The Divine Lamp

The unfolding of thy words gives light; it imparts understanding to the simple…Make thy face shine upon thy servant, and teach me thy statutes

Cornelius a Lapide’s Commentary on Matthew 10:7-15

Posted by Dim Bulb on July 3, 2011

Note: Verse 7 was also included in yesterday’s Gospel reading and so, as a consequence, a small portion of today’s commentary is a repetition of yesterday’s post.

Mat 10:7  And going, preach, saying: The kingdom of heaven is at hand.

And going, preach, saying, &c. This is the second and the chief command of Christ to His Apostles, viz., that they should traverse Judea, and preach the Kingdom of Heaven, and invite, yea compel men to come into it. It was as though Christ said, In a short time I will, by My death, open Heaven to men, which has been shut for so many thousands of years by Adam’s sin, and I will open the way of entrance into it. Invite all therefore to enter upon this way that they may gain the Kingdom. This was the sum and substance of Christ’s preaching.

Mat 10:8  Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils: freely have you received, freely give.

Heal the sick, &c. This is the third precept of Christ, by which He bids them use freely the power which had been given them of working miracles to persuade men to believe in Christ, that their souls might be healed of unbelief.

Freely you have received, &c. For freely the Greek has, δωρεάν, as a gift, gratis in the Vulgate. This is Christ’s fourth precept. By using the word gratis, he takes away the occasion of pride, says S. Chrys., since they know that they have not this power of themselves; but by God’s free gift have received it, without merit of their own. In like manner this word gratis excludes all avarice and simony, that they may not sell their miracles for money. Again, they are admonished to be liberal in exercising this power, keeping as the end in view the benefit of others, like Mountains, which the more water they send forth abroad, the more they interiorly receive. This is what Isaiah foretold concerning Christ. “Ho! every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters. Come ye, buy wine and milk without money and without price.” For this liberality became the King of kings, that is Christ the Lord, and therefore He willed His Apostles to be altogether opposed to every appearance, yea, even shadow, of simony and covetousness, that they should not receive any gift, lest men should think they were seeking their own wealth, and so be turned away from the faith of Christ. The Apostles would have sinned and broken the command of Christ if they had received gifts on account of their preaching. Thus S. Hilarion, as S. Jerome testifies in his life, healed very many sick persons, but would not receive any gifts from them, not so much as a morsel of bread; for he was wont to say, “Gratis ye have received, gratis give.” He replied to a certain nobleman whose name was Orion, whom he had delivered from a legion of devils, and who urgently pressed him to receive a gift, at least that he might distribute it among the poor, “Be not grieved, my son, at what I do, for I do it for thy sake and my sake. If I should receive this I should offend God, and the legion would return to thee.

A provincial council of Constantinople in a Synodical Epistle expounds, Gratis you have received, &c., of the priesthood, that it must not be simoniacally sold.

Observe, the precise reason why the Apostles were bound to bestow gratis the Charismata given to them by God was not merely because they had received them gratis from God. For he who has received knowledge, or some natural skill infused into him by God, like Bezaleel, the architect of the Tabernacle,—such an one, I say, may lawfully sell it, and teach it to others for money, as some masters of arts do. The precise reason, therefore, is because this thing is so sublime, and of such a nature that it cannot be acquired by human industry, but can only be received by the free grace of God; because it is indeed divine, and therefore far surpassing and transcending all price. This is the meaning of gratis you have received. Wherefore to wish to estimate it at a price, and to sell it, is to treat it unworthily and profane it. It is to do a grievous indignity to it and to God, from Whom it has its sanctity: and therefore it is the crime.

You will say, Then by parity of reasoning, he who exchanges one sacred thing for another is guilty of simony by the law of nature, and by the Divine law, because he does not give it gratis. Adrian admits this (quodlib. 9 ad 4, conclus. lit. E.). But I reply by denying the consequence. For in this place, to give gratis is to give without temporal hire or reward. This may be collected from what follows in the following verse: Provide (Gr. Possess) neither gold, &c. For things sacred have no temporal price. And this is neither given nor received when one sacred thing is exchanged for another. So SS. Jer., Chrys., and others. (See Lessius, Tract. de Simonia, dub. 3.) Let religious and apostolic men follow closely this precept of Christ, for it very greatly conduces to His glory and the salvation of souls, as I have learned by an experience of forty years. S. Ignatius, the Founder of our Society (Reg. 17, Sum. Constit.) thus wisely lays down: “Let all who are under obedience to this Society remember that they ought to give gratis what they have gratis received, neither asking nor receiving pay, nor any alms, by which masses, confessions, or sermons, or any other offices whatsoever of the things which the Society, according to our institution, is able to exercise, may seem to be compensated; that thus it may be able to advance with greater freedom both in the Divine service and the edification of our neighbours.”

Once, when S. Antony was on a journey, he saw an immense piece of gold. He admired the size of the glittering piece of metal and ran as fast as he could to his mountain, as though he were running from a fire. Whenever money was offered to S. Vincent Ferrar as he was preaching through the villages, he refused it, and forbade his companions accepting it. S. Francis was wont to say that “money to the servants of God is nothing else than a devil, and a poisonous snake.”

Mat 10:9  Do not possess gold, nor silver, nor money in your purses:

Do not possess gold, &c., in your purses, Gr. in your girdles; for formerly they attached purses to their girdles, or wove them into their girdles. This was especially the case with soldiers and travellers. Whence the proverb, “He has lost his girdle,” said of him who has no money. Hence also coffers have been called girdles.

This is the fifth precept of Christ given to His Apostles concerning not possessing money. It was given for three reasons. 1. That being free from all earthly affections and cares, they should depend entirely upon God’s providence. 2. That they should be wholly intent upon preaching the Gospel, and give all their thoughts and cares to that. 3. That they might give to all nations an illustrious example of simplicity, poverty, contempt of riches, whereby—by means of this angelical life—they might draw all men to love and admire them. There is nothing, says Euthymius, which makes men so admirable as a frugal life, and to be contented with whatever comes to hand.

Symbolically: S. Jerome says, “gold, we often read, is to be taken for understanding, silver for speech, brass for voice. These cannot be received by us from others, but are given to us as a possession by the Lord.”

You will inquire whether those precepts of Christ concerning not possessing money, shoes, staff, and two tunics, or coats, were given to the Apostles in perpetuity, or were or were they only temporary? S. Hilary, S. Jerome, S. Ambrose, S. Austin, and after them Maldonatus, are of opinion that they were perpetual; so that the Apostles in all their travels, in which they preached to the Gentiles, were tied to this form and species of poverty. The common opinion is that these precepts were only temporarily binding, that is to say, only whilst they were preaching to the Jews during Christ’s earthly life.

First, I say that this latter opinion is the correct one. It is plainly so from Christ’s saying, Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles, &c. For the Messiah must be first shown to the Jews, that if they received Him, the Gentiles might the more readily accept Him.

2. It is plain from Luke22:35, where Christ speaking retrospectively of this mission and precept, says, When I sent you without purse and scrip and shoes, did you want anything? But they said: Nothing. Then He saith unto them, But now, &c. This word now shows that he was giving them a different precept, viz., that they should take a scrip, and buy a sword.

3. The Apostles in going to the Gentiles were preaching to infidels who were likely at first to be prejudiced against them as enemies of their gods, and who would not deign to give them food and hospitality. Before, therefore, they could persuade them to believe, they must provide themselves with the means of living, especially as they were often accompanied by a large number of catechists, interpreters, and other coadjutors. Thus, when Paul was going to Jerusalem, there accompanied him Sopater, Aristarchus, Secundus, Timotheus, Caius, Tychicus and Trophimus (See Acts 20:4).

The Apostles were accustomed to allow a pious and wealthy woman to accompany them, to provide for them. This clearly appears from 1 Cor 9:5: “Have we not power to carry about a woman, a sister (Vulg.), even as the other Apostles?” Christ Himself did the same thing, who permitted Magdalen, and other pious women whom he had converted, to accompany Him to provide for Himself and His followers (see Luke 8:3). Yea, Judas had coffers (Vulg, ), and bore what was put into them. And in the 6th of John, the disciples say to Christ: “Whence shall we buy bread that these may eat?”

You may say that Christ did not Himself keep the precept which He gave to His Apostles concerning not carrying money. I answer that Christ did observe it at the commencement of His ministry. He was then without any coffers, as appears from His words, “Foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man hath not where to lay His head.” It was with the object of providing for His twelve Apostles and seventy Disciples, whom He took about with Him, that He permitted Judas to carry coffers (Vulg.). For who could exercise hospitality towards so great a number of people? Who could, or would, sustain them for a continuance? But Christ sent His Apostles throughout Judea only in pairs. And two people could easily find hospitality from anyone piously disposed. In like manner when S. Francis Xavier was going to the Indies, he took no provision for his journey into the ship. Indeed, he refused what was offered him by the King of Portugal. He daily begged his bread from the sailors and passengers, because he was alone. But now, at the present time, when fifties and hundreds from the Society of Jesus and other Orders are often sent out to preach the Gospel in the Indies, it is only right that they should carry some provision with them for their voyage. For where are the sailors or passengers who could or would supply all these persons during a six months’ voyage? So S. Vincent Ferrer, who went through the countries of Europe in an apostolic manner evangelizing, was wont to have hundreds, yea thousands of people accompanying him. And so he had his purveyors, who provided food and other necessaries for all; for the ordinary inhabitants could not have borne the burden.

I say, however, in the second place, that these precepts, so far as their substance and scope are concerned, which were to exhibit a mind free from covetousness, and to place before it a great contempt of all earthly things, and a firm trust in the providence of God; these are the things, I say, which Christ wished to impress upon His Apostles by these precepts. And these the Apostles in very deed fulfilled, when, having received the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, they thought, spoke, and treated of nothing except heavenly things. And so these precepts of Christ, not merely as to their scope, but as to their very letter, whenever and wherever it was possible to do so, were fulfilled by them. Yea, to these precepts Paul added the determination that he would not receive from the faithful the expense of his maintenance, but would procure a livelihood by the labour of his hands. And this is all that is meant by the Fathers who were cited at the commencement of this discussion. S. Francis imitated this example of Apostolic poverty when he sent out his brethren two by two to preach, and gave them this as their only viaticum, “Cast thy care upon the Lord, and He will nourish thee.”

Mat 10:10  Nor scrip for your journey, nor two coats, nor shoes, nor a staff; for the workman is worthy of his meat.

Nor scrip, &c. The scrip is a pouch, or traveller’s bag, in which wayfarers put bread and food to eat on the way, hence the adage, “The beggar’s bag is not full.”

Nor two coats: understand two pairs of coats, or tunics, says Thomas, for a change, that you may put on, now one, now the other. For Christ does not here forbid the putting on of two garments at the same time on account of cold or other necessity, for Christ Himself was clothed with two garments, as appears from John 19:23. So S. Jerome, &c.

More simply, Lyra, Toletus and Barradi understand a single tunic to be here meant. For one coat in so hot a country as judea is sufficient. Wherefore Christ had only one outer coat, for that seamless garment was an inner one, or a shirt. Over the outer garment it was afterwards the custom to throw a pallium, or cloke.

Nor shoes: not two pair of shoes, say S. Thomas and Cajetan: but the more simple way of taking it is to understand that such shoes as cover the whole foot are forbidden, not sandals, which only protect the soles of the feet from being hurt by stones. S. Mark 6:9 shows that these were allowed to the Apostles. For Palestine is a rough and stony country as well as a hot one. So S. Jer., Enthym., Tolet, Jansen, and S. Austin understand the passage. But shoes confine and, as it were, imprison the feet, and make them less expeditious in travelling, and sometimes too hot. Christ then forbade shoes to His Apostles, as they were travelling about Palestine, that they might make greater expedition in their journeys, and to take away undue care of their feet. Shoes are called by the Greeks ύπυδήματα, i e., what is bound, or tied, because they were formerly bound or tied with strings above, as is still the custom with many. That the Apostles after Christ’s Ascension made use of sandals, appears from Acts 12:8, where the Angel says to Peter, Put on thy sandles. Of such a kind is S. Andrew’s sandal in the Cathedral of Treves, which has been shown me by the Reverend, the Provost. Such were the sandals worn by the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, as appears from their ancient pictures preserved at Rome in the Codex of the Emperor Basil Porphyrogenitus, in the Vatican. Such too may be seen in the picture of the Blessed Virgin, painted by S. Luke, and preserved at Rome. The Child Jesus is there represented in her arms. He is shod with sandals which are bound about the feet above, with strings, in such a way that the toes and upper portion of the feet are entirely uncovered. Nothing is covered except the sole of the foot.

Many of the early Christians followed this example of Christ and His Apostles, and went without shoes. Lucian shows this in his Philopator, where describing a Christian’s dress, he says, “He wears a ragged cloke, without hat or shoes, with unkempt hair.” Similarly Plato, says S. Jerome, “bade that the two extremities of the body, the head and the feet should be left uncovered, that they may not become tender. For when these are strong, the other parts of the body will be robust.” On the cloke of the Christians there was the old proverb, Gone from the toga to the pallium, meaning that a man had gone over from heathenism to Christianity. For heathens wore the toga, Christians the pallium, or cloke. Whence Tertullian (lib. de Pallio c. 5), “we say nothing about shoes, about the peculiar torment of the toga, the most unclean protection of the feet, albeit false enough. For how is it not expedient that the barefooted man should be stift with cold and heat, like the crook-footed man in shoes! Vast assistance is there in walking from the cobbler’s stall! The inventors had an eye to the votaries of Venus!” Very excellently says Clement of Alexandria (lib. 2. Pædagog. cap. 11), “Most becoming is it in a man not to have any shoes, unless he be a soldier. For a man that is shod has no small resemblance to one who is fettered. It is the best kind of exercise, and conduces to health and expedition to go with naked feet, unless necessity prevent: but if we ire not going on a journey, and are unable to walk with bare feet, we must use the sort of shoes which the Athenians call Κονίποδας, because, as I conjecture, the feet are near the ground. John is a sufficient witness of the advantage of being lightly and simply shod. He said that he was not worthy to unloose the latchet of the Lord’s sandals. He had no finely worked shoes, who exhibited to the Hebrews the pattern of true philosophy.”

Symbolically: S. Austin (lib. 2. de Consens. Evangel. c. 30.), says, “Mark saith they were to be shod with sandals, by which the foot is neither covered above, nor yet bare on the ground. For verily it was the Lord’s will that the Gospel should neither be hid, nor yet that it should rely upon earthly advantages.” The Gloss., “By an Apostle must be cast away gold, that is, worldly wisdom; silver, that is, eloquence; money in the purse, that is, hidden wisdom; a scrip, that is the burden of the world; shoes, that is, the examples of dead works.”

Nor a staff. The Gr., followed by the Vulg., has staff in the singular. You will say, Mark (Mark 6:9), says differently, viz., a staff only. I reply, Mark is speaking of the Heb. mischan, a rod, or a staff, on which to lean. For this was the symbol of poor travellers, who relieve their weariness by leaning on a staff. This was how Jacob journeyed to Mesopotamia. But Matthew is here speaking of matte, i.e., a rod for defence, or punishment. This was what Christ forbade His Apostles carrying. Observe that the Greek ρ́άβδος, a rod, has three meanings. First. The symbol of honour and power, such as the sceptre of monarchs, the fasces of consuls, the rod of prætors and judges. This is called in Hebrew, scebet, whence sceptre. As David says in Ps 2:9, “Thou shalt rule them with a rod (scebet) of iron.” And Ps. xlv., “The sceptre of thy kingdom is a sceptre of uprightness.” And Isa 14:5, “The Lord hath broken the staff of the wicked, the rod of the rulers.” Hence also: ρ́αδοφόροι, that is, rod-bearers, was the name given to lictors and officers, by whom the magistrates executed their sentences. The rod which they bore was the sign of their office. So also the Jewish Doctors were wont to carry a rod, or wand in their hands, says Lyra, as the mark of their teaching, in the same way that schoolmasters now make use of a ferula. Christ forbids this practice to His Apostles. He bids them carry before them modesty, humility; not imperious authority and power. It was such a rod as that of which I have been speaking that Moses, the lawgiver of the stiff-necked Israelites, bore, and with which he smote Pharaoh with the ten plagues, and chastised the rebellious Jews. Christ, whose law is the spirit of love and sweetness, hath another rod.

Second. Ράβδος, rod, or staff, hath the same meaning as matte, in the sense of a rod with which you strike or beat a person, as teachers scourge their scholars. Thus Ps 89:32., “I will visit their iniquities with a rod.” And Ex 21:20, “He that striketh his bondman, or bondwoman, with a rod.” So the arms of rustics are sticks and rods. David went against Goliath with no other arms than his staff and his sling. And Ezekiel 39:9, speaking of the slaughter of Gog, says “And the inhabitants shall go forth of the cities of Israel, and shall set on fire and burn the weapons, the shields, and the spears, the bows and the arrows, and the handstaves and the pike” Also Isa 10:5, “Asshur, the rod of mine anger.” So that in this place by staff, arms of any kind are forbidden by Christ to His Apostles. He bids them trust not in arms but in God, and that they should be preachers of Divine protection, and propagate the faith, not by fighting, but by suffering. For he who has the Lord for his help, what need hath he of a staff” says S. Jerome.

Third. Ράβδος signifies mischan, a staff on which to lean. This Christ allowed to His Apostles.

Lastly. Johannes Alba (lib. elect. p. 337), by staff here understands one on which was cut some mark or sign of mutual friendship, so that it was what was called a tessera, or pledge of friendship, which people were accustomed to show when they went to personally unknown friends, that they might be received to hospitality by them. Wherefore when men renounced friendship, they were said to break the tessera of friendship. So that Christ’s meaning in this place would be, “Rely not upon human help, bear not the tessera of friendship as the guarantee for your reception. God will provide you with hospitality.” But this sense is a strained one.

Symbolically: the staff or rod denotes the power of the Apostles. S. Austin.

The workman is worthy, &c. He gives the reason why He forbids the carrying a viaticum. “Let preachers,” says S. Chrys., “receive their support from the people, but their reward of their hire from God.” In other places this support is called wages, or hire, from the similitude of those workmen, to whom food is given as a part of their wages. Yet in the case of preachers it is not properly wages, for preaching far transcends all price, and all human wages. S. Paul (in 1 Cor 9 calls this support of preachers, their pay or stipend, from the similitude of soldiers, to whom it is not given as wages; for what is it in comparison with the perils they undergo? but as the support which is their due. “Labour therefore in the Lord’s vineyard, 0 ye Apostles, and preach zealously. Be not anxious about sustenance, about food and raiment, for God will abundantly provide for you either by your hosts, or from some other of the rich treasures of His Providence.”

Mat 10:11  And into whatsoever city or town you shall enter, inquire who in it is worthy, and there abide till you go thence.

And into whatsoever city, &c. Worthy, that is, apt and meet to receive the Gospel, one who fears God, and leads a good life, who desires salvation, who shows hospitality to poor and pious people, especially preachers; one who knows, as S. Jerome says, “that he is receiving a favour, rather than conferring one.

This is the sixth precept which Christ gives to His Apostles concerning hospitality, when they were going to preach to the Jews, that they should not lodge with any one who was opposed to faith in Christ, or of evil report, lest his infamy should bring discredit upon themselves. “A host,” says S. Jerome, “should be chosen for his reputation among the people, and from his character with his neighbours; lest the worthiness of preaching should be besmirched by the infamy of the preacher’s host.

And there abide till you  go thence, &c. Why? First, lest if the Apostles should go about from one host to another, they should appear changeable and inconstant. So S. Chrys. Secondly, not to grieve their first host, and do him a dishonour by migrating to one worthier. Thirdly, lest any one should call them gluttonous, seekers after the luxurious boards of the rich. It must be understood that this precept applies only when they did not remain very long in the same place, so as to become burdensome to their host; for in such a case charity and prudence would recommend a change of hostel.

Mat 10:12  And when you come into the house, salute it, saying: Peace be to this house.

And when you come into the house, &c. This was the ancient method of salutation among the Hebrews, by which they prayed for the peace and prosperity of the master of the house and his family. The Hebrews understood it of temporal blessings, but Christ of spiritual. For Christ came to the world to make peace between God, man, and angels. Wherefore when He was born the angels sang, “Peace on earth, to men of goodwill” (Vulg.).

This is the seventh precept—that they should pray for peace for their host, and by their prayer discover if he were worthy and suitable. The Apostles, therefore, pray for peace for their host, first with God, secondly with his family and neighbours and all other persons. S. Chrys. says that this salutation of the Apostles was not a mere naked and verbal one, but real and efficacious, and had the power of conferring upon their host (if he were worthy) actual peace—that is to say, grace, faith, and salvation.

Mat 10:13  And if that house be worthy, your peace shall come upon it; but if it be not worthy, your peace shall return to you.

And if that house be worthy, &c. That is, if—as He had said a little before—the host be worthy, that is, a lover of peace and salvation.

But if it be not worthy, &c. If the host refuse and reject your salutation of peace, your peace shall return to you—Gr. ε̉πιστραΦήτω, let it return, in the sense of shall return. For the Heb. often uses the imperative instead of the future. Note the personification. Peace is here introduced as a person rejected by a host, and going elsewhere, and carrying the Apostles with him. If the host rejects your salutation of peace, your salutation shall not therefore be unfruitful, for there shall come to yourselves what you prayed for him, that is, peace and all prosperity. Thus shall your peace, repulsed by this unworthy host, come back to you, and lead you to some worthy host who will eagerly receive you and believe your preaching. There is a similar mode of expression in Ps 35:12-13, to which Christ here makes an allusion . “They repaid me evil for good,” &c.; “And my prayer shall be turned into mine own bosom.” So Eusebius, S. Athanasius, and Hesychius on this Psalm expound it. The latter says, “Into the bosom of Christ, i e., the Church of the Gentiles, the prayer of Christ (turned away by the Jews) falleth.” This is what S. Paul said to the Jews: “It behoved that the Word of God should be spoken first unto you, but since ye reject it, and count yourselves unworthy of eternal life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.”

Mat 10:14  And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet.

And whosoever shall not receive you, &c. . . . the dust of your feet. Luke and Mark add, for a testimony against them. Abul. Says that the Apostles were to do this twice, once in the city and once outside the city. They were to do it by striking their sandals against the ground, or by knocking, or rubbing them upon a stone, to brush off the dust.

You will ask, Why was this? 1. S. Jerome says, dust is shaken off as a testimony of labour, to show that they had entered the city, and the Apostolic preaching had reached it. And as Theophylact: “They testify that for their sakes they had made so long a journey, and it had profited them nothing.”

2. Shake off the dust, as impious, on account of the impious inhabitants, that ye may signify that they are, as it were, anathema, and that ye will have nothing, not even their dust in common with them, as being doomed to eternal condemnation. So S. Jer. Theophyl., Ambrose, &c.

3. That this dust shaken off may be a witness in the day ot judgment against their unbelief and wickedness. And this is why Luke adds, for a testimony to them, i.e., against them.

By this, which is the 8th precept of Christ, He tacitly bids His Apostles be of good courage, and not to be distressed, when they saw the Jews rejecting the Gospel, but as God’s avengers to rise up boldly against them.

Mat 10:15  Amen I say to you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

Amen I say to you, &c. They shall be more heavily punished and condemned who reject the Apostles than the Sodomites were, who perished in the fearful fire from heaven, by which the whole Pentapolis was consumed, for an awful example to all ages.

You will ask, how can this be true, since the sin of Sodom was a very great crime contrary to nature, and crying to heaven? The sin of Sodom is reckoned amongst the worst sins, but in the catalogue of lusts, or sins against the natural law of chastity only, for, in other respects, it is certain that there are worse sins, such as heresy, infidelity, blasphemy, sacrilege, despair, hatred of God. Those therefore who rejected the Apostles, and in so doing rejected the grace and salvation of Christ, sinned far worse than the Sodomites, and that, not by a single, but by a manifold sin, viz., 1. by the sin of infidelity, 2. of disobedience, 3. of ingratitude, 4. of inhospitality, 5. of rebellion and contumacy against God, contrary to the law of nature, and of God, and against His grace so benevolently and liberally offered to them, and confirmed by so many miracles and benefits.

This denunciation has also in a measure an application to those who despise God’s word, or vocation, or holy inspirations, against whom God thunders, in Prov 1:24. “Because I called, and ye refused, I also will mock at your calamity.”

S. Jerome proves from this. passage that the punishments of the damned are not all equal, nor, by consequence, their faults.

Moreover Christ appositely compares those who rejected the Apostles to the Sodomites. 1. Because they were guilty of inhumanity and barbarity towards guests. 2. Because as the Sodomites were admonished by Lot and despised him, so were these admonished by Apostles whom Christ sent forth for their salvation. 3. As the Sodomites were punished by fire and brimstone from heaven, so will these be punished by fire and brimstone in hell, only far more severely; because if the Sodomites had heard the preaching of Christ and His Apostles, and had seen their miracles, they would have believed and repented.


3 Responses to “Cornelius a Lapide’s Commentary on Matthew 10:7-15”

  1. […] Top Posts Sunday, July 3 2011: Resources for Sunday MassSunday, July 3: Father Callan's Commentary on Romans 8:9, 11-13A Summary of Rerum NovarumSunday, July 3:Aquinas' Catena Aurea on Matt 11:25-30Sunday, July 3: Cornelius a Lapide's Commentary on Matt 11:25-30Friday, May 27: Fathers Nolan and Brown's Commentary on Today's Gospel (John 15:12-17)The Office for Corpus Christi by St Thomas AquinasFather Callan on Romans 8:8-11 for the Fifth Sunday of Lent (April 10)Pope Benedict XVI's Homily on the Solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity (Preached May, 18, 2008)St Thomas Aquinas on the Ascension and Our Salvation « Thursday, July 7: Cornelius a Lapide’s Commentary on Today’s Gospel (Matt 10:7-15) […]

  2. […] Cornelius a Lapide’s Commentary on Today’s Gospel (Matt 10:7-15) (the […]

  3. […] Cornelius a Lapide’s Commentary on Today’s Gospel (Matt 10:7-15). […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: