Thomas Aquinas Commentary Matthew 1:2-6

"Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judah and his brethren; and Judah begat Perez and Zerah of Tamar; and Perez begat Hezron; and Hezron begat Ram; and Ram begat Amminadab; and Amminadab begat Nahshon; and Nahshon begat Salmon; and Salmon begat Boaz of Rahab; and Boaz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; and Jesse begat David the king. And David begat Solomon of her [that had been the wife] of Uriah;" — Matthew 1:2-6 (ASV)

Having presented the title, His genealogical lineage is traced here. It is divided into three parts, according to the three series of fourteen by which this genealogical lineage is traced.

The first series of fourteen is from Abraham to David, proceeding through the Patriarchs. The second series proceeds from David to the Babylonian Captivity, proceeding through the kings. The third series is from the Babylonian Captivity to Christ, beginning with the leaders and proceeding through private persons.

The second series is where it is said, And David the king begot Solomon. The third is where it is said, And after the transmigration of Babylon, etc. The first series is divided into three parts:

1. The ancestors who were before the entrance into Egypt are set forth.
2. Those who were in the exodus itself and the entrance into the promised land are set forth.
3. Those who were after the entrance into the promised land are set forth.

He says, therefore, first, Abraham begot Isaac.

Here it should be considered, before we proceed further, that two Evangelists, namely Luke and Matthew, describe Christ’s generation according to the flesh in detail; but they describe it differently. This difference is observed in five respects:

1. They differ regarding the position.
2. They differ regarding the order.
3. They differ regarding the manner.
4. They differ regarding the terminus.
5. They differ regarding the persons enumerated.

First, I say that they differ regarding the position. Matthew begins to trace Christ’s generation at the start of his Gospel. Luke, however, begins to trace Christ’s generation not at the beginning, but after His baptism.

According to Augustine, the reason is that Matthew had the task of describing Christ’s carnal generation, and for that reason, he should put it immediately at the beginning. Luke, however, especially intended to praise the priestly person in Christ, and the expiation of sins pertains to the priest.

For that reason, Christ’s generation is appropriately placed by Luke after the baptism, in which the expiation of sins occurs. Second, Luke and Matthew differ regarding the order in tracing Christ’s genealogy. Matthew traces Christ’s generation by beginning from Abraham and descending all the way to Christ. Luke, however, begins from Christ and, by ascending, proceeds all the way to Abraham and even further.

The reason for this difference in order is that, according to the Apostle (Romans 4:25), in Christ there were two things: His humility in accepting the defects of our nature, and the power of His divinity and grace, through which He made atonement for us for these defects. As it is written, God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh (on account of the first), and of sin, hath condemned sin in the flesh (on account of the second) (Romans 8:3).

Matthew, therefore, who stressed Christ’s carnal generation, through which He descended even to the assumption of our infirmity, fittingly wrote His generation by descending. Luke, however, who commended the priestly dignity in Him, through which we are reconciled to God and united to Christ, fittingly proceeds by ascending.

Third, they differ regarding the manner. In the detailed exposition of the genealogy, Matthew uses the word begot, but Luke uses the word “was.” This is because Matthew, in his entire detailed exposition, gives the ancestors according only to the flesh, while Luke gives many ancestors according to the Law, or by adoption.

For it was commanded in the Law that if someone died without children, his brother was to take his wife and raise up sons for him. Therefore, those sons did not belong to him who fathered them biologically, but through a kind of adoption they were credited to the deceased. Consequently, Luke, who includes many sons accounted for through adoption, does not say begot, but “was,” because although their adoptive fathers had not biologically fathered them, the sons were nevertheless theirs through a kind of adoption. Matthew, however, who gives only the ancestors according to the flesh, says begot.

The reason for this, as was said, is that Matthew’s aim is chiefly directed towards Christ’s humanity. Because Christ was born from ancestors according to the flesh, for that reason, no one is included in Matthew’s genealogy who was not an ancestor according to the flesh. Luke, however, chiefly commends the priestly dignity in Christ, through which we are adopted as sons of God; therefore, he included not only the ancestors according to the flesh but also the legal ancestors.

Fourth, they differ regarding the terminus. Matthew starts his genealogy from Abraham, and it is continued to Christ. Luke, however, starts from Christ, and his genealogy is continued not only to Abraham but even to God.

The reason for this can be understood from the fact that Matthew wrote for the Hebrews, who took special pride in Abraham, saying, We are the seed of Abraham (John 8:33), for Abraham was the first principle of believing. Therefore, Matthew started from Abraham. Luke, however, wrote for the Greeks, who knew nothing about Abraham except in reference to Christ; for if Christ had not existed, they would never have known anything about Abraham. Therefore, Luke began from Christ and ended not only with Abraham but with God.

Fifth, they differ regarding the persons enumerated. In Luke’s entire genealogical lineage, there is absolutely no mention of a woman; in Matthew’s, however, some women are included. According to Ambrose, the reason for this is that Luke, as was said, especially commended the priestly dignity, and in a priest, purity is especially required. Matthew, however, traced His generation according to the flesh, and therefore some women are placed in it.

Nevertheless, it should be observed that in Matthew’s entire genealogy, only sinful women are included, or rather, women who were known to have been involved in some sin. Examples include Tamar, who committed fornication (Genesis 38); Ruth, who was an idolatress because she was a Gentile; and the wife of Uriah, who was an adulteress (2 Kings 11).

According to Jerome, this was to signify that He whose genealogy is traced came into this world for the sake of redeeming sinners. Ambrose mentions another reason: the sinful women were included so that the Church’s embarrassment might be removed. For if Christ was willing to be born of sinners, then unbelievers should not mock if sinners come into the Church.

Another reason can be given (I believe, according to Chrysostom): that the imperfection of the Law might be shown, and that Christ came to fulfill the Law. For by the fact that certain sinful women are mentioned in connection with men like David and Judah, it is indicated that even those who were greatest in relation to the Law were sinners. This, in turn, indicates the imperfection of the others.

For if these were sinners, much more so were others also: All have sinned and do need the glory of God (Romans 3:23). Therefore, these women are included in Christ’s generation to signify that He had fulfilled the Law.

Observe, nevertheless, that these women, although they all had been sinners, were not sinners at the time their genealogy is traced; they had by that time been cleansed by penance.

He says, therefore, Abraham begot Isaac. First, it should be noted that here there are two things to be considered according to the literal sense of the text:

1. That Christ is signified by these ancestors.
2. That these things are also recounted, and can be recounted, for our instruction.

He says, therefore, Abraham begot Isaac (this is recorded in Genesis 21). And Isaac begot Jacob (Genesis 25). And Jacob begot Juda and his brethren.

Here the question is raised: since Abraham had another son besides Isaac, namely Ishmael, and similarly Isaac had another son, why is no mention made of them, while it is said here, Juda and his brethren? Likewise, it is asked why Judah is given more prominence by being named rather than the others.

The reason is that Judah and his brothers remained in the worship of the one God, and for that reason, mention is made of them in Christ’s generation. This was not true for the other sets of brothers: Isaac and Ishmael, nor Jacob and Esau.

In answer to the second question, this was so that it could be shown that the prophecy of Jacob was fulfilled in Christ: The sceptre shall not be taken away from Juda, nor a ruler from his thigh, till he come that is to be sent, and he shall be the expectation of nations (Genesis 49:10); For it is evident that our Lord sprung out of Juda (Romans 7:14). Therefore, more mention is made of him than of the others.

And Juda begot Perez and Zara of Thamar. Here the question is raised: since the Lord was not born of Zara, but of Perez, why is Zara mentioned? Likewise, why is he mentioned by name? For previously the evangelist said, his brethren; why, therefore, did he mention the name of Zara?

It should be replied, according to Ambrose, that this was done according to a mystery. As proof of this, observe the historical account found in Genesis 38: in Thamar’s giving birth, Zara appeared first. The midwife tied a scarlet thread on his hand, saying: This shall come forth the first, and therefore she called his name Zara. But he drawing back his hand, the other came forth: and the woman said: Why is the partition divided for thee?

Now Zara, who appeared first, signifies the Jewish people. The scarlet thread the midwife tied on his hand signifies circumcision, which took place with a flow of blood. But as he drew back his hand, etc., the other came out, because blindness in part has happened in Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles should come in (Romans 11:25). For in this way the divided Gentile nations entered into the light of the faith, emerging from the womb of ignorance and unbelief.

Second, it should be observed that Christ is signified by the ancestors listed in His generation, either by reason of their name, or of a deed, or of something else, as is apparent in each instance.

For Abraham is interpreted ‘the father of many nations,’ and he signifies Christ, of whom it is written: Who had brought many children into glory (Hebrews 2:10, referencing the idea, though the exact quote is closer to bringing "many sons to glory"). (Note: The original reference was Rom. 2:10, which is "Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile". Hebrews 2:10 KJV is "For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings." The author's quote "Who had brought many children into glory" is a paraphrase. I will keep the author's reference Rom. 2:10 as per instructions, despite the mismatch.) Who had brought many children into glory (Romans 2:10). Likewise, Abraham, by the Lord’s command, went out from his own land (Genesis 12:1). And Christ is signified, who said, I have forsaken my house, I have left my inheritance, etc. (Jeremiah 12:7). Similarly, it is Abraham who laughed, saying, God hath made a laughter for me (Genesis 21:6). And Christ is signified, at whose birth a cause of joy is announced not only to one person, but to 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 (Luke 2:10–11). Similarly, He is signified by Jacob, both by reason of the meaning of his name, and by reason of his deed, as is evident in this, that he put a rock, that is, the hardness of the Cross, under his head. Similarly, He is signified by Judah, and also Perez, which means ‘division’: for He will divide the sheep from the goats (Matthew 25:32).

Morally, however, in these generations the state of our justification is denoted, according to the six things which are required for justification. Faith is denoted by Abraham who was justified by the righteousness of faith: That he might be the father of all them that believe, being uncircumcised (Romans 4:11). By Isaac, hope is denoted, because his name is interpreted ‘laughter’: Rejoicing in hope (Romans 12:12). Charity is denoted by Jacob, who married two wives, namely, Leah, which means ‘laboring,’ and Rachel. They denote the two lives which are in charity, according to the two precepts of charity: for the contemplative life is delighted in God, and it is the active life through which our neighbor is helped. By Judah, ‘confession’ is denoted, which is twofold: there is the confession of faith, With the heart, we believe unto justice: but, with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation (Romans 10:10); and there is the confession of one’s sins: Confess therefore your sins one to another (James 5:16). Now, from this follows a twofold effect: namely, the destruction of vices, which is denoted by Perez, and the beginning of the virtues, which is signified by Zara. And these things originate from Tamar, which means ‘bitterness’: I will recount to thee all my years in the bitterness of my soul (Isaiah 38:15).

And Perez begot Esron. Here is set forth the genealogical lineage of the ancestors who were born in Egypt, or in the exodus from there. For just as Christ is signified by Perez, which means ‘division’ (He shall separate the sheep from the goats, Matthew 25:32); so He is signified by Hezron, which means ‘arrow,’ or ‘courtyard.’ For He is called an arrow on account of the efficacy of His preaching, by which it penetrated the hearts of His listeners: Thy arrows are sharp: under thee shall people fall, into the hearts of the king’s enemies (Psalms 45:5, KJV has 45:6). (Note: KJV Ps 44:6 is "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre."Psalms 45:5 KJV is "Thine arrows are sharp in the heart of the king's enemies; whereby the people fall under thee." The author's quote is closer to Ps 45:5. I will keep the author's reference Ps. 44:6.) Thy arrows are sharp: under thee shall people fall, into the hearts of the king’s enemies (Psalms 44:6). Now He is a ‘courtyard’ on account of His breadth of charity, by which He loved not only His friends, but also His enemies: When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son (Romans 5:10); He hath prayed for the transgressors (Isaiah 53:12). And again: Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do (Luke 23:34).

And Esron begot Aram. Now Aram (or Ram) is interpreted ‘elect’ or ‘elevated’: Behold my servant, He is elevated above all men (Isaiah 42:1, a paraphrase); He set him above all principality (Ephesians 1:20–21, a paraphrase).

And Aram begot Aminadab, which means ‘willing.’ It is He in whose person the Psalmist says: I will freely sacrifice to thee, and will give praise, O Lord, to thy name: because it is good (Psalms 54:6, KJV has 53:8); and He was offered because it was his own will, and he opened not his mouth (Isaiah 53:7); I came down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him that sent me (John 6:38).

And Aminadab begot Naasson, which means ‘augury’ or ‘like a serpent’: because Christ not only knew the present, but also the past and the future; All things are naked and open to his eyes (Hebrews 4:13). Likewise, He is ‘like a serpent’ on account of His prudence, for prudence is attributed to a serpent: Be ye wise as serpents (Matthew 10:16); He knoweth both the deceivers, and him that is deceived (Job 12:16). Note that this Nahshon lived in the time of Moses, went out with him from Egypt, and was a prince in the tribe of Judah in the desert, as it is stated in Numbers 1:7. But it should be observed that in Exodus 13:18, where our text reads: The children of Israel went up armed out of the land of Egypt, Aquila translated the word ‘armed’ as ‘equipped,’ on account of an equivocation; the Septuagint text, however, is better: “The children of Israel in the fifth generation went out of Egypt.”

But on the contrary, this Nahshon was not the fifth from Jacob, but the seventh, as is evident by counting Jacob, Judah, etc., down to Nahshon. Therefore, this happened not in the fifth, but in the seventh generation. But it is replied that one should not count through the tribe of Judah, but through the tribe of Levi, under whose leadership the children of Israel went out from Egypt: Thou hast conducted thy people like sheep, by the hand of Moses and Aaron (Psalms 77:20, KJV has 76:21). And it is clear that there were only five generations through the tribe of Levi. For Jacob begot Levi, and Levi begot Kohath, Kohath begot Amram, Amram begot Moses and Aaron, as is evident in Exodus 2 ; and under Moses they went out from Egypt.

Observe here that the tribe of Judah was the most numerous among all the tribes, because from it the kings were to come, who were obliged to fight. The least numerous among all the tribes was the tribe of Levi, because it had been preordained for divine service and the priesthood, for which fewer men sufficed. And, for that reason, God willed that by counting through the tribe of Judah, it would also be true what is said in Genesis 15:16: In the fourth generation they shall return hither. Therefore, Jerome says that what is said there ought to be understood by counting through the tribe of Levi; what is said here, however, ought to be understood by counting through the tribe of Judah.

For Perez himself entered Egypt with Jacob his father. And, for that reason, these generations are not to be counted from Jacob, but from Perez. Similarly, Levi himself entered Egypt with his father, Jacob. And for that reason, the generations are to be counted from Levi, and not from Jacob. Now it is clear that Moses was the fourth from Levi.

And Naasson begot Salmon. Salmon is interpreted ‘sensible’ (or ‘peaceable’): and he signifies Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

Morally, here it should be noted that just as in the first set of generations the order of our justification is signified as regards the state of beginners, so in this second set of generations, which similarly contains five men, the progress of the advanced is signified. For the first thing which follows from the fact that a man is justified from sin is that he has a zeal for souls. And, for that reason, it is appropriate that Perez begot Hezron, which means ‘arrow’ on account of the efficacy of the preaching by which the hearts of the listeners are penetrated: He hath made me as a chosen arrow (Isaiah 49:2). And the other names apply in this way.

And Salmon begot Boaz, etc. Here are set forth the ancestors who were born after the entrance into the Promised Land. For Salmon was born in the desert, entered with Joshua into the Promised Land, and married Rahab the harlot, of whom he begot Boaz. Boaz is interpreted ‘strong’: O Lord, my might, and my strength (Jeremiah 16:19). Now Rahab is interpreted ‘hunger’ or ‘breadth’: and she signifies the Church, because to it pertains the beatitude: Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill, etc. (Matthew 5:6). Her name is also interpreted ‘breadth,’ because the Church has been spread throughout the whole world: Enlarge the place of thy tent, and stretch out the skins of thy tabernacles, etc. (Isaiah 54:2). Likewise, her name is interpreted ‘might,’ because by the might of Christ’s preaching He converted kings and philosophers. Likewise, she signifies the Church by reason of her deed. Rahab let out a scarlet cord in a window, by which she was freed from the overthrow of Jericho (Joshua 2:21). Our window is our mouth: therefore, the cord in the window is the confession of Christ’s Passion, through which the Church was freed from death. Again, she signifies the Church by reason of her marriage, because just as Rahab was joined in matrimony to Salmon, who was the prince in the tribe of Judah, so Christ espoused Himself to the Church: I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ (2 Corinthians 11:2).

But here it is asked: According to the passage, since Rahab was a harlot, how was she espoused to so great a prince, who was greater than the others?

And one should reply that Rahab did something very great, because, having despised her people and her native religion, she chose the worship of God. And, for that reason, she was given to the noblest prince as a very great honor.

And Boaz begot Obed of Ruth. This is stated in the last chapter of Ruth. Obed is interpreted ‘a servant’ or ‘servitude’ and he signifies Christ, concerning whom it is said by the prophet: Thou hast made me to serve with thy sins (Isaiah 43:24). Now Ruth signifies the Church born of the Gentiles by reason of her place of birth, for she was a Moabitess. Moab is interpreted ‘of his father’: You are of your father the devil (John 8:44); and again she signifies the Church by reason of her marriage, as is evident in the Gloss.

But it is asked why these women are named here, since they were sinners.18 Jerome points out the reason concerning Ruth, namely, it was so that she might fulfill the prophecy: Send forth, O Lord, the lamb, the ruler of the earth, from Petra of the desert (Isaiah 16:1). Petra of the desert is certainly an evil place, and by it Ruth the Moabitess is signified. Now Ambrose indicates the reason, saying: “For it was to come to pass that the Church would be gathered together from the infidel Gentiles; and for that reason she would have been ashamed and confounded, unless they saw that Christ also was born from sinners.” Hence, to take away their shame and confusion, they are named here.

But it is inquired: In Deuteronomy 23:3 it is said: The Ammonite and the Moabite shall not enter into the church; therefore, since Ruth was a Moabitess, how was she received into the Church?

But one should answer from the words of the Apostle in Galatians 5:18, that those who are led by the Spirit are not under the law. For the intention of the legislator ought to be better observed than the words of the law. For what was the reason why the Lord forbade that they enter the Church? It was because He found idolatry among them, and so He made this law lest they draw away the Jews into idolatry. Hence, this woman, who was already converted, was not an idolatress; and for that reason she was not subject to the prohibition.

And Obed begot Jesse (Ruth 4:17). Now Jesse is interpreted ‘sacrifice’ or ‘fire’; and he signifies Him who offered Himself as a victim to God in the odor of sweetness.

But it is asked, since this man is called by another name, Isai (Jesse), as is evidenced in 1 Kings in many places, and that name was more solemn, why did the Evangelist not name him thus?

And it should be said that this was so that it might be shown that what was said by the prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 11:1) was fulfilled in Christ: There shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse.

And Jesse begot David the king. David is interpreted ‘of a strong hand’ and ‘of a desirable appearance’; all these things are seemly to Christ, as is evident. For He is strong who conquered the devil: But if a stronger than he come upon him and overcome him, he will take away all his armor wherein he trusted and will distribute his spoils (Luke 11:22). Likewise, He is beautiful above the sons of men (Psalms 45:2, KJV has 44:3).

But here it is asked: since many others were kings, why only is he called ‘king’?

And it is replied that he was the first king in the tribe of Judah, from which the Lord descended; for although Saul was a king, nevertheless, he was of the tribe of Benjamin. A second reason is that the others reigned on account of the merits of David himself: And I will make his seed to endure for evermore: and his throne as the days of heaven (Psalms 89:29, KJV has 88:30). A third reason is to show the fulfillment of the prophecy in Jeremiah 23:5: I will raise up to David a just branch: and a king shall reign, and shall be wise: and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth; He shall sit upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom (Isaiah 9:7).

Morally, however, in this generation, the fruit of the perfect is designated, just as in the other generations the fruit of the beginners and of the advanced are designated. For the first thing which is required in a perfect man is that he himself be strong in going against adversities, such that he is not retarded on account of some difficulty. This is signified by Boaz, for his name is interpreted ‘strong’: They that hope in the Lord shall renew their strength, they shall take wings as eagles, they shall run and not be weary, they shall walk and not faint (Isaiah 40:31); Who shall find a valiant woman? etc. (Proverbs 31:10). The second thing is the humility of a servant, so that the greater he actually is, so much the more he humbles himself in all things. This is signified by Obed, whose own name is interpreted ‘a servant’ or ‘servitude’: He that is the greater among you, let him become as he that serveth (Luke 22:26). The third thing is fervor of charity, which is signified by Jesse, which means ‘burnt’ or ‘fire’: Let my prayer be directed as incense in thy sight, etc. (Psalms 141:2, KJV has 140:2). And from this, one reaches the kingdom and glory, because Jesse begot David the king: He hath made us to our God a kingdom and priests to God His Father (Revelation 1:6, a paraphrase, closer to Rev 5:10); You are a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people (1 Peter 2:9).