as being the son of Joseph, nor does any account demonstrate that Mary descended from David — such were the contents of the first of the questions; the solution to it would be as follows.
A 1. Concerning the deeds of our Savior Jesus Christ, it was necessary for some to be kept silent for those of that time, while others were spread to the hearing of many, insofar as they were going to contribute to the benefit of the listeners. As, for example, upon reaching the thirtieth year of bodily age, He presents Himself for the baptism at the hands of John, and from then on begins His teaching and miraculous works; but what things were done by Him during the entire thirty years before the baptism, no history reveals, nor is it possible to learn about His life prior to this from any divine Scripture. But even from the time when He became known to all, He proclaimed some things to the hearing of all, while others He initiated only to His own disciples as mysteries; and sometimes, while performing wonders, He exhorted them to tell no one, while at other times He performed the miracles without such an injunction. Among the things, then, that were decreed to be kept silent, the miracle regarding His birth was preeminent; of the time in which He became man, none, except for a few, possessed knowledge of this.
B 2. But the holy man (Ignatius is his name, who was the second bishop of the Church of the Antiochenes after the apostles) says somewhere that the virginity of Mary and the birth of the Savior from her escaped even the ruler of this age; he says as follows: C « And the virginity of Mary, and her childbearing, and likewise the death of Christ, escaped the ruler of this age: three mysteries of outcry which were performed in the silence of God. » It is possible to grasp even by reasoning that it was not possible for all mortals who saw the Christ of God living in the flesh and moving among men as an ordinary man to be able to believe that He was born of a girl who knew not wedlock, without a father; nor was it expedient to publish to many that Mary, not from Joseph, had conceived and borne Jesus; for the virgin would have even undergone punishment according to the law of Moses, as having violated her virginity before the time of marriage. Therefore, it is rightly observed D that Scripture vigilantly says: « Before they came together, she was found with child; » as if openly saying that she did not conceive before the marriage, nor before coming to the man; but after she was joined to Joseph and began to dwell with him, and was called his wife by all—when they were dwelling together, and were already about to use the nuptial relation—at that very hour, so to speak, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. And this is indeed highly useful for winning over the many.
A For if it had happened that she conceived while still with her own parents, it would have been likely that the matter would be covered up, because it was not from a manifest male that she was pregnant, and she would have been put to death more quickly according to the law, or if not that, she certainly would not have been cleared of the stain of disgrace; for she herself, surely, was not a credible witness of herself and of the things that had happened to her. Nor would anyone have been persuaded by an appearance of an angel, or believed her when she related the things spoken to her by Gabriel, nor would Joseph, who was testified to be a just man, have received her into his own house when she was already with child. Wherefore, it happened with good reason that she became pregnant not while with her parents, but when she was already with him, and indeed with him, at the very order of marriage, so to speak; for before they came together, as the Scripture testifies, she was found with child in the womb.
B 3. But to whom was she found to be with child, if not to Joseph? And how and in what way was this discovered by Joseph? The account will teach us, saying that it was made known to Joseph also by the Holy Spirit. For he was a just man; and being just, it is no wonder if he was deemed worthy by the Divine Spirit to perceive the conception of his future spouse, and to refrain from marital intercourse. Immediately, upon understanding this and being struck with awe, he wished to put her away secretly, considering that what had happened was greater than that he should live with her thereafter. And this was the reason why, being just, he did not judge it right to expose her to shame, but preferred to put her away secretly. For surely, if he had not been persuaded that she had conceived from the Holy Spirit, while at the same time knowing well that she did not carry a child conceived by him as a husband—how could it ever be that he, in accordance with the duty of his justice, would not publicly declare her to have been corrupted before the wedding, and for that reason hand her over to the competent magistrates to be judged and put to shame? Otherwise, how could he be just, who would work at covering up and hiding such an impious thing? Certainly, it would not have been consistent for Joseph to be called just by the Evangelist if he were behaving in such a way. But rather, because he himself knew of the more divine conception of the Virgin from the Holy Spirit, and because he deemed her too august for it to be lawful for him to live with her any longer, it is rightly said by the Evangelist that the decision was taken by Joseph to put away his betrothed secretly, neither having her defamed by himself nor exposed to the gossip of the crowd. C It is well said, therefore, by the Evangelist that he did not wish to expose her to public talk [*diffamare*]. For he does not say he was unwilling to bring infamy upon her, but to expose her; for there is a great difference between these terms. Just as it does not mean the same thing to write and to proscribe, to think and to impute, to ask and to abrogate, so neither [does it mean the same] to expose to talk and to bring infamy; for *infamare* makes us think of the public revealing and accusation of a criminal, whereas *diffamare* has only the notion of making known.
A 4. But because it could not be that the matter remained concealed, even if Joseph had departed from Mary secretly, the angel conveniently appearing to him in a dream says: "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife; for that which is born in her is of the Holy Spirit." B And observe how he calls him son of David from the beginning, referring him back to the progenitor, by the help of him whom all were expecting from the lineage of David. Otherwise, why would he not have called him the son of Jacob? For he was his father by nature, as the evangelist testifies: "Matthan begat Jacob, and Jacob begat Joseph." But now, passing over the mention of the father, he commemorates the progenitor, almost signifying that he who had been promised to David is he whom Mary had conceived prodigiously and without any office of Joseph, but from the Holy Spirit. Then he commands him to put aside the fear by which he was gripped; for he was not in a small state of dread while considering that Mary was pregnant not by a man. Next, he teaches him not something he did not know, but the cause of what was already known. He says, therefore: "For that which is born in her is of the Holy Spirit."
B 5. Such and so great a divine plan appears to me in the divine Scriptures for the sake of concealing the virgin’s conception from the unbelieving; for the account would not easily have been believed by those hearing such things of a man, seeing him endowed with a fragile body just as we are, and differing in nothing regarding his mortal nature. What if even later, working wonders and extending divine benefits to many, he struck the minds of those seeing him? Did not Moses, who performed many wonders, yet share in a common birth? And Elias, C and Elisaeus, and each of the prophets? Therefore, the display of miraculous deeds contributed nothing to the end that Jesus might not be believed to be born of a man. In reality, the men of that age, suspecting nothing unusual about his birth, although they beheld the deeds he did, spoke thus to one another: "Whence has this man all this wisdom and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?" Again, at another time, his mother and brothers D standing outside and wishing to speak with him, someone said to him: "Behold, your mother and your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see you." And what is wonderful when even his own disciples and apostles, having been asked, "Who do men say that I am?" answered that some thought him to be John, others Elias, some Jeremias, or another of the prophets? And when asked what opinion they themselves held concerning him, they all were silent, having nothing to say; only Peter, having confessed that he was the Christ, the Son of the living God, since to him alone this had been made known, Jesus replies, saying: "Blessed are you, Simon bar-Jona, for flesh and blood has not revealed it to you, but my Father who is in heaven."
A Mary also testifies that she kept the things that had happened in her own deep contemplation; for the Scripture says: "But Mary kept all these words, pondering them in her heart."
6. It is therefore demonstrated that it was beneficial that, at that time, the generation of Jesus from the Holy Spirit was concealed from the multitude, and Joseph was accepted in the place of a father, so that he was deservedly placed in the genealogy as the parent of the child. If this had not been done, the boy would have been considered fatherless, his lineage not being traced from any father; and this would have led many into impiety, who, through ignorance of the truth concerning the matter, would have slandered his birth. Useful, therefore, it was that he was reputed to be the son of the craftsman and the brother of the so-named children. And indeed, God the Word himself did not deny that he was man, but he even commanded his own disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ of God, who had long been heralded by the prophets as the one to come; for the majority of those who saw him then, B clothed as he was in a humble appearance, would not have believed it. Thus, even at that transfiguration on the mountain, he again commanded his disciples, saying: "Tell no one the vision until the Son of Man rises from the dead." For it was likely that the majority of those at that time would not have believed even this. If, then, he judged that these things should not be made public, how much more was it necessary that the circumstances of the birth from a virgin should at that time be kept silent among the populace, to be revealed at a season appropriate for the truth concerning him. This time was to be when he rose from the dead, and when he was taken up into heaven, and when the report concerning him as the Word of God ran through the whole world; and when the nations were called, and his divine oracles attained their fulfillment—the events, indeed, of the matters themselves clearly proving the faith of his same prophecies and predictions.
7. To those of our own time, therefore, who have received the faith of these events from their ancestors, and who have acknowledged his nature, which is more than human, it is reasonably admitted that the rest of the accounts, and those of his birth, are also true; yet the wonderful evangelists necessarily placed Joseph in the genealogy at that time, who was, as is well known, called by all the father of Jesus. For if they had passed over this and traced his genealogy from the mother, besides the fact that this was indecorous, and foreign to the simplicity D of the divine Scriptures, because no one is recorded as having his genealogy traced through a mother before, he whose genealogy was being woven would have seemed to be fatherless and of ignoble birth. And this, as I have said, was exposed to no small ignominy and accusation. Conveniently, therefore, while they trace Joseph from the stock of David for the reason already given, at the same time they confirm that Mary was also sprung from David, revealing the lineage of the wife through the spouse; for when the law of Moses decrees that it is not permitted to seek marriage from elsewhere than from one's own kin and one's own tribe, so that the inheritance of the family may not drift from tribe
from its own stock and tribe, so that the inheritance of the family may not drift from one tribe to another; the description of the husband was sufficient to signify the wife. For he who would live according to the norm of the law would not have taken into marriage any other woman but one who was, in the first place, of his own ancestral tribe—namely, Judah—and then of the same clan and family, that is, David’s. For such were the commandments of the law. Since, therefore, Joseph is proved to be of the tribe of Judah and of the inheritance and family of David, how does it not follow that Mary also is seen to come from the same origins? B
8. But if it be said that she is a kinswoman of Elisabeth, she being of the tribe of Judah, and Elisabeth being of the tribe of Levi, do not be amazed; for the entire nation of the Jews was of one lineage, and all the tribes were kin to one another. Hence also the divine Apostle calls all the Jews his kinsmen, saying: "For I could wish that I myself were accursed for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites" (Rom. ix, 3). And yet, his kinsmen were in reality only those of the tribe of Benjamin; nevertheless, Paul denotes all Israelites by the names of brothers and kinsmen. Thus, therefore, the angel called Elisabeth a kinswoman to Mary, because both were Israelites. Moreover, it is reasonable that Elisabeth should be called a kinswoman of Mary because of the place, since she dwelt in the tribe of Judah, from which Mary hailed. Luke is witness to the fact, saying: "In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a city of Judah, and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elisabeth" (Luke i, 39-40). For since the Mosaic law did not assign to the priestly tribe an inheritance—because the Lord God is their portion—but commanded them to dwell among the other tribes, and since Zechariah and Elisabeth dwelt in a certain city of the tribe of Judah, from which Mary hailed, it is reasonable that for this cause they should be called kinswomen. Nor is it unlikely that this was also for the sake of the similarity in their way of life, by which both women were counted worthy of the mystery of salvation, and the one received the Savior, while the other received the forerunner of the Savior into her bosom, both having partaken of the one and the same holy Spirit. And for this reason, they were kinswomen in a most special sense according to God. But this is the way this matter must be resolved. C
9. But if, according to the divine Apostle, the husband is the head of the woman (Ephes. v, 23), and "the two shall be one flesh" (Gen. ii, 24) according to the law of Moses, and if a woman betrothed to a husband who commits an offense suffers the same penalty for adultery, as one having already become the body of the betrothed and having imposed the husband as her head—why is it not consistent that, when the genealogy of the head is written, the body should be numbered with the head? D So that Mary, already
united to Joseph, may reasonably be considered to share in his genealogy, A especially since it has been demonstrated that she was not only of the same tribe as he, but of the same people and family. Moreover, Gabriel, in that conversation with Mary, prophesying among other things, says: “God will give him the throne of David his father,” B clearly teaching that David was the progenitor of him who was to be born of her. For how else would it have been fitting for the angel to say these things to the virgin, if he did not acknowledge that he was from David? For he would not have said, “God will give him the throne of David his father,” if he were not from David. For what father? The virgin would reasonably have asked, acknowledging that she did not know a man, but having learned that she would conceive of the Holy Spirit, unless the word was clearly spoken to a daughter of David. Hence Luke reasonably says: “And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judæa, to be enrolled in the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, with Mary, who was betrothed to him, being pregnant.” We shall no longer read this passage of the Gospel with ambiguity, as if Mary had come only to register her name; but we shall believe that she, no less than Joseph, was of the house and family of David. Since we interpret the Scripture in this way, using the arguments which we have presented so far, I believe it has been clearly demonstrated that the genealogy of Joseph was not recorded in vain by the glorious apostles of our Savior, and that Mary is shown to be from the seed of David, as is Jesus the Christ of God, who was born of her.
II. Why one evangelist starts the genealogy from above from Abraham; while the other goes up from below; and does not stop at Abraham, but reaches as far as Adam and God.
1. This was the second of the questions proposed by you: Matthew derives the genealogy from Abraham; but Luke, following the opposite path, begins from Joseph and leads up to Adam and God. C Yet it was required, if they were writing things consonant and consistent with each other, that either Luke, ascending, should stop at Abraham, or Matthew should not start the genealogy from Abraham, but from Adam, in whom Luke ended. But the solution to this question is also easy, and does not require much rhetorical artifice, for both evangelists follow one path. For no one would say that those who climb up a path and those who descend the same way are traveling on a different course, because, specifically, one road is trodden by both, that is, both those ascending and those descending. Therefore, the same principle applies to the succession of generations. And this custom was anciently favored by the Hebrews, and is solemn in the divine Scriptures. For behold, in the book of Ruth, the lineage of David is traced from above, from Judah, by these words: D “And these are the generations
of Phares (who was the son of Judah the patriarch). Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; and Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; and Salmon begat Booz; and Booz begat Obed; and Obed begat Jesses; and Jesses begat David.” Matthew therefore also followed this method of writing the genealogy.
2. But the first book of Kings, which follows the history of Ruth, ascends from below, just as Luke has done. For in recounting the lineage of Elkanah, who was the father of Samuel, it says: “And there was a man from Armathem Suphir, from Mount Ephraim; and his name was Elcana, son of Hieremiel, son of Eli, son of Thou, son of Sur, an Ephrathite.” B But even in the books of Chronicles, the narrative sometimes flows from the ancestors to the descendants, as happens in Matthew, and sometimes genealogies are written just as Luke does. Hear, therefore, these things also: “David,” says the aforementioned book, “was the son of Solomon; this one’s son was Roboam; this one’s son, Abia; this one’s son, Asa; this one’s son, Josaphat; this one’s son, Joram; this one’s son, Ochozias; this one’s son, Joas; this one’s son, Amasias.” And in such order it descends as far as Jechonias and the Babylonian captivity, just as Matthew does. But as for Luke, the same Scripture again ascends while narrating the lineage of Samuel. C For it says: “Samuel, son of Elcana, son of Hieroboam, son of Heliel, son of Thou, son of Sur, son of Elcana, son of Joel, son of Azarias, son of Sophonias, son of Thaar, son of Asir, son of Abiasar, son of Core, son of Issaar, son of Caath, son of Levi, son of Israel.” And see if Luke has not plainly imitated the manner similar to these. You yourself could find thousands of such examples; whence it follows that we must admit that the evangelists of our Savior have done nothing unusual: nor will anyone justly think that they disagree with one another. For each established his description by his own calculation; the one, taking his beginning from Abraham because of the special D reason of his discourse, which it is not the time to explain now; the other, having passed by Abraham himself, went as far back as the first man: and he does not stop at this, but links his entire history to God, while he lifts it to the heights by way of the mystery of the new birth in Christ.
III. How Matthew deduces the lineages from David and his successor Solomon to Jacob and Joseph; but Luke, from David and Nathan and his children to Heli and Joseph, writing the genealogy in a way contrary to Matthew.
1. It is time to examine the third of the proposed questions; let us therefore intently fix our mind upon the very words themselves. Let us see what Luke says: “And Jesus himself...”
A erat incipiens quasi annorum triginta, ut putabatur, filius Josephi, filii Heli, filii Melchi.” But Matthew did not use the phrase, “as was supposed.” What, then, does he say? “Matthan begat Jacob, and Jacob begat Joseph.” Now, it is one thing to suppose, and another to affirm that the matter truly stands as stated. If, therefore, while Matthew affirms that Joseph was the son of Jacob and Matthan, Luke similarly contended that he was the son of Heli and Melchi, there would truly be a kind of battle and conflict, and there would be need of an arbiter to reconcile the evangelists. But now, since Matthew firmly asserts his account, while Luke does not contend for his own as the truth, but merely puts forward an opinion widely held among many, rather than that which held sway with him, there remains, in my opinion, no question.
B 2. For since various opinions were held among the Jews concerning Christ, and while all of them concordantly traced him back to David on account of the promises of God made to David, yet some thought Christ would come from David and Solomon and the royal lineage; others, however, withdrew from this opinion on account of the many accusations brought against those kings, and because of Jechonias having been proscribed by the prophet Jeremiah, who said that no one from his seed would rise to sit upon the throne of David. And because of these things, they pursued another path; and while agreeing that he was from David, they traced him not through Solomon, but through Nathan, who was also a son of David (which same Nathan is said to have been a prophet, according to what is related in the books of Kings)—and they asserted that Christ would come from his descendants—and since they traced the lineage of Joseph all the way back from that point, Luke, who relates their opinion and not his own, very necessarily added to his narrative, “as was supposed,” granting to Matthew C the task of recording not what was “supposed,” but how the origin of his lineage truly stood. And let this be the first answer.
3. There may also be another deep and arcana-filled reason for his narrative. For Matthew, in explicitly describing the human birth of Christ and wishing to demonstrate truly that Joseph was of Davidic descent, uses the introduction to his discourse that was appropriate. But Luke, I think, because he did not intend to describe the fleshly birth of Christ, acted in this way. For if this had been his purpose, he would not have been ignorant that it was necessary to set forth such an origin. But since, in that location of the Gospel, he makes mention of regeneration through the bath, and presents Jesus as the Son of God, he therefore strives to show by this example that anyone who is regenerated in God, even if he is truly considered a son of men on account of the flesh with which he is clothed, nevertheless does not remain within his carnal parents D according to his own nature, nor does he fail to extend beyond the progenitors of his body. For even if he is seen to be a son of men on account of the generation of the body, nevertheless he is not judged to be an alien to the adoption of God. Since, therefore, Luke was not setting forth his history according to the mind of Matthew, he naturally...
A passes over his own time, so that he might come to the regeneration through the laver, and there he sets forth the contrary succession of genealogies—at the same time proceeding from the last to the first, and at the same time avoiding the memory of the guilty and wicked men who are found with Matthew; because he who is regenerated with God becomes an alien to a carnal nature and to fathers who are sinners according to the flesh, being declared, of course, a son of God, and of all those who have lived without blame according to God.
4. By way of example, let Paul the apostle have a Jew as a father according to the flesh, who is, as is likely, an unbeliever; but let him also have one according to God, whose way of life he embraced. If, therefore, anyone wishes to narrate the genealogy of Paul according to the flesh, whom would he B rightly mention if not his father according to the flesh? If, on the other hand, someone wishes to show his birth in Christ, of whom should he rather make memory of a parent, than of him by whom he was regenerated according to God? Thus also it was said to Abraham: "But you shall go to your fathers having been satisfied in a good old age." This discourse surely does not point to carnal fathers, unless these also happen to be believed to have been pious; but it speaks of fathers according to God, on account of the similarity of piety. Thus the guilty sons of Abraham were indeed his sons according to the flesh, but in their ways they were sons of Sodom and Gomorrah. Therefore it is said to them: "Hear the word of the Lord, you rulers of Sodom, attend to the law of God, O people of Gomorrah," as if again there were going to be sons of Abraham C from these. We, therefore, who have believed in the Christ of God from the nations, although we were born of unbelieving fathers according to the flesh, have migrated into the house of Abraham, having obtained the adoption of Christ and of his disciples; and thus we have inscribed ourselves into another succession of lineage, much better than the carnal one, on account of the regeneration in Christ.
5. With good reason, therefore, Luke also, as he is recording the regeneration, does not follow the same path as Matthew; he does not make mention of Solomon, nor the wife of Uriah, nor Tamar, nor Ruth, nor Jechoniah, nor of any others among the guilty, but D goes forward through others who are free from reproach; and he exhibits Christ as having been originated from the prophet Nathan. And while he who is born according to the flesh in Matthew is reckoned as a son of Abraham—because to Abraham first the promise of the blessing of the nations had been given, which was to be fulfilled in no other way than through one coming from his seed—yet he who is regenerated in God, having claimed other fathers according to God, not indeed having truly had them as fathers, but as was supposed on account of the similarity of his morals, ascends to the true father, after all things being established as the Son of God.
Africanus on the genealogy which is in the holy Gospels (12).
A 1. Some, therefore, either being ignorant of the evangelical history or being unable to understand it, have in their laudatory error intensified their ignorance by saying that this diverse enumeration and mixture of names, both priestly and royal, occurred rightly, so that Christ might be justly shown to be both priest and king; as if someone were disobedient to this, or held some other hope—that Christ is the eternal high priest of the Father, offering our prayers to Him, and a supermundane king, nourishing those whom He liberated with the Spirit, having been made a cooperator in the ordering of all things. Yet they ought not to have been ignorant that each of the enumerated orders is the lineage of David, or the royal tribe of Judah. For even if Nathan was a prophet, nevertheless Solomon was one, and both were the father of each; and though prophets came from many tribes, priests were not just any of the twelve tribes, but only Levites. Any lie, therefore, has been fabricated in vain; nor will this argument prevail in the Church of Christ and B of the God of the fathers of accurate truth, that a falsehood is constructed for the praise and glorification of Christ.
2. That we may, therefore, refute the ignorance of him who said this, and stop anyone from being scandalized by ignorance, I shall set forth the true history of the facts. For since the names of the lineages in Israel were enumerated either by nature or by law—by nature, indeed, through the succession of genuine seed; and by law, when another begot children in the name of a brother who had died childless. For because the clear hope of resurrection had not yet been given to them, they used to imitate the future promise by a mortal resurrection, so that the name of the one who had departed might not be extinguished. C But since those who are included in this genealogy were partly succeeded by a son from a genuine father, and partly were born to others, but were nevertheless attached to others by name, memory is made of both, namely, of those who begot and of those who were held to be their fathers. Thus, neither of the Gospels lies, while it enumerates both nature and law; for the lineages, both those from Solomon and those from Nathan, have been intertwined.
D Let us set forth the history concerning these matters that has come down to us, which Africanus mentioned in his letter to Aristides concerning the harmony of the genealogy in the Gospels. Having refuted the opinions of others as forced and falsely constructed, he presents the history which he himself had received in these very words: "Because the names of the lineages," etc. You see, therefore, that the refutation of other opinions, as being forced and false, which Africanus made, is to be found nowhere else but in our epitome, immediately at the beginning, as it should be.
A legem. For the lines of Solomon and Nathan were interwoven with each other by the reparation of those who died childless, and by second marriages, and by the raising up of offspring: so that, with good reason, the same men are attributed to different fathers, namely, both to those who appear as such and again to those who are in reality the progenitors; and both narratives, being truly authentic, converge accurately, though in different ways, upon Joseph. But so that what I say may be clear, I shall set forth the permutation of the lineages. The natural generation is that of Matthew; the legal raising up of the lineage is that of Luke. Matthan, who was of the line of Solomon, begat Jacob. After Matthan died, Melchi, who was of the line of Nathan, begat Heli from the same woman. Therefore, Heli and Jacob were brothers by the same mother. When Heli died without children, Jacob raised up offspring to him, having begotten Joseph, who was his son by nature, but by the law, he was the son of Heli. Thus, Joseph was the son of both. B
V. Why does Matthew place David before Abraham in the genealogy of Christ, saying: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham"?
1. The reason is that to David first and alone was it confirmed with an oath that Christ would be born of him according to the flesh; for it is written: "Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne." C And again: "I have made a covenant with my chosen; I have sworn unto David my servant: thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations." And such was the promise of the one being prophesied. But the duration of the kingdom of Solomon is not unknown; for he is said to have held the scepter of Israel for only forty years. How then could it be true, if referred to him: "I will establish his throne for ever"? But if one should say that these things were spoken concerning his royal succession, it must not be ignored that the succession of the kingdom of David and Solomon only lasted until Jechoniah and the Babylonian captivity, with no one being established upon the throne of David after Jechoniah. D And observe how the prophecy added this also concerning the promised descendant, saying: "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son." And again in another place: "He shall call upon me: Thou art my Father; and I will make him my firstborn"; which would be incongruous for Solomon.
2. Moreover, one must set forth what is recorded about him in the Books of Kings in these words: "And King Solomon was a lover of women; and he took many strange wives; both the daughter of Pharaoh, and Moabites, and Ammonites,
EVANGELICAL QUESTIONS TO STEPHEN. — QUESTION V.
Idumeans, Syrians, Hittites, and Amorites: of the nations...A with whom the Lord God forbade the children of Israel, saying: "You shall not enter into them." To which he adds: "And his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father." And a little later: "Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh, the idol of the Moabites, in the mountain that is before Jerusalem, and for Moloch, the idol of the children of Ammon, and for Astarte, the abomination of the Sidonians. And so he did for all his foreign wives, who burnt incense and performed sacrifices to their own gods. And the Lord was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned away from the Lord God of Israel." B If all these things are alleged as an accusation against Solomon, how then will you accommodate to him the oath in which, among other things, it is said: "I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son"? Indeed, these things are manifestly foreign to Solomon; but they are most fitly referred to him whose coming from the seed of David had been predicted, and who in reality emerged from the Davidic stem.
VI. Why does Matthew, after David, not proceed to the immediate successors of the lineage, but leaps to Abraham, and yet not to Adam, nor to any other of the men of old who were beloved by God?
Because, in the first place, various oracles regarding the calling of the nations had been delivered to Abraham. For even before the Mosaic legislation, and before the Jewish nation itself, nay, even before the circumcision, C Abraham was a foreigner: who, migrating from the Chaldean region, forsook his ancestral customs, and having known the God over all, he bore witness that he believed in God; and it was counted to him as righteousness. But he appeared as just and one beloved of God, not on account of the circumcision of the body, nor on account of the observance of the Sabbath, or festivals, or new moons, nor indeed by any of the will-worship brought in by Moses, but by the knowledge of the God over all, and by the manifestation of the Lord who appeared to him (who was indeed our Savior, the Word of God), and finally by his holy life endowed with virtues. D To him, therefore, who had followed such a mode of piety, the promise regarding the nations was given, as though they too would one day, according to the zeal of Abraham, be pious and would obtain a blessing equal to that of the God-beloved patriarch. Since these things are so, it was consistent that Abraham, the prince of the called nations, should be taken up by the Evangelist as the second after David. For these were the two illustrious men to whom first God graciously signified beforehand the coming of Christ and the calling of the nations. And it was right that he to whom the nativity of the Savior of all men was promised should be preferred in order to him who received the promises concerning the calling of the nations; yet the patriarch of the nations themselves was to be written second in the genealogy. Wherefore the book of Jesus Christ takes its beginning, first indeed from him who was the carnal progenitor of Jesus Christ; and then from...
A that One who by the Spirit was the Father of those to be saved through Christ. For the Savior was to go before the saved nations.
VII. [Z] B Why did Matthew, in making mention of Tamar, not also mention any other woman illustrious for the praise of her deeds?
1. If anyone attempts to calumniate Tamar as a harlot, let him hear Judas himself saying: “Tamar is more righteous than I, in that I did not give her to Silom my son.” For she did not stand upon the roof with the intention of playing the harlot, but with a chaste purpose, for the sake of bearing children, she hunted out Judas. Nor is the reason hidden. For Judas had commanded her to remain at home until Silom his son should grow up, intending that he himself would take her; and she had complied readily, remaining childless and a widow, waiting for the pledges of Judas. But when he did not bring his promises to an end—since the longing for children was then a matter of great concern to men of that time, and childlessness was reckoned by all then as the greatest of evils—perceiving that Judas had deceived her and that the hopes placed in his son had been taken in vain, she C sets upon the man. No law of Moses, nor of the prophets, nor of any other person, forbade such things at that time. And then she contrives the child-bearing from him; by not showing who she was, she managed to come together with him, at once exposing her own chastity and his incontinence. For she had remained a widow and childless, obeying him for many years; and although it was possible for her to marry another and to become a mother of children by some man of an alien race, she does not do this, desiring the kinship of the ancestors of Judas, Abraham and Isaac, and indeed that of Israel as well. But he, having left the girl in widowhood and having kept the maiden childless for D long years, was not able to restrain himself after the death of his wife. For no sooner did the wife of Judas die than he—with no law of such a kind yet forbidding it—supposing the aforementioned woman to be a harlot, was taken in by her while not acting rightly. Because, being such a man himself, he deprived her—who had for long years awaited his promises and had demonstrated a philosophical and temperate life—of the fruit of child-bearing.
2. Therefore, having submitted herself to the man in this way, she became the mother of twin offspring from him at the first encounter, God granting this to her as a reward for her good purpose. For, since she could have given herself to others and enjoyed lovers of alien races and of the gentiles, she plotted nothing of the sort; but rather she prayed to be made worthy of the race of pious men. And indeed, although she was of an alien race, she sustained such and so praiseworthy a character. Furthermore, Tamar did not dare to have relations with Judas before...
the death of his former wife. For she considered the undertaking to be impious before her death. She remained, therefore, in her own father's house, even though she was childless, and she would have remained barren to the end had she not considered that the time was right for her to conceive. Wherefore, as I said, she was deemed worthy of God as a collaborator, who from her single union with Judas gifted her with the abundant fruit of twin children, performing at once mysterious dispensations regarding the birth of these children. B For this reason, I think especially that the wonderful evangelist included the entire mention of them in the genealogy of our Savior. For to me, the account of Scripture does not seem to signify any ordinary events regarding the birth of the twin children born to her, Zara and Phares. And for this reason, Matthew mentions both of them along with their mother, saying: "Judas begat Phares and Zara by Tamar." For why did it not suffice him to say, "Judas begat Phares," passing over Zara, as he did in the case of Jacob, where, mentioning him alone, he left out Esau?
3. He adds also from what mother they were born, namely from Tamar, C by which words he urges us in a way to consider the history concerning them. For Moses writes in Genesis, saying: "And it came to pass when Tamar was about to give birth, that there were twins in her womb. And it came to pass in her bearing, that one put forth his hand, and the midwife having taken it, tied a scarlet thread around his hand, saying, This one will come out first. But as he drew back his hand, his brother straightway came out. And the woman said, Why was the barrier broken for thee? And she called his name Phares. And after this his brother came out, on whose hand was the scarlet thread; and she called his name Zara." 38 Dost thou see how many things the birth of the aforementioned contains? For which reason I think that the mysteries signified in these things by the wonderful evangelist were not passed over in silence. Therefore, the holy Apostle, interpreting the word "barrier" (perhaps in relation to where it was said, "Why was the barrier broken for thee?"), speaks thus in the Epistle to the Ephesians: D "For he is our peace, who made both one, and having broken down the middle wall of the barrier, the enmity in his flesh, having abolished the law of commandments in ordinances, that he might create the two in himself into one new man, and might reconcile both in one body to God." 29
4. Now then, having fixed your mind on these things, see whether the single birth of the two aforementioned—both he of Phares, on account of whom the barrier was broken, and he of the first who put forth his hand but the second to come out—signifies the two modes of life which those who were deemed worthy of birth from God have used; living partly in the Gospel, and partly under the law of Moses. But indeed, the one according to the Gospel was the first to put forth his hand; yet he did not come out into the light first. But having withdrawn his hand, he allowed the one according to Moses, who was second, to come out first. Thus, that which was first,
the last, with the sign tied to his hand, by which the prior one is proved to be prior. A For the life of the God-loving men before Moses was [a life] according to the Gospel of Christ, in which Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Melchizedek, and Job are reported to have excelled, and long before these, Noah, Shem, and Japheth, and Enoch, and as many as were similar to these. All of these, therefore, were righteous and pious and beloved of God; and indeed others are told of, who are in confession alien to the Mosaic law. These, clearly, anticipating the Mosaic custom, shone forth with the same evangelical philosophy as we have.
5. And that former life was denoted by Zarah, which is interpreted as "rising" or "dawn." For the first rays of the dawn of piety shone forth through those who were the first to be religious among men; such were they who, before Moses, immediately from the first creation of men, practiced the holy worship of God. And they, not otherwise than Zarah, first put forth their hand, B making known a life of practical virtue, which, however, they did not hold fast to, since the character of those who followed them retreated from it. And meanwhile, the wall being as it were divided, his brother went forth—the life according to Moses, which the marvelous Apostle called the "middle wall." Wherefore he also was called Pharez, a name taken from the division of the wall, for Pharez is explained as "division." Hence, also, the Pharisees among the Jews excelled, because they had separated themselves from the commingling of the multitude by a certain faction. It would have been, therefore, much happier and far better for the wall not to have been divided, but to have remained one and undivided. And this would have happened if, to him who first put forth his hand, the following one had succeeded and lived in the same manner of life. C For it would have been far better if the followers of the circumcision had embraced the customs of the ancient men beloved of God; for thus there would have been one wall, and one edification of the first and the last.
6. But since the infirmity of the second [people] did not allow the first way to prevail, the division of the wall which is according to God having rightly come to pass, and the middle wall of the fence having been placed between, he who had of old first put forth his hand went forth second into the light, through our Savior Jesus Christ, who recovered the most ancient and primitive wall. Wherefore the prophecy also says of him: "And thou shalt be called a builder of walls." D This one also took away the aforementioned middle wall; because, being Lord also of the Sabbath, he makes both one, as the holy Apostle says: "For he is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of the partition." And explaining what the middle wall is, he adds: "Having abolished the law of commandments in ordinances," having removed from the way the middle wall of the Mosaic law, which kept us who are from the Gentiles from the piety according to God, because it was not possible for all the nations, even if they had wished, to live according to the Mosaic formula.
A Likewise, as we have established in the *Evangelical Demonstrations*, He set forth the life according to the Gospel for all, having made the generation of that first manner of piety perfect and more illustrious, while at the same time bearing in His hand the testimony that He Himself was the first to exist. For the life delivered to all nations through the saving Gospel was that very life which also had stretched forth its hand before Moses, and which had been demonstrated through the actions of the first men who were beloved by God. And this was Zara, who had established in human beings the first rising of the divine commonwealth; and he became the same, the beginning and the end, the first and the last, a small rising which at the last shone forth again to all men. However, it is also fitting to add to what has been said, that the book of the generation of Jesus Christ does not present the one being genealogized as originating from the first of the two—I mean from Zara—but from the second, namely Phares; since He was born according to the flesh from the clan and seed of the second, not only being born of a woman, but also being made under the Law, that He might redeem those who were under the Law, according to the testimony of the Apostle concerning this matter as well.
VIII. Why the Evangelist made mention of the wife of Uriah in the genealogy.
B 1. The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, when it says, "David the king begot Solomon from her who was Uriah’s," seems almost to declare and announce that the prayers and supplications of David would soon obtain their desired end. For the book contains the incarnation of Jesus Christ, the Savior and physician of all, by whose work alone David hoped to be absolved from the sin concerning Uriah and his wife, and to be extricated from the sentence of death. C Therefore, David himself, prophesying in the Psalms about Jesus Christ undergoing death (by whose benefit the soul of David also was to be delivered), signified the Savior’s descent to the dead and his own salvation, saying, "O Lord, You have brought up my soul from Hades; You have saved me from those who go down into the pit." And that: "You who exalt me from the gates of death." And that: "You will not leave my soul in Hades." And that: "Turning back, You have quickened me, and from the deeps of the earth You have brought me up again." Who, then, was the one who descended and brought him up from the deeps? Who was the one who saved him from those who go down into the pit? None other than He concerning whom D the wonderful evangelist writes the book of the generation, bringing us tidings—among other good things—also of the good things regarding David.
2. Moreover, I believe that David fell into this stumble on account of this one utterance, which in the twentieth and
A twenty-ninth psalm he says escaped him: "I said in my abundance, I shall not be moved forever." For to be high-minded and to utter such a statement—that he would never be moved, but would remain unshaken and impassive in his abundance—was arrogant and proud, and not like this: "Unless the Lord build the house, in vain have those labored who build it; unless the Lord guard the city, in vain has the watchman been awake." Therefore, having come into an abundance of good things from God, and having progressed greatly in virtue, he dared to say, "I shall not be moved forever." And for this reason, he is immediately abandoned by the Lord who works the good things with him, and an alien spirit becomes attached to him. He says, therefore, in the same psalm: "I said in my abundance, I shall not be moved forever. But you turned your face away, and I became troubled. O Lord, by your will you granted power to my beauty." By this he teaches that having previously said, "I shall not be moved forever," he later, when God turned His face away on account of his boastful utterance, confesses that he became troubled; and then, having been benefited by these things, he no longer ascribes his former achievements to himself, but to God, saying: "O Lord, by your will you granted power to my beauty." For when, he says, you turned Your face away and I became troubled, then I knew that even before—by Your will—you had granted power to my beauty. For if there was any beauty existing in my soul before the sin, this very thing was present to me from Your grace and gift. And he confesses these things B after the realization of his own weakness.
3. Moreover, when Nathan the prophet came to him, at the time he had entered in to Bersabe, and he sends up the prayer in the fiftieth Psalm, saying: "To You C alone have I sinned, and done what is evil before You," saying, "To You alone have I sinned," he does not— D and again the prophecy: "Boast not, and do not speak lofty things into the height, nor let a boastful word come out of your mouth"; and Solomon also says: "Do not boast of tomorrow, for you do not know what the coming day will bring." But David, having come into an abundance of good things from God, and having progressed greatly in virtue, dared to say: "I shall not be moved forever." Therefore, he is immediately abandoned by the Lord who works the good things with him, and an evil spirit becomes attached to him; whence he says: "I said in my abundance, I shall not be moved forever. But You turned your face away, and I became troubled," teaching that having previously said, "I shall not be moved forever," afterwards, when God turned His face away on account of the boastful voice, he confesses that he became troubled; then, having been benefited by these things, he no longer ascribes his former achievements to himself, but to God, saying: "O Lord, by Your will You granted power to my beauty." For, "When You turned Your face away and I became troubled," then I knew that even before, by Your will and from Your grace and gift, the beauty existed in my soul. Wherefore he says: "I was lifted up and I was humbled and I was in despair; but it is good for me that You humbled me, so that I might learn Your statutes; and I knew, O Lord, that Your judgments are righteousness, and in truth You have humbled me."
A psalm is, he uttered: "Against You only have I sinned, and done this evil in Your sight." But when he says, "Against You only have I sinned," he does not mean by this that he sinned against God alone; for his manner of sinning did not involve blasphemy, nor perjury, nor any such impiety as would lead one to think he had sinned against God alone. But, if one must speak plainly, he had sinned greatly against Bathsheba, and most of all against Uriah, and first of all against his own soul. Why, then, does he say here, "Against You only have I sinned"? I believe he says this because to You alone my sin was known. He therefore adds more clearly: "And done this evil in Your sight," for I had no fear of men, unless Your fear had come upon me. Having therefore cast his face to the ground, he says he will not rise before he obtains grace. And all who favor his well-being join in prayer with him, petitioning that he might be heard; wherefore it is said in the one hundred and thirty-first psalm: B "Remember, O Lord, David and all his meekness; how he vowed a vow unto the Lord, and prayed to the God of Jacob. If I shall enter into the tabernacle of my house, if I shall climb up into my bed, if I shall give sleep to my eyes, or slumber to my eyelids, until I find a place for the Lord, a tabernacle for the God of Jacob."
4. While he prays and affirms that he will not go up into his bed, nor enter his house, and furthermore will not give slumber to his eyelids until he finds the future place of the Lord, the Lord shows him Bethlehem. Wherefore, after his prayer, the holy angels of God who pray with him add in sequence: C "Lo, we heard of it at Ephratha." Ephratha, moreover, is Bethlehem, as Moses records, saying: "And Rachel died, and was buried on the way to Ephratha; the same is Bethlehem." But Micah also states that Ephratha is Bethlehem, saying: "And you, Bethlehem, house of Ephratha, are by no means the least among the princes of Judah." Then David prays not only to know the place of the Lord, but also whence His tabernacle should be. The tabernacle is the wrapping and the body which the Word of God assumed. Regarding the place, they rightly foretold by saying: "Lo, we heard of it at Ephratha." But concerning the tabernacle, they immediately add for him: D "The Lord swore truth to David, and will not frustrate it; of the fruit of your body I will set upon your throne." By these words David is instructed that the tabernacle destined for the Lord was to be the fruit that would be born from his own lineage.
IX.
Why the Evangelist made mention of Ruth
1. And how was the divine Apostle, who in the spirit foresaw the calling of the Gentile nations that was to come through his Gospel, not to mention the foreign woman? For Ruth was a foreigner and
A indeed one of those aliens whose intercourse Moses had forbidden, namely the Moabites. "The Moabites," he says, "and Ammonites shall not enter the Church of the Lord up to the third and fourth generation, and even forever." But yet, this woman, having become a lover of God, which is better than the law, entered into the Church of the Lord, since the Law speaks to those who are under the Law: "For the law is not laid down for the just, but for the unjust and refractory, for the ungodly and sinners." Ruth was not of this sort; even though by descent she was a foreigner, she surpassed the ordinance of the Law and entered into the Church of the Lord, and she was accounted of the Israelite race, and was deemed worthy to be included among the ancestors of our Savior, not because of the nobility of her body, but because of her character. She became a very great example to all of us foreigners who are from the nations, that if we do things similar to her, we shall obtain equal grace from God.
2. Therefore, as he was about to proclaim the calling and adoption of the foreigners, he rightly B placed this woman in the genealogy, instructing us who are foreigners from the nations, as it were, through her, that because we have abandoned our ancestral ways, the consequences will rightly be fulfilled in us too. For we shall no longer be counted among foreigners, nor shall we be named as coming from foreigners, but from the true Israel and the people who are the inheritance of God. And necessarily, the evangelist once again mentioned Ruth, having explained through her history the causes that dissolved the prohibition of the Law, which said, "The Moabites shall not enter the Church of the Lord." For the Moabitess became like Rachel and Leah, both of whom built up the house of Israel. But why would the mention of Ruth not be useful for the genealogy of our Savior Jesus Christ, concerning whom it was also said, "Do valiantly in Ephrathah, C and there shall be a name in Bethlehem"? For one might rightly say that these are clear prophecies: seeing the name from Bethlehem—which Matthew says is in the genealogy of Jesus Christ—proclaimed to every race of men, and the power that occurred in Ephrathah—by which power all the nations recognized the Christ of God who was genealogized from Ruth, and through Him parted from their ancestral rites just as Ruth did, and gave themselves to the God of Israel just like her. For these reasons, it seems to me that the mention of Ruth was not rashly taken up into the genealogy of Matthew.
X. Why the evangelist calls Jehoiakim by the name Jechonias.
1. This man was dual-named. But since, according to the prophet Jeremiah, he is reproached when called Jechonias—through the words which say, "Jechonias is dishonored as a vessel D of which there is no need; because he was cast out, he and his seed; Earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord: Write this man down as proscribed, for no man of his seed shall prosper sitting upon the throne of David, ruling still in Judah"—and because, on account of these things, it happened that the
A said person endured the Babylonian captivity along with the people, the marvelous evangelist, when recording the generation of the Redeemer and Savior of all, justly made mention also of this man who was held in contempt and cast out with his seed into the land of the Babylonians, who had become a proscribed man and a captive; teaching that He who was sent by the Father to preach deliverance to the captives, even He was Jesus Christ, concerning whom he writes the book, and to whom the oracle recited in the prophet refers: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to bring good news to the poor, to proclaim liberty to the captives." Concerning whom the same prophet also says elsewhere: "He shall build my city, and he shall bring back the captivity of my people."
B 2. Therefore, Matthew, who records the genealogy of the Son of God, announces the coming of the Redeemer to Jeconiah himself and his soul, and to those who had suffered the same ignominy and captivity of soul as he: and he brings down also the genealogy of other guilty and sinful men. For it is one and the same discourse that makes mention of David's crime concerning the wife of Uriah, and of the fornication of Judah, and of the alien woman, the Moabitess Ruth. The same discourse presents Jesus as living with publicans and sinners, and enduring most shameful things from men, and finally as being crucified with evildoers. And this was the discourse by which it was said: "Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world." For it was necessary that He who was to be the purifier of all past and future sins, C and who was about to lay down his soul for the souls of men—it was necessary, I say, that He should endure all those evils and, being innocent, sustain the punishments of sinners and the impious, so that the oracles spoken concerning Him, and the rest, might find their fulfillment. Concerning the same, the marvelous Isaiah also says: "He bears our sins, and suffers for us: he was wounded for our iniquities, he was made weak for our transgressions: by his stripe we all are healed."
3. But if the prophet says concerning Jeconiah to the land: "Write this man down as proscribed, for no man of his seed shall prosper sitting upon the throne of David, ruling still in Judah"—he does not strictly deny that his seed would continue to exist, but affirms that no one of his D lineage would rule among the Jewish nation. And this truly came to pass. Therefore, he says: "Jeconiah has been held in derision, like a vessel for which there is no use. Wherefore he himself and his seed have been cast out into a land which he did not know"—by which words he clearly designates the land of Babylon. Yet He who was sent to proclaim liberty to the captives, and to loose the chains of sins and the bonds of souls long held captive by death, came indeed to effect the salvation of all these. Wherefore David prophesies concerning Him: "He sent his word, and healed them from their destructions. Let them confess to the Lord his mercies and his marvelous works."
A His wondrous works to the sons of men. For he hath broken the gates of brass, and cut the bars of iron in sunder. And he took them up from the way of their iniquity. They were brought low: but he brought them out of darkness and the shadow of death, and hath broken their bonds in sunder. These things are said, indeed, concerning the redemption from death by Christ; to which another oracle agrees: "Death hath been swallowed up by might." And again: "God hath taken away every tear from every face." Moreover, it is to be observed that the prophecy which says, "There shall not rise from the seed of Jechonias one who sits upon the throne of David, ruling any more in Juda," does not fail; because no one, in fact, was a successor of the Davidic kingdom of the tribe of Juda after Jechonias. For after the Babylonian captivity, the whole nation remained subject to the high priests until the advent of our Savior Jesus Christ: while in the meantime, there were tetrarchs, such as those about Herod and Philip, a governor, Pontius Pilate, B and over all, Caesar the emperor.
XI. Why the evangelist uses distinctions in the genealogy, not connecting the forty-two generations from Abraham to Christ all at once, but dividing the successions along the segments which he writes.
Because of the different conditions of the people, which are manifest from history. For one condition existed from Abraham down to David, and another again from David down to the captivity, which is followed by a third down to Christ. For indeed, from Abraham down to David, it is evident that the Hebrews were not under kings, but after Moses and Joshua those called judges by them ruled the nation; and there was a certain peculiar manner of their succession. Furthermore, perhaps Jerusalem was not yet built, nor certainly was the temple there. Wherefore, the evangelist wisely, without disturbing the history, stopped at David while counting the descendants of Abraham separately. Then again, since from David down to the captivity the Hebrews used their own kings—partly the successors of David, and partly those C who ruled over the separated portion of the people—during which period of time the temple at Jerusalem persisted from its founding until the captivity, the evangelist rightly separated these also and concluded them in a distinct class. D Now, since after the captivity down to Christ there was no longer a kingdom of David, but the principality had fallen from the tribe of Juda to the priestly race—which governance lasted from the times of Cyrus down to the birth of Christ—he therefore also counted these successors in a separate class. These, then, were the causes on account of which the evangelist did not make the three distinctions without reason.
XII. Why, when from the times of David down to Jechonias or the Babylonian captivity there were seventeen kings, the evangelist says there are fourteen generations.
1. If it were his intent to record successions...
one might plausibly reproach him for having broken off the series of kings. For it is affirmed with constancy in the books of Kings and in Chronicles that after Joram son of Josaphat, three kings reigned in succession: Ochozias, Joasus, and Amesias; to whom succeed Ozias, Joatham, and Achaz. Nevertheless, the evangelist, having passed over the three former, immediately attaches Ozias, Jotham, and Achaz to Joram son of Josaphat, skipping those who were between them. A If, I say, he had done this while having determined to set forth the succession of kings, his writing might appear in a certain sense faulty. But in truth he did not propose to himself to enumerate successions, but generations: this is what the language of the speaker signifies, saying: "So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and again from David to Jechonias or the Babylonian captivity, fourteen generations," B and not fourteen successions; he will therefore deservedly be free from every reproach. Now because Matthew has not used the term successions, and the history of the Kings and Chronicles narrate successions and not generations, no contradiction appears in the comparison of these.
2. For one cannot call the term of a man’s life a "generation," since it often happens that some live briefly and are extinguished quickly at the age of an infant; others go on to boyhood; others to youth; others to virile age; and others even prolong their life to extreme C old age. What sort of thing, then, can one estimate a generation to be? Since one lives only to the tenth year, another to the twentieth, another to the fiftieth, another to the seventieth; and another, having exceeded even the hundredth year, is seen not only among the ancients but also among us. Why then do they think that a man’s life should be called a generation? Nor can it be allowed to call the time up to the first child-bearing a generation; for some, marrying before the twentieth year of age, beget children, while others do not do so even after the thirtieth year of age. D And among those of the same age you may see some still remaining in their first child-bearing, while others have already progressed to the fourth; so that at the fiftieth year some see grandchildren, while others, in the space of seventy years, do not obtain any child at all. In what way, then, were generations to be counted: from the long-lived or the short-lived? From those who beget early or late? From those who are in their first child-bearing, or from those who already have many children? Having weighed these things, the divine evangelist, not being eager to write successions, but enumerating generations according to the principle he had explored for himself, neglected the history of successions; he assumed for the genealogy as many men as sufficed him for completing the fourteen generations. Thus his account is preserved sound and is in no way contrary to the history of the Scriptures.
QUESTION XIII.
Why, when there are twelve in the genealogy from Jechoniah to Joseph, does the evangelist again say there are fourteen?1. The reason is the same. For he did not wish to register successions, but generations, as I said. It often happens in the case of long-lived men of great age that, whatever the number of successors may be, the number of generations is nonetheless full. For this reason, just as in the category of the patriarchs from David to the captivity, although the number of successors was somewhat greater, fewer generations were set forth by the evangelist—for in the successions of seventeen men, fourteen generations are stated—so now, too, by the same intent, in the successions of twelve men, fourteen generations are said to be completed, because, as is B likely, those twelve were long-lived and of great age, so that they sufficed for the completion of the fourteen generations. This is the first response to the question.
2. But you might find another explanation if you were to consider the history carefully, that fourteen are named in this present succession if, in addition to the twelve, you should count Jesus Christ Himself, the reputed son of Joseph, and add to these Jechoniah, namely the one who was carried away to Babylon, not the other who reigned in Jerusalem before the deportation. For there were two homonymous men named Joakim after Josiah: the one who was the son of Josiah himself, who reigned after him in Jerusalem, and another, his son, C also named Joakim. These men were also called Jechoniah, as their name was inclined toward the Greek form. The first Joakim, who was also the son of Josias, let him be reckoned among the generations before the captivity. But his son, the second Joakim, who is likewise Jechoniah, being the son of the first Joakim and grandson of Josiah, if he be reckoned with those who were between the captivity and Christ, the number of fourteen generations will be complete.
3. Now, that there were two Joakims, the Book of Reigns will bear witness, having matters in this way: "And Pharaoh Necho made Eliakim son of Josiah king over Israel, in place of Josiah his father, and changed his name to Joakim." D To which it adds: "Joakim was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem." To which, after other things, it adds: "And the rest of the words of Joakim, and all that he did, behold, are they not written in the book of the words of the days of the kings of Judah? And Joakim slept with his fathers, and Joakim his son reigned in his place. Joakim was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months in Jerusalem. The name of his mother was Estha. And he did evil before
the eyes of the Lord, according to all that his father had done. At that time Nabuchodonosor, king of Babylon, came up against Jerusalem, and the city was in siege; and the king of Babylon entered into the city, and his servants besieged it. And Joakim, king of Judah, went out to the king of Babylon, himself and his servants, and his mother, and his eunuchs; and he led away the mighty men of the land captive from Jerusalem to Babylon.” This, therefore, is the second Joakim who was carried away to Babylon; he is the same whom Jeremiah calls Jechonias, being the grandson of Josiah, but not his son. For this reason he is rightly reckoned in the third class of the fourteen generations which run from Jechonias to Christ; while his father, who was the son of Josiah, is numbered with his parent in the preceding generations. And thus the entire number of the last A fourteen generations is completed for us, with the father of the one mentioned above being counted in the former generations; and in this way the number of the final fourteen generations stands complete for us.
XIV. Why our Savior chose to be called the son of a carpenter, rather than of some noble and illustrious man.
He did not come to demonstrate His divine kingdom; therefore, He did not appear to us in a glorious or pompous manner. Moreover, His path to heaven was of such a kind that He might purify the life of men, while He gave Himself up from the flock of mankind as the Lamb of God, doomed to death and an offering for all of us. Wherefore, in order that he might tend toward this end without any hindrance, He took care to conceal and shroud in darkness most of His miracles, now forbidding that the things He had done should be brought to the notice of the crowd, now seeking out deserted places and sojournings in the mountains. Furthermore, He did not show His divine B transfiguration to all His disciples, but only to three; and He even commanded these same ones not to tell anyone of the vision until the Son of Man should rise from the dead. Nor would He have suffered for us those things which are written, if He had arrived in the likeness of a magnificent king, with a divine retinue or army, at once performing divine prodigies and demonstrating Himself to be superior to all nature. Rightly, therefore, according to the Apostle, “He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant,” and did not refuse to be called the son of poor Joseph. For thus the truthful sentiment speaking of Him appears: “Being rich, for our sake He became poor, that by His poverty we might become rich.”
XV. In what way Jesus is said to have sat upon the throne of David.
1. The throne of David is understood in different ways. In one way, as if someone were to say that it signifies C that [throne] upon which
a king sits, which perhaps was made of ivory and wood, and adorned with gold and royal stones. In another way, we are accustomed to call the rule itself and the leadership of the entire nation a throne of dominion. A third way, besides those already mentioned, is that by which the throne promised by God to David may be called his, not on which he himself sat, but which the divine Scriptures contain regarding him through heavenly prophecies. For it is written in the eighty-eighth psalm: "How I have sworn to David my servant, I will prepare your seed unto the age, and I will build your throne unto generation and generation." And again: "And I will set his seed unto the age of the age, and his throne as the days of heaven." And again: "Once I have sworn in my holy place, if I lie unto David, his seed remains unto the age, and his throne as the sun before me, and as the moon set up unto the age, and the witness in heaven is faithful."
B 2. Since, therefore, God had promised through these words that He would give to David a throne that would endure unto the age, just as the days of heaven and as the sun and the moon, there was, because of this, a great expectation among the whole nation of the Jews concerning the throne that had been indicated. But after David had ruled for a short time, and Solomon after him, and indeed their royal successors had come to an end with Jechonias and the captivity in Babylon, so that after that time the royal throne of David had been overturned, the promises of these divine oracles seemed not to be consistent with themselves. Wherefore, by the same divine Spirit, the aforementioned psalm again, after the preceding words, speaks thus: "Where are C your ancient mercies, O Lord, which you swore to David in your truth?" And it also openly signifies the destruction of his kingdom and of his succession, and the ruin of the throne, in what follows by these words: "But you have rejected and despised, O Lord, you have delayed your Anointed; you have overturned the testament of your servant, you have profaned his sanctuary unto the ground," and it adds: "and you have cast down his throne unto the ground."
3. All these things the Spirit gathers together at the same point, as if wishing to teach us that the promises made to David were not concerning a sensible kingdom, nor concerning a throne understood in a more corporeal way. D For those [prophecies] predicted a certain eternal throne, likened to the sun and the heaven, and remaining unto the age; but the sensible kingdom of David was dissolved in no long time. Rightly, therefore, having described the destruction of the throne of David’s sensible kingdom, and having said, "and you have cast down his throne unto the ground," he follows with a prayer concerning the eternal and heavenly throne promised by the divine oracles, saying: "Where are your ancient mercies, O Lord, which you swore to David in your truth?"—as if he were claiming that the outcomes of the things promised to him with the confirmation of an oath should attain their end.
A 4. This, indeed, is that throne which God swore to give to David, as the days of heaven and as the sun in the sight of God, and as the moon perfected forever, and which the whole nation longed to see established. And the great angel Gabriel announces to the Virgin that this is about to be given to the One to be born of her, and so he says to her: "And you shall call his name Jesus; he will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David." He then continues and says: "And he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end." These things B harmonize with the interpretation of the oracles; for the one who predicted to David regarding the throne of an eternal and heavenly kingdom, and who likewise says that the One to be born of the Virgin will receive the throne of David—that is, the one promised to David but not yet given [(21)]—he, then, was the heavenly one who was to remain forever. This, therefore, was also the conclusion of a very great prophecy uttered to David, expected by the whole people, and fulfilled in our Savior Jesus Christ, according to the testimony of Gabriel, who said: "And he will reign forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end." Wherefore even the Savior and our Lord himself, when he was asked if he himself were the King of the Jews, replied: "My kingdom is not of this world." For the throne of his kingdom conferred upon him nothing mortal or temporal; but he was like a light shining in the whole assembly of men, as the sun and as the moon perfected forever, illuminating intellectual souls through his divine and heavenly teaching.
C 5. But if it is said that he will reign over Jacob, do not think that the Jewish nation is signified by Jacob. Certainly, Luke the evangelist, who records these things, since he committed the words of Gabriel to his own writing after the ascension of our Savior into heaven, knew clearly that Jesus the Savior had by no means reigned over the Jewish nation, nor was he to exercise an eternal empire over them; indeed, he records their machinations and lethal crimes against him, and not only in the Gospel, but also in the Acts of the Apostles he writes of the hostile attacks of the Jews against the disciples of Jesus. Therefore, since he judged that it was signified by the very voice of Gabriel that Christ would reign over them, he would not have judged it to be truly stated unless he believed that all men, having been taken into the adoption of the sons of God through the calling D of our Savior from all nations, were signified by the house of Jacob. Whence also the divine Apostle, being clearly instructed, says: "For he is not a Jew who is one in the manifest, nor is that which is in the manifest in the flesh circumcision; but he is a Jew who is one in secret, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter, whose praise is not from men but from God."
QUESTION XVI
A How is it that Matthew relates that Jesus was carried by his parents from Bethlehem into Egypt, while Luke says he was taken to Jerusalem, and from there to Nazareth?1. Luke, while recording the time of our Savior's birth, mentions the reign of Augustus and the census described under him. He says that they lacked a lodging in Bethlehem, as it is probable that a multitude of the descendants of David were flocking there for the sake of registering their names; for which reason Joseph could not even find a house. Hence he says that Mary, after giving birth, wrapped the infant in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn. And it is indeed reasonable that, due to the crowds flocking for the census, they were without a guest-chamber. Furthermore, he says, "When the days were completed for him to be circumcised"—which, of course, had to take place on the eighth day after birth—"they brought the child to Jerusalem, and having fulfilled the things prescribed by law concerning him, they departed to Nazareth." B Matthew mentions nothing of these things recorded by Luke, but having left these matters to Luke, he narrates other things himself. And what were these, if not the arrival of the Magi from the East? They were stirred from their own land at the very time of Jesus' birth, as a star indicated to them the knowledge of his birth, but they certainly did not complete such a long journey in a short time. For it is not credible that they arrived in Judea from the East within eight days, so that we should think the time of their arrival was the same as the time of our Savior's birth. Yet, when they inquire and say, "Where is he who is born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star, and have come to worship him," they do not, as someone might suppose, mean the one born just recently, at the time they are making these inquiries; but they mean the one who was born C at the time when the star appeared to them.
2. And how long this interval of time was between the star that appeared to the Magi at the time of our Savior's birth and their arrival in Jerusalem, the evangelist himself will teach you by saying: "Then Herod, having secretly called the Magi, diligently learned from them the time of the star which appeared to them." And when, having accurately inquired from them, he learned who he was, after the Magi withdrew secretly and he saw that he had been mocked by them, "he was greatly angered, and sending forth, he killed all the children who were in Bethlehem, and in all its borders, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had accurately learned from the Magi." D Two years, therefore, had already passed from the birth of Jesus until the arrival of those mentioned. So the sacred evangelists are not in disagreement, even if Luke takes him with his parents to Jerusalem on the eighth day after his birth for the sake of fulfilling the lawful requirements and from there takes him to Nazareth, while Matthew writes that they were again in Bethlehem after a two-year period; and that from there they retreated into Egypt on account of the king's treachery. It is credible that they did not only once but often...