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 ‘Scripture’ Category

Father MacEvilly’s Commentary on Acts 4:8-12

Posted by Dim Bulb on April 18, 2015

Acts 4: 8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said to them: Ye princes of the people and ancients, hear.

8. “Filled with the Holy Ghost” denotes a particular actual grace given him on this occasion, strongly influencing him; different or distinct from the habitual graces given him on Pentecost Sunday. Ordinary and habitual grace would not suffice for heroic deeds. A new actual grace is required. Thus, it is said of Sampson, on occasion of his wonderful displays of strength, “the spirit of the Lord came strongly upon him” (Judges 15:14).

How different is Peter’s conduct from what it had been on a former occasion. Then, trembling at the empty chidings of a silly maid, he denied his Lord. Now, as head of the Apostolic College, boldly confronting the united authority of the Jews, he makes reparation for his former crime by loudly proclaiming his Divine Messiahship, preaching the glorious Resurrection of the Crucified, whose power they were after witnessing in the miraculous cure of the lame man. Showing the deference due to their office, he respectfully addresses them as representatives of the supreme authority among the Jews, “Princes of the people,” &c. Before the same Council, the same men, in the same place and city, he repaires the scandal he gave in denying his Divine Master.

Acts 4:9 If we this day are examined concerning the good deed done to the infirm man, by what means he hath been made whole:

“If we this day,” &c. If notwithstanding the evidence of the fact, we are to be treated as criminals, brought to trial and subjected to judicial examination for the good deed of having bestowed the blessing of a perfect cure on the infirm man—which should be rather a subject of praise—and called to render an account of how “he has been made whole.” “If” conveys surprise at such an extraordinary proceeding, a matter scarcely credible.

Acts 4:10 Be it known to you all and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God hath raised from the dead, even by him, this man standeth here before you, whole.

As you ask by what name we did this, be it known to you and all the world, it was by invoking the name and exercising the power “of our Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth.” The term of Nazareth was the epithet by which our Lord was known and scornfully referred to by the Jews. “Crucified,” “raised from the dead.” The contrast is so striking. They put him to death. God raised him up from the dead. The accusers now become the accused. With singular intrepidity and courage, St. Peter heretofore so timid, charges them with the greatest crime that could be perpetrated, the murder of their own long-expected Messiah and deliverer, putting to death the author of life.

“Standeth here,” &c. It may be that the cured man was imprisoned or guarded with the Apostles, and, very likely, brought forward at the trial to confront them.

Acts 4:11 This is the stone which was rejected by you the builders, which is become the head of the corner.

He shows that the ignominious death and Resurrection of our Lord was predicted by the Prophets. He thus strengthens his argument, especially with the Jews, who valued so much the oracles of their inspired Prophets. The first part of Psalm 117, from which the quotation is taken, literally refers to David himself. The second part, also quoted, could refer to our Lord only, in its literal sense, and is quoted by our Lord as applying to Himself (Matthew 21:42). Here is a metaphorical allusion to architecture; skilful architects place in the corners of a building the largest and most binding stone, in order to unite and sustain the two walls of the building. It thus gets the most important place. St. Peter applies this prediction to our Lord, who was scornfully rejected by the Jewish rulers, the Priests, and Scribes, the builders of the Synagogue, who should labour for the construction of God’s spiritual house, and should, therefore, be the first to receive our Lord. But while they rejected Him, God placed Him as the head “corner stone,” sustaining, upholding, and fusing into one the two peoples, Jews and Gentiles, who were to form the Church. He united the old and new dispensations. In Him all the elect of old were justified, no less than the children of the New Law. To this our Lord alludes (Matthew 21:42. See Commentary on).

Isaiah had predicted it (Isa 28:16). See also 1 Peter 2–4.

Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.

Having assured them in figurative terms, that Christ was the Messiah, St. Peter now, in language devoid of all figure, adds, as a consequence, that in him only can man find eternal Salvation.

“Name” often signifies person or being. No one else can save us from the consequences of sin, viz., hell and damnation; and bestow on us eternal joy and peace in Heaven—the chief object of our Lord’s Mission. The Apostle avails himself of this corporal cure to place before the assembled Sanhedrim the greater cure and salvation from Hell which our Lord came to bring about.

Our Lord is frequently marked out, “given” as the source of this greater and universal Salvation. (John 3:16), (1 Cor. 3:5), (1 Tim. 2:6), &c.

“Must be saved” in the present order of Divine Providence, whereby our Lord is constituted the only source of eternal life and salvation.

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

Father MacEvilly’s Commentary on Acts 4:32-37

Posted by Dim Bulb on April 12, 2015

Acts 4:32 And the multitude of believers had but one heart and one soul. Neither did any one say that aught of the things which he possessed was his own: but all things were common unto them. ‎

“The multitude of believers,” five thousand (c. 4:4) “one heart and one soul,” indicating the closest and tenderest union. Plutarch, in his life of Cato, quotes a saying, “two friends, one soul.” This tender union was evidenced in their relations with one another. They showed this in act, in the distribution of their property and their unselfishly giving up what they possessed to relieve the distressed members of their body.

Acts 4:33 And with great power did the Apostles give testimony of the resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord: and great grace was in them all. ‎

Their prayer in regard to the power of working miracles having been heard, they accordingly perform miracles in corroboration of their zealous preaching of the Gospel, especially the Resurrection of Christ, the foundation of all Christian faith. Some interpret “great power” to mean the zealous preaching of the Gospel, as in the case of St. Paul (1 Cor. 2:4).

“Great grace,” &c. By this some understand grace properly so called, which, undoubtedly, was accorded them in an extraordinary degree, and was manifested among the faithful, as shown by their disinterestedness, as in next verse. Others understand it of favour with the people, a sense in which the Greek word, χαρις, is sometimes taken (c. 2:47). It was very important for them that it should be so, considering what occurred at the meeting of the Sanhedrim. Their union and charity towards the poor caused them to be held in great esteem among the people.

Some commentators hold that this v. 33 is misplaced owing to the negligence of copyists, that v. 34 should immediately follow v. 32, or that v. 33 should be read parenthetically.

Acts 4:34 For neither was there any one needy among them. For as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the price of the things they sold,

The account of the demeanour and qualities of the faithful commencing at v. 32 was interrupted in v. 33, and is here resumed again.

“For.” The corresponding Greek word is understood by Beelen to signify “therefore,” expressing a conclusion from v. 32. “No one needy” allowed to suffer want. The reason of this is given in a general way in v. 32, “all things common,” &c. It is explained here more particularly how this was done.

“For as many,” &c. The words here used indefinitely by no means convey that all the Christian cover’s sold their entire property and possessions, giving up their title to them; but only parted with whatever portion was necessary to relieve the pressing wants of their indigent brethren with whom all things were common as to use, so far as was necessary. This, however, was not obligatory, but rather quite voluntary, as appears from the case of Ananias (c. 5:4); and the singling out of Joseph (v. 36) as a singular instance of generosity would indicate the same. Doubtless, he had many imitators who sold so much of their property as was necessary for the relief of the poor.

This edifying economy practised in the early Christian Church of Jerusalem was neither general nor permanent. The Apostles, in their intercourse with their Gentile converts, did not deem it wise to establish it. Hence, their appeals to the churches they founded on behalf of the poor. It is not likely that even in the Church of Jerusalem men sold all they possessed—St. John had retained some property (John 19:27), nor is there any evidence that in Jerusalem they sold all their property, save as far as was necessary to relieve their distressed brethren.

Acts 4:35 And laid it down before the feet of the apostles. And distribution was made to every one, according as he had need. ‎

“And laid it down,” conveys that it was left for disposal “before the feet,” &c., in token of respect and reverence. The Apostles finding the duty of distributing their alms becoming too burdensome and distracting, as it interfered with prayer and preaching the word (c. 6:1, 2), appointed others for this special duty (c. 6:1, 2).

Acts 4:36 And Joseph, who, by the apostles, was surnamed Barnabas (which is, by interpretation, The son of consolation), a Levite, a Cyprian born, ‎

“Joseph,” which is sometimes read with a Greek termination, Joses. However, the vulgate reading is the more probable. He is different from the Joseph mentioned (1:23), “by the Apostles was surnamed Barnabas.” St. Luke explains the meaning of Barnabas to be “the son of consolation” The strict etymology of the Hebrew word means “son of Prophecy.” But, St. Luke interprets “son of consolation,” or exhortation, because one of the chief ends of prophecy was to exhort, console; and it would seem that Barnabas afterwards displayed this gift in an eminent degree. Barnabas is most probably singled out because of his exemplary liberality, and of his being afterwards distinguished as a zealous preacher of the Gospel. He is frequently referred to in the Acts as the companion of St. Paul, 11:22–30; 12:25; 13:1–50.

St. Luke interprets it “the son of consolation,” or rather exhortation. παρακλησεως. Barnabas was most probably surnamed the son of exhortation on account of his talent and success in preaching, and the gift of prophecy with which Barnabas was favoured was given in the Church for instruction unto edification.

“A Levite” descended from Levi. The Levites were employed in the lower services of the temple and assisting the priests in the discharge of their office.

“A Cyprian born.” After the captivity the Jewish race were dispersed all over the earth. There were many Jews in the Island of Cyprus (Dion. Lib. 68, 69).

Acts 4:37 Having land, sold it and brought the price and laid it at the feet of the Apostles.

“Having land, sold it.” By Divine arrangement (Numbers 18:20, 23) the Levites, as a tribe, were prohibited from holding lands in Judea, except pasture lands in the immediate vicinity of their cities (Numbers 30:3, 4). This prohibition did not comprise individuals even in Judea nor the countries outside Judea. This prohibitory law in regard to the Levites had fallen into disuse (Jeremiah 32:7). Moreover, the property of Barnabas may have been in Cyprus. Levites could purchase land and have a title to it in right of their wives.

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

Commentaries for Divine Mercy Sunday, Year B

Posted by Dim Bulb on April 9, 2015

Readings and Office:

Today’s Mass Readings.

Today’s Divine Office.

COMMENTARIES ON THE FIRST READING: Acts 4:32-35

Bishop MacEvilly’s Commentary on Acts 4:32-35.

Father Callan’s Commentary on Acts 4:32-35.

Papal Magisterium on Acts 4:32-35.

Word Sunday’s Notes on Acts 4:32-35.

Navarre Bible Commentary on Acts 4:32-35. Runs to verse 37, posted for another occasion.

Haydock Commentary on Acts 4:32-35. Notes on whole chapter.

Homilist’s Catechism on Acts 4:32-35. Popup window of catechism excerpts. The window must be closed before you can access other catechism links.

COMMENTARIES ON THE RESPONSORIAL: Psalm 118:2-4, 13-15, 22-24

Father Boylan’s Introduction to Psalm 118.

St Augustine’s Notes on Psalm 118. Entire psalm.

St Albert the Great’s Commentary on Psalm 118. On entire Psalm.

Pope John Paul II’s Commentary on Psalm 118.

Word Sunday on Psalm 118. Brief notes on entire Psalm.

COMMENTARIES ON THE SECOND READING: 1 John 5:1-6

Cornelius a Lapide’s Commentary on 1 John 5:1-6. On verses 1-9 actually.

St Augustine’s Homily on 1 John 5:1-3.

Word Sunday on 1 John 5:1-6.

Navarre Bible Commentary on 1 John 5:1-6.

Haydock Commentary on 1 John 5:1-6. Notes on whole chapter.

Homilist’s Catechism on 1 John 6:1-6.

COMMENTARIES ON THE GOSPEL READING: John 20:19-31

Father McIntyre’s Commentary on John 20:19-31.

Cornelius a Lapide’s Commentary on John 20:19-31.

Part 1: St Cyril of Alexandria’s Commentary on John 20:19-31. On 19-23.

Part 2: St Cyril of Alexandria’s Commentary on John 20:19-31. On 24-31.

Navarre Bible Commentary on John 20:19-31.

St Augustine’s Tractate 121 on the Gospel of John. Rather brief.

Word Sunday on John 20:19-31.

Catena Aurea on John 20:19-31.

Aquinas’ Commentary on the Gospel of John 20:19-31. Read lectures 4-6.

Haydock Commentary on John 20:19-31. Notes on whole chapter.

Homilists Catechism on John 20:19-31.

ON THE READINGS IN GENERAL:

Lector Notes. Brief, helpful historical and theological background. Can be printed out and used as a bulletin insert.

Get to Know the Readings.

St Charles Borromeo Parish Bible Study Notes.

Sacerdos. Gives theme of the readings, doctrinal message, pastoral application.

How Precious is that Flow? Blog post on the readings by Catholic biblical scholar Dr. John Bergsma.

PODCASTS:

Father McBride’s Podcast on Acts 4. Listen to episode 3.

Dr. Tim Gray on John. Listen to episode 12.

St Irenaeus Ministries Podcast on John. Includes the resurrection appearance to St Mary Magdalene, the commissioning of the disciples, and the appearance to St Thomas. Several seconds to download.

Father Robert Barron’s Homily.

TEXT HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL: The following links are (mostly) to online books containing sermons and homilies on the Gospel reading. You can click on the site’s zoom feature (magnifying glass icon) to increase text size for easier reading.

Pope St Gregory the Great’s Homily on John 20:19-31.

First Homily on John 20:19-31.

Second Homily on John 20:19-31.

A Homily for Low Sunday (First Sunday After Easter).

A Homiletic Sketch on the Gospel.

A Dogmatical Sketch on the Gospel.

A Symbolical Sketch on the Gospel.

A Moral Sketch on the Gospel.

Another Moral Sketch on the Gospel.

Sunday Reflections. Blog post by Fr. Eugene Lobo.

THEOLOGY:

Aquinas’ Lecture on the Creed’s “I believe in the Resurrection of the body“.

Matthias Scheeben on the Resurrection of the Body.

The Resurrection of the Flesh.

The Resurrection: A Biblical Study. A seminal work of the 20th century by Father F. X. Durrwell.

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

Father MacEvilly’s Commentary on Matthew 26:14-25

Posted by Dim Bulb on March 29, 2015

14. “Then,” may have no reference whatever to time, and may simply mean, that on account of this tacit reproach, addressed to him by our Redeemer, while defending the act of the woman, and seeing all hopes of securing the price of the precious ointment baffled, Judas, out of a spirit of revenge, and blinded by avarice, resolved to betray Him. Or, if “then” refers to time, it has reference to what is recorded (v. 3), the intermediate account of the anointing of our Saviour’s feet, being merely parenthetically introduced.

One of the twelve,” shows the magnitude of his guilt and ingratitude, since it was not even one of the seventy-two disciples; but, one of His constant companions, a member of His own family, whom He destined to be one of the future pillars of His Church. This circumstance, however, rendered him a fit instrument for betraying our Lord, as being well acquainted with His domestic habits, His going out and coming in.

Who was called Judas Iscariot.” He mentions his name, “Judas,” to save the character of the other Apostles. “Iscariot,” to distinguish him from Jude, the author of the Catholic Epistle (John 14:22).

Went,” spontaneously, of his own accord; “the devil having entered into him” (Luke 22:3), instigating him, and acting on his blind passions and perverted will, urged him on to this mad act. St. John more clearly expresses it (13:2), “the devil put it into the heart of Judas … to betray Him.”

To the Chief Priests,” to which St. Luke adds, “and to the magistrates” (22:4). This refers to the meeting mentioned (v. 3). Very likely, he went into Jerusalem, on Wednesday morning, under pretext of some business, and hearing of the assembly of the High Priests, &c. (v. 3), he conjectured what the cause of their meeting was, for, he knew that “the Pharisees and High Priests gave a command, that if any one knew where our Lord was, he should tell, in order that they might apprehend Him” (John 11:56).

15. “And he said to them,” &c. It is most likely, that Judas, before making the base offer of betraying his Master, made some charge against Him, in order to palliate his own treachery, and to make it appear that he was himself trustworthy, such as allowing Himself the luxury of having His head and feet anointed, to which he may have added other charges, not recorded by the Evangelists.

What will you give me?” &c. These words are interpreted by some (among the rest, St. Jerome), to convey, that Judas regarded our Redeemer of such little value, as to leave it to themselves to give what they pleased; that he would receive any price for Him. Others understand the words to mean, that Judas wished to know, if they meant to give a suitable, a sufficiently large price for Him; and, that he would betray Him, if they meant to compensate him as was fit for them to do. “The wretch,” says St. Jerome, “wished to indemnify himself for the loss of the price of the ointment, by the price of his Master.” He is so blinded by avarice, that he merely bargains for the money, regardless of how they would afterwards treat his Master. So blinded, that he forgets every feeling of humanity, gratitude, friendship; nay, the omniscience and omnipotence of Jesus, of which he had already witnessed so many proofs. “They appointed him,” which some understand to mean, measured out to him, actually gave him. Others, more probably; they promised to give, they covenanted with him for, “thirty pieces of silver.” There is a diversity of opinion as to the precise value of this sum. It is, however, generally maintained, that whenever there is mention of αργυριον (argenteus, Vulgate) in the New Testament, it means, the Jewish silver sicle, which was equivalent to the Greek stater, and was equal to two didrachmas, or four Attic drachmas. Hence (Exodus 21:32), for “thirty sicles of silver,” according to the Hebrew reading, the Septuagint have, “thirty didrachmas of silver,” the price of a slave among the Jews (Exodus 21:32). The value of a “silver piece,” or sicle, was something about 2s. 6d. of our money. Hence, the price set on our Redeemer was something under £3, 15s, of our money, the price of n common slave. This sum, though small, was still, considering the increased value of money in these early days, sufficient to purchase the potter’s field (27:7). It is probable, this field was in a most wretched condition, the best part of the soil having been taken away from it. Moreover, its extent is not stated in SS. Scripture, nor is it said, that this sum was exclusively appropriated to the purchase.

16. “From thenceforth”—this happened on Wednesday morning—“he sought an opportunity,” both as to time and place, “to betray Him” into the hands of His enemies. Instigated by the spirit of avarice, he watched our Redeemer, when, on the following (Thursday) night, he proceeded to the garden of Gethsemani, and there found the desired opportunity of privately betraying Him, and thus securing the price of innocent blood. Base ingratitude of Judas; yet, how often may not we have sold the Son of God, not once, but hundreds of times, and handed Him over to the devil, not for even thirty crowns, but for a base, brutal passion. Hence, when contemplating the perfidy of Judas, and viewing with horror all its circumstances, we may justly apply to ourselves the words of Nathan to David, “Thou art the man” (2 Kings 12:7). For, we are assured by the Holy Ghost, that as often as we commit mortal sin, which does not so much as gain us thirty pieces of silver, “we crucify again the Son of God, and make a mockery of Him.” (Heb. 6) How frequently should we not exclaim from the bottom of our hearts, and in a truly penitential spirit, “Miserere mei Deus,” &c. “Tibi soli peccavi … peccatum meum contra me est semper.”

17. “And on the first day of Azymes,” that is, of unleavened bread, which commenced with the Paschal solemnity, viz., on the evening of the 14th Nisan. On that evening, they should eat the Paschal lamb with unleavened bread (Exod. 12:8). On that evening commenced the feast of unleavened bread, called also the Feast of the Pasch, which continued seven days. The 14th Nisan is called the first day of Azymes, because the Feast of Azymes, or the Pasch, which was celebrated on the 15th Nisan, commenced, according to the Jewish computation of festivals, from sunset to sunset, on the previous evening of the 14th. Hence, the first day of the Feast of Azymes, or Pasch, may be said to be the 14th or 15th Nisan; for, it commenced at sunset of the 14th, and ended at the sunset of the 15th. The feast continued for seven days.

But, as our Lord sent His two disciples into Jerusalem, to prepare the Pasch at an earlier date than that on which the festival of the following day commenced, a question may arise, how could it be said that, at the hour they were sent in, it was the first day of Azymes? The answer commonly given is, that the Jews, as may be seen from their records, were wont to clear their houses of all leaven, early on the 14th, in preparation for the festival; the 14th was, therefore, popularly termed the first day of Azymes, as all leaven was entirely removed from their houses, from an early part of the day.

The disciples came to Jesus, saying: Where,” &c. There is some difference between the narration of St. Luke and that of St. Matthew. The most probable way of reconciling both is, that our Redeemer first, put His disciples in mind, as St. Luke relates (22:8), of preparing for the coming Pasch; and that they, then, asked Him, as is given by the three Evangelists. “Where wilt Thou, that we prepare for Thee to eat the Pasch?

The disciples came to Jesus,” after having been sent for. St. Mark (14:13) says, “two of His disciples;” and these, St. Luke (22:8) says, were “Peter and John.”

Where,” that is, in what house; for, Jerusalem alone was appointed by law (Deut. 16:5, 6, 7), to be the place to which all the Jews should resort for celebrating the Paschal solemnity.

Wilt Thou we prepare for Thee the Pasch?” According to some writers, not the Priests alone, but those also who were deputed by the heads of a family, as Peter and John were deputed here (Luke 22:8) by our Lord, were allowed to sacrifice the Paschal lamb at home, to roast it and prepare it for consumption. For this, these writers quote the authority of Philo. Others, more probably, maintain, with Patrizzi (de Evangeliis) that the Priests alone could receive the blood of the victims, and, with it, sprinkle the rim of the altar.

18. “Go ye into the city”—hence, He was by this time at Bethania—“to a certain man.” He points out the man without naming him, on account of the presence of Judas, lest he might prematurely, or in any unseemly way, interrupt the solemnity of the Last Supper. Both St. Mark (14) and St. Luke (22) give a more particular account of the man in question, or rather, of the circumstances, that distinguished him from any other. On entering the city, they were to meet a man carrying a pitcher of water; they should follow him into the house he was to enter, and there addressing the master of the house, who was clearly different from the man carrying the water, they were to address him in these words: “The Master saith, My time is at hand,” My time for leaving this world, and, after redeeming mankind, and leaving them the most affecting proof of My love, to return to My Father.

I will keep the Pasch,” &c. This He adds, to let him know the number, thirteen, for whom he was to provide suitable accommodation. It is generally supposed, that this man was one of our Saviour’s followers. The word “Master,” a common designation of our Lord among His followers, would seem to confirm this opinion. There is a tradition, that this was the house of John Mark, the companion of St. Paul and Barnabas, in preaching the Gospel. There, the Apostles lay concealed after our Redeemer’s death. There, He appeared to them on the evening of His resurrection. There, they received the Holy Ghost on Pentecost Sunday. Thither, St. Peter repaired after his liberation by the Angel. Some are of opinion, that our Redeemer had previously arranged with him, to celebrate the Pasch in his house. Others seem to think, that there was no such previous arrangement, but that, as our Lord had exerted His power, and shown His dominion in the case of the owner of the ass and the colt, who at once gave them up; so, here also, without any previous concert, and, in order to confirm the faith of His Apostles, He wishes to show His power and authority in influencing the mind of the householder to comply with His wishes.

It seems, that this man made becoming preparation for them, for, “he had a large dining-room furnished.” The Greek—ανωγεων—would imply, in the upper part of the house. This was prepared, either in consequence of a previous understanding with our Redeemer; or, having it prepared already, for some other party, he placed it at once at the service of our Lord.

19. The disciples, viz., Peter and John—his most confidential and intimate friends among the Apostles—went “and prepared the Pasch,” that is, got ready everything necessary for eating the Paschal lamb. They had the lamb itself, a male of one year, without blemish, duly sacrificed and prepared, through the intervention of the Priests, who received the blood of the lamb between the two evenings, sprinkled the altar with it, and placed the victim on the altar, and then returned it to the families who offered it. That this was the rite of sacrifice, we are informed by Josephus (De Bello, Lib. 6, c. 1), who tells us, that, in reply to the question of Cestius, regarding the number of Jews who assembled at Jerusalem, the Priests, in order to determine this exactly, as ten persons should partake of each lamb, told precisely the number of lambs sacrificed, which they could not do, unless the lambs were prepared, and the sacerdotal services performed at the stated hour. The Apostles also got ready unleavened bread, and wild lettuces. After the sacrificing of the Paschal lamb, the Jews could not have leaven in their houses for seven days. The use of unleavened bread continued from the evening of the 14th Nisan till the evening of the 21st of the same month (Exod. 12:18).

20. “Now when it was evening,” after sunset. The lamb was immolated between the third hour of the day and sunset, but not eaten till after sunset. The Hebrew in Exodus (12:6) Ben-arbaiim, which St. Jerome translates, “ad vesperam,” “in the evening,” or rather, “towards evening,” signifies, between the two evenings, that is, between the ninth hour, or three o’clock of our day, when the sun begins to decline, and sunset. This time was set apart for sacrificing the Paschal lamb, which corresponds with the hour at which the true Paschal Lamb was sacrificed (Matt. 27:46). After sunset, “when it was evening;” or, as St. Luke has it (22:14), “when the hour was come, He sat down to eat it with His twelve disciples.” They constituted His family, who were to eat the Paschal lamb with Him. It is insinuated, that all were present, not excepting the traitor, Judas. We are informed by Philo (Lib. de Sacrif. Cain and Abel), that the Jewish Pasch was partaken of by men in a standing posture. The law, however, does not command this, although it implies it (Exod. 12:11). The words of St. Matthew, “He sat down,” merely convey, that He partook of food, without determining the posture, in which He did so, whether standing or reclining.

Possibly, our Redeemer might have partaken of the Paschal lamb in a standing posture. Others maintain, that He had partaken of the Jewish supper, and other viands, served up on that occasion, in a reclining posture. This is held by St. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others (John 13:4).

In describing banquets in our day, we commonly say, a man sat down to dinner, accommodating ourselves to the ordinary forms of expression, although, in that particular instance, He might have been standing, while partaking of it. Calmet (in hunc locum) says, the Jews of his day, eat the Pasch in a sitting posture; perhaps, because they regarded a standing posture commanded in Exodus (12:1) as appertaining only to the first occasion of the institution of the Pasch by Moses. St. Hilary is the only one among the Fathers, who denies that Judas was present. That he was, is clear from Matthew 26:21; Mark 14:18; Luke 22:21; John 13:11, 26, 30.

21. St. Luke (22:21), says, these words were used by our Redeemer, not before, as here, but after, the institution of the adorable Eucharist. And this seems more likely, as our Redeemer would hardly have disturbed the minds of His Apostles before preparing for this solemn supper, by the announcement recorded here. Hence, St. Matthew records the matter here by anticipation. Others, however (St. Augustine, &c.), say, that our Redeemer twice alluded to His betrayal, before the Last Supper, and after it. He alluded to it in a very general way before the Last Supper, not naming the traitor. Then the Apostles, having asked who it was, He, still in a very indefinite way, describes him to be the party who dipped his hand in the dish with Him (v. 23). This, however, is intended more to show the close intimacy existing, and the consequent aggravated guilt of the traitor, than to determine the person. After that, He institutes the Eucharist, and then declares, the traitor was with Him at the table (Luke 22:21; John 13:21). Then, St. Peter beckoned to St. John, who was reclining on our Redeemer’s breast, to ask who it was; and it was told him in reply, that it was the person to whom He would give bread dipped (John 13:26); after which, Judas left to consummate his wickedness.

Amen I say to you.” He premises a solemn asseveration, as the matter seemed so incredible. “One of you,” My chosen friends, whom I have thus honoured and exalted, “will betray Me.” He often before predicted, that He would be delivered to the Gentiles, &c.; but, it is only now He predicts by whom this was to be done. And this He does, to show them, that He was fully conscious of all that was to happen, and that He was freely to undergo death. He did not expressly name Judas, in order, by this consideration for his feelings, to incline him to repent for the wicked deed he meditated—to teach us, how to act towards occult sinners—and, also, lest the Apostles might lay violent hands on him, in vindicating the honour of their Master.

22. They were very much terrified, from a consciousness of their own weakness, however, and a dread of the secret judgments of God, although not conscious to themselves of any wicked design against their Divine Master, whose assurance, they could not call in question.

23. The same is given (Mark 14:20). Our Redeemer still refrains from naming him; and He mentions the circumstance of great intimacy and familiarity, to aggravate the guilt and ingratitude of the party. The mention of “his hand” is very significant, as if to say, the hand that is in the dish with Me, the same it is, that shall betray Me. It may be, that in the word, “dish,” we have the container for the thing contained, so that the words would mean: the man who uses the same food and table with Me, he it is that is to betray Me. This is conformable to the words of the Psalmist (40:10), “qui edebat panes meos,” &c. (Mark 14:18; Luke 22:21.) Hence, in this answer, our Redeemer does not say, who is, or who is not to betray Him. He only repeats His former assertion, adding a circumstance implying great familiarity, calculated to aggravate and heighten the guilt of the traitor.

24. Meekness having failed, He now has recourse to threats of punishment, in order to incline him to repentance. “The Son of man goeth,” that is, leaving the world, He “goeth” to death, of His own free will, and returns to His Father, in accordance with the predictions of the Prophets and the determined decree of Heaven (Luke 22:22). But, although immense advantage shall accrue to the human race from My death, and great glory to My Father, still, “woe,” eternal torture shall be the fate of the wretch “by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed.” He is not, on that account, to be reputed guiltless. Although the human race may profit by it; still, it were better for him, that he were never born, than be tortured for all eternity.

25. The traitor, fearing discovery from his silence, also asked, with the others, and in terms of greater respect, “Is it I, Rabbi?” while the others addressed Him, as “Lord.” The holy Fathers here express their amazement at the cool effrontery of Judas. It does not seem likely, that he asked our Redeemer separately from the others, after He said (verse 23), “he that dippeth his hand,” &c., as the account given here by St. Matthew would seem to indicate; for, otherwise, the Apostles could have clearly seen he was the party alluded to, but, that he asked the question with the others (verse 22). Others, however, are of opinion that Judas asked this question, after our Redeemer intimated to St. John, who it was, by giving him the morsel of bread.

He saith: Thou hast said it”—a mild form of saying: Yes, thou art the man. This is also the signification the words bear when addressed to Caiphas (verse 64), whilst St. Mark says, “I am He” (14:62). It is most likely, that our Lord said this, in so low a tone of voice, as to escape the notice of the other Apostles, who were thrown into confusion by the announcement (verse 21). For, we find, that even after our Lord had given a definite sign to St. John, and told Judas, “quod facis, fac citius” (John 13:27); still, they did not understand what was meant (28, 29).

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

Father Maas’ Commentary on Matthew 26:14-25

Posted by Dim Bulb on March 29, 2015

14. Then went one of the twelve.] δ. The traitor. The first gospel first determines the person of the traitor; secondly, it records his compact with the enemies; thirdly, it tells of the subsequent state of his mind.

[1] The traitor is Judas Iscariot [10:4], who is called by all evangelists one of the twelve, probably in order to emphasize the sad contrast between his state and his sin [Chrys.]. Moreover, the gospels describe the internal state of the traitor: according to Jn. 6:71 he had ceased to be a true believer about a year before his treason, after the Eucharistic discourse of our Lord; the hope to enrich himself by stealing from the common purse [Jn. 12:6] had kept him thus long in the company of Jesus and his apostles. At the supper in Bethany he murmured against the action of Mary, because the alms which he ostensibly desired to give to the poor did not pass through his hands and afford him the occasion of a new theft. That this was the final occasion for his defection follows from the unchronological order of the supper in the first gospel [against Schegg and Wichelhaus], and the connection the evangelist establishes between the departure of Judas to the chief priests by means of the particle “then”; for it follows from what has been said about the time of the supper that “then” is no mere adverb of time in this passage. Though Strauss, Meyer, etc. see an inexplicable contradiction between Jn. 13:27 on the one hand and Mt. 26:14 and Lk. 22:3 on the other, it must be kept in mind that the fourth gospel speaks already in 13:2 of Judas’ yielding to the snares of the enemy, so that it tells implicitly what the other gospels state explicitly. In any case, the traitor went to the chief priests after their council against Jesus, because his offer changed their manner of proceeding.

[2] The contract. Though any member of the Synagogue not believing in the Messiasship of Jesus was obliged to deliver Jesus into the hands of his enemies, if he could conveniently do so [Jn. 11:56], Judas’ avarice shut his eyes to this duty. Far from acting through any love of Jesus, or any desire of advancing his Messianic claims, as some modern writers have believed, Judas has not even the merit of a blind religious fanatic. The chief priests on their part “appointed” [Vulg. Theoph. Bisp. Arn. Fil.]. or “weighed out” [Schanz, P. Keil, Weiss] for him thirty silver shekels, or $17–20.00 in our money. The idea of weighing in the foregoing verb alludes to Zach. 11:12, which prophecy is fulfilled in the present event; the verb was used on account of the ancient custom of weighing the money instead of counting it, and was retained even when coined money had been introduced. The sum itself was the common price of a slave, whether bought in the market [Lightfoot, Schöttgen, Wetstein, in l.], or paid for by way of restitution [Ex. 21:32]. Mk. 14:11 and Lk. 22:5 show that payment was not then made to Judas. According to Lk. 22:6, Judas had the meanness to give his express assent to the offer of the chief priests.

[3] The subsequent state of Judas’ mind is that required for a continuous act of treason and false friendship. Without assuming that he foresaw or intended all the consequences of his treason, he remained permanently in the condition implied by the question, “What will you give me, and I will deliver him unto you?” This is a fit conclusion to the history of the preparation of the enemies for the passion of Jesus, since it describes the state of Christ’s enemies in all ages.

17. And on the first day of the Azymes.] b.] Preparation of the disciples for the passion. This section contains first an introduction, vv. 17–20; secondly, the prediction of the betrayal, vv. 21–25; thirdly, the institution of the Holy Eucharist, vv. 26–29; fourthly, the prediction of the scandal and of the denial, vv. 30–35.

a. Introduction. This contains first the question of the disciples, v. 17; secondly, the answer of Jesus, v. 18; thirdly, the subsequent action of the disciples, v. 19; fourthly, the action of our Lord and his disciples, v. 20.

[1] The question of the disciples. [a] The literal meaning of this verse does not give us much difficulty. According to Ex. 22:6, the paschal lamb must be immolated on the fourteenth day of the first month [Nisan], and v. 18 of the same chapter enjoins that azymes must be eaten from the evening of the fourteenth to that of the twenty-first day of Nisan. Lev. 23:5 states in the same manner that the Passover of the Lord is on the evening of the fourteenth day, and the solemnity of the Azymes on the fifteenth; unleavened bread must be eaten for seven days, and the first day is to be especially solemn and sacred, so that no servile work must be done on it. Similar injunctions are contained in Num. 28:16–18. According to these texts it would appear that the fifteenth day is the first day of Azymes; but since unleavened bread had to be eaten with the paschal lamb, and since all leaven had to be removed from the houses after noon on the fourteenth, this day was called the first day of Azymes [Jos. Antiq. II. xv. 1; III. x. 5]. According to Lk. 22:8 it is our Lord who gives first the command to Peter and John to go and prepare the pasch; the question of the disciples follows the words of Jesus.

[b] That the pasch must be taken in its usual sense of paschal lamb is clear from the words of the evangelists [Mt. 26:19; Mk. 14:12, 16; Lk. 22:13], of the two disciples [Mt. 26:17; Mk. 14:12; Lk. 22:13], and of our Lord himself [Mt. 26:18; Mk. 14:14; Lk. 22:8, 11, 15], who agree in calling it “the pasch” without any qualification; the owner of the supper-room in Jerusalem understands it in the same manner as the three synoptists imply. Besides, the first day of Azymes [Mt. 26:17], or the fourteenth day of Nisan, was the day on which the paschal lamb was eaten, so that Jesus cannot have referred to a paschal supper different from the legal one. That the first day of Azymes cannot be taken as the thirteenth day of Nisan, or signify “before the first day of Azymes,” follows from the third gospel [Lk. 22:7], wherein the day of Azymes is determined by the clause “on which it was necessary that the pasch should be killed”; for this was legally done on the fourteenth. Again, it follows from the second gospel [Mk. 14:12] that the Jews did not postpone their pasch to the fifteenth day of Nisan in the year of our Lord’s death, since it determines the first day of Azymes as that “on which they sacrifice their pasch.”

[c] The opinion of the Fathers on the question we are now considering may be reduced to certain heads: Apollinaris, Clement of Alexandria, and Hippolytus, fragments of whose writings are preserved in the Chronicon Paschale [cf. ed. Dindorf, t. i. p. 13 ff.], contend that our Lord did not celebrate a paschal supper in the last year of his life, but that he suffered on the fourteenth day of Nisan. We have seen that the gospels do not allow us to deny the celebration of the paschal supper in the last year of Christ’s life. The foregoing writers impugned the Judaizing Quartodecimans, and in their zeal to abolish the celebration of the Jewish paschal supper in the Christian community, they exceeded the bounds of truth, while the very existence of their adversaries attests and ancient tradition in the church that Jesus had eaten the pasch on the fourteenth day of Nisan. This error on the part of the orthodox champions must have arisen from the principle that Jesus is our true pasch, stated by St. Paul [1 Cor. 5:7], and repeated by St. Justin [c. Tryph. c. 40, 111] and St. Irenæus [adv. hær. iv. 10; cf. II. xxii. 3]. But as it does not follow from this that our Lord died in the temple where the paschal lamb was immolated, so it does not follow that he died precisely on the day when the immolation of the Jewish pasch happened. But even the temporal coincidence of the eating of the pasch and the death of Jesus may be admitted; for since the pasch was eaten after sunset on the fourteenth day, according to Jewish computation it fell in the beginning of the fifteenth day, towards the end of which our Lord died. Tertullian [adv. Jud. c. 8] could therefore maintain that Jesus died on the first day of Azymes, since his Jewish adversaries were accustomed to begin their fifteenth day with the evening of the fourteenth, on which unleavened bread was eaten with the pasch. This computation of the day, together with the foregoing statement of St. Paul, gave rise to the orthodox Quartodecimans in Asia Minor, who celebrated the commemoration of our Lord’s death on the fourteenth day of Nisan [Epiph. hær. 50, 1, 2; Theodoret.]. The statement of Julius Africanus [M. 10, 89], Ps. Chrys. [M. 59, 747], the Chron. pasch. [M. 92, 537, 541], and of certain other writers [ibid. 536, 537, 1133, qu. 55] is explained in the same manner. Chrys. [in Jo. hom. lxxxiii. 3; in Mat. hom. lxxxiv. al. lxxxv. 2], Epiph. [hær. li. 26], and all the Latin writers [Hilarian. Chronograph. Petr. Damian etc.] that place the death of Jesus on the fourteenth of the month, are really in favor of assigning the crucifixion to the fifteenth; for the Latins call the fourteenth the day of the Full Moon, which according to the Hebrew calculation falls on the fifteenth [Petav. doctr. temp. l. v. c. 16; cf. patr. de evgg. diss. 59; Knab. etc.]. While, therefore, a number of Fathers plainly assert that Jesus ate the supper on the fourteenth and died on the fifteenth day of Nisan; and others, “a priori,” as it were, defend against the Judaizing Quartodecimans that Jesus must have died on the fourteenth; and others again, according to the Jewish manner of computation, begin the day on which Jesus died on the evening of our fourteenth; and still others, following the Roman manner of nomenclature, called the Jewish fifteenth day of the month the fourteenth,—there may be some few who were induced by the apparent doctrine of the fourth gospel to place the day of our Lord’s death on the day on which the Jews ate their pasch [cf. Lact. epit. div. instit. c. 45]. But the authority of these is practically obliterated by that of the foregoing classes.

[d] If we consult the opinion of commentators on the question, we find four principal classes of opinions: First, a number of rationalistic and Protestant writers contend that no harmony between the fourth and the first three gospels is possible: Bretschneider, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Schenkel, etc. follow the synoptic gospels in placing the paschal supper on the fourteenth and the death of our Lord on the fifteenth day of Nisan, while Lücke, Bleek, Meyer, Hase, Ewald, Schleiermacher, Weiss, Beyschlag, Delitzsch, Orelli, Godet, pretend to follow the fourth gospel by placing our Lord’s death on the fourteenth day of Nisan.

Secondly, the other extreme is defended by Lightfoot, Bengel, Kayser, etc. who contend that the supper recorded by Jn. 13 ff. is wholly distinct from that called the pasch by the synoptists; this is not only improbable from an exegetical point of view, but does not even escape the main difficulty, because in Jn. 18:28 the Jews do not wish to enter Pilate’s house for fear of legal uncleanness and consequent impossibility to eat the pasch.

Thirdly, the record of the synoptic gospels must be brought into agreement with the fourth gospel, so that Jesus died on the day on which the Jews ate the pasch: this day is the fourteenth of Nisan, and the supper, which was not the regular pasch, took place on the thirteenth [Calmet, Lang, Erasm. Kuinoel, Winer, Alford, Weizsäcker, Pfleiderer, Grotius, Caspari, Sepp, Lamy, Fouard, Sidney Smith [cf. The Month, March, 1891, p. 377]; or the supper was the real pasch, but happened on the thirteenth, while Jesus died on the fourteenth day of the month [Arn. Schanz, Mansel, Aberle; cf. Tübinger, Quartalschr. 1863, pp. 84 ff.]; or again, the supper was the real pasch and happened on the fourteenth day of Nisan, while the Jews for some reason or other transferred their paschal supper to the fifteenth [Jans. Mald. Petav. Calv. Sealig. Knab. Cornely, Grimm, Ebrard, Milligan; cf. Contemporary Review, 1868, nn. 8, 11]. This last opinion coincides with that we are now defending, excepting the translation of the Jewish paschal supper to the fifteenth day of Nisan which, we shall see, is not required by the fourth gospel.

The fourth opinion harmonizes the fourth gospel with the synoptists, so that the paschal supper falls on the fourteenth day of Nisan, and the death of our Lord on the fifteenth [Schegg, Lichtenstein, patr. Langeu, Tholuck, Hengstenb. Hofmann, Lange, Luthardt, Wieseler, Tolet. Fil. Keil, Corluy, Nösgen, etc.]. The testimony of the synoptists and the patristic view of the matter have already been considered. It only remains to state its agreement with the fourth gospel and with the festal regulations of the Jews.

[e] The fourth gospel favors the opinion that Jesus ate the paschal supper on the fourteenth of Nisan, and died on the fifteenth. For according to Jn. 13:1 the supper was held “before the festival day of the pasch,” i. e. not on the festival day of the pasch [12:1], but on the first day of Azymes; even those who do not admit such a distinction between the festival day and the first day of Azymes must grant that after his residence of many years among Gentiles, and for the sake of his Gentile readers, St. John did not compute his days according to the Hebrew manner of reckoning, so that he expressed the first day of Azymes, and not the thirteenth day of Nisan, by his day “before the festival day of the pasch.”

This is confirmed by an occurrence during the supper [13:29]: When Judas left the supper-room, the disciples believed that he went out to buy the necessaries for the feast; now if the supper took place on the evening of the thirteenth according to our manner of reckoning, why should Judas buy in the night the necessaries for the second day after that time, i. e. for the feast that fell on the fifteenth? To give this passage a reasonable meaning, the feast must have occurred the day after the supper according to our manner of speaking, so that the supper took place on the evening of the fourteenth.

St. John adds a third expression which forces us to place the supper on the fourteenth [18:28]: When the Jews brought Jesus to Pilate, they went not into the hall “that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the pasch.” The reader knows that this event happened the morning after the paschal supper celebrated by Jesus and his apostles; but the words show that it must have taken place on the morning of the fifteenth day of Nisan. Therefore the paschal supper had been eaten by our Lord on the evening of the fourteenth. But how can we show that this happened on the morning of the fifteenth? The Jews feared to contract a legal impurity that would prevent them from eating the pasch, i. e. from eating either the paschal lamb on the evening of the fourteenth or the offerings called also Chagigah, which were also eaten during the course of the fifteenth [cf. Deut. 16:1, 2; 2 Par. 35:7; 30:22; Mischna, Pesachim, vi. 4; Thesaur. Ugolini, t. ix. pp. 948, 949; Lightfoot, Hor. hebr. in Mt. 26; etc.]. Now the legal impurity they would have contracted by entering Pilate’s house could not have prevented them from eating the paschal lamb, since this was eaten in the evening, after the impurity had ceased [cf. Lev. 15:5 f.; 19 f.; Maimonides, Pesachim, vi. 1]. Hence they feared the impurity, because it would prevent them from eating the Chagigah on the fifteenth, and therefore they brought Jesus to Pilate in the morning of the fifteenth, so that the disciples had eaten the passover with their Master on the fourteenth day of Nisan.

A fourth indication requiring us to place the death of Jesus on the fifteenth, and the paschal supper on the fourteenth, is contained in Jn. 19:14, 31, where Jesus is said to have died on the parasceve of the pasch. Had the evangelist intended to place our Lord’s death on the afternoon of the fourteenth, he could not have placed it on the parasceve of the pasch, because in that supposition Jesus died while the pasch was actually immolated in the temple, and therefore not while it was in course of preparation. Since it is generally acknowledged that both parasceve and its Hebrew and Chaldee equivalent are the common name for Friday, and as, on the other hand, this appellation is not applied to the day before the solemn feast of the Azymes except in the present Jewish calendar and in the Midrash Ruth, there is no reason for departing from the common meaning of the expression in the foregoing passages of St. John.

Finally, the parasceve of the pasch suggests that the solemn feast fell in that year on the parasceve or Friday, just as our Easter Sunday implies the identity of the two solemnities [Jn. 19:31]; the parasceve is followed not by a day of only relative rest, as was the solemn day of the Azymes, but by “a great sabbath-day” on which the regular sabbath rest was observed, a circumstance which again points to Friday as the less rigorous sabbath-day, and therefore the solemnity of the Azymes or the fifteenth day of Nisan.

[f] To show that the death could happen on the fifteenth day of Nisan, we need only point to the authorities according to which the trial, the scourging, the crucifixion, and the burial could take place on the solemn day of Azymes without violation of the Jewish law. No law prohibited trials on feast-days, as may be inferred from Jom Tob, 5:2; Shabbath, i. ff.; the contrary practice actually prevailed, as is seen from repeated occurrences told in the gospels: Mk. 3:1; Mt. 12:9; Lk. 4:29; Jn. 7:31, 32, 45; 10:31, 36. As to the scourging, it was expressly stated that it might take place on a feast-day, but not on a sabbath [Jerusal. Talm. Betza, 5:2]. If the execution of condemned criminals could not have taken place on the feast-day, why should the Jews have adopted the solemn resolution at their council, two days before the pasch, not to kill Jesus on the festival day; for that would have been a matter of course. Besides, why should they have added the reason, “lest a tumult should arise among the people,” if the law provided them with the most effective reason? Moreover, the Mischna [Sanhedrin, x. 3, 4] gives a decree that a certain class of criminals—offenders against legal traditions—should suffer punishment on a festival day, thus interpreting the law of Deut. 17:12, 13. It may be added that most of the actual labor involved in all that has been thus far considered was performed by the Romans. Finally, executed criminals not only could be buried on a festival day, but they had to be buried according to the Mekilta Nezikin 4, and the law of Deut. 21:2, 3. The supper must, therefore, have taken place on the fourteenth, and the death of our Lord on the fifteenth day of Nisan.

18. But Jesus said.] [2] The answer of Jesus. The words “go ye into the city” show that the speakers were not in Jerusalem, but perhaps either in Bethany or on the way [Mald.]. “To a certain man” says the evangelist by way of summary. [Aug. Pasch.], the manner in which the man was determined is described by the other two evangelists [Mk. 14:13, 14; Lk. 22:10, 11]. Jesus employs this manner of determination not to conceal the place of his last supper from Judas [Euth. Fil. Ed. 2. p. 482], but to show his unlimited foreknowledge. It is hard to determine who was the host of our Lord on this occasion; some think of Joseph of Arimathea, others of Nicodemus, others again of Mary the mother of Mark. At any rate, the room appears to be identical with that in which Jesus appeared after his resurrection, in which the Holy Ghost descended on the disciples, and which formed in fact the first Christian church; its traditional site is on Mount Sion, alongside the tomb of David, in a building now occupied by Mohammedan dervishes. Since the unnamed man acknowledged Jesus as “the Master,” he must have been a disciple; “my time” signifies the time fixed by the Father for my passion [Jn. 7:30; 8:20; 13:1]. “With thee,” not, however, with thy family, but “with my disciples,” I make the pasch. These words were calculated to prevent the impression that our Lord wished to join the company of the owner of the house [cf. Jos. B. J. VI. ix. 3].

19. And the disciples did.] [3] Action of the disciples. [a] The paschal lamb. Lk. 22:8 tells us that the disciples were Peter and John. Both Mk. 14:15 and Lk. 22:12 show that the preparations, as far as the room was concerned, were mostly made before the two apostles arrived. The lamb, too, must have been ready, since according to the primitive law it had to be set apart on the tenth day of Nisan [Ex. 12:3]. But the lamb must be presented in the temple between the two evenings, i. e. between three and six o’clock in the afternoon of the fourteenth, where the householder himself slew it. The priests, standing in a row extending to the altar, received the blood in silver basins, which they passed from hand to hand, until at the foot of the altar the blood was poured out, whence it flowed by an underground conduit into the brook Kedron. This took the place of the sprinkling of the blood on the doorposts. The householder then removed the skin and fat from the lamb; the fat was burned on the altar by the priest, the skin was carried home bound about the lamb. As the number of lambs was very great, the persons bringing them were admitted in detachments [Schaff]. The paschal lamb was roasted on a spit made of pomegranate wood, the spit passing right through from mouth to vent. In roasting, the lamb must not touch the oven, otherwise the part touched had to be cut away. The lamb was not to be sodden at all with water, not a bone of it was to be broken, and nothing of it was to remain until the morning.

[b] Ritual observances. Three large unleavened cakes, wrapped in the folds of a napkin, are laid on a salver; on them are ranged the seven articles needed for the passover: a roasted egg instead of the fourteenth day Chagigah; the charoseth, a reddish sweet sauce, made of almonds, nuts, figs, and other fruits, commemorating, it is said, by its color, the hard labor of brick-making imposed on the Israelites, and by its taste, the divine alleviations which Jehovah mingled with the miseries of his people; salt water; the roasted shank-bone of a lamb instead of the paschal lamb; the bitter herbs, lettuce, endive, succory, charchavina, horehound; chervil and parsley. The use of wine, though not mentioned in the law, was strictly enjoined by tradition; even the poorest Israelite must have, at least, four cups, though he were to receive the money for it from the poor-box, or by selling or pawning his coat [Pes. x. 1]. Red wine alone was to be used, but always mixed with water; each of the four cups must contain, at least, the fourth of a quarter of an hin, a hin being equivalent to about one gallon and two pints.

20. But when it was evening, he sat down.] [4] The action of Jesus. [a] The gospel events. It was probably as the sun was beginning to decline that Jesus with ten disciples descended once more over the Mount Olivet into the Holy City [Ed. Temple, its Ministry, etc. p. 194]. It may be well to give here a general view of what the gospels tell us concerning the last supper: 1. Jesus expresses his great desire [Lk. 22:15, 16]; 2. the strife among the disciples [Lk. 24:24–30]; 3. the washing of feet [Jn. 13:1–17]; 4. the announcement of the traitor [Mt. 26:21–25; Mk. 14:18–21; Lk. 22:21–23]; 5. institution of the Holy Eucharist [Mt. 26:26–29; Mk. 14:22–25; Lk. 22:15–20; Jn. 13:31–35]; 6. announcement of the denial [Mt. 26:30–35; Mk. 14:26–31; Lk. 21; 22:31–34; Jn. 13:36–38]; 7. the last words of Jesus [Lk. 22:34–38; Jn. 14 ff.].

[b] Harmony of gospel and ritual. We may now endeavor to combine the gospel incidents with the ritual observances of the Jews.

1. The expression of the desire probably accompanied the entrance of Jesus into the supper-room, or followed this event immediately [Lk. 22:15, 16]. 2. Next, the cups were filled with wine, and Jesus, holding his cup in his hand, pronounced the customary blessing over it [cf. Ed. l. c. pp. 204 f.]; the first cup of wine was then drunk, and each washed his hands by dipping, not by having water poured over them [ibid. p. 204]. When the company took places at table, the strife arose among the disciples [Lk. 24:24–30], and Jesus washed their feet to give an example of humility [Jn. 13:1–17]. 3. The paschal table was then brought forward, and our Lord took some of the bitter herbs, dipped them in the salt water, ate of them, and gave to the others; after this, not to mention the customary breaking of the middle cake, the paschal table is, at present, removed again, so as to excite the curiosity and wonder of the guests. The cup is filled the second time. 4. After the question, “Why is this night distinguished from all other nights?” the difference is explained by the head of the party or family, who tells the national story from Terah to the deliverance from Egypt and the giving of the law. 5. The paschal table is then brought in again, and the paschal lamb, the bitter herbs, and the unleavened bread are explained, the exposition ending with an exhortation to give thanks and praise to the Lord. Hence the company sings the Hallel, or rather its first part, consisting of Pss. 112, 113. [Heb. 113, 114]. 6. Upon this the second cup of wine is blessed and drunk, and the hands are washed the second time [Ed. ibid. p. 207]. 7. One of the unleavened cakes is then broken and thanks given; since at the institution of the Holy Eucharist Jesus first gave thanks and then brake [Mt. 26:26; Mk. 14:22; Lk. 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24], he cannot have consecrated at this point of time. Pieces of the broken cake, with bitter herbs between them and dipped in the charoseth, are handed to the company. The supper itself, consisting of the unleavened bread with bitter herbs, the so-called Chagigah or festive offering, and of the paschal lamb itself, proceeded now in its regular course, and conversation flowed freely. Not even the wine drunk during this time of the meal was regarded as belonging to the four cups. 8. During this period of the supper, Jesus predicted the treason of Judas [Mt. 26:21–25, Mk. 14:18–21, Lk. 22:21–23]. Since it is probably the unleavened bread with the bitter herbs dipped in the charoseth that the fourth gospel designates as the morsel [Jn. 13:27], the traitor must have left before even partaking of the paschal lamb proper. For the flesh of the lamb was the last meat partaken of; after it nothing more was to be eaten. At present, the Jews conclude the paschal supper with a piece of unleavened cake, which they call the Aphikomen or after-dish. 9. The hands are washed again, the third cup is mixed, grace is said, the wine is blessed and drunk. 10. The door is opened, a prayer against the heathen pronounced, the fourth cup filled, over which they pronounce the second part of the Hallel, consisting of Pss. 114–117. [Heb. 115–118.]. 11. The Hallel is followed by the blessing of the fourth cup and its consumption. The great Hallel was usually sung after the Hallel, though it is not certain of what particular psalms the great Hallel consisted. Opinions vary between Pss. 135. [Heb. 136], 133–135. [Heb. 134–136], 134:4–135. [Heb. 135:4–136]; in any case, Ps. 134. [Heb. 135] seems to be included in the great Hallel. At times, a fifth cup was added, but this is nowhere mentioned in the Talmud. How the gospel narrative must be combined with these latter events will be seen in the respective passages.

21. And whilst they were eating.] β. Announcement of the betrayal. The present section contains first, the general announcement; secondly, the questions of the disciples; thirdly, the specification of the traitor together with the description of his punishment; fourthly, the individual traitor is pointed out.

[1] The general announcement of the betrayal is placed in the time “whilst they were eating,” which agrees exactly with the foregoing harmony. From the bitterness of soul signified by the bitter herbs, Jesus may have taken occasion to express his own bitterness of heart caused by the treason of his disciple. He does not name the betrayer, in order to give him the opportunity of repenting in secret [Chrys. Jer. Theoph. Mald.].

22. And they being very much troubled.] [2] The question of the disciples. The apostles are troubled over the impending misfortune of their Master, and though severally conscious of their innocence, they know the mutability of the human will, and trust the veracity of Jesus more than their own constancy [Or. Jer. Mald.].

23. But he answering, said.] [3] Jesus first specifies the traitor, and then predicts his punishment. [a] The words of Jesus allude to Ps. 40:10; 54:14 [cf. Jn. 13:18; Cyr. Jans. Arn. Fil. P. Schegg]. That Judas became clearly known as the traitor by these words, because he dipped his hand with Jesus in the dish either through impudence [Jer. Bed. Pasch. Theoph. Euth.], or by mere accident [Calm.], cannot be admitted, since according to Jn. 13:25 the traitor was made known to the disciple of love alone. We may therefore suppose that Jesus pointed in these words to one of his immediate surrounding, to one so near that he ate out of the same dish with him. Those at the further end of the table were thus reassured. This supposition is confirmed by the form of the table at which the supper was served. According to almost general custom, it was a quadrangle open on one side for the convenience of the waiters. Our Lord naturally occupied the place of honor, i. e. the middle place on the upper couch. Though Ex. 12:11 enjoins that the supper is to be eaten standing, this law was understood as applying only to the first Passover in Egypt, while in Palestine the supper was eaten reclining in token of the national liberty. Since the guests reclined on the left side, so as to have the right hand free for eating, and since St. John must have occupied the place in front of Jesus, leaning “on his breast at supper” [Jn. 21:20], Judas may have reclined behind our Lord, and Peter next to John on the right side of the quadrangle. The traitor therefore literally dipped his hand in the same dish as our Lord.

[b] Though the son of man freely submits to the fulfilment of the prophecies in which not only his death, but also his betrayal by a disciple is predicted [Ps. 40:10; cf. Jn. 13:18], the punishment of the traitor shall be inevitable nevertheless. Jer. sees here another appeal to the heart of Judas to repent in time. We cannot interpret the words “it were better for him if that man had not been born” as indicating that Judas’ soul existed separately before his conception, and that he would have been happier if he had remained in that state [cf. Jer.]; or that it had been better for Judas to have died in the womb of his mother, before his birth, so as to endure the eternal pain of loss only [Euth. Caj.]; the words mean that Judas’ punishment shall be so great that he himself shall prefer not to exist at all [Mald. cf. Jer.]. This preference of Judas was shown even in this life, by his suicide [cf. Schegg]; but since the words, “it were better for him if that man had not been born,” would not be strictly true, if he ever attained to the beatific vision, they implicitly predict the eternal damnation of the traitor [Br. Pasch. Alb. Thom. Dion. Caj. Jans. Mald. Lap. Calm. Fil. P.; cf. Arn. Schanz].

25. And Judas that betrayed him.] [4] In this last part we have first the question of Judas; secondly, the answer of Jesus. [a] The impudence of Judas in asking the question has been pointed out by Chrys. Br. Jans. It is heightened still more by his addressing Jesus not as “Lord,” but as “Rabbi”; he had lost his faith in Jesus about a year before this time [cf. Jn. 6:71]. Again, the question was probably asked after Jesus had given him the morsel by which he pointed out the traitor to St. John [Jn. 13:26 ff.]; Judas then said in feigned surprise: What, “is it I, Rabbi?” [cf. Mald. Lap. Yprens. Arn. Schegg, Schanz].

[b] Jesus answers in a low tone, so as not to be heard by the other disciples, “Thou hast said it,” and immediately adds in a loud tone of voice, “that which thou dost, do quickly” [Jn. 13:27]. The apostles could therefore justly suppose that Judas went to buy the necessaries for the feast, or to give alms to the poor [Jn. 13:29]. The words “thou hast said it” are not ambiguous in their meaning, but they affirm what Judas had intimated in his question, as is seen in Mt. 26:64; 27:11 [cf. Schöttgen; Lightfoot, Chorographia, c. 82].

[c] Finally, it is commonly asked whether Judas left before the institution of the Holy Eucharist, or received holy communion and was ordained priest. We shall give first the reasons for Judas’ presence at holy communion; secondly, those for his absence; and thirdly, draw attention to the comparative cogency of the arguments.

1. The arguments for the affirmative are drawn from three sources, from Scripture, the Fathers, and the commentators. As to Scripture, it is especially St. Luke who favors the presence of Judas at the institution of the Holy Eucharist. The order of events in his gospel [desire of the pasch, institution of the Eucharist, prediction of the betrayal, strife for the first place, prediction of the denial] implies that Judas left after holy communion; moreover, Jesus says after the consecration of the chalice [Lk. 22:21], “Yet behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.” Among the Fathers, Jer. Cyr. of Jerusal. Chrys. Ambr. Cypr. Aug. Leo, etc. assume that Judas received communion before his departure. Finally, most of the older commentators agree with this opinion: Jans. Mald. Lap. etc.; the same view is expressed in the hymn “Pange lingua,” where we read: “cibum turbæ duodenæ se dat suis manibus.”

2. The negative answer to the question also is based on Holy Scripture, on the Fathers, and the commentators. As to Scripture, the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John imply that Judas left before the institution of the Holy Eucharist: for Matthew and Mark arrange the events thus: prediction of the betrayal, institution of the Holy Eucharist, abbreviated part containing the desire of the pasch, prediction of the fall of Peter; hence the departure of Judas is implicitly placed between the prediction of his treason and the institution of the Holy Eucharist. The order of the fourth gospel proceeds thus: washing of the feet, prediction of the betrayal and departure of Judas, prediction of the denial, consolatory address; the discourse after Judas’ departure is such that it almost demands the institution of the Holy Eucharist. Besides, we can hardly imagine that Jesus would have given the command, “Drink ye all of it” so peremptorily, if Judas had been in the company. This is the more improbable, because in other passages our Lord is careful to denote the sinfulness of Judas [Jn. 13:11, 18; 6:71]. Among the Fathers, Tatian, Ammonius, Jacob Nisib. [or Aphraates, serm. de pasch. 15], Constit. apostol. [v. 14], Hil. [in Mat.], Rupert, Petr. Comestor, Innocent iii. [De alt. myster. iv. 13], Cyril of Alex. maintain that Judas departed before the distribution of holy communion [cf. Corluy, in Jn. c. xiii. pp. 321 ff.]. Among the commentators, Turrianus, Salm. Bar. Lam. Cornely, Knab. Corluy, etc. defend the same negative view. The arguments advanced, more from a psychological and “a priori” than an exegetical point of view, we shall not here state. They may be seen in the work of Salmeron for the negative side, and in the works of St. Thomas [p. 3 qu. 81, a. 2] and Suarez [in 3am part. disp. 41, sect. 3] for the affirmative.

3. If we summarize the foregoing statements, we see that most ancient commentators defend the affirmative side, most modern the negative; from the Fathers we cannot establish an unexceptionable tradition for either side of the question. It is true that St. Luke follows a more accurate chronological order in the arrangement of the larger sections of our Lord’s life; but in detail, the order of the other evangelists, especially of the eyewitnesses Matthew and John, is preferable to that of Luke alone, and this the more because they agree with the faithful report of the third principal eyewitness, St. Peter. Judas therefore neither received holy communion nor holy orders before leaving the apostolic college.

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

Father MacEvilly’s Commentary on John 13:21-33, 36-38

Posted by Dim Bulb on March 29, 2015

Jn 13:21. “When Jesus said these things, He was troubled in spirit.” He voluntarily permitted the inferior faculties of His soul to feel sorrow and indignation at the criminal treachery of Judas, which he was soon to carry into effect, as well as his base ingratitude. No doubt, the fore-knowledge of his damnation, which was to follow his act of suicide in hanging himself with a halter, deeply affected the merciful soul of our Divine Lord. (For a full explanation of this passage to v. 30, see Matthew 26:21–26, Commentary.)

And He testified,” openly declared what He before had only insinuated (v. 19), “and said,” adding, solemnly, to His seemingly incredible declaration, “Amen, amen, I say to you, one of you shall betray Me.”

When did our Lord say this? Was it before the institution of the Blessed Eucharist? Some hold it was. Others, following the order of narrative given by St. Luke (22:21), hold that it was after the institution, He uttered these words; and that Matthew and Mark describe this by anticipation. St. Augustine (Lib. 3, de Consensi Evang. c. 1), and other Expositors, reconcile the narrative of the Evangelists, by saying, our Lord referred to the treason of Judas both before and after the institution of the Blessed Eucharist. The order of events was, probably, as follows: after the Paschal supper was over, and when the common Jewish supper, which succeeded it, had commenced, our Lord rose from table, while they were engaged at the common supper, and washed His disciples’ feet, and then reclining, said all that is recorded in this chapter from verse 12 to this verse 21. Then, troubled in spirit, He refers to the traitor, and on each one asking, “Is it I, Lord?” and Jesus replying, “Thou hast said it” (Matthew 26:25), He instituted the Blessed Eucharist. After which, He again refers to the traitor, as in Luke (22:21). Then, Peter asked John, to know of whom He spoke, and our Lord answers, “to whom I shall reach bread dipped” (v. 26). Whereupon, Judas, on receiving the morsel at our Lord’s hands, after the devil had entered into Him, withdraws. After that, our Lord delivered the following beautiful discourse to His disciples.

Jn 13:22. The disciples, in their terror and anxious state of perplexity, each asked, “Is it I, Lord?” (Matthew 26:22).

Jn 13:23. Our Lord then institutes the Blessed Sacrament, and this is omitted by St. John, as this Adorable Institution is fully recorded by the three other Evangelists. St. John fully details (6.), the promise of this institution, with all its circumstances. After the institution of the Blessed Eucharist, our Lord again refers to the treason of Judas, and the events occurred, which are recorded in this verse (23), and the subsequent part of this chapter.

Leaning on Jesus’s bosom.” This happened owing to the mode of sitting or reclining at table, according to the custom then prevalent in Judea. It does not mean, that he was actually lying on our Saviour’s bosom; but, that he sat next Him, so that his head naturally fell back on our Saviour’s bosom, when he spoke to Him. This was a mark of special favour.

One of His disciples whom Jesus loved.” This refers to St. John himself. He omits expressly mentioning his own name, out of a feeling of modest humility.

Jn 13:24. “Beckoned to him,” either by signs, or in a very low tone of voice, so as not to be heard by others. Peter may, possibly, have in view, to prevent the actual betrayal of our Lord, if necessary, by force, as in the case of Malchus, the High Priest’s servant.

Jn 13:25. “He, therefore, leaning on the breast of Jesus.” From the position John held at table next to our Lord, he had his head quite near the breast of his Divine Master (v. 23). Now, on being asked by Peter, he turned towards him, and again leaning on the breast of Jesus, questioned Him, “Who is it?” It would appear from verses 28, 29, that all this was said in so low a tone of voice, as not to reach the other Apostles.

Jn 13:26. “Bread dipped.” The prevalent custom in the East was to use the hand as the instrument for conveying food to the mouth. It was also customary to have a dish filled with some sauce, into which all were wont, in common, to dip pieces of bread before eating it. Hence, when our Lord says, “he that dippeth his hand with Me in the dish,” etc. (Matthew 26:23), He only refers to the traitor, in a general way, as forming part of the company, and as one of His intimate friends. Now, He gives a secret, special intimation by saying, “he, to whom I shall reach bread dipped,” and suiting the action to the word, handed it to Judas Iscariot. From this, St. John clearly saw Judas was the person referred to. Very likely, Judas, purse-bearer and almoner to our Lord and to the Apostolic College, occupied a place near our Lord, St. John being on the other side of Him, as it would be difficult to reach a morsel except to one immediately near Him. This distinction both as to the place he held, and the handing a morsel dipped, which was also regarded as a privilege and mark of special favour, only helped to aggravate the heinous ingratitude of Judas.

Jn 13:27. “Satan entered into him.” Already had Judas yielded to the suggestions and temptations of the devil (v. 2). But now, the fiend takes full possession of him, rendering him utterly reprobate, driving him on recklessly to destruction. Judas now becomes a tool in his hands, to perpetrate the greatest crime, the betrayal of his Divine Master and benefactor. The communication between our Lord and St. John relative to the horrid treason of Judas was conducted in an under-tone, unperceived by others. Now, our Lord, in an audible tone, addresses Judas, “that which thou dost, do it quickly.” This is permissive, not mandatory, as if He said in the language of stern, indignant reproach: I know your wicked designs; I fear not your worst; I am prepared for the consequences of your base treason. “What you do,” you are prepared and determined to do, you may as well do at once.

Jn 13:28, 29. Although some at least may have known, that Judas was the traitor referred to; still, they did not understand the words of our Lord to convey that the execution of his treasonable designs was so near at hand. They thought that Judas was only commissioned to procure at once what might be required for the coming week or seven days of the Paschal solemnity, or to distribute alms to the poor.

Jn 13:30. The two preceding verses, 28, 29, would seem to convey, parenthetically an observation of the Evangelist, who returns to the narrative regarding Judas. He, on receiving the morsel, and being informed by our Lord, in reply to his question (Matthew 26:25), that it was to him reference was made, “went out immediately,” on seeing that his treasonable design was discovered, and that he was excluded by our Lord from His society for ever. He may have been resolved on losing no time; lest our Redeemer might possibly arrange to escape, as He often did before; and so, he would lose the stipulated sum of thirty pieces of silver. He may have been also apprehensive that the other Apostles, on discovering his wicked designs, might lay violent hands on him.

And it was night.” A time well suited for carrying out treasonable designs.

From this, to chapter 18:, the Evangelist records the beautiful discourse, which our Lord delivered as a valedictory address to His beloved disciples, on the eve of His departure from them, full of tenderness, and replete with solid instruction as to their line of action in the future circumstances of difficulty and peril which awaited them, when His visible presence would be withdrawn from them.

Jn 13:31. “When, therefore, he was gone out.” The Evangelist refers to this circumstance, solely for the purpose of accurately noting the time.

Glorified,” or shortly to be glorified. The past tense is put, to denote what would certainly take place in the future, just at hand. The Son of Man was to be glorified in His Passion, through which the redemption of man was to be accomplished, and His victory over death, sin and hell brought about.

He was also to be “glorified” in the wonderful events that were to occur at His death—the darkness, the earthquake—which proclaimed that God was suffering; also in the events that were to succeed it, His glorious Resurrection and Ascension, the sending down of the Holy Ghost as promised, all which proclaimed Him to be God. Now, this Passion, the source of His glory, was about to commence, owing to the betrayal of His apostate disciple.

And God is glorified in Him,” since, by Him and His Sacred Passion, the leading Attributes of God, His justice, and hatred of sin, His eternal mercy and love for His creatures, are set forth in the clearest light.

Jn 13:32. “And if God is glorified in Him.” “If,” means since—since God is glorified in Him … “will also (in time) glorify Him,” render this Son of Man and his humanity, glorious, “in Himself,” by Himself, since the latent Deity, to which his humanity is united, will display itself and show Him to be the Son of God; and that, “immediately,” in the miraculous and stupendous events accompanying His Passion now at hand, and in the wonderful events, which are to succeed, to be completed by His Assumption, or, rather, Ascension, when He shall enter into the glory of His Father.

Jn 13:33. “Little children.” This is the consoling language of endearment and tender affection expressed by Him, now on the point of leaving them.

Yet a little while,” etc. He refers to His approaching Passion just at hand, which had virtually commenced with the treason of Judas, who had just left, to put in execution his criminal designs. In these words, He confirms His assertion that He was to be glorified immediately. Some understand, “yet a tittle while,” of the interval that was to elapse between this and His Ascension. But, as His intercourse with them between His Resurrection and Ascension was that of an Immortal and Divine Being, rather than of a mortal man, and as He will not be with them then in His usual mortal condition and familiarity as heretofore; hence, His words are generally understood of His approaching Passion.

You shall ask Me,” in your difficulties and perplexities, with view of receiving strength, advice and consolation, “and as I said to the Jews,” meaning the Jewish people generally, or their chief men in Jerusalem, on two occasions (7:34; 8:21, and on the last occasion, repeating the dreadful prediction of their reprobation, “you shall die in your sins.” “Whither I go, you cannot come.” The Apostles will be anxious to follow Him to heaven and share in His glory, and rest from their labours. But, they will not be able to attain to it “now,” as they are destined to spread the Gospel throughout the earth. It is only after great labours, persecution and suffering, to be completed by shedding their blood, they will be allowed to follow Him and share in His rest. Unlike the Jews, who would not find Him, and die in their sins, He consoles His disciples, His “own children,” with the assurance that, after having passed through the gates of death and an ordeal of suffering, final glory and rest shall be their assured portion (v. 36).

Some Expositors connect “now,” not with, “I say to you,” but with “come.” “You cannot come now,” implying, as He says, verse 36, “Thou shalt follow hereafter.”

Jn 12:36. St. Peter, absorbed in the thought that his Master was to depart from him, and seemingly listening in a heedless way, to the rest of the discourse, now with characteristic ardour, joined to great love for his Divine Master, asks, “Lord, whither goest Thou?” Our Lord, answering not Peter’s question regarding the place; but, replying to Peter’s intention of following Him to danger, even to death, tells how “he cannot follow Him now.” He is not yet prepared to die. His faith is not sufficiently strong to enable him to face death, now. So his hour is not yet come. His work for the Gospel is still before him; and his death, which will not be unlike that of his Divine Master, will open for him the gates of everlasting bliss. He will follow Him, hereafter, at some future day.

Jn 13:37. In the fulness of his love and zeal, and over confident in his own strength, which was partly the cause of his fall, by exposing himself unnecessarily to the proximate occasion of sinning against faith, he professes himself ready and willing to follow his Master to any place, ever so beset with danger: nay, ready to lay down his life for Him.

Jn 13:38. Our Lord tells Peter that far from going to death with Him, he will deny Him, and that before dawn of the following morning (see Matthew 26:34). Likely, our Lord predicted this twice, 1st, in the Supper Hall, as here, and Luke (22:34); 2ndly, on their way to Gethsemane, after leaving the Supper Hall, as in Matthew and Mark (14:30). St. Mark says, “before the cock crows twice,” referring to the first and second crowing of the cock. The first crowing of the cock occurred at midnight; and took place after Peter’s first denial. The second, at day dawn. This latter took place after Peter’s third denial—so that before the second crowing of the cock, Peter denied Him thrice, as is here clearly predicted.

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

Patristic/Medieval Commentary on Psalm 71:1-2, 3-4, 5-6, 15 and 17

Posted by Dim Bulb on March 29, 2015

Psalm 71

Title: LXX. and Vulgate: A Psalm of David, of the sons of Jonadab, and of the first captives. Without title in the Hebrew.

Argument

Arg. Thomas. That Christ opens our lips to declare the glory of His Name. The Voice of Christ to the Father. The Voice of Christ to the Father against the Jews, concerning the Resurrection. The Prophet concerning the Passion and Advent of Christ.

Ven. Bede. The Prophet Jeremiah mentions that Jonadab was a priest of God, who had commanded his sons not to drink wine, and not to dwell in houses, but in tents, and that they found great favour with the Lord for their obedience in these respects; and they are now put for faithful and devout persons. Whence Jonadab is interpreted The voluntary one of the Lord, who can say, An offering of a free heart will I give Thee. With whom the former captives also shed tears, that is, they who were first made captives and then ransomed, who, made captive by sinning, but ransomed by repenting, say, And Thou broughtest me from the deep of the earth again. A representative person is introduced, who, freed from the captivity of sins, remained firm in the Divine commands, preaching to us the mighty love of Christ the Lord, which is always freely bestowed on us, with no previous merits of our own. In the first part of the Psalm this person intreats that he may always be delivered from human iniquities, that he may give thanks unto the Lord. O God, in Thee have I trusted. In the second place, he prays that he may not be deprived in old age of His bounties, by Whose help he was guarded in his youth, Cast me not away in the time of age. Thirdly; numbering His gifts, he promises ever to give thanks. Thy righteousness, O God, is very high, &c.

Syriac Psalter. Composed by David, when Saul warred against the house of David. Also a prophecy of the Passion and Resurrection of Christ.

Eusebius of Cæsarea. Christ’s Sufferings and Resurrection.

S. Athanasius A Psalm in solitary address.

Various Uses

Gregorian. Thursday. Matins. [Maundy Thursday. I. Nocturn.]

Monastic. Wednesday. Matins. [Maundy Thursday. I. Nocturn.]

Parisian. Friday. Lauds.

Lyons. Thursday. Compline.

Ambrosian. Monday of Second Week. III. Nocturn.

Quignon. Friday. Matins.

Eastern Church. [vv. 1–9.] Prime.

Antiphons

Gregorian. Ferial. Be Thou * my protecting God. [Maundy Thursday. O my God * deliver me out of the hand of the ungodly.]

Monastic. Ferial. Thou art my helper and redeemer * O Lord, make no long tarrying. [Maundy Thursday. As Gregorian.]

Parisian. O my God * deliver me out of the hand of the ungodly, for Thou art my patience.

Ambrosian. As Psalm 69.

1–2 (1) In thee, O Lord, have I put my trust, let me never be put to confusion: but rid me, and deliver me, in thy righteousness; incline thine ear unto me, and save me.

This Psalm of David belongs to the close of his life and reign, and it may be noted that it is, in great part, a cento from previous Psalms, as 22, 25, 31, 35, 38, 40, although the noble passage vv. 13–20 is new. It has been also frequently grouped with the preceding Psalm, and counted as part of it. They see in it the pilgrimage of the Church from the days of Adam to those of Antichrist, (P.) counting the seven ages of man’s estate in this wise. From the Fall to the Incarnation are three periods,—infancy, childhood, and youth, typified by exile, the patriarchal dispensation, and the Law. From the first to the second Advent are four stages: early manhood, from the Ascension, through the ten persecutions to the accession of Constantine the Great; the prime of life, through the Arian troubles, till Justinian; middle age, during which the yet unended power of Mohammedanism sprang up; and that eld during which the Church still waits in dread for the coming of Antichrist; and the Psalm contains petitions apt for each of these troubles in turn. In thee, O Lord, have I trusted. Once I trusted in myself, (R.) and then I was confounded; now I have turned to Thee, and I shall never be confounded again. (Cd.) And that because, as the Apostle tells us, “Hope maketh not ashamed,”* following therein the saying of another wise man: “Look at the generations of old, and see; did ever any trust in the Lord, and was confounded?”* Rightly so, (D. C.) since in trusting Him, we are not merely relying on Almighty power, but on infinite love, on purest bounty, on the merit of Christ’s Passion. Let me never be confounded. That in this world, however I may seem to be brought low and despised, I may feel myself strong in Thee at all times. Or, if we take the Vulgate, confounded eternally, it will be a prayer against condemnation in the doom. In the mouth of Christ, the words are but another way of putting what Isaiah prophesied: “I gave My back to the smiters, and My cheeks to them that plucked off the hair; I hid not My face from shame and spitting; for the Lord God will help Me, therefore shall I not be confounded; therefore have I set My face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be ashamed.”* The insults of the soldiers, of Herod, of the Jews, may fall on the Man of Sorrows, but they cannot touch the Eternal Word, and therefore, observes S. Bruno, (B.) Our Lord trusts in the immortality and impassibility of His Godhead, derived from that Father in Whom He trusted. Deliver me in Thy righteousness. When the sinner utters this prayer, he beseeches God to deliver him by Him Whom He hath made Judge of all the world,* because He is the Justice of God, the King Who reigneth in righteousness, and executes judgment and justice in the earth. And our claim on God’s justice is based on our trust in His promise, (G.) which He binds Himself to fulfil, that He may be justified in His sayings. What we say by reason of our sin, Christ speaks by reason of His innocence. His claim for deliverance is that in Him His enemies find no fault at all, and therefore justice demands that He should go free. Incline Thine ear unto me, and save me. It is the cry, says Gerhohus, of one lying sick and wounded, unable to rise, and asking the Physician to bend over him to listen to his account of his sufferings, (G.) asking the good Samaritan to stoop down and save him, by pouring oil and wine into his wounds.

3 (2) Be thou my strong hold, whereunto I may alway resort: thou hast promised to help me, for thou art my house of defence, and my castle.

In the LXX. and Vulgate the first part of this verse reads differently; Be Thou to me for a protecting [LXX. shield-bearing] God, and for a strong place to save me. And we may see in it the prayer of the Church under two circumstances, when she goes out to aggressive battle against error and sin; and again, when she is compelled by pressure from without to act chiefly on the defensive, as in days of persecution. And thus, (Ay.) as the Carmelite observes, because the Martyrs were so fortified by the grace of God, that the darts of the persecutors could not pierce their hearts, they are mystically called “fenced cities,” as was Jeremiah.* Or, if we look at it from another point of view, the Church intreats for her active and her contemplative members, of whom the former are in the open battles; the latter within the stronghold of the religious life, which Hugh of S. Cher likens to a fortress, for twelve reasons, thus summed up:

Murus, dentales, turris, vigiles, tuba, scuta,*
Mons, aqua, saxa, cibi, machina, fossa, viri.

Thou art my house of defence, and my castle. The first title belongs to God as our Protector; the second as our strong place. And the house of defence will then be His help against peril in this world; the castle, or with the Vulgate, refuge, (C.) the eternal habitation whither no danger can come.

4 (3) Deliver me, O my God, out of the hand of the ungodly: out of the hand of the unrighteous and cruel man.

The words are first those of Christ, enduring the contradiction of sinners. (Ay.) And note, that two kinds of sinners are set before us. The unrighteous (Vulg. transgressor of the law) evil Jews or Christians, who know God’s will, but refuse to do it, and the cruel (or unjust) the heathen who sin through comparative ignorance. And as Christ thus prays for Himself against Caiaphas and Pilate, (G.) so He prays for His Church to be delivered from false brethren and from Pagan oppressors. The Carthusian will have the ungodly to be our ghostly enemy, (D. C.) and yet more, the whole three clauses to apply to the pleading sinner, who makes his prayer to be delivered from himself, (Ay.) his own ungodliness, is own transgressions. And God does save, notes Ayguan, triply.* From the temptation of the flesh, “The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptation.” From the snares of the devil, “Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness.”* From the lures of the world, “Who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from the present evil world.”*

5 (4) For thou, O Lord God, art the thing that I long for: thou art my hope, even from my youth.

My patience, is the Vulgate reading in the first clause. And they explain it,* rather frigidly, the cause of my patience. Let us look deeper, and take it with S. Ambrose. Doubtless Christ Himself is slain in the Martyrs, and in them who suffer death, or bonds, or stripes, for the faith, the sufferings are Christ’s, that His life may be manifest in their body.* He then Who endures in them is truly their patience, since it is not their own powers that hold out. From my youth, since I was generated in grace, and not merely from my bodily childhood. And the mediæval writers, looking to the usage of their time, (R.) see here the candidate for Christian chivalry, already following his liege lord to battle, (G.) armed with faith, (Ay.) hope, and charity, but not yet more than an esquire who has still to win his spurs, and to be trained in the pureness of chastity, the prudence of truth, the obedience of humility. And so the prophet speaks, “It is good for a man that he bear the yoke in his youth.”*

6 (5) Through thee have I been holden up ever since I was born: thou art he that took me out of my mother’s womb; my praise shall be always of thee.

They see in the first clause here the mystery of predestination, (Ay.) and the Angelic Doctor adds,* that the task of guardian Angels is intrusted to them even before the birth of the children whose keepers they are to be. My mother’s womb. Literally, (G.) says Gerhohus, because of infant baptism, whereby children of but a few days or hours old, are received in the arms of God. Ayguan, (Ay.) pointing to the same rite, explains the words of our Mother the Church, who bears us to God in the Sacraments. And, applied to Christ, the words may be taken of His Incarnation, and also bear reference to the pious opinion of the Church that the pains of childbirth took no hold on His Virgin-Mother.

Gaude, sine partu tristi
Virgo partum edidisti,*
Immo gaudens protulisti
Prolem mater filia.

Others again give long lists of Saints,* who from early childhood persevered in holiness, as fulfilling this prediction, while Parez and S. Bonaventure explain it of the infancy of the Church in Abel’s days. My praise shall be always of Thee. It is more in the Vulgate, (P.) My singing,* implying not only praise, (B.) but rejoicing for victory. And they take it of Church song, as contrasted with heathen or secular ballads.*

7 (6) I am become as it were a monster unto many: but my sure trust is in thee.

If we take the Prayer Book Version literally as it stands, we may well think on that graffito scrawled by a Pagan hand, and lately discovered, wherein a Christian is seen worshipping a crucified figure, having a man’s body, but an ass’s head, a notion once widely spread, and a serious bar to the reception of the Faith by the Empire. But the word hardly notes so much. It is rather, with the Vulgate and A. V., a wonder, yet still referring to the offence of the Cross, to the astonishment with which the world looked on the life and sufferings of Christ and His Apostles, (C.) regarding even their miracles rather as something to stare at than as proof of a new revelation.* And as Isaiah, walking naked and barefoot for three years was “a sign and wonder,”* so the Apostles, who left all their earthly possessions, and followed Christ during the three years of His earthly ministry, and all Christians who spiritually did the like in the three stages of holiness, the purgative, illuminative, and unitive ways, were made, as S. Paul says, “a spectacle unto the world, and angels, and men.”* But we may take the words in another sense of our Lord, Whose Incarnation, Passion, and Resurrection have made Him indeed a wonder and a glory to His people,* as well as even to those Jews and heathens who rejected Him.

8 (7) O let my mouth be filled with thy praise: that I may sing of thy glory and honour all the day long.

It is the song of our country, (Ay.) notes the Carmelite, a song ever accompanied with joy. And that joy is threefold, the inner gladness of the heart, the vocal sound of the lips, the tokens of external actions. The words, that I may sing of Thy glory, (from the LXX. and Vulgate,) are not found in the Hebrew, but are none the less dwelt on by the commentators. One, with a quaint literalness of interpretation, explaining the words of the Song of the Church, takes glory to refer to the recitation of the Doxology,* honour, or as the Vulgate reads, magnitude, to that of the Magnificat, which seems to accord with the remark of Cassiodorus that all the day long means the whole twenty-four hours, (C.) as otherwise Vespers and Nocturns would be shut out. (P.) Parez, more happily, takes glory to refer to the Resurrection: honour to the Ascension of Christ.

9 (8) Cast me not away in the time of age: forsake me not when my strength faileth me.

In the time of age. They question in what sense Christ, Who never knew eld of body or soul, can use these words of Himself, (A.) and they explain them differently. They take it either of the physical and mental exhaustion of the Passion, (D. C.) like in its wasting effects to old age, (G.) or, with yet deeper meaning, of His crucifying our old man in His own Person. Again; it is the prayer of the Church, (P.) looking forward to the great apostasy of the latter days, and dreading lest her love, waxing cold, should expose her to yet more terrible losses than she sustained when so many Eastern Communions fell before the advance of Islam, or when the mighty Nestorian Church, once vaster than Greek and Latin together, and ranging from the Yellow Sea to the steppes of Eastern Russia, from Siberia to Ceylon, vanished like a dream before Gengiz-Khan and his successors. It is also the cry of each member of the Church for himself. For, just as we have seen two kinds of youth spoken of above, so there are two kinds of age, decrepitude of body and of soul. The latter exists when the spiritual heat of love waxes cold, (D. C.) and the soul is not renewed by increase of grace, but either grows old in negligence and sin, is bowed down by weary persecutions, or becomes less active in good works. Well may we, with S. Thomas Aquinas, recite this verse with tears of contrition and hope; well may we, with a holy man of a later day, cry, “O fire ever burning, and never waxing low: behold, I am chill and cold, kindle my veins and my heart, that they may burn with love of Thee. For Thou hast come to send fire upon the earth, and what wilt Thou, save that it be kindled?”* So praying, He will hear us, and will give us, even in extreme age, strength to say with His Martyr, S. Polycarp, “Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me wrong; how then can I blaspheme my King and my Saviour?”*

10–11 (9) For mine enemies speak against me, and they that lay wait for my soul take their counsel together, saying: God hath forsaken him; persecute him, and take him, for there is none to deliver him.

They take it first of the Passion, of that Council of the Pharisees gathered after the raising of Lazarus, (A.) and of the mockings suffered by Christ upon the Cross, (Ay.) when His cry was, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me”* and theirs was, “He trusted in God that He would deliver Him, let Him deliver Him now if He will have Him.” It is the cry of the Church under the three greatest trials, the Pagan persecutions, (P.) the Mohammedan successes, the rise of the sects, which last in especial say, God hath forsaken her, “with our tongue will we prevail; (L.) we are they that ought to speak; who is lord over us?”*

12 (10) Go not far from me, O God: my God, haste thee to help me.

13 (11) Let them he confounded and perish that are against my soul: let them be covered with shame and dishonour that seek to do me evil.

Again; the words are both of Christ and of the Church. The Lord asks for His members rather than for Himself, that for the elect’s sake the days may be shortened. And note, that whereas type and prophecy both foretold that the Saviour should be three days and three nights in the grave, yet the time was too long for the infant Church to bear, and therefore the Father hasted to help the Son, and raised Him up just after the midnight of Easter Eve, Who had given up the ghost at the ninth hour of Good Friday. Thus the confusion will refer to the alarm caused by the signs at the Crucifixion, the darkness, the earthquake, (D. C.) the rending of the rocks, and still more to the dismay on hearing the news that the sepulchre was void, while the perishing denotes the overthrow of the Jewish nation. The Church, fallen on evil days, intreats for help also. And we may note again, as so often before, the warnings against the persecutors, how they were confounded and perished, as Nero, Julian, Valens; how they were put to shame and dishonour, as Valerian, whom the Persian Sapor made his footstool, and as Eugenius, who was the last to raise the standard of ancient Paganism against the Cross. (G.) Once more, the words are those of the penitent sinner, to whom God is always near, but who feels that he has been departing from God, (D. C.) and going afar off in his wickedness. And the prayer will then be chiefly directed against ghostly enemies, though also against human tempters.

14 (12) As for me, I will patiently abide alway: and will praise thee more and more.
15 (13) My mouth shall daily speak of thy righteousness and salvation: for I know no end thereof.

Rather, with the A. V., LXX. and Vulgate, I will hope continually, and that not merely when I am afflicted by the devil, (G.) with poverty, disease, or lust, but when even the hand of God is heavy against me, I will say with holy Job, “Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him.”* And will praise Thee more and more. The LXX. and Vulgate here read, And will add above all Thy praise. How can this be? ask they all. They answer it diversely. Literally, it may tell us how David was the first to set forth the praises of Christ’s Incarnation, Resurrection, Ascension, and Kingdom, for the instruction of the people, whereas the Saints who praised God in former times told far less of these mysteries. (Ay.) And the Carthusian sees in it a promise to persevere in the compositions of fresh songs of praise. (D. C.) Or we may reflect how the Synagogue praised God for temporal blessings, while the Church, (G.) not forgetting such thanksgiving, lauds Him yet more for spiritual gifts. Yet again; S. Augustine remarks that God’s justice deserves all praise, even were He to condemn all mankind, (A.) but seeing that He has shown us mercy, we add that praise to the glory of His Name. When I confess that the Word of God created the heaven and the earth and all that is therein, (C.) observes another, I have praised the Lord with perfect devotion. But when I add that He became incarnate for the salvation of men, I have added to His praise. Once more—and the lesson is a practical one—I will not merely praise Thee in speech and words, (Z.) but with my works also, because the Lord is praised in this wise too, and therefore the Saviour said, “That they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.”* My mouth shall daily speak of Thy righteousness and salvation. (Ay.) It is the voice of the Bride. The righteousness and salvation is He of whom Paul says that “Christ Jesus of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption;”* of whom Simeon said, “Mine eyes have seen Thy salvation.”* Daily. The LXX. and Vulgate read, All the day. That is, adds Ayguan, both in the day of prosperity and the night of sorrow.* Or with the Gloss, All the day means the day with the night, because night serves day, not day night. (G.) The night is our flesh, and the day is righteousness, and whatever is done in the flesh is of the night, while deeds of righteousness belong to the day. And there is yet another meaning, that of the everlasting praise of Christ in the land where is no darkness at all.

Dies sine vesperâ, nocte non sepultus,*
Quem non sol per aëra sed divini vultûs
Illustrat serenitas.

I know no end thereof. More exactly, with the A. V., I know not the numbers. The word סְפֹרוֹת (closely connected as it is with סְפֶר a book or writing) has been rendered by some copies of the LXX. and by the Vulgate similarly, I know not letters. And they take it first of Christ, concerning Whom the Jews said, “How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?”* answering the question by saying that He indeed knew not the letter that killeth, but the Spirit that giveth life. And again they say that the letter means the old Law, (Ay.) which they compare to the staff of Elisha, sent by the hand of a servant to recover the dead child, but vainly, so that Elisha needed to come and lay himself down on the child, (A.) that is, our true Elisha (“God of salvation”) needed to humble Himself and become as a servant, nay, as one dead, to do what Moses failed to accomplish. Or again, the Five Books of Moses are the porches of Bethesda, where men lie waiting and sick. It needed the Angel of the Covenant to come down into the water of the Jewish nation that the sick might be healed. And then they take it of the Church, or of single Christians, saying the like of that which the Lord had said. For there are three kinds of letters, those which puff up, those which make man a servant, and those which make him a son.* They are the secular learning of philosophers, the Jewish law, and the New Testament, the last of which only is needful for the soul to know. The Carthusian adds that the words may be a confession of the utter ignorance of man contrasted with the infinite wisdom of God, (D. C.) or that it may be used of inspired Saints like SS. Peter and John, of whom it was said, truly in one sense, that “they were unlearned and ignorant men.”* S. Augustine, who probably had the reading πραγματείας instead of γραμματείας before him, gives a various translation, (A.) negotiationes, tradings, and dwells on the spiritual dangers which attend on all commerce; (C.) and Cassiodorus follows him, limiting his censure carefully to avarice and fraud. The various reading is said by another to apply to the Church of the last days, resisting the wiles of Antichrist, (P.) who will bring to bear all worldly learning, and even a bare literal rendering of Holy Writ, to aid his cause. And Hugh of S. Victor, taking both readings, sums up the matter by saying that whoso reads the Scripture for mere curiosity and not for edification, knows indeed its letter and its tradings,* but has not the true weight granted to the man who studies it for the savour of godliness.

16 (14) I will go forth in the strength of the Lord God: and will make mention of thy righteousness only.

The LXX. and Vulgate, for go forth read enter in, and more correctly, as the first sense is that of proceeding to the temple to praise God because of His mighty deeds. Euthymius connects the words with those of the preceding verse. I know not letters, that is, (Z.) observes he, the Scribes lay down a rule in their writings that all Jews must enter the temple of Jerusalem thrice a year, but I will go for a better reason, the strength of the Lord. (Ay.) Ayguan, more deeply says, I will go from the mere letter of the Old Testament into its spiritual meaning, the power of Christ. I will not look, adds Gerhohus, to the mere outward rite of even the Gospel Sacraments, (G.) but will enter further into them to find there the saving might of Jesus, Who gives me faith, endurance, and power to fulfil His commands, a triple cord to draw me and bind me to Him. And will make mention of Thy righteousness only. Not of my own, (D. C.) but ascribing all that is good in me, all virtue, and all grace, to Thee; all evil, defective, or sinful, to myself, saying with the Apostle, “By the grace of God, I am what I am;”* and again, “If a man think himself to be something when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.”* Since, as the same Apostle says, such persons “being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.”* And he says only, because when the soul has left human weakness behind, and entered into the spiritual power of God, it will think no more of the flesh, but will ponder on God alone.*

17 (15) Thou, O God, hast taught me from my youth up until now: therefore will I tell of thy wondrous works.
18 (16) Forsake me not, O God, in mine old age, when I am gray-headed: until I have showed thy strength unto this generation, and thy power to all them that are yet for to come.

Here, as so often, the words may apply to Christ or to the Church. Thou hast taught Me, is the Lord’s address to His Father, even according to that saying, “My doctrine is not Mine, but His that sent Me.”* And again, “As My Father hath taught Me, I speak these things.”* From my youth up, because the human soul of Christ “increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.”* It is also the voice of the Church. Thou hast taught me; (Ay.) referring all her gifts to Him as her Teacher, Who said, “Neither be ye called masters, for one is your Master, even Christ.”* And that from the youth of the Church, from the time when the Apostles drew their lessons from His lips during His three years’ ministry, when He opened the Scriptures to them after His Resurrection, when He sent the Holy Ghost on them at Pentecost. Therefore will I tell of Thy wondrous works. How Thou rulest me, how Thou hast set me in the way of salvation, how Thou makest me to live whom Thou hast wonderfully quickened in soul. For what greater marvel is there than to quicken those dead in soul? A quickened body lives even when its quickener is absent, as Lazarus did in the corporal absence of Christ, because the life of the body is in the soul. But the quickened soul cannot live thus without God, Who is its life. This then is wondrous grace, which can quicken the dead, and abide with us afterwards, that we die not. Wondrous too are those works whereof the Church tells, the Incarnation of the Word, the Passion and Resurrection of Christ, and that God so loved us that He gave His Only-begotten Son unto death for us. Forsake me not, O God, in mine old age, when I am gray-headed. They take it of the coming of Antichrist in the last times, when the faith of the Church has become weak, and from Augustine in the fifth century to Parez in the fifteenth, each accounts his own days as near the end, and finds all the marks of decrepitude in the belief and lives of Christians, all the signs of growing strength and insolence in the powers of evil. Until I have showed Thy strength unto this generation, and Thy power unto all that are yet for to come. The LXX. and Vulgate translate, (Ay.) Until I declare Thine arm to every generation that is to come, and couple the word power with the next verse. Thine arm is the Incarnate Word, and the phrase until notes that the preaching of Him will not be carried beyond this life, because the vision of God in the life to come will supply all spiritual knowledge to the Saints, and there will thus be no preaching in heaven; nor yet in hell, because the time for conversion has gone by. (R.) To every generation, as against the teaching of certain heretics, that the Church was to endure for a time, as the Jewish dispensation did, and then be supplanted by a more perfect revelation.

19 (17) Thy righteousness, O God, is very high: and great things are they that thou hast done; O God, who is like unto thee?

The LXX. and Vulgate couple the first words with the preceding, so that the clause runs [I will declare] Thy power and righteousness, O God, unto the highest, great things which Thou hast done. (Ay.) That is, I will declare the power of Thy justifying grace from its first beginnings in the soul up to its highest achievement in turning sinners into perfect Saints; (R.) or again, (Cd.) I will tell of Thy marvels, not only to Thy humbler creature, man, but I will call on Thy highest works, the Thrones, (B.) Dominations, and Princedoms of the heavenly host to join in the praise which is Thy due. (A.) Higher yet, observes Cassiodorus, (C.) even to that right hand of the Father where the Man of Sorrows is throned. Again; God’s power is shown in His setting man free, (A.) His righteousness in causing His Son to die for us. His power gives man strength to do good works, (L.) His righteousness justifies man. His power is seen in the valiant endurance of the Martyrs, His righteousness in the holy lives of the Confessors. O God, who is like unto Thee? It is the cry of Adam, (A.) after he had sinned by tasting of the fruit, whereof the serpent told him, “In the day that ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil,”* and had thereby lost the likeness which he had before, as being made in the image and likeness of God. And none can answer it, save the Second Adam, because He is the “brightness of God’s glory, and the express image of His Person;”* and He can change our vile body, making it like to His glorious Body, and so “we know that when He shall appear, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.”*

20 (18) O what great troubles and adversities hast thou showed me! and yet didst thou turn and refresh me: yea, and broughtest me from the deep of the earth again.

All the bitter sorrows of My Passion, the Agony, the Betrayal, the mocking, (D. C.) scourging, crucifixion, the yet sharper pangs of man’s sin and thanklessness. And refresh me. The LXX., Vulgate, and A. V. more truly, revive Me, raising Me from the grave, where I lay in the deep of the earth. And we may take it next, (A.) with S. Augustine and all who follow him, (G.) of the wretchedness of mankind after the Fall, and the bounty of God in lifting it up from the depth of sin by the message of salvation, (R.) and giving it new life in Christ. And observe, says Cassiodorus, (C.) that there are seven ways in which God gives us remission of our sins. Firstly, in baptism; secondly, by martyrdom; thirdly, by almsgiving; fourthly, by our forgiveness to our debtors; fifthly, by our conversion of our brethren; sixthly, by abundant charity; seventhly, by penance. Again; (Ay.) it is the voice of the Church, thanking God for all her early sufferings and persecutions, when the blood of the Martyrs was the seed of the faithful, and the Gentiles, attracted by their valiant constancy, were turned by God, and brought to life, and out of the abyss of earthly sin. We may see too a literal meaning here which seems to have escaped the commentators, that is, the public recognition of Christian worship after the edict of Constantine, when the Church emerged from the deep of the catacombs into the light of day. Lastly; (D. C.) it is the grateful acknowledgment of every elect soul which God has brought through great tribulation into the kingdom of grace. (Z.) And so Ezekiel says, “O My people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel.”*

21 (19) Thou hast brought me to great honour: and comforted me on every side.

Again it is the voice of Christ, speaking of His own Resurrection, (D. C.) Ascension, and of His deliverance from all the liability to suffering which had belonged to His humanity. And this is brought out strongly by the Vulgate reading, Thou hast multiplied Thy magnificence upon me. Multiplied, (Ay.) observes another, because Christ, Who is the magnificence of God, was multiplied, not in person, but in nature, by His Incarnation, where God was made Man, and thus was built up of Godhead, body, and soul. It is the voice of the Church, raised to high dignity of grace, and to the earthly honour of having kings and queens at her feet, and stored with all the gifts of the Comforter. And, lastly, it is the thanksgiving of sinners whom God has first scourged with fatherly chastisement, (G.) and then made kings and priests, clothing them with the garment of salvation, and comforted, as He is the God of Consolation, in all their trouble. For comforted on every side, the Vulgate reads, Thou hast turned and comforted me. Turned, because by Christ’s Incarnation the sternness of the law was turned into the loving tenderness of the Gospel, (Ay.) so that He whom we called Lord in fear, we now call in love, “Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort, who comforteth us in all our tribulation.”*

22 (20) Therefore will I praise thee and thy faithfulness, O God, playing upon an instrument of music: unto thee will I sing upon the harp, O thou Holy One of Israel.

On an instrument of music, LXX. and Vulgate, On the vessels of psalm, which most of them take, as does the A. V., to be the psaltery. And S. Augustine points out that the chief difference between the psaltery and harp is that the former has the hollow sounding-board placed above the strings, and the latter has it below. And because the Spirit is from above, flesh from the earth; there seemeth to be signified by the psaltery the Spirit, by the harp the flesh. And men who are appointed to sing God’s praises with psalmody may be aptly called vessels of psalm; in particular the clergy, some of whom are vessels to honour,* and some to dishonour. Yet again,* our bodies, within which the truth dwells, are its vessels, (C.) and the Psalms themselves are vessels holding the truth, as a pure and fragrant wine. Truth, in three ways, of life,* of righteousness, and of doctrine. O Thou Holy One of Israel. Because all nations will become a part of the true Israel when the fulness of the Gentiles is gathered in. Note too, (P.) that this is the only Psalm of David’s writing which contains this title of God, and as it is the very last of his songs, it looks forward in this wise to the universal kingdom of Christ, as the sea into which all the streams flowing from the vessels of song shall one day empty themselves. That is a poor house, (G.) says Gerhohus, where there are vessels for oil and wine, and nought to put in them, but what is the wretchedness of a house which has not even vessels fit to hold them!

23 (21) My lips will be fain when. I sing unto thee: and so will my soul whom thou hast delivered.

They all agree in seeing here the union of bodily and spiritual praise of God, the harmony of will and deed, of heart and life, when the body is subdued to the spirit, and obeys its rule with gladness. It is the idea which has been expressed by a poet of our own day:

Let knowledge grow from more to more,
But more of reverence in us dwell,
That mind and soul, according well,
May make one music as before,
But vaster.

Not here,* however, where “the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh,” can this harmony be perfectly free from discord. We must look forward to the time of which the next verse tells us.

24 (22) My tongue also shall talk of thy righteousness all the day long: for they are confounded and brought unto shame that seek to do me evil.

In the Land of beauty there will be no false notes to mar the sweet song of praise, because—

Fleshly wars they know no longer,* since with blemish stained is none,
For the spiritual body and the soul at last are one;
Dwell they now in peace eternal, with all stumbling they have done.

All the day long. The unending day of eternity, (D. C.) during which the song of the redeemed shall ever ascend before the throne of God, (G.) when the ghostly enemies of our souls have been brought to everlasting shame.

Pectora plausibus atque canoribus ora parabit,*
Cum sua crimina, lapsaque pristina stans memorabit,
Quo fuit amplior error, iniquior actio mentis,
Laus erit amplior, hymnus et altior, hanc abolentis.

And therefore:

Glory be to the Father, from Whom cometh soberness; and to the Son, of Whom is righteousness; and to the Holy Ghost, Whose is loving-kindness.

As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be: world without end. Amen.

Collects

Incomprehensible Ruler of the throne on high,* Who sufferest not them that trust in Thee to be condemned to everlasting confusion, fill our lips, we beseech Thee, with Thy praise, and ever inspire us with thoughts of holy things. Through. (1.)

Deliver us, O our God,* out of the hand of the ungodly, Who didst vouchsafe to bear for us the pain of the Cross, that Thou only mayest be our patience, Who for us didst endure the grave. Through Thy mercy. (11.)

Let our tongue, O Lord,* be talking of Thy righteousness, that Thy praise may proceed from our lips all the day long, that inasmuch as the glory of Thy Passion hath been set forth by us, so we may now and ever without end praise Thee in that righteousness whereby we live through faith. Through Thy mercy. (11.)

We beseech Thee,* O Crucified Lord, to be our house of defence and our castle, that delivering us from the hand of the enemy, Thou mayest place us in a stronghold, to receive our crown. Through Thy mercy. (11.)

O God of might,* Who, though Thou wast God, didst willingly suffer Thyself to be seized at the time of Thy Passion, when they took their counsel against Thee, saying, “Let Him deliver Him, if He will have Him;” forsake us not in our trouble, and go not far from us, that Thou only mayest look on us and help us, Who on Thy Cross triumphest over the powers of this world. Through Thy mercy. (11.)

O Jesu,* Son of God, Whom the multitude of Thine enemies vainly persecuted, and drove from themselves the bounty of Thy loving-kindness while taking counsel together against Thee to seize Thee, and sought to take Thy life from Thee, a willing victim, Whom they knew not to be the author of life; Grant that we may with holy devotion in good works follow after Thee, Whom they pursued with ill will, so that wherein Thine enemies shall for ever mourn, therein we may have everlasting joy. Through Thy mercy. (11.)

Let our lips be firm in Thee,* O Lord, with the tidings of truth, that they never be loosed in the vain speech of error, and may ever speak Thy glory and never cry aloud in the unseemly disputes of quarrelling, that our soul which Thou hast redeemed, may, when praising the triumph of Thy Martyr and Forerunner, John Baptist, obtain Thy favour through his intercession. Through Thy mercy. (11.)

We beseech Thee,* O Lord, that our human mouth being filled with Thy praise, we may ever think in our hearts of that which we offer Thee with acceptable voices. Through. (1.)

O God, (D. C.) unspeakable mercy, go not far from us, make haste to help us, and forsake us not in our old age when we are gray-headed, quicken us, and comfort us in Thy love, and grant that we may ever worthily sing the majesty of Thy glory. Through. (1.)

Posted in Bible, Catholic, fathers of the church, Notes on the Lectionary, NOTES ON THE PSALMS, Scripture | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

St Cyril of Alexandria’s Homiletic Commentary on John 12:1-11

Posted by Dim Bulb on March 29, 2015

This homily is somewhat fragmented.

Jn 12:3. Mary therefore took a pound of ointment of spikenard, very precious, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped His feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.

While Martha was serving, Mary anointed the Lord with ointment, thus accomplishing her love towards Him; and by the actions of both, the measure of love was filled up and made perfect.

Jn 12:4-8 Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples, which should betray Him, saith, Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? Now this he said, not because he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief and had the bag, and took away what was put therein. Jesus therefore said, Let her alone: against the day of My burying hath she kept this. For the poor ye have always with you; but Me ye have not always.

The traitor rebukes the woman who had shown her devotion towards Christ, and attacks the admirable deed, and affects to blame it out of love towards the poor, because ointment was brought and not money. But it was out of ignorance as to what is really excellent that Judas said this. For the bringing of presents unto God ought to be honoured more than the poor. |139 The Evangelist however sets forth the reason, on account of which Judas said this: it was not that he felt any concern for the poor, but because he was a thief and a sacrilegious person, stealing the money which was dedicated to God. And the Lord also makes it clear that the woman was free from any blame, whereby He covertly rebukes the traitor; not in His good judgment finding fault with things that were worthy of praise, but saying: Let her alone. And He said in defence of the anointing with the ointment, that it had been done, not out of luxu-riousness, but because of a certain mystery which had reference to His burying; although she who did it was unaware of the design of the mystery. For many things have been both said and done with, reference to a mystical type, when they who spoke and acted were unaware of it. Yet here again the Lord rebukes Judas, because he said this not out of piety, but because he was greedy of base gain, and was going for a little gain to betray his Master. For the burying and the allusion thus made to His death indicate this plainly. And the Lord also brings forward an argument which convinces us that nothing is better than devotion towards Him. For, He says, love for the poor is very praiseworthy, only let it be put after veneration of God. And what He says amounts to this: The time, He says, which has been appointed for My being honoured, that is to say, the time of My sojourn on earth, does not require that the poor should be honoured before Me. And this He said with reference to the Incarnation. He does not however in any way forbid the sympathetic person to exercise his love towards the poor. Therefore when there is need of service or of singing, these must be honoured before love towards the poor; for it is possible to do good after the spiritual services are over. He says therefore that it is not necessary always without intermission to devote our time to honouring Himself, or to spend everything upon the priestly service, but to lay out the greatest part upon the poor. Or thus: As He bids His disciples to fast after He had ascended to the Father, |140 so also He says that then they may more freely give attention to the care of the poor, and exercise their love for the poor with less disturbance and more leisure: which indeed was the case. For after the Ascension of the Saviour, when they were no longer following their Master on His journeys, but had leisure; then they eagerly spent all the offerings that were brought to them upon the poor.

Jn 12:9 A great multitude therefore of the Jews learned that He was there: and they came, not for Jesus’ sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom He had raised from the dead.

Through the strangeness of the sign the multitude are astonished; and that which they heard to have been done they wished also to behold with their eyes, that they might believe it more confidently. And they not only wished to see Lazarus, but also the Christ, the doer of the sign; not then seeing Him for the first time, for they had often seen Him and companied with Him; but inasmuch as He had gone into retirement, that He might not suffer before the proper time, they were seeking again to see Him: and the more reasonable among them even admired Him, as they recognised no fault in Him. With a settled purpose therefore the Lord did not immediately enter into Jerusalem, but remained outside, in order that by the report [which would reach the city] He might draw the common people to a desire of wishing to see Him.

Jn 12:10-11 But the chief priests took counsel that they might put Lazarus also to death; because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus.

See now how frantic the rulers seem to become, wildly rushing hither and thither under the influence of their envy, and saying nothing coherently. They seriously meditate murder upon murder, thinking to remove the force of the miraculous deed at the same time with their victim, that they might stop the people running to believe Christ. |141 (source)

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

Father MacEvilly’s Commentary on John 12:1-11

Posted by Dim Bulb on March 29, 2015

Jn 12:1. “Jesus, therefore, six days before the Pasch.” “Therefore,” because the Pasch was near (11:55), Jesus wished to go Jerusalem; or, “therefore,” on account of the commandment above referred to (11:56), not wishing to come into the power of His enemies before the time appointed had come, He left Ephrem, or Ephraim, where He had been sojourning a few days. “Six days before the Pasch,” at which He was Himself to be sanctified, as the true Paschal Lamb, for the redemption of mankind. Instead of going straightway to Jerusalem, He came to Bethany, where lived Lazarus, who had been resuscitated from the grave. Here, our Lord had many friends, and the recollection of His recent miracle would induce the people to conduct Him in triumph to Jerusalem. on the following Sunday, the third day, after His arrival at Bethany. “Whom Jesus raised to life.” The Greek has not, “Jesus,” but only, “whom He raised from the dead.” “Where Lazarus had been dead.” The Greek has, “Where was Lazarus, who had been dead?

Jn 12:2. St. Matthew (26:6), tells us, this banquet was given in the house of Simon the leper.

On verses 1–8. (See Matthew 26:6–13, Commentary on.) I’ll try to post commentary on that passage beofre Monday.

Jn 12:3. “Anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped,” etc. There is a transposition or inversion of order in this. She first wiped His feet with her hair, removing the dust that adhered to them; and then, as Matthew and Mark tell us, anointed His head, which was usually done. Had she wiped His feet after anointing them, she would be only oiling her own hair; and St. John adds, that, in addition to washing His head, she did what was quite unusual, viz., anointed His feet, in proof of her excessive love, and in gratitude for the remission of her sins, which she obtained at His sacred feet. She did not wipe His feet after anointing them, for the reason already assigned. After anointing His head and feet, she left the oil, without wiping it off, as above explained, to produce the intended effect of anointing in such cases.

Jn 12:4, 5. “Judas Iscariot.” The Greek has, “Judas of Simon or, the son of Simon.” The other Evangelists say, that the other disciples joined in the murmuring. They did so, from feelings of charity; Judas, from avarice, as in next verse.

Jn 12:6 He was entrusted with carrying the common purse, in which were deposited the means contributed as a sort of sustentation fund for the support of our Redeemer and His disciples. Abusing the confidence reposed in him, he used to purloin or carry away stealthily, for his own private use, some of its contents. He felt indignant, that the price of this ointment was not thrown with the rest into the common fund, so that he might thus be enabled to set some of it aside for his own use. While affecting great concern for the poor, the gratification of avarice was his real motive. For the poor he felt no concern whatever. How many hypocritical followers of Judas are to be found, at all times, men who talk loudly in favour of the poor, and never contribute a farthing for their relief?

Matthew and Mark, after giving the history of this banquet, refer to the impious compact entered into by Judas with the Chief Priests, as if he wished to compensate himself for the loss of the price of the ointment, by the amount of the reward secured for his base betrayal of his Master.

Jn 12:7, 8. (See Matthew 26:7–12, Commentary on.) Will try to post by Monday.

Jn 12:9. “A great multitude,” etc. They came out from Jerusalem, not merely out of respect for our Lord, but also, out of a feeling of curiosity to see Lazarus, the fame of whose resuscitation from the grave reached far and near. They wished to see both, Lazarus resuscitated, and Jesus who had raised him.

Jn 12:10. “The Chief Priests thought”—conspired together—“to kill Lazarus also,” as well as our Lord, for the reason assigned in following verse. They were influenced purely by malice and envy, as Lazarus harmed none of them. It may be that the Chief Priests, most of them Sadducees, had another reason. Lazarus now brought back to life, would be a standing, living refutation of their doctrine, that there was no Resurrection (Acts 23:18). This does not imply a formal meeting of the Sanhedrim, as in (11:47). The Pharisees are not mentioned here, though, no doubt, they had a hand in the business. They dreaded the influence which Lazarus, now walking abroad in full life, might have on the crowds, assembled from every quarter for the Pasch.

St. Augustine (Tract 50), jeeringly derides them, and exposes their blind malice and folly, as if our Lord, who raised up the dead Lazarus, could not raise up the murdered Lazarus as well. “O stulta cogitatio ac cæca sævitia! Dominus, Christus, qui suscitare potuit mortuum, non posset occisum.” Here is the Augustine quote in full: “But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death; because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus.” O foolish consultation and blinded rage! Could not Christ the Lord, who was able to raise the dead, raise also the slain? When you were preparing a violent death for Lazarus, were you at the same time denuding the Lord of His power? If you think a dead man one thing, a murdered man another, look you only to this, that the Lord made both, and raised Lazarus to life when dead, and Himself when slain.

Jn 12:11. “Went away,” not out of the Synagogue, but withdrew all connexion with the murderous faction of the High Priests and Pharisees, and adhered to Jesus.

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

Commentaries for the Fifth Week of Lent,Year B

Posted by Dim Bulb on March 21, 2015

FIFTH SUNDAY OF LENT, YEAR B

Year A: Commentaries and Resources.

Year B: Commentaries and Resources. Please note that the Scrutiny Readings used in Year B are the regular readings used in Year A (see above link).

Year C: Commentaries and Resources.

Last Week’s Posts.

MONDAY OF THE FIFTH WEEK OF LENT

Today’s Mass Readings.

Today’s Divine Office.

Navarre Commentary on Today’s 1st Reading Daniel 13:1-9, 15-17, 19-30, 33-62. Please note a shorter reading of verses 41-62 is allowed.

St Jerome’s Notes on Today’s 1st Reading Daniel 13:1-9, 15-17, 19-30, 33-62. The notes do not deal with all the verses of today’s reading. Please note a shorter reading of verses 41-62 is allowed.

Father Boylan’s Introduction to Psalm 23.

Pope Benedict’s Commentary on Psalm 23.

St Albert the Great’s Commentary on Psalm 23.

St Thomas Aquinas’ Lecture on Psalm 23.

Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on John 8:1-11.

Cornelius a Lapide Commentary on John  8:1-11.

Father MacEvilly’s Commentary on John 8:1-11.

TUESDAY OF THE FIFTH WEEK OF LENT

Today’s Mass Readings.

Today’s Divine Office.

Father Maas’ Commentary on Numbers 21:4-9.

Navarre Bible Commentary on Numbers 21:4-9.

Father Boylan’s Introduction to Psalm 102.

Father McSwiney’s Summary of, and Brief Notes on Psalm 102.

St Augustine’s Notes on Psalm 102.

Fathers Nolan’s and Brown’s Commentary on John 8:21-30.

St Cyril of Alexandria’s Homiletic Commentary on John 8:21-30.

Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on John 8:21-30.

Navarre Bible Commentary on John 8:21-30.

WEDNESDAY OF THE FIFTH WEEK OF LENT
Please note that in 2015 this day is March 25, the Solemnity of the Annunciation of the Lord. Commentaries and Resources for it can be found here.

Today’s Mass Readings.

Today’s Divine Office.

St Jerome’s Notes on Daniel 3:14-20, 91-92, 95.

Navarre Bible Commentary on Daniel 3:14-20, 91-92, 95.

Pope John Paul II’s Commentary/Meditation on Daniel 3:52-53, 55-56. This post is on verses 52-57.

Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on John 8:31-42.

Cornelius a Lapide’s Commentary John 8:31-42.

St Cyril of Alexandria’s Homiletic Commentary on John 8:31-42.

Navarre Bible Commentary on John 8:31-42.

St Augustine’s Tractate on John 8:31-42.

St Thomas Aquinas’ Lectures John 8:31-42. Scroll down and read lectures 4 & 5.

THURSDAY OF THE FIFTH WEEK OF LENT

Today’s Mass Readings.

Today’s Divine Office.

Navarre Bible Commentary on Genesis 17:3-9.

Father Boylan’s Introduction to Psalm 105.

St Augustine’s Notes on Psalm 105. Notes on the entire Psalm.

St John Chrysostom’s Homiletic Commentary on John 8:51-59.

St Augustine’s Tractate on John 8:51-59. Actually on verses 48-59.

St Augustine’s Comments on John 8:51-59. Actually, this is on verses 46-59.

Cornelius a Lapide’s Commentary on John 8:51-59.

Navarre Bible Commentary on John 8:51-59.

St Thomas Aquinas’ Lecture on John 8:51-59. Scroll down and read lecture 8.

FRIDAY OF THE FIFTH WEEK OF LENT

Today’s Mass Readings.

Today’s Divine Office.

Navarre Bible Commentary on Jeremiah 20:10-13.

Father Boylan’s Introduction to Psalm 18.

St Thomas Aquinas’ Lecture on Psalm 18.

St Cyril of Alexandria’s Commentary on John 10:31-42.

Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on John 10:31-42.

St Thomas Aquinas Lecture John 10:31-42. Scroll down and read lecture 6.

Navarre Bible Commentary on John 10:31-42.

SATURDAY OF THE FIFTH WEEK OF LENT

Today’s Mass Readings.

Today’s Divine Office.

Navarre Bible Commentary on Ezekiel 37:21-28.

Pending (maybe): My Notes on Today’s 1stReading (Ezekiel 37:21-28).

Pope John Paul II’s Commentary on the Respnsorial: Jeremiah 31:10-14.

St Cyril of Alexandria’s Commentary on John 11:45-56.

St Thomas Aquinas’ Lectures on John 11:47-54. Scroll down and read lectures 7 & 8.

Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on John 11:45-56.

Navarre Bible Commentary on John 11:45-56.

PALM SUNDAY OF THE PASSION OF THE LORD, YEAR B

Commentaries and Resources for Palm Sunday of the Passion of the Lord, Year B.

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

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 151 other followers

%d bloggers like this: