Fr. Alexandre wrote commentaries on most of the NT and in doing so employed a twofold presentation. He would first comment on the literal meaning of a chapter and then provide a moral commentary. The following comes from his work: Expositio litteralis et moralis sancti Evangelii Jesu Christi secundum quatuor evangelistas [A Literal and Moral Exposition of the Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ According to the Four Evangelists]. The translation was done using ChatGPT and Gemini.
“The book of the generation.”
Faustus the Manichaean, with notorious impiety, denied that the genealogy of Christ was part of the Gospel or even belonged to the Gospel; Saint Augustine refutes his error not so much by reasoning as by exposing his quibbles and empty arguments. “The book of generation” means the series of Christ’s ancestors or forefathers according to the flesh. For “book” is sometimes used in the language of Scripture for any description, narrative, catalogue, or even a complete volume, or for something contained merely on a sheet or in a letter. Hence in Matthew 19 there is mention of a “bill of divorce,” and in Jeremiah 32 of a “book of purchase and possession.”
Or again, “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ” may mean “the book concerning the life of Christ.” For the Hebrew word Tholedah signifies not only the act of generation or a genealogical series, but the whole course of life and whatever happens to a person in life. In this sense Noah is called “a just and perfect man in his generations” (Genesis 6).
The Evangelist indicates a striking antithesis between the catalogue of the generation of the first Adam and that of the second Adam, since from both we draw our origin—from the former by nature, from the latter by grace. “This is the book of the generation of Adam” (Genesis 5). “The whole human race,” says Saint Augustine, “is in a certain way two men: the first and the second. Through the one we were sold under sin; through the other we are redeemed from sins. Through the one we were cast down into death; through the other we are set free unto life. The former lost us in himself by doing his own will and not the will of Him by whom he was made; the latter saved us by not doing his own will, but the will of Him by whom he was sent.” Upon these two men the Christian faith is properly established. “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5), “and there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).
Hence the Evangelist adds: Jesus Christ, the Savior and Messiah promised by God, who was anointed by the Holy Spirit above His fellows—not by participation in some spiritual ointment, but by the fullness of all grace and by the indwelling of the Godhead and personal union. “We have found the Messiah,” says Andrew to his brother Simon, “which is interpreted Christ.” “I know that the Messiah is coming,” says the Samaritan woman, “who is called Christ” (John 4:25).
Jesus is also He who, after Moses, led the people into the promised land—there the type, here the reality: the former into the earthly land of promise, the latter into heaven and the heavenly goods; the former after Moses had died, the latter after the Law given through Moses had ceased; the former shining with the dignity of a leader, the latter with the majesty of a king. But lest, on hearing the name Jesus, you should fall into an error of mere nominal association, Saint John Chrysostom immediately adds: Christ means “the Anointed”—as King, Priest, and Prophet. As King: “Yet I am established king by Him upon Zion, His holy mountain” (Psalm 2). As Priest: “You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek” (Psalm 110). As Prophet: “I will raise up a prophet for them from among their brethren like you, and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him” (Deuteronomy 18). And again: “This is Jesus the prophet from Nazareth of Galilee” (Matthew 21:10), and “We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law and the Prophets wrote, Jesus, the son of Joseph, from Nazareth” (John 1:45).
“Son of David, son of Abraham.”
These two are mentioned by Saint Matthew above all Christ’s ancestors because the one was the head of the tribe of Judah from which Christ came, the other the head of the family. Moreover, to Abraham and David were made the most eminent and most frequently repeated promises concerning the coming Messiah. To Abraham: “In your seed all nations shall be blessed” (Genesis 12), which Saint Paul teaches is to be understood of Christ: “To Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He does not say ‘and to seeds,’ as of many, but as of one: ‘and to your seed,’ which is Christ” (Galatians 3). To David: “I will raise up your seed after you, who shall come forth from your loins, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son” (2 Samuel). This promise, though typologically referring to Solomon, prophetically concerns Christ, of whom it was said by Him: “Behold, one greater than Solomon is here,” who built the house—that is, the Church—in which God is adored in spirit and in truth; whose kingdom shall be everlasting in the house of Jacob and of whose kingdom there shall be no end; who is the Son of God according to eternal generation, of which the prophet says, “Who shall declare His generation?” and yet the son of David according to temporal generation.
“Jacob begot Judah and his brothers.”
Not Judah alone, from whom Christ drew His lineage and from whose tribe He was born, but also Judah’s brothers are mentioned—not as ancestors of Christ, but as founders of His kingdom and commonwealth, for each was a patriarch of his tribe. By this mention excessive boasting in the nobility of ancestors is humbled, as Saint Chrysostom observes: many were born of handmaids and yet were equally patriarchs and princes of tribes. This signifies the equality that is the privilege of the Church: in the kingdom of God there is no distinction between slaves and nobles except in grace and virtue. All are born of God, all are children of God and heirs, and brothers and coheirs with Christ.
“Judah begot Perez and Zerah of Tamar.”
Zerah is named along with Perez because of the singular and remarkable event that occurred at their birth: it was not according to the natural order that he who put forth his hand first—after it had been bound with a scarlet thread—should withdraw it and yield the rights of firstborn to another. This did not happen by the law of birth but by the grace of God then present with the children, disposing these things and depicting for us an image of things to come. These two children were types of two peoples: the Jewish people living under the Mosaic Law and the Gentile people living under the Christian Law. The later state was foreshadowed by the earlier birth. For when that spiritual commonwealth which existed in the time of Abraham had begun to shine forth and then in mid-course was suddenly restrained, the Jewish people arose and a polity was established to which the hedge of the Law was given, excluding the liberty of that former spiritual commonwealth which had brought forth works—faith in Christ and merits through the price of His blood and its power. This was signified by the name Perez, who, when he came forth first from the womb, caused the midwife to say, “Why has a breach been made because of you?”
Tamar and the other well-known women are mentioned by the Evangelist in the genealogy of the Savior, while the others are not, because the others were Jewish and lawful wives, so that no one could doubt that the sons named were born of them. But doubt could have arisen concerning Tamar, because she conceived outside lawful marriage; concerning Rahab, because she was a harlot and a foreigner; concerning Ruth, because she was a Moabitess; concerning Bathsheba, because she was an adulteress. Therefore special mention is made of them. Saint Jerome gives another reason and observes that, with the exception of the Mother of the Lord, none of the holy women are named in the genealogy of the Savior, but rather those whom Scripture reproaches—so that He who came for sinners, being born of sinners, might take away the sins of all. Saint John Chrysostom adds a third reason: this was done to repress the pride of the Jews, who neglected the marks of nobility that pertain to the soul and insolently gloried in their descent from Abraham, thinking the virtue of their ancestors a defense for their own vices. Scripture teaches us by this example that we should neither glory in the virtues of our parents nor blush at their vices, but rather that we ourselves should follow virtue, which alone is true nobility.
“Salmon begot Boaz of Rahab.”
That Boaz celebrated in the sacred book of Ruth. The fiction of Lyra—otherwise a learned interpreter—who admitted three Boazes, must be rejected as contrary to Scripture. Nor is it incredible that four men, namely Salmon, Boaz, Obed, and Jesse, shared among themselves a span of three hundred and sixty-six years, especially in that period when human life, whether by natural vigor or by temperance, was prolonged.
“Jesse begot David the king.”
From this root Isaiah foretold that Christ would spring: “There shall come forth a rod from the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise up from his root.”
“Joram begot Uzziah.”
Here three kings are omitted. Joram did not immediately beget Uzziah, but Ahaziah; Ahaziah begot Joash; Joash begot Amaziah, as is clear from the books of Kings and Chronicles. They are omitted because the Holy Spirit determined that the entire series of Christ’s ancestors should be completed in three groups of fourteen persons. These rather than others were omitted because of the curse pronounced upon the house of Ahab: that everything belonging to Ahab should be cut off. For Ahaziah was born of Joram and Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab. Therefore those three kings were erased from the catalogue of Christ’s ancestors as though degraded in rank—just as the tribe of Dan was also erased or omitted from the list of those sealed (Revelation 7), because it had long ago defected from the worship of God to idols and mingled itself with the Gentiles (Judges 18).
The others who descended mediately from Ahab in the same line were not omitted, because God’s curse in punishing children for the sins of their parents does not extend beyond the third or fourth generation, according to the saying of the Law (Exodus 20). Ahaziah is indeed said to have been born of Athaliah, the daughter of Omri, king of Israel; but she is called the daughter of Omri in the Hebrew manner—that is, his granddaughter. That she was in fact the daughter of Ahab, who was the son of Omri, is clear from the books of Kings and Chronicles (2 Kings 16; 2 Kings 8).
Mt 1:9. Josiah begot Jechoniah and his brothers at the time of the Babylonian deportation.
From the books of Kings and Chronicles it is clear that Josiah had four sons, all bearing entirely different names: Johanan, who is also called Jehoahaz; Jehoiakim, who is also called Eliakim; Zedekiah, who is also called Mattaniah; and Shallum. By what reasoning, then, is Josiah said to have begotten Jechoniah?
A probable answer is that Jehoiakim, the son of Josiah, was double-named and was also called Jechoniah, as seemed good to Saints Epiphanius (Heresy 6), Ambrose (on Luke, ch. 3), and Jerome; and that there were in fact two Jechonias—one born before the deportation and the other during the deportation—father and son. The Evangelist, they hold, suppressed neither, but indicated both under a single name for the sake of euphony: the father at the end of the second group of fourteen, the son at the beginning of the third, as also pleased Saint Augustine. Indeed, the author of Third Esdras (3 Esdras 1:34) expressly calls Jehoiakim the son of Josiah “Jechoniah.”
Or else one might say with Saint Epiphanius that one generation was omitted through the carelessness of copyists, so that after the words “Jechoniah and his brothers at the time of the Babylonian deportation,” the following originally stood in between: “And Jechoniah begot Jechoniah.” Yet the former explanation is the better one. The reading of the Vulgate is most ancient; the proposed emendation is a mere conjecture, supported by the authority of no manuscript. Nor should conjectures be allowed free rein in the sacred books, lest the weak be given occasion to waver, the bold to scoff, and all to doubt the authority of the sacred text.
“And his brothers.” Jechoniah the father had several brothers; Jechoniah the son had none. Therefore the mention of the brothers of the former Jechoniah in the genealogy of the Savior was made either because all were raised to royal dignity—first Jehoahaz, then Jehoiakim, third Zedekiah—or because in their times there occurred changes altogether remarkable and extraordinary, and all experienced the same fate as Jechoniah the father, namely tragic ends. For all were driven from their ancestral throne by foreign kings, and some were carried away captive here, others there. Hence Matthew not without reason makes mention of the deportation. Jehoahaz, for example, is said to have been cast into prison by Pharaoh; Zedekiah to have been dragged to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar; and likewise Jechoniah the grandson; while Jechoniah’s father—Jehoiakim—is said to have been bound by Nebuchadnezzar in order to be carried to Babylon, as is related there and in Ezekiel 19.
By mentioning the deportation, moreover, the firmness of the divine promises concerning the coming Messiah is shown—promises which, despite so many changes and calamities, were nonetheless fulfilled.
“At the time of the Babylonian deportation,” that is, when the deportation was imminent, which took place in the third month of the reign of Jechoniah the son of Jehoiakim, as is recorded in 2 Kings 24. It is called one deportation, although there were several, because all occurred within a few years and appear rather as one than as distinct events—begun under Jehoiakim, continued under Jechoniah, and completed under Zedekiah.
Mt 1:10. “And after the Babylonian deportation,” that is, during the time of exile, in the Babylonian captivity itself, “Jechoniah begot Shealtiel.” Although God had declared that he would be childless (Jeremiah 22), that divine curse signifies not barrenness of offspring, but the denial of royal prosperity and success. “Thus says the Lord: Write this man childless, a man who shall not prosper in his days; for no man of his seed shall succeed in sitting upon the throne of David or ruling again in Judah.” That Jechoniah did have sons is attested by Jeremiah (ch. 18). But they fell from royal dignity and were reduced to a lower state, and their lot was for the most part mournful and marked by various calamities.
Mt 1:11. “Shealtiel begot Zerubbabel.”
Yet we read that Zerubbabel was born not of Shealtiel but of Pedaiah, Shealtiel’s brother (1 Chronicles 3:19). Was this Zerubbabel of Matthew a different man from that one, as it seemed to Tostatus, Bishop of Ávila? That is indeed possible, since Zerubbabel in Matthew is said to have begotten a son Abiud, whereas in the passage of Chronicles just cited, no Abiud is named among the sons of Zerubbabel.
Or perhaps Shealtiel died without children, and his brother Pedaiah, by the law of levirate marriage, took his wife and raised up offspring for him; and thus Zerubbabel, though physically begotten by Pedaiah, is reckoned the son of Shealtiel. Or perhaps Saint Matthew listed Abiud and his descendants not from the books of Chronicles, but from genealogical registers which were kept with the greatest care among the Jews. Or possibly those ancestors of Christ bore double names, which do not correspond to those found in Chronicles. These answers are plausible, as Saints John Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Jerome suggest, yet they do not entirely remove every difficulty and scruple.
Mt 1:16. “Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary.”
Matthew describes the genealogy of Joseph, not of Mary—first, because genealogies of women are not customarily set out in Scripture, hence the Jewish axiom: familia matris non familia (“the family of the mother is not reckoned”); secondly, because Joseph and Mary were of the same tribe, so that it was sufficient to trace Joseph’s genealogy, from which Mary’s lineage could be known. For marriages were not contracted outside one’s tribe, especially among the just, such as Joseph.
Indeed, a law had been enacted to prevent confusion of inheritances, lest possessions pass from tribe to tribe when heiresses married men of another tribe (Numbers 36). Although this law was given on account of a particular case—the daughters of Zelophehad of the tribe of Manasseh—it afterwards became universal and was commonly observed by the devout. For even if the poor could not in practice transfer possessions by marriage, lands and inheritances might still come to them by right of succession upon the death of brothers or agnates, and such alienation had to be prevented.
Therefore Mary’s poverty was not the reason why she, most observant of the law, married a man of another tribe. Indeed, it is added that the Virgin herself truly was an heiress, though her inheritance was modest. Hence Saint Epiphanius (Heresy 78, against the Antidicomarianites) says that the Blessed Virgin was entrusted to Joseph because he was obliged by oath to preserve the inheritance she possessed.
Joseph, then, and Mary were of the same tribe, Judah—and I would add, of the same family of David. Thus Matthew, by leading Christ’s genealogy from David to Joseph through Solomon, sufficiently shows the lineage of Mary. Hence he says: “Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus.” In this way Christ is shown to be born of the tribe of Judah through His Virgin Mother. Therefore the Apostle says in Hebrews 7: “It is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, a tribe concerning which Moses spoke nothing about priests.”
Nor does it matter that Mary was a kinswoman of Elizabeth, who was of the daughters of Aaron. From this it does not rightly follow that Mary herself was of the tribe of Levi; rather, someone of the tribe of Judah and the family of David had taken a wife from the tribe of Levi, from whom the Virgin Mother of God descended.
Joseph was the husband of Mary; indeed, they were joined in a true marriage. Nor was it right for the Evangelist to separate him from the marriage of Mary for the reason that the Virgin gave birth to Christ. For by this example, it is magnificently suggested to faithful married couples that even while preserving continence by mutual consent, a marriage can remain and be called such—not through the mingling of the flesh, but through the preserved affection of the mind.
Neither was Joseph not to be called the Father of Christ because he had not begotten Him by cohabitation; for he would rightly be the Father even of one whom he had not procreated from his own wife but had adopted from elsewhere, as St. Augustine says. Indeed, that Virgin was all the more wonderfully pleasing to her husband because she was fruitful even without a man—a progeny unlike its parent, yet a peer. Because of this faithful marriage, both deserved to be called the parents of Christ: not only she His mother, but also he His father, as the spouse of His mother—both in mind, not in flesh.
Whether he was father in mind alone, or she mother in both mind and flesh, they were nevertheless both parents of His humility, not His sublimity; of His infirmity, not His divinity. Hence it is said in the Gospel: And his father and mother were wondering at those things which were spoken concerning him. And: His parents went every year to Jerusalem. And a little after: And his mother said to him: Son, why hast thou done so to us? Behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. But since Mary had not given birth from the seed of Joseph, they certainly would not both be parents of the "form of a servant" unless they were spouses to each other even without carnal commingling. Hence the series of generations had to be traced down to Joseph, lest an injury be done to the male sex (which is the stronger) in that marriage, while nothing was lost to the truth, since both Joseph and Mary were of the seed of David, from whom it was predicted Christ would come.
Every good of marriage was fulfilled in those parents of Christ: progeny, faith, and sacrament. We recognize the progeny as the Lord Jesus Himself; faith, because there was no adultery; the sacrament, because there was no divorce. Just as she was a chaste spouse, so was he a chaste husband; and as she was a chaste mother, so was he a chaste father. He who says, "He ought not to be called father because he did not beget the son," seeks lust in the procreation of children rather than the affection of charity. Joseph fulfilled better in his soul what another desires in the flesh; for those who adopt sons beget them more chastely in the heart than they are able to in the flesh.
Let us therefore count [the genealogy] through Joseph, because as he is a husband, so is he a chaste father. But let us place the man before the woman by the order of nature and the law of God. For if, having removed him, we establish her, he says (and says rightly): "Why have you separated us? Why do the generations not ascend or descend through me?" Is it said to him: "Because you did not beget Him by the work of your flesh"? But he will respond: "Did she give birth by the work of her flesh?" What the Holy Spirit worked, He worked for both. The Holy Spirit, resting in the justice of both, gave a son to both; but in that sex which it was fitting to give birth, He worked that which would also be born to the husband.
Of Whom Jesus Was Born. All the praises of the Blessed Virgin Mary are contained in this one eulogy; all her dignity is expressed in these words. An ancient orator, flattering Philip of Macedon, said: "Let it suffice for you to have had Alexander as a son." To the Blessed Virgin Mary, without flattery, we say: "It suffices for you to have had Jesus as a son."
St. Bernard says: "From the beginning of the world it has not been heard that anyone was at once mother and virgin." If you attend to whose mother she is, where will your admiration for her wondrous loftiness lead you? Will it not lead to the realization that you cannot admire her enough? Will she not, in your judgment and that of the Truth, be exalted above all the choirs of Angels—she who had God as a son? Does Mary not boldly call the God and Lord of Angels her son, saying: Son, why hast thou done so to us? Who of the Angels would dare this? It is enough for them, and they hold it as a great thing, that although they are spirits by nature, they are made and called Angels by grace... Mary, however, acknowledging herself a mother, calls that Majesty "her son" with confidence, whom the Angels serve with reverence; nor does God disdain to be called what He deigned to be.
Mt 1:17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, etc. St. Matthew divided all the generations into three "tessaradecades" (or the number fourteen repeated three times) to designate the triple state of the people: under Judges, under Kings, and under Leaders and Priests. At the same time, it signifies that God, before sending His Son, first tried all ways to keep His people in duty or recall them to duty—through Judges, Kings, Leaders, and Priests. When He had labored in vain, He finally sent His Son as the last remedy, which agrees with the Gospel parable where the Lord of the vineyard sent servants three times to the vinedressers to claim the fruit, and when they obtained nothing, he finally sent his son.
The Virgin Conception
Mt 1:18 Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. Lest the generation of Christ be thought similar to other generations, the Holy Evangelist undertakes to explain its wonderfully singular and singularly wonderful manner.
When Mary his mother was espoused to Joseph. Saints Hilary, Basil, and Epiphanius understood her to be merely promised to Joseph, not yet married. St. John Chrysostom and St. Ambrose more probably interpret them as joined in marriage, since he is called Joseph "her husband" and she "the wife" of Joseph by St. Matthew. He did not say "before she was led into the house of the groom," for she was already inside, says St. Chrysostom.
Why did the Virgin conceive after being espoused rather than before? St. Ignatius the Martyr brings forth this reason (which, even if I do not fully grasp, I fear to refute, especially since Origen and Saints Basil and Jerome approve it): so that the birth of Christ might be hidden from the devil, so he might think Him born not of a Virgin but of a married woman after the manner of other men. The virginity of Mary and her birth were hidden from the prince of this world, as was the death of the Lord: three mysteries of outcry wrought in the silence of God, says St. Ignatius in his Epistle to the Ephesians.
Another reason was to consult both the reputation and the life of the Blessed Virgin, lest she be brought into suspicion of adultery and thereby subjected to disgrace or punishment. Christ preferred to be seen as the son of Joseph rather than of an unchaste woman; He preferred some to doubt His own generation rather than the modesty of His mother, says St. Ambrose. When he who could burn with the greatest zeal is seen not only not to cast off his spouse but even to receive her into fellowship and serve her after the conception, it is manifest that unless he clearly knew she had conceived by the operation of the Holy Spirit, he would neither have kept her with him nor ministered to her in all things she needed.
Christ, therefore, willed His mother to be married to Joseph before she conceived so that Joseph would be a witness of Mary's virginity. A third reason following from this was lest Jesus Himself appear to be illegitimate. A fourth was so that Joseph might be a comfort, protection, and help to Mary and the infant Jesus. For Christ chose this most blessed man as the nourisher of His flesh, the solace of His mother, and His only most faithful cooperator on earth in the "Great Counsel," says St. Bernard.
Before they came together. It does not follow that they came together afterward; rather, Scripture shows what was not done, as St. Jerome observes. It is a phrase of Scripture: The raven went forth and did not return until the waters were dried up (Gen 8:7); Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death (2 Sam 6:23); Until I am old and grey-headed, O God, forsake me not, until I have showed thy strength unto this generation (Ps 71:18); For he must reign until he hath put all enemies under his feet (1 Cor 15:25).
Thus we say the heretic Helvidius (the enemy of the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mary) died before he did penance, yet it does not follow that he did penance after death. Therefore, Mary was found with child of the Holy Spirit before she was "known" by Joseph, yet it does not follow that she was known by him afterward. For she is the "Gate of the Sanctuary" looking toward the East... and the Lord said: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it; because the Lord, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it. Although, therefore, Matthew says later of St. Joseph, And he knew her not until she brought forth her firstborn Son, it does not follow that he knew her afterward.
She was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Contrary to custom and beyond all hope or expectation, the Virgin Mary appeared pregnant—not only to Joseph, but to all who turned their eyes toward her. She was with child of the Holy Spirit, yet not from the "substance" of the Holy Spirit (as if the Spirit were the father of Christ), but rather by His power. The body of the infant Jesus was formed in the most chaste womb of the Virgin from the substance of the Mother of God herself, so that He who was consubstantial with the eternal Father according to His Divinity might also become consubstantial with us according to His humanity.
St. Leo says: "He was conceived by a new birth, conceived of a Virgin, born of a Virgin, without the concupiscence of paternal flesh and without injury to maternal integrity. Such an origin was fitting for the future Savior of men, who was to possess the nature of human substance while remaining ignorant of the stains of human flesh. For the Author of God in the flesh is God. It was necessary for Him to be born in a new order, He who was planting a new grace of unpolluted sincerity into human bodies. It was fitting that Incorruption, in being born, should preserve the primary integrity, and that the infused power of the Divine Spirit should protect the dwelling place of modesty and holiness which was pleasing to Him." He had determined to raise up the fallen, to solidify the broken, and to grant an increased virtue of modesty to overcome the allurements of the flesh—so that the virginity which could not remain intact in others during childbirth might, in her, become imitable through both confession and rebirth.
Mt 1:19-20. Joseph her husband, being a just man
Joseph was "just," meaning he was adorned with every kind of virtue, but especially with charity, in which all Christian justice consists, according to the mind of St. Augustine. For this reason, he did not wish to ignominiously accuse his most chaste wife (whose mystery of conception he did not yet know) as if she were guilty of adultery, but thought to put her away privately. This was a way to settle the anxiety and scruples of his own conscience while also preserving the reputation of his spouse.
He in no way signaled his anxiety or grief to the Virgin, sparing her shame and wishing not to be a burden to her. He was devoid of impotent jealousy or envy. Thus, an Angel was sent to him to dispel the suspicion and doubt that had arisen from his ignorance of the mystery not yet revealed to him.
The Angel appeared to him in a dream, and not openly as he had appeared to the Shepherds, to Zechariah, or to the Virgin. This was because Joseph was a man of distinguished faith and did not require a more manifest revelation. Indeed, the Virgin, to whom such new and great things were being announced (far greater than those told to Zechariah), had to be taught before the event and by the clearest revelation. The Shepherds also required a more manifest instruction because their rustic lives kept them remote from such spiritual disciplines. Joseph, however, having seen the swelling womb of his spouse and doubting the cause of such a novelty, was more easily inclined to accept the revelation. For we believe more easily that things already done could have been done divinely and beyond the laws of nature than we believe things yet to be done. He could not doubt the Angel was sent from God, as the Angel laid open his intimate thoughts and the secrets of his heart.
"Joseph," he said, "son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife." He calls him "son of David" to recall the divine promises to his memory and to signify that the son conceived of his Virgin spouse (of the same family) was the Messiah promised by God to the Jewish nation—the long-awaited Son of David. "Fear not"—do not hesitate to accept Mary as your wife. Keep her with you whom you had dismissed in your mind, and remain with her for her comfort and as a witness to her virginity, not for the use of marriage. Just as Christ later commends her to the Disciple [John], so the Angel commends her to the spouse. "Fear not," as if to say: "Lay aside all suspicion and grief. For she has not only not been violated by illicit embrace, but she is fruitful beyond nature and custom. For that which is born in her is of the Holy Spirit."
Mt 1:21. She shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS
The Angel did not say "she shall bear to thee a son," but simply "she shall bring forth," for she brought forth Christ not for Joseph alone, but for the entire world, says St. John Chrysostom. "And thou shalt call his name Jesus." Do not think yourself a stranger to the ministry of so great a dispensation just because the child is of the Holy Spirit. For although you have nothing in common with this generation, you shall nevertheless perform the duty of a father—which does not obscure the Virgin's integrity—by bestowing the name upon the child.
The Angel commands both to name the boy, which declares the authority of the parents. It is said to Joseph, and it is said to Mary. "Thou shalt call his name Jesus." This is the Name which is above every name, containing infinite treasures of spiritual goods and graces. He who is to be so named will bring remission of sins and eternal salvation to His people. "For he shall save his people from their sins." By these words, the Angel shows that He who is to be born is God, for God alone can save men from their sins. This includes not only the Jewish people, but all who believe in Him and observe His law.
I read of two "Jesuses" [Joshuas] who preceded Jesus Christ as types: both led their people, one leading them out of Babylon, the other introducing them into the Promised Land. They defended those they led from enemies, but did they save them from their sins? This our Jesus, however, saves His people from sins and introduces them into the land of the living. "Would that the Lord Jesus deign to number even me, a sinner, among His people," says St. Bernard.
Thus were Joseph's suspicions dispelled. He deserved to be liberated by the Angelic revelation because his thoughts were not malevolent nor fighting against charity. On this point, St. Augustine says excellently: "He who liberated Susanna, the chaste woman and faithful wife, from the false testimony of the elders, Himself liberated the Virgin Mary from the false suspicion of her husband."
The Virgin was found pregnant without a man having approached her. Her womb had swollen with the fetus, but her virginal integrity remained. She had conceived the Sower of Faith by faith. She had taken into her body the God who did not permit her body to be violated. Nevertheless, to her husband as a man, suspicion came. He believed it was from elsewhere because he knew it was not from himself; he suspected adultery. He is corrected by the Angel. Why was he worthy of being corrected? Because his suspicion was not "malevolent," such as the Apostle says is born among brothers. Malevolent suspicions belong to calumniators; benevolent suspicions belong to those who govern. One may suspect evil in a son, but one may not calumniate him; you suspect the bad but hope to find the good. He who suspects benevolently desires to be defeated. He rejoices when that which he suspected turns out to be false. Such was Joseph toward his spouse. Suspicion was removed because Redemption was found.
Mt 1:22. All this was done that it might be fulfilled
This was done to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the Prophet: "Behold, a Virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." Christian Fathers and interpreters defend St. Matthew’s application of this prophecy to Jesus Christ against cavils by:
The authority of translators who cannot be suspected by the Jews, namely the Septuagint (LXX) and the Chaldean paraphrases of Onkelos and Jonathan.
The force and notion of the Hebrew word Almah, which signifies not just a young woman, but a "hidden virgin" diligently guarded, who is not even exposed to the eyes of men. It is never used in Scripture except for a virgin (e.g., Rebekah in Gen 24:16 and Miriam in Exod 2:8).
The words the Prophet spoke before: "The Lord himself shall give you a sign." Unless she who was to be with child remained a virgin, it could not be called a "sign" or a miraculous novelty, for it would be according to the law of marriage. (See more in our 27th Dissertation on Ecclesiastical History, 1st Century).
"And they shall call his name Emmanuel." In Isaiah, it reads "thou shalt call," but the Evangelists often cite the sense rather than the exact words of the Old Testament. Emmanuel is a name imposed by the event. For what else is the name Emmanuel but "the eyes of mortals shall see God dwelling among men"? Although He was with men before, He was not seen on earth clothed in humanity.
Therefore, the words of the Prophet and Evangelist do not mean that "Emmanuel" is Christ’s proper [personal] name, but that the reality signified by that name belongs to Him. Similarly, it was said of Him: "Call his name: Hasten to take away the spoils, Hurry to plunder," because with Him the destruction of the idols of Samaria began. For the same reason, it was said His name would be "Wonderful, Counselor, God the Mighty, Father of the world to come, Prince of Peace." Not that He was to be called by so many names, but that the divine attributes signified by these names would uniquely belong to Him. Thus in Luke 1: "That holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God," meaning He shall be so. Likewise, Jerusalem is called the "City of the Just," and "City of Truth," not because she would be called by those names, but because she would be such that she could deservedly be so called. So it is said of Christ in Jeremiah 23: "This is the name by which they shall call him: The Lord our Just One." Not by external appellation, but by the suitability of the reality designated by the name. For Christ truly is "the Lord our Justice." So too the Prophet and Evangelist signify He is to be called Emmanuel because the reality fits Him: God with us. Jesus and Emmanuel are the same, as Tertullian says—not in sound, but in sense. For He is the Word made flesh who dwelt in us, or among us.
Mt 1:25. And he knew her not until she brought forth her firstborn son
As observed and proven above through various parallel passages of Scripture, this negation before the birth affirms nothing about the time afterward. It is incorrectly inferred that he knew her later. To the previous examples, add:
Gen 28:15: "I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken to thee." (God did not leave Jacob after fulfilling the promise).
Psalm 123:2: "Our eyes wait upon the Lord our God, until he have mercy upon us." (We do not turn our eyes away after He has mercy).
1 Sam 15:35: "Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death." (He certainly did not see him after death).
Matt 5:18: "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
Her firstborn son: Christ is called the firstborn of Mary, not because another followed Him, but because no one was born before Him. This is the usage of Sacred Scripture: that "only-begotten" children are also called "firstborn." Hence in Exodus 12:29, God is said to have smitten all the firstborn of Egypt, among whom there is no doubt there were some only-begotten children. And in Chapters 13 and 22, He commands every firstborn to be sanctified to Him. Custom, the interpreter of the Law, teaches that only-begotten children are included in this, otherwise one would have to wait until a second was born to see if the first was a "firstborn." The Apostle in Hebrews 1:6 also calls Christ the "Firstborn of God," meaning the Only-begotten. Furthermore, the Evangelist added the epithet "Firstborn" to signify that the dignity and primary rights—which since ancient times were attributed to both only sons and the eldest—belong to Christ: namely, the primacy, the priesthood, and the preeminence in inheritance.
The Moral Sense
We are able to belong to the lineage of Christ through His grace if we comply with His will and keep His commandments. For He said: "Whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." We are the parents of Christ if we imitate the faith and obedience of Abraham, the penitence and gentleness of David, and the humility, fidelity, and poverty of Mary and Joseph. Since Christ is "God with us," let us walk before Him and be perfect, just as it was said to Abraham: "Walk before me, and be thou perfect." Let us always live and work as if thinking of God as present.
Let us emulate the chastity and purity of the Blessed Mary, Mother of God—Virgin before birth, in birth, and after birth—so that we ourselves may be a "Mother of Christ." St. Augustine says: "The whole Church is His mother, because by the grace of God she certainly brings forth His members, that is, His faithful. Likewise, every pious soul doing the will of His Father is His mother, by a most fruitful charity, in those whom it brings forth until He Himself is formed in them." Mary, therefore, by doing the will of God, is corporally only the mother of Christ, but spiritually she is both sister and mother. And by this, that one woman is mother and virgin not only in spirit but also in body.
She is indeed mother in spirit, not of our Head (who is the Savior Himself, from whom she was rather spiritually born, since all who believe in Him—among whom she is—are rightly called children of the Bridegroom), but she is plainly the mother of His members (which we are). This is because she cooperated by charity so that the faithful, who are members of that Head, might be born in the Church. In body, however, she is the mother of the Head Himself. For it was fitting that our Head, on account of a notable miracle, should be born according to the flesh from a Virgin, to signify that His members were to be born according to the spirit from the Virgin Church.
Let us betake ourselves to the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary, our Mother. Let us acknowledge the dignity of our origin. The Virgin Church has regenerated us by the Holy Spirit and made us sons of God through Baptism. For to every man being reborn, the water of baptism is like the virginal womb, with the same Spirit filling the font who also filled the Virgin, so that the sin which her Conception voided there, our mystic cleansing [ablution] may take away here.
St. Leo says: "Let us live according to the spirit. Having been made a temple of the Holy Spirit through the sacrament of baptism, let us not subject ourselves again to the slavery of the devil, because our price is Christ, and He who redeemed us in mercy will judge us in truth. Whosoever, therefore, piously and faithfully glories in the Christian name, weigh the grace of your reconciliation with a just judgment. For to you—once cast down, excluded from the seats of paradise, dying through long exiles, dissolved into dust and ashes, for whom there was no longer any hope of living—power has been given through the Incarnation of the Word to return from afar to your Creator. Recognize your Parent; be made free from a slave; be promoted from a stranger to a son; so that you who were born of corruptible flesh may be reborn of God's Spirit. Obtain through grace what you cannot by nature; so that if you acknowledge yourself a son of God through the Spirit of adoption, you may dare to call Him Father."
Absolved from the guilt of a bad conscience, sigh for the [heavenly] kingdoms; do the will of God supported by divine help; imitate the Angels upon earth; be fed by the virtue of immortal substance; and, secure, fight against hostile temptations for the sake of piety. If you keep the oaths [sacraments] of the celestial militia, do not doubt that you shall be crowned for victory in the triumphal camps of the Eternal King.
Jesus Fulfilled His Name
Jesus fulfilled the duties of His name and office by saving His people from their sins. Let us fulfill the duties of the Christian name so that we may obtain the salvation prepared by Jesus Christ. For a Christian ought to be recognized not only by communion in the Mysteries [Sacraments] but also by the novelty of his life. It is fitting for him to be the "salt" and the "light of the world." If, however, you do not even shine for yourself, and do not even wipe away your own rot and stench, by what signs shall I be able to recognize you as a faithful person? Is it because you were washed in the waters of the Sacred Font? This very thing which was given to you for salvation may become the cause of a heavier punishment.
St. John Chrysostom says: "Therefore, it is fitting for a faithful man to shine forth not only from those things which he received from God, but also from those things which he himself offers to God; he should be known and manifest from every side—by his gait, by his appearance, by his voice."
Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus
Although Christ was born of Mary alone, His genealogy is nevertheless described through Joseph’s ancestors. This was so that faithful married couples might learn that they belong to the members of Christ much more closely the more they are able to imitate the parents of Christ, Joseph and Mary.
Let Christian spouses strive to imitate them. Let them preserve conjugal chastity, if indeed they were not able to preserve virginal chastity nor were called to it. Let them keep faith with one another; let them cultivate continence at least for a time so that they may give themselves to prayer and communicate in the Sacred Mysteries. Let them love each other with a chaste love, and use their marriage to bear children who, through baptism, may become brothers of God and of Jesus Christ, who is the Firstborn among many brothers. Let them not use marriage like the Gentiles who do not know God.
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the charity of God, and the communication of the Holy Spirit so reign in the hearts of Christian spouses, and so join their souls in God, that Jesus may be born spiritually within them. Thus they will be participants in the happiness of Mary, "of whom was born Jesus." She was more blessed by perceiving the faith of Christ than by conceiving the flesh of Christ. For what did that kinship profit the relatives of Christ who did not believe in Him? So too, maternal proximity would have profited Mary nothing unless she had more happily carried Christ in her heart than in her flesh.
But there is also another way by which we can bring forth Christ: for he who is a brother and sister of Christ by believing, is made a mother by preaching. For he, as it were, brings forth the Lord when he pours Him into the heart of a listener; and he is made His mother if, through his voice, the love of the Lord is generated in the mind of a neighbor.
Comments
Post a Comment