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 the ‘Bible’ Category

Commentaries for the Third Sunday of Lent, Year C

Posted by Dim Bulb on February 7, 2016

READINGS AND OFFICE:

Today’s Mass Readings: NABRE. Used in the USA.

Mass Readings in the NJB Translation. Scroll down. Used in most English speaking countries. For some reason the site has the Gospel reading before the second reading.

Divine Office.

Anglican Use Daily Office. ”Briefly, it is a provision for an “Anglican style” liturgy similar to the Book of Common Prayer as an ecclesiastically approved variant on the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church.” More info.

COMMENTARIES ON THE FIRST READING: Exodus 3:1-8a, 13-15.

Navarre Bible Commentary on Exodus 3:1-8a, 13-15.

My Notes on Exodus 3:1-8a, 13-15. Currently only on verses 1-8. Will try to complete.

Word-Sunday Notes on Exodus 3:1-8, 13-15.

COMMENTARIES ON THE RESPONSORIAL: Psalm 103:1-2, 3-4, 6-7, 8, 11.

Father Boylan’s Introduction to Psalm 103.

St Augustine’s Notes on Psalm 103.

Patristic/Medieval Commentary on Psalm 103.

Word-Sunday Notes on Psalm 103.

Pending: My Notes on Psalm 103:1-2, 3-4, 6-7, 8, 11.

COMMENTARIES ON THE SECOND READING: 1 Corinthians 10:1-6, 10-12.

Cornelius a Lapide”s Notes on 1 Cor 10:1-6, 10-12.

Bernard de Picquigny’s Notes on 1 Cor 10:1-6, 10-12.

Pending: Father Callan’s Commentary on 1 Cor 10:1-6, 10-12.

Word-Sunday Notes on 1 Cor 10:1-6, 10-12.

Navarre Bible Commentary on 1 Cor 10:1-6, 10-12.

COMMENTARIES ON THE GOSPEL: Luke 13:1-9.

Navarre Bible Commentary on Luke 13:1-9.

My Notes on Luke 13:1-9.

Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on Luke 13:1-9.

Cornelius a Lapide’s Commentary on Luke 13:1-9.

St Cyril of Alexandria’s Commentary on Luke 13:1-9. On 6-9, the fig tree parable.

Word-Sunday Notes on Luke 13:1-9.

GENERAL RESOURCES:

Lector Notes. Brief historical and theological background on the readings. Can be printed out, copied, and used as bulletin insert.

The Wednesday Word.  It’s about the Sunday readings, but the document is posted on Wednesday, hence the name. Designed for prayer and reflection, the pdf document ends with Father Dom Henry Wansbrough’s reflections on the first and second readings. Fr. Wansbrough is General Editor of the New Jerusalem Bible and contributed commentaries on Matt, Mark, and the Pastorals in A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture.

St Charles Borromeo Parish’s Bible Study Notes. Notes on all the readings, usually with some background info as well.

Sacred Page Blog:  Reflection on the readings by Catholic biblical scholar Dr John Bergsma.

Glancing Thoughts. Not yet posted. Brief reflections from philosopher Eleanore Stump.

Thoughts From The Early Church. Excerpt from homily by St Augustine.

Scripture In Depth. Succinct summary of the readings and their relation to one another.

PODCASTS: Scripture studies, homilies, etc.

Franciscan Sister’s Bible Study Podcast. Looks at all the readings. Link is to an index page. The study will probably not be available until Thursday.

St Martha’s Parish Bible Study Podcast. Looks at all the readings.

Father Mike’s Introduction to Exodus. Basic introduction to the book.

Carson Weber’s Podcast on Exodus. Good overview of the Exodus. Scroll down and click on the audio player of the mp3 link. Part of a 30 episode overview study of the Bible.

EWTN’s Podcast Study of Exodus by Dr. Tim Gray. Listen to episode 2.

Father Mike’s Introduction to 1 & 2 Corinthians.  Basic introduction to the letters.

St Irenaeus Ministries Podcast Study of 1 Cor 10:1-6, 10-12. Looks at chapters 9-11. click on the POD icon or the direct download link.

Father Mike’s Introduction to Luke. Basic introduction to the entire gospel.

St Irenaeus Ministries Podcast Study of Luke 13:1-9. Actually studies 12:13-14:35. Click on the POD icon or the direct download link.

(1) Father Barron’s Homily Podcast: The Burning Bush.

(2) Father Barron’s Homily Podcast: A Tale of Two Trees.

Dr. Scott Hahn’s Sunday Reflections. Brief. Does good job of highlighting major theme(s). Text available.

Posted in Bible, Catholic, Catholic Sunday Lectionary, Christ, Lent, Notes on the Lectionary, Scripture | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Commentaries for the Second Sunday of Lent, Year C

Posted by Dim Bulb on February 7, 2016

COMMENTARIES ON THE FIRST READING: Genesis 15:5-12, 17-18.

Navarre Bible Commentary on Genesis 15:5-12, 17-18.

Our Father Abraham. A Bible Study Lesson from the St Paul Center for Biblical Theology. An overview of the significance of Abraham in the Old and New Testaments.

Homilist’s Catechism on Genesis 15:5-12, 17-18.

COMMENTARIES ON THE RESPONSORIAL: Psalm 27:1, 7-8, 8-9, 13-14.

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.

COMMENTARIES ON THE SECOND READING: Philippians 3:17-4:1. Note that a shorter reading is allowed Phil 30:20-4:1.

Father de Piconio’s Commentary on Philippians 3:17-4:1. Includes 4:2-3.

My Notes on Philippians 3:17-4:1. Includes 4:2-3.

Navarre Bible Commentary on Philippians 3:17-4:1.

Homilist’s Catechism on Philippians 3:17-4:1.

COMMENTARIES ON THE GOSPEL: Luke 9:28b-36.

St Cyril of Alexandria’s Commentary on Luke 9:28-36. Begins with 27.

Navarre Bible Commentary on Luke 9:28b-36.

Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on Luke 9:28-36.

My Notes on Luke 9:28b-36.

Homilist’s Catechism on Luke 9:28b-36.

PODCASTS: Scripture studies, homilies, etc.

Dr. Scott Hahn’s Podcast. Brief. Does good job of highlighting major theme(s).

(1) Father Mike’s Bible Study Podcast.  Introduction to the book of Genesis.

(2) Father Mike’s Bible Study Podcast. Introduction to Philippians-Thessalonians.

(3) Father Mike’s Bible Study Podcast. Introduction to Luke.

Abraham, Our Father. Scroll down click on the audio player or the mp3 download link. This is part of a 30 part audio study on the Bible.

Seeds of Abraham Episode 2. EWTN Study of Major OT Figures by fr. Mitch Pacwa. The first 5 episodes look at Abraham.

Franciscan Sisters Bible Study Podcast. Looks at all of the readings.

St Martha’s Parish Bible Study Podcast. Looks at the readings in some detail.

St Irenaeus Ministries Podcast Study of Luke 8-9. Click on POD icon or direct download link.

Father Barron’s Homily Podcast. From the noted speaker and theologian.

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

Father Maas’ Commentary on Matthew 4:1-11

Posted by Dim Bulb on February 6, 2016

Mt 4:1. THEN Jesus was led by the spirit into the desert, to be tempted by the devil.

1. Then Jesus was led.] In his baptism Jesus has been declared to be the Messias [Is. 42:1; Ps. 2:7]; now the Messias was regarded as the founder of a new dispensation [31:32; Mal. 3:1], and as the conqueror of the serpent [Gen. 3:15]. Moses, the founder of the Jewish dispensation, and Elias, its restorer, had fasted forty days before beginning their work; the first Adam had been vanquished by Satan in temptation. It is then fit that Jesus should begin his Messianic work by a similar fast, and foreshadow his triumph over Satan by overcoming him in temptation.

1. The fast. a. When? The evangelist indicates the time by the general particle “then”; according to Mk. 1:12, this happened immediately after the baptism, and Lk. 4:1 suggests the same time. St. Irenæus, bishop of Lyons about 178; Migne, patr. græc. 7.

“>Iren. [adv. hær. II. xxii. 5] contends that Jesus retired after receiving baptism at the age of thirty, and began his public life only in the “senior ætas”; the text of the synoptic gospels, and the fact that among the Jews one could begin to teach at the age of thirty, demand no interruption between the baptism and the public life of Jesus. St. Irenæus, bishop of Lyons about 178; Migne, patr. græc. 7.

“>Iren. claims for his view the report of the gospel—probably Jn. 8:57, which does not support St. Irenæus, bishop of Lyons about 178; Migne, patr. græc. 7.

“>Iren.—and of the “Elders of Asia.”

b. Why? (1) Jesus was led [or driven, according to Mk. 1:12], without being rapt through the air [cf. ev. Heb.; St. Jerome, about 378–420; he wrote his “commentariorum in evangelium Matthæi libros iv.” very hastily, following Orig. and Hil. quite closely; Migne, patr. lat. 26, 21–218.

“>Jer. in Mich, 7:5–7], by the Spirit who had come visibly upon him [cf. Venerable Bede, about 731; here belongs his “in Matt. evang. expos. ll. 4.”; Migne, patr. lat. 92; the writer follows Jer. Ambr. Aug. op. imp.

“>Bed.], into the desert, that he might return from the desert into paradise from which the first Adam had been cast out into the desert. The Greek expression shows that the Spirit led Jesus upwards from the Jordan valley. The gospel does not specify the desert that was the scene of the following events; Maldonatus, died 1583; here belongs his classical work, “comment. in quatuor evangelia.”

“>Mald. Schegg, Evangelium nach Matthäus übersetz, u. erklärt München, 1856–58.

“>Schegg, H. A. W. Meyer, krit. exeget. Handbuch über d. Ev. d. Matth., Gött. 1832.

“>Meyer, Schanz, Comm. über d. Evang. d. h. Matth., Freib. 1879.

“>Schanz conclude, therefore, that the evangelist speaks of the same desert as in 3:1 [the desert of Judea]. There is no reason for identifying the desert with that of Sinai [Henry Alford, The Greek Testament, Boston, 1886.

“>Alf.], though we grant a scripture parallelism between Moses, Elias, and our Lord. Tradition points to the desert of Jericho, and more in particular, to the highest part of the mountain range near Jericho, on the road to Jerusalem, named Quarantania [Kuruntel or Karantel] from the Forty Days’ Fast.

(2) That solitude is well fitted for communion with God is manifest from many passages in Sacred Scripture: Ex. 34:28; 3 Kings 19:8, 9; Lk. 3:2; 5:16; Jn. 11:54; 18:2; Mt. 26:36; etc. But the evangelist adds another purpose for which the Spirit led Jesus into the desert, viz., “to be tempted by the devil.” The agent who was to tempt Jesus does not permit us to understand the word in the sense of “provoking to anger,” or of “trying to make known some secret or hidden quality in his sacred person”; and still, it seems to be a fearful thing that either God directly intended Jesus to be tempted to evil, or that the sacred humanity of Jesus should have been subjected to this awful humiliation.

(3) St. Paul has anticipated the answer to this second exception where he explains to the Hebrews the mystery of Christ’s abasement [Heb. 2:17; 4:15; 5:8]. The apostle shows that, excepting sin, Jesus must become like unto us; that he must be tried like ourselves, and that he must learn obedience by what he suffers.

(4) Nor is it unworthy of God to have intended the temptation of Jesus; for as in any attack one has to bear from one’s enemy, one may distinguish between the trial and the advantage of the enemy, so in the present case, God intended Jesus to be tried in the conflict with Satan without giving any advantage to the latter.

(5) This intention on the part of God creates the less difficulty, because on the part of Jesus sin was physically impossible. Hence it was that the temptation must come from outside; for Jesus was free from concupiscence, and could not therefore suffer any temptation arising from within.

(6) Moreover, it was fitting that the restorer of the human race should meet in single combat, as it were, the old serpent who had ruined Adam and his offspring in the garden of paradise; no wonder, then, that the Spirit of God, whom the evangelist contrasts so emphatically with the evil spirit, impelled our Lord to meet his enemy in the desert [St. Thomas of Aquin, died 1274; his “in Matthæum evangelistam expositio” and “catena aurea in Matthæum …” must here be noted.

“>Thom. Alb. Maldonatus, died 1583; here belongs his classical work, “comment. in quatuor evangelia.”

“>Mald. Cornelius Jansenius, bishop of Ghent, died 1576; he wrote “concordiam evangelicam” and “comment, in concordiam et totam histor. evangelicam,” besides several other works.

“>Jans. Sebast. Barradas, died 1615; here belong his “commentaria in concordiam et historiam evangelicam,” tt. 4.

“>Bar. Johannes de Sylveira, died 1687; here belongs “in textum evangelicum commentaria quinque tomis distributa”; he gives regularly different versions for the text.

“>Sylv. Cornelius a Lapide [van den Steen], died 1637; his “commentarii in quatuor evangelia” contain much patristic and philological erudition, but are less critical than Mald.’s.

“>Lap. Lamy, The Public Life of our Lord, London, 1876.

“>Coleridge, Einheit der vier Evangelien, Regensburg, 1868.

“>Grimm].

c. The tempter. The desert is repeatedly represented as the dwelling place of evil spirits: Mt. 12:43; Lk. 11:24; Is. 13:21; 34:14; Lev. 16:10; Tob. 8:3; Bar. 4:33; etc. In the present case, the evangelist mentions “the devil” as the intended tempter. This word is derived from the Greek noun διάβολος, or the verb διαβάλλειν, to calumniate; this is the usual term in lxx. for the Hebrew שָׂטָן, which is σατανᾶς in the New Testament, and also σατᾶν in the lxx. The Hebrew word properly means “adversary,” and is used originally of men [3 Kings 5:18; 11:14; etc.] or angels [2 Kings 19:23; Num. 22:22]; but with the article, it means the adversary by excellence, the enemy of God, and the tempter of men [1 Par. 21:1; 2 Kings 24:1], and the accuser of men before the throne of God [Zach. 3:1, 2; Job 1:7]. In this sense the word has become almost a proper name of the prince of darkness. This excludes the rationalistic opinion that the tempter of Jesus was the chief of the Sanhedrin, or the Jewish high priest, or another remarkable and influential member of the Synagogue [cf. Rosenm. Kuinoel, Schütz]. Need we add that Paulus makes the whole history a dream, Eichhorn, Dereser, etc., a fancy, Schmidt, Döderlein, Schleiermacher, Usteri, Baumgarten, a parable, Strauss, Kurze Erklärung d. Evangelinms Matthäi, Leipzig, 1836.

“>De Wette, H. A. W. Meyer, krit. exeget. Handbuch über d. Ev. d. Matth., Gött. 1832.

“>Meyer, a myth?

Mt 4:2. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterwards he was hungry. 

2. And when he had fasted.] d. The fast. α. That the fast of Jesus was not merely what is meant in ecclesiastical language by fasting, nor what the Jews understood by the term,—the Jewish fast ended with the day, at sunset,—is clear from the words of St. Matthew, “forty days and forty nights,” from the fast of Moses related in terms similar to those of the present passage [Ex. 34:28; Deut. 9:9, 18], and from the express statement of St. Luke [4:2], “and he ate nothing in those days” [cf. Euthymius Zigabenus, about 1116; he follows Chrys., but has also matter of his own; Migne, patr. græc. 129.

“>Euth. Radbert Paschase, a French monk, died about 865; Migne, patr. lat. 120.

“>Pasch. Alb. Salmeron, died 1485; he throws light on gospel history.

“>Salm. Maldonatus, died 1583; here belongs his classical work, “comment. in quatuor evangelia.”

“>Mald. Cornelius Jansenius, bishop of Ghent, died 1576; he wrote “concordiam evangelicam” and “comment, in concordiam et totam histor. evangelicam,” besides several other works.

“>Jans. Lam. Aug. Calmet, died 1757; his commentary, translated into Latin by Mansi, is literal, concise, and clear.

“>Calm.].

β. It may be of interest to draw attention to the preferential use of the number forty in both the Old and New Testament: Moses and Elias fasted forty days [Ex. 24:18; 3 Kings 19:9]; it rained forty days and nights on the earth [Gen. 7:11]; the forty usual days passed after the embalming of Jacob’s body [Gen. 1:3]; the explorers of the land of Chanaan returned after forty days [Num. 13:26]; Goliath presented himself for forty days to the hosts of Israel [1 Kings 17:16]; the Jews passed forty years in the desert [Ex. 16:35]; Ezechiel did penance for forty days for the sins of the house of Israel [Ez. 4:6]; the land of Egypt was made desolate for forty years [Ez. 29:12]; Jesus was presented in the temple after forty days, he fasted forty days, and for forty days he conversed with his disciples after his resurrection; we need not add the forty days’ penance of the Ninivites, the forty days’ legal impurity after child-birth [cf. St. Hilary, bishop of Poitiers about 354; Migne, patr. lat. 9, 917–1078.

“>Hil. St. Ambrose, bishop of Milan 374–397; Migne, patr. lat. 14–17.

“>Ambr. Salmeron, died 1485; he throws light on gospel history.

“>Salm. Cornelius Jansenius, bishop of Ghent, died 1576; he wrote “concordiam evangelicam” and “comment, in concordiam et totam histor. evangelicam,” besides several other works.

“>Jans. Maldonatus, died 1583; here belongs his classical work, “comment. in quatuor evangelia.”

“>Mald. Johannes de Sylveira, died 1687; here belongs “in textum evangelicum commentaria quinque tomis distributa”; he gives regularly different versions for the text.

“>Sylv. Arnoldi, Comm. z. Evang. d. h. Matt., Trier, 1856.

“>Arn. Schanz, Comm. über d. Evang. d. h. Matth., Freib. 1879.

“>Schanz, Knabenbauer, Evangelium sec. Matthæum, Parisiis, 1892.

“>Knab.].

γ. In the New Testament we find no fixed time for fasting [cf. St. Augustin, bishop of Hippo 395–430; here belong his “de sermone in monte,” ll. 2; “de consensu evangelist.” ll. 4; “quæst. evangel.” ll. 2; quæst. 27 in evang. Matt.; Migne, patr. lat. 34, 35.

“>Aug. ep. 36, al. 38; ad Casul. xi. 25], though this holy exercise is frequently commended: Mt. 9:15; Mk. 2:20; Lk. 5:35; Acts 13:2, 3; 14:22; 1 Cor. 7:5; 2 Cor. 11:27. As to the time of lent, it is of ecclesiastical institution, but of apostolic tradition; cf. St. Jerome, about 378–420; he wrote his “commentariorum in evangelium Matthæi libros iv.” very hastily, following Orig. and Hil. quite closely; Migne, patr. lat. 26, 21–218.

“>Jer. ep. 41, 3 [al. 51 or 54]; in Mt. ix. 15; ep. 18 ad Eustoch. [al. 22]; ep. 57 ad Lætam [al. 7]; Apostol. Const. c. 68; Counc. of Laodicea, can. 15; Leo the Great, serm. xliv. 1 [edit. Ballerini, t. i. p. 168]; xlvii. 1 [ibid. p. 177]; Ignat. ad Phil. xiii; St. Augustin, bishop of Hippo 395–430; here belong his “de sermone in monte,” ll. 2; “de consensu evangelist.” ll. 4; “quæst. evangel.” ll. 2; quæst. 27 in evang. Matt.; Migne, patr. lat. 34, 35.

“>Aug. lib. ii. ad inquis. Januarii seu ep. 55 [al. 119]; 14:27; 15:28; Daille, de jejun. x.; Bellarm. De bonis oper. 1. ii. c. xiv.; Kirchenlexicon, ed. Kaulen, t. iv. s. v. Fastenzeiten. Bellarm. has collected a number of reasons for the institution of lent: in it we practise public penance for the sins of the year, we prepare for the paschal communion, we fulfil the prediction of our Lord [Mt. 9:15], we commemorate with greater fervor our Lord’s passion and death, we pray for the catechumens to be admitted to baptism about this time of the year, we pay tithes, as it were, of our whole lives to God by consecrating to him the tenth part of each year, and finally we imitate Jesus Christ, who fasted for forty days in the desert.

δ. St. Matthew adds “afterwards he was hungry”; St. Luke [4:2] agrees with this statement, saying “and when they [the forty days] were ended, he was hungry.” Commentators are unanimous in inferring from these words that Jesus did not feel hunger during his forty days’ stay in the desert, which may have been spent in ecstatic prayer [“opus imperfectum” consists of 53 homilies on part of the first gospel; formerly the work was found among those of Chrys., but the author must have been an Arian of the sixth or seventh century; Migne, patr. græc. 56, 611–946.

“>op. imp. St. Hilary, bishop of Poitiers about 354; Migne, patr. lat. 9, 917–1078.

“>Hil. St. Ambrose, bishop of Milan 374–397; Migne, patr. lat. 14–17.

“>Ambr. Alb. Faber Stapulensis or Lefévre d’Etaples, 1455–1537; his commentaries were placed on the Index “donee corrigantur.”

“>Fab. Dionysius the Carthusian, 1403–1473; cf. his “enarrat. in quatuor evangelistas.”

“>Dion. Salmeron, died 1485; he throws light on gospel history.

“>Salm. Cornelius Jansenius, bishop of Ghent, died 1576; he wrote “concordiam evangelicam” and “comment, in concordiam et totam histor. evangelicam,” besides several other works.

“>Jans. Maldonatus, died 1583; here belongs his classical work, “comment. in quatuor evangelia.”

“>Mald. Sebast. Barradas, died 1615; here belong his “commentaria in concordiam et historiam evangelicam,” tt. 4.

“>Bar. Johannes de Sylveira, died 1687; here belongs “in textum evangelicum commentaria quinque tomis distributa”; he gives regularly different versions for the text.

“>Sylv. Cornelius a Lapide [van den Steen], died 1637; his “commentarii in quatuor evangelia” contain much patristic and philological erudition, but are less critical than Mald.’s.

“>Lap. etc.]. Suarez [in 3 p. disp. 29 s. 2 n. 5] is of opinion that the interpretation defended by Cajetan, 1469–1534; his commentary is brief and literal.

“>Caj. and proposed as probable by Medina, according to which Jesus felt hunger all through his stay in the desert, is rash, because it contradicts the obvious and plain sense of Sacred Scripture, and the common teaching of the Fathers and Catholic theologians.

Mt 4:3. And the tempter coming said to him: If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.

3. And the tempter coming.] 2. The temptation. This section naturally falls into three parts, each considering one of the three temptations. a. First temptation, α. Manner of temptation. The narrative leads us to believe that the tempter assumed the form of a man, because he approached our Lord, asked to be adored by him, took him up into the Holy City, and again into a high mountain, and finally left him, when the angels in human form came and ministered to him [vv. 3, 9, 5, 8, 11]. That the whole event occurred outwardly, and has been literally described by St. Matthew, is the common and traditional opinion of the Fathers and the commentators, against which the view of Origen, 185–354; only tt. 10–17 on Matthew xii. 36–xxiii. 53 are left in Greek; the comment. on the following part of the first gospel, up to xviii. 13, is preserved in Latin; Migne, patr. græc. 13, 836–1800. Jer. relates that he read 25 vols, of Origen’s commentaries on Matthew, and as many homilies, together with his “commaticum interpretationis genus.”

“>Orig. St. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage 248–258; especially “de orat. dom.”; Migne, patr. lat. 4.

“>Cypr. See Mops.

“>Theod. Mops., who regard the temptation as a merely internal suggestion of the devil, cannot claim any authority.

β. Length of the temptation. Mk. 1:13 reads: “and he was in the desert forty days, and forty nights, tempted by Satan”; Lk. 4:2, 3 adds: “and was led by the Spirit into the desert for the space of forty days, and was tempted by the devil.” It is especially on account of these texts that Just. [c. Tr. 103, 125] St. Clement of Alexandria, about 194; cat. græc.

“>Clem. [hom. 19, 2] Origen, 185–354; only tt. 10–17 on Matthew xii. 36–xxiii. 53 are left in Greek; the comment. on the following part of the first gospel, up to xviii. 13, is preserved in Latin; Migne, patr. græc. 13, 836–1800. Jer. relates that he read 25 vols, of Origen’s commentaries on Matthew, and as many homilies, together with his “commaticum interpretationis genus.”

“>Orig. Venerable Bede, about 731; here belongs his “in Matt. evang. expos. ll. 4.”; Migne, patr. lat. 92; the writer follows Jer. Ambr. Aug. op. imp.

“>Bed. Euthymius Zigabenus, about 1116; he follows Chrys., but has also matter of his own; Migne, patr. græc. 129.

“>Euth. Cornelius Jansenius, bishop of Ghent, died 1576; he wrote “concordiam evangelicam” and “comment, in concordiam et totam histor. evangelicam,” besides several other works.

“>Jans. Cornelius a Lapide [van den Steen], died 1637; his “commentarii in quatuor evangelia” contain much patristic and philological erudition, but are less critical than Mald.’s.

“>Lap. The Public Life of our Lord, London, 1876.

“>Coleridge, Henry Alford, The Greek Testament, Boston, 1886.

“>Alf. extend the temptation of our Lord throughout the forty days, only admitting a greater intensity at the end; St. Thomas of Aquin, died 1274; his “in Matthæum evangelistam expositio” and “catena aurea in Matthæum …” must here be noted.

“>Thom. [p. 3, qu. 41, a. 2, ad 2] speaks of visible and invisible temptations of Jesus in the desert. Though St. Matthew does not say that the devil approached after the forty days for the first time, the whole tenor of the context implies this; the language of Mk. and Lk. may be reconciled with this, since it appears to indicate the place rather than the time of the temptation: “and he was in the desert for forty days and forty nights, [and there] tempted by Satan.” Besides, the hunger of Jesus is commonly regarded as the occasion of the temptation; low our Lord did not feel hungry till after forty days.

γ. Nature of the temptation. (1) The outward act to which the devil tempts Jesus is a miraculous change of the loaf-like stones found in the place where Jesus dwelt, into nourishment.

(2) The motives suggested for this act are two: the first is implied in the words “command that these stones be made bread [loaves],” seeing thon feelest the pangs of hunger; the second motive is suggested by the words “if thou be the son of God,” if indeed thou art able to do this, or if this condition is unworthy of thee as the Son of God. The motives are therefore sensuality under the pretence of necessity [cf. Gen. 3:6; Ex. 16:3; Num. 11:33; Ps. 77:30], and pride under the appearance of defending the honor of the Son of God.

(3) The end of the devil in thus tempting Jesus is twofold: first, he instigates our Lord to help himself independently of the will of God by whom he had been led into the desert, and placed in his present condition; secondly, the devil wishes to ascertain whether Jesus be truly the Son of God [St. Thomas of Aquin, died 1274; his “in Matthæum evangelistam expositio” and “catena aurea in Matthæum …” must here be noted.

“>Thom. p. 3, qu. 41, a. 1; St. Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople 397–407; he wrote 90 [or 91] homilies on the first gospel; Migne, patr. græc. 57, 58.

“>Chrys. Amb. Theophylact, archbishop in Bulgaria about 1071; his commentary is in a manner a synopsis of Chrys.; Migne, patr. græc. 123.

“>Theoph. Alb. Dionysius the Carthusian, 1403–1473; cf. his “enarrat. in quatuor evangelistas.”

“>Dion. Cajetan, 1469–1534; his commentary is brief and literal.

“>Caj. Johannes de Sylveira, died 1687; here belongs “in textum evangelicum commentaria quinque tomis distributa”; he gives regularly different versions for the text.

“>Sylv. Lam. The Public Life of our Lord, London, 1876.

“>Coleridge, Einheit der vier Evangelien, Regensburg, 1868.

“>Grimm].

(4) It is true that some commentators [Maldonatus, died 1583; here belongs his classical work, “comment. in quatuor evangelia.”

“>Mald. Ypr.] believe that the devil knew the divinity of Jesus at the time of the temptation: (a) he had witnessed the hymn of the angels, the praises of the Magi, the testimony of John, the signs at the baptism, and the heavenly life of Jesus. (b) According to this view, the words “if thou be the Son of God” do not imply doubt, but they rather assume the fact [cf. Heb. 9:13], or they provoke more effectually by questioning that which is unquestionable. (c) That the devils knew the divinity of Jesus follows also from all those passages in which they bear testimony to it: Mk. 1:24; Lk. 4:34, 41; Mt. 8:29; Lk. 8:28; etc. (d) Again, it is urged that, had the devil been ignorant of the divinity of Jesus, he could not have learned it from the temptations, because the miracles could not have been wrought at the devil’s suggestion, and the last temptation is not connected with the sonship of God.

(5) But we have already given a stately array of Fathers and commentators who have not been convinced by these arguments; they must therefore not be insuperable. (a) It is St. Augustin [De civ. Dei, l. ix. 2] who says that the devils could learn only so much from the miracles of Jesus as God wished them to know; we cannot therefore “a priori” conclude that the evil spirits knew all that could be known from this source. (b) As to their testimony to Jesus, they often testify only to his Messiasship or his personal holiness, without implying his divinity; where they imply the divinity of Jesus, they may have intended to flatter him, or to deceive the multitude. (c) It is true that 1 Cor. 2:8 does not necessarily mean: if the princes of this world had known the divinity of Jesus, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory, but may signify: if the princes of this world [either the earthly princes or the devils] had known the mystery of the cross, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory [cf. St. Thomas of Aquin, died 1274; his “in Matthæum evangelistam expositio” and “catena aurea in Matthæum …” must here be noted.

“>Thom. in loc.; Suar. De myster. disp. xxxi.]; but from the possibility that the demons may have known the divinity of Jesus at the time of the crucifixion, it does not follow that they did know it at the time of the temptation. (d) If it be finally asked how the temptations could have testified to the divinity of Jesus, we may answer with Suar. [l. c.]: in the case of the first and second temptation, Satan knew that no one but the Son of God could have worked such mighty signs, especially in confirmation of such a truth as the devil had called in question. The third temptation was calculated to provoke our Lord, to claim for himself the honor of the Son of God, who had every right to a divine adoration.

Mt 4:4. Who answered and said: It is written, Not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God.

4. Who answered and said.] δ. The victory. (1) Jesus has recourse to Scripture, because the devil cannot question its veracity. His answer is not an admonition that God nourishes spiritually all those that keep his word [commandments] [evangelium Matthæi recensuit et cum comment. ed. Lips. 1826.

“>Fritzsche], but is an allusion to Deut. 8:3, where Moses points back to the miraculous sustenance of the people in the desert, showing that bread is not the only support of life, but that man lives “in all that proceedeth from the mouth of God,” i. e. that God can sustain him in any way he pleases. The explanatory “word” has been added to the Hebrew text by the lxx. and the Vulgate. The means suggested by the enemy is therefore not necessary. (2) We must also admire the consummate wisdom of the answer: it restores to the heavenly Father the honor that was implicitly attacked by the suggestion of the devil [The Public Life of our Lord, London, 1876.

“>Coleridge, i.]; it says absolutely nothing concerning the divinity of Jesus [“opus imperfectum” consists of 53 homilies on part of the first gospel; formerly the work was found among those of Chrys., but the author must have been an Arian of the sixth or seventh century; Migne, patr. græc. 56, 611–946.

“>op. imp. St. Jerome, about 378–420; he wrote his “commentariorum in evangelium Matthæi libros iv.” very hastily, following Orig. and Hil. quite closely; Migne, patr. lat. 26, 21–218.

“>Jer. Rabanus Maurus, 776–856; his “comment. in Matt. ll. octo” must here be mentioned; Migne, patr. lat. 107, 727–1156.

“>Rab. Alb. Dionysius the Carthusian, 1403–1473; cf. his “enarrat. in quatuor evangelistas.”

“>Dion. Cajetan, 1469–1534; his commentary is brief and literal.

“>Caj. Cornelius Jansenius, bishop of Ghent, died 1576; he wrote “concordiam evangelicam” and “comment, in concordiam et totam histor. evangelicam,” besides several other works.

“>Jans. Johannes de Sylveira, died 1687; here belongs “in textum evangelicum commentaria quinque tomis distributa”; he gives regularly different versions for the text.

“>Sylv. etc.]; it overcomes the devil not by almighty power, such as God alone could exert, but by the aid of the law that had been given to men as a means of salvation [St. Ambrose, bishop of Milan 374–397; Migne, patr. lat. 14–17.

“>Ambr. St. Thomas of Aquin, died 1274; his “in Matthæum evangelistam expositio” and “catena aurea in Matthæum …” must here be noted.

“>Thom. Alb. Cajetan, 1469–1534; his commentary is brief and literal.

“>Caj.]; not by the show of pomp and majesty, but by humility [Leo, St. Jerome, about 378–420; he wrote his “commentariorum in evangelium Matthæi libros iv.” very hastily, following Orig. and Hil. quite closely; Migne, patr. lat. 26, 21–218.

“>Jer. Greg. Cornelius Jansenius, bishop of Ghent, died 1576; he wrote “concordiam evangelicam” and “comment, in concordiam et totam histor. evangelicam,” besides several other works.

“>Jans.]. While Jesus therefore teaches us the power of the inspired word, he also foreshows his future teaching [Mt. 6:33]: “Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God and his justice, and all those things shall be added unto you.”

Mt 4:5. Then the devil took him up into the holy city, and set him upon the pinnacle of the temple, 

5. Then the devil took him up.] 2. Second temptation. a. Order of events. St. Luke [4:5 ff.] inverts the order of the second and third temptation found in the first gospel. Hence a number of authorities believe that the third gospel gives the true chronological order of temptations. Reasons: The external evidence is represented by the names of gloss. ord. Radbert Paschase, a French monk, died about 865; Migne, patr. lat. 120.

“>Pasch. Alb. Loch or Reischl. Loch und Reischl, die heil. Schriften d. Neuen Test., Regensburg, 1866.

“>Reischl, The Public Life of our Lord, London, 1876.

“>Coleridge, Einheit der vier Evangelien, Regensburg, 1868.

“>Grimm, Knabenbauer, Evangelium sec. Matthæum, Parisiis, 1892.

“>Knab. etc.; the internal grounds are the fact that St. Luke promises to write “in order” [1:3], and the gradation found in the order of the third gospel. For there the devil proceeds from the concupiscence of the flesh to that of the eyes, coming in the third place to the pride of life. St. Thomas [p. 3, qu. 41, a. 4] proves too that the concupiscence of the flesh and the concupiscence of the eyes tempt carnal men, while the pride of life is a temptation of spiritual men. Not to mention those that hesitate as to the true order of temptations [St. Augustin, bishop of Hippo 395–430; here belong his “de sermone in monte,” ll. 2; “de consensu evangelist.” ll. 4; “quæst. evangel.” ll. 2; quæst. 27 in evang. Matt.; Migne, patr. lat. 34, 35.

“>Aug. e. g.], or those that believe the order in the two gospels differs, because the order of temptations varies in various persons, the concupiscence of the eyes preceding in some cases the pride of life, while in other cases the inverse order obtains [cf. Aphonsus Tostatus or Abulensis, died 1445; his 4 vols. fol. of “quæstiones” on the first gospel belong here.

“>Tost. qu. 31, Johannes de Sylveira, died 1687; here belongs “in textum evangelicum commentaria quinque tomis distributa”; he gives regularly different versions for the text.

“>Sylv.]; we cannot omit the opinion which regards the order of the first gospel as the true one. Reasons: External evidence: Dionysius the Carthusian, 1403–1473; cf. his “enarrat. in quatuor evangelistas.”

“>Dion. Suar. [p. 3, disp. 29, s. 4, n. 4], Maldonatus, died 1583; here belongs his classical work, “comment. in quatuor evangelia.”

“>Mald. Johannes de Sylveira, died 1687; here belongs “in textum evangelicum commentaria quinque tomis distributa”; he gives regularly different versions for the text.

“>Sylv. Sebast. Barradas, died 1615; here belong his “commentaria in concordiam et historiam evangelicam,” tt. 4.

“>Bar. Schanz, Comm. über d. Evang. d. h. Matth., Freib. 1879.

“>Schanz, Arnoldi, Comm. z. Evang. d. h. Matt., Trier, 1856.

“>Arn. Fillion, Evangile selon St. Matthieu, Paris, 1878.

“>Fil. Commentar über d. Evangelium d. Matth., Leipzig, 1877.

“>Keil, Leben Jesu, Freiburg, 1890.

“>Meschler [i. p. 191]. Internal evidence: the first gospel employs throughout the particles of succession, v. 1 “then,” v. 5 “then,” v. 8 “again”; besides, the answer of v. 10, following the third temptation related by St. Matthew, must have been the final one. It is well known that while St. Luke’s order is accurate in regard to the greater events, the first gospel often supplies a more accurate order of detail. Even the gradation of the temptations is not lost in the order of the first gospel: the first temptation appeals to the motives of sensuality and pride; the second, to vainglory; the third presents motives of avarice and pride in the highest degree, or, as Leben Jesu, Freiburg, 1890.

“>Meschler [l. c.] points out, it combines all the allurements of the concupiscence of the flesh, of the concupiscence of the eyes, and of the pride of life. Other authors represent the gradation of the temptations thus: temptation to independence and want of confidence in God, to presumption, to blasphemy [Schanz, Comm. über d. Evang. d. h. Matth., Freib. 1879.

“>Schanz]; Jesus tempted as man, as Jewish prophet, as Messias [Lutter. ii. 34]; manifestation before the tempter, before the Jewish community, before the Gentile world; Jesus tempted as man, as Messias, and as Son of God [Godet]; etc.

b. Manner of the temptation. α. The evangelist describes it in three preparatory clauses: “the devil took him up”—“into the holy city”—“and set him upon the pinnacle of the temple.” In general, it may be noted that these expressions do not favor the hypothesis of a merely internal temptation by suggestion.

β. If it be asked whether the devil carried our Lord bodily through the air, we find different answers in the best commentaries: Euthymius Zigabenus, about 1116; he follows Chrys., but has also matter of his own; Migne, patr. græc. 129.

“>Euth. Maldonatus, died 1583; here belongs his classical work, “comment. in quatuor evangelia.”

“>Mald., chiefly through reverential feelings for the sacred person of Jesus, contend that he did not permit himself to be carried by the devil, but that he accompanied his tempter on foot to the pinnacle of the temple and the summit of the mountain [Berlepsch]; evangelium Matthæi recensuit et cum comment. ed. Lips. 1826.

“>Fritzsche believes the devil merely impelled Jesus to go to the pinnacle of the temple and the summit of the mountain; but Greg. Cornelius a Lapide [van den Steen], died 1637; his “commentarii in quatuor evangelia” contain much patristic and philological erudition, but are less critical than Mald.’s.

“>Lap. St. Jerome, about 378–420; he wrote his “commentariorum in evangelium Matthæi libros iv.” very hastily, following Orig. and Hil. quite closely; Migne, patr. lat. 26, 21–218.

“>Jer. Yp. Knabenbauer, Evangelium sec. Matthæum, Parisiis, 1892.

“>Knab. Fillion, Evangile selon St. Matthieu, Paris, 1878.

“>Fil. and most commentators adhere to the bodily transportation of Jesus by the agency of the devil. Suar. [De angel, disp. xvi. s. iii.] infers from this passage that Satan has power to move bodies from place to place. Greg. [hom. xvi. in Mt.] explains how Jesus could allow himself to be carried by the evil spirit: “We need not be surprised if he permitted himself to be carried up into a mountain by Satan, since he permitted himself to be crucified by the members of Satan.” The wording of St. Matthew’s text together with the expression “set him upon the pinnacle of the temple” favors the third view.

γ. The “holy city” is Jerusalem, because it had been chosen by God as the site of the temple [Euthymius Zigabenus, about 1116; he follows Chrys., but has also matter of his own; Migne, patr. græc. 129.

“>Euth.], and as the centre of the theocracy, and therefore as the residence of God among his people [cf. Is. 48:2; 52:1; Dan. 9:24; 2 Esd. 11:1, 18].

δ. The “pinnacle of the temple” has been variously identified by commentators. The word rendered “pinnacle” occurs also in Lk. 4:9; in the lxx. version it stands regularly for the Hebrew כָּנָף [wing], though the Greek word presents the diminutive form [winglet]. Gesen. [Lexic. ed. 8, s. v.] states that the Hebrew word is never used of the “summit” or the “highest point” of anything, but only of the extremity or the border of a plain [e.g. the hem of a garment]. It must also be noted that the Greek text does not read ναός [temple proper], but τοῦ ἱεροῦ [sanctuary], so that the edge on which the devil placed our Lord may have belonged to any part of the temple structures. It is on account of these considerations that many writers reject the opinion of Or. and St. Hilary, bishop of Poitiers about 354; Migne, patr. lat. 9, 917–1078.

“>Hil. according to which Jesus was placed by Satan on the topmost height of the temple, preferring either the Royal Porch or the Porch of Solomon [cf. Scholz, Alterth. p. 238; Commentar über d. Evangelium d. Matth., Leipzig, 1877.

“>Keil, Archæol. p. 151; Comment. p. 113], the height of which was considerable [Jos. Antiq. Josephus, Antiquitates, or Antiquities.

“>Jos. Antiq. XV. xi. 5; XX. ix. 7], or the southeastern corner, at which these porches met [cf. Schæf. Alterth. p. 41], or the projecting part of the temple-roof [Maldonatus, died 1583; here belongs his classical work, “comment. in quatuor evangelia.”

“>Mald. Aug. Calmet, died 1757; his commentary, translated into Latin by Mansi, is literal, concise, and clear.

“>Calm. Cornelius Jansenius, bishop of Ghent, died 1576; he wrote “concordiam evangelicam” and “comment, in concordiam et totam histor. evangelicam,” besides several other works.

“>Jans. Cornelius a Lapide [van den Steen], died 1637; his “commentarii in quatuor evangelia” contain much patristic and philological erudition, but are less critical than Mald.’s.

“>Lap.], or the edge of an elevated part of the roof, or the enclosing wall [Einheit der vier Evangelien, Regensburg, 1868.

“>Grimm, ii. 192].

Mt 4:6. And said to him: If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down, for it is written: That he hath given his angels charge over thee, and in their hands shall they bear thee up, lest perhaps thou dash thy foot against a stone. 

6. And said to him.] c. Nature of the temptation. α. The external act to which Satan impels Jesus is clearly mentioned in the gospels. β. The motives by which the devil endeavors to move Jesus are various: the motive of pride is implied in the words “if thou be the Son of God,” for they suggest, it is unworthy of thee to descend from this dazzling height in the common way; again, there was the necessity of manifesting himself as the Messias promised to appear in the temple [Mal. 3:1] in such a manner that no one should know whence he came [John 7:27], both of which prophecies would be fulfilled in the person of Jesus, if he were to descend through the air among the multitudes in the temple court; finally, there was the express promise of God concerning the guardianship of the angels, which was surely due to one whom God himself had called his Son at the time of the baptism.

γ. The purpose of the devil in the second temptation is quite comprehensive: since Jesus had conquered in the first temptation through confidence in God and the use of Sacred Scripture, the devil now endeavors to gain the victory by quoting Sacred Scripture, and by appealing to our Lord’s confidence in God; as in the first temptation Jesus had postponed the preservation of his life to the will of God, the devil now incites him to jeopardize his life in order to show his trust in the help of his Father; as in the first temptation Jesus had shown his entire dependence on his Father, the devil endeavors to push the exercise of this dependence beyond the bounds of prudence. But this pretended dependence on God was a cloak of proud independence, choosing its own ways and means of Messianic manifestation; the pretended trust in God was a real distrust in the veracity of God’s words spoken at the baptism, putting them now really to the test; the seeming surrender of the earthly life to the good will of God was a real act of sovereign self-will in the choice of the time and the occasion at which God’s promises were to be verified [cf. St. Jerome, about 378–420; he wrote his “commentariorum in evangelium Matthæi libros iv.” very hastily, following Orig. and Hil. quite closely; Migne, patr. lat. 26, 21–218.

“>Jer. St. Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople 397–407; he wrote 90 [or 91] homilies on the first gospel; Migne, patr. græc. 57, 58.

“>Chrys. Alb. Cajetan, 1469–1534; his commentary is brief and literal.

“>Caj. Cornelius Jansenius, bishop of Ghent, died 1576; he wrote “concordiam evangelicam” and “comment, in concordiam et totam histor. evangelicam,” besides several other works.

“>Jans. Einheit der vier Evangelien, Regensburg, 1868.

“>Grimm, Venerable Bede, about 731; here belongs his “in Matt. evang. expos. ll. 4.”; Migne, patr. lat. 92; the writer follows Jer. Ambr. Aug. op. imp.

“>Bed. “opus imperfectum” consists of 53 homilies on part of the first gospel; formerly the work was found among those of Chrys., but the author must have been an Arian of the sixth or seventh century; Migne, patr. græc. 56, 611–946.

“>op. imp. Schanz, Comm. über d. Evang. d. h. Matth., Freib. 1879.

“>Schanz, Knabenbauer, Evangelium sec. Matthæum, Parisiis, 1892.

“>Knab.]. It may be added that Satan either purposely misquotes [Schanz, Comm. über d. Evang. d. h. Matth., Freib. 1879.

“>Schanz] or abbreviates [Anger] the passage of Ps. 91:11 f., omitting “to keep thee in all thy ways.” In Lk. 4:10 “to keep thee” is added, but “in all thy ways” omitted, because this clause would have shown the fallacy of the devil’s argument [Schanz, Comm. über d. Evang. d. h. Matth., Freib. 1879.

“>Schanz]. We need not add the rationalistic gloss [Kuin.] which identifies angels with the means provided for men’s well-being and eliminates every spiritual element from the inspired record; in v. 11 Kuin. himself admits the common belief among the Jews that every child had a guardian angel.

Mt 4:7. Jesus said to him: It is written again: Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

7. Jesus said to him.] d. Victory. α. The “again” in the words of Jesus does not imply opposition to what has been quoted as Scripture before, but it merely adds a new passage of Scripture to the preceding; [cf. Jn. 12:39; 19:37; Rom. 15:10–12; 1 Cor. 3:20 al.]. β. The addition does not allude to the passage our Lord himself had quoted, but to the proof which the enemy had adduced from the Bible. The help of God which is there represented indefinitely is properly defined by this text from Deut. 6:10 [lxx.]. At Raphidim the Hebrews murmured against God on account of a want of water [Ex. 17:7], and Moses upbraided them in the words quoted by our Lord. γ. The change to the second person singular from the plural in the Hebrew text renders the passage more crushing to the enemy. Jesus implicitly tells him that the limits of our confidence in God are his implicit or express promises: not to trust these, or to expect more than this, is tempting God. δ. While these words reject the suggestion of the devil, they do not answer his question concerning the sonship of Jesus [cf. St. Hilary, bishop of Poitiers about 354; Migne, patr. lat. 9, 917–1078.

“>Hil. St. Ambrose, bishop of Milan 374–397; Migne, patr. lat. 14–17.

“>Ambr.], but leave this point wholly indeterminate [St. Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople 397–407; he wrote 90 [or 91] homilies on the first gospel; Migne, patr. græc. 57, 58.

“>Chrys. “opus imperfectum” consists of 53 homilies on part of the first gospel; formerly the work was found among those of Chrys., but the author must have been an Arian of the sixth or seventh century; Migne, patr. græc. 56, 611–946.

“>op. imp.], so that the enemy is driven to a third temptation. ε. Some authors point out that in this victory the second Adam is the counterpart of the first: our parents succumbed to sensuality, expecting that by compliance with the tempter’s words “their eyes” should be opened, and they should become like gods; Jesus overcomes the temptation of sensuality and vain display of his power in spite of the fame among his countrymen which a compliance with the enemy’s suggestion would have brought him.

Mt 4:8. Again the devil took him up into a very high mountain, and shewed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them,

8. Again the devil took him up.] 3. The third temptation. a. Nature of the temptation. α. The external act to which the tempter impelled Jesus was a formal acknowledgment of the devil’s superiority over Jesus, himself; our Lord was to adore Satan, and thereby recognize him as his lord and master. β. The motives proposed to Jesus include all the world can give: wealth, pleasure, honor. (1) Though it is uncertain on which high mountain Jesus was carried by Satan [Moria, Olivet, Thabor, Horeb, Nebo, Quarantania, etc.], it is certain that our Lord’s vision of all the kingdoms of the world was not merely internal; for such a vision might be had in a valley, and it would imply power of the enemy over the inner faculties of Jesus. (2) On the other hand, there can be no question of a mere natural vision of the whole world from the top of a high mountain; the addition of Lk. 4:5 implies that there was some magical effect produced by Satan “in a moment of time.” (3) The opinion of Theophylact, archbishop in Bulgaria about 1071; his commentary is in a manner a synopsis of Chrys.; Migne, patr. græc. 123.

“>Theoph. “opus imperfectum” consists of 53 homilies on part of the first gospel; formerly the work was found among those of Chrys., but the author must have been an Arian of the sixth or seventh century; Migne, patr. græc. 56, 611–946.

“>op. imp. Alb. Dionysius the Carthusian, 1403–1473; cf. his “enarrat. in quatuor evangelistas.”

“>Dion. Cajetan, 1469–1534; his commentary is brief and literal.

“>Caj. Maldonatus, died 1583; here belongs his classical work, “comment. in quatuor evangelia.”

“>Mald. Aug. Calmet, died 1757; his commentary, translated into Latin by Mansi, is literal, concise, and clear.

“>Calm. who maintain that the devil only pointed in the direction of the various kingdoms of the world without actually showing them, does not satisfy the text of the gospel saying that the devil showed Jesus not only all the kingdoms of the world, but also the glory thereof. (4) It seems that the devil preternaturally formed the species of all the kingdoms of the world before the eyes of Jesus “in a moment of time” [Lk. 4:5]; to make this deception more real, the devil places Jesus on the top of a mountain [Sa, Sebast. Barradas, died 1615; here belong his “commentaria in concordiam et historiam evangelicam,” tt. 4.

“>Bar. Cornelius a Lapide [van den Steen], died 1637; his “commentarii in quatuor evangelia” contain much patristic and philological erudition, but are less critical than Mald.’s.

“>Lap. Tir. The Public Life of our Lord, London, 1876.

“>Coleridge, Knabenbauer, Evangelium sec. Matthæum, Parisiis, 1892.

“>Knab.]. (5) On the part of Jesus, the devil expected to find besides the triple concupiscence also the Messianic character aiding his purpose: the dominion over the whole earth had been promised to the Messias by the prophets [cf. Pss. 2:8; 71:8–11]; but it had also been foretold that he was to acquire this dominion by means of suffering [cf. Is. 49:4; 50:4–8; 53:2–12]. Satan then promises to give Jesus without labor and suffering what he otherwise must acquire at the sacrifice of his life.

Mt 4:9. And said to him: All these will I give thee, if falling down thou wilt adore me. 

9. And said to him.] b. Purpose of the devil. (1) St. Luke [5:6] adds that the evil spirit claimed authority to dispose of all he showed Jesus: “To thee will I give all this power and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them.” Though the world had not been given to Satan, nor the power of giving it to any one else, the words of the tempter had a semblance of truth, as appears from Jn. 12:31; 14:30; 16:11. (2) Seeing that he cannot overcome Jesus under the species of good, the devil throws off his mask, and proposes his principal scope plainly: Jesus is to become the master of the world, as God had promised him, but under the suzerainty of Satan. There is no more question of “the Son of God,” no more use of Scripture language: the alternative between God’s and the devil’s service is plainly stated. (3) Need we say that this is the real and final object in all temptations of the devil? It is not always put so clearly before us, because most of us are carried away by the temptations coming under the pretence of necessity and of propriety, i. e. by temptations concerning the means; hence there is no need of making us repeat the election of our last end.

Mt 4:10. Then Jesus saith to him: Begone, Satan: for it is written: The Lord thy God shalt thou adore, and him only shalt thou serve. 

10. Then Jesus saith to him.] c. Victory. The account of the victory brings before us three persons: Jesus, the devil, and the angels. α. The words of Jesus are taken from Deut. 6:13, but present two variations from the original: the word “only” is wanting in the Hebrew, and the expression “shalt thou adore” reads in the Hebrew “shalt thou fear”; since the former variation is in accord with the context, and since “fear” often implies religious worship in the language of Scripture, our Lord cannot be accused of having falsified Scripture. In the lxx. this meaning is indicated by the construction of the verb; for in the present passage it is followed by the accusative instead of the dative [cf. Ex. 20:5]. That the expression “serve” often implies religious worship is clear from Deut. 10:12; Jos. 24:15; Rom. 9:4; 12:1; Heb. 8:5; 9:9; 10:2; 13:10. The expression “Begone, Satan” does not imply that Jesus recognized the devil only at the third temptation, but it shows that while he had borne patiently the former trials, he utters this harsh word when the honor of God is attacked. Again, it must be noted that Jesus overcomes Satan in a way in which any man might have overcome; he does, therefore, give no answer to the devil’s eager inquiry whether he be the Son of God.

Mt 4:11. Then the devil left him; and behold angels came and ministered to him. 

11. Then the devil left him.] β. Lk. 4:13 adds “for a time”; without discussing the question whether the conflict was renewed in secret, we may point to Gethsemani [cf. Lk. 22:53; Jn. 14:30], where the hour of Jesus’ enemies and the power of darkness made a renewed attack.

—and behold angels came.] γ. According to 3 Kings 19:6–8 an angel came to Elias and gave him bread to eat and water to drink. (1) It is therefore most probable that in the present case, also, the angels ministered to the bodily wants of Jesus. One angel would have been sufficient for this; but to emphasize the defeat of the devil more strongly, to show the parallelism between the victory of Jesus and the fall of Adam who was kept by angels out of paradise, to shame Satan more thoroughly, it was proper that a host of angels should present themselves. (2) Whether Jesus was carried back to his former abode by the angels, or returned thither by his own miraculous power, or again walked back, cannot be determined. But we certainly must deny the supposition that Satan should have been permitted to carry our Lord back, after the word of reprobation had been spoken. (3) St. Luke [4:13] adds “when the devil had ended all the temptation” or “all the temptation being ended.” We have seen already that the encounters between Jesus and Satan were frequent throughout the public life of our Lord; “all the temptation” cannot therefore mean that no temptation followed the present one; in other words, “all” is not used of individual, but of specific temptations. It implies, therefore, that the second Adam was tempted with all the temptations of the first, with sensuality, vainglory, and avarice [Greg. Rabanus Maurus, 776–856; his “comment. in Matt. ll. octo” must here be mentioned; Migne, patr. lat. 107, 727–1156.

“>Rab. gl. ord. Radbert Paschase, a French monk, died about 865; Migne, patr. lat. 120.

“>Pasch. St. Thomas of Aquin, died 1274; his “in Matthæum evangelistam expositio” and “catena aurea in Matthæum …” must here be noted.

“>Thom. (p. 3, qu. 41, a. 4) Salmeron, died 1485; he throws light on gospel history.

“>Salm. Sebast. Barradas, died 1615; here belong his “commentaria in concordiam et historiam evangelicam,” tt. 4.

“>Bar. Cornelius a Lapide [van den Steen], died 1637; his “commentarii in quatuor evangelia” contain much patristic and philological erudition, but are less critical than Mald.’s.

“>Lap.]. (4) Again, the antitype was tempted with all the temptations of his type, the people of Israel in the desert: in the case of Israel, the want of food is supplied by the manna [Ex. 16:2], and this event is recorded in the words used by Jesus in his first temptation; the lack of water forms the second trial of Israel [Ex. 17:7], and it is with reference to this that Moses speaks the words used by Jesus in his second temptation [Deut. 6:16]; the lengthy journey and the continued labor form the third trial of the Israelites [Num. 21:4 f.; 1 Cor. 10:9], and occasion indirectly the utterance of the words employed by Jesus in his third temptation [Deut. 6:13, 14; cf. 8:2]. (5) Finally, Jesus overcame the devil in all the temptations with which he besets ourselves, i. e. in the concupiscence of the flesh, in the concupiscence of the eyes, and in the pride of life [1 Jn. 2:16]; he thus shows us that all manner of temptation can be overcome, even as death was overcome by his death; he warns us that we cannot be safe against temptation at any time, since he himself was tempted after his baptism [Greg. St. Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople 397–407; he wrote 90 [or 91] homilies on the first gospel; Migne, patr. græc. 57, 58.

“>Chrys. Theophylact, archbishop in Bulgaria about 1071; his commentary is in a manner a synopsis of Chrys.; Migne, patr. græc. 123.

“>Theoph. Euthymius Zigabenus, about 1116; he follows Chrys., but has also matter of his own; Migne, patr. græc. 129.

“>Euth. St. Hilary, bishop of Poitiers about 354; Migne, patr. lat. 9, 917–1078.

“>Hil. St. Ambrose, bishop of Milan 374–397; Migne, patr. lat. 14–17.

“>Ambr. Alb. etc.]; he teaches us how to overcome temptation; he encourages us by his own resistance, and not less by the fact that he has learned by experience how to compassionate us in our trials [Cornelius Jansenius, bishop of Ghent, died 1576; he wrote “concordiam evangelicam” and “comment, in concordiam et totam histor. evangelicam,” besides several other works.

“>Jans. Salmeron, died 1485; he throws light on gospel history.

“>Salm. Sebast. Barradas, died 1615; here belong his “commentaria in concordiam et historiam evangelicam,” tt. 4.

“>Bar. St. Augustin, bishop of Hippo 395–430; here belong his “de sermone in monte,” ll. 2; “de consensu evangelist.” ll. 4; “quæst. evangel.” ll. 2; quæst. 27 in evang. Matt.; Migne, patr. lat. 34, 35.

“>Aug. The Public Life of our Lord, London, 1876.

“>Coleridge, etc.]. (6) The vivid contrast of Mark [1:13] must also be noted in connection with the present passage: “and he was with beasts, and the angels ministered to him.”

Like this:

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

Commentaries for the First Sunday of Lent, Year C

Posted by Dim Bulb on February 6, 2016

FIRST SUNDAY OF LENT, YEAR C

READINGS AND OFFICE:

Today’s Mass Readings in the NABRE. Used in the USA.

Mass Readings in the NJB Translation. Scroll down. Used in most English speaking countries. For some reason the site has the Gospel reading before the second reading.

Divine Office.

Anglican Use Daily Office. ”Briefly, it is a provision for an “Anglican style” liturgy similar to the Book of Common Prayer as an ecclesiastically approved variant on the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church.” More info.

COMMENTARIES ON THE FIRST READING: Deuteronomy 26:4-10.

Navarre Bible Commentary on Deuteronomy 26:4-10.

My Brief Notes on Deuteronomy 26:4-10.

Word-Sunday Notes on Deuteronomy 26:4-10.

COMMENTARIES ON THE RESPONSORIAL: Psalm 91:1-2, 10-11, 12-13, 14-15.

Father Boylan’s Introduction to Psalm 91. Whole psalm.

St Augustine’s Notes on Psalm 91. Whole psalm.

Patristic/Medieval Commentary on Psalm 91.

Word-Sunday Notes on Psalm 91.

Pending (maybe). My Notes on Psalm 91:1-2, 10-11, 12-13, 14-15.

COMMENTARIES ON THE SECOND READING: Romans 10:8-13.

Father de Piconio’s Commentary on Romans 10:8-13. On 5-13.

Father Callan’s Commentary on Romans 10:8-13. On 5-13.

Word-Sunday Notes on Romans 10:8-13.

Navarre Bible Commentary on Romans 10:8-13.

Homilist’s Catechism on 10:8-13.

COMMENTARIES ON THE GOSPEL READING: Luke 4:1-13.

St Cyril of Alexandria’s Commentary on Luke 4:1-13.

Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on Luke 4:1-13.

My Notes on Luke 4:1-13.

Word-Sunday Notes on Luke 4:1-13.

Navarre Bible Commentary on Luke 4:1-13.

Homilist’s Catechism on Luke 4:1-13.

GENERAL RESOURCES: sites that usually deal with the readings as a whole (with some occasional specialty studies).

Lector Notes. Brief historical and theological background on the readings. Can be printed out, copied, and used as bulletin insert.

The Wednesday Word.  It’s about the Sunday readings, but the document is posted on Wednesday, hence the name. Designed for prayer and reflection, the pdf document ends with Father Dom Henry Wansbrough’s reflections on the first and second readings. Fr. Wansbrough is General Editor of the New Jerusalem Bible and contributed commentaries on Matt, Mark, and the Pastorals in A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture.

St Charles Borromeo Parish’s Bible Study Notes. Notes on all the readings, usually with some background info as well.

Sacred Page Blog: Lent as Spiritual Warfare. reflection on the readings by Catholic biblical scholar Dr John Bergsma.

Glancing Thoughts. Reflections on the Gospel from philosopher Eleanore Stump.

Thoughts From The Early Church. Excerpt from St Chrysostom.

Scripture In Depth. Succinct summary of the readings and their relation to one another.

CHILDREN’S RESOURCES:

Catholic Mom. Scroll down to this Sunday. Resources appear oriented towards 7-14 years of age.

Word Sunday’s Children’s Reading. Two very short stories seeking to draw a lesson from the first and Gospel readings.

We Believe. Activities geared towards Kindergarten through 8th grade. Also has resources for catechists, clergy, etc.

1. Sermons 4 Kids: What Did Jesus Do?

2. Sermons 4 Kids: Resisting Temptation.

3.Sermons 4 Kids:  “I’ll Be Back”!

The Catholic Toolbox. Activities, crafts, games, etc., for class or home.

PODCASTS:

Update: Video: Mass Readings Explained. By Dr Brant Pitre.

St Irenaeus Ministries Podcast Study of Romans 10. Click the POD icon or the direct download link.

Dr Scott Hahn’s Podcast. Very brief. Text also available. Does good job of highlighting major theme(s).

Franciscan Sister’s Bible Study Podcast. Looks at all the readings.

St Martha’s Parish Bible Study Podcast. Looks at the readings in some detail.

Father Robert Barron’s Homily Podcast. From a noted speaker and theologian.

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

Commentaries for the Fifth Week in Ordinary Time, Year II and the Beginning of Lent

Posted by Dim Bulb on February 6, 2016

NOTE: IN 2016 the Fifth Week in Ordinary Time is cut short by Lent. Below are the commentaries for the entire fifth week, with a link to the commentaries for Ash Wednesday through 1st Sunday of Lent listed under the regular weekdays (they’re marked 2016).

FIFTH SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME
Note: we are in Year C

Year A: Commentaries for the Fifth Sunday.

Year B: Commentaries for the Fifth Sunday.

Year C: Commentaries for the Fifth Sunday.

Extraordinary Form~Quinquasgesima Sunday (Dominica in Quinquagesima).

MONDAY OF THE FIFTH WEEK IN ORDINARY TIME

Today’s Mass Readings.

Today’s Divine Office.

My Notes on 1 Kings 8:1-7, 9-13.

Father Boylan’s Introduction to Psalm 132.

St Augustine’s Notes on Psalm 132.

Pope Benedict XVI’s Commentary on Psalm 132.

Pseudo-St Albert the Great’s Commentary on Psalm 132.

Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on Mark 6:53-56.

Catholic Scripture Manual on Mark 6:53-56.

Navarre Bible Commentary on Mark 6:53-56.

TUESDAY OF THE FIFTH WEEK IN ORDINARY TIME

Today’s Mass Readings.

Today’s Divine Office.

My Notes on 1 Kings 8:22-23, 27-30.

Father Boylan’s Introduction to Psalm 84.

St Augustine’s Notes on Psalm 84.

Pope John Paul II’s Commentary on Psalm 84.

Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on Mark 7:1-13.

Navarre Bible Commentary on Mark 7:1-13.

WEDNESDAY OF THE FIFTH WEEK IN ORDINARY TIME

2016: Ash Wednesday Commentaries.

Today’s Mass Readings.

Today’s Divine Office.

Some thoughts on Today’s Readings (1 Kings 10:1-10, Ps 37, Mk 7:14-23).

Father Boylan’s Introduction to Psalm 37.

St Augustine’s Notes on Psalm 37.

Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on Mark 7:14-23.

Navarre Bible Commentary on Mark 7:14-23.

THURSDAY OF THE FIFTH WEEK IN ORDINARY TIME

2016: Commentaries for the Thursday After Ash Wednesday.

Today’s Mass Readings.

Today’s Divine Office.

My Notes on 1 Kings 11:4-13.

Father Boylan’s Introduction to Psalm 106.

St Augustine’s Notes on Psalm 106.

Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on Mark 7:24-30.

Navarre Bible Commentary on Mark 7:24-30.

FRIDAY OF THE FIFTH WEEK IN ORDINARY TIME

2016: Commentaries for the Friday After Ash Wednesday.

Today’s Mass Readings.

Today’s Divine Office.

My Notes on 1 Kings 11:29-32, 12:19.

Father Boylan’s Introduction to Psalm 81.

St Augustine’s Notes on Psalm 81.

Pope John Paul II’s Commentary on Psalm 81.

Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on Mark 7:31-37.

St Ambrose on Mark 7:31-37. A catechetical instruction on baptism.

Homily Notes on Mark 7:31-37 by St Thomas Aquinas.

Pope St Gregory the Great’s Homily on Mark 7:31-37.

SATURDAY OF THE FIFTH WEEK IN ORDINARY TIME

2016: Commentaries for the Saturday After Ash Wednesday.

Today’s Mass Readings.

Today’s Divine Office.

My Notes on 1 Kings 12:26-32, 13:33-34.

Father Boylan’s Introduction to Psalm 106.

St Augustine’s Notes on Psalm 106.

A Patristic/Medieval Commentary on Psalm 106:19-23.

Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on Mark 8:1-10.

Navarre Bible Commentary on Mark 8:1-10.

FIRST SUNDAY OF LENT, YEAR C
Note: We are in Year C

Year A: First Sunday of Lent.

Year B: First Sunday of Lent.

Year C: First Sunday of Lent.

 

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

Commentaries for the Friday After Ash Wednesday

Posted by Dim Bulb on February 6, 2016

FRIDAY AFTER ASH WEDNESDAY

Today’s Mass Readings.

Today’s Divine Office.

My Notes on Today’s First Reading (Isaiah 58:1-9a). Actually, this post is on verse 1-14 and thus covers both today and tomorrow’s first readings.

Navarre Bible Commentary on Isaiah 58:1-9a.

St John Fisher’s Sermons on Today’s Psalm (51). Psalm 50 in Fisher’s translation. The Fourth Penitential Psalm. He treated of the Psalm in two parts, and at some length.

Pope John Paul II’s Commentary/Meditation on Today’s Psalm (51).

St Albert the Great’s Commentary on Today’s Psalm (51).

St Thomas Aquinas’ Lecture on Psalm 51.

Father MacEvily’s Commentary on Today’s Gospel (Matt 9:14-15.

Cornelius a Lapide’s Commentary on Today’s Gospel (Matt 9:14-15).

Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on Today’s Gospel (Matt 9:14-15).

Maldonado’s Commentary on Today’s Gospel (Matt 9:14-15).

Navarre Bible Commentary on Matthew 9:14-15.

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

Commentaries for the Thursday After Ash Wednesday

Posted by Dim Bulb on February 6, 2016

THURSDAY AFTER ASH WEDNESDAY

Today’s Mass Readings.

Today’s Divine Office.

My Notes on Today’s First Reading (Deuteronomy 30:15-20).

Navarre Bible Commentary on Today’s First Reading (Deut 30:15-20).

Father Patrick Boylan’s Commentary on Today’s Psalm (1)

Patristic/Medieval Commentary on Today’s Psalm (1).

St Augustine’s Notes on Today’s Psalm (1).

My Introduction to Today’s Psalm (1)

My notes on Today’s Psalm (1)

St Thomas Aquinas’s Lecture on Today’s Psalm (1).

Lectio Divina Reading of Today’s Psalm (1)

Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on Today’s Gospel (Luke 9:22-25).

St Cyril of Alexandria’s Homiletic Commentary on Today’s Gospel (Luke 9:22-25).

Navarre Bible Commentary on Today’s Gospel (Luke 9:22-25).

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

My Notes on Jeremiah 1:4-19

Posted by Dim Bulb on January 27, 2016

The Call of Jeremiah

Jer 1:4  And there is a word of LORD unto me, saying,

And there is a word of LORD unto me.  A stock prophetic phrase found throughout the prophetic books.

Jer 1:5  `Before I form thee in the belly, I have known thee; and before thou comest forth from the womb I have separated thee, a prophet to nations I have made thee.’

 Note the contrast in tenses: “Before I form thee…”, “before thou comest forth.”  Using the present tense of future events is typical of prophetic literature.  It commuicates the idea that what is being prophecied will come to pass (except when a prophecy is conditional, i.e., wont come to apss if the people repent).  Here, the contrast in tenses seems to emphasize the certainty of God’s foreknowledge of the prophet.  St Paul tells us that God chose him before his birth to proclaim the Gospel to the Gentiles (i.e., poeple of the nations) in Gal 1:15:16. See also Luke 1:13-17.

Jer 1:6  And I say, `Ah, Lord God! lo, I have not known–to speak, for I am a youth.’

And I say, `Ah, Lord God! lo, I have not known (how) to speak, for I am a youth.’ This reminds one of Moses’ initial response to his call in Exodus 4:10.  There Moses claimed to be a poor speaker, here Jeremiah appeals to his youth or inexperience in speaking to men concerning important subjects.

Jer 1:7  And the LORD saith unto me, `Do not say, I am a youth, for to all to whom I send thee thou goest, and all that I command thee thou speakest.

His youth and inexperience are irrelevant where God’s power is concerned.  The authority of the word, and, consequently the authority of the one preaching it, comes from the source of the word and the mission, namely God.

Jer 1:8  Be not afraid of their faces, for with thee am I to deliver thee, –an affirmation of the LORD.’

 Face is Hebrew idiom for presence, thus the meaning is: “Be not afraid in their presence.”

The phrase With thee I am is not merely a statement of the divine presence.  The promise of the divine presence when given in the context of a mission is a promise and guarrantee of divine help and power in the performance of that mission.  See God’s promise to deliver St Paul in Acts 26:17.

Jer 1:9  And the LORD putteth forth His hand, and striketh against my mouth, and the LORD saith unto me, `Lo, I have put my words in thy mouth.

God’s striking the mouth of the prophet calls to mind the fact that the angel touched Isaiah’s lips with an ember in Isaiah 6:7.  the words “I have put my words into thy mouth” recalls the commissioning of Moses in Exodus 4:10-17.

Words and themes found in verse 7-9 are typical of prophetic call narratives (see Exek 3:1-10; Matt 28:18-20; ect).

Jer 1:10  See, I have charged thee this day concerning the nations, and concerning the kingdoms, to pluck up, and to break down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant.’

Jeremiah’s mission is for both Jew and Gentile; and his message is one of both weal and woe.  See 18:7-9; 25:15-38; chapters 30-31,  46-51; ect.

Jer 1:11 And the word of the Lord came unto me, asking, “What is it that you see, Jeremiah?”  I replied, “I see the staff of a watching tree.”

The word of the Lord came unto me is, as I noted in my previous post on this prophet, a stock prophetic phrase.  The prophet speaks on God’s authority, not his own (see 2 Pt 1:21).  Jeremiah will have some harsh, brutal words to say against false prophets (see 2:8; 8:10-12; 23:9-40).  The word can come to a prophet in a number of ways, sometimes the revelatory phenomenon is described in both oracular and optical terms (see Ezek 1).  It’s possible that what Jeremiah sees is a vision, but it is also possible that he is in the fields around his hometown during the blossoming of the watching tree (but see note verse 12). The word which I have translated as staff can refer to a stick or branch, but also a rod or staff.  Why I’ve translated it as I have will be noted below, under verse 12.  The watching tree is a reference to the almond tree.  Almond shaped eyes are a common physiological feature of near eastern peoples, hence the name.

Jer 1:12    And the Lord answered me, saying to me, “You see soundly: for I  watch without sleeping to do my word.

You see soundly: for &c. The Hebrew word translated as for serves as a causal conjunctive.  Jeremiah has seen correctly precisely BECAUSE the Lord is looking to bring about his word.  Had God not called him as a prophet he would not have seen soundly.  What Jeremiah saw was the branch (rod, staff) of a watching (almond) tree (vs 11).  God (so it seems) is here comparing himself to a rod or staff made from such a tree, and having its fruit (nuts) still on it.  In the Scripture, both watchfulness and a rod (staff) are associated with vigilance and readiness (see Ex 12:11. Note: several different Hebrew words are used for rod/staff in the OT).

I watch without sleeping. The Hebrew word  שׁקד  (shaqad=watching tree) and the word שׁקד  (shaqed=to be alert, wakefulness) are from the same root; my translation (adding the words “without sleeping”) has tried to convey the fulness of the latter word’s meaning.

To do my word. “To do” translates the Hebrew word לעשׂתו (asah),which can refer to both human action (or God’s action) or of a tree’s bearing seed or fruit (see Gen 1:11-12).  Just as a tree bears fruit (produce) a man produces action.  God is watching to do his word because of the evil the people have “done” (see 2:12-13, 17, 23, 28.  These verses all employ the word asah, which the NAB variously translates as “done,” “conduct,” “made”).

Jer 1:13 And the word of the Lord came unto me a second time, asking, “What is it you are seeing?” And I replied, “I see a a rapidly boiling cauldron which is turning towards us from the north.”

A rapidly boiling cauldron. “Rapidly boiling” translates a word which means “to seeth,” “snort,” “breath heavily.”  Steam rising from a boling pot of water is a fitting image of anger; even today we say “i was boiling,” to denote feelings of anger.

Which is turning towards us from the north. The Hebrew reads literally: “and the face thereof is from the face of the north.”  The sentence is somewhat convoluted but makes sense once the significance of the words are known and seen in relation to the image.  (1) The cauldron has just bee described as boiling (seething, snorting breathing heavily), hence its face is the open end (i.e., the mouth) of the pot from which its breath (steam) is issuing.  (2) The word “face” in Hebrew can mean “towards,” for one can only see another’s face if it is turned towards them.  We are to understand then the Jeremiah sees the “face” (mouth) of the cauldron because it is turning (tipping) towards him in the Holy Land.  (3) He sees this vision while turned toward (i.e., as he’s facing) the north and seeing the north’s “face.”

1:14  And the Lord said unto me, “from the north evil shall be opened wide upon all who sit in the land.”

The north was the proverbial place from which invasions came.  Evil shall be opened wide implies that the coming evil will be full and unrelenting.  The boiling cauldron of evil will not just trickle out its contents upon the land.  The boiling cauldron is an image of the Babylonian empire, which would invade and destroy the kingdom of Judah (see 4:5-31; 39:1-10).

Jer 1:15  “Because, look, I will beckon all the families of the kingdoms of the north,” says the Lord; “and they shall come, and every one shall set up his throne at the entrance of the gates of Jerusalem, and over against all the walls that surround her, and against all the encampments of Judah.

Because, look, I will beckon. What is about to befall Jerusalem and the entire kingdom of Judah is God’s doing, but he is not its cause (see vs 16).

All the families of the kingdoms of the north…and they shall come, and every one shall set up his throne. “Families of the kingdoms of the north” is probably a reference to the various royal tribes and clans (i.e., minor dynasties) which had joined or been subsumed under the king of Babylon.  Essentially, they were minor rulers under him, but as such they were entitled to a share in any booty gained by military victory.

Everyone shall set up his throne at the entrance of the gates. The entrance of the gates of a city was the place where officials conducted trials, heard peoples pleas/complaints, and issued their judgments.  In a capital city such as Jerusalem, this would have been done by the king, though he could delegate the authority to others.  The fact that foreign potentates are setting up their thrones at the entrances of the city implies that they are sitting in judgment; and indeed they are, for they are God’s instruments of judgment against his people.

Over against all the walls that surround her, and against all the encampments of Judah. The judgment against God’s people takes the form of a siege.  This is in accord with the covenant curses promised as punishment should the people of God (who had entered the covenant freely) ever break it (see Deut 28:49-57).   All the encampments of Judah probably refers to the many fortified cities which surrounded the capital as added protection against siege.

Jer 1:16  And I will proclaim my verdict against them on account of all their wickedness in forsaking me, and for burning incense to other gods, and for bending the knee to the work of their own hands.

I will prolaim my verdict. Continues the judgment theme mentioned earlier.

All their wickedness. The Herew word for wickedness used here is the same as that used for evil in verse 13.  The evil coming from the north is due to the wickedness of the people.

Forsaking me. The Hebrew word עזבוני (azab) means to leave, loosen, abandon, ect.  The word is often used in Jeremiah to denote apostasy from God (2:13, 17, 19; 5:7, 19, ect).

Burning incense to other gods. This could also read: “offering burn offerings to other gods.”  Other may have pejorative connotations.  The Hebrew word isאחרים (acher), which has the proper meaning of “hinder.”    It is derived from the Hebrew word achar, to loiter, to be a slacker.  When it comes to observing the covenant demands they have become slackers, and now seek after less morally demanding gods.

Bending the knee to the work of their own hands. They prostrate themselves before the idols they have made (see Jer 25:6-7, 14; 32:30).  The Hebrew word for work used here is  derived from the word לעשׂתו (asah), used by God in verse 12 when he said he was watching to do his word.  This work of the people in constructing and worshipping idols is what has led God to do his word (start the process of a reeb, a covenant lawsuit against them.

Jer 1:17  You, therefore, gird up your loins, rise up and speak unto them all that I command you.  Do not break down before their faces, lest I break thee down before their faces.

Gird up your loins. In the Bible this is a call to vigilance and action (see Ex 12:11; 1 Kings 18:46; Job 38:3).  Just as God is vigilante to do His word (see note under 1:12), so too must the prophet be ready and willing to fulfill his service to God’s word.

Speak unto them all that I have commanded. Recalls the end of Matthew’s Gospel.  The phrase or its equivalent is often used in prophetic commissioning texts (see Deut 18:15-20).

Do not break down before their faces, lest I break thee down before their faces. In performing his ministry, Jeremiah is not to fear his enemies, rather, he is to fear God.  “If Jeremiah appears before his adversaries in terror, then he will have cause to be terrified of them; only if by unshaken confidence in the power of the word he preaches in the name of the Lord, will he be able to accomplish anything. Such confidence he has reason to cherish, for God will furnish him with the strength necessary for making a stand, will make him strong and not to be vanquished” (Keil & Delitzsch).

Jer 1:18-19  For behold I have made thee this day a fortified city, and a pillar of iron, and a wall of brass, over all the land, to the kings of Juda, to the princes thereof, and to the priests, and to the people of the land. And they shall fight against thee, and shall not prevail: for I am with thee, saith the Lord, to deliver thee. (Douay-Rheims Bible).

The image stands in marked contrast to that of Jerusalem sieged against in verse 15.  In the face of his enemies Jeremiah will be like a heavily fortified city.  The passage is reminiscient of Matt 16:16-18).

Posted in Bible, Catholic, Notes on Jeremiah | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Commentaries for the Fourth Week in Ordinary Time, Year II

Posted by Dim Bulb on January 25, 2016

FOURTH SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME
Note: We are in Year C

Year A: Commentaries for the Fourth Sunday in Ordinary Time.

Year B: Commentaries for the Fourth Sunday in Ordinary Time.

Year C: Commentaries for the Fourth Sunday in Ordinary Time.

Last Week’s Posts.

MONDAY OF THE FOURTH WEEK IN ORDINARY TIME

Today’s Mass Readings.

Today’s Divine Office.

Navarre Bible Commentary on 2 Samuel 15:13-14, 30; 16:5-13.

Father Boylan’s Introduction to Psalm 3.

Patristic/Medieval Commentary on Psalm 3.

St Thomas Aquinas’ Lecture on Psalm 3.

Pseudo-Albert the Great’s Commentary on Psalm 3.

My Notes on Psalm 3.

Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on Mark 5:1-20.

Navarre Bible Commentary on Mark 5:1-20.

Catholic Scripture Manual Notes on Mark 5:1-20.

TUESDAY OF THE FOURTH WEEK IN ORDINARY TIME
In 2016 this day falls on Feb. 2, the Feast of the Presentation of the Lord. The first link is to commentaries for that feast. The remaining links are to the normal readings.

Commentaries for the Feast of the Presentation of the Lord.

Today’s Mass Readings.

Today’s Divine Office.

Father Boylan’s Introduction to Psalm 86.

St Augustine’s Notes on Psalm 86.

Pope John Paul II’s Commentary on Psalm 86.

Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on Mark 5:21-43.

Navarre Bible Commentary on Mark 5:21-43.

Catholic Scripture Manual on Mark 5:21-43.

WEDNESDAY OF THE FOURTH WEEK IN ORDINARY TIME

Today’s Mass Readings.

Today’s Divine Office.

Navarre Bible Commentary on 2 Samuel 24:2, 9-17.

Father Boylan’s Introduction to Psalm 32.

St Augustine’s Notes on Psalm 32.

St Thomas Aquinas’ Lecture on Psalm 32.

St John Fisher’s Homiletic Commentary on Psalm 32. Begins near bottom of page.

Pope John Paul II’s Commentary on Psalm 32.

Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on Mark 6:1-6.

Navarre Bible Commentary on Mark 6:1-6.

My Notes on Mark 6:1-6.

Catholic Scripture Manual on Mark 6:1-6.

THURSDAY OF THE FOURTH WEEK IN ORDINARY TIME

Today’s Mass Readings.

Today’s Divine Office.

Pending (maybe): My Notes on 1 Kings 2:1-4, 10-12.

Navarre Bible Commentary on 1 Kings 2:1-4, 10-12.

Pope John Paul II’s Commentary on 1 Chronicles 29:10-12. On 10-13.

Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on Mark 6:7-13.

Navarre Bible Commentary on Mark 6:7-13.

Pending: Catholic Scripture Manual on Mark 6:7-13.

FRIDAY OF THE FOURTH WEEK IN ORDINARY TIME

Today’s Mass Readings.

Today’s Divine Office.

My Notes on Sirach 47:2-11.

Navarre Bible Commentary on Sirach 47:2-11.

Father Boylan’s Introduction to Psalm 18.

Pending: St Augustine’s Notes on Psalm 18.

St Thomas Aquinas’ Lecture on Psalm 18.

Pope John Paul II’s Commentary on Psalm 18.

Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on Mark 6:14-29.

Navarre Bible Commentary on Mark 6:14-29.

Pending: Catholic Scripture Manual on Mark 6:14-29.

SATURDAY OF THE FOURTH WEEK IN ORDINARY TIME

Today’s Mass Readings.

Today’s Divine Office.

My Notes on 1 Kings 3:4-13.

Navarre Bible Commentary on 1 Kings 3:4-13.

Father Boylan’s Introduction to Psalm 119.

Psallam Domino on Psalm 119:9-16.

My Notes on Psalm 119:9-14.

Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on Mark 6:30-34.

Navarre Bible Commentary on Mark 6:30-34.

Pending: Catholic Scripture Manual on Mark 6:30-34.

FIFTH SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME
Note: we are in Year C

Year A: Commentaries for the Fifth Sunday.

Year B: Commentaries for the Fifth Sunday.

Year C: Commentaries for the Fifth Sunday.

Extraordinary Form~Quinquasgesima Sunday (Dominica in Quinquagesima).

Next Week’s Posts.

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

Father Lapide’s Commentary on 1 Corinthians 12:12-30

Posted by Dim Bulb on January 22, 2016

1Co 12:12 For as the body is one and hath many members; and all the members of the body, whereas they are many, yet are one body: So also is Christ.

For as the body is one . . . so also is Christ. As an animal body is one, as a man has but one body, so also has Christ one body, the Church, the members of which are many, whose head He is.
1. But S. Augustine objects (de Peccat. Meritis, lib. i. c. 31) that if the Apostle had meant this he would have said, “So also is [the body] of Christ,” rather than, “So also is Christ.” In other words, he would have said that the body of Christ, the Church, has many members.

2. James Faber gathers from this that the body of Christ being indivisibly united to the whole Godhead, locally fills heaven and earth, which are, as it were, its place and His body. As Plato said that God was the soul of the world, and consequently was in a sense the whole world, so the body of Christ, from its intimate conjunction with Deity, is, like the Divine Spirit, diffused through the whole world, its parts and members are the several divisions of space and the bodies contained in it. But still in respect of the unity of the Deity, and of the body of Christ as its soul, they make up one body, viz., the universe. And hence it is that the Ubiquitarians are supposed to have obtained their false opinion that the body of Christ is everywhere. This absurd doctrine has been confuted by many, but most clearly of all by Gregory of Valentia, in five books written against the heresy of the Ubiquitarians.

3. I say, then, with S. Augustine that the meaning of this passage is simply this. So also is Christ one body, i.e., the Church. For Christ is both head and body to the Church, inasmuch as He sustains all her members and works in them all, teaches by the doctor, baptizes by the minister, believes through faith, and repents in the penitent. For in this sense Christ is not locally but mystically, and by way of operation and effectually, the body, hypostasis, soul, and spirit of the whole Church. As the Church is the body of Christ, its head, so in turn is Christ the body of the Church, because, through the operation of His grace, He transfers Himself into all the members of the Church. So the Apostle often says that we are one in Christ, that through baptism we are incorporated into Christ and made one plant with Him. And Christ said to Paul, “Why persecutest thou Me?” that is, the Christians, My members (Acts ix. 4). So Paul says again: “To me to live is Christ, to die is gain.” Therefore S. Francis in his words, “My God, my Love, my All,” was but echoing S. Paul.

1Co 12:13 For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free: and in one Spirit we have all been made to drink.

For in one Spirit we were all baptized. He proves that Christ is one body with many members from baptism, for by baptism we were regenerate, and incorporated into the one body of the Church, and therefore into Christ. In that body we live by the same Spirit, the Spirit of Christ; and on the same food, the Eucharist, we are fed, whether we are Jews or Gentiles, bond or free. Notice the phrase “into one body:” this body is the Church, and consequently we are baptized into Christ, who, as I have said, is in a sense the body of the Church.

And in one Spirit we have all been made to drink. In the Eucharistic chalice we have quaffed, together with Christ’s blood, His Spirit. Hence some Greek copies read, “We have all drunk of one draught.” Cf. Clemens Alex. Pædag. lib. i. c. 6. The meaning is that from it we all partake of one and the same Spirit of Christ, who, by abiding in all, quickens every member, and makes it perform duly its function. In other words, not only were we born and incorporated into the said body, but we all partake of the same food, viz., Christ’s body and blood, in the Eucharist. For one species of the Eucharist leads easily to the other, and by “the drink” we may well understand “the food;” just as on the other hand from the species of bread we understand that of wine in chap. x. 17. Cf. Chrysostom and Cajetan, whose comments here are noteworthy.

It appears from this that all the baptized, whether good or bad, are the body of Christ, that is, are of the Church, and that they have been grafted into Him as members by baptism; for the soul of this body, the Church, is the faith which all the faithful have, even though their life be evil. Cf. notes to Eph_5:27.

1Co 12:14 For the body also is not one member, but many.
1Co 12:15 If the foot should say: Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body: Is it therefore not of the Body?
1Co 12:16 And if the ear should say: Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body: Is it therefore not of the body?
1Co 12:17 If the whole body were the eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where would be the smelling?
1Co 12:18 But now God hath set the members, every one of them, in the body as it hath pleased him.
1Co 12:19 And if they all were one member, where would be the body?
1Co 12:20 But now there are many members indeed, yet one body.
1Co 12:21 And the eye cannot say to the hand: I need not thy help. Nor again the head to the feet: I have no need of you.
1Co 12:22 Yea, much, more those that seem to be the more feeble members of the body are more necessary

Yea, much more those that seem to be the more feeble members of the body are more necessary. S. Chrysostom and Theophylact think that this refers to the eyes, which are small and delicate but yet most necessary. But as the eyes have been included in the preceding verse amongst the nobler members which govern the body, it is better to refer it, as others do, to the internal parts of the body. For the belly is as the kitchen or the caterer for the whole of the body, and cooks and distributes the food for every part, and therefore is essential to the life of the body.

1Co 12:23 And such as we think to be the less houourable members of the body, about these we put more abundant honour: and those that are our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.

Ver. 23.—And those members of the body, such as we think to be the less honorable….about these who put more abundant honor. The “less honourable” members are the feet, say Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Ambrose. We are more careful to cover them with shoes, or to bestow ornament upon them, lest they be hurt in walking, or catch cold or in some way convey illness to the stomach and head.

“Honour” here means either covering or the attention bestowed upon the feet in the way of decorated boots or leggings, such as many rich young men, and especially soldiers, wear. Homer, e.g., frequently speaks of the “well-greaved Achæans.”

Our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Theophylact refer these to the pudenda. These, says S. Augustine (Retract. lib. ii. c. 7), are called uncomely, not because nature so made them, but because, since the Fall, lust reigns in them more than elsewhere, because lust is contrary to the law of reason, and therefore ought to be a cause of shame to man. For it puts man to shame when his member so casts off his authority. The more abundant honour that they receive is a more careful and comely covering, so that even if men anywhere discard clothing, they yet cover these parts, as Theophylact says. Moreover, these members are honoured in wedlock, as being necessary to the procreation of children and the perpetuation of the species, as Chrysostom says. Hence, under the Romans, any one who emasculated himself was severely punished, as an offender against the common good and a violent assailant of nature.

Others think that the “more feeble” and “less honourable members are identical, and are the belly and its subsidiary organs. But the Apostle makes a distinction between them, and connects them as distinct entities by the conjunction “and.” His meaning then is, that as we care for those members of the body which are more feeble and ignoble when compared to the rest, and treat them as if they were more useful, so, too, in the Church those who seem to be of less account, such as the infirm, the unknown, and the despised, are for that very reason of more use and should be the more carefully helped. So say Chrysostom, Theophylact, Anselm. For the use of beggars in the Church, see S. Chrysostom (Hom. 20 Moral, and also contra Invid. Hom. 31).

We have an illustration of this verse in the allegory of the belly deserted by the other members, by which Menenius Agrippa brought back the lower orders who had seceded from the senate of the Roman people, and settled on Mons Sacer (Livy, lib. ii. dec. 1). Menenius said: “At that time when men’s members were not so agreed as they are now, but each sought its own private ends, they say that the other parts of the body were indignant that the belly should get its wants supplied by their care, their toil, and their ministry, and itself rest quietly in the midst, and enjoy the pleasures they gave; so they agreed that the hand would lift no food to the mouth, that the mouth would not admit it if it were offered, nor the teeth chew it. Then while, as they thought, that they were reducing the belly by hunger, they found that each member and the whole body also were brought down to the last extremities. They saw then that the belly had, too, its active service, and was not more nourished by them than they gained from it. They saw that the blood, re-invigorated by the food that had been eaten, was impartially distributed through the veins into every part of the body, giving each its life and energy. Then, by drawing a comparison between the civil war in the body and the angry action of the lower orders against the Fathers, Menenius induced them to return.”

1Co 12:24 But our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, giving to that which wanted the more abundant honour.

But our comely parts have no need. The eyes, the face, and the hands, which are the more comely parts of the body, lack no ornament, but are comely enough in themselves.

Giving to that which wanted the more abundant honour. That is more careful guard, more clothing, and ornament. Cf. ver. 22.

1Co 12:25 That there might be no schism in the body: but the members might be mutually careful one for another.

That there should be no schism in the body: but the members might be mutually careful one for another. No schism, such as that related by Menenius, but that all should have the same care for the others as for themselves, or else it may mean that each member should be solicitous for the common good of the whole body.

1Co 12:26 And if one member suffer any thing, all the members suffer with it: or if one member glory, all the members rejoice with it.

And it one member suffer all the members suffer with it. “They suffer together” in such away that the suffering member’s grief is lightened, “not by communion in disaster, but by the solace afforded by charity,” says S. Augustine (Ep. 133). Hence S. Basil (Reg. Brevior. 175) says that the outward proof of love is twofold: (1.) rejoicing in the good of one’s neighbour and labouring for it; (2.) in grief and sorrow for his misfortune or his sin. He who has not this loves not.

Doctors infer from this verse that souls in bliss, burning with love for us, help us by their prayers in our troubles and dangers; and that we in our turn ought to help souls kept in purgatory, for they suffer the devouring flame, and therefore he must be cruel indeed who does not suffer with them, and do what he can to set them free.

Or one member be glory. Or as Ambrose takes it, “be glorified,” or, according to Ephrem, “whether one member rejoice.” Salmeron, after S. Chrysostom, beautifully says: “He who loves possesses whatever is in the body, the Church: take away envy and what I have is thine.” S. Chrysostom says again: “If the eye suffer, all the members will grieve, all will crease to act: the feet will not go, the hands will not work, the belly will take no pleasure in its wonted food, although it is the eye only that is suffering. Why, 0 eye, do you trouble the belly? why chain the feet? why bind the hands? Because all are knit together by nature, and suffer together in a “mysterious manner.”

1Co 12:27 Now you are the body of Christ and members of member.

Members of the member” is how the Latin version reads. This is explained (1.) by S. Thomas: “You are members of the principal member, viz., Christ, for Christ is the head of the Church;” (2.) by S. Anselm, “You are members of Christ through the agency of another member, viz., Paul, by whom you were united to Christ, the head, and to the Church, the body.” But (3.) the Greek gives “members in part,” and this is the rendering of some Latin Fathers, or “members of each other.” S. Ambrose seems to understand it so. The Latin version also means “fellow-members,” brethren in the same society, of the same mystical body, the Church. So too S. Chrysostom and Ephrem, whose meaning may be paraphrased: “Each one, in his part and place, is a member of the Church.”

Notice here that, as in the body there is (1.) a unity and a union of soul and body; (2.) diversity of members; (3.) differences of function between the several members; (4.) an aptitude for its function given to each member; (5.) a community of interests in the members, so that each is bound to work, not for itself only but for the others also, just because they are members of the one body; (6.) harmony, inasmuch as each member is content with its rank and duty, does not seek another post or envy a more honoured member, so that there is the most perfect union and concord, the same share in sorrow and joy: so is it in the Church. There each one has from Christ, as if He were his soul, his proper gift, his proper talent, his office and rank, his functions to be discharged for others’ good, not his own, his limits fixed by God. If anyone disturbs this order and seeks after another post, he resists the ordinance and providence of God, and forgets that all his gifts have come from God. S. Paul therefore says: “You, 0 Corinthians are members of the same body of Christ, the Church: let there not be then any divisions among you, let no one despise, envy, grieve at another, but let him love him, help him, and rejoice with him. Let each be content with his place, his rank, and his duty, for so he will be a partaker, not only of his own good, but also of the good of others. Just as the foot walks for the benefit of the eye, the ear, the belly, so in their turn the eye sees, the ear hears, and the belly digests for the benefit of the foot. But if there is envy and unwillingness shown by the eye to see, by the ear to hear, and the belly to digest, then those members hurt themselves as much as any other; and, as Chrysostom says, it is just as if one hand were to cut off the other, for that hand would be dishonoured and weakened through receiving no help from the other hand. Moreover, if nature is at such pains to preserve such perfect concord between the different members of the body, and so sternly forbids any seditious discord, how much greater concord between men’s minds will the grace of God through its greater power effect, how little will it endure that any member should stand aloof from and be at variance with another in the same body! If the magistrate or the king severely punishes sedition in the state, what, think you, will Christ do to the schismatics who rend His Church?

1Co 12:28 And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors: after that miracles: then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches.

And God indeed hath set some in the church, &c. Apostles as the rulers, prophets as the eyes, teachers as the tongue. From this it follows that the princes of this world are not, as Brentius thinks, the rulers and the head of the Church, but the Apostles and their successors, the Pope and the bishops; “for God,” says S. Paul, “set the Apostles first.” After that come “powers,” i.e., workers of miracles, who are as the hands of the Church; then healers of diseases; then helps, or those who help others and perform works of mercy towards the sick, the poor, the unhappy, guests, and foreigners; then governments, or men who rule. and correct others, as parish priests, as S. Thomas says, or better still, with Theophylact and Cajetan, men who have the care of the temporal wealth which the faithful offer to the Church. These last are as the feet in the body of Christ, and of such were the deacons ordained by the Apostles to look after tables and the widows (Acts vi. 1-6).

Notice the abstract here put for the concrete: “powers” for workers of powers, “gifts of healing” for healers, “helps” for helpers, “governments” for governors, “diversities of tongues” for men skilled in different languages.  S. Paul knits all these, as other members of the Church, to Apostles, prophets, and teachers.

1Co 12:29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all doctors?

Are all apostles? Certainly not. Let each, therefore, be content with the position in which God has placed him in the Church, and with the grace that he has freely received from God, and thank God for all, and use the grace given him to God’s glory and the good of the Church.

1Co 12:30 Are all workers of miracles? Have all the grace of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?

Have all the grace of healing? S. Augustine says (Ep. 137) that “God, who divides to every man severally as He will, has not willed that miracles should be wrought in honour of every saint.” It is not wonderful then that God should work miracles in this place, in this temple, at this or that image of the Holy Mother, or again that He should give one grace to one saint, another to another. Those, e.g., who invoke S. Antony He sets free from the plague, those S. Apollonia from toothache, those S. Barbara from sudden death, and from dying without confession; for, as the Apostle says, “God divides to every man severally as He will.” So at the pool of Bethesda, and not elsewhere, God miraculously healed the impotent folk (S. John v. 2-4). So by the rod of Aaron, and of no one else, He worked miracles (Num. xvii. 8). So by the image of the brazen serpent, and of nothing else, He set free the Jews from the plague of fiery serpents (Num. xxi. 9).

Posted in Bible, Catholic, Notes on 1 Corinthians, Notes on the Lectionary, Scripture | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

« Previous Entries
 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 156 other followers

%d bloggers like this: