Yet by one other parable he fore sheweth the most deserued reprobation of the earthly and persecuting Iewes, and the gratious vocation of the Gentils in their place. 15 Then he defeateth the snare of the Pharisees and Herodians about paying tribute to Caesar. 23 He answereth also the inuention of the Sadducees against the Resurrection: 34 and a question that the Pharisees aske to pose him: turning and posing them againe, because they imagined that Christ should be no more then a man: 〈◊〉 and so he putteth al the busy Sectes to silence.
1And Jesus answering, spoke again in parables to them, saying:E Gesù ricominciò a parlare con essi per via di parabole, dicendo:AND IESVS ansvvering, spake againe in parables to them, saying:Et respondens Jesus, dixit iterum in parabolis eis, dicens: 2The kingdom of heaven is likened to a king who made a marriage for his son.Il regno de' cieli è simile a un re, il quale fece lo sposalizio del suo figliuolo:The kingdom of heauen is likened to a man being a king, vvhich made a • mariage to his sonne.Simile factum est regnum cælorum homini regi, qui fecit nuptias filio suo. 3And he sent his servants to call them that were invited to the marriage: and they would not come.E mandò i suoi servi a chiamare gli invitati alle nozze, e non volevano andare.And he sent his • seruants to call them that vvere inuited to the mariage: and they vvould not come.Et misit servos suos vocare invitatos ad nuptias, et nolebant venire. 4Again he sent other servants, saying: Tell them that were invited, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my beeves and fatlings are killed, and all things are ready. Come ye to the marriage.Mandò di nuovo altri servi, dicendo: Dite agli invitati: il mio desinare è già in ordine, si sono ammazzati i buoi, e gli animali di serbatoio, e tutto è pronto: venite alle nozze.Againe he sent other seruants, saying, Tel them that vvere inuited, Behold I haue prepared my dinner: my beeues and fatlings are killed, and al things are ready: come ye to the mariage.Iterum misit alios servos, dicens: Dicite invitatis: Ecce prandium meum paravi, tauri mei et altilia occisa sunt, et omnia parata: venite ad nuptias. 5But they neglected and went their ways, one to his farm and another to his merchandise.Ma quelli miser ciò in non cale: e se ne andarono chi alla sua villa, chi al suo negozio.But they neglected: and vvent their vvaies, • one to his farme, and an other to his merchandise:Illi autem neglexerunt: et abierunt, alius in villam suam, alius vero ad negotiationem suam: 6And the rest laid hands on his servants and, having treated them contumeliously, put them to death.Altri poi presero i servi di lui, e trattarongli ignominiosamente, e gli uccisero.and the rest laid hands vpon his seruants, and spitefully intreating them, murdered them.reliqui vero tenuerunt servos ejus, et contumeliis affectos occiderunt. 7But when the king had heard of it, he was angry: and sending his armies, he destroyed those murderers and burnt their city.Udito ciò, il re si sdegnò; e mandate le sue milizie, sterminò quegli omicidi, e dette alle fiamme la loro città.But vvhen the king had heard of it, he vvas vvroth, and sending his hostes, destroied those murderers, and burnt their citie.Rex autem cum audisset, iratus est: et missis exercitibus suis, perdidit homicidas illos, et civitatem illorum succendit.
8Then he saith to his servants: The marriage indeed is ready; but they that were invited were not worthy.Allora disse a' suoi servi: Le nozze erano all'ordine, ma quelli, che erano stati invitati, non furono degni.Then he saith to his seruants, The mariage in deede is ready: but they that vvere inuited, vvere not vvorthie.Tunc ait servis suis: Nuptiæ quidem paratæ sunt, sed qui invitati erant, non fuerunt digni: 9Go ye therefore into the highways; and as many as you shall find, call to the marriage.Andate dunque a' capi delle strade, e quanti riscontrerete, chiamate tutti allo nozze.Goe ye therfore into the high vvayes: and vvhosoeuer you shal finde, call to the mariage.ite ergo ad exitus viarum, et quoscumque inveneritis, vocate ad nuptias. 10And his servants going forth into the ways, gathered together all that they found, both bad and good: and the marriage was filled with guests.E andati i servitori di lui per le strade radunarono quanti trovarono e buoni, e cattivi, e il banchetto fu pieno di convitati.And his seruants going forth into the vvayes, gathered together al that they found, bad and good: and the mariage vvas filled vvith ghestes.Et egressi servi ejus in vias, congregaverunt omnes quos invenerunt, malos et bonos: et impletæ sunt nuptiæ discumbentium. 11And the king went in to see the guests: and he saw there a man who had not on a wedding garment.Ma entrato il re per vedere i convitati, vi osservò un uomo, che non era in abito da nozze.And the king vvent in to see the ghestes: and he savv there a man not attired in a vvedding garment.Intravit autem rex ut viderent discumbentes, et vidit ibi hominem non vestitum veste nuptiali. 12And he saith to him: Friend, how camest thou in hither not having on a wedding garment? But he was silent.E disselli: Amico, come se' tu entrato qua, non avendo la veste nuziale? Ma quegli ammutolì.And he saith to him, Frende, hovv camest thou in hither not hauing a vvedding garment? But he vvas dumme.Et ait illi: Amice, quomodo huc intrasti non habens vestem nuptialem ? At ille obmutavit. 13Then the king said to the waiters: Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the exterior darkness. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.Allora il re disse a' suoi ministri: legatelo per le mani, e pe' piedi, e gittatelo nelle tenebre esteriori: ivi sarà pianto, e stridore di denti.Then the king said to the vvaiters, Binde his hands and feete, and cast him into the vtter darkenes: there shal be vveeping & gnashing of teeth.Tunc dicit rex ministris: Ligatis manibus et pedibus ejus, mittite eum in tenebras exteriores: ibi erit fletus et stridor dentium.
14For many are called, but few are chosen.Imperocché molti sono i chiamati, e pochi gli eletti.For many be called, but fevv elect. •Multi enim sunt vocati, pauci vero electi. 15Then the Pharisees going, consulted among themselves how to insnare him in his speech.Allora i Farisei ritiratisi tenner consiglio per coglierlo in parole.Then the Pharisees departing, consulted among them selues for to entrappe him in his talke.Tunc abeuntes pharisæi, consilium inierunt ut caperent eum in sermone. 16And they sent to him their disciples with the Herodians, saying: Master, we know that thou art a true speaker and teachest the way of God in truth. Neither carest thou for any man: for thou dost not regard the person of men.E mandano da lui i loro discepoli con degli Erodiani, i quali dissero: Maestro, noi sappiamo, che tu se' verace, e insegni la via di Dio secondo la verità, senza badare a chicchessia; imperocché non guardi in faccia gli uomini.And they send to him their disciples vvith the Herodians, saying, Maister, vve knovv that thou art a true speaker, and teachest the vvay of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man. for thou doest not respect the person of men:Et mittunt ei discipulos suos cum Herodianis, dicentes: Magister, scimus quia verax es, et viam Dei in veritate doces, et non est tibi cura de aliquo: non enim respicis personam hominum: 17Tell us therefore what dost thou think? Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?Spiegaci adunque il tuo parere: È egli lecito, o no di pagare il tributo a Cesare?tel vs therfore vvhat is thy opinion, is it lavvful to giue tribute to Caesar, or not?dic ergo nobis quid tibi videtur, licet censum dare Cæsari, an non ? 18But Jesus knowing their wickedness, said: Why do you tempt me, ye hypocrites?Ma Gesù conoscendo la loro malizia, disse: Ipocriti, perché mi tentate?But IESVS knovving their naughtines, said, what do you tempt me Hypocrites?Cognita autem Jesus nequitia eorum, ait: Quid me tentatis hypocritæ ? 19Shew me the coin of the tribute. And they offered him a penny.Mostratemi la moneta del tributo. Ed essi gli presentarono un danaro.Shevv me the tribute coine. And they offred him a penie.Ostendite mihi numisma census. At illi obtulerunt ei denarium. 20And Jesus saith to them: Whose image and inscription is this?E Gesù disse loro: Di chi è questa immagine, e questa iscrizione?And IESVS saith to them, whose is this image and superscription?Et ait illis Jesus: Cujus est imago hæc, et superscriptio ? 21They say to him: Caesar’s. Then he saith to them: Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God, the things that are God’s.Gli risposero: Di Cesare. Allora egli disse loro: Rendete dunque a Cesare quel, che è di Cesare; e a Dio quel, che è di Dio.They say to him, Caesars. Then he saith to them, Render therfore the things that are Caesars, • to Caesar: and the things that are Gods, to God.Dicunt ei: Cæsaris. Tunc ait illis: Reddite ergo quæ sunt Cæsaris, Cæsari: et quæ sunt Dei, Deo.
22And hearing this, they wondered and, leaving him, went their ways.Ciò udito restarono stupefatti, e lasciatolo se ne andarono.And hearing it they marueled, and leauing him vvent their vvaies.Et audientes mirati sunt, et relicto eo abierunt. 23That day there came to him the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection; and asked him,In quel giorno andarono a ritrovarlo i Sadducei, i quali negano la risurrezione, e lo interrogarono,That day there came to him the Sadducees, that say there is no resurrection: and asked him,In illo die accesserunt ad eum sadducæi, qui dicunt non esse resurrectionem: et interrogaverunt eum, 24Saying: Master, Moses said: If a man die having no son, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up issue to his brother.Dicendo: Maestro, Mosè ha detto: Se uno muore non avendo figliuolo, il suo fratello sposi la moglie di lui, e dia discendenza al fratello.saying, Maister, Moyses said, If a man die not hauing a childe, that his brother marie his wife, and raise vp seede to his brother.dicentes: Magister, Moyses dixit: Si quis mortuus fuerit non habens filium, ut ducat frater ejus uxorem illius, et suscitet semen fratri suo. 25Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first having married a wife, died; and not having issue, left his wife to his brother.Or eranvi tra di noi sette fratelli: e il primo ammogliatosi venne a morte; e non avendo prole, lanciò la sua moglie al fratello.And there vvere vvith vs seuen brethren: and the first hauing maried a vvife, died: and not hauing issue, left his vvife to his brother.Erant autem apud nos septem fratres: et primus, uxore ducta, defunctus est: et non habens semen, reliquit uxorem suam fratri suo. 26In like manner the second and the third and so on, to the seventh.Lo stesso fu del secondo, e del terzo fino al settimo.In like maner the second and the third euen to the seuenth.Similiter secundus, et tertius usque ad septimum. 27And last of all the woman died also.Finalmente ultima di tutti morì anche la donna.And last of al the vvoman died also.Novissime autem omnium et mulier defuncta est. 28At the resurrection therefore, whose wife of the seven shall she be? For they all had her.Alla risurrezione adunque di chi sarà moglie dei sette? imperocché la hanno avuta tutti.In the resurrection therfore vvhose vvife of the seuen shal she be? for they al had her.In resurrectione ergo cujus erit de septem uxor ? omnes enim habuerunt eam. 29And Jesus answering, said to them: You err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.Ma Gesù rispose loro: Voi siete in errore, non intendendo le scritture, nè il potere di Dio.And IESVS answering, said to them, You do erre, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the povver of God.Respondens autem Jesus, ait illis: Erratis nescientes Scripturas, neque virtutem Dei.
30For in the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be married, but shall be as the angels of God in heaven.Imperocché alla risurrezione né gli uomini prendono moglie, nè le donne marito; ma sono come gli Angeli di Dio nel cielo.For in the resurrection neither shal they marie not be maried: but are • as the Angels of God in heauen.In resurrectione enim neque nubent, neque nubentur: sed erunt sicut angeli Dei in cælo. 31And concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read that which was spoken by God, saying to you:Riguardo poi alla risurrezione de' morti, non avete voi letto quello, che Dio espresse, dicendo a voi:And concerning the resurrectiō of the dead, haue you not read that vvich vvas spoken of God saying to you,De resurrectione autem mortuorum non legistis quod dictum est a Deo dicente vobis: 32I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.Io sono il Dio d'Abramo, il Dio di Isacco, il Dio di Giacobbe? Egli non è il Dio de' morti, ma de' vivi.I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Iacob? He is not God • of the dead, but of the liuing.Ego sum Deus Abraham, et Deus Isaac, et Deus Jacob ? Non est Deus mortuorum, sed viventium. 33And the multitudes hearing it were in admiration at his doctrine.Udito ciò le turbe, ammiravano la sua dottrina.And the multitudes hearing it, marueled at his doctrine.Et audientes turbæ, mirabantur in doctrina ejus. 34But the Pharisees, hearing that he had silenced the Sadducees, came together.Ma i Farisei avendo saputo, com'egli aveva chiuso la bocca a' Sadducei, si unirono insieme.But the Pharisees hearing that he had put the Sadducees to silence, came together:Pharisæi autem audientes quod silentium imposuisset sadducæis, convenerunt in unum: 35And one of them, a doctor of the law, asked him, tempting him:E uno di essi dottore della legge lo interrogò per tentarlo.and one of them a doctor of lavv asked of him, tempting him,et interrogavit eum unus ex eis legis doctor, tentans eum: 36Master, which is the great commandment in the law?Maestro, qual è il gran comandamento della legge?Maister, vvhich is the great commaundement in the lavv?Magister, quod est mandatum magnum in lege ? 37Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and with thy whole soul and with thy whole mind.Gesù dissegli: Amerai il Signore Dio tuo con tutto il tuo cuore, e con tutta l'anima tua, e con tutto il tuo spirito.IESVS said to him, Thou shalt loue the lord thy God from thy whole hart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole minde.Ait illi Jesus: Diliges Dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo, et in tota anima tua, et in tota mente tua.
38This is the greatest and the first commandment.Questo è il massimo, e primo comandamento.This is the greatest and the first commaundement.Hoc est maximum, et primum mandatum. 39And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.Il secondo poi è simile a questo: Amerai il prossimo tuo come te stesso.And the second is like to this, Thou shalt loue thy neighbour as thyself.Secundum autem simile est huic: Diliges proximum tuum, sicut teipsum. 40On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets.Da questi due comandamenti pende tutta quanta la legge, e i profeti.• On these tvvo commaundements dependeth the vvhole Lavv and the Prophets.In his duobus mandatis universa lex pendet, et prophetæ. 41And the Pharisees being gathered together, Jesus asked them,Ed essendo radunati insieme i Farisei, Gesù domandò loro,And the Pharisees being assembled, IESVS asked themCongregatis autem pharisæis, interrogavit eos Jesus, 42Saying: What think you of Christ? Whose son is he? They say to him: David’s.Dicendo: Che vi pare del Cristo: di chi è egli figliuolo? Gli risposero: Di Davidde.saying, What is your opinion of Christ? Whose sonne is he? They say to him, Dauids.dicens: Quid vobis videtur de Christo ? cujus filius est ? Dicunt ei: David. 43He saith to them: How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying:Egli disse loro: Come adunque Davidde in ispirito lo chiama Signore, dicendo:He saith to them, Hovv then doth Dauid in spirit cal him Lord, saying,Ait illis: Quomodo ergo David in spiritu vocat eum Dominum, dicens: 44The Lord said to my Lord: Sit on my right hand, until I make thy enemies thy footstool?Il Signore ha detto al mio Signore: Siedi alla mia destra, sin a tanto che io metta i tuoi nemici per isgabello ai tuoi piedi?The Lord said to my Lord, sitte on my right hand, vntil I put thine enemies the foote stole of thy feete?Dixit Dominus Domino meo: Sede a dextris meis, donec ponam inimicos tuos scabellum pedum tuorum ? 45If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?Se dunque Davidde lo chiama Signore, come è egli suo figliuolo?If Dauid therfore call him Lord, hovv is he his sonne?Si ergo David vocat eum Dominum, quomodo filius ejus est ? 46And no man was able to answer him a word: neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.E nessuno potea replicargli parola: né vi fu, chi ardisse da quel di in poi di interrogarlo.And no man could ansvver him a vvord: neither durst any man from that day aske him any more.Et nemo poterat ei respondere verbum: neque ausus fuit quisquam ex illa die eum amplius interrogare.
22:1
about the year A.D. 33.
Hom. lxx
Jesus answered, and spoke to them again in parables, and concludes his discourse with again describing, 1st. the reprobation of the Jews; 2d. the calling of the Gentiles to the true faith; and 3d. the final judgment of both the one and the other. In this parable of the marriage feast, says St. Chrysostom, our Saviour again declares to the Jews their reprobation, and the vocation of the Gentiles, their great ingratitude, and his tender solicitude for them. For he did not send them a single invitation only; he repeatedly invited them. Say, says he, to the invited; and afterwards, call the invited; thus evincing the greatness of their obstinacy, in resisting all the calls and pressing invitations of the Almighty. (Hom. lxx.)
Menochius
This parable is certainly not the same as that mentioned in St. Luke 14:16, as every one that will be at the pains to examine and compare all the circumstances of each, will easily discover, though they are very much alike. (Menochius)
22:2
Is like to a man being a king, etc. This parable seems different from that of Luke 14:16. See St. Augustine, lib. 2:de Cons. Evang. ch. LXX. The main design in this parable, is to shew the Jews that they were all invited to believe in Christ; though so few of them believed. The king is God; his son is Jesus Christ; the spouse is the Church; the marriage is Christ's incarnation; the feast, the grace of God in this life, and his glory in the next. His servants were the prophets; and lastly his precursor, St. John the Baptist.
Witham
My fatlings, which I have prepared, and made fat for the feast: but this is but an ornament of the parable. (Witham)
Menochius
The same takes place in the kingdom of heaven, as when a king makes a marriage feast for his son. Jesus Christ seems to have had two things in view in this parable: 1st. that many are called to the kingdom of heaven, that is his Church, and that few come, as he concludes, ver. 14, many are called, etc; 2d. that not all that come when called will be saved, that is will be reputed worthy of the celestial feast; because some have not on the wedding-garment, as he shews, ver. 11. (Menochius)
Bible de Vence
Thus the conduct of God in the formation of his Church, and in the vocation of men to glory which himself has prepared for them in the kingdom of heaven, is like to that of a king, wishing to celebrate the marriage of his son. (Bible de Vence)
Jansenius
Marriage is here mentioned, says St. Chrysostom to shew there is nothing sorrowful in the kingdom of God, but all full of the greatest spiritual joy. St. John the Baptist likewise calls our Saviour the spouse; and St. Paul says, I have espoused thee to one man, 2 Corinthians xi. (St. Chrysostom, hom. lxx.) See also Ephesians 5:25.; Apocalypse 21:2.; Apocalypse 21:9. The nuptials in this place do not signify the union of marriage, or the incarnation of Jesus Christ, by which the Church is made his spouse; but the marriage feast, to which men are said to be invited. This is no other than the doctrines, the sacraments and graces, with which God feeds and nourishes our souls, united to him by faith in this life, and by eternal joy and glory in the next. (Jansenius)
This union is begun here on earth by faith, is cemented by charity in all such as are united to Christ in the profession of the one true faith he came down to establish, and will be consummated and made perpetual hereafter by the eternal enjoyment of Christ in his heavenly kingdom.
22:3
Jansenius
His servants. John the Baptist and Christ himself, who took the form of a servant, to call such as had been formerly invited to the nuptials that were to be celebrated in his time. The Jews were invited by Moses and the prophets, and were instructed to believe that the Messias would celebrate this happy feast. On the predetermined day, they were again called by his servants, saying: Do penance; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand: come to the feast, that is become members of his Church, by believing in Christ. (Jansenius)
In the same manner, St. Chrysostom says that the Jews had been invited by the voice of the prophets, and afterwards by the Baptist, who declared to all, that Christ should increase, but that he himself should decrease. At length, they were invited by the Son in person, crying aloud to them: come to me all you that labour, and are heavily laden, and I will refresh you. (Matthew 11:28.) And again: if any man thirst, let him come to me and drink. (St. John 7:37.)
and not by his words only, but by his actions also did he call them; and after his resurrection, by the ministry of Peter and the rest of the apostles (hom. lxx,) he informed the invited Jews that the banquet was ready; because the Christian religion being now established, the way to eternal happiness was laid open to mankind.
22:5
St. John Chrysostom
One to his farm. After they had put to death the Son of God, still did the Almighty invite them to the marriage-feast; but they with futile excuses declined and slighted the proffered favour, wholly taken up with their temporal concerns and sensual enjoyments, their oxen, lands and wives. From the punishment inflicted on these, we learn, that no consideration, how specious soever it may appear, can prove a legitimate excuse for neglecting our spiritual duties. (St. John Chrysostom, hom. lxx.)
Such as refuse to be reconciled to the holy Catholic Church, allege vain pretexts and impediments; but all these originating in pride, indolence, or human respects, will not serve at the day of general retribution and strict scrutiny.
22:6
Witham
Put them to death. Thus the Jews had many times treated the prophets. (Witham)
Menochius
These were by far the most impious and the most ungrateful; tenuerunt Servos ejus, as is related in the Acts, with regard to the death of James, and Stephen, and Paul. (Menochius)
22:7
St. Chrysostom
Sending his armies. Here our Redeemer predicts the destruction of Jerusalem, by the armies of Vespasian and Titus, sent against them by the Almighty, in punishment of their incredulity and impiety. (St. Chrysostom, hom. lxx.)
Menochius and Maldonatus
Thus the king destroyed those murderers, and burnt their city; for sooner or later God is observed to exert his vengeance on all such as despise his word, or persecute his ministers. See the miseries to which the Jews were reduced in Josephus, book the 6th, ch. IX, Hist. of the Jewish war; who declares, that in the last siege of Jerusalem 1,100,000 persons perished, and that the city was completely destroyed. Other interpreters suppose that the evil spirits are here meant, by whom God punishes man, according to Psalm lxxvii, ver. 49. (Menochius and Maldonatus).
22:8
St. Chrysostom
Were not worthy. The Almighty knew full well that they were not worthy; he still sent them these frequently repeated invitations, that they might be left without any excuse. (St. Chrysostom, hom. lxx.)
Jansenius
More is signified here than the bare letter conveys; they were not only less worthy of the nuptials, but by their very great obstinacy, ingratitude and impiety, quite unworthy. Not so the Gentiles. (Jansenius)
Hence Christ says:
22:9
St. Chrysostom
Go ye therefore into the highways. The apostles first kept themselves within the precincts of Judea, but the Jews continually sought their destruction. Therefore St. Paul said to them, (Acts 13:46.) to you it behoved us first to speak the word of God, but seeing you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold we turn to the Gentiles. (St. Chrysostom, hom lxx.)
22:10
St. Chrysostom
Both bad and good. Christ had before told the Jews that harlots and publicans should, in preference to them, inherit the kingdom of heaven, and that the first should be last, and the last first, which preference of the Gentiles, tormented the Jews more than even the destruction of their city. (St. Chrysostom, hom. lxx.)
Bristow
Good and bad, persons of every tribe, tongue, people, nation, sex and profession, without any exception of persons or conditions. Hence it is evident that the Church of God doth not consist of the elect only; and, that faith alone, without the habit of charity and good works, will not suffice to save us. (Bristow)
22:11
St. John Chrysostom
Wedding garment, which Calvin erroneously understands of faith, for he came by faith to the nuptials. St. Augustine says it is the honour and glory of the spouse, which each one should seek, and not his own; and he shews this, in a sermon on the marriage feast, to be charity. This is the sentiment of the ancients, of St. Gregory, St. Ambrose, and others. What St. Chrysostom expounds it, viz. an immaculate life, or a life shining with virtues, and free from the filth of sin, is nearly the same; for charity cannot exist without a good life, nor the purity of a good life, without charity. In his 70th homily on St. Matthew, he says that the garment of life is our works; and this is here mentioned, that none might presume, (like Calvin and his followers) that faith alone was sufficient for salvation. When, therefore we are called by the grace of God, we are clothed with a white garment, to preserve which from every stain, from every grievous sin, depends upon the diligence (the watching and praying) of every individual. (St. John Chrysostom)
Bible de Vence
It was the custom then, as it still is in every civilized nation, not to appear at a marriage feast, or at a dinner of ceremony, except in the very best attire. (Bible de Vence)
22:12
Witham
Not having a wedding garment. By this one person, are represented all sinner void of the grace of God. (Witham)
St. Chrysostom
To enter with unclean garments, is to depart out of this life in the guilt of sin. For those are no less guilty of manifesting a contempt for the Deity, who presume to sit down in the filth of an unclean conscience, than those who neglected to answer the invitations of the Almighty. He is said to be silent, because having nothing to advance in his own defence, he remains self-condemned, and is hurried away to torments; the horrors of which words can never express. (St. Chrysostom, hom. lxx)
22:15
This is the third conference which Jesus Christ had with the Jews. It relates to the civil conduct of mankind, as directed and influenced by religion.
22:16
Challoner
The Herodians. That is, some that belonged to Herod, and that joined with him in standing up for the necessity of paying tribute to Caesar; that is, to the Roman emperor. Some are of opinion that there was a sect among the Jews called Herodians, from their maintaining that Herod was the Messias. (Challoner)
Nicholas of Lyra. and St. Chrysostom
These soldiers had come to Jerusalem for the feast of the Passover, which was to take place in a very few days. The Pharisees sent their disciples with these soldiers, that immediately as the former ensnared him in his discourse, the latter might apprehend him. It is worthy of remark, that these blood-thirsty miscreants sought to ensnare him in his words, not able to discover a fault in any action of his whole life. (Nicholas of Lyra. and St. Chrysostom)
Master, we know. The Pharisees had instructed their disciples and the Herodians to speak in this seemingly friendly manner to our Saviour, that they might put him off his guard, and thereby ensnare him; thinking that Jesus, like other men, could be led away by flattery. Thus do all hypocrites act. They first praise those they want to destroy; and thus by their deceitful words, lead them aside from the true path, into all kinds of evils and miseries. Thus St. Chrysostom, Tostatus, etc.
22:17
Witham
Is it lawful, reasonable and just, to give tribute to Caesar? It was at that time a question much agitated among the Jews, whether they, being the peculiar people of God, ought to be subject and pay taxes to Caesar, or to any prince whatsoever, or be exempt from them. (Witham)
Tirinus and Denis the Carthusian
Judas Galilaeus, about the time of Christ's birth, stirred up the people to a revolt, which though suppressed by violent measures, and himself slain by the Romans, yet the doctrine he broached did not expire with him. Some even among the Pharisees were of opinion, that it was unlawful for the people of God to serve strangers and idolaters, as we learn from Josephus. The question, therefore, proposed to our Saviour was insidious in the extreme, and not easy to be answered, without incurring the displeasure of one or other of the parties. For, if he answered that it was lawful, he would expose himself to the hatred of the Jews, who were aggrieved with what generally thought an unjust extortion, and a mark of servitude injurious to God; if he denied the legality of this hated capitation-tax, he would incur the displeasure of the Herodians, and be denounced to Caesar. This latter appears to have been their wish; as, in that case, it would have been very easy to persuade Pilate, that Christ and his disciples coming from Galilee, were favourers of that sect, who, from the name of their founder, Judas Galilaeus, were called Galilaeans; and some of whom, as we read in St. Luke (chap. 13:1,) Pilate put to death, whose blood he mingled with their sacrifices. Indeed so determined were the enemies of Christ to injure him with Pilate on this subject, that notwithstanding his answer was plainly in favour of the tribute, yet they blushed not a few days after to accuse him to Pilate of teaching it to be unlawful to pay tribute; we have found him, say they, forbidding tribute to be paid to Caesar. (Tirinus and Denis the Carthusian)
22:18
Tostatus
Ye hypocrites? Our divine Saviour knowing their malice, and that it was their wish in proposing this question, to render him odious to the people, or a suspicious character to the prince, answers them in these severe words. ... Another motive was, to let them see that the secrets of their inmost heart were open to him, and thus induce them to be converted from their wickedness; for, certainly, if they perceived that he could read their hearts, they must thence concluded that he was something more than human. This severe reprehension, according to St. Chrysostom, shews, that it is better for man that God should chastise him here in this life, than spare him here to chastise him hereafter. (Tostatus)
22:21
Witham
Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's. He neither directly decided the question, nor offended the Herodians. They admired his wisdom, were quite disappointed, and retired with confusion. (Witham)
Tirinus
The reasoning of Christ appears to be this: As you are the subjects of Caesar, which you plainly acknowledge by admitting his coin, upon which he inscribes himself lord of Asia, Syria, and Judaea, etc. it is but just you pay him the tribute due from subjects to their sovereign; nor have you any reason to object on the plea of religion, since he demands of you for the exigencies of the public service only temporal things, and such as are in some respects already his own, by being stamped with his own image and superscription. But spiritual things, which belong to God alone, as your souls, stamped with his image, divine worship, religious homage, etc. God, not Caesar, demands of you. "Give therefore to Caesar what belongeth to Caesar, and to God what belongeth to God." (Tirinus)
Origene † 253 d.C.
What our Saviour here commands us to give to God, is nothing else but our heart and affections. Here our divine Lord likewise shews us, how we are to steer the middle course between the two extremes, into which some persons fall. Some say that all must be given to God, and nothing to Caesar, that is all our time must be given to the care of our soul, and none to the care of the body; but Christ teaches that some must be given to the one, and part to the other. (Origen)
Although Christ clearly establishes here the strict obligation of paying to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, yet he is afterwards accused, as we have mentioned above, (see note on ver. 17) as if he forbade tribute to be paid to Caesar. In like manner, in spite of the most explicit declarations of the Catholic Church, respecting her loyalty and subjection to temporal powers, her enemies fail not to calumniate her doctrine as inimical to the state, and subversive of due subordination. But let our opponents attend to the following authority and public declaration of Pope Clement XIV. addressed to all Catholic bishops in the Christian world. "Be careful," says he, "that those whose instruction in the law of the gospel is committed to your charge, be made sensible from their very infancy of their sacred obligation of loyalty to their kings, of respect to their authority, and of submission to their laws, not only for wrath, but for conscience sake."
St. Athansius
But princes should not exact, and subjects should not affect to give them ecclesiastical jurisdiction. St. Athanasius quotes the following strong words from an epistle of the famous confessor Hosius, to Constantius, the Arian emperor: "Cease, I beseech thee, and remember that thou art mortal. Fear the day of judgment, and meddle not with ecclesiastical matters; neither do thou command us in this kind, but rather learn them of us. To thee God hath committed the empire; to us he hath committed what belongs to the Church. And as he who, with a malicious eye, hath designs upon thine empire, opposeth the ordinance of God; so do thou also beware lest, by an improper interference in ecclesiastical matters, thou be made guilty of a great crime. For it is written, Give to Caesar, etc. Therefore, neither is it lawful for us on earth to hold the empire, neither hast thou, O emperor, power over incense and sacred things." (St. Athansius, ep. ad solit. vitam agentes.)
St. Ambrose
And St. Ambrose to Valentinian, the emperor, (who by the ill counsel of his mother Justina, an Arian, required of St. Ambrose to have one church in Milan made over to the Arian heretics) saith: "We pay that which is Caesar's to Caesar, and that which is God's to God. Tribute is Caesar's; it is not denied. The Church is God's; it cannot verily be yielded to Caesar; because the temple of God cannot be Caesar's right. Be it said, as all must allow to the honour of the emperor, for what is more honourable than that the emperor be said to be the son of the Church? A good emperor is within the Church, but not above the Church." (St. Ambrose, lib. V. epist. Orat. de Basil, trad.)
22:24
Haydock
Raise up issue to his brother, to be heirs of his name and of his effects, as we read in Ruth 4:10.: suscitare nomen defuncti, etc. to raise up the name of the deceased in his inheritance, lest his name be cut off from among his family, and his brethren, and his people. (Haydock)
22:29
Jansenius
You err. The Sadducees erred in supposing that there would be no resurrection, or if there was, that the future state would be like the present. Unable to conceive any thing else, they thought themselves justified in concluding that the soul would not survive the body. Had they known the Scriptures, they would not have fallen into this error; since therein are found abundant testimonies of a resurrection, as Job xiv and xix, Isaias xxvi, Ezechiel xxxvii, Daniel xii. The power of God also, had they paid sufficient attention to that consideration, would have taught them the same truth. It cannot be difficult for that power, which created and formed all things from nothing, to raise the body again after it has been reduced to ashes: nor impossible to prepare in a future state, rewards and enjoyments superior to and widely different from any thing that is seen in our present stage of existence. (Jansenius)
22:30
Jansenius
As the angels. Not in every respect, for the body shall be likewise raised with the soul, whilst the angels are pure spirits: but in this we shall be like unto angels, we shall be endowed with immortality, and impassibility; and our joys, like those of the angels, shall be wholly spiritual. (Jansenius)
Bristow
If not to marry, nor to be married, be like unto angels, the state of religious persons, and of priests, is justly styled by the Fathers an angelic life. (St. Cyprian, lib. 2:de discip. et hab. Virg. sub finem.) (Bristow)
22:32
He is not the God of the dead. Jesus Christ here proves the resurrection of the body by the immortality of the soul; because in effect these two tenets are inseparable. The soul being immortal, ought necessarily to be one day reunited to the body, to receive therein the recompense or punishment which it has merited in this same body, when it was clothed with it.
By this text St. Jerome refutes the heretic Vigilantius, and in him many of modern date, who to diminish the honour Catholics pay to the saints, call them designedly dead men. But the Almighty is not the God of the dead; of consequence these patriarchs, dead as they are in our eyes as to their bodies, are still alive in the eyes of God as to their souls, which he has created immortal, and which he will undoubtedly have the power of reuniting to their bodies.
Witham
The Sadducees were a profane sect, who denied the resurrection of the body, and the existence of angels and spirits, and any future state in another world: (see Acts 23:8.) nor did they receive any books but the five books of Moses. Christ therefore, from a passage Exodus 3:15, shewed them that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, had still a being; because God, 200 years after the death of the last, said thus to Moses, I am the God of Abraham, etc. He did not say, (as St. Chrysostom takes notice) I was the God of Abraham, etc. Therefore these souls had a being: for the Lord would not call himself the God of those who were not at all: no one calling himself lord or king of those who are no more. (Witham)
22:34
Witham
The Pharisees heard that he had silenced their adversaries, the Sadducees, etc. Some of them, says St. Luke, (xx. 39.) applauded him, saying, Master, thou hast said well. (Witham)
Bible de Vence
The Pharisees assembled themselves together, that they might confound him by their numbers, whom they could not by their arguments. Wherefore they said one to another: let one speak for all, and all speak by one, that if one be reduced to silence, he alone may appear to be refuted; and, if he is victorious, we may all appear conquerors. Hence it is said, And one of them, a doctor of the law, (St. Chrysostom) asked him, tempting him, if he were really possessed of that wisdom and that knowledge which people so much admired in him. (Bible de Vence)
22:40
Bristow
On these two, etc. Whereby it is evident that all dependeth not upon faith only, though faith be the first, but much more upon charity, which is the love of God and of our neighbour, and which is the sum of all the law and the prophets; because he that hath this double charity, expressed here by these two principal commandments, fulfilleth all that is commanded in the law and the prophets. (Bristow)
22:45
Witham
If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? It was allowed of as a certain truth, that the Messias was to be the son of David. Christ shews them by David's own words, that he was the Lord as well as the son of David: and this is what they could not answer to. (Witham)
Tirinus
Jesus Christ here inculcates to the Pharisees, that two natures must be admitted in the Messias; in one of which, viz. in his human nature, he is the son of David, and as such inferior to him; and in the other, viz. in his divine nature, he is the son of God, and consequently superior to David; whence this latter, by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, justly calls him Lord. (Tirinus)
St. John Chrysostom
Jesus Christ does not wish them to think that the Messias is not the son of David, but only wished to rectify their opinion concerning him. When therefore he asks how he is the son, he teaches them that he is not after the manner they understand it, the mere Son, but what is much more, the Lord also, of David. (St. John Chrysostom, hom. lxxii.)
22:16
22:1
Liturgia The Gospel vpō the 19 Sunday after Pentecost.
22:2
2. Mariage.) Then did God the Father make this mariage, when by the mysterie of the Incarnation he ioyned to his sonne our Lord, the holy Church for his spouse. Greg. hom. •8.
22:3
3. Seruants.) The first seruants here sent to inuite, were the Prophets: the second, were the Apostles: and al that afterward conuerted countries, or that haue and doe reconcile men to the Church. Wordly excuses against reconciliation.
22:5
5. One to his farme) Such as refuse to be reconciled to Christes Church, alleage often vaine impediments and worldly excuses, which at the day of iudgement wil not serue them.
22:10
Not only good men be within the church, but also euil mē. against the Heretikes of these daies.
22:11
11. A man not attyred.] If profiteth not much to be within the Church and to be a Catholike, except a man be of good life, for such an one shal be damned, because with faith he hath not good workes: The Church cō sisteth of good and bad. as is euident by the example of this man, who was within, and at the feast as the rest, but lacked the garment of charitie and good workes. And by this man are represented al the bad that are called. and therfore they also are in the Church, as this man was at the feast: but because he was called, and yet none of the elect, it is euident that the Church doth not consist of the elect only contrarie to our Aduersaries.
2•. To Caesar.) Temporal duties and payments exacted by worldly Princes must be payed, Neither must temporal Princes exact, nor their Subiects giue vnto them, Ecclesiastical iurisdiction. so that God be not defrauded of his more soueraine dutie. And therfore Princes haue to take heede, how they exact: and others, how they geue to Caesar, that is, to their Prince, the things that are dewe to God, that is, to his Ecclesiastical ministers. Wherevpon S. Athanasius reciteth these goodly wordes out of an epistle of the ancient and famous Cōfessor Hosius Cordubensis to Cōstantius the Arian Emperour: Cease I beseche thee, and remember that thou art mortal, feare the day of iudgement, intermedle not with Ecclesiastical matters, neither doe thou commaund vs in this kinde, but rather learne them of vs, to thee God hath committed the Empire, to vs he hath cōmitted the things that belong to the Church: and as he that with malicious eies carpeth thine Empire, gainesayeth the ordinance of God: so doe thou also beware, lest in drawing vnto thee Ecclesiastical matters, thou be made guilty of a great crime. It is written, Geue ye the things that are Caesars, to Caesar: and the things that are Gods, to God. Therfore neither is it lawful for vs in earth to hold the Empire, neither hast thou (O Emperour) power ouer incense and sacred things. Athan. Ep. ad Solit. vitā agentes. And S. Ambrose to Valentinian the Emperour (who by the il counsel of his mother Iustina an Arian, required of S. Ambrose to haue one Church in Millan deputed to the Arian Heretikes) saith: we pay that which is Caesars, to Caesar: and that which is Gods, to God. Tribute is Caesars, it is not denied: the Church is Gods, it may not verely be yelded to Caesar: because the Temple of God can not be Caesars right. Which no man can deny but it is spoken with the honour of the Emperour. for what is more honorable then that the Emperour be said to be the sonne of the Church? For a good Emperour is within the Church, not aboue the Church, Ambr. lib. 5. Epist. Orat. de Basil. trad.
22:15
Concordanza Mr. 12, 13.
22:16
Concordanza Lu. 20, 20.
22:21
Concordanza Mr. 12, 19.
22:22
Concordanza Lu. 20, 27.
22:23
Concordanza Act. 23, 6.
22:24
Concordanza Deu. 25, 5.
22:30
30. As Angels.) As Christ proueth here, The Saints heare our prayers. that in heauen they neither marry nor are married, because there they shal be as Angels: by the very same reason, is proued, that Saints may heare our prayers and helpe vs, be they neere or farre of, because the Angels do so, and in euery moment are present vvher they list, and neede not to be neere vs, when they heare or helpe vs.
30. As Angels.) Not to marry nor be married, Religious single life, Angelical. is to be like to Angels: therfore is the state of Religious men and women and Priests, for not marrying, worthely called of the Fathers, an Angelical life. Cyp. lib. 2. de discipl. & ha•. Virg. sub finem.
22:31
Concordanza Exo. 3, 6.
22:32
32. Of the dead.) S. Hierom by this place disproueth the Heretike Vigilantius, and in him these of our time, which to diminish the honour of Saincts, call them of purpose, dead men.
22:34
Concordanza Mar. 12, 28.
Liturgia The Gospel vpō the 17 Sunday after Pentecost.
22:36
Concordanza Deut. 6, 5.
22:39
Concordanza Leu. 19, 18.
22:40
40. On these two.) Hereby it is euident that al dependeth not vpon faith only, Not onely faith. but much more vpon charitie (though faith be the first) which is the loue of God and of our neighbour, which is the summe of al the law and the Prophetes: because he that hath this double charitie expressed here by these two principal commaundemēts, fulfilleth and accomplisheth al that is commaunded in the Law and the Prophetes.
22:41
Concordanza Mr. 12, 35.
22:42
Concordanza Lu. 20, 41.
22:44
Concordanza Ps. 109. 1.
22:1
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 30
… and he said unto him, My friend, how didst thou come in here not having on festive garments? [29] And he was silent. Then the king said to the servants, Bind his hands and his feet, and put him forth into the outer darkness; there shall be weeping and [30] gnashing of teeth. The called are many; and the chosen, few.
sant'Ireneo di Lione † 202 d.C. Against Heresies 4.36.5
… and he said unto him, Friend, how camest thou hither, not having on a wedding garment? But he was speechless. Then said the king to his servants, Take him away, hand and foot, and cast him into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few are chosen.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on First Corinthians 15
… Wherefore saith Paul, ( Philip. iv. 4 .) “Rejoice in the Lord always; again I say, Rejoice.” Upon the festival days no one puts on filthy garments. Neither then let us do so. For a marriage hath been made, a spiritual marriage. For, “the kingdom of Heaven,” saith He, “is likened unto a certain king which would make (St.
22:2
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 40.0
On the words of the Gospel, Matt. xxii. 2 , etc., about the marriage of the king’s son; against the Donatists, on charity. Delivered at Carthage in the Restituta .
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 72.2
… 1 ). The Lord Himself in the Gospel saith, “The Father judgeth not any one, but all judgment He hath given to the Son:” this is then, “O God, Thy judgment to the King give Thou.” He that is King is also the Son of the King: because God the Father also is certainly King. Thus it hath been written, that the King made a marriage for His Son.
Pseudo-Clement The Recognitions of Clement 4.35
… Meantime He has commanded us to go forth to preach, and to invite you to the supper of the heavenly King, which the Father hath prepared for the marriage of His Son, and that we should give you wedding garments, that is, the grace of baptism;
22:3
sant'Ireneo di Lione † 202 d.C. Against Heresies 4.39.3
3. If, however, thou wilt not believe in Him, and wilt flee from His hands, the cause of imperfection shall be in thee who didst not obey, but not in Him who called [thee]. For He commissioned [messengers] to call people to the marriage, but they who did not obey Him deprived themselves of the royal supper.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 10.5
… thou sayest, I will betake me to the party of Donatus: behold thou addest a fourth sin. The rope is growing; be thou afraid of the rope. It is good for thee to be corrected here, when thou art scourged with it; that it may not be said of thee at the last, “Bind ye his hands and feet, and cast him forth into outer darkness.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 50.11
… For at first He called them together, “when the God of gods spake and called the world from the rising of the sun unto the going down,” He had not yet severed: those servants had been sent to bid to the marriage,
22:4
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 30
… I pray thee to release me, for I ask to be excused. And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I am going to examine them: I pray thee [15] to release me, for I ask to be excused. And another said, I have married a wife, [16] and therefore I cannot come.
22:5
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 30
… I pray thee [15] to release me, for I ask to be excused. And another said, I have married a wife, [16] and therefore I cannot come. And the king sent also other servants, and said, Say to those that were invited, that my feast is ready, and my oxen and my fatlings are [17] slain, and everything is ready: come to the feast.
22:6
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 30
… And the king sent also other servants, and said, Say to those that were invited, that my feast is ready, and my oxen and my fatlings are [17] slain, and everything is ready: come to the feast. But they made light of it, and [18] went, one to his field, and another to his merchandise:
22:7
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 30
… come to the feast. But they made light of it, and [18] went, one to his field, and another to his merchandise: and the rest took his [19] servants, and entreated them shamefully, and killed them. And one of the servants [20] came, and informed his lord of what had happened.
sant'Ireneo di Lione † 202 d.C. Against Heresies 4.36.6
… and He confers His free gifts upon those who should [receive them]; but the most righteous Retributor metes out [punishment] according to their deserts, most deservedly, to the ungrateful and to those that are insensible of His kindness; and therefore does He say, “He sent His armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 5
… But was it the good God? Nay, but it is demonstrated that both the Father and the Son did these things. The Father in many places; for instance, when He says in the parable of the vineyard, [“He will miserably destroy those wicked husbandmen” ( Matt. xxi. 41 ); again in the parable of the marriage feast, the King is said] to send His armies (
22:8
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 30
… and the rest took his [19] servants, and entreated them shamefully, and killed them. And one of the servants [20] came, and informed his lord of what had happened. And when the king heard, he became angry, and sent his armies; and they destroyed those murderers, and [21] burned their cities.
22:9
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 19
This language is not his own only, but in the Gospels too the parables mean this. For He who made a marriage feast for His Son, when the guests would not come, called those in the highways. (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 30
… 22 .) From them were the Apostles, from them the Prophets, from them all good things. In all these things then the world was made a partaker. If then, he says, ye have been made partakers in that which is greater, and when it was for them that the banquet was prepared, ye have been brought in to enjoy the feast that was spread (
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Letters of St. Augustin 208.7
… But God, who is rich in mercy, has done in regard to you that which is written in the gospel: when the invited guests excused themselves to the master of the feast, he said to the servants, “Go ye, therefore, into the highways and hedges, and as many as ye shall find compel them to come in.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 59.1.10
… there is no cause for thee to spare, extend further thy cords, and strong stakes set thou again and again on the right and on the left.” Upon the right keep good men, on the left keep evil men, until there come the fan: occupy nevertheless all nations; bidden to the marriage be good men and evil men, filled be the marriage with guests;
22:10
san Papia di Ierapoli † 150 d.C. Fragments of Papias, V 1
… and that on this account the Lord said, “In my Father’s house are many mansions:” for all things belong to God, who supplies all with a suitable dwelling-place, even as His word says, that a share is given to all by the Father, according as each one is or shall be worthy. And this is the couch
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 30
… So the lord said unto his servants, Go out into the roads, and the ways, and the paths, and every one that ye find, invite [25] [Arabic, p. 116] to the feast, and constrain them to enter, till my house is filled. I say unto you, that no one of those people that were invited shall taste of my feast. [26]
sant'Ireneo di Lione † 202 d.C. Against Heresies 5.36.2
… even as His Word says, that a share is allotted to all by the Father, according as each person is or shall be worthy. And this is the couch on which the guests shall recline, having been invited to the wedding.
san Gregorio Nazianzeno † 389 d.C. Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 3
… you were all scattered and dispersed, caring little for the Bridechamber and the Bridegroom.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Letters of St. Augustin 55.20
20. This, moreover, is the reason why the law of the Sabbath is placed third among the three commandments of the Decalogue which declare our duty to God (for the other seven relate to our neighbour, that is, to man; the whole law hanging on these two commandments).
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 22.64
… In His fleshly origin there is this lesson for those who should believe on Him from all nations, that the sins of their fathers need be no hindrance to them. Besides, the Bridegroom, who was to call good and bad to His marriage,
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 40.3
… because He is the Physician of them who are to be cured. According to a certain sort then they were evil. And yet those guests of the Householder at the King’s marriage, were not I suppose of that number of whom it was said, “they invited good and bad,”
22:11
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 30
… 116] to the feast, and constrain them to enter, till my house is filled. I say unto you, that no one of those people that were invited shall taste of my feast. [26] And those servants went out into the roads, and gathered all that they found, good and [27] bad: and the banquet-house was filled with guests.
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. On the Resurrection of the Flesh 27
… In the gospel even, “the wedding garment” may be regarded as the sanctity of the flesh.
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. On Modesty 9
… Therefore the apostate withal will recover his former “garment,” the robe of the Holy Spirit; and a renewal of the “ring,” the sign and seal of baptism; and Christ will again be “slaughtered;” and he will recline on that couch from which such as are unworthily clad are wont to be lifted by the torturers, and cast away into darkness,
Eusebio di Cesarea † 339 d.C. The Church History of Eusebius 5.1.48
… For they were examined by themselves, as about to be set free; but confessing, they were added to the order of the witnesses. But some continued without, who had never possessed a trace of faith, nor any apprehension of the wedding garment,
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 4.2
16. Suppose, however, that one who is unworthy hath crept up, hath stolen past the principalities who keep the gates of heaven, hath sat down at the supper of the Lord; when the Lord of the banquet enters, and sees one not clad in the wedding garment of the Faith, He will cast him into outer darkness, where is weeping and gnashing of teeth,
san Girolamo † 420 d.C. The Letters of St. Jerome 14.8
… Nothing remains for him but the stern question, “Friend, how camest thou in hither?” And when he is speechless the order will be given, “Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. City of God 18.48
… interpretation (for it also is a prophetic meaning), “shall come those who are elected of the Lord out of all nations.” For then indeed there shall come only those who are elected, whereof the apostle saith, “According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world.” For the Master Builder who said, “Many are called, but few are chosen,”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 22.14
… For to a Pagan there would appear to be little or no harm in not having a wedding garment at the marriage feast, for which our King in the Gospel commanded a man to be bound hand and foot, and cast into outer darkness;
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. A Work on the Proceedings of Pelagius 11
… In two other passages He deals with that wicked and slothful servant, who neglected to trade with His money, and with the man who was found at the feast without the wedding garment,—and He orders them to be bound hand and foot, and to be cast into outer darkness.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 40.4
… I wish to have it proved to me that that one represented many.” By the Lord’s present help, I will prove it clearly; nor will I search far, that I may be able to prove it. God will assist me in His own words in this place, and will furnish you by my ministry with a plain proof of it. “The Master of the house came in to see the guests.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 45.4
4. Ye know it, dearly Beloved; call to mind the parable of the Gospel, how that the Lord came in to inspect the guests at a certain feast of His. The Master of the house who had invited them, as it is written, “found there a man which had not on a wedding garment.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 62.9
… “God is our helper.”…“Nevertheless, vain are the sons of men, and liars are the sons of men in the balances, in order that they may deceive, being at one because of vanity” ( ver. 9 ). Certainly many men there are: behold there is that one man, that one man that was cast forth from the multitude of guests.
papa san Leone I Magno † 461 d.C. Letters 59
… where will be weeping and gnashing of teeth
22:12
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 30
… I say unto you, that no one of those people that were invited shall taste of my feast. [26] And those servants went out into the roads, and gathered all that they found, good and [27] bad: and the banquet-house was filled with guests. And the king entered to see those [28] who were seated, and he saw there a man not wearing a festive garment:
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen De Principiis 2.5.2
… there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 7
… ‘counting the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a profane thing, and despising the Spirit of grace,’ he hears the words, ‘Friend, how camest thou in hither, not having wedding garments?’ For the banquet of the saints is spotless and pure; ‘for many are called, but few chosen
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 20
… From this sinners, because it wearied them, are rightly cast out, and hear the words, ‘Friend, how camest thou in hither, not having a wedding garment
san Cirillo di Gerusalemme † 386 d.C. The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril procatechesis-or-prologue-to-t.3
3. A certain man in the Gospels once pried into the marriage feast
san Cirillo di Gerusalemme † 386 d.C. The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 3.2
… and the cry of loud-voiced heralds assembles them all: but the same Bridegroom afterwards separates those who have come in to the figurative marriage. O may none of those whose names have now been enrolled hear the words, Friend, how camest thou in hither, not having a wedding garment
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 40.4
… It was not right to pass over this. But I have undertaken to establish another point, how that that one signifies many. “The Master of the house” then “came in to see the guests, and He found there a man which had not on a wedding garment. And He saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 45.5
… And he was speechless.” For he found not what to answer. And the Master of the house Who had invited him said, “Bind him hands and feet, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Pseudo-Irenaeus Pseud-Irenæus 1
… for, contrary to every expectation of the heathen, they confessed. For these were examined separately, under the belief that they were to be set free; but confessing, they were added to the number of the Witnesses. But there were also some who remained without; namely, those who had no trace of faith, and no perception of the marriage garment,
22:13
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 30
… [26] And those servants went out into the roads, and gathered all that they found, good and [27] bad: and the banquet-house was filled with guests. And the king entered to see those [28] who were seated, and he saw there a man not wearing a festive garment: and he said unto him, My friend, how didst thou come in here not having on festive garments? [29]
sant'Ireneo di Lione † 202 d.C. Against Heresies 4.36.6
… for this is the wedding garment, of which also the apostle speaks, “Not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up by immortality.” But those who have indeed been called to God’s supper, yet have not received the Holy Spirit, because of their wicked conduct “shall be,” He declares, “cast into outer darkness.”
Afraate † 346 d.C. Aphrahat: Select Demonstrations 6.1
… Let us hearken to the voice of the bridegroom, that we may go in with Him into the bride-chamber. Let us prepare the marriage-gift for His bridal day, and let us go forth to meet Him with joy. Let us put on holy raiment, that we may recline in the chief place of the elect. Whosoever puts not on wedding raiment,
san Basilio † 379 d.C. The Hexæmeron 2.5
… of all he who looks for celestial light as one of the rewards promised to virtue, the light which, as Solomon says, is always a light to the righteous, the light which made the Apostle say “Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light.” Finally, if the condemned are sent into outer darkness
san Gregorio Nazianzeno † 389 d.C. Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 2.77
77. Such and so great is the object of our longing zeal, and such a man should he be, who prepares and conducts souls to their espousals. For myself, I feared to be cast, bound hand and foot,
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Treatise Concerning the Christian Priesthood 6.4
… And dost thou not yet tremble to introduce a soul into so sacred a mystery of this kind, and to advance to the dignity of the Priesthood, one robed in filthy raiment, whom Christ has shut out from the rest of the band of guests?
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 54
And again passing an opposite sentence, to some He will answer, “Depart into the everlasting fire, that is prepared for the devil and his angels,” and to others, “O thou wicked and slothful servants.” And some He will “cut asunder,” and “deliver to the tormentors;” but others He will command to “be bound hand and foot, and cast into outer darkness.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 66
For do not now, on hearing of darkness, suppose he is punished by this, by sending into a place where there is no light only, but where “there is” also “weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 43
… x. 40 .) ( a ) And again He saith, “Then will I say unto the angels, Gather together them that do iniquity, and cast them into the furnace.” ( Matt. xiii. 30, 41, 42 .) But concerning the just, not so. ( c ) And again, “Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into outer darkness.” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 3
… xi. 32 .) And now indeed to many such things usually seem to come not of the wrath from above, but of the malice of man. But then the punishment from God shall be manifest, when the Judge, sitting upon the fearful tribunal, shall command some to be dragged to the furnaces, and some to the outer darkness,
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 25
… “Ah, but God is merciful!” Are these then mere words? and was not that rich man punished for despising Lazarus? Are not the foolish virgins cast out of the Bride-chamber? Do not they who did not feed Him go away into “the fire prepared for the devil?” ( Matt. xxv. 41 .) Will not he that hath soiled garments be “bound hand and foot” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on Second Corinthians 10
… And if thou purposest to utter some harsh sounding [speech], think of the gnashing of teeth, and the fear will be a bridle to thee. And if thou purposest to plunder, hear the Judge commanding, and saying, “Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into the outer darkness,” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on Ephesians 9
We however are not in bonds, nor am I recommending this, since now is not the time for them. But thou, bind not thine hands, but bind thy heart and mind. There are yet other bonds, and they that wear not the one, shall have to wear the other. Hear what Christ saith, “Bind him hand and foot.” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on 1 Timothy 7
Beloved, let us fear, lest we be doomed to hear those terrible words, “Bind him hand and foot.” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on 2 Timothy 3
… xxv. 40 .): that we may not hear, “Between us and you there is a great gulf fixed” ( Luke xvi. 16 .): that we may not hear that voice full of horror, “Take him away, and cast him into outer darkness”: that we may not hear those words full of terror, “Thou wicked and slothful servant.” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 45
… Because He speaketh not simply of resurrection, but of a particular kind of resurrection. For having first said, “I will not cast him out, I shall lose nothing of it,” He then speaketh of the resurrection. Since in the resurrection some are cast out, (“Take him, and cast him into outer darkness,”
san Girolamo † 420 d.C. The Letters of St. Jerome 80.3
… Son, and the Holy Ghost, I adjure and require everyone who shall either read or copy these books of mine, by his belief in a kingdom to come, by the mystery of the resurrection from the dead, by the eternal fire which is “prepared for the devil and his angels;” as he hopes not to inherit eternally that place where “there is weeping and gnashing of teeth,”
san Girolamo † 420 d.C. To Pammachius against John of Jerusalem 33
… He who has not a wedding garment, and has not kept that command, “Let your garments be always white,” is bound hand and foot that he may not recline at the banquet, or sit on a throne, or stand at the right hand of God;
Sulpicio Severo † 420 d.C. The Doubtful Letters of Sulpitius Severus 1.7
Then will the Evangelist repeat this to the wretched beings, “Go ye
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On the Holy Trinity 11.6
… and if that is bad, then all are bad. And so the connected series of right wills is a sort of road which consists as it were of certain steps, whereby to ascend to blessedness; but the entanglement of depraved and distorted wills is a bond by which he will be bound who thus acts, so as to be cast into outer darkness.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 40.4
… True it was one man whom the Lord questioned, to one He said, “Friend, how camest thou in hither?” It was one who was speechless, and of that same one was it said, “Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 9.13
… for he who seeks his own glory, not Christ’s, has not the wedding garment: for they refuse to agree with him who was the friend of the Bridegroom, and says, “This is He that baptizeth.” And deservedly was that which he was not made, by way of rebuke, an objection to him who had not the wedding garment, “Friend, how art thou come hither?”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 44.6
… It will be that night of the wicked, that night of those to whom it shall be said in the end, “Depart into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.” But it is here called night, not flame, nor fire. Hearken, then, why it is also night. Of a certain servant He says, “Bind ye him hand and foot, and cast him into outer darkness.”
22:14
san Barnaba † 61 d.C. The Epistle of Barnabas 4
… And all the more attend to this, my brethren, when ye reflect and behold, that after so great signs and wonders were wrought in Israel, they were thus [at length] abandoned. Let us beware lest we be found [fulfilling that saying], as it is written, “Many are called, but few are chosen.”
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 30
… and he said unto him, My friend, how didst thou come in here not having on festive garments? [29] And he was silent. Then the king said to the servants, Bind his hands and his feet, and put him forth into the outer darkness; there shall be weeping and [30] gnashing of teeth.
sant'Ireneo di Lione † 202 d.C. Against Heresies 4.36.6
… For as in the former covenant, “with many of them was He not well pleased;” so also is it the case here, that “many are called, but few chosen.”
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. De Fuga in Persecutione 14
… He who fears to suffer, cannot belong to Him who suffered. But the man who does not fear to suffer, he will be perfect in love—in the love, it is meant, of God; “for perfect love casteth out fear.” “And therefore many are called, but few chosen.”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.12
… But if any one wishes to put us to shame in regard to these things because of the great majority of those of the church who are thought to believe, it must be said to him not only “Many are called, but few chosen;”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. City of God 18.45
… come to all nations.” In this passage the Septuagint translators giving another sense more suitable to the body than the Head, that is, to the Church than to Christ, have said by prophetic authority, “The things shall come that are chosen of the Lord from all nations,” that is, men , of whom Jesus saith in the Gospel, “Many are called, but few are chosen.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. A Work on the Proceedings of Pelagius 11
… For if it were a solitary case only of the man who was cast into outer darkness for not having on the wedding garment, He would not have gone on at once to give it a plural turn, by saying: “For many are called, but few are chosen;”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 40.4
… True it was one man whom the Lord questioned, to one He said, “Friend, how camest thou in hither?” It was one who was speechless, and of that same one was it said, “Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Why? “For many are called, but few chosen.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 45.6
… I do not go far for this, I find the explanation there, there I break the bread, and set it before you to be eaten. For He said, when he who had not “the wedding garment was cast out thence into outer darkness,” He said and added immediately, “for many are called, but few chosen.”
Giovanni Cassiano † 435 d.C. The Conferences of John Cassian 3.7
… Wherefore we should be careful to take examples of goodness from those who are few and far between, because according to that figure of which we have spoken in the gospel “Many are called but few” are said to be “chosen.”
22:15
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 34
… So they brought unto him a penny. Jesus said unto them, To whom belongeth this image and inscription? They said unto him, To Cæsar. [7, 8] He said unto them, Give what is Cæsar’s to Cæsar, and what is God’s to God. And they could not make him slip in a single word before the people; and they marvelled at his word, and refrained.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount 2.20
… and because they told what they had been asked, i.e. that the money bore the image of Cæsar, they gave a kind of answer to themselves in reference to the question they had asked the Lord: and accordingly from their answer He drew this inference, “Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. The Harmony of the Gospels 2.72
… for thou regardest not the person of men: tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute to Cæsar, or not?” and so on, down to the words, “And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at His doctrine.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 41.2
… Deservedly were you defeated on producing the money, and compelled yourselves to concur in your own capture. For there it was told you, “Render to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, and to God the things that are God’s,” after your own reply, that the money-piece bore the image of Cæsar.
22:16
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 34
[1] Then went the Pharisees and considered how they might ensnare him in a word, [2] and deliver him into the power of the judge, and into the power of the ruler.
Eusebio di Cesarea † 339 d.C. The Church History of Eusebius 2.23.10
… for they are gone astray in regard to Jesus, as if he were the Christ. We entreat thee to persuade all that have come to the feast of the Passover concerning Jesus; for we all have confidence in thee. For we bear thee witness, as do all the people, that thou art just, and dost not respect persons.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 67
For “they sent out unto Him their disciples with the Herodians saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man; for thou regardest not the person of men. Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Cæsar or not?”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 35.22
… What peace spake they? “Master, we know that Thou acceptest not man’s person, and teachest the way of God in truth. Is it lawful to give tribute unto Cæsar, or not?” They spake indeed peace unto Me. What then? Didst not Thou know them, and deceived they Thee, winking with their eyes? Truly He knew them; therefore said He, “Why tempt ye Me, ye hypocrites?”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 38.16
… the Apostles also were His “neighbours;” and they also “stood afar off,” that they might not have to suffer with Him. This may also be understood thus: “My friends,” that is, those who feigned themselves “My friends:” for they feigned themselves His friends, when they said, “We know that Thou teachest the way of God in truth;”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 102.9
9. “Mine enemies revile me all day, and they that praised me are sworn together against me” ( ver. 8 ). With their mouth they praised, in their heart they were laying snares for me. Hear their praise: “Master, we know that Thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest Thou for any man. Is it lawful to give tribute unto Cæsar, or not?”
22:17
san Giustino † 165 d.C. The First Apology 17
… for at that time some came to Him and asked Him, if one ought to pay tribute to Cæsar; and He answered, “Tell Me, whose image does the coin bear?” And they said, “Cæsar’s.” And again He answered them, “Render therefore to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 34
… And they sent unto him their disciples, with the kinsfolk of Herod; and they said unto him, [Arabic, p. 129] Teacher, we know that thou speakest the truth, and teachest the way of God with equity, and art not lifted up by any man: for thou actest not so as to [3] be seen of any man.
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 14.16
… as, for example, if He had said, “It is lawful,” they would have accused Him of dissolving marriages for trifles; but, if He had said, “It is not lawful,” they would have accused Him of permitting a man to dwell with a woman, even with sins; so, likewise, in the case of the tribute-money,
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Selections from the Letters of St. Ambrose sermon-against-auxentius-on-th.30
… “Master, is it lawful to give tribute to Cæsar or not?”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 82
… And He gives a reason that cannot be gainsaid, saying, “If I were of this world, my servants would fight, that I should not be delivered.” For this purpose I say, in order to refute this suspicion, He both paid tribute,
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 61
… For that in every case they questioned Him not in order to learn, but to find fault with His words, is clear, not from this passage only, but from many others also. Since when they came to Him and asked, “Is it lawful to give tribute unto Cæsar or not?” (
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 58.8
… In such sort, that with their own mouth against themselves they should make declaration: He hath compelled them with their mouth against themselves to give sentence. They would have slandered Him, because of the tribute:
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 58.10
… What of asps? Asps treacherously desire to throw in their venom, and scatter it, and hiss. Most openly raged the nations, and roared like lions. “Wherefore have raged the nations, and the peoples meditated empty things?” When they were lying in wait for the Lord. Is it lawful to give tribute to Cæsar, or is it not lawful?
22:18
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 34
… for thou actest not so as to [3] be seen of any man. Tell us now, What is thy opinion? Is it lawful that we should [4] pay the tribute to Cæsar, or not? shall we give, or shall we not give? But Jesus knew [5] their deceit, and said unto them,
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Selections from the Letters of St. Ambrose sermon-against-auxentius-on-th.31
… these want to give to Cæsar the right of the Church. But as these faithless ones follow their author, so also let us answer as our Lord and Author has taught us. For Jesus seeing the wickedness of the Jews said to them: Why tempt ye Me? show Me a penny. When they had given it, He said: “Whose image and superscription hath it?”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 40.10
… By the love of the truth then be that image, after which we were created, engraven anew, and His Own tribute rendered to our Cæsar. For so ye have heard from the Lord’s answer, when the Jews tempted Him, as He said, “Why tempt ye Me, ye hypocrites; show Me the tribute money,”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 38.16
… when He convinced them out of their own mouth, they wished to seem to be His friends. “But He needed not that any should testify of man, for He Himself knew what was in man;” so that when they spoke unto Him words of friendship, He answered them, “Why tempt ye Me, ye hypocrites?”
22:19
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 58.8
… but if He say, Do not pay, we have Him for saying that we should not be under allegiance to Cæsar. Such a double noose as it were to catch the Lord they laid. But to whom had they come? To Him that knew how to break utterly the teeth of them in their own mouth. “Show to Me the coin,”
22:20
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 34
… for thou actest not so as to [3] be seen of any man. Tell us now, What is thy opinion? Is it lawful that we should [4] pay the tribute to Cæsar, or not? shall we give, or shall we not give? But Jesus knew [5] their deceit, and said unto them, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Shew me the [6] penny of the tribute.
sant'Ippolito † 235 d.C. The Refutation of All Heresies 9.21
… For some of them discipline themselves above the requisite rules of the order , so that even they would not handle a current coin of the country, saying that they ought not either to carry, or behold, or fashion an image:
san Gregorio di Nissa † 395 d.C. On the Making of Man 16.13
13. As the Gospel calls the stamp upon the coin “the image of Cæsar
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 67
… which was a clear and plain victory. So that, when He asks, not from ignorance doth He ask, but because it is His will to cause them to be bound by their own answers. For when, on being asked, “Whose is the image?” they said, “Cæsar’s;” He saith, “Render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s.”
22:21
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 34
… shall we give, or shall we not give? But Jesus knew [5] their deceit, and said unto them, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Shew me the [6] penny of the tribute. So they brought unto him a penny. Jesus said unto them, To whom belongeth this image and inscription? They said unto him, To Cæsar. [7, 8]
sant'Ireneo di Lione † 202 d.C. Against Heresies 3.8.1
… Much more [would this be the case with regard to] the Lord Himself, who did also direct us to “render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, and to God the things that are God’s;”
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. On Idolatry 15
… and so it makes no difference whether that superstitious homage be rendered to men of a former age or of this. Idolatry is condemned, not on account of the persons which are set up for worship, but on account of those its observances, which pertain to demons. “The things which are Cæsar’s are to be rendered to Cæsar.”
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. The Chaplet, or De Corona 12
… So you see idolatry is not without its gain, selling, as it does, Christ for pieces of gold, as Judas did for pieces of silver. Will it be “Ye cannot serve God and mammon” to devote your energies to mammon, and to depart from God? Will it be “Render unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s, and unto God the things which are God’s,”
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. On the Resurrection of the Flesh 22
… He , of course, has already quitted the grave of his own corpse—although he is even now liable to fevers and ulcers; he, too, has already trodden down his enemies—although he has even now to struggle with the powers of the world. And as a matter of course, he is already a king—although he even now owes to Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s.
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. Scorpiace 14
… Then he goes on also to show how he wishes you to be subject to the powers, bidding you pay “tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom,” that is, the things which are Cæsar’s to Cæsar, and the things which are God’s to God;
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. De Fuga in Persecutione 12
… Since, therefore, Cæsar has imposed nothing on us after this fashion of a tributary sect—in fact, such an imposition never can be made,—with Antichrist now close at hand, and gaping for the blood, not for the money of Christians—how can it be pointed out to me that there is the command, “Render to Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s?”
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Persecution and Lapse of Hosius 1
… and as he who would steal the empire from you would resist the ordinance of God, so likewise fear on your part lest by taking upon yourself the government of the Church, you become guilty of a great offence. It is written, “Render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 1.12
… And so on the bare mention of such doctrine, they deserve nothing but the reply, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God ;’ and if they persist in it, they must be put to silence, by the words, ‘Render to’ man ‘the things that are’ man’s, ‘and to God the things that are’ God’s
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Selections from the Letters of St. Ambrose 20.19
… My answer is: Do not, O Emperor, lay on yourself the burden of such a thought as that you have any imperial power over those things which belong to God. Exalt not yourself, but if you desire to reign long, submit yourself to God. It is written: “The things which are God’s to God, those which are Cæsar’s to Cæsar.”
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Selections from the Letters of St. Ambrose sermon-against-auxentius-on-th.31
… For Jesus seeing the wickedness of the Jews said to them: Why tempt ye Me? show Me a penny. When they had given it, He said: “Whose image and superscription hath it?” They answered and said: Cæsar’s. And Jesus says to them: “Render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 22.74
… "Give," He says, "to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s."
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 40.9
… The impression that was stamped upon us has been rubbed out by our wandering. He has come to refashion, for He it was that fashioned us at first; and He is Himself asking for His money, as Cæsar for his. Therefore He says, “Render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s:”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 4.8
… therefore it is his true and eternal good, if by a new birth he be stamped. And I believe this to be the bearing of that which some understand skilfully; I mean, what the Lord said on seeing Cæsar’s tribute money, “Render to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 58.8
… For on His inquiring, of whom it had the image and inscription, they said, of Cæsar. Even now the Lord shall break utterly the teeth of them in their own mouth. Now ye have made answer, now have been broken utterly your teeth in your mouth. “Render unto Cæsar the things which are of Cæsar, and unto God the things which are of God.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 103.2
… First, because thou art: but a stone also is. Next, because thou livest: but a brute also liveth. What reward wilt thou give the Lord, for His having created thee above all the cattle; and above all the fowls of the air, in His image and likeness? Seek not how to reward Him: give back unto Him His own image: He requireth no more; He demandeth His own coin.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 116.13
… and indeed whosoever well considereth what he is vowing to the Lord, and what vows he is paying, let him vow himself, let him pay himself as a vow: this is exacted, this is due. On looking at the coin, the Lord saith, “Render unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s, and unto God the things which are God’s:”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 119.21
… How, I ask, had they injured the kingdoms of earth? Did their King forbid His soldiers to pay and to render due service to the kings of the earth? Saith He not to the Jews who were striving to calumniate Him, “Render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”?
Teodoreto di Cirro † 458 d.C. The Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret 4.7
… is our imperial will that this Trinity be preached, so that none may say “We accept the religion of the sovereign who rules this world without regard to Him who has given us the message of salvation,” for, as says the gospel of our God which contains this judgment, “we should render to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s and to God the things that are God’s.”
22:22
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 67
O folly! When the others had been put to silence, these made the attack, when they ought to have been the more backward. But such is the nature of rashness, shameless, and importunate, and attempting things impossible. Therefore the evangelist also, amazed at their folly, signified this very thing, by saying, “On that day came to Him.”
22:23
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 34
… For in the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read in the book of Moses, how from the bush God said unto him, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? [21] And God is not the God of the dead, but of the living: for all of them are alive with him. And ye have erred greatly.
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. On the Flesh of Christ 1
They who are so anxious to shake that belief in the resurrection which was firmly settled before the appearance of our modern Sadducees,
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. On the Resurrection of the Flesh 36
… Their specious inquiry concerned the flesh, whether or not it would be subject to marriage after the resurrection; and they assumed the case of a woman who had married seven brothers, so that it was a doubtful point to which of them she should be restored.
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. To His Wife i.1
… Therefore no solicitude arising from carnal jealousy will, in the day of the resurrection, even in the case of her whom they chose to represent as having been married to seven brothers successively, wound any one of her so many husbands; nor is any (husband) awaiting her to put her to confusion.
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. On Monogamy 7
… If “righteousness” must, of course chastity must too. If, then, forasmuch as there is in the law a precept that a man is to take in marriage the wife of his brother if he have died without children, for the purpose of raising up seed to his brother; and this may happen repeatedly to the same person, according to that crafty question of the Sadducees;
san Metodio d'Olimpo † 311 d.C. From the Discourse on the Resurrection, Part I 1
… For this was the opinion of the Sadducees. Whence it was that, having contrived the parable about the woman and the seven brethren, that they might cast doubt upon the resurrection of the flesh, “There came to Him,”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 61
… Since when they came to Him and asked, “Is it lawful to give tribute unto Cæsar or not?” ( Matt. xxii. 17 ), when they spake about putting away a wife ( Matt. xix. 3 ), when they enquired about her who, they said, had had seven husbands (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 63
… Christ when He teacheth, “Not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven” ( Matt. vii. 21 ); and again, “Many will say unto Me in that day, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy Name? And I will profess unto them, I never knew you; depart from Me, ye that work iniquity” (
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 19.31
… This we learn not only from the canonical Acts of the Apostles, which the Manichæans reject, because it tells of the advent of the Paraclete promised by the Lord, but also from the Gospel, when the Sadducees question the Lord about the woman who married seven brothers, one dying after the other, whose wife she would be in the resurrection.
Pseudo-Clement The Recognitions of Clement 1.54
… The first schism, therefore, was that of those who were called Sadducees, which took their rise almost in the time of John. These, as more righteous than others, began to separate themselves from the assembly of the people, and to deny the resurrection of the dead,
22:24
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 34
[9] And on that day came the Sadducees, and said unto him, There is no life for [10] the dead.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 67
… Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased; and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother. Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife shall she be of the seven?”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 141.14
… For John gave testimony to Christ. They who heard Christ, wished to slay Him; the man who gave testimony to Him they slew not.…He is not slain by the Jews who gave free testimony to Christ, whom the Jews slew; he is slain by Herod, because he said to him, “It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother’s wife.” For his brother had not died without issue.
22:25
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 34
[9] And on that day came the Sadducees, and said unto him, There is no life for [10] the dead. And they asked him, and said unto him, Teacher, Moses said unto us, If a man die, not having children, let his brother take his wife, and raise up seed [11] for his brother.
22:27
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 34
… Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first took a wife, [12] and died without children; and the second took his wife, and died without children; [13] and the third also took her; and in like manner the seven of them also, and they [14, 15] died without leaving children.
22:28
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 34
… Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first took a wife, [12] and died without children; and the second took his wife, and died without children; [13] and the third also took her; and in like manner the seven of them also, and they [14, 15] died without leaving children. And last of them all the woman died also.
Afraate † 346 d.C. Aphrahat: Select Demonstrations 8.16
16. Again, our Lord explained to the Sadducees with regard to the resurrection of the dead, when they brought forth to Him the parable of the woman who was married to seven husbands, and said to Him:— Lo! the woman was wife of them all; in the Resurrection of the dead, to which of them shall she be wife?
22:29
sant'Ireneo di Lione † 202 d.C. Against Heresies 4.5.1
… but since it was impossible, without God, to come to a knowledge of God, He teaches men, through His Word, to know God. To those, therefore, who are ignorant of these matters, and on this account imagine that they have discovered another Father, justly does one say, “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God.”
sant'Ireneo di Lione † 202 d.C. Against Heresies 4.5.2
… dishonour God, and lower the credit of the law, did both indicate a resurrection, and reveal God, saying to them, “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God.” “For, touching the resurrection of the dead,” He says, “have ye not read that which was spoken by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?”
sant'Ireneo di Lione † 202 d.C. 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, or greater than Jonah, or have been the Lord of David, who was of the same substance as they were? How, too, could He have subdued
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. On Exhortation to Chastity 13
… who have restored the honour of their flesh, and who have already dedicated themselves as sons of that (future) age, by slaying in themselves the concupiscence of lust, and that whole (propensity) which could not be admitted within Paradise!
Antipapa Novaziano † 258 d.C. A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity 25
… So that, while from these considerations it is gathered that nothing but the human nature in Christ was put to death, it appears that the Word in Him was not drawn down into mortality. For if Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, who, it is admitted, were only men, are manifested to be alive—for all they,
Archelao † fl. 278 d.C. The Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes 28
… for it is Christ Himself that “has re-deemed them from the curse of the law;” as Paul, too, has given these further testimonies, that “the letter killeth, and quickeneth no man,” and that “the law is the ministration of death,” and “the strength of sin.” Archelaus said : You err, not knowing the Scriptures, neither the power of God.
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. To the Bishops of Egypt 1.9
… for it is not the mode of speaking, but the intentions of the heart and a godly conversation that recommend the faithful Christian. And thus the Sadducees and Herodians, although they have the law in their mouths, were put to rebuke by our Saviour, who said unto them, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 1.12
… but laying down their own irreligion as a sort of canon of interpretation , they wrest the whole of the divine oracles into accordance with it. And so on the bare mention of such doctrine, they deserve nothing but the reply, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 2
… But after him and with him are all inventors of unlawful heresies, who indeed refer to the Scriptures, but do not hold such opinions as the saints have handed down, and receiving them as the traditions of men, err, because they do not rightly know them nor their
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 19
… crucified the Lord of glory .’ And what their end is, the prophet foretold, crying, ‘Woe unto their soul, for they have devised an evil thought, saying, let us bind the just man, because he is not pleasing to us .’ The end of such abandonment as this can be nothing but error, as the Lord, when reproving them, saith, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 39
… In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 67
For what saith He? “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 2
… Are they Gentiles, or Christians? for I am ignorant. But no, I know well: they are Gentiles, who also disbelieve the work of Creation. For the two denials go together: the denial that God creates any thing from nothing, and the denial that He raises up what has been buried. But then, being ashamed to be thought such as “know not the power of God” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on First Corinthians 17
… For both the heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and the rivers, are more lasting than we are: and some even of the brutes; since the raven, and the race of elephants, and many other creatures, have a longer enjoyment of the present life. To us, moreover, life is both short and toilsome, but not to them. Theirs is both long, and freer from grief and cares.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 8
What then after so great painstaking? The Apostles also wrote, even as Paul likewise said, “they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.” ( 1 Cor. x. 11 .) And again Christ said, “Ye do err not knowing the Scriptures” (
san Girolamo † 420 d.C. The Letters of St. Jerome 108.23
… But as to your objection taken from marriage, that, if the members shall remain the same, marriage must inevitably be allowed; it is disposed of by the Saviour’s words: “ye do err not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are as the angels.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Letters of St. Augustin 263.4
… This hope the heathen do not possess, because they know not the Scriptures nor the power of God,
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. City of God 22.17
… He, then, who created both sexes will restore both. Jesus Himself also, when asked by the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection, which of the seven brothers should have to wife the woman whom all in succession had taken to raise up seed to their brother, as the law enjoined, says, “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On the Good of Widowhood 15
… For rebuking them, He saith, “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they shall neither be married, nor marry wives;
Pseudo-Clement The Clementine Homilies 2.51
… And to those who err by reason of the false scriptures He fitly showed the cause of their error, saying, ‘Ye do therefore err, not knowing the true things of the Scriptures;
Pseudo-Clement The Clementine Homilies 3.50
Then Peter: “As to the mixture of truth with falsehood, I remember that on one occasion He, finding fault with the Sadducees, said, ‘Wherefore ye do err, not knowing the true things of the Scriptures; and on this account ye are ignorant of the power of God.’
22:30
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 34
… but those that have become worthy of that world, and the resurrection from among the dead, do not take [19] [Arabic, p. 130] wives, and the women also do not become the men’s. Nor is it possible that they should die; but they are like the angels, and are the children of [20] God, because they have become the children of the resurrection.
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. A Treatise on the Soul 37
… Human nativity has sometimes been allowed to be premature, and yet to occur in fit and perfect accordance with an hebdomad or sevenfold number, as an auspice of our resurrection, and rest, and kingdom. The ogdoad , or eightfold number, therefore, is not concerned in our formation; for in the time it represents there will be no more marriage.
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. The Five Books Against Marcion 5.10
… “and we shall be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye. For this corruptible”—and as he spake, the apostle seemingly pointed to his own flesh—“must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality,” in order, indeed, that it may be rendered a fit substance for the kingdom of God. “For we shall be like the angels.”
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. On the Apparel of Women 1.2
… What commerce have they who are to condemn with them who are to be condemned? The same, I take it, as Christ has with Belial. With what consistency do we mount that (future) judgment-seat to pronounce sentence against those whose gifts we (now) seek after? For you too, (women as you are,) have the self-same angelic nature promised
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. On Monogamy 10
… But if we believe the resurrection of the dead, of course we shall be bound to them with whom we are destined to rise, to render an account the one of the other. “But if ‘in that age they will neither marry nor be given in marriage, but will be equal to angels,’
sant'Ippolito † 235 d.C. Fragments of Discourses or Homilies 1
Men, he says, “in the resurrection will be like the angels of God,”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen De Principiis iv.section24
… For He is more fully and clearly, and, so to speak, more openly in archangels than in other holy men. And this is evident from the statement, that when all who are saints have arrived at the summit of perfection, they are said to be made like, or equal to, the angels, agreeably to the declaration in the Gospels.
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen Against Celsus 4.29
… and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him.” And we know that in this way the angels are superior to men; so that men, when made perfect, become like the angels. “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but the righteous are as the angels in heaven,”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 2.16
… For if the life were the same thing as the light of men, and if the light of Christ were for men alone, then the life also would be only for men. But such a view is both foolish and impious, since the other Scriptures testify against this interpretation and declare that, when we are somewhat more advanced, we shall be equal to the angels.
san Metodio d'Olimpo † 311 d.C. The Banquet of the Ten Virgins; or Concerning Chastity 2.7
… For there are some to whom it is not given to attain virginity; and there are others whom He no longer wills to be excited by procreations to lust, and to be defiled, but henceforth to meditate and to keep the mind upon the transformation of the body to the likeness of angels, when they “neither marry nor are given in marriage,”
san Metodio d'Olimpo † 311 d.C. From the Discourse on the Resurrection, Part I 1
X. But in addition to what has been said, there is this point worth consideration, since it misleads very much, if we may be outspoken about matters of such importance, Aglaophon. For you said that the Lord declared plainly that those who shall obtain the resurrection shall then be as the angels.
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 5.6
… standing around Him, on His right hand and on His left.” How then, when the angels stand on the right hand and on the left of the Lord God, when all the host of heaven stands, shall men sit on the right hand of God or on His left, to whom is promised as a reward for virtue likeness to the angels, as the Lord says: “Ye shall be as the angels in heaven?”
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Concerning Virgins 1.9
… he who has lost it a devil. And hence has religion also gained its name. She is a virgin who is the bride of God, a harlot who makes gods for herself. What shall I say of the resurrection of which you already hold the rewards: “For in the resurrection they will neither be given in marriage, nor marry, but shall be,” He says, “as the angels in heaven.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 67
… “For in the resurrection,” saith He, “they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as angels of God in Heaven.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 32
… lxxxii. 6 .) And what is greater, the power to become both God and angel and child of God is put into his own hands. Yea, so it is, man can be the maker of an angel. Perchance this saying has startled you? Hear however Christ saying: “In the Resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like unto the angels.” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on Ephesians 23
… For the words which the Cherubim above say, these hath He charged us to say also, “Holy, Holy, Holy.” He hath brought to us the virtue of the Angels. “The Angels marry not, neither are given in marriage” (
Tirannio Rufino † 411 d.C. A Commentary on the Apostles' Creed 41
… Now God is not the God of the dead but of the living.” Where in what goes before He declares what and how great is the glory of the resurrection, saying, “But in the resurrection of the dead they will neither marry or be given in marriage, but will be as the angels of God.”
san Girolamo † 420 d.C. The Letters of St. Jerome 75.2
… “In the resurrection,” the Lord tells us, “they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are as the angels…in heaven.”
san Girolamo † 420 d.C. The Letters of St. Jerome 84.6
… For their women finger their breasts, slap their chests, pinch their legs and arms, and say, “What will a resurrection profit us if these frail bodies are to rise again? No, if we are to be like angels,
san Girolamo † 420 d.C. Against Jovinianus 1.36
… Moreover, if we deny the identity of His body because He entered though the doors were shut, and this is not a property of human bodies, we must deny also that Peter and the Lord had real bodies because they walked upon the water, which is contrary to nature.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. City of God 11.32
… At the same time, let none doubt that the holy angels in their heavenly abodes are, though not, indeed, co-eternal with God, yet secure and certain of eternal and true felicity. To their company the Lord teaches that His little ones belong; and not only says, “They shall be equal to the angels of God,”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. City of God 22.17
… but “In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. A Treatise on Faith and the Creed 6
13. We believe that He Ascended into Heaven , which place of blessedness He has likewise promised unto us, saying, “They shall be as the angels in the heavens,”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On Baptism, Against the Donatists 2.5
… But never in any point to entertain an opinion at variance with the truth is perfection found only in the angels. Since then we are men, yet forasmuch as in hope we are angels, whose equals we shall be in the resurrection,
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist 3.48
… hast not lied unto men, but unto God." Lastly, even if you were to say that he was cleansed and purified by an angel when he is unacquainted with the pollution in the conscience of him that gives but not in holiness, take notice that it is said of the saints, when they shall have risen to eternal life, that they shall then be equal to the angels of God.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. A Treatise on Rebuke and Grace 27
… For if from the Holy Scriptures we have been able to attain the knowledge that none of the holy angels shall fall evermore, how much more have they themselves attained this knowledge by the truth more sublimely revealed to them! Because to us is promised a blessed life without end, and equality with the angels,
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount 1.15
… For “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female;” “but Christ is all, and in all.” And the Lord Himself says: “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount 2.6
… because the Lord hath promised this also to His own: “In the resurrection,” says He, “they will be as the angels in heaven.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 82.3
… that ye may not only turn away from an unlawful connection, but may despise even a lawful look. Remember, in whichever sex ye are, whether men or women, that ye are leading on earth the life of Angels: “For the Angels are neither given in marriage, nor marry.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 12.8
… He came down for our sakes; let us ascend for His sake. For He alone descended and ascended, He who saith, “No man hath ascended into heaven, but He who came down from heaven.” Are they not therefore to ascend into heaven whom He makes sons of God? Certainly they are: this is the promise to us, “They shall be equal to the angels of God.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 71.7
… But if that which we see not we hope for, through patience we wait for it.” Now then thou groanest, now unto a place of refuge thou runnest, in order that thou mayest be saved; now being in infirmity thou entreatest the Physician: what, when thou shalt have received perfect soundness also, what when thou shall have been made “equal to the Angels of God,”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 77.4
… For the Angels have a day, which we have not yet. Already we have one that unbelievers have not: but not yet have believers that which Angels have: but they will have, at the time when they will be equal to the Angels of God, that which hath been promised to them in the Resurrection.
Pseudo-Clement The Recognitions of Clement 3.30
… but I will show you how it is not contradictory. God is seen by the mind, not by the body; by the spirit, not by the flesh. Whence also angels, who are spirits, see God; and therefore men, as long as they are men, cannot see Him. But after the resurrection of the dead, when they shall have been made like the angels,
22:31
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen De Principiis 2.4.1
… The words, moreover, “Have you not read what was spoken by God to Moses: I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; He is not a God of the dead, but of the living,”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 67
And again by Moses doth He stop their mouths, since they too had brought forward Moses; and He saith, “But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 43.13
… For, replying in a certain place to the Sadducees, when they stirred the question of the resurrection, the Lord Himself speaks thus: “But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read how the Lord said to Moses from the bush, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”
Giovanni Cassiano † 435 d.C. The Conferences of John Cassian 1.14
… In the gospel too the Lord says with still greater clearness to the Sadducees: “Have ye not read that which was spoken by God, when He said to you: I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. He is not the God of the dead but of the living: for all do live unto Him.”
22:32
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen Against Celsus 8.3
… For “God standeth in the assembly of the gods: He judgeth among the gods.” For “God is Lord of gods,” who by His Son “hath called the earth from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof.” We are also commanded to “give thanks to the God of gods.” Moreover, we are taught that “God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”
san Tascio Cecilio Cipriano † 258 d.C. The Epistles of Cyprian 26
… when the Church is established in the bishop and the clergy, and all who stand fast in the faith . For far be it from the mercy of God and His uncontrolled might to suffer the number of the lapsed to be called the Church; since it is written, “God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”
san Gregorio Nazianzeno † 389 d.C. Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 21.1
… To speak of him and to praise virtue are identical, because he had, or, to speak more truly, has embraced virtue in its entirety. For all who have lived according to God still live unto God, though they have departed hence. For this reason, God is called the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, since He is the God, not of the dead, but of the living.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 11
Let us then continue living this life; for many of those who seem to breathe and to walk about are in a more wretched plight than the dead. For there are different kinds of deadness; and one there is of the body, according to which Abraham was dead, and still was not dead. For “God,” He says, “is not a God of the dead, but of the living.” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on Ephesians 18
… nay, some far more. Therefore to these also it is necessary to exclaim, “Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall shine upon thee.” To these it is fitting to say this also, “God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on 1 Timothy 13
… 34, 35 .) The living differ from the dead, not only in that they behold the sun, and breathe the air, but in that they are doing some good. For if this be wanting, the living are not better than the dead. That you may learn this, hear how it is possible that even the dead should live. For it is said, “God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” (
san Girolamo † 420 d.C. Against Vigilantius 5
… They were forsooth, adoring Samuel and not Christ, whose Levite and prophet Samuel was. You show mistrust because you think only of the dead body, and therefore blaspheme. Read the Gospel—
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 49.15
… Such was the answer He gave the Jews concerning their fathers, long ago dead, that is, concerning Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob: I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob: He is not the God of the dead, but of the living; for all live unto Him.”
papa san Gregorio I Magno † 604 d.C. Register of the Epistles of St. Gregory the Great 7.40
… And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven ( Matth. xvi. 19 ). And again it is said to him, And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren (
Pseudo-Clement The Clementine Homilies 3.55
“But to those who think, as the Scriptures teach, that God swears, He said, ‘Let your yea be yea, and nay, nay; for what is more than these is of the evil one.’ And to those who say that Abraham and Isaac and Jacob are dead, He said, ‘God is not of the dead, but of the living.’
22:33
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 34
[22, 23] And when the multitudes heard, they were wondering at his teaching. And [24] some of the scribes answered and said unto him, Teacher, thou hast well said. But the rest of the Pharisees, when they saw his silencing the Sadducees on this point, gathered against him to contend with him.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 67
“And when the multitudes heard this, they were astonished at His doctrine.”
22:34
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 34
[22, 23] And when the multitudes heard, they were wondering at his teaching. And [24] some of the scribes answered and said unto him, Teacher, thou hast well said.
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. An Answer to the Jews 2
… Which law had continued enough for them, had it been kept. For in this law given to Adam we recognise in embryo all the precepts which afterwards sprouted forth when given through Moses; that is, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God from thy whole heart and out of thy whole soul; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself;
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. The Harmony of the Gospels 2.73
… Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
22:35
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 34
… and if thou spendest upon him more, [43] when I return, I shall give thee. Who of these three now, thinkest thou, is nearest [44] to him that fell among the robbers? And he said unto him, He that had compassion [45] [Arabic, p. 132] on him. Jesus said unto him, Go, and do thou also likewise. And no man dared afterwards to ask him anything.
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 14.16
… And you might find many passages, if you brought them together, in which the Pharisees tempted our Jesus, and others, different from them, as a certain lawyer,
22:36
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 27
… For as not deigning to be numbered with the multitude, and indicating that he is above the common sort, so he comes near. Because such is the Jewish character; full of unseasonable confidence. So too another afterwards, when all men were keeping silence, of his own accord springs up, and saith, “Which is the first commandment?”
Teodoreto di Cirro † 458 d.C. Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 135
… and the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” Then He said further “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
22:37
papa san Clemente I † 99 d.C. The Second Epistle of Clement 3
… But in what way shall we confess Him? By doing what He says, and not transgressing His commandments, and by honouring Him not with our lips only, but with all our heart and all our mind.
san Giustino † 165 d.C. Dialogue with Trypho 93
… And hence I think that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ spoke well when He summed up all righteousness and piety in two commandments. They are these: ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy strength, and thy neighbour as thyself.’
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. The Five Books Against Marcion 2.13
… be loved, because He prefers the sinner’s repentance to his death; be feared, because He dislikes the sinners who do not repent. Accordingly, the divine law enjoins duties in respect of both these attributes: Thou shalt love God , and, Thou shalt fear God . It proposed one for the obedient man, the other for the transgressor.
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. On the Resurrection of the Flesh 9
… We know by experience the goodness of God; from His Christ we learn that He is the only God, and the very good. Now, as He requires from us love to our neighbour after love to Himself,
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. Scorpiace 6
… Thus, “love covers the multitude of sins;” and loving God, to wit, with all its strength (by which in the endurance of martyrdom it maintains the fight), with all its life
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. On Fasting 2
… I must love God, and my neighbour as myself:
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen De Principiis 2.4.2
… And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” And to these He added: “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
san Tascio Cecilio Cipriano † 258 d.C. Exhortation to Martyrdom, Addressed to Fortunatus 2
… This is the first; and the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
san Gregorio di Nissa † 395 d.C. On Virginity 9
… It is impossible that one who has turned to the world and feels its anxieties, and engages his heart in the wish to please men, can fulfil that first and great commandment of the Master, “Thou shalt love God with all thy heart and with all thy strength
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 68
… What then saith Christ? Indicating from what they were led to this; from having no charity, from pining with envy, from being seized by jealousy, He saith, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 44
… iv. 15 .) “We yearn not only to give you the Gospel, but also our own souls.” ( 1 Thess. ii. 8 .) We are loved and we love (you): but this is not the question. But let us love Christ, “for the first commandment is, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God: and the second is like unto it, And thy neighbor as thyself.” (
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. The Confessions 3.8
15. Can it at any time or place be an unrighteous thing for a man to love God with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his mind, and his neighbour as himself?
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Letters of St. Augustin 137.17
… “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”?
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Letters of St. Augustin 189.2
2. All is contained in these brief sentences: “Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength: and love thy neighbour as thyself;”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. City of God 10.3
… To this good we ought to be led by those who love us, and to lead those we love. Thus are fulfilled those two commandments on which hang all the law and the prophets: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy mind, and with all thy soul;” and “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On Christian Doctrine 1.22
… For this is the law of love that has been laid down by Divine authority: “Thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself;” but, “Thou shall love God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind:”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On Christian Doctrine 1.26
… “Thou shalt love,” He says, “the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind; and thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On Christian Doctrine 2.7
… and that God is to be loved with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the mind, and one’s neighbor as one’s self—that is, in such a way that all our love for our neighbor, like all our love for ourselves, should have reference to God.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On the Holy Trinity 2.17
… For it is this very appearance, for the contemplation of which every one sighs who strives to love God with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his mind; to the contemplation of which, he who loves his neighbor, too, as himself builds up his neighbor also as far as he may; on which two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On the Holy Trinity 6.5
… “On which two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On the Holy Trinity 8.7
… For so we should be prepared also to die profitably for our brethren, as our Lord Jesus Christ taught us by His example. For as there are two commandments on which hang all the Law and the prophets, love of God and love of our neighbor;
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On the Holy Trinity 10.7
… and the opinion has been held that this is the mind, nay, that it is even the whole soul altogether. And some accordingly think it to be the blood, others the brain, others the heart; not as the Scripture says, “I will praise Thee, O Lord, with my whole heart;” and, “Thou shall love the Lord thy God with all thine heart;”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On the Holy Trinity 15.26
46. But the reason why, after His resurrection, He both gave the Holy Spirit, first on earth, and afterwards sent Him from heaven, is in my judgment this: that “love is shed abroad in our hearts,” by that Gift itself, whereby we love God and our neighbors, according to those two commandments, “on which hang all the law and the prophets.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On the Catechising of the Uninstructed 23
… This law was given to the Jews in the ten commandments, which they call the Decalogue. And these commandments, again, are reduced to two, namely that we should love God with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our mind; and that we should love our neighbor as ourselves.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On the Catechising of the Uninstructed 27
… Howbeit, love not the unrighteousness of such; but love the persons themselves with the express intent that they may apprehend righteousness; for not only is the love of God enjoined upon us, but also the love of our neighbor, on which two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On the Morals of the Catholic Church 8
… "Thou shalt love," He says, "the Lord thy God." Tell me also, I pray Thee, what must be the measure of love; for I fear lest the desire enkindled in my heart should either exceed or come short in fervor. "With all thy heart," He says. Nor is that enough. "With all thy soul." Nor is it enough yet. "With all thy mind."
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 15.4
… Love worketh no ill to his neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." One table contains the precept of love to God, and the other of love to man. And He who first sent these tablets Himself came to enjoin those precepts on which hang the law and the prophets.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 64
… nor was He silent as to what these were, but declared them in the plainest words: “Thou shall love,” said He, “the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind;” and “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. A Treatise Concerning Man’s Perfection in Righteousness 11
… “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind;”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. A Treatise Concerning Man’s Perfection in Righteousness 19
… although it is the flesh which is said to lust, because the soul lusts carnally. In that perfect state the just man shall live absolutely without any sin, since there will be in his members no law warring against the law of his mind, but wholly will he love God, with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his mind
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount 2.22
… “for this is the law and the prophets.” Now, in the case of these two precepts, He not merely says, The law and the prophets hang; but He has also added, “all the law and the prophets,”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 56.4
… ye despise ‘judgment and charity.’ In judgment and charity give alms to thine own soul.” What is “in judgment”? Look back, and discover thyself; mislike thyself, pronounce a judgment against thyself. And what is charity? “Love the Lord God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind; love thy neighbour as thyself:”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 75.10
… “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the great commandment. The other is like it; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” They are the words of the Lord in the Gospel: “On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 17.6
… The precepts of love, given to us by the Lord, are two: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind;” and, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 41.13
… To what innkeeper? Perhaps to him who said, “We are ambassadors for Christ.” He gave also two pence to pay for the healing of the wounded man. And perhaps these are the two commandments, on which hang all the law and the prophets.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 65.2
… for along with this seeming oversight, the words “that ye love one another” appear also as if they had no reference to that second commandment, which says, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” For “on these two commandments,” He says, “hang all the law and the prophets.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John 10.7
… “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” On what two commandments? “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. And, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 119.5
… 34 ). For when each man hath searched the law, and searched its deep things, in which its whole meaning doth consist; he ought indeed to love God with all his heart, with all his soul, with all his mind; and his neighbour as himself. “For on these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 119.12
… But what is broader than that, “on” which “hang all the Law and the Prophets”?
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 119.17
… But so much the more as the love of God reigneth in every man, so much the less hath wickedness dominion over him. What else then doth he seek than that by the gift of God he may love God? For by loving God he loveth himself, so that he may healthily love his neighbour also as himself: on which commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 121.7
… wherefore should God shield us? On account of offences. Whence come offences? Offences are to be feared from two quarters, for there are two precepts upon which the whole Law hangeth and the Prophets, the love of God and of our neighbour.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 132.19
… but since they have it not as yet, they should know that they are poor. Thus it is that God counteth among His poor all the humble in heart, who are established in that twofold charity,
papa san Leone I Magno † 461 d.C. Sermons 12
And so, when the Lord says, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God , from all thy heart and from all thy mind: and thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself
papa san Leone I Magno † 461 d.C. Sermons 90
… for, when He says, “thou shalt love the Lord thy God from all thy heart, and from all thy mind, and from all thy strength
papa san Leone I Magno † 461 d.C. Sermons 95
… “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God out of all thy heart, and out of all thy mind, and out of all thy strength
Anonymous A Treatise on Re-Baptism by an Anonymous Writer 13
… “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, and with all thy mind, and with all thy thought; and thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. For on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets;”
22:38
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 34
… and, Which of the commandments is greater, and has precedence [27] in the law? Jesus said unto him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O [28] Israel; The Lord our God, the Lord is one: and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy thought, and with all thy [29, 30] strength.
22:39
san Tascio Cecilio Cipriano † 258 d.C. The Epistles of Cyprian 6.5
… There ought also to be no contentions and emulations among you, since the Lord left to us His peace, and it is written, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” “But if ye bite and find fault with one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 73
But when thou hast heard of this, consider the punishment of them that remain. For neither shall they suffer that former penalty only, but this too. And as above He said, that they should say, “Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord,”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 23
… For the beginning and the end of virtue is love. This it has for its root, this for its groundwork, this for its summit. If then it be both beginning and fulfilment, what is there equal to it? But he does not seek love merely, but intense love. For he does not say merely “love thy neighbor,” but, “as thyself.” Hence also Christ said
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. City of God 21.27
… For it is not reasonable that a man who exercises charity towards his neighbor should not do so towards himself, since he hears the Lord saying, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On Lying 9
… The love of our neighbor hath its bounds in each man’s love of himself. “Thou shall love,” saith He, “thy neighbor as thyself.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On the Morals of the Catholic Church 26
… for He was not satisfied with one as knowing that God is one thing and man another, and that the difference is nothing less than that between the Creator and the thing created in the likeness of its Creator. He says then that the second precept is, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist 2.69
… and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." If you will keep peace with these words, you will not be at variance with us. For if we seek unity by war, our war could not be praised in more glorious terms, seeing that it is written, "Thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself."
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. A Treatise Concerning Man’s Perfection in Righteousness 11
… “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind;” and “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 52.6
… Wherefore doth he then exaggerate as much as he can the iniquity, and praise benignity, censuring him that hath wrought in him malignity above benignity? Be he then a rule to himself for seeing: out of himself he shall be judged. Moreover, if he do what is written, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself;”
Early Popes (Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals) The Epistles of Pope Fabian 2.2
… but they had all things common.” For there was no laying of accusations against each other among them, except what was friendly; neither ought there ever to be such among their followers or among believers: for the Lord says, “Do not that to another which thou wouldst not have done to thyself.” And He says also, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself;”
Pseudo-Clement The Clementine Homilies 12.32
… But neither does he punish the sinner. For he who loves his neighbour as himself, as he knows that when he has sinned he does not wish to be punished, so neither does he punish those who sin. And as he wishes to be praised, and blessed, and honoured, and to have all his sins forgiven, thus he does to his neighbour, loving him as himself.
22:40
sant'Ignazio di Antiochia † 108 d.C. Epistle to the Smyrnæans: Shorter and Longer Versions 6
… For, “Thou shall love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and thy neighbour as thyself.” And the Lord says, “This is life eternal, to know the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom He has sent.” And again, “A new commandment give I unto you, that ye love one another. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 34
… and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy thought, and with all thy [29, 30] strength. This is the great and preëminent commandment. And the second, which is like it, is, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. And another commandment [31] greater than these two there is not.
san Tascio Cecilio Cipriano † 258 d.C. 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.” “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 43
“For as Jonas,” saith He, “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.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 68
… His commandments, and the sum of them, are, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and thy neighbor as thyself.” If therefore to love God is to love one’s neighbor, “For if thou lovest me,” He saith, “O Peter, feed my sheep,” but to love one’s neighbor worketh a keeping of the commandments, with reason doth He say, “On these hang all the law and the prophets.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on 2 Timothy 7
… cold in our love to God, because cold in our love to our neighbor. For it is not, indeed it is not possible that a man, who is a stranger to the feeling of love, should have any generosity or manly spirit, since the foundation of all that is good is no other than love. “On this,” it is said, “hang all the law and the prophets.” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 77
… Wherefore it sometimes saith that there are two commandments, sometimes only one. For it is not possible that the man who hath taken hold on the first should not possess the second also. For at one time He said, “On this the Law and the Prophets hang” (
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. The Confessions 12.18
… But the law is good to edify, if a man use it lawfully; for the end of it “is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned.” And well did our Master know, upon which two commandments He hung all the Law and the Prophets.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Letters of St. Augustin 55.38
… But I cherish a hope in the name of Christ, which is not without its reward, because I have not only believed the testimony of my God that “on these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets;”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Letters of St. Augustin 167.16
16. If these things be so, how shall a man who shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, be guilty of all? May it not be, that since the fulfilling of the law is that love wherewith we love God and our neighbour, on which commandments of love “hang all the law and the prophets,”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. City of God 10.5
… For “on these two commandments,” as it is written, “hang all the law and the prophets.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On the Holy Trinity 15.17
… And sometimes that which was given by Moses is specially called the Law: as it is said, “The Law and the Prophets were until John;” and, “On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. The Enchiridion 121
… For this love embraces both the love of God and the love of our neighbor, and “on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets,”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On the Catechising of the Uninstructed 4
… and if whatever has been committed to writing in times subsequent to these, and established by divine authority, is a record of Christ, and admonishes us of love, it is manifest that on those two commandments of love to God and love to our neighbor
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On the Morals of the Catholic Church 29
… What it is that hangs on them it would be absurd to think of learning from me. Hear Christ Himself; hear Christ, I say; hear the Wisdom of God: "On these two commandments," He says, "hang all the law and the prophets."
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 18.7
… To conclude, Catholic Christians are in no difficulty regarding the words of Christ, though in one sense they may be said not to observe the law and the prophets; for by the grace of Christ they keep the law by their love to God and man; and on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 64
But somebody will perhaps think that we lack nothing for the knowledge of righteousness, since the Lord, when He summarily and briefly expounded His word on earth, informed us that the whole law and the prophets depend on two commandments;
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. A Treatise Concerning Man’s Perfection in Righteousness 11
… but the Lord, who on earth consummated and abridged His word, expressly declared that the law and the prophets hung on two commandments,
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 48.9
… although elsewhere He speaks more definitely of the law, distinguishing it from the prophets; as it is said, “The law and the prophets were until John;” and “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 87.1
… For it would be with no true love that we loved one another, if we loved not God. For every one loves his neighbor as himself if he loves God; and if he loves not God, he loves not himself. For on these two commandments of love hang all the law and the prophets:
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 3.7
… for they have laid aside the burdens of earthly cares, and coming up from the bath, from the washing away of the filth of the world by the Sacrament of Baptism, every one beareth twins. For they fulfil the two commandments, of which it is said, “On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets;”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 26.9
9. “Destroy not my soul with the ungodly” ( ver. 9 ). Destroy not then, together with them that hate Thee, my soul, which hath loved the beauty of Thy house. “And my life with the men of blood.” And with them that hate their neighbour. For Thy house is beautified with the two commandments.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 68.15
… or because in that place is carried that light burden? For what are even the wings themselves, but the two commandments of love, whereon hangeth the whole Law and the Prophets?
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 95.9
… and come and follow Me”? They performed this bidding: shorn they came. And because those who believe in Christ are baptized, what is there said? “which come up from the washing;” that is, come up from the cleansing. “Whereof every one beareth twins.” What twins? Those two commandments, wherefrom hang all the Law and the Prophets.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 103.22
… but, “to do them.” And now perhaps each man’s soul is disturbed. Who remembereth all the commandments of God? who remembereth all the writings of God? Lo, I wish not only to hold them in my memory, but also to do them in my works: but who remembereth them all? Fear not: He burdeneth thee not: “on two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”
22:41
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 35
[17, 18] And when the Pharisees assembled, Jesus asked them, and said, What say ye of [19] the Messiah? whose son is he? They said unto him, The son of David. He said unto them, And how doth David in the Holy Spirit call him Lord? for he said,
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. The Harmony of the Gospels 2.74
… He saith unto them, How then doth David in Spirit call Him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on my right hand, till I make Thine enemies Thy footstool? If David then call Him Lord, how is He his son? And no man was able to answer Him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask Him any more questions.”
22:42
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 35
[17, 18] And when the Pharisees assembled, Jesus asked them, and said,
Archelao † fl. 278 d.C. The Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes 47
… Nay, He does not deign even to hear it said that He is David’s son.
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 5.8
… “What think ye of Christ? Whose Son is He? They say unto Him, The son of David. Jesus saith to them, How then doth David in spirit call Him Lord, saying: The Lord said unto my Lord: Sit Thou on My right hand”? Then he added: “If David in spirit then call Him Lord, how is He his son? And no man was able to answer Him a word.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 68
Then since He had answered, He asks also in turn, “What think ye of Christ, whose Son is He? They say unto Him, The Son of David.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 69
And again He adds, “Neither be ye called guides, for one is your guide, even Christ;” and He said not, I. For like as above He said, “What think ye of Christ?”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 13.3
… He asks: "What think ye of Christ? Whose son is He?" They reply: "Of David." Then, to remind them of the name Emmanuel, God with us, He says: "How does David in the Spirit call Him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, till I make Thine enemies Thy footstool?"
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 1.20
… but as being “God over all, blessed for ever,” He is David’s Lord. The Lord then saith to the Jews, “Whose Son say ye that Christ is?” They answered, “The Son of David.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 41.0
On the words of the Gospel, Matt. xxii. 42 , where the Lord asks the Jews whose son they said David was.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 41.2
2. But when the Jews could not answer the Lord proposing a question, and asking “whose Son they said Christ was;” and they answered, “the Son of David;”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 42.0
On the same words of the Gospel, Matt. xxii. 42
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 42.1
… And we indeed hope for Him too; but we hope for Him as One who is to come as Judge, not to be judged. For the Holy Prophets prophesied both, that He should come first to be judged unrighteously, that He should come afterwards to judge with righteousness. “What think ye,” then, saith he, “of Christ? whose Son is He? They answered Him, The Son of David.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 48.3
… But the Lord, to pin them down to some inquiry touching the divinity of Him whose apparent weakness they despised, answered them: “How, then, doth David in spirit call Him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on my right hand, till I put Thine enemies under Thy feet? If David, then, in spirit call Him Lord, how is He his son?”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 110.1
… For when our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ asked of the Jews, whose Son they alleged Christ to be, and they had replied, “the Son of David;” He at once replied to their answer, “How then doth David in spirit call Him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto My Lord?” etc. “If then,” He asked, “David in the spirit call Him Lord, how is He his son?”
Teodoreto di Cirro † 458 d.C. Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 2
Orth. —Yes, for they did not need to learn what they knew; that He was a man they knew, but they did not know that He was from the beginning God. He adopted this same course in the case of the Pharisees; for when He saw them accosting Him as a mere man He asked them “What think ye of Christ? Whose son is He?”
22:43
san Barnaba † 61 d.C. The Epistle of Barnabas 12
… Jesus who was manifested, both by type and in the flesh, is not the Son of man, but the Son of God. Since, therefore, they were to say that Christ was the son of David, fearing and understanding the error of the wicked, he saith, “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.”
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 35
[17, 18] And when the Pharisees assembled, Jesus asked them, and said, What say ye of [19] the Messiah? whose son is he? They said unto him, The son of David.
sant'Ireneo di Lione † 202 d.C. 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, or greater than David,
sant'Ireneo di Lione † 202 d.C. 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, or greater than Jonah, or have been the Lord of David,
san Cirillo di Gerusalemme † 386 d.C. The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 14
… And the Saviour, confirming this saying in the Gospels, says that David spoke not these things of himself, but from the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, saying, How then doth David in the Spirit call Him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. On the Holy Spirit 3.15
… but therefore called the Son his Lord, that you might not think Him to be the Son, but the Lord of the prophet, as the Lord Himself showed in the Gospel, when He said: “If David in the Spirit called Him Lord, how is he his Son?”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 26
… and thereby stopping their mouths, He said, “How then doth David in spirit call Him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand ?”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 68
And not even at this doth He stop, but in order to move them to fear, He adds what followeth also, saying, “Till I make Thine enemies Thy footstool;”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 80
3. And yet what kind of blasphemy was this? For indeed before He had said, when they were gathered together, “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on my right hand,”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 6
… not requiring worthiness: and not simply gave, but with abundance. Whence does this appear? Henceforth after the mention of His giving the Spirit, he confidently speaks also of His ascension into heaven; and not only so, but again adducing the witness, and reminding them of that Person concerning Whom Christ once spake. (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 8
… Concerning the Patriarch Christ Himself speaks by name, “that your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it, and was glad.” ( c. viii. 56 .) And concerning David, confuting the Jews He said, “How then doth David in spirit call Him Lord, saying, the Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand.” (
Tirannio Rufino † 411 d.C. A Commentary on the Apostles' Creed 32
… and every tongue shall confess to Him that Jesus is Lord in the glory of God the Father;” of Whom also David thus speaks, “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on my right hand until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.” Referring to which words the Lord in the Gospel said to the Pharisees, “If therefore David in spirit calleth Him Lord, how is He his Son?”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 1.20
… When they answered then that Christ was David’s Son, Jesus said to them, “How then doth David in spirit call Him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, till I put Thine enemies under Thy feet. If David then in spirit call Him Lord, how is He his Son?”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 41.2
… If David then,” He saith, “in spirit call Him Lord, how is He his Son?”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 42.1
… whose Son is He? They answered Him, The Son of David.” And this was entirely according to the Scriptures. But He said, “How then doth David in spirit call Him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto My Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, till I make Thine enemies Thy footstool. If David then in spirit call Him Lord, how is He his Son?”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 10.15
… “God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David.” Nor to this understanding of it is the sentence opposed in which the same Lord asks of the Jews, “If Christ be the Son of David, how then doth he in spirit call Him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on my right hand, until I put Thine enemies under Thy feet.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 55.3
… He saw that they had stayed at the flesh, and had lost sight of the divinity; and He reproveth them by propounding a question: “How then doth David himself in spirit call Him Lord, ‘The Lord hath said unto my Lord.’…If then He in spirit calleth Him Lord, how is He is Son?”
Teodoreto di Cirro † 458 d.C. Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 2
… He adopted this same course in the case of the Pharisees; for when He saw them accosting Him as a mere man He asked them “What think ye of Christ? Whose son is He?” And when they said “Of David” He went on “How then doth David calling him Lord say ‘The Lord said unto my Lord sit thou on my right hand.’”
papa san Leone I Magno † 461 d.C. Sermons 28
… sit thou on My right hand till I place thy enemies as the footstool of thy feet
22:44
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. The Five Books Against Marcion 5.9
… Now they say that this Psalm was a chant in honour of Hezekiah, because “he went up to the house of the Lord,” and God turned back and removed his enemies. Therefore, (as they further hold,) those other words, “Before the morning star did I beget thee from the womb,”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 68
And He Himself too in like manner for this cause introduces the doctrine in the way of question and inference, saying, “How then doth David in spirit call Him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on my right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool;”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 69
And since He had made mention of “the Lord” and “my Lord,”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. City of God 17.14
… Which opinion is refuted by the voice of the Saviour Himself in the Gospel, when He says that David himself by the Spirit said Christ was his Lord; for the 110th Psalm begins thus, “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.”
22:45
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 35
[21, 22] If then David calleth him Lord, how is he his son? And no one was able to answer him; and no man dared from that day again to ask him of anything.
san Gregorio di Nissa † 395 d.C. Against Eunomius 7.1
… For how could any one, being but man, know the supercelestial converse of the Father with the Son? But being “in the Spirit” he said that the Lord spoke to the Lord those words which He has uttered. For if, He says, “David in the Spirit calls him Lord, how is He then his son
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 68
And He Himself too in like manner for this cause introduces the doctrine in the way of question and inference, saying, “How then doth David in spirit call Him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on my right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool;” and again, “If David then call Him Lord, how is He then his Son,”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 8.9
… and son of David because son of Mary. Hear the apostle openly declaring, “Who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.” Hear Him also declared the Lord of David; let David himself declare this: “The Lord said to my Lord, Sit Thou on my right hand.” And this passage Jesus Himself brought forward to the Jews, and refuted them from it.
22:46
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 35
[21, 22] If then David calleth him Lord, how is he his son?
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 68
For they were silent from thenceforth, not willingly, but from their having nothing to say; and they received so deadly a blow, as no longer to dare to attempt the same things any more. For, “no one,” it is said, “durst from that day forth ask Him any more questions.”
22:1
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. lxix.
Forasmuch as He had said, And it shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof, He now proceeds to shew what nation that is.
La Glossa interlin.
Answered, that is, meeting their evil thoughts of putting Him to death.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. de Cons. Ev. ii. 71.
This parable is related only by Matthew. Luke gives one like it, but it is not the same, as the order shews.
san Gregorio Magno † 604 d.C. Hom. in Ev. xxxviii. 2.
Here, by the wedding-feast is denoted the present Church; there, by the supper, the last and eternal feast. For into this enter some who shall perish; into that whosoever has once entered in shall never be put forth. But if any should maintain that these are the same lessons, we may perhaps explain that that part concerning the guest who had come in without a wedding garment, which Luke has not mentioned, Matthew has related. That the one calls it supper, the other dinner, makes no difference; for with the ancients the dinner was at the ninth hour, and was therefore often called supper.
Origene † 253 d.C.
The kingdom of heaven, in respect of Him who reigns there, is like a king; in respect of Him who shares the kingdom, it is like a king’s son; in respect of those things which are in the kingdom, it is like servants and guests, and among them the king’s armies. It is specified, A man that is a king, that what is spoken may be as by a man to men, and that a man may regulate men unwilling to be regulated by God. But the kingdom of heaven will then cease to be like a man, when zeal and contention and all other passions and sins having ceased, we shall cease to walk after men, and shall see Him as He is. For now we see Him not as He is, but as He has been made for us in our dispensation.
san Gregorio Magno † 604 d.C. ubi sup.
G marriage feast for God the Son, when He joined Him to human nature in the womb of the Virgin. But far be it from us to conclude, that because marriage takes place between two separate persons, that therefore the person of our Redeemer was made up of two separate persons. We say indeed that He exists of two natures, and in two natures, but we hold it unlawful to believe that He was compounded of two persons. It is safer therefore to say, that the marriage feast was made by the King the Father for the King the Son when He joined to Him the Holy Church in the mystery of His incarnation. The womb of the Virgin Mother was the bride-chamber of this Bridegroom.
Pseudo-Crisostomo
Otherwise; When the resurrection of the saints shall be, then the life, which is Christ, shall revive man, swallowing up his mortality in its own immortality. For now we receive the Holy Spirit as a pledge of the future union, but then we shall have Christ Himself more fully in us.
Origene † 253 d.C.
Or, by the marriage of Bridegroom with Bride, that is, of Christ with the soul, understand the Assumption of the Word, the produce whereof is good works.
sant'Ilario † 367 d.C.
Rightly has the Father already made this wedding, because this eternal union and espousal of the new body is already perfect in Christ.
Pseudo-Crisostomo
When the servants were sent to call them, they must have been invited before. Men have been invited from the time of Abraham, to whom was promised Christ’s incarnation.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
He sent his servant, without doubt Moses, by whom I le gave the Law, to those who had been invited. But if you read servants as most copies have, it must be referred to the Prophets, by whom they were invited, but neglected to come. By the servants who were sent the second time, we may better understand the Prophets than the Apostles; that is to say, if servant is read in the first place; but if ‘servants,’ then by the second servants are to be understood the Apostles;
Pseudo-Crisostomo
whom He sent when He said unto them, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Mat. 10:5.)
Origene † 253 d.C.
Or; The servants who were first sent to call them that were bidden to the wedding, are to be taken as the Prophets converting the people by their prophecy to the festival of the restoration of the Church to Christ. They who would not come at the first message are they who refused to hear the words of the Prophets. The others who were sent a second time were another assembly of Prophets.
sant'Ilario † 367 d.C.
Or; The servants who were first sent to call them that were bidden, are the Apostles; they who, being before bidden, are now invited to come in, are the people of Israel, who had before been bidden through the Law to the glories of eternity. To the Apostles therefore it belonged to remind those whom the Prophets had invited. Those sent with the second injunction are the Apostolic men their successors.
san Gregorio Magno † 604 d.C. ubi sup.
But because these who were first invited would not come to the feast, the second summons says, Behold, I have prepared my dinner.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
The dinner that is prepared, the oxen and the fatlings that are killed, is either a description of regal magnificence by the way of metaphor, that by carnal things spiritual may be understood; or the greatness of the doctrines, and the manifold teaching of God in His law, may be understood.
Pseudo-Crisostomo
When therefore the Lord bade the Apostles, Go ye and preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand, it was the same message as is here given, I have prepared my dinner; i. e. I have set out the table of Scripture out of the Law and the Prophets.
san Gregorio Magno † 604 d.C. ubi sup.
By the oxen are signified the Fathers of the Old Testament; who by sufferance of the Law gored their enemies with the horn of bodily strength. By fatlings are meant fatted animals, for from ‘alere’, comes ‘altilia,’ as it were ‘alitilia’ or ‘alita.’ By the fatlings are intended the Fathers of the New Testament; who while they receive sweet grace of inward fattening, are raised by the wing of contemplation from earthly desires to things above. He says therefore, My oxen and my fallings are killed; as much as to say, Look to the deaths of the Fathers who have been before you, and desire some amendment of your lives.
Pseudo-Crisostomo
Otherwise; He says oxen and fatlings, not as though the oxen were not fatted, but because all the oxen were not fat. Therefore the fatlings denote the Prophets who were filled with the Holy Spirit; the oxen those who were both Priests and Prophets, as Jeremiah and Ezekiel; for as the oxen are the leaders of the herd, so also the Priests are leaders of the people.
sant'Ilario † 367 d.C.
Or otherwise; The oxen are the glorious army of Martyrs, offered, like choice victims, for the confession of God; the fatlings are spiritual men, as birds fed for flight upon heavenly food, that they may fill others with the abundance of the food they have eaten.
san Gregorio Magno † 604 d.C. ubi sup.
It is to be observed, that in the first invitation nothing was said of the oxen or fatlings, but in the second it is announced that they are already killed, because Almighty God when we will not hear His words gives examples, that what we suppose impossible may become easy to us to surmount, when we hear that others have passed through it before us.
Origene † 253 d.C.
Or; The dinner which is prepared is the oracle of God; and so the more mighty of the oracles of God are the oxen; the sweet and pleasant are the fatlings. For if any one bring forward feeble words, without power, and not having strong force of reason, these are the lean things; the fatlings are when to the establishment of each proposition many examples are brought forward backed by reasonable proofs. For example, supposing one holding discourse of chastity, it might well be represented by the turtle-dove; but should he bring forward the same holy discourse full of reasonable proof out of Scripture, so as to delight and strengthen the mind of his hearer, then he brings the dove fatted.
Pseudo-Crisostomo
That He says, And all things are now ready, means, that all that is required to salvation is already filled up in the Scriptures; there the ignorant may find instruction; the self-willed may read of terrors; he who is in difficulty may there find promises to rouse him to activity.
La Glossa interlin.
Or, All things are now ready, i. e. The entrance into the kingdom, which had been hitherto closed, is now ready through faith in My incarnation.
Pseudo-Crisostomo non occ. sed vid. Gloss. ord.
Or He says, All things are now ready which belong to the mystery of the Lord’s Passion, and our redemption. He says, Come to the marriage, not with your feet, but with faith, and good conduct. But they made light of it; why they did so He shews when He adds, And they went their way, one to his farm, another to his merchandize.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C.
These occupations seem to be entirely reasonable; but we learn hence, that however necessary the things that take up our time, we ought to prefer spiritual things to every thing beside. But it seems to me that they only pretended these engagements as a cloak for their disregard of the invitation.
sant'Ilario † 367 d.C.
For men are taken up with worldly ambition as with a farm; and many through covetousness are engrossed with trafficking.
Pseudo-Crisostomo
Or otherwise; When we work with the labour of our hands, for example, cultivating our field or our vineyard, or any manufacture of wood or iron, we seem to be occupied with our farm; any other mode of getting money unattended with manual labour is here called merchandize. O most miserable world! and miserable ye that follow it! The pursuits of this world have ever shut men out of life.
san Gregorio Magno † 604 d.C.
Whosoever then intent upon earthly business, or devoted to the actions of this world, feigns to be meditating upon the mystery of the Lord’s Passion, and to be living accordingly, is he that refuses to come to the King’s wedding on pretext of going to his farm or his merchandize. Nay often, which is worse, some who are called not only reject the grace, but become persecutors, And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them despitefully, and slew them.
Pseudo-Crisostomo
Or, by the business of a farm, He denotes the Jewish populace, whom the delights of this world separated from-Christ; by the excuse of merchandize, the Priests and other ministers of the Temple, who, coming to the service of the Law and the Temple through greediness of gain, have been shut out of the faith by covetousness. Of these He said not, ‘They were filled with envy,’ but They made light of it. For they who through hate and spite crucified Christ, are they who were filled with envy; but they who being entangled in business did not believe on Him, are not said to have been filled with envy, but to have made light of it. The Lord is silent respecting His own death, because He had spoken of it in the foregoing parable, but He shews forth the death of His disciples, whom after His ascension the Jews put to death, stoning Stephen and executing James the son of Alphæus, for which things Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans. And it is to be observed, that anger is attributed to God figuratively and not properly; He is then said to be angry when He punishes.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
When He was doing works of mercy, and bidding to His marriage-feast, He was called a man; (homini regi) now when He comes to vengeance, the man is dropped, and He is called only a King.
Origene † 253 d.C.
Let those who sin against the God of the Law, and the Prophets, and the whole creation, declare whether He who is here called man, and is said to be angry, is indeed the Father Himself. If they allow this, they will be forced to own that many things are said of Him applicable to the passible nature of man; not for that He has passions, but because He is represented to us after the manner of passible human nature. In this way we take God’s anger, repentance, and the other things of the like sort in the Prophets.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
By His armies we understand the Romans under Vespasian and Titus, who having slaughtered the inhabitants of Judæa, laid in ashes the faithless city.
Pseudo-Crisostomo
The Roman army is called God’s army; because The earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof; (Ps. 24:1.) nor would the Romans have come to Jerusalem, had not the Lord stirred them thither.
san Gregorio Magno † 604 d.C. ubi sup.
Or, The armies of our King are the legions of His Angels. He is said therefore to have sent His armies, and to have destroyed those murderers, because all judgment is executed upon men by the Angels. He destroys those murderers, when He cuts off persecutors; and burns up their city, because not only their souls, but the body of flesh they had tenanted, is tormented in the everlasting fire of hell.
Origene † 253 d.C.
Or, the city of those wicked men is in each doctrine the assembly of those who meet in the wisdom of the rulers of this world; which the King sets fire to and destroys, as consisting of evil buildings.
san Gregorio Magno † 604 d.C. ubi sup.
But when He sees that His invitation is spurned at, He will not have His Son’s marriage-feast empty; the word of God will find where it may stay itself.
Origene † 253 d.C.
He saith to His servants, that is, to the Apostles; or to the Angels, who were set over the calling of the Gentiles, The wedding is ready.
Remigio † 908 d.C.
That is, the whole sacrament of the human dispensation is completed and closed. But they which, were bidden, (Rom. 10:3.) that is, the Jews, were not worthy, because, ignorant of the righteousness of God, and going about to establish their own righteousness, they have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God. The Jewish nation then being rejected, the Gentile people were taken in to the marriage-feast; whence it follows, Go ye out into the crossings of the streets, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the wedding.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
For the Gentile nation was not in the streets, but in the crossings of the streets.
Remigio † 908 d.C.
These are the errors of the Gentiles.
Pseudo-Crisostomo
Or; The streets are all the professions of this world, as philosophy, soldiery, and the like. And therefore He says, Go out into the crossings of the streets, that they may call to the faith men of every condition. Moreover, as chastity is the way that leads to God, so fornication is the way that leads to the Devil; and so it is in the other virtues and vices. Thus He bids them invite to the faith men of every profession or condition.
sant'Ilario † 367 d.C.
By the street also is to be understood the time of this world, and they are therefore bid to go to the crossings of the streets, because the past is remitted to all.
san Gregorio Magno † 604 d.C. ubi sup.
Or otherwise; In holy Scripture, way is taken to mean actions; so that the crossings of the ways we understand as failure in action, for they usually come to God readily, who have had little prosperity in worldly actions.
Origene † 253 d.C.
Or otherwise; I suppose this first bidding to the wedding to have been a bidding of some of the more noble minds. For God would have those before all come to the feast of the divine oracles who are of the more ready wit to understand them; and forasmuch as they who are such are loth to come to that kind of summons, other servants are sent to move them to come, and to promise that they shall find the dinner prepared. For as in the things of the body, one is the bride, others the inviters to the feast, and they that are bidden are others again; so God knows the various ranks of souls, and their powers, and the reasons why these are taken into the condition of the Bride, others in the rank of the servants that call, and others among the number of those that are bidden as guests. But they who had been thus especially invited contemned the first inviters as poor in understanding, and went their way, following their own devices, as more delighting in them than in those things which the King by his servants promised. Yet are these more venial than they who ill-treat and put to death the servants sent unto them; those, that is, who daringly assail with weapons of contentious words the servants sent, who are unequal to solve their subtle difficulties, and those are illtreated or put to death by them. The servants going forth are either Christ’s Apostles going from Judæa and Jerusalem, or the Holy Angels from the inner worlds, and going to the various ways of various manners, gathered together whomsoever they found, not caring whether before their calling they had been good or bad. By the good here we may understand simply the more humble and upright of those who come to the worship of God, to whom agreed what the Apostle says, When the Gentiles which have not the Law do by nature the things contained in the Law, they are a law unto themselves. (Rom. 2:14.)
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
For there is an infinite difference among the Gentiles themselves; some are more prone to vice, others are endowed with more incorrupt and virtuous manners.
san Gregorio Magno † 604 d.C. ubi sup.
Or; He means that in this present Church there cannot be bad without good, nor good without bad. He is not good who refuses to endure the bad.
Origene † 253 d.C.
The marriage-feast of Christ and the Church is filled, when they who were found by the Apostles, being restored to God, sat down to the feast. But since it behoved that both bad and good should be called, not that the bad should continue bad, but that they should put off the garments unmeet for the wedding, and should put on the marriage garments, to wit, bowels of mercy and kindness, for this cause the King goes out, that He may see them set down before the supper is set before them, that they may be detained who have the wedding garment in which He is delighted, and that he may condemn the opposite.
Pseudo-Crisostomo
The King came in to see the guests; not as though there was any place where He is not; but where He will look to give judgment, there He is said to be present; where He will not, there He seems to be absent. The day of His coming to behold is the day of judgment, when He will visit Christians seated at the board of the Scriptures.
Origene † 253 d.C.
But when He was come in, He found there one who had not put off his old behaviour; He saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment. He speaks of one only, because all, who after faith continue to serve that wickedness which they had before the faith, are but of one kind.
san Gregorio Magno † 604 d.C. ubi sup.
What ought we to understand by the wedding garment, but charity? For this the Lord had upon Him, when He came to espouse the Church to Himself. He then enters in to the wedding feast, but without the wedding garment, who has faith in the Church, but not charity.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. cont. Faust. xxii. 19.
Or, he goes to the feast without a garment, who goes seeking his own, and not the Bridegroom’s honour.
sant'Ilario † 367 d.C.
Or; The wedding garment is the grace of the Holy Spirit, and the purity of that heavenly temper, which taken up on the confession of a good enquiry is to be preserved pure and unspotted for the company of the kingdom of heaven.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
Or; The marriage garment is the commandments of the Lord, and the works which are done under the Law and the Gospel, and form the clothing of the new man. Whoso among the Christian body shall be found in the day of judgment not to have these, is straightway condemned. He saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither, not having a wedding garment? He calls him friend, because he was invited to the wedding as being a friend by faith; but He charges him with want of manners in polluting by his filthy dress the elegance of the wedding entertainment.
Origene † 253 d.C.
And forasmuch as he who is in sin, and puts not on the Lord Jesus Christ, has no excuse, it follows, But he was speechless.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
For in that day there will be no room for blustering manner1, nor power of denial, when all the Angels and the world itself are witnesses against the sinner.
Origene † 253 d.C.
He who has thus insulted the marriage feast is not only cast out therefrom, but besides by the King’s officers, who are set over his prisons, is chained up from that power of walking which he employed not to walk to any good thing, and that power of reaching forth his hand, wherewith he had fulfilled no work for any good; and is sentenced to a place whence all light is banished, which is called outer darkness.
san Gregorio Magno † 604 d.C. ubi sup.
The hands and feet are then bound by a severe sentence of judgment, which before refused to be bound from wicked actions by amendment of life. Or punishment binds them, whom sin had before bound from good works.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. de Trin. xi. 6.
The bonds of wicked and depraved desires are the chains which bind him who deserves to be cast out into outer darkness.
san Gregorio Magno † 604 d.C. ubi sup.
By inward darkness we express blindness, of heart; outer darkness signifies the everlasting night of damnation.
Pseudo-Crisostomo
Or, it points to the difference of punishment inflicted on sinners. Outer darkness being the deepest, inward darkness the lesser, as it were the outskirts of the place.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
By a metaphor taken from the body, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, is shewn the greatness of the torments. The binding of the hands and feet also, and the weeping of eyes, and the gnashing of teeth, understand as proving the truth of the resurrection of the body.
san Gregorio Magno † 604 d.C. ubi sup.
There shall gnash those teeth which here delighted in gluttony; there shall weep those eyes which here roamed in illicit desire; every member shall there have its peculiar punishment, which here was a slave to its peculiar vice.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
And because in the marriage and supper the chief thing is the end and not the beginning, therefore He adds, For many are called, but few chosen.
sant'Ilario † 367 d.C.
For to invite all without exception is a courtesy of public benevolence; but out of the invited or called, the election will be of worth, by distinction of merit.
san Gregorio Magno † 604 d.C. ubi sup.
For some never begin a good course, and some never continue in that good course which they have begun. Let each one’s care about himself be in proportion to his ignorance of what is yet to come.
Pseudo-Crisostomo
Or otherwise; Whenever God will try His Church, He enters into it that He may see the guests; and if He finds any one not having on the wedding garment, He enquires of him, How then were you made a Christian, if you neglect these works? Such a one Christ gives over to His ministers, that is, to seducing leaders, who bind his hands, that is, his works, and his feet, that is, the motions of his mind, and cast him into darkness, that is, into the errors of the Gentiles or the Jews, or into heresy. The nigher darkness is that of the Gentiles, for they have never heard the truth which they despise; the outer darkness is that of the Jews, who have heard but do not believe; the outermost is that of the heretics, who have heard and have learned.
Il testo latino
Chrysostomus in Matth
Quia dixerat: dabitur genti facienti fructum eius, hic ostendit cui genti: unde dicitur et respondens Iesus, dixit iterum in parabolis eis, dicens: simile factum est regnum caelorum
, et cetera. Glossa
Dicit autem respondens, idest obvians pravae cogitationi eorum de morte sua
Augustinus de Cons. Evang
Parabolam autem istam solus Matthaeus narrat: simile quidem etiam Lucas commemorat; sed non est hoc, sicut et ipse ordo indicat
Gregorius in Evang
Hic per nuptias, praesens Ecclesia; illic per coenam, aeternum et ultimum convivium designatur; quia et in hanc nonnulli exituri intrant; ad illud quisquis semel intraverit, ulterius non exibit. At si quis forte contendat hanc eamdem esse lectionem, intelligi forsitan potest quia de proiecto eo, qui cum nuptiali veste non intraverat, quod Lucas tacuit, Matthaeus dixit; quod vero per illum coena, per hunc autem prandium dicitur, nequaquam obsistit: quia cum ad horam nonam apud antiquos prandium fieret quotidie, ipsum quoque prandium coena vocabatur
Origenes in Matth
Regnum autem caelorum simile est, secundum eum quidem qui regnat, homini regi; secundum eum autem qui conregnat, filio regis; secundum ea vero quae sunt in regno regis, servis et invitatis ad nuptias; inter quod est et exercitus regis. Additum est autem homini regi, ut hominibus quasi homo loquatur, et dispenset homines non cupientes dispensari a Deo. Sed tunc cessabit regnum caelorum esse simile homini, cum cessante zelo et contentione et ceteris passionibus et peccatis, cessaverimus secundum hominem ambulare, et videbimus eum sicuti est. Nunc enim videmus eum non sicuti est, sed sicuti per nostram dispensationem factus fuerit nobis
Gregorius
Tunc autem Deus pater Deo filio nuptias fecit quando hunc in utero virginis humanae naturae coniunxit. Sed quia ex duabus personis fieri solet nuptiarum coniunctio, absit hoc ab intellectibus nostris ut personam redemptoris nostri ex duabus personis credamus esse unitam. Ex duabus quippe atque in duabus hunc naturis existere dicimus, sed ex duabus personis credere compositum ut nefas vitamus. Securius ergo dici potest, quia in hoc rex pater regi filio nuptias fecit, quod ei per incarnationis mysterium sanctam Ecclesiam sociavit. Uterus autem genitricis virginis huius sponsi thalamus fuit
Chrysostomus super Matth
Vel aliter. Cum resurrectio fuerit facta sanctorum, tunc suscipiet hominem vita, quae est Christus, mortalitatem eius sua immortalitate absorbens. Nunc enim quasi arrhas futuri coniugii spiritum sanctum accipimus; tunc autem ipsum Christum plenius in nobis habebimus
Origenes
Vel coniunctionem sponsi ad sponsam, idest Christi ad animam, verbi susceptionem intellige; partus autem opera bona
Hilarius
Merito autem a patre iam sunt hae nuptiae factae, quia aeternitatis huius societas et novi corporis desponsata coniunctio habetur iam perfecta in Christo. Sequitur et misit servos suos vocare invitatos ad nuptias; et noluerunt venire
Chrysostomus super Matth
Ergo quando misit servos suos, iam invitati prius erant. Invitati sunt enim homines a tempore Abrahae, cui Christi incarnatio promittebatur
Hieronymus
Misit autem servum suum; nec dubium quin Moysen, per quem legem invitatis dedit. Si autem servos legerimus, ut plura habent exemplaria, ad prophetas referendum est: quia invitati per eos, venire contempserunt. Sequitur iterum misit alios servos, dicens: dicite invitatis, et cetera. Servi qui secundo missi sunt, melius est ut prophetae intelligantur, quam apostoli; ita tamen si servus supra fuerit scriptus; sin autem servos ibidem legas, hic servi secundi, apostoli sunt intelligendi
Chrysostomus super Matth
Quos misit cum eis dixit: in viam gentium ne abieritis (...) sed potius ite ad oves perditas domus Israel
Origenes in Matth
Vel qui primi mittuntur servi vocare invitatos ad nuptias habentur prophetae convertentes ex populo per suas prophetias ad laetitiam et restitutionem Ecclesiae ad Christum. Qui autem noluerunt venire in primis invitati, sunt qui noluerunt audire verba prophetarum. Iterum alii transmissi, alia congregatio prophetarum est
Hilarius in Matth
Vel servi primo missi, qui invitatos vocarent, apostoli sunt; qui autem admonentur ut veniant, invitati antea, populus Israel est: in gloriam enim aeternitatis per legem est advocatus. Apostolorum ergo erat proprium commonefacere eos quos invitaverant prophetae. Qui vero iterum cum praeceptorum conditione mittuntur, apostolici viri sunt successores eorum
Gregorius in Evang
Sed quia hi qui prius invitati sunt, ad nuptiarum convivium venire noluerunt, in secunda invitatione iam dicitur ecce prandium meum paravi
Hieronymus
Prandium paratum, et tauri, et altilia occisa, vel per metaphoram opes regiae describuntur, ut ex carnalibus intelligantur spiritualia; vel certe dogmatum magnitudo et doctrina Dei lege plenissima sentiri potest
Chrysostomus super Matth
Cum ergo dominus apostolis dixit: euntes praedicate, dicentes quia appropinquavit regnum caelorum, hoc significavit quod hic dicitur prandium meum paravi: idest, ex lege et prophetis Scripturarum mensas ornavi: unde sequitur tauri mei et altilia occisa sunt
Gregorius
Per tauros autem patres veteris testamenti significantur; qui ex permissione legis inimicos suos virtutis corporeae cornu feriebant. Altilia vero saginata dicimus: ab eo enim quod est alere, altilia, quasi alitilia, vel quasi alita vocamus. Per altilia ergo patres novi testamenti figurantur; qui dum gratiam pinguedinis internae dulcedinis percipiunt, a terrenis desideriis ad sublimia contemplationis suae penna sublevantur. Dicit ergo tauri mei et altilia occisa sunt; ac si diceret: patrum praecedentium mortes aspicite, et remedia vitae vestrae cogitate
Chrysostomus super Matth
Vel aliter. Ideo dicit et saginata et tauros, non quia et tauri non fuerint saginati, sed quia non omnes saginati fuerunt tauri; ergo saginata tantummodo dicit prophetas, qui fuerunt spiritu sancto repleti; tauros autem qui prophetae fuerunt et sacerdotes, sicut Ieremias et Ezechiel: ut enim tauri duces sunt gregis, ita et sacerdotes principes sunt populi
Hilarius
Vel aliter. Tauri gloriosa martyrum species est, qui confessioni Dei, tamquam hostia electa, sunt immolati; saginata vero sunt homines spirituales, tamquam caelesti pane ad evolandum aves pastae, ceteros accepti cibi ubertate expleturae
Gregorius
Notandum vero, quod in priore invitatione nil de tauris et altilibus dicitur; in secunda autem iam tauri et altilia mactata memorantur: quia omnipotens Deus, cum verba eius audire volumus, adiungit exempla: ut omne quod impossibile credimus, tanto nobis ad superandum fiat facilius, quanto per hoc transisse et alios audimus
Origenes in Matth
Vel quia prandium quod paratur, est eloquium Dei; fortia quaeque eloquiorum Dei, tauri intelligantur; suavia vero et delectabilia eorum, sunt saginata. Si quis enim proferat quaedam dicta modica et non firma, et non magnam virtutem rationis habentia, videntur macra esse quae proferuntur; saginata autem sunt cum ad unamquamque propositionem exempla multa rationis probatione repleta inducuntur: puta si aliquis de castitate sermonem loquitur, recte intelligitur turtur; sed cum ipsum sanctitatis sermonem cum rationis probatione de Scripturis repletum protulerit, ita ut delectet et confirmet animum audientis, protulit eum saginatum
Chrysostomus super Matth
Quod autem dicitur et omnia parata sunt, intelligitur quia quicquid quaeritur ad salutem, iam adimpletum est in Scripturis: qui enim ignorans est, invenit ibi quod discat; qui contumax est, invenit ibi quod timeat; qui laborat, invenit ibi promissa, quibus excitetur ad opus
Glossa
Vel omnia parata sunt, idest, introitus regni paratus est per fidem meae incarnationis, qui ante fuerat clausus
Chrysostomus super Matth
Vel omnia parata dicit quae pertinent ad mysterium dominicae passionis et nostrae redemptionis. Dicit autem venite ad nuptias, non pedibus, sed fide et moribus. Sequitur illi autem neglexerunt. Quare autem neglexerint, manifestat cum subditur et abierunt alius in villam suam, alius vero ad negotiationem suam
Chrysostomus in Matth
Quamvis autem videantur rationabiles occasiones esse; sed hinc discimus quod etiam si necessaria sint quae detinent, omnibus tamen praeponere spiritualia oportet. Mihi autem videtur quod his occasionibus usi, negligentiae velamina proponebant
Hilarius in Matth
Ambitione enim saeculi, tamquam villa, homines occupantur; plures vero propter pecuniae cupiditatem negotiatione detinentur
Chrysostomus super Matth
Vel aliter. Cum labore manuum nostrarum aliquid facimus, puta exercentes agrum vel vineam, aut opus ligni vel ferri, villam colere videmur; cum autem non labore manuum nostrarum alia lucra sequimur, totum hoc negotiatio appellatur. O miserrimus mundus, et miseri qui eum sequuntur. Semper enim mundialia opera homines excluserunt a vita
Gregorius in Evang
Qui ergo intentus labori terreno, vel mundi actionibus deditus, mysterium incarnationis dominicae pensare, et secundum illud vivere dissimulat, quasi ad villam vel negotium pergens, venire ad regis nuptias recusat; et plerumque, quod est gravius, nonnulli vocati gratiam non solum respuunt, sed etiam persequuntur: unde subditur reliqui vero tenuerunt servos eius, et contumeliis affectos occiderunt
Chrysostomus super Matth
Vel per occupationem villae, populares Iudaeorum significat, quos mundi delectatio separavit a Christo; per occupationem vero negotiationis, sacerdotes, ceterosque ministros templi significavit, quos lucri obtentu venientes ad ministerium legis et templi, avaritia separavit a fide; de quibus non dixit quod malignati sunt, sed neglexerunt: qui enim odio aut invidia crucifixerunt Christum, illi malignati sunt: qui autem negotiis impediti non crediderunt, illi neglexisse dicuntur, non malignari. De sua tamen morte dominus tacet, quia in priori parabola dixerat; sed ostendit mortem discipulorum suorum, quos post ascensum ipsius occiderunt Iudaei, Stephanum lapidantes, et Iacobum Alphaei occidentes: propter quae Ierusalem destructa est a Romanis. Et notandum, quod ira in Deo non proprie, sed translative dicitur; tunc enim irasci dicitur quando ulciscitur; unde et hic dicitur rex autem cum audisset, iratus est
Hieronymus
Quando invitabat ad nuptias, et agebat opera clementiae, hominis nomen appositum est: nunc autem quando ad ultionem venit, homo siletur, et rex tantum dicitur
Origenes in Matth
Dicant autem qui peccant in Deum legis et prophetarum et totius creationis, utrum iste qui et homo dicitur et iratus proponitur, ipse est pater Christi. Quod si dixerint hunc ipsum esse, cogendi sunt confiteri quoniam multa in eo secundum passibilem hominum naturam esse dicuntur: non quia ipse passibilis est, sed quia morem gerit passibilis naturae hominum. Et secundum hanc consequentiam suscipere convenit et iram Dei et poenitentiam et cetera huiusmodi in prophetis. Sequitur et missis exercitibus suis
Hieronymus
Per hos exercitus, Romanos intelligimus sub duce Vespasiano et Tito, qui, occisis Iudaeae populis, praevaricatricem incenderunt civitatem
Chrysostomus super Matth
Romanus autem exercitus dicitur exercitus Dei: quia domini est terra et plenitudo eius; nec etiam venissent Romani Ierusalem, nisi eos dominus excitasset
Origenes in Matth
Vel Angelorum agmina sunt exercitus regis nostri. Missis ergo exercitibus extinxisse homicidas dicitur, quia in hominibus omne iudicium per Angelos exercetur. Homicidas ergo perdit, quia persequentes interimit; civitatem eorum igni succendit, quia illorum non solum animae, sed caro quoque in qua habitaverunt, aeternae Gehennae flamma cruciantur
Origenes
Vel civitas impiorum est, secundum unumquodque dogma, congregatio eorum qui conveniunt in sapientia principum huius saeculi: quam succendit rex et exterminat, quasi ex malis aedificationibus consistentem
Gregorius
Sed is qui invitantem se contemni conspicit, filii sui nuptias vacuas non habebit: quandoque enim sermo Dei inventurus est ubi requiescat: unde subditur tunc ait servis suis
Origenes
Idest apostolis, aut Angelis, qui praepositi erant in vocatione gentium. Nuptiae quidem paratae sunt
Remigio
Idest, omne sacramentum humanae dispensationis iam peractum atque completum est. Sed qui invitati erant, idest Iudaei, non fuerunt digni: quia Dei iustitiam ignorantes, et suam statuere volentes, indignos se iudicaverunt aeternae vitae. Reprobato ergo Iudaico populo, ad has nuptias gentilis populus est susceptus: unde sequitur ite ergo ad exitus viarum, et quoscumque inveneritis vocate ad nuptias
Hieronymus
Gentilis enim populus non erat in viis, sed in exitibus viarum
Remigio
Qui sunt errores gentilium
Chrysostomus super Matth
Vel viae sunt omnes professiones huius mundi, ut puta philosophiae, militiae, et huiusmodi. Dicit ergo ite ad exitus viarum: ut cuiuslibet conditionis homines vocent ad fidem. Adhuc, sicut castitas via est quae ducit ad Deum, sic fornicatio via est quae ducit ad Diabolum; et sic de virtutibus et vitiis. Iubet ergo, ut cuiuscumque conversationis vel conditionis homines invitent ad fidem
Hilarius in Matth
Per viam etiam tempus saeculi intelligendum est; atque ideo ad exitus viarum iubentur ire, quia omnibus retroacta donantur
Gregorius
Vel aliter. In Scriptura sacra vias actiones accipimus; exitus viarum intelligimus defectus actionum, quia illi plerumque facile ad eum veniunt quos in terrenis actionibus prospera nulla comitantur
Origenes
Vel aliter. Puto hanc primam vocationem fuisse ad nuptias aliquarum ingenuarum animarum: principaliter enim Deus vult venire ad epulationem divini eloquii eos qui ad intelligendum sunt ingeniosiores; et quoniam qui huiusmodi sunt, nolunt ad istam vocationem venire, transmittuntur alii servi provocantes eos, et promittentes quod, si venerint, percipient prandium paratum a rege. Sicut enim in corporalibus alia est quae nubit sponsa, alii invitatores, alii qui invitantur ad nuptias, sic Deus scit diversos ordines animarum, earumque virtutes, et causas ob quas hi quidem in constitutione sponsae accipiuntur, alii in ordine servorum vocantium, alii in numero invitatorum ad nuptias. Sed qui principaliter quidem fuerant invitati, primos invitatores quasi pauperes sensu neglexerunt, et abierunt sua sequentes, in quibus magis sunt delectati quam in his quae rex per servos quos promittebat. Sed hi leviores sunt his qui servis transmissis iniuriantur et interficiunt; qui scilicet praeparatione contentiosorum verborum ausi sunt tenuisse servos missos, qui non sunt praeparati ad solvendas quaestiones eorum versutas; et contumeliis afficiuntur, vel interficiuntur ab eis. Sequitur et egressi servi eius in vias, congregaverunt omnes quos invenerunt bonos et malos
Origenes
Egredientes servi, sive de Iudaea et Ierusalem apostoli Christi, sive ab interioribus Angeli sancti, et venientes ad vias diversas diversorum morum, congregaverunt quoscumque invenerunt; et non curant, utrum aliquando ante vocationem mali fuerint aut boni. Bonos autem intelligere hic simpliciter convenit humiliores et rectiores ex eis qui veniebant ad cultum Dei, quibus conveniebat quod apostolus ait: cum gentes quae legem non habent, ea quae legis sunt faciunt, ipsi sibi sunt lex
Hieronymus
Inter ipsos enim gentiles infinita est diversitas; cum alios sciamus esse procliviores ad vitia, alios ad honestatem morum virtutibus deditos
Gregorius
Vel hoc dicit, quia in hac Ecclesia nec mali sine bonis, nec boni sine malis esse possunt. Bonus autem non fuit qui malos tolerare recusavit. Sequitur et impletae sunt nuptiae discumbentium
Origenes in Matth
Nuptiae, scilicet Christi et Ecclesiae, sunt impletae dum restituti Deo qui ab apostolis sunt inventi recubuerunt ad epulandum in nuptiis. Sed quoniam bonos et malos oportuit quidem vocari, non autem ut mali permanerent mali, sed ut deponerent vestimenta contraria nuptiis et induerent nuptialia indumenta, scilicet viscera misericordiae et benignitatis; ideo rex egreditur, ut videat discumbentes priusquam apponatur eis prandium, ut retineat habentes nuptialia vestimenta, et delectet; condemnetque contrarios: unde sequitur intravit autem rex, ut videret discumbentes
Chrysostomus super Matth
Non quia alicubi ipse non est; sed ubi vult per iudicium aspicere, ibi dicitur praesens; ubi autem non vult, absens videtur. Dies autem aspectionis est dies iudicii, quando visitaturus est Christianos, qui super mensam Scripturarum recumbunt
Origenes
Ingrediens autem invenit quemdam qui non mutaverat proprios mores: unde sequitur et vidit ibi hominem non vestitum veste nuptiali. Singulariter dixit, quia unius sunt generis omnes qui servant malitiam post fidem, quam habuerant ante fidem
Gregorius
Quid autem debemus intelligere per nuptialem vestem nisi caritatem? Quia hanc in se dominus habuit, dum ad sociandae sibi Ecclesiae nuptias veniret. Intrat ergo ad nuptias, sed sine veste nuptiali, qui in Ecclesia fidem habet, sed caritatem non habet
Augustinus contra Faustum
Vel sine veste nuptiali nuptias adit qui quaerit ibi gloriam non sponsi, sed suam
Hilarius in Matth
Vel vestis nuptialis est gratia spiritus sancti, et candor habitus caelestis, qui bonae interrogationis confessione susceptus, usque in coetum regni caelorum immaculatus et integer est reservandus
Hieronymus
Vel vestis nuptialis praecepta sunt domini, et opera quae complentur ex lege et Evangelio, novique hominis efficiunt vestimentum; quod qui in die iudicii inventus fuerit sub nomine Christiano non habere, statim corripitur: unde sequitur et ait illi: amice, quomodo huc intrasti non habens vestem nuptialem? Amicum vocat, quia est invitatus ad nuptias, quasi sit amicus per fidem. Arguit autem impudentiae, quod veste sordida munditias polluerit nuptiales
Origenes
Et quoniam qui peccat et non induit dominum Iesum Christum, non habet excusationem aliquam, ideo sequitur at ille obmutuit
Hieronymus
In tempore enim illo non erit locus impudentiae, nec negandi facultas; cum omnes Angeli et mundus ipse testes sint peccatorum
Gregorius
Non autem solum reiectus est a nuptiis qui iniuriam nuptiis fecit, sed adhuc a ministris regis super vincula constitutis ligatus incessione, qua non est usus ad bonum, et apprehensoria virtute, qua nullum opus ad bonum implevit; et condemnatus est in loco ab omni lumine alieno, qui vocatur tenebrae exteriores: unde sequitur tunc rex dixit ministris: ligatis manibus et pedibus, mittite eum in tenebras exteriores
Gregorius
Ligantur tunc pedes et manus per districtionem sententiae, qui modo a pravis operibus ligari noluerunt per meliorationem vitae, vel tunc ligat poena quos modo a bonis operibus ligavit culpa
Augustinus de Trin
Pravarum vero atque distortarum voluntatum implicatio vinculum est quo alligatur qui hoc agit, ut proiciatur in tenebras exteriores
Gregorius
Interiores autem tenebras dicimus caecitatem cordis, exteriores vero tenebras aeternam noctem damnationis
Chrysostomus super Matth
Vel per hoc designatur differentia tormentorum in peccatoribus. Sunt enim primae tenebrae exteriores, interiores autem minores, et novissima loci. Sequitur ibi erit fletus et stridor dentium
Hieronymus
In fletu oculorum et stridore dentium, per metaphoram membrorum corporalium, magnitudo ostenditur tormentorum. Manus quoque ligatas et pedes, fletum oculorum, et stridorem dentium, ad comprobandam resurrectionis intellige veritatem
Gregorius in Evang
Ut illic dentes strideant, qui de edacitate gaudebant; illic oculi defleant, qui hic per illicitas concupiscentias versabantur; quatenus singula membra supplicio subiaceant, quae hic singulis quibusque vitiis subiecta serviebant
Hieronymus
Et quia in convivio nuptiali non initium, sed finis quaeritur, subditur multi enim sunt vocati, pauci vero electi
Hilarius in Matth
In invitante enim sine exceptione, publicae bonitatis humanitas est; in invitatis vero, vel vocatis, de iudicio meritorum probitatis electio est
Gregorius
Nonnulli enim bona nec incipiunt, nonnulli vero in bonis quae inceperunt, minime persistunt. Tanto ergo sibi unusquisque sollicite metuat quanto ignorat quae restant
Chrysostomus super Matth
Vel aliter. Quoties Deus tentat Ecclesiam suam, ingreditur ad eam, ut videat discumbentes; et si invenerit aliquem non habentem vestem nuptialem, interrogat eum: ut quid factus es Christianus, si haec opera negligebas? Talem ergo Christus tradit ministris suis, idest aliquibus magistris seductionis; et ligant manus eius, idest opera, et pedes, idest motus animae; et mittunt eum in tenebras, idest in errores vel gentium, vel Iudaeorum, vel haeresim: propinquiores enim sunt tenebrae gentilium, quia veritatem spernunt quam non audierunt; sed exteriores Iudaeorum, qui audierunt, sed non crediderunt; sed magis exteriores haereticorum, qui audierunt et didicerunt
22:15
Pseudo-Crisostomo
As when one seeks to dam a stream of running water, as soon as one outlet is stopped up it makes another channel for itself; so the malevolence of the Jews, foiled on one hand, seeks itself out another course. Then went the Pharisees; went to the Herodians. Such as the plan was, such were the planners; They send unto Him their disciples with the Herodians.
La Glossa ord.
Who as unknown to Him, were more likely to ensnare Him, and so through them they might take Him, which they feared to do of themselves because of the populace.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
Lately under Cæsar Augustus, Judæa, which was subject to the Romans, had been made tributary when the census was held of the whole world; and there was a great division among the people, some saying that tribute ought to be paid to the Romans in return for the security and quiet which their arms maintained for all. The Pharisees on the other hand, self-satisfied in their own righteousness, contended that the people of God who paid tithes and gave first-fruits, and did all the other things which are written in the Law, ought not to be subject to human laws. But Augustus had given the Jews as king, Herod, son of Antipater, a foreigner and proselyte; he was to exact the tribute, yet to be subject to the Roman dominion. The Pharisees therefore send their disciples with the Herodians, that is, with Herod’s soldiers, or those whom the Pharisees in mockery called Herodians, because they paid tribute to the Romans, and were not devoted to the worship of God.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. lxx.
They send their disciples and Herod’s soldiers together, that whatever opinion the might give might be found fault with. Yet would they rather have had Him say somewhat against the Herodians; for being themselves afraid to lay hands on Him because of the populace, they sought to bring Him into danger through His liability to pay tribute.
Pseudo-Crisostomo
This is the commonest act of hypocrites, to commend those they would ruin. Thus, these break out into praises of Him, saying, Master, we know that Thou art true. They call Him Master, that, deceived by this shew of honour and respect, He might in simplicity open all His heart to them, as seeking to gain them for disciples.
La Glossa non occ.
There are three ways in which it is possible for one not to teach the truth. First, on the side of the teacher, who may either not know, or not love the truth; guarding against this, they say, We know that Thou art true. Secondly, on the side of God, there are some who, putting aside all fear of Him, do not utter honestly the truth which they know respecting Him; to exclude this they say, And teachest the way of God in truth. Thirdly, on the side of our neighbour, when through fear or affection any one withholds the truth; to exclude this they say, And carest for no man, for Thou regardest not the person of man.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C.
This was a covert allusion to Herod and Cæsar.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
This smooth and treacherous enquiry was a kind of challenge to the answerer to fear God rather than Cæsar, and immediately they say, Tell us therefore, what thinkest Thou? Is it lawful to give tribute to Cæsar or not? Should He say tribute should not be paid, the Herodians would immediately accuse Him as a person disaffected to the Emperor.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C.
They knew that certain had before suffered death for this very thing, as plotting a rebellion against the Romans, therefore they sought by such discourse to bring Him into the same suspicion.
Pseudo-Crisostomo
He makes an answer not corresponding to the smooth tone of their address, but harsh, suitable to their cruel thoughts; for God answers men’s hearts, and not their words.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
This is the first excellence of the answerer, that He discerns the thoughts of His examiners, and calls them not disciples but tempters. A hypocrite is he who is one thing, and feigns himself another.
Pseudo-Crisostomo
He therefore calls them hypocrites, that seeing Him to be a discerner of human hearts, they might not be hardy enough to carry through their design. Observe thus how the Pharisees spoke fair that they might destroy Him, but Jesus put them to shame that He might save them; for God’s wrath is more profitable to man, than man’s favour.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
Wisdom does ever wisely, and so the tempters are best confuted out of their own words; therefore it follows, Shew me the tribute money; and they brought unto Him a denarius. This was a coin reckoned equivalent to ten sesterces, and bore the image of Cæsar. Let those who think that the Saviour asks because He is ignorant, learn from the present place that it is not so, for at all events Jesus must have known whose image was on the coin. They say unto Him, Cæsar’s; not Augustus, but Tiberius, under whom also the Lord suffered. All the Roman Emperors were called Cæsar, from Caius Cæsar who first seized the chief power. Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s; i. e. the coin, tribute, or money.
sant'Ilario † 367 d.C.
For if there remain with us nothing that is Cæsar’s, we shall not be bound by the condition of rendering to him the things that are his; but if we lean upon what is his, if we avail ourselves of the lawful protection of his power, we cannot complain of it as any wrong if we are required to render to Cæsar the things of Cæsar.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C.
But when you hear this command to render to Cæsar the things of Cæsar, know that such things only are intended which in nothing are opposed to religion; if such there be, it is no longer Cæsar’s but the Devil’s tribute. And moreover, that they might not say that He was subjecting them to man, He adds, And unto God the things that, are God’s.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
That is, tithes, first-fruits, oblation, and victims; as the Lord Himself rendered to Cæsar tribute, both for Himself and for Peter; and also rendered unto God the things that are God’s in doing the will of His Father.
sant'Ilario † 367 d.C.
It behoves us also to render unto God the things that are His, namely, body, soul, and will. For Cæsar’s coin is in the gold, in which His image was pourtrayed, that is, God’s coin, on which the Divine image is stamped; give therefore your money to Cæsar, but preserve a conscience void of offence for God.
Origene † 253 d.C.
From this place we learn by the Saviour’s example not to be allured by those things which have many voices for them, and thence seem famous, but to incline rather to those things which are spoken according to some method of reason. But we may also understand this place morally, that we ought to give some things to the body as a tribute to Cæsar, that is to say, necessaries. And such things as are congenial to our souls’ nature, that is, such things as lead to virtue, those we ought to offer to God. They then who without any moderation inculcate the law of God, and command us to have no care for the things required by the body, are the Pharisees, who forbad to give tribute to Cæsar, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created. (1 Tim. 4:3.) They, on the other hand, who allow too much indulgence to the body are the Herodians. But our Saviour would neither that virtue should be enfeebled by immoderate devotedness to the flesh; nor that our fleshly nature should be oppressed by our unremitting efforts after virtue. Or the prince of this world, that is, the Devil, is called Cæsar; and we cannot render to God the things that are God’s, unless we have first rendered to this prince all that is his, that is, have cast off all wickedness. This moreover let us learn from this place, that to those who tempt us we should neither be totally silent, nor yet answer openly, but with caution, to cut off all occasion from those who seek occasion in us, and teach without blame the things which may save those who are willing to be saved.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
They who ought to have believed did but wonder at His great wisdom, that their craft had found no means for ensnaring Him: whence it follows, When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left Him, and went their way, carrying away their unbelief and wonder together.
Il testo latino
Chrysostomus super Matth
Sicut si aliquis claudere voluerit aquae currentis meatum, si exclusa fuerit per aliquam violentiam, aliunde sibi semitam quaerit, sic Iudaeorum malignitas, ex una parte confusa, alium sibi aditum adinvenit: unde dicitur tunc abeuntes Pharisaei consilium inierunt, ut caperent eum in sermone. Abierunt, inquam, ad Herodianos. Quale consilium, tales et consiliatores; et ideo sequitur et mittunt ei discipulos suos cum Herodianis
Glossa
Tamquam ignotis, ut facilius deciperent, et per eos illum caperent; cum timentes turbam, hoc per se non praesumerent facere
Hieronymus
Nuper quidem sub Caesare Augusto Iudaea subiecta Romanis, quando in toto orbe est celebrata descriptio, stipendiaria facta fuerat; et erat in populo magna seditio, dicentibus aliis pro securitate et quiete, qua Romani pro omnibus militarent, debere tributa persolvi; Pharisaeis vero qui sibi applaudebant in iustitia, e contrario nitentibus non debere populum Dei, qui decimas solveret, et primitias daret, et cetera quae in lege scripta sunt, humanis legibus subiacere. Caesar autem Augustus Herodem filium Antipatris alienigenam et proselytum regem Iudaeis constituerat, qui tributis praeesset, et Romano pareret imperio. Mittunt igitur Pharisaei discipulos suos cum Herodianis, idest militibus Herodis, seu quos illudentes Pharisaei, quia Romanis tributa solvebant, Herodianos vocabant, et non divino cultui deditos
Chrysostomus in Matth
Propter hoc autem suos discipulos et Herodis milites simul mittunt, ut quodcumque dixerit reprehendatur: cupiebant enim magis adversum Herodianos eum aliquid dicere: quia enim eum detinere timebant propter turbas, voluerunt ei periculum immittere ex hoc quod esset publicis tributis obnoxius
Chrysostomus super Matth
Haec est autem hypocritarum prima simulatio, quia laudant quos perdere volunt; et ideo in laudem prorumpunt, dicentes magister, scimus quia verax es. Magistrum eum vocant, ut quasi honoratus et laudatus mysterium sui cordis simpliciter eis aperiat, tamquam volens eos habere discipulos
Glossa
Tripliciter autem contingit aliquem veritatem non docere. Primo ex parte ipsius docentis: quia scilicet veritatem vel non novit, vel non amat; et contra hoc dicunt scimus quia verax es. Secundo ex parte Dei, cuius timore postposito, quidam veritatem de eo, quam noverunt, non pure annuntiant; et contra hoc dicunt et viam Dei in veritate doces. Tertio ex parte proximi, ex cuius timore vel amore aliquis veritatem tacet; et ad hoc excludendum dicunt et non est tibi cura de aliquo, scilicet homine: non enim respicis personam hominum
Chrysostomus in Matth
Hoc de Herode et Caesare occulte insinuabant
Hieronymus
Blanda quidem et fraudulenta interrogatio illuc provocat respondentem ut magis Deum quam Caesarem timeat: unde dicunt dic ergo nobis: quid tibi videtur? Licet censum dare Caesari, an non? Ut si dicat non debere tributa solvi, statim audientes Herodiani, seditionis reum contra Romanum principem eum teneant
Chrysostomus in Matth
Quia enim sciebant quod quidam hanc discordiam meditantes occisi erant, volebant et ipsum per sermones hos in talem suspicionem immittere. Sequitur cognita autem Iesus nequitia eorum, ait: quid me tentatis, hypocritae?
Chrysostomus super Matth
Non secundum sermones eorum pacificos blande respondit; sed secundum conscientiam eorum crudelem, aspera dixit: quia Deus voluntatibus respondet, non verbis
Hieronymus
Prima ergo virtus est respondentis, interrogantium mentes cognoscere, et non discipulos, sed tentatores vocare. Hypocrita ergo vocatur qui aliud est, et aliud simulat
Chrysostomus super Matth
Dicit ergo eis hypocritae, ut considerantes eum humanorum cordium cognitorem, quod facere cogitabant, perficere non auderent. Vide ergo quod Pharisaei blandiebantur ut perderent; sed Iesus confundebat eos ut salvaret: quia utilior est homini Deus iratus quam homo propitius
Hieronymus
Sapientia enim semper sapienter agit, ut suis potissimum tentatores sermonibus confutentur: et ideo sequitur ostendite mihi numisma census. At illi obtulerunt ei denarium. Hoc genus nummi est quod pro decem nummis computabatur, et habebat imaginem Caesaris; unde sequitur et ait illis Iesus: cuius est imago haec et superscriptio? Qui putant interrogationem salvatoris ignorantiam esse, et non dispensationem, discant ex praesenti loco, quod utique poterat scire Iesus, cuius imago esset in nummo. Sequitur dicunt ei: Caesaris. Caesarem non putemus Augustum, sed Tiberium significari, sub quo et passus est dominus. Omnes autem reges Romani a primo Caio Caesare, qui imperium arripuerat, Caesares appellantur. Sequitur reddite ergo quae sunt Caesaris Caesari, idest nummum, tributum et pecuniam
Hilarius in Matth
Si enim nihil quod Caesaris est, penes nos resederit, conditione reddendi ei quae sua sunt non tenebimur. Porro autem si rebus illius incumbamus, si iure potestatis suae utimur, extra querelam iniuriae est reddere Caesari quod Caesaris est
Chrysostomus in Matth
Tu autem cum audieris reddite quae sunt Caesaris Caesari, illa scito eum dicere solum quae in nullo pietati nocent: quia si aliquid tale fuerit, non adhuc Caesaris est, sed Diaboli tributum. Deinde ut non dicant quoniam hominibus nos subicis, subdit et quae sunt Dei Deo
Hieronymus
Idest decimas, primitias, oblationes et victimas, sicut et ipse dominus reddidit Caesari tributa pro se et Petro; et Deo reddidit quae Dei sunt, patris faciens voluntatem
Hilarius in Matth
Deo etiam quae eius sunt reddere nos oportet, idest corpus et animam et voluntatem. Numisma enim Caesaris in auro est, in quo est eius imago depicta. Dei autem numisma homo est, in quo est Dei imago figurata: ideo divitias vestras date Caesari, Deo autem innocentiae vestrae conscientiam servate
Origenes in Matth
Ex hoc loco discimus salvatoris exemplo, ut non his quae a multis dicuntur, et propterea gloriosa videntur, occasione pietatis attendamus: sed quae convenienter secundum ordinem rationis dicuntur. Possumus autem et moraliter intelligere locum istum, quoniam debemus corpori quaedam dare, quasi tributum Caesari, idest necessaria. Quaecumque autem sunt convenientia animarum naturae, idest ea quae ducunt ad virtutem, debemus Deo offerre. Qui ergo supra modum docent legem Dei, et de rebus debitis corpori nihil curare praecipiunt, sunt Pharisaei qui reddere Caesari tributum vetabant, prohibentes scilicet nubere, et abstinere a cibis quos Deus creavit: qui vero supra modum aestimant oportere corporibus indulgere, ipsi sunt Herodiani. Salvator autem noster vult ut nec virtus minoretur dum supra modum carni servimus, nec carnis natura gravetur, dum abundantius virtutibus adhaeremus. Vel princeps mundi, idest Diabolus, dicitur Caesar: non enim possumus reddere Deo quae Dei sunt, nisi prius reddiderimus principi quae sunt sua, idest, nisi deposuerimus malitiam universam. Hoc etiam discamus ex loco praesenti; quod contra tentantes nec omnino tacere debemus, nec simpliciter respondere, sed circumspecte, ut praecidamus occasionem quaerentium in nobis occasionem, et doceamus irreprehensibiliter quae possunt salvare volentes salvari
Hieronymus
Qui autem credere debuerant, ad tantam sapientiam mirati sunt quod calliditas eorum insidiandi non invenisset locum: unde sequitur et audientes mirati sunt et, relicto eo, abierunt, infidelitatem pariter cum admiratione reportantes
22:23
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C.
The disciples of the Pharisees with the Herodians being thus confuted, the Sadducees next offer themselves, whereas the overthrow of those before them ought to have kept them back. But presumption is shameless, stubborn, and ready to attempt things impossible. So the Evangelist, wondering at their folly, expresses this, saying, The same day came to him the Sadducees.
Pseudo-Crisostomo
As soon as the Pharisees were gone, came the Sadducees; perhaps with like intent, for there was a strife among them who should be the first to seize Him. Or if by argument they should not be able to overcome Him, they might at least by perseverance wear out His understanding.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
There were two sects among the Jews, the Pharisees and the Sadducees; the Pharisees pretended to the righteousness of traditions and observances, whence they were called by the people ‘separate.’ The Sadducees (the word is interpreted ‘righteous’) also passed themselves for what they were not; and whereas the first believed the resurrection of body and soul, and confessed both Angel and spirit, these, according to the Acts of the Apostles, denied them all, as it is here also said, Who say that there is no resurrection. (Acts 23:8.)
Origene † 253 d.C.
They not only denied the resurrection of the body, but took away the immortality of the soul.
Pseudo-Crisostomo
For the Devil finding himself unable to crush utterly the religion of God, brought in the sect of the Sadducees denying the resurrection of the dead, thus breaking down all purpose of a righteous life, for who is there would endure a daily struggle against himself, unless he looked to the hope of the resurrection?
san Gregorio Magno † 604 d.C. Mor. xiv. 55.
But there are who observing that the spirit is loosed from the body, that the flesh is turned to corruption, that the corruption is reduced to dust, and that the dust again is resolved into the elements, so as to be unseen by human eyes, despair of the possibility of a resurrection, and while they look upon the dry bones, doubt that they can be clothed with flesh, and be quickened anew to life.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Enchir. 88.
But that earthy matter of which the flesh of men is made perishes not before God; but into whatsoever dust or ashes reduced, into whatsoever gases or vapours dispersed, into whatsoever other bodies incorporated, though resolved into the elements, though become the food or part of the flesh of animals or men, yet is it in a moment of time restored to that human soul, which at the first quickened it that it became man, lived and grew.
Pseudo-Crisostomo
But the Sadducees thought they had now discovered a most convincing argument in favour of their error.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. non occ.
For because death to the Jews, who did all things for the present life, seemed an unmixed evil, Moses ordered that the wife of one who died without sons should be given to his brother, that a son might be born to the dead man by his brother, and his name should not perish, which was some alleviation of death. And none other but a brother or relation was commanded to take the wife of the dead; otherwise the child born would not have been considered the son of the dead; and also because a stranger could have no concern in establishing the house of him that was dead, as a brother whose kindred obliged him thereto.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
As they disbelieved the resurrection of the body, and supposed that the soul perished with the body, they accordingly invent a fable to display the fondness of the belief of a resurrection. Thus they put forward a base fiction to overthrow the verity of the resurrection, and conclude with asking, in the resurrection whose shall she be? Though it might be that such an instance might really occur in their nation.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Quæst. Ev. i, 32.
Mystically; by these seven brethren are understood the wicked, who could not bring forth the fruit of righteousness in the earth through all the seven ages of the world, during which this earth has being, for afterwards this earth also shall pass away, through which all those seven passed away unfruitful.
Pseudo-Crisostomo
Wisely does He first convict them of folly, in that they did not read; and afterwards of ignorance, in that they did not know God. For of diligence in reading springs knowledge of God, but ignorance is the offspring of neglect.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
They therefore err because they know not the Scriptures; and because they know not the power of God.
Origene † 253 d.C.
Two (1 Cor. 1:24.) things there are which He says they know not, the Scriptures and the power of God, by which is brought to pass the resurrection, and the new life in it. Or by the power of God, which the Lord here convicts the Sadducees that they knew not, He intends Himself, who was the power of God; and Him they knew not, as not knowing the Scriptures which spoke of Him; and thence also they believed not the resurrection, which He should effect. But it is asked when the Saviour says, Ye do err not knowing the Scriptures, if He means that this text, They neither marry, nor are given in marriage, is in some Scripture, though it is not read in the Old Testament? We say that these very words are indeed not found, but that the truth is in a mystery implied in the moral sense of Scripture; the Law, which is a shadow of good things to come, whenever it speaks of husbands and wives, speaks chiefly of spiritual wedlock. But neither this do I find any where spoken in Scripture that the Saints shall be after their departure as the Angels of God, unless one will understand this also to be inferred morally; as where it is said, And thou shalt go to thy fathers, (Gen. 15:15.) and He was gathered to his people. (Gen. 25:8.) Or one may say; He blamed them that they read not the other Scriptures which are besides the Law, and therefore they erred. Another says, That they knew not the Scriptures of the Mosaic Law, for this reason, that they did not sift their divine sense.
Pseudo-Crisostomo
Or, when He says, In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, He referred to what He had said, Ye know not the power of God; but when the proceeded, I am the God of Abraham, &c. to that Ye know not the Scriptures. And thus ought we to do; to cavillers first to set forth Scripture authority on any question, and then to shew the grounds of reason; but to those who ask out of ignorance to shew first the reason, and then the authority. For cavillers ought to be refuted, enquirers taught. To these then who put their question in ignorance, the first shews the reason, saying, In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
In these words the Latin language cannot follow the Greek idiom. For the Latin word ‘nubere’ is correctly said only of the woman. But we must take it so as to understand marry of men, to be given in marriage of women.
Pseudo-Crisostomo
In this life that we may die, therefore are we born; and we marry to the end that that which death consumes, birth may replenish; therefore where the law of death is taken away, the cause of birth is taken away likewise.
sant'Ilario † 367 d.C.
It had been enough to have cut off this opinion of the Sadducees of sensual enjoyment, that where the function ceased, the empty pleasure of the body accompanying it ceased also; but He adds, But are as the Angels of God in heaven.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C.
Which is an apt reply to their question. For their reason for judging that there would be no resurrection, was that they supposed that their condition when risen would be the same; this reason then He removes by shewing that their condition would be altered.
Pseudo-Crisostomo
It should be noted, that when He spoke of fasting, alms, and other spiritual virtues, He did not bring in the comparison of Angels, but only here where He speaks of the ceasing of marriage. For as all acts of the flesh are animal acts, but this of lust especially so; so all the virtues are angelic acts, but especially chastity, by which our nature is bound to the other virtues.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
This that is added, But areas the Angels of God in heaven, is an assurance that our conversation in heaven shall be spiritual. PSEUDO-DIONYSIUS. (de Divin. Nom. i.) For then when we shall be incorruptible and immortal, by the visible presence of God Himself we shall be filled with most chaste contemplations, and shall share the gift of light to the understanding in our impassible and immaterial soul after the fashion of the exalted souls in heaven; on which account it is said that we shall be equal to the Angels.
sant'Ilario † 367 d.C.
The same cavil that the Sadducees here offer respecting marriage is renewed by many who ask in what form the female sex shall rise again. But what the authority of Scripture leads us to think concerning the Angels, so must we suppose that it will be with women in the resurrection of our species.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. de Civ. Dei, xxii. 17.
To me they seem to think most justly, who doubt not that both sexes shall rise again. For there shall be no desire which is the cause of confusion, for before they had sinned they were naked; and that nature which they then had shall be preserved, which was quit both of conception and of child-birth. Also the members of the woman shall not be adapted to their former use, but framed for a new beauty, one by which the beholder is not allured to lust, which shall not then be, but God’s wisdom and mercy shall be praised, which made that to be which was not, and delivered from corruption that which was made.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
For none could say of a stone and a tree or inanimate things, that they shall not marry nor be given in marriage, but of such things only as having capacity for marriage, shall yet in a sort not marry.
Rabano Mauro † 856 d.C.
These things which are spoken concerning the conditions of the resurrection He spoke in answer to their enquiry, but of the resurrection itself He replies aptly against their unbelief.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C.
And because they had put forward Moses in their question, He confutes them by Moses, adding, But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
In proof of the resurrection there were many plainer passages which He might have cited; among others that of Isaiah, The dead shall be raised; they that are in the tombs shall rise again: (Is. 26:19. juxta LXX.) and in another place, Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake. (Dan. 12:2.) It is enquired therefore why the Lord should have chosen this testimony which seems ambiguous, and not sufficiently belonging to the truth of the resurrection; and as if by this He had proved the point adds, He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. We have said above that the Sadducees confessed neither Angel, nor spirit, nor resurrection of the body, and taught also the death of the soul. But they also received only the five books of Moses, rejecting the Prophets. It would have been foolish therefore to have brought forward testimonies whose authority they did not admit. To prove the immortality of souls therefore, He brings forward an instance out of Moses, I am the God of Abraham, &c. and then straight subjoins, He is not the God of the dead, but of the living; so that having established that souls abide after death, (forasmuch as God could not be the God of those who had no existence any where,) there might fitly come in the resurrection of bodies which had together with their souls done good or evil.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C.
How then is it said in another place, Whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. (Rom. 14:8.) This which is said here differs from that. The dead are the Lord’s, those, that is, who are to live again, not those who have disappeared for ever, and shall not rise again.
sant'Ilario † 367 d.C.
It should be further considered, that this was said to Moses at a time when those holy Patriarchs had gone to their rest. They therefore of whom He was the God were in being; for they could have had nothing, if they had not been in being; for in the nature of things that, of which somewhat else is, must have itself a being; so they who have a God must themselves be alive, since God is eternal, and it is not possible that that which is dead should have that which is eternal. How then shall it be affirmed that those do not, and shall not hereafter, exist, of whom Eternity itself has said that He is?
Origene † 253 d.C.
God moreover is He who says, I am that I am; (Ex. 3:14.) so that it is impossible that He should be called the God of those who are not. And see that He said not, I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. But in another place He said thus, The God of the Hebrews hath sent me unto thee. (Exod. 7:16.) For they who in comparison of other men are most perfect before God, have God entirely in them, wherefore He is not said to be their God in common, but of each in particular. As when we say, That farm is theirs, we shew that each of them does not own the whole of it; but when we say, That farm is his, we mean that he is owner of the whole of it. When then it is said, The God of the Hebrews, this shews their imperfection, that each of them has some small portion in God. But it is said, The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, because each one of these possessed God entirely. And it is to the no small honour of the Patriarehs that they lived to God.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. cont. Faust. xvi. 24.
Seasonably may we confute the Manichæans by this same passage by which the Sadducees were then confuted, for they too though in another manner deny the resurrection.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. in Joan. Tr. xi. 8.
God is therefore called in particular The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, because in these three are expressed all the modes of begetting the sons of God. For God begets most times of a good preacher a good son, and of a bad preacher a bad son. This is signified in Abraham, who of a free woman had a believing son, and of a bondslave an unbelieving son. Sometimes indeed of a good preacher He begets both good and bad sons, which is signified in Isaac, who of the same free woman begot one good and the other bad. And sometimes He begets good sons both of good and bad preachers; which is signified in Jacob, who begot good sons both of free women and of bondmaids.
Pseudo-Crisostomo
And see how the assault of the Jews against Christ becomes more faint. Their first challenge was in a threatening tone, By what authority doest thou these things, to oppose which firmness of spirit was needed. Their second was with guile, to meet which was needed wisdom. This last was with ignorant presumption which is easier to cope with than the others. For he that thinks he knows somewhat, when he knows nothing, is an easy conquest for one who has understanding. Thus the attacks of an enemy are vehement at first, but if one endure them with a courageous spirit, he will find them more feeble. And when the multitudes heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.
Remigio † 908 d.C.
Not the Sadducees but the multitudes were astonished. This is daily done in the Church; when by Divine inspiration the adversaries of the Church are overcome, the multitude of the faithful rejoice.
Il testo latino
Chrysostomus in Matth
Confutatis Pharisaeorum discipulis cum Herodianis, Sadducaei se immittunt; cum tamen ex confusione priorum eos oporteret effici pigriores. Sed praesumptio inverecundum quid est et pertinax et impossibilia tentans: propter hoc et Evangelista stupens eorum dementiam, hoc ipsum significat, dicens in illa die accesserunt ad eum Sadducaei
Chrysostomus super Matth
Quando recedebant Pharisaei, accedebant Sadducaei; forte tali consilio, quia decertabant quis eum ante deprehendere posset: vel si ratione eum non possent superare, saltem per ipsam frequentiam subverterent sensum eius
Hieronymus
Duae haereses erant in Iudaeis: una Pharisaeorum, et altera Sadducaeorum; Pharisaei traditionum et observationum iustitiam praeferebant, unde et divisi vocabantur a populo; Sadducaei autem, qui interpretantur iusti, et ipsi vindicabant sibi quod non erant; ac prioribus et corporis et animae resurrectionem credentibus confitentibusque, et Angelos et spiritum sequentes, iuxta actus apostolorum, omnia denegabant; unde et hic dicitur: qui dicunt resurrectionem non esse
Origenes in Matth
Non solum autem carnis resurrectionem negabant, sed etiam animae immortalitatem tollebant
Chrysostomus super Matth
Videns enim Diabolus quia iustitiam Dei omnino extinguere non potuit, introduxit haeresim Sadducaeorum, qui dicerent non esse resurrectionem mortuorum; quae res omne propositum faciendae iustitiae frangit: quis enim contentus erit adversus seipsum quotidie luctamina exercere, nisi ad spem resurrectionis aspiceret?
Gregorius Moralium
Sunt autem nonnulli qui considerantes quod spiritus a carne solvitur, quod caro in putredinem vertitur, quod putredo in pulverem reducitur, quod pulvis in elementa solvitur, ut nequaquam ab humanis oculis videatur, resurrectionem fieri posse desperant; et dum arida ossa inspiciunt, haec vestiri carnibus, rursumque ad vitam virescere, posse fieri diffidunt
Augustinus in Enchir
Non autem perit Deo terrena materies, de qua mortalium creatur caro; sed in quemlibet pulverem cineremve solvatur, in quoslibet halitus aurasque diffugiat, in quamcumque aliorum corporum substantiam, vel in ipsa elementa vertatur, in quorumcumque animalium, aut etiam hominum, cibum cedat, carnemque mutetur, animae illi humanae in puncto temporis redditur quae eam primitus ut homo fieret, viveret et cresceret, animavit
Chrysostomus super Matth
Ad defensionem autem sui erroris invenisse se argutissimam rationem Sadducaei putabant: unde sequitur et interrogaverunt eum, dicentes: magister, Moyses dixit: si quis mortuus fuerit
, et cetera. Chrysostomus in Matth
Quia enim immitigabile malum mors erat apud Iudaeos, qui omnia pro praesenti vita faciebant, in legem deduxit Moyses, defuncti sine filiis uxorem fratri dari oportere, ut defuncto filius nasceretur ex fratre, et non excideret nomen eius; quod erat quaedam mortis mitigatio; non autem alius quam frater vel propinquus iubebatur accipere uxorem defuncti: quoniam non ita putaretur qui ex tali coniunctione erat nasciturus, esse filius eius qui obiit; et iterum extraneus non ita haberet necessitatem statuere domum eius qui obierat, sicut frater, cui etiam ea cognatione hoc facere iustum erat. Sequitur erant autem apud nos septem fratres
Hieronymus
Qui resurrectionem corporum non credebant, et animam putabant interire cum corporibus, recte istiusmodi fingunt fabulam, quae deliramenti arguat eos qui resurrectionem asserant mortuorum. Turpitudinem ergo fabulae opponunt, ut resurrectionis denegent veritatem: unde concludunt in resurrectione ergo cuius erit? Potest autem fieri ut vere in gente eorum hoc aliquando acciderit
Augustinus de quaest. Evang
Per hos autem septem fratres mystice intelliguntur homines impii, qui fructum iustitiae non potuerunt afferre in terra per omnes septem mundi aetates, quibus ista terra consistit: postea enim et ipsa terra transiet, per quam omnes illi quasi septem steriliter transierunt. Sequitur respondens autem Iesus, ait illis: erratis nescientes Scripturas, neque virtutem Dei
Chrysostomus super Matth
Sapienter primum arguit stultitiam eorum, quia non legebant; secundo ignorantiam, quia non cognoscebant Deum. Ex diligentia enim dilectionis nascitur scientia Dei: ignorantia autem negligentiae filia est
Hieronymus
Propterea ergo errant, quia Scripturas nesciunt; et quia Scripturas nesciunt, consequenter ignorant virtutem Dei
Origenes in Matth
Duas autem res dicit eos nescire: unam quidem Scripturas, alteram autem virtutem Dei, per quam resurrectio fit, et nova vita in ea. Vel dominus arguens Sadducaeos nescire virtutem Dei, se eos non cognoscere arguebat: ipse enim erat virtus Dei, et non cognoscebant eum, quasi nescientes Scripturas quae loquuntur de eo: propterea nec resurrectionem credebant, quam facturus fuerat ipse. Quaeritur autem, cum salvator dicat erratis nescientes Scripturas, an dicat quod in quibusdam Scripturis positum est quod sequitur: in resurrectione neque nubent neque nubentur: quod in veteri testamento non legitur scriptum. Nos autem dicimus, quia scriptum est non in ipsis sermonibus manifeste ista dicentibus, sed in mysterio indicantibus secundum intellectum moralem: nam cum sit lex umbra futurorum bonorum, dicens quodlibet de viris et uxoribus, de spiritualibus nuptiis principaliter dicit. Sed nec hoc invenio alicubi Scripturam dicentem, sanctos post exitum fore sicut Angelos Dei: nisi forte quis et hoc moraliter intelligat, secundum illud quod dicitur: tu autem ibis ad patres tuos; item: appositus est ad populum suum. Dicet autem aliquis: ideo eos increpabat, quia non legebant ceteras Scripturas quae sunt extra legem et ideo errabant. Alius autem dicit, quod nesciebant Mosaicae legis Scripturas ex eo quod divinum sensum earum non scrutabantur
Chrysostomus super Matth
Vel quod dicit in resurrectione neque nubent neque nubentur, retulit ad hoc quod dixerat nescitis virtutem Dei; quod autem dixit ego sum Deus Abraham, etc., ad illud quod dixit nescitis Scripturas. Et quidem calumniatoribus primum oportet in aliqua quaestione auctoritatem Scripturae proferre, deinde rationem exponere; interrogantibus autem per ignorantiam, prius rationem exponamus; postea auctoritate confirmemus: quoniam calumniatores convincere oportet, interrogatores autem docere; ideo his interrogantibus per ignorantiam, prius rationem exposuit, dicens in resurrectione
, et cetera. Hieronymus
in hoc autem quod dicitur neque nubent neque nubentur, Latina consuetudo Graeco idiomati non respondet. Nubere enim apud Latinos proprie dicuntur mulieres. Sed nos simpliciter dictum intelligamus quod nubere de viris, et nubi de mulieribus dictum sit
Chrysostomus super Matth
In hoc quidem saeculo, quia morimur, ideo nascimur; quia nascimur, ideo uxores ducimus, ut quod moriendo minuitur, nascendo suppleatur: ibi autem moriendi necessitas tollitur, unde et nascendi causa soluta est
Hilarius in Matth
Et quidem suffecerat adversus Sadducaeos opinionem illecebrae corporeae recidisse, et officiis cessantibus inania haec corporum gaudia sustulisse; sed adiecit sed sunt sicut Angeli Dei in caelo
Chrysostomus in Matth
Per quod ad interrogatum convenienter respondet: quia enim haec erat eis causa aestimandi resurrectionem non esse, quia credebant eamdem fore resurgentium conditionem; hanc causam removit, ostendens eos alterius conditionis futuros
Chrysostomus super Matth
Notandum vero, quod cum de ieiuniis et eleemosynis ceterisque virtutibus spiritualibus locutus fuit, nunquam Angelorum similitudinem introduxit, nisi cum de absolutione a coitu loqueretur; quoniam sicut omnes actus carnales opera sunt animalium, praecipue tamen actus libidinis; sic omnes virtutes sunt res angelicae, praecipue tamen castitas, per quam vincitur natura virtutibus
Hieronymus
Quod ergo infertur sed sunt sicut Angeli in caelo, spiritalis conversatio repromittitur
Dionysius
Tunc enim quando incorruptibiles et immortales erimus, visibili quidem ipsius Dei apparitione in castissimis contemplationibus adimplebimur; intelligibilis autem luminis dationem participabimus in impassibili et in immateriali mente secundum imitationem supercaelestium mentium: propter quod dicitur, quod erimus Angelis aequales
Hilarius in Matth
Eamdem autem calumniam quam Sadducaei afferunt de coniugio, afferre plures solent, in quam formam muliebris sexus resurgat. Sed qualis in Scripturis auctoritas est de Angelis opinandi, talem in resurrectione speciei nostrae sensum oportet esse de feminis
Augustinus de Civ. Dei
Sed mihi melius videntur sapere qui utrumque sexum resurrecturum esse non dubitant: non enim libido ibi erit, quae confusionis causa est; nam priusquam peccassent, nudi erant; natura autem servabitur, quae tunc quidem et a concubitu et a partu immunis erit: erunt tamen membra feminea non accommodata usui veteri sed decori novo; quo non allicitur aspicientis concupiscentia, quae nulla erit, sed Dei laudatur sapientia atque clementia, qui et quod non erat fecit, et liberavit a corruptione quod fecit
Hieronymus
Nemo enim dicit de lapide et arbore, et his rebus quae non habent membra genitalia, quod non nubent neque nubentur; sed de his qui cum possint nubere, tamen aliqua ratione non nubunt
Rabano Mauro
Haec autem quae dicta sunt de resurrectionis conditionibus, propositae reddidit quaestioni; de ipsa vero resurrectione contra eorum infidelitatem convenienter loquitur
Chrysostomus in Matth
Et quia illi interrogando, Moysen praemiserant, per Moysen eos confutat: unde subdit de resurrectione autem mortuorum non legistis
Hieronymus
Ad comprobandum resurrectionis veritatem multis aliis exemplis manifestioribus uti potuit, ex quibus est illud: resuscitabuntur mortui, et resurgent qui in monumentis sunt; et in alio loco: multi dormientium de terrae pulvere resurgent. Quaeritur ergo quid sibi voluerit dominus hoc proferre testimonium quod videtur ambiguum, vel non satis ad resurrectionis pertinens veritatem; et quasi hoc prolato probaverit quod volebat, statim intulerit non est Deus mortuorum, sed viventium. Supra diximus autem Sadducaeos nec Angelum, nec spiritum, nec resurrectionem corporum confitentes, et animarum quoque interitum praedicasse: hi quinque tantum libros Moysi recipiebant, prophetarum vaticinia respuentes. Stultum autem erat inde proferre testimonia cuius auctoritatem non sequebantur. Porro ad aeternitatem animarum probandam, de Moyse ponit exemplum: ego sum Deus Abraham; statimque infert: non est Deus mortuorum, sed viventium: ut cum probaverit animas permanere post mortem (neque enim poterat fieri ut eorum esset Deus qui nequaquam subsisterent), convenienter introduceretur et corporum resurrectio, quae cum animabus bona malaque gesserunt
Chrysostomus in Matth
Sed qualiter alibi ait: ut vivorum et mortuorum dominetur? Sed hoc non est simile ei quod hic dicitur: mortuorum enim ibi dicitur esse dominus, eorum scilicet qui victuri sunt; non autem eorum qui semel disparuerunt, et ultra non resurgent
Hieronymus
Considerandum etiam, quod sermo hic ad Moysen factus fuerat, sanctis istis patriarchis iam pridem quiescentibus, erant ergo quorum Deus erat: nihil enim habere poterant, si non erant: quia in natura rei est ut esse id necesse sit cuius sit alterum; atque ita habere Deum, viventium est; cum Deus aeternitas sit, et non sit eorum quae mortua sunt, habere id quod aeternum est: et quomodo esse illi futuri semper negabuntur, quorum se esse profiteatur aeternitas?
Origenes in Matth
Deus etiam est qui dicit: ego sum qui sum. Sic ergo impossibile est ut dicatur eorum Deus esse qui non sunt. Et vide, quia non dicit: ego sum Deus Abraham, Isaac et Iacob; sed Deus Abraham, Deus Isaac et Deus Iacob. In alio autem loco sic dixit: Deus Hebraeorum misit me ad te. Qui enim perfectissime sunt circa Deum, quantum ad comparationem ceterorum hominum, totum habent Deum in se: propterea non communiter, sed singulariter dicitur eorum Deus; ut puta si dicamus: ager ille illorum est, ostendimus quod unusquisque eorum non habet eum in toto. Si autem dicimus, quod ager illius est, demonstramus quia totum agrum possidet ille. Ubi ergo dicitur Deus Hebraeorum, imperfectio demonstratur eorum: quia unusquisque eorum aliquid modicum de Deo habebat. Dicitur autem Deus Abraham, Deus Isaac et Deus Iacob, quia singuli eorum totum habebant Deum. Non autem ad modicam laudem respicit patriarcharum quod Deo vivebant
Augustinus contra Faustum
Opportune itaque eadem voce nunc convincuntur Manichaei, qua tunc convicti sunt Sadducaei: nam et ipsam resurrectionem alio quidem modo, sed tamen etiam ipsi negant
Augustinus super Ioannem
Ideo autem specialiter Deus Abraham, Deus Isaac et Deus Iacob dicitur, quia in istis tribus omnes modi generationis filiorum Dei vocantur. Generat enim Deus multoties de bono praedicatore bonum filium, et de malo malum: quod significatur per Abraham, qui de libera uxore fidelem filium habuit, et de ancilla infidelem genuit. Aliquando vero generat per bonum praedicatorem, bonum et malum filium: quod significatur in Isaac, qui de libera unum bonum, et alterum malum generavit. Aliquando generat bonos per bonum et malum praedicatorem; quod significatur per Iacob, qui bonos filios genuit et de liberis et de ancillis
Chrysostomus super Matth
Et vide quomodo sit infirmior congressio Iudaeorum contra Christum. Prima fuit cum terrore, dicendo: in qua potestate haec facis? Contra quam necessaria fuit constantia cordis. Secunda fuit cum dolo, contra quam necessaria fuit acuta sapientia. Haec autem fuit cum praesumptione ignara, quae praecedentibus facilior est. Hominem enim putantem se aliquid scire, cum nesciat, viro scienti facile est convincere. Sic et operatio inimici in primis gravis est; sed si quis forti animo sustinuerit, inveniet eum infirmiorem. Sequitur et audientes turbae mirabantur in doctrina eius
Remigio
Non quidem Sadducaei, sed turbae mirantur. Hoc etiam quotidie agitur in Ecclesia: cum enim divina inspiratione adversarii Ecclesiae superantur, turbae fidelium laetantur
22:34
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
The Pharisees having been themselves already confuted (in the matter of the denarius), and now seeing their adversaries also overthrown, should have taken warning to attempt no further deceit against Him; but hate and jealousy are the parents of impudence.
Origene † 253 d.C.
Jesus had put the Sadducees to silence, to shew that the tongue of falsehood is silenced by the brightness of truth. For as it belongs to the righteous man to be silent when it is good to be silent, and to speak when it is good to speak, and not to hold his) peace; so it belongs to every teacher of a the Not indeed to be silent, but to be silent as far as any good purpose is concerned.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
The Pharisees and Sadducees, thus foes to one another, unite in one common purpose to tempt Jesus.
Pseudo-Crisostomo
Or the Pharisees meet together, that their numbers may silence Him whom their reasonings could not confute; thus, while they array numbers against Him, shewing that truth failed them; they said among themselves, Let one speak for all, and all speak, through one, so if He prevail, the victory may seem to belong to all; if He be overthrown, the defeat may rest with Him alone; so it follows, Then one of them, a teacher of the Law, asked him a question, tempting him.
Origene † 253 d.C.
All who thus ask questions of any teacher to try him, and not to learn of him, we must regard as brethren of this Pharisee, according to what is said below, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of mine, ye have done it unto me. (Matt. 25:40.)
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. de Cons. Ev. ii. 73.
Let no one find a difficulty in this, that Matthew speaks of this man as putting his question to tempt the Lord, whereas Mark does not mention this, but concludes with what the Lord said to him upon his answering wisely, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. (Mark 12:34.) For it is possible that, though he came to tempt, yet the Lord’s answer may have wrought correction within him. Or, the tempting here meant need not be that of one designing to deceive an enemy, but rather the cautious approach of one making proof of a stranger. And that is not written in vain, Whoso believeth lightly, he is of a vain heart. (Ecclus. 19:4.)
Origene † 253 d.C.
He said Master tempting Him, for none but a disciple would thus address Christ. Whoever then does not learn of the Word, nor yields himself wholly up to it, yet calls it Master, he is brother to this Pharisee thus tempting Christ. Perhaps while they read the Law before the Saviour’s coming, it was a question among them which was the great commandment in it; nor would the Pharisee have asked this, if it had not been long time enquired among themselves, but never found till Jesus came and declared it.
Pseudo-Crisostomo
He who now enquires for the greatest commandment had not observed the least. He only ought to seek for a higher righteousness who has fulfilled the lower.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
Or he enquires not for the sake of the commands, but which is the first and great commandment, that seeing all that God commands is great, he may have occasion to cavil whatever the answer be.
Pseudo-Crisostomo
But the Lord so answers him, as at once to lay bare the dissimulation of his enquiry, Jesus saith unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. Thou shalt love, not ‘fear,’ for to love is more than to fear; to fear belongs to slaves, to love to sons; fear is in compulsion, love in freedom. Whoso serves God in fear escapes punishment, but has not the reward of righteousness because he did well unwillingly through fear. God does not desire to be served servilely by men as a master, but to be loved as a father, for that He has given the spirit of adoption to men. But to love God with the whole heart, is to have the heart inclined to the love of no one thing more than of God. To love God again with the whole soul is to have the mind stayed upon the truth, and to be firm in the faith. For the love of the heart and the love of the soul are different. The first is in a sort carnal, that we should love God even with our flesh, which we cannot do unless we first depart from the love of the things of this world. The love of the heart is felt in the heart, but the love of the soul is not felt, but is perceived because it consists in a judgment of the soul. For he who believes that all good is in God, and that without Him is no good, he loves God with his whole soul. But to love God with the whole mind, is to have all the faculties open and unoccupied for Him. He only loves God with his whole mind, whose intellect ministers to God, whose wisdom is employed about God, whose thoughts travail in the things of God, and whose memory holds the things which are good.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. de Doctr. Christ. i. 22.
Or otherwise; You are commanded to love God with all thy heart, that your whole thoughts—with all thy soul, that your whole life—with all thy mind, that your whole understanding—may be given to Him from whom you have that you give. Thus He has left no part of our life which may justly be unfilled of Him, or give place to the desire after any other final good1; but if aught else present itself for the soul’s love, it should be absorbed into that channel in which the whole current of love runs. For man is then the most perfect when his whole life tends towards the life2 unchangeable, and clings to it with the whole purpose of his soul.
La Glossa
Or, with all thy heart, i. e. understanding; with all thy soul, i.e. thy will; with all thy mind, i.e. memory; so you shall think, will, remember nothing contrary to Him.
Origene † 253 d.C.
Or otherwise; With all thy heart, that is, in all recollection, act, thought; with all thy soul, to be ready, that is, to lay it down for God’s religion; with all thy mind, bringing forth nothing but what is of God. And consider whether you cannot thus take the heart of the understanding, by which we contemplate things intellectual, and the mind of that by which we utter thoughts, walking as it were with the mind through each expression, and uttering it. If the Lord had given no answer to the Pharisee who thus tempted Him, we should have judged that there was no commandment greater than the rest. But when the Lord adds, This is the first and great commandment, we learn how we ought to think of the commandments, that there is a great one, and that there are less down to the least. And the Lord says not only that it is a great, but that it is the first commandment, not in order of Scripture, but in supremacy of value. They only take upon them the greatness and supremacy of this precept, who not only love the Lord their God, but add these three conditions. Nor did He only teach the first and great commandment, but added that there was a second like unto the first, Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself. But if Whoso loveth iniquity hath hated his own soul, (Ps. 11:5.) it is manifest that he does not love his neighbour as himself, when he does not love himself.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. de Doctr. Christ. i. 30.
It is clear that every man is to be regarded as a neighbour, because evil is to be done to no man. Further, if every one to whom we are bound to shew service of mercy, (vid. Rom. 13:10.) or who is bound to shew it to us, be rightly called our neighbour, it is manifest that in this precept are comprehended the holy Angels who perform for us those services of which we may read in Scripture. Whence also our Lord Himself would be called our neighbour; for it was Himself whom He represents as the good Samaritan, who gave succour to the man who was left half-dead by the way.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. de Trin. viii. 6.
He that loves men ought to love them either because they are righteous, or that they may be righteous; and so also ought he to love himself either for that he is, or that he may be righteous. And thus without peril he may love his neighbour as himself.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. de Doctr. Christ, i. 22.
But if even yourself you ought not to love for your own sake, but because of Him in whom is the rightful end of your love, let not another man be displeased that you love even him for God’s sake. Whoso then rightly loves his neighbour, ought to endeavour with him that he also with his whole heart love God.
Pseudo-Crisostomo
But who loves man is as who loves God; for man is God’s image, wherein God is loved, as a King is honoured in his statue. For this cause this commandment is said to be like the first.
sant'Ilario † 367 d.C.
Or otherwise; That the second command is like the first signifies that the obligation and merit of both are alike; for no love of God without Christ, or of Christ without God, can profit to salvation. It follows, On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Quæst. Ev. i. 33.
Hang, that is, refer thither as their end.
Rabano Mauro † 856 d.C.
For to these two commandments belongs the whole decalogue; the commandments of the first table to the love of God, those of the second to the love of our neighbour.
Origene † 253 d.C.
Or, because he that has fulfilled the things that are written concerning the love of God and our neighbour, is worthy to receive from God the great reward, that he should be enabled to understand the Law and the Prophets.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. de Trin. viii. 7.
Since there are two commandments, the love of God and the love of our neighbour, on which hang the Law and the Prophets, not without reason does Scripture put one for both; sometimes the love of God; as in that, We know that all tilings work together for good to them that love God; (Rom. 8:28.) and sometimes the love of our neighbour; as in that, All the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this, Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself. (Gal. 5:14.) And that because if a man love his neighbour, it follows therefrom that he loves God also; for it is the selfsame affection by which we love God, and by which we love our neighbour, save that we love God for Himself, but ourselves and our neighbour for God’s sake.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. De Doctr. Christ. i. 30. et 26.
But since the Divine substance is more excellent and higher than our nature, the command to love God is distinct from that to love our neighbour. But if by yourself, you understand your whole self, that is both your soul and your body, and in like manner of your neighbour, there is no sort of things to be loved omitted in these commands. The love of God goes first, and the rule thereof is so set out to us as to make all other loves center in that, so that nothing seems said of loving yourself. But then follows, Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself, so that love of yourself is not omitted.
Il testo latino
Hieronymus
Quia supra Pharisaei in ostensione denarii fuerant confutati, et adversae partis viderant factionem subrutam, debuerant ex hoc moveri, ne ultra molirentur insidias; sed malevolentia et livor nutrit impudentiam; unde dicitur Pharisaei autem audientes quod silentium imposuisset Sadducaeis, convenerunt in unum
Origenes in Matth
Silentium autem Sadducaeis imposuit Iesus, volens ostendere quoniam mendacii vocem obmutescere facit claritas veritatis. Sicut enim proprium est iusti tacere cum sit tempus tacendi, et loqui cum sit tempus loquendi, non tamen obmutescere, sic proprium est omnium qui mendacii sunt doctores, obmutescere quidem quantum ad rem, non autem tacere
Hieronymus
Pharisaei ergo et Sadducaei, qui inter se contrarii sunt, ad tentandum Iesum pari mente consentiunt
Chrysostomus super Matth
Vel convenerunt in unum Pharisaei, ut multitudine vincerent quem rationibus superare non poterant; a veritate nudos se professi sunt, qui multitudine se armaverunt. Dicebant enim apud se: unus loquatur pro omnibus, et omnes loquamur per unum; ut si quidem vicerit, omnes videamur vicisse, si autem convictus fuerit, vel solus videatur confusus; et ideo sequitur et interrogavit eum unus ex eis legis doctor, tentans eum
Origenes
Omnes ergo qui non discendi, sed tentandi causa interrogant aliquem doctorum, aestimare debemus illius Pharisaei fratres, secundum illud: quod uni ex minimis meis fecistis, mihi fecistis
Augustinus de Cons. Evang
Non moveat autem quod Matthaeus hic dicit tentantem fuisse a quo dominus interrogatus est; Marcus autem hoc tacet, et in fine ita concludit, quod ei dominus Iesus sapienter respondenti dixerit: non longe es a regno Dei. Fieri enim potest ut quamvis tentans accesserit, domini tamen responsione correctus sit. Aut certe ipsam tentationem, de qua loquitur Iacobus non accipiamus malam tamquam decipere volentis inimicum, sed cautam potius tamquam experiri amplius volentis ignotum: neque frustra scriptum est: qui facile credit, levis est corde. Quid autem interroget, subditur magister, quod est mandatum magnum in lege?
Origenes
Tentans dicebat magister, quoniam non tamquam discipulus Christi proferebat hanc vocem. Si quis ergo non discit aliquid a verbo, nec tradit se ei ex toto animo suo; dicit autem ei magister, frater Pharisaei est Christum tentantis. Cum ergo ante salvatoris adventum legeretur lex, forsitan quaerebatur quod est mandatum magnum in ea: neque enim interrogasset hoc Pharisaeus, nisi diu apud illos de hoc quaesitum fuisset et non inventum, donec veniens Iesus hoc doceret
Chrysostomus super Matth
De magno tamen mandato interrogat qui nec minimum observabat. Ille debet interrogare de maiori iustitia qui iam minorem complevit
Hieronymus
Vel non de mandatis interrogat, sed quod sit primum mandatum magnumque: ut cum omnia quae Deus mandaverit, magna sint, quicquid ille respondeat, occasionem habeat calumniandi
Chrysostomus super Matth
Dominus autem sic ei respondit ut interrogationis eius fictam conscientiam statim primo responso percuteret: unde sequitur ait illi Iesus: diliges dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo, et ex tota anima tua, et in tota mente tua. Diliges, inquit; non: timebis, quia diligere magis est quam timere: timere enim servorum est, diligere filiorum; timor sub necessitate est, dilectio in libertate. Qui in timore servit Deo, poenam quidem evadit, mercedem vero iustitiae non habet, quia invitus fecit bonum propter timorem. Non vult ergo Deus ut timeatur serviliter ab hominibus quasi dominus; sed ut diligatur quasi pater, qui adoptionis spiritum donavit hominibus. Diligere autem Deum ex toto corde, est ut cor tuum non sit inclinatum ad alicuius rei dilectionem magis quam Dei. Diligere autem Deum in tota anima, est certissimum animum habere in veritate, et firmum esse in fide. Alius est enim amor cordis, et alius est amor animae. Amor cordis quodammodo carnalis est, ut etiam carnaliter diligamus Deum; quod facere non possumus, nisi recedamus ab amore mundialium rerum. Cordis ergo amor sentitur in corde; amor vero animae non sentitur, sed intelligitur, quia in iudicio animae consistit. Qui enim credit apud Deum esse omne bonum, et nihil boni esse extra ipsum, hic diligit Deum in tota anima. Tota vero mente diligere Deum est ut omnes sensus Deo vacent: cuius enim intellectus Deo ministrat, cuius sapientia circa Deum est, cuius cogitatio ea quae Dei sunt tractat, cuius memoria quae bona sunt recordatur, tota mente diligit Deum
Augustinus de Doctr. Christ
Vel aliter. Deum ex toto corde diligere praeciperis, ut omnes cogitationes tuas; ex tota anima, ut omnem vitam tuam; ex tota mente tua, ut omnem intellectum tuum in illum conferas, a quo habes ea quae confers. Nullam ergo vitae nostrae partem reliquit quae vacare debeat, et quasi locum dare ut alia re velit frui. Sed quicquid aliud diligendum venerit in animum, illuc rapiatur quo totus dilectionis impetus currit: tunc enim est optimus homo cum tota vita sua pergit in incommutabile bonum
Glossa
Vel ex toto corde, idest intellectu, anima, idest voluntate, mente, idest memoria, ut nihil ei contrarium velis, sentias, aut recorderis
Origenes in Matth
Vel aliter. Ex toto corde, id est secundum totam recordationem et operationem et cogitationem; ex tota anima, idest ut parati sint eam ponere pro pietate Dei; in tota mente, nihil aliud scilicet proferentes nisi quae Dei sunt. Et vide si potes cor quidem accipere pro intellectu, quo intelligibilia speculamur, mentem autem ad proferendas res: mente enim proferimus singulas res, et per unumquodque quod significatur quasi mente nostra inambulamus atque proferimus. Si autem tentanti Pharisaeo dominus non respondisset, aestimare possemus non esse unum mandatum maius altero. Sed dominus respondens subdit hoc est maximum et primum mandatum: ubi discimus sententiam de mandatis, quod est magnum, et sunt inferiora usque ad minima. Respondet autem dominus non solum, quod est magnum mandatum; sed etiam primum, non pro ordine Scripturae, sed pro dignitate virtutis. Hi autem soli huius mandati in se suscipiunt magnitudinem et primatum qui non solum diligunt dominum Deum suum, sed etiam illa tria susceperint, scilicet ex toto corde et cetera. Docuit autem, quod non solum est magnum et primum, sed etiam quod esset secundum simile priori: unde sequitur secundum autem simile est huic: diliges proximum tuum sicut teipsum. Si autem qui diligit iniquitatem, odit animam suam, manifestum est quod non diligit proximum sicut seipsum, cum nec seipsum diligat
Augustinus de Doctr. Christ
Manifestum est autem omnem hominem proximum esse putandum, quia erga neminem operandum est malum. Iam vero si vel cui praebendum, vel a quo praebendum est nobis officium misericordiae, recte proximus dicitur, manifestum est hoc praecepto, quo tenemur diligere proximum, etiam sanctos Angelos contineri, a quibus nobis tanta misericordiae impenduntur officia, quanta nobis in Scripturis animadvertere facile est. Ex quo et ipse dominus noster proximum se nobis dici voluit, quoniam seipsum dominus Iesus significat opitulatum esse semivivo iacenti in via
Augustinus de Trin
Qui autem amat homines, aut quia iusti sunt, aut ut iusti sint, amare debet; sic enim et seipsum amare debet, aut quia iustus est, aut ut iustus sit: sic enim diligit proximum sicut seipsum sine ullo periculo
Augustinus de Doctr. Christ
Si autem teipsum non propter te debes diligere, sed propter illum ubi dilectionis tuae rectissimus finis est, non succenseat aliquis homo, si et ipsum propter Deum diligis. Quisquis ergo recte proximum diligit, hoc cum eo debet agere ut etiam ipse toto corde diligat Deum
Chrysostomus super Matth
Qui autem hominem amat, simile est sicut qui Deum amat: quia imago Dei est homo, in quo Deus diligitur, sicut rex in sua imagine honoratur. Et propter hoc dicitur hoc mandatum simile esse primo
Origenes
Vel aliter. Quod mandatum sequens primo est simile, significat idem esse officii et meriti in utroque: neque enim aut Dei sine Christo, aut Christi sine Deo potest utilis esse dilectio ad salutem. Sequitur in his duobus mandatis tota lex pendet et prophetae
Augustinus de quaest. Evang
Pendet, dixit, idest illuc refertur ubi habet finem
Rabano Mauro
Ad duo enim haec praecepta pertinet totus Decalogus: praecepta quidem primae tabulae ad dilectionem Dei, praecepta secundae ad dilectionem proximi
Origenes in Matth
Vel quia qui omnia implevit quae scripta sunt de Dei dilectione et proximi, dignus est magnas gratias a Deo percipere, ut intelligat omnem legem et prophetas
Augustinus de Trin
Cum autem sint duo praecepta, in quibus pendet lex et prophetae, dilectio Dei et proximi, non immerito Scriptura plerumque pro utroque unum ponit: sive dilectionem Dei, sicut est illud: scimus enim quoniam diligentibus Deum omnia cooperantur in bonum; sive dilectionem proximi, sicut est istud: omnis lex in uno sermone impletur: diliges proximum tuum sicut teipsum. Sed hoc ideo quia qui proximum diligit, consequens est etiam ut Deum diligat: ex una enim eademque caritate Deum proximumque diligimus; sed Deum propter Deum; nos autem et proximum propter Deum
Augustinus de Doctr. Christ
Sed tamen quoniam excellentior et supra nostram naturam est divina substantia, praeceptum quo diligimus Deum a proximi dilectione distinctum est; quod si te totum intelligas, idest animam et corpus, et proximum tuum, idest animam et corpus, nullum diligendarum rerum genus in his duobus praeceptis praetermissum est. Cum enim praecurrat dilectio Dei, sequatur dilectio proximi, eiusque dilectionis modus praescriptus sit, ut eum sicut te ipsum diligas; simul et tui abs te dilectio praetermissa non est
22:41
Pseudo-Crisostomo
The Jews tempted Christ, supposing Him to be mere man; had they believed Him to be the Son of God, they would not have tempted Him. Christ therefore, willing to shew that He knew the treachery of their hearts, and that He was God, yet would not declare this truth to them plainly, that they might not take occasion thence to charge Him with blasphemy, and yet would not totally conceal this truth; because to that end had He come that He should preach the truth; He therefore puts a question to them, such as should declare to them who He was; What think ye of Christ? whose Son is He?
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. lxxi.
He first asked His disciples what others said of Christ, and then what they themselves said; but not so to these. For they would have said that He was a deceiver, and wicked. They thought that Christ was to be mere man, and therefore they say unto Him, The Son of David. To reprove this, He brings forward the Prophet, witnessing His dominion, proper Sonship, and His joint honour with His Father.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
This passage is out of the 109th Psalm. Christ is therefore called David’s Lord, not in respect of His descent from him, but in respect of His eternal generation from the Father, wherein He was before His fleshly Father. And he calls Him Lord, not by a mere chance, nor of his own thought, but by the Holy Spirit.
Remigio † 908 d.C.
That He says, Sit thou on my right hand, is not to be taken as though God had a body, and either a right hand or a left hand; but to sit on the right hand of God is to abide in the honour and equality of the Father’s majesty.
Pseudo-Crisostomo
I suppose that He formed this question, not only against the Pharisees, but also against the heretics; for according to the flesh He was truly David’s Son, but his Lord according to His Godhead.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C.
But He rests not with this, but that they may fear, He adds, Till I make thine enemies thy footstool; that at least by terror He might gain them.
Origene † 253 d.C.
For God puts Christ’s enemies as a footstool beneath His feet, for their salvation as well as their destruction.
Remigio † 908 d.C.
But till is used for indefinite time, that the meaning be, Sit Thou for ever, and for ever hold thine enemies beneath thy feet.
La Glossa ap. Anselm.
That it is by the Father that the enemies are put under the Son, denotes not the Son’s weakness, but the union of His nature with His Father. For the Son also puts under Him the Father’s enemies, when He glorifies His name upon earth. He concludes from this authority, If David then call Him Lord, how is He his son?
san Girolamo † 420 d.C.
This question is still available for us against the Jews; for these who believe that Christ is yet to come, assert that He is a mere man, though a holy one, of the race of David. Let us then thus taught by the Lord ask them, If He be mere man, and only the Son of David, how does David call Him his Lord? To evade the truth of this question, the Jews invent many frivolous answers. They allege Abraham’s steward, he whose son was Eliezer of Damascus, and say that this Psalm was composed in his person, when after the overthrow of the five kings, the Lord God said to his lord Abraham, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. Let us ask how Abraham could say the things that follow, and compel them to tell us how Abraham was born before Lucifer, and how he was a Priest after the order of Melchisedech, for whom Melchisedech brought bread and wine, and of whom he received tithes of the spoil?
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C.
This conclusion He put to their questionings, as final, and sufficient to stop their mouth. Henceforward accordingly they held their peace, not by their own good-will, but from not having aught to say.
Origene † 253 d.C.
For had their question sprung of desire to know, He would never have proposed to them such things as should have deterred them from asking further.
Rabano Mauro † 856 d.C.
Hence we learn that the poison of jealousy may be overcome, but can hardly of itself rest at peace.
Il testo latino
Chrysostomus in Matth
Iudaei aestimantes Christum esse hominem purum, eum tentabant; nec eum tentassent, si filium Dei credidissent. Volens ergo Christus ostendere quod cognoscebat fallaciam cordis eorum, et quia Deus erat, nec manifeste voluit dicere veritatem, ne occasionem blasphemiae invenientes Iudaei amplius insanirent, nec omnino tacere, quia ad hoc venerat ut veritatem annuntiaret: ideo talem interrogationem eis proposuit, ut ipsa interrogatio eis ostenderet quis esset; unde dicitur congregatis autem Pharisaeis, interrogavit eos Iesus, dicens: quid vobis videtur de Christo? Cuius filius est?
Chrysostomus in Matth
Discipulos quidem primum interrogavit quid alii dicerent de Christo, et tunc quid ipsi dicerent; hos autem non ita. Profecto enim seductorem eum dixissent et malum. Existimabant autem quoniam Christus purus homo erat; et ideo dixerunt eum esse filium David; et hoc est quod subditur dicunt ei: David. Ipse autem hoc reprehendens, inducit prophetam dominationem eius et proprietatem filiationis, et cohonorationem quae est ad patrem, testantem; unde dicitur quomodo ergo David in spiritu vocat eum dominum, dicens: dixit dominus domino meo: sede a dextris meis, donec poenam
, et cetera. Hieronymus
Testimonium hoc de Psalmo 109, I sumptum est. Dominus ergo David vocatur, non secundum id quod de eo natus est, sed secundum id quod natus ex patre semper fuit, praeveniens ipsum carnis suae patrem. Vocat autem eum dominum suum, non errore incerto, nec propria voluntate, sed spiritu sancto
Remigio
Quod autem dicit sede a dextris meis, non intelligendum est quod Deus corporeus sit, ut dexteram vel sinistram habeat; sed a dextris Dei sedere est in honore et aequalitate paternae dignitatis manere
Chrysostomus super Matth
Puto autem quod hanc interrogationem non solum contra Pharisaeos, sed etiam contra haereticos posuit: nam secundum carnem vere filius erat David, dominus autem secundum divinitatem
Chrysostomus in Matth
Non autem in hoc stat; sed ut timeant, subdit donec ponam inimicos tuos scabellum pedum tuorum: ut saltem ita eos inducat
Origenes in Matth
Deus etiam non ad perditionem solum ponit scabellum pedum Christi inimicos ipsius, sed ad eorum salutem
Remigio
Donec autem pro infinito ponitur, ut sit sensus: sede semper, et inimici tui in sempiternum subicientur pedibus tuis
Glossa
Quod autem a patre inimici subiciuntur filio, non infirmitatem filii, sed unitatem naturae significat: nam et filius subicit inimicos patri, quia patrem clarificat super terram. Et ex hac auctoritate concludit si ergo David vocat eum dominum, quomodo filius eius est?
Hieronymus
Interrogatio haec nobis proficit usque hodie contra Iudaeos: et hi enim qui confitentur Christum esse venturum, hominem simplicem et sanctum virum asserunt de genere David. Interrogemus ergo eos docti a domino: si simplex homo est, et tantum filius David, quomodo David vocat eum dominum suum? Iudaei autem ad diluendam interrogationis veritatem, frivola multa confingunt, vernaculum Abrahae asserentes, cuius filius fuit Damascus Eliezer, et ex ipsius persona scriptum Psalmum, quod post caedem quinque regum, dominus Deus domino suo Abraham dixerit: sede ad dexteram meam, donec ponam, et cetera. Quos interrogemus quomodo dixerit Abraham ea quae sequuntur; et respondere cogamus quando Abraham ante Luciferum genitus sit, et quomodo sacerdos fuerit secundum ordinem Melchisedech, pro quo Melchisedech obtulerit panem et vinum, et a quo decimas praedae acceperit
Chrysostomus in Matth
Hoc tantum imposuit finem ipsorum disputationibus, quasi magnum et sufficiens praecludere eorum ora: unde sequitur et nemo poterat respondere ei verbum, neque ausus fuit quisquam ex illa die eum amplius interrogare. Siluerunt enim ex tunc non volentes, sed non habendo aliquid dicere
Origenes
Si autem interrogatio eorum fuisset ex voluntate discendi, nunquam eis talia proposuisset ut amplius non essent ausi eum interrogare
Rabano Mauro
Ex hoc autem intelligimus venena invidiae superari posse, sed difficile quiescere
22:1
1. Et respondens (pergens respondere Scribis, eorumque incredulitatem confutare) Jesus, dixit iterum in parabolis (per parabolas, parabolice) eis, dicens:
22:2
2. Simile factum est regnum coelorum homini regi, qui fecit nuptias filio suo. — q. d. Similiter agitur in regno coelorum, id est in Ecclesia militante in terris et tendente in coelum, perinde ac si rex faceret nuptias filio suo, etc. Nam alioqui regnum coelorum directe et praecise non est simile homini regi, sed humano regno. Vide Canonem 28. Fuse hanc parabolam pertractat S. Gregorius, hom. 38 in Evang. Similis est haec parabola illi quam recenset Lucas, cap. XIV, 16. Unde Maldonatus censet hanc esse eamdem cum illa; Matthaeum enim hic non servasse ordinem historiae. Verius S. Augustinus, lib. II De Consensu Evang., cap. LXXI; S. Gregorius, S. Thomas, Jansenius et alii censent aliam esse hanc parabolam ab illa Lucae; vel certe eamdem, sed bis aliterque repetitam; conferenti enim utramque patet plura in iis esse diversa. Nam, ut alia taceam, Lucas asserit illam a Christo dictam in domo Pharisaei, Matthaeus vero hic publice in templo, ut patet ex cap. XXI, 23. Rursum Lucas nuptias has coenam vocat, Matthaeus vero prandium; nisi respondeas cum S. Gregorio, hom. 38 jam citata, ipsum prandium coenam vocari, quod apud antiquos hora nona, quae ad vesperam et coenam vergit, prandium fieret.
22:3
3. Et misit servos suos vocare invitatos ad nuptias, et nolebant venire. 4. Iterum misit alios servos, dicens: Dicite invitatis: Ecce prandium meum paravi, tauri mei et altilia occisa sunt, et omnia parata: venite ad nuptias.
22:5
5. Illi autem neglexerunt, et abierunt, alius in villam suam, alius vero ad negotiationem suam. 6. Reliqui vero tenuerunt servos ejus, et contumeliis affectos occiderunt. 7. Rex autem, cum audisset, iratus est; et missis exercitibus suis, perdidit homicidas illos. — Pro nuptias, Syrus vertit semper, convivium, scilicet nuptiale, nimirum prandium, ut explicat vers. 4. Pro negotiationem, Syrus vertit, mercaturam; pro iratus est, exeanduit; pro veste nuptiali, vertit, vestem convivialem. Tota parabola sic est explicanda et applicanda. Primo, homo rex est Deus Pater; filius regis sponsus est Filius Dei incarnatus, puta Jesus Christus, cujus sponsa est Ecclesia; utriusque nuptiae inchoatae sunt in Christi incarnatione: in ea enim Christus humanam naturam sibi hypostatice, et per eam Ecclesiam, id est ceteros homines fideles, quasi sponsam mystice sibi despondit per gratiam; sed in coelo hae nuptiae consummabuntur per gloriam. Ita Origenes, S. Hilarius, S. Hieronymus, S. Gregorius et alii. Unde tropologice Origenes: «Nuptias, ait, intellige conjunctionem Christi cum anima; partum vero et proles, bona opera.» Secundo, Deus Pater Christo fecit nuptias, id est nuptiale convivium, cum in Judaea totoque mundo per Christum proposuit mensam Evangelicae doctrinae et Sacramentorum, praesertim Eucharistiae. Ita Origenes, Euthymius, Auctor Imperfecti. Tertio, ad has nuptias a Deo primo per Mosen et Prophetas, quasi Dei servos invitati fuere Judaei, tum ante, tum post incarnationem Christi, ut eam futuram vel jam factam crederent, itaque in Christum sperantes, poenitentes et supplicantes ab eo gratiam, justitiam et salutem consequerentur. Ita S. Hieronymus, Gregorius, Origenes, Theophylactus. Quarto, tauri et altilia in genere tantum significant convivium opipare esse apparatum, quae dogmatum Evangelii magnitudinem significant, ait S. Hieronymus, aeque ac Sacramentorum, ac praesertim Eucharistiae. Porro, altilia non sunt alites, id est volucres et aves, sed tauri, vituli caeteraque animalia quae saginantur ut pinguescant, dicta sunt altilia ab alendo, quasi alitilia vel alita, ait S. Gregorius. Graece enim est σιτιστά, id est altilia, saginata, uti vituli, oves et boves lacte et rapis saginantur, ut impinguentur: σιτίζω enim est alo, nutrio, pasco; et σιτεύω est sagino et frugibus pinguefacio. Unde Arabicus vertit: Et vituli mei saginati jam occisi sunt; Graece τεθυμένα, id est immolati sunt. Olim enim (uti etiamnum) nuptias a sacrificio auspicabantur, ac nuptialia convivia epulis victimisque in sacrificio mactatis et immolatis agebantur. Sic et nuptiale Christi convivium, quod hic parabolice describitur, a sacrificio crucis sumpsit initium. Symbolice: S. Gregorius per tauros accipit Patres veteris Testamenti, qui ex permissione legis inimicos suos virtutis corporeae cornu feriebant, q. d. Patrum mores aspicite, et remedia vitae vestrae cogitate. Altilia vero sunt, inquit, Patres novi Testamenti, a terrenis ad sublimia contemplatione sublevati. Chrysostomus autem: «Altilia, ait, sunt Prophetae; tauri, qui Prophetae fuerunt et sacerdotes: ut enim tauri gregis duces, ita sacerdotes principes populi.» S. Hilarius insuper: «Tauri, ait, sunt Martyres, qui tanquam hostiae immolati; altilia, homines spiritales tanquam coelesti pane saginati.» Denique Origenes: «Prandium, ait, est Dei eloquium; quae fortia sunt, tauri; quae suaviora, saginata vocantur.» Quinto, ager et villa, in quem abiere invitati, negligentes invitationem, significant bona temporalia, quae Judaeos a fide et lege Christi bonisque coelestibus ab eo promissis avocarunt, ideoque ipsi Dei servos, id est Apostolos primosque fideles, imo ipsum Christum occiderunt. Quocirca Deus misit Titum et Vespasianum, qui Judaeos quasi homicidas perdidit et occidit, ac civitatem, id est metropolim eorum, puta Jerusalem cum templo Salomonis, quod erat orbis miraculum, succendit. Ita S. Chrysostomus, S. Hieronymus, Euthymius et alii. Alludit Christus in hac convivii sui parabola ad Isaiae cap. XXV, vers. 6: «Et faciet Dominus exercituum omnibus populis in monte hoc, convivium pinguium, convivium vindemiae, pinguium medullatorum, vindemiae defaecatae;» et ad cap. XXX, 23: «Et panis frugum terrae erit uberrimus et pinguis: pascetur in possessione tua in die illo agnus spatiose; et tauri et pulli asinorum, qui operantur terram, commistum migma comedent.» Vide utrobique dicta. Hinc disce Christum in Ecclesia jugiter nobis apponere opiparum spirituale convivium sacrae doctrinae et gratiae, multipliciter conditum sacris lectionibus, concionibus, exhortationibus, ac innumeris Apostolorum, Martyrum, Confessorum, Virginum in omni virtutum genere exemplis, crebra oratione, meditatione et Sacramentorum, praesertim Eucharistiae (quae «frumentum est electorum, et vinum germinans virgines,» ut ait Zacharias, 9, 17) sumptione frequenti; S. Missae sacrificii, cum tanto SS. ministrorum, altarium, templorum ornatu, ac musicorum et organorum coelesti quasi harmonia, celebratione, et aliis plurimis quae mentem fidelium spiritalibus deliciis pascunt, oblectant, inebriant, ut Christianismus piis non aliud sit quam juge festum et epulum) juxta illud Isaiae, LXVI, 23: «Et erit mensis ex mense (festum neomeniae continuum), et sabbatum ex sabbato.» Denique Christus ipse jam incarnatus, perenne est fidelium pabulum et gaudium: ipse enim per incarnationem non tantum omnia gratiae suae dona, sed et totum seipsum quantus quantus est, adeoque suam deitatem realiter illis communicat, imo gustandam, comedendam fruendamque exhibet, juxta illud, Joan. VI, 51: «Ego sum panis vivus, qui de coelo descendi: si quis manducaverit ex hoc pane, vivet in aeternum.» Hac de causa Isaias, delicias et felicitatem Ecclesiae novae ex Christo incarnato obventuram praenuntians, passim exultat et jubilat, omnesque Christianos ad jugiter exultandum et jubilandum invitat, ut patet cap. II, VII, XXX, XXXV, LX, LXI, LXII et seq. Videat ergo Christianus, praesertim Sacerdos et Religiosus, ut hisce epulis mentem pascat et satiet, ac in sanctitate et justitia serviens Christo, perpetim cum eo dissuavians vitam agat jucundam, laetam, beatam, ac felicitatem perennem hic incheet et praelibet, quam mox perficiet et consummabit in coelo. Hinc pariter discat, quam insipientes sint illi qui hisce epulis coelestibus praeferunt terrenos agros et villas, hoc est porcorum siliquas, regum deliciis.
22:8
Vers. 8. Tunc ait servis suis: Nuptiae quidem paratae sunt, sed qui invitati erant, non fuerunt digni. — Est haec altera et posterior pars parabolae invitatorum. «Tunc,» scilicet cum invitati, puta Judaei, nollent venire ad mensam nuptialem Evangelicae doctrinae Christi, eo quod illa «non fuerunt digni,» quia scilicet illam contemnendo, eadem se fecerunt omnino indignos: «ait» rex, scilicet Deus, «servis suis,» puta Apostolis.
22:9
Vers. 9. Ite ergo ad exitus viarum, et quoscumque inveneritis, vocate ad nuptias. — Pro «exitus viarum,» Arabicus strata viarum vertit. Graece est διεξόδους ὁδῶν, id est decursus, digressus, transitus, exitus, permeationes viarum, q. d. Perambulate et percurrite omnes vias omnesque viarum flexus, angulos, fines et terminos; nullus sit angulus, nullus finis viarum, quem non permeetis, hoc est, omnes mundi vias, o Apostoli, perambulate, totum orbem, omnesque Gentium regiones obite, ut iis evangelizetis Christi fidem et gratiam, ad eamque omnes omnino gentes et homines vocetis. Jubet enim Apostolis, ut ab invitatis, id est Judaeis, Evangelium transferant ad omnes Gentes; unde subdit:
22:10
Vers. 10. Et egressi servi (Apostoli) ejus in vias. — Idem ergo sunt «exitus viarum» quod «viae,» sive ductus et flexus viarum. Sic Aristoteles, lib. De Mundo, διεξόδους πλανητῶν vocat cursus lunae caeterarumque stellarum errantium permeationes, errores, gyros et flexus. Jubet ergo Christus Apostolis, ut omnes gentes et regiones, adeoque ultimos terrae fines adeant, iisque Christum evangelizent; juxta illud: «In omnem terram exivit sonus eorum, et in fines orbis terrae verba eorum,» Psalm. XVIII. Mystice: servi sunt angeli praepositi Gentium conversioni, ait Origenes. Symbolice: «Viae» primo, sunt errores varii et contrarii, sectaeque Gentium, quos dispulerunt Apostoli. Ita Remigius. Secundo, S. Chrysostomus: «Viae, inquit, sunt variae professiones hominum in mundo, ut Philosophiae, militiae, etc. Jubet ergo cujuscumque conditionis homines invitari ad fidem.» Tertio: «Via, ait S. Hilarius, est tempus saeculi; jubentur ergo ire ad exitus, quia omnibus retroactis donantur.» Quarto, S. Gregorius: «Viae, ait, sunt actiones; exitus, defectus: plerumque enim facile conveniuntur, quibus prospere non succedit.» Congregaverunt omnes quos invenerunt, bonos et malos. — Hoc est emblema parabolae, tantumque significat universim omnes homines, sine discrimine, vocatos esse ad fidem Christi. Et impletae sunt nuptiae discumbentium. — Impleta est Ecclesia omnium gentium et fidelium numero et copia.
22:11
Vers. 11. Intravit autem rex ut videret discumbentes, — eosque lustraret et examinaret. Hoc fiet, cum Deus veniet ad judicium universale in fine mundi, ut omnes examinet, judicet, praemiet vel puniat, beet vel condemnet. Ita Origenes, S. Chrysostomus et alii. Et vidit ibi hominem non vestitum veste nuptiali. — Arabicus, veste nuptiarum; Syrus, veste conviviali. Vestis nuptialis, id est munda, pretiosa et splendida, non est fides, ut volunt haeretici; omnes enim in hoc Ecclesiae convivio habebant fidem, imo non nisi per fidem in illud ingredi poterant; ergo vestis haec est charitas morumque probitas et sanctitas: vita enim pura et sancta est instar vestis mundae et cycladis splendidae, ex virtutibus et bonis operibus contextae, quae mire hominem exornat. Ita S. Hieronymus, Hilarius, Chrysostomus, Tertullianus et alii. Unde S. Gregorius non habentem vestem nuptialem explicat fidem habentem, non opera charitatis, per quam Dominus ad sociandae sibi Ecclesiae nuptias venit. S. Augustinus vero, lib. II Contra Faust. cap. XIX, explicat suam, non Domini gloriam quaerentem. S. Hilarius autem: «Vestis nuptialis, ait, est gratia Spiritus Sancti, et candor habitus coelestis, qui bona interrogatione confessionis susceptus, usque in coelestem coetum immaculatus est reservandus.» S. Hieronymus denique ait: «Opera quae complentur ex lege et Evangelio, novi hominis efficiunt vestimentum.» Porro, plures in die judicii a Christo reperientur fideles, carentes hac veste charitatis et sanctitatis; unus tamen duntaxat nominatur, tum quia obiter hoc tantum et quasi παρέργως additur. Scopus enim Christi proprius et directus est, hac parabola uti et praecedentibus tantum significare, reprobatis Judaeis incredulis vocandas ad Christum esse Gentes, tum quia hic unus omnes illi similes significat, hic enim unus est instar omnium, sive exemplar et speculum cunctorum impiorum; tum denique ut significet, ne unum quidem impium in die judicii latere posse, vel impune abiturum.
22:12
Vers. 12. Et ait illi: Amice (Syrus, socie mi), quomodo huc intrasti, non habens vestem nuptialem? — Vox «amice» significat Deum haec impiis dicturum, non ex odio et studio condemnationis, sed amice ex zelo justitiae. Addit S. Hieronymus: Amicum vocat, quia invitatus fuit ad nuptias, ideoque eum impudentiae arguit, quod amice invitatus ad nuptias, rustice venerit sine veste nuptiali. Unde S. Gregorius, hom. 38: «Mirandum est, inquit, quod hunc et amicum vocat et reprobat, ac si apertius dicat: Amice, et non amice, amice per fidem, sed non amice per operationem.» At ille obmutuit. — Quia ibi locus negandi non est, ait S. Hieronymus: nam Deus ibi «illuminabit abscondita tenebrarum, et manifestabit consilia cordium;» juxta illud: «Scrutabor Jerusalem in lucernis,» Sophon. I, 12. Unde S. Gregorius, hom. 38 in Evang.: «Obmutuit, inquit, quia in illa districtione ultimae increpationis omne argumentum cessat excusationis, quippe quia ille foris increpat, qui testis conscientiae intus animam accusat.»
22:13
Vers. 13. Tunc dixit rex ministris, — Angelis suis, ut patet Matth. XIII, 39; unde Daniel de iis, cap. VII, ait: «Millia millium ministrabant ei, et decies millies centena millia assistebant ei.» Ligatis manibus et pedibus ejus. — Est emblema significans damnatos non posse resistere Dei sententiae et ultioni, nec quidquam boni deinceps posse facere, perinde ac si manus et pedes, imo os et mentem, judicium et voluntatem, haberent colligata. Nam, ut ait S. Augustinus, lib. XI De Trinit., «pravarum voluntatum implicatio est vinculum.» Et S. Gregorius, homil. 38: «Tunc, ait, ligat poena quos modo a bonis operibus ligavit culpa, etc.; qui ergo nunc sponte ligantur in vitio, tunc in supplicio ligantur invite.» Glossa vero: «Singula, ait, membra poenis subjicientur, quae hic singulis servitiis servierunt.» Mittite eum in tenebras exteriores: ibi erit fletus et stridor dentium, — qui (dentes) de edacitate gavisi sunt, ait Glossa Interlinearis ex S. Gregorio. De his dixi cap. VIII, 12. Apposite S. Gregorius: «Interiores tenebrae, ait, sunt caecitas cordis; exteriores tenebrae, aeternae damnationis nox.»
22:14
Vers. 14. Multi enim sunt vocati, pauci vero electi. — Quia rejecti sunt omnes primi qui invitati venire noluerunt, puta omnes Judaei Christo increduli, quo proprie spectat haec parabola, uti et praecedentes cap. XX et XXI. Ad haec rejectus est unus ille ex iis qui vocati venerunt, sed intravit non habens vestem nuptialem, qui omnes fideles impios repraesentat. Quia enim Christus proprie hic illos significare non intendebat, hinc suffecit ei per unum hunc obiter indicare, non omnes qui venerunt, sive qui Christo crediderunt, fore salvandos, sed eos duntaxat qui fidem veste nuptiali, id est charitate sanctisque operibus ornarint, caeteros vero rejiciendos. Ita Glossa, Maldonatus et alii. Haec Christi sententia magnum cuique injicere debet timorem; nemo enim scit an electus sit an reprobus. Satagere ergo quisque debet, ut per bona opera certam suam electionem et vocationem faciat, uti monet S. Petrus. Exemplum dat S. Gregorius hic, hom. 38, tres amitas suas, quarum prima, scilicet Tharsilla, cum in sancta virginitate egisset, a S. Felice Pontifice avo suo jam beato in coelum evocata est, cum ei diceret: «Veni, quia in hac te lucis mansione suscipio.» Unde illa sursum respiciens, Jesumque videns, clamansque: «Recedite, recedite, Jesus venit,» spiritum ei tradidit aeterna vita beandum. Secunda vero Aemiliana, a sorore sua Tharsilla in coelum ad festum Epiphaniae evocata, cum illa de tertia sorore Gordiana sollicita replicaret: «Et si sola venio, Gordianam cui dimitto?» ab ea tristi vultu audivit: «Veni, Gordiana enim inter laicas deputata est:» quae proinde mox oblita virginalis suae consecrationis, honoris et pudoris, villicum suum accepit in maritum. Addit alterum exemplum monachi, qui irreligiose vixerat, ac moriens draconi ad devorandum traditus fuit; sed precibus fratrum liberatus, conversus dignam egit poenitentiam, ideoque inter electos recenseri meruit.
22:15
Vers. 15. Tunc abeuntes Pharisaei, consilium inierunt, ut caperent eum in sermone. — Pro «caperent,» Graece est παγιδεύσωσιν, id est illaquearent; παγίδες enim sunt laquei; Syrus vertit, aucuparentur. Sicut enim aucupes capiunt aves laqueo, sic vafri capiunt simplices captiosa quaestione, q. d. Quaesierunt Pharisaei captiosas quaestiones, quas proponerent Christo, ut quidquid responderet reprehensionem incurreret, itaque sua responsione se quasi illaquearet, eaque capi et redargui posset, ac reus laesae majestatis vel humanae vel divinae perageretur: «Bicipiti complexione insidiantes,» ait S. Augustinus, lib. I Contra Crescon., cap. XVII, «ut quodlibet eligens caperetur. Si licere responderet, tanquam reus esset adversus populum Dei; si autem diceret non licere, tanquam Caesaris adversarius perimeretur.»
22:16
Vers. 16. Et mittunt ei discipulos suos cum Herodianis, dicentes: Magister, scimus quia verax es, et viam Dei in veritate doces, et non est tibi cura de aliquo: non enim respicis personam hominum. Cum Herodianis. — Syrus, cum iis qui erant de domo Herodis, id est qui erant Herodis fautores, familiares, domestici. Secta haec erat Judaeorum, Romano Caesari ejusque tributo faventium, ita dicta a primo Herode Ascalonita infanticida, qui totus erat Caesarianus, utpote rex Judaeae a Romano senatu et Caesare Augusto creatus, quique, ut ait Josephus, tributis Caesaris in Judaea praeerat. Ita S. Hieronymus, Origenes et alii. Addunt S. Epiphanius, lib. I, haeresi 20; Tertullianus, lib. De Praescript.; S. Hieronymus, Dialogo contra Luciferianos, et ex iis Baronius in Apparatu Annalium, Herodianos fuisse sectarios sive haereticos Judaeorum, qui Herodem Ascalonitam censebant esse Messiam, sive Christum a Prophetis promissum, eo quod viderent in ipso defecisse sceptrum de Juda, juxta oraculum Jacobi, Genes. XLIX, 10. Avide hos adulatores adjuvit fovitque Herodes; ideoque occidit infantes in Bethleem, ut interficeret Christum, ne alius quam ipse haberetur Christus; atque ea de causa magnificentissimum Judaeis exaedificavit templum, veteri destructo, quod cum templo Salomonis certare videbatur, ut docet Josephus, lib. XV Antiquit., cap. XIV. Audi S. Hieronymum sectas Judaeorum breviter enarrantem, Dialog. contra Luciferianos: «Taceo de Judaismi haereticis, qui ante adventum Christi legem traditam dissiparunt; quod Dositheus, Samaritanorum princeps, Prophetas repudiavit; quod Sadducaei ex illius radice nascentes, etiam resurrectionem carnis negaverunt; quod Pharisaei a Judaeis divisi propter quasdam observationes superfluas, nomen quoque a dissidio susceperunt; quod Herodiani Herodem regem suscepere pro Christo.» Idem censent Theophylactus et Euthymius hic, ac Philastrius, lib. De Haeresibus; nisi quod hi pro Herode Ascalonita substituant ejus filium Herodem Antipam, qui patri mortuo succedens, jam tum regnabat, et Joannem Baptistam occidit, ac Christum veste alba indutum illusit. Verum quod Antipas a Judaeis habitus sit Messias, nec Josephus, nec Hegesippus, nec quis alius veterum meminit, imo diserte negat hic S. Hieronymus. Herodianos ergo hosce Pharisaei (qui in contrariam partem, scilicet Herodem non esse Messiam, nec Caesari Romano dandum esse tributum, quasi vindices legis Mosaicae et libertatis Judaicae, propendebant, ut patet ex Josepho, lib. XVIII Antiquitatum, cap. I) subornant, ut cum discipulis suis eant ad Jesum, quasi novum Judaeae Prophetam et doctorem; eique quaestionem hanc de tributo Caesari dando, illo tempore, inter se controversam proponant, ut ille litem dirimat; sed hac fraude et astuto consilio, ut, si Christus asserat dandum esse Caesari tributum, plebis Judaicae invidiam incurrat; si neget, in Caesaris et Romanorum iram et crimen incurrat. Magister. — Hebr. rabbi. Rabbi autem significat non solum legis doctorem, quales sunt Rabbini, sed etiam virum primarium auctoritate praeditum, potentem et principem. Ficte adulantur Christo: nam eum vocant magistrum, cujus nolunt esse discipuli, quem magisterio, fama et vita privare moliuntur. Scimus quia verax es, et viam (id est legem) Dei in veritate doces. — Lex enim est via qua tendimus ad Deum, ejusque gratiam et gloriam; lex enim docet quid Deo placeat, quid velit a nobis fieri, ut illi grati simus, ab eoque justificemur et beemur. Et non est tibi cura de aliquo. — Non metuis iras Herodis, nec potentiam Caesaris, ut hoc metu impediaris ne verum respondeas, et pro Judaeis tuis sententiam feras, etiamsi per hoc scias te offensam Herodis et Caesaris incursurum, uti Herodis adulterium castigans Baptista, ejus offensam incurrere non detrectavit. Putabant enim ipsi omnino quod Christus pro Judaeis, utpote fidelibus, contra Caesarem, utpote infidelem, sententiam ferret. Ita S. Chrysostomus: «Adulatione, inquit, putant eum ita inflare et audacem reddere, ut contra institutas leges et praesentem rerum statum quidpiam dicat, etc.,» ut scilicet «Caesarem offendat affectatae rebellionis suspicione.» Non enim respicis personam (Syrus, faciem) hominum, — ut videas an facies vel persona sit divitis et principis, an pauperis et plebeii, ac principi adulando pro eo respondeas plebemque condemnes; sed clausis quasi oculis sententiam pro veritate et justitia pronunties, dicasque: «Amicus Caesar, sed magis amica veritas.» Unde Arabicus vertit: Non respicis in faciem hominis. Graecum enim πρόσωπον et personam et faciem significat, quia ex facie persona quaelibet dignoscitur.
22:17
Vers. 17. Dic ergo nobis quid tibi videtur: licet censum (Syrus, pecuniam capitatim; censum enim solvebant singula capita) dare Caesari, an non? — Judaei, utpote populus fidelis Deoque devotus, abhorrebant a Gentilibus quasi idololatris, ideoque multi eorum censebant non licere Judaeis Caesarem agnoscere pro domino, eique tributum pendere, eo quod solus Deus esset eorum Dominus, cui decimas et annuum censum solvebant: Caesarem intellige, non Augustum, utpote jam vita functum, sed Tiberium, Augusti ex Livia uxore privignum et successorem, jam tum regnantem ab annis octodecim, ut patet Luca III, 1. Porro, occasio hujus quaestionis proponendae Christo fuit, quod sub id tempus Judas quidam Galilaeus docuerit, non licere Judaeis subesse et dare tributum Romanis utpote Gentilibus; Christus autem et Apostoli erant Galilaei (Christus enim conceptus et educatus est in Nazareth: unde Nazarenus et Galilaeus est cognominatus), ideoque dogmatis et erroris Judae Galilaei, quasi civis sui, a Judaeis fuere insimulati, atque hac de causa ipsi errorem hunc saepe a se amoliti sunt et confutarunt, uti dixi Actor. V, 37. Audi S. Hieronymum in cap. III ad Titum, vers. 1: «Hoc praeceptum, inquit, propterea puto ab Apostolo editum, quia Judae Galilaei per illud tempus dogma adhuc vigebat, et habebat plurimos sectatores, qui inter cetera hoc quasi probabile proferebat, ex lege nullum debere dominum, nisi solum Deum, vocari, et eos qui ad templum decimas deferrent, Caesari tributa non reddere. Quae haeresis in tantum creverat, ut etiam Pharisaeorum et multam partem populi conturbaret, ita ut ad Dominum quoque nostrum referretur haec quaestio: Licet Caesari dare tributum, an non? Quibus Dominus prudenter cauteque respondens, ait: Reddite quae sunt Caesaris Caesari, et quae sunt Dei Deo. Cui responsioni S. Paulus congruens docet, principibus et potestatibus credentes debere esse subjectos.»
22:18
Vers. 18. Cognita autem Jesus nequitia (Graece πονηρία, id est malitia, qua fraudulenta simulatione volebant eum Romanis necandum objicere) eorum, ait: Quid me tentatis, hypocritae? — Simulatis enim vos amicos et religionis ac bonae conscientiae studiosos, ut sciatis quid recte et juste ex lege Dei in hoc casu agere debeatis, cum sitis inimici mei aeque ac Dei, et meum sanguinem sitiatis eumque fraudulenter et dolose mihi extorquere satagatis. «Prima, ait S. Hieronymus, virtus respondentis est cognoscere interrogantis mentem,» illique responsionem accommodare. Hi enim Pharisaei et Herodiani quasi hypocritae, «blandiuntur, ait Auctor Imperfecti, ut perdant;» Christus vero eos increpat, ut salvet: «Utilior enim est Deus iratus, quam homo propitius.»
22:19
Vers. 19. Ostendite mihi numisma census (q. d. Ostendite mihi nummum, quem pro censu et tributo Caesar a singulis capitibus exigit. Unde Syrus pro censu vertit, argenti capitis; Arabicus, ostendite mihi figuram denarii). At illi obtulerunt ei denarium. — Dices: Ex cap. XVII, 17, liquet Judaeos pro censu solvisse didrachmum, sive dimidium sicli: denarius autem Romanus, unius duntaxat erat drachmae, eratque id quod nunc est julius Romanus, vel regalis Hispanicus, qui Romae decem baiocos, Antuerpiae quinque stuferos valet; quare denarius erat dimidia pars didrachmi, et quarta pars sicli: siclus enim valebat quatuor julios. Respondeo didrachmum commoditatis causa fuisse divisum in duos denarios, ac singulos pro censu solvisse duos denarios, hoc est didrachmum: ita Jansenius, Maldonatus et alii; nisi malis denarium hunc fuisse duplicem, ideoque fuisse didrachmum, sicut duplicem regalem 10 stuferorum vocamus etiam regalem... Denique videtur Tiberius, uti et ceteri Imperatores, ejus pretii denarium cudi jussisse, quem vellet sibi a Judaeis in censum dari, quia, ut ex Lampridio docet Baronius, solebant Romani cudere numismata eo pretio et pondere, quo illi sibi volebant in tributum pendi, quod pro ratione temporum et necessitatum mutabatur, et aliquando erat majus, aliquando minus.
22:20
20. Et ait illis Jesus: Cujus est imago haec et superscriptio? — Graece ἐπιγραφή, quod Interpres in Marco vertit, «inscriptio.» Solent enim nummi insigniri tam nomine quam imagine vel effigie principis, qui eos cudit. Unde Arabicus vertit: Cujus est figura haec et inscriptio?
22:21
21. Dicunt ei, Caesaris. — Tiberii, qui tunc imperabat. Sciebat jam ante id Christus, sed interrogat, ut ex ore eorum eliciat responsum, quod in eos intorqueat illosque convincat. Caesaris cognomen primo datum est Julio Caesari, a quo ad sequentes Imperatores transiit. Audi S. Isidorum, lib. IX Etymol., cap. III: «Caesarum nomen a Julio coepit, qui bello civili commoto, primus Romanorum singularem obtinuit principatum. Caesar autem dictus, quod caeso matris suae mortuae utero, prolatus eductusque fuerit; vel quod cum caesarie natus sit, a quo et Imperatores sequentes Caesares dicti, eo quod comati essent.» Servius vero et Spartianus, et ex iis Carolus Sigonius, lib. De Nomin. Rom.: «Caesar, inquit, dictus ab elephanto primum caeso: nam lingua punica Caesar elephas dicebatur; quare in quibusdam argenteis nummis apud me videre est, ab altera parte elephantem cum hac inscriptione: CAESAR, ab altera autem instrumenta quibus elephantos Romani perimebant.» Tunc ait illis: Reddite ergo quae sunt Caesaris, Caesari; et quae sunt Dei, Deo. — q. d. Quandoquidem vos, o Judaei, jam Caesari subjecti sitis, ideoque ejus moneta passim utamini, alioqui ea non usuri, cum a Gentium ritibus et symbolis prorsus abhorreatis, cumque Caesar non nisi temporalia, scilicet denarium sua effigie et nomine inscriptum, quasi suum a vobis sibi deposcat; non tam «date», quam «reddite» ei denarium suum pro censu; spiritualia vero, scilicet cultum et pietatem, date Deo, haec enim jure suo Deus sibi exigit: ita fiet, ut nec Deum, nec Caesarem offendatis. Nota Christum nolle hic disputare, an Judaei juste Romanis sint subditi factique vectigales et tributarii, an vero injuste et tyrannice. Anceps enim haec erat quaestio. Prima enim facie negativa pars, scilicet quod non juste, videtur verior. Pompeius enim, qui primo Judaeam Romanis subjecit fecitque vectigalem, vocatus fuit duntaxat ab Hyrcano et Aristobulo fratribus (nepotibus Simonis pontificis, qui fuit frater Judae Machabaei) de principatu et pontificatu Judaeae inter se contendentibus, ut litem inter eos dirimeret: quo jure ergo, iis exclusis, principatum Judaeae ab eis ad Romanos transtulit? Hoc enim est jus Turcicum, nam Turca vocatus in auxilium a Christianis principibus inter se dissidentibus, utrumque occupat et subjugat. Penitius tamen rem gestam inspicienti, affirmativa pars probabitur, scilicet Pompeium et Romanos jure justi belli occupasse Judaeam. Cum enim Pompeius litem adjudicasset Hyrcano, idque juste, utpote seniori, ideoque Judaeae principatum cum pontificatu illi assignasset; Aristobulus frater ejus junior, ut utrumque dolo et vi occuparet, Hierosolymam Judaeae metropolim insedit, suisque asseclis et militibus implevit, qui Hyrcano et Pompeio restiterunt. Quare Pompeius vi urbem expugnavit eamque Hyrcano consentiente Romanis subjecit. Hyrcanus enim solus eam tueri et retinere nequivisset, unde se suaque tradidit Pompeio. Accessit deinde consensus seniorum et potiorum Judaeorum, qui malebant Romanis subesse quam Hyrcano et Aristobulo. Videbant enim sine Romanis rempublicam Judaeorum abituram in schismata et seditiones, cum et hi fratres inter se summe dissentirent et cives ab utroque, uti narrat Josephus, lib. XIV Antiquit., cap. V et sequent. Unde S. Hieronymus: «Et erat, inquit, in populo magna seditio, dicentibus illis pro securitate et quiete, quia Romani pro omnibus militarunt, debere tributa persolvi; Pharisaeis vero, qui sibi applaudebant in justitia, e contrario nitentibus, non debere populum Dei (cui decimas solveret et primitias daret, et cetera quae in lege scripta sunt) humanis legibus subjacere.» Denique Romanis favebat praescriptio: jam enim ipsi ab annis fere centum pacifice et bona fide, populo Judaeorum tacente taciteque consentiente, possederant Judaeam; quare praescriptione hac videbantur juste occupare dominium Judaeae. Rursum, in dubio melior est conditio possidentis: unde in dubio nemo possessione sua privandus est. Quare Pharisaeis, si Romanos hac possessione privare volebant, incumbebat onus probandi et evincendi ipsos injuste occupasse Judaeam esseque malae fidei possessores. Quod cum facere non possent, Romani suam possessionem juste retinebant: accusatore enim non probante crimen, reus absolvitur: actori enim incumbit probatio criminis; reo sufficit, si crimen neget. Actores autem hic erant Pharisaei, rei vero Romani, quos Pharisaei possessione sua depellere volebant. Christus ergo hoc dominium Romanorum in Judaeos et tributum eis impositum hic non vult examinare, an justum sit, an injustum; sed praesupponit factum in se quasi justum, utpote tot titulis jam dictis roboratum et confirmatum: quia Pharisaei in quaestione hac census Romanis dandi, suae immunitati ab hoc censu non praetendebant justitiam, sed religionem et pietatem, scilicet non licere nec decere, ut populus Dei (qualis erant soli Judaei) Caesari gentili et idololatrae subsit pendatque tributum. Unde in sua quaestione, quam Christo proponunt, non dicunt: An obligamur dare censum Caesari? sed «licet censum dare Caesari, an non?» q. d. Nobis videtur id non licere, quia hoc videtur cedere in Dei contemptum, Judaeorum dedecus, et religionis fideique injuriam. Ita ipsi; sed Christus respondet contrarium, scilicet non esse Deo et fidei injurium, nec gentis fidelis vilipendium, si populus Dei subsit gentili Caesari, ipsosque Judaeos commode, utiliter et honeste posse tam Deo, quam gentili principi subesse et obsequi, si cuique reddant quod debent; idque prudenter facturos, ne vel Deum vel Caesarem contra se concitent, ut gentem totam quasi sibi rebellem evertat, uti paulo post ob eamdem causam fecere Titus et Vespasianus Romani imperatores; praestat enim nummum dare, quam vitam et omnia perdere. Reddite ergo quae sunt Caesaris, Caesari; et quae sunt Dei, Deo. — q. d. Caesari date didrachma, quod jure suo pro censu a vobis exigit ad sustinenda reipublicae onera, ac praesertim ad alendos milites, qui vos ab incursu hostium tueantur; Deo vero date didrachma, decimas, oblationes et victimas, ait S. Hieronymus, Levitico praescriptas, quas ipse supremi dominii jure a vobis, quasi creaturis et fidelibus suis sibi deposcit. «Nec enim ex eo quod reddit quis Caesari quae Caesaris sunt, impeditur reddere Deo quae Dei sunt,» ait Origenes. Alia enim sunt jura Caesaris, alia Dei, sed sibi neutiquam adversa vel contraria: nec enim politia adversatur religioni, nec vicissim religio politiae. Quare cum Tiberius Caesar apud vos regnet, vosque illi sitis subditi, ut patet ex eo quod ipse apud vos habeat jus cudendi monetam, imo jus cudendi numisma census, puta denarium eo pretio et pondere quo ipsi visum fuerit: idcirco vos, et monetam et numisma census a Tiberio Caesare quasi principe vestro recipientes, hoc ipso profitemini vos ipsi esse subditos et vectigales, ideoque eidem debere pendere numisma census ab eo cusum et indictum. «Quod ore locutus est Christus, ait S. Bernardus, epist. 42, opere implere curavit. Conditor Caesaris non cunctatus est Caesari reddere censum,» Matth. XVII, 26. Audi Tertullianum, lib. De Idololatria, cap. XV: «Reddite quae sunt Caesaris, Caesari; et quae sunt Dei, Deo, id est imaginem Caesaris Caesari, quae est in nummo, et imaginem Dei Deo, quae in homine est, ut Caesari quidem pecuniam reddas, Deo temetipsum.» Et S. Chrysostomus: «Tu autem cum audis reddenda esse Caesari quae sua sunt, illa solum dici non dubita, quae pietati et religioni nihil officiunt; nam quod fidei ac virtuti obest, non Caesaris, sed diaboli tributum et vectigal est.» Et S. Hilarius: «Si enim nihil quod Caesaris est, penes nos resederit, conditione reddendi ei quae sua sunt, non tenebimur. Porro autem, si rebus illius incubamus, si jure potestatis suae utimur, extra querelam injuriae est redhiberi Caesari quod Caesaris est.» q. d. Si vultis esse immunes a tributo, renuntiate omnibus quae possidetis, uti ego feci et Apostoli, ubi enim nihil est, ibi nihil juris habet Caesar: si autem vestra retinere vultis, ac inter ea numismata a Caesare cusa, et vobis quasi subditis ab eo indicta ad sustinenda reipublicae onera, tunc omni jure aequum est, ut illa quasi sua illi reddatis. Politice: Christus hic tacite monet Caesares et principes, ut suis contenti, Dei et Ecclesiae negotiis sese non ingerant. Sapienter et pie Constantinus Magnus Imperator, teste Eusebio in ejus Vita, lib. IV, cap. XXIV, ad Ecclesiae Praesules: «Vos, ait, intra Ecclesiam Episcopi, ego extra Ecclesiam Episcopus constitutus sum a Deo.» Et Valentinianus senior: «Mihi, ait, qui unus e numero laicorum sum, non licet me ejusmodi negotiis interponere.» Ejus vero filius Valentinianus junior, cum matris Justinae arianae impulsu Ecclesiam pro Arianis posceret a S. Ambrosio (ut ipse refert, epistol. 33 ad Marcellinam sororem), ab eo audivit: «Noli te gravare, Imperator, ut putes te in ea, quae divina sunt, imperiale jus habere. Noli te extollere, sed si vis diutius imperare, esto Deo subditus; scriptum est: Quae Dei Deo, quae Caesaris Caesari. Ad Imperatorem palatia pertinent, ad sacerdotem Ecclesiae: tibi moenium jus concessum est, non sacrorum.» Et Hosius Cordubensis ad Constantium Imperatorem arianum: «Ne te, inquit, immisceas ecclesiasticis, neque nobis in hoc genere praecipe, sed potius ea a nobis disce. Tibi Deus imperium commisit, nobis quae sunt Ecclesiae concredidit.» Theodosius junior, epist. ad Concilium Ephesinum: «Nefas est, inquit, qui SS. Episcoporum catalogo adscriptus non est, eum ecclesiasticis negotiis et consultationibus se immiscere.» Moraliter: docet nos hic Christus prudentiam, ut apud captiosos ita sapienter loquamur et sermonem temperemus, ut neutram partem offendamus; sed inter duas aquas natemus, ac inter Scyllam et Charybdim enatemus. Tropologice S. Hilarius: «Deo etiam ea quae Dei sunt, reddere nos oportet, id est corpus et animam et voluntatem, numisma autem Caesaris in auro est, in quo est ejus imago depicta; Dei autem numisma homo est, in quo est Dei imago figurata; ideo divitias vestras date Caesari, Deo autem innocentiae vestrae conscientiam servate.» Sic et Origenes: «Deo, ait, reddenda sunt quae virtutis sunt, Caesari quae politiae et census.» Et S. Augustinus, lib. I Contra epist. Parmen., cap. VII: «Deo, ait, reddendus est christianus amor, regibus humanus timor.» S. Bernardus vel quisquis est auctor, lib. De Passione Domini, cap. III: «Reddite, ait, Caesari denarium, Caesaris habentem imaginem; reddite Deo animam, quam ad imaginem et similitudinem suam creavit, et justi fueritis.» Vide S. Bernardum, tract. De Quadruplici debito, quo Deo obstringimur. Symbolice: Auctor serm. ad Fratres in eremo, apud S. Augustinum, tomo X, serm. 7: «Tunc, ait, reddimus ea quae sunt Caesaris Caesari, cum Sanctis impendimus duliam eis debitam, et quae sunt Dei Deo, cum Deo tribuimus latriam illi soli propriam.» Denique S. Augustinus in Sententiis, sentent. 15, hac recte applicat votis et voventibus: «Quisquis, ait, bene cogitat quae voveat Deo, et quae vovendo persolvat, seipsum voveat et reddat. Hoc exigitur, hoc debetur. Imago Caesaris reddatur Caesari, imago Dei reddatur Deo.» Id jubet Psaltes dicens: «Vovete et reddite Domino Deo vestro, omnes qui in circuitu ejus affertis munera,» Psal. LXXV, 12.
22:22
Vers. 22. Et audientes mirati sunt, et relicto eo, abierunt. — Mirati sunt sapientiam et dexteritatem Christi, qua e laqueo hoc, qui Pharisaeis videbatur inevitabilis et inextricabilis, tam facile se extricavit, illumque in Pharisaeorum sibi insidiantium collum retorsit eoque ipsos se captantes constrinxit, juxta illud Psal. IX, 16: «Laqueo illo quem absconderunt, comprehensus est pes eorum.» Pharisaei enim et negabant censum Caesari et cultum Deo, ut patebit cap. XXIII; eos ergo tacite perstringit taxatque Christus, et utrumque eis faciendum edicit, quia «non est sapientia, non est prudentia, non est consilium contra Dominum,» Prov. XXI, 30.
22:23
Vers. 23. In illo die accesserunt ad eum Sadducaei (de quibus dixi cap. III, vers. 7), qui dicunt non esse resurrectionem, et interrogaverunt eum. — Hi audierant Christum docere resurrectionem, ac per eam persuadere hominibus poenitentiam et vitam sanctam. Oppugnant ergo eum hac quaestione, quae eis pariter videbatur inextricabilis, ut Christum ejusque doctrinam confutent, intricent et evertant, per absurditatem quae ex ea ipsis sequi videbatur.
22:24
Vers. 24. Dicentes: Magister, Moyses dixit: Si quis mortuus fuerit non habens filium, ut ducat frater ejus uxorem illius, et suscitet semen fratri suo. — «Semen,» id est posteritatem, filium (ita Syrus) qui scilicet nomine defuncti appelletur, ut sic defunctus in eo quasi filio superesse et aeternare videatur. Lex haec habetur Deuter. XXV, 5, ubi eam explicui.
22:25
Vers. 25. Erant autem apud nos septem fratres, et primus, uxore ducta, defunctus est; et non habens semen, reliquit uxorem suam fratri suo. Vers. 26. Similiter secundus, et tertius, usque ad septimum. Vers. 27. Novissime autem omnium et mulier defuncta est.
22:28
Vers. 28. In resurrectione ergo cujus erit de septem uxor? omnes enim habuerunt eam. — Sadducaei putabant hac quaestione Christum confundere. Si enim diceret mulierem hanc unius fore uxorem, ceteros fratres concitasset ad iram et invidiam, et ad lites perpetuas: non enim apparet ratio, cur huic potius haec uxor detur quam alteri. Primus enim ejus maritus, qui potius jus habere videbatur, illud per mortem perdidit: homine enim moriente, omnia ejus jura pariter cum eo moriuntur. Sin dixisset Christus uxorem hanc septem fratribus fore communem, cum ut doctrinae turpissimae et publici incestus auctorem accusassent, q. d. Haec absurda ex resurrectione sequentur, si ea ponatur; ergo illa non est ponenda, nec asserenda, uti tu, o Christe, eam ponis et asseris. Ita isti homunciones putant se sapere cum summe desipiunt: quare hoc eorum telum velut araneae telam verbo difflat Christus, quo eis suam ignorantiam ostendit, addendo tertium membrum ab eis omissum utpote hominibus crassis et carnalibus inopinatum, scilicet quod vidua haec in futuro saeculo nullius erit uxor.
22:29
Vers. 29. Respondens autem Jesus ait: Erratis, nescientes Scripturas, — quae crebro et clare resurrectionem astruunt, ut Job. XIX, 23, et II Machab. VII, 9 et sequent., et cap. XII, 44; Isaiae XXVI, 19, et LXVI, 14; Ezech. XXXVII, 1 et 9; Daniel. XII, 12, et alibi. Neque virtutes Dei. — Graece δύναμιν, id est vim, robur, potentiam, q. d. Nescitis Deum esse omnipotentem, ideoque posse corpora mortua et incinerata ad vitam resuscitare, sicut eadem primitus ex nihilo creavit; major enim virtus requiritur ad aliquid creandum ex nihilo, quam ad resuscitandum ex mortuo. Ad vitam, inquam, spiritalem, gloriosam et aeternam, ut instar angelorum vivant; Sadducaei enim negabant Deum Deique potentiam et providentiam, ac consequenter animae immortalitatem et corporum resurrectionem, ut patet Actor. XXIII, 8. Tangit Christus duplicem erroris Sadducaeorum radicem: prima est ignorantia Scripturarum, quae clare docent resurrectionem; altera, ignorantia vel inconsideratio omnipotentiae Dei, quae faciebat, ut Scripturas resurrectionem astruentes de mystica a vitio ad virtutem resurrectione interpretarentur.
22:30
Vers. 30. In resurrectione (id est in futuro saeculo, ut explicat Lucas, XX, 35, puta in coelo et coelesti beatitudine) enim; neque nubent (scilicet viri), neque nubentur, — id est non dabuntur nuptui. Graecizat Interpres: Graece enim est, οὔτε γαμοῦσιν, οὔτε ἐκγαμίζονται, id est neque ducunt uxorem, scilicet viri, nec dantur nuptui, scilicet feminae. Unde Interpres, in cap. XX Luc., 35, vertit, «neque traduntur ad nuptias.» Feminae enim quae probae et verecundae sunt, non eligunt maritos, sed a parentibus dantur maritis, quos ipsi elegerint. Syrus: neque accipiunt mulieres, neque uxores sunt viris. Graecum enim γαμεῖν tam viris quam mulieribus tribuitur, uti et Latinum nubo apud antiquos utrisque dabatur, teste Nonio Marcello et Tertulliano, lib. De Resurrect. carnis. Proprie tamen uxori nubere dicitur, qui illi servit et ab ea quasi regitur. Hinc illud Martialis, lib. VIII, 10, ad Priscum: Uxorem quare locupletem ducere nolim, / Quaeritis? uxori nubere nolo meae. / Inferior matrona suo sit, Prisce, marito: / Non aliter fiunt femina virque pares. Sed erunt sicut angeli (Syrus, instar angelorum) Dei in coelo. — q. d. Beati post resurrectionem in coelo erunt similes angelis, non quoad naturam; sed, primo, quoad puritatem; secundo, quoad vitam spiritualem: vivunt enim cibo non corporali, sed spirituali; tertio, quoad incorruptionem et immortalitatem; quarto, quoad felicitatem et gloriam, in qua perennabunt in omnem aeternitatem aeque ac angeli. Quocirca ibi non erit opus nuptiis et generatione, utpote quae ad perpetuandam speciem et individuum non in se, sed per filium a natura adinventae et institutae sunt. Quia enim pater moritur, hinc generat filium, ut post mortem in filio quasi vivat et superstes sit. In coelo autem nemo morietur, sed quisque vivet et beabitur in aeternum; frustra ergo ibi forent nuptiae et procreatio filiorum. Unde Lucas, cap. XX, 36, subdit: «Neque enim ultra mori poterunt.» Apposite S. Augustinus in Quaest. Evang., ad hunc locum Lucae: «Connubia, ait, sunt propter filios, filii propter successionem, successio propter mortem: ibi ergo mors non est, neque connubia.» Addit Beda: «Etiam peccatores sine nuptiis erunt in saeculo illo, sed Dominus ut ad resurrectionis gloriam inquirendam animos excitaret, de electis tantum voluit facere sermonem.» Igitur sicut electi similes erunt angelis, sic reprobi similes erunt daemonibus, qui cum sint spiritus, immortales erunt, sed in poena et gehenna, sicut angeli in gloria. Subjicit Lucas: «Et sunt filii Dei, cum sint filii resurrectionis,» q. d. Beati resurgentes tam corpore quam animo similes erunt Deo, puta spirituales, gloriosi, immortales et aeterni sicut est Deus, tanquam filii ex resurrectione orti, et rursum nati procreatione ad vitam beatam et perpetuam; quare procreatione filiorum nec egebant, nec delectabuntur: de quo plura Luca XX, 35. Ex hoc loco Auctor Imperfecti hic docet nullam virtutem esse tam angelicam quam castitatem; de hac enim hic ait Christus: «Erunt sicut angeli Dei:» hi enim nesciunt per experientiam quid sit libido. Et Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus, Catechesi 12: «Virginitatem vocat angelorum conversationem, et incorporeae naturae puritatem.» Unde S. Basilius, De Virginit., cap. LXXIX, docet virginitatem esse semen futurae incorruptionis, imo virgines futuram illam in coelo cum angelis similitudinem hic praevenire et inchoare; ejusque perfectionem in coelis donandam, assidua hic cum carne lucta et victoria promereri. Addit S. Basilius castitatem nos non tantum angelis, sed et ipsi Deo assimilare, juxta id quod addit Lucas: «Et sunt filii Dei.» «Magnum quid, ait Basilius, et praeclarum est virginitas, quae hominem incorruptibili Deo simillimum facit, ut similitudinem Dei in se velut in speculo mundissimo ab ipso Deo cum gratiis suis, in morem suavissimi radii influentem suscipiat.» Audi S. Basilium ulterius: «Et hi profecto, qui continentiam servant, angeli sunt, qui viventes in carne corruptibili mortalium vitam illustrando tuentur. Sunt autem angeli non ex infimo quovis ordine, sed certe illustrissimi et nobilissimi. Illi enim carneis nexibus liberi integritatem suam in coelis servant, et loco et natura inviolabiles, et apud summum regem omnium Deum constituti. At vero illi in terra carnis illecebris et voluptatibus diu reluctantes, ac diaboli tentamenta perpetua exercitatione vincentes, incorruptionem angelicae puritati parem, virtute praecipua ante Creatoris oculos custodierunt.» Eleganter et pie S. Bernardus, epist. 42: «Quid, ait, castitate decorius, quae mundum de immundo conceptum semine, de hoste domesticum, angelum denique de homine facit? Differt quidem inter se homo pudicus et angelus, sed felicitate, non virtute. Sed et si illius castitas felicior, hujus tamen fortior esse cognoscitur. Sola est castitas, quae in hoc mortalitatis loco et tempore statum quemdam immortalis gloriae repraesentat. Sola inter nuptiarum solemnia morem beatae illius vindicat regionis, in qua neque nubent, neque nubentur, praebens quodammodo in terris coelestis jam illius conversationis experientiam.» Idem, serm. 2, in illud: «Haec est generatio quaerentium Dominum»: «Quis, inquit, caelibem istam vitam, coelestem et angelicam dicere vereatur? Aut quod in resurrectione futuri sunt omnes electi, quomodo non jam nunc estis sicut angeli Dei in coelo, a nuptiis penitus abstinentes? Amplectimini, fratres, pretiosissimam margaritam, amplectimini sanctimoniam vitae, quae vos efficit Sanctorum similes, et domesticos Dei, dicente Scriptura: 'Incorruptio facit esse proximum Deo,' Sapient. VI, 20.» Vide ibi dicta. Denique ex hoc loco S. Hilarius hic, et S. Athanasius, serm. 3 Contra Arian.; S. Basilius in Psalm. CXIV; S. Hieronymus, in cap. IV ad Ephes., vers. 13, ex illo quod ibi dicitur: «Donec occurramus omnes,» etc., «in virum perfectum,» videntur asserere post resurrectionem in coelo non fore sexum femineum, sicut non est angelis; quare omnes feminas commutandas fore in viros, et resurrecturas in sexu virili. Idem sua aetate multos sensisse testatur S. Augustinus, lib. XXII De Civit., cap. XVII. Verum contrarium ibidem docet ipse S. Augustinus, aeque ac S. Chrysostomus hic, et Tertullianus, lib. De Resurrect. carnis; S. Hieronymus, epist. 61 ad Pammach., contra errores Joannis Hierosolymitani, et passim Scholastici in IV, distinct. 44. Ratio a priori est, quia sexus femineus non est vitium, sed natura et naturalis conditio; unde erat etiam in statu innocentiae, puta in paradiso. Eva enim mater viventium a Deo creata est femina, sicut Adam vir. In resurrectione autem eadem omnino natura in quolibet homine resurget, eadem, inquam, numero, sive in individuo: ad hoc autem multum facit sexus diversitas et proprietas; ergo illa tunc remanebit, ne aliud individuum, et alius homo ab eo qui in hac vita fuit, resurgere videatur. Idem liquet ex eo quod ait hic Christus: «Non nubent, neque nubentur:» non nubent, scilicet viri; non nubentur, scilicet feminae; igitur tunc erunt feminae aeque ac viri sexu inter se discreti. Christus ergo non negat tum fore feminas, sed potius eas fore praesupponit, ita tamen ut sexu suo ad usum nuptiarum et generationem non utantur, ut recte advertit Beda. «Nemo enim dicit de rebus quae non habent membra genitalia: 'Non nubent, neque nubentur,'» ait S. Hieronymus; et hoc tantum voluere Patres initio citati, qui contrarium dicere videntur. Tantum enim significare volunt, in coelo non fore sexuum diversitatem quoad usum, sed quoad substantiam eam non negant, imo fore praesupponunt. Plura hac de re dixi Ephes. IV, 13.
22:31
Vers. 31. De resurrectione autem mortuorum non legistis quod dictum est a Deo dicente vobis: — Exodi III, 5. Vide ibi dicta.
22:32
Vers. 32. Ego sum Deus Abraham, et Deus Isaac, et Deus Jacob? Non est Deus mortuorum, sed viventium. — Christus non contentus solvisse Sadducaeorum objectionem contra resurrectionem, insuper eamdem illis probat ex dicto Dei ad Moysen: «Ego sum Deus Abraham,» etc. Licet enim potuisset clariora resurrectionis petere testimonia ex Job, Machabaeis, Isaia, Ezechiele, Daniele, quae citavi, vers. 29, maluit tamen hoc petere a Moyse et Pentateucho, quia hoc solum recipiebant Sadducaei, Prophetas vero respuebant. Ita Origenes, S. Hieronymus, Beda et alii. Unde Josephus, lib. XVIII, cap. II De Sadducaeis, ait: «Nec quidquam praeter legem servandum existimant;» licet ibi Josephus proprie videatur legem opponere traditionibus, non vero Prophetis, sed eos sub lege comprehendere; alioqui enim ipsi manifesti fuissent haeretici, et a Judaeis omnibus explosi, ut notat Franciscus Lucas. Quare potior causa citationis videtur esse haec, quod apud Judaeos major et antiquior esset auctoritas Moysis quam Prophetarum; summa item veneratio Abrahae, Isaac et Jacob Patriarcharum et patrum suorum, quos proinde non esse mortuos, sed apud Deum vivere, curamque posterorum suorum Hebraeorum agere existimabant; unde nemo eos plane interiisse ausus fuisset dicere. Ego sum Deus Abraham, etc. — Primo, q. d. Ego sum Deus qui glorior de Abraham, Isaac et Jacob quasi de sanctis Prophetis, fidelibus meis, amicis et cultoribus, quique foedus cum eis inivi de danda eis (id est eorum posteris) terra Chanaan, pro quo ipsi in limbo Patrum degentes me assidue sollicitant, egoque illis fidem quam dedi, reipsa mox per Moysen et Josue praestabo: ita autem de eis non gloriarer nisi ipsi viverent, maxime ego qui sum Deus vivus et vivificans. Vivunt ergo ipsi secundum animam, ac consequenter secundum corpus in resurrectione vivent, idque brevi et cito, scilicet post paucos dies cum ego a morte resurgam, tunc enim et ipsos a morte suscitabo, et mecum cum triumpho in coelos traducam, Matth. cap. XXVII, 52. Ubi nota Sadducaeos et philosophos Epicureos negasse resurrectionem, eo quod negarent animae immortalitatem; sunt enim haec duo inter se connexa. Si enim anima est immortalis, cum illa naturaliter propendeat ad corpus, cujus est forma, utique illud resurgat oportet: alioqui anima perpetuo existeret in statu violento, ac dimidiatam quasi existentiam, vitam et subsistentiam duntaxat obtineret. Hac de causa Christus hic; aeque ac S. Paulus I Corint., cap. XV, et Auctor lib. II Machab., cap. XLIII, ex animarum immortalitate probant corporum resurrectionem. Secundo, S. Chrysostomus, Theophylactus, Euthymius et Irenaeus, lib. IV, cap. XI: Abraham, inquiunt, Isaac et Jacob, non significant solas eorum animas, sed totos homines. Hi ergo, licet hominibus sint mortui, Deo tamen vivunt, et quasi dormiunt, quia brevi eos Deus a morte quasi a somno, excitabit ad vitam beatam et aeternam. Unde Lucas, cap. XX, 38, explicans, addit: «Omnes enim vivunt ei,» scilicet Deo.
22:33
Vers. 33. Et audientes turbae, mirabantur in doctrina ejus, — tam clara, sancta et solida, qua summos eorum Rabbinos, Pharisaeos et Sadducaeos erroris convincebat, ut contra hiscere non auderent.
22:34
Vers. 34. Pharisaei autem audientes quod silentium imposuisset Sadducaeis, convenerunt in unum, — ut eum de victoria a Sadducaeis relata tumidum et elatum (ut ipsi putabant) deprimerent, ac ignorantiam Scripturarum quam ipse Sadducaeis objecerat, in ipsummet retorquerent; sed stolidi homines contra stimulum calcitrant, ut semel victi a Christo, iterum turpius ab eo vincantur. Ipse enim est veritas et sapientia aeterna, qui singulis suas inscitiae tenebras revelat et ostendit.
22:35
Vers. 35. Et interrogavit eum unus ex eis legis doctor, tentans eum — Hic unus obtulit se Pharisaeis quaerentibus Jesum capere in sermone, dicens se in prompto habere quaestionem difficillimam, quam Jesu proponeret, ut ex ejus responsione tentaret quam Jesus esset peritus legis et Scripturae, non tantum in speculativis, uti erat illa quaestio Sadducaeorum de resurrectione, sed etiam in practicis; τὸ ergo «tentans,» idem est quod probans et experimentum capiens: hic enim, licet fingeret coram Pharisaeis se velle Jesum irretire et capere, tamen in animo suo cupiebat experiri et audire quid Jesus ad quaestionem hanc tam difficilem, in qua ipse dubius haerebat, esset responsurus. Cupit ergo a Jesu doceri. Unde audiens Jesum respondere maximum mandatum esse dilectionis Dei et proximi, illico responsum hoc probavit et laudavit dicens: «Bene, Magister, in veritate dixisti,» etc. Unde «Jesus videns quod sapienter respondisset, dixit illi: Non es longe a regno Dei,» scilicet a vera fide et gratia, quae fideles ducit ad regnum coeleste, Marc. XII, 34.
22:36
Vers. 36. Magister, quod est mandatum magnum in lege? — Erat haec quaestio, ait Beda in cap. XII, Marc. tempore Christi apud Judaeos valde controversa: multi enim primum mandatum legis censebant esse de sacrificiis et victimis Deo ex lege, Levitic. cap. I et sequent., offerendis; hisce enim proprie colitur Deus ut summus omnium Dominus. Unde propterea jubebant Pharisaei filiis, ut parentibus dicerent «corban,» id est, munus quo te alere destinabam, vovi Deo: illi ergo ipsum dandum est, non tibi, Matth. cap. XV, 6. Hinc et Legis doctor hic audito Christi responso de dilectione Dei et proximi, illam laudans, subjecit, «et diligere proximum tanquam seipsum, majus est omnibus holocaustomatibus et sacrificiis,» Marc. XII, 33.
22:37
Vers. 37. Ait illi Jesus: Diliges Dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo, et in tota anima tua, et in tota mente tua. — Moyses, Deuter. VI, 5, et ex eo Marcus et Lucas addunt: «et in tota fortitudine tua;» Syrus, «et in tota virtute tua,» id est ex toto conatu cordis et mentis tuae. Idem enim hic significant cor, anima, mens. Aethiopicus, «ex tota virtute tua, et ex tota potentia quae tibi;» Persicus, «ex tota nimietate mentis tuae:» hoc enim respondet Hebraeo מאדך (meodecha), Deuter. VI, 4, ut ibi dixi. Nota contra Calvinum et haereticos, hoc Dei praeceptum cuivis homini servatu esse possibile: non enim praecipitur hic totus vel summus amor Dei extensive aut intensive, sed tantum comparative, finaliter et appretiative. Diliges ergo Deum «ex toto corde,» sive «ex tota anima et mente,» idem est ac si dicat: «Diliges Deum ex tota voluntate tua,» scilicet primo, comparative, ut nullam partem amoris tui des idolo, aut rei cuipiam Deo contrariae; secundo, finaliter, ut generatim velis Deum esse finem totum et ultimum omnium tuarum cogitationum, actionum et amorum, ipsumque ut summum bonum finemque ultimum rebus omnibus praeferas et anteponas; ac consequenter, tertio, appretiative, ut nihil ita aestimes tantoque loco et pretio habeas, quanto habes Deum, ac proinde ut totum cor, id est voluntatem applices, ut tota et omnia ejus praecepta impleas, eique per omnia obedias, etiamsi propterea opes, honores, famam, amicitiam vitamque ipsam perdere debeas. Unde quod hic dicitur: «ex toto corde,» alibi dicitur: «ex corde integro et perfecto.» Hinc illud toties iteratum: «Cor ejus perfectum erat cum Deo; incessit in omnibus mandatis Domini; secutus est Dominum in toto corde suo, faciens quod placitum esset in conspectu ejus,» etc., III Reg. XIV, 8. Vide dicta Deuter. VI, 4, ubi fuse hoc praeceptum explicui. Hoc est quod ait S. Bernardus, tract. De diligendo Deo: «Modus diligendi Deum, est diligere sine modo.» Immensa enim Dei bonitas immensum meretur amorem, ut sine fine, modo et mensura quasi immense diligatur. Quocirca Victor Antiochenus in Marc. XII, 32: «Homo, inquit, tanto Dei amore flagrare debet, ut nihil prorsus in ullam animae facultatem irrepere sinat, quod suam erga Deum dilectionem excludat aut diminuat, aut alio transferat; sed in omnibus illi soli magis magisque assidue placere satagat, nec alteri personae aut rei creatae nisi propter Deum.»
22:38
Vers. 38. Hoc est maximum et primum mandatum. — Arabicus: Hoc est mandatorum primum maximum. Maxima enim virtus, et virtutum omnium regina est charitas, I Cor. XIII. Quare charitas nobilior est religione: nobilius enim est diligere Deum ex toto corde, quam eidem offerre sacrificia. Adde: charitas quasi regina imperat sacrificia, caeterosque religionis aliarumque virtutum actus. Denique amor, nobilissimus est affectus et actus qui praecellit timore, honore caeterisque omnibus, cujus praecellentiae octo causas recensui, Deuter., cap. VI, 4.
22:39
Vers. 39. Secundum autem simile est huic: Diliges proximum tuum sicut teipsum. — Syrus: sicut animam tuam, id est sicut teipsum. «Secundum,» ordine non legislationis, multae enim aliae leges et praecepta ante hoc a Deo lata et sancita sunt, sed dignitatis et perfectionis, licet longe impar et inferius primo, quod est de diligendo Deo: Deus enim longe magis diligendus est, quam omnes angeli, homines et creaturae universae; sed post Deum, inter res creatas, prae omnibus diligendus est proximus. «Simile,» in dilectione et affectu, ejusque officiis et actibus. Sicut enim diligimus Deum, sic et proximum; imo ratio diligendi proximum est dilectio Dei; proximum enim diligimus propter Deum, quia scilicet Deus jubet nobis ut diligamus proximum tanquam sui imaginem. Omittit hic Christus dilectionem sui ipsius, quia haec omnibus insita est, et quasi naturalis, ut, si habeas erga alios charitatem, illam primo in teipsum exerceas. «Qui enim sibi nequam, cui bonus?» Unde illam hic Christus praesupponit, imo dilectionem sui statuit ideam et quasi mensuram dilectionis proximi, dicens: «Sicut teipsum» amas et diligis. Unde S. Augustinus, lib. I De Doctrina Christiana, cap. XXVII: «Non est hic, inquit, tui dilectio praetermissa: dicitur enim ut diligas proximum sicut teipsum.» Primo ergo loco diligendus est Deus super omnia ex toto corde; secundo, propria persona, scilicet propria anima et corpus; tertio, proximus; quare cum ait: «Diliges proximum tuum sicut teipsum,» li «sicut» non aequalitatem, sed similitudinem dilectionis significat: magis enim nos ipsos quam proximum amare debemus, sed tamen similia his quae nobis optamus, proximo optare et praestare debemus. Citat Levit. cap. XIX, vers. 18, ubi hanc legem explicui; quibus adde Hebraeum רע rea, proprie socium significare. Noster tamen vertit, «proximum,» ut magnum cuique ingerat dilectionis stimulum, quia omnis homo, qui hic intelligitur, nobis est proximus et conjunctissimus, et quasi frater, tum creatione et natura, quia ab eodem Deo Patre creatus est homo; tum recreatione, quia ab eodem Patre Christo regeneratus est in Baptismo, ejusque corpore et sanguine alitur in Eucharistia, caeterisque Sacramentis, donis et gratiis assidue, aeque ac alii, pascitur. Vide dicta Levit. XIX, 18. Jubet ergo Deum diligi ex toto corde, proximum vero non ex toto corde, sed «sicut teipsum,» ut scilicet, primo, non te solum diligas et proximum negligas, quod suadet amor proprius ex natura peccato corrupta nobis insitus, sed amorem quo te diligis, ad proximum extendas. Secundo, ut, sicut te non ficte nec frigide, sed sincere et ardenter diligis, sic pariter diligas et proximum, atque bona corporis et animae quae tibi optas, optes et proximo. Hoc est quod dixit sanxitque Christus, cap. VII, 12: «Omnia quaecumque vultis ut faciant vobis homines, et vos facite illis;» sive, quod Tobias moriens mandavit filio, cap. IV, 16: «Quod ab alio oderis fieri tibi, vide ne tu aliquando alteri facias.» «Ea enim est regula dilectionis,» ait S. Augustinus, De vera Relig., cap. XLVI, «ut quae homo vult sibi bona provenire, et proximo velit; et quae sibi accidere mala non vult, et illi nolit.» Non vis tibi eripi opes, honorem, uxorem, vitam? Nec tu illa aliis eripias. Vis eadem tibi dari et conservari? Tu quoque eadem aliis dato et conservato.
22:40
Vers. 40. In his duobus mandatis universa lex pendet, et Prophetae. — q. d. Omnia legis et Prophetarum praecepta his duobus dilectionis Dei et proximi praeceptis nituntur et fulciuntur, imo ex illis nascuntur et elicinatur, sicut rami multi nascuntur pendentque ex una arbore et radice; quare in his duobus summatim continentur, sicut conclusiones continentur in suis principiis et praemissis: omnia enim praecepta comprehenduntur Decalogo. Decalogus autem non continet nisi praecepta de diligendo Deo et proximo: tria enim primae tabulae praecepta spectant ad dilectionem Dei, caetera vero septem secundae tabulae spectant ad dilectionem proximi, ait S. Augustinus, lib. VIII De Trinit., cap. VII. Quamobrem Apostolus, Rom. XIII, 8: «Qui, inquit, diligit proximum, legem implevit. Nam non adulterabis, non occides, non furaberis, non falsum testimonium dices, non concupisces, et si quod est aliud mandatum, in hoc verbo instauratur: Diliges proximum tuum sicut teipsum.» Vide ibi dicta. Quocirca omnia misericordiae caeterarumque virtutum naturalium et supernaturalium praecepta, referuntur ad haec duo dilectionis Dei et proximi, in iisque continentur: nam praecepta fidei, spei, charitatis, religionis continentur in praecepto dilectionis Dei; praecepta vero justitiae, veritatis, fidelitatis, amicitiae, misericordiae, gratitudinis, etc., continentur in praecepto dilectionis proximi. Significat ergo Christus haec duo praecepta cuique semper in mente et ob oculos versari debere, ut ad ea omnes suas cogitationes, sermones et actiones dirigat, totamque vitam suam exigat et componat.
22:41
Vers. 41. Congregatis autem Pharisaeis (in templo, ut patet ex Marc. XII, 33), interrogavit eos Jesus. — Utitur hic Christus occasione Pharisaeorum se tentantium, ad eos instruendos de Messiae persona et dignitate, ut doceat nos malum retorquere in bonum, et tentationem convertere in instructionem, hypocrisin in doctrinam, maleficium in beneficium. Pharisaei ergo «qui ad tentandum Jesum fuerant congregati, et veritatem fraudulenta interrogatione carpere nitebantur, occasionem praebuerunt confutationis suae,» ait S. Hieronymus. Docuit ergo eos Messiam sive Christum non esse purum hominem, ut ipsi putabant, sed esse hominem Deum, sive subsistentem in persona divina Verbi. Unde non mirari debere, si ipse asserat se esse Filium Dei.
22:42
Vers. 42. Dicens: Quid vobis videtur de Christo? (Messia vobis in lege promisso) Cujus filius est? Dicunt ei, David. — Dicere debuissent, Christus qua Deus, est Dei Filius, juxta illud: «Filius meus es tu: ego hodie genui te,» Psal. II; sed qua homo, est filius Davidis. Verum prius vel ignorabant, vel non credebant Pharisaei: unde posterius tantum respondent, sed ex eo Christus prius quoque elicit et evincit. Petrus rogatus a Christo quem ipsum esse censeret, instinctus a Deo respondit: «Tu es Christus, Filius Dei vivi,» Matth. XVI. Sed hoc instinctu divino carebant Pharisaei: unde non nisi humana sapientes, credebant Christum non nisi hominem esse. Nota: Haec paulo aliter narrant Lucas et Marcus; sed hi cum Matthaeo conciliandi sunt, ut velint dicere Christum primo interrogasse Pharisaeos, cujus filius foret Christus; illi responderunt: Scribas, id est legis doctores, dicere Christum esse filium Davidis. Tum Christus subjecit: Quomodo Scribae dicunt Christum esse filium Davidis, cum David eum vocet Dominum suum?
22:43
Vers. 43. Ait illis: Quomodo ergo David in spiritu (instinctus a Spiritu Sancto, ab eoque actus et impulsus, imo eo plenus: Spiritus Sanctus enim Psalmos dictavit Davidi, eorumque affectus et sensa viva ipsi indidit, ideoque non tam David in spiritu, quam Spiritus in Davide locutus est) vocat eum Dominum? — Filius enim minor et junior est suo patre; quare non pater filium, sed filius patrem vocare solet suum dominum, ut fit apud Italos aliasque gentes. Ex hoc loco confutantur Rabbini moderni, qui hunc psalmum CIX non de Messia et Christo, sed de Abrahamo, vel Davide, vel Ezechia interpretantur. Nam Pharisaei et Scribae tempore Christi intelligebant eum de Christo, censebantque psalmum hunc esse oraculum de Christo: alioqui enim statim respondissent Christo, ipsum male psalmum hunc de Messia citare et intelligere, quia intelligendus esset de Abrahamo, Davide aut Ezechia. Idem patet ex vers. 4 ejusdem psalmi: «Tecum principium (principatus: hoc enim est Hebr. נדבות nedabot, et Graecum ἀρχή) in die virtutis tuae, in splendoribus sanctorum: ex utero ante luciferum genui te.» Hoc enim nulli nisi Christo competit. Denique Jonathan Chaldaeus, R. Barachias, R. Levi ac veteres Rabbini, teste R. Moyse et Genebrardo in Psal. CIX, illum non nisi de Christo intelligunt.
22:44
Vers. 44. Dicens: Dixit Dominus Domino meo: Sede a dextris meis, donec ponam inimicos tuos scabellum pedum tuorum. — Ex hoc versu Psal. CIX colligit evincitque Christus Messiam (qualis ipse erat) non esse purum hominem, uti credebant Pharisaei, sed esse Deum, ac proinde Davidis Dominum. Sensus ergo est, q. d. David: «Dixit Dominus» Deus «Domino meo,» puta Christo: «Sede a dextris meis,» cum scilicet post crucem, mortem et resurrectionem Christi, eum resuscitabit, et exaltabit super omnes potestates et principatus, atque proximum sibi in caelo constituet, ut regnet in summa felicitate, auctoritate, gloria et imperio in universas creaturas. Vide dicta Ephes. I, 20, et Coloss. III, 1, ubi fuse explicui, quid sit sedere Christum a dextris Dei. Pro dixit Hebr. est נאם neum, id est dictum, pronuntiatum, effatum, oraculum, decretum Domini de Christo Domino meo, idque fixum, certum et immutabile. Neum enim per metathesin idem est quod Amen, id est certo, fideliter, constanter futurum, uti fusius dixi I Timoth. I, 15, ad illa: «Fidelis sermo;» q. d. Deus Pater ab aeterno certo, firmiter et inviolabiliter dixit, pronuntiavit, decrevit de Christo filio suo, non qua Deus est, sed qua incarnatus et factus homo (hoc enim innuit Hebr. אדני Adoni, id est «Domino meo»: nam cum Deus significatur, dicitur אדני Adonai), qui titulo tum unionis hypostaticae, tum redemptionis in cruce peractae, omnium hominum, et consequenter meus, id est Davidis, est Dominus: dixit, inquam, interius in mente sua ab aeterno; exterius vero dixit, id est dicet in tempore ascensionis Christi, quando Christo cum triumpho scandenti in caelum dicet: Veni, et sede a dextris meis, id est mihi proximus, et in summa majestatis meae gloria regna et triumpha. Ita S. Hieronymus et Theodoretus et alii ibidem. Psalmus enim ille CIX celebrat Christi regnum summum et amplissimum, tam in caelo quam in terra, quo Christus post suam resurrectionem et ascensionem, ex Sion et Jerusalem coepit regnare in omnes gentes, easque per Apostolos suae fidei et cultui subjicere, donec omnes inimicos suos, id est omnes impios et reprobos calcet et conterat in die judicii. Donec ponam inimicos tuos scabellum pedum tuorum. — q. d. Regna mecum in omni gloria, usque ad diem judicii, quando omnes inimicos, id est impios, tibi plane subjiciam, ut eis quasi mancipiis domineris, imo eos calces quasi scabellum pedum tuorum, quod signum est infimae et vilissimae servitutis. Unde Sapor, rex Persarum, Aurelianum Imperatorem a se bello captum fecit sibi scabellum: ascensuro enim in equum, Aurelianus dorsum suum, quasi scabellum per quod in equum conscenderet, Sapori praebere debebat. Idem fecit Tamberlanus, Tartarorum Imperator, Bajazeti, Imperatori Turcarum, cum eum praelio vicisset et cepisset. Id ergo «donec» non significat finem, sed continuationem et amplificationem sessionis et regni, q. d. Regna mecum etiam, donec inimicos tuos tuis supponam pedibus, etiam tempore quod tuo regno videtur oppositum et contrarium, etiam quando illi videbuntur regnare, etiam antequam hostes tuos tuis pedibus substernam, tuoque libito subjiciam, diabolo, morte, impiis, peccatis funditus eversis et extirpatis. Nempe inter medias cruces, persecutiones, impietates, motus et turbas Satanae ac ministrorum ejus regna: nam de alio tempore non est dubium, quin regnet Christus. Ita Genebrardus. Sic sumitur «donec» Matth. I, vers. ult., et alibi. Addit hoc Christus, ut tacite perstringat Pharisaeos suos inimicos, q. d. Vos, o Pharisaei, me persequimini, imo me occidetis et crucifigetis, sed scitote quod tertia die resurgam, et quadragesima die ascendam in caelum, indeque judex omnium hominum redibo, ac vos caeterosque infideles et impios inimicos meos condemnabo, calcabo et deprimam in tartara.
22:46
Vers. 46. Et nemo poterat ei respondere (Syrus: rationem reddere) verbum (quia, ut dixi, credebant Messiam merum fore hominem), neque ausus fuit quisquam ex illa die eum amplius interrogare. — «Conticuerunt igitur, ait S. Chrysostomus, lethali vulnere perfossi.» «Maluerunt enim,» inquit S. Augustinus in Psal. CIX, 1 et 2, «inflata taciturnitate dirumpi, quam humili confessione edoceri.»
22:1
Dictum est supra quod Christi persecutores provocati sunt ad occidendum eum tribus de causis: ex eius gloria, ex eius sapientia qua confutabat eos, ex eius iustitia qua arguebat eos. Qualiter autem provocati sunt ex gloria Christi, dictum est; nunc autem dicendum qualiter ex sapientia. Et primo inquantum eorum damnationem praemonstrat; secundo inquantum disputando confutat, ibi tunc abeuntes Pharisaei consilium inierunt ut caperent eum in sermone. In ista parabola, in qua determinatur de reprobatione Iudaeorum et vocatione gentium, primo ponitur instructio nuptiarum; secundo de vocatione Iudaeorum et recusatione; tertio de vocatione gentium. Secunda ibi et misit servos suos vocare invitatos; tertia ibi tunc ait servis suis et cetera. Dicit ergo et respondens Iesus dixit. Cui respondit? Non est dictum quod alicui loqueretur.
22:2
Sed eum tenere volebant, ideo non verbis, sed malitiae eorum respondit, ideo in parabolis dicit eis: simile est regnum caelorum homini regi qui fecit nuptias filio suo. Hic ponitur parabola de nuptiis, et similis parabola ponitur Lc. XIV, 16. Et non videtur eadem secundum Gregorium, quia ibi fit mentio de coena, hic de nuptiis. Item nullus exclusus est ab illa coena, hic autem est aliquis exclusus. Unde alia est parabola. Per illam convivium caeleste intelligitur, per istam convivium quod fit in terra. Et ideo illud dicitur coena, quia ab eo nullus excluditur, ab isto aliquis excluditur. Potest dici, secundum aliquos, quod eadem est parabola, quia antiquitus prandium et coena idem appellabatur, quia non solebant comedere homines nisi usque ad nonam. Vel potest dici quod Lucas dicit quod Matthaeus tacuit. Sed credo quod alia est. Circa istam videamus quis est iste homo rex. Et dicitur quod iste est Deus, et intelligitur persona patris, quia dicit filio suo. Sed quare dicit homini regi? Ratio est, ut dicit Origenes, quia rex dicitur a regendo. Nos autem non possumus, nec sumus capaces regni eius secundum quod est, sed regit nos secundum modum nostrum. Deut. XXXII, 11: sicut aquila provocans pullos ad volandum. Et ideo dicitur homini regi, quia regit nos humano modo. Sed cum videbitur sicuti est, tunc erit rex, quia tunc secundum se reget. Unde apostolus I Cor. XIII, 12: videmus nunc per speculum in aenigmate, tunc autem facie ad faciem. Dicit simile est regnum caelorum homini regi. Sicut enim in regno sunt multa est enim rex, regnum, et qui serviunt sic in illo regno; ideo simile est homini regi qui fecit nuptias filio suo. Filius est Christus, de quo dicitur I Io. ult., 20: ut simus in vero filio eius. Hic est verus Deus, et vita aeterna. Quae sint istae nuptiae, quadrupliciter potest exponi. Primo per unitatem naturae humanae ad divinam, ut humana natura sit sponsa, thalamus fuit uterus virginis. Ps. XVIII, 6: ipse enim tamquam sponsus procedens de thalamo suo. Et haec expositio habet aliquid dubietatis, quia posset credi quod non alia esset persona patris, alia filii. Unde potest dici quod iste sponsus est verbum incarnatum; sponsa Ecclesia; unde apostolus Eph. V, 32: sacramentum hoc magnum est: ego autem dico in Christo et Ecclesia. Item ipsius verbi ad animam nostram. Fit enim anima particeps gloriae Dei per fidem, et sic fiunt nuptiae nostrae. Osee II, 20: sponsabo te in fide. Item nuptiae erunt in communi resurrectione. Huius autem resurrectionis Christus est via; Io. XIV, 6: ego sum via. Tunc erunt nuptiae, quando mortale nostrum absorbebitur a vita, ut habetur II Cor. V, 4. Sed si loquamur secundum Gregorium, oportet exponere de praesentibus, secundum quod Ecclesia Christo, et anima nostra Deo per fidem desponsatur. Sequitur de vocatione Iudaeorum. Et primo ponitur duplex vocatio; secundo excusatio, ibi illi autem neglexerunt et cetera. Circa primum duo facit secundum duas vocationes.
22:3
Unde dicit et misit servos suos, vocare invitatos. Et secundum quod dicit ibi Origenes, duplex est ibi littera, quia quaedam littera habet misit servum suum, quaedam servos suos. Si sit littera servum, sic tria sunt consideranda. Primo invitatio; secundo vocatio; et tertio alia invitatio. Fuerunt ergo Iudaei invitati in patriarchis; unde dictum est Abrahae: in semine tuo benedicentur omnes gentes. Ad Gal. III, 16: Abrahae dictae sunt promissiones et semini eius et cetera. Primum fuit missus Moyses. Num. c. XII, 7: non talis servus meus Moyses, qui in omni domo mea fidelissimus est. Et sequitur, quare non timuistis eum? Et nolebant venire. Deut. XXXI, 27: adhuc vivente me, et egrediente vobiscum, semper contentiose egistis erga dominum. Secunda vocatio est per prophetas, de quibus Amos III, 7: non faciet dominus verbum, nisi revelaverit secretum suum ad servos suos prophetas. Vel potest esse littera servos; et tunc per primos significantur prophetae, quibus semper Iudaei rebelles fuerunt; Act. VII, 51: vos semper spiritui sancto restitistis. Per secundos apostoli, quibus dictum est supra X, 5: in viam gentium ne abieritis. Vel per primos prophetas, primos apostolos; per secundos, successores apostolorum. Iterum misit alios servos. Hic ponitur alia invitatio. Et ponitur augmentum benignitatis ex parte invitantis, et augmentum malitiae ex parte excusantis.
22:4
In prima vocatione nihil promisit; in ista vero promittit, quia dicit dicite invitatis: ecce prandium meum paravi. Istud prandium est spiritualis refectio; Prov. c. IX, 2: sapientia immolavit victimas, miscuit vinum, et posuit mensam suam, misit ancillas ut vocarent ad arcem. Tauri mei et altilia mea occisa sunt. Et hoc dictum potest exponi secundum Origenem, quod est dispositio sapientiae Dei. Tauri dicuntur rationes fortes; Is. VIII, 11: in forti manu sua erudivit me. Altilia dicuntur quasi alita bene. Altilia dicuntur proprie aves saginatae, quae nutriuntur et impinguantur, et significant subtiles sensus, et fiunt saginatae quando sacris sensibus multiplicantur, quibus anima saginatur; Ps. LXII, 6: sicut ex adipe et pinguedine repleatur anima mea. Quicquid enim necessarium est, invenitur in sacra Scriptura. Ideo omnia sunt parata. Ps. XVIII, 8: lex domini immaculata convertens animas. Haec est invitatio sapientiae, Prov. IX, 5: venite, comedite panem meum et bibite vinum quod miscui vobis. Vel, significat refectionem spiritualem, per tauros significantur exempla sanctorum, quae dominus praeparavit in exemplum; Iac. V, 10: accipite in exemplum exitus mali, et longanimitatis, et laboris, et patientiae, prophetas. Unde tribulationes sanctorum ponit in exemplum. Secundum Gregorium, per tauros significantur patres veteris testamenti, quia taurus ferit cornibus, et in tempore patrum semper quaerebatur vindicta, et praecipiebatur oculum dari pro oculo. Per altilia patres novi testamenti, qui omnia dimiserunt pro Christo, et impinguantur sapientia Dei, occisi propter Deum, et utrique occisi sunt. Omnia parata sunt, venite ad nuptias. Passus est Christus, aperuit caelos, misit apostolos. Vel per tauros intelliguntur sacerdotes veteris testamenti, quia taurus est animal immolatitium; per altilia prophetae qui impinguati sunt sapientia Dei. Sed illi, scilicet indurati in malitia, neglexerunt. Quidam dimittunt ex negligentia, quidam autem ex malitia, qui persequuntur praedicatores; unde dicit illi autem neglexerunt. Et quae fuit causa? Quia abierunt unus in vineam suam, alius ad negotiationem suam. Videbantur habere iustam causam exterius, sed dominus non recipit, quia nulla temporalia debent detinere de veniendo ad Deum. Secundum Hilarium, per hoc quod dicit, in vineam suam, significat appetitum humanae gloriae; Io. XII, 43: dilexerunt magis gloriam hominum quam gloriam Dei; Ier. c. V, 4: ego autem dixit: forsitan pauperes sunt et stulti, ignorantes viam domini et iudicium Dei sui.
22:5
Per hoc quod dicit alius in negotiationem suam, signatur appetitus avaritiae; Ier. VI, 13: a maiori usque ad minorem omnes avaritiae student. Secundum Chrysostomum quidam habent occupationem laborando propriis manibus, alii in negotiationem, idest in proprium officium suum.
22:6
Sequitur reliqui vero tenuerunt servos suos, idest apostolos, et contumeliis affectos occiderunt, quia multos occiderunt ex veteri et novo testamento. Unde infra XXIII, v. 34: mitto ad vos sapientes et Scribas, et ex illis occidetis et cetera. Et non facit hic mentionem de morte sua, sed solum discipulorum quia satis superius fecerat mentionem. Tunc sequitur punitio eorum rex vero cum audisset, iratus est et cetera. Supra posuit poenam spiritualem, hic autem ponit temporalem; unde supra dicebatur homini regi, hic autem dicitur rex, quia nomen hominis ad pietatem pertinere videtur, regis vero ad punitionem; ideo hic solum dicitur rex; Sap. XIV, 17: hos quos in palam homines honorare non poterant propter hoc quod longe essent, a longinquo figura eorum allata, evidentem imaginem regis, quem honorare volebant, fecerunt: ut illum qui aberat tamquam praesentem colerent sua sollicitudine. Rex autem iratus. Notandum quod quando ira attribuitur Deo, non commotionem significat, sed vindictam: quia irati punire solent, unde ira punitio vocatur. Quod est notandum contra haereticos, quia solent obiicere Deum veteris testamenti non esse bonum, quia praecepit punitiones et cetera.
22:7
Unde missis exercitibus suis perdidit homicidas illos. Exercitus sunt spiritus angelici, vel cives Romani qui sub Tito et Vespasiano occiderunt multos; Ps. XXIII, 1: domini est terra, et plenitudo eius. Et civitates illorum succendit, quia combustae sunt; Is. I, 7: civitates vestras ignis comburet. Vel potest mystice intelligi, scilicet corpora eorum, vel congregationes haereticorum. Sequitur vocatio gentium, et ponitur examinatio. Et tria facit. Primo ponitur mandatum; secundo executio; tertio effectus. Secunda ibi et egressi servi eius etc.; tertia ibi et impletae sunt nuptiae discumbentium. Circa primum duo facit. Primo assignat rationem praecepti; secundo ponit praeceptum.
22:8
Dicit ergo tunc ait servis suis: nuptiae quidem paratae sunt, sed qui invitati erant non fuerunt digni. Nuptiae quidem praeparatae sunt, idest filius incarnatus est, secundum illud Is. V, v. 4: quid ultra potui facere tibi, vinea mea? Sed qui fuerant invitati, indigni fuerunt, idest, indignos se reddiderunt. Et quomodo? Sicut dicitur ad Rom. X, 3: ignorantes Dei iustitiam, et suam volentes statuere, iustitiae Dei non sunt subiecti; et Act. c. XIII, 46: sed quoniam repellitis illud, et indignos vos iudicastis vitae aeternae, ideo convertimur ad gentes. Unde per delictum Iudaeorum salus facta est gentibus; Apoc. III, v. 11: tene quod habes, ne alter accipiat coronam tuam.
22:9
Sequitur mandatum ite ergo ad exitus viarum et cetera. Per vias intelliguntur diversa dogmata, quia ista sunt viae quaedam, quae ducunt nos ad veritatem. Gentiles sunt in exitibus dogmatum. Unde ite ad exitus viarum, idest ad illos qui haerent erroneis dogmatibus. Vel aliter. Is. IX, 2: populus qui ambulabat in tenebris, vidit lucem. Unde per vias intelliguntur actiones bonae, de quibus Prov. c. IV, 27: vias quae a dextris sunt, novit dominus; per exitus, quaecumque possunt concurrere ad actiones. Et quoscumque inveneritis, vocate ad nuptias. Unde infra ult., 19: ite, docete omnes gentes et cetera.
22:10
Sequitur executio et egressi servi eius in vias, congregaverunt omnes; Marci ult., 20: illi autem profecti praedicaverunt ubique, domino cooperante. Sed quid est quod dicit bonos et malos? Potest dici quod illos, qui primo mali, et post boni. Vel potest dici, cum dicit bonos et malos, quod loquitur comparative, quod inter illos aliqui sunt boni secundum virtutes civiles. Vel bonos et malos, quia postquam congregati fuerint, commiscentur boni et mali. Et impletae sunt nuptiae discumbentium, idest fidelibus. Supra XIII, 48 simile ponitur, quam cum impleta esset, educentes, et secus littus sedentes, elegerunt bonos in vasa sua, malos autem foras miserunt.
22:11
Intravit autem rex et cetera. Hic ponitur examinatio congregatorum. Et primo ponitur examinans; secundo examinatio; tertio condemnatio. Examinans intravit. Intrat enim quando exercet iudicium super eos; Gen. c. XVIII, 21: intrabo, et videbo: et hoc in finali iudicio; item in morte; item quando imminent tribulationes Ecclesiae. Sed quis est examinatus? Vidit hominem non habentem vestem nuptialem. Quae est ista vestis? Christus. Qui sumus Christi, Christum induamus. Apostolus Rom. XIII, 14: induimini dominum Iesum Christum. Quidam enim induunt Christum per sacramentum; Gal. III, 27: quicumque in Christo baptizati estis, Christum induistis. Quidam sunt in Christo per caritatem et amorem; Col. III, 15: super omnia autem caritatem habete, quod est vinculum perfectionis. Et pax Christi exultet in cordibus vestris, in qua et vocati estis in uno corpore. Item per mortis rememorationem. Item per operum conformitatem; ad Rom. XIII, 14: induimini dominum Iesum Christum. Habere ergo vestem nuptialem est induere Christum per operationem bonam, per conversationem sanctam, per caritatem veram; et si unum deficiat, malum. Tunc sequitur examinatio. Deinde dicit qualiter defecit. Dicit ergo amice. Amicum vocat per fidem, vel quia ipse amavit eum. Vel potest dici quod ubicumque vocat aliquem amicum, improperando dicit: unde improperat amorem quo amavit eum.
22:12
Quomodo huc intrasti non habens vestem nuptialem? Sed posset dicere aliquis: qua occasione punivit illum, quia vocavit bonos et malos? Sed noluit quod mali venirent, nisi pararent se et disponerent se, ut essent boni. Deinde sequitur qualiter defecit. Unde sequitur at ille obmutuit, quia non potest habere sufficientem rationem peccator, quare vestem nuptialem contempsit; Iob IX, v. 3: si voluerit contendere eum eo, non poterit respondere ei. Et concludit sententia parabolae. Ponitur poena duplex, poena damni et poena sensus. Nam in mundo tripliciter perficitur: per intellectum cogitando, per affectum tendendo in summum bonum, item per actum; ideo tripliciter punitur. Unde dixit rex ministris: ligatis manibus et pedibus eius, mittite eum in tenebras exteriores. Per pedes intelliguntur affectus. Mali in mundo isto pedes habent, sed non ligatos, quia possunt fieri boni; sed post ligabuntur, quia post redire non poterunt; Eccl. IX, 10: quodcumque potest facere manus tua, instanter operare, quia nec opus, nec ratio, nec scientia erunt apud Inferos quo tu properas. Item modo potest homo proficere in cogitando veritates, sed tunc non; ideo dicitur mittite eum in tenebras exteriores. Modo enim aliqui peccatores non sunt tenebrosi quantum ad cognitionem exteriorem, licet quoad cognitionem interiorem; sed tunc habebunt tenebras exteriores. Vel, ad litteram, quia non solum quoad animam, sed quoad corpus, quia separabuntur a societate sanctorum.
22:13
Tunc sequitur poena sensus ibi erit fletus et stridor dentium. Fletus procedit ex tristitia, stridor ex ira. In Act. VII, v. 54: stridebant dentibus in eum. Aliqui flent pro peccatis, et humiliantur, et mundantur. Ibi erit tristitia, sed non ad humilitatem, sed vertetur in iram. Item stridor propter impatientiam, quia superbia eorum qui te oderunt, ascendit semper, Ps. LXXIII, 23. Vel potest dici in resurrectione, quia non solum in anima, sed etiam in corpore punientur; vel quia calorem et frigora patientur; Iob XXIV, 19: transibunt ab aquis nivium ad calorem nimium.
22:14
Deinde concludit multi sunt vocati, pauci vero electi, quia quidam nolunt venire, quidam non habent vestem nuptialem. Unde supra VII, 14: arcta est via quae ducit ad vitam, et pauci sunt qui inveniunt eam.
22:16
Supra dominus confutavit Pharisaeos per parabolam; secundo hic manifestat disputando. Et primo respondendo; secundo obiiciendo, ibi congregatis autem Pharisaeis, interrogavit et cetera. Et respondet dominus triplici quaestioni. Primo de solutione tributi; secundo de resurrectione; tertio de lege. Secunda ibi in illo die accesserunt ad eum Sadducaei; tertia ibi Pharisaei autem audientes et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ponitur interrogatio; secundo responsio; tertio effectus. Secunda ibi cognita autem Iesus nequitia eorum; tertia ibi et audientes mirati sunt. In ista interrogatione tria sunt consideranda. Primo interrogantium intentio; secundo ministri interrogantes; tertio interrogatio; intentio interrogantium aperitur cum dicitur abeuntes inierunt, idest inter se, consilium, scilicet stultum fecerunt, ut Iesum caperent in sermone. Et hoc erat stultum, quia ipse erat verbum Dei, et verbum Dei non est comprehensibile; Eccli. XLIII, 29: multa loquimur, et deficimus in verbis. Fuit autem consilium impium; Ps. I, 1: beatus vir qui non abiit in consilio impiorum, et in via peccatorum non stetit. Et Genes, penult., 6: in consilium eorum non veniat anima mea. Ministri describuntur cum dicit et mittunt discipulos suos cum Herodianis. Sed quare non iverunt? Ratio est, quia dolose interrogare voluerunt: unde si ivissent, non haberet locum dolus; sed ipsi etiam discipuli erant; Eccli. X, 2: secundum iudicem populi, sic et ministri eius. Cum Herodianis. Qui sunt isti Herodiani? Secundum quod in Luca tangitur, sub Herode facta est Iudaea tributaria Romanis. Iste filius Antipatris alienigenae constitutus est rex a Romanis; ideo voluit compellere Iudaeos reddere censum Romanis. Unde Herodiani, idest famuli deputati ad colligendum institutionem Herodis. Sed iste iam mortuus erat, et dimisit tres filios. Unus Herodes, et iste erat tunc praesens, sicut dicitur in Lc. c. XXII, quod fuit etiam in morte domini: ideo facile fuit quod famuli sui irent cum aliis. Sed quare iverunt cum Herodianis? Una ratio, quia Herodiani zelabant pro imperatore. Ideo discipuli Pharisaeorum secum duxerunt eos, ut si diceret quod esset solvendum tributum, accusarent eum ad Phariseos: si diceret quod non, tunc Herodiani caperent eum. Item isti non cognoscebantur, ideo credebant quod non perciperet; unde faciebant contra illud Ps. XXV, 4: non sedi in consilio vanitatis et cum iniqua agentibus non introibo. Vel aliter, quia cum Iudaea facta esset tributaria Romanis, divisi sunt, quia quidam dicebant quod plebs Deo dedicata non debebat esse homini tributaria; alii vero dicebant, quod quia pro pace militabat omnium, quod omnes debebant Caesari dare tributum. Ideo illi qui dicebant solvi tributa Caesari, dicebantur Herodiani. Positis ministris, ponitur interrogatio. Et primo ponitur adulatio; secundo interrogatio, ibi dic quid tibi videtur. Homines mali ab adulatione incipiunt. Loquuntur bona, mala autem in cordibus suis, Ps. XXIII, 3. Et primo commendant personam; secundo doctrinam; tertio constantiam. Personam commendant ex auctoritate et virtute. Ex auctoritate cum dicunt magister. Et licet mentirentur secundum cor suum, quia non eum magistrum putabant, sed seductorem, ut habetur infra XXVII, 63: recordati sumus quod seductor ille dixit, quia die tertia resurgam etc. tamen in veritate erat magister, ut infra: unus est magister vester et cetera. Item, scimus quia verax es. Verax est qui veritatem loquitur; et hoc est proprium Dei, et eius qui Deo coniunctus est; Ps. CXV, 11: ego dixi in excessu meo: omnis homo mendax; Rom. III, 4: est autem Deus verax, omnis autem homo mendax. Christus autem est Deo coniunctus per unionem, et ideo verax est. Et sic commendatur ab auctoritate. Deinde a virtute et viam Dei in veritate doces. Primo oportet quod sciat quae doceat; Sap. VII, 13: quam sine fictione didici, et sine invidia communico. Item aliqui docent, sed non utilia; sed iste docet utilia, scilicet viam Dei; Is. XLVIII, 17: ego sum Deus tuus docens te utilia. Item aliqui docent quae Dei sunt, sed non in veritate, ut haeretici; iste autem docet in veritate. De isto in Ps. XXIV, 4: vias tuas, domine, demonstra mihi, et semitas tuas edoce me. Dirige me in veritate tua et cetera. Item commendant de constantia; unde dicunt non est tibi cura de aliquo, non praetermittis timore alicuius quod debes dicere vel facere; Is. LI, 12: quis tu ut timeas ab homine mortali? Et quare? Non enim respicis personam hominum, scilicet contra Deum. Ille enim accipit personam qui, ratione hominis, dimittit dicere veritatem quam debet dicere; Deut. I, 17: non accipietis personam cuiusquam. Et videte qualiter malitiosi erant. Quaestio habebat duo membra, scilicet quod non solverent, ad honorem Dei pertinebat; quod solverent, ad favorem hominum. Unde voluerunt quod favorem Dei quaereret, et viam Dei doceret: et sic si diceret quod non, quod magis volebant, statim caperetur ab Herodianis.
22:17
Sequitur interrogatio dic ergo nobis (...) licet ne censum dare Caesari, aut non? Census erat tributum quod pro capite dabatur.
22:18
Sequitur responsio cognita autem Iesus malitia eorum ait. Et primo respondet ad mentem eorum; secundo ad verba, ibi reddite. Quia hominis est respondere ad verba, Dei autem respondere ad mentem, ideo quia Christus erat Deus et homo, ideo ad utrumque respondet. Scrutans corda et renes Deus, Ps. VII, 10. Hypocritae. Et bene dicit hypocritas, quia hypocritae sunt proprie qui aliud in ore habent, aliud in corde. Quid me tentatis? Hoc enim erat prohibitum Deut. VI, 16: non tentabis dominum Deum tuum. Item isti blande allocuti sunt Christum; Christus autem aspere respondit, quia respondit ad cor eorum, non ad verba. Item datur nobis exemplum, quod non debemus adulatoribus credere; Prov. XXIX, 12: princeps qui libenter audit verba mendacii, omnes ministros suos habet impios. Item quando vult, aliquid respondere, non potest melius confutare opponentem, quam secundum verba sua. Unde primo ponit quaestionem; secundo ex responsione elicit veritatem. Et primo quaerit de numismate; secundo de forma: sensibiliter enim volebat ostendere intentum; Prov. XIV, 6: doctrina prudentum facilis.
22:19
Dicit ostendite mihi numisma census, idest denarium qui pro censu datur. Iste denarius valet decem usuales, et quilibet solvit unum denarium.
22:20
Deinde quaerit de forma cuius est imago haec et superscriptio? In qualibet enim denarii publici forma ponitur inscriptio, sic erat in isto. Dicunt, Caesaris: intelligatis non Caesaris Augusti, sed Tiberii Caesaris. Et debetis intelligere, quod dominus interrogabat non erat ex ignorantia, sed potius ex dispensatione. Bene erat tantae aetatis, et tantum inter homines conversatus fuerat, quod bene noverat formam denarii, sed petiit ad significationem.
22:21
Consequenter concludit veritatem reddite ergo quae sunt Caesaris Caesari, et quae sunt Dei Deo; quasi dicat: vos estis Dei et Caesaris, et habetis in usu vestro et quae Dei sunt et quae Caesaris. Habetis divitias naturales a Deo, scilicet panem et vinum, et de his date Deo: habetis ista artificialia, ut denarios, a Caesare, et haec Caesari reddite. Mystice sic: nos habemus animam quae est ad imaginem Dei, ideo eam Deo reddere debemus; secundum ea quae a mundo habemus, pacem cum mundo habere debemus. Etiam sancti viri hic elevati a mundo, quia tamen in mundo cum aliis conversantur, debent pacem requirere Babylonis, ut habetur Baruch I, 10 ss. Et hoc est quod omnia quae sunt carnis, quae sunt mundi, vel hominum cum quibus conversantur, reddant Deo.
22:22
Sequitur effectus et audientes mirati sunt, et relicto eo abierunt. Mirum fuit, quia statim, sapientia sua visa, debuissent esse conversi; sed non potuerunt capere, et recesserunt; Ps. CXXXVIII, 6: mirabilis facta est scientia tua ex me, confortata est, et non potero ad eam.
22:23
In illo die. Hic ponitur secunda interrogatio, et tria facit. Primo ponitur interrogatio; secundo responsio; tertio effectus. Secunda ibi respondens autem Iesus etc.; tertia ibi et audientes turbae mirabantur. Circa primum primo ponitur dispositio et conditio interrogantis; secundo interrogatio. Dicit ergo in die illo. Et quare in die illo? Non sine ratione, quia cum viderunt illos confusos, non sine praesumptione quaesierunt eum. Sed, secundum Chrysostomum, concordati erant ad invicem quod caperent eum in sermone, et quilibet volebat honorem victoriae: ideo illis confusis isti accedere voluerunt; Iob XIX, 12: venerunt latrones eius, et fecerunt sibi viam per me. Duae enim erant sectae: Pharisaei, idest divisi, et Sadducaei, idest iusti. Et hi errabant in dogmatibus, quia non recipiebant prophetias, nec credebant resurrectionem. Item credebant quod mortuo corpore totus homo moreretur: et hoc est quod dicit qui dicunt non esse resurrectionem. Sequitur interrogatio. Et primo ponit legem; secundo casum; tertio interrogationem.
22:24
Dicunt ergo et interrogaverunt eum dicentes: magister, Moyses dicit: si quis mortuus fuerit non habens filium et cetera. Deut. XXV, 5 s. Quae fuit causa legis? Populus carnalis fuit. Unde nil nisi temporalia quaerebat. Lex ergo illa promisit. Manifestum enim est, quod homo non potest durare in se, ideo consolatio est ei quod maneat in suo simili, scilicet in filio; et hoc natura desiderat, ut quod non potest in se salvari, salvetur in suo simili. Unde contingebat quod aliquis sine filio moreretur, ideo subvenit huic casui Moyses secundum hanc legem, ut frater suus haberet uxorem suam. Nec ponebatur extraneus, qui nihil pertineret ad eum; item non haberet tantam curam de domo et familia sicut frater: et hoc est quod dicit et suscitaret semen fratri suo, idest generet filium qui habeat haereditatem illius.
22:25
Posita lege, ponunt casum erant apud nos septem fratres, et primus, uxore ducta, defunctus est, et non habens semen reliquit uxorem suam fratri suo et cetera. Potest esse quod talis casus accidit, vel quod ipsi confinxerunt. Tamen secundum Augustinum per septem fratres homines mali signantur, qui in septem aetatibus moriuntur sine fructu. Apost. Rom. VI, 21: quem fructum habetis (vel habuistis) in his, in quibus nunc erubescitis? Ista mulier est mundana conversatio; Ps. ci, 27: ipsi peribunt, tu autem permanebis, et omnes sicut vestimentum veterascent. Unde quaerunt: omnes mortui sunt, et omnes eam habuerunt: cuius uxor erit in resurrectione, quia omnium esse non poterit? Ista opinio non est bona, et est contra Pharisaeos, quia credebant quod resurrectio debet esse quantum ad hanc vitam, quod quisque rehabeat uxorem suam et possessionem suam et cetera. Unde dicunt cuius erit uxor? Quia non potest esse uxor omnium. Ista opinio reprobatur in Iob VII, 10: non revertetur in domum suam. Unde non resurget ad eumdem modum vivendi. Sequitur responsio. Et primo ostendit errorem et causam; secundo insinuat veritatem. Unde dicit respondens Iesus ait: erratis, idest erroneam opinionem habetis; Sap. II, 21: cogitaverunt, et erraverunt; excaecavit enim eos malitia eorum. Et quae est causa erroris?
22:29
Nescientes Scripturas. Unde non meditabantur in mandatis Dei; Ps. CXVIII, 100: super senes intellexi, quia mandata tua quaesivi. Unde qui meditatur in mandatis Dei, potest vitare errores; unde Io. V, 39: scrutamini Scripturas. Isti autem non scrutabantur, ideo errabant, sicut faciunt aliqui qui male intelligunt. Item aliqui nescientes virtutem Dei, volentes virtutem Dei metiri secundum inferiora; ad Rom. I, 20: invisibilia Dei a creatura mundi per ea quae facta sunt intellecta conspiciuntur. In resurrectione neque nubent, neque nubentur. Manifestat propositum. Et quia duo dixerat, scilicet quod nesciebant Scripturas, nec virtutem Dei, ideo primo declarat quod virtutem Dei ignorabant; secundo quod Scripturas. Et cum primo dixerit de Scripturis, quare hoc secundo declaratur? Chrysostomus respondet, quia cum aliquis disputat cum aliquo qui errat ex malitia, primo debet allegare auctoritatem; quando cum eo qui ex ignorantia, primo debet proponere rationem, et post auctoritatem. Sic facit dominus.
22:30
Primo rationem proponit; unde dicit in resurrectione neque nubent, neque nubentur. Primum, secundum litteram, verum est. Neque nubent etc., quia tunc non erit necessarium sicut nunc est. Hieronymus: aliter accipitur nubere secundum Latinum, aliter secundum Graecum, quia proprie nubere secundum Latinum mulierum est: unde dicitur esse neutrum passivum; sed secundum Graecum viri nubent, idest ducunt uxores, mulieres nubentur, non nubent. Ideo dicit, non nubent, viri; nec nubentur, mulieres. Cum enim nuptiae sint ad prolis procreationem, ut conservetur homo in esse in suo simili, qui non potest in seipso conservari, ideo cum resurrectio fiat ad immortalitatem, tunc non erunt necessariae nuptiae. Ideo isti errabant, et virtutem Dei ignorabant. Sed sunt sicut Angeli in caelo. Ille status est status praemii, et finis istius vitae. Iob XIV, 14: putas ne homo mortuus rursum vivat? Cunctis diebus quibus nunc milito, expecto donec veniat immutatio mea; et illa immutatio erat praemium. Vita illa erit refulgentium intellectu. Sed quare erunt similes Angelis? Quia erunt immunes a passionibus; quia nunc homo habet intellectum adnexum sensibus, et in hoc excedunt Angeli, sed tunc depurabitur, ideo similes erunt Angelis: II Reg. XIV, 17: sicut enim Angelus domini, sic et dominus meus rex, ut nec benedictione, nec maledictione moveatur. Unde qui habent animum a passionibus elevatum, similes sunt Angelis. Passiones autem quae magis faciunt homines bestiales, sunt passiones venereorum, quae exercentur per coniugium; ideo tunc nec nubent, nec nubentur. Item quidam dixerunt quod non omnes resurgent, sed solum homines. Sed hoc Augustinus destruit dicens quod sexus resurget; sexus autem non salvatur in homine solum. Hanc opinionem tollit, cum dicit nec nubent, nec nubentur. Ex quo datur intelligi quod uterque sexus, sed nec nubent, nec nubentur. De resurrectione autem mortuorum et cetera. Postquam ostendit quod ignorabant virtutem Dei, hic ostendit quod ignorabant Scripturas.
22:31
Unde non legistis quod dictum est a domino dicente vobis: ego sum Deus Abraham, Isaac et Iacob? Hoc scribitur Ex. III, 6. Sed quaerit Hieronymus, cum aliae auctoritates sint magis expressae de resurrectione, ut habetur Is. VI et Ez. XXXIII et Dan. XII, quare istam quae ambigua est posuit? Respondet quod non recipiebant prophetas, sed quinque libros Moysi. Et quomodo facit ad propositum?
22:32
Dicit ego sum Deus Abraham, Deus Isaac et Deus Iacob. Deus dicitur aliquorum in colendo eum. Isti ergo colunt eum. Sed colere Deum non est mortuorum, sed viventium. Ergo Abraham, Isaac et Iacob vivunt; sed non secundum corpus: ergo secundum animam. Sed quid valet hoc ad resurrectionem? Valet, quia isti dicebant animam non esse; ipse autem ostendit animam remanere: et si anima remanet, ergo et resurrectio, quia naturaliter anima inclinatur ad corpus. Sed quid est quod dicit, quod non est Deus mortuorum? Verum est secundum corpus. Est tamen etiam Deus mortuorum, quia vivunt secundum spiritum; Rom. c. XIV, 8: sive vivimus, sive morimur, domini sumus. Item est contra haereticos qui damnant patres veteris testamenti, quia hic dicit quod vivunt secundum animam. Item dicit singulariter, quia in aliis gentibus quilibet Deum suum habebat. Audi, Israel: dominus Deus tuus unus est, Deut. VI, 4.
22:33
Sequitur effectus, quia mirabantur et audientes turbae mirabantur in doctrina eius. Ps. CXVIII, 129: mirabilia testimonia tua, domine et cetera.
22:34
Supra dominus respondit quaestioni factae de solutione tributi, quaestioni etiam de resurrectione; hic autem respondet quaestioni de comparatione mandatorum divinorum: et duo facit. Quia primo ponitur interrogatio; secundo responsio, ibi ait illis Iesus et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo describit nequitiam interrogantium; secundo interrogationem, ibi magister, quod est mandatum magnum in lege? Nequitiam describit quantum ad tria. Primo quantum ad impudentiam; secundo quantum ad excogitatam malitiam; tertio quantum ad fraudulentiam. Quantum ad impudentiam, cum dicitur audientes quod silentium imposuisset. Iam confutaverat Pharisaeorum discipulos et Sadducaeos, unde ex hoc satis poterant ei credere et erubescere. Unde Chrysostomus: livor et ira impudentiam nutriunt et causant. Sed isti non propter hoc dimiserunt, quin adhuc interrogaverunt eum; Is. LVI, 11: canes impudentissimi nescierunt saturitatem. Et significatur quod quamvis hoc audirent, non tamen siluerunt. Aliquis servat silentium sponte, et hoc est prudentis. Item aliquis servat, quia imponitur ei silentium, et hoc est imprudentis; Eccli. XX, 6: est tacens, non habens sensum loquelae; et est tacens, sciens tempus aptum; Eccl. III, 7: est tempus tacendi, est tempus loquendi. Item tangitur excogitata malitia, quia, ut melius convincant eum, simul congregantur; Ps. II, 2: principes convenerunt in unum adversus dominum. Convenerunt in unum. Potest dici quod Pharisaei et Sadducaei convenerunt, quamvis in sectis differrent, tamen in unum ad tentandum dominum. Vel Pharisaei convenerunt in unum adversus dominum. Item fraudulentia significatur, quia cum in multitudine essent congregati, noluerunt quod omnes interrogarent, sed unus; ut si ille vinceretur, alii non confutarentur, et si iste vinceret, omnes in eo gloriarentur.
22:35
Et interrogavit eum unus ex eis legis doctor tentans eum, quia non animo addiscendi; Iob c. XVI, 11: aperuerunt in me ora sua, et exprobrantes percusserunt maxillam meam. Hic potest esse obiectio litteralis, quia Marcus dicit quod dominus intuitus eum dixit: non longe es a regno Dei. Et quomodo hic dicitur quod tentat eum? Solvit Augustinus, quia primo venit causa tentandi, sed cum Christus satisfaceret ei, consensit ei. Et ideo quod tentavit eum, debet referri ad principium; quod non longe est a regno Dei, debet retorqueri ad finem. Et sic non fuit mirum si verba domini animum eius mutaverunt. Sciendum autem quod aliqui tentant eo quod non sunt certi, quia, secundum quod dicit sapiens Eccli. XIX, 4, qui cito credit, levis est corde. Iste cum multa audisset de Christo, voluit experiri si talis esset: et haec tentatio non esset mala.
22:36
Unde dicit magister, quod est mandatum magnum in lege? Haec tamen quaestio videbatur calumniosa et praesumptuosa: calumniosa, quia omnia mandata Dei sunt magna; Prov. VI, 23: mandata lucerna, et lex lux. Item indeterminate quaesivit, quia omnia sunt magna, ut si responderet de uno, obiiceret de alio. Item fuit praesumptuosa, quia non deberet de magno quaerere qui minimum non implevit; Iob XV, 12: quid te elevat cor tuum, et quasi magna cogitans, attonitos habes oculos? Et poterat esse quod esset controversia super hac quaestione inter eos, quia aliqui dicebant salutem esse in aliquibus exterioribus; unde Is. XXIX, 13: populus hic labiis me honorat, cor autem eorum longe est a me. Sed respondet dominus, quod solum est in interioribus. Unde sequitur responsio ait Iesus ei: diliges dominum tuum et cetera. Et non solum respondet ad quaestionem propositam, sed veritatem docet. Et primo docet quod sit primum; secundo quod ei est simile; tertio rationem assignat. Secunda ibi secundum autem simile est huic et cetera. Tertia ibi in his duobus mandatis universa lex pendet et prophetae. Dicit ergo diliges dominum Deum tuum et cetera. Istud scribitur Deut. VI, 5. Item dominus per Moysen dicit Deut. X, 14: numquid dominus petit a te, nisi ut timeas et diligas eum? Ergo duo praecipit, timorem scilicet et dilectionem. Et quare non respondet dominus de timore, sicut de dilectione? Dicendum quod quidam timent Deum, qui timent pati ab eo, ut qui timent poenam Gehennae, vel qui timent amittere aliquid quod habent a Deo; et hic est timor servilis, quia illud diligit in quo timet puniri. Alius est, qui ipsum Deum timet propter se, qui timet eum offendere; et talis timor est ex amore, et ex hoc timet, quod amat; ergo principium est amor; I Io. c. IV, 16: Deus caritas est, et qui manet in caritate, in Deo manet, et Deus in eo. Et ideo dicit diliges dominum; non timeas, quia Deus diligendus est sicut primum diligibile, quia ipse finis primus est, sed quaecumque alia diliguntur propter finem. Qui ergo diligit Deum ut finem, diligit in toto corde; Ioel II, 12: convertimini ad me in toto corde vestro. Et quantumcumque nitamini, non poteritis eum comprehendere, quia Deus maior est toto corde.
22:37
Sed quid est quod dicit ex toto corde tuo, et ex tota anima tua, et in tota mente tua? Chrysostomus exponit sic: quia in dilectione sunt duo: unum quod est principium; secundum quod est dilectionis effectus et sequela dilectionis. Principium dilectionis est duplex. Dilectio enim potest fieri ex passione, et ex iudicio rationis: ex passione, cum nescit homo vivere sine eo quod diligit; ex ratione, secundum quod diligit ut ratio dictat. Dicit ergo quod ille ex toto corde diligit, qui diligit carnaliter; ille ex anima, qui ex iudicio rationis. Et nos Deum utroque modo debemus diligere: carnaliter, ut cor carnaliter afficiatur circa Deum; unde in Ps. LXXXIII, 3: cor meum et caro mea exultaverunt in Deum vivum. Tertium est sequela dilectionis, quia illud quod diligo, libenter video, libenter de eo cogito, libenter facio quod ei placet; Io. XIV, 23: qui diligit me, sermones meos servabit; et totum refero in ipsum; Ps. LXXXIII, 2: quam dilecta tabernacula tua, domine virtutum. Concupiscit et deficit anima mea in atria domini. Et possumus addere illud quod Marcus addit, et in omni fortitudine tua, quia qui Deum diligit, totum se transfert in illum, et fortitudinem expendit in ipsum. Augustinus sic distinguit inter cor et animam et mentem, secundum tria quae procedunt ex ipsis. De corde exeunt cogitationes, ut habetur supra XV, 19, ex anima vita procedit, ex mente scientia et intelligentia. Unde quod dicit ex toto corde, intelligendum est ut omnes cogitationes in ipsum referamus; quod ex tota anima, quod tota vita; quod ex tota mente, ut tota scientia referatur in eum, idest ut scientiam captives in obsequium eius; II Cor. X, 5: in captivitatem redigentes omnem intellectum in obsequium Christi. Magistralis quaedam Glossa exponit quod anima est imago Dei secundum suas potentias, secundum memoriam, intelligentiam et voluntatem, ita quod illud quod dicitur ex corde, ad intelligentiam referatur; quod dicitur ex anima, ad voluntatem; quod ex mente, ad memoriam, ita ut perfecte Deo vivatur. Origenes sic exponit: diliges Deum ex tota anima, ita ut sis paratus animam tuam ponere pro eo si necesse est; Io. XIII, 37: animam meam ponam pro te. Sed differentia est inter mentem et cor. Mens enim dicitur a metiendo; cor sumitur pro simplicitate intellectus; mens vero quoad prolationem, quia per sermonem metitur intellectus, sive cogitatio: unde vult dicere quod in locutionibus et in meditationibus Deum totaliter diligamus. Hoc posito, subdit hoc est primum et maximum mandatum. Maximum capacitate: istud enim est, in quo omnia continentur, quia in isto dilectio proximi continetur, secundum quod I Io. IV, 21 dicitur: qui diligit Deum, diligit et fratrem suum; et ideo maximum. Item primum origine, maximum dignitate et capacitate.
22:38
Non primum in Scriptura, quia in Scriptura primum mandatum fuit, dominus Deus tuus Deus unus est, Deut. VI, 4. Et quare? Quia omnis inclinatio appetitivae virtutis est in amore: ideo habemus mandatum quod colamus Deum in dilectione; ad Rom. XIII, 10: plenitudo legis dilectio est; ad Eph. III, 17: in caritate radicati et fundati.
22:39
Secundo, ponit secundum mandatum secundum autem simile huic est: diliges proximum tuum sicut teipsum. Voluit significare quod in mandatis est ordo. Et quae est causa? Constat quod mandata sunt de actibus virtutum; virtutes autem habent ordinem, quia una dependet ab alia, et sicut virtutes, sic et mandata. Sed quare dicit quod est simile primo? Quia quando diligitur homo, cum homo sit ad similitudinem Dei, diligitur Deus in illo; ideo simile est primo mandato, quod est de dilectione Dei. Sed quid intelligit nomine proximi, cum dicit diliges proximum? Istud satis signatur in parabola Lc. X, 36, ubi quaeritur, quis tibi videtur, quod fuerit eius proximus? Et respondetur, qui fecit misericordiam in eum. Unde qui debet facere misericordiam nobis, vel nos ipsi, sub nomine proximi continetur. Sed non est aliqua rationalis creatura, cui non debeamus misereri, et e converso: et ideo sub nomine proximi continetur homo et Angelus. Et quod dicit sicut teipsum, non intelligitur quantum teipsum, quia hoc esset contra ordinem caritatis; sed sicut teipsum, idest eo fine quo teipsum, vel eo modo quo teipsum. Eo fine, quia te non debes diligere propter te, sed propter Deum, sic etiam proximum. Apostolus I Cor. X, 31: omnia in gloriam Dei facite. Item in eo quod teipsum diligis, diligis te in eo in quo vis tibi bonum, et tale bonum, quod sit secundum te et legem Dei, et hoc est bonum iustitiae. Sic etiam et proximo debes optare bonam iustitiam; unde debes eum diligere, vel quia iustus est, vel quia iustus fit. Item debes eum diligere eo modo quo teipsum, quia cum dico diligo istum, dico volo bonum ei. Unde actus dilectionis cadit super duo: vel super ipsum qui bonus est, vel super ipsum bonum, quod volo sibi; unde diligo istum, quia volo ipsum esse bonum mihi. Unde aliquis diligit bona temporalia, quia scit ea bona esse sibi; aliqui vero diligunt aliquid, quia bonum est in se: sic debes diligere teipsum, et etiam proximum.
22:40
Consequenter assignat rationem quare ista duo sint maxima mandata in his duobus mandatis universa lex pendet, et prophetae. Tota doctrina legis et prophetarum dependet ab his. Finis in appetibilibus se habet ut principium in speculativis: procedit enim scientia a principiis ad conclusiones, et sic tota scientia ex principiis iudicatur, sicut et in omnibus operabilibus totum dependet a fine. Quia ergo dilectio est finis; I ad Tim. c. I, 5: finis praecepti est caritas; ideo ab istis dependent omnia alia, et haec est expositio Augustini. Origenes sic exponit: in his, idest in observantia istorum, dependet intellectus legis et prophetarum, quia qui haec observat, meretur intelligentiam legis et prophetarum; Eccli. II, 10: qui timetis dominum, diligite illum, et illuminabuntur corda vestra. Ps. CXVIII, 104: a mandatis tuis intellexi, propterea odivi omnem viam iniquitatis. Congregatis autem Pharisaeis interrogavit eos Iesus. Postquam responderat eis, ipse voluit obiicere: et facit duo. Primo ponitur interrogatio; secundo eius effectus, ibi nemo poterat ei respondere verbum. Circa primum primo proponit interrogationem; secundo responsionem; tertio obiicit contra.
22:41
Dicit ergo congregatis autem Pharisaeis, interrogavit eos Iesus.
22:42
Congregati autem erant ad tentandum; unde ponit interrogationem quid vobis videtur de Christo, cuius filius est? Haec quaestio difficillima erat et congrua. Difficillima, quia habetur Is. LIII, 8: generationem eius quis enarrabit? Erat etiam congrua, quia habebant opinionem, quod esset purus homo, et non credebant ipsum esse Deum, quia sic non tentarent eum, quia scriptum est Deut. VI, 16: non tentabis dominum Deum tuum. Ideo ut ostendat se Deum dicit quid vobis videtur de Christo? Sequitur responsio dicunt ei: David. Christi enim erat duplex generatio: una secundum carnem, alia secundum divinitatem, secundum quam est filius Dei patris, de qua dicitur Ps. II, 7: dominus dixit ad me: filius meus es tu et cetera. Ideo ipsi respondent de generatione secundum carnem, cum dicunt David. Ier. XXIII, 5: suscitabo David germen iustum. Et ad Rom. I, 3: qui factus est ei ex semine David secundum carnem. Et isti insufficienter responderunt, quia insufficienter cognoscebant eum.
22:43
Tunc obiicit ut eis det intelligere aliam generationem quomodo ergo David in spiritu vocat eum dominum, dicens: dixit dominus domino meo: sede a dextris meis? Ps. CIX, 1. Habetur in lege quod pater maior est filio. Non ergo filius dominus est patris. Ergo vel Christus non est filius David, vel in eo est aliquid maius David, cum vocet eum dominum. Sed forte dicerent quod David fuit deceptus: quod removet, quia in spiritu hoc dicit, unde spiritu sancto Dei locuti sunt homines, II Petri I, 21. Possumus autem tria videre in auctoritate ista Psalmi. Primo praeeminentiam ad sanctos, aequalitatem ad patrem, et dominium super rebelles. Praeeminentiam ad sanctos, cum dicit dixit dominus domino meo. Dominus, scilicet pater, domino, scilicet filio: ipse enim filius habet dominium super omnes sanctos: nullus enim sanctus illuminatur nisi a lumine vero: ipse autem est lumen verum; Io. I, 4: vita erat lux hominum. Si ergo ipse est, cuius participatione omnes sancti lumen recipiunt, praeeminentiam habet ad omnes sanctos in eo quod dicitur: tecum principium in die virtutis tuae, in splendoribus sanctorum etc.; unde ipse originaliter est splendor omnium sanctorum. Item aequalitas patris tangitur, cum dicitur sede a dextris meis: non quod sint sedes locales, sed metaphorice, quia honorabilior locus est sedere a dextris. Dicere enim est emittere verbum. Quod ergo dixit dominus sede a dextris meis quid est aliud, nisi quod generando me verbum, dedit mihi potestatem, aequalitatem et auctoritatem? Potest etiam exponi de temporalibus, idest in potioribus bonis, sed non est ad propositum. Dominus enim semper videtur a dextris, ut in Marc. ult., 5: viderunt iuvenem sedentem a dextris. Et Stephanus, Act. VII, 55, vidit Iesum sedentem a dextris virtutis Dei. Et quid fiet de inimicis eius?
22:44
Ei omnes subiicientur; unde subdit donec ponam inimicos tuos scabellum pedum tuorum. Isti vel sunt penitus infideles, vel hi qui noluerunt obedire et subesse; unde istos ponet scabellum pedum tuorum. Scabellum enim est quod ponitur sub pedibus; illud autem quod est sub pedibus totaliter ei subiicitur, non autem illud quod est in manu. Quidam ponuntur scabellum ad punitionem, quidam ad salutem: ad punitionem, qui nolunt facere eius voluntatem; ad salutem, qui faciunt eius voluntatem. Sed obiiciunt Ariani: ergo non est aequalis patri. Dico quod legitur utrumque, et quod subiicitur patri, et quod est aequalis patri; I ad Cor. XV, 25: oportet autem illum regnare, donec ponat inimicos sub pedibus. Item Christus sibi omnia subiiciet; Phil. III, 21: reformabit corpus humilitatis nostrae configuratum corpori claritatis suae. Unde illud dicit ad demonstrandum unitatem potestatis: unde omnia quae potest pater, eadem potest et filius. Sed quid est quod dicit donec ponam inimicos tuos scabellum pedum tuorum? Ergo videtur quod postquam supposuerit inimicos, quod ultra non sedebit a dextris. Dicendum quod donec aliquando importat tempus determinatum, aliquando infinitum. Hic vero importat infinitum. Sed diceret aliquis: nonne multi rebellant Christo? Ita, verum est quod multi rebellant, et ideo poterat esse dubium de tempore quando multi rebellarent: ideo voluit Christus exprimere.
22:45
Si ergo David vocat eum dominum, quomodo filius eius est? Ergo dominus est et filius, quia filius est secundum carnem, quia ab ipso traxit originem, et dominus secundum divinitatem. Et nemo poterat respondere ei verbum. Hic ponitur effectus, et est duplex, quia Christus fuit respondens et opponens. Quia opponens: nemo poterat respondere; Iob IX, 3: si voluerit contendere cum eo, non poterit ei respondere unum pro mille.
22:46
Item quia in respondendo confutaverat eos, ideo sequitur nec ausus fuit quisquam ex illa die eum amplius interrogare. Ideo potestis videre, quod isti non interrogabant ut eos doceret, sed ut eum tentarent; Deut. XXXII, 7: interroga patrem tuum et annuntiabit tibi.
22:1
And Jesus answering. " ANSWERING " is put for " speaking " by a Hebraism, as frequently before.
22:2
Is likened. Authorities differ as to whether or not this is the same parable as that of S. Luke (xiv. 16). Some, for many reasons, think it a different one. 1. The giver of the feast in this is a king. In 5. Luke he is not. 2. Here the feast is a dinner (prandiuin). There it is a supper (ccena). 3. Here are many servants, and they were sent frequently to call those who were invited. There there is only one, and he was only sent once. 4. In this the invited guests do not excuse themselves, but merely neglect to come. In that they excuse themselves, each in his own manner. 5. In this the servants are ill-treated or killed. In that they are not. 6. In this an army is sent by the lord of the vineyard (sic in the text, but read " the king ") to slay the " husband men ". In that there is none. 7. In this the king enters the guest-chamber and finds a man not having on a wedding-garment, whom he commands to be bound and cast into outer darkness. In that nothing of the kind takes place. This is the opinion of S. Augustin (De Consens., u. 70), S. Gregory (Horn, xxxviii. in Evangel^ Strabus, and S. Thomas. ^Others think the two parables the same because they have each a marriage, the feast of which is called a dinner by S. Matthew and a supper by S. Luke. This is the opinion of S. Irenaeus (w. 70, 76) and Theophylact (in loc.). Even S. Gregory thinks it probable. It appears to be the more so because the other facts recorded here by S. Matthew, and elsewhere by S. Luke, are very similar ; while the differences are too slight to cause them to be regarded as different parables. For there being mention of a king in one and not in another, and S. Matthew's speaking of a dinner, and S. Luke of a supper, is without weight. S. Gregory himself says that the Ancients did not dine before the ninth hour, and they called supper (ccenam) prandium. This may not be certain. All the arguments on the other side of the question, however, can be answered with one word. The Evangelists, when describing the same parable, or even the same history, do not relate all the facts, nor use the same words, but give the same meaning. This is the case here. What may appear to be of greater weight is that S. Luke relates this parable as having been given at a different time and place, namely, when Christ was supping at the house of one of the chief Pharisees, and a guest said : " Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God " (xiv. 15). This objection can be answered without difficulty. Either S. Matthew or S. Luke did not observe the ordo temporis, as is often the case with them. It is more probable that S. Luke followed time and place, while S. Matthew related the parable here, because it resembled the preceding one, and he was not solicitous to construct a history of the events as they happened, but to relate the teaching of Christ. He therefore referred all His discourses of the same signification, and containing the same doctrine, to the same place.
To a king. That is, the same thing happens in the kingdom of heaven, as if a king had made a marriage for his son, as explained on chap. xxi. 16 ; for the kingdom of heaven — that is, the Church — is not compared to the king, but to the guest-chamber where the supper was held. We must first see to what the parable tends, and then, as we have said before, what are the peculiar and necessary parts that contain the meaning. Christ seems to have intended to teach two things : First, That many are called to the kingdom of heaven, — that is, the Church, — but few come. With this He concludes at verse 14. Secondly, That not all who come when they are called to the Church will be saved, — that is, are worthy of the heavenly banquet, because some have not on the wedding-garment (as in verse n). The parable is directed against the Jews, who, when invited, would not come, and the Gentiles were therefore put into their place. The necessary portions of the parable appear to be seven. 1. The first is the king, who is undoubtedly God. That He is not called " a man," but " a king," may be partly to show His Divine Majesty, and partly to account for the splendour of the feast. 2. The second part is the marriage — that is, the feast — for the Evangelist all through the chapter calls the marriage a feast. Some say that the feast, signifies the glory of heaven and the life of beatification, under which similitude they are often described in Scripture (as in Ps. xvi. 15 ; Apoc. xix. 9 ; 5. Luke xiv. 15 ; xxii. 29, 30). So says S. Hilary (Can. xxii. on S. Matt.). Others think the feast to have been the outpouring of divine grace, given to those who come into the Church, or the Word of God, by which they are fed ; for the Word of God is often compared to food, as by S. Paul (i Cor. iii. 2; Heb. v. 12). In Amos (viii. 11), in like manner, God threatens to send a famine into the land : not, indeed, a famine of bread, but of the WTord of God. So Origen (Tract, xx. on S. Matt), The Author, and Euthymius. 3. The third part is the son of the king, whose marriage is celebrated. He is clearly Christ, who is often called the bridegroom (as ix. 15; xxv. I ; *S. John iii. 29 ; Apoc. xix. 7-9). It is not so clear who the bride is. Some think that she is each man's soul ; as Theophylact, The Author (Horn. xli.). Others say that she is the Church ; as Origen ( Tract. xx. in S. Matt.), S. Hilary (Can. xxii.), S. Jerome (in Comment), S. Gregory (Horn, xxxviii. in Evangel). This would appear more probable, because S. John (Apoc. xxi. 2) calls the Church "the spouse of Christ". S. Paul (Ephes. v. 25) exhorts husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church : signifying that the Church was His bride ; and in verses 31, 32. Authorities vary as to when this marriage between Christ and the Church is celebrated. Some say that it was to be after the Resurrection, but that the guests were invited to a future marriage. So Origen and S. Hilary. And it is hardly to be doubted from the parable (xxv. i) of the bridegroom coming in the middle of the night that the time of the Resurrection and the last advent of Christ are signified. S. John also (Apoc. xix. 9) speaks of this marriage, which is to be celebrated, not on earth, but in heaven, after the time of the Resurrection. Others say that the marriage was celebrated when the Son of God was made the Son of man, for He then united the Church to Himself as to a bridegroom. So says S. Gregory (Horn, xxxviii. in Evangel?). Each opinion is true ; for, as has been said elsewhere, the marriage of Christ has been celebrated often : (i) When He was made man, His Incarnation being as a spousal rite. (2) It will be celebrated when He shall have formed for Himself a glorious Church not having spot or wrinkle. This will be when He shall unite it to Himself in heaven freed from every stain. Men are invited to both these marriages — to the first, that they may come to the Church of God and be fed by the Word of God ; to the second, that they may be saved, and may eat and drink at the table of Christ in the kingdom of God. 4. They who are invited. These are said by S. Ambrose (Comment, on S. Luke xiv.) to be Gentiles, Jews, and here tics. All other authorities explain it only of the Jews. It is very plain that Christ propounded the parable most especially against them, to show that the Jews who were invited would not come, but that the Gentiles did. It may be a question whether this is to be understood of all Jews, or only of those who lived after the Incarnation of Christ. S. Hilary says that those alone are invited whom Christ Himself, as man, or the Apostles and their successors, called. Origen, however (Tract, xx. on S. Matt.\ S. Athanasius (Quest. 45), S. Jerome, Bede, Euthymius, Theophylact (in his Comment.), and S. Gregory (Horn. xxxviii.) think that it should be understood of all Jews, even of those who lived before the Incarnation of Christ. This is the more likely because they were, without doubt, the men who ill-treated and killed the servants that were sent by the king, that is, the ancient prophets. But how could they who are so far remote from the coming of Christ be invited to His marriage ? They were invited to His future marriage that they might believe in the Christ who was to come, and be fed in the meantime by the word of the Law and the Prophets. If they kept their Law and precepts, they would be invited to that final, that is, to that heavenly marriage, to which we also who are now guests at the first are bidden. As S. Gregory says, " God invites both those who were before the Incarnation of Christ and those who were after it " — because " He announced by the Prophets that the Incarnation of the Only-begotten Son should be brought to pass, and by the Apostles that it should be accomplished ". 5. The fifth part is the servants. S. Jerome says that in many copies the word is found in the singular, as in 5. Luke; but our version reads it in the plural, and the sense of the passage seems to require this, as being more expressive. Who the servants were whom the king sent first to invite the Jews is obvious, yet all the authorities do not agree on the point. S. Hilary says that it was the Apostles alone ; all others — Origen, S. Chrysostom, S. Jerome, S. Gregory, and Bede — say that they were the Prophets and Apostles. For the Prophets were sent first, and were treated with contumely, and put to death. Afterwards the Apostles were sent into the streets and highways, to bring in all — not the Jews only, but also the Gentiles. Theophylact and The Author ask how they were called who had before been invited ; or how they were invited before they were called ; since the same persons seem to have been both invited and called. Theophylact answers that they were probably invited by the natural law to live rightly and holily, and were afterwards called by the Prophets, to come. It would have been better to have said that they were invited through the Law of Moses. For not only the Jews, but all men, were invited by the natural law, and there is no distinction in the parable to signify that men were first invited and afterwards called ; but Christ spoke as from custom, and described not what God did to the Jews, but what men did usually to each other. Thus it often happens that men are first invited and bidden to a feast, and afterwards, when the time is come, are called to it. 6. The sixth part is the entrance of the king into the guestchamber, while the feast was in progress. The Author explains this to mean God's proving men, to see their value and fitness for their place in the Church. S. Jerome and Bede say better that it means the coming of God to judgment ; to retain those who have the wedding-garment, and to reject those who are without it. That the Day of Judgment is intended is clear from the fact that the man who had no wedding-garment was to be bound hand and foot and cast into outer darkness, where was the weeping and gnashing of teeth. We see the same thing in this parable and the previous one of the cockles (xiii. 24), and of the net. The reader will ask how it can be said that the king would come into the guest-chamber, when it is not the king himself, but the king's son — that is, Christ — who would come to judgment. The king will come because his son will come for him (S. John v. 22). 7. The seventh part is that of the man who had not on a wedding-garment. There have been different opinions as to what the wedding-garment is. S. Irenseus (w. 70) and S. Hilary (in loc.} explain it to mean the Holy Spirit, as Christ says in 5. Luke xxiv. 49. But S. Augustin (Cont. Faust., xxii. 19) says that it is the glory of Christ, and that whoever seeks this is endued with the marriage-garment ; whilst all who seek not this but their own glory have it not, because they bear not His " insignia," but their own. S. Augustin seems to think that the marriage-garment was some well-known and remarkable dress, such as the bridegroom himself wore, and such as we see the children of kings wear, of some marked and notable colour, called the royal colour, to distinguish them from the children of other men. But there is no account in the history of the Jews, or any other people, of such a thing. It would seem, rather, to have been not any certain and peculiar attire, which all such guests wore, but some habiliment more costly and splendid than that of ordinary life ; such as was worn by those who were invited to do honour to a bridegroom, and to adorn his feast ; and that the man who was cast out had none such, and was sent away for his shamelessness in entering in his ordinary sordid and ragged attire, where all the rest wore garments of cost. But the question is, what is signified by that garment ? The followers of Calvin say that it is faith — for everything is faith with them when they themselves have no faith ; nor, acute as they think themselves, do they consider that that guest came only by faith, without which he could not have entered the guest-chamber — that is, the Church. For to come is to have faith. They who are invited and do not come are said not to come because they have no faith. This man had faith, indeed, but he had no marriagegarment. The marriage -garment, therefore, is not faith. The opinion, then, of Tertullian (De Resurrect. Carn^ Origen, S. Chrysostom, The Author, S. Ambrose (Serm. xiv. de Natal. Doming, S. Jerome, S. Gregory, Theophylact, and Euthymius is true, that the marriage-garment is chanty, good works, and a life answering to the faith of Christ. The whole history agrees with this view most perfectly and aptly. For as they who are invited to a wedding ought to have clothing proper to the occasion, so they who are invited and come to the Church through faith, ought to lead a life worthy of faith, and of a follower of Christ. We see that a good life is figured in Scripture by a garment, as in Apoc. iii. 17, 18 ; EpJies. w. 24 ; Coloss. iii. 9, 10. Let these men pardon us, then, if we show from this passage that faith alone is not sufficient for salvation ; for the guest at this feast had faith, but because he had no marriage-garment — that is, good works — he was cast into outer darkness. It will be asked how, if he had faith, he was cast out of the guest-chamber, that is, the Church? as if the king preferred not to have his faith, to having it without his works. The answer is easy. The whole question is to be referred to the Day of Judgment, when God will cast those who have faith without its good works out of the feast, that is, out of heaven — not that they were inheaven before, but that when they were in the Church they appeared to be in heaven.^If to their faith they had added good works, they would have been transferred to heaven. The rest of the parable consists of accretions, which were uttered to complete and beautify the narrative ; such as verse 4 : "I have prepared my dinner, my beeves and fatlings," &c., which means that all was prepared, that God is waiting for men, that His grace is at hand for all, and that it does not remain with Him that men are not converted from their sins. He named beeves and fatlings, because these formed the provisions at costly banquets. Bulls or young bullocks are such as have never been subjected to the knife or yoke, and which are often mentioned in Scripture as peculiar delicacies (Gen, xviii. 7 ; I Kings xxviii. 24). The man whose prodigal son returned to him (S. Luke xv. 23) slew the fatted calf. Such is the true meaning of these words, though many ancient Fathers thought this a necessary and peculiar part of the parable, with its own proper and distinctive meaning. S. Gregory thinks that the bulls signify the Fathers of the Old Testament, and the fatlings those of the New, who have received a higher grace, and are mentioned in a spiritual sense. Theophylact takes the bulls to be the Old Testament itself, and the fatlings to be the New. S. Jerome and Euthymius more correctly take them for nothing more than the liberal furniture of the feast. What is said inverse 5, and S. Luke's words, " I have bought five yoke of oxen (xiv. 19), and another, I have married a wife," means nothing more than that the invited guests went each to his own occupation, his farm, or his merchandise, preferring their temporal to their spiritual interests. The more abstruse meaning may be found in Origen (in loc^} and S. Ambrose (Comment, in Luc. xiv.). The king sending forth his army to destroy those murderers shows that the wrath of God will descend upon all who refuse His invitation. There may, however, be something in the suggestion of S. Chrysostom, The Author, and Euthymius, that the Roman armies of Titus and Vespasian may be foreshown, as about to take the most utter vengeance on the Jews ; though the opinion of S. Jerome and S. Gregory is more probable — that the army was the evil angels whom God sometimes uses to punish men ; as Ps. Ixxvii. 49. So by the servants who are sent a second time into the high ways and hedges to call, or, as S. Luke says, to compel all to enter, nothing else is meant than that there is no distinction of countries, but the Gospel is to be preached throughout the whole world to every creature, as Christ afterwards declared (xxviii. 19; 5. Mark xvi. 15). So again the words of S. Luke (xiv. 21), that they should bring in the poor, weak, blind, lame, means only that there should be no distinction of nation or persons, but that all should equally be invited to the Gospel ; and Christ names the poor, the weak, the blind, the lame, rather than any other class of persons, because such are not usually invited, and we are to understand that from the banquets of the Gospel no one whatever is to be excluded. The words " compel them to come in " do not mean that men will be literally forced into the Gospel, but that they should be so entreated and urged as almost to appear to be, in a manner, compelled. Lastly, the binding of the man who had not on the wedding-garment shows only that they who will be condemned will be no more able to resist the execution of their sentence than if they were literally confined by manacles and fetters.
22:13
Into the exterior darkness. On this see chap. viii. 12.
22:14
Many are called^ but feiu are chosen. This is the conclusion of the parable, and it appears to contain a difficulty. For while one only of all the guests was rejected, Christ says, " Many are called, but few are chosen " ; whereas not a few only, but, with one exception, all were chosen. S. Augustin (Lib. Cont. Donat.) says that the one who was cast out represents in his own person all the reprobate, who are many more in number than the elect, and that Christ, therefore, concluded with the words, " Many are called, but few are chosen ". These words would seem to apply not so much to those immediately preceding as to the whole of the earlier part of the parable, in which we see that many were called but few, in fact, came, while of these not all were chosen. Why was one only cast out, when the greater number are to be finally cast out — that is, condemned — as Christ signifies in chap. vu. 13, 14, and I Pet. w. 18? It is easy to answer that Christ spoke the parable, not against the Gentiles, but against the Jews, who, when invited in the first place, not only refused to come, but treated the servants of the king who were sent to call them with outrages and death. Of them, therefore, Christ concluded, " Many are called ". He would also have them know, by the way, that they who had come, whether Jews or Gentiles, ought not to trust in themselves, merely because they were permitted to enter the guest-chamber ; for they would be cast out if they had not on the wedding-garment. To show this, it was enough that one of those who were present was cast out, as not having on that garment. But if a greater number were to be cast out than retained, why did not Christ say : "The many shall be cast out, the few only shall be retained " ? Because this was not done in fact. Christ only said what He did to show that many were called, few chosen.
22:16
And they send their disciples with the Herodians. For the Herodians, see chap. xii. 14. Maldonatus goes into the question of who they probably were at length. He shows : 1. That they were not Gentiles under the rule of Herod. 2. Nor the followers of Herod Antipas, who was taken by them for the Messiah. 3. Nor the soldiers of Herod the Great ; for he was dead, and his sons ruled in Galilee, not Judaea. 4. Nor those Jews who denied the payment of tribute to Caesar (Acts v. 37). Two opinions remain which have some show of probability. I. That of those (Origen, Tract, on S. Matt. xxi. ; S. Jerome, Comment. ; and, apparently, S. Cyril of Alexandria) who think that they who allowed the payment of tribute to Caesar were called Herodians, because Herod was a thorough follower of Caesar, and, as Josephus says, had been overseer of the tribute in Judaea. S. Cyril says that the Herodians were publicans and collectors of the tribute. This is the more likely because the Pharisees, who were the chief supporters of Jewish liberty, and were opposed to Herod, as Josephus says, pretended to constitute Christ judge of the question, the better to conceal their own hatred, and to show that they referred to Him for the purpose, not of trying Him, but of putting an end to the question ; whereas their real object was to excite ill-will against Him. For if He had answered that the tribute was not to bepaid, they would have accused Him of lese-majesty, as they afterwards did (S. Luke xxiii. 2). If He had said that it ought to be paid, He would not have been thought to be Christ, and the promised king of the Jews ; for, so far from freeing them, as they hoped, from the foreign rule, He would rather have brought them under the Gentile power. This opinion is strengthened at once by S. Luke, who calls the false accusers simulatores, and by Christ Himself, in verse 18 : "Why do you tempt Me, ye hypocrites ? " 2. The other opinion is that of those who think that the Herodians were some domestic sect, who followed Herod, to whom, so that he could keep his crown, every religion was good. But this is less likely to be true than the former, because there is neither authority nor probability for it in history ; although, on the other hand, it may be so far possibly true, that there is nothing against it, and the Evangelists seem to describe the Herodians as some sort of a religious sect like the Pharisees and Sadducees, for they mention them in conjunction with these.
22:19
Show me the coin of the tribute. A coin of the kind in which the tribute was paid. And they offered Him a penny. This is to be understood of the Roman penny, which had Caesar's image and superscription on it; things which, as most especially hateful, the Jews would by no means permit on their coins. The penny seems to have been equal to an Attic drachma in value. A question has arisen as to how a Roman penny could be called the tribute-money, as if each person paid a penny, when Christ paid a stater for Himself and Peter (S. Matt. xvii. 26) ; that is, four silver drachmas, or fourpence. It has been suggested that this was a different tribute ; but the Romans exacted no other tribute from the Jews than the poll-tax, which they had previously paid to the Temple : that is, half a side, equal to two Roman denarii. Pliny (xxxiii. 13) says that the Romans required from conquered nations only silver money. It is more probable, as others say, that each Jew paid two denarii, and that the money was divided into two parts for the sake of convenience.
22:21
The things that are God's. These words do not refer merely to the tribute paid for the Temple, but they are spoken generally. The things that are God's are faith, hope, charity, obedience.
22:23
That day. It is not quite certain whether this happened on the same day as that on which Christ was tempted by the Pharisees and Herodians ; for it may be a Hebraism and mean " about that time ". But it is more probable, as Origen and The Author think, that it was the same day, because S. Matthew here, S. Mark (xii. 18), and S. Luke (xx. 27) so unite this with the preceding events, that the conversation would appear to have taken place on the same day.
TJtere came to Him the Sadducees. For the Sadducees, see chap. iii. 7. They would believe nothing above or beyond nature, and therefore they would not believe the resurrection of the dead. Hence their senseless question to Christ.
22:24
Moses said, If a man die. For an explanation of these words, see chap. i. 16.
22:29
Ye err, not knowing the Scriptures. Because the Sadducees had appealed to the Scriptures, Christ answers that they did not understand the Scriptures, as S. Chrysostom says. Christ shows two sources of error in them ; one, that they did not understand the Scriptures : the other, that they did not allow for the goodness and power of God, as S. Mark (xii. 24) describes more plainly.
22:30
In the resurrection. " In " is used by a Hebraism for " after," as in Ps. cxxv. i : " When the Lord turned back," in convertendo. The time which will ensue after the Resurrection is called the Resurrection ; as in verse 28 the whole time during which the law of circumcision was in force is called " the Circumcision " (Rom. w. 10).
They shall neither marry, nor be married. A Hebraism and a Graecism at once. A Hebraism because the third person plural is put for the passive verb impersonal, as in some Latin works dicunt is put for dicitur, nubent for nubetur. It is a Graecism, which the Latin translator would not render perhaps, for some reason, idiomatically. For as the Greek word yafielv was applied to the marriage of either man or woman, and nubere was used in Latin of the woman, and uxorem ducere of the man, and the Greek expresses both in one word, the Latin author chose to follow the Greek, because it was not in that age considered barbarous. This is the opinion of Tertullian (De Resurrect^ and Ruffinus (In. Exposit. Symb.}. S. Jerome says himself that he would not have so rendered it, though he would not correct it. The meaning appears to be that after the Resurrection men will not marry women, nor will women be married to men. In a word, there will then be no marriages.
But shall be as the angels of God. Christ does not compare the blessed to the angels in everything, but only in the point on which He was speaking — marriage; as S. Jerome has observed. For the angels are immortal, and therefore have no need of marriage, the object of which is the continuance of the human race, as explained by S. Luke (xx. 35,36). It may be observed that all the three Evangelists — S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. Luke — here use the present tense, " are equal to the angels," when they had before used the future, nubent — nubentur. Christ probably desired to place the future state of beatitude before the sight, and spoke of it as a thing present. The Author, not without reason, asks why, when Christ spoke of fasting, alms, and other spiritual virtues, He did not institute any comparison of men with angels, but only did so when His subject was chastity. His answer, which is a true one, is that there is no virtue so angelical as this one. / am t/te God of Abraham. There is a double difficulty in this passage. First, it does not appear how it can rightly be concluded from the words, " I am the God of Abraham," &c.} that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were still living ; for God might be called their God, not because He was so then, but because He had been so before : as James and John are called the sons of Zebedee when Zebedee was now dead, and no one is the son of a dead man, but of a living one. The meaning is, that they had been his sons. Secondly, that even if it could be proved that the souls of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were alive, it is not therefore proved thereby that they will rise again. To the first question, it has been replied that the force of the argument consists in this : that God did not say, " I was " (fui out eranij, but " I am " their God. So say S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and Theophylact. But it may be objected that the passage should be understood, " I am that God who was the God of Abraham while Abraham was alive". Or, according to others, God is called the God of those of whom He receives acknowledgment and worship, as He is called the God of Elias and Daniel^ because Elias and Daniel worshipped Him. Hence Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are not wholly dead, because God was called their God — that is, He was worshipped by them. Others suppose that the force of the words lies in this, that although in that sense God can be called the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, because He was once their God, yet it is not to be thought that God would deign to be called the God of those who were now dead. But this is not of much weight. There appears to be a higher than common meaning in the words. S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthymius have said what seems true, but is not sufficient. For the force of the whole undoubtedly lies in God not having said, " I was," but " I am " ; not fui or erani, but sum ; and the meaning may be : "I am the God who made a covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to perpetuate their seed, and I therefore wish to keep it, because they still live and urge Me daily by their prayers to deliver their children from the captivity of Egypt ". For we keep covenant, not with the dead, but with the living. And Christ pleased to bring, not an unanswerable argument, but one so far convincing as to be sufficient for the conviction of the Sadducees. For He by these means repressed their arrogance and shamelessness ; so that when they proposed, in derision, a Scripture, as if Christ could not escape from it, He showed them that they were so dull and ignorant that they could not reply to even the very lightest argument of Moses in proof of the Resurrection. The explanation of the second question is less difficult. The Sadducees, as Origen and S. Jerome and The Author have observed, denied the Resurrection, because they did not believe in the immortality of the soul, as is clear from Acts xxiii. 8. And, therefore, if the immortality of the soul were proved by an admitted testimony, the Resurrection would be also proved. Formerly, too, not only among the Jews, but also almost all the schools of philosophy, the two questions of the Immortality of the Soul and the Resurrection were so united together as to be taken for one and the same thing. Thus, we see, the author of the second Book of Machabees (xii. 43) from the Immortality of the Soul proves the Resurrection. The same is also done by S. Paul (i Cor. xv.), where all the arguments for the resurrection of the body only avail to prove the immortality of the soul ; but as no one denied the Resurrection who did not believe that the soul died, the same arguments prove the Resurrection. He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were now dead. But Christ denied that they were dead in the sense supposed by the Sadducees ; that is, that their souls were dead. For, in the sense in which we call men dead whose souls are separated from their bodies, God is called the Lord, not only of the living, but also of the dead (Rom. xiv. 8), as S. Chrysostom has observed. S. Luke (xx. 38) adds what seems rather to weaken than add force to the argument ; for he says, " all live " ; for if all the former live to God, even those who are dead, these live also ; and then it does not follow that Abraham, Isaaac, and Jacob are not dead, as Christ would have proved. The answer may be that when Christ added these words, He only gave a reason for calling Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob living who had died ; for all, not only those who are alive in the body, but also those who are dead, are alive to God : not only because their souls are alive, but also because God wills to bring it to pass that they should return to their bodies, and live in the same way as they had lived before ; as Christ said (ix. 24), " The girl is not dead, but sleepeth ". Or they are dead to us, but live to God, because we only see their bodies, and their bodies are dead : God sees their souls, and these are truly alive. Many ask why, as there are so many and plain testimonies in Holy Scripture to the Resurrection, Christ Himself did not most especially bring them forward. Origen (On S. Matt, xxi.), S. Jerome, and Bede reply that the Sadducees only received as Scripture the five books of Moses, and that in consequence Christ must necessarily answer them out of these.
22:35
And one of them, a doctor of the law. S. Luke (xx. 39, 40) says that one of the Scribes, when the Sadducees had been answered, said to Him, " Master, Thou has well said ; and after that they durst not ask Him any more questions ". This appears to apply, not to the Scribes and Pharisees (who take this opportunity, as S. Matthew says, of tempting Christ again, to show that they were more learned than the Sadducees), but to the Sadducees themselves. For the man whom S. Matthew calls a doctor of the law, S. Mark (xii. 28) calls a Scribe. Hence we see that although the duties of the Pharisees and Scribes were different, the same person was at times both a Pharisee and a Scribe. For it is clear from verse 34 that this doctor of the law of whom S. Matthew speaks was a Pharisee.
22:36
Which is the great commandment in the Law ? The positive is here by a Hebraism put for the superlative ; as in 5. Mark xii. 28, 29.
22:37
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God. S. Mark (xii. 29) begins with, " Hear, O Israel ". S. Matthew only gives the first words, because in Moses both commandments are in the same place and refer to the same thing (Deut. vi. 4, 5). The first is, Thou shalt believe in one God. The second, Thou shalt love Him with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul ; because he that believes in more than one divides his love, and does not love one with his whole heart ; as in chap. vi. 24 : " No man can serve two masters," &c. With thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul. Some raise on these words a distinction apparently too subtle. The meaning simply appears to be that we should love God with all our strength, and look to Him for every thing. S. Augustin has expressed this in the following words : " When God said, ' with the whole heart, the whole soul, the whole mind,' He left no part of our life from which He would be absent, and which should yield, as it were, to the fruition of some other object. But whatever else enters the mind as an object of love, it should be carried off at once whither the impulse of entire love hurries it." Lastly, what is read in Dent. vi. 5, in other words, is compressed by S. Luke into one word (x. 27) : " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy strength ".
22:39
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Christ says that these are the two great precepts of the Law. They are not distinct from the others, but a compendium of them. Of the first table, " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart," &c. Of the second, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself". It will be asked how Christ says that this is the greatest of all the commandments, if they are not different commandments? It would seem to be as if He had said all the commandments are the greatest. In answer Christ meant only that all the commandments tend to the result that we should love God with our whole hearts, and our neighbours as ourselves ; as S. Paul said to the Romans : "Love is the fulfilling of the Law" (xiii. 10) ; and as Christ Himself said (verse 40) : " On these two command ments dependeth the whole Law and the Prophets ". How we are to understand the words, " Thou shalt love our neighbour," depends on two things : (i) on our knowing who is called our neighbour ; (2) the meaning of the word " as," sicut. Christ has explained who our neighbour is by an entire parable (S. Luke x. 30). He says that every man is our neighbour. The meaning of the word " as " is not so obvious. Some take it materially, as if we were ordered to wish for our neighbour all that we wish for ourselves. Others regard the quality and manner, and that we must love our neigh bour in the degree in which we love ourselves. Others regard the result, that we should love our neighbour with such effort and feeling (conatu et effectii) as those with which we love ourselves. All these meanings seem contained in the word " as ". For there can be no question but that God willed us to desire for our neighbour all that we desire for ourselves, and, for the sake of God, to love him as we love ourselves. But the question is, as S. Augustin has said, how we are commanded to wish for our neighbour what we wish for ourselves, when we often wish for evils — riches, honours, pleasures ; or how we are to love him as ourselves, when we often love ourselves wrongly or more than we ought. It is certain that we ought to wish for ourselves only what is good, and to love ourselves only propter Deum. If we do this, we cannot love ourselves otherwise than as we ought ; and we are therefore commanded to love our neighbour in the same way. It will be objected that even from the first command ment of loving God with our heart, the second of loving our neighbour will follow ; and there was no need in consequence to command us to love our neighbour as ourselves. The obvious reply is, that it is less natural to us to love our neighbour than it is to love ourselves ; that everyone loves himself most ; and that the law in question was given us for this especial reason.
22:41
And the Pharisees being gathered together. S. Mark (xii. 35) says that Christ proposed this question while He was teaching in the Temple ; but the explanation is more obvious, that the Pharisees were assembled in the Temple. SS. Mark and Luke do not say that Christ asked the Pharisees, but said to them, when He was teaching, " How do the Scribes say ? " but, as S. Augustin (De Consensu, u. 74) says, it is a matter of no moment S. Matthew has given both the question and the objection, " What think you ? " He said, " How then doth David in spirit call him Lord ? " The other two Evangelists have not given the question, but only the objection. And because they had not said that Christ asked the Scribes and Pharisees, they do not say " as you say," but " as the Scribes say ". Their saying " as the Scribes say " when it was not the Scribes, but Scripture, has been explained on chap. xvii. 10; for Scripture is said to say what is not found in it, because the interpreters of Scripture said it.
22:43
How then dotJi David in spirit. That is, when he was full of the Spirit of God, not of his own, which might be deceived and lie, but of the Spirit of God, which can do neither. It is a Hebraism, as in Ps. xxx. 23 and cxv. 2.
22:44
The Lord said to my Lord. (See Ps. cix. 6.) The objections of the Jews were chiefly two : i. That the psalm was not written by David, but either by Melchisedech, as Rabbi Abraham says in his commentaries, or by Eliezer, the servant of Abraham, or by someone who wrote psalms in the time of David, as Aben Ezra supposes. 2. The second objection is that the words are not to be understood of Christ, but either of Abraham — as is the present opinion of the Jews — or of David, as Aben Ezra and Rabbi David think ; or of Ezechia, king of the Jews, as we learn from S. Justin Martyr (In Tryph^} and Tertullian (Cent. Marcion., v.) that the Jews used to explain them after the time of Christ. This has been refuted on the Psalm cix. For if it had not been certain in the time of Christ that the Psalms were both written by David, and must be understood of Christ, it would have been obvious for the Scribes and Pharisees, who were much more learned than the Jews of later ages, to have replied to it. Now, however, the modern Jews are clearly confuted by the silence of their forefathers.
22:45
If David then call Him Lord, how is He his son ? Christ speaks from the opinion of the Pharisees, who thought that Christ would be a mere man, although Scripture declared that He would be not only man, but also God. The words of Christ, then, do not prove that He was not the son of David, but that He was more than the son of David : that is, the son of God, and true God ; and, therefore, David called Him Lord.
22:1
v. 1 etrespondens Iesus, scil. eorumtacitae cogitation! ((7#z. Fit.} dixit iterum in parabolis eis dicens :
In hac parabola Ghristus aperte docet, ludaeos, populum olim a Deo vocatum et electum, repetitis invitationibus ad ingressum in reg-num messiaimm non obedituros esse ; immo apostolis mortem esse molituros ; quare fore ut ipsi pereant et eorum urbs incendio deleatur. In eorum locum autem vocatum iri gentes easque accepturas invitationem ; sed vae ei qui invitatione accepta non integer moribus a Deo repertus fuerit. Est prophetia; quare a rationalises Christo denegatur. Haec parabola est quaedam continuatio doctrinaein antecedent! traditae. Id quod iam S. Ch?'?/s. adnotavit : praenuntiat ludaeorum eiectionem et gentium vocationem; post haec vero ostendit et vivendi disciplinam et quanta negligentibus sit poena parata. Quia enim dixit : dabitur genti facienti fructum , hie declarat , cui genti ; neque hoc tantum, sed et se rursus ineffabili erga ludaeos providentia uti ; ibi enim ante crucem vocat , hie etiam post necem instat et pergit illos vocare... Quia in antecedentibus mortem dixit, monstrat hie post mortem nuptias sponsumque fore . Quod supra dictum est lapidem quern reprobassent aedificantes factum esse lapidem angularem, hie alia imagine explicatur, in nuptiis scil. quae filio parantur ; supra significabatnr primates synagogae iri abiectum , hie declaratur cum eis et populum et civitatem iri perditum , immo etiam modus ultionis divinae incendio urbis et exercitu misso indicatur. Supra significatum est regnum messianum dandum esse gentibus; hie porro docetur non omnes qui ex gentibus vocati invitationem acceperint salvos fore; proin.de minim e sufficere, ut quis sit in regno messiano. Sive itaque ludaei, sive gentes spectantur, haec parabola praecedenti .apte subiungitur (lam.}. Ex cogitatione principum synagogae aifectantium se capere Christus occasionem arripit ulterius ostendendi quanta perversitate agant; eorum sciens Dominus voluntatem increpat saevientes (5. Chrys.}] unde
22:2
v. 2 simile factum est regnum coelorum homini regi i. e. tale quid eveniet in regno messiano conclendo ac propagando , ac si quis rex filio suo parat convivium nuptiale, qui fecit nuptias filio suo; rex est Deus Pater; sponsus est Messias, qui ut talis iam in psalmo 44 celebratur et tali appellatione a loanne baptista est salutatus(Ioan. 3,29) et qui seipsum eodem nomine designavit (vide ad 9,15). Uti in vetere foedere populus electus hand raro tamquam sponsa Domini describitur (cf. Is. 50,1. ler. 2,2. Ez. 16,8 inde idololatria nomine fornicationis appellatur), ita quoque instauratio foederis messiana eodem modo ut sacrum quoddam connubium exhibetur, cf. Os. 2,19 et sponsabo te mihi in sempiternum. Pari ratione Ecclesia dicitur sponsa Christi (cf. 2 Cor. 11,2. Eph. 5,25-27). D.eus Pater autem nuptias parat Filio; nam Pater Filio parat sponsam Ecclesiam; nemo potest venire ad me nisi Pater traxerit eum , et : manifestavi nomen tuum hominibus quos dedisti mihi cle mundo; tni erant et mihi eos dedisti; serva eos quos dedisti mihi (loan. 6,44; 17,6. 9, 11. 12. 24), uti Christus repetito affirmat suos sibi dari a Patre. Eo ipso autem quod Ecclesia seu regnum messianum constituitur, etiam hominibus ingentia beneficia a Deo praeparantur et offenmtur. Quare optime clici potesfc ratione coniunctionis Christi cum Ecclesia Deum patrem convivium nuptiale hominibus praeparasse. Ad tale itaque convivium ii primi vocantur qui iam olim erant vocati in regnum Dei veteris foederis
22:3
v. 3 et misit servos suos vocare invitatos , ludaei enim iam erant xe^V/i^e'voi, iam vocati et invitati et praeparati ad regnum messianum per prophetas (S. Chrys. Euth. Hil. Cai. Sc/ianz) et iam electione ilia in Abraham facta et foedere in Sinai concluso gens israelitica constttuebatur peculium Dei, gens sancta, regnum sacerdotale (Ex. 19,5) et eo ipso destinabatur ad regnum quod in plenitudine temporis ex vetere illo regno Dei exoriri debebat (uti symbolo montis Domini elevati Is. 2, 2 seq. declarator). Servi itaque qui mittuntur ad hos iam ab antiquo tempore vocatos et qui priores mittuntur sunt loannes baptista, sunt apostoli et discipuli Ghristi, per quos ludaei invilabantur, ut Ghristo crederent; et nolebant venire; maiorpars renuit Christofidem adhibere. Cum nollent venire , instat rex et ratione etiam efficaciore eos invitat et urget ut tandem veniant ad convivium splendide paratum
22:4
v. 4 iterutn misit olios servos dicens : dicite invitatis : ecce prandium meum paravi; tauri mei et altilia occisa sunt et omnia parata; venite ad nuptias; in priore missione eos solum vocant ad nuptias; in altera pluribus exponunt omnia esse parata, convivium grande esse instructum. Qua re significatur apostolos post Ghristi ascensionem ex Dei iussionepraedicasse iam omnia esse peracta quae ad hominum salutem essent necessaria; verus ille agnus paschalis erat immolatus, sacramenta instituta , dona Spiritus sancti large fidelibus communicabantur; apostoli praedicabant ludaeis in Palaestina et in exteris regionibus et miraculis patratis et Dei donis ac beneficiis ostensis eos urgebant , ut in regnum messianum et ad participationem tot bonorum accederent;
22:5
v. 5 illi autem neglexerunt et abierunt alms in villam suam, alius vero ad negotiationem suam; contemnunt invitationem ; abstrahuntur a cura regni Dei sollicitudine bonorum et negotiorum huius mundi; alius in proprium agrum abiit, hocest, indulsit deliciis et voluptatibus vitae, alius in negotiationem suam, hoc est, avaritiae deditus fait ; ostendit igitur parabola quod qui a spiritualibus nuptiis et convivio et Christi societate destituuntur, ob has duas potissimum causas excluduntur, vel propter corporales voluptates vel avaritiae morbum (Theoph.). Alii peiore etiam moclo se habebant
22:6
v. 6 reliqui vero fenuerunt servos eius et contumelies affectos occidentnt; quo magis rexpatiens est et benignus , eo duriores efficiimtur hi ac ferociores (Euth.}. Atque ludaei persecutiones moverunt in apostolos; caesis denuntiaverunt ne omnino loquerentur in nomine Iesu; at apostoli ibant gaiidentes a conspectu concilii , quoniain digni habiti sunt pro nomine Iesu contumeliam pati (Act. 5,40. 41); occiderunt Stephanum, Quare cum ita rependerent regis benignitatem, merito exstincti sunt
22:7
v. 7 rex autem cum audisset, iratus est et missis exercitibus suis perdidit homicidas illos et civitatem illorum succendit; in aperto est praedici excidium nationi et urbi ludaeorum per Romanos, per Vespasianum et Titum, illatum (cf. Orig. Ghrys. Hier. op. imp. Br. etc.). Gum Romani ultionem divinain in ludaeos exsecuti sint , dicuntur exercitus Dei regis, uti v. g. Medi appellantur sanctificati mei a Domino (Is. 13, 3) et Nabuchodonosor dicitur servitute magna Domino serviisse adversus Tyrum (Ez. 29,18). Multis quoque manifestum est in ilia ruina illoque incehdio cerni vindictam divinam et ipse Titus rem et eventum ilium ad numen divinum retulisse dicitur. Contumaciae ludaeorum statim adhmgitur poena divinitus inflicta, ut causa et effectus iuxta se ponantur. Sequitur vocatio gentium , quamvis gentes iam ante eversionem urbis et reipublicae ad regnum messianum efficaciter vocatae sint. Verum in involucro parabolico rem ita describi posse et apte describi patet, quia etiam in sermon e prophetico singula proponunturnon secundum seriem temporis, sed secundum internam quandam rerum cognationem. Praeterea ea collocatione exsistitordo concinnus parabolae. In priore enim parte continetur invitatio ludaeis facta, eorum pervicacia et quae inde sequitur castigatio; in altera vocatio gentium quae fit propter illorum perversitatem et nequitiam et quae re ipsa citius facta est illis renuentibus; cf. Act. 13,46. Rom. 11,11.15. Servos qui priores missi sunt v. 3 multi intelligunt Moysen et prophetas; ita Orig. Theoph. Hier. op. imp. Br. Pasch. Alb. Thorn. Dion. Fab. Maid. Lap. Calm. Grimm, Fit.; at non ita posse concipi ex eo colligitur quia rex dicitur iam fecisse nuptias filio suo et servi invitant ad .nuptias. Iam nuptiae hae filii non possunt aliter intelligi nisi de Christo sponsam suam Ecclesiam sibi iungente et despondente. Secundum loquendi modum multorum Verbum Dei nuptias celebravit cum humana natura in Incarnatione , uti. etiam S. Gregorius loquitur (horn, in ev. 38,3) : tune Deus Pater Filio suo nuptias fecit, quando hunc in utero Virginis humanae naturae coniunxit . Sed ad has nuptias homines non sunt invitati. Proinde intelligendae sunt nuptiae illae quibus Christus, Ecclesiam sponsam sibi coniungit; aliis verbis si in parabola invitantur ad nuptias, significatio est homines vocari ut sese Christo adiungant, ut in Ecclesiam Christ! intrent. Ex eo quod Incarnatio et institutio Ecclesiae ab aeterno sit a Deo ordinata et de T slinata, non sequitur dici posse Deum fecisse nuptias Filio suo ante In carnation em ; nam quamvis apostoli in praescientia etiam ab aeterno electi sint , tamen nemo dixerit iam tempore veteris foe'deris Christo Petrum et loannem a Deo Patre datos esse apostolos. Quare etsi prophetae annuntiaverint Messiam eiusque regnum, tamen dicinequeunt invitasse et voeasse homines ad nuptias quas Pater Filio suo fecerit. Unde cum S. Chrys. Theod. her. Euth. Hil. Cai. Salmeron, fans. Lamy, Schegg, Schanz servi illi intelligendi sunt qui Christo iam in terris degente et regnum suum instituente ad hoc regnum vocaverint. Neque obstat quod Sylv. obiicit, in v. 4 dici olios servos esse missos. Hos utique esse apostolos omnes fatentur ; sed ex eo non sequitur prio- ) res servos debere esse prophetas veteres. Nam in parabola proponitur saepius illos invitatos esse vocatos ad nuptias ; dein post adventum , Spiritus sancti re ipsa etiam alii vocabant ludaeos, uti varii qui nomine evangelistarum designantur (Act. 21,8. Eph. 4,11),, S. Paulus .et qui cum eo laborabant etc. Proinde etsi vocem urgere volueris, revera alii quoque missi sunt. QuodS. Paulus dicit ludaeis : vobis oportebat primum loqui verbum Dei, sed quoniam repellitis illud etindignos vos iudicatis aeternae vitae, ecce convertimur ad gentes (Act. 13,46), idem Christus praeformavit in parabola
22:8
v. 8 tune ait servis sttis : nuptiae quidem paratae sunt, sed qui invitati erant, non fuerunt digni; iudicio divino declaratur maiorem partetn ludaeorum iam se reddidisse indignam quam Deus efficaci sua gratia vocaret. Quomodo id factum sit; iam loannes baptista indicat eos reprehendens de vanitate ilia qua dicunt : filii Abraham sumus, id non uno loco Christus innuit propter mala eouum opera, id S. Paulus docet Rom. 10,3, id declaratur ex exspectatione regni messiani cum pompa et fastu et dominatione in gentes ;
22:9
v. 9 ite ergo ad exitus viarum i.e. ad ea loca in urbibus, ubi complures viae conveniunt eaque de causa multi confluere solent et quoscumque inv&- neritis vacate ad nuptias; ergo omnes sunt vocandi;
22:10
v. 10 et egressi serm ems in vias, congregaverunt omnes , malos et bonos i. e. nullo discrimine facto : id unum spectabant , utrum invitationem acciperent necne. Bonos inter gentiles eos saepe intelligunt qui ea quae legis sunt naturaliter faciunt (Rom. 2,14), qui itaque anteqnam praedicationem evangelicam audiunt vitam degebant satis honestam et ab hominibus inter viros probos numerabantur. Geterum cum mali et boni dicantur accipere invitationem , sequitur Deum gratia sua in gremium Ecclesiae ad praedicationem apostolicam vocare quos voluerit etiam tales qui antea male vixerint. Ita studio servorum impletae sunt nuptiae discumbentium i. e., ut lans. monet, discumbentibns; nam genetivus ille coniungendus est cum impletae sunt. Declaratur itaque nuptiale illud convivium habiturum plenum suum numerum, nee quidquam eius plenitudini ac celebritati defuturum eo quod primi illi venire noluerunt. Praeformatur etiam hac parabola quod S. Paulus dicit delictum ludaeorum divitias esse mundi, esse salutem gentium et divitias (Rom. 11,11. 12). Serio autem monet Christus non satis esse intrasse in Ecclesiam
22:11
v. 11 intravit autem rex ut videret discumbentes et vidit ibi hominem non vestitum veste nuptialii. e. veste quae talem deceat sollemnifcatem. Merito enim exigitur, ut quisquis invitationem ad convivium nuptiale acceperit, non vili habitu et quotidiano se ad festivitatem conferat, sed optimo quo uti possit vestimento indutus appareat et ipso habitu ostendat quanto in honore habeat talem invitationem; et certe si quis ad nuptias esset invitatus, vestem mutaret, congaudere se sponso etsponsae ex ipso sui habitus decore ostenderet, inter gaudentes et festa celebrantes despectis vestibus apparere erubesceret (S. Greg. horn. 38,9). In tanta multitudine unum ilium rex detegit ; accurate igitur in con vivas inquirit ; ne unus quidem ille latere potest. Districto itaque iudicio singuli erunt examinandi;
22:12
v. 12 et ait illi : amice, quomodo hue intrasti npn habens vesfem nuptialem? de appellatione amici vide 20,13 ; monet Cai. notandum esse quod non contumeliose increpat; non dicit : indigne, praesumptuose ; non quomodo ausus es, sed quomodo intrasti , proponendo factum simplex, ut ipse se ipsum damnet, ad erudiendum nos , ut etiam in notorio facto non iudicemus inauditum et exarninemus absque contumelia, -absque convicio, cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum . Ut parabolam explicent, aliqui dicunt morem fuisse ut invitatis ab ipso rege vestes darentur pretiosae, quibus digne coram rege apparerent (cf. Am. Reischl, Fil. Fonck}. Eum morem in aula regum Persarum luxu et voluptate diffluentium exstitisse , utique verum est ; at apud Hebraeos tale quid unquam usitatum fuisse nulluin reperitur vestigium. Neque id ex eo deduci potest quod saepius inter munera quae donantur vestes recenseantur (Gen. 45,22. lud. 14,12. 4 Reg. 5,22) neque exlocis quos affert Wetstein de coenatoriis apud Romanes, uti per se liquet, neque ex consuetudine quam commemorat Eustathius (ad Odyss. VI, 28) e'Oo? viv TOC? vu^cpa? TOK TOU vufjwptou scO-flTa? ev T(ji TOU y<f/.ou >wupw ^apt^ecOai. Praeterea in parabola talis donationis non fit mentio , quamvis ea. multum conferret et ad iram regis declarandam ^et ad culpam hominis exaggerandam qui quod liberaliter illi donatum fuerit ne accipere quidem voluerit ideoque in veste sordida apparens maximam contumeliam regi intulerit. Insuper si servi iussi . fuissent unicuique convivae praebere vestem nuptialem , eo ipsi iussi fuissent non permittere ut quis sine ea admitteretur; ergo iam non explicaretur in parabola, quomodo ille potuisset intrare. Quare vestem nuptialem in parabola explica de veste decenti; supponitur itaque eos qui invitationem acceperint, ad eiusmodi festivitatem meliores induisse vestes et ornatu decent! se ad regis palatium contulisse. Id etiam ipsi application! et doctrinae melius convenire videtur. Significatur enim non sufficere venire ad nuptias, invitationem accipere, i. e. evangelicae annuntiationi credere, verum hominem adultum (de quibus hie solum sermo est) clebere etiam praeterea aliud ex sua parte praestare , debere curare , ut decenti ornatu intersit convivio nuptiali, ut decenti ornatu vitam degat in Ecclesia. Eiusmodi ornatus autem quern quisque gerere debet ne in districto iudicio a regno excludatur, est gratia sanctificans quam in baptismo acceptam sedula virtutum exercitatione conservare , vel si peccato perdita fuerit, vera poenitentia recuperare oportet. Bene dicit S. Greg. : quid exprimi per nuptialem vestem putamus? si enim vestem nuptialem baptisma vel fidem dicimus, quis sine baptismate et fide has nuptias intravit? eo enim ipso foris est quo necdum credidit. Quid ergo debemus intelligere nuptialem vestem, nisi caritatem? iptrat enim ad nuptias, sed cum nuptiali veste non intrat, qui in sancta Ecclesia assistens fidem habet , sed caritatem non habet . Hanc vestem nuptialem describit apostolus dicens : induite novum hominem qui secundum Deum creatus est in iustitia et sanctitate (Eph. 4,24. Col. 3,10-12. Gal. 3,27 : Christum induistis ; cf. op. imp. Br. Aid.), hanc, cum laudes et praeconia caritatis recitat 1 Cor. 13,1 seq. (S. Aug. serm. 90,6). Quare recte quoque earn vestem esse dicunt virtutes (Orig. Hier.}, esse vitam et opera (S. Ghrys.}, vitam puram, in modum vestis virtutibus contextam (Euth. Theoph.}, esse Christum (S. Thorn.} quern soil, homo baptismo induit, ut apostolus loquitur, et cum in animis iustorum etiam habeatur inhabitatio Spiritus sancti, merito quoque exisfcimat S. Hit. vestem illam esse gloriam Spiritus sancti. Veteres protestantes et aliqui etiam recentiores vestem nuptialem rectam fidem intelligi volunt; sed earn explicationem ineptam esse, iam S. Greg. aeque bene ac breviter ostendit et merito dicit Maid, veram et propriam esse veterum sententiam, vestem nuptialem caritatem, bona opera et vitam fidei christianae respondentem significare ; nam ut qui ad nuptias invitati sunt, vestem illo loc'o dignam gestare debent, ita qui ad Ecclesiam per. fidem invitati veniunt , vitam agere debent fide dignam et videmus in Scripturis bonam vitam per vestem significari Apoc. 3,17. 18. Eph. 4,24. Col. 3,9. 10 . AtqueJfaws. : omnes enim Patres intelligunt hac parte parabolae admoneri fideles, ne satis sibi esse putent quod credant et baptismate abluti sint atque intra Ecclesiam recepti eisdem participent sacramentis eodemque nutriantur doctrinae pabulo, sed opus esse ut vivant vitam sua vocatione dignam, et ut Paulus habet, ambulent digne vocatione qua vocati sunt . Ceterum res estnimis clara; quare etiam protestantes requirunt et veste nuptiali designari dicuntmorum 8iy.ato<rjvY)v ( Weiss) , regenerationem internam per Spiritum (Mansel), caritatem cum fructibus suis (Holtzm.). Verum ille quo se valeat defendere minime habet; at ille obmutuit, quia quod dici sine gemitu non potest, in ilia districtione ultimae increpationis omne argumentum cessat excusationis (S. Greg.). Quamvis res sit manifesta et culpa hominis aperta, tamen, ut S. Chrys.- adnotat, Deus non prius supplicia infert quam ipse peccator sententiam tulerit ; quia enim nihil respondere poterat , semetipsum damnabat;
22:13
v. 13 tune dixit rex ministris : ligatis manibus et pedibus ems mittite eum in tenebras exteriores; ibi eril fletus et stridor dentium; vide supra 8,12 et 13,42. Quod in parabola zizaniorum et sagenae missae in mare (13,25. 47) exprimitur fore in Ecclesia malos homines bonis intermixtos usque ad consummationem saeculi et ultimum iudicium, idem etiam hac parabola significatur. Manns et pedes ligantur; qua re declaratur eum nequaquam ex loco supplicii posse effugere ; qui nunc sponte ligantur in vitio , tune in supplicio ligantur invite (S. Greg. horn. 38,13), neque ulla ratione illud imminuere aut evitare poterunt. Ergo vinculis illis idem significatur quod in parabola alia eo declaratur quod ei qui in flamma hac eruciatur ne gutta quidem aquae concedatur ad linguam refrigerandam (Luc. 16,24), ne minimum quidem levamen et solamen in supplicio illo reperiri posse. Tenebris quoque summa miseria ac desperatio significatur. Goncluditur parabola v. 14 multienim suntvocati,paucivero electi; ex parabola quae contra ludaeos erat.proposita, videri poterat ac si nemo ludaeorum qui vocati erant venturus esset ad convivium nuptiale (v. 2-8); quare Christus subiungit paucos ita vocatum iri, ut simul eligantur, ut revera veniant. Ita quoque superbia pharisaeorum retunditur, qui se aliosque nation e ludaeos tamquam filios Abraham debere assumi in regnum messianum arbitrabantur. Simul indicatur esse gratiae Dei ut qui vocentur re ipsa veniant. Demum quod prophetae iam praedixerunt solum reliquias ex Israel salvatum iri (Is. 10, 21. Am. 3,12), et quod apostolus re ipsa esse factum attestatur (Rom. 11,5), Christus hoc loco praedicit : tantnm abest ut populns integer vocatus Messiae obediat, ut tantum pauci ex tanta multitudine ad nuptias illas perveniant. Sensum bene declarat Orig. : et ut multos vocatos esse , non omnes autem sed paucos ex ipsis venisse doceat , toti demumparabolaeidsubiungitur et Theoph. : ostendit igitur quod propter ludaeos dicta sit parabola, qui vocati quidem fuere, non autem electi eo quod non audierunt . Vocati itaque ii sunt ad quos invitandos servi iterum iterumque mittuntur; electi autem qui invitationi obsequuntur et gratia Dei tracti et adiuti revera Ecclesiae nomen dant, fidem suscipiunt. Hos qui fidem susceperunt, etiam S. Paulus non uno loco electos appellat (Rom. .11,5. 7. 1 Cor. 1,27. Eph. 1,4. 1 Thess. 1,4. 2Thess. 2,12; cf. lac. 2,5. 1 Petr. i,l; 2,9. 2 Petr. 1,10). Verba' haec itaque pertinent ad id quod in parabola potissimum spectatur, ludaeos vocari quidem, at maximam partem non sequi; eos itaque a Deo non eligi, sed reiici; illis autem praeferri gentiles. Sunt quidem qui verba haec ad ultimam partem parabolae referant explicantes etiam ex iis qui nuptiis intersint paucos ad beatitudinem coelesteni esse perventuros. Ita saepius concipit S. Aug. (germ. 90 et 95) qui in illo uno qui eiectus sit multos intelligendos esse ait et solum paucos esse qui discumbentes remansissent , ideoque addi : multi simt vocati etc.; similiter sententiam hanc referunt ad eos qui iam sint in Ecclesia S. Greg. Rab. Alb. Calm. Am.; quae tamen acceptio omnino erronea videtur. Gum enim iinus eiiciatur ex magna discumbentium multitudine (v. 10 impletae sunt nuptiae discumbentium), sane in parabola nullo pacto designatur ex discumbentibus iterum longe maiorem partem esse eiiciendam et solum paucos ab Ecclesia hisce in terris versante migraturos esse in Ecclesiam triumphantem. Proinde nisi rem parabolae plane in contrarium vertere velimus , verba ilia de paucis electis non possunt ita concipi ut ex iis ipsis qui iam vocati nuptiis^intersint magno numero , solum pauci eligantur ad nuptias in coelo celebrandas, verum ut maiorpars eiiciatur in tenebras exteriores. Sed, ut dictum est, vocati ii debent esse qui a servis invitantur, elect! autem qui revera invitationi obsequuntur. Utique in illo uno graviter monemur non satis esse intrasse Ecclesiam; at quot ex ipsa Ecclesia terrestri non admittendi sint in coelestem , de hac re hie nihil statuitur. Neque aliunde ostendi potest in illo uno debere maiorem partem declarari, quamvis Maid, quoque fidenter affirmet maiorem partem eorum qui Ecclesiam ingrediantur esse condemnandam. sint ad nuptiale convivium, sive ludaei sint sive gentiles, non debere sibi confidere, propterea quod in convivium ingressi essent; posse enim eiici, si' vestem nuptialem non habuerint. Quod ut unumquemque moneret, satis fuit inducere regem qui investigaret in discunibentes et unum ilium veste nuptiali non indutum ad supplicium eiiceret (cf. Maid. Lap. Sylv. Schegg}.
22:15
v. 15 tune abeuntes pharisaei consilium inierunt, consultarunt, inter se deliberarunt , ut caperent eum in sermone , ut illaquearent eum , ut eum ope sententiae vel doctrinae quasi quodam laqueo irpetirent; Xoyo? non potest intelligi de quaestione, ut aliqui volunt, sed de responsione, de sententia, quam ex eo elicere volunt. Hac enim, non autem ipsa interrogatione , poterat capi. Statuunt itaque tentare ut aliquid ex eo eliciant cuius obtentu accusari posset (Lamy}. Quern in fin em
Captiosa interrogatione pharisaei Iesum illaqueare student , ut eum vel tamquam seditiosum praesidi romano denuntient vel ut pseudoprophetam apud populum traducant. Iesus autem eorum vafritiem.. sapientissime eludit et confundit. ludaei domination! Romanorum inviti se subiiciebant. Suam populi Dei dignitatem maxime extollebant ; semen Abrahae sumns et nemini servivimus unquam, Gliristo superbe respondebant (loan. 8,33). Qui studium et aemulationem legis praetendebant, iis plane indigmimet contra legem esse videbatuy alienigenae tributum solvere. Nam lahve erat rex populi neque secundum legem alius rex erat constituendus nisi quern Dominus Deus elegerit de numero fratrum tuorum (Deut. 17,15) et explicite additur : non poteris alterius gentis hominem regem facere qui non sit f rater tuus. Hoc itaque obtentu species pie- tatis conciliari potuit studio illi iugum Romanorumexcutiendi. Neque enim considerabant tempora esse mutata ; insuper in poenam gentem iudaicam iam saepius alienigenis esse a Deo subiectam et tempore Teremiae Detim iterum iterumque iussisse colla subdere iugo Chaldaeorum.' Illud religionis studiura prae se ferens ludas gaulanites populum ad seditionem concitaverat (Act. 5,37) cohortans ne censui sese subiicerent sed libertatem sibi vindicarent ; quod si facerent, habituros gloriam et 'laudem ex animi magnitudine et Deum ipsisprompto anxilio adfuturum (cf. losephus, Antiq. .18,1. 1). Hoc itaque ludae dogma Caesari nequaquam solvendum esse tributum, quod ad illur strandam hanc narrationem in medium afferunt iam Orig. S.Chrys. Theoph. Pasch. lans. Maid. Lap., turn temporis animos multorumoccupabat et habebat , ut S. Hier. dicit (ad Tit. 3,1 ; M. 26,590), plurimos sectatores. Quaestio haec eo magis erat captiosa et insidiosa et responsio lubricitate plena , quia aeque periculosum erat illam negare et affirma.re. Si negaretur tt'ibutum esse pendendum, posset facillime accusatio deferri ad praesidem Iesum praedicare rebellionem et defectionem a Caesare ; si affirmaretur, posset aeque facile ei magna creari apudpopulum invidia, utpote qui suaderet servire alienigenis et gentibus subiiceret populum Dei electum et qui contra legem alienigenam regem esse constituendum doceret et iam idcirco pseudopropheta esset habendus. Dubium non est quin pharisaei exspectarent Iesum esse negaturum ; sed pro eorum malitia et vafritie cum plerisque assumendum erit eos alterum quoque speciasse, uteum apudplebem auctoritate privarent si affirmaret (cf. Orig. S. Chrys. Euth. Thorn. Cai. lans. Maid. Am. Fil. Welstein, Weiss, Ed. II p. 385). Parabolas iilasintellexerunt pharisaei dici contra se et populum. Inde odium eorum quam maxime inflammatum est. Quare inter se deliberant quomodo moles turn ilium monitorem perdere possent ; omnis quidem malitia confunditur aliquoties ratione veritatis, corrigitur autem nunquam, maxime eorum qui proposito malo et non ignorantia peccant; eorum malignitas ex una parte confnsa aliunde sibi aditum adinvenit; animus enim malus quanto magis veritatem audierit, eo amplius in malitiam excitatur (op. imp.}\
22:16
v. 16 mittunt ei discipulos suos cum Herodianis; subornapt discipulos quasi minus suspectos (op. imp. Pasch. Cai.}; sciebant enim se iam satis superque esse suspectos , discipulos autem si discendi cupidi accedere se simularent, ut a tarn sancto et celebri magistro quaestio summi moment! solveretur, sperabant veteratores illi facilius posse Christum inducere, utsententiam suamin alterutram partem aperiret et ita in.insidias incideret. De Herodianis parum constat. Eos a partibus stetisse Romanorum aliqui censent, praesertim veteres (cf. Orig. Chrys. Maid.}, sed etiam Fil.;. alii probabilius censent eos minime favisse Romanis, sicut Herodes inimicitias gerebat cum Pilato , verum id appetiisse , ut tota regio palaestinensis et natio iudaica sceptro Herodis committeretur (cf. Lamy , Schegg , Schanz, Keil). Uti nomen ipsiim dicit, erant asseclae et fautores familiae herodianae, qui itaque hanc familiam alienigenam et moribus gentilium satis imbutam populo iudaico dominari volebant et idcirco dici possunt inimici Romanorum; quamvis ex altera parte, cum penes Ro~ manos esset, utrum Herodes Antipas regnum Herodis magni acciperet neche, certe etiam parati essent Romanis adulari, si adulatione et simulata subiectione ad id quod desiderabant pervenire possent. Pharisaeis autem tamquam aemulatoribns legis etiam dominatio Herodis in populum Dei erat abominationi. Unde facile concipitur pharisaeos minime favisse Herodianis , verum inter utrosqtie exstitisse simultates. Sed quo certius Christum perderent, non verentur cum adversariis legis et theocratiae foedus inire. Nam cum Christus ultimo tern pore saepius versatus esset in ditione Herodis, ad quam eum rediturum esse coniiciebant, multumintererat, ut sua responsione etiam Herodis iram incurreret. Si autem Romanis ut alienigenis 'negandum diceret tributnm, etiam Herodi non esse obediendum facile potuit inferri; si Romanis tributum affirmaret, iam se declararet inimicum dominationis Herodis. Ita Christo sperabant posse accusationem intendi et apud praesidem et apud Herodem vel saltern apud plebera. Discipuli autem captationem benevolentiae praemittunt qua simul sincerum studium ac desiderinm discendi verum a tanto magistro simulant : magister, scimus quia verax es, et mam Dei in veritate doces, viam quam Deus praescribit, mandata Dei (Alb.}, rationem vitae ex Dei voluntate instituendae vere ac sincere doces , et non est tibi.cura de aliquo, nullius timore vel auctpritatetu moveris, utpropterea veritatem vel dissimules vel abscpndas; non enim respicis personamhominis; respicere personam est considerare externam aliquam hominum conditionem, potentiam, dignitatem, familiaritatem etc. et tali consideratione , non autem secundum causae meritum et veritatem rei , agere , iudicare. Tali itaque laude eumincitant ne Caesarem vereatur, ne eius timore omittat ad interrogata respondere (Orig. Chrys. Theoph. Euth.}\ ea adulatione eum provocant ut aperte enuntiet id quod legis Dei studiosi non decere arbitrabantur, verum quod plerique publice fateri non audebant ; ei itaque dicunt : tu non es ut alii, qui timore hominum dissimulant et celant veritatem. Tali enim encomio homines circumveniri solent , ut aperte dicant quod sentiunt. Interpretes merito in istosinsidiatoresinvehuntur; nunc honoratis et doctorem putatis , qui ilium , cum de salute vestra dissereret , contempsistis saepe et contumelia affecistis (S. Chrys.}. Cum alias Ghristo minime crediderint et nunc eiinsidias struant et ea laude eum ad sententiain pertrahere cupiant qua sibi perniciem creet , merito eorum sermonem dicit Euth. impudentem. adulationem, S. Hier. blandam et fraudulentam interrogationem , et S. Br. ex veiienoso fonte dulcia verba prorumpere et Cat. laudem hanc ex adulatoria officina proficisci ad Iesum provocandum , ne timeat praeferre Deum Gaesari. Blandiuntur autem, ut Alb. rem rimatur satis subtiliter, a quattuor : ab auctoritate magisterii , .a veritate serin onis, a veritate docfcrinae , a veritate iudicii sine -personarum acceptione ; vel commendant eum ab amore veritatis , ab odio falsitatis , ab amore veritatis in sensu et doctrina; blandiuntur, ut laude delectatus mysterium cordis aperiat. Hoc prooemio iam satis indicatur qualem responsionem elicere cupiant quaerentes
22:17
v. 17 die ergo nobis quid tibi videtur : licet censum dare Caesari? an non? sperant enim eum responsurum contra Caesarem (cf. S. Hil. Hier. Theoph. Euth. Pasch. Br. lans. Lamy] et ita fore occasionem eum perdendi ; quia igitur videbant ludam l hac de causa ante periisse, utqui rebellionem meditaretur, cupiebant ipsum quoque circa res easdem suspicioni obnoxium reddere (,5. Chrys.}. Pharisaei pro sua superbia et elatione rem plane indignam esse iudicabant tributum solvere extraneis et ludam ilium et qui ex eo tempore eius vestigiis insistebant aemulatores legis maximi aestimabant; at quae erat hominum malitia et odium in Iesum implacabile , Iesum propter eandem sententiam quam in aliis laudabant et quam ipsi amplectebantur secreto perdere desiderabant. Census x,"?ivcroc proprie est apud Romanos descriptio et aestimatio bonorum ac facultatum, secundum quamtributa erant solvenda; sed apud scriptores novi testamenti (et etiam in cod. lust. 4,47) etiam ea voce designatur tributum imperatum. Nihil interest intelligaturne hoc loco solum tributum in capita singulorum impositum an etiam tributum ex agris opibusque imperatum. Gum prius semper solvendum esset pecunia , alterum pecunia et frugibus , et cum a priore nemo , ne servi quidem , immunes essent , prius intelligere satius erit. Notat -S. Hier. omnes reges romanos a primo Caio Caesare qui imperium arripuisset Caesares appellatos esse. Sed quia nequitia eorum perfecta et manifesta erat, acriuspungit illos primo confundens illorumque ora obstruens eo quod secreta eorum in medium adducebat et palam omnibus reddebat quo ad se animo accessissent (S. Chrys.}
22:18
v. 18 cognita autem Iesus nequitia eorum ait : quid me tentatis , hypocritae? statim probat se perspicere insidias eorum et simulationem pessimam qua fingunt se accessisse discendi desiderio et animis optime in Iesum affectis ; simulantes quidem interrogare ut quodiustum sit cognoscatis, foveam autem fodien.tes per interrogationem in quam me praecipitetis (Euth.). Nam hypocrita est, ut S. Hier. dicit, qui aliud est et aliud simulat, aliud opere agit et aliud voce praetendit. Respondit illis Christus secundum eorum conscientiam ; vide , quod pharisaei quidem blandiebantur ut perderent, Iesus vero confundebat ut salvaret (op. imp.}. Ostendit itaque iis Dominus illorum hypocrisin quam adeo studiose texerint sibi minime esse incognitam nee se falsa posse capi laude. Quamquam hac ratione potuisset merito declinare responsionem , tamen ne videretur quaerere occasionem declinandi responsionem et ut ostenderet se eorum captiosa quaestione capi non posse, sed e contra ut eos caperet propriis ipsorum verbis (lans.}, dixit ad eos
22:19
v. 19 ostendite mihi numisma census; sapientia semper sapienter agit ut suis potissimum tentatores sermonibus confutentur (S. Hier.}; at illi obtulerunt ei denarium; est numus eiusdem valoris cum drachma attica, numus decem asses aequans; vide ad 18,28. Quos interrogat
22:20
v. 20 cunts est imago haec et superscriptio? apposite mpnet S. Hier. : qui putant interrogationem Salvatoris ignorantiam esse et non dispensationem, discant ex praesenti loco quod utique potuerit scire Iesus cuius imago esset in numo; sed interrogat, ut ad sermonem eorum competenter respondeat ;
22:21
v. 21 dicunt ei : Caesaris; sua se responsione illaqueant. Nam eo ipso quod numus romanus apud ipsos in usu erat ostendebant se esse Caesari subiectos et proinde illi debere tributum solvi (Cai. lans. Lap.}. Rem quippe numariam constituere eius semper erat et ab omnibus habebatur qui dominationem exercebat et eo quod ludaei numos romanos accipiebant iisque utebantuf, re ipsa imperium romanum agnoscebant. Quotiescumque enim ludaei libertatem affectabant eamque asserere conabanlur contra alios, etiam immos cudebant (cf. 1 Mach. 15,6; hoc ius eis conceditur in testiraonium autonomiae) ; idem attentabat Barkochba (cf. Wttnsche p. 256) et rabbinorum determinate erat quod Maimonides dicit : ubicumque numisma regis alicuius obtinet, illic incolae regem istum pro domino agnoscunt (Lightfoot, Wetstem 1 ' adh. 1.). Cum itaque re ipsa Caesarem agnoscant et habeant dominum , tune, ait illis : reddite ergo aTro^o-jvai solet dici de iis quae quis iure solvere debet ~ (cf. 20,8 ; 21,41. Luc. 7,42. Rom. 13,7 etc.) quae sunt Caesaris Caesdri et quae sunt Dei Deo; o plenam miraculi responsionem et perfectam dicti coelestis absolutionem (S. Hil.). Ergo dicit ea quae Caesar iure poscit et imponit ei esse pendenda; quaenam sint ilia, vel sintne omnia tributa quae imponantur iuste imposita, sapienter non indicat. Documentum tradit quod impugnare nemo potest : ea esse solvenda quae revera debeantur et quae quis iuste exigere possit atque exigat. Simul alterum addit de Deo quo cavet ne violatae vel .neglectae religionis insimulari possit et docet subiectionem illam qua Caesari obstringuntur nullatenus esse impedimento ., quominus omnia Deo praestent quae debeant. Admodum opportune hoc addit, ut omnis occasio calumniandi iis praecidatur atque ex eo quod hoc adeo graviter monet, praeter alia concludendum erit illis revera propositum fuisse , ut si Christus censum dari iuberet , eum spretae legis ac 'religionis apud plebem accusarent. Hac. sententia Christus simul enuntiat Deo esse magis obediendum quam hominibus. Nam quotiesicumque quidquam exigitur quod sit contra pietatem vel contra mandata Dei, id iniuste exigitur; id itaque iam non pertinet ad ea quae sunt Caesaris , uti praeclare monet S. Chrys. : tu vero cum audis : redde T TOU xaurapos xaicapi , de iis id solum intellige quae nihil pietatem laedunt; iq[uippe si laedunt, iam non Caesaris, sed diaboli vectigal et tributum sunt . Notant Lap. Sylv. Christum etiam noluisse disputare an ludaei iuste sint ;Romanis subditi factique vectigales et tributarii, an vero iniuste ac tyrannice. Ab hac quaestione abstinet Dominus (quam aliqui adductis in utramque partem rationibus discutiunt) et solum id quod revera obtinet suppo- 1. Et earn nolionem animis insedisse etiam concludi potest ex eo quod ulerque affert ex Sanhedrin, tract, lalm. : dixit Abigail Davidi : quidnam ego mail feci vel lilii mei vel pecorarnea? respondit ille : maritus tuns regnum Davidis vilipendit. Tune ergo, inquit ilia, rex es? cui ille : nonne Samuel me unxit in regem? cui ilia : numisma domini nostri Saulis adhuc obtinet. Quo dicere vult : nonne Saul eliamnum reipsa rex est, cum eius numisma vulgo apud omnes in usu sit? 2. Euth. : ideo non dixit core, a),).' auoSoTe, d>; exetvou ovra. nit : ostenso numo se profitentur subditos et se habere eum in principem qui ius exerceat cudendi numos; quare in universum statuit ea esse solvenda quae debeantur. Nonne Ghristus ea responsione et iis quae non tangit etiam docere videtur, ne ministri sacri nimium sese misceant rebus profanis' et quae ad eorum officium et conditionem non pertineant? Haud ineleganter monent anirnam hominis prae se ferre imaginem et s^ perscriptionem Dei, indeque omnia hominis in D.eum enasci oflicia. Quae sententia d.eprompta est ex Tertulliano, de idololatria cap. 15 : reddite imaginem Gaesaris Caesari, quae est in numo , et imaginem Dei Deo quae in homine est, ut Gaesari quidena pecuniam reddas, Deo temetipsum . Responsione m sapientissimam qua insicliae adeo callide structae plane elusae sint ipsi insidiatores non possunt non admirari
22:22
v. 22 et audientes miratisunt et relic to eo abierunt; qui credere debtierunt ad tantam sapientiam mirati suni quod calliditas eorum insidiandi non invenisset locum et abierunt infidelitatem cum miraculo pariter reportantes (5. Hier. Pasch.), et qui ad hoc venerant ut Christum caperent seipsos in suis sermonibus captos esse cognoscunt (S. Br.}. ft) Sadducaei quaerunt de resurrectione 22,^3-33. Sadducaei quaestione de resurrections Iesum aggredi et confundere tentant. Yerum Ghristus eos palam convincit quippe qui et Scripturas et Dei potentiam ignorent. Opinatur Fab. sadducaeos eiusmodi casu proposito pharisaeos expugiiasse et eorum de resurrectione doctrinam irrisioni tradidisse neque pharisaeos validas habuisse responsiones ; unde astu pharisaeorum submissos esse sadducaeos, ut Dominum eadem quaestione caperent ant certe (quod ipsis evenisset) silendi necessitatem ei iniicerent. De saddjicaeis vide quae dixi ad 3,7. Uno illo die Dominus impugnatur acriter. Eum impetunt synedristae 21,23; pharisaei sues subornant discipulos 22,16; dein
22:23
v. 23 in illo die accessentnt ad eum sadducaei qui dicunt non esse resurrectionem; secundum lectionem ta'yovTe? sine articulo explica : dicentes, accedunt ad Iesum et statim . coram ipso et turba circumf usa negant resurrectionem , quam soil, ut absurdam esse ostendant casum ilium de septem fratribus fingunt. Gum Matthaeus ludaeis scribens omnino supponere possit ac debeat sadducaeorum opinionem passim esse notam, non erat cur scriberet simili modo quo Marc. 12,19 (omve? 'Xe- Youffiv) et Luc. 20,27 01 ^eyovrs?. Sadducaei teste quoque losepho (Antiq. 18,1. 4) animas simul cum corpore interire docebant et animas permanere et supplicia apud inferos et praemia negabant (de belto iud. 2,8. 14); ceterum vide Act. 23,8. Ex lege leviratus Deut. 25,5 suam depromunt obiectionem : magister, fortasse ironice eum ita salutant quenl sperant fore ut haereat ; Moyses dixit : si quis mortuus fuerit non habens filitim Te'y.va (Deut. 25,5 : et filius ]2 non est ei r LXX <7TC6p(/.a ? quod recte dicitur, nam si filiam reliquerit, lex leviratus non obtinuit; cf. Num. 27,1 seq.), ut ducat frater eius uxorem illius, swtYa^peucrst , qua voce felici imitatione exprimitur hebr. D3^ (levirum egit, eius officio functus est i. e. fratris mortui uxorem duxit; cf. D3^ levir, yap.6po'<;). Praescriptio mosaica ad sensum fideliter refertur ; additur etiam quo quid lex sibi velit indicatur, et suscitet semen fratrisuo, id quod ex Gen. 38,8 ubi prima vice mentio fit eius consuetudinis depromptum est. Filius enim ex hoc matrimonio ortus censebatur illius qui sine prole defunctus erat; fuit quippe legis ratio, ne nomen illius deleretur de populo, fuit, ut Alb. dicit, memoria patrum quam in filiis remanere voluit Dominus et disfcinctio hereditatum. Ex hac itaque lege narrationem quandam confingunt et rem nunquam, ut puto, gestam comminiscuntur sperantes se ilium in angustias coniecturos esse volebantque confutare resurrectionem esse (5. Chrys.};
22:25
v. 25 erant autem apud nos septem fratres etc. septem eos supponunt, utmagis intricatum videatur problema (Euth.). Eos autem fabulam quandam (pOov, Orig.} consarcinasse et totum esse commentum (icXcfcajAoc) bene ostendit -S. Chrys, : neque enim tertius accepisset duos iam sponsos defunctos videns; si tamen tertius, certe non quartus nee quintus, multoque minus sextus efc Septimus, sed; uxorem suspectam habuissent; tales quippe sunt ludaei. Nam si multi nunc ita sunt affecti, multo magis tune temporis, quandoquidem hoc etiam.am.oto obice haec connubia.tunc fugiebant, etiamsi id lex prae-| ciperet; sic Ruth moabitis in remotiorem cognationis suae devoluta est . Opponunt turpitudinem fabulae, ut resurrectionis denegent veritatem (S. Hier.}, ideoque
22:28
v. 28 in resurrectione ergo cuius erit de, septem uxor, cuinam dabitur ilia in matrimonium? omnes enim ha-\ buerunt earn; ergo uni prae aliis dari esfc iniustum; omnibus septem! et turpissiinum etomnilegeprohibitum.Putabantigitur seinvenisse. acutissimam rationem, hoc modo apud se dicentes : sicut non est possibile, ut ea mulier quae fuit septem virorurn sit unius uxorprivata aut omnium communis, sic non estpossibile ut fiat resurrectio mortuorum (op. imp.} et ita putabant se posse Christum concludere (S. Pasch.}. Vide quae de Glaphyra narrat losephus (Ant. 17, 13, 1. 4 ; Bell. 2,7,4). Istud quippe tel urn erat quo pharisaeos expugnabant, at Domino minus fuit quam plumbeus pugio (Fab.}',
22:29
v. 29 respondens autem Iesus ait illis : erratis nescientes Scripturas neque mrtutem Dei,' non intelligitis Scripturas quae non talem qualem vos suspicamini resurrectionem decent; ignoratis virtutem Dei quae mortuos resuscitare potest sine prioribus habitibus et affectibus (Euth}.\ stulti qui saeculum illud huic saeculo simile existimabant ; in hoc saeculo quia morimur, ideo morimur quianascimur ; ideo uxores ducimus, ut quod moriendo minuitur nascendo suppleatur; tolle moriendi necessitatem et nascendi utilitas superflua invenitur ; tolle nascendi utilitatem et nubendi causa soluta est (op. imp.}. Illi enim non alium vivendi modum comprehendebant nisi quern in hac terra videbant sc. comedendo, bibendo, generando; non cogitabanjt virtutem Dei i. e. Deuni posse corpora humana transmutare in gloriam impassibilitatis sine cibo, potu etc. (Cai.}. Duos fontes erroris assignat : nescientes Scrip- , turas quae aniniarn esse immortalem decent, quae rfesurrectionem \ quoque corporum indicant (cf. lob 19,25-27. Is. 26,19. Ez. 37,3 seq. Dan. 12,2) et quae illam vitam post mortem apud Deum aeternam ac beatam describunt, proinde satis aliam quam quae hisce in terris est (cf. Ps. 15,11; 48,16; Is. 35,10; 51,6 etc.); nescientes virtutem Dei, alias intellexissent Deum nobis facillime vitam dpnare posse longe aliam atque earn quam nunc agimus. Duo.haec v. 30. 31 declarantur. Et prius quidem qualem mutationem corporum gloriosam Dei virtus sit effectura exponit
22:30
v. 30 in resurrectione enim neque nubent negue nubentur; i. e. simul cum resurrectione vel quando corpus mortuum ad novam vitam suscitatur, alia plane vitae eius forma et ratio exsistit; ibi iam nulla erunt connubia ; sed erunt siciit angeli Dei in -coelo; sicut angeli cum sint spiritus puri nulla ineunt connubia, ita corporibus illis glorificatis ac spiritualibus (1 Cor. 15,44) iam nullus inesse potest coniugii appetitus. De verbis nota : latina consuetude graeco idiomati non respondet; nubere enim proprie dicuntur mulieres, et viri uxores dticere; sed nos simpliciter dictum intelligamus , quod nubere de viris et nubr de uxoribus scriptum sit (S. Hier.}\ ceterum nubere de viris etiam apud profanos scriptores saepius dicitur. Explica ex graeco : sicut angeli in coelo sunt i. e. vitam in coelo degunt, vitam ergo coelestem agunt sicut angeli ; ita in coelo iungi posse iam vidit Salmeron et videtur praeferendum , quia vita eorum coelestis statim significatur. Comparatio autem inducitur ut ostendatur beatos ab omni commercio coniugali longissime abesse. Id enim quo efiicacius exprimatur non invenies nisi ea comparatione angelorum qui puri spiritus cum exsistant natura sua a materia sunt remotissimi. Et quia sadducaei ad irridendum adeo crasse sibi fingebant resurrectionem , Christus consulto earn vitae novae formam quam maxime spiritualem et ab appetitu et desideriis carnis alienissimam effert. Quare simul apparet quid ex comparatione non sit colligendum. Non est colligendum angelos quoque corpus habere tenue, aethereum, coelesfce, uti eos habere volunt veteres aliqui et recentiores quidam protestantes (Meyer, Weiss); neque inferri potest fore corpora beatorum sine discrimine sexus. Hanc sexus diversitatem aliqui negabant, uti S. Hll. Orig. etteste S. Augustino (de civ, D. 22, 17) eo tempore multi, quosdpse tamen strenue impugnat. At dicendum est cum S. Hier. : quando dicit sicut angeli, non natura et substantia corporum tollitur, sed gloriae magnitudo monstratur; neque enim scriptum est erunt angeli, sed sicut angeli; ubi similitude promittitur, veritas denegatur. Erunt, inquit, sicut angeli, i. e. similes ange- lorum ; ergo homines esse non desinent ; inclyti quidem et angelico splendore decorati, sed tamen homines, ut et apostolus apostolus sit et Maria Maria (ep. 73,2; M. 22,683) et : non substantiam nobis angelorum, sed conversationem et beatitudinem Dominus repromittit (ep. 108,22; M. 22,900 quo loco sexuum diversitatem servari in resurrectione pluribus propugnat). . Ad sadducaeorum cavillationem declarandam inserviunt quae Wetstein ad tiunc locum affert : Maimonides statuit homines post resurrectionem cibo et potu usuros et liberorum generationi operam daturos esse; quia sapiens architectus nihil frustra faciat necesse esse ut membra corporis non sint otiosa sed ministeriis suis defungantur. Saadia : quaeritur an post resurrectionem homines cibo et potu sint usuri et uxores ducturi ? ita statuo : sicut filius viduae sareptanae quem Creator per Eliam suscitavit, et films Sunamitidis quem Deus per Elisam excitavit a mortuis, ederunt et biberunt.et sine dubio uxores duxerunt etc." In libro Sohar : mulier ilia quae duobus nupsit in hoc mundo, priori restituitur in mundo future . Melius statuitur in tractatu talmudico berachoth : Raf ilia verba frequenter in ore habuit : in mundo futuro non .edent neque bibent. neque generabunt liberos, non exercebunt commercia ; non est ibi invidia neque odium neque rixa, sed iusti sedebunt coronis cincti et delectabunt se splendore maiestalis divinae (cf. Wetstein, Wunsche p. 265). Huic autem effato et aliis compluribus quae recitat Wetstein alia opponuntur quibus vita in mundo futuro modo satis crasso depingitur et fore generationem liberorum , cibos ex leviathan et behemoth paratos etc. ; vide Weber, System der altsynagogalen palaest. Theologie p. 402 seq. Neque improbabile est eiusmodi opiniones rudiores etiamtempore Ghristi multis fuisse familiares. Nam cum Ghristus dixisset : retribuetur tibi in resurrectione iustorum, quidam de simul discumbentibus haec audiens dixit Ghristo : beatus qui manducabit panem in regno Dei (Luc. 14,14. 15). Et in libro Sohar dicitur : mulier quae duobus nupsit in hoo mundo, priori restituitur in futuro. Exposita virtute Dei quae cernitur in vita beatorum coelesti et angelis.simili Christus uno exemplo verbisque notissimis ostendit sadducaeos errare nescientes Scripturas (cf. -S. Pasch. Cai,}
22:31
v. 31 de resurrectione autem mortuorum non legistis quod dictum est a Deo dicente vobis : v. 3"2 ego sum Deus Abraham et Deus Isaac et Deus lacob? non est Deus mortuorum sed viventium ; quaerunt aliqui cur Ghristus eos nonconvincat ex locis clarioribus; nam, ut S. Hier. elicit, multo manifestioribus exemplis uti potuit; et rationem inde repetit quod sadducaei tantum quinque libros Moysis receperint prophetarum vaticinia respuentes ; stultum ergo erat inde proferre testimonia, cuius auctoritatem non seqtiebantur . Eos solum leg-em mosaicam recepisse multi pariter arbitrantur (cf. Orig. Hil. Pasch. Alb. Fab. Salmewn, Cai. lans. Lap. Lamy , Calm.), sed recentiores hanc opinationem merito reliquerunt. Ex iis quae losephus refert solum constat eos traditiones et explicationes pharisaeorum reiecisse. Sed aliquid veri illi opinion! inest eo quod libros Moysis tamquam normam et regulamfidei et morum omnino completam et perfectam considerabant; unde cum in iis doctrinam resurrectionis non reperirent statuerunt illam etiam apud prophetas non posse exprimi, verum omnes locos esse alio sensu, sensu metaphorico, intelligendos. Alii existim ant Christum respondisse ex libris Moysis quia illi legem mosaieam adhibuerint ad resurrectionis doctrinam explodendam .(Euth. Theoph. lans.}. Quo autem magis eorum ignoratio Scripturarum pateat,~Christus videtur selegisse verba ilia quae notissima erant et quae a ludaeis merito considerabautur tamquam magnum gentis iudaicae praeconium. Detis enim hisce sese profitetur speciali ratione Deum progenitorum populi , proinde ipsi pbpulo hac appellatione magna accedit laus et dignitas. Ea quippe voce Deus se profitetur protectorem , defensorem, dominum, benefactorem , remuneratorem (Calm. Ldmy) brevi omne bonum et summum bonum illorum. Verba deprompta siint ex Ex. 3,6; vocantur dicta vobis (graece), quia sacra Scriptura non est solum liber narrationum rerum gestarum sed est verbum Dei loquentis per scriptorem ad omnes , ut omnes erudiantur et doceantur et ad omnem virtu tern admoneantur (cf. 2 Tim. 3,16). Haec eadem verba repetit Deus Ex. 3,15 etc. et addit : hoc nomen mihi est in aeternum et hoc memoriale meum in generationem et generationem. lam vero Deus non est Deus (sese communicans , boua largiens , . servans promissa) mortuorum sedviventium; autigitur Deuseorum Deus est qui sunt; aut eorum qui non sunt; absurdum est autem Deum qui dixit : ego sum qui sum , horum e'sse Deum pronuntiare qui neutiquam sunt, quod si illud absurdum est, eorum profecto Deus est qui sunt et qui vivunt et qui exsistunt (Oeo? u<peGTY]x,oTcov) quique beneficium a Deo in se collatum sentiunt (Orig.). Proxime itaque sequitur Abraham, Isaac , lacob adhuc exsistere et vivere et cum Deus eo nomine se Deum populi Israel declaret etiam eos exsistere et vivere qui iam e populo mortui sunt. Proxime itaque docetur et sequitur corporibus mortuis superstites esse animas ,- animas esse immortales (cf. S. Hier. Pasch. Thorn. Fab. Cai.}. At hie est mitiime sistendum. Probatur enim etiam ipsa resurrectio. Na.m sadducaei negabant resurrectionem solum propterea quia negabant animam post mortem remanere; apud ludaeos autem doctrina de animae immortalitateintime copulata erat cum doctrina de resurrectione. Hae duae doctrinae pro una eademque habebantur, id quod etiam ex 2 Mach. 12,43-46 colligitur (cf. Cai. lans. Maid. Arn. Schegg, Fi7.)..Gnm enim Deus mortern non fecerit, sed hominem creaverit immortalem , merito poterat concludi , Deum qui veniam peccatorum concedit etiam id quod per peccatum inductum sit ablaturum et proinde etiam mortem deleturum i. e. mortuos ad novam vitam corporalem et immortalem revocaturum esse. Mors est poena peccati; morte id violenter separatur quod secundum Dei voluntatem in creatione primi hominis manifestatam debuit manere coniunctum in perpetuum. lam vero Deus suis promittit veniam peccatorum , proinde ablationem quoque poenae aliquando futuram ; insuper cogitari nequit Deum permittere, ut opus suum quod creatione intendit per invidiam diaboli mortem invehentis in perpetuum et in omnibus pessumdetur. Ita ex prima Dei institutione explicatur immortalitatem animae et corporum resurrectionem intime apud ludaeos esse colligatam atque coniunctam. Aliis etiam modis argumentationem Christi consistere interpretes osteudere student. Et S. Hier. quidem.ait : ad aeternitatem animarum probandam de Moyse ponit exemplum , ut cum probaverit animas permanere post mortem (neque enim poterat fieri ut eorum esset Deus qui nequaquam subsisterent) , consequenter introduceretur et corporum resurrectio quae cum animabus bona malave gesserunt ; eodemque modo etiam arguit Alb. : argument! vis est in hoc quod si Deus est servorum, debet remunerare eos in quo servierunt opere iustitiae; servierunt autem in corpore, remunerabuntur igitur in corpore;... corpus in agendo cum anima est unum compositum cum ea, ideoque plus est quam instrumentum ; oportet igitur ut resurgat ; similiter lans. Calm. Alii arguunt ex inclinatione animae ad corpus; ita S. Thorn. : si anima remanet, ergo et resurrectio, quia naturaliter anima inclinatur ad corpus. Quam rationem alii exaggerant dicentes si haec inclinatio non satiaretur animam fore in statu violento , neque perfectam animae felicitatem consistere posse quamdiu sit a corpore separata (Cai. lans.}, quae tamen ratio certe non est nimium urgenda ne quid falsi inde consequatur. Ex ipsis nominibus Abraham etc. etiam argumentum ducitur, animam enim Abraham non esse proprie loquendo ipsum Abraham sed partem eius, ergo ut Deus sit pleno sensu Deus Abraham viventis, exigi vitam totius compositi *, ergo ibi contineri promissionem resurrectionis (cf. Salmeron, torn. 8 tract. 61). Vim argumenti Maid, in eo reponit quod Deus foeclus percussit cum Abraham etc. et foectus illud servare velit quia illi adhuc vivant et quotidie Deum sollicitent, ut foedus in sua posteritate impleat; solemtis enim foedera non mortuis servare sed vivis, quia non inter mortuos sed inter vivos feriri solent. Video quid responderi possit, si . quis subtilitates quaerat ; sed considerandum est voluisse Christum non omnino necessarium , sed tarn probabile argumentum afferre quam ad coarguendos sadducaeos satis esset. Nam et hae ratione impudentiam eorum et arrogantiam compressit, quod cum Scripturam irridentes adduxissent , quasi Christus se expedire ab ilia quaestione non posset quam proponebant , docuerit eos adeo obtusos et indoctos esse , ut nee ad minimum quidem argumentum ex eodem Moyse ad probandam resurrectionem adductum respondere possent . Ita ille ; quern si nonnemo hie aliquantulum dormitasse dixerit, nonobsistam. Num enim qui non sit obtusus et indoctus ostendere poterit hoc argumentum Christi rem non confiqere et ita ad minimum hoc argumentum respondere? Ex foedere inito etiam Lap. vim argument! deducit et insuper addit eos a Christo resurgente a morte suscitatos et cum, Christo triumphante in coelum traductos. Secundum S. Chrys. Dens dicitur Deus viventium, quia sicut Adam licet viveret qua die manducavit de ligno, sententia prolata mortuus est,. sic isti, .licet mortui essent, ex promissione resurrectionis vivebant ; ipse aliique (Euth. Theoph. Cai. Maid. Salm.} etiam multum insistunt quod dicatur : ego sum Deus Abraham, et non : ego eram. Fortasse vis argument! etiam aliter concipi potest. Finge sadducaeos ad negandam animae immortalitatem et resurrectionem iactasse illud Deum non esse Deum inortuorum , sed Deum viventium i. e. nullibi dici eum curam habere inortuorum, iis providisse bona; verum promissiones minasque legis a Deo semper proponi viventibus ; turn Christus optime uti poterat hac ipsorum assertione, ut eos adducto nomine Dei Abraham et Isaac et lacob ex ipsorum ore ignorantiae et erroris turpis argueret, cum ipsis fatentibus Deus sit Deus viventium. Argumenti vim et perspicuitatem sadducaei percipiunt ; irrisoribus os obstruitur nee habent quod reponant; statim spargitur rumor iis esse silentium impositum a Christo (v. 34) ; docendi et probandi modum turbae quoque magnopere admirantur ; ergo utrisque argumen- ' turn erat irrefragabile ;
22:33
v. 33 et audientes turbae mirabantur in doctrina eius, e^eTyV/fccrovTo obstupescebant , admiratione quasi stupore perculsi. Modo enim adeo facili , perspicuo , efficaci illis os obstruxit et turbis resurrectionis doctrinam ex ipsa Dei notione clare proposuit. CensetJ./^. propterturbas quae aderant Christum solvisse quaestionem, quia aliter sanctum non dedisset canibus nee margaritas sparsisset ante porcos . Sadducaei enim non adierunt eum ut discerent, sed ut eum confunderent si possent frivole doctrinam resurrectionis impugnantes et irridentes. In. eo ijuoque aliorum sunt antecessores quod prius dqctrinam absurdam sibi confmgtmt et turn absupdam doctrinam irrisioni exponunt et convelhmt existimantes se praeclaralir reportasse victoriam. r) Quaestio de mandate magno et Ghristo filio David. 2,34-4S. Quaestione d,e magno in lege mandate proposita pliarisaei denuo teniantlesum capere in sermone; respondet Christus mandate dilectionis Dei et proximi recitato tamquam omnium mandatorum summa et line. Ipse vero interrogation de Christo filio et .domino David adversaries confimdit et ab ulterioribus cavillandi insidiis deterret. Pliarisaei et sadducaei , inter se contrarii, ad tentandum Iesum pari rnente consentiunt; erant illi quidem supra iam in ostensione denarii con f titati et a Jveisae partis factionem videntes subrutam debuerunt exemplo moneri, ne ultra molirentur insidias; sed malevolentia et livor nutrit impudentiam (S. Hier.}. Immo clade sadducaeorum stimulantur ut denuo insidias Christo struant, ut eius apud plebem auctoritatem , quae modo admiratioue plebis v. 33 aucta videbatur, imminuerent;
22:34
v. 34 pharisaei autem audientes quod silentium im- ^posuisset sadducaeiSj s^i^wcevproprie; capistro osobturasset (cf. Deut. 25,4. 1 Cor. 9,9. 1 Tim. 5,18), non quasi iis silentium imperasset, sed quia non habebant quid replicarent, convenerunt in unum, uno loco congregati sunt, ut deliberarent soil, qua ratione et qua forte qiiaestione Christo negotium facesserent. Quid ilia consultatione effec - turn sit, statim docemurT.
22:35
35 et interrogavit eum units ex eis legis doctor, tentans eum, vopt.ix.os semel hoc loco apud S. Matthaeum, saepius apud S. Lucam; vi vocis spectata VOJAWCO? est iuris peritus , doctus in lege; ypa[^aTeu<; scriba, 13b Scripturae peritus; at re ipsa utrumque vocabulum idem hominum genus designat, uti patet , quia idem dicitur el? Toiv ypa^aTewv Marc. 12,28 et quia Luc. 11,53 dicuntur ypa^aTet's qui v. 52 appellati sunt vop.uoi 1 . Idque eo minus mirum videri potest , quia scribae fere unice occupabantur in lege explicanda et applicanda, ita ut eorum studium Scripturae unice. fere lege contineretur et quia nomine legis quandoque Scriptura sacra generatim appellabatur (cf. loan. 10,37; 15,25; etiam 7,49 et 12, 34; 1 Cor. 14,21). Secundum narrationem Marc. 12,32.33 iste legis doctor responsione a Christo accepta laudat Christum et ab ipso quoque audit, quia sapienter responderit : non eslonge a regno Dei. Hoc autem loco dicitur accedere tentans Iesum, ergo, utt videtur, ad captandam occasionem calumniae "(S. Hier. Rab. Pasch.}, animo malo et perverse (Fit.}]' mittitur quippe a pharisaeis. Quare aliqui protestantes de discrepantia et diversitate utriusque narrationis clamores tollunt (of. Weiss). At nisi quis perfracte apud se statuerit evafcgelistas debere inter se dissidere,.haud difficulter apparens dissensio poterit removeri. Quod tentans accessisse dicitur, aliqui explicant , quia cum ipse nihil mali intenderit , a pharisaeis subornatus sit ad quaestionem ponendam ; quam sententiam iam indicat S. Pasch. eamqiie proponunt Sylv. Schanz. Quae tamen ad Treipa^wv vix accommodari potest, quod dici deberet ex mente pharisaeorum , ita ut ipse diceretur tentans quia ad hoc inscius mitteretur ab aliis. Quod durum videtur, quia tentans ad verbum refertur sensu obvio. Unde alii interpretantur sensu bono vel saltern indifferent! : experimentum capiens, explorans, experiri volens sincere scientiam Christi, eo modo quo retina Sabae dicatur venisse raipacat, tentare Salomonem (3 Reg. 10,1; Lamy}\ quam opinionem iam indicat S. Aug. : aut certe ipsam tentationem non accipiamus malam tamquam decipere volentis inimicum , sed cautam potius, tamquam experiri amplius volentis ignotum (decons. evang. 2,73.141). Subtilius Lap. : hie licet fmgeret coram pharisaeis se velle Iesum irretire et capere , tamen in animo suo cupiebat experiri et audire quid Iesus ad quaestionem hanc tarn difficilem , in qua ij>se dubius haerebat, esset responsurus; cupiebat ergo a Iesu docefi . Verum difficile est hoc loco tentans accipere notione bona. Cum enim pharisaei propterea dicantur convenisse et deliberasse , quia audierunt sadducaeos ad silentium esse redactos, eos malo in Christum animo convenisse eique insidias praeparasse manifestum est et v. 15 quoque liquet. Iam vero immediate subiungitur tamquam quod illo in conventu sit statutum et effectum, et interrogavit eum units ex eis tentans eum; tali autem designatione units ex eis et tali nexu non potest tentans accipi sensu bono. Quare cum plerisque dicendum erit, quod habet S. Chrys. : interrogavit tentans a principle , a responsione autem aliquid nactus utilitatis , laudatus est , et quod etiam proponit S. Aug. : fieri enim potest , ut quam vis tentans accesserit, Domini tamen responsione correctus sit (1. c.; similiter Theoph. Euth. Pasch. Thorn. Dion. S aimer on, Sylv.}. Unus dies, dicit auctor op. imp., et multa certamina; recedebant sadducaei et iterum accedebant pharisaei ; frequentabant enim super eum tali forte consilio , ut quis aut comprehendere eum posset , aut si certe eum ratione superare non posset, vel per ipsam frequentationem subverteret sensum ipsius (op. imp.}] sed idem advertit his interrogationibus ludaeos sibi quidem interitum acquisivisse, nobis autem pro- "vidisse salutem, utilia sell, nobis procurasse documenta; v..
22:36
36 magister, quod est mandatum magnum in lege? ex iis, quae ex targumim et talmud aliisque afferuntur a Schoettgen, Wetstein, Wimsche, apparet rabbinos distinxisse praecepta magna et parva"(c/. Wetstein etiam ad 5,19); numerabant enim sexcenta et tredecim mandata (cf . Surenhusitis, p. IV pag. 291) quae dividebantur in praecepta 248 et in 365 prohibitiones (ilia aequare volebant ossa in corpore humano, has vero anni dies); iam .ut decernerent quae sint magna et gravia (niTian), quae parva et levia (niSp),. alii alias statuebant normas. Quaestio proposita duplici modo potest intelligi; rcota svioV/i quale mandatum magnum in lege, vel : quales conditiones, qualia adiuncta necessaria sunt, ut aliquod mandatum in lege reputetur magnum et grave (Am. Scheggr, Bisp., Schanz, Meyer, Weiss) vel : quale mandatum est prae ceteris magnum, i. e. maximum et priihum in lege; nam TCOMC, uti ex 19,18 patet, non necessario ita oportet urgere, uti fit in priore acceptioiie. Iam ex responsione Christ! et ex Marc. 12,28 Trota ecrflv evroXvi TrptoTvi TT^VTWV, oportet concludi vel utramque quaestionem esse positam, ita ut S. Matthaeus rem solum innuat magis quam explicite narret, vel verba legis doctoris esse explicanda altero niodo quo apnd S. Marctim quoque quaestio refertur. Utrocumque sensu verba conceperis, tentatio in eo est, ut Ghristus qnidqnid respondeat necessario videatur debere oppugnare imam alteramve ex variis rabbinorum opinionibus ac sententiis; unde facile cavillationibus aperiretur porta. Si enim quaeritur quae conditiones requirantur ut aliquod mandatum censeatur magnum , varia possunt in considerationem venire, vel antiquitas, ita ut sabbatum antecedat circumcisionem , vel modus promulgationis, qui quo sollemnior sit eo magis mandati excellentiam suadeat, vel res ipsa praecepta (Schegg] vel sanctio et poena transgressoribus posita mercesque obedientibus promissa etc. Ex exemplis quae afferuntur facile coniici potest quaestionem illam fuisse captiosam et potuisse exspectari quodcumque demum respondeatur posse sine ullo negotio impugnari. Nam v. g. magnum est praeceptumde zizith (de fimbriis vestium) ; manus pedesque mundissime habeto , nam certe hoc praeceptum parvum non est; procreatio prolis est praeceptum magnum ( Wetstein ad 5,19). Iesus vero pro sua sapientia ita respondet ut cuique manifestuin sit responsionem nulla ratione posse oppugnari et ut quisqne fateri cogatur id esse revera mandatum omnium maximum et dignitate primum;
22:37
v. 37 ait illi Iesus : diliges Dominum (in hebr. lahve) Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo, hebr. et graece in toto corde tuo, et in tota anima tua et in tota mente tua, Deut. 6,5 tertium membrum : in iota fortitudine tua. lam Alb. monek diligere distingui a verbo amandi, quod dicat affectum etiam ceteris animalibus communem ; ita ayarcav est magni facere , cpO^tv affectum amoris corde et sensu percipere ; quare illud de amore spiritual! potissimum usurpatur. Cor Hebraeis dicit affectum et intellectum , ut bene notat lans.; anima ursj, quae sedem suam in sanguine habere concipitur, baud raro notat concu-, piscentiam; tertium ^tavoia totam cogitandi sentiendique rationem complectitur, ita ut si minus vi vocis, at reipsa respondeat tertio membro Deut. 6,5, ut scil. Deus diligatur, omni fortitudine. Vix optis est tria haec subtilius distinguere; sed in singularum partium enii- 1 meratione magna quaedam inest 7is ac significatio , qua affectus summus et integerrimus exprimitur. Nullam vitae nostrae partem reliquit, ' ait S. Aug. (de doctr. christ. 1,22; M. 34,27), quae vacare debeatet quasi locum dare ut alia re velit frui; sed quidquid aliud diligendumj venerit in animum , illuc rapiatur quo totus dilectionis impetus currit; vel ut Victor antiochenus notat ad Marc. 12,30, verbis iis common-, strari hominem tanto Dei amore flagrare debere , ut nihil prorsus in ullam animae facultatem irrepere sinat quod suam erga Deum dilectionem excludat aut diminuat aut alio transferat (cf. Arn.} vel, ut auctor op. imp. ait, ut cor tuum non sit inclinatum ad ullius rei' dilectionem amplius quam ad Dei, nee delecteris in aliqua specie mundi amplius quam in Deo. Illis partibus enumeratis unum illud inculcari censet Salmeron, ut nihil contra Deum, nihil supra Deum, nihil aeque ac Deum , sed sub Deo et infra Deum et propter Deum reliqua diligamus. Sic itaque in Deum tamquam summum bonum; affectu et voluntate ferri debemus, ut eum praeponamus omnibus rebus commutabilibus eumque pro supremo vitae fine eligamus qui-! biislibet carere malentes quam Deo (lans.}. omnium tuarum cogitationum, actionum, amorum, ipsumque ut summum bonum finemque ultimum rebus omnibus praeferas et anteponas, et consequenter appretiative , ut nihil ita aestimes tantoque loco ac pretio habeas quanto habes Deum, ac proinde ut totum cor, i. e. voluntatem applices, ut tota et omnia eius praeeepta impleas eique per omnia obedias , etiamsi propterea opes , honores , famam , amicitiam vitamque ipsam perdere debeas , Varia de hoc mandate, sitne speciale vel generate, et de eius impletione etiam pertractat lans. in cap. 81 comment, in concord, evang. Legisperitum , si omnino interrogavit quae conditiones requirantur ut mandatum censeatur magnum , id non unice interrogasse , verum quale mandatum sit inter omnia magnum, elucet uti ex Marc. 12, 28, ita ex verbis Ghristi
22:38
v. 38 hoc est maximum, graece magnum, iure seH. praecipuo , quodprae aliisillud magnum y [j^y.\n appellari debet , . et primum mandatum dignitate et amplitudine qua hominis in Deum officia comprehenduntur;
22:39
v. 39 secundum autem dignitate et gravitate officiorum simile est hide : diliges proximiim tuum sicut te ipsum; haec verba petuntur ex Lev. 19,18; vide quae dicta sunt ad 5,43. Dicitur simile priori, quoniam est dilectio hominis qui factus est secundum imaginem Dei (Orig. op. imp. Alb. Thorn. Fab. Dion.}. Homo itaque factus secundum similitudinem Dei propter Deum diligi debet ; dilig-enda est in eo imag-o ac similitudo Dei quam animus habet naturaliter et ad quam altiore et eminentiore gradu supernaturaliter habendam a Deo vocatur. Dicitur porro simile, non aequale, quia post Deum jnter omnes res creatas prae omnibus diligendus est proximus affectu, actibus, officiis; dein quia utrumque est de dilectione et actus uter.que procedit ab eodem habitu et tendit in idem obiectum, soil. Deum;nam quia Deus diligitur, diligitur etiam proximus, ut Dei opus (cf. Tost. qu. 278 in cap. 22; Sylv.}. Proximum autem diliges sicut teipsum i. e. ut proximo omnia quae optamus nobis optemus, .ut etim propter Deum dilig-amus, ut nos ipsos, et eo affectu quo nos diligimus (Maid.}. Hanc dilectionis regulam iam exposuit Christus 7,12 : omnia quaecumque vultis ut faciant vobis homines et vos facite illis; et S. Aug. illud sicut explanans scribit : ea autem est regula dilectionis , ut quae sibi vult bona provenire et illi velit, et quae accidere sibi mala non vult et illi nolit; hanc voluntatem erga omnes homines servat (de vera religione, 46, 87; M. 34,161). Ostenditur quare sint maxima mandata (Alb.}
22:40
v. 40 in his duobus mandatis -universa lex pendet et prophetae; vide ad 7, 12; nam duo haec mandata ita inter se cohaerent et copulantur et continent omnia alia mandata (Theoph.)] finis enim praecepti est caritas (1 Tim. 1,5); plenitude legis est dilectio (Rom. 13,10) et si quod est mandatum, in hoc verbp instauratur i. e. summatim comprehenditur et quasi in compendio proponitur : diliges proximum tuum sicut teipsum (Rom. 13,9). Lex et prophetae hie dicuntur quatenus praecepta ad mores pertinentia continent; pendent, ad quam imaginem vide Is. 22,23-25; omnia reliqua mandata hisce innituntur et hisce fulciuntur et in tuto sunt et firmiter consistunt, quamdiu duo ilia loco non moventur. Ad haec duo eriim totus pertinet decalogus (Rab.}; qui enim peccat, ut S.'Br. dicit, aut in Deum peccat, aut in seipsum aut in proximum ; qui vero praedicto dilectionis rnodo Deum et proximum diligit, quomodo eos offendat quos tantopere diligit? nam et in se peccare timet, ne in hoc quoque Deum offendat. Si igitur in his duobus mandatis caritas adimpletur et omnia peccata tolluntur, manifestum est in eis universam legem pendere et prophetas. Pendent autem reliqua omnia ex iis docente Alb. sicut ex movente et forma et fine ; ilia quippe dilectio movet ad alia observanda, omnibus operibus tribuit sacram quandam form am, meritum, consecration em, et cuncta alia ad idtendunt, utilla dilectio acquiratur et retineatur (cf. S. Thorn. Cai.). Omnia ad ilia duo ordinantur et in eis continentur. Quemadmodum ergo conclusiones virtualiter continentur in primis principiis, sic omnia praecepta virtualiter continentur in praeceptis caritatis ; nam sicut se habent prima principia in speculativis , ita se habent praecepta caritatis in lege (Dion. Lap.}. Si itaque haec duo salva consistunt, omnia bene ordinata sunt et homo talis est qiialis ex voluntate Dei reyelata esse debet. Qui enim Deum eo modo diligit , omnia observabit quae a Deo praecepta esse cognoverit. Ergo ea dilectione cuncta alia fulciuntur ; si earn sustuleris, iam reliqua quoque mandata seponuntur,, parvi penduntur, corruunt. Cum hie legis doctor a pharisaeis suboniatus esset ad iesum tentandum, ipsi pharisaei, dum rem suam Christo proponeret, eliam accesserunt ut viderent quern exitum res habitura esset et certe sperantes fore ut Iesus quidquam responderet quod carpere possent. At plane aliter evenit; qui ad tentandum Iesum fuerant congregati et veritatem fraudulenta interrogation e capere nitebantur, occasionem praebuerunt confusionis suae (S. Hier. Rab. Thorn.}. Cum itaque interea, dum ilia pertractarentur v. 36-40, pharisaei accesserint, pergitur
22:41
v. 41 co'ngregatis autem pharisaeis interrogavit eos Iesus
22:42
v. 42 dicens : quid vobis videtur de Christo , cuius filius est? dicunt ei : David j Messiam enim ex stirpe et familia David clebere venire , plurima prophetarum testimonia et ipsa verba Davidis (2 Reg. 23,3-5 hebr.) clare enuntiant et erat exspectatio ac sententia omnino pervulgata (loan. 7,42). Verum, ut docemur etiam psalmo 17 salomonico, exspectabatur filius David ^ qui fhronum David iterum erig'eret et dominatores iniustos (Romanos) contereret, urbem sanclam'pnrgaret a gentibus et gentes subiicerei (vide in proleg. vol. I p. 15). Christus autem hac sua quaestione pharisaeos convincit quod parum sciant de Messia; ita eos confundit quidem, at simul iis offertur opportunitas si vellent perveniendi ad me~ liorem oraculi prophetic! intelligentiam ;. quare v. 43 ait ittis : quomodo ergo David in spiritu i. e. cum Dei spiritu plenus esset, cum non suo qui falli mentirique posset, sed Dei spiritu qui nee falli nee mentiri poterat , loqueretnr (Maid.}, David itaque tamquam propheta, spiritu prophetico dixit; ev 7cveu(/.aTt cf. 2 Petr. 1,21 : spiritu sancto inspirati ((pspojjievoi) locuti sunt sancti Dei homines ; vocat eum Dominum dicens :
22:44
v. 44 dixit Dominus (lahve) Domino meo i^vh : sede a dextris meis, donee ponam inimicos tuos scabellum (LXX UTUOTO^OV ; cf. lect. var.) pedum tuonim? ex qua quaestione duo constant, psalmum habitum fuisse messiamim et David eius psalmi auctorem. Si enim de alterutro vel le-vissima dubii umbra exstitisset, pharisaei certe non obmutuissent ; praesertim si Davidem auctorem psalmi esse in dubmm potuissent ullo modo revocare, facillime laqueum a Iesu iis paratum effug-issent. Censerit aliqui his destrui originem Messiae davidicam! Ghristns enim arguit
22:45
v. 45 si ergo David vocat eum Dominum, quomodo filius eius est? et David ita dicit in spiritu, ergo impulsu divino , cum ipse spiritu Dei plenus maioreni habeat dignitatem et excellentiam, quam ulla dignitas regia conferre posset, eum vocat suum dominum; David igitur cum ipse sit exaltatus ultra omnem eminentiam humanam, Messiae tantum tribuit honoris, ut eum agnoscat et proilteatur suum dominum : quomodo ergo filius eius est? talis soil, filius solummodo qualem eum fingunt, quint filius mere humanus thronum patris pccupet et regnum davidicum denuo suscitet. Christus autem prae aliis locis messianis hunc psalmum selegit , quia in eo Messias ut sacerdos describitur; proinde alia omnino notio Messiae eiusque operis messiani docetur, notio soil, expiationis peccatorum et reconciliationis cum Deo. Exhibetur sedens ad dexteram Dei in gloria, dum hisce in terris inimici eius eum oppugnant, donee tandem a Deo prorsus subiiciuntur. Hisce itaque notio Messiae conditoris regni temporalis destruitur. Christus autem earn ponens quaestionem , ut pharisaeos coram turbis confundit , ita certe etiam se ostendit paratum ad eos docendos , si vellent doctrinam ab eo accipere quern magna simulatione per discipulos suos magistrum veracem (v. 16) salutabant. Id contextu innui Weiss utique negat! At miiiime a Iesu quidquam accipere et discere volunt
22:46
v. 46 et nemo poterat c'i respondere verbum; existimat Schegg eos potuisse quidem respondere, Messiam maiorem esse Davicle, maiorem quam Abraham, et idcirco a David vocari dominum; intellexisse eos etiam Iesum noluisse ut responderent de filio David, verum Iesum cogitasse de Messia filio Dei et pharisaeos facile potuisse respondere Messiam esse filium Dei, sed noluisse ita respondere, quia si Messiam filium Dei profiterentur, se ipsos illaqueassent ; eositaque maluisse respondere eum esse filium David , quia Iesus minime id fecisset eousque quod a filio David communi exspectatione'sperabatur. Sed cum explicite dicatur nemo poterat, audacius videtur id ab interprets mutari in : nemo voluit quamquam facile potuit respondere. Verum miseri ludaei ,. ut S. Aug. dicit (inPs. 109 n, 6), malueruntinflata taciturnitate disrumpi, quam humili confessione edoceri. Exinde tacuerunt et tarn gravem excepere plagam, ut npn ultra eadem aggredi auderent (S. Ghrys.}', neque ausus fuit quisquam ex ilia die eum amplius interrogdre ; Christus sua sapientiaillorum impudentiam vicit et prostravit. Expert! enim erant satis superque, quomodo dum eum capere vellent in sermone, ipsi caperentur et coram turbis confunderentiir.crescente populi admiratione de doctrina et sapientia Iesu. Ergo plane contrarium evenire cernebant eius quod moliebantur. Unde desistunt; idvero turbis non parum utile erat; ideoque ad multitudinem deinceps sermonem Iesus convertit amotis lupis et eorum insidiis reiectis (S. Gkrys.}; nam qui mari terminum posuit, ipse audaciae diaboli adversus se agentis', quando voluit, tune finerti posuit ( (o/?. imp.}. Narrat S. Hier. Itidaeos posteriores ad deludendam interrogationis veritatem frivola multa confinxisse; psalmum scriptum esse ex persona servi Abraham, ita ut servus Abraham post caedem quinque regum (Gen. 14,15 seq.) dixerit : dixit lahve domino meo (Abraham) : sede etc. ; quam explicationem S. Hier. ex reliquis quae in psalmo dicuntur exagitat. Etiam Terlullianus mentionem facit ludaeos psalmum hunc de Ezechia rege explicare , de quo dictum sit : sede a dextris meis , quia ad dexteram templi habitaverit (c. Marc. 5,9; M. 2,492) atque S. lustinus quoque ait psalmum hunc de Ezechia a ludaeis exponi (c. Tryph. n. 33; M. 6,545). Alias ludaeorum acceptiones referunt Agellius in Ps. 109, Maid., quas recensere nihil iuvat. Neque tamen desunt alia testimonia quibus constat hunc psalmum etiam tempore post Christum a ludaeis de Messia esse expositumi plura affert Ed. II p. 721 ex targum, ex midrasch ad Ps. 2. 18, ex hereschith rabba, ialcut etc. ; alia quoque leguntur apud Galatinum, de arcanis catholicae veritatis, Basileae 1550 p. 117. 146. 549. 610. 661; vide quoque Weber, System der altsynag. palaest. Theologie p. 351. 354.
22:1
Expliquons d’abord le texte. Cette parabole vient si bien après les autres qu'on ns s'étonne pas qu’elle leur soit jointe, mais plutôt qu'elle en soit séparée par xx, 45, 46. On dirait d’après ces deux versets, qu'après avoir parlé en 2 ὩὭμοιώθη ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν ἀνθρώπῳ τοὺς δούλους αὐτοῦ χαλέσαι ἀπέστειλεν γάμους τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ. 8 χαὶ ds γάμους; Kai οὖκ ἤθελον ἐλθεῖν. τοὺς χεχλημένους εἰς τὸ Εϊπατε τοῖς χεχλημένοις ᾿Ιδοὺ τὸ ἄριστόν τεύλεν ἄλλους δούλους λέγων καὶ τὰ σιτιστὰ τεθυμένα, nai πάντα ἕτοιμα" μου ἡτοίμακα, οἵ ταῦροί μου δὲ ἀμελήσαντες ἀπῆλθον, ὃς μὲν εἰς τὸν δεῦτε εἰς τοὺς γάψους. ὃ οἱ Got δὲ λοιποὶ χρατήσαντες ἴδιον ἀγρόν, ὃς δὲ ἐπὶ τὴν ἐμπορίαν αὐτοῦ" adversaires ont compris, Jésus va leur parler paraboles, maintenant que ses cela que nous avons attribué ces versets au entre quatre z'yeux. C’est pour lacés après la troisième parabole, c'est qu’elle traducteur de Ma. S'il ne les ἃ pas p on historique d'Israël. Notre v. 1 eùt pu 5e dépassait l'horizon de la réprobati — ἐν παραδολαῖς au pluriel est peut-être un souder dans Ma. à xxt, 43 ou [TR s ce quisuit deux paraboles, son dessein étant indice.que l’auteur distinguait dan aguement au pluriel comme Mc. de les fondre en une seule. Ou bien il parle v n, 24 et surtout xvIL, 23, avec l'homme- 2) Formule de comparaison comme ΣΙ et son Fils, le Messie. — ἐποίησεν, il fit, roi. On comprend que ce roi est Dieu, passa comme on va le dire. Les γάμοι un certain jour, c'est-à-dire que tout se accompagnent. Aussi n'est-il pas désignent moins l'union que les fêtes qui 1 question de l’épousée. est le repas nuptial, auquel on invitail : ἐρωτᾷ σε 3) La principale de ces fêtes αὐτῆς (P. Oxy.r, 111,2; ταῦ 5. A. D.), en abrégé Ἡραὶς δειπνῆσαι εἷς γάμους τέκνων 927, 3, même époque, dans MM). χαλῖσαι Ἔρως εἰς γάμους (id. VI, loyé (de préférence au pluriel) pour dési- Depuis longtemps γάμος était emp Eur. Iph. Aul. 707 ἔδαισαν Πηλέως γάμους, Her. fur. 483 gner le repas de noces eut traduire « inviter au repas de noces ἑστιᾷ γάμους. De sorte qu'ici on p s par Dieu était déjà comparé à un festin dans Is. Le glorieux avenir promi tait fréquente dans le judaïsme ; d'après MeNeile ce xxv, 6, et la comparaison ὁ Cependant le ps. ΣΕ représentait bien le Messie n’est jamais un festin nuptial. comme un fiancé, et le Targum l'a entendu ainsi, 1; et dans le Cantique (Ch. vin), le Targum beauté étant la communauté d'Israë ἢ festin qui doit bien être nuptial. Il est montre le Messie et la communauté à u gardé la comparaison des noces pour exprimer vrai cependant que les Juifs ont pation élue. Les chrétiens l'ont entendue après les rapports de Dieu avec sa Paul de l'union du Christ avec l'Église (Eph. v, 25 ss.) et l'Apoc. parle des noces me notre passage μαχάριοι οἱ εἰς τὸ δείπνον τοῦ ἀρνίου κεκλημένοι de l'agneau com donc ses origines dans l'Ancien Testament, mais (ax, 9). Ce mysticisme avait Christ a été proposée par lui-même. Mt. le suggère l'application à la personne du de penser qu'il a eu cette intuition ou qu'il l'ait et il n'y ἃ aucune raison empruntée à Paul.
22:3
Jérôme : Et misit servum suum.… Si autem servos legerimus, ut pleraque. habent exemplaria… Le singulier ne s'est trouvé nuile part. C'était sans doute une leçon empruntée à Le., qui n’a qu’un seul serviteur. Ici ce serait Moïse (Jér.). Les serviteurs, au pluriel, sont envoyés deux fois, exactement comme dans la parabole des vignerons, mais ce n’est pas une preuve qu’ils représentent exactement les mêmes époques. Les premiers serviteurs, de l’aveu de tous, sont les prophètes. Les convives ont déjà été invités à une époque antérieure, sans qu'on sache s'ils se sont engagés ou non. Dieu n’a jamais laissé l'humanité à elle-même, sans lui faire espérer le salut. Mais ce qui est antérieur à l’histoire d'Israël n'entre pas dans la perspective. Ces premiers serviteurs ne disent pas que tout est prêt; il semble qu'on ait encore du temps ; mais il fallait s'assurer de la disposition des convives. Ils refusent.
22:4
Le second groupe de serviteurs ne peut représenter que les Apôtres (Jér. etc.) déjà envoyés en mission par Jésus (x, 5 ss.), pour annoncer l'avènement prochain du règne de Dieu. Il n’y a pas à insister sur le détail des préparatifs qui ne sont allégoriques que comme une vague allusion aux biens messianiques — ἄριστον est opposé à δεῖπνον dans Le. x1v, 12, comme notre déjeuner au diner; ef. Le. x1. 38. Comme il s'agit d’un roi et d’un festin nuptial, les préparatifs sont considérables. σιτιστός est employé comme épithète dans Josèphe (Ant. VITE, n, 4) à propos des repas de Salomon. Les grands repas chez les Grecs et les Romains se faisaient le soir; peut-être Mt. a-t-il indiqué un déjeuner pour laisser plus de temps à l'appel d’autres invités.
22:5
Combien plus précis et plus animés les excuses et les prétextes mis en avant dans Le.! Ils sont d’ailleurs plus à leur place dans sa parabole où le rang social des convives est beaucoup plus accusé. Mt. veut seulement mettre en relief deux sentiments qui s'opposent à l'appel de Dieu. Le premier est un trop grand attachement aux biens temporels, qui fait négliger l'invitation.
22:6
Le second sentiment est la révolte ouverte. Assurémemt ce n’est point l'usage de répondre à une invitation à diner par l'insulle et le meurtre, comme ce n'est pas l'usage de payer le fermage en tuant l'héritier. Ces traits peu vraisemblables ne font que mieux ressortir dans l’allégorie l'ingratitude des invités. On prétend que Mt. avait en vue la mort d'Élienne, de Jacques, d’autres encore. Mais Jésus avait prédit à ses disciples les persécutions (x, 26 ss.). Cette fois il n’est pas question de la mort du Fils. C’est sans doute parce qu'il figure comme époux. Mais Mt., s’il avait écrit d'après l'événement, n’aurait-il pas parlé de sa résurrection? 10. ους (H) plutôt que ὁσοὺς (TSV) — νυμφων (THS) et non γαμος (Ὁ).
22:7
Autre trait qui serait étrange dans une parabole démonstrative. ‘Les invités rebelles sont censés habiter:la même wille, assez éloignée della capitale du royaume. 6 trait n’est là que pour sa portée allégorique. ‘Les Pères + ont çuame altusion:à la ruine de Jérusalem, brûlée par les armées de Vespasien. Mais ators Vespasien serait le roi de la parabole? Jésus parle sans spécifier de la ‘colère de Dieu quia pesé non seulement sur la ville, mais'sur'tout le peuple, entraîné dans la ruine par ses chefs. « Il brüla la ville dans le feu» est une phrase toute faite qui revient plus de trente fois dans la Bible, dans le Pentateuque, Jérémie et Ézéchiel et même dans 1 Macch. 1, 31 à propos de Jérusalem. Et l'on avance que cette prédiction n'a pu être écrite par ΜΙ. qu'après lan 70! Rien de plus certain d'ailleurs que la prophétie de Jésus sur la ruine de la ville et du Temple. — Des critiques modérés, comme-MeNeile et Plummer «estiment que les versets 6 à 7 sont une addition qui ‘dérange l'économie du récit. — Cela serait vrai de la parabole de Le., mais non de l’allégorie de Mt., à un moment où Jésus voulait prévenir les Sanhédrites du péril où ils couraient (xxr, 43; xx, 49 55:). .
22:8
τότε est du style de Mt.; il ἃ cependant une portée au moins relative. Ainsi c’est après la ruine des Juifs que le roi envoie encore des serviteurs. 'M.'Loisy « Et lesroi.a-t-il toujours autant de serviteurs, bien qu'on les lui ait tués? » « Et que devient le repas..? » etc. (11, 325). La situation est trop grave pour ‘qu'on s'arrête à ces froides :plaisanteries. La difficulté véritable serait celle que créent les critiques en voyant ici une invention de Mt. — Ceux qu'on va appeler représentent les gentils (Chrys. Jér. etc.). Pouvait-on, si l'on s'inspirait de L'histoire, reculer l'appel des gentils après la ruine du Temple, c'est-à-dire après la mort de Paul, l'apôtre des gentils? Tout est naturel dans la ‘perspective de Jésus, la ruine du Temple ayant marqué le moment où les gentils prirent la place d'Israël. Autre est la perspective prophétique qui procède par tableaux successifs, autre l'exécution historique. Le dessein du roi ne peut être frustré. Dieu a toujours des serviteurs, et son festin peut attendre: ‘il ‘est toujours prêt. Les invités ne se sont pas montrés dignes de l'honneur qu'on leur faisait. Manifestement, s'ils ne sont pas élus, c’est bien leur faute. Le mot οὐχ ἄξιοι serait trop doux pour les rebelles seuls, maisil s’applique aussi aux «9 s.) H faut bien:noter (avec Jülicher) que Mt. ne parde ni des:pauvres;ni des-estropiés. Il n’y a-pas ici comme dans Lc.un ‘contraste d'ordre: social. Au lieu et-place «de ceux qui se croyaient seuls justes, seuls amis:de Dieu, en appélle maintenant tout le monde, bons et mauvais. D'ailleurs il n°y a pas trace de violence; ceux qui viennent acceptent donc l’invitatian. Nous sommes sur le “terrain de la parabole de l'ivraie (x, 24-30; 36-43) ou du coup de filet (πα, 47 ss). La conclusion qui va suivre est ainsi préparée. — νομφών, variante importante. Elle est soutenue par mBL 892 deux cursifs de Soden, Gyr-Al. syreur. et sin.,sah. Elle doit être préférée précisément parceque le mot est rare οἱ méme-un peu impropre, ear vpedvensgrec et dans:la Bible grecque (Tobie, vi, 13.46) signifie ordinairement la chambre nuptiale. γάμος (tous les autres) est une correction facile-et banale. Mais si νυμφών ‘est la lecon :authentique, elle n’a de raison d’être que comme traduction:par à peu près ‘de: Laram. nnnws na. En hébr. nnw signifiait un festin, originairement une beuverie, mais comme le festin pour les gens de la campagne n'avait lieu que lors des mariages (Jud. σιν, 10. 12.7), ce-mot avait fini par signifier en araméen. (nu) festin de“mariage. C'est-exactement le cas ici. La dérivation s’est doncproduite en sens inverse du grec, où γάμος est devenu « festin nuptial
22:11
ἔνδυμα γάμου, serait la foi luthérienne, d'après les anciens protestants, celle qui justifie sans les œuvres. Jülicher et J. Weiss ont fait justice de cette fantaisie, ou plutôt de ce contresens caractérisé. Tous ceux qui sont entrés ont accepté l'invitation. Ils ont done la foi; maïs l’un d'eux n'a pas les œuvres de la justice (cf. v, 20; vn, 23 etc.), comme disait déjà Irénée (1v, 36, 6) et iustitine operibus adornari. — oùx (et non μή) avec le participe est de bon style (Deb. 8. 430, 1). Noter le caractère sémitique de l'expression ἐνδεδυμένον ἔνδυμα, cf. Soph. 1, 8 πάντας τοὺς ἐνδεδυμένους ἔνδυματα ἀλλότρια, En grec on dirait ἐνδεδυμένον avec un mot d'une autre racine. C’est toujours le même procédé que καλέσαι τοὺς χεχλημένους.
Ba-scène change. Précédemment le mélange: des bons etiides mauvais était toléré; c'est dire qu’on était dans les temps messianiques tels que les prévoyait la parabole de l'ivraie, le règne ‘du Fils (xmr, 41). A l’arrivée du roi, il n’en estiplus ainsi; si quelqu'un n’est pas digne de prendre part au festin, il sera exclu. Le roi vient donc pour juger, et le festin qui.suit le jugement est latbéatitude. Cela estsuffisamment clair, et c'est: par là que la parabole de Mt. se-distingue-de celle de Le. Outre l'appel des gentils à la place ‘des Juifs, M. aborde le thème du discernement dans ce qu'il faut bien appeler l'Église. On lui reproche d’avoir parlé d'après l'expérience chrétienne, Ge n'est pas une question pour mous que Jésus ait connu d'avance cette situation. «Mais sans renoncer à sa science parfaite,:nous pouvons faire remarquer aux critiques que rien ne dépasse ἰοἱ 165 pressentiments du bon sens. Les eschatologisies eux-mêmes me peuvent se montrer difficiles, tant la perspective des noces: parfaites est rapprochée du temps de la dernière invitation. Plulôt que de voir ici un reflet dela situation de l'Église quarante ans ou plus après la mort du Christ, 13. δησαντες ... ἐεχθαλετε (THV) et non ἀρατε αὐτὸν ποδὼν χαὶ χειρῶν χαὶι βαλετε (85). il faudrait rappeler que cette perspective ne doit pas faire oublier la doctrine de Jésus sur le développement du règne de Dieu. La vraie difficulté est de l'ordre littéraire. Comment le roi peut-il reprocher à l’homme d'être venu sans robe nuptiale, puisqu'on a ramassé tout le monde dans la rue? Avait-il le temps de se préparer? On dirait que les vv. 11-13 ne sont que la conclusion d’une autre parabole, dans le genre de celle qui figure dans Chabbat, 1085, attribuée à lokhanan ben Zakkaï (vers 100 ap. J.-C.) et dans le Midrach du Qobhéleih, sur 1x, 8, attribuée à Rabbi lehouda le saint (vers 200 ap. J.-C.). Un roi invite à un festin, et recommande aux invités de venir avec des habits propres. Comme il n'avait pas indiqué l'heure, les uns vont à leurs affaires, les plus prudents seulement se tiennent en toilette à la porte du palais. Au moment voulu, les uns sont admis, les autres exclus, parce qu’ils souillent le palais. La lecon de cette parabole est qu'il faut être prêt dans la tenue convenable. La négligence de ceux qui vont à leurs affaires n’est en aucune facon un refus de l'invitation. La parabole juive ne peut donc pas servir à réduire à l'unité l'apparente dualité de celle de Mt. Elle suggère au contraire que l'exclusion de l'invité mal vêtu s’expliquerait mieux après une recommandation qui eût laissé le temps nécessaire. Cela est incontestable. Mais si la parabole est trop concise dans Mt., il suppose néanmoins que les convives, sauf un, ont la robe nuptiale. Et cependant ce sont tous gens qui cireulaient dans les rues. Ils ont donc eu le temps de se changer. Nous rencontrons toujours ce même dédain d'éviter les invraisemblances, qui n'empêche pas de tirer d'une parabole. la leçon voulue. D'ailleurs Mt. néglige le détail. Nous reconnaissons bien sa main dans la rédaction, mais plutôt à ce qu'il omet qu'à ce qu'il aurait ajouté.
22:12
D'anciens commentateurs expliquaient le reproche du Roi à un homme ramassé dans la rue par l'usage de donner des habits d'honneur aux invités d'une noce. Il eût été bien sot de refuser! Mais outre que cet usage n’est point assez prouvé, il n’y est fait ici'aucune allusion. Les paroles ne sont point trop sévères, mais le ion est péremptoire (ef. xx, 10); il faut s'expliquer. Aucune échappatoire n'est valable à ce moment. .
22:13
Conclusion comme dans la parabole de l'ivraie (xur, #1), sans qu'il soit question de la fournaise; mais c’est bien la réprobation. Si le bonheur des justes n’est pas décrit, c'est qu'ils sont déjà installés dans la salle du festin.
22:14
Parmi tous ceux bons et mauvais, qui ont répondu à l'invitation, un seul est réprouvé. On n'oserait en tirer des conclusions théologiques trop favorables, car cet individu est représentatif d'une catégorie. Néanmoins le v. 44 est plus sévère, et ne paraît pas répondre très strictement à ce qui vient d’être dit. D'autre part on ne peut, sans violence, l'appliquer seulement à la première partie de la parabole. Il résume donc toute la situation. C’est l'expression d’une vérité générale, dont la stricte portée théologique ne peut être déterminée, ni pour ceux qui sont en dehors, ni pour ceux qui sont dans l'Église. De toute façon, le Seigneur exprime fortement l'appel de Dieu, car on peut dire que d’après le sens de of πολλοί (cf. Comm. Mc. x, 45) il invite toute la communauté humaine. Il n’est pas dit non plus que peu sont prédestinés, pour ne pas effrayer, mais seulement que peu sont élus, ce qui résulte, d'après la parabole, de la mauvaise volonté des récalcitrants. La sentence, si redoutable qu'elle soit, est donc plus douce que d’autres formules admises dans le judaïsme : hoc saeculum fecit altissimus propter multos, futurum autem propter-paucos… multi quidem creati sunt, pauci autem salvabuntur (IV Esd. ναι, 1-3); plures sunt qui pereunt quam qui salvabuntur, sicut multiplicat fluctus super guttam (id. 1x, 15); cf. Apoc. Bar. xLIV, 12 58. Nous pouvons maintenant essayer de résoudre les questions posées au début. La première partie de la parabole de Mt. est la même que celle de Le. Mais c'est Le. qui lui a donné une portée plus générale, en ne tenant pas compte de la circonstance de la noce, qui est parfaitement dans le mode sémilique, ni du châtiment des premiers invités qui ne devait atteindre que les Juifs. La parabole de Mt. apparaît donc comme tout à fait authentique et primitive, mais probablement écourtée par le retranchement des détails. Si le traducteur a soigné le grec en mettant des μέν et des δέ (v. 8 et 9), il a καλέσαι τοὺς κεχλημένους (v. 4) et encore χαλεῖν (v. 9), ce que Le. a évité. IL est d'ailleurs très vraisemblable que le texte ou la tradition que suivait Le. avait déjà entendu le festin nuptial d'un festin ordinaire. Assurément N.-$. a pu prononcer celte parahole deux fois, mais nous n’en avons d'autre indice que la place différente dans.Le. et des variantes qui peuvent s'expliquer par les modalités de la tradition. Il nous semble de plus que la deuxième partie de la parabole de Mt. est littérairement la fin d'une autre parabole, soudée à la première. Mais elle. n’en est pas moins authentique en elle-même, avec le même caractère sémitisant (Éved. ἔνδυμα, v. 41); la soudure a été bien préparée. Est-ce. Jésus lui-même qui à fait ce rapprochement? On serait tenté de le nier à cause dela difficulté de Ja transition, mais la beauté de la perspective totale inclinerait à le penser. Une fois transformée ainsi, la parabole était parfaitement à 88. place après les deux précédentes, montrant aux chefs d'Israël qu'ils allaient à la ruine en refusant l'invitation du Sauveur, et prévenant ceux qui l'accepteraient des.conditions exigées. pour participer à son règne.
22:15
Dans Mc. les sanhédrites : princes des prêtres, scribes et anciens (xr, 27), renonçant à une lutte ouverte (xx, 12), envoient des émissaires, Pharisiens et Hérodiens. Dans Mt., ce sont les Pharisiens, associés aux princes des prêtres (ext, 45), qui tiennent un conseil, et comme il s’agit de tendre un piège, ils ne reviennent pas en personne. — παγιδεύσωσιν est une expression plus précise et plus juste que ἀγρεύσωσιν (Mc.), car il s’agit bien d'un piège tendu, plus que d'une poursuite ouverte; cf. 1 Regn. xxvin, 9 ἵνα τί σὺ παγιδεύεις τὴν ψυχήν" μου θανατῶσαι αὐτήν: — λόγῳ (Mc.) indique plutôt la question que la réponse: de même ἐν λόγῳ, puisque c’est Le filet dans lequel une réponse suspecte jettera leur proie.
22:16
λεγοντες (SV) plutôt que λεγοντας (TH).
Pour plus de prudence, les Pharisiens demeurent dans la coulisse et envoient leurs disciples, moins connus, avec les Hérodiens, que Mi. ne nomme qu'ici. Les Pharisiens n'étaient pas absolument hostiles à Rome; ils se réservaient. Si Jésus avait refusé le tribut, les Hérodiens n'auraient pas manqué de le dénoncer à l'autorité romaine, avec laquelle ils étaient en coquetterie Payer le tribut, c'était, dans l'opinion générale, renoncer au rôle messianique. — La: terminaison — tavos vient du latin; cf. Pompejani, Caesariani; elle est devenue fréquente pour les noms-de sectes (Deb. 8 5, 2). Jérôme semble y voir un sobriquet : iludentes Pharisaei… Herodianos vocabant. Josèphe (Bell. I, xvr, 6) parle des Ἡρωδεῖοι et des ᾿Αντιγονεῖοι. Le nom venait donc des guerres enire les Asmonéens et Hérode. —.Le petit discours persuasif. Dans‘Mc. ‘tes deux propositions négatives sont encadrées dans les positives; dans Mf. les positives viennent d'abord, puis les négatives. Parallélisme enchevétré ou régulier, on ne saurait dire quelle tournure est plus sémitique. Mais le texte de Me. est certainement plus habile, se terminant par une sorte d'adjuration à ne pas abandonner la voie de Dieu. Origène n'avait pas tort de dire que les Pharisiens parlaient en agents provocateurs pour livrer Jésus aux Hérodiens. ἐν ἀληθείᾳ est la forme sémitique, avec 2, que les Syriens ont dû employer même pour ἐπ᾽ ἀληθείας de Mc. et Le.
22:17
Mt. prépare la question décisive ; τί σοι δοκεῖ est de son style; cf. xx, 38 etc. mais il n’a pas le dilemme pratique : Donnerons-nous, ou ne donnerons-nous
22:18
πονηρία remplace ὑπόχρισις qui revient dans le style direct; c'est dans Mi. quekésus parle 16 plus sévèrement aux Pharisiens.
22:19
τὸ νόμισμα τοῦ κήνσου est trés logiquement le point de la question, et précisément ce qu’il fallait dire. Nommer le denier, mot latin, c'était déjà la résoudre. Mc. va donc au plus court, suivi par Le., tandis que Mt. suit sa voie. Ce sont les adversaires qui s’enferrent en apportant un denier. Si c’est une correction de Mt., elle est des plus fines. — προσήνεγκαν (au lieu de ἤνεγκαν seul), verbe du style de Mt. — Le délicieux ἵνα ἴδω, si finement ironique, a peut-être été omis à dessein par Le. et par Mt. qui ne s'arrêtent pas au détail de la physionomie humaine du Seigneur. 22 s.) Gomme Me. ; τότε du style de Mt.; οὖν met la réponse en forme. 99) καὶ ἀφέντες αὐτὸν ἀπῆλθον est dans Me. zur, 42; mais cf. xxi, ἀῦ 5. ἢ serail 30. om. θεου p. αγγελοι (H) plutôt que add. (TS[V tou θεον]). étrange que Mt. ait transposé à dessein cette petite phrase si simple. Mt. fait partir ces adversaires pour laisser la place aux Sadducéens.
22:21
αὐτῷ (SV) plutôt que om. (TH).
22:23
Mt. seul indique que le fait se passa le même jour; mais il y ἃ aussi continuité dans les deux autres. — λέγοντες, sans article, pourrait signifier que les Sadducéens avancèrent leur opinion à ce moment même (verss. syriennes), si le même mot n'était répété (v. 24) pour dire comment ils parlèrent. Le sens est donc bien qui dicunt, ce que la recension d’Antioche a assuré en ajoutant l'article. Il y ἃ donc dans ΜΙ. une indigence sémitique un peu corrigée par Mc. et davantage par Le.
22:24
Mt. n'avait aucune raison de changer ἔγραψεν (Me. Le.) en εἶπεν. Mais ce mot est conforme à sa manière : «il a été dit » v, 21 etc., « Dieu a dit » (xv, 4 — Me. x, 10). Dans l'exposé du cas, où Le. suit la construction un peu embrouillée de Mc., Mt. procède directement, τίς au lieu de τινὸς ἀδελφός, ne parlant qu'une fois de la femme. — ἐπιγαμόρεύσει (futur législatif, vg. uf ducat) est la traduction directe de 22° (terme technique) dans Deut. xxv, 5, au lieu de λάδῃ (LXX Me. Le.); cf. Gen. xxxvin, 8, γάμδρευσαι αὐτήν, καὶ ἀνάστησον σπέρμα τῷ ἀδελφῷ σον. Donc Le., pour un usage juif, se tient très près du texte de Μο., tandis que Mt. suit son chemin. Mais il est remarquable que les trois, au lieu de ἀναστῆσαι τὸ ὄνομα (Dt. xxv, 7), ont σπέρμα. C'est la locution de Gen. xxxvn, 8, qui semble avoir inspiré Mt. — Le lévirat était contraire à une interdiction de mariage pour affinité. Les raisons qui avaient fait naître cet usage n'exerçaient plus le même empire. Il est probable que les Sadducéens n'en étaient pas partisans, et qu'en choisissant ce cas ils ont voulu deux fois se moquer de la doctrine des Pharisiens. Du moins les Karaïtes, leurs héritiers, le rejetèrent et les Rabbanites le limitèrent le plus possible. — Quoique les Sadducéens aient été avant tout le parti politique du haut Sacerdoce, ce parti devait avoir ses théoriciens, moins engagés dans les affaires, plus absorbés par les questions de doctrine. C'est grâce à eux que Josèphe a pu parler de philosophie (Bell. II, vnr, 2); ce sont ceux-là qui argumentent ici, tandis que les princes des prêtres ont recours à d’autres moyens.
22:25
παρ᾽ ἡμῖν, propre à Mt.; le casus n’est donc pas imaginaire, et on ne pouvait répondre : nego suppositum. Il n'était point aisé de le rédiger sans trop se répéter, tout en disant le nécessaire. Mec. ne dit pas que tous les frères épousèrent la femme, et Le. ne l'a pas amélioré en bloquant le second et le troisième. La solution de Mt. est la plus heureuse. Le premier laisse sa femme au suivant. ἢ suffit donc de dire que les autres en firent autant.
22:26
Le dernier aussi laisse sa femme sans enfant; mais il n’y a plus de frère pour l'épouser. .
22:27
ὕστερον, sept fois dans Mt. qui (non plus que Lc.) n’emploie jamais ἔσχατον adv., lequel est dans Me. x, 22 et 1 Cor. xv, 8 : ἔσχατον δὲ πάντων.
22:28
Mt. ajoute οὖν, selon sa manière argumentative (xx, 21), mais n'a pas mis ὅταν ἀναστῶσιν qui appuie sur la difficulté concrète du cas.
22:30
ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει (Mc. ὅταν Ex νεκρῶν ἀναστῶσιν) conserve le schéma de l’objection. Comment Mt. qui écrit ordinairement οἱ οὐρανοί, aurait-il mis le singulier pour changer le pluriel de Me.? — θεοῦ p. ἄγγελοι (T 5 Hetz. Vog.) est omis par H, d'après B D @ 3 min. sah. af τύ syrcur.
22:31
Un substantif au lieu d'un verbe (ὅτι ἐγείρονται), mais surtout (comme 32. om. θεὸς p. θεος 4° (TH) et non add. (SV). 87. om. τὴ @. καρδιὰ (H) plutôt que add. (TSV). xv, 4) l'Écriture est citée comme une parole prononcée par Dieu, au lieu d’une section du livre de Moïse. Le. qui ἃ reproduit Mc. aurait pu employer pour les gentils la formule de Mt., mais quelle raison Mt. aurait-il eue de changer Me., lui écrivant contre les Juifs, et aimant à citer l'Écriture? — buiv propre à Mt.; la parole de Dieu est toujours vivante et s’adresse aux adversaires aussi bien qu'à leurs pères,
22:32
Comme Mc.; en moins πολὺ πλανᾶσθε, Pour le fond de l'argumentation, cf. Comm. Mt.
22:33
Propre à ΜΙ. ici; mais semblable à Me. x1, 18b. « La doctrine.» après ces nombreuses. discussions. est plus topique que. dans Mc. où l’étonnement porte au moins. autant sur une action de Jésus. 34-40, LE GRAND COMMANDEMENT (Me. χα, 28-31). La queslion est traitée par Le. dans un autre contexte (x, 25-29). Les différences entre Mc. el Mt., qui ont été et sont encore une difficulté pour les exégètes catholiques, devraient prouver du moins que Mt. ne dépend pas de Me. Cest. une controverse succincte, duthème de Ma...
22:34
ἐπ΄ œuroy plutôt que ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ (THSV).
Propre à Mt. Nous lisons ἐπ’ αὐτόν avec D Θ af'it syrsin.-cur. et non ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό avec tous les autres témoins et les éditions. Raison de cette dérogation à notre: critère habituel : le ps. 11, 2 : συνήχθησαν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό a. été entendu très justement par les premiers chrétiens de la conjuration des ennemis du Christ (Act. 1v, 26 s.). Il était donc inévitable que des copistes habitués à réciter le psautier introduiraient ici cette leçon. De même ceux qui lisaient en: grec ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν devaient naturellement traduire « contre lui »; cf. «dversus. eum Q: (de la vg.)bcde ff? h; et de même Hilaire. Mais syrsin. et cur. ὁ ἃ f ont compris que ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν signifiait près de lui, ad: eum, exactement comme dans Mt. v, 24, et cette leçon sans signification accentuée nous parait de beaucoup la meilleure pour le sens, comme celle qui avait 18 moins de chances de résister à la poussée de l'opinion des copistes sur l'hostilité fatale des Pharisiens. Car ce n'est pas le cas ici. Les Pharisiens de doctrine ne pouvaient qu'être satisfaits de voir les Sadducéens réduits au silence (litt. muselés}, et par conséquentils devaient être tentés de mettre Jésus de leur côté. La question n'avait pas, comme les précédentes, le caractère d'un piège. Les évangélistes ne s'arrêtent pas à noter des nuances qui cependant ont dù exister. Les Pharisiens qui proposent une question spéculative peuvent être très. distincts de ceux qui, unis aux Hérodiens, avaient abordé un point brûlant de la politique; ils se réunissent,, non pas pour comploter, mais pour écouter. Les copistes-ont naturellement préféré.en masse le texte du Ps., rappelé par les Actes.
22:35
Le scribe de Mc. paraît interroger de bonne foi, et Jésus reconnaît ses bonnes intentions. Dire qu’un interrogateur perfide est devenu si vite un disciple docile, ce serait une échappatoire mal avisée. Mais sur quoi s'appuie ici l'accusation de perfidie, tellement poussée au noir par Jérôme”? Sur πειράζων de Mt. Or ce mot peut avoir un sens plus anodin : sonder, éprouver, pour savoir, et non toujours en mauvaise part. On le reconnaîtrait (Plum.), n'était que l’homme se présente au nom des Pharisiens. Mais ce Pharisien est peut-être pour le moment bien impressiommé. D'après Mé. il ne vient pas pour réparer la déroute d'ailiés, mais pour trouver un allié éventuel contre d'anciens adversaires. On n’a donc pas le droit de dire que Mt., en haine des Pharisiens, a transformé le bénévole scribe de Me. en tentateur sournois. IE est d'äiléurs étrange que Mt. dise iei seulement votés (Le. au moins six fois), mot’ de Le:, qui l’emploie précisément avec ἐχπειράζων dans le récit analogue (x, 25); comme εἷς (pour τίς) ἐξ αὐτῶν est une désignation suffisante, on peut croire que les deux autres mots sont venus de Le. et dus à des copistes; νομικός estom. par fam 1, af syrsin. De toute facon, Me., selon son génie, a-pénétré et rendu les dispositions individuelles conerètes du docteur, tandis que dans Mt. il n’est guère qu’un Pharisien quelconque.
22:36
Mt. ἃ 6 plus διδάσπαλε et: ἐν τῷ νόμῳ, qui donnent bien à la question le cachet d'un problème d'école. — μεγάλη, positif pour le superlatif, beaucoup plus sémitique (21) que πρώτη πάντων, cf. II Chr. xx1v, 11 où le prêtre tête est le grand-prêtre.
22:37
Comme Mt. mais avec ἐν (au lieu de ἐξ, trois fois), ce qui est plus près dé Yhébreu (Dé. νι, δ) et sans ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ἰσχύος σου. Il est clair en effet que ces mots ne font pas partie du texte authentique de Mt. Mais au lieu de διανοίᾳ on trouve ἰσχύϊ dans Clénr. Paed. IL, χη, 88 (304) dans Orig. ur, 30 οἵ 1v, 618 soit 2 fois contre 2, dans Zénon de Vérone (P.L. XI, c. 274), syrsin. et cur., et le ms. ὁ, Cette lecon est conforme à l’hébreu : « dans tout ton cœur, dans loute ton âme, 39. om. de p. δευτερα (TH) plutôt que add. (SV) --- αὐτῇ (TSV) on om. avec B plutôt que αὕτη (H). 43. om. o Insouc p. αντοις (THV) et non add. (8). 44, om. o a. Κυριος (TH) plutôt que add. (SV). dans toute ta force », mais si l’on a pu corriger Mt. d’après l’hébreu, il est tout aussi probable qu'on l'ait retouché d'après Mc. De toute façon ἐν au lieu de ἐξ indique un recours à l’hébreu (LXX ἐξὶ qui a peut-être réagi sur Lc. x, 27. Si le traducteur Mt. ἃ vraiment écrit Stavolx, on peut croire que ne voulant conserver que trois termes avec l’hébreu (au lieu de quatre dans Mc. et dans Le.) il a préféré « l'esprit » qui correspondait mieux à l'âme et au cœur que la force qui est un mode.
22:38
Propre à ML, car il n'aura pas été emprunter πρώτη à Mc. χη, 28.
22:39
Comme Mc., mais ὁμοία αὐτῇ (Mc. αὔτη) montre que le second commandemént est fondé sur le premier. La ressemblance est dans la charité qui ne se porte sur le prochain qu'à cause de Dieu.
22:40
Au lieu de μείζων τούτων ἄλλη ἐντολὴ οὐχ ἔστιν (Mc.), contenu virtuellement dans le titre de premier commandement auquel le second est assimilé, Mt. a une vue originale qui se relie au point fondamental du discours inaugural (v, 17) sur la Loi et les prophètes. On comprend maintenant quel était cet ordre divin que Jésus n'était pas venu détruire, mais perfectionner; c'était essentiellement la loi de la charité, et cela est dit dans des termes qui rappellent un programme qu’on prétend être judéo-chrétien (v. 17)! La doctrine de Paul (Gal. v, 14) vient de celle de Jésus. — Quant ὁ à l'image :on peut être pendu contre un mur, appui solide du clou (15. xxn, 24), en étant suspendu à un clou : le grec emploie ἐξ (Gen. xxiv, 30; Judith, vu, 24); ἐν est donc un sémitisme pour 2. Or on trouve précisément cette tournure dans le Talmud « Quel estle petit commandement auquel est suspendu tout le corps de Ia Loi» (na von ana ‘ou 92w)? Et il cite Prov. nr, 6 : « Pense à Lui dans toutes tes voies, et il aplanira tes sentiers. » Ge mot — qui ne fait aucune allusion au *iLe Seigneur a dit à mon Seigneur; Assieds-toi à ma droite, jusqu'à ce que je mette tes ennemis sous tes pieds ? prochain — est attribué à Bar Qappara, après l'an 200 (Berakoth 63 3). — On voit que Jésus répond au docteur avec bonté, pour l'éclairer, et Mt, n'indique pas le moins du monde que le docteur ait été pris dans son piège ou seulement embarrassé comme celui de Le. S'il n'a pas la conclusion tout à fait sympathique de Mc., c’est sans doute qu’il ne dépendait pas de lui.
22:41
συνηγμένων s'accorde bien avec le v. 34 tel que nous l'avons compris. Les Pharisiens étaient groupés, non pour comploter, mais pour savoir à quoi s’en tenir sur Jésus. L'un d'eux avait posé une question sur la Loi, Jésus va en poser une sur le Messie. Cet arrangement très naturel ne peut être tiré de Mc. qui ἃ ici un début à nouveau. Dans Mc. et Le. Jésus exprime son étonnement sur l'opinion des Scribes. Le but serait donc seulement de mettre la foule en doute sur la valeur de leur enseignement à tout le moins incomplet, d'éveiller son attention, car elle ne pouvait guère résoudre un point si délicat.
22:42
Dans Mt. la question est posée aux Pharisiens, dans son style habituel, τί ὑμῖν δοκεῖ, cf. χχι, 28 elc. — ἐστίν, présent juridique (ef. xx1v, 43); « de qui doit-il être le fils », plutôt que style des oracles, le présent pour le futur (Küh.-G. 11, 1, p.138). Dans la bouche du Christ ce présent est plus impressionnant. La réponse était à prévoir; c'était aussi la foi du peuple qui avait acclamé Jésus, mais elle ne disait pas tout. .
22:43
οὖν, style argumentatif de ML, cf. v. 21; interrogation pour continuer le même rythme. — ἐν πνεύματι ne peut pas être secondaire par rapport à ἐν τῷ πνεύpast τῷ ἁγίῳ (Mc.). La question est posée plus nettement pour aboutir à l'ergo implicite du v. 45, où il y ἃ inclusio avec πῶς. 4%) Le texte de Mi. est certainement ὑποκάτω, peut-être réminiscence du Ps. vur, 7. Mais peut-être était-ce un équivalent araméen de Ma., traduit liftéralement par Mt. — κύριος sans art. quoiqu'il soit dans les LXX, pour désigner le Seigneur comme unique et déterminé par lui-même; cf. 1, 20. 22 ; τι, 3. Dans Mc. et Le. plus probablement ὃ Βύριος.
22:46
Propre à Mt, pour clore toutes ces discussions. Personne ne pouvait répondre, s'entend surtout des Sanhédrites (xx, 23-21) et des Pharisiens (xxIr, 15-22: 41-46), auxquels leurs questions avaient procuré des interrogations embarrassantes. Mais ceux qui n’avaient rien su répliquer, comme les Sadducéens et le docteur, sans être aussi humiliés, n’en revenaient pas moins bredouilles.
22:1
chetto nuziale chi non indosserà la veste nuziale sarà gettato « in tenebras exteriores » (Mt. 22, 1-14); le vergini stolte rimarranno fuori della porta (Mt. 25, 1-13); il servo infingardo sarà cacciato dalla casa del padrone (Mt. 25, 14, 30; Lc. 19, 1-28).
… 24-33), il che avviene lentamente e senza che nessuno se ne avveda (Mt. 13, 31-33; Mc. 4, 26-29; Lc. 17, 20; Is. 18, 36); presente, o in gestazione, il regno è tuttavia futuro, specialmente come premio eterno per i fedeli singoli alla loro morte (Mt. 22, 1-44; Lc. 14, 15-24; 16, 19-31). E, in connessione con l'avvento misterioso del Regno, Gesù annunzia la sua p. futura, non determinabile né nel tempo né nello spazio (Mt. 24, 25-36); …
22:2
… Il Regno di Dio è già inaugurato (Mt. 11, 12-15; 12, 28; Lc. 16, 16; 17, 20 sg.; I Cor. 15, 25); deve crescere (Mt. 13, 31 sg.), per tutto il mondo (Mc. 3, 13-19; 6, 7-13; 13, 9 sg.; 16, 15 sg. 20; Act. 1, 8; ecc.), passare ai gentili (Mt. 8, 10 sgg.; 21, 33-46; 22, 2-10 ecc.); s'identifica con la Chiesa, con a capo Pietro (Mt. 16, 13-20; Io. 21, 15 sgg.; I Cor. 12; Rom. 12, 3-8 ecc.); comprende buoni e cattivi (Mt. 13, 24-30, 36-43, 47-50; 25, 1-13, …
… L'insegnamento di Gesù verte particolarmente sull'u., che vieta di elevarsi al disopra degli altri e rende le relazioni col prossimo facili e amorevoli (Mt. 22, 2-12; Lc. 14, 7-11). L'u. attira lo sguardo benevolo del Signore (Lc. 18, 9-14) e fa evitare l'ostentazione nel compimento dei doveri della preghiera, della penitenza e dell'elemosina (Mt. …
22:4
… Mi. 5, 5; Ez. 34, 25 sg.; ecc.; l'abbondanza dei beni spirituali, espressa simbolicamente con le immagini più vivide di una fertilità straordinaria: Is. 7, 21 sg.; 9, 3, 6; 32, 1-5.15-18; Ez. 47, 1-12; ecc. (cf. l'immagine della mensa apparecchiata: Mt. 22, 4; Lc. 14, 15-24). Al rinato Israele, l'assistenza di Jahweh (Is. 40-66) assicura il trionfo sui nemici presenti (Ez. 35-36) e futuri (Ez. 38-39; Dan. 7-12) e ogni prosperità (Is. 31, …
22:7
MATTEO, APOSTOLO, EVANGELISTA, SANTO
Si può dire con sicurezza che M. scrisse per il primo tra gli Evangelisti, prima della caduta di Gerusalemme (70 d. C.). Certi razionalisti, pretendendo che l'allusione alla distruzione di Gerusalemme contenuta in Mt. 22, 7 e 24, sia un vaticinio post eventum,
22:13
… 4); così anche Enoch 10, 12; 18, 11-19, 1; 88, 1; ivi è imprigionato Satana per 1000 anni (Apoc. 20, 7). L'inferno (v.) dei dannati è detto gehenna (v.); Gesù insiste sull'eterno supplizio dei reprobi nelle « tenebre extraterrestri » (Mt. 8, 12; 22, 13; 25, 30) ove è « pianto e stridore di denti » (Mt. 13, 42, 50; 24, 51) perché essi sono esclusi dal Regno di Dio (Lc. 13, 28) per avere respinto l'invito di Dio (Mt. 24, 13; …
22:14
… In altre occasioni Gesù ha accennato alla p. (cf. Mt. 20, 23; 22, 14; 24, 22-24).
22:15
SCRIBA (EBR. SÔPHÊR, PLUR. SÔPHÊRÎM, GR. ΓΡΑΜΜΑΤΕΌΣ)
La loro ostilità per Gesù, dapprima come «scandalo» per la sua familiarità con i pubblicani e peccatori (Lc. 5, 31; 15, 2), cieca invidia per i suoi miracoli e gelosia della sua popolarità (Mt. 22, 15), diventa odio sempre più deciso: gli s. lo accusano, gli aizzano contro la folla, preparano i singoli momenti della sua Passione. …
22:16
ERODIANI ('Ἡρωδιανόι'). - Nominati insieme ai Farisei in Mt. 22, 16 e in Mc. 3, 6; 12, 13. Non furono una setta religiosa: Flavio Giuseppe come tali considera solo i Farisei, Sadducei, Esseni e Zeloti; egli usa un nome simile, 'Ἡρωδεῖοι', per indicare …
22:17
… su tutta la terra d'Israele, parte del paese fu affidata ai tetrarchi e la Giudea fu messa sotto il governo di un procuratore romano (v. PALESTINA, I). R. non è nominata nei Vangeli, ma vi si parla ripetutamente dei suoi imperatori (Lc. 2, 1; 3, 1; Mt. 22, 17-21; Mc. 12, 14-17; Lc. 20, 22-25; 23, 3; Io. 19, 12.15; ecc.) e dei loro rappresentanti: il legato di Siria (Lc. 2, 2), il procuratore di Giudea Pilato (Lc. 3, 1; ecc.). …
TIBERIO, CLAUDIO NERONE (Tiberius Claudius Nero; dopo l'adozione ad Augusto, Tiberius Iulius Caesar), IMPERATORE ROMANO. - N. il 16 nov. 42 a. C., m. nella villa di Miseno il 16 marzo 37 d. C. Nel Nuovo Testamento è nominato espressamente solo in Lc. 3, 1; si accenna a lui in Mt. 22, 17, 21 e paralleli (quando Gesù è interrogato sulla liceità del tributo a Cesare), Lc. 23, 2 e Io. 19, 12.15 (al processo di Gesù davanti a Pilato). …
22:19
… Un d. gli fu presentato (Mt. 22, 19 sgg.; Mc. 12, 15 sgg.; Lc. 20, 24), e il Maestro ne fece risaltare la presenza dell'immagine imperiale e la dicitura. …
È assai probabile che il denaro del tributo mostrato a Gesù (Mt. 22, 19 sgg. e paralleli) fosse quello di T.; in tal caso era d'argento e recava sul davanti l'immagine dell'Imperatore incoronato attorniata dall'iscrizione: Tiberias Caesar Divi Augusti P(ilius) …
22:21
… Inoltre a fianco della società civile esiste una società più perfetta, la Chiesa, alla quale in modo esclusivo, secondo l'insegnamento di Cristo «Date a Cesare quello che è di Cesare e a Dio quello che è di Dio» (Mt. 22, 21), compete il potere nell'ordine soprannaturale.
… Infine la superiorità della Chiesa non diminuisce la sovranità dello Stato come ha espressamente indicato il divino fondatore della Chiesa con quelle parole: « date a Cesare quel ch'è di Cesare e date a Dio quel ch'è di Dio » (Mt. 22, 21). Questo afferma la Chiesa nell'inno della festa dell'Epifania: « non eripit mortalia qui regna dat caelestia » e lo hanno dichiarato i sommi pontefici in molti documenti. …
… Gesù, pur asserendo che si dia a Cesare quanto gli compete (Mt. 22, 21), pur ammettendo in Pilato giudice la potestà di giudicare (Is. 19, 11), parla insieme di doverosa resistenza (Mt. 10, 17 sgg.) e di abuso del potere. …
RELIGIONI, STUDIO COMPARATO DELLE
Il Cristo per parte sua ha ordinato ai suoi discepoli «date a Cesare quello che appartiene a Cesare, a Dio quello che appartiene a Dio» (Mt. 22, 21; cf. Rom. 13, 1-7). I suoi ministri, è vero, hanno parecchio volte favorito il gioco dei cesari in compenso dell'appoggio domandato ad essi; imperatori e re si sono immischiati direttamente …
2. Dall'inizio dell'era cristiana al medioevo. - Nell'insegnamento cristiano dei primi secoli e presso i Padri prevalsero le esortazioni all'obbedienza verso l'autorità pubblica, contenute in germe nel Vangelo (Mt. 20, 25; 22, 21) e più esplicitamente espresse da s. Paolo (Rom., 1, 3, 2) e da s. Pietro, che nella sua prima lettera (I Pt., 2, 13, 18) consiglia sottomissione anche verso i principi malvagi, etiam discolis. …
22:23
1. La fede nella risurrezione, che il cristianesimo difese contro l'urto della generale incredulità (cf. Mt. 22, 23; Lc. 22, 27; Act. 17, 32; s. Agostino: «In nulla re sic contradicitur fidei christianae, quam in resurrectione carnis» Enarr. in Ps. 88, 2: PL 37, 1134). Presso la salma dei …
Il L. era ancora in uso al tempo di Gesù (Mt. 22, 23-27; Mc. 12, 18-23; Lc. 20, 27-32). Nella Miṣnāh, il trattato Jēbhāmāth si occupa del L. Con il tempo gli stessi rabbini, a causa delle cambiate circostanze della vita, vietarono di sposare …
… Aglaophon comincia, interpretando la veste pellicca di Gen. 3, 21 data all'uomo dopo il peccato col corpo e provando la resurrezione senza corpo con Mt. 22, 23. Viene citato allora Origene secondo il quale nei corpi spirituali degli eredi del Regno di Dio rimase soltanto la forma del corpo terrestre. …
Questa dottrina, accolta soltanto dalle anime più elevate d'Israele e respinta dall'intera setta sadducea (cf. Mt. 22, 23; Lc. 22, 27; Act. 4, 1-2; 23, 8), divenne insegnamento universale nel cristianesimo. …
22:24
… A prescrizioni del P. come di Mosè si riportano ugualmente i contemporanei di Cristo: i farisei (Mt. 19, 7; Io. 8, 5; Act. 6, 14), i Sadducei (Mt. 22, 24), i discepoli (Io. 1, 45). La convinzione passa agli Apostoli (Act. 3, 22; Rom. 10, 5, 19; I Cor. 9, 9 ecc.) e ai primi fedeli (Act. 7, 37; 28, 23).
22:29
… Ind., II, 8, 14). Anche dal «caso» della donna che aveva sposato successivamente sette mariti, sottoposto dai s. a Gesù (Mt. 22, 29-33 e paralleli), sembra che negassero non solo la risurrezione dei corpi, ma anche l'immortalità delle anime. …
22:30
… perfetta spiritualità degli a. (cf. G. E. Closen, Die Sünde der Söhne Gottes, Roma 1937). Nel Nuovo Testamento gli a. sono presentati invece più chiaramente come spiriti (Hebr. 1, 14), invisibili (Col. 1, 16), che non hanno rapporti carnali (Mt. 22, 30), e si parla esplicitamente della loro caduta (Iud. 6; II Pt. 2, 4).
… La verginità anticipa già qui l'erunt sicut angeli di Mt. 22, 30 (II, 7). Il terzo discorso dà una esegesi allegorica di Gen. 2, 23/4 basandosi su Ephes. 5, 32 e svolge la relazione tipica fra Adamo e Cristo che diventa quasi una identificazione …
III. VALUTAZIONE. — Il m. carnale, essendo diametralmente opposto allo spirito cristiano (cf. Mt. 22, 30; Rom. 14, 17; I Cor. 15, 50), fu rigettato fin dal suo nascere come un'eresia. …
… 35 [1950], pp. 177-180), nel Nuovo Testamento invece se ne ha l'enunciazione completa: « Beati mundo corde, quoniam ipsi Deum videbunt » (Mt. 5, 8). « Angeli eorum semper vident faciem Patris mei, qui in caelis est » (Mt. 18, 10), poiché in seguito (Mt. 22, 30) Gesù, affermando che al momento della risurrezione gli eletti saranno simili agli Angeli, implicitamente asserisce la loro elevazione alla conoscenza intuitiva di Dio.
22:31
… Gesù Cristo (p. es., Mt. 22, 31 sg.), s. Paolo (p. es., I Cor. 9, 7-11), i Padri della Chiesa e gli scolastici hanno fatto uso di tali deduzioni ed applicazioni scritturistiche, e senza dubbio il
22:35
… Theol., 2ᵃ-2ᵃᵉ, q. 184, a. 1). Tale è l'insegnamento del Cristo (Mt. 22, 35; Mc. 12, 31), il quale disse che dalla carità soprannaturale si riconosceranno i suoi veri discepoli (Io. 17, 21). La carità ha infatti il primato nella vita spirituale (I Cor. …
… Aser. 2, 10. Il maestro religioso si chiama, al tempo di Gesù, « uomo della t., maestro della t. » (νομικός; Mt. 22, 35; Lc. 7, 30, ecc.; νομοδιδάσκαλος; Lc. 5, 17; Act. 5, 34). Per i rabbini del sec. 1, la sapienza consiste nella scienza della T. ('Abōth, III, 9); perciò il rabbino è oggi chiamato …
22:37
più grande comandamento » (Mt. 22, 37). Il prossimo è l'oggetto secondario della c.: « Il secondo precetto è simile: amerai il prossimo come te stesso » (ibid.).
… Ma la perfezione (v.) qui comandata consiste nell'amare i propri nemici (Mt. 5, 44), come spiega s. Luca in un passo parallelo (6, 36). In Mt. 22, 37 è comandata la carità perfetta, in cui consiste la perfezione; ma tale obbligo riguarda la carità (v.) appetitive summa. …
stoicismo) trova il suo fondamento nel concetto che gli uomini sono tutti figli di Dio ed uguali davanti a Lui. Di qui il primo comandamento della morale evangelica che unisce insieme l'amore di Dio e l'amore del prossimo cui è dato il massimo rilievo (Mt. 22, 37; Mc. 12, 29). La perfezione morale non è appannaggio di un gruppo (farisei) o di una classe, ma è aperta a tutti, anche ai poveri, anzi specialmente ai poveri, ai perseguitati, a coloro …
… mutamento dello spirito (μετάνους: Mt. 4, 17; Mc. 1, 4) operato per mezzo del Battesimo (Mc. 1, 15 e 16, 16; cf. Io. 3, 5), santità interiore in antitesi con il formalismo farisaico (Mt. 5, 20; 23, 23), soprattutto carità somma verso Dio e verso il prossimo (Mt. 22, 37).
… allontanati dalle tue voglie » (Eccl. 18, 30). Nel Nuovo Testamento l'insegnamento di Gesù e dei suoi Apostoli è esplicito: « Se uno vuol venire dietro a me, rinneghi se stesso, prenda ogni giorno la sua croce e mi segua » (Lc. 9, 23; cf. Io. 12, 24; Mt. 22, 37; Mc. 8, 35, ecc.). …
22:39
… 5, e q. 66, a. 7. b) Dai teologi e Dottori, di cui ci limitiamo a citare l'esponente massimo s. Tommaso d'Aquino che nell' op. cit., q. 32, a. 5, dopo di aver ricordato l'amor del prossimo essere un precetto « Diliges proximum tuum sicut te ipsum » (Mt. 22, 39), soggiunge essere quindi necessario che cada sotto lo stesso precetto tutto ciò senza di cui esso non può conservarsi: ora all'amor del prossimo appartiene non soltanto volergli bene, …
22:40
… trono, profeticamente disse della Risurrezione di Cristo che egli non fu abbandonato nello fē'ōl, né la carne di lui vide la corruzione » (Act. 2, 24-31). Anche in altri passi del Nuovo Testamento si fa allusione alla dimora dell'anima di Cristo nel l. (Mt. 22, 40; Rom. 10, 6-7; probabilmente in I Pt. 3, 19-20).
22:41
… Figlio (Ps. 2, 7; Hebr. 1, 5) ed eguale di Jahweh (Ps. 99 [100], 1: Jahweh lo invita a sedere alla sua destra = Hebr. 1, 13; Mt. 22, 41-46), sovrano d'Israele e delle genti (Ps. 2, 6, 8; 71, 8-11); sacerdote in eterno (Ps. 109, 4 = Hebr. 5, 6; 7) = esemplare di giustizia (Ps. 71, 7), egli realizzerà perfettamente il regno …
22:42
… scritti lucani (Lc. 2, 26; 9, 20 [cf. Mt. 16, 16]; Act. 3, 18; 4, 26), appare nei Vangeli (come già in Ps. Salom. 17, 32; cf. Eccl. gr. 46, 19) Χριστός Κύριος (Lc. 2, 11), titolo in cui la messianità culmina nella divinità che Gesù rivendicava (Mt. 22, 42-45), e di cui s. Paolo fu l'araldo. …
22:43
… P. es., in Mt. 1, 22 Dio « per mezzo » (βίᾳ) del profeta Isaia (8, 8; cf. Mt. 2, 15) predice della Vergine partoriente; in Lc. 1, 70 parla « per la bocca (βίᾳ στόματος) dei santi profeti; in Mt. 22, 43, David « in Spirito » (ἐν πνεύματι) compose Ps. 110, 1; in Act. 1, 16 lo Spirito Santo predisse « per bocca » (βίᾳ στόματος) di David la « Scrittura » di Ps. 41, 10; in Act. 4, 25 …
Douay-Rheims (Challoner) · Vulgata Clementina · Douay-Rheims originale (Reims 1582), trascrizione 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')). Pubblico dominio.