Lecture 3
Lectio 3
David to the Babylonian exile
David ad transmigrationem Babylonis
1:6 And Jesse begot David the King. And David the King begot Solomon, of her that had been the wife of Urias. [n. 55]
1:6 Iesse autem genuit David Regem. David autem Rex genuit Salomonem, ex ea quae fuit Uriae. [n. 55]
1:7 And Solomon begot Roboam. And Roboam begot Abia. And Abia begot Asa. [n. 59]
1:7 Salomon autem genuit Roboam: Roboam autem genuit Abiam. Abias autem genuit Asa. [n. 59]
1:8 And Asa begot Josaphat. And Josaphat begot Joram. And Joram begot Ozias. [n. 62]
1:8 Asa autem genuit Iosaphat. Iosaphat autem genuit Ioram. Ioram autem genuit Oziam. [n. 62]
1:9 And Ozias begot Joatham. And Joatham begot Achaz. And Achaz begot Ezechias. [n. 68]
1:9 Ozias autem genuit Ioatham. Ioatham autem genuit Achaz. Achaz autem genuit Ezechiam. [n. 68]
1:10 And Ezechias begot Manasses. And Manesses begot Amon. And Amon begot Josias. [n. 71]
1:10 Ezechias autem genuit Manassen. Manasses autem genuit Amon. Amon autem genuit Iosiam. [n. 71]
1:11 And Josias begot Jechonias and his brethren in the transmigration of Babylon. [n. 74]
1:11 Iosias autem genuit Iechoniam, et fratres eius in transmigratione Babylonis. [n. 74]
54. The series of the genealogy of the fathers which ran through the patriarchs having been set down, here he sets down the series of the fathers which proceeds through the kings. And it is divided into two parts.
54. Posita serie genealogiae patrum, quae cucurrit per patriarchas, hic ponit seriem patrum, quae procedit per reges: et dividitur in duo.
First, he sets down the kings who were born from Israel, without mixture of alien seed; second, he sets down the kings who came from a foreign marriage, at Joram begot Ozias.
Primo ponuntur reges, qui nati sunt ex Israel sine commixtione seminis alieni; secundo ponuntur reges, qui secuti sunt coniunctionem alienae copulae, ibi Ioram autem genuit Oziam.
55. Here there is a twofold question. For Luke, working out the generation of Christ, ascends through Nathan; but Matthew, descending, proceeds from David to Christ through Solomon. Hence there seems to be a certain contrariety.
55. Hic est duplex quaestio. Lucas enim computando generationem Christi ascendit per Nathan; Matthaeus autem descendendo procedit a David ad Christum per Salomonem: unde videtur esse quaedam contrarietas.
But one should say, as was said before, that Luke places many fathers in Christ’s genealogy who were not fathers according to fleshly origin, through propogation, but according to legal adoption; but Matthew set down no one who was not a father according to the flesh.
Sed dicendum, sicut dictum est, Lucas in genealogia Christi ponit multos patres, qui non fuerunt patres carnalis originis per propagationem, sed secundum legalem adoptionem; Matthaeus autem nullum ponit, qui non fuerit pater carnalis.
And it is true that, according to the flesh, the Lord descended from David through Solomon, and not through Nathan; and nevertheless, according to Augustine, it is not an empty mystery that Matthew descends from David to Christ through Solomon, while Luke ascends from Christ to David through Nathan. For Matthew undertook to describe the fleshly generation of Christ, according to which Christ descended even to the likeness of the body of sin (Rom 8:3); and so Matthew rightly descends from David through Solomon in his generation, with whose mother David sinned; but Luke, who aimed most of all at the priestly dignity of Christ, through which the expiation of sins came about, rightly ascends to David through Nathan, who was a holy man.
Et verum est quod secundum carnem Dominus descendit a David per Salomonem, et non per Nathan; et tamen, secundum Augustinum, non vacat mysterio quod Matthaeus a David per Salomonem descendit ad Christum, Lucas autem a Christo ad David per Nathan ascendit. Matthaeus enim generationem Christi carnalem susceperat describendam, secundum quam Christus usque ad similitudinem carnis peccati descendit: et ideo recte Matthaeus in eius generatione a David per Salomonem descendit, cum cuius matre ipse David peccavit; Lucas autem, qui maxime commendare intendit in Christo sacerdotalem dignitatem, per quam fuit peccatorum expiatio, recte per Nathan ad David ascendit, qui fuit vir sanctus.
But note that according to the same Augustine in the Book of Retractions, one should not understand that Nathan the prophet, who reproached him, and the son whom he bore were the same man, but only that they were alike in name.
Nota tamen quod secundum eumdem Augustinum in libro Retractationum, non est intelligendum quod idem fuit Nathan propheta, qui eum reprehendit, et filius quem genuit; sed solum quod fuerunt similes in nomine.
56. Second, it is asked why Bathshebah is not named by her name, the way Thamar, Rahab, and Ruth were.
56. Secundo quaeritur quare Bersabee non nominatur ex nomine, sicut Thamar, Rahab et Ruth.
And one should say that the others, although they may have been sinners for some time, still afterwards they were converted and repentant; this one, however, basely sinned in the crime of adultery and in consent to a murder; and so her name is veiled for modesty’s sake.
Et dicendum, quod aliae, quamvis per aliquod tempus fuerint peccatrices, tamen postea fuerunt conversae et poenitentes; haec autem turpiter peccavit crimen adulterii et in consensu homicidii: et ideo propter verecundiam subticetur eius nomen.
57. Yet notice that in Scripture the sins of the great are sometimes recounted, like those of David and of others; and this is because the devil overthrows not only the small and lesser, but even the great, for he is our adversary. And so they are recounted for caution’s sake, that he who stands may watch lest he fall.
57. Nota tamen quod in Scriptura recitantur aliquando peccata magnorum, sicut David et aliorum; et hoc, quia diabolus non solum parvos et inferiores, sed etiam magnos prostravit: adversarius enim noster est. Et ideo propter cautelam recitantur, ut qui stat videat ne cadat.
Another reason is so that no one will think them to be more than men. For if someone were to contemplate only the perfection in them, he could be deceived through idolatry; but when he sees them fall through sin, then he does not believe that there is anything more than man in them.
Alia ratio est, ne aliquis putaret eos plusquam homines esse. Si enim aliquis solam in eis perfectionem consideraret, decipi posset per idololatriam; sed cum videt eos per peccatum corruisse, non credit iam aliquid amplius ab homine in eis esse.
58. Note this also, according to Gregory: sometimes a thing done literally is bad and the thing signified is good; while sometimes the thing done is good and the thing signified is bad.
58. Nota etiam hoc, secundum Gregorium, quod aliquando factum litterale est malum et significatum est bonum; aliquando vero factum bonum et significatum malum.
For Urias was a good man and just, nor was he blamed for anything in Scripture; and yet he signifies the devil. Bathshebah was a sinner, and yet she signifies a good thing, namely the Church, as the Gloss notes on 2 Samuel 12, and also the Gloss which is said to explain the figure according to the allegorical sense.
Urias enim fuit vir bonus et iustus, nec de aliquo in Scriptura reprehenditur; et tamen significat diabolum. Bersabee autem fuit peccatrix; et tamen rem bonam significat, scilicet Ecclesiam, ut notat Glossa II Reg. XII, et etiam Glossa quae dicitur exponere figuram secundum sensum allegoricum.
For Urias is interpreted as ‘God my light’, and signifies the devil, who desired the light of divinity; I will be like the Most High (Isa 14:14). Bathshebah is interpreted as ‘seven wells’, or ‘the well of society’; and she signifies the Church, gathered from the gentiles, because of the sevenfold grace of baptism. She first espoused herself to the devil; but David, i.e., Christ, took her away from him, and joined her to himself, and killed the devil. In another way, Bathshebah signifies the law, through whose paths the people were brought in, who did not wish to enter into the house through spiritual understanding, and therefore carried the letter of their own death, because the letter kills (2 Cor 3:6). But David, i.e., Christ, took the law away from the Jews, when he taught that it should be understood spiritually.
Urias enim interpretatur ‘lux mea Deus,’ et significat diabolum, qui lucem divinitatis appetivit; Isa. XIV, 14: ero similis Altissimo. Bersabee interpretatur ‘puteus septem,’ vel ‘puteus societatis’; et significat Ecclesiam de gentibus, propter septiformem gratiam baptismalem. Hanc sibi desponsaverat primo diabolus; sed David, idest Christus, abstulit eam ab eo, et copulavit sibi, et ipsum diabolum interfecit. Aliter Bersabee significat legem, per cuius vias populus inductus est, qui non vult ingredi in domum per spiritualem intelligentiam, et ideo defert litteras mortis suae, quia littera occidit, II Cor. III, 6. Sed David, idest Christus, abstulit a Iudaeis legem, quando docuit eam spiritualiter intelligendam.
59. And Solomon begot Roboam. Now, as David is interpreted ‘strong of hand’, or ‘desirable in appearance’, so Solomon is interpreted ‘peaceful’: and this is right, because out of the strength of good works comes peace of conscience; much peace have they who love your law (Ps 118:165). Now, it happens that out of peace of conscience a man wishes others to come to the good.
59. Salomon autem genuit Roboam et cetera. Sicut autem David interpretatur ‘manu fortis,’ vel ‘aspectu desiderabilis,’ ita Salomon ‘pacificus’: et hoc est rectum, quia ex fortitudine operationis bonae provenit pax conscientiae; Ps. CXVIII, 165: pax multa diligentibus legem tuam. Contingit autem quod ex pace conscientiae homo velit alios ad bonum venire.
Hence Solomon begot Roboam, who is interpreted ‘force’, because the one who has peace of conscience is moved by the force of preaching to spread the name of Christ; as is written about the apostles: when they will rush in unto Jacob, Israel will blossom and bud, and they will fill the face of the world with seed (Isa 27:6).
Unde Salomon genuit Roboam, qui interpretatur ‘impetus’: quia impetu praedicationis movetur, habens pacem conscientiae ad dilatandum nomen Christi; sicut legitur de apostolis, Is. XXVII, 6: qui ingrediuntur impetu ad Iacob, florebit et germinabit Israel, et implebunt faciem orbis semine.
Moreover, either name signifies Christ, who is himself peace. Similarly, he who converted the people by the force of preaching is himself Roboam.
Utrumque autem significat Christum, quia ipse est pax. Item ipse Roboam, qui populum impetu praedicationis convertit.
60. And Roboam begot Abia, who is interpreted ‘God the Father’; because by the fact that a man is eager for the spiritual profit of others, or for the corporeal profit of others through works of mercy, he is made worthy of the fatherhood of God, as is said below: pray for those who persecute and calumniate you: that you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven (Matt 5:44). And: be therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful (Luke 6:36).
60. Roboam autem genuit Abiam, qui interpretatur ‘pater Deus’: quia ex hoc quod homo studet ad profectum aliorum spiritualem, vel corporalem per opera misericordiae, efficitur dignus paternitate Dei, ut infra V, 44: benefacite his qui oderunt vos, ut sitis filii Patris vestri, qui in caelis est et cetera. Et Luc. VI, 36: estote misericordes.
This also belongs to Christ, to whom it is said: I will be to him a Father, and he will be to me a Son (Heb 1:5).
Hoc etiam competit Christo, cui dicitur: ego ero illi in Patrem, et ipse erit mihi in Filium.
61. And Abia begot Asa, who is interpreted ‘lifting up’; because sometimes by the fact that a man is made a father and superior to others, he falls into a certain negligence out of security; this is why Abia begot Asa, that is, in order that a man may be continually perfected, and lift himself up toward greater things.
61. Abias autem genuit Asa, qui interpretatur ‘attollens’: quia quandoque homo ex hoc quod efficitur pater et superior aliorum, incurrit quamdam negligentiam securitatis; ideo Abias genuit Asa, ut scilicet homo sit in continuo profectu, et attollat se semper ad maiora.
This also belongs to Christ, who is called ‘one lifting up’, i.e., growing; and the child grew (Luke 2:40). Or ‘one lifting up’, because he lifts away the sins of the world.
Hoc etiam competit Christo, qui dicitur ‘attollens,’ idest crescens; Luc. II, 40: puer autem crescebat. Vel ‘attollens,’ quia abstulit peccata mundi.
62. And Asa begot Josaphat, who is interpreted ‘one judging’, because when a man is always growing spiritually, he is made one who judges; but the spiritual man judges all things (1 Cor 2:15).
62. Asa autem genuit Iosaphat, qui interpretatur ‘iudicans,’ quia ex hoc quod semper crescit homo spiritualis, efficitur iudicans; I Cor. II, 15: spiritualis homo omnia diiudicat.
And this belongs to Christ, because the Father has given all judgment to the Son (John 5:22).
Et hoc Christo competit, quia Pater omne iudicium dedit Filio.
63. And Josaphat begot Joram, who is interpreted, ‘one dwelling on high’, because he who is made a judge ought to dwell on high; he will dwell on high (Isa 33:16). And the Apostle says how this should be: but our conversation is in heaven (Phil 3:20).
63. Iosaphat autem genuit Ioram, qui interpretatur ‘habitans in excelsis’; quia ille qui iudex constituitur, debet in excelsis habitare; Isa. XXXIII, 16: iste in excelsis habitabit. Quomodo autem hoc sit, dicit Apostolus: nostra conversatio in caelis est.
And this belongs to Christ, because he is high above all nations (Ps 112:4).
Et hoc competit Christo, quia excelsus super omnes gentes dominus, Psal. CXII, 4.
64. And Joram begot Ozias. Here there is a literal question. For it is said that Joram begot Ochozias (1 Chr 3:11). Now Ochozias begot Joas, and Joas begot Amasias, who is also called Azarias. And Amasias begot Ozias. So the Evangelist seems to have been mistaken in two things. First, because Joram did not beget Ozias, but rather Amasias did; second, because he omits three generations.
64. Ioram autem genuit Oziam. Hic est quaestio litteralis. Nam I Par. III, 11 dicitur quod Ioram genuit Ochoziam. Ochozias autem genuit Ioram. Ioras autem genuit Amasiam, qui et Azarias dicitur. Amasias autem genuit Oziam. In duobus ergo videtur Evangelista in genealogiae serie defecisse. Primo quia Ioram non genuit Oziam, sed Amasiam; secundo, quia omisit tres generationes.
And with regard to the first difficulty, one should say that for someone to beget someone can be understood in two ways, mediately and immediately: immediately, as a fleshly father immediately begets his son; and in this way Joram did not beget Ozias. In another way mediately, as we are called sons of Adam; and in this way a son can be said to be begotten by his grandfather or his great grandfather, because he descended from him through an intermediate generation.
Et dicendum ad primum, quod generare aliquem alium potest intelligi dupliciter, mediate vel immediate: immediate, sicut pater carnalis immediate generat filium; et sic Ioram non genuit Oziam. Alio modo mediate, sicut nos dicimur filii Adam; et sic filius potest dici genitus ab avo vel proavo, quia ab ipso per generationem mediatam descendit.
65. And as to why he omits three kings, three reasons can be given. First, by Jerome, who says, as it is also written: the Lord visits the sins of the fathers on the third and the fourth generation, on those who are made imitaters of their fathers’ crimes (Exod 20:5). Now, Joram took as a wife the daughter of Jezabel, namely Athalia, who drew him into idolatry. Ochozias was given to idolatry even more than his father. And likewise with Joas, who along with the crime of idolatry also killed Zacharias the son of Joiada; and for this reason these three are excluded from the Christ’s generation, as though unworthy.
65. Quare autem omisit tres reges, triplex ratio assignatur. Prima a Hieronymo; qui dicit, sicut scriptum est Exod. XX, 5, Dominus visitat peccata patrum in tertiam et quartam generationem, his qui patrum sceleris efficiuntur imitatores. Ioram autem duxit uxorem filiam Iezabel, scilicet Athaliam, quae traxit eum ad idololatriam. Ochozias etiam magis quam pater idololatriae deditus fuit. Et similiter Ioras, qui cum scelere idololatriae etiam Zachariam filium Ioiadae occidit: et ideo isti tres quasi indigni excluduntur a generatione Christi.
Chrysostom gives another reason. For the Lord commanded Jehu the son of Namsi to wipe out the house of Achab (2 Kgs 9); he was diligent in carrying out the command, but still he did not withdraw from the worship of the gods, for he adored molten bulls. And because he diligently performed the command of the Lord by destroying the house of Achab, he was told that his sons would sit on the throne of Israel until the fourth generation; hence as Jehu merited the kingdom of Israel until the third or fourth generation, so in the opposite way Joram, who mixed himself with gentile women, and carried the iniquity of the house of Israel over into the house of Judah, had to lose the name of his posterity in Christ’s genealogy until the fourth generation, expiation for the sin having then been made.
Chrysostomus aliam assignat rationem. Praecepit enim Dominus IV Reg. IX Iehu filio Nansi, quod ipse extirparet domum Achab, qui diligens fuit in executione praecepti, et tamen a cultura deorum non recessit: adoravit enim vitulos conflatiles. Et quia diligenter perfecit Domini imperium destruendo domum Achab, dictum est ad eum, quod filii eius usque in quartam generationem sederent super thronum domus Israel; unde sicut Iehu meruit regnum Israel usque in tertiam vel quartam generationem, ita per oppositum Ioram, qui commiscuit se feminis gentilibus, et transtulit iniquitatem domus Israel ad domum Iuda, debuit amittere nomen posteritatis in genealogia Christi usque in quartam generationem, facta expiatione peccati.