Church Fathers Commentary Matthew 1:18

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Spirit." — Matthew 1:18 (ASV)

Pseudo-Chrysostom: Having said above, And Jacob begat Joseph, to whom Mary, being espoused, bore Jesus, he cuts off the thread of his narrative so that no one who heard would suppose that His birth was like that of any of the aforementioned fathers. He says, But Christ's generation was thus. It is as if he were to say, “The generation of all these fathers was as I have related it, but Christ's was not so; rather, it was as follows: His mother Mary being espoused.”

St. John Chrysostom: He announces that he is to relate the manner of the generation, showing by this that he is about to say something new, so that you may not suppose, when you hear mention of Mary's husband, that Christ was born according to the law of nature.

Remigius of Auxerre: However, it could be referred to the preceding text in this way: The generation of Christ was, as I have related, thus: Abraham begat Isaac.

St. Jerome: But why was He conceived not merely by a virgin, but by an espoused virgin? First, so that Mary's lineage might be known through the genealogy of Joseph; second, so that she would not be stoned by the Jews as an adulteress; and third, so that she would have the comfort of a husband during her flight into Egypt.

The Martyr Ignatiusⁱ adds a fourth reason: namely, that His birth might be hidden from the Devil, who was expecting Him to be born of a wife and not of a virgin.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: Therefore, she was both espoused and yet still living in her own home. For just as natural conception is understood for a woman who conceives in her husband's house, so there is a suspicion of infidelity for one who conceives before she is taken to her husband's home.

St. Jerome: It should be known that Helvidius, a certain contentious man, having found a topic for dispute, undertook to blaspheme against the Mother of God. His first proposition was that Matthew begins this way: When she was espoused. ‘Behold,’ he says, ‘you have her espoused, but as you say, not yet living with him. Surely she was not espoused for any reason other than to be married.’¹

Origen of Alexandria: She was indeed espoused to Joseph but not united in marriage; that is to say, His mother was immaculate, His mother incorrupt, His mother pure. His mother! Whose mother? The mother of God, of the Only-Begotten, of the Lord, of the King, of the Maker of all things, and the Redeemer of all.

St. Cyril of Alexandria: What will anyone see in the Blessed Virgin that is more than in other mothers, if she is not the mother of God, but only of Christ, or of the Lord, as Nestorius says? For it would not be absurd if someone chose to call the mother of any anointed person ‘the mother of Christ.’ Yet she alone, more than all others, is called the Holy Virgin and the mother of Christ. For she did not bear a mere man, as you say, but rather the Word of God the Father, incarnate and made man.²

But perhaps you will say, “Tell me, do you think the Virgin was made the mother of His divinity?” To this we also say that the Word was born of the very substance of God Himself and, without beginning in time, has always coexisted with the Father.

But in these last times, when He was made flesh—that is, united to flesh and possessing a rational soul—He is said to be born of a woman according to the flesh. This sacrament is, in a way, similar to birth among us. The mothers of earthly children provide the flesh for their offspring, which is then gradually perfected into the human form, but it is God who sends life into the being. But although these women are mothers only of earthly bodies, when they bear children, they are said to bear the whole person, not just a part.

We see that something similar was done in the birth of Emmanuel. The Word of God was born of the substance of His Father; but because He took flesh to Himself, making it His own, it is necessary to confess that He was born of a woman according to the flesh. Therefore, since He is truly God, how can anyone doubt that the Holy Virgin should be called the Mother of God?

St. Peter Chrysologus: If you are not confounded when you hear of the birth of God, do not let His conception disturb you, since the pure virginity of the mother removes anything that might shock human reverence. And what offense is there against our awe and reverence when the Deity entered into union with a purity that was always dear to Him? In this union, an Angel is the mediator, faith is the bridesmaid, chastity is the giving away, virtue is the gift, conscience is the judge, and God is the cause. Here, the conception is inviolate, the birth is virginal, and the mother is a virgin.ⁱ happiness of that Marriage, which the Church "brings about, (conciliat,)" the "Oblation" confirms, the Blessing "seals," the Angels "witness," and the Father "ratifies," In Chrysologus the Angel brings about, (interpres ost,) virtue is the oblation or bride's gift, and a pure conscience is the witness.]³

St. Cyril of Alexandria: But if we were to say that the holy Body of Christ came down from heaven and was not made from His mother, as Valentinus does, in what sense could Mary be the Mother of God?⁴

Glossa Ordinaria: The name of His Mother is added: “Mary.”

The Venerable Bede: Mary is interpreted as “Star of the Sea” in Hebrew, and “Mistress” in Syriac, as she bore into the world the Light of salvation, and the Lord.ⁱ⁵

Glossa Ordinaria: And the one to whom she was betrothed is shown: Joseph.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: Mary was therefore betrothed to a carpenter because Christ, the Spouse of the Church, was to work out the salvation of all people through the wood of the Cross.

St. John Chrysostom: What follows, Before they came together, does not mean before she was brought to the bridegroom's house, for she was already there. It was a frequent custom among the ancients to have their betrothed wives live in their house before the marriage ceremony, as we see done now and as Lot's sons-in-law were with him in his house.

Glossa Ordinaria: But the words denote carnal knowledge.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: He was not to be born of the passion of flesh and blood, for He was born precisely to take away all passion of flesh and blood.

St. Augustine of Hippo: There was no carnal knowledge in this marriage, because in sinful flesh this could not happen without the carnal desire that comes from sin. He who was to be without sin needed to be without this desire. From this, He could teach us that all flesh born of sexual union is sinful flesh, seeing that the only Flesh without sin was not born in this way.⁶

Pseudo-Augustine: Christ was also born of a pure virgin because it was not fitting for virtue to be born from pleasure, chastity from self-indulgence, or incorruption from corruption. Nor could He who came to destroy the ancient empire of death arrive from heaven in any but a new manner. Therefore, she who bore the King of chastity received the crown of virginity. Furthermore, our Lord sought for Himself a virgin dwelling in which to be received, so that He might show us that God ought to be borne in a chaste body.⁷

Therefore, He who wrote on tablets of stone without an iron pen is the same one who worked in Mary by the Holy Spirit: She was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

St. Jerome: And she was found to be with child by none other than Joseph, who, as her espoused husband, would have known everything about her situation.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: For, as a credible account relates, Joseph was absent when the events that Luke writes about occurred. It is not easy to suppose that the Angel came to Mary and spoke those words, and that Mary gave her answer, while Joseph was present. Even if we suppose this was possible, it could not be that she would have gone into the hill country and remained there for three months with Joseph present, because he surely would have inquired about the reasons for her departure and long stay. And so, when he returned from his journey after so many months, he found her obviously with child.

St. John Chrysostom: He says precisely was found, for we use this expression for things that are unexpected. And so that you do not trouble the Evangelist by asking how this birth from a virgin occurred, he explains it concisely, saying, Of the Holy Ghost. This is as much as to say, it was the Holy Spirit who performed this miracle. For neither Gabriel nor Matthew could say anything further.

Glossa Ordinaria: Therefore, the words Is of the Holy Ghost were set down by the Evangelist so that when it was said that she was with child, all wrong suspicion would be removed from the minds of the hearers.⁸

Pseudo-Augustine: But we are not to suppose, as some impiously think, that the Holy Spirit acted as a seed; rather, we say that He worked with the power and might of a Creator.ⁱ⁹

St. Ambrose of Milan: That which comes from something comes either from the substance or the power of that thing. It is from the substance, as the Son is from the Father. It is from the power, as all things are from God, and in this way Mary was with child by the Holy Spirit.¹⁰

St. Augustine of Hippo: Furthermore, the manner in which Christ was born of the Holy Spirit points us to the grace of God. By this grace, a man, without any preceding merits and at the very beginning of his human nature, was united with the Word of God into such a great unity of person that he was also made the Son of God.ⁱ¹¹

However, since the whole Trinity worked to create this being who was conceived by the Virgin—even though this work pertains only to the person of the Son, for the works of the Trinity are indivisible—why is only the Holy Spirit named in this work? When one of the Three is named in reference to any work, must we always understand that the whole Trinity was at work?

St. Jerome: But Helvidius says, “The Evangelist would not have said, Before they came together, if they were not to come together afterward, just as no one would say, ‘Before dinner,’ if there was to be no dinner.”¹²

It is as if someone were to say, “Before I dined in the harbor, I set sail for Africa.” Would this have no meaning unless he were, at some time or other, to dine in the harbor? Surely, we must understand it this way: the word “before,” though it often implies something to follow, is also often said of things that follow only in one’s mind. It is not necessary that the things thought of actually take place, because something else has happened to prevent them from occurring.

Therefore, it by no means follows that they did come together afterward; Scripture, however, does not show what happened.

Remigius of Auxerre: Alternatively, the phrase “come together” may not mean carnal knowledge but may refer to the time of the wedding, when she who was betrothed formally becomes a wife. Thus, before they came together may mean before they solemnly celebrated the wedding rites.

St. Augustine of Hippo: Matthew omits how this was done, but Luke relates it after the conception of John: In the sixth month the Angel was sent, and again, The Holy Ghost shall come upon you. This is what Matthew relates in these words: She was found with child of the Holy Ghost. It is no contradiction that Luke describes what Matthew omits, or that Matthew relates what Luke has omitted—namely, what follows from Now Joseph her husband being a just man, to the place where it is said of the Magi that they returned into their own country another way.¹³

If one wished to combine the two accounts of Christ's birth into a single narrative, it could be arranged this way: begin with Matthew's words, Now the birth of Christ was on this wise. Then take up Luke, from There was in the days of Herod (Luke 1:5) to Mary abode with her three months, and returned to her house. Then, taking up Matthew again, add, She was found with child of the Holy Ghost (Matthew 1:18).

1. Hieron. cont. Helvid. in princ.
2. Epist. ad Monach. Egypt. (Ep. p. 7)
3. Serm. 148
4. Epist. ad Joan. Antioch. (Ep. p. 107)
5. Luc., c. 3
6. de Nupt. et Concup., i, 12
7. in App. 122 et. al.
8. ap Anselm
9. Serm. 236 in App.
10. De Spir. Sanct., ii, 5
11. Enchir. c. 40
12. Hieron. Cont. Helvid. in princip.
13. de Cons. Evan., ii, 5