Theophylact of Ohrid

There are four Evangelists; two of them, Matthew and John, were of the company of the twelve, and two, Mark and Luke, were of the seventy. Mark was a follower and disciple of Peter; and Luke, of Paul. Matthew, then, first wrote the Gospel, in the Hebrew language for the Jews who believed, eight years after Christ’s Ascension. Some say that John translated it from the Hebrew language into Greek. Mark wrote his Gospel ten years after the Ascension, instructed by Peter. Luke wrote his Gospel fifteen years after the Ascension, and John the most wise Theologian, thirty two years after the Ascension.

It is said that after the death of the first three Evangelists, the three Gospels were brought to John while he yet lived that he might see them and judge if they had been composed according to the truth. When John read them he fully accepted the grace of the truth in them. and whatever the other Evangelists had omitted, he completed in his Gospel, and whatever they had touched on briefly, he elaborated. This was the beginning of theology. Since the other Evangelists had not mentioned the existence of God the Word from before the ages, John himself spoke the word of God—theology—concerning this, so that no one would think that God the Word was a mere man without divinity. For Matthew speaks only of the existence of Christ in the flesh, as he was writing for the Jews for whom it sufficed to learn that Christ was begotten from Abraham and David. A believing Jew is content to know that Christ is from David.

You might ask, “Was not one Evangelist enough?” Listen, then: one was enough, but four were allowed to write so that the truth might be revealed more clearly. When you see these four Evangelists, not sitting down together in one place, but each one by himself at a different time and place writing about the same things as if with one voice, do you not marvel at the truth of the Gospel and conclude that they spoke by the Holy Spirit? Do not tell me that they are not in agreement in all points. Consider where exactly they do not agree. Does one Evangelist say that Christ was born, and another, that He was not? Or one, that He rose, and another, that He did not? Indeed not! In what is essential, they speak with one voice. Therefore, if they do not diverge in the essential points, why do you marvel if they appear to vary in minor details? It is precisely because their accounts do not agree in every detail that we can see that they present the truth. If they had agreed on every point, it would cause one to suspect that they sat down and deliberated together in writing the Gospels. Instead, what one Evangelist has omitted, another has recorded, and for this reason that they seem to be at variance on certain points.

Why did he not say "vision" or "word" as did the prophets who prefaced their writing in this manner: "The vision which Isaiah saw (Is 1:1)," and "The word which came to Isaiah (Is 2:1)." Do you wish to know why? Because the prophets were speaking to hard-hearted and disobedient people, and therefore they would say, "This is a divine vision," or "This is the word of God," so that the people would be frightened and not disdain what was said. But Matthew was addressing believers who were obedient and of a good disposition, and for this reason he did not begin in the manner of the prophets. I will also add that what the prophets saw, they saw noetically, that is, with their minds, envisioning these things by the Holy Spirit; and this is why they called them "visions." But Matthew did not see Christ noetically, nor did he envision Him in his mind, but he was with Him tangibly and listened to Him with his senses and saw Him in the flesh. Therefore he did not say, "The vision which I saw," but "The book of generation."

The name "Jesus" is not Greek but Hebrew, meaning "Saviour," for Iao is the Hebrew word for "salvation."

The Hebrew kings and priests were called "christs" [i.e. "anointed ones"], because they were anointed with the holy oil poured out from a horn held over the head. The Lord, therefore, is called Christ, both as King because He ruled over sin, and as Priest because He offered Himself as a sacrifice for us. He Himself was pre-eminently anointed with the true oil, the Holy Spirit; for who else possessed the Spirit as did the Lord? In the saints, the grace of the Holy Spirit was at work, but in Christ it was not the grace of the Spirit at work, but rather Christ being of one essence with the Spirit worked the miracles.

Since Matthew had said "Jesus," he added "the Son of David," so that you would not think he was speaking of the other Jesus [i.e. Joshua]; for there was another renowned Jesus, who became commander after Moses, but he was called "son of Nave," and not "son of David." For he preceded David by many generations and was not of the tribe of Judah, from which David was descended, but of another.

Why did he place David before Abraham? He did so because to the Jews David had greater renown, both because he was more recent than Abraham and because he was more illustrious on account of his kingdom. For of the kings, David was the first to please God, and he received the promise from God that the Christ would arise from his seed. For this reason all men called Christ "the Son of David." And indeed David was also a symbolic type of Christ; for just as David ruled after Saul, that outcast from God who was rejected, so too Christ came in the flesh to reign over us after Adam had been deprived of the kingship and the dominion which he had over all things, both animals and demons.

Tamar was the daughter-in-law of Judah, the wife of his son Er (Gen. 38:6-30). When Er died childless, Judah married her to another of his sons, Onan. But when he, too, was cut down from among the living on account of his wickedness, Judah did not marry her to any other of his sons. But she desired to have a child of the seed of Abraham, and so she put off the garments of a widow, dressed as a harlot, came together with her father-in-law, and from him conceived twin boys. As she was giving birth to them, the first child reached its hand out from her womb, as if it would be born first, and at once the mid-wife marked the extended hand of the child with a scarlet thread so as to distinguish the firstborn. But the child drew its hand back into the womb and the other one was born first, followed by the one who had reached out its hand. So the one who was born first was named "Pharez" which means "interruption," for it had interrupted the natural order; and the child which withdrew its hand was named "Zarah." This account indicates a certain mystery. For just as Zarah first showed his hand and then withdrew it, so, too, the life in Christ appeared in those holy ones who lived before the law and circumcision. For all these were not counted as righteous by the observances of the law and the commandments, but by living the evangelic life of the Gospel. Consider Abraham who left his father and his home for God’s sake and even denied the order of nature by his willingness to sacrifice Isaac. Consider Job, and Melchizedek. But when the law came, this manner of life receded. Just as in the story, Pharez was born and then Zarah came forth again, so too, when the law had been given, the evangelic life later shone forth again, marked with the scarlet thread, that is, sealed with the blood of Christ. The reason why the evangelist mentioned these two children, therefore, is that their birth revealed something mysterious. But there is another reason why he mentions Tamar, who does not appear to be praiseworthy on account of her physical relations with her father-in-law; and that was to show that Christ Who accepted all things for our sake, accepted even to have such forbears as these. It was moreover for this very reason that He was born from them, that He might sanctify them; for He came not to call the righteous, but the sinners.

Why does he give the genealogy of Joseph and not of Mary, the Theotokos? What participation did Joseph have in that seedless birth giving? Surely Joseph was not the true father of Jesus, so that Matthew could give Christ’s genealogy through Joseph? Listen then: Joseph truly had no share in the birth of Christ; and therefore the genealogy of the Theotokos ought to have been given. But as it was not lawful to reckon ancestry through the mother, he did not give the genealogy of the Virgin. And yet, by giving the genealogy of Joseph, Matthew gave her genealogy as well. For it was the law that a woman was not to be taken as wife by a man who was of a different tribe and who was not of her father’s lineage (Num. 36:8-9). This being the law, it is obvious that Joseph’s genealogy includes that of the Theotokos, for she was of the same tribe and the same lineage. If she were not, she could not have been betrothed to him. So the evangelist both kept the law which forbade the reckoning of ancestry through the mother, and at the same time provided the genealogy of the Theotokos by giving the genealogy of Joseph. He calls Joseph "the husband of Mary," according to the common practice. For we are accustomed to call the man who is betrothed the "husband" of her who is betrothed, even before the marriage has taken place.

When the righteous one was uncertain, then the angel appeared in order to show him what to do. The angel appeared to him in a dream, because Joseph had great faith. With the shepherds the angel conversed openly, as they were rough country men; but the angel spoke to Joseph, who was righteous and believing, in his sleep. How could Joseph not believe, when the angel spoke to him of matters that were in his mind and that he had not revealed to anyone? For it says, "while he pondered," but did not speak of, these things, the angel appeared to him. It was right that he believed the angel to be of God, for it is the attribute of God to know the things that are unspoken.

The angel called him "son of David" to remind him that the prophets had foretold that the Christ would come from the seed of David. It is as if the angel were saying to him, "Do not doubt, but remember David who received the promise concerning Christ."

Here he shows that Joseph was afraid to keep her, lest he spurn God by harboring an adulteress. Or, in another sense, "Fear not," that is, "Though you fear to touch her who has conceived of the Holy Spirit, do not fear to take her unto thee, that is, to keep her within your house." For in his thoughts and deliberations he had already divorced her.

This means, you perhaps think that she is an adulteress. But I say to you that she is your wife, that is, she has not been corrupted by anyone, but she is your own betrothed.

Not only is she acquitted of any unlawful union, but she has conceived in some divine and wondrous manner. Therefore you ought rather to rejoice because of this.