What are you doing, God-inspired man, reminding us of the story of lawless incest? What's the matter? He answers. If we were to enumerate the genus of an ordinary man, it would be proper to keep silent about such a matter. But in the genealogy of the incarnate God, not only should it not be kept silent, but it should also be announced with a commanding voice, in order to show His providence and power. He came not to escape our shame, but to destroy it. Just as we are especially amazed not at the fact that Christ died, but at the fact that He was crucified (although this is reproachful, but the more reproachful, the more His love for mankind is shown), so we can say about birth: Christ should be amazed not only because He took upon Himself flesh and became man, but also because He vouchsafed wicked people to be His kinsmen, not in the least ashamed of our vices. Thus, from the very beginning of His birth, He showed that He did not disdain anything of ours, thereby teaching us not to be ashamed of the wickedness of our ancestors, but to seek only one thing – virtue. A virtuous person, even if he comes from a foreigner, even if he is born of a harlot or some other sinner, cannot receive any harm from this. If the fornicator himself, if he changes, is not in the least disgraced by his former life, how much more can a virtuous person, if he is descended from a prostitute or adulteress, in the least disgrace the depravity of his parents. However, Christ did this not only for our instruction, but also for the taming of the pride of the Jews. Since they, neglecting the virtue of the soul, on any occasion exalted themselves only by Abraham, and thought to be justified by the virtue of their ancestors, the Lord from the very beginning shows that it is not proper to boast of one's family, but of one's own merits. Moreover, He also wants to show that everyone, even the forefathers, are guilty of sins. Thus the patriarch, from whom the very name of the Jewish people was derived, turns out to be no small sinner: Tamar accuses him of fornication. And David begat Solomon by an adulterous woman. But if such great men have not fulfilled the law, how much more so are those who are inferior to them. And if they did not fulfill it, then everyone sinned, and the coming of Christ was necessary. For this reason the Evangelist also mentioned the twelve patriarchs, in order to humiliate the Jews, who were exalted by their illustrious ancestors. For many of the patriarchs were born of slave women, and yet the difference of those who gave birth did not make a distinction between those who were born. All of them were equally patriarchs and ancestors of the tribes. This is the advantage of the Church; this is the distinction of our nobility, which was already foreshadowed in the Old Testament. Even if you are a slave, even if you are free, it does you neither good nor harm; only one thing is needed - will and spiritual disposition.

3. In addition to what has been said, there is another reason why the Evangelist mentioned the story of Judas' incest. It was not without reason that Zara was annexed to Pharez. Apparently, it would be vain and superfluous after Pharez, from whom the genealogy of Christ was to be traced, to mention Zara again. What is the purpose of the above? When the time came for Tamar to give birth to them and illnesses began, Zara was the first to show his hand. The midwife, seeing this, in order to notice the firstborn, bound his hand with a red thread. And when the hand was bandaged, the child hid it, and then was born Pharez, and then Zara. Seeing this, the midwife said: "How hast thou broken thyself barrier" (Gen. 38:29)? Do you notice the mysterious prefiguration? It is not without reason that this has been written for us, since it would not be worth while to relate what the midwife once said, and to tell that he who was born second was the first to put out his hand. So, what does this foreshadowing mean? First, the name of the infant resolves this question: Pharez means division and dissection. Secondly, the event itself: it was not in the natural order that the hand that had appeared, being bandaged, was again hidden. There was no rational movement or natural order. It may be natural for another to be born when one has shown his hand; but to conceal it in order to make way for another is already contrary to the law of those who are born. No, the grace of God was present here, arranging the birth of infants, and predestining for us through them a certain image of future events. What exactly? Those who have carefully studied this incident say that these babies prefigured the two peoples. Then, so that you may know that the existence of the second people precedes the origin of the first, the infant does not show himself completely, but only stretches out his hand, but hides it again, and only after his brother has come into the world, and he appears completely. And so it happened with both people. First, in the time of Abraham, the life of the church appeared, then, when it was hidden, the Jewish people came into existence with a life under the law, and after that a whole new nation appeared with its own laws. Wherefore the midwife says: How hast thou broken thyself barrier? The law that came to power cut off the freedom of life. And the Scriptures usually call the law a barrier. Thus the Prophet David says: "Thou hast broken down her hedges, so that all who pass by the way cut her off" (Psalm 79:13). And Isaiah: He surrounded it with a fence (Isaiah 5:2). And Paul: "And he who broke down the barrier that stood in the middle" (Ephesians 2:14).

4. Others say that the words: How did you break your barrier? spoken of a new people, because it abolished the law by its appearance. Do you see that it was not for a few and unimportant reasons that the evangelist mentioned the whole story of Judas? For the same reason Ruth and Rahab are mentioned, one of whom was a foreigner, and the other a harlot, i.e., to teach you that the Saviour came to destroy all our sins, came as a physician, and not as a judge. Just as they married harlots, so God combined with Himself an adulterous nature. The prophets of old applied this to the synagogue as well; but she turned out to be ungrateful to her husband. On the contrary, the Church, once freed from the vices of her fathers, remained in the arms of the Bridegroom. Look also at what in Ruth's adventures is similar to ours. She was a stranger and reduced to extreme poverty, and yet, when Boaz saw her, he did not despise her poverty, nor did he disdain her low birth. In the same way, Christ, Who took over the Church of a foreign tribe and was very impoverished, made it a partaker of great blessings. And just as she would never have entered into such a marriage if she had not left her father beforehand, and had not despised her home, clan, fatherland, and relatives, so the Church, when she left the manners of her fathers, then became pleasing to the Bridegroom. About this, the prophet, addressing the Church, says: Forget your people and your father's house. And the King will desire your beauty (Psalm 44:11,12). Thus did Ruth, and through this she became the mother of kings, as well as the Church, because David descended from her. Thus, the Evangelist compiled a genealogy and placed these women in it in order to shame the Jews with such examples and teach them not to be arrogant. Ruth was the ancestor of a great king, and David is not ashamed of it.

It is impossible, absolutely impossible, through the virtues or vices of one's ancestors, to be honest or dishonest, famous or unknown. On the contrary, I must say, though my words may seem strange, that he is more famous who, being not born of good parents, has become good. Therefore, let no one be proud of his ancestors; but, thinking about the first parents of the Lord, let him put aside all vanity, and boast of his merits, or rather not boast of them. From self-boasting, the Pharisee became worse than the publican. If you want to show a great virtue, do not be arrogant, and then you will show an even greater one; Do not think that having done something, you have already done everything.

The Lord knows your merits much better than you. If you give me a cup of cold water, He will not despise even that. If you give one ox, if only you sigh, He will accept everything with great favor, and remember, and determine great rewards for it. Why then do you consider your virtues, and constantly expose them to us? Or do you not know that if you praise yourself, you will no longer be praised by God? Likewise, if you humble yourself, will He praise you unceasingly before all? He does not want to diminish the reward for your labors. What do I say: reduce? He does and arranges everything to crown you even for small things, and seeks all kinds of pretexts to deliver you from hell.

5. That is why, even if you work only at the eleventh hour of the day, the Lord will give you a full reward. Though there is nothing to save you for, He will say, I do it for myself, so that my name may not be defiled (cf. I will not do this for you, O house of Israel, but for my holy name's sake. If you only sigh, if you only shed tears, He Himself will immediately use all this as an opportunity for your salvation. Therefore, let us not be arrogant, let us call ourselves useless, that we may be useful. If you call yourself worthy of praise, then you are useless, even if you are really worthy of praise; on the contrary, if you call yourself useless, you will become useful, even if you are unworthy of praise. That is why one should forget about one's good deeds.

This is utter madness, and the greatest damage to the one who collects. Forgetting one's good deeds is their safest storehouse. And as clothes and gold, if we lay them out in the market, attract many evildoers, and if we clean and hide them in the house, they are kept in perfect safety, so if we constantly keep our good deeds in mind, we provoke the Lord to anger, and arm the enemy, and stir him up to steal, and if no one knows them besides this, Those who need to know will be safe. Therefore, do not constantly boast of your good works, lest someone deprive you of them, lest the same thing happen to you as happened to the Pharisee, who wore them on his tongue, whence the devil stole them. Although he remembered them with thanksgiving, and lifted up everything to God, this did not save him either, because it is not proper for one who gives thanks to God to revile others, to show his superiority over the majority, and to exalt himself before sinners. If you thank God, then be content with that; do not speak about these things to people, and do not condemn your neighbor, for this is no longer a matter of gratitude. Do you want to know how to express gratitude? Listen to what the three youths say: "We have sinned, and have done iniquity" (Dan. 3:29); for thou art righteous in all that thou hast done to us (v. 27), and all that thou hast brought upon us thou hast done according to true judgment (v. 31). To confess one's sins means to thank God; Whoever confesses his sins shows that he is guilty of innumerable sins, and only has not received a worthy punishment. It is he who gives thanks to God the most. Therefore, let us beware of praising ourselves for what is good, because this makes us hateful both before people and vile before God. Therefore, the more good we do, the less we will talk about ourselves. Only in this way can we gain the greatest glory both with God and with people; or rather, God has not only glory, but also reward and great recompense. Therefore, do not demand a reward in order to receive a reward; confess that you are saved by grace, so that God Himself will acknowledge Himself as your debtor, not only for your good works, but also for your gratitude. When we do good, He owes us only for our deeds; and when we do not think at all that we have done any good deed, then He remains indebted to us for our disposition, and moreover more than for our deeds - so that our disposition is equal to the virtues themselves, and without it even the deeds themselves are not important. In the same way, we show favor to our servants, especially when they, serving us with diligence in everything, think that they have not yet done anything important for us.

Therefore, if you also wish that your good deeds should be great, then do not consider them great, and then they will be great. Thus the centurion said: "I am not worthy that Thou should come under my roof" (Matt. 8:8), and through this I became worthy, and deserved the wonder of all the Jews. Thus Paul also said: "He is not worthy to be called an Apostle" (1 Cor. 15:9), and through this he became the first of all. Thus John also said: "From Whom I am not worthy to untie the strap of my shoe" (Luke 3:16), and for this I was the friend of the Bridegroom, and that hand, which He considered unworthy to touch the boots, Christ laid on His head. Thus Peter said: "Depart from me, O Lord! for I am a sinful man (Luke 5:8), and for this I became the foundation of the Church. Truly, nothing is so pleasing to God as if someone considers himself among the greatest sinners. This is the beginning of all wisdom: the humble and contrite will never be vain, or angry, or envious of his neighbor, in a word, he will not nourish a single passion in himself. A broken hand, no matter how hard we try, cannot be lifted up; If we crush the soul in this way, then even if a thousand passions exalt it, it will not rise in the least. If he who weeps over the affairs of life banishes all mental illnesses; then he who mourns his sins much more will become wise. Who, you will say, can so crush his heart? Listen to David, who was especially famous for this, look at the contrition of his soul. When, having already accomplished many feats, he was in danger of losing his homeland, his home, and his very life, and in the very moment of misfortune he saw that a low and contemptible soldier was mocking his misfortune and revile him, not only did he himself not answer with curses, but he also rebuked the military commander who wanted to kill him, saying: "Leave him, for the Lord has commanded him" (2 Samuel 16:11). And on another occasion, when the priests asked him for permission to carry a nod after him, he did not agree, but what did he say? Return the ark of God to the city. If I find mercy in the eyes of the Lord, He will bring me back and let me see him and his dwelling place. And if He says thus, "I have no favor with you," then here I am; let him do with me what pleases Him (2 Samuel 15:25, 26) And what he did in relation to Saul, not once, not twice, but many times, what does he show the height of wisdom? Such behavior was above the Old Law, and approached the commandments of the Apostles. Therefore, he accepted everything from the Lord with love, not investigating what was happening to him, but trying only to always obey and follow the laws given by Him. And after accomplishing such great feats, seeing the kingdom belonging to him in the hands of a torturer, a parricide, a fratricide, an oppressor, a demon-possessed, he was not only not tempted by this, but said: "If it is so pleasing to God that I should be persecuted, wander and flee, and my enemy should be honored, then I accept it with love, and I thank him for the innumerable misfortunes." He did not act like many shameless and impudent people, who, not having accomplished even the slightest part of his feats, hardly see anyone in a prosperous state, and themselves, even in a small sorrow, destroy their souls with innumerable blasphemy. David was not like that, but he showed meekness in everything. Therefore God also said: "I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after my own heart" (Psalm 88:21). Let us also try to have such a soul, and whatever happens to us, let us endure with meekness, and here, until we receive the kingdom, let us gather the fruits of humility. Learn of me, says the Lord, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls (Matt. 11:29). Therefore, in order that we may enjoy peace both here and there, let us with all diligence implant in our souls the mother of all good things, that is, humility. With the help of this virtue, we will be able to cross the sea of real life without worry, and reach a quiet harbor, through the grace and love of humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

CONVERSATION 4

1. The Evangelist divided the whole genealogy into three parts, wishing to show that the Jews did not become better with the change of government; but in the time of the aristocracy, and under the kings, and in the time of the oligarchy, they indulged in the same vices: under the rule of judges, priests, and kings, they showed no success in virtue. But why did the Evangelist omit three kings in the middle part of the genealogy, and in the last, having placed twelve families, he said that there are fourteen of them? I leave the first to your own research, not deeming it necessary to decide everything for you, so that you do not become lazy; Let's talk about the second. It seems to me that he counts the time of captivity and Jesus Christ Himself among the generations, copulating Him with us everywhere. And by the way, he mentions the captivity, showing that the Jews did not become more prudent even in captivity, so that the necessity of Christ's coming was evident from everything. But it will be said: Why does not Mark do the same, and does not set forth the genealogy of Jesus, but speaks of everything briefly? I think that Matthew wrote the Gospel before the others, which is why he expounds the genealogy with exactness, and dwells on the most important circumstances, while Mark wrote after him, which is why he observed brevity as telling of what had already been retold and made known. And why does Luke also set forth the genealogy, and moreover even more completely? Because he, having in mind the Gospel of Matthew, wants to give us more information than Matthew. Moreover, each of them imitated the teacher, one Paul, who overflows like a river, and the other Peter, who loves brevity. And why did Matthew at the beginning of the Gospel not say, following the example of the prophets: "The vision which I saw" (Ezekiel 11:24), or: "And the word of the Lord came to me" (Ezekiel 37:15, 38:1)? Because he wrote to well-meaning people, and to those who were very attentive to him. And the former miracles confirmed to him what was written, and the readers were filled with faith. In the time of the prophets, however, there were not so many miracles that would confirm their preaching, on the contrary, there appeared a multitude of false prophets, to whom the Jewish people listened more willingly, which is why they had to begin their prophecies in this way. And if there were any miracles, they were for the Gentiles, so that they would turn to Judaism in greater numbers, and for the manifestation of the power of God, when the enemies who subdued the Jews thought that they had conquered them by the power of their gods. This happened in Egypt, from whence came a great number of people after the Jews; such were the same afterwards in Babylon - a miracle in the furnaces and dreams. However, there were miracles in the wilderness, when the Jews were there alone, as it was with us; and we have many miracles when we have come out of error. But later, when piety was implanted everywhere, the miracles ceased. If the Jews did have miracles afterwards, they were not in great numbers and occasionally, such as when the sun stopped, and another time when it receded. Again we can see the same: in our time, too, many miraculous things have happened to Julian, who surpassed all in impiety. When the Jews undertook the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, fire came out from under the foundation and interfered with the work; and when Julian madly attempted to mock the sacred vessels, the keeper of the treasures and the uncle of Julian, who was named after him, the first died, eaten by worms, and the other fell in half. And it was a very important miracle that during the offering of sacrifices there the springs dried up, and that during the reign of Julian the cities were overtaken by famine.

2. God usually performs signs when evil abounds. When He sees that His servants are oppressed, and His opponents are immeasurably reveling in torment over them, then He shows His own dominion. This is what He did to the Jews in Persia. Thus, from what has been said, it is evident that the Evangelist, not without reason and not accidentally, divided the ancestors of Christ into three parts. Notice, then, with whom he begins, and with whom he ends. Beginning with Abraham, he traces his genealogy to David; then from David to the migration of Babylon, and from the last to Christ himself. As at the beginning of the whole genealogy of both David and Abraham he placed them side by side, so he also mentioned both at the end of the genealogy, because, as I said before, promises were given to them. Why, then, when he mentioned the migration to Babylon, did he not mention the migration to Egypt? Because the Jews were no longer afraid of the Egyptians, but the Babylonians were still trembling, and because the former happened a long time ago, and the latter recently; moreover, they were not taken to Egypt for sins, but to Babylon for iniquities. If anyone wishes to delve into the meaning of the names themselves, then here too he will find many objects for contemplation, much that will serve to explain the new testament; such are the names of Abraham, Jacob, Solomon, and Zerubbabel, because these names were not given to them without intention. But in order not to bore you with the duration, let's keep silent about it and deal with what is necessary. Thus, when the Evangelist enumerated all the ancestors and ended with Joseph, he did not stop there, but added: Joseph, Mary's husband, showing that for Mary he mentioned Joseph in the genealogy. Then, lest you, when you hear of Mary's husband, think that Jesus was born according to the general law of nature, see how he removes this thought by further words. Thou hast heard, he says, of the man, thou hast heard of the mother, thou hast heard of the name given to the child; now hear also how He was born. The Nativity of Jesus Christ was like this. Tell me, what kind of birth are you talking about? You have already told me about the ancestors. I wish, says the Evangelist, to speak also about the manner of birth. Do you see how he aroused the attention of the listener? As if intending to say something new, he promises to explain the manner of birth. And notice what an excellent order in the story. He did not suddenly speak of birth, but first reminds us who Christ was (in the order of generations) from Abraham, who was from David and from the migration to Babylon; and by this he induces the hearer to carefully examine the time, wishing to show that He is the same Christ Who was foretold by the prophets. In fact, when you count the births and know by time that Jesus is exactly the Christ, then you will have no difficulty in believing the miracle that took place in the birth.

And if anyone wants to calculate the years that the angel determined for Daniel by the number of weeks, from the building of the city to the birth of Jesus, he will see that the time of His birth is in accordance with the prediction. So, tell me, how was Jesus born? On the betrothal of His Mother Mary. He did not say: Virgin, but simply: Mother, so that speech would be more understandable. But having first brought the listener to expect to hear something ordinary, and having kept him in this expectation, he suddenly amazes him with the addition of the extraordinary, saying: "Before they were united, it turned out that She was with child of the Holy Spirit." He did not say, "Before she was brought to the house of the bridegroom, she was already living in his house, since it was the custom of the ancients to keep the betrothed for the most part in their own house, of which we can still see examples even today." And Lot's sons-in-law dwelt in Lot's house. And so Mary lived in the same house with Joseph.

3. But why did She not conceive in the womb before the betrothal? So that, as I said at the beginning, the conception would remain a mystery for some time, and the Virgin would avoid all evil suspicion. He who ought to be more jealous than any other, not only does not send her away from him and does not dishonor her, but receives and renders her services during pregnancy. But it is evident that, not having been firmly confirmed of conception by the action of the Holy Spirit. I would not keep her with me and serve her in everything. Moreover, the Evangelist said very emphatically: "It turned out that She was with child," as is usually said about special events, occurring beyond all expectation and unexpected. Therefore, do not stretch out further, do not demand anything more than what has been said, and do not ask: how did the Spirit form the Child in the Virgin? If it is impossible to explain the method of conception by natural action, how can it be explained when the Spirit worked miracles? In order that you might not trouble the evangelist and trouble him with frequent questions about this, he freed himself from everything, naming him who performed the miracle. I know nothing more, he says, but I only know that the event was accomplished by the power of the Holy Spirit. Let those who try to comprehend a supernatural birth be ashamed!

Nor do you think that you have learned everything when you hear that Christ was born of the Spirit. Having learned about this, we still do not know much, for example: how can the incomprehensible be contained in the womb? How is the all-containing carried in the womb of a woman? How does a virgin give birth and remain a virgin? Tell me, how did the Spirit build this temple? How is it that He did not take all the flesh from the womb, but only a part of it, which He then grew and formed? And what exactly came from the flesh of the Virgin, the Evangelist clearly showed it with the words: From Whom he was born; and Paul with the words: "Who was born of a woman" (Gal. 4:4). From the woman, he says, "by shutting the mouths of those who assert that Christ passed through Mary as through a certain trumpet. If this is true, then was a virgin's womb also necessary? If this is true, then Christ has nothing to do with us; on the contrary, His flesh is different from ours, not of the same composition as it. And how then can we call Him descended from the root of Jesse? Rod? The Son of Man? How can Mary be called Mother? How can we say that Christ came from the seed of David? Did he perceive the sight of a slave? That the Word was made flesh? Why then did Paul say to the Romans: "From them is Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all" (Romans 9:5)? From these words and from many other passages of Scripture it is evident that Christ came from us, from our composition, from the virgin's womb; but in what way it is not seen. Therefore, do not seek either, but believe what is revealed, and do not try to comprehend what is silent. But Joseph, Her husband, being righteous, says the Evangelist, and not wishing to make Her public, wanted to secretly send Her away (Matt. 1:19). Having said that (that which is born of the Virgin) is of the Holy Spirit and without carnal copulation, he gives a new proof of this. One might ask: how do we know this? Who has seen, who has heard that anything like this has ever happened? But so that you do not suspect the disciple that he invented this out of love for the Teacher, the Evangelist introduces Joseph, who, by the very thing that happened in him, confirms in you faith in what was said. The Evangelist seems to say here: if you do not believe me and suspect my testimony, then believe your husband. But Joseph, he says, is her husband, being righteous. Here he calls righteous the one who has all the virtues. Though to be righteous is not to appropriate to oneself what is not theirs; but righteousness is also called the totality of virtues. It is in this special sense that the Scriptures use the word righteousness, when, for example, it says: "This man is blameless, just" (Job 1:1), and again: "Both of them were righteous" (Luke 1:6).