Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew

Above you have heard how the Lord satisfied the disciples, and rebuked them; here he shows how the Pharisees are checked. And he does two things: first he shows how he refutes the Pharisees; second, how the disciples are commended. And in the first he does two things: first he shows how those who disparage the disciples are confuted; second, how those who disparage Christ himself, there, "And when he had departed from there," etc. Concerning the first, first the occasion of the rebuke is set forth; second, the rebuke, there, "But the Pharisees seeing it," etc.; third, Christ's excuse, there, "But he said to them," etc. Now a twofold occasion is set forth: one on the side of Christ, the second on the side of the disciples, there, "And his disciples being hungry began to pluck the ears of corn." On the side of Christ he says, "At that time Jesus went through the corn on the sabbath." The Lord knew that the disciples were going to do this, and yet the Lord chose that this happen, so that he might now begin to loosen the sabbath, as is had above in chapter 11:13: "the law and the prophets prophesied until John." But it must be noted that it says "at that time"; because although what is set down here as an indication of time seems to pertain to the order of the history, Luke 6:1 and Mark 2:23 recount it in a different order; hence after that which the Lord answers to the disciples of John, this is set down: whence all the preceding things seem to have been done before the death of John, but this after. And this is clear through all the things that are said up to chapter 14, which are continuous, and there mention is made of John's death; therefore it must be understood that as his passion drew near John sent his disciples, and then he was beheaded, and then these things were done after his death. "Jesus went through the corn on the sabbath." By corn of this kind the sacred letters are understood. The sower is Christ; below, 13:37: "it is he who sows." Likewise the people of believers. "But his disciples being hungry began to pluck the ears of corn." Here two things are to be considered. First, the necessity, because they were hungry. And why? Because they were poor; hence 1 Corinthians 4:11: "even unto this hour we both hunger and thirst," etc. The second reason is that they were daily hindered on account of the crowds; hence they scarcely had a place to eat, as is had in Mark 6:31. But how did they satisfy themselves? An example of abstinence is given to us; hence these men sought not great dishes, but ears of corn, according to that word of 1 Timothy 6:8: "having food, and wherewith to be covered, with these we are content." Mystically, in the plucking of the ears of corn is understood the manifold sense of the Scriptures, or the conversion of sinners. Then he sets down the rebuke of the Pharisees: "But the Pharisees seeing it said to him: Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful for them to do on the sabbath days." The disciples were doing two evil things: first, because they were plucking another's ears of corn; second, because they were violating the sabbath. But the Pharisees were not rebuking the first, because that was permitted in the law, Deuteronomy 23; therefore, because it was permitted, they were not calumniating on that score, but because it was on the sabbath, they were calumniating. And by this the heresy of the Hebrews is destroyed, who said that the precepts of the law must be observed along with the Gospel. And because Paul opposes this opinion, they therefore reject Paul. Against these Jerome argues, because even the disciples were not observing them. "But he said to them." Here the excuse is set down. And first by certain examples; second by authority, there, "But if you knew," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets down an example in which some are excused on account of necessity; second, in which some are excused on account of holiness, there, "Or have you not read in the law," etc. He says therefore, "But he said," etc. It is read in Leviticus 24:5 that from pure fine flour twelve loaves were made, and these were placed on the table of proposition on the sabbath, and on another sabbath they were removed, and others were placed, and those first ones were eaten by the sons of Aaron. Likewise it is had in 1 Kings 21:6 that when David fled from Saul, Ahimelech divided those loaves among them: and this is what he says, "Have you not read what David did when he was hungry?" For this David was a good man, of whom the Lord says that he found a man according to his own heart, 1 Kings 13:14. But someone might say: David himself was a prophet, and therefore was able to take them; hence he adds, "and they that were with him." They were called loaves of proposition, which were offered on the sabbath, which it was not lawful to use according to the precept, as is had in Leviticus 24:5. But what is this to the point? Because when he did this, it was the sabbath. And this is clear, because it says there, "I have no bread but that which I took away from the table of the Lord," and he did this only on the sabbath. Likewise on the day of the Calends the feast of the New Moon took place: therefore if it fell on the sabbath, it was violated out of necessity. But still it seems that he did not violate it, because to eat on the sabbath is not a sin: hence it seems that he did not violate it. But Chrysostom says that he violated the sabbath the more, because he took those loaves which it was not lawful for anyone to eat, on account of necessity. Now the sabbath is found to have been violated by the Maccabees on account of necessity. Likewise it must be noted, as Chrysostom says, that some precepts are commanded for their own sake, and these can be broken by no necessity; but some are commanded not for their own sake but for the sake of a figure, and therefore such precepts can be set aside according to place and time; just as fasting can now be set aside in necessity. Now that bread was the figure of another bread, namely the bread of the altar, which is received not only by the priest but also by the rest of the people; therefore David there figures the people. Hence Apocalypse 5:10: "Thou hast made us to our God a kingdom and priests." Likewise another example is set down, which is set forth on account of holiness. And this is there, "Or have you not read in the law, that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple break the sabbath?" In Leviticus it was commanded that the offering be doubled on the sabbath, which used to be made on the other days, and yet it was made in the temple, and on the sabbath, because it was done for the service of the temple and of God: hence the priests were excused. Hence this example is applied, because the apostles were wholly devoted to one greater than the temple, namely Christ: hence he says, "Have you not read that the priests violated the sabbath? Unless it were on account of the temple." "But I tell you, that there is here a greater than the temple." Here an adverb of place is set down, in whose service they act. And that something greater than the temple is present, is clear, because his own body is a temple. Likewise it is to be seen, that in the first example he does not say that it is without any fault. In the second he says that if anyone breaks the sabbath on account of necessity, he is not for this reason entirely without fault; but if on account of God, he is wholly excused from fault. Then he argues from the examples. And first, because mercy is to be shown toward my disciples: because "if you knew what this meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, you would never have condemned the innocent," Hosea 6:6. And how this is to be understood was said above. Proverbs 21:3: "To do mercy and judgment pleaseth the Lord more than victims," etc. There is also another argument that makes them innocent, namely obedience: hence these things are permitted, because I command them, because the Son of Man (thus he was accustomed to call himself) "is Lord of the sabbath," and the lawgiver is not subject to the law; Isaiah 33:22: "he is our lawgiver"; therefore he has the power, because he has the authority.

"And when he had departed from there, he came into their synagogue," etc. Above it was set down how the Lord repelled the Pharisees who were disparaging the disciples; here how he repelled those who were attacking him. For they were opposing him, first by lying in wait; second by disparaging; third by tempting. And accordingly he repelled them in three ways. Second, there, "Then was offered to him a man possessed with a devil"; third, there, "Then there came to him certain of the scribes and Pharisees." Concerning the first he does two things. First he shows how they lay in wait against the teaching of Christ; second, against the life of Christ, there, "And the Pharisees going out made a consultation against him." Concerning the first he does two things. First the insidious question is set down; second Christ's response, there, "But he said to them," etc. Concerning the first he does three things. First the place is described; second the occasion; third the question. He says therefore, "And when he had departed from there, he came into their synagogue." According to the letter, in this way the disciples were plucking the ears of corn, whom Jesus excused. Hence when he says "and when he had departed," it seems that he departed from there on the same day. But this is excluded by Luke 6:1, because it was on another sabbath; on account of this it must not be understood that it was immediately; hence he says "he came into the synagogue," in order to preach salvation, as in John 18:20: "I have always taught in the temple and in the synagogue, whither all the Jews resort, and in secret I have spoken nothing." And in Psalm 39:10: "I have declared thy justice in a great church." "And behold there was a man who had a withered hand." There follows the occasion of the question: because "they asked him," etc. It is said that this man was a mason, and had a withered hand. By this man is signified the human race, whose hand withered through original sin: or any sinner whatsoever, whose hand and operative power has withered; and sometimes the right hand, because they are powerless to do good, though powerful to do evil. Then the question is set down; second, the response. He says therefore, "And they asked him, saying: Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days?" They saw a man of power, and therefore they asked whether it was lawful to heal on the sabbath. And they asked this while tempting, as is had in Ecclesiasticus 13:14: "by much talk he will tempt thee." For they were not asking with a mind to learn, but rather to accuse, as is had in Psalm 27:3: "They spoke peace with their neighbor, but evils were in their hearts." But here is a question, because in Mark 3:4 it is had that the Lord asked; but here it is said that they asked. Augustine answers that both things happened, because when that man stood in the midst, and asked to be healed, they asked the question, and the Lord made him rise up, and then he asked the question. Or otherwise, because they were watching him; hence they were preparing themselves for the request, and then he asked, because he himself knew that they were asking in order to accuse him. "But he said to them." Here the response is set down. And first he answers by word; second by deed, there, "Then he saith to the man: Stretch forth thy hand," etc. In the first he does three things. First he alleges a custom; second a comparison, there, "How much better is a man than a sheep?" Third he draws the conclusion, there, "Therefore it is lawful to do a good deed on the sabbath days." He says therefore first, "What man shall there be among you, that hath one sheep: and if the same fall into a pit on the sabbath days, will he not take hold on it, and lift it up?" It was a custom among them that if a sheep fell into a pit, they would lift it up on the sabbath day: so much were they given over to avarice, that they preferred temporal loss to spiritual loss. Hence what is said in Ecclesiasticus 10:9 was fitting for them: "nothing is more wicked than to love money." And there follows a little afterward: "for such a one setteth his own soul to sale," because, namely, he exposes himself to danger and eternal loss for a small temporal gain. Second the comparison is set down, "how much better is a man than a sheep?" Incomparably, because all things are for the sake of man: for to man dominion over all things has been committed, as is had in Genesis 1:26: "let us make man to our image and likeness," and there follows, that he may have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts of the earth. And thus that which is made to the image, has dominion, just as man over the sheep. From these things he concludes, "therefore it is lawful to do a good deed," namely, to benefit men; Isaiah 1:16: "cease to do perversely, learn to do well," because it is written in Exodus 20:10: "you shall not do any servile work therein." Servile work is sin, therefore it is lawful to do good. But then there is a question: is it lawful to do all good works on the sabbath? For then it would be lawful to plow. Therefore it must be said, that servile work can be understood according to the letter, and mystically servile work is sin; John 8:34: "whosoever committeth sin, is the servant of sin." Likewise it is servile work, in which the body is exercised more than the soul. For the soul has dominion over the body. Therefore to take counsel is not servile work. Hence we can see what things excuse from the sabbath. For the Lord excuses the disciples by reason of necessity, hence necessity excuses. Likewise those things which are ordained immediately to the worship of God, such as to burn incense, etc. Likewise those things which pertain to the health of the body, such as to make medicine, plasters, etc. Hence these men are blamed, because they were narrowing the precept of the law. "Then he saith to the man: Stretch forth thy hand." In this part he answers by deed, and this was to heal him; for he would not have healed him unless it were lawful. There follows the healing, "and it was restored to health even as the other." Mystically, the man who has a withered hand, that is, one powerless to act well, cannot be better healed than by stretching forth his hand for the relief of the poor. Hence Daniel 4:24: "redeem thou thy sins with alms." And Ecclesiasticus 3:33: "water quencheth a flaming fire, and alms resisteth sins." And in the same place, 4:36: "let not thy hand be stretched out to receive, and shut when thou shouldest give." And note that first he had the left hand sound, and it was restored like the other, namely the right. And this is because at first men are powerful for evil, as is had in Isaiah 5:22: "woe to you that are mighty to drink wine, and stout men at drunkenness," but afterward they are healed through grace, and then are prone to act well; Romans 6:19: "as you have yielded your members to serve uncleanness and iniquity unto iniquity, so now yield your members to serve justice unto sanctification," etc.

"And the Pharisees going out," etc. Here he shows how they lay in wait for him. And first the plots are set down; second his withdrawal, there, "But Jesus knowing it, retired from thence"; third the authority, there, "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet." He says therefore "going out," namely from the synagogue, that it might be fulfilled which is had in Psalm 53:3: "the assembly of the mighty have sought after my soul." They went out, therefore, in order to do evil, just as Job 1:12: "Satan went forth from the presence of the Lord." "They made a consultation," that is, a gathering, as to how they might destroy and kill him, because they were not able to overcome him by words; Psalm 1:1: "Blessed is the man who hath not walked in the counsel of the ungodly." "But Jesus knowing it, retired from thence." Here it is set down how he avoided their plots. And first the withdrawal is touched upon; second the fruit. Hence he withdrew, and why? Because it was not yet the time to suffer. Likewise he withdrew, in order to give his own an occasion of fleeing, as was said above in chapter 10. Likewise, that he might show himself to be man. Likewise he left them, so as not to incite them. For it belongs to a good preacher, when he sees men moved and incited, that he should leave them alone, as appears in Ecclesiasticus 8:13: "kindle not the coals of sinners by rebuking them, and be not inflamed with the flame of the fire of their sins." "And many followed him," hence he drew near to those who loved him, who gladly heard him. Hence John 10:3: "my sheep hear my voice." "And he healed them all." The healing is set down; Wisdom 16:12: "for it was neither herb, nor mollifying plaster, that healed them, but thy word, O Lord, which healeth all things." And in Psalm 106:20: "he sent his word, and healed them." And how? "He charged them that they should not make him known." And why? To give us an example of avoiding human glory, as is had above in chapter 6:1. Likewise, so as to spare the Pharisees, who were calumniating him about his deeds. "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet." Here he introduces the authority, which is had in Isaiah 42:1. And it must be known that some of the apostles give authoritative texts according to the Hebrew truth, others according to the exposition of the Septuagint, others express the sense alone in their own words. And he does three things. First he describes the human nature, when he says "Behold my servant," because he was a child; Luke 2:43: "and the boy Jesus remained in the temple." Now he is called a child, either from purity, because he committed no sin, nor was guile found in his mouth, etc., 1 Peter 2:22; or according as "child" (puer) is said for "servant" (puer as servus); hence "behold my servant," a servant through the form of a servant; Philippians 2:7: "he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant." "My elect, in whom my soul hath been well pleased." Note that in every holy man there are three things: divine election, love, and effect, which is grace: and this differently in man, differently in God. In man, grace precedes; second, he loves; third, he is chosen (elects/is elected). But in God it is the other way around. And this is because in man the will is not the cause of this effect, which is grace, but the love and will of God are the cause of grace; therefore he first chooses whom he wills to be good; second he loves; then he adds grace. Hence, according to this, he sets down three things. First, election, etc. In the original there is no word "elect." He says therefore, "Behold my servant, whom I have chosen," etc., and this as to a twofold election, which belong wholly to Christ according to his human nature. For he is chosen unto two things. Namely, unto this, that he be the Son of God, as is had in Romans 1:4: "who was predestinated the Son of God," etc., and Psalm 64:5: "blessed is he whom thou hast chosen and taken to thee." Likewise he is chosen unto the work of human redemption, as John 3:16: "so God loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son," etc. Likewise he chose in order to love; hence it is said "my beloved": for if he loves some, much more his only-begotten. Hence John 3:34: "the Spirit is not given unto him by measure." And if he loves some, yet this one with a special love; hence he says "in whom my soul hath been well pleased," that is, in whom my will has taken delight: and this is a special love, because the will does not rest except where it finds what pleases it. But nothing pleases except through grace, and no grace was wanting to Christ; hence above, 3:17: "this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Then he sets down the bestowal of grace: "I will put my spirit upon him," as is had in Joel 2:28: "I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh." But in Christ he poured out not merely something of the spirit, but the whole spirit, as is had in John 3:34: "the Spirit is not given unto him by measure"; and Isaiah 11:2: "the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him." And this insofar as he has the form of a servant. But what will he do? What office will he have? "He shall shew judgment to the Gentiles," that is, he will teach the Gentiles the judgments of God. Of old the Jews gloried that they were the peculiar people of God; hence they said: "he hath not done in like manner to every nation, and his judgments he hath not made manifest to them." But that word was said to the Gentiles. Hence "he shall shew" it "to the Gentiles," materially, because he received the power of judging over the Gentiles; Acts 10:42: "it is he who was appointed by God to be judge of the living and of the dead." And John 5:22: "the Father hath given all judgment to the Son." Likewise is he fit for it? Because in judgment two things are necessary, clemency and justice. And he shows both. And first, that he has clemency. And because clemency can be in words, second in deeds — because some, even if they cannot do anything, complain in word — he therefore removes these from him. Hence he says, "he shall not contend"; 1 Peter 2:23: "who, when he was reviled, did not revile." And this fits well with what is said in Proverbs 20:3: "it is an honour for a man to separate himself from quarrels." Likewise some do not contend, but murmur. But this one will not do this, because "he shall not cry out." Hence Isaiah 53:7: "he shall be led as a sheep to the slaughter, and shall be dumb as a lamb before his shearer, and shall not open his mouth." Crying out proceeds from passion. And the Apostle commands in Ephesians 4:31: "let all anger and clamour be put away from you." Some do not cry out, but complain: and this too is removed, "neither shall anyone hear his voice in the streets." Those who walk in the ways of sinners utter their voice in the streets; Lamentations 4:1: "the stones of the sanctuary are scattered"; Proverbs 1:20: "wisdom giveth voice in the streets." Yet this one will not be heard among them. Or otherwise: by "the streets" we understand the Gentiles, since they are outside the sanctuary. And although Christ allowed himself to be preached to the Gentiles, yet in his own person he did not preach to them. Hence "in the streets" he will not be heard, that is, among the Gentiles. Thus, then, was he patient in word. Likewise in deed: "the bruised reed he shall not break." And this can be read in two ways: for first it can be read specially as regards the Jews; second generally as regards all men. As regards the Jews, there were two things in them, namely royal power and priestly dignity. Royal power is signified by the reed, which had already been bruised, because they were subjected to the Romans; therefore it was easy for him thus to bruise the reed further. And it is well signified by a reed, because a reed is mobile, as is had above, 11:7: "what went you out into the desert to see? a reed shaken with the wind?" "And the smoking flax he shall not extinguish." By the smoking flax the priesthood is signified: hence the priests were clothed with linen vestments. Likewise, "smoking": for smoke is put out by fire. Likewise smoke is produced by a weak fire, which dissolves more than it consumes, and hence a stench is generated. These, then, were like smoking flax, because they had not entirely lost the faith: yet they did not have enough of it to restrain themselves from evils. Hence, although he could justly extinguish it, yet "the smoking flax he shall not extinguish." Likewise it is expounded another way as regards all men, so that by the bruised reed sinners are understood. By the smoking flax, which has a little warmth, are understood those who are not in sin, but are lukewarm toward good work, and have some grace. Hence he means to say: neither does he shut off the way of salvation to sinners. Hence he himself says, Ezekiel 18:23: "is it my will that a sinner should die?" Likewise if anyone has grace, he will not extinguish it. Hence in this an example is given to us that we ought not to extinguish anyone's grace, which the Lord has given him, but rather foster it. Likewise, "he shall not be contentious, nor cry out, till he bring forth judgment unto victory." And this can be read specially of the Jews, namely, when he shall have overcome them all, because they were charging that he cast out devils by Beelzebub; and he refuted them, then he imposed judgment upon them. And this was fulfilled through Titus and Vespasian. And not only will this happen; but with them destroyed, "in his name shall the Gentiles hope." Hence Genesis 49:10: "he shall be the expectation of nations." Or otherwise. Thus he sustains the will, and judges no one; but when death, the enemy, shall be destroyed, then all the Gentiles will cling to him, and this will be on the day of judgment.

Above, the Lord drove back those who slandered both his teaching and his life; here, however, he drives back those who disparage his miracles. And first the miracle is set down; second, the perversity of those disparaging it; third, their refutation. The second is there where it says, "and all the crowds were amazed," etc.; the third where it says, "But Jesus," etc. Concerning the miracle two things are set down. First the manifold infirmity is set down; second the perfect cure, where it says "and he healed him, so that he spoke and saw." He says therefore, "Then was brought to him a man having a demon." Concerning this, Luke 11:14 has it under other words. But there is no impropriety in the fact that what is recounted in one is passed over in silence in the other. By this man is signified the gentile people, or the sinner, who has a demon insofar as he is a slave, because "whoever commits sin is a slave of sin," John 8:34. This man is blind, deprived of the light of grace; hence Isaiah 59:10: "We have groped for the wall like the blind, and as if without eyes we have felt our way," etc. Likewise he is mute in respect of the confession of faith. In Psalm 38:3: "I was mute, and kept silent from good things," etc. And elsewhere: "because I kept silent, my bones grew old." There follows the perfect cure: "and he healed him," by driving out the muteness, "so that he spoke"; by driving out the blindness, "so that he saw." Hence the perfection of health is given; Psalm 102:3: "who is merciful to all your iniquities, who heals all your infirmities." Hence he left him neither blind nor mute. There follows the effect of the miracle, namely the wonder of the crowds: "and all the crowds were amazed," etc. Likewise their confession; hence "they said," that is, they confessed, "Is not this the son of David?" It had been promised in the prophets that Christ would be born of the seed of David; Jeremiah 23:5: "I will raise up to David a righteous shoot." But this seemed to be fulfilled, which was said above in chapter 11:25: "because you have hidden these things from the wise and prudent, and revealed them to little ones," etc. Hence the crowds confessed it. But the Pharisees, seeing it, said: "This man does not cast out demons except by Beelzebub," who is the god of Ekron, as is found in 4 Kings 1:16, who is called the god of flies on account of the most filthy rite of sacrificial blood, by reason of which many flies gathered. Therefore they believed that he was the demon prince of the demons, and therefore they believed that demons could be cast out by his power; Jeremiah 5:5: "I will go to the great men, and I will speak to them." And a little after: "and behold, these together have broken the yoke, they have burst the bonds." "But Jesus, knowing their thoughts," etc. In this part the Lord drives back those disparaging him. And first he argues against what was said; second, against those who said it, where it says "therefore I say to you," etc. He refutes what was said by a fourfold argument. The second is where it says "and if Satan cast out Satan," etc. The third where it says "how then," etc. The fourth where it says "he who is not," etc. The first is set down most expressly: "every kingdom divided against itself shall be brought to desolation." First he sets down the major premise, when he says "every kingdom," etc. There is a threefold community: of the household or family, of the city, and of the kingdom. The household is a community consisting of those through whom common acts are performed; hence it consists of a threefold conjugation: of father and son, of husband and wife, of master and servant. The community of the city contains all things that are necessary for the life of man; hence it is a perfect community as regards what is merely necessary. The third community is that of the kingdom, which is a community of consummation. For where there would be fear of enemies, one city by itself could not subsist; therefore, on account of fear of enemies, a community of several cities is necessary, which make up one kingdom. Hence, just as life is in any man, so peace is in the kingdom; and just as health is nothing other than the tempering of the humors, so peace exists when each thing retains its own order. And just as, health receding, a man tends toward death, so it is with peace; if it departs from a kingdom, the kingdom tends toward ruin. Hence the last thing that is regarded is peace. Hence the Philosopher says: as the physician is directed to health, so the defender of the commonwealth is directed to peace. Therefore he says, "every kingdom divided against itself shall be brought to desolation." Hosea 10:2: "Their heart is divided; now they shall perish." Isaiah 3:5: "The child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honorable." "And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself." Casting out implies a violent action; hence it is necessary that where there is contradiction there be division, because "among the proud there are always quarrels," Proverbs 13:10. But someone might say: it is not a casting out, because he goes out voluntarily. But this has no place, because such a departure would not be a casting out but would occur from obedience to another commanding it; hence here it would be a voluntary departure. But that they go out involuntarily is apparent from what was said above, that they began to groan and to cry out, "What have we to do with you, Jesus, Son of God? You have come here to torment us before the time." Therefore it is a division. "How then shall his kingdom stand?" As to this proposal Jerome expounds thus: "how shall his kingdom stand?" As if to say, the kingdom of the devil stands among sinners up until the day of judgment, because then all power will be emptied out. Hence if this were so, it would already be the end of the world. Rabanus expounds thus: "how shall his kingdom stand?" Because if war is waged against him, then it is in jeopardy; therefore you ought to be wary of his kingdom. Hilary: "How shall it stand?" As if to say: it is by my power that I do this, that one should expel another. Therefore I destroy the kingdom of the devil, and for this reason you ought to adhere to me. "If I by Beelzebub." Here the second reason is set down. If I cast out, either I do this by the power of the demon, or by the power of the Holy Spirit; but whichever of these it is, you ought not to disparage me. And first he pursues the first; second the second, where it says "but if I by the Spirit of God cast out demons," etc. He says therefore, "If I by Beelzebub cast out demons, your sons, by whom do they cast them out?" Jerome expounds this in two ways. In one way, of the exorcists, of whom it is found in Acts 19:13, that certain exorcists cast out demons in the name of Jesus Christ. Hence: if I by Beelzebub cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? As if to say, your sons cast them out. If therefore you do not slander them for this, neither ought you to slander me. Therefore you show partiality. Hence "they shall be your judges." Because I cast out by the power of God, therefore they themselves will judge, just as below concerning the Queen of the South, that she will judge. Or it can be expounded of the apostles. "Your sons": that is, the apostles. He calls them their sons, and not their disciples, so that they might be moved more toward them. Likewise, so that by disparaging them they might refute themselves: because if these who are your sons cast out demons, you likewise would do so, if you prepared yourselves. Therefore because these are conscious that I do this by a power handed over to me, and not by Beelzebub, therefore "they shall be your judges," not only by comparison, but by authority, as is found below at 19:28: "you also shall sit upon twelve seats, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." "But if I by the Spirit of God cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you"; as if to say: foolish is he who repels from himself things that redound to his own good; but this, namely to cast out demons, redounds to your good. From this, therefore, you can gather that it is by the Holy Spirit, because the finger of God is the Holy Spirit, just as the son is the hand. Nor is there therein any invocation, but this occurs solely by authority. Hence: "if by the Spirit of God I cast out demons," etc. But why is the casting out of demons said to occur by the Holy Spirit? Because to him love and goodness are appropriated; therefore to drive back the devil belongs fittingly to no one so well as to the person of the Holy Spirit. "Has come upon you"; Luke 17:21: "the kingdom of God is within you." And you can know that this is done by Christ, and this is for your benefit, therefore he says "upon you." Or otherwise: "the kingdom of God," that is, the dominion of God in men; 1 Corinthians 15:25: "for he must reign, until he put all enemies under his feet." If therefore demons are now beginning to be subdued, then the kingdom and dominion of God has already come upon you. "Or how can anyone enter into the house of the strong man?" etc. Here the third reason is set down, by which the Lord intends to refute the sayings of the Pharisees, and it is an argument from things that happen with regard to men. For when someone is powerful in his own house, he cannot be cast out from it, nor can his vessels be broken apart, unless someone stronger should come upon him. But Christ despoils the vessels of the devil, driving him out from men, in whom he is as in his own vessels. Therefore Christ is stronger than he. And he sets down this reason under these words. "The strong man." This is the devil, who is called strong from his power; Job 41:24: "There is no power that can be compared to him." And he becomes stronger through consent, because he who consents gives strength beyond himself; Isaiah 19:2: "man shall fight against his brother, city against city, and I will deliver Egypt into the hand of cruel lords." This house is the world, or the congregation of sinners, not because he created the world, but because by consenting to him it obeyed him; hence in John 12:31 he is called "the prince of this world." His vessels are men. "Vessel" is taken in two ways. That is called someone's vessel which is full of that thing, as one speaks of a vessel of water, because it is full of water, or a vessel of oil, because it is full of oil; thus some are vessels of the devil, because they are full of the devil, and this in respect of the body, as those possessed by the devil; but in respect of the soul, those whose hearts are in the full will of the devil, as is said of Judas. Sometimes vessels are said to be any instruments whatsoever deputed to any office; hence he is called a vessel of the devil who furnishes others an occasion of sinning. And in whatever way it is taken, Christ plunders the vessels of the devil; Colossians 2:15: "despoiling the principalities and powers, he led them away confidently, openly triumphing over them in himself," etc. This, however, does not suffice, unless he first binds the strong man; hence "unless he first bind the strong man." What is this binding? It is that the power to do harm, which he has of himself, is restrained by God. Hence by the power of his own nature he can do many things, but by the power of God he is restrained, just as a bound man is restrained from carrying out what he wills. Hence Psalm 149:8: "to bind their kings in fetters." And then "he will plunder his house," because with him bound, men who are bound will be set free; Isaiah 49:25: "the captivity shall be taken away from the strong man, and what has been carried off from the mighty one shall be delivered." "He who is not with me is against me." Here the fourth reason is set down, and here he gives firmness to all of them. For someone might say: if you were taking this away by victory, the reasoning could proceed; but you do not act by violence, but by suffering, therefore it is not a sign that you have bound him. Therefore he sets down the fourth reason. The reasoning is this: things that agree in some one respect have a similar work; hence those who do similar works do not impede one another. But I do contrary works to those of the devil. Therefore "he who is not with me is against me." First he sets down the reasoning in general; second he gives an example in particular. He says therefore, "he who is not with me," etc. And it is apparent that the devil is not with him, because he is contrary to his works; 2 Corinthians 6:15: "What agreement has Christ with Belial?" But that he is against him is found in Ecclesiasticus 33:15: "against life, death, and against the just man, the sinner"; thus against man is the devil, who is the father of sin. But in what does he act contrary to him? "And he who does not gather with me, scatters." For the Lord gathers, Isaiah 40:11: "he shall gather the lambs in his arm, and shall lift them up in his bosom, he himself shall carry them that are with young." But the devil scatters; hence John 10:12: "the wolf snatches and scatters the sheep." But in Luke 9:50 it is found: "he who is not against you is for you," etc. Here, however, the contrary seems to be said. Chrysostom says that each was said in a particular case; hence it is not understood universally, but in a specific instance, and specifically, that he who has no pact with me is against me. Hence there he was speaking of the disciples, here of the devils. Or otherwise we can say that it is different in the case of God and in the case of man. It is certain that God is the natural end toward which all things tend; therefore he who is not with God must needs be separated from him; hence 3 Kings 18:21: "How long do you halt between two sides? If the Lord is God, follow him." But in the case of man toward man it is not so, because he who is not for me is not, for that reason, against me. "Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven to men," etc. After he had refuted their saying, here he inveighs against them. First from the gravity of the sin; second from their evil intention; third from the future judgment. The second is there where it says "either make the tree good," etc. The third where it says "but I say to you," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets forth certain general statements; second he explains, where it says "and whoever shall say a word against the Son of Man," etc. He says therefore: "it has been done just as you say; therefore I say to you," etc. And he sets down two statements. First, concerning the forgiveness of sin in general: "I say, every sin," that is, of deed, "and blasphemy," that is, of speech, "shall be forgiven to men," namely, if they repent. Hence in Psalm 102:3: "who is merciful to all your iniquities, who heals all your infirmities." And elsewhere, Psalm 31:1: "Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered." And by this the opinion of Novatian is destroyed, who used to say that not all sins are forgivable: here, however, it is said that every sin is forgivable. Second he sets down the special case, that which is not forgiven, saying "but the spirit of blasphemy shall not be forgiven," that is, the will to blaspheme, namely when someone blasphemes out of settled malice. And these things have been said in general. Then he proceeds to the particular case, and expounds it. And first, he expounds the first statement. Thus it was said, that every sin, etc. And that this is true, I show concerning this instance, because blasphemy which is against the Son is forgivable. Hence "whoever shall say a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him," namely, if he repent. "But whoever shall say" a word "against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this age, nor in the age to come." And, as Augustine says, these words are so difficult that there are no more forceful words in the Gospel. It must be said, therefore, that there is a threefold manner of expounding this. Some expound it literally, because they themselves saw him working miracles, and the works of the Holy Spirit, and said that he had an unclean spirit; therefore they blasphemed against the Holy Spirit. And on this point the exposition is various. Some say that both should be referred to the person of the Son. But in the Son there is a twofold nature, divine and human; and according to the divine nature he both is spirit and is holy. Hence the Son is called "Holy Spirit," not according as this is taken in the sense of one proper name; and thus Hilary expounds it. And this is the sense: whoever shall say a word against the Son, and is moved out of weakness against the human nature, has an excuse; but whoever shall say a word against the divine nature, this one has no ground for pardon. Others expound it of the Holy Spirit, according as he is the third person in the Trinity. Hence: whoever shall say a word against the Son of Man, that is, against the human nature, it shall be forgiven him; but he who speaks against the Holy Spirit working, this one has no pardon. This seems the full exposition, and this the text seems to state. But Augustine objects thus. It is certain that all pagans blaspheme, because they do not believe the Holy Spirit to be in the Church. Likewise there are many heretics, and yet for these the way of pardon is not foreclosed. Likewise many Jews, etc. But someone might say: it is to be understood as applying after the faith has been received. But as to this: if this is so, is repentance then to be denied him, if he repents? Likewise, it does not say "whoever, being a Christian," but generally, "whoever." How then is this to be resolved? Augustine resolves it in two ways. One is the exposition in the Sermon on the Mount, and this he retracts. The other, however, he sets down in the book "On the Words of the Lord." Hence you ought to understand that the sin against the Holy Spirit is not called blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, but is taken from the manner of sinning. To the Holy Spirit are attributed goodness, charity, and love; to goodness, malice corresponds as its opposite, to charity, envy. If therefore someone, knowing the truth, out of malice detracts from the truth, he sins against the Holy Spirit. Likewise if someone sees works of holiness in another, and out of envy detracts from them: for envy of holiness, not of the person, is an unforgivable sin; not because it is impossible that it be forgiven, but because there is so great a stain of sin that it comes about, by divine justice, that the person does not repent. Hence those who were saying that he cast out demons by Beelzebub were not sinning against the Holy Spirit, as Augustine says, because they had not come to so profound a malice, etc. But he began to say this, not because they were doing this, but so that those who had begun down this path might beware of coming to that state. This meaning Augustine reproves and retracts, because thus there would be some state for which one ought not to pray, which is not true in this present life. Therefore he expounds it otherwise in the book "On the Words of the Lord," and it is as follows. Note that he did not say "whoever shall say a word of blasphemy," but "a word" indefinitely. But such a term, when it is put indefinitely, is not to be taken universally, but sometimes in a particular sense, as in John 15:22: "if I had not come, and had not spoken to them, they would not have sin"; not simply, or universally, but they would not have the sin of unbelief: so likewise "whoever shall say a word"; not any word whatsoever, but such a word that, if it is said, it is unforgivable. What that is, Augustine tells us. The Holy Spirit is charity, through whom the members of the Church are united to Christ their head, and every sin is forgiven through the Holy Spirit. And although the whole Trinity forgives it, nevertheless it is appropriated to the Holy Spirit on account of love. He, therefore, who has an impenitent heart, speaks against the Holy Spirit. Hence impenitence itself is opposed to the charity of the Holy Spirit. Hence it is not whoever shall say whatever word, but that word, namely the word of impenitence, that is unforgivable. And he says "word," not "words," because it is the custom in Scripture to call many words one word; hence in Isaiah the Lord often says, "you shall speak my word," although he spoke many words to him. Hence it does not contradict what was said above, "I say to you, every sin and blasphemy," etc., because he who shall have said a word against the Holy Spirit blasphemes. Hence a certain master, being asked what the sin against the Holy Spirit was, said: "impenitence stores up wrath for itself." But what is this, that it is forgiven "neither in this age, nor in the age to come"? Are any sins to be forgiven in the age to come? Augustine says no. Therefore it is not said that some sins are forgiven in the present and others in the future; but rather that sin is forgiven here in such a way that it will avail in the future. Or otherwise: because certain sins, namely mortal sins, are forgiven in the present, but others, namely venial sins, in the future; as if someone dies in some venial sin, it is certain that it is forgiven. Hence there will be some mercy in the future, because at that time he will still be a wayfarer. Chrysostom expounds this very plainly, and says that here he speaks of a twofold blasphemy: against the Son of Man, and against the Holy Spirit. These men blasphemed the Son of Man, because they said that he was a wine-drinker. Likewise their other blasphemy was against the Holy Spirit, because they said that he cast out demons by a demoniacal spirit. For the first they had an excuse, because they did not know; but for what they said against the Holy Spirit they had no excuse, because they knew through the Scriptures, and therefore it shall not be forgiven. But what is this, that he says "neither in this age, nor in the age to come"? This is said because some sin is punished in this age, some in the other, some here and there. Some only in this age, as is clear in the case of penitents. Some only in the age to come, as those of whom it is said in Job 21:13: "they spend their days in good things, and in a moment go down to hell." But that which is punished both here and in the age to come is the sin against the Holy Spirit: hence "it shall not be forgiven neither in this age, nor in the age to come," not because forgiveness will occur in the age to come, but because the punishment will be in the age to come. Hence the sense is that it will not be forgiven such that the sinner does not suffer punishment in this age and in the age to come. Thus the saints speak of this sin. It is to be noted, moreover, that the Master, in the Sentences, distinction 43, book 2, sets down a distinction, and assigns six species of sin against the Holy Spirit: despair, presumption, impenitence, obstinacy, resistance to acknowledged truth, and envy of a brother's grace. Hence those are said to sin against the Holy Spirit who sin against what is appropriated to the Holy Spirit. To the Father is appropriated power, to the Son wisdom, to the Holy Spirit goodness. He therefore is said to sin against the Father who sins out of weakness; he against the Son who sins out of ignorance; he against the Holy Spirit who sins out of malice. But it must be known that to sin out of malice is when someone sins voluntarily, which is out of settled malice, and this in two ways: either because he has an inclination to sin, or because he does not. For when a man commits many sins, from this there remains in him a habit of sinning, and thus he sins by choice. Likewise someone sins because that by which he was held back from sin is removed. Now he is held back from sin by hope of eternal life; hence he who does not hope for eternal life sins out of settled malice. Ephesians 4:19: "who, despairing, have given themselves over to lasciviousness." Hence he who sins out of inclination sins against the Holy Spirit, namely from the fact that he departs from that which holds him back from sin. Now this happens in six ways. For in God there are mercy and justice. From contempt of mercy comes despair; from contempt of justice, presumption. Likewise on the side of aversion, because one turns himself to a fragile good, thus comes obstinacy. Likewise on the side of aversion, because one does not propose to return to God, comes impenitence. Likewise on the side of the remedy, namely of hope and charity, comes resistance to acknowledged truth, and envy of a brother's love. These are the sins against the Holy Spirit. If therefore it is actual impenitence, thus it is not forgiven; not because it is not forgiven at all, but because it is not easily forgiven, because it has no ground for being forgiven except from the sole grace of God, as if someone has a fever, say a tertian one, he has something whereby he can be healed; but if he has a hemitritaeus fever, he has nothing whereby he can be healed of himself, because he is not healed except by divine help. There follows: "either make the tree good, and its fruit good, or make the tree evil, and its fruit evil." Above the Lord refuted the practice of the Pharisees, insofar as they were speaking against his own works, showing the gravity of their sin; now, against those same men who are speaking, he shows that their teaching is depraved. And first he sets down a comparison; second he applies it; third he assigns the reason. The second is there where it says "brood of vipers," etc.; the third where it says "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks." Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets down the comparison; second he adduces the proof, where it says "for by the fruit the tree is known." He says therefore: "either make the tree good and its fruit good," etc. This is expounded in two ways. One exposition according to Chrysostom and Jerome; the other according to Augustine. According to John Chrysostom it is expounded thus. He wishes to show that their vituperation is unreasonable; hence he compares acts to life, as fruit to a tree. If someone sees good fruit, he judges the tree to be good; likewise, conversely, if it is bad. These men saw the acts of Christ, namely his casting out of demons, and this was good; therefore what you say is quite unreasonable. And he proceeds most excellently from the effect to the cause, as the Apostle says, Romans 1:20: "for the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made," etc. Hence he wishes to say: either you, namely the Pharisees, make, that is, grant, that if the fruit is good, the tree is good; or make, that is, say, that the fruit is bad, and thus the tree bad. And this you cannot say. Augustine, however, refers this to intention. These men were saying that he cast out demons by Beelzebub. He wishes therefore to show from what root this proceeded, namely from malice of heart; therefore he says "either make," etc. Here two things are set down, one meritorious, namely "make it be so," "make," etc., and give effort and study so that you may be a good tree, which a man cannot do without preparation. Hence, make it that you are a good tree, and then the fruit will be good, and the words good. What follows, moreover, is a warning, that they should beware, namely "or make the tree evil, and its fruit evil": either you will apply yourselves to malice, and thus you will be an evil tree, and the fruit evil; Jeremiah 2:21: "I planted you a chosen vine, wholly a true seed: how then have you turned into the degenerate plant of a strange vine to me?" Now according to either reading, the proof that follows fits, namely "for by the fruit the tree is known," etc., because by good fruit it is known to be good, by bad fruit, bad. "Brood of vipers," etc. And this is added in different ways to what precedes, according to the different expositions. According to Augustine there is a certain application to the matter at hand, thus. It was said, "either make," etc. And you do evil. You are an evil tree, and because an evil tree, you do evil things, because you cannot speak good things. According to the exposition of others, he shows from what source this malice proceeds, and he calls the Pharisees a "brood of vipers," because those who have malice from childhood hold to it more firmly; therefore their malice is called the malice of a viper; Proverbs 22:6: "A young man, according to his way, even when he is old, will not depart from it." Therefore very often those who have evil parents are more prone to evil; Jeremiah 14:20: "we acknowledge the iniquities of our fathers." Hence it is good that a man, out of habit, subject himself to good work. Likewise it is the nature of serpents that, since they cast forth poison with the tongue, so the evil act; Job 20:16: "the viper's tongue shall slay him." And in Psalm 139:4: "they have sharpened their tongues like a serpent." Therefore he says, "how can you speak good things?" He does not say "do good things," but "speak," because you are children of a viper, which harms with the tongue; therefore, since you are imitators of your fathers' wickedness, how can you speak good things? As if to say, you cannot. And he assigns the reason: and first in general; second in particular, where it says "the good man out of a good treasure brings forth good things," etc. He says therefore: thus you cannot speak. Why? Because you are evil. Why? Because "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks," because the voice is a sign of the understanding. He says "out of the abundance of the heart," because, according to Chrysostom, when someone speaks out of malice, it is a sign that there is greater malice in the heart, because of what he retains within, he fears nothing. Therefore, while he brings forth something out of malice, it is a sign that there is more within, which he does not dare to bring forth. Therefore he says "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks." And out of the abundance of malice within, the mouth speaks, and this holds both in good and in evil. Hence Jeremiah 20:9: "the word of the Lord was made in me as a fire," etc. Likewise in evil similarly, because some out of malice conceive something that they cannot retain; Job 32:18: "the spirit of my belly straitens me," etc. "The good man out of a good treasure brings forth good things." What he had said, "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks," he expounds in particular. The word that comes forth from thought is like a gift that comes forth from a treasury. Hence if the thought is good, the word is good, and conversely. The good treasure is the knowledge of truth and the fear of the Lord; Isaiah 33:6: "the riches of salvation are wisdom and knowledge; the fear of the Lord is his treasure." Likewise the evil treasure is evil thought; and from this nothing proceeds but evil; Proverbs 10:2: "treasures of wickedness shall profit nothing." Consider that what is said there of words is understood also of works. For just as thought is the root of speech, so intention is the root of operation; therefore if the intention is good, the work is good. Hence there the Gloss says: you do as much as you intend. In the case of good, this seems to admit of an objection. Suppose someone wishes to steal in order to give alms; the act is evil and the intention good: therefore, etc. I answer: intention and will are sometimes distinguished, namely when in one and the same act the will is one thing and the intention another. The will concerns the object willed, the intention the end: the will is as if I will to go to the window in order to see those passing by; this "in order to see" is the intention, as it were a "tending beyond"; hence it is necessary that will and intention be one. Hence we can consider intention and will broadly, and so in this case. If the will is evil, the act is evil. Nevertheless if it is set apart, and taken properly, this is not true. But granted that intention and act of will are one, what then? It must be said that the principal ground of merit consists in charity, and consequently in the merit of the other virtues. For merit regards the essential reward, in respect of which charity is considered. Thus each work, which is done with greater charity, has more merit. Charity alone has God as its object and end. Hence the merit of charity corresponds to the substantial reward, the merit of the other virtues to the accidental reward. Because, therefore, charity informs the intention, the more someone intends something out of greater charity, so much the more he accomplishes; but as regards the accidental reward, not so. "But I say to you," etc. The Lord reproves these men on account of the gravity of their sin, and on account of their malice; now, on account of the future judgment, which we hold by faith: for it is said in Job 19:29: "flee from the face of the sword, for the sword is the avenger of iniquities: and know that there is a judgment"; Ecclesiastes 12:14: "all things that are done, the Lord will bring into judgment, for every error, whether it be good or evil." Likewise 2 Corinthians 5:10: "for we must all be manifested before the judgment seat of Christ, that everyone may render an account of his own body, according to what he has done, whether it be good or evil." Hence there will be an examination there, because everyone will render an account of his deeds. Therefore he adds also concerning words, saying: "but I say to you, that every idle word that men shall have spoken, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgment." And this is said in Wisdom 1:8: "he who speaks unjust things cannot be hidden." And it is added, that "an obscure word shall not go into the void." But what is this, that he speaks of an idle word? "Idle word" is said in two ways. In one way, every evil word is called idle; because that is called idle which does not attain its end, just as if someone seeks a man and does not find him, he is said to have sought idly. Now speech is given for instruction. When therefore it profits, it is not idle: Ephesians 4:29: "let no evil speech proceed from your mouth; but if any is good, unto edification of the faith, that it may give grace to the hearers," etc. And according to Chrysostom, this refers to what was proposed, because they had said "by Beelzebub," etc. That word was pernicious, therefore also idle, according to Jerome. Indeed the pernicious differs from the idle, because the pernicious is that which brings harm, the idle, however, that which brings no benefit. Gregory says that a word is called idle which lacks devout benefit, or necessity. Hence any word whatsoever that is uttered lightly is called idle, unless it has devout benefit, or devout necessity. But it is certain that these men had spoken a pernicious word: why then does he make mention only of the idle? Because he wishes to argue from the lesser: because if for the idle word an account must be rendered, much more for the pernicious. Then he shows the reason: "for by your words you shall be justified," etc. In the judgment of the world, sometimes the innocent are punished, and the wicked set free, because judgment is rendered according to the words of witnesses; in the judgment of God, from the man himself accusing himself, namely from his own confession. Hence, so that you should not believe that you will be judged by the things that others say of you, but by the things that you yourself say of yourself, therefore he says: "for by your words you shall be justified, and by your words you shall be condemned." As in Luke 19:22: "out of your own mouth I judge you, wicked servant."

Above, the Lord refuted those who disparaged his miracles and his teaching; here he takes to task those who were testing him. And here he does two things. First is set down the tempting question; second, the reproof, where it says he answering said to them. It says, then, then they answered — that is, after they had seen many miracles and had heard many words of wisdom, so that what is said in Ecclesiasticus 22:9 was fulfilled in him: he who tells a fool wisdom speaks to one who sleeps. Master, we would see a sign from thee. They say Master while tempting him; Psalm 27:3: they speak peace with their neighbor, but evils are in their hearts. We would see a sign from thee. Had they not seen many signs? Yes; but another Evangelist explains it thus, saying, Luke 11:16: we would see a sign from heaven, just as it is read in 1 Kings 12:18 that Samuel made thunder, and Elijah who made fire come down, 2 Kings 1:10. For it is proper to the Jews to seek a sign, as is had in 1 Corinthians 1:22: the Jews seek signs. But when he had given earthly signs, they did not believe; even if he were to give heavenly ones, they would not believe; John 3:12: if I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? Who answering said to them, and so on. Accordingly he repels them, and he does two things. First he denies the petition; second he shows their unworthiness, where it says the men of Nineveh, and so on. First he indicates what they were seeking; second he denies it. It says, then, who answering said to them: an evil and adulterous generation seeks a sign. He calls them evil because they were plotters. One is called evil because he harms his neighbor. It is, then, an evil generation, and wicked children. The generation is called adulterous, Isaiah 57:3: but draw near hither, you sons of the sorceress, seed of the adulterer and of the harlot. So then this generation, subject to iniquity, seeks a sign, but no sign will be given it but the sign of Jonah the prophet. Isaiah 7:11: ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God, either unto the depth of hell, or unto the height above, and so on. It was asking, then, for a sign from the heavens, but they were not worthy to see it. For this he gave to his apostles, who saw him ascending, who saw the glory of God on the mountain. But to these no sign will be given except the sign in hell, as regards the soul, and from the earth, as regards the body. Hence no sign will be given it but the sign of Jonah the prophet. Whereby the death of Christ is signified, and the charity of God is shown, as the Apostle says to the Romans 5:8: when as yet we were sinners, according to the time, Christ died for us, and so on. Likewise the power of the one raising him up is shown, as is had in 1 Corinthians 15:20 and following. And these are the signs of those things which ought to be in us. By the death of Christ it is signified to us that we ought to die to sin; but by the resurrection, that we ought to rise again from sin. And as Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights — namely, in truth — so the Son of man will be in the heart of the earth. And in this the error of Mani is confounded, who said that he did not die in truth. And he says in the heart of the earth, because just as the heart of man is in the depths, so Christ was in the depths of the earth. Or in the heart of the earth, that is, in the heart of earthly and worldly persons, and of the disciples, who were despairing of him, as is had in Luke, last chapter, 21: but we were hoping that it was he that should have redeemed Israel. Three days and three nights. But here there is a literal question. This seems to be false, because he expired at the ninth hour, and was buried in the evening, but rose in the morning of the third day. Augustine says that some wish to say that the hour in which he was placed on the cross must be counted. Hence they call the first night that darkness which appeared; the second was the night of Friday; the third, of the sabbath day. But according to Augustine this does not hold; it could, however, suffice for us if he had been in the tomb the whole of the Lord's day. Therefore it must be said otherwise: that a natural day, taken for day and night together, is taken for a space of twenty-four hours. But, as Augustine says, in Scripture sometimes a part is taken for the whole. So, then, it must be said that Christ was, by synecdoche, three days and three nights in the tomb, because Friday is taken for the whole day and also for the preceding night; concerning the second day there is no doubt; the third night is taken for the night and the following day. Yet if we look at it according to the truth, it was two nights and one whole day, to signify that his single measure destroyed our double measure. In us there was penalty and fault; in him, penalty alone; and so on. The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation. Here he sets down their unworthiness. Here there is a literal question. Did he not work many miracles? Did he not raise Lazarus, and many others? What, then, does it mean that no sign will be given it but the sign of Jonah the prophet? I answer: no such sign as they were asking for will be given; or no sign will be given for their benefit, for he knew that they would not be converted, because they had been hardened. But he worked signs for the sake of the faithful and the elect, of whom there were many afterward. The men of Nineveh, and so on. This is the unworthiness. And first the gentiles are preferred; second the reason is given, where it says but when the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, and so on. Consider: someone is good either because he does not sin, or because he repents. First, then, he prefers those who repented, namely the gentiles; second, those who did not commit sin, where it says the queen of the south, and so on. The Lord had compared his own resurrection to Jonah's; so they might believe that what happened to the Ninevites, who were freed, would happen to these; but these were not only not freed, but were even scattered. Hence the men of Nineveh shall rise. In these words one error of the Jews is excluded — that the resurrection will be before the judgment, and that in the meantime Jerusalem will be rebuilt. And they bring forward on their own behalf what is said in Isaiah 25:6: the Lord shall make unto all people in this mountain a feast of fat things. Others said that the just and the martyrs will rise before the others by a thousand years, and they bring forward on their behalf what is said in Revelation 20:1: I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit, and a great chain in his hand; and it follows, and he laid hold on the dragon, the old serpent, which is the devil, and bound him, that he should no more seduce the nations, till the thousand years should be finished. Both are excluded when he says shall rise with this generation — the good and the not-good together. And they shall condemn — by comparison, not by authority, because they will rise among those to be condemned; Ezekiel 5:5: this is Jerusalem, I have set her in the midst of the nations, and the countries round about her: she hath despised my judgments, so as to be more wicked than the gentiles, and my commandments more than the countries that are round about her. And in what will they condemn? Because they did penance; but these were unwilling to do penance. The Lord began his preaching from penance; John likewise, and they did not listen; Jeremiah 8:6: there is none that doth penance for his sin. Likewise, those did penance at one preaching of Jonah; but Jesus had made many preachings to these, and yet they were not converted; John 15:24: if I had not done among them the works that no other man hath done, they would not have sin. Likewise, those were converted at the preaching of one prophet; but these had not only a prophet, but the Son of God. Hence it is had in Hebrews 1:1: God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all, in these days, hath spoken to us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the world, and so on. And there follows and behold a greater than Jonah here, as it is had in Hebrews 3:3: for this man was counted worthy of greater glory than Moses. Therefore the Ninevites are preferred, because they did penance. The queen of the south shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it — namely, in wisdom, which these were unwilling to receive. Concerning her it is had in 3 Kings 10:24, that she came to hear the wisdom of Solomon. By her is signified the Church gathered from the faithful; Psalm 44:10: the queen stood on thy right hand, in gilded clothing, surrounded with variety, and so on. She is called queen, because she ought to rule herself; Proverbs 20:8: the king that sitteth on the throne of judgment, scattereth away all evil with his look. And she is called of the south by reason of the Holy Spirit; Song of Songs 4:16: arise, O north wind, and come, O south wind, blow through my garden. This queen shall rise in judgment with this generation. Note that it is not said that she did not sin, but that she was not rebellious. Why? Because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, as is had in 3 Kings 10:24: and it was not necessary that you should come from the ends of the earth, because he is here. Hence: and behold a greater than Solomon here, because that one was a temporal king and a sinner, but this one is innocent and eternal; Daniel 7:14: his power is an everlasting power that shall not be taken away, and his kingdom that shall not be destroyed. But when the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, and so on. Having shown above that the gentiles are more worthy than the Jews, here he wishes to confirm this by an example; and first he sets down the example; second he applies it, where it says so shall it be also unto this most wicked generation. He sets down the example of the unclean spirit. You should note that sometimes an example is set down from a thing done, sometimes from a parable. And when it is set down from a thing done, it is fitting that each element be expounded separately, so that each requires its own explanation, as here the example of Jonah is set down. Sometimes an example is set down from a parable, as when it is said, the kingdom of heaven is like, and so on; here it is not fitting to set down what is in the kingdom of heaven. We can say, then, according to Jerome, that this is a similitude and a parable, and thus there is one sense. Or, according to Augustine, from a thing done, and thus there is a twofold sense. An unclean spirit goes out from a man in two ways, because it torments a man sometimes bodily, sometimes spiritually. Hence it must be seen how a man is filled with an unclean spirit — how bodily and how spiritually; third, how this pertains to the matter at hand. Four things, then, are said. First, the liberation from the unclean spirit; second, the renewed vexation; third, its gravity; fourth, the occasion of the second vexation. It says, then, if the unclean spirit is gone out of a man. Everything that is mixed with a viler thing is called unclean; with a purer thing, purer — as if silver is joined to lead, it becomes viler: so a created spirit, if it cleaves to something lower than itself, is called an unclean spirit. And this spirit goes out sometimes from a man whom it torments bodily, sometimes from one whom it torments spiritually, as in Baptism. Accordingly the renewed vexation is set down, and its occasion. And first on the part of the demon; second on the part of those who are vexed. On the part of the demon, first as regards those others, second as regards these: for this is the demon's custom, that it cannot rest unless it does harm, because from the beginning it loved sin. Hence when it is expelled by someone, it seeks where it may vex. Hence it says he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none. Hence sometimes it finds no rest. But in what places it may find it, it is said in Job 40:16: he sleepeth under the shadow, in the covert of the reed, and in moist places. Moist places are hearts given over to pleasures; dry places are those who despise pleasures, who turn away from prosperity. And concerning this, Ezekiel 37:11: our bones are dried up, and our hope is lost. It says he walketh, and it explores whatever man it may deceive. Hence, for what is said, he walketh, it shows solicitude; 1 Peter 5:8: be sober and watch, because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour. Seeking rest, and findeth none, except in moist places. So it was with the Jews, that going out from the Jews it went to the gentiles, who are dry from the moisture of divine grace; but it found no rest, because it was cast out, because they received the word of God. Then it says: I will return into my house from whence I came out. From this word you can gather that if the devil is sometimes expelled from someone because he does penance, it nevertheless does not wholly abandon him: just as it is read of Christ, Luke 4:13, that it departed from him for a time. This, then, must be understood, so that men may always be watchful lest it return. And this is what it says, I will return, and so on. And coming, he findeth it empty. Here is set down the occasion on the part of him who is afflicted a second time. If we wish to apply this to the Jews, it is plain that when it was expelled by the gentiles, it returned to the Jews. Hence a threefold occasion is set down. Namely, idleness; hence it says empty; Ecclesiasticus 33:29: idleness hath taught much evil. Therefore Jerome says: always do some good, so that the devil may find you occupied. Hence empty, that is, idle; Lamentations 1:7: the enemies have seen her, and have mocked at her sabbaths. Swept, because what is cleaned with a broom is not cleaned except in that it lightly clings; hence sweeping is the same as lightly cleaning, and so sweeping is an imperfect cleansing. Likewise adorned, and this is a superficial adornment. Perfect cleansing must be done with fire, as is had in the Law, that vessels had to be cleansed by fire. Likewise, that which is adorned has one beauty of its own, another from adornment alone, of which in Psalm 143:12: their daughters are decked out, adorned round about after the similitude of a temple, and so on. But those who wish to be secure ought to have interior beauty; Psalm 44:14: all the glory of the king's daughter is within, in golden borders, clothed round about with varieties. But when the adornment is only in outward things, one is not abandoned by the demons. So it is with the Jews, because they kept the sabbaths, in which they were more free from good things than from evil ones. Likewise, they placed their whole care in the smallest matters of the Law. Then it goeth, and taketh with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself. Here is set down the second, more grievous vexation, and it is shown to be more grievous first as to number; second as to duration; third as to effect. As to number, because it taketh seven. According to Chrysostom this is expounded literally, because when someone falls and does not take heed, then something worse happens to him; John 5:14: behold, thou art made whole; sin no more, lest some worse thing happen to thee. According to Augustine it takes seven, and this in two ways. For sometimes the penitent does penance, but conducts himself negligently, and then he becomes more prone to falling; Romans 1:28: for which cause God delivered them up to a reprobate sense. And by this, that it says seven, the totality of vices is signified. Otherwise, according to blessed Augustine: some sin with some sin, and in the state of penance add pretense. And just as there are seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, so there are seven pretenses. Hence at first there were simple vices, then pretenses of vices are added, which are worse; and they are called seven, either on account of the totality of vices, or on account of the sabbath. And those who sin in this way become more persevering in evil; hence it says and entering in, they dwell there, because they are unwilling to depart thence; Jeremiah 8:5: this people in Jerusalem is turned away with a stubborn revolting: they have laid hold on lying, and have refused to return. If this is expounded of the Jews, it is plain that it dwells in them and is unwilling to depart from them. And the last state of that man is made worse than the first. Here is set down the aggravation as to effect. Literally, he who is more punished is more burdened. Hence 2 Peter 2:21: it had been better for them not to have known the way of justice, than, after they have known it, to turn back. Likewise as to the Jews, because they acted worse in blaspheming Christ than in worshipping idols. Therefore there follows so shall it be also unto this most wicked generation, because it will be worse for them than it ever was for them in Egypt.

In the preceding part the Lord confuted his adversaries; now he commends the believing disciples, etc., taking as his occasion the presence of his mother and brethren. First the presence is set down; second, the announcement; third, the commendation of the disciples. He says therefore, "while he was yet speaking." But here there is a question of the letter: why in Luke 8:19, where the same words are set down as were spoken here, the words that follow are not set down, but instead it is added: "And it came to pass, as he spoke, a certain woman lifting up her voice," etc. And thus there seems to be a contradiction. Augustine resolves this: that without doubt it was said thus, as Matthew narrates, "while he was yet speaking," that is, while he was still in the midst of his discourse, etc. But it can be that what Luke says happened, and also what this one says; and it can be that Luke anticipates the order, or refers the matter to the order of his own memory.

"Behold his mother and his brethren stood outside," etc. Concerning the mother there is no doubt that she is the one of whom it was spoken in chapter 1; but concerning the brethren there can be a question. And because mention is made of brethren, this is therefore an occasion of heresy, namely that after the virgin had brought forth Jesus, Joseph knew Mary and thereupon begot sons of her; which is heretical, because after the birth she remained an inviolate virgin. There was also an opinion that these were sons of Joseph by another wife. But this is nothing, because we believe that just as the mother of Jesus was a virgin, so was Joseph, since he entrusted a virgin to a virgin; and as it was at the end, so too was it at the beginning.

Who then are these brethren? Jerome said that "brethren" are spoken of in many ways. For some are brethren by nature, as above in chapter 1: "Jacob begot Judah and his brethren." Sometimes those are called brethren who are of one nation: Deuteronomy 17:15, "Thou mayst not set up a king who is not thy brother." Sometimes by religion, as all Christians, as below in chapter 23:8; and from this a custom has grown up whereby men of the same religion are called brethren. Sometimes men of one kindred, as in Joshua 2:12, "and give me a sign, that you save my father, and my mother, and my brethren." Sometimes all men, who are from one father, namely God; Malachi 2:10: "Is there not one father of us all? Has not one God created us? Why then does each one despise his brother?" In none of these ways are the Lord's brethren spoken of here; rather they are called brethren in one sense, because they were blood relations. Hence in Genesis 13:8 Abraham said to Lot, "for we are brethren," although Lot was Abraham's nephew. So these were brethren in this way, because they were cousins.

Next is set down the announcement of their presence: "But a certain one said to him: Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand outside seeking thee." Why he said this, and by what necessity, is explained in Luke 8:19, because the multitude was so great that they could not enter. Mystically, by the mother is signified the synagogue; hence Song of Songs 3:11: "Go forth, and see king Solomon in the diadem wherewith his mother crowned him." And by the "brethren" is signified the Jews, who stand outside, forsaking Christ; Job 6:15, "My brethren have forsaken me." They seek, but do not find, as is said in Romans 9:31: "Israel, by following after the law of justice, has not attained to the law of justice."

"But he answering," etc. The response of Christ is set down; and here he does two things: first he confutes the one who questioned him; second he commends the disciples, at the place, "And stretching forth his hand," etc. He himself says: "Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?" From this passage certain ones denied that Christ had truly taken flesh, but only in appearance; hence they expounded it thus: "this is not my mother, nor are these my brethren." Which is against the Apostle in Galatians 4:4: "God sent his Son, made of a woman," etc. Likewise in Romans 1:3: "who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh." Likewise the Lord acknowledged her on the cross: "Woman, behold thy son," as is found in John 19:26.

Chrysostom asks: why did the Lord say, "Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?" And he states two things, of which one is sound and the other is not. For he says that the mother and brethren suffered something human, because, seeing Christ preaching and the crowd following him, they had a certain elation; therefore they wished to have, as it were, a certain glory; and so the Lord wished to show that what he was doing he did not have from that which he had assumed from his mother, but from the Father. This position is partly sound: for as regards the brethren it is sound, because it is thus found in John 7:5, "For neither did his brethren believe in him." But concerning the mother of the Lord it is not sound, because it is believed that she never sinned, neither mortally nor venially; for of her it is said in Song of Songs 4:7, "Thou art all fair, my love, and there is no spot in thee." And Augustine says: "When the question of sin is treated, I wish no mention at all to be made of her."

Jerome therefore resolves it otherwise, that the one who made the announcement had announced it insidiously: for he wished to test whether he attended so much to spiritual things that he took no care for temporal ones. Therefore he responds to the affection. Hence he would not have loved his mother more, unless she had possessed more spirituality. Hence he says, "Who is my mother?" He does not deny that she is his mother, but intends to forbid inordinate affection. Hence above in chapter 10:37: "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me."

Next is set down the commendation of the disciples. And first he commends the disciples; second, universally, all believers. He says therefore: "And stretching forth his hand towards his disciples he said: Behold my mother"; as if to say: I love these more than the affection of my mother or brethren, for the affection of the Holy Spirit is to be preferred. And he extends this not only to these, but to all. Hence it is said: "Whosoever shall do the will of my Father who is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother." For he had a heavenly generation and a temporal one; hence he prefers the heavenly to the temporal. For those who do the will of my Father pertain to him according to the heavenly generation; hence John 8:39: "If you be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham." For he himself came to do the will of the Father, as is found in John 4:34, 5:30, and 6:38. He says "brother" with respect to the stronger, and "sister" with respect to the weaker.

But what is it that he says, "and is my mother"? It must be said that whatever faithful person does the will of the Father, that is, who simply obeys, is a brother, because he is like unto him who fulfilled the will of the Father. But he who not only does it, but converts others, generates Christ in others, and thus becomes a mother; just as, on the contrary, he who provokes others to evil kills Christ in them. The Apostle says in Galatians 4:19: "My little children, of whom I am in labor again, until Christ be formed in you."