The interpretation timeline
Matthew 1:1 Douay-Rheims

The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham:

A.D. 367 – 1863 17 witnesses 43 excerpts

Patristic

before A.D. 750
367
A.D.
Hilary of Poitiers Patristic
c. A.D. 310–367
“(Quæst. Nov. et Vet. Test. q. 49.) What God conferred on those, who, by the anointing of oil were consecrated as kings or priests, this the Holy Spirit conferred on the Man Christ; adding moreover a purification. The Holy Spirit cleansed that which taken of the Virgin Mary was exalted into the Body of the Saviour, and this is that anointing of the Body of the Saviour’s flesh whence He was called Christb. Because the impious craft of the Jews denied that Jesus was born of the seed of David, he adds, The son of David, the son of Abraham.”
Source
397
A.D.
Ambrose of Milan Patristic
A.D. 339–397
“(in Luc. c. iii.) He therefore names specially two authors of His birth—one who received the promise concerning the kindreds of the people, the other who obtained the oracle concerning the generation of Christ; and though he is later in order of succession is yet first named, inasmuch as it is greater to have received the promise concerning Christ than concerning the Church, which is through Christ; for greater is He who saves than that which is saved.”
Source
407
A.D.
John Chrysostom Patristic
A.D. 347–407
“(Hom. in Matt. Hom. ii.) Or he therefore entitles it, The book of the generation, because this is the sum of the whole dispensation, the root of all its blessings; viz. that God became man; for this once effected, all other things followed of course.”
“And do not consider this genealogy a small thing to hear: for truly it is a marvellous thing that God should descend to be born of a woman, and to have as His ancestors David and Abraham.”
“But why would it not have been enough to name one of them, David alone, or Abraham alone? Because the promise had been made to both of Christ to be born of their seed. To Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth he blessed. (Gen. 22:18.) To David, Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy seat. (Ps. 132:11.) He therefore calls Christ the Son of both, to shew that in Him was fulfilled the promise to both. Also because Christ was to have three dignities; King, Prophet, Priest; but Abraham was prophet and priest; priest, as God says to him in Genesis, Take an heifer; (Gen. 15:9.) Prophet, as the Lord said to Abimelech concerning him, He is a prophet, and shall pray for thee. (Gen. 20:7.) David was king and prophet, but not priest. Thus He is expressly called the son of both, that the threefold dignity of His forefathers might be recognized by hereditary right in Christ.”
Source
420
A.D.
Jerome Patristic
c. A.D. 347–420
“(Prolog. in Comm. in Matt.) ‘The face of a man’ (in Ezekiel’s vision [Ez. 1:5]) signifies Matthew, who accordingly opens his Gospel with the human genealogy of Christ.”
“(Comm. in Matt. ch. 1.) We read in Isaiah, Who shall declare His generation? (Is. 53:8.) But it does not follow that the Evangelist contradicts the Prophet, or undertakes what he declares impossible; for Isaiah is speaking of the generation of the Divine nature; St. Matthew of the incarnation of the human.”
“The order of the names is inverted, but of necessity; for had he written Abraham first, and David afterwards, he would have to repeat Abraham again to preserve the series of the genealogy.”
430
A.D.
Augustine of Hippo Patristic
A.D. 354–430
“(de Hær. 8, et 10.) Cerinthus then and Ebion made Jesus Christ only man; Paul of Samosata, following them, asserted Christ not to have had an existence from eternity, but to have begun to be from His birth of the Virgin Mary; he also thought Him nothing more than man. This heresy was afterwards confirmed by Photinus.”
“(de Hæres. 19.) The error of Nestorius was, that he taught that a man only was born of the Blessed Virgin Mary, whom the Word of God received not into Unity of person and inseparable fellowship; a doctrine which Catholic ears could not endure.”
“(de Hæres. 41.) Sabellius they say was a disciple of Noetus, who taught that the same Christ was one and the same Father and Holy Spirit.”
“(cont. Faust. ii. 1.) Faustus affirms, that “the Gospel both begins, and begins to be so called, from the preaching of Christc, in which He no where affirms Himself to have been born of men. Nay, so far is this genealogy from being part of the Gospel, that the writer does not venture so to entitle it; beginning, ‘The book of the generation,’ not ‘The book of the Gospel.’ Mark again, who cared not to write of the generation, but only of the preaching of the Son of God, which is properly The Gospel, begins thus accordingly, The Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God. Thus then, all that we read in Matthew before the words, Jesus began to preach the Gospel of the kingdom, (Matt. 4:17.) is a part of the genealogy, not of the Gospel. I therefore betook myself to Mark and John, with whose prefaces I had good reason to be satisfied, as they introduce neither David, nor Mary, nor Joseph.” To which Augustine replies, What will he say then to the Apostle’s words, Remember the resurrection of Jesus Christ of the seed of David according to my Gospel. (2 Tim. 2:8.) But the Gospel of the Apostle Paul was likewise that of the other Apostles, and of all the faithful, as he says, Whether I, or they, thus have we preached the Gospel.”
Source
“(de Hær. 49.) The Arians will not have the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, to be of one and the same substance, nature, and existence; but that the Son is a creature of the Father, and the Holy Spirit a creature of a creature, i. e. created by the Son; further, they think that Christ took the flesh without a soul.”
“(de Trin. i. 6.) But John declares the Son to be not only God, but even of the same substance as the Father; for when he had said, The Word was God, he added, all things were made by Him; whence it is clear that He was not made by Whom all things were made; and if not made, then not created; and therefore of one substance with the Father, for all that is not of one substance with the Father is creature.”
Source
“(cont. Fel. 13.) I know not what benefit the person of the Mediator has conferred upon us, if He redeemed not our better part, but took upon Him our flesh only, which without the soul cannot have consciousness of the benefit. But if Christ came to save that which had perished, the whole man had perished, and therefore needs a Saviour; Christ then in coming saves the whole man, taking on Him both soul and body.”
Source
“(Lib. 83. Quæst. q. 80.) How too do they answer innumerable objections from the Gospel Scriptures, in which the Lord speaks so many things manifestly contrary to them? as is that, My soul is sorrowful even unto death, (Matt. 26:38.) and, I have power to lay down My life; (John 10:18.) and many more things of the like kind. Should they say that He spoke thus in parables, we have at hand proofs from the Evangelists themselves, who in relating His actions, bear witness as to the reality of His body, so of His soul, by mention of passions which cannot be without a soul; as when they say, Jesus wondered, was angry, and others of like kind.”
Source
“(de Hæres. 55.) The Apollinarians also as the Arians affirmed that Christ had taken the human flesh without the soul. But overthrown on this point by the weight of Scripture proof, they then said that that part which is the rational soul of man was wanting to the soul of Christ, and that its place was filled by the Word itself. But if it be so, then we must believe that the Word of God took on Him the nature of some brute with a human shape and appearance. But even concerning the nature of Christ’s body, there are some who have so far swerved from the right faith, as to say, that the flesh and the Word were of one and the same substance, most perversely insisting on that expression, The Word was made flesh; which they interpret that some portion of the Word was changed into flesh, not that He took to Him flesh of the flesh of the Virgind.”
Source
444
A.D.
A.D. 376–444
“(Ep. i. ad Monachos Egypti.) Saith the Apostle of the Only-begotten, Who being in the form of God, thought it no robbery to be equal with God (Phil. 2:6). Who then is this who is in the form of God? or how emptied He Himself, and humbled Himself to the likeness of man? If the above-mentioned heretics dividing Christ into two parts, i. e. the Man and the Word, affirm that it was the Man that was emptied of glory, they must first shew what form and equality with the Father are understood to be, and did exist, which might suffer any manner of emptying. But there is no creature, in its own proper nature, equal with the Father; how then can any creature be said to be emptied? or from what eminence to descend to become man? Or how can he be understood to have taken upon Him, as though He had not at first, the form of a servant? But, they say, the Word being equal with the Father dwelt in Man born of a woman, and this is the emptying. I hear the Son truly saying to the Holy Apostles, If any man love Me, he will keep My saying; and My Father will lore him, and We will come unto him, and make Our abode with him. (John 14:23.) Hear how He saith that He and the Father will dwell in them that love Him. Do you then suppose that we shall grant that He is there emptied of His glory, and has taken upon Him the form of a servant, when He makes His abode in the hearts of them that love Him? Or the Holy Spirit, does He fulfil an assumption of human flesh, when He dwells in our hearts?”
Source
“(Ep. ad Joan. Antioch. tom. 6. Ep. 107.) We account those persons mad who have suspected that so much as the shadow of change could take place in the nature of the Divine Word; it abides what it ever was, neither is nor can be changed.”
450
A.D.
d. c. A.D. 450
“(Epist. lib. iv. 166.) But not to mention all arguments, let us bring forward that one to which all arguments point, that, for one who was God to assume a lowly guise both has an obvious use, and is an adaptation and in nothing contradicts the course of nature. But for one who is man to speak things divine and supernatural is the highest presumption; for though a king may humble himself a common soldier may not take on him the state of an emperor. So, if He were God made man, all lowly things have place; but if mere man, high things have none.”
Source
461
A.D.
Leo the Great Patristic
c. A.D. 400–461
“(Epist. 59. ad Const. Id. Ep. 83. ad Palest.) We do not speak of Christ as man in such a sort as to allow that any thing was wanting to Him, which it is certain pertains to human nature, whether soul, or rational mind, or flesh, and flesh such as was taken of the Woman, not gained by a change or conversion of the Word into flesh. These three several errors, that thrice false heresy of the Apollinarists has brought forward. Eutyches also chose out this third dogma of Apollinaris, which denying the verity of the human body and soul, maintained that our Lord Jesus Christ was wholly and entirely of one nature, as though the Divine Word had changed itself into flesh and soul, and as though the conception, birth, growth, and such like, had been undergone by that Divine Essence, which was incapable of any such changes with the very and true flesh; for such as is the nature of the Only-begotten, such is the nature of the Father, and such is the nature of the Holy Ghost, both impassible and eternal. But if to avoid being driven to the conclusion that the Godhead could feel suffering and death, he departs from the corruption of Apollinaris, and should still dare to affirm the nature of the incarnate Word, that is of the Word and the flesh, to be the same, he clearly falls into the insane notions of Manichæus and Marcion, and believes that the Lord Jesus Christ did all His actions with a false appearance, that His body was not a human body, but a phantasm, which imposed on the eyes of the beholders.”
Source
“(Ep. 35. ad Julian.) But what Eutyches ventured to pronounce as an episcopal decision, that in Christ before His incarnation were two natures, but after His incarnation only one, it behoved that he should have been urgently pressed to give the reason of this his belief. I suppose that in using such language he supposed the soul which the Saviour took, to have had its abode in heaven before it was born of the Virgin Marye. This Catholic hearts and ears endure not, for that the Lord when He came down from heaven shewed nothing of the condition of human nature, nor did He take on Him any soul that had existed before, nor any flesh that was not taken of the flesh of His mother. Thus what was justly condemned in Origenf, must needs be rebuked in Eutyches, to wit, that our souls before they were placed in our bodies had actions not only wonderful but various.”
Source

Medieval

c. 750 – 1100
856
A.D.
Rabanus Maurus Medieval
c. A.D. 780–856
“By this exordium he shews that it is the birth of Christ according to the flesh that he has undertaken to narrate.”
“Though the genealogy occupies only a small part of the volume, he yet begins thus, The book of the generation. For it is the manner of the Hebrews to name their books from that with which they open; as Genesis.”
“He says, The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, because he knew it was written, ‘The book of the generation of Adam.’ He begins thus then, that he may oppose book to book, the new Adam to the old Adam, for by the one were all things restored which had been corrupted by the other.”
“By saying, of Jesus Christ, he expresses both the kingly and priestly office to be in Him, for Jesus, who first bore this name, was after Moses, the first who was leader of the children of Israel; and Aaron, anointed by the mystical ointment, was the first priest under the Law.”
908
A.D.
c. A.D. 841–908
“Though any affirm that the prophet (Isaiah) does speak of His human generation, we need not answer to his enquiry, Who shall declare it? “No man;” but, “Very few;” because Matthew and Luke have.”
“These heresies therefore the Apostles overthrow in the opening of their Gospels, as Matthew in relating how He derived His descent from the kings of the Jews proves Him to have been truly man and to have had true flesh. Likewise Luke, when he describes the priestly stock and person; Mark when he says, The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God; and John when lie says, In the beginning was the Word; both shew Him to have been before all ages God, with God the Father.”
Source

Scholastic

c. 1100 – 1500
1256
A.D.
Thomas Aquinas Catholic
1225–1274
“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.”

Post-Reformation

c. 1650 – 1900
1714
A.D.
Matthew Henry Reformed
1662–1714
“Concerning this genealogy of our Saviour, observe, I. The title of it. It is the book (or the account, as the Hebrew word sepher, a book, sometimes signifies) of the generation of Jesus Christ, of his ancestors according to the flesh; or, It is the narrative of his birth. It is Biblos Geneseōs - a book of Genesis. The Old Testament begins with the book of the generation of the world, and it is its glory that it does so; but the glory of the New Testament herein excelleth, that it begins with the book of the generation of him that made the world. As God, his outgoings were of old, from everlasting (Mic 5:2), and none can declare that generation; but, as man, he was sent forth in the fulness of time, born of a woman, and it is that generation which is here declared. II. The principal intention of it. It is not an endless or needless genealogy; it is not a vain-glorious one, as those of great men commonly are. Stemmata, quid faciunt? - Of what avail are ancient pedigrees? It is like a pedigree given in evidence, to prove a title, and make out a claim; the design is to prove that our Lord Jesus is the son of David, and the son of Abraham, and therefore of that nation and family out of which the Messiah was to arise. Abraham and David were, in their day, the great trustees of the promise relating to the Messiah. The promise of the blessing was made to Abraham and his seed, of the dominion to David and his seed; and they who would have an interest in Christ, as the son of Abraham, in whom all the families of the earth are to be blessed, must be faithful, loyal subjects to him as the son of David, by whom all the families of the earth are to be ruled. It was promised to Abraham that Christ should descend from him (Gen 12:3; Gen 22:18), and to David that he should descend from him (Sa2 7:12; Psa 89:3, etc.; Psa 132:11); and therefore, unless it can be proved that Jesus is a son of David, and a son of Abraham, we cannot admit him to be the Messiah. Now this is here proved from the authentic records of the heralds' offices. The Jews were very exact in preserving their pedigrees, and there was a providence in it, for the clearing up of the descent of the Messiah from the fathers; and since his coming that nation is so dispersed and confounded that it is a question whether any person in the world can legally prove himself to be a son of Abraham; however, it is certain that none can prove himself to either a son of Aaron or a son of David, so that the priestly and kingly office must either be given up, as lost for ever, or be lodged in the hands of our Lord Jesus. Christ is here first called the son of David, because under that title he was commonly spoken of, and expected, among the Jews. They who owned him to be the Christ, called him the son of David, Mat 15:22; Mat 20:31; Mat 21:15. Thus, therefore, the evangelist undertakes to make out, that he is not only a son of David, but that son of David on whose shoulders the government was to be; not only a son of Abraham, but that son of Abraham who was to be the father of many nations. In calling Christ the son of David, and the son of Abraham, he shows that God is faithful to his promise, and will make good every word that he has spoken; and this. 1. Though the performance be long deferred. When God promised Abraham a son, who should be the great blessing of the world, perhaps he expected it should be his immediate son; but it proved to be one at the distance of forty-two generations, and about 2000 years: so long before can God foretel what shall be done, and so long after, sometimes, does God fulfil what has been promised. Note, Delays of promised mercies, though they exercise our patience, do not weaken God's promise. 2. Though it begin to be despaired of. This son of David, and son of Abraham, who was to be the glory of his Father's house, was born when the seed of Abraham was a despised people, recently become tributary to the Roman yoke, and when the house of David was buried in obscurity; for Christ was to be a root out of a dry ground. Note, God's time for the performance of his promises is when it labours under the greatest improbabilities. III. The particular series of it, drawn in the direct line from Abraham downward, according to the genealogies recorded in the beginning of the books of Chronicles (as far as those go), and which here we see the use of. Some particulars we may observe in the genealogy. 1. Among the ancestors of Christ who had brethren, generally he descended from a younger brother; such Abraham himself was, and Jacob, and Judah, and David, and Nathan, and Rhesa; to show that the pre-eminence of Christ came not, as that of earthly princes, from the primogeniture of his ancestors, but from the will of God, who, according to the method of his providence, exalteth them of low degree, and puts more abundant honour upon that part which lacked. 2. Among the sons of Jacob, besides Judah, from whom Shiloh came, notice is here taken of his brethren: Judas and his brethren. No mention is made of Ishmael the son of Abraham, or of Esau the son of Isaac, because they were shut out of the church; whereas all the children of Jacob were taken in, and, though not fathers of Christ, were yet patriarchs of the church (Act 7:8), and therefore are mentioned in the genealogy, for the encouragement of the twelve tribes that were scattered abroad, intimating to them that they have an interest in Christ, and stand in relation to him as well as Judah. 3. Phares and Zara, the twin-sons of Judah, are likewise both named, though Phares only was Christ's ancestor, for the same reason that the brethren of Judah are taken notice of; and some think because the birth of Phares and Zara had something of an allegory in it. Zara put out his hand first, as the first-born, but, drawing it in, Phares got the birth-right. The Jewish church, like Zara, reached first at the birthright, but through unbelief, withdrawing the hand, the Gentile church, like Phares, broke forth and went away with the birthright; and thus blindness is in part happened unto Israel, till the fulness of the Gentiles become in, and then Zara shall be born - all Israel shall be saved, Rom 11:25, Rom 11:26. 4. There are four women, and but four, named in this genealogy; two of them were originally strangers to the commonwealth of Israel, Rachab a Canaanitess, and a harlot besides, and Ruth the Moabitess; for in Jesus Christ there is neither Greek, nor Jew; those that are strangers and foreigners are welcome, in Christ, to the citizenship of the saints. The other two were adulteresses, Tamar and Bathsheba; which was a further mark of humiliation put upon our Lord Jesus, that not only he descended from such, but that is decent from them is particularly remarked in his genealogy, and no veil drawn over it. He took upon him the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom 8:3), and takes even great sinners, upon their repentance, into the nearest relation to himself. Note, We ought not to upbraid people with the scandals of their ancestors; it is what they cannot help, and has been the lot of the best, even of our Master himself. David's begetting Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias is taken notice of (says Dr. Whitby) to show that the crime of David, being repented to, was so far from hindering the promise made to him, that it pleased God by this very woman to fulfil it. 5. Though divers kings are here named, yet none is expressly called a king but David (Mat 1:6), David the king; because with him the covenant of royalty was made, and to him the promise of the kingdom of the Messiah was given, who is therefore said to inherit the throne of his father David, Luk 1:32. 6. In the pedigree of the kings of Judah, between Joram and Ozias (Mat 1:8), there are three left out, namely, Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah; and therefore when it is said, Joram begat Ozias, it is meant, according to the usage of the Hebrew tongue, that Ozias was lineally descended from him, as it is said to Hezekiah that the sons which he should beget should be carried to Babylon, whereas they were removed several generations from him. It was not through mistake or forgetfulness that these three were omitted, but, probably, they were omitted in the genealogical tables that the evangelist consulted, which yet were admitted as authentic. Some give this reason for it: - It being Matthew's design, for the sake of memory, to reduce the number of Christ's ancestors to three fourteens, it was requisite that in this period three should be left out, and none more fit than they who were the immediate progeny of cursed Athaliah, who introduced the idolatry of Ahab into the house of David, for which this brand is set upon the family and the iniquity thus visited to the third and fourth generation. Two of these three were apostates; and such God commonly sets a mark of his displeasure upon in this world: they all three had their heads brought to the grave with blood. 7. Some observe what a mixture there was of good and bad in the succession of these kings; as for instance (Mat 1:7, Mat 1:8), wicked Roboam begat wicked Abia; wicked Abia begat good Asa; good Asa begat good Josaphat; good Josaphat begat wicked Joram. Grace does not run in the blood, neither does reigning sin. God's grace is his own, and he gives or withholds it as he pleases. 8. The captivity of Babylon is mentioned as a remarkable period in this line, Mat 1:11, Mat 1:12. All things considered, it was a wonder that the Jews were not lost in that captivity, as other nations have been; but this intimates the reason why the streams of that people were kept to run pure through that dead sea, because from them, as concerning the flesh, Christ was to come. Destroy it not, for a blessing is in it, even that blessing of blessings, Christ himself, Isa 65:8, Isa 65:9. It was with an eye to him that they were restored, and the desolations of the sanctuary were looked upon with favour for the Lord's sake, Dan 9:17. 9. Josias is said to beget Jechonias and his brethren (Mat 1:11); by Jechonias here is meant Jehoiakim, who was the first-born of Josias; but, when it is said (Mat 1:12) that Jechonias begat Salathiel, that Jechonias was the son of that Jehoiakim who was carried into Babylon, and there begat Salathiel (as Dr. Whitby shows), and, when Jechonias is said to have been written childless (Jer 22:30), it is explained thus: No man of his seed shall prosper. Salathiel is here said to beget Zorobabel, whereas Salathiel begat Pedaiah, and he begat Zorobabel (Ch1 3:19): but, as before, the grandson is often called the son; Pedaiah, it is likely, died in his father's lifetime, and so his son Zorobabel was called the son of Salathiel. 10. The line is brought down, not to Mary the mother of our Lord, but to Joseph the husband of Mary (Mat 1:16); for the Jews always reckoned their genealogies by the males: yet Mary was of the same tribe and family with Joseph, so that, both by his mother and by his supposed father, he was of the house of David; yet his interest in that dignity is derived by Joseph, to whom really according to the flesh he had no relation, to show that the kingdom of the Messiah is not founded in a natural descent from David. 11. The centre in whom all these lines meet is Jesus, who is called Christ, Mat 1:16. This is he that was so importunately desired, so impatiently expected, and to whom the patriarchs had an eye when they were so desirous of children, that they might have the honour of coming into the sacred line. Blessed be God, we are not now in such a dark and cloudy state of expectation as they were then in, but see clearly what these prophets and kings saw as through a glass darkly. And we may have, if it be not our own fault, a greater honour than that of which they were so ambitious: for they who do the will of God are in a more honourable relation to Christ than those who were akin to him according to the flesh, Mat 12:50. Jesus is called Christ, that is, the Anointed, the same with the Hebrew name Messiah. He is called Messiah the Prince (Dan 9:25), and often God's Anointed (Psa 2:2). Under this character he was expected: Art thou the Christ - the anointed one? David, the king, was anointed (Sa1 16:13); so was Aaron, the priest (Lev 8:12), and Elisha, the prophet (Kg1 19:16), and Isaiah, the prophet (Isa 61:1). Christ, being appointed to, and qualified for, all these offices, is therefore called the Anointed - anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows; and from this name of his, which is as ointment poured forth, all his followers are called Christians, for they also have received the anointing. Lastly. The general summary of all this genealogy we have, Mat 1:17, where it is summed up in three fourteens, signalized by remarkable periods. In the first fourteen, we have the family of David rising, and looking forth as the morning; in the second, we have it flourishing in its meridian lustre; in the third, we have it declining and growing less and less, dwindling into the family of a poor carpenter, and then Christ shines forth out of it, the glory of his people Israel.”
1849
A.D.
1774–1849
“The first English Testament, divided into verses, was that printed at Geneva, by Conrad Badius, in the year 1557. (Haydock) — “The book of the Generation,” is not referred to the whole gospel, but to the beginning, as in Genesis v. “This is the book of the generation of Adam.” (Estius) — The book of the [1] Generation , i.e. the genealogy or pedigree, which is here set down in the first sixteen verses. In the style of the Scriptures any short schedule or roll is called a book , as the bill or short writing of a divorce, is called a little book. (Matthew v. 31.) (Witham) — Jesus, in Hebrew Jesuah , is the proper name of Him, who was born of the Virgin Mary, who was also the Son of God, “a name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.” (Luke ii.) It signifies Saviour , “because he was to save his people from their sins.” He was also called Christ , which signifies anointed; for though in the Old Testament kings, priests, and prophets were anointed , and though many were then designated by the name of Jesus , properly, and by an invariable custom of the New Testament, that person is exclusively signified, who, on account of the union of the divine and human nature, was anointed by the Holy Ghost above all his fellows . (Psalm xliv. and Hebrews i. 9.) Whence in this turn the hypostasis is understood, in which the two natures, the divine and human, meet. (Estius)”
Source
1863
A.D.
1796–1863
“The Greek term, as also the corresponding Hebrew ■vvord, ma,y here mean descent, genealogy, birth, or history. It seems to be the title of the table of descents, which follows, and is equivalent to " genealogy of Jesus Christ," or, if referred to the entire gospel, " history of Jesus Christ." I have retained the word " generation," because its meaning here is not altogether beyond question.”
Source
“Descendant. The Hebrews often use the term " son" for one who is remotely descended.”
“Luc. iii. 31. The promises made to David that his son should rule all nations, were celebrated among the people, on which account the evangelist designates Christ as his son, in whom they were fulfilled.”

Undated

date unknown
date
unknown
“(Homil. in Matt. Hom. i.) Matthew wrote for the Jews, and in Hebrewa; to them it was unnecessary to explain the divinity which they recognized; but necessary to unfold the mystery of the Incarnation. John wrote in Greek for the Gentiles who knew nothing of a Son of God. They required therefore to be told first, that the Son of God was God, then that this Deity was incarnate.”
Source
date
unknown
Glossa Ordinaria Medieval
“(Ordinaria.) The full expression would be This is the book of the generation; but this is a usual ellipse; e. g. The vision of Isaiah, for, ‘This is the vision.’ Generation, he says in the singular number, though there be many here given in succession, as it is for the sake of the one generation of Christ that the rest are here introduced.”
Source
date
unknown
date
unknown
Glossa Ordinaria Medieval
“But since from this title it appears that the whole book is concerning Jesus Christ, it is necessary first to know what we must think concerning Him; for so shall be better explained what this book relates of Him.”
date
unknown
“(Vigil. Tapsens. [Athan. Ed. Ben. vol. ii. p. 646.]) The Apostle John, seeing long before by the Holy Spirit this man’s madness, rouses him from his deep sleep of error by the preaching of his voice, saying, In the beginning was the Word. (John 1:1.) He therefore, who in the beginning was with God, could not in this last time take the beginning of His being from man. He says further, (let Photinus hear his words,) Father, glorify Me with that glory which I had with Thee before the world was. (John 17:5.)”
Source
“(Vigil. Tapsens. [ibid. p. 644.]) The audaciousness of this most insane error I will curb by the authority of the heavenly testimonies, and demonstrate the distinct personality of the proper substance, of the Son. I shall not produce things which are liable to be, explained away as agreeable to the assumption of human; nature; but shall offer such passages as all will allow to be decisive in proof of His divine nature. In Genesis we find God saying, Let Us make man in Our own Image. By this plural number shewing, that there was some other person to whom He spoke. Had He been one, He would have been said to have made Him in His own Image, but there is another; and He is said to have made man in the Image of that other.”
Source
date
unknown
Glossa Ordinaria Medieval
“(non occ.) Others denied the reality of Christ’s human nature. Valentinus said, that Christ sent from the Father, carried about a spiritual or celestial body, and took nothing of the Virgin, but passed through her as through a channel, taking nothing of her flesh. But we do not therefore believe Him to have been born of the Virgin, because by no other means He could have truly lived in the flesh, and appeared among men; but because it is so written in the Scripture, which if we believe not we cannot either be Christians, or be saved. But even a body taken of spiritual, or ethereal, or clayey substance, had He willed to change into the true and very quality of human flesh, who will deny His power to do this? The Manichæans said that the Lord Jesus Christ was a phantasm, and could not be born of the womb of a woman. But if the body of Christ was a phantasm, He was a deceiver, and if a deceiver, then He was not the truth. But Christ is the Truth; therefore His Body was not a phantasm.”
Source
“(non occ.) And as the opening both of this Gospel, and of that according to Luke, manifestly proves Christ’s birth of a woman, and hence His real humanity, they reject the beginning of both these Gospels.”
Modern · 1953 →

The in-app commentary runs from the Fathers to the early-modern record, then stops — that's where the public-domain sources end, not where the reading does. For the modern reading, follow the sources directly.