ACC ~ Matthew 1 v18

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.

Mt