Mateus 1

Augustine of Hippo · Comentário Patrístico (catena)

Mateus 1:1

[(conforme citado por Tomás de Aquino, 1274 DC)] (de Hær. 8, et 10.) Cerinto então e Ebion fizeram de Jesus Cristo apenas um homem; Paulo de Samósata, seguindo-os, afirmou que Cristo não existia desde a eternidade, mas que começou a existir desde o nascimento da Virgem Maria; ele também pensava que Ele era nada mais que um homem. Esta heresia foi posteriormente confirmada por Fotino. (de Hæres. 19.) O erro de Nestório foi que ele ensinou que um homem só nasceu da Bem-Aventurada Virgem Maria, a quem a Palavra de Deus não recebeu na Unidade de pessoa e na comunhão inseparável; uma doutrina que os ouvidos católicos não podiam suportar. (de Hæres. 41.) Dizem que Sabellius foi um discípulo de Noetus, que ensinou que o mesmo Cristo era o mesmo Pai e Espírito Santo. (cont. Fausto. ii. 1.) Fausto afirma que "o Evangelho começa, e começa a ser assim chamado, a partir da pregação de Cristoc, na qual Ele em nenhum lugar afirma ter nascido dos homens. Não, até agora esta genealogia está longe de fazer parte do Evangelho, que o escritor não se aventura a intitulá-la; começando, 'O livro da geração', não 'O livro do Evangelho'. Marcos novamente, que não se preocupou em escrever sobre a geração, mas apenas sobre a pregação do Filho de Deus, que é propriamente o Evangelho, começa assim, portanto, O Evangelho de Jesus Cristo, o Filho de Deus. Assim, então, tudo o que lemos em Mateus antes das palavras, Jesus começou a pregar o Evangelho do reino (Mateus 4:17.) faz parte da genealogia, não do Evangelho. Recorri-me, portanto, a Marcos e João, com cujos prefácios tive boas razões para estar satisfeito, visto que não apresentam nem David, nem Maria, nem José." Ao que Agostinho responde: O que dirá então às palavras do Apóstolo: Lembra-te da ressurreição de Jesus Cristo da semente de David segundo o meu Evangelho. (2 Timóteo 2:8.) Mas o Evangelho do Apóstolo Paulo era igualmente o dos outros Apóstolos, e de todos os fiéis, como ele diz: Quer eu, quer eles, assim pregamos o Evangelho. (de Hær. 49.) Os arianos não terão o Pai, o Filho e o Espírito Santo, para serem da mesma substância, natureza e existência; mas que o Filho é uma criatura do Pai, e o Espírito Santo uma criatura de uma criatura, i. e. criado pelo Filho; além disso, eles pensam que Cristo assumiu a carne sem alma. (de Trin. i. 6.) Mas João declara que o Filho não é apenas Deus, mas até mesmo da mesma substância que o Pai; pois quando ele disse: A Palavra era Deus, ele acrescentou, todas as coisas foram feitas por Ele; daí é claro que Ele não foi feito por quem todas as coisas foram feitas; e se não for feito, então não será criado; e, portanto, de uma substância com o Pai, pois tudo o que não é de uma substância com o Pai é criatura. (cont. Fel. 13.) Não sei que benefício a pessoa do Mediador nos conferiu, se Ele não redimiu a nossa melhor parte, mas tomou sobre Si apenas a nossa carne, que sem a alma não pode ter consciência do benefício. Mas se Cristo veio para salvar aquilo que havia perecido, todo o homem pereceu e, portanto, precisa de um Salvador; Cristo então, ao vir, salva o homem inteiro, assumindo sobre si a alma e o corpo. (Lib. 83. Quæst. q. 80.) Como também eles respondem às inúmeras objeções das Escrituras do Evangelho, nas quais o Senhor fala tantas coisas manifestamente contrárias a eles? assim é: Minha alma está triste até a morte (Mateus 26:38) e tenho poder para dar Minha vida; (João 10:18.) e muitas outras coisas do tipo. Caso digam que Ele falou assim em parábolas, temos em mãos provas dos próprios evangelistas, que ao relatar Suas ações, dão testemunho da realidade de Seu corpo, e também de Sua alma, pela menção de paixões que não podem existir sem uma alma; como quando dizem, Jesus se perguntou, ficou com raiva e outros do mesmo tipo. (de Hæres. 55.) Os Apolinários, assim como os arianos, afirmaram que Cristo havia assumido a carne humana sem a alma. Mas, derrubados neste ponto pelo peso da prova das Escrituras, eles então disseram que aquela parte que é a alma racional do homem estava faltando à alma de Cristo, e que seu lugar foi preenchido pela própria Palavra. Mas se for assim, então devemos acreditar que a Palavra de Deus assumiu a natureza de algum animal com forma e aparência humana. Mas mesmo no que diz respeito à natureza do corpo de Cristo, há alguns que se desviaram até agora da fé correta, a ponto de dizerem que a carne e o Verbo eram da mesma substância, insistindo perversamente nessa expressão: O Verbo se fez carne; o que eles interpretam que alguma porção da Palavra foi transformada em carne, não que Ele tomou para Si a carne da carne da Virgem. - Catena Aurea de Tomás de Aquino

Mateus 1:1

Alguns podem ficar perplexos com o fato de Mateus enumerar uma série de ancestrais, descendo de Davi até José, enquanto Lucas especifica uma sucessão diferente, traçando a ancestralidade de José até Davi. Foi fácil para eles perceberem que José podia ter dois pais, um pai de sangue de quem nasceu e outro pai adotivo de quem foi adotado. Na verdade, este era o costume de adoção mesmo entre aquele povo de Deus. Dessa forma, eles poderiam conferir a filiação àqueles a quem não haviam dado à luz. Lembre-se de como a filha do Faraó adotou Moisés (e ela era estrangeira). E o próprio Jacó adotou seus próprios netos, os filhos de José: "E agora os teus dois filhos, que te nasceram na terra do Egito, antes que eu viesse a ti no Egito, são meus; Efraim e Manassés serão meus, como Rúben e Simeão. E a descendência que te nascer depois deles será tua." Desta forma, também aconteceu que havia doze tribos de Israel, tendo sido dada à tribo de Levi a tarefa especial de cuidar do templo. Junto com esta havia treze tribos, embora houvesse doze filhos de Jacó. Desta forma, entende-se que Lucas incluiu no seu Evangelho o pai de José, não por quem foi gerado, mas por quem foi adotado. Ele contou seus antepassados até chegar a Davi. — HARMONIA DOS EVANGELHOS 2.3.5

Mateus 1:2

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] (De Cons. Evan. ii. 1.) Matthew, by beginning with Christ's genealogy, shows that he has undertaken to relate Christ's birth according to the flesh. But Luke, as rather describing Him as a Priest for the atonement of sin, gives Christ's genealogy not in the beginning of his Gospel, but at His baptism, when John bare that testimony, Lo, He that taketh away the sins of the world. (John 1:29.) In the genealogy of Matthew is figured to us the taking on Him of our sins by the Lord Christ; in the genealogy of Luke, the taking away of our sins by the same; hence Matthew gives them in a descending, Luke in an ascending, series. But Matthew, describing Christ's human generation in descending order, begins his enumeration with Abraham. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 1:3

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] (de Civ. Dei, xv. 15.) Neither was Judah himself a first-born, nor of these two sons was either his first-born; he had already had three before them. So that he keeps in that line of descent, by which he shall arrive at David, and from him whither he purposed. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 1:6

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] (De Cons. Ev. ii. 4.) Since in Matthew's genealogy is showed forth the taking on Him by Christ of our sins, therefore he descends from David to Solomon, in whose mother David had sinned. Luke ascends to David through Nathan, for through Nathan the prophet God punished David's sin; because Luke's genealogy is to show the putting away of our sins. (Lib. Retract. ii. 16.) That is it, must be said, through a prophet of the same name, for it was not Nathan the son of David who reproved him, but a prophet of the same name. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 1:8

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] (Hilar. Amast. V. et N. Test. q. 85.) Or, Ochozias, Joash, and Amasias, were excluded from the number, because their wickedness was continuous and without interval. For Solomon was suffered to hold the kingdom for his father's deserts, Roboam for his son's. But these three doing evil successively were excluded. This then is an example how a race is cut off when wickedness is shown therein in perpetual succession. And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 1:16

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] (De Cons. Evang. ii. 2.) He is more properly called his son, by whom he was adopted, than had he been said to have been begotten of him of whose flesh he was not born. Wherefore Matthew, in saying Abraham begot Isaac, and continuing the same phrase throughout down to Jacob begot Joseph, sufficiently declares that he gives the father according to the order of nature, so as that we must hold Joseph to have been begotten, not adopted, by Jacob. Though even if Luke had used the word begotten, we need not have thought it any serious objection; for it is not absurd to say of an adopted son that he is begotten, not after the flesh, but by affection. (De Cons. Evang. ii. 4.) And suitably does Luke, who relates Christ's ancestry not in the opening of his Gospel, but at his baptism, follow the line of adoption, as thus more clearly pointing Him out as the Priest that should make atonement for sin. For by adoption we are made the sons of God, by believing in the Son of God. But by the descent according to the flesh which Matthew follows, we rather see that the Son of God was for us made man. Luke sufficiently shows that he called Joseph the son of Heli, because he was adopted by Heli, by his calling Adam the son of God, which he was by grace, as he was set in Paradise, though he lost it afterwards by sinning. (De Hæres. ii.) This is said against Valentinus, who taught that Christ took nothing of the Virgin Mary, but passed through her as through a channel or pipe. Wherefore it pleased Him to take flesh of the womb of a woman, is known in His own secret counsels; whether that He might confer honour on both sexes alike, by taking the form of a man, and being born of a woman, or from some other reason which I would not hastily pronounce on. (De Cons. Evang. ii. 1.) It was not lawful that he should think to separate himself from Mary for this, that she brought forth Christ as yet a Virgin. And herein may the faithful gather, that if they be married, and preserve strict continence on both sides, yet may their wedlock hold with union of love only, without carnal; for here they see that it is possible that a son be born without carnal embrace. (De Nupt. et Concup. i. 11.) In Christ's parents was accomplished every good benefit of marriage, fidelity, progeny, and a sacrament. The progeny we see in the Lord Himself; fidelity, for there was no adultery; sacrament, for there was no divorce. (ubi sup.) Also, the line of descent ought to be brought down to Joseph, that in wedlock no wrong might be done to the male sex, as the more worthy, provided only nothing was taken away from the truth; because Mary was of the seed of David. (Id. non occ.) Hence then we believe that Mary was in the line of David; namely, because we believe the Scripture which affirms two things, both that Christ was of the seed of David according to the flesh, and that He should be conceived of Mary not by knowledge of man, but as yet a virgin. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 1:16

Since he thus related that Christ was born from Mary as a virgin and not as a result of intercourse with Joseph, for what reason does Matthew call him his father, if not because we understand Joseph to be truly the husband of Mary, not through intercourse of the flesh but in virtue of the genuine spiritual union of marriage?… All this suggests that Luke's phrase, "as was supposed," was inserted with a view of correcting those of the opinion that he was born from Joseph in the same way that others are born. — HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS 2.1.3

Mateus 1:16

Matthew relates the human lineage of Christ in this way: After recounting the fathers from Abraham, he continues to Joseph, the husband of Mary, from whom Jesus was born. It is not fitting to think of Joseph apart from his marriage to Mary, who bore Christ as a virgin and not from intercourse with him. For by his example an incomparable commendation is made to faithful married persons of the principle that even when by common consent they maintain their continence, the marital relation can still remain steadfast and still be rightly called one of wedlock, not by virtue of physical intercourse but by the heart's affection. This is especially so because it was possible for a son to be born to them without bodily embrace, which is intended within the purpose of procreation. Furthermore, Joseph should not have been denied being called Christ's father on the basis that he did not beget him through intercourse. For if he had adopted a child from another, he would have rightly been the father of one who was not even born from his own wife.Indeed, Christ was even considered by some to be the son of Joseph, just as if he had been simply born of his flesh. But this was believed by those who did not know of Mary's virginity. Luke says, "Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph." Instead of naming Mary his only parent, he had not the slightest hesitation in also speaking of both parties as his parents when he says, "And the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom; and the favor of God was upon him. Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover." Lest any imagine that by the "parents" here was meant only Mary and her blood relations, we do well to recall that preceding word of Luke: "And his father and mother marveled at what was said about him." — HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS 2.1.2-3

Mateus 1:17

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] (De Cons. Ev. ii. 4.) Or, one of Christ's forefathers is counted twice, because in him, Jeconiah to wit, there was made a passing off to strange nations since he was carried to Babylon. Wherever a series turns out of the right line to go in any other direction there is an angle made, and that part that is in the angle is reckoned twice. Thus here is a figure of Christ, who passes from the circumcision to the uncircumcision, and is made a cornerstone. (ubi sup.) After having divided the whole into three periods of fourteen generations, he does not sum them all up and say, The sum of the whole is forty and two; because one of those fathers, that is Jeconiah, is reckoned twice; so that they do not amount to forty-two, as three times fourteen does, but because one is reckoned twice over, there are only forty-one generations. Matthew therefore, whose purpose was to draw out Christ's kingly character, counts forty successions in the genealogy exclusive of Christ. This number denotes the time for which we must be governed by Christ in this world, according to that painful discipline which is signified by the iron rod of which it is written in the Psalms, Thou shall rule them with a rod of iron. That this number should denote this our temporal life, a reason offers at hand, in this, that the seasons of the year are four, and that the world itself is bounded by four sides, the east, and west, the north, and the south. But forty contains ten four times. Moreover, ten itself is made up by a number proceeding from one to four. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 1:17

This particular number of generations, totaling forty, is a sign of that laborious period in which, under the discipline of Christ the King, we will continue to fight against the devil. The same number was foreshadowed in both the law and the prophets, who had already solemnized a fast of forty days for the humbling of the soul (this pattern was firmly set in the narratives of Moses and Elijah, each of whom fasted for forty days). The Gospel narrative itself then again foreshadowed this same number in the fast of the Lord himself, during his forty days of temptation by the devil. What else does this narrative show than that condition of temptation which pertains to us through all the space of this age? Christ bore this temptation in the flesh when he condescended to take upon himself our own mortality.Add to this also that after his resurrection, it was his will to remain with his disciples on the earth not longer than forty days. During this time he continued to mingle his resurrected life with theirs in the form of human intercourse. He shared with them food, which mortals need for life, even though he himself would never die. All this was done with the view of signifying to them through these forty days that although his presence would be later hidden from their eyes, he would yet fulfill what he promised when he said, "I am with you, even to the end of the world."67 There may be other and subtler methods of accounting for the length of this age, but the most apparent anticipations within the natural order of this number are the seasons of the years, which revolve in four successive alternations. Note also the fact that the world itself has its bounds determined by four divisions (which Scripture sometimes designates by the names of the winds, east and west, north or south). The number forty then is four times the cycle-completing number ten. The number ten, of course, is itself made up by adding one, two, three and four together. — HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS 2.4.9

Mateus 1:18

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] (De Nupt. et Concup. i. 12.) There was no carnal knowledge in this wedlock, because in sinful flesh this could not be without carnal desire which came of sin, and which He would be without, who was to be without sin; and that hence He might teach us that all flesh which is born of sexual union is sinful flesh, seeing that Flesh alone was without sin, which was not so born. (Enchir c. 40.) Furthermore, this manner in which Christ was born of the Holy Spirit suggests to us the grace of God, by which man without any previous merits, in the very beginning of his nature, was united with the Word of God into so great unity of person, that he was also made son of God. (c. 38.). But inasmuch as the whole Trinity wrought to make this creature which was conceived of the Virgin, though pertaining only to the person of the Son, (for the works of the Trinity are indivisible,) why is the Holy Spirit only named in this work? Must we always, when one of the Three is named in any work, understand that the whole Trinity worked in that? (De Cons. Evang. ii. 5.) How this was done Matthew omits to write, but Luke relates after the conception of John, In the sixth month the Angel was sent; and again, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee. This is what Matthew relates in these words, She was found with child of the Holy Ghost. And it is no contradiction that Luke has described what Matthew omits; or again that Matthew relates what Luke has omitted; that namely which follows, from Now Joseph her husband being a just man, to that place where it is said of the Magi, that They returned into their own country another way. If one desired to digest into one narrative the two accounts of Christ's birth, he would arrange thus; beginning with Matthew's words, Now the birth of Christ was on this wise; (Luke 1:5.) then taking up with Luke, from There was in the days of Herod, to, Mary abode with her three months, and returned to her house; then taking up again Matthew, add, She was found with child of the Holy Ghost. (Mat. 1:10.) — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 1:19

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] (De Cons. Evang. ii. 5.) How this was done Matthew omits to write, but Luke relates after the conception of John, In the sixth month the Angel was sent; and again, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee. This is what Matthew relates in these words, She was found with child of the Holy Ghost. And it is no contradiction that Luke has described what Matthew omits; or again that Matthew relates what Luke has omitted; that namely which follows, from Now Joseph her husband being a just man, to that place where it is said of the Magi, that They returned into their own country another way. If one desired to digest into one narrative the two accounts of Christ's birth, he would arrange thus; beginning with Matthew's words, Now the birth of Christ was on this wise; (Luke 1:5.) then taking up with Luke, from There was in the days of Herod, to, Mary abode with her three months, and returned to her house; then taking up again Matthew, add, She was found with child of the Holy Ghost. (Mat. 1:10.) Otherwise; if you alone have knowledge of a sin that any has committed against you, and desire to accuse him thereof before men, you do not herein correct, but rather betray him. But Joseph, being a just man, with great mercy spared his wife, in this great crime of which he suspected her. The seeming certainty of her unchastity tormented him, and yet because he alone knew of it, he was willing not to publish it, but to send her away privily; seeking rather the benefit than the punishment of the sinner. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 1:20

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] (Enchir. 38.) But shall we therefore say that the Holy Spirit is the Father of the man Christ, that as God the Father begot the Word, so the Holy Spirit begot the man? This is such an absurdity, that the ears of the faithful cannot bear it. How then do we say that Christ was born by the Holy Spirit, if the Holy Spirit did not beget Him? Did He create Him? For so far as He is man He was created, as the Apostle speaks; He was made of the seed of David according to the flesh. (Rom. 1:3.) For though God made the world, yet is it not right to say that it is the Son of God, or born by Him, but that it was made, or created, or formed by Him. But seeing that we confess Christ to have been born by the Holy Spirit, and of the Virgin Mary, how is He not the Son of the Holy Spirit, and is the Son of the Virgin? It does not follow, that whatever is born by any thing, is therefore to be called the son of that thing; for, not to say that of man is born in one sense a son, in another a hair, or vermin, or a worm, none of which are his son, certainly those that are born of water and the Spirit none would call sons of water; but sons of God their Father, and their Mother the Church. Thus Christ was born of the Holy Spirit, and yet is the Son of God the Father, not of the Holy Spirit. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 1:21

Mateus 1:22-23

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] (Cont. Faust. 12. 45, and 13. 7.) Who so mad as to say with Manichæus, that it is a weak faith not to believe in Christ without a witness; whereas the Apostle says, How shall they believe on Him of whom they have not heard? Or how shall they hear without a preacher? (Rom. 10:14.) That those things which were preached by the Apostles might not be contemned, nor thought to be fables, they are proved to have been foretold by the Prophets. For though attested by miracles, yet there would not have been wanting men to ascribe them all to magical power, had not such suggestions been overcome by the additional testimony of prophecy. For none could suppose that long before He was born, He had raised up by magic prophets to prophesy of Him. For if we say to a Gentile, Believe on Christ that He is God, and he should answer, Whence is it that I should believe on Him? we might allege the authority of the Prophets. Should he refuse assent to this, we establish their credit from their having foretold things to come, and those things having truly come to pass. I suppose he could not but know how great persecutions the Christian religion has formerly suffered from the Kings of this world; let him now behold those very Kings submitting to the kingdom of Christ, and all nations serving the same; all which things the Prophets foretold. He then hearing these things out of the Scriptures of the Prophets, and beholding them accomplished throughout the whole earth, would be moved to faith. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 1:25

It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man? — Sermons 186

Mateus 1:25

Those heretics were called Antidicomarites who denied the virginity of Mary to the point that they claim that after the birth of Christ she had intercourse with her husband. — Heresies, LVI