ACC ~ Matthew 1 v18 - 25

OVERVIEW:

No one can explain the mystery of his birth, nor is it possible to explain (CHRYSOSTOM). His corporeal birth was in time, but his divine Sonship was before time. The one was from a virgin mother, the other from God the Father. He assumed visible flesh to demonstrate his invisible divinity (CHROMATIUS). The angel laid open to Joseph all things that were in his mind, what he felt, what he feared, and what he was resolved to do, that he might be instructed in self-restraint and consoled (CHROMATIUS, CHRYSOSTOM, ANONYMOUS). He gave to Joseph the honor of giving a name to the Savior and called him to exhibit a father’s care toward the child (CHRYSOSTOM). The typological analogies between Adam’s rib and Joseph’s dread and between the conceptions of Elizabeth and Mary are explored (ANONYMOUS). The nativity is best understood in relation to the coming salvation and its prophetic expectation, which had been already promised by the Lord speaking through Isaiah (CHRYSOSTOM). The virgin held in her womb what the whole world could not contain (ANONYMOUS). Jesus’ birth does not diminish his incorruptibility (ORIGEN). The miracle of the genealogy is that he who adopted and begot fathers was born from their sons! They were made his fathers whose son he was not; in turn he treated them with a favor by being their son (ANONYMOUS). The Virgin did not later enter into physical relations (CHRYSOSTOM), for it is not plausible that the one who bore God, who was worthy of carrying God in her womb, would subsequently have carnal relations with a man (CHROMATIUS). As Christ would later commit Mary to his disciple, so now he commits her to Joseph (CHRYSOSTOM). The angel gave to Joseph the honor that belongs to a father, that of naming the child (CHRYSOSTOM).

1:18 | How the Birth of Jesus Christ Came About

HIS BIRTH DOES NOT DIMINISH HIS INCORRUPTIBILITY

ORIGEN: Why does the Evangelist make mention here of “birth,” whereas at the start of the Gospel he had said “generation”? For in this place he says, “Now the birth of Jesus Christ [1] took place in this way,” [2] but there “The book of the generation.” [3] … What then is the difference between “birth” and “generation”? How are either of them to be understood as applied to Christ?

Note that this, my spoken word, in its own proper nature, is intangible and invisible. But when it is written down in a book, in a manner of speaking, it takes on a body. It is then both seen and touched. So it is with the fleshless, bodiless Word of God. The Word is neither seen nor described according to his Godhood but becomes, through his incarnation, subject to both sight and description. For this reason there is the “book” of his “generation” as of one who is made flesh. But here the point under investigation is not why he says “book” instead of “vision” or “account” (for this has been discussed already). Rather, it is why, when Matthew had previously mentioned “generation,” he here speaks of “birth.” What is “birth” as distinguished from “generation”?

There is a difference between generation and birth. For “generation,” or “coming into being,” is the original formation of things by God, while “birth” is the succession from others caused by the verdict of death that came on account of the transgression. And even now, “generation” has something incorruptible and sinless about it, whereas “birth” implies that which is subject to passion and sin. The Lord in his eternal generation is incapable of sin. His being born did not undermine his eternal generation, which is incorruptible. But upon being born he assumed what is passible. That does not imply that he assumed what is subject to sin. He continued to bear the original Adam incapable of being lessened, either in respect of corruptibility or as regards the possibility of sin. Hence the “generation” in the case of Christ is not according to some procession from nonbeing into being. It is rather a transition [a path, a way] from existing “in the form of God” to the taking on of “the form of a servant.” [4] Hence his “birth” was both like ours and above ours. For to be born “of woman” [5] is like our birth, but to be born “not of the will of the flesh” or “of man” [6] but of the Holy Spirit is above ours. There is here an intimation, a prior announcement of a future birth to be bestowed on us by the Spirit. FRAGMENT 11. [7]

[1] At Mt 1:18 certain manuscripts have genesis, which is preferred by modern editors. Others have gennēsis. Origen read it thus, pointing out the difference between genesis in 1:1 and gennēsis in 1:18, indicating the birth of Jesus. His explanation takes into account the more generic meaning of genesis, signifying “to become, to be born, to be,” as compared to the more specific gennēsis, meaning “to beget.”

[2] Mt 1:18.

[3] Mt 1:1.

[4] Phil 2:6-7.

[5] Gal 4:4.

[6] Jn 1:13.

[7] GCS 41.1:19-20. Generation is the incorruptible original formation of things by God, while birth emerges from the corruptible succession out of secondary causes.

THE SIMPLE MYSTERY OF THE CONCEPTION

CHRYSOSTOM: Do not speculate beyond the text. Do not require of it something more than what it simply says. Do not ask, “But precisely how was it that the Spirit accomplished this in a virgin?” For even when nature is at work, it is impossible fully to explain the manner of the formation of the person. How then, when the Spirit is accomplishing miracles, shall we be able to express their precise causes? Lest you should weary the writer or disturb him by continually probing beyond what he says, he has indicated who it was that produced the miracle. He then withdraws from further comment. “I know nothing more,” he in effect says, “but that what was done was the work of the Holy Spirit.”

Shame on those who attempt to pry into the miracle of generation from on high! For this birth can by no means be explained, yet it has witnesses beyond number and has been proclaimed from ancient times as a real birth handled with human hands. What kind of extreme madness afflicts those who busy themselves by curiously prying into the unutterable generation? For neither Gabriel nor Matthew was able to say anything more, but only that the generation was from the Spirit. But how from the Spirit? In what manner? Neither Gabriel nor Matthew has explained, nor is it possible.

Do not imagine that you have untangled the mystery merely by hearing that this is the work of the Spirit. For we remain ignorant of many things, even while learning of them. So how could the infinite One reside in a womb? How could he that contains all be carried as yet unborn by a woman? How could the Virgin bear and continue to be a virgin? Explain to me how the Spirit designed the temple of his body. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 4.3. [1]

[1] PG 57:42-43; NPNF 1 10:22**. We know that the Lord’s conception was of the Spirit, not how. There is no need to speculate beyond the text or require of it more than what it simply says.

THE MYSTERY OF HIS DIVINITY

ANONYMOUS: Such, according to Matthew, was the exceptional genealogy of Christ. He has made it clear that Jacob begot Joseph, to whom Mary was betrothed when she bore Jesus. Yet no one hearing this should suppose that the birth of Christ came about in the same usual manner as that of his forefathers. So Matthew continues to present the special lineage of Christ, which was not like the lineage of these fathers in every respect, as we will see. How can this be so, that he stands in this lineage but stands in it differently?

“After Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, she was found to be with child before they had married.” That is, the child was from a virgin but had [an adoptive, legal] human father. While enumerating his line, Matthew shows him to have descended from the seed of David according to the promises of God. But in explaining that his birth happened in a way quite beyond human nature, he reveals the mystery of his divinity. It was not fitting that the only Son of God should be born in the human way. For he was born not for himself but for humanity. He was indeed born into flesh that would undergo corruption. But Christ was born in order to heal corruption itself. Human corruption is not derived from the uncorrupted state of a virgin. It does not make sense that the only Son of God, who was born to heal corruption, might be born of a corrupt union. Humanity is born out of the necessity to exist. Christ, however, was not born out of the necessity of nature to exist but by his merciful will to save. He was appropriately born contrary to the law of human nature because he was beyond nature. Behold the strange and wonderful birth of Christ. It came through a line that included sinners, adulterers and Gentiles. But such a birth does not soil the honor of Christ. Rather, it commends his mercy.

This is the miracle: He who adopted and begot fathers was born from their sons! They were made his fathers whose son he was not. He did them a favor by being their son. They, however, offered him nothing by being his forefathers. Among men, fathers adopt whomever they wish to be their sons. This son, however, adopted fathers whom he chose for himself. Among men, sons receive the honor of birth from their fathers. But in Christ’s case, the fathers received honor from the son.

The text reads, “Although his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they married, she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.” Subsequently all saints would be born from the virgin church which is betrothed to Christ. … Sons often imitate the example of their father. Note that Mary was betrothed to a carpenter. Christ, betrothed to the church, was about to fashion for humanity salvation in its entirety and his entire work from the wood of the cross. INCOMPLETE WORK ON MATTHEW, HOMILY 1. [1]

[1] p. 238 n.2. Here too the recourse to parallel passages in the other Gospels (Mk 3:31; Jn 7:5) allows sharper clarification of the passage in question, in this case the hostility expressed toward Jesus by his relatives.

HIS CORPOREAL BIRTH AND HIS DIVINITY

CHROMATIUS: For blessed Matthew, after enumerating the genealogy of Christ, added the following regarding hope for our salvation: “After Mary, mother of Jesus, had been betrothed to Joseph, she was found to be pregnant by the Holy Spirit before they were married.” This is the heavenly mystery, this sacrament obscured and hidden by the Holy Spirit. Luke describes in greater detail the manner of the Lord’s incarnation, for he recounts how an angel came to Mary and greeted her saying, “Hail woman full of grace,” [1] and the rest that follows. And when Mary asked him how what he had been proclaiming to her could take place—because she had never had relations with a man—he said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. And thus what is born from you will be called the Son of God.” [2] It was right that holy Mary, who was about to conceive the Lord of glory in her womb, be informed about the Holy Spirit and the excellence of the Most High when she received into her blessed womb the Creator of the world. Indeed, both Matthew and Luke began their narratives with the corporeal birth of the Lord. John, however, addresses the issue of Jesus’ divine birth in the preface to his Gospel: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. This was with God in the beginning. All things were made through him and without him nothing was made.” [3] The Evangelists help us to recognize both the divine and corporeal birth of the Lord, which they describe as a twofold mystery and a kind of double path. Indeed, both the divine and the bodily birth of the Lord are indescribable, but that from the Father vastly exceeds every means of description and wonder. The bodily birth of Christ was in time; his divine birth was before time. The one in this age, the other before the ages. The one from a virgin mother, the other from God the Father. Angels and men stood as witnesses at the corporeal birth of the Lord, yet at his divine birth there was no witness except the Father and the Son, because nothing existed before the Father and the Son. But because the Word could not be seen as God in the glory of his own divinity, he assumed visible flesh to demonstrate his invisible divinity. He took from us what is ours in order to give generously what is his. TRACTATE ON MATTHEW 2.1. [4]

[1] Lk 1:28.

[2] Lk 1:35.

[3] Jn 1:1-3.

[4] CCL 9a:201-2.

1:19 | Joseph’s Dilemma

THE SELF-RESTRAINT OF JOSEPH

CHRYSOSTOM: Do you not see here a man of exceptional self-restraint, freed from that most tyrannical passion, jealousy? What an explosive thing jealousy is, of which it was rightly spoken: “For the soul of her husband is full of jealousy. He will not spare in the day of vengeance.” [1] And “jealousy is cruel as the grave.” [2] And we too know of many that have chosen to give up their lives rather than fall under the suspicion of jealousy. But in this case it was not a matter of simple suspicion, as the burden of Mary’s own womb entirely convicted her. Nevertheless Joseph was so free from the passion of jealousy as to be unwilling to cause distress to the Virgin, even in the slightest way. To keep Mary in his house appeared to be a transgression of the law, but to expose and bring her to trial would cause him to deliver her to die. He would do nothing of the sort. So Joseph determined to conduct himself now by a higher rule than the law. For now that grace was appearing, it would be fitting that many tokens of that exalted citizenship be expressed. It is like the sun not yet arisen, but from afar more than half the world is already illumined by its light. So did Christ, when about to rise from that womb—even before his birth—cast light upon all the world. In this way, even before her birth pains, prophets danced for joy and women foretold what was to come. And John, even before his birth, leaped in the womb. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 4.4. [3]

[1] Prov 6:34 LXX.

[2] Song 8:6 LXX.

[3] PG 57:44; NPNF 1 10:23**. As the sun illumines the earth before rising, so grace was illuminating the conduct of those upon whom it was soon to shine. The self-restraint of Joseph, facing a situation that might have elicited the outrage of jealousy, anticipated the forbearing grace that was coming into the world.

JOSEPH’S INWARD MUSING

ANONYMOUS: Perhaps Joseph thought within himself: If I should conceal her sin, I would be acting against God’s law, and if I should publicize it to the sons of Israel, they would stone her. I fear that what is in her womb is of divine intervention. Didn’t Sarah conceive when she was ninety years of age and bring forth a child? If God caused that woman who was like dry wood to flower, what if the Godhead wanted to cause Mary to bear a child without the aid of a man?

Does the conception of a woman depend on a man? If the conception of a woman depends always on a man, doubtless when a man so desires, the woman will conceive. But in this case it is not when the man so desires that the woman conceives but when God so desires. Therefore, if a woman’s conception does not depend on a man but on God, what is so incredible if God should wish to give her offspring without a man?

What shall I do then? I will put her away secretly, because it is better in an uncertain matter that a known prostitue should get off free than that an innocent person should die. It is indeed more just that an unjust person should escape justly than that a just person should die unjustly. If a guilty person should escape once, he can die another time. But if an innocent person should die once, he cannot be brought back. INCOMPLETE WORK ON MATTHEW, HOMILY 1. [1]

[1] 17.

1:20 | The Angel’s Reassurance

EVE AND MARY—THE WORD OF DEATH AND LIFE

CHROMATIUS: While St. Joseph, yet uninformed of so great a mystery, wanted to put away Mary quietly, he was advised in a dream by an angel who said to him, “Do not be afraid, Joseph, son of David, to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit.” St. Joseph is made aware of the heavenly mystery, lest he think otherwise about Mary’s virginity. He is also made aware of this that he might exclude the evil of suspicion and receive the good of the mystery. The following words were said to him: “Do not be afraid, Joseph, son of David, to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit,” so he might acknowledge the integrity of his fiancée and the virgin birth. It was not appropriate for so great a mystery to be revealed to anyone other than Joseph, who was known to be Mary’s fiancé, and no reproach of sin was attached to his name. In fact, Joseph translated from Hebrew into Latin means “beyond reproach.” Notice here too the order of a mystery: The devil first spoke to Eve the virgin long ago, and then to a man, that he might administer to them the word of death. In the latter case, a holy angel first spoke to Mary and then to Joseph, that he might reveal to them the word of life. In the former case, a woman was chosen unto sin; in the latter case, she was chosen unto salvation. In the former case, the man fell through the woman; in the latter case, he rose through the virgin. The angel therefore said to Joseph, “Do not be afraid, Joseph, son of David, to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit.”

And he added, “She shall bring forth a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins.” [1] But this name of Lord which was given to Jesus from the virgin’s womb is not new to him but old. For Jesus translated from Hebrew into Latin means “Savior.” This name is agreeable to God because he says through the prophet: “Just God and a Savior; there is none beside me.” [2] Lastly, when the Lord himself would speak through Isaiah about the bodily origin of his nativity, he says, “The Lord called me from the womb, from the body of my mother he named my name.” His name is certainly not strange, for Jesus was called according to the flesh (i.e., Savior, who was a Savior according to divinity). For Jesus, as we said, is rendered as “Savior.” This is what he said through the prophet: “From the body of my mother he named my name.” [3] And that he might more fully show us the sacrament of his incarnation, he went on to say, “He made my mouth like a sharp sword … he made me a polished arrow, in his quiver he hid me away.” [4] By the arrow he signified his divinity; by the quiver he assumed a body from the Virgin in which his divinity was covered with a garment of flesh. TRACTATE ON MATTHEW 2.3-4. [5]

[1] Mt 1:21.

[2] Is 43:1; Hos 13:4.

[3] Is 49:1.

[4] Is 49:2.

[5] CCL 9a:202-4.

THE CONSOLATION OF JOSEPH

CHRYSOSTOM: How then did the angel assure Joseph? Hear and marvel at the wisdom of these words: “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife.” The angel instantly puts him in mind of David, from whose seed the Anointed One would spring. He did not allow him to be confused by the exalted title of his forefather or remind him that the promise was made to the whole race. Rather, he addresses him personally as “Joseph, Son of David.” … By saying “fear not,” he indicates that Joseph had been afraid, lest he might give offense to God by retaining an adulteress under the law. If it had not been for this, he would not have even thought of casting her out. The angel came from God to bring forward and set before him clearly what he thought to do and what he felt in his mind.

The angel did not only mention her by name but also simply called her “your wife.” He would not have called her so if she had been unfaithful. Even as espoused, he speaks of her as “your wife,” just as Scripture commonly calls betrothed husbands sons-in-law even before marriage.

But what is meant by “[Do not fear] to take Mary your wife”? It means to retain her in his house. For he was intending to put her away. It is as if the angelic voice prompted: “Retain her just as if she has been committed to you by God, not by her parents alone. God is committing her not for marriage but to dwell with you. By my voice he is committing her to you.” Just as Christ would later commit Mary to his disciple, so now he commits her to Joseph. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 4.6. [1]

[1] PG 57:47-48; NPNF 1 10:25-26**. The angel led Joseph through this crisis, vindicating and committing Mary to Joseph’s care.

WHY JOSEPH ALSO NEEDED A REVELATION

ANONYMOUS: Hearing Mary’s words and reflecting on her life did not allow Joseph to think badly of her. But as he reflected on her conception he still was not able to think well of her completely. Joseph’s mind fluctuated between two alternatives. He was fearful of keeping her, while he did not dare to betray her. It was thus necessary that Joseph also have a revelation. Mary herself had seen the angel and heard him speaking to her about her conception and that of Elizabeth. She had gone into the hill country to see Elizabeth and was reassured at the sight of her. If Mary needed this revelation, how much more did Joseph upon hearing the words of Mary’s conception. …

Therefore the angel appeared to him for three reasons. First, lest an ignorant but just man should do an unjust thing for a just cause. Next, for the sake of her mother’s honor, for if Mary had been put away—not among believers but among unbelievers—the woman could not be above foul suspicion. Third, realizing it was a holy conception, Joseph would in the future keep himself more diligently under control in her regard. …

He protected himself first according to the system of justice, then out of fear of this type of birth. But why didn’t the angel come to Joseph before the virgin’s conception in order that he might not think what he was thinking? That he might not suffer the fate of Zacharias, who incurred the blame of unfaithfulness on the conception of his wife who was already an old woman. [1] For it was even more incredible that a virgin rather than an old woman could conceive. If this established high priest did not believe it would be feasible, how much more would his fellow countryman not believe it would be so? INCOMPLETE WORK ON MATTHEW, HOMILY 1. [2]

[1] Lk 1.

[2] PG 56:633-34.

THE EXONERATION OF MARY

CHRYSOSTOM: The very thing which had made him afraid and for which he would have cast her out—this very thing, I say, was a just cause why he should take her and retain her in his house. This more than entirely did away with his distress. It is as if the angel were saying, “For she is not only free from unlawful sexual relations but her very conception is above all natural causes. So not only put away your fear but rejoice even more greatly, ‘for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.’”

What a strange thing he spoke of, surpassing human reasoning and all the laws of nature. How then might one be made able to believe such an announcement that would be so wholly unexpected? Only by viewing this event in relation to past disclosures in Scripture. For with this intent the angel laid open to Joseph all things that were in his mind, what he felt, what he feared, what he was resolved to do, so that he would be wholly reassured. And not only by past revelations in Scripture but also by the promise of what is yet to come does the angel win him over: “She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.” THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 4.6. [1]

[1] PG 57:46; NPNF 1 10:25-26**. How did the angel vindicate Mary? Joseph’s distress ended when he could grasp, under angelic instruction, that this conception is viewed not as an isolated natural occasion but in relation to the work of God the Spirit and salvation history as revealed in Scripture, and that the angelic visitor fully understood his feelings.

1:21 | Joseph to Function as a Father

JOSEPH TO NAME JESUS

CHRYSOSTOM: It was as if the angel were saying to Joseph, “Do not imagine that, because he is conceived of the Holy Spirit, that you have no part in the ministry of this new dispensation. In the conception you had no part. You never touched the virgin. Nevertheless I am giving you what pertains to a father. I give you the honor of giving a name to the One who is to be born. For you, Joseph, shall name him. For though the offspring is not your own, yet you are called to exhibit a father’s care toward him. So on this occasion, at this moment of giving him a name, you stand in significant relation with the one who is born.” Then lest on the other hand anyone should, out of all this, suspect him to be the father, hear what follows and with what exact care the angel states it: “She shall bring forth a Son.” He does not say “bring forth to you” but merely “she shall bring forth,” putting it indefinitely, since it was not merely to him that she brought forth, but to the whole world. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 4.6. [1]

[1] PG 57:47-48; NPNF 1 10:25-26**. The conception is wholly of the Holy Spirit, yet in being given the honor of naming the child, Joseph took on a fatherly role in relation to him.

MARY’S CONCEPTION COMPARED WITH ELIZABETH’S

ANONYMOUS: “She will bring forth a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.” He did not say, “She will bear you a son,” as he said to Zacharias: “Behold, your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son.” [1] The woman who conceived from a man bore her husband a son. Mary’s case is greater than Elizabeth’s. The woman who had not conceived from a man did not bear him a son but bore only herself a son.

See in what way the similarity here follows in everything that happened with Adam. At that time the woman alone, tasting of the fruit of the tree, was seduced and brought forth death, but Adam did not share in her seduction. He did not sin through being seduced by the devil but because he consented to the woman’s act. Likewise, submitting to the Holy Spirit, Mary alone believed, saying, “Behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.” [2] Joseph then actually had nothing in common with her conception, but later he was saved only by being silent and consenting. Joseph was assisted in a dream—not openly—so that even as when Adam was asleep God created the woman, so when Joseph was asleep he was given a wife by divine influence. INCOMPLETE WORK ON MATTHEW, HOMILY 1. [3]

[1] Lk 1:13.

[2] Lk 1:48.

[3] PG 56:634.

THE SAVIOR FROM SIN

ANONYMOUS: The Evangelist here interprets the meaning of Jesus in the Hebrew language, saying, “He shall save his people from their sins.” Therefore, while a doctor, who has no real power over human health, is unashamed to call himself a doctor simply because of his ability to prepare herbs, how much more worthy is the one who is called Savior, through whom the whole world is saved? INCOMPLETE WORK ON MATTHEW, HOMILY 1. [1]

[1] Ibid.

1:22 | Fulfilling What the Lord Had Spoken

THE COMING SALVATION

CHRYSOSTOM: Having established Joseph’s faith by all means—by past expectations, by future hopes, by present grace and by the honor given to himself—the angel then rings in the prophet also to give expression in support of all these, proclaiming beforehand the good things that are to occur to the world through the Son: Sins are removed and done away. “For he will save his people from their sins.” [1] Here again the coming event exceeds all human expectation. From what are the people being saved? Not from visible warfare or barbarians but something far greater: from their own sins, a work that had never been possible to anyone before. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 4.7. [2]

[1] Mt 1:21.

[2] PG 57:47; NPNF 1 10:25-26**. An unprecedented good, salvation from sin in a form previously unimaginable, would come from this conception that Joseph was being called to confirm and this person he was called to name.

THE PROMISE IS FROM GOD

CHRYSOSTOM: To make what he said easier to understand, the angel makes reference to Isaiah, and not to Isaiah only but to God who speaks through Isaiah. For he does not refer this saying to Isaiah as such but to the God of all. Hence he did not say simply that “All this took place to fulfill what was spoken by Isaiah” but “All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet.” The mouth indeed was Isaiah’s, but the oracle was wafted from above. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 5.2. [1]

[1] PG 57:56; NPNF 1 10:32.

NOT BY CHANCE

ANONYMOUS: “Now all this came to pass.” What is meant by “all”? That the Virgin would marry her kinsman, that she would be preserved chaste, that the angel would speak to Joseph in a dream, that he would be instructed to accept her as his wife, that the boy would be called Jesus and that the Virgin would bring forth the Savior of the world. “All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet,” [1] saying, “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bring forth a son.” [2] Grace is witnessed through the prophets so that the Old and New Testaments may harmonize, grace may compensate for the weakness of the learned and what was predicted long ago might not seem to happen solely by chance. INCOMPLETE WORK ON MATTHEW, HOMILY 1. [3]

[1] Mt 1:22.

[2] Is 7:14.

[3] PG 56:634.

1:23 | Emmanuel, God with Us

GOD AMONG US

CHRYSOSTOM: Why then do they not call him Emmanuel instead of Jesus Christ? Because the text says not “you shall call” but “his name shall be called.” This means that the multitude and the outcome of the events themselves will cause him to be called Emmanuel. For here he puts the event as a name. This is customary in Scripture, to substitute names for the actual events. Therefore to say “they shall call him ‘Emmanuel’” means nothing else than that they shall see God among us. Admittedly God has always been among us, but never before so openly. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 5.2-3. [1]

[1] PG 57:56-57; NPNF 1 10:32.

1:24 | Joseph Did as the Angel Commanded

JOSEPH’S RESPONSE

CHROMATIUS: Joseph therefore learns from the angel about the sacrament of the heavenly mystery and happily complies with the angel’s word. Rejoicing, he abides by the divine plan. He accepts holy Mary and glories in exultant praise because he was deemed worthy to hear that the virgin mother of such great majesty was called by the angel to be his wife. TRACTATE ON MATTHEW 3.1. [1]

[1] CCL 9a:208.

1:25 | Until Mary Bore a Son

MARY’S CONTINUING VIRGINITY

CHROMATIUS: But concerning what the Evangelist said, “And he did not know her till she had borne her firstborn son,” not a few careless people insist on asking whether after the Lord’s birth the holy mother Mary had relations with Joseph. But this is not admissible on the grounds of either faith or truth. Far be it indeed that after the sacrament of so great a mystery and after the birth of the sublime Lord, one should believe that the Virgin Mary was intimate with a man. Remember that Miriam the prophetess of the Old Testament (the sister of Moses and Aaron) remained a virgin unsullied by man, having beheld the light of heavenly signs after the plagues of Egypt and the parting of the Red Sea and the Lord’s glory going in advance and seen in a pillar of fire and clouds. It is not plausible therefore that the Mary of the Gospel, a virgin bearing God, who beheld God’s glory not in a cloud but was worthy of carrying him in her virginal womb, had relations with a man. Noah, who was made worthy to converse with God, declared that he would abstain from the conjugal need. Moses, after hearing God calling him from the bush, abstained from conjugal relations. Now are we to believe that Joseph, the man who always did what was right, had relations with holy Mary after the birth of the Lord? TRACTATE ON MATTHEW 3.1. [1]

[1] CCL 9a:208.

WHETHER “UNTIL” IMPLIES A LIMITED TIME

CHRYSOSTOM: And when Joseph had taken her, “he had no relations with her until she had borne a son.” Matthew has here used the word until not that you should suspect that afterward Joseph did know her but to inform you that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, has he used the word until? Because it is common in Scripture that this expression is used without reference to specific, limited times. Here are three examples. First, in the narrative of the ark it was said that “the raven did not return until the earth was dried up,” [1] yet the raven did not return even after that limited time. Second, when discussing God the Scripture says, “You are from everlasting to everlasting,” [2] but there is no implication here that some limit is being fixed—rather the opposite. Third, when preaching the gospel beforehand and saying, “In his days may righteousness flourish, and peace abound, until the moon be no more!” [3] it is not thereby setting a temporal limit to this beautiful part of creation. So then here likewise, it uses the word until to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves some further inference to be made. So it is necessary to learn what Matthew teaches: that the Virgin was untouched by man until the birth. But the rest is left for you to perceive, both as a consequence of the previous narrative and what was later acknowledged: that not even after having become a mother and having been counted worthy of a new sort of travail and a childbearing so strange, could that righteous man ever have permitted himself to have sexual relations with her. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 5.3. [4]

[1] Gen 8:7 LXX, italics added.

[2] Ps 90:2 (89:2 LXX).

[3] Ps 72:7 (71:7 LXX).

[4] PG 57:58; NPNF 1 10:33**.

SHE HELD WHAT THE WORLD COULD NOT CONTAIN

ANONYMOUS: The One whom the world was neither able to contain or worthy to receive, Mary alone was able to hold as it were in the little chamber of her womb. Joseph saw that she would remain a virgin after childbirth. He saw the mystery of the star as it shone above the child’s head, and it pointed out the child to the magi who had arrived. Standing aside, he gave testimony, for he was speechless. Further, he saw the magi in adoration, presenting their hallowed gifts. He heard them speaking about how they had come from the east to Jerusalem, following the star, which did not disdain to pay tribute to men that it might reveal God’s glory. Therefore, the incomparable nativity, beyond the measure of all human nativities, manifested the divinity of the newborn child and demonstrated to Joseph the dignity of Mary who had given birth. The Evangelist thus said, “And he did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn child.” That is, he knew who she was after she had given birth. INCOMPLETE WORK ON MATTHEW, HOMILY 1. [1]

[1] PG 56:635.