Chapter 1
The Genealogy of Jesus. 1, 1-17. Parall. Luke. 3, 23-38.
While the Old Testament abounds in genealogies, we find only one in the New, that of Our Lord Jesus Christ. But times and circumstances had undergone profound changes. What was the purpose of the ancient genealogies? It was to mark the separation of tribes and families, to perpetuate land ownership, to indicate the true descendants of Levi; it was above all to distinguish, in view of the Messiah, the members of the royal line, since, according to the prophets, he was to be part of this noble race. But when Israel ceased to be exclusively God's people, when the Jewish land fell under the control of the Gentiles, when the Levitical priesthood was abolished, all genealogies, except for one, that of Christ, became useless. This one alone is of interest to the Church; that is why the writings of the New Testament contain no other.
Mt1.1 The genealogy of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham. – Genealogy. Verse 1 contains a title, that much is clear; but does this title encompass the entire Gospel of St. Matthew, or should it be restricted to the first two chapters, or even simply to the genealogy of the Savior? The answer depends on the meaning one attributes to the word “Genealogy.” Indeed, it can be translated in three different ways: “history of life”; “history of birth”; “genealogical chart.” We believe, along with most exegetes, that this last meaning is the true one. A simple comparison suffices to prove this. St. Matthew, writing in Hebrew, certainly gives “genealogy” the meaning it had in that language; and the formula frequently found in the Hebrew Bible, cf. Genesis 5:1; 6:9; 11, 10, and which corresponds very precisely to “book of genealogy”, always represents the catalogue, the series of a certain number of generations. This is also consistent with the original meaning of the Sepher whose root is Saphar, To count. To the genealogy of the first Adam, recounted by Moses in Genesis 5:1, St. Matthew thus opposes the genealogy of the second Adam, because, with Jesus, a new creation begins, a new future of time (Thought of St. Remigius). The historian of the Messiah could not have acted otherwise. – It has sometimes been wondered whether St. Matthew himself composed the genealogy of the Savior, or whether, having found this document ready-made, he simply inserted it at the beginning of his Gospel. The second hypothesis seems to us the most plausible. And then, as Lightfoot said (Horae hebr. in hl): «It was necessary here, for such a fundamental and essential question, so dear to the hearts of the Jewish people, to establish the genealogy of the Messiah, so that not only could the truth presented by the evangelists not be contradicted, but so that it might be demonstrated and corroborated by authentic official records.» St. Matthew therefore undoubtedly drew upon authentic documents. These documents existed in great numbers, both in families and in the Temple archives, which the Talmud cites several times. The opinion of the rationalists, according to which the sacred writer fabricated a fanciful genealogy to make his readers believe that Jesus was truly the Messiah, hardly deserves mention. In his title, St. Matthew summarizes in two words the entire genealogy of Our Lord Jesus Christ. What, indeed, are the two essential names in verses 2-16? Without a doubt, those of David and Abraham. Abraham, the father of the Jewish people, and David, the greatest of its kings, were in reality the principal heirs of the messianic promises (cf. 22:18; 2 Samuel 7:12, etc.). No one could claim the dignity of Messiah unless they could demonstrate, with evidence in hand, that they were descended from both Abraham and David. “Son of David” designates the family, “son of Abraham” the lineage to which Christ belonged: these are two concentric circles, one narrower, the other wider, with Jesus Christ at the center, but the narrower one is also the more important, as the Gospel narrative will show us almost at every turn. At that time, the name “son of David,” in the mouths of the people as well as in the writings of scholars, was synonymous with that of Christ or Messiah; hence the glorious titles that the Greek Fathers applied to David. To be a son of Abraham was simply to be an Israelite. Thus, Jesus transfigures both the humble tent of Abraham and the glorious throne of David. From this first verse, the entire Old Covenant is linked to the New. St. Matthew proves, with these few words, that the history of Israel has now reached its goal, its culmination, in the Messiah. The following verses will develop this profound idea even further.
The family tree, vv. 2-16.
Mt1.2 Abraham fathered Isaac, Isaac fathered Jacob, Jacob fathered Judah and his brothers, ‑ Judah. Judah is named above all the sons of Jacob because it was over his head and that of his descendants that the messianic promises were passed, in forever famous terms (Genesis 49:10, cf. Hebrews 7:14). His brothers are mentioned more generally, however, because they were with him the leaders of God's people, the founders of those twelve tribes that were to form the primordial part of Christ's kingdom. Judah was not the eldest in the family, nor was his father, nor were other figures on our list: the privilege of being the ancestor of the Messiah was therefore not always attached to the right of primogeniture; but then God made his will known through special revelations.
Mt1.3 Judah of Tamar begat Phares and Zara, Phares begat Esron, Esron begat Aram,‑ Phares and Zara: They were twins, like Jacob and Esau. The question has been raised as to why Zerah is mentioned, since he is not among Christ's ancestors. Maldonat, along with several other exegetes, offers an explanation based on the circumstances surrounding the birth of the two brothers (cf. Genesis 38:29): "These twins seemed to be struggling in their mother's womb to determine who would be the firstborn and the ancestor of Christ, thus casting doubt on who would be born first. [Zearah having put out her hand first, although Peres was born first]. This is why the evangelist wished to give them equal honor." De ThamarThe appearance of Tamar is doubly surprising to the reader, firstly because the Jews were not accustomed to mentioning women in their genealogical lists, secondly because, if one of the Messiah's ancestors were to be forgotten, it was surely Tamar (see Genesis chapter 38). Moreover, it has long been noted that, among the five women's names mentioned in the genealogy of St. Matthew, only one is immaculate: that of the Virgin. Married All the others are tainted in some way. After the incestuous Tamar, there is Rahab, verse 5, “Rahab the debauched woman,” as the Bible calls her, Joshua 2:1; Hebrews 11:31; there is RuthThe Moabite woman, verse 5, is therefore of pagan origin; there is also Uriah's wife, or Bathsheba, verse 6. Why not mention Sarah, Rebecca, or Leah instead? According to several Fathers, this would be a providential event intended to redeem the voluntary humiliations of Jesus Christ in his Incarnation. "It is noteworthy that in the genealogy of the Lord, the Evangelist names none of the holy women of the Old Law, but only those whose conduct is condemned in Scripture. By choosing to be born of sinful women, he who had come to the fishermen He wants to teach us that he came to erase the sins of all men; this is why we find in the following verses Ruth “The Moabite,” St. Jerome in hl. It is generally accepted that these women received special mention because they became relatives of the Messiah through extraordinary and quite remarkable means. According to some authors, St. Matthew simply included their names in his genealogical table because he had already found them in the written documents that served as his source for this passage in his Gospel. Furthermore, the guilt of these women should not be exaggerated, or at least it is good to remember the praise bestowed upon them by Holy Scripture and the Church Fathers. Judah considered Tamar more righteous than himself (Genesis 38:26), and the Church Fathers affirm that her strange and guilty behavior toward her father-in-law was caused by a surge of enthusiastic faith: she wanted at all costs, they say, to become the mother of the family chosen by God. Rahab is praised twice and by two apostles in the New Testament, Heb. 11, 31 and Jac. 2, 25; Ruth She is presented to us as an admirable example of filial piety, and one of the most beautiful books in the Bible bears her name; finally, Bathsheba shared David's penance and, like him, deserved to return completely to God's grace.
Mt1 4 Aram begat Aminadab, Aminadab begat Naasson, Naasson begat Salmon, – From Aram, from Aminadab, of Salmon We know nothing but the names. – According to Numbers 1:7, Nahshon was the leader of the tribe of Judah at the time of the Exodus from Egypt: if this is the same person, as everything suggests, it seems clear that the genealogist omitted some intermediate generations, since the sojourn in Egypt lasted 430 years (cf. Exodus 12:40; Galatians 3:17), four generations would be very few for such a long period. Indeed, we find only these four names in the analogous table of the first book of the Chronicles Genesis 2:9-11; we find only four such figures during the same period in the family of Levi (Levi, Kohath, Amram, and Aaron). But this omission can be easily explained. God had foretold to Abraham, in Genesis 15:13-16, that his descendants would be exiled and even enslaved in a foreign land for 400 years, and that afterward the “fourth generation” would return to Palestine. The Jews took these last words literally, and they did not consider it permissible to count more than four generations for the duration of Egyptian servitude. However, the Lord only intended to speak in a general and approximate way.
Mt1 5 Salmon, son of Rahab, fathered Boaz, Boaz, of Ruth, fathered Obed, Obed fathered Jesse, Jesse fathered King David. – RahabIt has sometimes been claimed, but without sufficient reason, that this passage refers to an unknown Rahab, distinct from the one we mentioned earlier. According to the treatise Megilla, F. 14, 2, Rahab married Joshua himself; however, this is obviously a legendary tradition that loses all authority in the face of the Evangelist's certain statement. Perhaps Salmon was one of the two spies saved by Rahab at Jericho; his marriage to her would then be an act of gratitude. Obed. It is likely that here again, between the names Obed and Jesse, there is a gap in the list in St. Matthew. Indeed, approximately three hundred and sixty years passed between Salmon and Jesse, which would be a very long interval for only three generations. The Jewish book Iucharin explicitly states that Jesse was only Obed's middle descendant, and not his son. The name Jesse reminds us of the beautiful text in Isaiah 11:1: «A shoot will spring from the stump of Jesse, a branch from his roots will bear fruit.» King DavidIt was from David that the line of Jesus became a royal line. book of Ruth, 4, 18-22, we find, and in the same terms, the names of David's ancestors from Perez; there too, the generations are reduced to the number of three between Salmon and the great king.
Mt1.6 David fathered Solomon, by the woman who was the wife of Uriah., of the one who was Uriah's wife It is surprising, despite what we said earlier, that instead of referring to her by her proper name, they chose a title that more vividly recalls her fault.
Mt1.7 Solomon begat Rehoboam, Rehoboam begat Abias, Abias begat Asa, Solomon means "peaceful". Peace Conscience comes from good deeds. Psalm 118165: Profound peace for those who love your law. Rehoboam converts the people through the zeal of preaching. ABIA means "God the Father," because, by the fact that a man applies himself to the spiritual or physical progress of others. ASA means "rising."
Mt1.8 Asa begat Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat begat Joram, Joram begat Uzziah – Joram – Oziam. Between these two princes, there is another gap spanning three generations. This time, we speak not from mere probabilities, but with the utmost certainty; for, according to the data of Jewish history (cf. 2 Kings 8:24; 11:2; 12:1; 2 Chronicles 26:4), the genealogical tree, to be accurate, should read as follows: «Joram begat Ahaziah, Ahaziah begat Joash, Joash begat Amaziah, Amaziah begat Uzziah.» It is clear from this that the word “begat,” in enumerations of this kind, must be taken in a rather broad sense; it does not always designate a direct line of descent. Eastern traditions readily allow themselves liberties, even considerable ones, in this regard when the lineage is certain; their principle in such cases is that “grandsons are like sons” (Rabbinic proverb). There are several ways to explain the particular omission we just encountered in verse 8. 1. It could be a scribal error, quite naturally caused, it is said, by the similarity between the names Ahaziah and Uzziah. 2. St. Matthew, for reasons we will determine later, wanted to have three series of fourteen generations in the Savior's genealogy; to obtain this exact number, he would have excluded the names Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah. This was already the opinion of St. Jerome, which many exegetes have since adopted. 3. This exclusion would have had a purely mystical basis. As is known, Joram had married Athaliah, the wicked daughter of Ahab and Jezebel. Angered by Ahab's disgraceful conduct, the Lord had sworn through his prophets (cf. 1 Kings 21:21-22) to exterminate his entire lineage. Now, according to the language of Scripture, in such cases, the lineage extends to the fourth generation (cf. Maldonatus). Consequently, Athaliah's son, grandson, and great-grandson were before God as if they had never existed, and this is why their names would have been omitted from our document. It is certain, at least, that these three kings lacked, to some extent, legality from a theocratic point of view. Ahaziah was a purely nominal king under the tutelage of his mother, Athaliah; Joash, an excellent prince as long as he had the priest Jehoiada at his side, soon became the plaything of depraved courtiers; Amasias, finally, incurred God's special curse through his infamies.
Mt1.11 Josiah fathered Jeconiah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon. – Jeconiah. The name Jeconiah, in turn, raises a difficulty of interpretation. Indeed, Josiah was not the father, but the grandfather of this prince (cf. 1 Chronicles 3:15-16); between them, we should find Joakim. Furthermore, St. Matthew here attributes several brothers to Jeconiah, whereas he had only one according to 1 Chronicles 3:16: "From Joakim were born Jeconiah and Zedekiah"; between them, we should find Joakim. Finally, the author of the genealogy places King Josiah at the time of the Babylonian captivity, who had been dead for about twenty years when it began. These are therefore three points to clarify. It is true that, to clarify the first, a grammatical explanation relating to the expression will suffice. at the time of the Babylonian exile. We simply wish to reiterate that, around the time of the Babylonian captivity, Josiah fathered Jeconiah, a completely accurate fact, especially considering that the “transmigration” did not occur all at once, but rather had, so to speak, three main stages, and that it extended over a considerable period (606-586 BC) cf. Jeremiah 52:28 ff.; 2 Kings 22:12 ff. – Regarding the other two points, we again encounter various interpretations. 1. Here again, a ring may have been deliberately omitted from the genealogical list. This hypothesis is supported by several manuscripts or versions that restore the omitted name: “Josiah fathered Jehoiakim, Jehoiakim fathered Jeconiah and his brothers.” But, even if this reading were authentic, the difficulty concerning Jeconiah's brothers remains. 2. To circumvent this, several authors resort to a “mendum amanuensis” and take the liberty of reconstructing the supposedly original text as follows: «Josiah fathered Jehoiakim and his brother, and Jehoiakim fathered Jehoiachin during the Babylonian exile.» We would like to accept Ewald’s ingenious conjecture, which immediately resolves the problem in all its aspects; unfortunately, it is an exercise in authority that nothing can justify. 3. Others try to untangle this Gordian knot more patiently. According to them, the name Jehoiachin in verse 11 represents not Jehoiachin himself, but precisely this Jehoiakim whose omission we regret; either, they say, these two names were identical among the Hebrews, or a copyist’s error substituted one for the other. That being said, the genealogy is complete at this point; moreover, it is perfectly correct, since Joakim had three brothers: Johanan, Zedekiah, and Shellum. However, they add, since Joakim was put to death by the king of Babylon and never went into captivity, the Jeconiah of verse 12 must not be the same as the one in verse 11; it is therefore Jeconiah proper, son of Joakim, grandson of Josiah. On what grounds, we would reply, can one suppose, against all probability, that the genealogy cites two people under the same name, when it had very distinct names at its disposal to designate them? This is the weak point of this system. 4. It remains for us to simply take the note in verse 11 as it has been transmitted to us, without making any changes. The name of Joakim will have been passed over in silence, like those of several other ancestors of Christ. As for Jeconiah, since it is indeed Jeconiah and him alone who is mentioned, it is true that the Bible gives him only one brother, but we will later have the opportunity to demonstrate that this term "brother" has a much broader meaning in Hebrew than in ours, and that it could also apply to cousins, to close relatives. [The word "cousin" does not exist in Aramaic.] During the time of deportation The Evangelist expressly mentions this painful event because of its exceptional gravity for the family of David and Christ; upon their return from exile, they will no longer have royal dignity.
Mt1.12 And after the deportation to Babylon, Jeconiah fathered Shealtiel, and Shealtiel fathered Zerubbabel, – After the deportation ; That is to say, not after it had ceased, but when it was complete, when all the captives had been brought to Chaldea. We would say more clearly in French: during the exile. Zorobabel. While Ezra, v.2, and Haggai, his contemporary, 1, 1. 12, 14: 2, 3, name him son of Shealtiel like St. Matthew, the genealogical tables of Chronicles make him born of Phaedaia, Cf. 1 Chron. 3, 17; Shealtiel would therefore only be his grandfather.
Mt1.13 Zerubbabel begat Abiud, Abiud begat Eliacim, Eliacim begat Azor, 14 Azor begat Zadoc, Zadoc begat Achim, Achim begat Eliud, 15 Eliud begat Eleazar, Eleazar begat Mathan, Mathan begat Jacob, – Starting from’Abiud Up to St. Joseph, parallel accounts to that of St. Matthew are completely lacking in the Old Testament writings; none of these ten figures is mentioned. Therefore, it is entirely impossible for us to verify the Evangelist's list here. Abiud himself, for reasons unknown, is not named among the children of Zerubbabel in 1 Chronicles 3:17-18. But every family, especially the royal family, carefully kept its genealogical records, and it was easy to consult them to obtain all the desired information.
Mt1.16 And Jacob fathered Joseph, the husband of Married, from which was born Jesus, who is called Christ. – Between Jacob and Joseph, the verb “to beget” is used for the last time: the natural order of births ceases with St. Joseph, and the supernatural and divine order begins. It is only in his capacity as the virginal spouse of Married that Joseph entered into the genealogy of Christ; hence this remarkable change in the formula “spouse of Married, from which was born…”. Although he will soon go into greater detail about this prodigious generation, St. Matthew does not want there to be the slightest doubt on this subject; hence his advance statement: Joseph is only the putative father of Jesus. Of MarriedThis blessed name, whose Hebrew form was “Miriam”, had long existed among the Jews, for the sister of Moses and Aaron was already called MarriedIt was frequently worn in the time of Our Lord, as evidenced by the relatively large number of Married which appear in the Gospel. Its etymology is doubtful: according to some, it derives from a root meaning “to be strong, to dominate”; according to others, from a similar root meaning “to be rebellious.” The interpretations that the Fathers gave of this beautiful name are generally as philologically flawed as they are gracious in their meaning. Who is called, While not possessing the full force of "he will be called" (cf. Luke 1:32, 35), this phrase does more than simply recall a historical memory; it indicates not only a nickname given to Jesus, but a function legitimately fulfilled by the Savior. Christ as we know, it comes directly from Greek, anoint, is in turn the literal translation from Hebrew, maschiach Christ and Messiah are therefore absolutely identical appellations. Initially applied sometimes to priests and kings, who were consecrated by holy anointing, and sometimes to prophets, who received anointing in a figurative way, this name was later reserved exclusively for the promised Liberator, who thus became, by antonomasia, the Messiah. Christ is therefore a designation of function and use; but for Jesus, it was used separately, like a true proper name (cf. Simon Peter, John Mark, Tullius Cicero, etc.). The author of the Acts of the Apostles and St. Paul already simply write “the Christ”.
Mt1 17 So there are fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen generations from David to the Babylonian exile, fourteen generations from the Babylonian exile to Christ.. – So, in totalIn concluding his genealogical chart, St. Matthew divides it into three groups, each of which, he says, contains fourteen generations. However, if we try to verify his calculation, we find only forty-one generations in total instead of forty-two, and in the third group only thirteen instead of fourteen. How can this mystery be explained? It has been suggested earlier that we count Married Among the ancestors of Christ, sometimes Joachim is inserted after Josiah in verse 11, according to the variant we have indicated, and sometimes the name of Jeconiah is added twice, thus concluding the second group and opening the third. We have settled on the latter interpretation, because it seems to us the most natural based on the very expressions used by the Gospel in verses 11, 12, and 17. “From David until the Babylonian captivity, fourteen generations,” therefore Jeconiah is included in this number according to verse 11; “from the captivity until Christ, fourteen generations,” therefore, according to verse 12, the third series must begin with Jeconiah. This prince, being considered at two different times, before and after the deportation of the Jews to Chaldea, must therefore appear twice in St. Matthew's calculation. David is undoubtedly also mentioned twice in verse 17, yet he belongs to only one group; but note clearly that there is no parity in this respect between the King-Prophet and Jeconiah. The former is simply named for himself, while the latter is linked to a historical event of the utmost gravity, and it is precisely for this reason that he is counted twice. Based on this principle, we arrive at the following three groups:
1. – 1. Abraham
2. Isaac – 3. Jacob – 4. Judah – 5. Pharès – 6. Esrom – 7. Aram – 8. Aminadab – 9. Naasson – 10. Salmon – 11. Boaz – 12. Obed – 13. Jesse – 14. David.
2. – 1. Solomon
2. Rehoboam – 3. Abia – 4. Asa – 5. Jehoshaphat – 6. Joram – 7. Uzziah – 8. Joathan – 9. Ahaz – 10. Hezekiah – 11. Manasses – 12. Amon – 13. Jechoniah (at the time of the exile).
3. 1. Jeconiah (after the exile).
2. Salathiel – 3. Zerubbabel – 4. Abiud – 5. Eliacim – 6. Azor – 7. Zadok – 8. Achim – 9. Eliud – 10. Eleazar – 11. Mathao – 12. Jacob – 13 – Joseph – 14. Jesus Christ.
This division of Christ's ancestors into three groups is quite natural; it was entirely dictated by Jewish history, which, from Abraham to Jesus Christ, is itself divided into three main periods: the period of theocracy, between Abraham and David; the period of kingship, from David to the exile; and the period of hierarchy or priestly government, from the exile to the Messiah. These can also be called the periods of the patriarchs, kings, and simple royal descendants. During the first, the family chosen by God follows an upward path, advancing gloriously toward the throne. The second offers us only kings, but kings of great and unequal merit and stature; toward the end, there is already a complete decline. During the third period, the decline is increasingly rapid, at least in human terms, and the last name on the list is that of a humble carpenter. But suddenly the line of Abraham and David rises again to heaven with the Messiah. In the family of Jesus, we thus find all the vicissitudes of other human families: we encounter men of every kind, shepherds, heroes, kings, poets, saints, great sinners, and poor artisans. In the end, it was what Isaiah had foretold when speaking of the humiliations of Christ, 53:2. But the Holy Spirit watched over it especially, and, all in all, it represents the highest nobility that has ever existed in the whole world. – The division of each series into fourteen generations is less easily explained than that of the entire genealogy into three groups. Did St. Matthew, or the genealogist whose documents he followed, intend, as Michaelis, Eichhorn, and others have suggested, only to aid the readers' memory? No, he had something more important in mind than a lesson in mnemonics. Might he not, in the manner of the Kabbalists, have obtained the number fourteen by adding the digits corresponding to the three letters of the Hebrew name David? Not at all: a calculation of this kind might have its place in a genealogy of which David was the terminus; it would have none in that of Christ. It has also been noted that multiplying 3 by 14 yields 42; now, this number being that of the stations at which the Hebrews' journey through the desert was interrupted, there would be an extraordinary connection there that one would have wanted to preserve: 42 stages on either side before the Promised Land. The following idea is even more ingenious; it is based on the veneration of the number 7 among the ancients. 14, we are told, equals 7 times 2; Three times 14, or 42, equals 6 times 7, that is, 6 times the sacred number. 7 is therefore at the foundation of the Savior's genealogy. But that's not all: according to the doctrine of the New Testament, with Christ came the fullness of time; now, in the list of St. Matthew, Jesus Christ precisely concludes the sixth sevenfold cycle of generations, and with Him begins the seventh sevenfold cycle, the last week of the world, which will be followed by the eternal Sabbath. – Did the Evangelist truly have these thoughts in mind? What is certain is that the Jews liked to divide their genealogies into distinct and artificial groups, according to mystical numbers fixed in advance; to then reduce the generations to this number, they repeated or omitted certain names, as we have seen, without the slightest scruple. For example, Philo divides the generations separating Adam from Moses into two decades, to which he adds a series of seven members (10 + 10 + 7); but this required counting Abraham twice. In contrast, a Samaritan poet divides the same series of generations into only two decades, provided, however, that he sacrifices six names chosen from among the least important. – Having studied in detail the genealogy of Jesus according to St. Matthew, we still need to examine two general points whose gravity prevents us from passing over them in silence. The first concerns this genealogy in itself; the second concerns its relationship with the genealogical tree of St. Luke, 3:23-38. 1. The genealogy of Jesus Christ according to St. Matthew considered in itself. It is the genealogy of St. Joseph that the first evangelist has transmitted to us; there is no doubt about this. From Abraham to St. Joseph, he points to a succession of generations, some more immediate than others, but all real, as demonstrated by the use of the verb generate, to which we have no reason to attribute a metaphorical meaning. However, is it not surprising that St. Matthew, wishing to compose the genealogy of Jesus Christ, writes the genealogy not of the Blessed Virgin, through whom alone Our Lord was connected to the great human family, but of St. Joseph, who was only his putative father? To explain this extraordinary fact, three main reasons have been put forward. hasAmong the Jews, as among several other ancient peoples, it was a principle that women They did not count in the generations. Writing primarily for Jews, St. Matthew had to conform to their laws. The mother's genealogy would have proven nothing to them, so it was pointless to include it. bAlthough Jesus Christ was not, strictly speaking, the son of St. Joseph, he was nevertheless his adopted son, and consequently his legal son, since Joseph was his mother's husband. This being established, Jesus necessarily inherited all the rights of his foster father; he received from him, before Jewish law, the status of son of David. Married She did indeed transmit the royal blood to the Savior, but she did not transmit to him the rights of succession because, among the Israelites as among us, the crown did not fall from spear to distaff [passing from man (who wields the spear) to woman (who uses the spindle and distaff). St. Joseph had to be there to make him the legal heir to the throne of David; since Jesus had no father on earth, there was no other way to prove his descent from the great king. c. Married was, like Joseph, part of the family of David; this is evident from the implicit teaching of St. Luke and St. Paul and from the very explicit affirmations of tradition. For St. Luke, see 1.32. St. Paul has even more formal texts, Romans 1:3, and in the Letter to the Hebrews 7, 14 cf. Galatians 3:16. As for the Fathers and other ecclesiastical writers, there is not the slightest doubt in their minds on this matter. – 2. The genealogy of St. Matthew in its relation to that of St. Luke. It seems more natural to us to refer to the explanation of the third Gospel for a thorough examination of the facts pertaining to this delicate question. Our purpose here is simply to indicate the crux of the difficulty and a summary of the principal solutions it has received. The genealogy of Our Lord according to St. Luke differs both in form and in substance from that which we have just read in St. Matthew. The differences in form are minor and easily explained; the material differences are much more serious, and they have long challenged the genius of commentators. They all boil down to the following fact: between David and Jesus Christ, the two lists have nothing in common except for the three names of Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, and St. Joseph; all the other ancestors attributed to Our Lord by St. Luke during this long period differ from those given to him by St. Matthew. While the first evangelist links Jesus Christ to David through Solomon, the second traces him back to the great king through Nathan. Why these different lines? Why, ultimately, is St. Joseph called on the one hand the son of Jacob, and on the other the son of Eli? Many theories exist on this point, but no definitive solution, and it is unlikely that one ever will be found. Here, at least, are the two most commonly accepted hypotheses; they suffice to answer the attacks of rationalism. 1. Both genealogies are those of St. Joseph. If they attribute two distinct fathers to him, it is because, according to Jewish law (see Deuteronomy 25:5-10), his mother was subject to what was called Levirate marriage. Jacob is therefore the natural father, Eli only the legal father. Something similar would have occurred for Shealtiel (see Matthew 1:12; Luke 3:27). – 2. The first genealogy is that of St. Joseph, the second that of the Blessed Virgin. Both holy spouses belonged to the royal family, with this difference: St. Joseph descended from the direct line through Solomon. Married from a collateral branch through Nathan. This ingenious system has found many supporters in modern times, even among Protestants. – We believe we can usefully conclude this study on the genealogy of Jesus Christ according to St. Matthew by noting the principal passages of the Old Testament that can serve as proof or commentary on the Gospel text. – Jesus, son of David: Psalm 131:11 and 12; ; Isaiah 11, 1 ; Jeremy. 23.5; 2 Samuel 7, 12; ; Acts of the Apostles 13:23; Romans 1:3. – Jesus, son of Abraham: Genesis 12, 3; 22, 18; Galatians 3, 16. – Isaac: Genesis 21, 2 and 3; Romans 9, 7-9. – Jacob: Genesis 25:25. – Judah: Genesis 29:35; 49:10; Hebrews 7:14. – Perez and Zerah: Genesis 38:16. – Hezron: 1 Chronicles 2:5. – Amminadab: 1 Chronicles 2:10. – Nahshon: Exodus 6:23; 1 Chronicles 2:10. – Salmon: 1 Chronicles 2:11; Ruth4, 20. – Rahab: Joshua 2:1; 6:24-25. – Boaz and Obed: Ruth. 4, 21. 22; 1 Chron. 2, 11. 12. – Jesse and David. ibid. ; 1 Samuel 16, 11; 1 Kings 12, 16 etc. – Solomon: 2 Samuel 12, 24. – Rehoboam: 1 Kings 11, 43. – Abias: 1 Kings 14, 31. – Asa: 1 Kings 15, 8. – Jehoshaphat: 1 Chron. 3, 10. – Joram: 2 Chron. 21, 1; 2 Kings 8, 16. – Uzziah (or Azarias): 2 Kings 14, 21; 2 Chronicles. 26, 1. – Joatham: 2 Kings 15, 7; 2 Chronicles. 26, 23. – Ahaz: 2 Kings 15:38; 2 Chronicles 27:9. – Hezekiah: 2 Chronicles 28:27; 2 Kings 16:20. – Manasseh: 2 Kings 20:21; 2 Chronicles 32:33. – Amon: 2 Kings 21:18. – Josiah: 2 Kings 21:24. – Jeconiah: 1 Chronicles 3:16. – Babylonian Captivity: 2 Kings 24 and 25, 2 Chronicles 36. – Shealtiel and Zerubbabel: 1 Chronicles 3:17-19. – Abiud and the others: Jewish tradition and writings.
Mt1.18 And so the birth of Jesus Christ came about. Married, his mother, being betrothed to Joseph, it was found, before they had lived together, that she had conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. – «Being about to recount something unheard of and prodigious, he excites the listener’s mind with elegance and professionalism,» Erasmus writes in his *St. Matthew*. He then refers the reader to verse 16, the meaning of which he wishes to clarify and complete by showing, through a brief summary of the facts, the nature of the relationship that united Jesus Christ to Joseph. This summary, although it contains the most marvelous and sublime things that any historian has ever had to relate, is commendable for its astonishing simplicity. It is not with this sobriety of style that pagan writers relate the supposed virgin origin of Buddha, Zoroaster, Plato, and others whom rationalism so readily opposes to Jesus. Birth. So the genesisThe origin of Christ, that is to say his conception and birth, will be recounted to us. FianceeWhat is the best way to translate this expression? Should we say "married" or simply "betrothed"? Theologians have always debated this, a debate that dates back to the earliest days of exegesis. The question, as already understood, boils down to whether the marriage of the Blessed Virgin and St. Joseph preceded the Incarnation, or whether it took place several months later, in the circumstances described by St. Matthew. The Fathers offer contradictory answers; medieval and modern commentators are generally more favorable to the first hypothesis; contemporaries, on the other hand, quite commonly adopt the second. The latter base their position both on the general impression produced by the Gospel narrative, on the marriage customs of the ancient Jews, and on philology. It is certain that after a careful reading of verses 18-25, done without preconceived ideas, one is inclined to see in this passage the very account of the marriage of Joseph and MarriedLet us simply state this assessment briefly; we will discuss the archaeological and philological evidence as the text of St. Matthew provides us with the opportunity. And first, let us return to the expression that served as the starting point for this exposition of the problem. The meaning is not “to marry” but “to be betrothed”; this can easily be verified by looking at the word in the Greek dictionary. St. Luke, in his account of the Incarnation, 1:27, even formally excludes, with regard to the Blessed Virgin, the secondary and derived meaning; for he associates the noun “virgin” with “betrothed”; indeed, one does speak of a betrothed virgin, but never of a married virgin. before they had lived together. We are once again faced with two opposing translations: some say “before the marriage is consummated” (St. John Chrysostom, Theophylact, etc.); others, with St. Hilary, “before Married "had not been taken to her husband's house," or more clearly, before they began living together; and this, we believe, is the true meaning. Among the Jews, in fact, a solemn betrothal strictly preceded the wedding, which was usually celebrated only a year later; now, the principal wedding ceremony consisted precisely of escorting the bride, in great pomp, to her husband's house. There is a very direct allusion to the following passage from Deuteronomy 20:7: "Whoever has betrothed a wife to himself, and has not yet taken her home." Do we not see that we have here exactly the terms used by St. Matthew? At the time to which the Evangelist transports us, Married She was therefore not yet living in St. Joseph's house, proof that they were not married. he found himselfthat is to say, “he appeared”; it was seen that she had become a mother. This observation leads us, chronologically, to about three months after the conception of the Savior, therefore to the days immediately following the return of Married in Nazareth, after his visit to his cousin (cf. Luke 1:56). by the power of the Holy SpiritThe Evangelist writes these words now in anticipation; their true place is in verse 20, where we will soon find them again; but St. Matthew does not want the reader to suppose for a single moment that Jesus was born like other men. We have already noted, in verse 16, his vigilant care to safeguard the virginal honor of Jesus Christ and of MarriedThe ordinary man is born “from the will of the flesh, from the will of man”, John 113; Christ, the second Adam, Savior and Redeemer of a corrupt world, could only be begotten by God. Assuredly, he had to be united to humanity by very close ties, becoming flesh of his flesh, bone of his bones, and that is why he took a mother from among the children of Eve; but he also had to be pure and holy, separated from the sinners (Hebrews 7:26), and of divine race, and that is why he had no father on earth. The simplest propriety required that it be so. – The preposition in the Greek text is more forceful than the of corresponding to the Vulgate, since it further excludes any human paternity; but the Latin particle also translates the thought of the sacred writer quite well. It has even passed definitively into the theological language of the Western Church: “conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary.” The Incarnation of the Word, like all of God’s operations “ad extra,” was accomplished jointly by the three divine persons; however, it is attributed more specifically to the Holy Spirit by virtue of appropriation, because it is a generative work and the third person of the Holy Trinity is regarded as the generative and life-giving principle. We see it fulfilling this beautiful role from the very beginning of the world. Genesis 12. See on this question, S. Thom. Summa Philos. lib. 4, cap. 46, and the theologians.
Mt1.19 Joseph, her husband, who was a righteous man, not wanting to disgrace her, resolved to dismiss her secretly. – Her husbandWe saw earlier (cf. v. 16) that this expression should be translated as “husband,” and our opponents derive one of their main arguments from this. According to them, the name currently given to St. Joseph proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the bonds of marriage already united this holy patriarch to MarriedWe would reply that betrothal among the Hebrews, and indeed among ancient peoples in general, created much stricter relationships than today; thus, the people between whom betrothals had been contracted were frequently referred to as husband and wife. The Bible offers us several striking examples of this. book of DeuteronomyIn Genesis 22:24, the bride is simply called “wife”; similarly, in Genesis 29:20, 21, Jacob says to Laban, speaking of Rachel, “Give me my wife,” even though he had not yet married her. Just This primarily refers to the theocratic justice of the Old Testament (cf. Luke 1:6; 2:25). The Evangelist therefore does not intend to address this here. kindness, gentleness of St. Joseph, as several ancient exegetes (St. Jerome) believed, but rather his spirit of fidelity to the laws. Being righteous, he could not marry someone who, by all appearances, must be gravely guilty. This is precisely the crux of the tragic situation that St. Matthew indicates to us rather than describes. In the thorny circumstance in which he found himself, the righteous Joseph had to break completely with Married But he had two ways of doing it, one full of rigor, the other as gentle as possible. The rigorous approach consisted of making his situation known publicly, denouncing it publicly, defaming it; the lenient approach consisted of dismissing him secretly. In either case, this means that St. Joseph was free to cite Married before the Jewish courts so that she could answer for her conduct; but he could also divorce her quietly, without fanfare. However, according to Mosaic law, absolute secrecy was not possible, as betrothal, like marriage, could only be dissolved by an act of divorce. “As soon as she was betrothed, the woman was her husband’s wife, even if he had not yet met her. And if the fiancé wanted to divorce her, he needed a writ of divorce,” Maimon, tractate Ishot. Now, for the validation of this act, two witnesses were necessarily required. It is true that the reasons for the divorce could be omitted from the official document, and this was precisely St. Joseph’s intention with regard to MarriedIn this way, he took a middle ground between the severity of strict law and the now impossible tenderness of affection. – Joseph was therefore quite “decided” not to give up Married to the courts, and he was “inclined” to dismiss her outright; but he had not yet made a firm decision on the matter. – It is clear from this account that the Blessed Virgin had not revealed the mystery of her pregnancy to her fiancé. Such reticence seems surprising at first. In short, it would have been so easy for her, it seems, to spare St. Joseph, and herself, cruel suffering. But she rightly believed she had to keep God's secret; it belonged only to the Lord, she thought, to reveal it directly, and her faith assured her that Joseph would one day be providentially informed, as the mother of John the Baptist had been. Besides, what proof could she have provided of its veracity?
Mt1.20 While he was thinking this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, «Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take with you Married your wife, for what is formed in her is the work of the Holy Spirit. – As he was thinkingThis was his constant preoccupation, like a sharp sword turning endlessly within his soul, torturing him all the more as the situation became complicated by a practical question difficult to resolve. How much is contained in these few words! Indeed, there could be no more painful position for a just and upright man. However, the hand of Providence will gently untie the knot it has tied; Married She had not been mistaken in abandoning her cause to God. – here is. The Hebrews readily used this particle to represent the unexpected, sudden nature of an event; St. Matthew frequently inserts it into his narrative. An angel of the Lord : literal translation of the famous expression that recurs so often in the writings of the Old Testament, and which has been so much discussed. The angel of God had once brought the great messianic promise to the patriarch Abraham; he now comes to tell St. Joseph of the coming fulfillment of this good news. In a dream. Like his Old Testament namesake, who was also the son of Jacob, St. Joseph is famous for his dreams. (See in the Roman Breviary, Feast of St. Joseph, Reading 2, Noct, a beautiful parallel drawn by St. Bernard between these two illustrious figures.) Astonishingly, his life, as we know it from the Gospel, consists solely of four supernatural dreams and four corresponding acts of obedience. Divine warnings communicated in the form of dreams are not uncommon in the Bible. It has sometimes been claimed that they constitute a very inferior mode of revelation; but if we consider the eminence of the people to whom God revealed himself in this way, the importance of the commands he gave them during their sleep, we will reject this odious allegation. The Spirit blows not only where it wills, but also as it wills. Son of David. The angel reminds him of this glorious title because the news he is about to convey is messianic, and it concerns him directly as a descendant of the royal family; it is the preeminent work of his lineage that is about to be entrusted to him. The following words, Don't be afraid, perfectly reflect the state of mind of St. Joseph: he “feared” of harming justice, of offending God by uniting with Married through the bonds of marriage; the heavenly messenger removes this worry from him. Take with you, that is to say, to bring into your house and consequently to marry cf. the explanation of v. 18. Such was the expression used to designate Jewish marriages, because on the wedding day the groom received his bride from the hands of the latter's father. Take (To receive) has never meant to keep or retain at home, as has sometimes been claimed; one does not receive what one already possesses. Your wife equivalent to "as wife". These two words can also be viewed as forming an apposition to "Mariam"; in this case, Married would bear the name of wife in advance, just as Joseph would bear the name of husband, in accordance with the custom we have mentioned. – Instead of born It should be “begotten,” according to the Greek; the neuter is used because the Angel has not yet specified the nature of the child. – All suspicion vanished before the name of the Holy Spirit But the Angel's words are not only intended to dispel Joseph's doubts; they also implicitly indicate to him the role of protector he, as the son of David, must fulfill towards Jesus and... Married.
Mt1.21 And she will give birth to a son, and you are to name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.» – In this verse, God's messenger first determines the nature of “that which was conceived” in the Virgin's womb. He then reveals to Joseph both the predestined name he must give to this Son of Wonders (the title given to the Messiah by the Rabbis), and the perfect relationship that exists between this name on the one hand, and on the other hand the role that the divine child will play. – You will name himOn every page, the Old Testament highlights the importance of names applied to people and things. Originally, Cf. Genesis 219. Names were not arbitrary; they expressed the very essence of the individuals who bore them. But sin, by clouding the human mind, prevented it from discovering, as before, the innermost nature of beings, and so names were mostly left to chance and devoid of intrinsic harmony, although etymology still quite often reveals striking coincidences. At least, when God directly gives a name, and especially when he gives it to his Son, he chooses it to be perfectly in accordance with the innermost essence. JesusThis name was already quite old among the Jews when the archangel Gabriel brought it from heaven to Married for his child, when the angel of the Lord revealed the mystery to St. Joseph. Before the exile, its usual form was in Hebrew, “Joshua"according to the Vulgate, that is to say God is Savior After the exile, it underwent a slight abbreviation and became “Yeshua,” Savior, cf. Nehemiah 7:17. It is the sweetest and most mellow of all names: it expresses so melodiously and so completely in its brevity the entire work of salvation accomplished by Our Lord. Cf. Ecclesiastes 46:12. After pronouncing this sacred name, the Angel explains its meaning to the bridegroom of Marriedand indicates the reason why God destined him for the Incarnate Word. It is therefore appropriate to repeat with the ancients that the name is an omen. He will save, Hence the famous title, Savior, applied to Jesus Christ first among the Greeks and then throughout the Church: it is, moreover, simply the translation of his proper name. His people directly represents the Jews. By his birth, by his primary and immediate functions, Jesus belonged to the Israelite nation and came first and foremost for it, as the prophets had long foretold; see also Romans 1:16; 9:5. But the Gentiles are by no means excluded: the true people of Jesus are all of spiritual and mystical Israel. “I have other sheep,” he himself will say, “that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also, and there shall be one sheep pen and one shepherd,” John 9:16. Of his sins. Saving the world from sin is the most intimate aspect, the very soul, so to speak, of Jesus' ministry; he delivers us not only from sin, but also from its disastrous consequences. Messianic salvation will therefore be essentially moral and religious: the promised Liberator will not come to earth for a human, political purpose, as was all too often believed at the time. His is in the plural because “people” is a collective noun: it is an enallage.
Mt1.22 All this took place so that what the Lord had said through the prophet might be fulfilled: 23 «"Behold, the Virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel," that is to say, God with us. The Angel's message is complete; what we are about to hear in these two verses is merely a reflection by the evangelist, as is commonly accepted. We will see St. Matthew more than once interrupt the narrative of an event or a discourse to insert a personal thought, especially to show the connection between the event he is relating and the prophecies of the Old Testament; this is his way of expressing the philosophy of Jesus' story. But this philosophy is extremely simple, despite its real depth; it usually consists of the following phrase: such and such a thing happened because it had been predicted. We will encounter these words so often in the first Gospel, their meaning has been so completely distorted, their dogmatic importance so great, that we will be permitted to devote a few lines to them here. First, it has been pretended that the conjunction "« so that» and the verb «to accomplish» that the announcement of a mere accommodation, a pure juxtaposition of two similar events, whose connection would not exist outside the mind of the Evangelist. The sacred historian would thus indulge himself in quoting the prophets, just as we quote our favorite poets when our memory aptly recalls some of their verses. But nothing could be further from the truth. “So that” establishes a true final cause between the event recounted by the evangelist and the Old Testament prophecy he links to it. Similarly, the verb “to accomplish” must be taken in its strict and original meaning; it refers to a real accomplishment, a proper realization, and not a chance encounter: the indicated result had been foreseen, willed beforehand by God. Thus restored to its true interpretation, the formula “so that it may be accomplished” recalls a fact as important in itself as it is rich in dogmatic consequences. In the Old Covenant, everything tended toward the Messiah and his work, as famous texts such as Hebrews 10:8 and St. Augustine attest; everything was directed toward the future, foreshadowing and prefiguring it. This is particularly evident in prophetic pronouncements, each of which was destined to have its infallible fulfillment one day. However, to be precise on these delicate matters, it must be added that verbal prophecies were not always directly, immediately Messianic. Sometimes, quite often in fact, they had an initial meaning that was to be fulfilled before the time of the Messiah; but then, beneath this initial meaning lay another, more elevated one, relating to the life or works of Christ, which was to be fulfilled no less faithfully. In this case, the first was a type of the second. Thus, there are directly Messianic prophecies and indirectly Messianic or archetypal prophecies. We will have the opportunity in a moment to apply this distinction to a text from the prophets. What the Lord had said through the prophetGod is the cause, the primary source of supernatural prophecies; the prophets are merely his instruments, his organs. Quotations from the Old Testament appear in the New, sometimes from the Hebrew, sometimes from the translation of the 70 [the 70 or 72 translators of the Septuagint]; but they are rarely literal, and sometimes they even deviate from both the Hebrew and Greek texts. Such is the case with the famous prophecy of Isaiah 7:14, which St. Matthew parallels with the revelation of the Angel to St. Joseph. Here it is from the Hebrew: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” We refer the reader to the prophet's commentaries for a detailed explanation of this passage. We will limit ourselves here to indicating the two opinions adopted by believing exegetes regarding its original meaning. Is it directly messianic? Is it only indirect? In the first case, God, in revealing this great word to Isaiah, and Isaiah, in pronouncing it, would have had in mind only the Virgin par excellence who, without losing her virginity, was to give birth to the true Emmanuel, the Messiah. In the second, the prophecy would have had as its immediate object a young woman of the palace, or even the prophet's wife, to whom the birth of a son named Emmanuel was announced in the near future. This young woman would be the type of the Holy Virgin, in the sense that it was prophesied to her, as later happened for Married, her motherhood before her marriage, or at least before her pregnancy; Emmanuel would be a type of Christ, either because of his name, the meaning of which the Savior was to fulfill, or because he was given as a sign of salvation in a time of great suffering and grave danger. Those who support this typical interpretation cite the following two reasons in favor of their opinion. 1. It is not proven that the noun Alma, necessarily designates only a Virgin proper; this name can also apply to a young woman, even a married one. 2° The directly messianic meaning is not natural in the circumstances in which the prophecy was uttered. What is the immediate subject? The promise of help, and swift help, to the Jews in danger, to Jerusalem threatened by two powerful kings; and the prophet, by way of consolation, would announce that the Messiah will be born of a Virgin after seven hundred years. The typical meaning, on the contrary, is very natural: “In a few months, such a person will have a son, and before this child reaches the age of reason, the enemies you fear will have been destroyed.” The divine response fits perfectly with the external situation. The Lord, it is true, saw much further; in his mind, a far greater fulfillment was reserved for his word, and it is this fulfillment, understood or revealed in the course of time, that is noted here by St. Matthew. Those who defend the first opinion, for their part, say that the first evangelist clearly defined the meaning of the word “virgin” by the way he used it in his narrative; he is quite certain that he meant to speak of a Virgin proper and that he therefore saw, in the wholly divine conception of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the direct, immediate fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy. It is not easy to choose between these two views: the typical meaning does indeed seem more natural when one reads chapter 7 of Isaiah, but on the other hand, one gives preference to the directly messianic interpretation when one has just read the account of St. Matthew. From a doctrinal point of view, both opinions are perfectly legitimate; however, it is more in accordance with the interpretation of the Holy Fathers and Catholic exegetes to regard this text as strictly messianic. In any case, it has been rightly observed that this prophecy is the golden key that unlocks all the others; indeed, it has universal connections with everything concerning the Messiah. Without it, the other predictions relating to the person of Christ would very often be incomprehensible, for they attribute to him qualities entirely incompatible with human nature. And Isaiah teaches us precisely here that he is Emmanuel, Immanuel, God with us. Emmanuel. And yet Jesus never bore that beautiful name. But he did more than that; he verified its meaning, which is more than enough to fulfill the prophecy. Which means. This note was probably added by the Greek translator of the first Gospel; the recipients, who were Jews by origin, did not need a Hebrew name interpreted for them.
Mt1.24 Awakened from his sleep, Joseph did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him; he took with him Married his wife. 25 But he did not know her until she gave birth to his firstborn son, and he named him Jesus. – Awake. Admirable and prompt obedience of St. Joseph. He receives the most difficult orders, and he submits to them punctually, without hesitation. he took… Cf. v.20. The marriage was therefore celebrated according to the ordinary ceremonies of the Jews, which we will have occasion to describe in detail later. Everyone knows the masterpieces that this scene inspired in Raphael, Poussin, Vanloo, Perugino, etc. And he hadn't known her. The Holy Spirit never tires of repeating that Married had remained a virgin even though she had become a mother; this is the fifth time he has told us this since verse 16. But what happened after the birth of Jesus? The expression until she gave birth to her firstborn son Doesn't she assume that Married Was she still a mother, and this time without retaining her glorious privilege? We know of the stormy debate that the heretic Helvidius stirred up on this point, and the vigor with which St. Jerome refuted his perfidious insinuations. Today the question is completely settled. until, Like Greek and Hebrew, it expresses what was done up to a certain time, without in the least calling the future into question. Quotations supporting this assertion abound in the writings of the Old and New Testaments. Genesis 8:7: «And he sent forth a raven, and it kept flying back and forth, till the waters were receded, leaving the earth dry»; does it follow that the raven then returned? Psalm 109:1: «Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool.» Once the enemies are subdued, will the Word leave its place of honor? Cf. Isaiah 22:14, etc. In itself, this way of speaking proves neither for nor against the subsequent virginity of Married, which the evangelist did not have to concern himself with. The same is true of “firstbornIndeed, St. Matthew here follows Jewish custom, according to which any child “who opens the womb,” as Scripture says, was called the firstborn, without worrying about whether there would be others after him. Cf. Exodus 13:2; Numbers 3:13. “Firstborn” thus leaves the question of the virginity of Married after childbirth, which is not directly addressed in Scripture. But it is known that, taking tradition as their basis, the Second Council of Constantinople and the Second Council of Lateran solemnly declared that the Mother of Jesus remained a perfect Virgin before, during, and after childbirth. "That a virgin should conceive, give birth, and remain a virgin—this, humanly speaking, is unusual and unaccustomed, but it is a matter of divine power," St. Leo the Great, Sermon on the Nativity. After having competed as the bride of the Holy Spirit to the generation of the second, the celestial Adam, how Married Could she then have cooperated in propagating the race of the first Adam? And this is so in keeping with the Christian understanding that we have seen Protestant writers fight with commendable energy in favor of the virginal honor of the Blessed Virgin. The direct descendants of David, heirs to the throne and the promises, therefore did not go beyond the Messiah; they found their magnificent culmination in Jesus. – The “brothers of Jesus,” as we shall demonstrate later, are something quite different from the children of Married and of Joseph. He gave the name, not immediately after birth, but eight days later, at the time of circumcision cf. Luke 2:21. The naming was done by St. Joseph, because custom reserved this right to the father.
