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

Archive for July 2nd, 2017

Commentaries for the Twenty-Second Week in Ordinary Time, Year I

Posted by Dim Bulb on July 2, 2017

TWENTY-SECOND SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME
We are in Year A

Year A: Commentaries for the Twenty-Second Sunday in Ordinary Time.

Year B: Commentaries for the Twenty-Second Sunday in Ordinary Time.

Year C: Commentaries for the Twenty-Second Sunday in Ordinary Time.

MONDAY OF THE TWENTY-SECOND WEEK IN ORDINARY TIME

Today’s Mass Readings.

Father Callan’s Commentary on 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18.

Father MacEvilly’s Commentary on 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18.

Aquinas’ Lecture on 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18). On 13-20.

Navarre Bible Commentary on 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18.

My Notes on 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18.

Father Boylan’s Introduction to Psalm 96.

St Augustine’s Notes on Psalm 96.

Pope John Paul II’s Commentary on Psalm 96.

Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on Luke 4:16-30.

Navarre Bible Commentary on Luke 4:16-30.

Father MacEvilly’s Commentary on Luke 4:16-30.

Bishop Knecht’s Practical Commentary on Luke 4:16-30. St Joe of O Blog. On Luke and the parallels in the other gospels.

St Cyril of Alexandria’s Commentary on Luke 4:16-30. Begins at 14.

TUESDAY OF THE TWENTY-SECOND WEEK IN ORDINARY TIME

Today’s Mass Readings.

Father Callan’s Commentary on 1 Thessalonians 5:1-6, 9-11. On 1-11.

Father MacEvilly’s Commentary on 1 Thessalonians 5:1-6, 9-11. On 1-11.

St Thomas Aquinas’ Lecture on 1 Thessalonians 5:1-6, 9-11. On 1-13.

My Notes on 1 Thessalonians 5:1-6. Verses 9-11 pending.

Navarre Bible Commentary on 1 Thessalonians 5:1-6, 9-11.

Father Boylan’s Introduction to Psalm 27.

St Augustine’s Notes on Psalm 27.

St Thomas Aquinas’ Lecture on Psalm 27.

Pope John Paul II’s Commentary on Psalm 27.

Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on Luke 4:31-37.

Navarre Bible Commentary on Luke 4:31-37.

Bishop Knecht’s Practical Commentary on Luke 4:31-37. St Joe of O Blog. On 31-44 and the parallels in Mark & Matthew.

St Cyril of Alexandria’s Commentary on Luke 4:31-37.

WEDNESDAY OF THE TWENTY-SECOND WEEK IN ORDINARY TIME

Today’s Mass Readings.

Father de Piconio’s Commentary on Colossians 1:1-8.

Father MacEvilly’s Commentary on Colossians 1:1-8.

Father Callan’s Commentary on Colossians 1:1-8.

St Thomas Aquinas’ Lectures on Colossians 1:1-8. Read lectures 1-1 & 1-2.

Navarre Bible Commentary on Colossians 1:1-8.

Father Boylan’s Introduction to Psalm 52.

St Augustine’s Notes on Psalm 52.

St Thomas Aquinas’ Lecture on Psalm 52.

Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on Luke 4:38-44.

Navarre Bible Commentary on Luke 4:38-44.

St Cyril of Alexandria’s Commentary on Luke 4:38-44.

THURSDAY OF THE TWENTY-SECOND WEEK IN ORDINARY TIME

Today’s Mass Readings.

Father Callan’s Commentary on Colossians 1:9-14.

Father de Piconio’s Commentary on Colossians 1:9-14.

Father MacEvilly’s Commentary on Colossians 1:9-14.

St Thomas Aquinas’ Lecture on Colossians 1:9-14.

Navarre Bible Commentary on Colossians 1:9-14.

Father Boylan’s Introduction to Psalm 98.

St Augustine’s Notes on Psalm 98.

A Patristic/Medieval Commentary on Psalm 98.

Pope John Paul II’s Commentary on Psalm 98.

Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on Luke 5:1-11.

My Notes on Luke 5:1-11.

Navarre Bible Commentary on Luke 5:1-11.

St Cyril of Alexandria’s Commentary on Luke 5:1-11.

FRIDAY OF THE TWENTY-SECOND WEEK IN ORDINARY TIME
Note: in 2017 this day falls on September, 8, the Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. A link to commentaries for that feast is listed first, followed by commentaries for the normal day.

2017. Commentaries for the Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Today’s Mass Readings.

Father Callan’s Commentary on Colossians 1:15-20.

Father de Piconio’s Commentary on Colossians 1:15-20.

Pope John Paul II’s Commentary on Colossians 1:15-20.

Father MacEvilly’s Commentary on Colossians 1:15-20.

St Thomas Aquinas’ Lecture on Colossians 1:15-20. Lectures 4 & 5 of chapter 1.

Navarre Bible Commentary on Colossians 1:15-20.

Father Boylan’s Introduction to Psalm 100.

St Augustine’s Notes on Psalm 100.

Patristic/Medieval Commentary on Psalm 100.

Pope John Paul II’s Commentary on Psalm 100.

Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on Luke 5:33-39.

Navarre Bible Commentary on Luke 5:33-39.

SATURDAY OF THE TWENTY-SECOND WEEK IN ORDINARY TIME

Today’s Mass Readings.

Father Callan’s Commentary on Colossians 1:21-23.

Father de Piconio’s Commentary on Colossians 1:21-23. On 21-25.

Father MacEvilly’s Commentary on Colossians 1:21-23.

St Thomas Aquinas’ Lecture on Colossians 1:21-23.

Navarre Bible Commentary on Colossians 1:21-23.

Father Boylan’s Introduction to Psalm 54.

St Augustine’s Notes on Psalm 54.

St Thomas Aquinas’ Lecture on Psalm 54.

My Notes on Psalm 54:3-4, 6, 8. On verses 3-9.

Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on Luke 6:1-5.

Navarre Bible Commentary on Luke 6:1-5.

TWENTY-THIRD SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME
We are in Year A

Year A: Commentaries for the Twenty-Third Sunday in Ordinary Time.

Year B: Commentaries for the Twenty-Third Sunday in Ordinary Time.

Year C: Commentaries for the Twenty-Third Sunday in Ordinary Time.

Posted in Bible, Catholic, Catholic lectionary, Daily Catholic Lectionary, Notes on the Lectionary, Scripture | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Commentaries for the Memorial of the Passion of St John the Baptist

Posted by Dim Bulb on July 2, 2017

READINGS:

NABRE. Bible Translation used in the USA.

NJB. Used in most other English speaking countries.

COMMENTARIES ON THE FIRST READING: 1 Thessalonians 2:1-8.

Father MacEvilly’s Commentary on 1 Thessalonians 2:1-8.

Father Callan’s Commentary on 1 Thessalonians 2:1-8.

My Notes on 1 Thessalonians 2:1-8.

Navarre Bible Commentary on 1 Thessalonians 2:1-8.

COMMENTARIES ON THE RESPONSORIAL: Psalm 139:1-3, 4-6.

Father Boylan’s Introduction to Psalm 139.

St Augustine’s Notes on Psalm 139.

Pope St John Paul II’s Commentary on Psalm 139.

COMMENTARIES ON THE GOSPEL READING: Mark 6:17-29.

Father MacEvilly’s Commentary on Mark 6:17-29 (and Matt 14:1-2).

Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on Mark 6:17-29.

Navarre Bible Commentary on Mark 6:17-29.

Posted in Bible, Catholic, Catholic lectionary | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Father MacEvilly’s Commentary on Matthew 14:1-12

Posted by Dim Bulb on July 2, 2017

ANALYSIS OF MATTHEW 14

In this chapter, we have an account of Herod’s opinion of our Lord, on hearing of His miracles. He takes Him for the Baptist returned from the dead. The circumstances of the cruel death of the Baptist and the causes that led to it are here recorded (1–11). Our Redeemer retires from Herod’s quarters, and crosses to the Bethsaida side of the lake. There multitudes had arrived before Him, and He miraculously multiplies bread in their favour (12–22). He obliges His disciples to enter a boat and cross before Him over the water, on which occasion, the sea being tossed by the waves, and the disciples in a state of fright, He calms their apprehension, called on Peter to come to Him on the waters, and saves him from drowning. The vessel at once reaches the shore they were going to, which caused the disciples and the rest to fall down and adore Him (22–33). Having again crossed the water and being come to Genesar, He performs many miraculous cures there (34–36).

Mat 14:1  At that time Herod the Tetrarch heard the fame of Jesus.

At that time.” What precise period is here referred to, is a subject of dispute. It happened after the beheading of the Baptist. It is inferred from the Gospel of St. John (6:4), that the Baptist was beheaded some time near the Pasch. For, the departure of our Redeemer on hearing of John’s death (v. 13 of this chapter), is identified with that recorded (John 6:1), when He performed the miracle of the multiplication of the bread.

Which Pasch it is that “was near at hand” (John 6:4) is uncertain. It most likely was the fourth Pasch, after our Lord’s baptism. Before this Pasch, John was beheaded. This occurred after the mission of the Apostles, recorded (10), as is clear from Mark (6:14), Luke (9:7), both of whom immediately subjoin John’s decollation to the narrative of the mission of the Apostles; and both say, that it was after the Apostles returned from their mission, our Lord was informed of the Baptist’s death; and then it was, the departure of our Redeemer recorded in verse 13 of this chapter took place. St. Matthew states in this chapter (v. 13), that it was after our Redeemer heard of John’s death while traversing Galilee, teaching and performing miracles, He retired and departed across the water.

Herod.” Antipas, the son of Herod the Great, who put the Holy Innocents to death.

The Tetrarch.” This term designates the governor of the fourth part of a province or kingdom. Among the Romans, who divided the conquered kingdoms into Tetrarchites, the term, “Tetrarch,” was applied to all those who exercised supreme power, and enjoyed dignity next to that of king. This Herod Antipas, was Tetrarch of Galilee. He obtained the fourth part of his father’s kingdom. Archelaus, obtained one-half, with the title of Ethnarch, and Philip governed the remaining fourth with the title of Tetrarch. This was in accordance with the will of Herod the Great, which was confirmed by the Romans. This Antipas is styled “king,” verse 9 (Mark 6:14), on account of the similarity between the supreme power he exercised, and that wielded by a king.

Heard of the fame of Jesus.” The fame of our Redeemer’s wonderful works, reached Herod only at this late hour, either, probably, on account of his absence, occasioned by the war with Aretas, the father of his former wife, divorced to make room for Herodias (Josephus Antiq. xviii. c. 7), and by his having set out for Rome before John’s death, before he espoused the infamous Herodias, whom he met at his brother Philip’s house, on his way to Rome (Josephus, ibidem); or, more probably still, on account of the negligence and indifference of immoral, wicked princes, like him, in regard to all matters appertaining to religion, and owing also to the distractions arising from a multiplicity of business occupations.

Josephus states (Antiq. xviii. 5), that the Jews were firmly persuaded, that Herod’s army was cut to pieces by Aretas, king of the Arabians, as a Divine judgment, in punishment of his having put the Baptist to death.

Mat 14:2  And he said to his servants: This is John the Baptist: he is risen from the dead, and therefore mighty works shew forth themselves in him.

And he said to his servants,” that is, his domestics and familiar attendants.

This is John the Baptist: he is risen from the dead.” Herod may have said this, because, he knew that many were, before this time, risen from the dead; such as, the son of the widow of Sarephta (3 Kings 17); the man coming in contact with the bones of Eliseus (4 Kings 13); and the son of the widow of Sunamis (4 Kings 4); or, it may be, that he was imbued partly with the errors of the Greeks, like many others of the Jews, who, confounding the teachings of the SS. Scriptures, regarding the resurrection of the flesh with the errors of Pythagoras, held, that the souls of the good were permitted to enter into other bodies and exist in them. This error, Josephus (Lib. 2, de Bello Jud.), attributes to the Pharisees; and hence, believing John to be raised from the dead, owing to his former virtues, and thinking him now more powerful, he adds, “And, therefore, mighty works show forth themselves,” &c. These words may mean, taking “show forth.” (Vulgate, operantur), passively, that mighty works (δυναμεις)—miraculous wonders were performed by Him, as our English version has it, “show forth themselves.” The Greek for “mighty works” (δυναμεις), signifies miraculous wonders, or, rather, the power or faculty of performing such wonders. The Greek word for “show forth themselves.” (ενεργουσι), signifies, to display active energy.

And he said.” In some readings it is, “and they said,” as if it were the opinion of others, and not the words of Herod himself that were expressed (see Mauduit, in hunc locum). There seems to be some difference between the account given here by the Evangelists. St. Luke (9:7, &c.), says, that on hearing of our Lord’s miracles, Herod “was in doubt, because it was said by some that John was risen from the dead; but by other some, that Elias had appeared; and by others, that one of the old Prophets had arisen,” and that Herod said, “John I have beheaded; but who is this?.” &c. (Luke 9:7, 8, 9.) Here it is stated by St. Matthew, that Herod unhesitatingly said, it was John the Baptist come back from the dead. To reconcile both accounts, some interpreters read the words of St. Matthew interrogatively, “Is this John the Baptist?” “Is he risen from the dead?” Others say, the words are spoken ironically and jeeringly by Herod; others hold that, in public, Herod expressed his doubts, fearing a popular commotion, but in private, speaking to his familiar associates, he gives expression to his real sentiments, regarding the resuscitation of the Baptist. Most likely, both accounts are true, and taken together, they express the real state of the ease. Herod, probably, hesitatingly asserted, as did the others, that it was John the Baptist come back to life. (Luke 9) In other words, on hearing of our Lord’s miracles, and the opinion of others, that it was John come back from the dead, he first hesitated and doubted; and afterwards believing the matter, asserted it, as here.

He asserted the matter in a hesitating manner. The hesitation is expressed by St. Luke; the assertion, without any reference to the hesitation that accompanied it, is expressed here.

Mat 14:3  For Herod had apprehended John and bound him, and put him into prison, because of Herodias, his brother’s wife.

We are informed by Josephus (Lib. Antiq. xviii. c. 5), that Herod confined John in the fortified castle of Macherus, near the Lake Asphaltites, or Dead Sea, on the borders of Arabia Petrea. That John was delivered over to Herod by the Pharisees, or at least, that they co-operated with Herod in this matter, and, probably, stimulated by envy, strongly urged him to confine John, on grounds of public safety, is, with much probability, inferred from the words of our Lord (Matt. 17:12). Josephus (Lib. Antiq. xviii. c. 5), says, Herod confined John in this strong castle out of jealousy and fear of his influence with the people. This might be one of Herod’s reasons for doing so.

Because of Herodias, his brother’s wife.” The Greek has, “the wife of Philip, his brother.” as also has the Vulgate (Mark 6:17). There is some difference of opinion as to who this Herodias was. The common opinion seems to be, that she was daughter of Aristobulus, son of Herod the Great, by Mariamne, the last of the Asmonean kingly race. She was sister to Herod Agrippa, and, consequently, she was niece to this very Herod Antipas, who was brother to her father, Aristobulus, both brothers having different mothers. She was married to Herod Philip, brother to this Herod Antipas. Whether this was Philip, the Tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis (Luke 3:1), or a different Philip, also son of Herod the Great, of whom there is no mention made in Herod’s will and distribution of his dominions, and who must have, therefore, lived in a private station, is disputed. If the narrative of Josephus (Lib. Antiq. xviii. c. 5), be credited, it could not be Philip the Tetrarch (Luke 3:1). For, he states that Herodias’s daughter, by Philip—before she married Herod Antipas—named Salome, “was married to Philip, the son of Herod, and Tetrarch of Trachonitis.” The Philip, then, whom Herodias married first must be quite a different person. Others, rejecting this testimony of Josephus, who, they say, was deceived in this, assert, that the Philip referred to (Luke 3:1), as Tetrarch, &c., was the first husband of Herodias. Herod Antipas, on his way to Rome (as we are informed by Josephus, ibidem), in the sixteenth year of Tiberius, lodged in the house of his brother Philip, for whose wife Herodias, he conceived a wicked passion; and obtained her consent to leave her husband, and live with him on his return from Rome, on condition of his sending away his wife, who was daughter of Aretas, king of Arabia. This latter, on being informed of Herod’s designs and resolution to espouse Herodias, fled to her father for protection, who, in defence of his daughter’s honour and rights, waged war on Herod, and cut his army to pieces. (Josephus, Lib. Antiq. xviii., &c.) The Baptist sternly rebuked Herod for his incestuous and adulterous connexion with Herodias, her former husband and his own wife being still alive. Even if we suppose Philip, her former husband to be dead, as some assert, though Josephus positively states the contrary; still, Antipas, though not a Jew, any more than his father, Herod the Great, was, however, like him, a Jewish proselyte, bound by the law of Moses, which forbade marriage with a deceased brother’s wife (Lev. 18:16; 20:21), save in the case of the deceased brother dying without issue (Deut. 25:5). In the present instance there was issue, viz., the wicked daughter spoken of in this chapter. The marriage was, therefore, unlawful. Hence, the zeal of the Baptist in reproaching Herod with this scandalous adulterous connexion—scandalous, especially, in one occupying his elevated station.

Mat 14:4  For John said to him: It is not lawful for thee to have her.

John having no fear of the countenance of the mighty, with Apostolic firmness and freedom of speech, neither deterred by threats, nor allured by blandishments, regardless of the consequences which he probably foresaw would cost him his head, upbraided the royal adulterer with the criminal state he was in. We are informed by St. Luke (3:19), that the Baptist also reproached Herod with other crimes.

Mat 14:5  And having a mind to put him to death, he feared the people: because they esteemed him as a prophet.

However much Herod might have respected the virtue and sanctity of the Baptist (Mark 6:20); still, prompted by passion and stimulated by the wicked Herodias, he was anxious to do away with him. He feared, however, to have recourse to any extreme or unnecessarily harsh measures, lest the people, who regarded John as a prophet, might resent it.

Mat 14:6  But on Herod’s birthday, the daughter of Herodias danced before them: and pleased Herod.

On Herod’s birth-day,” which is called (Mark 6:21) a convenient day” for carrying out the designs of Herodias, regarding the Baptist—“a convenient day” for banishing the fears and scruples of Herod, touching the sentence of a violent death against the Baptist, when he made a supper for the chief men of Galilee.

The daughter of Herodias danced before them, and pleased Herod.” The circumstance of permitting dancing during the feast, shows the voluptuousness practised in the court of Herod; for, even amongst the most abandoned of the Roman Emperors, such was not allowed.

Mat 14:7  Whereupon he promised with an oath, to give her whatsoever she would ask of him.

Heated with wine and blinded by passion, Herod “promised to give her whatsoever she would ask.” St. Mark adds (6:23), “though it were half his kingdom.” This rash and foolish promise he confirmed with the solemn sanction of an oath.

Mat 14:8  But she being instructed before by her mother, said: Give me here in a dish the head of John the Baptist.

Instructed by her mother, whom she went to consult after receiving the promise (Mark 6:24), she asked to get on the spot, without any delay, the head of John the Baptist, lest, if time for reflection were given him, he might repent of the promise. “Give me here on a dish, the head of John,” &c. She wished for this, to be the more certain of his death; for, her mother dreaded lest, through the influence of the Baptist, Herod would send her away in disgrace.

Mat 14:9  And the king was struck sad: yet because of his oath, and for them that sat with him at table, he commanded it to be given.

The king was struck sad.” Some are of opinion, with St. Jerome, that the king was really glad of the pretext this opportunity, as it were, afforded him, of carrying out his designs against the Baptist; and that the whole affair of the request on the part of Salome—the daughter of Herodias—was previously agreed on by common concert between Herod and his adulterous wife. Others, with St. Augustine, consider that Herod was really “sad.” For, besides that the Evangelist says so, in the plainest terms, it is most likely, that, although, Herod, in the beginning, when he cast the Baptist into prison, would have him slain, had he not dreaded a popular commotion (v. 5); still, in the course of his imprisonment, he began to reverence his sanctity, and willingly listened to him (Mark 6:20), and was, therefore, sorry for the rash promise he made. Moreover, all the circumstances under which he was called upon to put him to death, the time, the place, the odium, attached to so unnatural a proceeding, were calculated to cause him real sorrow.

Yet because of his oath,” &c., that is, to avoid violating his oath, as if he did not add perjury to homicide in keeping so impious and rash a promise. The observance of an oath, having for object the perpetration of evil, is no less sinful and criminal than was its original utterance. It is an insult to God to invoke Him as witness to the perpetration of evil, as if this were pleasing to Him. St. Jerome asks, if it were the head of her mother she asked, would Herod have given it to her?

And for them that sat with him at table.” He did not wish to incur the reproach of fickleness or inconstancy, before the chief men of Galilee, whom he had assembled around him on the occasion (Mark 6:21).

Mat 14:10  And he sent, and beheaded John in the prison.

And he sent” (an executioner—Mark 6:27), “and beheaded John in the prison.” Josephus says, this prison was in the castle of Macherus, near the Sea Asphaltites, or Dead Sea, beyond the Jordan. This castle was in Herod’s dominions; for, he ruled Galilee and the district beyond the Jordan. (Josephus, Lib. 12, Antiq.) Hence, it is inferred by some, that this great banquet was given in the castle of Macherus itself; otherwise, the head of the Baptist could not be called for and given on the spot. Others deny Josephus’ account of the prison of the Baptist. They maintain, that he was imprisoned in Galilee, and that it was there Herod gave this entertainment to his nobles.

Mat 14:11  And his head was brought in a dish: and it was given to the damsel, and she brought it to her mother.

The mother, the wicked Herodias, was the instigator of the entire barbarous proceeding. St. Jerome (Lib. 3, contra Rufin, c. 11), tells us, that this monster made it her inhuman pastime to prick, with a bodkin, the tongue of the Saint. The same is recorded of Fulvia, in regard to Cicero. This same Herod, four years after he had treated the Redeemer of the world, as a mock king and a fool, in the crowded streets of Jerusalem, was banished, with his wicked wife, after they had been deprived of all their earthly possessions, their kingdom being added to that of Agrippa, by Caius to Lyons, in Gaul, where, we are informed by Josephus (Antiq. xviii. 7), they died in great misery, although it is said by others, and by the same Josephus, that his place of banishment by Caius was Spain, whither his wife followed him (Josephus, de Bel. Jud. ii. 9). Nicephorus (Lib. i., Histor. c. 20), and others state, that Salome, by a just judgment of God, met with a most miserable, but appropriate death. While crossing the ice in winter, it broke; and she was plunged in as far as the shoulders; then, the ice coming again together, severed her head from her body.

Mat 14:12  And his disciples came and took the body, and buried it, and came and told Jesus. 

The disciples of the Baptist, who, it seems, had access to his prison (Matt. 11:2), came, and taking away his body, had it honourably interred. St. Jerome informs us that it was interred in Sebaste, formerly called Samaria.

Posted in Bible, Catholic, Catholic lectionary, Christ, Notes on the Gospel of Matthew, Notes on the Lectionary, Scripture | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Father MacEvilly’s Commentary on Matthew 13:44-52

Posted by Dim Bulb on July 2, 2017

Mat 13:44  The kingdom of heaven is like unto a treasure hidden in a field. Which a man having found, hid it, and for joy thereof goeth, and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field. 

The kingdom of heaven,” or, doctrine of the Gospel, “is like unto a treasure hidden in a field,” like unto such valuable effects as men bury in the bowels of the earth in troubled times, for greater security. “He goeth,” that is, cautiously leaves it hidden, as he found it, or hides and conceals the fact of his having found it, “and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath and buyeth that field.”

As the preceding parables point out the force and efficacy of the Gospel doctrine, this parable of “the treasure,” and the following, ofthe pearls,” show the priceless value of the same doctrine. In both parables, we are reminded of the great sacrifices we are called upon to make, if necessary, to secure the incomparable advantage of being sharers in the blessing of the Gospel, compared with which all the goods and acquisitions of this transitory world are but dross and ordure (Phil. 3:7–8). “He hideth,” in reference to the Gospel privileges, signifies, that the man in question employs every possible means to guard against the loss of this priceless blessing. “And buys that field.” By the Jewish law, a treasure belonged by right to the actual proprietor of the soil. To this, these words are allusive.

Mat 13:45  Again the kingdom of heaven is like to a merchant seeking good pearls. 
Mat 13:46  Who when he had found one pearl of great price, went his way, and sold all that he had, and bought it. 

(Seventh Parable.) Unlike the preceding parable, wherein, a man is supposed, without any exertions of his own, to have unexpectedly fallen in with a treasure, which God in His goodness made known to him, in this parable of the pearls, are insinuated the difficulties, the dangers and the perils which the merchant had to encounter in order to find the Gospel truth. If necessary, everything is to be sacrificed for it. “He sold all that he had and bought it.” Qui non renunciaverit omnibus quæ possidet non potest esse meus discipulus.” We frequently find the truths of God compared to the most valuable of human acquisitions, viz., pearls and precious stones, “desiderabilia super aurum et lapidem pretiosum.” “Dilexi mandata tua super aurum et topazion,” &c.

Mat 13:47  Again the kingdom of heaven is like to a net cast into the sea, and gathering together of all kinds of fishes.

(Eighth Parable.) “The kingdom of heaven,” the Gospel doctrine, or, probably, the Church militant here below, “is like to a net (a drag net) cast into the sea.” The Church is cast into this troubled, boisterous, stormy world, in which men are daily exposed and shipwrecked.

And gathering together of all kinds of fishes.” In the Church are found every description of persons, whether bond or free, rich or poor, from every quarter of the globe—saints and sinners—not that any are saints before entering the Church, as the fishes are good before caught in the net. The Parable is not, in this respect, to be urged aa vivum; it only is meant, that in the net, after they have entered it, are found good and bad, saints and sinners.

Mat 13:48  Which, when it was filled, they drew out, and sitting by the shore, they chose out the good into vessels, but the bad they cast forth. 
Mat 13:49  So shall it be at the end of the world. The angels shall go out, and shall separate the wicked from among the just. 
Mat 13:50  And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 
New and Old Treasures

When filled.” When at the end of the world, “the fulness of the Gentiles shall have entered.” This parable exhibits the capacity and amplitude—the Catholicity of the Church—as the net, the whole Church, takes in the entire world. The parable was introduced for the twofold purpose of removing any grounds of surprise at seeing sinners and wicked men in the Church; as even in the best constituted kingdoms we find thieves, murderers, &c.; and of cautioning us against feeling too secure, because we are members of the Church, which includes sinners as well as saints, reprobates as well as elect.

Note.—Of the preceding parables, some are said to be spoken before the crowd (v. 36). Hence, it is inferred by certain commentators, that the others were not; and that they were spoken privately before the disciples. By other commentators, it is supposed that all were spoken in immediate succession and at the same time. There is no satisfactory evidence for supposing, that some were spoken privately, and some publicly before the multitudes.

Mat 13:51  Have ye understood all these things? They say to him: Yes.

Our Redeemer proposes this question, in order that the answer He was sure to receive would furnish a fitting opportunity of imparting the following points of instruction.

Mat 13:52  He said unto them: Therefore every scribe instructed in the kingdom of heaven, is like to a man that is a householder, who bringeth forth out of his treasure new things and old. 

Therefore,” as you understand the things I have spoken, I wish you to bury them up in your hearts and intellects, so that as learned teachers, you may give them utterance in due time, and not keep them within yourselves. I wish, then, to inform you, that “every Scribe,” that is, teacher versed in the law, “instructed in the kingdom of heaven,” or, as the Greek has it, “into the kingdom of heaven” instructed for teaching and preaching the mysteries and truths relating to the kingdom of heaven. He uses the word “scribe,” when speaking of an Evangelical teacher, in accordance with the language of the Jews. “Is like to a householder,” a provident householder, who produces from his stores all kinds of food and viands, new and old, to suit and satisfy the palate and appetite of his several guests.

The preacher of the Gospel must, then, be prepared to employ examples of all sorts, taken both from the Old Testament and the New; and bring to bear varied knowledge, derived from all legitimate sources, cultivated and perfected by daily meditation and spiritual exercises, in instructing the people. He is sure to make an ever-lasting impression, if he elucidate and confirm his teaching, and make abstract truths almost tangible by examples derived from the New Testament, and prefigured by the Old, as also by the judicious selections of examples drawn from the lives of the saints. There is hardly any point so important for preachers, as the judicious use of appropriate examples. Our Redeemer wishes to stimulate His Apostles to follow the example of preaching which He Himself had set them.

Posted in Bible, Catholic, Catholic lectionary, Christ, Notes on the Gospel of Matthew, Notes on the Lectionary, Scripture | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

 
%d bloggers like this: