Origen of Alexandria

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 took place in this way,” but there “The book of the generation.” … 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.” Hence his “birth” was both like ours and above ours. For to be born “of woman” is like our birth, but to be born “not of the will of the flesh” or “of man” 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.

For what reason did God, deciding that the Savior should be born from a virgin, not choose a virgin who was not betrothed? Might it have been, then, an economy for her to conceive while having a betrothed, so that it might not appear as a disgrace upon her body for her to conceive? For it is rightly written in one of the letters of a certain martyr—I mean Ignatius, the second bishop of Antioch after the blessed Peter, who fought with beasts in Rome during the persecution—"and the virginity of Mary escaped the notice of the ruler of this age." So, if it had not been for what seemed to be a marriage, it would not have escaped his notice, but the ruler of this age would have known that Mary, having never slept with a man, conceived, and thus the conception must be divine. The Savior wished through the entire economy to elude the devil, and indeed ordered the disciples not to make him manifest. But even when he was tempted by the devil, nowhere did he openly declare that he is the Son of God, but merely said: it is not necessary for me to worship you, it is not necessary for me to make stones into bread, it is not necessary for me to throw myself down from above. Also, the Apostle says that the economy of the passion was done in forgetfulness of the opposing power: "which none of the rulers of this age understood; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." If it was not hidden from the demon—for it said: "We know who you are, the Son of God"—see, the lesser in evil knew the Savior, but the greater in evil was hindered by the magnitude of his wickedness from beholding him.

But perhaps some Jewish man of those who dare to oppose the teaching of our Saviour will say, that when Jesus said, "Whosoever shall put away his own wife, saving for the cause of fornication, makes her an adulteress," [Matthew 5:32] He also gave permission to put away a wife like as well as Moses did, who was said by Him to have given laws for the hardness of heart of the people, and will hold that the saying, "Because he found in her an unseemly thing," [Deuteronomy 24:1] is to be reckoned as the same as fornication on account of which with good cause a wife could be cast away from her husband. But to him it must be said that, if she who committed adultery was according to the law to be stoned, clearly it is not in this sense that the unseemly thing is to be understood. For it is not necessary for adultery or any such great indecency to write a bill of divorcement and give it into the hands of the wife; but indeed perhaps Moses called every sin an unseemly thing, on the discovery of which by the husband in the wife, as not finding favour in the eyes of her husband, the bill of divorcement is written, and the wife is sent away from the house of her husband; "but from the beginning it has not been so." [Matthew 19:8] After this our Saviour says, not at all permitting the dissolution of marriages for any other sin than fornication alone, when detected in the wife, "Whosoever shall put away his own wife, saving for the cause of fornication, makes her an adulteress." [Matthew 5:32] But it might be a subject for inquiry if on this account He hinders any one putting away a wife, unless she be caught in fornication, for any other reason, as for example for poisoning, or for the destruction during the absence of her husband from home of an infant born to them, or for any form of murder whatsoever. And further, if she were found despoiling and pillaging the house of her husband, though she was not guilty of fornication, one might ask if he would with reason cast away such an one, seeing that the Saviour forbids any one to put away his own wife saving for the cause of fornication. In either case there appears to be something monstrous, whether it be really monstrous, I do not know; for to endure sins of such heinousness which seem to be worse than adultery or fornication, will appear to be irrational; but again on the other hand to act contrary to the design of the teaching of the Saviour, every one would acknowledge to be impious. I wonder therefore why He did not say, Let no one put away his own wife saving for the cause of fornication, but says, "Whosoever shall put away his own wife, saving for the cause of fornication, makes her an adulteress." [Matthew 5:32] For confessedly he who puts away his wife when she is not a fornicator, makes her an adulteress, so far as it lies with him, for if, "when the husband is living she shall be called an adulteress if she be joined to another man;" [Romans 7:3] and when by putting her away, he gives to her the excuse of a second marriage, very plainly in this way he makes her an adulteress. But as to whether her being caught in the act of poisoning or committing murder, furnishes any defense of his dismissal of her, you can inquire yourselves; for the husband can also in other ways than by putting her away cause his own wife to commit adultery; as, for example, allowing her to do what she wishes beyond what is fitting, and stooping to friendship with what men she wishes, for often from the simplicity of husbands such false steps happen to wives; but whether there is a ground of defense or not for such husbands in the case of such false steps, you will inquire carefully, and deliver your opinion also in regard to the difficult questions raised by us on the passage. And even he who withholds himself from his wife makes her oftentimes to be an adulteress when he does not satisfy her desires, even though he does so under the appearance of greater gravity and self-control. And perhaps this man is more culpable who, so far as it rests with him, makes her an adulteress when he does not satisfy her desires than he who, for other reason than fornication, has sent her away — for poisoning or murder or any of the most grievous sins. But as a woman is an adulteress, even though she seem to be married to a man, while the former husband is still living, so also the man who seems to marry her who has been put away, does not so much marry her as commit adultery with her according to the declaration of our Saviour.