Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew

Above, the Lord showed the sufficiency of the evangelical teaching, both because it has no need of the legal observances, and likewise because it is necessary not for one people only; here he shows its purity and excellence. First he shows that it is to be kept pure from every tradition; second, that by the loftiness of faith it soars above all human opinions, at the place "Jesus came into the parts of Caesarea Philippi." Concerning the first, first the slanderous testing is described; second he refutes it; third he teaches what is to be avoided. The second is at "But he answering said to them," etc.; the third at "And when his disciples had come across the strait," and so on. Concerning the first, first he recalls the place; second the tempting question is set down.

It should be noted that just as above, when he had fed the crowds from the five loaves, he dismissed them, so too here. In this, first an example is given to preachers, that they should not thrust themselves forward, but should withdraw; Job 39:5, concerning the wild ass: "Who has sent forth the wild ass free, and who has loosed his bonds?" and so on. He went up into the little boat, lest the crowd should follow him. Hence an impediment is set down as to why the crowd could not follow him. He went up into the boat, that is, into the mind which is tossed by the waves of this world — Wisdom 14:3: "For you have given a way in the sea, and a most sure path among the waves" — showing that he ought to enter there, so that he might rest there. "And he came into the parts of Magedan." Magedan is interpreted "apples," and by this place Sacred Scripture is signified, where apples grow together with other fruits; Song of Songs 6:10: "I went down to see the apples of the valleys."

There follows the tempting question: "And the Pharisees and Sadducees came to him tempting him, and they asked him." Ecclesiasticus 19:23: "There is one that wickedly humbles himself, and his interior is full of deceit." "That he would show them a sign from heaven." And they asked for a sign from heaven. It is found in John 6:49: "Your fathers ate manna in the desert," whence he gave them bread from heaven. And 1 Corinthians 1:22: "The Jews seek signs." And in Psalm 73:9: "We have not seen our signs," and so on.

Then he rebukes them, and first for their sluggishness in believing divine things. For if someone has a deficiency from the nature of the senses, he has an excuse; but when one has wisdom in earthly things and sluggishness in spiritual things, he is to be rebuked; Wisdom 13:1: "All men are vain in whom there is not the knowledge of God." And first he shows their skill in earthly matters; second, their sluggishness in spiritual ones. He says therefore: "But he answering said: When evening is come," and so on.

This has a literal sense and a mystical one. The literal, because from some disposition they were able to know the sign of fair weather. "You say: It will be fair weather, for the sky is red." Likewise of storm, because you say: "Today there will be a storm, for the sky is red and gloomy," because it designates sadness. For when the air is turbid, men are not so joyful. For a ruddiness in the evening is a sign of fair weather. The reason is, according to the Philosopher, from the diffusion of the sun's rays over the vapors. For when the vapors are many, then the rays cannot penetrate, and then a black color arises in the air; but when they are subtle, the rays penetrate. But when what is fiery predominates, then a red color appears, as appears in flame, because the more it is raised up, the more redness appears in it. Therefore it is signified that the vapors are not many, and fair weather is signified. But when in the morning it sometimes dissolves into dew, or into rain, it is a sign of storm.

According to the mystical sense, by "evening" the Passion of Christ is signified. In the evening the sun sets; so Christ suffered in the evening of the world; Malachi 3:2: "Who shall be able to think of the day of his coming, and who shall stand to see him? For he is like a refining fire." Psalm 29:6: "In the evening weeping shall have place, and in the morning gladness." Hence it appeared reddening in the evening, and signified tranquility; Tobit 3:22: "After a storm you make a calm, and after tears and weeping you pour in exultation." In the resurrection, which is signified by "morning," redness appeared in the martyrs, and it signifies storm for sinners. Or by "morning" is signified the morning of the day of judgment, which redness will precede; Psalm 96:3: "A fire shall go before him." Hence you are instructed in these earthly things. Do you know how to discern the face of the sky, but you cannot know the signs of the times?

There are two times: one corresponds to the first coming, the other to the second coming. Certain signs preceded the first coming; Isaiah 45:8: "Drop down dew, you heavens, from above, and let the clouds rain the just: let the earth be opened, and bud forth a savior," and so on. And chapter 45:15: "Truly you are a hidden God." But at the end God will come manifestly, and no signs from heaven will appear. But it is not the time. Or otherwise: "You know how to discern the face of the sky," etc., as if he were saying, you seek a sign of the coming. It is superfluous to ask for a sign, where there are many signs. Above, 11:5: "The blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed," and so on. This sign had been given, Isaiah 35:4: "The Lord himself will come, and will save us; then the eyes of the blind shall be opened," and so on. Some argue from this authority that we ought to strive to know the second coming. But Augustine expounds it of the first coming. The first is most certain, because it is for salvation, and salvation is through faith, and faith through knowledge; therefore it is necessary that it be recognized. But the second is for rewarding; therefore it is hidden, so that men may be more solicitous.

Then he denies the sign asked for; hence it is said: "An evil and adulterous generation seeks a sign." It is called an evil generation because it withdraws from God: for evil consists in withdrawal from God. "He forsook God his maker, and departed from God his savior," as is found in Deuteronomy 32:15. But "adulterous," because it joined itself to another; Psalm 26: "if I should forsake you in my life"; Isaiah 55:7: "let the wicked forsake his way, and the unjust man his thoughts." It seeks a sign, and ought not to have one, because no sign will be given to it, except the sign of Jonah, because just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights, so it shall be, etc.; as was treated above in chapter 12.

But why does he set forth the sign of the resurrection rather than some other sign? It must be said that through the resurrection salvation came to us; Romans 10:9: "If you believe in your heart that Christ rose again, you shall be saved," because by rising again he restored life, since through the resurrection of Christ we shall rise again. Therefore this sign was given to the faithful, and all the other signs are referred back to this one, namely that he raised Lazarus, and so on. Hence no other sign was given to these men. But to his disciples he gave a sign from heaven, when he showed them his glory, as is found below in chapter 17. Thus, then, he shows their sluggishness.

There follows the part in which he refutes them by the deed of departing from them. "And leaving them, he went away"; for he does not dwell with the malicious; Wisdom 1:3: "wisdom separates itself from the perverse." After he had refuted them, he teaches that they are to be avoided. And first the occasion is set forth; second, the teaching; third, the disciples' faulty understanding; fourth, the rebuke; fifth, the effect.

He says: "And when his disciples had come across the strait," and so on. In this we ought to admire the minds of the disciples, because men are not accustomed to forget except those things about which they care little: hence, since they had forgotten the loaves, they cared little for them, but only for spiritual things. Because he said: "Take heed, and beware," and so on. Here the teaching is set down.

By "leaven" he means corrupt doctrine; hence he does not mean the doctrine of the law, but the traditions of the Pharisees, which are called leaven, because just as from a little leaven the whole is corrupted, so from a little error the whole of life is corrupted, just as with a road from which a man departs a little, he afterward is carried far away: whence the Philosopher says in the first book of On the Heavens that a small error in the beginning becomes great in the end. The spiritual understanding is bread, not leaven. Hence by "bread" true doctrine is meant; Ecclesiasticus 15:3: "she fed him with the bread of life and understanding." Hence it is said: "Take heed, and beware," because false doctrine is dangerous.

For while faith remains in a man, there is no danger; but when the foundation is taken away, there is no hope. Psalm 136:7: "Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation therein." The foundation is faith; Titus, last chapter, 10: "A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid." Because false doctrine has a plausible appearance, therefore he says "take heed," that is, consider diligently; Proverbs 4:25: "Let your eyes look straight on, and let your eyelids go before your steps."

Next the disciples' understanding is set down: "But they thought," and so on. For since above they had received seven baskets of fragments, and had not brought them with them, they believed that he was saying: you did not take bread; but I do not wish you to take bread from the Pharisees, because they were carnal, and "the carnal man does not perceive the things that are of God," 1 Corinthians 2:14.

In this understanding they could be reproved on two counts. First, because they did not understand; likewise in that they distrusted the power of God. He does not reprove them for the first, but for the second. He says therefore: "Why do you think within yourselves, O you of little faith, that you have no bread?" As if he were saying: you understand carnally what you ought to understand spiritually. Do you not remember the five loaves, and the five thousand men, and how many baskets you took up? Is it not so, then, that I who fed so many can feed you? Why do you not understand, that I did not speak to you of bread, that is, material bread, but rather of spiritual bread; which bread is called doctrine in John 6:64: "The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."

"Then they understood," and so on. Here the correction is set down. Hence they were corrected by his word; Psalm 118:130: "The declaration of your words gives light, and gives understanding to little ones."

Above, the Lord taught that evangelical doctrine must be kept pure from the leaven of the Jews; here, however, he teaches the eminence of that doctrine. And first as to faith in both natures, namely the Godhead and the manhood; second as to faith in the Passion, at the place "From that time Jesus began to show to his disciples," etc.; third as to faith in the power of judgment, at the place "For the Son of Man shall come in the glory of his Father." Concerning the first, first the opinion of the crowds about Christ is inquired into; second the faith of the disciples, at the place "But whom do you say that I am?" Concerning the first, first the place is set down; second Christ's question, at the place "Whom do men say that the Son of Man is?"; third Peter's response, at the place "But they said," etc. He says, therefore, "Jesus came into the parts of Caesarea"; and not only this, but he added "Philippi," because there were two Caesareas, namely Caesarea of Trachonitis, where Peter was sent to Cornelius, and this other one, which is otherwise called Paneas. The first was established by Herod in honor of Caesar Augustus; this one Philip built in honor of Tiberius. But why did the Lord raise this question here? It must be said that this city was situated within the borders of the Jews; therefore, before he wished to ask about the faith, he drew them out from among the Jews. Likewise it is recorded that the Lord, leading the Jews out of Egypt, did not lead them out through the land of the Philistines, as is found in Exodus 13:17.

Next is set down the question: "And he asked his disciples," etc. A wise man, when he asks, teaches, as Jerome says. Hence we are instructed in many things, that we should be solicitous about what is said of us: so that if it is evil, we may correct it; if good, that we may preserve and increase it. Hence take care of a good name; for this will remain with you more than a thousand precious and great treasures, Ecclesiasticus 41:15. Hence Christ asked what was said about him. Likewise, those who know the Godhead are called gods, Psalm 81:6: "I have said, you are gods"; but those who know the manhood are called men; hence it is said, "Whom do men say that the Son of Man is?" But, as Hilary says, Christ seemed to be only a man; therefore he wished that they should recognize that there was something else in him besides. Hence from this very question he gives them to understand that there was something else in him. Likewise the humility of Christ is shown, because he confesses himself to be the Son of Man, according to that above, Matthew 11:29: "Learn of me, because I am meek and humble of heart."

Next is set down the opinion of the crowds: "But they said: some John the Baptist," etc. Different people held different opinions about Christ. The Pharisees blasphemed Christ, but the crowds called him a prophet; hence Luke 7:16: "A great prophet has risen up among us," etc. They said he was John by reason of his authority, because John preached penance; above, chapter 3:2: "Do penance, the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Therefore they believed him to be John, because Christ likewise began, "Do penance, the kingdom of heaven is at hand," as above, 4:17. Likewise they held the prophet Elijah in reverence; Malachi, last chapter, 5: "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord." Hence they believed him to be Elijah on account of the power of his speech and the might of his preaching; Ecclesiasticus 48:1: "And Elijah the prophet stood up as fire, because his word burned like a torch." And of Christ it is said above, 7:29, that he was "teaching them as one having power." Likewise, on account of the eminence of his life, they believed him to be Jeremiah, of whom the Lord said: "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you came forth from the womb, I sanctified you," Jeremiah 1:5. And in the same book, chapter 40, it is recorded that he was honored by the Gentiles. Thus Christ was held in reverence by those outside the nation, but was blasphemed by the Jews; therefore they compared him to Jeremiah. But how could they say he was Elijah? Because it is recorded in 4 Kings 2:11 that he was carried up, and that he still lived, and he had been promised to the Jews for their salvation, as is found in Malachi, last chapter, 5. Because some held the theory of transmigration of bodies, and so according to this opinion it could be that the soul of Elijah had entered another body.

"Jesus says to them: But whom do you say that I am?" Here the faith of the disciples is inquired into. And first the question is set down; second the response; third the approval. The second is at "Peter answering"; the third at "And Jesus answering," etc. "Jesus says to them: But whom do you say that I am?" As if to say: thus say the crowds; but because more has been entrusted to you, therefore more is required of you. You have seen miracles, therefore you ought to hold a higher opinion. But why did he ask? Did he not know? Indeed he knew, but he wished that they should merit from their confession; Romans 10:10: "With the heart we believe unto justice, but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Hence the more secluded things are, the more meritorious they are; and since the crowds, as being of the lowest understanding, could not answer greater things, therefore, etc.

"But Peter answering said: You are Christ, the Son of the living God." He answers for himself and for the others; but he more often answers, and in this the perfect faith is touched upon, because faith in the manhood is touched. "You are Christ," that is, the anointed one. And it is agreed that he was anointed with the oil of the Holy Spirit. Anointing does not belong to him according to the Godhead, because it proceeds from the Godhead itself, but according to the manhood. This, therefore, he says so that they might esteem the manhood of Christ otherwise than the crowds did. But it is asked why they called him a prophet. A prophet was anointed, as is found of Elisha. Kings were anointed, as is found of Saul; likewise priests, as is found in Leviticus. And all these things are implied in the name of Christ: because he is also called king, as Jeremiah 23:5: "A king shall reign, and he shall be wise." Likewise priest; Psalm 109:4: "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech." Likewise prophet: "The Lord your God will raise up to you a prophet from your nation and from your brethren," etc., Deuteronomy 18:15. Likewise he confessed not only the manhood, but, piercing through the outer shell, he transcended even to the Godhead, saying "You are the Son of God." For others said that he was a blasphemer; hence John 10:33: "For a good work we do not stone you, but for blasphemy, because being a man you make yourself God." But this man recognizes him as the Son of God. And he says "of the living God," to exclude the error of the Gentiles, who called certain dead men gods, as Jove, etc., as is found in Wisdom 13:2ff. Likewise certain ones called dead elements gods, such as earth, fire, etc., as is found in Wisdom 13; but this man says "the Son of the living God." But it must be known that when it is said "the living God" and "a living man," it is said of man by participation in life; but it is said of God because he is the fountain of life; Psalm 35:10: "With you is the fountain of life." And in John 14:6: "I am the way, the truth, and the life."

"Jesus answering," etc. Here first he approves his confession; second he commands that it be kept silent, at the place "Then he commanded his disciples that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ." Concerning the first, first he approves this confession by the commendation of the one confessing; second by the reward, at the place "And I say to you that you are Peter," etc. Hence he says, "Jesus answered: Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona." "Bar" is the same as "son"; "Jona" is the same as "dove": by his own name. Hence "Bar-Jona," that is, son of the dove. And Christ's response seems to answer to Peter's confession. Because he had confessed him to be the Son of God, Jesus in turn calls him son of the dove, namely of the Holy Spirit, because this confession could not have been made except by the Holy Spirit. But it is believed that at first he was called "Bar-Jona," that is, son of John, but through a corruption of the text it came to be said this way. But what of it? Did not others confess him to be the Son of God? Indeed, we read of Nathanael, John 1:49. Likewise those who were in the boat, above, chapter 9. Why then is Peter here declared blessed, and not the others? Because the others confessed him as adopted son, but this one confessed him as natural son; therefore he is here declared blessed above the rest, because he first confessed the Godhead. Origen says: it seems that before this he had not confessed it. But then how did Christ send them out to preach? He answers that from the beginning they did not preach that he was the Christ, but they preached penance. Likewise it could be that they did preach Christ, but here for the first time they preached that he himself was the Son of God. Therefore here he especially rewards him.

"Blessed are you, Simon," etc., because blessedness consists in knowledge; John 17:3: "This is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God." But knowledge is twofold: one which is by natural reason, the other which is above reason. The first does not make for blessedness, because it is uncertain; hence it does not satisfy the intellect; but blessedness must satisfy natural appetite, and this will be had in our homeland; Isaiah 64:4: "The eye has not seen, nor has the ear heard, what the Lord has prepared for those who love him." Therefore in this life, the more anyone can perceive of this knowledge, the more he is blessed; Proverbs 3:13: "Blessed is he who finds wisdom." Hence he says "Blessed are you," because you are beginning to be blessed.

"Because flesh and blood has not revealed it to you." This can be explained so that flesh and blood are taken for carnal friends; Galatians 1:16: "immediately I did not consult flesh and blood." Hence "flesh and blood has not revealed it to you," that is, you did not have it from the tradition of the Jews, but from the revelation of God. Likewise, in Christ there was flesh, and blood, and Godhead; therefore, because Peter did not look to flesh and blood, it is said to him "Blessed are you," because you do not judge according to what flesh and blood reveals, but according to what my Father reveals. Or: you do not have it from natural industry, but from my Father. "For no one has known the Son except the Father," Luke 10:22. For it belongs to him to reveal, whose it is to know. Hence "no one knows except him to whom the Father has willed to reveal it"; Daniel 2:28: "There is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries."

"And I say to you, that you are Peter," etc. Here he gives the reward of the confession. He had confessed the manhood and the Godhead, therefore the Lord gives the reward. First he gives the name; second, the power. Concerning the first, first he gives the name; second, the reason for the name, at the place "and upon this rock I will build my church." And for this he came into this world, that he might found the church. Isaiah 28:16: "Behold, I will lay in the foundations of Sion a tried stone, a corner stone, a precious stone, founded in the foundation." This is signified by the stone which Jacob placed under his head, and anointed, as is found in Genesis 28:18. This stone is Christ, and from this anointing all are called Christians; hence we are called Christians not only from Christ, but from the rock (petra). Therefore he especially imposes the name: "You are Peter," from the rock which is Christ. Although according to Augustine it seems that the name was not imposed now, but from the beginning; John 1:42: "You shall be called Cephas." Or it can be said that it was promised then, and given here. In sign of this, "upon this rock I will build my church." It is the property of a rock, that it be placed as a foundation; likewise, that it give firmness. Above, 7:24: "He is like a man who builds his house upon a rock." Hence it can be explained of Christ: "and upon this rock," that is, upon Christ, so that he might be the foundation, and so that what is founded might receive firmness. Augustine, in the book of Retractations, says that he explained this in many ways, and left it to his hearers to accept whichever they wished. Either that "this rock" signifies Christ; 1 Corinthians 10:4: "And the rock was Christ." And elsewhere, 1 Corinthians 3:11: "No other foundation can anyone lay, but that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus." Another explanation: "upon this rock," that is, upon you the rock, because from me you, as a rock, draw the fact that you are a rock. And just as I am the rock, so upon you as rock I will build, etc. But what of this? Are both Christ and Peter the foundation? It must be said that Christ is the foundation according to himself, but Peter insofar as he has the confession of Christ, insofar as he is his vicar. Ephesians 2:20: "Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone," etc. Apocalypse 21:14: "The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb." Therefore Christ according to himself is the foundation, but the apostles not according to themselves, but by the concession of Christ, and the authority given by Christ; Psalm 86:1: "The foundations thereof are in the holy mountains." But especially Peter's house, which is founded upon the rock, shall not be destroyed, as above, 7:25. Thus this church can be assailed, but cannot be conquered.

"And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Jeremiah 1:19: "They shall fight against you, and shall not prevail." And who are the gates of hell? Heretics: because just as one enters a house through a gate, so through these one enters into hell. Likewise tyrants, demons, sins. And although other churches could be reviled by heretics, the Roman Church nevertheless was not depraved by heretics, because it was founded upon the rock. Hence at Constantinople there were heretics, and the labor of the apostles was lost there; only the Church of Peter remained inviolate. Hence Luke 22:32: "I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith fail not." And this refers not only to the Church of Peter, but to the faith of Peter, and to the whole Western Church. Hence I believe that Westerners owe greater reverence to Peter than to the other apostles.

"And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Here is set down the second gift which Christ gave to Peter according to his manhood. For he founded the church on earth, and instituted Peter as his vicar, that he might lead men into heaven; Hebrews 10:19: "Having confidence in the entrance into the holies by the blood of Christ." Hence Christ instituted Peter as his vicar, that he might lead men into heaven; hence he gave him that ministry, hence he gave the keys. For a key introduces; hence Peter has the ministry of introducing. And he does two things. First he entrusts the keys; second he teaches their use: "and whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in heaven," etc.

But let us see what the keys are. When a house is locked, this impedes entrance; but the key removes the impediment. The kingdom of heaven had an impediment, but not on its own part; Apocalypse 4:1: "I saw, and behold a door was opened"; but the impediment was on our part, namely sin, because "nothing defiled shall enter into it." Christ removed these impediments through his Passion, because "he washed us from our sins in his own blood," Apocalypse 1:5. And he communicated this, so that through a ministry sins might be taken away, which is accomplished through the power of the blood of Christ; hence the sacraments have their power from the power of the Passion of Christ. Hence, "I will give you the ministry," etc. Isaiah 22:22: "I will lay upon him the key of the house of David." But he says "I will give you"; for they were not yet fashioned; but a thing cannot be given before it exists. These, however, were to be fashioned in the Passion; hence in the Passion was their efficacy. Hence here he promised, but after the Passion he gave, when he said: "Feed my sheep." But why does he say "keys"? Because to absolve is to remove an obstacle. For there are two things, because two are required, power and knowledge. But what of this? Are there not some priests who do not have knowledge? Understand that they do have knowledge, because no one has the key of knowledge except a priest. Here "knowledge" does not mean a habit of the intellect, etc., but it means the authority of discerning. Hence there is a certain judge who does not have knowledge in the first sense, and yet has knowledge in the second sense, because he has authority; while another has knowledge in the first sense, and not in the second, because he does not have authority. Hence "knowledge" here means the authority of discerning, and every priest has this, so as to discern in absolving.

Next he sets down the use of the keys: "whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in heaven." But it seems that this is unsuitably stated, because the use of a key is not to bind, but to open. I say that this use of the keys is indeed fitting. For heaven itself is open; Apocalypse 4:1: "I saw a door opened." Hence it is not necessary that it be opened; but he who is bound and ought to enter must be loosed. But here certain errors are to be avoided. The first is touched on in the Gloss, because certain people usurped the claim that they could absolve whomever they wished, and lead them into the kingdom of heaven. But this cannot stand, because it belongs to God alone to change wills. Another error is that the priest does not bind, but only shows that one is absolved. But this detracts from the power of the sacrament, since the sacraments of the new law effect what they signify; but the sacraments of the old law do not. Hence if it effected nothing, it would not be a sacrament of the new law. Third, some say that in sin there are three things: guilt, and liability, and punishment. From two of these a man is absolved by himself through contrition; but when a man has been absolved from these, he remains obligated to temporal punishment, which a man is not able by himself to remove and avoid; therefore the keys are given, which lessen something of this punishment, and bind as to some part of the punishment. Yet it seems to me that this is not well said, because a sacrament of the new law gives grace, but grace is not ordered against punishment, but against guilt. Hence I say that it is the same in this sacrament of confession as in the sacrament of Baptism, which has a certain instrumental spiritual power, according to which it cleanses from guilt. Hence Augustine: "What is the power of water, that it should wash the flesh, and take away guilt?" Thus I say that in the priest there is a certain instrumental spiritual power, from which he is called a minister, and thus he ministerially effects the remission, just as the water of Baptism does. But here a difficulty arises, because now only infants come to Baptism; and if an adult comes, he comes either feigned or not feigned. He comes feigned when he comes without renewal of mind, and then guilt is not remitted; he comes not feigned when he comes with the purpose of confession, whence grace is required, or the purpose of conversion, and this is from grace. But grace takes away guilt. Hence in the sacrament of Baptism, when an adult comes, if he prepares himself, he receives the remission of guilt. So too in the sacrament of penance, to which only adults come, one is not contrite unless he has the purpose of submitting himself to the discretion and judgment of the priest. If he is not contrite, he does not obtain the effect, just as in Baptism. But it can happen that someone comes not wholly contrite, who by the power of the grace conferred in the perfected sacrament is made contrite; therefore it must be understood: "whatsoever you shall loose," that is, if you apply the ministry of absolution. And he says "whatsoever," because not only guilt, but punishment. "It shall be loosed in heaven," that is, it shall be held as absolved in heaven, just as is the case with Baptism; hence the priest ought to say "I absolve you," just as "I baptize you."

But someone may ask, how does he bind? It must be known that the priest is a minister of God, and the action of the minister depends on the act of the lord; hence in the manner in which the lord binds and looses, so does the priest ministerially. God looses by pouring in grace, he binds by not pouring it in: thus the priest looses by the sacrament, ministering the sacrament, but binds by not applying it. It is said otherwise, that by "heavens" the present Church is signified; hence "whatsoever you shall bind," by excommunication, or "shall loose," it shall be loosed or bound, as regards the administration of the sacraments of the Church. Hence some hold that this administration, this binding and absolving, is upon earth, so that it does not extend to the dead. But this is rejected, because it extends not only to the living, but also to the dead; hence if it is referred to both, the sense is: "whatsoever you shall bind on earth"—then I say, existing on earth—"shall be bound also in heaven."

But there is another question, because elsewhere it is found, John 20:23: "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them"; but here he says this only to Peter. It must be said that he gave it immediately to Peter; but the others receive it from Peter; therefore, lest it be believed that this was said only to Peter, he says, "Whose sins you shall forgive," etc. And for this reason the Pope, who holds the place of Saint Peter, has plenary power, but the others have it from him.

Above, Peter's confession concerning the divinity of Christ was set down; here he commands silence for a time, namely lest they should say that he himself was the Christ. But here a question seems to arise. For above, the Lord had sent the disciples to preach the kingdom of God; how then does he here forbid it? On the surface of the letter it can be said that he did not command above that they should announce Christ, but the kingdom of God. But since the announcing of the kingdom of God includes in itself the announcing of Christ, therefore what he commanded above seems here to be forbidden. Jerome says that what he had preached before he does not forbid, because before he had commanded that Jesus be preached, whereas here he commands that they not call him Christ: for Christ is a name of dignity, Jesus a name of the Savior. Hence above, in Matthew 1:21: "and thou shalt call his name Jesus." Origen answers that the apostles had before spoken of Christ as of a great man; but concerning the Christ he wished it to be kept silent for a while, that afterward he might appear to them the more fully; just as sometimes teaching is set forth beforehand, that they may have time to discern. Or it must be said that that saying, "as you go, preach," ought not to be twisted back to the time before the passion, but to after it. Hence there it is touched that they would be dragged before kings and governors, and so on, and this was not done before the passion. But why did the Lord now command that this be kept silent? For it was to come that the peoples would see him suffering, and when some perceive confusion in someone great, they are the more incited to scandal; therefore, and so on. Chrysostom says: if what is planted is uprooted, it cannot be planted again so quickly. Hence if the faith had been planted, and had been uprooted in the passion, afterward it would not have been planted again so quickly. Hence many things are not to be spoken, for the avoiding of scandal. And that this is the reason is clear, because immediately he announces his passion; hence it is added, "and from that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things." And concerning this he does three things. First he foretells the passion; second he rebukes the disciple, at "who, turning, said to Peter," etc.; third he teaches the faith, at "then Jesus said to his disciples," etc. And concerning the first, two things. For first he foretells the passion; second the resurrection, at "and the third day rise again." And concerning the first he touches upon the place, the authors, and the consummation. He says, therefore, "and from that time Jesus began to show his disciples." He spoke of the passion here, and in chapters 17 and 20. But before this time he had not foretold it. But why did he begin now? Because he had manifested himself to the apostles. But why not before? Because if, before their faith had been confirmed in them, he had foretold the passion, perhaps they would have abandoned him; but now they believed him true God, therefore, and so on. And he says "to show," not "to say," because those things are said which are manifested to be understood, but those things are shown which are manifested visibly; therefore to the Jews he spoke, to the disciples he showed; Luke, last chapter, 26: "ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into his glory?" Hence in saying "it must be," he touches the necessity. And why Jerusalem? He touches the reason. As to his saying Jerusalem, the first reason is that there was the temple of God, where the sacrifices were made. Now the sacrifices of the old law were a figure of that sacrifice which was on the altar of the cross; therefore he willed that where the figure was, there the truth should be made manifest; Ephesians 5:2: "and delivered himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for an odor of sweetness," and so on. Another reason is that the prophets suffered in Jerusalem, as below, chapter 23:37: "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent to thee." He willed therefore to suffer there, to show that their death was a sign of the passion of Christ. Again, Jerusalem is said to mean "vision of peace"; but the passion itself was peace-making; to the Colossians, chapter 1:20: "making peace through the blood of his cross, both as to the things that are on earth, and the things that are in heaven." Again, that through that way there might be for us a way to the heavenly Jerusalem; to the Galatians 4:26: "but that Jerusalem which is above is free, which is our mother." But by whom? "By the ancients." And this is because it was at their instigation that he suffered. He does the deed by whose authority it is done; hence they killed him more than the soldiers did. Hence by this the malice of the people is signified, because those who seem better are found worse. For someone is restrained from sin by reason of age, someone by reason of knowledge, someone by reason of dignity; yet age did not restrain them, for it was "by the ancients"; nor knowledge, for it was "by the scribes"; nor dignity, for it was "by the chief priests"; Jeremiah 5:5: "I will go therefore to the great men, and will speak to them: for they have known the way of the Lord, the judgment of their God. And behold these have more broken the yoke." Again, there was a certain abjection and humiliation, because when someone suffers from the common people, it is not a great thing; but when from the wise, and from those who seem good, the abjection is great; hence John 18:35: "thy own nation, and the chief priests, have delivered thee up to me." Again, he suffered even unto death, therefore he says "and be killed"; Acts 10:39: "whom they killed, hanging him upon a tree"; Daniel 9:26: "Christ shall be slain, and the people that shall deny him shall not be his." But joy at the resurrection is added: "and the third day rise again"; Hosea 6:3: "on the third day he will raise us up."

"And Peter taking him began to rebuke him." Here he rebukes the disciple who opposes him. And first the opposing is set down; second the response of Christ, at "who, turning, said to Peter," etc. "Taking him" — either in his sight, or taking him aside to himself, lest he seem presumptuous in reproving the Lord before the others — he said, "Lord, be it far from thee, this shall not be unto thee." The Lord had praised his confession, and had given him power, because he had known him to be the Son of God; therefore he thought that, if he were killed, his faith would be frustrated, and that he would not be God; and therefore he rebuked him. He held in his heart that he was the Son of God, yet did not perceive that God is not to be rebuked, as is said in Job 15:3: "thou reprovest him that is not equal to thee, and speakest that which is not expedient for thee." But he still kept some faith in his divinity, for in Mark it is recorded, "be it merciful to thee, Lord, do not deliver thyself unto death." "Who turning said, go behind me, Satan." Here the response is set down. This passage Hilary expounds thus: the Devil, seeing that he himself had announced his own passion, and knowing the testimonies of the prophets, incited Peter to this, that he might dissuade him. Therefore the Lord, seeing that he was not speaking of his own prompting, rebuked him; therefore he said to Peter, "go behind me" — such that there be a full stop there. And to Satan he said, "Satan, thou art a scandal to me." Jerome says that he does not believe that Peter spoke at the Devil's prompting, but out of a feeling of devotion; hence he spoke ignorantly. Hence he does three things, for first the admonition is set down; second the rebuke; third the assigning of the cause. The admonition, in "go," Peter. Hence it is the same sentence which was said above to the Devil, "go behind, Satan." Or, "go after me," follow me. Satan is the same as "adversary." Hence whoever contradicts the divine counsel is called Satan. "Thou art a scandal to me" — that is, thou wishest to hinder my purpose. But is there not scandal for those who love God? Origen says that for the perfect there is no scandal. Hence they are not scandalized. But someone can put scandal before them. Hence Peter took up scandal, but Christ did not. Or thus: because he reckons the scandal of his members to be his own. Hence Paul: "who is scandalized, and I am not on fire?" Because, therefore, he could be a scandal to others, he said "thou art a scandal to me" — not on my own account, but on account of my members. But what is this? Above he had said, "thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church"; here, however, he calls him Satan. Jerome says that what the Lord had promised, he did not yet possess. But because he was to have these things in the future, therefore he could for this reason call him Satan. Chrysostom says that he wished to show what man could do by himself, and what by the grace of God: for above, by the grace of God, he had recognized the divinity of Christ; but when God withdrew his grace, humanity and defect appeared, to such an extent that he called him Satan: thus the Lord sometimes wills perfect men to fall, that they may know their own humanity. And that it ought to be understood in this way agrees well enough with what follows. Hence he gives the reason: "because thou savorest not the things that are of God." For before he had said, "thou art the Son of God" — there he savored according to divinity; but here he savors what belongs to man; 1 Corinthians 2:14: "for the sensual man perceiveth not the things that are of God." Proverbs 13:16 (Prov. 13:16): "a fool layeth open his folly." Peter shrank from the death of the flesh, but not the spirit of God did so; hence John 15:13: "greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

"Then Jesus said to his disciples." Here he exhorts to the imitation of the passion. And first he sets down the exhortation; second the reason; third he confirms it. The second at "he that will save his life shall lose it"; the third at "for what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world," and so on. Thus Peter wished to hinder the passion, but he himself invites them, saying, "if any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me"; as if to say: you must be ready to imitate the passion of Christ. Martyrs imitate it in a special way bodily, but spiritual men imitate it spiritually, dying spiritually for Christ. Hence it can be read of the bodily cross. Chrysostom: thus, therefore, when he said, "Peter, go after me," understand that he said it to Peter alone; but when he said, "whosoever will come," etc., he wills all men to come to him. And he says "will," because he who is drawn willingly is drawn more than he who is drawn by force; Psalm 53:8 (Ps. 53:8): "I will freely sacrifice to thee." Therefore he says three things: that he "deny," that he "take up his cross," that he "follow me." Chrysostom says that he speaks by way of comparison. If you had a son, and saw him being ill-treated, if you did not care, you would be denying him; so if you wish to follow the passion of the Lord, you must deny yourself, and reckon yourself as nothing; Psalm 37:15 (Ps. 37:15): "and I became as a man that heareth not, and that hath no reproofs in his mouth." And Proverbs 23:35: "they have beaten me, and I was not sensible of pain; they drew me, and I felt not." "And take up his cross, and follow me": that he be ready to suffer the cross, or to die the bitterest and most shameful death; Wisdom 2:20: "let us condemn him to a most shameful death." Hence man ought to be ready to suffer whatever death for God's sake. To suffer for one's own crimes is shameful; but for God's sake, it is not. Hence 1 Peter 4:15: "but let none of you suffer as a murderer, or a thief, or a railer, or a coveter of other men's things. But if as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name." According to Gregory it is understood of spiritual mortification. For there is a threefold denial of oneself. First when one denies the state of preceding sin; Romans 6:11: "reckon ye also yourselves to be dead to sin." Again, if one is not in sin, and would transfer oneself to the state of perfection; to the Philippians 3:12: "if by any means I may attain to the resurrection which is from the dead: not that I have already attained, or am already perfect; but I follow after, if I may by any means apprehend, wherein I am also apprehended by Christ Jesus." Again, one who denies his own affection; to the Galatians 2:19: "for I through the law am dead to the law, that I may live to God: with Christ I am nailed to the cross." And 2 Corinthians 5:14: "if one died for all, then all were dead." "Take up his cross." A cross is so called from torment (cruciatus). One is tormented spiritually whose mind is tormented by compassion for one's neighbor, as the Apostle says, Romans 12:15: "weep with them that weep." Similarly one is tormented through penance; to the Galatians 5:24: "and they that are Christ's have crucified their flesh, with the vices and concupiscences." "And follow me." Many have compassion, but do not follow God. He who has compassion, and is in sin, does not follow, because Christ came to destroy sins. Again, if you afflict yourself for vain glory, you do not follow God; above, 6:16: "when you fast, be not as the hypocrites, sad. For they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast," and so on.

"For he that will save his life shall lose it." Here the reason for his admonition is given, and it is a reason drawn from the greatness of the recompense. And this can be read in two ways. For there is a twofold salvation: namely, the salvation of the soul, and this is of the just; and the salvation of the body, and this is of all, even of beasts of burden; Psalm 35:7 (Ps. 35:7): "men and beasts thou wilt preserve, O Lord." Hence let us say: "he that will save his life" — that is, bodily life, by not denying, by not bearing the cross — "shall lose it." Above he said "will" (vult), here "he that will" (voluerit). Hence just as that could be interpreted in two ways, so likewise this. "He that will save his life" — that is, the soul which is the principle of bodily life, namely so that it not be killed, or not suffer compassion — "shall lose it." Psalm 72:27 (Ps. 72:27): "thou shalt destroy all them that are disloyal to thee." "But he that shall lose it" — either by giving it over to death, or by denying its delights, for my sake — "shall find it"; Ecclesiasticus 51:35: "I labored a little, and found much rest." Or thus: "he that will save his life" — and lead it to eternal salvation, Isaiah 51:6: "my salvation shall be for ever" — "shall lose it," either by undergoing death, or by denying carnal things. "But he that shall lose it for my sake" — namely, he who shall have given up carnal desires — "shall find it," namely, life; 2 Corinthians 13:4: "for we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him."

"For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul?" Here he confirms it by a reason. Someone could say: I do not care; I want this present life more than another. And this he excludes. First by that inestimable life; second by the irreparable loss of the soul. He says, therefore, "what doth it profit," etc., that is, what do these temporal things profit you, if you lose your soul? It is natural to man that he loves the end more than the things that are for the end, as the body more than riches. Hence it is natural that all things are laid out for the safety of the body. If the contrary is done, it is a perversity of passion. So too it is natural to love the soul more than the body; hence he is wise who would rather suffer bodily than sustain great confusion. If, then, this is so, one ought all the more to desire the salvation of the soul rather than of the body, even if one could have the whole world. "But what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, but suffer the loss of his own soul?" As if to say: the loss of the soul is an inestimable loss. Again, someone could say: if I have it and lose it, I shall be able to recover it; therefore the Lord excludes this: "or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?" As if to say, none. Proverbs 6:35: "he shall not accept the numerous gifts of any man for his redemption." But can it not be redeemed at all? Daniel 4:24: "redeem thou thy sins with alms." It must be said that here he speaks with respect to perfect loss, because he could not recover it, unless he first had found it again; but when one is contrite, one finds it again. Gregory otherwise: there is a twofold time of the Church, of prosperity and of adversity: in adversity, adverse things; in prosperity, prosperous things.

"For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father." Here he treats of the power of judgment. And first the power of judgment is set down; second he answers a tacit objection. Perhaps you will say: to what end should I follow and take up the cross? etc. Because the judgment of the Son of man is his, and the power. John 5:27: "and he hath given him power to do judgment, because he is the Son of man." Do not grieve, therefore, that he suffers, because he is to come "in glory." Do not grieve that he is rejected by the elders, because he is to come "in the glory of his Father"; nor that before many, because "with his angels"; Philippians 2:11: "that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father." And below, 25:31: "and when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty," and so on. "Then he shall render" — and restore — "to every man according to his works." Then he answers the tacit objection: "amen I say to you"; as if to say: I have told you that the Son of man is to come, etc. But do not marvel. Why? I wish to show you that "there are some of them that stand here, that shall not taste death." Sinners are swallowed up by death, but the just taste death. Now these were Peter, John, and James. "Till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." This was a sign of future glory. He did not name them, however, on account of the envy of the others. For they could have incurred envy, because they more than the others. Again, on account of importunity, for they would have been importunate if he had shown nothing to them. Otherwise it can be said that the kingdom of God is the Church: therefore there is someone who shall not taste death, as John, "till he see the Son of man coming in his kingdom" — that is, until the Church be spread abroad, because he lived so long that he saw the Church spread, and many churches built.