Christ reproves the blindness of the Pharisees, and confutes their attributing his miracles to Satan.
The blindnes of the Pharisees about the Sabboth he reproueth by Scriptures, by reason, and by a miracle, 14 and his death being therfore sought by them, he meekely goeth out of the vvay, according as Esay had prophecied of him, 2• His casting out of deuils also he defendeth agaynst them, 31 and setteth forth the daunger they stand in for their horrible blasphemie. 38 And because they aske yet for a signe, he shevveth hovv vvorthely they shal be damned, 43 foretelling hovv the deuil shal possesse their Nation, 46 and testifying that although he be of their bloud yet not they for this, but such as keepe his commaundements are deere vnto him.
1At that time Jesus went through the corn on the sabbath: and his disciples being hungry, began to pluck the ears, and to eat.In quel tempo Gesù passava in giorno di sabato per un campo di grano: e i suoi discepoli avendo fame, si misero a cogliere delle spighe, e a mangiare.AT that time IESVS vvent through the corne on the Sabboth: and his Disciples being hungrie, began to plucke the eares, and to eate.In illo tempore abiit Jesus per sata sabbato: discipuli autem ejus esurientes cœperunt vellere spicas, et manducare. 2And the Pharisees seeing them, said to him: Behold thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath days.Visto ciò i Farisei, dissero a lui: Guarda, con te i tuoi discepoli fanno ciò, che non è lecito di fare in giorno di sabato.And the Pharisees seeing them, said to him. Loe, thy Disciples doe that vvhich is not lavvful for them to doe on the Sabboth-dayes.Pharisæi autem videntes, dixerunt ei: Ecce discipuli tui faciunt quod non licet facere sabbatis. 3But he said to them: Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and they that were with him:Ma egli disse loro: Non avete voi letto quello, che fece Davidde, trovandosi preso dalla fame egli, e que', ch'eran con lui?But he sayd to them, Haue you not read vvhat Dauid did vvhen he vvas an hungred, and they that vvere vvith him:At ille dixit eis: Non legistis quid fecerit David, quando esuriit, et qui cum eo erant: 4How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the loaves of proposition, which it was not lawful for him to eat, nor for them that were with him, but for the priests only?Come egli entrò nella casa di Dio, e mangiò i pani della proposizione, de' quali non era lecito a lui, né a quei, che erano con lui, di cibarsi, ma a' soli sacerdoti?hovv he entred into the house of God, and did eate the loaues of proposition, vvhich it vvas not lavvful for him to eate, nor for them that vvere vvith him, but for priestes only?quomodo intravit in domum Dei, et panes propositionis comedit, quos non licebat ei edere, neque his qui cum eo erant, nisi solis sacerdotibus ? 5Or have ye not read in the law, that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple break the sabbath, and are without blame?O non avete voi letto nella legge, che ne' giorni di sabato i sacerdoti nel tempio rompono il sabato, e sono senza colpa?Or haue ye not read in the Lavv, that on Sabboth-dayes the priestes in the temple do breake the Sabboth, and are vvithout blame?aut non legistis in lege quia sabbatis sacerdotes in templo sabbatum violant, et sine crimine sunt ? 6But I tell you that there is here a greater than the temple.Or io vi fo sapere, che v'ha qui uno più grande del tempio.but I tel you that there is here a greater then the tēple.Dico autem vobis, quia templo major est hic.
7And if you knew what this meaneth: I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: you would never have condemned the innocent.Che se voi sapeste cosa vuoi dire: Amo la misericordia, e non il sagrifizio: non avreste mai condannato degl'innocenti.And if you did knovv vvhat it is, I wil mercie, and not sacrifice: you vvould neuer haue condemned the innocentes.Si autem sciretis, quid est: Misericordiam volo, et non sacrificium: numquam condemnassetis innocentes: 8For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath.Imperocché il figliuolo dell'uomo è padrone anche del sabato.For the Sonne of man is lord of the Sabboth also.dominus enim est Filius hominis etiam sabbati. 9And when he had passed from thence, he came into their synagogues.Ed essendo partito di lì, andò alla loro sinagoga.And vvhen he had passed from thence, he came into their synagogue.Et cum inde transisset, venit in synagogam eorum. 10And behold there was a man who had a withered hand, and they asked him, saying: Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him.Ed eccoti un uomo, che aveva una mano arida, e l'interrogarono dicendo: E egli lecito di render la sanità in giorno di sabato? affine di accusarlo.And behold there vvas a man vvhich had a vvithered hand, and they asked him saying, Whether is it lavvful to cure on the Sabboths? that they might accuse him.Et ecce homo manum habens aridam, et interrogabant eum, dicentes: Si licet sabbatis curare ? ut accusarent eum. 11But he said to them: What man shall there be among you, that hath one sheep: and if the same fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not take hold on it and lift it up?Ma egli rispose loro: Chi sarà tra voi, che avendo una pecora, se questa venga a cadere in giorno di sabato nella fossa, non la pigli, e la cavi fuora?But he sayd to them, what man shal there be of you, that shal haue one sheepe: and if the same fall into a ditche on the Sabboths, vvil he not take hold and lift it vp?Ipse autem dixit illis: Quis erit ex vobis homo, qui habeat ovem unam, et si ceciderit hæc sabbatis in foveam, nonne tenebit et levabit eam ? 12How much better is a man than a sheep? Therefore it is lawful to do a good deed on the sabbath days.Ma quanto, è da più un uomo più d'una pecora? E adunque lecito di far benefizj in giorno di sabato.Hovv much better is a man more then a sheepe? therfore it is lavvful on the Sabboths to doe a good deede.Quanto magis melior est homo ove ? itaque licet sabbatis benefacere.
13Then he saith to the man: Stretch forth thy hand; and he stretched it forth, and it was restored to health even as the other.Allora disse a quell'uomo: Stendi la tua mano. Ed egli la stese, e fu renduta sana come l'altra.Then he sayth to the man, Stretch forth thy hand. and he stretched it forth, and it vvas restored to health euen as the other.Tunc ait homini: Extende manum tuam. Et extendit, et restituta est sanitati sicut altera. 14And the Pharisees going out made a consultation against him, how they might destroy him.Ma i Farisei usciti di lì, tennero consiglio contro di lui del modo di levarlo dal mondo.And the Pharisees going forth made a cōsultation agaynst him, hovv they might destroy him.Exeuntes autem pharisæi, consilium faciebant adversus eum, quomodo perderent eum. 15But Jesus knowing it, retired from thence: and many followed him, and he healed them all.Ma Gesù sapendolo si ritirò di lì: e lo seguirono molti, a' quali tutti restituì la salute.But IESVS knovving it, retired from thence: and many folovved him, and he cured them all.Jesus autem sciens recessit inde: et secuti sunt eum multi, et curavit eos omnes: 16And he charged them that they should not make him known.E comandò loro severamente, che non lo manifestassero.and he charged them that they should not disclose him.et præcepit eis ne manifestum eum facerent. 17That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaias the prophet, saying:Affinchè si adempisse, quanto era stato detto dal profeta Isaia, che dice:That it might be fulfilled vvhich vvas spoken by Esay the Prophete, saying.Ut adimpleretur quod dictum est per Isaiam prophetam, dicentem: 18Behold my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved in whom my soul hath been well pleased. I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.Ecco il mio servo eletto da me, il mio diletto, nel quale si è molto compiaciuta l'anima mia. Porrò sopra di lui il mio spirito, ed egli annunzierà la giustizia alle nazioni.Behold my seruant vvhom I haue chosen, my beloued in vvhom my soul hath vvel liked. I vvil put my spirit vpon him, and iudgement to the Gentiles shal he shew.Ecce puer meus, quem elegi, dilectus meus, / in quo bene complacuit animæ meæ. / Ponam spiritum meum super eum, / et judicium gentibus nuntiabit. 19He shall not contend, nor cry out, neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets.Non litigherà, né griderà, nè sarà udita da alcuno nelle piazze la voce di lui.He shal not contend nor crie out, neither shal any man heare in the streetes his voyce.Non contendet, neque clamabit, / neque audiet aliquis in plateis vocem ejus:
20The bruised reed he shall not break: and smoking flax he shall not extinguish: till he send forth judgment unto victory.Egli non romperà la canna fessa, e non ammorzerà il lucignolo, che fuma, sino a tanto che faccia trionfar la giustizia:The reede bruised he shal not breake, and smoking flaxe he shal not extinguish: til he cast forth iudgement vnto victorie.arundinem quassatam non confringet, / et linum fumigans non extinguet, / donec ejiciat ad victoriam judicium: 21And in his name the Gentiles shall hope.E nel nome di lui spereranno le genti.And in his name the Gentiles shal hope.et in nomine ejus gentes sperabunt. 22Then was offered to him one possessed with a devil, blind and dumb: and he healed him, so that he spoke and saw.Allora gli fu presentato un indemoniato, cieco, e muto, e lo sanò in guisa, che parlava, e vedeva.Then vvas offered to him one possessed vvith a deuil, blinde and dumme: and he cured him, so that he spake & saw.Tunc oblatus est ei dæmonium habens, cæcus, et mutus, et curavit eum ita ut loqueretur, et videret. 23And all the multitudes were amazed, and said: Is not this the son of David?E tutte le turbe, restavano stupefatte, e dicevano: E egli forse questo il figliuolo di David?And al the multitudes vvere amased, and sayd, whether this be the Sonne of Dauid?Et stupebant omnes turbæ, et dicebant: Numquid hic est filius David ? 24But the Pharisees hearing it, said: This man casteth not out devils but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.Ma i Farisei udito questo dissero: Costui non caccia i demonj, se non per opera di Beelzebub principe dei demonj.But the Pharisees hearing it, sayd. This felovv casteth not out diuels but in Beelzebub the Prince of the diuels.Pharisæi autem audientes, dixerunt: Hic non ejicit dæmones nisi in Beelzebub principe dæmoniorum. 25And Jesus knowing their thoughts, said to them: Every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate: and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.Gesù però conosciuti i lor pensieri disse loro. Qualunque regno diviso in contrarj partiti sarà devastato: e qualunque città o famiglia divisa in contrarj partiti non sussisterà.And IESVS knovving their cogitations, said to them. Euery kingdom deuided against it self shal be made desolate: and euery citie or house deuided agaynst it self, shal not stand.Jesus autem sciens cogitationes eorum, dixit eis: Omne regnum divisum contra se desolabitur: et omnis civitas vel domus divisa contra se, non stabit. 26And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself: how then shall his kingdom stand?Ma se Satana discaccia Satana, egli è in discordia con se medesimo: cosa dunque sussisterà il regno di lui?And if Satan cast out Satan, he is deuided against him self: hovv then shal his Kingdom stand?Et si Satanas Satanam ejicit, adversus se divisus est: quomodo ergo stabit regnum ejus ?
27And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges.E se io caccio i demonj per opera di Beelzebub, per opera di chi li cacciano i vostri figliuoli? Per questo essi saran vostri giudici.And if I in Beelzebub cast out deuils: your children in vvhom do they cast out? Therfore they shal be your iudges.Et si ego in Beelzebub ejicio dæmones, filii vestri in quo ejiciunt ? ideo ipsi judices vestri erunt. 28But if I by the Spirit of God cast out devils, then is the kingdom of God come upon you.Che se per mezzo dello spirito di Dio io caccio i demonj; è adunque certo, che è giunto a voi il regno di Dio.But if I in the Spirit of God do cast out deuils, then is the kingdom of God come vpon you.Si autem ego in Spiritu Dei ejicio dæmones, igitur pervenit in vos regnum Dei. 29Or how can any one enter into the house of the strong, and rifle his goods, unless he first bind the strong? and then he will rifle his house.Conciossiachè come può uno entrare in casa d'un campione, e rubargli le sue spoglie, se prima non lega il campione per poi saccheggiargli la casa?Or hovv can a man enter into the house of the strong, and rifle his vessel, vnles he first binde the strong? and then he vvil rifle his house,Aut quomodo potest quisquam intrare in domum fortis, et vasa ejus diripere, nisi prius alligaverit fortem ? et tunc domum illius diripiet. 30He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth.Chi non è meco, è contro di me: e chi non raccoglie meco, disperge.He that is not vvith me, is agaynst me: and he that gathereth not vvith me, scattereth.Qui non est mecum, contra me est; et qui non congregat mihi, spargit. 31Therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven.Per questo io vi dico, che qualunque peccato, e qualunque bestemmia sarà perdonata agli uomini; ma la bestemmia contro lo Spirito non sarà perdonata.Therfore I say to you, euery sinne and blasphemie shal be forgiuen men, but the blasphemie of the Spirit shal not be forgiuen.Ideo dico vobis: Omne peccatum et blasphemia remittetur hominibus, Spiritus autem blasphemia non remittetur. 32And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world, nor in the world to come.E a chiunque avrà sparlato contro il figliuolo dell'uomo, gli sarà perdonato: ma a chiunque avrà sparlato contro lo Spirito santo, non sarà perdonato né in questo secolo, né nel futuro.And vvhosoeuer shal speake a vvord agaynst the Sonne of man, it shal be forgiuen him: but he that shal speake against the Holy Ghost, it shal not be forgiuen him neither in this vvorld, nor in the vvorld to come.Et quicumque dixerit verbum contra Filium hominis, remittetur ei: qui autem dixerit contra Spiritum Sanctum, non remittetur ei, neque in hoc sæculo, neque in futuro.
33Either make the tree good and its fruit good: or make the tree evil, and its fruit evil. For by the fruit the tree is known.O date per buono l'albero, e per buono il suo frutto: o date per cattivo l'albero, e per cattivo il suo frutto: imperocché dal frutto si riconosce la pianta.Either make the tree good, and his fruite good: or make the tree euil, and his fruite euil. for of the fruite the tree is knowē.Aut facite arborem bonam, et fructum ejus bonum: aut facite arborem malam, et fructum ejus malum: siquidem ex fructu arbor agnoscitur. 34O generation of vipers, how can you speak good things, whereas you are evil? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.Razza di vipere, come potete parlar bene, voi, che siete cattivi? imperciocché dalla pienezza del cuore parla la bocca.You vipers broodes, hovv can you speake good things, vvhereas you are euil? for of the aboundance of the hart the mouth speaketh.Progenies viperarum, quomodo potestis bona loqui, cum sitis mali ? ex abundantia enim cordis os loquitur. 35A good man out of a good treasure bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of an evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.L'uomo dabbene da un buon tesoro cava fuora del bene e il cattivo uomo da un cattivo tesoro cava fuori del male.A good man out of a good treasure bringeth forth good things: and an euil man out of an euil treasure bringeth forth euil things.Bonus homo de bono thesauro profert bona: et malus homo de malo thesauro profert mala. 36But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgment.Or io vi fo sapere, che di qualunque parola oziosa, che avran detto gli uomini, ne renderan conto nel dì del giudizio.But I say vnto you that euery idle vvord that men shal speake, they shal render an account for it in the day of iudgement.Dico autem vobis quoniam omne verbum otiosum, quod locuti fuerint homines, reddent rationem de eo in die judicii. 37For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.Imperocché le tue parole ti giustificheranno, e le tue parole ti condanneranno.For of thy wordes thou shalt be iustified, and of thy vvordes thou shalt be condemned.Ex verbis enim tuis justificaberis et ex verbis tuis condemnaberis. 38Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying: Master, we would see a sign from thee.Allora gli replicarono alcuni degli Scribi, e de' Farisei, dicendo: Maestro, desideriamo di vedere qualche tuo miracolo.Then ansvvered him certaine of the Scribes and Pharisees, saying, Maister, vve vvould see a signe from thee.Tunc responderunt ei quidam de scribis et pharisæis, dicentes: Magister, volumus a te signum videre.
39Who answering said to them: An evil and adulterous generation seeketh a sign: and a sign shall not be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.Ma egli rispose loro: Questa generazione cattiva, e adultera va cercando un prodigio: e nessun prodigio le sarà conceduto, fuori che quello di Giona profeta.who ansvvered, and said to them, The vvicked and aduouterous generation seeketh a signe: and a signe shal not be giuen it, but the signe of Ionas the Prophet.Qui respondens ait illis: Generatio mala et adultera signum quærit: et signum non dabitur ei, nisi signum Jonæ prophetæ. 40For as Jonas was in the whale’s belly three days and three nights: so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.Imperocché siccome Giona stette per tre giorni, e per tre notti nel ventre della balena; così starà il figliuolo dell'uomo per tre giorni, e tre notti nel seno della terra.For as Ionas vvas in the vvhales belly three dayes and three nightes: so shal the Sonne of man be in the hart of the earth three dayes and three nightes.Sicut enim fuit Jonas in ventre ceti tribus diebus, et tribus noctibus, sic erit Filius hominis in corde terræ tribus diebus et tribus noctibus. 41The men of Ninive shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they did penance at the preaching of Jonas. And behold a greater than Jonas here.Gli uomini di Ninive insorgeranno nel dì del giudizio contro di questa nazione, e la condanneranno: perché essi fecero penitenza alla predicazione dì Giona. Ed ecco qui uno, che è da più di Giona.The men of Niniuee shal rise in the iudgemēt vvith this generatiō, and shal condemne it: because they did penance at the preaching of Ionas. And behold more then Ionas here.Viri Ninivitæ surgent in judicio cum generatione ista, et condemnabunt eam: quia pœnitentiam egerunt in prædicatione Jonæ. Et ecce plus quam Jonas hic. 42The queen of the south shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold a greater than Solomon here.La regina del mezzo giorno insorgerà nel dì del giudizio contro questa razza d'uomini, e la condannerà: perché venne dall'estremità della terra a udire la sapienza di Salomone. Ed ecco qui uno, che è da più di Salomone.The Queene of the South shal rise in the iudgement vvith this generation, and shal condemne it: because she came from the endes of the earth to heare the vvisedom of Salomō, and behold more the Salomon here.Regina austri surget in judicio cum generatione ista, et condemnabit eam: quia venit a finibus terræ audire sapientiam Salomonis, et ecce plus quam Salomon hic.
43And when an unclean spirit is gone out of a man he walketh through dry places seeking rest, and findeth none.Quando lo spirito impuro è uscito d'un uomo, se ne va per luoghi asciutti, cercando riposo, e non lo trova.And vvhen an vncleane spirit shal goe out of a man, he vvalketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth not.Cum autem immundus spiritus exierit ab homine, ambulat per loca arida, quærens requiem, et non invenit. 44Then he saith: I will return into my house from whence I came out. And coming he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.Allora dice: Ritornerò nella mia casa, dalla quale sono uscito. E giuntovi la trova vota, e spazzata, e ornata.Then he saith, I vvil returne into my house vvhence I came out. And coming he findeth it vacant, svvept vvith besoms, and trimmed.Tunc dicit: Revertar in domum meam, unde exivi. Et veniens invenit eam vacantem, scopis mundatam, et ornatam. 45Then he goeth, and taketh with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is made worse than the first. So shall it be also to this wicked generation.Allora va, e prende seco altri sette spiriti peggiori di lui, e vi entrano ad abitarla: e l'ultimo stato di quest'uomo diventa peggiore del primo. Così succederà anche a questa stirpe perversa.Then goeth he, and taketh vvith him seuen other spirites more vvicked then him self, and they enter in and dvvel there: and the last of that man be made vvorse then the first. So shal it be also to this vvicked generation.Tunc vadit, et assumit septem alios spiritus secum nequiores se, et intrantes habitant ibi: et fiunt novissima hominis illius pejora prioribus. Sic erit et generationi huic pessimæ. 46As he was yet speaking to the multitudes, behold his mother and his brethren stood without, seeking to speak to him.Mentre egli continuava a parlare alle turbe, ecco che la madre, e i fratelli di lui si trattenevano di fuori, desiderando di parlargli.As he vvas yet speaking to the multitudes, behold his mother and his brethren stoode vvithout, seeking to speake to him.Adhuc eo loquente ad turbas, ecce mater ejus et fratres stabant foras, quærentes loqui ei. 47And one said unto him: Behold thy mother and thy brethren stand without, seeking thee.E alcuno gli disse: Tua madre e i tuoi fratelli sono fuori, e cercano di te.And one said vnto him, Behold thy mother and thy brethren stand without, seeking thee.Dixit autem ei quidam: Ecce mater tua, et fratres tui foris stant quærentes te.
48But he answering him that told him, said: Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?Ma egli rispose a chi gli parlava: Chi è la mia madre, e chi sono i miei fratelli?But he ansvvering him that told him, said, Who is my mother, and vvho are my brethren?At ipse respondens dicenti sibi, ait: Quæ est mater mea, et qui sunt fratres mei ? 49And stretching forth his hand towards his disciples, he said: Behold my mother and my brethren.E stesa la mano inverso de' suoi discepoli: Questi, disse, sono la madre e i fratelli, che io ho.And stretching forth his hand vpon his Disciples, he said, Behold my mother and my brethren.Et extendens manum in discipulos suos, dixit: Ecce mater mea, et fratres mei. 50For whosoever shall do the will of my Father, that is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother.Imperocché chiunque fa la volontà del Padre mio, che è ne' cieli; quegli è mio fratello, e sorella, e madre.For vvhosoeuer shal doe the vvil of my father, that is in heauen: he is my brother, and sister, and mother.Quicumque enim fecerit voluntatem Patris mei, qui in cælis est, ipse meus frater, et soror, et mater est.
12:1
about the year A.D. 31.
St. Chrysostom
And his disciples being hungry. How truly admirable is the conduct of the apostles, who would not depart from the company of Jesus, though pressed by the greatest hunger and fatigue, not even to take a little refreshment for the body. (St. Chrysostom)
It is remarked by St. Jerome, that the Pharisees did not accuse the disciples of theft, but of a breach of the sabbath. St. Luke calls this sabbath, Sabbatum secundo primum, which is differently explained by interpreters. Ribeira, following St. Chrysostom and Theophilactus, thinks that every sabbath was so called, which followed immediately any feast. Maldonatus is of opinion that some particular sabbath is pointed out by this name, and conjectures that it was the sabbath of Pentecost, because it is the second of the great feasts, viz. the Passover, Pentecost, Scenopegia, or of the Tabernacles.
In the Greek, sabbath is in the plural, and means the days of the sabbath or rest, which were a part of the feast. The three great feasts lasted a whole week each. They were all three called prota, that is great, solemn feasts. The first was that of the Passover, with the seven days of unleavened bread, called protoproton, the first-first sabbath by excellence: the second was the great feast of Pentecost, deteroproton, the second-first sabbath, (which seems to have been the feast meant by the evangelist in this place, as at this season the corn was ripe in Palestine) and the third was the feast of tabernacles, tritoproton, the third-first great sabbath. Many, however, are of opinion, that by the second-first sabbath is meant the octave day of the feast, which was ordered to be equally solemnized with the first day of the feast. (Leviticus 23:36, 39. and Numbers 29:35.)
12:2
Witham
That which is not lawful to do on the sabbath-days. The Pharisees blame not the disciples for plucking the ears of corn, as they passed by, (this being allowed, Deuteronomy 23:25.) but for doing it on a sabbath-day, as if it had been a breach of the sabbath. (Witham)
St. Chrysostom
Behold, etc. The Pharisees here mildly rebuked our Lord; but afterwards, when he restored the withered hand, they rose up against him with such rage, that they formed upon the spot designs of killing him, as in ver. 14. When there is nothing great or sublime, they are more quiet, but when with his word only he restores health to the infirm, like furious beasts, they grow enraged. (St. Chrysostom, hom. xl.)
12:3
What David, etc.[Ver. 3. Panes Propositionis. tous artous protheseos. They are also elsewhere called, panes faciales, artous enopious, (Deuteronomy 25:30.) and faciei, tou prosopou. (2 Esdras 10:33.)] Christ shews them that the law need not always be taken according to the bare letter.
Into the house of God; that is where the tabernacle was then kept: not into the temple, which at that time was not built.
Witham
Eat the loaves, etc. Christ speaks of those loaves which were ordered to be placed on a table within the tabernacle, and changed from time to time. This translation seems as literal as may be, and more intelligible than loaves of proposition, or shew-bread. (Witham)
St. Jerome
To refute this calumny of the Jewish leaders, Jesus reminds them of the conduct of David when pursued by Saul, who, reduced to the like extremity, eat of that bread which the priests alone were allowed to touch. Achimelec, the high priest, thinking it a more pleasing sacrifice to God to preserve the life of man, than to make an offering of bread. (St. Jerome)
Menochius
And they that were with him. In the place alluded to, (1 Kings xxi.) it is said, that he was alone. It may be answered, that no one was with him when he received the loaves. (Menochius)
12:4
How he entered, etc. The house of God was then at Nobe. In St. Mark, the high priest is called Abiathar. See Matthew 2:26. To this difficulty some answer, that the father and son bore these two names, Achimelec and Abiathar. This they attempt to prove from 2 Kings 8:19, and 1 Paralipomenon 24:3. Others say that Abiathar, son of Achimelec, was present, and sanctioned the action of his father, thus making it his own. Others again contend, that it ought to have been translated, in the chapter called Abiathar, instead of under Abiathar: for the Jews divided the Scripture into parts, and called them by the names of the most remarkable person or thing spoken of in them. Thus Romans, 2:2. In Elias, means in the part called Elias.
Challoner
The loaves of proposition. So were called the twelve loaves which were placed before the sanctuary, in the temple of God. (Challoner)
Bible de Vence
These were exposed every sabbath, on the golden table, before the Lord. (Bible de Vence)
12:5
Break the sabbath; that is they do that, which if the divine worship did not require, would not be allowed on the sabbath, as the work they do, of its own nature, is servile.
12:6
Bible de Vence
A greater than the temple: so what can be done for the temple without a sin, may be done for him without a crime. (Bible de Vence)
12:7
12:8
Menochius
Lord ... of the sabbath. He proves that he can dispense with the observation of the feast, because he is master of the feast. In St. Mark (2:27.) it is written, the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath; that is man's salvation is to be preferred to the observation of the sabbath. (Menochius)
Haydock
In the concurrence of two incompatible precepts, we must give the preference to that which is the end and object of the other; thus we must prefer the preservation of life to the observance of the sabbath. (Haydock)
Haydock
These loaves were twelve, corresponding to the twelve tribes of Israel. They were set six and six, one upon another, at each end of the table. Upon the uppermost loaf of each heap stood a vessel, smoking with the sweetest incense. These loaves at the week's end were, according to God's order, eaten by the priests only, when they were replaced by twelve fresh ones, made like them, with the finest flour, tempered with oil. This offering of the shew-bread before the Lord, was a continual sacrifice, as the holy Fathers observe, and a figure of a more excellent kind of shew-bread, viz. Jesus Christ himself in the holy eucharist. (Haydock)
12:9
Menochius
He came into the synagogue. This happened some days later, but again on a sabbath. (Menochius)
12:10
St. Jerome
Is it lawful? His enemies perceiving in what manner he excused his disciples, have recourse to a fresh stratagem. (St. Jerome)
Jansenius
By this question they did not seek learning or improvement, but merely an occasion to ensnare Jesus in his words. If he answered in the affirmative, they would accuse him of violating the repose of the sabbath, enjoined by the law of Moses; if in the negative, of cruelty and want of feeling, and would infallibly have objected his own practice against him, as he had before justified his disciples for plucking corn on the sabbath. Jesus seeing their malice, avoids their captious question by proposing one to them, as we read in St. Mark. Is it lawful to do good or ill on the sabbath? As if he had said, whether is it better to assist your neighbor on the sabbath, or to abandon him in his distress, when you are able to afford him relief? Unable to give an answer, that would not be a justification of his actions, they remain silent; but he still presses the subject, by retorting their own actions upon themselves. They afforded relief to brute animals that stood in need of it on the sabbath. It was therefore cruelty, or mere malice, to cavil at his relieving the sick man on the sabbath. (Jansenius)
12:13
St. Chrysostom
Stretch forth. Our Saviour places the man that had the withered hand in the midst of the Jews, and looking round upon the multitude, (according to St. Mark) he ordered him to stretch out his hand, that by these several ways, he might excite the pity of the stiff-necked people; but no sooner had he performed this act of charity, than they, swelling with anger, went out, meditating destruction. So ruinous and pestiferous is the vice of envy! (St. Chrysostom, hom. xli).
Haydock
St. Matthew having mentioned this miracle, takes occasion to narrate others which Christ performed on his second return from Judea. We have frequently to mention that the particle tunc, then, and such like, do not always relate to what immediately goes before. A soul in sin may be said to resemble the withered hand, but obedience with faith to God's commands can and will restore it to its pristine state. Jesus bids him stretch out his hand, and power accompanies the command; he stretches it forth, and it is made whole like the other. (Haydock)
12:18
Witham
Behold my servant, etc. The words are out of the prophet Isaias, (Isaias 12.) 1. And it is observed that the Jews, before the coming of Jesus, used to expound them of their Messias. (Witham)
Bible de Vence
Our Lord Jesus Christ may be called the Servant of the Almighty, because, as himself assures us, he came down not to be served, but to serve; or, as St. Remigius says, not on account of his divinity, but on account of his humanity, which he received from the pure flesh and blood of the immaculate Virgin. (in St. Thomas Aquinas) There is some difference in the text of Isaias, whence this is taken. The apostles and evangelists did not confine themselves to cite the very words of the text, but only the sense. (Bible de Vence)
12:19
He shall not contend. These words do not occur in the prophet, but are added by St. Matthew to express more fully the sense, because he offered himself up to the will of his heavenly Father, and delivered himself into the hands of those who persecuted him. (St. Aquinas) Nor cry out; because, like a lamb, in the hands of the shearer, he opened not his mouth.
12:20
St. Chrysostom
The bruised reed. The prophet here shews the mildness of our Saviour, who, though he could have broken them like a reed, and as a bruised reed, yet would not do it; and though he could have easily extinguished their rage and anger, yet he bore with it for a while, with singular clemency, till he should send forth judgment unto victory, that is till justice shall have appeared triumphant, till Christ shall have fulfilled all things, and raised his most illustrious trophy: till the Gentiles shall have placed their confidence in his most adorable name, and the Jews have no plea, notwithstanding their unparalleled obduracy, to make in reply. (St. Chrysostom, hom. xli).
Jansenius
Judgment unto victory. St. Jerome and St. Hilary expound these words in conformity with their interpretation of the two foregoing verses, as follows: "The Lord will cherish and support the infirm and weak in this time of penance and probation, inviting them to greater strength, and light, and perfect charity, till the power of death be taken away, till he return to judge the world, when his judgment shall be victorious; though, in the mean while, it often may appear suppressed, and even subdued by the obstinate will of man." But the exposition, most conformable to the literal sense of the prophet, is: he will support the weak by his mildness, until it come to pass that his judgment, which he came to announce to the Gentiles, be led to victory, by his truth becoming universally triumphant over the world, and in his name all nations shall hope. (Jansenius).
Haydock
Thus will he bear with the little light and virtue of his enemies, till the bright light of his faith, and the warmth and strength of his grace, obtain in their hearts, and triumph over every opposition. (Haydock)
12:21
Isaias
In his name the Gentiles. Here are two words differing from those used by the prophet: in the Hebrew text we have, in his law the islands shall hope: probably the oversight of the amanuensis substituting onoma for nomo; the latter variation is of still less moment, as the prophets understand by islands, countries far removed; and also the poet, Et penitus toto divisos orbe Britannos. And, Mittam ad insulas longe ad eos, qui non audierunt de me. (Isaias, 60:9, and 66:19)
12:25
St. Chrysostom
Every kingdom. Strong as a kingdom may appear, it is easily overturned by divisions; and lest it should be objected, that ruin was brought upon it by a multiplicity of clashing affairs, it is added that cities and families share the same fate, if subject to similar divisions. (St. Chrysostom, hom. xlii).
St. Chrysostom in St. Thomas Aquinas
The Pharisees, on a former occasion, had laid a similar accusation against him. Then indeed he did not correct them, wishing them to discover his virtue from the miracles he performed, and the dignity of his character from the doctrines he delivered; but as they still continue the old accusation, he now wishes to convince them of their error. Envy does not so much seek how to speak, as what to speak. Yet Christ does not despise them, but answers them in the most meek and humble manner, teaching us to be charitable to our enemies, though they behave to us in the most inimical manner. By this also, our divine Saviour evidently demonstrates the falsity of the accusation; for it is never in the power of a possessed person to know another's thoughts, nor give so mild an answer. And as his enemies did not dare, from fear of the people, openly to broach this base calumny, seeing their thoughts, he answered them; still he does not expose to public infamy the malice of their hearts, but gives them a private solution of their difficulty. (St. Chrysostom in St. Thomas Aquinas)
12:27
Witham
Your children, etc. Some by their children understand, exorcists, that were among the Jews, that sometimes cast out devils; but it is more commonly taken for Christ's disciples and apostles, who were of the Jewish nation, to whom he had given power to cast out devils: as if he had said, If you allow them to cast out devils by divine power, why do not you also believe this of me, their master? (Witham)
St. Chrysostom says the apostles and disciples of Christ are here meant, for they had already cast out devils in virtue of the power conferred upon them by their divine Master, without ever having it said of them, that in the prince of devils they cast out devils. Thus he shews that envy was the origin and cause of their persecuting spirit, and that not his actions but his person gave them such great umbrage. (hom. xlii).
St. Thomas Aquinas
If Christ alludes here to their own exorcists, who drove out devils by the invocation of the adorable name of God, he confounds the unjust malice and prevention of the Pharisees; if to the apostles, he constitutes them his umpires. (St. Thomas Aquinas)
12:28
Maldonatus
Kingdom of God. Christ either calls himself and his coming the kingdom of God, because it was the beginning of the kingdom of God, and laid open the way to us: or the sense may be, If I, as proved in an argument above, cast out devils by the spirit of God, therefore what I, my apostles, and John preach, is true, viz. that the kingdom of God is at hand; because the Holy Ghost, who worketh miracles by us, proveth that our preaching is true. (Maldonatus)
12:29
Maldonatus
How can any one enter; how can I drive Satan from his possession? that is cast him out from the bodies of men, unless I am stronger than he, and first unarm him. (Maldonatus)
12:30
St. Jerome
He that is not with me. This sentence is not to be understood as directly spoken of heretics and schismatics, although at first sight it may appear so, but of the devil, who wishes to lead the souls of men captive, whilst Christ wishes to free them. He entices men to wickedness, Jesus Christ draws them to virtue: how therefore can the works of Christ be compared with those of Satan! (St. Jerome)
There is no medium. We must either be with Christ, or against Christ: if we are not of Christ, whose then must we be, when nothing but sin can separate us from Christ and God? Oh, where will the generality of Christians, who shew themselves so indifferent with regard to salvation, find themselves at the last day? Can they say they are with Christ?
12:31
Witham
The blasphemy[Ver. 31. Spiritus blasphemia, e de tou pneumatos blasphemia. St. Augustine (serm. LXXI. de verbis Evang. Matt. ch. V. p. 388. tom. v.) says of this place: Forte in omnibus Scripturis Sanctis, nulla major quaestio, nulla difficilior. And again, (ch. XII. page. 394) he give this interpretation: ipsa ergo impoenitentia, est Spiritus blasphemia. See also St. Jerome on this place. St. Chrysostom's exposition is more easy, when he thinks the sense is, that such a sin shall scarcely be forgiven. uper part e amartia asuggnostos dm. ma. p. 274.] against the Spirit, or against the Spirit and the Holy Ghost. St. Augustine takes notice, that this is one of the most difficult places in the Scriptures. According to the common exposition, here is not meant a sin committed by speaking against the third person of the blessed Trinity, the Holy Ghost, but that sin by which the obstinate Jews wilfully opposed Christ, and attributed those miracles to Beelzebub, which he performed by the Spirit of God, of which they could not be ignorant, but by a wilful blindness. (Witham)
Challoner
The sin here spoken of is that blasphemy, by which the Pharisees attributed the miracles of Christ, wrought by the Spirit of God, to Beelzebub, the prince of devils. Now this kind of sin is usually accompanied with so much obstinacy, and such wilful opposing the Spirit of God, and the known truth, that men who are guilty of it are seldom or ever converted; and therefore are never forgiven, because they will not repent. Otherwise there is no sin which God cannot, or will not forgive to such as sincerely repent, and have recourse to the keys of the Church. (Challoner)
Maldonatus
Therefore I say: this therefore is not referred to what immediately precedes, but to what is said in verse 24. (Maldonatus)
Whosoever he be, says St. Augustine, that believeth not man's sins to be remitted in the Church of God, and therefore despiseth the bounteous mercies of God, in so mighty a work, if he continue in his obstinate mind till death, he is guilty of sin against the Holy Ghost. (Enchir. lxxxiii. ep. 50. in fine.)
12:32
St. Chrysostom
Whosoever, etc. It was their duty to have a knowledge of the Holy Ghost, and they obstinately refused to admit what was clear and manifest. Though they were ignorant of the divinity of Jesus Christ, and might take him to be merely the son of a poor artizan, they could not be ignorant that the expelling of demons, and miraculous healing of all diseases, were the works of the Holy Ghost. If, therefore, they refused to do penance for the insult offered to the Spirit of God, in the person of Christ, they could not hope to escape condign punishment. (St. Chrysostom, hom. xlii).
Witham
Against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; that is they who for want of sufficient instruction, were invincibly ignorant that Christ was God, might more easily be brought to the true knowledge and faith of Christ, and so receive forgiveness of their sins: but if he shall speak against the Holy Ghost, that is against the Spirit of God in Christ, and shall oppose the known truth, by attributing to the devil that doctrine, and those miracles, which evidently were from the Spirit and the hand of God, that sin shall never be forgiven him. But how is this consistent with the Catholic doctrine and belief, that there is no sin any man commits of which he may not obtain pardon in this life? To this I answer, that in what manner soever we expound this place, it is an undoubted point of Christian faith, that there is no sin which our merciful God is not ready to pardon; no sin, for the remission of which, God hath not left a power in his Church, as it is clearly proved by those words, Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, etc. St. Chrysostom therefore expounds these words, shall not be forgiven them, to imply no more, than shall scarcely, or seldom be forgiven; that is, it is very hard for such sinners to return to God, by a true and sincere repentance and conversion; so that this sentence is like to that (Matthew 19:26.) where Christ seems to call it an impossible thing for a rich man to be saved. In the same place St. Chrysostom tells us, that some of those who had blasphemed against the Holy Ghost, repented, and had their sins forgiven them. St. Augustine, by this blasphemy against the Spirit, understands the sin of final impenitence, by which an obstinate sinner refuseth to be converted, and therefore lives and dies hardened in his sins. (Witham)
Challoner
Nor in the world to come. From these words St. Augustine (De Civ. lib. xxi. Matthew 13.) and St. Gregory (Dial. iv, Matthew 39.) gather, that some sins may be remitted in the world to come; and consequently that there is a purgatory, or a middle place. (Challoner)
St. Augustine says these words would not be true, if some sins were not forgiven in the world to come; and St. Gregory says, we are to believe from these words in the existence of the fire of purgatory, to expiate our smaller offences, before the day of judgment. St. Isidore and Ven. Bede say the same. St. Bernard, speaking of heretics, says, they do not believe in purgatory: let them then inquire of our Saviour, what he meant by these words.
Haydock
It is well known that Ven. Bede, on his death-bed, bestowed several small tokens to the monks who were present, that they might remember to pray for his soul in the holy sacrifice of the mass. (Haydock)
12:33
Witham
Either make the tree good, etc. This is connected with what had been said of their attributing his works to Beelzebub. He condemns them for blaspheming him on all occasions, when at the same time they were not able to find fault with his life and doctrine. Christ therefore tells them, that the tree is known by its fruit; and that if they cannot blame his actions, and his doctrine, they ought to allow him to be good, to be like the good tree; and that if they continue to blame him, they ought consequently to condemn his doctrine, yet this they were not able to do. (Witham)
12:34
St. Chrysostom
As the Pharisees were ever boasting of, and glorying in their ancestry, Christ here shews, that they have not much reason to boast, since their ancestors were but vipers. (St. Chrysostom)
12:36
Witham
That every idle word.[Ver. 36. De omni verbo otioso, pan rema argon. Some manuscripts have, poneron. St. Jerome says, Otiosum verbum est, quod sine utilitate et loquentis dicitur, et audientis. In like manner, St. Gregory, hom. VI. in Evang. St. Bernard etc. But St. Chrysostom adds, to pseudes, to sukophantian echon.] By idle words, St. Jerome, etc. expound words that are neither profitable to the speaker nor the hearer: but St. Chrysostom says, false and abusive language. (Witham)
Menochius
If, of every idle word, how much more of blasphemy, as when you say in Beelzebub I cast out devils. (Menochius)
Challoner
This shews there must be a place of temporal punishment hereafter, where these slighter faults shall be punished. (Challoner)
Bristow
If of every idle word we must make account before God in judgment, and yet shall not for every such idle word be damned eternally, there must necessarily be some temporal punishment in the next life. (Bristow)
12:38
Menochius
We would see a sign. They wanted to see some new and unusual miracles. They wished, says St. Jerome, either that he would call down fire from heaven, like Elias; or, like Samuel, cause it to rain, to thunder and lighten in summer, contrary to the nature of the country. (Menochius)
That they might be assured he was sent by God, and acted by his Spirit.
12:39
Menochius
Sign of Jonas. I will give no other sign than my death and resurrection, as then, though unwillingly, they will acknowledge me, and people will believe and be converted: so in John (John 8.) it is said, When you shall have exalted the Son of man, then you shall know that I am he. (Menochius)
12:40
In the whale's belly.[Ver. 40. In ventre Ceti, tou ketous. By Cete, is signified, any very large fish, and so it is said in the prophet Jonas to have been, piscem grandem.] The word signifies a great fish, and was not perhaps that which we commonly call a whale. In the prophet Jonas, it is called, a great fish.
Three days and three nights; not three whole days and three nights, but part of three natural days, from which, in common computation, the nights used not to be separated. We have an instance of this, Esther 4:16, where the Jews were ordered to fast with her three days, and three nights: and yet (Esther 5:1) Esther, after part of three days, went to the king.
Witham
In the heart of the earth: by which is signified, Christ's descent into hell; as St. Paul says (Ephesians 4:9.) that he descended into the inferior parts of the earth, and this cannot be understood of the grave only. (Witham)
Bible de Vence
Jesus Christ expired on the cross about the ninth hour, or 3 p.m. when the general and supernatural darkness that covered the earth, may be counted for the first night, and the light which again appeared, for the term of the first day. (Bible de Vence)
Menochius
As Jonas was a sign to the Ninivites, so is Christ to the Jews; for as he by the prodigy of remaining so long in the fish's belly, and afterwards coming forth alive, gave such authority to his preaching, that the Ninivites were converted; so Christ, by his death and resurrection on the third day, shall shew that he is the true Christ, and this generation shall acknowledge him for the Messias. (Menochius)
12:42
12:45
Bible de Vence
Seven is taken frequently, in Scripture, for an indefinite number; for several. (Bible de Vence)
12:46
Witham
His mother and his brethren; that is his mother and relations. (Witham)
Challoner
See verse 55 of the next chapter. (Challoner)
12:4
The loaves of proposition.... So were called the twelve loaves which were placed before the sanctuary in the temple of God.
12:31
The blasphemy of the Spirit.... The sin here spoken of is that blasphemy, by which the Pharisees attributed the miracles of Christ, wrought by the Spirit of God, to Beelzebub the prince of devils. Now this kind of sin is usually accompanied with so much obstinacy, and such wilful opposing the Spirit of God, and the known truth, that men who are guilty of it, are seldom or never converted: and therefore are never forgiven, because they will not repent. Otherwise there is no sin, which God cannot or will not forgive to such as sincerely repent, and have recourse to the keys of the church.
12:32
Nor in the world to come.... From these words St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei, lib. 21, c. 13) and St. Gregory (Dialog., 4, c. 39) gather, that some sins may be remitted in the world to come; and, consequently, that there is a purgatory or a middle place.
12:36
Every idle word.... This shews there must be a place of temporal punishment hereafter where these slighter faults shall be punished.
12:38
A sign.... That is, a miracle from heaven. St. Luke 11. 16.
12:40
Three days, etc.... Not complete days and nights; but part of three days, and three nights taken according to the way that the Hebrews counted their days and nights, viz., from evening to evening.
12:48
Who is my mother?.... This was not spoken by way of slighting his mother, but to shew that we are never to suffer ourselves to be taken from the service of God, by any inordinate affection to our earthly parents: and that which our Lord chiefly regarded in his mother, was her doing the will of his Father in heaven. It may also further allude to the reprobation of the Jews, his carnal kindred, and the election of the Gentiles.
12:1
Concordance Mr. 2, 23.
Concordance Lu. 6, •.
12:3
Concordance 1. Re. 21, 4.
12:4
Concordance Leu. 24, 9.
12:5
Concordance Nu. 28, 9
12:7
Concordance Ose. 6, 6.
See the annotatiō chap. 9, 13.
12:9
Concordance Mr. 3, 1, Lu. 6, 6.
12:17
Concordance Es. 42, 1
12:22
Concordance Luc. 11, 14.
12:23
Concordance Mar. 3, 22
12:24
24. In Beelzebub.] The like blasphemie agaynst the Holy Ghost is, to attribute the miracles done by Saincts either dead or aliue, to the Diuel.
12:25
Therfore the Kingdom of heretikes can not possibly stand, because it is alwayes ful of diuisiō and dissension.
12:30
30. Not with me.] They that are indifferent to al religions, Neuters in religion. commonly and fitly called Neuters, ioyning them selues to neither part, let them marke these wordes wel, and they shal see, that Christ accoumpted al them to be agaynst him and his Church, that are not plainely and flatly with him and it.
30. Gathereth not with me.] He speaketh not only of his owne person, but of al to whom he hath committed the gouernement of his Church, and specially of the cheefe Pastours succeeding Peter in the gouernement of the whole. Ep. •8. As S. Hierom writing to Damasus Pope of Rome, applieth these words vnto him, saying of al Heretikes, He that gathereth not with thee, scattereth: that is to say, He that is not with Christ, is with Antichrist.
12:31
31. The blasphemie of the Spirit.] He meaneth not that there is any sinne so great, which God wil not forgiue, or whereof a man may not repēt in this life, as some Heretikes at this day affirme: but that some heinous sinnes (as namely this blasphemie of the Iewes against the euident workes of the Holy Ghost, and likewise Archeheretikes who wilfully resist the knowē truth and workes of the Holy Ghost in Gods Church) are hardly forgeuen, and seldom haue such men grace to repent. Otherwise among al the sinnes agaynst the Holy Ghost (which are commonly reckened sixe) one only shal neuer be forgiuen, Final impenitence. that is, dying without repentance wilfully, called Final impenitence. Which sinne he committeth that dieth with contempt of the Sacrament of Penance, obstinatly refusing absolution, by the Churches ministerie: as S. Augustine plainely declareth in these wordes. Remission of sinnes in the Church. Whosoeuer he be that beleueth not mans sinnes to be remitted in Gods Church, and therfore despiseth the bountifulnes of God in so mighty a worke, if he in that obstinat minde continue tll his liues end, he is guilty of sinne against the Holy Ghost, in which Holy Ghost Christ remitteth sinnes. Enchir. 83. Ep. 50 in fine.
12:32
32. Sonne of man.] The Iewes in their wordes sinned against the sonne of man, when they reprehended those things which he did as a man, to witte, calling him therfore, a glutton, a great drinker of wine, a freend of the Publicans, and taking offense because he kept company with sinnes, brake the Sabboth, and such like: and this sinne might more easely be forgiuen them, because they iudged of him as they would haue done of any other man: but they sinned and blasphemed against the Holy Ghost (called here the finger of God whereby he wrought miracles) when of malice they attributed the euident workes of God in casting our diuels, to the diuel him self: and this sinne shal not be remitted, because it shal hardly be remitted, as we see by the plague of their posteritie vntil this day.
3•. Nor in the world to come.] S. Augustine and other Holy Doctors gather herevpon, that some sinnes may be remitted in the next life, Purgatorie. and consequently prooue Purgatorie thereby. De Ciuit. Dei li. 21 c. 18. D. Gregor, Dial. li. 4 c. 39.
12:33
It is a mans owne free wil and election, to be a good tree or an il tree: to bring forth good fruites or bad. S. Augustine vpon this place. li. 2. c. 4 de actis cum F•lic. Manichae•.
12:36
36. Idle word.] If of euery idle word we must make accoumpt before God in iudgement, and yet shal not for euery such word be damned euerlastingly: then there must needes be some temporal punishment in the next life.
12:38
THE GOSPEL vpon vvenesday the first weeke of Lent.
12:39
Concordance Ion. 2, •.
12:41
Concordance Ion. 3, 5.
Concordance 3. Reg. 10, 1.
12:42
Concordance Luc. 11. 24.
12:45
Concordance 2. Pet. 2, 20.
12:46
Concordance Mar. 3, 31.
In the liturgy The Gospel vpō the day of the Seuen Brethren &c. Iulij •0.
Concordance Luc. 8. 20.
12:48
4•. Who is my mother.] The dutiful affection toward our parents and kinsfolke is not blamed, but the inordinate loue of them to the hinderance of our seruice and duty toward God. Al Heresies alleage Scriptures. Vpon this place some old Heretikes denied Christ to haue any mother. Aug. li. de Fid. & Symb. c. 4. Neither euer was there any heresie so absurd, but it would seeme to haue Scripture for it.
12:1
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 7
… I say unto you now, [44] that here is what is greater than the temple. If ye had known this : I love mercy, [45] not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned those on whom is no blame. The [46] Lord of the sabbath is the Son of man. And his relatives heard, and went out to take him, and said, He hath gone out of his mind.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 31
… for they took with them no provisions for the road. And this another Evangelist declares, saying, that when He spake to them concerning “the leaven of the Pharisees” ( Matt. xvi. 6 ), they thought that it was because they carried no bread; and when he introduces them plucking the ears of corn, and eating (
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 52.10
… But if we compare all these things as spiritual with things which are spiritual; and if we allow with Paul that “the Law is spiritual” and call to mind David’s words: “open thou mine eyes that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law;” and if on these grounds we interpret it as our Lord interprets it—He has explained the Sabbath in this way:
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Of the Work of Monks 28
… for if he laid hands on nothing but what he had eaten, they would let him go away free and unpunished. Whence also when the disciples of the Lord plucked the ears of corn, the Jews calumniated them on the score of the sabbath
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 2.34
81. Matthew continues his history in the following terms: “At that time Jesus went on the Sabbath-day through the corn; and His disciples were an hungered, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat;” and so forth, on to the words, “For the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath-day.”
12:2
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 7
[37] And while Jesus was walking on the sabbath day among the sown fields, his disciples [Arabic, p. 29] hungered. And they were rubbing the ears with their hands, and [38] eating.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 30
And when the disciples seem to be doing wrong, they intercede with Him, saying, “Behold thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath-day;”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 39
What then do the Pharisees? “When they saw it,” it is said, “they said unto Him, Behold, Thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the Sabbath day.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 38
When there was need to make excuse for the Disciples, He brought forward David their fellow-servant, saying, “Have ye not read what David did when he was an hungered?” (
12:3
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 39
How then doth Jesus defend His disciples? “Have ye not read,” saith He, “what David did in the temple, when he was an hungered, himself and all they that were with him? how he entered into the house of God, and did eat the show-bread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 40
“What man is there among you that shall have one sheep, and if this fall into a pit on the Sabbath days, will he not lay hold of it, and lift it out? How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath days.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 41
… Which sort of thing He did also with respect to the Sabbath, bringing forward David, the priests, the testimony that saith, “I will have mercy, and not sacrifice,” the cause of the Sabbath, for which it was ordained; “for the Sabbath,” saith He,” was for man.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Profit of Believing 6
… “Have ye not read,” saith He, “what David did when he was an hungered, and they that were with him; how he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them that were with him, but only for the priests?”
12:5
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 7
… how he entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the bread of the table of the Lord, which it was not lawful that any should eat, save the priests, and gave to them that were with him also? [41] And he said unto them, The sabbath was created because of man, and man was not [42] created because of the sabbath.
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 5.34.3
… and I will make them exult, and will magnify them, and satiate the souls of the priests the sons of Levi; and my people shall be satiated with my goodness.” Now, in the preceding book I have shown that all the disciples of the Lord are Levites and priests, they who used in the temple to profane the Sabbath, but are blameless.
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on Matthew 14.20
… But if you seek for the harlot in regard to the calling of the Gentiles, you may use the passage, “Take to yourself a wife of fornication, and children of fornication,” etc.; for, as “the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are guiltless,”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 39
… For as at first He brought in David, by the dignity of the person quelling their pride; so when He had stopped their mouths, and had put down their boasting, then He adds also the more appropriate refutation. And of what sort is this? “Know ye not, that in the temple the priests profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 49
… for instance, that the Priests profane the Sabbath, as He had said already, but speaketh more largely. The meaning of, “Ye marvel” (
St John of Damascus † AD 749 An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4.23
… Did he not spend three weeks without food ? And again, did not all Israel circumcise the child on the Sabbath, if it happened to be the eighth day after birth ? And do they not hold the great fast which the law enjoins if it falls on the Sabbath ? And further, do not the priests and the Levites profane the Sabbath in the works of the tabernacle
12:6
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 7
… [41] And he said unto them, The sabbath was created because of man, and man was not [42] created because of the sabbath. Or have ye not read in the law, that the priests in [43] the temple profane the sabbath, and yet they are blameless?
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 4.9.2
2. He declares: “For in this place is One greater than the temple.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 39
“But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.”
12:7
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 7
… [41] And he said unto them, The sabbath was created because of man, and man was not [42] created because of the sabbath. Or have ye not read in the law, that the priests in [43] the temple profane the sabbath, and yet they are blameless? I say unto you now, [44] that here is what is greater than the temple.
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 4.17.4
… As God, when teaching them His will in Hosea the prophet, said, “I desire mercy rather than sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt-offerings.” Besides, our Lord also exhorted them to the same effect, when He said, “But if ye had known what [this] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 39
Then, because to the hearers it would seem harsh, He quickly draws a veil over it, giving His discourse, as before, a lenient turn, yet even so expressing Himself with a rebuke. “But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 13
… Let us then pour oil into these lamps, that the flame become higher, that rich light appear. For not only has this oil great strength now, but even when sacrifices were at their height, it was far more acceptable than they could be. “I will have mercy,” He saith, “and not sacrifice.” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 16.28
… "If you knew," He said "what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, you would not have condemned the innocent."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 20.16
… For in His words to the Jews, Christ by anticipation deals a fatal blow to you: "If ye had known what this meaneth, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John 3.8
… “Ye hypocrites, how can ye speak good things, while ye are evil?” Your voices ye bring into mine ears: I look into your thoughts. I see an evil will there, and ye make a show of false fruits. I know what I must gather, and whence; I do not “gather figs of thistles,” I do not gather “grapes of thorns;” for “every tree is known by its fruit.”
12:8
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 7
… Or have ye not read in the law, that the priests in [43] the temple profane the sabbath, and yet they are blameless? I say unto you now, [44] that here is what is greater than the temple. If ye had known this : I love mercy, [45] not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned those on whom is no blame.
Tertullian † AD 220 On the Flesh of Christ 15
… “But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth;” and “The Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath-day.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on Matthew 14.20
… he who, casting out his former wife, takes in due season “a wife of fornication,” having done it according to the command of Him who says, when it is necessary, and so long as it was necessary, “He shall not take a harlot to wife,” and, when it was reasonable, He says, “Take to yourself a wife of fornication.” For as the Son of man is Lord of the sabbath,
Archelaus † fl. AD 278 The Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes 42
… but, at the same time, to employ riches for the work of righteousness and mercy, is a thing as acceptable as though one were to give up the whole at once. Again, as to the assertion that the Sabbath has been abolished, we deny that He has abolished it plainly; for He was Himself also Lord of the Sabbath.
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 5.16
204. Could the Lord be ignorant of a day Who Himself said of Himself that the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath?
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 39
3. After this He mentions another reason likewise; “For the Son of man,” saith He, “is Lord of the Sabbath day;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 36.5
5. “The Son of man,” he says, “is Lord of the Sabbath, and in that day it is by all means lawful to do good rather than do evil.”
12:9
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 2.35
82. Matthew continues his account thus: “And when He was departed thence, He went into their synagogue: and, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered;” and so on, down to the words, “And it was restored whole, like as the other.”
12:10
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 39
Now here indeed with no great vehemence (yet surely that would have been consistent in them),—nevertheless they are not vehemently provoked, but simply find fault. But when He stretched out the withered hand and healed it,
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 40
And while the other evangelists say, He asked the question, this one saith, it was asked of Him. “And they asked Him,” so it stands, “saying, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath days? that they might accuse Him.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 2.35
… and that in reply He set before them the parable of the sheep in these terms: “What man shall there be among you that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the Sabbath-day, will he not lay hold on it and lift it out? How much, then, is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath-days;”
12:11
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 7
… shall lives be saved or [51] [Arabic, p. 30] destroyed? But they were silent. Regarding them with anger, being grieved because of the hardness of their hearts. And he said unto the man, Stretch out thy hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand became straight. [52]
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 On Virginity 6
This , I believe, makes the greatness of the prophet Elias, and of him who afterwards appeared in the spirit and power of Elias, than whom “of those that are born of women there was none greater
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 16
… He, to heal such their suspicion, there also again sets forth His pleas, of which some indeed were proper to Himself; as when He saith, “My Father worketh, and I work;” but some had in them much condescension, as when He brings forward the sheep lost on the sabbath day,
12:12
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 7
… Regarding them with anger, being grieved because of the hardness of their hearts. And he said unto the man, Stretch out thy hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand became straight. [52] Then he said unto them, What man of you shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a [53] well on the sabbath day, will not take it and lift it out?
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 59
For with regard to the meats likewise, when He had overcome them, then, and not till then, He declared unto the multitude, that, “Not that which goeth in defileth the man;” and with regard to the Sabbath, when He had stopped their mouths, He saith, “Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath day;”
12:13
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 40
For His desire indeed was to cure them before him, and He tried innumerable ways of healing, both by what He did in their presence, and by what He said: but since their malady after all was incurable, He proceeded to the work. “Then saith He to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth, and it was restored whole, like as the other.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 86.3
… as if they did not themselves speak all the sabbath day. I might say that they do not speak not only on the sabbath, but on no day, forasmuch as they have kept back from the praises of the True God. Nevertheless, as I have said, brethren, it was a manifest cavil. The Lord said to a certain man, “Stretch forth thine hand;”
12:14
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 8
[1] And the Pharisees went out, and consulted together concerning him, that they [2] might destroy him. And Jesus perceived, and removed thence: and great multitudes [3] followed him; and he healed all of them: and he forbade them that they should [4] not make him known: that the saying in Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which said,
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 40
2. What then did they? They go forth, it is said, and take counsel together to slay Him. For “the Pharisees,” saith the Scripture, “went out and held a council against Him, how they might destroy Him.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 45
… but because it was a voluntary and self-chosen blindness, therefore He said not simply, “They see not,” but, “seeing, they see not;” so that the blindness is of their own wickedness. For they saw even devils cast out, and said, “By Beelzebub, prince of the devils, He casteth out the devils.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 2.36
… But when Jesus knew it, He withdrew Himself from thence: and great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them all; and charged them that they should not make Him known: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet Esaias, saying;” and so forth, down to where it is said, “And in His name shall the Gentiles trust.”
Socrates Scholasticus † AD 440 The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus 3.8
… Subsequently, when he gave unquestionable evidence of his Divine character by healing the withered hand, ‘when the Pharisees took council how they might destroy him,
12:15
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 8
[1] And the Pharisees went out, and consulted together concerning him, that they [2] might destroy him.
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on Matthew 11.4
… “And seeing the multitudes He went up into the mountain, and when He had sat down His disciples came unto Him; and He opened His mouth and taught them saying, Blessed are the poor in spirit,” etc. And again in another place, as the multitudes stood in need of healing, it is said, “Many multitudes followed Him and He healed them.”
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Defence of His Flight. (Apologia de Fuga.) 12
… And when afterwards He was shewing Himself to be God, and made whole the withered hand, the Pharisees went out, and held a council against Him, how they might destroy Him; but when Jesus knew it, He withdrew Himself from thence
St Ephrem the Syrian † AD 373 Ephraim Syrus: Nineteen Hymns on the Nativity of Christ in the Flesh 12
He that has a child, let him come and become a brother to my Well-beloved!
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 40
What then doth the gentle and meek One? He withdrew, on being aware of it. “But when Jesus knew their devices, He withdrew Himself,” it is said, “from them.”
12:16
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 8
[1] And the Pharisees went out, and consulted together concerning him, that they [2] might destroy him. And Jesus perceived, and removed thence: and great multitudes [3] followed him; and he healed all of them:
12:17
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 8
[1] And the Pharisees went out, and consulted together concerning him, that they [2] might destroy him. And Jesus perceived, and removed thence: and great multitudes [3] followed him; and he healed all of them: and he forbade them that they should [4] not make him known:
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 1.23
… A bruised rod shall He not break, and smoking flax shall He not quench, till He bring forth judgment from victory, and in His name shall the nations hope.” That it is Christ about whom such prophecies are made, Matthew shows in his Gospel, where he quotes from memory and says:
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 40
… I will put my Spirit upon Him, and He shall show judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive nor cry, neither shall any man hear His voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall He not break, and smoking flax shall He not quench, till He send forth judgment unto victory. And in His name shall the Gentiles trust.”
12:18
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 8
[5] Behold, my servant with whom I am pleased;
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 3.11.6
… I will put my Spirit upon Him, and He shall show judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear His voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall He not break, and smoking flax shall He not quench, until He send forth judgment into contention; and in His name shall the Gentiles trust.”
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 4.36
… but They do not deny that God has been born from Him in the past. Already there was the Servant speaking thus, and bearing witness to the Father; the Servant born in that tribe from which God’s elect was to spring. He sets forth also the same truth in the Gospels: Behold, My Servant Whom I have chosen, My Beloved in Whom My soul is well pleased
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 8.23
… therefore He hath anointed Me . And again, Behold My Servant Whom I have chosen, My beloved in Whom My soul is well pleased, I will put My Spirit upon Him
12:19
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 8
[6] He shall not dispute, nor cry out;
Tertullian † AD 220 An Answer to the Jews 9
… For of Him the prophet says, “A man set in a plague, and knowing how to bear infirmity;” who “was led as a sheep for a victim; and, as a lamb before him who sheareth him, opened not His mouth.” If He “neither did contend nor shout, nor was His voice heard abroad,” who “crushed not the bruised reed”—Israel’s faith, who “quenched not the burning flax”
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Life of Antony. (Vita Antoni.) 16
… For the presence either of the good or evil by the help of God can easily be distinguished. The vision of the holy ones is not fraught with distraction: “For they will not strive, nor cry, nor shall any one hear their voice
12:20
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 8
[7] And a bruised reed shall he not break,
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 121
(2) What is the meaning of Matt. xii. 20 ?
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 4.2
… Yet I preferred—Lord, Thou knowest—to have honest scholars (as they are esteemed); and these I, without artifice, taught artifices, not to be put in practise against the life of the guiltless, though sometimes for the life of the guilty. And Thou, O God, from afar sawest me stumbling in that slippery path, and amid much smoke
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 2.13
… despair those who are in danger, nor harden them with severe speeches, but rather restore them with gentle and kindly consolations, and as the wise Solomon says, “Spare not to deliver those who are led forth to death, and to redeem those who are to be slain,” and after the example of our Saviour, break not the bruised reed, nor quench the smoking flax,
12:21
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 8
[8] And the nations shall rejoice in his name.
Tertullian † AD 220 The Five Books Against Marcion 5.2
… lift up thy voice with strength, thou that bringest the gospel to Jerusalem.” Also when, with respect to the apostles personally, He says, “How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, that bring good tidings of good” —even proclaiming the gospel to the Gentiles, because He also says, “In His name shall the Gentiles trust;”
Tertullian † AD 220 On the Resurrection of the Flesh 59
… But when the same prophet represents to us even nations sometimes estimated as “the small dust of the balance,” and as “less than nothing, and vanity,” and sometimes as about to hope and “trust in the name”
12:22
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 14
[41] Then they brought to him one possessed of a demon, dumb and blind; and he [42] healed him, so that the dumb and blind began to speak and see. And all the multitudes wondered, and said, Is this, think you, the son of David?
St Ephrem the Syrian † AD 373 Ephraim Syrus: Three Homilies 3.11
… In the ship He slept as He willed, and the sea swelled against the disciples. He arose and rebuked the billows, and there was a great calm. The widow, the desolate one who was following her only son, on the way to the grave He consoled her. He gave him to her and gladdened her heart. To one man who was dumb and blind,
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 40
3. “Then they brought unto Him one possessed with a devil, blind and dumb, and He healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 2.37
84. Matthew then goes on with his recital in the following fashion: “Then was brought unto Him one possessed with a devil, blind and dumb; and He healed him, insomuch that he both spake and saw.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 21.1
… But Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself shall be brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand. And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?”
12:23
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 14
[41] Then they brought to him one possessed of a demon, dumb and blind; and he [42] healed him, so that the dumb and blind began to speak and see.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 32
… For so far from amending the multitude, they even marred their progress. For instance, when they were marvelling and saying, “It was never so seen in Israel:” these were affirming the contrary, “He casteth out devils through the prince of the devils.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 40
“And all the people were amazed, saying, Is not this the Son of David? But the Pharisees said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 2.38
… But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils but in Beelzebub, the prince of the devils. And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself shall be brought to desolation;” and so on, down to the words, “By thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.”
12:24
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 14
… And wisdom was justified of all her children. And when he said that, they came to the house. And there gathered unto him again multitudes, [16] so that they found not bread to eat. And while he was casting out a devil which was dumb, when he cast out that devil, that dumb man spake. And the multitudes [17] [Arabic, p. 55] marvelled.
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 2.9
… He, indeed, manifested Himself among the Jews as the power of God, by the miracles which He performed, which Celsus suspected were accomplished by sorcery, but which by the Jews of that time were attributed I know not why, to Beelzebub, in the words: “He casteth out devils through Beelzebub, the prince of the devils.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Concerning Repentance 2.4
… “Every kingdom divided against itself shall be destroyed, and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand; for if Satan casteth out Satan, he is divided against himself, how then shall his kingdom stand? But if I cast out devils by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them out?”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 26
… “For this cause,” He says, “speak I unto them in parables, because seeing they see not.” ( Matt. xiii. 13 .) In what sense was it that seeing they saw not? They saw devils cast out, and they said, He hath a devil. They saw the dead raised, and they worshipped not, but attempted to kill Him. But not of this character was Cornelius. (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 19
… So He did in the case of Nathaniel and the Samaritan woman. For prophecies bring men over not less than miracles; and are free from the appearance of boasting. Miracles may possibly be slandered among foolish men, (“He casteth out devils,” said they, “by Beelzebub”—
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 58
… For they first attempted to cast Him down by occasion of this mode (of cure), saying, “How opened he thine eyes?” that is, “was it by some sorcery?” In another place also, when they had no charge to bring against Him, they endeavored to insult the mode of the cure, saying, “He doth not cast out devils save by Beelzebub.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 28
… and at one time the Jews said, “Nay,” (it says) “but He deceiveth the people.” ( John vii. 12 .) And again, “That deceiver said while He was yet alive, after three days I will rise again.” ( Matt. xxvii. 63 .) As to sorcery too they calumniated Him, saying, “He casteth out the devils by Beelzebub.” (
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 42.1
… Let Novatian prove that of those who have been compelled to sacrifice before a judge’s tribu nal any has declared of the things written in the gospel that they were wrought not by the Son of God but by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount 1.22
… For if He reckoned them so condemned, that there was no hope left for them, He would not judge that they ought still to be admonished, as He did by adding the statement, “Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John 12
… through malice and envy to fight against brotherly charity after receiving the grace of the Holy Spirit: that sin which the Lord saith hath no forgiveness, either here or in the world to come. . . . For the Lord in saying to the Pharisees, “Whosoever shall speak an evil word against the Son of Man,”
12:25
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 14
… And the multitudes [17] [Arabic, p. 55] marvelled. And the Pharisees, when they heard, said, This man doth not cast out the devils, except by Beelzebul the chief of the demons, which is in him. [18, 19] And others requested of him a sign from heaven, to tempt him.
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 5.26
… After that they shall be destroyed by the coming of our Lord. For that the kingdom must be divided, and thus come to ruin, the Lord [declares when He] says: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Holy Spirit 3.20
156. And what wonder is it if the Holy Spirit is in the throne of God, since the kingdom of God itself is the work of the Holy Spirit, as it is written: “For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” And when the Saviour Himself says, “Every kingdom divided against itself shall be destroyed,”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 1.1
… for that which is not one is divided. The Arians, however, would have the kingdom of the Trinity to be such as may easily be overthrown, by division against itself. But truly, seeing that it cannot be overthrown, it is plainly undivided. For no unity is divided or rent asunder, and therefore neither age nor corruption has any power over it.
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 3.12
92. I would now ask how they suppose the kingdom of the Father and the Son to be divided, when the Lord hath said, as we showed above: “Every kingdom divided against itself shall be speedily overthrown.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 1
… in each portion of what is there stated, one may see the connexion with the whole clearly appearing. Whereas, if they were in discord, neither could this have been pointed out, and the doctrine itself had long since been brought to nought: “for every kingdom,” saith He, “divided against itself shall not stand.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 40
What then doth the gentle and meek One? He withdrew, on being aware of it. “But when Jesus knew their devices,
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on First Corinthians 31
[7.] And now let me ask, do heathens bind together, and dost thou divide and war with thine own body, and withstand thine own members? Knowest thou not that this overturns all? For even a “kingdom,” saith he, “divided against itself shall not stand.” (S.
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 42.1
… And this is the whole gist of our Saviour’s argument, when He teaches that Satan cannot be cast out by Satan, and that his kingdom is not divided against itself.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 62.9
… They conspire, they all seek things temporal, and they that are carnal things carnal, and for the future they hope them, whosoever do hope: even if because of variety of opinions they are in division, nevertheless because of vanity they are at one. Divers indeed are errors and of many forms, and the kingdom against itself divided shall not stand:
Pseudo-Clement The Recognitions of Clement 2.31
… but only in order that, through our discussing quietly and patiently, it might be more easily ascertained by the hearers which is the true speech. But if you differ and disagree with yourself, how shall you stand? He must of necessity fall who is divided in himself; ‘for every kingdom divided against itself shall not stand.’
12:26
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 14
… [18, 19] And others requested of him a sign from heaven, to tempt him. And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them in parables, Every kingdom that withstandeth itself shall become desolate; and every house or city that disagreeth with itself shall not [20] stand:
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 3.14
117. Moreover, in the Greek, the rendering is this: “The palaces are fallen.” What palaces, save the palace of Satan, of whom the Lord said: “How shall His kingdom stand?”
Pseudo-Clement The Clementine Homilies 19.2
… For instance, then, he acknowledges that he conversed with Him, and tempted Him for forty days. And I know that He has said somewhere else, ‘If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself: how then is his kingdom to stand?’
12:27
St Methodius † AD 311 Oration on the Palms 1
… Turn your hearts to your children, and close not your eyes against the truth. But if you remain the same, and hearing, hear not, and seeing, perceive not, and to no purpose dissent from your children, then shall they be your judges
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Holy Spirit 3.20
… “For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” And when the Saviour Himself says, “Every kingdom divided against itself shall be destroyed,” by adding afterwards, “But if I, by the Spirit of God, cast out devils, without doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you,”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 41
“For if I,” saith He, “by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your sons cast them out?”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 61
… when the Jews said, that for this cause they could not believe in Christ, because the law forbade to receive His commandments, by bringing forward these men, who had received the same law, and yet had believed, He condemns all those; like as even already He had said, “therefore they shall be your judges.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 75
… and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here;” and, “The queen of the south shall condemn this generation, because she came to hear the wisdom of Solomon;” and of an equal again, “They shall be your judges;”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 5
… and they shall prophesy.” So far he shows that he and his have found favor, in that they had received ( καταξιωθέντας ) [the Spirit]; not so they whom he is addressing; for that they had crucified [the Lord]. So Christ also, willing to mitigate their wrath, said, “By whom do your sons cast out devils?” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 51
[2.] How then did the Prophets prophesy and work those ten thousand wonders? For the Apostles cast not out devils by the Spirit, but by power received from Him; as He saith Himself, “If I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out?” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 20.5
… And therefore He said elsewhere to the Jews, “If I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 21.2
2. But now that they may not think that it is the prince of the devils in whom the Lord Jesus Christ casteth out devils, let them attend to what follows; “And if I,” He saith, “by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? Therefore shall they be your judges.”
12:28
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 14
… neither shall he be [21] able to stand, but his end shall be. Then how now shall his kingdom stand? for ye [22] said that I cast out devils by Beelzebul. And if I by Beelzebul cast out the devils, then your children, by what do they cast them out? And for this cause they shall [23] be judges against you.
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 8.23
… therefore He hath anointed Me . And again, Behold My Servant Whom I have chosen, My beloved in Whom My soul is well pleased, I will put My Spirit upon Him . And when the Lord Himself bears witness of Himself, But if I in the Spirit of God cast out devils, then has the kingdom of God come upon you
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 1.12
… For the Jews saying that He cast out devils in Beelzebub, He answered and said to them, for the exposure of their blasphemy, ‘But if I through the Spirit of God cast out demons
St Basil the Great † AD 379 De Spiritu Sancto 9
… First of all we ask, who on hearing the titles of the Spirit is not lifted up in soul, who does not raise his conception to the supreme nature? It is called “Spirit of God,”
St Basil the Great † AD 379 De Spiritu Sancto 16
… He was present when the Lord was being tempted by the devil; for, it is said, “Jesus was led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted.” He was inseparably with Him while working His wonderful works; for, it is said, “If I by the Spirit of God cast out devils.”
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 17.11
… for the Father also seeketh such to worship Him. God is a Spirit; and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth . And again, But if I by the Spirit of God cast out devils
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 2.15
… For it was “the brightness of the Father’s glory, and the express image of His person,” Who “purged our sins .” Again, to banish devils, which Eunomius says is a property of the Spirit, this also the only-begotten God, Who said to the devil, “I charge thee ,” ascribes to the power of the Spirit, when He says, “If I by the Spirit of God cast out devils
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 On 'Not Three Gods.' 1
… For He says, “If I by the Spirit of God cast out devils
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Holy Spirit 3.3
… Thy Right Hand, O Lord, hath dashed in pieces the enemy;” so the Holy Spirit is called the Finger of God, as the Lord Himself says: “But if I by the Finger of God cast out devils.” For in the same place in another book of the Gospel He named the Spirit of God, as you find: “But if I by the Spirit of God cast out devils.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Decease of His Brother Satyrus 2.117
… And so the Church in the Song of Songs and Christ in the Gospel invites them, saying: “Come unto Me, all ye who labour and are heavy laden, and I will refresh you; take My yoke upon you and learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 41
“But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the Kingdom of God is come unto you.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 1
… After He had given commandments through the Spirit” ( v. 2 ); i.e. they were spiritual words that He spake unto them, nothing human; either this is the meaning, or, that it was by the Spirit that He gave them commandments.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 11
… “Lord, Thou the God that madest heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is.” Observe how they say nothing idle, no old wives’ talk and fables, but speak of His power. Just as Christ Himself said to the Jews, “If I by the Spirit of God do cast out devils:” behold the Father also speaks by the Spirit. For what saith it? “Lord, the God Who,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 55.29
… and this “finger of God” is in the Gospels most plainly declared to signify the Holy Spirit: for where one evangelist quotes our Lord’s words thus, “I with the finger of God cast out devils,” another quotes them thus, “I cast out devils by the Spirit of God.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 1.11
… but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven Him.” And in the Spirit too He wrought miracles, saying: “But if I with the Spirit of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 21.2
… they shall be My witnesses, they shall be your judges. Then He subjoins, “But if I by the Spirit of God cast out devils, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 21.25
… For in that very place, from which this question arose which we are discussing, when the Son was casting out devils, He yet said, “If I in the Holy Spirit cast out devils, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 91.16
… for the finger of God is the Holy Ghost. How do we prove this? Our Lord, when answering those who accused Him of casting out devils in the name of Beelzebub, saith, “If I cast out devils by the Spirit of God;”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Counter-statements of Theodoret 1
… I will put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.” This testimony the Evangelist too has inserted in his own writings. And the Lord Himself in the Gospels says to the Jews, “If I with the spirit of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.”
12:29
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 14
… Then how now shall his kingdom stand? for ye [22] said that I cast out devils by Beelzebul. And if I by Beelzebul cast out the devils, then your children, by what do they cast them out? And for this cause they shall [23] be judges against you. But if I by the Spirit of God cast out devils, then the kingdom [24] of God is come near unto you.
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 3.8.2
2. But also, when He spoke of the devil as strong, not absolutely so, but as in comparison with us, the Lord showed Himself under every aspect and truly to be the strong man, saying that one can in no other way “spoil the goods of a strong man, if he do not first bind the strong man himself, and then he will spoil his house.”
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 3.18.6
… But as our Lord is alone truly Master, so the Son of God is truly good and patient, the Word of God the Father having been made the Son of man. For He fought and conquered; for He was man contending for the fathers, and through obedience doing away with disobedience completely: for He bound the strong man,
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 3.23.1
… But inasmuch as God is invincible and long-suffering, He did indeed show Himself to be long-suffering in the matter of the correction of man and the probation of all, as I have already observed; and by means of the second man did He bind the strong man, and spoiled his goods,
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 5.21.3
… For when Satan is bound, man is set free; since “none can enter a strong man’s house and spoil his goods, unless he first bind the strong man himself.”
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 On the Lord's Prayer 28
… the Lord thy God is one God: and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. This is the first commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”
St Methodius † AD 311 Oration on the Palms 1
… Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord: God against the devil; not manifestly in His might, which cannot be looked on, but in the weakness of the flesh, to bind the strong man
St Basil the Great † AD 379 De Spiritu Sancto 8
… The apostle, it is true, says, “In all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.” But in a phrase of this kind there is no suggestion of any lowly and subordinate ministry, but rather of the succour rendered “in the power of his might.” For He Himself has bound the strong man and spoiled his goods,
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 8.3
… For unless the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ has the power over both, how does He subject both to punishment? For how shall He be able to take the body which is another’s and cast it into hell, except He first bind the strong man, and spoil his goods
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 41
“How can one enter into the strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man, and then spoil his goods?”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on First Corinthians 39
… but unless one venture to take what is his, how can we say that he is vanquished? After this manner of victory doth Christ Himself say in the Gospels that He hath been victorious, thus speaking, “When he shall bind the strong man, then shall he also spoil his goods.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 67
… He saith, “I will draw them,” as though they were detained by a tyrant, and unable of themselves alone to approach Him, and to escape the hands of him who keepeth hold of them. In another place He calleth this “spoiling; no man can spoil a strong man’s goods, except he first bind the strong man, and then spoil his goods.” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 8.4
… By how much the more welcome, then, was the heart of Victorinus esteemed, which the devil had held as an unassailable retreat, and the tongue of Victorinus, with which mighty and cutting weapon he had slain many; so much the more abundantly should Thy sons rejoice, seeing that our King hath bound the strong man,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 20.30
… For this had been promised to the apostles when the Lord said, “I will make you fishers of men.” And to one of them He says, “From henceforth thou shalt catch men.” They were then to become a spoil, but in a good sense, as those who are snatched from that strong one when he is bound by a stronger.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin 2.45
… Now, by all these consecrated and evident signs of hidden realities, they are shown to pass from their worst oppressor to their most excellent Redeemer, who, by taking on Himself our infirmity in our behalf, has bound the strong man, that He may spoil his goods;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 21.3
3. And after that He had said, “By whom do your children cast them out?” to show that in them it was His grace, not their own desert; He saith, “Or else how can one enter into a strong man’s house and spoil his goods, except He first bind the strong man, and then He will spoil his house?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 80.2
… He verily shed His Blood to this end, that He might wipe out our sins. That then whereby he held us fast was effaced by the Redeemer’s Blood. For he only held us fast by the bonds of our own sins. They were the captive’s chains. He came, He bound the strong one with the bonds of His Passion; He entered into his house
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 35.12
… Even that David shall deliver the poor from him that is too strong for him. For the devil was too strong for thee, and held thee, because he conquered thee, when thou consentedst unto him. But what hath the Strong in hand done? “No man entereth into a strong man’s house, to spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 48.3
… The devil had held dominion over the ungodly, and possessed the nations serving images, adoring demons; and all whatsoever there was of human kind anywhere throughout the world, by cleaving to Him, had become North. But since He who binds the strong man, taketh away his goods,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 59.1.6
… And praised nevertheless are the weak men, and condemned are the strong men. If it would be perceived who are strong men, at first the devil himself the Lord hath called a strong man: “No one,” He saith, “is able to go into the house of a strong man, and to carry off his vessels, unless first he shall have bound the strong man.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 68.13
… in the same manner as the Body is beautiful in the distribution of the members. “Spoils” moreover those are called that are stripped off from conquered foes. What this is the Gospel adviseth us in the passage where we read, “No one goeth into the house of a strong man to spoil his vessels, unless first he shall have bound the strong man.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 72.14
… whom mighty to subdue men to himself, and to hold them bound in captivity, not his virtue did make, but men’s sins. The same is himself also called strong; therefore here mighty also. But He that hath humbled the slanderer and hath entered into the house of the strong man to bind him and to spoil his vessels,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 119.21
160. Then follows, “I am as glad of Thy word as one that findeth great spoils” ( ver. 162 ). By the same words he conquered, of which he stood in awe. For spoils are stripped from the conquered; as he was overcome and despoiled of whom it is said in the Gospel, “except he first bind the strong man.”
12:30
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 On the Unity of the Church 6
… He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, “He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathereth not with me scattereth.”
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews 3.87
… “In one house shall it be eaten: ye shall not cast forth the flesh abroad out of the house.” Also in the cxxxiid Psalm: “Behold how good and how pleasant a thing it is that brethren should dwell in unity!” Also in the Gospel according to Matthew: “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.”
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 The Seventh Council of Carthage under Cyprian. Concerning the Baptism of Heretics 1
Secundinus of Cedias said: Since our Lord Christ says, “He who is not with me is against me;”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Concerning Repentance 2.4
25. Lastly, that we may know that He is speaking of those who destroy the unity of the Church, we find it written: “He that is not with Me is against Me, and he that gathered not with Me, scattereth.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 41
4. “He that is not with me is against me, and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 14.2
… Nay, a body used to a tunic cannot endure a buckler; a head that has worn a cap refuses a helmet; a hand made tender by disuse is galled by a sword-hilt. Hear the proclamation of your King: “He that is not with me is against me, and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 15.2
… Con sequently I here follow the Egyptian confessors who share your faith, and anchor my frail craft under the shadow of their great argosies. I know nothing of Vitalis; I reject Meletius; I have nothing to do with Paulinus. He that gathers not with you scatters;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 208.6
… although an apparently praiseworthy conversation seems to prove some of them to be good, their separation from the Church itself renders them bad, according to the saying of the Lord: “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 12.16
16. That the whole ark together is finished in a cubit above; as the Church, the body of Christ gathered into unity, is raised to perfection. So Christ says in the Gospel: "He that gathereth not with me, scattereth."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Baptism, Against the Donatists 1.7
… but that what remained sound in him should rather be recognized with approbation, than wounded by condemnation. It is indeed true that the Lord says in the gospel, "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4.10
… although, certainly, in the point where he was imperfect he was to be made whole, in accordance with the words of the Lord, in which He says, "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4.17
… Baptism therefore can "be common to us, and the heretics," just as the gospel can be common to us, whatever difference there may be between our faith and their error,—whether they think otherwise than the truth about the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit; or, being cut away from unity, do not gather with Christ, but scatter abroad,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Baptism, Against the Donatists 6.18
Chapter 18.— 30. Secundinus of Cedias said: "Since our Lord Christ said, ‘He that is not with me is against me,’
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Baptism, Against the Donatists 6.31
… Another Secundinus of Carpis said: "Are heretics Christians or not? If they are Christians, why are they not in the Church of God? If they are not Christians, let them be made so. Else what will be the reference in the discourse of the Lord, in which He says, ‘He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad?’
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist 3.5
… For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself." Let us therefore "forbear one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace;" for no one who gathers outside that peace is gathering with Christ; but "he that gathering not with Him scattereth abroad."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants 1.55
… that vague and indefinite middle condition, which some would provide for unbaptized infants,—as if, by reason of their innocence, they were embraced in eternal life, but were not, because of their unbaptized state, with Christ in His kingdom) uttered that definitive sentence of His, which shuts their mouths: “He that is not with me is against me.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 4.5
… We must see, however, whether this sentence must be supposed to stand in opposition to another of the Lord’s sayings, namely, the one to this effect, “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 21.4
… and ungodly, the enemies of the Christian name, might not suppose by reason of the divers heresies and schisms of those who under the Christian name gather together flocks of lost sheep, that the kingdom of Christ also is divided against itself, He next adds, “He that is not with Me is against Me, and he that gathereth not with Me, scattereth abroad.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 21.36
… lest any one should think because of those who gather together their irregular assemblies under the Name of Christ, but without His fold, that the kingdom of Christ also was divided against itself, He immediately added, “He that is not with Me is against Me, and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth abroad,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 88.5
… so also is Christ.” Therefore if Christ be even so, with good reason doth Christ in Himself containing all good shepherds, set forth One, saying, “‘I am the good Shepherd.’ ‘I am,’ I Alone am, all the rest with Me are one in unity. Whoso feedeth without Me, feedeth against Me. ‘He that gathereth not with Me, scattereth.’”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 111.2
… For we cannot doubt that the true believer is with Christ by faith; because in reference to this He saith, “He that is not with me is against me.”
12:31
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 3.11.9
… We must conclude, moreover, that these men (the Montanists) can not admit the Apostle Paul either. For, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, he speaks expressly of prophetical gifts, and recognises men and women prophesying in the Church. Sinning, therefore, in all these particulars, against the Spirit of God,
Theognostus of Alexandria † AD 270 From His Seven Books of Hypotyposes or Outlines, Part III 1
… even so it is not on account of the superiority of the Spirit over the Son that the blasphemy against the Spirit is a sin excluding impunity and pardon, but because for the imperfect there is pardon, while for those who have tasted the heavenly gift,
St Basil the Great † AD 379 De Spiritu Sancto 18
… but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.”
St Basil the Great † AD 379 De Spiritu Sancto 29
… So besides these let sword flash, let axe be whetted, let fire burn fiercer than that of Babylon, let every instrument of torture be set in motion against me. To me nothing is more fearful than failure to fear the threats which the Lord has directed against them that blaspheme the Spirit.
St Basil the Great † AD 379 The Letters 251.4
… I do not dare to call slavish that which is royal. And I beseech you to remember the threat uttered by the Lord in the words, “All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.”
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 17.11
… but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven. And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever shall speak a word against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 32
XXX. They who say and teach these things, and moreover call Him another Paraclete in the sense of another God, who know that blasphemy against Him alone cannot be forgiven,
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Concerning Repentance 2.4
… “Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, but blasphemies against the Spirit shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him, but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in that which is to come.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 41
“Therefore I say unto you, that all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist 2.62
… but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body." But this is one thing, and that is another which the Lord said in the gospel: "All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 21.5
… And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 21.24
… For if this were the reason, surely nothing would have been said of any other kind of blasphemy, that that only might appear capable of forgiveness, which is spoken against the Son of Man, regarded only as man. But forasmuch as it is first said, “All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 21.36
… but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven.”
12:32
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 14
… For this reason I say unto you, [Arabic, p. 56] that all sins and blasphemies with which men blaspheme shall be forgiven [29] them: but whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, there is no [30] forgiveness for him for ever, but he is deserving of eternal punishment: because they [31] said that he had an unclean spirit.
Tertullian † AD 220 On Modesty 13
… Lastly, when Paul is praying the Lord for its removal, what does he hear? “Hold my grace sufficient; for virtue is perfected in infirmity.” This they who are surrendered to Satan cannot hear. Moreover, if the crime of Hymenæus and Alexander—blasphemy, to wit—is irremissible in this and in the future age,
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis 1.3.2
… Who, then, is not amazed at the exceeding majesty of the Holy Spirit, when he hears that he who speaks a word against the Son of man may hope for forgiveness; but that he who is guilty of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit has not forgiveness, either in the present world or in that which is to come!
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 2.6
… But on further thought one may perhaps see reason to consider that the Son is second beside the Father, He being the same as the Father, while manifestly a distinction is drawn between the Spirit and the Son in the passage,
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews 3.29
In the Gospel according to Matthew: “Whosoever shall say a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world nor in the world to come.”
Novatian † AD 258 A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity 29
… no one utters any words of his own contrary to the Scriptures; no one ordains other and sacrilegious decrees; no one draws up different laws. Whosoever shall blaspheme against Him, “hath not forgiveness, not only in this world, but also not in the world to come.”
Archelaus † fl. AD 278 The Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes 31
… But if a man dealt thus with the Holy Spirit, He made him subject to two curses,—namely, to that of the law of Moses, and to that of His own law; to the law of Moses in truth in this present life, but to His own law at the time of the judgment: for His word is this: “It shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.”
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 1.12
… Spirit, therefore as man He said, ‘But if I through the Spirit of God cast out demons.’ Of course too He signified that the blasphemy offered to the Holy Ghost is greater than that against His humanity, when He said, ‘Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him;’ such as were those who said, ‘Is not this the carpenter’s son
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 4.16
… Who descended upon the Lord Jesus Christ in form of a dove; Who wrought in the Law and in the Prophets; Who now also at the season of Baptism sealeth thy soul; of Whose holiness also every intellectual nature hath need: against Whom if any dare to blaspheme, he hath no forgiveness, neither in this world, nor in that which is to come
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 16.1
… For a truly fearful thing is written in the Gospels, where Christ has plainly said, Whosoever shall speak a word against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in that which is to come
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Holy Spirit 1.3
… how can they dare to reckon the Holy Spirit amongst all things, since the Lord Himself said: “He who shall blaspheme against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but he who shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost shall never be forgiven, either here or hereafter.”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 42.1
1. The question you send is short and the answer is clear. There is this passage in the gospel: “Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world nor in the world to come.”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 42.2
… To give way under torture and to deny oneself to be a Christian is one thing, to say that Christ is the devil is another. And this you will yourself see if you read the passage
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 21.24
… For some of the dead, indeed, the prayer of the Church or of pious individuals is heard; but it is for those who, having been regenerated in Christ, did not spend their life so wickedly that they can be judged unworthy of such compassion, nor so well that they can be considered to have no need of it.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 1.11
… but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven Him.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Enchiridion 83
Now the man who, not believing that sins are remitted in the Church, despises this great gift of God’s mercy, and persists to the last day of his life in his obstinacy of heart, is guilty of the unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost, in whom Christ forgives sins.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Correction of the Donatists 11
… If we have sinned against the Holy Ghost, in that we have treated your baptism with contempt, why is it that you seek us, seeing that we cannot possibly receive remission of this sin, as the Lord says, "Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come?"
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 21.0
On the words of the Gospel, Matt. xii. 32 , “Whosoever shall speak a word against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in that which is to come.” Or, “on the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 21.9
9. First then, I pray you to consider and understand that the Lord did not say, “No blasphemy of the Spirit shall be forgiven,” or, “whosoever speaketh any word whatsoever against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him;” but “whosoever speaketh a word;”
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Sermons 75
… “whosoever shall have spoken a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him, but he that shall have spoken against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him either in this age or in the age to come
St John of Damascus † AD 749 An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 2.1
It must then be understood that the word age has various meanings, for it denotes many things. The life of each man is called an age. Again, a period of a thousand years is called an age . Again, the whole course of the present life is called an age: also the future life, the immortal life after the resurrection
12:33
St Ignatius of Antioch † AD 108 Epistle to the Ephesians: Shorter and Longer Versions 14
… For the beginning is faith, and the end is love. Now these two, being inseparably connected together, are of God, while all other things which are requisite for a holy life follow after them. No man [truly] making a profession of faith sinneth; nor does he that possesses love hate any one. The tree is made manifest by its fruit;
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 14
… because they [31] said that he had an unclean spirit. And he said also, Every one that speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to [32] come.
St Apollonius † fl. AD 200 Apollonius 1
… And if they are confident that they are right in so doing, let them stand forward and discuss the point , in order that, if they be refuted, they may cease for the future so to transgress. For the fruits of the prophet must needs be brought to the test: for “from its fruit is the tree known.”
Eusebius of Caesarea † AD 339 The Church History of Eusebius 5.18.8
8. But if they are confident, let them stand up and discuss these matters, that if convicted they may hereafter cease transgressing. For the fruits of the prophet must be tried; ‘for the tree is known by its fruit.’
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 Homilies on the Psalms 1
… The Lord with His own lips compared Himself to a tree when the Jews said that He cast out devils in Beelzebub: Either make the tree good , said He, and its fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and its fruit corrupt; for the tree is known by its fruit
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Enchiridion 15
… And our Lord Himself clearly shows this in the very same place where He speaks about the tree and its fruit. For He says: “Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 2.2
… the Pelagians say that the soul is upright, not indeed a particle, but a creature of God, and has not even in this corruptible life any sin. The catholic Church condemns both, saying to the Manicheans, “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree evil and its fruit evil,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount 2.24
… “Either make the tree good, or make the tree bad.” But if He were figuratively representing the two natures of such parties by these two trees, He would not say, “Make:” for who of the sons of men can make a nature? Then also in that passage, when He had made mention of these two trees, He added, “Ye hypocrites, how can ye, being evil, speak good things?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 22.0
On the words of the Gospel, Matt. xii. 33 , “Either make the tree good, and its fruit good,” etc.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 22.1
1. The Lord Jesus hath admonished us, that we be good trees, and that so we may be able to bear good fruits. For He saith, “Either make the tree good, and his fruit good, or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt, for the tree is known by his fruit.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 58.2
… “Hypocrites,” saith the Lord to the Pharisees, “how are ye able good things to speak, when ye are evil men?.…Either make the tree good, and the fruit thereof good: or make the tree evil, and the fruit thereof evil.”
Pseudo-Clement The First Epistle of the Blessed Clement, the Disciple of Peter the Apostle 3
… But let every one constantly try his works,” and know himself; for empty worship does he offer, whosoever he be that makes profession of virginity and sanctity, “and denies its power.” For virginity of such a kind is impure, and disowned by all good works. For “every tree whatsoever is known from its fruits.”
12:34
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 14
… but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to [32] come. Either ye must make a good tree and its fruit good; or ye must make an evil [33] tree and its fruit evil: for the tree is known by its fruit.
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 The Epistles of Cyprian 54.3
… for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure bringeth forth good things; and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.”
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 1.7
… nay, up to this time some of them , when they fall in with boys in the market-place, question them, not out of divine Scripture, but thus, as if bursting with ‘the abundance of their heart
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 19
6. Like these too, are the heretics, who, having fallen from true discernment, dare to invent to themselves atheism. ‘For the fool saith in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, and become abominable in their doings .’ Of such as are fools in their thoughts, the actions are wicked, as He saith, ‘can ye, being evil, speak good things
St Basil the Great † AD 379 The Letters 197
… Now I have become acquainted with you through what you have said. I do not mean that my memory is impressed with your outward appearance, but that the beauty of the inner man has been brought home to me by the rich variety of your utterances, for each of us “speaketh out of the abundance of the heart.”
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 30
… But probably this sense also is to be referred to the head of the unreasonable. For healing is not reasonable in the case of those who would afterwards be injured by unbelief. The sentence The world cannot hate you, comes under the same head, as does also How can ye, being evil, speak good things?
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 42
Then since He is arguing not for Himself, but for the Spirit, He hath dealt out His reproof even as a torrent, saying, “O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things?”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 32
… Does not this seem a strange saying? And yet ye have often heard it in the Scriptures. For of certain human beings it was said, “he is the angel of the Lord” ( Mal. ii. 7 ): and “from his lips,” saith it, “they shall seek judgment” ( Mal. iii. 1 ): and again, “I send My angel before Thy face:” but of some, “Serpents, generation of vipers.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Second Corinthians 6
… how first he loadeth himself with contumely; just as one that sputtereth any filth from the mouth, so he defiles himself. For if the stream is so impure, think what must be the fountain of this filth! “for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Christian Doctrine 4.29
… but do not ye after their works;”—that is to say, what ye hear from their lips, that do; what ye see in their lives, that do ye not;—“for they say and do not.” And so, though they do not, yet they say. But in another place, upbraiding such men, He says, “O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John 3.8
… whosoever in his deeds denies Christ, is an antichrist. I listen not to what he says, but I look what life he leads. Works speak, and do we require words? For where is the bad man that does not wish to talk well? But what saith the Lord to such? “Ye hypocrites, how can ye speak good things, while ye are evil?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 5.12
… “With their own tongues they dealt craftily:” that is, with evil tongues. For this seems to be signified, when he says “their own.” For the evil have evil tongues, that is, they speak evil, when they speak craftily. To whom the Lord saith, “How can ye, being evil, speak good things?”
Pseudo-Clement The Clementine Homilies 19.7
And Peter said: “You are not so blessed as to praise Him, nor indeed can you do such a good deed as this; for then you would be full of Him. For thus said our Teacher, who always spoke the truth: ‘Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.’
12:35
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis 2.5.4
… And in this way also is to be understood the declaration, “A good man, out of the good treasure of his heart, bringeth forth good things; and an evil man, out of the evil treasure, bringeth forth evil things.”
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 30
… The “None is Good” meets the tempting Lawyer, who was testifying to His Goodness viewed as Man. For perfect goodness, He says, is God’s alone, even if a man is called perfectly good. As for instance, A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth good things.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 42
“A good man out of his good treasure,” saith He, “bringeth forth good things, and an evil man out of his evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 58.1
1. “A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 1.13
… there is none good but One, that is, God.” And yet the Lord Himself, in another place, calls man good: “A good man,” He says, “out of the good treasure of his heart, bringeth forth good things: and an evil man, out of the evil treasure of his heart, bringeth forth evil things.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Acts or Disputation Against Fortunatus the Manichaean 2
… As long as he is good he cannot yield evil fruit; as long as he is bad he cannot yield good fruit. But that you may know that those two trees are so placed by the Lord, that free choice may be there signified, that these two trees are not natures but our wills, He Himself says in the gospel: "Either make the tree good, or make the tree evil."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist 1.8
Chapter 8.— 9. When he hears, "Every good tree bringeth good fruit, but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit: do men gather grapes of thorns?" and, "A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things;"
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist 2.6
… do men gather grapes of thorns?’ And again: ‘A good man, out of the good treasure of the heart, bringeth forth good things: and an evil man, out of the evil treasure, bringeth forth evil things.’"
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist 3.44
… do men gather grapes of thorns?’ and again, ‘A good man, out of the good treasure of the heart, bringeth forth good things: and an evil man, out of the evil treasure, bringeth forth evil things,’"
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist 3.50
… "Every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. Do men gather grapes of thorns?" And again: "A good man, out of the good treasure of his heart, bringeth forth good things: and an evil man, out of the evil treasure, bringeth forth evil things."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Concerning Man’s Perfection in Righteousness 32
… all he does is to oppose to it sundry other passages which seem to contradict it, which he adduces to show that man, too, is good. Here are his remarks: “We must answer this text with another, in which the same Lord says, ‘A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth good things.’
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 24.3
3. Peradventure some of you may say, “And how can a bad man speak what is good, when it is written, in the words of the Lord Himself, ‘A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth evil things. Ye hypocrites, how can ye being evil speak good things?’”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 88.4
… What! in making such a confession, such a profession rather, would he lie? In truth then, he made answer of his love to Thee, and from his inmost heart he gave utterance to a lover’s words. Now Thou hast said, “A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things.”
Pope St Gregory I the Great † AD 604 Register of the Epistles of St. Gregory the Great 7.32
That a good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth good things (
12:36
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 14
… for the tree is known by its fruit. Ye children of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? from the overflowings of the heart the mouth [34] speaketh. The good man from the good treasures which are in his heart bringeth forth good things; and the wicked man from the evil treasures which are in his [35] heart bringeth forth evils.
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 2.19.2
… It really seems to me, that, with a view to such opinions, the Lord expressed Himself thus: “For every idle word that men speak, they shall give account on the day of judgment.”
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 4.16.5
… But He has also increased the feeling of reverence; for sons should have more veneration than slaves, and greater love for their father. And therefore the Lord says, “As to every idle word that men have spoken, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgment.”
Tertullian † AD 220 On Patience 8
… When, then, on being cursed, I smite (with my tongue,) how shall I be found to have followed the doctrine of the Lord, in which it has been delivered that “a man is defiled, not by the defilements of vessels, but of the things which are sent forth out of his mouth.” Again, it is said that “impeachment awaits us for every vain and needless word.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on Matthew 14.8
… the kingdom of heaven which is likened to a king, when “we must all stand before the judgment-sent of Christ that each one may receive the things done in the body according to what he hath done, whether good or bad;” and then when the reckoning is being made, shall there be brought into the reckoning that is made also every idle word that men shall speak,
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews 3.14
… “He who shall say to his brother, Thou fool! shall be liable to the Gehenna of fire.” Of this same matter, according to the same Matthew: “But I say unto you, That every idle word which men shall speak, they shall give account for it in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.”
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Defence Against the Arians (Apologia Contra Arianos) 2
… For every one of us shall give account in the Day of judgment
St Basil the Great † AD 379 The Letters 51
… He will not despise us; for “he that oppresseth the poor reproacheth his Maker.” They, however, who have patched up this new tragedy of blasphemy seem to have lost all belief in the Lord, Who has declared that we must give account at the day of judgment even for an idle word.
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Letters on the Apollinarian Controversy 101
… of men, or monstrous littleness of mind, or through some neglect of pastors and governors, or through love of novelty and proneness to innovations, rejects us as unworthy of credit, and attaches himself to such men, and divides the noble body of the Church, he shall bear his judgment, whoever he may be, and shall give account to God in the day of judgment.
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Duties of the Clergy 1.2
8. It is a great evil that a man should be condemned by his own mouth. Truly, if each one shall give account for an idle word,
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Concerning Virgins 1.1.1
1. If , according to the decree of heavenly truth, we have to give account of every idle word which we have spoken,
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homily on the Paralytic Let Down Through the Roof 8
… for it is written “leap for joy, and be exceeding glad when men cast out your name as evil.” In this manner then God comforts those that are evil spoken of, and them that speak evil He puts in fear after another manner saying “every evil word which men shall speak they shall give an account thereof whether it be good or evil.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 42
“But I say unto you,” this is His word, “that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 82
… And on them that laugh he pronounces a woe, and everywhere He removes the beginning and the seeds of evil, and saith we have to give an account of an idle word.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on First Corinthians 7
… And yet there were men, who not only felt no chill, neither shrunk away when they heard these things, but ran to meet them and rushed upon the hardships, and eagerly caught at the precepts enjoined. Again, to be told, “For every idle word we shall give account;” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Philippians 9
… And how so? If they be true, in that ye judge your Teachers, and subvert order, ye do it to your hurt. For if we must not judge a brother, much less a Teacher. But if they be false, the punishment and retribution is intolerable; for of “every idle word ye shall give account.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on 2 Timothy 2
… But in this case thou art so far from being backward, that even without cause thou exposest thyself to the danger. Nor think thou art not responsible for these words. Hear what Christ says, “Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.” (
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 14.9
… Upon whom does the Lord rest but upon him that is lowly and of a contrite spirit, and that trembleth at His word? To whom God has committed much, of him He will ask the more. “Mighty men shall be mightily tormented.” No man need pride himself in the day of judgment on merely physical chastity, for then shall men give account for every idle word,
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 60.12
… but also as the maker of the most tiny creatures, ants, gnats, flies, worms, and the like, whose shapes we know better than their names, and as in all alike we revere the same creative skill; so the mind that is given to Christ shews the same earnestness in things of small as of great importance, knowing that it must render an account of every idle word.
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 75.2
… book of Wisdom, he was “taken away lest that wickedness should alter his understanding…for his soul pleased the Lord…and he…in a short time fulfilled a long time.” We may with more right weep for ourselves that we stand daily in conflict with our sins, that we are stained with vices, that we receive wounds, and that we must give account for every idle word.
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 130.7
… into that outer darkness which surrounds us with the greater horror as it severs us from Christ the one true light. And you shall by no means come out thence till you have paid the uttermost farthing, that is, till you have expiated your most trifling sins; for we shall give account of every idle word in the day of judgment.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 9.13
… And although she, having been “made alive” in Christ even before she was freed from the flesh had so lived as to praise Thy name both by her faith and conversation, yet dare I not say that from the time Thou didst regenerate her by baptism, no word went forth from her mouth against Thy precepts.
Pope St Gregory I the Great † AD 604 The Book of Pastoral Rule 3.14
… 26 ). Hence again he says, Let every man be swift to hear, but slow to speak ( Ibid. 19 ). Hence again, defining the power of the tongue, he adds, An unruly evil, full of deadly poison ( Ibid. iii. 8 ). Hence the Truth in person admonishes us, saying, Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment (
Pope St Gregory I the Great † AD 604 Register of the Epistles of St. Gregory the Great 1.34
… consider what is written; Whatsoever thine hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is neither work, nor device, nor wisdom, in the grave whither thou hastenest ( Eccles. ix. 10 ). By the witness of the Gospel thou knowest that divine severity accuses us for idle talk, and demands a strict account of an unprofitable word (
12:37
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 14
… The good man from the good treasures which are in his heart bringeth forth good things; and the wicked man from the evil treasures which are in his [35] heart bringeth forth evils. I say unto you, that every idle word which men shall [36] speak, they shall give an answer for in the day of judgement:
Tertullian † AD 220 On Idolatry 20
But, however, since the conduct according to the divine rule is imperilled, not merely by deeds, but likewise by words, (for, just as it is written, “Behold the man and his deeds;” so, “Out of thy own mouth shalt thou be justified”
Tertullian † AD 220 The Five Books Against Marcion 2.25
… and that thus there might be supplied to us examples of confessing sins rather than of denying them: so that even then was initiated the evangelic doctrine, “By thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.”
St Basil the Great † AD 379 The Letters 226
4. If any one in Syria is writing, this is nothing to me. For it is said “By thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Duties of the Clergy 1.2
5. Now what ought we to learn before everything else, but to be silent, that we may be able to speak? lest my voice should condemn me, before that of another acquit me; for it is written: “By thy words thou shalt be condemned.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 42
“For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 51
… Since in truth the tongue is the hand of them that pray, and by it we lay hold on the knees of God. Defile it not therefore, lest to thee also He say, “Though ye make many prayers, I will not hearken.” Yea, and “in the power of the tongue are death and life;” and, “By thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.”
Rufinus of Aquileia † AD 411 Translation of Pamphilus' Defence of Origen 1
… For so the Scripture says: “With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation”: and:
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 9.9
… proclaims, “Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden;” and in another place “Woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days!” And when therefore He referred all either right actions or sins to the bringing forth of the word, “By thy mouth,” He says, “thou shalt be justified, and by thy mouth thou shalt be condemned,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 73.22
… The hand of God he hath called the power of God: as hath been written in another place, “death and life are in the hands of the tongue.” Hath the tongue hands? But what is, in the hands of the tongue? In the power of the tongue. What is, in the power of the tongue? “Out of thy mouth thou shalt be justified, and out of thy mouth thou shalt be condemned.”
12:38
St Justin Martyr † AD 165 Dialogue with Trypho 107
“And that He would rise again on the third day after the crucifixion, it is written
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 16
… And if he come and find it [9] adorned and set in order, then he goeth, and associateth with himself seven other spirits worse than himself; and they enter and dwell in it: and the end of that man [10] shall be worse than his beginning. Thus shall it be unto this evil generation.
Tertullian † AD 220 A Strain of Jonah the Prophet 1
150 To be a sign hereafter of the Lord —
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 23
… And therefore in many other places the Evangelists say, that He did no miracle on account of the perversity of the men who dwelt there. (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 2.39
86. Matthew goes on and relates what followed thus: “Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign of thee;” and so on, down to where we read, “Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 2.51
106. Matthew continues as follows: “And He sent away the multitude, and took ship, and came into the coasts of Magedan;” and so on, down to the words, “A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it but the sign of the prophet Jonas.” This has already been recorded in another connection by the same Matthew.
12:39
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 16
[1] Then answered certain of the scribes and Pharisees, that they might tempt him, [2] and said, Teacher, we desire to see a sign from thee.
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews 2.26
… “A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it but the sign of the prophet Jonas: for as Jonas was in the whale’s belly three days and three nights, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Against Marcionists and Manichæans 2
… “For this generation seeketh after a sign: and no sign shall be given it save the sign of Jonas;”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 62
What then? was it not told to the people? you may say. It was indeed told to the people also, but not so plainly. For, “Destroy,” saith He, “this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up;” and, “This generation seeketh after a sign, and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas;”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 84
This is the sign which before He had promised to give them when they asked it, saying, “An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas;”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 1
… For, “Destroy this Temple,” He says, “and in three days I will raise it up” ( John xix .); and, “When ye have lifted” Me “up from the earth, then shall ye know that I am He” ( ib. viii. 28 ); and again, This “generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of Jonas.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 23
But why doth He both there, and here, and everywhere, give this for a sign, at one time saying, “When ye have lifted up the Son of Man, then ye shall know that I Am” ( c. viii. 28 ); at another, “There shall no sign be given you but the sign of the prophet Jonas” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 72
… On this account He rebuked Peter at the first, because for one who has been in death to overcome death, is great glory. And this is what He said of Himself, “When I am lifted up, then ye shall know that I Am” ( c. viii. 28 ); and again, “Destroy this Temple” ( c. ii. 19 ); and again, “No sign shall be given unto you but the sign of Jonas.” (
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 133.12
… and are glad that some are called by your name and others by that of Christ. Better would it be to imitate Jonah and say: “If it is for my sake that this great tempest is upon you, take me up and cast me forth into the sea.” He in his humility was thrown into the deep that he might rise again in glory to be a type of the Lord.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 102.34
… why is this asked of us, when Christ Himself has given the answer, saying, “An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and there shall no sign be given it but the sign of the prophet Jonas: for as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so must the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Profit of Believing 8
… Our Redeemer Himself in the Gospel uses allegory out of the Old Testament. “This generation,” saith He, “seeketh a sign, and there shall not be given it save the sign of Jonas the prophet. For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so also shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 2.75
… In order to relate that passage, he has made a digression from the order which is followed by Matthew, about the point at which they have both put on record the Lord’s sayings respecting the sign of the three days and nights in the history of Jonas, and the queen of the south, and the unclean spirit that returns and finds the house swept.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 66.5
… for as Jonas was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights, so shall be also the Son of Man in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 66.6
6. Observe also the very lie of the false witnesses in the Gospel, and see how it is about Resurrection. For when to the Lord had been said, “What sign showest Thou to us, that Thou doest these things?” besides that which He had spoken about Jonah
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 86.22
22. “Show me a sign for good” ( ver. 17 ). What sign, but that of the Resurrection? The Lord says: “This wicked and provoking generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of the Prophet Jonah.”
12:40
St Ignatius of Antioch † AD 108 Epistle to the Trallians: Shorter and Longer Versions 9
… During the Sabbath He continued under the earth in the tomb in which Joseph of Arimathæa had laid Him. At the dawning of the Lord’s day He arose from the dead, according to what was spoken by Himself, “As Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the Son of man also be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 16
… He answered and said, This evil and adulterous generation seeketh a sign; and it shall not be given a sign, [3] except the sign of Jonah the prophet. And as Jonah was a sign to the inhabitants [4] of Nineveh, so shall the Son of man also be to this generation.
Tertullian † AD 220 A Treatise on the Soul 55
By ourselves the lower regions (of Hades) are not supposed to be a bare cavity, nor some subterranean sewer of the world, but a vast deep space in the interior of the earth, and a concealed recess in its very bowels; inasmuch as we read that Christ in His death spent three days in the heart of the earth,
St Methodius † AD 311 Fragments 1
… “Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” And his being swallowed by the whale signifies our inevitable removal by time. For the belly in which Jonah, when he was swallowed, was concealed, is the all-receiving earth, which receives all things which are consumed by time.
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 3.25
23. Indeed we may learn also from the Saviour Himself, when He says, ‘For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 14
… so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on First Corinthians 38
… But where have the Scrip tures said that He was buried, and on the third day shall rise again? By the type of Jonah which also Himself alleges, saying, “As Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall also the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Christian Doctrine 3.35
… to the latter part of the day on which He suffered we join the previous night, and count it as a whole day, and to the latter part of the night in which He arose we join the Lord’s day which was just dawning, and count it also a whole day, we cannot make out the three days and three nights during which He foretold that He would be in the heart of the earth.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 4.5
… For “He spake this of the temple of His body,” as is declared by the most clear and solid testimony of the Gospel; where He said, “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.24
… For He said Himself, “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 69.6
6. “I have come into the depth of the sea, and the tempest hath made Me to sink down.” Thanks to the mercy of Him who came into the depth of the sea, and vouchsafed to be swallowed by the sea whale, but was vomited forth the third day.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 88.8
… Further, should we take the whole for a part, as Scripture sometimes uses this expression, I do not remember an instance in which the whole is taken for a part, when the word “whole” is expressly added. For in the passage of the Gospel where the Lord saith, “The Son of Man shall be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth,”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Seven Books of John Cassian on the Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius 6.23
… And indeed in this way the difficulty about the time of our Lord’s Passion is cleared up: for whereas the Lord prophesied that after the model of the prophet Jonah, the Son of man would be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth,
12:41
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 16
… The queen of the south shall rise in the judgement with the people of this generation, and condemn them: for she came from the ends of the earth that she might hear the wisdom of Solomon; [6] [Arabic, p. 62] and behold, here is a better than Solomon.
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 3.21.8
… that the Egyptians themselves might testify that it is the finger of God which works salvation for the people, and not the son of Joseph. For if He were the son of Joseph, how could He be greater than Solomon, or greater than Jonah,
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 4.33.4
… Or how shall they receive adoption from God if they remain in this [kind of] generation, which is naturally possessed by man in this world? And how could He (Christ) have been greater than Solomon,
Tertullian † AD 220 On the Flesh of Christ 18
Now, that we may give a simpler answer, it was not fit that the Son of God should be born of a human father’s seed, lest, if He were wholly the Son of a man, He should fail to be also the Son of God, and have nothing more than “a Solomon” or “a Jonas,”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Three Homilies Concerning the Power of Demons 3.3
… Fellow-servants will judge fellow-servants. Dost thou wish that I should shew thee a comparison arising from contrasts? for there is one also from contrasts so that the condemnation may become the greater. “The men of Nineveh” he saith “shall rise up, and shall condemn this generation.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies on the Statues to the People of Antioch 6.15
… and they say, “such and such persons swear.” Let us then say to these, Nevertheless; such a man does not swear: and God will give His judgment concerning thee, from those who do good works; for sinners do not profit sinners by fellowship in transgressions; but they who perform what is right condemn sinners.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 6
… so He did likewise in the instance of the magi. For this cause He also said, “The men of Nineveh shall rise up, and shall condemn:” and, “the Queen of the South shall rise up, and shall condemn this generation:”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 61
And besides even in this He intimated by the way something more than these things. For of those He simply said, The men of Nineveh shall rise up and condemn this gen eration,”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 75
… and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here;” and, “The queen of the south shall condemn this generation, because she came to hear the wisdom of Solomon;”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 6
… For then is the victory decided, when it is not by Jew that Jew is judged, but by the uncircumcised; as when he says, “The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment against this generation, and shall condemn it.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 31
… Deceive not yourselves, beloved. For if there is no hell, how are the Apostles to judge the twelve tribes of Israel? How cometh Paul to say, “Know ye not that we shall judge Angels? how much more things of this life?” ( 1 Cor. vi. 3 .) How came Christ to say, “The men of Nineveh shall arise and condemn this generation” (
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 122.3
Moreover the Lord tells us in the gospel, “the men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 20.5
… because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here. The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the utter most parts of the earth to hear the words of Solomon; and behold, a greater than Solomon is here.”
Pseudo-Clement The Recognitions of Clement 6.14
… and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here, and they hear Him not.’ But with respect to those who refused to repent of their evil deeds, He spoke thus: ‘The men of Nineve shall rise in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.’
Pseudo-Clement The Clementine Homilies 11.33
… and behold, a greater than Solomon is here,’ and ye do not believe Him. And to those amongst the people who would not repent at His preaching He said, ‘The men of Nineveh shall rise up with this generation and shall condemn it, for they heard and repented on the preaching of Jonas: and behold, a greater is here, and no one believes.’
12:42
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis 3.3.1
… as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets, and which was also that wisdom of God before the advent of the Saviour, by means of which Solomon obtained his wisdom, and in reference to which the language of the Saviour Himself declared, that what He taught was greater than Solomon, in these words, “Behold, a greater than Solomon is here,”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on Matthew 10.17
And the saying, “ Whence hath this man this wisdom, ” indicates clearly that there was a great and surpassing wisdom in the words of Jesus worthy of the saying, “lo, a greater than Solomon is here.”
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 40
… Do not reject the medicine of exorcism, nor refuse it because of its length. This too is a touchstone of your right disposition for grace. What labour have you to do compared with that of the Queen of Ethiopia, who arose and came from the utmost part of the earth to see the wisdom of Solomon? And behold a Greater than Solomon is here
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 37
… For neither when John saith, “He is mightier than I,” doth he say it as comparing them; nor Paul, when remembering Moses he writes, “For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses,” doth he so write by way of comparison; and He Himself too, in saying, “Behold, a greater than Solomon is here,”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on First Corinthians 16
… They will not indeed judge, taking their seat in person and demanding account, yet they shall condemn. This at least he plainly said; “And if the world is judged in you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?” He says not “by you,” but “in you:” just as when He said, (St.
Pseudo-Clement The Recognitions of Clement 6.14
… for, with respect to those who neglect to hear the words of wisdom, He speaks thus: ‘The queen of the south shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here, and they hear Him not.’
Pseudo-Clement The Clementine Homilies 11.33
… because she came from the extremities of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon: and behold, a greater than Solomon is here,’
12:43
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 1.16.3
… For when the unclean spirit of folly has gone forth, and when afterwards he finds them not waiting upon God, but occupied with mere worldly questions, then, “taking seven other spirits more wicked than himself,”
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 3
… ‘for having gone through dry places, he took seven other spirits more wicked than himself; and returning and finding the house empty, he dwelt there, and the last state of that man was worse than the first
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 5.25
… Then he saith, I will return to my house from whence I came out: and coming he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished: then he goeth and taketh seven other spirits worse than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is made worse than the first.”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 147
… “Who maketh His angels spirits and His ministers a flame of fire.” Why indeed do I mention the angels and the souls of men? Even the dæmons are so called by the Lord “He shall take unto him seven other spirits more wicked than himself and they shall enter in, and the last state of that man shall be worse than the first.”
12:44
Theodotus † fl. AD 160 Excerpts of Theodotus 1
… Similarly also with knowledge and righteousness. We must therefore not only empty the soul, but fill it with God. For no longer is there evil in it, since that has been made to cease; nor yet is there good, since it has not yet received good. But what is neither good nor evil is nothing. “For to the swept and empty house return,”
Pope St Gregory I the Great † AD 604 The Book of Pastoral Rule 3.15
… Hence it is written again by the same Solomon, The idle man is wholly in desires ( Prov. xxi. 26 ). Hence in the preaching of the Truth Himself (
12:45
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 16
… and when he findeth it not, he [8] saith, I will return to my house whence I came out. And if he come and find it [9] adorned and set in order, then he goeth, and associateth with himself seven other spirits worse than himself; and they enter and dwell in it: and the end of that man [10] shall be worse than his beginning.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 1
… sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee” ( John v. 14 ): and which He also predicted of the Jews, that “the last state shall be worse than the first.” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Continence 31
… Then sin will reign in the mortal body of man to obey its desires; then will it yield its members weapons of unrighteousness unto sin: and the last state of that man shall be worse than the former.
12:46
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 16
… But he answered unto him that spake unto him, Who is my [17] mother? and who are my brethren? And he beckoned with his hand, stretching it out towards his disciples, and said, Behold, my mother! and behold, my brethren! [18] And every man that shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven is my brother, and my sister, and my mother.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 26
… This is what Christ said: “My cup indeed ye shall drink, and with the baptism wherewith I am baptized, shall ye be baptized.” ( Mark x. 39 .) ( b ) “And he killed James the brother of John.” ( v. 2 .) For there was also another James, the brother of the Lord: therefore to distinguish him, he says, “The brother of John.”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary 13
13. The last proposition of Helvidius was this, and it is what he wished to show when he treated of the first-born, that brethren of the Lord are mentioned in the Gospels. For example,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Of Holy Virginity 3
… or who are My brethren? and stretching forth His Hand over His disciples, He saith, These are My brethren: and whosoever shall have done the will of My Father, that man is to Me brother, and mother, and sister.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 22.35
… And Lot is called the brother of Abraham, though Abraham was his uncle. And, by the same use of the word, those called in the Gospel the Lord’s brothers are certainly not children of the Virgin Mary, but all the blood relations of the Lord.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 2.40
87. Matthew then proceeds with his narrative in the following terms: “While He yet talked to the people, behold, His mother and His brethren stood without, desiring to speak to Him;” and so on, down to the words, “For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 10.3
… “Who is my mother? or who are my brethren? And stretching out His hand over His disciples, He said, These are my brethren;” and, “Whosoever shall do the will of my Father, the same is my mother, and brother, and sister.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 128.5
… Why then is it said concerning them, “When the Bridegroom shall be taken from them, then shall the children of the Bridegroom fast”? She who is the wife, then, is the children also. I speak a wonderful thing, my brethren. In the words of the Lord, we find the Church to be both His brethren, and His sisters, and His mother.
12:47
Archelaus † fl. AD 278 The Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes 47
… I am a disciple of His words, and I believe those things which have been spoken by Him, and I affirm that they are unchangeable. Manes said : A certain person somewhat like you once said to Him, “Mary Thy mother, and Thy brethren, stand without;”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 27
And when they said unto Him, “Behold, Thy mother and Thy brethren seek Thee;”
12:48
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 16
[13] And while he was speaking unto the multitude, there came unto him his mother [14] and his brethren, and sought to speak with him; and they were not able, because of [15] the multitude; and they stood without and sent, calling him unto them. A man said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren are standing without, and seek to [16] speak with thee.
Tertullian † AD 220 The Five Books Against Marcion 4.19
… We now come to the most strenuously-plied argument of all those who call in question the Lord’s nativity. They say that He testifies Himself to His not having been born, when He asks, “Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?”
Tertullian † AD 220 The Five Books Against Marcion 4.44.4
4. Epiphanius mentions sundry slight alterations in capp. v. 14, 24, vi. 5, 17. In chap. viii. 19 he expunged ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ . From Tertullian’s remarks (chap. xix.), it would seem at first as if Marcion had added to his Gospel that answer of our Saviour which we find related by
Tertullian † AD 220 On the Flesh of Christ 7
But whenever a dispute arises about the nativity, all who reject it as creating a presumption in favour of the reality of Christ’s flesh, wilfully deny that God Himself was born, on the ground that He asked, “Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 21
… but when they require anything unseasonably, and cause hindrance in any spiritual matter, it is unsafe to obey. And therefore He answered thus in this place, and again elsewhere, “Who is My mother, and who are My brethren?” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 85
Ver. 24 . “These things the soldiers did.” But He on the Cross, committeth His mother to the disciple, teaching us even to our last breath to show every care for our parents. When indeed she unseasonably troubled Him, He said, “Woman, what have I to do with thee?” ( c. ii. 4 .) And, “Who is My mother?” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Faith and the Creed 4
… Nor, again, should we be moved by the fact that, when the presence of His mother and His brethren was announced to Him, He replied, “Who is my mother, or who my brethren?” etc.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 7
… that in His Godhead He has no earthly descent, while after the flesh He is of the seed of David, as the apostle teaches. We are to believe, therefore, that He came forth from the Father, that He descended from heaven, and also that the Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst men. If the words, "Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?"
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 22.39
… And stretching forth His hand to His disciples, He said, These are my brethren." And lest any one should think that He referred to an earthly relationship, He added, "Whosoever shall do the will of my Father, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother;"
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 10.11
… The Lord teaches us in truth that His disciples do become orphans, to whom He saith, “Call no man father on earth.” Of which He first Himself gave an example in saying, “Who is my mother, and who my brethren?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 128.5
… not in respect of their carnal consanguinity, but inasmuch as they heard the Word of God, and obeyed it.…He added; “For whosoever shall do the will of My Father which is in heaven, the same is My brother, and sister, and mother.”
12:49
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 22.38
… “Lord, we have been with child by thy fear, we have been in pain, we have brought forth the spirit of thy salvation, which we have wrought upon the earth.” Then shall your Son reply: “Behold my mother and my brethren.”
12:50
Pope St Clement I † AD 99 The Second Epistle of Clement 9
… Of what sort? Repentance out of a sincere heart; for He knows all things beforehand, and is acquainted with what is in our hearts. Let us therefore give Him praise, not with the mouth only, but also with the heart, that He may accept us as sons. For the Lord has said, “Those are my brethren who do the will of my Father.”
Theodotus † fl. AD 160 Excerpts of Theodotus 1
… Accordingly He leads us into the liberty of the Father,—sons that are co-heirs and friends. “For,” says the Lord, “they that do the will of my Father are my brethren and fellow-heirs.”
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 16
… A man said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren are standing without, and seek to [16] speak with thee. But he answered unto him that spake unto him, Who is my [17] mother? and who are my brethren? And he beckoned with his hand, stretching it out towards his disciples, and said, Behold, my mother! and behold, my brethren! [18]
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 2.6
… But neither the passage nor this difficulty is hard to explain. For if he who does the will of the Father in heaven
St Ephrem the Syrian † AD 373 Ephraim Syrus: Nineteen Hymns on the Nativity of Christ in the Flesh 11
How shall I call Thee a stranger to us, Who art from us? Should I call Thee Son? Should I call Thee Brother?
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 On Virginity 13
… This is always happening whenever any one in a lively heart conceives all the integrity of the Spirit, and brings forth wisdom and righteousness, and sanctification and redemption too. It is possible for any one to be the mother of such a son; as our Lord says, “He that doeth my will is my brother, my sister, and my mother
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Duties of the Clergy 2.10
53. What women are blessed but those of whom it is said “that many hear the word of God and bring forth fruit”? And again: “Whosoever doeth the word of God is My father and sister and mother.”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 71.2
… You too must leave your home as he did, and must take for your parents, brothers, and relations only those who are linked to you in Christ. “Whosoever,” He says, “shall do the will of my father…the same is my brother and sister and mother.”
12:1
The Gloss ord.
Having related the preaching together with the miracles of one year before John’s enquiry, He passes to those of another year, namely after the death of John, when Jesus is already in all things spoken against, and hence it is said, At that time Jesus passed through the corn fields on the sabbath day.
St Augustine † AD 430 De Cons. Ev. ii. 34.
This which here follows is related both by Mark and Luke, without any question of discrepancy; indeed they do not say, At that time, so that Matthew has here perhaps preserved the order of time, they that of their recollection; unless we take the words in a wider sense, At that time, that is, the time in which these many and divers things were done, whence we may conceive that all these things happened after the death of John. For he is believed to have been beheaded a little after he sent his disciples to Christ. So that when he says at that time, he may mean only an indefinite time.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hon. xxxix.
Why then did He lead them through the corn fields on the sabbath, seeing He knew all things, unless He desired to break the sabbath? This he desired indeed, but not absolutely, therefore He broke it not without cause, but furnished a sufficient reason; so that He both caused the Law to cease, and yet offended not against it. Thus in order to soften the Jews, He here introduces a natural necessity; this is what is said, And his disciples being an hungred, began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat. Although in things which are manifestly sinful, there can be no excuse, he who kills another cannot plead rage, nor he who commits adultery, lust, or any other cause; yet here saying that the disciples were hungry, He delivers them from all accusation.
St Jerome † AD 420
As we read in another Evangelist, they had no opportunity of taking food because of the thronging of the multitude, and therefore they hungred as men. That they rub the ears of corn in their hands, and with them satisfy themselves, is a proof of an austere life, and of men who needed not prepared meats, but sought only simple food.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
Here admire the disciples, who are so limited in their desires, that they have no care of the things of the body, but despise the support of the flesh; they are assailed by hunger, and yet they go not away from Christ; for had not they been hard pressed by hunger, they would not have done thus. What the Pharisees said to this is added, The Pharisees seeing it said unto Him, Behold, thy disciples do what is not lawful to do on the sabbath.
St Augustine † AD 430 De Op. Monach. 23.
The Jews rather charged the Lord’s disciples with the breach of the sabbath than with theft; because it was commanded the people of Israel in the Law (Deut. 23:25.), that they should not lay hold of any as a thief in their fields, unless he sought to carry ought away with him; but if any touched only what he needed to eat, him they suffered to depart with impunity free.
St Jerome † AD 420
Observe, that the first Apostles of the Saviour broke the letter of the sabbath, contrary to the opinion of the Ebionitesa, who receive the other Apostles, but reject Paul as a transgressor of the Law. Then it proceeds to their excuse; But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred? To refute the false accusation of the Pharisees, He calls to mind the ancient history, that David flying from Saul came to Nobba, and being entertained by Achimelech the Priest, asked for food; (1 Sam. 21.) he having no common bread, gave him the consecrated loaves, which it was not lawful for any to eat, but the Priests only and Levites; esteeming it a better action to deliver men from the danger of famine than to offer sacrifice to God; for the preservation of man is a sacrifice acceptable to God. Thus then the Lord meets their objection, saying, If David be a holy man, and if you blame not the high-priest Achimelech, but consider their excuse for their transgression of the Law to be valid, and that was hunger; how do ye not approve in the Apostles the same plea which you approve in others? Though even here there is much difference. These rub ears of corn in their hands on the sabbath, those ate the Levitical bread, and over and above the solemn sabbath it was the season of new moon, during which when sought for at the banquet he fled from the royal palace.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
To clear His disciples, He brings forward the instance of David, whose glory as a Prophet was great among the Jews. Yet they could not here answer that this was lawful for him, because he was a Prophet; for it was not Prophets, but Priests only who might eat. And the greater was he who did this, the greater is the defence of the disciples; yet though David was a Prophet, they that were with him were not.
St Jerome † AD 420
Observe that neither David nor his servants received the loaves of shew-bread, before they had made answer that they were pure from women.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
But some one will say, How is this instance applicable to the question in hand? For David did not transgress the sabbath. Herein is shewn the wisdom of Christ, that He brings forward an instance stronger than the sabbath. For it is by no means the same thing to violate the sabbath, and to touch that sacred table, which is lawful for none. And again, He adds yet another answer, saying, Or have ye not read in the Law, that on the sabbath days the Priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
St Jerome † AD 420
As though He had said, Ye bring complaints against my disciples, that on the sabbath they rub ears of corn in their hands, under stress of hunger, and ye yourselves profane the sabbath, slaying victims in the temple, killing bulls, burning holocausts on piles of wood; also, on the testimony of another Gospel (John 7:23.), ye circumcise infants on the sabbath; so that in keeping one law, ye break that concerning the sabbath. But the laws of God are never contrary one to another; wisely therefore, wherein His disciples might be accused of having transgressed them, He shews that therein they followed the examples of Achimelech and David; and this their pretended charge of breaking the sabbath He retorts truly, and not having the plea of necessity, upon those who had brought the accusation.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
But that you should not say to me, that to find an instance of another’s sin is not to excuse our own—indeed where the thing done and not the doer of it is accused, we excuse the thing done. But this is not enough, He said what is yet more, that they are blameless. But see how great things He brings in; first, the place, in the Temple; secondly, the time, on the sabbath; the setting aside the Law, in the word profane, not merely break; and that they are not only free from punishment but from blame; and are blameless. And this second instance is not like the first which He gave respecting David; for that was done but once, by David who was not a Priest, and was a case of necessity; but this second is done every sabbath, and by the Priests, and according to the Law. So that not only by indulgence, as the first case would establish, but by the strict law the disciples are to be held blameless. But are the disciples Priests? yea, they are yet greater than Priests, forasmuch as He was there who is the Lord of the Temple, who is the reality and not the type; and therefore it is added, But I say unto you, one greater than the Temple is here.
St Jerome † AD 420
The word Hic is not a pronoun, but an adverb of place here, for that place is greater than the Temple which contains the Lord of the Temple.
St Augustine † AD 430 Quæst. in Matt. q. 10.
It should be observed, that one example is taken from royal persons, as David, the other from priestly, as those who profane the sabbath for the service of the Temple, so that much less can the charge concerning the rubbing the ears of corn attach to Him who is indeed King and Priest.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
And because what He had said seemed hard to those that heard it, He again exhorts to mercy, introducing His discourse with emphasis, saying, But had ye known what that meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, ye would never have condemned the innocent.
St Jerome † AD 420
What I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, signifies, we have explained above. The words, Ye mould never have condemned the innocent, are to be referred to the Apostles, and the meaning is, If ye allow the mercy of Achimelech, in that he refreshed David when in danger of famishing, why do ye condemn My disciples?
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
Observe again how in leading the discourse towards an apology for them, He shews His disciples to be above the need of any apology, and to be indeed blameless, as He had said above of the Priests. And He adds yet another plea which clears them of blame, For the Son of Man is Lord also of the sabbath.
Remigius † AD 908
He calls Himself the Son of Man, and the meaning is, He whom ye suppose a mere man is God, the Lord of all creatures, and also of the sabbath, and He has therefore power to change the law after His pleasure, because He made it.
St Augustine † AD 430 cont. Faust. xvi. 28.
He did not forbid His disciples to pluck the ears of corn on the sabbath, that so He might convict both the Jews who then were, and the Manichæans who were to come, who will not pluck up a herb lest they should be committing a murder.
St Hilary † AD 367
Figuratively; First consider that this discourse was held at that time, namely, when He had given thanks to the Father for giving salvation to the Gentiles. The field is the world, the sabbath is rest, the corn the ripening of them that believe for the harvest; thus His passing through the corn field on the sabbath, is the coming of the Lord into the world in the rest of the Law; the hunger of the disciples is their desire for the salvation of men.
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
They pluck the ears of corn when they withdraw men from devotion to the world; they rub them in their hands when they tear away their hearts from the lusts of the flesh; they eat the grain when they transfer such as are amended into the body of the Church.
St Augustine † AD 430 Quæst. Ev. i. 2.
But no man passes into the body of Christ, until he has been stripped of his fleshly raiment; according to that of the Apostle, Put ye off the old man. (Eph. 4:22.)
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
This they do on the sabbath, that is in the hope of eternal rest, to which they invite others. Also they walk through the corn fields with the Lord, who have delight in meditating on the Scriptures; they are hungry while they desire to find the bread of life, that is the love of God, in them; they pluck the ears of corn and rub them in their hands, while they examine the testimonies to discover what lies hid under the letter, and this on the sabbath, that is, while they are free from disquieting thoughts.
St Hilary † AD 367
The Pharisees, who thought that the key of the kingdom of heaven was in their hands, accused the disciples of doing what was not lawful to do; whereon the Lord reminded them of deeds in which, under the guise of facts, a prophecy was concealed; and that He might shew the power of all things, He further added, that it contained the form of that work which was to be, Had ye known what that meaneth, I will have mercy; for the work of our salvation is not in the sacrifice of the Law, but in mercy; and the Law having ceased, we are saved by the mercy of God. Which gift if they had understood they would not have condemned the innocent, that is His Apostles, whom in their jealousy they were to accuse of having transgressed the Law, where the old sacrifices having ceased, the new dispensation of mercy came through them to the aid of all.
The Latin text
Glossa
Narrata praedicatione cum miraculis unius anni ante quaestionem Ioannis factis, transit ad ea quae facta sunt in alio anno, scilicet post mortem Ioannis, quando iam in omnibus Christo contradicitur; unde dicitur in illo tempore abiit Iesus per sata sabbato
Augustinus de Cons. Evang
Hoc autem quod hic sequitur, sine ulla repugnantiae quaestione commemoratur a Marco et a Luca; sed illi non dicunt in illo tempore: unde fortassis Matthaeus rei gestae hic ordinem tenuit; illi autem recordationis suae: nisi latius accipiatur quod dictum est, in illo tempore, idest quo haec multa et diversa gerebantur; unde concipitur ista omnia post mortem Ioannis completa esse. Cum enim Ioannes discipulos suos ad Christum misisset, creditur post paululum decollatus fuisse: unde cum dicitur in illo tempore, interminatum tempus ponere videtur
Chrysostomus in Matth
Quare autem per sata sabbato eos ducebat qui omnia praescivit, nisi quia volebat solvere sabbatum? Volebat quidem, sed non simpliciter; ideoque non sine causa id solvit, sed dans occasionem rationabilem, ut et legem cessare faciat, et legem non offendat: et ideo hic, ut Iudaeos mitiget, naturae necessitatem praemittit; et hoc est quod dicitur discipuli autem eius esurientes coeperunt vellere spicas, et manducare. Quamvis in peccatis quae manifesta sunt, nulla sit excusatio: neque enim occidens, ad sui excusationem potest furorem praetendere, neque qui adulterat, concupiscentiam, sed nec ullam aliam causam, hic tamen famem inducens, discipulos ab omni accusatione liberat
Hieronymus
Ut autem in alio Evangelista legimus, propter nimiam importunitatem, nec vescendi quidem habebant locum; et ideo quasi homines esuriebant. Quod autem segetum spicas manibus confricant, et in eisdem consolantur, vitae austerioris indicium est; non praeparatas epulas, sed simplicem cibum quaerentium
Chrysostomus in Matth
Tu autem admirare discipulos, qui ita erant oppressi quod nullam corporalium habebant curam, sed contemnebant carnalem mensam; et fame oppugnabantur, nec tamen desistebant a Christo: nisi enim eos cogeret vehementer esuries, nequaquam hoc fecissent. Quid autem Pharisaei ad hoc dicerent, subditur Pharisaei autem videntes, dixerunt ei: ecce discipuli tui faciunt quod non licet facere sabbatis
Augustinus de Oper. Monach
De sabbato autem potius quam de furto discipulos domini Iudaei calumniati sunt: quia populo Israel per legem praeceptum est ut in agris suis furem nullum tenerent, nisi qui secum aliquid vellet auferre: nam qui nihil aliud attigisset quam id quod comedisset, liberum impunitumque abire sinerent
Hieronymus
Nota vero quod primi apostoli salvatoris litteram sabbati destruunt adversus Ebionitas, qui cum ceteros recipiant apostolos, Paulum tamquam transgressorem legis repudiant. Deinde ad excusationem eorum subditur at ille dixit eis: non legistis quid fecerit David, quando esuriit? Ad confutandam siquidem calumniam Pharisaeorum, veteris recordatur historiae: quando David fugiens Saulem, venit in Nobe, et ab Abimelech sacerdote susceptus postulavit cibos, qui cum panes laicos non haberet, dedit eis consecratos panes, quibus non licebat vesci nisi solis sacerdotibus et Levitis: melius arbitratus de famis periculo homines liberare, quam Deo sacrificium offerre: hostia enim Deo placabilis est hominum salus. Opponit ergo dominus, et dicit: si et David sanctus est, et Abimelech pontifex a vobis non reprehenditur, et legis utrique mandatum probabili excusatione transgressi sunt, et fames in causa est, cur eamdem famem non probatis in apostolis quam probatis in ceteris? Quamquam et in hoc multa distantia sit. Isti spicas in sabbato manu confricant; illi panes comederunt leviticos, et ad sabbati solemnitatem accedebant Neomeniarum dies, quibus requisitus in convivio fugit ex aula regia
Chrysostomus in Matth
Excusans autem discipulos, David in medium adducit. Etenim multa prophetae huius erat gloria apud Iudaeos. Nec potest responderi, quod David propheta erat: quia nec propter hoc ei licebat, sed sacerdotibus solis. Tanto autem magis discipulos ab accusatione liberat, quanto maior invenitur qui hoc fecit, sed etsi David propheta erat, non tamen qui cum ipso erant
Hieronymus
Observa tamen, quod panes propositionis nec David nec pueri eius acceperunt, antequam mundos se a mulieribus esse responderint
Chrysostomus in Matth
Sed dicet aliquis: quid est exemplum hoc ad id quod quaeritur? Non enim David sabbatum transgressus est. Sed in hoc ostenditur Christi sapientia, qui exemplum fert sabbatis maius. Neque enim est aequale transgredi sabbati diem, quod multoties factum est, et sacram illam tangere mensam, quod nulli fas erat. Deinde rursus et aliter solvit, principaliorem inducens solutionem, cum dicit aut non legistis in lege, quia sabbatis sacerdotes in templo sabbatum violant, et sine crimine sunt?
Hieronymus
Ac si diceret: calumniamini discipulos meos cur sabbato spicas triverint, famis necessitate cogente, cum ipsi sabbatum violetis in templo immolantes victimas, caedentes tauros, holocausta super lignorum struem incendio concremantes; et iuxta alterius Evangelii fidem, circumciditis parvulos in sabbato, ut dum aliam legem servare cupitis, sabbatum destruatis. Numquam autem leges Dei sibi contrariae sunt; et prudenter, ubi discipuli sui argui poterant transgressionis, et Abimelech et David dicit exempla sectantes; veram autem, et absque necessitatis obtentu, sabbati praevaricationem in ipsos refert qui calumniam fecerant
Chrysostomus in Matth
Ne autem mihi dicas, quoniam afferre in medium alium peccantem, non est erui ab accusatione: cum enim non accusatur qui fecit, excusatio fit circa id, quod factum est. Verum hoc non sufficit, sed quod maius est dixit quod sine crimine sunt. Vide autem quanta posuit. Locum, ubi dicit in templo; tempus, cum dicit sabbatis; legis remissionem, cum dicit violant, et non solum solvunt; et quod non solum liberantur a poena, sed a culpa liberati sunt: unde dicit sine crimine sunt. Neque autem hoc secundum simile est priori quod dixerat de David; illud enim et semel factum est, et a David non sacerdote, et necessitatis causa fuit; hoc autem secundum singulo sabbato, et a sacerdotibus, et secundum legem. Et ideo non secundum veniam, ut in primo exemplo; sed secundum legem sunt discipuli ab accusatione liberati. Sed numquid discipuli sunt sacerdotes? Immo sunt sacerdotibus maiores: ipse enim aderat, qui templi est dominus, qui veritas est, et non typus: et ideo subditur dico autem vobis, quia templo maior est hic
Hieronymus
Hic non pronomen, sed adverbium loci legendum est, quod maior templo sit locus qui dominum templi teneat
Augustinus de quaest. Evang
Notandum autem, unum exemplum datum esse regiae potestatis de David, alterum sacerdotalis, de his qui propter ministerium templi sabbata violant; ut multo minus ad ipsum evulsarum sabbato spicarum crimen pertineat, qui verus rex et verus sacerdos est
Chrysostomus in Matth
Deinde, quia grave audientibus videbatur esse quod dixerat, rursus convolat ad misericordiam, sermonem cum quadam vehementia inducens, cum dicit si autem sciretis quid est misericordiam volo, et non sacrificium, nunquam condemnassetis innocentes
Hieronymus
Quid autem est misericordiam volo, et non sacrificium, supra diximus. Quod autem dicit nunquam condemnassetis innocentes, de apostolis intelligendum est; et est sensus: si misericordiam comprobastis Abimelech, eo quod periclitantem fame David refocillavit, quare meos discipulos condemnatis?
Chrysostomus in Matth
Vide autem rursus qualiter ad veniam ducens sermonem, discipulos rursus venia superiores ostendit in hoc quod dicit eos innocentes; quod quidem supra et de sacerdotibus dixerat. Deinde et aliam causam dicit quare sunt innocentes, dicens dominus est filius hominis etiam sabbati
Remigius
Filium autem hominis seipsum appellat; et est sensus: ille quem vos purum hominem putatis, Deus est omnium creaturarum dominus, et etiam sabbati; et ideo potest legem mutare pro sua voluntate, quia fecit eam
Augustinus contra Faustum
Discipulos autem suos vellere spicas sabbato non prohibuit, ut inde convinceret et praesentes Iudaeos et futuros Manichaeos, qui herbam non evellunt, ne homicidium perpetrent
Hilarius in Matth
Mystice autem in principio est contuendum, sermonem hunc ita coeptum esse: in illo tempore, quo scilicet Deo patri gratiam, data gentibus salute, confessus est. Ager autem mundus est, sabbatum otium est, seges crediturorum profectus in messem: ergo sabbato in agrum profectus in legis otio, domini progressus in hunc mundum est; esuries fames est salutis humanae
Rabanus Maurus
Spicas vellunt dum singulos homines a terrena intentione retrahunt; fricant dum a concupiscentia carnis mentes exuunt; grana comedunt dum emendatos in corpus Ecclesiae traiciunt
Augustinus de quaest. Evang
Nullus autem transit in corpus Christi nisi carnalibus spoliatus fuerit indumentis, secundum illud apostoli: exuite vos veterem hominem
Glossa
Sabbato hoc agunt, scilicet spe quietis aeternae, ad quam alios invitant
Rabanus Maurus
Item ambulant per sata cum domino, qui in Scripturarum meditatione delectantur; esuriunt dum panem vitae, idest Dei amorem, in eis invenire desiderant; vellunt spicas et terunt dum testimonia discutiunt, donec inveniant quod latebat in littera; et hoc, sabbato, dum a turbis cogitationibus vacant
Hilarius
Pharisaei, qui penes se clavem caelorum esse existimabant, illicita agere discipulos arguunt; quos dominus factorum, in quibus sub rerum argumento prophetiae ratio continetur, admonuit; atque ut ostenderet omnium rerum efficaciam, speciem futuri operis continere, adiecit si autem sciretis quid est misericordiam volo: opus enim salutis nostrae non in sacrificio legis, sed in misericordia est; et lege cessante, in Dei bonitate salvamur. Cuius rei donum si intellexissent, nunquam condemnassent innocentes, idest apostolos suos, quos insimulaturi erant transgressae legis invidia, cum sacrificiorum vetustate cessante, universis per eos misericordiae novitas subveniret
12:9
St Jerome † AD 420
Because by fair instances He had vindicated His disciples from the charge of breaking the sabbath, the Pharisees seek to bring false accusation against Himself; whence it is said, And passing thence, he came into their synagogue.
St Hilary † AD 367
For the things that had gone before were said and done in the open air, and after this He entered the synagogue.
St Augustine † AD 430 De Cons. Ev. ii. 35.
It might have been supposed that the matter of the ears of corn, and this cure following, had been done on the same day, for it is mentioned to have been the sabbath day in both cases, had not Luke shewn us that they were on different days. So that what Matthew says, And when he had passed thence, he came into their syna-gogue, is to be taken as that He did not enter into the synagogue till He had passed thence; but whether several days intervened or He went thither straight is not expressed in this Gospel, so that place is given to the relation of Luke, who tells of the healing of this kind of palsy on another sabbath.
St Hilary † AD 367
When He was entered into the synagogue, they bring a man of a withered hand, asking Him whether it was lawful to heal on the sabbath day, seeking an occasion of convicting Him out of His answer; as it follows, And they brought him a man haring a withered hand, and asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day?
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. xl.
They do not ask that they may learn, but that they may accuse Him; as it follows, that they might accuse him. Though the action itself would have been enough, yet they sought occasion against Him in His words also, thus providing for themselves greater matter of complaint.
St Jerome † AD 420
And they ask Him whether it is lawful to heal on the sabbath day, that if He should refuse, they might charge Him with cruelty, or want of power; if He should heal him, they might charge Him with transgressing the Law.
St Augustine † AD 430 De Cons. Ev. ii. 35.
But it may raise enquiry how Matthew can say that they asked the Lord, Whether it were lawful to heal on the sabbath, seeing Mark and Luke relate that it was the Lord who asked them, Whether it is lawful on the sabbath day to do good or to do evil? (Luke 6:9) It is to be understood then that they first asked the Lord, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day? Then understanding their thoughts that they sought an occasion to accuse Him, He placed in the midst him whom He was about to heal, and put to them the question which Mark and Luke say that He did ask; and when they remained silent, He made the comparison respecting the sheep, and concluded that they might do good on the sabbath day; as it follows, But he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?
St Jerome † AD 420
Thus He answers their question in such a way as to convict the questioners of covetousness. If ye on the sabbath, saith He, would hasten to lift out a sheep or any other animal that might have fallen into a pit, not for the sake of the animal, but to preserve your own property, how much more ought I to deliver a man who is so much better than a sheep?
The Gloss ord.
Thus He answers their question with a suitable example, so as to shew that they profane the sabbath by works of covetousness who were charging Him with profaning it by works of charity; evil interpreters of the Law, who say that on the sabbath we ought to rest from good deeds, when it is only evil deeds from which we ought to rest. As it is said, Ye shall do no servile work therein, (Lev. 23:3) that is, no sin. Thus in the everlasting rest, we shall rest only from evil, and not from good.
St Augustine † AD 430 De Cons. Ev. ii. 35.
After this comparison concerning the sheep, He concludes that it is lawful to do good on the sabbath day, saying, Therefore it is lawful to do good on the sabbath.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
Observe how He shews many reasons for this breaking of the sabbath. But forasmuch as the man was incurably sick, He proceeds straightway to the work, as it follows, Then saith he to the man, Reach forth thy hand: and he reached it forth, and it was restored whole as the other.
St Jerome † AD 420
In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and Ebionites use, (vid. note, p. 433.) and which we have lately translated into Greek out of the Hebrew, and which many regard as the genuine Matthew, this man who has the withered hand is described as a builder, and he makes his prayer in these words, ‘I was a builder, and gained my living by the labour of my hands; I pray thee, Jesus, to restore me to health, that I may not disgracefully beg my bread.’
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
Jesus teaches and works chiefly on the sabbath, not only on account of the spiritual sabbath, but on account of the gathering together of the people, seeking that all should be saved.
St Hilary † AD 367
Figuratively After their departure from the corn field, from which the Apostles had received the fruits of their sowing, He came to the Synagogue, there also to make ready the work of His harvest; for there were afterwards many with the Apostles who were healed.
St Jerome † AD 420
Until the coming of the Lord the Saviour, there was the withered hand in the Synagogue of the Jews, and the works of the Lord were not done in it; but when He came upon earth, the right hand was restored in the Apostles who believed, and given back to its former occupation.
St Hilary † AD 367
All healing is done by the word; and the hand is restored as the other; that is, made like to the ministry of the Apostles in the business of bestowing salvation; and it teaches the Pharisees that they should not be displeased that the work of human salvation is done by the Apostles, seeing that if they would believe, their own hand would be made able to the ministry of the same duty.
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
Otherwise; The man who had the withered hand denotes the human race in its barrenness of good works dried up by the hand which was stretched out to the fruit; (Gen. 3:6.) this was healed by the stretching out of the innocent hand on the Cross. And well is this withered hand said to have been in the Synagogue, for where the gift of knowledge is greater, there is the greater danger of an irrecoverable infliction. The withered hand when it is to be healed is first bid to be stretched out, because the weakness of a barren mind is healed by no means better than by liberality of almsgiving. A man’s right hand is affected when he is remiss in giving alms, his left whole when he is attentive to his own interests. But when the Lord comes, the right hand is restored whole as the left, because what he had got together greedily, that he distributes freely.
The Latin text
Hieronymus
Quia destructionem sabbati, qua discipulos arguebant, probabili exemplo excusaverat, ipsum calumniari volunt: unde dicitur et cum inde transisset, venit in synagogam eorum
Hilarius in Matth
Haec enim quae praemissa sunt, in campo dicta gestaque sunt, et post haec synagogam ingreditur
Augustinus de Cons. Evang
Posset autem putari eodem die factum et de spicis et de isto sanato, quoniam et sabbatum hic commemoratur; nisi Lucas aperuisset, alio sabbato factum fuisse. Proinde quod dicit Matthaeus et cum inde transisset venit in synagogam eorum, non quidem venit nisi cum inde transisset; sed post quot dies in synagogam eorum venerit posteaquam a segete illa transiit, an recte continuoque illuc ierit, non expressum est: ac per hoc locus datur narrationi Lucae, qui dicit alio sabbato huiusmodi manum fuisse sanatam
Hilarius
Ingresso autem synagogam, hominem aridae manus offerunt, interrogantes an curare sabbatis liceret, occasionem arguendi eum ex responsione quaerentes; unde sequitur et ecce homo manum habens aridam, et interrogabant eum dicentes: si licet sabbato curare?
Chrysostomus in Matth
Non autem interrogant ut addiscant, sed ut accusent eum: unde sequitur ut accusarent eum. Quamvis et ipsum opus sufficeret si accusare volebant; sed et per verba volebant captionem invenire, maiorem copiam arguitionum sibi praeparantes
Hieronymus
Et interrogant, utrum liceat curare sabbatis: ut si non curaverit, crudelitatis aut imbecillitatis; si curaverit, transgressionis vitio eum accusent
Augustinus de Cons. Evang
Sed potest movere quomodo Matthaeus dixerit, quod ipsi interrogaverunt dominum si licet sabbato curare? Cum Marcus et Lucas illos potius a domino interrogatos esse perhibeant: licet sabbato bene facere, an male? Itaque intelligendum, quod illi prius interrogaverunt dominum si licet sabbato curare? Deinde intelligens cogitationes eorum, aditum accusandi quaerentium, constituit in medio illum quem erat sanaturus, et interrogavit quae Marcus et Lucas eum interrogasse commemorant: et tunc illis tacentibus, proposuit similitudinem de ove, et conclusit quod licet sabbato benefacere; unde sequitur ipse autem dixit illis: quis erit ex vobis homo, qui habens ovem unam?
et cetera. Hieronymus
Ubi sic solvit propositam quaestionem, ut interrogantes avaritiae condemnaret. Si vos, inquit, in sabbato ovem et aliud quodlibet animal in foveam decidens eripere festinatis, non animali sed vestrae avaritiae consulentes, quanto magis ego hominem, qui multo melior est ove, debeo liberare?
Rabanus Maurus
Competenti ergo exemplo solvit quaestionem eorum, ut eos ostendat sabbatum violare in opere cupiditatis, qui eum violare arguunt in opere caritatis; legem male interpretantes, qui dicunt in sabbato a bonis feriandum in quo a malis tantum feriandum est. Unde Levitico: opus servile non facietis in eis, hoc est peccatum. Sic in aeterna requie a malis tantum feriabitur, non a bonis
Augustinus de Cons. Evang
Proposita autem similitudine de ove, concludit, quod liceat sabbato benefacere, dicens itaque licet sabbatis benefacere
Chrysostomus in Matth
Intende autem qualiter varias excusationes de solutione sabbati inducit. Sed quia iam insanabiliter aegrotabat, ad opus processit; unde sequitur tunc ait homini: extende manum tuam; et extendit, et restituta est sanitati sicut altera
Hieronymus
In Evangelio quo utuntur Nazaraei et Ebionitae (quod nuper in Graecum de Hebraico sermone transtulimus, et quod vocatur a plerisque Matthaei authenticum) homo iste qui aridam habet manum, caementarius scribitur, istiusmodi vocibus auxilium precans: coementarius eram manibus victum quaeritans; precor te, Iesu, ut mihi restituas sanitatem, ne turpiter mendicem cibos
Rabanus Maurus
Sabbatis autem praecipue docet et operatur Iesus, non solum propter spirituale sabbatum, sed etiam propter celebriorem populi conventum, quaerens salutem omnium
Hilarius in Matth
Mystice autem post reditum de segete, ex qua iam apostoli fructus sationis acceperant, ad synagogam venit, iam illic messis suae opus paraturus: quia plures postmodum una cum apostolis extiterunt qui curabantur
Hieronymus
Usque autem ad adventum domini salvatoris arida manus in synagoga Iudaeorum fuit, et Dei opera non fiebant in ea; postquam autem ille venit in terras, reddita est in apostolis credentibus dextera, et operi pristino restituta
Hilarius
Curatio autem omnis in verbo est: et manus sicut altera redditur: idest, similis ministerio apostolorum in officium dandae salutis efficitur; docetque Pharisaeos aegre ferre non oportere operationem humanae salutis in apostolis, cum ipsis ad officii eiusdem ministerium manus sit reformanda, si credant
Rabanus Maurus
Vel aliter. Homo qui habebat manum aridam, humanum genus indicat, sterilitate boni operis arefactum per manum ad pomum extensam, quam sanavit manus innocens in cruce extensa. Et bene manus in synagoga erat arida; quia ubi maius donum scientiae, ibi gravius est inexcusabilis noxae periculum. Sananda autem manus arida iubetur extendi; quia infructuosae debilitas animae nullo melius ordine quam eleemosynarum largitate curatur. Habebat autem homo dexteram manum languidam, quia ab eleemosynis torpebat; sinistram sanam, quia suae utilitati intendebat. Sed veniente domino, dextera sanatur ut sinistra: quia quod congregaverat avide, modo distribuit caritative
12:14
St Hilary † AD 367
The Pharisees are moved with jealousy at what had been done; because beholding the outward body of a man, they did not recognize the God in His works; The Pharisees went out and sought counsel against him, how they might destroy him.
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
He says, went out because their mind was alien from the Lord. They took counsel how they might destroy life, not how themselves might find life.
St Hilary † AD 367
And He knowing their plots withdrew, that He might be far from the counsels of the evil hearted, as it follows, Jesus knowing it departed thence.
St Jerome † AD 420
Knowing, that is, their designs against Him withdrew Himself, that He might remove from the Pharisees all opportunity of sin.
Remigius † AD 908
Or, He withdrew from thence as avoiding the designs of His own when they persecuted Him; or because that was not the time or place for Him to suffer, for It cannot he that a Prophet should perish out of Jerusalem, (Luke 13:33) as He Himself spake. The Lord also shunned those who persecuted Him through hatred, and went thither where He found many who were attached to Him from affection, whence it follows, And there followed him many. Him whom the Pharisees with one consent plotted against to destroy, the untaught multitude with one consent love and follow; whence they soon received the fulfilment of their desires, for it follows, And he healed them all.
St Hilary † AD 367
On those whom He healed He enjoined silence, whence it follows, And he charged them that they should not make him known. For his restored health was a witness to each man. And by commanding them to hold their peace, He avoids all ostentation of Himself, and at the same time notwithstanding affords a knowledge of Himself in that very admonition to hold their peace; for the observance of silence proceeds from that very thing which is to be kept silent.
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
In this also He instructs us, that when we have done any thing great we are not to seek praise abroad.
Remigius † AD 908
And He also gives them command that they should not make Him known, that they might not by persecuting Him be put into a worse state.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
And that you may not be troubled at those things which are done, and at the incredible madness of the Pharisees, He introduces the Prophet’s words. For such was the carefulness of the Prophets, that they had not omitted even this, but had noted all His ways and movements, and the meaning with which He did this; that you might learn that He spoke all things by the Holy Spirit, for if it be impossible to know the thoughts of men, much more to know the meaning of Christ, unless the Holy Spirit revealed it. Therefore it follows, That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the Prophet, saying, Behold my servant whom I have chosen.
Remigius † AD 908
The Lord Jesus Christ is called the servant of the Almighty Godb, not in respect of His divinity, but in respect of the dispensation of the flesh which He took upon Him, because by the cooperation of the Holy Spirit He took flesh of the Virgin without stain of sin. Some books have, Elect, whom I have chosen, for He was chosen by God the Father, that is, predestinated that He should be the Son of God, proper, not adopted.
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
Whom I have chosen, he says, for a work which none else has done, that He should redeem the human race, and make peace between God and the world. It follows, My beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased, for He alone is the Lamb without spot of sin, of whom the Father speaks, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. (Mat. 17:5)
Remigius † AD 908
That he says, My soul, is not to be understood as though God the Father had a soul, but by way of adaptation, shewing how God is disposed towards Him. And it is no wonder that a soul is ascribed to God in this manner, seeing that all other members of the body are likewise.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
This the Prophet puts in the beginning, that you might learn that that which is here said was according to the counsel of the Father. For he that is beloved does according to his will who loveth him. And again, he that is chosen, does not as an enemy break the law, nor as one being an adversary of the legislator, but as one in agreement with Him. Because therefore He is beloved, I will put my Spirit upon him.
Remigius † AD 908
Then also God the Father put His Spirit upon Him, when by the working of the Holy Spirit He took flesh of the Virgin; and as soon as He became man, He took the fulness of the Holy Spirit.
St Jerome † AD 420
But the Holy Spirit is put, not on the Word of God, but on the Only-Begotten, who came forth from the bosom of the Father; on Him, that is, of whom it is said, Behold my servant. And what He will do by Him He adds, And he shall declare judgment to the Gentiles.
St Augustine † AD 430 De Civ. Dei, xx. 30.
Seeing He preached the judgment to come which was hidden from the Gentiles.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
Further, to shew His lowliness, He says, He shall not strive; and so He was offered up as the Father had willed, and gave Himself willingly into the hands of His persecutors. Neither shall he cry; so He was dumb as a lamb before his shearer. Nor shall any hear voice in the streets.
St Jerome † AD 420
For the way is broad and wide which leads to destruction, and many walk in it; and being many, they will not hear the voice of the Saviour, because they are not in the narrow but in the broad way.
Remigius † AD 908
The Greek πλατεῖα, is in Latin called ‘latitudo.’ No one therefore has heard His voice in the streets, because He has not promised pleasant things in this world to those that love Him, but hardships.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
The Lord sought to heal the Jews by this mildness. But though they rejected Him, yet He did not resist them by destroying them; whence the Prophet, displaying His power and their weakness, says, A bruised reed he shall not break, and a smoking flax he shall not quench.
St Jerome † AD 420
He that holds not out his hand to a sinner, nor bears his brother’s burden, he breaks a bruised reed; and he who despises a weak spark of faith in a little one, he quenches a smoking flax.
St Augustine † AD 430 ubi sup
So He neither bruised nor quenched the Jewish persecutors, who are here likened to a bruised reed which has lost its wholeness, and to a smoking flax which has lost its flame; but He spared them because He was not come to judge them, but to be judged by them.
St Augustine † AD 430 Quæst. Ev. i. 3.
In the smoking flax it is observed, that when the flame is out it causes a stink.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
Or this, He shall not break a bruised reed, shews that it was as easy for Him to break them all, as to break a reed, and that a bruised reed. And, He shall not quench a smoking flax, shews that their rage was fired, and that the power of Christ was strong to quench such rage with all readiness; hence in this is shewn the great mercy of Christ.
St Hilary † AD 367
Or, he means this bruised reed that is not broken, to shew that the perishing and bruised bodies of the Gentiles, are not to be broken, but are rather reserved for salvation. He shall not quench a smoking flax, shews the feebleness of that spark which though not quenched, only moulders in the flax, and that among the remnants of that ancient grace, the Spirit is yet not quite taken away from Israel, but power still remains to them of resuming the whole flame thereof in a day of penitence.
St Jerome † AD 420 Ep. 121.2.
Or, the reverse, He calls the Jews a bruised reed, whom tossed by the wind and shaken from one another, the Lord did not immediately condemn, but patiently endured; and the smoking flax He calls the people gathered out of the Gentiles, who, having extinguished the light of the natural law, were involved in the wandering mazes of thick darkness of smoke, bitter and hurtful to the eyes; this He not only did not extinguish, by reducing them to ashes, but on the contrary from a small spark and one almost dead He raised a mighty flame.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
But one might say, What then, shall these things be always thus? Will He endure for ever those who thus lay snares, and are mad against Him? Far from it; when His own work shall be all complete, then shall He work these things also. And. this He signifies, saying, Until he shall send forth judgment to victory; as much as to say, When He shall have accomplished all things which are of Himself, then shall He bring in perfect vengeance; then shall they receive punishment when He has made his victory illustrious, that there be not left to them any irreverent opportunity of contradiction,
St Hilary † AD 367
Or, Until he shall send forth judgment to victory, that is, Until He shall take away the power of death, and bring in judgment and the return of His splendour.
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
Or, Until that judgment which was being done in Him should come forth to victory. For after that by His resurrection He had overcome death, and driven forth the prince of this world, He returned as conqueror to His kingdom to sit on the right hand of the Father, until He shall put all His enemies under His feet.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
But the things of this dispensation will not rest in this only, that they who have not believed should be punished, but He will also draw the world to Him; whence it follows, And in his name shall the Gentiles hope.
St Augustine † AD 430 De Civ. Dei, xx. 30.
This last we now see fulfilled; and thus this which cannot be denied establishes the truth of that which some have denied through ignorance, the last judgment namely, which He will hold upon earth, when he Himself shall come from heaven. For who could have expected that the Gentiles would have hope in Christ’s name, when He was in the hands of His enemies, when He was bound, scourged, set at nought, and crucified; when even His disciples had lost that hope which they had begun to have in Him? That which one thief hardly hoped on the cross, the nations scattered far and wide now hope. And that they may not die for ever, they are marked with that very cross on which he died. Let none then doubt that the last judgment will be by Christ Himself.
Remigius † AD 908
And it should be known, that the meaning not only of this passage, but of many others also, is supported by this testimony from the Prophet. The words, Behold my servant, may be referred to the place in which the Father had said above, This is my Son. (Mat. 3:17.) The words, I will put my Spirit upon him, is referred to the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Lord at His baptism; He shall declare judgment to the Gentiles, to that which He says below, When the Son of Man shall sit in the seat of his Majesty. (Mat. 25:31) What he adds, He shall not strive nor cry, refers to the Lord how He answered but little to the Chief Priests, and to Pilate, but to Herod nothing at all. He shall not break the bruised reed, refers to His shunning His persecutors that they might not be made worse; and that In his name shall the Gentiles hope, refers to what Himself says below, Go ye, and teach all nations. (Mat. 28:19)
The Latin text
Hilarius in Matth
Invidia autem facti Pharisaeos commovet: quia contuentes hominem in corpore, Deum in operibus non intelligebant; unde dicitur exeuntes autem Pharisaei consilium faciebant adversus eum, quomodo eum perderent
Rabanus Maurus
Exeuntes dicit, quia eorum mens a domino aversa fuit. Consilium fecerunt quomodo vitam perderent, non quomodo ipsi vitam invenirent
Hilarius
Sciensque eorum consilia secessit, ut a consiliis malignantium procul abesset; unde sequitur Iesus autem sciens secessit inde
Hieronymus
Sciens, inquam, eorum insidias recessit, ut Pharisaeis contra se occasionem impietatis auferret
Remigius
Sive secessit inde quasi homo fugiens insidias suorum persequentium; sive quia non erat tempus neque locus patiendi; non enim capit perire prophetam extra Ierusalem, sicut ipse dicit. Declinavit etiam dominus odio se persequentes, et pervenit illuc ubi invenit plurimos se per amorem diligentes; unde sequitur et secuti sunt eum multi. Quem Pharisaei unanimi consilio perdere quaerunt, turba indocta unanimi dilectione sequitur: unde mox sui desiderii consequuntur effectum: nam sequitur et curavit eos omnes
Hilarius in Matth
His autem quos curavit, silentium imperavit: unde sequitur et praecepit eis ne manifestum eum facerent: nam salus unicuique reddita, erat sibi ipsi testis. Sed iubendo silentium teneri, et gloriandi de se iactantiam declinat, et nihilominus cognitionem sui praestat in eo ipso, cum admonet de se taceri; quia observatio silentii ex re quae sit silenda proficiscitur
Rabanus Maurus
In hoc etiam nos instruit, ne cum aliquid magni fecerimus, laudem foris quaeramus
Remigius
Ideo etiam praecipit ut non manifestarent eum, ne persequentes ipsum deteriores fierent
Chrysostomus in Matth
Deinde ut non turberis in his quae fiunt insania inopinabili Pharisaeorum, inducit prophetam hoc praedicentem; tanta erat enim prophetarum diligentia, ut neque hoc derelinquerent; sed et vias eius et transitus prophetizarent, et intentionem cum qua hoc faciebat; ut discas quoniam omnia a spiritu sancto loquebantur: si enim cogitationes hominum impossibile est scire, multo magis Christi intentionem, nisi spiritus sanctus revelaret. Sequitur ergo ut impleretur quod dictum est per Isaiam prophetam dicentem: ecce puer meus quem elegi
Remigius
Dominus quidem Iesus Christus puer omnipotentis Dei dictus est, non secundum divinitatem, sed secundum assumptae carnis dispensationem: quia cooperante spiritu sancto carnem suscepit ex virgine absque macula peccati. Quidam libri habent: electus, quem elegi: electus enim fuit a Deo patre, idest praedestinatus, ut esset filius Dei proprius, non adoptivus
Rabanus Maurus
Quem elegi, dicit, ad opus quod nemo alius fecit, ut redimeret genus humanum, et pacificaret mundum cum Deo. Sequitur dilectus meus, in quo bene complacuit animae meae: quia ipse solus est agnus sine macula peccati, de quo pater dicit: hic est filius meus dilectus, in quo mihi bene complacui
Remigius
Quod autem dicit animae meae, non ita intelligendum est quod Deus pater animam habeat; sed translative anima in Deum ascribitur, ut per eam demonstretur Dei affectus. Nec mirum si anima translative in Deo dicitur, cum etiam cetera corporis membra ei ascribantur
Chrysostomus in Matth
Hoc autem in principio propheta ponit, ut discas quia hoc quod hic dicitur, fuit secundum consilium patris: dilectus enim secundum consilium eius qui diligit facit. Sed iterum electus, non ut adversarius solvit legem, neque ut inimicus existens legislatori, sed ei concordans. Quia ergo dilectus est, ponam spiritum meum super eum
Remigius
Tunc etiam Deus pater posuit spiritum suum super eum, cum operante spiritu sancto suscepit carnem ex virgine, et mox ut homo factus est, plenitudinem spiritus sancti suscepit
Hieronymus
Ponitur autem spiritus sanctus non super Dei verbum, sed super unigenitum, qui de sinu patris processit, scilicet super eum de quo dictum est ecce puer meus. Quid autem per ipsum facturus sit, subditur: et iudicium gentibus nuntiabit
Augustinus de Civ. Dei
Quia scilicet iudicium praenuntiavit futurum, quod gentibus erat occultum
Chrysostomus
Deinde humilitatem eius manifestans, dicit non contendet; quia sicut illi placuit oblatus est, et manibus persequentium se ultro obtulit; neque clamabit: quia sicut agnus coram tondente se obmutuit; neque audiet aliquis in plateis vocem eius
Hieronymus
Lata enim est et spatiosa via quae ducit ad perditionem, et multi ingrediuntur per eam; qui multi non audiunt vocem salvatoris, quia non sunt in arcta via, sed in spatiosa
Remigius
Platea namque Graece, Latine latitudo dicitur. In plateis ergo vocem eius nemo audivit: quia suis dilectoribus non delectabilia in hoc mundo promisit, sed aspera
Chrysostomus in Matth
Volebat autem dominus per huiusmodi mansuetudinem curare Iudaeos. Sed licet isti renuerent, non tamen eis restitit, eos destruendo: unde et eius virtutem et illorum imbecillitatem propheta ostendens dicit: arundinem quassatam non confringet, et linum fumigans non extinguet
Hieronymus
Qui peccatori non porrigit manum nec portat onus fratris sui, iste quassatum calamum confringit; et qui modicam scintillam fidei contemnit in parvulis, hic linum extinguit fumigans
Augustinus de Civ. Dei
Unde persecutores Iudaeos, qui calamo quassato, perdita integritate, et lino fumanti, amisso lumine, comparati sunt, non contrivit, non extinxit: quia pepercit eis, quod nondum venerat eos iudicare, sed iudicari ab eis
Augustinus de quaest. Evang
In lino etiam fumigante notandum est, quia deserto lumine facit putorem
Hilarius
Vel in hoc quod dicit arundinem quassatam non confringet ostendit quod ita facile erat ei omnes eos frangere, sicut arundinem; et non simpliciter arundinem, sed iam contritam. In hoc autem quod dicit linum fumigans non extinguet, demonstrat et illorum furorem accensum, et virtutem Christi potentem ad extinguendum huiusmodi furorem cum omni facultate: unde in hoc multa mansuetudo Christi ostenditur
Rabanus Maurus
Vel per hoc quod dicit, arundinem quae quassata est, non esse confractam, ostendit caduca et quassata gentium corpora non fuisse contrita, sed in salutem potius reservata. Per hoc autem quod dicit linum fumigans non extinguet, ostendit exiguitatem ignis iam tantum fumigantis in lino non extinctam, idest Israel ex reliquiis veteris gratiae spiritum non ablatum, quia resumendi totius luminis in tempore poenitentiae sit facultas
Rabanus Maurus
Vel e converso, arundinem quassatam vocat Iudaeos, quod a vento agitatos, et quasi ab invicem dissipatos, non statim dominus condemnavit, sed patienter supportavit; linum autem fumigans vocat populum de gentibus congregatum, qui, extincto naturalis legis ardore, fumi amarissimi et oculis noxii, tenebrosaeque caliginis involvebantur erroribus; quem non solum extinxit et redegit in cinerem, sed e contrario de parva scintilla et pene moriente maxima suscitavit incendia
Chrysostomus in Matth
Sed posset aliquis dicere: quid igitur? Semper haec erunt; et feret usque in finem eos qui sic insidiantur et insaniunt? Absit: sed cum sua omnia facta erunt tunc et illa operabitur. Et hoc signavit dicens donec eiciat ad victoriam iudicium; ac si dicat: cum ea quae ex se sunt, omnia compleverit, tunc perfectam ultionem inducet; tunc enim punientur cum claram fecerit suam victoriam, ut non relinquatur eis inverecunda contradictionis occasio
Hilarius in Matth
Vel donec eiciat ad victoriam iudicium; sublata scilicet mortis potestate, iudicium et claritatis suae reditum introducat
Rabanus Maurus
Vel donec illud iudicium quod in eo agebatur, ad victoriam perveniret: quia postquam mortem resurgendo superavit, expulso principe huius mundi, victor ad regnum rediit in patris dextera sedens, donec ponat sub pedibus omnes inimicos suos
Chrysostomus in Matth
Sed non in hoc stabunt ea quae sunt dispensationis, ut solum puniantur qui non crediderunt; sed et orbem terrarum ad se trahet; unde sequitur et in nomine eius gentes sperabunt
Augustinus de Civ. Dei
Hoc autem ultimum iam videmus impletum: et sic per hoc quod negari non potest, creditur et illud quod imprudenter a quibusdam negatur, novissimum iudicium, quod ponet in terra, cum venerit ipse de caelo. Quis enim speraret gentes in Christi nomine speraturas, quando tenebatur, ligabatur, caedebatur, illudebatur et crucifigebatur; quando et ipsi discipuli spem perdiderant, quam in illo habere iam coeperant? Quod tunc vix unus latro speravit in cruce, nunc sperant gentes longe lateque diffusae. Et ne in aeternum moriantur, ipsa in qua ille mortuus est cruce signantur. Nullus igitur dubitet per Iesum Christum novissimum futurum esse iudicium
Remigius
Sciendum est autem, quia non solum istius loci sensus, sed et multorum aliorum hoc testimonio confirmatur: nam quod dicit ecce puer meus, ad illum locum refertur ubi dixerat pater: hic est filius meus; quod vero ait ponam spiritum meum super eum, ad hoc refertur quod spiritus sanctus descendit super dominum baptizatum; quod autem subiungit iudicium gentibus nuntiabit, refertur ad id quod infra dicitur: cum sederit filius hominis in sede maiestatis suae; quod autem subdit non contendet neque clamabit, ad hoc refertur quod dominus pauca respondit principi sacerdotum et Pilato, Herodi vero nulla; quod vero dicitur arundinem quassatam non confringet, ad hoc pertinet quod dominus suos persecutores declinavit, ne fierent deteriores; quod vero dicit in nomine eius gentes sperabunt, ad hoc refertur quod ipse dixit: euntes docete omnes gentes
12:22
The Gloss non occ.
The Lord had refuted the Pharisees above, when they brought false charges against the miracles of Christ, as if He had broken the sabbath in doing them. But inasmuch as with a yet greater wickedness they perversely attributed the miracles of Christ done by divine power to an unclean spirit, therefore the Evangelist places first the miracle from which they had taken occasion to blaspheme, saying, Then was brought to him one that had a dæmon, blind and dumb.
Remigius † AD 908
The word Then refers to that above, where having healed the man who had the withered hand, He went out of the synagogue. Or it may be taken of a more extended time; Then, namely, when these things were being done or said.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
We may wonder at the wickedness of the dæmon; he had obstructed both inlets by which he could believe, namely, hearing and sight. But Christ opened both, whence it follows, And he healed him., insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw.
St Jerome † AD 420
Three miracles were wrought in one and the same person at the same time; the blind sees, the dumb speaks, the possessed is delivered from the dæmon. This was at that time done in the flesh, but is now daily being fulfilled in the conversion of them that believe; the dæmon is cast out when they first behold the light of the faith, and then their mouths which had before been stopped are opened to utter the praises of God.
St Hilary † AD 367
Not without reason, after having mentioned that all the multitude was healed together, does he bring in the cure of this man separately who was dæmoniac, blind and dumb. For after the man of the withered hand had been brought before Him, and been healed in the Synagogue, it behoved that the salvation of the Gentiles should be represented in the person of some other afflicted man; he who had been the habitation of a dæmon, and blind and dumb, should be made meet to receive God, should contain God in Christ, and by confession of God should give praise to the works of Christ.
St Augustine † AD 430 Quæst. Ev. i. 4.
For he that believes not, is truly dæmoniac, blind, and dumb; and he that has not understanding of the faith, nor confesses, nor gives praise to God, is subject to the devil.
St Augustine † AD 430 De Cons. Ev. ii. 37
This narrative is given by Luke, not in this place, but after many other things intervening, and speaks of him as dumb only, and not blind. But he is not to be thought to be speaking of another man, because he is silent respecting this one particular; for in what follows he agrees exactly with Matthew.
St Hilary † AD 367
All the multitude were astonished at this which was done, but the jealousy of the Pharisees grew thereupon, And all the multitude were astonished and said, Is not this the Son of David?
The Gloss ap. Raban.
Because of His mercy and His goodness to them they proclaim Him the Son of David.
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856 e Beda in Luc.
The multitude who seemed less learned, always wondered at the works of the Lord; they, on the other hand, either denied these things, or what they could not deny laboured to pervert by an ill interpretation, as though they were wrought not by a Deity, but by an unclean spirit, namely, Beelzebub, who was the God of Acharon: The Pharisees when they heard it said, This man does not cast out dæmons but by Beelzebub, the prince of the dæmons.
Remigius † AD 908
Beelzebub is the same as Beel or Baal, or Beelphegor. Beel was father of Ninus king of Assyria; Baal was so called because he was worshipped on high; he was called Beelphegor from the mountain Phegor; Zebub was the servant of Abimelech the son of Gedeon, who, having slain his seventy brothers, built a temple to Baal, and set him up as Priest therein, to drive away the flies which were collected there by the abundant blood of the victims; for Zebub means, a fly. Beelzebub therefore is interpreted, The man of flies, wherefore from this most unclean worship they called him the Prince of the dæmons. Having therefore nothing more mean to cast upon the Lord, they said that He cast out dæmons by Beelzebub. And it should be known that this word is not to be read with d or t at the end, as some corrupt copies have, but with b.
The Latin text
Glossa
Confutaverat superius dominus Pharisaeos Christi miracula calumniantes ex hoc quod sabbatum solvere videbatur: sed quia maiori nequitia ipsa Christi miracula divina virtute facta pervertebant, attribuentes ea immundo spiritui, ideo Evangelista praemittit miraculum ex quo blasphemandi occasionem sumpserunt, dicens tunc oblatus est ei Daemonium habens, caecus et mutus
Remigius
Quod autem dicit tunc, ad superiora refertur, quando sanato homine qui habebat manum aridam, exivit de synagoga. Sive quod dicit tunc, potest referri ad latius atque prolixius tempus; ut sit sensus: tunc quando haec vel illa dicebantur vel gerebantur
Chrysostomus in Matth
Miranda est autem nequitia Daemonis. Utrumque ingressum oppilavit per quem ille erat crediturus, scilicet et auditum et visum. Sed Christus utrumque aperuit; unde sequitur et curavit eum ita ut loqueretur et videret
Hieronymus
Tria autem signa simul in uno homine perpetrata sunt: caecus videt, mutus loquitur, possessus a Daemone liberatur. Quod et tunc quidem carnaliter factum est; sed quotidie completur in conversione credentium: ut expulso Daemone, primum fidei lumen aspiciant, deinde in laudes Dei tacentia prius ora laxentur
Hilarius in Matth
Non autem sine ratione cum turbas omnes curatas in communi dixisset, nunc seorsum Daemonium habens, caecus et mutus offertur. Oportebat enim ut postquam manus aridae homo oblatus est, qui in synagoga curabatur, in unius huiusmodi hominis forma gentium salus fieret; ut qui erat habitatio Daemonii, et caecus et mutus, Deo capax pararetur, et Deum contineret in Christo, et Christi opera Dei confessione laudaret
Augustinus de quaest. Evang
Daemonium enim habens, caecus et mutus est qui non credit, et subditus est Diabolo qui non intelligit et non confitetur ipsam fidem, vel non dat laudem Deo
Augustinus de Cons. Evang
Hoc autem non isto ordine, sed post multa alia Lucas commemorat; et mutum dicit tantum et non caecum. Sed non ex eo quod aliquid tacet, de alio dicere putandus est: ea enim sequentia et ipse contexit quae Matthaeus
Hilarius
Stupuerunt facti istius omnes turbae; sed Pharisaeorum ingravescit invidia: unde sequitur et stupebant omnes turbae et dicebant: numquid iste est filius David?
Glossa
Ob misericordiam et beneficia filium David praedicant
Rabanus Maurus
Turbis autem quae minus eruditae videbantur, domini semper facta mirantibus, illi contra vel negare hoc, vel quae negare nequiverant sinistra interpretatione pervertere laborabant; quasi haec non divinitatis, sed immundi spiritus opera fuissent, idest Beelzebub, qui Deus erat Accaron: unde sequitur Pharisaei autem audientes dixerunt: hic non eicit Daemones nisi in Beelzebub principe Daemoniorum
Remigius
Beelzebub autem, ipse est Beel et Baal et Beelphegor. Beel fuit pater Nini regis Assyriorum; Baal dictus est, quia in excelso colebatur; Beelphegor a loco, idest a monte Phega; zebub servus fuit Abimelech filii Gedeonis, qui occisis septuaginta fratribus aedificavit templum Baal, et constituit eum sacerdotem in ipso ad abigendas muscas quae ibi congregabantur propter nimium cruorem victimarum. Zebub namque musca dicitur, Beelzebub ergo vir muscarum interpretatur: unde propter spurcissimum ritum colendi, dicebant eum esse principem Daemoniorum. Nihil ergo sordidius invenientes quod domino obicerent, dicebant eum in Beelzebub eicere Daemonia. Et sciendum quod non est legendum per d vel t in fine, ut quaedam mendosa exemplaria habent, sed per b
12:25
St Jerome † AD 420
The Pharisees ascribed the works of God to the Prince of the dæmons; and the Lord makes answer not to what they said, but to what they thought, that even thus they might be compelled to believe His power, Who saw the secrets of the heart; Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said unto them.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. xli.
Above they had accused Christ of having cast out dæmons by Beelzebub; but then He did not reprove them, suffering them, if they would, to acknowledge Him from further miracles, and to learn His greatness from His doctrine. But because they continued to maintain the same things, He now rebukes them, although their accusation had been very unreasonable. But jealousy recks not what it says, so that only it say somewhat. Yet does not Christ contemn them, but answers with a gracious mildness, teaching us to be gentle to our enemies, and not to be troubled, even though they should speak such things against us, as we neither acknowledge in us, nor have any reasonableness in themselves. Therein also He proves that the things which they had said against Him were false, for it is not of one having a dæmon to shew such mercy, and to know the thoughts. Moreover, because this their accusation was very unreasonable, and they feared the multitude, they did not dare to proclaim it openly, but kept it in their thoughts; wherefore he says, Knowing their thoughts. He does not repeat their thoughts in His answer, not to divulge their wickedness; but He brings forward an answer; it was His object to do good to the sinners, not to proclaim their sin. He does not answer them out of the Scriptures, because they would not hearken to Him as they explained them differently, but He refutes them from common opinions. For assaults from without are not so destructive as quarrels within; and this is so in bodies and in all other things. But in the mean while He draws instances from matters more known, saying, Every kingdom divided against itself shall be brought to desolation; for there is nothing on earth more powerful than a kingdom, and yet that is destroyed by contention. What then must we say concerning a city or a family, that whether it be great or small, it is destroyed when it is at discord within itself.
St Hilary † AD 367
For a city or family is analogous to a kingdom, as it follows, And every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.
St Jerome † AD 420
For as small things grow by concord, so the greatest fall to pieces through dissensions.
St Hilary † AD 367
But the word of God is rich, and whether taken simply, or examined inwardly, it is needful for our advancement. Leaving therefore what belongs to the plain understanding thereof, let us dwell on some of the more secret reasons. The Lord is about to make answer to that which they had said concerning Beelzebub, and He casts upon those to whom He made answer a condition of their answering. Thus; The Law was from God and the promise of the kingdom to Israel was by the Law, but if the kingdom of the Law be divided in itself, it must needs be destroyed; and thus Israel lost the Law, when the nation whose was the Law, rejected the fulfilment of the Law in Christ. The city here spoken of is Jerusalem, which when it raged with the madness of its people against the Lord, and drove out His Apostles with the multitude of them that believed, after this division shall not stand; and thus (which soon happened in consequence of this division) the destruction of that city is declared. Again He puts another case, And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then shall his kingdom stand?
St Jerome † AD 420
As much as to say, If Satan fight against himself, and dæmon be an enemy to dæmon, then must the end of the world be at hand, that these hostile powers should have no place there, whose mutual war is peace for men.
The Gloss ord.
He holds them therefore in this dilemma. For Christ casts out dæmons either by the power of God, or by the Prince of the dæmons. If by the power of God, their accusations are malicious; if by the Prince of the dæmons, his kingdom is divided, and will not stand, and therefore let them depart out of his kingdom. And this alternative He intimates that they had chosen for themselves, when they refused to believe in Him.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
Or thus; If he is divided, he is made weak, and perishes; but if he perishes, how can he cast out another?
St Hilary † AD 367
Otherwise; If the dæmon was driven to this division to the end that he should thus afflict the dæmons, even thus must we attribute higher power to Him who made the division than to those who are thus divided; thus the kingdom of the Devil, after this division made, is destroyed by Christ.
St Jerome † AD 420
But if ye think, ye Scribes and Pharisees, that the dæmons depart out of the possessed in obedience to their Prince, that men may be imposed upon by a concerted fraud, what can ye say to the healing of diseases which the Lord also wrought? It is something more if ye assign to the dæmons even bodily infirmities, and the signs of spiritual virtues.
The Latin text
Hieronymus
Pharisaei opera Dei principi Daemoniorum deputabant; quibus dominus non ad dicta, sed ad cogitata respondit, ut vel sic compellerentur credere potentiae eius qui cordis videbat occulta: unde dicitur Iesus autem sciens cogitationes eorum, dixit eis
Chrysostomus in Matth
Superius quidem et de hoc Christum accusaverant, quia in Beelzebub eiceret Daemonia; sed tunc quidem eos non increpavit, concedens eis et a pluribus signis cognoscere eius virtutem, et a doctrina discere eius magnitudinem. Sed quia permanebant eadem dicentes, iam increpat eos, quamvis eorum accusatio valde irrationabilis esset. Invidia autem non quaerit quid dicat, sed solum ut dicat. Neque tamen Christus eos contempsit, sed respondet cum decenti mansuetudine, docens nos mites esse inimicis, et non turbari, etiam si talia dicant quae nos in nobis non recognoscimus, neque habent aliquam rationem. In quo etiam ostendit mendacia esse quae ab ipsis sunt dicta: neque enim est Daemonium habentis, tantam ostendere mansuetudinem, et cogitationes scire. Et quia valde irrationabilis erat eorum suspicio, et multitudinem timebant, non audebant publicare Christi accusationem, sed in mente volvebant: propter quod dicit sciens cogitationes eorum. Ipse autem accusationem quidem in respondendo non ponit, neque divulgat eorum nequitiam; solutionem autem inducit: studium enim eius erat prodesse peccantibus, non publicare. Non autem respondet eis a Scripturis, quia non attenderent aliter exponentes; sed a communibus opinionibus: non enim ita exteriora praelia corrumpunt, sicut ea quae interiora: hoc enim fit in corporibus, et in omnibus rebus; sed interim a magis cognitis exempla ducit, dicens omne regnum contra se divisum desolabitur. Nihil enim est in terra regno potentius; sed tamen per altercationem perit. Quid autem dicendum est de civitate, vel de domo? Sive magnum sive parvum fuerit, contra seipsum pugnans perit
Hilarius in Matth
Unde domus, et civitatis eadem est hic ratio quae est regni: propter quod sequitur et omnis civitas vel domus divisa contra se, non stabit
Hieronymus
Quomodo enim concordia parvae res crescunt, sic discordia maximae dilabuntur
Hilarius
Sermo autem Dei dives est; et vel simpliciter intellectus, vel inspectus interius, ad omnem profectum est necessarius. Relictis ergo his quae ad communem intelligentiam patent, causis interioribus immoremur. Responsurus enim dominus ad id quod de Beelzebub dictum erat, in ipsos quibus respondebat, responsionis conditionem retorsit: lex enim a Deo est, et regni Israel pollicitatio ex lege est: si regnum legis contra se dividitur, dissolvatur necesse est; et sic Israel amisit legem, quando impletionem legis in Christo plebs legis impugnat. Sed civitas hic Ierusalem indicatur, quae postquam in dominum suum furore plebis exarsit, et apostolos eius cum credentium turbis fugavit, post divisionem non stabit; atque ita (quod per hanc divisionem mox consecutum est) civitatis illius denuntiatur excidium. Deinde assumit et si Satanas Satanam eicit, adversus se divisus est: quomodo ergo stabit regnum eius?
Hieronymus
Ac si diceret: si Satanas pugnat contra se, et Daemon inimicus est Daemoni, deberet iam mundi venire consummatio; nec habent in eo locum adversariae potestates, quarum inter se bellum, pax hominum est
Glossa
Necessaria ergo complexione eos arguit. Vel enim Christus in virtute Dei Daemones eicit, vel in principe Daemoniorum. Si virtute Dei, frustra calumniantur; si in principe Daemoniorum, regnum eius divisum est nec stabit: et ideo a regno eius recedant; quod innuit sibi eos elegisse, dum in se non credunt
Chrysostomus in Matth
Vel sic: si divisus est, imbecillior factus est, et perit; si autem perit, qualiter potest alium proicere?
Hilarius in Matth
Vel aliter. Si ad divisionem suam coactus est Daemon, ut Daemones perturbaret, hinc quoque aestimandum est plus in eo qui diviserit, quam in his qui divisi sunt, esse virtutis; ergo regnum Diaboli, divisione facta, a Christo est dissolutum
Hieronymus
Si autem putatis, o Scribae et Pharisaei, quod recessio Daemonum obedientia sit in principem suum, ut homines ignorantes fraudulenta simulatione deludantur, quid potestis dicere de corporum sanitatibus quas dominus perpetravit? Aliud est, si membrorum quoque debilitates, et spiritualium virtutum insignia Daemonibus assignetis
12:27
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
After the first answer, He comes to a second more plain than the first, saying, And if I by Beelzebub cast out dæmons, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore shall they be your judges.
St Jerome † AD 420
He alludes, as is His manner, under the name children of the Jews, either to the exorcists of that race, or to the Apostles who are by race of that nation. If He means the exorcists who by the invocation of God cast out dæmons, He thus constrains the Pharisees by a wise enquiry to confess that their work was of the Holy Spirit. If, He would say, the casting out of the dæmons by your children is imputed to God, and not to dæmons, why should the same work wrought by Me not have the same cause? Therefore shall they be your judges, not by authority but by comparison, they ascribe the casting out of the dæmons to God, you to the Prince of the dæmons. But if it is of the Apostles also that this is said, (and so we should rather take it,) then they shall be their judges, for they shall sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
St Hilary † AD 367
And they are worthily appointed judges over them, to whom Christ is found to have given that power over the dæmons, which it was denied that He had.
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
Or, because the Apostles well knew within their own conscience that they had learnt no evil art from Him.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
Yet He said not, My disciples, or Apostles, but your children; that if they chose to return again to their own privileges, they might take occasion hence; but if they should be ungrateful, they might not have even an impudent excuse. And the Apostles cast out dæmons by virtue of power which they had from Him, and yet the Pharisees made no such charge against them; for it was not the actions themselves, but the person of Christ to which they were opposed. Desiring then to shew that the things which were said against Him were only jealous suspicions, He brings forward the Apostles. And also He leads them to a knowledge of Himself, shewing how they stood in the way of their own good, and resisted their own salvation; whereas they ought to be joyful because He had come to bestow great goods upon them; If I by the Spirit of God cast out dæmons, then is the kingdom of God come upon you. This also shews that it is a matter of great power to cast out dæmons, and not an ordinary grace. And thus it is He reasons, Therefore is the kingdom of God come upon you, as much as to say, If this indeed be so, then is the Son of God come upon you. But this He hints darkly, that it may not seem hard to them. Also to draw their attention, He said not merely, The kingdom hath come, but, upon you; that is to say, These good things are coming for you; why do you oppose your own salvation; for this is the very sign given by the Prophets of the presence of the Son of God, that such works as these should be wrought by Divine power.
St Jerome † AD 420
For the kingdom of God denotes Himself, of whom it is written in another place, The kingdom of God is among you; (Luke 17:21) and, There standeth one in the midst of you whom ye know not. (John 1:26) Or surely that kingdom which both John and the Lord Himself had preached above, Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. (Mat. 3:2 4:17.) There is also a third kingdom of the Holy Scripture which shall be taken from the Jews, and be given to a nation that brings forth the fruit thereof.
St Hilary † AD 367
If then the disciples work by Christ, and Christ by the Spirit of God, already is the kingdom of God transferred to the Apostles through the office of the Mediator.
The Gloss ap Anselm.
For the weakening of the kingdom of the Devil is the increase of the kingdom of God.
St Augustine † AD 430 Quæst. Ev. i. 5.
Whence the sense might be this, If I by Beelzebub vast out dæmons, then, according to your own opinion, the kingdom of God is come upon you, for the kingdom of the Devil, being thus divided against itself, cannot stand. Thus calling that the kingdom of God, in which the wicked are condemned, and are separated from the faithful, who are now doing penitence for their sins.
The Latin text
Chrysostomus in Matth
Post primam solutionem, venit ad secundam prima manifestiorem, dicens et si ego in Beelzebub eicio Daemones, filii vestri in quo eiciunt? Ideo ipsi iudices vestri erunt
Hieronymus
Filios Iudaeorum vel exorcistas gentis illius, ex more signat, vel apostolos ex eorum stirpe generatos. Si exorcistas, qui ad invocationem Dei eiciebant Daemones, coarctat Pharisaeos interrogatione prudenti, ut confiteantur spiritus sancti esse opus eorum. Quod si expulsio, inquit, Daemonum in filiis vestris, Deo, non Daemonibus deputatur, quare in me idem opus non eamdem habeat et causam? Ergo ipsi vestri iudices erunt, non potestate, sed comparatione; dum illi expulsionem Daemonum Deo assignant, vos principi Daemoniorum. Sin autem et de apostolis dictum est (quod et magis intelligere debemus), ipsi erunt iudices eorum: quia sedebunt in duodecim soliis, iudicantes duodecim tribus Israel
Hilarius in Matth
Idcirco autem digne iudices sunt in eos constituti, quibus id dedisse Christus adversus Daemones potestatis reperitur quod ipse est negatus habuisse
Rabanus Maurus
Vel quia apostoli bene sibi conscii erant, nihil malae artis se ab eo didicisse
Chrysostomus in Matth
Non autem dixit: discipuli mei, neque apostoli, sed filii vestri: ut si quidem voluerint reverti ad illorum dignitatem, multam hinc accipiant occasionem; si autem ingrati fuerint, neque inverecundam habeant excusationem. Eiciebant autem apostoli Daemones, quia acceperant potestatem ab ipso, et tamen nihil eos incusabant: non enim rebus, sed personae Christi adversabantur. Volens igitur monstrare quoniam invidiae erant quae dicebantur de ipso, apostolos in medium ducit. Rursus autem ad sui cognitionem inducit eos, demonstrans quoniam propriis adversantur bonis, et contrariantur suae saluti; cum deceret eos laetari, quod magna bona illis advenerat donaturus; unde sequitur si autem ego in spiritu Dei eicio Daemones, igitur pervenit in vos regnum Dei. Per hoc autem demonstrat quod magnae virtutis opus est Daemones eicere, et non cuiuslibet gratia. Et ob hoc quidem syllogizat dicens ergo pervenit in vos regnum Dei; ac si dicat: si hoc est, profecto filius Dei advenit. Hoc autem obumbrate dicit, ut non illis sit grave. Deinde ut illos alliciat, non dixit simpliciter pervenit regnum, sed in vos; quasi dicat: vobis veniunt bona: propter quid vestram impugnatis salutem? Hoc enim est signum a prophetis traditum praesentiae filii Dei, tanta fieri potestate divina
Hieronymus
Regnum enim Dei seipsum signat, de quo in alio loco scriptum est: regnum Dei intra vos est; et: medius stat intra vos quem nescitis. Vel certe illud regnum quod et Ioannes et ipse dominus praedicaverant: poenitentiam agite: appropinquabit enim regnum caelorum. Est et tertium regnum Scripturae sanctae, quod auferetur a Iudaeis, et tradetur genti facienti fructus eius
Hilarius in Matth
Si ergo discipuli operantur per Christum, et ex spiritu Dei Christus operatur, adest regnum Dei iam in apostolos mediatoris officio transfusum. Diminutio etiam regni Diaboli, est augmentatio regni Dei
Augustinus de quaest. Evang
Unde potest etiam hic esse sensus: si ego in Beelzebub eicio Daemones, etiam secundum vestram sententiam pervenit in vos regnum Dei: quia regnum Diaboli stare non potest, quem adversum se divisum fatemini. Regnum enim Dei nunc dixit quo damnantur impii, et a fidelibus de peccatis suis poenitentiam nunc agentibus decernuntur
12:29
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
Having concluded the second answer, He brings forward yet a third, saying, Or how can any enter into a strong man’s house? For that Satan cannot cast out Satan is clear from what has been said; and that no other can cast him out, till he have first overcome him, is plain to all. Thus the same as before is established yet more abundantly; for He says, So far am I from having the Devil for my ally, that I rather am at war with him, and bind him; and in that I cast out after this sort, I therein spoil his goods. Thus He proves the very contrary of that they strove to establish. They would shew that He did not cast out dæmons of His own power; He proves that not only dæmons, yea but the prince also of the dæmons He hath bound, as is shewn by that which He hath wrought. For if their Prince were not overcome, how were the dæmons who are His subjects thus spoiled. This speech seems also to me to be a prophecy; inasmuch as He not only casts out dæmons, but will take away all error out of the world, and dissolve the craft of the Devil; and He says not rob, but spoil, shewing that He will do it with power.
St Jerome † AD 420
His house is this world, which is set in evil, not by the majesty of the Creator, but by the greatness of the sinner. The strong man is bound and chained in tartarus, bruised by the Lord’s foot. Yet ought we not therefore to be careless; for here the conqueror Himself pronounces our adversary to be strong.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
He calls him strong, shewing therein his old reign, which arose out of our sloth.
St Augustine † AD 430 ubi sup.
For he held us, that we should not by our own strength be able to free ourselves from him, but by the grace of God. By his goods, he means all the unbelievers. He has bound the strong man, in that He has taken away from him all power of hindering the faithful from following Christ, and gaining the kingdom of heaven.
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
Therefore He has spoiled his house, in that them whom He foresaw should be His own, He set free from the snares of the Devil, and has joined to the Church. Or in that He has divided the whole world among His Apostles and their successors to be converted. By this plain parable therefore He shews that He does not join in a deceitful working with the dæmons as they falsely accused Him, but by the might of His divinity He frees men from the dæmons.
The Latin text
Chrysostomus in Matth
Posita secunda solutione, inducit et tertiam, dicens aut quomodo potest quisquam intrare in domum fortis? Quod enim non potest Satanas Satanam eicere, manifestum ex dictis est. Sed quoniam neque alius potest eum eicere nisi prius eum superaverit, omnibus est manifestum. Constituitur ergo quod et antea ex manifestiori abundantia: dicit enim: tantum absisto ab hoc quod utar Diabolo coadiutore, quod praelier cum eo et ligem eum: et huiusmodi coniectura est quod vasa eius diripio. Et sic contrarium eius quod illi tentabant dicere, demonstrat. Illi enim volebant ostendere quod non propria virtute eicit Daemones, ipse autem ostendit quod non solum Daemones, sed et eorum principem ligavit: quod manifestum est ab his quae facta sunt. Qualiter enim principe non victo, hi qui subiacent Daemones direpti sunt? Hoc autem mihi prophetia videtur esse, quod dicitur: non enim solum Daemones eicit, sed et errorem universi orbis terrarum abiget et machinationem Diaboli dissolvet. Et non dixit: rapiet, sed diripiet, ostendens quod hoc cum potestate fiat
Hieronymus
Domus illius mundus est, in maligno positus, non creatoris dignitate, sed magnitudine delinquentis. Alligatus est fortis, et religatus in Tartarum, et domini pede contritus. Non autem debemus esse securi: adversarius noster fortis victoris quoque vocibus comprobatur
Chrysostomus in Matth
Fortem autem eum vocat, antiquam eius ostendens tyrannidem, quae ex nostra desidia orta est
Augustinus de quaest. Evang
Quos scilicet ipse tenebat, ne possent viribus suis ab illo se homines eruere, sed per gratiam Dei. Vasa eius dicit omnes infideles. Alligavit autem fortem, quia potestatem illi ademit impediendi voluntatem fidelium a sequendo Christo et obtinendo regno Dei
Rabanus Maurus
Domum ergo eius diripuit; quia ereptos a Diaboli laqueis eos quos suos esse praevidit, Ecclesiae adunavit; vel quia omnes mundi partes apostolis et eorum successoribus convertendas distribuit. Ostendit igitur per manifestam parabolam, dicens, quia non concordat in fallaci operatione cum Daemonibus ut calumniabantur, sed virtute divinitatis homines a Daemonibus liberavit
12:30
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
After that third reply, here follows a fourth, He that is not with me is against me.
St Hilary † AD 367
Wherein He shews how far He is from having borrowed any power from the Devil; teaching us how great the danger to think amiss of Him, not to be with Whom, is the same as to be against Him.
St Jerome † AD 420
But let none think that this is said of heretics and schismatics; though we may apply it besides to such; but it is shewn by the context to refer to the Devil; in that the works of the Saviour cannot be compared with the works of Beelzebub. He seeks to hold men’s souls in captivity, the Lord to set them free; he preaches idols, the Lord the knowledge of the true God; he draws men to sin, the Lord calls them back to virtues. How then can these have agreement together, whose works are so opposite?
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
Therefore whoso gathereth not with me, nor is with me, may not be compared together with me, that with me he should cast out dæmons, but rather seeks to scatter what is mine. But tell me; If you were to have fought together with some one, and he should not be willing to come to your aid, is he not therefore against you? The Lord also Himself said in another place, He that is not against you is for you. (Luke 9:50) To which that which is here said is not contrary. For here He is speaking of the Devil who is our adversary—there of some man who was on their side, of whom it is said, We saw one casting out dæmons in thy name. Here He seems to allude to the Jews, classing them with the Devil; for they were against Him, and scattered what He would gather. But it is fair to allow that He spoke this of Himself; for He was against the Devil, and scattered abroad the things of the Devil.
The Latin text
Chrysostomus in Matth
Posita tertia solutione, hic ponit quartam, dicens qui non est mecum, contra me est
Hilarius in Matth
In quo ostendit longe a se esse ut aliquid a Diabolo mutuatus sit potestatis; et ex hoc ingentis periculi res intelligitur male de eo opinari, cum quo non esse, idipsum est quod contra esse
Hieronymus
Non tamen putet hoc quisquam de haereticis dictum et schismaticis; quamquam et ita ex superfluo posset intelligi; sed ex consequentibus textuque sermonis ad Diabolum refertur, eo quod non possint opera salvatoris Beelzebub operibus comparari. Ille cupit animas hominum tenere captivas, dominus liberare; ille praedicat idola, hic unius Dei notitiam; ille trahit ad vitia, hic revocat ad virtutes. Quomodo ergo possunt inter se habere concordiam quorum opera sunt diversa?
Chrysostomus in Matth
Qui ergo non mecum congregat, neque mecum est, non erit mihi comparandus, ut mecum Daemones eiciat: sed magis desiderat quae mea sunt spargere. Sed dic mihi: si oportuerit cum aliquo praeliari, qui non vult tibi auxiliari, hoc ipso non est adversum te? Ipse etiam dominus alio loco dixit: qui non est adversum vos, pro vobis est. Sed non est contrarium hoc quod hic dicitur. Hic enim loquitur de Diabolo adversario existente, ibi autem de homine qui in parte erat cum eis, de quo dictum erat: vidimus quemdam in nomine tuo eicientem Daemonia. Videtur autem Iudaeos hic occulte insinuare, cum Diabolo statuens eos: ipsi enim adversus eum erant, et spargebant quae ipse congregabat. Sed et decens est credere hoc de seipso dixisse: quia adversus Diabolum erat, et quae illius sunt dispergebat
12:31
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
The Lord had refuted the Pharisees by explaining His own actions, and He now proceeds to terrify them. For this is no small part of correction, to threaten punishment, as well as to set right false accusation.
St Hilary † AD 367
He condemns by a most rigorous sentence this opinion of the Pharisees, and of such as thought with them, promising pardon for all sins, but refusing it to blasphemy against the Spirit; Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men.
Remigius † AD 908
But it should be known that they are not forgiven to all men universally, but to such only as have performed due penitence for their guiltinesses. So by these words is overthrown the error of Novatian, who said that the faithful could not rise by penitence after a fall, nor merit pardon of their sins, especially they who in persecution deniedb.
St Augustine † AD 430 Serm. 71. 13.
For what difference does it make to the purpose, whether it be said, The spirit of blasphemy shall not be forgiven, or, Whose shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit it shall not be forgiven him. (Luke 12:10) as Luke speaks; except that the same sense is expressed more clearly in the one place than in the other, the one Evangelist not overthrowing but explaining the other? The spirit of blasphemy it is said shortly, not expressing what spirit; to make which clear it is added, And whoso shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him. After having said the same of all manner of blasphemy, He would in a more particular way speak of that blasphemy which is against the Son of Man, and which in the Gospel according to John He shews to be very heavy, where He says concerning the Holy Ghost, He shall convince the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment; of sin, because they believe not on me. That then which here follows, He who shall speak a word against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in that which is to come, is not said because the Holy Spirit is in the Trinity greater than the Son, which no heretic ever affirmed.
St Hilary † AD 367
And what is so beyond all pardon as to deny that in Christ which is of God, and to take away the substance of the Father’s Spirit which is in Him, seeing that He performs every work in the Spirit of God, and in Him God is reconciling the world unto Himself.
St Jerome † AD 420
Or the passage may be thus understood; Whoso speaks a word against the Son of Man, as stumbling at My flesh, and thinking of Me as no more than man, such opinion and blasphemy though it is not free from the sin of heresy, yet finds pardon because of the little worth of the body. But whoso plainly perceiving the works of God, and being unable to deny the power of God, speaks falsely against them prompted by jealousy, and calls Christ who is the Word of God, and the works of the Holy Ghost, Beelzebub, to him it shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.
St Augustine † AD 430 ubi sup.
But if this were said in such manner, then every other kind of blasphemy is omitted, and that only which is spoken against the Son of Man, as when He is pronounced to be mere man, is to be forgiven. That then that is said, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, without doubt blasphemy spoken against the Father is included in its largeness; though here again that alone is declared irremissible which is spoken against the Holy Ghost. What then, hath the Father also taken upon Him the form of a servant, that the Holy Ghost is thus as it were spoken of as greater? For who could not be convicted of having spoken a word against the Holy Spirit, before He become a Christian or a Catholic? First, the Pagans themselves when they say that Christ wrought miracles by magic arts, are they not like those who said that He cast out dæmons by the Prince of the dæmons? Likewise the Jews and all such heretics as confess the Holy Spirit, but deny that He is in the body of Christ, which is the Church Catholic, are like the Pharisees, who denied that the Holy Spirit was in Christ. Some heretics even contend that the Holy Spirit Himself is either a creature, as the Arians, Eunomians, and Macedonians, or deny Him at least in such sort that they may deny the Trinity in the Godhead; others assert that the Father alone is God, and the same is sometimes spoken of as the Son, sometimes as the Holy Spirit, as the Sabellians. The Photinians also say, that the Father only is God, and that the Son is nothing more than a man, and deny altogether that there is any third Person, the Holy Spirit. It is clear then that the Holy Spirit is blasphemed, both by Pagans, Jews, and heretics. Are all such then to be left out, and looked upon as having no hope? For if the word they have spoken against the Holy Spirit is not forgiven them, then in vain is the promise made to them, that in Baptism or in the Church, they should receive the forgiveness of their sins. For it is not said, ‘It shall not be forgiven him in Baptism;’ but, Neither in this world, nor in the world to come; and so they alone are to be supposed clear of the guilt of this most heavy sin who have been Catholics from their infancy. Some again think that they only sin against the Holy Ghost, who having been washed in the laver of regeneration in the Church, do afterwards, as though ungrateful for such a gift of the Saviour, plunge themselves into some deadly sin, such as adultery, murder, or quitting the Christian name, or the Church Catholic. But whence this meaning can be proved, I know not; since place for penitence of sins however great was never denied in the Church, and even heretics are exhorted to embrace it by the Apostle. If God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth. (2 Tim. 2:25.) Lastly, the Lord says not, ‘If any Catholic believer,’ but, Whoso shall speak a word, that is, whosoever, it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world, nor in the world to come.
St Augustine † AD 430 Serm. in Mont. 1.22.
Otherwise, The Apostle John says, There is a sin unto death; I do not say that he shall pray for it. This sin of the brother unto death I judge to be, when any one having come to the knowledge of God, through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, opposes Himself against the brotherhood, or is roused by the fury of jealousy against that grace by which he was reconciled to God. (1 John 5:16) The stain of this sin is so great, that it may not submit to the humility of prayer, even when the sinful conscience is driven to acknowledge and proclaim its own sin. Which state of mind because of the greatness of their sin we must suppose some may be brought to; and this perhaps may be to sin against the Holy Ghost, that is through malice and jealousy to assail brotherly charity after having received the grace of the Holy Spirit; and this sin the Lord declares shall be forgiven neither in this world, nor in that to come. Whence it may be enquired whether the Jews sinned this sin against the Holy Ghost when they said that the Lord cast out dæmons by Beelzebub the Prince of the dæmons. Are we to suppose this spoken of our Lord Himself, because He said in another place, If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more they of his household? (Mat. 10:24) Seeing they thus spoke out of jealousy, ungrateful for so great present benefits, are they, though not Christians, to be supposed by the very greatness of that jealousy to have sinned the sin against the Holy Spirit? This cannot be gathered from the Lord’s words. Yet He may seem to have warned them that they should come to grace, and that after that grace received they should not sin as they now sinned. For now their evil word had been spoken against the Son of Man, but it might be forgiven them, if they should be converted, and believe on Him. But if after they had received the Holy Spirit, they should be jealous against the brotherhood, and should fight against that grace which they had received, it should not be forgiven them neither in this world, nor in the world to come. For if He had there condemned them in such sort that no hope remained for them, He would not have added au admonition, Either make the tree good, &c.
St Augustine † AD 430 Retract. i. 19.
But I do not affirm this for certain, by saying that I think thus; yet thus much might have been added; If he should close this life in this impious hardness of heart, yet since we may not utterly despair of any however evil, so long as he is in this life, so neither is it unreasonable to pray for him of whom we do not despair.
St Augustine † AD 430 Serm. 71. 8.
Yet is this enquiry very mysterious. Let us then seek the light of exposition from the Lord. I say unto you, beloved, that in all Holy Scripture there is not perhaps so great or so difficult a question as this. First then I request you to note that the Lord said not, Every blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven, nor, Whoso shall speak any word against—but, Whoso shall speak the word. Wherefore it is not necessary to think that every blasphemy and every word spoken against the Holy Spirit shall be without pardon; it is only necessary that there be some word which if spoken against the Holy Spirit shall be without pardon. For such is the manner of Scripture, that when any thing is so declared in it as that it is not declared whether it is said of the whole, or a part, it is not necessary that because it can apply to the whole, it therefore is not to be understood of the part. As when the Lord said to the Jews, If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin, (John 15:22) this does not mean that the Jews would have been altogether without sin, but that there was a sin they would not have had, if Christ had not come. What then is this manner of speaking against the Holy Ghost, comes now to be explained. Now in the Father is represented to us the Author of all things, in the Son birth, in the Holy Spirit community of the Father and the Son. What then is common to the Father and the Son, through that they would have us have communion among ourselves and with them; The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which he hath given us, (Rom. 5:5) and because by our sins we were alienated, from the possession of true goods, Charity shall cover the multitude of sins. (1 Pet. 4:8) And for that Christ forgives sins through the Holy Spirit, hence may be understood how, when He said to his disciples, Receive ye the Holy Spirit, (John 20:22) He subjoined straight, Whosesoever sins ye forgive, they shall be forgiven them. The first benefit therefore of them that believe is forgiveness of sins in the Holy Spirit. Against this gift of free grace the impenitent heart speaks; impenitence itself therefore is the blasphemy against the Spirit which shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, nor in that to come. For indeed he speaks the evil word against the Holy Spirit either in his thought, or with his tongue, who by his hard and impenitent heart treasures up for himself wrath against the day of wrath. Such impenitence truly has no forgiveness, neither in this world nor in the world to come, for penitence obtains forgiveness in this world which shall hold in the world to come. But that impenitence as long as any lives in the flesh may not be judged, for we must despair of none so long as the patience of God leads to repentance. For what if those whom you discover in any manner of sin, and condemn as most desperate, should before they close this life betake themselves to penitence, and find true life in the world to come? But this kind of blasphemy though it be long, and comprised in many words, yet the Scripture is wont to speak of many words as one word. It was more than a single word which the Lord spoke with the prophet, and yet we read, The word which came unto this or that prophet. Here perhaps some may enquire whether the Holy Spirit only forgives sins, or the Father and the Son likewise. We answer the Father and the Son likewise; for the Son Himself saith of the Father, Your Father shall forgive you your sins, (Mat. 6:14) and He saith of Himself, The Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins. (Mat. 9:6) Why then is that impenitence which is never forgiven, spoken of as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit only? Forasmuch as he who falls under this sin of impenitence seems to resist the gift of the Holy Spirit, because in that gift is conveyed remission of sin. But sins, because they are not remitted out of the Church, must be remitted in that Spirit by which the Church is gathered into one. Thus this remission of sins which is given by the whole Trinity is said to be the proper office of the Holy Spirit alone, for it is He, The Spirit of adoption, in which we cry, Abba Father, (Rom. 8:15) so that to Him we may pray, Forgive us our sins; And hereby we know, speaks John, that Christ abideth in us, by the Holy Spirit which He hath given unto us. (1 John 4:13) For to Him belongs that bond by which we are made one body of the only-begotten Son of God; for the Holy Spirit Himself is in a manner the bond of the Father and the Son. Whosoever then shall be found guilty of impenitence against the Holy Spirit, in whom the Church is gathered together in unity and one bond of communion, it is never remitted to him.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
Otherwise according to the first exposition. The Jews were indeed ignorant of Christ, but of the Holy Ghost they had had a sufficient communication, for the Prophets spake by Him. What He here saith then is this; Be it that ye have stumbled at Me because of the flesh which is around Me; but can ye in the same manner say of the Holy Spirit, We know Him not? Wherefore this blasphemy cannot be forgiven you, and ye shall be punished both here and hereafter, for since to cast out dæmons and to heal diseases are of the Holy Spirit, you do not speak evil against Me only, but also against Him; and so your condemnation is inevitable both here and hereafter. For there are who are punished in this life only; as they who among the Corinthians were unworthy partakers of the mysteries; others who are punished only in the life to come, as the rich man in hell; but those here spoken of are to be punished both in this world, and in the world to come, as were the Jews, who suffered horrible things in the taking of Jerusalem, and shall there undergo most heavy punishment.
The Gloss ap. Anselm. vid. infra in cap. 25. 46.
This passage destroys that heresy of Origen, who asserted that after many ages all sinners should obtain pardon; for it is here said, this shall not be forgiven either in this world, or in the world to come.
St Gregory the Great † AD 604 Dial. iv. 39.
Hence we may gather that there are some sins that are remitted in this world, and some in the world to come; for what is denied of one sin, must be supposed to be admitted of others. And this may be believed in the case of trifling faults; such as much idle discourse, immoderate laughter, or the sin of carefulness in our worldly affairs, which indeed can hardly be managed without sin even by one who knows how he ought to avoid sin; or sins through ignorance (if they be lesser sins) which burden us even after death, if they have not been remitted to us while yet in this life. But it should be known that none will there obtain any purgation even of the least sin, but he who by good actions has merited the same in this life.
The Latin text
Chrysostomus in Matth
Quia dominus Pharisaeis excusando respondebat, iam eos terret. Est enim hoc correctionis non parva pars, non solum excusando respondere, sed et comminari
Hilarius in Matth
Pharisaeorum enim sententiam, et eorum qui ita cum his sentiunt, perversitatem severissima definitione condemnat; peccatorum omnium veniam promittens, et blasphemiae spiritus indulgentiam abnegans: ideo dico vobis: omne peccatum et blasphemia remittetur hominibus
Remigius
Sciendum est tamen, quod non passim quibuscumque dimittuntur; sed illis qui pro suis reatibus dignam poenitentiam egerint. Destruitur autem his verbis error Novatiani, qui dicebat, quod fideles post lapsum per poenitentiam non possunt surgere, neque peccatorum suorum veniam promereri; maxime illi qui in persecutione positi negabant. Sequitur spiritus autem blasphemiae non remittetur
Augustinus de Verb. Dom
Quid enim interest ad rem utrum dicatur spiritus blasphemiae non remittetur, an dicatur: qui blasphemaverit in spiritum sanctum, non ei remittetur, ut Lucas dicit, nisi forte quod eadem sententia apertius isto modo quam illo dicitur; et alium Evangelistam non destruit alius, sed exponit? Spiritus enim blasphemiae clause dictum est, quia non est expressum cuius spiritus; et ideo ad huiusmodi expositionem subditur et quicumque dixerit verbum contra filium hominis, remittetur ei. Ideo post universalem commemorationem omnis blasphemiae, eminentius voluit exprimere blasphemiam quae dicitur contra filium hominis, quam in Evangelio secundum Ioannem valde gravem ostendit, ubi ait de spiritu sancto: ille arguet mundum de peccato, de iustitia, et de iudicio: de peccato quidem, quia non credunt in me. Sequitur qui autem dixerit contra spiritum sanctum verbum, non remittetur ei neque in hoc saeculo neque in futuro. Non ergo hoc dicitur propterea quia in Trinitate maior est filio spiritus sanctus: quod nullus unquam vel haereticus dixit
Hilarius in Matth
Quid autem tam extra veniam est quam in Christo negare quod Dei est, et consistentem in eo paterni spiritus substantiam adimere, cum in spiritu Dei omne opus consummet, et in eo Deus sit mundum reconcilians sibi?
Hieronymus
Vel ita locus iste est intelligendus. Qui verbum dixerit contra filium hominis, scandalizatus carne mea, et me hominem tantum arbitrans; talis opinio atque blasphemia, quamquam culpa non careat erroris, tamen habet veniam propter corporis vilitatem. Qui autem manifeste intelligens opera Dei, cum Dei virtutem negare non possit, eadem calumniatur stimulatus invidia, et Christum Dei verbum et opera spiritus sancti dicit esse Beelzebub, isti non remittitur neque in hoc saeculo, neque in futuro
Augustinus de Verb. Dom
Sed si hoc propterea dictum esset, profecto de omni blasphemia taceretur, et haec sola remissibilis videretur quae contra filium hominis dicitur, quasi cum homo solum putatur. Cum vero praemissum sit omne peccatum et blasphemia remittetur hominibus, proculdubio et illa blasphemia quae contra patrem dicitur, ista generalitate concluditur; et tamen haec sola irremissibilis definitur quae dicitur contra spiritum sanctum. Numquidnam et pater formam servi accepit, quasi sit maior spiritus sanctus? Quis etiam non convincitur dixisse verbum contra spiritum sanctum antequam Christianus vel Catholicus fieret? Primo ipsi Pagani, cum dicunt Christum magicis artibus fecisse miracula, nonne similes sunt his qui dixerunt eum in principe Daemoniorum eiecisse Daemonia? Iudaei etiam, et quicumque haeretici qui spiritum sanctum confitentur, sed negant eum esse in corpore Christi, quod est Ecclesia Catholica, similes sunt Pharisaeis, qui negabant spiritum sanctum esse in Christo. Quidam etiam haeretici ipsum spiritum sanctum vel creaturam esse contendunt, sicut Ariani, Eunomiani et Macedoniani; vel eum prorsus ita negant ut Deum negent esse Trinitatem; sed solum patrem esse Deum asseverant; et ipsum aliquando vocari filium, aliquando spiritum sanctum, sicut Sabelliani. Photiniani quoque patrem solum esse dicentes Deum, filium vero non nisi hominem, negant omnino tertiam esse personam spiritum sanctum. Manifestum est igitur, a Paganis, Iudaeis et haereticis blasphemari spiritum sanctum. Numquid ergo deserendi sunt, et sine ulla spe deputandi? Quibus si non est dimissum verbum quod dixerunt contra spiritum sanctum, inaniter eis promittitur quod in Baptismo sive in Ecclesia remissionem accipiant peccatorum. Non enim dictum est: non remittetur ei in Baptismo; sed neque in hoc saeculo neque in futuro: et sic illi soli aestimandi sunt ab huiusmodi gravissimi peccati reatu liberi qui ab infantia sunt Catholici. Nonnullis autem videtur eos tantummodo peccare in spiritum sanctum qui lavacro regenerationis abluti in Ecclesia, et accepto spiritu sancto, velut tanto postea dono salvatoris ingrati, mortifero aliquo peccato se immerserunt; qualia sunt vel adulteria, vel homicidia, vel ipsa discessio a nomine Christiano, sive Catholica Ecclesia. Sed iste sensus unde probari possit ignoro; cum et poenitentiae quorumcumque criminum locus in Ecclesia non negetur, et ipsos haereticos ad hoc utique corripiendos dicat apostolus: ne forte det illis Deus poenitentiam ad cognoscendam veritatem. Postremo non ait dominus: qui fidelis Catholicus dixerit verbum contra spiritum sanctum; sed qui dixerit, hoc est quicumque dixerit, non remittetur ei neque in hoc saeculo neque in futuro
Augustinus de Serm. Dom
Vel aliter. Dicit Ioannes apostolus: est peccatum ad mortem, non pro eo dico, ut roget quis. Peccatum autem fratris ad mortem dico esse, cum post Dei agnitionem per gratiam domini nostri Iesu Christi quisquam oppugnat fraternitatem, aut adversus ipsam gratiam qua reconciliatus est Deo, invidentiae facibus agitatur. Huius peccati tanta labes est ut deprecandi humilitatem subire non possit, etiam si peccatum suum mala conscientia et agnoscere et annuntiare cogatur. Quam mentis affectionem propter peccati magnitudinem iam de damnatione aliquos habere credendum est: et hoc fortasse est peccare in spiritum sanctum; idest, per malitiam et invidiam, fraternam impugnare caritatem, post acceptam gratiam spiritus sancti; quod peccatum dominus neque hic, neque in futuro saeculo dimitti dicit. Unde quaeri potest utrum in spiritum sanctum Iudaei peccaverint, quando dixerunt, quod in Beelzebub principe Daemoniorum dominus Daemonia expellebat. Utrum enim hoc in ipsum dominum dictum accipiamus, quia de se dicit alio loco: si patremfamilias Beelzebub vocaverunt, quanto magis domesticos eius? An quoniam de magna invidentia dixerant, ingrati tam praesentibus beneficiis, quamvis nondum Christiani fuerint, tamen propter ipsam invidentiae magnitudinem in spiritum sanctum peccasse credendi sunt? Non enim hoc colligitur de verbis domini. Videri tamen potest adhuc eos monuisse, ut accedant ad gratiam, et post acceptam gratiam non ita peccent ut nunc peccaverunt. Neque enim in filium hominis dixerunt verbum nequam; et potest eis dimitti, si conversi fuerint et ei crediderint. Si autem postquam spiritum sanctum acceperint, fraternitati invidere, et gratiam quam acceperunt, oppugnare voluerint, non eis dimittitur neque in hoc saeculo, neque in futuro. Nam si eos sic haberet condemnatos ut nulla spes reliqua illis esset, non adhuc monendo indicaret, cum addidit dicens aut facite arborem bonam
, et cetera. Augustinus in Lib. Retract
Hoc autem non confirmavi, quia hoc putare me dixi; sed tamen addendum fuit: si in hac tamen scelerata mentis perversitate finierit hanc vitam: quoniam de quocumque pessimo in hac vita constituto non est utique desperandum; nec pro illo imprudenter oratur de quo non desperatur
Augustinus de Verb. Dom
Est autem magnum secretum huius quaestionis. Lumen ergo expositionis a domino quaeratur. Dico autem caritati vestrae, forte in omnibus Scripturis sanctis nulla maior quaestio, nulla difficilior invenitur. Prius ergo ut advertatis admoneo, non dixisse dominum: omnis blasphemia spiritus non remittetur; neque dixisse: qui dixerit quodcumque verbum contra spiritum sanctum; sed qui dixerit verbum. Quapropter non est necesse ut omnem blasphemiam et omne verbum quod dicitur contra spiritum sanctum, remissionem quisquam existimet non habere; sed necesse est plane ut sit aliquod verbum quod si dicatur contra spiritum sanctum, nullam remissionem mereatur. Solent enim Scripturae ita loqui, ut quando aliquid sic dicitur ut neque ex toto, neque ex parte dictum sit, non sit necesse ut ex toto fieri possit, ut ex parte non intelligatur: sicut cum dominus dixit Iudaeis: si non venissem, et locutus eis non fuissem, peccatum non haberent. Non enim ita dictum est ut sine ullo omnino peccato vellet intelligi futuros fuisse Iudaeos; sed esse aliquod peccatum quod non haberent nisi Christus venisset. Quis autem sit iste modus contra spiritum sanctum, ordo postulat ut dicamus. Insinuatur siquidem nobis in patre auctoritas, in filio nativitas, in spiritu sancto patris filiique communitas. Quod ergo commune est patri et filio et per hoc nos voluerunt habere communionem et inter nos et secum. Caritas enim Dei diffusa est in cordibus nostris per spiritum sanctum qui datus est nobis, et quia peccatis alienabamur a possessione bonorum verorum, caritas operit multitudinem peccatorum. Quod enim Christus in spiritu sancto peccata dimittat, hinc intelligi potest quod cum dixisset discipulis: accipite spiritum sanctum, continuo subiecit: si cui dimiseritis peccata, dimittentur illis. Primum itaque credentium beneficium est in spiritu sancto remissio peccatorum. Contra hoc donum gratuitum loquitur cor impoenitens: ipsa ergo impoenitentia est spiritus blasphemiae; quae non remittetur neque in hoc saeculo, neque in futuro. Contra enim spiritum sanctum, quo peccata dimittuntur, verbum valde malum, sive cogitatione sive lingua sua dicit qui secundum duritiam cordis sui et cor impoenitens thesaurizat sibi iram in die irae. Haec omnino impoenitentia non habet remissionem neque in hoc saeculo, neque in futuro: quia poenitentia impetrat remissionem in hoc saeculo, quae valeat in futuro. Sed ista impoenitentia, quamdiu quisque in hac carne vivit, non potest iudicari: de nullo enim desperandum est quamdiu patientia Dei ad poenitentiam adducit. Quid enim, si isti quos in quocumque genere erroris notas et tamquam desperatissimos damnas, antequam istam vitam finiant, agant poenitentiam et inveniant veram vitam in futuro? Haec autem blasphemia, quamvis prolixa, et pluribus verbis contexta sit, solet tamen Scriptura etiam multa verba verbum appellare: neque enim unum verbum locutus est dominus cum propheta; et tamen legitur: verbum quod factum est ad illum, vel ad illum prophetam. Hic autem fortassis aliquis quaerat utrum tantummodo spiritus sanctus peccata dimittat, an et pater et filius. Respondemus, quia et pater et filius: ipse enim filius de patre dicit: dimittet vobis pater vester peccata vestra; et de se ait: filius hominis potestatem habet in terra dimittendi peccata. Cur ergo illa impoenitentia quae numquam dimittitur, solum ad spiritus sancti blasphemiam dicitur pertinere? Tamquam ille qui in hoc impoenitentiae peccato fuerit obligatus, dono spiritus sancti resistere videatur, quod eo dono fiat remissio peccatorum. Sed peccata, quia praeter Ecclesiam non dimittuntur, in eo spiritu dimitti oportebat quo in unum Ecclesia congregatur. Remissio ergo peccatorum, quam tota Trinitas facit, proprie ad spiritum sanctum dicitur pertinere: ipse enim est spiritus adoptionis filiorum, in quo clamamus: abba pater, ut ei possimus dicere: dimitte nobis debita nostra. Et hinc cognoscimus, sicut dicit Ioannes, quoniam Christus manet in nobis, de spiritu sancto quem dedit nobis. Ad ipsum etiam pertinet societas qua efficimur unum corpus unici filii Dei: quia quodammodo societas patris et filii est ipse spiritus sanctus. Quisquis ergo reus fuerit impoenitentiae contra spiritum sanctum in quo unitas et societas communionis congregatur Ecclesiae, numquam illi remittitur
Chrysostomus in Matth
Vel aliter secundum primam expositionem: Iudaei quidem ignorabant Christum quis esset; spiritus autem sancti sufficiens acceperunt experimentum; etenim prophetae per eum locuti sunt. Quod ergo dicit hoc est: esto quia me offendistis propter carnem circumpositam; numquid et de spiritu sancto habetis dicere: quoniam ignoramus eum? Propter hoc non ignoscibilis est vobis haec blasphemia, et hic et illic dabitis vindictam; quia enim Daemones eicere et sanitates perficere spiritus sancti est: non ergo mihi contumelias infertis solum, sed spiritui sancto; ideoque vobis inevitabilis erit condemnatio et hic et illic. Etenim hominum hi quidem hic solum puniuntur, sicut qui indigni participaverunt mysteriis apud Corinthios; hi autem illic solum, sicut dives in Inferno; hi autem hic et illic, sicut et ipsi Iudaei, qui et hic intolerabilia passi sunt, Ierusalem capta, et ibi difficillimam sustinent poenam
Rabanus Maurus
In hac autem auctoritate extinguitur haeresis Origenis, qui asserit, post multa saecula omnes peccatores veniam consecuturos; quae refellitur per hoc quod dicitur, quod non remittetur neque in hoc saeculo, neque in futuro
Gregorius in dialogo
Datur enim intelligi quasdam culpas in hoc saeculo, quasdam vero in futuro relaxari: quod enim de uno negatur, de quibusdam conceditur. Sed tamen hoc de parvis minimisque peccatis fieri posse credendum est; sicut est assiduus otiosus sermo, immoderatus risus, vel peccatum curae rei familiaris, quae vix sine culpa vel ab ipsis agitur qui culpam qualiter debeant declinare sciunt; aut in non gravibus culpis error ignorantiae, quae etiam post mortem gravant, si nobis in hac vita adhuc positis minime fuerint relaxata. Hoc tamen sciendum est, quia illic saltem de minimis nil quisque purgationis obtinebit nisi qui hoc bonis actibus in hac vita positus ut obtineat, promeretur
12:33
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. xlii.
After his former answers He here again refutes them in another manner. This He does not in order to do away their charges against Himself, but desiring to amend them, saying, Either make the tree good and his fruit good, or make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt. As much as to say, None of you has said that it is an evil thing for a man to be delivered from dæmons. But because they did not speak evil of the works, but said that it was the Devil that wrought them, He shews that this charge is contrary to the common sense of things, and human conceptions. And to invent such charges can only proceed from unbounded impudence.
St Jerome † AD 420
Thus He holds them in a syllogism which the Greeks call ‘Aphycton,’ the unavoidable; which shuts in the person questioned on both sides, and presses him with either horn. If, He saith, the Devil be evil, he cannot do good works; so that if the works you see be good, it follows that the Devil was not the agent thereof. For it cannot be that good should come of evil, or evil of good.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
For the discerning of a tree is done by its fruits, not the fruits by the tree. A tree is known by its fruits. For though the tree is the cause of the fruit, yet the fruit is the evidence of the tree. But ye do the very contrary, having no fault to allege against the works, ye pass a sentence of evil against the tree, saying that I have a dæmon.
St Hilary † AD 367
Thus did He at that present refute the Jews, who seeing Christ’s works to be of power more than human, would notwithstanding not allow the hand of God. And at the same time He convicts all future errors of the faith, such as that of those who taking away from the Lord His divinity, and communion of the Father’s substance, have fallen into divers heresies; having their habitation neither under the plea of ignorance as the Gentiles, nor yet within the knowledge of the truth. He figures Himself as a tree set in the body, seeing that through the inward fruitfulness of His power sprung forth abundant richness of fruit. Therefore either must be made a good tree with good fruits, or an evil tree with evil fruits; not that a good tree is to be made a bad tree, or the reverse; but that in this metaphor we may understand that Christ is either to be left in fruitlessness, or to be retained in the fruitfulness of good works. But to hold one’s self neuter, to attribute some things to Christ, but to deny Him those things that are highest, to worship Him as God, and yet to deny Him a common substance with the Father, is blasphemy against the Spirit. In admiration of His so great works you dare not take away the name of God, yet through malevolence of soul you debase His high nature by denying His participation of the Father’s substance.
St Augustine † AD 430 Serm. 72. 1.
Or this is an admonition to ourselves that we should be good trees that we may be able to bring forth good fruit; Make the tree good, and its fruit good, is a precept of health to which obedience is necessary. But what He says, Make the tree corrupt, and its fruit corrupt, is not a command to do, but a warning to take heed, spoken against those who being evil thought that they could speak good things, or have good works; this the Lord declares is impossible. The man must be changed first, that his works may be changed; for if the man remains in that wherein he is evil, he cannot have good works; if he remains in that wherein he is good, he cannot have evil works. Christ found us all corrupt trees, but gave power to become sons of God to them that believe on His name.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
But as speaking not for Himself but for the Holy Spirit, He accordingly rebukes them, saying, Generation of vipers, how can ye being evil speak good things? This is both a rebuke of them, and a proof in their own characters of those things which had been said. As though He had said, So ye being corrupt trees cannot bring forth good fruit. I do not wonder then that you thus speak, for you are ill nourished of ill parentage, and have an evil mind. And observe He said not, How can ye speak good things, seeing ye are a generation of vipers? for these two are not connected together; but He said, How can ye being evil speak good things? He calls them generation of vipers, because they made boast of their forefathers; in order therefore to cut off this their pride, He shuts them out of the race of Abraham, assigning them a parentage corresponding to their characters.
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
Or the words, Generation of vipers, may be taken as signifying children, or imitators of the Devil, because they had wilfully spoken against good works, which is of the Devil, and thence follows, Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. That man speaks out of the abundance of the heart who is not ignorant with what intention his words are uttered; and to declare his meaning more openly He adds, A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth good things. The treasure of the heart is the intention of the thoughts, by which the Judge judges that work which is produced, so that sometimes though the outward work that is shewn seem great, yet because of the carelessness of a cold heart, they receive a little reward from the Lord.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
Herein also He shews His Godhead as knowing the hidden things of the heart; for not for words only, yea but for evil thoughts also they shall receive punishment. For it is the order of nature that the store of the wickedness which abounds within should be poured forth in words through the mouth. Thus when you shall hear any speaking evil, you must infer that his wickedness is more than what his words express; for what is uttered without is but the overflowing of that within; which was a sharp rebuke to them. For if that which was spoken by them were so evil, consider how evil must be the root from whence it sprung. And this happens naturally; for oftentimes the hesitating tongue does not suddenly pour forth all its evil, while the heart, to which none other is privy, begets whatsoever evil it will, without fear; for it has little fear of God. But when the multitude of the evils which are within is increased, the things which had been hidden then burst forth through the mouth. This is that He says, Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
St Jerome † AD 420
What He says, The good man out of the good treasure of his heart, & c. is either pointed against the Jews, that seeing they blasphemed God, what treasure in their heart must that be out of which such blasphemy proceeded; or it is connected with what had gone before, that like as a good man cannot bring forth evil things, nor an evil man good things, so Christ cannot do evil works, nor the Devil good works.
The Latin text
Chrysostomus in Matth
Post priores redargutiones rursus eos aliter confundit. Hoc autem facit non ut seipsum accusatione liberet (ad hoc enim sufficiebant priora), sed eos corrigere volens: unde dicit aut facite arborem bonam et fructum eius bonum; aut facite arborem malam et fructum eius malum; ac si dicat: nullus vestrum dixit quod malum est aliquos a Daemone liberare. Sed quia operibus non maledicebant, sed Diabolum dicebant hoc operantem, demonstrat quod haec accusatio est praeter consequentiam rerum, et praeter communes conceptiones. Talia autem confingere est immensae verecundiae
Hieronymus
Constringit ergo eos syllogismo quem Graeci vocant aphycton, nos inevitabilem possumus appellare: quia interrogatos hinc inde concludit et utroque cornu premit. Si, inquit, Diabolus malus est, bona opera facere non potest; si autem bona sunt quae facta cernitis, sequitur ut non sit Diabolus qui illa fecit; neque enim fieri potest ut ex malo bonum, aut ex bono oriatur malum
Chrysostomus in Matth
Etenim arboris diiudicatio a fructu apparet, non fructus ab arbore: unde sequitur siquidem ex fructu arbor cognoscitur. Etsi enim arbor fructus est causa, sed tamen fructus arboris est demonstrativus. Vos autem contrarium facitis: in operibus enim nihil accusare habentes, contrariam de arbore fertis sententiam, me daemoniacum appellantes
Hilarius in Matth
Sic ergo in praesens Iudaeos refellit: quia cum intelligerent Christi opera ultra humanam esse virtutem, noluerunt tamen ea quae Dei sunt confiteri. Futuram vero omnem fidei perversitatem coarguit, eorum scilicet qui divinitatem et communionem paternae substantiae domino detrahentes, in diversa haeresum studia ceciderunt, neutrum facientes: nec inter gentes sub venia ignorationis habitantes, nec in veritatis cognitione versantes. Arborem se in corpore positum signat; quia per interiorem virtutis suae fecunditatem exeat ubertas omnis in fructus. Igitur arbor bona facienda cum fructibus bonis est, aut mala constituenda cum malis fructibus: non quia arbor mala possit constitui quae bona est, nec e converso; sed ut per hanc significantiam intelligeremus Christum tamquam inutilem relinquendum, aut tamquam bonorum fructuum utilitate retinendum. Ceterum medium se agere, et in Christum aliqua deferre, negare quae maxima sunt, venerari tamquam Deum, Dei communione spoliare, blasphemia spiritus est: ut cum per admirationem tantorum operum Dei nomen detrahere non audeas, per malevolentiam mentis generositatem eius, abnegata paternae substantiae communione, deturpes
Augustinus de Verb. Dom
Vel in hoc admonuit nos dominus ut bonae arbores simus, ut bonos fructus producere possimus: ubi enim ait facite enim arborem bonam, et fructum eius bonum, est praeceptum salubre, cui obedientia est necessaria. Quod autem dicit facite arborem malam, et fructum eius malum, non praeceptum est ut faciatis, sed monitio ut caveatis: contra hos enim dixit qui putabant se cum mali essent, bona loqui posse, vel bona opera habere: hoc dominus dicit esse non posse. Prius enim est mutandus homo, ut opera mutentur: si enim manet homo in eo quod malus est, bona opera habere non potest; si manet in eo quod bonus est, mala opera habere non potest. Omnes ergo malas arbores Christus invenit; sed dedit potestatem filios Dei fieri credentibus in nomine eius
Chrysostomus in Matth
Quia vero non pro seipso, sed pro spiritu sancto fecit sermonem, eos convenienter increpat dicens progenies viperarum, quomodo potestis bona loqui, cum sitis mali? Hoc autem dixit et eos incusans, et eorum quae dicta sunt, demonstrationem ex ipsis praebens, quasi dicat: ecce vos cum sitis arbores malae, non potestis portare fructum bonum. Non ergo miror quod haec loquimini: etenim male nutriti estis a malis progenitoribus, et mentem malam habetis. Et vide, quod non dixit: qualiter potestis bona loqui, cum sitis progenies viperarum? Nihil enim hoc ad illud pertinet; sed qualiter potestis bona loqui, cum sitis mali? Progenies autem viperarum eos dici, quia in progenitoribus gloriabantur; ut ergo excluderet eorum superbiam, separavit eos a cognatione Abraham, attribuens eis progenitores similium morum
Rabanus Maurus
Vel progenies viperarum, idest filios et imitatores Diaboli, eos appellat: quia scienter bonis operibus detrahunt, quod diabolicum est; unde sequitur ex abundantia enim cordis os loquitur. Ille homo ex abundantia cordis loquitur qui non ignorat ex qua intentione verba promantur; quod apertius ostendere volens, subiungit bonus homo de bono thesauro profert bona, et malus homo de malo thesauro profert mala. Thesaurus cordis intentio est cogitationis, ex qua interius arbiter iudicat proventum operis, ut aliquando maiora minorem habeant mercedem, aliquando ob incuriam cordis tepidi, maiorum virtutum opera ostentantes, minora a domino praemia sortiantur
Chrysostomus in Matth
Ex his etiam demonstrat suam deitatem scientem cordis occulta: quoniam non verborum solum, sed etiam malarum cogitationum exsolvent vindictam. Est autem naturae continentia supereminentis, inter nequitiae verba per os extra effundi. Quare cum audieris hominem male loquentem, multo ampliorem aestimes nequitiam quam verba demonstrant. Quod enim exterius dicitur, est supereffluentia eius quod intus est; in quo eos vehementer tetigit. Si enim quod dictum est ab eis, ita est malum, excogita radix verborum quam maligna est. Contingit autem hoc decenter; lingua enim confusa multoties non repente effundit nequitiam: cor autem nullum hominum habens testem, sine timore quaecumque vult parturit mala: Dei enim non multa cura est ei. Sed cum augetur multitudo malorum quae intus sunt, quae interim occultabantur, extra per verba proveniunt: et ideo dicit ex abundantia cordis os loquitur; eo quod homo de thesauris cordis loquitur
Hieronymus
In hoc autem quod dicit bonus homo de bono thesauro profert bona, etc., vel ipsos Iudaeos Deum blasphemantes ostendit, de quali thesauro blasphemiam proferant. Vel cum superiori quaestione haeret sententia, quod quomodo non possit bonus homo proferre mala, nec malus bona, sic non possit Christus mala, nec Diabolus bona opera facere
12:36
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
The Lord follows up what He had said before by moving their fears, shewing that they that have thus sinned shall receive the most extreme punishment, I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give an account thereof in the day of judgment.
St Jerome † AD 420
And the meaning is; If every idle word which does not edify the hearers is not without danger to him that speaks it, and if each man shall render an account of his words in the day of judgment, how much more shall you, who have spoken falsely against the works of the Holy Spirit, saying that I cast out dæmons through Beelzebub, render an account of your false charge?
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
He said not ‘which ye have spoken,’ but makes His teaching of universal application to the whole race of mankind, and at the same time His words less grievous to them that heard them. By an idle word is meant one that is false, that accuses any falsely. Some indeed say that it includes all light talk, all such as stirs immoderate laughter, or shameful and immodest words.
St Gregory the Great † AD 604 Hom. in Ev. vi.
Or such as lacks either rightness in itself, or reasons of just necessity;
St Jerome † AD 420
being spoken without the profit of either the speaker or hearer; as if laying aside weighty matters we should speak of frivolous trifles, or relate old fables. For he that deals in buffoon jests to create laughter, or brings forth any thing shameful, he will be held guilty not of an idle, but of a sinful word.
Remigius † AD 908
The words which here follow depend on those that went before; By thy words thou shat be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. There is no doubt but that every man shall be condemned for his evil words which he speaks; but none shall be justified for his good words, unless they proceed from his inmost heart, and from a entire purpose.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
See that this sentence is not a burdensome one. The Judge will pass sentence not according to what any other has said concerning you, but according to what you have yourself spoken. They that are accused then have no need to fear, but they that accuse; for those are not charged of those evil things that have been spoken of them, but these of those evil things that they have spoken.
The Latin text
Chrysostomus in Matth
Post praemissa, eis dominus multum timorem incutit, ostendens quod ultimam dabunt vindictam qui talia deliquerunt: unde dicit dico enim vobis, quod omne verbum otiosum quod locuti fuerint homines, reddent rationem de eo in die iudicii
Hieronymus
Et est sensus: si otiosum verbum, quod nequaquam aedificat audientes, non est absque periculo eius qui loquitur, et in die iudicii reddet unusquisque rationem sermonum suorum, quanto magis vos, qui opera sancti spiritus calumniamini, et dicitis me in Beelzebub eicere Daemonia, reddituri estis rationem calumniae vestrae?
Chrysostomus in Matth
Non autem dixit: quod locuti estis vos, simul quidem omne hominum erudiens genus; simul autem minus onerosum faciens suum sermonem. Otiosum autem verbum est quod mendax est, quod calumniam habet. Quidam autem dicunt quoniam et vanum quale est quod risum movet inordinatum, vel turpe, vel inverecundum
Gregorius in Evang
Vel otiosum verbum est quod aut utilitate rectitudinis, aut ratione iustae necessitatis caret: quod scilicet sine utilitate et loquentis dicitur et audientis: si omissis seriis, de rebus frivolis loquamur, et fabulas narremus antiquas. Ceterum qui scurrilia replicat, et cachinnis ora dissolvit, et aliquid profert turpitudinis, hic non otiosi verbi, sed criminosi tenebitur reus
Remigius
Ex superioribus autem verbis adhuc sequens dependet sententia, cum dicitur ex verbis enim tuis iustificaberis, et ex verbis tuis condemnaberis. Non est autem dubium quia unusquisque de verbis suis malis quae loquitur condemnabitur; verumtamen ex bonis verbis non iustificatur quis, nisi ex intimo corde et devota intentione ea proferat
Chrysostomus in Matth
Vide autem quia non est onerosum hoc iudicium. Non ex quibus alius dixit de te, sed ex quibus ipse locutus es, sententiam iudex feret. Non igitur accusatos timere oportet, sed accusantes: non enim illi coguntur accusare se pro his malis quae audierunt, sed hi pro his quae male dixerunt
12:38
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. xliii.
Because the Lord had so oft repressed the shameless tongue of the Pharisees by His sayings, they now turn to His works, whereat the Evangelist wondering, says, Then certain of the Scribes and Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign of thee; and that at a time when they should have been moved, when they should have wondered, and been dumb with astonishment; yet even at such time they desist not from their malice. For they say, We would see a sign of thee, that they may take Him as in a snare.
St Jerome † AD 420
They require a sign of Him, as though what they had seen were not signs; and in another Evangelist what they required is more fully expressed, We would see of thee a sign from heaven. Either they would have fire from heaven as Elias did; or after the example of Samuel they would that in summer-time, contrary to the nature of the climate, thunder should be heard, lightnings gleam, and rain descend; as though they could not have spoken falsely even against such miracles, and said that they befel by reason of divers hidden motions in the air. For if thou cavillest against what thou not only beholdest with thine eyes, but feelest with thine hand, and reapest the benefit of, what wilt thou do in those things which come down from heaven. You might make answer, that in Egypt the magi also had given many signs from heaven.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
But their words are full of hypocrisy and irony. But now they were railing against Him, saying that He had a dæmon; now they fawn upon Him, calling Him, Master. Wherefore the Lord rebukes them severely; He answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign. When they railed on Him, He had answered them mildly; now they approached Him with smooth and deceitful words, He rebukes them sharply; shewing that He was above either affection, and was neither moved to anger by evil speaking, nor was to be gained by flattery. What He says is this; What wonder that ye do thus to Me who am unknown to you, when you have done the same to the Father, of whom ye have had such large knowledge, in that, despising Him ye went after dæmons? He calls them an evil generation, because they have ever been ungrateful to their benefactors, and were made worse when they received benefits, which is the extreme of wickedness.
St Jerome † AD 420
Excellently is that said, and adulterous, seeing she has put away her husband, and, according to Ezekiel, has joined herself to many lovers.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
Which also proves Him to be equal to the Father, if not to believe in Him makes them adulterous.
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
Then He begins to answer them, giving them a sign not from heaven, which they were unworthy to see, but giving it them from the deep beneath. But to His own disciples He gave a sign from heaven, to whom He shewed the glory of His blessed eternity both in a figure on the mount, and after in verity when He was taken up into heaven. Wherefore it follows, And there shall no sign he given it, but the sign of the Prophet Jonas.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
For the signs He wrought were not in order to move them, for He knew that they were hard as stone, but for the profit of others. Or because they had not received it when He had given them a sign such as they now desired. And a sign was given them, when by their own punishment they learned His power. This He alludes to when He says, No sign shall he given it. As much as to say; I have shewn you many mercies; yet none of these has brought you to honour My power, which you will then know when you shall behold your city thrown down upon the ground in punishment. In the mean time He brings in a saying concerning the Resurrection which they should after understand by those things that they should suffer; saying, Except the sign of the Prophet Jonas. For verily His Cross would not have been believed, unless it had had signs to testify to it. But if that were not believed, truly the Resurrection would not have been believed. For this reason also He calls this a sign, and brings forward a figure thereof, that the verity itself may be believed. It follows, As Jonas was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale,
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
He shews that the Jews were as criminal as the Ninevites, and that unless they repented they would be destroyed. But like as punishment was denounced against the Ninevites, and at the same time a remedy was set before them, so neither should the Jews despair of pardon, if at least after Christ’s resurrection they should do penitence. For Jonas, that is The Dove, or The mourner, is a sign of Him on whom the Holy Spirit descended in the form of a Dove, and who bare our sorrows. (Is. 53:4) The fish which swallowed Jonas in the sea, shews forth the death which Christ suffered in the world. Three days and nights was the one in the whale’s belly, the other in the tomb; the one was cast up on dry laud, the other arose in glory.
St Augustine † AD 430 De Cons. Ev. iii. 24.
Some, not knowing the Scripture manner of speaking, would interpret as one night those three hours of darkness when the sun was darkened from the sixth to the ninth hour; and as a day in like manner those other three hours in which it was again restored to the world, from the ninth hour till sunset. Then follows the night preceding the sabbath, which if we reckon with its own day we shall have thus two days and two nights. Then after the sabbath follows the night of the sabbath prime, that is of the dawning of the Lord’s day on which the Lord arose. Thus we shall only get two nights and two days, with this one night to be added if we might understand the whole of it, and it could not be shewn that that dawn was indeed the latter part of the night. So that not even by taking in those six hours, three of darkness, and three of restored light, can we establish the computation of three days and three nights. It remains therefore that we find the explanation in that usual manner of Scripture of putting a part for the whole.
St Jerome † AD 420
Not that He remained three whole days and three nights in hell, but that this be understood to imply a part of the preparation day, and of the Lord’s day, and the whole sabbath day.
St Augustine † AD 430 De Trin. iv. 6.
For that the three days were not three full and entire days, Scripture witnesses; the first day is reckoned because the latter end of it comes in; and the third day is likewise reckoned, because the first part of it is included; while the day between, that is the second day, appears in all its twenty-four hours, twelve of the night and twelve of the day. For the succeeding night up to the dawn when the Lord’s resurrection was made known, belongs to the third day. For as the first days of creation were, because of man’s coming fall, computed from morning to night; so these days are because of man’s restoration computed from night to morning.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
He said not openly that He should rise again, because they would have derided him, but hints it distantly that even they might believe that He foreknew it. He said not in the earth, but in the heart of the earth, therein declaring His tomb, and that none might suspect that there was only the semblance of death. Therefore also He spake of three days, that it should be believed that He was dead. But the sign itself proves the truth of it; for Jonas was in the whale’s belly not in figure but in deed; and surely the sign did not happen in very deed, if the thing signified happened only in figure. Wherefore it is manifest that they are children of the Devil who follow Marcion asserting that the passion of Christ was only a phantasy. And that He should suffer for them also, though they would not profit by it, is shewn by that which He speaks, that to this generation should be given the sign of Jonas the Prophet.
The Latin text
Chrysostomus in Matth
Quia dominus superius multoties verbis inverecundam Pharisaeorum obstruxerat linguam, rursus ad opera veniunt: quod admirans Evangelista dicit tunc responderunt ei quidam de Scribis et Pharisaeis, dicentes: magister, volumus a te signum videre; tunc scilicet cum flecti oportebat, cum admirari, cum obstupescere; sed tunc a malitia non desistunt. Dicunt enim volumus a te signum videre, ut eum capiant
Hieronymus
Sic signa postulant, quasi quae viderant signa non fuerint; sed in alio Evangelista quid petant plenius explicatur: volumus a te signum videre de caelo; vel in morem Eliae ignem de sublimi venire cupiebant; vel in similitudinem Samuelis tempore aestivo contra naturam loci mugire tonitrua, coruscare fulgura, imbres ruere; quasi non possint et illa calumniari, et dicere ex occultis et variis aeris passionibus accidisse: nam qui calumniaris ea quae oculis vides, manu tenes, utilitate sentis; quid facturus esses in his quae de caelo veniunt? Utique respondebis et magos in Aegypto multa signa fecisse de caelo
Chrysostomus in Matth
Verba autem eorum adulatione et ironia sunt plena. Et prius quidem conviciabantur, daemoniacum eum dicentes; nunc autem adulantur, vocantes eum magistrum. Propter hoc et dominus eos vehementer arguit: unde sequitur qui respondens ait illis: generatio mala et adultera signum quaerit. Et quidem cum ei conviciabantur, mansuete eis respondebat; cum autem adulabantur, conviciose, demonstrans quod utraque passione erat superior: et neque conviciis in iram deducitur, neque ab adulatione mollitur. Quod autem dicit, tale est. Quid mirum, si hoc in me facitis, qui ignotus sum vobis; cum in patrem, cuius tantam accepistis experientiam, hoc idem fecistis, derelicto eo, ad Daemones currentes? Propter hoc autem eos dicit generationem malam, quia ingrati semper facti sunt circa benefactores, et bene patientes deteriores fiunt; quod est ultimae malitiae
Hieronymus
Egregie autem dixit et adultera, quia dimiserat virum, et iuxta Ezechielem, multis se amatoribus copulavit
Chrysostomus in Matth
Unde et monstrat se patri aequalem, si ei non credere generationem adulteram facit
Rabanus Maurus
Deinde respondere incipit, non eis signum de caelo, quod indigni erant videre, sed de profundo Inferni tribuens. Discipulis autem suis signum de caelo dedit, quibus aeternam beatitudinis gloriam et prius in monte figuraliter et post veraciter in caelum superelevatus ostendit; unde sequitur et signum non dabitur ei, nisi signum Ionae prophetae
Chrysostomus in Matth
Quia non ut eos induceret signa faciebat (sciebat enim eos lapideos esse), sed ut alios emendaret; aut quoniam non acciperent signum, quale est illud quod petebant: signum enim eis factum est quando per propriam poenam cognoverunt eius virtutem. Hoc igitur occulte insinuans dicit signum non dabitur ei; ac si diceret: multa beneficia demonstravi; nihil horum vos allexit ad venerandum meam virtutem, quam cognoscetis per poenam quando civitatem vestram in terram proiectam videbitis. Interim autem sermonem de resurrectione interponit, quem cognituri erant per ea quae postea erant passuri, dicens nisi signum Ionae prophetae. Crux enim profecto credita non esset, nisi signa testantia habuisset. Haec autem non credita, et resurrectio utique credita non esset. Propter hoc et signum hoc vocat, et figuram in medium fert, ut veritas credatur: unde sequitur sicut fuit Ionas in ventre ceti tribus diebus et tribus noctibus
Rabanus Maurus
Ostendit Iudaeos ad instar Ninivitarum criminosos, et nisi poeniterent, subversioni proximos. Sed sicut illis denuntiatur supplicium et demonstratur remedium, ita Iudaei non debent desperare veniam, si saltem post Christi resurrectionem egerint poenitentiam. Ionas enim, idest columba, vel dolens, signum est eius super quem descendit spiritus sanctus in specie columbae, et qui dolores nostros portavit. Piscis qui Ionam devoravit in pelago, significat mortem quam Christus passus est in mundo. Tribus diebus et noctibus fuit ille in ventre ceti, et iste in sepulchro; ille eiectus est in aridam, iste resurrexit in gloriam
Augustinus de Cons. Evang
Quidam autem modum locutionis Scripturae nescientes, noctem voluerunt advertere tres illas horas a sexta usque ad nonam, quibus sol obscuratus est; et diem tres horas alias, quibus iterum terris est redditus, idest a nona usque ad eius occasum. Sequitur enim nox futura sabbati, qua cum suo die computata, erunt iam duae noctes et duo dies. Porro autem post sabbatum sequitur nox primae sabbati, idest illucescentis diei dominici, in qua tunc dominus resurrexit. Erunt ergo duae noctes et duo dies et una nox, etiam si tota posset intelligi; nec ostenderemus quod illud diluculum pars eius extrema sit; quapropter nec annumeratis illis sex horis quarum tribus tenebratus est et tribus illuxit, constabit ratio trium dierum et trium noctium. Restat ergo ut hoc inveniatur illo Scripturarum usitato loquendi modo, quo a parte totum intelligitur
Hieronymus
Non quod omnes tres dies et tres noctes in Inferno fuerit, sed quod in parte parasceves, et dominicae, et tota die sabbati, tres dies et tres noctes intelligantur
Augustinus de Trin
Ipsum enim triduum non plenum et totum fuisse Scriptura testis est, sed primus dies a parte extrema totus annumeratus est; dies vero tertius a parte prima et ipse totus; medius autem inter eos, idest secundus dies, absolute totus vigintiquatuor horis suis, duodecim nocturnis et duodecim diurnis: nox enim usque ad diluculum, quo domini resurrectio declarata est, ad tertium pertinet diem. Sicut enim primi dies propter futurum hominis lapsum a luce in noctem, ita isti propter hominis reparationem a tenebris in lucem computantur
Chrysostomus in Matth
Non autem manifeste dixit quod resurgeret, quia eum derisissent; sed occulte insinuat, ut et illi crederent quod praescivit. Non autem dixit: in terra, sed in corde terrae, ut et sepulchrum ostenderet, et quod nullus solam mortis apparentiam suspicetur. Et tres dies propter hoc posuit, ut credatur quod mortuus est. Sed ipsa figura veritatem demonstrat: non enim fuit Ionas in ventre ceti in phantasia, sed in veritate; neque figura fuit in veritate, et veritas in imaginatione. Propter quod manifestum est quod filii sunt Diaboli Marcionem sequentes, qui Christi passionem phantasticam esse asseruit; et quod pro eis esset passurus, licet eis non proficeret, ostendit per hoc quod innuit quod illi generationi signum daretur Ionae prophetae
12:41
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
That none should think that the same things would come to pass now among the Jews, as had of old been among the Ninevites; that as Jonas converted them and their city was delivered out of danger, so the Jews should be converted after the resurrection, the Lord now shews the contrary, that they should have no fruit of the benefit of the passion, but should suffer moreover grievous things, as He signifies below in the example of the dæmon. But now He first shews what just punishment they shall suffer, saying, The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation.
Remigius † AD 908
The Lord shews in these words that there shall be one resurrection of the good and the bad against certain heretics, who said that there should be two, one of the good, another of the bad. These words likewise overthrow that fable of the Jews, who use to say that the Resurrection shall be held a thousand years before the Judgment; these words clearly proving that the Judgment shall ensue straight upon the Resurrection. And shall condemn it.
St Jerome † AD 420
Not by a sentence of judgment, but by the comparison of their example; as He adds, For they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here. This word ‘hic’ is to be taken as an adverb of place, not as a pronoun. Jonas (according to the LXX) preached for three days, (Jonah 3:4 ἔτι τρδῖς ἡμέδαι) I for this so long time; he to the Assyrians an unbelieving nation, I to God’s own people the Jews; he preached with his voice only, doing no miracles, I, doing so many wonders, am falsely accused as Beelzebub.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
Yet does not the Lord stay here, but adds another denunciation, saying, The queen of the south shall rise in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon. This was yet more than that first. Jonas went to them; the queen of the south waited not for Solomon to come to her, but herself sought him. Both a woman and a barbarian, and dwelling so far away, she was not afraid of death in her desire to hear his wise words. This woman went to Solomon, I came hither; she rose up from the ends of the earth, I go round about your towns and villages; he spake of trees and wood, I of unspeakable mysteries.
St Jerome † AD 420
So the queen of the south will condemn the Jews in the same manner as the men of Nineveh will condemn unbelieving Israel. This is the queen of Saba, of whom we read in the book of Kings and Chronicles, who leaving her nation and kingdom came through so many difficulties to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and brought him many gifts. Also in these instances of Nineveh and the queen of Saba, the faith of the Gentiles is significantly set above that of Israel.
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
The Ninevites typify those who cease from sin—the queen those that know not to sin; for penitence puts away sin, wisdom shuns it.
Remigius † AD 908
Beautifully is the Church gathered out of the Gentiles spoken of as a queen who knows how to rule her ways. Of her the Psalmist speaks; The queen stood on thy right hand. (Ps. 45:9.) She is the queen of the south because she abounds in the fervour of the Holy Spirit. Solomon, interpreted ‘peaceful,’ signifies Him of whom it is said, He is our peace. (Eph. 2:14.)
The Latin text
Chrysostomus in Matth
Ne aliquis aestimaret quod talia deinceps futura essent in Iudaeis qualia Ninivitis contigerant, ut sicut Ionas illos convertit, et civitas fuit a periculo liberata, ita isti post resurrectionem converterentur; dominus nunc totum contrarium ostendit, quoniam scilicet ex beneficio passionis nullum fructum perceperunt; sed et gravia patientur, ut infra ostendit per exemplum Daemonis. Interim autem ostendit quod iuste patientur, dicens viri Ninivitae surgent in iudicio cum generatione ista
Remigius
Ostendit autem dominus his verbis unam esse malorum et bonorum resurrectionem futuram, contra quosdam haereticos, qui dixerunt unam esse resurrectionem bonorum, et alteram malorum. Destruitur etiam his verbis fabula Iudaeorum, qui solent dicere, quod ante iudicium mille annis celebretur resurrectio; aperte his verbis ostendens quia mox ut celebrabitur resurrectio, celebrabitur et iudicium. Et condemnabunt eam
Hieronymus
Non sententiae potestate, sed comparationis exemplo: unde subditur quia poenitentiam egerunt in praedicatione Ionae; et ecce plusquam Ionas hic. Hic adverbium loci, non pronomen intelligas. Ionas, secundum Septuaginta interpretes, triduum praedicavit: ego tanto tempore; ille Assyriis genti incredulae, ego Iudaeis populo Dei. Ille voce locutus est simplici, nihil signorum faciens, ego tanta faciens, Beelzebub calumniam sustineo
Chrysostomus in Matth
Non autem hic stat dominus, sed et aliam Annuntiationem adiungit dicens regina Austri surget in iudicio cum generatione ista, et condemnabit eam: quia venit a finibus terrae audire sapientiam Salomonis. Istud plus fuit quam prius. Ionas enim ad illos abiit; regina autem Austri non expectavit Salomonem ad ipsam ire, sed ipsa ad eum accessit: et mulier, et barbara, et tantum remota, non mortem formidans, sola cupidine verborum sapientium. Ibi ergo mulier advenit, hic ego veni; et ipsa quidem a finibus terrae surrexit, ego autem civitates et castra circumeo; et ille quidem de arboribus et lignis disputavit, ego autem de ineffabilibus mysteriis
Hieronymus
Eodem ergo modo condemnabit regina Austri populum Iudaeorum, quo condemnabunt viri Ninivitae Israelem incredulum. Ista est regina Saba, de qua in regum volumine et in Paralipomenon legimus, quae per tantas difficultates, gente sua et imperio derelictis, venit in Iudaeam sapientiam audire Salomonis, et ei multa munera obtulit. In Ninive autem et in regina Saba occulte fides nationum praefertur Israeli
Rabanus Maurus
Ninivitae significant eos qui peccare desistunt, regina vero eos qui peccare nesciunt: poenitentiam enim peccatum abolet, sapientia cavet
Remigius
Pulchre autem Ecclesia de gentibus congregata regina dicitur, quia mores suos regere novit: de qua Psalmista: astitit regina a dextris tuis. Austri autem regina est, quia ardore spiritus sancti superabundat: Auster enim ventus calidus significat spiritum sanctum. Salomon autem, qui interpretatur pacificus, significat ipsum de quo dictum est: ipse est pax nostra
12:43
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
The Lord had said to the Jews, The men of Nineveh shall rise in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it; that they should not therefore be careless, He tells them that not only in the world to come but here also they should suffer grievous things; setting forth in a sort of riddle the punishment that should fall upon them; whence He says, When the unclean spirit has gone out of a man.
St Jerome † AD 420
Some suppose that this place is spoken of heretics, because the unclean spirit who dwelt in them before when they were Gentiles, is cast out before the confession of the true faith; when after they went over to heresy, and garnished their house with feigned virtues, then it is that the Devil, having taken to him other seven evil spirits, returns and dwells in them; and their last state becomes worse than their first. And indeed heretics are in a much worse condition than the Gentiles; for in the heretics was a hope of faith, in the Gentiles a war of discord. Yet though this exposition has a plausibility and a shew of learning, I am doubtful of its truth. For by the concluding words of this, whether it be parable or example, Titus shall it he to this evil generation, we are compelled to refer it, not to heretics, or to men in general, but to the Jewish people. So the context of the passage may not shift about loosely and vaguely, and be like unmeaning speeches, but may be consistent with itself from first to last. The unclean spirit then went out from the Jews when they received the Law; and being cast out of the Jews, he walked through the wilderness of the Gentiles; as it follows, He walketh through dry places seeking rest.
Remigius † AD 908
He calls the hearts of the Gentiles, dry places, as lacking all the moisture of wholesome waters, that is of the holy Scriptures, and of spiritual gifts, and strangers to the pouring in of the Holy Spirit.
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
Or, the dry places are the hearts of the faithful, which after they have been purged from the weakness of loose thoughts, the crafty lier-in-wait tries if by any means he may fix his footsteps there; but flying from the chaste spirit, the Devil finds no resting-place to his mind but in the heart of the wicked; as it follows, and findeth none.
Remigius † AD 908
The Devil supposed he should have rest for ever among the Gentiles, but it is added, and findeth none, because when the Son of God appeared in the mystery of His incarnation, the Gentiles believed.
St Jerome † AD 420
And when they believed on the Lord, the Devil, finding no place among the nations, said, I will return into my house whence I came out; I have the Jews from whom I formerly departed. And when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. For the temple of the Jews was empty, and had not Christ to dwell therein, He having said, Arise, let us go hence. (John 14:31) Seeing then they had not the protection of Angels, and were burdened with the useless observances of the Law, and the traditions of the Pharisees, the Devil returns to his former dwelling, and, taking to him seven other dæmons, inhabits it as before. And the last state of that nation is worse than the first, for they are now possessed by a larger number of dæmons in blaspheming Jesus Christ in their synagogues, than they were possessed with in Egypt before they had knowledge of the Law; for it is one thing to have no belief that He should come, another not to receive Him when He is come. A number seven-fold is joined with the Devil, either because of the sabbath, or from the number of the Holy Spirit; (Is. 11:2) that as in Isaiah upon the bud which comes from the root of Jesse, seven spirits of virtues are related to have descended; so on the other hand an equal number of vices should be poured forth upon the Devil. Beautifully then are seven spirits said to be taken to him, either because of the breaking of the sabbath, or because of the heinous sins which are contrary to the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
Or, herein He may be shewing forth their punishment. As when dæmoniacs have been loosed from their infirmity, if they after become remiss, they draw upon themselves more grievous illusions, so shall it be among you—before ye were possessed by a dæmons, when you worshipped idols, and slew your sons to dæmon yet I forsook you not, but cast out that dæmon by the Prophets, and afterwards came Myself seeking to purify you altogether. Since then ye would not hearken to me, but have fallen into more heinous crime, (as it is greater wickedness to slay Christ than to slay the Prophets,) therefore ye shall suffer more heavy calamities. For what befel them under Vespasian and Titus, were much more grievous than they had suffered in Egypt, in Babylon, and under Antiochus. And this indeed is not all He shews concerning them, but also that since they were destitute of every virtue, they were more fit for the habitation of dæmons than before. It is reasonable to suppose that these things were said not to them only, but also to us. If after being enlightened and delivered from our former evils, we are again possessed by the same wickedness, the punishment of these latter sins will be greater than of the first; as Christ spake to the paralytic, Behold, thou art made whole, sin not, lest a worse thing come upon thee. (John 5:14)
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
For when any one is converted to the faith, the Devil is cast out of him in Baptism, who driven thence wanders up and down through the dry places, that is, the hearts of the faithful.
St Gregory the Great † AD 604 Mor. xxxiii. 3.
The dry places where no water is are the hearts of the righteous, which by the power of discipline are dried from all humours of carnal lust. The wet places are the minds of worldly men, which the humour of carnal lust fills, and makes watery; in such the Devil imprints his footsteps the more deeply, inasmuch as in his wanderings he comes down upon such hearts as upon low and marshy ground.
Rabanus Maurus † AD 856
And returning to his house whence he had gone out, he findeth it empty, of good works through slothfulness, swept, that is, of its old vices by Baptism, and garnished with feigned virtues through hypocrisy.
St Augustine † AD 430 Quæst. Ev. i. 8.
So that in these words the Lord signifies that some shall so believe, as not to have strength for the work of continence, and shall return to the world. He taketh unto him other seven, is to be understood that when any has fallen from righteousness, he shall also have hypocrisy. For the lust of the flesh being cast out of its wonted works by penitence, when it finds not any delights in which it may rest, returns the more greedily, and again takes possession of the soul, if carelessness has ensued, and there has not been introduced as the dweller in the cleansed abode the word of God in sound doctrine. And as he will not only have the seven vices which are the contraries of the spiritual virtues, but will hypocritically feign that he has the virtues, therefore his old lust, taking to itself seven other worse, that is, this seven-fold hypocrisy, returns to him so as to make the last state of that man worse than the former.
St Gregory the Great † AD 604 Mor. vii. 17.
For it often happens that the soul in the commencement of its progress is lifted up, and prides itself on its virtues, that it opens an entrance to the adversary who is raging against it, and who shews himself the more violent in breaking into it, by how much he was grieved at being cast out, though but for a short space.
The Latin text
Chrysostomus in Matth
Quia dominus dixerat Iudaeis: viri Ninivitae surgent in iudicio, et condemnabunt generationem istam, ne propter temporis tardationem contemnerent et fierent pigriores, ostendit quod non solum in futuro saeculo, sed et hic gravissima patientur, futuram in eis poenam sub quodam aenigmate subdens; unde dicit cum autem immundus spiritus exierit ab homine
Hieronymus
Quidam istum locum de haereticis dictum putant: quod immundus spiritus, qui in eis ante habitaverat, quando gentiles erant, ad confessionem verae fidei eiciatur; postea vero cum se ad haeresim transtulerint, et simulatis virtutibus ornaverint domum suam, tunc aliis septem nequam spiritibus adiunctis, revertatur ad eos Diabolus, et habitet in illis; fiantque novissima eorum peiora prioribus. Multo quidem peiori conditione sunt haeretici quam gentiles: quia in illis spes fidei, in istis est pugna discordiae; cum haec intelligentia plausum quemdam et colorem doctrinae praeferat, nescio an habeat veritatem; ex eo enim quod, finita vel parabola vel exemplo, sequitur, sic erit generationi huic pessimae, compellimur non ad haereticos et quosque homines, sed ad Iudaeorum populum referre parabolam, ut contextus loci non passim et vagus in diversum fluctuet atque insipientium more turbetur, sed haerens sibi vel ad priora vel ad posteriora respondeat. Unde immundus spiritus exiit a Iudaeis quando acceperunt legem; expulsus autem a Iudaeis, ambulavit per gentium solitudines: unde sequitur ambulat per loca arida, quaerens sibi requiem
Remigius
Loca arida appellat corda gentium ab omni humore salutarium aquarum, hoc est sanctarum Scripturarum et spiritualium donorum, et ab infusione sancti spiritus aliena
Rabanus Maurus
Vel loca arida sunt corda fidelium, quae a mollitie fluxae cogitationis expurgata, callidus insidiator explorat, si quos gressus ibi figere possit; sed castas mentes effugiens Diabolus in solo corde pravorum gratam sibi potest invenire quietem; unde sequitur et non invenit
Remigius
Putabat autem Diabolus se perpetuam quietem posse habere in gentili populo: sed subditur et non invenit, quia apparente Dei filio per mysterium incarnationis suae, gentilitas credidit
Hieronymus
Quae cum domino credidisset, ille non invento loco in nationibus, dixit revertar in domum meam unde exivi. Habeo Iudaeos quos ante dimiseram. Et veniens invenit eam vacantem, scopis mundatam et ornatam. Vacabat enim templum Iudaeorum et Christum hospitem non habebant dicentem: surgite et abeamus hinc. Quia igitur et Dei et Angelorum praesidia non habebant, et ornati erant superfluis observationibus legis, et traditionibus Pharisaeorum, revertitur Diabolus ad sedem suam pristinam, et septenario numero sibi addito Daemonum, habitat pristinam domum: et fiunt novissima illius populi peiora prioribus; multo enim nunc maiore Daemonum numero possidentur, blasphemantes in synagogis suis Christum Iesum, quam in Aegypto possessi fuerant ante legis notitiam: quia aliud est venturum non credere, aliud non suscepisse qui venerit. Septenarium autem numerum adiunctum Diabolo, vel propter sabbatum intellige, vel propter numerum spiritus sancti: ut quomodo in Isaia super florem qui de radice Iesse descendit, septem spiritus virtutum descendisse narrantur, ita e contrario vitiorum numerus in Diabolo consecratus sit. Pulchre ergo septem spiritus assumi dicuntur, vel propter violationem sabbati, vel propter criminalia peccata quae contraria sunt septem donis spiritus sancti
Chrysostomus in Matth
Vel hic poenam eorum demonstrat: dicit enim quod sicut cum daemoniaci liberati fuerint ab infirmitate, si desidiores efficiantur, graviorem attrahunt adversus se phantasiam, ita et in vobis fiet: etenim ante detinebamini a Daemone, quando idola adorabatis, et filios vestros Daemonibus occidebatis; sed tamen non dereliqui vos; sed expuli Daemonem illum per prophetas, et per memetipsum rursus veni, amplius expurgare vos volens. Quia igitur non vultis attendere, sed in maiorem excidistis nequitiam (gravius enim est occidere Christum quam prophetas), propter hoc difficiliora patiemini. Quae enim sub Vespasiano et Tito contigerunt eis, multo graviora fuerunt his quae passi sunt in Aegypto et in Babylone et sub Antiocho. Nec hoc solum ostendit, sed quoniam ab omni virtute erunt desolati, et Daemonum actibus occupabiles magis quam ante. Haec autem non solum ad illos, sed ad nos etiam dicta esse, rationem habet; si illuminati et a prioribus eruti malis, rursus ab eadem possideamur nequitia: etenim difficilior iam erit poena posteriorum peccatorum: propter quod paralytico Christus dicit: ecce sanus factus es: noli peccare, ne deterius tibi aliquid contingat
Rabanus Maurus
Homo enim quilibet ad fidem conversus est, a quo Diabolus per Baptismum eicitur, qui eiectus inde loca arida peragrat, idest corda fidelium
Gregorius Moralium
Loca enim arentia atque inaquosa sunt corda iustorum, quae per disciplinae fortitudinem ab omni carnalis concupiscentiae humore siccantur. Loca vero humentia sunt terrenorum hominum mentes, quas humor carnalis concupiscentiae, quia replet, fluidas facit: in quibus Diabolus iniquitatis suae vestigia tanto altius imprimit quanto in eisdem mentibus per transitus illius, quasi in fluxa terra, descendit
Rabanus Maurus
Rediens autem ad domum suam unde exierat, invenit eam vacantem a bonis actibus per negligentiam; scopis mundatam, scilicet a vitiis pristinis per Baptismum; ornatam simulatis virtutibus per hypocrisim
Augustinus de quaest. Evang
Unde per haec verba signat dominus quosdam ita credituros, ut non possint ferre laborem continentiae, et ad saeculum redituri sint. Quod dicit assumit secum alios septem, intelligitur, quia cum quis ceciderit de iustitia, etiam simulationem habebit. Cupiditas enim carnis expulsa per poenitentiam consuetis operibus, cum non invenerit in quibus delectationibus conquiescat, avidius redit, et rursus occupat mentem hominis, si negligentia subsecuta est, ut non introduceretur tamquam habitator mundatae domus sermo Dei per sanam doctrinam; et quoniam non solum habebit illa septem vitia quae septem virtutibus sunt contraria spiritualibus, sed etiam per hypocrisim se ipsas habere virtutes simulabit, propterea assumptis secum septem aliis nequioribus, hoc est ipsa septenaria simulatione, redit ipsa concupiscentia, ut sint novissima hominis illius peiora prioribus
Gregorius Moralium
Plerumque etiam fit ut cum mens ex ipso exordio sui profectus extollitur, cumque se iam quasi de virtutibus erigit, saevienti contra se adversario aditum pandat: tantoque se vehementius in eius confractione exhibet, quanto et gravius, quia vel ad modicum fuerat proiectus, dolet
12:46
St Hilary † AD 367
Because He had spoken all the aforesaid things in the power of His Father’s majesty, therefore the Evangelist proceeds to tell what answer He made to one that told Him that His mother and His brethren waited for Him without; While he yet spake unto the people, his mother and his brethren stood without desiring to see him.
St Augustine † AD 430 De Cons. Ev. ii. 40.
We are to understand without doubt that this happened close upon the foregoing; for he begins to tell it with the words, And while he yet spake. What can that yet mean but that it was at the very time He spake the foregoing things? Mark also follows up that which He had said concerning blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, by saying, And there came his mother and his brethren. (Mark 3:31) Luke has not observed the order of action here, but has placed this earlier as he happened to recollect it.
St Jerome † AD 420 cont. Helvid. 14, et seq.
From this is taken one of Helvidius’s propositions, on the ground that mention is made in the Gospel of the brethren of the Lord. How, says he, are they called brethren of the Lord, if they were not his brethren? But now it should be known that in divine Scripture men are said to be brethren in four different ways, by nature, by nation, by kindred, and by affection. By nature, as Esau and Jacob. By nation, as all Jews are called brethren, as in Deuteronomy, Thou shalt not set over thee a foreigner who is not thy brother. (Deut. 17:15) They are called brethren by kindred who are of one family, as in Genesis, Abraham said unto Lot, Let there not be strife between thee and me, for we are brethren. (Gen. 13:8) Also men are called brethren by affection, which is of two kinds, special and general. Special, as all Christians are called brethren, as the Saviour says, Go tell my brethren. General, inasmuch as all men are born of one father, we are bound together by a tie of consanguinity, as in that, Say unto them that hate you, Ye are our brethren. (Is. 66:5 sec. LXX.) I ask then, after which manner these are called the Lord’s brethren in the Gospel? According to nature? But Scripture saith not, neither calling them sons of Mary nor of Joseph. By nation? But it is absurd that some few out of all the Jews should be called brethren, seeing that all the Jews who were there might have thus been called brethren. By affection, either of a human sort, or of the Spirit? If that be true, yet how were they more His brethren than the Apostles, whom He instructed in the inmost mysteries. Or if because they were men, and all men are brethren, it was foolish to say of them in particular, Behold, thy brethren seek thee. It only remains then that they should be His brethren by kindred, not by affection, not by privilege of nation, not by nature.
St Jerome † AD 420 in loc.
But some suspect the brethren of the Lord to be sons of Joseph by another wife, following the idle fancies of apocryphal writers, who have coined a certain woman called E sea. But we understand by the brethren of the Lord, not the sons of Joseph, but cousins of the Saviour, sons of a sister of Mary, an aunt of Our Lord, who is said to be the mother of James the Less, and Joseph, and Jude, whom in another place of the Gospel we find called the brethren of the Lord. (Mark 6:3) And that cousins are called brethren, appears from every part of Scripture.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. xliv.
But mart the loftiness of His brethrena; when they should have come in and heartened with the crowd, or if they would not this, to have waited the end of His speech, and then to have approached Him—they on the contrary call Him out to them, and do this before the multitude, therein shewing their superabundant love of honour, and also, that with all authority they lay their commands upon Christ. This the Evangelist covertly hints when he says, While he yet spake; as much as to say, Was there no other time? But what did they seek to say? Was it aught of the dogmas of truth? then should they have brought it forth before all, that all might profit thereby. But if of other things that concerned themselves alone, they should not have called Him in such haste, whence it is plain that they did this out of vain glory.
St Augustine † AD 430 De Nat. et Grat. 36.
But whatever may be decided concerning these brethren, yet concerning the holy Virgin Mary, (for the honour of Christ,) when sin in her is in question, I would not have it brought into doubt. For from this only we might know that more abundant grace was conferred upon her that she should overcome sin on all sides, because she merited to conceive and bring forth Him Who it is clear had no sin. It follows; Then said one unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without seeking thee.
St Jerome † AD 420
He that delivers this message, seems to me not to do it casually and without meaning, but as setting a snare for Him, whether He would prefer flesh and blood to the spiritual work; and thus the Lord refused to go out, not because He disowned His mother and His brethren, but that He might confound him that had laid this snare for Him.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
For He said not, Go and say unto her, She is not My mother, but continues His discourse to him that had brought Him word; as it follows; But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
St Hilary † AD 367
And He cannot be held to have thought meanly of His mother, seeing that in His passion He evinced the most extreme carefulness for her.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
But had He desired to disown His mother, He would have done it at the time when the Jews cast His birth in His teeth.
St Jerome † AD 420
He did not then, as Marcion and Manichæus say, disown His mother, so as to be thought to be born of a phantasm, but He preferred His Apostles to His kindred, that we also in a comparison of our affections should set the spirit before the flesh.
St Ambrose † AD 397 in Luc. 8:21.
Nor does He overthrow the duty of filial submission, which is conveyed in the command, Honour thy father and thy mother, (Ex. 20:12.) but shews that He owes more to the mysteries and relationship of His Father, than of His mother; as it follows, And stretching out his hand to his disciples, he said, Behold my mother and my brethren.
St Gregory the Great † AD 604 Hom. in Ev. iii. 2.
The Lord deigned to call faithful disciples His brethren, saying, Go, tell my brethren. Since then a man may be made a brother of the Lord by coming to the faith, it should be enquired how one may become also His mother. Be it known by us then, that he that by believing is made brother or sister of Christ, becomes His mother by preaching; for in pouring Him into the heart of the hearer, he may be said to beget the Lord; and he is made the Lord’s mother, when by his word love of the Lord is begotten in the mind of his neighbour.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
And besides what has been said, He taught also somewhat more, namely, that we should not neglect virtue relying on any kindred. For if it profited His mother nothing that she was such, if she had not had virtue, who is there that shall be saved by his kindred? For there is one only nobility, to do the will of God, and therefore it follows, Whoso shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. Many women have blessed that holy Virgin and her womb, and have desired to be made such mothers. What is it then that hinders? Behold, He hath set before you a broad way, and not women only, but men likewise, may become the mother of God.
St Jerome † AD 420
Let us also expound in another way. The Saviour is speaking to the multitude—that is, He teaches the Gentiles the inward mysteries; His mother and His brethren, that is the synagogue and the Jewish people, stand without.
St Hilary † AD 367
Although they had like the rest power to come in, yet they abstain from all approach to Him, for he came unto his own, and his own received him not. (John 1:11.)
St Gregory the Great † AD 604 ubi sup.
Thus also His mother is declared to stand without, as though she was not acknowledged, because the synagogue is therefore not acknowledged by its Author, because it held to the observance of the Law, and having lost the spiritual discernment thereof, kept itself without to guard the letter.
St Jerome † AD 420
And when they shall have asked and enquired, and sent a messenger, they shall receive for answer, that their will is free, and that they can enter in, if they will believe.
The Latin text
Hilarius in Matth
Quia praedicta omnia in paternae maiestatis virtute loquebatur, nuntianti sibi, quod foris a matre atque fratribus expectaretur, quid responderit Evangelista demonstrat subdens adhuc eo loquente ad turbas, ecce mater eius et fratres foris stabant, quaerentes loqui ei
Augustinus de Cons. Evang
Hoc sine dubio convenienter gestum intelligere debemus: praemisit enim cum ad hoc narrandum transiret adhuc eo loquente ad turbas. Quid est autem adhuc, nisi quando illud loquebatur? Nam et Marcus post illud quod de blasphemia spiritus sancti retulerat, dixit: et veniunt mater eius et fratres. Lucas autem non huius rei gestae ordinem tenuit, sed praeoccupavit hoc, et recordatum ante narravit
Hieronymus contra Helvidium
Hinc Helvidii una propositio sumitur, ex hoc quod fratres domini in Evangelio nominantur. Unde, inquit, fratres domini dicti sunt qui non erant fratres? Sed iam nunc sciendum est quatuor modis in Scripturis divinis fratres dici: natura, gente, cognatione, et affectu. Natura, ut Esau et Iacob. Gente, ut omnes Iudaei fratres inter se vocantur, ut in Deuteronomio: non poteris constituere super te hominem alienum qui non est frater tuus. Porro cognatione fratres vocantur qui sunt de una familia, sicut in Genesi: dixit Abraham ad Lot: non sit rixa inter te et me, quoniam fratres sumus. Affectu etiam fratres dicuntur: quod in duo dividitur: in speciali et in communi: in speciali, quia omnes Christiani fratres dicuntur, ut salvator dicit: vade, dic fratribus meis; porro in communi, quia omnes homines ex uno patre nati, pari inter nos germanitate coniungimur, sicut ibi: dicite his qui oderunt vos: fratres nostri vos estis. Interrogo ergo, iuxta quem modum fratres domini in Evangelio appellentur. Iuxta naturam? Sed Scriptura non dicit, nec Mariae eos vocans filios, nec Ioseph. Iuxta gentem? Sed absurdum est ut pauci ex Iudaeis vocati sint fratres, cum omnes qui ibi fuerunt Iudaei, fratres potuerint appellari. Iuxta affectum humani iuris, et spiritus? Verum sit: qui magis erant fratres quam apostoli, quos dominus docebat intrinsecus? Aut si omnes quia homines, sunt fratres, stultum fuit nuntiare quasi proprium: ecce fratres tui quaerunt te. Restat igitur ut fratres eos intelligas appellatos cognatione, non affectu, non gentis privilegio, non natura
Hieronymus super Matth
Quidam vero fratres domini de alia uxore Ioseph filios suspicantur, sequentes deliramenta apocryphorum, et quamdam Escham mulierculam confingentes. Nos autem fratres domini, non filios Ioseph, sed consobrinos salvatoris, sororis Mariae materterae domini filios intelligimus: quae esse dicitur mater Iacobi minoris et Ioseph et Iudae, quos in alio Evangelii loco fratres domini legimus appellatos. Fratres autem consobrinos dici omnis Scriptura demonstrat
Chrysostomus in Matth
Vide autem et fratrum eius elationem: cum enim deceret eos ingredi, et audire cum turba; vel si hoc non vellent, expectare finem sermonis, et tunc eum adire: hi extra eum vocant; et coram omnibus hoc faciunt; et superfluum honoris amorem ostendentes, et monstrare volentes quod cum omni potestate Christo aliquid iniungunt: quod et Evangelista ostendit, hoc ipsum obscure insinuans, cum dicit adhuc eo loquente; ac si diceret: numquid non erat tempus aliud? Quid autem et loqui volebant? Si pro veritatis dogmatibus, communiter hoc proponere oportebat, ut et alios lucrarentur; si autem de aliis sibiipsis pertinentibus, non oportebat ita festinanter vocare: unde manifestum est quoniam solum ex vana gloria hoc faciebant
Augustinus de natura et gratia
Sed quidquid dicatur de fratribus, de sancta virgine Maria, propter honorem Christi, nullam prorsus, cum de peccatis agitur, habere volo quaestionem. Inde enim scimus quod ei plus gratiae collatum fuerit ad vincendum omni ex parte peccatum, quod concipere et parere meruit eum quem constat nullum habuisse peccatum. Sequitur dixit autem ei quidam: ecce mater tua et fratres tui foris stant, quaerentes te
Hieronymus
Videtur mihi iste qui nuntiat, non fortuito et simpliciter nuntiare, sed insidias tendere, utrum spirituali operi carnem et sanguinem praeferat: unde et dominus non quod matrem negaret et fratres, exire contempsit, sed quod responderet insidianti
Chrysostomus in Matth
Neque autem dixit: vade, dic ei quoniam non est mater mea; sed ad eum qui nuntiaverat extendit sermonem: sequitur enim at ipse respondens dicenti sibi ait: quae est mater mea et qui sunt fratres mei?
Hilarius in Matth
Non autem fastidiose de matre sua sensisse existimandus est, cui in passione positus maximae sollicitudinis tribuit affectum
Chrysostomus in Matth
Quod si negare vellet matrem, tunc utique negasset quando Iudaei exprobrabant ei de matre
Hieronymus
Non ergo, iuxta Marcionem et Manichaeum, matrem negavit, ut natus de phantasmate putaretur, sed apostolos cognationi praetulit, ut et nos in comparatione dilectionis, carni spiritum praeferamus; nec maternum refutat obsequium pietatis, cuius praeceptum est: honora patrem tuum et matrem tuam, sed paternis se mysteriis vel affectibus amplius quam maternis debere demonstrat: unde sequitur et extendens manum in discipulos dixit: ecce mater mea et fratres mei
Gregorius in Evang
Fideles quidem discipulos fratres nominare dignatus est dominus, dicens: ite, nuntiate fratribus meis. Qui ergo frater domini fieri ad fidem veniendo potuit, quaerendum est quomodo etiam esse possit mater. Sed sciendum nobis est, quia qui Christi frater vel soror est in credendo, mater efficitur praedicando: quasi enim parit dominum, quem cordi audientis infundit; et mater eius efficitur, si per eius vocem amor domini in proximi mente generatur
Chrysostomus in Matth
Cum his autem quae dicta sunt et aliud nos docuit: videlicet in nulla cognatione confidentes, virtutem negligere. Si enim matri nihil prodest matrem esse, nisi virtus adesset, quis utique alius per cognationem salvabitur? Una enim nobilitas sola est Dei facere voluntatem: et ideo sequitur quicumque enim fecerit voluntatem patris mei, qui in caelis est, et cetera. Multae mulieres beatificaverunt sanctam virginem illam et eius uterum, et optaverunt tales fieri matres. Quid est igitur quod prohibeat? Ecce latam vobis constituit viam; et licet non mulieribus solum, sed et viris fieri matrem Dei
Hieronymus
Dicamus autem et aliter. Salvator loquitur ad turbas: intrinsecus erudit nationes; mater eius et fratres, hoc est synagoga et populus Iudaeorum foris stant
Hilarius
Cum itaque ingrediendi ad eum haberent, ut ceteri, potestatem, quia tamen in sua venit, et sui eum non receperunt, ingressu eius atque aditu abstinent
Gregorius in Evang
Unde et mater eius cum quasi non agnoscitur, foris stare perhibetur: quia videlicet synagoga idcirco ab auctore suo non recognoscitur, quia legis observationem tenens, spiritualem intellectum perdidit, et se ad custodiam litterae foris fixit
Hieronymus
Cumque rogaverint et quaesierint et nuntium miserint, responsum accipient, liberos eos esse arbitrii, et intrare posse, si velint et ipsi credere
12:1
At that time Jesus went through the corn fields (Through the crops of corn becoming white, or ripe), &c. Luke adds that this Sabbath was the first from the second (Vulg.); which I will explain in the proper place. Again there is here a Hysterologia; for these things appear to have happened after the Mission of the Apostles, and therefore before the Sermon on the Mount, as may be gathered from Mark ii. 22, and Luke vi. 1. That they rubbed the ears of corn in their hands, and satisfied their hunger is, says S. Jerome, a mark of their austere life. But when the Pharisees saw it, &c. Luk 7:2, has, they said unto them, i.e., to the disciples of Christ, because they brought forward the objection first against the disciples, afterwards against Christ. Observe, they do not find fault with the disciples for plucking ears of corn, or grapes; for this was permitted by the law, Deut. xxiii 25, but because they did it on the Sabbath. For to pluck ears seems a servile work, and therefore, a violation of the rest and sanctity of the Sabbath. Allegorically. SS. Hilary, Ambrose, and Bede think that it is signified by this that the Apostles in the second Sabbath from the first, i.e., in the time of the gospel would gather grains from the seed and crops of preaching, i.e., the elect faithful, from among all nations, by whose faith and piety they should be fed, until they should lay them up with themselves in the heavenly barn. But the Pharisees seeing the Gentiles preferred to themselves in the Gospel envied them, and vainly murmured against the Apostles. Tropologically: Bede says, "Those walk with the Lord, through the corn fields, who delight to meditate on the sacred oracles. They hunger, when they desire to find therein the bread of life; and that on the Sabbath, when they are glad to rest with a mind free from disturbing thoughts. They rub the ears, and purify them from the husks that they may reach the grain, when they take up the testimonies of Scripture, and dwell upon them until they find in them, as it were the marrow of love. But this refreshment of the mind is displeasing to fools, and is approved by the Lord."
12:3
But He said unto them, Have ye not read And they that were with Him ? This last seems to be at variance with 1Sa 21, where it is said, David was alone. I answer, David flying from Saul, went alone to Ahimelech, whom Mark calls Abiathar, the high priest; and asked, and received the loaves from him, which he brought to the companions of his flight, whom he had left, elsewhere, waiting for him, as is plain both from this passage, as well as from 1Sa 21:2, where David says to the priest, "I have appointed to the young men for such and such a place. So S. Jerome."
12:4
How he entered, &c. The shew-bread. The shew-bread were loaves always set forth in the Holy Place, before the Holy of Holies, which was, as it were, the throne of God, sitting upon the Mercy-seat; they were loaves, therefore, set forth before the face of God. Whence the LXX. has άρτους ε̉νωπίους, i.e., panes faciales, Syriac, the bread of the Lord's table. In Heb. they are called, לתסי פנים lachme panim, that is, loaves of faces. They were twelve, six on one side of the table and six on the other side, as there are two cheeks on a face. By these twelve loaves, the twelve tribes of Israel confessed that they were continually fed and nourished by God. Wherefore frankincense was put upon them (see Lev. xxiv.); for frankincense was the symbol that they were the Lord's, and were offered to Him. In return, God, from His satisfaction at the offering of these loaves made manifest that He always remembered the twelve tribes, and had them before His face continually. See what has been said on Exo 25:30. God had commanded these sacred loaves to be renewed every Sabbath. New loaves were placed upon the table, and the old were taken away. They were eaten by the priests only, and that only in the Tabernacle, as is plain from Lev 24:8-9. The force of the argument is this: David, a man after God's own heart, made use of the holy shew-bread, in the necessity of his hunger loaves which it was not lawful for laymen to eat because he wisely judged, that this positive law concerning laymen not eating them ought to yield to the law of nature, which dictates that in grave necessity of famine life ought to be preserved by eating any bread whatsoever, even loaves consecrated to God. Thus, SS. Paulinus and Laurence, and others, sold chalices and vessels consecrated to God, that by the money which they fetched they might afford help to the poor in their hunger and necessity. Therefore, saith Christ in effect, "Much rather is it lawful for Me and My disciples to pluck ears of corn on the Sabbath, that by the grains extracted from them we may relieve our hunger. For the sanctity of the Sabbath, forbidding servile work, such as plucking ears of corn, is a divine positive law, and ought to yield to the law of nature, which dictates that in hunger it is our duty to sustain life by any kind of food."
12:5
Or have ye not read, &c. Profane, viz., by slaying and skinning and cutting up the victims, by laying the wood in order, and by kindling a fire, by which the victims might be burnt in God's honour. These works, considered merely in themselves, are servile, and would profane the Sabbath unless piety excused them, and, instead of servile and profane, made them sacred and divine. The meaning is, As necessity excused David and piety the priests, so do both excuse My disciples from a breach of the Sabbath, for this plucking of the ears. For they follow Me as the Messiah, and are so intent upon My sacred doctrine that they have forgotten to prepare food. Observe the expression, have ye not read ? The following words are nowhere found literally in Scripture, but they occur in sense in Numb. xxviii. and elsewhere, where the rites of sacrificing on the Sabbath are sanctioned. Hence it is an axiom of the Jews, "there is no Sabbath in the temple;" that is, no cessation from work, because of the slaying and burning the sacrifices.
12:6
But I say unto you, &c. For Christ, Who here speaks, allows His disciples to pluck the ears. Christ speaks of Himself in the third person out of modesty. The meaning is, If the sanctity of the temple frees from blame the sacrificing priests who break the Sabbath, a like cause excuses My disciples, for I am greater and holier than the temple. Yea, I am the Lord of the temple, to whom, in truth, all the victims in the temple were offered and sacrificed. But if ye had known what that meaneth, &c. Syriac, ye would not have condemned them (my disciples), since they are guiltless. He cites Hosea vi. 6, which see. The force of the argument is, mercy is more powerful, and better than sacrifice or Sabbath, therefore for its sake it is lawful to violate the rest of the Sabbath. Wrongly, therefore, O ye Scribes, do ye condemn My disciples in this matter, for they are innocent, and free from all blame therein, because of the mercy which is here exercised. The mercy is that I have permitted My hungry servants to pluck these ears on the Sabbath. Moreover, I enjoin upon them by My word, as well as by My example, that they should have compassion upon so many wretched perishing souls, and should procure their salvation, by teaching, admonishing, and praying for them, with zeal and care. To this applies that golden sentence of Simeon the just (this is he who, as the Hebrews think, took Christ in His arms, and sang his last song, Lord now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace) in Pirke Aboth, i.e., Tne sentences of the Fathers, "The world rests upon, and is supported by three things, 1. by the law, 2. by Divine worship, 3. by mercy."
12:8
For the Son of man, &c. I, who by nature am the Son of God, and have deigned to become the Son of Man, i.e., man, am by this very circumstance, the Lord, that is the author and lawgiver of the whole Mosaic Law, and consequently also of the Sabbath. Therefore I am able to give to My disciples a dispensation with respect to it.
12:9
And when he had passed over from thence, &c. Luke adds, that this was done on another Sabbath. For Christ designedly chose the Sabbath day for a fresh miracle, that he might, again and again, refute the error of the Scribes, that it was unlawful to heal sick persons on the Sabbath.
12:10
And behold a man having his hand withered, &c. S. Jerome adds, "in the Gospel, which the Nazareni and Ebionites use, which we have lately translated from Hebrew into Greek, and which is called by very many Persons the original (authenticum) of Matthew, this man, who had the withered hand, is called a mason. And he prayed for help in these words, I was a mason, gaining my livelihood by my hands: I beseech Thee, O Jesus, that Thou wouldst restore me to soundness, that I may not shamefully beg my bread." By the word hand understand arm: for χεὶρ, i.e., hand, is made by Hippocrates to extend from the shoulder to the fingers. This man's arm was affected by a double disease. 1. A convulsion of the nerves. 2. Atrophy, for it was dried up for want of aliment, and was therefore naturally incurable.
And they asked him, i.e., the Scribes and Pharisees asked Christ, whether it were lawful to heal on the Sabbath day? Then, as Mark relates (iii. 4), Christ in turn asked the Scribes another question, which was the solution of their own, i.e., whether it were lawful to do good on the Sabbath, and heal the withered hand; or to do evil, i.e., not to heal, and do harm? He intimates, not to do good to one who is in misery, when it is in your power, is to do him an injury; and not to save life, or a soul, when you can, is to destroy it. Since, therefore, this is a command of the law of nature, it is not forbidden by the positive law of the Sabbath; for that would be unreasonable.
That they might accuse Him, to the common people, as being either powerless, or unmerciful, if He did not heal the sick man; but to the chief priests, as a violator of the Sabbath, if He did heal him.
12:11
But he said unto them, &c. He means to say, ye Scribes teach the Sabbath is not broken, if any one pull out a sheep fallen into a ditch on the Sabbath day that the sheep may not remain in the ditch and suffer hunger, on the Sabbath. Much more therefore is it lawful to release on the Sabbath a man afflicted with sickness. Thus thought the Scribes in the time of Christ, but now some Jews observe the rest of the Sabbath so superstitiously that they are not willing on that day to pull a man out of a ditch or sewer, nor to suffer themselves, if they have fallen in, to be drawn out. Volater (lib. 3, Geograph.) relates an amusing thing, which happened in the reign of Henry III. of England. A certain Jew fell into a drain at Tewkesbury on the Sabbath, and on account of his religion would not be drawn out. The Christian earl of the place, seeing it, would not allow him to be pulled out on the next day, through reverence for Sunday. Thus the man was choked, and died before he was drawn out. The Jew said "With putrid mud I'd rather choke, Than Jewish Sabbath should be broke." To whom the earl replied, "The Christian Sabbath keep thou too, Friend Solomon, thou faithless Jew."
12:12
How much rather is a man better (more worthy, noble, excellent), &c. If it is lawful to release a sheep from calamity on the Sabbath, why not a man? Especially since in lifting out the sheep there would be need of considerable labour; but Christ was about to effect the healing of the sick man by a single word. How could this be a servile work? Wherefore Mark adds, looking round about upon them with anger, being grieved at the hardness of their hearts.
12:13
Then He saith to the man, &c. Christ first by reason, now by a deed, viz., a miracle, confutes the ignorance of the Scribes, and makes manifest His own wisdom and goodness. Hear S. Athanas. (Hom. de Semente, sub fin. tom.), "Then Jesus saith to him, Stretch forth thine hand, for I do not touch thee, lest the Jews should have wherewith to accuse Me, lest with them, to touch, should be the same as to work. I act by word alone, for it has not been forbidden by God to speak on the Sabbath. If, then, a word performs the work, let him who says this word be held in admiration by you. Observe, too, the different way in which miracles are wrought. When Peter healed the paralytic at the Beautiful Gate of the Temple, he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up. The Lord, on the other hand, only commands, saying, Stretch forth thine hand, I give thee power to be healed. Thus He spake, thus He did, and the hand was restored." Allegorically. 1. Beda says, Adam plucking the forbidden fruit, dried up the hand of the human race, i.e., he deprived man of the power to be fruitful in good works. Christ restored that power by stretching forth His own hands upon the cross. 2. S. Jerome: "Until the coming of the Saviour, the hand of the Jews was withered in the synagogue, and the works of God were not done in it. Afterwards He came on earth, and the right hand of believers was restored by the Apostles, and rendered fit to do the first works." Tropologically. Hear S. Anselm: "The hand that is withered, and is to be healed, is ordered to be stretched out, because the weakness of an unfruitful soul can be cured no better manner than by the liberality of alms-giving. Wherefore John the Baptist advised the multitudes who asked him what they should do that they should not like dried trees be cast into the fire, do this one thing, 'He who hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he who hath food, let him do likewise.' And in Eccluis. iv. 36, 'In vain does a man stretch forth his hands to God, to beg remission of his sins who does not extend the same hands to confer a benefit upon the poor man who asks him. '"
12:14
Going out, &c. The Pharisees went out of the synagogue and left the multitude, in whose presence they did not dare to murmur against Christ.
12:16
And He commanded them, that they should not make Him known. Commanded, Gr. ε̉πετίμησε, i.e., He rebuked, threatened, commanded with threats, that they should not make known the miracles which He did, as well that He might not offend the Scribes, and excite them to greater envy and wrath, as that He might show how far removed He was from seeking glory of men.
12:18
Behold My servant (Vulg. puer meus) (Messias, Chald.), &c. I will put my spirit &c. I will endow Him with the gifts of the Holy Ghost in His conception. The Heb. is, אכדי Abdi, i.e., My servant, from whence it is plain Isaiah here speaks of Christ, not as He is God, but as He is man, for as such He is God's servant. It proves that Christ, by teaching and healing the sick, fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah concerning Himself, and His modesty, mercy, and equity; and therefore showed that He was the very Messiah foretold by Isaiah, and renowned for these gifts as by certain marks. Instead of, whom I have chosen, the Hebrew is, I will receive Him; LXX., I will take Him up; Chaldee, I will move Him.
And he shall show judgment, &c. i.e., what is just and equal: for this is the judgment of righteous judges. For Christ, as a law giver, shall preach the Evangelical law, not only to the Jews, like Moses, but, by the Apostles, to all nations wha soever. He shall not strirve, &c. the meekness of Christ, and His gentle method of teaching, are here noted.
12:20
A bruised reed, &c. Syriac and Arabic, and He shall not extinguish a lamp verging on extinction. This is a genuine proverb, meaning that Christ will not contentiously rebuke and oppress those who are weak in faith, hope, and love, but will strengthen and kindle them by His own meekness, gentleness, and patience. Listen to the Fathers. S. Jerome says, "He who does not stretch out his hand to a sinner, nor carry a brother's burden, breaks the bruised reed; he who despises a spark of faith in the little ones, quenches the smoking flax." S. Hilary: "He shows that He might easily break the persecutors as a broken reed, and quench their fury;" but, says S. Augustine, "He spares them because He came not to judgment." Rabanus says, "The bruised nations were not broken, but were reserved for salvation: neither were the Jews, who were agitated by the wind, condemned immediately, but were patiently borne with." Until he bring forth, &c., i.e., until He lead judgment, i.e., justice, or faith, and gospel sanctity, to victory, so that it may indeed have dominion over the whole world. Wherefore, the Vulgate in Isaiah translates He will place (as though a lord and conqueror) judgment in the earth (as it were a queen and lady governing all). The Hebrew is, He shall bring forth judgment unto truth, i.e., He shall bring true judgment.
12:21
And in His name, &c. Instead of Gentiles, the Hebrew has islands, meaning most remote nations, dwelling in islands, who shall place all their hope in Christ the Saviour. I have expounded all this more at length on Isaiah xlii. 1, which see. Then there was brought unto Him a man having a devil. Luke (Luk 11:14) says only that he was dumb: whence S. Augustine (L. 2 de Consens. Evang. sec. 37) is of opinion that Luke is speaking of another demoniac; but Luke does not say that he was not blind. Now the man was not blind and dumb from birth, or by disease, as Abul. and Barradi think, but was deprived of the use of his eyes and ears through the demoniacal possession. The demon, therefore, had not made him blind, nor taken away the faculty of speech, but only hindered the exercise of both. Whence, when the demon was cast out, without any other miraculous operation, the man began both to speak and to see. Thus S. Chrysostom, Enthym., Lyra, Jansen, Maldonatus. Hear S. Chrysostom: "O pestiferous craft of the devil! he seized upon, and obstructed both the ways, sight and hearing by which the man might believe." Hence S. Luke says that demon was dumb, &c., in its effects, because it made the man dumb whom it possessed. There was, then, in this miracle a threefold effect. For, as S. Jerome says, "In this one man three signs were wrought at one and the same time; the blind sees, the dumb speaks, the possessed of the devils is delivered." Tropologically: S. Jerome says, "What was then done literally is daily fulfilled in the conversion of believers, that, when the devil has been driven out they may first behold the light of faith, and then open their mouths to speak the praises of God." Then S. Augustine says, "He, having a devil, is blind and dumb, who does not believe: and he is a slave of the devil, who does not understand, and does not confess the true faith, or who does not give praise to God." (Lib. 1. quæst. Evangel. q. 3.) The devil then makes men dumb lest they should confess their sins and expel their poison; lest they should praise God; lest they should instruct their neighbours: but Christ by His grace, looses their mouths to confess, to praise, to teach. Wisely saith S. Bernard (in Senteentiis) "Why art thou ashamed to speak of thy sin, when thou wast not ashamed to do it? or why dost thou blush to confess to God, from whose eyes thou canst not be hid? And if thou art so grievously ashamed to expose thy sin to one man, a sinner himself, what wilt thou do in the day of judgment, when thy consciousness of guilt will be exposed to all?"
12:23
And all the multitudes were amazed, &c. ε̉ξίσταντο, i.e., were astonished and admired so that they, as it were, were rapt out of themselves in an ecstasy, at seeing so many and so great miracles of Christ; wherefore they said, No Prophet hath done so many miracles as Jesus hath. Therefore He is greater than them all. Consequently, He is the Son of David, the Messiah promised to David, whom we are all eagerly expecting.
12:24
When the Pharisees heard it, &c. The Pharisees were so blinded by their envy and hatred of Christ, that when they could not deny His miracles so clearly attested, they slanderously said, that they were magical, and not wrought by power of God, but by Beelzebub. They made Christ to be a magician who had a familiar demon, by whose power He wrought miracles.
12:26
But if Satan cast out Satan, &c. It means the kingdom of Satan upon earth could not stand, if Satan, i.e., one devil were constantly to rise up against another devil, and fight with him, so that the inferior should be continually striving to cast out his superior from men. Thus you, O ye Scribes, behold Me, continually and assiduously, with hostility punish the devils, and expel them from the souls and bodies of men. Therefore, not by the help of Beelzebub, but by the power of God, I cast them out. Neither indeed is Beelzebub so foolish as to send the devils who are subject to him, to drive out one the other. For by so doing he would destroy his and their kingdom. So also mutinous soldiers, when they rebel against their prince are closely and intimately united among themselves, for they know, if they should disagree, they would easily be overthrown by their prince. I have spoken of Christ's hostility to the devils; because Apollonius of Tyana, as Philostratus testifies in his life, and magicians cast out devils, but by collusion with them, that they may entice men to sorcerers, and to sorcery, i.e., fellowship with the devil. But Christ proves by what follows, that He had no fellowship with the devil. I spoke also of habitual warfare; for frequently strife and battle will arise among the devils for the possession of a man. An aged priest, worthy of credit, who had discharged the office of exorcist for many years and expelled devils at Rome, once told me he had seen with his eyes, and heard with his ears, two men possessed with devils, contending and fighting with one another, in the Church of S. Matthew. The devil who possessed one of the men was of a higher order and superior to the other; and he wished to cast out the other devil, as an inferior, from the man whom he possessed. But the inferior devil resisted, and greatly abused his superior; and among other things, he said to him, "Thou art an infernal devil, and by the just judgment of God being banished to hell, art far more heavily punished than I am, who am not an infernal devil, but am permitted to live here in the air, because I did not rebel against God as thou didst, but only clave and consented to Lucifer, as a subject to my superior." But such things as this are very uncommon and are succeeded by peace, even as these two devils after a short time laid aside their contention, and rested, and held their peace. For although those who are damned, and the devils, burn with pride, wrath, and hatred one against another, and quarrel, and tear one another in hell like dogs; nevertheless, on earth they must agree among themselves, in order that they may establish their kingdom and dominion over men.
12:27
But if I beg Beelzebub, &c. This is Christ's second proof, by which He shows, that he cast out devils by the help of God not of Satan, By your sons, in the first place, SS. Hilar., Chrys., Theoph., Enthym. understand, your Apostles, for they were sons of the Jews. These writers think that this happened after Christ sent forth the Apostles, when the Apostles, by the help of Christ, cast out devils, and wrought many miracles. But it is more probable that this happened before the mission of the Apostles. Hence it is better to understand by your sons, Jewish exorcists, who, by the method handed down by Solomon, expelled demons. (See Joseph. Lib. 8, cap. 2.) Such exorcists were the seven sons of Sceva, a chief of the priests (Act 19:14). So Jansen, Tolet, and others.
Therefore they shall be your judges. In the day of judgment, they shall, by their deeds, condemn you, because ye have passed so perverted a judgment upon Me, namely that they have cast out devils by the help of God, but I by the assistance of Satan; although ye behold far greater proofs of the presence and operation of God in Me, than in your own exorcists. For who of them has healed so many sick, and raised so many dead persons as I have done? Who of them has preached such sublime and Divine doctrine as I preach? Therefore shall the Queen of Sheba and the Ninevites, by their faith and repentance in the day of judgment condemn the unbelieving Jews.
12:28
But if I by the Spirit of God, &c. If I by the power of God and the Holy Ghost not of Beelzebub, cast out devils, then that is true (and the Holy Ghost himself manifestly attests it by his concurrence) which I and John Baptist have put forward as the head and sum of our preaching the kingdom of Heaven is at hand. Ye see the kingdom of the devil by Me everywhere destroyed by My words, and by what I effect in the bodies and souls of men: and thus God's kingdom is begun by grace. This is what John says (1 Epist. iii. 8), In this the Son of God was manifested that he might destroy the works of the devil. For as S. Leo says, "Those nails which pierced the Lord's hands and feet inflicted eternal wounds upon the devil; and the Punishment of His holy limbs was the death of the hostile powers."
12:29
Or how can one enter into the strong man's house, &c. Instead of, or, the Gr. has ὴ,which Pagninus translates otherwise; the Arab. and; others, for. A new reason is here given, the third, whereby Christ proves that He casts out devils by the help of God, not of Beelzebub. The argument is drawn from a comparison, thus: As he who attacks the castle of any strong or valiant man, like Samson or Hercules, to spoil it, is not able to accomplish it unless he first vanquish and bind the strong man; so in like manner, I Christ, who spoil the kingdom of Satan by leading sinners, his subjects, to repentance and salvation, must needs overcome and bind Satan himself; for, otherwise, he would not allow this spoliation. Satan therefore is My enemy, and has been overthrown by Me. He is not My friend or ally in casting out demons, as ye calumniously assert. The strong man then, in this passage, is the devil; the house is the world; the vessels are his arms; his goods, his instruments. The arms of the devil are fraud and deceit by which he entices men to sin; his arms are wealth, honours, riches. They are also inferior demons and wicked men, says S. Chrysostom. These the devil makes use of against us, to tempt and vex us. His goods are the souls of sinners, and the bodies of the possessed; yea the souls of the fathers detained in Limbus before Christ. All these Christ took away from the devil, and bound him in hell. Moreover, the devil is here called a strong one, because he goeth about like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour, as S. Peter saith. Job (40 and 41) depicts his strength and might under the figures of Behemoth and Leviathan. By the strong man understand Lucifer, the prince of the devils, the antagonist of Christ and S. Michael. For Lucifer, being conquered by Christ on the Cross, was thrust down to hell, that there he should remain, personally bound, until the day of judgment. Then he will be loosed for a little space, as John says (Apoc. xx.). Nevertheless, Lucifer is so bound in hell, that he is not only able to go forth himself, but even by means of his demons, whom he sends forth into the world. Yet he is not able to hurt men as much as he was before. For Christ has greatly restrained and diminished the power and might of the demons. S. Anthony was taught this by long experience, as S. Athanas. testifies in his Life: "The devil" he says, "was hooked by the Lord, like a dragon, by the hook of the Cross; and was taken in a drag-net, and was bound like a fugitive slave, and his lips were perforated by a ring and a bracelet, and he is not permitted to devour any of the faithful. Now, like a wretched sparrow, he is made sport of by Christ; now he groans at his companions, being trodden like serpents and scorpions under the heels of Christians. He who boasted that he drank up every sea, he who pretended that he held the world in the hollow of his hand, lo! he is conquered by you; lo! he is not able to prevent my entering the lists against him." And he confirms this by the devil's own confession (cap. 20). "I saw," he said, "a man of enormous height, whose head reached unto Heaven. When I asked him who he was, he said, I am Satan. And I, What seekest thou here? He answered, Why do all Christian people curse me? I answered, Hast thou not read, 'Because the swords of the enemy have failed at the end, and thou hast destroyed their cities?' (Vulg.) He said, Lo, now have I no place, I possess no city, I have no arms: the name of Christ sounds throughout all nations and all provinces, and the wilderness is peopled with choirs of monks. Let them, I beseech you, look at themselves, and not wound me without cause."
12:30
He who is not with Me is against Me. First, SS. Hilary, Jerome, Chrysostom, Theophylact expound of the strong man, i.e., the devil. The devil is not with Me, in such manner that he is against Me: and the things which I gather, he strives to disperse. This, therefore, is a fourth argument of Christ against the Scribes. Its force is as follows: They whose works are contrary, are themselves contrary. But My works and the devil's are contrary; therefore, I and he are contrary to each other. For, as S. Jerome says, "He, the devil, desires to hold captive the souls of men, but the Lord to deliver them. He preaches idolatry, Christ, the knowledge of the one God; the one draws to vice, the other recalls to virtue. How, then, can they have agreement between themselves, whose works are contrary?" 2. You may take the passage more simply with S. Chrysostom, with an application to the Pharisees, thus: As when a sedition arises in a kingdom or city, and one part rises against another part, so that evil-disposed men endeavour to seize upon the commonwealth, and spoil it, as Catiline with his fellow-conspirators did at Rome; then it is necessary for good citizens to defend the state, and he who does not, but desires to be neutral, is looked upon as an enemy and a companion of the seditious: because, under those circumstances, all citizens are bound to help the city or republic with all their might. Thus, in like manner, I, who have proclaimed universal war with Satan, that I may expel him from his dominion over the world, look upon all men as it were citizens of the world, as subjects of Me, their true Prince. If, therefore, they are not with Me in this war, and if they do not fight under My banner, they are contrary to Me, and My enemies, and, as such, I shall treat them, and punish them. Such, therefore, are you, O ye Pharisees, who ought above all, as my subjects, and better instructed than other men, to receive Me as the Messiah, the Christ prophesied of in your law and the prophets, and to commend Me as such to the people; notwithstanding, ye are secretly My adversaries, and openly ye dissimulate as though ye were judges appointed to make inquisition concerning My life and doctrine. Thus this saying of Christ is not opposed to what He says in Luke ix. 50 He who is not against you, is on your part: for there He is speaking of one who is really in doctrinal agreement with the Apostles, and therefore is with them and for them, although for some just reason he does not profess as much openly.
12:31
Therefore I say unto you, every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven a man: but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven. The word Spirit is in the genitive case, as is plain from the Greek πνεύματος. The blasphemy therefore of the Spirit is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Whence the Arabic translates, Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit; Syriac, Blasphemy against the Spirit of Holiness. You will ask, what is this blasphemy? 1. Philastrius (On the Heresy of Rotorius) thinks it is heresy, especially that of Eunomius, who said that the Holy Ghost was not God. Thus also S. Ambrose (Lib. 1, de Spir. Sanc. sec. 3). 2. S. Hilary thinks that blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is when a man denies that Christ is God. "The sin against the Holy Ghost," he says, "is to deny to God the power of virtue, and to take away from Christ His eternal substance, by which, because God came into man, man shall in turn come to God; since God grants pardon to all other things, whilst this only is without forgiveness." 3. S. Ambrose (L. 2, de pœniten. see. 4) thinks it is schism; also Simony, the sin whereby, for example, Simon Magus wished to buy the Holy Spirit of S. Peter. 4. Origen says it is every mortal sin after Baptism; committed, that is, after the grace of the Holy Spirit received in Baptism. Moreover, Pope Gelasius (de Anath. vinc.) understands by it sins which are not forgiven, either in this world, or in the world to come. But he thinks it refers to sinners who do not wish to repent. For he says, that man makes the sentence against himself irrevocable who wills to continue in such a state as that he cannot truly be forgiven. 5. S. Cyprian (L. 3, ad Quirinal, N. 28) says, blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is every sin committed against God: but blasphemy against the Son of Man is every sin committed against man. 6. The same Saint (L 3, Epist. 14) thinks blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is denial of the faith in persecution. 7. Richard of S. Victor says, it is to hate and revile God. I have summarily embraced eighteen expositions of the Fathers (viz., eleven of the Latin Fathers and seven of the Greek) in the foregoing paragraphs. Lastly, theologians and from them, catechists out of various expositions of S. Augustine, collect six sins against the Holy Ghost; namely, presumption, despair, striving against known truth, envy of fraternal charity, impenitence, and obstinacy. They say that these are called sins against the Holy Ghost, because they are committed through undoubted wickedness against the goodness of God, which is an attribute of the Holy Ghost. Thus, likewise, sins which are committed through infirmity are said to be done against God the Father, because power is one of His especial attributes. And sins which are done through ignorance, are said to be done against the Son, because of His attribute of wisdom. Note, therefore, that Christ is here speaking not of every sin against the Holy Ghost, but only of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which may take place by words; and the same reasoning will apply to thoughts and actions, as when anyone reviles works manifestly divine and miraculous, which God works for the salvation of men, by which He confirms faith and truth. Such a work is the casting out of devils; and because such works proceed from the goodness and holiness of God, they are attributed to the Holy Ghost, who proceeds from the Father and the Son by procession and inspiration, as Love, Goodness, and Holiness. When, therefore, anyone calumniates such things, and knowingly out of malice ascribes them to an unclean spirit (as these Pharisees did), such an one is said to commit blasphemy against the Holy Ghost; for such an one directly fights against God and takes from Him His holiness and purity. The whole argument is expressed in the following syllogism: The author of the miracles which Christ performs is, according to you, O ye Scribes, Beelzebub: But God the Holy Ghost is, in truth, the Author of these miracles: Therefore, according to you, God and the Holy Ghost are Beelzebub. What more horrible can possibly be said? What greater blasphemy can be imagined? S. Basil adds that there are such persons even now, who ascribe the fruits and actions of the Holy Ghost to the opposing unclean spirit. We many of us do this, when we call earnestness ambition, and impute the calumny of anger to one who is only moved by zeal and righteous indignation. Moreover, Christ opposes this blasphemy against God and the Holy Ghost to that blasphemy against the Son of Man by which some who were offended at Christ's human conversation, calumniated what He did as man, as when they called Him a wine bibber, and a friend of Publicans and sinners. This was something more excusable, and less unworthy of forgiveness, because it had respect to Christ as Man rather than as God.
Shall not be forgiven: Arab. Shall not be relaxed, i.e., shall with difficulty, and seldom be forgiven. For this blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is most horrible, inexcusable, and altogether unworthy of pardon, and, considered simply in itself, takes away and excludes all medicine, and means of obtaining forgiveness. For such a blasphemer places himself in diametrical opposition to the Holy Ghost, and drives Him from him, yea blasphemes Him: the Holy Ghost, I say, by whom alone he could be absolved, healed, and sanctified. Similarly, we call an incurable disease one which does not admit of medicine, and rejects every kind of food. Nevertheless a blasphemer does not shut up the hand of God, so that God cannot have mercy upon him, although unworthy; and convert him, as He converted S. Paul, who confesses that he had been a blasphemer against God (1Ti 1:13).
12:32
And whosoever shall speak a word, &c. Christ declares the same truth in still clearer words. A word, anything injurious, reviling, blasphemous, it shall be forgiven him, it is remissible, and is readily forgiven to the penitent. From hence, it is plain against the Novatians, that all persons who have lapsed into heinous sins, should he admitted to penance.
But whosoever shall speak against the Holy Ghost, &c. Syriac, whosoever shall revile the Holy Ghost. Here, first, Origen is condemned, who extended repentance, pardon, and salvation, to all sinners, after this life. For he said, after the great year of Plato, all things would be restored afresh, and that Judas would be saved; and Lucifer, together with the devils and the damned, would be brought back to heaven. 2. S. Aug. (21 Civit. 24), S. Greg. (4 dialog. 39), Isidore, Bede, S. Bern., and others, quoted by Bellarmine (Lib. 2. de Purgat. sec. 4), prove from this passage, that there is a Purgatory after this life. For it would be unmeaning to say, shall not be forgiven nor in the world to come, if there were no remission of sins in the world to come. Thus a person would speak vainly who said, I will never marry a wife, neither in this world, nor in the world to come, since no wife can be married in the world to come. Mark adds, and gives greater force to the saying: but shall be guilty of eternal damnation. Moreover mortal sins are expiated in Purgatory, so far only as pertains to their punishment, but venial sins as regards both fault and punishment.
12:33
Either make the tree good, &c. This is Christ's fifth argument, and as S. Jerome says, forms a dilemma, from which it is impossible to escape. 1. And plainly, this tree is Christ. Make, i.e., appoint, assert. Either approve and praise Me, together with My works, which seem to you to be laudable; or condemn Me, with My works as a bad tree. He means, you, O ye Pharisees, praise My works, and yet condemn Me the author of them. But if ye praise the works, ye ought likewise to praise their author. Or if ye condemn the author, ye ought also to condemn the works. Otherwise ye flatly contradict your own selves. 2. S. Jerome by tree understands the devil, to whom the Scribes attributed the works and miracles of Christ. As thus, "If ye praise My works, then ye ought also to praise the devil to whom ye ascribe them; which is most absurd." 3. S. Aug. (Serm. 12. de Verb. Dom.), by tree understands the Pharisees themselves. If ye wish to be, and to be accounted good, do good works, namely, praise good men and good things. For if ye do evil, as in truth ye do, when ye condemn Me and My Divine works, ye must needs confess yourselves to be bad and wicked calumniators, for a calumniator is known by his calumnies, as a tree is known by its fruit. From hence S. Aug. gathers the moral argument. "First," he says, "a man must be changed, that his works may be changed. For if a man remained in that which is bad, he cannot have good works: if he remain in that which is good, he cannot have bad works."
12:34
O generation of vipers, &c. Christ here calls the Pharisees vipers, for this special reason, that they, like vipers, uttered viperous words and calumnies, by which they endeavoured to defame Christ and cut Him off. For they had a viper's heart, that is a heart full of the poison of envy, pride, hatred and malice against Christ, from which they belched forth those viperous and deadly calumnies.
Out of the abundance of the heart, &c., i.e., from that which abounds in the heart, which the heart of en thinks about and loves, that, the mouth speaketh. If the heart, i.e., the mind and the will, abound in goodness and charity, a man speaks good and loving things; if in the gall of malice and envy, he speaks words of gall and envy and bitterness; as ye do against Me, O ye Pharisees. Whence S. Chrysostom says, "if the words spoken by them are so evil, how great malice, think ye, do they have in their hearts, where God is the only witness? Wherefore, when thou hearest a man speaking evil, much greater may you consider is the wickedness which his words demonstrate. For what is spoken outwardly is but the super-effluence of that which is within, with which he has vehemently attacked you. For if what is spoken by them is so evil, how great is the root of thought which imagines the words? Do you wish then to know what any one has in his heart, consider what he says; what he has most frequently on his lips, for in that his heart abounds."
12:35
A good man, &c. He explains the abundance of the heart by a treasure, that is, a heap and accumulation. A good man, therefore, from the good heap of good thoughts and affections which he accumulates in his mind, brings forth good words and works. But an evil man, from the evil treasure and heap of evil affections, brings forth evil words and works. Hear S. Chrysostom, "He shows, either that the Jews themselves, blaspheming God, make manifest from what treasure house they draw their blasphemy; or else, the sentence is connected with what went before, that as a good man cannot bring forth evil things, nor an evil man good things; so neither can Christ do bad works, nor the devil good works."
12:36
But I say unto you, for every idle word... give an account (Arab. an answer). Give an account, i.e., to Christ the judge. Christ shall require of them an account of idle words; and if they are not able to render it, He will punish them. There is here a catachresis, as appears from the following verse. So SS. Hilary, Chrysostom, Jerome, and others. It is a Hebrew construction. For the Hebrews put the relative, with its antecedent, in the nominative case. The meaning then is, as S. Jerome says, "If he who speaks an idle word, which by no means edifies the hearers, is not without peril to him who speaks it, and if in the day of judgment every one shall give an account of his words; how much more shall ye, who blaspheme the works of the Holy Ghost, and say that I cast out devils through Beelzebub, give an account of your calumny? Again, like idle words, so too every idle thought, wish, and action, is at least a venial sin." You will ask, what is meant by an idle word ? The Gr. is α̉ργόν, as if α̉εργόν, that is inert, without art and work, lacking fruit and utility. First, Theophylact and Euthymius translate idle, calumnious. With them S. Chrysostom agrees, who says, "It is an idle word because it is false." He adds, "Some say, because it is vain, such as gives rise to inordinate laughter: or shameful or immodest." 2. And genuinely, an idle word is one that is vain, frivolous, ludicrous, which brings good neither to the speaker, nor to the hearer, even though it be injurious to no one, nor, in itself, reprehensible. Thus S. Jerome, "an idle word is what is spoken without profit either to the speaker, or the hearer, if omitting to speak of serious things we speak of what are frivolous and old wives' fables. But a man who utters what is scurrilous, or anything immodest, will be accounted guilty, not of idle, but of wicked words." S. Greg. (Hom. 6. in Evang. sub finem), says: "An idle word is one which is devoid of right usefulness, or the reason of just necessity. Turn ye therefore your idle words into endeavours after edification. Consider how swiftly the time of this life passes away; how swiftly the strict judge shall come." S. Bern. says, in his sermon of the threefold keeping of the hand, the tongue and the heart: "An idle word is one of which we can give no reasonable account, one which is without reason. Let none of us, brethren, think lightly of the time we spend in idle words. For now is the accepted time, now is the day of salvation. The word flies, and cannot be recalled. Time flies, and cannot be recovered; nor does foolish man consider what he loses. Let us chat, they say, to pass away the time. O meanwhile the hour, the time is passing away, which the mercy of thy Maker is giving thee to repent, to obtain pardon, to acquire grace, to gain eternal glory; the time is passing, in which you ought to propitiate the Divine mercy, to hasten to the society of the angels, to sigh for thy lost inheritance, to breathe after the promised felicity, to stir up thy weak will, to weep for the sins thou hast committed." An idle word then, according to S. Bern., is one spoken without reasonable cause. Such therefore is not one which is spoken pleasantly, to console the afflicted, or to exhilarate those who are sick and sad. Neither is it one which teaches human wisdom, as when the words and deeds of others are related, with this end, that, from them, we may learn to act and speak prudently. S. Basil goes further, and says that for a word not to be idle, a pious intention is required. But he is speaking to Religious, whose profession calls them to deal with and speak of holy things. He says: "An idle word is one which is not for edification in the Lord; for such grieves the Holy Ghost." For like as it is the part of a human being to act and speak according to the rule of right reason, and of a Christian according to the law of Christ, so it is the part of a Religious to speak according to the dictates of religion and piety. Whence S. Bern. says: "Thou hast consecrated thy mouth to the Gospel; it is no longer lawful for thee to open it for jests." 1. Then a pious intention is not required absolutely, that a word should not be idle. It is sufficient that it should, in some manner, be conducive to use, and human prudence. For thus the sailor speaks of the winds, the ploughman tells of oxen. Were it otherwise, nearly every word of artificers, of merchants, and men of the world would be idle. 2. Gabriel Vasquez (1. 2. disp. 52. in fine.) teaches that an idle word is not one uttered with this end only in view, that a man should give counsel with respect to any infirmity or want of nature: As for example, if one should say, when he is cold, I am frozen; I desire the fire, that I may drive away the cold. This idleness of thoughts, words, and works is, as it were, a wastefulness of time and human actions, which, other things being equal, is worse than waste of riches and fortune. For a small portion of time has been given us by God, in which to provide for a blessed eternity: and every moment of it we may, by thinking, speaking, and acting well, be acquiring for ourselves the greatest degrees and treasures of glory and blessedness, all which treasures are wasted by this idleness of words and works, as S. Bern. has rightly remarked. Everyone is bound to do and say all things in such manner as that they may be fitly referred to God, that is to say, that they should be adapted to please and obey Him, according to those words of the Apostle, "Whether ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God." (1Co 10:31.) Otherwise they are idle, i.e., useless for the final end of man. But for this it is required that they should be directed by right reason, and should be honest. For everything that is honest, and nothing but what is honest is pleasing to God. God has given us a mouth, that we should pray to Him and praise Him; and that we should speak what is useful and salutary to ourselves, or to our neighbours. But he who speaks what is idle and unprofitable, abuses his mouth, contrary to the mind and appointmerit of God. "For neither," as S. Ambrose says (in Psa 119 Serm. 22) "is it of small peril to speak of worldly and idle things, when we have such wonderful works of God to speak about. Let the righteous man be resolved to say with holy David, My tongue shall speak of Thy word, for all Thy commandments are equity (Vulg,); and thus let him shut out all idle words." From what has been said, it is plain that many idle things are done and said by most men, of which they will have to render an account to God. Wherefore, that they may provide a remedy against this evil, let them accustom themselves to do and say nothing without premeditation. In the second place, let them learn to speak sparingly, and only about good and useful things. 3. Let them for some days collect their mind and thoughts, and consider seriously the actions, reasons, objects, and intentions of their life; that if they be depraved or idle, they may correct them, and aim at some definite end for their whole life and all their actions, that in all they may seek God's glory and their own salvation and perfection. Moreover, let them each morning daily conceive this intention, and offer it to God, and frequently renew it through the day; that thus they may gain a habit of referring all their words and actions to this end. By this means they will at length always have this end (virtually) in sight, even though they may not actually think about it. For a good intention changes our words and actions, so that from being indifferent or idle they become honest, holy, and are rewarded with heavenly glory. Cassian tells of the Abbot Machetes, who, when idle things were being related, fell asleep; but, when spiritual things were spoken of, was always wakeful. He used to say that the devil was the author of idle words, and that he had found it out by the following proof: When he was discoursing about spiritual things, almost every one fell asleep; by-and-bye if he related some idle tale, he saw them all wake up. This caused him to groan, saying, Who is the author of this, unless it be he to whom idle things are pleasing, spiritual things displeasing-that is, the devil?
12:37
For by thy words, &c. Not only of works, but also of words, must we have a great care, since of both account must be given to God. They are both the fruit of the same tree that is, of the will whether it be good or bad. Wherefore thy words, no less than thy works, shall justify thee, if they be righteous and holy; or shall condemn thee, if they be depraved and perverse. They shall justify, I say that is, shall not only declare thee just, but shall also make thee just, or more just, if they proceed from the love of God and true repentance. But they shall condemn, and render thee liable to punishment if they be idle, wanton, quarrelsome, and so on. For those who are condemned by Christ in the Day of Judgment shall be punished, not only on account of mortal, but also of venial sins; yet, according to the gravity and desert of each, more or less severely.
12:38
Then certain of the Scribes a sign, &c. S. Luke (Luk 11:16) adds, from Heaven. These were some of those men who brought the false accusation against Christ, that He cast out devils by the help of Beelzebub. This is plain from S. Luke xi. 16. When they had been refuted by Christ, because they did not wish to seem overcome and convicted of falsehood, they pressed Him to confirm what He said by a sign, that is, by some celestial miracle. As thus: Thou sayest that Thou workest miracles by the help of God; if it be so, cause that God may attest that this is true by some sign from Heaven, by which He may signify that Thou art sent by Him, and dost cast out devils by His power. But the many diseases which were healed, the many dead who were raised up by Christ, with this object that He might show them that He was the Messiah, sent by God the Father ought to have been sufficient for them. But for the unbelieving and false accusers nothing is sufficient; and if one thing be granted, they ask, as a subterfuge, another and another. The meaning is this: Thy miracles, O Christ, are in the earth and of the earth, but we wish to see celestial miracles in Heaven. For God, Whom Thou assertest to be the Author of these miracles, dwells in Heaven. Cause, therefore, that fire may come down from Heaven, as Elias did; or that the sky may flash with new and marvellous thunders and lightnings, as Samuel did (1 Sam. vii. 10); or that the sun should stand still, as Joshua did. Thus S. Jerome: Tacitly, therefore, they scoff at Christ's miracles done on earth, as though they were tokens of Satanic influence; and they tempt Christ, that they may falsely accuse Him. But although He had shown such a sign in Heaven, they would immediately have sought a subterfuge, and would have required some other sign. For this is the disposition of all curious and cavilling persons, especially infidels and heretics.
12:39
He answered and said an evil generation and, that is, but, &c. generation (Gr. γενεα̉, i.e, nation, race) adulterous, i.e., faithless and unbelieving, because leaving God their husband to whom they had been betrothed by circumcision, they clave to the devil. Hence infidelity and idolatry are often called adultery by Ezekiel (Ezek cap. 16) and others. So Theoph. says, "He calls them an adulterous generation, because they forsook God, and clave to the devil." 2 Adulterous, i.e., degenerate from the faith and character of Abraham, Isaac and the rest of the Patriarchs. For they believed in Messiah, but these would not acknowledge Him when He was present, and proving Himself by so many miracles to be Messiah. For Messiah was the husband of the synagogue of the Jews, and is now the Spouse of the Christian Church, as is plain from Eph 5:32. For thus the Hebrews called spurious, i.e., degenerate children, bene nechar, i.e., strange children, or rather, children of a strange, that is to say, an adulterous father.
But no sign, &c. This perverse nation of the Jews asks of me a sign from Heaven, but I will not give it a sign, except a sign from the earth, that is, from the deep. I will not grant to the Jews any other sign than what I formerly promised, when I said, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it up;" but He spake of the temple of His body (S. Joh 2:19-21). (He meant the sign of the Resurrection, which is the sign of the prophet Jonah, because it was prefigured by Jonah.) For this Jonah clearly showed, who I am, why I died, why I am crucified, in respect of which they are offended; in truth that I am Messiah, the Tamer of Death and Sin, the Saviour of the World, and the Lord of Heaven and Earth. For the keepers of the sepulchre told the Jews that Christ was risen from the tomb; the Jews themselves saw the empty sepulchre, and the Apostles proved Christ's resurrection by many miracles. Wherefore many Jews at the time, and afterwards all nations, believed in Christ raised from death. For the Jews did not expect a humble and poor Messiah, but one who was rich and glorious. Such they beheld Christ in His Resurrection, Ascension, and Mission of the Holy Ghost. Whence they at that time acknowledged Him, and accepted Him as Messiah, according to what He said in Joh 8:28. When ye have lifted up the Son of Man, on the Cross, then ye shall know that I am He: for I shall rise gloriously from the cross and death. But the unbelieving Jews were likewise compelled to acknowledge that Christ was Messiah, for after His Resurrection He sent Titus and Vespasian, who destroyed Jerusalem and Judea, because of His unjust death at the hands of the Jews. Thus S. Chrysostom, for at that time there was a complete destruction of the nation, although it still endures, and shall endure until the end of the world. A righteous and avenging God brought this upon them on account of their crowning wickedness in killing Christ. This destruction is the most evident token that the Jesus whom the Jews put to death was the Messiah. Wherefore Christ brings forward this sign of Jonah, as it were a sign of the condemnation of the Jews by the Ninevites, for the Ninevites believed Jonah and repented, but the Jews would not believe Christ, and were therefore cut off. Maldonatus thinks that Christ gave the Jews who sought a sign from Heaven, a sign from earth, that they might be condemned; for it behoved that they who sought a sign deceitfully should be confounded.
12:40
For as Jonah was, &c., in the heart, i.e., in the lowest part of the earth, within the earth, as the heart is within the human body. When Christ died upon the cross, as His body was placed in the tomb, so did His soul descend into the Limbus Patrum, which is near the centre of the earth. You will ask, how Christ was three days and nights in the sepulchre and Limbus: for He was there only on Friday and Saturday nights, and rose at day-break on Sunday? 1. Alcuin (L. de. Divinis Off. sec. de. Cœna. Dom.) gathers from this place that Christ lay in the tomb three whole days and nights, or 72 hours, and consequently rose again at the end of Easter Monday. But this is certainly a mistake. The constant tradition of the church is that Christ rose on the Lord's day. 2. Greg. Nyssen (Orat. 1 & 2 de Resurrec.) computes these three days to begin on Thursday. He is of opinion, that when on the evening of that day Christ instituted the Eucharist, He offered Himself to God under the species of bread and wine by means of the unbloody sacrifice. The soul of Christ was separated from the body, but that this was done in a secret and invisible manner, and that then the soul of Christ went down to Hades, and that thus He pre-accomplished His death, which the Jews were visibly to bring about on the following day upon the cross. But this, too, is an error. For there is really in the Eucharist the soul of the Living Christ, that is to say, in His body and blood contained under the species of bread and wine. It is there, I say, not indeed by virtue of the words of consecration, but by natural concomitance. For in the Eucharist there is Living Christ, with His Soul, even as He is outside the Eucharist. Thus the Council of Trent defines (Sess. 13, sec. 2). It would have been otherwise if any of the Apostles had consecrated the Eucharist during the triduum of the Passion. For then the Body and Blood of Christ would have been in it separated from His Soul, for in this manner they were in Christ Himself now buried. For Christ was then dead, not alive. I say then, that the expression three days and three nights is here only a periphrasis and description of a natural day. The two integral parts of such a day are day and night, or light and darkness. Christ makes use of this periphrasis because Jonah, His antetype, did the same. (Joh 1:17.) We must not understand that these days are three artificial days as opposed to nights, as if during three days, in which the sun is above the horizon, Christ lay in the tomb; for this was not the case. You must consider these three natural days to be not whole days but parts of days, namely, the latter part of Friday; when Christ being taken down from the Cross, was laid in the sepulchre, the whole of Saturday, and part of the Lord's day. For although the Hebrews reckoned their civil days from one sun-rise to another, like the Chaldeans and the Persians (Beda de ration. temp.), yet they computed their sacred days, such as the Passover, from evening to evening. Thus S. Jerome, Theophyl., Euthym., and S. Aug. and commentators, passim, explain the meaning of these three days. Hence Christ is constantly spoken of as rising on the third day, or after three days, without any mention of nights. But in this place, according to this computation, there were but two nights in which Christ lay in the tomb, viz. Friday and Saturday nights, and yet three nights are expressly mentioned. Others therefore answer more fully and plainly; that these three days and nights are reckoned according to the Roman computation. For the Romans were at that time, masters of Judea, and had introduced their own methods of computing time in civil affairs. The Romans reckoned from midnight to midnight, as Christians do in their fasts and festivals. (See Macrob. L. 1. Saturni c. Gell. L. 3. c. 2. Pliny. L. 2. c. 77. and others). According to this reckoning it is clear Christ remained in the tomb during a part of three days and three nights. He was buried on Friday before sunset; and was in the tomb until the midnight of that day. After that He was in the tomb during the entire day and night of the Sabbath; and from the midnight of Sunday for about six hours until that dawning of the Lord's Day on which He arose. For the Passover was at that time about the equinox, when the days and nights are equal, each being about twelve hours long. But the Soul of Christ, immediately when He expired upon the Cross at the ninth hour, i.e., at three o'clock in the afternoon, descended into Limbus, and there remained with the Fathers until the dawn of Easter Day. Now that the Jews made use of the Roman method of computing time may be learnt as well from other things, as because they borrowed the four watches of the night from the practice in use among the Roman armies. (See Mat 15:25 and elsewhere.) Different nations had different methods of reckoning the beginning of the day. The Persians and Babylonians reckoned from sunrise to sunrise. The Athenians and Italians, from sunset to sunset. Astronomers from midday to midday. But the Egyptians and Roman priests reckoned from midnight to midnight: and this method has continued in the Roman Church. The Hebrews then in the time of Christ followed the method of the Romans, to whom they were subject. Franc. Lucas teaches that the Jews did not compute their Festivals from midnight as Christians do. The explanation given above is that of S. Anselm, in Loco. Isidore of Pelusium (L. 1. Epist 114 and 212), D. Thom., (3. p. q. 46. art. 9), Suarez (3. p. q. 53. disp. 46. sect. 3. in fine.), and Baronius. (A. C. 34.).
12:41
The men of Nineveh shall rise up, &c. That is to say the Ninevites, who, with their king Sardanapalus, had thrown themselves into wickedness, and given themselves up entirely to the lusts of the flesh, when they heard Jonah thundering against them, and threatening them with destruction, believed him, and did penance. They therefore, in the day of judgment, shall accuse and condemn the Scribes and the Jews who would not believe Christ, their God and Lord, working so many miracles. They shall condemn them, I say, not so much in word as by their deeds, namely, by the example of their faith and repentance. It does not follow from hence that the Ninevites were saved; for shortly afterwards they returned to their sins like a dog to his vomit. (See what I have said in the Prefaces to Jonah and Nahum.)
And behold a greater than Jonah is here. For Jonah was a prophet and a servant: Christ is Messiah and the Lord. Jonah, remaining alive in the fish, alive came forth: Christ rose again from death and the grave, and restored to life, came forth. Jonah preached unwillingly. Christ of His own accord. Jonah was a foreigner among the Ninevites: Christ was of the same race as the Jews. Jonah threatened the destruction of Nineveh. Christ promised the kingdom of Heaven. Jonah did no miracle: Christ did very many. All the prophets prophesied of Christ: none of Jonah. Jonah cried aloud, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown." Christ cried by His Apostles, "Yet forty years and Jerusalem shall be destroyed by Titus." Euseb. of Emissa (Hom. 2. de Pasch.), and S. Aug. (Epist. 49. 6), have collected further analogies between Jonah and Christ.
12:42
The Queen of the South shall rise, &c. Aegypt. The Southern Queen. Persian, Queen of Thema (Theman with the Hebrews and Orientals signifies the south). Ethiopic, Queen Aseb. The naine, therefore, of this queen appears to have been Aseb, and to have been taken from the name of her kingdom, Saba, Sabæa. This is the opinion of some. But I maintain that Aseb is Ethiopic for the south, as Ethiopians at Rome have assured me. This is the Queen of Sheba, which is south of Judea (1Ki 10:1-13). Sheba, or Saba, is a country, and has two meanings. One Sheba was in the neighbouring Arabia; the other in remote Ethiopia, the capital of which was afterwards called by Cambyses Meroë, after the name of his sister. This queen is thought by many to have come from the Ethiopian, rather than the Arabian Sheba: because the Ethiopian Sheba was furthest off, and because Josephus calls her Queen of Ethiopia and Egypt. Wherefore afterwards the knowledge of scripture, and of the true God of the Hebrews, remained among the Ethiopians. From among them there came to Jerusalem, to worship God, a eunuch of Candace, Queen of the Ethiopians. (Acts viii.) Pliny (Lib. 6, c. 29) says, that queens reigned over the Ethiopians, and bore the general name of Candace. Indeed, the Emperor of the Ethiopians, or Abyssinians calls himself the Son of Solomon. For the Ethiopian tradition is that their queen was married to Solomon, by whom she had a son, from whom the Abyssinian kings, who are now called Prete-Tannes, are descended. Pineda, however, refutes this tradition. The Abyssinians add that this queen Aseb reigned in Tigris, which is the largest province of Abyssinia, and that her son was called Menile, or like, because he was very like his father Solomon. Thus Euthymius, Jansen, Maldonatus, Toletus, Barrad, and others, think this queen came from Ethiopia; but others, with more probability think she came from Saba, which is in Arabia Felix, where are the Homeritæ, in whose country spices and gold as well as camels are abundant. Again, she is said to have come from the uttermost parts of the earth; for Arabia Sabaea is distant from Jerusalem 606 leagues. It is, moreover, the furthest land in the direction of the Mare Indicum, or Arabian Gulf, for there the land ends, and the sea begins. Hence it is often called in scripture, a land very far off, as Jer. vi. Isaiah xliii. and elsewhere. Whence Nicephorus (l. 8, c. 35) says, Arabia Felix is Sabaea, and its boundaries extend to the ocean. Thus SS. Jerome, Cyril, Theodorus, Salmeron and others, whom Pineda quotes and follows.
To hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold a greater than Solomon is here. Christ speaks of Himself in the third person out of modesty. This comparison between the Jews and the Queen of Sheba has much emphasis, which is well brought out by Franc. Lucas. "The woman," he says, "was a Gentile, not brought up in God's discipline, but immersed in the business of a great empire; yet she was attracted by the fame of Solomon's wisdom, and undertook a most difficult journey from the remotest parts of the earth to Jerusalem, that she might make trial of his wisdom. This wisdom she wondered at above measure, and received Solomon's counsel, although he only discoursed concerning earthly things. But the Jews, the scholars of the Divine Law, would not receive Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God, in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, the only teacher of the mysteries of eternal salvation, which had been hid from ages and generations, when He offered Himself to them, and asked and invited them to come to Him. Yea, they altogether rejected Him, although He gave them the most wonderful sign of the Resurrection. How much, therefore, did the Queen of Sheba excel the Jews! and with what justice and with what power, will she, in the Day of Judgment, rebuke them to their face for their obstinate ingratitude, unbelief, and disobedience to Christ!" The same reasoning will apply to the Ninevites. Therefore let priests, religious and others, who are abundantly supplied with God's grace, take heed that they use it rightly and diligently; for otherwise, the more they have received, the more severely will they be punished. Yea, in the Day of Judgment, laymen will triumph over them, even as Heathens and Turks will upbraid bad Christians, because if they had had their graces, they would have lived far more holily and religiously.
12:43
When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, &c. Observe, Christ still continues to treat of the subject of demoniacal possession: for the possessed, whom He healed, were corporeally possessed by a demon, but the Scribes and the Jews, who reviled Christ's miracles, were spiritually possessed. Christ here speaks parabolically, after the manner of the Syrians. The meaning is: As a man who is an exile wanders through arid and desert places, so the devil when driven by the law of God from man, that is to say, from you, O ye Jews, who were the people of God, amongst whom God dwelt, and manifested Himself by prophecies and miracles, wanders through desert places, and seeks rest. But when he cannot find it save in man, and when he sees that ye despise God's grace, which I offer you, then he eagerly returns to you as to a house that is empty and swept, as to a place prepared and adorned for him. Then he takes seven, i.e., many other companions, more wicked than himself, and they joyfully inhabit that house, i.e., your souls; and that they may not be again expelled, and that they may make you more wicked, with that object in view they cause you to blaspheme Me, My doctrine, and My miracles, and to say that I cast out devils by Beelzebub, and that ye may at length crucify Me, which is of all wickedness the chief and the greatest. Wherefore God will punish you with utter destruction by Titus, and will cause you to be without God, without Messiah, without law, or temple, or sacrifice, and without faith yea, that ye shall think your own perfidy and blindness to be the true faith and the true light. Moreover, the house, that is the soul, is empty, because it is without God, and devoid of His grace. It is swept with besoms (Vulg.) because all virtue, piety and goodness have been driven out of it, and the poison of impurity has been scattered in it, and the tapestry of pride hung about it. For such adornment as this is the adornment of uncleanness, and is pleasing to the devil who delights in nothing but what is impure and filthy. Again, the devils are driven by God and His Saints into desert places, that they may not injure men. Thus Raphael bound Asmodeus in the deserts of Upper Egypt. (Tobit 8.) So also Isaiah says, (Isaiah xiii. and xxxiv.) that Babylon should be wasted and rendered a desert; and that hairy creatures, Satyrs and Onocentauri, i.e. demons in the shape of goats and monsters should dwell there. But the devil does not find rest in such places, for, as Abul. says, "The devil cannot rest, because he shall be tormented eternally, but he seeks the rest of his own evil will: for he is envious, and loves to injure men: and when he is able to injure them he rests after a fashion." He acts thus, partly from envy, because he grudges man the happiness of heaven, from which he himself has fallen; partly from hatred of God: and because he cannot injure God himself, he would injure man who is God's creature and image, that he may thus, as far as he can, do an injury to God.
Mystically, dry places are the souls of the Gentiles, in which, by the grace of Christ, the moisture of concupiscence is dried up. Hear S. Jerome, "The unclean spirit went forth from the Jews, when they received the law, and being driven from them, walked in the wilderness of the Gentiles. But when the Gentiles had believed in the Lord-finding no place among them, the devil said, I will go back to the Jews."
12:45
And the last state of that man, &c. This is the end and scope of the parable. Christ shows that relapsing into sin is worse than falling into it at first; even as a relapse into a disease of the body is worse than the original disease. S. Augustine says (Epist. 137), "I confess unfeignedly, before the Lord our God, who is the witness of my soul, from the time when I began to serve God, that I have not found any who have made greater progress in religion than those in monasteries. So too, in like manner, I have never found worse men than those who have fallen, being monks. And this is why I believe it has been written in the Apocalypse (ch. xxii.) 'He that is just, let him become more just; and he that is filthy, let him become more filthy. '" Thus Lucifer, who was the most fair of all the angels, became the worst of the devils. So too Judas, from an Apostle, became an Apostate, and the betrayer of Christ. So also Nestorius, Eutyches, Pelagius, Arius, and in our time Luther, Calvin, and the rest, their companions, from monks and priests, became apostates and heresiarchs. As it is commonly said, "the best wine makes the sourest vinegar."
12:46
While He was yet speaking to the multitude, behold His mother, &c. You will ask, who were those who, in the Gospels, are called the brethren of Christ? The impure heresiarch, Helvidius, answered that they were children of the blessed Virgin who were born after Christ. For he denied Her perpetual virginity. But S. Jerome sharply and learnedly refutes him, in the work which he wrote against him. 2. The Greeks generally, with Euseb. (H.E. ii. 1), and of the Latins, SS. Hilary and Ambrose, think that they were children of Joseph, by a former marriage. But Joseph never had any other wife except the Blessed Virgin Mary. Peter Damian (Epist. 11, c. iv. ad Nicol. Rom. Pont.) says that this is the faith of the Church. 3. Hugh of S. Victor thinks they were descendants of S. Ann, the mother of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and that S. Ann, besides Joakim the father of the Virgin, had two other husbands, of whom, those who are called the Lord's brethren, were begotten. But S. Hippolytus (Ap. Niceph. 2, 3) teaches that S. Annn had only one husband, Joakim. I say, therefore, that these persons were not properly the brethren of Christ, nor the offspring of the Blessed Virgin Mary, nor Joseph, nor S. Ann, but are called brethren, i.e., cousins or relations of Christ, by a mode of expression common in Hebrew. In sooth, they were cousins, or really brothers of S. Joakim, or S. Ann, or rather brother's children, or sistes's children of SS. Joakim and Ann, probably children of Cleophas, who was a brother of Joseph, the husband of the blessed Virgin Mary, according to the testimony of Hegesippus (Eus. H.E. iii. 11). For Joseph and Cleophas were sons of Jacob, the brother of S. Ann. Hear S. Jerome on the passage, "We, as it is in the book which we have written against Helvidius, say, that the Lord's brethren were not children of Joseph, but cousins of the Saviour, and children of Mary, the maternal aunt of the Lord, who is called the mother of James and Joseph and Jude."
Stood without. They sent a messenger into the house, to Christ, to call Him out.
Seeking to speak with Him. Not out of ambition and pride, that they might appear to be relations of so great a Teacher and Prophet, as S. Chrysostom and Theophylact think; but that they might take Him with them, and bring Him to Nazareth. For they said that He was beside Himself (Mar 3:21). "For neither did His brethren believe in Him" (Joh 7:5). Whether they said this because they really thought He was mad; or feignedly, in order that they might deliver Him out of the hands of the Pharisees. That for some such cause the Blessed Virgin called Christ forth, no pious person would doubt. But if they wished to take Him as a madman, they must have concealed their opinion from the Blessed Virgin Mary, and taken her with them that they might the more easily draw Christ away. For it is certain she knew perfectly that Christ was of sound mind. Wherefore she accompanied these brethren or relations of Christ from the desire of beholding Him.
12:47
But one said to Him, Behold Thy mother, &c. This person was the messenger whom the brethren of Christ sent to call Him out.
12:48
But he said: Who is My mother, &c. Observe, Christ speaks thus, not as denying that He really had a mother, as if Christ were not a true man, but a phantasm born of a phantasm, as Marcion and the Manichees taught; nor yet as though He were ashamed of His mother and poor brethren, but either because this messenger was interrupting Him with too great boldness and importunity, by calling Him away from the preaching which He had begun; or rather, as S. Ambrose says, that He might show that He must be more intent upon the ministry given Him by His Father, than upon His affection for His mother; and that He must prefer spiritual to carnal relationships, where there is neither sex nor rank, but all are most nearly related to Christ, and by every tie, as though they were father, sister, and brother. For this is what Matthew adds concerning Christ, And stretching forth His hand, &c. The Arab. trans., He pointed with His hand towards His disciples.
12:50
For whosoever shall do, &c. Spiritually, as I have already said, not carnally. He speaks of brother and sister, because of either sex. The faithful soul is also the mother of Christ, because by teaching, exhorting, and counselling, she brings forth Christ in herself and others. Hear S. Gregory (Hom. 8 in Evang.), "We must know that he who is the brother and sister of Christ through believing, is made his mother by preaching. For he, as it were, brings forth the Lord, whom he infuses into the heart of his hearer." He subjoins the example of S. Felicitas, who by the spirit bore to God the seven sons, to whom she had given birth in the flesh, because she strengthened them in persecution, and animated them for martyrdom. These words of Christ were also exemplified in S. Victoria, a virgin martyr under Diocietian. She said to the pro-consol, who asked her, "Wilt thou go with Fortunatianus, thy brother?" who was a heathen; "No, for I am a Christian; and those are my brethren, who keep the commandments of God." Wherefore she was shut up in prison, and perishing by hunger, obtained the martyr's crown.
12:1
Supra audistis quomodo dominus satisfecit discipulis, et increpavit eos; hic ostendit quomodo Pharisaei reprimuntur. Et duo facit: primo ostendit, quomodo redarguit Pharisaeos; secundo, quomodo commendantur discipuli. Et primo duo facit: primo ostendit quomodo confutantur detrahentes discipulis; secundo, quomodo detrahentes Christo, ibi et cum inde transisset et cetera. Circa primum primo ponitur occasio reprehensionis; secundo reprehensio, ibi Pharisaei autem videntes etc.; tertio Christi excusatio, ibi at ille dixit eis et cetera. Ponitur autem duplex occasio; una ex parte Christi, secunda ex parte discipulorum, ibi discipuli autem eius esurientes coeperunt vellere spicas. Ex parte Christi dicit in illo tempore abiit Iesus per sata sabbato. Sciebat dominus quod discipuli hoc facturi essent, et tamen elegit dominus hoc fieri, ut iam inciperet solvere sabbatum, ut habetur supra c. XI, 13: lex et prophetae usque ad Ioannem prophetaverunt. Sed notandum est quod dicitur in illo tempore; quia quod hic ponitur designatio temporis, videtur pertinere ad ordinem historiae; sed Lucas VI, 1 et Marcus II, 23 alio ordine recitant; unde post illud quod respondet dominus discipulis Ioannis, ponitur istud: unde videntur omnia praecedentia ante mortem Ioannis facta, hic vero post. Et hoc patet per omnia quae dicuntur usque ad XIV cap. quae continuantur, et hic fit mentio mortis Ioannis; ideo intelligendum est quod imminente passione misit Ioannes discipulos, et tunc decollatus est, et tunc haec facta sunt post eius mortem. Abiit Iesus per sata sabbato. Per huiusmodi sata intelliguntur sacrae litterae. Sator Christus est; infra XIII, 37: ipse est qui seminat. Item populus credentium. Discipuli autem esurientes coeperunt vellere spicas. Hic duo consideranda sunt. Primo necessitas, quia esurientes. Et quare? Quia pauperes erant; unde I ad Cor. c. IV, 11: usque ad hanc horam et esurimus, et sitimus et cetera. Secunda ratio, quia quotidie impediti erant propter turbas; unde vix habebant locum comedendi, ut habetur Mc. c. VI, 31. Sed quomodo satisfecerunt? Datur nobis exemplum abstinentiae; unde isti non magna fercula quaesierunt, sed spicas, iuxta illud I Tim. VI, 8: habentes alimenta, et quibus tegamur, his contenti simus. Mystice in avulsione spicarum intelligitur multiplicitas intellectus Scripturarum, vel conversio peccatorum.
12:2
Deinde ponit reprehensionem Pharisaeorum Pharisaei autem videntes dixerunt ei: ecce discipuli tui faciunt quod non licet eis facere sabbatis. Discipuli duo mala faciebant: primo quia spicas alienas vellebant, secundo, quia sabbatum violabant. Sed Pharisaei de primo non reprehendebant, quia illud erat permissum in lege, Deut. XXIII; ideo quia permissum erat, non calumniabantur, sed quia in sabbato, calumniabantur. Et per hoc destruitur haeresis Hebraeorum, qui dicebant legalia debere servari cum Evangelio. Et quia Paulus huic sententiae contrariatur, ideo reprobant Paulum. Contra istos arguit Hieronymus, quia etiam discipuli non servabant. At ille dicit eis. Hic ponitur excusatio. Et primo quibusdam exemplis; secundo auctoritate, ibi si autem sciretis. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit exemplum in quo aliqui sunt excusati propter necessitatem; secundo, in quo aliqui propter sanctitatem, ibi aut non legistis in lege et cetera. Dicit ergo at ille dicit et cetera. Lev. cap. XXIV, 5 legitur quod de pura farinula fiebant duodecim panes, et isti ponebantur in mensa propositionis in sabbato, et in alio sabbato amovebantur, et ponebantur alii, et illi primi comedebantur a filiis Aaron. Item habetur I Reg.
12:3
XXI, 6 quod quando David fugit a Saul, Abimelech divisit illis panes illos: et hoc est quod dicit nonne legistis quid fecit David quanto esuriit? Iste enim David erat homo bonus, de quo dicit dominus quod invenit hominem iuxta cor suum, I Reg. XIII, 8.
12:4
Sed diceret aliquis: ipse David erat propheta, ideo potuit accipere; ideo addit et qui cum eo erant. Panes propositionis dicebantur, qui in sabbato offerebantur, quibus non licebat uti secundum praeceptum, ut habetur Lev. XXIV, 5. Sed quid ad propositum? Quia quando hoc fecit, sabbatum erat. Et hoc patet, quia ibi dicitur: non habeo panes nisi quos abstuli de mensa domini, et hoc non faciebat nisi in sabbato. Item in die Calendarum fiebat festum Neomeniae: ideo si in sabbato accideret, violabatur ex necessitate. Sed adhuc videtur quod non violavit, quia comedere in sabbato non est peccatum: unde videtur quod non violavit. Sed Chrysostomus dicit quod violavit magis sabbato, quia illos panes accepit quos nemini licebat esse, propter necessitatem. Sabbatum autem invenitur violatum a Machabaeis propter necessitatem. Item notandum, quod dicit Chrysostomus, quod quaedam sunt praecepta, quae praecipiuntur propter se, et haec nulla necessitate frangi possunt; quaedam vero non propter se, sed propter figuram, ideo talia loco et tempore possunt; sicut ieiunium potest modo dimitti in necessitate. Ille autem panis alterius panis erat figura, scilicet panis altaris, qui non solum a sacerdote, sed etiam ab alio populo percipitur; ideo David figurat ibi populum. Unde Apoc. V, 10: fecisti nos Deo nostro regnum et sacerdotes. Item ponitur aliud exemplum, quod ponitur propter sanctitatem. Et hoc ibi nonne legistis in lege quia sabbatis sacerdotes in templo sabbatum violant? In Levitico praeceptum erat, quod oblatio duplicaretur in sabbato, quae solebat fieri in aliis diebus, et tamen in templo fiebat, et in sabbato, quia fiebat ad obsequium templi et Dei: unde excusabantur sacerdotes. Unde istud exemplum applicatur, quia apostoli totaliter erant dediti maiori quam templo, scilicet Christo: unde dicit nonne legistis quia sacerdotes violabant sabbatum? Nisi esset propter templum. Dico autem vobis, quoniam templo maior est hic. Hic ponitur adverbium loci, cuius obsequio ipsi faciunt. Et quod insit aliquid maius templo, patet, quia corpus suum templum est.
12:5
Item videndum, quod in primo exemplo non ponit, quod sit sine crimine. In secundo ponit quod si aliquis frangit sabbatum propter necessitatem, non tamen propter hoc omnino caret crimine; sed si propter Deum, penitus excusatur a crimine. Deinde argumentatur ex exemplis.
12:7
Et primo, quia misericorditer agendum est cum discipulis meis: quia si sciretis quid est, misericordiam volo, et non sacrificium numquam condemnassetis innocentes, Os. VI, 6. Et quomodo intelligendum est, dictum est superius. Prov. XXI, 3: misericordiam facere et iudicium magis placet domino quam victimae, et cetera.
12:8
Est etiam argumentum aliud quod eos facit innocentes, scilicet obedientia: unde haec possunt, quia praecipio eis, quia filius hominis (ita se consuevit nominare) est dominus sabbati, et legislator non subiacet legi; Is. XXXIII, 22: ipse est legifer noster; ideo habet potestatem, quia habet auctoritatem. Et cum transisset inde, venit ad synagogam eorum et cetera. Supra positum est, quomodo dominus repulit Pharisaeos derogantes discipulis, hic quomodo repulit se impugnantes. Adversabantur enim primo insidiando; secundo detrahendo; tertio tentando. Et secundum hoc repulit eos tripliciter. Secundo, ibi tunc oblatus est ei homo Daemonium habens; tertio, ibi tunc responderunt ei quidam de Scribis et Pharisaeis. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit quomodo insidiabantur doctrinae Christi; secundo quomodo vitae Christi, ibi exeuntes autem Pharisaei consilium faciebant adversus eum. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponitur insidiosa interrogatio; secundo Christi responsio, ibi ipse autem dixit et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo locus describitur; secundo occasio; tertio interrogatio. Dicit ergo et cum transisset inde, venit in synagogam. Secundum litteram ita discipuli vellebant spicas, quos excusavit Iesus. Unde cum dicit et cum transisset, videtur eodem die inde transisse. Sed hoc excluditur Lc.
12:9
VI, 1 quia in alio sabbato; propter hoc non est intelligendum, quod statim; unde dicit venit in synagogam, ut praedicaret salutem, ut in Io. XVIII, 20: ego semper docui in templo, et in synagoga, quo omnes Iudaei conveniunt, et in occulto locutus sum nihil. Et in Ps. XXXIX, 10: annuntiavi iustitiam tuam in Ecclesia magna.
12:10
Et ecce homo manum habens aridam. Sequitur occasio interrogationis: quia interrogabant eum et cetera. Dicitur quod iste fuit caementarius, et habebat manum aridam. Per istum significatur genus humanum, cuius manus aruit per originale peccatum: vel quilibet peccator, cuius manus et virtus operativa aruit; et quandoque dextera, quia impotentes ad agendum bonum, quamvis potentes ad malum. Tunc ponitur interrogatio; secundo responsio. Dicit ergo et interrogabant, si licet sabbato curare. Videbant hominem potentem, ideo petierunt si licebat sabbato curare. Et hoc petebant tentantes, ut habetur Eccli. XIII, v. 14: ex multa loquela tentabit te. Non enim animo discendi, sed potius accusandi petebant, ut habetur in Ps. XXVII, 3: loquebantur pacem cum proximo suo, mala autem in cordibus eorum. Sed hic est quaestio, quia Mc. III, 4 habetur quod dominus interrogavit; hic autem dicitur quod illi interrogaverunt. Respondet Augustinus, quod utrumque factum est, quia quando ille stetit in medio, et petiit sanari, ipsi interrogaverunt, et dominus fecit eum surgere, et tunc interrogavit. Vel aliter, quia illi observabant eum; unde parabant se ad petitionem, et tunc petiit, quia ipse sciebat, quod petebant ut accusarent eum. Ipse autem dixit eis. Hic ponitur responsio. Et primo respondet verbo; secundo facto, ibi tunc ait homini: extende manum tuam. In primo tria facit. Primo allegat consuetudinem; secundo comparationem, ibi quanto magis melior est homo ove? Tertio inducit conclusionem, ibi itaque licet sabbatis benefacere.
12:11
Dicit ergo primo quis erit ex vobis homo qui habeat ovem unam; et si ceciderit haec sabbatis in foveam, nonne tenebit, et levabit eam? Consuetudo erat apud eos, quod si ovis caderet in foveam, quod eam die sabbati sublevabant: intantum enim erant avaritiae dediti, quod praeponebant damnum temporale damno spirituali. Unde conveniebat eis quod dicitur Eccli. X, 9: avaro nihil est scelestius. Et sequitur post parum: animam enim suam venalem habet, quia scilicet se exponit periculo et damno aeterno pro modico lucro temporali. Secundo ponitur comparatio, quanto magis melior est homo ove? Incomparabiliter, quia omnia sunt propter hominem: homini enim est commissum dominium omnium, ut habetur Gen. I, 26: faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram, et sequitur, ut praesit piscibus maris, et volatilibus caeli, et bestiis terrae. Et sic quod est ad imaginem, praeest, sicut homo ovi.
12:12
Ex his concludit itaque licet benefacere, scilicet hominibus prodesse; Is. I, v. 16: quiescite agere perverse, discite benefacere, quia scriptum est Ex. XX, 10: opus servile non facietis in eo. Opus servile est peccatum, ideo licet benefacere. Sed tunc est quaestio. Licetne omnia bona opera facere in sabbato? Tunc enim liceret arare. Ideo dicendum, quod opus servile potest intelligi ad litteram, et mystice opus servile est peccatum; Io. VIII, 34: qui facit peccatum, servus est peccati. Item servile opus est, in quo magis exercetur corpus quam anima. Anima enim habet dominari corpori. Ideo consiliari non est opus servile. Unde possumus videre quae excusant a sabbato. Dominus enim excusat discipulos ratione necessitatis, unde necessitas excusat. Item illa, quae ad cultum Dei ordinantur immediate, ut thurificare et cetera. Item illa, quae pertinent ad salutem corporis, ut facere medicinam, emplastra et cetera. Unde isti vituperantur, quia arctant praeceptum legis. Tunc ait homini: extende manum tuam. In parte ista respondet facto, et hoc fuit eum curare; non enim curaret nisi licitum esset.
12:13
Sequitur curatio et restituta est sanitati sicut altera. Mystice homo qui habet manum aridam, idest impotentem ad bene agendum, non potest melius curari quam extendendo manum suam in sublevationem pauperum. Unde Dan. cap. IV, 24: peccata tua eleemosynis redime. Et Eccli. III, 33: ignem ardentem extinguit aqua, eleemosyna resistit peccatis. Et ibid. IV, 36: non sit manus tua porrecta ad accipiendum, et collecta ad dandum. Et nota quod primo habebat sinistram sanam, et restituta est sicut altera, dextra scilicet. Et hoc est, quia primo sunt homines potentes ad malum, ut habetur Is. V, 22: vae qui potentes estis ad faciendum malum, sed post sanantur per gratiam, et tunc sunt proni ad bene agendum; Rom. VI, 19: sicut exhibuistis membra vestra servire immunditiae et iniquitati ad iniquitatem, ita nunc exhibete servire iustitiae in sanctificatione et cetera.
12:14
Exeuntes autem Pharisaei et cetera. Hic ostendit quomodo insidiabantur ei. Et primo ponuntur insidiae; secundo eius declinatio, ibi Iesus autem sciens recessit inde; tertio auctoritas, ibi ut impleretur quod dictum est per Isaiam prophetam. Dicit ergo exeuntes, scilicet a synagoga, ut impleretur quod habetur in Ps. cap. LIII, 3: synagoga potentium quaesierunt animam meam. Exierunt ergo, ut male agerent, sicut Iob I, 12: egressus est Satan a facie domini. Consilium fecerunt, idest congregationem, quomodo illum perderent et occiderent, quia verbis eum vincere non poterant; Ps. I, 1: beatus vir qui non abiit in consilio impiorum.
12:15
Iesus autem sciens, recessit inde. Hic ponitur quomodo insidias declinavit. Et primo tangitur declinatio; secundo fructus. Unde recessit, et quare? Quia nondum erat tempus patiendi. Item recessit, ut suis occasionem daret fugiendi, ut dictum est supra X. Item, ut se hominem monstraret. Item reliquit eos, ut non incitaret eos. Illud enim boni praedicatoris est, cum videt homines motos et incitatos, quod dimittat eos, ut videtur Eccli. VIII, 13: non incendas carbones peccatorum arguens eos, et ne incendaris flamma ignis peccatorum illorum. Et secuti sunt eum multi, unde accessit ad eos qui eum diligebant, qui eum libenter audiebant. Unde Io. X, 3: oves meae vocem meam audiunt. Et curavit eos. Ponitur curatio; Sap. XVI, 12: non ergo herba, neque malagma sanavit eos, sed sermo tuus qui sanat omnia. Et in Ps. CVI, 20: misit verbum suum, et sanavit eos. Et quomodo?
12:16
Praecepit eis ne manifestum eum facerent. Et quare? Ut daret nobis exemplum vitandi humanam gloriam, sicut habetur Sup. VI, 1. Item ut parceret Pharisaeis, qui de factis suis calumniabantur.
12:17
Ut adimpleretur quod dictum est per Isaiam prophetam. Hic introducit auctoritatem, quae habetur Is. XLII, 1. Et sciendum quod alii apostoli dicunt auctoritates secundum Hebraicam veritatem, alii secundum expositionem Septuaginta, alii sensum solum verbis exprimebant. Et tria facit. Primo describit naturam humanam, cum dicit ecce puer meus, quia puer fuit; Lc. II, v. 43: puer autem Iesus remansit in templo. Vocatur autem puer, vel a puritate: quia peccatum non fecit, nec inventus est dolus in ore eius et cetera. I Petr. II, 22, vel secundum quod puer dicitur servus; unde ecce puer, servus per servilem formam; Phil. II, 7: exinanivit semetipsum, formam servi accipiens. Electus quem elegi. Nota, quod in unoquoque homine sancto sunt tria: divina electio, dilectio et effectus, qui est gratia: et hoc aliter in homine, aliter in Deo. In homine praecedit gratia; secundo diligit; tertio eligit. In Deo vero est e converso. Et hoc est, quia voluntas in homine non est causativa huius effectus, quae est gratia, sed amor et voluntas Dei est causa gratiae; ideo primo eligit quem vult esse bonum; secundo diligit; deinde gratiam adiungit. Unde, secundum hoc, tria ponit. Primo electionem et cetera. In originali non est ly electus.
12:18
Dicit ergo ecce puer meus, quem elegi etc., et hoc quantum ad duplicem electionem; quae omnino Christo conveniunt secundum humanam naturam. Ad duo enim est electus. Scilicet ad hoc quod sit filius Dei, ut habetur Rom. I, 4: qui praedestinatus est filius Dei etc., et Ps. LXIV, 5: beatus quem elegisti et assumpsisti. Item est electus ad opus redemptionis humanae, ut Io. III, 16: sic Deus dilexit mundum, ut filium suum unigenitum daret et cetera. Item elegit ut diligat; unde dicitur dilectus meus: si enim aliquos diligit, multo magis unigenitum suum. Unde Io. III, v. 34: non ad mensuram datus est ei spiritus. Et si diligat aliquos, istum tamen speciali dilectione; unde dicit in quo complacuit animae meae, idest voluntati meae: et haec est specialis dilectio, quia voluntas non quiescit nisi ubi invenit placitum. Nihil autem placet, nisi per gratiam, et nihil gratum defuit Christo; unde supra III, 17: hic est filius meus dilectus, in quo mihi complacui. Deinde ponit gratiae collationem: ponam spiritum meum super eum, ut habetur Ioel II, 28: effundam de spiritu meo super omnem carnem. Sed in Christo non solum de spiritu, sed totum spiritum effudit, ut habetur Io. III, 34: non ad mensuram datus est ei spiritus; et Is. XI, 2: requiescet super eum spiritus domini. Et hoc inquantum habet formam servi. Sed quid faciet? Quod officium habebit? Iudicium gentibus nuntiabit, idest docebit gentes iudicia Dei. Antiquitus gloriabantur Iudaei se esse populum Dei peculiarem; unde dicebant: non fecit taliter omni nationi, et iudicia sua non manifestavit eis. Sed illud dictum est gentibus. Unde nuntiabit gentibus, materialiter, quia potestatem iudicandi accepit super gentes; Act. X, 42: ipse est qui constitutus est a Deo iudex vivorum et mortuorum. Et Io. c. V, 22: pater omne iudicium dedit filio. Item estne idoneus? Quia in iudicio duo sunt necessaria, clementia et iustitia. Et utrumque ostendit. Et primo quod clementiam habeat. Et quia clementia potest esse in verbis, secundo in factis, quia aliqui etsi non possint aliquid, conqueruntur verbo; ideo haec amovet ab eo. Unde dicit non contendet; I Petr. II, 23: cum malediceretur, non maledicebat. Et bene congruit ei quod dicitur Prov. XX, 3: honor est homini qui separat se a contentionibus. Item aliqui non contendunt, sed murmurant. Sed hoc non faciet iste, quia non clamabit. Unde Is. LIII, 7: sicut ovis ad occisionem ducetur, et quasi agnus coram tondente se obmutescet, et non aperiet os suum. Clamor ex affectione procedit. Et apostolus praecipit ad Ephes. IV, 31: omnis indignatio et clamor auferatur a vobis. Aliqui non clamant, sed conqueruntur: et hoc amovetur nec aliquis in plateis audiet vocem eius.
12:19
In plateis vocem emittunt, qui ambulant in viis peccatorum; Thren. IV, 1: dispersi sunt lapides sanctuarii; Prov. I, 20: sapientia dat vocem in plateis. Tamen iste inter eos non audietur. Vel aliter: per plateas intelligimus gentiles, quoniam sunt extra sanctuarium. Et licet Christus sustineat praedicari gentibus, tamen in propria persona non praedicavit eis. Unde in plateis non audietur, idest inter gentiles. Ita ergo erat patiens in verbo. Item in facto, arundinem quassatam non confringet. Et hoc dupliciter; potest enim legi primo specialiter quantum ad Iudaeos; secundo generaliter quantum ad omnes. Quantum ad Iudaeos duo erant in eis, scilicet regia potestas, et sacerdotalis dignitas. Regia potestas significatur per arundinem, quae iam quassata erat, quia Romanis erant subditi; ideo facile erat ei ita quassare arundinem. Et bene signatur per arundinem, quia arundo mobilis est, ut habetur supra XI, 7: quid existis in desertum videre? Arundinem vento agitatam? Et linum fumigans non extinguit. Per linum fumigans sacerdotium significatur: unde sacerdotes lineis vestibus induebantur. Item fumigans: fumus enim extinguitur per ignem. Item fumus fit per debilem ignem, qui plus resolvit quam consummat, et hinc generatur foetor. Hi ergo erant sicut linum fumigans, quia non totaliter fidem amiserant: nec tamen tantum habebant quod cohiberent se a malis. Unde quamvis posset iuste extinguere, tamen linum fumigans non extinguet. Item alio modo exponitur quoad omnes, ita quod per arundinem quassatam intelligantur peccatores. Per linum fumigans, quod aliquantulum habet calorem, intelliguntur qui non in peccato sunt, sed tepidi sunt ad opus bonum, et habent aliquid gratiae. Unde vult dicere: neque peccatoribus praecludit viam salutis. Unde ipse dicit, Ezech. cap. XVIII, 23: numquid voluntatis meae est mors impii? Item si aliquis habet gratiam, non extinguet eam. Unde in hoc datur nobis exemplum quod non debemus gratiam alicuius, quam dominus dedit ei, extinguere, sed potius fovere.
12:20
Item non faciet iudicium donec eiiciat ad victoriam iudicium. Et hoc potest legi specialiter de Iudaeis, scilicet quando omnes vicerit, quia imponebant quod in Beelzebub Daemonia eiiciebat; et confutavit eos, tunc imposuit iudicium super eos. Et hoc impletum est per Titum et Vespasianum.
12:21
Et non solum istud fiet; sed ipsis destructis, in nomine eius gentes sperabunt. Unde Gen. cap. XLIX, 10: ipse erit expectatio gentium. Vel aliter. Ita sustinet voluntatem, et neminem iudicat; sed cum inimica mors destruetur, tunc omnes gentes adhaerebunt ei, et hoc erit in die iudicii.
12:22
Supra repulit dominus eos qui calumniabantur et suae doctrinae, et suae vitae, hic vero repellit eos qui suis miraculis detrahunt. Et primo ponitur miraculum; secundo perversitas detrahentium; tertio confutatio eorum. Secunda ibi et stupebant omnes etc.; tertia ibi Iesus autem et cetera. Circa miraculum duo ponuntur. Primo ponitur multiplex infirmitas; secundo perfecta curatio, ibi et curavit eum, ita ut loqueretur, et videret. Dicit ergo tunc oblatus est ei homo Daemonium habens. De hoc habetur Lc. XI, 14 sub aliis verbis. Sed non est inconveniens; quod recitatur in uno, subticetur in alio. Per istum significatur gentilitas, vel peccator, qui Daemonium habet inquantum servus, quia qui facit peccatum, servus est peccati, Io. VIII, 34. Iste est caecus privatus lumine gratiae; unde Is. LIX, 10: palpavimus sicut caeci parietem, et quasi absque oculis attrectavimus et cetera. Item mutus a confessione fidei. In Ps. XXXVIII, 3: obmutui, et silui a bonis et cetera. Et alibi: quoniam tacui, inveteraverunt ossa mea. Sequitur perfecta curatio et curavit eum, expellendo mutitatem, ita ut loqueretur; expellendo caecitatem, ita ut videret. Unde datur perfectio sanitatis; Ps. CII, 3: qui propitiatur omnibus iniquitatibus tuis, qui sanat omnes infirmitates tuas. Unde illum non dimisit nec caecum, nec mutum.
12:23
Sequitur effectus miraculi, scilicet turbarum admiratio, et stupebant omnes turbae et cetera. Item eorum confessio; unde dicebant, idest confitebantur, numquid iste est filius David? Promissum erat in prophetis, quod Christus de semine David nasceretur; Ier. XXIII, 5: suscitabo David germen iustum. Sed videtur impletum, quod supra dictum est cap. XI, 25: quia abscondisti haec a sapientibus et prudentibus, et revelasti ea parvulis et cetera. Unde turbae confitebantur.
12:24
Pharisaei autem videntes dixerunt: hic non eiicit Daemonia, nisi in Beelzebub, qui est Deus Accaron, ut habetur IV Reg. I, 16, qui dicitur Deus muscarum propter turpissimum ritum sanguinis immolatitii, ratione cuius multae muscae congregabantur. Ideo credebant illum Daemonem principem Daemoniorum, ideo credebant in potestate illius posse eiici Daemonia; Ier. V, 5: ibo ad optimates, et loquar eis. Et paulo post, et ecce magis hi simul confregerunt iugum, ruperunt vincula.
12:25
Iesus autem sciens cogitationes eorum et cetera. In parte ista repellit dominus detrahentes. Et primo arguit contra dicta; secundo contra dicentes, ibi ideo dico vobis: et cetera. Dictum redarguit quadruplici argumento. Secundum ibi et si Satanas Satanam et cetera. Tertium autem ibi quomodo ergo et cetera. Quartum ibi qui non est et cetera. Primum expressissime ponitur: omne regnum contra se divisum desolabitur. Primo ponit maiorem, cum dicit omne regnum et cetera. Triplex est communitas: domus, sive familiae, civitatis, et regni. Domus est communitas consistens ex his, per quos fiunt communes actus; ideo consistit ex triplici coniugatione, ex patre et filio, ex marito et uxore, ex domino et servo. Communitas civitatis omnia continet quae ad vitam hominis sunt necessaria: unde est perfecta communitas quantum ad mere necessaria. Tertia communitas est regni, quae est communitas consummationis. Ubi enim esset timor hostium, non posset per se una civitas subsistere; ideo propter timorem hostium necessaria est communitas civitatum plurium, quae faciunt unum regnum. Unde sicut vita in quolibet homine ita pax in regno; et sicut sanitas nihil est nisi temperantia humorum, sic pax est cum unumquodque retinet ordinem suum. Et sicut, recedente sanitate, tendit homo ad interitum; sic de pace; si a regno discedit, tendit ad interitum. Unde ultimum quod attenditur, est pax. Unde philosophus: sicut medicus ad sanitatem, sic defensor reipublicae ad pacem. Ideo dicit omne regnum in se divisum desolabitur. Osee X, 2: divisum est cor eorum, nunc interibunt. Is. III, 5: tumultuabitur puer contra senem, et ignobilis contra nobilem.
12:26
Et si Satanas Satanam eiicit, adversus se divisus est. Eiectio importat actionem violentam; ideo oportet, quod ubi est contradictio, sit divisio, quia inter superbos semper sunt iurgia, Prov. XIII, 10. Sed posset quis dicere: non est eiectio: quia voluntarie exit. Sed hoc non habet locum, quia talis exitus non est eiectio, sed fit ex obedientia alio imperante; unde hic esset voluntarius exitus. Sed quod involuntarie exeant, apparet per hoc quod dictum est supra, quod inceperunt gemere, et clamare, quid nobis et tibi, Iesu fili Dei? Venisti huc ante tempus torquere nos. Ergo est divisio. Quomodo ergo stabit regnum eius? Quod ad propositum Hieronymus exponit sic: quomodo stabit regnum eius? Quasi dicat, regnum Diaboli stat in peccatoribus usque ad diem iudicii, quia tunc evacuabitur omnis potestas. Unde si hoc esset, iam esset finis mundi. Rabanus sic quomodo stabit regnum eius? Quia si pugnatur contra eum: ergo est in casu; ergo a regno suo debetis cavere. Hilarius. Quomodo stabit? Quasi dicat: de potestate mea est, quod ego faciam, quod unus expellat alium. Ergo ego destruo regnum Diaboli, et ex hoc debetis mihi adhaerere. Si ego in Beelzebub. Hic ponitur secunda ratio. Si ego eiicio aut hoc facio virtute Daemonis, aut virtute spiritus sancti: quid autem horum sit, non debetis mihi detrahere. Et primo prosequitur primam; secundo secundam, ibi si autem ego in spiritu Dei eiicio Daemones et cetera.
12:27
Dicit ergo si ego in Beelzebub eiicio Daemones, filii vestri in quo eiiciunt? Hieronymus exponit dupliciter. Uno modo de exorcistis, de quibus habetur Act. XIX, 13, quod quidam exorcistae eiiciebant Daemonia in nomine Iesu Christi. Unde si ego in Beelzebub eiicio Daemones, filii vestri in quo eiiciunt? Quasi dicat, filii vestri eiiciunt. Si ergo de his non calumniamini, nec de me debetis calumniari. Ideo accipitis personam. Unde iudices vestri erunt. Quia ego eiicio in virtute Dei, ideo ipsi iudicabunt, sicut infra de regina Austri, quod ipsa iudicabit. Vel potest exponi de apostolis. Filii vestri: idest apostoli. Appellat autem eos filios eorum, et non discipulos, ut magis moveantur ad eos. Item ut derogantes eis, seipsos redarguant: quia si isti qui filii vestri sunt, eiiciunt, similiter vos faceretis, si praepararetis vos. Ideo quia isti sunt conscii, quod hoc facio potestate mihi tradita, non in Beelzebub ideo iudices vestri erunt, non solum comparatione, sed auctoritate, sicut habetur infra XIX, 28: sedebitis et vos super sedes duodecim, iudicantes duodecim tribus Israel.
12:28
Si autem ego in spiritu Dei eiicio Daemones, igitur pervenit in vos regnum Dei; quasi dicat: stultus est qui repellit a se quae in bonum suum cedunt; hoc autem, scilicet expellere Daemones, redit in bonum vestrum. Inde ergo potestis colligere quod in spiritu sancto, quia digitus Dei est spiritus sanctus, sicut filius manus. Nec tamen est inde aliqua invocatio, sed solum fit istud ex auctoritate. Unde si in spiritu Dei eiicio Daemones et cetera. Sed quare dicitur eiectio Daemonum fieri in spiritu sancto? Quia ei amor et bonitas appropriatur; ideo repellere Diabolum nulli bene ita convenit sicut personae spiritus sancti. Pervenit in vos; Lc. XVII, 21: regnum Dei intra vos est. Et quod fit a Christo potestis cognoscere, et hoc est vestra utilitas, ideo dicit in vos. Vel aliter: regnum Dei, idest dominium Dei in hominibus; I ad Cor. XV, 25: oportet autem illum regnare, donec ponat inimicos sub pedibus eius. Si ergo Daemones iam suppeditari incipiunt, iam pervenit in vos regnum et dominium Dei.
12:29
Aut quomodo potest quisquam intrare in domum fortis? et cetera. Hic ponitur tertia ratio, per quam dominus dicta Pharisaeorum confutare intendit, et est argumentum ex his quae accidunt erga homines. Quia cum aliquis est potens in domo sua, non potest inde eiici, nec vasa eius disrumpi, nisi fortior superveniat. Sed Christus spoliat vasa Diaboli, expellendo eum ab hominibus, in quibus est ut in vasis propriis. Ergo Christus fortior est eo. Et hanc rationem ponit sub his verbis. Fortis. Iste est Diabolus, qui fortis dicitur ex virtute; Iob XLI, 24: non est potestas, quae huic valeat comparari. Et fortior efficitur per consensum, quia qui consentit, dat vires supra se; Is. XIX, 2: pugnabit vir contra fratrem, civitas contra civitatem, et tradam Aegyptum in manu dominorum crudelium. Domus ista est mundus, vel congregatio peccatorum, non quia mundum creavit, sed quia ei consentiendo obedivit; unde Io. XII, 31 dicitur princeps huius mundi. Vasa eius sunt homines. Vas dupliciter accipitur. Vas alicuius dicitur quod plenum est illo, ut dicitur vas aquae, quia plenum est aqua, vel vas olei, quia plenum est oleo; sic aliqui vasa Diaboli, quia pleni Diabolo, et hoc secundum corpus, ut obsessi a Diabolo: secundum animam vero illi quorum corda sunt in plenaria voluntate Diaboli, ut dicitur de Iuda. Aliquando vasa dicuntur quaelibet instrumenta ad quodcumque officium deputata; unde dicitur vas Diaboli qui occasionem peccandi aliis tribuit. Et quocumque modo sumatur, diripit Christus vasa Diaboli; ad Col. cap. II, 15: expolians principatus, et potestates, traduxit confidenter, palam triumphans illos in seipso et cetera. Hoc tamen non sufficit, nisi alliget fortem; unde nisi prius alligaverit fortem. Quae est haec alligatio? Quia potestas nocendi, quam habet a seipso, cohibetur a Deo. Unde ex virtute naturae suae potest multa facere, sed ex virtute Dei cohibetur, sicut homo ligatus cohibetur ne impleat quod vult. Unde Ps. CXLIX, 8: ad alligandos reges eorum in compedibus. Et tunc domum eis diripiet, quia eo ligato, homines ligati disrumpentur; Is. XLIX, 25: captivitas a forti tolletur, et quod ablatum fuerit a robusto salvabitur.
12:30
Qui non est mecum, contra me est. Hic ponitur quarta ratio, et hic dat firmitatem omnibus. Posset enim aliquis dicere: si per victoriam auferres, posset procedere ratio; sed non facis per violentiam, sed per passionem, ideo non est signum quod alligaveris. Ideo ponit quartam rationem. Ratio talis est. Quae conveniunt in uno aliquo, opus simile habent: unde qui opera similia faciunt, non se ad invicem impediunt. Sed ego contraria opera facio eis. Ideo qui non est mecum, contra me est. Primo ponit rationem in generali; secundo exemplificat in speciali. Dicit ergo qui non est mecum et cetera. Et Diabolus apparet quod non est mecum, quia contrarius est operibus meis; II ad Cor. VI, 15: quae conventio Christi ad Belial? Quod autem sit contra eum, habetur Eccli. XXXIII, 15: contra vitam mors, et contra virum iustum peccator; sic contra hominem Diabolus, qui est pater peccati. Sed in quo contrariatur ei? Et qui non congregat mecum, spargit. Dominus enim congregat, Is. XL, v. 11: in brachio suo congregabit agnos, et in sinu suo levabit eos; foetas ipse portabit. Diabolus autem dispergit; unde Io. X, v. 12: lupus rapit et dispergit oves. Sed Lc. IX, 50 habetur: qui non est adversus vos, pro vobis est et cetera. Hic autem dici videtur contrarium. Chrysostomus dicit quod utrumque particulariter dictum est: unde non intelligitur universaliter, sed in casu, et specialiter, quod qui non habet pactum mecum, contra me est. Unde ibi vocabat discipulos, hic Diabolos. Vel aliter possumus dicere, quod aliter est de Deo, et de homine. Constat, quod Deus naturalis est finis in quem omnia tendunt; ideo qui non est cum Deo, oportet quod sit separatus ab eo; unde III Reg. XVIII, 21: ut quid claudicatis in duas partes? Si dominus est Deus, sequimini eum. Sed de homine ad hominem non est ita, quia qui non est pro me, non propter hoc contra me est. Ideo dico vobis, omne peccatum et blasphemia remittetur hominibus et cetera. Postquam confutavit dictum ipsorum, hic invehitur contra eos. Primo ex gravitate peccati; secundo ex mala intentione; tertio ex futuro iudicio. Secunda ibi aut facite arborem bonam et cetera. Tertia ibi dico autem vobis et cetera. Circa primum facit duo. Primo praemittit quasdam sententias generales; secundo explicat, ibi et quicumque dixerit verbum contra filium hominis et cetera. Dicit ergo: ita factum est sicut dicitis ideo dico vobis et cetera. Et ponit duas sententias. Primo de remissione generaliter peccati: dico: omne peccatum, scilicet facti, et blasphemia, scilicet dicti, remittetur hominibus, scilicet si poeniteant. Unde in Ps. CII, 3: qui propitiatur omnibus iniquitatibus tuis, qui sanat omnes infirmitates tuas. Et alibi, Ps. XXXI, 1: beati quorum remissae sunt iniquitates, et quorum tecta sunt peccata.
12:31
Et in hoc destruitur opinio Novatii, qui dicebat quod non omnia peccata sint remissibilia: hic autem dicitur, quod omne peccatum est remissibile. Secundo ponit speciale, quod non remittitur, dicens spiritus autem blasphemiae non remittetur, idest voluntas blasphemandi, scilicet quando ex certa malitia blasphemat. Et haec dicta sunt generaliter. Deinde accedit ad speciem, et exponit. Et primo, primum dictum exponit. Ita dictum est, quod omne peccatum et cetera. Et quod hoc sit verum, ostendo de isto, quia blasphemia quae est contra filium, remissibilis est. Unde quicumque dixerit verbum contra filium hominis, remittetur ei, scilicet si poeniteat. Qui autem dixerit contra spiritum sanctum, verbum, non remittetur ei neque in hoc saeculo, neque in futuro. Et, ut dicit Augustinus, haec verba ita sunt difficilia, quod non sunt fortiora verba in Evangelio. Dicendum ergo, quod triplex est modus exponendi. Quidam exponunt ad litteram, quia ipsi videbant ipsum miracula facientem, et opera spiritus sancti, et dicebant eum habere spiritum immundum; ideo blasphemabant contra spiritum sanctum. Et in hoc diversa est expositio. Quidam dicunt quod utrumque debet referri ad personam filii. Sed in filio duplex est natura, divina et humana; et secundum divinam et spiritus est et sanctus est. Unde filius dicitur spiritus sanctus, non secundum quod sumitur in ratione unius vocabuli, et sic exponit Hilarius. Et est sententia. Quicumque dixerit verbum contra filium, et contra humanam naturam motus ex infirmitate, habet excusationem; sed quicumque dixerit contra divinam, hic non habet rationem veniae. Alii exponunt de spiritu sancto, secundum quod est tertia in Trinitate persona. Unde quicumque dixerit contra filium hominis, idest humanam naturam, remittetur ei; sed qui contra spiritum sanctum operantem, hic non habet veniam. Haec videtur plena expositio, et hanc videtur dicere textus. Sed Augustinus obiicit sic. Constat quod omnes Pagani blasphemant, quia non credunt spiritum sanctum esse in Ecclesia. Item multi sunt haeretici, et tamen istis non praecluditur via veniae. Item multi Iudaei et cetera. Sed posset aliquis dicere: intelligendum est post acceptam fidem. Sed ad hoc: si hoc sic est, est ne neganda ei poenitentia, si poeniteat? Item non dicit, quicumque Christianus, sed generaliter, quicumque. Quomodo ergo solverit? Augustinus solvit dupliciter. Una est expositio in sermone domini in monte, et illam retractat. Aliam vero ponit in libro de verbis domini. Unde intelligere debetis, quod peccatum in spiritum sanctum non dicitur blasphemia spiritus sancti, sed accipitur ex modo peccandi. Spiritui sancto attribuitur bonitas, caritas et amor; bonitati malitia respondet, caritati invidia. Si quis ergo cognoscens veritatem, ex malitia deroget veritati, peccat in spiritum sanctum. Item si aliquis videat opera sanctitatis in aliquo, et ex invidia deroget: invidia enim sanctitatis, non personae, peccatum irremissibile est; non quia impossibile sit quod remittatur, sed quia tanta labes est peccati, quod ex divina iustitia fit quod non poeniteat. Unde illi qui dicebant, quod in Beelzebub Daemonia eiiciebat, non peccabant in spiritum sanctum, ut ait Augustinus, quia ad profundam malitiam non venerant et cetera. Sed hoc incepit dicere, non quia hoc facerent, sed ut ipsi qui inceperant, caverent ne ad hunc statum venirent. Hunc sensum reprobat, et retractat Augustinus, quia sic esset aliquis status, pro quo non esset orandum, quod non est verum in via. Ideo aliter exponit in libro de verbis domini, et est talis. Notate quod non dixit, quicumque dixit verbum blasphemiae, sed, verbum infinite. Sed tale quod infinite ponitur, non universaliter tenetur, sed aliquando particulariter, ut Io. XV, 22: si non venissem, et locutus non fuissem eis, peccatum non haberent; non simpliciter, sive universaliter, sed non haberent peccatum infidelitatis: ita similiter qui dixit verbum; non quodcumque verbum, sed tale verbum est, quod si dicatur, irremissibile est. Quod autem sit illud, dicit Augustinus. Spiritus sanctus caritas est, per quam membra Ecclesiae capiti Christo uniuntur, et omne peccatum remittitur per spiritum sanctum. Quod etsi remittit tota Trinitas, tamen spiritui sancto appropriatur propter amorem. Ille ergo qui habet cor impoenitens, loquitur contra spiritum sanctum. Unde ipsa impoenitentia opponitur caritati spiritus sancti. Unde non quicumque quodcumque verbum dixerit, sed istud verbum, scilicet verbum impoenitentiae, istud irremissibile est. Et dicit verbum, non verba, quia consuetudo est in Scriptura, multa verba unum verbum dicere; unde in Isaia dominus saepe dicit, dices verbum meum, licet multa verba ei diceret. Unde non contradicit ei quod dictum est supra, ibi dico vobis, omne peccatum et blasphemia etc., quia qui contra spiritum sanctum dixerit verbum, blasphemat. Unde quidam magister interrogatus, quid esset peccatum in spiritum sanctum, dixit: impoenitentia thesaurizat sibi iram. Sed quid est quod non remittitur neque in hoc saeculo, neque in futuro? Numquid aliqua peccata remittentur in futuro? Augustinus dicit quod non. Ergo non dicitur quod aliqua in praesenti et alia in futuro remittantur; sed ideo quod sic hic remittitur peccatum, ut valeat in futuro. Vel aliter. Quia quaedam peccata, scilicet mortalia, in praesenti remittuntur, sed alia, scilicet venialia, in futuro; sicut si aliquis moritur in aliquo veniali, constat quod remittatur. Unde aliqua misericordia erit in futuro, quia tunc adhuc erit viator. Chrysostomus valde plane exponit, et dicit, quod hic loquitur de duplici blasphemia: contra filium hominis, et spiritum sanctum. Isti blasphemabant filium hominis, quia dicebant quod potator erat vini. Item alia eorum blasphemia erat contra spiritum sanctum, quia dicebant quod in spiritu daemoniaco eiiciebat Daemones. De prima habebant excusationem, quia non sciebant; sed de hoc quod contra spiritum sanctum dicebant, non habebant excusationem, quia sciebant per Scripturas, et ideo non remittetur.
12:32
Sed quid est quod dicit neque in hoc saeculo, neque in futuro? Dicitur hoc quia aliquod peccatum punitur in hoc saeculo, aliquod in alio, aliquod hic et ibi. Quoddam in hoc saeculo tantum, ut patet in poenitentibus. Quoddam in futuro tantum, ut illi de quibus dicitur Iob XXI, 13: ducunt in bonis dies suos, et in puncto ad Inferna descendunt. Quod vero hic et in futuro, est peccatum in spiritum sanctum: unde non remittetur neque in hoc saeculo, neque in futuro, non quia fiat remissio in futuro, sed quia poena erit in futuro. Unde sensus est quod non remittetur, quin poenam patiatur in hoc saeculo, et in futuro. Sic loquuntur sancti de peccato isto. Notandum autem quod Magister in sententiis, dist. XLIII, Lib. 2, ponit distinctionem, et assignat sex species peccati in spiritum sanctum: desperationem, praesumptionem, impoenitentiam, obstinationem, impugnationem veritatis agnitae, et invidiam fraternae gratiae. Unde dicuntur in spiritum sanctum peccare, qui contra appropriata spiritui sancto peccant. Patri appropriatur potentia, filio sapientia, spiritui sancto bonitas. Ille ergo in patrem dicitur peccare, qui ex infirmitate peccat: ille in filium qui ex ignorantia: ille in spiritum sanctum qui ex malitia. Sed sciendum, quod peccare ex malitia est quando quis voluntarie peccat, quod est ex certa malitia, et hoc dupliciter: vel quia habet inclinationem ad peccatum, vel quia non habet. Quando enim aliquis homo peccata committit multa, ex hoc relinquitur in eo habitus peccandi, et sic peccat ex electione. Item aliquis peccat, quia removetur id per quod retrahebatur a peccato. Retrahitur autem a peccato per spem vitae aeternae: unde qui non sperat in vitam aeternam, peccat ex certa malitia. Ad Ephes. IV, v. 19: qui desperantes semetipsos tradiderunt impudicitiae. Unde qui peccat ex inclinatione, peccat in spiritum sanctum, scilicet ex hoc quod recedit ab eo quod retrahit a peccato. Hoc autem fit sex modis. In Deo enim sunt misericordia et iustitia. Ex contemptu misericordiae fit desperatio; ex contemptu iustitiae praesumptio. Item ex parte aversionis, quia convertit se ad bonum fragile, sic fit obstinatio. Item ex parte aversionis, quia non proponit ad Deum reverti, fit impoenitentia. Item ex parte remedii, scilicet spei et caritatis, fit impugnatio veritatis agnitae, et invidentia fraternae dilectionis. Haec sunt peccata in spiritum sanctum. Si ergo sit impoenitentia actualis, sic non remittitur; non quia non remittatur omnino, sed quia non facile remittitur, quia non habet aliquam rationem remittendi, sed ex sola gratia Dei, ut si aliquis habeat febrem, utpote tertianam, habet unde sanari potest; sed si habet emitriteum, non habet unde sanari possit de se, quia non sanatur nisi ex divino adiutorio.
12:33
Sequitur aut facite arborem bonam, et fructum eius bonum, aut facite arborem malam, et fructum eius malum. Supra dominus confutavit Pharisaeorum ritum, prout erant contra ipsius opera loquentes, ostendens gravitatem peccati, nunc contra ipsos dicentes pravam eius esse doctrinam. Et primo ponit similitudinem; secundo adaptat; tertio rationem assignat. Secunda ibi progenies viperarum etc.; tertia ibi ex abundantia cordis os loquitur. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit similitudinem; secundo inducit probationem, ibi siquidem ex fructu arbor cognoscitur. Dicit ergo aut facite arborem bonam et fructum eius bonum et cetera. Istud dupliciter exponitur. Una expositio secundum Chrysostomum et Hieronymum; alia secundum Augustinum. Secundum Ioannem Chrysostomum sic exponitur. Vult ostendere vituperationem eorum esse irrationabilem; unde comparat actus ad vitam, sicut fructus ad arborem. Si aliquis videt fructum bonum, iudicat arborem esse bonam; similiter, e converso, si malum. Isti videbant actus Christi, puta expellere Daemones, et hoc erat bonum; ideo valde irrationabile est quod dicitis. Et optime procedit ab effectu in causam, ut dicit apostolus ad Rom. I, 20: invisibilia enim ipsius a creatura mundi per ea quae facta sunt, intellecta conspiciuntur et cetera. Unde vult dicere: aut vos, scilicet Pharisaei, facite, idest concedatis, quia si fructus bonus est, quod arbor bona est: aut facite, idest dicite quod fructus malus est, et ita arbor mala. Et hoc non potestis dicere. Augustinus autem refert ad intentionem. Isti dicebant, quod in Beelzebub Daemonia eiiciebat. Vult ergo ostendere ex qua radice hoc processerit, quia ex malitia cordis: ideo dicit aut facite. Hic ponuntur duo, unum meritorium, ut fiat, facite etc., et date operam et studium ut sitis arbor bona, quod non potest homo sine praeparatione. Unde facite ut sitis arbor bona, et tunc erit fructus bonus, et verba bona. Quod autem sequitur, est ut caveant, scilicet aut facite arborem malam, et fructum eius malum: aut studebitis malitiae, et sic eritis arbor mala, et fructus malus; Ier. II, 21: ego plantavi te vineam meam electam, quomodo conversa es mihi in pravum, vinea aliena? Secundum autem utramque lecturam convenit probatio quae sequitur siquidem ex fructu arbor cognoscitur etc., quia per fructum bonum bona, per fructum malum mala. Progenies viperarum et cetera. Et hoc diversimode subditur praemissis secundum diversas expositiones. Secundum Augustinum est quaedam applicatio ad propositum sic. Dictum est aut facite et cetera. Et vos facitis malum. Vos estis arbor mala, et quia arbor mala, mala facitis, quia non potestis bona loqui. Secundum expositionem aliorum ostendit ex quo procedat haec malitia, et vocat Pharisaeos progenies viperarum, quia qui a pueritia malitiam habent, firmius tenent; ideo malitia viperae dicitur malitia eorum; Prov. cap. XXII, 6: adolescens iuxta viam suam, cum senuerit, non recedet ab ea. Ideo pluries qui parentes habent malos, promptiores sunt ad malum; Ier. XIV, 20: cognovimus iniquitates patrum nostrorum. Unde bonum est, quod homo a consuetudine subdat se bono operi. Item natura serpentum est, quod cum lingua venenum eiiciunt, sic mali faciunt; Iob XX, 16: occidit eum lingua viperae. Et in Ps. CXXXIX, 4: acuerunt linguas suas sicut serpentes.
12:34
Ideo dicit quomodo potestis bona loqui? Non dicit bona facere, sed loqui, quia filii estis viperae, quae nocet lingua; ideo cum sitis imitatores patrum sceleris, quomodo potestis bona loqui? Quasi dicat, non potestis. Et assignat rationem: et primo in generali; secundo in speciali, ibi bonus homo de bono thesauro profert bona et cetera. Dicit ergo: ita non potestis loqui. Unde? Quia mali estis. Quare? Quia ex abundantia cordis os loquitur, quia vox est signum intellectus. Dicit ex abundantia cordis, quia, secundum Chrysostomum, cum aliquis ex malitia loquitur, signum est quod maior malitia sit in corde, quia de hoc quod intus retinet, nullum timet. Dum ergo aliquid ex malitia profert, signum est quod magis sit intus, quod proferre non audet. Ideo dicit ex abundantia cordis os loquitur. Et ex abundantia malitiae interius os loquitur, et hoc est in bono, et in malo. Unde Ier. XX, 9: factus est sermo domini in me quasi ignis et cetera. Item in malo similiter, quia aliqui ex malitia concipiunt aliquid quod non possunt retinere; Iob XXXII, 18: coarctat me spiritus uteri mei et cetera.
12:35
Bonus homo de bono thesauro profert bona. Quod dixerat ex abundantia cordis os loquitur, exponit in particulari. Verbum quod egreditur de cogitatione, est sicut donum quod egreditur de thesauro. Unde si cogitatio est bona, verbum est bonum, et e contrario. Bonus thesaurus est scientia veritatis et timor domini; Is. XXXIII, v. 6: divitiae salutis sapientia et scientia, timor domini ipse thesaurus est. Item malus thesaurus est mala cogitatio; et de hoc non procedit nisi malum; Prov. X, 2: nil proderunt thesauri impietatis. Videte: quod de verbis ibi dicitur, istud etiam intelligitur de operibus. Sicut enim cogitatio est radix sermonis, ita intentio operationis; ideo si intentio est bona, opus est bonum. Unde ibi Glossa, tantum facis quantum intendis. In bono videtur habere instantiam. Ponatur quod aliquis velit furari ut det eleemosynam, actus est malus et intentio bona: ergo et cetera. Dico. Intentio et voluntas quandoque distinguuntur, quando scilicet in uno et eodem aliud est voluntas et intentio. Voluntas est de obiecto volito, intentio de fine: voluntas est sicut si volo ire ad fenestram ut videam transeuntes, haec est intentio, quasi extra tentio: unde oportet quod voluntas et intentio unum sint. Unde possumus large considerare intentionem, et voluntatem, et sic in isto. Si voluntas est mala, actus est malus. Tamen si excludatur, et sumatur proprie, non est verum. Sed, posito quod intentio et actus voluntatis unum sint, quid inde? Est dicendum, quod principalitas meriti consistit circa caritatem, ex consequenti circa meritum aliarum virtutum. Meritum enim respicit praemium essentiale, penes quod consideratur caritas. Sic unumquodque opus, quod in maiori fit caritate, magis habet de merito. Sola caritas habet Deum pro obiecto et fine. Unde meritum caritatis respondet praemio substantiali, meritum aliarum virtutum praemio accidentali. Quia igitur caritas informat intentionem, quanto aliquis ex maiori caritate aliquid intendit, tantum facit; sed quantum ad praemium accidentale non. Dico autem vobis et cetera. Dominus istos reprehendit propter gravitatem peccati, et propter malitiam eorum; nunc propter futurum iudicium, quod fide tenemus: dicitur enim Iob XIX, 29: fugite a facie gladii, quoniam ultor iniquitatum gladius est: et scitote esse iudicium; Eccle. XII, 14: cuncta quae fiunt, adducet dominus in iudicium pro omni errato, sive bonum sive malum sit. Item II ad Cor. V, 10: omnes enim nos oportet manifestari ante tribunal Christi, ut referat unusquisque propria corporis, prout gessit, sive bonum sive malum. Unde ibi erit examinatio, quia reddet unusquisque rationem de factis suis.
12:36
Ideo addit etiam de verbis, dicens dico autem vobis, quoniam omne verbum otiosum quod locuti fuerint homines, reddent rationem de eo in die iudicii. Et hoc dicitur Sap. I, 8: qui loquitur iniqua, non poterit latere. Et subditur, quod sermo obscurus in vacuum non ibit. Sed quid est quod dicit de verbo otioso? Verbum otiosum dupliciter dicitur. Uno modo omne verbum malum dicitur otiosum; quia illud dicitur otiosum quod non consequitur finem, sicut si aliquis quaerit hominem, et non invenit, dicitur otiose quaesiisse. Verbum autem datur ad instructionem. Quando ergo proficit, non est otiosum: ad Ephes. IV, 29: omnis sermo malus ex ore vestro non procedat; sed si quis bonum ad aedificationem fidei, ut det gratiam audientibus et cetera. Et secundum Chrysostomum, respicit ad propositum, quia dixerant quod in Beelzebub et cetera. Istud verbum erat perniciosum, ideo etiam otiosum, secundum Hieronymum. Differt quidem perniciosum, et otiosum, quia perniciosum est quod nocumentum infert, otiosum vero quod non affert utilitatem. Gregorius dicit, quod otiosum dicitur, quod caret pia utilitate, vel necessitate. Unde quodlibet verbum quod profertur leviter, dicitur otiosum, nisi habeat piam utilitatem, vel piam necessitatem. Sed constat quod isti dixerant verbum perniciosum: quare ergo non facit mentionem nisi de otioso? Quia vult arguere a minori: quia si de otioso oportet reddere rationem, multo magis de pernicioso. Deinde ostendit rationem ex verbis enim tuis iustificaberis et cetera. In iudicio mundi aliquando innocentes puniuntur, et mali liberantur, quia iudicium fit secundum dicta testium; in iudicio Dei ex homine ipso seipsum accusante, scilicet ex sui confessione.
12:37
Unde ut non credas, quod iudiceris per ea quae alii dicent de te, sed per ea quae tu dices de te, ideo dicit ex verbis enim tuis iustificaberis, et ex verbis tuis condemnaberis. Sicut Lc. XIX, 22: ex ore tuo te iudico, serve nequam.
12:38
Supra dominus confutavit detrahentes suis miraculis, et doctrinae, hic arguit tentantes; et hic duo facit. Primo ponitur interrogatio tentativa; secundo reprobatio, ibi respondens ait illis. Dicitur ergo tunc responderunt; hoc est postquam multa miracula viderant, et postquam multa verba sapientiae audierant, ita quod impletum est in eo quod dicitur Eccli. XXII, 9: cum dormiente loquitur qui narrat stulto sapientiam. Magister, volumus a te signum videre. Magister dicunt tentando; Ps. XXVII, 3: loquuntur pacem in ore suo, mala autem in cordibus eorum. Volumus a te signum videre. Nonne multa signa viderant? Ita; sed alius Evangelista sic exponit dicens, Lc. XI, v. 16: volumus signum de caelo videre, sicut legitur Lib. I Reg. XII, 18 quod Samuel fecit tonitruum: et Elias qui fecit ignem descendere, IV Reg. I, 10. Proprium enim Iudaeorum est signum petere, ut habetur I ad Cor. I, 22: Iudaei signum petunt. Sed cum signa dedisset terrena, non credebant; etiam si daret caelestia, non crederent; Io. III, 12: si terrena dixi vobis, et non creditis, quomodo si dixero caelestia, credetis? Qui respondens ait illis et cetera. Consequenter repellit eos: et duo facit. Primo petitionem negat; secundo indignitatem ostendit, ibi viri Ninivitae et cetera. Primo designat quod quaerebant; secundo denegat.
12:39
Dicitur ergo qui respondens ait illis: generatio mala et adultera signum quaerit. Malos enim dicit, quia insidiatores erant. Dicitur quis malus, quia nocet proximo. Generatio ergo mala, et iniqui filii. Dicitur adultera generatio, Is. LVII, 3: vos autem accedite huc filii auguratricis, semen adulteri, et fornicariae. Ita ergo ista generatio iniquitati subiecta signum quaerit, sed non dabitur ei nisi signum Ionae prophetae. Is. VII, 11: pete tibi signum a domino Deo tuo in profundum Inferni, sive in excelsum supra et cetera. Petebat ergo signum de caelestibus, sed non erant digni videre. Hoc enim dedit apostolis suis, qui viderunt eum ascendentem, qui gloriam Dei viderunt in monte. Sed istis non dabitur nisi signum in Inferno, quantum ad animam, et de terra, quantum ad corpus. Unde non dabitur ei nisi signum Ionae prophetae. Unde signatur mors Christi, et ostenditur caritas Dei, sicut dicit apostolus ad Rom. V, 8: cum adhuc peccatores essemus, secundum tempus Christus pro nobis mortuus est et cetera. Item, ostenditur potestas resuscitantis ut habetur I ad Cor. XV, 20 ss. Et haec sunt signa eorum, quae in nobis esse debent. Per mortem Christi significatur nobis quod nos mori debemus peccato; per resurrectionem vero, quod nos debemus a peccato resurgere. Et sicut Ionas fuit in ventre ceti tribus diebus et tribus noctibus, scilicet secundum veritatem, sic filius hominis erit in corde terrae. Et in hoc confunditur error Manichaei dicentis, quod non in veritate mortuus est.
12:40
Et dicit in corde terrae, quia sicut cor hominis est in profundo, ita Christus in profundo terrae. Vel in corde terrae, idest in corde terrenorum et discipulorum, qui desperabant de eo, ut habetur Lc. ult., 21: nos autem sperabamus, quod ipse esset redempturus Israel. Tribus diebus et tribus noctibus. Sed hic est quaestio litteralis. Videtur hoc esse falsum, quia hora nona expiravit, et sepultus est in vespere, resurrexit autem in mane tertiae diei. Dicit Augustinus, quod aliqui volunt dicere, quod computanda est hora qua positus fuit in cruce. Unde primam noctem dicunt illam tenebrositatem quae apparuit, secunda fuit nox diei Veneris, tertia diei sabbati. Sed secundum Augustinum non valet: posset tamen nobis suppetere, si tota die dominica fuisset in sepulcro. Ideo aliter dicendum, quod dies naturalis pro die et nocte, sumitur pro spatio viginti quatuor horarum. Sed, sicut dicit Augustinus, in Scriptura aliquando sumitur pars pro toto. Sic ergo dicendum, quod Christus per synecdochen fuit tribus diebus et tribus noctibus in sepulcro, quia sexta feria pro tota die et etiam pro praecedenti nocte sumitur: de die vero secunda non est dubium; tertia vero nox pro nocte et die sequenti. Tamen si secundum veritatem inspicimus, fuit duabus noctibus et uno die integro, ad signandum quod suum simplum destruxit nostrum duplum. In nobis erat poena et culpa, in eo poena solum, ideo et cetera. Viri Ninivitae surgent in iudicio cum generatione ista. Hic ponit indignitatem. Hic est quaestio litteralis. Nonne multa miracula fecit? Nonne Lazarum resuscitavit, et multa alia? Quid est ergo non dabitur ei nisi signum Ionae prophetae? Respondeo. Non dabitur tale signum quale petebant: vel non dabitur signum ad utilitatem eorum; sciebat enim quod non reverterentur, quia indurati erant. Sed signa fecit propter fideles et electos, quales post multi fuerunt. Viri Ninivitae et cetera. Haec est indignitas. Et primo praeferuntur gentiles; secundo ponitur ratio, ibi cum autem immundus spiritus exierit ab homine et cetera. Videte. Aliquis est bonus vel quia non peccat, vel quia poenitet. Primo ergo praefert eos qui poenituerunt, scilicet gentiles; secundo qui peccatum non fecerunt, ibi regina Austri et cetera. Comparaverat dominus resurrectionem suam Ionae; ideo possent credere quod istis accideret sicut Ninivitis qui liberati sunt; sed isti non solum non fuerunt liberati, sed fuerunt etiam dispersi. Unde viri Ninivitae surgent. In verbis istis excluditur unus error Iudaeorum, quod resurrectio erit ante iudicium, et quod in medio reaedificabitur Ierusalem. Et adducunt pro se quod dicitur Is. XXV, 6: faciet dominus in monte hoc convivium pinguium. Alii dixerunt quod iusti et martyres resurgent ante alios per mille annos, et adducunt pro ipsis quod dicitur Apoc. XX, 1: vidi Angelum descendentem de caelo habentem clavem abyssi et catenam magnam in manu sua; et sequitur, et apprehendit draconem serpentem antiquum, qui vocatur Diabolus, et ligavit eum ut non amplius gentes decipiat, donec consummentur mille anni.
12:41
Utrumque excluditur cum dicit surgent cum generatione ista, simul boni et non boni. Et condemnabunt, comparatione, non auctoritate, quia inter condemnandos resurgent; Ez. V, 5: ista est Ierusalem, in medio gentium posui eam et in circuitu eius terras: contempsit iudicia mea ut plus esset impia quam gentes, et praecepta mea ultra quam terrae quae in circuitu eius sunt. Et in quo condemnabunt? Quia poenitentiam egerunt; isti vero noluerunt facere poenitentiam. Dominus incepit praedicationem suam a poenitentia: Ioannes similiter, et non audierunt; Ier. VIII, 6: nullus est qui agat poenitentiam super peccato suo. Item illi fecerunt poenitentiam in una praedicatione Ionae; Iesus autem multas praedicationes eis fecerat, et tamen non sunt conversi; Io. XV, 24: si opera non fecissem quae nullus alius fecit, peccatum non haberent. Item conversi sunt in praedicatione unius prophetae; sed isti non solum habuerunt prophetam, sed filium Dei. Unde habetur ad Hebr. c. I, 1: multifarie, multisque modis, olim Deus loquens patribus in prophetis, novissime diebus istis, locutus est nobis in filio, quem constituit haeredem universorum, per quem fecit et saecula et cetera. Et sequitur ecce plusquam Ionas hic, ut habetur ad Hebr. III, 3: amplioris gloriae enim iste prae Moyse dignus est. Ergo Ninivitae praeferuntur, quia poenitentiam egerunt.
12:42
Regina Austri surget in iudicio cum generatione ista, et condemnabit eam, scilicet in sapientia, quam isti noluerunt recipere. De ista habetur III Reg. X, 24, quod venit audire sapientiam Salomonis. Per istam signatur Ecclesia ex fidelibus; Ps. XLIV, 10: astitit regina a dextris tuis in vestitu deaurato, circumdata varietate et cetera. Regina dicitur, quia regere se debet; Prov. XX, 8: rex qui sedet in solio iudicii, dissipat omne malum intuitu suo et cetera. Et dicitur Austri ratione spiritus sancti; Cant. IV, 16: surge, Aquilo, et veni, Auster, perfla hortum meum et cetera. Ista regina surget in iudicio cum generatione ista. Nota quod non dicitur quod non peccaverit, sed non fuit rebellis. Quare? Quia venit a finibus terrae audire sapientiam Salomonis, sicut habetur III Reg. X, 24: et non oportuit quod vos veniretis a finibus terrae, quia hic est. Unde: ecce plusquam Salomon hic, quia ille rex temporalis erat et peccator, iste vero innocens et aeternus; Dan. VII, 14: potestas eius potestas aeterna, quae non auferetur, et regnum aeternum, quod non corrumpetur. Cum autem immundus spiritus exierit ab homine et cetera. Ostendit supra gentiles esse potiores Iudaeis, hic vult confirmare exemplo: et primo ponit exemplum; secundo adaptat, ibi sic erit generationi huic pessimae. Exemplum ponit de spiritu immundo. Notare debetis quod aliquando ponitur exemplum ex re gesta, aliquando ex parabola. Et quando ponitur ex re gesta, oportet quod unumquodque seorsum exponatur ita quod utrumque indiget expositione sua, sicut hic positum est exemplum de Iona. Aliquando ponitur exemplum de parabola, ut cum dicitur, simile est regnum caelorum et cetera. Hic non oportet ponere quid sit in regno caelorum. Possumus ergo dicere secundum Hieronymum, quod sit similitudo et parabola, et sic est unus sensus. Vel ex re gesta secundum Augustinum, et sic est duplex sensus. Immundus spiritus exit ab homine dupliciter, quia hominem aliquando torquet corporaliter, aliquando spiritualiter. Unde videndum quomodo impleatur homo spiritu immundo; quomodo corporaliter et quomodo spiritualiter; tertio quomodo pertineat ad propositum. Quatuor ergo dicuntur. Primo liberatio a spiritu immundo; secundo iterata vexatio; tertio gravitas; quarto secundae vexationis occasio. Dicit ergo si spiritus immundus exierit ab homine. Omnis res quae commiscetur viliori rei, immunda dicitur; quae puriori, purior; ut si argentum plumbo iungatur, fit vilius: sic spiritus creatus, si adhaereat inferiori se, dicitur spiritus immundus. Et iste exit aliquando ab homine quem corporaliter vexat, aliquando quem spiritualiter, ut in Baptismo. Consequenter ponitur iterata vexatio, et occasio. Et primo ex parte Daemonis; secundo ex parte eorum qui vexantur. Ex parte Daemonis primo quantum ad illos alios; secundo quantum ad istos: haec enim est consuetudo Daemonis, quod non potest quiescere nisi noceat, quia ab initio peccatum dilexit. Unde cum ab aliquo expellitur, quaerit ubi vexet.
12:43
Unde dicit ambulat per loca arida, quaerens requiem, et non invenit. Unde aliquando requiem non invenit. In quibus autem inveniat, dicitur Iob XL, 16: sub umbra dormit, in secreto calami, in locis humentibus. Loca humentia sunt corda voluptatibus dedita; loca arida sunt qui contemnunt voluptates, qui a prosperitatibus declinant. Et de hoc Ezech. XXXVII, 11: aruerunt ossa nostra, et periit spes nostra. Dicit ambulat, et explorat quemcumque hominem quem decipiat. Unde pro hoc quod dicitur ambulat, sollicitudinem ostendit; I Petr. V, vers. 8: sobrii estote et vigilate, quia adversarius vester Diabolus tamquam leo rugiens circuit quaerens quem devoret. Quaerens requiem, et non invenit, nisi in locis humentibus. Ita fuit de Iudaeis, quod exiens a Iudaeis ivit ad gentiles, qui aridi sunt ab humore gratiae divinae; sed non invenit requiem, quia expulsus est, quia verbum Dei receperunt.
12:44
Tunc dicit: revertar in domum meam unde exivi. Ex verbo isto potestis colligere quod si Diabolus aliquando expellitur ab aliquo, quia agit poenitentiam, non tamen totaliter dimittit eum: sicut de Christo legitur Lc. IV, 13, quod dimisit ad tempus. Hoc ergo est intelligendum, ut semper solliciti sint homines ne revertatur. Et hoc est quod dicit revertar et cetera. Et veniens invenit eam vacantem. Hic ponitur occasio ex parte eius qui secundo affligitur. Si volumus ad Iudaeos retorquere, planum est quod cum expelleretur a gentibus, rediit ad Iudaeos. Unde triplex ponitur occasio. Scilicet otiositas; unde dicit vacantem; Eccli. XXXIII, 29: multam malitiam docuit otiositas. Ideo Hieronymus: semper aliquid boni facito ut te Diabolus inveniat occupatum. Unde vacantem, idest otiosum; Thren. I, 7: viderunt eam hostes, et deriserunt sabbata sua. Scopis mundatam, quia quod mundatur scopis non mundatur, nisi quia leviter adhaeret. Unde idem est scopare, quod leviter mundare, et inde scopatio imperfecta mundatio. Item ornatam et hoc est superficialis ornatus. Mundatio perfecta debet cum igne fieri, sicut habetur in lege, quod vasa igne debebant mundari. Item illud quod ornatur, aliam habet ex se pulchritudinem, aliam ex ornatu tantum, de qua in Ps. CXLIII, 12: filiae eorum compositae, circumornatae ut similitudo templi et cetera. Sed qui volunt esse securi, debent habere pulchritudinem interiorem; Ps. XLIV, v. 14: omnis gloria eius filiae regis ab intus, in fimbriis aureis, circumamicta varietatibus et cetera. Sed quando fit ornatus solum in exterioribus, non relinquitur a Daemonibus. Ita est de Iudaeis, quia ipsi servabant sabbata, in quibus magis vacabant a bonis quam a malis. Item totam curam ponebant in minimis legis. Tunc vadit, et assumit septem alios spiritus nequiores se. Hic ponitur de secunda vexatione graviori, et ostenditur gravior primo quantum ad numerum; secundo quantum ad durationem; tertio quantum ad effectum. Quantum ad numerum, quia assumit septem. Secundum Chrysostomum exponitur ad litteram, quia cum aliquis cadit, et non cavet, tunc deterius accidit ei; Io. V, 14: ecce sanus factus es; iam noli peccare, ne deterius aliquid tibi contingat. Secundum Augustinum assumit septem, et hoc dupliciter. Aliquando enim poenitens agit poenitentiam, sed negligenter se habet, et tunc fit proclivior; ad Rom. I, 28: propter quod tradidit illos dominus in reprobum sensum. Et per hoc quod dicit septem, universitas vitiorum signatur. Aliter secundum beatum Augustinum: aliqui peccant aliquo peccato, et in statu poenitentiae addunt simulationem. Et sicut septem sunt dona spiritus sancti, sic septem simulationes. Unde primo erant vitia simplicia, tunc adduntur simulationes vitiorum, quae sunt deteriores: et dicuntur septem, vel propter universitatem vitiorum, vel propter sabbatum.
12:45
Et qui hoc modo peccant, fient perseverantiores in malo, unde dicit et intrantes habitant ibi, quia inde recedere nolunt; Ier. VIII, v. 5: populus in Ierusalem aversus est aversione contentiosa, apprehenderunt mendacium, et noluerunt reverti. Si exponatur de Iudaeis, patet, quod habitat in eis, et discedere ab eis non vult. Et fiunt novissima illius hominis peiora prioribus. Hic ponitur aggravatio quantum ad effectum. Ad litteram, qui magis punitur, magis aggravatur. Unde II Petr. II, 21: melius erat viam veritatis non cognoscere, quam post agnitionem retrorsum reverti. Item quantum ad Iudaeos, quia peius egerunt blasphemando Christum, quam colendo idola. Ideo sequitur sic erit generationi huic pessimae, quia deterius erit eis quam unquam fuerit eis in Aegypto.
12:46
In parte praecedente dominus confutavit adversarios; nunc commendat discipulos credentes etc. praesentia assumpta matris et fratrum. Primo ponitur praesentia; secundo denuntiatio; tertio discipulorum commendatio. Dicit ergo adhuc eo loquente. Sed hic est quaestio litteralis, quare Lc. c. VIII, 19, ubi ponuntur eadem verba quae dicta sunt, non ponuntur verba quae sequuntur, sed subditur: factum est autem cum loqueretur, extollens vocem quaedam mulier et cetera. Et ita videtur esse contrarietas. Solvit Augustinus: quod absque dubio ita dictum est, ut Matthaeus narrat, quod adhuc eo loquente, idest dum esset in narratione et cetera. Sed potest esse quod contigerit quod Lucas dicit, et quod iste: et potest esse, quod Lucas praeoccupet, vel ad ordinem suae memoriae referat. Ecce mater eius, et fratres stabant foris et cetera. De matre nulla dubitatio quin sit illa, de qua dictum est I cap.; de fratribus autem potest esse quaestio. Et quia fit mentio de fratribus, ideo est occasio haeresis, quod cum virgo genuisset Iesum, Ioseph cognovit Mariam et genuit inde filios; quod haereticum est, quia post partum virgo inviolata permansit. Fuit etiam opinio, quod isti essent filii Ioseph de alia uxore. Sed hoc nihil est, quia credimus, quod sicut mater Iesu fuit virgo, sic Ioseph, quia virgini virginem commendavit: et sicut in fine, sic etiam et in principio. Qui sunt ergo isti fratres? Hieronymus dixit quod fratres dicuntur multis modis. Aliqui enim fratres natura, sicut supra I: Iacob genuit Iudam et fratres eius. Aliquando fratres qui sunt unius gentis: Deut. XVII, 15: non poteris constituere regem, qui non sit frater tuus. Aliquando religione, ut omnes Christiani, ut infra XXIII, 8. Et in hoc inolevit consuetudo quod homines eiusdem religionis dicuntur fratres. Aliquando homines de una parentela, ut Iosue II, 12, detisque mihi signum ut salvetis patrem meum, et matrem, et fratres. Aliquando omnes homines, qui ab uno patre, scilicet Deo; Mal. II, 10: numquid non est pater unus omnium? Numquid non Deus unus creavit nos? Quare ergo unusquisque despicit fratrem suum? Nullo istorum modorum dicuntur hic fratres domini; ideo uno modo dicuntur fratres, quia consanguinei. Unde Gen. XIII, 8 dixit Abraham ad Lot, fratres enim sumus, quamvis Lot nepos esset Abraham. Sic isti fratres erant, quia consobrini erant.
12:47
Consequenter ponitur denuntiatio poenitentiae eorum dixit autem ei quidam: ecce mater tua et fratres tui foris stant quaerentes te. Quare hoc dixerit, et qua necessitate, exponitur in Luca VIII, 19 quia tanta erat multitudo, quod non poterant intrare. Mystice per matrem significatur synagoga; unde Cant. III, 11: egredimini, et videte regem Salomonem in diademate quo coronavit illum mater sua. Et fratres, idest Iudaei, qui foris stant derelinquentes Christum; Iob VI, v. 15: fratres mei dereliquerunt me. Quaerunt, sed non inveniunt, ut habetur ad Rom. c. IX, 31: Israel sectando legem iustitiae, in legem iustitiae non pervenit. At ille respondens et cetera. Ponitur responsio Christi: et duo facit. Primo confutat interrogantem; secundo commendat discipulos, ibi et extendens manum et cetera.
12:48
Dicit autem ipse quae est mater mea et qui sunt fratres mei? Ex isto loco quidam negaverunt Christum sumpsisse carnem vere, sed phantastice. Unde exponebant: non est haec mater mea, neque hi fratres mei. Quod est contra apostolum ad Gal. IV, 4: misit Deus filium suum factum ex muliere et cetera. Item ad Rom. I, 3: qui factus est ex semine David secundum carnem. Item dominus eam recognovit in cruce: mulier, ecce filius tuus, ut habetur Io. XIX, 26. Chrysostomus. Quare inquit dominus: quae est mater mea, et qui sunt fratres mei? Et dicit duo; quorum unum est sanum, aliud non. Dicit enim quod mater et fratres aliquid humanum passi sunt, quia videntes Christum praedicantem, et turbam sequentem, elationem habuerunt; ideo volebant quasi quamdam gloriam habere; ideo dominus voluit ostendere, quod illud quod faciebat, non habebat ex eo quod assumpserat ex matre, sed ex patre. Haec positio partim sana est: nam quantum ad fratres sana est, quia sic habetur Io. c. VII, 5: neque enim fratres eius credebant in eum. Sed de matre domini non sana est, quia creditur quod numquam peccavit, nec mortaliter, nec venialiter: de ea namque dicitur Cant. IV, 7: tota pulchra es, amica mea, et macula non est in te. Et Augustinus: cum de peccato agitur, nullam prorsus volo de ea fieri mentionem. Solvit ergo aliter Hieronymus, quod iste qui denuntiavit, insidiose denuntiaverat: volebat enim explorare, an ita intenderet spiritualibus, quod non curaret de temporalibus. Ideo affectui respondet. Unde nec matrem plus dilexisset, nisi plus spiritualitatis habuisset. Unde dicit quae est mater mea? Non eam matrem esse negat, sed intendit prohibere inordinatum affectum. Unde supra X, 37: qui amat patrem aut matrem plusquam me non est me dignus. Consequenter ponitur commendatio discipulorum. Et primo commendat discipulos; secundo universaliter omnes credentes.
12:49
Dicit ergo et extendens manum in discipulos dicit: ecce mater mea; quasi dicat: plus diligo istos quam affectus matris meae vel fratres; praeponendus enim est affectus spiritus sancti. Et non solum extendit ad istos, sed ad omnes.
12:50
Unde dicitur quicumque fecerit voluntatem patris mei qui in caelis est, ipse meus frater, soror et mater est. Habebat enim generationem caelestem et temporalem: unde praeponit caelestem temporali. Illi enim qui faciunt voluntatem patris mei, illi attinent ei secundum generationem caelestem; unde Io. VIII, 39: si filii Abrahae estis, opera Abrahae facite. Ipse enim venit ut faceret voluntatem eius, ut habetur Io. IV, 34: V, 30 et VI, 38. Frater dicit quantum ad firmiores, et soror quantum ad debiliores. Sed quid est quod dicit et mater est? Dicendum quod quilibet fidelis, qui facit voluntatem patris, scilicet qui simpliciter obedit, ille frater est, quia similis est ei, qui voluntatem patris implevit. Qui autem non solum facit, sed alios convertit, generat Christum in aliis, et sic fit mater. Sicut e contra occidit Christum in aliis, qui provocat eos ad malum. Apostolus ad Gal. IV, v. 19: filioli mei, quos iterum parturio, donec formetur Christus in vobis.
12:1
Jesus went through the corn on the Sabbath. THERE would have been no difficulty if S. Matthew alone had related the history. But now S. Luke (vi. i) has added to the words SevTepoTrpcorw, the " second-first Sabbath," and to understand the whole completely, we must know what the meaning of these words is. Many think that the " second-first Sabbath " was the eighth day of those feasts which were kept for eight continuous days : such as the feasts of unleavened bread, and of tabernacles ; for the eighth day was kept with the same rites and observances as the first (Levit. xxiii. 36-39; Numbers xxix. 35); and that it was called the second-first, because it was equal to the first in celebration, though second in place ; and that the day mentioned by SS. Matthew and Luke was the eighth day of unleavened bread. So says S. Epiphanius (Hcer. li.) and most others. More modern authorities think that the first day of Azymes was so called, as being the second from the Pasch ; as Euthymius and others. Others, again, that it was the Sabbath which was the nearest to some feast which fell on the sixth day of the week; as Theophylact and S. Chrysostom (Horn. xl.). Others, that it was some second, that is, lesser festival, like the new moons. Others, that there was a double Sabbath : the ordinary one on the seventh day, and some festival which had fallen on the same Sabbath. For every Sabbath was called a festival. It would appear that there are certain first principles from which the explanation of the passage would naturally follow. 1. S. Luke, when he called the Sabbath the secondfirst, did not mean some one of many which were called second feasts, but some one fixed (certain) Sabbath, which alone of all would be called the second-first. For S. Luke wished to name a particular day, that the occasion of the slander of the Pharisees might be the better understood. By this view all those explanations which would make it one of many are confuted ; as those of Euthymius, Isidore, S. Chrysostom, and Theophylact 2. That Sabbath happened when the corn was ripe, but tender, and not yet reaped, or the disciples would not have plucked the ears and rubbed them between their hands. This overthrows the idea of S. Epiphanius and all who think the second-first Sabbath one of the days of Azymes, for neither on the I5th nor on the 2Oth of March are the ears sufficiently ripe. S. John shows that at the time of Christ's Passion it was cold, and that they warmed themselves at the fire ; and the feast of weeks was kept fifty days after Pasch, and began from when the first sickle was put to the corn (Dent. xvi. 9). It could not have happened, then, on the feast of Azymes, that is, fifty days before ; and we know from experience that not only in Palestine, but in the much hotter climate of Africa, the corn is not ripe so early. It follows from the same reasoning that it could not have been (as some have supposed) at the feast of Tabernacles, because this did not take place till the seventh month (Lev. xxiii. 34), when all the harvest was gathered in. 3. We have it from Hebrew tradition that after the Babylonish exile the Jews never kept one feast the day after another, lest the people should be compelled to be idle two days running. Hence the opinion that the secondfirst Sabbath was the day immediately after some other feast is erroneous. It follows, therefore, the "second-first Sabbath " could only be the feast of Pentecost, or, what is the same thing, of first fruits, because it was the only one, as we have said, which S. Luke described by its proper name, and it happened when the corn was ripe, but not cut, the festival being kept to signify this. It remains to be asked, Why was it called second-first ? I have found no sufficient reason for this ; but the opinion of those seems the best who say that as there were three first or chief festivals besides the Sabbath — Azymes, Weeks, and Tabernacles — (for all the others, as the new moons, were of far lower rank) — the feast of Weeks, both in locality and celebrity, was the second from the first. Some object that it was lawful to prepare food on the feasts except the Sabbath (Exod. xii. 16), and, therefore, that the Pharisees could not accuse the disciples because they rubbed the ears of corn between their hands. They did not accuse them because they prepared food, but because they plucked the ears of corn, as if they were in a sense reaping, which was lawful on no festival. And S. Irenaeus (w. 20) says that it was not forbidden on the Sabbath day and on festivals to pluck ears, but only to reap. But the answer of Christ shows that the disciples did that which otherwise it was not lawful to do had not necessity compelled them, like David, and the presence of the Lord, who was greater than the Temple, excused themas priests. It may be objected that in the Greek the word is used in the plural, Sabbaths — ev rot? a-aj3/3d(ri — which has given some reason for thinking that not one festival only, but two or more, were meant, which were either celebrated on the same day or on the day after the other. The answer is easy. It is a Hebraism, and the plural is put for the singular to show that not many Sabbaths, but one of many, was intended, as in verses 5, 10.
12:2
And the Pharisees seeing them, said to Him. S. Luke (vi. 2) says that the Pharisees said, not to Christ but to the disciples, " Why do you do that which is not lawful ? " &c. It may be answered that they either spoke to both, first to the disciples and then to Christ, or to Christ only, who answered ; but that S. Luke says that they spoke to the disciples, because what they said to the Master they might seem to have said not only about the disciples, but even to the disciples themselves. S. Thomas observes that the Pharisees did not accuse the disciples of having gathered the ears of corn from the field of another, because that was permitted by the Law (Dent, xxiii. 25).
12:3
Have you not read. Christ objects their ignorance of the Law to those who thought themselves strong in it (Euthymius).
And they that were with Him. In i Kings xxi. I we find that David was alone, and these words, therefore, do not seem to agree with the history. Some say that David was indeed alone when he entered the house of the high priest, but that he had companions who were waiting for him in another place, as David said to the priest (verse 2) ; others that he had companions with him, but that the priest, as N. de Lyra says on the passage, asked him why he was alone, not that he was alone, but because when he used to travel in the company of many soldiers he was then attended only by a few : as we say the king travels alone when only a few follow him ; others reject both views, because Scripture says plainly that he was alone, and that he afterwards came alone to Achis, and that when he said, " I have appointed my servants to such and such a place " (verse 2), he spoke falsely to conceal his flight, and that Christ there spoke, not of the truth and of His own opinion, but He merely used the words of David. Neither of these opinions seems to be tenable, because they seem to convict, not only David, but even Christ Himself, almost of a false hood, and because Christ (S. Mark u. 26 and 5. Luke vi. 4) says that David ate of the show-bread himself and gave to those who were with him ; which I do not see how they could explain if he had no one at all with him. Their opinion seems the best who say that no one was with him when he took the loaves, but that he had some companions in another place to whom he gave of them.
12:4
How he entered into the house of God, Everyone knows that there was no Temple then, nor was the ark there, which was in Silo all that time (i Kings i. 24 ; iii. 21 ; w. 3), which was called the house of the Lord ; but it is very likely, or rather wholly necessary, that there should have been a tabernacle, where the show-bread was placed, for it was at Nobe, a city of the priests, that Achimelech gave David the loaves (i Kings xxii. 9). What S. Mark (u. 26) relates as having happened in the time of Abiathar can be more properly discussed in that place.
And did eat the loaves of proposition. The Hebrews express the loaves of proposition in two ways : D^DH DH 7 " the bread of faces," as may be said, because in the tabernacle where the Lord dwelt, the loaves were placed six on one side and six on the other, as if before His two faces (for the Hebrews make two faces of a man as we make two cheeks) ; and " the bread of Ordination or Disposition," rGl^On DH h because they were set forth in order and at a certain time. But they are so styled only in P aralipomenon and Esdras, which were written after the captivity (i Paral. ix. 32 ; xxiii. 29 ; and 2 Esdras x. 33). The LXX. render them in three ways : sometimes as the bread of the faces (as in Exod. xxv. 30), apTovs evwTrlovs, sometimes as aprovs- Trpoaunrov (2 Esdras x. 33), most commonly as the bread of proposition, apirovs -nj? 7rpo#e<re<w9 (Exod. xxxiv. 13; i Kings xxi. 6, &c.). The Latin always calls them the bread of proposition.
12:5
Or have ye not read in the Law that on the Sabbath days the priests break the Sabbath and are without blame? (Levit. xxiv. 8, 9 ; Num. xxviii. 9.) Every word, as S. Chrysostom and Euthymius say, has force. In a few words, Christ expressed all that can increase the weight of His example. The Law — which orders the persons of the priests, who ought especially to observe the Sabbath. The place — in the Temple, where they ought to worship. The time — of the Sabbath, which ought most carefully to be observed, for the words, " Break the Sabbath," mean more than merely, Do not observe it. Christ said " break," not that the priests really broke it, but that they did things which, except that the worship of God excused them, it would have been unlawful to do. They slew the victims ; they took off their skins ; they washed their intestines ; they cleaned the wood ; they kindled the fire ; they circumcised children — as S. Jerome, S. Chrysostom, and Euthy mius state. The opinion of our Doctors is confirmed from this passage, that in the celebration of festivals the festival is not violated when those things are done which are necessary to its due celebration, and which could not be done at any other time — as when bells are rung, crosses carried, temples purified, and the like — much less when that is done which is necessary for the salvation of souls, which was properly the present 'subject. This chiefly excused the Apostles, who in preaching and working miracles were so occupied that, as S. Mark says, they could not even prepare food or eat it. This is : " I will have mercy and not sacrifice ". In this sense, Christ, as it were, says that it was better for the Apostles to save the souls of men than to keep the Sabbath.
12:6
There is here a greater than the Temple. There have been different opinions as to what Christ spoke of. But no doubt He called Himself the Temple, because, " In Him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead corporeally " (Coloss. u. 9) ; and as in verses 41, 42, He speaks of Himself: "The men of Ninive shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it, because they did penance at the preaching of Jonas, and behold a greater than Jonas is here. The queen of the South shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold a greater than Solomon is here ; " and infra, verse 8 : " The Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath " ; and as Euthymius and Theophylact say.
12:7
If you knew what this meanetJi, We have shown, on verse 5, why Christ introduced the testimony of this prophecy. The prophecy itself is given (ix. 13).
12:8
The Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath. Christ proves that He was both greater than the Temple and could dispense with the observance of the Sabbath, for He is Lord " even of the Sabbath," and everyone does as he will with his own. He said to them : " The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath " (S. Mark u. 27). He said, therefore, both what S. Matthew relates to prove that He was greater than the Temple, because the Temple served the Sabbath, and He was Lord even of the Sabbath ; and also what S. Mark writes, that the salvation of men was to be preferred to the observance of the Sabbath.
12:9
And when He had passed from thence. S. Luke (vi. 6) says that this happened on another Sabbath. This is plain from the above. For Christ came into their synagogue ; but the synagogues were held on the Sabbath ; and they asked Him whether it were lawful to heal on the Sabbath day, because that was the Sabbath (S. Augustin, De Consens., u. 35 ; Euthymius).
Into their synagogues. Theirs — theirs who the Sabbath before had accused the disciples of plucking the ears of corn. For Christ did not less seek occasion of being accused by them unjustly than they did of accusing Him, that He might make their accusation a means of teaching and blaming them.
12:10
And they asked Him. S. Mark (iii. 4) and S. Luke (vi. 9) say that Christ asked the Pharisees. S. Augustin (u. 35, De Consens.} and Theophylact, on this passage, say that the Pharisees first asked Christ, and that Christ then asked the Pharisees. But it is a more easy answer that S. Mark and S. Luke do not say that Christ asked the Pharisees whether it were lawful to heal on the Sabbath day, but whether it were lawful to do good or evil ? It was not, therefore, the same question which Christ asked the Pharisees as that which they asked Him. But the Pharisees first asked Christ whether it were lawful to heal on the Sabbath day ; and Christ, to show their maliciousness, changed the question, and asked them whether it were lawful to do good on the Sabbath or evil, that He might shame them by the very words of His question.
12:12
How much better ^ magis melior"}. An expression not found among Latin authors, though some ecclesiastical writers used it a thousand years ago. The Greeks speak so, as chap vi. 26, which our version, following the Greek, translates : Nonne vos magis pluris, " Are not you of much more value than they?" — a redundant comparative. It may be thought that the Latin translator, for the 7ro(7G) ovv Suafyepei of the Greek, read TTOCTCO ovv fjid\- \ov Sia^epei, " Therefore it is lawful to do a good deed ". Christ does not conclude that it is lawful to do a good deed as the Pharisees had asked Him (S. Mark iii. 4 ; 5. Luke vi. 9). A general saying, and the word of the Benefactor Himself, accompanied by an act of healing, has greater force, because to heal is to do good.
12:15
But Jesus knowing it. No one discovered it to Him, so He had seen their thoughts (verse 25 and ix. 4; 5. Luke v. 22 ; vi. 8 ; ix. 47 ; xi. 17).
Retired from thence. To the sea, as we learn from 5. Mark iii. 7. He fled, as He had taught the Apostles to do (x. 23). He fled, not from fear or inability to defend Himself, but because His hour had not yet come, as S. John says in similar circumstances (vu. 30; viii. 20; xiii. I ; xvi. 21). But He would not resist them, though able to do so ; because, as He could avoid them by flight, it was not necessary to do so, and He would not break a bruised reed, as infra, verse And He healed them all. He healed them — not all who followed Him, but all who were sick and wished to be healed. For the Evangelist only desired to show that Christ, not malignantly and grudgingly, but lavishly and abundantly, conferred the CH.XH. 16, 17, is.] CHRIST'S COMMAND TO SILENCE. 393 benefit of healing on all who had faith and were sick, without distinction of persons.
12:16
And He charged them. S. Mark (iii. 12) says that He commanded the devils not to declare Him, because they cried out, Thou art the Son of God. Because the devils were in the men, S. Matthew said that He commanded the men. We have shown why He did so (ix. 30).
12:17
That it might be fulfilled. Why the Evangelist brought forward this testimony of Isaiah (xlii. i), or how he says it was fulfilled, does not appear. Some think that Christ would not have His miracles published, lest the hatred of the Pharisees should be made more bitter ; for He would not break a bruised reed. Others refer it to His flight, and say that He fled because by resisting He might break a bruised reed ; that is, show less meekness than the Prophet had foretold of Him (S. Chrysostom, Horn. xli.). Either opinion is probable, but it seems better to refer it to verse 15. For He gave the reasons why He healed all, because, as the Prophet had foretold, He was so meek and gentle that no one in the streets should hear His voice, and so merciful that He would heal all, hurt none, and not even break a bruised reed, nor extinguish the smoking flax.
12:18
Behold. Isaiah shows in his prophetic spirit Him whom John afterwards pointed out with his finger (i. 29), and whom the Father showed by His voice from heaven after His baptism (S. Matt. iii. 17).
My servant. He calls Christ a " servant," *Hiy as man (Philipp. u. 7 ; ha. xliii. 10 ; Zech. iii. 8). But he does not call the man Christ a servant in the same way as others, but per excellentiam, and for His own honour, as if God would boast that He had such a servant among men, that His soul could please itself in Him, and could commit to Him that work which is the peculiar one of God — the ruling of the whole Church, and — which is the greatest of all — the recovery of His lost kingdom, as S. Paul says (i Cor. xv. 24). So, if we may compare less things to greater, God is accustomed to call Moses His servant (Numb. xii. 7. 8 ; Job i. 8 ; u. 3). The LXX. in Isaiah have substituted Jacob, either lest God should seem to call Christ His servant, or because they read it so in other places (xli. 8, 9 ; xliv. i, 2). We have observed that the LXX., when a passage seems to contain anything absurd, are accustomed to add, omit, or change, to make it sense.
Whom I have chosen. As man — for among all men He took Him, speaking after the manner of the primitive teachers of the Church, and made Him God (Ps. xliv. 3, 8 ; u. 6). He chose Him to be a King and to preach His Word who Himself was His WTord.
My beloved. The LXX. added Israel, as they added Jacob (ha. xli. 8), because they had so read it. / will put My Spirit. Modern heretics explain this of Christ's baptism, because the Spirit then descended upon Him (iii. 16). Others say that its meaning is that He advanced in wisdom and age, and therefore the Spirit was laid upon Him (S. Luke u. 52). It more certainly refers to His conception, when He was filled with the Spirit (Isa. xi. 2), for He was not less than John the Baptist, of whom the angel had said (S. Luke i. 15): " He shall be filled with the Holy Ghost even from His mother's womb ". He shall show judgment to the Gentiles. ppTO Proferet ; that is, He shall be the lawgiver. But He should give the Law of the Gospel to all nations (Ps. ix. 21), and not be like Moses, who gave his own Law to the Jews alone ; or, He shall judge all nations, because the Father hath given all judgment to the Son (S. John v. 22).
12:19
He shall not contend. These words are not found either in the Hebrew or in the LXX. of Isaiah, but it is very likely that the Evangelist added them for explanation. The meaning of the Prophet is, that Christ should judge without the strife and clamour of the Forum, calmly and with placidity. This is what Christ Himself said (xi. 29) : " Take My yoke and learn of Me, because I am meek and humble of heart, and you shall find rest to your souls ". The meekness of Christ alone is the sole subject of this testimony of Isaiah, as also Zech. ix. 9 ; 5. Matt. xxi. 5 ; S. John xii. 15.
Nor cry out. The Hebrew adds fcW ^ " He shall not take away " ; but it may be understood, as S. Jerome says, i"TW " thou shalt do" ; that is, in His judgment He shall have no respect of persons ; or it may mean V?pl " His voice," as R. Salom explains it ; that is, He shall not cry out.
12:20
Till He send forth judgment unto victory. This passage is perhaps more difficult than has been thought, i. In Isaiah we read: "The bruised reed He shall not break, and the smoking flax He shall not quench. He shall bring forth judgment unto truth. He shall not be sad nor troublesome till He set judgment in the earth, and the islands shall wait for His law": vh nro nnt^Di *mt^ vh ytn pop y YYV bta nro*1 *& : toEKPE NTP ,^rr> D^M irmrta BEWE That is, " He shall walk so quietly and carefully that even if He put His foot upon a bruised reed (than which nothing can be more fragile), He shall not break it, and if upon flax not actually in flames, but only yet smoking, He shall not quench it ". It appears that this was a Hebrew proverb to describe the greatest possible softness of tread. By going and walking, the Hebrews understand every action of life. The meaning therefore is, that Christ would in all things show an incredible mildness and gentleness. The Evangelist has passed over the previous words of the Prophet, and only cited these : " Until He shall bring forth judgment unto truth ". These words seem in some respects similar to those of the Prophet, yet are not the same. S. Jerome, on this passage of Isaiah and in his Epistle ad Algasiam (q. 2), thinks that this was caused by the carelessness of the transcriber — an idea which seems hardly probable. All but S. Jerome think that the words of the Evangelist, " Till He send forth judgment unto victory," answer to those of Isaiah, "He shall bring forth judgment unto truth"; that is, when He judges He shall examine all things with truth, and He shall pronounce a true judgment. Why the Evangelist has put e/c/3aXX?7, " He shall send forth," ejiciet, for proferet, " He shall bring forth," whilst the LXX. reads eloroLcroi, " He shall bring in," is of no great moment. S. Matthew may have said proferet, as in the Prophet, and the Greek translators may have turned it into eK/BdXkew, because the Hebrew means this as well. Nor can they be followed who say that the Evangelist did this deliberately and with determination, to add force to the expression, and as if he wished to say that Christ would compel men, even by force, to undergo true judgment. The subject is not the severity but the mildness of Christ. It is far more difficult to say why the Evangelist said "unto victory" for "unto truth". The opinion that he did not regard the words but the meaning of the Prophet seems by no means sufficient. For the meaning is not the same, and, if it were, the Evangelist is certainly more difficult to be understood than the Prophet. And it is not probable that the former would have explained the dark words of the latter by others of his own still darker. We suspect that S. Matthew could not use the pure and ancient language of the Hebrews, but the corrupt form of it derived from the Chaldaic and Syriac, which was in use in the time of Christ ; and that for TON he said JTIT or NrPlT which means both truth, purity, innocence, and victory ; but that the Greek translator did not write " truth," as it is in Isaiah, but " victory," following another signification of the word and changing it. I consulted the Syriac Gospel when I wrote this, and found that I was correct, for the word is Nnilt h which may mean " to innocence," " to truth," " to victory ".
12:21
And in His name shall the Gentiles hope. S. Matthew seems here to differ from the Prophet in two words, i. For irmn "in His law," he has put "in His name ". All say that the sense is the same. Even if so, I only say what I have noticed on the readings of the Old and New Testaments, that I greatly suspect the Septuagint to be corrupt in this passage. For I do not believe that for irmra "His law/' they substituted "in His name," as we now read, but that they put in lege, as it is in the Hebrew. The similarity of the words may have caused the mistake, and the copyists have written ovofia for VO/JLW. I have observed a like error as to these two words in other places also. The Greek translation of S. Matthew therefore followed the Septuagint, and put " name" for "law". 2. Again he differs, because for D^N "islands" he reads "nations". But this is of little consequence. For the Prophet called all very distant nations islands, because islands are distant from the continent, as the poet says, Et toto divisos orbe Brittannos, and as in the same Prophet (xlix. I ; li. 5 ; Ix. 9 ; Ixvi. 19).
12:22
Then. " When he had gone out of the synagogue," say The Author and Remigius; or no certain fixed time is meant, as Euthymius thinks, although S. Mark (iii. 20) seems to signify that it happened as soon as Christ came out of the synagogue into the house. It must be observed that this is not the same history as the one related by S. Luke (xi. 14), as many have supposed ; for S. Matthew wrote of that demoniac, as we have there shown.
Blind and dumb. It is doubtful whether the man was blind and dumb by nature or disease, as S. Jerome seems to think ; or by the malice of the devil, as S. Chrysostom and Theophylact hold. But it is more probable that the devil so bound those senses that he could neither see nor hear ; for the Evangelist signifies that by the mere casting out of the devil the man recovered his hearing and sight, whereas before there was no cause but the devil to prevent him from hearing and seeing.
12:23
Is not this the son of David ? Is not this the Messenger so often promised, so long expected, who is believed to be about to come, of the seed of David? (See ix. I, 2.)
12:24
By Beelzebub. As the minister of the devil, by magic art (ix. 34 ; x. 25).
12:27
Your children. Many Moderns think that these exorcists were those CH.xii.27.] CHRIST'S MIRACLES ASCRIBED TO BEELZEBUB. 399 Jews who had some kind of magic art, handed down by King Solomon, as Josephus writes (Antiq., viii. 2), and of whom S. Luke makes mention (Acts xix. 13). They are called sons of the Pharisees, because they were Jews, and some of them were their sons. Why do you say that I, rather than your sons, cast out devils by Beelzebub, since we both cast them out ? Why do you judge badly of Me and well of them, when we both perform the same act ? The Ancients think that their speech was directed against the Apostles (S. Hilary ; S. Chrysostom, Horn. xlii. ; The Author, Horn. xxix. ; S. Jerome ; Theophylact ; Euthymius). I should very willingly concur, did I not think that Christ intended to convey more than they say ; for the Apostles cast out devils in the name of Christ (5. Luke x. 17). Our Lord's argument then is, "Your sons" ; that is, the Apostles who are of your nation, in whom do they cast them out ? Is it not in My name ? If, then, they cast out devils, not in the name of Beelzebub, but in Mine, how do you say that I cast them out in the name of Beelzebub ? For, if they cast them out in My name, I am greater than the devils ; for they are cast out in My name and by My power. I do not cast them out, therefore, in the name of Beelzebub ; for, if the Apostles cast them out by My power, which you cannot deny, much more so do I whose the power is. Therefore, they shall be your judges, because they shall sit upon twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Israel (xix. 28 ; S. Jerome). I, however, think the subject to be of another judgment, which divines call the judgment of comparison ; for the Apostles would be the judges of the Pharisees, because it will be seen in that last judgment that the Apostles cast out devils in the name of Christ, which, when the Pharisees had seen and believed, yet they said that Christ Himself (whom they ought much more to have believed to have cast them out by His own power) cast them out by Beelzebub, as He said (verses 41, 42).
12:28
Is the kingdom of God come upon you. Christ terms Himself and His advent the kingdom of God, because it was the beginning of it and it opened our way to it (S. Jerome, S. Chrysostom, Theophylact). Christ's meaning is : " If I, by the Spirit of God, as I have before shown, cast out devils, then is that true which I Myself, My Apostles, and you have preached, that the kingdom of God is come unto you ; for the Holy Ghost, who works miracles by us, bears witness that our testimony is true ".
12:29
Or how can anyone. The meaning is easy. How can I dispossess the devil from his possession, that is, cast him out of men, unless I am stronger than he ? We call that strong which the Hebrew TO3 terms a giant ; and the house of the strong is the citadel which is kept by the giant. " The strong " is the devil '(Job. xli. 24 ; S. Paul, EpJies. vi. 12) ; the house is the world, in which, before Christ came, the devil ruled, and, as S. Paul signified in the above passage, by his own will. His goods are not, as many think, -arms, but spoils and household goods ; for he first binds us and then rifles our goods, that is, our household property ; and S. Luke (xi. 22) distinguishes between arms and goods. His goods he calls those unhappy souls whom he kept under captivity and whom Christ rescued from him (Ps. Ixvii. 19 ; EpJies. w. 8).
12:30
He that is not with Me is against Me. We must first ask of whom Christ speaks. S. Hilary (xii.), S. Chrysostom (Horn, xlii.), S. Jerome, The Author, Bede, Euthymius, and Theophylact think that He speaks of the devil, as if the meaning were : So far is the devil from being My friend, and am I from casting out devils in his name, that he is My chief adversary. But the explanation of S. Chrysostom and Theophylact seems preferable, that Christ spoke of the Pharisees. But how much Christ spoke of them is an unsettled question. It would seem that He wished to blame the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, who when they pretended that they did not oppose Christ, but only sought the glory of God and the observance of the law, most stubbornly opposed Him. This appears so from verse 33. The Pharisees wished to be judges in the cause of Christ, because the judgment of religion and mercy appertained to them ; and they wished to appear indifferent as if they were neither for Christ nor against Him : yet all the time they were His most especial enemies ; that so they might veil their hatred of Him under the pretence of being good judges. This mask Christ stripped from them ; for " he who is not with Me is against Me". What, then, is the good of dissimulation ? The fault will be less if you openly profess yourselves My enemies. " Either make the tree good," &c. How are the words true : " He that is not with Me is against Me," and " He that gathereth not with Me scattereth " ? or how do they agree with those of S. Luke (ix. 50) : " He that is not against you is for you " ? Some refer this solely to the Pharisees, as if it were not true universally but only of them, but yet has room in others, as S. Luke says in the words spoken above. This does not seem good ; for even if these words of Christ were said only of the Pharisees, it is not true only of them, but of all in whom the same thing is found. The Pharisees, as professing the knowledge of the Law, ought to have been the first to acknowledge Christ, and to have been with Him ; but he who ought to have been for Him, but was not, was against Him. A king cannot say of those who are not of his kingdom, " He that is not with me is against me," but of his own subjects he can. For not only he who decries his own king, but he also who does not fight for him when he ought, is guilty of lese majesty. All, therefore, who ought to receive Christ, but do not, whether Pharisees or not, are against Him. All ought to do so, and the Jews first. For the Gentiles, who had never seen nor heard of Him, if they were not against Him, were for Him. This is the simple meaning of S. Luke — namely, that those who ought not to be for Him, if they are not against Him, are for Him. For whoever does not persecute Christ, although he have not yet come to Him, yet is not far from the kingdom of heaven, and even seems to have made some steps towards it. Although he of whom Christ speaks in this place was really for Him, because he cast out devils in His name (S. Luke ix. 50), yet Christ speaks from the opinion of His disciples, who did not think that he was with them unless he were with them, not only in doctrine, but in bodily presence (S. Luke ix. 50). That is, whoever teaches and does the same as you, even though he seem not to be for you, because he does not follow you, is for you, because he confirms your doctrine and your deeds.
12:31
Therefore I say unto you. These causal words are not referred to what has gone immediately before, " This man casteth not out devils but by Beelzebub, the chief of the devils," but to verse 24, as is seen from 5. Mark iii. 30 : " Because they said He hath an unclean spirit ".
But the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven. That is, blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, as it is explained in the following verse, and in 6". Mark iii. 29 and S. Luke xii. 10. There arises a great question from these words ; so great an one that S. Augustin (Serm. xi. de verb. Dom.} thinks that there is no greater in Scripture. There are two parts to the question : (i) What sin against the Holy Ghost is ; (2) How it will never be forgiven, neither in this world nor in the next. It is certain that it is not called sin against the Holy Ghost because committed against the person of the Holy Ghost, as S. Augustin lays down clearly. For there could be no greater sin against the Holy Ghost than that of the Eunomians, who denied His Divinity. Yet this was not numbered among the sins against the Holy Ghost, for the Eunomians are received every day when they return to the Church, as S. Chrysostom says ; and that for which Christ spoke His sentence of condemnation was spoken, not against the Person of the Holy Ghost, but against that of Christ Himself; for they said that He had an unclean spirit and cast out devils through Beelzebub, the prince of the devils. This at least is certain, that sin against the Holy Ghost is not always the heaviest of all sins, nor is unforgiven either in this world or the next because it is greater than the others. For the Sadducees, who denied that there was any Holy Ghost at all, and the Atheists, of whom the world is full to this day, do not sin much more heavily than they who doubted whether the devils are cast out by a good spirit or an evil one. The observation of S. Augustin is also certain, that Christ does not speak here of every sin against the Holy Ghost, but of that only which consists in contumelious words, which, indeed, is the meaning of the word blasphemy. This is explained in verse 32. However, in different places he follows five different opinions. In one place, he says that sin against the Holy Ghost is what is termed final impenitence, as in lib. ad Petrum iii., De vera et falsa pcenitentie, chap. xlv. ; Serm. xi. de verb. Dom. In another, that they sin against the Holy Ghost who do not believe that sins are forgiven in the Church, but despise the largeness of the divine bounty, and die in this obstinacy (Enchirid., chap. Ixxxiii.). In a third, whoever through malice and envy oppose brotherly love after receipt of the grace of the Holy Ghost (i., Serm. in Mont?). In another, that it is despair of the mercy of God (Comment, on Epistle to Romans]. In another, and one more near the truth, that it is to attribute the works of the Holy Ghost, knowingly, to the devil (Quasi. 102 on Vet. and Nov. Test.). Hence has arisen the common opinion of those divines who make six kinds of sins against the Holy Ghost : (i) Final impenitence; (2) Despair; (3) Obstinacy in evil; (4) Knowingly to impugn the truth; (5) Presumption; and (6) Hatred (invidiam) of brotherly love. The Novatians make this sin denial of Christ ; and, to confirm their error, they do not allow those who deny Christ to be received to repentance, as the author of Quest. 102 on Old and New Testa ments tells us. Other Novatians seem to hold all great sin after baptism, such as murder or adultery, to be sin against the Holy Ghost, as S. Augustin (De Serm. Dom.") relates. This was also the opinion of Origen and Theognostus before, as S. Athanasius says in his homily on this passage. Others, that it is to deny the Divinity of Christ, as the Pharisees did (S. Hilary, Can. xii. ; S. Ambrose, vu., On S. Luke]. Others, that it is to deny that in Baptism, the Eucharist, and other Sacraments of the Church, sins are forgiven by grace of the Holy Ghost, as Bede says on this passage. Others, more generally, that heresy is this sin, as Philaster, on the Heresy of Rethorius. It may be tire some to recount so many opinions, but in such questions it is perhaps well to know something of what good authorities hold. The true meaning of the words is only to be gained from the passage itself. We see on what occasion Christ said this to the Pharisees. They said that He cast outdevils by Beelzebub, clearly ascribing the manifest works of the Holy Ghost to the devil. This is therefore to sin against the Holy Ghost. We may also observe that Christ does not say, whoever speaks a word against the Father or against the Son, but against the Son of man. From this, we see that He spoke of Himself, not as God, but as man ; and that he speaks against the Son of man, who, deceived by His human appearance, offended by His infirmity, thinks and speaks of Him in a manner unworthy of His dignity: such an one deserves pardon, as having some excuse for his sin ; but he who ascribes the plain works of the Holy Ghost to the devil does not deserve forgiveness, as having no possible excuse for his sin. 2. From this, the other division of the subject, why sin against the Holy Ghost is never forgiven, is easily comprehended. It is not that it never can be forgiven, for the rule of faith must be kept, that there is no sin which God cannot forgive, nor, therefore, that it never is forgiven ; for we may believe that some of those who said that Christ cast out devils by Beelzebub afterwards repented : but that they who sin against the Holy Ghost can have no excuse for their sin, and, therefore, by the nature of the case, cannot merit forgiveness. In most other cases, either ignorance or weakness excuses the fault, if not wholly, at least in some degree (i Tim. i. 13 ; Ps. cii. 14 ; Ixxvii. 39). But in sin against the Holy Ghost nothing of this kind is found to excuse the sin. This is the true explanation (Pacian, Ep. i. ; S. Athanasius, Horn, on this passage ; S. Anastasius, Quasi. 68; S. Basil, Interr. 273 Reg. Brev.; S. Ambrose, De Pcenit., u. 4 ; S. Jerome, In Comment?). Though some of these give different reasons why sin against the Holy Ghost is never forgiven, yet they agree that the sin itself is what we have described. It results, perhaps, in what S. Chrysostom says, that it is said never to be for given, because it is very difficult to be forgiven. But their opinion is better, as said above, that " from the nature of the case it has no excuse, and therefore cannot receive forgiveness". So, in another place, Christ said that it was impossible for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven, not that it was impossible to God, but it was so from the nature of the case. But it will be said that " all mortal sin is such as by its own nature it can merit no forgiveness. Why are sins, then, that are not mortal called venial, except that they merit forgiveness ? If these are venial because they merit forgiveness, those which are not venial do not merit it." The answer is : " No mortal sin of its own nature merits forgiveness, but others, compared with these, because they have some excuse, are thought worthy of it". This sin alone is specified, because, of its own nature, it never can be forgiven : as there are many others, besides rich men, who by their own strength cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven : but the words above were said of them alone, because they who are loaded and weighed down by riches have so many more hindrances. Hence it follows, that although Christ speaks only of blasphemy, that is, contumelious words, against the Holy Ghost, yet :His words hold good not only of blasphemy, but of all other sins whatever, of the same nature ; such as if one should ascribe, not in word, but in deed or thought, the miracles of the Holy Ghost to Satan. Many heretics are thus refuted : the Eunomians, who denied the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, whom S. Ambrose (De Spir. Sanct.y i. 3) answers, " All blasphemy," &c. : the Sabellians, who confused the three Persons in the Godhead ; whilst in this passage the Persons of the Son and Holy Ghost are so distinguished that whoever sins against the former shall be forgiven, but whoever sins against the latter shall not. S. Augustin (De Civitate, xxi. 24 ; Cont. Jul., vi. 5), S. Gregory (lib. w., Dialog. 39), Bede on this place, S. Bernard (Canticles, Sermon Ixvi.), have proved Purgatory from verse 32, concluding that some sins would be remitted in the future world.
12:33
Either make. These words are referred to different things and different persons by different authors. S. Hilary, S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and Theophylact refer them to Christ so as to make them mean : " Why do you think otherwise of Me and of My works ? How, if, as you think, I am a sinner and have an unclean spirit, can I do good works, such as casting out devils, restoring the blind, the deaf and the dumb, raising the dead ? Either therefore make Me evil and My works evil, or make Me good and My works good." S. Jerome thinks that they bear reference to the devil, as if Christ should say : "You say that I cast out devils by Beelzebub. How can the devil, an evil tree, bring forth good fruit, such as the casting out of devils ? Either therefore," &c. Bede refers them to both : the good tree to Christ, the evil one to the devil, as if it meant : " How can I who am the good tree bring forth evil fruit, that is the works of the devil, who is an evil tree ? Either say that I am good and My works good, or that I am evil and My works evil." S. Ambrose (De Pcen., u. 4) understands by the good tree the Church : by the evil one the synagogue. The evil fruit he considers the Pharisees themselves, as if it were : The evil mother, the synagogue, cannot bring forth good sons. The true sense would appear to be that which S. Augustin has put forth and in more places than one (De Serm. Dom., u ; De actis cum Felice Mamick., chap. 4 ; Cont. litt. PetiL, u. 6 ; Serm. xii. de verb. Dom. in Mont.}. He says that the Pharisees are called both the good and the evil tree ; for Christ blames their hypocrisy, when they wished to appear the good tree, but brought forth evil fruit ; or when they were evil trees, and wished to bring forth good fruit ; and He orders them to be either openly good or openly evil. This opinion may seem contrary to that in the next verse : " How can you speak good things whereas you are evil?" and also to that in chap. vu. 18 ; but it is not so if properly understood. For the evil Pharisees are not said here to do good works, or the good ones to do evil works. This is said to be impossible, as above, and in chap. vu. 18 : " A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit," but they are pointed out, because when they are evil they wish both to seem good, and that their works should be approved, as if they were holy and good.
12:34
O generation of vipers. (See iii. 7.) Christ does not deny absolutely and entirely that they can do so ; for many, though they be evil, speak good words. But He says what is natural, customary, lasting. For it is natural and consistent with the lives of men, that the bad should speak wickedly and the good religiously (S. Matt. xii. 34) ; but if it ever happen other wise, it happens contrarily to nature and custom, and cannot be enduring.
12:36
Every idle word. A Hebrew construction in which the nominative is redundant. Two questions may here be raised: (i) To what end Christ said this ? (2) What He means by an idle word? It is most generally thought to be an argument a minore ad majus, as if Christ had said : If for every, the least, idle word, how much more shall you give account in the day of judgment for the blasphemy with which you have said that I cast out devils by Beelzebub? That may be called an idle word which brings no profit or edification to the hearer or speaker (S. Jerome, S. Chrysostom, Horn. xliii. ; S. Basil, Reg. Brev.y xxiii. ; S. Ambrose, Ps. xxxviii ; Gregory, Horn. vi. in Evangel; Bede, Comment?}. Theophylact and Euthymius alone explain it of calumnious and false words, as some more ancient authors did, according to S. Chrysostom. The Hebrews perhaps had NW which may be taken to mean either a vain, or false, or calumnious saying, as Exod. xx. 7, but the Greek translation rendered it " idle," that is, spoken to no purpose, which seems rather to agree with the context ; for the Pharisees spoke not only idly, but also calumniously and falsely of Christ. He seems to have said that for calumnious and false accusations account would be given in the day of judgment.
12:37
For by thy words. This seems to have been a proverb. Theophylact says that it was a Scripture saying, perhaps that in Job xv. 6. But the words, "By thy words thou shalt be condemned," are not to be taken as if our words alone would justify or condemn us; for we shall be either justified or condemned by many other things besides these; but that their words alone will suffice to justify many who have spoken well or ill : as the high priest, who spoke the words against Christ recorded in chap. xxvi. 65. For as he condemned Christ for the one word by which He signified that He was the Son of God without any other testimony, so he himself might be condemned for that one word in which he said that Christ blasphemed, although he had had no other sin at all. No one objects, that infants often die before they can speak, for here the subject is those who could speak well or ill, and who did so accordingly. The meaning is that so exact an account of everything will have to be rendered in the day of judgment, that God will find sufficient cause even in the lightest word to justify or condemn. When, therefore, we are condemned by our words, we are declared by the words we have spoken amiss to be made unrighteous. For the Pharisees who said that Christ had an unclean spirit, although previously most righteous, were then by that one word alone most unrighteous. When, then, we are justified by our words, we are declared by those words which we have spoken well and holily to have been made righteous (Rom. x. 10). Nor does anything but righteous ness alone avail to salvation.
12:39
An evil and adulterous generation. By a Hebraism a generation here means the race of men ; an adulterous generation one which has degenerated from its forefathers.
And a sign shall not be given it. It has been asked, by all, how Christ says that a sign should not be given, when He afterwards wrought so many miracles. S. Chrysostom and Euthymius answer: They were not done for those who were obstinate, but for those who would gain food by them. Some say that signs were given, but not such as they required ; for they sought a sign from heaven (5. Mark viii. 1 1 ; 5. Luke xi. 16). That is, as S. Jerome says, they required that fire should come down from heaven, as in the time of Elias ; or, as in the days of Samuel, when in summer it thundered, against the nature of the place. Others say, with more propriety, that a sign was not to be given to them, that is, as they asked for and demanded it : for they did it with an evil disposition and with the intention of tempting. This is the reason why God often gave signs at the request of some men — to Ezekiah (Isa. xxxviii. 22), to Gedeon {Judges vi. 17, 36) — whilst He refused them to others, because the former asked for them from a good motive ; the latter from a bad. This is clear, as S. Chrysostom says, even from their very words; for they do not ask, but in a manner require and demand it. "We would see a sign from Thee" ( Volumus a te}.
But the sign of the Prophet Jonas. S. Hilary alone seems to have understood the true meaning of this passage. I do not think, as the commentators say, that Christ would give no other sign of His Divinity than that, as Jonas, He would rise again the third day. For they who explain it thus are unable to give any reason why, when there were so many signs, Christ should have given that of Jonas rather than any other. He might promise the sign of Elias, who was taken up to heaven in a chariot of fire ; for He would have proved His Divinity not less by His own ascent into heaven than by His Resurrection. None of the commentators have touched upon this point, and yet it is so necessary, that the passage cannot be understood unless it is explained. Christ then does not speak of the sign, to persuade as the Pharisees required, but to condemn, and He uses an ambiguity of terms, as we have before observed (x. 39 ; viii. 22). So He here deludes the Pharisees in the same manner. For, when they sought a sign, to belief, He answered that He would not give them a sign such as they asked, to belief; but He would give them such as they did not ask, to condemnation. This sign was that although the men of Nineveh, who were Gentiles, and barbarous, and with no knowledge of the Law, at one word of Jonas, whilst strangers, and unknown to him, believed and brought forth notable penance : yet the Pharisees, after they had heard so many exhortations, and had seen so many miracles of Christ, not only did not believe, but said that He had a devil. This is the meaning of verse 41. It may seem contrary to this explanation that He immediately added, as if to make what He had said plainer : " As Jonas was three days and three nights in .the whale's belly ; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth ". By these words Christ wished only to teach that what Jonas was to the Ninevites, He Himself was to the Jews ; but that He was so much greater than Jonas, as it was greater to be raised from the dead, than to be cast up again after having been swallowed by the whale ; and yet the men of Nineveh believed Jonas, though the Jews did not believe Him.
12:40
In the heart of the earth. Bede and Euthymius understand the tomb, and the followers of Calvin do the same ; but with the difference, that the former understand in it a good sense as meaning death ; the latter in a bad one, as supporting their denial of the descent of Christ into hell. We hold the words to mean not only the tomb but also hell ; whither, as the Church has always taught, Christ went down. We will prove this (i) from the words: for 1^1 " in the heart " is used by the Hebrews for "in the midst" ; because the heart is in the middle of the body (Ps. xlv. 3). But hell, not the tomb, is in the middle of the earth. Then why were the words " in the heart of the earth " used of no one but Christ, when so many are laid in the grave, if the grave means this? Why is no one but Christ said to have descended, not only'into the tomb, but also into the lower (that is the lowest) parts of the earth? (Eph. w. 9). Except that He descended not only into the tomb in His body, but also into hell in His soul ? Lastly, He preached to the spirits in prison ; that is, in the middle of the earth (i Pet. iii. 19), which He certainly did not do in the tomb, but in hell.
Three days and tliree nights. This appears to some much more difficult than it really is. For we believe that Christ passed not three, but one, or at most two, nights in the grave ; for He was buried on the sixth day, and He rose again before the Lord's day, which is called the first day of the week (xxviii. I ; 5. Mark xvi. 2 ; 5. John xx. i). The universal voice of antiquity does not satisfy these Moderns. S. Jerome (on this place and in his Commentary], S. Augustin (Ep. xlix., q. 6), Bede, and Theophylact say that it is by synecdoche, in which a part is put for the whole ; for Christ did not lie in the tomb three whole nights nor a part of three whole nights. These Moderns separate the nights from the days, when they should rather unite them. When Christ said days and nights distinctly, He did not do so, as these seem to think, meaning three whole days and three whole nights, but signifying three natural days, and to distinguish them from what they call " usual " days ; for the Hebrews by this expression describe the natural day and night, which consist of twenty-four hours (Gen. vu. 4, 12 ; E.rod. xxiv. 18; xxxiv. 28; Deut. ix. 9, 1 1, 1 8, 25 ; x. 10; I Kings xxx. 12 ; 3 Kings xix. 8). Let us suppose, then, that He said three natural days — no one doubts that this is to be understood by synecdoche, because He was there for some part of three days — i.e., part of the sixth day, all the Sabbath, and part of the first day. As the Jews, therefore, began the day from the evening, the night of the Sabbath is counted into the Lord's day, which is the third day. These three days and three nights, then, mean only three natural days.
12:41
The men of Nineveh. Some of the heretics say that because Christ made mention of the sign of Jonas, it came into His mind to speak of the men of Nineveh. How, then, did the Queen of Saba come into His mind, when He had not spoken of Solomon ? This is the explanation of the sign of the Prophet Jonas, and because the case of the Queen of Saba resembled it Christ united the two.
Shall rise. This does not mean, as most, especially Moderns, think, that they should rise to judge. For it is not the office of a judge to rise, but to sit (xix. 28). But they shall rise to accuse, for accusers do rise. In the same sense we must understand what immediately follows : " and shall condemn it ". For they will condemn them, not by judging, but by accusing them. For the accuser is said to condemn the criminal when he has shown his guilt on trial, and the other in consequence is condemned. The Ninevites will accuse and condemn the Jews, not by their words, but by their example ; because, when they believed Jonas, the Jews did not believe Christ. They will not rise, therefore, but stand like the rest ; for Christ speaks according to the custom of the forum. The Hebrews use the expression "to rise in judgment " in another sense, that is, to stand boldly up in defence of our own cause, as in Ps. i. 5, which the Latins call, in one word, "to stand," as Cicero says in his first book of Epistles : " Since we stand most honourably in the senate ".
12:42
The Queen of the South. This is a periphrasis for the Queen of Saba (3 Kings x. I, 4, 10, 13 ; 2 Paralip. ix. I, 9). Hence it appears that she had a very extensive territory. She was so called, not from the entire extent of the South, but, after the manner of Scripture, from the city in which she had her palace. Christ designed, it would appear, to show the greatness and majesty of this queen. It was also to the point that the power of the Queen of Saba should be plainly described, that so great a potentate might receive the more praise for coming so far to hear the wisdom of Solomon. We may observe the force of the words, and the tacit antithesis between Christ and Solomon : the Jews and the queen. The queen — a woman, a barbarian, but very powerful — came from the ends of the world to hear the Adsdom of Solomon — of one who was a mere man, like other men ; to hear a merely human and not a divine wisdom, and not to see any miracles, for we do not find that Solomon performed any. The Jewish Pharisees — men not only learned, but doctors of the law — despised their Lord, the Son of God, when He came to them, and not only poured from His lips the treasures of divine wisdom, but performed before them miracles hitherto unheard of. It is unnecessary to inform the reader that the Saba of which this lady was the queen was not the Saba of which the kings brought gifts of frankincense, but another Saba, in ^Ethiopia, which Cambyses afterwards called Meroe, from his sister (Josephus, Antiq., u. 2; Strabo, xvi.).
12:43
But when an unclean spirit. S. Luke (xi. 24) relates this earlier than S. Matthew, but the latter seems to have kept the true order of events. Christ said this, as it appears, to show that the Jews were worse than if they had never received the Law and know ledge of God ; for when the devil had in some measure been cast out of them, and they had been taught by the Law to serve the one true God, and not idols nor the devil, they despised the grace of God, and merited that seven unclean spirits should enter into them instead of one only. The whole parable tends to this, as S. Hilary, S. Jerome, and Bede explain it.
He ivalketh through dry places. Many think this an allegory : as if the dry places were the Gentiles, and all those who had not the knowledge of God, in whom the unclean spirit was not content to dwell, because he had them in bondage already, and therefore sought those who had the knowledge of God, but held it in contempt ; preferring to pervert one of these, to ruling as he pleased in the many others. Christ seems to speak of the devil as if he were a man ; for men, when driven from their homes, wander hither and thither through lonely and desert places, seeking rest for themselves, and when they find none convenient, return to their former abodes. These being empty, and prepared and garnished by the new inhabitants, they dwell in them much more commodiously than before they were driven out. This is said in verse 45, which only means that they who were the best, if they are ever corrupted, become, by contempt of divine grace, the worst of all ; as if, for one unclean spirit that was in them before they were made good, seven enter into them. Christ said seven after the manner of the Hebrews, who use that number for many — a certain number for an uncertain. In what Christ says of the unclean spirits, He speaks as if they were men, saying that one invites another to a convenient habitation. The devil does not invite the others, to defend himself by their help from being cast out again, as S. Chrysostom and many others think. The result is, that the devil dwells more freely and commodiously in those who were once good and have become evil, because the ornaments of their house — that is, the acknowledgment of the mysteries — their minds cultivated by the knowledge of divine subjects and the like, which had been made ready for God, become subservient to him. Thus the last case is worse than the first. We see this every day. There are no worse heretics than they who, when they were once good Catholics, despised divine grace and the simplicity of the Catholic faith, and, loathing the most pleasant food, sate themselves down by the fleshpots ; that is, losing their faith, they returned into that Egypt whence, through faith, they had gone out, and became heretics, as described in Psalm Ixxvii. 57.
12:46
Behold His Mother and His brethren. Some think the brothers of Christ to have been the sons of Joseph and Mary born after the birth of Christ. This was the heresy of Helvidius, and it was thoroughly confuted by S. Jerome in a book against it. Others think them the sons of Joseph by a former marriage. Most of the Greeks held this opinion. But it is an idea that should be guarded against Of the same opinion were S. Hilary and S. Ambrose, who followed Greek authority on many points. The true opinion is that which S. Jerome has most effectually established. The cousins and kindred of Christ were called His brothers, such as James the Less, Joses, Jude, and Simon, as is explained chap. xiii. 55. It appears that James and Joses were the sons of the sister of Mary the Virgin, who was also herself called Mary. For S. John calls Mary the daughter of Cleophas, and wife of Alphaeus, the sister of the Mother of the Lord (xix. 25). But S. Matthew (xxvii. 56) and S. Mark (xv. 40) call the same Mary the mother of James the Less and Joses. Cousins and kindred were often called brothers, as can be proved by many examples. For Lot, whom Scripture states to have been the son of Aram, the brother of Abraham, was called the brother of Abraham (Gen. xiii. 8) ; and Laban, though he was the brother of the mother of Jacob (Gen. xxviii. 2), is called the brother of Jacob (Gen. xxix. 15). In this way those named above are called the brothers of the Lord. It is a much greater and more difficult question why they came thither, and, at a time by no means opportune, wished to speak to Him when He was addressing the people, and did not hesitate even to send a messenger to call Him out, as S. Mark says (iii. 31). The same Evangelist hints at the reason of their summons ; but, so far from answering this question, it raises another and a far more important one. " For they said, He is become mad " (verse 21). The Evangelist does not say that Christ was beside Himself, but only that His brethren said that He was. They did not probably say this of their own minds, but that they might deliver Him from the hands of the Pharisees, of whose plots for His destruction they probably had a suspicion, as S. Matthew says above (verse 14). For we can easily believe that His kindred were anxious about His safety. For this they came ; for this they brought His Mother with them, that they might move Him the more ; and they were importunate, fearing that it might be dangerous to wait, lest the Pharisees might lay hands upon Him even in that assembly. Therefore, Tertullian (De Carne. Christi), S. Chrysostom, and Theophylact are to be wholly rejected when they say that the relations were moved by some kind of ambition to show that they were His kindred^ and had some sort of authority over Him. It was not to be borne that they should involve the Mother of Him who was free from all fault in the same blame.
Stood without. Some modern heretics unjustly ascribe this to pride, as if they would not deign to enter the house and hear the Word of God with the rest, when S. Luke plainly says they could not enter for the multitude. It is intolerable audacity to judge evilly of the Apostles, not only without Scripture, but contrarily to its express words.
12:47
And one said unto Him. S. Mark (iii. 31) says: "They sent unto Him, calling Him ". It is, therefore, to be believed that the Apostles sent the person to Christ who told Him that His Mother and brethren were there, when they themselves could not enter. What S. Matthew says, that there was one, and S. Mark and S. Luke, that there were more than one, is easily explained. At first there was only one ; then there were many, as usually happens, when they saw that He did not go out to them.
12:48
Who is My Mother ? We must first hold what S. Epiphanius (Hcer. xlii.), S. Chrysostom, and S. Hilary have noted on the passage : CH.XH. 48.] CHRIST'S MOTHER. 419 that Christ did not say this to deny His Mother ; and, according to Marcion, as S. Jerome says, and Manichaeus, who misused it, to have it thought that He was born of a phantasma. Why Christ answered so roughly has been asked by many, and all have not given the same answer. S. Jerome thinks that he who brought the message did it with an evil intention, to try whether Christ could be moved by feeling for His Mother and relations, and that He answered him roughly as a spy. But we have proved from Mark iii. 30 that the messenger informed Christ of their arrival, not as tempting Him, but in obedience to their commands. S. Epiphanius (Hcer. xlii.) and S. Chrysostom say that the messenger addressed Christ inopportunely. S. Ambrose (On S. Luke> viii.) says better: " Parents are not treated with contumely, but the bonds of the union of minds are taught to be closer than these bodies ". S. Hilary writes to the same purpose : " Making Himself the model of acting and feeling to all ; the law and the name of all relationships is now to be retained, not from the condition of birth, but from the communion of the Church ". S. Ambrose, again, on the same place : " The moral Master who shows Himself the example and the preceptor is Himself the performer of His own commands. For being about to lay it down as a precept that whoever does not forsake father or mother is not worthy of the Son of God, He first submitted Himself to this law: not to overthrow the duty of obedience to maternal holiness (for it was His own law that everyone who honours not his father and mother should die the death), but as He knew that more was due to the mystery of His Father than to the feelings of His Mother." He wished, therefore, to teach men that each and everyone could be both His brother and His mother. He does not deny parents of the flesh ; but He prefers spiritual ones ; as 5. Luke xi. 27, 28, to the woman who said : " Blessed is the womb that bare Thee and the paps which gave Thee suck," He said : "Yea, blessed are they who hear the Word of God and keep it " ; not denying that that womb was blessed, but saying that the mind which heard the Word of God and kept it was more blessed ; and not pre ferring others to His Mother, but mother to mother — the mother who heard the Word of God and kept it, to the Mother who bore Him in her womb and gave Him suck ; and the Mother of God was therefore blessed above all women, because, more than all men, she heard the Word of God and believed (S. Luke i. 45). In like manner, He here denies neither mother nor brother, nor does He prefer any others to them — but mother to mother and brother to brother. For although His Mother was truly a Virgin in body, and James, Joses, Judas, and Simon were truly His brothers in kinship, yet much more perfectly and with greater merit was she His Mother, and were they His brothers, in mind, because they did the will of His Father who was in heaven.
12:1
v. 1 ἐπ illo tempore (vide ad 11, 25) scil. quo Christus transiit per regionem docens et praedicans (11,1); ex S. Luca 6,1 discimus id accidisse post alterum in Christi vita publica pascha; aódt Iesus per sata sabbato; discipuli autem eius esurtentes coeperunt vellere spicas et manducare; Deut. 23,95 : si intraveris in segetem amici tui, franges spicas et manu conteres; falce autem non metes; eadem lege licuit in vinea proximi uvas comedere; solum prohibitum erat eas secum foras auferre. Itaque discipuli faciebant quod facere licuit. Merito autem hic consideranda est paupertas et vitae austeritas, qua discipuli a Domino exercebantur; « tu vero mihi hic discipulos mirare, sic egentes et nullam corporearum rerum curam habentes, sed ita perfunctorie mensam apparantes ut fame plerumque premerentur, nec tamen sic discederent » (S. Chrys.) et S. Hier. : « quod autem spicas segetum manibus confricant et inediam consolantur, vitae austerioris indicium est, non praeparatas epulas sed cibos simplices quaerentium ». Metere sabbato erat prohibitum; rabbini autem vellere spicas speciem esse messionis existimabant, uti ex Mischna patet (cf. LigÀifoot 1. c. Lamy) ; praeterea cibos parari sabbato non licuit; iam vellere spicas illis legis doctoribus subtilissime cuncta rimantibus videbatur esse cibum parare (Ca?.); unde iis qui omnem calumniandi occasionem cupide arripere et captare solebant satis erat causae
In lege prohibitum erat sabbato opus facere (Ex. 20,10. Deut. 5,15); quale opus intelligatur, potest concludi ex Ex. 35,91 : die septimo cessabis arare et metere; ex Ex. 35,3 : non succendetis ignem in omnibus habitationibus vestris per diem sabbati, et ex Num. 15,32 seq. quia ille qui ligna collegit in die sabbati lapidatus est; praeterea Dominus prohibet apud Ier. 17,91 portare pondera in die sabbati; Am. 8,5 et Neh. 10,31 et 13,19 elucet quoque commercia et mercaturam esse interdicta et Neh. 13,15 conqueritur Nehemias quod viderit calcantes torcularia in sabbato, portantes acervos, onerantes super asinos vinum et uvas et ficus et inferentes in Ierusalem. Hanc autem sabbati legem, uti alias quoque leges, pharisaei legisque doctores multiplici circumdabant sepe et suis traditionibus plurima prohibebant. Ita in Mischna (tract. schabbath !) inter alia interdicitur nodum facere vel solvere, duas scribere litteras, aliquid condire sale (cf. Wünsche p. 148; Ed. M p. 777-187; Lightfoot ad Matth. 12; Schoettgen | p. 120). Cum pharisaei suarum traditionum essent aemulatores (cf. Gal. 1,15) et insuper Christum eiusque discipulos odio persequerentur et invidia, avide minimam quamque occasionem arripiebant eos reprehendendi, | Uti Origenes notat (cat. Cr.) Christus praesciens quid facturi essent discipuli etc. propterea eos duxit per sata;
12:2
v. 9 pharisaei autem videntes dixerunt ei : ecce discipuli tui faciunt quod non licet facere sabbatis; etiam Marc. 2,24 Dominum alloquuntur; Luc. 6,2 dicunt discipulis : quid facitis quod non licet in sabbatis? Sed dum discipulosaggrediuntur, Dominum petunt. Ceterum dici potest cum aliis quosdam Dominum, alios allocutos esse discipulos; solet enim fieri. ut si complures alios etiam complures ira quadam reprehendant, alii ad alios verborum iacula dirigant. Id unum reprehendunt quod sabóato spicas vellunt. Christus autem superbis illis legis aemulatoribus qui suam scientiam legis iactare solebant ignorantiam legis obiicit (ans. Mald.); quare admirantis aliosque confundentis in modum quaerit : non legistis quid fecerit David quando esuritt et qui cum ipso erant? bene monet S. CArys. de forma locutionis : vide quam acriter, non legistis, inquit etc.;
12:4
v. & quomodo intravit in domum Dei i. e. in tabernaculum foederis quod etiam Ex. 23,19 domus Dei vocatur etc. ; erat tum temporis in Nobe (cf. 1 Reg. 21,1 seq.) et panes propositionis comedit ; lectio comedit ἃ plerisque testibus comprobatur ; sed cum praecedat quid fecerit David et qui cum eo erant et cum Marc. 2,96 et Luc. 6,& dicatur Davidem dedisse eis quoque de panibus, lectio altera ἔφαγον videtur esse praeferenda. Vis quoque argumenti augetur si comites quoque David panes sacros comedisse explicite statuitur, quos non licebat ei edere neque his qui cum eo erant nisi solis sacerdotibus; panes isti duodecim collocabantur in sancto, in conspectu Domini (Ex. 25,30), super eos ponebatur thus lucidissimum , ut sit panis in monimeutum oblationis Domini (Lev. 24,6); per singula sabbata mutabantur et comedi debebant in loco sancto a solis sacerdotibus « quia sanctum sanctorum est de sacrificiis Domini iure perpetuo » (Lev. 25,8. 9). Vocantur hebraice vel panes faciei vel panes ordinationis vel dispositionis n2*772a an», mna am cf. Ex. 99,30: erant enim panes ante faciem Domini, uti habetur Ex. 40,23 hebr. ; 1 Chron. 9,32; « Opponit ergo Dominus et dicit : si et David sanctus est et. Achimelech pontifex a vobis non reprehenditur, sed legis uterque mandatum probabili excusatione transgressi sunt et fames in causa est, cur eandem famem non probatis in apostolis quam probatis in ceteris » (S. Hier.)? Neque pontifex, neque David propterea in sacris litteris reprehenditur, quod ex necessitate panibus sanctis quos dedit pontifex usi sunt. David et comites eius. Dein hoc exemplum non immerito a facto inaiore esse sumptum. dicunt (S. Chrys. Theoph. Fab. Cai. Jans.); nam longe maius est laicos vesci panibus sanctis quos soli sacerdotes edere poterant, quam minimum aliquid operis in sabbato facere, ut patet ex eo quod multis de causis excusari potest operatio in sabbato et saepe accidit, uti in templo, in circumcisione; semel vero tantum accidit, ut laici sanctis vescerentur panibus. Quaerunt habueritne David in illa fuga 1 Reg. 21,1 seq. comites.Solus enim advenit ad Achimelech sacerdotem. Et sunt qui putent Davidem duplex mendacium quod dicunt ofliciosum dixisse sacerdoti etse esse missum a rege propter rem quam nemo scire deberet et se condixisse pueris in illum et illum locum. Opinatur /aus. quidem Davidem finxisse sc habere comites in certo loco constitutos quibus etiain finxisset se daturum panes et ad propositum Salvatoris omnino suffecisse quod et David non dubitaverit postulare etiam pro servis suis οἱ sacerdos illos panes dare non dubitaverit. Proinde verba Christi stare posse quamvis David solus sine ullo comite et fugerit et panes comederit. At merito contra id notant Maíd. Bar. dici apud Marcum et Lucam explicite Davidem dedisse panes eis quoque qui cum ipso erant; id autem explicari non posse, si nemo cum Davide fuerit. Atque narratioue 1 Reg. 21,2 revera non negari Davidi fuisse socios vide quoque apud de Hummelauer, Comment. in libros Samuelis p. 206. « Verum illo non conteutus fuit sed quod magis consentaneum est alfert » (S. CArys.) et denuo illis exprobrat qui legis scientiam prae se ferre gestiunt quod non intelligunt quae legebant ( EwutA.)
12:5
v. 5 aut non legistis in lege, quia sabbatis sacerdotes in templo sabbatum violunt et sine crimine sunt? sabbato enim sacrificium quotidianum duplicabatur (Num. 98,9. 10); sabbato in atrio templi ea fiebant quae ad sacrificia requirebantur : victimae occidebantur, pelles detrahebantur, carnes secabantur, ligna componebantur, ignis accensus lignis appositis nutriebatur, cineres removebantur, et similia quae ad officia templi requirebantur. Dicitur autem violare sabbatum ex mente pharisaeorum qui scil. ex sua sententia ita iudicare et sacerdotes deberent condemnare, si sibi vellent constare vel si omne opus nulla habita ratione necessitatis prohibitum esset; potest etiam dici violari vel profanari sabbatum quia illa opera de se et ex genere suo sunt servilia et proinde iis ex se profanaretur sanctitas sabbati, nisi ratio legis et cultus Dei intercederet. En, in loco sacro, in templo, ipsi sacerdotes custodes et interpretes legis, sabbato eiusmodi opera et faciunt et fieri iubent, neque semel, sed singulis diebus festis; proinde fieri nequit, ut lex sabbati adeo liget homines ut nulla neque necessitatis neque utilitatis exceptio admittatur. Neque hic sistit Christus, verum
12:6
v. 6 dico autem vobis quia templo maior est hic; lectio μεῖζον praeferri debet ; nam et de se sollemnius est atque magnificentius dicere : templo maius quidquam est hic; dein facile cernitur cur mutatio in μείζων facta sit , nullo autem modo, quomodo si ab origine μείζων esset scriptum pro eo μεῖζον esset substitutum, quod aliquibus minus convenire videbatur. Christum vero de se loqui manifestum est. Declarat enim quorsum attulerit exemplum a templo et facto sacerdotum ; « et intendit quod discipuli sui exercebantur in officiis non minoribus officiis templi, sequendo ipsum qui est maior templo; ita quod ubi prius excusavit discipulos ex necessitate famis eorum exemplo Davidis et suorum , modo excusat eosdem ex sanctitate officii exemplo: sacerdotum, quia scil. exercent diviniora officia quam sacerdotes, dum obsequuntur mihi qui sum maior templo » (Ca:.). Maior templo. est templi dominus; unde Christus denuo suam dignitatem clare pandit. Discipulos autem in suo servitio occupatos ostendit; unde si licet sabbatum violare, ne officia in templo peragenda omittantur, a fortiore licet sabbatum non tam violare, quam traditiones humanas pharisaeorum seponere, ut Christo obsequium praestantes necessitate famis eximantur. Et si in templo peculiari modo Deus praesens censetur, in Christo inhabitat divinitas corporaliter (Col. 2,9); unde quod ministris templi licet, a potiore licet iis qui in Christi sunt famulatu. Dein ex eo quoque accusatio pharisaeorum refutatur, quia ad famem sedandam vellere spicas multo minus habet operis servilis quam cuncta quae in templo diebus sabbati fiebant. Christus autem eo utitur argumento, quia quis ipse sit et coram pharisaeis et coram discipulis iterum asserere vult. Porro invidis illis ac morosis aemulatoribus legis alio quoque modo egis ignorantiam exprobrat ostendens quam longe absint ab eo quod lege potissimum inculcatur
12:7
v. 7 δὲ autem sciretts quid est : misericordiam volo et non sacrificium , nunquam condemnasselis 1nnocentes ; vide ad 9,13; si itaque propter sacrificium ne hoc omittatur, licet solvere sabbatum, potiore iure licebit aliquid operis praestare propter misericordiam quam Deus prae sacrificio vult (cf. Euth. PascA.). Hanc normam iam ab Achimelech sacerdote observatam esse S. Hier. adnotat : « non dubitavit panes dare melius arbitratus propheta dicente misericordiam volo etc. de famis periculo homines liberare quam Deo offerre sacrificium ; hostia enim placabilis Deo hominum salus est ». Misericordiam enim, ut Ca?. dicit, vult Deus secundum seipsam, utpote virtutem animi; sacrificium autem non vult secundum se, utpote opus corporeum quod potest bene et male fieri. Hoc itaque testimonio prophetae redditur ratio generalis, quare necessitate aliqua constrictis permittendum sit potius aliquid quod alioquin est contra legis caerimonias, quam exigenda ab eis exacta legis observatio, et etiam ostenditur quam recte per factum sacerdotum excusentur discipuli. Si enim propter sacrificium permittenda est violatio sabbati. multo magis ea permittenda sit miseris propter misericordiam , quia gratior est Deo misericordia quam sacrificium (ita Jans.). Denique rationem addit omnium gravissimam v. 8 dominus est enim Filius hominis etiam sabbati; de Filio hominis vide 8,20. Sabbatum est dies Deo Domino sacer et a Deo in obsequium sibi singulari ratione praestandum consecratus, est dies Domini (Ex. 20,10; 31,15: 35,2 etc.); proinde qui profitetur se esse dominum sabbati, se possc de eo die tamquam de re sua disponere (Ma/d.), se esse Deum, aequalem Deo sollemniter declarat. Unde quid indicare voluerit v. 6 cum se dixerit maius esse templo, jam clarius enuntiat et bene scribit Eu/A. : « rursum divinitatem suam ostendit » (sim. 7'oletus ad Luc. 6,5; Lap. Sylv. Lamy, Bar.). Cum itaque is qui est dominus sabbati, discipulos non reprehendat, discipuli recte egerunt et sunt insontes. — Notatu dignum est quantopere Matthaeus in v. 6. 8 efferat dignitatem messianam Iesu; dein quomodo ostendat pharisaeos a legis scientia et vera eius indole longe abesse et animos ostendere duros. alienos ἃ pietate, obfirmata voluntate suis traditionibus et putidis explicationibus legis affixos.
12:9
v. 9 et cum inde transisset , ventt in. synagogam eorum; bene monet S. Augustinus : « post quot dies in synagogam eorum venerit , postquam a segete illa transivit, an recta continuaque illuc ierit, non expressum est; ac per hoc locus datur narrationi Lucae, qui dicit alio sabbato huius manum sanatam » (de cons. evang. 2,35.89 M. 34,1111). Genusscribendi apud Matthaeum non attendens Weiss contendit id factum esse eodem sabbato; puto ut Matthaeum committat cum Luca 6,6 : factum est autem et in alio sabbato. Etsi solum Matthaei narrationem haberemus, res esset in dubio relinquenda, quia uti cap. 8 et 9 varia congerit exempla miraculorum, ita hic documenta recenset perversitatis pharisaeorum ; in eiusmodi autem nec temporis nec loci rationem habere solet , verum ita scribit, ut legentium animus variis rerum adiunctis omissis totus solis rebus gestis occupetur. Quare etiam non opus est cum Mald. synagogam eorum intelligere de pharisaeis de quibus in antecedentibus mentio facta est, praesertim cum pharisaei non habuerint propriam synagogam; sed eorum explica positum, uti 11,1, qui sensus etiam illa generali narrationis formula commendatur. Quia pharisaei insidiose eum interrogant, non est improbabile ab ipsis viro illi esse condictum ut in synagogam veniret eumque conspicuo loco esse positum
Etiam maior pharisaeorum malitia et obstinatio hic panditur. Adeo enim in Christum qui sabbato manum aridam sanavit ira impotenti exardescunt ut eum perimere statuant (v. 9-1^). Iesus vero illorum furori se subducit, pergit beneficia praestare plebi dum omnes qui olferuntur aegrotos sanat; simul tamen eo irae pharisaeorum cedit quod praecipit ne eum faciant manifestum; hisce autem taleni se ostendit qualem propheta Messiam praedixit (v. 15-21). Ex statutis rabbinorum sabbatum tunc solum licet violare, si de vitae periculo agitur (cf. tract. 1oma, cap. 8 n. 6; Surenhusius tom. l| p. 256) legemque sabbati suis traditionibus ita sepserunt, ut stituunt rupturam; sed cui est manus vel pes luxatus, non indet ea aquae frigidae (cf. Ed. ll p. 60; Schitrer, 1. c. p. 399). Unde vetant remedium aegris applicari ! vel medicum assistere opemve ferre , nisi ipsa periclitetur vita. Onera itaque revera importabilia hominibus impouebant /23,4). Iesus autem putidas has legis sabbaticae explicationes reiicit, quare qui est mos hominum obstinatorum et sua sapientia inflatarum eum odio insectantur implacabili. Matthaeus id solum ob oculos habet ut una serie unoque conspectu complura proponat exempla quibus mores pharisaeorum describantur. Quare omissis iis quae ad locum et tempus spectant generali ratione breviter transitum facit ad alterum eventum
12:10
v. 10 e/ ecce homo manum habens aridam , exsiccatam, tabidam, cui succus vitalis deerat et quae erat paralvsi constricta, inepta ad laborem (Caím.), et interrogabant eum dicentes : si licet sabbatis curare? ut accusarent. eum; εἰ apud LXX et in libris novi foederis etiam interrogationem directam quam vocant inducit (cf. Gen. 53,6. Iudic. 13,11. Luc. 22,49. Act. 1,6; 19,2; 21,37 etc. vide Buttmann, Grammatik des neutest. Sprachgebrauchs p. 21^; Winer, Grammatik ἃ 57,2); eius particulae usus explicari potest ellipsi : vellem scire, si hoc ita esset, simili modo uti apud latinos quandoque an adhibetur; exprimitur autem ea particula dubitatio quaedam interrogantis et animi fluctuatio (uti germanice : ob es wohl erlaubt ist?). Interrogabant autem non ut discerent , sed ut accusandi materiam haberent (S. CArys.). Censent aliqui eos intendisse ut eum caperent utrumvis responderet; si diceret licere, ut eum spretae legis arguerent; si diceret non licere, ut eum crudelitatis vel impotentiae traducerent ( EutÀ. Ians.). At quamvisanimis quasi essent suspensis quaesivissent, tamen melius censebitur iis omnino persuasum fuisse fore ut Christus sanaret; id enim ex iis quae praecesserant concludere debebant (12,3 seq. loan. 5,11 seq.). Ex narratione apud Marcum et Lucam Christus ut eorum malignitatem coargueret omnesque qui aderant redderet attentos, hominem jussit progredi et in medio stare; tum ipse interrogat hypocritas illos : interrogo vos si licet sabbatis bene facere an male. Et tacentibus illis demum intulit quod apud Matthaeum legimus (similiter S. Aug. l. c. Ians. Cai. Maid. Bar.). Matthaeus itaque, ut alias, ad rei summam et exitum properat;
12:11
v. 11 zpse autem dizit illis : quis erit ex vobis homo qui habeat ovem unam et si ceciderit haec sabbatis in foveam , nonne tenebit χρατήσει i. e. (manu) prehendet, et levabit eam, extrahet eam? optima similitudo, insuperabile argumentum, exclamat . δ. Dr. ; ostendit eos propter avaritiam et ut ne priventur ove dissolvere sabbatum i. e. recedere a rigida illa ac falsa legis interpretatione; propter invidiam autem non ferre ut curetur homo; unde hoc loco eos avaros esse et crudeles ostendit sibique minime constare (cf. TAeopA.). Dein infert a fortiore
12:12
v. 19 quanto magis melior est homo ove! bene S. Hil. : « decidentis in foveam ovis exemplo eos conclusit quam sine crimine sabbato extrahere sint solliciti, rectiusque homini qui ovi praestet esse medendum neque ministerio salutis humanae existimandum sabbatum posse violari, quod extrahendae de fovea ovis sollicitudo non violet ». Et absolvens argumentum : addit : itaque licet sabbatis benefacere καλῶς ποιεῖν recte agere, bene, laudabiliter et probe agere (cf. Act. 10,33. 1 Cor. 7,31. 38), quibus verbis Zicet bene facere satis aperte alluditur ad quaestionem illam quam Christus referentibus Marco (3,4) ct Luca (6,9) proposuit pharisaeis. Illis ex malitia tacentibus ipse respondet eo modo quo interrogavit. Est enim homo, ut S. Thomas notat, incomparabiliter melior ove, quia omnia sunt propter hominem : homini enim commissum est dominium omnium et ipse ad Dei imaginem creatus est (Gen. 1,26). Atque quod dixit miraculo confirmat
12:13
v. 13 £unc ait homini : extende manum tuam ; quibus verbis fidem hominis tentat; si enim non crederet, ne conatum quidem faceret manum tabidam et paralysi adstrictam et plane mortuam movendi et protendendi. At ille verbis Christi fidem adhibet , et extendit et restituta est sanitati sicut altera. Narrat ἢ. 1. S. Hier. in evangelio quo utuntur Nazareni et Ebionitae hominem istum scribi caementarium et auxilium precatum esse hisce : caementarius eram manibus victum quaeritans; precor te Iesu, ut mihi restituas sanitatem , ne turpiter mendicem cibos. — Quod additamentum simile est iis quibus evangelia apocrypha et quandoque etiam targumim textum sacrum amplificare et quasi exornare solent. — In hac sanatione quasi in quodam typo et exemplo deprehendi potest, quomodo verbo Christi eiusque gratia quae antea plane emortua erant restituantur ac confortentur ad fructuose operandum pro aeternitate; varias eius sanationis applicationes praebent S. Hier. Amórosius (in Luc. lib. 5 n. 40; M. 15,1647), Euth. Alb. Thom. lans. Bar. Sylv. Lap. Salmeron, tom. 6 tract. 90. Quo magis Christus ostendit misericordiam et potentiam, eo magis illi obdurantur et maiore odio in eum exardescunt
12:14
v. 14 exeuntes autem pharisaei consilium faciebant adversus eum quomodo perderent eum; iam apud eos constitutum est ut eum perimerent; solum conferunt inter se et deliberant, qua ratione vcl quibus machinationibus eum interficiant ; συμθούλιον λαμβάνειν cf. 92,15; 27,1. 7; 28,12 consultationem habere, consilium inire; ὅπως quomodo , qua ratione, uti particula adhibetur Luc. 25,90; at cum sequatur coniunctivus, verte : μέ eum perderent. [am caedem eius machinantur. Timent ne per Christum sua destruatur auctoritas et illud dominium quod aemulatione legis et suis traditionibus in plebem exercent. Quod ut tueantur et in tuto collocent, etiam cum suis inimicis, cum Herodianis (Marc. 3,6) quos ceteroquin odio habent, consilium ineunt Christum perimendi. Unde quam maxime manifestum est eos esse ineptos regno messiano. Iesus autem consilia eorum probe sciens cedit corum furori (Cai.)
12:15
v. 15 Iesus autem sctens recessit inde, secessit ad mare Tiberiadis (Marc. 3,7); se illis subducit, « eo quod passionis tempus nondum imminebat parcens interim iis, ne homicidii crimini fiant obnoxii; temere enim se periculis obiicere Deo gratum non est » (TheopA.). Quod 10,23 discipulis praeceperat , exemplo suo comprobat. Turbae autem benignitate eius allectae ex variis regionibus eum sequuntur (Marc. 3,7. 8) et secuti sunt eum niulti et curavit eos omnes, scil. quotquot variis aegritudinibus laborabant. Cum vero turbis misericordiam suam largissime profunderet, simul cavit une odio et invidiae pharisaeorum ignis subiiceretur
12:16
v. 16 e£ praecepit eis, ἐπετώνησε severe interdixit, increpavit minis additis, ne manifestum eum facerent, ne scil. istis miraculis et beneficiis excitati eumque tamquam Messiam et regem proclamantes praepostere augerent animorum concitationem et falsam illam foverent exspectationem regni temporalis: vide ad 8,& et loan. 6,15. In hac quoque prohibitione , ut Euh. notat, curam habet aegrotorum, id est eorum qui anumis et spe fallaci aegri erant, et invidiam devitat pharisaeorum vel saltem tollit augmentum odii et invidiae (Cai. Fab.). Cernitur itaque maxima Christi lenitas et mansuetudo, cernitur eius studium devitandi strepitum ac concitationem popularem, cernitur quoque eius in inimicos sanguinem eius sitientes clementia; unde apertum est Iesum in se illam perfecte exprimere speciem ac formani quam de Messia Isaias descripsit &2,1 seq. ; opponit itaque evangelista, ut animos aequalium amore ac reverentia Iesu imbuat, pharisaeis illis caedis ac sanguinis cupidis imaginem pietate et clementia plenam quam ἃ propheta depictam in Iesu cernunt plane iisdein coloribus exhibitam;
12:17
v. 17 ut adimpleretur quod dictum est per [saiam prophetam dicentem
12:18
v. 18 ecce puer meus ὁ παῖς μου, ita LXX, hebr. 5122 servus meus, quo sensu παῖς puer haud raro adhibetur, quem elegt, dilectus meus in quo bene complacuit animae meae , quae verba magis accedunt ad textum hebr. [s. 432,1; vide meum Comment. in Is. Il p. 103 seq.; ponam spiritum meum super eum , UXNX. ἔδωκα τὸ πνεῦμζ μου ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν; hebr. dedi. Et a Deo electus ct maxime dilectus et pleniΞΘ ius et normam recti, id quod coram Deo iustum ac rectum est; proinde legem ac doctrinam Dei (Euth. Theoph. Thom. Fab. Dion. lans. Maíd.); eodem modo explica z2icw quam vocem LXX et evangelista habent. Contendunt quidem aliqui χρίσιν in. novo testamento non dici nisi de iudicio sensu forensi, de condemnatione et poena (ef. Weiss); at profecto hoc loco significatio petenda est ex Isaiae verbis. Ceterum in iure Dei, in norma et lege divina qua statuitur quod rectum et iustum est etiain continetur iudicium quo secundum illam normam singuli diiudicabuntur; quare alii haud immerito utrumque exprimi censent (Euh. Schegg , Nchanz, Εἰ... [am describitur qua ratione ille functurus sit munere proferendi ius Dei
12:19
v. 19 non contendet neque. cl«mabit neque audiet aliquis in plateis vocem eius; concordat cum hebr., dummodo ΕΚ clamare conquerendo explices "zar contendere; humilis itaque erit. et. tranquillus; mitis et mansuetus, al omni pompa ct ostentatione alienus. Eius clementiae cognatum est . ut debiles, infirmos, afflictos peculiari cur& foveat
12:20
v. 20 aruaudinem quassata m. non confringet et linum f/umigans non ezstinguet; is est qui omnes laborantes et oneratos ad se invitat; bene notat S. Hier. hic in commentario! : « qui peccatori non porrigit manum nec portat onus fratris sui, iste calamum quassatum confringit; et qui modicam scintillam fidei contemnit in parvulis, hic linum exstinguit fumigans. Quorum neutrum Christus fecit; ad hoc enim venerat, ut salvum faceret quod perierat »; similiter Faó. Bar. explicant de pauperibus et aegrotis quos Christus reficiet, Salmeron de peccatoribus .qui ex fragilitate et ignorantia delinquunt intelligi quoque posse existimat. Illos itaque qui interitui iam proximi sunt salvabit maxima clementia et benignitate eoserigens, confortans, consolans (cf. Arn. Schegg, Fil.). In arundine quassata figurari gentes, in lino ludaeos censent S. Hi/. Dion., in hoc gentes, in illa Iudaeos Bed., in utraque imagine designari ludaeos et persecutores Christi (S. Aug. de civ. D. 20,30 n. 54; Ca:.) alii censent, quibus pepercerit, quamvis eos tam facile perdere potuisset quam facile quis arundinem quassatam confringit (S. Chrys. Theoph. Euth. Br. Ians.); Mald. ibi cernit imaginem eius qui summa incedit lenitate adeo ut, etiamsi super arundinem quassatam pedem poneret eam tamen non confringeret. Plura vide in meo Comment. in Is. Il p. 105 seq.; ceterum assentiendum erit Sy/v. intelligi potissimum semifractos ac debiles in fide, habentes fidei lumen fere exstinctum, quos Christus non contempsit neque oppressit, sed beneficiis et doctrina et miraculis fovit, confortavit, ad gloriam adduxit. Hac autem clementia et in debiles mansuetudine causam evincet et regnum Dei in terra stabiliet; donec eiiciat ad victoriam iudicium
12:21
v. 21 et in nomine eius gentes sperabunt ; LXX eic ἀλήθειαν ἐξοίσει χρίσιν, item hebr.; v. 21 congruit cum LXX ; in hebr. et legem eius insulae exspectabunt. Explica zudicium , χρίσιν, sicut in v. 18; ad victoriam elicere idem est ac rei exitum nancisci optatum : donec ius divinum in omnibus et ubique victor exsistat. Idem est sensus apud LXX et in hebr. : ad veritatem perducet iudicium i. e. normam illam iuris divini vere ubique valere et dominari faciet, ut veritas ubique elucescat et vincat. Dicitur donec; unde declaratur viam qua illud Dei ius in terris stabiliatur esse miserationem , clementiam, opem fragilibus latam; ea ratione optime consuli hominum miseriis ac debilitati. Ad hanc iudicii victoriam pertinet quod in v. 21 dicitur fore ut gentes spem ac fiduciam collocent in nomine eius, in servo Domini, in Messia, ut eum et cuncta quae de se revelavit fide amplectantur et invocatione eius, nomine eius interposito, omnia consequantur saluti opportuna. Sensus idem habetur in hebr.; insulae enim i. e. regiones longinquae, ultra mare sitae ponuntur pro regionibus gentium; legem eius desiderant i. e. doctrinam eius et totum eius regnum institutum ; ibi vero bona cuncta concluduntur. — Quo sensu iudicium vindictae (S. Chrys.) vel iudicium ultimum (S. Br.) intelligi possit, iam supra dictum est.
12:22
Triplici miraculo a Christo patrato turbae admirantur suspicantes eum esse Messiam. Quam fidem nascentem ut exstinguant pharisaei dicunt daemones ab eo eiici ope principis daemonum. Quam calumniam Christus refutat primo ex eo quod satan certe non contra se ipsum ageret suumque regnum ipse destrueret (ergo ex absurdis, argumento ad hominem); secundo ex eo quod pharisaei ipsi sibi contradicunt, dum alias eiectiones daemonum ope Dei fieri statuunt; proinde videant necesse est a Christo eiici daemones quia principem daemonum superavit et ea victoria regnum Dei adducit; quare oportet stare a partibus Christi. (12,92-30). Dein ostenditur quantum sit peccatum manifesta opera Dei adscribere diabolo i. e. cognitae veritati resistere ; eo autem peccato patefit quanta malitia sint pharisaei et cum iam de verbo otioso ratio sit reddenda, quale illos maneat supplicium propter blasphemiam in Spiritum sanctum (12,31-37). Hic itaque maior panditur eorum perversitas, quia fidem populi .nascenlem turpissima calumnia opprimere student et adeo veritati obsistunt . ut miracula quae alibi tamquam opera Dei agnoscunt, ex odio in Christum diabolo adscribant quocum Christus foedus et societatem inierit. Et magis quoque ostenditur quam inepti sint regno Dei; ei enim peccato sese obnoxios reddunt, cui iusto Dei iudicio indulgentia omnis ac remissio negari potest, quo igitur res iam eo devenisse censeri potest ut se ipsos in aeternum a regno Dei excluserint. Haec narratio simnilis quidem est ei quae 9,32-34 habetur, at minime est eadem. Ibi enim sanatur daemoniacus mutus, turbae nascentem fidem Messiae non profitentur, calumnia pharisaeorum solum breviter refertur; tribus itaque illa narratio distinguitur ab hac; v. 99 (unc τότε, accipe sensu generali, quo res rei connectatur, non temporis series exprimatur, oblatus est ei daemonium habens caecus et mutus , κωφός obtusus vel lingua, mutus, vel auribus , surdus. Notione surdi accepit vocem S. Chrys. cum scribat : « o malitia daemonis! utramque viam qua is crediturus erat obstruxerat visum et auditum; sed utramque Christus aperuit ». Sed cum dicatur e/ curavit eum tta ut loqueretur et videret , potius de muto vox erit explicanda , quamvis etiam fieri possit ut surdus si surdus est a nativitate loqui modo intelligibili nesciat. Etiam Ma/d. de surdo explicat censetque credibilius a daemone auditum et visum illi esse ligatum ; at tunc difficile intelligitur, cur surdus sanatus loquelam recepisse dicatur. Itaque « tria signa simul in uno homine perpetrata sunt : caecus videt, mutus loquitur, possessus a daemone liberatur; quod et tunc quidem carnaliter factum est, sed et quotidie completur in conversione credentium, ut expulso daemone primum fidei lumen aspiciant, dein in laudes Dei tacentia prius ora laxentur » (S. Hier). Triplici hoc miraculo omnes turbae quae aderant maxima admiratione percellebantur
12:23
v. 23 e/ stupebant, ἐξίσταντο i. e. prae admiratione quasi sui iam non erant compotes, quasi de statu mentis deiiciebantur, omnes turbae et dicebant : numquid hic est filius David? μήτι significat eos non quidem certo existimare, attamen opinari et suspicari eum esse filium David ; proinde bene dicit auctor op. imp. verba haec fuisse appropinquantium ad fidem. Filium David Messiam regem appellant ; cf. 22,42 et quae dicta sunt ad 9.27. Etiam illis dici potuit : o vos stulti et tardi corde ad credendum! Post sollemnem loannis baptistae annuntiationem, post tot Christi miracula, post doctrinam de regno Dei appropinquante, de se iudice omnium , cui omnia tradita sunt, qui solus Deum novit, qui omnibus beatitatem in se inveniendam esse declarat (5,17; 7,21 seq. 11,27 seq.) etc. solum debile quoddam fidei initium apud turbas deprehenditur. Sed hac fide quae in animis nasci videbatur pharisaei in furorem insaniae rapiuntur et quam celerrime et efficacissime eam penitus exstirpare student et mentes odio et horrore Christi implere
12:24
v. 2& pharisaei autem audientes dixerunt : hic non eiicit daemones nisi in Beelzebub principe daemontorum ; deBeelzebub vide ad 10,95; inter turbas circumeuntes ea voce summa contumelia Christum afficiebant et uti ex v. 25 sequitur, sedulo cavebant ne Christus audiret talia in vulgus spargentes. [nter daemones aliquem principem daemonum agnoscebant ludaei, tamquam primum ac maxime potentem, qui satan quoque et asmodeus vocatur (cf. Lightfoot ad h. 1., Weber, System der altsyn. pal. Theol. p. 243; Ed. 11 p. 761). Contendunt itaque Iesum esse praestigiatorem omnium scelestissimum qui societate inita cum satan ope eius miracula patret ad homines decipiendos et in perniciem ope daemonis adducendos. | Etiam post opprobrium adeo atrox Christus, mitis ac mansuetus, uti eum evangelista ex oraculo prophetae praedictum demonstravit, non tam in eos invehitur quam eos et turbas de absurda accusatione edocet;
12:25
v. 95 Iesus autem sctens cogitationes eorum , insanum illud convicium quod in vulgus spargebant; cf. Luc. 11,15; dix« eis : omne regnum divisum contra se desolabitur et omnis civitas vel domus divisa contra se non. stabit; notum est illud Sallustii : concordia res parvae crescunt, discordia maximae dilabuntur, et illud Ciceronis : quae domus tam stabilis, quae tam firma civitas est quae non odiis atque dissidiis funditus possit everti? Attende, scribit. A/ó., quod humana potestas, in qua per similitudinem proponit, non est nisi triplex, regionis, civitatis, domus; triplex est enim, ut S. TÀom. dicit, communitas : domus sive familiae, civitatis et regni. lam hanc sententiam omnibus familiarem applicat
12:26
v. 26 et sí satanas satanam eicit, adversus se divisus est; quomodo ergo stabit regnum etus? satanas certe non vult ipse regnum suum destruere et suam potentiam homines vexandi abolere et perimere; id autem faceret et vellet, si pharisaeorum accusatio consisteret. Nam ex Christi operibus ac sanationibus manifestisimum est homines eripi a potestate daemonis, mala ἃ daemone inflicta auferri, cessare vexationes quibus daemon eos insequebatur ; hisce autem regnum eius destruitur quippe quod in improbitate et tyrannide adversus hominem, imaginem Dei , con-. sistit. Si itaque satan seipsum expelleret, a possessione et sede deiiceret, intestino dissidio sibi ipsi adversaretur et in se 1psum fureret et ipse in contrarias partes seu factiones seipsum discerperet ; quo quid magis absurdum fingi potest? Opinantur aliqui hanc argumentationem esse mancam, quia daemon posset se ipsum expellere ad homines decipiendos, ad falsum prophetam auctoritate donandum, vel prudentiae et astutiae causa cedere pro aliquo tempore (cf. de Wette). At huic scrupulo iam obviam ierunt S. Hier. et auctor op. imp.; hic enim scribit: « regnum diaboli est omne malum ; ergo diabolus rex mali; si bonum faciat, ipse destruet regnum suum; eiiciens itaque diabolus diabolum delusorie non bonum facit, sed malum, id est non adversum se agit, sed pro se; melius est enim ei exire de corpore et animam occupare ». Proinde non una eiectio sola est consideranda, sed tota Christi agendi ac sanandi ratio quae ad malum destruendum et promovendum bonum recta tendit. Quare non opus est cum ScAhegg ita vim argumenti constituere : daemones solum inviti mihi cedunt ; si ergo satanas satanam eiicit, eius voluntas in se divisa est; id solum a Deo effici potest; ergo ago ego auctoritate donatus a Deo, etsi per Beelzebub daemones eiicio. Qui modus eo quoque repudiandus est, quia supponitur concedi posse vel fieri posse, ut ea ratione Christus expellat et daemones inter se sint discordes. Christus autem illam pharisaeorum accusationem tamquam rem maxime abominandam traducit, tamquam blasphemiam in Spiritum sanctum ; ergo longissime abest ab eiusmodi sententia : etsi per Beelzebub eiicio etc. Secundo ostendit eorum malitiam et contradictionem qua implicantur
12:27
v. 97 et si ego in Beelzebub eucio daemonia , uti vos dicitis, quid affirmatis de discipulis vestris, de aliis qui daemones expellunt? filii vestri tn quo eticiunt? fuisse apud Iudaeos qui nomine Dei daemones eiicerent quandoque, certum est; cf. Marc. 9,37. Act. 19,13 atque idem testimonio Flavii Iosephi comprobatur qui scribit hoc genus sanationum quo daemonia ita eiiciuntur, ut nunquam revertantur etiamnum apud Iudaeos valere plurimum (Ant. 8,9. 5). Notum est discipulos alicuius dici filios; ita filii prophetarum appellabantur eorum socii, discipuli, ita qui alium docet , admonet, filium eum vocare solet, uti frequenter in libris sapientialibus. Quare fii vestri erunt ii qui veluti discipuli pharisaeorum et scribarum considerabantur, qui scil. eorum instituta et traditiones sequebantur. Sunt quidem qui /i/:os vestros explicent de discipulis Christi qui utpote ex genere iudaico orti sint filii eiusdem populi cum pharisaeis (S. Chrys. Theoph. Euth. Hil. Aug. sermo 71; M. 38,845; op. imp. Br.);sunt alii qui vel de discipulis Christi vel de exorcistis Iudaeorum verba accipiant (cf. S. Hier. Bed. Pasch. Alb. Thom. Dion. Cai. Calm.). Atapposite monet Bar. Christus uteos appellaretsuosdiscipulos futurum fuisse, non filios pharisaeorum ; dein obstare quod pharisaei dicerent etiam apostolos potentia daemonis daemonem eiicere paremque esse rationem in magistro et discipulis iuxta illud : si patremfamilias Beelzebub vocaverunt, quanto magis domesticos eius (Matth. 10,25). Dein patet argumentum tum esse vere efficax si de exorcistis Iudaeorum procedit, atque de iis explicare plerosque recentiores interpretes iam Maíd. dicit (quamvis ipse non consentiat) et ita accipiunt Tostatus qu. 6& in cap. 12, Toletus in Luc. 11,19, Fab. lans. Lap. Lamy, Arn. Bisp. Reischl, Grimm IV p. &95, Schanz , FU. — Keil, Weiss , Ed. 11 p. 198 etc. Unde cum in suis discipulis non daemonem agere sed Dei virtutem agnoscant, tdeo ipsi iudices vestri erunt , ipsi vos insani convicii arguent vosque condemnabunt reos turpissimae contumeliae. « Pharisaei itaque coarctantur interrogatione prudenti, ut confiteantur Spiritus sancti esse opus; quodsi expulsio daemonum, inquit, in filiis vestris, Deo non daemonibus deputatur, quare in me idem opus non eandem habeat et causam » S. (Hier.)? Si igitur negari nequit a Christo eiici daemones in virtute Dei quid sequitur?
12:28
v. 98 s; autem ego 1n spiritu Dei! eiicio daemones, igitur pervenit in. vos regnum Dei; Christus enim satanam ubique persequitur, eum expellit, daemones ad eius praesentiam tremunt, eum rogant ne se torqueat, praedam suam coguntur relinquere; ergo apertum est eorum regnum a Christo destrui; ergo pariter apertum est regnum Dei condi. Destruitur enim malum, ut bonum et salus hominum constituatur; eiicitur princeps huius mundi, ut Deus regnet in omnium animis. Eo enim quod Christus passim tam multos eiiceret daemones demonstrabatur, ut ait Ians., diaboli regnum iam nova et insolita ratione destrui ac proinde e contra Dei regnum novo iam modo incipere apud homines; deinde corporalis et sensibilis illa daemonum eiectio ad hoc fiebat, ut per eam omnes intelligerent ipsum esse eum qui ex animis hominum venerat eiecturus daemones dominantes per peccatum mentibus hominum, ac ob id infert regnum Dei venisse (sim. Tostatus qu. 65). Ceterum est quoque rabbinorum doctrina opus Messiae esse eiectionem daemonum et in Jalkut ipsis verbis dicitur in diebus Messiae devictum iri daemonein et deiectum in gehennam (cf. Ed. Il p. 198. 728. seq.); ergo crebrae illae eiectiones secundum ipsos ludaeos signum sunt adventus Messiae , et regni Dei. lam Christus ex crebris illis eiectionibus solo suo mandato effectis ulterius demonstrat a se principem daemoniorum esse superatum et ligatum; idque declarat familiari comparatione
12:29
v. 29 aut quomodo potest quisquam intrare in domum fortis et vasa etus diripere , nisi prius alligaverit. fortem? et tunc domum illius diripiet; Christus libere intrat in ditionem et regionem fortis illius principis daemonum (cf. 8,29 seq.), daemones pellit, homines ab eo occupatos ei eripit , dominationem eius destruit; ergo iam superavit et ligavit fortem illum; « contusam a se in tentatione prima omnem diaboli indicat potestatem ; ligatus est ergo tum, cum satanas a Domino nuncupatus .ipsa nequitiae suae nuncupatione constrictus est (Matth. 4,10), cui ita vincto spolia detraxit et domum abstulit, nos scil. quondam arma eius », quos in suum victo diabolo redegit dominium domumque sibi ex nobis dedicavit novam (ut addit S. PascA.). Fortis autem vasa, cxton, supellectilem intelligunt subditos eius, daemones et homines qui secundum ipsum operantur, ut ait S. Chrys. Euth., vel solum homines (Theoph. Hier. Aug. Bed. Dion. Cai. Fil.); domus eius est regnum quod daemon tenuit vel, ut alii volunt, mundus, cum dicatur princeps huius mundi. Alii propter Luc. 11,22 : universa arma eius auferet, σχεύη accipiunt de instrumentis, quibus satan homines vexat, de daemonibus (cf. Arn. Schegg , Schanz). Sed verbum ἁρπάσαι rapere aptius convenit priori interpretationi de hominibus qui revera satanae eripiuntur; daemones manent in eius ditione, et vix propterea apte possent dici ei rapi, quia iis dominium in homines eripitur vel satanae potestas iis utendi ad homines possidendos. Praeterea prior interpretatio unice congruit verbis Isaiae quae Christus hoc loco certe ob oculos habuit : haec dicit Dominus : equidem et captivitas a forti tolletur et quod ablatum fuerat a robusto salvabitur (49,95) , quibus verbis respondetur ad quaestionem : num fieri possit ut praeda eripiatur forti. Cum itaque Christus satanam iam vicerit et eo victo res in eo sit, ut praeda quoque ei eripiatur et regnum Dei in animis hominum constituatur, nemo potest manere otiosus et iners, quasi a neutra parte stare vellet; sed
12:30
v. 30 qui non est mecum contra me est et qui non congregat mecum dispergtt ; adstat scil. Messias, se talem probat, fidem postulat, laborandum esse edicit, ut in suo quisque corde regnum Dei stabiliat. Iam qui in ea rerum conditione otiosus manet et indif- ferens, eo ipso Christo adversatur, opus eius impedit in se et in aliis; proinde qui non cum Christo laborat et eius opus promovere studet, is eo ipso partem operis Christi destruit eique est impedimento et nocumento. Verba haec gravia sunt. Calumniam pharisaeorum Christus ita clarissime refutavit, ut quicumque non consulto aures mentesque obdurarent intelligere deberent eum devicto daemone regnum Dei inducere. Quare graviter monet iam non licere incerto haerere et quasi medium stare inter se et pharisaeos, verum fortiter ac gnaviter suas partes esse eligendas ct amplectendas, nisi vellent haberi adversari et regni Dei impugnatores. Urget ergo turbas, ut discedant a pharisaeis, ut se sequantur intrepide sibique veram adhibeant fidem et tandem aliquando constanter a suis partibus consistant. pretatione quod pharisaei non neutrales, sed aperte Dominum calumniabantur; atque profecto non erant quasi medii et inertes inter partes duas amicorum et inimicorum Iesu sed iam dudum duces se praebebant et antesignanos et conquisitores inimicorum Christi (sim. Schanz). Multo minus autem admitti potest quod aliis placuit (Bengel, Neander, Godet) sermonem dirigi ad exorcistas Iudaeorum, de quibus v. 17 ; num tales aderant? et si daemones in nomine Dei eiiciebant, eliam ipsi contra daemonem agebant ei praedam eripientes. Quaerunt alii quomodo haec sententia conveniat cum alia Luc. 9,50 : qui non est adversum vos pro vobis est (Maid. lans. Sylv. Lap. Calm.). Sed quae sit mens Christi eo loco apparet quia ille de quo agitur in nomine Iesu daemones eiicit, proinde in Iesum credit (cf. Marc. 9,38); loquitur itaque, ut Maid. notat, ex suorum discipulorum opinione qui non putabant pro se esse nisi qui secum, non doctrina, sed pedibus ambularent; vel fortasse melius, ea sententia aemulationem eorum compescere voluit. Aliis (Lap. Sylv.) videtur ibi sermonem esse solum de eo qui propter iustam causam fidem suam aperte non profiteatur; at dubito num id dici possit; cum enim in nomine Iesu ille daemones eiecerit, satis quae sit sua fides profitetur. Quare potius dicendum cum S. Augustino - in quantum operabatur virtutes in nomine Iesu, in tantum cum ipsis erat et adversus eos non erat (de cons. evang. 4,5. 6; M.34,1219); proinde sententiam illam ex rerum adiunctis aequivalere alteri : ille doctrina et re vobiscum consentit, ergo pro vobis est. Cum autem dicat qui non congregat mecum spargit, se tamquam eum profitetur qui venit ut gregem Domini culpa pastorum dispersum et errantem visitet, liberet, congreget; illud ergo munus sibi attribuit, de quo Ez. 35,12 seq., et de quo loannes baptista locutus est 3,12. Simul indicat unumquemque pro viribus se debere prae- Stare socium et adiutorem huius congregandi laboris, ad quem laborem cumprimis assumpsit apostolos. Utique pastorum et ducum Israel quam maxime esset in hoc labore primas agere cum Iesu partes et de illis, de sacerdotibus et legis doctoribus quam maxime valet qui non congregat mecum, spargit i. e. quicumque ex ducibus et doctoribus quos scil. plebs cum veneratione suspicit tamquam moderatores, non mecum laborat meas partes palam ac publice tuitus, ille eo iam spargit, populum quem congregare volo et ad Dei regnum adducere, a me retinet et felralit mihique reddit alienum. At duces illi ac pastores tales sunt quales eos Ezechiel describit 34,2 seq.; quare contra eos valebit quoque illud : vae pastoribus Israel! iudicabo inter pecus et pecus. lterum ergo evangelista verbis Christi rationem reddit, cur duces synagogae reiecti sint. Ostenderat Christus se in spiritu ac virtute Dei regnum satanae destruere et Dei regnum stabilire satana devicto et alligato; quare tempus esse ut unusquisque palam et aperte a suis partibus stet. lam graviter monet ne pharisaeorum more opera Dei quae adeo manifesto cernantur spernant, multo minus ea, prout illi faciunt, diabolo auctori attribuant. Unde explicat tali blasphemia incurri peccatum quod non remittatur v. 31 :deo i. e. propter ea quae dicta sunt v. 25-30, dico vobis : omne peccatum et blasphemia remittetur hominibus , Spiritus autem blasphemia .non remittetur i. e. blasphemia contra Spiritum sanctum iactata, uti est illa pharisaeorum qui opera Dei spiritu patrata quae ut talia ignorare non possunt prae nimia malitia et odio in Christum satauae adscribunt, ut ea contumelia opus quoque Spi - ritus Dei in animis populi impediant et destruant. Qualis sit Spirztus blasphemia, declaratur
12:32
v. 32 et quicumque dixerit verbum contra Filium hominis, remittetur ei; cum enim is in assumpta carne appareat humilis, persecutionibus subiectus, infirmus, aliqua peccati habetur excusatio; « qui scandalizatus carne mea et me hominem tantum arbitrans, quod filius sim fabri et homo vorator sim et vini potator, talis opinio atque blasphemia quamquam culpa non careat erroris, tamen habet veniam propter corporis vilitatem » (S. Hier.) et similiter S. CArys. Cyr. Bed. Pasch. Br. Alb. Dion. Cai. Maid. . lans. Lap. Calm. Schegg, Bisp. Reischl, Schanz, Fil.; talia verba vide 11,19; talia protulerunt, cum Iesus in cruce penderet, pro quibus tamen rogavit Patrem : dimitte eis. Verum aliter de blasphemia in Spiritum sanctum : qui autem dizerit contra Spiritum sanctum, non remittetur ei neque in hoc saeculo neque in futuro vel uti Marc. 3,29 : qui blasphemaverit in Spiritum sanctum, non habebit remissionem in aeternum, sed reus erit aeterni delicti. Et in quonam ista blasphemia consistat, eruitur ex v. 2& et insuper clare additur apud Marcum : quoniam dicebant : spiritum immundum habet. Haec itaque blasphemia in eo continetur, quia ea quae manifesto sunt Dei et quae ut Dei opera certo sciebant, tamen ex malitia daemoni attribuebant. Illis igitur, ut scribit S. Hier. (ep. 42 ad Marcellam, M. 22,471), irremissibilis est blasphemia dicta, qui cum in virtutibus videant opera Dei calumnientur et clamitent daemonis esse virtutem et omnia signa quae facta sunt non ad divinam magnificentiam, sed ad diabolum pertinere; et similiter in comment. : « qui autem manifeste intelligens opera Dei, cum de virtute negare non possit, eadem stimulatus invidia calumniatur, et Christum Deique verbum et opera Spiritus sancti dicit esse Beelzebub, isi non dimittetur neque in praesenti saeculo neque in futuro ». Etiam S. Amórostus (de poenitentia 9,1; M. 16,502) blasphemiam intelligi docet eorum, qui Dominum Iesum in Beelzebub eiicere daemonia loquebantur, « quibus sic respondit Dominus, quod satanae hereditas in iis esset qui satanae compararent Salvatorem omnium et in regno diaboli constituerent gratiam Christi; et ut cognosceremus quia de hac dixit blasphemia adiunxit : progenies viperarum , quomodo potestis bona loqui, cum sitis mali? Hos ergo qui haec loquuntur negat ad veniam pertinere ». Eodem modo blasphemiam ex nexu narrationis explicant S. Chrys. Athanastus (epist. & ad Serapionem n. 129; M. 26,653), Pactianus (epist. 3,15; M. 13,1074), Basitus (Moralia, reg. 35; reg. brev. 273; M. 31,756. 1972), Beda (in Marc. 3,99; M. 92,165), Rab. Pasch. Br. Maid. Lap. Bar. Calm. Lamy, Arn. Bisp. Fil. aliique. Atque ad rem notat lans. : « primo certum est Dominum hic loqui non de quovis peccato quod dici possit singulari aliqua ratione commissum in Spiritum sanctum, sed peccato quod in verbis consistit; blasphemia enim proprie est contumelia alicui verbisillata; nec dicit : omnis qui peccaverit in Spiritum sanctum, sed : qui dixerit verbum, aut ut habet Marcus : qui blasphemaverit;-quod non intelligendum sit de verbo cordis, sicut Augustinus intelligit, patet ex eo quod Marcus adiiciat : quoniam dicebant: spiritum immuudum habet. Deinde ex iisdem Marci verbis certum est Dominum notare voluisse pharisaeos quod in Spiritum sanctum peccaverint, non tamen ob impoenitentiam aut impugnationem veritatis semel acceptatae, aut desperationem aut praesumptionem, sed quoniam spiritui 1mmundo tribuebant eiectionem daemonum factam virtute Spiritus sancti. Itaque magis amplexanda Hieronymi, Chrysostomi , Ambrosii aliorumque veterum expositio qui intelligunt blasphemiam in sanctum Spiritum esse eam qua quis malitia aliqua permotus quae manifeste sunt Dei tribuit daemonibus, ut erat eiectio daemoniorum » ; similiter Dzon. Bar. Toletusin cap. 12 Luc. annot. 18. Etiam clarius Suarez ex contextu et occasione quale peccatum intelligatur proponit : « censeo hoc peccatum proprie esse quando ex malitia et duritie cordis spiritui malo tribuuntur divina et supernaturalia opera quae Spiritus sanctus ad confirmandam fidem vel ad convertendos peccatores speciali providentia operatur » (in 3 p. Thom. qu. 86 disput. 8 s. 1 n. 18). Atque de illa blasphemia dicitur non remittetur neque in hoc saeculo neque in futuro; « postquam responderat et obiectionem solverat ostenderatque ipsos frustra impudenter agere, demum terret. Consilii enim et correctionis haec non spernenda pars est non modo obiectis respondere et persuadere, sed etiam comminari , quod ille plerumque facit, dum leges et consilia profert » (S. Chrys.). Uti verba sonant, ea blasphemia a remissione excludi dicitur; nam priore loco statuitur : omne peccatum et blasphemia remittetur, dein huic sententiae additur exceptio, additur id quod non remittetur. Ergo regulae generali adiungitur exceptio, qua illa regula in uno aliquo casu non valere dicitur. lste autem casus evenire potest vel quia Christus praevidit eos qui illam blasphemiam commiserint, de facto non esse acturos poenitentiam, vel quia Deus statuit illis qui tanta malitia et obduratione sese tradiderint in reprobum sensum non dare gratias adeo efficaces, ut a diabolica illa pravitate ad pietatem revertantur. Proinde dici debet cum ZJans. non asseri Spiritus blasphemiam esse irremissibilem, sed non remittetur, non negari remissionis possibilitatem, sed eventum. Atque certe non repugnat ut Deus statuat eos qui Christum per Beelzebub operari ex malitia contra cognitam veritatem ad alios seducendos asserant relinquere in reprobo sensu, cum iidem sua perversitate aditum gratiae occluserint et sua sponte se daemoni mancipaverint. Si enim non repugnat, ut Deus permittat multos in statu peccati mortalis morte obrui et in aeternum damnari, etiam iuste potest permittere ut qui in talem obcaecationis diabolicae abyssum se sua culpa abiecerint nunquam ex ea emergant, nunquam velint agere poenitentiam et humiliter veniam precari. (in editione benedictina t. 6 append. p. 234), quo loco explicatio de impoenitentia usque ad mortem adoptata est; quaestion. ex utroque testam. qu. 102 (in append. t. 3 p. 96); de fide ad Petrum cap. 3 (append. t. 6 p. 27), quod opus nunc S. Fulgentio tribuitur, qui locum nostrum de obduratis accipit (M. 65,691). Demum iuvat etiam afferre quae Vega recensitis variorum opinionibus scribit (Tridentini decreti de iustificatione expositio, lib. 13 cap. 9, Compluti 1564 p. 448) : « verum enimvero cum altius mecum et maturius expendo, quae Marcus contra hoc peccatum prolata a Christo retulit, ne vis ulla fieri videatur Scripturis, germanius et simplicius putarem concedere peccatum in Spiritum sanctum eiusmodi 6556, ut licet remissibile sit, nunquam tamen remittatur. Cur enim alias hoc unum delictum aeternum in viatoribus dicitur? cur de hoc solo pronuntiatur quod non habebit remissionem in aeternum, et ut apertissimum hoc sit adiicitur : neque in hoc saeculo neque in futuro? cur a ceteris peccatis et contumeliis contra Filium hominis, immo et generaliter ab omnibus etiam aliis blasphemiis hac una conditione distinguitur? Equidem aeternum delictum dici non potest quod aliquando eluitur et expiatur, etiamsi in utroque saeculo puniatur et difficillime ipsius indulgentiam quis obtineat ». Eadem est Dion. sententia : nunquam remittetur quia nec in praesenti nec postea. Atque ex recentioribus similiter loquuntur Schegg , Grimm, Schanz; at nimium asserit Grimm IV p. 505 dicens Deum tali peccatori obdurato iam non posse ignoscere, peccatorem in eo obstinationis statu constitui, ut gratiae iam non sit aditus ullus et peccati magnitudinem in eo contineri, ut gratiae absolute occludatur aditus. Deus enim gratias babet et dare potest si vult adeo potentes, ut omnis voluntas etiam quam maxime rebellis emolliatur et ad poenitentiam suaviter trahatur; unde dici debet Deum posse talem peccatorem ad se reducere, uti explicant Reischi, Schanz ; et falsum est dicere : si Deus iam non vult ignoscere, sequi eum iam non posse. Neque ea explicatione quidquam perit potestati clavium; nam Ecclesia &ccepit potestate m remittendi omnia peccata quorum homines rite poeniteat; si itaque sunt quos non poenitet et qui nolunt agere poenitentiam , sacerdos nil potest, non ex defectu potestatis, sed ex defectu necessariae dispositionis quae praerequiritur; aliis verbis, tum non adesf"materia circa quam potestas exerceri possit. Porro cum Deus omnes homines velit salvos fieri et cum omnes peccatores invitentur ac invitari debeant ad poenitentiam , etiam illis obduratis non desunt gratiae vere sufficientes, quibus vere possint se convertere. Et si illis revera non cooperantur, id non magis repugnat quam in aliis peccatoribus qui etiam gratiis resistunt et in peccato mortali diem obeunt supremum. Unde censeo explicationem datam quam a multis comprobatam videmus et quae verbis plane congruit omnino sustineri posse. Nam alias in similibus sententiis non potest exceptio statui. lta si Christus dicit : qui crediderit et baptizatus fuerit salvus erit, qui vero non crediderit condemnabitur (Marc. 16,16), nemo ultimam sententiam explicat : ut plurimum , plerumque, fere semper condemnabitur, vix unquam salvabitur, difficillime salvabitur, secundum regularem cursum, cui tamen exceptio fieri potest, condemnabitur. Neque quisquam ita argumentatur : non omnes qui credunt et baptizati fuerunt, revera salvi erunt; ergo a pari valet in altero membro : non omnis qui non crediderit condemnabitur. Atque hisce duobus modis sententiam illam non remittetur (qua exceptio statuitur) admittere exceptionem multi probare student. durationem et mentis excaecationem ; et Lap. difficulter ac raro remittetur; Lamy difficillime, aegre, vix remittetur; Caím. scelus est aegerrime expiandum (et similiter in dissertatione de peccato in Spiritum sanctum) et in eundem sensum Arn. et Palmieri nunquam vel raro remitti a Deo (Tract. de poenit. Romae 1879 p. 60). Ceterum utrocumque modo verba acceperis , nemini constare potest commiseritne quisquam hoc peccatum quod ab omni venia excludatur, et proinde semper dicendum est cum S. Augustino : « de nullo en im desperandum est, quamdiu patientia Dei ad poenitentiam adducit nec de hac vita rapit impium qui non vult mortem impii, quantum ut convertatur et vivat » (serm. 71,13 n. 21: M. 38,456). Ergo etiam pro omnibus orandum est neque cuiquam spes veniae deneganda, dummodo ve/i/ resipiscere. Immo hoc ipsum quod quis velit ac desideret poenitentiam agere et resipiscere , quod desideret veniam a Deo impetrare, signum est manifestum eum tali peccato non obstringi. Porro attendatur oportet ne sententia Christi non remittetur ultra debitam normam extendatur. Neque enim cuicumque peccato in Spiritum sanctum commisso venia negatur, verum illi soli de quo in contexta narratione sermo est. Valet quippe hoc loco quod bene monet S. Pasch. : « inter se evangelistarum collatio quam saepe pleniorem reddit intelligentiam, ut impraesentiarum Marcus ait qui causas tantae irae manifestius expressit : quia dicebant , inquit, eum spiritum immundum habere, quod et praesens evangelista (Matthaeus) ex eadem blasphemia hanc venire interminationis occasionem suis declarat indiciis, quia dicebant eum in Beelzebub principe daemoniorum eiicere daemonia ». Ex variis S. Augustinz locis , quos supra partim attuli, sex assignari solent species peccati in Spiritum sanctum : desperatio, praesumptio , impugnatio veritatis agnitae , invidentia fraternae gratiae (de serm. D. in monte 1,21 n. 75; M. 35,1267), impoenitentia , obstinatio; vide S. Thom. 2 2 qu. 1& art. 2. Nullo autem pacto verbis Christi haec omnia comprehenduntur. Cum dicatur neque in hoc saeculo neque tn futuro et ita exceptio statuatur, planum est alias in altero saeculo alicui remissioni sive culpae sive poenae locum esse; unde merito ex hoc quoque loco purgatorium esse catholici doctores statuunt. Ita iam S. Augustinus (de civ. D. 21,24) : « neque enim de quibusdam veraciter diceretur quod non eis remittetur neque in hoc saeculo neque in futuro, nisi essent quibus etsi non in isto, tamen remittetur in futuro » οἱ S. Gregorius magnus (dialog. lib. & cap. 39; M. 77,396) : « de quibusdam levibus culpis esse ante iudicium purgatorius ignis credendus est pro eo quod veritas dicit, quia si quis in sancto Spiritu blasphemiam dixerit neque in hoc saeculo remittetur ei neque in futuro; in qua sententia datur intelligi quasdam culpas in hoc saeculo quasdam vero in futuro posse laxari. Quod enim de uno negatur, consequens intellectus patet quia de quibusdam conceditur » itemque Beda : procul dubio aliquorum remissionem in futuro indicat peccatorum et similiter PascA. Br. Rab. Druthmarus , Anselmus laud. lans. Mald. Cai. Bar. Lamy, Arn. alique; quem locum bene expendit Bellarminus, de purgatorio lib. 1 cap. &. Exaltera parte aeque manifestum est eodem effato etiam poenam aeterno duraturam indicari. Denique quaerunt quandoque intelligaturne Spiritus sanctus hic de Deitate an de tertia persona in sanctissima Trinitate. Et S. Cyr. quidem censet Spiritum hic dici τὴν τῆς Τριάδος θεότητα ὁλόχληρον, idemque semel etiam Tostatus proponit; at alias ipse et longe plerique explicant quod nomen ipsum prae se fert de tertia persona. Peccatum enim quod ex malitia procedit peculiari ratione dirigitur contra bonitatem quae Spiritui sancto attribuitur (Tost.); ipsi quoque tribuitur operatio miraculorum , illustratio mentis, magisterium veritatis; unde patet quo pacto in ipsum potissimum peccant, qui modo explicato cognitae veritati obnitentes opera Spiritus sancti diabolo adscribunt. Controverlitur quo nexu et sensu dicatur
12:33
v. 33 aut facite arborem bonam et fructum eius bonum; aut facite arborem malam et fructum eius malum ; siquidem ez fructu arbor agnoscitur ; sat multi explicant cum 5. Hier. : « constringit eos syllogismo quem Graeci ἄφυχτον, nos inevitabilem possumus appellare, qui interrogatos hinc inde concludit et utroque cornu premit. Si, inquit diabolus malus est, bona opera facere non potest; si autem bona sunt quae facta cernitis, sequitur ut non sit diabolus qui ea facit; neque enim fieri potest ut ex malo bonum aut ex bono oriatur malum ». Censent scil. admoneri pharisaeos, ne contra sensum communemi agant opera Christi approbantes ipsum vero tamquam pessimum traducentes (S. Chrys. Cai. lans. Lap. Bar. Lamy, Calm. Arn. Schegg, Reischl, Bisp. Grimm , Fil.); facite i. e. dicite (EutA.), declarate. At iam S. Aug. saepius haec de pharisaeis dici asseruit (cf. serm. 72,1; de actis cum Felice manichaeo 2,4; contra litteras Petil. 2,6; M. 38,467; 42,538 ; 43,261); similiter S. Br. ad sequentia refert, A/». dicit eam metaphoram in sequenti versu exponi, S. TÀom. proponi similitudinem quae sequenti versu declaretur, similiter Maid. Schanz , Keil, Weiss. Atque haec acceptio erit sequenda. Id enim patroni prioris explicationis iam innuunt, cum fere omnes ab altera parte explanationem inchoent; dein in eo sensu potius dicendum erat, uti etiam illi explanant, ordine inverso : si fructum dicitis bonum, arborem quoque bonam dicite. Quaeri etiam potest num revera ex opinione et calumnia pharisaeorum eiectio daemonis per Beelzebub tamquam fructus bonus consideretur ; poterant Christo aggerere : opus hoc per Beelzebub patratum est malum, itaque ex ore tuo te iudicamus recte arborem malam. Unde sequenda est altera expositio. Praeparatur versus sequens hac generali sententia : arbor bona bonos fert fructus etc. ; opera testimonium ferunt de natura et indole hominis; nam ez fructu arbor agnoscitur, ex fructibus de se arbor ipsa testabitur (S. Hi.). Proinde verbis illis et contumelia pharisaeorum pessimam eorum manifestari indolem; quare sententiam Christo adeo duram in eos ferri merito dicendum est. Explicatur itaque metaphora vel similitudo (A/b. Thom.) v. 3^ progenies viperarum , quomodo potestis bona loqui, cum sitis mali? ex abundantta enim cordis os loquitur cf. 3,7; « non miror ego quod talia loquamini; male quippe educati estis, a malis progenitoribus orti, mentemque malam habetis » (S. CÁrys.). Simul ostendit verba illa non subito quodam aestu irae illis quasi non advertentibus excidisse, verum ex pravitate alte animo insita et ex certa et diu fota malitia dicta esse; ez abundantia cordis proinde in animis inhaerere ilis maiorem perversitatem quam quae hisce verbis manifestetur solis. Idem declaratur
12:35
v. 35 óonus homo de bono thesauro profert bona et malus homo de malo thesauro profert mala; proin multo plus in animo concipitur repositum quam quod ore profertur; illud est per modum habitus vel quasi alterius cuiusdam naturae, cuius actus aliqui verbis comprobantur. Cum itaque necesse sit ut ex thesauro malo non prodeant nisi mala, merito dicitur : quomodo potestis 1. e. non potestis bona loqui in ea re, in qua et quamdiu mali estis et quam propterea accusare vultis et criminari; ex fonte enim corrupto non fluunt aquae purae. | Quia igitur verba naturam animi produnt et fructus sunt cordis, propterea illa merito divino iudicio examinabuntur
12:36
v. 36 dico autem vobis quoniam omne verbum otiosum quod locuti fuerint homines reddent rationem de eo in die iudicii; qua sententia quasi a fortiore comprobatur iudicium fore maxime severum in pharisaeos blasphemantes. Verum autem o/(tosum , ἀργόν) explicat quidem S. Chrys. : « quod rei non convenit, mendax, sycophantiam continens, immo inane μάταιον), ut quidam dicunt, quod risum movet inordinatum, vel turpe, impudens, illiberale »; at profecto mendax, turpe etc. multo plus est quam ottosum. Quare melius S. Hzer. verbum otiosum illud declarat « quod sine utilitate loquentis dicitur et audientis; si omissis seriis de rebus frivolis loquamur et fabulas narremus antiMATTII. 12, 36-37. 491 quas. Ceterum qui scurrilia replicat et cachinnis ora dissolvit et aliquid profert turpitudinis , hic non otiosi verbi , sed critninosi tenebitur reus » ; similiter Pasch. Br. : « est otiosum quod vel ratione caret vel utilitate; rationem utique reddent de eo, nisi poenitentiam egerint pro eo; nullum est peccatum quod poenitentia deleri non possit »; similiter A/5. ait esse otiosum quod careat ratione iustae necessitatis aut intentione piae utilitatis, eodem modo S. TAom. otiosum esse dicit,nisi habeat piam utilitatem vel piam necessitatem; otiosum enim esse quod non afferat utilitatem. Quoniam verbis aperitur qualis thesaurus vel bonus vel malus in animo sit reconditus, recte dicitur
12:37
v. 31 ex verbis enim tuis tustificaberis et ez verbis tuis condemnaberis ; proinde verborum quoque quae plurimi minime perpendunt rationem habe ndam esse graviter monet. Sicuti opera, ita verba quoque normam illam constituunt, secundum quam in divino iudicio vel quis declarabitur iustus vel poenae addicetur. Quare denuo ostendit sententiam in pharisaeos pronuntiatam merito stare. Affert Dru(A. illud : mors et vita in manu linguae (Prov. 18,91); cf. Prov. 21,6. 23. Eccli. 5,15; 22,33; 28,22. Atque Dion. recitat verba Salomonis : de fructu oris sui unusquisque replebitur bonis (Prov. 12,14) et ex Eccli. beatus vir qui non est lapsus verbo; multi ceciderunt in ore gladii, sed non sic quasi qui interierunt per linguam suam (15,1; 28,22) et rursus : qui custodit os suum custodit animam suam, qui autem inconsideratus est ad loquendum sentiet mala (Prov. 13,3); denique Iacobo contestante universitas iniquitatis lingua constituitur in membris nostris (Iac. 3,6).
12:38
v. 38 (unc responderunt ei quidam de scribis et pharisaeis; responderunt i. e. ex iis quae Christus contra alios tanta cum auctoritate dixerat occasionem arripiunt postulantes ut signo probet se legitime et divinitus ea facere; dicentes : magister, volumus a te signum videre ; blande ac subdole eum alloquuntur, « neque veritatem de Christo quaerentes, sed malitiam suam sub colore ignorantiae abscondere cupientes; si ergo tu es Filius Dei, ostende nobis signum et adorabimus te! ut scias quod volumus a te discere veritatem, ecce etiam magistrum te appellamus. O malitia? dum volunt malitiam suam abscondere , magis eam manifestant; nam cum multa signa vidissent, tamquam si nullum vidissent, ita signum petebant » (op. imp.). Nam « numquid signa non sunt quod mortui resurgunt, quod caeci illuminantur, leprosi mundantur, paralytici curantur et daemones eiiciuntur » (S. Br.)? Signum eos postulasse de coelo plerique ex Luca 11,16 merito concludunt (Theoph. Euth. op. imp. Aug. Bed. Rab. Pasch. Thom. Dion. lans. Lap. Arn. Fil.); « velin morem Eliae ignem de sublimi venire cupiebant, vel in similitudinem Samuelis mugire tonitrua , coruscare fulgura, imbres ruere, quasi non possint et illa calumniari et dicere ex occultis et variis aeris passionibus accidisse ; nam qui calumniaris ea quae oculis vides, manu tenes, utilitate sentis, quid facturus es de his quae de coelo venerint? utique respondebis, et magos in Aegypto multa signa fecisse de coelo »᾽ (S. Hier.). Simili modo Ioan. 6,30 signum postulant monentes de manna quo signo Moyses declaratus est legatus Dei (cf. Ca:.) velut - apud losue et Isaiam factum, signum in sole fieri cupiunt. Cum Christus summo iure de se sit professus : ipsa opera quae ego facio testimonium perhibent de me et opera ea quidem quae nemo alius fecit (Ioan. 5,36; 15,24), merito magna indignatione in eos invehitur
Scribarum et pharisaeorum obstinatio alio ostenditur exemplo. Tot enim signis ἃ Christo patratis non contenti signum ab eo postulant. Indignabundus Christus respondet impiis illis datum iri signum lonae, signum scil. mortis suae ac resurrectionis et eos ob animi duritiem eximiam, cuius a Ninivitis et regina austri merito accusabuntur, poenas daturos esse et in exitium ruituros pessimum. — Praedicit itaque Christus mortem suam et resurrectionem ; innuit ne huic quidem signo resurrectionis plerosque esse credituros; quare vaticinatur generationi pessimae sortem et poenam longe acerbiorem quam quae eousque illis acciderit. Uti Luc. 11,16 refertur, qui signum postulant alii sunt quam qui Christum in Beelzebub eiicere daemones dixerunt; at postulant animo malevolo tentantes eum ;
12:39
v. 39 qui respondens ait tllis : generatio mala et adultera signum quaerit; more prophetarum loquitur qui scil. populum ἃ Deo apostatam vocant adulteram ; foedus enim quod Deus iniit cum populo in Sinai consideratur tamquam connubium sacrum ; quare frequenter populus appellatur sponsa Domini vel uxor (cf. Is. 1,91 ; 50,1. Ier. 2,9. Ez. 16,8 seq. Os. 2,5 seq. 19 etc.). Quantopere autem a Deo recesserint, Christus alibi declarat, cum dicat eos non nosse Deum, eos esse ex patre diabolo et desideria diaboli perficere (Ioan- 8,44. 55); si enim Deum cognoscerent et Moysi crederent, fore ut sibi quoque fidem adhiberent (Ioan. 5,56). Quare S. Cyr. Chrys. ideo quoque adulteram vocari censent quod Christo non credunt et ea reprehensione Christum ostendere se esse Patri aequalem. Neque immerito; nam Christus se sponsum profitetur (9,15) qui venerit ad sponsam ducendam; verum sponsa se maxime infidelem ostendit; sponsum respuit ; signa quibus sponsum se esse probat contemnit; quare e£ signum non dabitur ei, tale scil. quale illi postulant. Cum enim signa quae Christus patrat non reputent signa, merito Christus ita loqui potest , quamvis ab eo tempore et postea multa signa ediderit. Negat itaque se in eorum gratiam et ad eorum arbitrium editurum. Signis illis quibus Christus et apostoli doctrinam confirmabant Iudaeos non acquievisse etiam ex 1 Cor. 1,22 colligitur. Unum tamen signum eis dabitur quod utique aliud plane est ac sanationes morborum : nisi stgnum Ionae prophetae , et in qua re istud constituendum sit declaratur
12:40
v. &0 sicut enim fuit Ionas in ventre cett tribus diebus et tribus noctibus, sic ertt Filius hominis 1n corde terrae tribus diebus et tribus noctibus; cf. Ion. 2,1. 4 et cum Ionas oret : proiecisti me in profundum in corde maris, Christus de corde terrae, de ima terra (Thom. Ians.) loquitur. Multi explicant de sepulcro (S. Chrys. Euth. Bed. Br. Alb. Tost. Sylv. Calm. Árn.). Sed satis difficile est sepulcrum in petra excisum in terrae superficie situm collocare in corde terrae. Quare alii melius id dictum accipiunt de descensu animae Christi ad inferos, in limbum; ita iam Tertullianus (de anima, cap. 55; M. 2,742), S. Irenaeus (c. haer. 5,31; M.'1,1209),S. Cyprianus (tesüim. adv.Iud. 2,95 ; M. 4,717), S. Ephraem (serm. ad nocturnum .dominicae resurrectionis ; hymni et sermones, 1; M. 46,604), Amórostaster qui dicitur in Eph. 4,9 (M. 17,387), S. Hier. Theoph. Pasch. Fab. Cai. Mald. Lap. Bar. Disp. ReiscA, Schanz , Keil ; alii de utroque , de sepulcro et de limbo, id dici opinantur (Rab. Dion. Schegg, Fil. Mansel). Eo autem quod dicit se fore in corde terrae, discessum a terra et proinde mortem innuit ; quod autem id brevi temporis spatio circumscribi dicit, se rediturum in terram , se ἃ mortuis resurrecturum indicat. Dictione autem (ribus diebus et tribus noctibus ex usu apud Iudaeos recepto non necessario spatium designatur 72 horarum, cum unaquaeque νυχθημέρου pars quasi integrum νυχθήμερον reputetur; vide quae dixi ad Ion. 2,1 (Proph. min. 1 p. 374) et cf. Esth. 4,16 et 5,1. Tob. 3,10. 129. 1 Reg. 30,12. 13 et ita verba Christi fuisse intellecta, principes sacerdotum et pharisaei ipsi nos docent, cum ad Pilatum dicant : seductor ille dixit adhuc vivens : post tres dies resurgam ; iube ergo custodire sepulcrum usque ad tertium diem (27,63. 64). Quare merito dicit S. Hzer. synecdochice totum intelligi ex parte; in parte para- Sceves et dominicae et tota die sabbati tres dies et tres noctes intelligi ; item Theoph. : « tres igitur dies et noctes a parte numerantur, quia et Sic saepe numerare consuevimus ». Praeterea Lightfoot affert dicta veterum rabbinorum , quibus statuitur : pars nxYy (vel medietatis diei naturalis , vel totius νυχθημέρου) est sicut totum (horae hebr. in h. 1.). revertebantur (Luc. 23,48) et praedicatione apostolorum de Christo resurgente mox plura millia Iudaeorum fidem et baptisma susceperunt (Act. 2,41; 4,4; 5,14; 6,1. 7; 15,5 etc.). Explicuit quale signum dandum sit generationi malae et adulterae. Iam alia addit quibus manifestum fiat cur malos eos vocet et a Deo apostatas
12:41
v. &1 virt Nintvitae surgent in. iudicio scil. tamquam accusatores; accusatoris enim est surgere, iudicis sedere (Mald.) cum generatione ista , vel surgent tamquam testes contra eos (Fi. Weiss; cf. lob 16,9. Marc. 15,57); μετά cum; in iudicio utraeque partes simul adstant, et condemnabunt eam i. e. accusatione sua et testimonio eos convincent, ita ut a iudice condemnentur, quia poenitentiam egerunt in praedicatione Ionae, et ecce plus quam Ionas hic ; cum praedicatio Ionae non possit dici signum , miraculum grande Ionae, clarum est, hic non explicari signum; idem patet ex eo quod Christus nunc loquatur tempore praesenti : ecce plus quam Ionas hic , signum Ionae vero futuro tempori attribuit. Gentes credunt verbis prophetae, populus a Deo electus surdus est ad praedicationem Domini; « ille servus erat, ego Dominus; ille excidium praedicavit, ego regnum annuntians veni; illi absque signo crediderunt, ego multa exhibui signa ; illi quidem barbari, hi vero cumsexcentis prophetis versati sunt ; de illo nullus praedixerat, de me omnes praedixerunt et opera verbis consona fuere » (S. Chrys. et similiter Hier. op. imp. Pasch. Ians.). Alio exemplo malam generationem confundit
12:42
v. 42 regina austri surget in iudicio cum generatione ista; adstabit accusatrix et testis cum ea et contra eam et condemnabit eam, quia venita finibus terrae audire sapientiam Salomonis et ecce plus quam Salomon hic; cf. 3 Reg. 10,1. 2 Par. 9,1; erat regina regni N29 Saba, regionis Sabaeorum in Arabia felice; unde Christus loquens ut homo ad homines more hominum eius temporis hyperbolice dicit eam venisse a /intbus terrae, « hoc priore maius est; nam Ionas ad Ninivitas abiit, regina vero non exspectavit ut Salomon ipsam adiret, sed illa ipsum adiit, etsi et mulier et barbara tantoque spatio remota esset, non minis instantibus, non mortem timens, sed solum sapientium verborum amore » (S. CArys.) vel ut Maid. vim comparationis effert : « regina, femina, barbara, potentissima a finibus terrae venit, ut audiret sapientiam Salomonis, hominis mortalis, ceterorum similis , ut audiret sapientiam humanam utique, non divinam , non ut miracula videret quae nulla fecisse Salomonem legimus. ludaei, pharisaei, viri non solum docti, sed doctores legis venientem ad se Dominum, Filium Dei, et divinae sapientiae thesauros ore fundentem inauditaque coram illis miracula facientem contemnunt ». Hisce duobus exemplis simul ἃ Christo indicari fidem nationum eumque comminari fore ut regnum Dei transferatur ad gentes (cf. 8,11. 12), S. Hrer. Raó. Pasch. Thom. merito existimant. Demum Christus hic quoque se Messiam esse haud obscure significat ; se enim dicit plus esse, superare dignitatem prophetae et dignitatem et sapientiam Salomonis, cum is esset quam maxime a Deo dilectus et sapientia superaret omnes (3 Reg. 4,29-31). Iam solus Messias exspectabatur et credebatur a ludaeis maior esse ullo prophetarum; solus rex messianus Salomonem dignitate et sapientia superare censebatur. Cur generatio haec merito dici debeat inala et adultera, explicatur v. 41. 42. Iam Christus addit quid futurum sit illis qui ne signo quidem Ionae quod daturus est ad meliorem frugem reversuri sint. Unde sicut signo Ionae v. 40 explicato priorem partem v. 39 enarravit, ita nunc alteram partem complet adiungens quid obduratis eventurum sit signo illo dato. Id autem exponitur allusione facta ad eiectionem daemonis antea narratam; v..43 cum autem immundus spiritus exierit ab homine, ambulat per loca arida quaerens requiem. et non invenit ; v. h& (unc dicit : revertar in domum meam , unde exivi; ex illo enim facto pharisaei desumpserunt occasionem calumniae, ex eodem Dominus vicissim occasionem capit delineandi sortem pessimam eorum quibus tot remedia frustra applicantur. Sermo autem fere ad parabolae rationem accedit; loquitur enim Dominus de diabolo quasi de homine per anthropopathiam (lans. (αἰ. Maid. Lap.). Describitur nempe daemon more humano. expulsus a domo sua , vagus per deserta loca ; sicut solet homo domo pulsus vagari, ut sedes sibi quaerat et habitationem (requiem). Quas cum non inveniat, ad priorem domum reverti conatur. Et ecce, cum redit ad eam, invenit eam vacuam , derelictam a priore hero a quo expulsus erat, immo eo modo instructam , quo quam maxime ad habitandum ibi invitatur - et ventens invenit eam vacantem , scopis mundatam et ornatam ,
12:45
v. 45 tunc vadit. et assumit septem alios spiritus secum nequiores se et intrantes habitant ibi et fiunt novissima honunis illius peiora prioribus; sic erit et generationi huic pessimae , quibus ultimis verbis ipse Christus docet ad quid illustrandum tendat oratio : novissima fiunt peiora prioribus, id quod in exemplo cernitur hominis illius qui iam non, ut antea, ab uno daemone, verum a compluribus iisque peioribus possidetur. Si de explicatione et applicatione huius exempli vel sermonis parabolici quaeritur, non opus est ut singula quaeque accurate ad daemonem eiusque agendi modum trahantur. lta quaenam sint loca arida per quae daemon ambulet et in quibus non sibi complaceat, nou erit opus operosius inquirere. Dicunt quidem alii opinione populari loca deserta inhabitari ἃ diabolo (Bar. 4,35. Tob. 8,3. Apoc. 18,2); sed cum hoc loco diabolus ibi nolit habitare, observatio haec non est ad rem. Alii loca arida intelligunt gentes, ad quas diabolus a ludaeis se contulerit; sed cum fide gentium inde sit expulsus eum revertisse ad Iudaeos (S. Hier.) ; verum cum omni tempore sat multae exstiterint gentes idololatrae , profecto non est cur dicatur diabolo iam non fuisse locum inter gentes. Etiam minus convenit, ut recte notat lans., eorum intelligentia, qui per loca arida explicant corda iustorum quae exsiccata sunt ab omni carnalis concupiscentiae humore. Sufficiet itaque in hac parte videre solam imaginem ab homine sumptam qui exoptat in domum suam reverti et cui alia habitatio praeter illam non arridet. In qua imagine cernere potes diaboli quoque desiderium eos quibus olim illusit denuo vexandi et perdendi. Cum Christus subiungat stc erit. generationi huic , merito requirenda est applicatio ad populum iudaicum. Quando itaque diabolus ab eo esse expulsus dici potest? Id factum esse dicunt, cum lex daretur et populus Deo sacer constitueretur et continuo per prophetas erudiretur (cf. S. Chrys. Theoph. Apolinarius in. cat. Cr. Hil. Hier. Cyr. Ambr. Bed. Pasch. Dion. lans. Schegg , Schanz) ; alii ἃ tempore exsilit daemonem idololatriae efficaciter esse expulsum opinantur (Reischl, Bisp. ΕἸ .). Cum de generatione Aac sermo sit, ergo de populo iudaico tempore Christi, non sunt omittenda varia illa remedia , quae loannes baptista, Christus eiusque apostoli adhibuerunt, ut populum redderent Deo acceptum. Hisce enim quasi lucta instituebatur cum daemone et ille arcebatur. At vae iis qui haec omnia medicamenta spernunt. Circuit enim diabolus tamquam leo rugiens quaerens quem devoret, cui fide resistendum est. Daemon reverti exoptat. Notagdum quoque quam apte superbus spiritus describatur; dicit «nde extivi, quasi sua sponte exierit; se esse victum , coactum , ne sibi quidem fateri vult. Venit ad domum suam priorem; illam reperit vacuam , non occupatam ab hero, non defensam neque protectam. Qua imagine bene depingitur populus a Deo apostata, derelictus, divino praesidio privatus, expositus incursui hostili. Insuper domus illa sua munditie ornatuque invitat ad habitandum. Quaenam sunt haec ornamenta et incitamenta? Sunt qui haec explicent dona illa supernaturalia populo concessa; « summa est diabolum in iis qui boni aliquando fuerunt et mali fiunt libentius et commodius habitare, quia domus ornamenta, id est mysteriorum cognitio, excultum scientia divinarum rerum ingenium etsi qua sunt eiusmodi quae Deo parata fuerant illi serviunt » (Ma/d. ; similiter op. emp. Caln. Schegg). Utat verum est daemonem peculiari voluptate in id tendere ut homines sanctos gratiisque ornatos perdat, tamen haec explicatio ad rem hic a Christo propositam non convenit. Christus enim sortem illorum delineat qui signo quod daturus est morte et resurrectione non convertentur, qui itaque etiam magis erunt generatio prava et adultera. Non autem loquitur nunc subito de ea generatione quasi esset virtutibus ornata et gratiae splendore fulgens. Quare ille intelligatur oportet ornatus qui daemoni placet eiusque ingenio et pravis desideriis congruit ; « invenit domum instructam ad sui susceptionem et delectabilem sibi » (EutA.) vel ut S. Br. dicit : talem invenit qualem invenire desiderat; invenit eam malis scopis mundatam et. malis ornamentis ornatam : malae scopae quae virtutes pellunt et vitia relinquunt, quae pavimenta dissipant et pulverem non eiiciunt; luxuria vero, fornicatio, voluptas, superbia, avaritia, discordia omnisque immunditia ornamenta diaboli sunt (et similiter S. Cyr. Bed. Thom. lans. Lamy, Arn. Schanz). S. Hier. Dion. alio modo ornatum concipiunt de superfluis observationibus legis et traditionibus pharisaeorum ; atque dubitari nequit quin illa superbia pharisaica qua suam iustitiam statuere quaerentes iustitiae Dei non erant subiecti (Rom. 10,3) plurimum damni attulerit ac fidem in Christum maxime impediverit. Alii satius esse censent non inquirere qua ratione domus illa adeo grata sit effecta daemoni vel « provocativa et illicitiva ad sui inhabitationem » (lans. Cat. Bisp. Fil.). In numero daemonum septenario alii cernunt universitatem vitiorum (Apolinarius cat. Cr. Rab. Thom. Dion.) vel septem vitia capitalia (Bed. Euth.) vel poni septem ia universum pro multis daemonibus (Mald.) vel poni, « ut quomodo in Isaia super virgam de radice lesse et florem qui de radice conscendit septem spiritus virtutum descendisse narrantur (Is. 11,2), ita e contrario vitiorum numerus in diabolo con- : secratus sit » (S. Hier. Ambr. Theoph. op. imp. Fab. Br. Thom.). Generatio illa contumax et infidelis relicto Deo in potestatem et tyrannidem transit daemonis; servire oportet vel Deo vel daemoni; noluerunt obsequi Deo, fonti omnium bonorum, traditi sunt miseriis innumeris. Id patuit in ultima ruina urbis et templi, in plurimis illis caedibus, in captivitate, in dispersione per orbem, in malis illis et calamitatibus, quibus priora mala exsilii babylonici etc. longe superabantur. [n quam rem notat S. CArys. : « graviora prioribus patiemini , nempe iis quae passi estis Babylone, in Aegypto et sub Antiocho; nam longe iis asperiora acciderunt Vespasiano et Tito ducibus. Quapropter dicebat : erit tribulatio magna qualis nunquam fuit neque erit postea (Matth. 24,21); neque id solum hoc exemplo significabatur, sed etiam fore ipsos omni virtute vacuos et a daemonibus facilius quam ante invadendos ». Illi enim propter incredulitatem rami sunt fracti et proiecti ab oliva, quibus Deus non pepercit (Rom. 11,19. 21) neque res christiana ἃ primordiis inimicos habuit magis furiosos ac saevos quam [udaeos, qui « et nos persecuti sunt et Deo non placent et omnibus hominibus adversantur » (1 Thess. 2,15). — Praeterea latius patet huius exempli applicatio. Generatim enim illustratur, uti Ez. 15,1 seq. tritum illud : corruptio optimi pessima, et bene monet Mald. : « experimur hoc quotidie; nulli peiores sunt haeretici quam qui, cum boni aliquando catholici fuissent, divinam aspernati gratiam haeretici facti sunt ; nulli peiores catholici quam qui , cum olim religiosissim1 fuissent, non bene tenuerunt quod habebant. Ut verissime dixerit Augustinus se non vidisse meliores quam qui in monasteriis profecerunt, neque peiores quam qui a monasteriis defecerunt » (epist. olim 137, nunc 78,9); vide 2 Petr. 2,21. 22.
12:46
v. 86 adhuc eo loquente ad turbas; nam non necessario sensus est : dum Aaec quae antecedunt loqueretur, prout existimat S. Aug. (de cons. evang. 23,40. 87), sed eos accessisse aliquo tempore dum ille etiamnum loqueretur turbis; ecce mater etus et fratres stabant foris quaerentes loqui ei; cur venerint, multi explicant ex Marco 3,21 (iam Apoltnarius in cat. Cr. Ians. Mald. Bar. Sylv. Calm. Arn. Bisp. Schegg, Ed. 1 p. 576, Fil.); voluisse scil. ei opem ferre, cum a turba nimium opprimeretur vel cum audivissent de ira et insidiis pharisaeorum, voluisse eum secum abducere et securitati eius consulere, ideoque etiam praetendisse eum esse versum in furorem. At dubium est num qui Marc. 3,21 dicuntur oi παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ sint iidem quos Marcus 3,31 vocat matrem et fratres; immo ex modo loquendi et ex narratione interiecta ἃ v. 92-31 potius certum esse videtur illos in v. 21 non esse quos in v. 31 commemorat. Opinatur Tertullianus eos importunitate voluisse abstrahere eum a praedicatione (de carne Chr. cap. 7,3); immo S. CArys. eos arrogantia et superbia motos voluisse populo ostendere se posse ei imperare; ats. doctorem ea in re merito reprehendunt S. Thom. (in comment. etin 3 p. 4. 2 art. 4) Dion. Ians. Maid. Bar. Sylv. Calm.!; nihil tale enim indicatur neque tale quid ex Ioan. 7,5 sequitur. Proinde cum ratio cur venerint et ei loqui voluerint non narretur dicendum est nos eam ignorare; at quia mater Iesu erat cum iis causam illam bonam ac piam fuisse certum esse debet. Fratris nomine appellari apud Hebraeos non solum fratrem germanum et uterinum, verum etiam cognatum et consanguineum quemcumque (uti Gesentus loquitur Thes. p. 63) res est notissima; vide Gen. 154,16 ; 13,9; 24,48; 29,12. 15. 4 Reg. 10,13 etc. lam fratres Domini lacobus, loseph (vel loses), Simon, ludas matrem habebant Mariam, sororem matris Domini, Mariam Cleophae uxorem (cf. Matth. 21,56. Marc. 15,50. &7; 16, 1. Ioan. 19,25). Et S. Hier. scribit : « nos, sicut in libro quem contra Helvidium scripsimus continetur, fratres Domini consobrinos Salvatoris, Mariae liberos intelligimus materterae Domini quae esse dicitur mater Iacobi minoris et loseph et Iudae, quos in alio evangelii loco fratres Domini legimus appellatos. Fratres autem consobrinos dici omnis Scriptura demonstrat »; ceterum de fratribus Domini vide Cornely, Introd. III p. 595 seq. — Hegesippus (apud Eusebium, h. e. 4,30. 4) Cleopham fratrem fuisse Ioseph dicit. Etiam alia quandoque sententia ferebatur illos fuisse filios loseph ex priore matrimonio susceptos, quam tamen opinionem S. Hier. ad deliramenta apocryphorum reiicit et δ. Thom. quoque contra eam notat : « credimus quod sicut mater Iesu fuit virgo, sic loseph , quia virgini virginem commendavit et sicut in fine, sic etiam et in principio ». Illos nullo pacto cum rationalistis quibusdam censeri posse fratres germanos et uterinos Iesu patet tum ex locis allatis tum ex Luca 1,35 : quoniam virum non cognosco; quare etiam multi protestantes eam opinionem repudiant (cf. Ke:/, Mansel). Christo nuntiatur eos adesse
Deest v. 47 inN' BL T' aliquibus minusc ff! k syr (cu); excidit propter homoeoteleuton; apud alios testes enim legitur; dub lich ken quaerentes loqui tecum. In v. 48 rush et fratres mei qui sunt. In v. 49 ept for car mt harl manus; om suos am cav med ox ken lind. In v. 50 am big cav ept fuld hub theod for med mt ox rush val lind ipse meus et frater, cum minusc gr quibusdam et b cff! h. Uti 11,25 seq. postquam turbas reprehendit, subiunxit qui essent illi qui crederent, ita hic reiecta generatione mala eos ostendit qui verissime sint sui discipuli et cognati. Simul autem docet cognationem illam ex carne et sanguine ortam nihil prodesse nisi cognationem cum Christo spiritualem, obedientiam erga Patris voluntatem, induerint. Quemadmodum itaque ex una parte docet a Deo non esse reiectum populum, verum adesse et adfore qui sint discipuli Christi, ita ex altera parte gravissime monet ne fidant se esse filios Abraham; at sciant ἃ regno Dei esse alienos quotquot obedire Deo per Christum loquenti recusarint. Nexus igitur cum antecedentibus non deest, ut sat multi deesse putant (Kes!); sed apte id adiungit evangelista, ut ostendat etiam in ea generatione mala et adultera valere illud : reliqui mihi septem millia virorum qui non curvaverunt genua ante Baal (3 Reg. 19,18. Rom. 11,4) et ut doceat reiecta carnalis cognationis et originis abrahamiticae fiducia insistendum esse obedientiae, id est oportere esse subiectum iustitiae Dei (Rom. 10,3). Ex Luca 8,19 veniunt mater eius et cognati cum parabolam de seminante proposuisset; id non repugnat modo narrandi apud Matthaeum
12:47
v. &7 dicit autem ei quidam : ecce mater tua et fratres tui. foris stant quaerentes te; opinatur S. Hier. eum non fortuito et simpliciter nuntiasse sed insidias voluisse tendere Salvatori, utrum scil. spirituali operi carnem et sanguinem praeferret; unde et Dominum noluisse exire, non quod negaret matrem et fratres, sed quod responderet insidianti extendens manum in discipulos; et similiter Bed. Pasch. Alb. Fab.; immo auctor op. imp. eum nuntiasse quasi diaboli advocatum et mentionem fecisse matris et fratrum, ut ostenderet non posse esse Filium Dei quem homines genuerint. At haec non satis considerate dici bene monent Dion. Ians., discimus enim Marc. 3,31 illos qui foris steterint misisse ad Iesum. Christus autem
12:48
v. 48 respondens dicenti sibi ait : quae est mater mea et qui sunt fratres mei?
12:49
v. &9 et extendens manum 1n discipulos suos dixit : ecce mater mea et fratres mei; ad rem scribit Eut. : « hoc dixit non abnegans matrem suam; quomodo enim hoc facere potuit qui morti vicinus magnam illius curam habuit neque dedignatus est eam habere matrem? quomodo, inquam, hoc fecisset qui propter reverentiam erga eam aquam in Cana convertit in vinum et subditus erat ei? Si enim negaturus eam fuisset aut ob eam pudore afficiendus, nequaquam ab ea natus fuisset. Sed quia tunc multitudinem docebat nec aequum erat ut hos relinqueret et ad matrem et fratres procurreret, ita locutus est. Non ergo vilipendens eos dixit, sed docens quod praeponendam iudicet perditorum salutem parentum et consanguineorum obsequio ». Similiter docent nihil iis verbis detrahi honori matris S. Chrys. Hil. Apolin. Theodoretus in cat. Cr. Fab. Dion. aliique. Cur autem Christus ita locutus sit, rationes in promptu sunt; ita 5. Ambrosius : « moralis magister qui de se ceteris praebet exemplum atque ipse praeceptor, ipse etiam suorum exsecutor est praeceptorum. Praescripturus enim ceteris quoniam qui non reliquerit patrem et matrem suam non est Filio Dei dignus sententiae huic primus ipse sesubiicit; non quo maternae refutet pietatis obsequia (ipsius enim praeceptum est : qui non honoraverit patrem aut matrem, morte moriatur), sed quia paternis se mysteriis (al. ministeriis) amplius quam maternis affectibus debere cognoscat. Neque tamen iniuriose refutantur parentes, sed religiosiores copulae mentium docentur esse quam corporum ». Uti olim dixerat : in his quae Patris mei sunt oportet me esse (Luc. 9,59), ita pariter nunc non relinquit officium praedicandi turbis , ut cum cognatis colloquatur, sed formam agendi sentiendique constituit propinquitatum omnium ius atque nomen non de conditione nascendi, sed de Ecclesiae communione esse retinendum (S. Hz/.) atque maiorem esse spiritualem propinquitatem quam carnalem (Bed. similiter S. Chrys. Hier. Theodoretus in cat. Cr. Pasch. Br. Alb. Cai). Quinam autem in hoc opere messiano sibi sint in loco matris et fratrum ostendit, dum blande circumspiciens (Marc. 3,34) manusque extendens in discipulos ait : ecce mater mea et fratres met ; Messias sibi esse caros et propinquos non agnoscit nisi eos qui fide, obedientia, dilectione ei adhaerent. Cognatio mere humana, sanguine et origine nativitatis constituta, nil affert commodi, nil iuris, utilitatis nihil, si non iuncta fuerit cognationi spirituali. Quaenam autem sit haec cognatio spiritualis qua sola unusquisque quam maxime dilectus et propinquus Messiae efficiatur, sollemniter docet
12:50
v. 50 quicumque enim fecerit voluntatem. Patris mei qui in coelis est, ipse meus frater et soror et mater est; Christus enim profitetur se venisse ut faceret voluntatem Patris, se semper facere quae placita sint coram Patre, iam in primo vitae suae humanae momento sollemniter declaravit : ecce venio, ut faciam Deus voluntatem tuam ; haec voluntas ut fiat suos orare docet (cf. loan. 4,35; 5,30 ; 6,38;8,99. Hebr. 10,7. Matth. 6,10); ipse factus est obediens usque ad mortem (Phil. 2,8); quare in iis qui pariter hanc in se obedientiam exprimunt maximam secum agnoscit cognationem ; hos eodem prosequitur amore quo quis fratres, sorores, parentes solet amplecti; hos solos sibi esse caros et a se loco et ordine tali haberi asserit quali apud homines fratres et parentes esse solent. Merito hoc loco admirabundus exclamat S. Chrys. : « papae quantum honoris, papae quantum virtutis! ad quantum culmen se adeuntem erigit! quot mulieres beatam illam dixerunt sanctam Virginem eiusque uterum et optarunt tales esse matres ceteraque abiicere! quid ergo prohibet? ecce latam nobis viam aperit et licet non mulieribus modo, sed et viris in tali ordine locari ». Uti enim per evangelium est nova nativitas, ita nova quoque cognatio (Jans.). Ea quae inter homines carissima habentur coniungit, ut hoc amore quasi ex dilectione maxime carorum cumulato et aucto singulos se complecti affirmet. Quo enim quis magis voluntatem Patris sequitur, eo carior est Christo qui hoc effato illud quoque docet quod apostolus postea promulgavit : in Christo Iesu non est Iudaeus neque Graecus, non est servus neque liber, non est masculus neque femina; omnes vos enim unum (εἷς) estis in Christo Iesu (Gal. 3,28). Hac autem lege etiam virginem matrem suam omnium hominum proclamat beatissimam , quae scil. plus quam omnes homines Dei voluntati erat obsequens !. Proinde non modo matrem non negat , sed maximo illam esse apud se honore et amore declarat. Subtilius aliqui quaerunt qua ratione quis possit esse frater et mater Christi. Atque fratrem esse quia coelesti quadam generatione et adoptione sit filius Dei et semen Dei in se habeat (cf. loan. 1.13 ex Deo natus; 1 Ioan. 3,9) et coheres sit Christi (S. Thom. Aib.); matrem autem esse vel quia per fidem et caritatem in eis formetur Christus (Gal. 4,19; A/D. Dion.) vel eum dici matrem qui praedicando Christum cordibus audientium infuderit, secundum illud : in Christo Iesu ego vos genui, vel : filioli quos iterum parturio (1 Cor. 4,15. Gal. 4,19; ita S. Gregorius, hom. in evang. 3,9; M. 76,1086; Pasch. Ans. laud. Thom. Alb. Dion. Bar.). Etsi hoc aliquo vero sensu dici potest, tamen ab hac Christi sententia alienum est, cum Christus non aliquos tantum, sed omnes quotquot voluntatem Dei fecerint, loco fratris, sororis, matris se habere asserat; iam vero manifestum est non omnes praedicatione posse Christo adoratores et socios adducere, neque Christus eam apposuit conditionem, verum solum ut quis Patri sit obediens. Eo quod mater et fratres foris stant, aliqui significatum mystice censent synagogam foris stare et manere et ab ingressu et aditu ad Christum abstinere, dum Christus gentium turbis praedicat (cf. S. Hil. Ambr. Hier. Gregor. |. c. 8,1, Bed. Pasch. Ians.). Sed id subtilius quam verius dici videtur. Neque enim probari posse existimo vel matrem Domini repraesentare synagogam a fide Christi alienam. vel qui venerint ut loquerentur cum Iesu et qui ad eum vocandum miserint esse figuram et typum eorum qui ad Christum venire nolint. Tota proin significatio haec mystica reponitur in voce foris quae a contextu plane avellitur, uti quoque fit, si S. Gregorius dicit, synagogam sese ad custodiam litterae foris fixisse. Sed id quod illi volunt habes expressum in ipsis Christi verbis, quibus cognati Christi ii soli et jii omnes agnoscuntur qui voluntatem Patris fecerint; ergo ab ea cognatione exclusa cernitur generatio haec mala et adultera. Itaque uti Christus in discipulis suis et in eis qui in circuitu sedebant audientes eum eique credentes (Marc. 3,34) agnoscit et profitetur populum olim electum minime excludi a regno Dei, ita sollemniter quoque declaratet proclamat unicum titulum quo quis regno eiusque bonis potiatur esse obsequium Dei. Hanc viam unicam ostendit generationi huic malae et adulterae, quam si non ingressa fuerit, fient. novissima peiora prioribus. Libet concludere hoc caput prout conclusit A4/b. : « collige igitur quae dicta sunt in hoc capitulo et videbis regem Christum se dominum dicere principalis signi quod est sabbatum, et dominum templi et praeponere se prophetiae et regi, et sic cessationem inducere veteris legis quoad signa et cultum, prophetiam et regiam unctionem per nova gratiae mandata quae inducit, et omnia carnalia quae lex praecipiebat ad spiritualia esse ordinata ». Adde exponi qui sint regno Dei inepti et quare, adde indicari odium implacabile pharisaeorum, Christi mortem et resurrectionem, populi infidelis ruinam extremam et neminem posse Deo placere nisi fide et obedientia. 4. Quae sit regni messiani natura et efficacia. Cap. 13. Christus tamquam regni fundator apostolos eius regni principes elegit et edocuit (cap. 10), qui essent inepti regno, qui vero apti exposuit (cap. 11. 19). Iam quae sit regni huius natura, indoles, efficacia, virtus parabolis explicare aggreditur evangelista. Sunt eae septem numero, quas diverso tempore a Christo dictas evangelista in unum locum ad regni indolem illustrandam congessit. Et prima quidem de seminante docet regnum fundari praedicatione quae tamen pro vario animorum habitu saepe fructu carebit, alias multiplicem virtutum ornatum efficiet. Altera de zizaniis docet etiam iis qui regnum iam ingressi sunt instare perversionis periculum atque in ipso regno hisce in terris exsistere bonos et malos. Tertia de grano sinapis adumbrat regni ex parvis initiis ortum et eius in orbem universum propagationem. Quarta de fermento demonstrat quanta vi et efficacia omnes . . . s τὺ V PACEM - - "n des AS uei. 0 Loop oirgxw-0 A. Nis Ee DS 770005 Doe due 6S ASI ws Aem felTec Gutetfly o » - 1 humanae vitae conditiones doctrina regni sit penetratura. Quinta de thesauro abscondito ostendit bonorum copiam in eo regno conclusam, quam ut adipiscamur reliqua omnia sint pro pretio danda. Sexta de margarita summam huius regni virtutem , pulchritudinem, dignitatem, existimationem manifestat, pro qua cuncta profundere oporteat. Septima demum huius regni terrenam consummationem quae ultimo futura sit iudicio et sortem bonorum impiorumque aeternam describit. In duabus itaque prioribus regnum nobis exhibetur quatenus variis impedimentis eius doctrina et fructus qui inde sperari possit obiicitur, impedimentis , ut S. Thomas dicit, αὖ intra, quae in prima parabola designantur, et ab extra, ἃ diabolo, de quibus in secunda agitur. Duae subsequentes eius regni efficaciam ostendunt duplicem quatenus eius propagationem per orbem in grano sinapis et eius vim ad humana omnia consecranda in fermento demonstrant. Aliae duae nobis ostendunt quanti sit regnum aestimandum propter abundantiam bonorum et maximam eius virtutem et pretium summum. Quibus apte subiungitur finis οἱ consummatio regni terrestris eiusque membrorum sors aeterna. Bene itaque S. Thomas ait in parabolica doctrina hac intendi tria : primo poni impedimenta evangelicae doctrinae, secundo profectum, tertio dignitatem. Haec autem de regno messiano doctrina parabolis involuta quam maxime diversa est ab illa regni exspectatione quam ludaei communiter fovebant. Nihil de ortu eius glorioso, omnibus conspicuo; nihil de pompa, subiectione gentium , dominatione Iudaeorum ; immo nihil de iure illo hereditario quo Iudaei se omnes in regnum illud esse transferendos opinabantur titulo nativitatis a patribus quibus promissio facta sit. Quapropter mirum non est istis opinionibus imbutos quid hae parabolae sibi vellent et ad quid tenderent non intellexisse. Neque enim credebant Iesum esse Messiam ; humili eius habitu offendebantur; tot ac tanta videntes miracula non videbant, tot audientes Iesu de se testimonia non audiebant quid istis omnibus ipsis clare proponeretur. Quam rationem ipse Christus aperte indicat (13,11 seq.) ; atque in eius verbi confirmationem post parabolas narratur exemplum obdurationis illius ac caecitatis quod ipsi Iesu cives ediderunt (13,53- 58).
12:1
Mt débute par une indication du temps, mais presque aussi vague que l'absence.de date dans Me. et dans Le. — Ce qui est essentiel, c’est que c'était un sabbat (σάδδατα, pluriel pour le sing.). Mc. ne parle que de l'action; Mt. indique le motif : les disciples avaient faim, et de fait ils mangèrent; or Le. est avec Mt. sur ce dernier point. — ἐν τοῖς σάδδασιν est dans Me. mais eût été lourd après ἐν ἔχ, τῷ καιρῷ,
12:2
Les Pharisiens s ’adressent à Jésus, comme dans Mc., et c'est bien lui qui répond. C'est donc Le. qui s’est écarté de la tradition.
12:4
Mt. comme Le. omet le synchronisme d’Abiathar, ce qui s ‘expliquerait sans dépendance, mais il dit εἰ μὴ τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν μόνοις, et Le. a aussi μόνους. Le. ἃ mis en ordre la phrase de Mc., tandis que si Mt. a le pluriel ἔφαγον, cela met moins en relief la personnalité et la responsabilité de David.
12:5
Propre à Mt., mais tout à fait en situation : ἢ οὐχ ἀνέγνωτε, répond au même mot, v. 3, comme une seconde strophe. L'exemple de David était très heureusement choisi, et les scribes n'auraient pas osé dire que le saint roi avait eu tort; une action d'un pareil homme dans l'Écriture était toujours censée louable ou du moins permise, si elle n'élait blâmée expressément. Mais une dérogation exceptionnelle à une loi résolvait-elle la question du sabbat? Aucun évangéliste ne l'a pensé, puisqu'ils ont ajouté une autre raison. Mais déjà Mt. en donne une qui est plus topique, puisqu'il s’agit d'un usage constant, et peut-être même Jésus a-t-il visé spécialement la loi sur les pains de proposition, qui ordonnait de les placer le jour du sabbat (Lev. χχιν, 8). Même le sacrifice de l'agneau était doublé ce jour-là (Num. xxvu, 9). — δέδηλος, « accessible » (Baivw), par opposition au Haram réservé à Dieu, d'où le verbe βεδηλοῦν peut-être formé par les LXX pdur signifier rendre profane. D'ordinaire c'est une sorte de sacrilège, et il semble que la Bible n’emploie ce mot que dans notre sens de profanation. (Is. avi, 2. 6; Soph. un, # etc.). Mais on pouvait licitement faire passer un objet sacré à l'usage profane; le même mot 557 « profaner », signifie chez les rabbins l’usage profane licite relativement à une chose sacrée, spécialement «une plaie pour laquelle on profane le sabbat » (4b. Zar. 28t). C'est dans ce sens que le mot est employé par Jésus; aussi les prêtres sont-ils ἀναίτιοι, ce qui se dit des personnes en grec, mais seulement du sang dans les LXX (MeN.).
12:6
Ce verset, propre à Mt., est nécessaire, quoi qu’on en dise (MeN., Klost.), car on eût pu répondre que le Temple avait ses privilèges. Les modernes objectent que l'exemption était en faveur du service du Temple, et que les disciples n’avaient pas encore rendu de culte à Jésus. Mais l'argument ne suppose pas un parallèle aussi étroit. On dirait que ML. ἃ évité à dessein le masculin μείζων, qui mettrait plus en relief la personne du Messie. Ce qui est comparé au Temple c'est quelque chose d'indéterminé, dont le Messie est assurément le centre, mais qui figure comme un ordre nouveau au-dessus de l'ancien (cf. xt, 11).
12:7
Propre à Mt. Aucune raison, bien au contraire, de le croire transposé tel quel d'après une autre circonstance. Nous ne parlons pas de la citation d’Osée vi, 6, qui ἃ déjà été employée dans Mt. 1x, 13. Ici, comme dans toute cette série de discussions, Jésus prend l'offensive et révèle, sinon à ses adversaires, du moins aux autres, de quel esprit les scribes sont pénétrés. En admettant qu'ils n'aient pas compris que désormais la Loi serait remplie d'après un esprit nouveau, ils auraient dû savoir du moins que l'économie ancienne mettait déjà la charité au-dessus des sacrifices. Ce simple principe eût dû les empêcher de condamner des innocents, car les disciples l'étaient, puisqu'ils n'avaient pas violé la Loi, subordonnée à la nécessité. Cette nécessité correspond bien à la faim que les disciples avaient éprouvée dans Mi. seul.
12:8
Dans Mc. l'épisode des épis donnait lieu, au v. 27, à une conclusion très naturelle. Si l’homme peut dans certaines circonstances violer le sabbat sans être en faute, c’est qu'en somme le sabbat est pour l'homme et non l'homme pour le sabbat. Mt. eût pu la placer après son v. 4. Mais il l’a omise parce qu’il a passé à un autre ordre d'idées qui permettrait une conclusion d’une portée plus haute. Celle de Me. valait pour l’ordre juif. Mais Mt. a introduit une sorte de crescendo conduisant à un ordre nouveau. Le sabbat est une institution divine qui n'est pas applicable si elle lèse l'homme. Combien plus si elle paralysait le culte divin! Elle n'était donc pas applicable au Temple. Mais il y avait plus que le Temple depuis que Jésus avait paru. Il y avait le Fils de l'homme. Les disciples étaient innocents sous l'œil de leur maître, car le Fils de l’homme est le Maître du sabbat. Sans abolir formellement le sabbat, Jésus laissait pressentir qu'il serait subordonné à sa personne et à son œuvre. Jésus ἃ pour ainsi dire transporté la question du domaine de la morale dans la sphère historique de la religion. Au lieu d’une conclusion morale permanente ἐπ casu, il suggère que des changements pourraient résulter d'une situation nouvelle. Tout est donc parfaitement dans l'ordre, et dans Mc., et dans Mt., et rien ne s'oppose à ce que les paroles de Jésus aient contenu les deux éléments, en plaçant, comme nous disions, la conclusion de Mc. où il la placée, avant le second degré de la discussion. Mais la conclusion de Mt. placée au v. 28 dans Mc. n’y est pas préparée. Elle ἃ tout à fait l'aspect d’une addition, addition très ancienne, puisqu'elle est dans Le. Ce dernier ayant sûrement senti la difficulté de mettre bout à bout les deux conclusions sans autre explication, a préféré la seconde qui préparait mieux l'avenir et mettait plus en relief la personnalité de Jésus. — Mt. el aussi Le. ont mis τοῦ σαδδάτου à sa place normale après le nomen regens, landis que Mc. l’a rejeté à la fin avec καί, ce qui produit plus d'effet. Ge passage est très fort pour indiquer une certaine dépendance du Mc. actuel vis-à-vis de Mi.
12:9
μεταδαίνω, jamais dans Mc.; indique dans Mt. seul les déplacements de Jésus (σι, 41; xv, 29), sans qu’on puisse savoir si le déplacement est considérable. En tout cas Mt. s’est abstenu de dire que ce sabbat était le même que le précédent, ce qui est exclu nettement par Le. (ἐν ἑτέρῳ σαδόάτῳ) et aussi par Mc. (son πάλιν). — Le lieu n’est pas indiqué non plus; leur synagogue, cf. iv, 23; leurs villes, xr, 4. — Mt. suit sa propre manière bien plutôt que celle de Mc.
12:10
καὶ ἰδού, l'homme se présente pour poser le casus. Sa main est ξηρά (de même Le.), dans Me. ἐξηραμμένη. Jérôme : In evangelio, quo utuntur Nazaraeni et Ebionitae, quod nuper in graecum de hebraeo sermone transtulimus, et quod vocatur «a plerisque Matthaei authenticum, homo iste, qui aridam habet manum, coementarius (maçon) scribitur, istiusmodi vocibus auilium precans : Caementarius eram, manibus victum quaeritans; precor te, lesu, ut mihi restituas sanitatem, ne turpiter mendicem cibos. Sur cet évangile, cf. RB. 1922, p. 1601 55.; 321 ss. Ce souvenir de la tradition pourrait bien être authentique, mais c’est peut-être aussi un ornement pour mettre en relief la durelé des Pharisiens. Car ceux qui interrogent sont sans doute les mêmes que dans la scène précédente. La question est posée nettement et sera résolue (v. 12) dans les mêmes termes. L'auteur est un esprit positif, attentif à la doctrine, habitué aux discussions. Dans Mc. (Le) les adversaires observent ce que Jésus va faire, dans Mt. ils veulent le prendre à ses paroles. Le but est le même, avoir une raison d’aceuser le Maître devant un tribunal. 11 5.) Dans Mc. (Lc.) Jésus devait répondre par un acte. Dans Mt, interrogé, il argumente. Les vv. 41 et 12 sont donc propres à Mt. qui n’a pas la même mise en scène.
12:11
La question ne. porte pas sur le fond du débat, comme dans Mc. et Le., mais sur un Cas particulier qui permettra, par analogie, de résoudre au fond. Il ἃ un parallèle dans Le. xiv, 5, mais avec des notes spéciales : un fils ou un bœuf dans un puits, tandis que, dans Mt., une brebis dans un trou; ce dernier terme est si général qu'il est inutile de chercher un répondant en Palestine. Dans Chabbat 128b, on suppose qu'une bête tombe dans un bras d'eau (NN O9), probablement un étang où l’on mène boire les bêtes. D’après ΒΔ}, amorra du ie 8., il était permis de la soutenir au moyen de couvertures et de coussins, ce qui ne paraît guère pratique. Les termes employés par le Sauveur prouvent qu'alors on avait assez de bon sens pour ne pas se faire trop de scrupules. Seulement c'était en vertu du principe général qu'il faut épargner les biens d'Israël. Cependant, d’après 76). Keth. τύ, 29h, « les Galiléens étaient plus soucieux de leur honneur que de leur argent, et les Judéens au contraire se souciaient de l'argent, maïs non de l'honneur ». Si les Pharisiens étaient venus de Jérusalem, la leçon eût été plus cinglante pour eux. — La coustruction est sémitique. D'abord une sorte de casus pendens, puis une condition coordonnée, puis l’action du sujet; cf. Gen. στιν, 1&etc. et avec l'interrogation Gen. xxvi, 33.
12:12
Combien un homme l'emporte! cf. vi, 26; x, 34. La conclusion est légitime. Car la question n'est pas de savoir s'il est aussi urgent de guérir une main desséchée, dont le mal est stationnaire, que de tirer d’un trou une bête qui a peut-être un membre brisé. Jésus a raisonné avec les rabbins selon leur méthode de résoudre un principe d’après un cas particulier; mais le principe une fois entrevu a sa valeur propre. Tout acte bon moralement (I Cor. vi, 37) peut être accompli le jour du sabbat. La conscience — influencée peutêtre par l'intérêt — fait juger bon le travail qu'on s'impose en faveur d'une bête. Combien plus l'acte de guérir un homme! C'est en somme le même raisonnement que dans Me., avec la conclusion positive, mais qui ne laisse entrevoir ni l'embarras des docteurs, ni la douleur que cause au Maître leur silence.
12:13
Comme Mec., mais au lieu de répéter « sa main » (ce qu'a fait Le.!}, ME, insiste sur la parfaite guérison. L'emploi du mot ἀπεχατεστάθη (par les trois) téraire qui a pu s'exercer sur le traducteur de peut bien trahir une influence lit pées dans des cas Ma., quoique la tradition ait pu avoir ses formules stéréoty semblables.
12:14
Les Pharisiens sont enfin nommés, comme dans Mc. qui ἃ en plus les Hérodiens (avec son εὐθύς favori). — On ne dira pas que συμθούλιον est emprunté à Me., si l'on se rappelle que Mt. seul l'emploie avec λαμθάνειν, et fréquemment sur, 453 xxvit, 1. 1; XXVI, 12. D'ailleurs ce dessein des Pharisiens n’a aucune conséquence signalée dans Mc., tandis que dans Mt. il va décider Jésus à se retirer (γνούς). Luc. qui ménage une gradation (et peut-être à cause du peu de résultat du dessein dans Mc.) a atténué beaucoup : les adversaires se consultent simplement. réorres (cf. Mc. ur, 7-12; LC. vi, 17-
12:15
γνούς propre à Mt., peu qui n’est employé par Mc. qu'ici, jamais ἀνεχώρησεν est un mot de ME. (10 fois), ἘΝ. T.), et dans Mi. le plus souvent par Le. (Jo. vi, 15; Act. χχπι, 19; XXVI, 31; ‘était le conseil donné par Jésus aux dans le sens de se dérober à un danger. (ἃ apôtres (x, 23). Cependant ce n'est point une fuile cachée aux Pharisiens. C'était déjà rompre leur dessein que de cesser d’argumenter contre eux dans les -synagogues. Hors des villes, accompagné d’une foule nombreuse, Jésus était plus en sûreté.
12:16
Il guérissait, mais il ne voulait pas que ses miracles, accomplis par bonté, sclame. Aussi interdisait-il à ceux qui étaient guéris lui fissent une sorte de ré qu'on lefit connaitre, sous-entendu comme le Messie. Il faut reconnaître l’étroite 18. OM. εἰς ἃ. ον 2° (Η) ou add. (TSV). ressemblance de ce verset avec le v. 12 de Mc. (seulement l’aoriste au lieu de l'imparfait et sans le πολλά de Me.), et en même temps que ces mots ont une portée bien différente dans Mc. où l’ordre est donné aux démons criant que Jésus était le Fils de Dieu. Notez que l’ordre du silence n’aboutit à rien dans Me., si bien que Le. ne l’a pas reproduit, tandis que dans Mt. il amène précisément la citation. On peut penser que la leçon primitive de Mt. était : πάντας δὲ οὖς ἐθεράπευσεν ἐπέπληξεν αὐτοῖς D 4 it (α ὃ ch) af (8), retouchée d'aprè 5. Mc. par καὶ ἐπετίμησεν αὐτοῖς. 17 85.) Au temps où Mi. écrivait, quelques gentils, dont le nombre croissait toujours, espéraient dans le nom de Jésus. Mais on savail que Jésus lui-même pe les avait pas évangélisés, et que sa carrière avait été modeste, toute de bonté et de douceur. C’est ce qu’exprimait un texle d'Isaie sur le serviteur de lahvé (un, 4-4); il avait trouvé les images les plus expressives pour dire sa mansuétude et le ton modeste de sa prédication, si nouveau parmi les criailleries orientales du marché. En même temps le texte d'Isaie indiquait la source divine de sa mission. La portée du texte dépassail donc l’occasion qui le faisait citer, et s’appliquait à tout ce que l’évangéliste avait déjà dit de Jésus. C'était un argument excellent conire le sentiment juif qui s’obstinait à réclamer contre un Messie aussi dépourvu de gloire, une leçon plus excellente encore con pour l'avenir.
12:17
La formule des citations de M£.; cf. 1, 22; 1, 45. C’est le quatrième renvoi à Isaïe (in, ὃ; 1v, 44; vin, 17), le grand prophète messianique; ensuite x, 35; et, dans la bouche de Jésus : xx, 14; xv, 7.
12:18
D'après 15. xLu, 4. Les Septante avaient inséré lacob et Israël, ce qui enlevait au Serviteur sa personnalité individuelle : Ἰακώβ ὁ παῖς μου, ἀντιλήψομαι αὐτοῦ" Ἰσραὴλ ὁ ἐχλεχτός μου, προσεδέξατο αὐτὸν ñ ψυχή μου, On ne peut donc qu'approuver Mt. d'avoir eu recours au texte hébreu; Cependant ὃν ἡρέτισα rend moins bien T2 FONN que ἀντιλήψομαι αὐτοῦ, d'ailleurs trop litléral : «que je saisis pour : « que je protège ». Ayant déjà l'idée du choix, Mt. met ἀγαπητός — qui 48 Voici mon serviteur que j'ai choisi, mon aimé, en qui s’est complue mon âme; je ferai reposer mon Esprit sur lui, et il annoncera le droit aux nations. 191] ne disputera ni ne criera,. et personne n’entendra sa voix dans les places publiques. 30 ἢ] ne brisera pas le roseau froissé, et n'éteindra pas la lampe fumante, jusqu’à ce qu’il conduise le droit à la victoire. signifie presque fils unique, et qui équivaut à donner à παῖς le sens de fils, — au lieu de ἔχλεχτός qui est bien le sens de l'hébreu, « mon élu ». En revanche nn est mieux traduit par εὐδόχησεν que par προσεδέξατο. -- θήσω est moins littéral que ἔδωχα. Après les aoristes qui marquaient sans doute la prédestination, Mt. met ici le futur (avec le Targum) en parallèle avec ἀπαγγελεῖ comme inaugurant la carrière du serviteur. Les LXX : χρίσιν vois ἔθνεσιν ἐξοίσει, plus littéral, mais trop littéral, aussi « faire sortir », expression trop sémitique, a-t-il été bien rendu par ἀπαγγελεῖ. — χρίσις traduit ou transcrit ΘΒ, que Condamin traduit « la Loi » mais qui est un terme plus général, sans doute choisi à dessein. Le don de l'Esprit de Dieu correspondrait mal à un simple enseignement de la lettre de la Loi; c’est le droit divin, et en somme la religion. Dans ce contexte, Mt. entend peut-être les nations des gentils répandus dans Israël, ou bien il représente d'avance le bruit fait chez les gentils par
12:19
LXX : où κεχράξεται οὐδὲ ἀνήσει, οὐδὲ ἀκουσθήσεται ἔξω à φωνὴ αὐτοῦ, traduction trop littérale de l'hébreu. — ἀνήσει « lancer en haut » (Nw“) c’est-à-dire « sa voix », quoique peut-être le texte soit altéré (Targum ἈΝ ΩΣ « il rugit »}). Mi. ἃ préféré interpréter : soulever une querelle, ce qui allait bien à son intention. Le Sauveur répondait aux Pharisiens, mais ce n'était pas lui qui provoquait les discussions. « Dans les places » au lieu de « au dehors » vient naturellement sous la plume (Kautzsch, Condamin). Ni les LXX ni Mt. ne rendeni très littéralement l'hébreu : « il ne fera pas entendre 20 85) LXX : κάλαμον τεθλασμένον οὐ συντρίψει, καὶ λίνον χαπνιζόμενον où σθδέσει. — θχάω signifie seulement broyer, mais συντρίδω broyer et briser; pour un roseau, briser convenait mieux et c'estle sens de l'hébreu. L'expression de Mt. est done plus juste (συντετριμμένον), et met déjà sur la voie de l’application, car ce verbe se disait au moral. Mais Mt. l'ayant déjà employé remplace suvreléw par κατάγνυμε (augment syllabique devant une voyelle transporté au futur), avec le même sens-de briser. Le λίνον est la mèche en fil qui plonge dans l'huile de la lampe. Quand l'huile manque, elle va s'éteignant (nn2), ce que les LXX οἱ Mt. ont rendu par une image très juste, elle se consume en fumant, καπνίζω el τύφω {au moyen). Ne pas briser un roseau déjà cassé, et ne pas éteindre une lampe qui fume sont des actes qui ne paraissent pas mériter une louange spéciale, si la pensée n’allait immédiatement aux âmes représentées par ces métaphores. 22, προσηνεχθὴ autre δαιμονίζομενος τυφλὸς xx χωφος (TSV) et non προσήνεγχαν a. δ..ον Ce sont des cœurs déjà meurtris, qu’un geste cassant achèverait, des esprits que la lumière abandonne et qu'il ne faut point heurter. Ὁ c) Après ἀλλὰ εἰς ἀλήθειαν ἐξοίσει κρίσιν" ἀναλάμψει καὶ où θραυσθήσεται, les LXX ἕως ἂν θῇ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς κρίσιν. Jérôme (Ep. cxxt, 2) ἃ pensé que le premier copiste de Mt. avait passé de κρίσιν à χρίσιν, omeltant le passage intermédiaire. Mais c’est plutôt Mt. qui a abrégé en omettant le début du v. 4 d'Isaïe, où il a pris ἕως ἄν pour terminer sa période. D'ailleurs il n’a pas suivi les LXX qui ont traduit fidèlement l’hébreu. ëxé&An est un équivalent de ἐξοίσει, mais pourquoi εἰς -γῖχος au lieu de εἰς &Anelav qui rend bien lhébreu? Zahn (Eïinleitung, τι, 317) a noté que ete νῖκος n'est employé par les LXX que pour rendre l’hébreu nx25 (1 Regn. π, 26; Am. 1, 11; viu, 7); c'est un contresens pour « à jamais comme dans Hab. 1, 4 um mb ΝΧῚ M9, qui ressemble à Isaïe xun, 3, contresens causé τ un autre sens de ΓΙΝΣ, « gloire », et en araméen « victoire ». ἢ est donc tout à fait probable que le grec de Mt. représente l’araméen nn, qui a pu s'introduire au lieu de DONS par une réminiscence d'Habacuc. Nous aurions ici un indice très sérieux que Mt. est une traduction de l'araméen. D'ailleurs l’idée de victoire était contenue dans le texte, et ce mot dispensait Mt. d'ajouter : « il ne sera pas fatigué ni lassé, jusqu'à ce qu'il ait établi sur la terre le jugement ». La pensée de Mt. semble avoir été « jusqu’à ce qu'il ait transformé en victoire le jugement porté contre lui par Israël »; c'est à ce moment que les gentils se tourneront vers lui. Jusqu'alors il sera bienveillant pour Israël déjà meurtri et bien près de sa ruine. Mt. avait probablement en vue la victoire dela résurrection qui remettait en vigueur le droit violé par la facon dont on avait abusé de la douceur du Christ. Le Targum entendait Isaïe du Messie.
12:21
Comme les LXX, en ajoutant ἐπί (qui n’est pas nécessaire en grec) avant τῷ ὀνόματι; en hébreu « et les îles attendent son enseignement ». On comprend que Mt. ait donné la préférence aux LXX. Les îles étaient un terme trop spécial pour représenter les Gentils, et ceux-ci ne regardaient pas seulement le Christ comme un docteur, mais comme un Sauveur; ils espéraient en son nom (Act. ιν, 42 etc.). Il est donc assez clair que le texte de Mt. suppose l'emploi des LXX, mais aussi de l'hébreu en vue d’une application plus précise au Christ. Jérôme (Ep. ΟΧΧΙ, 2) : Matthaeus sensum potius quam verba interprefans, pro LEGE, el INSULIS, #! Eten son nom les nations mettront leur espérance. NOMEN posuit ef GENTES. Εἰ hoc non solum in praesenti loco, sed ubicumque de veteri Instrumento Evangelistae et Apostoli testimonia protulerunt, diligentius observandum est : non eos verba secutos esse, sed sensum, par où il faut entendre un sens très largement le même. — L'hypothèse d'un recueil de testimonia où aurait puisé Mt. (cf. ΕΒ. 1921, p. 612 ss.) n’est suggérée par rien. .
12:22
Le texte de Le. χι, 14 ressemble plus à Mt. 1x, 32, où le démoniaque est seulement muet et où l’expulsion est mentionnée. Dans les deux cas de Mt. la calomnie des mêmes personnes est la même. On peut donc croire que le même miracle ἃ élé raconté une première fois par anticipation, ou bien. qu'il est répété ici où le plan de Mt. amène les discussions avec les Pharisiens. La circonstance de la cécité ἃ pu être ajoutée d'après une tradition plus complète, ou par un des premiers copistes pour différencier ce miracle: τυφλὸς καί est omis par C. — ἐθεράπευσεν étonne à propos d’un possédé, cependant cf. Le. IX, 42 ἰάσατο, mais après la menace au démon.
12:23
ἐξίσταντο, comme Le. τι, #7; Act. 11, 7. 423 1x, 21; le verbe n'est employé que cette fois dans Mt., mais c'est obsession pure que de prétendre (MeNeile) que Mt. l’a adapté d'après Mc. τι, 21 où ἐξέστη ἃ un autre sens. L'étonnement ici est admiratif; on commence à penser au Messie, que Mt. nomme Fils de «David, son appellation la plus courante. Ce n’est qu'un premier soupçon, car μήτι, pour l'ordinaire, suppose une réponse négative; ef. Le. νι, 39. Et en effet l'expulsion des démons, pratiquée par de simples exorcistes — avec plus ou moins de succès! — n’était pas de nature à révéler le Messie, dont le caractère distinctif . devait être, dans l'opinion générale, de régner sur Israël. Cependant cet enthousiasme (omis par Lc. et par Mc.), en exaspérant les Pharisiens, expliqué l'atrocité de leur calomnie.
12:24
En effet, ils répondent du tac au tac, οὗτος après οὗτος (v. 23). Comme l'action de Jésus dépasse de beaucoup les résultats des exorcismes ordinaires, ils supposent que ce pouvoir lui est donné par Béelzéboul. Sur ce nom, cf. sur Mc. τη, 22 (lequel ἃ de plus la calomnie que Jésus est possédé; cf. Jo. x, 20). Le. a écrit très clairement ἐν B. τῷ ἄρχοντι, mais Mt. a voulu dire la même chose et non pas : en Béelzéboul, un prince des démons; ayant mis l’article devant le nom propre (indéclinable), il ne l’a pas répété.
12:26
Très logiquement Mt. pose une mineure, contenue virtuellement dans Mc. etLc. C'est donc un véritable syllogisme, sice n’est que la conclusion a, comme dans Le, la forme interrogative. Ici ὀασιλεία signifie empire, puissance, et σταβήσεται est pris dans un sens correspondant. L'argument tient, parce que la comparaison est juste. Si Satan laisse croire qu’il est vaineu, ik Fest en réalité, car son empire dépend de son preslige. « Satan chasse Satan », est une expression très savoureuse, pour dire : si le prince des démons se chasse lui-même, dans la personne de ses sous-ordre. Elle ne se trouve pas dans Mc. et ἃ sûrement été évitée par Le., lequel termine par une explication un peu gauche, qui identifie Satan à Béelzéboul. 27 5.) Ces versets manquent à Mc. ei sont presque absolument semblables dans Le. et dans Mt. Klost. prétend qu'ils interrempent ke contexte de Me., et MeNeile les croit même empruntés à différents contextes. Ils n'ont pas remarqué que la pensée du verset 27 de Mc., 29 de Mi. (Le. 21), suppose nécessairement une idée intermédiaire, celle de la défaite de Satan. Elle est en réalité exprimée. dans Mc. soit par le caractère affirmatif de la formule, soit par les mots ajoutés ἀλλὰ τέλος ἔχει, qui ne sont pas une tautologie (contre Klost.). C'est cette idée que Mi. et Le. ont développée plus largement dans des termes évidemment authentiques. Comme 115 ont suspendu le premier argument par une interrogation, ils le reprennent par une sorte de contre-attaque qui conduira. plus clatrement au même point. Les adversaires me peuvent calomnier Jésus sans condamner ceux de leur bord, ou sans faire preuve d’un parti pris avéré. Mais si Jésus n'expulse pas les démons par Béelzéboul, comme il est d’ailleurs certain qu'il les expulse, et avec un #nperium inconnu jusque-là, c'est donc par une autre puissance. Cette puissance étant celle de Dieu, il est clair que son. règne est commencé, ce qui équivant à dire que Satan ou Béeizéhoul est vaincu par Jésus.
12:27
Comme Le., avec xal primitif au lieu de δέ.
12:28
Comme Le., sauf qu’il ἃ δαχτύλῳ Θεοῦ, expression scripturaire, qui n’est pas pour cela primitive, si l'on tient compte du goût de Le. pour le style des Septante. Mt. à πνεύματι qui prépare bien le v. 31 8. et qui doit donc appartenir à la contexture primitive. Dans ce verset ἐγώ n'a plus l'accent du v. précédent, et si Lc. l'a omis, c'est avec un sens délicat du style. C’est un des quatre cas où Mt. écrit le règne « de Dieu » et nom pas des cieux; cela était exigé ici pour correspondre ax début du verset plus exactement.
12:29
Si Jésus n'était pas vainqueur d’un personnage peu accommodant, se conduirait-il en maître? C'est ici une confirmation de sa victoire, qui vient dans Mt. plus naturellement que dans Me., où elle est introduite assez gauchement par ἀλλά. D'ailleurs les termes sont les mêmes, assurés probablement par la tradition, comme tant d'autres paroles de Jésus, tandis que Le. a écrit nouveau.
12:30
N'est pas dans Me., mais est [6] quel dans Le. La dépendance est d’autant plus évidente que cette maxime n’était pas exigée par la suite des idées. βλασφημία ἀφεθήσεται τοῖς ἀνθρώ- 81 Διὰ τοῦτο λέγω ὑμῖν, πᾶσα ἁμαρτία ai 85. ἱ ὃς ἐὰν εἴπ ποις, ἡ δὲ τοῦ πνεύματος βλασφημία οὐχ ἀφεθήσεται. 1,0 1 Ὁ λόγον κατὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ᾽ ὃς δ᾽ ἂν εἴπῃ χατὰ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου, οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ οὔτε ἐν τούτῳ τῷ αἰῶνι OÙTE ἐν τῷ
12:31
La formule est d’une précision merveilleuse, qui pourrait être regardée comme là condensation de celle de Me., mais ce peut être aussi le premier jet dans le moule du parallélisme sémitique. Le texte araméen portait nécessaire— ment « les fils des hommes » comme dans Me., mais le traducteur devait normalement écrire en grec « les hommes », d'autant que le Fils de l’homme venait ensuite dans un sens spécial. — πνεύματος, gén. de l'objet. Cf. Heb. x, 29 τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς χάριτος ἐνυδρίσας.
12:32
Le fils de l'homme d'après de nombreux critiques est un homme quelconque. Mais un homme aurait Dieu pour corrélatif, ce qui n’est pas le cas. 5] la pensée est un peu énigmatique, ce n’est pas une raison pour la remplacer par cette conception banale qu’une parole défavorable est plus grave contre Dieu que contre un homme. Dire cette parole irrémissible, c’est augmenter la difficulté théologique ou simplement humaine. D'ailleurs, dans la pensée de Mi., après le v. 31, cette parole est bien un blasphème, mot qui dans la Bible s'entend toujours d’une injure contre Dieu. Si Mt. n’a pas dit (comme Le.) « celui qui blasphème contre l’Esprit-Saint », c'est qu'il s'en est tenu à un strict parallélisme, complété par le contraste entre le temps présent et le temps à venir, expressions de la foi religieuse du temps (Le Messianisme.. p.158 58.). MeNeile a essayé de montrer que dans la langue religieuse des Juifs un péché qui n’est pas remis est simplement un péché très grave. Il cite Num xv, 80 8.; 1 Sam. πι, 44: Is. xx, 14, de vagues expressions rabbiniques et Philon De profugis (Mang. 1, 558). Mais les textes bibliques parlent seulement « du temps présent », et quant à Philon, il refuse de se prononcer : « c’est une tache difficile à guérir ou tout à fait inguérissable, que d'attribuer à la divinité d'être la cause des mauvaises [actions] ». Si ensuite Philon déclare « qu’on ne doit donner aucun pardon à ceux qui blasphèment contre la divinité », il l'entend de châtiments temporels. Sur le blasphème contre l'Esprit, en tant que distinct des autres, cf. Comm. Mc. Sur le texte de Mt., Jérôme parait bien avoir saisi le joint, surtout par quelques traits Quiverbum dixerit contra Filium hominis, scandalizatus carne mea. quod filius sim fabri, et fratres habeam, Jacobum, et Joseph et Judam; el homo vorator et vini petator sim, talis opinio atque blasphemia, quamquam culpa non careat erroris, tamen habeat veniam propter corporis vilitatem. Qui autem manifeste intelligens opera Dei, cum de virtute negare non possit, eadem stimulatus invidia, calumniatur… et opera Spiritus sancti dicit esse Beelzebub : isti non dimitletur. — Une pareille distinction n'était pas en somme au-dessus de l'intelligence des Pharisiens. Ils avaient jugé Jésus fort inférieur à leur idéal temporel des Maitres. Soit ! Mais quand il agissait en vertu de l'Esprit de Dieu, pour chasser des esprits mauvais et ennemis de l'homme et de sa dignité, il ne fallait pas en faire un complice de Satan. Tel est le péché. Jésus ἃ dit qu'il ne serait pas remis. Il ne saurait être excusé par la faiblesse humaine ou par ces circonstances qui sollicitent la miséricorde. Mais aucun docteur chrétien, regardant du côté de Dieu, n'a osé limiter sa miséricorde, et quand on regarde l'homme qui demande le pardon, personne n’a le droit de le refuser en alléguant l'Évangile. Le reste est le secret de Dieu. 35. om. τα (. αγαθα (HV) ou add. (TS). 86. om. ταν p. ο (TH) plutôt que add. (SV).
12:33
La forme de ML vu, 17 est plus coulante, parce que c'est un principe général, tandis qu'ici l'application est faite dans un sens donné. — ποιήσατε AU sens normal, et non pas au sens déclaratif.
12:34
Explique pourquoi il fallait opter, c'était pour sortir de la situation monstrueuse de l'hypocrisie. L'apostrophe : « race de vipères » avait déjà para dans la bouche de Jean (ur, 7); elle reviendra dans celle de Jésus (xxm, 33). — δύνασθε « comment vous est-il pratiquement possible », ce qui correspond à notre subjonctif. Mt. indique pourquoi cette situation est anormale par un principe imagé. Le cœur est comparé à un bassin dont le trop-plein s'écoule. Naturellement le trop-plein a la même nature que le contenu du bassin (Jac. mm, 41). “
12:35
Nouvelle comparaison pour suggérer la même vérité. Le trésor, c'est 18 contenu du coffre où Jon met ce que l’on possède. Si l’on est riche, il en sertira de V'or et des pierres précieuses ; le pauvre n'en tirera que des gueniüles. L'ordre de Le. vi, 45 est moins bon, car il fait de la première comparaison 18, preuve de la seconde. Cela n'est pas choquant cependant, à cause du caractère vague-de περισσεῦμα qui pouvait s'entendre du trop-phein du trésor. ἐκθάλλει (MLE.) doit répondre, mais plus littéralement, au même araméen (p23) que προφέρει (Le.). Jésus m'a pas pris la peine d'expliquer que, à la différence des arbres et des objets du trésor, l’homme n'est pas bon ou mauvais par mature. Personne n’y songeait chez les Juifs, où l’on savait que l'homme était doué du dibre arbitre, ce qui le rendait responsable et obligeait à le juger. Le Testzment d’Aser ἃ employé (1, 9) θησαυρός et πεπλήρωται pour dire que si le irésor de la conscience délibérante est rempli d'esprit mauvais, une action même bonne devient mauvaise ; ce qui dépasse le juste point. 80 5.) Propres à Mt. La perspective du jugement avait déjà été évoquée à propos de la parole contre d'Esprit-Saint (v. 82). Une fois le principe posé que les-paroles sont l'indice et Le produit du cœur, il en résulte que Les paroles elles-mêmes seront des motifs d'appréciation, et, ayant abordé ce point, le Sauveur déclare que les hommes devront rendre compte même des paroles inutiles : quanto magis vos, qui opera Spiritus Sancti calumniamini (Hier.). Otiosur verbum est, quod sine utilitate doquentis dicitur et audientis (Hier); omnis otiosi, id est imepti el inutilis dicti rationem Deo esse reddendam (Hal.). Cyprien suivait la traduction vacuum, moins bonne, car ἀργός est celwi qui ne travaille pas, qui n’aboutit pas. Au v. 36, il n'y a pas précisément anacoluthe (Schanz), mais construction araméenne commençant par le nomen pendens (MCN.). Au v. 37. & n'était pas mal rendu par de (k) pour le sens, d'autant qu'il n’est pas question d'aveux au jour du jugement, mais d'examen des anciennes paroles. Nous devions expliquer le contexte de Mt. Mais on doit noter que, au v. 37, Jésus s'adresse à un auditeur, sur un tout autre ton que lorsqu'il parlait aux vipères. Et une parole inutile est un bien léger grief à côté de leur calomnie. 11 semble donc que les deux versets avaient été prononcés par Jésus en vue de personnes auxquelles il proposait son idéal, très élevé, et qu'ils ont été placés ici par Mt. pour compléter le thème des paroles.
12:38
Malgré la liaison de l’instruction générale au thème de la calomnie, sur lequel nous venons d'insister, Mt. n'a pas prèté sa question aux mêmes Pharisiens qui venaient d'être mis hors de combat. Après avoir reçu des reproches si vifs, ils n'auraient pas tranquillement demandé un signe. Aussi a-t-il introduit des τίνες qui sont des Scribes et des Pharisiens. ἀπεχρίθησαν ne signifie donc pas qu'ils répondirent, mais qu'ils prirent la parole (sens araméen; cf. Comm. Me. p. 70); cf. syrsin. et cur. qui ont évité même ny. La demande d’un signe est dans Mc. vin, 11 s., mais spécialement d’un signe du ciel, ce qui est refusé. Ce passage eût pu inspirer Mt. xvr, 4 ss. mais non pas celui-ci. On ne peut pourtant pas, dans l'hypothèse des deux sources alternantes, les reconnaître toutes deux dans un même endroit; or, d’après les critiques, Mt. et Le. dépendent ici des Logia. Disons que Ma. à écrit ici d'original.
12:39
Le. devait éviter « adultère », épithète de la nation juive coupable, dont l'intelligence suppose la connaissance des prophètes; cf. Osée τὶ et Ez. xxur. Le titre de prophète donné à Jonas s'explique mieux par la place de son livre dans le Canon des Prophètes que par des prophéties proprement dites.
12:40
On ἃ prétendu que le verset n’est pas authentique, car il est rédigé expressément d’après les LXX (Jonas n, 4) pour la première partie; ἦν Ἰωνᾶς ἐν τῇ κοιλίᾳ τοῦ χήτους τρεῖς ἡμέρας καὶ τρεῖς νύκτας, avec une sorte de décalque sur 16 Fils de l'homme, avec le cœur de la terre au lieu du ventre du poisson, et les mêmes trois jours et trois nuits, alors qu'aucun texte des évangélistes n'assigne trois nuits avant la résurrection. {Il semble aussi que Justin ne lisait pas ce passage, car après avoir cité le v. 39, il ajoute : « A ces paroles voilées, les auditeurs pouvaient comprendre qu'après sa crucifixion, le troisième jour il ressusciterait » (Dial. cvu, 1). — Mais peut-être Justin a-t-il voulu éviter la difficulté des trois jours et trois nuits. Comment donc supposer qu’un copiste l'aurait créée de gaieté de cœur ? Il y a plus, si Mt. avait écrit ce verset de son cru, comme le prétendent un grand nombre de critiques, il est très probable qu'il aurait indiqué expressément la résurrection, qu’il donne seulement à conclure de la limitation du séjour du Fils de l’homme dans le cœur de la terre. Et il aurait écrit : ressuscitera le troisième jour, ou tout au plas après trois jours, sans nommer Îles nuits. 1] semble donc que la tradition ἃ imposé cette formule à Mt. Que Le. l'ait évitée, cela se comprend, parce qu’elle se réfère à un détail de l'histoire d'Israël. Et ilest vraisemblable que le Sauveur a présenté en effet sous cette forme sa mort et sa résurrection, le grand signe donné à cette génération (1 Cer. τἀν, 44.ss.), et méconnu par l’ensemble du peuple juif. Quant à la difficulté des trois nuits à propos de la résurrection, on notera que trois jours et trois nuits sont une expression toute faite pour désigner trois jours, sans indiquer des jours complets. Nous n'avons qu'à nous «en tenir à l'usage ancien. Aïnsi dans Esther 1v, 46 un jeûne ἐπὶ ἡμέρας τρεῖς νύχτα χαὶ ἡμέραν se trouve terminé ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ (v, 1). Ici les mots doivent d'autant moins être pris à la lettre pour l'avenir qu'ils sont calqnés sur ce qui précède. La ressemblance sur la durée ne doit pas être serrée de plns près que pour les faits eux-mêmes. C’est une analogie qu'il faut entendre mutatis mufardis, comme le ventre du poisson est remplacé par le cœur de la terre, l'épreuve de Jonas par la mort du Christ qui est seulement sous-entendue. L'événement devait mettre toutes choses au point. Aussi le cœur de la terre peut-il très bien signifier le tombeau (Chrys. etc.). Κα. objecte qu’un tombeau creusé dans le roc ne va pas si profond; ce seraient les Limbes. Sait-il donc exactement où sont les Limbes? I Pet. ur, 49 n’est pas si précis. Le cœur de la terre répond-au ventre du poisson comme séjour de Jonas : nous devrions donc distinguer avec Thomas entre le corps et l'âme de Jésus. Mais ces précisions ne sont plus de l’exégèse. Le texte suggère seulement la mort et la sépulture de Jésus, durant un temps très court, puis un retour à la vie qui aurait dû paraître aux Juifs, comme le cas de Jonas aux Ninivites, un miracle éclatant auquel il fallait répondre par la pénitence. « Le cœur de la terre » ne se trouve pas dans da Bible, mais le cœur de la mer dans Ez. xxvn, 4, est le domaine de Tyr, donc il n'est pas nécessairement très profond; cf. IV Esd. χα, 25 : widisti virum ascendentem de 1 8.) Comme Le., mais dans un ordre différent, et plus naturel, puisque le nom de Jonas évoquait le souvenir des Ninivites. À la vérité ils ne s'étaient convertis qu'après le signe, et celui que vient de promettre Jésus est réservé à l'avenir. Mais lui-même avait déjà donné des preuves de sa mission, précisément-d’après son argumentation contre les Pharisiens. La transition des deux points de vueest plus aisée dans Le. où le Christ est le signe. εἷς τὸ κήρυγμα se comprendrait très bien comme équivalent à un beéh sémitique; cependant εἰς peut être pour πρός comme dans Herod. mr, 82 πρὸς τοῦτο τὸ κήρυγμα (Deb. $ 207).
12:43
καὶ οὐχ εὑρίσκει, moins lié que dans Le., d’où τότε (style de Mt.)au v. suivant.
Gomme Le., mais appliqué nettement à la génération présente par 45b, ce qui est en somme l'application la plus naturelle de la petite parabole. Si elle eût eu pour but de prémunir contre le danger des rechutes, elle eût dù faire aHusion à la négligence de la personne guérie. Le danger ne vient pas de là, mais de l'énergie redoublée des mauvais esprits. Un instant dérouté par la prédication de Jésus, expulsé de nombreux possédés, Satan fera de nouveaux efforts, et 18. génération actuelle, si elle n'ouvre pas les yeux et ne se met pas à l'œuvre, est menacée d’un sort pire qu'avant. Il n'est pas nécessaire de supposer qu'elle a déjà été convertie, car il n'y ἃ pas allégorie, mais une simple comparaison, à la vérité inspirée par les circonstances.
12:44
και ὦ. σεσαρωμενον (TH) plutôt que om. (SV).
σχολάζοντα, douteux dans Le., est certain dans Mt. ; c’est « inoccupé », cf. χαθέδρα σχολάζουσα (JuLEN, Caes. 316 €) « une chaire vacante ». S'il y avait allégorie, on pourrait l'interpréter du vide de Dieu. C'est simplement le premier trait de la description : vide, balayée, parée; ce qui semble inviter quelqu'un à s'installer. De crainte cependant d'une nouvelle mésaventure, le démon, qui n'est pas censé sorti de plein gré, amène du renfort, au détriment du pauvre patient. Mieux eût valu pour celui-ci n'être pas délivré. Mieux valait pour les Juifs l'ancien état avec ses imperfections, que la réprobalion, conséquence de leur refus er présence du salut qui leur était offert.
12:45
Mt. ajoute μεθ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ el l'application déjà indiquée : οὕτως... πονηρᾷ. 46. om. ὃε p. ετι (TH) plutôt que add. (SV). 47. om. avec THS ce verset inséré par Vogels : εἶπεν δέ τις αὐτῷ ἰδοὺ à μήτηρ σον χαὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί σου ἔξω ἑστήχασιν ζητοῦντες σοι λαλῆσαι (cf. Me. ur, 22).
12:46
Jésus pouvait être pressé par la foule dans une maison. Mt. met le pluriel « les foules », selon son usage, mais comment une maison peut-elle contenir des foules? Cependant ἔξω ne peut guère s'entendre : « hors du cercle de ces foules », surtout à cause de la maison de xm, 1. I y ἃ donc quelque inégalité de rédaction, causée par le raccord avec Mc. — Le motif des parents est très vague, mais c’est bien ce qui se dit en pareille circonstance : « on veut vous parler ». - .
12:47
Ce verset admis par Vogels et Hetz. est rejeté par Ti. H. S, car il manque à NBLT quatre min. ff k, syrsin. et cur., sa. — On objecte qu'il ἃ pu être omis à cause de l'homoioteleuton λαλῆσαι. Mais l'étonnant est justement que Mt. ait écrit de cette manière tellement redondante. Un copiste aura repris le v. 46 pour développer le ζητοῦντες dans le sens du v. 48, qui ἃ paru trop concis, mais qui suffisait parfaitement. .
12:48
En pareil cas, il y a toujours quelqu'un qui fait la commission, c'est ici le λέγων. Le τίς, cette fois très bien placé, accuse d’inélégance le τίς du v. 47.
12:49
Le geste d'étendre la main sur les disciples équivaut au regard de Mc. sur ceux qui élaient assis en cercle, avec quelque chose de plus solennel et de plus explicite, qui parait moins concret. .
12:50
ποιησὴ (THV) et non ποιὴ (8). — om. xx α. ἀδελφος (THV) et non add. (8).
Si la petite introduction historique a pu être retouchée d'après Me., les paroles de Jésus semblent avoir dans Mt. une nuance plus originale par l'expression : « mon père qui est dans les cieux », au lieu de τοῦ θεοῦ (Mc. Lc.). Sur les frères de Jésus et le sens de ces paroles, cf. Comm. Me. CH. XIII. LES PARABOLES. Le chapitre πὶ offre le même phénomène que le chap. xur. Il est consacré en entier au même sujet, sauf les derniers versets (53-58). Ce sujet, ce sont les paraboles du règne ou du royaume de Dieu. Il y en a sept : le semeur (1-9), l'ivraie (24-30), le grain de sénevé (31 s.), le levain (33), le trésor (44), la perle (45 s.), le filet (47-50). De plus, après le semeur, une instruction sur le but des paraboles (10-15), avec une félicitation aux disciples (16 s.), l'explication du semeur (18-23), l'explication de l’ivraie (36-43). Mais il faut noter surtout une première conclusion (34 s.) et une seconde conclusion (54 s.). Me. a le semeur, l'instruction sur les paraboles, l'explication du semeur, le grain de sénevé el la première conclusion. Mais il a de plus un développement sur le mystère, et ensuite la parabole du grain qui pousse seul (Mc. 1v, 21-25; 26-29). . . La dépendance de Le. par rapport à Me. est établie d’après les raisons ordinaires. Il a, en suivant l'ordre de Mc. sans rien omettre et sans rien ajouter le semeur, l'instruction sur les paraboles, l'explication du semeur et le développement sur le mystère (vur, 4-18) : après quoi il passe à autre chose. Mt. pourrait dépendre de Mc. selon une autre méthode, et c'est l'opinion du très grand nombre des critiques indépendants, si bien que Klost. accepte le verdict de J. Weiss : « Une des preuves les plus décisives de la dépendance de Mt. par rapport à Mc., c'est la manière dont il construit (dans ce’cas) avec ampleur sur la base de Mc. » Assurément on n'oserait prétendre que Mt. ait tiré ses sept paraboles des trois de Mc.; on admet qu'il avait une autre source, même pour le sénevé et pour l'ivraie (Le. x, 48-21). Dès lors il devrait à Mc. seulement le semeur et la théorie des paraboles. Mais pourquoi sa seconde source n’aurait-elle pas contenu le semeur, qui paraît avoir été tellement en vedette dans la tradition? Et s’il a emprunté à Mc. sa théorie des paraboles, pourquoi pas le développement sur le mystère? On dit qu’il avait déjà employé ces pensées : mais c’est avouer que la preuve de la dépendance fait défaut. Elle serait faite si Mt. avait suivi Mc. au risque de se répéter en quelque facon (doublets). I est cependant un point qui s’expliquerait assez naturellement par la dépendance. Si Mt. n'avait eu Me. sous les yeux, peut-être n'aurait-il pas coupé son ensemble par sa première conclusion qui répond à la conclusion de Mc. D'autre part, c'est comme une seconde pause avant un changement de place et avant les paraboles réservées aux disciples. Dans le Commentaire nous insisterons sur les nuances propres à M£., spécialement quant au but des paraboles. Mt. ayant si délibérement organisé une journée des paraboles, ce serait ici le lieu de comparer sa manière à celle des docteurs juifs. Ce travail ἃ été fait avec une singulière finesse d'analyse par M. Paul Fiebig, théologien protestant libéral, mais versé dans les études rabbiniques. Son ouvrage : Die Gleichnisreden Jesu im Lichte der rabbinischen Gleichnisse des neutestamentlichen Zeitalters (Tübingen, 4912), est plus complet et mieux ordonné que le précédent, Aléyüdische Gleichnisse und die Gleichnisse Jesu (1904); cf. La parabole en dehors de l’évangile (ΒΒ. 1909, p. 198 ss.; 342 ss.) et Buzv, Introduction aux paraboles évangéliques, Gabalda, 1912. On sait que Jülicher a prétendu que les paraboles, telles qu’elles sont dans les évangiles, reflètent mal la pensée primitive de Jésus. Il n'aurait prononcé que des paraboles selon le pur thème aristotélicien, parfaitement claires, de façon que pour déterminer celles qui sont authentiques et dans quelle mesure elles le sont, il faudrait éliminer tout ce qui est allégorique, où qui atténuerait la limpidité d'une seule leçon parfaitement nette. Nous croyons au contraire avee M. Fiebig que pour la forme extérieure les paraboles de Jésus ont: la même apparence que les paraboles des rabbins. Des deux parts on ἃ employé des sentences courtes, parfois légèrement énigmatiques, des paraboles proprement dites, quelques-unes par mode de petites histoires, des paraboles mêlées d’allégorie et d’où l'on pouvait tirer plus d’une Le style des paraboles, surtout dans Mt., est peut-être ce qui a la nuance sémitique la plus caractérisée, surtout par l'introduction, où l'objet introduit au début n'est pas toujours celui de la parabole, comme lorsque le règne de Dieu est comparé à un homme qui donne un festin, au lieu d'être comparé à ce festin. Le thème se poursuit avec les notes de la parabole sémitique, style assez uniforme, formules stéréotypées, qui semblent redondantes, mais d'autre part concision extrême qui laisse beaucoup à deviner, le parabaliste me prenant pas la peinè de balancer les deux parties, la figure et la réalité. Cependant, même sous le rapport de la forme, les paraboles de Jésus sont beaucoup plus coulantes. Il n'est pas nécessaire pour en comprendre le sens littéral de les paraphraser par des parenthèses, comme Fiebig est ebligé de le faire pour celles des rabbins. La différence est encore plus considérable quant aux sujets traités. Comme Fiebig la noté, on trouve chez les rabbins beaucoup de traits spécifiques du judaïsme. « Il y est question de la pratique de la Loi, de contradictions. apparentes entre deux textes, de savoir par qui les deux tables de la Loi ont été dressées la première et La seconde fois, de savoir si le ciel a été créé avant la terre, ou réciproquement, de savoir pourquoi les Juifs ont été: emmenés en exil précisément à Babylone », ete. (p. 241). En un mot, l'exégèse joue un rôle si prépondérant, et une exégèse si subtile, disons franchement si peu naturelle et donc si fausse, qu'il est très difficile de pénétrer le sens de ces paraboles, destinées en somme à faire plus de lumière. M. Fiebig reproche avec véhémence aux théologiens de ne pas s'en occuper. Leur vraie raison c’est que cette étude est très ardue. Et cela suffit sans doute pour établir la supériorité incontestable des paraboles de Jésus, qu'on peut comprendre sans avoir en tête tant de textes scripturaires et sans être rompu à des arguties d'école. Ce n'est pas qu'il n’y ait dans les paraboles rabbiniques des comparaisons ingénieuses, de petites fables bien venues, une manière piquante d’intéresser à des sujets qui quelquefois s'élèvent au-dessus de la normale et touchent à l'âme et à ses destinées. C’est le thème unique des paraboles de Jésus, qui ont surtout trait au règne de Dieu, tel qu'il le prêchait, et dont il était le principe et l'agent. Pas trace de nationalisme, aueune érudition : l'Écriture fait loi, mais les paraboles n’ont jamais pour but d'en révéler le sens. On ἃ prétendu que Jésus dépend directement des paraboles rabbiniques, et de telle ou telle en particulier. Mais peut-on seulement affirmer qu’une seule parabole authentique est antérieure à notre ère? Elles n’ont commenté à être écrites qu'au temps d'Aqiba (vers 130 ap. J.-C.), et la rédaction officielle des plus anciennes ne date que du temps de la Michna (vers 200). Le genre a été pratiqué par Hillel, mais les meilleures paraboles connues sont attribuées à Iokhanan ben Zakkaï vers 70 ap. J.-C. Le plus grand nombre n'a pas d'attestation écrite avant le v° ou le νι siècle. Dans ces conditions nous faisons preuve de crédulité peu exigeante en reconnaissant leur authenticité. Nous comparerons les meilleures à celles de l'Évangile : nulle part on ne peut affirmer une dépendance voulue. C’est dire que nous ne regardons pas non plus les Rabbins comme les imitateurs de Jésus. C’eût été trop contraire à leur esprit de lui emprunter quelque chose. Mais il ne paraît pas improbable que certaines paraboles aient été proposées pour le contredire discrètement ou sournoisement. Pour éviter des répétitions nous renvoyons pour les preuves de ces principes généraux aux paraboles elles-mêmes. Sur le but des paraboles, cf. après le v. 47. Nous jugeons inutile d’insister sur l’incomparable beauté des paraboles de Jésus. Le raisonnement serait aussi déplacé qu'inutile si le contact ne suffit pas. Quant.à leur valeur religieuse, à leur action sur les âmes, le christianisme donne la meilleure réponse par les fruits qu'il en tire. On doit concéder à: Jülicher que les Pères ont fort exagéré la part de l’allégorie : mais ce ἢ ἴδει pas par cette exégèse trop subtile que les paraboles touchent le cœur. CHAPITRE XI}
12:1
… are together with the "bridegroom" in the period of the messianic wedding: they will fast later, when the bridegroom is taken from them; as for the precept of Sabbath rest, let it be known that the Son of Man is also master of the Sabbath (Mt. 9:14-15; 12:1-8).
sees, against whom Jesus often rose up (cf. Mt. 12:1 ff.; Lk. 13:10 ff.; 14:1-6; Jn. 5:8 ff.; 9:14 ff., etc.), who declares that the sabbath is for men, not these slaves of it (Mk. 2:27). The height of meticulousness is reached in the Mishnah, …
12:4
… The Greek versions have indiscriminately: ἄρτοι τοῦ προσώπου (I Sam. 21:6; Neh. 10:33; Aquila more slavishly: προσώπων), ἄρτοι ἐνώπων (Ex. 25:30), οἱ ἄρτοι οἱ προσεύμενοι (ibid. 39:18 [36]), more often ἄρτοι τῆς προσθέσεως (ibid. 40:21; I Sam. 21:6; I Par. 9:32; 23:29 etc.; cf. Mt. 12:4 etc.; panes propositionis of the Vulgate, with inversion of the terms in Hebr. 9:2).
12:7
… Samuel, after reproaching Saul ("melior est oboedientia quam victimae," Hos. 6:6; Mt. 9:13; 12:7), applying the norms of holy war (Lev. 27:29) and the law of retaliation (Ex. 21:23-25), cut A. to pieces before the altar at Gilgal (1 Sam. 15).
12:8
… Thus in the waters of the Jordan and on Thabor (Mk. 17:11; Mt. 3:16 and 17:1; Lk. 3:21). Jesus acts as God: he forgives sins (Lk. 5:20), perfects and completes the law of God (Mt. 5:21), is master of the Sabbath (Mt. 12:8; Mk. 3:1), is judge of all men and promises eternal life to those who love him above all things (Mt. 7:22 and 25:31; 8:21 and 10:37; 19:21; Lk. 9:59 and 6:22; Mk. 10:21); only …
12:12
… Dante, Par. IX, 131 ff.; X, 94; XXIX, 106). The Messiah will be a shepherd solicitous for men, a flock without a guide (cf. Mt. 9, 36; Mc. 6, 34; I Pt. 2, 25; Num. 27, 17), he will be the Good Shepherd (Io. 10, 2-16; cf. Lc. 15, 4-6; Mt. 12, 12; 18, 11 ff.) who entrusts his lambs to Peter (Io. 21, 15; τὰ ἀρνία μου).
12:18
Servant of Yahweh (Heb. 'Ēbhedh Yahweh)
… For the writers of the New Testament it is enough to compare Mt. 12:18-21 with Is. 42:1-4; Rom. 15:21 with Is. 52:15; Jn. 12:38 with Is. 52:1; Mt. 8:17 with Is. 53:4; Acts 8:32-35 with Is. 53:7-8; Lk. 22:37 with Is. 53:12. In these one observes fulfilled …
12:21
pointed out as possessed by a demon and a Samaritan (Jn. 8:49); he rectified, qualifying it as blasphemy, the Pharisees' statement that had defined as a demonic work the miracle of the possessed man whom he himself had freed (Mt. 12:21 ff.); he publicly rebuked the servant of the high priest, who had struck him on the cheek (Jn. 18:23).
12:22
… But the Scriptures, on the other hand, attest that the d. are sometimes the cause of our misfortunes and infirmities (cf., besides Job 1 and 2, Mt. 12, 22; 17, 14-17). Moreover, prowling like a lion in search of prey (I Pt. 5, 8), they do not refrain from blowing on the fire of passions
… The study of two cases, externally similar, cured by Jesus, is enough to convince one of this: the blind man of Bethsaida (Mk. 8:22-26) and the blind and mute demoniac (Mt. 12:22); while in the first he obtains the cure by miraculously healing, in the second the effect is obtained by freeing the sick man from diabolical infestation. …
… Diabolical possession sometimes causes muteness (Matthew 9:32; 12; 22), blindness (Matthew 12:22), epilepsy (Matthew 17:14-20), madness (Matthew 5:1-5). Not all illnesses, however, are attributed to diabolical possessions; on the contrary, they are sometimes expressly distinguished …
12:23
The messianic expectation also emerges from various attitudes taken toward J. by the disciples of the Baptist, by the people, and by the leaders of Judaism (cf. Mt. 11:2-3; 12:23; 17:10; Mk. 11:7-10; 14:61; Jn. 4:25; 6:14, etc.). …
12:24
for which Beelzebul is to be preferred, a form attested by the best manuscripts (Mt. 12:24; Mk. 3:22; Lk. 11:15). This name (from ba'al and zēbhūbh) designates the prince of evil spirits, by whose power Jesus is accused by the Pharisees of having worked wonders. …
… Bēliam; Vulg. Belial, but some ancient Latin texts read Beliar or Belial) the head of the perverse spirits manifesting themselves in the life of the pagans, opposed to Christ-God (in the Synoptics he has the name "Beelzebul": Mt. 10, 25; 12, 24, 27; Mc. 3, 22), and the Pēšittā translates
… 11:19); in Acts 19:13 there is mention of Jewish exorcists; some cast out demons in the name of Jesus (Mark 9:37). To deny the divine cause of the miracle, the Jews accused Jesus of performing the miracle by means of the prince of demons (Matthew 9:34; 12:24, 27; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15, 19).
Holiness of Christ and of Mary
… accused him of gluttony [Mt. 11:19], of lawlessness, particularly of violating the sabbath [Jn. 5:18; 9:16] and of blasphemy [Mk. 2:7; Mt. 26:27; Jn. 5:18]; indeed they even went so far as to call him possessed by a demon [Jn. 7:20; 8:48-49; 10:20; cf. Mt. 12:24]) and among certain liberal neo-Protestants (DThC, VIII, coll. 1381-82).
12:25
… Almost always d. produces great scattering and conflict in action; then private and public harms can be grave, according to the word of Jesus Christ: « Omne regnum contra se divisum desolabitur » (Mt. 12, 25).
12:26
… the Messiah; Judas is his victim (Lc. 22:3; Io. 13:27); Peter and the Apostles are shaken by him (Lc. 22:31). His power is superhuman (II Thess. 2:9), and it opposes evangelization (I Thess. 2:18). The kingdom of S. stands against the Kingdom of God (Mt. 12:26; Mc. 3:24). But S. and his demons recognize the power of Jesus, the Messiah sent by God to destroy the works of S. and his own (Mc. 1:24, 34; 3:11-15, 23-27; 6:7; I Io. 3:8; cf. Act. …
12:27
As for the manner of expelling demons from the wretched demoniacs, Jesus alludes to the manner in use among the Jews (Matthew 12:27; Luke 11:19); in Acts 19:13 there is mention of Jewish exorcists; some cast out demons in the name of Jesus (Mark 9:37). To deny the divine cause of the miracle, the Jews accused Jesus …
12:28
In the New Testament the intervention of Satan, up to possession, is connected with the diabolical attempt to divert Christ's mission by way of seduction and intimidation (Mark 1:12 ff.; Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13; Luke 22:31), in order to hinder the Kingdom of God (Luke 11:20; Matthew 12:28).
… The Kingdom of God (v.) has a twofold phase, earthly and heavenly, in perfect continuity; there is only a difference of degree between them, not of nature (E. B. Allo, op. cit., p. cxiv f.). The Kingdom of God is already inaugurated (Matt. 11:12-15; 12:28; Luke 16:16; 17:20 f.; 1 Cor. 15:25); it must grow (Matt. 13:31 f.), throughout the whole world (Mark 3:13-19; 6:7-13; 13:9 f.; 16:15 f., 20; Acts 1:8; etc.), pass to the gentiles …
Jesus preaches the Kingdom of God as already brought by him among men (Mt. 11:12; 12:28; Lk. 17:21), open to whoever wishes to be happy (Mt. 5:3-11; 11:25-30), but also as still enclosed in the seed and developing little by little before being realized (Mt. 13:24-33), …
Mention must nevertheless be made of the scriptural difficulties: α) the sin "against the Holy Spirit" (Mt. 12:28-32; Mk. 3:28-30; Lk. 12:10) is proclaimed by Christ as irremissible, not through any defect of the power of the keys, but because, as a conscious resistance to the work of the Spirit …
… The Gospel describes many deliverances of possessed persons performed by Jesus with a mere command (Mk. 1, 34; 9, 24; Lk. 8, 30; 11, 14-26). Jesus gives as a characteristic of the Kingdom of God founded by him the expulsion of Satan and his demons (Mt. 12, 28; Lk. 10, 17; 11, 20) and transmits this exorcistic charism to his Apostles and to his Church (Mt. 10, 1; Mk. 16, 17). The Apostles in turn cast out "unclean spirits" (Acts 5, 16; 19, …
In the New Testament, the divine personal Spirit is the force that presides over the Incarnation, the foundation and the development of the Kingdom of God (Lc. 1:15, 35, 41, 67; 2:25-27; Mt. 3:16; 4:1; 10:20; 12:28; Lc. 4:1, 14; Io. 14:17; 16:7-15). The Acts of the Apostles constantly highlight the action of the divine Spirit, the supreme messianic gift (Act. 2:17) in the primitive Church (Act. …
12:29
… This dominion belonged to S. by right: St. Leo the Great, Sermo de Nativ., 22, 3 (PL 54, 196); St. Bernard deduces (from II Tim. 2, 26; Io. 14, 30; Mt. 12, 29; Lc. 11, 21; 22, 53) against Abelard "diabolum non solum potestatem sed et iustam habuisse in homines" (PL 182, 1065) from which only Jesus redeems. …
12:31
… with unequivocal clarity in the Incarnation of the Word (Lk. 1:35; Mt. 1:18), is certainly attested in connection with John the Baptist (Lk. 1:15), with Simeon (Lk. 2:25), with the baptism of Jesus (Mk. 1:9-11), with the blasphemy against him (Mt. 12:31-32) and in the promise of Jesus (Lk. 24:49). The testimonies of the Synoptics conclude with the trinitarian formula of Baptism: "Go therefore and teach all peoples, baptizing them in …
… paid the last penny." St. Cyprian (Ep. 55 ad Antonianum, n. 20: PL 3, 786) and the Latin Fathers saw in this a clear allusion to purgatory; modern exegetes hold that the text is not strained, if the metaphor of the prison is interpreted as purgatory; 2) Mt. 12:31-32: "and whoever speaks against the
12:32
… "strongholds and heights rising up against the knowledge of God" (II Cor. 10:4-5); the entire world lies in the evil one (ἐν τῷ πονηρῷ κεῖται; I Jn. 5:19); because he is the irreducible enemy of light his sin is irremissible (Jn. 1:5, 9-11; 15:22-24; 17:9; Mt. 12:32). It is more than an empire; it is almost a mystical body, as, echoing St. Augustine, St. Gregory the Great affirms (Hom. 16 in Ev.; cf. Moral., IV, 14); "Certe iniquorum omnium caput …
12:33
… Then he truly remits and cancels sins (Denz-U. 792, 799), since what matters to him is not exterior legalism, the righteousness of whitened sepulchres, but the interior renewal of man who, like a tree, bears good or bad fruit according to his interior state (cf. Mt. 12:33-35; 7:16-20; Lk. 6:43-46). The Lamb who takes away the sins of the world (Jn. 1:29) certainly cannot be content to cover man's sins, but brings a true interior purification and works …
12:36
All the angels will be judged (I Cor. 6, 3; II Pt. 2, 4; Jude 6) and all men (Mt. 25, 32; Rom. 14, 10; II Cor. 5, 10; Rev. 1, 7) concerning their thoughts (I Cor. 4, 5), their words (Mt. 12, 36), their deeds (Rom. 2, 6) and their omissions (Jas. 4, 17; Eccles. 12, 14).
… the first centuries of the Christian era. The Holy Fathers in eloquent pages commemorate that God searches the reins and the heart (Ps. 7, 10), that even every idle word, according to the saying of Jesus Christ, will be examined on the day of judgment (Mt. 12, 36). And before them St. Paul said that if we judged ourselves, we would avoid the divine judgment (I Cor. 11, 31). Voluntary expiation was strongly recommended as a preservation from God's punishment. …
12:37
To justify sometimes means to declare just an individual; for example, Prov. 17:15: "Qui iustificat impium et qui condemnat iustum, abominabilis est uterque apud Deum"; Mt. 12:37: "Ex verbis tuis iustificaberis et ex verbis tuis condemnaberis"; in these texts, as in others (for example, Is. 5:23), the so-called forensic sense is evident: to declare someone …
12:39
… apostolique, Paris 1949). The three lines of their catechesis mentioned above, the Apostles saw them concretely in the facts of the risen J. J., rising again, manifests himself as Son of God and the C.: to this miracle he had appealed as to the supreme proof (Mt. 12, 39 sign of Jonah; Jn. 2, 19 the rebuilt Temple) and now he manifests the glory of the Father in his face (II Cor. 4, 6). He manifests himself as such with miracles (the catch of fish, …
The historicity, commonly defended until the 19th century, seems to be taught by Jesus (Mt. 12:39-41; Lk. 11:29-32), who places the example of the Ninevites alongside that, certainly historical, of the queen of Sheba (1 Kings 10) and compares his own fate to that of G.: he will remain …
12:40
… The Divine Master himself taught the meaning of the symbolism of the episode of the prophet J., saying: "As J. remained three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so also the Son of Man will remain for three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Mt. 12:40). J. cast into the sea and swallowed by the monster is a symbol of the faithful departed laid in the tomb,
12:41
… Jesus often spoke of it in his preaching (Mt. 11, 22-23; 12, 41; 16, 27; 26, 64; Lk. 10, 12-14; 11, 31-32; Jn. 5, 29; 12, 48) and described its particulars with magnificence in the eschatological discourse: "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, …
… His Divinity shines forth in his words and in his works: he proclaims himself greater than David and Solomon (ibid. 12:41 ff.; Mk. 12:35), than the Angels (Mt. 4:11); he places himself on a par with God, completing the ancient law (ibid. 5:21 ff.), saying that he alone knows the Father and that only the Father …
12:42
In the New Testament he is remembered for his proverbial splendor (Mt. 6, 29) and wisdom (ibid. 12, 42). In the Western patristic tradition in general the judgment on him is unfavorable, on account of his final idolatry; less so among the Greeks. …
12:43
… apocryphon Enoch, 'Ažā'zēl is the name of a demon or of Satan (8, 1; 12, 13; 13, 1; 15, 9); add that in Sacred Scripture the desert is often depicted as an image of desolation and death and as the dwelling of demons (Is. 13, 21; Bar. 4, 35; Tob. 8, 3; Mt. 12, 43; Apor. 18, 2; cf. Enoch, 10, 4; 'Ažā'zēl bound in the desert of Dudael). …
12:45
… They are possessed by one or more "unclean" or "evil" spirits (Matthew 12:45, and parallels) that torment them (Mark 5:2-6), that speak through their mouths (Mark 1:34;
12:46
BROTHERS OF JESUS. - Blood relatives of Jesus who in the Gospels (Mt. 12:46; 13:55; Mk. 3:31; 6:3; Lk. 8:19-21; Jn. 2:12; 7:3-5) and Acts 1:14 are called "his brothers" and in the epistles of St. Paul (1 Cor. 9:5; Gal. 1:19) "brothers of the Lord" (οἱ ἀδελφοί τοῦ Κυρίου). …
… Helvidium, 19: PL 23, 203) and then by many other Fathers and Latin writers, illustrated by St. Thomas with good theological reasons (In Mt. 12, 46; In Gal. 1, 19; cf. Verbum Domini, 24 [1944], pp. 97-99), enjoys the common consent of theologians, who regard it as certain.
… doctors were joined the mysterious words then spoken by Jesus and which M. and Joseph "did not understand" (ibid. 2, 50). Only later will M. understand to what extent her Son must be free from human ties in order to fulfill the will of his Father (cf. Mt. 12, 46-50).
is perfect" (1 Jn. 2:3-6; 2 Jn. 6; cf. Mt. 5:19; 7:21-23; 12:46-50; Lk. 11:27-28). Such recommendations, proportionate to the attraction exercised over them, prevented those whom Christ had constituted his "witnesses" from permitting themselves, especially …
12:47
Holiness of Christ and of Mary
… Braun, La Mère de Jésus dans l'oeuvre de St Jean, in Revue Thomiste, 50 [1950], pp. 446-52); Mt. 12:47 ("Ecce Mater tua et fratres tui foris stant quaerentes te" (it does not at all appear that the Virgin had the same sentiments and participated in the plan of the "brethren of Jesus"); …
Douay-Rheims (Challoner) · Vulgata Clementina · original Douay-Rheims (Rheims 1582), transcription by EEBO-TCP (CC0) · La Sacra Bibbia, tradotta dalla Volgata da Antonio Martini (1769-1781) (LaParola (laparola.net), Martini OSIS text, Public domain (LaParola's electronic edition marks it 'Dominio pubblico')). Public domain.