Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ did not take flesh of the seed of David. For Matthew, in tracing the genealogy of Christ, brings it down to Joseph. But Joseph was not Christ's father, as shown above (Question 28, Article 1, ad 1,2). Therefore it seems that Christ was not descended from David.

Objection 2: Further, Aaron was of the tribe of Levi, as related Ex. 6. Now Mary the Mother of Christ is called the cousin of Elizabeth, who was a daughter of Aaron, as is clear from Lk. 1:5,36. Therefore, since David was of the tribe of Juda, as is shown Mt. 1, it seems that Christ was not descended from David.

Objection 3: Further, it is written of Jechonias (Jer. 22:30): "Write this man barren . . . for there shall not be a man of his seed that shall sit upon the throne of David." Whereas of Christ it is written (Is. 9:7): "He shall sit upon the throne of David." Therefore Christ was not of the seed of Jechonias: nor, consequently, of the family of David, since Matthew traces the genealogy from David through Jechonias.

On the contrary, It is written (Rm. 1:3): "Who was made to him of the seed of David according to the flesh."

I answer that, Christ is said to have been the son especially of two of the patriarchs, Abraham and David, as is clear from Mt. 1:1. There are many reasons for this. First to these especially was the promise made concerning Christ. For it was said to Abraham (Gn. 22:18): "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed": which words the Apostle expounds of Christ (Gal. 3:16): "To Abraham were the promises made and to his seed. He saith not, 'And to his seeds' as of many; but as of one, 'And to thy seed,' which is Christ." And to David it was said (Ps. 131:11): "Of the fruit of thy womb I will set upon thy throne." Wherefore the Jewish people, receiving Him with kingly honor, said (Mt. 21:9): "Hosanna to the Son of David."

A second reason is because Christ was to be king, prophet, and priest. Now Abraham was a priest; which is clear from the Lord saying unto him (Gn. 15:9): "Take thee a cow of three years old," etc. He was also a prophet, according to Gn. 20:7: "He is a prophet; and he shall pray for thee." Lastly David was both king and prophet.

A third reason is because circumcision had its beginning in Abraham: while in David God's election was most clearly made manifest, according to 1 Kgs. 13:14: "The Lord hath sought Him a man according to His own heart." And consequently Christ is called in a most special way the Son of both, in order to show that He came for the salvation both of the circumcised and of the elect among the Gentiles.

Reply to Objection 1: Faustus the Manichean argued thus, in the desire to prove that Christ is not the Son of David, because He was not conceived of Joseph, in whom Matthew's genealogy terminates. Augustine answered this argument thus (Contra Faust. xxii): "Since the same evangelist affirms that Joseph was Mary's husband and that Christ's mother was a virgin, and that Christ was of the seed of Abraham, what must we believe, but that Mary was not a stranger to the family of David: and that it is not without reason that she was called the wife of Joseph, by reason of the close alliance of their hearts, although not mingled in the flesh; and that the genealogy is traced down to Joseph rather than to her by reason of the dignity of the husband? So therefore we believe that Mary was also of the family of David: because we believe the Scriptures, which assert both that Christ was of the seed of David according to the flesh, and that Mary was His Mother, not by sexual intercourse but retaining her virginity." For as Jerome says on Mt. 1:18: "Joseph and Mary were of the same tribe: wherefore he was bound by law to marry her as she was his kinswoman. Hence it was that they were enrolled together at Bethlehem, as being descended from the same stock."

Reply to Objection 2: Gregory of Nazianzum answers this objection by saying that it happened by God's will, that the royal family was united to the priestly race, so that Christ, who is both king and priest, should be born of both according to the flesh. Wherefore Aaron, who was the first priest according to the Law, married a wife of the tribe of Juda, Elizabeth, daughter of Aminadab. It is therefore possible that Elizabeth's father married a wife of the family of David, through whom the Blessed Virgin Mary, who was of the family of David, would be a cousin of Elizabeth. or conversely, and with greater likelihood, that the Blessed Mary's father, who was of the family of David, married a wife of the family of Aaron.

Again, it may be said with Augustine (Contra Faust. xxii) that if Joachim, Mary's father, was of the family of Aaron (as the heretic Faustus pretended to prove from certain apocryphal writings), then we must believe that Joachim's mother, or else his wife, was of the family of David, so long as we say that Mary was in some way descended from David.

Reply to Objection 3: As Ambrose says on Lk. 3:25, this prophetical passage does not deny that a posterity will be born of the seed of Jechonias. And so Christ is of his seed. Neither is the fact that Christ reigned contrary to prophecy, for He did not reign with worldly honor; since He declared: "My kingdom is not of this world."

Articulus 2

Argumentum 1

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod christus non sumpserit carnem de semine David. Matthaeus enim, genealogiam christi texens, eam ad ioseph perduxit. Ioseph autem non fuit pater christi, ut supra ostensum est.

Non ergo videtur quod christus de genere David descenderit.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, Aaron fuit de tribu levi, ut patet Exod. VI, maria autem, mater christi, cognata dicitur elisabeth, quae est filia Aaron, ut patet Luc. I.

Cum ergo David de tribu Iuda fuerit, ut patet Matth. I, videtur quod christus de semine David non descenderit.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, Ierem. XXII dicitur de iechonia, scribe virum istum sterilem, nec enim erit de semine eius vir qui sedeat super solium David.

Sed de christo dicitur Isaiae IX, super solium David sedebit.

Ergo christus non fuit de semine iechoniae. Et per consequens nec de genere David, quia matthaeus a David per iechoniam seriem generationis perducit.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod dicitur Rom. I, qui factus est ei ex semine David secundum carnem.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod christus specialiter duorum antiquorum patrum filius dicitur esse, Abrahae scilicet et David, ut patet Matth. I.

Cuius est multiplex ratio. Prima quidem, quia ad hos specialiter de christo repromissio facta est.

Dictum est enim Abrahae, Gen. XXII, benedicentur in semine tuo omnes gentes terrae, quod apostolus de christo exponit, dicens, Galat. III, Abrahae dictae sunt promissiones, et semini eius. Non dicit et seminibus, quasi in multis, sed, quasi in uno, et semini tuo, qui est christus.

Ad David autem dictum est, de fructu ventris tui ponam super sedem tuam.

Unde et populi Iudaeorum, ut regem honorifice suscipientes, dicebant, Matth. XXI, hosanna filio David.

Secunda ratio est quia christus futurus erat rex, propheta et sacerdos. Abraham autem sacerdos fuit, ut patet ex hoc quod dominus dixit ad eum, Gen. XV, sume tibi vaccam triennem, etc..

Fuit etiam propheta, secundum id quod dicitur Gen. XX, propheta est, et orabit pro te.

David autem rex fuit et propheta. Tertia ratio est quia in Abraham primo incoepit circumcisio, in David autem maxime manifestata est dei electio, secundum illud quod dicitur I Reg. XIII, quaesivit sibi dominus virum iuxta cor suum.

Et ideo utriusque filius christus specialissime dicitur, ut ostendatur esse in salutem circumcisioni et electioni gentilium.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod obiectio fuit fausti Manichaei, volentis probare christum non esse filium David, quia non est conceptus ex ioseph, usque ad quem seriem generationis matthaeus perducit.

Contra quod Augustinus respondet, XXIII libro contra faustum, quod, cum idem evangelista dicat virum mariae esse ioseph, et christi matrem virginem esse, et christum ex semine David, quid restat nisi credere mariam non fuisse extraneam a cognatione David; et eam ioseph coniugem non frustra appellatam, propter animorum confoederationem, quamvis ei non fuerit carne commixtus; et quod potius propter dignitatem virilem ordo generationum ad ioseph perducitur? sic ergo nos credimus etiam mariam fuisse in cognatione David, quia Scripturis credimus, quae utrumque dicunt, et christum ex semine David secundum carnem, et eius matrem mariam, non cum viro concumbendo, sed virginem.

Ut enim dicit Hieronymus, super Matth., ex una tribu fuit ioseph et maria, unde et secundum legem eam accipere cogebatur ut propinquam. Propter quod et simul censentur in bethlehem, quasi de una stirpe generati.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod huic obiectioni Gregorius Nazianzenus respondet dicens quod hoc nutu superno contigit, ut regium genus sacerdotali stirpi iungeretur, ut christus, qui rex est et sacerdos, ab utrisque nasceretur secundum carnem. Unde et Aaron, qui fuit primus sacerdos secundum legem, duxit ex tribu Iudae coniugem elisabeth, filiam Aminadab. Sic ergo potuit fieri ut pater elisabeth aliquam uxorem habuerit de stirpe David, ratione cuius beata virgo maria, quae fuit de stirpe David, esset elisabeth cognata. Vel potius e converso quod pater beatae mariae, de stirpe David existens, uxorem habuerit de stirpe Aaron.

Vel, sicut Augustinus dicit, XXIII contra faustum, si ioachim, pater mariae, de stirpe Aaron fuit (ut faustus haereticus per quasdam Scripturas apocryphas asserebat), credendum est quod mater ioachim fuerit de stirpe David, vel etiam uxor eius, ita quod per aliquem modum dicamus mariam fuisse de progenie David.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod per illam auctoritatem propheticam, sicut Ambrosius dicit, super Luc., non negatur ex semine iechoniae posteros nascituros. Et ideo de semine eius christus est. Et quod regnavit christus, non contra prophetiam est, non enim saeculari honore regnavit; ipse enim dixit, regnum meum non est de hoc mundo.