While almost all of the works in this vault use Victorian translations, due to the only English translation of this commentary being in copyright, it was machine-translated (by Claude, 2026) from the public-domain Latin. It has not been checked by a human translator.
Hilary, bishop of Poitiers, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, written about 353–356, before his exile to the East. Chapter 1: On the birth of Christ, and on the Magi with their gifts, and on the infants who were slain.
-
The line of descent which Matthew set out in the order of the royal succession, Luke reckons by a priestly origin. And while each of them counts it out, each signifies that in the Lord there is kinship with both tribes. And rightly is the line of the generation so set down: because the alliance of the priestly and the royal tribe, entered into by marriage through David, is now confirmed by descent from Salathiel to Zorobabel. And so, while Matthew recounts the father’s origin, which proceeded from Juda, and Luke teaches the descent received through Nathan from the tribe of Levi, they have proved, each by his own line of fathers, that our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the eternal King and Priest, had the glory of both lines even in His birth after the flesh. That it is Joseph’s descent rather than Mary’s which is recounted makes no difference: for the whole tribe is one and the same kindred. Matthew and Luke have also given an instance of this, in calling men one another’s fathers, not so much by birth as by stock: because a tribe begun from one man is held together as the family of one succession and one origin. For since He was to be shown to be the son of David and of Abraham — and so Matthew began, The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham — it makes no difference who is set in what place in the number and order of the descent, so long as the family of them all is understood to have begun from one. So, since Joseph and Mary are of the same tribe, when Joseph is shown to have come from the stock of Abraham, Mary also is taught to have come from it. For this rule was kept in the Law: that if the head of a family had died without sons, the dead man’s younger brother of the same kindred should take his wife, and should reckon the sons he begot to the family of him who had died; and so the order of succession remained with the firstborn, since those born afterwards were held to have them for fathers either in name or by blood.
-
What follows is that, since we have said that by the facts of the matter the order of this genealogy agrees with itself neither in number nor in succession, a reason should be given for this too. For it is no light matter that one thing should stand in the narrative and another have been in the events, and that one figure should be given in the total and another be found in the count. For from Abraham to David fourteen generations are numbered, and from David to the carrying away into Babylon fourteen generations, whereas in the books of Kings seventeen are found. But in this there is no fault of falsehood or of carelessness. For three were passed over for a reason. Joram begat Ochozias, Ochozias begat Joas, Joas then Amasias, and Amasias Ozias. And in Matthew Joram is written to have begotten Ozias, though Ozias is fourth from him. This is so because Joram begat Ochozias of a Gentile woman, namely of the house of Achab; and it had been said by the prophet that none of the house of Achab should sit on the throne of the kingdom of Israel until the fourth generation. So the Gentile family of Achab being purged away, and three being passed over, the royal line of the generations that follow is counted again from the fourth. And as for its being written that there are fourteen generations down to Mary, though only thirteen are found in the count: there can be no error for those who know that our Lord Jesus Christ has not that origin only which began from Mary, but that in His bodily begetting is contained the sign of His eternal birth.
-
The account of the generation, however, is simple. For that He was conceived of the Holy Ghost and born of the Virgin Mary is the work of all the prophets. But many irreligious men, quite strangers to spiritual teaching, seize from this an occasion of thinking basely of Mary, that it is said, Before they came together, she was found with child; and, Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife; and, He knew her not till she had brought forth: not remembering that she had been betrothed, and that this was said to Joseph when he was minded to put her away, because, being a just man, he was unwilling that sentence should be passed on her under the Law. So, lest there should be any doubt about her childbearing, he himself is taken as witness that Christ was conceived of the Holy Ghost; and then, because she had been betrothed, she is received as his wife. She is “known,” then, after the birth: that is, she passes into the name of wife. For she is acknowledged, not lain with. Then, when Joseph is warned to go over into Egypt, it is said thus: Take the young child and his mother; and, Return with the young child and his mother; and again in Luke, And Joseph and his mother marvelled. And whenever the two are spoken of, she is called rather the mother of Christ, because that she was; not the wife of Joseph, because that she was not. But this reason too was kept by the angel: that when he was speaking of her as betrothed to the just man Joseph, he named her wife. For he says thus: Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife. So the betrothed took the name of wife, and after the birth, being acknowledged as wife, she is shown to be only the mother of Jesus: that as a marriage with the same Mary in virginity was granted to Joseph the just, so her virginity might be shown worthy of reverence in the mother of Jesus.
-
But the most perverse of men take from this the warrant for their opinion, that it has been handed down that our Lord had several brothers. If these had been Mary’s sons, and not rather Joseph’s, begotten of an earlier marriage, she would never at the time of the Passion have been made over as mother to the apostle John, the Lord saying to them both, Woman, behold thy son, and to John, Behold thy mother: it was only that He was leaving to the desolate woman, for her comfort, a son’s love in the disciple.
-
Moreover the rising of the star, understood first by the Magi, shows that the Gentiles would soon believe in Christ, and that men whose calling was far turned away from the knowledge of God would know the light that appeared as soon as He was born. Then the offering of the gifts expressed an understanding of all that He is: confessing Him King in the gold, God in the frankincense, man in the myrrh. And so by their worship the knowledge of the whole mystery was made complete: in the man, the knowledge of His death; in God, of His resurrection; in the King, of His judgment. As for their being forbidden to retrace their journey and return to Herod in Judaea: we are not permitted to seek anything of knowledge and understanding from Judaea, but, placing all our salvation and hope in Christ, we are warned to keep from the way of our former life.
-
When Herod was preparing the little child’s death, Joseph is warned by an angel to carry Him into Egypt: Egypt full of idols, and worshipping monstrous gods of every kind. Now, after the persecution of the Jews, and the consent of the profane people to putting Him to death, Christ passes over to the Gentiles, given up as they were to the emptiest of religions; and, leaving Judaea, He is brought to be worshipped by a world that knew Him not, while Bethlehem, that is, Judaea, runs with the blood of martyrs. And the fury of Herod and the slaying of the infants is a figure of the Jewish people raging against the Christians, and thinking that by the slaughter of the blessed martyrs they could blot out the name of Christ from the faith and confession of all.
-
But glorious honour is paid to their death by the prophet, who says, In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not. Rachel, the wife of Jacob, was long barren; but she lost none of those whom she bore. In Genesis, however, she bore the figure of the Church. It is not her voice and her weeping, then, that is heard, for she had no grief for sons lost; but the voice of this Church, long barren and now fruitful. Her weeping over her sons is heard, not because she mourned them slain, but because they were slain by those whom she would have wished to keep as her first-begotten sons. And so she who grieved would not be comforted. For those who were thought dead were not “not”: they were being borne up, by the glory of martyrdom, to the increase of eternity. And comfort was to be given for a thing lost, not for a thing increased.