Tertia Pars
70. Summa III q.31 a.2–3: Christ as Son of David and the two genealogies (Matthew vs. Luke, Joseph's two fathers)
Class of 2010-01-14
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/13-tertia-pars/070-summa-iii-q-31-a-2-3-christ-as-son-of-david-and-the-two-genealogies/

[0:00] Name of the Father, the Son, Holy Spirit. Amen. Thank you, God. Thank you, guardian angels. Thank you, Thomas Aquinas. Deo gratias. God, our enlightenment. Guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, order and illumine our images, and rouse us to consider more correctly. Saint Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor. Amen. Help us to understand what you have written. Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

[0:29] I'll be able to get to Article Two, but Article Three will completely go mad. I think you know, but we'll look at it anyway. We're up in Question Thirty-One, Article Two. I think where we supposed to begin today. To second, one goes forward. Thus, it seems that Christ did not take flesh from the seed of David.

[1:01] For Matthew gives us the text of the genealogy of Christ and brings it down to Joseph, but Joseph was not the father of Christ, eh? As has been shown above. Therefore, it seems that Christ was not descended from the genus of David.

[1:25] Moreover, Aaron was of the tribe of Levi, as is clear from Exodus chapter six. Maria, however, the mother of Christ, was the relative, shall we say, of Elizabeth, who was the daughter of what Aaron, as is clear from Luke one. Since therefore David was of the tribe of Judah, as is clear in Matthew one three, it seems that Christ did not descend from the seed of David.

[2:00] Now, a strong argument in the first one because she seems to be of the same tribe as Elizabeth, and that's the the priestly. Moreover, Jeremiah chapter twenty-two. It is said of Jaconius, write this man down as sterile, for there is not be from his seed a man who will sit upon the seat of what David. But of Christ it is said, of Christ it is said, he will sit upon the seat of David.

[2:39] But Christ was not of the seed of Jaconius, and consequently not of the genus of what David, because Matthew from David brings down the series of generation through Jaconius. But against

[2:58] this is what is said in Romans one three. Who was made from the seed of David, according to the what flesh? I answer: It should be said that Christ, especially, is said to be the son of two of the the ancient fathers, to wit, Abraham and David. That sometimes is said there at the beginning of the genealogy. eh? They Say the son of David and Abraham. This is clear in Matthew one one.

[3:33] When he begins the genealogy, and for this there is a manifold or multiple reason. First, because to these, in a special way, the promise about Christ was made. For it was said to Abraham, Genesis chapter twenty two, "In your seed we have blessed all the nations of the earth." Which the apostle, being Saint Paul, Chris, expounds about Christ in Galatians three, saying, "To Abraham were made the what promises, and to his seed, in the singular, eh?

[4:15] He's not saying to seeds, as were in the minis, but as it were in one, to your seed, which is what Christ." But to David it is said, "Of the fruit of your womb, I will place." Are you not ventris That's not womb is it? Huh? Ventris Yeah. Okay. Or you could say maybe the fruit of your womb. Yeah, I will place upon your seat. Right. Whence the people of the Jews, Jewish people, receiving with honor a king, said Matthew twenty one, "Hosanna to the son of what David?"

[4:56] Okay. So that's because special promises were given to these men, right? About the thing. The second reason is because Christ was king, prophet, and what priest. Abraham, however, was a what priest. This is clear from this that the Lord says to him, "Take the what?" That's the. Heifer. Heifer. Yeah, that was that's the place of the son, right? Is that there? No, this is something. The different one.

[5:30] This is the one he did at night, and the terrible terror came over him. Is this what that's from? Yeah. Okay. He was also a prophet, according as it is said in Genesis twenty. He is a prophet and will pray what for you. David, however, was both the king and a prophet, like in the, the Psalms. Yeah. That's that's beautiful. He ties it up with those three.

[5:58] Yeah. But Abraham is not a king. And David is not spoken of as a priest, so you need both of these guys to get those

[6:10] get prophet twice, but priest once and king once. Third reason is because in Abraham first was begun the circumcision, huh? And David, however, most of all, was made known in the choice of God, according to that of the first book of the Kings, chapter thirteen. The Lord seeks from self a man according to his own heart, huh? And therefore, the son of both, Christ, is most especially said.

[6:51] It might be shown to be in salvation to circumcision. I guess that's the Jews, right? And to the choice of the Gentiles, right? Okay. Now the first objection, huh? To the first, therefore, it should be said that that objection was that of the Manichean Faustus, huh? A great master, huh?

[7:19] I guess you know when Augustine started to ask some questions about the Manicheans, and he said, "Well, wait till Faustus comes and he'll clear it up," you know. Like the old teacher he says, "Wait till Deconic comes and he'll clear up your problem." What Deconic cleared up very clearly, you know, but Faustus, you know, was talking about things that Augustine wasn't able to judge. But he realized he didn't know the liberal arts, so how can he know these higher things if he doesn't know the lower things?

[7:47] So, once he turned, said, "What if Augustine has not been trained in the liberal arts? What if happened to the greatest? My dear, okay.

[7:59] So this was the objection of the Manichean Faustus, huh? Wishing to prove that Christ was not the son of David, huh? Because he was not conceived from Joseph, right? Up to whom Matthew brings down or produces the series of the generation of Christ, huh? Against which Augustine responds in the twenty-third book against Faustus. This is the more mature Augustine now, huh? The first time you met the guy.

[8:31] Um, for since the same evangelist says that the man of Maria, or the husband was what Joseph, right? And the mother of Christ to be a virgin, and Christ to be from the seed of David, what does there remain except to believe that Maria, Mary, was not extraneous from the kinship of David, right? And not in vain is Joseph called his what called her spouse on account of the confederation of their souls, huh?

[9:15] Although there is not a mixture in the flesh, right? And more on account of the dignity, the order of generation, male dignity for the Jews, the order of generations was brought down to what Joseph. Thus, therefore, we believe that Mary also was of the what, yeah, yeah, yeah, kin of David, because we believe scriptures, huh? Which say both that Christ was born from the seed of David according to the flesh, and his mother was Mary.

[9:55] So you put two and two together, and you had to say that, huh? Not. uh lying down with a man, but a virgin, for as Jerome says upon Matthew, from one tribe were Joseph and Mary, whence, according to the law, one was what, kind of forced, huh, to take someone from,

[10:24] yeah, that was generated from the same root, huh, yeah, and that's still I think observed sometimes in these tribes in the Near East today, right, huh? Well, even we know some of the Lebanese, their family will come to this country, yeah, and their sons grow up, they go back to their village to find a wife, yeah. Halley is a prime example, but this is very common that they won't marry an American-born girl, even if she's Lebanese or something.

[10:50] Nope, go back to our village, yeah. Depending on what village you're from, it's even more more understandable. You don't want to mix that Levantine with us. Okay. Now the

[11:09] second objection, though, instead of just talking about Joseph, is said, well, hey, she's akin to Elizabeth, and Elizabeth is tied up with the Levites, huh? Two second should be said, huh, that to this objection Gregory Nazianzus answers saying that by this what

[11:33] heavenly indication is it? It happens that the genus of kings is joined to the stock of the priests, right? That Christ, who is both a king and a what priest, huh, might be born from both according to the what flesh.

[12:01] Now it's interesting, huh? Because you have one tribe which is kingly, right, and one priest, huh? There's no tribe that is restricted to to the prophetic role, right? Is there? No, I'm never hearing that the English way. No, but there is one tribe that's more like with the king, and one more with the thing. So maybe she has a foot in both.

[12:26] Of course, Judah and Levi were brothers, so same father. Keep going back. So the Christ, who was king, rex and sacerdos, right, would be born from both according to flesh, whence Aaron, who was the first priest according to the law, joined from the tribe of Judah a wife Elizabeth, now this is another Elizabeth, the daughter of Amminadab, huh? Thus, therefore, it could be or come about that the father of Elizabeth took some wife from the stock of David, by reason of which the Blessed Virgin, who was of the what David, would be related to Elizabeth, huh?

[13:25] Or may, or perhaps the reverse, right? That the father of the Blessed Virgin, existing of the offspring of David, took a wife of the yeah that's what Halvett okay

[13:43] or as Augustine says in the twenty third book against Faust that's a good example of it. Looking at Augustine's titles, a lot of these contra, contra, contra, and that's why the Vatican II says you know the church fathers we read them to see what they did for this or that article of the faith that they were defending contra this heretic who was denying that article or that part of that article of the faith.

[14:10] And then later on you had the sumas, you know, in the Middle Ages where you kind of see it more as a whole, you know. I know if Augustine, Augustine wrote things on the on the creed, you know, that kind of you know complete in a sense, you know, the way you do in the creed. But I don't know if he wrote anything as long as a as a summa, you know.

[14:30] Some magenta there's a summa theology. I don't think he has one that developed. I don't think. Or Augustine says in the twenty third book against Faust, if Joachim, the father of Maria, was of the offspring of Aaron, as Faust the heretic, right, through certain apocryphal scriptures asserts, right, then it should be believed, yeah, that the mother of Joachim, right, was of the offspring of David, right, huh?

[15:12] Or even what his wife, huh? So that in some way we can say that Maria was of the offspring of what David, huh? Now the third objection here kind of I don't understand to myself. Um, to the third, it should be said that through that prophetic authority,

[15:43] Arthur, as Ambrose says upon Luke, is not denied that from the seed of Jechonias those who came afterwards were born, right? And therefore his seed was Christ. And that Christ reigned is not against what prophecy, for he did not reign by a worldly or secular honor, for he himself said, "My kingdom is not of this world."

[16:21] Let that go. Now, this Article Three is going to, you know, have you. Having pulling your hair out, and you'll notice these long answers reminds me of my brother Richard and his wife for reading the Bible together, right? Huh? And because my brother is a philosopher, and his wife is well, not she has a doctorate in history, right? But at that time she had, you know, she had a master's in history.

[16:53] That's and so they read the Bible and so on, and you know, all of a sudden Dolores says, you know, talking about something in a chapter, but he died, you know, three chapters back. I saw my brother scratching his head. How can he still be walking around? So I don't know. I don't know if they resolved it, you know. But I mean, you know, it's not good to read the Bible with an historian because they'll they'll note little things.

[17:23] But he died, you know, three chapters ago or something, you know. So how can he still be around? And there must be some way to explain it, but it's you could spend the rest of your life trying to to understand some of these things. Yeah, it's like I know it was used before, and how I've heard it's used by those who want to argue for it. Christ being ignorant or making mistakes.

[17:49] So of course, they say he cites the passage when King David went with his soldiers and ate the bread that wasn't permitted, and he names the high priest when Abiathar. I think is who he said was high priest. Well, you go to the Old Testament where that passage was. Abiathar wasn't the high priest; it was his son was the priest. Some other name I can't remember his name.

[18:10] So they say, see, Christ made a mistake. He couldn't quite remember the passage, and he made a mistake like everybody else would. And then, well, then I don't know if this is an actual resolution, but it could be because it says in his passion it refers to Annas the high priest and Caiaphas the high priest. Well, Annas was the father-in-law, but they still referred to him as high priest.

[18:29] So it's possible. The same with genealogies; they may say refer to one man who's already dead, and yeah, they're talking about his son or something. Now, they're interviewing Sir Palin on TV and he called governor, right? He's not governor anymore. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Oh, I heard that. You're saying, they do that with. I heard it last year. what's his name? Luke Gingrich. They still call him Mr.

[18:50] Speaker. Yeah, yeah. It's just an honorary thing. They continue to call him. Of course, they would do it with President Bush or Clinton or any of them. They would still call him Mr. President. It's an honor that he takes and holds the office. So, anyway, those kinds of things sometimes can settle historical questions.

[19:07] Well, we'll see if you can work your way out of this. Houdini of the text here, yeah. To the third one goes for thus. It seems that the genealogy of Christ is unsuitably woven by the evangelists. For it is said in Isaiah chapter fifty-three about Christ, who can narrate his generation? Therefore, the generation of Christ should not be what narrated, right?

[19:53] Moreover, moreover is impossible for one man to have two fathers, right? But Matthew says that Jacob generated Joseph, the husband of Mary, but Luke says that Joseph was the son of Heli,

[20:26] and therefore they wrote things that are contrary to each other. I've seen these modern scholars say, you know, we don't even know the names of the apostles, you know, because you know the names given there in the Gospels are not exactly in every name the same, right? And so, do some of them have two names? Or,

[20:50] but anyway, moreover, they seem in some things to be diversified from each other, to differ from each other. For Matthew, in the beginning of the book, beginning from Abraham, going down down to what Joseph,

[21:14] Yeah, it was great, Joseph enumerates forty-two generations. Luke, however, after the baptism of Christ, laying down the generation of Christ, beginning from Christ, and bringing the number of generations up to God, makes generations seventy-seven. Both extremes being numbered with them, right? Therefore, it seems that unsuitably they describe the generation of Christ.

[21:51] So you shouldn't compare the gospels; you should stick with one one gospel. Moreover, in the fourth book of Kings, chapter eight, we read that what Joram generated Ocasius, to whom succeeded what Joas, his son, and to him succeeded his son Amazias, after whom reigned his son Azarias. Who was called what? Azarias To whom succeeded Joathan, his son. Matthew, however, says that Joram generated what? Ozias. Therefore, it seems unsuitably to describe the generation of Christ.

[22:44] Three kings in the middle of being what? Put out. Yeah. So can I be said to generate my grandchildren and my great grandchildren and my great great grandchildren? In some way, probably. Probably, yeah. Moreover, all who were described in the generation of Christ had fathers and mothers, huh? And many of them, from these, had what? Brothers. Matthew, however, in the generation of Christ, names only three mothers.

[23:21] Uh Thamar, and then they say Rahab. I guess this is the text here. Ruth and the wife of Urias, huh? Okay. But he names the brothers Judas and Jaconius, and also Pharez and Zara. None of whom Luke lays down, right? Therefore, it seems unsuitably that the evangelists have described the genealogy of Christ. Thomas is very brief, and said contra. Sed contra auctoritas scripturae, right? And Thomas often says, you know, to deny any part of scripture is to undermine faith, right?

[24:09] Because it's the word of God. huh? And his response here is almost as brief, right? I answer: It should be said that, as Saint Paul says in the second epistle to Timothy, chapter three, all sacred scripture is divinely what? Inspired, huh? So omnis, all. But the things which come about divinely are most ordered, according to that of Romans chapter thirteen. The things which are from God are ordered, right?

[24:51] The divine wisdom, huh? Whence, in a suitable order, the genealogy of Christ is described from by the evangelists. So we know that to be so. But then there are all these objections, huh? That that'll make you pull your hair out. You. Not

[25:15] the first objection, of course, is easy to handle. To the first, therefore, it should be said that, as Jerome says upon Matthew, Isaiah spoke about the generation of the divinity of Christ, huh? But Matthew narrates the generation of Christ according to the Christ according to his what humanity. That's more narratable, right? Now, however, unfolding, explicating the mode of the incarnation, right? Because this also is what ineffable, huh?

[25:52] I was just reading Thomas there at the beginning of the 17th chapter there, John, right, where Christ has these prayers, right? And in the prayer for himself, he has a definition of eternal life, and then he mentions you know to know you the Father and Him whom you have sent, Jesus Christ. And one way of understanding the second part of that is that our beatitude will consist not only in knowing the divinity but also the what humanity Christ and understanding the incarnation the way that we don't understand it in this life, right?

[26:25] Nevertheless, you can what narrate. the uh the human generation, right? The fathers of whom Christ went forth according to the flesh. Okay, now we get to the here raising of the second objection here. What about these two fathers, at least the name here of Matthew and what Luke, right?

[26:59] To the second, then it should be said that to this objection, which Julian the apostate, right? You want to move us back to the Greek gods and goddesses, didn't they, Julian? He got himself baptized in bull's blood under his Christian baptism.

[27:17] Yeah. Who's that? Who's that modern writer there that tried to go back to Julian a bit? Kevin's always arguing with William F Buckley what is his name? Was he someone contemporary Yeah, contemporary. yeah, He said too bad that Julian didn't succeed. You know, people saying that. You know. Too bad the devil didn't succeed.

[27:52] You know this this recent document of the Pope there for the to facilitate the Anglicans want to come into the church. You know, which is on the internet, you can see it there. I was looking at a little the other day, but anyway, you know, of course the left wing press went berserk about this, and I know is one of the big Washington Post, one of the big major newspapers.

[28:16] Anyway, they decided to interview of all people Dawkins, so he thought about this Dawkins, you know, yeah, and I guess he's really a rabid anti-Catholic, right? And he was saying, you know, you know, the worst sources of evil in the world are one that's put among them the Catholic Church, right? So I mean. Wow. Is this that little guy in the wheelchair? No, no, that's Dawkins. Oh, Dawkins.

[28:44] Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. But incredible these people. So anyway, to this objection, which Julian the apostate moved, right? Huh. So diversely is answered by some, right? Huh. For some, as Gregory Nazianzen says, huh?

[29:12] And this is not necessarily Gregory Nazianzen himself is giving this solution, right? But He says some say this, say that those whom the evangelist enumerates are the same, right? But under what? Diverse names, they're binomials, right? Binomials, that's interesting. Yeah. But this stari non potest this cannot stand.

[29:40] That's where they solve some of these problems. I'd be saying the man has what? Yeah. It says he did about the apostles. I think, don't they? Because Matthew places one of the sons of what David to it what Solomon. Luke, however, another Nathan, right? Huh? Which, according to the history of the books of the kings, stand are brothers, right? I guess one of these guys descended from one, one from the other.

[30:11] I guess that's right. It must be. Whence others say, huh? Okay. That Matthew gives the true genealogy of Christ, huh? This is kind of a strange solution. Luke, however, the one that is thought to be so, right? Whence Luke begins, as was thought, the son of Joseph. Huh? That's kind of strange. that the scripture would do this. huh? For there were some among the Jews who who, on account of the sins of the kings of Judah, right, believed that Christ came from David, but not to the kings, right, but to another what stock?

[31:04] Stock, yeah. Of of private individuals, right? That he would be born, right? Huh? It's kind of an odd explanation. Others say that Matthew laid down the fleshly fathers, right, and Luke the spiritual fathers. To it, the just men who are said to be fathers is an account of the likeness of what? Anastasia. That's virtue. Virtue. Now, in the book about the questions of the New and Old Testament, which this is Augustine's work, it is answered that it should not be understood that Joseph, by Luke, is said to be the son of Eli, right?

[32:01] But because what Eli and Joseph were of the what? Time of Christ. Descended from David in diverse ways. Whence about Christ is said that he was thought to be the son of Joseph, right? And that he also was the son of what? Eli what do you mean, he was thought to be. I don't know. Sorry.

[32:29] As if it were to say that Christ, for that reason, was said to be the son of Joseph, he could also be said to be the son of what, Eli, Eli, and of all those who what descended from David, as the apostle says, Romans nine five, from whom, meaning the Jews, Christ is according to the what flesh. That's a little strange the way speaking there, but

[33:03] it's all these grandchildren that the Berkus have, you know, descended from Richard Marcus and Dwayne, huh? Yeah. Yeah, but some only from Dwayne, some only from Richard, some only from Marcus, right?

[33:22] That's kind of hard to see. You have to be Jewish. There's probably passages in Scripture that are very ambiguous. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Now Augustine in the book about the questions of the Gospels,

[33:45] solves it in two ways. Still what you hear saying three causes come together or occur right, of which the evangelist what followed what one of them, I guess. for either one evangelist, the father Joseph from which he was generated, names huh?

[34:15] Another, either his what maternal uncle is it? Yeah. Oh, grandfather. Grandfather, okay. Or some from what? He's more famous or greater relatives, huh? Yeah.

[34:39] Or one was the natural father Joseph and the other what? That makes sense, huh? So if I was adopted by some man, I would call him my father, but I'm looking for my real father, my natural father. So in a sense, I have two fathers, and you could say my father was the man who adopted me, or my father was the man who generated me, right? So that's one way out of it.

[35:08] I don't know if you can say that that is the solution, but there's you know possibly, yeah, yeah. Or in the what custom of the Jews, with what one died without sons. The other one taking the the propinquus, the newer one, taking his wife, right? They try to get Christ there. the seven, seven brothers, yeah, trying to get him into this ridiculous position. Human nature hasn't changed much, has it?

[35:43] Okay. The son which she generated, right, being near death, to the to the one because of death, yeah. Because of death, his near one having died, he was said to be of this other. Which is also the genus of a certain what? Legal adoption, as Augustine says, in the Book Two of the Consent of the Gospels. I try to read that a little bit sometimes. The Consent of the Gospels, because Thomas often quotes it, you know.

[36:19] When you consent to any problem, huh? I think the modern scholars they just kind of give. up. You know, they just they say, well, they kind of really admit the scripture is is contradictory, and that's not good. I wouldn't say it's contradictory, I just say it's hard to understand. Yeah. yeah.

[36:47] And this last clause is more true, he says, very hard, Thomas is clear, which also Jerome, huh, places in his commentary, I guess, on Matthew, right? And Eusebius of Caesarea, huh, in the ecclesiastical history,

[37:09] huh, asserts to be what handed down from the yeah, was it a writer of history, historiographer? Julius Africanus is what it says. Julius Africanus. This one says it's written by Africanus the historian. Yeah, the Julius Africanus. You know,

[37:39] I mentioned how Thomas's explanation of the word history, which I think comes has the idea in Greek of a big investigation, right? But Aristotle calls the De Anima there; he calls it historia De Anima, right? And Thomas says, why does he call it that? Well, he's not taking up all the questions we could ask about the soul, right? So there's something incomplete about his consideration of the what soul, right?

[38:05] So if you read the treatise on the soul in the Summa, or look at the disputed questions on the soul, you'll see things that Aristotle didn't explicitly take up in the in the De Anima, right? And so Thomas says he calls it historia because the nature of historia to be incomplete. I think that fits very well what we call history today, right? And most historians say that, right?

[38:29] I really want historians saying, you know, history is always more complicated than we think, and it is when you go into these things, right? You know, and get some biographies of these famous men you've read about, you know, and heard about, and you realize how things are a little more complicated than you thought. And why didn't they do this? Why didn't they do that? And you try to put yourself back where they were doing and what they they faced, and you realize how complicated it was.

[38:54] Wasn't it John Dropper so who said history is a bag of tricks? Well, I had the definition of possibly Napoleon. I know it is, though, you know, wasn't it

[39:15] agreed upon lies or something? Something like yeah, statistics or something, yeah. Yeah, yeah. Was it Henry Ford? I think it didn't end on one damn thing after another. History. It's what.

[39:31] History is one damn thing after another. Yeah. That's a very good definition of it. That's what it is. The guy that came up with the assembly.

[39:43] One damn thing after another. Yeah. Well, you know, I saw this kind of debate there between the Coakley and Oh yeah. Yeah. And Coakley made kind of a stupid statement there that there is no Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. So everybody's jumping at her for saying this kind of stupid thing, you know. But I hear them saying, "Well, she said there is no Taliban in Afghanistan." Well, that's all she said.

[40:05] Yeah. No, no. And there is no terrorists. Didn't mean to say that. She said there is no Al Qaeda, you know, which is bad enough. But I mean, so they keep on, you know, changing the story just in the few days it's been on the

[40:18] air. A couple days. What's his person's position? She's running for senator. Yeah, she's. We get she's running against this guy that we get the ads for today. She's. she's, she's a nut. Yeah. She makes Kennedy look like he was rational. Yeah. God rest his soul. She got all these, you know, money coming into her, you know, and she's running all these nasty ads against him now. Hope they'll backfire, but.

[40:41] What's going on? See. For they say that Mathan and Melchi, right, in diverse times, what could happen? Of one and the same wife, by the name of Estha,

[41:09] procreated individual sons, right? And because Mathan, who descended through Solomon, took the wife first, right, and left what one son by the name of Jacob, who died after whose obituary,

[41:38] because the law prevented the what widow to not prevent oh, do not prevent yeah the widow from marrying another man to Melchi who descended from the genus of Nathan

[41:56] who was from since he was from the same tribe right but not from the same what family family yeah took the relic of Nathan yeah the one left by Nathan right took his wife right Took his relic. from which also he received a son by the name of Heli, right and thus from a diverse genus of fathers Jacob and Heli were...

[42:33] Brothers of different mothers. That's Uterine Uterine brothers have the same mother, but different fathers. Same mother, yeah. Of whom one that is Jacob, whose brother was.

[42:51] Yeah. Dying without what? Free offspring. From the the mandate of the law, taking wife generated Joseph, right? By by nature of the genus, his own what? Son. According to the precept of the law, he was made the son of Heli. that makes sense, doesn't it? In other words, you would raise up. That's what the law said. You raise up to your brother's memory, right? So the man that I generate from my uh, brother's widow, right.

[43:29] Mm-hmm. It's named to him. Yeah, it could be in a sense called the the son of my brother, right? I think that's how the law viewed it. It wasn't your son it would be your brother's. son. He would be named. Yeah, yeah. by your brother. So it might be said to be both then, right? For different reasons, right? And therefore Matthew says that Jacob generated Joseph, but Luke, who described the legal generation.

[44:07] And although Damascene says that the Blessed Virgin Mary right attained Joseph according to that origin by which his father was called Heli, right? Because he says that he was descended from what? Okay. Nevertheless, it should be believed that also he took his origin from Solomon, in some way, right? To those fathers whom Matthew enumerates, huh? Who seems to narrate the the fleshly generation of Christ, right? Especially since Ambrose says that Christ descended from the seed of Jechonias.

[44:55] I don't know if that keep you awake at night going over this text, but put you to sleep, you know, trying to. Thank you, buddy.

[45:04] Keep you awake. I know when when the priest reads the genealogy there, you know Matthew, you know, for the pulpit, you know, I know what the.

[45:14] We're one of one of these kind of popular helps to reading the Bible. There, you know, saying, "You know, it's not impious to skip over this," you know. And say, "Oh, I didn't read through the whole list." Anyway, he goes to Ezra. I remember reading years ago the book of Joshua. And chronicles and all that books full of genealogies. And Joshua, especially, I seem to remember because he talks about the division of the land.

[45:41] And he says, and the so and so, the son of so and so, he got this piece of land over here by this river, by this rock over here. You go so many feet this way, but then you go under the tree that's over there, and it goes back that way, and that's the piece he got. Then his son got this. Yes. You got to have photographic memory to to get these things right, huh?

[46:01] And to repeat them, you know. And some people have that photographic memory. They said that was um. What's his name? Emmanuel Kant had something that photographic memory. When he was a boy, he went to listen to some preacher. But he was just a little boy, and after it was over, he was it was like a two-hour, half sermon or something. It's like Mozart went in and heard that thing and wrote it.

[46:24] came out and wrote it down, you know that. he wouldn't. allow anybody to copy But uh no I had a guy in high school there who did a photographic memory. You'd give him a, you know, a poem that'd say two or three pages long. Go through it once and close the book, and recite the whole thing from memory. You know, didn't know what to do with his memory though.

[46:44] Yeah. Yeah, unfortunate. But it's kind of amazing. They had professors like that in college too. He was, how many languages he knew, and all kinds of things he did.

[46:57] St Thomas said he never forgot what he read or something like that Well, he always understood what he read. I know he said that. It's more than I can say. I understand everything I read. Far from