Church Fathers Commentary Matthew 1

St. Jerome: "The face of a man" (in Ezekiel's vision) signifies Matthew, who accordingly opens his Gospel with the human genealogy of Christ.¹

Rabanus Maurus: By this introduction, he shows that he has undertaken to narrate the birth of Christ according to the flesh.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: Matthew wrote for the Jews, and in Hebrewⁱ; for them, it was unnecessary to explain the divinity which they already recognized, but it was necessary to unfold the mystery of the Incarnation. John wrote in Greek for the Gentiles, who knew nothing of a Son of God. Therefore, they first needed to be told that the Son of God was God, and then that this Deity was incarnate.²

Rabanus Maurus: Although the genealogy occupies only a small part of the volume, he still begins with the words, The book of the generation. For it is the custom of the Hebrews to name their books from their opening words, such as Genesis.

Glossa Ordinaria: The full expression would be, "This is the book of the generation," but this is a common ellipsis; for example, "The vision of Isaiah" is used for, "This is the vision."

He uses "generation" in the singular, even though many successive generations are given, because the others are introduced for the sake of the one generation of Christ.

St. John Chrysostom: Or, he entitles it The book of the generation because this is the sum of the whole dispensation, the root of all its blessings—namely, that God became man. For once this was accomplished, all other things followed as a matter of course.³

Rabanus Maurus: He says, The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, because he knew it was written, The book of the generation of Adam. He begins this way, then, to oppose book to book, the new Adam to the old. For by the one, all things that had been corrupted by the other were restored.

St. Jerome: We read in Isaiah, Who shall declare his generation? (Isaiah 53:8). But it does not follow that the Evangelist contradicts the Prophet or undertakes what he declares to be impossible. For Isaiah is speaking of the generation of the divine nature, while Matthew is speaking of the human incarnation.⁴

St. John Chrysostom: And do not consider this genealogy a small thing to hear, for it is truly a marvelous thing that God should descend to be born of a woman and to have David and Abraham as His ancestors.

Remigius of Auxerre: Even if someone affirms that the prophet Isaiah does speak of His human generation, we need not answer his inquiry, "Who shall declare it?" with "No man," but rather with, "Very few," because Matthew and Luke have done so.

Rabanus Maurus: By saying, "of Jesus Christ," he expresses that both the kingly and priestly offices are in Him. For Joshua, who first bore the name Jesus, was the leader of the children of Israel after Moses; and Aaron, anointed with the mystical ointment, was the first priest under the Law.

St. Hilary of Poitiers: The same status that God conferred on those consecrated as kings or priests by the anointing of oil, the Holy Spirit conferred on the man Christ, adding a purification as well. The Holy Spirit cleansed that which was taken from the Virgin Mary and exalted into the body of the Savior. This is the anointing of the Savior's flesh from which He was called Christ.ⁱ⁵

Because the impious craft of the Jews denied that Jesus was born of the seed of David, Matthew adds, The son of David, the son of Abraham.

St. John Chrysostom: But why would it not have been enough to name only one of them, either David or Abraham? Because the promise that Christ would be born of their seed had been made to both. To Abraham: And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed (Genesis 22:18). To David: Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne (Psalm 132:11).

He therefore calls Christ the Son of both to show that the promise to both was fulfilled in Him. It is also because Christ was to have three dignities: King, Prophet, and Priest. Abraham was a prophet and a priest—a priest, as God says to him in Genesis, Take an heifer (Genesis 15:9); and a prophet, as the Lord said to Abimelech concerning him, He is a prophet, and shall pray for thee (Genesis 20:7). David was a king and a prophet, but not a priest.

Thus, He is expressly called the son of both so that the threefold dignity of His forefathers might be recognized by hereditary right in Christ.

St. Ambrose of Milan: He therefore specifically names two authors of His birth: one who received the promise concerning the nations of the world, and the other who obtained the oracle concerning the generation of Christ. And though David is later in the order of succession, he is named first, inasmuch as it is greater to have received the promise concerning Christ than the promise concerning the Church, which exists through Christ. For He who saves is greater than that which is saved.⁶

St. Jerome: The order of the names is inverted, but out of necessity. For if he had written Abraham first and David afterward, he would have had to repeat Abraham's name again to preserve the genealogical series.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: Another reason is that royal dignity is above natural dignity; though Abraham was first in time, David is first in honor.

Glossa Ordinaria: But since it appears from this title that the whole book is about Jesus Christ, it is first necessary to know what we must believe concerning Him. For in this way, what the book relates about Him will be better explained.

St. Augustine of Hippo: Cerinthus and Ebion, for instance, made Jesus Christ merely a man. Paul of Samosata, following them, asserted that Christ did not exist from eternity but began to exist at His birth from the Virgin Mary; he also thought Him to be nothing more than a man. This heresy was later confirmed by Photinus.⁷

Pseudo-Athanasius: The Apostle John, seeing this man's madness long before by the Holy Spirit, rouses him from his deep sleep of error with the proclamation of his voice, saying, In the beginning was the Word (John 1:1).⁸

Therefore, He who was with God in the beginning could not, in these last times, take the beginning of His being from man. He says further (let Photinus hear his words), Father, glorify Me with that glory which I had with Thee before the world was (John 17:5).

St. Augustine of Hippo: The error of Nestorius was that he taught that only a man was born of the Blessed Virgin Mary, whom the Word of God did not receive into a unity of person and inseparable fellowship—a doctrine which Catholic ears could not endure.⁹

St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Apostle says of the Only-Begotten, Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God (Philippians 2:6).¹⁰ Who then is this, who is in the form of God? And how did He empty Himself and humble Himself to the likeness of man?

If the heretics mentioned above, who divide Christ into two parts—that is, the Man and the Word—affirm that it was the Man who was emptied of glory, they must first show what form and equality with the Father are understood to be, and what existed that could suffer any kind of emptying.

But no creature is, in its own proper nature, equal with the Father. How then can any creature be said to be emptied? From what eminence could it descend to become man? Or how can he be understood to have taken upon himself the form of a servant, as though he did not have it at first?

But, they say, the Word, being equal with the Father, dwelt in a man born of a woman, and this is the emptying. I hear the Son Himself truly saying to the holy Apostles, If any man love Me, he will keep My saying, and My Father will love him, and We will come unto him, and make Our abode with him (John 14:23).

Listen to how He says that He and the Father will dwell in those who love Him. Do you then suppose we shall grant that He is emptied of His glory and has taken on the form of a servant when He makes His home in the hearts of those who love Him? Or does the Holy Spirit accomplish an assumption of human flesh when He dwells in our hearts?

Isidore of Pelusium: But not to mention all arguments, let us bring forward the one to which all arguments point: for one who was God to assume a lowly guise has an obvious purpose, is an adaptation, and in no way contradicts the course of nature. But for one who is merely a man to speak of divine and supernatural things is the highest presumption. For though a king may humble himself, a common soldier may not take on the state of an emperor. So, if He were God made man, all lowly things are fitting; but if He were a mere man, high things have no place.¹¹

St. Augustine of Hippo: Sabellius, they say, was a disciple of Noetus, who taught that Christ is one and the same as the Father and the Holy Spirit.¹²

Pseudo-Athanasius: I will curb the audacity of this most insane error by the authority of the heavenly testimonies and demonstrate the distinct personality of the Son's own substance. I will not produce things that are liable to be explained away as pertaining to the assumption of human nature, but will offer passages that all will allow to be decisive proof of His divine nature.¹³

In Genesis we find God saying, Let Us make man in Our own Image. This plural number shows that there was another person to whom He spoke. Had He been one, it would have been said that He made man in His own image. But there is another, and it is said that He made man in the image of that other.

Glossa Ordinaria: Others denied the reality of Christ's human nature. Valentinus said that Christ, sent from the Father, had a spiritual or celestial body and took nothing from the Virgin, but passed through her as through a channel, taking none of her flesh.

But we do not believe He was born of the Virgin simply because by no other means could He have truly lived in the flesh and appeared among men. Rather, we believe it because it is so written in the Scripture, which if we do not believe, we can neither be Christians nor be saved.

Even if He had a body made of a spiritual, ethereal, or clay-like substance, who would deny His power to change it into the true and very quality of human flesh, had He willed to do so? The Manichaeans said that the Lord Jesus Christ was a phantasm and could not be born from a woman's womb. But if the body of Christ was a phantasm, He was a deceiver; and if a deceiver, then He was not the Truth. But Christ is the Truth; therefore, His body was not a phantasm.

And since the opening of both this Gospel and the one according to Luke manifestly proves Christ's birth from a woman, and therefore His real humanity, these heretics reject the beginning of both Gospels.

St. Augustine of Hippo: Faustus affirms that "the Gospel both begins, and begins to be so called," from the preaching of Christ, in which He nowhere affirms that He was born of men.ⁱ¹⁴

He continues: "Indeed, this genealogy is so far from being part of the Gospel that the writer does not venture to title it so, beginning with The book of the generation, not 'The book of the Gospel.' Mark, on the other hand, who did not care to write of the generation but only of the preaching of the Son of God—which is properly the Gospel—begins accordingly, The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Thus, all that we read in Matthew before the words, 'Jesus began to preach the Gospel of the kingdom' (Matthew 4:17), is part of the genealogy, not of the Gospel. I therefore turned to Mark and John, with whose prefaces I had good reason to be satisfied, as they introduce neither David, nor Mary, nor Joseph."

To this, Augustine replies: What then will he say to the Apostle's words, Remember the resurrection of Jesus Christ of the seed of David according to my Gospel (2 Timothy 2:8)? But the Gospel of the Apostle Paul was also that of the other Apostles and of all the faithful, as he says, "Whether I, or they, thus have we preached the Gospel."

The Arians do not hold that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are of one and the same substance, nature, and existence. Instead, they believe that the Son is a creature of the Father, and the Holy Spirit is a creature of a creature—that is, created by the Son. Furthermore, they think that Christ took on flesh without a soul.¹⁵

But John declares the Son to be not only God, but also of the same substance as the Father.ⁱ For when he had said, The Word was God, he added, all things were made by Him. From this it is clear that He by whom all things were made was not Himself made. And if not made, then not created, and therefore of one substance with the Father—for everything that is not of one substance with the Father is a creature.

I do not know what benefit the person of the Mediator has conferred upon us if He did not redeem our better part, but only took upon Himself our flesh, which without the soul cannot be conscious of the benefit. But if Christ came to save that which had perished, then the whole man had perished and therefore needs a Savior. Christ, then, in His coming, saves the whole man, taking on both soul and body.

How, too, do they answer the innumerable objections from the Gospel Scriptures, in which the Lord says so many things that are manifestly contrary to their view? For instance, My soul is sorrowful even unto death (Matthew 26:38), and, I have power to lay down My life (John 10:18), and many more things of this kind.

Should they say that He spoke this way in parables, we have proofs at hand from the Evangelists themselves. In relating His actions, they bear witness not only to the reality of His body but also of His soul, by mentioning passions that cannot exist without a soul, such as when they say, "Jesus marveled," or "was angry," and other similar things.

The Apollinarians, like the Arians, also affirmed that Christ had taken human flesh without a soul.ⁱ But when they were overthrown on this point by the weight of scriptural proof, they then said that the part which is the rational soul of man was missing from the soul of Christ, and that its place was filled by the Word Himself.

But if this is so, then we must believe that the Word of God took on the nature of some animal with a human shape and appearance. Yet even concerning the nature of Christ's body, there are some who have swerved so far from the right faith as to say that the flesh and the Word were of one and the same substance. They perversely insist on the expression, The Word was made flesh, which they interpret to mean that some portion of the Word was changed into flesh, not that He took to Himself flesh from the flesh of the Virgin.ⁱ

St. Cyril of Alexandria: We consider those persons mad who have suspected that so much as a shadow of change could take place in the nature of the divine Word; it abides what it always was and neither is nor can be changed.¹⁶

St. Leo the Great: We do not speak of Christ as man in such a way as to allow that anything was lacking in Him which certainly pertains to human nature—whether soul, rational mind, or flesh; and flesh that was taken from the Woman, not gained by a change or conversion of the Word into flesh.¹⁷

These three separate errors, the triply false heresy of the Apollinarians, has brought forward. Eutyches also chose this third dogma of Apollinaris. Denying the reality of the human body and soul, he maintained that our Lord Jesus Christ was wholly and entirely of one nature, as though the divine Word had changed itself into flesh and soul. This would mean that the conception, birth, growth, and similar experiences had been undergone by the divine Essence, which was incapable of any such changes along with the real and true flesh. For the nature of the Only-Begotten is the same as the nature of the Father and the nature of the Holy Spirit—both impassible and eternal.

But if, to avoid being driven to the conclusion that the Godhead could feel suffering and death, he departs from the corruption of Apollinaris, yet still dares to affirm that the nature of the incarnate Word—that is, of the Word and the flesh—is the same, he clearly falls into the insane notions of Manichaeus and Marcion. He would then believe that the Lord Jesus Christ performed all His actions with a false appearance, that His body was not a human body but a phantasm which deceived the eyes of beholders.

As for what Eutyches venturedⁱ to pronounce as an episcopal decision—that in Christ there were two natures before His incarnation but only one after His incarnation—he should have been urgently pressed to give the reason for this belief.

I suppose that in using such language, he imagined that the soul which the Savior took had its home in heaven before it was born of the Virgin Mary.ⁱ

Catholic hearts and ears cannot endure this, for the Lord, when He came down from heaven, showed nothing of the prior condition of human nature. He did not take on a soul that had existed before, nor any flesh that was not taken from the flesh of His mother. Thus, what was justly condemned in Origenⁱ must also be rebuked in Eutyches—namely, that our souls had not only wonderful but various actions before they were placed in our bodies.

Remigius of Auxerre: Therefore, the Apostles overthrow these heresies in the opening of their Gospels. Matthew, in relating how He derived His descent from the kings of the Jews, proves Him to have been truly man and to have had true flesh.

Likewise, Luke does so when he describes the priestly stock and person. Mark, when he says, The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God, and John, when he says, In the beginning was the Word, both show Him to have been God with God the Father before all ages.

St. Augustine of Hippo: Matthew, by beginning with Christ's genealogy, shows that he has undertaken to relate Christ's birth according to the flesh. Luke, however, since he describes Him as a Priest for the atonement of sin, gives Christ's genealogy not in the beginning of his Gospel, but at His baptism, when John bore that testimony, “Lo, He that taketh away the sins of the world” (John 1:29).¹

The genealogy in Matthew symbolizes for us the Lord Christ’s taking on of our sins, while the genealogy in Luke symbolizes His taking away of our sins. For this reason, Matthew gives the names in a descending series, and Luke in an ascending one. But Matthew, describing Christ's human generation in descending order, begins his enumeration with Abraham.

St. Ambrose of Milan: For Abraham was the first who earned the testimony of faith: “He believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” It was therefore fitting that he should be set forth as the first in the line of descent, as he was the first to deserve the promise of the restoration of the Church: “In you all the nations of the earth will be blessed.” And it is again brought to a period in David, because Jesus was to be called his Son. Thus, the privilege was preserved for him, so that the Lord's genealogy would begin with him.²

St. John Chrysostom and St. Augustine of Hippo: Matthew, then, wishing to preserve the memory of the Lord's human lineage through the succession of His ancestors, begins with Abraham, saying, “Abraham begot Isaac.” Why does he not mention Ishmael, his firstborn? And again, “Isaac begot Jacob”; why does he not speak of Esau, his firstborn? Because the lineage could not have descended to David through them.^{3 4}

Glossa Ordinaria: Yet he names all of Judah’s brothers with him in the lineage. Ishmael and Esau had not remained in the worship of the true God, but the brothers of Judah were counted among God’s people.

St. John Chrysostom: Or, he names all the twelve Patriarchs so that he might humble the pride that comes from a noble ancestry. For many of these were born of female servants, and yet were Patriarchs and heads of tribes.⁵

Glossa Ordinaria: But Judah is the only one mentioned by name, because the Lord was descended from him alone. In each of the Patriarchs, however, we must note not only their history but also the allegorical and moral meaning to be drawn from them: allegory, in seeing whom each of the forefathers foreshadowed; and moral instruction, in that through each of the forefathers some virtue may be built up in us, either through the meaning of his name or through his example.ⁱ

Abraham is in many respects a figure of Christ, chiefly in his name, which is interpreted 'Father of many nations,' and Christ is the Father of many believers. Moreover, Abraham went out from his own kindred and lived in a foreign land; in the same way, Christ, leaving the Jewish nation, went by means of His preachers throughout the Gentile world.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: Isaac is interpreted as “laughter.” But the laughter of the saints is not a foolish convulsion of the lips but the rational joy of the heart, which was the mystery of Christ. For just as he was granted to his parents in their extreme old age, to their great joy, it was to make known that he was not the child of nature, but of grace.

In the same way, Christ also, in this last age, came from a Jewish mother to be the joy of the whole earth. The one was born of a virgin, the other of a woman past childbearing age—both contrary to the expectation of nature.

Remigius of Auxerre: Jacob is interpreted as “supplanter,” and it is said of Christ, “You have cast down beneath Me those who rose up against Me” (Psalm 18:43).

Pseudo-Chrysostom: In the same way, our Jacob begot the twelve Apostles in the Spirit, not in the flesh; by word, not by blood. Judah is interpreted as “confessor,” for he was a type of Christ who was to be the confessor of His Father, as He spoke, “I confess to You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth.”

Glossa Ordinaria: Morally, Abraham signifies to us the virtue of faith in Christ, as he is an example himself. As it is said of him, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” Isaac may represent hope, for Isaac is interpreted as “laughter,” just as he was the joy of his parents. And hope is our joy, causing us to hope for eternal blessings and to rejoice in them. “Abraham begot Isaac,” and faith begets hope.

Jacob signifies “love,” for love embraces two lives: the active life in the love of our neighbor and the contemplative life in the love of God. The active life is signified by Leah, the contemplative by Rachel. For Leah is interpreted as “laboring,” because she is active in labor.ⁱ Rachel is interpreted as “having seen the beginning,”ⁱ because through the contemplative life, the beginning—that is, God—is seen.

Jacob is born of two parents, just as love is born of faith and hope, for what we believe, we both hope for and love.

Glossa Ordinaria: Passing over the other sons of Jacob, the Evangelist follows the family of Judah, saying, But Judah begat Phares and Zara of Thamar.

St. Augustine of Hippo: Neither was Judah himself the firstborn, nor was either of these two sons his firstborn; he had already had three before them. Thus, he keeps to that line of descent by which he will arrive at David, and from him to his intended destination.¹

St. Jerome: It should be noted that none of the holy women are included in the Savior's genealogy, but rather those whom Scripture has condemned. This was so that He who came for sinners, by being born of sinners, might in this way put away the sins of all. Thus, Ruth the Moabitess is included among them.

St. Ambrose of Milan: Luke, however, avoided mentioning these women, so that he might present the priestly line as immaculate. But the plan of St. Matthew did not exclude the righteousness of natural reason. For when he wrote in his Gospel that He who would take upon Himself the sins of all was born in the flesh and was subject to wrongs and pain, he did not think it was any detraction from His holiness that He did not refuse the further humiliation of a sinful parentage.²

Nor, again, should it shame the Church to be gathered from among sinners, since the Lord Himself was born of sinners. This genealogy also shows that the benefits of redemption could begin with His own forefathers, ensuring that no one might imagine a stain in their bloodline was a hindrance to virtue, nor that anyone should pride themselves arrogantly on their noble birth.

St. John Chrysostom: Besides this, it shows that all are equally liable to sin, for here is Tamar accusing Judah of incest, and David begot Solomon with a woman with whom he had committed adultery. But if the Law was not fulfilled by these great figures, neither could it be by their less great descendants. And so, all have sinned, and the presence of Christ became necessary.

St. Ambrose of Milan: Observe that Matthew does not name both twins without a reason. For although his purpose in writing only required mentioning Phares, a mystery is signified in the twins: namely, the twofold life of the nations, one by the Law and the other by Faith.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: Zarah denotes the Jewish people, who first appeared in the light of faith, coming out of the dark womb of the world. They were therefore marked with the scarlet thread of the circumciser, for all supposed that they were to be God's people. But the Law was set before their face like a wall or hedge.

Thus the Jews were hindered by the Law. But at the time of Christ's coming, the hedge of the Law that stood between Jews and Gentiles was broken down, as the Apostle says, Breaking down the middle wall of partition (Ephesians 2:14). And so it happened that the Gentiles, who were signified by Phares, entered the faith first as soon as the Law was broken through by Christ's commandments, and the Jews followed after them.

Glossa Ordinaria: Judah begot Phares and Zarah before he went into Egypt, where they both accompanied their father. In Egypt, Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; Aram begat Aminadab; Aminadab begat Naasson; and then Moses led them out of Egypt. Naasson was head of the tribe of Judah under Moses in the desert, where he begot Salmon. It was this Salmon who, as prince of the tribe of Judah, entered the promised land with Joshua.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: Since we believe that the names of these Fathers were given for a special reason under the providence of God, it follows, Naasson begat Salmon. After his father's death, this Salmon entered the promised land with Joshua as prince of the tribe of Judah. He took a wife named Rahab. This is said to have been Rahab the harlot of Jericho, who received the spies of the children of Israel and hid them safely.

For Salmon, being noble among the children of Israel—since he was of the tribe of Judah and the son of its prince—saw that Rahab was so ennobled by her great faith that she was worthy to be taken as his wife. The name Salmon is interpreted as "receive a vessel,"ⁱ perhaps as if he were invited by his very name, in God's providence, to receive Rahab, a vessel of election.

Glossa Ordinaria: In the promised land, this Salmon begot Boaz by this Rahab. Boaz begot Obed by Ruth.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: I think it is needless to recount how Boaz took a Moabitess named Ruth as his wife, since the Scripture concerning them is available to all. We need only say this: Ruth married Boaz as a reward for her faith, because she had cast off the gods of her forefathers and had chosen the living God. And Boaz received her as his wife as a reward for his faith, so that from such a sanctified union a kingly race might descend.

St. Ambrose of Milan: But how did Ruth, who was a foreigner, marry a Jewish man? And why in Christ's genealogy did the Evangelist even mention a union that, in the eye of the law, was illegitimate? Thus, the Savior's birth from a lineage not permitted by the law appears to us monstrous, until we consider the Apostle's declaration, The Law was not given for the righteous, but for the unrighteous (1 Timothy 1:9).

This woman was a foreigner, a Moabitess, from a nation with whom the Mosaic Law forbade all intermarriage and completely excluded from the assembly. How then did she enter the assembly, unless it was because she was holy and unstained in her life, living above the Law? Therefore, she was exempt from this restriction of the Law and deserved to be numbered in the Lord's lineage, chosen for the kinship of her mind, not of her body.

To us she is a great example, because in her was prefigured the entrance into the Lord's Church of all of us who are gathered from the Gentiles.

St. Jerome: Ruth the Moabitess fulfills the prophecy of Isaiah: Send forth, O Lord, the Lamb that shall rule over the earth, from the rock of the desert to the mount of the daughter of Zion (Isaiah 16:1).

Glossa Ordinaria: Jesse, the father of David, has two names, being more frequently called Isai. But the Prophet says, There shall come forth a rod from the stem of Jesse (Isaiah 11:1). Therefore, to show that this prophecy was fulfilled in Mary and Christ, the Evangelist uses the name Jesse.

Remigius of Auxerre: It is asked why this title, "King," is given by the holy Evangelist to David alone. It is because he was the first king in the tribe of Judah. Christ Himself is Phares, "the divider," as it is written, Thou shalt divide the sheep from the goats (Matthew 25:33). He is Zaram,ⁱ "the east," as in, Lo the man, the east is His name (Zechariah 6:12). He is Esrom,ⁱ "an arrow," as in, He hath set me as a polished shaft (Isaiah 49:2).

Rabanus Maurus: Or, following another interpretation, according to the abundance of grace and the breadth of love: He is Aram, "the chosen,"ⁱ as it says, Behold my Servant whom I have chosen (Isaiah 42:1). He is Aminadab, that is, "willing,"ⁱ as He says, I will freely sacrifice to Thee (Isaiah 54:6). He is also Naasson,ⁱ meaning "augury," as He knows the past, present, and future; or, "like a serpent," according to the verse, Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness (John 3:14). He is Salmon,ⁱ meaning "the one who feels," as He said, I feel that power has gone out from me (Luke 8:46).

Glossa Ordinaria: Christ Himself espouses Rahab, that is, the Gentile Church. For Rahabⁱ is interpreted as "hunger," "breadth," or "might," because the Church of the Gentiles hungers and thirsts for righteousness, and converts philosophers and kings by the might of her doctrine. Ruth is interpreted as either "seeing" or "hastening"ⁱ and denotes the Church, which in purity of heart sees God and hastens to the prize of the heavenly call.

Remigius of Auxerre ³

Let us now see what virtues these fathers build up in us. Faith, hope, and charity are the foundation of all virtues; those that follow are like additions to them. Judah is interpreted as "confession," of which there are two kinds: confession of faith and confession of sin. If, then, after we are endowed with these three virtues, we sin, a confession not only of faith but also of sin is necessary for us.

Phares is interpreted as "division," Zarah as "the east," and Tamar as "bitterness."ⁱ Thus, confession produces a separation from vice, the rise of virtue, and the bitterness of repentance.

After Phares follows Esrom, "an arrow," for when a person is separated from vice and worldly pursuits, he should become a dart with which to slay the vices of others by his preaching.

Aram is interpreted as "elect" or "lofty."ⁱ For as soon as a person is detached from this world and benefits another, he must be considered elect of God, renowned among men, and high in virtue.

Naasson is "augury," but this is a heavenly, not an earthly, augury. It is the kind of which Joseph boasted when he said, Ye have taken away the cup of my Lord, wherewith He is wont to divine (Genesis 44:5). The cup is the divine Scripture, in which is the draft of wisdom. By this, the wise man divines, since in it he sees future things—that is, heavenly things.

Next is Salmon,ⁱ "the one who perceives," for he who studies divine Scripture becomes discerning; that is, he distinguishes by the taste of reason between good and bad, sweet and bitter.

Next is Boaz, that is, "brave," for he who is well taught in Scripture becomes brave enough to endure all adversity.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: This brave one is the son of Rahab, that is, of the Church. For Rahab signifies "breadth" or "spread out," because the Church of the Gentiles was called from all quarters of the earth and is therefore called "breadth."

Glossa Ordinaria: Then follows Obed, meaning "servitude," for which no one is fit except one who is strong. This servitude is born of Ruth, that is, "haste," for it is fitting for a servant to be quick, not slow.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: Those who look for wealth and not temperament, for beauty and not faith, and who require in a wife the same qualities required in harlots, will not beget sons who are obedient to their parents or to God, but rebellious to both. In this way, their children become a punishment for their ungodly marriage. Obed begot Jesse, which means "refreshment," for whoever is subject to God and his parents begets children who prove to be his refreshment.

Glossa Ordinaria: Or Jesse may be interpreted as "incense."ⁱ For if we serve God in love and fear, there will be a devotion in the heart that, in its heat and desire, offers the sweetest incense to God. But when one has become a fit servant and a sacrifice of incense to God, it follows that he becomes David (that is, "of a strong hand"), who fought mightily against his enemies and made the Idumeans tributary.

In the same way, such a person ought to subdue carnal men to God by his teaching and example.

The Evangelist has now finished the first fourteen generations and has come to the second, which consists of royal figures. Beginning with David, who was the first king in the tribe of Judah, he therefore calls him "David the king."

St. Augustine of Hippo: Since Matthew's genealogy shows Christ taking our sins upon Himself, he therefore descends from David to Solomon, in whose mother David had sinned. Luke, however, ascends to David through Nathan, because it was through Nathan the prophet that God punished David's sin. This is because Luke's genealogy shows the removal of our sins.¹

It must be said that this was through a prophet of the same name, for it was not Nathan the son of David who reproved him, but a different prophet with the same name.²

Remigius of Auxerre: Let us inquire why Matthew does not mention Bathsheba by name as he does the other women. It is because the others, though deserving of much blame, were still commendable for many virtues. But Bathsheba was not only complicit in the adultery but also in the murder of her husband; for this reason, her name is not included in the Lord's genealogy.

Glossa Ordinaria: Furthermore, he does not name Bathsheba, so that by naming Urias, he might call to mind the great wickedness she committed against him.

St. Ambrose of Milan: But the holy David is all the more excellent in this: he confessed that he was only a man and did not neglect to wash away with tears of repentance the sin he had committed in taking Urias' wife. In this, he shows us that no one ought to trust in their own strength, for we have a mighty adversary whom we cannot overcome without God's aid.

You will commonly observe that very serious sins fall to the lot of illustrious men, so that they are not thought of as more than human because of their other excellent virtues. Instead, you see that as men, they yield to temptation.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: Solomon is interpreted as "peacemaker," because after subduing all the surrounding nations and making them tributary, he had a peaceful reign. Rehoboam is interpreted as "by a multitude of people," for a multitude is the mother of sedition; where many are joined in a crime, it is often unpunishable. But moderation in numbers is the master of good order.

St. Jerome: In the fourth book of Kings we read that Ahaziah was the son of Joram. On his death, Jehosheba, sister of Ahaziah and daughter of Joram, took Joash, her brother's son, and preserved him from Athaliah's slaughter of the royal family. To Joash succeeded his son Amaziah; after him his son Azariah, who is also called Uzziah; after him his son Jotham. Thus, you see that according to historical truth there were three intervening kings, whom the Evangelist omitted. Moreover, Joram did not beget Uzziah, but Ahaziah, and the rest as we have related.

But because it was the Evangelist's purpose to make each of the three periods consist of fourteen generations, and because Joram had connected himself with Jezebel's most impious family, his posterity to the third generation is therefore omitted in tracing the lineage of the holy birth.

St. Hilary of Poitiers: Thus, with the stain of the Gentile alliance purged, the royal race is taken up again in the fourth generation.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: The Holy Spirit testified through the Prophet that He would cut off every male from the house of Ahab and Jezebel. Jehu, the son of Nimshi, fulfilled this and received the promise that his children to the fourth generation should sit on the throne of Israel. Therefore, just as great a blessing was given to the house of Jehu for destroying Ahab's house, so great a curse was given to the house of Joram because of the wicked daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, so that his sons to the fourth generation were cut out of the list of the Kings.

Thus his sin descended to his posterity, as it is written, “I will visit the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation” (Exodus 20:5). You see, then, how dangerous it is to marry the descendants of the ungodly.

St. Augustine of Hippo: Alternatively, Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah were excluded from the number because their wickedness was continuous and without interval. For Solomon was allowed to hold the kingdom for his father's merits, and Rehoboam for his son's.¹

But these three, who did evil successively, were excluded. This, then, is an example of how a lineage is cut off when wickedness is displayed in it with perpetual succession.

And Uzziah begat Jotham; and Jotham begat Ahaz; and Ahaz begat Hezekiah.

Glossa Ordinaria: This Hezekiah was the one to whom it was said, when he had no children, “Set thy house in order, for thou shalt die” (Isaiah 38:1). He wept, not from a desire for a longer life, for he knew that Solomon had pleased God by not asking for length of days. Instead, he wept because he feared that God's promise would not be fulfilled, since he himself—being in the line of David from whom Christ would come—was without children.

And Hezekiah begat Manasseh; and Manasseh begat Amon; and Amon begat Josiah.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: But the order in the Book of Kings is different (2 Kings 23), namely: Josiah begat Eliakim, who was later called Jehoiakim, and Jehoiakim begat Jeconiah. But Jehoiakim is not counted among the Kings in the genealogy because God's people had not set him on the throne; rather, Pharaoh had set him up by his own might. For if it was just to exclude three kings from the genealogy merely for their intermixture with the line of Ahab, was it not also just that Jehoiakim should be excluded, whom Pharaoh had installed as king by hostile force? And so Jeconiah, who is the son of Jehoiakim and the grandson of Josiah, is counted among the kings as the son of Josiah, in place of his omitted father.

St. Jerome: Alternatively, we may consider the first Jeconiah to be the same person as Jehoiakim, and the second to be the son, not the father. The first name is spelled with a 'k' and 'm,' the second with a 'ch' and 'n.' This distinction has been confused by both Greek and Latin writers due to scribal errors and the passage of time.

St. Ambrose of Milan: That there were two kings named Jehoiakim is clear from the Book of Kings: “And Joakim slept with his fathers, and Joachim his son reigned in his stead” (2 Kings 24:6). This son is the same one whom Jeremiah calls Jeconiah. And St. Matthew rightly intended to differ from the Prophet, because he sought to show the great abundance of the Lord's mercies. For the Lord did not seek nobility of lineage among men, but fittingly chose to be born of captives and sinners, as He came to preach remission of sin to the captives. The Evangelist, therefore, did not conceal either of these names but rather showed them both, since both men were called Jeconiah.²

Remigius of Auxerre: But it may be asked why the Evangelist says they were born "in the carrying away," when they were actually born before it. He says this because they were born for this very purpose: to be led into captivity and removed from dominion over the nation, for their own sins and the sins of others. And because God foreknew they were to be carried away captive, He says they were born "in the carrying away to Babylon."

It should be known that those whom the holy Evangelist places together in the Lord's genealogy were alike in either good or ill fame. Judas and his brothers were notable for good; likewise, Perez and Zerah, and Jeconiah and his brothers, were notable for evil.

Glossa Ordinaria: Mystically, David is Christ, who overcame Goliath, that is, the Devil. Uriah, that is, "God is my light," represents the Devil, who says, “I will be like the Highest” (Isaiah 14:14). The Church was married to Him when Christ, on the throne of His Father's majesty, loved her and, having made her beautiful, united her to Himself in marriage.

Alternatively, Uriah represents the Jewish nation, which boasted of its light through the Law. Christ took the Law away from them, having taught it to speak of Himself.

Bathsheba is "the well of satiety," that is, the abundance of spiritual grace.

Remigius of Auxerre: Bathsheba is interpreted as "the seventh well," or "the well of the oath,"ⁱ which signifies the grant of baptism. In baptism, the gift of the sevenfold Spirit is given, and the oath against the Devil is made.

Christ is also Solomon, that is, "the peaceful one," according to the Apostle: “He is our peace” (Ephesians 2:14).

Rehoboamⁱ is "the breadth of the people," according to the saying, “Many shall come from the East and from the West.”

Rabanus Maurus: Or, he is "the might of the people," because he quickly converts the people to the faith.

Remigius of Auxerre: He is also Abijah, that is, "the Lord is Father," according to the verse, “One is your Father, who is in heaven” (Matthew 23:9). And again, “Ye call me Master and Lord” (John 13:13).

He is also Asa,ⁱ that is, "lifting up," according to the verse, “Who taketh away the sins of the world” (John 1:29).

He is also Jehoshaphat, that is, "judging," for, “The Father hath committed all judgment unto the Son” (John 5:22).

He is also Joram, that is, "lofty," according to the verse, “No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven” (John 3:13).

He is also Uzziah, that is, "the Lord's strength," for “The Lord is my strength and my praise” (Psalm 118:14).

He is also Jotham,ⁱ that is, "completed" or "perfected," for “Christ is the end of the law” (Romans 10:4).

He is also Ahaz,ⁱ that is, "turning," according to the verse, “Be ye turned to Me” (Zechariah 1:3).

Rabanus Maurus: Or, "embracing," because, “None knoweth the Father, but the Son” (Matthew 11:27).

Remigius of Auxerre: He is also Hezekiah, that is, "the strong Lord," or, "the Lord shall comfort," according to the verse, “Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world” (John 16:33).

He is also Manasseh, that is, "forgetful" or "forgotten," according to the verse, “I will not remember your sins any more” (Ezekiel 28).

He is also Amon,ⁱ that is, "faithful," according to the verse, “The Lord is faithful in all His words” (Psalm 145:17).

He is also Josiah,ⁱ that is, "the incense of the Lord," as in, “And being in an agony, He prayed more earnestly” (Luke 22:44).

Rabanus Maurus: And that incense signifies prayer, the Psalmist witnesses, saying, “Let my prayer come up as incense before Thee” (Psalm 141:2). Or, Josiah means "the salvation of the Lord," according to the verse, “My salvation is for ever” (Isaiah 55).

Remigius of Auxerre: He is Jeconiah,ⁱ that is, "preparing" or "the Lord's preparation," according to the verse, “If I shall depart, I will also prepare a place for you” (John 14:3).

Glossa Ordinaria: Morally, after David comes Solomon, who is interpreted as "peaceful." For a person becomes peaceful when their unlawful impulses are calmed. As if already set in everlasting rest, they serve God and turn others to Him. Then follows Rehoboam, that is, "the breadth of the people." For when there is no longer anything to overcome within himself, it is fitting for a man to look to others and draw the people of God with him to heavenly things. Next is Abijah, that is, "the Lord is Father." With these things established, he may proclaim himself the Son of God. Then he will be Asa, that is, "raising up," and will ascend to his Father from virtue to virtue. And he will become Jehoshaphat, that is, "judging," for he will judge others and be judged by none.

Thus he becomes Joram, that is, "lofty," as if dwelling on high. He is made Uzziah, that is, "the strength of the Lord," by attributing all his strength to God and persevering in his path.

Then follows Jotham, that is, "perfect," for he grows daily toward greater perfection. And thus he becomes Ahaz, that is, "embracing," for by obedience knowledge is increased, according to the saying, "They have proclaimed the worship of the Lord, and have understood His doings."

Then follows Hezekiah, that is, "the Lord is strong," because he understands that God is strong. Turning to His love, he becomes Manasseh, "forgetful," because he gives up all worldly things as forgotten. He is thereby made Amon, that is, "faithful," for whoever despises all temporal things defrauds no one of their goods. Thus he is made Josiah, that is, "in certain hope of the Lord's salvation," for Josiah is interpreted as "the salvation of the Lord."