The Bible is like a storehouse of grace. For just as everyone finds whatever he desires in the storehouse of a rich man, so also does every soul find whatever is considered important in this book.

Why is it that Matthew says, The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, descendant of David, descendant of Abraham, while the prophet Isaiah exclaims, And who will tell of his lineage?^[1] Matthew is setting forth his fleshly line, while Isaiah proclaims that his divine lineage is an unfathomable mystery.

One must bear in mind therefore that the Evangelists, or rather the Spirit speaking through them, took pains to ensure that their readers believed that Christ was truly God and truly human. Because of what they wrote, no one could possibly doubt that he is God by nature, beyond all variation, mutation or illusion, and that according to the ordered plan of God he was truly human. This is why John could say, on the one hand, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John immediately adds, The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.^[1] Hence Matthew wrote appropriately, The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. On the one hand he is not able to be counted simply from natural generation among families, since it is written, Who shall declare his generation?^[2] He is before the centuries and of one substance with the Father himself, from the standpoint of eternity. But by this genealogy he is also numbered among the families of humanity according to the flesh. For in truth, while remaining God, Christ became man without ceasing to be God, unaltered till the end of time.

This is why there is also mention of the ancient patriarchs in the lineage, the narrative and observation of the times and vicissitudes that are indeed proper to human history. Through all this Matthew made it clear that Christ participates in our human generation and in our nature. Otherwise some might claim that he appeared in illusion and in imagination only, rather than by becoming genuinely human. Think of what might have been said if none of this had been written?

Furthermore, he did not say of Jesus Christ, Son of God but instead Son of David, Son of Abraham. But why then did John immediately point out the nature of his divinity by saying in the beginning of his Gospel, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God?^[1] Because John’s Gospel was set in exile among the Gentiles. He wrote in the Greek language for the benefit of the Gentiles, who knew little of such matters as whether God had a Son or in what sense God had offspring. Therefore it was important to first show to the Gentiles the mystery of his incarnation, since they did not know who he was at that time. For that reason it was first necessary for them to realize that the Son of God is God. Then, because God took on flesh, John said in the next phrase that the Word was made flesh and lived among us.^[2]

Matthew instead wrote his Gospel to the Jews in the Hebrew language, just as I have already said, so that the Jews might be edified in faith. Indeed, the Jews always knew that he is the Son of God and how he is the Son of God.^[3] Therefore it was unnecessary to explain to them the nature of his divinity, which they themselves knew quite well.

But why did he name David first when Abraham came before him in time? The first and straightforward reason is this: When the Evangelist proposed to recount the lineage of the Lord from Abraham, if he had first listed him as the descendant of Abraham, David would have come afterward. He realized it was necessary to return to Abraham again and to count him twice in this very place.^[4] Moreover, there is the other reason that rank of kingdom is greater than rank of birth. For even if Abraham came first in time, David nevertheless came first in rank.

Therefore St. Matthew began writing his Gospel with an introduction of this sort, saying, This is the book of Jesus Christ, descendant of David, descendant of Abraham. Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, and the rest that follows. Matthew, as I have said, tells of the second birth^[1] of the Lord into flesh and for this reason traces his family line from Abraham, treating separately the tribe of Judah, until he comes down to Joseph and Mary. Since the Evangelist begins from Abraham by succession of birth and recounts in order the names of all, one may wonder why he calls Christ our Lord only the descendant of David and the descendant of Abraham in saying, This is the book of the lineage of Jesus Christ, Son of David, Son of Abraham. At any rate, we know that the Evangelist did not say this without reason and in this order. Each of them, both Abraham and David, whether by the promise of the Lord or rank of birth, lived as a worthy predecessor in the line of Jesus Christ as to his existence in flesh. For the Lord had promised to Abraham, who by right of circumcision was the founding patriarch of the Jewish people, that from his seed all nations would be blessed. This was realized in Christ, who received his body from the line of Abraham. The apostle made an interpretation for the Galatians about this, saying, Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, ‘And to offsprings,’ referring to many; but, referring to one, ‘And to your offspring,’ which is Christ.^[2] So also is David first among the tribe of Judah in the rank of king. And likewise God promised to this very tribe that the eternal king, Christ the Lord, would be born from the fruit of its womb. For David was the first king from the tribe of Judah, from which the Son of God received his flesh. Thus Matthew rightly counted Christ our Lord as the descendant of David and Abraham, because both Joseph and Mary are descended from these regal origins, the line of David, who himself descended from Abraham, who in faith lived as the father of nations and in flesh was the first of the Jewish people.

What Matthew publishes in order of kingly succession, Luke has set forth in order of priestly origin.^[1] While accounting for each order, both indicate the relationship of the Lord to each ancestral lineage. The order of his lineage is thus duly presented, because the association of the priestly and royal tribes that was begun through David from marriage is now confirmed out of the descent from Shealtiel to Zerubbabel. And so, while Matthew recounts his paternal origin that began in Judah, Luke teaches that his ancestry was taken from the tribe of Levi. Each in his own way demonstrates the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is both the eternal king and priest, as seen even in the fleshly origin of both of his ancestries. It does not matter that the origin of Joseph instead of Mary is recounted, for indeed there is one and the same blood relationship for the whole tribe. Moreover, both Matthew and Luke provide precedents. They name fathers in order not so much by their lineage as by their clan, since the tribe began from one individual and continues under a family of one succession and origin. Indeed, Christ has to be shown as the son of David and Abraham, so Matthew began in this way: The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. It does not matter who is placed in a given order as long as the whole family is understood to derive from a single source. Joseph and Mary belonged to the same kinship line. Joseph is shown to have sprung from the line of Abraham. It is revealed that Mary came from this line, too. This system is codified in law so that, if the oldest of a family should die without sons, the next oldest brother of the same family would take the dead man’s wife in marriage. He would consider his sons as received into the family of the one who had died, and thus the order of succession remains with the firstborn, since they are considered to be the fathers of those born after them in either name or birth.

AUGUSTINE: Some might be perplexed by the fact that Matthew enumerates one series of ancestors, descending through David to Joseph,^[1] while Luke specifies a different succession, tracing the ancestry from Joseph backwards through David.^[2] It was easy for them to perceive that Joseph was able to have two fathers, one blood father by whom he was born and another adoptive father by whom he was adopted.^[3] Indeed, this was the custom of adoption even among that people of God. In this way they could endow sonship upon those whom they had not given birth. Recall how Pharaoh’s daughter adopted Moses^[4] (and she was a foreigner). And Jacob himself adopted his own grandsons, the sons of Joseph: And now your two sons, who were born to you in the land of Egypt, before I came to you in Egypt, are mine; Ephraim and Manasseh shall be mine, as Reuben and Simeon are. And the offspring born to you after them shall be yours.^[5] In this way, too, it came about that there were twelve tribes of Israel, with the tribe of Levi being given the special task of tending the temple. Along with this one there were thirteen tribes, although there had been twelve sons of Jacob. In this way it is understood that Luke included Joseph’s father in his Gospel, not by whom he was begotten but by whom he was adopted. He recounted his ancestors upwards until he came to David.

Abraham was the father of the faithful,^[1] and when God wished him to be an example for the virtuous, he said to him, Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you.^[2] So that all who should wish to be the sons of Abraham might know how to receive that living land of promise, it was written, I believe that I will see the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living.^[3] . . . Those who do not wish to imitate Abraham in faith cannot be the descendants of Abraham. Then Abraham was the father of Isaac,^[4] which itself was first interpreted as a jest. However, it is the laughter of the holy. It is not the idiotic cackling of lips but a rational joy of the heart, which was the mystery of Christ penetrating all things. For in this way Isaac was bestowed to parents who had long given up hope as a joy in their extreme old age. Isaac was not understood as a son of nature but as a son of grace. In this way Isaac was born by a Judean mother at the very end of her life as a joy for all to behold. In this same way the angel spoke to the shepherds: Lo, I announce to you a great joy which will be for all people.^[5] And in this same way the apostle said, When the time came, God sent his Son born of a woman, born under law.^[6] Although God’s son was born from a virgin and Isaac from an old woman, both were born wholly beyond the expectations of nature. The former [Isaac] had delayed until after his mother was able to give birth; the latter would arrive before his mother was able to give birth.^[7] The former was born from an old woman who was already failing to some extent; the latter was born from a chaste virgin. The former was born under a law that was to end; the latter under grace that would remain.

Isaac then begot Esau and Jacob. This signifies two ages. Esau, who was covered with hair from head to toe, signifies the first age, which was filled completely from beginning to end with sin like the coarsest of hair. Yet Jacob, who was entirely handsome and refined, signifies the age to come. This age^[1] will shine with the splendor of piety, and no harshness or stain of sin will be found in it. As Jacob held fast to Esau’s heel when he left his mother’s womb, he was thus named Jacob, which in Hebrew means one who follows upon another’s heels.^[2] For just as the head of Jacob appeared as soon as the feet of his brother had come out, so also the beginning of the next age will appear immediately after the end of that first age. Just as Esau persecuted Jacob, the sons of that age persecute the sons of this age. And just as Jacob overcomes evil men by fleeing and not resisting, so also do his children. For just as Jacob’s mother then approached him and said, Son, listen to me and flee to Mesopotamia until the anger of your brother subsides,^[3] so also does the church teach its children daily. Whenever they suffer persecution, it advises, If you have been persecuted in one city, flee to another^[4] and never avenge yourselves.^[5] Then Jacob begot Judah and his brothers.^[6] Our Jacob^[7] also begot the twelve apostles in spirit, not in flesh and in word, not in blood. For just as Jacob went down into Egypt with his twelve sons in order to multiply, so also did Christ descend into the world with his twelve apostles. He multiplied throughout the whole world, as the deed itself bears witness.

It is for this reason [to show Christ’s true humanity] that in this genealogy the Evangelist mentioned in his list even those who had shocking carnal relations that were inappropriate and outside the law. For Matthew wrote with due deliberation, And Judah became the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar and even more plainly And David became the father of Solomon by Uriah’s wife. These were women with whom they became united by fornication and adultery. By this means the genealogy revealed that it is our very sinful nature that Christ himself came to heal. It is that very nature which had fallen, revolted and plunged into inordinate desires. When our nature fled [from God], he took hold of it. When it dashed out and ran away in revolt, he stopped it, held onto it, enabled it to return and blocked its downward spiral. This is what the words of the apostle say in this regard: For surely it is not with angels that he is concerned but with the descendants of Abraham. Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect.^[1]

Christ therefore took upon himself a blood relationship to that nature which fornicated, in order to purify it. He took on that very nature that was sick, in order to heal it. He took on that nature which fell, in order to lift it up. All this occurred in a charitable, beneficial manner wholly appropriate to God.

Although sinless, he became united to the flesh that is of the same essence as ours, which possesses an intelligent soul. It is with this premise that the gestation and conception from the Holy Spirit was spoken and the virgin birth occurred, the birth that knew not marriage or carnal union and that respected in an unspeakable manner the seal of virginal purity.

We note how Judah became the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar.^[1] But note how the mysteries of the Jewish and Gentile people were being anticipated: Zerah [symbolic of Israel] was the first to come forth from the womb. The midwife took and bound on his hand a scarlet thread, signifying the Jewish people marked with the blood of circumcision. Zerah withdrew, and Perez [symbolic of the Gentiles] came out. The flesh in which Zerah had been enclosed was blocked. But the flesh in which Perez had been enclosed opened up. Therefore Perez came out first.^[2] Thus the Jewish people appeared first in the light of faith, as though proceeding from the dark womb of the world. They were therefore marked with the scarlet thread of circumcision, everyone believing that this people of God would be first. But what then happened?

The law was placed before them as a hedge to stand in the way of God’s judgment. Yet the law, as we learn, may impede faith and not help; as it is written: without the law sin was dead. Once upon a time I was living without law, but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.^[3] Thus, due to sin, the law impeded the way of the Jewish people, so they did not bring in the light of justice. But when Christ came in due time, the hedge of the law that was between the Jews and the Gentiles was broken, as the apostle says: [He] has broken down the dividing wall of hostility.^[4] So it happened that the Jewish people, who were first to come, were held captive, while the Gentiles remained as though in the womb of the dark world. After the law was broken at Christ’s bidding, with the Jewish people being excluded, the Gentiles were first to come to faith [in the gospel]. Later the Jewish people will follow, as the apostle says: Behold, I tell you a mystery [ . . . ] a partial blindness only has be-fallen Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles should enter, and thus all Israel will be saved.^[5]

Nahshon brought forth Salmon. The name Salmon is interpreted take the vessel. Salmon married Rahab. This Rahab is said to have been a harlot from Jericho, who took in spies and envoys from the children of Israel. And when the king of Jericho sought the spies so that he might put them to death, Rahab hid them on the roof of her house and kept them safe from harm. Hearing of the deeds of the children of Israel, she loved Israel more than her own people. And this fact seems to be doubly credible to me. Since Salmon was considered noble among the children of Israel and was of the tribe of Judah and the son of the prince, he saw the faithful Rahab thus converted to goodness and beloved by God and led from Jericho at God’s command and counted among the daughters of Israel. Such a wonderful woman surely deserved to become Salmon’s wife.

I therefore believe, in terms of a spiritual mystery, that Rahab the harlot was a figure of the church. Though a harlot among the people and defiled by the worship of idols, she received the messengers (i.e., the apostles) of Jesus Christ into the home of her heart because of their words. She hid them on top of the storehouse of her mind, so that the prince of the world, the devil, might not find them nor put to death those who with the sign of the scarlet cord had also been lowered down through the window. It was as though saved by the mark of the Lord’s passion, led out of the world and made chaste, that she became the bride of Christ.

This Rahab, after she married Salmon, was named Rachab,^[1] which is interpreted ascent. Indeed, just as Rahab ascended bodily, having been made one of the daughters of Israel and dignified by marriage to that man, she also ascended spiritually. For although the church was once a worshiper of idols, she became the companion of angels, the bride of Christ and the daughter of God.

As for Salmon, which is interpreted take the vessel, what son did he beget from Rahab? Boaz is interpreted as in strength or strength in him or showing strength. At God’s command Boaz took as his wife Ruth, who had been provided by God. In strength he brings forth children who are strong in themselves and distinguished. But those who take wives provided by the devil (i.e., with no awareness of religion) and who are not faithful bring forth children in feebleness. They are neither prominent nor strong except in doing evil. As punishment for their impious ways, they seem to have brought forth children neither in joy nor in consolation.

And so, Boaz took as his wife a Moabite woman named Ruth. I believe it is superfluous to tell how he took her, since on this subject Scripture is clear to all. We, however, will say only one thing. It was by the merit of her faith that Ruth married Boaz. She viewed with indifference her own people, land and race and chose Israel. She did not shun her bereaved and foreign mother-in-law, being led by the desire of this race rather than her own. She renounced the gods of her ancestors and chose the living God, saying these words to her mother-in-law: Do not ask me to leave you or to turn back from following you; for where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God; where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord do so to me and more also if even death parts me from you.^[1] Therefore Boaz by the merit of Ruth’s faith took her as his wife, so that through this sanctified union a royal nation might be born.

Jesse brought forth David the king, for God is in the generation of the just, and the generation of the righteous shall be blessed. What can we say concerning David, whose role in Scripture is that of king? Passing over all else, we can at least say this: David prefigured Christ. David is interpreted as able of hand or beloved, just as Christ was. He was strong in battle and powerful and beloved by his country. In his acts, in mercy and in his gentleness, he was prophetically anticipating Christ. But how does this apply to his unjust abuses, as distinguished from his just actions? Even in his worst sin lay the mystery of Christ and the church. David, taking delight on his high roof, saw the very beautiful Bathsheba bathing, desired her and beckoned her, though she was married to a Hittite man. There is a prefiguring even here, though it may seem unlikely. Christ, while in his high heaven and still joyful in his divinity, saw in advance the very attractive church of his people displeasing him with sordid behavior and weakening in good works, when it was still the devil’s bride. He laid eyes on her, loved her and drew her to himself.^[1]

David brought forth Solomon. Solomon is interpreted as peaceful. He is called peaceful because he provided a peaceful kingdom for all the people in the territory who were peace-loving and taxpaying so he might build a temple to God, using also the ministry of the people. In this way Solomon was a figure of our peace-loving Christ, who, for all people fleeing to him in faith and paying the spiritual taxes of good works, provided a peaceful kingdom, built with living stones—not only Jews but also Gentiles—so that he might build a living temple to the living God.

The Evangelist exposes and derides the passions of our race, its dishonors and ailments, to which the Word of God descended in his mercy. He descended to glorify them and raise them up by his charity. It in no way reflects badly upon the physician that he stoops to the level of those who are sick. Matthew could have written, David became the father of Solomon by Bathsheba (the name of the woman involved). In deriding, so to speak, adultery itself, he rather stated clearly, And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah. He thus showed that Christ, who descended from such a degenerate race by generation, took up our infirmities and bore the burden of our ills,^[1] as one of the prophets said.

Solomon symbolizes the Christian people who were just beginning to flourish. Rehoboam, however, symbolizes a people in decline. When Solomon sinned in old age, the Lord let loose Satan upon him, and a crucial part of his kingdom was cut away. However, Rehoboam rejected the advice of the elders at a critical time and followed that of his young courtiers. He lost nearly his entire kingdom when ten tribes split away and appointed their own kings. Only two tribes remained under Rehoboam’s rule.^[1]

Matthew relates the human lineage of Christ in this way: After recounting the fathers from Abraham, he continues to Joseph, the husband of Mary, from whom Jesus was born. It is not fitting to think of Joseph apart from his marriage to Mary, who bore Christ as a virgin and not from intercourse with him.^[1] For by his example an incomparable commendation is made to faithful married persons of the principle that even when by common consent they maintain their continence, the marital relation can still remain steadfast and still be rightly called one of wedlock, not by virtue of physical intercourse but by the heart’s affection. This is especially so because it was possible for a son to be born to them without bodily embrace, which is intended within the purpose of procreation. Furthermore, Joseph should not have been denied being called Christ’s father on the basis that he did not beget him through intercourse. For if he had adopted a child from another, he would have rightly been the father of one who was not even born from his own wife.

Indeed, Christ was even considered by some to be the son of Joseph, just as if he had been simply born of his flesh. But this was believed by those who did not know of Mary’s virginity. Luke says, Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph.^[2] Instead of naming Mary his only parent, he had not the slightest hesitation in also speaking of both parties as his parents when he says, And the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom; and the favor of God was upon him. Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover.^[3] Lest any imagine that by the parents here was meant only Mary and her blood relations, we do well to recall that preceding word of Luke: And his father and mother marveled at what was said about him.^[4]

Since he thus related that Christ was born from Mary as a virgin and not as a result of intercourse with Joseph, for what reason does Matthew call him his father, if not because we understand Joseph to be truly the husband of Mary, not through intercourse of the flesh but in virtue of the genuine spiritual union of marriage? . . . All this suggests that Luke’s phrase, as was supposed, was inserted with a view of correcting those of the opinion that he was born from Joseph in the same way that others are born.

This particular number of generations, totaling forty, is a sign of that laborious period in which, under the discipline of Christ the King, we will continue to fight against the devil. The same number was foreshadowed in both the law and the prophets, who had already solemnized a fast of forty days for the humbling of the soul (this pattern was firmly set in the narratives of Moses and Elijah, each of whom fasted for forty days).^[1] The Gospel narrative itself then again foreshadowed this same number in the fast of the Lord himself, during his forty days of temptation by the devil.^[2] What else does this narrative show than that condition of temptation which pertains to us through all the space of this age?^[3] Christ bore this temptation in the flesh when he condescended to take upon himself our own mortality.

Add to this also that after his resurrection, it was his will to remain with his disciples on the earth not longer than forty days.^[4] During this time he continued to mingle his resurrected life with theirs in the form of human intercourse. He shared with them food, which mortals need for life, even though he himself would never die. All this was done with the view of signifying to them through these forty days that although his presence would be later hidden from their eyes, he would yet fulfill what he promised when he said, I am with you, even to the end of the world.^[5]

There may be other and subtler methods of accounting for the length of this age, but the most apparent anticipations within the natural order of this number are the seasons of the years, which revolve in four successive alternations. Note also the fact that the world itself has its bounds determined by four divisions (which Scripture sometimes designates by the names of the winds, east and west, north or south).^[6] The number forty then is four times the cycle-completing number ten. The number ten, of course, is itself made up by adding one, two, three and four together.

So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations. When the Evangelist could have briefly explained the number of generations by saying, From Abraham to Christ there are forty-two generations, for what reason did he three times omit generations and divide them into three parts of fourteen generations each? Because the human situation among the Jews was changed three times, with fourteen generations cycling three times. First, from Abraham to David, they were under the judges. Second, from David to the exile, they were under the kings. Third, from the exile to Christ, they were under the high priests.

So this demonstrates that just as fourteen generations were completed three times, the state of humanity was altered. So with fourteen generations completed from the exile to Christ, the state of humanity from Christ on must be once again changed. This indeed happened. After Christ, the generations were no longer under so many judges, or so many kings or so many high priests. Rather all generations came forth under one Christ who was Judge and King and High Priest. For in those three states, only he finally had dignity.

Therefore, since the judges and kings and high priests prefigured the three offices of Christ, their beginnings were always to be understood as anticipatory figures of Christ. Joshua was the first judge; David, the first king; and Jeshua, the son of Josedech, the first high priest. No one doubts that these men were prefiguring Christ. . . . The reason why forty-two generations are given according to the flesh of Christ being born into the world is this: forty-two is the product of six times seven. Six, however, is the number that signifies work and toil, for the world was made in six days—it is a world made in work and toil and pain. So, appropriately, there are forty-two generations before Christ being born into the world in toil and pain, and these generations contain the mystery of work and toil.

Why does the Evangelist make mention here of birth, whereas at the start of the Gospel he had said generation? For in this place he says, Now the birth of Jesus Christ^[1] took place in this way,^[2] but there The book of the generation.^[3] . . . What then is the difference between birth and generation? How are either of them to be understood as applied to Christ?

Note that this, my spoken word, in its own proper nature, is intangible and invisible. But when it is written down in a book, in a manner of speaking, it takes on a body. It is then both seen and touched. So it is with the fleshless, bodiless Word of God. The Word is neither seen nor described according to his Godhood but becomes, through his incarnation, subject to both sight and description. For this reason there is the book of his generation as of one who is made flesh. But here the point under investigation is not why he says book instead of vision or account (for this has been discussed already). Rather, it is why, when Matthew had previously mentioned generation, he here speaks of birth. What is birth as distinguished from generation?

There is a difference between generation and birth. For generation, or coming into being, is the original formation of things by God, while birth is the succession from others caused by the verdict of death that came on account of the transgression. And even now, generation has something incorruptible and sinless about it, whereas birth implies that which is subject to passion and sin. The Lord in his eternal generation is incapable of sin. His being born did not undermine his eternal generation, which is incorruptible. But upon being born he assumed what is passible. That does not imply that he assumed what is subject to sin. He continued to bear the original Adam incapable of being lessened, either in respect of corruptibility or as regards the possibility of sin. Hence the generation in the case of Christ is not according to some procession from nonbeing into being. It is rather a transition [a path, a way] from existing in the form of God to the taking on of the form of a servant.^[4] Hence his birth was both like ours and above ours. For to be born of woman^[5] is like our birth, but to be born not of the will of the flesh or of man^[6] but of the Holy Spirit is above ours. There is here an intimation, a prior announcement of a future birth to be bestowed on us by the Spirit.

Do not speculate beyond the text. Do not require of it something more than what it simply says. Do not ask, But precisely how was it that the Spirit accomplished this in a virgin? For even when nature is at work, it is impossible fully to explain the manner of the formation of the person. How then, when the Spirit is accomplishing miracles, shall we be able to express their precise causes? Lest you should weary the writer or disturb him by continually probing beyond what he says, he has indicated who it was that produced the miracle. He then withdraws from further comment. I know nothing more, he in effect says, but that what was done was the work of the Holy Spirit.

Shame on those who attempt to pry into the miracle of generation from on high! For this birth can by no means be explained, yet it has witnesses beyond number and has been proclaimed from ancient times as a real birth handled with human hands. What kind of extreme madness afflicts those who busy themselves by curiously prying into the unutterable generation? For neither Gabriel nor Matthew was able to say anything more, but only that the generation was from the Spirit. But how from the Spirit? In what manner? Neither Gabriel nor Matthew has explained, nor is it possible.

Do not imagine that you have untangled the mystery merely by hearing that this is the work of the Spirit. For we remain ignorant of many things, even while learning of them. So how could the infinite One reside in a womb? How could he that contains all be carried as yet unborn by a woman? How could the Virgin bear and continue to be a virgin? Explain to me how the Spirit designed the temple of his body.

Such, according to Matthew, was the exceptional genealogy of Christ. He has made it clear that Jacob begot Joseph, to whom Mary was betrothed when she bore Jesus. Yet no one hearing this should suppose that the birth of Christ came about in the same usual manner as that of his forefathers. So Matthew continues to present the special lineage of Christ, which was not like the lineage of these fathers in every respect, as we will see. How can this be so, that he stands in this lineage but stands in it differently?

After Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, she was found to be with child before they had married. That is, the child was from a virgin but had [an adoptive, legal] human father. While enumerating his line, Matthew shows him to have descended from the seed of David according to the promises of God. But in explaining that his birth happened in a way quite beyond human nature, he reveals the mystery of his divinity. It was not fitting that the only Son of God should be born in the human way. For he was born not for himself but for humanity. He was indeed born into flesh that would undergo corruption. But Christ was born in order to heal corruption itself. Human corruption is not derived from the uncorrupted state of a virgin. It does not make sense that the only Son of God, who was born to heal corruption, might be born of a corrupt union. Humanity is born out of the necessity to exist. Christ, however, was not born out of the necessity of nature to exist but by his merciful will to save. He was appropriately born contrary to the law of human nature because he was beyond nature. Behold the strange and wonderful birth of Christ. It came through a line that included sinners, adulterers and Gentiles. But such a birth does not soil the honor of Christ. Rather, it commends his mercy.

This is the miracle: He who adopted and begot fathers was born from their sons! They were made his fathers whose son he was not. He did them a favor by being their son. They, however, offered him nothing by being his forefathers. Among men, fathers adopt whomever they wish to be their sons. This son, however, adopted fathers whom he chose for himself. Among men, sons receive the honor of birth from their fathers. But in Christ’s case, the fathers received honor from the son.

The text reads, Although his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they married, she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. Subsequently all saints would be born from the virgin church which is betrothed to Christ. . . . Sons often imitate the example of their father. Note that Mary was betrothed to a carpenter. Christ, betrothed to the church, was about to fashion for humanity salvation in its entirety and his entire work from the wood of the cross.

For blessed Matthew, after enumerating the genealogy of Christ, added the following regarding hope for our salvation: After Mary, mother of Jesus, had been betrothed to Joseph, she was found to be pregnant by the Holy Spirit before they were married. This is the heavenly mystery, this sacrament obscured and hidden by the Holy Spirit. Luke describes in greater detail the manner of the Lord’s incarnation, for he recounts how an angel came to Mary and greeted her saying, Hail woman full of grace,^[1] and the rest that follows. And when Mary asked him how what he had been proclaiming to her could take place—because she had never had relations with a man—he said to her, The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. And thus what is born from you will be called the Son of God.^[2] It was right that holy Mary, who was about to conceive the Lord of glory in her womb, be informed about the Holy Spirit and the excellence of the Most High when she received into her blessed womb the Creator of the world. Indeed, both Matthew and Luke began their narratives with the corporeal birth of the Lord. John, however, addresses the issue of Jesus’ divine birth in the preface to his Gospel: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. This was with God in the beginning. All things were made through him and without him nothing was made.^[3] The Evangelists help us to recognize both the divine and corporeal birth of the Lord, which they describe as a twofold mystery and a kind of double path. Indeed, both the divine and the bodily birth of the Lord are indescribable, but that from the Father vastly exceeds every means of description and wonder. The bodily birth of Christ was in time; his divine birth was before time. The one in this age, the other before the ages. The one from a virgin mother, the other from God the Father. Angels and men stood as witnesses at the corporeal birth of the Lord, yet at his divine birth there was no witness except the Father and the Son, because nothing existed before the Father and the Son. But because the Word could not be seen as God in the glory of his own divinity, he assumed visible flesh to demonstrate his invisible divinity. He took from us what is ours in order to give generously what is his.

Do you not see here a man of exceptional self-restraint, freed from that most tyrannical passion, jealousy? What an explosive thing jealousy is, of which it was rightly spoken: For the soul of her husband is full of jealousy. He will not spare in the day of vengeance.^[1] And jealousy is cruel as the grave.^[2] And we too know of many that have chosen to give up their lives rather than fall under the suspicion of jealousy. But in this case it was not a matter of simple suspicion, as the burden of Mary’s own womb entirely convicted her. Nevertheless Joseph was so free from the passion of jealousy as to be unwilling to cause distress to the Virgin, even in the slightest way. To keep Mary in his house appeared to be a transgression of the law, but to expose and bring her to trial would cause him to deliver her to die. He would do nothing of the sort. So Joseph determined to conduct himself now by a higher rule than the law. For now that grace was appearing, it would be fitting that many tokens of that exalted citizenship be expressed. It is like the sun not yet arisen, but from afar more than half the world is already illumined by its light. So did Christ, when about to rise from that womb—even before his birth—cast light upon all the world. In this way, even before her birth pains, prophets danced for joy and women foretold what was to come. And John, even before his birth, leaped in the womb.

Perhaps Joseph thought within himself: If I should conceal her sin, I would be acting against God’s law, and if I should publicize it to the sons of Israel, they would stone her. I fear that what is in her womb is of divine intervention. Didn’t Sarah conceive when she was ninety years of age and bring forth a child? If God caused that woman who was like dry wood to flower, what if the Godhead wanted to cause Mary to bear a child without the aid of a man?

Does the conception of a woman depend on a man? If the conception of a woman depends always on a man, doubtless when a man so desires, the woman will conceive. But in this case it is not when the man so desires that the woman conceives but when God so desires. Therefore, if a woman’s conception does not depend on a man but on God, what is so incredible if God should wish to give her offspring without a man?

What shall I do then? I will put her away secretly, because it is better in an uncertain matter that a known prostitue should get off free than that an innocent person should die. It is indeed more just that an unjust person should escape justly than that a just person should die unjustly. If a guilty person should escape once, he can die another time. But if an innocent person should die once, he cannot be brought back.

While St. Joseph, yet uninformed of so great a mystery, wanted to put away Mary quietly, he was advised in a dream by an angel who said to him, Do not be afraid, Joseph, son of David, to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit. St. Joseph is made aware of the heavenly mystery, lest he think otherwise about Mary’s virginity. He is also made aware of this that he might exclude the evil of suspicion and receive the good of the mystery. The following words were said to him: Do not be afraid, Joseph, son of David, to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit, so he might acknowledge the integrity of his fiancée and the virgin birth. It was not appropriate for so great a mystery to be revealed to anyone other than Joseph, who was known to be Mary’s fiancé, and no reproach of sin was attached to his name. In fact, Joseph translated from Hebrew into Latin means beyond reproach. Notice here too the order of a mystery: The devil first spoke to Eve the virgin long ago, and then to a man, that he might administer to them the word of death. In the latter case, a holy angel first spoke to Mary and then to Joseph, that he might reveal to them the word of life. In the former case, a woman was chosen unto sin; in the latter case, she was chosen unto salvation. In the former case, the man fell through the woman; in the latter case, he rose through the virgin. The angel therefore said to Joseph, Do not be afraid, Joseph, son of David, to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit.

And he added, She shall bring forth a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins.^[1] But this name of Lord which was given to Jesus from the virgin’s womb is not new to him but old. For Jesus translated from Hebrew into Latin means Savior. This name is agreeable to God because he says through the prophet: Just God and a Savior; there is none beside me.^[2] Lastly, when the Lord himself would speak through Isaiah about the bodily origin of his nativity, he says, The Lord called me from the womb, from the body of my mother he named my name. His name is certainly not strange, for Jesus was called according to the flesh (i.e., Savior, who was a Savior according to divinity). For Jesus, as we said, is rendered as Savior. This is what he said through the prophet: From the body of my mother he named my name.^[3] And that he might more fully show us the sacrament of his incarnation, he went on to say, He made my mouth like a sharp sword . . . he made me a polished arrow, in his quiver he hid me away.^[4] By the arrow he signified his divinity; by the quiver he assumed a body from the Virgin in which his divinity was covered with a garment of flesh.

How then did the angel assure Joseph? Hear and marvel at the wisdom of these words: Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife. The angel instantly puts him in mind of David, from whose seed the Anointed One would spring. He did not allow him to be confused by the exalted title of his forefather or remind him that the promise was made to the whole race. Rather, he addresses him personally as Joseph, Son of David. . . . By saying fear not, he indicates that Joseph had been afraid, lest he might give offense to God by retaining an adulteress under the law. If it had not been for this, he would not have even thought of casting her out. The angel came from God to bring forward and set before him clearly what he thought to do and what he felt in his mind.

The angel did not only mention her by name but also simply called her your wife. He would not have called her so if she had been unfaithful. Even as espoused, he speaks of her as your wife, just as Scripture commonly calls betrothed husbands sons-in-law even before marriage.

But what is meant by [Do not fear] to take Mary your wife? It means to retain her in his house. For he was intending to put her away. It is as if the angelic voice prompted: Retain her just as if she has been committed to you by God, not by her parents alone. God is committing her not for marriage but to dwell with you. By my voice he is committing her to you. Just as Christ would later commit Mary to his disciple, so now he commits her to Joseph.

Hearing Mary’s words and reflecting on her life did not allow Joseph to think badly of her. But as he reflected on her conception he still was not able to think well of her completely. Joseph’s mind fluctuated between two alternatives. He was fearful of keeping her, while he did not dare to betray her. It was thus necessary that Joseph also have a revelation. Mary herself had seen the angel and heard him speaking to her about her conception and that of Elizabeth. She had gone into the hill country to see Elizabeth and was reassured at the sight of her. If Mary needed this revelation, how much more did Joseph upon hearing the words of Mary’s conception. . . .

Therefore the angel appeared to him for three reasons. First, lest an ignorant but just man should do an unjust thing for a just cause. Next, for the sake of her mother’s honor, for if Mary had been put away—not among believers but among unbelievers—the woman could not be above foul suspicion. Third, realizing it was a holy conception, Joseph would in the future keep himself more diligently under control in her regard. . . .

He protected himself first according to the system of justice, then out of fear of this type of birth. But why didn’t the angel come to Joseph before the virgin’s conception in order that he might not think what he was thinking? That he might not suffer the fate of Zacharias, who incurred the blame of unfaithfulness on the conception of his wife who was already an old woman.^[1] For it was even more incredible that a virgin rather than an old woman could conceive. If this established high priest did not believe it would be feasible, how much more would his fellow countryman not believe it would be so?

The very thing which had made him afraid and for which he would have cast her out—this very thing, I say, was a just cause why he should take her and retain her in his house. This more than entirely did away with his distress. It is as if the angel were saying, For she is not only free from unlawful sexual relations but her very conception is above all natural causes. So not only put away your fear but rejoice even more greatly, ‘for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.’

What a strange thing he spoke of, surpassing human reasoning and all the laws of nature. How then might one be made able to believe such an announcement that would be so wholly unexpected? Only by viewing this event in relation to past disclosures in Scripture. For with this intent the angel laid open to Joseph all things that were in his mind, what he felt, what he feared, what he was resolved to do, so that he would be wholly reassured. And not only by past revelations in Scripture but also by the promise of what is yet to come does the angel win him over: She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.

It was as if the angel were saying to Joseph, Do not imagine that, because he is conceived of the Holy Spirit, that you have no part in the ministry of this new dispensation. In the conception you had no part. You never touched the virgin. Nevertheless I am giving you what pertains to a father. I give you the honor of giving a name to the One who is to be born. For you, Joseph, shall name him. For though the offspring is not your own, yet you are called to exhibit a father’s care toward him. So on this occasion, at this moment of giving him a name, you stand in significant relation with the one who is born. Then lest on the other hand anyone should, out of all this, suspect him to be the father, hear what follows and with what exact care the angel states it: She shall bring forth a Son. He does not say bring forth to you but merely she shall bring forth, putting it indefinitely, since it was not merely to him that she brought forth, but to the whole world.

She will bring forth a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He did not say, She will bear you a son, as he said to Zacharias: Behold, your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son.^[1] The woman who conceived from a man bore her husband a son. Mary’s case is greater than Elizabeth’s. The woman who had not conceived from a man did not bear him a son but bore only herself a son.

See in what way the similarity here follows in everything that happened with Adam. At that time the woman alone, tasting of the fruit of the tree, was seduced and brought forth death, but Adam did not share in her seduction. He did not sin through being seduced by the devil but because he consented to the woman’s act. Likewise, submitting to the Holy Spirit, Mary alone believed, saying, Behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.^[2] Joseph then actually had nothing in common with her conception, but later he was saved only by being silent and consenting. Joseph was assisted in a dream—not openly—so that even as when Adam was asleep God created the woman, so when Joseph was asleep he was given a wife by divine influence.

The Evangelist here interprets the meaning of Jesus in the Hebrew language, saying, He shall save his people from their sins. Therefore, while a doctor, who has no real power over human health, is unashamed to call himself a doctor simply because of his ability to prepare herbs, how much more worthy is the one who is called Savior, through whom the whole world is saved?

Having established Joseph’s faith by all means—by past expectations, by future hopes, by present grace and by the honor given to himself—the angel then rings in the prophet also to give expression in support of all these, proclaiming beforehand the good things that are to occur to the world through the Son: Sins are removed and done away. For he will save his people from their sins.^[1] Here again the coming event exceeds all human expectation. From what are the people being saved? Not from visible warfare or barbarians but something far greater: from their own sins, a work that had never been possible to anyone before.

To make what he said easier to understand, the angel makes reference to Isaiah, and not to Isaiah only but to God who speaks through Isaiah. For he does not refer this saying to Isaiah as such but to the God of all. Hence he did not say simply that All this took place to fulfill what was spoken by Isaiah but All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet. The mouth indeed was Isaiah’s, but the oracle was wafted from above.

Now all this came to pass. What is meant by all? That the Virgin would marry her kinsman, that she would be preserved chaste, that the angel would speak to Joseph in a dream, that he would be instructed to accept her as his wife, that the boy would be called Jesus and that the Virgin would bring forth the Savior of the world. All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet,^[1] saying, Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bring forth a son.^[2] Grace is witnessed through the prophets so that the Old and New Testaments may harmonize, grace may compensate for the weakness of the learned and what was predicted long ago might not seem to happen solely by chance.

Why then do they not call him Emmanuel instead of Jesus Christ? Because the text says not you shall call but his name shall be called. This means that the multitude and the outcome of the events themselves will cause him to be called Emmanuel. For here he puts the event as a name. This is customary in Scripture, to substitute names for the actual events. Therefore to say they shall call him ‘Emmanuel’ means nothing else than that they shall see God among us. Admittedly God has always been among us, but never before so openly.

Joseph therefore learns from the angel about the sacrament of the heavenly mystery and happily complies with the angel’s word. Rejoicing, he abides by the divine plan. He accepts holy Mary and glories in exultant praise because he was deemed worthy to hear that the virgin mother of such great majesty was called by the angel to be his wife.

But concerning what the Evangelist said, And he did not know her till she had borne her firstborn son, not a few careless people insist on asking whether after the Lord’s birth the holy mother Mary had relations with Joseph. But this is not admissible on the grounds of either faith or truth. Far be it indeed that after the sacrament of so great a mystery and after the birth of the sublime Lord, one should believe that the Virgin Mary was intimate with a man. Remember that Miriam the prophetess of the Old Testament (the sister of Moses and Aaron) remained a virgin unsullied by man, having beheld the light of heavenly signs after the plagues of Egypt and the parting of the Red Sea and the Lord’s glory going in advance and seen in a pillar of fire and clouds. It is not plausible therefore that the Mary of the Gospel, a virgin bearing God, who beheld God’s glory not in a cloud but was worthy of carrying him in her virginal womb, had relations with a man. Noah, who was made worthy to converse with God, declared that he would abstain from the conjugal need. Moses, after hearing God calling him from the bush, abstained from conjugal relations. Now are we to believe that Joseph, the man who always did what was right, had relations with holy Mary after the birth of the Lord?

And when Joseph had taken her, he had no relations with her until she had borne a son. Matthew has here used the word until not that you should suspect that afterward Joseph did know her but to inform you that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, has he used the word until? Because it is common in Scripture that this expression is used without reference to specific, limited times. Here are three examples. First, in the narrative of the ark it was said that the raven did not return until the earth was dried up,^[1] yet the raven did not return even after that limited time. Second, when discussing God the Scripture says, You are from everlasting to everlasting,^[2] but there is no implication here that some limit is being fixed—rather the opposite. Third, when preaching the gospel beforehand and saying, In his days may righteousness flourish, and peace abound, until the moon be no more!^[3] it is not thereby setting a temporal limit to this beautiful part of creation. So then here likewise, it uses the word until to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves some further inference to be made. So it is necessary to learn what Matthew teaches: that the Virgin was untouched by man until the birth. But the rest is left for you to perceive, both as a consequence of the previous narrative and what was later acknowledged: that not even after having become a mother and having been counted worthy of a new sort of travail and a childbearing so strange, could that righteous man ever have permitted himself to have sexual relations with her.

The One whom the world was neither able to contain or worthy to receive, Mary alone was able to hold as it were in the little chamber of her womb. Joseph saw that she would remain a virgin after childbirth. He saw the mystery of the star as it shone above the child’s head, and it pointed out the child to the magi who had arrived. Standing aside, he gave testimony, for he was speechless. Further, he saw the magi in adoration, presenting their hallowed gifts. He heard them speaking about how they had come from the east to Jerusalem, following the star, which did not disdain to pay tribute to men that it might reveal God’s glory. Therefore, the incomparable nativity, beyond the measure of all human nativities, manifested the divinity of the newborn child and demonstrated to Joseph the dignity of Mary who had given birth. The Evangelist thus said, And he did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn child. That is, he knew who she was after she had given birth.

And Annas the scribe came to [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, “Joseph, whom you vouched for, has committed a grievous crime.” And the priest said, “How so?” And he said, “He has defiled the virgin he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth”.

But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is called, or “The Book [ Protoevangelium ] of James,” that the brothers of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that her body, which was appointed to minister to the Word, which said, “The Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you” [Lk 1:35], might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it reasonable that Jesus was the first fruit among men of the purity that consists in chastity, and Mary among women; for it is not pious to ascribe to any other than her the first fruit of virginity.

Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin.

Now that I have cleared the rocks and shoals I must spread sail and make all speed to reach his epilogue. Feeling himself to be a smatterer, he there produces Tertullian as a witness and quotes the words of Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proved from the Gospel—that he spoke of the brothers of the Lord not as being sons of Mary, but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, in point of kinship, not by nature. We are, however, spending our strength on trifles, and, leaving the fountain of truth, are following tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, St. Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views, and wrote volumes full of wisdom. If you read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man. But I think it better to reply briefly to each point than to linger any longer and extend my book to an undue length.

We believe that God was born of the Virgin, because we read it. That Mary was married after she brought forth, we do not believe, because we do not read it. Nor do we say this to condemn marriage, for virginity itself is the fruit of marriage; but because when we are dealing with saints we must not judge rashly. If we adopt possibility as the standard of judgment, we might maintain that Joseph had several wives because Abraham had, and so had Jacob, and that the Lord’s brothers were the issue of those wives, an invention that some hold with a rashness that springs from audacity, not piety. You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I claim still more that Joseph himself, on account of Mary, was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born.

Surely, we cannot deny that regarding the sons of Mary the statement is justly censured, and your holiness rightly abhors it, that from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born, another offspring was brought forth. For neither would the Lord Jesus have chosen to be born of a Virgin if he had judged she would be so incontinent, that with the seed of human copulation she would pollute the generative chamber of the Lord’s body, the palace of the eternal king.

Imitate [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of maternal virtue; for neither have you sweeter children, nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son.