Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew

Above, the Lord showed under figures the power of his teaching; now he shows its sufficiency. This is shown in two ways: first, that it does not require the observances of the law; second, that it was given not only to the one nation of the Jews, but also to the Gentiles, at the place, "Jesus went out from there and withdrew into the parts of Tyre and Sidon." Concerning the first he does three things. First the circumstances of the accusation are touched upon; second, the accusation; third, the exposition. The second is at "why do the disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?" The third is at: "for they do not wash their hands when they eat bread."

Now their malice is aggravated on three counts. First, from the time, because at the very time when he was performing these signs and miracles, they themselves were producing signs of iniquity, and so were acting maliciously. Above, Matthew 11:25: "Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent," etc. Likewise the aggravation is rendered from the place, because although the Jews were spread throughout Judea, yet those who were in Jerusalem were the wise ones, and nevertheless were the worse. Isaiah 26:10: "In the land of the saints he hath done wicked things, and he shall not see the glory of the Lord." Likewise it is aggravated from the condition of the persons, because there came from among the great ones the scribes, who were the more learned, and the Pharisees, who were reputed the more holy. Jeremiah 5:5: "I will go to the great men, and I will speak to them; for they have known the way of the Lord."

Then is set down that in which they accused them: "Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?" There was a precept, as is found in Deuteronomy 4:2: "You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it." Hence, by adding traditions, they were acting against the law — not that it was not lawful to establish something, but that they commanded it to be observed just as the law of the Lord.

"For they do not wash their hands," etc. Here is explained what their traditions were. This, however, is explained more fully at Mark 7:2: for there it is said that when they had seen some of his disciples eating bread with common hands, that is, unwashed, they found fault. And this can be taken literally, that they did not wash their hands. Why? Because they were so intent upon the word of God that they did not even have time for it; hence, out of concern for spiritual things they did not wash themselves in the manner of the Jews, as is found in Mark 7:4, that all the Jews, unless they wash their hands frequently, do not eat; therefore the disciples did not wash according to their rite. Hence they understood in a carnal way what is said in Isaiah 1:16: "Wash yourselves, be clean." Hence they themselves understood it literally, washing what was exterior, and not what was interior.

"But he answering said to them." The Lord does two things: for he does not answer by excusing the disciples, but shows that they themselves are not worthy to reprove them. Above, 7:5: "Hypocrite, first cast the beam out of thy own eye." It is agreed that to transgress the commandment of God is more grave than the traditions of men; and therefore those who were transgressing the commandments of God were sinning in greater matters. Therefore he first shows them to be transgressors of the law; second, what commandment they transgress.

He says therefore: "Why do you transgress the commandment of God, and do not observe it, for the sake of your tradition?" Romans 10:3: "For they, not knowing the justice of God, and seeking to establish their own, are not subject to the justice of God." Isaiah 3:8: "Their tongue and their devices are against the Lord, to provoke the eyes of his majesty."

Then when he says, "For God said," etc., he sets forth what this commandment is, namely, that concerning the honoring of parents. And first he sets down the commandment; second, the penalty. Hence he says: "For God said: Honor thy father and thy mother." And it is to be noted that honor is nothing other than reverence shown in testimony of virtue. For he shows reverence who administers what is necessary; hence a man is bound not only to rise up, but also to minister necessities. Ecclesiasticus 2:21: "They that fear the Lord will keep his commandments." And that such honor is owed is clear, because Tobias lent to Gabelus, which the Lord had commanded him to do. Exodus 20:12 immediately adds the penalty: "that thou mayest be long-lived upon the earth." Likewise Leviticus 20:9. He adds the penalty for transgressors: "He that curseth his father, or his mother, dying let him die." And thus in blessing it is understood not only that one bless with the mouth, but also that one bestow the blessing in deed; Proverbs 20:20: "He that curseth his father or mother, his lamp shall be put out in the midst of darkness."

But since he set down an inducement on the side of the penalty, why did he not set down a reward for obedience? Because men are more terrified by penalty than they desire reward; for even a brute beast is terrified by penalty. From this indeed it follows that if those who disparage father and mother are worthy of death, then those who move others to disparage them are worthy of death; wherefore they are not worthy to make an accusation. Therefore you are not worthy to accuse them.

"But you say," etc. Here he touches on how they transgress. And first he shows this; second, he sets down the authority. And concerning the first, he first shows their rite, second what followed from it. He says: "You say, Whosoever shall say to his father or mother," etc. This is read in many ways. In one way, so that the construction is complete, and then thus: "whosoever," that is, anyone at all, "shall say," that is, will be able to say. In another way, so that it is incomplete, thus "whosoever shall say," etc. — supply: he keeps the commandment, and is immune from penalty. What is this saying? It is explained in three ways.

Rabanus said that a spiritual good is to be preferred to a temporal one; therefore they told those who had poor fathers to say to them: "Father, let it not displease you if I do not give you what is necessary, because the gift that I offer profits you spiritually." But this was not true, according to that saying: "The Most High approveth not the gifts of the wicked." And Proverbs 28:24: "He that taketh away anything from his father or from his mother, and saith this is no sin, is the partner of a murderer." Therefore if someone has a father or mother, and they could not live without him, and someone should tell him, "Go across the sea," or "enter religious life," he falls under this sentence.

There is another exposition. Jerome, however, reads it interrogatively, that is, "will it profit thee?" It is found in Leviticus 22:2, that a foreigner could not take what was consecrated to the Lord; therefore they were advising sons who had poor fathers that they should offer to God. And if the fathers wished to be supported from them, they would say to them: "If you should receive something from that which I owe to offer to God, will it profit you? No — rather it will be to your damnation."

Augustine explains it thus. The Jews said that while children were under the guardianship of their father, they were bound to them. Hence when the children are small, the fathers make offerings on behalf of the children, and it avails them; but when they are of free judgment, then another's devotion does not avail. Hence they said that anyone who could arrive at this state and say to his father, "The gift that is from me will profit you," was not bound to his father.

But from this teaching two improprieties follow: one against the neighbor, the other against the Lord. Against the neighbor, because he who would speak thus, and who is so instructed, does not honor his father. Hence Romans 1:30: "devisers of evil things, disobedient to parents." And it follows: "they who do such things are worthy of death." Likewise against God; hence he says, "and you have made void the commandment of God," as if to say: not only have you acted against your neighbor, but you have also made void the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition.

"Hypocrites." Properly speaking, those were called hypocrites who entered the theater, and had one person, and feigned another with masks. These, then, are hypocrites, who outwardly pretend something other than what they have inwardly; for inwardly they were aiming at gain, while outwardly they were moving men to make offerings to God. Job 36:13: "Dissemblers and crafty men provoke the wrath of God, neither shall they cry when they are bound."

"Well hath Isaiah prophesied of you." This is found in Isaiah 29:13. First he sets down their duplicity; second, the uselessness of their service, at "but in vain do they worship me." He says therefore: "This people honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me." And this is true literally, because they honored with their lips, but in heart were far from God; because they did not receive Christ, who was coming in the name of God. Or thus: "This people honoreth me with their lips," etc. — for in saying that a man ought to make an offering to God, they seem to be honoring God; "but their heart is far," because they were not tending toward the honor of God, but toward greed; hence, the greater the greed, the smaller the charity. This is found in Jeremiah 12:2: "Thou art near in their mouth, and far from their reins."

But does this pretense avail them? No, because it does not please the Lord; hence there follows, "but in vain do they worship me." But what is this saying? To fast is a teaching of men, and canons are traditions of men; do those who teach these things worship God in vain? It must be understood as worshipping in vain to the prejudice of the commandments of God. Job 32:21: "I will not compare man with God." Acts 5:29: "We ought to obey God rather than men." Why? Because God cannot be deceived. Isaiah 1:13: "Offer sacrifice no more in vain." From this we gather that a man ought to make more of a matter of conscience over the transgression of a commandment than over the transgression of an ecclesiastical ordinance.

"And having called the multitudes together unto him, he said to them," etc. Above, the Lord showed that the Pharisees, in slandering, were unworthy to reprove the disciples, because they were themselves entangled in greater sins; now, however, passing them over, he instructs others, so that what was said above at 11:25 might be fulfilled: "Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to little ones." And first he instructs the multitudes; second, the disciples, at "Then came the disciples," etc. And concerning the first he does two things. First he prepares them to listen; second, he gives his teaching. The second is at "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man."

It is to be noted that in order to hear another, attention is required, by which a man is recalled to his inward parts and gathered into himself. And this he does when he says, "and having called them together," because it is necessary that we be gathered to him; Psalm 33:6: "Come ye to him and be enlightened." Second, diligence in hearing is necessary, and so he says, "Hear"; Proverbs 1:5: "A wise man hearing shall be wiser." Likewise, understanding is required, hence he says, "and understand"; Psalm 93:8: "Understand, ye senseless among the people; and, you fools, be wise at last."

Consequently he sets forth the loftiest teaching, which is the perfection of the moral life. Hence it is to be noted that something is changed from without, as water is heated by fire; something from within, as a man is changed through sin. For however much a man is moved from without, there is no sin unless he consents inwardly; Job 37:9: "Out of the inner chamber cometh the storm." Hence he first shows that it is not from external things, second, that it is from within.

He says therefore: "Not that which entereth into the mouth defileth a man." Against this, that is objected which is found through the old law; for it is found in Leviticus 11 that many foods are forbidden, whereby men became unclean. Augustine answers, in the Against Faustus, saying that something is called unclean in two ways. In one way, according to its own nature: and thus nothing is unclean, according to 1 Timothy 4:4: "Every creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving." Likewise something can be unclean according to signification. And thus a thing can be a sign of uncleanness and of cleanness; as, if we take the pig and the lamb in their own nature, each is good; yet by its signification the pig signifies uncleanness, the lamb innocence; therefore, as regards signification, the one is clean, the other unclean.

And because before the coming of Christ there was a time in which they lived under figures, since the truth was not yet manifest, therefore those observances were to be kept, and fell under precept. But because at the coming of Christ the truth was being made manifest, the figure ceased; therefore, etc.

But again another question remains, because it is found in Acts 15:20, that the apostles commanded that converts should abstain from what is strangled and from blood. Therefore it seems that, the truth remaining, those observances ought still to be kept. The ancients said that this is to be understood literally, that one must still abstain from these things because they are unclean. But this is nothing, because it contradicts the authority of the Apostle, to Titus 1:15: "To the clean all things are clean." Some said that this is to be understood partly literally, partly morally: for what is said concerning fornication, that they forbade literally; but what concerns blood, this is to be understood that innocent blood should not be shed; while what is said concerning what is strangled was to be understood in this way, that no one should bring a false accusation against another. But it ought not to be understood in this way, although the exposition is true. For the question turned on whether Gentile converts were bound to those things which the apostles forbade. Therefore it must be understood according to what was customary for the Jews.

Therefore it must be said otherwise, that the apostles were considering something and forbidding it, either because it was unlawful in itself, or because it was an occasion of scandal; hence they forbade fornication as being unlawful in itself; but blood, so that they might not give scandal to others, namely so that scandal might be removed. And this is what the words of the Apostle express, 1 Corinthians 8:9: "But take heed lest perhaps this your liberty become a stumbling-block to the weak."

Likewise, if it is objected: suppose that someone in Lent eats meat, is he not thereby defiled? It must be said that he is defiled not from the food, but from the violation of the precept; Romans 14:17: "The kingdom of God is not meat and drink."

"But what proceedeth out of the mouth, this defileth a man." Here he seems to touch on only those sins which proceed from the mouth, and these defile; Luke 19:22: "Out of thy own mouth I judge thee, thou wicked servant." And above, 7:2: "Out of thy own mouth thou shalt be judged." But it must be said that the proper office of the mouth is to speak. Now speaking is twofold: outwardly, with the bodily mouth, and inwardly, with the mouth of the mind, concerning which Psalm 13:1: "The fool said in his heart: There is no God." Thus, then, by "mouth" can be understood the mouth of the heart, namely the mind of man, and thus every sin is from the mouth; because there is never sin except from the purpose of the mind. Thus, then, what proceeds from the mouth, namely of the heart, this defiles, because sin is so much a voluntary thing that if it is not voluntary, it is not sin.

"Then came his disciples," etc. Here he instructs concerning scandal to be avoided, and concerning the principal question, at "But Peter answering." Concerning the first, two things. First is set down the question of the disciples; second, Christ's response. Here it is to be understood that the Pharisees and the disciples heard this word, in which they understood that he was overturning all their traditions, but not the Lord's own precepts; therefore, abominating it, they said nothing, but were troubled; hence the disciples said, "Knowest thou that the Pharisees, when they had heard this word, were scandalized?"

This word "scandal" is frequently found in the Scriptures; hence it is to be seen what it signifies. "Scandal" in Greek is the same as a stumbling-block, like a stone in the road; hence a thing is called a stumbling-block where there is an occasion of downfall. But sometimes one scandalizes actively, sometimes passively. It is called active scandal when there is some deed which is not only evil in itself, but also a stumbling-block to others; therefore scandal is called a saying or a deed, less than right, offering an occasion of downfall. And he does not say "thought," because it must be something manifest. Likewise he does not say "evil," but "less than right," because it must have the appearance of evil; 1 Thessalonians 5:22: "From all appearance of evil abstain yourselves." Likewise there is passive scandal, as if someone should speak a good word, or pray, and another is scandalized, and takes for himself an occasion of downfall; hence the Lord did not give scandal, but they themselves took the occasion. Hence his disciples said that the Pharisees had taken scandal from this, and this had been foretold through Isaiah 8:14: "And he shall be a sanctification unto you, but a stone of stumbling, and a rock of scandal."

"But he answering said." Here is set down the Lord's response, and he shows that their scandal is to be despised, first because they are estranged from God; second, because they are harmful to men, at "Let them alone: they are blind, and leaders of the blind." He says therefore: "But he answering said: Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up." From these words those who posited two natures wished to confirm their error, because they said the evil nature is from an evil God, the good from a good one; hence they say: if someone is of the evil creation, even though he may seem to do good things, he cannot persevere. But it is not so: for, as Jerome says, the contrary is found in Jeremiah 2:21: "I planted thee a chosen vineyard, all true seed; how then art thou turned into bitterness?" This, then, makes it clear, that this is not from God. Thus, then, it is not nature that is turned by this planting; but something supervening is to be understood, and this is the perverse will; hence nature always remains, but the perverse will is rooted up.

Hence this planting can be understood of the tradition of men, which is to be rooted up if it is against God; but the tradition which is from God is never to be rooted up. Hence "every planting," that is, tradition which is not from God my Father, "shall be rooted up." And this is found in Acts 5:39, concerning Gamaliel, who said: "If this be of God, you will not be able to overthrow it." This is also evident in all things. You will see someone who does good works founded in charity, Ephesians 3:17: "Rooted and founded in charity"; and these cannot be rooted up. But other things which do not have a good foundation, such as giving alms for vanity's sake, are rooted up; hence Ecclesiasticus 14:20: "every corruptible work shall fail in the end, and he that made it shall fall with it." Hence in this sense is to be understood Wisdom 4:3: "the plants of adultery shall not give deep roots." Against this it is found at 1 Corinthians 3:6, where Paul says: "I planted, Apollo watered." Therefore Paul shall be rooted up. I say that Paul did not plant as the principal cause, but as a minister.

There follows: "Let them alone: they are blind." Here he shows that their scandal is to be despised, because they are harmful to men. And first he teaches that it is to be despised; second, their presumption; third, the harm. Concerning the first: you say that they are scandalized in this way — "let them alone," and take no care. But should one not care about scandal? Did not the Lord, in order to avoid scandal, send Peter to the sea, to pay the tribute? It must be said that scandal sometimes arises from the truth; hence that scandal is to be avoided which can be avoided without prejudice to truth, or life, or doctrine, or justice. Hence a judge ought not to give up judgment, if someone is thereby scandalized. But nevertheless a distinction must be made, because some are scandalized out of weakness, some out of settled malice. The scandal of little ones is to be avoided, the truth being preserved; and yet a man may defer, or relax something. But if it is out of malice, no: and such is the case with these men being scandalized. Hence, if they were not being scandalized out of malice, the Lord would not have said "let them alone," but rather, "instruct them." To Titus 3:10: "A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid." Jeremiah 51:9: "We would have cured Babylon, but she is not healed."

And why are they blind? Spiritually, the ignorant are blind; Isaiah 56:10: "His watchmen are all blind." And because it is out of settled malice, they are not only blind, but also leaders of the blind, and teachers; Job 19:4: "If I have been ignorant, my ignorance shall be with me." That they are leaders of the blind — this is good; but that they are blind — this is bad. "If the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit." Job 40:8: "Hide them in the dust," namely, as regards the body.

"But Peter answering." Here he instructs them concerning the principal question; where he does three things: for first is set down Peter's request; second, the rebuke; third, the teaching. The second is at, "But he said: Are you also yet without understanding?" The third is at, "Do you not understand," etc. He says therefore: "But Peter answering said to him: Expound to us this parable." Peter was accustomed to hear many parables from him; therefore he believed that he was speaking in parables; or because Peter had been raised in the legal observances, as he said in the Acts of the Apostles, chapter 10:14: "Far be it from me, Lord, for nothing common or unclean hath ever entered into my mouth"; therefore he believed that he was not speaking literally, but in parable. Proverbs 1:6: "He shall understand a parable and the interpretation, the words of the wise, and their mysterious sayings."

"But he said: Are you also yet without understanding?" For the Lord answered all in Peter, who was speaking on behalf of all. Here he rebukes them. But why? One reason is that given by Jerome, that they think what was said openly was said in parable. For just as one who makes manifest what is hidden is to be reproved, so, conversely, one who hides what is manifest; Psalm 31:9: "Do not become like the horse and the mule, who have no understanding," etc. The other reason is Chrysostom's, that he seemed to be zealous on behalf of the Jews, because he had been raised in the teaching of the law; therefore he seemed to be saddened by it.

Consequently he expounds. And first he expounds what he had said, namely, "that which entereth into the mouth"; second, according to what he had said, namely, "but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man"; third, he concludes his intention. He says therefore: "Do you not understand, that whatsoever entereth into the mouth, goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the privy?" And why does the Lord speak thus? Chrysostom says that he is speaking to them as men accustomed to the observances of the law. Now the intention of the law was that while food was undigested in the mouth, it was unclean; but once digested, it was clean. Hence it is always said in the law, "he shall be unclean until the evening." Therefore let us suppose that these observances ought to be kept — nevertheless, they do not render a man unclean except for a time. Hence what passes away cannot make them unclean. Or otherwise: nothing can make the soul unclean which does not touch it. Now food does not touch the soul; and this is the sign, because it goes into the belly, and is cast out into the privy.

But, as Jerome says, some object against this, saying that the Lord was ignorant of natural science, because not all of it is passed out into the privy. Hence certain persons, wishing to understand it in this way, that all of it is expelled, hold that nothing is converted into human nature, but only that which was drawn from Adam is multiplied, and this alone will rise again. Hence, according to them, what comes from foods will not rise again. Hence also craftsmen put lead together with gold, so that the lead may be consumed and the gold preserved. In like manner foods offer resistance, lest the natural heat consume that which belongs to the power of nature. But this seems impossible, because nothing can become greater except through rarefaction, since to be rarefied is nothing other than to take on a greater quantity. Likewise man has in common with animals the sensitive and nutritive powers, and with plants the vegetative. But it is the case that these things are increased and nourished from nourishment. Therefore men too are increased and nourished in the same way.

What, then, is meant by saying that it "is cast out into the privy"? Jerome says that not only the unclean superfluity is meant, but whatever way it happens, whether through excrement, or in some other way. And this also according to the Philosopher, because although it remains according to species, yet according to matter it flows away, as when fire remains in species, but the matter is consumed. It can also be said in this way: "everything that entereth into the mouth, goeth into the belly" — something of it; hence sometimes in Scripture the whole is taken for the part.

"But the things which proceed out of the mouth" — it has already been said that by "mouth" is understood the mind. "They come out from the heart, and defile a man"; because the sins of the heart are thoughts and affections; Isaiah 1:16: "Take away the evil of your thoughts from before my eyes." Likewise he sets down sins that are against the precepts of the second tablet: "murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts." Likewise sins of the mouth against the neighbor: "false testimonies"; "blasphemies," against the precepts of the first tablet. Hence these are the things which defile a man, because these proceed from the mind.

"But to eat with unwashed hands doth not defile a man." Here he concludes, and sets down this conclusion so as to answer the principal intention. Likewise, because the disciples were not understanding, he therefore concludes that it was said only against tradition.

Above, the sufficiency of his teaching was shown, because it does not require observance of the law; here he shows that it is not restricted to one people, but suffices also for the salvation of the Gentiles. A threefold effect is shown in the Gentiles: first, liberation from the power of the Devil; second, from the infirmities of sins; third, in spiritual refreshment. The second is at "And when Jesus had departed from there, he came near the sea of Galilee"; the third at "But Jesus, having called his disciples together, said." The liberation from the power of demons is shown, then, in that he freed a woman possessed by the Devil. First the place is described; second, the woman's insistence; third, the granting of her request. The second is at "And behold, a woman of Canaan," etc. The third at "Then Jesus answering said to her," etc.

He says, then, "And going out, he went into the parts of Tyre and Sidon." Tyre and Sidon are two cities of the Gentiles. Because he was being rejected by the Jews, he therefore withdrew to the Gentiles, according to that saying, Acts 13:46: "It was necessary that the kingdom of God should first be spoken to you; but since you reject it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles." And first the Lord shows the conversion of the observers of the law to stand preeminent; second, the passing over to the Gentiles, which was signified in Acts 10:15, where it is said that when Peter was at Cornelius's house, he saw a linen sheet, etc., and it was said to him: "What God has cleansed, do not call unclean," etc.

"And behold, a woman." Here the woman's insistence is set down. Concerning her petition three things are signified: first, piety; second, faith; third, humility — and these are necessary for obtaining what is asked. The second is at "But she came and worshipped him"; the third at "But she said, Yes, Lord." First her plea is set down; second, the help of the disciples, at "And his disciples came and besought him." Concerning the first, first the woman's piety is set down; second, Christ's silence, at "who answered her not a word."

He says, then, "And behold, a woman of Canaan." We can note six things. First, the conversion of the petitioner; Ecclesiasticus 18:23: "Before prayer prepare your soul, and be not as a man that tempts God." For one prepares the soul when one cleanses oneself from vices; Isaiah 1:15: "When you multiply prayers, I will not hear you; for your hands are full of blood." And this is designated by the name "Canaanite," which is the same as "changed"; Psalm 76:11: "This is the change of the right hand of the Most High." Likewise, one who is converted ought not only to avoid sin, but also the occasion of sin; Ecclesiasticus 21:2: "Flee from sin as from the face of a serpent."

Second, devotion is to be noted, because she cried out. Crying out designates great affection; Psalm 119:1: "To the Lord, when I was in trouble, I cried." Third, piety is noted, because she reckoned another's misery as her own, whence she says "Have mercy on me," and this is great mercy; Job 30:25: "I wept over him that was afflicted, and my soul had compassion on the poor." Likewise humility is touched upon, because she asked out of confidence in the mercy of God; Daniel 9:4: "Keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love thee, and to them that keep thy commandments." Fourth, faith is touched upon, which is necessary for petition; James 1:6: "But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering." Likewise she confesses the divine nature in him, in that she says "Lord"; Psalm 99:3: "Know ye that the Lord he is God." Likewise the human nature, "Son of David," who was of the seed of David; Romans 1:3: "Who was made to him of the seed of David according to the flesh." Likewise the setting forth of her own need: "My daughter is badly" — that is, grievously — "vexed by a demon." And this can be a type of the whole Church of the Gentiles, or of anyone's conscience, which is vexed by a demon when one acts against conscience; Luke 6:18: "And they that were troubled with unclean spirits were healed." And he says "badly," by which he aggravates the sin; 2 Chronicles, last chapter: "I have sinned, Lord, I have sinned, and I acknowledge my iniquity; destroy me not together with my iniquities."

Next is set down Christ's silence, "who answered her not a word." But this seems remarkable, that the fount of pity kept silent. And a threefold reason is assigned. The first, lest he should seem to go against what he had said above: "Go not into the way of the Gentiles." Therefore he was unwilling to hear her at once; nevertheless, because she persisted greatly, she received what she asked. Thus it is given to be understood that through the insistence of her petition, what is above the law is obtained: for it belonged to the law that only the Jews should be saved; but she, through her insistence, obtained what was above the law. The second reason is, that devotion might increase the more. Habakkuk 1:2: "How long shall I cry, and thou wilt not hear? Shall I cry out to thee suffering violence, and thou wilt not save? Why hast thou shown me iniquity and grievance, to see plunder and injustice before me?" The third reason, that he might give the disciples occasion to intercede for her themselves: because however good someone may be, he nevertheless needs the prayers of others.

Immediately follows the intercession of the disciples. And first their petition is set down; second, Christ's response. He says, then, "And his disciples coming near besought him." And why did they approach? One reason is that they did not know why he was delaying so much; a second, they were moved by mercy; likewise, they could not bear the woman's importunity; Luke 11:8: "If he shall continue knocking, I say to you, although he will not rise and give to him because he is his friend, yet because of his importunity he will rise and give him as many as he needs." The disciples do not say "heal her," but "send her away" — that is, "tell her: I will do nothing for you." And this is a manner of speaking: for when we intend one thing, the contrary is said. But an objection is raised, because it is said in Mark 7:25 that she entered the house, and there made her petition. What, then, is meant by what is said here, "because she cries after us"? Augustine says that without doubt she was first in the house, and there said "Have mercy on me," and then Jesus withdrew, and she followed him.

Then follows Christ's response, "But he answering," etc. The woman seemed to have shown piety enough, but this seemed natural, and so the Lord required a profession of faith. Therefore he put her off, and said, "I was not sent but to the sheep that perished of the house of Israel." This mission belonged peculiarly to the Hebrews, whence they used to say: "But we are his people and the sheep of his pasture." And those sheep had perished, because they had been led away through various observances; whence above, 9:26: "seeing the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were troubled and lying like sheep having no shepherd"; Psalm 118:176: "I have gone astray like a sheep that is lost."

But what is meant by his saying, "I was not sent but to the sheep that perished of the house of Israel"? Is it not written in Isaiah 49:6: "I have given thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation even to the end of the earth"? Therefore he was sent not only to the Jews, but also to the Gentiles. It must be said that he was sent to all, that he might gather all into one; but he was sent first to the Jews, that he might carry the Jews over to the Gentiles; Romans 15:8: "Now I say that Christ Jesus was minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers."

"But she came, and worshipped him" — whence she pressed herself forward. And first her profession is set down; second, the response. Her profession is set down, because she acknowledged God, in that she worshipped him. For although she had suffered the disciples' rebuffs, nevertheless she pressed herself forward, and worshipped. In this she acknowledges God; Deuteronomy 8:19: "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve"; Psalm 65:4: "Let all the earth adore thee, O God," etc. "Help me." She does not say, "pray for me," but, "you help me, because you are able"; Psalm 120:2: "My help is from the Lord who made heaven and earth," etc.

"He answering said: It is not good to take the bread of the children, and cast it to the dogs." This is added to test her humility, since her faith was already sufficiently established, showing the excellence of the Jews over the Gentiles: for humility is then proved when one suffers one's own people to be reproached; whence he says, "It is not good," etc. The Jews were called children, whence: "I have nourished and brought up children, but they have despised me" — because they had been instructed in the commandments of God, John 10:34. Bread is doctrine; Ecclesiasticus 15:3: "She fed him with the bread of life and understanding." This bread can be called the Lord's miracles, or the teachings of the law. This bread, then, is owed to the faithful, namely the Jews. It is not good, then, to take the bread of the children — that is, of the Jews, who have long been children — and cast it to the dogs, namely the Gentiles: because just as the dog is an unclean animal, so are the Gentiles. Whence above, 7:6: "Do not give what is holy to dogs." Whence they had not yet been utterly repudiated; but, as Jerome says, it is fitting that the Jews be called dogs, according to that saying, Psalm 21:17: "Many dogs have surrounded me." And Ephesians 4:28: "But we are children."

"But she said: Yes, Lord." Here the wondrous humility of the woman is touched upon, and her wisdom. He seemed to inflict an insult upon her people, but it is a mark of humility that she concedes the insult spoken. Whence she says, "Yes, Lord." Likewise a greater humility is shown, because the Lord himself had said "dogs," but she said "little dogs"; whence she says, "for even the little dogs eat of the crumbs." Likewise the Lord had called the Jews "children," but she called them "masters"; whence she says, "that fall from the table of their masters." And thus she humbly knew how to press the Lord; as if to say: I do not ask, Lord, that you confer upon us as many benefits as upon the Jews, but that you give us of the crumbs; Ecclesiasticus 35:21: "The prayer of him that humbles himself penetrates the heavens." And Psalm 101:18: "He has had regard to the prayer of the humble."

Therefore the Lord granted her request: "Then Jesus answering said to her," etc. And he does three things: first, her commendation is set down; second, the granting of her petition; third, the effect. When she humbles herself, he says, "Great is your faith." Great, because she believes great things. Likewise, on account of rectitude; James 1:6: "But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering." Likewise great on account of fervor. Whence, "If you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain: Move from here to there, and it shall move." Therefore follows the granting: "Be it done to you as you wish"; Psalm 144:19: "He will do the will of them that fear him." The effect follows: "And her daughter was healed from that hour." Whence, in the beginning, Genesis 1:3, he said, "Let there be light, and there was light"; so too here, "Be it done to you" — for that word was the eternal Word; Ecclesiastes 8:4: "His word is full of power."

Above, the evangelical teaching having been confirmed through the liberation of the Gentiles from the power of demons by the power of Christ, now he confirms it through liberation from spiritual infirmities, in that he healed many. And he does three things: first the place is set forth; second, the offering; third, the liberation. The second at "and great multitudes came to him," etc.; the third at "and he healed them."

First the place is described in general, for "when he had passed," namely from the region of the Gentiles, "he came near the sea," which was in Judea, which is sometimes called Gennesaret, sometimes the Sea of Galilee. By the fact that he returns to the Jews it is signified that the remnant of Israel will be saved; Romans 11:5: "So then, at this present time also, there is a remnant saved according to the election of the grace of God." Then the place is described in particular, saying, "and going up into a mountain, he sat there." By the mountain is signified the height of the Word; Psalm 35:7: "Thy justice is as the mountains of God." But Jesus was not standing but sitting, because unless he had come down we would not have known him, according to that word of Psalm 143:5: "Lord, bow down thy heavens and descend." Likewise by the mountain is signified the height of glory, as is found in Genesis 19:17: "Save thyself in the mountain," etc., to signify that there true rest is, not here; Hebrews 13:14: "For we have not here a lasting city, but we seek one that is to come," that is, we await the one to come.

There follows the offering: "and there came to him great multitudes," etc. And first it is set forth as to the multitude of the crowds; second, as to the offering of the sick; third, as to the manner. As to the first: "then there came to him great multitudes"; Psalm 85:9: "All the nations thou hast made shall come and adore before thee, O Lord." And they did not come empty, for they had with them the dumb, the blind, the lame, etc. And in this it is signified that those who are converted to the Lord ought to offer others to the Lord; and this is what it says: "having with them the dumb, the blind, the lame, and the feeble." "Feeble" in Latin signifies a defect of power, but in Greek it is said of one who has a weak hand: for just as one is called lame who is injured in the feet, so one is called feeble who has a withered hand. By these are signified diverse kinds of spiritual diseases. By the dumb are signified those who cannot praise God, of whom Isaiah 56:10 speaks: "dumb dogs not able to bark." The lame are said to be those who never walk firmly toward the good, but quickly turn to evil; 3 Kings 18:21: "How long do you halt between two sides? If the Lord be God, follow him." By the blind are signified unbelievers, who are deprived of the light of faith; Isaiah 59:9: "we have groped for the darkness." By the feeble, who have a withered hand, are signified those who have a feeble heart; Psalm 21:16: "my strength is dried up like a potsherd."

"And many others." In this they showed great faith, for they brought not only their own but others. Likewise they show their devotion by the manner: for sometimes they asked that he lay on his hand, as above in chapter 9; sometimes, however, that they might touch the hem, as above in the same, namely chapters 9 and 14. But now it sufficed to lay them at his feet. And by this it is given to us to understand mystically that the sinners whom we convert we ought not to subject to ourselves, according to what is found in 1 Corinthians 4:1: "Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God."

There follows the account of the healing. And first the healing is set forth; second, the wonder; third, the effect. He says therefore, "and he healed them"; Psalm 106:20: "He sent his word, and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions." And elsewhere, Psalm 102:3: "who forgiveth all thy iniquities, who healeth all thy diseases." And there follows the wonder: "so that the multitudes marveled, seeing the dumb," etc. Here the effect is set forth. This had been foretold: Isaiah 35:5: "Then shall the eyes of the blind be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be opened," etc.; and in Psalm 138:3: "wonderful are thy works." But it is asked: why does he make no mention of the feeble? Because there was no opposite act to which it could correspond. But observe that some, having seen the miracles, blasphemed, as is found above in chapter 14, but these praised together; hence they glorified the God of Israel.

"And Jesus, having called together his disciples," etc. Here the teaching of Christ is shown to be praiseworthy through the refreshment of the good. And first the motive is set forth; second, the material; third, the distribution; fourth, the refreshment. The second at "and the disciples say to him," etc.; the third at "and he commanded the multitude to sit down"; the fourth at "and they all ate, and were filled."

It should be noted that this motive is set forth after what precedes, because the sick cannot be fed, for "their soul abhorred all manner of meat," Psalm 106:18. Therefore it is necessary that before they are fed they be healed: so too in spiritual matters. Augustine: "to a sick palate bread is a punishment, which to a healthy one is pleasant," etc. And therefore the Lord feeds after the healing. And it should be noted that first he calls together the disciples in order to make them attentive, so that they might be mindful of the miracle. Likewise, that he might give us an example that however great a man may be, he ought to conduct himself toward lesser ones; Ecclesiasticus 3:20: "The greater thou art, humble thyself in all things." Hence, having called together his disciples, he said: "I have compassion on the multitude," etc. This was the motive, whereby he showed the humanity fitting to the divinity. Mercy is a passion, for one is merciful who has a wretched heart, who reckons another's misery as his own. But mercy belongs most of all to God; Psalm 102:8: "the Lord is compassionate and merciful, longsuffering and plenteous in mercy." And that which he reckons as his own, he ought to drive away as his own. Hence the Lord, insofar as he drives away misery, is called merciful.

But a threefold motive of showing mercy is set forth. First he sets forth their perseverance; second, their want; third, the imminent danger. First perseverance is set forth, when it is said, "for they have now been with me three days." From which you can know that those who persevere with Christ are refreshed with his bread: for "he that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved." By the three days you can understand the confession of the Holy Trinity; hence below, in the last chapter, 19: "Going therefore into the whole world, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Or the threefold act, namely of heart, mouth, and deed. Likewise the threefold time of the world, namely the time of the law of nature, of the Mosaic law, and of the law of grace and of glory at the end. Psalm 16:15: "I shall be satisfied when thy glory shall appear." Or by the three days, the three days of the death of Christ. Hence those sustain the Lord for three days who have conformed themselves to the death of Christ; Hosea 6:3: "he will give us life after three days, and on the third day he will raise us up." Hence through the death of Christ we await justification. Galatians, last chapter, 17: "always bearing about in our body the mortification of Jesus."

The second thing touched on is their want; hence he says, "they have nothing to eat." But why did he wait for three days? Lest it could be alleged against him that they had been refreshed by food which they had brought with them. According to the mystical sense, he has mercy on those who know their own misery; Apocalypse 3:17: "he knoweth not that he is wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked," etc. The third is the danger: "and I will not send them away fasting, lest they faint in the way." For those faint in the way who are not refreshed by the word of God; Deuteronomy 8:3: "not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God"; Ecclesiasticus 15:3: "she fed him with the bread of life and understanding."

"And the disciples say to him," etc. Here the material is set forth. And first, how he gave; second, how much material was at hand. Hence it says, and they say: "Whence then should we have so many loaves in the desert?" Here the slowness and forgetfulness of the disciples is reproved, because above the Lord had satisfied five thousand from five loaves. Hence they are reproved for slowness and forgetfulness. According to the mystical sense, in this the grace of God and his mercy are signified, who reveals his mysteries to the unworthy, and ministers his sacraments through them; Jeremiah 1:6: "I know not how to speak, Lord, for I am a child." To whom the Lord said: "Say not, I am a child"; Exodus 4:10: "I am of a slower and more impeded tongue," etc. Isaiah 3:7: "for I am a beggar, and there is no bread in my house; make me not ruler of the people."

Then it is set forth how much material was at hand; hence Jesus said to them: "How many loaves have you?" And he did not ask as one ignorant, but so that the miracle might be shown. Hence he also caused the few small fishes to be mentioned, above, in the other miracle. And it is said that they had five loaves and two fishes, in which the teaching of the law was signified; and those loaves were of barley; here there are seven, and they are not said to be of barley, in which is signified the new law, informed by the sevenfold grace of God. Likewise in that former case there were only two fishes, but in this one many small fishes. "God hath chosen you the poor in this world, rich in faith." And in Psalm 8:9: "the birds of the air, and the fishes of the sea, that pass through the paths of the sea," that is, of this world.

"And he commanded the multitude to sit down upon the ground." Here the disposition is set forth. And first he disposes; second, he takes the material; third, he gives thanks, and breaks, and distributes. He says therefore, "and he commanded." In the other refreshment it is recorded that he made them recline upon the grass. By the grass temporal things are signified; hence Isaiah 40:6: "all flesh is grass, and all the glory thereof as the flower of the field." Hence in the Old Law the foundation was upon temporal things, in the New only upon the stability of glory; Ecclesiastes 1:4: "but the earth standeth for ever." Or by the grass it is signified that we ought to sit above temporal things. Hence possession is not forbidden, but love, or affection for them; 1 John 2:15: "love not the things that are in the world."

"And taking the seven loaves": in which it is signified that whatever has been administered to others of spiritual things was first in Christ; hence Acts 1:1: "Jesus began to do and to teach." All spiritual things were in him. Hence John 3:34: "God doth not give the Spirit by measure." "And giving thanks, he broke, and gave to his disciples": hence he gave us an example that we should give thanks; 1 Thessalonians 5:18: "in all things give thanks." Then, because not all things are given to all, as is found in 1 Corinthians, last chapter. Likewise 1 Corinthians 12:4: "there are diversities of graces." Consequently there follows the ordered distribution, for "he gave to the disciples, and the disciples gave to the people." First to the disciples, who were the mediators; Deuteronomy 5:5: "I was the mediator and stood between the Lord and you at that time, to shew you his words," etc. And 1 Corinthians 4:5: "let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God."

Consequently he sets forth, as to the fullness of the refreshment, from the abundance of the fragments and from the number of those who ate. "And they all ate." Someone might say that from a little bread many could receive, so that each got only a little; but it was not so — rather "they were filled"; hence they ate even to satiety; Psalm 77:29: "they ate, and were all filled." Likewise there were many fragments left over, for "they took up seven baskets." But why, when there were fewer loaves, did more fragments remain, since indeed he had satisfied five thousand from five loaves? It can be said that seven baskets are the same as, or more than, twelve baskets. Chrysostom says that he worked different miracles, and in a different manner, so that the disciples might be more mindful. In the first miracle there were as many fragments left as there were apostles. But here according to the number of the loaves, in which it is signified that spiritual men ought to be refreshed by the sevenfold grace of God; 1 Corinthians 2:14: "for the sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the Spirit of God."

There follows the number of those who ate: "and they that did eat were four thousand men." Above there were five thousand, because they were given over to the five senses; or on account of the five books of Moses; but here four, on account of the four cardinal virtues, or on account of the four Evangelists. "Besides children and women." But why are these excepted? Because the imperfect and the weak are excluded from true doctrine; Ephesians 4:13: "until we all meet... unto a perfect man," etc.