Mateus 1
Jerome · Comentário Patrístico (catena)
Mateus 1:1
Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek, though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Cæsarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Berœa, a city of Syria, who use it. In this it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew. Wherefore these two forms exist "Out of Egypt have I called my son," and "for he shall be called a Nazarene." — Lives of Illustrious Men
Mateus 1:1
[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] (Prolog. in Comm. in Matt.) 'The face of a man' (in Ezekiel's vision [Ez. 1:5]) signifies Matthew, who accordingly opens his Gospel with the human genealogy of Christ. (Comm. in Matt. ch. 1.) We read in Isaiah, Who shall declare His generation? (Is. 53:8.) But it does not follow that the Evangelist contradicts the Prophet, or undertakes what he declares impossible; for Isaiah is speaking of the generation of the Divine nature; St. Matthew of the incarnation of the human. The order of the names is inverted, but of necessity; for had he written Abraham first, and David afterwards, he would have to repeat Abraham again to preserve the series of the genealogy. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas
Mateus 1:3
[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] It should be noted, that none of the holy women are taken into the Saviour's genealogy, but rather such as Scripture has condemned, that He who came for sinners being born of sinners might so put away the sins of all; thus Ruth the Moabitess follows among the rest. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas
Mateus 1:3
(Verse 3.) But Judas begot Phares and Zaram of Thamar. Phares begot Esron. Esron begot Aram. Aram begot Aminadab. Aminadab begot Naasson. It should be noted in the genealogy of the Savior that no holy women are included; only those whom Scripture reproaches, since He came for sinners, being born of sinners, in order to erase the sins of all. Therefore, even in the following generations, Ruth the Moabitess and Bathsheba the wife of Uriah are mentioned. — Commentary on Matthew
Mateus 1:4
(Vers. 4 seqq.) Naasson, however, fathered Salmon. Salmon, however, fathered Boaz by Rahab. Boaz, however, fathered Obed by Ruth. Obed, however, fathered Jesse. Jesse, however, fathered King David. David, however, king, fathered Solomon by her who had been Uriah's. Solomon, however, fathered Rehoboam. Rehoboam, however, fathered Abijah. Abijah, however, fathered Asa. Asa, however, fathered Jehoshaphat. Jehoshaphat, however, fathered Joram. This is Naasson, the prince of the tribe of Judah, as we read in Numbers (Num. I and II). — Commentary on Matthew
Mateus 1:5
[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] Ruth the Moabitess fulfils the prophecy of Isaiah, Send forth, O Lord, the Lamb that shall rule over the earth, out of the rock of the desert to the mount of the daughter of Sion. (Is. 16:1.) — Catena Aurea by Aquinas
Mateus 1:8
[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] In the fourth book of Kings we read, that Ochozias was the son of Joram. On his death, Josabeth, sister of Ochozias and daughter of Joram, took Joash, her brother's son, and preserved him from the slaughter of the royal seed by Athalias. To Joash succeeded his son Amasias; after him his son Azarias, who is called Ozias; after him his son Joatham. Thus you see according to historical truth there were three intervening kings, who are omitted by the Evangelist. Joram, moreover, begot not Ozias, but Ochozias, and the rest as we have related. But because it was the purpose of the Evangelist to make each of the three periods consist of fourteen generations, and because Joram had connected himself with Jezebel's most impious race, therefore his posterity to the third generation is omitted in tracing the lineage of the holy birth. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas
Mateus 1:8
Joram, however, begot Oziam. Ozias, however, begot Joathan. Joathan, however, begot Achaz. Achaz, however, begot Ezechiam. Ezechias, however, begot Manassen. Manasses, however, begot Amon. Amon, however, begot Josiam. Josias, however, begot Jechoniam and his brothers in the Babylonian exile. In the fourth book of Kings (Ch. III, VIII and following), we read that Joram was begotten by Ochoziam, and after his death, Josabeth, daughter of King Joram and sister of Ochozia, took Joas, the son of her brother, and rescued him from the slaughter that was being carried out by Athalia (or Atholia). His son Amasias succeeded him to the kingdom, and after him his son Azarias, who is also called Ozias (or Ochozias). His son Joathan succeeded him. Therefore, you can see that according to the history, there were three kings in the middle whom the Evangelist omitted: for Joram did not beget Ozias, but Ochozias, and the others we mentioned. However, because it was the intent of the Evangelist to list three sets of fourteen generations in different periods of time, and Joram had married the most wicked Jezabel, his memory is removed up to the third generation, so as not to be included in the order of the holy birth. — Commentary on Matthew
Mateus 1:11-12
Verse 1. "In the third year of the reign of Joacim (Jehoiakim) king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it." Jehoiakim, son of the Josiah in whose thirteenth regnal year Jeremiah began to prophesy, and under whom the woman Hulda prophesied, was the same man as was called by the other name of Eliakim, and reigned over the tribes of Judah and Jerusalem eleven years. His son Jehoiachin surnamed Jeconiah, followed him in the kingship, and on the tenth day of the third month of his reign he was taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar's generals and brought to Babylon. In his place his paternal uncle Zedekiah, a son of Josiah, was appointed king, and in his eleventh year Jerusalem was captured and destroyed. Let no one therefore imagine that the Jehoiakim in the beginning of Daniel is the same person as the one who is spelled Jehoiachin in the commencement of Ezekiel. For the latter has "-chin" as its final syllable, whereas the former has "-kim." And it is for this reason that in the Gospel according to Matthew there seems to be a generation missing, because the second group of fourteen, extending to the time of Jehoiakim, ends with a son of Josiah, and the third group begins with Jehoiachin, son of Jehoiakim. Being ignorant of this factor, Porphyry formulated a slander against the Church which only revealed his own ignorance, as he tried to prove the evangelist Matthew guilty of error. — St. Jerome, Commentary on Daniel, CHAPTER ONE
Mateus 1:11-12
(Verse 12 and following) And after the Babylonian exile, Jechonias fathered Salathiel. Salathiel fathered Zorobabel. Zorobabel fathered Abiud. Abiud fathered Eliacim. Eliacim fathered Azor. Azor fathered Sadoc. Sadoc fathered Achim. Achim fathered Eliud. Eliud fathered Eleazar. Eleazar fathered Matthan. Matthan fathered Jacob. If we were to place Jechonias at the end of the first fourteen generations, in the next there would not be fourteen but thirteen. Therefore, let us know that Jeconiah is the same person as Joachim, the former being the father and the latter being the son; the former is written with 'c' and 'm', while the latter is written with 'ch' and 'n'. This confusion arose due to errors of the scribes and the passage of time among both the Greeks and the Latins. — Commentary on Matthew
Mateus 1:11-12
[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] Otherwise, we may consider the first Jeconias to be the same as Joakim, and the second to be the son not the father, the one being spelt with k and m, the second by ch and n. This distinction has been confounded both by Greeks and Latins, by the fault of writers and the lapse of time. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas
Mateus 1:16
[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] This passage is objected to us by the Emperor Julian in his Discrepancy of the Evangelists. Matthew calls Joseph the son of Jacob, Luke makes him the son of Heli. He did not know the Scripture manner, one was his father by nature, the other by law. For we know that God commanded by Moses, that if a brother or near kinsman died without children, another should take his wife, to raise up seed to his brother or kinsman. (Deut. 25.) But of this matter Africanus the chronologistp, and Eusebius of Cæsarca, have disputed more fully. When you hear this word husband, do not straight bethink you of wedlock, but remember the Scripture manner, which calls persons only betrothed husband and wife. The attentive reader may ask, Seeing Joseph was not the father of the Lord and Saviour, how does his genealogy traced down to him in order pertain to the Lord? We will answer, first, that it is not the practice of Scripture to follow the female line in its genealogies; secondly, that Joseph and Mary were of the same tribe, and that he was thence compelled to take her to wife as a kinsman, and they were enrolled together at Bethlehem, as being come of one stock. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas
Mateus 1:16
(Ver. 16) But Jacob begot Joseph. Here Julianus Augustus has presented to us the disagreement of the Evangelists, why the evangelist Matthew called Joseph the son of Jacob, and Luke called him the son of Heli; not understanding the custom of the Scriptures, that one is according to nature, the other according to the Law his father. For we know this by the command of God given through Moses, that if a brother or relative without children dies, another should take his wife to raise up offspring for his brother or relative (Deut. II). Both Africanus, a historian of the time, and Eusebius of Caesarea extensively debated in their books the discrepancies in the Gospels. — Commentary on Matthew
Mateus 1:17
(Verse 17) The man of Mary, from whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ. When you hear the word 'man', do not entertain the suspicion of marriage; but remember the custom of the Scriptures, that the husband is called the spouse of the bride. — Commentary on Matthew
Mateus 1:18
[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] But why is He conceived not of a Virgin merely, but of a Virgin espoused? First, that by the descent of Joseph, Mary's family might be made known; secondly, that she might not be stoned by the Jews as an adulteress; thirdly, that in her flight into Egypt she might have the comfort of a husband. The Martyr Ignatius (vid. Ign. ad Eph. 19.) adds yet a fourth reason, namely, that his birth might be hid from the Devil, looking for Him to be born of a wife and not of a virgin. (cont. Helvid. in princ.) It is to be known, that Helvidius, a certain turbulent man, having got matter of disputation, takes in hand to blaspheme against the Mother of God. His first proposition was, Matthew begins thus, When she was espoused. Behold, he says, you have her espoused, but, as ye say, not yet committed; but surely not espoused for any other reason than as being to be married. And found by none other than by Joseph, who knew all, as being her espoused husband. (Cont. Helvid. in princip.) But says Helvidius; Neither would the Evangelist have said Before they came together, if they were not to come together afterwards; as none would say, Before dinner, where there was to be no dinner. As if one should say, Before I dined in harbour, I set sail for Africa, would this have no meaning in it, unless he were at some time or other to dine in the harbour? Surely we must either understand it thus,—that before, though it often implies something to follow, yet often is said of things that follow only in thought; and it is not necessary that the things so thought of should take place, for that something else has happened to prevent them from taking place. Therefore it by no means follows that they did come together afterwards; Scripture however shows not what did happen. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas
Mateus 1:18
Notice, he [Helvidius] says, that the word used is betrothed, not entrusted as you say, and of course the only reason why she was betrothed was that she might one day be married. And the Evangelist would not have said before they came together if they were not to come together, for no one would use the phrase before he dined of a man who was not going to dine. Then, again, the angel calls her wife and speaks of her as united to Joseph... Let us take the points one by one, and follow the tracks of this impiety that we may show that he has contradicted himself. He admits that she was betrothed, and in the next breath will have her to be a man's wife whom he has admitted to be his betrothed. Again, he calls her wife, and then says the only reason why she was betrothed was that she might one day be married. And, for fear we might not think that enough, "the word used," he says, "is betrothed and not entrusted, that is to say, not yet a wife, not yet united by the bond of wedlock." But when he continues, "the Evangelist would never have applied the words, before they came together to persons who were not to come together, any more than one says, before he dined, when the man is not going to dine," I know not whether to grieve or laugh. Shall I convict him of ignorance, or accuse him of rashness? Just as if, supposing a person to say, "Before dining in harbour I sailed to Africa," his words could not hold good unless he were compelled some day to dine in harbour. If I choose to say, "the apostle Paul before he went to Spain was put in fetters at Rome," or (as I certainly might) "Helvidius, before he repented, was cut off by death," must Paul on being released at once go to Spain, or must Helvidius repent after death, although the Scripture says "In sheol who shall give you thanks?" Must we not rather understand that the preposition before, although it frequently denotes order in time, yet sometimes refers only to order in thought? So that there is no necessity, if sufficient cause intervened to prevent it, for our thoughts to be realized. When, then, the Evangelist says before they came together, he indicates the time immediately preceding marriage, and shows that matters were so far advanced that she who had been betrothed was on the point of becoming a wife. As though he said, before they kissed and embraced, before the consummation of marriage, she was found to be with child. And she was found to be so by none other than Joseph, who watched the swelling womb of his betrothed with the anxious glances, and, at this time, almost the privilege, of a husband. Yet it does not follow, as the previous examples showed, that he had intercourse with Mary after her delivery, when his desires had been quenched by the fact that she had already conceived. And although we find it said to Joseph in a dream, "Fear not to take Mary your wife"; and again, "Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto him his wife," no one ought to be disturbed by this, as though, inasmuch as she is called wife, she ceases to be betrothed, for we know it is usual in Scripture to give the title to those who are betrothed. The following evidence from Deuteronomy establishes the point. [Deuteronomy 22:24-25] "If the man," says the writer, "find the damsel that is betrothed in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her, he shall surely die, because he has humbled his neighbour's wife." And in another place, [Deuteronomy 22:23-24] "If there be a damsel that is a virgin betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; then you shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and you shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he has humbled his neighbour's wife: so you shall put away the evil from the midst of you." Elsewhere also, [Deuteronomy 20:7] "And what man is there that has betrothed a wife, and has not taken her? Let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her." — The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary
Mateus 1:18
(Verse 18.) And from the deportation to Babylon to Christ, fourteen generations. Count from Jechoniah to Joseph, and you will find thirteen generations. Therefore, the fourteenth generation will be reckoned to be in Christ himself. But the generation of Christ was as follows. Let the diligent reader inquire and say: Since Joseph is not the father of the Lord Savior, why does the order of the generation lead to Joseph? To this we will first respond that it is not the usual practice of the Scriptures to trace the order of women in generations. Furthermore, Joseph and Mary were from the same tribe, so according to the Law, Joseph had to take her as a relative, and they were both counted in Bethlehem, being from the same lineage. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, why is she conceived not from a simple virgin, but from a betrothed one? First, so that through the generation, the origin of Mary could be shown by Joseph. Second, so that she would not be stoned by the Jews as an adulteress. Third, so that fleeing to Egypt, she would have the comfort of her husband. Ignatius the Martyr also added a fourth cause as to why she was conceived from the betrothed one: in order to hide the birth from the devil, while he thought it was not from a virgin, but from a wife. Before they came together, she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. And Joseph her husband, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, 'Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.' All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel' (which means, God with us). When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus. — Commentary on Matthew
Mateus 1:19
[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] But how is Joseph thus called just, when he is ready to hide his wife's sin? For the Law enacts, that not only the doers of evil, but they who are privy to any evil done, shall be held to be guilty. Or this may be considered a testimony to Mary, that Joseph, confident in her purity, and wondering at what had happened, covered in silence that mystery which he could not explain. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas
Mateus 1:19
(Ver. 19.) But Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded privately to put her away. But while he thought on these things, behold the angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: If any man take her as wife that has been defiled, her defilement is upon him (1 Cor. VI, 16). And it is commanded in the Law, not only guilty persons, but also those who have knowledge of the crime, to be subject to punishment (Lev. V): how then does Joseph, who conceals the crime of his wife, deserve to be called just? But this is a testimony to Mary, that Joseph knowing her chastity, and wondering at what had happened, kept silent about it, not understanding its mystery. — Commentary on Matthew
Mateus 1:20
(Verse 20.) Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife. For what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son. And as we said before, the term 'spouses' is used for wives, as the book against Helvidius explains more fully. And an angel speaks to Joseph in a dream with gentle affection, to confirm the righteousness of his silence. It is also noteworthy that Joseph is said to be the son of David, in order to show that Mary is also from the line of David. — Commentary on Matthew
Mateus 1:20
[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] But we are not to think that she ceased to be betrothed, because she is here called wife, since we know that this is the Scripture manner to call the man and woman, when espoused, husband and wife; and this is confirmed by that text in Deuteronomy, If one find a virgin that is betrothed to a man in the field, and offer violence to her, and lie with her, he shall die, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife. (Deut. 22:23.) — Catena Aurea by Aquinas
Mateus 1:21
(Verse 21.) And you shall call his name Jesus. For he will save his people from their sins. Jesus means 'Savior' in Hebrew. The evangelist noted the etymology of his name, saying: 'You shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people.' — Commentary on Matthew
Mateus 1:21
[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] Jesus is a Hebrew word, meaning Saviour. He points to the etymology of the name, saying, For He shall save His people from their sins. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas
Mateus 1:22-23
(Verse 22 onwards) Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph, being raised from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him. And all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: Behold, a virgin shall conceive in her womb. But the prophet, because he predicts the future, signifies what is going to happen, and he writes, he will receive: but the evangelist, because he narrates a story not about the future but about the past, changed he will receive to he has received. For he who has, will by no means receive. We read something similar in the Psalms: You have ascended on high, you have led captivity captive: you have received gifts among men (Ps. 67:19). The apostle, in citing this testimony, did not say he received, but he gave: because there it signified about the future that he would receive; here it narrates about the one who had already given what he had received. — Commentary on Matthew
Mateus 1:22-23
[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] (In Is. 7:14.) Since it is introduced in the Prophet by the words, The Lord Himself shall give you a sign, it ought to be something new and wonderful. But if it be, as the Jews will have it, a young woman, or a girl shall bring forth, and not a virgin, what wonder is this, since these are words signifying age and not purity? Indeed the Hebrew word signifying Virgin (Bethula) is not used in this place, but instead the word 'Halmaa,' which except the LXX all render 'girl.' But the word 'Halma' has a twofold meaning; it signifies both 'girl,' and 'hidden;' therefore 'Halma' denotes not only 'maiden' or 'virgin,' but 'hidden,' 'secret;' that is, one never exposed to the gaze of men, but kept under close custody by her parents. In the Punic tongue also, which is said to be derived from Hebrew sources, a virgin is properly called 'Halma.' In our tongue also 'Halma' means holy; and the Hebrews use words of nearly all languages; and as far as my memory will serve me, I do not think I ever met with Halma used of a married woman, but of her that is a virgin, and such that she be not merely a virgin, but in the age of youth; for it is possible for an old woman to be a maid. But this was a virgin in years of youth, or at least a virgin, and not a child too young for marriage. (In loc.) For that which Matthew the Evangelist says, Shall have in her womb, the Prophet who is foretelling something future, writes, shall receive. The Evangelist, not foretelling the future but describing the past, changes shall receive, into shall have; but he who has, cannot after receive that he has. He says, Lo, a Virgin shall hare in her womb, and shall bear a Son. (in Is. 7:14.) The LXX and three others translate, 'Thou shalt call,' instead of which we have here, They shall call, which is not so in the Hebrew; for the word 'Charathib,' which all render Thou shalt call, may mean, 'And she shall call,' that is, The Virgin that shall conceive and shall bear Christ, shall call His name Emmanuel, which is interpreted, 'God with us.' (ubi sup.) It should be known, that the Hebrews believe this prophecy to refer to Ezekias the son of Ahaz, because in his reign Samaria was taken; but this cannot be established. Ahaz son of Jotham reigned over Judæa and Jerusalem sixteen years, and was succeeded by his son Ezekias, who was twenty-three years old, and reigned over Judæa and Jerusalem twenty-nine years; how then can a prophecy prophesied in the first year of Ahaz refer to the conception and birth of Ezekias, when he was already nine years of age? Unless perhaps the sixth year of the reign of Ezekias, in which Samaria was taken, they think is here called his infancy, that is, the infancy of his reign, not of his age; which even a fool must see to be hard and forced. A certain one of our interpreters contends, that the Prophet Isaiah had two sons, Jashub and Emmanuel; and that Emmanuel was born of his wife the Prophetess as a type of the Lord and Saviour. But this is a fabulous tale. (ubi sup.) What is spoken to Ahaz then is to be thus understood. This Child, that shall be born of a Virgin of the house of David, shall now be called Emmanuel, that is, God with us, because the events (perhaps delivery from the two hostile kings) will make it appear that you have God present with you. But after He shall be called Jesus, that is, Saviour, because He shall save the whole human race. Wonder not, therefore, O house of David, at the newness of this thing, that a Virgin should bring forth a God, seeing He has so great might that though yet to be born after a long while, He delivers you now when you call upon Him. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas
Mateus 1:24-25
The passage for discussion now is, "And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto him his wife and knew her not till she had brought forth a son, and he called his name Jesus." Here, first of all, it is quite needless for our opponent to show so elaborately that the word know has reference to coition, rather than to intellectual apprehension: as though anyone denied it, or any person in his senses could ever imagine the folly which Helvidius takes pains to refute. Then he would teach us that the adverb till implies a fixed and definite time, and when that is fulfilled, he says the event takes place which previously did not take place, as in the case before us, "and knew her not till she had brought forth a son." It is clear, says he, that she was known after she brought forth, and that that knowledge was only delayed by her engendering a son. To defend his position he piles up text upon text, waves his sword like a blind-folded gladiator, rattles his noisy tongue, and ends with wounding no one but himself. Our reply is briefly this — the words knew and till in the language of Holy Scripture are capable of a double meaning. As to the former, he himself gave us a dissertation to show that it must be referred to sexual intercourse, and no one doubts that it is often used of the knowledge of the understanding, as, for instance, "the boy Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem, and his parents knew it not." Now we have to prove that just as in the one case he has followed the usage of Scripture, so with regard to the word till he is utterly refuted by the authority of the same Scripture, which often denotes by its use a fixed time (he himself told us so), frequently time without limitation, as when God by the mouth of the prophet says to certain persons, [Isaiah 46:4] "Even to old age I am he." Will He cease to be God when they have grown old? And the Saviour in the Gospel tells the Apostles, [Matthew 28:20] "Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." Will the Lord then after the end of the world has come forsake His disciples, and at the very time when seated on twelve thrones they are to judge the twelve tribes of Israel will they be bereft of the company of their Lord? Again Paul the Apostle writing to the Corinthians says, "Christ the first-fruits, afterward they that are Christ's, at his coming. Then comes the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father, when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he has put all enemies under his feet." Granted that the passage relates to our Lord's human nature, we do not deny that the words are spoken of Him who endured the cross and is commanded to sit afterwards on the right hand. What does he mean then by saying, "for he must reign, till he has put all enemies under his feet"? Is the Lord to reign only until His enemies begin to be under His feet, and once they are under His feet will He cease to reign? Of course His reign will then commence in its fullness when His enemies begin to be under His feet. David also in the fourth Song of Ascents speaks thus, "Behold, as the eyes of servants look unto the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maiden unto the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look unto the Lord our God, until he have mercy upon us." Will the prophet, then, look unto the Lord until he obtain mercy, and when mercy is obtained will he turn his eyes down to the ground? Although elsewhere he says, "My eyes fail for your salvation, and for the word of your righteousness." I could accumulate countless instances of this usage, and cover the verbosity of our assailant with a cloud of proofs; I shall, however, add only a few, and leave the reader to discover like ones for himself. The word of God says in Genesis, "And they gave unto Jacob all the strange gods which were in their hand, and the rings which were in their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak which was by Shechem, and lost them until this day." Likewise at the end of Deuteronomy, [Deuteronomy 34:5-6] "So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the Lord. And he buried him in the valley, in the land of Moab over against Beth-peor: but no man knows of his sepulchre unto this day." We must certainly understand by this day the time of the composition of the history, whether you prefer the view that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch or that Ezra re-edited it. In either case I make no objection. The question now is whether the words unto this day are to be referred to the time of publishing or writing the books, and if so it is for him to show, now that so many years have rolled away since that day, that either the idols hidden beneath the oak have been found, or the grave of Moses discovered; for he obstinately maintains that what does not happen so long as the point of time indicated by until and unto has not been attained, begins to be when that point has been reached. He would do well to pay heed to the idiom of Holy Scripture, and understand with us, (it was here he stuck in the mud) that some things which might seem ambiguous if not expressed are plainly intimated, while others are left to the exercise of our intellect. For if, while the event was still fresh in memory and men were living who had seen Moses, it was possible for his grave to be unknown, much more may this be the case after the lapse of so many ages. And in the same way must we interpret what we are told concerning Joseph. The Evangelist pointed out a circumstance which might have given rise to some scandal, namely, that Mary was not known by her husband until she was delivered, and he did so that we might be the more certain that she from whom Joseph refrained while there was room to doubt the import of the vision was not known after her delivery. In short, what I want to know is why Joseph refrained until the day of her delivery? Helvidius will of course reply, because he heard the angel say, [Matthew 1:20] "that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." And in turn we rejoin that he had certainly heard him say, [Matthew 1:20] "Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto you Mary your wife." The reason why he was forbidden to forsake his wife was that he might not think her an adulteress. Is it true then, that he was ordered not to have intercourse with his wife? Is it not plain that the warning was given him that he might not be separated from her? And could the just man dare, he says, to think of approaching her, when he heard that the Son of God was in her womb? Excellent! We are to believe then that the same man who gave so much credit to a dream that he did not dare to touch his wife, yet afterwards, when he had learned from the shepherds that the angel of the Lord had come from heaven and said to them, "Be not afraid: for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all people, for there is born to you this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord;" and when the heavenly host had joined with him in the chorus [Luke 2:14] "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of good will;" and when he had seen just Simeon embrace the infant and exclaim, "Now let your servant depart, O Lord, according to your word in peace: for my eyes have seen your salvation;" and when he had seen Anna the prophetess, the Magi, the Star, Herod, the angels; Helvidius, I say, would have us believe that Joseph, though well acquainted with such surprising wonders, dared to touch the temple of God, the abode of the Holy Ghost, the mother of his Lord? Mary at all events "kept all these sayings in her heart." You cannot for shame say Joseph did not know of them, for Luke tells us, [Luke 2:33] "His father and mother were marvelling at the things which were spoken concerning Him." And yet you with marvellous effrontery contend that the reading of the Greek manuscripts is corrupt, although it is that which nearly all the Greek writers have left us in their books, and not only so, but several of the Latin writers have taken the words the same way. Nor need we now consider the variations in the copies, since the whole record both of the Old and New Testament has since that time been translated into Latin, and we must believe that the water of the fountain flows purer than that of the stream. Helvidius will answer, "What you say, is in my opinion mere trifling. Your arguments are so much waste of time, and the discussion shows more subtlety than truth. Why could not Scripture say, as it said of Thamar and Judah, [Genesis 38:26] 'And he took his wife, and knew her again no more'? Could not Matthew find words to express his meaning? 'He knew her not,' he says, 'until she brought forth a son.' He did then, after her delivery, know her, whom he had refrained from knowing until she was delivered." If you are so contentious, your own thoughts shall now prove your master. You must not allow any time to intervene between delivery and intercourse. You must not say, "If a woman conceive seed and bear a man child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of the separation of her sickness shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days. She shall touch no hallowed thing," and so forth. On your showing, Joseph must at once approach, her, and be subject to Jeremiah's [Jeremiah 5:8] reproof, "They were as mad horses in respect of women: every one neighed after his neighbour's wife." Otherwise, how can the words stand good, "he knew her not, till she had brought forth a son," if he waits after the time of another purifying has expired, if his lust must brook another long delay of forty days? The mother must go unpurged from her child-bed taint, and the wailing infant be attended to by the midwives, while the husband clasps his exhausted wife. Thus forsooth must their married life begin so that the Evangelist may not be convicted of falsehood. But God forbid that we should think thus of the Saviour's mother and of a just man. No midwife assisted at His birth; no women's officiousness intervened. With her own hands she wrapped Him in the swaddling clothes, herself both mother and midwife, [Luke 2:7] "and laid Him," we are told, "in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn"; a statement which, on the one hand, refutes the ravings of the apocryphal accounts, for Mary herself wrapped Him in the swaddling clothes, and on the other makes the voluptuous notion of Helvidius impossible, since there was no place suitable for married intercourse in the inn. — Against Helvidius
Mateus 1:24-25
[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] (Cont. Helvid. c. 5.) Helvidius is at much superfluous trouble to make this word know refer to carnal knowledge rather than to acquaintance, as though any had ever denied that; or as if the follies to which he replies had ever occurred to any person of common understanding. He then goes on to say, that the adverb 'until' denotes a fixed time when that should take place, which had not taken place before; so that here from the words, He knew her not until she had brought forth her first-born Son, it is clear, he says, that after that he did know her. And in proof of this he heaps together many instances from Scripture. To all this we answer, that the word 'until' is to be understood in two senses in Scripture. And concerning the expression, knew her not, he has himself shown, that it must be referred to carnal knowledge, none doubting that it is often used of acquaintance, as in that, The child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem, and His parents knew not of it. (Luke 2:43.) In like manner 'until' often denotes in Scripture, as he has shown, a fixed period, but often also an infinite time, as in that, Even to your old age I am He. (Isa. 46:4.) Will God then cease to be when they are grown old? Also the Saviour in the Gospel, Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of this world. (Mat. 28:20.) Will He then leave His disciples at the end of the world? Again, the Apostle says, He must reign till He has put His enemies under His feel. (1 Cor. 15:25.) Be it understood then, that that which if it had not been written might have been doubted of, is expressly declared to us; other things are left to our own understandingc. So here the Evangelist informs us, in that wherein there might have been room for error, that she was not known by her husband until the birth of her Son, that we might thence infer that much less was she known afterwards. (cont. Helvid. 8.) Lastly, I would ask, Why then did Joseph abstain at all up to the day of birth? He will surely answer, Because of the Angel's words, That which is born in her, &c. He then who gave so much heed to a vision as not to dare to touch his wife, would he, after he had heard the shepherds, seen the Magi, and known so many miracles, dare to approach the temple of God, the seat of the Holy Ghost, the Mother of his Lord? From the words, her firstborn Son, some most erroneously suspect that Mary had other sons, saying that first-born can only be said of one that has brethren. But this is the manner of Scripture, to call the first-born not only one who is followed by brethren, but the first-birth of the mother. (Cont. Helvid. 10.) For if he only was first-born who was followed by other brethren, then no first-birth could be due to the Priests, till such time as the second birth took place. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas
Mateus 1:25
(Verse 25.) And he took his wife, and did not know her until she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus. From this passage, some very perverse people suspect and say that Mary had other children, arguing that the term firstborn is only used when someone has siblings. However, this is contrary to the custom in the divine scriptures, where the term firstborn is not applied to someone who has siblings, but to the one who is born first. Read the aforementioned book against Helvidius. — Commentary on Matthew