Matthew — Chapter 1

Abraham begat Isaac . These two, with those who came after them, were the first patriarchs, the founders of the synagogue and people of God, and of the Kingdom of Christ. They, as types, foreshadowed Him. (See comment on Genesis, where I have unfolded their genealogies.) I will not here repeat what has been said. God constantly calls Himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and even makes a boast, so to say, of this title. Wherefore He chose the posterity of Abraham, descending through Isaac and Jacob, for His own family and Church, and gave them the sign and pledge of circumcision. Wherefore God changed Abraham’s name from Abram, i>., a high father, to Abraham, that is to say, JiDTi 3 K ab rah hamon> or the father of a great multitude — viz., of the believing people that should be born of him according to the flesh ; in like manner as of Christ, both Jews and Gentiles, who believe in Him, are born according to the Spirit. Now Isaac — i.e. laughter — about to be offered up by his father on Mount Moriah, clearly represented Christ, who was crucified on the same mount, and brought salvation and joy to the whole world.

-Judah begat Pharez and Zara of Tamar . (See what I have said on Tamar, Gen. xxxviii. 29.) Observe that in the genealogy of Christ, with the exception of His Blessed Mother, only four females are made mention of, three of them harlots — Tamar, Rahab, and Bathsheba— and the fourth a Gentile, Ruth the Moabitess. Rahab, too, was a Gentile, being an inhabitant of Jericho. If the reason of all this be asked, SS. Jerome, Chrysostom, Ambrose answer, that it was so because Christ would signify that “ He who came for the abolishing and putting away of sins wished to be born of sinners." This reason is true, but allegorical. The literal and simple reason is, that these women were united to their husbands, not in the ordinary way, but after a new and extraordinary mannef ; and so they 6 FOLLY OF PRIDE OF BIRTH. became types of the Church of Christ, which, when the Jews were rejected, was gathered out of the Gentiles by a new vocation, and after a new manner. Tamar, because Shelah was denied her in marriage, or rather because her union with him was deferred, using deceit, prostituted herself to Judah. Bathsheba, the wife o t Uriah, was united to David, first by adultery, then in marriage. Rahab married Salmon because she hospitably received and pro- tected the Hebrew spies who were sent by Joshua to Jericho, and so she became of the same faith and religion. Ruth married Boaz when she had passed with her mother-in-law, Naomi, from Moab into Judaea. The tropologieal sense is tp show us the vanity of pride of birth, and that true nobility consists, not in ancestry, but in our own good disposition and virtues. Thus S. Chrysostom. Wherefore let no one be ashamed of his birtb, nor even of vile and wicked ancestors; but let us say with Cicero, “I have outshone my forefathers in virtue." There pan be no doubt that there are in the ancestry of the most exalted persons, forasmuch as they are N sprung from Adajn, many ignoble, worthless, wicked, and infamous persons. Plato, according to Seneca (. Epis . 44), is of opinion that all kings are descen4ed from servants* and that all servants are sprung from kings ; that there is no king who has been entirely free from the plough, and no ploughman who has not been mixed up with kings. Lastly, Solomon, amongst the other vanities and uncertainties of the world, reckons this : “ Out of prison one cometh to reign, whereas also he that is bora in his Ipngdoip becometh poor/ 9 (Eccles. iv, 14.) Aminadab . He was prince of the tribe pf Judah when the Israelites came opt of Egypt, who, when the rest stood still, fearing to go intp the Red Sea, although God had made dry ground through the midst of it, courageously entered into it, and brought his own tribe safely through, and then the other princes and tribes followed. This is a Hebrew tradition. To this alludes the verse, Cant. vi. 12, “My soul made me like the omissions in Christ’s genealogy. 7 chariots of Amminadib.” His son Naasson succeeded him in the headship of the tribe. Jesse, or, according to a different punctuation of the Hebrew, Ism. The name itself prefigured Jesus Christ; who was to be born of him. For Jesse and Jesus are the same word if we con- sider the root of both, which is to be found in the Hebrew iasca, t\e., to save. Of her which had been the wife of Urias . After Uriah's death, David married his wife, and of her he begat Solomon, for Solomon was not bom of adultery, but in wedlock. In this passage it is intimated that God did not recall the promises which He had made to David on account of his adultery with Bathsheba, but, on their repentance, He confirmed His promises. Whence from Bathsheba and her son Solomon Christ was descended. In truth, Bathsheba herself became a saintly penitent, and brought up Solomon her son in a holy manner. Yea, she became illustrious for the spirit of prophecy, as I have shown in Prov. xxxi. i, on the words, ‘ f The words of Lemuel the king* the vision which his mother taught him/' (Vulgate.) Now Joram begat Ozias — not directly, but with three generations intervening; for Joram was really the father of Ahaziah, Ahaziah of Joash, Joash of Amaziah, Amaziah of Azariah or Uzziah, for he had both names. (See I Chron. iii. 12, &c.) It is asked why S. Matthew here omits these three links in the genealogy. S. Jerome answers, because the Evangelist wished to form three exact series of fourteen generations each, on which see ver. 17. And because Jehoram had allied himself to the most wicked Jezebel and to Ahab, in taking Ahab's sister, the impious Athaliah, to wife; for God had sworn that, on account of Ahab's impiety and idolatry, He would blot out all his posterity. (1 Kings xxi. 21, &c.) Posterity in Scripture is reckoned to the fourth generation. Here, then, it is blotted out, forasmuch as it is omitted and obliterated by S. Matthew. Thus S. Hilary, S. Thomas, Jansen, &c. Gaspar Sanchez gives another reason. He conjectures that Matthew actually wrote as follows : “ Joram begat 3 BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY. Ochoziah, Ochoziah begat Joash, Joash begat Amaziah, Amaziah begat Oziah;” but that the copyist, misled by the similarity between Ochoziah and Oziah, as the names are written in Greek, by a slip of his eye passed over from Ahaziah to Uzziah. Thus Gaspar. But this would be an enormous blunder, and though one copyist might fall into such an error, it was scarcely possible that all could. All extant MSS. and Version^ are alike here — Greek, Syriac, Latin, Arabic, &c. “ Joram legal Ozias ,” not Ahaziah . Besides, if thes'e three generations were inserted, they would make seventeen generations, whereas S. Matthew says expressly there were fourteen generations. Josias legal Jeehonias and his brethren . Josias begat four sons. The first was Johanan; the second, Jehoiakim, who is also Eliakim; the third, Jehoahaz, also called Shallum; the fourth, Zedekiah, who is also Mattaniah. Jehoahaz, although the third son, succeeded his father Josiah immediately upon his death; but Pharaoh, King of Egypt, removed him, and placed his brother Jehoiakim upon the throne. After he had reigned eleven years, Nebuchadnezzar slew him, and gave the crown to his son Jehoia- chin. Him he shortly afterwards dethroned, and made his uncle Zedekiah king. When Zedekiah rebelled, he took him captive, and put out his eyes ; and in him that branch of David’s royal line came to an end. The carrying away to Babylon — Greek brl tt}? /Aeroucccnas — that is, about the time of the transmigration to Babylon, or the Babylonish captivity, in which the Jews were carried away by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon. The transmigration of the Jews to Babylon took place at three different times. The first was in the eleventh year of King Jehoiakim, when Daniel and Ezekiel were carried away. The second was three months afterwards, when Mordecai, Esther's uncle, was carried away, together with Jehoiachin, the son of Jehoiakim. The third, and most complete, captivity was eleven years afterwards, under King Zedekiah, when almost all the people who were left were taken away. OBJECTION OF PORPHYRY. 9

Jeconias legal Salat hieL There is a great difficulty here, which Porphyry, the enemy of Christ and of Christians, was in the habit of bringing- forward as insuperable. For this Jeconias, the father of Salathiel, was not the Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, who is spoken of in the preceding verse, but the son of that Jehoiakim, and the grandson of Josiah, and consequently there are only thirteen generations, instead of fourteen, as S. Matthew enumerates. S. Jerome replies that this Jeconias is a different person from Jeconias, the son of Josiah. The former was Jehoiakim, or Jechonias , and Jeconias by a corruption. The latter is properly Jehoiachin. Josiah begat Jehoiakim, and Jehoiakim begat Jehoia- chin. One generation must, therefore, be supplied in this place. “Now Jecomas legal Jechonias ” as some Greek and Latin MSS. do read. That what has been said is correct, is clear from I Chron. ill. 15, 16, and 2 Kings xxiii. and xxiv. The generation in question was omitted, either by S. Matthew himself, in order to avoid the repetition of the two similar names, as S. Augustine thinks, or, more probably, through the fault and ignorance of transcribers, who, mistaking Jechonias for Jeconias , thought that one of the two was redundant, and so omitted it This was the opinion of S. Epiphanius.

—Jacob legal Joseph , the husland of Mary . You may ask, why is the generation of Christ here derived from the gene- alogy of Joseph ? Christ was the Son, not of Joseph, but of the Virgin Mary, especially if S. Mary were able, as it might appear, to marry a man of another tribe, as her cousin Elizabeth, who was of the tribe of Judah, like Mary herself, married Zachariah, a priest, and therefore of the tribe of Levi. The answer is, that Jewish women might, indeed, marry into another tribe : but if they themselves, in the failure of heirs male, became heiresses of their fathers, they were in that case obliged to marry husbands of their own tribe and family, that their inheri- tance might not pass by marriage into another tribe. (See the la«*