Bernardin de Piconio’s Commentary on 1 Cor 13:1-13

This post contains a brief summary of chapter 13 followed by the commentary. The post ends with what de Piconio calls a Corollary Of Piety.

A Summary of 1 Corinthians 13~In this chapter, introduced parenthetically in the middle of his argument, the Apostle asserts the infinite superiority of charity to all other gifts of God, on the ground that charity will reign for eternity when all other gifts and graces, even faith and hope, shall have been absorbed and lost in it. Not only the excellence, but the absolute necessity of charity, is here insisted on; and there is an evident reference, throughout the chapter, to certain deficiencies of the Corinthian Christians in this respect. It is hardly necessary to observe that this splendid burst of inspired eloquence is probably the best known portion of the Apostle’s writings, and is sufficient to entitle him to a foremost place among the great writers of all countries and all ages.

1. If I should speak the tongues of men and Angels, and have not charity, I am becomelike sounding brass or a jingling cymbal.

The tongues of men and Angels is no doubt a hyperbolical exaggeration, signifying all languages that ever have been spoken, or ever could be spoken, in earth or heaven. It does not follow from the words of Saint Paul that the
holy Angels may not have the power of communicating knowledge to one another without the intervention of language. The cymbal was an instrument consisting of two hollow plates of bronze, or other metal, which, when struck together, produced a ringing sound, and was employed in the festivals of Cybele. It is mentioned by Virgil and by Cicero.

2. And if I have had prophecy, and know all mysteries, and all science: and if I have had all faith, so that I remove mountains: and have not had charity, I am nothing.
3. And if I shall have distributed all my possessions in food to the poor, and if I shall have given up my body to burn: and have not had charity, it profits me nothing.

From language he proceeds to higher gifts, as described in verses 8-10 of the last chapter: 1. prophecy; 2. wisdom, or the knowledge of the hidden mysteries of God; 3. science, enabling me to explain and prove these mysteries by reason and facts of creation, to the intelligence of others; 4. faith, which accomplishes the impossible. These are indeed great and noble gifts; but I am nothing, says St. Augustine. The distribution of all his goods to the poor would be an exercise of the gift called in verse 28 of the last chapter, opitulations, or aids, on a large scale. Such an exhibition of generosity would
be very uncommon, and practically almost impossible, in a person destitute of Christian charity, and any love of God. It is theoretically possible, as proceeding from sympathy and compassion for the physical sufferings of others, and would not be absolutely without merit, as coming from a good impulse. And it would undoubtedly benefit the persons who were fed, in a material sense. But it would be of no spiritual benefit to the giver, in a
spiritual sense, if unaccompanied by any desire to benefit their souls, or any love of God. Not even if, to save the lives of others, and for temporal ends, he gave his body to be burned. In the days of the Apostles a foreign philosopher, probably from the East, actually burned himself alive, at the Olympic games, out of vain glory, as is related by Lucian, who was present. God estimates by charity all we do, even martyrdom itself. This much the Apostle says to show the necessity of charity. He now proceeds to describe it.

4. Charity is patient, benignant; charity envies not, does not misbehave, is not inflated.

Charity is patient and long-suffering; gentle, kind, accommodating; envies not the happiness of others; is not noisy, vulgar, self-asserting, petulant, perverse, insolent, sly, malicious; is never self-conceited. Charity is not the parent of other virtues, but the queen; they are not derived from her, but she commands, forms, directs and perfects them.

5. Is not ambitious, seeks not her own, is not irritated, thinks not ill.

Is not ambitions. In the Greek, does not condescend to act indecorously; the Syriac: will not do what is shameful. Men who are ambitious of popular favour will sometimes stoop to flatter the vices of their inferiors, which is probably the reason why the Vulgate here uses the word ambitiosa. Charity seeks the public and general advantage, rather than her own. Is not easily provoked to anger, but takes time for consideration. Is not quick to suspect evil in others, but attributes good motives to them as far as is possible.

6. Rejoices not at iniquity, but rejoices with truth.

Rejoices not at iniquity. Is not pleased at hearing of evil done by others, but rejoices in honesty, integrity, justice.

7. Bears all, trusts all, hopes all, endures all.

Bears all, in the Greek; conceals all the evil it hears, so far as is possible. Believes all the good that can with reason and prudence be believed. Hopes all; never despairs of the conversion and salvation of any.  Endures
all, calumny, persecution, death, for the love of God.

8. Charity never fails. Whether prophecies shall be abolished, or languages cease, or knowledge be destroyed.
9. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10. But when that shall have come which is perfect, that which is in part shall be abolished.
11. When I was a child I spoke as a child, I was wise as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I abolished what was of the child.
12. Now we see in a mirror, in enigma; but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then I shall know, as I also am known.
13. And now there remain faith, hope, charity, these three; but charity is of these the greater.

Charity fails not; is eternal. Prophecy will come to an end, and be useless, when all things are clearly seen; languages will cease, when all with one voice
will cry, Sanctus, sanctns, sanctus ; science, or learning, will be needless, when all truth is at once made manifest to all, for there will be nothing more to learn. The one occupation of eternity will be to love. What we really know, in this life, is almost nothing; what we are permitted to prophesy, is but some fragment of the truth. When the full light comes, this partial illumination will
be no longer needed, as the stars pale when the sun rises. This life, compared with eternity, is childhood, compared with full growth. I spoke, felt, thought, as a child speaks, feels, and thinks. I threw aside the ideas of childhood when I became a man. We see God now, as we see objects in a mirror, that are out of sight, obscurely, partially, incompletely. We know him by enigmas, phrases and thoughts of which we can guess, but never fully understand the meaning. Then we shall see Him, face to face. We know Him, truly so far as faith can enlighten us, and we can in a degree understand, but only partially.
We shall know Him then, as He knows us; not in the same degree, for God knows all, but is Himself incomprehensible by any finite intelligence; but in the same manner, by direct, clear, uninterrupted vision. Faith, hope, charity, are the greatest and noblest of God’s gifts to man, in this mortal life. There will be nothing to believe, when we see all; nothing to hope, when we have all. Faith will be lost in sight, hope in enjoyment; but charity will endure for ever.

Corollary of Piety. Faith and Hope are the glory and the joy of human life. Faith raises the intellect and the affections to nobler objects of contemplation than the things of time. Hope fills in the background of our lives with gold. Without faith in the unseen, man sinks into materialism, and becomes an animal, with a finer nervous system, more potent brain power, and wider knowledge, than his fellow brutes, but with no nobler aims than theirs, and no higher object of existence. Without hope, he sinks under the unendurable burden of the sorrows of his lot in life. His feet stumble upon the dark mountains on his weary way to hopeless captivity; and the annoyances and troubles he would have laughed at, if he encountered them on a joyous pilgrimage to the city of his pride and hope, are magnified into misfortunes bitterer than human nature can endure. Faith is the only repose of his ever restless intellect, hope the only solace of his inconsolable heart. And yet—and there is no more startling proof of the infinite grandeur of the things of eternity compared with the things of time—compared with Charity, which is eternal, Faith and Hope are childish things. Empires and their glory, science, civilization, invention, language, all God’s gifts to man, of nature and above nature, for the purposes of this mortal life, will one day be no more
needed, and will pass away; and faith and hope pass with them. We do not believe in what we see; we do not hope for what we have. We shall no longer learn to know God; for we shall see him face to face. We shall no longer voluntarily love him ; for we shall be drowned and consumed in the burning ocean of his charity. We love him here, says Saint Augustine: in heaven it will be his turn to love us. We shall no longer serve him; he will fold his children in an embrace that shall know no end. There remains the full consummation of the final cause of our existence, that for which he made us, to enjoy him for ever. When faith and hope have ceased, with all things that are temporal. Charity will reign for ever, and reign alone; for God is Charity.

Bishop MacEvily on Rom 3:21-25, 28 for Sunday Mass, March 6

This post includes the Bishop’s brief summary analysis of  Romans 3 followed by his commentary on the Sunday reading. I’ve also included his paraphrases of the verses he is commenting on. These are in purple text.

A Summary Analysis of Romans Chapter 3~Having convicted the Jews, in the preceding chapter, of grievous violations of the Law of Moses, the Apostle commences this with pointing out some external advantages which they possessed over the Gentiles (verses 1, 2). He next refutes certain objections against the veracity and justice of God, springing out of the subject (verses 2-9). He proves from the testimony of Sacred Scripture that both Jew and Gentile were under sin. And these testimonies from Sacred Scripture he shows to have special reference to the Jews (9-21). He next lays down the great theme of the Epistle, viz.: Justification by Faith, opposed to the works of the law of nature, or the Law of Moses (22). He shows the congruity of such a means of justification (23), and its gratuitous-ness (24, 25). Hence, all boasting is excluded (27, 2S). Finally, he shows the congruity, on the part of God, of adopting such a means of justification, as being so universal, and accommodated equally both to Jew and Gentile.

Rom 3:21  But now, without the law, the justice of God is made manifest, being witnessed by the law and the prophets.

But in these latter times, the true justice by which we are rendered really just in God’s sight, and to which testimony has been rendered by the law and the prophets, is made manifest as proceeding from a source quite distinct from, and independent of, the helps of the law.

The justice of God. Real and true justification bv which we are really justified before God; and hence called the justice of God, because emanating from him alone, “is made manifest without the law”, because, by the preaching of the Gospel, it was abundantly confirmed and externally testified by miracles, that this justice has been bestowed on those who never received the law, e.g., Cornelius the centurion and others. “Being witnessed bv the law and the prophets.”  “By the law,” (Genesis 49:1o); “the prophets,” (Hab 2:4; Isa 55.) Hence, it is no novel doctrine.

Rom 3:22  Even the justice of God, by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all, and upon all them that believe in him: for there is no distinction.

That justice, I say, comes from the faith of Christ, and is abundantly conferred on all who believe in him, as they ought: for, there is no distinction between those who received the law and those who did not.

Even, i.e., I say, “the justice of God,” comes from a source quite distinct from that which the Gentiles and Jews imagined, viz., from the “faith of Jesus Christ,” “unto all and upon all.”  Some say, these words express more strongly the universality and sublimity of this gift: others, that they only express the same thing, and are repeated for the sake of emphasis. “Upon all,” is not found in the Vatican nor in the other chief manuscripts. “That believe in him.”  Of course, he leaves it to be understood, that their faith is accompanied with the other conditions requisite for justification. “In hims,” is not in the Greek, which simply is τους πιστευοντας (“That believe”).

Rom 3:23  For all have sinned and do need the glory of God.

For all have sinned, and have nothing wherein to glory before God: or, are destitute of justifying grace, the seed of future glory, which comes from God alone and is not merited by works. (And hence, the congruity of his adopting a means of justification, wholly independent of any merit on the part of man).

For all (Jew and Gentile, as has been already shown), have sinned, and do
need the glory of God.  “Do need,” in Greek, υστερουνται, are behind, or, come too late for. By “the glory of God,” some understand, the justifying grace of God, which will redound to his glory, and which is the seed of future glory in us, and comes from God alone, not merited by works. The other exposition in the Paraphrase is also very probable, and means, they have no glory; or, nothing wherein to glory before God, and hence, the necessity of establishing a system of justification wholly unconnected with man’s merits (for he has none), and entirely dependent on God, and consequently redounding to his glory alone. And such is the system of justification through faith. Against this latter exposition it militates, and is in favour of the former, that the Greek for “glory” is δοξης.

Rom 3:24  Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,

But they are justified gratuitously, without any previous merits on their part, by his grace, through the redemption which Christ Jesus purchased for us, having paid for it the price of his most precious blood.

Being justified.  After having sinned (as in preceding verse) they were justified “freely,” i.e., gratuitously; because  none of the things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification itself. (Council of Trent, SS. 6, ch. 8.)  “By his grace.” This is the formal cause of justification, and must, consequently, be essentially gratuitous; otherwise it would be no grace.  “Through the redemption.” The meritorious cause of this justification is the redemption through Christ. The Greek word for “redemption,”  απολυτρωσεως, implies, the payment given in ransoming.
We are said to be justified by faith, inasmuch as it is, the beginning of man’s salvation, the foundation and root of all justification. Council of Trent, ibidem.

Rom 3:25  Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins

Whom God proposed as a real victim of propitiation-of which we are made partakers by faith in his blood or death for us-in order to manifest his justice or the infinite hatred he has for sin, which justice would appear to be in abeyance, owing to his having apparently remitted in the past ages, sins for which no adequate ransom appeared to be given, or reparation made.

Whom God hath set forth,  i.e., publicly exhibited on the cross, and gave
to us “to be a propitiation.”  The corresponding Greek word-ιλαστηριον- may signify either a “propitiation,” or a “propitiator.” It more probably is taken in the former signification here, to denote a victim of propitiation “through faith in his blood”. The words, “in his blood,” are connected by many with the word “propitiation,” thus: Whom Cod hath set forth to be a propitiation, which propitiation is effected by the shedding of his blood, and is to be applied to us through faith; others connect the words as in the Paraphrase.  “To the shewing of his justice,” i.e., in order to manifest his Attribute of eternal justice, Avbereby beholds sin in infinite hatred. This he manifests and vindicates by requiring a victim an effusion of blood, of infinite value, before he remits sin. This “justice,” for the manifestation of which God had publicly exhibited his Son as a victim of propitiation, would also appear to extend to that justice whereby we are made just, which was exercised in the remission of sins in former ages, since it was only by the infusion of grace and justice that these sins were remitted. In the first signification of “justice,” to which it would appear allusion is principally made in this verse, the words, “for the remission of former sins,” are thus connected (as in Paraphrase), which justice of God hating sin would appear to be in abeyance, owing to his having remitted sins in former ages, &c. (vide Paraphrase). The word “remission” may also signify, as appears from the Greek word-παρεσιν-moral languor and spiritual debility, which sin introduced into the world, and to cure which the great Physician came down from Heaven; or, rather, it signifies God’s having omitted to punish, and having passed over the sins of former ages. This exposition accords best with the following verse, “through the forbearance,” or patience, “of God.”

Rom 3:28  For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law.

We come, then, to the conclusion, that a man , whether he be Jew or Gentile, is justified by faith, without any reference to the works of the Mosaic Law, performed by the sole aid and helps of that law.

For, (in Greek, ουν-, therefore. The Alexandrian MS. supports the Vulgate
γαρ,) “we account,” the meaning of which, as appears from the Greek word
λογιζομεθα, is, we infer, by reasoning from the foregoing,  “a man” (every man, be he Jew or Gentile), “to be justified by faith,” because faith is the root and foundation of all justification. (Council of Trent, SS. G, ch. 8.) “Without the works of the law,” i.e., without the performance of the works which the law of Moses prescribes, by the sole aid and lights administered by the law itself. Although the words of the Apostle here, addressing the Jewish converts, have expressly reference only to the works of the Mosaic Law, still, his scope is to deny that any works, whether of the Mosaic or
Natural Law, give us a claim to the grace of justification. Hence, addressing the converts from Paganism, he asserts the same. (Eph 2:8-9).

OBJECTION. Therefore, good works are not necessary for justification.

RESPONSE. The inference is quite false, provided the Apostle does not in this verse speak of the works which Catholics hold to be necessary for obtaining and preserving first, and for meriting second, justification. And, moreover, if it he clear from other passages of Sacred Scripture that good works enter into man’s justification. Now, such is the case. First, “the works of the law,” of which the Apostle here speaks, are quite different from the works which Catholics maintain, to he necessary for justification, viz., those done in faith, and by the aid of divine grace. For, the Apostle is speaking of works upon which would be based a system of justification opposed to the
gratuitous justification by faith. He opposes these works to faith. He makes the first the basis of the justification maintained by the converted Jews and Gentiles; the second, the basis of the justification propounded by himself. If he were treating of the works done in faith, there would be no such opposition, nor could the gratuitousness of justification be excluded by such works; for, Catholics, while maintaining that these works have a share in justification, still hold that these works preceding justification, although good, although performed by the aid of divine grace, give no claim to strict merit, and leave justification itself quite gratuitous Moreover, the state
of the controversy would admit of no reference to works done under the influence of faith and grace; for, the question at issue regarded the claim which these works gave towards obtaining faith and justification. Faith, then, in the minds of the converted Romans, was supposed to be given in reward for these works; hence, there must be question of works preceding faith. The Apostle, then, refers to the works performed by the sole aid of the law of Moses, and the law of nature, without grace and faith, and he comes to the conclusion, that these works have no share in justification. Secondly,
we have numberless passages in Sacred Scripture, in which the necessity of good works is asserted. St. Paul himself tells us (chap. 2 of this Epistle), “that only the DOERS of the law will be justified;” and the saving faith of the Galatians must be “a faith that worketh by charity,” (Gal 5:6); and we are told (1 Cor 13) that faith strong enough to remove mountains, unless accompanied by charity, is worth nothing. St. James (chap. 2), is so clear on this subject as to render comment unnecessary. And we are informed by St. Augustine (Libro de Fide, &c., xiv.), that one of the principal objects of St. James, in writing his Epistle, was, to refute the error regarding the sufficiency of faith, exclusive of good works, for justification; an error which, even in his days was broached and grounded on the false interpretation of the words of the Apostle in this Epistle. The reason why the Apostle dwells on the necessity of faith, passing over the other dispositions for justification, is, because it is the ingredient of justification which most clearly showed its absolute gratuitousness the point he had chiefly to prove. And if he were, in this Epistle, to point out all the conditions necessary for justification good works among the rest he would be only rendering his doctrine less forcible and more obscure; for, his adversaries might artfully endeavour to confound these good works, required by him, with those put forward by themselves, which latter description of works is altogether excluded by him in this Epistle.

Juan de Maldonado on Matt 7:21-27

Verse 21. Not everyone that saith to Me. All the Ancients explain these words of the life of beatification. For, although the Church is sometimes called the kingdom of heaven, the words ” Enter into the kingdom of heaven ” never signify the Church, but always the life of everlasting beatification. It is clear that Christ, in this passage, is speaking of the reward which is given, not in the Church, but in the kingdom of heaven. As if He had said, ” The way to heaven is not by words but by actions,” and, from the following verse, it is clear that the allusion is to the last judgment, when some will be admitted into heaven, and others will be shut out.

But he that doeth the will of my Father. It seems as if Christ should have said, “He that doeth My will,” for the people called Him ” Lord,” and not the Father, and they ought to do the will of Him whom they confess as their Lord. ” Why call ye Me Lord, and do not the things which I say? ” S. Chrysostom and Theoophylact reply, on the passage, that we may see that the will of the Father and of the Son are the same, as the Son, when He ought to have named His own will, named His Father’s instead.

But if the will of each be the same, why did He speak of His Father’s rather than His own ? They answer that He did so, as it would be more acceptable to His hearers, and would cause less invidiousness to Himself Another reason may be suggested. Christ everywhere ascribes to the Father the ” person ” of a lawgiver, and He comports Himself as His legate—numbering Himself among those who do the will of the Father, as in Matt 26:42; .S. John 4:34; 5:30; 6:38; and He always speaks of ” the will of My Father,” not of ” My will,” as in Matt 12:50.

Verse 22. In that day. In that terrible and most notable day. For the word “that” has here this force. As if Christ spoke of a day not like others, but sure, and peculiar, and to be filled with the fear and the fame of the future judge (Matt 24:36; S. Mark 13:32; S. Luke 21:34; 1 Thess 5:4; 2 Tim 1:12, 18; 4:8: 1 Cor 3:13; 4:5).

Many miracles. Miracles are of many kinds, at least frequently. For what Christ had before said per partes and distributively, He now concludes in genere. As if He then said, ” Have we not prophesied and cast out devils, and done many other miracles in Thy name?”

This passage has given rise to the question whether miracles can be wrought, even by the wicked. This, at least, is certain. As there are two kinds of miracles, the true and the false, the false can be wrought even by the wicked. For S. Paul declares (2 Thess 2:9) that Antichrist will work false miracles ; and although it may be doubted whether the magicians of Pharaoh worked true miracles or not, yet, at least, it is certain that they did work false ones. The question is, therefore, of true miracles: Whether they can be wrought by the wicked?

Here a distinction is to be made. For true miracles can be wrought by the wicked, either while they are wicked or before they began, or after they had ceased to be such. It is not doubtful as regards the two last classes. For Saul, before he became wicked, when he was a ” child of one year” (1 Sam 13:1), prophesied, as we read in 1 Sam 10:10-12; and S. Matthew the publican, after he had ceased to be a publican, that is, a public sinner, wrought many miracles like the other Apostles. It is more doubtful as to those who arc wicked as long as they remain so.

There is yet another distinction to be observed. For a question may be raised as to the wicked who have faith, or of the same who have none. Of the former. Scripture has taught us that they can work true miracles; for Caiaphas was wicked, but he prophesied because he was high priest that year; Judas wrought miracles while he believed in Christ, for he received power with the other Apostles (S. Matt 10:1); and he gloried with the others, because the devils were subject to him (S. Luke 10:17); and yet he was a thief, and bore the purse (S. John 12:6). Saul, after the Lord had departed from him, stood in the midst of a company of prophets and prophesied like the rest (1 Sam 19:20-24). As miracles are done most chiefly by faith, we may doubt of those who have not faith; not whether they do work miracles, for Scripture declares that they do: but whether they work true miracles.

S. Chrysostom (Hom, xxv.), S. Jerome, Euthymius, and Theophylact prove by many examples that, even by men who do not believe, true miracles have been wrought. For Balaam, a false and unbelieving prophet, prophesied truly (Num 24:17). From this passage we may easily conclude that the false prophets of whom Christ spoke as hereafter to do true miracles, prophesied truly—truly cast out devils ; and Christ did not say that they were liars, but that, though they had done these things. He did not know them. The sense of the passage requires it that Christ signified their miracles to be true. For it would have been no matter of wonder if, to those who had done false miracles, He should have answered that He did not know them. But it would have been strange indeed if He had made this reply to those who had done true miracles. It would not have been a great matter if He had warned us against believing those who did false miracles. But it is wonderful that He puts us on our guard against believing false prophets, even if they do true miracles. We are not to discern between true and false prophets by their miracles alone, but also by their fruits, that is, by their lives.

It will be said: “No conclusion in proof of the truth of the doctrine can be drawn from true miracles.” It does not follow that no proof at all can be drawn, but none wholly conclusive. We know that Christ gave the Apostles power to work miracles, for the confirmation of the faith. We know that the whole world was drawn to the faith by the power of miracles. They who deny this, as S. Augustin says, against the Gentiles, work, themselves, a greater miracle by taking away miracles. For it is a more incredible miracle that the whole orb of the world—that is, that so many philosophers and wise men— should have believed the Apostles, who were so few in number and without learning, when teaching things so incredible to human reason, without any miracles, than were the miracles themselves which are declared to have been done by them. It is, therefore, a probable argument for the faith that is drawn from miracles, for they are often done by faith, very seldom indeed without it. When they are done they are done, not to prove the faith of those who do them, but to confirm the truth of the faith of those who have faith. For Balaam did not confirm his own faith by his prophecies, but rather the faith of the people of God against whom he had been brought to bear testimony; and almost all the miracles which were done by heretics (and they were, indeed, few) appear to be of this kind, and such as we read of in Scripture.

For the argument derived from miracles is necessary, if not from every point of view, yet at least from one or even two. For although it does not follow of necessity that whoever works miracles should have true faith, it does follow that that in which frequent and, as it were, ordinary miracles are wrought, must be the true Church; because, although God sometimes permits miracles to be wrought by particular individual creatures, out of His Church, as He did by Balaam’s ass, which was certainly not in the Church, yet to no society of men in general has He given the ordinary power of miracles but to His Church.

The negative argument on the other side has, in fact, more force—that that in which no miracle is wrought cannot be the true Church of God, because we know that He has given to this the power of working miracles. SS. Jerome and Augustin object, on this passage, “that ‘no one can say Jesus but by the Holy Ghost’ (1 Cor 12:3). How, then, can they who have not the Spirit of God, not
only say Lord, Lord, but even work miracles in the name of Christ?” They answer: “To say Jesus does not there mean to utter the name in words, but in deeds “. That is, not only to confess Christ by faith, but to show Him in our lives, which no one, it is plain, can do without the Holy Ghost.

Verse 23. And then. In that day (of which Christ has spoken in the preceding verse), before all men, when the hidden things of darkness will be revealed: “As if He had said, I will bear with you, and dissemble with you, even to that day, and leave you like chaff mixed with the grain on the threshing floor; but
then I will search you, then I will sift you” (S. Jerome, The Author, and Bede).

I will profess. The Author reads  “I will swear,” for  “I will confess,” which agrees well with the text. For by “swear” he understands Christ to say, ” Amen, amen, I say unto you I know you not” (Matt 25:12). S. Jerome and others explain the words, “I will profess,” to mean, “I will publicly profess that I know them not “. Christ appears to oppose His own true to their false confession, as if He had said: They have confessed Me falsely before men; I will confess them truly before My Father, but that I know them not. As He says on the contrary of those who have truly and sincerely confessed Him: “Everyone that shall confess Me before men, I will also confess Him before My Father who is in heaven ” (Matt 10:32).

I never knew you. Theophylact says: “Not even then when you did miracles “.
All ancient authors, and Origen first (On Rom. viii.), have observed that the word “know,” in this and other like passages, does not mean knowledge, but feeling, approbation, as S. John 20:14; 2 Tim 2:19; S. Matt 25:12 S. Luke 13:25. For God knows all men, but He does not approve all men for His own. The true meaning of the passage is manifold. It may mean (1) either “I never
knew you, that is, I never held you as my own, I never placed you in the number of the predestinated”; or (2) “I never held you for true prophets, such as you feigned to be”. This agrees apparently with the text, of which the subject is the discerning of false prophets.

Verse 24. Everyone, therefore. Having spoken of false prophets generally, Christ now concludes generally of all mankind.

Who heareth these My words. Some refer these words to the contents of the three chapters preceding. But it seems more safe to refer them to all the sayings of Christ, and to explain “these words” to mean words of this kind, “these words and others like them,” or “these, my present words”. For those which Christ had spoken before were His own words, and the whole genus is frequently signified by some one individual.

That built. To build is to believe in Christ (1 Cor 3:10). Of this building Christ says that the foundation may be twofold—the sand or the rock. He calls faith without works sand (verse 26), and He calls good works the rock (verse 24). Hence are derived arguments against two errors of the followers of Calvin, (1) That faith alone is not sufficient for salvation. (2) That good works, which are adjuncts of faith, not only justify and avail very greatly to, but are also a most firm foundation of, our salvation; nor is it contrary to S. Paul (1 Cor 3:11). There are many stones in the same foundation, of which Christ is the first and chief, and beside this foundation none other can be laid by any man; but upon Him all other things are built which rest upon this foundation. For both Apostles and Prophets are called a foundation (Eph 2:20; Rev 21:14). Faith and works, therefore, are two foundations, each resting upon Christ, the first and firmest of all. But faith alone is sand strewn upon a rock, which, however firm and strong the rock itself, is easily scattered, and then it brings down whatever is built upon it. Works are a rock upon a rock, which no rain, no wind, no rushing torrent can destroy.

Verse 25. The rain fell. Some distinguish the three words, “rain,” “wind,” and
“flood,” as meaning three different things. It is more probable that Christ, by these three words, by which buildings are most frequently ruined, meant to describe the same day of judgment as a terrible tempest, as in Ps 50:3. Christ,
therefore, teaches us that those who have good works will stand firmly in the judgment, and that all others, whatever their faith, will perish utterly. “For the wicked shall not rise in judgment ” (Ps 1:5).

Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on Mark 10:17-27

Ver 17. And when He was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to Him, and asked Him, “Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?”18. And Jesus said unto Him, “Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.19. Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.”20. And he answered and said unto Him, “Master, all these have I observed from My youth.”21. Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, “One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow Me.”22. And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.23. And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto His disciples, “How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!”24. And the disciples were astonished at His words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, “Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!25. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.”26. And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, “Who then can be saved?”27. And Jesus, looking upon them, saith, “With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.”

Bede: A certain man had heard from the Lord that only they who are willing to be like little children are worthy to enter into the kingdom of heaven, and therefore he desires to have explained to him, not in parables, but openly, by the merits of what works a man may attain everlasting life.

Wherefore it is said: “And when He was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to Him, and asked Him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?”

Theophylact: I wonder at this young man, who when all others come to Christ to be healed of their infirmities,  begs of Him the possession of everlasting life, notwithstanding his love of money, the malignant passion which afterwards caused his sorrow.

Chrys., Hom. in Matt., 63: Because however he had come to Christ as he would to a man, and to one of the Jewish doctors, Christ answered him as Man.  Wherefore it goes on: “And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but the One God.”  In saying which He does not exclude men from goodness, but from a comparison with the goodness of God.

Bede: But by this one God, Who is good, we must not only understand the Father, but also the Son, who says, “I am the good Shepherd;” [Joh_10:11] and also the Holy Ghost, because it is said, “The Father which is in heaven will give the good Spirit to them that ask him.” [Luk_11:13] For the One and Undivided Trinity itself, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is the Only and One good God. The Lord, therefore, does not deny Himself to be good, but implies that He is God; He does not deny that He is good Master, but He declares that no master is good but God.

Theophylact: Therefore the Lord intended by these words to raise the mind of the young man, so that he might know Him to be God. But He also implies another thing by these words, that when you have to converse with a man, you should not flatter him in your conversation, but look back upon God, the root and fount of goodness, and do honour to Him.

Bede: But observe that the righteousness of the law, when kept in its own time, conferred not only earthly goods, but also eternal life on those who chose it. Wherefore the Lord’s answer to one who enquires concerning everlasting life is, “Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill”; for this is the childlike blamelessness which is proposed to us, if we would enter the kingdom of heaven.  On which there follows, “And he answered and said unto Him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.”

We must not suppose that this man either asked the Lord, with a wish to tempt Him, as some have fancied, or lied in his account of his life; but we must believe that he confessed with simplicity how he had lived; which is evident, from what is subjoined, “Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him.” If however he had been guilty of lying or of dissimulation, by no means would Jesus, [p. 202] after looking on the secrets of his heart, have been said to love him.

Origen, in Evan. tom. xv, 14: For in that He loved, or kissed him [ed. note: osculaius, interpretation in Ed. Ben. (?)], He appears to affirm the truth of his profession, in saying that he had fulfilled all those things; for on applying His mind to him, He saw that the man answered with a good conscience.

Pseudo-Chrys., Cat. in Marc. Oxon.: It is worthy of enquiry, however, how He loved a man, who, He knew, would not follow Him? But this is so much as to say, that since he was worthy of love in the first instance, because he observed the things of the law from his youth, so in the end, though he did not take upon himself perfection, he did not suffer a lessening of his former love. For although he did not pass the bounds of humanity, nor follow the perfection of Christ, still he was not guilty of any sin, since he kept the law according to the capability of a man, and in this mode of keeping it, Christ loved him [ed. note: The general meaning corresponds with the original, and is, that the young man is a type of those who keep the Gospel precepts, without going on to counsels of perfection; but the sense of the Greek has been missed by the Latin translator].

Bede: For God loves those who keep the commandments of the law, though they be inferior; nevertheless, He shews to those who would be perfect the deficiency of the law, for He came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it. [Mat_5:17]

Wherefore there follows: “And said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me;” for whosoever would be perfect ought to sell all that he has, not a part, like Ananias and Sapphira, but the whole. Theophylact: And when he has sold it, to give it to the poor, not to stage-players and luxurious persons.

Chrys.: Well too did He say, not eternal life, but “treasure”, saying, “And thou shalt have treasure in heaven”; for since the question was concerning wealth, and the renouncing of all things, He shews that He returns more things than He has bidden us leave, in proportion as heaven is greater than earth.

Theophylact: But because there are many poor who are not humble, but are drunkards or have some other vice, for this reason He says, “And come, follow me.”

Bede: For he follows the Lord, who imitates Him, and walks in His footsteps.  It goes on: “And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved.

Chrys.: And the Evangelist adds the cause of his grief, saying, “For he had great possession.” The feelings of those who have little and those who have much are not the same, for the increase of acquired wealth lights up a greater flame of covetousness.

There follows: “And Jesus looked round about, and said unto His disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God.”

Theophylact: He says not here, that riches are bad, but that those are bad who only have them to watch them carefully; for He teaches us not to have them, that is, not to keep or preserve them, but to use them in necessary things.

Chrys.: But the Lord said this to His disciples, who were poor and possessed nothing, in order to teach them not to blush at their poverty, and as it were to make an excuse to them, and given them a reason, why He had not allowed them to possess any thing.

It goes on: “And the disciples were astonished at His words”; for it is plain, since they themselves were poor, that they were anxious for the salvation of others.

Bede: But there is a great difference between having riches, and loving them; wherefore also Solomon says not, He that hath silver, but, “He that loveth silver shall not be satisfied with silver.” [Ecc_5:10] Therefore the Lord unfolds the words of His former saying to His astonished disciples, as follows: “But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard it is for them that trust in their riches to enter the kingdom of God.” Where we must observe that He says not, how impossible, but “how hard”; for what is impossible cannot in any way come to pass, what is difficult can be compassed, though with labour.

Chrys.: Or else, after saying, “difficult,” He then shews that it is impossible, and that not simply, but with a certain vehemence; and He shews this by an example, saying, “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.”

Theophylact: It may be that by camel, we should understand the animal itself, or else that thick cable, which is used for large vessels.

Bede: How then could either in the Gospel, Matthew and Joseph, or in the Old Testament, very many rich persons, enter into the kingdom of God, unless it be that they learned through the inspiration of God either to count their riches as nothing, or to quit them altogether. Or in a higher sense, it is easier for Christ to suffer for those who love Him, than for the lovers of this world to turn to Christ; for under the name of camel, He wished Himself to be understood, because He bore the burden of our weakness; and by the needle, He understands the prickings, that is, the pains of His Passion. By the eye of a needle, therefore, He means the straits of His Passion, by which He, as it were, deigned to mend the torn garments of our nature.

It goes on: “And they were astonished above measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved?”  Since the number of poor people is immeasurably the greater, and these might be saved, though the rich perished, they must have understood Him to mean that all who love riches, although they cannot obtain them, are reckoned in the number of the rich.

It goes on: “And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God”; which we must not take to mean, that covetous and proud persons can enter into the kingdom of Heaven with their covetousness and pride, but that it is possible with God that they should be converted from covetousness and pride to charity and lowliness.

Chrys.: And the reason why He says that this is the work of God is, that He may shew that he who is put into this path by God, has much need of grace; from which it is proved, that great is the reward of those rich men, who are willing to follow the discipline [ed. note: philosophia] of Christ.

Theophylact: Or we must understand that by, “with men it is impossible, but not with God,” He means, that when we listen to God, it becomes possible, but as long as we keep our human notions, it is impossible. There follows, “For all things are possible with God”; when He says “all things”, you must understand, that have a being, which sin has not, for it is a thing without being and substance [ed. note: This is often urged by St. Augustine against the Manichees, who held that evil was a principle and a substance, coeternal with good. It also appears in the Pelagian controversy, for Pelagius argued that the Catholic doctrine of original sin implied that it was a substance; St. Augustine answers that though not a substance, it was a privation or disorganization of parts, just as darkness is a privation of light, and sickness a disordered state of body; which illustrates what Theophylact means by saying, that sin, though so great an evil, has no being or substance. see Aug. Conf. 7, 12, de Nat. et Grac. 21].

Or else: sin does not come under the notion of strength, but of weakness, therefore sin, like weakness, is impossible with God. But can God cause that not to have been done which has been done? To which we answer, that God is Truth, but to cause that what has been done should not have been done, is falsehood. How then can truth do what is false? He must first therefore quit His own nature, so that they who speak thus really say, Can God cease to be God? which is absurd.