Thomas Aquinas Commentary Matthew 1:12-21

"And after the carrying away to Babylon, Jechoniah begat Shealtiel; and Shealtiel begat Zerubbabel; and Zerubbabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; and Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; and Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. So all the generations from Abraham unto David are fourteen generations; and from David unto the carrying away to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the carrying away to Babylon unto the Christ fourteen generations. 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. And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. But when he thought on these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she shall bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name JESUS; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins." — Matthew 1:12-21 (ASV)

Here is related the third series of fourteen in Christ’s generation, which proceeds through private persons. Concerning this Jechonias, as was said above, there were two opinions. For Jerome and Ambrose held that one Jechonias was the one who is placed at the end of the first fourteen generations, and was called Joakim; but there was another Jechonias who was called Joachim. But according to Augustine, it was as was said above. For this transmigration of the children of Israel signifies the transfer of the faith to the Gentiles: To you it was necessary for us first to speak the word of God (Acts 13:46). In that transmigration, a sort of bending back of the Jews toward the Gentiles occurred. Therefore, what one might call a kind of corner was established; and, for this reason, this Jechonias signifies Christ, who was made the cornerstone, joining both the Jewish and Gentile peoples in Himself: The stone which the builders rejected; the same is become the head of the corner (Psalms 117:22).

But here a question is asked. In Jeremiah 22:30 it is said, Write this man (Sedecias) barren, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for there shall not be a man of his seed that shall sit upon the throne of David (Jeremiah 22:30). How, therefore, can it be said that Christ descended from David through Sedecias, since Isaiah wrote the following concerning Christ: He shall sit upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom (Isaiah 9:7)?

And it is replied, according to Ambrose, that when Christ is said to sit upon a throne, it is understood as a spiritual and not a corporeal kingdom, except to the extent that David’s corporeal kingdom signifies a spiritual kingdom.

And Salathiel begot Zorobabel. Against this, it is said in 1 Chronicles 3 that the sons of Jechonias were Asir, Salathiel, Melchiram, and Phadaia. And Phadaia had sons, Zorobabel and Semei. Concerning Abiud, however, there is no mention of him there at all.

Therefore, it seems that the Evangelist spoke wrongly, saying that Salathiel begot Zorobabel, and that Zorobabel begot Abiud.

Regarding this, it is answered in three ways in the Gloss.

1. One answer is that, in the book of Chronicles, many things have been corrupted through the errors of transcribers, especially concerning those things that pertain to numbers and to names. Therefore, the Apostle forbids paying attention to these corrupted generations, which lead to more questions than real utility (1 Timothy 1:4).

2. Another answer is that Salathiel had two different names. For he is called Salathiel and Phadaia; and for this reason the book of Chronicles names Zorobabel the son of Phadaia, but the Evangelist names him the son of Salathiel. There is, therefore, no opposition.

3. A third answer, and it is truer, is that Salathiel and Phadaia were brothers, as the book of Chronicles relates. Phadaia, however, begot a son whom he called by the same name, namely, Zorobabel, and this man begot Abiud. Also, it should be said that the book of Chronicles recounts the genealogy of Phadaia himself; but the Evangelist recounts the generation of Salathiel, because Christ was born of him.

It should be observed, however, that regarding these men who were from Abiud all the way to Joseph, there is no mention of them in Sacred Scripture, but these things were taken from the annals of the Hebrews, which Herod, in large part, caused to be burned, so that the lowliness of his lineage might be hidden.

Note, therefore, that in this part of the genealogy three ranks are set forth. The first is the rank of the teachers, and it contains four generations: for before prayer preparation is required, according to what is said, Before prayer prepare your soul . And, for this reason, after Jechonias, which means ‘preparation of the Lord,’ follows Salathiel, which means ‘my petition’; and they signify Christ, who in all his prayers was heard for his reverence (Hebrews 5:7).

Now, prayer should precede teaching, according to that passage, Pray that speech may be given me in the opening of my mouth (Ephesians 6:19); and, for this reason, after Salathiel follows Zorobabel, that is, ‘the master of Babylon,’ which means ‘of confusion.’ This is because, through the teaching and preaching of the Apostles, the Gentiles were called back to the true God, and this led to the confusion of idolatry. And this pertains mainly to Christ, who says, You call me Master and Lord. And you say well (John 13:13).

Now, through teaching and preaching, a man acquires the dignity of a father; therefore, they are called the fathers of those who are spiritually instructed: For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, we are children (1 Corinthians 4:15). And, for this reason, there follows, And Zorobabel begot Abiud, which means ‘he is my father’; and this belongs to Christ: He shall cry out to me: You are my father (Psalms 88:27).

And Abiud begot Eliacim. Here is indicated the rank of the beginners, namely, the hearers. Now the first thing that occurs in the hearer through preaching, and which a preacher should intend, is that the hearer rise from his vices to the virtues, according to what is said, Rise, you that sleep (Ephesians 5:14). And, for this reason, Abiud begot Eliacim, which means ‘resurrection’; and this belongs to Christ who says, Every one that believes in me has eternal life (John 11:26).

Now one who rises cannot arrive at the state of justice except through God’s help. And, for this reason, after he has risen, a man needs God’s help, according to what is said, My help is from the Lord (Psalms 120:2). Therefore, it continues, And Eliacim begot Azor, which means ‘aided.’ This also belongs to Christ, of whom it is said in Psalm 26:9: Be thou my helper, O Lord.

Through this help one arrives at justice. Therefore, Azor begot Sadoc, which means ‘the just’: The justice of God, by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all, and upon all them that believe in him (Romans 3:22). Now the consummation or end of justice is charity: The end of justice is Christ, the end of the commandment is charity (1 Timothy 1:5). There are only two precepts, namely, the love of God and the love of neighbor: And this commandment we have from God, that he who loves God love also his brother (1 John 4:21).

And, for this reason, Sadoc is followed by Achim, and Achim is followed by Eliud. Achim is interpreted ‘my brother.’ Therefore, it signifies love of neighbor: Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity! (Psalms 132:1). This belongs to Christ, who is our flesh and our brother. And because love of neighbor cannot be without love of God, it continues: And Achim begot Eliud. Eliud is interpreted ‘my God’: You are my God (Psalms 30:15).

And Eliud begot Eleazar. Here is designated the rank of the advanced. Now one cannot advance without divine help; and, for this reason, Eliud is rightly followed by Eleazar, which means ‘God is my helper’: Blessed is the man whose help is from you (Psalms 83:6). But because God can help toward salvation in many ways, such as by removing obstacles and by giving opportunities, there is very powerful help through the gift of His grace: By the grace of God, I am what I am (1 Corinthians 15:10).

And, for this reason, Eleazar, that is to say, God’s help, is followed by Mathan, which means ‘gift,’ namely, of divine grace. This belongs to Christ, who is also one who gives: For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son (John 3:16); He gave gifts to men (Hebrews 4:8).

But because a person might merely rely upon the gift of grace, falling into negligence by not cooperating with grace by his free will, therefore Jacob follows, which means ‘wrestler’; on account of this it is said: By the grace of God, I am what I am (1 Corinthians 15:10). And it continues, And his grace in me has not been void; We do exhort you that you receive not the grace of God in vain (2 Corinthians 6:1).

And now Joseph follows, meaning ‘increase,’ because through grace and the effort of free will a person comes to an increase: The path of the just, as a shining light, goes forwards, and increases even to perfect day (Proverbs 4:18). Therefore, Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary.

But here there are two questions. For first, it is asked about the contradiction which seems to exist between Luke and Matthew. For Luke says that Joseph was of Heli, who was of Mathat. Matthew, however, says that he was of Jacob. Therefore, there seems to be a contradiction between them.

But it should be said regarding this that the two were of the same stock but not of the same family, namely, Mathan and Mathat. For they were of the stock of David; but one descended from the stock of David through Solomon, namely, Mathan; the other descended from David through Nathan, namely, Mathat. Therefore Mathan took a wife by the name of Estha, from whom he begot Jacob. Now when Mathan died, because the Law did not forbid a widow to marry, she married his brother, Mathat, who begot Heli from her. Therefore, Jacob and Heli were brothers from the same mother, but not from the same father. Now Heli took a wife and died without children; from this, Jacob, to raise up seed for his brother, took the same wife and begot Joseph.

Therefore, Joseph was the son of Jacob according to the flesh, but the son of Heli according to adoption. And, for this reason, Matthew, who gives only Christ’s ancestors according to the flesh, says that Joseph was the son of Jacob; Luke, however, who gives many ancestors who were not ancestors according to the flesh, says he was the son of Heli. The reason for this diversity was stated above.

It should be observed, however, that when a brother took his brother’s wife to raise up his name, it should not be understood that the son who was begotten was called by the name of the deceased brother. For Boaz, who took Ruth to raise up seed for Elimelech, begot a son whom he did not call Elimelech, but Obed; but in this sense he is said to raise up his name, because that son was ascribed to him according to the Law. Nor is this unfitting, because, as it is said in ecclesiastical history, the Apostles and the Evangelists themselves were instructed by Christ’s closer ancestors about Christ’s genealogy, who were keeping this in their hearts partly by memory and partly from the aforementioned books of Chronicles.

There is a second question. Matthew intends to write Christ’s generation. Since, therefore, Christ was not the son of Joseph, only of Mary, why was it necessary to trace Christ’s generation from Abraham to Joseph?

To this it is responded that it was the custom of the Jews, and is still so to this day, to take a wife from one’s own tribe. Therefore, in Numbers 36:7, it is said that every man should take a wife from his tribe and kindred. And though this was not necessarily observed, nevertheless, the custom was observed. Therefore, Joseph took Mary for his wife, as she was very closely related to him. And, for this reason, since they were of the same tribe, by the fact that Joseph is shown to have descended from David, it is also shown that Mary and Christ were of the seed of David. But from where can it be held that Joseph and Mary were of the same family? It is evident from what is stated in Luke 2:4, that when a census was due to occur, Joseph and Mary themselves went up to the city of David, which is Bethlehem. Therefore, by the fact that he brought her with him, it is evident that they were of the same family.

But it is asked why he does not show Christ’s generation from David through Mary. It is replied that it was not the custom among the Hebrews, nor even among the Gentiles, to trace a genealogy through women. Therefore, Christ, who had come for the salvation of humankind, willed to be imitated in this, namely, to observe human customs; and so His genealogy is not traced through women, particularly since His genealogy could be known through men without danger to the truth.

The husband of Mary. Jerome says, “When you hear this word ‘husband,’ do not let the suspicion of wedlock arise.”

On the contrary, was there not a true marriage? It is replied that it was indeed, because the three goods of matrimony were present: offspring, namely, God Himself; faith, since there was no adultery; and sacrament, since it was an indivisible union of minds. What, therefore, is to be said? This denial by Jerome must be understood with respect to the consummation of marriage, which is through carnal intercourse. Now, for this reason, as Augustine says, he is called Mary’s husband, so that it might be shown that the marriage was between spouses equally bound by a vow of continence.

But how was this a marriage? For a vow impedes contracting marriage and annuls the contract. Therefore, since the Blessed Virgin vowed her virginity, it seems there was no marriage. Furthermore, she would have agreed to carnal intercourse if it was a marriage.

But it should be replied that the Blessed Virgin was constrained between two things: for on one side, she was constrained by the curse of the Law, to which a sterile person was subject; on the other side, she was constrained on account of her intention to observe chastity. And, for this reason, she resolved to practice virginity, unless the Lord would ordain otherwise. As to what is asserted, that she consented to carnal intercourse, it should be replied that she did not. She did, in fact, consent directly to marriage; however, she would have consented somewhat implicitly to carnal intercourse, if God had willed this.

Of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. Here a twofold error is excluded. One error asserts that Christ was the son of Joseph. And this is excluded by what is said, De qua. For if He were the son of Joseph, the Evangelist would have said, De quo; or at least he would have said, De quibus. Another error is excluded, namely, that of Valentinus, who says that Christ did not take a body from the Blessed Virgin; instead, He brought it from heaven and passed through the Blessed Virgin as through a channel. What is said, Of whom, is opposed to this. For if it were as he says, the Evangelist would not have said, Of whom, but instead ‘through whom,’ or ‘by whom,’ or ‘from whom,’ or something similar.

For this preposition of always indicates consubstantiality; the preposition ‘from,’ however, does not. Therefore, it can be said: ‘From morning comes the day,’ and ‘The chest comes from the craftsman.’ But it is never said, ‘The chest is made out of the craftsman.’ Therefore, by the fact that he says of, he indicates that Christ’s body was formed from the body of the Blessed Virgin: God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law (Galatians 4:4).

Here the error of Nestorius, who asserted that there were two persons in Christ, is guarded against; and, for this reason, he did not admit that God was born or suffered. Nor would he attribute to a man other things that belong to God, such as to exist from eternity, or to have created the stars. Therefore, in some of his letters he interpreted this passage as a confirmation of his error: Of whom was born Jesus; he does not say God, but Jesus, which is the name of a man, as is also Christ. But according to this, there would not have been any union in Christ, nor could Christ be said to be one.

Therefore, observe that in Christ, because a union of the two natures occurs in one Person, a communication of idioms occurs, such that those things which belong to God may be attributed to a human being, and vice versa. And an example can be given of two accidents in one substance, as, for instance, an apple is said to be white and savory. And insofar as it is savory, it is said to be white, because the apple is white, and vice versa.

Who is called Christ. Note: He is simply called Christ without any additional name, to indicate that He was anointed with invisible oil, unlike the kings and prophets in the Law who were anointed with material oil: Your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows (Psalms 44:8).

So all the generations. Having recounted Christ’s generation, here he concludes the number of generations. And he divides them into three series of fourteen. The first series of fourteen is from Abraham to David inclusively, i.e., such that David is named in that first series of fourteen: So all the generations. The second series of fourteen extends from David exclusively, such that David is not numbered, but rather it starts from Solomon and ends at the Babylonian Captivity: And from David to the transmigration of Babylon, are fourteen generations. The third begins from the Babylonian Captivity and ends at Christ, such that Christ is the fourteenth generation.

Chrysostom assigns the reason: that, in these three series of fourteen, some change for the people of Israel always occurred. For in the first fourteen they were under the leaders; in the second, they were under the kings; and in the third, they were under the priests. And Christ was a leader, king, and priest: The Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king (Isaiah 33:22). And about His priesthood it is said, You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek (Psalms 109:4).

He assigns another reason, namely, that the necessity of Christ’s coming might be shown. For in the first fourteen they asked for a king against God’s will, and they transgressed the Law. Now in the second, they were led into captivity on account of their sins. But in the third, we are freed from all guilt, misery, and spiritual slavery of sin.

Jerome assigns a third reason, namely, that by these men are signified the three periods in which the lives of all humankind are led. For by the first fourteen is signified the time before the Law, because in it are listed some fathers who were before the Law. By the second, the time under the Law is signified, because all those fathers who are listed were under the Law.

Now by the third, the time of grace is signified, because it ends at Christ, i.e., by whom grace and truth came (John 1:17). This division also corresponds to a mystery, because fourteen is a number composed of four and ten. By ten, therefore, the Old Testament is understood, which was given in ten Commandments. By four, however, the Gospel is understood, because it is divided into four books. Now the three groups of fourteen designate faith in the Trinity. Therefore, by the fact that Matthew divides the genealogy into three groups of fourteen, it is indicated that through the New and Old Testament, in faith of the Trinity, one comes to Christ.

Now, concerning the number of generations, there are two opinions. For according to Jerome, who says that because there is a different Jechonias at the end of the first fourteen and at the beginning of the second, there are forty-two generations, as they make a total of three series of fourteen. But according to Augustine, there are only forty-one; and by the fact that Christ is the last one, this also corresponds to a mystery. For the number forty is the product of four and ten, or conversely.

According to the Platonists, four is the number of bodies (for a body is composed of the four elements), while ten is the number which is the sum of the lineal numbers (for one, two, three, and four make ten). And because Matthew intends to declare how Christ descended lineally to us, for this reason Christ came to us by forty generations. Luke, however, who intends to commend in Christ His priestly dignity, to which belongs the expiation of sins (I say not to you, until seven times; but until seventy times seven times, etc. (Matthew 18:22)), lists seventy-seven generations.

For this number is the product of seven and eleven, as seven times eleven are seventy-seven. By eleven, therefore, the transgression of the Decalogue is understood; by seven, however, is understood the sevenfold grace, through which sins are forgiven. Now because, according to Jerome, there are forty-two generations, this is also not without a mystery, because by those two are understood the two precepts of charity, or the two Testaments are understood, the New and the Old.

Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. Having set forth Christ’s generation in general, here His generation is described in detail; and it is divided into three parts.

1. First, he sets forth a kind of title;

2. Second, the Evangelist describes the mode of generation, where it is said, When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph;

3. And third, he proves the mode of generation, where it is said, Whereupon Joseph her husband.

He says, therefore, Now the generation of Christ. This can be read in two ways: for according to Chrysostom it is a kind of prologue to the things to be said; but according to Remigius it is a type of epilogue to the things which were said. It is read in the first way as follows: Thus, it has been said concerning Christ’s genealogy, how Abraham begot Isaac, etc., through carnal admixture.

But the generation of Christ was in this wise; supply the words, ‘as it will be said in what follows.’ In the second way it is read thus, as though it were an epilogue to what preceded: as it is said, Abraham, etc., to Christ.

Now the generation of Christ was in this wise; supply the words, ‘namely, that it extended from Abraham through David and the others to Christ.’ Afterwards, he describes the mode of the generation:

1. First, he describes the person generating, when he says, When as his mother Mary was espoused;

2. Second, he describes the actual generating of Christ, when he says, Before they came together, she was found with child;

3. Third, he describes the author of the generation, when he says, of the Holy Ghost.

He describes the person generating by three things.

1. First, he describes her by her condition, when he says, espoused to Joseph;

2. Second, he describes her by her dignity, when he says, His mother;

3. And third, he describes her by her proper name, when he says, Mary.

He says, therefore, When as Mary the mother of Jesus was espoused to Joseph.

But here a question immediately arises. Since Christ willed to be born of a virgin, why did He will that His mother be espoused?

A threefold reason, according to Jerome, is assigned.

1. The first is so that the testimony of her virginity would be more credible: for if she had not been espoused, and said she was a virgin when she was with child, it would seem that she asserted this for no other reason than to hide the crime of adultery. But since she had been espoused, she had no need to lie. And, for this reason, she would have been believed more easily: Your testimonies have become exceedingly credible (Psalms 92:5).

2. Another reason is so that she would have a man’s protection, either when she fled to Egypt, or when she returned from there.

3. The third reason was so that His birth might be hidden from the devil, lest, namely, if he knew, he might impede His Passion, and the fruit of our redemption: For if they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory (1 Corinthians 2:8); and this is explained concerning the devil, meaning the devil would not have permitted Him to have been crucified.

But it seems it was the contrary. Did the devil never learn that she was a virgin? For her virginity was in her uncorrupted flesh. Therefore, the devil could have known that she was a virgin.

But it should be replied, according to Ambrose, who also assigns this reason, that devils can know some things by some subtlety of their nature; nevertheless, there are certain things which they cannot know except by divine permission. Therefore, the devil might have known her virginity if he had not been divinely prevented from making a careful investigation.

Three reasons are assigned by Ambrose.

1. The first is that it was for the sake of preserving the honor of the mother of the Lord: “The Lord preferred people to doubt His origin, rather than His mother’s purity.” And, for this reason, He willed that she be espoused, so that the suspicion of adultery might be taken away: for He had come to fulfill the Law, not to destroy it: I have not come to destroy, but to fulfill (Matthew 5:17); Honor your father and your mother (Exodus 20:12).

2. Another reason is that an excuse for virgins’ ill repute for adultery might be taken away: for if the mother of the Lord had not been espoused, and nevertheless was with child, they might excuse themselves through her: Incline not my heart to evil words; to make excuses in sins (Psalms 140:4).

3. The third reason is that Christ espoused Himself to the Church, which is a virgin: For I have espoused you (2 Corinthians 11:2). And, for this reason, He willed to be born of an espoused virgin as a sign that He espoused Himself to the Church.

When as his mother Mary was espoused. But to whom? To Joseph. According to Chrysostom, Joseph was a carpenter; and he signifies Christ, who through the wood of the Cross restored all things heavenly, and so on. His mother, that is, God’s mother. Here, her dignity is shown: for this was not granted to any other creature, neither man nor angel, to have been the father or mother of God; on the contrary, this was a unique grace, that she would become the mother not of a mere man but of God. For that reason, it is said in Revelation, A woman clothed with the sun (Revelation 12:1), as though she were completely filled with the divinity. This is what Nestorius denied, saying that the divinity was not received by the Virgin.

Against whom Ignatius Martyr uses a beautiful example to show that she was the Mother of God. “It is clear,” he says, “that in the generation of men in general, a woman is called one’s mother; and, nevertheless, the woman does not give the rational soul, which is from God, but provides the substance for the formation of the body.

In this way, therefore, a woman is called the mother of the whole man, because that which is taken from her is united to a rational soul. Similarly, when Christ’s humanity was taken from the blessed Virgin, on account of the union with the divinity she is called not only the mother of a man, but also the Mother of God, although the divinity was not taken from her, just as in other men the soul is not taken from the mother.”

Mary, her proper name, is interpreted ‘Star of the sea,’ or ‘Enlightener,’ or in her own language it is interpreted, ‘Mistress’: hence, in Revelation 12:1 she is described with the moon under her feet. Before they came together.

Here Helvidius objects: If it is said before they came together, therefore, at some time, they came together. Hence, he denied the virginity of Christ’s mother—not before the birth, nor during the birth, but after the birth, he says that she was known by man.

Jerome responds that, without a doubt, this word that is said, Before, always implies a relationship to the future. But this can be in two ways: either according to reason, or according to the understanding of the intellect. For if it is said, ‘Before I ate in the port of Rome, I sailed to Africa,’ it must not be understood that I ate after I sailed to Africa. It is understood that I had intended to eat, and, having been prevented by the voyage, I did not eat. So it is here: it is not to be understood that afterwards they really came together, as that impious man says. Rather, it is understood from the very fact that she had become betrothed that, according to common opinion, it was lawful for them to come together at some time, although they never actually did.

Remigius explains this differently: it may be understood concerning the solemn celebration of the nuptials. For the betrothal was beforehand, and the betrothal lasted for some days, and, meanwhile, the betrothed woman was under the guardianship of her husband. Afterwards, however, the solemn celebration took place, and then she was led to the husband’s house.

The Evangelist speaks of these betrothals here. And, according to this, Helvidius’s objection has no basis. Note the appropriateness of the word: for something is properly said to be ‘found’ when it was neither hoped for nor thought of. Joseph had such a high opinion of Mary’s purity that it was beyond his expectation to find her with child.

She was found with child—supply the words ‘by Joseph himself,’ who, as Jerome says, “was investigating nearly all her secrets as her betrothed husband.” Of the Holy Ghost. Here the agent of the conception is discussed. This, however, is to be read separately from what preceded, for it is not to be read or understood that Joseph found her with child by the Holy Ghost, but only that he found her with child. And lest the suspicion of adultery might arise in the meantime for the hearers, the Evangelist added, Of the Holy Ghost—that is, by the power of the Holy Ghost, not from His substance, lest He be believed to be the Son of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost shall come upon you, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow you (Luke 1:35).

However, according to Augustine, the works of the Trinity are indivisible. Therefore, that conception was worked not only by the Holy Ghost but also by the Father and Son. Nevertheless, by a certain appropriation, it is attributed to the Holy Ghost, and this is for three reasons.

The first reason is because the Holy Ghost is love. And this was the sign of the greatest love, that God willed His Son to become incarnate: God so loved the world, as to give His only begotten Son (John 3:16).

The second reason is that grace is attributed to the Holy Ghost: There are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:4); and this was the greatest grace.

The third reason is assigned in the acts of the Council of Nicaea: that in us there is a twofold word—the word of the heart and the word of the voice. The word of the heart is that conception of the intellect, which is hidden from men, except insofar as it is expressed by the voice, or the word of the voice. The eternal Word before the Incarnation, when He was with the Father and hidden from us, is compared to the word of the heart. But the Incarnate Word, who has now appeared to us and is manifest, is compared to the word of the voice. But the word of the heart is not joined to the voice except by means of breath. Thus, rightly, the Incarnation of the Word, through which He visibly appeared to us, was made by means of the Holy Ghost.

Note here the four reasons why Christ willed to be born of a virgin:

1. Original sin is contracted in offspring from the marital union. Therefore, if Christ had been born of sexual intercourse, He would have contracted original sin. But this was not fitting, since He came into the world to take away our sins. Hence, He ought not to have been infected with the contagion of sin.
2. Christ was the chief teacher of chastity. Scripture says, There are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 19:12).
3. It was for the sake of purity and cleanliness. As it is written, Wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul . Therefore, it was fitting that His mother’s womb not be polluted by any corruption.
4. It was on account of the characteristic of a word: namely, that as a word comes forth from the heart without corrupting the heart, so Christ willed and ought to have been born without corrupting the Virgin.

Whereupon Joseph her husband being a just man. After describing the manner of the generation, here he confirms it by testimony. For since the Evangelist said above that the mother of Jesus was found with child, and that this was of the Holy Ghost, someone might believe that the Evangelist states this because of his devotion to the Master. Therefore, the Evangelist here confirms the aforementioned manner of generation. This is confirmed first by the angelic revelation, where it is said, And Joseph rising, and second, by the prophetic prediction, Now this was done.

In the first part (the angelic revelation), there are three elements:

1. First, the person to whom the revelation was made is introduced.
2. Second, the one revealing is introduced, where it is said, But while he thought upon these things, behold the angel of the Lord appeared.
3. Third, the words of the revelation are set forth, where it is said, Joseph, son of David.

Now, the person to whom the revelation was made is shown to be a credible witness by two things: first, that he is just, and thus would not lie; and second, that he is her spouse, or husband. The jealousy and rage of the husband will not spare in the day of revenge (Proverbs 6:34). Therefore, it reads thus: She was found by Joseph with child. Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her. Here there are two opinions of the Saints, namely, of Ambrose and Augustine. For Augustine holds that Joseph, who was not present when the angelic annunciation was made, upon returning and finding her with child, suspected adultery.

But then the question immediately arises: How was he just if he was not willing to expose—that is, to make public—the crime of her whom he suspected of adultery? For in this he would seem to be consenting to the sin, as it says in Romans 1:32 that not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them are worthy of death.

But to this there is a threefold response:

1. According to John Chrysostom, justice is twofold. One is the justice that is the cardinal virtue, called special justice; the other is legal justice, which includes every virtue: piety, clemency, and the like. Therefore, when it is said that Joseph was just, it is to be understood as general justice, just as justice may be taken for piety. Therefore, because he was just—that is to say, pious—he was not willing to expose her.
2. According to Augustine, sin is twofold: namely, hidden sin and manifest sin. For a hidden sin is not to be publicly accused; rather, a remedy is to be applied to it in a different way. Therefore, the suspicion of adultery, which Joseph had, was the suspicion of a hidden sin, and not of a manifest one, because he alone knew of it. And, therefore, if others knew her to be with child, they could only think that it was his; and thus her crime ought not to have been made public.
3. According to Rabanus, Joseph was indeed just and pious. For in that he was pious, he wished not to make her crime public; but in that he willed to put her away, he appeared just. For he knew that, as Proverbs 18:22 says, He that keepeth an adulteress, is foolish and wicked.

But, according to Jerome and Origen, he did not suspect adultery, for Joseph knew Mary’s chastity. He had read in Scripture that a virgin would conceive: And there shall come forth a rod (virga) out of the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise up out of his root (Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 11:1). He also knew that Mary had descended from the line of David. Hence, he more easily believed this to be fulfilled in her than that she had been violated. And therefore, considering himself unworthy to dwell with one of so great holiness, he wanted to put her away privately, as Peter said, Depart from me, O Lord, for I am a sinful man (Luke 5:8). Therefore, he was not willing to take her—that is, to lead her home to himself and accept her as a spouse—thinking himself unworthy. Or, according to the opinion of others, being unaware of the divine purpose, he did so lest he be held guilty if he concealed the matter and kept her with him.

But while he thought upon these things. Here the one revealing is introduced, and three things are mentioned: First, the time is mentioned. Second, the one revealing is introduced: Behold the angel. Third, the manner of revelation is expressed: Appeared to Joseph in his sleep. Therefore, he says, But while he thought upon these things—that is, while he was turning these things over in his mind—behold the angel of the Lord appeared.

Note that two things are here commended about Joseph: his wisdom and clemency. His wisdom, indeed, in that before he acted, he deliberated: Let your eyelids go before your steps (Proverbs 4:25)—that is, do nothing without judgment and thoughtful deliberation. Likewise, his clemency or piety, in that he did not manifest or make public her deed, unlike many men who immediately want to publicize externally what they have in their heart: As a city that lies open and is not compassed with walls, so is a man that cannot refrain his own spirit in speaking (Proverbs 25:28).

And thus, he merited to be instructed, or consoled. Thus it follows: Behold the angel of the Lord appeared, as if to say, the help of God was at hand: A helper in due time in tribulation (Psalms 53:6); For behold God is my helper: and the Lord is the protector of my soul (Psalms 9:10). The angel of the Lord: nothing indeed is better able to free from blame than he who was aware of her preserved virginity. Hence, it is believed that the same angel who was sent to Mary (Luke 1) was sent to Joseph—The angel of the Lord shall encamp round about them that fear him (Psalms 23:8)—actually, to Mary and Joseph, that he might deliver her from disgrace and not leave Joseph in confusion.

But here the question is asked: why was the revelation not made to Joseph in the beginning, before he was troubled? Likewise, why did Mary not make known to him the angelic annunciation which was made to her?

Now, to the first question, the answer is that the angel did this so that Joseph’s testimony might be more believable. For just as the Lord permitted the Apostle Thomas to doubt His Resurrection, so that by doubting he would touch His wounds, and by touching he might believe, and by believing he might remove the wound of unbelief in us, so also the Lord permitted Joseph to doubt Mary’s chastity, so that by doubting he might receive the angelic revelation, and by receiving it, he might believe more firmly. To the second question, it may be answered that if Mary had told him, he would not have believed.

Appeared to him in his sleep: this is the manner of revelation. Note that, strictly speaking, to ‘appear’ is a characteristic of those things which by their nature are invisible, yet they possess the power to become visible, such as God or an angel. For those things which are already visible by their nature are not properly said to ‘appear.’ Therefore, it is called a divine or angelic apparition. Hence, it is properly said, Appeared to him in his sleep.

But here it is asked, why in his sleep? The reason given in the Gloss is that Joseph was in some way doubting, and therefore he was in some way sleeping. Thus, it is rightly said that the angel appeared to him in his sleep. A better reason can be assigned. For as the Apostle says in 1 Corinthians 14:22, Prophecy is given to believers, but signs to unbelievers. And a revelation, which is called prophetic, properly occurs in sleep: If there be among you a prophet of the Lord, I will appear to him in a vision, or I will speak to him in a dream (Numbers 12:6). And so, because Joseph was just and faithful, it was fitting for him, as a faithful man, to have an apparition suitable for believers—namely, a somewhat prophetic revelation. However, because a corporeal apparition is miraculous, such a type of apparition was not fitting for him, since he believed and was faithful.

But then it is asked why a visible apparition was made to Mary, since she was most faithful?

And it must be said that the mystery of the Incarnation was revealed to Mary at the beginning, when it was more difficult to believe. Therefore, it was fitting that a visible apparition be made to her. But to Joseph it was not revealed at the beginning, but instead when it was already largely manifest, since he already saw her womb enlarged, and therefore he was more easily able to believe. And thus, the apparition that occurred in his sleep was sufficient for him.

Joseph, son of David. Here the words of the revelation are related, and they are divided into three parts according to the three things the angel did:

1. First, he prohibits a divorce for Mary and Joseph.
2. Second, he makes known the mystery of the Incarnation when he says, That which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost.
3. Third, he foretells the future service of Joseph, which in fact he would show to the Child, where it is said, And she shall bring forth a son.

And so he says, Joseph. He calls him to make him attentive to listening and to subject him to himself. This is common in Scripture: namely, when an apparition of a superior being is first bestowed, some lifting of the mind and attention is required in the hearer. Son of man, stand upon your feet, and I will speak to you (Ezekiel 2:1). And further, O son of man, hear all that I say to you: and do not provoke me (Ezekiel 2:8). I will stand upon my watch (Habakkuk 2:1).

Son of David; thus his lineage is expressed to draw attention to what is said in Isaiah 7:13: Hear you therefore, O house of David: Is it a small thing for you to be grievous to men, that you are grievous to my God also? For this sign was not given to one person but to the whole tribe or house. Hence, because the angel was obliged to instruct Joseph about this, he is prompted by the expression of his lineage to recall the Prophet’s prediction.

Fear not. Every apparition inspires some fear, whether it be of a good or bad angel. This is because such an apparition is unfamiliar and somewhat strange to human nature, and so it makes a man somewhat disturbed. But there is this difference: the apparition of a bad angel incites terror and leaves a man in this terror, so that he might more easily lure the man, thus put out of himself, into sin. But the apparition of a good angel, although it inspires some terror, nevertheless this terror is immediately lessened and followed by consolation, so that the man might return to himself and heed what is said to him. Therefore, in Luke 1, where it is said that an angel appeared to Zechariah, the words immediately follow (Luke 1:13): Fear not, Zechariah, and likewise in the same chapter (Luke 1, verse 80): Fear not, Mary. Hence, after the apparition occurred, consolation is immediately bestowed upon Joseph.

He had a twofold fear: namely, of God and also of sin, lest he should sin by dwelling with Mary as one conscious of a sin. And so, Fear not is added—namely, from fear of sin—to take Mary for your wife. Note that she is called his wife, not on account of their matrimony, but on account of their betrothal. For it is the custom of Scripture to call betrothed individuals spouses, and spouses betrothed.

But it is asked, why does the angel command him to take her, when he had not yet put her away? And it is to be said that although he had not put her away physically, nevertheless he did put her away in thought, and so he is commanded to take her. Or, fear not to take refers to the solemnization or celebration of the nuptials.

For that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost. Here he makes plain the mystery of the Incarnation. Note that although there were three elements on that occasion—namely, the Virgin herself conceiving, the Son of God conceived, and the active power of the Holy Ghost—the angel indicates two of them well: namely, the one conceiving and the author of the conception. But the third, the very one conceived—the Son of God—is not indicated except vaguely: For that which, he said, is born in her. And this is to show that He is ineffable and incomprehensible, not only to humans but also to angels. For that which, he says, is born in her (he does not say of her, because to be conceived of a mother is to go forth into the light; to be born in a mother is the same as to be conceived) is of the Holy Ghost. This, therefore, is the angelic testimony, which the Evangelist cites to prove what he said above: She was found with child, of the Holy Ghost.

Note that in the conception of other women, in human seed there is a formative power, which resides in the seed, and by this power the fetus is formed and nourished in the woman’s body. But the power of the Holy Ghost fulfilled this function. And thus it is sometimes found to have been said by the Saints that the Holy Ghost was there as the seed; yet, at other times it is said that there was no seed there. This is because in human seed there are two things: namely, the corruptible substance itself, which descends from a man’s body, and the formative power itself. Therefore, it must be said that the Holy Ghost was there as the seed with respect to the formative power, but He was not there as the seed with respect to its corporeal substance, because neither the body of Christ nor His conception was made from the substance of the Holy Ghost. And so it is clear that the Holy Ghost cannot be called the father of Christ, neither according to His divine nature nor according to His human nature.

Indeed, not according to His divine nature, because although Christ shares the same glory with the Holy Ghost, nevertheless the Son according to His divine nature receives nothing from the Holy Ghost; and so He cannot be called His Son, for a son receives something from his father.

Likewise, neither according to His human nature, because a father and a son ought to share the same substance. But Christ, although He was conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, yet He was not from the substance of the Holy Ghost.

But on the contrary, this, which is said, Of the Holy Ghost, is what is said in Proverbs 9:1: Wisdom hath built herself a house. Therefore, it seems that divine Wisdom Itself—that is, the Son of God—united a human nature to Himself, and so it was not done by the power of the Holy Ghost.

But according to Augustine, there is a twofold response:

1. The expression written in Proverbs 9 is to be understood as referring to the Church, which Christ founded by His Blood.
2. The operations of the Trinity are indivisible, and so what the Son does, the Holy Ghost also does. But nevertheless, by a certain appropriation, it is attributed to the Holy Ghost, for the reason mentioned above.

And she shall bring forth a son. Here he foretells the service that Joseph will show to the child soon to be born. He also does three things:

1. First, he foretells the offspring of the Virgin.
2. Second, he makes known the service to be shown to the child by Joseph himself, when he says, And you shall call his name.
3. Third, he reveals the name imposed upon that child, when he says, Jesus.

He says, therefore: She shall bring forth. Thus, she indeed conceived of the Holy Ghost first, but she shall bring forth a son. He does not say, ‘To you,’ because Joseph did not beget the child. In Luke 1:13 it is said to Zechariah: Your wife shall bear you a son, because Zechariah begot him.

Or, therefore, he does not say, ‘To you,’ so that it might be shown that He was born for all people—not only for you, nor for herself does she bring forth her son, but for the whole world. Behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, (that shall be to all the people): for this day, is born to you a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord, in the city of David (Luke 2:10–11).

But because Joseph might have said, ‘She conceived of the Holy Ghost and will bring forth a son; what, therefore, is this to me? In what way am I necessary for him?’ And so, he adds Joseph’s own service: And you shall call his name. It was the custom among the Hebrews, and still is today, that on the eighth day they circumcise the child and then give him his name. This was done by Joseph; therefore, in this work, he was the minister. Therefore, it is said to him, You shall call. He does not say, ‘You shall impose,’ because the name was already imposed upon him: You shall be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name (Isaiah 62:2).

Jesus—this is the name imposed by God. And he gives the reason: For he shall save his people—His people, whom He acquired for Himself by His blood. In Daniel 9:26 it is said: The people that shall deny him shall not be his. Therefore, to be the people of the Lord is through faith: You are a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, a purchased people (1 Peter 2:9).

From their sins. In the book of Judges it is frequently said that such-and-such a one saved Israel. But from whom? It was from their carnal enemies. But here it is from their sins, by remitting sins, which belongs to God alone to do: But that you may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to remit sins (Luke 5:24).

Note that here Nestorius is confounded, who said that the things which belong to God—such as being from eternity, being omnipotent, or the like—do not fittingly belong to this man. Behold, it is this very same man, who was born of the Virgin, who is called Jesus. He shall save his people from their sins. Therefore, since no one is able to remit sins but God alone, one is correct in saying that this man is God, and that those things which belong to God most truly apply to him.