Sermon 51
SERMO 51
On the Harmony of the Evangelists Matthew and Luke
In the Generations of the Lord
The proposed question is taken up for discussion on the birthday of Christ.
May He who stirred up your love fulfill its expectation. For even though what we are to say to you, we presume to be not ours, but God’s; still, we speak all the more because, as the Apostle humbly says: We have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellence of the power may be of God and not of us. Therefore, we do not doubt that you remember our promise. We made the promise in Him, through whom we now fulfill it. For even when we promised, we asked from Him, and when we render, we receive from Him. Your love recalls that we postponed the question that we proposed to be solved in the morning of the Lord's Nativity, because many who were with us, even those to whom the word of God is usually burdensome, were celebrating the solemnity due to that day. But now I believe no one is present except those who desire to listen. Therefore, we do not speak to deaf hearts, nor to disdainful minds. But your expectation is a prayer for me. Something else has been added, because even the days of gift-giving have passed many by, for whose salvation we strive as much as we urge you, brothers, to strive; and for those who are not yet attentive to the spectacles of the truth, but are given to the spectacles of the flesh, pray to God with an attentive mind. For I know, and certainly I know, that there are now among your number those who have today despised; but they break away from what they are accustomed to. For people are changed, both for the better and for the worse. Through daily experiences of this kind, we alternately rejoice and grieve; we rejoice with those corrected, we grieve for the depraved. And therefore the Lord did not say that he who has begun will be saved, but: He who endures to the end, He said, will be saved.
The spectacles of the pagans are frivolous and carnal; but those of the Christians are spiritual.
But what more admirable could the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who is also the son of man because he deigned to be that as well, grant to us; what more magnificent than not only to gather spectators of frivolous shows to His fold, but also some of those who are usually watched there? For He hunted not only lovers of hunters but also the hunters themselves for salvation: because He too was watched. Listen how. He said it, He foretold it before He was watched, and announced what would happen as if it had already been done with prophetic eloquence, saying in the Psalm: "They pierced my hands and my feet, they numbered all my bones." Behold how He was watched, so that His bones were numbered. And He speaks more openly about the spectacle itself: "They looked and stared at me." He was watched to be mocked, watched by those who would not even favor Him in that spectacle, but rage against Him: just as He let His martyrs be watched first, with the Apostle saying: "We have been made a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men." But two kinds of people watch such spectacles; one of the carnal, the other of the spiritual. Carnal people watch, thinking those martyrs who were subjected to beasts, who were beheaded, who were burned by fires, to be miserable, detesting and abhorring them. But others, like the holy angels, watch, not paying attention to the manglings of bodies, but marveling at the integrity of faith. A great spectacle is presented to the eyes of the heart by a whole mind, even with the body torn apart. You eagerly watch these things with the eyes of your heart when they are read in church. For if you were watching nothing, you would hear nothing. Therefore, you see that today you did not despise spectacles but chose them. So may God be present, granting that you sweetly recount your spectacles to your friends whom you lament today have run to the amphitheater and were unwilling to come to the church: so that those things which they have loved to their disgrace may begin to become worthless to them; and they may love God with you, of whom no lover can be ashamed, because they love Him who cannot be conquered. They may love Christ with you, who, even when He seemed to be defeated, conquered the world. For indeed, He conquered the world as we see, brothers: He subjected all powers, He subjugated kings, not with a proud army, but with a mocked cross; not by fierce iron, but by hanging on wood; by suffering physically, acting spiritually. His body was raised on the cross: He was subjecting minds to the cross. Finally, what gemstone is more precious in the diadem than the cross of Christ on the foreheads of rulers? Loving Him, you are never ashamed. For how many return conquered from the amphitheater, defeated for those whom they frenzy over? They would be more conquered if they conquered. For they would be subjected to vain joy, subjected to the exultation of perverse desire: for in this very thing by which they run there, they are conquered. For how many do you think, brothers, hesitated today whether to go here or there? And those who, in that hesitation, considering Christ, ran to the church, conquered not just any man, but the devil himself, the worst hunter of the whole world. But those who in that hesitation chose rather to run to the amphitheater were certainly conquered by him whom these conquered. But they conquered in Him who said: "Rejoice, because I have conquered the world." For the Emperor allowed Himself to be tempted, so that He might teach the soldier to fight.
Christ wished to be born of a virgin. Through a woman came the poison, through a woman came the salvation.
Therefore, in order for our Lord Jesus Christ to accomplish this, by being born of a woman, He indeed became the son of man. But if He had not been born of the Virgin Mary, what would have been lacking? Someone might say: He wanted to become a man: He would be a man, yet not born of a woman: for the first man whom He created was not made from a woman. To this, see what response is given. You say, why did He choose to be born from a woman. The answer to you is: Rather, why should He avoid being born from a woman? Suppose I cannot show why He chose to be born from a woman: you show why He ought to avoid being born from a woman. But it has already been said, because if He avoided a woman's womb, it would be as if He indicated that He could have been stained by it. However, the more immaculate He was by His own substance, the less He should fear the womb of the flesh, as if He could be stained by it: but being born of a woman, He ought to show us something of great sacrament. Indeed, brothers, we admit that if the Lord wanted to become a man in such a way that He was not born from a woman, it was certainly easy for His Majesty. For just as He could be born from a woman without a man, so could He be born without a woman. But He showed us this, so that in no sex of human creation should there be despair about Himself. For the human sex is male and female. If, therefore, being a man, which He indeed ought to have been, He was not born of a woman; women would despair about themselves, remembering their first sin, because the first man was deceived by a woman; and they would think they had no hope in Christ at all. Therefore He came to prefer the male sex by being born of a woman to console the female sex, as if to speak and say: "So that you may know that it is not the creature of God that is evil, but perverse pleasure that corrupts it, in the beginning when I made man, I made them male and female. I do not condemn the creature which I made. Behold, I was born a man, behold, I was born of a woman. Therefore I do not condemn the creature which I made; but the sins, which I did not make. Let each sex see its honor, and let each confess its iniquity, and let each hope for salvation. By deceiving, poison was offered to man through a woman: by repairing, salvation is offered to man through a woman. Let a woman compensate for the sin of the man deceived through her, by giving birth to Christ. Hence, also, women first announced the resurrection of God to the Apostles. A woman announced death to her husband in paradise: and women announced salvation to men in the Church. The Apostles were to announce the resurrection of Christ to the nations: women announced it to the Apostles. Therefore, let no one reproach Christ born of a woman, of whom the Savior could not be stained, and whom the Creator ought to commend."
The faith of the Gospel received throughout the whole world.
But, they say, how are we to believe that Christ was born of a woman? I answer: From the Gospel which has been preached and is being preached to the whole world. But the blind, attempting to blind others, try to introduce doubt into what has already been believed by all nations, and, not seeing what should be seen, they attempt to overturn what should be believed. They reply and say: Do not press us with the authority of the world; let us consider Scripture itself. Do not act in a popular way: the deceived multitude favors you. First, I reply here: Does the deceived multitude favor me? This multitude was once a small number. Where did this multitude come from, which in such growths was foretold long ago? It did not appear to grow, that which was not foreseen. I do not say, It was a few: there was one Abraham. Consider, brothers, there was one Abraham throughout the whole world at that time, throughout the whole world among all men, among all nations, to whom it was said: In your seed all nations will be blessed. What one believed in his singularity was manifested to many from the multitude of his seed. Then it was not seen, and it was believed; now it is seen, and it is opposed: and what was then said to one and believed by one; now it is opposed by a few, since it is shown among many. He who made his disciples fishers of men, included within his nets all kinds of authority. If belief is to be given to the multitude, what is more abundant than the Church spread throughout the whole world? If belief is to be given to the rich, let them see how many rich it has taken: if to the poor, let them see the thousands of poor: if to the noble, almost all nobility is now within: if to kings, let them see all subjects of Christ: if to the more eloquent, learned, or prudent, let them see how many orators, how many skilled, how many philosophers of this world have been ensnared by those fishermen, so that they might be drawn to salvation from the depths; considering him who, descending to heal the great evil of the human soul, that is, pride, by the example of his humility, chose the weak things of the world to confound the strong; and chose the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; not those who truly are, but those who seem to be: and chose the ignoble things of this world and the things that are not, to bring to nothing the things that are.
It is believed that there is no disagreement in the Gospels, as long as they are understood properly.
Say whatever you wish, they say, we have found that where you read that Christ was born, the Gospels contradict each other, and that it is impossible for both to be true, which are in discord. For when I show, he says, the discord, I rightly disprove the faith; but you who accept the faith, show the agreement. What discord, I pray, will you demonstrate? An evident one, he says, which no one can contradict. How securely you listen, because you are faithful. Attend, dearest ones, and see how beneficially the Apostle advises, saying: As therefore you have received Christ Jesus our Lord, walk in him, rooted and built up in him, and confirmed in the faith. For with the same simple and certain faith, we must firmly remain in him, so that he may reveal to the faithful what is hidden in him: because as the same apostle says: In him are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. These are not hidden to deny, but to excite the desire for the hidden things. This is the utility of the secret. Honor in what you do not yet understand; and honor all the more, the more veils you see. For the more honorable a person is, the more veils hang in his house. The veils create the honor of the secret: but to those who honor, the veils are lifted. To those mocking the veils, they are driven away from the vicinity of the veils. Therefore, because we have passed on to Christ, the veil is removed.
Pious faith in the Scriptures. Augustine, not bringing a pious mind to the divine Scriptures sometimes, is deceived.
Some bring forth their slanders and say: Is Matthew certainly an evangelist? We answer, yes, with a pious mouth, a devoted heart, doubting in no way at all: we clearly answer, Matthew is indeed an Evangelist. Do you believe him, they ask? Who would not respond, I believe? How has it resounded so piously from your murmur? Yes, brothers, if you believe securely, there is no reason for you to be ashamed. I speak to you, sometimes deceived, when as a boy, I first approached the divine Scriptures with more sharpness for disputing than with piety for seeking: I myself was closing the door of my Lord against me with perverse behavior: when I ought to be knocking so it would be opened; I was adding to close it. For in my pride, I dared to seek what cannot be found unless one is humble. How much more blessed are you now! How securely you learn, how safe you are, whoever you are, still little ones in the nest of faith, and you receive spiritual food! But I, wretched as I am, when I thought myself fit to fly, left the nest; and I fell before I could fly. But the merciful Lord lifted me, so that I would not be trampled and die, and placed me back in the nest. For these things disturbed me, which now securely in the name of the Lord I both propose and explain to you.
How Christ is Abraham and David.
As I was saying, this is how they malign: "Matthew," they say, "is an evangelist, and you believe him?" Clearly, we necessarily believe the one whom we acknowledge as an evangelist. Look at the genealogies of Christ that Matthew has set forth: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." How is he the son of David? How is he the son of Abraham? For unless through the succession of lineage, it cannot be shown. Indeed, it is known that when the Lord was born of the Virgin Mary, neither Abraham nor David was alive among men. And you say he is the son of David, and the same you say is the son of Abraham? It is as if we say to Matthew, "Then prove what you say. For I expect the succession of the lineage of Christ." "Abraham begat Isaac, Isaac begat Jacob, Jacob begat Judah and his brothers, Judah begat Phares and Zarah of Thamar, Phares begat Esrom, Esrom begat Aram, Aram begat Aminadab, Aminadab begat Naasson, Naasson begat Salmon, Salmon begat Booz of Rahab, Booz begat Obed of Ruth, Obed begat Jesse, Jesse begat David the king." Now observe how from David it comes to Christ, who is said to be the son of Abraham and the son of David. "David begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias, Solomon begat Roboam, Roboam begat Abia, Abia begat Asa, Asa begat Josaphat, Josaphat begat Joram, Joram begat Ozias, Ozias begat Joatham, Joatham begat Achaz, Achaz begat Ezekias, Ezekias begat Manasses, Manasses begat Amon, Amon begat Josias, Josias begat Jechonias and his brothers, in the exile to Babylon. And after the exile to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel, Salathiel begat Zorobabel, Zorobabel begat Abiud, Abiud begat Eliakim, Eliakim begat Azor, Azor begat Sadoc, Sadoc begat Achim, Achim begat Eliud, Eliud begat Eleazar, Eleazar begat Matthan, Matthan begat Jacob, Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ." Thus, through the order and succession of their parents and ancestors, Christ is found to be the son of David, the son of Abraham.
Generations from Abraham to Christ.
To this matter faithfully recounted, they bring forth this first calumny, because the same Matthew follows and says: "All the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to Christ, fourteen generations." Then he added to narrate how Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, appending and saying: "Now the birth of Christ was thus." For indeed he enumerated the order of the parents to explain why Christ is called the son of David, the son of Abraham.
The conception of Christ by the Holy Spirit.
But how he was born and appeared among men must now be told; and the narration itself is in order, by which we believe that our Lord Jesus Christ was not only born of the eternal God, co-eternal with him who begot before all times, before all creation, by whom all things were made; but also now born of the Holy Spirit from the virgin Mary, which we equally confess. For you remember and know (I speak to my Catholic brothers) that this is our faith, that we profess and confess this. For this faith, thousands of martyrs have been killed throughout the entire world.
"Justice" Joseph sincere, not feigned.
For those who wish to ridicule this matter that follows, seeking to undermine faith in the evangelical books, they might show us as those who believed rashly in what is said: "When his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and unwilling to disgrace her, decided to divorce her quietly. Because he knew that the child was not his own, he consequently thought her to be an adulteress. As the Scripture says, since he was righteous and did not want to expose her, that is, to make it public, for many manuscripts have this; he decided to divorce her quietly. The husband is indeed troubled, but the righteous man does not act harshly. Such great justice is attributed to this man that he neither wanted to keep an adulteress nor dared to punish her publicly. He decided, it says, to divorce her quietly: because not only did he not want to punish her, but neither did he want to expose her. Observe the pure justice. He did not wish to spare her because he desired to keep her. Many, out of carnal love, spare adulterous wives, wishing to keep them as adulteresses to enjoy them through carnal desire. But this righteous man does not want to keep her: therefore he does not love her carnally. Yet he does not want to punish her: therefore he spares her mercifully. What kind of righteous man is this? He neither keeps an adulteress nor seems to spare her out of lustful love: and yet he neither punishes nor exposes her. Deservedly, he was clearly chosen as a witness to the virginity of his wife. Thus, he who was disturbed by human weakness was made firm by divine authority.
What does the name Jesus mean.
For the Evangelist follows and says: While he thought on these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying: Joseph, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife. For that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she shall bring forth a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. Why Jesus? For, he says, he shall save his people from their sins. Therefore it is understood that Jesus in the Hebrew language is interpreted in Latin as Savior, which we notice from the very explanation of the name. For as if it were asked, why Jesus? He immediately added, explaining the reason for the name: For he shall save his people from their sins. This we devoutly believe, this we most firmly hold, that Christ was born of the Holy Spirit from the Virgin Mary.
The usefulness of heretics and of Judas the betrayer.
So what do they say? If I find, he says, falsehood, surely you do not believe everything. I have found it, let us see. I count the generations. For by their slanders they invite us to this point, and they bring us. If we live piously, if we believe in Christ, if we do not desire to fly from the nest before the time, they bring us to this point, that we may know the mysteries. Therefore let Your Holiness attend to the usefulness of heretics; and indeed the usefulness according to God, who uses even evil well. According to them, however, this is rendered, which they wanted; not what God does well through them. How much good did God make out of Judas? By the passion of the Lord the nations were saved. But in order that the Lord might suffer, Judas betrayed him. Therefore God both frees the nations by the suffering of the Son, and punishes Judas for his crime. For the sacraments which lie hidden there, no one would discuss, content with a simpler faith; and therefore no one would find out, because no one would discuss, unless the slanderers knock. For when heretics slander, the little ones are disturbed: when they are disturbed, they inquire: their inquiry is like a striking from the head on the mother's breast, so that they may suck as much as is enough for the little ones. They, disturbed, seek; but those who know and have learned, because they have searched, and God opened to them knocking, they open also to the disturbed ones. And thus it happens that they are useful for finding the truth, while slandering to lead into error. The truth would indeed be sought more negligently, if it did not have deceitful adversaries. For, it is necessary, he says, that there be heresies. And as if we sought the cause, he immediately added: That those who are approved may be made manifest among you.
The generations of fourteen three times, with Jeconiah counted twice, are found in Matthew.
What then do they say? Behold, Matthew counts the generations and says that from Abraham to David there are fourteen, and from David to the Babylonian captivity fourteen, and from the deportation to Babylon to Christ fourteen. When you add up three times fourteen, you get forty-two. However, they count and find forty-one generations and raise an objection, and mockingly insult. What then does it mean when it is said in the Gospel that there are three sets of fourteen, yet all counted are found to be not forty-two, but forty-one? Without a doubt, it is a great mystery. And we rejoice, giving thanks to the Lord, because even through the occasion of the detractors, we discover something that delights us the more the more it was concealed. As we have previously stated, we present a spectacle of the mind. Therefore, from Abraham to David, there are fourteen. Then the count starts from Solomon: for David begot Solomon. The count starts from Solomon and reaches Jeconiah, during whose life the deportation to Babylon took place; and these are another fourteen generations, with Solomon counted at the beginning of the second interval, and also Jeconiah, to whom the number closes, fulfilling the fourteen. The third interval begins from Jeconiah himself.
Why Jechoniah is counted twice.
May Your Holiness attend to a mystical and sweet matter: I confess to you the taste of my heart; from this, I believe that when I express it and you taste it, you will proclaim the same thing. Therefore, pay attention. From Jeconiah, beginning the number of the third interval, up to the Lord Jesus Christ, there are fourteen: because Jeconiah is counted both as the final of the previous interval and as the initial of the subsequent interval. But someone might say: Why is Jeconiah counted twice? Nothing happened previously in the people of Israel that was not a mystery of future things. Jeconiah is indeed not unreasonably counted twice: for if there is an end between two fields, or a stone, or some wall of separation, and he who is on this side measures up to that wall, and he who is on the other side begins measuring again from the same place. But why was this not done in the first connection of the interval, where we count fourteen generations from Abraham to David, and another fourteen without repeating David, but we begin counting from Solomon? The reason must be given, which contains a great sacrament. May Your Holiness attend. Then the migration into Babylon happened, when Jeconiah the king was established in place of his deceased father. The kingdom was taken from him, and another was established in his place. But yet, migration to the Gentiles happened while Jeconiah was still alive. For no fault is attributed to Jeconiah for which he was deprived of the kingdom: but rather the sins of those who succeeded him are brought forward. Therefore, captivity follows, they go to Babylon. Not only the wicked go; but also the saints go along with them. In that captivity was the prophet Ezekiel, in that was Daniel; there, three boys were ennobled among the flames. They went according to the prophecy of the prophet Jeremiah.
The transition of the Gospel to the nations is figured in the migration to Babylon.
Remember Jecoiachin, reproached without any fault, then ceased to reign, and made the transition to the Gentiles, when he was taken to Babylon: and consider the prefigured image of future things in the Lord Jesus Christ. For the Jews did not want our Lord Jesus Christ to reign over them, whom they found no fault in. He was rejected in Himself, and also rejected in His servants; and the transition was made to the Gentiles, as if into Babylon. For this is what Jeremiah also prophesied, commanding the Lord to go into Babylon. And whoever other prophets told the people not to go into Babylon, Jeremiah accused them as false prophets. Let those who read the Scriptures remember with us: those who do not read, believe us. Therefore Jeremiah, from the Lord's perspective, threatened those who did not want to go to Babylon: but to those who went, he promised peace there, and a certain happiness in renewing vineyards and planting gardens and the abundance of fruits. How therefore does the people of Israel now not go to Babylon in a figure, but in truth? From where were the Apostles? Were they not from the Jewish people? From where was Paul himself? For he also says, "I am an Israelite, from the seed of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin." Therefore many Jews believed in the Lord. From there the Apostles were chosen: from there were the more than five hundred brothers who were worthy to see the Lord after His resurrection: from there were the one hundred and twenty in the house, when the Holy Spirit came. But what does the Apostle say in the Acts of the Apostles when the Jews rejected the word of truth? "It was necessary that we should first speak the word of God to you; but since you reject it, behold, we turn to the Gentiles." Therefore the transition to Babylon was made according to the spiritual dispensation of the time of the Lord's Incarnation, which was prefigured at the time of Jeremiah. But what does Jeremiah say to those who migrate to Babylon about these Babylonians? "For in their peace," he says, "shall your peace be." Therefore, when Israel was migrating even through Christ and the Apostles to Babylon— that is, the Gospel came to the Gentiles—what does the Apostle say as if from the voice of Jeremiah at that time? "I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty." There were not yet Christian kings, and he prayed for them. Therefore, Israel praying in Babylon was heard. The voices of the Church were heard, Christians were made: and you see fulfilled what was said figuratively: "In their peace shall be your peace." For they received the peace of Christ, and ceased to persecute Christians; so that now the churches might be built in the security of peace, and the people planted in the agriculture of God, and all nations might bear fruit in faith, hope, and charity that is in Christ.
Christ is portrayed as a cornerstone between Jews and Gentiles in Jeconiah.
There was a migration to Babylon then under Jehoiachin, who was not allowed to reign over the people of the Jews, as a type of Christ, whom the Jews did not want to reign over themselves. Israel transitioned to the Gentiles, that is, the preachers of the Gospel passed to the peoples of the Gentiles. Why, then, do you marvel that Jehoiachin is counted twice? Indeed, if he bore the figure of Christ transitioning from the Jews to the Gentiles, consider what Christ is among the Jews and Gentiles. Is he not that cornerstone? Consider at the corner the end of one wall and the beginning of the other wall. Up to that stone you measure one wall, and from it the other. Therefore, the cornerstone is counted twice, which connects both walls. Therefore, Jehoiachin, bearing the figure of the Lord, as a type of the cornerstone, foreshadowed. And just as Jehoiachin was not permitted to reign over the Jews, but was exiled to Babylon, so Christ, the stone which the builders rejected, became the head of the corner, so that the Gospel might reach the Gentiles. Therefore, do not hesitate to count the head of the corner twice, and the written number comes to you; and so there are fourteen, and fourteen, and fourteen: and yet they are not forty-two generations, but forty-one. Because just as the order of stones, when it is directed in a straight line, all are counted individually; but when the order is twisted to form an angle, that stone where it twists must be counted twice; because it belongs to both the order that ends at it and the order that begins from it: thus the order of generations, as long as it remained in that people, did not form an angle at the interval of twice seven, that is, fourteen; but when the order was twisted, so as to be exiled to Babylon, it was as if an angle was made by Jehoiachin; so that it was necessary to count him twice as a type of that venerable cornerstone.
Why the genealogy of Christ is traced through Joseph.
Another one of their accusations is this: they say that the generations of Christ are counted through Joseph and not through Mary. Let Your Holiness observe this briefly. They say it ought not to be through Joseph. Why ought it not to be through Joseph? Wasn't Joseph the husband of Mary? They say, "No." Who says this? For the Scripture says by angelic authority that he was. "Do not be afraid," it says, "to take Mary as your wife. For what has been conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit." He is also commanded to give the child a name, although he was not born from his own seed. "She will bear a son," it says, "and you shall name him Jesus." But the Scripture intends to show that he was not born from Joseph's seed, when it says, with concern regarding her pregnancy: "It is from the Holy Spirit." And yet the paternal authority is not taken away from him; he is commanded to give the child a name. Moreover, the virgin Mary herself, well aware that she conceived Christ not from his embrace and intercourse, still calls him the father of Christ.
Joseph called the father of Christ by Mary. Christ does not deny being the son of Joseph.
Pay attention in what manner. When the Lord Jesus Christ was twelve years old according to his humanity, who according to God is before time and without time, he remained with them in the temple, and was disputing with the elders, and they marveled at his teaching. But they, returning from Jerusalem, sought him among their companions, namely among those who were traveling with them; and not finding him, they returned to Jerusalem troubled, and found him disputing in the temple with the elders, when he was, as I have said, twelve years old. But why marvel? The Word of God never remains silent, but is not always heard. Therefore he is found in the temple, and his mother said to him: Why have you done this to us? Your father and I have been seeking you sorrowing. And he replied: Did you not know that I must be in what is my Father's? He said this because he was the Son of God in the temple of God. For that temple was not of Joseph but of God. Behold, someone says, he did not allow himself to be called the son of Joseph. Be more patient, brothers, because of the shortness of time, so that the sermon may suffice. When Mary said: Your father and I have been seeking you sorrowing; he answered: Did you not know that I must be in what is my Father’s? For he did not wish to be their son in such a way as not to be understood as the Son of God. For the Son of God, always the Son of God, creating even them themselves. But the Son of Man from time, born of a virgin without marital seed, yet he had both parents. How do we prove this? Mary already said: Your father and I have been seeking you sorrowing.
The modesty and humility of Mary should be imitated by women.
First, brothers, above all for the discipline of women, our sisters, the holy modesty of the Virgin Mary should not be overlooked. She had borne Christ, an angel had come to her and said to her: "Behold, you will conceive in your womb, and you will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High." She had merited to bear the Son of the Most High and was most humble: she did not put herself before her husband, nor did she take precedence in order or name, to say, "I and your father"; but she said, "Your father and I." She did not pay attention to the dignity of her womb, but regarded the marital order. For a humble Christ would not have taught his mother to be proud. "Your father and I were sorrowing seeking you," she said. "Your father and I," she said, because the man is the head of the woman. How much less ought other women to be proud? For even Mary herself was called a woman, not having lost her virginity, but by the proper designation of her people. For the Apostle also said of the Lord Jesus Christ: "Born of a woman"; yet he did not disrupt the order and context of our faith, in which we confess that he was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. For she conceived as a virgin, gave birth as a virgin, and remained a virgin. But all the Hebrews called women "feminas." Hear the most evident example. The first woman, whom God made from the side of the man before they had intercourse, which is written to have happened after they left paradise, was already called a woman, with Scripture saying: "He made her into a woman."
Christ does not deny Joseph as a father.
Therefore, the Lord Jesus Christ replies: "It was necessary for me to be in the things of my Father"; He does not indicate the Father as God in such a way as to deny Joseph as father. How do we prove this? According to the Scripture, which says thus: "And he said to them: Did you not know that I must be in the things of my Father?" But they did not understand what he said to them. And when he came down with them, he went to Nazareth, and was subject to them. He did not say: "He was subject to his mother"; or, "He was subject to him"; but, "he was subject to them," he says. To whom was he subject? Were they not parents? Both were parents to whom he was subject, in the dignity by which he was the son of man.
The obedience of the child Jesus is to be imitated by children.
For a long time women were receiving the commandments: now let children receive them, so that they may obey their parents and be subject to them. The world is subject to Christ, Christ is subject to parents.
Christ is both the son and Lord of David.
You see, therefore, brethren, that he did not say: "I must be about my Father's business," so that we would understand it as if he had said, "You are not my parents." But those parents are temporal, that Father is eternal. Those parents are of the Son of Man, that Father is of the Word and His Wisdom, Father of His Power, through whom all things were formed. If all things are formed through Him, who reaches from one end to the other mightily and arranges all things gently, then through the Son of God even those were formed to whom later that same Son of Man would be subject. And the Apostle says that he is the son of David: Who was made to him, it says, of the seed of David according to the flesh. But the Lord Himself proposes a question to the Jews, which in these very words the Apostle solves. For when he said: Who was made to him of the seed of David; he added to this, according to the flesh, so that it might be understood that according to divinity, He is not the son of David, but the Son of God, the Lord of David. For in another place, the Apostle says so, when he commended the lineage of the Jews: Whose are the fathers, he says, of whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. What is according to the flesh is from there the son of David: but what is over all, God blessed forever, is from there the Lord of David. Therefore, the Lord says to the Jews: Whose son do you say the Christ is? They responded: David. For they knew this, as it was easily understood from the preaching of the Prophets. And indeed he was of the seed of David, but according to the flesh through the virgin Mary betrothed to Joseph. So when they responded that Christ is the son of David, Jesus said to them: How then does David in spirit call him Lord, saying, "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet"? If then David in spirit calls him Lord, how is he his son? And the Jews could not answer. Thus, we have it in the Gospel. He did not deny being the son of David; so that they would not be ignorant that he is the Lord of David. Indeed, they held in Christ what was made in time: they did not understand in Him what is in eternity. Therefore, wishing to teach them about his divinity, he posed a question about his humanity: as if he were saying, "You know that Christ is the son of David; answer me, how is he also the Lord of David." But lest they say, "He is not the Lord of David"; he interposed David himself as a witness. And what does he say? Surely he speaks the truth. For you also have it in the Psalms as speaking to David: From the fruit of your body I will set one upon your throne. Behold the son of David. How is he also the Lord of David, who is the son of David? He said, he says: The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand. Do you marvel that David has his son as Lord, when you see Mary has given birth to her own Lord? The Lord of David, because God; the Lord of David, because of all: but the son of David, because the son of man. The same is Lord, the same is son: the Lord of David, who being in the form of God did not consider it robbery to be equal to God: but the son of David, because he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant.
Marriage is made, not by carnal union, but by conjugal love.
Therefore, Joseph was not any less the father, even though he did not have relations with the mother of the Lord. It is not lust that defines a wife, but marital love. Let Your Holiness pay close attention. In a short while, the Apostle of Christ will say in the Church: “It remains that those who have wives be as though they had none.” And we know many of our brothers, fruitful in grace, who, in the name of Christ, abstain from carnal desire by mutual consent, but do not abstain from marital love. The more that desire is restrained, the more firmly this love is established. Are there not spouses who live in such a manner, not seeking the fruits of the flesh from each other, not demanding the debt of bodily desire from each other? Yet, she is still subject to her husband because it is fitting; and the more so, the more chaste she is. And he loves his wife truly, as it is written: “In honor and sanctification,” as a co-heir of grace, as Christ loved the Church. Therefore, if there is a union, it is a marriage. It is not any less a marriage because they do not engage in what can happen even outside of marriage, and illicitly so. If only everyone could live that way; but many cannot. Therefore, let us not separate those who can, nor deny the status of husband or wife to those who do not unite carnally, but are connected in heart.
The limit of carnal union "for the sake of begetting children" is established by matrimonial records; venial sin in its transgression.
From this, understand, my brothers, what Scripture felt about those of our parents who were married in such a way that they sought only offspring from their spouses. For they held themselves with such chastity, those who according to the custom and manner of their nation even had several [wives], that they approached carnal intercourse only for the purpose of procreation, truly holding them in honor. But whoever desires the flesh of a wife beyond that defined limit, for the purpose of begetting children, acts against the very contract by which he has taken her as a wife. The contract is read publicly in the sight of all the witnesses and it is read, "for the purpose of procreation of children"; and they are called marriage contracts. If wives are given and received for this purpose, who with a sound mind would give their daughter to another's lust? But so parents may not be embarrassed when giving, the contracts are read; so they are matchmakers, not pimps. What then is read from the contracts? "For the purpose of begetting children." The father's face is wiped and cleared, upon hearing the word of the contract. Let us observe the face of the husband receiving the wife. Let the husband be ashamed to take her otherwise, if the father is ashamed to give her otherwise. But if they cannot (as we have sometimes said before), let them demand the due; let them not go beyond what is due. Both the woman and the man must console themselves over their infirmity. Do not let him go to another, nor her to another: from which it is called adultery, as if with another. And if they go beyond the bounds of the marriage agreement, let them not go beyond the bounds of the matrimonial bed. Is it not a sin to demand from a spouse beyond the necessity for procreation of children? It is indeed a sin, but a venial one. The Apostle says: "But I say this by way of concession," when he said: "Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer; then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control." What is this? Do not impose on yourselves more than you can bear; do not abstain from each other so long that you fall into adultery. Let Satan not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. And lest it seem he was commanding what he permitted (for it is one thing to command virtue, another to permit infirmity), he immediately adds: "I say this as a concession, not as a command." For I wish that all men were as I am. As if he said: I do not command you to act this way; but I forgive you if you do.
The human race stands on two supports.
Therefore, my brothers, pay attention. Those great men who had wives for the sake of procreating children, as we read the Fathers to have been, and we find by many proofs, the pages of Holy Scripture altogether undoubtedly declaring: if then there are men who have wives solely for the purpose of having children, if it could be given to them to have children without intercourse, would they not embrace such a benefit with ineffable joy? Would they not receive it with great happiness? For there are two bodily deeds by which the human race subsists: in which two deeds the wise and holy descend out of duty; the imprudent, however, rush into them out of desire. For it is one thing to descend into something out of duty, another thing to fall into something out of desire. What are these by which the human race subsists? First, in ourselves, what pertains to taking sustenance (which indeed cannot be taken without some delight through the flesh), eating and drinking: if you do not do this, you will die. Therefore, the human race stands by this one support, according to the measure of its nature, by eating and drinking. But by this support humans are sustained as far as it pertains to themselves: they do not ensure succession by eating and drinking; but by taking wives. For thus the human race consists, first so that men live: but because no care, however great, applied to the body can make them always live; the consequent provision is that those being born should succeed the dying. For so it is with the human race, as it is written, just as the leaves on a tree: but on an olive tree, or laurel, or some such tree, which is never without foliage; but still it does not always have the same leaves. For, as it is written, it generates some, and sheds others: because those which are newly sprouting, succeed the falling others. For it always sheds leaves, it is always clothed with leaves. Thus the human race daily does not feel the loss of the dying, due to the supplements of the newborn: and thus, according to its measure, the entire species of the human race subsists; and just as the leaves on a tree always seem to appear, so the earth full of humans is beheld. But if they only died, and were not born; like some trees stripped of all their leaves, so the earth would be stripped of all humans.
To the necessities of life, some are led by desire, others by reason.
Therefore, since the human race subsists in such a way that two supports are necessary, about which enough has been said; the wise, prudent, and faithful one descends to each duty, not falls due to lust. How many rush voraciously to eating and drinking, placing their whole life there, as if it were the very cause of living? For while they eat to live, they think they live to eat. Every wise person rebukes such people, especially the divine Scripture, calling them gluttons, drunkards, revelers, whose god is their belly. They are led to the table not by a desire for nourishment but by the lust of the flesh. Thus, they fall into food and drink. But those who descend due to the duty of living do not live to eat; rather, they eat to live. Therefore, if it were offered to these prudent and temperate ones to live without food and drink, with what joy would they embrace this favor, so that they would not be forced to descend or fall, but always remain uplifted in the Lord? Would not the necessity of sustaining the body's ruins cease to burden their intentions? How do you think the holy Elijah felt when he received the cup of water and the cake of bread, which was enough for him for the nourishment of forty days? Certainly, with great joy, for he ate and drank for the duty of life, not for the servitude of lust. Try to afford this, if you can, to a man who places all his happiness and bliss in feasting, like cattle in a stable. He hates your favor, rejects it, considers it a punishment. Thus also in that marital duty, lustful men seek wives for no other reason: and therefore they are scarcely content with even their own wives. And if they cannot or will not remove lust, they should not let it exceed what is prescribed by marital duty, even that which is conceded to weakness. But clearly, if you said to such a man, "Why do you take a wife?" he perhaps would answer you bashfully, "For the sake of children." If someone said to him, whom he would believe without any doubt, "God is able to give you children and will certainly give you children, even without performing that act with your wife," he would certainly be concluded and admit that he did not seek a wife for the sake of children. Let him therefore confess his weakness: let him accept what he pretended to accept for duty.
It was permitted for the fathers to have many wives for this reason only, that they might beget children.
Thus those former saints, men of God, sought sons, and wished to receive sons. For this purpose alone they joined with women; for this purpose they mingled with women, so that they might beget children. For this reason, it was permitted for them to have many [wives]. For if immoderate desire pleased God, it would be permitted at that time, so that one woman might have many husbands, just as one man could have many wives. Why did all chaste women not have more than one husband, and a man many wives: if not because one man having many wives is pertinent to the number of offspring; but one woman, no matter how many husbands she had, could not bear more children? Therefore, brothers, if our Fathers were joined and mingled with women for no other reason than to beget children; it would be a great joy for them, if besides that carnal work they could have children, for whose sake they did not rush into it out of lust, but descended from duty. For this reason, Joseph was not a father, because he received a son without carnal desire? Let it not be that Christian chastity thinks this, which even Judaic chastity did not think. Love your wives, but love them chastely. Seek the carnal work only to the extent that you may beget children. And because you cannot have children otherwise, descend to it with pain. For it is the punishment of that Adam, from whom we have descended. Let us not be proud about our punishment. It is the punishment of him who deserved to beget mortally; because through sin he became mortal. God did not take away that punishment; so that man would remember from where he is recalled, and to where he is called; and would seek that embrace, where no corruption can exist.
In that people, therefore, because an abundant propagation had to occur up to Christ, through the multitude of the people in which all the teachings that were to prefigure the Church were prefigured, they had the duty of taking wives through whom the people would grow, in which people the Church would be foreordained.
The dignity of virginity began from the Mother of the Lord. Joseph, how truly the father of Christ.
But when the King of all nations himself was born, the dignity of the virgin began with the Mother of the Lord, who both deserved to have a son and did not deserve to be corrupted. Thus, therefore, was that marriage, both a marriage without any corruption: thus the chaste wife gave birth, why wouldn't the husband also receive chastely? For just as that wife was chaste, so was that husband chaste: and just as that mother was chaste, so was that father chaste. Therefore, he who says: he should not be called father because he did not beget the son in that way; seeks lust in the procreation of children, not the affection of love. He more nobly fulfilled in spirit what another might desire to fulfill in the flesh. For those who adopt children also more purely generate them in their heart, whom they cannot in the flesh. See, brothers, see the laws of adoption, how a man becomes a son whose seed he was not born from; so that the will of the adopting exceeds the nature of the begetting. Therefore, Joseph not only ought to have been a father, but most certainly ought to have been. For even of women who are not wives, men generate children, and they are called natural children; and conjugal offspring are preferred to them. As far as the work of the flesh is concerned, they are equally born: wherefore do these offspring surpass the others, if not because the love of a wife from whom children are procreated is purer? There, the mingling of flesh is not regarded, which is equal in both women. Where does a wife surpass, if not in the affection of faith, the affection of marriage, the affection of purer and more chaste love? Therefore, if one could receive children from a wife without intercourse, would he not be all the more joyous, as she is chaster, whom he loves more?
Two fathers of Joseph are rightly admitted to reconcile Matthew and Luke.
Hence, now also see that it is possible for one man not only to have two sons, but also two fathers. For, with the mention of adoption, it may occur in your thoughts that it can happen. For it is said, "A man can have two sons, but he cannot have two fathers." Rather, it is found that he can also have two fathers; if one generates by seed, the other by adoption through affection. If then, one man can have two fathers, Joseph could have had two fathers, generated by one, adopted by the other. If this is possible, why do they criticize those who say that Matthew follows one genealogy, and Luke another? And indeed, we find that one follows one genealogy, the other another. For Matthew named Jacob as the father of Joseph. But Luke named Heli. And it can seem indeed that one man, whose son was Joseph, had two names. But because they enumerate different ancestors and forefathers and other progenitors, and in the very number one enumerates more, the other fewer; it is clearly shown that Joseph had two fathers. Now, the slander of the question removed, because clear reason demonstrated that it is possible for one father to generate and another to adopt; with two fathers established, it is not surprising if forefathers and great-grandfathers and other parents upwards are counted differently by different fathers.
Adoption in the Holy Scriptures. How intercourse with maidservants among the ancients was without adultery.
Nor should the right of adoption seem foreign to our Scriptures to you, as if observed in the practice of human laws, it cannot be congruent to the authority of divine Books. For it is an ancient matter, and customary in ecclesiastical sayings themselves, that not only the origin of seed generates a son, but also the grace of will. For even women adopted as sons those born from the seed of their husbands by handmaids, if they themselves had not given birth; indeed, they even commanded their husbands to father children for them: as Sarah, as Rachel, as Leah. In which duty, husbands did not commit adultery: because they obeyed their wives in that matter which pertains to conjugal duty; according to what the Apostle says: "The woman does not have authority over her own body, but the husband: likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife." Moses also, born of a Hebrew mother and exposed, was adopted by Pharaoh's daughter. Indeed, those formulas of law which are now did not exist then: but the will's arbitration was held as the rule of law; as the Apostle also says elsewhere, because the Gentiles, not having the law, naturally do what is of the law. But if women were allowed to make sons of those whom they had not borne themselves; why not also men, of those whom they had not begotten themselves from carnal seed, but from the affection of adopting? For we read that Jacob the patriarch, the father of so many sons, nevertheless made his grandchildren, the sons of Joseph, his own sons, saying: "These two shall be mine, and they shall receive land with their brothers; those you shall have after them shall be yours." Unless perhaps someone should say that the very word 'adoption' is not found in the holy Scriptures. As if it matters by what term it is called, when it is the thing itself, that a woman should have a son whom she has not borne in the flesh; or a man someone whom he has not begotten in the flesh. And indeed, with me not opposing, let him not call Joseph adopted, provided he concedes that he could be indeed a son even of him from whose flesh he was not born. Although the Apostle Paul mentions even the name of adoption frequently, and in great sacrament. For when Scripture testifies that our Lord Jesus Christ is the only Son of God, it says that the brothers and co-heirs whom He deigned to have, are made by a certain adoption through divine grace. "But when the fullness of time had come," he says, "God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons." And elsewhere: "We ourselves groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies." Again, about the Jews he said: "I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever." Here he shows that the name or the thing itself of adoption was ancient among the Jews; like the testament and the giving of the law, which he mentions together.
The generations of the Lord are variously enumerated by the Evangelists without falsehood, considering the adoption or natural lineage.
To this it is added, because there was another method proper to the Jews by which someone would become the son of someone from whom he was not carnally born. For the relatives of their relatives who died without children used to take wives to raise up offspring for the deceased. Thus, he who was born was both the son of the one from whom he was born and the son of the one into whose succession he was born. These things are said so that no one might think it impossible, that the fathers of one man could be rightly mentioned by two people, and so accuse any one of the Evangelists who narrated the generations of the Lord with blasphemous slander as if accusing them of falsehood: especially as we see ourselves admonished by their very words. For Matthew, who is understood to mention him from whom Joseph was born, enumerates the generations in such a way, "He begat him," that he could arrive at what he says at the end: "Jacob begat Joseph." But Luke, because he is not properly called born who is made a son either by adoption or by birth in the succession of the deceased from her who was his wife, did not say, "Heli begat Joseph"; or, "Joseph whom Heli begat": but said, "Who was the son of Heli"; whether by adoption, or born from a relative in the succession of the deceased.
Why the generations are reckoned through Joseph and not through Mary.
But indeed, that question should not disturb us as to why the generations are counted through Joseph and not through Mary, has been sufficiently explained: because just as she was a mother without carnal desire, so he was a father without carnal union. Therefore, let the generations descend and ascend through him. Nor should we separate him for lack of carnal desire. The greater purity confirms his fatherhood: lest holy Mary herself reproach us. For she did not wish to place her name before her husband's, but said: “Your father and I have been looking for you sorrowing.” Therefore, let not the perverse murmurers do what the chaste spouse did not do. Let us count therefore through Joseph: because as he is a chaste husband, so is he a chaste father. But let us place the man before the woman by the order of nature and God's law. For if we set her in place, removing him, he would say, and rightly: “Why have you separated me? Why do not the generations ascend or descend through me? Will it be said to him, 'Because you did not beget by the work of your flesh?' But he will reply, 'Did she give birth by the work of her flesh?' What the Holy Spirit worked, He worked for both. 'Since he was a just man,' he says. A just man therefore, a just woman. The Holy Spirit resting in the justice of both, gave a son to both. But He worked in the sex that it was proper for giving birth, such that it would also be born to the husband. Thus, the angel says to both that they should name the child; where the authority of the parents is declared. For Zachariah, though still mute, the mother was naming the born son. And when those present signaled to the father what he wanted him to be called, having received writing tablets, he wrote what she had already said. It was said to Mary: “And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.” It was also said to Joseph: “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” It is also said: “And she bore a son to him,” where the father is firmly established not by the flesh, but by love. Thus he is a father. The Evangelists most cautiously and wisely count through him, whether Matthew, descending from Abraham to Christ, or Luke, ascending from Christ through Abraham to God. The one counts descending, the other ascending, both through Joseph. Why? Because father. Why father? Because the more firmly the father, the more chastely the father. Otherwise indeed, it was thought that he was the father of our Lord Jesus Christ, namely like other fathers begetting by flesh, not receiving children only by spiritual affection. For Luke also said: “He was supposed to be the father of Jesus.” Why was it supposed? Because human supposition and estimation led to what is usually done by humans. Therefore, the Lord is not from Joseph's seed, although this was supposed: and yet from the piety and love of Joseph, a son was born to Mary the virgin, who is also the Son of God.
Why does Matthew count descending, but Luke count ascending?
But why does he descending count, and why does the other ascending? Which, I ask, may you listen attentively, as much as the Lord has helped, now with a calm mind and free from all annoyance of knotty objections. Matthew descended through generations to signify our Lord Jesus Christ descending to bear our sins, so that in the seed of Abraham all nations might be blessed. Therefore, he does not begin from Adam: for all mankind is from him. Nor from Noah: because from his family, after the flood, all mankind sprang. Jesus Christ the man could not pertain to the fulfillment of prophecy from Adam, from whom all men are; nor from Noah, from whom all men again are; but from Abraham, who was then chosen in whose seed all nations would be blessed, when already the earth was full of nations. However, Luke ascends, not beginning to enumerate generations from the very origin of the birth of the Lord but from where he narrates him being baptized by John. Just as in the Lord's incarnation he takes on the sins of mankind to bear them, so in the consecration of Baptism for purification. Therefore, the one counting descending signifies descending to bear sins, enumerating generations downward: the other ascending, signifying the cleansing of sins, not his own certainly, but ours, enumerating generations upward. But the one descends through Solomon, in whose mother David sinned: the other ascends through Nathan, another son of the same David, by whom he was purified from sin. For we read that Nathan was sent to him, to rebuke him, and through repentance he was healed. Both met in David; he descending, the other ascending: and from there up to Abraham, or from Abraham up to David, in no generation are they different. Thus, Christ, both son of David and son of Abraham, goes to God. For to God indeed it is fitting that we, being renewed in Baptism from the abolition of sins, be brought back.
On the number forty in the generations of the Lord
Indeed, in the genealogies that Matthew enumerates, the number forty stands out. For divine Scriptures have this custom, that things which exceed certain numerical terms are sometimes not counted. Thus, also, it is said that four hundred years passed after which the people of Israel went out of Egypt, although it was four hundred and thirty. Similarly, one generation which exceeds the number forty does not take away the primacy of this number. This number, however, signifies the life in which labor is undergone on this earth, as long as we sojourn away from the Lord, in which the dispensation of proclaiming the truth temporally is necessary. For the number ten, which signifies the perfection of blessedness, multiplied four times for the reason of the fourfold time and the fourfold world, makes the number forty. Therefore, a fast of forty days was undertaken by Moses, by Elijah, and by our Mediator the Lord Jesus Christ himself, because in this time abstinence from bodily temptations is necessary. The people also sojourned in the desert for forty years; the flood occurred for forty days. For forty days after the resurrection, the Lord conversed with the disciples, persuading them of the truth of the risen body: where He signified in this life, in which we sojourn away from the Lord, what the number forty mystically suggests, as it has been said—namely, the necessary remembrance of the Lord’s Body, which we observe in the Church until He comes. Therefore, because our Lord descended into this life, and the Word was made flesh, to be delivered for our offenses and to rise again for our justification, Matthew followed the number forty: so that one generation which there exceeds the number forty, either does not impede, just as those thirty years do not impede the perfection of four hundred; or also signifies this, that the Lord himself, who when added makes forty-one, thus descended into this life to bear our sins, yet in this life, unique and singular in excellence, He is found to be set apart, as He is thus man while also being God. For it is said of this one alone, which could not or cannot be said of any other holy man, however perfect in wisdom and justice: the Word was made flesh.
Why does Luke count seventy-seven generations?
Luke, however, who ascends through generations from the baptism of the Lord, completes the number seventy-seven, beginning at our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, ascending through Joseph, and reaching God through Adam: that is, because in this number the abolition of all sins is signified, which is done in Baptism, not because it was something that needed to be forgiven in the Lord Himself, but because He, by His humility, commended what would be useful for us. And although it was the baptism of John, nevertheless, the Trinity of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit clearly appeared in it; through which the baptism of Christ Himself was consecrated, with which future Christians were to be baptized: the Father, in the voice that came from heaven; the Son, in the very man the Mediator; the Holy Spirit, in the dove.
The number seventy-seven is significant.
But why does the number seventy-seven encompass all sins which are forgiven in Baptism? This probable reason seems to come forth because the number ten holds the perfection of justice and happiness when the sevenfold creature adheres to the Trinity of the Creator; hence also the Decalogue of the Law is consecrated in ten commandments. However, the transgression of the ten is signified by the number eleven, and sin is understood to be a transgression when a man, desiring something more, exceeds the rule of justice. Therefore, the Apostle calls avarice the root of all evils. And to the soul fornicating from God, it is said in the person of the Lord: "You hoped that if you departed from me, you would have something more." Therefore, because the transgression, that is, sin, pertains to the one who sins, because he wishes to rejoice in something private to himself; hence those who seek their own, not the things of Jesus Christ, are also reproached, and charity not seeking its own is praised. Therefore, the number eleven itself, by which transgression is signified, is not multiplied ten times, but seven times, and it becomes seventy-seven. For the transgression pertains not to the Trinity of the Creator, but to the creature itself, that is, to man himself, whom the number seven signifies. Three for the soul, where there is a certain image of the Trinity of the Creator; for man was made in the image of God there: and four for the body. For the four beginnings from which the body consists are very well known. And to whom they are not known, he can easily notice that the body of the world itself, in which our body moves through places, has four main parts, which even the divine Scripture continuously mentions: East and West, South and North.
And since sins are committed either in the mind, as in the will alone; or also in the works of the body, already visibly: therefore Prophet Amos continuously mentions God threatening and saying: In three and four iniquities I will not turn away, that is, I will not ignore. Three, on account of the mind; four, on account of the nature of the body: by which two man consists.
How the Holy Scriptures are to be read.
Therefore, eleven times seven, as it is said, the transgression of justice related to the sinful man makes the number seventy-seven; by which all sins are signified, which are forgiven through Baptism. Whence Luke ascends to God through seventy-seven generations; showing the reconciliation of man to God through the abolition of all sins. Then the Lord himself answered Peter questioning how many times he should forgive his brother: I say to you, he said, not seven times, but up to seventy-seven times. And if anything else can be revealed about these secrets and treasures of the mysteries of God by those who are more diligent and worthy. However, as much as our capacity allows, as much as the Lord has helped and given, and also considering the constraint of time, we have said what we could. If any of you can grasp more, knock at the one from whom we also receive what we can grasp and speak. Above all, keep this: do not be disturbed by the Holy Scriptures not yet understood; and when understood, do not be arrogant: but what you do not understand, defer with honor; and what you understand, hold with love.