Thomas Aquinas Commentary Matthew 1:7-11

"and Solomon begat Rehoboam; and Rehoboam begat Abijah; and Abijah begat Asa; and Asa begat Jehoshaphat; and Jehoshaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Uzziah; and Uzziah begat Jotham; and Jotham begat Ahaz; and Ahaz begat Hezekiah; and Hezekiah begat Manasseh; and Manasseh begat Amon; and Amon begat Josiah; and Josiah begat Jechoniah and his brethren, at the time of the carrying away to Babylon." — Matthew 1:7-11 (ASV)

Having presented the genealogical lineage of the ancestors, which passed through the Patriarchs, here the Evangelist presents the lineage of the fathers, which continues through the kings, and it is divided into two parts. In the first part are presented the kings who were born of Israel without any mixture of foreign ancestry; in the second part are presented the kings who followed the introduction of foreign blood, where it is said, And Joram begot Uzziah.

Here a twofold question arises. For Luke, in calculating Christ’s genealogy, ascends through Nathan; Matthew, however, proceeds by descending from David to Christ through Solomon. Therefore, there seems to be some discrepancy.

But it should be answered, as has already been stated: Luke, in Christ’s genealogy, lists many ancestors who were not ancestors by physical descent through procreation, but through legal adoption. Matthew, however, lists no one who was not an ancestor by physical descent.

And it is true that, according to the flesh, the Lord descended from David through Solomon and not through Nathan. Nevertheless, according to Augustine, it is not without mystery that Matthew descends from David through Solomon to Christ, while Luke ascends from Christ to David through Nathan.

For Matthew had the task of describing Christ’s physical lineage, according to which Christ descended even to the likeness of sinful flesh. For that reason, Matthew rightly descends in His generation from David through Solomon, since David himself sinned with Christ’s foremother. Luke, however, who especially intended to highlight Christ’s priestly dignity, through which sins were atoned for, rightly ascends through Nathan, who was a holy man.

Note, however, that according to the same Augustine in his book, Retractions, one should not think that Nathan the prophet, who rebuked David, was the same as David's son whom he fathered; they merely had the same name.

Secondly, it is asked why Bathsheba is not mentioned by name, as were Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth.

And it should be said that the others, although they were sinners at one time, nevertheless, were later converted and penitent. This woman, however, sinned disgracefully through the crime of adultery and by consenting to homicide; thus, because of the shameful nature of these crimes, her name is not included.

Observe, however, that in Scripture the sins of great men are recounted, for example, those of David and others. This is because the devil overthrew not only small and lowly men, but also great men, for he is our adversary.

For that reason, their sins are recounted as a warning, so that whoever stands may take care not to fall. Another reason is lest anyone consider them to be more than human. For if someone were to consider only the perfection in them, he might be deceived into idolatry; but when he sees them to have fallen through sin, he does not imagine them to be anything more than human.

Note also, according to Gregory, that sometimes an actual deed is evil, but it signifies something good; however, sometimes a deed is good, and it signifies something evil.

For Uriah was a good and just man, and he was not rebuked in Scripture for anything; but, nevertheless, he signifies the devil. Bathsheba, however, was a sinful woman; and, nevertheless, she signifies a good thing, namely, the Church, as the Gloss on 2 Samuel 12 indicates, and as the Gloss, which interprets the figure allegorically, also indicates.

Uriah is interpreted as ‘God is my light,’ and he signifies the devil, who inordinately desired the light of divinity: I will be like the most High (Isaiah 14:14). Bathsheba is interpreted as ‘well of the seven’ or ‘well of the covenant,’ and she signifies the Church of the Gentiles, because of the sevenfold baptismal grace. The devil had espoused this Church to himself; but David, that is, Christ, took her away from him, joined her to Himself, and killed the devil.

Alternatively, Bathsheba signifies the Law, through whose ways the people were led, and signifies those who do not wish to enter the house through spiritual understanding; for that reason, it carries the sentence of its own death, because The letter killeth (2 Corinthians 3:6). But David, that is, Christ, took the Law away from the Jews when He taught that it, that is, the Law, is to be understood spiritually.

And Solomon begot Rehoboam, etc. Now, just as David is interpreted as ‘strong of hand’ and ‘of desirable appearance,’ so Solomon is interpreted as ‘peacemaker.’ This is fitting, because peace of conscience proceeds from the strength of good deeds: Much peace have they that love thy law (Psalms 119:165). Now it happens that from peace of conscience, a person desires others to come to what is good. Hence, Solomon begot Rehoboam, which means ‘might,’ because one who has peace of conscience is motivated to spread the name of Christ by the power of preaching, as it is read concerning the Apostles: When they shall rush in unto Jacob, Israel shall blossom and bud, and they shall fill the face of the world with seed (Isaiah 27:6). Now both signify Christ, because He is peace. Likewise, He is Rehoboam, who converted people by the power of preaching.

And Rehoboam begot Abijah, which means ‘God the Father.’ This is because when a person is zealous for the spiritual or physical benefit of others through works of mercy, he is made worthy of God’s fatherhood, as it is written: Do good to them that hate you, that you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, etc. (Matthew 5:44). And in Luke 6:36 it is written: Be ye merciful (Luke 6:36). This pertains to Christ, of whom it is said: I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son (Hebrews 1:5).

And Abijah begot Asa, which means ‘lifting up.’ This is because sometimes a person, by virtue of being made a father or a superior to others, becomes guilty of a certain careless negligence. For that reason, Abijah begot Asa, namely, so that a person may be in continual advancement and may always lift himself up to greater things. This also pertains to Christ, who is called ‘lifting up,’ that is, growing: And the child grew (Luke 2:40). Or ‘lifting up,’ because He took away the sins of the world.

And Asa begot Jehoshaphat, which means ‘judging.’ This is because as the spiritual person grows, he is made one who judges: The spiritual man judgeth all things (1 Corinthians 2:15). And this pertains to Christ, because The Father hath given all judgment to the Son (John 5:22).

And Jehoshaphat begot Joram, which means ‘one dwelling on high.’ For he who is appointed a judge ought to dwell on high: He shall dwell on high (Isaiah 33:16). Now the Apostle says how this may be: Our conversation is in heaven (Philippians 3:20). And this pertains to Christ, because He is high above all nations (Psalms 113:4).

And Joram begot Uzziah. Here a literal question arises. For in 1 Chronicles 3:11, it is said that Joram begot Ahaziah. Ahaziah, however, begot Joash. And Joash begot Amaziah, who is also called Azariah. And Amaziah begot Uzziah. Therefore, it seems that the Evangelist erred in two points in his genealogy. Firstly, he erred because Joram did not beget Uzziah, but Amaziah did; and secondly, he erred because he omitted three generations.

And it should be said, regarding the first point, that to beget another person can be understood in two ways: mediately and immediately. Immediately, as, for instance, a biological father immediately begot a son; in this way Joram did not beget Uzziah. Alternatively, it may be understood mediately, as, for instance, we are said to be sons of Adam. In this way, a son can be said to be begotten by his grandfather or great-grandfather, because he descended from him through an intermediate generation.

Now, three reasons are given for why he omitted the three generations. The first is from Jerome, who says (just as it is written in Exodus 20:5): The Lord visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation, to those who are made imitators of the crimes of their fathers. Now Joram married the daughter of Jezebel, namely Athaliah, who drew him into idolatry. Ahaziah also was more given to idolatry than his father.

And, similarly, Joash imitated the crimes of his fathers, and, in addition to the crime of idolatry, also killed Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada. For that reason, these three men, as though unworthy, are excluded from Christ’s genealogy.

Chrysostom gives another reason. For the Lord commanded Jehu (2 Kings 9), the son of Nimshi, that he himself eradicate the house of Ahab. Jehu was diligent in carrying out the command and yet, nevertheless, did not withdraw from the worship of many gods, for he worshiped the molten calves. And because he diligently accomplished the Lord’s command by destroying the house of Ahab, it was said to him that his sons would sit upon the throne of the house of Israel to the fourth generation. Hence, just as Jehu earned the kingdom of Israel to the third or fourth generation, so, by contrast, Joram—who married Gentile women and transferred the iniquity of the house of Israel to the house of Judah—should lose the names of his descendants in Christ’s genealogy to the fourth generation, when atonement had been made.

Augustine, in his On Questions of the New and Old Testament, gives another reason. He says that some ancestors were good and had good parents, such as Isaac and Jacob. Some were evil and, nevertheless, had good parents, as, for instance, Solomon, who was a sinner and, nevertheless, had a just and holy man, David, for his father. Some ancestors were neither good nor had good parents, as were these three, as is evident from what was said previously.

Joram sinned, and his sin continued all the way to Uzziah, who did almost nothing evil, except that he burned incense; the continuation of sin is the cause and reason for destruction. And for that reason, these three, who persisted in the sin of idolatry, are excluded from Christ’s genealogy.

A mystical reason, however, is given because of the three series of fourteen generations by which Matthew intends to present Christ’s genealogy. Now Uzziah is interpreted as ‘the strong One of the Lord,’ and he signifies Christ, about whom it is written: The Lord is my strength and my praise: and he is become my salvation, etc. (Psalms 118:14). Mystically, however, Joram begot Uzziah, because those who dwell on high ought to perform deeds of strength.

Note that under this Uzziah, Isaiah prophesied, as appears in Isaiah 1. For because of the leading men—the kings and also the people—God had taken away prophecy and teaching; hence, under a good king, the outpouring of prophecy began again.

And Uzziah begot Jotham, which means ‘perfected,’ and he signifies Christ, through whom the Church grows daily in perfection. And so it is fitting that Uzziah begot Jotham because those who perform deeds of strength continually advance in perfection: They shall go from virtue to virtue (Psalms 84:7).

And Jotham begot Ahaz, which means ‘comprehending.’ This is because through continual growth in the perfection of the virtues, one comes to the knowledge of God: By thy commandments I have had understanding: therefore have I hated every way of iniquity (Psalms 119:104); They declared the works of God (by showing them forth in their works), and understood his doings (Psalms 64:9). Because of this, Paul wrote: I follow after, if I may by any means apprehend (comprehendam), wherein I am also apprehended by Christ Jesus (Philippians 3:12). And this pertains to Christ, who alone perfectly comprehends divinity: No one knoweth the Father but the Son (Luke 10:22).

And Ahaz begot Hezekiah, that is, ‘the strong Lord.’ This is because such a person has strength from God: The Lord is my courage, and my strength (2 Samuel 22:2). And this pertains to Christ, who is strong in battle.

And Hezekiah begot Manasseh, and his name is interpreted as ‘forgetfulness.’ This is because he who now perfectly knows God is forgetful of temporal things: Forget thy people and thy father’s house (Psalms 45:10); The Lord God hath made me to forget all my labours (Genesis 41:51). And this pertains to Christ, concerning whom it is said: If the wicked doeth penance for all his sins which he hath committed, I will not remember all his iniquities that he hath done (Ezekiel 18:21).

And Manasseh begot Amon, that is, ‘faithful’ and ‘fostering.’ He who despises temporal things is truly faithful. For, according to Gregory, deceit is the daughter of avarice; and for that reason, he who perfectly despises temporal things has no inclination to be unfaithful with the goods of others. Hence, it is rightly said that Manasseh begot Amon.

This name is also interpreted as ‘fostering,’ because he who despises temporal things ought from then on to foster the poor through mercy: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, behold the despising, and give to the poor, behold the fostering. Now this pertains to Christ, who is truly faithful: The Lord is faithful in all his words (Psalms 145:13). And again, He is a foster father: I who was a foster father to Ephraim, carried them in my arms: and they knew not that I healed them (Hosea 11:3); How often would I have gathered together thy children, as the hen doth gather her chickens under her wings, and thou wouldst not? (Matthew 23:37).

And Amon begot Josiah, which means ‘the salvation of the Lord,’ or ‘incense.’ This is because from this it follows that a person obtains salvation: that he is even now forgetful of temporal things and bestows or distributes them. Or it is interpreted as incense, and this pertains to Christ: He hath wrought salvation in the midst of the earth (Psalms 74:12); And He hath delivered himself a sacrifice to God for an odour of sweetness (Ephesians 5:2).

And Josiah begot Jechoniah and his brethren, which means ‘preparation of the Lord’ or ‘resurrection.’ And he signifies Christ, who prepared a place for us (John 14) and who says, I am the resurrection and the life (John 11:25); and by passing through this life we come to the resurrection.

Here, however, three literal questions arise. Firstly, it is asked how Josiah is said to have begotten Jechoniah, when, in fact, he did not beget him, but Jechoniah's father Jehoiakim begot him.

And there is a twofold answer to this. For, according to Chrysostom, with whom Augustine agrees, Jehoiakim’s name is completely omitted. This is because he did not reign by divine ordinance, but by Pharaoh’s power, who set him on the throne after imprisoning his brother Jehoahaz, who had reigned before him. In this respect, note the history in 2 Kings 23 and 2 Chronicles 36.

Josiah, in fact, had sons relevant to this discussion including Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim (who is also Eliakim), and Zedekiah. For if, as Augustine says, those three previously mentioned kings were excluded from the genealogy because they were corrupted by idolatry, how much more so Jehoiakim, who was set on the throne not by God, nor by a prophet, but by the appointment of a Gentile ruler?

It is the opinion (though not the exact words) of Jerome, with whom Ambrose concurs, that both the one placed at the end of the second series of fourteen generations and the one placed at the beginning of the third were called Jehoiakim, and, moreover, that Jechoniah and Jehoiakim are the same person.

Hence, it should be observed that Josiah had sons including Jehoiakim (also called Eliakim), Jehoahaz, and Zedekiah. Now when Josiah died, Jehoahaz reigned in his place. He was thereafter captured and imprisoned by Pharaoh, king of Egypt, who then appointed Jehoiakim (Josiah’s older son) as king, imposing tribute upon him. Afterwards, Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, having conquered the king of Egypt, besieged Jerusalem and took Jehoiakim away, whom he then sent back to Jerusalem under tribute.

Later, however, when Jehoiakim, relying on help from the king of Egypt, wanted to rebel against the king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar went up to Jerusalem, captured it, and put Jehoiakim’s son, Jehoiachin, in his place, whom he also named Jechoniah.

After this was done, Nebuchadnezzar, fearing that this man (Jehoiachin, also called Jechoniah), remembering his father’s death, would ally with the King of Egypt, returned to Jerusalem and besieged it. And Jechoniah (also called Jehoiachin, the son of the previously mentioned Jehoiakim), by the counsel of Jeremiah, handed himself, his wife, and his children over to King Nebuchadnezzar.

And these persons are properly said to have been carried away in the deportation. But Nebuchadnezzar appointed Zedekiah (Jechoniah’s uncle, his father Jehoiakim's brother) as king in his place, and led Jehoiachin himself into Babylon. He is the one of whom it is said afterwards, And after the deportation.

But why is he named Jechoniah, since his given name was Jehoiachin (also called Coniah)? It should be answered that this name, Jechoniah, was significantly used by a prophet, namely Jeremiah: Thus saith the Lord, if Jechonias the son of Joakim the king of Judah were a ring on my right hand, I would pluck him thence (Jeremiah 22:24). And afterwards it is said, Is this man Jechonias an earthen and a broken vessel? (Jeremiah 22:28). And for that reason, he is preferably named this way in the genealogy to show that the Evangelist is in accord with the Prophet.

Note also that although the name is similar, it is written in different ways (referring to the underlying Hebrew). For the name of the first Jehoiakim is written with a letter corresponding to ‘k’ (Hebrew Qoph), and he is called Jehoiakim. But the name of the second, Jehoiachin (also Jechoniah), is written with the letter ‘ghimel,’ and hence is pronounced differently. For that reason, they have different interpretations: the first name is interpreted as ‘resurrection,’ while the second name is interpreted as ‘preparation of the Lord.’

Secondly, it is asked why it is said, Jechoniah and his brethren. For many of the kings had brothers, but their brothers are never mentioned in this way.

It should be answered, according to Ambrose, that wherever there is mention of brothers—as for instance when it is said, Judah and his brethren, and Perez and Zerah of Tamar—this signifies that they were equal in holiness or equal in wickedness. Now all these (Jechoniah and his brothers) were evil. Alternatively, it can be said it was because it is not certain which of these men reigned, as is clear from what has been said; this was not the case, however, regarding the brothers of the other kings.

Thirdly, the question is raised about the phrase in the deportation. This seems incorrect because Josiah was never carried away.

And the reply is that this should be understood according to Divine foreknowledge, by which it had been ordained that those whom Josiah begot would be carried away. Or the reply is that in the deportation means approximately ‘near the time of the deportation,’ or that it was then imminent.