Church Fathers Commentary Matthew 1:16

"and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." — Matthew 1:16 (ASV)

Glossa Ordinaria: Finally, after all the patriarchs, he lists Joseph, the husband of Mary, for whose sake all the others are introduced, saying, But Jacob begot Joseph.

St. Jerome: The Emperor Julian objects to this passage in his work on the discrepancy of the Evangelists. Matthew calls Joseph the son of Jacob, while Luke makes him the son of Heli. Julian did not understand the scriptural custom: one was his father by nature, the other by law.

For we know that God commanded through Moses that if a brother or near kinsman died without children, another should take his wife to raise up offspring for his brother or kinsman (Deuteronomy 25).

However, Africanus the chronologistⁱ and Eusebius of Caesarea have discussed this matter more fully.

Eusebius of Caesarea: For Matthan and Melchi, at different times, each had a son by the same wife, Estha. Matthan, who traced his lineage through Solomon, married her first and died leaving one son, named Jacob. Since the Law did not forbid a widow—whether divorced or whose husband had died—from marrying another, Melchi, who traced his lineage through Nathan, took this widow as his wife. Although he was of the same tribe but of another family line, he begat his son, Heli. ¹

Thus, we find that Jacob and Heli, though from different family lines, were brothers through the same mother. After his brother Heli died without children, Jacob married his widow and fathered Joseph. By nature and reason, Joseph was his own son, which is why it is written, And Jacob begat Joseph. But according to the Law, he was the son of Heli, for Jacob, being his brother, raised up offspring for him.

Therefore, the genealogy as recorded by both Matthew and Luke is correct and true. Matthew says, And Jacob begot Joseph, while Luke says, who was the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, who was the son of Heli, who was the son of Melchi.

He could not have expressed more significantly or properly that manner of lineage according to the Law—which was a form of adoption in deference to the dead—by carefully omitting the word "begot" all the way to the end.

St. Augustine of Hippo: A man is more properly called the son of the one who adopted him than if he were said to be begotten by him from whose flesh he was not born. Therefore, when Matthew says, Abraham begot Isaac, and continues this same phrase down to Jacob begot Joseph, he sufficiently declares that he is giving the father according to the order of nature. We must therefore hold that Joseph was begotten by Jacob, not adopted.

However, even if Luke had used the word "begotten," we would not need to consider it a serious objection. For it is not absurd to say that an adopted son is "begotten"—not in the flesh, but through affection. ²

Eusebius of Caesarea: This explanation does not lack good authority, nor have we suddenly invented it for this purpose. For our Savior's own kinsmen according to the flesh have handed it down to us, either from a desire to display their noble lineage or simply for the sake of the truth.

St. Augustine of Hippo: Suitably, Luke, who gives Christ's ancestry not at the opening of his Gospel but at His baptism, follows the line of adoption. In this way, he more clearly points to Christ as the Priest who would make atonement for sin. For it is by adoption that we are made sons of God, through believing in the Son of God. In contrast, the descent according to the flesh, which Matthew follows, shows us instead how the Son of God was made man for our sake. ³

Luke sufficiently shows that he called Joseph the son of Heli because he was adopted by Heli. He does this by also calling Adam the son of God—which he was by grace when he was placed in Paradise, though he later lost this status by sinning.

St. John Chrysostom: Having gone through the entire ancestry and ended with Joseph, Matthew adds the phrase, the husband of Mary, thereby declaring that Joseph was included in the genealogy for her sake. ⁴

St. Jerome: When you hear the word "husband," do not immediately think of marriage, but remember the scriptural custom of calling even those who are only betrothed "husband" and "wife."

Gennadius of Massilia: The Son of God was born of human flesh—that is, of Mary—and not by a man in the natural way, as Ebion claims. Accordingly, it is significantly added, Of her was born Jesus. ⁵

St. Augustine of Hippo: This is said against Valentinus, who taught that Christ took nothing from the Virgin Mary but merely passed through her as through a channel or pipe. ⁶

Why it pleased Him to take flesh from the womb of a woman is known only in His own secret counsels. Perhaps it was to honor both sexes alike—by taking the form of a man and being born of a woman—or for some other reason on which I would not hastily pronounce.

St. Hilary of Poitiers: What God conveyed through the anointing of oil to those who were consecrated as kings, the Holy Spirit conveyed to the man Christ, adding to it the act of expiation. For this reason, when He was born He was called "Christ," and thus the text continues, who is called Christ. ⁷

St. Augustine of Hippo: It was not right for Joseph to think of separating from Mary because she brought forth Christ while still a virgin. From this, the faithful may gather that if they are married and preserve strict continence on both sides, their marriage can still be sustained by a union of love alone, without a physical relationship. For here they see that it is possible for a son to be born without a carnal embrace. ⁸

In Christ's parents, every good benefit of marriage was fulfilled: fidelity, progeny, and sacrament. We see the progeny in the Lord Himself; fidelity, because there was no adultery; and sacrament, because there was no divorce. ⁹

St. Jerome: The attentive reader may ask: since Joseph was not the father of the Lord and Savior, how does his genealogy, traced down to him, pertain to the Lord? We will answer, first, that it is not the practice of Scripture to trace genealogies through the female line. Second, Joseph and Mary were of the same tribe, and for that reason he was compelled as a kinsman to take her as his wife. They were also enrolled together at Bethlehem, as they came from the same stock.

St. Augustine of Hippo: Furthermore, the line of descent ought to be brought down to Joseph, so that in marriage no wrong might be done to the male sex, as being the more prominent, provided that nothing was taken from the truth—because Mary was also of the seed of David.

Therefore, we believe that Mary was in the line of David, because we believe the Scripture, which affirms two things: both that Christ was of the seed of David according to the flesh, and that He was conceived by Mary, not through relations with a man, but while she was still a virgin.

Council of Ephesus: Here we must beware of the error of Nestorius, who speaks as follows: "When Divine Scripture speaks of either the birth of Christ from the Virgin Mary or His death, it is never seen to use the name 'God,' but rather 'Christ,' 'Son,' or 'Lord.' For these three titles are indicative of the two natures—sometimes of one, sometimes of the other, and sometimes of both together. A testimony to this is the verse, Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. For God the Word did not need a second birth from a woman."

Pseudo-Augustine and St. Augustine of Hippo: But the Son of God was not one person and the son of man another; rather, the same Christ was the son of both God and man. Just as in one man the soul is one thing and the body is another, so in the Mediator between God and man, the Son of God was one and the son of man was another. Yet from both together there was one Christ the Lord: two in distinction of substance, but one in unity of Person. ^{10 11}

Pseudo-Augustine and St. Augustine of Hippo: But the heretic objects: "How can you teach that He was born in time, when you say He was co-eternal with His Father from before all time? For birth is a movement, as it were, of something not yet existing before it is born, bringing it into existence. From this, it is concluded that He who already existed cannot be born; if He could be born, He did not previously exist."

Pseudo-Augustine and St. Augustine of Hippo: (To this, Augustine replies:) Let us imagine, as some propose, that the universe has a general soul. By some unspeakable motion, this soul gives life to all seeds without itself being mixed with the things it produces. When this soul passes into the womb to form passible matter for its own purposes, it makes the person of that thing—which clearly does not have the same substance—one with itself.

Pseudo-Augustine and St. Augustine of Hippo: Thus, with the soul being active and the matter passive, one man is made from two distinct substances, the soul and the flesh. It is in this way that we confess that the soul is "born" from the womb, even though we say it conferred life on the thing conceived when it entered the womb. He is said to be born of His mother, who shaped for Himself a body from her in which to be born; it is not as though He had no existence before being born from her.

Pseudo-Augustine and St. Augustine of Hippo: In a similar way—indeed, in a manner even more incomprehensible and sublime—the Son of God was born by taking on perfect manhood from His mother. He who, by His unique and almighty power, is the cause of birth for all things that are born.

1. Hist. Eccles. i, 7
2. de Cons. Evan., ii, 2
3. de Cons. Evan., ii, 4
4. Hom. 4
5. de Eccles. Dog., 2
6. De Haeres, ii
7. Quaest. Nov. et Vet. Test. q. 49
8. de Cons. Evan., ii, 1
9. de Nupt. et Concup., i, 11
10. Vigil. Cont. Fel. 12. ap.
11. t. 8. p. 45