Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew

It was said above that the persecutors of Christ were provoked to kill him for three reasons: from his glory, from his wisdom by which he confuted them, and from his justice by which he rebuked them. How they were provoked from the glory of Christ has already been said; now it must be said how they were provoked from his wisdom. And first, insofar as he foreshows their condemnation; second, insofar as he confutes them by disputing, at the place: "Then the Pharisees went and took counsel how they might entrap him in his talk." In this parable, in which the reprobation of the Jews and the calling of the Gentiles is determined, first the instruction concerning the marriage is set forth; second, the calling of the Jews and their refusal; third, the calling of the Gentiles. The second begins at: "and he sent his servants to call them that were invited"; the third at: "then he said to his servants," and so on.

He says therefore: "And Jesus answering, said." To whom did he answer? It has not been said that he was speaking to anyone. But since they wished to seize him, therefore he answered not their words but their malice; hence he speaks to them in parables: "The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man who is a king, who made a marriage for his son."

Here the parable of the marriage is set forth, and a similar parable is set forth in Luke 14:16. And it does not seem to be the same, according to Gregory, because there mention is made of a supper, here of a marriage. Likewise, no one is excluded from that supper, but here someone is excluded. Hence it is a different parable. By that one the heavenly banquet is understood, by this one the banquet that takes place on earth. And therefore that one is called a supper, because no one is excluded from it, whereas from this one someone is excluded. It can be said, according to some, that it is the same parable, because in ancient times the midday meal and the supper were called by the same name, since men were not accustomed to eat except up until the ninth hour. Or it can be said that Luke says what Matthew passed over in silence. But I believe that it is a different parable.

Concerning this one, let us see who this man, the king, is. And it is said that this is God, and the person of the Father is understood, because it says "to his son." But why does it say "a man who is a king"? The reason is, as Origen says, because a king is called such from ruling. But we cannot, nor are we capable of, his kingdom according to what it is in itself; rather he rules us according to our own measure. Deuteronomy 32:11: "as an eagle provoking her young ones to fly." And therefore it says "a man who is a king," because he rules us in a human manner. But when he shall be seen as he is, then he will be king, because then he will rule according to himself. Hence the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 13:12: "we see now through a glass in a dark manner, but then face to face."

He says: "The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man who is a king." For just as in a kingdom there are many things — for there is a king, a kingdom, and those who serve — so it is in that kingdom; therefore it is likened to a man who is a king, who made a marriage for his son. The son is Christ, of whom it is said in 1 John, last chapter, verse 20: "that we may be in his true Son. This is the true God, and life eternal."

What this marriage is can be explained in four ways. First, through the union of human nature with the divine, so that the human nature is the bride, and the bridal chamber was the womb of the Virgin. Psalm 18:6: "for he, as a bridegroom, coming out of his bridechamber." And this exposition has something of uncertainty in it, because it could be believed that the person of the Father is other than that of the Son. Hence it can be said that this bridegroom is the incarnate Word; the bride is the Church; hence the Apostle, Ephesians 5:32: "this is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the Church." Likewise, of the Word himself to our soul. For the soul becomes a partaker of the glory of God through faith, and thus our marriage takes place. Hosea 2:20: "I will espouse thee to me in faith." Likewise the marriage will take place in the general resurrection. Now Christ is the way to this resurrection; John 14:6: "I am the way." Then the marriage will be, when our mortal nature shall be swallowed up by life, as is held in 2 Corinthians 5:4. But if we speak according to Gregory, it must be explained of present things, according as the Church is espoused to Christ, and our soul to God through faith.

There follows the calling of the Jews. And first a twofold calling is set forth; second, their excuse, at the place: "but they neglected," and so on. Concerning the first, he does two things according to the two callings. Hence he says: "and he sent his servants to call them that were invited." And according to what Origen says there, the text is twofold there, because one reading has "he sent his servant," another "his servants."

If the reading is "servant," then three things are to be considered. First, the invitation; second, the calling; and third, another invitation. The Jews, then, were invited in the patriarchs; hence it was said to Abraham: "in thy seed shall all nations be blessed." Galatians 3:16: "to Abraham were the promises made, and to his seed," and so on. The first who was sent was Moses. Numbers 12:7: "my servant Moses is not so, who is most faithful in all my house." And it follows, "why then were you not afraid?" And they were not willing to come. Deuteronomy 31:27: "even now while I am yet living, and going in with you, you have always been rebellious against the Lord." The second calling is through the prophets, concerning whom Amos 3:7: "the Lord will not do a thing, without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets." Or the reading may be "servants"; and then by the first are signified the prophets, against whom the Jews were always rebellious; Acts 7:51: "you have always resisted the Holy Ghost." By the second are signified the apostles, to whom it was said above, 10:5: "go not into the way of the Gentiles." Or: by the first, the prophets and the first apostles; by the second, the successors of the apostles.

"Again he sent other servants." Here another invitation is set forth. And an increase of kindness is set forth on the part of the one inviting, and an increase of malice on the part of the ones excusing themselves. In the first calling he promised nothing; but in this one he does promise, because he says: "tell them that were invited: behold, I have prepared my dinner." This dinner is spiritual refreshment; Proverbs 9:2: "wisdom hath slain her victims, mingled her wine, and set forth her table. She hath sent her maids to invite to the citadel. My oxen and my fatlings are killed."

And this saying can be explained, according to Origen, as being the disposition of the wisdom of God. The oxen are called strong arguments; Isaiah 8:11: "with a strong hand he instructed me." The fatlings are called as it were things well-nourished. The fatlings are properly called fattened birds, which are nourished and fattened, and they signify subtle senses, and they become fattened when they are multiplied by sacred senses, by which the soul is fattened; Psalm 62:6: "let my soul be filled as with marrow and fatness." For whatever is necessary is found in sacred Scripture. Therefore all things are prepared. Psalm 18:8: "the law of the Lord is unspotted, converting souls." This is the invitation of wisdom, Proverbs 9:5: "come, eat my bread, and drink the wine which I have mingled for you."

Or, it signifies spiritual refreshment: by the oxen are signified the examples of the saints, which the Lord prepared as an example; James 5:10: "take, for an example of the end of life, of labor, and of patience, the prophets." Hence he sets forth the tribulations of the saints as an example. According to Gregory, by the oxen are signified the fathers of the Old Testament, because the ox strikes with its horns, and in the time of the fathers vengeance was always sought, and it was commanded that an eye be given for an eye. By the fatlings, the fathers of the New Testament, who gave up all things for Christ, and are fattened with the wisdom of God, slain for God's sake — and both were slain. All things are prepared; come to the marriage. Christ suffered, opened the heavens, sent the apostles. Or by the oxen are understood the priests of the Old Testament, because the ox is a sacrificial animal; by the fatlings, the prophets, who were fattened with the wisdom of God.

But they, namely those hardened in malice, neglected it. Some let it pass out of negligence, others out of malice, namely those who persecute the preachers; hence it says: "but they neglected." And what was the cause? Because "they went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise." They seemed to have a just cause outwardly, but the Lord does not accept it, because no temporal things ought to detain one from coming to God. According to Hilary, by his saying "to his farm" he signifies the desire for human glory; John 12:43: "they loved the glory of men more than the glory of God"; Jeremiah 5:4: "but I said: perhaps they are poor and foolish, who know not the way of the Lord, the judgment of their God." By his saying "another to his merchandise" the desire of avarice is signified; Jeremiah 6:13: "from the least even to the greatest, all are given to avarice." According to Chrysostom, some have their occupation in laboring with their own hands, others in trade, that is, in their own proper business.

There follows: "but the rest laid hands on his servants," that is, the apostles, "and having treated them contumeliously, put them to death," because they killed many, both of the Old and the New Testament. Hence below, 23:34: "I send to you wise men and scribes, and some of them you will put to death," and so on. And here he makes no mention of his own death, but only of that of the disciples, because he had made sufficient mention of it above.

Then follows their punishment: "but the king, when he had heard of it, was angry," and so on. Above he set forth the spiritual punishment, but here he sets forth the temporal one; hence above it was said "a man who is a king," but here it says simply "king," because the name of "man" seems to pertain to piety, but that of "king" to punishment; therefore here it says only "king"; Wisdom 14:17: "those whom, being far off, men could not honor in presence, because of the distance, taking the resemblance from afar, they made an express image of the king whom they had a mind to honor: that by this their diligence, they might honor as present, him that was absent."

"But the king was angry." It should be noted that when anger is attributed to God, it does not signify a disturbance of mind, but vengeance: for those who are angry are wont to punish, hence punishment is called anger. This should be noted against the heretics, who are accustomed to object that the God of the Old Testament is not good, because he commanded punishments, and so on. Hence: "and sending his armies, he destroyed those murderers." The armies are the angelic spirits, or the Roman citizens who, under Titus and Vespasian, killed many; Psalm 23:1: "the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof." "And burnt their city," because it was burned; Isaiah 1:7: "a fire shall burn up your cities." Or it can be understood mystically, namely, their bodies, or the assemblies of the heretics.

There follows the calling of the Gentiles, and the examination is set forth. And he does three things. First the command is set forth; second, its execution; third, the effect. The second begins at: "and his servants going forth," and so on; the third at: "and the marriage was filled with guests." Concerning the first he does two things. First he assigns the reason for the precept; second he sets forth the precept.

He says therefore: "Then he said to his servants: the marriage indeed is ready, but they that were invited were not worthy." "The marriage indeed is prepared," that is, the Son is incarnate, according to that word of Isaiah 5:4: "what is there that I ought to do more to my vineyard, that I have not done to it?" "But they that had been invited were not worthy," that is, they made themselves unworthy. And how? As it is said in Romans 10:3: "for they, not knowing the justice of God, and seeking to establish their own, have not submitted themselves to the justice of God"; and Acts 13:46: "but because you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold we turn to the Gentiles." Hence by the offense of the Jews salvation was brought about for the Gentiles; Apocalypse 3:11: "hold fast that which thou hast, that no man take thy crown."

There follows the command: "go ye therefore to the highways," and so on. By "ways" are understood the various doctrines, because these are, as it were, certain roads which lead us to the truth. The Gentiles are at the ends of the doctrines. Hence "go to the ends of the ways," that is, to those who cling to erroneous doctrines. Or otherwise: Isaiah 9:2: "the people that walked in darkness have seen a great light." Hence by "ways" are understood good actions, concerning which Proverbs 4:27: "the Lord knoweth the ways that are on the right hand"; by the "ends," whatever things can converge upon actions. "And as many as you shall find, call to the marriage." Hence below, in the last chapter, verse 19: "go, teach all nations," and so on.

There follows the execution: "and his servants going forth into the ways, gathered together all"; Mark, last chapter, 20: "but they going forth preached everywhere, the Lord working withal." But what is meant by his saying "both good and bad"? It can be said that these are they who were first bad and afterward good. Or it can be said, when he says "good and bad," that he speaks comparatively, that among them some are good according to the civil virtues. Or "good and bad," because after they have been gathered together, the good and the bad are mixed together. "And the marriage was filled with guests," that is, with the faithful. Above, at 13:48, a similar thing is set forth, which, when it was filled, they drew out, and sitting by the shore, they chose the good into vessels, but the bad they cast forth.

"And the king went in," and so on. Here the examination of those gathered together is set forth. And first the examiner is set forth; second the examination; third the condemnation. "The examiner went in." For he enters when he exercises judgment over them; Genesis 18:21: "I will go down, and see": and this occurs at the final judgment; likewise at death; likewise when the tribulations of the Church are imminent.

But who is examined? "He saw a man who had not on a wedding garment." What is this garment? Christ. We who are Christ's, let us put on Christ. The Apostle, Romans 13:14: "put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ." For some put on Christ through the sacrament; Galatians 3:27: "as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ." Some are in Christ through charity and love; Colossians 3:14-15: "but above all these things have charity, which is the bond of perfection. And let the peace of Christ rejoice in your hearts, wherein also you are called in one body." Likewise through remembrance of death. Likewise through conformity of works; to the Romans 13:14: "put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ." To have the wedding garment, therefore, is to put on Christ through good operation, through holy conduct, through true charity; and if one of these is lacking, it is evil.

Then follows the examination. Then he tells how he failed. He says therefore, "Friend." He calls him friend by reason of faith, or because he himself had loved him. Or it can be said that wherever he calls someone "friend," he says it by way of reproach; hence he reproaches him with the very love with which he had loved him. "How camest thou in hither, not having on a wedding garment?" But someone might say: on what occasion did he punish him, since he had called both good and bad? But he did not wish that the bad should come, unless they prepared and disposed themselves so as to be good.

Then follows how he failed to answer. Hence it follows: "but he was silent," because the sinner cannot have a sufficient reason why he despised the wedding garment; Job 9:3: "if he will contend with him, he cannot answer him."

And he concludes the sentence of the parable. A twofold punishment is set forth, the punishment of loss and the punishment of sense. For in this world a man is perfected in three ways: through the intellect by thinking, through the affections by tending toward the highest good, and likewise through action; therefore he is punished in three ways. Hence the king said to his servants: "binding his hands and feet, cast him into the exterior darkness."

By the "feet" are understood the affections. The wicked in this world have feet, but not bound, because they can still become good; but afterward they will be bound, because afterward they will not be able to return; Ecclesiastes 9:10: "whatsoever thy hand is able to do, do it earnestly: for neither work, nor reason, nor knowledge, nor wisdom shall be in hell, whither thou art hastening." Likewise, now a man can make progress in thinking upon truths, but then he cannot; therefore it is said: "cast him into the exterior darkness." For now some sinners are not dark as regards exterior knowledge, although they are as regards interior knowledge; but then they will have exterior darkness. Or, according to the letter, because not only as to the soul, but as to the body, since they will be separated from the fellowship of the saints.

Then follows the punishment of sense: "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Weeping proceeds from sorrow, gnashing from anger. In Acts 7:54: "they gnashed with their teeth at him." Some weep for their sins, and are humbled, and are cleansed. There, there will be sorrow, but not unto humility; rather it will be turned into anger. Likewise there will be gnashing on account of impatience, because "the pride of them that hate thee ascendeth continually," Psalm 73:23. Or it can be said that this refers to the resurrection, because they will be punished not only in the soul, but also in the body; or because they will suffer heat and cold; Job 24:19: "they shall pass from the snow waters to excessive heat."

Then he concludes: "many are called, but few are chosen," because some are unwilling to come, and some do not have the wedding garment. Hence above, 7:14: "narrow is the way that leadeth to life, and few there are that find it."

Above, the Lord confuted the Pharisees by a parable; secondly, here he makes it manifest by disputing. And first by responding; secondly by objecting, where it says, "And when the Pharisees had gathered together, he asked them," and so on. And the Lord responds to a threefold question. First, concerning the payment of tribute; second, concerning the resurrection; third, concerning the law. The second is where it says, "On that day the Sadducees came to him"; the third where it says, "But the Pharisees, hearing," and so on. Concerning the first he does three things. First the question is set forth; second the response; third the effect. The second is where it says, "But Jesus, knowing their wickedness"; the third where it says, "And hearing it, they marveled." In this question three things are to be considered: first, the intention of the questioners; second, the servants who ask; third, the question itself. The intention of the questioners is disclosed when it is said, "going away, they took counsel," that is, among themselves — namely, they made a foolish plan, that they might catch Jesus in his speech. And this was foolish, because he himself was the Word of God, and the Word of God is not comprehensible; Ecclesiasticus 43:29: "We speak much, and yet fall short in words." Now this was a wicked counsel; Psalm 1:1: "Blessed is the man who has not walked in the counsel of the wicked, and has not stood in the way of sinners." And Genesis, near the end, 49:6: "Let not my soul come into their counsel."

The servants are described when he says, "and they send to him their disciples with the Herodians." But why did they not go themselves? The reason is that they wished to question him deceitfully; hence, if they themselves had gone, the deceit would have had no place; but these too were disciples; Ecclesiasticus 10:2: "As the judge of the people is himself, so also are his ministers." "With the Herodians." Who are these Herodians? According to what is touched on in Luke, under Herod Judea was made tributary to the Romans. This man, the son of Antipater, a foreigner, was made king by the Romans; therefore he wished to compel the Jews to pay tribute to the Romans. Hence the Herodians, that is, the servants appointed to collect the institution of Herod. But this Herod was already dead, and had left three sons. One was Herod, and this one was then present, as is said in Luke, chapter 22, who was also present at the death of the Lord: therefore it was easy that his servants should go along with the others. But why did they go with the Herodians? One reason is that the Herodians were zealous for the emperor. Therefore the disciples of the Pharisees brought them along, so that if he said that tribute ought to be paid, they might accuse him to the Pharisees; if he said that it ought not, then the Herodians might seize him. Likewise, these were not recognized, and so they believed that he would not perceive it; hence they were acting against that word of Psalm 25:4: "I have not sat with the council of vanity, neither will I go in with the doers of unjust things." Or otherwise, because when Judea had been made tributary to the Romans, they were divided, since some said that a people dedicated to God ought not to be tributary to man; while others said that, since he fought for the peace of all, all ought to give tribute to Caesar. Therefore those who said that tribute should be paid to Caesar were called Herodians.

The servants having been set out, the question is set forth. And first the flattery is set forth; second the question, where it says, "tell us what you think." Evil men begin with flattery. "They speak good things, but evil are in their hearts," Psalm 23:3. And first they commend the person; second the teaching; third the constancy. They commend the person from authority and from power. From authority, when they say "Master." And although they lied according to their heart, because they did not think him a master, but a seducer, as is had below, chapter 27:63: "We have remembered that that seducer said, that after three days I will rise again," etc., nevertheless in truth he was a master, as below: "One is your master," and so on. Likewise, "we know that you are truthful." He is truthful who speaks the truth; and this is proper to God, and to him who is joined to God; Psalm 115:11: "I said in my excess: every man is a liar"; Romans 3:4: "But God is true, and every man a liar." But Christ is joined to God by union, and therefore he is truthful. And thus he is commended from authority. Then from power: "and you teach the way of God in truth." First it is necessary that he know what he teaches; Wisdom 7:13: "which I have learned without pretense, and communicate without envy." Likewise, some teach, but not useful things; but this one teaches useful things, namely the way of God; Isaiah 48:17: "I am the Lord your God, teaching you profitable things." Likewise some teach the things that are of God, but not in truth, as the heretics; but this one teaches in truth. Concerning this, in Psalm 24:4: "Show me your ways, O Lord, and teach me your paths. Direct me in your truth," and so on. Likewise they commend his constancy; hence they say, "you have no care for anyone," you do not pass over, out of fear of anyone, what you ought to say or do; Isaiah 51:12: "Who are you, that you should be afraid of a mortal man?" And why? "For you do not regard the person of men," namely against God. For he accepts a person who, for the sake of a man, omits to say the truth which he ought to say; Deuteronomy 1:17: "You shall not accept any man's person." And see how malicious they were. The question had two parts: namely, that they should not pay, this pertained to the honor of God; that they should pay, this pertained to the favor of men. Hence they wanted it to seem that he sought the favor of God, and taught the way of God: and thus if he said "no," which they preferred, he would immediately be seized by the Herodians.

There follows the question: "Tell us therefore... is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?" The census was the tribute that was given per head.

There follows the response: "But Jesus, knowing their malice, said." And first he responds to their mind; second to their words, where it says "render." Because it belongs to man to respond to words, but to God to respond to the mind, therefore, since Christ was God and man, he responds to both. "God searches the hearts and the reins," Psalm 7:10. "Hypocrites." And he rightly calls them hypocrites, because hypocrites are properly those who have one thing in the mouth, another in the heart. "Why do you tempt me?" For this was forbidden, Deuteronomy 6:16: "You shall not tempt the Lord your God." Likewise, these had addressed Christ with flattery; but Christ answered harshly, because he answered to their heart, not to their words. Likewise an example is given to us, that we ought not to believe flatterers; Proverbs 29:12: "A prince who willingly listens to lying words, has all his servants wicked." Likewise, when he wishes to answer something, he cannot better confute an opponent than according to his own words.

Hence first he sets forth the question; second, from the response he elicits the truth. And first he asks about the coin; second about the image: for he wished to show his intent perceptibly; Proverbs 14:6: "The teaching of the prudent is easy." He says, "Show me the coin of the tribute," that is, the denarius which is given for the tribute. This denarius is worth ten of the common coins, and each one paid one denarius. Then he asks about the form: "Whose is this image and superscription?" For on every form of the public denarius an inscription is placed; so it was on this one. They say, "Caesar's": you are to understand not of Caesar Augustus, but of Tiberius Caesar. And you ought to understand that the Lord's asking was not out of ignorance, but rather out of dispensation. For he was indeed of such an age, and had conversed so much among men, that he well knew the form of the denarius, but he asked for the sake of signification.

Consequently he concludes the truth: "Render therefore the things that are Caesar's to Caesar, and the things that are God's to God"; as if to say: you belong to God and to Caesar, and you have in your use both the things that are God's and the things that are Caesar's. You have natural riches from God, namely bread and wine, and of these give to God; you have these artificial things, such as coins, from Caesar, and these render to Caesar. Mystically, thus: we have a soul which is made to the image of God, therefore we ought to render it to God; according to the things which we have from the world, we ought to have peace with the world. Even holy men, though here raised above the world, since nevertheless they converse in the world with others, ought to seek the peace of Babylon, as is had in Baruch 1:10ff. And this is that all things which are of the flesh, which are of the world, or of the men with whom they converse, they should render to God.

There follows the effect: "And hearing it they marveled, and leaving him, they went their way." It was a marvel, because immediately, his wisdom having been seen, they ought to have been converted; but they were not able to grasp it, and they withdrew; Psalm 138:6: "Your knowledge has become wonderful to me from myself; it is made strong, and I shall not be able to attain to it."

In that day. Here the second interrogation is set down, and he does three things. First the interrogation is set down; second, the response; third, the effect. The second is at "But Jesus answering," etc.; the third at "And the crowds hearing him were astonished." Concerning the first, first is set down the disposition and condition of the questioners; second, the interrogation. He says therefore, "in that day." And why "in that day"? Not without reason, because when they saw those others confounded, these approached him not without presumption. But, according to Chrysostom, they had agreed among themselves that they would catch him in speech, and each wanted the honor of the victory: therefore, when those others had been confounded, these wished to come forward; Job 19:12: "his robbers came, and made themselves a way through me." For there were two sects: the Pharisees, that is, the divided, and the Sadducees, that is, the just. And these erred in their teachings, because they did not accept the prophets, nor did they believe in the resurrection. Likewise they believed that when the body died the whole man perished: and this is what is meant by "who say there is no resurrection." There follows the interrogation. And first he sets down the law; second, the case; third, the question. They say therefore, and they questioned him, saying: "Master, Moses said: If a man dies having no son," and so on, Deuteronomy 25:5f. What was the cause of this law? The people were carnal. Hence they sought nothing but temporal things. That law therefore made this promise. For it is manifest that man cannot endure in himself, and so it is a consolation to him that he should remain in his like, namely in a son; and nature desires this, that what cannot be preserved in itself should be preserved in its like. Hence it happened that someone might die without a son, and so Moses provided for this case by this law, that his brother should have his wife. Nor was some stranger appointed, who would have no concern for him; likewise he would not have as much care for the house and family as a brother would: and this is what is meant by "and should raise up seed to his brother," that is, should beget a son who might have that man's inheritance. The law having been set down, they set down the case: "There were with us seven brethren; and the first, having married a wife, died, and having no seed, left his wife to his brother," and so on. It could be that such a case actually happened, or that they themselves fabricated it. Yet according to Augustine, by the seven brothers wicked men are signified, who die in the seven ages without fruit. The Apostle, Romans 6:21: "What fruit have you (or did you have) in those things of which you are now ashamed?" That woman is worldly conversation; Psalm 101:27: "They shall perish, but you shall remain, and all of them shall grow old like a garment." Hence they ask: all died, and all had her: "whose wife shall she be at the resurrection?" since she could not belong to all? This opinion is not good, and it is contrary to the Pharisees, because they believed that the resurrection would be with respect to this life, so that each would have back his own wife and his own possessions, and so on. Hence they say, "whose wife shall she be?" Because she cannot be the wife of all. This opinion is refuted in Job 7:10: "he shall not return to his house any more." Hence he will not rise again to the same manner of living. There follows the response. And first he shows the error and its cause; second he intimates the truth. Hence he says, "Jesus answering said: You err," that is, you hold an erroneous opinion; Wisdom 2:21: "these things they thought, and were deceived: for their own malice blinded them." And what is the cause of the error? "Not knowing the Scriptures." Hence they did not meditate on the commandments of God; Psalm 118:100: "I have had understanding above ancients: because I have sought your commandments." Hence whoever meditates on the commandments of God can avoid errors; hence John 5:39: "Search the Scriptures." But these men did not search them, and therefore they erred, as some do who understand badly. Likewise, some, not knowing the power of God, wish to measure the power of God according to lower things; to the Romans 1:20: "the invisible things of God, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made." "In the resurrection they shall neither marry, nor be given in marriage." He makes clear his proposition. And because he had said two things, namely that they did not know the Scriptures, nor the power of God, he first declares that they were ignorant of the power of God; second, that they were ignorant of the Scriptures. And since he mentioned the Scriptures first, why is this declared second? Chrysostom answers, because when someone disputes with one who errs out of malice, he ought first to allege authority; but when disputing with one who errs out of ignorance, he ought first to set forth reason, and afterward authority. Thus the Lord does. First he sets forth reason; hence he says, "in the resurrection they shall neither marry, nor be given in marriage." The first, according to the letter, is true. "Neither shall they marry," etc., because then it will not be necessary as it is now. Jerome: "marry" is taken one way according to the Latin, another way according to the Greek, because properly, according to the Latin, "to marry" belongs to women: hence it is said to be a neuter passive; but according to the Greek, men "marry," that is, take wives, women "are married," they do not "marry." Therefore he says, "they shall not marry" — men; nor "be given in marriage" — women. For since marriage exists for the procreation of offspring, so that man, who cannot be preserved in himself, may be preserved in his like, therefore, since the resurrection will be unto immortality, then marriages will not be necessary. Therefore these men erred, and were ignorant of the power of God. "But they are as the angels in heaven." That state is the state of reward, and the end of this life. Job 14:14: "Do you think that man that is dead will live again? All the days in which I am now in warfare, I expect until my change come"; and that change was the reward. That life will be one of intellects made resplendent. But why will they be like the angels? Because they will be free from passions; because now man has his intellect bound to the senses, and in this the angels exceed him, but then it will be purified, and therefore they will be like the angels: 2 Kings 14:17: "for as an angel of the Lord, so is also my lord the king, that he is not moved with blessing nor with cursing." Hence those who have their soul lifted up above the passions are like the angels. But the passions which make men most beastlike are the passions of venery, which are exercised through marriage; therefore then they shall neither marry nor be given in marriage. Likewise some have said that not all shall rise again, but only men. But Augustine destroys this, saying that sex will rise again; for sex is not preserved in man alone. He takes away this opinion when he says, "neither shall they marry, nor be given in marriage." From this it is given to be understood that both sexes shall rise, but neither shall marry nor be given in marriage. "But concerning the resurrection of the dead," and so on. After he has shown that they were ignorant of the power of God, here he shows that they were ignorant of the Scriptures. Hence: "Have you not read that which was spoken by the Lord, saying to you: I am the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob?" This is written in Exodus 3:6. But Jerome asks: since there are other authorities more expressly concerning the resurrection, as is found in Isaiah 6 and Ezekiel 33 and Daniel 12, why did he set down this one, which is ambiguous? He answers that they did not accept the prophets, but only the five books of Moses. And how does this serve the purpose? He says, "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." God is said to be the God of certain persons in the sense that they worship him. These men therefore worship him. But to worship God does not belong to the dead, but to the living. Therefore Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob live; but not according to the body: therefore according to the soul. But of what avail is this to the resurrection? It is of avail, because these men said that the soul does not exist; but he shows that the soul remains: and if the soul remains, then the resurrection follows too, because the soul is naturally inclined toward the body. But what does it mean when he says that he is not the God of the dead? This is true with respect to the body. Yet he is also the God of the dead, because they live according to the spirit; Romans 14:8: "whether we live, or whether we die, we are the Lord's." Likewise this is against the heretics who condemn the fathers of the Old Testament, because here he says that they live according to the soul. Likewise he speaks in the singular, because among the other nations each people had its own god. "Hear, O Israel: the Lord your God is one," Deuteronomy 6:4. There follows the effect, because they marveled: "and the crowds hearing it were astonished at his teaching." Psalm 118:129: "your testimonies, O Lord, are wonderful," and so on.

Above, the Lord answered the question raised about the payment of tribute, and also the question about the resurrection; here, however, he answers the question about the comparison of the divine commandments, and he does two things. For first the question is set forth; second, the answer, at the words "Jesus said to them," and so on. Concerning the first he does two things. First he describes the wickedness of those questioning; second, the question itself, at "Master, what is the great commandment in the law?" He describes their wickedness with respect to three things: first, with respect to their shamelessness; second, with respect to their contrived malice; third, with respect to their deceitfulness. As to shamelessness, this is indicated when it says that they had heard that he had imposed silence. He had already confuted the disciples of the Pharisees and the Sadducees, so that from this they might well have believed him and been ashamed. Whence Chrysostom says: envy and anger nourish and cause shamelessness. But these men did not for this reason desist, but questioned him still further; Isaiah 56:11: "most shameless dogs, they have not known fullness." And it is signified that although they heard this, they nevertheless did not fall silent. One man keeps silence of his own will, and this belongs to the prudent man. Another keeps silence because silence is imposed upon him, and this belongs to the imprudent man; Ecclesiasticus 20:6: "there is one who keeps silent, not having the sense of speech; and there is one who keeps silent, knowing the fitting time"; Ecclesiastes 3:7: "there is a time to keep silence, and a time to speak." Likewise their contrived malice is touched upon, because, in order that they might the better convict him, they gather together at the same time; Psalm 2:2: "the princes have come together as one against the Lord." "They came together as one." It can be said that the Pharisees and the Sadducees came together, although they differed in their sects, yet as one for the purpose of tempting the Lord. Or, the Pharisees came together as one against the Lord. Likewise their deceitfulness is signified, because, although they were gathered in a multitude, they did not wish that all should question him, but one only; so that if he were defeated, the others would not be confuted, and if he prevailed, all would glory in him. "And one of them, a doctor of the law, questioned him, tempting him," because not with the intention of learning; Job 16:11: "they have opened their mouths against me, and reproaching, they have struck my cheek." Here there can be a literal objection, because Mark says that the Lord, having looked upon him, said: "you are not far from the kingdom of God." And how is it said here that he tempts him? Augustine resolves this, saying that he came at first for the sake of tempting, but when Christ satisfied him, he assented to him. And so the fact that he tempted him ought to be referred to the beginning; the fact that he is not far from the kingdom of God ought to be referred back to the end. And thus it is no wonder if the Lord's words changed his mind. It must be known, however, that some tempt because they are not certain, since, according to what the wise man says, Ecclesiasticus 19:4: "he who believes quickly is light of heart." This man, having heard many things about Christ, wished to test whether he was such as reported; and this temptation would not be evil. Whence he says, "Master, what is the great commandment in the law?" Yet this question seemed calumnious and presumptuous: calumnious, because all the commandments of God are great; Proverbs 6:23: "the commandment is a lamp, and the law a light." Likewise he asked indeterminately, because all are great, so that if he answered concerning one, he would object concerning another. Likewise it was presumptuous, because one who has not fulfilled the least ought not to inquire about the great; Job 15:12: "why does your heart lift you up, and why do you have astonished eyes, as though thinking great things?" And it could be that there was controversy over this question among them, because some said that salvation lay in certain external things; whence Isaiah 29:13: "this people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me." But the Lord answers that it lies only in interior things. Whence the answer follows: "Jesus said to him: You shall love the Lord your God," and so on. And he not only answers the question proposed, but teaches the truth. And first he teaches what is first; second, what is like to it; third, he assigns the reason. The second is at "and the second is like to this," and so on. The third is at "on these two commandments depend the whole law and the prophets." He says, therefore, "you shall love the Lord your God," and so on. This is written in Deuteronomy 6:5. Likewise the Lord through Moses says, Deuteronomy 10:12: "does the Lord require of you anything but that you fear and love him?" Therefore he commands two things, namely fear and love. And why does the Lord not answer concerning fear, as he does concerning love? It must be said that some fear God who fear to suffer from him, as those who fear the punishment of Gehenna, or who fear to lose something which they have from God; and this is servile fear, because such a one loves that in which he fears to be punished. There is another who fears God himself for his own sake, who fears to offend him; and such fear arises from love, and from this he fears, because he loves; therefore the principle is love; 1 John 4:16: "God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him." And therefore he says "you shall love the Lord," not "you shall fear," because God is to be loved as the first lovable object, since he is the first end, but whatever other things are loved are loved for the sake of an end. He, therefore, who loves God as an end, loves him with the whole heart; Joel 2:12: "turn to me with your whole heart." And however much you strive, you will not be able to comprehend him, because God is greater than the whole heart. But what is meant by his saying "with your whole heart, and with your whole soul, and with your whole mind"? Chrysostom expounds it thus: because in love there are two things: one which is the beginning; the second which is the effect and sequel of love. The beginning of love is twofold. For love can arise from passion, and from the judgment of reason: from passion, when a man does not know how to live without that which he loves; from reason, insofar as he loves as reason dictates. He says, therefore, that he loves "with the whole heart" who loves in a carnal manner; he loves "with the soul" who loves from the judgment of reason. And we ought to love God in both ways: carnally, so that the heart is carnally affected toward God; whence in Psalm 83:3: "my heart and my flesh have rejoiced in the living God." The third is the sequel of love, because that which I love, I gladly look upon, gladly think about, gladly do what pleases it; John 14:23: "he who loves me will keep my words"; and I refer everything to it; Psalm 83:2: "how beloved are your tabernacles, O Lord of hosts. My soul longs and faints for the courts of the Lord." And we can add what Mark adds, "and with all your strength," because he who loves God transfers his whole self into him, and expends his strength upon him. Augustine distinguishes thus between heart and soul and mind, according to three things which proceed from them. From the heart proceed thoughts, as is had above at 15:19; from the soul proceeds life; from the mind, knowledge and understanding. Whence what he says, "with the whole heart," is to be understood as meaning that we refer all our thoughts to him; what he says, "with the whole soul," that our whole life is referred to him; what he says, "with the whole mind," that all knowledge is referred to him, that is, that we bring knowledge captive into obedience to him; 2 Corinthians 10:5: "bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ." A certain magisterial Gloss expounds that the soul is the image of God according to its powers, namely according to memory, understanding, and will, in such a way that what is said "from the heart" is referred to understanding; what is said "from the soul," to the will; what is said "from the mind," to memory, so that God may be lived for perfectly. Origen expounds it thus: "you shall love God with your whole soul," so that you are ready to lay down your soul for him, if it is necessary; John 13:37: "I will lay down my soul for you." But there is a difference between mind and heart. For "mind" (mens) is so called from measuring (metiendo); "heart" is taken for the simplicity of the intellect; "mind," however, with respect to its utterance, because through speech the intellect, or thought, is measured; whence he wishes to say that in speech and in meditations we should love God totally. This being posited, he adds, "this is the first and the greatest commandment." Greatest in capacity: for this is that in which all things are contained, because in this the love of neighbor is contained, according to what is said in 1 John 4:21: "he who loves God loves his brother also"; and therefore it is the greatest. Likewise it is first in origin, greatest in dignity and capacity. It is not first in Scripture, because in Scripture the first commandment was, "the Lord your God is one God," Deuteronomy 6:4. And why? Because every inclination of the appetitive power is toward love: therefore we have the commandment that we should worship God in love; Romans 13:10: "love is the fullness of the law"; Ephesians 3:17: "rooted and founded in charity." Second, he sets down the second commandment, "and the second is like to this: you shall love your neighbor as yourself." He wished to signify that there is an order among the commandments. And what is the cause of this? It is agreed that the commandments concern the acts of the virtues; but the virtues have an order, because one depends upon another, and as the virtues, so also the commandments. But why does he say that it is like the first? Because when a man is loved, since man is made in the likeness of God, God is loved in him; therefore it is like the first commandment, which concerns the love of God. But what does he understand by the name "neighbor," when he says "you shall love your neighbor"? This is sufficiently indicated in the parable, Luke 10:36, where it is asked, who seems to you to have been his neighbor? And the answer is given: he who showed mercy to him. Whence he who ought to show mercy to us, or we ourselves, is comprised under the name of neighbor. But there is no rational creature to whom we do not owe mercy, and conversely; and therefore under the name of neighbor both man and angel are comprised. And as to what he says, "as yourself," this is not to be understood as meaning "as much as yourself," because this would be against the order of charity; but "as yourself," that is, for the same end as yourself, or in the same manner as yourself. For the same end, because you ought not to love yourself for your own sake, but for God's sake, and so also your neighbor. The Apostle, 1 Corinthians 10:31: "do all things for the glory of God." Likewise, in that you love yourself, you love yourself in this, that you will good for yourself, and such good as is in accordance with you and the law of God, and this is the good of justice. Thus also you ought to wish good justice for your neighbor; whence you ought to love him, either because he is just, or because he is becoming just. Likewise you ought to love him in the same manner as yourself, because when I say "I love this one," I say "I will good to him." Whence the act of love falls upon two things: either upon the one who is good, or upon the good itself, which I will to him; whence I love this one, because I will him to be good for me. Whence someone loves temporal goods, because he knows them to be good for himself; but some love a thing because it is good in itself: thus you ought to love yourself, and also your neighbor. Consequently he assigns the reason why these two are the greatest commandments: "on these two commandments depend the whole law, and the prophets." The whole teaching of the law and the prophets depends upon these. The end, in the sphere of appetible things, stands as the principle does in speculative matters: for knowledge proceeds from principles to conclusions, and thus all knowledge is judged from its principles, just as also in all things done, the whole depends upon the end. Because, therefore, love is the end; 1 Timothy 1:5: "the end of the commandment is charity"; therefore all other things depend upon these, and this is the exposition of Augustine. Origen expounds it thus: on these, that is, on the observance of these, depends the understanding of the law and the prophets, because he who observes these merits the understanding of the law and the prophets; Ecclesiasticus 2:10: "you who fear the Lord, love him, and your hearts shall be enlightened"; Psalm 118:104: "from your commandments I have understood, therefore I have hated every way of iniquity."

"And the Pharisees being gathered together, Jesus asked them." After he had answered them, he himself wished to raise an objection; and he does two things. First the question is set forth; second, its effect, at "no one was able to answer him a word." Concerning the first, first he proposes the question; second, the answer; third, he objects against it. He says, therefore, "and the Pharisees being gathered together, Jesus asked them." Now they had gathered together for the purpose of tempting him; whence he sets forth the question, "what think you of Christ, whose son is he?" This question was most difficult and fitting. Most difficult, because it is had, Isaiah 53:8: "who shall declare his generation?" It was also fitting, because they held the opinion that he was a mere man, and did not believe him to be God, since otherwise they would not tempt him, because it is written, Deuteronomy 6:16: "you shall not tempt the Lord your God." Therefore, in order to show himself God, he says, "what think you of Christ?" There follows the answer, "they say to him: David." For Christ had a twofold generation: one according to the flesh, the other according to divinity, according to which he is the Son of God the Father, concerning which it is said, Psalm 2:7: "the Lord said to me: you are my son," and so on. Therefore they answer concerning the generation according to the flesh, when they say "David." Jeremiah 23:5: "I will raise up to David a just branch." And Romans 1:3: "who was made to him of the seed of David according to the flesh." And these men answered insufficiently, because they knew him insufficiently. Then he objects, so as to make them understand another generation: "how then does David in spirit call him Lord, saying: the Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand?" Psalm 109:1. It is had in the law that the father is greater than the son. Therefore the son is not lord of the father. Therefore either Christ is not the son of David, or there is in him something greater than David, since David calls him Lord. But perhaps they would say that David was deceived: which he removes, because he says this in spirit; whence "men spoke by the Holy Spirit of God," 2 Peter 1:21. Now we can see three things in this authority of the Psalm: first, pre-eminence over the saints, equality with the Father, and dominion over rebels. Pre-eminence over the saints, when it says "the Lord said to my Lord." "The Lord," namely the Father, "to my Lord," namely the Son: for the Son himself has dominion over all the saints: for no saint is illumined except by the true light: but he himself is the true light; John 1:4: "the life was the light of men." If, then, he himself is the one by participation in whom all the saints receive light, he has pre-eminence over all the saints in that it is said: "with you is the principality in the day of your strength, in the splendors of the saints," etc.; whence he himself is originally the splendor of all the saints. Likewise the equality of the Father is touched upon, when it is said "sit at my right hand": not that these are local seats, but metaphorically, because the more honorable place is to sit at the right hand. For "to say" is to send forth a word. What then did the Lord mean by saying "sit at my right hand," except that in begetting me as Word, he gave me power, equality, and authority? It can also be expounded of temporal things, that is, in more excellent goods, but this is not to the purpose. For the Lord is always seen at the right hand, as in Mark, last chapter, verse 5: "they saw a young man sitting at the right hand." And Stephen, Acts 7:55, "saw Jesus standing at the right hand of the power of God." And what shall become of his enemies? All shall be subjected to him; whence he adds, "until I make your enemies your footstool." These are either wholly unbelieving, or those who have refused to obey and be subject; whence he will make these "your footstool." For a footstool is that which is placed under the feet; and that which is under the feet is wholly subjected to him, but not that which is in the hand. Some are made a footstool for punishment, some for salvation: for punishment, those who refuse to do his will; for salvation, those who do his will. But the Arians object: therefore he is not equal to the Father. I say that both are read: both that he is subjected to the Father, and that he is equal to the Father; 1 Corinthians 15:25: "for he must reign, until he puts his enemies under his feet." Likewise Christ will subject all things to himself; Philippians 3:21: "he will reform the body of our lowliness, configured to the body of his glory." Whence this is said to demonstrate the unity of power: whence whatever the Father can do, the Son can do the same. But what is meant by his saying "until I make your enemies your footstool"? It would then seem that after he has subjected his enemies, he will no longer sit at the right hand. It must be said that "until" sometimes denotes a determinate time, sometimes an infinite one. Here, however, it denotes the infinite. But someone might say: do not many rebel against Christ? Yes, it is true that many rebel, and therefore there could be doubt about the time when many would rebel: therefore Christ wished to express it thus. If, then, David calls him Lord, how is he his son? Therefore he is both Lord and son, because he is son according to the flesh, since from him he drew his origin, and Lord according to divinity. "And no one was able to answer him a word." Here the effect is set forth, and it is twofold, because Christ was both answering and objecting. Because objecting: "no one was able to answer him"; Job 9:3: "if he wishes to contend with him, he cannot answer him one for a thousand." Likewise, because in answering he had confuted them, therefore there follows: "nor did anyone dare from that day forth to ask him any more questions." Therefore you can see that these men did not question in order that he might teach them, but in order that they might tempt him; Deuteronomy 32:7: "ask your father, and he will declare to you."