Juan de Maldonado’s Commentary on Matt 16:13-19

Mat 16:13 And Jesus came into the quarters of Cesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is?

All know that there were two Caesareas. One, the ancient, which was formerly called the Tower of Strato. It was enlarged by King Herod, and adorned by him with many noble works, and called Caesarea in honour of Augustus Caesar, as we learn from Josephus (Antiq., xv. 13, and De Bell. Jud., xvi.) and from S. Jerome on this passage. It was situated on the coast of the Mediterranean, between Dora and Joppa. There was another, more modern, in Phoenicia, at the foot of Mount Libanus, where the Jordan takes its rise, which had been previously called Paneas, and which Philip, the son of Herod the Great, and tetrarch of the region of Trachonitis (S. Luke 3:12), adorned and enlarged, and called Caesarea in honour of Tiberius. After wards, King Agrippa, to flatter Nero, called it Neronias, as Josephus says (Antiq., xx. 8). The assertion of S. Jerome that it was then called Paneas does not seem to have been said by a lapse of memory; but it was very likely that in his time the adulatory name of Caesarea had been lost, and the city had resumed its ancient name of Paneas. It was called Caesarea Philippi; Philip the tetrarch having so named it to distinguish it from the other Caesarea of Herod.

And He asked His disciples.  S. Mark 8:27 says that this happened on the way, and S. Luke 9:18 when He was alone praying.  Euthymius answers that He took His journey and prayed at the same time.  This hardly seems probable.  The opinion of S. Augustin (De Consens., ii. 53) seems more probable, that it happened by the way, before He reached the place to which He was going. He turned aside out of the way to some solitary spot to pray, and, when He had finished His prayer, He went on, and then asked the disciples whom men said that He was.  “As He was praying” (S. Luke 9:18) is a Hebraism for “When He had finished,” as Ps 125:1: “When the Lord brought back”; that is, “When,” or “after He had”.

Whom do men say.  Many Latin copies, and most Greek ones, have “Whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am?”  There is a three fold version. (1).  “Whom do men say that the Son of man is?”  (2) Whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am?”  (3) “Whom do men say that I am?”  In the first, almost all the Latin copies and all authors agree.  In the second, only S. Epiphanius (In Anchoratus), Theophylact, and, as it seems, S. Hilary. In the third, only S. Chrysostom (Hom. lv.).

The first, which is the most usual one, and that in common use, seems much the best, and the conjecture that it was written at first (“Whom do men say that the Son ofman is?”) seems very excellent. Then perhaps some Greek, to show that Christ spoke of Himself, inserted “that I am,” into the margin; another may have transferred it to the text  ; and thus it may have begun to be read, “Whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am?”  And, lastly, that some transcriber, thinking that there was a redundancy, removed the words, “the Son of man,” which were obscure, and left the “Me,” “that I,” which was clearer. I know that many read it either way, and either without an interrogation, and by apposition: “I, the Son of man;” or, with an interrogation: “Whom do men say that I am? the Son of man?”   Both readings seem absurd; the second the more so of the two.  For Christ does not call Himself the Son of man honourably, but in humility; nor does He speak in the third person of any but Himself.

Observe the antithesis. Christ asks: “Whom do men say that the Son of man is?”  Peter answers: “Thou art the Son of the living God”.  Hence it seems that in the first passage we ought to read the words, “the Son of man,” for the antithesis. For Christ seems designedly, and in the most contemptuous terms, to have called Himself the Son of man, to try their faith, and to give them an opportunity of saying freely what their thoughts of Him were, even if they held Him no more than a mere man.

Men. A Hebraism, as in Matt 5:1313, which S. Luke explains. To S. Matthew’s, “Whom do men say?” S. Luke 9:18, adds, “Whom do the people say that I am?” as in explanation. S. Matthew, as we have shown, keeps the words; S. Luke the meaning and explanation.

Mat 16:14 But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

Why some said John the Baptist, some Elias, some Jeremias, vide Matt 11:4; 14:2.

Mat 16:15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?

But whom do you say that I am? Here is a plain antithesis. S. Jerome thinks that Christ opposed the Apostles to men, as being something more than men.  “Observe,” he says, “that from what follows and from the text of the discourse, the Apostles are not called men, but gods.  For when Christ had said: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? He added: But whom do you say that I am?”  It may be believed that Christ did not oppose them to men as gods, but He seems to have opposed them to the vulgar, as not ordinary men, which S. Chrysostom also thinks.  “You who have been with Me always, who have seen Me do many wonderful things, who in My name have yourselves done many acts of power, whom do you say that I am?”

Mat 16:16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.

Simon Peter answered.  The Ancients give many reasons for Peter’s having answered before the rest.  (1) That Peter was the princeps all, as S. Chrysostom (Hom. LV.) says.  (2) Because he was of a more ardent temperament, as S. Hilary and S. Jerome on Matt 14:28 say.  (3) Because He was as the mouth of the Apostles, and was accustomed to speak for all, as S. Chrysostom (in loco) and S. Augustin say; for in S. John 6:68, when Christ asked all the disciples if they also would go away, Peter answered: “Lord, to whom shall we go?  Thou hast the words of eternal life.”  Whether he answered here for himself only, or for all, we will endeavour to show on verse 18.

Thou art the Son of the living God.  Peter calls Christ the Son, by nature, not by adoption.  For all confessed Him to be the Son of God by adoption, as being a just man and a prophet.  The most certain proof that Peter thought Christ the Son of the living God was his opposing Him to John, Elias, Jeremiah, and the Prophets, who, it is certain, were the sons of God by adoption.  He calls Christ, therefore, the Son of God, not by adoption, but by nature. The Ancients rightly proved the Divinity of Christ from this passage; as S. Hilary (in his Comment., and De Trin., vi.), S. Athanasius (Serm. cont. Arian. Serm. iii.), and Dionysius Alexandria (Cont. Arian).

The living.  Peter calls Him the living God to distinguish Him from idols, which are lifeless things, as S. Jerome, Bede, and Euthymius have observed. S. Basil (De Pcenit.) terms Him the Son of the Holy God. Rightly, then, Theophylact notes the addition of the Greek article to the word Son, to show, not that He was an ordinary man, but that He was the one only Son of God by nature. ( Vide Matt 10:2.).

Mat 16:17 And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.

Simon Bar jona.  So called by contraction for Bar-johanna, which in the Chaldee means the son of John, as he is called (S. John 21:15). S. Luke 3:30 uses a like contraction.

Because flesh and blood.  Man, that is, consisting of flesh and blood. The Evangelist opposes men to God.  “My Father,” He says, “who is in heaven,” and as Gal 1:16; 5. John 1:13. Thus Scripture opposes men who savour of carnal things to God, or to those who savour of divine things (1 Cor 15:50).  So it is called the wisdom of the flesh (Rom 8:6, 7).

Mat 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it

And I. A forcible antithesis; but the Greek is still more forcible: δέ κἀγώ λέγω, “and I assuredly say.”  As if Christ had said: You, who are a man, have called me the Son of the living God; but I, who am the Son of the living God, say that thou art Peter, that is, My vicar, whom thou hast confessed to be the Son of God.  For My Church which is built upon Me I will build, as upon a second foundation, upon thee also.

Thou art Peter.  Some think that he was not called Peter before, but that the name was only promised him. S. John 1:42: “Jesus, looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jonas.  Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.”  It is more probable, as S. Augustin says (De Cons., ii.), that he was so called from the beginning of his vocation, as S. Mark 3:16 and S. Luke 6:14 show. And, therefore, when Christ said to him (S. John 1:42), ” Thou art Simon the son of Jona; thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter,” He gave him a name;  as if He had said: Henceforth thou shalt not be called Simon, but Cephas, i.e. Peter; as God gave Abram the name of Abraham, speaking of the future (Gen 17:5).

And upon this rock I will build My Church.  Some ancient authors take this rock to mean this faith, or this confession of faith, by which Peter had called Him the son of the living God.  Such are S. Hilary (De Trin. vi.); S. Gregory of Nyssa (Cont. Jud.); S. Chrysostom (Hom. Iv. in loc., and Orat.u. adv. Jud.);  S. Cyril Alexandria (Dial. iv. de Trin) , and the author of the Commentaries on
the Epistles of S. Paul, which are ascribed to S. Ambrose (On Gal. iv.).

But the interpretation of S. Augustin (On S. John xxvii. and cxxiv. 4, and Serm. xiii. de verb. Dom. sec. S. Matt.).  “Upon this rock, that is, upon Myself,” because Christ was the Rock (1 Cor 10:4, and 3:11), is still further from the meaning. Origen takes it of all who have the same faith (Tract, in S. Matt.).

Nothing could be more alien to the meaning of Christ than to suppose Him to say that He built the Church upon Himself, or upon any other foundation than S. Peter. For (1) the demonstrative pronoun “this” is here evidently put for the relative “which.”  As if Christ had said: “Thou art a rock upon which I will build My Church,” for Petrus and Petra are the same word, only of different genders.  It may be doubted why, if not S. Matthew himself, yet the Greek translator of S. Matthew, made that distinction of word and gender. The answer is, that in the Greek Πέτρος (Petros) and πέτρα (petra) are masculine and feminine.  Peter, because he was a man, could not be spoken of by the word Petra, but must be described by his own proper masculine name Petrus. (2) When Christ spoke of the foundation of the building, He called him not Petrus but Petra, though both words meant the same thing.  And in buildings of this kind, the feminine form of the word is more used than the masculine the masculine being Attic and rare. Besides, who doubts that by these words Christ meant to bestow some great and singular gift upon Peter as a reward of his confession of faith, or wished to promise such? But what would Christ have given to him if He had only given him the name of Peter?  Nay, He would not have given him the name, for, as has been shown, he was already called Peter; but by the words, “upon this rock,” He signified that He would bestow upon him the great and singular dignity of founding upon him His Church; that is, of making him the head of the Church, and His own vicar in it.  From the words that follow: “And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” it is clear that the words in question apply to Peter, for it is absurd that a change either of things or persons could be made by so few words. As, then, Christ said, “I will give unto thee the keys,” so He said, “Upon this rock,” that is, upon thee, “I will build My Church”.

He gave him the same thing in different words, and by different metaphors, that he should be His vicar in the Church.  This dignity (prior to that of the foundation), when He said, “Upon this rock I will build My Church,” He afterwards confirmed by the metaphor of chief or head of the Church, when He gave him the keys like those of a city: Christ Himself being both head and foundation of the Church; by which two names and metaphors, not two, but one and the same thing is signified.

It may be asked why Christ did not directly, and in one word, say: “Upon thee will I build My Church?”  The obvious reply is, that the grace and force of His words would in that case have been lost These consisted in Christ s using terms applicable to a building when speaking of the Church as a building; but it would not have been consistent to say, “Upon thee,” for buildings are not founded upon men, but upon rocks, as S. Jerome says.  Besides, if the meaning were “upon this rock,” that is, upon this faith, or upon Myself, it would be very greatly in favour of the opponent who thinks that Peter spoke not for himself alone, but for all the Apostles; which, it must be confessed, some of the ancient Fathers thought as well (S. Chrysostom, S. Jerome, in loc.; S. Augustin, Serm. xiii. de verb. Dom. ap. S. Matt.), who shall shortly be commented on with due respect.  We have now to refute the errors of the followers of Calvin.  If Peter spoke for all, why did not Christ say to all, “Blessed are ye?”   Why were not the names of all changed? Why was it not said to all, “To you I give the keys?”  Again, when Christ asked all, why did not all reply? Especially when a little before, when He asked whom men said that He was, not only Peter, but all, or as many as would, answered: “Some say John the Baptist, others Elias, others Jeremias, or one of the Prophets”.  All other authors, then, have seen more correctly that Peter answered for himself alone.  Not that the others did not believe the same thing, and would have said it, had not Peter anticipated them; but that Peter, with a great faith, was the first to break out with a confession.  These authors meant this alone, when they said that he answered for all, and called him the mouth of the Apostles. It is consonant with this, that as Christ chose the twelve Apostles, after the form of the twelve Patriarchs, so He should choose one like Abraham, who, because of his great faith, was the head of all; and that as Abraham was the foundation of the Old Testament so Peter should be of the Church of the Gospel.  For all things are equal in both.  Abraham excelled in faith, so did Peter. Abram’s name was changed to Abraham, as he was to be the father of many nations (Gen. xvii. 5); and so Peter’s, who was to be the father and head of all Christians.  For the one sole reason given by the heretics for denying that the Church was founded upon Peter, that it could have no other foundation but that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus (1 Cor 3:11), is altogether false.  For S. Paul (Eph 2:20) calls the Apostles and Prophets the foundation of the Church.  The heretics interpretation of this, as meaning the faith and doctrine, is wholly perverse.  For the Apostle adds: “Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone”.  In these words, he signifies that in the Church, as in the foundations of other buildings, there are many stones, the first and chief corner-stone being Christ, into whom all others are united; the second ones being the Apostles and Prophets, who are themselves built upon the first, but who were the foundation of other Christians; as S. John says in the Revelation 21:14, in plain words, which have not yet met with any heretical explanation.

Why, then, did S. Paul not say that we are built upon Christ rather than upon the Apostles and Prophets? The answer is easy.  We are placed further from Christ in the building of the Church than from the Apostles and Prophets.  For Christ is in the first place.  He is the first and corner-stone.  Upon Christ are the Apostles and Prophets.  Upon the Apostles and Prophets are built ourselves.

Lastly, except these heretics, all ancient authors teach that the Church was built upon Peter.  So, then, S. Clement Rome (Ep. to James), Hippolytus (De Consum. Mundi), Dionysius (Ep. to Tim.), Tertullian (De Prcescript. and De Pudicitia), S. Cyprian (Eps. to Jubaian. and Cornell), Origen (Horn. v. on Exod.), S. Epiphanius (Anchorat.), S. Gregory Nazianzen (Orat. de Moderat.), S. Basil (Hom, de Paenit., and ii., Against Eunom.), S. Ambrose (Serm. xlvii. de Fide Petri, and Ixviii. de Nat. Pet. et Paul.), and the Hymn of the Church, which is said by S. Augustin to be the composition of S. Ambrose:

“Hoc, ipsa petra Ecclesias
Canente, culpam diluit”
“And singing this the Church’s rock itself,
His fault condoned”.

So, S. Jerome (Ep. to Marcella against Montanus, and bk. 1, Adv.Jovin the author of the Commentaries on the Epistles of S. Paul which are commonly ascribed to S. Ambrose (On Gal. ii.), Leo (Serm. ii. de Pet. et Paulo, Ep. to Pp. Vienna and Ep. to Geminian),the whole Council of Chalcedon, Juvencus (Psellus ap. T/ieod., and iii., In Cant.), and lastly, those authors who are thought to have held the contrary.  For S. Hilary (De Trin., vi.), when he said that Christ founded the Church upon the faith of Peter, uses these words: “After his confession of this mystery, the blessed Simon, laying it as the foundation in the edification of the Church, and receiving the keys.”  And (On Ps. cxxxi.): ” So great was Christ’s zeal of suffering for the salvation of the human race, that He named Peter, with the railing of Satan.”  (Satanae convicio), “the first confessor of God, the foundation of the Church, the door-keeper of the kingdom of heaven, and in earthly judgment the judge of heaven.”  “O thou, happy in the naming of thy new name, blessed foundation of the Church, and rock worthy of that edification which shall destroy the laws of hell, the gates of Tartarus, and all the bars of death” (Can. xvi. on S. Matt.). And S. Chrysostom (Hom. ii. on Ps. 1.): “Hear what Christ said to Peter, the column and foundation of the faith, who, for the strength of his confession, was called Peter: Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build My Church”. S. Cyril (ii., On S. John xii.): “Thou art Simon, the son of Jona; thou shalt be called Cephas” rightly showing, by the name itself, that on him, as on a rock and most firm stone, He would build His Church.” And S. Augustin (Serm. xlix. in verb. Dom. sec. Joann: “He said to Peter, on whom He establishes His Church, Peter, lovest thou Me?” And (lib. i. 21 of Retract.) the opinion of those who should say that the Church was built upon Peter he does not disapprove.

From this it appears that those authors who explain the words “upon this rock” by “this faith” received it in a different sense to these heretics.  It would seem the best explanation to say that they meant that the Church was built upon the faith and confession of Peter; that is, upon Peter because of his faith and confession, as all other authors say.

We use such expressions daily, as when we say that the kingdom was built upon the faith of one man; that is, on one man because of his faith, as S. Ambrose (De Resurrect. Fide) said: ” It was not the body of Peter that walked upon the waters, but his faith; for it was not his body, but his faith that made him do it”.  It is clear from these words that they do not deny, as the heretics do, that S. Peter is the foundation of the Church.

It may be said : If all others, not only Apostles, but also Prophets, as S. Paul says, are the foundation of the Church, what in particular is given to S. Peter in those words? The answer is, that among all the Prophets and Apostles, he, after Christ, was the first foundation of the Church, and fills Christ s place in His absence.  But when others are a foundation also, nothing less could be given to him than that he should be the second foundation-stone after Christ, and in the same way in which Christ is such; that is, that not only one part, but the whole Church, should rest on him (niteretur). There is this difference, that Christ is the foundation by His own power, Peter by Christ’s; and Christ rests on no other foundation, but Peter rests on another, that is, Christ.

My Church.  Christ calls the Church His, to show that He was God and the Lord of the Church, as Theophylact has rightly shown.

And the gates of hell.  That by the gates of hell all the powers of the devil is meant is beyond question ; but it is doubtful why, by the word “gates,” powers is signified, and why Christ did not call it by its proper name of power, but by a metaphorical one of the gates. The reason may be easily conjectured.  Christ speaks of the Church as if it were some city.  The gates were the strongly fortified parts of the city (as in Ps 147:13) ; and because cities were most commonly taken through the gates, as Gen 22:17, 24:60: “Thy seed shall possess the gates of thine enemies;” that is shall possess the cities of their enemies; and Judges 5:8; 1 Kings 8:37.

For this reason, therefore, the power of the devil is not called the power, but the gates of hell.  But why is it called hell, and not the devil, who is the enemy of the Church, as Moses said? (Gen 22:17).  This also is easy. Because, as Christ speaks of the Church, He speaks of hell, where the devil rules, as if of some city, as Ps 107:16: “Because he hath broken gates of brass, and burst iron bars”.  For these are two cities: one of God, the other of the devil, of which S. Augustin wrote his books.

Shall not prevail.  Shall not overcome, or have the mastery.  The meaning of these words does not appear to be that which most authors, except S. Hilary, seem to suppose.  For they think that the meaning is, that the power of the devil may try The Church, but will never be able to overcome it, never to oppress it.  This meaning, though true, is poor, and does not fill up the place and words of Christ.  Christ seems to have intended something better. For gates do not over come, but resist; so that it is not the power of offending, but of defending, that must be meant by the gates.  The meaning, then, seems to be that there will be a time when the Church, founded by Christ upon a rock, shall so take by storm all the power of the devil that he will be able by no power and no arts to resist. The Hebrew is “will not be able to resist it”. It is clear that S. Hilary is of this opinion. The Church, he says, shall break to pieces all the laws and gates of hell, and all the bonds of death.  By the gates of hell, that is, the power of the devil, some of the Ancients understand heresies; as S. Epiphanius (In Anckorat.).  Others, vices, as S. Ambrose (De Bon. Mortis., chap, xii., and Comments, on S. Luke, ix.).  Others both, as Origen (Tract. 1. on S. Matt.), S. Jerome, and Bede. Others, the blasphemies of heretics and their persecution of the Church, as Euthymius.  Others, all persecutors of the Church, as Theophylact.  It is better not to narrow the meaning, but to understand generally all the power of the devil.

Against it.  Origen (Tract. i. on S. Matt.) and S. Chrysostom (Hom. Lv.) think that the relative is to be referred either to the rock or to the Church. Doubtless to the latter, which the ancient authors think more probable, and the rest think true; although Christ said that the gates of hell should not prevail against the Church, because it was founded upon a rock (as above, Matt 7:24, 25); except that there it is said that that house resisted the rains and waves and winds, and here that the Church shall not only resist hell, but shall take it by storm, because it is founded upon a strong rock.  For the Church and hell are spoken of, as we have said, as like two cities or strong citadels, near to and at war with one another; of which the one that hath the better foundation, and is the most strongly fortified, shall take the other.

Mat 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

And I will give to thee the keys. The power of opening and shutting the kingdom of heaven is called the keys by metaphor (Luke 9:52). The same power is immediately expressed by the other metaphor of binding and loosing.

The question is, in what this power consists? The followers of Luther and Calvin say that it means (merely) the teaching that their sins have already been forgiven, or that they will be if we believe the Gospel. But if so, Christ, in giving Peter the keys, gives him nothing more than that which the Scribes and Pharisees had before (Matt 23:2, and Luke 9:52): “Woe to you lawyers, for you have taken away the key of knowledge; you yourselves have not entered in, and those that were entering in you have hindered”. It has been proved, however, that Christ not only gave more to Peter than to the Scribes and Pharisees, but more even than to the other Apostles. Something, then, is meant by the power of the keys more than the power of teaching. Besides, Christ gave this power not only to the twelve Apostles, but also to the seventy-two disciples (Luke 10:1). But the keys and the power of binding and loosing He gave to the Apostles alone. Thus, the power of binding and loosing and the power of teaching are not one and the same power. Besides, Christ had already given the power of teaching to the Apostles (Matt 10:7);but that of the keys He had not given.

It has been shown that the Apostles had had given to them a general power of teaching; but the use of it was restricted for a time, that they should not go among theGentiles, because it was not fitting that the Gospel should be preached to the Gentiles before it had been preached to the Jews. Supposing a special power only to have been given to them, what would it have to do with the present question? Certainly, if to teach and to remit sins be one and the same thing, wherever they could teach they could also forgive sins. But we see that the power of teaching had been given them, but the power of the remission of sins had not been given. Therefore they are not the same power.

We see, also, that in this place where the keys are given, and with them the power of binding and loosing, no mention is made of teaching. On the other hand (Matt 28:19, and Mark 16:15), where the Apostles are commanded to preach the Gospel to every creature, no mention is made of the keys, or of binding and loosing. For, from the words of S. John 20:22, 23, we learn that Christ, when He sent the Apostles, said: “Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins ye retain, they are retained.” Though it was said to be about the same time, it was not said to have been actually the same. Besides, as in many other instances, S. John relates this as having been passed over by the other Evangelists.

It is not the least argument that the power of remitting sins was given to the Apostles with a different ceremony to that of teaching. For, when He gave the former, He is said to have breathed upon the Apostles, and said,  “Receive ye the Holy Ghost”. But when He gave the latter, He is not said to have either breathed upon them nor given them the Holy Spirit. The power of teaching, then, was different to that of remitting sins. Add to this, that if men only remit sins in this manner by teaching, whoever teaches another, even if the teacher be a woman, will remit sins, which is both unheard of and most senseless.

Again, if to teach is to loosen, that is, to remit sins, not to teach is to bind, that is, to retain them. So that everyone who does not teach has the power of binding, that is, of retaining sins. Again, if to teach is to loosen, and not to teach is to bind, Christ had not given the Apostles power to bind when He commanded them to teach all nations; that is (if their opinion be true), to loosen all, and to bind none. To what end was this power of binding, if no one were to be bound? It follows, from their own opinion, that the saying of Christ was false. For if to teach is to loosen, it is not the case that whatever the Apostles loosed upon earth would be loosed in heaven; for how many have been taught well whose sins, for their unbelief, have not been loosed in heaven! Nay, how many who have believed and been well taught, and have believed rightly, will be lost!

Finally, those whom we read of as having been bound in Scripture, were not bound either by teaching or not teaching. S. Paul bound the Corinthian (1 Cor 5:5). He bound those heretics (1 Tim 1:20), not by teaching, but by delivering them to Satan, when he had taught them well before; as now the Catholic Church binds the heretics with whom we are now at issue by excommunicating them, that is, by delivering them over to Satan.

So far one of these heretics on this passage has been answered. The second is their denial that anything was given to S. Peter by these words, which was not given equally to all the other Apostles.

This has to be answered, not by disputing the words, “Upon this rock,” of which enough has been said, and proof shown that it was given to Peter alone, that the Church should be built upon him. We are now to treat of the words: “I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven”.

By these words, I maintain, against the opinion of the followers of Calvin, and even of some Catholics, that the primacy of the Church was given to Peter; not that these Catholics deny it, but because they think it not to have been given him but in the preceding words, “Upon this rock I will build My Church”; and that the keys were not given to S. Peter alone, but to all the Apostles collectively. It appears that in both forms of words the primacy of the Catholic Church was given to Peter.

The words mean this. For the keys of a house or city are given into the keeping of the chief of the house or city. Therefore, the primacy is signified in Scripture by the keys, as in Isaiah 22:22: “I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder”; that is, I will give to him the supreme power in the kingdom of heaven. The words, “Upon his shoulder,” when keys are not laid upon the shoulder but carried in the girdle, are used, as is frequently the case in Scripture, by a confusion of two metaphors, signifying one and the same thing; one of the keys, the other of the sceptre; each of which terms expresses the supreme power; and because the sceptre is laid upon the shoulder, He says that He would place the keys of the house of David on his shoulder, as in Isaiah 9:6; ” And the government is upon his shoulder”. In the same sense Christ says (Rev 1:18) that He has the keys of death and hell; that is, that He is the Lord of life and death; and (Rev 3:7) that He has the keys of David: “He that hath the key of David; He that openeth and no man shutteth, shutteth and no man openeth”. In this sense, then, the keys were given to Peter; that is, the supreme power in the Church, that he might shut and no man open, and that he might open and no man shut; that is, that no man should loose what he has bound, and no man bind what he has loosed. Hence, the power of the Roman Pontiff is most effectually proved ad reservatos casus; and hence it is concluded that to Peter alone it was said in this place: “I will give to thee the keys of heaven and hell”; and so said as if they were not to be given to any other, because he alone answered: “Thou art Christ the Son of the living God”; as it was said to him alone; ” On this rock I will build My Church”. For by both metaphors, one of the foundation, and the other of the keys, one and the same primacy is signified, and the explanation of one is that of the other.

2. It cannot be denied that the other Apostles had also their own keys; that is, the power of binding and loosing; as all ancient authors teach, saying that the keys were given to all; but I deny that they had the keys which are now in question, and that those which all Catholics call keys, and rightly so, but in a different sense, are ever called keys in Scripture. It is a most unanswerable proof of the truth of this, that when Christ gave the other Apostles (Matt 18:18; John 20:23) the power of binding and loosing, He made no mention of the keys. Peter alone, therefore, had those keys by which he so opened that no one could shut, and so shut that no one could open. So, in a house, all or many have their own keys, but the master alone has all the keys, and the secret ones, by which, when he wills, he can so shut that no one can open, and so open that no one can shut.

3. The third error of the followers of Calvin is that the power which was given to S. Peter was not given also to his successors; and therefore, even if it be granted that Peter had the primacy of the Church, it does not follow that his successors had the same, but that this power was given (to use his own words) to Peter personally. Tertullian (De Pudicitia) seems to say the same, but he spoke not as a Catholic, but as a heretic, when he deserted the camp of the Church to join that of Montanus. S. Jerome (Lit. de Script. Eccl.) says that that work of Tertullian was written against the Church.

We have shown that the keys and the rock upon which Christ built the Church mean the same thing. Who is so senseless as to believe that Christ built an immortal Church upon a mortal man, after whose death the Church must necessarily fall into ruins? Not upon Peter alone, then, but upon him and his successors was the Church founded; and as these will never fail, the Church will remain for ever. The same must be said of the keys which, as we have said, mean the same thing. How, too, did Christ give this power to Peter alone and to his successors? For He instituted His Church; He instituted her officers; and that not to the honour of persons, but to the good of the Church. These were to endure as long as the Church herself, especially that which, as it is the greatest of all, so it was the most necessary of all: the head of the Church, who was also to be its foundation. Therefore, as the other and lesser offices were not to be transferred to later ages, it was yet necessary that this should be so, as all ancient writers teach.

4. The fourth error of these men is the denial that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Peter. They say that Peter was either never at Rome at all, or if he were, it cannot be shown that whoever was the Roman Pontiff then was his immediate successor. This error shall be confuted elsewhere. Here we simply bid the assertors fight against the whole world. For there never was any before them, Catholic or heretic, who did not affirm (1) That Peter died at Rome; (2) That the Roman Pontiffs were his successors. As the Wise Man says therefore (Wisdom 5:21): “The whole world shall fight with him against the unwise”.

And whatsoever thou shalt bind. This is a metaphorical saying, by which the same thing is signified as was contained in the two former verses, that Peter had the supreme power of remitting or retaining sins; but I do not consider that it was said to Peter in the same sense as that in which it was said to the other Apostles, though all authors apparently, except Origen, take it so; but in the sense in which the Church was built upon Peter alone, and in which to him alone were given the keys, so to bind as no one should be able to loose, and in so to loose as no one should be able to bind. This is to be proved by the same arguments as we have used already to prove his primacy.

It is asked in what the power of binding and loosing consists? S. Thomas, in his Commentaries, has noticed three errors on the subject to be marked and avoided.

1. That of those who appear arrogantly to think that the priesthood can arbitrarily bind or loose whomsoever they please; and that every act of theirs, whether right or wrong, will be ratified in heaven. And if we look at the mere words, they do seem to bear this meaning. For “Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven”.  But it is not so. For Christ only intended to give to Peter first, and then to the other Apostles, to perform His offices as if He were on earth: binding those that were to be bound, and loosing those who were to be loosed; with this sole exception, that Christ would bind or loose in His own power, the Apostles in another s, that is, Christ’s. From the fact, then, that He gave over to them His own functions, we understand that they should bind and loose, not according to their own judgment, but according to His ; so that, as S. Cyprian rightly says: “Let no one prejudge Christ the Judge”. This is what theologians and Doctors of the Church call “Clave non errante“.

2. The second error is, that to bind or to loose is nothing else than the declaration that men are already bound or loosed by God, as, in the Old Testament, the priest neither made nor healed the leper, but merely declared that he was actually a leper, or was truly healed of his leprosy.  This error is confuted by the passage before us. For, if this were so, and the priest could only loose and bind in this manner, Christ would not have said, “Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven,” but, “What is bound in heaven you shall bind on earth”. But, as He says, on the contrary, “Whatsoever you shall bind on earth it shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth it shall be loosed also in heaven,” He signifies most clearly that it shall be loosed by the Apostles on earth before it is loosed by God in heaven. This was a gift befitting the Apostles, as representing the Person of Christ, that, as when Christ Himself was on earth, whatever He loosed on earth was loosed by the Father in heaven, so, when He had returned to heaven, whatever the Apostles loosed on earth should be loosed by Him also in heaven. I do not think that the opinion of S. Jerome was at all different, nor that he would have countenanced the above error, but that he only desired to confute the former one.

3. The third error is that, “as in sin there are two things the fault, and the penalty of eternal punishment and a man is absolved from both by contrition, the eternal punishment being commuted into a temporal one, the priest can do no more by his absolution than diminish some part of the temporal penalty”. This is easily answered, for Christ said (John 20:23): “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained”. The priest, then, remits not only the penalty but the fault. Nor ought it to appear more wonderful, the priest doing this by the sacrament of penitence than by that of baptism, as S. Ambrose says against the Novatians (lib. i. 2, De Pænit). It may be objected that, as the priest, when he binds, does not make men sinners, but only declares them to be such, so, when he absolves, he does not make men righteous, but only declares that they are so, and absolved from their sins. The answer may be that this is not a sequitur. For the power of binding and loosing was given to the Apostles, not for the righteous, but for sinners. For those who are righteous, that is, who are loosed, God will not have bound. But those who are sinners, that is, who are bound, He desires to have loosed, if they are worthy, and to be bound, if they are unworthy. Besides, the priest is not able to bind and to loose in the same way. He cannot bind in the same manner as that in which he looses. He looses by truly loosing; he binds by not loosing, that is, not by causing, but as S. John says, by retaining sins.

On earth. Some conclude from this that the power of the Church of binding and loosing does not apply to the dead, because they are not upon earth, that is, under the jurisdiction of the Church. So says Strabo, the author of what is termed the ordinary gloss. Whether this be so or not, it can only be said at present that this conclusion does not follow from the words in question, for the words “on earth” are to be referred, not to those who are bound or loosed, but to those who bind or loose ; as if Christ had said, “What ever you who are living on earth shall bind or loose shall be bound or loosed by God, who dwells in heaven,” or, more briefly, “Whatever is loosed or bound by you men shall be loosed or bound by God”. For men are signified by “earth,” and God by “heaven”. It is an elegant antithesis by which, from the great distance between heaven and earth, the power given to the Apostles is commended. As if a prince should say to some dependant: “Whatever you do, even in the Indies, I shall value very highly,” to show how thoroughly he confided in him, and how ample power he gave to him. For we are less used to ratify what is done in our absence, in our name, by someone else, than if we were present or at hand. Servants, the longer their master is away, are the more apt to take greater licence, as the parable shows (Matt 24:48, 49).

Two premisses ought to be fixed and certain:

1. That the Church has the power of excommunicating even the dead that is, of depriving them of the prayers of the Church, which seems to have been always practised by SS. Cyprian and Augustin; and,

2. That the Church has the power of freeing those who are in purgatory by her prayers.

This passage is also one from which the practice of ecclesiastical confession is most clearly proved. For this power which was given to the Apostles could not have been exercised without their knowledge of the sinners, nor could the sins, which are for the most part secret, be known without the explicit confession of the sinner. Thus all the ancient Fathers have based on this passage the practice of penance; e.g., S. Cyprian (Serm. on “Lapsed”), S. Athanasius (Hom, on the words, “Go into the village”), S. Basil (Ep. to Amphilock.). We may add that Christ, in these words, not only gave the Apostles the power of absolving, but He laid upon all Christians the obligation of confession.

The meaning, then, will be not only that whatever the Apostles loosed on earth, He Himself would loose in heaven: but also that He would neither loose nor bind anything in heaven, except what His Apostles or their successors had loosed or bound on earth. For He bestowed on them His own power to govern the Church for Him. So that He would have everyone who needed forgiveness come to the Apostles or their successors as if to Him, if He were on earth, and seek from them absolution when they had made their confession, as, if He were living on earth, He would absolve no one from his sins unless he had first made confession of them.

But He as God could do so without that sacrament, the Apostles as men could only do so through the sacrament; as if that were the hand of Christ; that is, as if a king when sending some minister to a distant province to govern for him, should say: “Whatever you do I approve,” and he should give orders to the people to refer any question or difference to his substitute as to himself, and plead all causes before him; not that he deprived himself of his power, so that he could not judge a cause if he pleased, but that, by the transference of all ordinary power to his substitute, he reserved the extraordinary to himself. This is to be understood of Christ and the Apostles. The ordinary remedies instituted in the Church for the remission of sins are the sacraments, without which men cannot remit them. Christ is able to do this, but He does it extraordinarily, and very much more rarely than through the sacraments. For He would not have men trust to extra ordinary means, which are both rare and uncertain, for the remission of sins ; but He would have them seek the ordinary, and, so to say, the visible aids of the sacraments. And He has, therefore, given the precept, as of baptism and the Eucharist, so of confession and penance.

Bishop MacEvily’s Commentary on Acts 12:1-11 for the Solemnity of St Peter and St Paul

The following comes from Bishop MacEvily.  I’ve included his very brief analysis of chapter 12.  I’ve also included at the end of the post a few book suggestions for those interested in learning more about the Acts of Apostles.

Analysis of the entire chapter:

The cruel persecution raised by Herod (1-2). The incarceration of Peter who was closely guarded (3-6). His liberation by the hand of an Angel (7-11). The confusion consequent thereon, and the death of the guards who were on duty (18). The fearful judgment exercised on Herod, who was eaten up by worms (20-23).

Text and Notes on 12:1-11.

Act 12:1  And at the same time, Herod the king stretched forth his hands, to afflict some of the church.

“And at the same time.”  While Paul and Barnabas were ministering at Antioch. The narrative relative to their charitable ministrations is interrupted here by the intervening events recorded as far as v. 24 of this chapter, and is resumed at v. 25. These intervening events are: Peter is liberated; Herod dies a shocking death, these two Apostles had reached Jerusalem.

“Herod the king.”  Agrippa, the son of Aristobulus, and grandson of Herod the Great, the murderer of the Holy Innocents. Agrippa obtained from Caligula and Claudius territories co-extensive with those of his grandfather, Herod the Great.

“Stretched forth his hand”  indicates the violent exercise of power.

“To afflict some” the leading members “of the Church,” as is stated immediately after.

Act 12:2  And he killed James, the brother of John, With the sword.

“With a sword.”  By being beheaded or pierced through. This is said by some to be among the most ignominious kinds of capital punishment among the Jews. It seems King Agrippa had the power of life and death. In the time of the Roman government, only the Roman Procurator had it. The Jews had not.  “James,”  the Greater, in contradistinction to James, the son of Alpheus, called “the lesser,” or “the brother of John,” both sons of Zebedee, in whom were fulfilled the predictions

Act 12:3  And seeing that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to take up Peter also. Now it was in the days of the Azymes.

“Seeing it pleased the Jews,” &c. Agrippa’s besetting sin was an inordinate excessive love of popularity. It was from this feeling he meant to put Peter to death. Likely, too, he wished to conciliate the Jews, to whom his dynasty was odious; and thus prevent them from preferring accusations against him with the Roman Emperors, whose creature he was.

“Peter also.”  One of the most conspicuous men in the Church, who had, moreover, made himself obnoxious by his pungent discourses, and success in effecting conversions.

“Now, it was in the days of the Azymes,” that is, within the seven days succeeding the Passover, during which they were not allowed to partake of leavened bread (Exod. xii. 15-18 ; Deut. xvi. 3).

Herod may have apprehended Peter at this particular time to show his attachment to Judaism, and his determination to crush out every other form of religion.

Act 12:4  And when he had apprehended him, he cast him into prison, delivering him to four files of soldiers, to be kept, intending, after the pasch, to bring him forth to the people.

“Apprehended.”  Arrested him.  ” Cast him into prison.”  During the Paschal solemnity no trials of criminals took place, in order that the people might exclusively devote themselves to their religious duties and the ceremonies of the Festival.

“Four files,” &c. The Greek is “four quaternions of soldiers,” each quaternion was made up of four, so he had sixteen soldiers to guard him. Each quaternion, or four, were to relieve one another on guard during the watches of the night.  Two of them were to remain in the prison with Peter (v. 6) who was chained to these two, and the other guard at the door of the prison for three hours-the term of night watch-until they were relieved.  Agrippa, who was educated at Rome, adhered to the Roman system of having four night
watches, of three hours each, during the night.  No precaution for securing Peter was omitted.

“To bring him forth,” &c. Evidently with the view of having him publicly put to death in presence of the people.

Act 12:5  Peter therefore was kept in prison. But prayer was made without ceasing by the church unto God for him.

“Without ceasing,” fervent, persevering prayer. Humanly speaking, there was no hope of his deliverance. God was the only resource who did not fail to respond to the prayers of His Church.

Act 12:6  And when Herod would have brought him forth, the same night, Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains: and the keepers before the door kept the prison.

“Brought him forth,” to be publicly put to death.

“Same night,” immediately preceding the day intended for his execution.

“Bound with two chains.”  His right hand chained to the left of one soldier, and his left to the right hand of the other, which is said to be usual with the Romans for securing their prisoners.

“The keepers,” &c. Besides the two soldiers to whom Peter was bound in prison, two others watched before the door.  It was death for a Roman soldier to be caught sleeping at his post.  The four on guard were relieved, after three hours, by four others in succession.

Act 12:7  And behold an angel of the Lord stood by him and a light shined in the room. And he, striking Peter on the side, raised him up, saying: Arise quickly. And the chains fell off from his hands.

“An angel of the Lord,” no particular angel mentioned, “stood by him,” suddenly and unexpectedly.

“A light shone,” &c. Such light, reflected from the glorious body assumed by the angel, generally accompanies angels when they appear on earth (Matthew xxviii. 5 ; Luke ii. 9 ; xxiv. 4), &c. Possibly, Peter only saw it; or, if it filled the prison, the guards sunk in dep sleep did not see it.

Act 12:8  And the angel said to him: Gird thyself and put on thy sandals. And he did so. And he said to him: Cast thy garment about thee and follow me,

“Gird thyself” with thy inner vest.  “Garment,” the outer garment, laid aside when he lay down to sleep.  Dress thyself as usual when preparing for a journey.

Act 12:9  And going out, he followed him. And he knew not that it was true which was done by the angel: but thought he saw a vision.

“True”- a reality-”a vision,” such as presented itself to him before (x. n, 12).

Act 12:10  And passing through the first and the second ward, they came to the iron gate that leadeth to the city which of itself opened to them. And going out, they passed on through one street. And immediately the angel departed from him.

“First and second ward.”  Passed by the soldiers that guarded each ward. They were Providentially sunk in heavy sleep.

“Iron gate.”  The outer gate, secured for greater strength with iron bars.  It opened on the town.

“The angel departed.”  Left him, as he was beyond the reach of danger.

Act 12:11  And Peter coming to himself, said: Now I know in very deed that the Lord hath sent his angel and hath delivered me out of the hand of Herod and from all the expectation of the people of the Jews.

“Came to himself.”  Recovering from the amazement he felt at the entire scene and became capable of reflexion.

“Expectation,” &c. The Jews were anxiously expecting to witness his execution.

Book Suggestions:

Acts Of Apostles. Dennis Hamm’s introductory level commentary.  This new series put out by Collegeville Press, St John’s Abbey, is far superior to their previous series.

Witness To The Messiah.  Stephen J. Pimentel’s outstanding introductory commentary on Acts 1-15.  Designed for private and group study.

Envoy Of The Messiah.  Pimentel’s treatment of Acts 16-27.  I can highly recommend all the books in Emmaus Road Publishing’s Kingdom Series.

Sacra Pagina Series: Acts Of Apostles.  Luke Timothy Johnson.  This work has been well received, however, some of the content may be a bit technical for the average “person in the pew.”  It is not, however, completely out of anyone’s reach.

Cornelius a Lapide’s Commentary on Matthew 8:23-27

Mat 8:23  And when he entered into the boat, his disciples followed him:

And when he entered into the boat, &c. The Vulgate has navicula, “a little ship,” because they were small boats, which were used for crossing the lake, and for fishing. S. Mark adds (Mark 4:36), they received him as he was, i.e., as he was teaching the multitudes who were standing upon the shore.

Mat 8:24  And behold a great tempest arose in the sea, so that the boat was covered with waves, but he was asleep.

And behold a great tempest arose in the sea. S. Luke adds, the waves were filling the ship, and they were in danger (Lk 8:23). Bede and Strabus and the Gloss are of opinion that in this storm Christ’s ship alone was tossed, but not the other little ships which accompanied them, that Christ might show thereby that He was the Author of the storm arising, as well as of its being made to cease. But it is more correct to suppose that the other boats were also storm-tossed, for these boats were near, yea, close to Christ’s ship, that there might be shown the greater fury of the tempest, and the greater power of Christ in calming it. Moreover, God permitted this storm to arise from natural causes, such as vapours, and winds concurring with them, so that Christ raised and sent this storm.

He did this—1. That He might declare His power, and show that He is Lord of the sea as well as the land, says Origen. (Hom. 6 in Diver.) Hence the angel who appeared to S. John set his right foot upon the sea, as though commanding it. (Rev 10:2.) For this angel represented Christ, as Bede, Richard of S. Victor, and others say.

2. That He might exercise His disciples in bearing, as well the persecutions of men as the storms and tempests of wind and rain which they must often experience in going about the world to evangelize it. So Theophylact. Whence also S. Chrysostom gives this reason, “that He might exercise the athletes of the world in temptations and terrors.”

3. That His disciples and the other passengers in the ship might, through the miracle of the quelled tempest, believe in Him that He was very and omnipotent God.

Tropologically, this tempest in the sea, says S. Chrysostom, was a type of the future trials of the Church. For the ship in the waves represents the Church and the soul in temptations, by which they are quickened and profited. For a life without trial is like a dead sea, as Seneca says (Epist. 67). And thus a man who is without temptation is like one who is in a swoon, or dead. Temptation rouses him up to exert his faculties, that he may vanquish it.

Again, as a tempest drives ships before it, that they may the more speedily arrive at their wished-for haven, so does temptation stimulate a man to greater zeal for virtue, whereby he may he borne on towards heaven. As Chrysologus says (Ser. 20), “It is not serene weather which proves the skill of the pilot, it is tempestuous weather which does that. Any sort of a sailor can manage a ship in a gentle breeze, but for the confusion of a tempest the skill of the best captain is needed.”

The tempest therefore of the waves and winds is the temptation of pride, gluttony, lust, envy, and so on.

Let him then who is beaten by temptation do as sailors do in a storm. First they furl their sails, that the fury of the wind may not have so much power over the ship to hurry it to destruction. Thus let him who is tempted furl the sails of his pleasures, and give himself up to fasting and penance.

2. Sailors make for the open sea, that their ship may not strike against rocks. So let him who is tempted flee from the world and worldly things, and let him betake himself to God as a haven of refuge; and let him say with the Psalmist, “My soul refused comfort. I thought upon God and was refreshed.” (Ps. 77)

Sailors cast fittings and merchandise into the sea, that they may lighten the ship; so let the tempted unburden themselves by means of contrition and confession of the heavy weight of their sins, and lighten their minds. Hence doctors teach that they who are about to go on a voyage, especially a long and perilous one, ought to go to confession, that they may place themselves in a state of grace, as persons drawing nigh to the article of death, not once only, but in a manifold manner.

Lastly, a good captain, maintaining his courage, and having presence of mind, tries every way of escaping from the peril of the storm. Let the mind of him who is tempted do the same. A master of a ship, says S. Cyprian (Tract. de Mortal.) is proved by a storm, as a soldier is by a battle.

But he was asleep. This was voluntary, but at the same time natural sleep. 1. That the winds and storm might increase, so that Christ’s power and authority might be the more manifested by His quelling them.

2. “There is set forth,” says S. Ambrose, “the security of His power, that whilst all others were afraid He abode in calm serenity, so that when we are in any similar tribulation we might flee unto Him, and fix our hopes firmly upon Him, according to the saying in Proverbs xxviii. 1: “The righteous is bold as a lion.”

Moreover the pillow upon which, as S. Mark relates, Christ rested is mystically, 1. A good conscience. 2. Resignation to the will of God. 3. Confidence in God’s power and providence. For on this a believer rests, and as it were sleeps, in all adversities.

Origen (Hom. 6 in Diversis) says, Christ slept as to His body, but was awake as to His Deity. The sleep of Jonah when the rest who were in the ship were in peril was a type of this. See what I have there said. Moreover what kind of sleep this of Christ’s was, and wherein it differed from ours, see in Toletus, Annotat. 43, in 8. cap. Luc.

Tropologically, says the Gloss, Christ sleeps when we are negligent: but when faith revives He commands the winds and the waves.

Mat 8:25  And they came to him, and awaked him, saying: Lord, save us, we perish.
Mat 8:26  And Jesus saith to them: Why are you fearful, O ye of little faith? Then rising up, he commanded the winds, and the sea, and there came a great calm.

And Jesus saith to them: Why are you fearful, &c.  He said this before He had stilled the tempest, according to S. Matthew’s order in this place, though S. Mark and S. Luke mention it afterwards. It was fitting that the extreme terror of the disciples should be calmed before the raging of the sea, and that their waning faith should be strengthened that it might be rewarded by the cessation of the storm. So Jansen and others.

O ye of little faith. For ye do not seem perfectly to believe that I am God; and ye do not trust to My providential care, nor believe that whilst I am asleep I know of your peril, and will deliver you from it. So S. Chrysostom.

1. Faith here may be taken in the strict use of the word. Or, 2. for confidence, which is produced and sharpened by faith. On the other hand, little faith is the cause of little confidence. S. Luke gives the striking question of our Lord to them, Where is your faith? Hear S. Bernard: “Though the world rages, though the enemy roars, though the flesh itself lusts against the spirit, yet will I put my trust in Thee.”

Then rising up he commanded the winds and the sea. For commanded, the Greek has ε̉πετίμησε which corresponds to the Hebrew נער (gaar). He chided, as the Arabic translates, as a master does his servant. Whence S. Mark says, according to the literal translation of the Greek, He threatened the wind, and said unto the sea, Be silent, be muzzled.

By these expressions is denoted the great violence by which the sea was tossed with the winds, such as no human power but only Divine, could make to cease. Here, therefore, Christ shows that He was God, since He, as their Master, commanded the winds and the sea.

Tropologically. Christ thought of, and invoked in the mind, commands the persecutors of the Church, and the temptations of the soul, as S. Augustine teaches: “Hast thou heard reviling? It is the wind. Art thou angry? It is the waves. For when the wind blows, the waves arise, the ship is in peril, thy heart is in danger, for thy heart is tossed by waves. When thou hearest reproach, thou desirest to vindicate thyself. Lo, thou art avenged, and yielding to another’s evil, thou hast shipwrecked thyself. And why is this? It is because Christ is asleep within thee. Thou hast forgotten Christ. Awake Him therefore; call Him to remembrance. Let Christ keep vigil within thee. And think thou upon Him. Why shouldst thou wish to be avenged? He hath cut thee off from vengeance by His cry upon the Gross, ‘Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.’” And after some other remarks, S. Austin proceeds: “I will refrain from anger, and will return to the quiet of my heart. Christ commanded the sea, and there was a calm. What I have said with reference to anger, you may apply to all your other temptations. Temptation arises, it is the wind. Thou art troubled, it is the waves. Awake Christ and let Him speak with thee.”

Allegorically, Bede says: “The ship with its yard-arm is the tree of the Cross, by the help of which we who were sunk in the waves of the sea, proceed as Christ’s disciples to the privileges of the eternal country. For Christ says, ‘If any man will come after Me, let him take up the Gross and follow Me.’”

Anagogically, “Christ slept in the time of His Passion. The tempest arose which was stirred up by the blasts of the devil. The disciples awake the Lord, whose death they had witnessed, by desiring His Resurrection. He rises with a speedy Resurrection. He rebukes the wind—that is, the pride of the devil. He calms the tempest—that is, the insulting madness of the Jews. He chides His disciples, for He upbraided them for their incredulity after His Resurrection.”

And there came a great calm, for as S. Jerome says, “All creatures feel their Creator; and things which are senseless to us are sensible to Him.” Or, as Origen says, “It became Him who was so great to do great things.”

Mat 8:27  But the men wondered, saying: What manner of man is this, for the winds and the sea obey him?

What manner of man is this. The Greek is ποταπὸς, which is not simply a particle of interrogation, but is uttered with an emphasis of wonder and admiration. “Who is this? He does not seem to be like other men, but a Being of a different race.”

Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on Matthew 8:23-27

Ver 23. And when he was entered into a ship, his disciples followed him.24. And, behold, there arose a great tempest in the sea, insomuch that the ship was covered with the waves: but he was asleep.25. And his disciples came to him, and awoke him, saying, “Lord, save us: we perish.”26. And he saith unto them, “Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith?” The he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm.27. But the men marvelled, saying, “What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him!”

Pseudo-Origen, Hom. in div. vii: Christ having performed many great and wonderful things on the land, passes to the sea, that there also He might shew forth His excellent power, presenting Himself before all men as the Lord of both earth and sea. “And when he was entered into a boat, his disciples followed him,” not being weak but strong and established in the faith. Thus they followed Him not so much treading in His footsteps, as accompanying Him in holiness of spirit.

Chrys., Hom., xxviii: He took His disciples with Him, and in a boat, that they might learn two lessons; first, not to be confounded in dangers, secondly, to think lowly of themselves in honour. That they should not think great things of themselves because He kept them while He sent the rest away, He suffers them to be tossed by the waves. Where miracles were to be shewn, He suffers the people to be present; where temptations and fears were to be stilled, there He takes with Him only the victors of the world, whom He would prepare for strife.

Pseudo-Origen: Therefore, having entered into the boat He cause the sea to rise; “And, to, there arose a great tempest in the sea, so that the boat was covered by the waves.” This tempest did not arise of itself, but in obedience to the power of Him Who gave commandment, “who brings the winds out of his treasures.” [Jer_10:13] There “arose a great tempest,” that a great work might be wrought; because by how much the more the waves rushed into the boat, so much the more were the disciples troubled, and sought to be delivered by the wonderful power of the Saviour.

Chrys.: They had seen others made partakers of Christ’s mercies, but forasmuch as no man has so strong a sense of those things that are done in the person of another as of what is done to himself, it behoved that in their own bodies they should feel Christ’s mercies. Therefore He willed that this tempest should arise, that in their deliverance they might have a more lively sense of His goodness. This tossing of the sea was a type of their future trials of which Paul speaks, “I would not have you ignorant, brethren, how that we were troubled beyond our strength.” [2Co_1:8]

But that there might be time for their fear to arise, it follows, “But he was asleep.” For if the storm had arisen while He was awake, they would either not have feared, or not have prayed Him, or would not have believed that He had the power to still it.

Pseudo-Origen: Wonderful, stupendous event! He that never slumbereth nor sleepeth, is said to be asleep. He slept with His body, but was awake in His Deity, shewing that He bare a truly human body which He had taken on Him, corruptible. He slept with the body that He might cause the Apostles to watch, and that we all should never sleep with our mind. With so great fear were the disciples seized, and almost beside themselves, that they rushed to Him, and did not modestly or gently rouse Him, but violently awakened Him, “His disciples came to him, and awoke him, saying, Lord, save us, we perish.”

Jerome: Of this miracle we have a type in Jonah, who while all are in danger is himself unconcerned, sleeps, and is awakened.

Pseudo-Origen: O ye true disciples! ye have the Saviour with you, and do ye fear danger? Life itself is among you, and are ye afraid of death? They would answer, We are yet children, and weak; and are therefore afraid; whence it follows, “Jesus saith unto them, Why are ye afraid, O ye of little faith?” As though He had said, If ye have known me mighty upon earth, why believe ye not that I am also mighty upon the sea? And even though death were threatening you, ought ye not to support it with constancy? He who believes a little will be reasoned with; he who believes not at all will be neglected.

Chrys.: If any should say, that this was a sign of no small faith to go and rouse Jesus; it is rather a sign that they had not a right opinion concerning Him. They knew that when wakened He could rebuke the waves, but they did not yet know that He could do it while sleeping. For this cause He did not do this wonder in the presence of the multitudes, that they should not be charged with their little faith; but He takes His disciples apart to correct them, and first stills the raging of the waters. “Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm.”

Jerome: From this passage we understand, that all creation is conscious of its Creator; for what may be rebuked and commanded is conscious of the mind commanding. I do not mean as some heretics hold, that the whole creation is animate [ed. note: Origen is accused of maintaining that the sun, moon, and stars had souls, (which had been originally created incorporeal, and for sinning had been united with the heavenly bodies,) that they were in consequence rational, that they knew, praised, and prayed to God through Christ, that they were liable to sin, and that they, and the elements also, would undergo the future judgment. vid. Jerom. ad. Avit. 4] – but by the power of the Maker things which to us have no consciousness have to Him.

Pseudo-Origen: Therefore He gave commandment to the winds and the sea, and from a great storm it because a great calm. For it behoves Him that is great to do great things; therefore He who first greatly stirred the depths of the sea, now again commands a great calm, that the disciples who had been too much troubled might have great rejoicing.

Chrys.: Observe also that the storm is stilled at once entirely, and no trace of disturbance appears; which is beyond nature; for when a storm ceases in the course of nature, yet the water is wont to be agitated for some time longer, but here all is tranquility at once. Thus what is said of the Father, “He spake, and the storm of wind ceases,” [Psa_107:25] this Christ fulfilled in deed; for by His word and bidding only He stayed and checked the waters. For from His appearance, from His sleeping, and His using a boat, they that were present supposed Him a man only, and on this account they fell into admiration of Him; “And the men marvelled, saying, What manner of man is this, for the winds and the sea obey him?”

Gloss., non occ.: Chrysostom explains thus, “What manner of man is this?” His sleeping and His appearance shewed the man; the sea and the calm pointed out the God.

Pseudo-Origen: But who were the men that marvelled? You must not think that the Apostles are here meant, for we never find the Lord’s disciples mentioned with disrespect; they are always called either the Disciples or the Apostles. They marvelled then who sailed with Him, whose was the boat.

Jerome: But if any shall content that it was the disciples who wondered, we shall answer they are rightly spoken of as ‘the men,’ seeing they had not yet learnt the power of the Saviour.

Pseudo-Origen: This is not a question, “What manner of man is this?” but an affirmation that He is one whom the winds and the sea obey, “What manner of man then is this?” that is, how powerful, how mighty, how great! He commands every creature, and they transgress not His law; men alone disobey, and are therefore condemned by His judgment.

Figuratively; We are all embarked in the vessel of the Holy Church, and voyaging through this stormy world with the Lord. The Lord Himself sleeps a merciful sleep while we suffer, and awaits the repentance of the wicked.

Hilary: Or; He sleeps, because by our sloth He is cast asleep in us. This is done that we may hope aid from God in fear of danger; and that hope though late may be confident that it shall escape danger by the might of Christ watching within.

Pseudo-Origen: Let us therefore come to Him with joy, saying with the Prophet, “Arise, O Lord, why sleepest thou?” [Psa_44:23] And He will command the winds, that is, the daemons, who raise the waves, that is, the rulers of the world, to persecute the saints, and He shall make a great calm around both body and spirit, peace for the Church, stillness for the world.

Rabanus: Otherwise; The sea is the turmoil of the world; the boat in which Christ is embarked is to be understood the tree of the cross, by the aid of which the faithful having passed the waves of the world, arrive in their heavenly country, as on a safe shore, whither Christ goes with His own; whence He says below, “He that will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.” [Mat_16:24]

When then Christ was fixed on the cross, a great commotion was raised, the minds of His disciples being troubled at His passion, and the boat was covered by the waves. For the whole strength of persecution was around the cross of Christ, on which He died; as it is here, “But he was asleep.” His sleep is death. The disciples awaken the Lord, when troubled at His death; they seek His resurrection with earnest prayers, saying, “Save us,” by rising again; “we perish,” by our trouble at Thy death. He rises again, and rebukes the hardness of their hearts, as we read in other places. “He commands the winds,” in that He overthrew the power of the Devil; “He commanded the sea,” in that He disappointed the malice of the Jews; “and there was a great calm,” because the minds of the disciples were calmed when they beheld His resurrection.

Bede: Or; The boat is the present Church, in which Christ passes over the sea of this world with His own, and stills the waves of persecution. Wherefore we may wonder, and give thanks.

Monday, June 27: Juan de Maldonado’s Commentary on Today’s Gospel (Matt 8:18-22)

Mat 8:18  And Jesus seeing great multitudes about him, gave orders to pass over the water.

And seeing great multitudes. S. Matthew gives tacitly the reason of Christ having crossed the lake. It was to escape the multitude, as Matt 5:1; S. Mark 1:35. S. Luke 4:42 says: Die facta, “And when it was day “. Each Evangelist shows that Christ retired privately to avoid the throng of the multitude. S. Augustin (De Cons., ii.) thinks that this did not take place the day after Christ held that assembly and healed Peter’s wife’s mother, but SS. Mark and Luke say that He then went into the desert. He went into the desert after He had crossed the lake, for the mountains and desert were beyond the lake.

Mat 8:19  And a certain scribe came and said to him: Master, I will follow thee whithersoever thou shalt go.
Mat 8:20  And Jesus saith to him: The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.

AndJesus said to him. It may seem surprising that Jesus rejected so roughly the scribe who offered himself as His disciple. But from the circumstance of the person and Christ’s answer, it is not difficult to conjecture that Christ knew him to have come, not so much from the desire of perfection, as from the hope of gain or renown; and when the prospect of poverty was held out to him he was terrified: as the shame of the Cross deterred the sons of Zebedee when they wished to follow Christ for honour (Mt 20:22), and the young man who seemed good enough to himself, until the perfection of poverty was set before him (S. Chrysostom, Hom. xxviii.; S. Hilary; S. Jerome, In Comment.; S. Augustin, De verb. Dom. sec. Matt. Ser7n. vii. ; Theophylact; and Euthymius, 271 loc.).

The Son of man. Some Ethnics have endeavoured to prove from these words that Christ was the son of a human father, because the Greek is not  της ανθρωπου, which would mean the son of a human female, but του ανθρωπου, which implies the son of a male (S. Justin, Quæst. 66 ad Orthod.). S. Justin does not so much answer these questions as show from other places of Scripture that Christ was not the son of a human father. The answer is easy. “The son of man” is a mere Hebraism for a man. For Scripture calls all generally the sons of men, including even Adam, the first man, who was the son of no human parent, male or female: but because he was a man he is called the son of man; unless it be said that Christ is called in Scripture the Son of man in the same sense as that in which He is called the Son of Abraham and the Son of David. It is a deeper and more difficult question why Christ alone in the New Testament, and Ezekiel alone in the Old Testament are so called. For I do not remember any but these two to whom this appellation is given; at least, not so frequently and so properly, although commonly, and in general, all men are called “the sons of man”; for all explain the words of Daniel 7:13 of Christ, and there is no question that they ought to be so explained. Why Ezekiel was so called has been explained in the comment on Ezek 2:1. Why Christ was so called must be explained here.

1. Some say that He was so called to show that it was He whom the Prophets foretold as about to take human nature, and whom they also call the Son of man (Dan 7:13). This is the opinion of S. Epiphanius, against the Noetians (Hær. Ivii.), and of Theodoret in his Commentary on Daniel 7:12.

2. S. Gregory Naz. (Orat. iv. de Theolog.) thinks that Christ was called the Son of Adam to show that He had no human father, but derived His human nature from Adam, through a Virgin.

3. S. Augustin (De Cons., ii. i) thinks that Christ took the name to show the good of His Incarnation to us: “Commending to us what He mercifully designed to become for us “.

4. S. Augustin suggests still another reason: That, being also the Son of God, He desired by this appellation to distinguish His divine from His human nature (Ep. clxxiv.; Tract. XXV. on S. John).

5. Others, as Tertullian (De Carn. Christi), simply say that Christ wished to show Himself to be true man. The right explanation why He so called Himself is apparently to be sought for from two circumstances: (1) Because He Himself and Ezekiel alone are so called, as S. Irenaeus observes (iii. 18); and (2) that He alone so calls Himself; for others in the New Testament never address Him by that title. The former circumstance suggests that Christ was so called from the same or some similar reason as Ezekiel was. Many causes have been suggested of Ezekiel having been called ” the son of man “. The best appears to be that of R. Abraham, that it arose from his having been used to hold frequent conversations with angels, and they, to distinguish him from themselves, who were not men, though appearing to be such, termed him “son of man”. Ezekiel did not call himself this, but the angels did.

For a like reason, perhaps, Christ, as He was God, and the Son of God, when He spoke of Himself as man, called Himself the Son of man by a kind of antithesis. Not that He was another person, but in another manner— non quod alius sed quod aliter, “the Son of God because He was God, and the Son of man because He was man,” as S. Augustin says.

From the latter reason, we may draw the probable conclusion that Christ so termed Himself not for honour, but humility, as He is termed by the Prophets “a worm” and :the reproach of men ” (Ps 22:7). For, unless it had been a term of humility, others would surely, at times, have called Him by it as well. S. Stephen, indeed, who calls Him the Son of man, does so not as a sign of humility, but, we must suppose, of honour (Acts 7:55).

We observe that Ezekiel is never styled “the son of man” by himself, but by others; Christ never by others, but by Himself. He calls Himself the Son of man, therefore, to show that, when He was in the form of God, He thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but “emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit being found as a man” (Philippians 2:6, 7).

Mat 8:21  And another of his disciples said to him: Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.

And another. Christ had said to him first, ” Follow Me “. S. Matthew does not relate this, but we find it in S. Luke 9:59, who adds that he said: “Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father,” seeking permission from Christ to do so.

Suffer me first to go and bury my father. Some think that the father was not yet dead, but that the meaning of the passage is, Suffer me to go and be with my father, who is now an aged man, until his death, and, after he is dead and buried, I will follow Thee. De Lyra explains it thus, but the opinion of the Ancients—S. Chrysostom (Hom. xxviii.), S. Basil (De Constitut. Monast., xxi.), Theophylact, and Euthymius—appears better. The word “bury” shows that the father was actually dead. That he was not so is not stated, and it is not likely that one whom Christ knew and called would have sought such a long and uncertain delay. Nor is it wonderful that Christ answered, “Let the dead bury their dead”. The man so invited justly deserved blame for wishing to be so long absent from Christ. We may wonder that Christ did not suffer him to go and bury a dead father. It is clear that when Christ so answered, He pleased to say a thing very wonderful and beyond human expectation. They, therefore, who so speak to prove that the father was not yet dead, because they think it unlikely that Christ would have been so cruel as to refuse so short a space of time for such an act, appear not to have thoroughly understood His design. He no doubt desired to teach us that, when called by Him, we are not to lose a single day or hour even for piety, though it were to attend the burial of a dead father, but to follow Him at once, than doing which there can be no greater piety.

Mat 8:22  But Jesus said to him: Follow me, and let the dead bury their dead.

Let the dead bury their dead. It is clear that Christ here pleased to practise an ambiguity of speech. When He twice used the word “dead,” it is clear that the same meaning is not to be attached to it in each case; for the subjects of His words were either actually dead in both cases, or they were actually alive in both cases, and were only termed “dead” by metaphor. It could not have been so, for the dead can neither bury the dead, nor the hVing bury the living. S. Hilary, S. Chrysostom (Hom, xxviii.), S. Jerome, S. Ambrose (On Ps. xlviii.), thought that the “dead” in the first case meant the unfaithful; others more correctly understand all who think not of Christ, but of this world (S. Augustin, iv. 3, De Trin.; xxv. 6, De Civitate.; Quæst. 6 de S. Matt.; and see Eph 2:1; v. 14; 1 Tim 5:6).

Their dead. Christ here describes as dead those who were actually so. S. Hilary, S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, conclude that the father of the man whom Christ called was a Gentile, and that He used the word “their” as meaning, Suffer the
Gentiles to bury their own Gentiles. But it is not to be supposed that Christ would have called a man who was not a Jew to preach the Gospel, when He called Paul, who was not a Gentile, but a Jew, even to preach to the Gentiles. He, therefore, calls those “their” who are dead like them, that is, who resemble them; for each is dead, though not in the same way. Or Christ calls them “their” as meaning, Let each bury his own father, his own son, his own wife, as Abraham said (Gen 23:4, 13).

Monday, June 27: Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on Today’s Gospel (Matt 8:18-22)

Ver 18. Now when Jesus saw great multitudes about him, he gave commandment to depart unto the other side.19. And a certain Scribe came, and said unto him, “Master, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest.”20. And Jesus saith unto him, “The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.”21. And another of his disciples said unto him, “Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.”22. But Jesus said unto him, “Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.”

Chrys.: Because Christ not only healed the body, but purified the soul also, He desired to shew forth true wisdom, not only by curing diseases, but by doing nothing with ostentation; and therefore it is said, “Now when Jesus saw great multitudes about him, he commanded his disciples to cross over to the other side.” This He did at once teaching us to be lowly, softening the ill-will of the Jews, and teaching us to do nothing with ostentation.

Remig.: Or; He did this as one desiring to shun the thronging of the multitude. But they hung upon Him in admiration, crowding to see Him. For who would depart from one who did such miracles? Who would not wish to look upon His open face, to see His mouth that spoke such things? For if Moses’ countenance was made glorious, and Stephen’s as that of an Angel, gather from this how it was to have been supposed that their common Lord must have then appeared; of whom the Prophet speaks, “Thy form is fair above the sons of men.” [Psa_45:2]

Hilary: The name “disciples” is not to be supposed to be confined to the twelve Apostles; for we read of many disciples besides the twelve.

Aug.: It is clear that this day on which they went over the lake was another day, and not that which followed the one on which Peter’s mother-in-law was healed, on which day Mark and Luke relate that He went out into the desert.

Chrys.: Observe that He does not dismiss the multitudes, that He may not offend them. He did say to them, Depart ye, but bade His disciples go away from thence, thus the crowds might hope to be able to follow.

Remig.: What happened between the command of the Lord given, and their crossing over, the Evangelist purposes to relate in what follows: “And one of the Scribes came to him and said, Master, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest.”

Jerome: This Scribe of the Law who knew but the perishing letter, would not have been turned away had his address been, ‘Lord, I will follow Thee.’ But because he esteemed the Saviour only as one of many masters, and was a ‘man of the letter’ [margin note: literator] (which is better expressed in Greek, ) not a spiritual hearer, therefore he had no place where Jesus might lay His head. It is suggested to us that he sought to follow the Lord, because of His great miracles, for the sake of the gain to be derived from them; and was therefore rejected; seeking the same thing as did Simon Magus when he would have given Peter money.

Chrys.: Observe also how great his pride; approaching and speaking as though he disdained to be considered as one of the multitude; desiring to shew that he was above the rest.

Hilary: Otherwise; This Scribe being one of the doctors of the Law, asks if he shall follow Him, as though it were not contained in the Law that this is He whom it were gain to follow. Therefore He discovers the feeling of unbelief under the diffidence of his enquiry. For the taking up of the faith is not by question but by following.

Chrys.: So Christ answers him not so much to what he had said, but to the obvious purpose of his mind. “Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head;” as though He had said;

Jerome: . . Why do you seek to follow Me for the sake of the riches and gain of this world, when My poverty is such that I have neither lodging nor home of My own?

Chrys.: This was not to send him away, but rather to convict him of evil intentions; at the same time permitting him if he would to follow Christ with the expectation of poverty.

Aug., Serm., 100, 1: Otherwise; “The Son of man hath not where to lay his head;” that is, in your faith. “The foxes have hole,” in your heart, because you are deceitful. “The birds of the air have nests,” in your heart, because you are proud. Deceitful and proud follow Me not; for how should guile follow sincerity?

Greg., Mor., xix. 1: Otherwise; The fox is a crafty animal, lying hid in ditches and dens, and when it comes abroad never going in a straight path, but in crooked windings; birds raise themselves in the air. By the foxes then are meant the subtle and deceitful daemons, by the birds the proud daemons; as though He had said; Deceitful and proud daemons have their abode in your heart; but my lowliness finds no rest in a proud spirit.

Aug., Quaest. in Matt., q. 5: He was moved to follow Christ because of the miracles; this vain desire of glory is signified by the birds; but he assumed the submissiveness of a disciple, which deceit is signified by the foxes.

Rabanus: Heretics confiding in their art are signified by the foxes, the evil spirits by the birds of the air, who have their holes and their nests, that is, their abodes in the heart of the Jewish people.

“Another of his disciples saith unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.”

Jerome: In what one thing is this disciple like the Scribe? The one called Him Master, the other confesses Him as his Lord. The one from filial piety asks permission to go and bury his father; the other offers to follow, not seeking a master, but by means of his master seeking gain for himself.

Hilary: The disciple does not ask whether he shall follow Him; for he already believed that he ought to follow, but prays to be suffered first to bury his father.

Aug., Serm., 100, 1: The Lord when He prepares men for the Gospel will not have any excuse of this fleshly and temporal attachment to interfere, therefore it follows; “Jesus said unto him, Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their dead.”

Chrys.: This saying does not condemn natural affection to our parents, but shews that nothing ought to be more binding on us than the business of heaven; that to this we ought to apply ourselves with all our endeavours, and not to be slack, however necessary or urgent are the things that draw us aside. For what could be more necessary than to bury a father? What more easy? For it could not need much time. But in this the Lord rescued him from much evil, weeping, and mourning, and from the pains of expectation. For after the funeral there must come examination of the will, division of the inheritance, and other things of the same sort; and thus trouble following trouble, like the waves, would have borne him far from the port of truth. But if you are not yet satisfied, reflect further that oftentimes the weak are not permitted to know the time, or to follow to the grave; even though the dead be father, mother, or son; yet are they not charged with cruelty that hinder them; it is rather the reverse of cruelty. And it is a much greater evil to draw one away from spiritual discourse; especially when there were who should perform the rites; as here, “Leave the dead to bury their dead.”

Aug.: As much as to say; Thy father is dead; but there are also other dead who shall bury their dead, because they are in unbelief.

Chrys.: This moreover shews that this dead man was not his; for, I suppose, he that was dead was of the unbelieving. If you wonder at the young man, that in a matter so necessary he should have asked Jesus, and not have gone away of his own accord, wonder much more that he abode with Jesus after he was forbidden to depart; which was not from lack of affection, but that he might not interrupt a business yet more necessary.

Hilary: Also, because we are taught in the beginning of the Lord’s prayer, first to say, “Our Father, which art in heaven;” and since this disciple represents the believing people; he is here reminded that he has one only Father in heaven [margin note: Mat_23:9], and that between a believing son and an unbelieving father the filial relation does not hold good. We are also admonished that the unbelieving dead are not to be mingled with the memories of the saints; and that they are also dead who live out of God; and the dead are buried by the dead, because by the faith of God it behoves the living to cleave to the living (God).

Jerome: But if the dead shall bury the dead, we ought not to be careful for the dead but for the living, lest while we are anxious for the dead, we ourselves should be counted dead.

Greg., Mor., iv, 27: The dead also bury the dead, when sinners protect sinners. They who exalt sinners with their praises, hide the dead under a pile of words.

Rabanus: From this we may also take occasion to observe, that lesser goods are to be sometimes forfeited for the sake of securing greater.

Aug., De Cons. Evan., ii, 23: Matthew relates that this was done when He gave them commandment that they should go over the lake, Luke, that it happened as they walked by the way; which is no contradiction, for they must have walked by the way that they might come to the lake.