Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew

Matthew, from Judea, etc. Jerome prefixes a prologue to the Gospel of Matthew, in which he does three things: first, he describes the author himself; second, he opens up the mysteries of the Gospel, at the place "presupposing two principles in the generation of Christ"; third, he shows his own intention, at the place "but for us, this was our concern in this study of the argument."

He describes the author himself, however, by four things: first from his name, when he says "Matthew"; second from his origin, when he says "from Judea"; third from the order of writing, at "as he is placed first in order"; fourth from his calling, at "whose calling to the Lord," that is, to Christ, etc. Concerning this, Matthew 9:9 and Luke 5:27. And note that the interlinear Gloss, which says: "first," that is, before whom none [wrote], etc., seems to want to say that others wrote in Judea after Matthew, which is not true: for Matthew alone wrote in Judea, Mark in Italy, Luke in Achaia, John in Asia.

Consequently he opens up the mysteries of the Gospel itself. And first he opens up the mysteries concerning the beginning of the Gospel; second he shows that these same mysteries are to be sought both in the middle and at the end, at "in which Gospel it is useful," etc.

Now at the beginning of the Gospel two things are touched upon. First something like a title is set down, when it says, "the book of the generation"; second a certain series of generation is described, when it says, "Abraham begot Isaac," etc. First, then, he sets down the mysteries of the title, or the things touched upon in the title; second, the mysteries of the generation, at "and thus by a group of fourteen."

Now in the title it is said, "the book of the generation of Jesus Christ"; where two principles are touched upon, namely David and Abraham. And this is because the precept concerning circumcision was given first to Abraham; Romans 4:11: "he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which is in uncircumcision, that he might be the father of all who believe." David, however, was chosen by the Lord; 1 Kings 13:14: "I have found a man after my own heart." Hence on account of this these two are touched upon, so that it might be denoted that Christ drew his origin both from circumcised fathers and from the elect. And this is the meaning of "of two," of men, or of two principles, that is, there are two principles, namely David and Abraham.

Consequently he sets down the mysteries which are touched upon in the genealogy. And first he touches upon the mysteries of the Gospel itself, or of the Evangelist; second, those of Christ himself, at "of all which things," etc.

And it is a mystery that the Evangelist divided the genealogy of Christ into three groups of fourteen: of which the first is from Abraham to David; the second from David to the deportation; the third up to Christ; so that he might show Christ to be both of the circumcised, and of the elect, and of those deported. And this is the meaning of "set forth in threefold fashion," that is, repeated three times, above in the genealogy — "from the faith of believing," that is, from Abraham himself, who was the first exemplar of believing, "reaching forward to the time of election," that is, leading up to David himself, and "from the election," that is, from David himself, "directing to the day of the deportation"; and "from the day of the deportation defining up to Christ" — it is evident that the generation, "run through," that is, briefly and cursorily touched upon, shows the advent of the Lord, "satisfying both number and time." It is evident.

Of all which things, etc. Note that in this series of the generation four things are touched upon: time, number, order, and disposition or reckoning; for it says "from Abraham even to David," etc. All these things show nothing other than that Christ is God: for this is what is intended according to the disposition and allegorical reckoning, that Christ is God. "Which is necessary for faith," namely, that Christ is God — that is, in all these things there is nothing more required of the necessity of faith except that Christ is God.

"Who was made of a woman," etc. Note, and expound, and mark the chapters. "And he fixed all things to the cross," that is, sins, according as he took out of the midst the handwriting that was against us. Again, better: Christ according to God and man, who is all things, according to that saying, John 12:32, "if I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all things to myself," and Philippians 2:10: "that at the name of the Lord every knee should bow, of those in heaven, on earth, and under the earth." "Triumphing over them in himself," because through the trophy of the cross he subjected all things to himself, and triumphed over each and every one.

"And the name of the father, in the fathers, to the son." Now for the clarification of this it must be noted that in the series of the generation certain fathers and certain sons are set down, as is evident. Likewise there is set down there a certain father without a father, as Adam; a certain son without a son, as Jesus. Likewise there are set down some who are both fathers and sons, as all the intermediate ones. Now by this it is mystically designated that in the Trinity there is Father and Son, just as in this genealogy there are certain fathers, certain sons. Likewise, by the fact that the first father does not have a father in this series, nor the last son a son, it is shown that these are from eternity. Likewise, by the fact that one and the same person is father and son with respect to different persons, it is touched upon that these are one, not indeed in person, but in nature.

And this is what he says: "and restoring the name of father to the son, among the fathers" — that is, that the son should have a father; "among the fathers," that is, by the fact that certain fathers are set down there. And "restoring the name to the father," that is, that the father should have a son, and this "among the sons," that is, by the fact that certain sons without beginning and without end are set down there: because the first father does not have a father, nor the last son a son. "Showing himself to be one with the Father," that is, one in nature, because each is one in person, namely father and son, yet with respect to different persons, in the said genealogy. Note the interlinear Gloss which says: "one Christ"; which is a statement that amounts to nothing.

Consequently he shows that similar mysteries are to be sought in the said Gospel, not only at the beginning, but also in the middle and at the end: and this is the meaning of "in which Gospel," namely that of Matthew, "it is useful for those desiring God," thus, that is, in the same way as we have said, "to know the first things," that is, the beginning, or the middle things, or "the perfect things," the end, and the consummation; "as also the calling of the apostle," etc. It is written, Philippians 3:12: "but I follow after, if by any means I may attain."

But for us. Here he shows his own intention, namely that he intends that the things which are said here are true in their history, and yet are to be understood spiritually. "But for us this was" — that is, this was our intention — "in the pursuit of the argument," that is, of the prologue.

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.

With the title proposed, here the sequence of the genealogy is woven together; and it is divided into three parts, according to the three sets of fourteen by which the said sequence of the genealogy is woven. The first set of fourteen is from Abraham up to David, which proceeds through the patriarchs. The second proceeds from David up to the transmigration of Babylon, which proceeds through the kings. The third, from the transmigration of Babylon up to Christ, begins from leaders and proceeds through private persons. The second part is there where it says, "David the king begot Solomon." The third is there where it says, "And after the transmigration of Babylon," and so on. The first part is divided into three. For first are set down the fathers who were before the entrance into Egypt; second are set down those who were in the very going out, and the entrance into the land of promise; third, those who were after the entrance into the land of promise. He says therefore first, "Abraham begot Isaac."

Here it must be considered, before we proceed further, that two Evangelists pursue the generation of Christ according to the flesh, namely Luke and Matthew, but differently. And this difference is observed with respect to five things. For first they differ as to placement; second as to order; third as to manner; fourth as to terminus; fifth as to the persons enumerated.

First I say that they differ as to placement, because Matthew begins to weave the generation of Christ at the beginning of the Gospel, but Luke does so not at the beginning, but after the Baptism. And the reason for this, according to Augustine, is that Matthew took up the carnal generation of Christ to describe, and therefore he had to set it down immediately at the beginning. But Luke intends above all to commend in Christ the priestly person; now to a priest belongs the expiation of sins, and therefore Christ's generation is fittingly set down by Luke after the Baptism, in which the expiation of sins takes place.

Second, Luke and Matthew differ in weaving the genealogy of Christ as to order: because Matthew weaves the generation of Christ beginning from Abraham and descending down to Christ, but Luke begins from Christ and proceeds ascending up to Abraham and even beyond. And the reason is that, according to the Apostle, Romans 4:25, in Christ there were two things, namely the humility of taking up the defect of our nature, and the power of divinity and of grace, by which he expiated us from the defects of this nature; Romans 8:3: "God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh," on account of the first, and "of sin he condemned sin in the flesh," on account of the second. Matthew therefore, who intends the carnal generation of Christ, through which he descended even to the assumption of our infirmity, fittingly describes his generation by descending. But Luke, who commends in him the priestly dignity, through which we are reconciled to God and are united to Christ himself, fittingly proceeds by ascending.

Third, they differ as to manner: because in narrating the genealogy Matthew uses this word "begot," but Luke this word "was." And this is because Matthew in his whole narration sets down only carnal fathers; but Luke sets down many fathers according to the law, or by adoption. For it was commanded in the law that if someone died without children, his brother should take his bride, and beget children for him; hence those children were not the children of him who begot them, but by a certain adoption were imputed to the former. Hence Luke, who sets down many sons begotten by adoption, does not say "begot," but "was," because although they themselves had not begotten them, yet by a certain adoption those sons were theirs. But Matthew, who sets down only carnal fathers, says "begot." The reason for this is that, as has been said, Matthew is occupied above all with the humanity of Christ. And because according to the flesh he was born of carnal fathers, therefore in the genealogy of Matthew no one is set down who was not a carnal father. But Luke commends above all in Christ the priestly dignity, through which we are adopted as sons of God; and therefore he set down not only carnal but also legal fathers.

Fourth, they differ as to terminus: because Matthew begins his generation from Abraham, and extends it up to Christ; but Luke, from Christ, extends not only up to Abraham, but even up to God. The reason for this can be taken from the fact that Matthew wrote to the Hebrews. Now the Hebrews gloried above all in Abraham, John 8:33: "We are the seed of Abraham," who was the first principle of believing; and therefore Matthew began from Abraham. But Luke wrote to the Greeks, who knew nothing about Abraham except through Christ: for if Christ had not existed, they would never have known anything about Abraham; and therefore Luke began from Christ, and terminated not only in Abraham, but in God.

Fifth, they differ as to the persons enumerated: because in the whole sequence of Luke's genealogy no mention at all is made of a woman; but in Matthew certain women are inserted. The reason for this is, according to Ambrose, that Luke, as has been said, commends above all the priestly dignity; but in a priest the greatest purity is required. But Matthew weaves his carnal generation; and therefore certain women are set down there. It must be noted, however, that in the whole genealogy of Matthew only sinful women are set down, or those who had been marked by some sin, such as Tamar, who committed fornication, Genesis 38:24, and Ruth, who was an idolatress, being a Gentile, and the wife of Uriah, who was an adulteress, 2 Kings 11:2ff.

And this is to designate, according to Jerome, that he whose genealogy is woven entered in order to redeem sinners. Another reason is touched on by Ambrose, namely so that the confusion of the Church might be removed. For if Christ willed to be born of sinners, unbelievers ought not to mock, if sinners come to the Church. Another reason can be assigned, I believe according to Chrysostom, so that the imperfection of the law might be shown, and that Christ came to fulfill the law. For by the fact that certain sinful women are touched on, it is denoted that those who were the greatest in the law were sinners, such as David and Judah. And in this he designates the imperfection of the others. For if these were sinners, much more were the others; Romans 3:23: "All have sinned, and are in need of the glory of God." And therefore these are set down in the generation of Christ, so that it may be designated that he himself had fulfilled the law. Note, however, that although these women were all sinners, yet not at the time when their genealogy is being woven, but they had already been cleansed by penance.

He says therefore, "Abraham begot Isaac." It must be noted first that here two things are to be considered according to the letter, or the literal sense: first, that through these fathers set down Christ is designated; second, that these things are also referred, and can be referred, to our instruction.

He says therefore first, "Abraham begot Isaac." And this is had in Genesis 21. "And Isaac begot Jacob," Genesis 25. "And Jacob begot Judah and his brothers." Here it is asked, since Abraham had another son besides Isaac, namely Ishmael, and likewise Isaac had another, why no mention is made of them, as here it says "Judah and his brothers." Likewise, why Judah is expressed by name more than the others. The reason is that Judah and his brothers remained under the worship of the one God; and therefore mention is made of them in the generation of Christ, but not of Isaac and Ishmael, nor of Jacob and Esau. To the second, this was so that it might be shown fulfilled in Christ the prophecy of Jacob, Genesis 49:10: "The scepter shall not be taken away from Judah, nor a ruler from his thigh, until he come who is to be sent: and he shall be the expectation of the nations." For it is manifest that "the Lord arose out of Judah," as is said in Hebrews 7:14; and therefore more mention is made of him than of the others.

"And Judah begot Perez," and so on. Here it is asked, since the Lord was not born of Zerah, but of Perez, why mention is made of him. Likewise, why he is expressed by name. For before it said "his brothers"; why then did it express the name of Zerah? And it must be said, according to Ambrose, that this was done as a mystery. For evidence of this, note the history, which is had in Genesis 38, that in the birth of Tamar, Zerah appeared first, on whose hand the midwife bound a scarlet thread, saying, "This one shall come out first," and therefore she called his name Zerah; afterward, as he drew back his hand, the other came out, the midwife saying, "Why is the wall divided on account of you?" Now Zerah, who appeared first, signifies the Jewish people, on whose hand the midwife bound the scarlet thread, that is, circumcision, which was done with the shedding of blood. But as he drew back his hand, etc., the other came out, because blindness happened in part to the Jews. For thus the Gentile people, divided, entered into the light of faith, having come forth from the womb of ignorance and unbelief.

Second, it must be noted that through the fathers set down in the generation of Christ, Christ is signified by reason of the name, or of the deed, or of something else, as is evident of itself. For Abraham is interpreted "father of many nations," and signifies Christ, of whom it is said in Hebrews 2:10: "who had brought many sons unto glory." Likewise Abraham went out from his land at the Lord's command, Genesis 12:4, and it is Christ who said, Jeremiah 12:17: "I have left my house, I have abandoned my inheritance," and so on. Likewise Abraham, who laughed, saying, "Now the Lord has made laughter for me," Genesis 21:6, and it is Christ, at whose nativity joy is announced not only to one person, but to the whole world; Luke 2:10: "Behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all the people, for unto you is born this day a savior, who is Christ the Lord."

Likewise through Jacob, both by reason of the interpretation and by reason of the deed, as is evident in this, that he placed a stone, that is, the hardness of the cross, under his head. Likewise through Judah, and through Perez, who is interpreted "division," for he himself shall divide the sheep from the goats, below, 25:32.

Morally, however, in these generations is designated the state of our justification, according to six things which are required for justification. Namely, faith through Abraham, who was justified by the righteousness of faith; for elsewhere he himself is called the principle of faith; Romans 4:11: "that he might be the father of all who believe, though uncircumcised." Isaac, hope, because he is interpreted "laughter"; Romans 12:12: "rejoicing in hope." Jacob, charity, who took two wives, Leah, who is interpreted "laboring," and Rachel, that is, two lives, which are in charity according to the two precepts: for the contemplative life delights in God, and the active life is that by which one comes to the aid of one's neighbor. Judah, confession, which is twofold: of faith, Romans 10:10, "with the heart one believes unto righteousness; but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation," and of sins, "confess your sins one to another," James 5:16. From this, moreover, follows a twofold effect, namely the destruction of vices, which is designated through Perez, and the origin of the virtues, which is signified through Zerah. And these arise from Tamar, who is interpreted "bitterness"; Isaiah 38:15: "I will recall to thee all my years in the bitterness of my soul."

"And Perez begot Hezron." Here is set down the sequence of the genealogy of the fathers who were born in Egypt, or in its exodus. For just as through Perez, who is interpreted "division," Christ is signified, below, 25:32, "he shall separate the lambs from the goats," so through Hezron, who is interpreted "arrow," or "court." For he is called "arrow" on account of the efficacy of preaching, by which he penetrated the hearts of his hearers; Psalm 44:6: "Thy arrows are sharp, the peoples shall fall under thee into the hearts of the king's enemies." And "court," on account of the breadth of charity, by which he loved not only friends, but even enemies; Romans 5:10: "when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son"; Isaiah 53:12: "he made intercession for the transgressors"; and likewise Luke 23:34: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

"And Hezron begot Ram." Now Ram is interpreted "chosen," or "exalted": Isaiah 42:1, "Behold my servant, and he himself is exalted above all"; Ephesians 1:21, "he set him above every principality." "And Ram begot Amminadab," who is interpreted "spontaneous." He it is in whose person the Psalmist says, Psalm 53:8, "I will freely sacrifice to thee, and will confess to thy name, for it is good, O Lord"; and Isaiah 53:7, "he was offered because he himself willed it, and he opened not his mouth," and so on; John 6:38, "I came not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me."

"And Amminadab begot Nahshon," who is interpreted "augury" or "serpentine," because Christ knew not only present things, but also past and future ones; Hebrews 4:13, "all things are naked and open to his eyes." Likewise, "serpentine" on account of prudence, for prudence is attributed to the serpent, below, 10:16, "be ye prudent as serpents"; Job 12:16, "he himself knows the one deceiving and the one who is deceived." Note that this Nahshon was in the time of Moses, and went out with him from Egypt, and was one prince in the tribe of Judah in the desert, as is had in Numbers 1:7.

But it must be observed that in Exodus 13:18, where our text has "the sons of Israel went up armed out of Egypt," the eagle translated it as "equipped," on account of an ambiguity; but better is the reading of the Septuagint, "the sons of Israel went out of Egypt in the fifth generation." But against this: this Nahshon was not the fifth from Jacob, but the seventh, as is evident by counting Jacob, Judah, and so on, up to Nahshon. Therefore it was not the fifth, but the seventh generation. But it is said that the count is not to be made through the tribe of Judah, but through the tribe of Levi, under whose leadership the sons of Israel went out from Egypt; Psalm 76:21, "thou didst lead thy people like sheep by the hand of Moses and Aaron." And it is evident that there are only five generations. For Jacob begot Levi, and Levi begot Kohath, Kohath begot Amram, and Amram begot Moses and Aaron, as is evident in Exodus 2; and under Moses they went out from Egypt.

Here note that among all the tribes the tribe of Judah multiplied the most, and this because from it the future kings were to come, who had to fight. But among all, the tribe of Levi multiplied the least, and this because it was preordained to the divine office and the priesthood, for which fewer sufficed. And therefore he wants that also by counting through the tribe of Judah, what is said in Genesis 15:16 should be true, "in the fifth generation they shall return here." Jerome therefore says that what is said there is to be understood by counting through the tribe of Levi, but what is said here, through the tribe of Judah. For Perez himself entered into Egypt with Jacob and Judah his father. And therefore these generations are not to be counted from Jacob, but from Perez, who himself also entered into Egypt. And it is evident that Nahshon was the fifth from Perez. Likewise Levi himself entered into Egypt with his father Jacob. And therefore the generations are to be counted from Levi, and not from Jacob. Now it is clear that Moses was the fourth from Levi.

"And Nahshon begot Salmon." Salmon is interpreted "sensible," and signifies Christ, in whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden. Morally it must be noted here that just as in the first generation is signified the order of our justification with respect to the state of beginners, so in this second generation, which likewise contains five, is signified the progress of those advancing. For the first thing that follows from the fact that a man is justified from sin is that he has zeal for souls. And therefore it is well said that Perez begot Hezron, who is interpreted "arrow," on account of the efficacy of preaching by which the hearts of hearers are pierced; Isaiah 49:2, "he made me as a chosen arrow." And so adapt the rest.

"And Salmon begot Boaz," and so on. Here are set down the fathers who were born after the entrance into the land of promise. For Salmon was begotten in the desert, and entered with Joshua into the land of promise, and took as wife Rahab the harlot, of whom he begot Boaz. Boaz is interpreted "strong"; Jeremiah 16:19, "the Lord is my strength and my might." Rahab, however, is interpreted "hunger," or "breadth": and signifies the Church, because to her belongs that beatitude, Matthew 5:6, "blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice, for they shall be satisfied," and so on. It is also interpreted "breadth," because the Church has been spread throughout the whole world; Isaiah 54:2, "enlarge the place of thy tent, and stretch out the skins of thy tabernacles," and so on. Likewise it is interpreted "impetus," because by the impetus of preaching it converted kings and philosophers. Likewise it signifies the Church by reason of the deed. Rahab sent a scarlet thread into the window, by which she was freed from the overthrow of Jericho, Joshua 2:21. Our window is the mouth: the thread, then, in the window is the confession of the passion of Christ, by which the Church has been freed from death. Likewise by reason of marriage, because just as Rahab was joined in marriage to Salmon, who was a prince in the tribe of Judah, so Christ betrothed the Church to himself; 2 Corinthians 11:2, "I have espoused you to one husband, that I might present you as a chaste virgin to Christ."

But here it is asked, according to the letter, since Rahab was a harlot, how was she betrothed to so great a prince, who was greater than the others? And it must be said that Rahab did a very great thing, in that, scorning her own people and her father's rite, she chose the worship of the God of Israel. And therefore she was given, as it were for the greatest honor, to a most noble prince.

"And Boaz begot Obed of Ruth." This is had in the last chapter of Ruth. Obed is interpreted "serving," or "servitude": and signifies Christ, of whom through the prophet, "you have made me serve in your sins," Isaiah 43:24. Ruth, however, signifies the Church born of the Gentiles, by reason of place: for she was a Moabite. Moab is interpreted "from the father"; John 8:44, "you are of your father the devil"; and again by reason of marriage, as is evident in the Gloss. But it is asked why these women are named here, since they were sinners. Jerome assigns the reason concerning Ruth, namely so that the prophecy of Isaiah 16:1 might be fulfilled: "send forth the lamb, O Lord, the ruler of the land, from the rock of the desert." The rock of the desert is, namely, of evil, and Ruth the Moabite is signified. Ambrose, however, assigns the reason, saying: it was to be that the Church would be gathered from unbelieving nations; and therefore she could be ashamed and confounded, unless they saw that Christ was born even of sinful women. Hence, so that their shame and confusion might be removed, they had to be named.

But it is asked: Deuteronomy 23:3 says, "the Moabites and Ammonites shall not enter the Church"; since therefore Ruth was a Moabite, how was she received into the Church? But it must be said, through the Apostle, to the Galatians 5:18, that those who are led by the Spirit are not under the law: for in the law the intention of the lawgiver ought always to be observed more than the words of the law. For what was the reason why the Lord forbade them to enter the Church? Namely because he found idolatry in them, lest they draw the Jews to idolatry. Hence this woman, who was already converted, was not an idolatress; and therefore she was not subject to the prohibition.

"And Obed begot Jesse," last chapter of Ruth. Jesse, moreover, is interpreted "sacrifice" or "burning"; and signifies him who offered himself as a victim to God in an odor of sweetness. But it is asked: since this man was called by another name, Isai, as is evident in 1 Kings in many places, and that name was more solemn, why did the Evangelist not name him thus? And it must be said that this was so that it might be shown fulfilled in Christ what was said through the prophet Isaiah, 11:1: "there shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse."

"And Jesse begot David the king." David is interpreted "strong of hand and desirable in appearance"; all of which befit Christ, as is evident. For he himself is strong who overcame the devil; Luke 11:22, "but if a stronger than he coming upon him overcome him, he will take away all his armor wherein he trusted, and will distribute his spoils." Likewise he himself is "beautiful in form beyond the sons of men," Psalm 44:3.

But here it is asked: since there were several other kings, why is this one alone called "the king"? And it must be said that this man was the first king in the tribe of Judah, from which the Lord arose: for although Saul was king, he was nevertheless of the tribe of Benjamin. The second reason is that the others reigned on account of the merit of David himself; Psalm 88:30, "and I will set his seed for evermore, and his throne as the days of heaven." The third reason is so that the prophecy of Jeremiah 23:5 might be shown fulfilled: "I will raise up to David a righteous branch, and a king shall reign, and shall be wise, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth"; Isaiah 9:7, "he shall sit upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom," and so on.

Morally, indeed, in this generation is designated the fruit of the perfect, just as in the others the fruit of beginners and of those advancing. For the first thing required in the perfect man is that he be strong to undertake adversities, so that, namely, he is not held back on account of some difficulty; and this is signified through Boaz, for he is interpreted "strong"; Isaiah 40:31, "they that hope in the Lord shall change their strength, they shall take wings as eagles, they shall run and not labor, they shall walk and not faint"; Proverbs, last chapter, 10, "who shall find a strong woman?" and so on. The second is the humility of one serving, namely that the greater he is, the more he humbles himself in all things; and this is signified through Obed, who himself is interpreted "serving" or "servitude"; Luke 22:26, "he that is greatest among you, let him become as the servant." The third is the fervor of charity, which is signified through Jesse, who is interpreted "incense" or "burning"; Psalm 140:2, "let my prayer be directed as incense in thy sight," and so on. And from this one arrives at the kingdom, and at glory: because Jesse begot David the king; Revelation 5:10, "he has made us a kingdom to our God, and priests to God his Father"; 1 Peter 2:9, "you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of acquisition."

Having set forth the series of the genealogy of the fathers which ran through the patriarchs, here he sets forth the series of the fathers which proceeds through the kings; and it is divided into two parts. First are set forth the kings who were born of Israel without any admixture of foreign seed; second are set forth the kings who followed upon a union with a foreign spouse, at the place, "And Joram begot Uzziah." Here there is a twofold question. For Luke, in reckoning the generation of Christ, ascends through Nathan; but Matthew, descending, proceeds from David to Christ through Solomon: whence there seems to be a certain contrariety. But it must be said, as has been said, that Luke in the genealogy of Christ sets down many fathers who were not fathers by carnal origin through propagation, but according to legal adoption; whereas Matthew sets down none who was not a carnal father. And it is true that according to the flesh the Lord descended from David through Solomon, and not through Nathan; and yet, according to Augustine, it is not without mystery that Matthew descends from David through Solomon to Christ, while Luke ascends from Christ to David through Nathan. For Matthew had undertaken to describe the carnal generation of Christ, according to which Christ descended even to the likeness of sinful flesh; and therefore Matthew rightly, in tracing his generation, descends from David through Solomon, with whose mother David himself sinned; but Luke, who intends chiefly to commend in Christ the priestly dignity, through which there was an expiation of sins, rightly ascends through Nathan to David, who was a holy man. Note, however, that according to the same Augustine in the book of Retractions, it is not to be understood that the Nathan who was a prophet, who rebuked him, was the same as the son whom he begot; but only that they were alike in name.

Second, it is asked why Bathsheba is not named by her name, as Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth are. And it must be said that the others, although for some time they were sinners, were afterward converted and penitent; but this woman sinned shamefully, in the crime of adultery and in consent to homicide: and therefore, out of shame, her name is passed over in silence. Note, however, that in Scripture the sins of great men are sometimes recounted, as of David and others; and this is because the Devil has cast down not only the small and lesser ones, but also the great: for he is our adversary. And therefore they are recounted as a caution, that he who stands may take heed lest he fall. Another reason is, lest anyone should think them to be more than men. For if anyone were to consider only their perfection, he could be deceived into idolatry; but when he sees that they fell through sin, he no longer believes there is in them anything more than what belongs to man. Note also this, according to Gregory, that sometimes the literal deed is evil and what is signified is good; but sometimes the deed is good and what is signified is evil. For Uriah was a good and just man, and is not reproved in Scripture for anything; and yet he signifies the Devil. But Bathsheba was a sinner; and yet she signifies a good thing, namely the Church, as the Gloss notes on 2 Kings 12, and also the Gloss which is said to expound the figure according to the allegorical sense. For Uriah is interpreted "my light is God," and signifies the Devil, who desired the light of the divinity; Isaiah 14:14: "I shall be like the Most High." Bathsheba is interpreted "well of seven," or "well of fellowship"; and she signifies the Church from the Gentiles, on account of the sevenfold grace of baptism. The Devil had first betrothed her to himself; but David, that is, Christ, took her away from him, and joined her to himself, and slew the Devil himself. Otherwise, Bathsheba signifies the Law, by whose ways the people were led, who did not wish to enter the house through spiritual understanding, and therefore he carries the letters of his own death, because "the letter kills," 2 Corinthians 3:6. But David, that is, Christ, took the Law away from the Jews, when he taught that it was to be understood spiritually.

"And Solomon begot Rehoboam," and so forth. Now just as David is interpreted "strong of hand," or "desirable in appearance," so Solomon is interpreted "peaceable": and this is fitting, because from the strength of a good operation there comes peace of conscience; Psalm 118:165: "Much peace have they that love your law." Now it happens that from peace of conscience a man wills that others come to the good. Hence Solomon begot Rehoboam, who is interpreted "onrush" or "impetus": because he is moved by an impetus of preaching, having peace of conscience for the spreading of the name of Christ; as is read of the apostles, Isaiah 27:6: "They who come in with an onrush to Jacob, Israel shall flourish and bud, and they shall fill the face of the world with seed." Now both signify Christ, because he himself is peace. Likewise he himself is Rehoboam, who converts the people by an onrush of preaching.

"And Rehoboam begot Abijah," who is interpreted "God is father": because from the fact that a man is zealous for the spiritual or bodily progress of others through works of mercy, he is made worthy of the fatherhood of God, as below, 5:44: "Do good to those who hate you, that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven," and so forth. And Luke 6:36: "Be merciful." This also befits Christ, to whom it is said: "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son."

"And Abijah begot Asa," who is interpreted "lifting up" or "raising": because sometimes a man, from the fact that he is made a father and superior to others, falls into a certain negligence of self-security; therefore Abijah begot Asa, namely so that man may be in continual progress, and always lift himself up to greater things. This also befits Christ, who is called "lifting up," that is, growing; Luke 2:40: "And the child grew." Or "lifting up," because he took away the sins of the world.

"And Asa begot Jehoshaphat," who is interpreted "judging": because from the fact that the spiritual man always grows, he is made one who judges; 1 Corinthians 2:15: "The spiritual man judges all things." And this befits Christ, because the Father has given all judgment to the Son.

"And Jehoshaphat begot Joram," who is interpreted "dwelling in the heights": because he who is appointed judge ought to dwell in the heights; Isaiah 33:16: "This one shall dwell in the heights." Now how this is so, the Apostle says: "Our citizenship is in heaven." And this befits Christ, because "the Lord is high above all nations," Psalm 112:4.

"And Joram begot Uzziah." Here there is a literal question. For in 1 Chronicles 3:11 it is said that Joram begot Ahaziah. And Ahaziah begot Joram. And Joras begot Amaziah, who is also called Azariah. And Amaziah begot Uzziah. In two respects, therefore, the Evangelist seems to have fallen short in the series of the genealogy: first, because Joram did not beget Uzziah, but Amaziah; second, because he omitted three generations. And it must be said, as to the first, that to beget another can be understood in two ways, mediately or immediately: immediately, as a carnal father immediately begets a son; and in this way Joram did not beget Uzziah. In another way, mediately, as we are called sons of Adam; and thus a son can be said to be begotten by a grandfather or a great-grandfather, because he descends from him through a mediate generation.

Now as to why he omitted three kings, a threefold reason is assigned. The first is from Jerome, who says (as it is written, Exodus 20:5): "The Lord visits the sins of the fathers upon the third and fourth generation," upon those who become imitators of their fathers' wickedness. Now Joram took as wife a daughter of Jezebel, namely Athaliah, who drew him into idolatry. Ahaziah too was given to idolatry even more than his father. And likewise Joash, who, along with the crime of idolatry, also killed Zechariah the son of Jehoiada: and therefore these three, as it were unworthy, are excluded from the generation of Christ.

Chrysostom assigns another reason. For the Lord commanded, 4 Kings 9, Jehu the son of Nimshi that he should uproot the house of Ahab; he was diligent in carrying out the command, and yet did not withdraw from the worship of the gods, for he worshipped the molten calves. And because he diligently carried out the Lord's command in destroying the house of Ahab, it was said to him that his sons would sit upon the throne of the house of Israel even to the fourth generation; hence, just as Jehu merited the kingdom of Israel even to the third or fourth generation, so, on the contrary, Joram, who mingled himself with gentile women and transferred the iniquity of the house of Israel to the house of Judah, ought to lose the name of posterity in the genealogy of Christ even to the fourth generation, until expiation of the sin was made.

Augustine, in the Questions on the New and Old Testament, assigns another reason. For he says that some were good and found good fathers, as Isaac and Jacob; some were evil, and yet found good fathers, as Solomon, who was a sinner, and yet had David, a just and holy man, for a father; some were neither good themselves nor had good fathers, as these three were, as is clear from what has been said. Joram sinned, and his sin continued down to Uzziah, who did almost nothing evil except that he burned incense; but the continuation of sin is the cause or reason of destruction. And therefore these three, who persisted in the sin of idolatry, are excluded from the genealogy of Christ. But a mystical reason is assigned on account of the three sets of fourteen through which Matthew intends to describe the genealogy of Christ.

Now Uzziah is interpreted "the strength of the Lord"; and he signifies Christ, of whom it is said in Psalm 117:14: "The Lord is my strength and my praise, and he has become my salvation," and so forth. Mystically, however, Joram begot Uzziah, because those who dwell on high ought to be strong in their working. Note that under this Uzziah, Isaiah prophesied, as is clear from Isaiah 1:1. For on account of the sin of the princes, and of the kings, and also of the people, God took away prophecy and teaching; hence under a good king the flowing-forth of prophecy began again.

"And Uzziah begot Jotham," who is interpreted "progress"; and he signifies Christ, through whom the Church makes progress daily. And thus fittingly Uzziah begot Jotham, because those who work strongly are in continual progress; Psalm 83:8: "They shall go from strength to strength."

"And Jotham begot Ahaz," who is interpreted "comprehending" or "grasping": because through continual progress in the virtues man comes to the knowledge of God; Psalm 118:104: "From your commandments I have understood; therefore I have hated every way of iniquity"; Psalm 63:10: "They declared the works of God, showing it in their work, and understood his deeds." For which reason Paul says to the Philippians 3:12: "I follow after, if by any means I may lay hold, in which also I have been laid hold of by Christ Jesus." And this befits Christ, who alone perfectly comprehends the divinity; Luke 10:22: "No one knows the Father but the Son."

"And Ahaz begot Hezekiah," that is, "the Lord is strong": because such a one has strength from the Lord; 2 Kings 22:2: "The Lord is my strength and my might." And this befits Christ, who is strong in battle.

"And Hezekiah begot Manasseh," and it is interpreted "forgetfulness": because he who already perfectly knows God forgets these temporal things; Psalm 44:11: "Forget your people, and the house of your father"; Genesis 41:51: "The Lord God has made me forget all my labors." And this fits Christ, of whom it is said, Ezekiel 18:21: "If the wicked man do penance for all his sins which he has committed, I will not remember all his iniquities that he has done."

"And Manasseh begot Amon," that is, "faithful and nourishing": because he is truly faithful who despises temporal things. For according to Gregory, deceit is the daughter of avarice: and therefore he who perfectly despises temporal things no longer has concern for unfaithfulness. Hence rightly Manasseh begot Amon. This is also interpreted "nourishing": because he who despises temporal things ought thereby to nourish the poor through mercy; below, 19:21: "If you wish to be perfect, go and sell all that you have" — behold the contempt — "and give to the poor" — behold the nourishment. Now this befits Christ, who is truly faithful, Psalm 144:13: "The Lord is faithful in all his words," and again a nourisher, Hosea 11:3: "I who was a nourisher of Ephraim, carried them in my arms, and they did not know that I cared for them"; below, 23:37: "How often would I have gathered your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you would not?"

"And Amon begot Josiah," who is interpreted "the salvation of the Lord," or "incense": because man attains salvation from the very fact that he also forgets temporal things and gives them away, or distributes them. Or "incense." This befits Christ; Psalm 73:12: "Who has wrought salvation in the midst of the earth," and he offered himself as a sacrifice to God "in an odor of sweetness," Ephesians 5:2.

"And Josiah begot Jeconiah and his brothers," which is interpreted "the preparation of the Lord," or "resurrection"; and he signifies Christ, who prepared a place for us, John 14:2, and who says, John 11:25: "I am the resurrection and the life," and through this we come to the resurrection. Here, however, there is a threefold question according to the letter.

First it is asked how Josiah is said to have begotten Jeconiah, when in fact he did not beget him, but rather his father Joakim. And to this there is a twofold response. For according to Chrysostom, with whom Augustine agrees, the name Joakim is omitted entirely; and this because he did not reign by divine ordination, but by the power of Pharaoh, who set him up in the kingdom, after his firstborn brother Joathan — who had reigned before him — was imprisoned. And on this note the history in 4 Kings 22, and 2 Chronicles 36:1 and following. Josiah also had three sons: Joathan, Joakim (who is also called Eliakim), and Zedekiah. For if, as Augustine says, those three kings are removed from the genealogy because they were depraved through idolatry, how much more this one, who was set up in the kingdom not through God or a prophet, but through the placement of a gentile man?

It is the opinion, not the very words, of Jerome — as Ambrose holds and agrees with him — that each was called Joakim, both the one who is placed at the end of the set of fourteen, and the one who is placed at the beginning of the third; and that both — Jeconiah and Joakim — are the same. Hence it must be noted that Josiah had three sons: Joakim, who is also Eliakim; Joathan; and Zedekiah. Now when Josiah had died, Joathas reigned in his place, namely the middle son; and when he had been captured by Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and imprisoned, he set up his firstborn brother Joakim as king, imposing a tribute on him; afterward Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, having overcome the king of Egypt, besieged Jerusalem, and captured Joakim, whom he sent back to Jerusalem under tribute. But afterward, when Joakim wished to rebel against the king of Babylon, trusting in the help of the king of Egypt, Nebuchadnezzar went up against Jerusalem, and seized him, and killed him, and set up his son Joachim in his place, whom he also named Jeconiah after his father's name; and when this was done, Nebuchadnezzar, fearing lest this one, mindful of his father's death, should ally himself with the king of Egypt, returned to Jerusalem and besieged it; and this Jeconiah, or Joachim, namely the son of the other, on the advice of Jeremiah handed himself over to King Nebuchadnezzar, along with his wife and his sons; and these are properly said to have been carried away into the deportation. But Nebuchadnezzar set up Zedekiah, the brother of his father, as king over him, and led Joachim himself away into Babylon; and it is of him that it is afterward said: "and after the deportation."

But why was he named Jeconiah, when his name was Joachim? And it must be said that this name was imposed by the prophet, namely Jeremiah; Jeremiah 22:24: "Thus says the Lord: If Jeconiah the son of Joakim, king of Judah, were a ring on my right hand, I would pluck him thence"; and further on: "Is this man Jeconiah a broken and worthless vessel?" And therefore he is named by the Evangelist rather by this name, so that it might be shown that the Evangelist agrees with the prophet. Note also that although it is the same name, it is nevertheless written in different ways. For the name of the first Joakim is written with a k, and he seems to be called Joakim; but that of the second is written with a ghimel, whence he is called Joachim: and therefore they have different interpretations. For the first is interpreted "resurrection"; but the second, "the preparation of the Lord."

Second, it is asked why it says "Jeconiah and his brothers." For there were many among the kings who had brothers, yet it is never said, nor is mention made, of their brothers. And it must be said, according to Ambrose, that wherever mention is made of brothers — as when it says "Judah and his brothers," and "Perez and Zerah, of Tamar" — this signifies that they were equal in holiness or in wickedness. But these three are all evil. Otherwise it can be said that the reason is that each one of these brothers reigned, as is clear from what has been said, whereas this was not the case with the brothers of the other kings.

Third, a question is asked about what is said, "in the deportation." It seems false, because Josiah never was deported. And it must be said that this is to be taken according to divine foreknowledge, according to which it was ordained that those whom he was then begetting were to be deported. Or it must be said that "in the deportation" is the same as "near the deportation," or with it already imminent.

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.

"And she shall bring forth a son." Here he foretells the service that Joseph will render to the child now born, and he does three things: first he foretells the Virgin's childbearing; second he shows in advance the service to be rendered by Joseph himself to the child, when he says "and you shall call his name"; third he discloses the name imposed upon the child himself, when he says "Jesus."

He says therefore "she shall bring forth." Thus she conceived of the Holy Spirit indeed first, but she shall bring forth a son. He does not say "to you," because he himself did not beget the child. In Luke 1:13 it was said to Zachary: "your wife shall bear you a son," because Zachary himself begot him. Or he does not say "to you" for this reason, that it may be shown that he was born for all: not only to you, or to her, shall she bring forth a son, but to the whole world; Luke 2:10: "behold, I announce to you a great joy, for there is born to you this day a Savior, who is Christ the Lord, in the city of David," and so on. But because Joseph could say: thus she herself conceived of the Holy Spirit, and shall bring forth a son, what then is this to me? In nothing am I necessary to him. Therefore he adds Joseph's own service: "you shall call his name."

It was the custom among the Hebrews, and is so today, that on the eighth day they circumcised the child, and then imposed a name upon him; and this was done through Joseph: hence in this work he was the minister. Hence it is said to him "you shall call"; it is not said "you shall impose," because it is already imposed upon him; Isaiah 62:2: "a new name shall be called to you, which the mouth of the Lord has named." "Jesus" — this is the name imposed by God. And he gives the reason: "for he himself shall make his people safe," whom he acquired for himself by his own blood, that is, his people. Daniel 9:26 it is said: "the people shall not be his, who is about to deny him"; hence it is the people of the Lord through faith; 1 Peter 2:9: "you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of acquisition."

"From their sins." In the book of Judges it is frequently said that such and such a one saved Israel: but from whom? From carnal enemies; but here, from sins, by remitting sins, which belongs to God alone. Luke 5:24: "but that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins." Note that here Nestorius is confounded, who said that those things which belong to God, such as being from eternity, being omnipotent, or the like, do not belong to that man. Behold, that same man, who was born of the Virgin, who is called Jesus, he himself shall make his people safe from their sins. Hence, since no one can forgive sins except God alone, it must be said that this man is God, and that the things which belong to God most truly belong to him.

The Evangelist had said beforehand that the mother of God was found to have in her womb one conceived of the Holy Spirit, and this he proved above through angelic revelation; here he proves it through the foretelling of prophecy; hence he says: "all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet." And it must be known that this clause can be introduced here in two ways. Chrysostom holds that the Angel said all this and introduced the prophecy. And the reason is that he, lest what he was foretelling should seem new, wished to show at once that it had been foretold of old; Isaiah 48:3: "who has already made what is to come," according to another translation. Others say, and I believe it is better, that this, namely "all this was done," etc., are the words of the Evangelist. For there the words of the Angel end: "and he himself shall make [his people] safe," and so on.

And the Evangelist introduces them for three reasons. First, that he might show that the Old Testament is about Christ; Acts 10:43: "to him all the prophets give testimony, that all who believe in him receive remission of sins through his name." Second, that they might more easily believe Christ: John 5:46: "if you believed Moses, you would perhaps believe me also: for he wrote of me." Third, to show the conformity of the Old and New Testament; Colossians 2:17: "which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is Christ's."

But so that it may be known what is contained in this prophecy, it must be known that the Angel announces three things. First he said "that which is born in her," etc.; second, "she shall bring forth a son"; third, "his name shall be called Jesus." These are contained in order in the prophecy. And the first he proves by what is said, "behold the virgin"; second, by "and she shall bring forth"; third, by "and shall be called." Therefore it was of the Holy Spirit that she conceived through virginity. And this is what is said in the prophecy, "behold a virgin shall conceive"; Isaiah 35:2: "budding it shall bud forth, and shall rejoice with joy, and praising," and so on. Likewise the virgin shall bring forth a son, because in bringing forth her virginity was in no way harmed; Isaiah 11:1: "a rod shall come forth from the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise from its root," and so on. Christ indeed is the flower. Therefore her virginity was in no way harmed.

There follows: "and his name shall be called Emmanuel." But it is asked, why does this not agree with the words of the Angel, who says "and he shall be called Jesus"? It must be said that this promise was made to the Jews, who from the coming of Christ would have salvation. And "Jesus" is interpreted "savior," which is the same as Emmanuel, "God with us." For God is with us in four ways: through the assumption of nature, John 1:14: "the Word was made flesh"; through conformity of nature, since he is like in all things, Philippians 2:7: "made in the likeness of men, and found in habit as a man"; through bodily conversation, Baruch 3:38: "afterward he was seen upon the earth, and conversed with men"; through spiritual conversation, below, at the end, [Matthew] 28:20: "behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."

But it must be asked, concerning the letter, why the Evangelist does not use the same words as the prophet, but uses the name Jesus. It must be said that he spoke by the same Spirit. Yet Jerome says that the Evangelist therefore said "would have," because he was already speaking of the fact as accomplished. Likewise it must be asked, why in Isaiah it is said "and he shall be called," but here it is said "and they shall call." Jerome says that here it is said "they shall call," because what the Angels first called by announcing, Luke 2:21, afterward the apostles called by preaching and magnifying; "that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow," etc., Philippians 2:10.

"Which is interpreted, God with us." But it is asked, who appended this interpretation to the prophecy, "God with us" — the prophet, or the Evangelist? And it seems that it was not the Evangelist, because he did not need this, since he wrote in Hebrew. But it must be said, in one way, that because Emmanuel is a composite name, therefore the Evangelist interpreted it even though writing in Hebrew. Or it must be said that he who first translated from the Hebrew provided the interpretation.

And it must be noted that in the Gloss it is said that there is a threefold species of prophecy, namely of predestination, of foreknowledge, and of threat; and they differ. For prophecy is called the foretelling of those things which are far off, that is, of future things; but of future things, some are such that God alone does them; some indeed, although God does them, nevertheless come about through us and through other creatures as well; and some are such that God does them in no way at all, as evils. The foretelling of those things which God alone does is called the prophecy of predestination, as the conceiving of the virgin; hence that saying, Isaiah 7:14: "behold a virgin shall conceive," is a prophecy of predestination.

But those things which come about from secondary causes can be considered in two ways. First, according as they are in the foreknowledge of God — for example concerning Lazarus; for if someone were to consider the natural causes, he would say that he would never rise, and he would speak truly: although nevertheless he was to be raised according to the order of divine foreknowledge. Therefore when prophecy is a foretelling according as it is in the divine foreknowledge, it is always fulfilled; but when according to the order of lower causes, not always, as is clear in Isaiah 38:1, when Isaiah said to Hezekiah: "set your house in order, for you shall die, and not live," and so on.

But does prophecy impose necessity on foreknowledge? And it must be said that it does not; because prophecy is a certain sign of divine foreknowledge, which does not impose necessity on the things foreknown, because it considers future things in their presentness. For whatever is done is present to God, because his gaze extends to every time; for if I see something present, my gaze does not impose necessity, just as when I see someone sitting. And in this way we have understood these prophecies which are introduced in this book.

For it must be considered that there have been three errors. One is that of the Manichees, who say that in the whole Old Testament no prophecy about Christ is found: and whatever is brought in from the Old into the New Testament is entirely due to corruption. Against which, Romans 1:1: "Paul, a servant of Christ, called an apostle, set apart unto the Gospel of God, which he had promised before through his prophets," and so on. And that he speaks of the prophecies of the Jews is clear below, at chapter 9:5 [Romans 9:5]: "whose are the fathers, of whom is Christ according to the flesh," and so on.

The other was that of Theodore, who said that none of the things which are brought in from the Old Testament are, according to the letter, about Christ, but are adapted, just as when they bring in that line of Virgil, "such things he recalled hanging, and remained fixed" — for this is adapted to Christ; and then that phrase "that it might be fulfilled" ought to be expounded thus, as if the Evangelist were saying: "and this can be adapted." Against which, Luke, the last chapter, 44 [Luke 24:44]: "all things must be fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the Psalms concerning me."

And it must be known that in the Old Testament there are some things which are referred to Christ, and are said of him alone, as that saying, "behold a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and bring forth a son," Isaiah 7:14; and that saying, Psalm 21:2 [Psalm 22:2]: "God, my God, look upon me, why have you forsaken me?" and so on. And if anyone were to posit another literal sense, he would be a heretic, and the heresy has been condemned. But because not only the words of the Old Testament, but also the deeds signify concerning Christ, sometimes certain things are said according to the letter about certain others, but are referred to Christ, insofar as those others bear the figure of Christ, as it is said of Solomon: "and he shall have dominion from sea to sea," etc.; for this was not fulfilled in him.

The third error was that of the Jews. It must be known, however, that the Jews especially object against this authority, because in the Hebrew it does not have "virgin," but "alma," which is the same as "young girl." Hence, according to the letter, these things are not said of Christ but of Emmanuel, or, according to others, of a certain son of Isaiah. But Jerome objects against these; and that it could not have been said of the son of Isaiah is proved, because he was already born when this was said. Likewise, no one is found to have been famous at that time who was called Emmanuel. Likewise, it is not a sign that a young woman should give birth. Hence Jerome says that "alma" is an equivocal word, and signifies sometimes age, sometimes "hidden," and then it signifies a virgin diligently kept; and thus it signifies here.

Likewise the Jews object that this was given as a sign. Isaiah 7:3: "two kings shall come against Achaz," etc., and he promised that they would be freed from these by giving this sign to Achaz. But it must be said that he gave this sign not only to Achaz, but also to the house of David, because he says, "hear then, O house of David"; as if the prophet were saying: the Lord will help you against this king, because he himself will do much greater things, since there will be liberation not only of him, but of the whole world.

But let us return to the letter. "All this was done." But against this: the Angel had said many things beforehand, namely that "that which is born in her," etc., "she shall bring forth," etc., and again, "he shall be called," and so on. But this had not all yet been done. But it must be said, in one way, according to Rabanus, that "all this was done," etc., is referred to past deeds — that the Angel appeared to the Virgin, and spoke those words — and "all this was done" for the preserving of the Virgin, so that the word "that" is taken causally. Or it is referred to the things which he had foretold; and it can be called "wholly done" on account of predestination. Or it must be said that the Evangelist was writing when it had all already been done; and therefore it refers to that. Hence the word "that" is taken consecutively, because God did not will to become incarnate for this reason, that the prophecy might be fulfilled, as though the Old Testament were more worthy than the New; but this, that Christ should become incarnate, followed upon the prophecy.

Above, the Evangelist proved that the Mother of God conceived of the Holy Spirit from two things, namely from the revelation of the Angel and from the foretelling of the prophet; he intends to show this same thing from the obedience of Joseph, who would not have acquiesced to the words of the Angel so as to take Mary as his spouse, unless he had known her to be pregnant by the Holy Spirit. And concerning this he does two things: first, the obedience of the spouse himself to the Angel is set forth; second, the manner of the obedience is described, there at "and he took."

And note that because through the disobedience of the first man we fell into sin — Romans 5:19: "through the disobedience of one man many were made sinners" — therefore at the beginning of our reparation obedience is set forth. And we can note four things which are necessary for obedience.

The first is that it be ordered. And I say ordered, because first vices must be abandoned, and afterward one must obey unto the operation of the virtues; Jeremiah 4:3: "Break up your fallow ground, and sow not upon thorns," and so forth. And therefore here it is said that Joseph, rising up from sleep — namely, from the sleep of sloth and of doubt. Concerning this sleep it is said, Ephesians 5:14: "Rise, you who sleep, and arise from the dead."

The second, indeed, is that it must be prompt: and this is what is said, Ecclesiasticus 5:8: "Delay not from day to day, be not slow to turn to the Lord; for his wrath will come suddenly." And therefore here it is said that he immediately did as he commanded him. The Gloss: whoever is admonished by God should dissolve delays, rise from sleep, and do what is commanded.

The third, indeed, is that it must be perfect, so that not only what is commanded is done, but it is done in the manner in which it is commanded and in the way in which it is enjoined upon them. Hence here it is said "as he had commanded." The Gloss: perfect obedience. Colossians 3:20: "Children, obey your parents in all things."

The fourth is that it must be discreet, so that obedience is given to him to whom it is owed, and in that in which it is owed, so that nothing is done against God: hence it says that he did as the Angel commanded him — not an evil spirit, but one of God. 1 John 4:1: "Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they be of God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world," and so forth.

"And he took." Here it is shown in what things he obeyed, and three things are set forth: first, the obedience which he showed to the Angel; second, the reverence which he showed to the mother; third, the compliance which he showed to Christ once born. The Angel commanded Joseph: "Do not fear to take Mary as your wife." And Joseph did as he commanded, and so forth. Whence it is clear that he found the woman good. But did he not already have her in the house? Why then does it say, rising up... he took? Chrysostom answers: because he had not cast her out from the house, but from his heart. Or because she was first taken in betrothal, but the nuptials were still to be celebrated afterward, and then it is said that she is taken, and that she is a wife.

And lest anyone should suspect that carnal union intervened, he adds, "and he did not know her." Here it must be known that this word "to know" is taken in two ways in Sacred Scripture: sometimes for recognition, John 14:7: "and henceforth you shall know him, and you have seen him"; sometimes for carnal union, as in Genesis 4:1: "And Adam knew his wife Eve," etc., namely, carnally.

But an objection is raised, because it is not said simply that he did not know her, etc., but "until she brought forth her son." Therefore afterward he knew her; whence also Helvidius said that although as a virgin she conceived Christ, nevertheless afterward she had other sons by Joseph. And therefore Jerome says that "until" sometimes signifies something finite and determinate, as if I should say, "I will not come until I eat," because thereby I signify that I am going to come afterward; but sometimes it signifies infinitely and indeterminately, for example 1 Corinthians 15:25: "For he must reign, until he puts all his enemies under his feet." Will he then not reign afterward? Indeed he will; but Scripture uses such a manner of speaking because it intends to remove that which could be doubtful. For it could be doubtful whether he would reign, at a time when he had not yet put his enemies under his feet. Likewise it could be doubtful, once the Blessed Virgin had given birth, whether before the birth she had been known by Joseph — since the first point ought to come into doubt for no one, seeing that the Angels sang: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men of good will," Luke 2:14. And this, therefore, is what the Evangelist intends.

And Jerome argues excellently against Helvidius: "You say, Helvidius, that before this Joseph did not know her, because he had been admonished in his sleep by the Angel. If, then, an admonition in sleep so availed that he did not join himself to Mary, how much more the knowledge of the Angels, the adoration of the shepherds and of the magi?" Chrysostom, however, took "knowledge" for intellectual recognition: that is, he did not know how great her dignity was; but after she gave birth, he came to know it. Others say that it is taken for sensible recognition, and thus the opinion of these is fairly probable as well. For they say that Moses, from the Lord's speaking with him, had such brightness in his face that the children of Israel could not gaze intently upon his face, 2 Corinthians 3:7. Therefore if Moses had this from his fellowship with God, much more did this Blessed Virgin, who bore him in her womb, have such brightness in her face that Joseph did not recognize her. But the first exposition is more literal.

Likewise Helvidius says that the letter states, "until she brought forth her firstborn son." "First" is said with respect to a later one. Therefore she had other children. Jerome answers that it is customary in Sacred Scripture that those are called firstborn whom no others precede: Exodus 13:12 it is said that the firstborn of the Jews were to be offered to the Lord. Jerome asks: was it then necessary to wait, so that they would not be offered until a second one was born? Therefore those are called firstborn whom no others precede; and thus it is to be understood here.

The compliance follows. Luke 2:21 carries this out more fully, but Matthew touches on it briefly. For thus the Holy Spirit wills, that what one has said, the other should pass over in silence. "He called his name Jesus"; this name indeed was not a little renowned among the ancients, and desired; Genesis 49:18: "I will look for your salvation, O Lord." And Habakkuk 3:18: "But I will rejoice in the Lord, and I will exult in God my Jesus."