Cornelius a Lapide’s Commentary on Matthew 25:14-23

Mat 25:14  For even as a man going into a far country called his servants and delivered to them his goods;

For even as a man going into a far country, &c. (Vulg.). Supply from what precedes, So shall be the coming of the Son of Man to judgment (Matt 24:27). The word for denotes the scope of the parable. By it Christ would prove what He said in the verse before, Watch ye therefore, because you know not the day nor the hour.

The object of the parable is to show how exact an account Christ will require from the slothful in the Day of Judgment; and how great will be the reward which He will give to the diligent, who have carefully used His gifts to the glory of God. The parable is similar to that which Luke records (Luke 19:11), but with some differences. For they were spoken by Christ at different times, and with different objects. The parable in Luke was spoken before Palm Sunday; but this in S. Matthew after it, on the Tuesday before Good Friday. Hence S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, Jansen, and others think they are different parables, or rather, the same parable told in different ways. For instead of talents, Luke has minæ (a monetary unit of measurement for gold, silver, etc.).

Now the man here spoken of is Christ. For Christ went a long journey when He ascended into Heaven, being about to be absent a long time from earth and His Church. So Origen, Jerome, Bede. Others think that Christ’s going far off (peregre) means His transference of the preaching of the gospel from the Jews to the Gentiles by means of the Apostles, and His founding the kingdom of His Church amongst them. And this applies well to the relation of the parable by S. Luke, where it is introduced with reference to Zacchæus, a publican, and, as it were, a Gentile, to whose house Christ, leaving the Jews, brought salvation. But in such a case the whole parable of the servants and the talents would have to be restricted to the Jews. For the Master is here said to have distributed His talents before He went His long journey,-that is to say, to the Gentiles. Wherefore the former explanation is of wider scope, and so more true. By the servants all the faithful are to he understood, whether Jews or Gentiles. Talents are goods, either because the Master, like merchants and chapmen, had all His goods in money-in talents of gold and silver; or else because revenues and estates are called talents, which were valued, some at one talent, some at two, some at five talents. In like manner, in Latin, whatever is bought or valued for money is called money.

Mat 25:15  And to one he gave five talents, and to another two, and to another one, to every one according to his proper ability: and immediately he took his journey.

And to one he gave, &c. Instead of talents, Luke has mnas, or minas.  Mna in Hebrew signifies numbered or defined, with reference to value, or weight of gold or silver. The root is mana, he numbered. It is the word used in Daniel 5:25, mene. The Hebrew mna was equal to about 2½ pounds. A Hebrew talent was equivalent to sixty Hebrew mnas. (Modern scholars note that a single talent was worth about six thousand denarii. A singe denarius represented the daily wage of an ordinary day laborer in Jesus’ time).

By talents understand all the gifts of God, without which we can do nothing. These gifts are, I say—1st Of grace, both making grateful,1 such as faith, hope, charity, virginity, and all the other virtues, as well as those of grace given gratis—such as the power of working miracles, the Apostolate, the Priesthood, the gift of tongues, prophecy, &c. 2d Natural gifts, such as a keen intellect, a sound judgment, a sound constitution, prudence, industry, learning, eloquence. 3d External goods and gifts, as honours, riches, rank, &c. So S. Chrysostom. For all these things God distributes unequally, according to His good pleasure. And with this end in view, that each should use them for God’s glory, and the good of himself and others. For so He will increase them, both by Himself (for all habits grow by use and exercise) and also in merit and reward. For to that man there will be added crowns and coronets celestial, as of virginity, martyrdom. Moreover, there is no man who hath not received one, ay, several of these gifts of God, though one hath more, another less. For, as S. Gregory saith (Hom. 5, in Evang.), “There is no man who can say with truth, ‘I have not received a single talent. There is nothing of which I must give an account.’ For to every poor man even this shall be reckoned as a talent, that he hath received but a very little.” For to many it is a greater gift of God, and more conducive to their salvation, that they have poverty rather than wealth, sickness and not health, a humble station instead of an exalted one. Let us take as instances S. Paul, S. Timothy, S. Onesimus. S. Paul received, as it were, five talents or gifts from God,-as the gift of tongues, miracles, the apostolate, zeal for souls, power in preaching. Timothy received, as it were, two,-knowledge of the Scriptures, and the bishopric of Ephesus. But Onesimus one, that is to say, zeal to minister to Paul in prison at Rome. By means of this he merited many others, as the bishopric of Colosse, the conversion of many, and martyrdom.

You will ask, in what manner does God distribute these His gifts according to every one’s ability (Gr. δύναμιν), power, strength? I answer, this is partly an emblema pertaining only to the adornment of the parable. For so among men, prudent masters are wont to entrust their goods to servants in such a manner that they trust more to him who possesses greater prudence and industry, less to him who has less. For it is certain, in opposition to the Pelagians, that primary grace is not given according to natural powers and merits, yea, that there is no natural disposition to grace.

But, in part, this pertains to the meaning of the parable. For favours and stations given gratis, such as magistracies, the episcopate, priesthood, &c., God often confers in accordance with natural powers, and does not raise any one to such a condition unless he be either suited to it by nature, or unless He Himself makes him fit. Men do the same when they choose any one for a shepherd, a bishop, a prelate. Indeed, when God determines to bestow any permanent gift whatsoever upon any one, He first gives him the capacity, or natural or supernatural proportional disposition or merit, by means of which he becomes suitable for the bestowment of this gift, or may make himself fitted for it. Thus God gave to Moses a zeal on behalf of his nation, that He might thereby dispose him to deliver them out of Egypt. So also He gave S. Paul a zeal for the Mosaic law, that He might make use of him when he was purified for the propagation of the Law of Christ. So He instilled into SS. Mary Magdalene and Peter an immense contrition for sin, that He might, through it, dispose them to an immense sanctity. So it is with those whom God chooses and destines to virginity, the religious life, martyrdom, mission work in India. He first infuses into them a vehement desire, by which they fit and prepare themselves for what they have to do.

Lastly, S. Thomas (1 p. quæst. 62, art. 6) teaches that God has distributed to the angels His gifts of grace and glory, according to their natural gifts. Those who are more lofty by nature are also higher in grace and glory, And he adds, that God deals in like fashion with men. For he says, “This also happens among men, that in proportion to the fervour of their conversion to God, greater grace and glory are given them.” Often, indeed, God acts in a way the reverse of this, and gives greater gifts of grace to persons of weak intellect-to the ignorant and despised-than He does to the learned, the witty, and the honourable. Thus He did to S. Francis, S. Catherine of Sienna, S. Simeon Stylites, and many others. After a like fashion God distributes His gifts of grace, freely given, in accordance with His own hidden counsels. For many are set in high station who are by no means worthy of it; many are the Priests who are unfit for the Priesthood. And yet, in no persons whatsoever are nature and natural endowments a merit, or a disposition to grace.

Wherefore it does not follow from these words of Christ that “the gifts of God are conferred upon every man, according to the measure of his merit,” according to the charge which Calvin calumniously brings against the Catholics. For it is one thing to be by nature capable of receiving the gifts of God; it is another thing to merit those gifts. It is one thing to be able to possess charity; it is another thing to possess it. This is Prosper’s teaching (lib. 2, de Vocatione Gentium, c. 2).

An immediately he took his journey. Luke adds, that Christ, before He went away, after dividing the pounds, or talents, amongst His servants, said, Trade until I come. He meant, “Increase these My talents by labouring diligently all your life long, and bring Me what you have gained when I return to judgment.” By and by he adds, But his citizens hated him and they sent an embassage after him, saying: We will not have this man to reign over us. The citizens of Christ are those Jews who rejected Him, who would not acknowledge Him as their King and Messiah, who said, “We have no king but Cæsar,” as they cried before Pilate when they asked that Christ might be crucified. And again, after His resurrection, they persecuted the Apostles and Christians who preached and spread the kingdom of Christ. Wherefore concerning the righteous chastisement which came upon the Jews, Luke subjoins that Christ said, “But as for those my enemies, who would not have me reign over them, bring them hither and kill them before me.” Christ did this when He slew the Jews by the hands of Titus. He will do it yet more in the Day of Judgment, when He will punish all his enemies with death eternal.

Mat 25:16  And he that had received the five talents went his way and traded with the same and gained other five.

And he that had received the five talents, &c. To gain talents is to increase the gifts of God by using and increasing them, especially by means of good works, and helping our neighbour to increase and multiply the grace of God in ourselves and others. This parable intimates that every one ought to co-operate with the grace of God with all his might. For example, he who has, as it were, five degrees of charity, ought to exercise charity in a corresponding degree of intensity. By this means he will gain from God five degrees more. Again, by exercising charity thus increased as ten degrees, in acts of corresponding intensity, he may gain other ten decrees, and possess, as it were, twenty degrees. And so on, marvellously doubling, and multiplying the gain of his talents, that is to say, the degrees of his charity. Let it be, therefore, that a man by his charity should gain few or none to Christ by preaching, yet will he have the same merit and reward of his charity and preaching as if he had converted multitudes. The conversion of others is not often in our power, but the merit of doing so is always in our power.

Moraliter: S. Gregory says (Hom. 9, in Evang.), “This passage of the Gospel admonishes us anxiously to beware lest we, who seem to have received somewhat more than others in this world, should, for that reason, be judged more severely by the Maker of the world. For in proportion as gifts are increased, so is the account to be rendered of the gifts.”

Mat 25:17  And in like manner he that had received the two gained other two.

And in like manner &c. This man also, by diligently and correspondingly using his talent, that is, co-operating with grace, doubled it.

Mat 25:18  But he that had received the one, going his way, digged into the earth and hid his lord’s money.

But he that had received one…hid his lord’s money. Arab. buried his lord’s silver. To bury a talent is, through negligence and sloth, not to use or exercise the grace bestowed upon one. Here observe, that this burying of his talent is ascribed to him who only received one talent. This is not because others, who have received more, do not often do the same, but in order that we may understand that if he, who had only misused his one talent, was thus severely punished by his master, far sharper will be the Lord’s censure and punishment of those who have misused more and greater talents. Wherefore Paul says, “We exhort you, that ye receive not the grace of God in vain” (2 Cor. vi. 11). And again, “His grace in me was not in vain, but I laboured more abundantly than they all” (1Cor 15:10); and, “Woe is me, if I preach not the Gospel.”

Let those who do not use genius, learning, prudence, or other gifts of God, for their own or others’ benefits, on account of sloth, or fear of sinning, or for any similar reason, note this. For of them will Christ demand an exact account of these gifts in the Day of Judgment. Observe also, that those who have received few talents, often, through sloth, leave them idle, and, as it were, bury them; whilst those who have received more are stimulated by them, and either use them rightly and meritoriously, or else abuse them to vanity. And these last are punished not so much for letting their talents lie idle, as for misusing them! Thus we commonly see that those who have great powers of intellect, if they do not employ them for good purposes, do so for bad.

Mat 25:19  But after a long time the lord of those servants came and reckoned with them.

But after a long time, &c.  This reckoning Christ makes with every one severally at death, and the particular judgment. He will make it publicly in the general Judgment.

Mat 25:20  And he that had received the five talents coming, brought other five talents, saying: Lord, thou didst deliver to me five talents. Behold I have gained other five over and above.

And he that had received the five talents coming, &c. Hear how pathetically S. Gregory depicts this scene: “In that great examination the whole multitude of the elect and the reprobate will be led forth, and it will be shown what each hath done. Then Peter will take his stand, with Judæa converted at his side. There Paul, with, I might almost say, a converted world. There will be Andrew with Achaia, John with Asia, Thomas with India, which they will bring into the presence of the Judge. There will appear all the rams of the Lord’s flock, with the souls which were given them for their hire. When, therefore, so many shepherds with their flocks shall come before the eyes of the Eternal Pastor, what shall we, miserable ones, be able to say, if we return before the Lord empty, we who have the name of pastors, but have no sheep, which we have fed, to present?”
Mat 25:21  His lord said to him: Well done, good and faithful servant, because thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will place thee over many things. Enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

His lord said to him, Well done, &c. Luke has (Luke 19:19), Be thou over five cities. The parable is taken from the idea of a king, who is accustomed to reward his faithful servants by setting them over many cities. It signifies also that the Saints, who use diligently the grace that God gives them, will be sharers in the glory and joy of His kingdom, but in greater or less degrees according to the labour and merit of each.

Our Salmeron is of opinion that it is here intimated, and tacitly promised, that the Saints in Heaven shall be set by God to preside over the places in which they laboured while on earth, so that in those places they may heal diseases and work miracles, because they have deserved this by their labours. That thus S. James works miracles at Compostella and in Spain; S. Dionysius at Paris and in Gaul; S. Ambrose at Milan; S. Boniface in Germany.

Mat 25:22  And he also that had received the two talents came and said: Lord, thou deliveredst two talents to me. Behold I have gained other two.
Mat 25:23  His lord said to him: Well done, good and faithful servant: because thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will place thee over many things. Enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

And he also that had received the two talents, &c.  The Arab. has, And these are the five talents which I have gained, as though the servant showed them, and offered them to his master. The same thing is said as in vers. 20 and 21, save that there were five talents, here there are two. For, as S. Jerome says, “The Lord does not regard so much the greatness of the gain, as the good-will and the desire. And it is possible that he who receives two talents, by trading diligently with them, may merit more than he who receives five, and uses them in a lukewarm manner.”

Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on Matthew 25:14-23

Ver 14. “For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.15. And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.16. Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.17. And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.18. But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord’s money.19. After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.20. And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.21. His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.22. He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.23. His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

Gloss.: In the foregoing parable is set forth the condemnation of such as have not prepared sufficient oil for themselves, whether by oil is meant the brightness of good works, or inward joy of conscience, or alms paid in money.

Chrys.: This parable is delivered against those who will not assist their neighbours either with money, or words, or in any other way, but hide all that they have.

Greg., Hom. in Ev., ix, i: The man in travelling into a far country is our Redeemer, who ascended into heaven in that flesh which He had taken upon Him. For the proper home of the flesh is the earth, and it, as it were, travels into a foreign country, when it is placed by the Redeemer in heaven.

Origen: He travels, not according to His divine nature, but according to the dispensation of the flesh which He took upon Him. For He who says to His disciples, “Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world,” [Mat_28:20] is the Only-Begotten God, who is not circumscribed by bodily form. By saying this, we do not disunite Jesus, but attribute its proper qualities to each constituent substance.

We may also explain thus, that the Lord travels in a far country with all those who walk by faith and not by sight. And when we are absent from the body with the Lord, then will He also he with us. Observe that the turn of expression is not thus, I am like, or The Son of Man is like, “a man travelling into a far country,” because He is represented in the parable as travelling, not as the Son of God, but as man.

Jerome: Calling together the Apostles, He gave them the Gospel doctrine, to one more, to another less, not as of His own bounty or scanting, but as meeting the capacity of the receivers, as the Apostle says [marg. note 1Co_3:2], that he fed with milk those that were unable to take solid food. In the five, two, and one talent, we recognise the diversity of gifts wherewith we have been entrusted.

Origen: Whenever you see of those who have received from Christ a dispensation of the oracles of God that some have more and some less; that some have not in comparison of the better sort half an understanding of things; that others have still less; you will perceive the difference of those who have all of them received from Christ oracles of God. They to whom five talents were given, and they to whom two, and they to whom one, have divers degrees of capacity, and one could not hold the measure of another; he who received but one having received no mean endowment, for one talent of such a master is a great thing.

His proper servants are three, as there are three sorts of those that bear fruit. He that received five talents, is he that is able to raise all the meanings of the Scriptures to their more divine significations; he that has two is he that has been taught carnal doctrine, (for two seems to be a carnal number,) and to the less strong the Master of the household has given one talent.

Greg.: Otherwise; The five talents denote the gift of the five senses, that is, the knowledge of things without; the two signify understanding and action, the one talent understanding only.

Gloss., ord.: “And straightway took his journey,” not changing his place, but leaving them to their own freewill and choice of action.

Jerome: “He that had received five talents,” that is, having received his bodily senses, he doubled his knowledge of heavenly things, from the creature understanding the Creator, from earthly unearthly, from temporal the eternal.

Greg.: There are also some who though they cannot pierce to things inward and mystical, yet for their measure of view of their heavenly country they teach rightly such things as they can, what they have gathered from things without, and while they keep themselves from wantonness of the flesh, and from ambition of earthly things, and from the delights of the things that are seen, they restrain others also from the same by their admonitions.

Origen: Or, They that have their senses exercised by healthy conversation, both raising themselves to higher knowledge and zealous in teaching others, these have gained other five; because no one can easily have increase of any virtues that are not his own, and without he teaches others what he himself knows, and no more.

Hilary: Or, That servant who received five talents is the people of believers under the Law, who beginning with that, doubled their merit by the right obedience of an evangelic faith.

Greg.: Again, there are some who by their understanding and their actions preach to others, and thence gain as it were a twofold profit in such merchandize. This their preaching bestowed upon both sexes is thus a talent doubled.

Origen: Or, “gained other two,” that is, carnal instruction, and another yet a little higher.

Hilary: Or, the servant to whom two talents were committed is the people of the Gentiles justified by the faith and confession of the Son and of the Father, confessing our Lord Jesus Christ, to be both God and Man, both Spirit and Flesh. These are the two talents committed to this servant. But as the Jewish people doubled by its belief in the Gospel every Sacrament which it had learned in the Law, (i.e. its five talents,) so this people by its use of its two talents merited understanding and working.

Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on Matthew 10:23-28

Ver 23. “But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.”

Chrys.: Having foretold the fearful things which should come upon them after His Cross, resurrection, and ascension, He leads them to gentler prospects; He does not bid them presumptuously to offer themselves for persecution, but to fly from it; “When they persecute you in this city, flee ye to another.” For because this was the first beginning of their conversion, He adapts His words to their state.

Jerome: This must be referred to the time when the Apostles were sent to preach, when it was said to them, “Go not into the way of the Gentiles;” they should not fear, but may shun persecution. This we see the believers did in the beginning, when on a persecution arising in Jerusalem they were scattered throughout all Judaea, and thus the season of tribulation was made the seedtime of the Gospel.

Aug., cont. Faust., xxii, 36: Not that the Saviour was unable to protect His disciples, does He here bid them fly, and Himself give them an example of it, but He instructed man’s weakness, that he should not presume to tempt God, when he has anything that he can do for himself, but should shun all evils.

Aug., City of God, book 1, ch. 22: He might have suffered them to lay violent hands upon themselves, that they might not fall into the hands of their persecutors. Therefore if He neither commanded nor allowed this mode of departure from this world to His own, for whom He Himself had promised that He would prepare an eternal mansion; whatever instances may be brought by the Gentiles who know not God, it is clear that this is not lawful for those who believe one true God.

Chrys.: But that they should not say, What then if we fly from persecution, and again they cast us out thence whither we have fled? To remove this fear, He says, “Verily, I say unto you, ye shall not have completed, &c.” that is, ye shall not have made the circuit of Palestine and return to Me, before I shall take you to Me.

Raban.: Or; He foretels that they shall not have brought all the cities of Israel to the faith by their preaching, before the Lord’s resurrection be accomplished, and a commission given them to preach the Gospel throughout the world.

Hilary: Otherwise; He exhorts to fly from place to place; for His preaching driven from Judaea, first passing into Greece; then, wearied with divers sufferings of the Apostles up and down the cities of Greece, it takes an abiding refuge in the rest of the Gentile world. But to shew that the Gentiles would believe the preaching of the Apostles, but that the remnant of Israel should only believe at His second coming, He adds, “Ye shall not have completed the cities of Israel;” i.e. After the fulness of the Gentiles is brought in, that which remains of Israel to fill up the number of the Saints shall be called into the Church in Christ’s future coming to glory.

Aug., Ep. 228: Let the servants of Christ then do as He commanded, or permitted them; as He fled into Egypt, let them fly from city to city, whenever any one of them is marked out for persecution; that the Church be not deserted, it will be filled by those who are not so sought after; and let these give sustenance to their fellow-servants whom they know cannot live by any other means. But when the threatening danger is common to all, Bishops, clergy, and laity, let not those who have need of aid be deserted by those whose aid they require.

Either therefore let them all pass to some stronghold, or let those who are obliged to remain, not be deserted by those whose province it is to supply their ecclesiastical needs; that they may either all live, or all suffer whatever their Master will have them to suffer.

Remig.: Be it known moreover, that as this precept respecting endurance under persecution specially belongs to the Apostles and their successors, men of fortitude, so the permission to fly is sufficiently proper for the weak in the faith, to whom the tender Master condescends, lest if they should offer themselves for martyrdom, under the pain they should deny the faith; and the sin of flight is lighter than that of denial. But though by their flight they shewed that they had not the constancy of perfect faith, yet their desert was great, seeing they were ready to leave all for Christ. So that if He had not given them permission to fly, some would have said that they were aliens from the glory of the heavenly kingdom.

Jerome: Spiritually, we may say; When they shall persecute you in one book or one passage of Scripture, let us flee to other volumes, for however contentious the adversary may be, protection will come from the Saviour before the victory is yielded to the enemy.

Ver 24. “The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord.25. It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?”

Chrys.: Because it should come to pass that His disciples among their other persecutions should suffer loss of character, which to many is the most grievous of all calamities, He consoles them from His own example, and those things that were spoken of Him; a comfort to which no other can be compared.

Hilary: For the Lord, the Light eternal, the Captain of the faithful, the Parent of immortality, set before His disciples this solace of the sufferings that should come upon them, that we should embrace it as our glory when we are made like to our Lord in suffering; whence He says, “The disciple is not above his master, nor the slave above his lord.”

Chrys.: Understand, so long as he is a disciple or servant, he is not above his master or lord by the nature of honour. And do not here object to me such cases as rarely happen, but receive this according to the common course of things.

Remig.: He calls Himself master and lord; by disciple and servant He denotes His Apostles.

Gloss. ord.: As much as to say, Be not indignant that ye suffer things, which I also suffer, because I am your lord, who do what I will, and your master, who teach you what I know to be profitable for you.

Remig.: And because this sentence seemed not to agree with the foregoing words, He shews what they mean by adding, “If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more they of his household?”

Chrys.: He said not here, ‘slaves,’ but “those of his household,” to shew how dear they were to Him; as elsewhere He said, “I will not call you slaves, but my friends.” [Joh_15:15]

Remig.: As much as to say, Ye therefore will not seek worldly honours and human glory, while you see me pursuing the redemption of mankind through mocking and contumely.

Chrys.: And He says not only, If they have reviled the master of the house, but expresses the very words of railing, for they had called Him Beelzebub.

Jerome: Beelzebub is the idol of Accaron who is called in the book of Kings, the God of flies; [2Ki_1:3] ‘Bel,’ signifying, “idol;” ‘zebub,’ a “fly”. The Prince of the daemons He calls by the name of the foulest of idols, which is so called because of the uncleanness of the fly, which destroys the sweetness of ointment.

Ver 26. “Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.27. What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.28. And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”

Remig.: To the foregoing consolation He adds another no less, saying, “Fear ye not them,” namely, the persecutors. And why they were not to fear, He adds, “For there is nothing hid which shall not be revealed, nothing secret which shall not be known.”

Jerome: How is it then that in the present world, the sins of so many are unknown? It is of the time to come that this is said; the time when God shall judge the hidden things of men, shall enlighten the hidden places of darkness, and shall make manifest the secrets of hearts. The sense is, Fear not the cruelty of the persecutor, or the rage of the blasphemer, for there shall come a day of judgment in which your virtue and their wickedness will be made known.

Hilary: Therefore neither threatening, nor evil speaking, nor power of their enemies should move them, seeing the judgment-day will disclose how empty, how nought all these were.

Chrys.: Otherwise; It might seem that what is here said should be applied generally; but it is by no means intended as a general maxim, but is spoken solely with reference to what had gone before with this meaning; If you are grieved when men revile you, think that in a little time you will be delivered from this evil. They call you indeed impostors, sorcerers, seducers, but have a little patience, and all men shall call you the saviours of the world, when in the course of things you shall be found to have been their benefactors, for men will not judge by their words but by the truth of things.

Remig.: Some indeed think that these words convey a promise from our Lord to His disciples, that through them all hidden mysteries should be revealed, which lay beneath the veil of the letter of the Law; whence the Apostle speaks, “When they have turned to Christ, then the veil shall be taken away.” [2Co_3:16] So the sense would be, Ought you to fear your persecutors, when you are thought worthy that by you the hidden mysteries of the Law and the Prophets should be made manifest?

Chrys.: Then having delivered them from all fear, and set them above all calumny, He follows this up appropriately with commanding that their preaching should be free and unreserved; “What I say to you in darkness, that speak ye in the light; what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.”

Jerome: We do not read that the Lord was wont to discourse to them by night, or to deliver his doctrine in the dark; but He said this because all His discourse is dark to the carnal, and His word night to the unbelieving. What had been spoken by Him they were to deliver again with the confidence of faith and confession.

Remig.: The meaning therefore is, “What I say to you in darkness,” that is, among the unbelieving Jews, “that speak ye in the light,” that is, preach it to the believing; “what ye hear in the ear,” that is, what I say unto you secretly, “that preach ye upon the housetops,” that is, openly before all men. It is a common phrase, To speak in one’s ear, that is, to speak to him privately.

Rabanus: And what He says, “Preach ye upon the housetops,” is spoken after the manner of the province of Palestine, where they use to sit upon the roofs of the houses, which are not pointed but flat. That then may be said to be preached upon the housetops which is spoken in the hearing of all men.

Gloss. ord.: Otherwise; What I say unto you while you are yet held under carnal fear, that speak ye in the confidence of truth, after ye shall be enlightened by the Holy Spirit; what you have only heard, that preach by doing the same, being raised above you bodies, which are the dwellings of your souls.

Jerome: Otherwise; What you hear in mystery, that teach in plainness of speech; what I have taught you in a corner of Judaea, that proclaim boldly in all quarters of the world.

Chrys.: As He said, “He that believeth on me, the works that I do he shall do also, and greater things than these shall he do;” [Joh_14:12] so here He shews that He works all things through them more than through Himself; as though He had said, I have made a beginning, but what is beyond, that I will to complete through your means. So that this is not a command but a prediction, shewing them that they shall overcome all things.

Hilary: Therefore they ought to inculcate constantly the knowledge of God, and the profound secret of evangelic doctrine, to be revealed by the light of preaching; having no fear of those who have power only over the body, but cannot reach the soul; “Fear not those that kill the body, but cannot kill the soul.”

Chrys.: Observe how He sets them above all others, encouraging them to set at nought cares, reproaches, perils, yea even the most terrible of all things, death itself, in comparison of the fear of God.”But rather fear him, who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”

Jerome: This word is not found in the Old Scriptures, but it is first used by the Saviour. Let us enquire then into its origin. We read in more than one place that the idol Baal was near Jerusalem, at the foot of Mount Moriah, by which the brook Siloe flows. This valley and a small level plain was watered and woody, a delightful spot, and a grove in it was consecrated to the idol. To so great folly and madness had the people of Israel come, that, forsaking the neighbourhood of the Temple, they offered their sacrifices there, and concealing an austere ritual under a voluptuous life, they burned their sons in honour of a daemon.

This place was called, Gehennom, that is, The valley of the children of Hinnom. These things are fully described in Kings and Chronicles, and the Prophet Jeremiah. [2Ki_23:10, 2Ch_26:3, Jer_7:32; Jer_32:35] God threatens that He will fill the place with the carcasses of the dead, that it be no more called Tophet and Baal, but Polyandrion, i.e. The tomb of the dead. Hence the torments and eternal pains with which sinners shall be punished are signified by this word.

Aug., City of God, book xiii, ch. 2: This cannot be before the soul is so joined to the body, that nothing may sever them. Yet it is rightly called the death of the soul, because it does not live of God; and the death of the body, because though man does not cease to feel, yet because this his feeling has neither pleasure nor health, but is a pain and a punishment, it is better named death than life.

Chrys.: Note also, that He does not hold out to them deliverance from death, but encourages them to despise it; which is a much greater thing than to be rescued from death; also this discourse aids in fixing in their minds the doctrine of immortality.

Maldonado’s Commentary on Matthew 5:13-19

Verse 13. You are the salt of the earth. There are two properties in salt : to give savour, and to preserve from corruption. What is termed savour in food (sapor) is wisdom in man, and expressed by the word salt. What is called in other things conservation (conservatio) is in men confirmation in good lives, and is termed in the inspired writings edification. The Apostles are called the salt of the earth, therefore, because they are men, and ought to teach by their wisdom, and edify by their lives. S. Augustin (i., De Serm. Dom.) shows why Christ spoke the above words. He had urged the Apostles before to the highest perfection

of life: “Blessed are the poor in spirit;” and He desired to show that they ought to aim at being such, because they were the salt of the earth. By the earth here, S. Augustin says, men are to be understood. This is also certain from the custom of Scripture.

This is more necessary of observation because, as S. Chrysostom and Theophylact have said, the Apostles were called the salt of the earth, as about to be the masters, not of one man, or of a few men, but of the whole world (Matt 14:15).

St. Mark (9:50) and St. Luke (14:34) relate that on another occasion Christ used the same comparison. But it is an easy and probable conclusion that He did this, not once only, but frequently as the case required, as we often do in our teaching.

But if the salt have lost its savor. μωρανθη—Infatuatum fuerit: that is, loses its savour and sharpness. Doctors of the Church do this when they either teach wrongly or build up badly.

Wherewith shall it be salted? That is, the salt itself (St. Matt 9:50); for there is no salting of salt. If the teacher teach amiss, by whom shall he be taught? If he live badly, by whom shall he be corrected? for there is no doctor doctorum. Not that the teacher cannot be corrected, but it is not usual nor easy.

But to be cast out. To be trodden under foot by the passers-by, as things thrown out into the streets.  The meaning is that other things, even if they have lost their natural virtue, are still useful for other purpo.ses. Gold money is broken up—it is no longer money, but it is still gold; it will not serve for commerce, but it is useful to the goldsmith. Food is tainted—it is not set before men, but it may be given to the dogs. A garment is worn out, it is thrown on to the dunghill—it will no longer warm men, but it will enrich the ground. But salt, if it has lost its savour, is useless for the dunghill, and will not manure the ground—nay, it makes it sterile (Ps 107:34; and St. Luke 14:35). That which is of the most use, when decayed, becomes the most useless. The branch is most necessary for the production of fruit, but if it wither nothing is more valueless (Ezek 15:2, 3, 4).

Verse 14. You are the light of the world. You who ought to enlighten the world by your doctrine and example; the world has no teachers of goodness but you. Christ probably meant by the three words—salt, light, and the city—to signify one and the same thing. This, as we learn from S. Jerome, was the custom of the Syriac, which was the language He used (Note: Aramaic = Syriac). Not only here, but in many other passages, we see Christ using many similes, one upon another, to express the same thing. Of this S. Matthew (chapter 13) gives many examples. One thing must be observed, that Christ was the one only true Light “which enlighteneth every man that cometh into the world ” (St. John 1:9; 3:19; 8:12; 9:5; 12:35, 36).

Christ is called the true Light because He is the supreme Light in Himself, with whom, if not the Apostles alone and other holy men and Doctors, yet St. John the Baptist, than whom there was none greater among those born of women, may compare. But the other John said truly, he was not that light; yet of him the Evangelist writes: “He was a burning and a shining light” (John 5:35). As in this passage of S. Matthew the Apostles are called the light, all Christians are called the same (Philippians 2:15; Ephes 5:8; 1Thess 5:5). Christ is the Light by His own nature: others by His grace and gift, because they are enlightened by Him : Christ, because He lightens every man that cometh into the world, not only extrinsically by His example and doctrine, but also by His intrinsic grace: the Apostles, as lighting others, not only by their example, but also by their doctrine ; Christians by their example.

A city cannot be hid. The first part of the comparison is wanting. You are a city, or like a city, placed on a hill. St. Jerome shows that the Apostles and Prophets are the mountains, because, being on high places in the Church, they are seen by all. The Author also observes that they are described as towers (Ps 122:7), although the meaning here is a mystical one, the literal being different. In the same sense they are here compared to a state (civitati), or rather to a city (urbi).

“Cannot.”—That cannot, you ought not to, be hidden. Christ does not admonish them to live uprightly lest they give offence, because their example, like a city on a hill, cannot be hid; but He warns them not to conceal themselves.

Verse 15. Neither do men light a candle. The meaning of these words is clear. Their object is not—so S. Jerome thinks—that Christ uttered them to give the Apostles courage and confidence to preach the Gospel freely; as if one should exhort a champion to fight strenuously and with courage, because the eyes of all were upon him. Others think that He intended to warn them to live circumspectly, lest they should give offence—for a city set on a hill cannot possibly be hid.

Nor were they to resemble a candle put under a bushel, but one placed in a candlestick, which cannot but be seen by all (St. Paul to the Philippians 2:15, and 1 Peter 3:16). S. Chrysostom and Theophylact explain it thus: Christ’s meaning seems to be, to exhort the Apostles to shine brightly both by word and example, and not to spare their labour. Besides, He had kindled them as lights; that is. He had made them Apo.stles, and had therefore placed them above others, as a city on a hill, that they might be conspicuous, and shine, and teach, and not be hid. For a city is not built upon a mountain that it may not be seen, nor is a candle lighted that it may be hid under a bushel, but that it may be placed in a candlestick, and light all, and be seen by all. Christ says this in other words (St. Luke 2:49), and S. Paul exhorts S. Timothy “to preach the Word ” (2 Tim 4:2). The words that follow—”So let your light shine—confirm this opinion. The words “under a bushel” are put, probably, because a bushel was very fit for concealing the light. So  Luke 8:16.

Verse 16. So let your light shine. Christ elsewhere seems to teach the contrary (Matt 6:1, 2, 5), and many things in that place to the same purport. The answer is easy. The word ” that ” in this instance does not show the cause, but the result, as in John 9:39 and 1Cor 11:19. St. Chrysostom (Hom. 10. on Romans; Hom.  27 on 1Cor., and on S. Paul’s words, “There must be heresies”), John Damascene, with other authorities of the Greek Church, say that the word is not causative, but illative. For Christ did not command the Apostles to act rightly that they might be seen by men, which chapter 6 forbids; but so to live that every one who saw their actions might glorify, not them, but their Father who is in heaven, and of whose grace it was that they did them. This is not forbidden in that 6th chapter of St. Luke.

Is it not lawful, then, ever to do good that we may be seen by men, when we should not otherwise do it? It is lawful if only we do it not for our own sakes, but for the sake of God. It is lawful with that object, but not as the final object to do good. It is lawful to come thither, but not to remain there; our minds must lead on to the glory of God. Before they came to God they stood still; nay, they fell. He who wishes to be seen by men when well-doing, wishes it not that he himself, but that his Father in heaven may be glorified—he wishes, not himself, but God to be seen. For no one wishes to be seen by men that he may merely be seen, but that he may be given some glory by being seen. If he seek not glory, or if he seek it not for himself, but for God, even if he desire to be seen, he does not appear to desire it. In this sense St. Peter wishes Christians who live righteously to desire to be seen by the Gentiles (1 Pet 2:12). In this sense Christ seems to have said: “Let your light so shine”. In this passage the word “that” signifies, not only the event and consequence, but the end and cause. He compared the Apostles to a candle; but the candle is lighted that it may be seen, and, as we have said, Christ does not there proceed as by leaps, but gradually: “Glorify your Father who is in heaven”.

Verse 17. Do not think. We must first see to what end Christ said this, and how far it agrees with His previous words. Many think that Christ said this because He had been already accused by the Jews of being about to destroy the Law, or because He certainly knew that he would be so accused, which we see to have subsequently happened (S. Matt 7:29; Matt 15:9; and S.John 9:16).

Some think that, because Christ had already made transition to a more perfect interpretation of the Law, He desired to advise them that they must understand even from this that He was not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it; that is, to bind them more closely to it, and interpret it more perfectly to the mind of the Giver of it (verses 21, 22). So say S. Chrysostom and Theophylact. The Author, whoever he was, seems to have touched the true case (Hom. x.). Christ had said to the Apostles: “You are the light of the world,” which should be explained, as we have said, at once of their life and doctrine. He teaches them now, by His own example, how they ought to live and teach; that they ought to keep the Law better than it had been kept heretofore, and explain it better than the Scribes and Pharisees, lest they should think that because they were the disciples of Christ, that is, of the Lawgiver Himself, they might break the Law; as they who are of princes’ households are used to be free from almost every law. As if He had said: I Myself, who made the Law, am not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it; and “unless your justice abound more than that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven” (verse 20). Thus precept follows precept.

Now we will speak of the meaning of the words. How does Christ say that He is not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it, when, in fact. He did destroy and abrogate it? For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John (S. Matt 11:13; Heb 7:12), and therefore Christ is contrary to the Law, and cannot profit those who keep the Law (Gal 5:2.).

They who reply that “Christ said that He was not come to destroy the Law because, although He would destroy it. He would not do so per se, but by the Apostles after His return into heaven; as He said that He came not but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (S. Matt 15:24)—not that He did not come to other sheep, but that He would bring in those sheep not per se but by the Apostles”; do not appear to see to what end Christ said this. He wished, as before said, to urge the Apostles to keep the Law perfectly, inasmuch as He Himself had come not to destroy but to fulfil it. In the same way, then, in which He Himself had kept it. He wished the Apostles to keep it; and in the way in which He abrogated it. He abrogated it not by the Apostles, but per se. The true meaning, then, is this. Christ came not to destroy the Law but to fulfil it:

1. Because as long as the Law had need to flourish. He, though as God He was bound by no Law, both fulfilled it most strictly Himself, and took care that the Apostles should do the same. Both He Himself and the Apostles were circumcised. They went up yearly to the feast and kept Paschal. As to the accusation that He did not keep the Sabbath because the disciples plucked the ears of corn (S. Matt 13:1-2) and ate with unwashed hands (Matt 15:2), these were calumnies of the Pharisees, who interpreted the Law not according to the intention of the Giver, but according to their own will and tradition, as Christ convicts them of doing in these passages.

2. He is said not to have destroyed but fulfilled the Law, because He interpreted it by His righteous interpretations. For when He said, “I am not come to destroy,” as if wishing to show how He fulfilled it, He added those more severe interpretations of it in verses 21, 22, 23, 24. So say S. Greg. Nyss. (Cont. Jud), Euthymius, and Theophylact (in Comments.).

3. Christ fulfilled the Law, because He gave us the grace by which it could be fulfilled. For previously, as S. Augustin says, “He commanded, but He did not assist”; after His coming, He both commands and assists. Before this it was a heavy body, a weight without a soul. He infused into it the grace and spirit, like a soul by which it is moved and acts, as in S. John 1:17; S. Augustin (Cont. Faust., xi. 5; xix. 7); S. Chrysostom (Hom. xvi.).

4. He showed forth the promises of the Law, and represented what had been shadowed forth by the ceremonies and types. So almost all the ancient authors interpret it—S. Ireneus, iv. 27,67; Tertullian, De Patient.; S. Hilary, iv.; S. Athanasius, Cont. Omn. Hæres.; S. Cyril, De Adorat.; S. Augustin, Quæst. 69 in Nov. Test. In accordance with these are the words of Christ (S. Luke 24:44). That is, as the Evangelists, and most especially S. Matthew, say, “That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophets”.

5. Some add a fifth way in which Christ fulfilled the Law—that for its temporal rewards and punishments He substituted eternal ones. And thus, as there were in the Law and the Prophets four parts—(1) Promises and Prophecies, (2) Precepts of the Decalogue, (3) Ceremonies, (4) Judgments—Christ fulfilled all. The Promises and Prophecies, by showing what was promised and what foretold; the Moral Precepts of the Decalogue, by a better interpretation; the Ceremonies, by showing their signification: as, for Circumcision of the flesh, Baptism and Circumcision of the heart; the Judicial, by the change of corporeal and temporal rewards and punishments into spiritual and eternal.

This is how He abrogated the Law: not by destroying, but by fulfilling; not by violating, but by perfecting: “As a painter,” says Theophylact, “who puts the finishing touches, and adds the colour to a picture which he has begun, but only sketched in outline, destroys the first draft and produces a new one “. He destroys indeed, not by dissolving but by completing: not by blotting out.

In what sense the Law is said to have lasted only until the time of John the Baptist is another question, and one not to be explained here, but in Chapter 11. It is sufficient now to know that the Law lasted only to John Baptist, not because it was abrogated by him, nor immediately. When he began to preach it began to sicken, and it was to die not long after the death of Christ. The Law was abrogated because it was perfected by the Gospel. When the Gospel began to be preached, it began to be abrogated; and the more the Gospel flourished, the more the Law declined; and when the Gospel was fully preached, the Law was fully done away.

Verse 18. Amen. אמן in Hebrew signifies truth (Isa 65:16). Thus, “Amen, I say unto you ” is the same as “I say to you in truth ” (S. Luke 4:25; S. John 16:27). The word has a twofold meaning—one of confirmation of what was said before, as Deut 27:26, 1 Cor 14:16; the other, as an affirmation of what is about to be said, as in this place and in others innumerable. The former is more frequently found in the Old Testament, seldom in the New Testament. The latter is met with abundantly in the New Testament, seldom or never in the Old Testament. The reason seems to be, that the writers of the Old Testament used the Hebrew and not the Syriac language, and in Hebrew, אמן, “Amen,” is rather a word of confirmation than of affirmation. The Greek and Latin versions followed the Hebrew as from common use.

Until pass. i.e., “Until they perish” (Ps 102:27), until they be dissolved (1 Pet 3:10), until they be changed. A Hebraism עמד often found in the New Testament; παρελθωσιν used in S. Matthew 24:35; Mat 25:39; Matt 26:42,; S. Mark 13:31; S. Luke 21:33; as is παρενεγκε for Hithpael: S. Mark 14:36, S. Luke 22:42, and μετατιθεμενης (Heb 7:12).

Heaven and earth. The whole world, which is believed to stand on the firmest foundations. “Heaven and earth, the choicest of the elements, as is supposed, are to pass away, but the least particle even of the commandments of the Law cannot be annulled” (S. Hilary). Scripture elsewhere uses similar comparisons Ps 50:4, 6; Ps 89:37-38; Jer 33:20-21).

One jot or one tittle. Some explain it that Iota is the least of all the letters, and the top is the least part of it. As if we should say: “Not even the very least commandment of the Law, or the least part of the least commandment, can be destroyed “. But this explanation has no place in the Greek or Hebrew in which this Gospel was written, nor in the Syriac in which Christ spoke; because the Iota has no top. Christ, then, calls the apex or tittle the least part of the letter, as the head or tail of Iod, a thing most minute; for everyone is aware that there were no points in Hebrew in those times. The letter Iota from this passage, although the least of all the letters, caused the greatest of all the
heresies (Irenaeus, i. 3).

Verse 19. Of these least commandments. Some ancient authorities would have the cross and death of Christ to be intended, because, although they seem a small thing, no man has any safety who is ashamed of them. Thus S. Hilary, and others mentioned by Theophylact. But it is not clear that the cross is meant, and it is doubtful which may be termed the least of the commandments of Christ. Some, like S. Augustin (Serm. i., Dom. in Mont), refer to the precontext, as if it had been said: “Whosoever shall break one of the least of these My commandments, which I have come not to destroy, but to fulfil “. The word “these” seems to support this view. Others think that the reference is to what follows, as S. Chrysostom, The Author, and Theophylact. It more probably means the least of the commandments of the Old Testament, which were ceremonial and judicial, and which Christ would not allow to be kept after the Gospel, but abolished, and because the text continues: “Unless your justice abound more than that of the Scribes and Pharisees,” &c. (verse 20). The word “these,” then, does not refer to the same things as Christ had spoken of, but to like ones—like, because each appeared to be the least.

Christ calls the commandments of which He was about to speak “the least,” not because they were so in reality, but only in the opinion of the Pharisees, who thought them the least, or rather nothing at all. These, as depending entirely on the judgment of men, thought murder, which is a visible act, a sin, but the desire to perpetrate it, which they could not see, they, perhaps, thought no sin.

And shall so teach men. The word “so” is a single syllable, but it contains a great difficulty, and upon it turns the meaning of the whole sentence. S. Jerome and others think that it means “as I teach and command,” as if Christ had said: “Whoever does not keep one of the least of these commandments, although he teach others that they are to be kept, shall be the least in the kingdom of heaven”. With this agree the words of Christ (Matt 23:2-3). S. Jerome thought that the same Scribes and Pharisees were meant. But this explanation seems less applicable here, because Christ blames not only the life, but also the doctrine of the Pharisees (S. Matt 5:21). The opinion of all the other authorities seems better—”so,” that is, as he who does not keep them himself, and teaches others that they need not—S. Chrysostom (Hom. in Matt, xv.). The Author, S. Augustin, De Serm. Dom., i.), S. Gregory (bk. xix.. On Job).

Shall be called the least. Some explain “the least” by “no one”—minimum nonnulli nullum interpretntar—as S. Chrysostom and Thcophylact, because, probably, they thought it a senseless thing that he who does not keep the commandments of Christ may still have some place in the kingdom of heaven, because he has not broken the great commandments, but only the least, the infraction of which is venial. This explanation is answered by the fact that what Christ called, as in the opinion of the Pharisees, the least, were in truth the greatest. For he who does not commit murder, but has the desire to do so, and he who does not commit adultery, but who looks upon a woman to lust after her, because his righteousness does not exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees, shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. The whole meaning of this passage depends on what is understood by ” the kingdom of heaven,” which shall be explained hereafter. Meanwhile, the words “the least” may be taken as equivalent to “the last”—i.e., someone. Lest the force of the words carefully used by Christ should be lost, He said that such an one should be the last—the last, but still someone—because he broke the least of the commandments, using a forcible paranomasia. He said “he shall be called,” because he shall be, as in verse 9—unless we explain it by “shall be pronounced,” shall be declared by the sentence of Christ the Judge, by which everyone shall appear what he is.

In the kingdom of heaven. S. Augustin (De Serm. Dom., i.) and S. Gregory (Moral. xix. 5), and almost all others, say that in this place the Church is meant by the kingdom of heaven: lest, if the actual kingdom of heaven be understood, a contradiction follows—that whoever breaks one of these commandments should have a place in the kingdom of heaven, when Christ almost immediately adds: “Unless your justice abound “. S. Chrysostom and Theophylact explain it apparently better, considering it to mean the time of the Resurrection, and the last day, and the day of Judgment. Then, whoever has not kept one of these least commandments shall be called: that is, declared by the sentence of the Judge, the least. Such an one will not be in no place, because he will rise again and be judged; but he will be in the last place, for he will be cast out into outer darkness.

Some ask why Christ makes no mention of those who neither do nor teach the great commandments; and of those who teach, but do not; and of those who do, but teach not; and of those who teach the least, and do not; or of those who do, and teach not.

The sole question was of the Pharisees alone, who did not that which they thought the least, and who taught men not to do them. If, then, he who has not kept one of the least of these commandments shall be in the last place, that is, shall be called the least, where shall he be who has not kept the greater? He also shall be in the last place. There they will, therefore, be equal and unequal—equal, as each will be last, each in the last place, which is hell; unequal, for in that last place, as in the first, which is the kingdom of heaven, there will be many mansions, and some will be tormented with a greater punishment than others. They who are in the first place, that is, the kingdom of heaven, will also be equal as being all to receive the same power (S. Matt 20:10); and unequal, because “In my Father’s house there are many mansions ” (S. John 14:2), and because ” Star differeth from star in glory” (1 Cor 15:42). Equal in the kind of honour, unequal in the degree; as all kings are equal in dignity, but unequal in wealth and power.

Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on Matthew 5:13-19

Ver 13. “Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.”

Chrys.: When He had delivered to His Apostles such sublime precepts, so much greater than the precepts of the Law, that they might not be dismayed and say, How shall we be able to fulfil these things? He sooths their fears by mingling praises with His instructions, saying, “Ye are the salt of the earth.” This shews them how necessary were these precepts for them. Not for your own salvation merely, or for a single nation, but for the whole world is this doctrine committed to you. It is not for you then to flatter and deal smoothly with men, but, on the contrary, to be rough and biting as salt is. When for thus offending men by reproving them ye are reviled, rejoice; for this is the proper effect of salt to be harsh and grating to the depraved palate. Thus the evil-speaking of others will bring you no inconvenience, but will rather be a testimony of your firmness.

Hilary: There may be here seen a propriety in our Lord’s language which may be gathered by considering the Apostle’s office, and the nature of salt. This, used as it is by men for almost every purpose, preserves from decay those bodies which are sprinkled with it; and in this, as well as in every sense of its flavour as a condiment, the parallel is most exact.

The Apostles are preachers of heavenly things, and thus, as it were, salters with eternity; rightly called “the salt of the earth,” as by the virtue of their teaching, they, as it were, salt and preserve bodies for eternity.

Remig.: Moreover, salt is changed into another kind of substance by three means, water, the heat of the sun, and the breath of the wind. Thus Apostolic men also were changed into spiritual regeneration by the water of baptism, the heat of love, and the breath of the Holy Spirit. That heavenly wisdom also, which the Apostles preached, dries  up the humours of carnal works, removes the foulness and putrefaction of evil conversation, kills the work of lustful thoughts, and also that worm of which it is said “their worm dieth not.” [Isa_66:24]

Remig.: The Apostles are “the salt of the earth,” that is, of worldly men who are called the earth, because they love this earth.

Jerome: Or, because by the Apostles the whole human race is seasoned.

Pseudo-Chrys.: A doctor when he is adorned with all the preceding virtues, then is like good salt, and his whole people are salted by seeing and hearing him.

Remig.: It should be known, that in the Old Testament no sacrifice was offered to God unless it were first sprinkled with salt, for none can present an acceptable sacrifice to God without the flavour of heavenly wisdom.

Hilary: And because man is ever liable to change, He therefore warns the Apostles, who have been entitled “the salt of the earth,” to continue steadfast in the might of the power committed to them, when He adds, “If the salt have lost its savour, wherewith shall it be salted?”

Jerome: That is, if the doctor have erred, by what other doctor shall he be corrected?

Aug., Serm. in Mont., i, 6: If you by whom the nations are to be salted shall lose the kingdom of heaven through fear of temporal persecution, who are they by whom your error shall be corrected? Another copy has, “If the salt have lost all sense,” shewing that they must be esteemed to have lost their sense, who either pursuing abundance, or fearing lack of temporal goods, lose those which are eternal, and which men can neither give nor take away.

Hilary: But if the doctors having become senseless, and having lost all the savour they once enjoyed, are unable to restore soundness to things corrupt, they are become useless; and “are thenceforth fit only to be cast out and trodden by men.”

Jerome: The illustration is taken from husbandry. Salt, though it be necessary for seasoning of meats and preserving flesh, has no further use. Indeed we read in Scripture of vanquished cities sown with salt by the victors, that nothing should thenceforth grow there.

Gloss. ap. Anselm: When then they who are the heads have fallen away, they are fit for no use but to be cast out from the office of teacher.Hilary: Or even cast out from the Church’s store rooms to be trodden under foot by those that walk.

Aug.: Not he that suffers persecution is trodden under foot of men, but he who through fear of persecution falls away. For we can tread only on what is below us; but he is no way below us, who however much he may suffer in the body, yet has his heart fixed in heaven.

Ver 14. “Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid.” 15  Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house.  16  So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.

Gloss: As the doctors by their good conversation are the salt with which the people is salted; so by their word of doctrine they are the light by which the ignorant are enlightened.

Pseudo-Chrys.: But to live well must go before to teach well; hence after He had called the Apostles “the salt,” He goes on to call them “the light of the world.”

Or, for that salt preserves a thing in its present state that it should not change for the worse, but that light brings it into a better state by enlightening it; therefore the Apostles were first called salt with respect to the Jews and that Christian body which had the knowledge of God, and which they keep in that knowledge; and now light with respect to the Gentiles whom they bring to the light of that knowledge.

Aug.: By the world here we must not understand heaven and earth, but the men who are in the world; or those who love the world for whose enlightenment the Apostles were sent.

Hilary: It is the nature of a light to emit its rays whithersoever it is carried about, and when brought into a house to dispel the darkness of that house. Thus the world, placed beyond the pale of the knowledge of God, was held in the darkness of ignorance, till the light of knowledge was brought to it by the Apostles, and thenceforward the knowledge of God shone bright, and from their small bodies, whithersoever they went about, light is ministered to the darkness.

Remig.: For as the sun sends forth his beams, so the Lord, the Sun of righteousness, sent forth his Apostles to dispel the night of the human race.

Chrys.: Mark how great His promise to them, men who were scarce known in their own country that the fame of them should reach to the ends of the earth. The persecutions which He had foretold, were not able to dim their light, yea they made it but more conspicuous.

Jerome: He instructs them what should be the boldness of their preaching, that as Apostles they should not be hidden through fear, like lamps under a corn-measure, but should stand forth with all confidence, and what they have heard in the secret chambers, that declare upon the house tops.

Chrys.: Thus shewing them that they ought to be careful of their own walk and conversation, seeing they were set in the eyes of all, like a city on a hill, or a lamp on a stand.

Pseudo-Chrys.: This city is the Church of which it is said, “Glorious things are spoken of thee, thou city of God.” [Psa_87:3] Its citizens are all the faithful, of whom the Apostle speaks, “Ye are fellow-citizens of the saints.” [Eph_2:19] It is built upon Christ the hill, of whom Daniel thus, “A stone hewed without hands” [Dan_2:34] became a great mountain.

Aug.: Or, the mountain is the great righteousness, which is signified by the mountain from which the Lord is now teaching.

Pseudo-Chrys.: “A city set on a hill cannot be hidden” though it would; the mountain which bears makes it to be seen of all men; so the Apostles and Priests who are founded on Christ cannot be hidden even though they would, because Christ makes them manifest.

Hilary: Or, the city signifies the flesh which He had taken on Him; because that in Him by this assumption of human nature, there was as it were a collection of the human race, and we by partaking in His flesh become inhabitants of that city. He cannot therefore be hid, because being set in the height of God’s power, He is offered to be contemplated of all men in admiration of his works.

Pseudo-Chrys.: How Christ manifests His saints, suffering them not to be hid, He shews by another comparison, adding, “Neither do men light a lamp to put it under a corn-measure,” but on a stand.

Chrys.: Or, in the illustration of the city, He signified His own power, by the lamp He exhorts the Apostles to preach with boldness; as though He said, ‘I indeed have lighted the lamp, but that it continue to burn will be your care, not for your own sakes only, but both for others who shall receive its light and for God’s glory.’

Pseudo-Chrys.: The lamp is the Divine word, of which it is said, “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet.” [Psa_119:105] They who light this lamp are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Aug.: With what meaning do we suppose the words, “to put it under a corn-measure,” were said? To express concealment simply, or that the “corn-measure” has a special signification? The putting the lamp under the corn-measure means the preferring bodily ease and enjoyment to the duty of preaching the Gospel, and hiding the light of good teaching under temporal gratification. The corn-measure aptly denotes the things of the body, whether because our reward shall be measured out to us, [2Co_5:10] as each one shall receive the things done in the body; or because worldly goods which pertain to the body come and go within a certain measure of time, which is signified by the corn-measure, whereas things eternal and spiritual are contained within no such limit.

He places his lamp upon a stand, who subdues his body to the ministry of the word, setting the preaching of the truth highest, and subjecting the body beneath it. For the body itself serves to make doctrine shine more clear, while the voice and other motions of the body in good works serve to recommend it to them that learn.

Pseudo-Chrys.: Or, men of the world may be figured in the “corn-measure” as these are empty above, but full beneath, so worldly men are foolish in spiritual things, but wise in earthly things, and therefore like a corn-measure they keep the word of God hid, whenever for any worldly cause he had not dared to proclaim the word openly, and the truth of the faith. The stand for the lamp is the Church which bears the word of life, and all ecclesiastical persons. [margin note: Phi_2:15]

Hilary: Or, the Lord likened the Synagogue to a corn-measure, which only receiving within itself such fruit as was raised; contained a certain measure of limited obedience.

Ambrose. non occ.: And therefore let none shut up his faith within the measure of the Law, but have recourse to the Church in which the grace of the sevenfold Spirit shines forth.

Bede, in Loc. quoad sens.: Or, Christ Himself has lighted this lamp, when He filled the earthen vessel of human nature with the fire of His Divinity, which He would not either hide from them that believe, nor put under a bushel that is shut up under the measure of the Law, or confine within the limits of any one oration. The lampstand is the Church, on which He set the lamp, when He affixed to our foreheads the faith of His incarnation.

Hilary: Or, the lamp, i.e. Christ Himself, is set on its stand when He was suspended on the Cross in His passion, to give light for ever to those that dwell in the Church; “to give light,” He says, “to all that are in the house.”

Aug.: For it is not absurd if any one will understand “the house” to be the Church.

Or, “the house” may be the world itself, according to what He said above, “Ye are the light of the world.”

Hilary: He instructs the Apostles to shine with such a light, that in the admiration of their work God may be praised, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works.”

Pseudo-Chrys.: That is, teaching with so pure a light, that men may not only hear your words, but see your works, that those whom as lamps ye have enlightened by the word, as salt ye may season by your example. For by those teachers who do as well as teach, God is magnified; for the discipline of the master is seen in the behavior of the family.

And therefore it follows, “and they shall glorify your Father which is in heaven.”

Aug., Serm. in Mont., i, 7: Had He only said, “That they may see your good works,” He would have seemed to have set up as an end to be sought the praised of men, which the hypocrites desire; but by adding, “and glorify your Father,” he teaches that we should not seek as an end to please men with our good works, but referring all to the glory of God, therefore seek to please men, that in that God may be glorified.

Hilary: He means not that we should seek glory of men, but that though we conceal it, our work may shine forth in honour of God to those among whom we live.

Ver 17. “Think not that I am come to destroy the Law, or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.18. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.19. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

Gloss. ord.: Having now exhorted His hearers to undergo all things for righteousness’ sake, and also not to hide what they should receive, but to learn more for others’ sake, that they may teach others, He now goes on to tell them what they should teach, as though He had been asked, ‘What is this which you would not have hid, and for which you would have all things endured? Are you about to speak any thing beyond what is written in the Law and the Prophets;’ hence it is He says, “Think not that I am come to subvert the Law or the Prophets.”Pseudo-Chrys.: And that for two reasons. First, that by these words He might admonish His disciples, that as He fulfilled the Law, so they should strive to fulfil it. Secondly, because the Jews would falsely accuse them as subverting the Law, therefore he answers the calumny beforehand, but in such a manner as that He should not be thought to come simply to preach the Law as the Prophets had done.

Remig.: He here asserts two things; He denies that He was come to subvert the Law, and affirms that He was come to fulfil it.

Aug., Serm. in Mont., i, 8: In this last sentence again there is a double sense; to fulfil the Law, either by adding something which it had not, or by doing what it commands.

Chrys., Hom. 16: Christ then fulfilled the Prophets by accomplishing what was therein foretold concerning Himself – and the Law, first, by transgressing none of its precepts; secondly, by justifying by faith, which the Law could not do by the letter.

Aug., cont. Faust., 19, 7. et seq.: And lastly, because even for them who were under grace, it was hard in this mortal life to fulfil that of the Law, “Thou shalt not lust,” He being made a Priest by the sacrifice of His flesh, obtained for us this indulgence, even in this fulfilling the Law, that where through our infirmity we could not, we should be strengthened through His perfection, of whom as our head we all are members.

For so I think must be taken these words, “to fulfil” the Law, by adding to it, that is, such things as either contribute to the explanation of the old glosses, or to enable to keep them. For the Lord has shewed us that even a wicked motion of the thoughts to the wrong of a brother is to be accounted a kind of murder.

The Lord also teaches us, that it is better to keep near to the truth without swearing, than with a true oath to come near to blasphemy.

But how, ye Manichaeans, do you not receive the Law and the Prophets, seeing Christ here says, that He is come not to subvert but to fulfil them? To this the heretic Faustus replies [ed. note: Faustus was of Milevis in Africa and a Bishop and controversialist of the Manichees. He was a man of considerable abilities. Augustine was first his hearer, and in after years his opponent; and in his work against him he answers him seriatim. In this way the treatise of Faustus is preserved to us.], Whose testimony is there that Christ spoke this? That of Matthew.

How was it then that John does not give this saying, who was with Him in the mount, but only Matthew, who did not follow Jesus till after He had come down from the mount? To this Augustine replies, If none can speak truth concerning Christ, but who saw and heard Him, there is no one at this day who speaks truth concerning Him.

Why then could not Matthew hear from John’s mouth the truth as Christ had spoken, as well as we who are born so long after can speak the truth out of John’s book? In the same manner also it is, that not Matthew’s Gospel, but also these of Luke and Mark are received by us, and on no inferior authority. And, that the Lord Himself might have told Matthew the things He had done before He called him.

But speak out and say that you do not believe the Gospel, for they who believe nothing in the Gospel but what they wish to believe, believe themselves rather than the Gospel. To this Faustus rejoins, We will prove that this was not written by Matthew, but by some other hand, unknown, in his name. For below he says, “Jesus saw a man sitting at the toll-office, Matthew by name.” [Mat_9:9] Who writing of himself say, ‘saw a man,’ and not rather, ‘saw me?’ Augustine; Matthew does no more than John does, when he says, “Peter turning round saw that other disciple whom Jesus loved;” as it is well known that this is the common manner of Scripture writers, when writing their own actions.

Faustus again, But what say you to this, that the very assurance that He was not come to destroy the Law and the Prophets, was the direct way to rouse their suspicions that He was? For He had yet done nothing that could lead the Jews to think that this was His object. Augustine; This is a very weak objection, for we do not deny that to the Jews who had no understanding, Christ might have appeared as threatening the destruction of the Law and the Prophets.

Faustus; But what if the Law and the Prophets do not accept this fulfilment, according to that in Deuteronomy, “These commandments I give unto thee, thou shalt keep, thou shalt not add any thing to them, nor take away.” Augustine; Here Faustus does not understand what it is to fulfil the Law, when he supposes that it must be taken of adding words to it. The fulfilment of the Law is love, which the Lord hath given in sending His Holy Spirit. The Law is fulfilled either when the things there commanded are done, or when the things there prophesied come to pass.

Faustus; But in that we confess that Jesus was author of a New Testament, what else is it than to confess that He has done away with the Old? Augustine; In the Old Testament were figure of things to come, which, when the things themselves were brought in by Christ, ought to have been taken away, that in that very taking away the Law and the Prophets might be fulfilled wherein it was written that God gave a New Testament.

Faustus; Therefore if Christ did say this thing, He either said it with some other meaning, or He spoke falsely, (which God forbid,) or we must take the other alternative, He did not speak it at all. But that Jesus spoke falsely none will aver, therefore He either spoke it with another meaning, or He spake it not at all. For myself I am rescued from the necessity of this alternative by the Manichaean belief, which from the first taught me not to believe all those things which are read in Jesus’ name as having been spoken by Him; for that there be many tares which to corrupt the good seed some nightly sower has scattered up and down through nearly the whole of Scripture.

Augustine; Manichaeus taught an impious error, that you should receive only so much of the Gospel as does not conflict with your heresy, and not receive whatever does conflict with it. We have learned of the Apostle that religious caution, “Whoever preaches unto you another Gospel than that we have preached, let him be accursed.” [Gal_1:8] The Lord also has explained what the tares signify, not things false mixed with the true Scriptures, as you interpret, but men who are children of the wicked one.

Faustus; Should a Jew then enquire of you why you do not keep the precepts of the Law and the Prophets which Christ here declares He came not to destroy but to fulfil, you will be driven either to accept an empty superstition, or to repudiate this chapter as false, or to deny that you are Christ’s disciple.

Augustine; The Catholics are not in any difficulty on account of this chapter as though they did not observe the Law and the Prophets; for they do cherish love to God and their neighbour, “on which hang all the Law and the Prophets.” And whatever in the Law and the Prophets was foreshewn, whether in things done, in the celebration of sacramental rites, or in forms of speech, all these they know to be fulfilled in Christ and the Church. Wherefore we neither submit to a false superstition, nor reject the chapter, nor deny ourselves to be Christ’s disciples. He then who says, that unless Christ had destroyed the Law and the Prophets, the Mosaic rites would have continued along with the Christian ordinances, may further affirm, that unless Christ had destroyed the Law and the Prophets, He would yet be only promised as to be born, to suffer, to rise again. But inasmuch as He did not destroy, but rather fulfil them, His birth, passion, and resurrection, are now no more promised as things future, which were signified by the Sacraments of the Law; but He is preached as already born, crucified, and risen, which are signified by the Sacraments now celebrated by Christians.

It is clear then how great is the error of those who suppose, that when the signs or sacraments are changed, the things themselves are different, whereas the same things which the Prophetic ordinance had held forth as promises, the Evangelic ordinance points to as completed.

Faustus: Supposing these to be Christ’s genuine words, we should enquire what was His motive for speaking thus, whether to soften the blind hostility of the Jews, who when they saw their holy things trodden under foot by Him, would not have so much as given Him a hearing; or whether He really said them to instruct us, who of the Gentiles should believe, to submit to the yoke of the Law. If this last were not His design, then the first must have been; nor was there any deceit or fraud in such purpose.

For of laws there be three sorts. The first that of the Hebrews, called the “law of sin and death,” [Rom_8:2] by Paul; the second that of the Gentiles, which he calls the law of nature, saying, “By nature the Gentiles do the deeds of the law;” [Rom_2:14] the third, the law of  truth, which he means, “The law of the Spirit of life.” Also there are Prophets some of the Jews, such as are well known; others of the Gentiles as Paul speaks, “A prophet of their own hath said;” [Tit_1:12] and others of the truth of whom Jesus speaks, “I send unto you wise men and prophets.” [Mat_23:34]

Now had Jesus in the following part of this Sermon brought forward any of the Hebrew observances to shew how he had fulfilled them, no one would have doubted that it was of the Jewish Law and Prophets that He was now speaking; but when He brings forward in this way only those more ancient precepts, “Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery,” which were promulged of old to Enoch, Seth, and the other righteous men, who does not see that He is here speaking of the Law and Prophets of truth? Wherever He has occasion to speak of any thing merely Jewish, He plucks it up by the very roots, giving precepts directly the contrary; for example, in the case of that precept, “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.”

Augustine; Which was the Law and which the Prophets, that Christ came “not to subvert but to fulfil,” is manifest, to wit, the Law given by Moses. And the distinction which Faustus draw between the precepts of the righteous men before Moses, and the Mosaic Law, affirming that Christ fulfilled that one but annulled the other, is not so. We affirm that the Law of Moses was both well suited to its temporary purpose, and was not now subverted, but fulfilled by Christ, as will be seen in each particular. This was not understood by those who continued in such obstinate error, that they compelled the Gentiles to Judaize – those heretics, I mean, who were called Nazarenes.

Pseudo-Chrys.: But since all things which should befall from the very beginning of the world to the end of it, were in type and figure foreshewn in the Law, that God may not be thought to be ignorant of any of those things that take place, He therefore here declares, that heaven and earth should not pass till all things thus foreshewn in the Law should have their actual accomplishment.

Remig.: “Amen” is a Hebrew word, and my be rendered in Latin, ‘vere,’ ‘fidenter,’ or ‘fiat;’ that is, ‘truly,’ ‘faithfully,’ or ‘so be it.’ The Lord uses it either because of the hardness of heart of those who were slow to believe, or to attract more particularly the attention of those that did believe.

Hilary: From the expression here used, “pass,” we may suppose that the constituting elements of heaven and earth shall not be annihilated. [ed. note: The text of Hil. has 'maxima, ut arbitramur, elementa esse solvends.']

Remig.: But shall abide in their essence, but “pass” through renewal.

Aug., Serm. in Mont. i, 8: By the words “one iota or one point shall not pass from the Law,” we must understand only a strong metaphor of completeness, drawn from the letters of writing, iota being the least of the letters, made with one stroke of the pen, and a point being a slight dot at the end of the same letter. The words there shew that the Law shall be completed to the very least matter.

Rabanus: He fitly mentions the Greek iota, and not the Hebrew job, because the iota stands in Greek for the number ten, and so there is an allusion to the Decalogue of which the Gospel is the point and perfection.

Pseudo-Chrys.: If even an honourable man blushes to be found in a falsehood, and a wise man lets not fall empty any word he has once spoken, how could it be that the words of heaven should fall to the ground empty? Hence He concludes, “Whoso shall break the least of these commandments, &c.” And, I suppose, the Lord goes on to reply Himself to the question, Which are the least commandments? Namely, these which I am now about to speak.

Chrys.: He speaks not this of the old laws, but of those which He was now going to enact, of which he says, “the least,” though they were all great. For as He so oft spoke humbly of Himself, so does He now speak humbly of His precepts.

Pseudo-Chrys.: Otherwise; the precepts of Moses are easy to obey; “Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery.” The very greatness of the crime is a check upon the desire of committing it; therefore the reward of observance is small, the sin of transgression great.

But Christ’s precepts, “Thou shalt not be angry, Thou shalt not lust,” are hard to obey, and therefore in their reward they are great, in their transgression, ‘least.’ It is thus He speaks of these precepts of Christ, such as “Thou shalt not be angry, Thou shalt not lust,’ as ‘the least;’ and  they who commit these lesser sins, are the least in the kingdom of God; that is, he who has been angry and not sinned grievously is secure from the punishment of eternal damnation; yet he does not attain that glory which they attain who fulfil even these least.

Aug.: Or, the precepts of the Law are called ‘the least,’ as opposed to Christ’s precepts which are great. The least commandments are signified by the iota and the point. “He,” therefore, “who breaks them, and teaches men so,” that is, to do as he does, “shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven.” Hence we may perhaps conclude, that it is not true that there shall none be there except they be great.

Gloss. ord.: By ‘break,’ is meant, the not doing what one understands rightly, or the not understanding what one has corrupted, or the destroying the perfectness of Christ’s additions.

Chrys.: Or, when you hear the words, “least in the kingdom of heaven,” imagine nothing less than the punishment of hell. For He oft uses the word ‘kingdom,’ not only of the joys of heaven, but of the time of the resurrection, and of the terrible coming of Christ.

Greg., Hom. in Ev., 12, 1: Or, by the kingdom of heaven is to be understood the Church, in which that teacher who breaks a commandment is called least, because he whose life is despised, it remains that his preaching be also despised.

Hilary: Or, He calls the passion, and the cross, the least, which if one shall not confess openly, but be ashamed of them, he shall be least, that is, last, and as it were no man; but to him that confesses it He promises the great glory of a heavenly calling.

Jerome: This head is closely connected with the preceding. It is directed against the Pharisees, who, despising the commandments of God, set up traditions of their own, and means that their teaching the people would not avail themselves, if they destroyed the very least commandment in the Law.

We may take it in another sense. The learning of the master if joined with sin however small, loses him the highest place, nor does it avail any to teach righteousness, if he destroys it in his life. Perfect bliss is for him who fulfils in deed what he teaches in word.

Aug.: Otherwise; “he who breaks the least of these commandments,” that is, of Moses’ Law, “and teaches men so, shall be called the least; but he who shall do (these least), and so teach,” shall not indeed  be esteemed great, yet not so little as he who breaks them. That he should be great, he ought to do and to teach the things which Christ now teaches.

Cornelius a Lapide’s Commentary on Matthew 28:1-7

Mat 28:1  And in the end of the sabbath, when it began to dawn towards the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalen and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre.

In the evening of the Sabbath (Vulg. see my note further below), when it began to dawn towards the first day of the week, &c. How could it be called evening if day was dawning, or even if, as S. Mark says, the sun were risen? Firstly, S. Jerome answers that these women had gone forth frequently to the sepulchre, both in the evening and in the morning, so that the Evangelists refer to different occasions of their going forth.

Secondly, S. Ambrose thinks that they were different women who went out in the evening and in the morning. So Nyssen (Orat. 2, on the Resurrection) thinks that the women went four times to the sepulchre. But it is clear to any one who compares the different accounts, that the Evangelists speak of the same visit made by the same women to the sepulchre of Christ.

Thirdly, Baronius by the evening understands the star of Venus, which is called Lucifer, so that the meaning will be, “When Lucifer was risen in the morning before the sun, Mary Magdalene came to the sepulchre of Christ.” But this star is not denoted by the Greek word όψε, or by the Latin word Vespere.

I say, therefore, that by the evening of the Sabbath is signified the night which followed the Sabbath. That it was so clear, first, from S. Mark, who says, and when the Sabbath was passed; secondly, because S. Matthew is wont to sum up many things in a few words. Accordingly, he here sums up the time when the women came together and made preparations for visiting and anointing Christ, which was in the evening, or immediately the Sabbath was passed; and he also wished to indicate the time when they came to the sepulchre, which was at the dawn of the Lord’s day. For this is what S. Luke says (Lk 23:56), “And they returned (after Christ had been buried), and prepared spices and ointments, and rested on the Sabbath day, according to the commandment; and on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came to the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared.” And S. Mark 16:1 says, “When the Sabbath was passed, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint Jesus. And very early in the morning on the first day of the week, they came to the sepulchre.” Mark is generally the interpreter of Matthew. S. Augustine says, “Thus, on the evening of the Sabbath is just the same as if he had said on the night of the Sabbath, that is, the night which follows the day of the Sabbath, which is sufficiently proved by the words which follow, as it began to dawn towards the first day of the week.” This could not be if we understood only the first portion of the night, its beginning, to be signified by the word evening. For the evening, or beginning of the night, does not begin to dawn towards the first day of the week, but only the night which is concluded by the dawn. For the end of the first part of the night is the beginning of the second; and the dawn is the end of the whole night. Whence the evening could not be said to dawn towards the first day of the week, unless by the word evening the night itself is understood, which is concluded by the dawn.

Matthew, therefore, declares that these women had prepared ointments at night, but came to the sepulchre at the rising of the dawn, as Luke, John, and Mark say. But John adds that they came early in the morning, while it was yet dark. I answer, That also is true, because it was dawn, since the sun not having yet appeared, but only his rays reflected from the hills or clouds, there still remained a measure of darkness in the air.

Peter Chrysologus, in a sermon on the resurrection, gives another symbolical reason. “According to nature,” he says, “it was dark, and yet it is said that the sun had risen, because on that day the sun, rejoicing as it were at the resurrection of Christ, rose before the wonted time.” Remigius agrees with Chrysologus, “The dignity of that night is declared, for according to the course of nature evening does not dawn towards day, but darkness towards night; but the Lord by the light of His resurrection made the whole of that night joyful and brilliant.”

It is clear that these women came to the sepulchre early in the morning; for their love for Christ urged them on to hasten to this, and anticipate the day; and also their fear of his crucifiers, lest if they had come by daylight, and had been seen by those who were hostile to Him, they should have been ill-treated by them.

Further, Matthew here only mentions directly the time of the coming of the women to the sepulchre, yet he indirectly signifies also the time at which Christ rose, namely, in the early morning, a little before the arrival of the women, according to the common opinion of the Doctors and the Church, which S. Jerome and S. Augustine prove from Ps 57:9, I myself will awake early.

The general sense, then, is, that Christ rose after the middle of the night before sunrise on the Lord’s day, for otherwise He would have been found dead by the women; and as He was born at the same time thirty-three years before of the Blessed Virgin, so now He was born again through the resurrection, that He might as a new Sun of Righteousness shine upon the world. Whence also in former times, Christians, after the middle of the night on the day of the Passover, broke of their fast and keeping of vigil, and began to rejoice greatly.

Further, Christ does not seem to have risen immediately after the middle of the night. For Mark more exactly says that Christ rose early in the morning. And most of the Fathers teach this, whom Suarez quotes (3. p. disp. 46, sect. 2), and the Church in the Paschal hymn, Aurora lucis (Lyrics in English and Latin).

Note: The Greek οψε (English transliteration: opse, pronounced: op-seh’) means the back part, the end, etc., its normal “time” sense being “evening”. Jews reckoned the days from sundown to sundown, thus “evening” would be late afternoon to sunset. However, the word can also refer to the later part of a time period (i.e., the end of a specified time, e.g., “the evening of life”). The Greek is οψε δε σαββατων τη επιφωσκουση εις μιαν σαββατων, which the Douay Rheims Challoner translates as: And in the end of the sabbath, when it began to dawn towards the first day of the week. The KJV is almost identical: In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week. The second part of the clause (when it began to dawn) determine the time period of the first (in the end of the sabbath). In modern English: After sundown on Saturday when the sabbath ended, but before sunrise on Sunday...

The first day of the week. That is, on the first day after the Sabbath, on the Lord’s day; about the religious observance of which day S. Augustine thus writes (Serm. 251, de Temp.), “The Apostles and apostolic men appointed that day to be observed with holy solemnity, because on it our Redeemer rose from the dead; and it is called on that account the Lord’s day, that abstaining on it from earthly works, we may devote ourselves only to the study of divine things, giving to this day honour and reverence, on account of the hope of our resurrection, which we have in it. For, as the Lord rose from the dead, so also we hope that we shall rise.”

Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. That is, the wife of Cleophas and mother of James. These were the leaders and standard-bearers of the rest who were wont to follow Christ; for that there were several others is clear from Luke 23:55, where, among others, he names Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward: and Mark adds Salome. The Blessed Virgin Mother of God did not come with them, because she certainly knew and expected that Christ would rise on that same day; whence she knew that the anointing would be useless.

Morally: Learn from this that Christ reveals Himself and His grace and glory to those souls who hasten to anoint Him with the good works of prayer, penance, and charity. Whence S. Gregory (Hom. 21) says, “Those women who came with spices see the angels; and so those souls behold the heavenly citizens who, with the sweet odours of their virtues, approach the Lord in holy desires.”

To see the sepulchre. It is very probable that they were ignorant of the watch of the soldiers that had been posted by the Jews at the sepulchre, and also of the sealing. For if they had known of these two things, they would not have dared to come to the sepulchre, lest they should fall into the hands of the watch, much less to break the seal. But God removed both of these hindrances out of their way. Hence learn courageously to undertake works for the glory of God, and certainly to trust that God will either remove, or cause us to surmount, all hindrances that lie in our way.

Mystically: Bede (on Luke 24:1.) says, “By the women coming early in the morning to the sepulchre, we have an example given to us, that, having cast away the darkness of our vices, we should come to the body of the Lord. For that sepulchre also bore the figure of the altar of the Lord, wherein the mysteries of Christ’s body, not in silk or purple cloth, but in pure white linen, like that in which Joseph wrapped it, ought to be consecrated, that as He offered up to death for us the true substance of His earthly nature, so we also, in commemoration of Him, should place on the altar the flax, pure from the plant of the earth, and white, and in many ways refined by a kind of crushing to death. But the spices which the women bring signify the odour of virtue and the sweetness of prayers, by which we ought to approach the latter.”

The following was the order of events:—First, Christ was in His Passion during about eighteen hours. For on the Thursday, towards evening, He ate the lamb, He washed the disciples’ feet, He instituted the Eucharist, and held a long discourse on love, and at last proceeded to Gethsemane; all which things would easily take up three hours. Wherefore, about the third hour of his death in Gethsemane, He began to be sorrowful, and to pray that the cup might pass from Him. Hence, if you reckon all the hours up to the third hour in the afternoon of Friday, when Christ died, you will find eighteen hours; so that you may learn, according to the moral meaning, how short is the time of the suffering of Christ and of Christians, and how long the time of resurrection and of glory, for it is eternal. So bountiful is God, so brief is the suffering, so long the reward and the glory.

Secondly, Christ dying at the third hour in the afternoon, immediately as to His soul went down into hell; but His body was taken down from the Cross, and washed and wrapped in linen, so that He was buried before night, for it was the night of the Sabbath, on which the Jews must rest from all work. Wherefore He was in hell about thirty-six hours (but in the sepulchre thirty-three).

Thirdly, Christ, as soon as He appeared in hell, that is, in Limbus, showed to Adam and Abraham and the rest of the fathers and prophets, not only His soul, but also His Deity united to it. Wherefore He gladdened them with the vision of His divinity; then, too, did hell become like heaven. Whence He said to the robber who was about to go to Him in Limbus, To-day thou shalt be with Me in Paradise.

Fourthly, About the ninth hour of the night of the Lord’s day, Christ, having passed forth from hell with the fathers, came to the sepulchre, and there He showed them His body, livid, blood-stained, and torn for them; and presently cleansing His body from all lividness, blood, and ointment, and again sending angels (though some are of opinion that all these things were done not by angels, but by the soul of Christ itself, which had this power through the hypostatic union with the Word) to gather up the blood which had been scattered by the scourging; and after it had been gathered up, He again infused it into the veins of His body, which the glorious soul of Christ entered, and uniting to itself, animated and glorified.

Fifthly, To many of the fathers, as Abraham and others, He restored their bodies, that He might make them sharers of His resurrection and glory, and witnesses of it to the Jews, as is clear from Mat_27:53.

Sixthly, Christ, when He rose, passed through the stone that covered the sepulchre. Soon afterwards the angel descended and caused an earthquake, and removed the stone from the sepulchre that He might arouse the watch, and open a way for the women to the sepulchre.

Seventhly, He appeared in glory to the Blessed Virgin, His mother, and showed the Patriarchs to her, who all saluted her, and were filled with great joy. Then He appeared to Mary Magdalene, who had stayed near the sepulchre.

Tropologically: Learn here how religiously we ought to venerate and adorn the tombs and relics of Christ, the Martyrs, and other Saints. “The bodies of the just,” says S. Augustine, “are not to be thought meanly of, which the Holy Spirit used as organs and vessels for all good works.

Mat 28:2  And behold there was a great earthquake. For an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and coming rolled back the stone and sat upon it.

And, behold, there was a great earthquake, &c. Firstly, By it was signified the power, magnificence, and glory of Christ in His resurrection as God. For by an earthquake God made known His presence on Sinai and elsewhere.

Secondly, That the women might recognise the angel not only from his glorious appearance, but from this earthquake, and might more easily believe the resurrection of Christ proclaimed by the angel; especially because by means of the earthquake he rolled away the stone from the door of the sepulchre, that the women might enter, and seeing it empty, might know that Christ was risen.

Symbolically: The earth which trembled with horror at the death of Christ, as it were leaped with joy at the resurrection.

For the angel, &c. Franciscus Lucas and others are of opinion that this angel was Gabriel, who, according to the meaning of his name, is the minister of the power of God. It is not to be doubted that other angels were present with him, and guarded the sepulchre during the three days, and adored the sacred body of Christ lying in it, as being hypostatically united to the Deity.

Further, the angel appeared in the form of a young man, as Mark says, first, because youth is a sign of the never-failing vigour and strength of the angels. Secondly, because the angel represented Christ, who was a young man; for He died and rose again in the thirty-fourth year of His age. Thirdly, his youth showed that he was strong and warlike, ready to fight against the watch. Lastly, youth represents beauty, immortality, activity, and the glory of the glorious body which Christ had assumed in the resurrection.

And rolled back the stone, of the sepulchre of Christ. Not that He might rise out of it, for He had already risen while the sepulchre was closed, but that he might show to the women that Christ their God and Lord had already risen. Opening to them a way to the sepulchre, he showed it to them empty of the body of Christ. For as Christ was born from the closed womb of the Virgin, so also He rose from the closed sepulchre.

S. Augustine (Serm. 138, de Temp.) says, “The unbelieving Jews set a seal on the stone of the sepulchre that Christ might not come forth. But how would it be impossible for Him to come forth from the sepulchre who had come forth from the pure womb of His mother, her virginity being preserved? He escaped the notice of the guards; He leaped forth from the sepulchre; He appeared to the disciples when the doors were shut: from the one place He came forth when He was shut in; into the other He entered when He was shut out.” So Euthymius, Chrysostom, &c. S. Leo, in his 83rd epistle to the monks of Palestine, says that the stone being rolled back, Christ rose again on the third day, and that the rolling back of the stone was not the cause, but the sign and the proof that the resurrection of Christ was not in appearance only, but real.

We may gather, hence, in opposition to Calvin, that by the same power of God, whole Christ can be obtained under a small host. For if Christ in passing through the stone of the sepulchre could occupy the same place as the stone, therefore in the same host there can be at the same time the great and several members of Christ. The Calvinists, in order to evade this argument, answer that the stone being softened like wax melted away, and so opened a way for Christ as He rose. But this is an absurd figment of theirs, and altogether opposed to the consent of the Fathers, the Doctors, and the Church.

Some think that there were two stones to the sepulchre, the first on the outside, which closed the outer entrance of the sepulchre; the second on the inside, which protected the sepulchre itself. But the Evangelists make mention of only one stone. Chrysologus (Serm. 74) says truly, “The rolling to of the stone was a proof of death; the rolling back of it asserted the resurrection.” And Severian in the Catena says, “He says not ‘rolled,’ but ‘rolled back’ the stone; because the stone rolled to was a proof of death, and the rolling of it back asserted the resurrection. The order of things is changed. The tomb devours death, and not the dead. The house of death becomes the mansion of life; it receives a dead, and renders up a living man.”

Samson was a type of this, who having entered Gaza, and being besieged by the Philistines, rose up in the middle of the night and carried away the gates to the top of a mountain; because, as S. Gregory (Hom. 21) explains, “our Redeemer rising before it was light, not only came forth free from hell, but destroyed also the bars of hell. He carried away its gates, and ascended to the top of the mountain; for by rising again He carried away the bars of hell, and by ascending He entered the Kingdom of Heaven.”

And sat upon it. Not as if wearied with the labour of removing the stone, but to show, first, that it was he who had rolled away the stone. Secondly, to protect the women against the watch. Thirdly, that he was the guardian of the sepulchre of the Lord, says S. Jerome, so that no one seeing it empty might bring in another dead body, and say that Christ had not risen. Fourthly, that he might terrify the soldiers.

Symbolically: S. Thomas assigns symbolical reasons for the sitting of the angel. “He sat, though he was not weary, as teacher of the faith, as master of the resurrection. The angel laid upon the stone the foundations of the faith upon which Christ was going to found His Church. Or by the stone may be designated death, by which all men were oppressed: by the angel sitting upon the stone it is therefore signified that Christ subdued death by His own power.” And Bede also says, “The angel sat, to show that now He had overcome him who had the power of death; He had mounted the throne of the everlasting kingdom. He sat upon the stone that had been rolled back, wherewith the mouth of the sepulchre had been closed, to teach that by His power He had burst the bars of hell.”

You will say, How do Matthew and Mark say that the angel sat, when Luke says that he stood? I answer, that by a Hebraism, to stand is a term applicable to any position; for it only signifies that a thing is present, whether standing upright, or sitting, or lying. Then, also, the account given by Matthew and Mark is a different one from that given by Luke, as I shall presently show.

You will say, secondly, How does Matthew say that the angel sat upon the stone rolled back, that is, outside the sepulchre, when Mark says that the women saw the angel not outside, but on entering into the tomb? I answer, that the angel first removed the stone which closed the sepulchre, and then terrified the watch who were outside, and drove them away, so that they might not hinder the women from approaching the sepulchre; then, that he entered the sepulchre itself, and was there seen by the women, that he might show them the empty sepulchre, and that Christ had risen. Whence he says, “He is risen, as He said; come, see the place where the Lord lay.” So Theophylact. Or, rather, the angel of whom Matthew speaks was a different one from that of whom Mark speaks. So Barradius.

But I maintain that the same angel is spoken of by Mark as by Matthew. For Mark is generally the interpreter of Matthew. Wherefore, what Mark says about their entering into the tomb is to be understand thus, when they were preparing or beginning to enter the tomb; for they had not yet entered it, but were still outside, and there they saw and heard the angel, as Matthew has it. For to enter signifies, here and elsewhere, an act begun and not finished.

Mat 28:3  And his countenance was as lightning and his raiment as snow.

And his countenance was as lightning, &c. First, because lightning is akin to, and best represents the nature and properties of angels. For lightning is most brilliant, swift, and powerful. For this reason it is spoken of the cherubim who accompany the chariot of God (Ezekiel1:14), “They ran and returned as the appearance of a flash of lightning.” And the Ps 104:4 Psalm, quoted by Paul, Heb 1:7, “Who maketh His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire.”

Secondly, lightning signifies the glory of the angels, which shines with the lightning of divine knowledge. Again, lightning signifies the glory of Christ rising; for the body of Christ shone with glory like lightning. For angels, when they appear, appear in that manner which is in agreement with the matter on account of which they appear. Since, therefore, this angel appears to represent the glorious resurrection of Christ, His countenance therefore was like lightning. For lightning best represents the four properties of the glorious body of Christ and of the blessed, namely, brightness, impassibility, subtlety, and agility. “For by the resurrection of Christ,” says S. Leo, “weakness has been changed into strength, mortality into immortality, and shame into glory.”

Thirdly, Lightning represents the zeal and the anger of the angel against the impious Jews and soldiers, who wished to hinder the resurrection of Christ. Whence to them only he appeared shooting forth lightning, as if he were going to spring upon them; but for the women he tempered this lightning, and showed to them a countenance glorious indeed, but mild. For the Blessed appear to different persons with such appearance and form as they will; wherefore to the women he appeared only clothed with a white robe, as Mark says (Mark 16:3). Listen to what S. Gregory says (Hom. 21, in Evang.), “In lightning is terror, but in snow is a tempered brightness; and because Almighty God is terrible to sinners and mild to the righteous, so the angel, who is a witness of His resurrection, is rightly shown with a countenance like lightning and with raiment like snow, that by his appearance he might terrify the wicked and comfort the good.”

Tropologically: Holy and angelic preacher’s may be like thunder and lightnings, by which the vices of enemies are destroyed. So John and James are called by Christ Boanerges—that is, sons or thunder, thundering and lightning against impiety and impious men.

Anagogically: Lightning represents the fire of Gehenna, prepared for the impious Jews and the soldiers, because lightnings are sulphurous, and smell of fire and sulphur, and Gehenna burns with fire and sulphur.

And his raiment as snow. Pure and white. This brightness signifies, first, the purity, innocence, and chastity of the angels; secondly, the joy and glory of the resurrection of Christ.

Mat 28:4  And for fear of him, the guards were struck with terror and became as dead men.

That is, they were astonished and stupefied like the dead, as S. Jerome says. For they feared lest they should be blasted, as it were, and killed by lightning. If the angel only by the lightning glance of his countenance so struck and terrified the soldiers, what would he have done if he had laid his hands on them? For one angel slew in one night 185,000 soldiers in the camp of Sennacherib.

Mat 28:5  And the angel answering, said to the women: Fear not you: for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified.

And the angel answering, &c. You will say, How is it that Matthew and Mark speak only of one angel as seen by the women, when Luke affirms that two were seen, who comforted the women with different words from those which Matthew and Mark have? I answer that the account of Luke is different from that of Matthew, and that he relates what happened later, as I shall hereafter show.

The women. Namely, the Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna, and the rest (see Luke 24:10). Those are mistaken, therefore, who think that Magdalene, after she had seen the empty sepulchre, immediately ran back to tell the Apostles, without seeing the angels, and that they were only seen by Mary the mother of James and the rest. John, therefore (John 20:1), while he mentions Magdalene only, with her understands all the rest of her companions; for she was the leader and chief of them all. Eve conversing with the devil incurred death; but these conversing with the angel found life. Sorceresses and witches are like Eve, who, conversing with the devil, drink in death; but penitents are like Magdalene, who, invoking angels, obtain life.

Fear not you. “The word you,” says S. Chrysostom, “carries with it much honour, and at the same time declares that those who had dared to commit that great crime would, unless they should repent, suffer extreme punishment. For it is not, he says, for you to fear, but for those who crucified Him.”

For I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. The word “for” gives the reason why they ought not to fear the sight of the angel, but to rejoice and be glad, because they both love and worship Jesus which was crucified, and minister to and serve Him.

He expressly says “crucified,” both to show that he is not ashamed of, but that he openly confesses the Cross and the Crucified, and that he is His servant, because the Cross is the highest honour and glory to Christ and to His followers, and also to signify the fruit of the Cross of Christ; because, says S. Chrysostom, it is the head and sum of blessings, and because by His Cross Christ redeemed not only the women and the rest of mankind, but also made the angels to rejoice, yea, even conferred grace and glory on them. And lastly, because by the Cross He reconciled angels to men, and Heaven to earth, “reconciling through the blood of the Cross both the things which are in earth and in Heaven,” as Paul Says (Col 1:20).

Mat 28:6  He is not here. For he is risen, as he said. Come, and see the place where the Lord was laid.

He is not here. “He is not here in His fleshly presence,” says S. Gregory; “and He is nowhere absent in the presence of His majesty.”

For He is risen. The Greek word is η̉γέρθη, which means, He has awaked from death, as it were from a short and light sleep, to light and life. For the death of Christ was like sleep, for He slept, as it were, in the sepulchre thirty-six hours. So also will it be with us. Wherefore, as sleep is a sort of brief death, so also death is a sort of longer sleep. Hence Paul (1 Cor 15) does not speak of those who have departed from life as dead, but as sleeping, because we shall all be awakened from the sleep of death, and shall arise again to life in the Day of Judgment.

Again, He has awaked as trees, which in winter having been, as it were, stripped and asleep, wake up in spring, when they begin to put forth leaves and flowers and fruit. So S. Jerome (on Mark 16) says, “The bitter root of the Cross has vanished; for the flower of life has burst forth with fruit—that is, He who lay in death has arisen in glory.” And in the same glory He will make His faithful ones to rise.

As He said. Christ, whom ye all esteemed as a holy and divine Prophet, foretold and promised that He would rise on the third day. Therefore believe that He has risen, for so great a Prophet could not lie; especially since ye now see that the body has departed from the sepulchre, and has risen, as I, who am an angel of the living and true God, most certainly affirm. He Himself foretold the same by David in the 15th Psalm, “Thou wilt not leave My soul in hell, neither wilt Thou suffer Thine Holy One to see corruption;” because, as S. Peter says (Acts 2:24), “it was impossible that He should be holden of it.”

Moreover, Christ rose before He was anointed by the women, that He might show that He did not need that anointing, since He rose again by His own power. S. Bernard (Serm. 12, in Cant.) gives another moral reason,—because He would rather the price of this anointing should be given to the poor than to Himself.

Come. “Enter with me into the sepulchre; for your sake, that you may enter, I have removed the great stone.” See the place where the Lord was laid. That by the beholding of it with your eyes, says S. Chrysostom, ye may see that His body is not here, but has risen from it, so that, “if ye believe not my words, ye may believe the empty sepulchre,” says S. Jerome. The angel therefore led the way, and as a guide introduced the women into the sepulchre, and showed it to them empty, that they might not doubt that Christ had risen from it.

Mat 28:7  And going quickly, tell ye his disciples that he is risen. And behold he will go before you into Galilee. There you shall see him. Lo, I have foretold it to you.

And going quickly, tell ye His disciples, &c. Quickly—so that ye may quickly banish the sorrow of the disciples, caused by the death of Christ their Master, and cheer their sorrowful minds, and fill them with joy by the most joyful news of the resurrection of Christ. For the women deserved this favour above others, because above others in their devotion to Christ they had come to the sepulchre. S. Gregory (Hom. 25) gives a symbolical reason, “For because woman in Paradise ministered death to man, woman from the sepulchre announced life to men. As if the Lord were saying to mankind, not in words but by deeds, ‘From that same hand by which the potion of death was administered to you, receive ye the cup of life.’”

Tell ye His disciples. Mark adds, and Peter—that is, chiefly and before all, Peter, both because Peter in Christ’s absence was the first and Prince of the Apostles, and because Peter, as he loved Christ above the rest, so also above the rest he was mourning over His death. S. Gregory adds a third reason (Hom. 21, in Evang.), “If the angel had not expressly named him who had denied his Master, he would not have dared to come amongst the disciples; he is therefore called by name, lest he should despair on account of his denial. In which thing we have to consider why Almighty God permitted him to fear the words of a maid-servant, and to deny Himself, whom He had appointed to set over the whole Church, which thing we perceive to have been done by a dispensation of great goodness, in order that he who was to be the pastor of the whole Church might learn through his own fault how he ought to have compassion upon others.”

And behold He will go before you into Galilee. First, because Galilee was the native country of the Apostles, to which, after the death of Jesus, they were purposing to return, that they might live more safely among their own relations. Secondly, because in Galilee Christ willed to show Himself openly to all His assembled disciples. For the Jews would not have permitted them to assemble in Judæa. Thirdly, because in Galilee Christ had for the most part preached, and had performed very many miracles.

Symbolically: S. Gregory (Hom. 21) says, “For Galilee means a passing over from death to life; for our Redeemer had already passed from His Passion to His resurrection, from death unto life. And He is seen first by His disciples after His resurrection in Galilee, because we shall have joy in seeing the glory of His resurrection, if only we pass over from vice to the heights of virtue. He, then, who is announced at the tomb is shown in passing over; because He who is first known in mortification of the flesh is seen in this passing over of the soul.” Yet Christ appeared to the Apostles in Judæa also, but secretly; in Galilee publicly.

In the historical order of the events must be brought in here what Luke mentions (chap. xxiv. 3), namely, that Magdalene and her companions, while at the invitation of the angel they had entered the sepulchre and seen that it was empty, yet were affrighted; on account of which the angels cheered them, and at the same time gently reproved their want of faith. For that Luke’s account is not the same as that of Matthew and Mark, as some think, is clear from the words themselves, which are evidently different. Also, from the circumstance that in Luke two angels are said to have appeared, while in Matthew and Mark only one is mentioned.

Cornelius a Lapide’s Commentary on Matthew 26:14-25 for Wednesday of Holy Week

Mat 26:14  Then went one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, to the chief priests.

Then went one of the twelve, &c. The word then refers partly to what has immediately preceded, and partly to the council of the rulers about taking Christ in the 16th verse. It means that on the Saturday before Palm Sunday, when Judas, the instigator of the murmuring, found himself rebuked by Christ, he did not repent as the other Apostles, whom he had misled, did, but then he made his forehead brazen, and clothed himself with the cloak of impudence, and, mad with covetousness and wickedness, he determined to sell and betray Christ to the Jews. Therefore, on the following Wednesday, when the rulers were taking counsel as to the way in which they might lay hold on Christ, he came to them, and suggested a method, and stipulated to deliver Him into their hands for thirty pieces of silver.

One of the twelve. An Apostle, not one even of Christ’s seventy disciples, or He might the better have borne it, but one of the twelve Apostles, and of His own most intimate friends, whom He had elevated to that lofty rank. So this was the dark ingratitude and wickedness of Judas, which pierced the heart of Christ, so that He said, “If mine enemy had spoken evil of Me, I would have borne it,” &c. “But thou, the man united to me, my guide and my familiar friend! We took sweet counsel together, and walked in the house of God by consent” (Ps 55:13, &c). Wherefore S. Augustine (Tract. 61 in Joan.) says, “One by vocation, not by predestination; in number, not in merit; in body, not in spirit; in appearance, not in reality.”

Went away. Satan having entered into him, as Mark has, not that Satan insinuated himself into the soul of Judas, and so inclined his will and intellect to betray Christ. For God alone is able to glide into the soul, as Didymus rightly teaches (Tract. 3, de Spiritu Sancto). Neither was it that Satan took bodily possession of Judas, in the same way that he possesses energumens, but that he presented reasons suited to his imagination, which induced him to betray Christ, as S. John shows, xiii. 2. The same Evangelist says in the 27th verse, that after supper, when Judas had received the morsel from Christ, Satan entered into him, in order that he might accomplish in act the treachery which he had already purposed in his mind. This expression shows also the horrible atrocity of Judas’ wickedness, as though a man were not sufficient for its perpetration, but there were need of the help and instigation of the devil.

Mat 26:15  And said to them: What will you give me, and I will deliver him unto you? But they appointed him thirty pieces of silver.

And he said to them, What will ye give me, &c. “Unhappy Judas,” says S. Jerome, “wishes to recompense himself for the loss which he deemed he had sustained by the pouring forth of the oil, by selling his Master. Nor does he even demand a certain sum, so that his treachery might at least seem profitable, but as though he were disposing of a worthless slave, he left the price to the option of the buyers.”

So S. Jerome, who thinks that Judas did not stipulate for any fixed sum, but left it to be determined by the rulers, as though he had said, “Give me what you will.” But others, with greater probability, say that Judas bargained with the rulers thus, “I will sell Christ to you, but for so great a person, and for one whom you hate so much, I demand a suitable price. How much will ye give me?”

Thirty pieces of silver. See the vileness of Judas in valuing Christ, the Saviour of the world, his Master and his Lord, for such a miserable sum. This vileness afflicted Christ with great sorrow. Wherefore S. Ambrose says (lib. de Spirit. Sanct. c. 18) “0 Judas, the traitor, thou valuest the ointment of His Passion at 300 denarii, and His Passion itself at thirty,—rich in valuing, cheap in crime!”

You will ask what was the weight and value of these thirty pieces of silver. Baronius (ex Helia in Tisbi, R. David, and other more modern Rabbins) thinks that the silver piece of Zechariah and the prophets, and consequently of this passage of S. Matthew, as is plain from xxvii 9, is a pound of silver. This would amount to about 1000 Flemish florins. But who can believe that the covetous Jews would pay such a sum to Judas, of his own accord making the offer, not to sell, but only to betray and guide them to a man who was daily to be met with, especially since the Fathers and Zechariah marvel at the price as being so small and poor?

With greater probability, Maldonatus and others understand thirty shekels to be here intended, which would be equal in value to thirty Flemish florins. This was the price at which a slave, who had been killed, was estimated, according to the law in Exodus 21:32. Thus the life of Christ was valued by Judas and the Jews at the same price as that of a slave.

But since Jeremiah (Jer 32:9) distinguishes the stater, or the shekel, which is the Hebrew word, from the silver piece, for he says, “Weigh for it the silver, seven staters and ten silver pieces” (Vulg. following the Heb. See also the margin of the English Version), it would seem more probable that these silver pieces of Judas were half shekels or double denarii. I have been the more confirmed in this opinion from seeing in the Church of the Holy Cross of Jerusalem at Rome, together with a portion of the true Cross brought thither by S. Helena, one of those silver pieces for which Christ was sold. This is about the size of a Spanish real, but a little thicker. Hence, also, Zacharias calls the price, ironically, due or fitting; Ang. Vers. goodly. The shekel was equal to a Flemish florin, so that the thirty pieces of silver would be equal to fifteen Flemish florins.

You will ask how could “the potter’s field” be bought for such a sum as this? I answer, that the Heb. שדה, sade, and the Syr. חקל, chakel, i.e., a field, is put for any piece of land, however sandy, stony, or barren, such as sand-pits, which this “field” probably was. It seems to have been useless for agricultural purposes, and of very small value, like the Jewish cemeteries outside the cities of Germany. It is also possible that the rulers may have supplemented the thirty pieces of silver by a grant from the corbana, or treasury.

Observe: Joseph being sold by his brethren was a type of this selling of Christ. But Joseph was sold for twenty pieces of silver, for it was not fitting, says S. Jerome, that the servant should be sold for as much as his Master.

Observe secondly: Judas, according to S. Ambrose, received the tenth part of the price of the ointment with which Christ was anointed, which was valued at 300 denarii. But it is more probable that he received the fifth part, for the silver piece of Judas seems to have been, as has been said, a double denarius.

Thirdly, because Christ was sold at so vile a price, therefore He deserved to become the price of the whole world, and of all sinners.

Fourthly, because of these thirty pieces of silver, with which Judas and the Jews trafficked for Christ, God smites them with thirty curses in the 109th Psalm. The first is, “Set Thou an ungodly man to be ruler over him.” The second, “Let the devil stand at his right hand.” The third, “When he is judged, let him be condemned.” The fourth, “Let his prayer be turned into sin.” The fifth, “Let his days be few.” The sixth, “His bishopric let another take,” and so on. Lastly, as Hegesippus says, thirty Jews, who were taken captive by Titus, were sold for one denarius.

Mat 26:16  And from thenceforth he sought opportunity to betray him.

Sought opportunity—and found it the following day, being Thursday, which was the first day of unleavened bread. Hear Origen: “Such an opportunity as he sought, Luke explains by saying, he sought . . . in the absence of the multitude, that is to say, when the people were not about Him; but He was in private with His disciples. This also he did, betraying Him at night after supper, in the garden of Gethsemane, whither He had retired.

Mat 26:17  And on the first day of the Azymes (unleavened bread), the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the pasch?

On the first day of Azymes (unleavened bread), &c. The Passover was to be eaten with unleavened, that is, pure unfermented bread, according to the Law. This abstinence from leaven lasted seven days, and the first day of unleavened bread was the first day of the Passover. The Pasch or Passover was celebrated on the 14th day of the first month, at even ; that is to say, on the full moon of the month called Nisan, which was that in which fell the full moon of the vernal equinox. Wherefore, Nisan answers partly to our March and partly to April.

The following is the chronology of the last eight days of the life of Christ. On the Friday, which was the 8th day of Nisan, He came from Ephrem to Bethany. The next day, being the Sabbath, He sups in the house of Simon the leper. The day following was the 10th of Nisan, and Palm Sunday. On the 11th of Nisan, He taught in the Temple, and cursed the barren fig-tree. On the 12th, He foretold the destruction of Jerusalem, and spake the parables recorded in S. Matthew 24 and 25. On the 13th of Nisan, or Wednesday, the rulers held their council, when Judas sold Him to them. On the 14th of Nisan, He instituted the Eucharist. On the 15th, He was crucified. The 16th of Nisan was Saturday, when He lay in the tomb. The 17th of Nisan was Easter Sunday.

On the first day ofAzymes (unleavened bread), that is, the 14th day of Nisan, or the full moon, Christ about mid-day sent two of His disciples from Bethany to Jerusalem to prepare and roast the paschal lamb, that He might eat it with them in the evening. Here observe, that the first day of unleavened bread is sometimes called the 14th of Nisan and sometimes the 15th. For that evening in which the Jews celebrated the Pasch, with which the days and the eating of unleavened bread commenced, according to the natural computation of time, pertained to the fourteenth day, but according to the computation observed with respect to festivals, it pertained to the following day, or the 15th of Nisan.

You will ask, What was the precise day on which Christ ate the Passover and instituted the Eucharist? Was it the same day on which the Jews kept the Pasch, or was it another? I take it for granted that, according to the belief of the whole Church, Christ was crucified on Friday, and therefore that He ate the paschal lamb at supper the day before, or on Thursday evening.

1st Euthymius and the Greeks say that Christ celebrated the Pasch on the 13th of Nisan; that He anticipated the time fixed by the Law for the Passover, on account of His Passion, which was about to be on the next day, on which the Jews celebrated the Passover. And because the use of azyms, or unleavened bread, began with the Passover on the following day, they think that Christ instituted the Eucharist before the azyms, and in leavened bread. Therefore they celebrate in leavened bread; and they say that this is a command. Whence they condemn the Latins for celebrating in unleavened bread, and call them Azymites and heretics. And they wash their altars before they will celebrate upon them, as deeming them polluted with unleavened bread. They cite in favour of their view S. John 13:1-2, who says, before the feast of the Passover (that is, before the fourteenth day of the moon, when they began to eat unleavened bread) Christ made His supper.

2nd Rupertus, Jansen, Maldonatus, and Salmeron, who enters at length into the subject (tract 9, tom. 4), say that Christ celebrated the Pasch according to the Law on the 14th of Nisan, but that the Jews deferred it until the 15th, an opinion thought to be supported by S. John. For there was a tradition, says Burgensis (ex Seder Olam), that if the Passover fell on the Friday, or the preparation for the Sabbath, it was transferred to the following day, which was the Sabbath, or Saturday, lest two solemn festivals, the Passover and the Sabbath, should concur.1 But this tradition is later than the time of Christ, as may be proved from the Talmud and Aben Ezra.

With these I say that both Christ and the Jews celebrated the Passover on the same day prescribed by the Law, namely, on the 14th day of Nisan, in the evening. That this was so, appears from Matthew, Mark, and Luke, who say that Christ celebrated the Passover on the first day of unleavened bread, on which the Passover must (by the Law) be killed. And on which day they (ie., the Jews) killed the Passover. Had it been otherwise, the Jews would have proved and condemned Christ to be a transgressor of the Law.

You may object, 1st If Christ celebrated the Passover on the 14th of Nisan, why do Matthew, Mark, and Luke say that He celebrated it on the first day of unleavened bread, which fell upon the fifteenth day? The answer is, as I have already said, that the first day of the azyms was partly the 14th and partly the 15th of Nisan. For that evening on which the Jews celebrated the Passover, with which began the days and the use of unleavened bread, pertained, according to the natural reckoning of time, to the day which preceded the evening, that is, to the 14th of Nisan. But the same evening pertained, according to the festal reckoning, to the day following, which was the 15th of Nisan. And in this sense John says that Christ supped upon the paschal lamb before the feast of the Passover, which was the 15th of Nisan, according to the festal reckoning.

You will object, 2nd That it is said, John 18:28, that the Jews did not enter the prætorium lest they should be defiled, but that they being pure, might eat a pure Pasch. I answer, Passover, in that place, does not signify the paschal lamb, for that had been already sacrificed and eaten the evening before, but the other paschal victims, which they were wont to immolate on the seven following days, but especially on the first day of the azyms, that is, on the morning of the 15th day of Nisan, according to the Law.

You will object, 3rd John 19:21 calls the 15th of Nisan, on which Christ celebrated the paschal supper, the preparation of the Passover. I answer yes, of the Passover, that is, of the Paschal Sabbath, or the Sabbath which fell within the octave of the Paschal Feast, which was for that reason more thought of than other Sabbaths. As S. John adds by way of explanation, For that Sabbath-day was a high day. This appears also from Mark 15:32, who calls this preparation day the day before the Sabbath. For on the preparation day, that is, the Friday, they prepared food and other necessaries for the following day, which was the Sabbath. For on this Sabbath, as being most holy, they abstained from every kind of work, even from preparing food, which was allowable on other festivals.

You will object, 4th That the rulers say in Matt 26:5, Let us put Christ to death, but not on the feast day. I reply that, after the treachery of Judas, they changed their counsel; and they did put Him to death on the feast day.

The disciples came,—two, says S. Mark; Peter and John, S. Luke. Where?—this is not to ask the city or town, but the house. They were certain from the Law (Deut 16:5-7) that the Passover could not be offered anywhere save at Jerusalem. The paschal lamb, however, was not immolated in the temple by the priests, but at home, by each master of a household, who for this purpose retained the ancient right of the priesthood, which was originally given to each first-born son of a family. Philo shows this at length (lib. de Decalogo, sub finem): “Every one ordinarily sacrifices the Passover without waiting for the priest; for they in this case, by the permission of the Law, discharge the office of the priest.” For the sacrifice of the paschal lamb consisted rather in the eating thereof, than in the immolation. Whence the disciples say, eat the Passover. Hence, also, it might be slain, immolated, flayed, and roasted, not indeed by common butchers, but either by a priest, or by that member of a family whom its head should appoint. Thus Peter and John, who were here sent by Christ, killed and made ready the lamb, and prepared the unleavened bread, and the wild herbs with which the lamb was to be eaten. The lamb was wont to be slain at the ninth hour, or three o’clock in the afternoon, as Josephus says (lib. 7, de.Bell. c. 17).

Mat 26:18  But Jesus said: Go ye into the city to a certain man and say to him: The master saith, My time is near at hand. With thee I make the pasch with my disciples.

Go ye into the city: Jerusalem. From this it is plain that Christ said these things in Bethany. To a certain man, and say. Such a one; this is the Hebrew idiom, when any one is intended whose name is not mentioned. However, He indicates him by certain marks, as S. Mark signifies: “And He sendeth forth two of His disciples, and saith unto them, Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him. And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the good man of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guest-chamber, where I shall eat the Passover with My disciples? And he will show you a large upper room furnished and prepared: there make ready for us. And His disciples went forth, And came into the city, and found as He had said unto them; and they made ready the Passover.”

Where observe, that it is plain from S. Mark’s words that this water-carrier, who guided them to the house, was not the master of the house. This latter appears to have been a wealthy man, who possessed a spacious mansion, and who was probably a friend and disciple of Christ. The tradition is, that this house belonged to John, whose surname was Mark, the companion of Paul and Barnabas. This was the house in which the Apostles lay concealed after the death of Christ. In it Christ appeared to them in the evening of the day of His resurrection. And in the same house they received the Holy Ghost at Pentecost. Wherefore also Peter, when he was delivered by the angel out of the prison into which he had been cast by Herod, betook himself to the believers who were gathered together in this same house (see Acts 12:12). Wherefore, this house was converted into a church. For in it was Sion builded up, which is the greatest and the holiest of all churches. Alexander shows all these things in his Life of the Apostle S. Barnabas. He is followed by Baronius and many others. For where My refreshment is, as the Vulgate of S. Matt. (ver. 14) translates, the Greek has κατάλυμα, inn or lodging. The Greek for chamber is α̉νώγεων, an upper floor, or chamber, or flat, such as are inhabited at Rome by wealthy people. Wherefore it is a type of the Church, which is tending from earth to Heaven.

My time is near at hand, i.e., the time of My death, and of finishing the work which My Father sent Me to do.

Mat 26:19  And the disciples did as Jesus appointed to them: and they prepared the pasch.

And the disciples, viz., Peter and John, did as Jesus appointed to them: they killed and roasted the paschal lamb. Now the lamb, prepared for roasting, set forth the image of Christ crucified. For as S. Justin (contr. Tryph.) teaches, the body of the lamb was pierced through with the spit. The hind- feet as well as the fore-feet, which stood in the place of hands, were distended, and held apart by little sticks inserted in the hollows of the feet. As if the spit signified the longitudinal portion of the cross, and the little stakes the transverse bars, together with the nails driven into the hands and feet of the Divine Lamb. For the fire of His affliction was no less than the fire by which the paschal lamb was roasted. “Why,” asks Franc. Lucas, “do lambs always bear the marks of wounds in the hollow of their feet, in a manner not unlike to those which our Saviour retained from the piercing of the nails upon the cross?” Christ then, when He came to the house, and beheld the roasted lamb, beheld in it a lively image of His own crucifixion. Wherefore He offered this lamb, as it were a type of Himself, or rather He offered up Himself, a whole burnt-offering, and as it were a Victim for the sins of the whole world, with a great and burning ardour unto God the Father.

Mat 26:20  But when it was evening, he sat down with his twelve disciples.

When it was evening, &c. For in the evening, according to the Law, the lamb was to be eaten, and by the eaters standing, that the Hebrews might thereby show that they were prepared for the journey, that is to say, out of Egypt to the land of promise But Jesus is said to have lain down (discubuisse) with His disciples, because the ancients were accustomed at supper to recline upon couches; that is to say, with the lower portion of the body they were in a recumbent position, but with their arms they leant upon supports, as though they were sitting at table. Mark (Mark 14:17) has, when it was evening he came with the twelve. Speaking precisely, there were ten, since two had been previously sent to prepare the Passover, and were already on the spot.

You will ask, Was Judas the traitor present at the celebration of the Passover and the Eucharist? And did he partake of it? S. Hilary and Theophylact (in loc.) say, No. So do Clemens Romanus (lib. 5, Constit. c. 16), Innocent III. (lib. de Myster. Euchar. c. 13), and Rupertus (lib. 10, in Matth.). S. Dionysius (de Eccles. Hierar.) is thought by some to favour the same opinion; but other writers, as S. Thomas, take S. Dionysius to incline to the opposite view. Theophylact also may be taken both ways. The reason why the above writers think that Judas did not partake is, because a traitor was unworthy of so great Mysteries, and one who must be forbidden to assist at them.

But that Judas was present at the Passover and the Eucharist, and that he did communicate with the rest of the Apostles, is the common opinion of all other Fathers and Doctors, namely, Origen, Cyril, Chrysostom, Ambrose, SS. Leo, Cyprian, Austin, Bede, Rabanus, S. Thomas, and others, whom Suarez cites and follows (3 part. quæst. 73, art. 5, disp. 41, sect. 3), where he maintains that S. Dionysius also held the same opinion. For Dionysius says thus, “And the Author Himself (Christ) of the Creeds most justly separates him, who not as He Himself, nor in like manner, with sacred simplicity, had supped with Him.” Which means, Christ separates Judas from the company of Himself and His Apostles, saying to him, “What thou doest, do quickly,” because he had supped and taken the Eucharist unworthily with Him. For presently, after his unworthy communicating, Satan entered into him, and compelled him to accomplish his betrayal of Christ, as SS. Chrysostom, Cyril, and Austin teach.

This opinion is proved—1st Because Matthew here says that Christ sat down to the Supper of the lamb and the Eucharist with the twelve Apostles—therefore with Judas. Whence in the 21st verse it follows, And whilst they were eating, he said: Amen I say to you that one of you is about to betray me. 2d Because Mark (Mar_14:23) says concerning the Eucharistic Chalice, And they all drank of it. 3d Because Luke says that, after the consecration of the Chalice, Christ immediately added, but yet behold: the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. 4th Because John (chap. 13), when he relates that Christ, before the Eucharistic Feast, washed the Apostles’ feet, signifies that He washed the feet of Judas, for He says, you are clean, but not all. For he knew who he was that would betray him. If, then, Christ washed the feet of Judas, He also gave him the Eucharist; for this washing was preparatory to the Eucharistic Feast. 5th Because Christ, after the Eucharistic Supper, said that one of them who were reclining with Him at the table, meaning Judas, was His betrayer. And when John asked, Who was this betrayer? Christ answered (13:26), He it is to whom I shall reach bread dipped. And when he had dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.

The a priori reason is, that although Christ might properly have made known to the Apostles the hidden treachery of Judas, for the manifestation of His Divinity and His love, both because He was the lord of the character (famæ) of Judas, as well as because the treason of Judas was already known to others, that is, to the princes and elders, and was very shortly to become known to the Apostles themselves by the course of events, yet was He unwilling to do this, that He might give an example of perfect charity, and that He might by this means draw Judas to repentance. Lastly, He would show that secret sinners must not be publicly traduced nor prohibited from coming to the celebration of holy Communion. Wherefore, when Christ, in instituting the Eucharist, made the Apostles priests and bishops when he said, Do this for a commemoration of Me, it follows that He created Judas also, who was present, a priest and a bishop. Wherefore it is said concerning him in the 109th [108th 8] Psalm, “And his bishopric let another take.” For S. Peter interprets this of Judas in the 1st chapter of the Acts. For although the Hebrew of the passage in the Psalm is pecuddato, i.e., prefecture, meaning his Apostleship, yet there is no reason why it should not be properly understood of Bishopric, as Suarez takes it. Lastly, it is plain that none others, except the twelve Apostles, were present at the Supper and the Eucharist. For these twelve only are mentioned. This against Euthymius, who thinks that others were present.

Mat 26:21  And whilst they were eating, he said: Amen I say to you that one of you is about to betray me.

And whilst they were eating, &c. Matthew says that Christ spake this before the institution of the Eucharist, but Luke 12:22 says after it. And this seems more probable. For Christ would be unwilling to trouble the minds of His disciples with such dreadful news before the Eucharist. Rather would He have them wholly intent upon, and devoted to the consideration of so great a Sacrament. Wherefore S. Matthew speaks by way of anticipation. Although S. Austin thinks (lib. 3, de Consens. Evang. c. 1) that Christ spake thus twice, both before and after the Eucharist.

One of you is about to betray (Vulg.), i.e., in a few hours to deliver up. Christ spoke thus, as well to show that He was conscious of the treachery, as that, not against His will, but voluntarily, He suffered. Wherefore He did not flee away, but offered Himself to His betrayer. He did it also to prick the conscience of Judas and arouse him to repentance. So S. Jerome says, “He casts the accusation generally, that the conscience of the guilty one might lead him to repentance” Christ did not name Judas for three reasons. 1st For the sake of his good name, and to teach us to act in like manner. 2d Lest Peter and the Apostles should rise up against Judas, and tear him to pieces. 3d That by this gentleness and charity He might provoke Judas to repentance. Wherefore S. Leo says (Serm. 7, de Passione), “He made it plain to the traitor that his inmost heart was known to Him, not confounding the impious one by a rough or open rebuke, but convicting him by a gentle and quiet admonition, that He might the more easily correct, by bringing to repentance, him whom no charge had robbed of his good name.”

Mat 26:22  And they being very much troubled began every one to say: Is it I, Lord?

And they being very much troubled, &c. Syr. They were vehemently troubled.

Began every one to say: Is it I, Lord?, therefore Judas lest if he alone kept silence should betray himself, or render himself suspected to the rest of the Apostles. For, as Origen says, “I think that at first he thought he might lie hid as a man. But when afterwards he saw that his heart was known to Christ, he embraced the opportunity of concealment offered by Christ’s words.” His first action was one of unbelief, his second of impudence. Now the other Apostles all said, Is it I? because, although their conscience did not accuse them of such a crime, yet, as S. Chrysostom says, they believed the words of Christ rather than their own conscience. Because, as S. Austin says in another place, “There is no sin which a man has done, which a man may not do, if the Ruler, by whom man was made, be absent from him.”

Is it I, Lord? Syr. Mori, i.e., My Lord, is it I? For very greatly did they grieve that Christ their Lord, their Parent and their Master, upon whom they wholly depended, was to be torn from them, and to die, and that through treachery, which was to be perpetrated by one of their own college, which would be the greatest injury, and occasion the utmost infamy to the entire college. Wherefore these words of Christ transfixed their hearts as with a sword, and, says S. Chrysostom, “they became half dead.”

Mat 26:23  But he answering said: He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, he shall betray me.

He that dippeth his hand, &c. Dippeth; Gr. ό ε̉μβαψάς, who dipped, or who is accustomed to dip. It appears that Judas, in order the better to conceal his treachery, and show himself a friend to Christ, the more frequently dipped bread, or flesh, into the vessel of broth, or vinegar, or condiment. But inasmuch as the other Apostles were wont to do the same thing to some extent, they could not know that Judas was certainly designated as the traitor by these words of Christ. Whence they strove to get at the fact by means of other questions addressed to Him.

Here take notice, for the harmony of the Evangelists, who relate diversely the pointing out of Judas the traitor, that the following is the historical order which harmonises all the Gospels with one another. First, Christ before the Eucharist foretold that He should be betrayed by one of the Apostles. But this He did in a general manner, without naming or indicating any individual. This is plain from Matthew and Mark. Afterwards, when the Apostles asked one by one, Lord, is it I? Christ answered, that “he was the traitor, who dipped his hand with Him in the dish.” For the ancients were wont to recline at table on couches by threes and fours, as I have shown on Est_1:6. Each three or four, therefore, had a common dish, in such a way, that those who reclined on opposite couches might have the same dish. Therefore, because several of the Apostles had the same dish, Christ did not by those words indicate precisely who was the traitor. After this Christ instituted the Eucharist. And when this was finished, He again said that the traitor was with Him at the table, as S. Luke relates at length; on which I have said more on S. Joh_13:21. Whereupon Peter made signs to John, who was reclining upon the bosom of Christ, to ask Him definitely, and by name, who was the traitor. John then asked, and to him Christ answered, “that it was he to whom He was about to give a morsel,” which presently He gives to Judas. Judas having received it, and feeling that he was designated both by his own consciousness of his guilt and by the sign which Christ gave, impudently asks, Is it I, Rabbi? Christ answered, Thou hast said it, meaning, “thou art he.” Wherefore he seemed to himself altogether detected, goes forth, as it were, in madness and rage to accomplish the betrayal of Christ, and goes to the house of Caiaphas, to ask for servants and officers to take Christ.

Mat 26:24  The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him. But woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed. It were better for him, if that man had not been born.

The Son of man indeed goeth, &c. It were better for him, if that man had not been born.  For “far better is it not to exist at all, than to exist in evil. The punishment is foretold, that him whom shame had not conquered, the denunciation of punishment might correct,” says S. Jerome. He threatens him with the woe of damnation. For far better is it not to be, than to exist only to be endlessly miserable, as I have shown on Ecclesiastes 4:2-3. Wisely does S. Jerome say (Epist. ad Furiam), “It is not their beginning which is inquired about in Christians, but their ending. Paul began badly but ended well. Judas’ beginning was commended, but his end was to be condemned as a traitor.”

Goeth. “By this word,” says Victor of Antioch, “Christ showeth that His death is like rather to a departure or passing away, than to real death. He signifies, likewise, by it that He went voluntarily to death.” Moreover, the betrayal of Judas was an act of infinite sacrilege, perpetrated directly against the very Person of Christ and God. Thus it was true deicide. Wherefore it is exceedingly probable that Judas abides in the deepest pit of Gehenna, near to Lucifer, and is there grievously tormented. And this seems to be indicated by the word woe, which Christ here pronounces upon him above the rest of the reprobates. Blessed Francis Borgia was wont, in meditation, in the depth of his humility, to place himself at the feet of Judas, that is to say, in the lowest pit of hell, exclaiming that there was no other place fit for him, neither in Heaven, nor in earth, nor under the earth, as the due reward of his sins.

Mat 26:25  And Judas that betrayed him answering, said: Is it I, Rabbi? He saith to him: Thou hast said it. 

And Judas…answering said: Is it I, Rabbi? Franc. Lucas thinks, with probability, that Judas asked this question after Christ had given him the morsel of bread.

Now Judas asked this question out of impudence, to cover his wickedness; and, as Jerome says, “by boldness to lay a lying claim to a good conscience.” For he thought that Christ, out of gentleness, would not name His betrayer. As though he had said, “Surely it is not I, 0 Christ, who am Thy betrayer? I who have faithfully served Thee all these years? Who have fed Thy family, and executed all Thy business?”

Thou hast said it. This is the modest Hebrew method of answering, by which they confirm what is asked. As though Christ said, “It is not that I say it, and call thee traitor. It is thou thyself who in reality dost call thyself so because thou art, in truth, a traitor.” Whence S. Chrysostom extols the meekness of Christ, who, in just anger, did not say, “Thou wicked and sacrilegious wretch! thou ungrateful traitor! but gently, Thou hast said it. “Thus has He fixed for us the bounds and rules of forbearance and forgetfulness of injuries.”

Part 1: Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on the Passion According to St Matthew (on Matt 26:1-75)

To view Part (on Matt 27:1-66) go here.

Ver  1. And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these sayings, he said unto his disciples,2. “Ye know that after two days is the feast of the Passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified.”

Hilary: After the discourse in which the Lord had declared that He should return in splendour, He announces to them His approaching Passion, that they might learn the close connection between the sacrament of the Cross, and the glory of eternity.

Raban.: “All these sayings,” i.e. about the consummation of the world, and the day of judgment. Or, “finished,” because He had fulfilled in doing and preaching all things from the beginning of the Gospel to His Passion.

Origen: Yet it is not “all” barely, but “all these;” for there were other sayings which He must speak before He should be delivered up.

Aug., de Cons. Ev., ii, 78: We gather from John’s account, that six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, and thence entered Jerusalem sitting upon the ass, after which were done the things related to have been done at Jerusalem. We understand therefore that four days elapsed from His coming to Bethany, to make this two days before the Passover. The difference between the Passover and the feast of unleavened bread is this; the name Passover is given to that one day on which the lamb was slain in the evening, that is, the fourteenth moon of the first month; and on the fifteenth moon, the day that the people came out of Egypt, followed the festival of unleavened bread. But the Evangelists seem to use the terms indifferently. [marg. note: see Acts 12:3]

Jerome: The Passover, called in Hebrew Phase, does not come as most think from  ‘to suffer,’ but from the Hebrew word signifying ‘to pass over;’ because the destroyer passed over when he saw the blood on the doors of the Israelites, and smote them not; or the Lord Himself walked on high, succouring His people.

Remig.: Or, because by the help of the Lord the Israelitish people, freed from Egyptian bondage, passed forth into liberty.

Origen: He said not, “After two days” will be, or will come, “the feast of the Passover,” but not meaning the ordinary annual Passover, but that Passover such as had never before been, “the Passover will be offered.”

Remig.: Mystically, that is called the Passover, because on that day Christ passed out of the world to His Father, from corruption to incorruption, from life to death, or because He redeemed the world by causing it savingly to pass from the slavery of the Devil.

Jerome: After the two days of the shining light of the Old and of the New Testament, the true Passover is slain for the world. Also our Passover is celebrated when we leave the things of earth, and hasten to the things of heaven.

Origen: He foretels His crucifixion to His disciples, adding, “And the Son of Man shall be delivered to be crucified;” thus fortifying them against that shock of surprise, which the sight of their Master, led forth to crucifixion, would otherwise have occasioned them. And He expresses it impersonally “shall be delivered,” because God delivered Him up in mercy to the human race, Judas from covetousness, the Priest for envy, the Devil through fear that through His teaching the human race would be plucked out of His hand, little aware how much more that would be effected by His death, than either by His teaching or miracles.

Ver  3. Then assembled together the Chief Priests, and the Scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the High Priest, who was called Caiaphas,4. And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill him.5. But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar among the people.

Gloss., non occ.: Then the Evangelist lays before us the hidden springs and machinery by which the Lord’s Passion was brought to pass.

Remig.: This, “then,” is to be referred to the preceding words, and means before the Feast of the Passover.

Origen: Not true Priests and elders, but Priests and elders of what seemed the people of God, but was indeed the people of Gomorrah; these, not knowing God’s High Priest, laid a plot against Him, not recognizing “the firstborn of the whole creation, [Col 1:15] yea, even against Him that was elder than them all, did they take counsel.

Chrys.: With such ill designs they came to the chief Priest, seeking a sanction whence a prohibition should have issued. There were at that time several Chief Priests, while the Law allowed but of one, whence it was manifest that the dissolution of the Jewish state was having its beginning. For Moses had commanded that there should be one Chief Priest, whose office should be filled up at death; but in process of time it grew to be annual. All those then who had been Chief Priests [marg. note: ] are here called “Chief Priests.”

Remig.: They are condemned both because they were gathered together, and because they were the Chief Priests; for the more the numbers, and the higher the rank and station of those who band together for any villainy, the greater the enormity of what they do, and the heavier the punishment stored up for them.  To shew the Lord’s innocence and openness, the Evangelist adds, “that they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill him.”

Chrys.: For what then did they conspire, to seize Him secretly, or put Him to death? For both; but they feared the people, and therefore waited till the feast was over, for “they said, not on the feast-day.” For the Devil would not that Christ should suffer at the Passover, that His Passion might not be notorious. The Chief Priests had no fear in respect of God, namely, that their guilt might be aggravated by the season, but took into account human things only, “Lest there be an uproar among the people.”

Origen: By reason of the parties among the populace, those who favoured and those who hated Christ, those who believed and those who believed not.

Leo, Serm. 58, 2: This precaution of the Chief Priests arose not from reverence for the festival, but, from care for the success of their plot; they feared an insurrection at that season, not because of the guilt the populace might thereby incur, but because they might rescue Christ.

Chrys.: But their fury set aside their caution, and finding a betrayer, they put Christ to death in the middle of the feast.

Leo, Serm. 58, 1: We recognise here a providential arrangement whereby the chief men of the Jews, who had often sought occasion of effecting their cruel purposes against Christ, could never yet succeed till the days of the paschal celebration. For it behoved that the things which had long been promised in symbol and mystery should be accomplished in manifest reality, that the typical lamb should be displaced by the true, and one sacrifice embrace the whole catalogue of the varied victims. That shadows should give way to substance, and copies to the presence of the original; victim is commuted for victim, blood is abolished by blood, and the festival of the Law is at once fulfilled and changed.

Ver  6. Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper,7. There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat.8. But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, “To what purpose is this waste?9. For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.”10. When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, “Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me.11. For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.12. For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial.13. Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this Gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.”

Gloss, non. occ.: Having set before us the counsels of the chief of the Jews concerning the death of Christ, the Evangelist would proceed to follow out their execution, and to relate the bargain of Judas with the Jews to deliver Him up, but be first shews the cause of this betrayal. He was grieved that the ointment which the woman poured upon Christ’s head had not been sold that he might have carried off something out of the price it brought, and to make up this loss he was willing to betray his Master.  And therefore he proceeds, “Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper.”

Jerome: Not that he was a leper yet, but having been so, and having been healed by the Saviour, be retained the appellation to shew forth the power of Him who healed him.

Raban.: “Alabaster” is a kind of marble, white but marked with veins of different colours, which was in use for vessels to hold ointment, because it was said to preserve it from corruption.

Jerome: Another Evangelist instead of ‘alabastruin’ has ‘nardum pisticam,’ that is, genuine, unadulterated. [marg. note: John 12:3]

Raban.: From the Greek,  faith, whence ‘pisticus,’ faithful. For this ointment was pure, unadulterated.

Origen: Some one may perhaps think that there are four different women of whom the Evangelists have written, but I rather agree with those who think that they are only three; one of whom Matthew and Mark wrote, one of whom Luke, another of whom John.

Jerome: For let no one think that she who anointed His head and she who anointed His feet were one and the same; for the latter washed His feet with her tears, and wiped them with her hair, and is plainly said to have been a harlot. But of this woman nothing of this kind is recorded, and indeed a harlot could not have at once been made deserving of the Lord’s head.

Ambrose, Ambros. in Luc. 7, 37: It is possible therefore that they were different persons, and so all appearance of contradiction between the Evangelists is removed. Or it is possible that it was the same woman at two different times and two different stages of desert; first while yet a sinner, afterwards more advanced.

Chrys., Hom. lxxx: And in this way it may be the same in the three Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. And not without good reason does the Evangelist mention Simon’s leprosy, to shew what gave this woman confidence to come to Christ. The leprosy was an unclean disease; when then she saw that Jesus had healed the man with whom He now lodged, she trusted that He could also cleanse the uncleanness of her soul; and so whereas other women came to Christ to be healed in their bodies, she came only for the honour and the healing of her soul, having nothing diseased in her body; and for this she is worthy our highest admiration. But she in John is a different woman, the wonderful sister of Lazarus.

Origen: Matthew and Mark relate that this was done in the house of Simon the leper; but John says that Jesus came to a house where Lazarus was; and that not Simon, but Mary and Martha served. Further, according to John, six days before the Passover, He came to Bethany where Mary and Martha made Him a supper. But here it is in the house of Simon the leper, and two days before the Passover.

And in Matthew and Mark, it is the disciples that have indignation with a good intent; in John, Judas alone with intent to steal; in Luke, no one finds fault.

Greg., Hom. in Ev., xxxiii, 1: Or, we may think that this is the same woman whom Luke calls a “sinner,” and John names Mary.

Aug., de Cons. Ev., ii, 79: Though the action described in Luke is the same as that described here, and the name of him with whom the Lord supped is the same, for Luke also names Simon; yet because it is not contrary to either nature or custom for two men to bear the same name, it is more probable that this was another Simon, not the leper, in whose house in Bethany these things were done.

I would only suppose that the woman who on that occasion came near to Jesus’ feet, and this woman, were not two different persons, but that the same Mary did this twice. The first time is that narrated by Luke; for John mentions it in praise of Mary before Christ’s coming to Bethany, “It was that Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.” [John 11:2] Mary therefore had done this before. That she did afterwards in Bethany is distinct from Luke’s account, but is the same event that is recorded by all three, John, Matthew, and Mark. That Matthew and Mark say it was the Lord’s head that she anointed, and John His feet, is reconciled by supposing that she anointed both.

Against this one might raise a cavil from what Mark says, that she anointed His head by breaking the box over it, so that there could be none of the ointment left with which to anoint His feet also. Let such caviller understand, that His feet were first anointed before the box was broken, and there remained in it, yet whole, enough wherewith to anoint the head by breaking the box and shedding the contents.

Aug., de Doctr. Christ., iii, 12: But let not any suppose that the Lord’s feet were by this woman bathed in ointment after the manner which the luxurious and debauched use. In all things of this nature, it is not the thing itself, but the mind of him who uses it, that is in fault. Whoso uses things after such sort as to pass the bounds observed by good men with whom he lives, either has some meaning [marg. note: aliquid significat] in what he does, or is vicious. What then is vice in others, in a divine or prophetic person is a sign of some great thing.

The good odour is the good report which one has gained by the works of a good life, and in following Christ’s footsteps sheds a most precious odour on His feet.

Aug., de Cons. Ev., ii, 78: Still there may seem to be some discrepancy between the narrative of Matthew and Mark, who say, that “after two days is the feast of the Passover,” and then bring Jesus to Bethany; and that of John, who, relating this history of the ointment, says “Six days before the Passover.”

They who urge this do not understand that the events in Bethany are in Matthew and Mark inserted out of their place, a little later than the time of their occurrence. Neither of them, it is to be observed, introduce their account with ‘afterwards.’

Chrys.: The disciples had heard their Master say, “I will have mercy, and not sacrifice,” [Matt 9:13] wherefore they thought among themselves, If He accepts not burnt-offerings, much less will He the application of such ointment as this.

Jerome: I know that some raise a cavil here, because John says that Judas alone was grieved because he had the bag, and was a thief from the beginning; but Matthew, that all the disciples were sorrowful. These know not the figure syllepsis, by which one name is put for many, and many for one; as Paul in the Epistle to the Hebrews says, “They were sawn asunder,” [Heb 11:37] when it is thought that one only, Esaias namely, was so.

Aug., de Cons. Ev., ii, 79: We may however understand that the other disciples thought or said the same, or that they assented to what Judas said, and thus Matthew and Mark have described their common consent. But Judas said it because he was a thief, the others out of their care for the poor; and John desired to mention it only in the case of him whose thievish propensity he thought ought to be recorded.

Chrys.: The disciples then thought thus, but Jesus, who saw the thoughts of the woman, suffered it. For her piety was great, and her ardour unspeakable, wherefore He condescended to suffer her to pour the ointment on His head. As the Father admitted the smoke and odour of the slain victim, so also Christ admitted this votive anointing of His head, though the disciples, who saw not her heart, murmured.

Remig.: He clearly shews that the Apostles had uttered something harsh against her, when He says, “Why trouble ye the woman?” And beautifully He adds, “She hath wrought a good work in me;” as much as to say, It is not a waste of ointment, as ye say, but a good work, that is, a service of piety and devotion.

Chrys.: And He says not merely, “She hath wrought a good work,” but says first, “Why trouble ye the woman?” to teach us that every good act that is wrought by any, even though it lack somewhat of exact propriety, yet we ought to receive, cherish, and cultivate it, and not to require strict correctness in a beginner. If He had been asked before this was done by the woman, He would not have directed its doing; but when it was done, the rebuke of the disciples had no longer any place, and He Himself to guard the woman from importunate attacks speaks these things for her comfort.

Remig.: “For the poor ye have ever with you.” The Lord shews in these words as of set purpose, that they were not to be blamed who ministered of their substance to Him while He dwelt in a mortal body; forasmuch as the poor were ever in the Church, to whom the believers might do good whensoever they would, but He would abide in the body with them but a very short time.  Whence it follows, “But me ye shall not have always.”

Jerome: Here a question arises how the Lord should have said elsewhere to His disciples, “Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world;” [Matt 28:20] but here, “Me ye shall not have always.”

I suppose that in this place He speaks of His bodily presence, which shall not be with them after the resurrection in daily intercourse and friendship, as it is now.

Remig.: Or, it is to be explained by supposing this spoken to Judas only; and He said not, Ye have not, but “Ye shall not have,” because this was spoken in the person of Judas to all his followers. And He says, “Not always,” though they have it at no time, because the wicked seem to have Christ in this present world, while they mix among His members and approach His table, but they shall not always so have Him when He shall say to His elect, “Come, ye blessed of my Father.” [Matt 25:34]

It was the custom among this people to embalm the bodies of the dead with divers spices, to the end that they might be kept from corruption as long as possible. And as this woman was desirous of embalming the Lord’s dead Body, and would not be able because she would be anticipated by His resurrection, it was therefore arranged by Divine Providence that she should anoint the Lord’s living Body. This then is what He says, “In that she hath poured,” that is, By anointing My living Body she shews forth My death and burial.

Chrys.: That this mention of His death and burial might not cause her to despond, He comforts her by what follows, “Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever &c.”

Raban.: That is, To whatsoever place throughout the whole world the Church shall be propagated, there this also that she hath done shall be told. That also that is added signifies, that as Judas by his reproof of her has earned evil character of treachery, so has she also earned the glory of pious devotedness.

Jerome: Note His knowledge of things to come, how though about to suffer death within two days, He knows that His Gospel will be preached throughout the whole world.

Chrys.: Behold the accomplishment of this saying; to whatsoever part of the world you go, you will find this woman famous, and this has been wrought by the power of Him who spake this word. How many victories of kings and captains have passed into oblivion; how many who built cities and enslaved many nations are now known neither by report nor by name; but the deed of this woman pouring forth ointment in the house of a leper in the presence of twelve men, this resounds throughout the world, and though so much time has elapsed, the memory of that which was done is not effaced.

But why promised He no spiritual gift to this woman, but everlasting remembrance only? Because this He did promise made her confident of receiving the other also; whereas she wrought a good work, it is clear that she shall receive an adequate reward.

Jerome: Mystically; The Lord, about to suffer for the whole world, sojourns in Bethany, in the house of obedience, which once was that of Simon the leper. Simon also is interpreted ‘obedient,’ or, according to another interpretation, ‘the world,’ in whose house the Church is healed.

Origen: Oil is throughout Scripture put for the work of mercy, with which the lamp of the word is fed; or for doctrine, the hearing of which sustains the word of faith when once kindled. All with which men anoint is comprehensively called oil; and one kind of oil is unguent, and one kind of unguent is precious. So all righteous acts are called good works; and of good works there is one kind which we do for, or to, men; another which we do for, or to, God. And this likewise that we do for God, in part only advances the good of men, in part, the glory of God.

For example, one does a kindness to a man out of feelings of natural righteousness, not for God’s sake, as the Gentiles sometime did; such a work is common oil of no fine savour, yet is it acceptable to God, forasmuch, as Peter says in Clement, the good works that the unbelievers do, profit them in this world, but avail not to gain them eternal life in another. They who do the same for God’s sake, profit thereby not in this world only but in the next also, and that they do is ointment of good savour.

Another sort is that done for the good of men, as alms, and the like. He who does this to Christians, anoints the Lord’s feet, for they are the Lord’s feet; and this penitents are most found to do for remission of their sins. He who devotes himself to chastity, and continues in fastings and prayers, and other things which conduce to God’s glory only, this is the ointment which anoints the Lord’s head, and with whose odour the whole Church is filled; this is the work meet not for penitents, but for the perfect, or the doctrine which is necessary for men; but the acknowledgment of the faith which belongs to God alone, is the ointment with which the head of Christ is anointed, with which we “are buried together with Christ by baptism into death.” [Rom 6:4]

Hilary: In this woman is prefigured the people of the Gentiles, who gave glory to God in Christ’s passion; for she anointed His head, but the head of Christ is God, and ointment is the fruit of good works. But the disciples, anxious for the salvation of Israel, say that this ought to have been sold for the use of the poor; designating by a prophetic instinct the Jews, who lacked faith, by the name of the poor. The Lord answers that there is abundant time in which they may shew their care for the poor, but that salvation cannot be extended to the Gentiles but by obedience to His command, if, that is, by the pouring out of this woman’s ointment they are buried together with Him, because regeneration can only be given to those who are dead in the profession of baptism. And this her work shall be told wherever this Gospel is preached, because when Israel draws back, the glory of the Gospel is preached by the belief of the Gentiles.

Ver  14. Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the Chief Priests,15. And said unto them, “What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you?” And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver.16. And from that time he sought opportunity to betray him.

Gloss., non. occ.: Having described the occasion of his treachery, the Evangelist proceeds to recount the manner of it.

Chrys.: “Then,” when, that is, he heard that this Gospel should be preached every where; for that made him afraid, as it was indeed a mark of unspeakable power.

Aug., de Cons. Ev., ii, 78: The order of the narrative is this. The Lord says, “Ye know that after two days will be the feast of the Passover; . . . then assembled together the Chief Priests and Scribes; . . . then went one of the twelve.”

Thus the narrative of what took place at Bethany is inserted by way of digression, respecting an earlier time between that, “Lest there be an uproar,” and, “Then one of the twelve.”

Origen: “Went,” against that one high priest, who was made a Priest for ever, to many high priests, to sell for a price Him who sought to redeem the whole world.

Raban.: “Went,” he says, because he was neither compelled, nor invited, but of his own free will formed the wicked design.

Chrys.: “One of the twelve,” as much as to say, of that first band who are elected for preeminent merit.

Gloss, non. occ: He adds his distinctive appellation, “Scarioth,” for there was another Judas.

Remig.: So called from the village Scariotha, from which he came.

Leo, Serm., 60, 4: He did not out of any fear forsake Christ, but through lust of money cast Him off; for in comparison of the love of money all our affections are feeble; the soul athirst for gain fears not to die for a very little; there is no  trace of righteousness in that heart in which covetousness has once taken up its abode. The traitor Judas, intoxicated with this bane, in his thirst for lucre was so foolishly hardened, as to sell his Lord and Master.

Jerome: The wretched Judas would fain replace, by the sale of his Master, that loss which he supposed he had incurred by the ointment. And he does not demand any fixed sum, lest his treachery should seem a gainful thing, but as though delivering up a worthless slave, he left it to those who bought, to determine how much they would give.

Origen: The same do all who take any material or worldly things to cast out of their thoughts the Saviour and the word of truth which was in them. “And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver,” as many pieces as the Saviour had dwelt years in the world.

[ed. note: i.e. Before He began His ministry, as what follows in Origen shews. For though Origen had at one time considered the duration of Our Lord's ministry not to have exceeded one year and a few months, he had changed that opinion before this commentary on S. Matt. was written. In it he more than once mentions three years as the probable period. vid. Comm. in Matt. Ser., sect 40]

Jerome: Joseph was not sold as many, following the LXX [septuagint], think for twenty pieces of gold, but as the Hebrew text has for twenty pieces of silver, [marg. note: Gen 37:28] for it could not be that the servant should be more valuable than his Master.

Aug., Quaest Ev., i, 41: That the Lord was sold for thirty pieces of silver by Judas, denotes the unrighteous Jews, who pursuing things carnal and temporal, which belong to the five bodily senses, refuse to have Christ; and forasmuch as they did this in the sixth age of the world, their receiving five times six as the price of the Lord is thus signified; and because the Lord’s words are silver, but they understood even the Law carnally, they had, as it were, stamped on silver the image of that worldly dominion which they held to when they renounced the Lord.

Origen: The “opportunity” which Judas sought is further explained by Luke, “how he might betray him in the absence of the multitude;” [Luke 22:6] when the populace was not with Him, but He was withdrawn with His disciples. And this he did, delivering Him up after supper, when He was withdrawn to the garden of Gethsemane. And from that time forward, such has been the season sought for by those that would betray the word of God in time of persecution, when the multitude of believers is not around the word of truth.

Ver  17. Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, “Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the Passover?”18. And he said, “Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the Passover at thy house with my disciples.”19. And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the Passover.

Gloss., non occ.: The Evangelist having gone through the events preliminary to the Passion, namely, the announcement of the counsel of the Chief Priests, and the covenant for His betrayal, prosecutes the history in the order of events, saying, “On the first day of unleavened bread.”

Jerome: The first day of unleavened bread is the fourteenth day of the first month, when the lamb is killed, the moon is at full, and leaven is put away.

Remig.: And observe that with the Jews, the Passover is celebrated on the first day, and the following seven are called the days of unleavened bread; but here the first day of unleavened bread means the day of the Passover.

Chrys., Hom. lxxxi: Or, by “the first day,” he means the day before the days of unleavened bread. For the Jews always reckoned their day from the evening; and this day of which he speaks was that on the evening of which they were to kill the Passover, namely, the fifth day of the week.

[ed. note: This passage has been altered by the text of S. Chrys. The Catena has, 'Vel hanc primam diem azymorum dicit quia septem dies azymorum erant."]

REMIG. But perhaps some one will say, If that typical lamb bore a type of this the true lamb, how did not Christ suffer on the night on which this was always killed? It is to be noted, that on this night, He committed to His disciples the mysteries of His flesh and blood to be celebrated, and then also being seized and bound by the Jews, He hallowed the commencement of His sacrifice, i.e. His Passion. “The disciples came” unto him;” among these no doubt was the traitor Judas.

Chrys.: Hence it is evident that He had neither house nor lodging. Nor, I conclude, had the disciples any, for they would surely have invited Him thither.

Aug., de Cons. Ev., ii, 80: “Go into the city to such a man,” Him whom Mark and Luke call “the good-man of the house,” or “the I master of the house.” And when Matthew says, “to such a man,” he is to be understood to say this as from himself for brevity’s sake; for every one knows that no man speaks thus, “Go ye to such a man.” And Matthew adds these words, “to such a man,” not that the Lord used the very expression, but to convey to us that the disciples were not sent to any one in the city, but to some certain person.

Chrys.: Or, we may say that this, “to such a man,” shews that He sent them to some person unknown to them, teaching them thereby that He was able to avoid His Passion. For He who prevailed with this man to entertain Him, how could He not have prevailed with those who crucified Him, had He chosen not to suffer? Indeed, I marvel not only that he entertained Him, being a stranger, but that he did it in contempt of the hatred of the multitude.

Hilary: Or, Matthew does not name the man in whose house Christ would celebrate the Passover, because the Christian name was not yet held in honour by the believers.

Raban.: Or, he omits the name, that all who would fain celebrate the true Passover, and receive Christ within the dwelling place of their own minds, should understand that the opportunity is afforded them.

Jerome: In this also the New Scripture observes the practice of the Old, in which we frequently read, ‘He said unto him,’ and ‘In this or that place,’ without any name of person or place.

Chrys.: “My time is at hand,” this He said, both by so manifold announcements of His Passion, fortifying His disciples against the event, and at the same time shewing that He undertook it voluntarily. “I will keep the Passover at thy house,” wherein we see, that to the very last day He was not disobedient to the Law. “With my disciples,” He adds, that there might be sufficient preparation made, and that he to whom He sent might not think that He desired to be concealed.

Origen: Some one may argue [marg. note: e.g. The Ebionites], that because Jesus kept the Passover with Jewish observances, we ought to do the same as followers of Christ, not remembering that Jesus was “made under the Law,” though not that He should leave “under the Law” [Gal 4:4] those who were under it, but should “lead them out” of it; how much less fitting then is it, that those who before were without the Law, should afterwards enter in? We celebrate spiritually the things which were carnally celebrated in the Law, keeping the Passover “in the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth,” [1 Cor 5:8] according to the will of the Lamb, who said, “Except ye eat my flesh and drink my blood, ye shall not have life in you.” [John 6:53]

Ver  20. Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve.21. And as they did eat, he said, “Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.”22. And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him, “Lord, is it I?”23. And he answered and said, “He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me.24. The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.”25. Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, “Master, is it I?” He said unto him, “Thou hast said.”

Jerome: The Lord had above foretold His Passion, He now foretels who is to be the traitor; thus giving him place of repentance, when he should see that his thoughts and the secret designs of his heart were known.Remig.: “With the twelve,” it is said, for Judas was personally among them, though he had ceased to be so in merit.

Jerome: Judas acts in every thing to remove all suspicion of his treachery.

Remig.: And it is beautifully said, “When even was come,” because it was in the evening that the Lamb was wont to be slain.

Raban.: For this reason also, because in Christ’s Passion, wherein the true sun hasted to his setting, eternal refreshment was made ready for all believers.

Chrys.: The Evangelist relates how as they sat at meat, Jesus declares Judas’ treachery, that the wickedness of the betrayer may be more apparent from the season and the circumstances.

Leo, Serm. 58, 3: He shews that the conscience of His betrayer was known to Him, not meeting his wickedness with a harsh and open rebuke, that penitence might find a readier way to one who had not been disgraced by public dismissal.

Origen: Or, He spoke generally, to prove the nature of each of their hearts, and to evince the wickedness of Judas, who would not believe in One who knew his heart. I suppose that at first he supposed that the thing was hid from Him, deeming Him man, which was of unbelief; but when he saw that his heart was known, he embraced the concealment offered by this general way of speaking, which was shamelessness.

This also shews the goodness of the disciples, that they believed Christ’s words more than their own consciences, “for they began each to say, Lord, is it I?” For they knew by what Jesus had taught them that human nature is readily turned to evil, and is in continual struggle with “the rulers of the darkness of this world;” [Eph 6:12] whence they ask as in fear, for by reason of our weakness the future is an object of dread to us.

When the Lord saw the disciples thus alarmed for themselves, He pointed out the traitor by the mark of the prophetic declaration, “He that hath eaten bread with me hath wantonly overthrown me.” [Ps 41:9]

Jerome: O wonderful endurance of the Lord, He had said before, “One of you shall betray me.” The traitor perseveres in his wickedness; He designates him more particularly, yet not by name. For Judas, while the rest were sorrowful, and withdrew their hands, and bid away the food from their months, with the same hardihood and recklessness which led him to betray Him, reached forth his hand into the dish with his Master, passing off his audacity as a good conscience.

Chrys.: I rather think that Christ did this out of regard for him, and to bring him to a better mind.

Raban.: What Matthew calls ‘paropsis,’ Mark calls ‘catinus.’ The ‘paropsis’ is a square dish for meat, ‘catinus,’ an earthen vessel for containing fluids; this then might be a square earthen vessel.

Origen: Such is the wont of men of exceeding wickedness, to plot against those of whose bread and salt they have partaken, and especially those who have no enmity against them. But if we take it of the spiritual table, and the spiritual food, we shall see the more abundant and overflowing measure of this man’s wickedness, who called to mind neither his Master’s love in providing carnal goods, nor His teaching in things spiritual. Such are all in the Church who lay snares for their brethren whom they continually meet at the same table of Christ’s Body.

Jerome: Judas, not withheld by either the first or second warning, perseveres in his treachery; the Lord’s long-suffering nourishes his audacity. Now then his punishment is foretold, that denunciations of wrath may correct where good feeling has no power.

Remig.: It belongs to human nature to come and go, Divine nature remains ever the same. So because His human nature could suffer and die, therefore of the Son of Man it is well said that “he goeth.” He says plainly, “As it is written of him,” for all that He suffered had been foretold by the Prophets.

Chrys.: This He said to comfort His disciples, that they might not think that it was through weakness that He suffered; and at the same time for the correction of His betrayer. And notwithstanding His Passion had been foretold, Judas is still guilty; and not his betrayal wrought our salvation, but God’s providence, which used the sins of others to our profit.

Origen: He said not, By whom “the Son of Man is betrayed,” but “through whom,” [John 13:2] pointing out another, to wit the Devil, as the author of His betrayal, Judas as the minister. But woe also to all betrayers of Christ! and such is every one who betrays a disciple of Christ.

Remig.: Woe also to all who draw near to Christ’s table with an evil and defiled conscience! who though they do not deliver Christ to the Jews to be crucified, deliver Him to their own sinful members to be taken. He adds, to give more emphasis, “Good were it for that man if he had never been born.”

Jerome: We are not to infer from this that man has a being before birth; for it cannot be well with any man till he has a being; it simply implies that it is better not to be, than to be in evil.

Aug., Quaest. Ev., i, 40: And if it be contended that there is a life before this life, that will prove that not only not for Judas, but for none other is it good to have been born. Can it mean, that it were better for him not to have been born to the Devil, namely, for sin? Or does it mean that it had been good for him not to have been born to Christ at his calling, that he should now become apostate?

Origen: After all the Apostles had asked, and after Christ had spoken of him, Judas at length enquired of himself, with the crafty design of concealing his treacherous purpose by asking the same question as the rest; for real sorrow brooks not suspense.

Jerome: His question feigns either great respect, or a hypocritical incredulousness. The rest who were not to betray Him, said only “Lord;” the actual traitor addresses Him as “Master,” as though it were some excuse that he denied Him as Lord, and betrayed a Master only.

Origen: Or, out of sycophancy he calls Him Master, while be holds Him unworthy of the title.

Chrys.: Though the Lord could have said, Hast thou covenanted to receive silver, and darest to ask Me this? But Jesus, most merciful, said nothing of all this, therein laying down for us rules and landmarks of endurance of evil.  “He saith unto him, Thou hast said.”

Remig.: Which may be understood thus; Thou sayest it, and thou sayest what is true; or, Thou hast said this, not I; leaving him room for repentance so long as his villainy was not publicly exposed.

Raban.: This might have been so said by Judas, and answered by the Lord as not to be overheard by the rest.

26. And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.”

Jerome: When the typical Passover was concluded, and He had partaken of the Lamb with His Apostles, He comes to the true paschal sacrament; that, as Melchisedech [marg. note: Gen 14:18], Priest of the most high God, had done in foreshadowing Christ, offering bread and wine, He also should offer the present verity of His Body and Blood.

[ed. note: Many of the passages here quoted appear to have been taken by S. Thomas from the Decretum of Gratian, though the Catena gives no reference to this compilation. Whenever they can be found, the originals are referred to in the margin, and the important differences or additions are noticed in the note. The present passage from S. Jerome (in Joe.) is found in Gratian. de Cons. ii. 88; that which follows from S. Augustine, ibid, 53. The next passage headed 'Gloss.' cannot be found any where.]

Aug., Ep. 54, 7: “And as they were eating,” whereby it is clearly seen that at their first partaking of the Lord’s Body and Blood, the disciples did not partake fasting. But are we therefore to except against the practice of the whole Church, of receiving fasting? It has seemed good to the Holy Ghost, that for the better honour of so great a Sacrament, the Lord`s Body should enter the Christian’s mouth before other food. For to commend more mightily the depth of this mystery, the Saviour chose this as the last thing He would imprint on the hearts and memory of His disciples, from whom He was to depart to His Passion. But He did not direct in what order it should thenceforth be taken, that He might reserve that for the Apostles by whom He would regulate His Church.

Gloss., non occ.: Christ delivered to us His Flesh and Blood under another kind, and ordained them to be thenceforth so received, that faith might have its merit, which is of things that are not seen.

Ambrose, Ambr. de Sacr., vi, 1 [ed. note: S. Ambrose's name has been retained at the head of the passages out of the Treatise 'De Sacramentis,' because it is placed in the Ben. ed. among the genuine works of S. Ambrose, and not in the Appendix. But there seems to be little doubt of its spuriousness. See Jenkyns' note to Cranmer's 'Defence, &c.' in Cranmer's Works, ii. 326]: And that we might not be shocked by the sight of blood, while it at the same time wrought the price of our redemption.

Aug., in Joan. Tr. 26, 17, cf Serm. 227, 1: The Lord committed His Body and Blood to substances which are formed a homogeneous compound out of many. Bread is made of many grains, wine is produced out of many berries. Herein the Lord Jesus Christ signified us, and hallowed in His Own table the mystery of our peace and unity.

Remig.: Fittingly also did He offer fruit of the earth, to shew thereby that He came to take away the curse wherewith the earth was cursed for the sin of the first man. Also He bade be offered the produce of the earth, and the things for which men chiefly toil, that there might be no difficulty in procuring them, and that men might offer sacrifice to God of the work of their hands.

Ambrose, Ambr. de Sacr., iv, 3: Hence learn that the Christian mysteries were before the Jewish. Melchisedech offered bread and wine, being in all things like the Son of God, to Whom it is said, “Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech;” [Ps 110:4] and of Whom it is here said, “Jesus took bread.” [John 12:24]

Gloss., non occ.: [ed. note: This Gloss is partly from the Gloss on Gratian de Cons. d. ii. c. 5. The next passage is headed 'Gregorius in Registro' in the editions, and is so quoted by S. Thomas, Summa 3. q. 74. art. 4. but cannot be found in S. Greg.]

This, we must understand to be wheat bread for the Lord compared Himself to a grain of wheat, saying, “Except a corn fall into the ground &c.” Such bread also is suitable for the Sacrament, because it is in common use; bread of other kinds being only made when this fails. But forasmuch as Christ up to the very last day, to use the words of Chrysostom as above [marg. note: shewed that He did nothing contrary to the Law, and the Law commanded that unleavened bread should be eaten in the evening when the Passover was slain, and that all leavened should be put away, it is manifest that the bread which the Lord took and gave to His disciples was unleavened.

Greg., non occ.: It has given trouble to divers persons, that in the Church some offer unleavened and others leavened bread. The Roman Church offers unleavened, because the Lord took flesh without any pollution [marg. note: commixtione]; other [marg. note: Graecaesc] Churches offer leavened bread, because the Word of the Father took flesh upon Him, and is Very God, and Very Man; and so the leaven is mingled with the flour. But whether we receive leavened or unleavened, we are made one body of the Lord our Saviour.

Ambrose, Ambr. de Sacr., iv, 4: This bread before the sacramentary words, is the bread in common use; after consecration it is made of bread Christ’s flesh. And what are the words, or whose are the phrases of consecration, save those of the Lord Jesus? For if His word had power to make those things begin to be which were not, how much rather will it not be efficacious to cause them to remain what they are, while they are at the same time changed into somewhat else? For if the heavenly word has been effectual in other matters, is it ineffectual in heavenly sacraments? Therefore of the bread is made the Body of Christ, and the wine is made blood by the consecration of the heavenly word.

[ed. note: ap. Grat. ibid. 54. On this remarkable passage it may be observed, first, S. Ambrose is referring to the creation, and his meaning is, "If his word had power to make these things," i.e. heaven and earth, "begin to be, which were not, how much rather is it not efficacious to make those things," i.e. the bread, not begin, but "continue to be, which were already, and are but changed into something else?"

2. Next he illustrates the change by our own change in regeneration. "Tu ipse eras, sed eras vetus creatura; postea quam consecratus es, nova creatura esse cepisti."

3. There is no introduction of the word "substance," i.e. no assertion of transubstantiation.]

Dost thou enquire after the manner? Learn. The course of nature is, that a man is not born but of man and woman, but by God’s will Christ was born of the Holy Spirit and a Virgin.

Paschasius: As then real flesh was created by the Holy Spirit without sexual union, so by the same Holy Spirit the substance of bread and wine are consecrated into the Body and Blood of Christ. And because this consecration is made by the Lords word, it is added, “He blessed.”

[ed. note: This passage is quoted in the Bodl. MS. and early editions of the Cat., as 'Augustinus in Verb. Dom.' Gratian also (de Cons. d. ii. 72.) gives it as Augustine's, but the earliest author in whom it is found is Paschasius Radbertus, Abbot of Corbey, and a well-known writer of the ninth century, 'De Corpore et Sanguine Dom.' 4.]

Remig.: Hereby He shewed also that He together with the Father and the Holy Spirit has filled human nature with the grace of His divine power, and enriched it with the boon of immortality. And to shew that His Body was not subject to passion but of His own will, it is added, “And brake.”

Lanfranc: When the host is broken, when the blood is poured from the cup into the mouth of the faithful, what else is denoted but the offering of the Lord’s Body on the cross, and the shedding of His Blood out of His side?

[ed. note: This is quoted in the early editions, and in Gratian de Cons. ii. 37. as Augustinus 'in Libro Sent. Prosper.' but does not occur in that collection of Prosper as we have it. It is found in Lanfranc cont. Bereng. 13.]

Dionysius, Eccl. Hier., 3, in fin: In this is also shewn, that the one and uncompounded Word of God came to us compounded and visible by taking human nature upon Him, and drawing to Himself our society, made us partakers of the spiritual goods which He distributed, as it follows, “And gave to his disciples.”

Leo, Serm. 58, 3: Not excluding the traitor even from this mystery, that it might be made manifest that Judas was provoked by no wrong, but that he had been foreknown in voluntary impiety.

Aug., in Joan Tr., 59: Peter and Judas received of the same bread, but Peter to life, Judas to death.

Chrys., Hom. lxxxii: And this John shews when be says “After the sop, Satan entered into him.” [John 13:27] For his sin was aggravated in that he came near to these mysteries with such a heart, and that having come to them, he was made better neither by fear, kindness, nor honour. Christ hindered him not, though He knew all things, that you may learn that He omits nothing which serves for correction.

Remig.: In so doing He left an example to the Church, that it should sever no one from its fellowship, or from the communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord, but for some notorious and public crime.

Hilary: Or, The Passover was concluded by the taking the cup and breaking the bread without Judas, for he was unworthy the communion of eternal sacraments. And that he had left them we learn from thence, that he returns with a multitude.

Aug.: [ed. note: This passage, headed 'Augustinus' in the Bodl. MS., and 'Aug de Verb. Dom.' in the earlier editions, is apparently taken from two canons in the 3d pt. of Gratian, viz. c. 70. and c. 58. to which Augustine's name is there prefixed. It has not been found in S. Augustine's works. But it is found in Bede on I Cor. x. who also quotes it from 'Aug. de verb. Evang.']

“And said, Take, eat;” The Lord invites His servants to set before them Himself for food. But who would dare to eat his Lord? This food when eaten refreshes, but fails not; He lives after being eaten, Who rose again after being put to death. Neither when we eat Him do we divide His substance; but thus it is in this Sacrament. The faithful know how they feed on Christ’s flesh, each man receives a part for himself. He is divided into parts in the Sacrament, yet He remains whole; He is all in heaven, He is all in thy heart.

They are called Sacraments, because in them what is seen is one thing, what is understood is another; what is seen has a material form, what is understood has spiritual fruit.

Aug., in Joan. Tr., 27, 11: Let us not eat Christ’s flesh only in the Sacrament, for that do many wicked men, but let us eat to spiritual participation, that we may abide as members in the Lord’s body, that we may be quickened by His Spirit.

Ambrose, de Sacr., iv, 5: Before consecration, it is bread; after Christ’s words, “This is my body,” have been pronounced, it is Christ’s Body.

Ver  27. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink ye all of it;28. For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.29. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

Remig.: The Lord having given His disciples His Body under the element of bread [marg. note: sub specie panis], well gives the cup of His Blood to them likewise; shewing what joy He has in our salvation, seeing He even shed His Blood for us.

Chrys.: He gave thanks to instruct us after what manner we ought to celebrate this mystery, and shewed also thereby that He came not to His Passion against His will. Also He taught us to bear whatsoever we suffer with thanksgiving, and infused into us good hopes.

For if the type of this sacrifice, to wit, the offering of the paschal lamb, became the deliverance of the people from Egyptian bondage, much more shall the reality thereof be the deliverance of the world.

“And gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it.” That they should not be distressed at hearing this, He first drank His own blood to lead them without fear to the communion of these mysteries.

Jerome, Hieron. Ep. 120, ad Hedib: Thus then the Lord Jesus was at once guest and feast, the eater and the things eaten. [ed. note: ap. Grat. do Consecr. d. ii. 87.]

Chrys.: “This is my blood of the new testament;” that is, the new promise, covenant, law; for this blood was promised from of old, and this guarantees the new covenant; for as the Old Testament had the blood of sheep and goats, so the New has the Lord’s Blood.

Remig.: For thus it is read, “Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you.” [Ex 24:8]

Chrys.: And in calling it blood, He foreshews His Passion, “My blood … which shall be shed for many.” Also the purpose for which He died, adding, “For the remission of sins;” as much as to say, The blood of the lamb was shed in Egypt for the salvation of the first born of the Israelites, this My Blood is shed for the remission of sins.

Remig.: And it is to be noted, that He says not, For a few, nor, For all, but, “For many;” because He came not to redeem a single nation, but many out of all nations.

Chrys.: Thus saying, He shews that His Passion is a mystery of the salvation of men, by which also He comforts His disciples. And as Moses said, “This shall be an ordinance to thee for ever,” [Ex 12:24] so Christ speaks as Luke relates, “This do in remembrance of me.” [Luke 22:19]

Remig.: And He taught us to offer not bread only, but wine also, to shew that they who hungered and thirsted after righteousness were to be refreshed by these mysteries.

Gloss., non occ.: As the refreshment of the body is wrought  by means of meat and drink, so under the form of meat and drink the Lord has provided for us spiritual refreshment. And it was suitable that for the shewing forth the Lord’s Passion this Sacrament should be instituted under both kinds.

For in His Passion He shed His Blood, and so His Blood was separated from His Body. It behoved therefore, that for representation of His Passion, bread and wine should be separately set forth, which are the Sacrament of the Body and Blood. But it should be known, that under both kinds the whole of Christ is contained; under the bread is contained the Blood, together with the Body; under the wine, the Body together With the Blood.

Ambrosiaster, in 1 Cor 11:26 : And for this reason also in do we celebrate under both kinds, because that which we receive avails for the preservation of both body and soul.

Cyprian, Ep. 63, ad Caecil.: The cup of the Lord is not water only, or wine only, but the two are mixed; so the Lord’s Body cannot be either flour only, or water only, but the two are combined.

[ed. note: To signify, as S. Cyprian proceeds to say, the union between Christ and His faithful people; "For if one offer wine only, the blood of Christ begins to be without us; if water only, the people begin to be without Christ." This passage of Cyprian is quoted in Gratian. de Cons ii. 7.]

Ambrose, de Sacr., v. 1: If Melchisedech offered bread and wine, what means this mixing of water? Hear the reason. Moses struck the rock, and the rock gave forth abundance of water, but that rock was Christ. Also one of the soldiers with his spear pierced Christ’s side, and out of His side flowed water and blood, the water to cleanse, the blood to redeem.

[ed. note: ap. Gratian de Cons. d ii, 83, cf. Paschas de Corp. et Sang. 11]

Remig.: For it should be known, that as John speaks, “The many waters are nations and people.” [Rev 17:15] And because we ought always to abide in Christ and Christ in us, wine mixed with water is offered, to shew that the bead and the members, that is, Christ and the Church, are one body; or to shew that neither did Christ suffer without a love for our redemption, nor we can be saved without His Passion.

Chrys.: And having spoken of His Passion and Cross, He proceeds to speak of His resurrection, “I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth, &c.” By the “kingdom” He means His resurrection. And He speaks this of His resurrection, because He would then drink with the Apostles, that none might suppose His  resurrection a phantasy.

Thus when they would convince any of His resurrection, they said, “We did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.” [Acts 10:41] This tells them that they shall see Him after He is risen, and that He will be again with them.

That He says, “New,” is plainly to be understood, after a new manner, He no longer having a passible body, or needing food. For after His resurrection He did not eat as needing food, but to evidence the reality of the resurrection. And forasmuch as there are some heretics who use water instead of wine in the sacred mysteries [ed. note: e.g. The Encratites, followers of Saturnius and Tatian in the second century. See Can. Apost. 43 and 45 of Johnson's Translation.], He shews in these words, that when He now gave them these holy mysteries, He gave them wine, and drank the like after He was risen; for He says, “Of this fruit of the vine,” but the vine produces wine, and not water.

Jerome: Or otherwise; From carnal things the Lord passes to spiritual. Holy Scripture speaks of the people of Israel as of a vine brought up out of Egypt; [marg. note: Ps 80:8, Jer 2:21] of this vine it is then that the Lord says He will drink no more except in His Father’s kingdom. His Father’s kingdom I suppose to mean the faith of the believers. When then the Jews shall receive His Father’s kingdom, then the Lord will drink of their vine. Observe that He says, “Of my Father,” not, Of God, for to name the Father is to name the Son. As much as to say, When they shall have believed on God the Father, and He has brought them to the Son.

Remig.: Or otherwise; “I will not drink of the fruit of this vine,” i.e. I will no longer take pleasure in the carnal oblations of the Synagogue, among which the immolation of the Paschal lamb held an eminent place. But the time of My resurrection is at hand, and the day in which exalted in the Father’s kingdom, that is, raised in immortal glory, “I shall drink it new with you,” i.e. I shall rejoice as with a new joy in the salvation of that people then renewed by the water of baptism.

Aug., Quaest. Ev. i, 43: Or otherwise; When He says, “I shall drink it new with you,” He gives us to understand that this is old. Seeing then that He took body of the race of Adam, who is called the old man, and was to give up to death that Body in His Passion, (whence also He gave us His Blood in the sacrament of wine,) what else can we understand by the new wine than the immortality of renewed bodies?

In saying, “I will drink it with you,” He promises to them likewise a resurrection of their bodies for the putting on of immortality. “With you” is not to be understood of time, but of a like renewal, as the Apostle speaks, that “we are risen with Christ,” the hope of the future bringing a present joy. That which He shall drink new shall also be “of this fruit of the vine,” signifies that the very same bodies shall rise after the heavenly renewal, which shall now die after the earthly decay.

Hilary: It seems from this that Judas had not drunk with Him, because He was not to drink hereafter in the kingdom; but He promises to all who partook at this time of this fruit of the vine that they should drink with Him hereafter.

Gloss., non occ.: But in support of the opinion of other saints, that Judas did receive the sacraments from Christ, it is to be said, that the words “with you” may refer to the greater part of them, and not necessarily to the whole.

Ver  30. And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.31. Then saith Jesus unto them, “All ye shall be offended because of me this night; for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.32. But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee.”33. Peter answered and said unto him, “Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended.”34. Jesus said unto him, “Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.”35. Peter said unto him, “Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee.” Likewise also said all the disciples.

Origen: When the disciples had eaten the bread of blessing, and drunk of the cup of thanksgiving, the Lord instructs them in return for these things to sing a hymn to the Father. And they go to the Mount of Olives, that they may pass from height to height, because the believer can do nought in the valley.

[ed. note: The passages (Bede and Rabanus, below, and more further on) between the brackets are not found in the earlier Editions of the Catena, in the ED. PR. nor the Bodl. MS. They appear to have been inserted by Nicolai.]

[Bede, in Luc., 22, 39: Beautifully after the disciples have been filled with the Sacraments of His Body and Blood, and commended to the Father in a hymn of pious intercession, does He lead them into the mount of Olives; thus by type teaching us how we ought, by the working of His Sacraments, and the aid of His intercession, mount up to the higher gifts of the virtues and the graces of the Holy Spirit, with which we are anointed in our hearts.

Raban.: This hymn may be that thanksgiving which in John, Our Lord offers up to the Father, when He lifted up His eyes and prayed for His disciples, and those who should believe through their word. This is that of which the Psalm speaks, "The poor shall eat and be filled, they shall praise the Lord." Ps 22:26]

Chrys.: Let them hear this, who like swine with no thought but of eating rise from the table drunk, when they should have given thanks, and closed with a hymn. Let them hear who will not tarry for the final prayer in the sacred mysteries; for the last prayer of the mysteries represents that hymn. He gave thanks before He delivered the holy mysteries to the disciples, that we also might give thanks; He sung a hymn after He had delivered them, that we also should do the like.

Jerome: After this example of the Saviour, whosoever is filled and is drunken upon the bread and cup of Christ, may praise God and ascend the Mount of Olives, where is refreshment after toil, solace of grief, and knowledge of the true light.

Hilary: Hereby He shews that men confirmed by the powers of the Divine mysteries, are exalted to heavenly glory in a common joy and gladness.

Origen: Suitably also was the mount of mercy chosen whence to declare the offence of His disciples’ weakness, by One even then prepared not to reject the disciples who forsook Him, but to receive them when they returned to Him.

Jerome:  He foretels what they should suffer, that they might not after it had befallen them despair of salvation; but doing penitence might be set free.

Chrys.: In this we see what the disciples were both before and after the cross. They who could not stand with Christ whilst He was crucified, became after the death of Christ harder than adamant. This flight and fear of the disciples is a demonstration of Christ’s death against those who are infected with the heresy of Marcion. If He had been neither bound nor crucified, whence arose the terror of Peter and the rest?

Jerome: And He adds emphatically, “this night,” because as “they that are drunken are drunken by night,” [1 Thess. 5:7] so they that are scandalized are scandalized by night, and in the dark.

Hilary: The credit of this prediction is supported by the authority of old prophecy; “It is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.”

Jerome: This is found in Zacharias in words different; it is said to God in the person of the Prophet, “Smite the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered abroad.” [Zech 13:7] The good Shepherd is smitten, that He may lay down His life for His sheep, and that of many flocks of divers errors should be made one flock, and one Shepherd.

Chrys.: He produces this prophecy to teach them to attend to the things that are written, and to shew that His crucifixion was according to the counsel of God, and (as He does throughout) that He was not a stranger to the Old Testament, but that it prophesied of Him.

But He did not suffer them to continue in sorrow, but announces glad tidings, saying, “When I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee.” After His resurrection He does not appear to them immediately from heaven, nor depart into any far country, but in the very same nation in which He was crucified, almost in the very place, giving them thereby assurance, that He who was crucified was the same as He who rose again, thereby to cheer their cast-down countenances. He fixes upon Galilee, that, being delivered from fear of the Jews, they might believe what He spoke to them.

Origen: Also He foretels this to them, that they who now were somewhat dispersed in consequence of the offence, should be after gathered together by Christ rising again, and going before them into Galilee of the Gentiles.

Hilary: But Peter was carried so far by his zeal and affection for Christ, that he regarded neither the weakness of his flesh nor the truth of the Lord’s words; as if what He spake must not come to pass, “Peter answered and said unto him, Though all should be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended.”

Chrys.: What sayest thou, Peter? The Prophet says, “The sheep shall be scattered abroad,” and Christ has confirmed it, yet thou sayest, Never. When He said, “One of you shall betray me,” thou fearedst for thyself, although thou wert not conscious of such a thought; now when He openly affirms, “All ye shall be offended,” you deny it. But because when he was relieved of the anxiety he had concerning the betrayal, he grew confident concerning the rest, he therefore says thus, “I will never be offended.”Jerome: It is not wilfulness, not falsehood, but the Apostle’s faith, and ardent attachment towards the Lord his Saviour.

Remig.: What the One affirms by His power of foreknowledge, the other denies through love; whence we may take a practical lesson, that in proportion as we are confident of the warmth of our faith, we should be in fear of the weakness of our flesh. Peter seems culpable, first, because he contradicted the Lord’s words; secondly, because he set himself before the rest; and thirdly, because he attributed every thing to himself as though he had power to persevere strenuously. His fall then was permitted to heal this in him; not that be was driven to deny, but left to himself, and so convinced of the frailty of his human nature. [ed. note: Remigius has borrowed this from S. Chrysostom, in loc.]

Origen: Whence the other disciples were offended in Jesus, but Peter was not only offended, but what is much more, was suffered to deny Him thrice.

Aug., de Cons. Ev., iii, 4: Perplexity may be occasioned to some by the great difference, not in words only, but in substance, of the speeches in which Peter is forewarned by Our Lord, and which occasion his presumptuous declaration of dying with or for the Lord. Some would oblige us to understand that he thrice expressed his confidence, and the Lord thrice answered him that he would deny Him thrice before cock-crowing; as after His resurrection He thrice asked him if he loved Him, and as often gave him command to feed His sheep.

For what in language or matter has Matthew like the expressions of Peter in either Luke or John? Mark indeed relates it in nearly the same words as Matthew, only marking more precisely in the Lord’s words the manner in which it should fall in, “Verily, I say unto thee, that this day, in the night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice.” [Mark 14:30]

Whence some inattentive persons think that there is a discrepancy between Mark and the rest. For the sum of Peter’s denials is three; if the first then had been after the first cock-crowing, the other three Evangelists must be wrong when they make the Lord say that Peter should deny Him before the cock crow. But, on the other hand, if be had made all three denials before the cock began to crow, it would be superfluous in Mark to say, “Before the cock crow twice.” Forasmuch as this threefold denial was begun before the first cock-crow, the three Evangelists have marked, not when it was to be concluded, but how often it was to happen, and when to begin, that is, before cock-crow.

Though indeed if we understand it of Peter’s heart we may well say, that the whole denial was complete before the first cock-crow, seeing that before that his mind was seized with that great fear which wrought upon him to the third denial. Much less therefore ought it to disquiet us, how the three-fold denial in three distinct speeches was begun, but not finished before cock-crow. Just as though one should say, Before cock-crow you will write me a letter, in which you will revile me three times; if the letter were begun before any cock-crow, but not finished till after the first, we should not therefore say that the prediction was false.

Origen: But you will ask, whether it were possible that Peter should not have been offended, when once the Saviour had said, “All ye shalt be offended in me.” To which one will answer, what is foretold by Jesus must of necessity come to pass; and another will say, that He who at the prayer of Ninevites turned away the wrath He had denounced by Jonas, might also have averted Peter’s offence at his entreaty. But his presumptuous confidence, prompted by zeal indeed but not a cautious zeal, became the cause not only of offence but of a thrice repeated denial. And since He confirmed it with the sanction of an oath, some one will say that it was not possible that he should not have denied Him. For Christ would have  spoken falsely when he, said, “Verily I say unto thee,” if Peter’s assertion, “I will not deny thee,” had been true.

It seems to me that the other disciples having in view not that which was first said, “All ye shall be offended,” but that which was said to Peter, “Verily I say unto thee, &c.” made a like promise with Peter because they were not comprehended in the prophecy of denial. “Peter said unto him, Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee. Likewise also said all the disciples.”

Here again Peter knows not what he says; he could not die with Him who was to die for all mankind, who were all in sin, and had need of some one to die for them, not that they should die for others.

Raban.: Peter understood the Lord to have foretold that he should deny Him under terror of death, and therefore he declares that though death were imminent, nothing could shake him from his faith; and the other Apostles in like manner in the warmth of their zeal, valued not the infliction of death, but human presumption is vain without Divine aid.

Chrys.: [I suppose also that Peter fell into these words through ambition and boastfulness. And they had disputed at supper which of them should be greatest, whence we see that the love of empty glory disturbed them much. And so to deliver him from such passions, Christ withdrew His aid from him. Moreover observe how after the resurrection, taught by his fall, he speaks to Christ more humbly, and does not any more resist His words. All this his fall wrought for him; for before he had attributed all to himself, when he ought rather to have said, I will not deny Thee if Thou succour me with Thy aid. But afterwards he shews that every thing is to be ascribed to God, "Why look ye so earnestly upon us, as though by our own power and holiness we had made this man to walk?" [Acts 3:12] ]

Hence then we learn the great doctrine, that man’s wish is not enough, unless he enjoys Divine support.

Ver  36. Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto the disciples, “Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder.37. And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy.38. Then saith he unto them, “My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.”

Remig.: The Evangelist had said a little above, that “when they had sung an hymn they went out to the mount of Olives;” to point out the part of the mount to which they took their way, he now adds, “Then came Jesus with them to a garden called Gethsemane.”

Raban.: Luke says, “To the mount of Olives,” [Luke 22:39] and John, “Went forth over the brook Cedron, where was a garden,” [John 18:1] which is the same as this Gethsemane, and is a place where He prayed at the foot of mount Olivet, where is a garden, and a Church now built. [ed. note: This is probably from Areulfus' account in Adamnantus de Locis Sanctis, c. 23 (ap. Act. Benedict. iv 502) as he quoted him by name, above, p. 95]

Jerome: Gethsemane is interpreted, ‘The rich valley;’ and there He bade His disciples sit a little while, and wait His return whilst He prayed alone for all.

Origen: For it was not fitting that He should be seized in the place where He had sate and eaten the Passover with His disciples. Also He must first pray, and choose a place pure for prayer.

Chrys., Hom. lxxxiii: He says, “Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder,” because the disciples adhered inseparably to Christ; but it was His practice to pray apart from them, therein teaching us to study quiet and retirement for our prayers.

Damascenus, de Fid. Orth., iii, 24: But seeing that prayer is the sending up the understanding to God, or the asking of God things fitting, how did the Lord pray? For His understanding needed not to be lifted up to God, having been once united hypostatically to God the Word. Neither could He need to ask of God things fitting, for the One Christ is both God and Man. But giving in Himself a pattern to us, He taught us to ask of God, and to lift up our minds to Him. As He took on Him our passions, that by triumphing over them Himself, He might give us also the victory over them, so now He prays  to open to us the way to that lifting up to God, to fulfil for us all righteousness, to reconcile His Father to us, to pay honour to Him as the First Cause, and to shew that He is not against God.

Raban.: When the Lord prayed in the mountain, He taught us to make supplication for heavenly things; when He prays in the garden, He teaches us to study humility in our prayer. And beautifully, as He draws near His Passion, does He pray in the ‘valley of fatness’ shewing that through the valley of humility, and the richness of charity, He took upon Him death for our sakes.

The practical instruction which we may also learn from this is, that we should not suffer our heart to dry up from the richness of charity.

Remig.: He had accepted the disciples’ faith and the devotedness of their will, but He foresaw that they would be troubled and scattered abroad, and therefore bade them sit still in their places; for to sit belongs to one at ease, but they would be grievously troubled that they should have denied Him.

In what fashion He went forward it describes, “And taking with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, he began to be sorrowful and very heavy;” the same to whom He had shewn His glory in the mount.

Hilary: These words, He began to be sorrowful and very heavy, are interpreted by heretics that fear of death assailed the Son of God, being (as they allege) neither begotten from eternity, nor existing in the Father’s infinite substance, but produced out of nothing by Him who created all things; and that hence He was liable to anguish of grief, and fear of death. And He who can fear death can also die; and He who can die, though He shall exist after death, yet is not eternal through Him who begot Him in past time.

Had these faith to receive the Gospels, they would know that the Word was in the beginning God, and from the beginning with God, and that the eternity of Him who begets and Him who is begotten is one and the same. But if the assumption of flesh infected with its natural infirmity the virtue of that incorruptible substance, so that it became subject to pain, and shrinking from death, it would also become thereby liable to corruption, and thus its immortality being changed into fear, that which is in it is capable of at some time ceasing to be. But God ever is without measure of time, and such as He is, He continues to  be eternally. Nothing then in God can die, nor can God have any fear springing out of Himself.

Jerome, Hieron. non. occ: But we say that passible man was so taken by God the Son, that His Deity remained impassible. Indeed the Son of God suffered, not by imputation but actually, all that Scripture testifies, in respect of that part of Him which could suffer, viz. in respect of the substance that He had taken on Him.

Hilary, de Trin., x, 10: I suppose that there are some who offer here no other cause of His fear than His passion and death. I ask those who think thus, whether it stands with reason that He should have feared to die, who banished from the Apostles all fear of death, and exhorted them to the glory of martyrdom?

How can we suppose Him to have felt pain and grief in the sacrament of death, who rewards with life those who die for Him? And what pangs of death could He fear, who came to death of the free choice of His own power? And if His Passion was to do Him honour, how could the fear of His Passion make Him sorrowful?

Hilary, in loc.: Since then we read that the Lord was sorrowful, let us discover the causes of His agony. He had forewarned them all that they would be offended, and Peter that he would thrice deny his Lord; and taking him and James and John, He began to be sorrowful. Therefore He was not sorrowful till He took them, but all His fear began after He had taken them; so that His agony was not for Himself, but for them whom He had taken.

Jerome: The Lord therefore sorrowed not from fear of suffering, for for this cause He had come that He should suffer, and had rebuked Peter for his fearfulness; [marg. note: Matt 14:40] but for the wretched Judas, for the offence of the rest of the Apostles, for the rejection and reprobation of the Jewish nation, and the overthrow of unhappy Jerusalem.

Damas., Fid. Orth., iii, 23: Or otherwise; All things which have not yet been brought into existence by their Maker have a natural desire of existence, and naturally shun non-existence. God the Word then, having been made Man, had this desire, through which He desired food, drink, and sleep, by which life is supported, and naturally used them, and contrariwise shunned the things that are destructive of life. Hence in the season of His Passion which He endured voluntarily, He had the natural fear and sorrow for death. For there is a natural fear wherewith the soul shrinks  from separation from the body, by reason of that close sympathy implanted from the first by the Maker of all things.

Jerome: Our Lord therefore sorrowed to prove the reality of the Man which He had taken upon Him; but that passion might bear no sway in His mind, “He began to be sorrowful” by pro-passion [ed. note: see ch. 5, page 185]; for it is one thing to be sorrowful, and another to be very sorrowful.

Remig.: By this place are overthrown the Manichaeans, who said that He took an unreal body; and those also who said that He had not a real soul, but His Divinity in place of a soul. [marg. note: e.g. Apollinaris]

Aug., Lib. 83 Quaest. Q80: We have the narratives of the Evangelists, by which we know that Christ was both born of the Blessed Virgin Mary, was seized by the Jews, scourged, crucified, put to death, and buried in a tomb, all which cannot be supposed to have taken place without a body, and not even the maddest will say that these things are to be understood figuratively, when they are told by men who wrote what they remembered to have happened.

These then are witnesses that He had a body, as those affections which cannot be without mind prove Him to have had a mind, and which we read in the accounts of the same Evangelists, that Jesus wondered, was angry, was sorrowful.

Aug., City of God, book xiv, ch. 9: Since then these things are related in the Evangelists, they are not surely false, but as when He willed He became Man, so likewise when He willed He took into His human soul these passions for the sake of adding assurance to the dispensation. We indeed have these passions by reason of the weakness of our human nature; not so the Lord Jesus, whose weakness was of power.

Damas., Fid. Orth., iii, 20: Wherefore the passions of our nature were in Christ both by nature and beyond nature. By nature, because He left His flesh to suffer the things incidental to it; beyond nature, because these natural emotions did not in Him precede the will. For in Christ nothing befel of compulsion, but all was voluntary; with His will He hungered, with His will He feared, or was sorrowful.

Here His sorrow is declared, “Then saith he unto them, My soul is sorrowful even unto death.”

Ambrose, in Luc. 23, 43: He is sorrowful, yet not Himself, but His soul; not His Wisdom, not His divine Substance, but His soul, for He took upon Him  my soul, and my body.

Jerome: He is sorrowful not because of death, but “unto death,” until He has set the Apostles free by His Passion. Let those who imagine Jesus to have taken an irrational soul, say how it is that He is thus sorrowful, and knows the season of His sorrow, for though the brute animals have sorrow, yet they know neither the causes of it, nor the time for which it must endure.

Origen: Or otherwise; “My soul is sorrowful even unto death;” as much as to say, Sorrow is begun in me, but not to endure for ever, but only till the hour of death; that when I shall die for sin, I shall die also to all sorrow, whose beginnings only are in me. “Tarry ye here, and watch with me;” as much as to say, The rest I bade sit yonder as weak, removing them from this struggle; but you I have brought hither as being stronger, that ye may toil with me in watching and prayer. But abide you here, that every man may stay in his own rank and station; since all grace, however great, has its superior.

Jerome: Or the sleep which He would have them forego is not bodily rest, for which at this critical time there was no room, but mental torpor, the sleep of unbelief.

Ver  39. And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.”40. And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, “What, could ye not watch with me one hour?41. Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.”42. He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, “O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.”43. And he came and found them asleep again for their eyes were heavy.44. And he left them, and went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words.

Origen: He took with Him the self-confident Peter, and the others, that they might see Him falling on His face and praying, and might learn not to think great things, but little things of themselves, and not to be hasty in promising, but careful in prayer. And therefore, “He went forward a little,” not to go far from them, but that He might be near them in His prayer.

Also, He who had said above, “Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart,” now commendably humbling Himself, falls on His face. But He shews His devotion in His prayer, and as beloved and well-pleasing to His Father, He adds, “Not as I will, but as thou wilt,” teaching us that we should pray, not that our own will, but that God’s will, should be done.

And as He began to have fear and sorrow, He prays accordingly that the cup of His Passion may pass from Him, yet not as He wills, but as His Father wills; wills, that is, not according to His Divine and impassible Substance, but according to His human and weak nature. For in taking upon Him the nature of human flesh, He fulfilled all the properties thereof, that it might be seen that He had flesh not in appearance only, but in reality.

The believer indeed must in the first instance be loth to incur pain, seeing it leads to death, and he is a man of flesh; but if it be God’s will, he acquiesces because he is a believer. For as we ought not to be too confident that we may not seem to make a boast of our own strength; so neither ought we to be distrustful, lest we should seem to charge God our helper with weakness.

It is to be observed that Mark and Luke write the same, but John does not introduce this prayer of Jesus’, that this cup may pass from Him, because the first three are rather occupied about Him, according to His human nature, John according to His divine.  Otherwise; Jesus makes this petition, because He sees what the Jews will suffer for requiring His death.

Jerome: Whence He says emphatically, “This cup,” that is, of this people of the Jews, who, if they shall put Me to death, can have no excuse for their ignorance, seeing they have the Law and the Prophets, who speak of Me.

Origen: Then again considering the benefit that would accrue to the whole world from His Passion, He says, “But not as I will, but as thou wilt;” i.e. If it be possible for all these benefits which shall result from My Passion to be procured without it, let it pass from Me, and both the world be saved, and the Jews not be condemned in putting Me to death.

But if the salvation of many cannot be procured without the destruction of a few, saving Thy justice, let it not pass away. Scripture, in many places, speaks of passion as a cup that is drained; and it is drained by him, who in testimony suffers whatever is inflicted upon him. He sheds it, on the contrary, who denies in order to avoid suffering.

Aug., de Cons. Ev., iii, 4: And that none might think that He limited His Father’s power, He said not, “If thou canst do it,” but “If it may be,” or, “If it be possible;” as much as to say, If thou wilt. For whatever God wills can be done, as Luke expresses more plainly; for he says not, “If it be possible,” but “If thou wilt.”

Hilary: Otherwise; He says not, Let this cup pass away from Me, for that would be the speech of one who feared it; but He prays that it may pass not so as that He should be passed over, but that when it has passed from Him, it may go to another. His whole fear then is for those who were to suffer, and therefore He prays for those who were to suffer after Him, saying, “Let this cup pass from me,” i.e. as it is drunk by Me, so let it be drunk by these, without mistrust, without sense of pain, without fear of death. He says, “If it be possible,” because flesh and blood shrink from these things, and it is hard for human bodies not to sink beneath their infliction. That He says, “Not as I will, but as thou wilt,” He would fain indeed that they should not suffer, lest their faith should fail in their sufferings, if indeed we might attain to the glory of our joint inheritance with Him without the hardship of sharing in His Passion.

He says, “Not as I will, but as thou wilt,” because it is the Father’s will that strength to drink of the cup should pass from Him to them, that the Devil might be vanquished not so much by Christ as by His disciples also.

Aug., in Ps. 32, enar. 2: Christ thus as man shews a certain private human will, in which He who is our head figures both His own will and ours when He says, “Let it pass from me.” For this was His human will choosing something as apart for Himself. But because as man He would be righteous and guide Himself by God’s will, He adds, “Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt;” as much as to say to us, Man, behold thyself in Me, that thou canst will somewhat apart of thyself, and though God’s will is other, this is permitted to human frailty.

Leo, Serm., 58, 5: This speech of the Head is the health of the whole body, this saying is instruction to the faithful, animates the confessor, crowns the martyr. For who could vanquish the hatred of the world, or the whirlwind of temptations, or the terrors of the persecutors, if Christ did not in all and for all say to the Father, “Thy will be done.”

Let all the sons of the Church then utter this prayer, that when the pressure of some mighty temptation lies upon them, they may embrace endurance of the suffering, disregarding its terrors.

Origen: And though Jesus went but a “little forward,” they could not watch one hour in His absence; let us therefore pray that Jesus may never depart even a little from us.

Chrys.: He “finds them sleeping,” both because it was a late hour of the night, and their eyes were heavy with sorrow.

Hilary: When then He returned to His disciples and found them sleeping, He rebukes Peter, “Could ye not watch one hour with me?” He addresses Peter rather than the rest, because be had most loudly boasted that he would not be offended.

Chrys.: But as they had all said the same, He charges them all with weakness; they had chosen to die with Christ, and yet could not even watch with Him.

Origen: Finding them thus sleeping, He rouses them with a word to hearken, and commands them to watch; “Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation;” that first we should watch, and so watching pray. He watches who does good works, and is careful that He does not run into any dark doctrine, for so the prayer of the watchful is heard.

Jerome: It is impossible that the human mind should not be tempted, therefore He says not “Watch and pray” that ye be not tempted, but “that ye enter not into temptation,” that is, that temptation vanquish you not.

Hilary: And why He thus encouraged them to pray that they might not enter into temptation, He adds, “For the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak;” this He says not of Himself, but addresses them.

Jerome: This is against those rash persons who think that whatever they believe they can perform. The more confident we are of our zeal, the more mistrustful should we be of the frailty of the flesh.

Origen: Here it should be enquired, whether as all men’s flesh is weak, so all men’s spirit is willing, or whether only that of the saints; and whether in unbelievers the spirit is not also dull, as the flesh is weak. In another sense the flesh of those only is weak whose spirit is willing, and who with their willing spirit do mortify the deeds of the flesh. These then He would have watch and pray that they should not enter into temptation, for the more spiritual any one may be, the more careful should he be that his goodness should not suffer a great fall.

Remig.: Otherwise; In these words He shews that He took real flesh of the Virgin, and had a real soul, saying that His spirit is willing to suffer, but His flesh weak in fearing the pain of Passion.

Origen: There were, I conclude, two ways in which this cup of Passion might pass from the Lord. If He should drink it, it would pass away from Him, and afterwards from the whole race of mankind also; if He should not drink it, it would perhaps pass from Him, but from men it would not pass. He would fain therefore that it should so pass from Him as that He should not at all taste its bitterness, yet only if it were possible, saving the righteousness of God. If it were not possible, He was rather willing to drink it, that so it might pass from Him, and from the whole race of mankind rather than against His Father’s will shun the drinking thereof.

Chrys.: That He prays for this a second and a third time, comes of the feelings belonging to human frailty, through which also He feared death, thus giving assurance that He was truly made man. For in Scripture when any thing is repeated a second and third time, that is the greatest proof of its truth and reality; as, for example, when Joseph says to Pharaoh, “And for that thou sawedst it twice, it is proof of the thing being established by God.” [Gen 41:32]

Jerome: Or otherwise; He prays a second time that if Nineveh, or the Gentile world, cannot be saved unless the gourd, i.e. the Jews, be withered, His Father’s will may be done, which is not contrary to the Son’s will, who Himself speaks by the Prophet, “I am content to do thy will, 0 God.” [Ps 40:8]

Hilary: Otherwise, He bare in His own body all the infirmities of us His disciples who should suffer, and nailed to His cross all wherein we are distressed; and therefore that cup cannot pass from Him, unless He drink it, because we cannot suffer, except by His passion.

Jerome: Christ singly prays for all,as He singly suffers for all. “Their eyes were heavy,” i.e. an oppression and stupefaction came on as their denial drew near.

Origen: And I suppose that the eyes of their body were not so much affected as the eyes of their mind, because the Spirit was not yet given them. Wherefore He does not rebuke them, but goes again and prays, teaching us that we should not faint but should persevere in prayer, until we obtain what we have begun to ask.

Jerome: He prayed the third time, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word might be established.

Raban: Or, The Lord prayed thrice, to teach us to pray for pardon of sins past, defence against present evil, and provision against future perils, and that we should address every prayer to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that our spirit, soul, and body should be kept in safety.

Aug., Quaest Ev., i, 47: Nor is that an absurd interpretation which makes Our Lord pray thrice because of the threefold temptation of His Passion. To the temptation of curiosity is opposed the fear of death; for as the one is a yearning for the knowledge of things, so the other is the fear of losing such knowledge. To the desire of honour or applause is opposed the dread of disgrace and insult. To the desire of pleasure is opposed the fear of pain.

Remig.: Or, He prays thrice for the Apostles, and for Peter in particular, who was to deny Him thrice.

Ver  45. Then cometh he to his disciples, and saith unto them, “Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.46. Rise, let us be going: behold, he is at hand that doth betray me.”

Hilary: After His persevering prayer, after His departures and several returns, He takes away their fear, restores their confidence, and exhorts them to “sleep on, and take their rest.”

Chrys.: Indeed it behoved them to watch, but He said this to shew that the prospect of coming evils was more than they would bear, that He had no need of their aid, and that it must needs be that He should be delivered up.

Hilary: Or, He bids them “sleep on, and take their rest,” because He now confidently awaited His Father’s will concerning the disciples, concerning which He had said, “Thy will be done,” and in obedience to which He drunk the cup that was to pass from Him to us, diverting upon Himself the weakness of our body, the terrors of dismay, and even the pains of death itself.

Origen: Or, the sleep He now bids His disciples take is of a different sort from that which is related above to have befallen them. Then He found them sleeping, not taking repose, but because their eyes were heavy, but now they are not merely to sleep, but to “take their rest,” that this order may be rightly observed, namely, that we first watch with prayer that we enter not into temptation, and afterwards sleep and take our rest, when having “found a place for the Lord, a tabernacle for the God of Jacob,” we may “go up into our bed, and give sleep to our eyes.” [Ps 132:3]

It may be also that the soul, unable to sustain a continual energy by reason of its union with the flesh, may blamelessly admit some relaxations, which may be the moral interpretation of slumbers, and then again after due time be quickened to new energy.

Hilary: And whereas, when He returned and found them sleeping, He rebukes them the first time, the second time says nothing, the third time bids them take their rest; the interpretation of this is, that at the first after His resurrection, when He finds them dispersed, distrustful, and timorous, He rebukes them; the second time, when their eyes were heavy to look upon the liberty of the Gospel, He visited them, sending them the Spirit, the Paraclete; for, held back by attachment to the Law, they slumbered in respect of faith; but the third time, when He shall come in His glory, He shall restore them to quietness and confidence.

Origen: When He had roused them from sleep, seeing in the Spirit Judas drawing near to betray Him, though the disciples could not yet see him, He says, “Behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.”

Chrys.: The words, “the hour is at hand,” point out that all that has been done was by Divine interference; and that, “into the hands of sinners,” shew that this was the work of their wickedness, not that He was guilty of any crime.

Origen: And even now Jesus “is betrayed into the hands of sinners,” when those who seem to believe in Jesus, continue to sin while they have Him in their hands. Also whenever a righteous man, who has Jesus in Him, is put into the power of sinners, Jesus is delivered into the hands of sinners.

Jerome: Having concluded His third prayer, and having obtained that the Apostles’ terror should be corrected by subsequent penitence, He goes forth undaunted by the prospect of His own Passion to meet His pursuers, and offers Himself voluntarily to be sacrificed.

“Arise, let us be going;” as much as to say, Let them not find you trembling, let us go forth willingly to death, that they may see us confident and rejoicing in suffering; “Lo, he that shall betray me draweth near.”

Origen: He says not, Draws near to thee, for indeed the traitor was not near Him, but had removed himself far off through his sins.

Aug., de Cons. Ev., iii, 4: This speech as Matthew has it seems self-contradictory. For how could He say, “Sleep on, and take your rest,” and immediately continue, “Rise, let us be going.” This contradiction some have endeavoured to reconcile by supposing the words, “Sleep on, and take your rest,” to be an ironical rebuke, and not a permission; it might be rightly so taken if need were. But as Mark records it, when He had said, “Sleep on, and take your rest,” He added, “it is enough,” and then continued, “The hour is come, behold, the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners;” [Mark 14:41] we clearly understand the Lord to have been silent some time after He had said, “Sleep on,” to allow of their doing so, and then after some interval to have roused them with, “Behold, the hour is at hand.” And as Mark fills up the sense with, “it is enough,” that is, ye have had rest enough.

Ver  47. And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the Chief Priests and elders of the people.48. Now he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying, “Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he: hold him fast.”49. And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, “Hail, Master;” and kissed him.50. And Jesus said unto him, “Friend, wherefore art thou come?” Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus, and took him.

Gloss., non occ.: Having said above that the Lord offered Himself of His own accord to His pursuers, the Evangelist proceeds to relate how He was seized by them.

Remig.: “One of the twelve,” by association of name, not of desert. This shews the monstrous wickedness of the man who from the dignity of the Apostleship became the traitor. To shew that it was out of envy that they seized Him, it is added, “A great multitude sent by the Chief Priests and elders of the people.”

Origen: Some may say that a great multitude came, because of the great multitude of those who already believed, who, they feared, might rescue Him out of their hands; but I think there is another reason for this, and that is, that they who thought that He cast out daemons through Beelzebub, supposed that by some magic He might escape the hands of those who sought to hold Him. Even now do many fight against Jesus with spiritual weapons, to wit, with divers and shifting dogmas concerning God.

It deserves enquiry why, when He was known by face to all who dwelt in Judaea, he should have given them a sign, as though they were unacquainted with His person. But a tradition to this effect has come down to us, that not only had He two different forms, one under which He appeared to men, the other into which He was transfigured before His disciples in the mount, but also that He appeared to each man in such degree as the beholder was worthy; in like manner as we read of the manna, that it had a flavour adapted to every variety of use, and as the word of God shews not alike to all. They   required therefore a sign by reason of this His transfiguration.

Chrys.: Or, because whenever they had hitherto attempted to seize Him, He had escaped them they knew not how; as also He might then have done had He been so minded.

Raban.: The Lord suffered the traitor’s kiss, not to teach us to dissemble, but that He might not seem to shrink from His betrayal.

Origen: If it be asked why Judas betrayed Jesus with a kiss, according to some it was because He desired to keep up the reverence due to his Master, and did not dare to make an open assault upon Him; according to others, it was out of fear that if he came as an avowed enemy, be might be the cause of His escape, which he believed Jesus had it in His power to effect.

But I think that all betrayers of truth love to assume the guise of truth, and to use the sign of a kiss. Like Judas also, all heretics call Jesus Rabbi, and receive from Him mild answer.

“And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come?” He says, “Friend,” upbraiding his hypocrisy; for in Scripture we never find this term of address used to any of the good, but as above, “Friend, how camest thou in hither?” [Matt 22:12] and, “Friend, I do thee no wrong.” [Matt 20:13]

Aug., non occ.: He says, “Wherefore art thou come?” as much as to say, Thy kiss is a snare for Me; I know wherefore thou art come; thou feignest thyself My friend, being indeed My betrayer.

Remig.: Or, after “Friend, for what thou art come,” that do, is understood. “Then came they, and laid their hands on Jesus, and held him.”

“Then,” that is, when He suffered them, for ofttimes they would have done it, but were not able.

Pseudo-Aug., Serm. de Symb. ad Catech. 6: Exult, Christian, you have gained by this bargain of your enemies; what Judas sold, and what the Jews bought, belongs to you.

Ver  51. And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the High Priest’s, and smote off his ear.52. Then said Jesus unto him, “Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.53. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?54. But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?”

Chrys., Hom. lxxxiv: So Luke relates, the Lord had said to His disciples at supper, “He that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one;” [Luke 22:36] and the disciples answered, “Lo, here are two swords.”

It was natural that there should be swords there for the paschal lamb which they had been eating. Hearing then that the pursuers were coming to apprehend Christ, when they went out from supper they took these swords, as though to fight in defence of their Master against His pursuers.

Jerome: In another Gospel [marg. note: John 18:19], Peter is represented as having done this, and with his usual hastiness; and that the servant’s name was Malchus, and that the ear was the right ear. In passing we may say, that Malchus, i.e. one who should have been king of the Jews, was made the slave of the ungodliness and the greediness of the Priests, and lost his right ear so that he might hear only the worthlessness of the letter in his left.

Origen: For though they seem even now to hear the Law, yet is it only with the left ear that they hear the shadow of a tradition concerning the Law, and not the truth. The people of the Gentiles is signified by Peter; for by believing in Christ, they become the cause of cutting off the Jews’ right ear.

Raban.: Or, Peter does not take away the sense of understanding from them that hear, but opens to the careless that which by a divine sentence was taken away from them; but this same right ear is restored to its original function in those who out of this nation believed.

Hilary: Otherwise; The ear of the High Priest’s servant is cut off by the Apostle, that is, Christ’s disciple cuts off the disobedient hearing of a people which were the slaves of the Priesthood, the ear which had refused to hear is cut off so that it is no longer capable of hearing.

Leo, Serm. 22: The Lord of the zealous Apostle will not suffer his pious feeling to proceed further, “Then saith Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place.” For it was contrary to the sacrament of our redemption that He, who had come to die for all, should refuse to be apprehended. He gives therefore licence to their fury against Him, lest by putting off the triumph of His glorious Cross, the dominion of the Devil should be made longer, and the captivity of men more enduring.

Raban.: It behoved also that the Author of grace should teach the faithful patience by His own example, and should rather train them to endure adversity with fortitude, than incite them to self-defence.

Chrys.: To move the disciple to this, He adds a threat, saying, “All they that take the sword, shall perish by the sword.”

Aug., cont. Faust., xxii, 70: That is, every one who uses the sword. And he uses the sword, who, without the command or sanction of any superior, or legitimate authority, arms himself against man’s life. For truly the Lord had given commandment to His disciples to take the sword, but not to smite with the sword. Was it then at all unbeseeming that Peter after this sin should become ruler of the Church, as Moses after smiting the Egyptian was made ruler and chief of the Synagogue? For both transgressed the rule not through hardened ferocity, but through a warmth of spirit capable of good; both through hatred of the injustice of others; both sinned through love, the one for his brother, the other for his Lord, though a carnal love.

Hilary: But all who use the sword do not perish by the sword; of those who have used the sword either judicially, or in self-defence against robbers, fever or accident carries off the greater part. Though if according to this every one who uses the sword shall perish by the sword, justly was the sword now drawn against those who were using the same for the promotion of crime.

Jerome: With what sword then shall he perish, that takes the sword? By that fiery sword which waves before the gate of paradise, and that sword of the Spirit which is described in the armour of God.

Hilary: The Lord then bids him return his sword into its sheath, because He would destroy them by no weapon of man, but by the sword of His mouth.

Remig.: Otherwise; Every one who uses the sword to put man to death perishes first by the sword of his own wickedness.

Chrys.: He not only soothed His disciples, by this declaration of punishment against His enemies, but convinced them that it was voluntarily that He suffered, “Thinkest thou that I cannot pray to my Father, &c.” Because He had shewn many qualities of human infirmity, He would have seemed to say what was incredible, if He had said that He had power to destroy them, therefore He says, “Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father?”

Jerome: That is to say, I need not the aid of the Apostles, though all the twelve should fight for me, seeing I could have twelve legions of the Angelic army. The complement of a legion among the ancients was six thousand men; twelve legions then are seventy-two thousand Angels, being as many as the divisions of the human race and language.

[ed. note: It was generally supposed that in the dispersion at Babel, mankind was divided into seventy-two nations, each speaking a different language. For that is the number of the heads of families enumerated in the genealogy, in Gen. xi. See Aug. de Civ. Dei, xvi. 6.]

Origen: This shews that the armies of heaven have divisions into legions like earthly armies, in the warfare of the Angels against the legions of the daemons. This He said not as though He needed the aid of the Angels, but speaking in accordance with the supposition of Peter, who sought to give Him assistance. Truly the Angels have more need of the help of the Only-begotten Son of God, than He of theirs.

Remig.: We might also understand by the Angels the Roman armies, for with Titus and Vespasian all languages had risen against Judaea, and that was fulfilled, “The whole world shall fight for him against those foolish men.” [Wisdom 5:21]

Chrys.: And He quiets their fears not thus only, but by reference to Scripture, “How then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled that thus it must be?”

Jerome: This speech shews a mind willing to suffer; vainly would the Prophets have prophesied truly, unless the Lord asserts their truth by His suffering.

Ver  55. In that same hour said Jesus to the multitudes, “Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves for to take me? I sat daily with you in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me.56. But all this was done, that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.57. And they that had laid hold on Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the High Priest, where the Scribes and the elders were assembled.58. But Peter followed him afar off unto the High Priest’s palace, and went in, and sat with the servants, to see the end.

Origen: Having commanded Peter to put up his sword, which was an instance of patience, and having (as another Evangelist writes [marg. note: Luke 22:51]) healed the ear that was cut off, which waS an instance of the greatest mercy, and of Divine power, it now follows, “In that hour said Jesus to the multitudes, (to the end that if they could not remember His past goodness, they might at least confess His present,) Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves for to take me?”

Remig.: As much as to say, Robbers assault and study concealment; I have injured no one, but have healed many, and have ever taught in your synagogues.

Jerome: It is folly then to seek with swords and staves Him who offers Himself to your hands, and with a traitor to hunt out, as though lurking under cover of night, one who is daily teaching in the temple.

Chrys.: They did not lay hands on Him in the temple because they feared the multitude, therefore also the Lord went forth that He might give them place and opportunity to take Him. This then teaches them, that if He had not suffered them of His own free choice, they would never have had strength to take Him. Then the Evangelist assigns the reason why the Lord was willing to be taken, adding, “All this was done that the Scriptures of the Prophets might be fulfilled.”

Jerome: “They pierced my hands and my feet;” [Ps 22:16] and in another place, “He is led as a sheep to the slaughter;” and, “By the iniquities of my people was He led to death.” [Isa 53:7-8]

Remig.: For because all the Prophets had foretold Christ’s Passion, he does not cite any particular place, but says generally that the prophecies of all the Prophets were being fulfilled.

Chrys.: The disciples who had remained when the Lord was apprehended, fled when He spoke these things to the multitudes, “Then all the disciples forsook him and fled;” for they then understood that He could not escape but rather gave Himself up voluntarily.

Remig.: In this act is shewn the Apostles’ frailty; in the first ardour of their faith they had promised to die with Him, but in their fear they forgot their promise and fled. The same we may see in those who undertake to do great things for the love of God, but fail to fulfil what they undertake; they ought not to despair, but to rise again with the Apostles, and recover themselves by penitence.

Raban.: Mystically, As Peter, who by tears washed away the sin of his denial, figures the recovery of those who lapse in time of martyrdom; so the flight of the other disciples suggests the precaution of flight to such as feel themselves unfit to endure torments.

Aug., de Cons. Ev., iii, 6: “They that had laid hold on Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas the High Priest.” But He was first taken to Annas, father-in-law to Caiaphas, as John relates. And He was taken bound, there being with that multitude a tribune and cohort, as John also records. [John 18:12]

Jerome: But Josephus writes [ed. note: "Josephus (Ant. xviii. 3 and 4,) twice mentions this Caiaphas as the successor of Simon the son of Camithes, but we do not find that he purchased the High Priesthood of Herod." Vallarsi.], that this Caiaphas had purchased the priesthood of a single year, notwithstanding that Moses, at God’s command, had directed that High Priests should succeed hereditarily, and that in the Priests likewise succession by birth should be followed up. No wonder then that an unrighteous High Priest should judge unrighteously.

Raban.: And the action suits his name; Caiaphas, i.e. ‘contriving,’ or, ‘politic,’ to execute his villainy; or ‘vomiting from his mouth,’ because of his audacity in uttering a lie, and bringing about the murder. They took Jesus thither, that they might do all advisedly; as it follows, “Where the Scribes and the Elders were assembled.”

Origen: Where Caiaphas the High Priest is, there are assembled the Scribes, that is, the men of the letter [marg. note: literati], who preside over the letter that killeth; and Elders, not in truth, but in the obsolete ancientness of the letter.

It follows, “Peter followed Him afar off,” He would neither keep close to Him, nor altogether leave Him, but “followed afar off.”

Chrys.: Great was the zeal of Peter, who fled not when He saw the others fly, but remained, and entered in. For though John also went in, yet he was known to the Chief Priest. He “followed afar off,” because he was about to deny his Lord.

Remig.: For had he kept close to his Lord’s side, he could never have denied Him. This also shews that Peter should follow his Lord’s Passion, that is, imitate it.

Aug., Quaest. Ev., i, 46: And also that the Church should follow, i.e. imitate, the Lord’s Passion, but with great difference. For the Church suffers for itself, but Christ for the Church.

Jerome: He went in, either out of the attachment of a disciple, or natural curiosity, seeking to know what sentence the High Priest would pass, whether death, or scourging.

Ver  59. Now the Chief Priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death;60. But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the last came two false witnesses,61. And said, “This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.”62. And the High Priest arose, and said unto him, “Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?”63. But Jesus held his peace. And the High Priest answered and said unto him, “I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.”64. Jesus saith unto him, “Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.”65. Then the High Priest rent his clothes, saying, “He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.66. What think ye?” They answered and said, He is guilty of death.67. Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands,68. Saying, “Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?”

Chrys.: When the Chief Priests were thus assembled, this conventicle of ruffians sought to give their conspiracy the character of a legal trial. But it was entirely a scene of confusion and uproar, as what follows shews, “Though many false witnesses came, yet found they none.”

Origen: False witnesses have place when there is any good colour for their testimony. But no pretext was found which could further their falsehoods against Jesus; notwithstanding there were many desirous to do a favour to the Chief Priests. This then is a great testimony in favour of Jesus, that He had lived and taught so irreproachably, that though they were many, and crafty, and wicked, they could find no semblance of fault in Him.

Jerome: “At last came two false witnesses.” How are they false witnesses, when they repeat only what we read that the Lord spoke? A false witness is one who takes what is said in a different sense from that in which it was said. Now this the Lord had spoken of the temple of His Body, and they cavil at His expressions, and by a slight change and addition produce a plausible charge. The Lord’s words were, “Destroy this temple;” [John 2:19] this they make into, I can destroy the Temple of God. He said, “Destroy,” not, I will destroy, because it is unlawful to lay hands on ourselves.

Also they phrased it, “And build it again,” making it apply to the temple of the Jews; but the Lord had said, “And I will raise it up again,” thus clearly pointing out a living and breathing temple. For to build again, and to raise again, are two different things.

Chrys.: Why did they not bring forward now His breaking the Sabbath? Because He had so often confuted them on this point.

Jerome: Headlong and uncontrolled rage, unable to find even a false accusation, moves the High Priest from his throne, the motion of his body shewing the emotion of his mind.

“And the High Priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing to the things which these witness against Thee?”

Chrys.: He said this with a design to draw from Him some indefensible answer which might be made a snare for Him. But “Jesus held his peace,” for defence had availed nothing when none would listen to it. For here was only a mockery of justice, it was in truth nothing more than the anarchy of a den of robbers.

Origen: This place teaches us to contemn the clamours of slanderers and false witnesses, and not to consider those who speak unbeseeming things of us worthy of an answer; but then, above all, when it is greater to be manfully and resolutely silent, than to plead our cause in vain.

Jerome: For as God, He knew that whatever He said would be twisted into an accusation against Him. But at this His silence before false witnesses and ungodly Priests, the High Priest was exasperated, and summons Him to answer, that from any thing He says he may raise a charge against Him.

Origen: Under the Law, we do indeed find many instances of this adjuration; but I judge that a man who would live according to the Gospel should not adjure another; for if we are not permitted to swear, surely not to adjure. [marg. note: Numb 5:19, 1 Ki 22:16]

But he that regards Jesus commanding the daemons, and giving His disciples power over them, will say, that to address the daemons by the power given by the Saviour, is not to adjure them. But the High Priest did sin in laying a snare for Jesus; imitating his father, who twice asked the Saviour, “If thou be Christ the Son of God.” Hence one might rightly say, that to doubt concerning the Son of God, whether Christ be He, is the work of the Devil. It was not fit that the Lord should answer the High Priest’s adjuration as though under compulsion, wherefore He neither denied nor confessed Himself to be the Son of God. For he was not worthy to be the object of Christ’s teaching, therefore He does not instruct him, but taking up his own words retorts them upon him. This sitting of the Son of Man seems to me to denote a certain regal security; by the power of God, Who is the only power, is He securely seated to Whom is given by His Father all power in heaven as in earth.

And there will come a time when the enemies shall see this establishment. Indeed this has begun to be fulfilled from the earliest time of the dispensation; for the disciples saw Him rising from the dead, and thereby saw Him seated on the right band of power.

Or, In respect of that eternity of duration which is with God, from the beginning of the world to the end of it is but one day; it is therefore no wonder that the Saviour here says, “Shortly,” signifying that there is but short time before the end come. He prophesies moreover, that they should not only see Him “sitting at the right hand of power,” but also “coming in the clouds of heaven.” These clouds are the Prophets and Apostles, whom He commands to rain when it is required, they are the clouds that pass not away, but “bearing the image of the heavenly,” [1 Cor 15:49] are worthy to be the throne of God, as “heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ.” [Rom 8:17]

Jerome: The same fury which drew the High Priest from his seat, impels him now to rend his clothes; for so it was customary with the Jews to do whenever they heard any blasphemy, or any thing against God.

Chrys.: This He did to give weight to the accusation, and to confirm by deeds what He taught in words.

Jerome: And by this rending his garments, he shews that the Jews have lost the priestly glory, and that their High Priest’s throne was vacant. For by rending his garment he rent the veil of the Law which covered him.

Chrys.: Then, after rending his garment, he did not give sentence of himself, but asked of others, saying, “What think ye?” As was always done in undeniable cases of sin, and manifest blasphemy, and as by force driving them to a certain opinion, he anticipates the answer, “What need we any further witnesses? Behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.”

What was this blasphemy? For before He had interpreted to them as they were gathered together that text, “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,” [Matt 22:44] and they had held their peace, and had not contradicted Him. How then do they call what He now says blasphemy? “They answered and said, He is guilty of death,” the same persons at once accusers, examiners, and sentencers.

Origen: How great their error! to pronounce the principle of all men’s life to be guilty of death, and not to acknowledge by  the testimony of the resurrection of so many, the Fount of life, from Whom life flows to all that rise again.

Chrys., Hom. lxxxv: As hunters who have started their game, so they exhibit a wild and drunken exultation.

Jerome: “They spit in his face, and buffeted him,” to fulfil the prophecy of Esaias, “I gave my cheek to the smiters, and turned not away my face from shame and spitting.” [Isa 50:6]

Gloss., ord.: “Prophesy unto us” is said in ridicule of His claim to be held as a Prophet by the people.

Jerome: But it would have been foolish to have answered them that smote Him, and to have declared the smiter, seeing that in their madness they seem to have struck Him openly.

Chrys.: Observe how circumstantially the Evangelist recounts all those particulars even which seem most disgraceful, hiding or extenuating nothing, but thinking it the highest glory that the Lord of the earth should endure such things for us. This let us read continually, let us imprint in our minds, and in these things let us boast.

Aug., Quaest. Ev., i, 44: That, “they did spit in his face,” signifies those who reject His proffered grace. They likewise buffet Him who prefer their own honour to Him; and they smite Him on the face, who, blinded with unbelief, affirm that He is not yet come, disowning and rejecting His person.

Ver  69. Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, “Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee.”70. But he denied before them all, saying, “I know not what thou sayest.”71. And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, “This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth.”72. And again he denied with an oath, “I do not know the man.”73. And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, “Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech bewrayeth thee.”74. Then began he to curse and to swear, saying,  “I know not the Man.” And immediately the cock crew.75. And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, “Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.” And he went out, and wept bitterly.

Aug., de Cons. Ev., iii, 6: Among the other insults offered to our Lord was the threefold denial of Peter, which the several Evangelists relate in different order. Luke puts Peter’s trial first, and the ill-usage of the Lord after that; Matthew and Mark reverse the order.

Jerome: “Peter sat without,” that he might see the event, and not excite suspicion by any approach to Jesus.

Chrys.: And he, who, when he saw his Master laid hands on, drew his sword and cut off the ear, now when he sees Him enduring such insults becomes a denier, and cannot withstand the taunts of a mean servant girl.

“A damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee.”

Raban.: What means this, that a handmaid is the first to tax him, when men would be more likely to recognise him, except that this sex might seem to sin somewhat in the Lord’s death, that they might be redeemed by His passion? “He denied before them all,” because he was afraid to reveal himself; that he said, “I know not,” shews that he was not yet willing to die for the Saviour.

Leo, Serm. 60, 4: For this reason it should seem he was permitted to waver, that the remedy of penitence might be exhibited in the head of the Church, and that none should dare to trust in his own strength, when even the blessed Peter could not escape the danger of frailty.

Chrys.: But not once, but twice and thrice did he deny within a short time.

Aug.: We understand that having gone out after his first denial, the cock crowed the first time as Mark relates.

Chrys.: To shew that the sound did not keep him from denial, nor bring his promise to mind.

Aug.: The second denial was not outside the door, but after he had returned to the fire; for the second maid did not see him after he had gone out, but as he was going out; his getting up to go out drew her attention, and she said to them that were there, that is, to those that were standing round the fire in the hall, “The fellow also was with Jesus of Nazareth.” He who had gone out, having heard this returned, that he might by denial vindicate himself. Or, as is more likely, he did not hear what was said of him as he went out, but it was after he came back that the maid, and the other man whom Luke mentions, said to him, “And thou also art one of them.”

Jerome: “And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man.” I know that some out of a feeling of piety towards the Apostle Peter have interpreted this place to signify that Peter denied the Man and not the God, as though he meant, ‘I do not know the Man, because I know the God.’ But the intelligent reader will see that this is trifling, for if he denied not, the Lord spoke falsely when He said, “Thou shalt deny me thrice.”

[ed. note: e.g. S. Ambrose (in Luc.) says, He well denied him as man, for he knew him as God." And S. Hilary, (in loc.) "Almost without sin did he now deny the man, who had been the first to acknowledge him as Son of God; yet seeing through infirmity of the flesh, he had at least doubted, he therefore wept bitterly when he remembered that he had not been able, even after warning, to avoid the sin of that fearfulness."]

Ambrose, in Luc., 22, 57: I had rather that Peter deny, than that the Lord be made out false.

Raban.: In this denial of Peter we affirm that Christ is denied not only by him who denies that He is Christ, but who denies himself to be a Christian.

Aug.: Let us now come to the third denial; “And after a while came they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them,” (Luke’s words are, “About the space of one hour after, [Luke 22:59]) for thy speech bewrayeth thee.”

Jerome: Not that Peter was of a different speech or nation, but a Hebrew as his accusers were; but every province and every district has its peculiarities, and he could not disguise his native pronunciation.

Remig.: Observe how baneful are communications with evil men; they even drove Peter to deny the Lord whom be had before confessed to be the Son of God.

Raban.: Observe, that he said the first time, “I know not what thou sayest;” the second time, “He denied with an oath;” the third time, “He began to curse and to swear that he knew not the man.” For to persevere in sinning increases sinfulness, and he who disregards light sins, falls into greater.

Remig.: Spiritually; By Peter’s denial before the cock-crow, are denoted those who before Christ’s resurrection did not believe Him to be God, being perplexed by His death. In his denial after the first cock-crow, are denoted those who are in error concerning both Christ’s natures, His human and divine. By the first handmaid is signified desire; by the second, carnal delight; by them that stood by, the daemons; for by them men are led to a denial of Christ.

Origen: Or, By the first handmaid is understood the Synagogue of the Jews, which oft compelled the faithful to deny; by the second, the congregations of the Gentiles, who even persecuted the Christians; they that stood in the hall signify the ministers of divers heresies, who also compel men to deny the truth of Christ.

Aug., Quaest. Ev., i, 45: Also Peter thrice denied, because heretical error concerning Christ is limited to three kinds; they are in error respecting His divinity, His humanity, or both.

Raban.: After the third denial comes the cock-crow; by which we may understand a Doctor of the Church who with chiding rouses the slumbering, saying, “Awake, ye righteous, and sin not.” [1 Cor 15:14] Thus Holy Scripture uses to denote the merit of divers cases [marg. note: meritum causarum] by fixed periods, as Peter sinned at midnight and repented at cock-crow.

Jerome: In another Gospel we read, that after Peter’s denial and thee cock-crow, the Saviour “looked upon Peter,” [Luke 22,61] and by His look called forth those bitter tears; for it might not be that he on whom the Light of the world had looked should continue in the darkness of denial, wherefore, “he went out, and wept bitterly.” For he could not do penitence sitting in Caiaphas’ hall, but went forth from the assembly of the wicked, that he might wash away in bitter tears the pollution of his timid denial.

Leo, Serm. 60, 4: Blessed tears, O holy Apostle, which had the virtue of holy Baptism in washing off the sin of thy denial. The right hand of the Lord Jesus Christ was with thee to hold thee up before thou wast quite thrown down, and in the midst of thy perilous fall, thou receivedst strength to stand. The Rock quickly returned to its stability, recovering so great fortitude, that he who in Christ’s passion had quailed, should endure his own subsequent suffering with fearlessness and constancy.

Proceed to Post 2.

Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on Matthew 15:1-20

Ver 1. Then came to Jesus Scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,2. “Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.”3. But he answered and said unto them, “Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?4. For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.5. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;6. And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.”

Raban.: The men of Gennezareth and the less learned believe; but they who seem to be wise come to dispute with Him; according to that, “Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.” Whence it is said, “Then, came to him from Jerusalem Scribes and Pharisee.”

Aug., de Cons. Ev., ii, 49: The Evangelist thus constructs the order of his narrative, “Then came unto him,” that, as appeared in the passage over the lake, the order of the events that followed that might be shewn.

Chrys.: For this reason also the Evangelist marks the time that He may shew their  iniquity overcome by nothing; for they came to Him at a time when He had wrought many miracles, when He had healed the sick by the touch of His hem. That the Scribes and Pharisees are here said to have come from Jerusalem, it should be known that they were dispersed through all the tribes, but those that dwelt in the Metropolis were worse than the others, their higher dignity inspiring them with a greater degree of pride.

Remig.: They were faulty for two reasons; because they had come from Jerusalem, from the holy city; and because they were elders of the people, and doctors of the Law, and had not come to learn but to reprove the Lord; for it is added, “Saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?”

Jerome: wonderful infatuation of the Pharisees and Scribes! They accuse the Son of God that He does not keep the traditions and commandments of men.

Chrys.: Observe, how they are taken in their own question. They say not, ‘Why do they transgress the Law of Moses?’ but, “the tradition of the elders;” whence it is manifest that the Priests had introduced many new things, although Moses had said, “Ye shall not add ought to the word which I set before you this day, neither shall ye take ought away from it;” [Deut 4:2] and when they ought to have been set free from observances, then they bound themselves by many more; fearing lest any should take away their rule and power, they sought to increase the awe in which they were held, by setting themselves forth as legislators.

Remig.: Of what kind these traditions were, Mark shews when he says, “The Pharisees and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not.” [Mark 7:3] Here then also they find fault with the disciples, saying, “For they wash not their hands when they eat bread.”

Bede, in Marc., 7, 1: Taking carnally those words of the Prophets, in which it is said, “Wash, and be ye clean,” [Isa 1:16] they observed it only in washing the body; hence they had laid it down that we ought not to eat with unwashen hands.

Jerome: But the hands that are to he washed are the acts not of the body, but of the mind; that the word of God may be done in them.

Chrys.: But the disciples now did not eat, with washen hands, because they already despised all things superfluous, and attended only to such as were necessary; thus they accepted neither washing nor not washing as a rule, but did either as it happened. For how should they who even neglected the food that was necessary for them, have any care about this rite?

Remig.: Or the Pharisees found fault with the Lord’s disciples, not concerning that washing which we do from ordinary habit, and of necessity, but of that superfluous washing which was invented by the tradition of the elders.

Chrys.: Christ made no excuse for them, but immediately brought a counter charge, shewing that he that sins in great things ought not to take offence at the slight sins of others.

“He answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?”

He says not that they do well to transgress that He may not give room for calumny; nor on the other hand does He condemn what the Apostles had done, that He may not sanction their traditions; nor again does He bring any charge directly against them of old, that they might not put Him from them as a calumniator; but He points His reproof against those who had come to Him; thus at the same time touching the elders who had laid down such a tradition; saying,

Jerome: Since ye because of the tradition of men neglect the commandment of God, why do ye take upon you to reprove my disciples, for bestowing little regard upon the precepts of the elders, that they may observe the commands of God?

“For God hath said, Honour thy father and thy mother.” Honour in the Scriptures is shewn not so much in salutations and courtesies as in alms and gifts. “Honour,” says the Apostle, “the widows who are widows indeed;” [1 Tim 5:3] here ‘honour’ signifies a gift.

The Lord then having thought for the infirmity, the age, or the poverty of parents, commanded that sons should honour their parents in providing them with necessaries of life.

Chrys.: He desired to shew the great honour that ought to be paid to parents, and therefore attached both a reward and a penalty. But in this occasion the Lord passes over the reward promised to such as did honour their parents, namely, that they should live long upon the earth, and brings forward the terrible part only, namely, the punishment, that He might strike these dumb and attract others; “And he that, curseth father and mother, let him die the death;” thus He shews that they deserved even death. For if he who dishonours his parent even in word is worthy of death, much more ye who dishonour him in deed; and ye not only dishonour your parents, but teach others to do so likewise. Ye then who do not deserve even to live, how accuse ye my disciples? But how they transgress the commandment of God is clear when He adds, “But ye say, Whoso shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me.”

Jerome: For the Scribes and Pharisees desiring to overturn this foregoing most provident law of God, that they might bring in their impiety under the mask of piety, taught bad sons, that should any desire to devote to God, who is the true parent, those things which ought to be offered to parents, the offering to the Lord should be preferred to the offering them to parents.

Gloss, ap. Anselm: In this interpretation the sense will be, What I offer to God will profit both you and myself; and therefore you ought not to take of my goods for your own needs, but to suffer that I offer them to God.

Jerome: And thus the parents refusing what they saw thus dedicated to God, that they might not incur the guilt of sacrilege, perished of want, and so it came to pass that what the children offered for the needs of the temple and the service of God, went to the gain of the Priests.

Gloss, ap. Anselm: Or the sense may be, “Whosoever,” that is, of you young men, “shall say,” that is, shall either be able to say, or shall say, “to his father or mother,” O father, the gift that is of me devoted to God, shall it profit thee? as it were an exclamation of surprise; you ought not to take it that you may not incur the guilt of sacrilege.

Or, we may read it with this ellipsis, “Whosoever shall say to his father, &c.” he shall do the commandment of God, or shall fulfil the Law, or shall be worthy of life eternal.

Jerome: Or it may briefly have the following sense; Ye compel children to say to their parents, What gift soever I was purposing to offer to God, you take and consume upon your living, and so it profits you; as much as to say. Do not so.

Gloss., ap. Anselm: And thus through these arguments of your avarice, this youth shall “Honour not his father or his mother.” As if He had said; Ye have led sons into most evil deeds; so that it will come to pass that afterwards they shall not even honour their father and mother. And thus ye have made the commandment of God concerning the support of parents by their children vain through your traditions, obeying the dictates of avarice.

Aug., cont. Adv. Leg. et Proph., ii, 1: Christ here clearly shews both that that law which the heretic blasphemes is God’s law, and that the Jews had their traditions foreign to the prophetical and canonical books; such as the Apostle calls “profane and vain fables.”

Aug., cont. Faust., xvi, 24: The Lord here teaches us many things; That it was not He that turned the Jews from their God; that not only did He not infringe the commandments, but convicts them of infringing them; and that He had ordained no more than those by the hand of Moses.

Aug., Quaest. Ev., i, 16: Otherwise; “The gift whatsoever thou offerest on my account, shall profit thee;” that is to say, Whatsoever gift thou offerest on my account, shall henceforth remain with thee; the son signifying by these words that there is no longer need that parents should offer for him, as he is of age to offer for himself. And those who were of age to be able to say thus to their parents, the Pharisees denied that they were guilty, if they did not shew honour to their parents.

Ver 7. “Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,8. This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.9. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”10. And he called the multitude, and said unto them, “Hear, and understand:11. Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.”

Chrys.: The Lord had shewn that the Pharisees were not worthy to accuse those who transgressed the commands of the elders, seeing they overthrew the law of God themselves; and He again proves this by the testimony of the Prophet; “Hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far frost me.”

Remig.: Hypocrite signifies dissembler, one who feigns one thing in his outward act, and bears another thing in his heart. These then are well called hypocrites because under cover of God’s honour they sought to heap up for themselves earthly gain.

Raban.: Esaias saw before the hypocrisy of the Jews, that they would craftily oppose the Gospel, and therefore he said in the person of the Lord, “This people honoureth me with their lips, &c.”

Remig.: For the Jewish nation seemed to draw near to God with their lips and mouth, inasmuch as they boasted that they held the worship of the One God; but in their hearts they departed from Him, because after they had seen His signs and miracles, they would neither acknowledge His divinity, nor receive Him.

Raban.: Also, they honoured Him with their lips when they said, “Master, we know that thou art true,” [Mat_22:16] but their heart was far from Him when they sent spies to entangle Him in His talk.

Gloss, ap. Anselm: Or, They honoured Him in commending outward purity; but in that they lacked the inward which is the true purity, their heart was far from God, and such honour was of no avail to them; as it follows, “But without reason do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men.”

Raban.: Therefore they shall not have their reward with the true worshippers, because they teach doctrines and commandments of men to the contempt of the law of God.

Chrys.: Having added weight to His accusation of the Pharisees by the testimony of the Prophet, and not having amended them, He now ceases to speak to them, and turns to the multitudes, “And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear and understand.” Because He was about to set before them a high dogma, and full of much philosophy, He does not utter it nakedly, but so frames His speech that it should be received by them.

First, by exhibiting anxiety on their account, which the Evangelist expresses by the words, “And he called the multitude to him.”

Secondly, the time He chooses recommends His speech; after the victory He has just gained over the Pharisees. And He not merely calls the multitude to Him, but rouses their attention by the words, “Hear and understand;” that is, Attend, and give your minds to what ye are to hear. But He said not unto them, The observance of meats is nought; nor, Moses bade you wrongly; but in the way of warning and advice, drawing His testimony from natural things; “Not what entereth in at the mouth defileth a man, but what goeth forth of the mouth that defileth a man.”

Jerome: The word here [ed. note: Jerome reads 'communicat.' The Vulgate has, coinquinat] ‘makes a man common’ is peculiar to Scripture, and is not hackneyed in common parlance. The Jewish nation, boasting themselves to be a part of God, call those meats common, of which all men partake; for example, swine’s flesh, shell fish, hares, and those species of animals that do not divide the hoof, and chew the cud, and among the fish such as have not scales. Hence in the Acts of the Apostles we read, “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.” [Act_10:15] Common then in this sense is that which is free to the rest of mankind, and as though not in part of God, is therefore called unclean.

Aug., cont. Faust., vi, 6: This declaration of the Lord, “Not that which, entereth into the mouth defileth a man,” is not contrary to the Old Testament. As the Apostle also speaks, “To the pure all things are pure;” [Tit_1:15] and “Every creature of God is good.” [1Ti_4:4]

Let the Manichaeans understand, if they can, that the Apostle said this of the very natures and qualities of things; while that letter (of the ritual law) declared certain animals unclean, not in their nature but typically, for certain figures which were needed for a time. Therefore to take an instance in the swine and the lamb, by nature both are clean, because naturally every creature of God is good; but in a certain typical meaning the lamb is clean, and the swine unclean.

Take the two words, ‘fool,’ and ‘wise,’ in their own nature, as sounds, or letters, both of them are pure, but one of them because of the meaning attached to it, not because of any thing in its own nature, may be said to be impure. And perhaps what the swine are in typical representation, that among mankind is the fool; and the animal, and this word of two syllables (stultus) signify some one and the same thing. That animal is reckoned unclean in the law because it does not chew the cud; but this is not its fault but its nature. But the men of whom this animal is the emblem, are impure by their own fault, not by nature; they readily hear the words of wisdom, but never think upon them again.

Whatever of profit you may hear, to summon this up from the internal region of the memory through the sweetness of recollection into the mouth of thought, what is this but spiritually to chew the cud? They who do not this are represented by this species of animal. Such resemblances as these in speech, or in ceremonies, having figurative signification, profitably and pleasantly move the rational mind; but by the former people, many such things were not only to be heard, but to be kept as precepts. For that was a time when it behoved not in words only, but in deeds, to prophesy those things which hereafter were to be revealed. When these had been revealed through Christ, and in Christ, the burdens of observances were not imposed on the faith of the Gentiles; but the authority of the prophecy was yet confirmed.

But I ask of the Manichaeans, whether this declaration of the Lord, when He said that a man is not defiled by what enters into his mouth, is true or false? If false, why then does their doctor Adimantus bring it forward against the Old Testament? If true, why contrary to its tenor do they consider that they are thus defiled?

Jerome: The thoughtful reader may here object and say, If that which entereth into the mouth defileth not a man, why do we not feed on meats offered to idols? Be it known then that meats and every creature of God is in itself clean; but the invocation of idols and daemons makes them unclean with those at least who with conscience of the idol eat that which is offered to idols; and their conscience being weak is polluted, as the Apostle says.

Remig.: But if any one’s faith be so strong that he understands that God’s creature can in no way be defiled, let him eat what he will, after the food has been hallowed by the word of God and of prayer; yet so that this his liberty be not made an offence to the weak, as the Apostle speaks.

Ver 12. When came his disciples, and said unto him, “Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?”13. But he answered and said, “Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.14. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.”

Jerome: In one of the Lord’s discourses the whole superstition of Jewish observances had been cut down. They placed their whole religion in using or abstaining from certain meats.

Chrys.: When the Pharisees heard the things that went before, they made no reply to them, because He had so mightily overthrown them, not only refuting their arguments, but detecting their fraud, but they, not the multitudes, were offended at them.

“Then came his disciples unto him and said, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended after they heard this saying?”

Jerome: As this word ‘scandalum’ (offence or stumblingblock) is of such frequent use in ecclesiastical writings, we will shortly explain it. We might render it in Latin, ‘offendiculum,’ or ‘ruina,’ or ‘impactio;’ and so when we read, Whosoever shall scandalize, we understand, whoso by word or deed has given an occasion of falling to any.

Chrys.: Christ does not remove the stumblingblock out of the way of the Pharisees, but rather rebukes them; as it follows, “But he answered and said, Every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted shall be rooted up.”

This Manichaeus affirmed was spoken of the Law, but what has been already said is a sufficient refutation of this. For if He had said this of the Law, how would He have above contended for the Law, saying, “Why transgress ye the commandment of God through your tradition?”

Or would He have cited the Prophet? Or how, if God said, “Honour thy father and thy mother,” is not this, being spoken in the Law, a plant of God?

Hilary: What He intends then by a plant not planted of His Father, is that tradition of men under cover of which the Law had been transgressed, this He instructs them must be rooted up.

Remig.: Every false doctrine and superstitious observance with the workers thereof cannot endure; and because it is not from God the Father, it shall be rooted up with the same. And that only shall endure which is of God.

Jerome: Shall that plant also be rooted up of which the Apostle says, “I planted, Apollos watered?” [1Co_3:6] The question is answered by what follows, “but God gave the increase.” He says also, “Ye are God’s husbandry, a building of God;” and in another place, “We are workers together of God.” And if when Paul plants, and Apollos waters, they are in so doing workers together with God, then God plants and waters together with them.

This passage is abused by some who apply it at once to two different kinds of men; they say, ‘If every plant which the Father hath not planted shall be rooted up, then that which He has planted cannot be rooted up.’ But let them hear these words of Jeremiah, “I had planted thee a true vine, wholly a right seed, how then art thou turned into the bitterness of a strange vine?” [Jer_2:21]

God indeed has planted it, and none may root up His planting. But since that planting was through the disposition of the will of him which was planted, none other can root it up unless its own will consents thereto.

Gloss. interlin.: Or, the plant here spoken of may be the doctors of the Law with their followers, who had not Christ for their foundation. Why they are to be rooted up, He adds, “Let them alone; they are blind, leaders of the blind.”

Raban.: They are blind, that is, they want the light of God’s commandments; and they are “leaders of the blind,” inasmuch as they draw others headlong, erring, and leading into error; whence it is added, “If the blind lead the blind, they both fall into the ditch.”

Jerome: This is also the same as that Apostolic injunction, “A heretic after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that such a one is perverse.” [Tit_3:11-11] To the same end the Saviour commands evil teachers to be left to their own will, knowing that it is hardly that they can be brought to the truth.

Ver 15. Then answered Peter and said unto him, “Declare unto us this parable.”16. And Jesus said, “Are ye also yet without understanding?17. Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?18. But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.19. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:20. These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.”

Remig.: The Lord was used to speak in parables, so that Peter when he heard, “That which entereth into the mouth, defileth not a man,” thought it was spoken as a parable, and asked, as it follows; “Then answered Peter, and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.” And because he asked this on behalf of the rest, they are all included in the rebuke, “But he said, Are ye also yet without understanding?”

Jerome: He is reproved by the Lord, because He supposed that to be spoken parabolically, which was indeed spoken plainly. Which teaches us that the hearer is to be blamed who would take dark sayings as clear, or clear sayings as obscure.

Chrys.: Or, The Lord blames him, because it was not from any uncertainty that he asked this, but from offence which he had taken. The multitudes had not understood what had been said; but the disciples were offended at it, whence at the first they had desired to ask Him concerning the Pharisees, but had been stayed by that mighty declaration, “Every plant, &c.”

But Peter, who is ever zealous, is not silent even so; therefore the Lord reproves him, adding a reason for His reproof, “Do ye not understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?”

Jerome: Some cavil at this, that the Lord is ignorant of physical disputation in saying that all food goes into the belly, and is cast out into the draught; for that the food, as soon as it is taken, is distributed through the limbs, the veins, the marrow, and the nerves. But it should be known, that the lighter juices, and liquid food after it has been reduced and digested in the veins and vessels, passes into the lower parts through those passages which the Greeks call ‘pores,’ and so goes into the draught.

Aug., de Vera Relig., 40: The nourishment of the body being first changed into corruption, that is, having lost its proper form, is absorbed into the substance of the limbs, and repairs their waste, passing through a medium into another form, and by the spontaneous motion of the parts is so separated, that such portions as are adapted for the purpose are taken up into the structure of this fair visible, while such as are unfit are rejected through their own passages. One part consisting of faeces is restored to earth to reappear again in new forms; another part goes off in perspiration; and another is taken up by the nervous system for the purposes of reproduction of the species.

Chrys.: But the Lord in thus speaking answers His disciples after Jewish infirmity; He says that the food does not abide, but goes out; but if it did abide, yet would it not make a man unclean. But they could not yet hear these things. Thus Moses also pronounces that they continued unclean, so long as the food continued in them; for he bids them wash in the evening, and then they should be clean; calculating the time of digestion and egestion.

Aug., de Trin., xv, 10: And the Lord includes herein man’s two mouths, one of the body, one of the heart. For when He says, “Not all that goeth into the mouth defileth a man,” He clearly speaks of the body’s mouth; but in that which follows, He alludes to the mouth of the heart; “But those things which proceed out of the mouth, come forth from the heart, and they defile a man.”

Chrys.: For the things which are of the heart, remain within a man, and defile him in going out of him, as well as in abiding in him; yea, more in going out of him; wherefore He adds, “Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts;” He gives these the first place, because this was the very fault of the Jews, who laid snares for Him.

Jerome: The principle therefore of the soul is not according to Plato in the brain, but according to Christ in the heart, and by this passage we may refute those who think that evil thoughts are suggestions of the Devil, and do not spring from our proper will. The Devil may encourage and abet evil thoughts, but not originate them. And if he be able, being always on the watch, to blow into flame any small spark of thought in us, we should not thence conclude that he searches the hidden places of the heart, but that from our manner and motions he judges of what is passing within us.

For instance, if he see us direct frequent looks towards a fair woman, he understands that our heart is wounded through the eye.

Gloss., non occ.: And from evil thoughts proceed evil deeds and evil words, which are forbidden by the law; whence He adds “Murders,” which are forbidden by that commandment of the Law, “Thou shalt not kill;” “Adulteries, fornications,” which are understood to be forbidden by that precept, “Thou, shalt not commit adultery;” “Thefts,” forbidden by the command, “Thou shalt not steal;” “False witness,” by that, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour;” “Blasphemies,” by that, “Thou shalt not take the name of God in vain.”

Remig.: Having named the vices which are forbidden by the divine Law, the Lord beautifully adds, “These are they that defile a man,” that is, make him unclean and impure.

Gloss., non occ.: And because these words of the Lord had been occasioned by the iniquity of the Pharisees, who preferred their traditions to the commands of God, He hence concludes that there was no necessity for the foregoing tradition, “But to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.”

Chrys.: He said not that to eat the meats forbidden in the Law defiles not a man, that they might not have what to answer to Him again; but He concludes in that concerning which the disputation had been.

Father Maas’ Commentary on Matthew 15:1-20

This post begins with a short summary of 15:1-16:12; the notes on today’s reading then follows.

THE APOSTLES ARE SEPARATED FROM THE PHARISEES

A Summary of Matt 15:1-16:12~This section may be divided into three parts: first, the hypocrisy of the Pharisees is made manifest (Matt 15:1-20); secondly, the men of good will are not rejected (Matt 15:21-39); thirdly, the leaven of the Pharisees is proscribed (Matt 16:1-12). On the whole, the evangelist describes the relation of three classes to our Lord: the disciples advance in his knowledge, the multitudes seek mainly for temporal benefits without caring for spiritual enlightenment, the scribes and Pharisees become more determined in their opposition to Jesus, and in their endeavors to paralyze his influence with the masses.

Mat 15:1. Then came to him from Jerusalem scribes and Pharisees, saying:
Matt 15:2. Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the ancients? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

“Then” indicates that the Pharisees made their attack when our Lord confirmed his doctrine by innumerable miracles.”From Jerusalem” they came at the bidding of the authorities in the capital, as it seems. Already Chrysostom notes that these scribes and Pharisees were worse than the others, because they had greater influence with the common people. In order to attack the Master the more seriously, the conduct of the disciples is blamed: “Why do thy disciples transgress?”  “The ancients” here are not the “ancients of the people”, but the forefathers of the present generation [cf. Heb 11:2]. Though the scribes and the priests had to be of a certain age, the tradition could not have derived its binding force from this. “The tradition of the ancients” may be identified with the oral teaching of the Jewish doctors, based on Deut 4:14; 17:10. It was esteemed higher than the written law [1 Chron 2:55], and traced back by the Jews to their oldest scribes, and even to the time of Moses. It is true that St. Paul calls his doctrine a “tradition” [παράδοσις; cf. 2 Thess 3:6; 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15], but Gal 1:14 he connects “the tradition of the ancients” with the forefathers, just as Josephus does [Ant. XIII. x. 6], and as Christian commentators have taught [cf. Maldonado, Jansenius]. As to the authority of this tradition, its words have more weight than those of the prophets [Berachoth, fol. iii. 2; Lightfoot], and whosoever eats with unwashed hands is worse than he that commits fornication [Sota, fol. iv. b; Wunsche, p. 181]. The process of the Jerusalem scribes consisted, therefore, first in attacking the conduct of the disciples, secondly, in accusing them of disregarding a sacred law of the synagogue, thirdly, in proving their charge by a particular case: “for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.” This tradition was based on Lev 15:11 ff.; according to Shabbath [xiv. b], it emanated from Solomon, who was praised for it by a voice from heaven [Prov 23:15; 27:11], though no trace of it exists previous to the Sibylline books [iii. w. 591-593 ; about B. c. 160 ; cf. Ed. ii. p. 13]. Hillel and Shammai, shortly before the time of our Lord, had reinforced the custom of the washing of hands [cf. Lightfoot, in 1.], which had fallen into oblivion [Shabbath, iii. 4], so that about the time now under consideration it had become a religious rite [Wunsche]. The disciples did (not transgress this custom on principle [Chrysostom], since their Messianic ideas were as yet not sufficiently developed. To “eat bread” has the general meaning of taking a meal.

Mat 15:3  But he answering, said to them: Why do you also transgress the commandment of God for your tradition? For God said:
Mat 15:4  Honour thy father and mother: And: He that shall curse father or mother, let him die the death.
Mat 15:5  But you say: Whosoever shall say to father or mother, The gift whatsoever proceedeth from me, shall profit thee.
Mat 15:6  And he shall not honour his father or his mother: and you have made void the commandment of God for your tradition.
Mat 15:7  Hypocrites, well hath Isaias prophesied of you, saying:
Mat 15:8  This people honoureth me with their lips: but their heart is far from me.
Mat 15:9  And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men.

Our Lord’s answer. Jesus does not contend that the apostles had done well, nor that they had not done evil, nor again that the custom of washing was worthy of blame [cf. Euthymius Maldonado], but he shows that the enemies had no right to make the charge, being themselves guilty of a more grievous fault: they place the word of men above that of God, they “transgress the commandment of God for [their] tradition.” To prove this charge, Jesus first cites a commandment of God, and then the corresponding Pharisaic tradition. In the citation of the commandment “honor thy father and mother ” [cf. Ex 20:12; Deut 5:16], he follows the manner of the Jewish doctors [cf. Wunsche, p. 184 ; Ed. ii. 21] by adding the sanction fixed for the transgression of the law: “he that shall curse father or mother, let him die the death ” [Ex 21:17]; at the same time, this addition is already a hint that the “tradition of the ancients” on this point is equivalent to cursing one’s father and mother [Jerome]. In order to understand the corresponding word of man, we must first keep in mind the signification of “gift” [corban according to Mark 7]: it is something rendered sacred, and therefore illicit for profane use, by being vowed to God. Secondly, the passage rendered ” the gift whatsoever proceedeth from me, shall profit thee “explained according to the Greek text means: “by whatever thou couldst have been benefited by me, is a gift” vowed to God [Chrysostom, Origen Theophylact]. Origin and Jerome tell us that it was a deceit practised by debtors pressed for payment, to say: “all I have is a gift,” or “all my goods are consecrated by vow to God.” This scheme was in course of time adopted by children who refused to support their poor parents.

Applying now what has been said to the passage under discussion, we obtain two possible meanings: First, verse 5 may be an ellipse, so that verse 6 expresses the words of our Lord thus: But you say: “whosoever shall say to father or mother, ‘Whatever of mine might benefit thee is consecrated to God, fulfils the law.’” And yet, he surely does not honor his father or mother.

Secondly, both verse 5 and 6 may express the words of the Pharisees, thus: But you say: “Whosoever shall say to father or mother, ‘Whatever of mine might benefit thee, is already consecrated to God,’ shall not [i. e. is not bound to] honor his father or mother ” [cf. Origin, Maldonado, Bisping Schanz, Keil, Weiss, Knabauer. etc.].

We need not assume that the Pharisees formally expressed the prohibition to honor one’s parents in the case in question, but they expressed it implicitly, so that our Lord’s inference is justified: “you have made void the commandment of God for your tradition.” By this process the children Are not bound to give anything to God, but they merely placed themselves in a condition in which they could not licitly help their parents, since they had consecrated to God whatever they might have wished to use for their father or mother [Lightfoot] . The Pharisees are “hypocrites,” because they wished to seem to observe even the least law, while they broke the greatest [Euthymius, Maldonado]; they seem to be one thing and are another. Since according to Acts 7:51 and Acts 28:25 the later Jews exhibited the vices of their parents, the words of Isaiah 29:13 are fulfilled mainly in the Pharisees.

Mat 15:10. And having called together the multitudes unto him, he said to them: Hear ye, and understand.
Mat 15:11. Not that which goeth into the mouth, defileth a man; but what cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

At the approach of the Pharisees the multitudes appear to have withdrawn, probably through respect; but Jesus calls them, and addresses them in the gravest language [Chrysostom], honoring them [Theophylact] more than the scribes and Pharisees [Euthymius]. “Not that which goeth into the mouth” does not apply only to legally clean kinds of food [cf. Jansenius], nor does it imply that the law concerning clean and unclean must be understood spiritually [cf. Origen]; without maintaining that in these words Jesus either abrogated the Mosaic law, or prepared the way for such an abrogation [cf. Chrysostom, Euthymius, Paschasius Radbertus, Jansenius, Barradas, Calmet], we may believe that no kind of food as such defiles a man, though it may do so by reason of the condition or state in which a man may find himself [cf. Origen, Jerome, Paschasius Radbertus, Thomas Aquinas, Cajetan, Maldonado], so that the eating may become an act of disobedience or gluttony. These vices do defile, because they have their seat in the heart, and therefore are comparable to “What cometh out of the mouth.”

Mat 15:12. Then came his disciples, and said to him: Dost thou know that the Pharisees, when they heard this word, were scandalized?
Mat 15:13. But he answering, said: Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.
Mat 15:14. Let them alone; they are blind, and leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit.

“The Pharisees . . .were scandalized” not at their refutation by Jesus [vers. 3-9; cf. recent writers], but at the words of Jesus spoken to the multitudes [verse 11; cf. Origen, Chrysostom, Euthymius, Jerome, Bede, Paschasius Radbertus Dionysius the Carthusian, Cajetan]. The disciples draw our Lord’s attention to this, most natural in itself, since the Pharisees anxiously looked for a charge against Jesus, first, because they themselves were surprised at their Master’s bold words [Chrysostom, Theophylact, Paschasius Radbertus, Jansenius]; secondly, be.cause they still esteemed the Pharisees highly and regarded their good will as desirable. While Jesus satisfies the difficulty of the disciples, he also heals their secret wound which they had not expressly manifested. He predicts the uprooting of “every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted,” i. e. of the teaching and traditions of the ancients that did not contain the word of God [Hilary, Severus in cat. Euthymius Theophylact, Bruno Albert, Thomas Aquinas, Faber Stapnlensis, Tostatus, Arnoldi]; or rather of the scribes and Pharisees about whom the disciples had been concerned [Origen, Jerome, Cajetan, Jansenius, Barradas, Lapide,  Sylveira, Schegg, Grimm, Schanz, Theodore of Mopsuestia, in cat.]; or better still of the Pharisaic sect, men and doctrine, as such, which could not boast of any heavenly origin [Chrysostom, Paschasius Radbertus, Dionysius the Carthusian, Bisping, Fillion, Knabonbauer]. The last view is the more probable because the people of Israel is repeatedly compared to a vineyard or a plantation of God [cf. Isa 5:7; Isa 60:21; Isa 61:3; Ps 92:13-14; Ps 128:3 Ps 144:12; etc.], even where there is question of its destruction [Isa 5:5-6; cf. Jn 15:2; Acts 5:38; Ignat. ad Trail, xi. 1; ad Philadelph. iii. 1]. Since, then, the ruin of the Pharisees has been determined by God, the disciples ought not to be concerned about their being scandalized: “let them .alone,” they are unworthy of your interest [cf. Lapide, Schegg, Weiss]. In their bereavement of God’s enlightenment, they are blind themselves, and still attempt to lead the blind, drawing them into their own ruin represented by the pits, or the badly covered cisterns, in Palestine [cf. Schanz].

Mat 15:15  And Peter answering, said to him: Expound to us this parable.
Mat 15:16  But he said: Are you also yet without understanding?
Mat 15:17  Do you not understand, that whatsoever entereth into the mouth, goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the privy?
Mat 15:18  But the things which proceed out of the mouth, come forth from the heart, and those things defile a man.
Mat 15:19  For from the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies.
Mat 15:20  These are the things that defile a man. But to eat with unwashed hands doth not defile a man.

Jesus’ Second Answer to the Disciples. The difficulty of the disciples, springing from their esteem of the Pharisees, has been removed; but their trouble about the harmony of Christ’s doctrine with the Jewish law still remains [cf. Theophylact]. Hence Peter as the mouthpiece of the disciples and their leader [cf. Chrysostom] asks for further explanations: “expound to us this parable.” Thus the inquiring disciples are contrasted with the blind Pharisees, an antithesis that was of less importance to the second evangelist, and has therefore been neglected by him [Schanz]. Jesus first expresses his surprise at their not “understanding” the nature of real purity: “you also” is said with reference to the Pharisees and the multitude. The word rendered “privy” corresponds to a Greek word that seems to be of Macedonian origin and occurs only Mark 7:19; but the rendering agrees with the explanation of Euthymius, Baronius, Sylveira. Already Jerome notes the difficulty raised by some against our Lord’s words, “whatsoever entereth the mouth goeth into the belly”; Paschasius thinks that Jesus spoke thus, signifying that food does not enter our moral life, but only our physical constitution; others draw attention to the fact that he does not say “the whole of whatsoever,” but only “whatsoever,” because part of all food “goeth into the belly.” As “the things which proceed out of the mouth” are opposed to “whatsoever entereth the mouth,” so is “from the heart” opposed to “into the belly.” But it does not follow from this that “heart” must be taken in its physical sense, since all food in its process of assimilation passes through the heart in its physical sense; “heart” is here the centre of our moral life. “Evil thoughts” are first mentioned because they are the root of all evil; then follow sins against the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth commandments, and to these are added “blasphemies,” signifying sinful expressions employed to confirm false testimony [cf. Knabauer], or insulting words against God and man generally [Jansenius, Sylveira], or again insults of the neighbor [Schanz], or finally, in accordance with strictly scriptural language, curses against God [Knabauer; cf. Matt 12:31; Matt 26:65; Mark 2:7; Mark 3:29; Mark 14:64; John 10:33; Rev 13:1, Rev 13:5; etc.]. For the sake of emphasis and clearness, Jesus then repeats, “these are the things that defile a man”; “to eat with unwashed hands,” may be a sign of rusticity, but it “doth not defile a man.”