Commentary on Romans, Biblical exegesis 1 · Chapter 1 · Section 3 · Subsection 14 – Subsection 16
14. Quest. How it can be shewed that Christ was borne of the seede and posteritie of Dauid.
Seeing both Matthew and Luke doe set downe the genealogie of Ioseph the reputed husband of Marie, the question is how this concerneth the birth of Christ, who onelyonly tooke his flesh of Marie.
1. Ambrose giueth a good reason, why the genealogie is deriued by the man, not by the woman: because it is the manner of the Scripture, to expresse the generation of men, not of women: secundum carnem natus, vsum debuit sequi carnis, he that is borne after the flesh, was to follow the vse and custome of flesh, which is to count the petigree by the men.
2. Then the genealogie of Ioseph thus concerneth Christ: because Ioseph beeing a iust man, tooke a wife out of his owne tribe: Origen also with Ambrose propoundeth this solution, yet he insisteth not vponupon it, but runneth to allegories; that Ioseph was not the naturall, but spirituall father of Christ: But it is euident, that the Euangelists doe set downe the naturall generation, and descent of Christ.
The best solution then is the former, that Ioseph maried with Marie beeing of his owne tribe: and so they were both of Dauid, and therefore they went both vp vntounto Bethlem a citie of Dauid to be taxed, Luk. 2.4.
3. But where it wil be obiected, that Elizabeth, which was maried to Zacharie a Priest of Levi, is called Maries cousin, and therefore Marie is not like to hauehave beene of Iuda: it is not sufficient to say with Origen, that Elizabeth was Maries cousin, not in respect of the tribe, but the nation, because they were both of Israel: for so Elizabeth had beene no more her cousin, then any other beside. Theophylact in Luk. 1. thinketh, that the kinred came in thus; because Aaron married Elizabeth the daughter of Aminadab of the tribe of Iuda, Exod. 6. and so this Elizabeth was descended of Iuda, by her great grandmother Elizabeth. But this kinred was too auncient, and would hauehave growne in so many descents out of knowledge: whereas it seemeth that Marie and Elizabeth were so of kinred, that they were of acquaintance also, for Marie went to visit Elizabeth, Luk. 2.41. Augustine thinketh it might be thus: that some woman of the tribe of Levi was maried into the tribe of Iuda, and so Christ was descended not onelyonly of the kingly, but the priestly stocke also, quaest. super. Iudic. 47. But the best solution is, that some rather of the tribe of Iuda was maried into the tribe of Levi: for though the other tribes might not one marie within an other, to auoide confusion, yet the Levites might take their wiues out of any tribe, for they had no inheritance, and so there was no daunger of any such confusion: So Iehoida the high Priest maried Iehosabath the daughter of king Ioram, the sister of Ahaziah the king, 2. Chron. 22. Pareus, Genevens.
4. Now as Matthew doth set downe the pettigree of Ioseph, the reputed husband of Marie, so Luke doth prosequute the genealogie of Marie: for Heli whole sonne Ioseph is said to be, was the father of Marie, and father in law to Ioseph: for sonnes and daughters in law in Scripture are called by the names of sonnes and daughters simply: as Naomi calleth Ruth her sonnes wife her daughter: Beza, Pareus. But Ambrose hath an other answer, that Heli and Iacob were brethren, and Iacob dying without children, Heli according to the law tooke his wife, and raised seede to his brother: Ambr. lib. in Luc. 3. of these two the first solution is the best: for Matthew saith that Iacob begat Ioseph: Heli then begat him not, but he was the naturall father of Marie.
15. Quest. Whether Christ descended of Dauid by Salomon, or Nathan.
But an other doubt there is about this genealogie: for Matthew descendeth by Salomon, Luke by Nathan. Hereof a question ariseth of which of these, Salomon or Nathan, Christ came after the flesh.
1. Eusebius thinketh, that he was descended of Salomon, which he would prooue by the 72. Psal. v. 1. GiueGive thy iudgement to the King, and thy righteousnes to the kings sonne: where by the king, he thinketh Salomon to be vnderstood, and by the kings sonne, not Rehoboam, but Christ, which was to come of him. Euseb. Demonstr. l. 7. c. 7. Origen before approoued the same opinion, who giueth this reason thereof, because in Matthewes genealogie, the word, he begate, is repeated still, and so is it not in S. Lukes catalogue: and therefore he thinketh that Christ came of Salomon, whome Matthew maketh mention of, not of Nathan, whose generation S. Luke rehearseth.
Contr. 1. That Christ was not lineally descended of Salomon, it is euident, because all Salomons posteritie ended in Iechoniah: as is euident, Ierem. 22.30. Write this man destitute of children. 2. In the place obiected out of the Psalme: by the king, is vnderstood Dauid, by the kings sonne, Salomon, who was a figure of Christ. 3. Neither in Matthewes genealogie, properly is eueryevery one said to beget: for Iechonias is said to beget Salathiel, who was in deede the sonne of Neri, as S. Luke setteth it downe in his genealogie: but Iechonias dying without heire, appointed Salathiel his next heire.
2. Origen, Ambrose, & Beda thinke, that Christ came of Nathan both a Priest and Prophet: but that can not be, for it is certen Christ came of Iuda, not of Levi: Hebr. 7.14. It is euident, that our Lord sprang out of Iudah: and therefore Apoc. 7, he is called the lyon of the tribe of Iudah.
3. Wherefore our Lord descended of Dauid by Nathan his sonne, who is thought to hauehave beene brother vntounto Salomon, not onelyonly by his father, but by his mother also, 1. Chro. 3.5. Damascen. lib. 4. c. 15. Pareus.
16. Quest. Of the meaning of these words, v.4. Declared mightily to be the Sonne of God, &c.
1. The vsuall interpretation is, to gather from hence three arguments of Christs diuine nature: 1. by the power of miracles: 2. by the holy Ghost, which he gaue vntounto them, which beleeued in him, and specially in the feast of Pentecost. 3. by the raising of himselfe vp from the dead: to this purpose Chrysostome, Hyperius, Aretius, with others.
But the better interpretation is this: that here three things are expressed concerning Christ: what he was declared to be, the Sonne of God mightily, or in great power: by which nature, namely his diuine: by the spirit of sanctification, wherby he sanctified his own flesh, and his mysticall bodie the Church: and by what argument, namely by his resurrection from the dead: wherein he manifestly shewed himselfe by his owne power, beeing able to raise vp his owne bodie from the graue: Beza, Pareus. But these three clauses, declared mightily to be the Sonne of God, according to the spirit of sanctification, by the resurrection from the dead, it shall not be amisse to handle distinctly, because of the difficultie, and diuers expositions of them.