Luke 20 · The Lantern

One day as Jesus was teaching the people in the temple courts and proclaiming the gospel, the chief priests and scribes, together with the elders, came up to Him.

But the rulers who should have been struck with wonder at one who taught such heavenly doctrines, and have been convinced by His words and deeds that this was the same Christ whom the Prophets had foretold, came to hinder Him, so helping onward the destruction of the people. For it follows, And spake unto him, saying, Tell us, by what authority doest thou these things? &c.

For the Saviour Himself reproached them, saying, "And to you, lawyers, woe! for you have taken away the key of knowledge: you enter not in yourselves, and those that are entering in you have hindered." They rise up therefore against Christ as He teaches, and wickedly and abominably call out and say, "Tell us, by what authority You do these things?

After he confuted the unbelief of the Jews through deeds, here he confutes through words and teachings. Now this part is divided into three. In the first he confutes by teachings the Pharisees erring from malice. In the second he confutes the Sadducees erring from ignorance, there: But certain of the Sadducees came forward, etc.

“Tell us,” they said, “by what authority are You doing these things, and who gave You this authority?”

The Jews, accusing the Lord, said: "By what power do you do these things? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly." They sought a cause, not faith; whence they might lay traps, not whence they might be freed. Indeed, he who saw their hearts, observe what he answered to confound them through the lamp.

But they foolishly ask Him: "By what authority do You do these things?" Yet it was possible for them to understand that since He brought forward the words of the prophet as testimony that the house of God is a house of prayer, and not a marketplace and a den of robbers (for greed and trading are characteristic of robbers), then what need, after all, is there to ask Him by what…

For which reason it is added: And they say, speaking to him: Tell us: By what authority do you do these things? Or who is it that gave you this authority?

“I will also ask you a question,” Jesus replied. “Tell Me:

Now our Lord by a simple answer might have refuted such a calumny; but He wisely asks a question, that by their silence or their words they might condemn themselves. And he answered and said unto them, I also will ask, &c.

For that He might show that they had always rebelled against the Holy Spirit, and that besides Isaiah, whom they remembered not, they had refused to believe John whom they had lately seen; He now in his turn puts the question to them, proving that if so great a Prophet as John who was accounted greatest among them had been disbelieved when he testified of Him, they would in no…

Second, as to the sagacity of Christ in resisting, it is added: But Jesus answering said to them: I also will ask you one word. When he should have responded, he asked a question—not because he did not know, but because they are better bound by a question posed than by a direct answer.

John’s baptism—was it from heaven, or from men?”

The baptism announced by John formed the subject, even at that time, of a question, proposed by the Lord Himself indeed to the Pharisees, whether that baptism were heavenly, or truly earthly: about which they were unable to give a consistent answer, inasmuch as they understood not, because they believed not.

As if He should say, He whom yon confess had his gift of prophecy from heaven, and gave testimony to Me. And ye heard from him by what power I should do these things. It follows, But if we shall say, Of men; the whole people will stone us: for they be persuaded that John was a prophet.

Therefore he carefully inquires and asks, so that whatever they answer, they may be refuted, when he adds: Answer me: The baptism of John, whence was it? From heaven, or from men?

They deliberated among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ He will ask, ‘Why did you not believe him?’

But if we say, ‘From men,’ all the people will stone us, for they are convinced that John was a prophet.”

Suppose their answer to have been, that John's baptism was "of men," they would have been immediately stoned to death. Some Marcion, in rivalry to Marcion, would have stood up and said: O most excellent God; how different are his ways from the Creator's! Knowing that men would rush down headlong over it, He placed them actually on the very precipice.

But if we say, 'From men,' all the people will stone us. For they are certain that John is a prophet." Therefore, they saw that whatever they responded, they would fall into a trap, fearing stoning, but fearing the confession of the truth even more.

But if we shall say: From men, all the people will stone us, abhorring the falsehood. For blasphemers were to be stoned according to the Law: Leviticus 24: "Bring forth the blasphemer outside the camp, and let all who heard lay their hands upon his head, and let all the people stone him." For they are certain that John is a Prophet, on account of his most evident holiness, for…

So they answered that they did not know where it was from.

And Jesus replied, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.”

Then He proceeded to tell the people this parable: “A man planted a vineyard, rented it out to some tenants, and went away for a long time.

The rulers of the Jewish people being now assembled together in the temple, Christ put forth a parable, foretelling by a figure the things they were about to do to Him, and the rejection that was in store for them.

Or God took Himself away from the vineyard for the course of many years, for since the time that He was seen to descend in the likeness of fire upon Mount Sinai, He no longer vouchsafed to them His visible presence; though no change took place, in which He sent not His prophets and righteous men to give warning thereof; as it follows, And at the time of the vintage he sent a se…

He began to say to the people, etc. After he repulsed the calumny of the Pharisees, here consequently he reproves and exposes their hidden perfidy through a parable proposed to the people. In this parable, however, three things are intimated. The first is the benignity of divine liberality.

At harvest time, he sent a servant to the tenants to collect his share of the fruit of the vineyard. But the tenants beat the servant and sent him away empty-handed.

He went away, but plainly he cared for his farm and kept it in his mind. He sent faithful servants to them at three different times to receive produce or fruit from the tillers of the vineyard.

He sends various "servants," that is, prophets, so as to have at least some small profit; for He desired, it says, to receive "some of the fruit," and not all the fruit. And what fruit is there from us to God, if not the knowledge of Him? And this is our gain; yet He counts our salvation and our benefit as His own.

And at the time of the vintage he sent, etc. After he described the benignity of divine generosity, he here describes the malice of Jewish perversity. The perversity of the malice of the Jews is described in two ways: first, namely before the coming of Christ; second, after the coming of Christ, at the place: But the lord of the vineyard said: What shall I do?

So he sent another servant, but they beat him and treated him shamefully, sending him away empty-handed.

And it came to pass that He ordained many others, whom the Jews sent back to him disgraced and empty, for they could reap nothing from them; as it follows, And again he sent another servant.

And he added the sending of another servant. But they also beat him and treated him shamefully, and sent him away empty-handed. The other servant signifies David the prophet and king. Who was sent after Moses, to urge the tenants of the vineyard, through the modulation of psalmody and the sweetness of the lyre, to the practice of good work after the legal decrees.

Second, regarding the perversity with respect to King David, the chief worshiper of God, he adds: And he proceeded to send another servant; The Gloss says: "The other servant is David the prophet, who after Moses invited the tenants of the vineyard to the exercise of good works by the melody of psalmody and the sweetness of the harp." The Lord sent him when he chose him from th…

Then he sent a third, but they wounded him and threw him out.

‘What shall I do?’ asked the owner of the vineyard. ‘I will send my beloved son. Perhaps they will respect him.’

Now it was not accidentally but part of the purpose of the divine dispensation that Christ came after the prophets. For God does not pursue all things at once, but accommodates Himself to mankind through His great mercy; for if they despised His Son coming after His servants, much less would they have heard Him before.

But the Lord of the vineyard said: What shall I do? I will send my beloved son. Perhaps when they see him, they will respect him. Though the Lord of the vineyard is said to speak doubtfully and not with deliberation, this does not come from ignorance. For what could the Lord of the vineyard, who is understood here to be God the Father, not know?

But the lord of the vineyard said, etc. After having described the perversity of the Jews before the coming of Christ against the persons of the servants, here he describes the malignity of their perversity after the coming, against the very Son of God, Jesus Christ.

But when the tenants saw the son, they discussed it among themselves and said, ‘This is the heir. Let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’

So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them?

He rightly puts a question to them, that they may condemn themselves by their own words, as it follows, What then will the Lord of the vineyard do to them? He says, the Lord of the vineyard will come, because in the Son is present also the Father's majesty; or because in the last times He will be more graciously present by His Spirit in the hearts of men.

Since we have already assumed the people, not Jerusalem, to be the vineyard, it may perhaps be more properly said that the people indeed slew Him without the vineyard; that is, our Lord suffered without the hands of the people, because in truth the people did not with their own hands inflict death upon Him, but delivered Him up to Pilate and the Gentiles.

Third, as regards the flagitious deed, it is added: And having cast him out of the vineyard, they killed him, that is, outside Jerusalem, because it is said in the last chapter of Hebrews: "Christ suffered outside the gate.

He will come and kill those tenants, and will give the vineyard to others.” And when the people heard this, they said, “May such a thing never happen!”

And this happens as it were to men who are condemned, having nothing to answer to the plain evidence of justice. But it is the property of Divine mercy not to inflict punishment in secret, but to foretell it with threatenings, that so it might recall men to repentance; and thus it follows here, He shall come and destroy those husbandmen.

What did the scribes and Pharisees say when they heard the parable? Their words were, "Heaven forbid!" One may see by this that having understood its more profound significance, they put away from them the impending suffering and were afraid of the coming danger.

What therefore will he do to them, etc. After he has described parabolically the benignity of divine generosity and the perversity of Jewish malice, here now in the third place he describes the severity of judicial vengeance.

But Jesus looked directly at them and said, “Then what is the meaning of that which is written: ‘The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone’?

Christ is called a stone on account of His earthly body, cut out without hands, (Dan. 2:34.) as in the vision of Daniel, because of His birth of the Virgin. But the stone is neither of silver nor gold, because He is not any glorious King, but a man lowly and despised, wherefore the builders rejected Him.

As if He said, How shall the prophecy be fulfilled, except that Christ, being rejected and slain by you, is to be preached to the Gentiles, who will believe on Him, that as the corner stone He may thus from both nations build up one temple to Himself?

Third, regarding the firmness of the attestation of Scripture, he adds: But he, looking upon them, said: What then is this that is written: The stone which the builders rejected, the same has become the head of the corner? This is written in the Psalm, where it is immediately added: "This is the Lord's doing," etc.

Everyone who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed.”

Or else, He who is a sinner, yet believes on Christ, falls indeed upon the stone and is shaken, for he is preserved by penitence unto salvation. But upon whomsoever it shall fall, that is, upon whom the stone itself has come down because he denied it, it shall grind him to powder, so that not even a broken piece of a vessel shall be left, in which may be drunk a little water.

The Lord speaks here of a twofold destruction. One is the destruction of their souls, which they suffered because they were scandalized. For everyone who falls on this stone will be broken. The other is the destruction from the captivity which this stone brought upon them for their rejection of Him.

And therefore he adds: Everyone who falls upon that stone shall be broken, through the corruption of sin; but upon whomever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder, through the vengeance of the future judgment. For fault renders nature weak, but eternal punishment utterly crushes and reduces to dust.

When the scribes and chief priests realized that Jesus had spoken this parable against them, they sought to arrest Him that very hour. But they were afraid of the people.

It became indeed the rulers of the Jews, perceiving that the parable was spoken of them, to depart from evil, having been thus as it were warned concerning the future. But little mindful of this, they rather gather a fresh occasion for their crimes. The commandment of the Law restrained them not, which says, The innocent and righteous men thou shalt not slay, (Exod.

But even then, when they understood that the Lord was speaking this parable against them, they plotted against Him and would have laid hands on Him, had they not feared the people. The Law also says: "Do not put to death the innocent and the righteous" (Ex.

And the chief priests sought, etc. After the refuted calumny and the exposed perfidy, there follows here the third part, in which he detects their contrived cunning. Of this cunning, the Evangelist first describes the deceitful contrivance; and second, the truthful confutation, at the passage: But considering their deceit, etc.

So they watched Him closely and sent spies who pretended to be sincere. They were hoping to catch Him in His words in order to hand Him over to the rule and authority of the governor.

But suppose they sent Him the message for the purpose of tempting Him? Well, but the Scripture does not say so; and inasmuch as it is usual for it to indicate what is done in the way of temptation ("Behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted Him; " again, when inquiring about tribute, the Pharisees came to Him, tempting Him ), so, when it makes no mention of temptation, it…

And observing, they sent spies, who pretended to be righteous, in order to catch him in his speech, and deliver him to the authority and power of the governor.

Second, as regards the malicious plotting, he adds: And watching, they sent spies who feigned themselves to be just, against that passage of Proverbs 24: "Do not lie in wait and seek iniquity against the house of the just, and do not lay waste his rest." But plots are carried out through pretenses: against whom Job 36: "Dissemblers and the crafty provoke the wrath of God"; beca…

“Teacher,” they inquired, “we know that You speak and teach correctly. You show no partiality, but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth.

What do they say? "Teacher, we know that you speak and teach rightly, nor do you accept persons but teach the way of God in truth. Is it lawful for us to give tribute to Caesar, or not?" O what polluted dishonesty! The God of all certainly wanted Israel to be exempt from human rule. They trampled under foot the divine laws and totally despised the commandment given to them.

And they questioned him, saying: Master, we know that you speak and teach rightly, and do not show partiality, but teach the way of God in truth. Is it lawful for us to give tribute to Caesar, or not?

Third, regarding the malicious interrogation, he adds: And they asked him, saying: Master, we know that you speak and teach rightly. Regarding the word, they speak truly indeed, because John 17: "Your word is truth." They themselves were saying this by way of flattery, so that they might extract the secret of his heart from him.

Is it lawful for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”

And everywhere we, more readily than all men, endeavour to pay to those appointed by you the taxes both ordinary and extraordinary, as we have been taught by Him; for at that time some came to Him and asked Him, if one ought to pay tribute to Caesar; and He answered, "Tell Me, whose image does the coin bear?" And they said, "Caesar's." And again He answered them, "Render theref…

This they say, to entice Him to tell them that they ought not to pay tribute, in order that the servants of the guard, (who according to the other Evangelists are said to have been present,) might immediately upon hearing it seize Him as the leader of a sedition against the Romans. And so they proceed to ask, Is it lawful to give tribute to Cæsar, or not?

And this is evident from their crafty interrogation, when it is added: Is it lawful for us to give tribute to Caesar, or not? according to the decree of divine law; in this they propose a deceitful question because, whichever answer is given, they intend to lead him into an absurdity.

But Jesus saw through their duplicity and said to them,

But perceiving their craftiness, he said to them: Why do you test me? Show me a denarius. Whose image and inscription does it have? Wisdom always acts wisely, so that his tempters may be refuted by their own words. Show me, he said, a denarius. This is the type of coin accounted for ten coins and bore the image of Caesar.

But He escapes their snares, as it follows, Perceiving their craftiness, he said unto them, Why tempt ye me? show me a penny. Whose image and superscription has it?

But he, perceiving their deceit. After he described the deceitful contrivance of cunning, here secondly he describes the truthful confutation. Concerning which three things are introduced, namely the circumspect consideration of the wisdom of the one responding, the truthful resolution of the proposed question, and the evident confutation of the cunning of the dissembler.

“Show Me a denarius. Whose image and inscription are on it?” “Caesar’s,” they answered.

Furthermore, man became in the beginning, as it is written in Genesis, "in the image of God," but later due to his disobedience, he also took on an "earthly" image. Just as a coin bears the image of the ruling king of nations, thus the one doing the works of the "ruler of the world" bears his image.

How did Christ overcome their craftiness? "Show me," he says, "a denarius." When they showed it to him, he asks, "Whose image and superscription are on it?" They said, "Caesar's." What did Christ answer to that? "Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." Those who have the office to govern impose a tribute of money on their subjects.

And because the cunning of temptation is refuted through the manifestation of truth, therefore it is added: Show me a denarius. Whose image and inscription does it bear? They answered and said to him: Caesar's, namely in the outward sign. The Lord does not ask this because he doubts, but so that from their response he might confute them.

So Jesus told them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

And of civil government: "Render to Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things which are God's."

If he did not have the image of Caesar, why did he pay the tax? He did not give from his own but gave back to the world what was of the world. If you would not be indebted to Caesar, do not possess what belongs to the world. You have wealth; therefore you are indebted to Caesar. If you want to owe nothing to an earthly king, leave all that you have and follow Christ.

Secondly, as to the truthful resolution of the proposed question, he adds: And he said to them: Render therefore the things that are Caesar's to Caesar: in which he manifestly gives a just response: for it is an act of justice "to render to each one what is his own." If therefore a thing belongs to him whose inscription it bears, since temporal things bear the inscription of Ca…

And they were unable to trap Him in His words before the people; and amazed at His answer, they fell silent.

If, then, forasmuch as there is in the law a precept that a man is to take in marriage the wife of his brother if he have died without children, for the purpose of raising up seed to his brother; and this may happen repeatedly to the same person, according to that crafty question of the Sadducees; men for that reason think that frequency of marriage is permitted in other cases…

The Pharisees could not catch Jesus in His word before the people. For their special concern was to slander Him before the people as one who was enslaving the nation to the Romans. But this they could not achieve because of His most wise answer.

Thirdly, as to the evident confutation of shifty cunning, he adds: And they were not able to reprehend his word before the people, by any apparent contradiction. Nor is this surprising, because in Romans nine: "Who are you to answer back to God?" Whence in Job nine: "If he should suddenly question, who will answer him?

Then some of the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to question Him.

Therefore no solicitude arising from carnal jealousy will, in the day of the resurrection, even in the case of her whom they chose to represent as having been married to seven brothers successively, wound any one of her so many husbands; nor is any (husband) awaiting her to put her to confusion. The question raised by the Sadducees has yielded to the Lord's sentence.

The Sadducees were a particular sect of the Jews that did not believe in the resurrection. When the Sadducees posed this problem, the Jews were uncertain, hesitant and could not really answer it, because they assumed that flesh and blood could possess the kingdom of God, that is, the perishable could possess imperishability. Along comes Truth.

But certain ones came forward. After he confuted the faithlessness of those erring from malice, here secondly he confutes the unbelief of those erring from ignorance; and this part has two sections. In the first he confutes the error concerning the resurrection; in the second, concerning the incarnation, at the place: But he said to them.

“Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man is to marry his brother’s widow and raise up offspring for him.

According to the letter of the law, a woman is compelled to marry, however unwilling, in order that a brother may raise up seed to his brother who is dead. The letter therefore killeth, but the Spirit is the master of charity.

And they asked him, saying: Teacher, Moses wrote to us, if anyone's brother dies having a wife, and he is without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed to his brother. See the difference between the letter and the spirit.

Second, regarding the inquiry of the Sadducees alleging the precept, it is added: And they asked him, saying: Master, Moses wrote for us, that is, in authentic and just scripture, according to that of Ecclesiasticus twenty-four: "Moses commanded a law in the precepts of justices"; whence Deuteronomy thirty-one: "After Moses had written the words of this Law in a volume and comp…

Now there were seven brothers. The first one married a wife, but died childless.

Mystically, this woman is the synagogue, which had seven husbands, as it is said to the Samaritan, Thou hadst five husbands, (John 4:18.) because the Samaritan follows only the five books of Moses, the synagogue for the most part seven.

They devise this story in order to convict those of folly, who assert the resurrection of the dead. Hence they object a base fable, that they may deny the truth of the resurrection.

Third, regarding the allegation of those introducing the case, it is added: Therefore there were seven brothers, and the first took a wife and died without children. And the next took her, and he himself died without a son. And the third took her. Likewise also all seven, and they did not leave seed and died. Last of all the woman also died.

Then the second

and the third married the widow, and in the same way all seven died, leaving no children.

And last of all, the woman died.

So then, in the resurrection, whose wife will she be? For all seven were married to her.”

For the question submitted to Christ had nothing to do with the god, but only with the state, of that world. It was: "Whose wife should this woman be in that world after the resurrection?

In the resurrection, therefore, of which of them will she be the wife? For the seven had her as wife. They oppose with the disgrace of the story, so that they may deny the truth of the resurrection.

Fourth, regarding the cavil of the Sadducees posing the doubt, it is added: In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of them shall she be? Since indeed seven had her as wife, as if they were saying: she belongs no more to one than to another; therefore either all will have her, or none. If therefore both are unfitting, it is against the Law to posit the resurrection.

Jesus answered, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage.

And our Lord Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, for no other reason than that He might destroy the begetting by lawless desire, and might show to the ruler that the formation of man was possible to God without human intervention.

Of the benefit of virginity and of continency. In Genesis: "Multiplying I will multiply thy sorrows and thy groanings, and in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children; and thy turning shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." Of this same thing in the Gospel according to Matthew: "All men do not receive the word, but they to whom it is given: for there are some eunuc…

Against conjugal chastity it is objected: Luke 20: The children of this age marry and are given in marriage, etc.: but the children of this age are not children of God: therefore through the conjugal act which they exercise, they are not children of God: therefore conjugal continence is repugnant to the law of God.

But those who are considered worthy to share in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage.

Just as our Lord also said, 'They shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal to the angels, the children of the God of the resurrection.'

What did the Lord say to the Sadducees? He said, "You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures or the power of God. For in the resurrection they marry neither husbands nor wives; for neither do they start dying again, but they will be equal to the angels of God." The power of God is great. Why do they not marry husbands or wives? They will not start dying again.

Therefore he adds: But they who shall be accounted worthy of that age and of the resurrection from the dead shall neither marry nor take wives: neither shall they marry, as regards women, nor take wives, as regards men. He calls the just worthy of the resurrection.

In fact, they can no longer die, because they are like the angels. And since they are sons of the resurrection, they are sons of God.

Even Moses demonstrates that the dead are raised, in the passage about the burning bush. For he calls the Lord ‘the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’

For since the Sadducees indeed denied the resurrection, whilst the Lord affirmed it; since, too, (in affirming it, ) He reproached them as being both ignorant of the Scriptures-those, of course which had declared the resurrection-as well as incredulous of the power of God, though, of course, effectual to raise the dead, and lastly, since He immediately added the words, "Now, th…

But that the dead rise again, even Moses showed at the bush, as he says, "The Lord God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." To confirm the truth of the resurrection, he could have used much more obvious examples, among which is this: "The dead shall be raised, and those who are in the tombs shall arise." Therefore it is questioned why the Lord chose to bring…

Third, as to the confirmation of reason, he adds: That the dead truly rise, even Moses showed at the bush, that is, the word of the Lord which he spoke to Moses in the vision of that burning and unconsumed bush, according to what is said in Exodus 3: "The Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of the bush, and he saw that the bush burned and was not consumed"; a…

He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to Him all are alive.”

For those that have believed in God, although they are asleep, are not dead. For our Saviour says to the Sadducees: "But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which is written, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?

"God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." To prove that souls remain after death, something which they denied along with other things (for it could not be that he is the God of those who do not exist at all), the resurrection of bodies would consequently be inferred, which, with the souls, have done good or evil.

From this, however, the Lord wishes to infer the future resurrection, when he adds: But God is not of the dead, but of the living. For all live to him. From which it follows that they live to him either in act or in potency; but all these were actually dead; therefore they were living to God as to power and disposition. It is therefore necessary to posit a future resurrection.

Some of the scribes answered, “Teacher, You have spoken well!”

They, indeed, who had caught the very force of His voice, and pronunciation, and expression, discovered no other sense than what had reference to the matter of the question. Accordingly, the Scribes exclaimed, "Master, Thou hast well said." For He had affirmed the resurrection, by describing the form thereof in opposition to the opinion of the Sadducees.

When the Sadducees were thus put to shame, the scribes, pleased with the victory over them, approved of Jesus as their adversary.

Fourth, with respect to the commendation of the confirmation, he adds: And certain of the scribes answering said to him: Master, thou hast spoken well. The scribes commended this because they were of the sect of the Pharisees, who say that there is a resurrection.

And they did not dare to question Him any further.

Then Jesus declared, “How can it be said that the Christ is the Son of David?

For David himself says in the book of Psalms: ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand

(de Symbolo. ad Catech. l. ii. c. 7.) By the sitting we must not conceive a posture of the human limbs, as if the Father sat on the left and the Son on: the right, but the right hand itself we must interpret to be the power which that Man received who was taken up into Himself by God, that He should come to judge, who at first came to be judged.

He manifests then that He is not opposed to the Father, but agrees with Him, since the Father resists the Son's enemies, Until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Second, as to the eternal generation foretold by the Prophet, he adds: And David himself says in the book of Psalms: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand. Without doubt David says this word for word in the Psalm, which treats most excellently and most profoundly of the two natures of Christ. For it is established that this is understood of Christ.

until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”’

Thus David calls Him ‘Lord.’ So how can He be David’s son?”

In the hearing of all the people, Jesus said to His disciples,

(Hom. 19. in Joann.) Now nothing is more powerful than to argue from the Prophets. For this is even of more weight than miracles themselves. For when Christ worked miracles, He was often gainsayed. But when He cited the Prophets, men were at once silent, because they had nothing to say.

The passions of the Scribes were the love of vainglory and the love of gain. That the disciples should avoid these hateful crimes, He gives them this warning, and adds, And love greetings in the markets.

And in the hearing of all the people, etc. After he had confuted the Pharisees, who erred from malice, and the Sadducees, who erred from ignorance, here thirdly he instructs the disciples in prudence. And since prudence consists in three things, namely in caution against evil, choice of the good, and foresight of the future: therefore this part has three parts.

“Beware of the scribes. They like to walk around in long robes, and they love the greetings in the marketplaces, the chief seats in the synagogues, and the places of honor at banquets.

They defraud widows of their houses, and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will receive greater condemnation.”

Luke20