it is not so. For Matthew wrote his Gospel for the Hebrews, and therefore in writing he kept to the custom of the Jews. Now it is customary among the Hebrews to speak in this way, just as when it is said, "The vision of Isaiah the son of Amos," it is understood, "this is," nor is it necessary to add it. So here, when it says "the book of the generation," it is understood, "this is." And this manner of speaking is also customary among us: for if we wish to give a title to some book, it is said "Priscian the Greater" or "the Lesser," nor is it necessary to add "this is" or "here begins."

Again, it is asked, since so small a portion of this book concerns the generation of Christ, why he entitled his book in this way. And it must be said that Matthew, who wrote for the Hebrews, in writing kept to the manner of the Hebrews. Now it is customary among the Hebrews to entitle their books from the beginning, just as Genesis is so called because generation is treated there; whence Genesis 5:1: "This is the book of the generation of Adam." And the book of Exodus, because in its first part the going-forth of the children of Israel from Egypt is treated.

But it is asked why "of Jesus Christ" is added. And it must be said that according to the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 15:22, "as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive." Now Matthew had seen the first book of the Old Testament, in which generation is treated, in which it is said at chapter 5:1, "This is the book of the generation of Adam." Therefore, so that the New Testament, in which regeneration and restoration are treated, might correspond to it by way of opposite, he says, "the book of the generation of Jesus Christ," so as to show that the author of both is the same.

Here, moreover, it is asked concerning this, that it here says "the book of the generation of Jesus Christ." For the contrary is found in Isaiah 53:8, where it is said, "Who shall declare his generation?" But the meaning is, according to Jerome, that in Christ there is a twofold generation: namely, the divine, which cannot be declared, because although we say in some manner that the Son is begotten, yet the manner in which he is begotten neither man nor angel can comprehend; and the other is human, of which he here treats, but even in this generation there are many difficult things. And therefore, according to Remigius, there are very few who can declare it.

Again, it is asked concerning the word "generation," since here several generations are woven together. But it must be said that although many generations are enumerated, all are nevertheless introduced on account of one, namely on account of the generation of Christ, of which it is said below: "Now the generation of Christ was in this wise."

Now he who is described, whose generation is here woven, is described first from his name, when it says "Jesus"; second from his office, when it says "Christ"; third from his origin, when it says "son of David, son of Abraham."

Although there were also others who were called Jesus, as Jesus the son of Nun, of whom Ecclesiasticus 46:1 says, "Valiant in war was Jesus the son of Nun, the successor of Moses among the prophets," and another concerning the building of the temple, of whom it speaks in Zechariah 3:1 — these, however, were Jesus in name and in figure, inasmuch as they prefigured this one. That Jesus led the people of Israel into the land of promise; but this Jesus, that is, our Savior, leads us not into a carnal land, but into the heavenly one; Hebrews 12:2: "For we have him as the author and finisher, through his blood," and so forth. And rightly is he called "Jesus," a name which befits him according to both natures, namely the divine and the human. According to the human indeed he suffered in his own flesh, and accomplished the mystery of our redemption; and since that passion would not have had efficacy except from the power of the divinity joined to it, on this account it is said below: "his name shall be called Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins."

But it is asked why it says "Christ." Would not "Jesus" have sufficed? I answer that this was done for this reason, that, as has been said, others also were called Jesus. Now from his office he describes him, when he says "Christ," that is, anointed. Now note three anointings in the old law. For Aaron was anointed priest, Leviticus 8:11. Saul was anointed king by Samuel, 1 Kings 10:1, and David, 1 Kings 16:13. And Elisha was anointed prophet, 3 Kings 19:16. Since therefore Christ was a true priest — Psalm 109:4: "Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech," etc. — and king and prophet, therefore he is rightly called Christ, on account of the three offices which he himself exercised.

"Son of David, son of Abraham." Here there is a twofold question, namely concerning the number, and concerning the order. As to the first, why he named these two. On account of that reason which was stated in the prologue, that Abraham was a prophet. Genesis 20:7: "The Lord said to Abimelech king of Gerar: Restore the man his wife, for he is a prophet." Likewise he was a priest, Genesis 15:9, when he fulfilled the office of priest, namely by offering a victim to the Lord: "Take me," he says, "a cow of three years," and so forth. David, moreover, was a prophet, as is clear from Acts 2:30. He was also a king, as is clear from 2 Kings 2:4. Since therefore Christ was king, and prophet, and priest, he is therefore rightly called the son of these two. For if he had named only Abraham, it would not have been signified that Christ was to be king. Likewise if only David, the priestly dignity in Christ would not have been denoted; and therefore he set down both.

As to the second, it must be said that, according to Jerome, David is placed first, and the order is changed on account of the necessity of weaving the genealogy; for if he had said first "son of Abraham," and second "son of David," it would have been necessary to repeat Abraham a second time, so that the order of the genealogy might be continued. According to Ambrose, however, it must be said that David is placed first by reason of dignity; for to David the promise was made concerning the head itself, when it is said, Psalm 131:11: "Of the fruit of thy womb I will set upon thy throne." But to Abraham concerning the members, namely concerning the Church; whence Genesis 22:18: "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed."

Here it must be noted that there were many terrors concerning Christ. For some erred concerning his divinity, as Paul of Samosata, Photinus, and Sabellius; some concerning his humanity; and some concerning both. Others, moreover, erred concerning his person.

Concerning his humanity, Manichaeus erred first, who said that he took not a true body, but a phantasmal one. Against this is what the Lord says, Luke, last chapter, 39: "Handle, and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see me to have." Second after him Valentinus erred, who said that he brought a heavenly body with him, not that he assumed it from the virgin, but that he passed through her as water through a channel. But against this is what is said in Romans 1:3: "Who was made to him of the seed of David according to the flesh." The third error was that of Apollinaris, who said that he took only a body, and not a soul, but had the divinity in place of the soul. But against this is what is frequently said: "Now is my soul troubled." But on account of this same difficulty he afterward changed his opinion, and said that Christ had a vegetative and sensitive soul, but not, however, a rational one, having the divinity in its place. But then it would follow, unfittingly, that Christ would be no more a man than some brute animal.

Now these errors the four Evangelists divided among themselves, as it were by a certain lot. For Mark and John principally destroyed those errors which concern the divinity; whence John at once in the beginning said: "In the beginning was the Word." And Mark began thus: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" — he did not say "son of Abraham." Matthew, however, and Luke destroy at the beginning those errors which concern his humanity. Whence note that in this, that it says "son of David, son of Abraham," all the errors which existed concerning Christ's humanity are excluded. For no one is called the son of another except through univocal generation, which is according to agreement in species. For however much something be generated from a man, unless it share the same nature according to species, it is never called his son, as is clear in the case of lice and things of this kind. If therefore Christ is the son of David and of Abraham, he must have the same nature by reason of the same species; but he would not have the same nature according to species if he did not have a true and natural body, nor if he had brought that body from heaven; nor even if he lacked a sensitive soul, or a rational one. Whence the exclusion of every error is clear.