Thomas Aquinas

In his own words on Matthew

• Matthew 1:1

  Among the evangelists, Matthew is chiefly concerned with the humanity of Christ. Hence, according to Gregory, in the symbol of the four animals, he is signified as a man. By his humanity Christ entered the world, progressed, and then departed. Therefore, the Gospel is divided into three parts: first, the evangelist treats of Christ's entry into the world; secondly, of his progress (ch. 3); thirdly, of his exit (c. 21). In the first part he does two things: first, the generation of Christ is described; secondly, it is manifested (c. 2). In the first part he does three things: first, the quasi-title of the entire book is presented; secondly, the series of fathers is traced (v. 2); thirdly, the generation of Christ is described in particular (v. 18). The title mentioned beforehand is The Book of the Genealogy of Jesus Christ. This seems to be an incomplete sentence. For it presents a nominative without a verb. But not so; for Matthew wrote his Gospel for the Hebrews. Therefore, in writing he followed the custom of the Jews. But it is customary among the Jews to speak in this manner, as when it says: "The vision of Isaiah, son of Amos," "This is" is understood, and it is not necessary to add it. So here, when it says, The Book of the Genealogy of Jesus Christ, "This is" is understood. Nor is this way of speaking unusual among us: for if we wish to title a book, it is called "Priscian the Elder" or "Younger", and there is no need to add "This is" or "Begins". Likewise, one might ask, since only a small part of this book is about the generation of Christ, why does the book get this title? The answer is that Matthew, who wrote to the Hebrews, follows their custom in writing. But the Hebrews were wont to entitle books from their beginnings, as the Book of Genesis, because generation is treated there; hence Genesis (5:1): "This is the genealogy of Adam." And the Book of Exodus, because in the first part the departure of the children of Israel from Egypt is described. But one might ask why Jesus Christ is added. The answer is that according to the Apostle in 1 Cor 15:22: "As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive." But Matthew had seen the first book of the Old Testament, in which generation is discussed and in which it says (5:1): "This is the book of the genealogy of Adam." Therefore, in order that the New Testament, which deals with regeneration and restoration, might agree with the Old, he says: The Book of the Genealogy of Jesus Christ, to show that the author of both is the same. Then the question arises about the fact that it says here: The Genealogy of Jesus Christ, for Isaiah (53:8) has the contrary: "As for his generation, who shall tell it?" But the sense, according to Jerome, is that there is in Christ a twofold generation, namely, the divine, which cannot be expressed; because, although we call him in some way a begotten Son, in another way the manner in which he was born neither man nor angel can comprehend. The other is the human, about which he deals; but in this generation there are many difficult things. Therefore, according to Remigius, very few can express it. There is the question also why he says Generation, since many generations are grouped here. But the answer is that, although many generations are listed, they are introduced for one, namely, for the generation of Christ, about which it says below: "The generation of Christ took place in this way." The one whose generation is constructed is described from the name, when it says Jesus; secondly, from his office, when it says Christ; thirdly, from his origin, when it says son of David, son of Abraham. Although there have been others with the name, Jesus, as Jesus the son of Nun: "Jesus the son of Nun was mighty in war and was the successor of Moses in prophesying" (Sir 46:1), and another about the time of the construction of the temple, about whom Zechariah (3:21) speaks. Yet they were figurative and nominal Jesus', in as much as they were a figure of him. Jesus introduced the people of Israel into the Promised Land; but this Jesus, i.e., our Savior, introduced us not into a material land but into the heavenly: "We have Jesus, the author and perfector of our faith in his blood" (Heb 12:2). And he is rightly called Jesus, for this name suits him according to both natures, namely, divine and human. Indeed, according to the human he suffered in the flesh and fulfilled the mystery of our redemption; and since that passion would have no efficacy except in virtue of the adjoined divinity, it says below: "You shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." But why say Christ? Would not Jesus have been enough? I answer that this was done because, as we have said, others too were called "Jesus". He describes him from his office, when he says Christ, i.e., anointed. But note three anointings in the Old Law. For Aaron was anointed a priest (Lev 8:11); Saul was anointed king by Samuel (1 Sam 10:11), as was David (1 Sam 16:13); Elisha was anointed a prophet (1 Kg 19:16). Therefore, because Christ was the true priest in Ps 110 (v. 4): "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek," and king and prophet, it is right to call him Christ on account of the three offices he exercised. Son of David, son of Abraham. This raises a question about the number and about the order. As to the first, why does he name those two? For the reason given in the prologue, namely, that Abraham was a prophet. In Gen (20:7) the Lord said to Abimelech, king of Gerar: "Restore the man's wife, for he is a prophet." He was also a priest (Gen 15:9), for he fulfilled the office of priest, namely, by offering a victim to the Lord: "Bring me," he says, "a heifer three years old..." But David was a prophet, as is clear from Acts (2:30). He was also a king, as it says in 2 Sam (2:4). Therefore, because Christ was king and prophet and priest, he is correctly called their son. For if he had mentioned only Abraham, there would be no sign that Christ would be a king; if only David, the priestly dignity would not be denoted in Christ. Therefore, both are mentioned. The answer to the second, according to Jerome, is that David is mentioned first and the order changed for the purpose of constructing the genealogy. For if he had first said "son of Abraham" and secondly "son of David", he would have had to repeat Abraham in order to continue the order of the genealogy. According to Ambrose, however, David is placed first by reason of dignity; for the promise about that head was made to David in Ps 132 (v. 11): "one of the sons of your body I will set on your throne"; but to Abraham about the members, namely, of the Church: "And by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth be blessed" (Gen 22:18). Here it should be noted that there have been many errors about Christ. For some erred in regard to his divinity, as Paul of Samosata, Photinus and Sabellius; some in regard to his humanity, and some in regard to both. Still others have erred in regard to his person. The first error in regard to his humanity was that of Manicheus, who said that he did not receive a true, but an imaginary, body. Against this is what the Lord says in Luke (24:39): "Handle and see; for a spirit has not flesh as you see that I have." Secondly, after him erred Valentine, who said that he brought a heavenly body with him, that it was not assumed from the Virgin, but that it passed through her as water through a channel. But Rom (1:3) says against this: "Who was made from the seed of David according to the flesh." The third error was that of Apollinaris, who said that he received only a body and no soul, but that in place of a soul he had his divinity. But against this is the fact that Christ frequently says: "My soul is sorrowful" (Jn 12:27). But on this account he later changed his opinion and said that Christ had a vegetal and sensitive soul, but still no rational soul, in place of which was his divinity. But then would follow the awkward situation that Christ would not have been any more man than a brute. These errors were assigned as though by lot to the four evangelists. For Mark and John mainly destroyed the errors touching the divinity; hence John asserted immediately in the beginning: "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, "the son of Abraham". Matthew and Luke destroy in the beginning those errors which concern the humanity. Hence in the statement, son of David, son of Abraham, all errors about the humanity of Christ are excluded. For one is not called the son of someone except in virtue of univocal generation, which is according to agreement in species. For no matter what is generated from a man, unless it shares in the nature of the species, it is never called a son; as is evident in the case of lice and the like. Therefore, if Christ is the son of David and of Abraham, he should have the same nature by reason of the same species; but he would not have the same specific nature, if he had not a true and natural body, or if he took it from heaven, or even if it lacked a sensitive or a rational soul. Hence, the exclusion of every error is clear.

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 1:2

  Having presented the title, the genealogical series is woven. This is divided into three parts according to the three series of fourteen, out of which the aforesaid genealogical series is woven. The first set of fourteen is from Abraham to David, who came forth through patriarchs. The second goes from David to the Babylonian transmigration and proceeds through the kings. The third is from the transmigration to Christ, and begins with leaders and proceeds through private persons. The first is divided into three parts: first are mentioned the fathers who lived before the entry into Egypt; secondly, those who were involved in the exodus and in the entry into the promised land; thirdly, those who existed after the entry into the promised land. He says, therefore: Abraham was the father of Isaac. Here it should be noted, before we proceed any further, that two evangelists describe the generation of Christ according to the flesh; namely, Luke and Matthew, but differently. This difference consists in five things. For, first, they differ as to its position in the work: because Matthew begins to weave the generation of Christ at the beginning of his Gospel, but Luke not at the beginning, but after the baptism. The reason for this, according to Augustine, is that Matthew undertook to describe the fleshly generation of Christ; therefore, he should have presented it immediately in the beginning. But Luke's main purpose was to comment in Christ the priestly person. It pertains to a priest to expiate for sins. Therefore, after the baptism, in which expiation of sins takes place, was the suitable time to present the generation of Christ. But secondly, Luke and Matthew in the genealogy of Christ differ in regard to order; because Matthew wove Christ's generation by beginning with Abraham and by descending to Christ, but Luke begins with Christ and by ascending proceeds to Abraham and much further. The reason is that according to the Apostle (Rom 4:25), there were two things in Christ, namely, the humility to assume the defects of our nature and the power of divinity and grace, through which he purged us from these defects. (Rom 8:3): "God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh," on account of the first; "and for sin he condemned sin in the flesh," on account of the second. Therefore, Matthew, who is interested in Christ's fleshly generation through which he descended so far as to assume our weakness, fittingly describes his generation by descending. But Luke, who commends in him his priestly dignity, through which we are reconciled to God and united to Christ, fittingly proceeded by ascending. Thirdly, they differ as to manner: because in the narration of the genealogy Matthew used the word begot and Luke the word "was of". And this occurs, because Matthew in the entire narration mentions only fathers according to the flesh; but Luke mentions many fathers according to the Law or by adoption. For it had been commanded in the Law that if a man should die without children, his brother should take his wife and raise up children for him. Hence, they were not the children of the one who begot them, but by adoption they were regarded as belonging to the previous husband. Hence, Luke, who mentions many sons by adoption, does not say "begot"; because, although they had not begotten them, yet they were theirs by adoption. But Matthew, who mentions only fathers according to the flesh, says begot. The reason for this is that, as has been stated, Matthew is concerned mainly with Christ's humanity. And because according to the flesh he was born of parents according to the flesh, no one is mentioned in Matthew's genealogy who was not a father according to the flesh. But Luke stresses in Christ the priestly dignity through which we are adopted as God's sons; therefore, he mentioned fathers not only according to the flesh but also those according to the Law. They differ, fourthly, as to termini: because Matthew begins his genealogy with Abraham and continues it to Christ; but Luke goes from Christ not only to Abraham but as far as God. The reason for this can be taken from the fact that Matthew wrote to the Hebrews, who boasted of Abraham: "We are descendants of Abraham" (Jn 8:33), who was the first principle of believing; and therefore, Matthew begins with Abraham. But Luke wrote to the Greeks, who knew nothing about Abraham except through Christ: for if Christ had not existed, they would have known nothing about Abraham; therefore, Luke began with Christ and ended not only in Abraham, but in God. They differ, fifthly, as to the persons listed: because in Luke's entire genealogy no woman is mentioned; but in Matthew some women are introduced. The reason for this, according to Ambrose, is that Luke, as has been said, commends especially the priestly dignity; but the greatest purity is required in a priest. But Matthew wove his genealogy according to the flesh; therefore some women are mentioned there. Yet it should be noted that in all of Matthew's genealogy only women who were sinners are mentioned, either because she had been noted for some sin, as Tamar, who committed fornication (Gen 38:24) and Ruth, who had been an idolater and a gentile; and Uriah's wife, who was an adulteress (2 Sam 11:2). These were mentioned to designate, according to Jerome, that he whose genealogy is given, entered the world to redeem sinners. Another reason is given by Ambrose, namely, in order to remove embarrassment from the Church. For if Christ willed to be born of sinners, unbelievers should not jeer, if sinners join the Church. Another reason can be assigned, I believe, according to Chrysostom, in order to show the imperfection of the Law and that Christ came to fulfill the Law. The fact that certain female sinners are mentioned denotes that those who were greatest in the Law were sinners; as David and Judah. And in this is designated the imperfection of others. For if those were sinners, then much more the others: "All have sinned and need the glory of God" (Rom 3:23). And therefore they are mentioned in the genealogy of Christ to designate that he had fulfilled the Law. Note, however, that those women, although they had been sinners, were not so at the time in which their genealogy is woven; but they had already been cleansed by penance. He says, therefore, Abraham was the father of Isaac. Here two things should be considered according to the letter, or literal sense. First, that by those fathers mentioned Christ is designated; secondly, that even those are referred or can be referred to our instruction. He says, therefore, first: Abraham was the father of Isaac. And this is stated in Gen (c. 21). But Isaac was the father of Jacob (Gen c. 25). And Jacob was the father of Judah and his brothers. Here one asks, since Abraham had another son besides Isaac, namely, Ishmael, as did Isaac, why no mention is made of them here, when it says, Judah and his brothers. Also, why is Judah expressly mentioned by name rather than the others. The reason is that Judah and his brothers continued in the worship of the one God and, therefore, they are mentioned in the genealogy of Christ; but not Isaac and Ishmael, or Jacob and Esau. As to the second, this occurred to show that in Christ Jacob's prophecy was fulfilled: "The scepter shall not depart from Judah nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs. And he will be the expected of the gentiles" (Gen 29:10); "For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah" (Heb 7:14); and that is why he is mentioned rather than the others. Secondly, it should be noted that by the fathers mentioned in the genealogy of Christ, Christ is signified either by reason of the name or of a deed or of something else, as is clear. For Abraham means the father of many nations and signifies Christ, about whom Heb (2:10) says: "Who had brought many sons to glory." Furthermore, at the Lord's command Abraham left his homeland (Gen 12:4), and it is Christ who said in Jeremiah (12:7): "I have forsaken my house, I have abandoned my heritage." In like manner Abraham, who laughed, saying: "God has made laughter for me" (Gen 21:6); and it is Christ at whose birth joy is announced not to one person alone but to the entire world: "Behold, I bring you news of great joy, which will come to all the people; for to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord" (Lk 2:10). Similarly, by Jacob, both by reason of its meaning and by reason of an action, as is evident from his putting a stone, i.e., the hardness of the passion, under his head. In like manner by Judah and Perez, which means division: for he will divide the sheep from the goats (Mt 25:32).

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 1:3

  Judah was the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar. Here one asks, since the Lord was not born of Zerah but of Perez, why was the former mentioned? Also, why was he expressed by name, whereas previously he said, his brothers? The answer, according to Ambrose, is that this took place in a mystery. To understand this, note the story in Gen (c. 38) that in Tamar's delivery, Zerah appeared first and the midwife tied a scarlet thread on his hand and said: (5:28) "This one came out first." Therefore, his name was called Zerah. But as he drew back his hand, the other came out. The midwife said: "What a breach you have made for yourself." But Zerah, who appeared first, signifies the Jewish people on whose hand the midwife tied the scarlet thread, i.e., circumcision, which involves a flow of blood. But as he drew back his hand, the other came out, because "a blinding has come upon part of Israel" (Rom 11:25). For thus the divided gentile people entered into the light of faith, having come from the matrix of ignorance and unbelief. But morally, in those generations the status of our justification is designated according to the six requirements for justification: namely, faith, by Abraham, who was justified by the righteousness of faith; for elsewhere he is called the principle of faith: "The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised" (Rom 4:11). Isaac, hope, because it means laughter: "Rejoice in hope" (Rom 12:12). Jacob, charity, for he took two wives: Leah, which means labor, and Rachel, i.e., the two lives inspired by charity according to the two precepts: for the contemplative delights in God; the active is the life through which the neighbor is helped. Judah, confession, which is twofold: of faith: "Man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved" (Rom 10:10). The other confession is of sins: "Confess your sins to one another" (James 5:16). But two effects follow from this, namely, the destruction of vices, which is designated by Perez, and the origin of virtue, which is signified by Zerah. And these arise from Tamar, which means bitterness: "All my sleep has fled because of the bitterness of my soul" (Is 38:15). Perez was the father of Hezron. Here is mentioned a list of the fathers born in Egypt or during the exodus. For just as by Perez, which means division, is signified Christ (Mt 25:32): "He will separate the sheep from the goats"; so by Hezron, which means arrow or inner court. For he is called arrow on account of the efficacy of preaching, which penetrates the hearts of the audience: "Your arrows are sharp in the heart of the king's enemies; the peoples fall under you" (Ps 45:5); but inner court on account of the breadth of charity, because it loved not only friends but enemies as well: "While we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son" (Rom 5:10); "He made intercession for the transgressors" (Is 53:12); "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" (Lk 23:34). Hezron was the father of Ram. Ram means chosen or on high: "Behold my servant, and he is high above all" (Is 42:1); "He put him above every principality" (Eph 1:21).

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 1:4

  Ram was the father of Amminadab, which means voluntarily. For it is in his person that Ps 54 (v. 6) says: "With a freewill offering I will sacrifice to you; I will give thanks to your name, O Lord, for it is good"; (Is 53:7): "He was offered, because he willed it; yet he opened not his mouth"; (Jn 6:38): "I came not to do my will but his who sent me." Aminadab was the father of Nahshon, which means augury, or serpentine, because Christ knew not only present things but also the past and future: "All are open and laid bare to his sight" (Heb 4:13). Serpentine on account of prudence, for prudence is attributed to the serpent: "Be prudent as serpents" (Mt 10:16); "The deceived and the deceiver he knows" (Job 12:16). Note that Nahshon lived in the time of Moses and departed with him from Egypt. He was also a chief in the tribe of Judah in the desert (Num 1:7). But note that Ex (13:18), where the text has, "The children of Israel left Egypt armed for battle," Aquila translated "prepared for battle," but the LXX text is better: "The children of Israel left Egypt in the fifth generation." But it is said that one should count not through the tribe of Judah but through the tribe of Levi, under whose leadership the children of Israel left Egypt: "You lead your people like a flock, by the hand of Moses and Aaron" (Ps 77:20). And it is evident that there are only five generations: for Jacob was the father of Levi, Levi of Khath, Kohath of Amram, Amram of Moses and Aaron, and under Moses they left Egypt. Note here that the tribe of Judah was multiplied more than all the other tribes, because kings, who should fight, were destined to come from it. The tribe which multiplied the least was Levi's, because it was pre-ordained to divine duties and the priesthood, for which fewer sufficed. Therefore, he desires that even by counting through the tribe of Judah the statement in Genesis (15:16) is true: "They shall come back here in the fifth generation." Therefore, Jerome says that what is said there should be understood by counting through the tribe of Levi; but what is said here, through the tribe of Judah. For Perez entered Egypt with Jacob and with Judah, his father. And it is evident that Nahshon was the fifth from Perez. Similarly, Levi entered Egypt with his father, Jacob. And therefore, the generations must be counted from Levi and not from Jacob. But it is clear that Moses was the fourth from Levi. Nahshon was the father of Salmon. Salmon means sensible and signifies Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Morally, it should be noted here that just as in the first generation is signified the order of our justification as to the state of beginners; so in this second generation, which similarly contains five, is signified the progress of the proficients. For the first thing to follow from the fact that a man has been justified from sin is that he has zeal for souls. Therefore, it was fitting that Perez beget Hezron, which means arrow, on account of the efficacy of preaching, by which the hearts of the audience are penetrated: "He made me a polished arrow" (Is 49:2). The others are also adapted thus.

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 1:5

  Salmon was the father of Boaz by Rahab. Here are mentioned fathers born after the entry into the promised land. For Salmon was fathered in the desert and entered the promised land with Joshua; he took as his wife Rahab, a prostitute, from whom Boaz was born. Boaz means strong: "O Lord, my strength and my stronghold" (Jer 16:19). Rahab, however, means hunger or width, and signifies the Church, because beatitude is related to that hunger: "Blessed are they who hunger and thirst after justice, for they shall have their fill" (Mt 5:6). It means width, because the Church has been spread through the whole world: "Enlarge the place of your tent and let the curtains of your tents be stretched out" (Is 54:2). Likewise it means impetus, because by the impetus of preaching it converts kings and philosophers. It signifies, too, the Church by reason of the fact that Rahab placed in her window a scarlet thread, by which she was saved from the destruction of Jericho (Jos 2:21). Our window is the mouth: therefore, the thread in the window is our confession of the passion of Christ, through which the Church is freed from death. Likewise, by reason of the marriage: because just as Rahab was joined in marriage to Salmon, who was a chief in the tribe of Judah, so Christ espoused the Church to himself: "I betrothed you to Christ to present you as a pure bride to her one husband" (2 Cor 11:2). But here one asks according to the letter, since Rahab was a prostitute, how was she espoused to such a great chief, who was greater than many others? The answer is that Rahab did something great, in as much as she scorned her own people and her paternal rite and chose the worship of the God of Israel. Therefore, as if to show the greatest honor, she was given to the noblest chief. Boaz was the father of Obed by Ruth. This is quoted from the last chapter of the Book of Ruth. Obed means serving or service; and it signifies Christ, of whom a prophet says: "You have made me serve in your sins" (Is 43:24). But Ruth signifies the Church born of the gentiles by reason of place: for she was a Moabitess. Moab means from the father: "You are from your father the devil" (Jn 8:44). And again by reason of marriage, as it says in a Gloss. But why were these women mentioned here, since they were sinners? Jerome gives a reason touching Ruth, namely, that a prophecy be fulfilled: "Send a lamb, O Lord, to rule the earth from a rock in the desert" (Is 16:1). The rock of the desert is of evil, and Ruth the Moabitess is signified. Ambrose, however assigns another reason, saying: "It would come to pass that the Church would be composed of gentile unbelievers; and, therefore, it could blush and be embarrassed, unless they saw that even Christ was descended from sinners." Hence, in order to remove such embarrassment and confusion, they were to be listed. But it says in Dt (25:3): "Moabites and Ammonites will not enter the Church." Therefore, since Ruth was a Moabitess, how was she received into the Church? The answer is from the Apostle to the Galatians (5:18) that those led by the Spirit are not under the law. But in a law the intention of the lawgiver is more to be considered than the words of the law. For what was the cause why the Lord forbade them to enter the Church? Because he found idolatry among them, he did not wish the just to be drawn into idolatry. Hence, when she was converted, she was no longer an idolatress and, therefore, not subject to the prohibition. Obed was the father of Jesse. This is from the last chapter of Ruth. Jesse is taken to mean sacrifice or conflagration and signifies the one who offered himself as a victim to God in an odor of sweetness. But since he was also called Isai, as is clear in 1 Samuel in many places, why did not the evangelist use that name here? The answer is that this was done to show that in Christ was fulfilled the word of the prophet: "There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse" (Is 11:2).

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 1:6

  Jesse was the father of David the king. David is taken to mean strong hand and fair to behold; both of which suit Christ, as is evident. For he was strong in overcoming the devil. "But when one stronger than he assails him and overcomes him, he takes away his armor in which he trusted and divides his spoil" (Lk 11:22). Also "he is the fairest of the sons of men" (Ps 45:2). But why was it that, since many of the others were kings, he is called king? The answer is that he was the first king in the tribe of Judah, from which the Lord was born. For although Saul had been king, he was from the tribe of Benjamin. The second reason is that the others reigned on account of the merits of David: "I will establish his line for ever and his throne as the days of the heavens" (Ps 89:29). The third reason is to show the fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy (23:5): "I will raise up for David a righteous branch and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land"; "Upon the throne of David and over his kingdom to establish it" (Is 9:7). But morally in this generation the fruit of the perfect is designated, just as in other generations the fruit of beginners and proficients. For the first requirement for a perfect man is that he be brave in attacking adversities, so that he is not held back on account of some difficulty: and this is signified by Boaz, which is taken to mean brave: "They who hope in the Lord shall renew their strength, they shall mount up with wings like eagles; they shall run and not be weary, they shall walk and not faint" (Is 40:31); "Who shall find the valiant woman?" (Pr 31:10). The second is the humility of the servant, so that the greater one is, the humbler he is in all things; and this is signified by Obed, which is taken to mean incense or conflagration: "Let my prayer be directed as incense in your sight" (Ps 14:2). And from this, one arrives at the kingdom and glory, because Jesse was the father of David the king: "Who made them a kingdom and priests to our God" (Rev 5:20); "You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people" (1 Pt 2:9). Having presented the genealogical series of the fathers which ran through the patriarchs, he now presents the series of fathers which came forth from kings. And it is divided into two parts: first are presented the kings born of Israel without a mixture of alien seed; secondly, the kings who undertook a union with foreigners at Joram was the father of Uzziah. Here two questions arise: for Luke in recounting the generation of Christ ascends through Nathan; but Matthew proceeds in descending order from David to Christ through Solomon. Hence, there seems to be some contrariety. The answer, as has been said, is that Luke in the genealogy of Christ mentions many fathers who were not fathers of fleshly origin by propagation but according to legal adoption; but Matthew mentions no one who was not a father according to the flesh. And it is true that according to the flesh the Lord descended from David through Solomon and not through Nathan; nevertheless, according to Augustine there is no lack of mystery that Matthew goes from David through Solomon to Christ, but Luke ascends from Christ to David through Nathan. For Matthew had undertaken to describe the origin of Christ according to the flesh, in virtue of which Christ descended even unto the likeness of sinful flesh; and therefore, Matthew is correct in his genealogy's descending from David through Solomon, with whose mother David had sinned. But Luke, who intends to stress in Christ the priestly dignity, through which was expiation of sins, is correct in ascending to David through Nathan, who was a holy man. But note that according to the same Augustine in the Book of Retractions it is not supposed that this prophet Nathan who rebuked David was the same as the son he fathered, but that they were alike in name only. The second question is why Bathsheba is not mentioned by name as were Tamar, Rahab and Ruth. The answer is that the others, although they had been sinners for a while, were later converted and repentant; but she committed the crime of adultery basely and consented to murder. Therefore, on account of the shame her name is kept silent. But note that in Scripture sometimes the sins of the great are recorded, as David and others; and this, because the devil prostrates not only the small and lowly, but also the great; for he is our adversary. And therefore, as a warning they are mentioned, so that he who stands may not fall. Another reason is that they not think themselves more than men. For if someone were to consider only the perfection in them, he could be deceived into idolatry; but when he sees that they have fallen into sin, he no longer believes that they are superhuman. Note, too, according to Augustine, that sometimes the literal fact is evil and the thing is very good; and sometimes the deed is good and the thing signified evil. For Uriah was a good and just man and is not reprehended for anything in Scripture; yet he signifies the devil. Bathsheba on the other hand was a sinner; yet she signifies a good thing, namely, the Church. For Uriah is taken to mean God my light and signifies the devil, who desired the light of divinity: "I will be like the Most High" (Is 14:14). Bathsheba is taken to mean seven wells or the well of a group and signifies the Church of the gentiles on account of the seven-fold grace of baptism. The devil first married her, but David, i.e., Christ, took her from him and became one with her and killed the devil. Or Bathsheba signifies the Law, through whose ways were led the people who do not want to enter the house through spiritual understanding but bring in the letters of their death, because "the letter kills" (2 Cor 3:6). But David, i.e., Christ, removed the Law from the Jews, when he taught how to understand it spiritually.

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 1:7

  Solomon was the father of Rehoboam. But just as David is taken to mean stronghanded or fair to behold, so Solomon, peaceful: and this is correct, because from the vigor of good activity arises peace of conscience: "Great peace have those who love thy law" (Ps 119:165). But it happens that from peace of conscience a man wants to arrive at the good. Hence, Solomon begot Rehoboam, which is taken to mean force, because by the force of preaching one with peace of conscience is moved to extend Christ's name, as it says of the apostles in Is (27:6): "They will come to Jacob with force, Israel shall blossom and bring forth fruits and fill the whole world with fruit." But both signify Christ, because he is peace. Also Rehoboam, who converted the people by the force of preaching. Rehoboam was the father of Abijah, which is taken to mean God the Father, because, from the fact that a man is eager for the spiritual or bodily progress of others through works of mercy, he is made worthy of God's fatherhood, as it says below: (5:44): "Do good to those who hate you, that you may be children of your Father who is in heaven"; and in Lk (6:36): "Be merciful." This, too, befits Christ, to whom it is said: "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son" (Heb 1:5). Abijah was the father of Asa, which is taken to mean raise up: because sometimes a man, after being made the father and superior over others, experiences an absence of confidence. Therefore, Abijah was the father of Asa, in order that a man make continual progress and raise himself always to higher things. This befits Christ, who is said to be raised up, i.e., growing: "The boy grew" (Lk 2:40). Or "raising up," because he took away the sins of the world.

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 1:8

  Asa was the father of Jehoshaphat, which is taken to mean living on high, because the one appointed judge ought to live on high: "He will dwell on the heights" (Is 33:6). How this happens is told by the Apostle: "Our commonwealth is in heaven" (Phil 3:20). And this befits Christ, because "the Lord is high above all the nations." Joram was the father of Uzziah. Here a question arises. For it says in 1 Chronicles (3:11) that Joram was the father of Ahaziah, who was the father of Joash, who was the father of Amaziah, also called Azariah. Amaziah was the father of Uzziah. Therefore, the evangelist seems to have erred twice in the genealogical series: first, because Joram was not the father of Uzziah; secondly, because he left out three generations. The answer to the first difficulty is that for one to generate another can be understood in two ways: mediately and immediately. Immediately, as the father according to the flesh immediately generates his son. In this sense, Joram did not generate Uzziah. In another way, mediately, as we are called sons of Adam; and so a son can be said to be generated by a father or grandfather, because he descended from him through a mediate generation. There are three reasons why he left out three kings. The first is from Jerome, who says (as it is stated in Ex 20:5): "The Lord visits the sins of the fathers upon the children of the third and fourth generation of those who hate me." Now Joram married the daughter of Jezebel, named Athalia, who drew him to idolatry. Ahaziah was more given to idolatry than his father. Similarly Joram, along with the crime of idolatry, also slew Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada. Therefore, those three, as though unworthy, were excluded from the genealogy of Christ. Chrysostom gives another reason. For the Lord (2 Kg 9) commanded Jehu, the son of Nimshi, to destroy the house of Ahab. He was diligent in executing the command, and yet he did not cease worshiping the gods, for he adored calves cast out of metal. And because he was diligent in carrying out the Lord's command by destroying Ahab's house, it was said to him that his sons to the fourth generation would sit upon the throne. Hence, just as Jehu merited the kingdom of Israel to the third or fourth generation, so oppositely, Joram, who had intercourse with pagan women and transferred the sin of the house of Israel to the house of Judah, was due to lose the name of his posterity in the genealogy of Christ to the fourth generation, having made expiation for his sin. In Questions of the New and Old Testaments Augustine assigns another reason. For he says that some were good and they found good fathers, as Isaac and Jacob; some were evil and yet found good fathers, as Solomon was a sinner and yet had David, a just and holy man, as his father. Some were not good and did not have good fathers, as those three, as is clear from the foregoing. Joram sinned and his sin continued to Uzziah, who did almost no evil, except that he burned incense; but continuation in sin is the cause or reason of destruction. Therefore, those three, who persisted in the sin of idolatry, are excluded from the genealogy of Christ. A mystical reason is assigned on account of the three uses of fourteen by which Matthew intends to describe the genealogy of Christ. Uzziah is taken to mean the Lord's robust one and it signifies Christ about whom it says in Ps 118 (v. 14): "The Lord is my strength and my song; he has become my salvation." Mystically, Joram was the father of Uzziah, because those who live in high places ought to act bravely. Note that Isaiah prophesied under this Uzziah, as is clear from Is (c. 13). For God removed prophecy and teaching on account of the sins of princes and kings; hence, under a good king prophecy began once more.

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 1:9

  Uzziah was the father of Jotham, which is taken to mean perfect, and it signifies Christ, through whom the Church grows perfect daily. And so it was that Uzziah was the father of Jotham, because those who act bravely make continual progress: "They will go from virtue to virtue" (Ps 84:8). Jotham was the father of Ahaz, which is taken to mean comprehending, because by continuous progress in the virtues a man comes to the knowledge of God: "Through your precepts I get understanding; therefore I hate every false way" (Ps 119:104); "They declared God's works and have understood what he has wrought" (Ps 64:9). Therefore, Paul says: "I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own" (Phil 3:12). And it befits Christ, who alone comprehends the godhead perfectly: "No one knows the Father, but the Son" (Lk 10:22). Ahaz was the father of Hezekiah, i.e., the strong lord, because he had such strength from the Lord: "The Lord is my rock and my fortress" (2 Sam 22:2). And this befits Christ, who is strong in battle.

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 1:10

  Hezekiah was the father of Manasseh and it means forgetful, because one who knows God so well forgets temporal things: "Forget your people and your father's house" (Ps 45:10); "God has made me forget all my hardship" (Gen 41:51). And this befits Christ of whom it says: "If a wicked man turns away from all his sins, I will not remember the sins he has committed" (Ez 18:21). Manasseh was the father of Amon, i.e., faithful and nourishing, because he is truly faithful who spurns temporal things. For, according to Gregory, fraud is the daughter of greed; therefore, one who perfectly scorns temporal things is no longer worried about unbelief. Hence, it is well said that Manasseh was the father of Amon. For this is taken to mean nourishing, because one who spurns temporal things should mercifully use them to nourish the poor: "If you would be perfect, go and sell all you have": behold the scorn; "and give to the poor": behold the nourishment (Mt 19:21). This befits Christ, who is truly faithful: "It was I who taught Ephraim to walk, I took him up in my arms; but they did not know that I healed them" (Hos 11:3); "How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen her brood under her wings and you would not" (Mt 23:37). Amon was the father of Josiah, which is taken to mean the Lord's salvation, or incense, because man obtains his salvation by forgetting temporal things, which he gives away and distributes. Or this incense befits Christ: "In the sight of their fathers he wrought marvels" (Ps 78:12); "He gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God" (Eph 5:2).

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 1:11

  Josiah was the father of Jechoniah and his brothers. This is taken to mean the Lord's preparation or the resurrection, and it signifies Christ, who prepared a place for us (Jn 14) and who says: "I am the resurrection and the life" (Jn 11:22). And through this we come to the resurrection. Here arise three textual questions: first, how Josiah is said to be the father of Jechoniah, whereas he begot not him but his father, Jehoiakim. There are two answers to this. According to Chrysostom, with whom Augustine agrees, the name of Jehoiakim is entirely omitted, because he reigned not by God's decree but by the power of Pharaoh, who established him in the kingdom after imprisoning his brother, Jotham, who had reigned before him. In regard to this, note the history in 2 Kings (c. 22) and 2 Chronicles (c. 36). Josiah had three sons, Jotham, Jehoahaz (also called Eliakim) and Zedekiah. For if, as Augustine says, those three kings are removed from the genealogy, because they were guilty of idolatry; how much more the one who was installed not by God or a prophet but by a pagan? The opinion is Jerome's but not the words, as he wishes and Ambrose concurs, that both were called Jehoiakim, i.e., the one mentioned at the end of the second fourteen and at the beginning of the third; and both Jechoniah and Jehoiakim are the same. Hence, it should be noted that Josiah had three sons: Jehoiakim, also called Eliakim, Jotham and Zedekiah. But when Josiah was dead, Jotham reigned, although he was the second son. After his capture and imprisonment by Pharaoh, king of Egypt, Jehoiakim was made king with the obligation of paying tribute. After Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, overcame the king of Egypt, he besieged Jerusalem and took Jehoiakim, whom he sent to Jerusalem under tribute. Later, when Jehoiakim, trusting in the king of Egypt's help, attempted to rebel against the king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar went up to Jerusalem, captured and slew him, and put Jehoiakim's son in his place and called him Jehoiakim, the same name as his father. After this action Nebuchadnezzar feared that he might recall his father's death and form an alliance with the king of Egypt. So he returned to Jerusalem, attacked it, and this Jehoiakim, the son of the other Jehoiakim, surrendered himself and his wife and sons on the advice of Jeremiah to king Nebuchadnezzar; and they are properly said to have migrated in the transmigration. Nebuchadnezzar, however, appointed the father's brother, Zedekiah, king in his place and brought Jehoiakim to Babylon. He is the one about whom it is said later: and after the departure to Babylon. But why was he called Jechoniah, when his name was Jehoiakim? The answer is that the name was given him by the prophet Jeremiah (22:24): "Thus says the Lord: though Coniah, the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, wore the signet ring on my right hand, yet I would tear you off." And in v. 28: "Is this man Coniah a despised broken pot?" And, therefore, the evangelist preferred to use that name, to show that he agrees with the prophet. The second question is why it says Jechoniah and his brothers. For there were many kings who had brothers, but no mention is made of them. The answer is, according to Ambrose, that wherever mention is made of brothers, as when it says, "Judah and his brothers," and "Perez and Zerah by Tamar," it signifies that they were equal in holiness or malice. But those three were all evil. Or it can be said that it was because each of those brothers reigned, as is clear from what has been said. This was not true of the brothers of other kings. The third question concerns the phrase, in the transmigration. It seems to be false, because Josiah never transmigrated. The answer is that this must be taken according to God's foreknowledge, according to which it was ordained that those whom he then generated would transmigrate. Or it can be said that in the transmigration is the same as near the transmigration, or when it was now imminent.

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 1:12

  Here is given the third series of fourteen in the genealogy of Christ, and it lists private persons. Concerning Jechoniah, as was indicated above, there were two opinions: for Jerome and Ambrose think that the one was placed at the end of the first series of fourteen and went by the name of Jehoiakim; the other is the one named Jehoiachim. Augustine's opinion has been given above. For the transmigration of the children of Israel signifies the transfer of the faith to the gentiles: "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first to you" (Acts 13:46). In that transmigration was made, as it were, a certain reflection of the Jews upon the gentiles. Hence, someone is, as it were, constituted a corner; and therefore, Jechoniah signifies Christ, who was made the corner-stone, uniting in himself both the Jewish people and the gentiles: "The stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner" (Ps 118:22). In Jeremiah (22:30) it says: "Write this man, Zedekiah, down as childless, a man who shall not succeed in his days; for none of his offspring shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David." How then is Christ said to have descended from David through Zedekiah, since it is written of Christ: "Upon the throne of David and over his kingdom to sit" (Is 9:7)? The answer is that, according to Ambrose, when Christ is said to sit upon the throne, it means a spiritual, not a material, throne, except in as much as a spiritual kingdom is signified by David's material kingdom. Shealtiel was the father of Zerubbabel. But 1 Ch (c. 3) says that the sons of Jechoniah were Shealtiel, Malchiram, Pedaiah, whose sons were Zerubbabel and Shimei. No mention is made of Abiud. Therefore, it seems that the evangelist erred in saying that Shealtiel was the father of Zerubbabel and that Zerubbabel was the father of Abiud. Three answers are given to this in a Gloss. One answer is that in the book of Chronicles many things are marred by the mistakes of writers, especially matters pertaining to numbers and names. On account of these errors, the Apostle forbids the converts to occupy themselves with those genealogies, which promote speculation rather than divine training (1 Tim 4). Another answer is that Shealtiel had two names: for he was called Shealtiel and Caphadar; and therefore the book of Chronicles says that Zerubbabel is the son of Caphadara, but the evangelist that he is the son of Shealtiel. Therefore, there is no contrariety. A third answer is the truer one, namely, that Shealtiel and Caphadara were brothers, as it says in the book of Chronicles. Caphadara fathered a son whom he called by the same name, Zerubbabel, who was the father of Abiud. It should be noted that the book of Chronicles narrates the genealogy of Caphadara, but the evangelist that of Shealtiel, because Christ was to be born from him. Note, too, that of those who were from Abiud to Joseph, no mention is made in the books of Sacred Scripture, but they were taken from the Hebrew people's annals, most of which Herod burned, in order to conceal the ignobility of his own ancestors. The text is evident; let us take up the mystical sense. Note, therefore, that in this section of the genealogy three orders are mentioned. The first is the order of teachers and contains four generations; for preparation is required before prayer: "Before prayer prepare your soul" (Sir 18:23) and therefore, after Jechoniah, which is taken to mean the Lord's preparation, comes Shealtiel, which means my petition; and it designates Christ, who in all things "is heard for his reverence" (Heb 5:7). But the prayer should come before teaching: "Pray that utterance may be given to me in opening my mouth" (Eph 6:19). And therefore, Shealtiel follows Zerubbabel, which means teacher of Babel, i.e., of confusion; because by the teaching and preaching of the apostles the gentiles were recalled to the true God, to the confusion of idolatry. And this especially befits Christ, who says: "You call me master and Lord, and you say well" (Jn 13:13).

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 1:13

  By teaching and preaching, however, a man acquires the dignity of a father; hence, those who give spiritual instruction are called father: "For although you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers" (1 Cor 4:15). And therefore there follows, Zerubbabel was the father of Abiud, which is interpreted as my father, and this befits Christ: "He shall cry to me, 'You are my father'" (Ps 89:26). Abiud was the father of Eliakim. Here is designated the order of beginners or hearers. But the first effect which preaching makes in the hearer and which the preacher should intend is that he rise from vices to virtues, according to Eph (5:4): "Awake, O sleeper." And therefore, Abiud was the father of Eliakim, which is interpreted resurrection, and befits Christ, who says in Jn (11:26): "Everyone who believes in me has everlasting life." The one rising cannot reach the state of righteousness except by God's help, as it says in Ps 121 (v. 2): "My help is from the Lord." And therefore it follows: Eliakim was the father of Azor, which is interpreted helped. And this befits Christ, of whom it says in Ps 27 (v. 9): "Be my helper, O Lord."

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 1:14

  By means of this help one reaches righteousness; hence, Azor was the father of Zadok, which means just: "It is the justice of God for salvation to everyone who has faith" (Rom 1:22). The consummation or end of righteousness is charity: "The end of righteousness is Christ, the end of the precept is charity" (1 Tim 1:5). There are only two precepts, namely, the love of God and of neighbor: "And this commandment we have from God, that he who loves God shall also love his brother" (1 Jn 4:21). And therefore, Zadok follows Achim; and Achim Eliud. Achim means brother; hence, it signifies love of neighbor: "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity" (Ps 133:1). This befits Christ, who is our flesh and brother. And because love of neighbor cannot exist without love of God, it follows Eliud was the father of Achim. Eliud means my God: "I will love you, O Lord" (Ps 18:2). And this befits Christ: "You are my God" (Ps 34:15).

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 1:15

  Achim was the father of Eleazar. Here is designated the order of proficients. But one cannot make progress without God's help; hence, the first thing required for making progress is divine help. Therefore, Eliud is rightly followed by Eleazar, which means God, my helper: "Blessed is the man whose help is from you" (Ps 88:6). But because God can help towards salvation in many ways, as by removing obstacles and by giving occasions, the strongest help is by the gift of grace: "By the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor 15:10). And therefore, Eleazar, i.e., the help of God, is followed by Matthan, i.e., gift, namely, of divine grace. And this befits Christ, who is also the giver: "God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son" (Jn 3:16): "He gave gifts to men" (Eph 4:8). But because man could so rely on the gift of grace, that he would become negligent by not cooperating with grace through his free will, there follows Jacob, which means wrestler. Therefore 1 Cor (15:10) says: "By the grace of God I am what I am." and then, "and his grace in me has not been void"; "We urge you not to receive the grace of God in vain" (2 Cor 6:1). Now follows Joseph, i.e., increase, because by grace and the effort of free will a man reaches increase: "The path of the righteous is like the light of dawn, which shines brighter and brighter until full day" (Pr 4:18). Hence, Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary.

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 1:16

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

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 1:17

  So all the generations. Having mentioned the generation of Christ, he concludes to the number of generations. The first series of fourteen is from Abraham to David inclusively; hence David is included in that first set of fourteen. The second set of fourteen extends from David exclusively, namely, in such a way that David himself is not counted; but it begins with Solomon and ends at the transmigration to Babylon. And this is: and from David to the transmigration to Babylon. The third begins with the transmigration to Babylon and ends in Christ, so that Christ is the fourteenth. But why was the evangelist so diligent and careful to distinguish Christ's generation into three sets of fourteen? Chrysostom assigns a reason: because in those three sets of fourteen there always occurred some change in the people of Israel. For during the first fourteen they were under leaders; in the second under kings; in the third under high priests. And Christ himself is leader and king and high priest: "The Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king" (Is 33:22). About his priesthood it says in Ps 110 (v. 4): "You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." He assigns another reason, namely, to show the need for Christ's coming. For in the first fourteen they asked for a king against God's will and they transgressed the Law; in the second, however, they were led into captivity on account of their sins; but in the third through Christ we are freed from all the guilt and misery and slavery of sin. Jerome assigns a third reason: because by those three are signified the three times in which the life of all men is led. For by the first fourteen is signified the time before the Law, because in it are mentioned certain fathers who lived before the Law; by the second time under the Law, because all those mentioned are under the Law; by the third, however, the time of grace, because it is terminated at Christ, through whom "grace and truth come" (Jn 1:17). This distinction also suits a mystery, because fourteen is a number composed of ten and four. By ten, therefore, is understood the Old Testament, which was given in ten commandments; but by four, the Gospel, which is distinguished into four books. These fourteens designate faith in the Trinity. Hence, by the fact that Matthew divides his genealogy into three sets of fourteen is designated that through New and Old Testaments by faith in the Trinity one arrives at Christ. Concerning the number of generations there are two opinions. For according to Jerome, who says that the Jechoniah at the end of the second set of fourteen is not the same as the one at the beginning of the third; there are forty-two generations; as many as three fourteens make. But according to Augustine, there are only forty-one and that Christ is that one. And this befits a mystery. For fourteen arise by adding four to ten and conversely. But according to the Platonists, four is the number for bodies; for a body is composed of four elements. Ten is the number resulting from the addition of the linear numbers: for one, two, three and four make ten. And because Matthew intends to declare how Christ descended linearly to us, he comes to us by forty generations. But Luke, who intends to commend in Christ the priestly dignity, to which belongs expiation of sins: "I say to you, not seven times, but seventy times seven times" (Mt 18:22), presents seventy-seven generations. This number comes from multiplying seven by eleven. By eleven, therefore, the transgression of the decalogue is understood; by seven the sevenfold grace, through which remission of sins comes about. The fact that Jerome posits forty-two generations is not devoid of mystery, because by those two are understood the two precepts of charity, or the two Testaments, New and Old.

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 1:18

  As Jerome says (Contra Helvid. i): "Although this particle 'before' often indicates a subsequent event, yet we must observe that it not infrequently points merely to some thing previously in the mind: nor is there need that what was in the mind take place eventually, since something may occur to prevent its happening. Thus if a man say: 'Before I dined in the port, I set sail,' we do not understand him to have dined in port after he set sail: but that his mind was set on dining in port." In like manner the evangelist says: "Before they came together" Mary "was found with child, of the Holy Ghost," not that they came together afterwards: but that, when it seemed that they would come together, this was forestalled through her conceiving by the Holy Ghost, the result being that afterwards they did not come together.

  Summa Theologiae, Third Part, Question 28, Article 3

• Matthew 1:18

  Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. Having presented Christ's genealogy in general, his generation in particular is now described. And it is divided into three parts: first, he presents a title; secondly he describes the manner of the generation (v. 18b), thirdly he proves the manner of generation (v. 19). He says, therefore of Christ. This is read in two ways: for according to Chrysostom it is a kind of prologue to what is to be said; but according to Remigius it is an epilogue of what has been said. In the first way, it is read thus: "Thus we have spoken about the genealogy of Christ, how Abraham was the father of Isaac, etc., by descent according to the flesh, but the birth of Christ took place in this way: supply: "as will be said in the following." In the second way it is read thus, so that it is an epilogue of what went before: "Thus Abraham etc. to Christ. But the birth of Christ took place in this way: supply: "so that from Abraham through David and others they stretch forth to Christ." Then he describes the manner of the birth: first, he describes the person giving birth; secondly, the generating of Christ; thirdly the person generating. He describes the person giving birth: first, from her condition, secondly, from her dignity; thirdly from her name. He says, therefore, When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph. But immediately a question arises. Since Christ willed to be born of a virgin, why should he want his mother to be betrothed? According to Jerome there are three reasons: the first is that the testimony to her virginity be more credible. For if she had not been betrothed and said that she is a virgin, when she was pregnant, it would seem that she claimed to be a virgin merely to conceal the crime of adultery. But there was no need to lie, when she was betrothed. And therefore, there was more reason to believe her: "Your testimonies were made exceedingly credible" (Ps 119:144). Another reason is that she would have the protection of a man, both when she fled into Egypt and when she returned. The third reason was in order that her offspring would be concealed from the devil; otherwise, if he knew, he would impede his passion and the fruit of our redemption: "If they had known, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory" (1 Cor 2:8). This is explained of the devil, i.e., not to permit him to be crucified. But on the other hand, could not the devil know whether she was a virgin? For her virginity was in inviolate flesh. Therefore, the devil could know that she was a virgin. The answer is, according to Ambrose, who also assigns this reason: namely, that devils are by the subtlety of their nature capable of things which they cannot do without God's permission. Hence the devil would have known her virginity, if God had not prevented him from making a careful examination. According to Ambrose, there are three reasons for this: the first is to preserve the honor of the mother of God: "The Lord preferred that men wonder about his origin, rather than about his mother's purity. Therefore, he willed that she be espoused, in order that any suspicion of adultery be removed; for he had come to fulfill the Law, not to destroy it: "I have come not to destroy the law but to fulfill it" (Mt 5:17); "Honor your father and your mother" (Ex 20:12). Another reason is so that virgins observed in adultery might have no excuse; for if the Lord's mother had not been betrothed and yet pregnant, others could excuse themselves through her: "Incline not my heart to any evil to busy myself with wicked deeds" (Ps 141:4). The third reason is because Christ espoused the Church to himself, and it is a virgin: "I have betrothed you to Christ" (2 Cor 11:2). Consequently, he willed to be born of a betrothed virgin as a sign that he had betrothed the Church to himself. When his mother Mary had been betrothed. But to whom? To Joseph. According to Chrysostom, Joseph was a wood-worker and he signifies Christ, who restored all things through the wood of the cross in heaven and on the earth. His mother, i.e., of God. Here is shown her dignity: for it has been granted to no creature, no man, no angel, to be the father or mother of God. But this was a privilege of a singular grace that she become the mother not only of a man but of God. Therefore, it says in Rev (12:1): "A woman clothed with the sun," as though filled with the Holy Trinity. Nestorius denied this, because the divinity was not received from the virgin. Against this the martyr Ignatius uses a beautiful example to show that she was the mother of God. "It is obvious," he says, "that in the generation of men in general the woman is called the mother; yet the woman does not give the rational soul, which is from God, but she gives the substance for the formation of the body. But the woman is called the mother of the whole man, because that which was taken from her is united to the rational soul. Similarly, since the humanity of Christ was taken from the Blessed Virgin, then on account of its being united to the divinity, the Blessed Virgin is called not only the mother of a man but also of God; although the divinity was not received from her any more than the rational soul in others is obtained from the mother." Mary, a proper name is taken to mean star of the sea or enlightener and lady; hence in Rev (12:1) she is described with the moon under her feet. Before they came together... Here Elvidius objects: "If before they came together, then at some time they did come together." Hence, he denied the virginity of Christ's mother: not before birth, not during the birth, but after the birth, he says that she was known by her husband. Jerome answers that no doubt the word "before" always implies a relationship to the future. But this can be in two ways: either according to reason or according to the acceptation of the intellect. For if one says: "Before I ate in the port at Rome, I sailed to Africa," that does not mean that after I sailed to Africa, I ate; but that I had intended to eat and, prevented by the sailing, I did not eat. And that is the case here. It should not be interpreted in such a way that later they really came together, as that knave says, but because from the very fact that she was betrothed to him according to general opinion, it was lawful for them to come together, although they never did. Remigius explains it another way, so that it is understood of the solemn celebration of marriage: the betrothal occurred and took place for some days, and in the meantime the spouse was not under the husband's care. Later the solemn celebration of the marriage took place, and then the wife was brought to the husband's house. It is about this marriage ceremony that the evangelist is speaking here. Accordingly, Elvidius' objection has no place. She was found... Note the appropriateness of the word. For, properly speaking, that is said to be found, concerning which there was no thought or hope; and Joseph had such an opinion of Mary's purity, that it was beyond his expectation to find her pregnant. Found to be with child. Found by Joseph who, as Jerome says, in virtue of the marriage searched out all her secrets. Of the Holy Spirit. Here he touches on the cause of the conception. This must be read separately from the preceding phrase. For it should not be read or understood that Joseph found her with child of the Holy Spirit, but merely that he found her pregnant. But in order that no suspicion of adultery arise in the mind of the hearers, he added of the Holy Spirit, i.e. from the power of the Holy Spirit not from his substance, lest he be regarded the son of the Holy Spirit: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you" (Lk 1:35). But although, according to Augustine, the works of the Trinity are indivisible, so that not only the Holy Spirit but also the Father and Son produced this conception; yet by a certain appropriateness it is attributed to the Holy Spirit. There are three reasons for this: the first is that the Holy Spirit is love. But this is the greatest sign of love, that God willed his Son to be incarnate: "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son" (Jn 3:16). Secondly, because grace is attributed to the Holy Spirit: "There are varieties of graces but the same Spirit" (1 Cor 12:4). The third reason is assigned in the deliberations of the Council of Nicea, namely, that there are two words in us: the word of the heart and the word of the voice. The heart's word is the intellect's conception, which is hidden from men, except in so far as it is uttered by the voice or by a word of the voice. To the word of the heart is compared the eternal Word before the incarnation, when he was with the Father and hidden from us; but to the voice's word is compared the incarnate Word, which has already appeared to us and has been manifested. But the heart's word is not joined to the voice save through the spirit; and therefore, it was correct to say that the incarnation of the Word, through which he appeared visible to us was made through the medium of the Holy Spirit. Note here four reasons why Christ willed to be born of a virgin: first, because original sin is contracted in the offspring from the union of man and woman; hence, if Christ had been born of a marriage act, he would have contracted original sin. But this would be unbecoming, since he had come into the world to take away our sins. Hence, he ought not have been infected with the contagion of sin. The second is that Christ was the principal teacher of chastity: "There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" (Mt 19:12). The third is on account of purity and cleanness: "Wisdom will not enter into a sinful soul" (Wis 1:4). Hence, it was fitting that his mother's womb not be defiled with any corruption. The fourth is on account of a property of a word: because as a word emanates from the heart, so Christ willed and should have been born from the Virgin without any defilement.

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 1:19

  Her husband Joseph being a just man. After indicating the manner of the generation, he now confirms it with witnesses. For when he had said above that the mother of Jesus was found with child and that this was of the Holy Spirit, someone might believe that the evangelist mentioned this out of respect for the Master. Therefore, the evangelist now confirms the aforesaid manner of generation: first, by a prophetic pronouncement: "All this took place..." (v. 22); secondly, the person revealing: "But as he considered this..." (v. 20); thirdly, the words of the revelation are presented: "Joseph, son of David..." (v. 20b). The person to whom the revelation is made is commended for two things, namely, that he is just and, therefore, did not lie; secondly, from the fact that he was her spouse or husband and, therefore, would not tolerate any crime in her: "The zeal and fury of the husband will not spare, when he takes revenge" (Pr 6:34). He says, therefore: she was found by Joseph with child. But Joseph, her husband, being a just man and unwilling to put her away. There are two opinions here, namely, of Ambrose and of Augustine. For Augustine suggests that Joseph, not being present when the angel's announcement was made, returned and finding her pregnant, had suspicions of adultery. But then the question immediately arises: how was he just, if he was unwilling to put her to shame whom he suspected of adultery, i.e., divulge her crime? For he seemed thereby to consent to her sin, and it says in Rom (1:32): "Not only those who do such things but approve those who do them deserve to die." Three answers are given to this. The first is according to Chrysostom, namely, that justice is twofold. For one is the justice which is the cardinal virtue, which is called special justice; the other is legal justice, which includes every virtue, as piety and clemency and so on. Therefore, when it is said that Joseph was just, it should be understood of general justice, so that justice is taken for piety. Hence, because he was just, i.e., pious, he was unwilling to put her to shame. Another answer is Augustine's, namely, that sin is of two kinds, namely hidden and open. For a hidden sin is not to be made a matter of public knowledge, but a remedy should be applied in a different way. Therefore, the suspicion of adultery which Joseph had was suspicion of a hidden and not open sin, because he alone knew; and again, if others knew that she was pregnant, they could not think but that it was from him. Therefore, her crime was not divulged. The third answer is that of Rabanus: that Joseph was just and pious. He was pious in that he was unwilling to divulge, but he appeared just in not wishing to put her away. For he knew that "one who keeps an adulteress is stupid and unwise" as it says in Pr (18:22). But according to Jerome and Origen, he had no suspicion of adultery. For Joseph knew Mary's purity and had read in the Scripture that a virgin would conceive (Is 7:14) and in (11:1): "There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots." He had also known that Mary had descended from David. Hence, it was easier for him to believe that this had been fulfilled in her than that she had fornicated. And so, considering himself unworthy to live together with such holiness, he wanted to put her away secretly; just as Peter said: "Depart from me, O Lord, for I am a sinful man" (Lk 5:8). Hence, he was unwilling to put her away, i.e., bring her to him and take her in marriage, for he thought himself unworthy.

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 1:20

  But as he considered this... Here we are introduced to the person revealing, and three things are mentioned: first, the time; secondly, the person revealing is introduced; thirdly, the manner of the revelation is expressed. He says, therefore: But as he considered this, i.e., while he was revolving these things in his mind, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared. Note that two things are commended about Joseph here, namely, wisdom and kindness. Wisdom, indeed, in the fact that he deliberated before he acted: "Take heed to the path of your feet" (Pr 4:26), i.e., do nothing without the judgment and deliberation of reason. There was kindness in his not divulging her deed: this is the opposite of many who want to make public at once whatever they have in their heart: "A man without self-control in speaking is like a city broken into and left without walls" (Pr 25:28). Therefore, he deserved to be instructed or consoled. Hence, he continues: behold, an angel of the Lord appeared, as though God's help was before his eyes: "The Lord is a helper in prosperity and in adversity" (Ps 9:10); "For, behold, God helps me, and the Lord defends my soul" (Ps 53:6). An angel of the Lord: for nothing was better able to bring relief than one who knew that virginity had been preserved. Hence, the same angel sent to Mary was being sent to Joseph: "The angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear him" (Ps 34:7), i.e., Mary and Joseph, to free her from infamy and that Joseph not put her away in his disquiet. But here the question arises why the revelation was not made to Joseph in the beginning, before he became so disturbed? Also, why did not Mary reveal to him the angelic announcement, which had been made to her? The answer to the first is that he did this to make his testimony more credible. For just as the Lord permitted the apostle Thomas to doubt his resurrection, so that while doubting he would feel, and feeling he would believe, and believing would remove the wound of unbelief in us, so the Lord permitted Joseph to doubt Mary's purity, so that while doubting, he would receive the revelation from the angel and, after receiving it, believe more firmly. The answer to the second is that if Mary had told him, he would not have believed. Appeared to him in a dream. Behold the manner of the revelation. Note that, properly speaking, to appear is concerned with that which of its nature is invisible, yet it is in its power to be seen such as God or angels. For things whose nature is to be seen will not, properly speaking, be said to appear. Hence, it is called a divine apparition or angelic. Therefore, it is in the proper sense that "he appeared in a dream." But why in a dream? The reason is presented in a Gloss: because Joseph was somewhat doubtful. Hence, he was in a certain sense sleeping; and therefore, it is correct to say that the angel appeared to him in sleep. For as the Apostle says: "Prophecy has been given for believers, signs for unbelievers" (1 Cor 14:22). Properly speaking, a prophetic revelation occurs during sleep: "If there is a prophet of the Lord among you, I, the Lord, make myself known to him in a vision. I speak with him in a dream" (Num 12:6). Therefore, because Joseph was just and faithful, an appearance should have been made to him as to one faithful, namely, a revelation, as it were, prophetic. But because a bodily appearance is miraculous, such an appearance was not suited to him, since he believed and was faithful. But then why was a visible appearance made to Mary, since she was most faithful? The answer is that the mystery of the Incarnation was revealed from its beginning, when it was more difficult to believe; therefore, it is fitting that a visible appearance be made to her. But it was not revealed to Joseph from its beginning but rather when it had been for the most part fulfilled, since he already saw her womb enlarged. Hence, he could believe more easily; and therefore, the appearance made in sleep was enough. Joseph, son of David. Here the words of the revelation are presented. And it is divided into three parts in keeping with the three things the angel does. For, first of all, he forbids Mary and Joseph to divorce; secondly, he discloses the mystery of the Incarnation: that which is conceived in her...; thirdly, he foretells the devotedness Joseph would show to the child: she will bear a son. He says, therefore, Joseph. He calls him and draws his attention, so that he will listen, and to recall him to himself. This is common in Scripture, namely, that when an appearance which concerns higher things is about to occur, it requires in the hearer a certain elevation and attention of the mind: "Son of man, stand upon your feet and I will speak with you" (Ez 2:11); and in (2:8): "I will take my stand to watch" (Heb 2:1). Son of David. Therefore, he expresses his lineage, to avoid what Isaiah (7:13) says: "Hear then, O house of David. Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also?" For the sign was not given to one person but to a whole tribe or house. Hence, because he had to instruct him about this, he is commanded in the expression of his lineage to fix the prophet's prediction in his memory. Do not fear. Every appearance, whether it be of a good or bad angel, causes some fear; and this, because such an appearance is extraordinary and, as it were, foreign to man's nature. Therefore, in a way, it puts a man outside himself. But in this there is a difference: because the appearance of an evil angel strikes terror, and he leaves a man in that terror, in order more easily to lead into sin a man put, as it were, outside himself. But the appearance of a good angel, although it produces terror, it ends at once and consolation is obtained, in order that the man may return to himself and understand what is being said to him. Hence, Luke (c. 1) says that an angel appeared to Zechariah and immediately adds: "Fear not, Zechariah" (1:13), and in (1:30): "Fear not, Mary." Hence, after the appearance to Joseph, consolation follows immediately. But he has two fears, namely, of God and of sin, i.e., that by living with Mary he was aware of sin; and therefore, Do not be afraid, namely, without sin, to take Mary, your wife. Note that she is called wife, not because of marriage but because of espousal. For it is the custom in Scripture to call espoused persons married and married persons espoused. But why is he commanded to accept her, since he had not yet put her away? The answer is that although he had not put her away bodily, he had put her away in his attitude. And that is why he is commanded to accept her. Or fear not to accept her as to the solemnities and celebration of marriage. That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. Here the mystery of the Incarnation is presented. And note that whereas there were three there; namely, the Virgin conceiving, the Son of God conceived, and the power of the Holy Spirit, the angel mentions two of them; namely, the one conceiving and the author of the conception. But the third, namely, the Son of God conceived, he only expresses indefinitely: that which is conceived in her. This suggests that he is ineffable and incomprehensible not only to men but also to angels. He says, that which is born in her, not "of her," because to be born of a woman is to come forth into the light; to be born in a mother is for the child to be conceived. Is of the Holy Spirit. This therefore, is the angel's testimony, which the Evangelist advances to prove what he had said above: she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Note that in the case of other women, when they conceive, a formative power is resident in the male seed. It is by this power that the fetus is formed and grows in the mother's womb. But the power of the Holy Spirit supplied this; therefore, the saints sometimes say that the Holy Spirit was there in place of the seed; sometimes it is said that there was no seed there at all. The answer is that in the male seed are two things: the bodily substance, that descends from the body of the male, and the formative power. Therefore, one must say that the Holy Spirit was there for the seed as to its formative power, but he was not there for the seed as to its bodily substance. For the body of Christ or his conception came to be not from the substance of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, it is clear that the Holy Spirit cannot be called the father of Christ, because he is not so either according to his human nature or his divine nature: not according to the divine, because, although Christ is of the same nature and glory as the Holy Spirit, the Son receives nothing according to this divine nature from the Holy Spirit. Therefore, he cannot be called his Son, for a son receives something from his father. Nor according to his human nature, because the father and the son must agree in nature; but Christ, although he was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, was not of the substance of the Holy Spirit. But on the other hand, when it says, of the Holy Spirit, it is the same as what Pr (9:1) says: "Wisdom built herself a home." Therefore, it seems that divine wisdom itself, i.e., the Son of God, united the human nature to himself. Consequently, it was not done by the power of the Holy Spirit. There are two answers to this, according to Augustine: first, that the passage in Proverbs is understood of the Church which Christ founded in his blood. The second is that the works of the Trinity are undivided; and therefore, what the Son does, the Holy Spirit also does. But yet by a certain appropriation it is attributed to the Holy Spirit. The reason for this has been explained above.

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 1:21

  She will bear a Son. Here he foretells the obeisance Joseph will show to the child when born. And he does three things: first, he foretells the virgin birth; secondly, he shows beforehand the obeisance Joseph will show to the child; thirdly, he mentions the name conferred on the child, when he says Jesus. He says, therefore, she will bear a son. He does not say, "to you," because he did not beget the child. In Luke (1:15) it says: "Your wife will bear you a son," because Zechariah himself begot it. Or he does not say, "to you," in order to show that he was born for all: she will bear a Son not only to you but to the whole world: "Behold, I bring you good news of great joy, because today is born to you in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord" (Lk 2:10). But because Joseph could say: So she has conceived of the Holy Spirit and will bear a Son. What does that have to do with me? She does not need me in any way. Therefore, he mentions Joseph's assistance. You shall call his name... It was a custom among the Jews, and it persists to this day, that they circumcised a son on the eighth day and then gave him a name. This was done by Joseph; hence in this work he was a minister, and it is said to him: You shall call, and not "you will give," because he was already named: "You shall be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord will give" (Is 62:2). Jesus. This is the name imposed by God. And he mentions the cause: for he will save his people..., a people acquired by his blood: "Those who deny him will not be his people" (Dan 9:26). Hence, they are the people of God by faith: "You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a purchased people" (1 Pt 2:9). In the book of Judges it is frequently said that such or such a one has saved Israel: but from whom? From material enemies. But here it is from their sins, by remitting them, which God alone can do: "In order that you may know that the Son of man has power on earth to forgive sins" (Lk 5:24). Note that Nestorius is confused here, because he said that God's attributes, such as to be eternal and omnipotent and so on, do not belong to that man. Lo, the very same man, who was born of a virgin and is called Jesus, will save his people from their sins. Hence, since God alone can forgive sins, it is necessary to say that this man is God, and that the attributes of God belong to him in the truest sense.

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 1:22

  The evangelist had indicated that the mother of God was found with child of the Holy Spirit, and he proved this above by the angel's revelation; here he proves it by appealing to an earlier prophecy. Hence, he says: All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet. And it should be noted that this passage can be understood here in two ways. For Chrysostom supposes that the angel said all this and introduced the prophecy, the reason being that he did not wish what he foretold to appear new. Consequently, he suddenly willed to show that it had been foretold many ages ago: "Who already made what will be" (Is 48:3), according to another translation. Others say (and I believe better) that the passage all this took place... are the words of the evangelist; for the angel's words end at He will save his people... And the evangelist introduces them for three reasons: first, to show that the Old Testament is about Christ: "All the prophets bear witness to him, that those who believe in him receive forgiveness of their sins" (Acts 10:45). Secondly, in order that they might more easily believe Christ: "If you believed Moses, you would perhaps also believe me; for he wrote of me" (Jn 5:46). Thirdly, to show the agreement between the Old and New Testaments: "These are the shadow of things to come, but the body is Christ" (Col 2:17). But to understand what is contained in that prophecy, it should be noted that the angel announces three things: first, he said that which is born in her...; secondly, she will bear a son; thirdly, and his name shall be called. Therefore, it was of the Holy Spirit that she conceived through virginity. But let us return to the text: All this took place to fulfill... But on the other hand, the angel had foretold many things, namely, that which is conceived in her; she will bear a son; and again, he shall be called... But not all this had taken place. One might answer one way according to Rabanus that all this took place... refers to past events; that the angel appeared to the Virgin and said those words, all this has taken place to preserve the Virgin, so that the "to" is taken in a causal sense. Or it refers to the things he had foretold, and it can be said that all took place on account of predestination. Or one might say that the evangelist wrote when all this had taken place; and therefore, it refers to that. Hence, the "to" is taken in a consecutive sense, because God did not will to be incarnated to fulfill a prophecy, as though the Old Testament has more dignity than the New; but after the prophecy Christ was made incarnate.

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 1:23

  And this is stated in the prophecy: Behold, a virgin shall conceive; "Like the crocus it shall blossom abundantly, and rejoice with joy and singing" (Is 35:2). Likewise, A virgin shall bear a son, because in bearing, her virginity was not impaired in any way: "There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots." Christ is the blossom; therefore, the virginity was not harmed in any way. He continues, and his name shall be called Emmanuel. But why does this not agree with the angel's words, and he shall be called Jesus? The answer is that the promise was made to the Jews, who had obtained salvation from the coming of Christ. And Jesus means savior, which is the same as Emmanuel, God with us. For God is with us in four ways: by assuming our nature: "The Word was made flesh" (Jn 1:14); by a conformity in nature, because alike in all things: "Being born in the likeness of man" (Phil 2:8); by his bodily life: "After this he appeared on earth and lived among men" (Bar 3:37); by his spiritual mode of life: "Behold I am with you all days, even to the end of the world" (Mt 28:20). But why does it say in Isaiah, "And he will be called," whereas it says here they shall call? Jerome says that here it says they shall call, because what the angel first called him at the annunciation (Lk 2:21) the apostles later called him when preaching and telling of his glory: "The in the name of Jesus every knee should bend" (Phil 2:10). Which means God with us. But who added this interpretation of the prophecy, God with us? A prophet or the evangelist? And it seems that it was not the evangelist, because there was no need, since he wrote in Hebrew. One might answer in one way that Emmanuel is a composite name; hence, the evangelist interpreted it even in Hebrew. Or one might say that the person who first translated from the Hebrew inserted this interpretation. It should be noted that in a Gloss it says that there are three kinds of prophecy, namely, of predestination, of foreknowledge and of threatening; and they differ. For prophecy is said to be the foretelling of things that are far off, i.e., of future things. And among future things some are such that God alone does them; others are such that, even though God does them, yet they are done by us and by other creatures; others, finally, are such that God does not do them at all, as evil things. The foretelling of things that God alone can do is called the prophecy of predestination, as the Virgin's conception; hence, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive" (Is 7:14), is a prophecy of predestination. But things done by secondary causes can be considered in two ways: first, as they are in the foreknowledge of God; for example, about Lazarus. For if someone considered natural causes, he would say that he would never rise, and he would be stating the truth; but he was destined to rise according to the order of divine foreknowledge. Therefore, when a prophecy is a foretelling of something as it exists in the divine foreknowledge, it is always fulfilled; but when it is according to the order of secondary causes, not always, as is clear from Isaiah (38:1), when Isaiah says to Hezekiah: "Set your house in order; for you shall die, you shall not recover." But does a prophecy impose necessity on foreknowledge? The answer is that it does not, because prophecy is a sign of divine foreknowledge, which does not impose necessity on things foreknown, because it considers future things in their presentiality. For whatever is done is present to God, because his scrutiny extends to all time; for if I see something present, my scrutiny imposes no necessity, as when I see someone sitting. And this is the way we understood those prophecies listed in the book. For three errors must be considered. One was that of the Manichees asserting that no prophecy about Christ is found in the entire Old Testament, and any found in the New Testament are adulterations. On the other hand it says in Rom (1:1): "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets." That he is speaking of the Jewish prophets is clear in (c. 9:5): "Of their patriarchs is Christ according to the flesh." Another was that of Theodore, who says that none of the statements cited from the Old Testament are in the literal sense about Christ, but they are adaptations, as when they quote Virgil's line: "Remembering such things, he hung suspended; and he stayed where he was affixed"; for this has been adapted to Christ. Then the expression, to fulfill, should be explained, as though the evangelist were saying: "And this can be adapted." On the other hand, Luke (24:44) says: "Everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." And it should be noted that in the Old Testament there are some things that are referred to Christ and said of him alone, as in Is (7:14): "Behold, a virgin shall conceive in her womb and shall bear a son," and in Ps 22 (v. 1): "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" And if anyone taught a different literal sense, it would be heretical; and heresy is condemned. But because not only the words of the Old Testament but also deeds signify something about Christ, some are sometimes said literally of certain others, but are referred to Christ, in as much as these function as a figure of Christ; as when it is said of Solomon: "He shall rule from sea to sea" (Ps 72:8), for this was not fulfilled in him. The third error was that of the Jews. Here it should be noted that the Jews especially object to that text, because in Hebrew it does not say "virgin" but "fair", which is the same as a young woman. Hence, in the literal sense they are not said of Christ but of Emmanuel, or, according to others, of a certain son of Isaiah. But Jerome objects against them: that it could not have been said of Isaiah's son is proved, because he had already been born, when this was said. Furthermore, there is no record at that time of any famous person named Emmanuel. Likewise, it is not a sign that a girl would give birth. Hence, he says that "fair" is equivocal and sometimes signifies age; sometimes hidden, and then it signifies a virgin carefully guarded: and that is what it signifies here. Again, the Jews object that it was given as a sign: "Two kings shall go forth to meet Ahaz" (Is 7:3) and he promised that they would be freed from them by giving this sign to Ahaz. The answer is that he gave this sign not only to Ahaz but also to the house of David, because he says: "Hear, therefore, house of David"; as if the prophet were saying: The Lord will help you against that king, because he will do much greater things, because he will be the liberation not only of him but of the whole world.

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 1:24

  Having proved from the angel's revelation and from the prophet's prediction that the Mother of God conceived of the Holy Spirit, the evangelist plans to show the same thing from the obedience of Joseph, who would not have acquiesced in the angel's words that he take Mary as his spouse, unless he had known that she had been with child of the Holy Spirit. In regard to this he does two things: first, the spouse's obedience to the angel is mentioned; secondly, the manner of the obedience is described. Note that because we lapsed into sin by the disobedience of the first man — "By the disobedience of one man many were made sinners" (Rom 5:19) — obedience is proposed at the beginning of our restoration. And we can note four things necessary for obedience: The first is that it be well-ordered. I say well-ordered, because vices should be first abandoned and then one must obey in order to act virtuously: "Break up your fallow ground, and sow not among thorns" (Jer 4:3). And therefore, it is stated here that Joseph rising from sleep, i.e., from laziness and doubt. Concerning this sleep Eph (5:14) says: "Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead." The second is that it be quick: "Do not delay from day to day, do not put off being turned to the Lord. For his anger will come suddenly" (Sir 5:8). And therefore, it is stated here that he did at once as the angel commanded him. A Gloss says: "Whoever is advised by God should avoid delays, rise from sleep and do what he is commanded." The third is that it be perfect, so that not only what is commanded is done, but the way in which it is commanded. Hence, it says here as he had commanded him. A Gloss: "perfect obedience." "Children, obey your parents in all things" (Col 3:20). The fourth is that it be discerning, so that one obeys the person who should be obeyed and in matters in which he should be obeyed, in order that nothing be done against God. Hence, he says that he did as the angel of the Lord (not an evil one) commanded him: "Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone forth into the world" (1 Jn 4:1). He took his wife. Here is shown the matter in which he obeyed. Three things are presented: first, the obedience he rendered to the angel; secondly, the reverence he showed the mother; thirdly, the service he offered the newborn Christ. The angel commanded Joseph: "Do not fear to take Mary, your wife." And Joseph did as the angel commanded. Here it is evident that he found a good wife. But didn't he have her in his house? Why then does he say: "And rising up, he took her"? Chrysostom answers: because he had not expelled her from the house but from his heart. Or because she was first brought, but the marriage was to be celebrated later, and then it is said that she is a wife.

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 1:25

  Some have said that this is not to be understood of carnal knowledge, but of acquaintance. Thus Chrysostom says [Opus Imperf. in Matth., Hom. 1: among the spurious works ascribed to Chrysostom] that "Joseph did not know her, until she gave birth, being unaware of her dignity: but after she had given birth, then did he know her. Because by reason of her child she surpassed the whole world in beauty and dignity: since she alone in the narrow abode of her womb received Him Whom the world cannot contain." Others again refer this to knowledge by sight. For as, while Moses was speaking with God, his face was so bright "that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold it"; so Mary, while being "overshadowed" by the brightness of the "power of the Most High," could not be gazed on by Joseph, until she gave birth. But afterwards she is acknowledged by Joseph, by looking on her face, not by lustful contact. Jerome, however, grants that this is to be understood of knowledge by intercourse; but he observes that "before" or "until" has a twofold sense in Scripture. For sometimes it indicates a fixed time, as Galatians 3:19: The law "was set because of transgressions, until the seed should come, to whom He made the promise." On the other hand, it sometimes indicates an indefinite time, as in Psalm 122:2: "Our eyes are unto the Lord our God, until He have mercy on us"; from which it is not to be gathered that our eyes are turned from God as soon as His mercy has been obtained. In this sense those things are indicated "of which we might doubt if they had not been written down: while others are left out to be supplied by our understanding. Thus the evangelist says that the Mother of God was not known by her husband until she gave birth, that we may be given to understand that still less did he know her afterwards" (Adversus Helvid. v).

  Summa Theologiae, Third Part, Question 28, Article 3

• Matthew 1:25

  But lest anyone suppose that intercourse had taken place, he continues but he knew her not. Here it should be noted that the word, "know", is taken in two ways in Sacred Scripture: sometimes for knowledge, as in John (16:7): "And you shall know him and have seen him"; sometimes for carnal intercourse, as in Gen (4:1): "But Adam knew Eve, his wife," i.e., carnally. But one might object that it does not say absolutely that he knew her not, but until she had borne a son. He knew her later; hence, even Elvidius said: "Although the virgin conceived Christ, later she had other sons from Joseph." Therefore, Jerome says that "until" sometimes signifies something finite and determinate, as when I say: "I will not come, until I eat," because I signify that I will come after this; sometimes it signifies infinitely and indeterminately, for example: "He must reign, until he puts all enemies under his feet" (1 Cor 15:25). Does that mean that he will not reign after this? Not at all. But Scripture uses such a way of speaking, because it intends to remove what can be doubtful. For there could be a doubt, when the Blessed Virgin had brought forth, whether she had been known by Joseph before the birth of Christ, because the first should not have been a matter of doubt to anyone, because the angels sang: "Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to men of good will" (Lk 2:14). And therefore, this is what the evangelist intends. And Jerome's argument against Elvidius is excellent: "You say, Elvidius, that she did not know Joseph before the birth, because he had been warned in sleep by an angel. If, therefore, a warning in sleep was strong enough to keep him from knowing Mary, how much more the knowledge of the angels and the adoration of the shepherds and the Magi?" Chrysostom, however, took "knowledge" for intellectual knowledge. He did not know how great was her dignity; but after she brought forth, he knew. Others say that from speaking with the Lord, Moses' face shone so brightly, that the children of Israel could not gaze upon his face (2 Cor 3:7). Therefore, if Moses had this from communing with God, much more did this Blessed Virgin, who carried him in her womb have such facial brilliance, that Joseph did not know her. But the first explanation is more to the letter. Elvidius likewise says that the words are "until she brought forth her firstborn son." But "first" is said with respect to others that follow. Therefore, she had other sons. Jerome answers that it is a custom in Scripture to call firstborn all those whom others did not precede; thus it says in Ex (13:12) that the firstborn of the Jews were offered to the Lord. Jerome asks: Was it necessary to wait and not offer him to the Lord, until a second son was born? Therefore, the firstborn are those whom others did not precede; and that is the sense here. Then he mentions the service he rendered. Luke (2:2) mentions this in greater detail, but Matthew touches it lightly. For thus the Holy Spirit wills that what one says, the other passes over in silence. He called his name Jesus. This name was quite renowned and desired among the ancients: "I will await your salvation, O Lord" (Gen 49:11); "I will rejoice in the Lord and exult in God, my Jesus" (Hab 3:18).

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 2:1

  Having dealt with the birth of Christ, the evangelist now intends to make it manifest: first, by the testimony of the Magi; secondly by the testimony of the Innocents (v. 13). In regard to the first he presents three things: first, the birth of Christ is announced; secondly, the place is inquired into (v. 3); thirdly, the person of Jesus is sought (v. 7). In regard to the first he does three things: first, Christ's birth is declared and testimony given; secondly, the witnesses are introduced (v. 1b); thirdly, their testimony is given (v. 2). In regard to the first he touches on four things: the birth, the name of the newborn, the place and the time. (1) The first is mentioned, when he says, Now when Jesus was born. And it should be noted that Luke discusses the birth more fully, whereas Matthew discusses the adoration of the Magi more fully than Luke. The name is mentioned, when he says, Jesus; the place, when he says, in Bethlehem of Judah, not of Judea, which the entire region of the people of Israel is called, but of Judah, i.e., that portion of the land which fell by lot to Judah. It is called "Bethlehem of Judah" to distinguish it from the other Bethlehem, which is in the tribe of Zebulun, which Joshua mentions (9:10). Note that those three phrases, When Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judah in the days of Herod, the king, are fittingly placed. For Bethlehem signifies the Church, in which was born Jesus, the true bread, about which John (6:35) says: "I am the true bread which came down from heaven." Therefore, salvation comes to no one, unless he is in the Lord's house. In these is Christ, the Savior, born: "You shall call your borders salvation and your gates praise" (Is 60:18). And he added, the king, to distinguish him from another Herod: for he was the one under whom Christ was born; the other, who killed John, was a son of this Herod but was not a king. But why does Scripture mention the time? There are two reasons: first, to show that Jacob's prophecy is fulfilled: "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs, and he will be the desired of the nations" (Gen 49:10). For Herod was the first foreigner to reign in Judea. The second is that a more serious disease needs a greater and better physician. But the people of Israel at that time were suffering considerable distress under gentile rule; and therefore, they needed a very special consoler. For prophets were sent to them in their other afflictions, but now on account of the greatness of the affliction the Lord of the prophets was sent to them: "When the cares of my heart are many, your consolations cheer my soul" (Ps 94:19). Then the witnesses are presented and described in three ways: from their profession, from their origin and from the place where they give testimony. In regard to the first he says Magi [wise men]. In ordinary speech they are called "enchanters", but in the Persian tongue they are called philosophers and wise men [Magi]. They came to Jesus, because they recognized from Christ the glory of the wisdom they possessed. They are, indeed, the first fruits of the gentiles, because they were the first to come to Christ. According to Augustine, in their coming is fulfilled the word of Is (8:4): "Before the child knows how to cry 'my father' or 'my mother', the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria." For before Christ had spoken, he had removed the courage of Damascus and the riches and spoils of Samaria, i.e., idolatry. For they had removed idolatry and offered gifts. We should also remember that some Jews, namely, the shepherds, came to Christ; and some gentiles, namely, the Magi: for Christ is the cornerstone who made the two one. Why the magi and shepherds? Because the shepherds were simple and the Magi sinners, to show that Christ receives both. The evangelist does not say how many Magi there were. But in view of the gifts there seem to have been three kings, although many others were represented in them: "The gentiles shall walk in your light" (Is 60:3). Concerning the second, namely, the origin, he says, from the East. It should be noted that some take from the East to mean the "far East"; but then how would they come in such a few days? Some answer that they came miraculously; others that they had camels. But Chrysostom says that the star appeared to them for two years before the birth, and it was then that they prepared themselves and came to Jerusalem in two years and thirteen days. But it can be explained in another way as signifying a region near Jerusalem on the east; for they are said to have been of the sect of Balaam, who said: "A star shall come forth out of Jacob" (Num 24:17). This Balaam lived near the promised land on the east. Then he mentions the place, came to Jerusalem. But why did they come to Jerusalem? For two reasons: one was that it was a royal city; hence they looked for the king of the Jews in the royal city. Furthermore, this happened according to God's plan, that testimony about Christ be given first in Jerusalem, as it says in Is (2:3): "Out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem."

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 2:2

  (2) Then the testimony is presented, when it says, Where is he who is born king of the Jews? In this testimony they say three things: first, they announce the birth of a king; secondly, they mention the sign of this birth, we have seen his star in the East; thirdly, they profess their pious intention, we have come to adore him. They say, therefore, where is he? It should be noted that those Magi are the first-fruits of the nations and prefigure in themselves our condition. For they presuppose something, namely, the birth of Christ, and the look for something, namely, the place. We, indeed, have Christ by faith, but we look for something by hope: for we shall see him face to face: "We walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Cor 5:7). But since they had heard of a king in Jerusalem, why did they say these things? For anyone who acknowledges another king in the king's city exposes himself to danger. But surely they did this through the zeal of faith. Hence, in them was announced that fearless faith suggested below (10:24): "Do not fear those who kill the body." Then they mention the sign of this birth, we have seen... Note that these words were the occasion of two errors: Some, as the Priscillianists, said that all of men's acts are performed and ruled by fate. And they confirm it by these words, we have seen his star. Therefore, he was born under some star. The other was the error of the Manichees, who deny fate and, consequently, this gospel. But both errors are rejected. But before proceeding to explain the letter, let us see what fate is and how these things should be believed and how not. Note, therefore, that in human affairs we see many things happening by accident and by chance. But it happens that something fortuitous and by chance relative to a lower cause is not fortuitous when related to a higher cause. For example, if an employer sent three men for someone and none knows the other, if they all met, it would be by chance, so far as they are concerned; but relative to the employer's intention, it would not be chance. But according to this there were two opinions about fate. Some said that things of chance are not explained by a higher cause planning them; and they denied fate as well as all divine providence. And according to Augustine this was Cicero's opinion. But we say that things of chance are explained by a higher cause planning them. Since fate suggests something commanded and proclaimed beforehand, there is a difference of opinion about the source of this arrangement. For some say that it is due to the power of the heavenly bodies; in other words, fate is nothing more than the arrayal of the stars. Others explain contingent events by divine providence. But the other opinion must be rejected. For human acts are not ruled by the arrangement of the heavenly bodies. This is clear for the present, as many valid reasons testify. First, because it is impossible for a bodily force to act on a non-bodily force, for in the order of nature the lower cannot act on the higher nature. Now there are in the soul certain powers superior to the body and some equipped with bodily organs, such as the nutritive and the sense powers. Now, heavenly bodies, although they act directly on lower bodies and produce changes in them, can also act indirectly on powers equipped with organs. But they cannot act on powers equipped with organs by compelling them, but only by inclining them. For we say that this person is prone to anger, and this from heavenly causes; but directly, the choice as such is in the will. Hence, no disposition can be formed in the human body, such that the judgment of free will would not surpass it. Hence, anyone who would rank free will lower than the heavenly bodies would necessarily have to admit that the senses are not different from the intellect. Secondly, because all divine worship is thereby excluded, because all things would occur by necessity; and so, even the direction of all governments would be ruined, because there would be no need to take counsel or provide for anything, and so on. Thirdly, because we would attribute to God the malice of men; which would be to insult him who created the stars. Therefore, it is clear that to say this is altogether contrary to the faith. Hence, Gregory says: "Far be it from the hearts of the faithful to say that fate is anything." But if you wish to call divine providence "fate", then it is something. But as Augustine says, because we should have nothing in common with unbelievers, we must not apply this name to it. Hence, he says: "Correct the wording and you may hold the opinion." Therefore, it cannot be said we have seen his star, i.e., on which his entire life depends; because, according to Augustine, in that case the star would not follow the new-born, for then Christ should be called more the fate of the star, rather than the converse. It should be noted that that star was not among those originally created. This is evident for the following reasons: first, from its movement, because no star is moved from north to south. But the locale of the Persians, whence the Magi came, is situated in the north. Secondly, other stars never rest; but this one was not moving without interruption. Thirdly, from the time, because during the day no star gives light; but this one afforded light to the Magi during the day. Fourthly, from its location, because it was not in the firmament. This is clear, because the star enabled them to pick the right house exactly. Therefore, it must be admitted that it was specially created for the service of Christ. Therefore, he says we have seen his star, i.e., created for his service. Some say that this star was the Holy Spirit, who appeared in the form of a star, just as later at Christ's baptism he appeared in the form of a dove. Others say that it was an angel. But one must admit that it was a true star. And he wished to be manifested by the evidence of a star, because it befitted him. For he is the king of the heavens and, therefore, he willed to be manifested by the heavenly disclosures: "The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork" (Ps 19:1); to the Jews through angels, through whom they had received the Law: "The law was given by angels" (Gal 3:19); to the gentiles by a star, because they came to a knowledge of God through creatures: "His invisible nature has been clearly perceived through the things that were made" (Rom 1:20). Secondly, because it befitted those to whom he was made manifest, namely, the gentiles, whose call was promised to Abraham by an allusion to the stars: "Look up at the heavens and count the stars, if you can" (Gen 15:5). Hence, both at his birth and during his passion a sign was made in heaven which made Christ known to all the gentiles. Thirdly, it suited everyone, because he is the savior of all. But he says in the east. This can be explained in two ways. According to Rabanus in the following way: a star existing in Judea appeared to the gentiles in the east; or, we have seen the star in the east. This seems better. Hence, it says: And lo, the star they had seen in the east went before them. This is also clear from its being located near the earth, because otherwise, it would not have pointed out the place. Therefore, it could not be seen from such a far-away place. Then they mention their devout intention, and have come to worship him. Here are two questions. For Augustine says: "Were they curious, so that whenever any indication was made by a star, they would look for a king." This would be foolish. But it should be noted that they paid homage not to an earthly king but to a heavenly. This shows that a divine power was present; otherwise, if they had been seeking an earthly king, they would have lost all devotion, when they found one wrapped in cheap clothing. But Augustine asks again: How were they able to know from the star that the God-man was born? He answers that they knew from an angel revealing it; for the one who showed them the star sent them an angel to reveal this. Pope Leo says that "just as outwardly the eyes were filled with the light of that star, so inwardly a divine ray revealed." The third reason is that they were from the stock of Balaam who said (Num 24:17): "A star shall arise out of Jacob." Hence, they had it from his prophecy. And so, seeing a star of such brilliance, they suspected that the heavenly king had been born; and therefore, they inquired. And we have come to worship him. In this was fulfilled the words of Ps 72 (v. 11): "May all kings fall down before him, all nations serve him."

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 2:3

  After the announcement of the birth of Christ, inquiry is made as to the place of his birth. Three things are mentioned: first, their motive for asking; secondly, the inquiry is made (v. 4); thirdly, the truth is found (v. 5). (3) The motive was Herod's disquiet. Hence, when he heard this. It is significant that he calls Herod a king, to show that he was not the king they were seeking. There were three reasons for his disquiet: the first came from his ambition to preserve his kingdom, since he was a foreigner. For he knew or had heard the words of Dan (2:44): "In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall its sovereignty be left to another people." But here he was deceived, because that kingdom was spiritual: "My kingdom is not of this world" (Jn 18:36). Hence, Herod was disturbed, because he feared the loss of his kingdom; but more disturbed was the devil, fearing the total destruction of his kingdom: "Now is the prince of this world cast out" (Jn 12:31). And note that, as Chrysostom says, men established in lofty places are disturbed by any slight word spoken against them. The second reason came from fear of the Roman Empire. For it had decreed that no one be called god or king without their consent; hence, he feared. But this was a worldly fear, which is forbidden: "Who are you that you are afraid of man who dies, of the son of man who is made like grass?" (Is 51:12). The third was shamefacedness. For one is embarrassed before his people, when someone else is called king. Thus he was like Saul, who said: "I have sinned; yet honor me now before the elders of the people and before Israel" (1 Sam 15:30). What follows is strange: and all Jerusalem with him. For it seems that they should have rejoiced. But it should be noted that they had three reasons for being disturbed: the first was their wickedness; for they were wicked, since they always detested the life style of the Jews: "Fools detest those who flee from evil" (Pr 13:19); the second was to please Herod: "As the judge of the people is, so are his ministers" (Sir 10:2). The third was that they feared that Herod on hearing this would rage more against the Jewish people. The mystical meaning is that he was earthly. Gregory: An earthly king was disturbed, when the king of heaven was born, because earthly greatness is bewildered when heavenly loftiness is disclosed. "Then the moon will be confounded and the sun ashamed, when the Lord of hosts shall reign on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem" (Is 24:21). And it should be noted, as Augustine says: "But what will the judge's tribunal be, when the infant's cradle terrified proud kings? Let kings fear him sitting at the right hand of the Father, whom a wicked king feared, when he was taking nourishment from his mother's breasts."

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 2:4

  (4) And assembling... Here the inquiry is mentioned. And, as has been said, Herod was led to inquire both for the sake of his kingdom and for fear of the Romans. Hence, he was looking for the truth. But in order to have certainty about something, three things are required of the investigators, for credence is given to the multitude, to authorities and to the learned. Hence, he assembled many having authority and recognized as wise. And this is what he says: assembled all, as to the first; "A multitude of wise men is the salvation of the world" (Wis 6:24); the chief priests, as to the second: "The lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth" (Mal 2:7); and scribes, as to the third. They are called scribes, not only because they wrote, but because they interpreted the writings of the Law. It was through them that he wished to investigate the truth: "Do not presume to speak much among the great, and do not say much in the presence of the old" (Sir 32:13). He inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. The Magi called him king, but the others were looking for the Christ; for they knew from talking with the Jews that the lawful king of the Jews is anointed. But he either believed the prophecy or he did not. If he believed, he knew that he could not be prevented from reigning. Then why did he kill the children? If he did not believe, why did he search for him. The answer is that he did not believe completely, because he was ambitious; and ambition makes a man blind.

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 2:5

  (5) They told him: "In Bethlehem of Judah." Here the truth is presented: first, the truth (v. 5); secondly, it is confirmed by a prophecy (v. 6). It should be noted that Christ willed to be born in Bethlehem for three reasons: first, to avoid glory. For this reason he chose two places: one in which he willed to be born, namely, Bethlehem; the other in which he suffered, namely, Jerusalem. This, of course, is against those who seek glory, who wish to be born in high places and refuse to suffer in a place of honor: "I do not seek my glory" (Jn 8:50). Secondly, to confirm his doctrine and show its truth. For if he had been born in some large city, the power of his doctrine could have been ascribed to human power: "You know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Cor 8:9). Thirdly, to show that he was of the house of David: "Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem to be enrolled there, because they were of the house and family of David" (Lk 2:4). It also befits a mystery, because Bethlehem means house of bread; and Christ is that "living bread which came down from heaven" (Jn 6:51).

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 2:6

  (6) Then the truth is confirmed by the prophecy, And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler, who will govern my people Israel. From this prophecy we can consider two things: for the Magi announced something and sought something. And both are from this prophecy: In regard to the first he says, And you, O Bethlehem; in regard to the second, from you shall come a ruler. Thus the birth of Christ is confirmed by a double testimony, namely, of a star and of a prophecy, because in the mouth of two or three witnesses is the truth: "In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall stand" (Dt 19:15). And note that when they were all unbelieving, they were given signs of bodily things; when they now believed, prophecy was given: "Tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers; while prophecy is not for unbelievers but for believers" (1 Cor 14:22). It should be noted that the Jews made two errors in this prophecy, because there (Mic 5:2) it says: "And you, Bethlehem-Ephrathah," and again it does not say: "Are by no means least." There are two possible reasons why they changed it: first, it can be said that they did it out of ignorance; secondly, that they knowingly used the words. But they give the sense. For since Herod was a foreigner, he would not have understood the prophet's text; consequently, they said something which was known to Herod. Hence they say, "land of Judah" and "you are not the least," i.e., you are not the least among the thousands of the men of Judah. Or "among the rulers of Judah," i.e., among the principal cities of Judah. "From you shall come a ruler, who will govern my people Israel." That ruler Dan (9:25) speaks of: "To the coming of the Christ, a prince"; and Ps 31 (v. 5): "You shall be a leader to me," for he rules the people of Israel not only materially but also spiritually. "Has God rejected his people?" (Rom 11:1); "Give ear, O shepherd of Israel, you who lead Joseph like a flock" (Ps 80:2). And notice that they omit the end of the prophecy: "His origin is from of old from the days of eternity." This suggests that he was not to be an earthly king but heavenly; which if Herod knew, he would not have been wicked. Hence, they were the cause of the slaughter. Furthermore, from that ending is shown the falsity of the interpretation made by the Jews, who explain them of Zerubbabel, because "his origin is from of old from the days of eternity" does not apply to him. Again, he was born not in Judea but in Babylon.

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 2:7

  Then inquiry is made about the person of the newly-born (v. 7). First, the inquiry is presented; secondly, the discovery (v. 11); thirdly, the veneration of the child (v. 11b). They were moved to search for the person for two reasons: because Herod persuaded them, and because the star was leading them. Hence, in regard to the first the exhortation is mentioned; secondly, the Magi's zeal in following the star (v. 9). In regard to the first, three things are mentioned: first, he asks about the time of the star; secondly, he announces the place (v. 8); thirdly, he asks them to make inquiry (v. 8b). (7) He says, therefore, Then Herod. Here it should be noted that the Jews knew the place but not the time. Hence, they are upbraided by the Lord: "Because they did not know the time of their visitation" (Lk 19:44), and "The ox knows its owner, and the ass its master's crib; but Israel does not know, my people does not understand" (Is 1:3). Therefore, the time is investigated. And Chrysostom says that the star appeared to them for two years; others that it appeared on the day of his birth.

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 2:8

  (8) He announces the place at he sent them to Bethlehem. He asks them to make inquiry at Go and search diligently. He tells them to do two things, and in order that they do them, he adds a third. As to the first he says, Go and search diligently. And he asks deceitfully, because his intent was to kill, as those to whom it is said in Jn (7:34): "You will seek me and you will not find me." In regard to the second he says, and when you have found him, bring me word. This, too, he said for the sake of evil: "He will test you through much talk" (Sir 13:11). In regard to the third he says, that I too may come and worship him; and truly he craftily promises worship of God: "Their tongue is a deadly arrow; it speaks deceitfully" (Jer 9:8); "They speak peace with their neighbor, while mischief is in their hearts" (Ps 28:3). Note that whereas the Magi call him king, Herod calls him a child, because from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. Note, too, that he asks Jews where the Christ would be born, because he wanted to test and see whether they would rejoice.

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 2:9

  (9) Then the zeal of the Magi is mentioned, for he had asked them to do two things: to inquire and to return. But the Magi did one. Hence, when they heard the king, they went their way. But they did not do the other. Hearers, indeed, should be such that they learn good things but relinquish evil: "Do what they say, but do not act according to their works" (Mt 23:3). Having presented one of the factors moving the Magi, namely, Herod's urging, the evangelist now mentions the other factor moving them to search for Christ, namely, the star leading them. In regard to this he does two things: first, he mentions the star leading them; secondly, the joy they felt at this (v. 10). And note that the star first performs its own motion, because it leads the Magi directly to Christ; also when it came to rest, it indicated where the child was (v. 9). Hence, in regard to the first he says, the star went before them. From the statement that the star they had seen in the East went before them, we are given to understand that when the Magi turned aside to go to Jerusalem, the star disappeared; but when they left Herod, it appeared again. It disappeared for three reasons: First, to shame the Jews who, although instructed in the Law to seek Christ, scorned him; whereas the gentiles, non-instructed, seek him. Thus Isaiah (55:5) is fulfilled: "Nations that knew you not shall run to you." Secondly, for the instruction of the Magi. For the Lord's will is to make himself manifest to them not only by the star but also by the Law, so that knowledge of the Law might be joined to their knowledge of creatures: "In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall stand" (Dt 19:15); "To the law and to the testimony" (Is 8:20). Thirdly, for our instruction. And we are instructed about two things according to a Gloss: first, that those who seek human help are deserted by the divine. For it is unlawful to seek human help without seeking divine: "Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help and rely on horses, who trust in chariots because they are many, and in horsemen, because they are very strong, but do not look to the Holy One of Israel" (Is 31:1). Secondly, we are instructed that we, who are believers, should not seek signs, as those did who, seeing the star, rejoiced exceedingly; but we ought to be content with the doctrines of the prophets, because signs are given for unbelievers. There are two mysteries in this. For the star signifies Christ: "I am the root of David, the bright morning star" (Rev 22:16). Hence, by that star we can understand God's grace, which we lose, when we come to Herod, i.e., the devil: "We were once darkness, but now light in the Lord" (Eph 5:8). Again, when we depart from Herod, i.e., the devil, we find the star, i.e., Christ's grace. This is like Ex (13:2), where it says that the Lord went ahead of Israel in a pillar of fire. Here, however, he went ahead in the form of a star. Till it came to rest over the place where the child was. Here we understand two things: one is that the star was not very high; otherwise, they would not have been able to distinguish the child's house. The other is that after the star had served its purpose, it was dissolved into its matter. Where the child was. He often calls him child, in order to tell us that he is the one about whom it is said: "A child is born to us" (Is 9:6).

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 2:10

  (10) Then the effect on the Magi of the star's leading them is mentioned. Hence, seeing the star they rejoiced. They rejoiced on account of the hope they recovered. For they feared to lose what they hoped for, because they had journeyed a long distance: "Rejoicing in hope" (Rom 12:12). He says, with joy. For some rejoice and do not rejoice: "Even in laughter, the heart is sad, and the end of joy is grief" (Pr 14:13). But true and perfect joy deals with God: "Rejoicing, I shall rejoice in the Lord, and my soul shall exult in my God" (Is 61:10). Thirdly he adds great, because they now knew great things about God, namely, God Incarnate and most merciful: "Shout and sing for joy, O inhabitant of Zion, for great in your midst is the holy one of Israel" (Is 12:6). Fourthly, he adds, exceedingly, because they rejoiced intensely. For they had recovered what they had lost: "There is joy before the angels of God..." (Lk 15:10).

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 2:11

  (11) Then he deals with the finding of the child. Hence, and entering the house, they found the child. And he touches on three things: the house which, if one were to inquire what sort it was, is revealed in Lk (2:7). Again, if it be asked what sort of child it was, he did not differ in any way from infants, as the saints say. As to externals, he did not speak, he seems helpless, and so on. If one asks about the mother, the answer is that she looked like the wife of a carpenter. I say this, because, if they had been looking for an earthly king, they would have been shocked at what they saw. But seeing lowly things and considering the loftiest, they were moved to admiration and adored him: and they fell down and worshipped him. But why is there no mention of Joseph? Because by God's plan he was not present, so that no grounds for an improper opinion be given to those who were the firstfruits of the gentiles. Then he mentions the reverence they showed the child by adoring and offering and obeying. He says, therefore, and they fell down and worshipped him as God concealed in man: "The Ethiopians will fall down before him" (Ps 72:9). They also showed reverence by offering; hence, opening their treasures. For it was the custom of Persians always to adore with a gift: opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh. "May the kings of Tarshish and of the isles bring him gifts, may the kings of Sheba and Seba bring gifts" (Ps 72:10); "All those from Sheba shall come. They shall bring gold and frankincense, and shall proclaim the praise of the Lord" (Is 60:6). Mystically, it should be considered that they opened their treasures not during their journey, but only when they came to Christ. Similarly, we should not make our goods manifest, while we are wayfarers. Hence, this is reprehended below (c. 25) in the parable of the virgins, and in (13:44): "The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up; then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field." They offered him gifts... Some assign a literal reason for these gifts and say that the Magi found three things: a squalid house, a helpless child and a poor mother. Therefore, they offered gold to sustain the mother, myrrh to sustain the child's members, frankincense to remove the stench. But it should be noted that something mystical is involved here, such that those three refer to the three things we should offer, namely, faith, action and contemplation. As to faith in two ways: first as to the things found in Christ, namely, royal dignity: "The king will reign and be wise" (Jer 23:5); and therefore, they offered gold in tribute. The greatness of the priesthood and, therefore, frankincense, as a sacrifice. Man's mortality: and therefore, myrrh. Secondly, as to faith in the Trinity, because the persons of the Trinity are designated in us. Secondly, they can be referred to our action. For by gold can be signified wisdom: "If you search for wisdom as for hidden treasures, then you will understand the fear of the Lord" (Pr 2:4). By frankincense devout prayer: "Let my prayer, O Lord, be directed as incense in your sight" (Ps 144:2). By myrrh mortification of the flesh: "Mortify your members which are on earth" (Col 3:5); "My hands dripped with myrrh" (Song of Songs 5:5). As to contemplation by those three can be signified the three senses of Sacred Scripture, under which are included the allegorical, anagogical and moral; or the three parts of philosophy, namely, moral, logic and natural. For we ought to use all these for the service of God.

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 2:12

  (12) Then he mentions how they showed reverence in obeying. Hence being warned [answered] in a dream not to return to Herod, they departed to their own country by another way. But how could they have received an answer, if they put no question? The answer is that God sometimes answers a question still in the mind, and they inwardly asked what would be pleasing to God concerning their return: "Why do you cry to me?" (Ex 14:15). But do revelations come directly from God? Denis proves that he does not but uses angels. This is done to indicate the importance of the information: "It was ordained by angels through an intermediary" (Gal 3:19); "This is the Moses who said to the Israelites, 'God will raise up for you a prophet, from your brethren, as he raised me up'" (Acts 7:37). They returned to their own country by another way. This shows that we return to our own country, paradise, from which we were expelled by sin, through obedience: "Do not swerve to the right or to the left; turn your foot away from evil" (Pr 4:27). Chrysostom says here that those who returned led holy lives and later became helpers of St. Thomas, the apostle; however, nothing is found in Scripture about them after their departure.

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 2:13

  Having showed how the Magi bore witness to the newborn Christ, the evangelist now shows how the Innocents gave testimony, not by speaking but by dying. In regard to this he does three things: first, he shows how Christ was concealed; secondly, the murder of the children (v. 16); thirdly, Christ's return (v. 19). In regard to the first he does three things: first, he mentions the angel's warning; secondly, Joseph's obedience (v. 14); thirdly, the fulfillment of a prophecy (v. 15). In regard to the first, three things are mentioned: first, the time of the appearance; secondly, the appearance itself and the manner of the appearance (v. 13b); thirdly, the warning given by the angel (v. 13c). (13) The time is described at When they had departed. And it should be noted that the appearance did not occur immediately after the departure of the Magi, because everything mentioned in Luke (2:22), namely, the purification, should be interposed: "And when the time came for their purification..." For the thought of killing the child did not come to Herod right away. Hence, when he says Behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph..., he is said to have appeared in sleep, because that is when men cease their external activities, and a revelation can be made by angels: "In peace I will both lie down and sleep" (Ps 4:8); "When you lie down, your sleep will be sweet" (Pr 3:24). In the warning the angel does two things: first, the angel persuades him to flee; secondly, he gives the reason. He says, therefore Rise. And note that, as Hilary says, the Blessed Virgin is called "wife" by the angel before the birth (Mt 1:5) but not after for two reasons: first to commend the Virgin, for as a virgin she gave birth. Secondly, on account of her dignity, for she was the mother of God, than which there is no greater dignity. Also because, as Chrysostom says, the child had not come on account of the mother, but rather conversely. Therefore, he says Take the child and its mother. But why flee into Egypt? Does it not say in Ps 18 (v. 3): "The Lord is my helper and my redeemer." But he fled for three reasons: first, to manifest his humanity; for as the divinity appeared in the star, so in flight the humanity: "Made in the likeness of men" (Phil 2:7). Secondly, as an example: "When they persecute you in one city, flee into another" (Mt 10:23). Thirdly, on account of the mystery; for just as he willed to die in order to call us back from death, so he willed to flee in order to call back those who flee from his face through sin: "Where shall I flee from your spirit?" (Ps 139:7). And remain there. But why to Egypt rather than some other region? For two reasons: first, because it is distinctive of God to be mindful of mercy in his anger (Hab 3:2). For the Lord had been angry at the Egyptians pursuing the sons of Israel, because the sons of Israel were God's firstborn. Therefore, the Egyptians were granted the privilege of serving the Lord: "Behold, the Lord, riding on a swift cloud, comes to Egypt" (Is 19:1); "We have seen his glory, the glory, as it were, of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth" (Jn 1:14). Secondly, because he had brought forth darkness in Egypt, he willed to enlighten it first. Therefore, it was well that he fled there: "The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, on them has light shined" (Is 9:2). Note that when anyone wills to flee sin, the first thing to do is shake off laziness: "Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead and Christ shall enlighten you" (Eph 5:14). Secondly, he should take trust from the mother and from the Son, namely, Christ: "In me all hope of life and virtue" (Sir 24:18). Thirdly, he ought to flee from sin with the help of the mother and child: "Yes, I have wandered far, I have lodged in the wilderness" (Ps 55:7). He adds the cause of the flight. For Herod is about to search for the child to destroy him. Herod was deceived, because he wanted to destroy the one who would come to share his kingdom: "As my father appointed a kingdom for me, so do I appoint one for you" (Lk 22:29); secondly, because he wanted to destroy him who sought no worldly glory: "Who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross" (Heb 12:2).

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 2:14

  (14) And he rose. Here is mentioned the execution of the angel's command both as to the flight and the length of the stay. He rose and took the child and his mother. The time is mentioned, when he says at night, on account of the fear and distress: "My soul desired you at night," i.e., in distress (Is 26:9); for in times of distress one must have recourse to God: "In the morning, they will come to me in their trouble" (Hos 10:1). He rose. Then was fulfilled the word of Is (19:1): "Behold, the Lord is riding on a swift cloud and comes to Egypt," which was fulfilled to the letter.

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 2:15

  (15) And remained there. It is said that he was there seven years and lived in the city of Heliopolis. In regard to the mystery, by Joseph is signified preachers, i.e., the apostles, whose task is to replace the darkness with doctrine—they left the Jews and turned to the gentiles: "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it from you and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold we turn to the gentiles" (Acts 13:46). And remain there till I tell you, i.e. until the unbelief of the Jews is ended: "Blindness has come upon part of Israel" (Rom 11:25). Then he applies the testimony of the prophet; hence he says, This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, "Out of Egypt I have called my son." The Septuagint is not the same, for it says: "Out of Egypt I have called his son." There seems to be a question here, because this text does not appear to apply, in as much as it is preceded by the words: "When Israel was a child, I loved him"; hence, it seems to speak of Israel's call from Egypt. But it must be noted that in all the texts presented in the Old or New Testaments about Christ a certain distinction must be made: because some refer specifically to Christ, as Is (53:7): "He was led as a sheep to the slaughter"; but some are said of certain ones accordingly as they are a figure of Christ, such as the text in question. For they were called sons of Israel, because they possessed a likeness to the true only-begotten Son. And this is the meaning of "Out of Egypt I have called my son," i.e., special.

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 2:16

  (16) Then Herod... Here he tells of the slaughter of the infants. In regard to this he does three things: first, the occasion of the slaughter is mentioned; secondly, the slaying (v. 16b); thirdly, the prophecies are quoted (v. 17). The occasion was Herod's anger; hence Herod was in a furious rage: "Man's anger does not work the justice of God" (Jas 1:20). And it should be noted that when a king suspects the loss of his kingdom, he quickly becomes inflamed with anger. Then Herod, seeing that he had been tricked by the wise men, was in a furious rage. He is said to have been in a furious rage for two reasons: because when one is angry, he becomes furious at the slightest provocation. Hence, because he suspected the loss of his kingdom and had been tricked by the wise men, he went into a furious rage: "From a spark of fire come many burning coals" (Sir 11:32). And he sent... In that fury was cruelty in regard to three things: the place, the multitude and the time. In regard to the multitude, because to find the one he kills all. Hence it says, He sent and killed all the male children. And note that Augustine says: "He would never have benefited them as much by paying homage, as he benefited them by his hatred." But one might ask, since they did not have free will, how they are said to die for Christ? But, as it says in John (3:17): "God did not send his son into the world to judge the world, but that the world be saved by him." For God would never permit them to be killed, unless it were useful for them. Hence Augustine says that it is the same thing to doubt whether their killing profited them as to doubt whether baptism would have profited them: for they suffered as martyrs, and by dying confessed Christ, though not by speech: "I saw under the altar the souls of those slain for the word of God" (Rev 6:9). The second cruelty is that he killed in all that region, for he feared that he might flee to another city. He acted like a wounded beast, which does not care whom it injures: "Like a roaring lion or a charging bear, a wicked ruler over a poor people" (Pr 28:15). The third was in regard to time. Hence those who were two years old and under. And note that Augustine says that "the Innocents were killed in the year Christ was born." But why does he say from two years old and under? Some say that the star appeared for two years previously. Hence, Herod was not sure that he was not born as soon as the star appeared. Hence, he says, according to the time which he had ascertained from the wise men. But others say that they were not killed in the same year but two years later. But why did he wait so long? Three reasons are given by different persons. One is that in the beginning he thought that the Magi had been deceived and would find nothing, but after he heard many things about Christ from Zechariah and Simeon and Anna, he felt it was necessary to make inquiries. Others say that he did this out of wariness, for he feared that the parents would conceal the child he sought. Hence, at first he wished to follow them. Others say that he was prevented by his business, because he sent after the Magi as far as Tharsus of Cilicia and burned their ships. He was also occupied, because he had been summoned to Rome, where his sons had accused him. And so, after his return he began to vent his rage. He says or under, because he knew that he had such power that he could change his features. By that killing is signified the killing of the martyrs, because they were children in humility and innocence: "Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not" (Mt 19:14); likewise below (18:3): "Unless you be converted and become as little children, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven." In Bethlehem and in all that region, because they are killed through the whole world: "You will be witnesses to me," namely, by dying (Acts 1:8). The two years are the two loves—of God and of neighbor, because "faith without works is dead" (Jas 2:20). And note that after Christ was born, a persecution at once rages: because as soon as one is converted to Christ, he begins to be tempted: "Son, coming to the service of God, stand in justice and in fear, and prepare your soul for temptation" (Sir 2:1).

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 2:17-18

  (17) Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah. Having mentioned the slaughter of the infants, the evangelist according to custom now mentions the prophecy foretelling this: (18) A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be consoled, because they were not (Jer 31:15). And it should be noted that, as Jerome says, wherever any text is introduced by the apostles and evangelists, it is not necessary to present it always word for word, but as the Holy Spirit gave it to them, sometimes sense for sense in our use. Thus we have in Jeremiah (31:15): "A voice is heard on high of lamentation and weeping and mourning. Rachel is weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are not." The sense is the same. We should notice that as far as this text is concerned, it is one of those which are brought into the gospel, but which has a literal sense that is a figure of something in the New Testament. Hence, to understand it one must consider a bit of history, which is recorded in Judges, where it says that almost the whole tribe of Benjamin was wiped out on account of a sin committed against the wife of a Levite. It also states that there was greatest mourning there, so great, indeed, that it was heard from Gabsa to Ramah, a distance of 12,000 paces. Rachel is said to mourn this, because she was the mother of Benjamin; and it is a figure of speech used to express how great was the pain. But this is a prophecy about the past. In another way it is about the future in two ways: in one way it can refer to the captivity of Israel who, when they were led into captivity, are said to have wept on the road near Bethlehem; and then Rachel is said to have mourned, because she had been buried there (Gen 35:19). And this is said in the same manner of speaking as a place is said to weep over the evils which happen in the place. The prophet, therefore, desires to say that just as there was the greatest pain and grief when the tribe of Benjamin was destroyed, so in the future would be another excruciating pain in the time of the captivity. It is explained in a second way thus: the evangelist accepts the fact of the killing of the Innocents and amplifies the pain in four ways: first, from its extent; secondly, from the amount; thirdly, what the pain concerned; fourthly, its inconsolability. He says, therefore: A voice in Ramah. This is a city in the tribe of Benjamin (Jos 18:25) and can be taken as the city of Liah. But here it is taken for the heights and can be interpreted in two ways: first, a voice uttered on high was heard, because a voice in a lofty place is spread far and wide: "Go up in a high mountain, O Zion, herald of good tidings; lift up your voice with strength" (Is 40:9). Or was heard in Ramah, i.e., in heaven before God (Sir 35:21): "The prayer of the humble pierces the clouds, and he will not be consoled until it reaches the Lord"; "Do not the tears of the widow run down her cheek, as she cries out against him who has caused them to fall?" (Sir 35:15). Wailing: This can refer to the weeping of the infants who were slaughtered. And loud lamentation: This refers to the weeping of the mothers. Or both can refer to the infants: wailing, in as much as they were lifted up by the soldiers; lamentations, in as much as they were slain. The pain of the mothers is greater than that of the infants. Again, the mothers' pain was continual, that of the infants, brief. For this reason Zechariah (12:10) says: "They shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a first-born." Also from the source of the pain, because it was concerned with the death of the infants. Hence, Rachel laments. But it might be objected that Bethlehem was not in the tribe of Benjamin but in the tribe of Judah, who was Liah's son. This is answered in three ways: first, because Rachel was buried near Bethlehem (Gen 35:19). Accordingly, she wept for the infants in the way in which any place is said to weep: "Be appalled, O heavens, at this, be shocked, be utterly desolate, says the Lord" (Jer 2:12). Or in another way: it was stated above that Herod killed the infants in Bethlehem and in all its surrounding territory. But Bethlehem lay within the confines of two tribes, namely, Judah and Benjamin. Hence, some infants from the tribe of Benjamin were killed. Thus the objection ceases, as Jerome explains. But Augustine explains it another way and says that it is customary, when one is habituated to prosperity, that he becomes sadder when adversities come. Liah and Rachel were sisters, and the ones killed were among the children of Liah. Thus they were killed bodily, lest they be punished eternally, as in the case of Gabaa. Therefore, she is said to weep, when she sees her children killed or damned. Or the Church is signified by Rachel, because it means "seeing God," and the Church sees by faith. She weeps over her slain children, not because they were slain, but because through them she could obtain others. Or she weeps not for the slain but for the slayers. Then he mentions the inconsolable pain: she refused... This is explained in a number of ways: first, as referring to the people who existed then. For consolation should be forthcoming, as long as a remedy is hoped for; but when there is no hope for it, there is no consolation, as in the case of the hopelessly infirm. Therefore, he says in regard to the mothers' opinion, because they were no more, i.e., no longer visible: "The lad is gone" (Gen 37:30). Or she refused to be consoled, because they were no more, i.e., as if they were no more: for consolation is expected only for evil things. Hence, according to this it is referred to the opinion of the Church, which regards them as reigning; hence, it rejoices over them as reigning: "But we would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope" (1 Thes 4:13). Or she refused to be consoled at present but awaited consolation in the future: "Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted" (Mt 5:5).

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 2:19

  (19) Then he deals with Christ's being called back; hence, when Herod died, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph. First, he mentions that the angel appeared; secondly, the angel's command; thirdly, the execution of the angel's command. In regard to the first, three things are done: first, the time is described; secondly, the person; thirdly, the manner of the appearance. He says, therefore, But when Herod died: not the one involved in Christ's death, because that was his son; behold an angel appeared. It should be noted that all trouble in the Church is terminated by the death of the persecutors: "When the wicked perish, there are shouts of gladness" (Pr 11:10). Note, also, that when the unbelief of the Jews has ended, Christ will return to them: "And then all Israel will be saved" (Rom 11:26). Behold... appeared. It should be noted that the order between men and angels is such that divine illuminations are produced in us only by angels: "Are they not administering spirits sent forth to serve for the sake of those who are to obtain salvation?" (Heb 1:14). Hence, even Christ as man willed to be announced by angels. The manner: in a dream to Joseph in Egypt.

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 2:20

  (20) The command: Rise, take the child and his mother. He does not say, "son" or "wife", but child, in order to designate the dignity of the child and the purity of the mother. In this is shown that Joseph was not given to her for the purpose of carnal intercourse but to minister and guard. And he assigns the cause: for those who sought the child's life are dead. But one might ask why he says, are, for Herod alone had died. This is answered in two ways: first, because he had done so much evil that the Jews rejoiced in his death. When he had a foreboding of his death, he commanded his sister to kill the nobler Jews when he died. These had sought the life of the child with Herod: for those who sought the child's life are dead. Or another way: It is the custom of Sacred Scripture to use the plural for the singular: hence, they are dead, i.e. he is dead. Hence, the statement that those who sought the child's life destroys Apollinaris' error, that the godhead was in Christ in place of a soul.

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 2:21

  (21) Then he mentions the execution of the command: and he rose and took the child and his mother. In regard to this he does three things: first, he shows how he returned to the land of Israel (v. 21); secondly, the section he avoided (v. 22); thirdly, the section he chose (v. 22b). He says, therefore, and he rose. Note that the angel did not say: "Go into the land of Judah," or "into Jerusalem," but universally, to the land of Israel, under which even Galilee can be included. Hence, it can be said that Joseph entered the boundaries of the land which Judah inhabited.

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 2:22

  (22) Then he mentions the area he avoided: when he heard that Archelaus reigned in Judea. Here the history of Herod should be noted. For he had six sons, and before his death he killed Alexander and Aristobulus; at his death he commanded that Antipater be killed. Thus three remained, among whom Archelaus was the firstborn and usurped the kingdom; but he was later accused before Caesar Augustus by the Jews and his kingdom was taken away. It was then divided into four parts. Two were given to Archelaus and one each to Herod and Philip, as Luke (3:1) says. Archelaus himself was sent into exile after reigning for nine years. Being warned in a dream. First the angel had said that he should go to the land of Israel, but because Joseph had not yet understood, the angel's message made explicit what was previously implicit. And this is indicated, when he says, being warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee. But on the other hand, just as Archelaus ruled in Judea, so Philip in Galilee. But one must answer that this was immediately after the death of Herod, when Archelaus had the entire kingdom, because the division was made later. But then why did he not fear Archelaus? The answer is that Jerusalem was the seat of the kingdom; hence, he practically stayed there always. But why does Luke (2:41) state that they brought the child to Jerusalem every year? Augustine answers that it was safe to bring him on account of the vast throng that came there at that time; but it would have been dangerous, if he had tarried there for a long time. But why does the evangelist suggest that it was by accident that Joseph came to Nazareth, whereas Luke (2:39) says that he had his personal domicile in Nazareth. The answer is that the angel had told him to go into the land of Israel which, strictly speaking, did not include Galilee or Nazareth. That is the way Joseph understood it; therefore, he made no decision to go to Nazareth.

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 2:23

  (23) That what was spoken by the prophet might be fulfilled, "He shall be called a Nazarene." This is not found written, but it can be said that it was gathered from many passages. For Nazarene means holy; and because Christ is called holy: "Until the holy one is anointed" (Dan 9:24), therefore, he is said to be so called by the prophet. Or it can be said that by Nazarene is meant abounding with flowers, as in Is (11:1): "There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse and a flower shall grow out of his roots." This agrees with Song of Songs (2:1): "I am a rose of Sharon, a lily of the valleys."

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 3:1

  The evangelist dealt above with Christ's entry into the world; now he deals with the spread of his teaching, for he came for this purpose (Jn 18:37). In regard to his teaching two things are considered: first, the preparation for teaching is mentioned: secondly, the teaching itself (ch. 5). In a teacher of the Gospel two things are required: first that he be surrounded with sacred mysteries; secondly, that he be of proven virtue: thus two things are mentioned before the teaching, namely, his baptism and temptation (ch. 4). In regard to the first he does two things: first, John's baptism is introduced (v. 5); secondly, the instruction of the baptized (v. 7). They are invited in two ways by John; namely, by word and by example (v. 4). In regard to John's teaching he does three things: first, the person of the teacher is introduced; secondly, the teaching is presented (v. 2); thirdly, its authenticity (v. 3). In regard to the person five things are presented; namely, the time, the person, the office, the dedication and the place. The first is presented at "In those days." And it should be noted that Luke describes the time of preaching in relation to the heads of the republic and of the Jews. Therefore, what Luke says is expressed here, when it says, "In those days." This does not refer to the days already mentioned, namely, the time of Christ's infancy. For this does not refer to those days when Christ returned from Egypt. But this is mentioned in this way, because Christ continually lived in Nazareth: "The child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom, and the favor of God was upon him" (Lk 2:40). Secondly, the person is mentioned, "In those days came John": he came, i.e., appeared, for he had been previously hidden: "He came for testimony, to bear witness to the light" (Jn 1:7). But why did Christ wish his testimony, when he had the testimony of works? The answer gives three reasons: first, for our sake, who are led to a knowledge of spiritual things by means of things that are like us: "He came for testimony, to bear testimony to the light" (Jn 1:7). And why? "that all might believe through him." Secondly, on account of the malice of the Jews, because not only Christ gives testimony of himself, as they said: "You give testimony of yourself" (Jn 3:26), but so did another: "You sent to John and he has borne witness to the truth" (Jn 5:33). Thirdly, he mentions his office of baptizing. This was his special office, because he baptized first, and his baptism was a preparation for that of Christ; because if Christ had introduced a new rite, men might be immediately scandalized. Therefore, John came first and prepared men for baptism: "That he might be revealed to Israel" (Jn 1:31). Fourthly, his main interest is mentioned, because he came to preach diligently, i.e., to preach baptism. When Christ baptized, he joined the two: "Go, teach all nations, baptizing them..." (Mt 27:19). But John prepared the way for both, i.e. the preaching and the baptism. It should be noted that John did this in his thirty-third year, the age at which David was made king and Joseph began to exercise power in Egypt (Gen 41:46). This gives us to understand that no one should be elevated to any office, before he reaches the perfect age. Fifthly, the place is mentioned, in the desert. Now he preached in the desert for four reasons: first, that they might hear him more calmly, for in the city many of the curious would have come and been obstacles, but in the desert only those desirous of learning came: "The sayings of the wise are like goads, and like nails firmly fixed are the collected sayings given by one Shepherd" (Ec 12:11). Secondly, because they suited his preaching, because he preached penance. Such should be a place of penance either bodily or spiritually: "Yes, I would wander afar, I would lodge in the wilderness" (Ps 55:7). Thirdly, to indicate the condition of the Church, which is signified by the desert, for it is given to be understood that it is not in the synagogue but in the Church that salvation is preached: "Sing, O barren one, who did not bear; break forth into singing and cry aloud, you that have not been in travail. For the children of the desolate one will be more than the children of her that is married, says the Lord" (Is 54:1). Fourthly, to designate the condition of Judea, which had already been abandoned by God: "Behold, your house is forsaken and desolate" (Mt 23:38).

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 3:2

  He continues with "Do penance..." John announces a new life, as Augustine says in the book On Penance: "No one who is made arbiter of his own will can begin a new life, unless he repents of his former life." Therefore, first he warns them to repent; secondly, he announces salvation. Also, "Do penance," by which there is remission of sin: "When the Son of God was born, God sent a preacher into the world" (Chrysostom). But it should be noted that it is one thing to do penance and another to repent. One repents who weeps over his sins and does not commit things over which he should weep. And notice that it all refers to a proposal of the mind, so that it is said: And does not commit things over which he should weep, i.e., proposes not to commit; for penance demands this. But to do penance is to satisfy for sins: "Bring forth fruits worthy of penance" (Lk 3:8). Here a question arises. Since all sins are forgiven in baptism, why does John, when announcing Christ's baptism, begin with penance? The answer in a Gloss states that penance is threefold: namely, before baptism, because one must be sorry for sin, when he comes to baptism; secondly, after baptism, for mortal sins; thirdly, for venial sins. Here he is concerned with penance after baptism; hence, Peter says "Do penance, that you may be prepared for attaining salvation" (Acts 2:38). "Is at hand." Note that the kingdom of heaven is never found promised in the Old Testament; but John is the first to announce it, and this pertains to his greatness. But the kingdom of heaven is taken in four ways in Scripture. For sometimes it refers to Christ himself dwelling in us by grace: "The kingdom of heaven is within you" (Lk 16:21). He is called the kingdom of heaven, because the road to the heavenly kingdom is begun in us through his indwelling grace. Secondly, Sacred Scripture: "The kingdom of God will be taken away from you" (Mt 21:43). It is called a kingdom, because its law leads to a kingdom. Thirdly, the present Church Militant: "The kingdom of heaven is likened to a net cast into the sea and collecting fish of every kind" (Mt 13:47). It is called a kingdom, because it is established after the manner of the heavenly Church. Fourthly, the heavenly assembly is called the kingdom of heaven: "They shall come from the east and from the west and sit at table with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven" (Mt 8:2). Before the time of John the only kingdom mentioned was that of the Jebusites (Ex 3:8); but now the kingdom of heaven is promised to his Church.

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 3:3

  Then this preaching is confirmed: "This is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah..." And, as Augustine says, this can be explained in two ways: first, so that the words, "This is he who was spoken of," are the words of the evangelist; and then the sense is plainer. Secondly, that they are introduced by Matthew as being the words of John doing penance. Hence, "this is he," i.e., "I am"; and he speaks of himself as of another, as John (c. 1) speaks of another as of himself. But it is not important whose words they are, because they have the same sense. He is the one, therefore, of whom it was written, "the voice of one crying in the wilderness. Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight." Three facts are presented to support the three details mentioned: first, the place of John's preaching: "the voice of one crying in the wilderness"; secondly, the coming of the kingdom of heaven: "prepare the way"; thirdly, penance: "make straight his paths." He says this for three reasons: first, because, as Gregory says, "The voice precedes the word and John, Christ: 'He will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah'" (Lk 1:17); secondly, because by the voice the word is known: for as the voice brings the word into knowledge, so John, Christ: "For this I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed in Israel" (Jn 1:31). Thirdly, because the voice without a word does not give certitude to the mind: "If the bugle gives an uncertain sound, who will get ready for battle?" (1 Cor 14:8). And the revelation of divine mysteries was not made by John, except in so far as he announced Christ; but through Christ was the word: "The only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known" (Jn 1:18). Therefore, "the voice of one crying..." This can be understood in two ways: first, of Christ crying: "Since you desire proof that Christ is speaking in me" (2 Cor 13:3). This is the way he cried in all the prophets. Hence, it always says: "The word of the Lord was made to Jeremiah or Isaiah, etc." Yet none is called a voice, because they did not immediately precede Christ: "Behold, I sent my messenger to prepare a way before me, and the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight" (Mal 3:1). Or "the voice of one crying," i.e. John shouting. It should be noted that a shout is made to the deaf: "Hear, you deaf; and look, you blind, that you may see. Who is blind but my servant, or deaf as my messenger whom I sent?" (Is 42:18). Secondly, from indignation: "Then the anger of the Lord was kindled against his people, and he abhorred his heritage" (Ps 106:40). Thirdly, to those who are distant; and they were far from God. "Prepare the way of the Lord." Now it seems more suitable to have said, "prepare your way" to receive the Lord. But it should be noted that we were so weak that we could not get near God, unless he came to us. Therefore, John said above, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand" and this is "prepare." But what is that way? Faith, which comes by hearing: "That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts" (Eph 3:17). Gregory: "The way of faith is devout hearing; 'Prepare to meet your God, O Israel'" (Am 4:12). Faith is common and one, but it directs one in diverse works. Therefore, "make straight." The ways of our works are straight, when they are not in conflict with the divine law, which is the rule of human acts, just as according to the will of the potter is the rule of goodness of earthen vessels, as is clear from Jeremiah (18:4). Or this, i.e., "prepare," pertains to charity, which is necessary for salvation: "This is the way, walk in it, and turn neither to the right nor to the left" (Is 36:21). Therefore, "way" is taken to mean the sum total of all that pertains to general salvation: "I show you a more excellent way" (1 Cor 12:31). But the paths are submission to the counsels, which are called straight paths, because they should not be observed for the sake of vainglory: "Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them" (Mt 6:1); "Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace" (Pr 3:17).

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 3:4

  Then he shows how John bore witness to Christ by his life: "Now John wore..." But who bore witness concerning John, who bore witness to Christ? The answer is that his own life did, because, as Chrysostom says, no one is a worthy witness of another, unless he is his own witness; and this by a good life: "A man's attire and open-mouthed laughter and a man's manner of walking show what he is" (Sir 19:30). Hence, his austere life is described here: he wore a garment of camel's hair. Though others wore wool, John wore camel's hair, for he considered a woolen garment softness, which does not suit a preacher. And a leather girdle. This is explained in two ways: Jerome says that in those days the Jews had a girdle of wool, but John regarding that as softness, chose camel's hair in imitation of Elijah (2 Kg 1:8). Rabanus explains it another way and says that John chose untreated skins rather than ones prepared, in order to bridle bad desires: and this is "and a leather girdle." But whichever way it is explained, in both ways an austere life is meant. His food was locusts and wild honey. This food was not prepared but was eaten as nature provided; and locusts are animals suitable for eating. And wild honey. This can be understood in two ways: for, properly speaking, wild honey is not something formed in a hive but in the forest in certain trees. Some say that it is a reed of honey, i.e., something very sweet found inside it; yet in all this nothing less is implied than that he was satisfied with simple things: "If we have food and clothing, with these we shall be content" (1 Tim 6:8).

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 3:5

  Then he treats of baptism; hence he says, "then went out to him." And he touches on three things: first, how he is visited by the crowds; secondly, how they are baptized; thirdly, how they confessed their sins. In regard to the first it should be noted that three things invited men to go out to John: first, the new preaching. They had never heard mention made of the kingdom of heaven; therefore, they were amazed: "Do you know the ordinances of the heavens? Can you establish their rule on the earth?" (Jb 38:33). John was the first to teach that the notion of the kingdom of heaven does not consist in any thing earthly. Secondly, his life. Hence he says, "then there went out to him," namely, because they saw his life: "Show me your faith without works, and I will show you from my works my faith" (Jas 2:18). Thirdly, because the Jews had been deprived of instruction from prophets: "We do not see our signs; there is no longer any prophet" (Ps 74:9). And therefore they went from Judea to see.

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 3:6

  Then they went out and were baptized by him in the river Jordan. But why in the Jordan? Because in the Jordan was first prefigured baptism. In 2 Kg (2:8-11) it says of Elisha that he passed through the Jordan, and Elijah went up to heaven. It was there also that Naaman the leper was cleansed. This signifies being cleansed from sins in baptism. Again, this interpretation suits baptism, for it is translated "descent" and signifies humility, which a man should have in baptism: "As new born infants, long for the pure spiritual milk" (1 Pt 2:2). He mentions the third when he says, "confessing their sins." The reason confession is mentioned was shown above, namely, because it is necessary for salvation: "Confess your sins to one another" (Jas 5:16). And a Gloss says that it was mentioned, in order that a person experience shame. But it should be noted that shame is a concomitant cause, the principal cause being the power of the keys; for no one can bind or loose, unless he knows what should be bound or loosed. Hence, just as no one can remove the need for the keys, so no one can remove oral confession. But why is one who comes to baptism bound to confess? For it seems that they need not resort to the power of the keys, since all sins are removed in baptism. The answer is that one is bound at least in general; and he does this, when he renounces Satan and all his pomps. In this way he acknowledges that he is under the yoke of Satan.

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 3:7

  "But when he saw many..." Having showed that many were baptized by John, he now deals with their instruction. In regard to this he does two things: first, he mentions the ones instructed; secondly, their instruction. He says, therefore: "But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism." It should be noted that among the Jews were certain sects, among which those two were the most prominent: for the Pharisees were so called as though separated from the common life on account of their observances. In many matters they were correct, yet they erred, for it is said that they taught all things happened of necessity. The others, i.e., the Sadducees, were called just on account of certain special observances of the Law; but they did not accept the prophets and did not believe that souls would be raised after the corruption of the body or that they are spirit. But both were conspicuous by their names, because "Phares" signifies division, which is opposed to charity. And they were completely separated from the others, as though they had a superabundant holy Spirit; for this would be good. The others too, i.e., the Sadducees, laid claim to righteousness. Against these Rom (10:3) says: "Being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they would not submit to God's righteousness." And although they appeared to be more just, they came to John as to a teacher: "Kings shall see and arise; princes, and they shall prostrate themselves; because of the Lord, who is faithful, the holy one of Israel, who has chosen us" (Is 49:7). They, therefore, are instructed in a suitable way. Hence, "who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" And it should be noted that instruction should vary according to the conditions of the audience. For it is enough to speak briefly to the simple about matters of salvation; but to the learned each point should be explained: "I have not been able to speak to you as to spiritual persons, but as to carnal" (2 Cor 3:1). This John did, for he admonished the crowds briefly about penance and announced the kingdom of heaven. These two he explains in detail to the Pharisees. Hence, first he exhorts to penance; secondly, he announces that the kingdom of heaven is near. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he gives an inducement to penance; secondly, he removes things which could keep them from penance. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he gives the inducement to penance; secondly, he mentions the way of perfect penance. Now there are two things that inspire to penance: first, the recognition of one's own sins: "Announce to my people their sins" (Is 58:1); secondly, the fear of God's judgment. These two John announced; hence he says, "You brood of vipers." And it should be noted that in Sacred Scripture one is called a son of another by imitation: "Your father was an Amorite" (Ez 16:45); "you are from your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires" (Jn 8:44). They were similar to vipers; therefore he says, "You brood of vipers." And they are similar in three ways, according to Chrysostom. For its nature is that when it bites someone, it returns to the water. If it finds water, it does not die; otherwise, it dies. Hence, John considering the intention with which they came to the water of baptism, said, "You brood of vipers." But if they were saturated with poison, how did they come for baptism? Because John promised remission of sins, enabling them to enter the water after putting aside their evil intention. Therefore, he says: "Do penance..., and they were baptized by him" (3:2&6). The second property is that in being born, it kills its parents: "Which of the prophets have you not killed?" (Mt 23:31). The third reason is that it is beautiful outwardly but has poison within. These persons are also beautiful outwardly by reason of their pretended righteousness, but within they are infected with sin: "Woe to you, because you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness" (Mt 23:27). According to this, "brood of vipers" has an evil connotation. Ambrose explains it another way and says that prudence is ascribed to serpents: "Be prudent as serpents" (Mt 10:16). Hence, John is commending them on their prudence, because they came to be baptized; so he says, "brood of vipers." The first thing, therefore, that motivates to penance is the recognition of one's own sin; the second is fear of God's judgment: "By the fear of the Lord a man avoids evil" (Pr 16:6): "Know that there is a judgment" (Jb 19:29). This is why he says, "Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" And it should be noted that Ambrose and Chrysostom explain this about the past, but Rabanus about the future; hence, he says: "Who will show you?" Ambrose explains it thus: "Brood of vipers..." As if to say: Who has shown you to withdraw from evil? As if to say: No one but God: "O Lord, show us your mercy, and give us your salvation" (Ps 85:7). According to Chrysostom thus: "Brood of vipers," because they retain the will to sin, "who warned [showed] you to flee" as you wish? It was not Isaiah, who said: "Be washed and made clean, and remove the evil of your thoughts from my eyes" (1:16). Nor David, who said: "Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin" (Ps 51:2); and later: "The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise" (Ps 51:17). Rabanus applies it to the future, as if he were saying: It is good that you are doing penance, because otherwise, who will show...? "Where shall I go from your spirit? or where shall I flee from your presence?" (Ps 139:7). Anger said of God is not taken for an emotion of the mind, but for its effect; hence, his anger is vengeance.

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 3:8

  After mentioning these two things leading to repentance, the evangelist concludes: "Bear fruit that befits repentance." Fruit comes after the flowers in a tree, and if the fruit does not follow the flowers, that tree is nothing. For the flower of repentance appears in contrition, but the fruit is in performance. And it should be noted that the fruit of righteousness is one thing and the fruit of repentance another, for more is required of the repentant than of one who does not sin. But the fruit of repentance is threefold: the first is that one punish in himself what he committed: "After you converted me, I did penance; and after I was instructed, I smote upon my thigh," i.e., afflicted my flesh (Jer 31:19). The second is that he flee sins and the occasions of sin; hence, it is said that to make satisfaction is to remove the causes of sin: "Have you sinned, my son? Do so no more, but pray about your former sins... Flee from sin as from a snake" (Sir 21:1-2). The third is that you be as eager to do good as you were to sin: "I am speaking in human terms because of your natural limitations. For just as you once yielded your members to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now yield your members to righteousness and sanctification" (Rom 6:19).

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 3:9

  Then he excludes the obstacle to repentance, when he says, "And do not presume to say to yourselves: 'We have Abraham as our father.'" The obstacle to repentance is twofold: presuming on oneself and despair about the divine judgment. First, he removes the first; secondly, the second. In regard to the first he does two things: first he excludes the obstacle; secondly, he assigns the reason. He says, therefore, "Do not presume to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.'" They were of the stock of Abraham according to the flesh; hence, they could believe that no matter how much they sinned, God would have mercy for the sake of Abraham: "Why does your wrath burn hot against your people, O Lord?... Remember Abraham, Isaac and Israel, your servants" (Ex 32:11,13). Therefore, John rejects this: "and do not presume to say..." This is his way of telling them not to say this, because it will not help them: "It is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants" (Rom 9:8). For they gloried greatly in Abraham, but the Lord says: "If you are the sons of Abraham, do the works of Abraham" (Jn 8:39). Against such Chrysostom says: "What does a glorious lineage profit one whose morals degrade him?" The same applies in spiritual matters. Then he assigns the reason, "for I tell you," since it is a greater thing to imitate a great father than to be born of him, "God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham." It is written in Joshua (c. 4) that when the people of Israel passed across the Jordan on dry ground, Joshua ordered that in memory of the miracle twelve stones outside the river be placed in it. Now John refers to this event, as he baptizes in that place. But this can be understood in two ways: first, literally, for this is the first foundation of faith, to believe in the omnipotence of God: "I know that you are powerful and no thought is hid from you" (Jb 42:2). Or by stones we can understand the gentiles, who are called stones for two reasons: first, because they adore stones; secondly, on account of their hardness. And although stones are hard, yet they retain an impression for a long time: and although a building can be slowly made of them, it is strong and durable. Hence, the Gentiles, although they were hard as far as accepting the faith of Christ was concerned, they nevertheless held it firmly. This is signified in Ezekiel (11:19): "I will take a stony heart out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh; I will put a new spirit within them." Secondly, according to Jerome, in these words John seems to lead back to the memory of the prophets: "Look to Abraham your father and to Sarah who bore you. Look to the rock from which you were hewn" (Is 51:2). He calls Abraham a rock on account of his inability to reproduce, and Sarah on account of her sterility. As if to say: "God, who made Abraham virile and Sarah fecund, can from these stones raise up children to Abraham."

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 3:10

  "Even now the axe is laid to the root of the tree." For they could say: "We do not believe that any anger will come upon us"; therefore, he removes this by saying, "Even now..." First, he presents the judgment; secondly, the meaning of the judgment. He says, therefore, "Even now...," for there are two reasons why some are not willing to repent: one is because they do not believe that there is a judgment: "Do not say, I have a sufficiency" (Sir 5:1); "Flee from the face of the sword, because it is the avenger of iniquity; and know that there is a judgment" (Jb 19:29). The other is because of the delay: "The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance" (2 Pt 3:9). But John excludes both: first, the first, when he says, "Even now the axe"; secondly, the second, when he says, "is laid to the root." As if to say: He will not delay. This is understood in three ways: Chrysostom says that by axe is understood the rigor of divine judgment, which is sometimes designated by axe, sometimes by arrow and by sword: "If a man does not repent, God will whet his sword; he has bent and strung his bow; he has prepared his deadly weapons" (Ps 7:13). Jerome: "By axe is understood the preaching of the Gospel, because just as by the Gospel teaching some have been brought to life, so its scorners, to death." "Are not my words like fire, and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?" (Jer 23:29); "This child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against" (Lk 2:34). "Even now the axe is laid to the root of the tree." As if to say: It is evident that he is coming. According to Gregory, by axe is understood our Redeemer, who consists of human and divine nature as of a handle and sword. His human nature, because it waits patiently, is, as it were, held; the divinity cuts as a sword. The axe is laid to the root, because judgment comes through God and men. He says, "to the root," for two reasons: first, because in the root is made a general cutting even of that which is in the branches. Secondly, because what is cut off from the root does not germinate. As if to say: the eradication of evils will be universal. Then he continues and mentions first the universality, saying, "every tree." As if to say: As the gentile, so the Jew: "God shows no partiality" (Rom 2:11). Secondly, the guilt, because it does not bear fruit; for punishment comes also for merely omitting: "I was hungry and you did not give me to eat" (Mt 25:42). Thirdly, he mentions two punishments: first, temporal, "it is cut down," namely, from this life: "Lo, these three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and I find none. Cut it down" (Lk 13:7), and after that: "Why should it use up the ground?" This means that it will be cut down along with earthly prosperity. Secondly, he mentions the eternal punishment: "and thrown into the fire": "Their worm shall not die" (Is 66:24); "Depart, you accursed, into everlasting fire" (Mt 25:41).

  Commentary on Matthew

• Matthew 3:11

  "I baptize you with water." Above, John exhorted them to do penance, now he intends to do what he had frequently said, namely, to announce the kingdom of heaven. In regard to this he does two things: first, he mentions preparation for the kingdom; secondly, he foretells the kingdom. That kingdom is Christ, of whom Luke says: "The kingdom of heaven is within you" (17:21). The preparation, of course, is baptism; hence "I, indeed, (and this is a marvel to you) baptize in water only," i.e., because I am only a man. Hence, he could merely wash the body and could not give the Holy Spirit, since the payment for sinning had not yet been paid: "Without the shedding of blood there is not forgiveness of sin" (Heb 9:22). Furthermore, the Holy Spirit had not yet descended, nor had Christ sanctified the water by its contact with his flesh. Why then was he baptizing? For three reasons: first, to anticipate Christ by baptizing: "You will go before the Lord to prepare his ways" (Lk 1:76); secondly, to have the opportunity to preach about Christ before so many people assembled: "That he might be revealed in Israel, I came baptizing in water" (Jn 1:31); Thirdly, to prepare them for the baptism of Christ. Hence, the custom in the Church that those desiring baptism be catechumens first, namely, that they be prepared and receive a sign by which they are considered worthy. That is why he says, "I baptize," in order that you might know that you who intend to be baptized in Christ are suitable. Note that in IV Sent. the Master says that those baptized by John were not baptized by Christ, unless they put their hope in John. But this is false; hence he says, "He will baptize you." Note, too, that Augustine raises the question: If they were re-baptized after John's baptism, why were they not re-baptized after baptism by heretics? The answer is that John baptized in his own person, but heretics, in the person of Christ. Hence, it must be regarded as Christ's baptism. Then he deals with the kingdom: first, he shows Christ's dignity; secondly, his office, "He will baptize you." He says, therefore, "He who is coming after me" by birth, by baptizing, by preaching, by dying, by descending into hell. But here he speaks of two only, namely, of preaching and of baptism; hence he says, "He who is coming after me" to baptize and preach: "He will go before you in the spirit and power of Elijah" (Lk 1:17). "Is mightier than I," and his baptism is mightier: "There is none holy like the Lord" (1 Sam 2:2); "If it is a matter of strength, behold him" (Jb 9:19). And so that no one suppose that there is any comparison between them, he says, "whose sandals I am not worthy to carry." As if to say: He is incomparably greater than I, as Chrysostom explains, to such an extent that I do not deserve to render him any service. But it should be noted that in the other three evangelists, it is not stated in the same way: because it says there "to loose," here "to carry." Hence Augustine says that John wished only to show his own lowliness and the dignity of Christ, and then the same thing is signified in all. Therefore, he says that it was through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that in such matters the evangelists not use the same words, in order to show proof that we are not lying, although we do not use the same words. But if he desired to signify something mystical, then there is a difference between the words of John and of the others: and two things can be signified by "the strap of a shoe," because by shoe is signified the humanity: "Upon Edom I have cast my shoe" (Ps 60:8). The strap is the union, whereby the humanity was tied to the divinity. And because he did not consider himself adequate to explain the mystery of the union, he said, "whose sandals I am not worthy to carry." Also it was a custom among the Jews (Dt 25:9) that if one was not willing to take his brother's wife, he was supposed to loose the strap of the person who accepted the wife. The spouse of Christ is the Church. At that time, therefore, John considered himself unworthy to take the spouse of Christ. Hilary gives another explanation, namely, that those who announce the humanity of Christ throughout the world carry his shoes, and this was reserved to the apostles: "How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good tidings, who publishes peace, who brings good tidings of good, who preaches salvation" (Is 52:7). Therefore, John says that he is not worthy to carry the shoes which were reserved for the apostles, for it is a greater office to preach the Gospel than to baptize: "Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel" (1 Cor 1:17). Were the apostles, therefore, greater than John? Not in merit but by their role in the New Testament. And according to this sense it is stated below (11:11): "He who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." Chrysostom gives another explanation, namely, that the feet are the apostles and other servants of Christ, among whom was John. The shoe is their weakness; because, just as the elegance of the feet is not known as long as they are covered with a shoe, so the greatness of the apostles: "Gladly will I glory in my weaknesses, that the grace of Christ may dwell in me" (2 Cor 12:9). "Whose shoes I am not worthy to carry," because neither he nor the apostles regarded themselves worthy to be ministers of Christ's gospel: "Such is the trust we have through Christ toward God. Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to claim anything as coming from ourselves; our sufficiency is from God" (2 Cor 3:4-5). If, therefore, it signifies diverse things according to a mystery, which of these did John say? The answer, according to Augustine, is that if John's words are referred to different things, then he said both. Or that John, preaching to the crowds, sometimes said one and sometimes the other. Then he deals with Christ's office: first, with the office of baptizing; secondly, with the office of judging. He says, therefore, "He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." Many books have "and fire." But they are speaking after the manner of the Greeks, who do not have the ablative case. And he says "with the Holy Spirit and with fire." In this we are given to understand that Christ's baptism has more than John's baptism, because it adds over the latter, because Christ baptized in water and the Spirit: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven" (Jn 3:5). But note that when he says, "He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit," he asserts that the copious gifts of the Holy Spirit must be had, the recipients of which are completely cleansed: "But you will be baptized by the Holy Spirit" (Acts 1:5). He also intimates that the change will be easy. "And with fire." This is explained in a number of ways. Jerome says that the same thing is designated by the Holy Spirit and fire: "I have come to send fire on the earth, and what will I but that it be kindled?" i.e., the Holy Spirit (Lk 12:49). Therefore, he also appeared in fire: "And he appeared to them in parted tongues of fire" (Acts 2:3). According to Chrysostom by fire is signified present tribulations, which expiate for sins: "The kiln tests the potter's vessel, and the trial of tribulation the just man" (Sir 27:5). But it should be noted that he says that this baptism is necessary, because the baptism of the Holy Spirit keeps the mind from being overcome by temptations; but it does not entirely remove the consequences of the flesh. Therefore, tribulation is necessary, because the flesh, then weakened, will not sprout forth concupiscence. Hence, there is need for fire which refreshes the soul. Or by fire is understood the future cleansing in purgatory: "Fire will test what kind of work each one has done" (1 Cor 3:13). Hilary explains it of the fire of hell and says that he intends two things, when he says, "he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire," namely, the salvation he effects in the present and in the future. In the future he will cleanse through the fire of hell, in as much as it will attract the wicked; and this agrees with what follows, "the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire."

  Commentary on Matthew