Matthew 1:1-6

The Book of the generation of Jesus the Christ. Jesus is a name, by adoption from human nature, but according to the meaning, the translation of His name is, the Saviour God ; but the Christ is a name of honour; that is to say, of unity; God the Anointer, and Man the Anointed. His assumption is by grace, and His Sonship is natural. The things of Abraham were types of the conversion of the erring Gentiles, etc.; and the things of David were types of those of the Son of David. David was persecuted by Saul, as also the Son was by Herod. Ephraim, Priests were killed because of David, and children because of our Lord.  Abiathar escaped from among the priests, and John from among the children. David fled to the Gentiles and the Son of David to Egypt. In Abiathar the priesthood of the house of Eli ceased; and in John the prophethood of the house of Jacob was cut off. 



Matthew 1:1-11

And it is asked, Why did the Evangelist leave out eminent women, like Rebecca, and mention Tamar and Rahab, and Ruth, and the wife of Uriah? We say it was because the Jews were forbidden admixture with the Gentiles, and for this reason they were haughty to the Gentiles, and they also reproached the Apostles, because they received Gentiles; at the same time they prated that, forsooth, these were opposed to their Law, which required separation from the Gentiles ; and at the same time the Jews boasted that the promises of the Messiah have been made to us, and not to the Gentiles. Matthew wished to reprove their vaunting, because bodily affinity did not help nor vitiate; and not race does he honour, but a mind which fears God ; and at the same time to shew, that even the heathen when they draw near in sincerity of heart, are received; and there fore he strives from the beginning to shew about the blessed David, him who was accounted great and honourable among them, that he derived his race from a descent not according to the Law, inasmuch as Tamar was of a foreign people, and the sons from her were not lawfully born, as she was the daughter-in-law of Judah, and it was not permitted for a father-in-law to cohabit with his daughter-in-law. Ruth too was a Moabitess, and it was decreed about the Ammonites and Moabites, that they should not come into the congregation of the Lord for ever. Rahab also was of the Gentiles, and as they say she was the harlot who received the spies, she whom David also mentions in the 8th Psalm. Bathsheba, too, although she was a Hittite, nor was even lawfully married to David, yet Solomon the wise was born of her. By means, then, of the mention of these women, he puts to shame the Jews, so proud of the stock of the house of Abraham. But again, because the Apostles were commanded to go forth and preach to all nations, they wished to teach us by the mention of these women, that even the Gentiles had partnership in the descent of the tribe from which the Messiah arose, and that if they repent, there is nothing to prevent them from the full remission of sins, that they may also become the Israel of God. But the contentious allegorists imagine here, and they expound Tamar as one who called our Lord to her, Come, my Lord ( Ta mart), abide with me; and Rahab as the fellowship of the nation with the Gentiles ; and Ruth as reconciliation.



Matthew 1:7-11

And it is asked, why did Matthew omit three generations in the middle, Ahazia, and Joash, and Amazia? Some say, that on account of this he left Ahazia out, because he was the son of Athalia, daughter of the wicked Jezebel; and Joash, because he, too, was her son's son ; Amazia, again, because his race was also descended from thence. And we say against them, that if he left these out on account of their wickedness, then why does he mention those wicked people, Ahaz, and Manasseh, etc.? and if it were thus, it would have been right first not to mention. Joram, because he took the wicked wife; it was in his power not to take [her]; whereas those people had no means of not being born of such. However the Interpreter says that it was an error of a careless scribe, and it was not the Evangelist who left it out, because the similarity and proximity because there is no ain nor any heth in Greek, but instead of both of them he wrote alif ܬ. ܓ. ܓ. ܬ. .ܚܬ. for they are both equal in the number of letters and in form. Nor did he do this in order to measure the number of fourteen generations from David until the carrying away to Babylon, a for behold while from the carrying away to Babylon until the Christ there were thirteen generations, it does not prevent him from saying that there were fourteen, as it was not about the sum of the numbers that it mattered to him in the division of the generations into three parts, but they say it was an error of the scribe ; whilst others say that the Evangelist, forsooth, wished to leave them out, and it is clear that unless the Evangelist left them out, he would not say at the conclusion that from David to the carrying away to Babylon were fourteen generations, but rather eighteen; for behold also in the last part, between Salathiel and Zorobabel he leaves out one, that is to say, Nedabia, that he may fix the number of fourteen with (1 Chron 3) Mary and the Christ, because that Mary has come into the generations instead of her father. And it is clear also that the Evangelist left them out, from this, that his book was in existence in Caesarea of Palestine, and everyone acknowledges that he wrote it with his hands in Hebrew; and these names are not in it; and we say also, that Athalia was not the daughter of Jezebel, but the daughter of Omri. And because the Evangelist knew what a wrong idea there was among the people about these names, because of that he left them out. Nevertheless that idea of the Interpreter the whole school receives. Let us say now, why Matthew said that Josia begat Jeconia and his brethren. But Josia did not beget Jeconia, but Jehoahaz, him that was called Shaleem, and Eliakim, him that was called Jehoiakim, and Mathia, who was called by Nebuchadnezzar Zedekia.



Matthew 1:11-17

And Jeconia was the son of Eliakim, and he called his uncles his brethren as is the custom of the Scriptures, and son's sons [he called] (Gen. 13:8) sons, as Abraham did to Lot, for we are brethren ; and Laban, who said (Gen. 31:43) to Jacob, the sons are my sons, and the daughters are my daughters ; for it is a wicked thing that has been said, that on account of this they called Jeconia the son of Josiah, because Eliakim his father killed the (Jer. 2) prophets, to wit, Uriah the son of Shemaia, and he polluted the sanctuary; and they did not understand that Manasseh was worse than he, and he (Matthew) does not excuse himself from mentioning him ; although it is written in the Book of Chronicles, that when Manasseh was taken captive to Babylon he repented and prayed, and God heard his request, and restored him to Jerusalem to the kingdom, and so Manasseh took away the images and strange gods, etc. But Hannan of Hedhaiyabh was astonished that he put our Lord into the number of the generations evidently in order that He should be reckoned in the number of the fourteen generations from the Captivity to the Christ. It is right that we should know that the Evangelist did not make the division of the generations into three parts at random, nor even that he might reckon the number of fourteen generations; for behold, we see that some of them are more and some of them are less. But because the Jews were blaming the Apostles, as those who were bringing in a new doctrine to the world; Matthew wishing to convince them, that the government of God does not remain the same, but operates in sundry and divers manners so as to help men, desired to establish his doctrine from the government that had been amongst them. From Abraham, indeed to David, they were without kings, but were submissive to those who were called judges; the priests also were related to (EX. 6. 23) the tribe of Juda, as the Scripture also teaches, that Aaron, it is said,  took to wife Elisheba, daughter of Aminadab, of the tribe of Juda; and (2 Chron.) Josheba, daughter of Joram the king, Jehoiada the priest took; and according to the change of things, so is also the change of the facts. And therefore the Evangelist wished to teach, that it was not even now a new thing which God wished to perform by means of the Christ, in that He was truly the King; therefore very suitably Matthew divided the fourteen generations. Fourteen generations, not like one who did not know that some of them were more and some of them were less; but what we are accustomed also to say about imperfect numbers, so and so is more or less. Hannan also divides the generations by the fourteen, because this number was famous amongst the Hebrews; in it the full moon was created; in it they kept the passover, and were liberated from Egypt, etc.




Matthew 1:6-16

And it is asked, why Matthew comes from David to Solomon, and from thence makes the race of the Messiah descend, whereas Luke puts Nathan son of David instead of Solomon, and thus he comes out to other generations until Joseph; but Africanus the historian explains this, which he also received from ancient histories, as he says, The names of the generations were counted in Israel, either according to nature or to law;  according to nature, what was the descent of the accurate seed; but legally, of a person who begets in the name of his brother who had died childless; inasmuch as they had not yet any hope of immortal resurrection, but of that mortal one, and in order that the name of him that was dead might not perish. Therefore both Evangelists are true, in that Matthew counts the natural descent, and Luke the legal one ; for the generations of Solomon and Nathan are mingled together by the raising of the seed of one who had died childless, as by right those very sons were of others and were called of others; so that both of the generations by means of Joseph end with Joseph, according as thus; for where thou countest the generations from David as by means of Solomon, the third from the Ep. to end is Mathan, he that begat Jacob, the father of Joseph; and [if] from Nathan who was from David according to the word of Luke, again the third from the end is the son of Melchi; but Joseph is the son of Heli, son of Melchi; and because Mathan and Melchi took the very same wife, they had two sons, the children of one mother, her who was called Estha, of which the masculine is Asa; inasmuch as the Law did not forbid a widow or a deserted wife to belong to another. Mathan who was from Solomon, therefore took her first, and begat Jacob; and after the death of Mathan, Melchi, who was from Nathan, took her, and from her begat Heli. But Heli died childless: but his brother Jacob took his wife, and begat Joseph; therefore it is written, that Jacob begat  Joseph, who was his son by nature, but by law the son of Heli; hence Matthew shews by means of the descent of the natural generations, that the Messiah was born according to the voices of the prophets.


Matthew 1:15-16

But people disputed against his book, vitiating the legal descent, that they might shew about Joseph, that he was not descended from David; and they said that Joseph was the son of Heli, and not of Jacob; for even if Jacob begat him, yet he was born to Heli; so therefore Luke wished to reprove the stupidity of this question; for even if Joseph came to Heli, he who was legally his son, also thus the race of the Messiah was found from David; the father of Heli, for Luke calls him the father of Joseph, was Melchi. But Luke ought to have said, that Joseph was the son of Heli the son of Melchi. This he did not do, but the son of Joseph the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, and so the son of Melchi, that he might make known that the sons of Melchi were these three, Heli, Matthat, and Levi, so that, to be sure, in whichever way they wished to come from Joseph to Melchi, also thus the Messiah was found necessarily to be the son of David. But what is the reason why Luke counts forty-three generations from David until the Messiah, whereas Matthew (counts) twenty-eight, besides those which the writer subtracted ? They were thirty-two according to the truth. We say that of all the families there is not an equal course of the generations, for we have seen many, although equal in years, some of them now taking wives, and some of them having sons, so that those are three generations more, and these are one ; therefore it is no wonder, if one generation exceeds its fellow or is smaller in its descent. But Julianus the Apostate, that is to say, the liar in his promise, and Porphyry, the reprobates, contradict the Evangelists, that Luke, forsooth, is not speaking of a legal descent: and if he were, why does he not mention the legal father of Obed, whom Boaz raised as seed to one of the sons of Naomi, but recalls his natural one? and the erring ones do not understand that there was a contention only from Joseph to David; but from David to Abraham there was no doubt, because all the Jews were descended from Abraham. And it is asked do the Evangelists make the generations of the Messiah rest on Joseph, and not on Mary? We say, because it was not the custom of Scripture to make a descent rest on a woman ; only by the mention of Joseph that he was her betrothed, the Virgin is known along with him, that she had come down from David in a Ephraim descent ' in that it was commanded that every tribe should marry in its in G. B. p. own tribe, even if opportunities occurred from tribe to tribe. But Joseph and Mary were mutually children's children of brothers, inasmuch as Eliezer begat two sons, Mathan and Jotham, and Mathan begat Jacob, and Jacob Joseph; and Jotham Zadok, and Zadok Mary; and the name of her mother was Dinah, and this was the sister of Elisheba, as (Luke 1.36) also the Angel said, "Behold Elizabeth thy cousin." The thing was arranged in this way by a divine intimation that the kingdom of the house of David, and the priesthood of the house of Aaron, should have the fulfillment of their types in the Christ.



Matthew 1:15-20

What is this that Joseph her husband was a just man, and was not willing, but was minded to...privily? For in what was Joseph seen to be just ? for either he knew the Virgin to be holy, or to be corrupted ; and if she were holy, she was not deserving to be sent away, but kept and cherished; and if she were corrupted, it was right to expose her and to reprove her. Nevertheless Joseph was just and merciful, his justice antagonized his mercy, and his mercy his justice: for his justice oppressed him, that he should not allow an adulteress within his house; and his mercy counseled him, that he should send her away privily ; because he knew that he would deliver her to death, if he exposed her; therefore he thought of merely sending her away, and that privily, that is, on the one hand, because he would not transgress the Law by living with a guilty woman ; and on the other hand, as he had compassion on her, he knew that if she were exposed she would be liable to death. It is asked, why does Matthew say, that that which is born in her is of the Holy Ghost, when He was not yet born, and he did not say, that which is conceived in her? and again, that which is born in her, but not from her? Here the heretics are foolish, because by this they attach God the Word to the birth; as if God was born in her; but let them know, that that very Evangelist said above, that from her was born Jesus who is called the Christ; for that confounds them, that it is of the Holy Ghost; for if God the Word is by the Holy Ghost, then He is made and not the Maker; and the heresy of the Arians will rejoice. Again, that which is born in her, makes vain this, that she shall bring forth a son, which is put afterwards. For if He were born in her, how can she again bring forth? then two births are left to one conception. Therefore this, that which is born in her, is put instead of that which is conceived. Others say, that birth is as it were, thought about in Scripture in a double fashion ; in some places from creation, as who hath begotten the (Job 38.) drops of rain? etc., and in some places nativity; but here, it is put instead of that which is created, that which is born in her, that is to say, by the Holy Ghost is formed in her.



Matthew 1:20-25

Others say that conception, forsooth, is accomplished by two, by the male and by the female; and because when the Virgin conceived, she did not suffer womanly pains, he said rightly that which is in her, and not that which is from her, that is from her and in her only He was formed, and not also from a man. Others say that it is put according to a Hebrew custom, which does not separate the tenses from one another, but speaks of that which is past as being to come, and of what is to come as being past, and of both of them as of that which is present; and of the present as the past and future; and because of this, instead of saying that which is being born from her, he put that which is born in her.  Others say that he who interpreted from Hebrew to Syriac changed [the expression]; he put instead of that which is conceived in her, that which is born. But the Diatessaron says that that which is born in her is of the Holy Ghost, the ineffable and infinite Word ; the birth that is in her, he calls the assumption and formation of the man, who within the womb was separated from her, even though He was not yet born.  And it is asked, why the Angel said He shall be called Emmanuel, yet we do not always call Him that. We say, that it is a custom of Scripture (is. 8. 3) to tell names instead of facts, like this passage, Hasten the spoils, and hurry the booty ; for the boy was not called so ; but in order to say, that in his (is. i. 26) birth there was captivity and spoil; and Thou shalt be called the city of Righteousness, and the city of Faith, for it was not called thus, but it continued to be called Jerusalem ; since he indicates that deeds were done in it beyond its human name ; or he calls it so that it may rest in that deed, in the truth of the thing instead of the name. Thus also this of Emmanuel; for Emmanuel signifies God and Man ; that God is with us; all is in this, because He is like us in nature, and because He is the Mediator and High Priest of our profession with God, and because by means of Him we are made familiar with God, who is incarnated. And if anyone doubts about how he is called Jesus above, but here Emmanuel, let him know this, that our Lord is called by fifty-two names, some of them being about His Divinity, and some of them about His Manhood ; some of them are appropriate to the Person of the Unity; thus Jesus signifies by adoption about His Manhood, by energy about His Godhead ; but Emmanuel signifies about the Person of the Unity which is from Godhead and Manhood. And he took his wife and knew her not, until. This word, until, (Num.12.15) sometimes fixes a limit, like this, that the people did not take up (Gen.49.10) their tents until Miriam entered; and it is understood that after she entered they took them up; and like this, that the sceptre shall not cease from Judah, etc., and it is understood that after He came it (1 Kings 19.) ceased. And he went, it is said, in the strength of that food, until [he came] to the mount of God ; and it is clear that after he came to the mount, he rested, etc. Sometimes it is put indefinitely. A raven went (Gen. 8. 7) out, it is said, and returned not until the waters abated; for if it did not return during the Deluge, how much less afterwards? And to Jacob, I will not forsake thee, until I have performed that which I said unto thee; not (Gen. 28.) is that He would desert him afterwards ; and of Michal it is said, she had no (2Sam.6.23) child until she died. If she had no child while she lived, how would she have one after her death? And, behold, it is said, I am with you, until. (Matt.28.20) Would He then desert them afterwards? And the Christ shall reign, until His enemies shall be put [under His feet]. And the heavens, it is said, must receive Him, until the fulfillment of the times; then afterwards will He be estranged from His kingdom or removed from the heavens? Therefore these expressions are used instead of without end; and this, until she brought forth her first born son; for it was not decorous, that anything human should touch the womb in which He had consecrated a temple of the Trinity ; and the fears of Joseph were not allayed so that he should allow anything carnal, but it was rather due to the remembrance of that word, It is from the Holy Ghost, and on account of the glorious things that had been administered.