Matthew 12 · The Lantern

At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat them.

We must first point out the beginning of this passage: "At that time Jesus went through the standing grain." This is set at the time he gave thanks to God the Father for having given salvation to the people. The same meaning is given to what went before (his thanksgiving) and what came after (his walking in the fields). Note the relationships.

They pluck the ears of corn when they withdraw men from devotion to the world; they rub them in their hands when they tear away their hearts from the lusts of the flesh; they eat the grain when they transfer such as are amended into the body of the Church. This they do on the sabbath, that is in the hope of eternal rest, to which they invite others.

Above in chapter 11 your have heard how the Lord satisfied John's disciples and upbraided other. Here he shows how the Pharisees were handled. He does two things: first, he shows how he answers the Pharisees; secondly, how the disciples are commended (v. 16).

When the Pharisees saw this, they said to Him, “Look, Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.”

The Pharisees, who thought that the key of the kingdom of heaven was in their hands, accused the disciples of doing what was not lawful to do; whereon the Lord reminded them of deeds in which, under the guise of facts, a prophecy was concealed; and that He might show the power of all things, He further added, that it contained the form of that work which was to be, Had ye known…

Observe, that the first Apostles of the Saviour broke the letter of the sabbath, contrary to the opinion of the Ebionites, who receive the other Apostles, but reject Paul as a transgressor of the Law.

Then he presents the rebuke against the Pharisees. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him: "Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath." The disciples were doing two things: first, they plucked someone else's grain; secondly, they were violating the Sabbath.

Jesus replied, “Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry?

How then doth Jesus defend His disciples? "Have ye not read," saith He, "what David did in the temple, when he was an hungered, himself and all they that were with him?

(Quæst. in Matt. q. 10.) It should be observed, that one example is taken from royal persons, as David, the other from priestly, as those who profane the sabbath for the service of the Temple, so that much less can the charge concerning the rubbing the ears of corn attach to Him who is indeed King and Priest.

He said to them... Here the justification is given: first, with certain examples; secondly, with a text of Scripture (v. 7). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he gives an example, in which some were excused on account of necessity; secondly, in which some were excused on account of holiness (v. 5). He says, therefore, He said to them...

He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for them to eat, but only for the priests.

Or haven’t you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and yet are innocent?

Afterwards again He refutes it in another way also. For as at first He brought in David, by the dignity of the person quelling their pride; so when He had stopped their mouths, and had put down their boasting, then He adds also the more appropriate refutation. And of what sort is this?

The law prohibited work on the sabbath; so, then, the priests as they split wood and lit fires on the sabbath were profaning, that is, defiling, the sabbath, by your reckoning. But you will say to Me, "They were priests, the disciples are not." I say, then, that something greater than the temple I here.

Then another example is given, namely, based on holiness, when he says, Have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are guiltless?

But I tell you that One greater than the temple is here.

If only you had known the meaning of ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.

"But," say they, "God is `good, 'and `most good, ' and `pitiful-hearted, 'and `a pitier, 'and `abundant in pitiful-heartedness, ' which He holds `dearer than all sacrifice, ' `not thinking the sinner's death of so much worth as his repentance', `a Saviour of all men, most of all of believers.

(Verse 7.) But if you knew what this means, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the guiltless. What it means, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,' we have already explained. But what follows, 'You would not have condemned the guiltless,' refers to the apostles.

Then he argues from the example: first, because his disciples should be dealt with mercifully; because if you had known what this means, 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the guiltless (Hosea 6:6). How this is to be understood has been stated above. "To do mercy and judgment is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice" (Pr 21:3).

For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

Any one who refused to believe that that flesh was human might pretend it to be anything he liked, for-as much as (and this remark is applicable, to all heretics), if it was not human, and was not born of man, I do not see of what substance Christ Himself spoke when He called Himself man and the Son of man, saying: "But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth…

(Verse 8) And when he had passed from there, he came into their synagogue. And behold, there was a man with a withered hand. This is the thirteenth one who is healed in the synagogue. And it should be noted that his hand was healed not on the road or outside, but in the council of the Jews.

There is another argument which makes them innocent, namely, obedience; hence they can do these things, because he ordered them, for the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath, and the lawgiver is not subject to the law: "He is our lawgiver" (Is 33:22); therefore, he has the power, because he has the authority.

Moving on from there, Jesus entered their synagogue,

The spiritual sense of the expression "he went on from there" can be understood in this way: When he establishes a new covenant and the sabbath no longer is in force, then he goes over or departs to another place. For this reason they accuse him and his disciples, not outside but within the synagogue. Their offenses are thereby increased to the brim.

(De Cons. Ev. ii. 35.) It might have been supposed that the matter of the ears of corn, and this cure following, had been done on the same day, for it is mentioned to have been the sabbath day in both cases, had not Luke shown us that they were on different days.

And he went on from there, and entered their synagogue. Above he described how the Lord answered the Pharisees for complaining about the disciples; here, how he answered their attack. For they oppose him, first, by laying snares; secondly, by detracting; thirdly, by testing. Accordingly, he responds in three ways: the second is at v. 22, the third at v. 35.

and a man with a withered hand was there. In order to accuse Jesus, they asked Him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”

When He was entered into the synagogue, they bring a man of a withered hand, asking Him whether it was lawful to heal on the sabbath day, seeking an occasion of convicting Him out of His answer; as it follows, And they brought him a man haring a withered hand, and asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day?

(De Cons. Ev. ii. 35.) But it may raise enquiry how Matthew can say that they asked the Lord, Whether it were lawful to heal on the sabbath, seeing Mark and Luke relate that it was the Lord who asked them, Whether it is lawful on the sabbath day to do good or to do evil?

And behold there was a man with a withered hand. This was the occasion for the questioning, for they asked him. It is said that he was a mason and had a withered hand.

He replied, “If one of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will he not take hold of it and lift it out?

"What man is there among you that shall have one sheep, and if this fall into a pit on the Sabbath days, will he not lay hold of it, and lift it out? How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath days." Thus, lest they have ground of obstinacy, and of accusing him again of transgression, He convicts them by this example.

He shows that for love of money and so as not to lose a sheep they would set aside the sabbath, but they could not tolerate that the sabbath be set aside so that a man might be healed. By this He shows that they were not only lovers of money and cruel men, but even despisers of God.

He said to them... Here the answer is given: first, he answers in words; secondly, in deed (v. 13). In the first he does three things: first, he reminds them of a custom; secondly, he makes a comparison (v. 12); thirdly, he draws the conclusion (v. 12b).

How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”

Then Jesus said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” So he stretched it out, and it was restored to full use, just like the other.

Such healing is rightly attributed to our Lord. After his return from the cornfield from which his apostles had gotten the produce, he went to the synagogue. From there Jesus intended to acquire laborers for his own harvest. Many of them afterwards lived with the apostles. Many were healed, as in the case of the maimed man.

(Verse 13) Then he said to the man, \"Stretch out your hand.\" And he stretched it out, and his health was restored like the other.

Then he said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." Here he answers them with a deed, namely, curing him; for he would not have cured him, if it were not lawful. The cure follows: it was restored, whole like the other. Mystically, a man with a withered hand, i.e., incapable of doing good, has no better cure than to extend his hand to help the poor.

But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus.

The Pharisees are moved with jealousy at what had been done; because beholding the outward body of a man, they did not recognize the God in His works; The Pharisees went out and sought counsel against him, how they might destroy him.

He says, went out because their mind was alien from the Lord. They took counsel how they might destroy life, not how themselves might find life.

But the Pharisees went away, namely, from the synagogue, in fulfillment of Psalm 54 (v. 3): "The synagogue of powerful men has risen against me." They went away, therefore, to do evil, as it says in Job (1:12): "So Satan went forth from the presence of the Lord." And took counsel, i.e., how they might destroy and kill him, because they were unable to overcome him by words: "Ble…

Aware of this, Jesus withdrew from that place. Large crowds followed Him, and He healed them all,

To the extent that one draws near to Jesus, one does not hold counsel, for no counselor of evil things draws near to Jesus. But when others go out, departing from Jesus, they hold counsel to destroy Jesus, to destroy the Light, the good Way, the Life, the Treasure, the Pearl, Love itself and Peace.

(Verse 15 and following) But Jesus, knowing this, departed from there, and many followed him, and he healed them all. And he commanded them not to make him known, so that what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled, saying, Knowing their plot, that they wanted to destroy their Savior, he departed from there, in order to take away from the Pharisees the opportunity…

Jesus, aware of this, withdrew from there. Here he states how he escaped their snare: first, the departure is mentioned; secondly, the fruit. Why did he depart? Because it was not yet the time to suffer. He also departed in order to give his own the occasion for fleeing, as was stated above (c. 10). Likewise, to show that he was man; and in order not to incite them.

warning them not to make Him known.

This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah:

Then, lest thou shouldest be confounded at what is going on, and at their strange frenzy, He introduces the prophet also, foretelling all this.

Matthew brings in the prophet as a witness to Jesus' meekness (Is. 42:1-4). For whatever the Jews want, he says, Christ will do. If they do not want Him to be made known, then He will not make Himself known. He will not stand up against them like one seeking renown, nor will He dispute contentiously.

This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah. Here he cites a text from Isaiah (42:1). And it should be noted that some apostles cite texts according to the Hebrew version, some according to the Septuagint, and some merely expressed the sense of the words. And he does three things.

“Here is My Servant, whom I have chosen, My beloved, in whom My soul delights. I will put My Spirit on Him, and He will proclaim justice to the nations.

He will not quarrel or cry out; no one will hear His voice in the streets.

If He "neither did contend nor shout, nor was His voice heard abroad," who "crushed not the bruised reed"-Israel's faith, who "quenched not the burning flax" -that is, the momentary glow of the Gentiles-but made it shine more by the rising of His own light,-He can be none other than He who was predicted.

(Verse 19.) Neither will anyone hear his voice in the streets. For the way is broad and spacious that leads to destruction, and many enter through it (Mat. 7:13). Those who do not hear the voice of the Savior are many, because they are not on the narrow path, but on the spacious one.

Hence he says, he will not wrangle; "When he was reviled, he did not revile" (1 Pt 2:23). And what is said in Proverbs (20:3) well suits him: "It is an honor for a man to keep aloof from strife." Of course, some do not wrangle, but they murmur. But he will not do this, because he will not cry aloud.

A bruised reed He will not break, and a smoldering wick He will not extinguish, till He leads justice to victory.

He did not eagerly contend with the folly of the rulers, nor did he scream and provoke them to anger against himself. Rather, with gentleness Jesus withdrew slowly so that he might not, in confuting them, cause them to be destroyed while they were still weak in soul like "a bruised reed" or like "smoking flax," that is, very close to being snuffed out.

(ubi sup) So He neither bruised nor quenched the Jewish persecutors, who are here likened to a bruised reed which has lost its wholeness, and to a smoking flax which has lost its flame; but He spared them because He was not come to judge them, but to be judged by them. (Quaest. Ev. i. 3.) In the smoking flax it is observed, that when the flame is out it causes a stink.

And also in deed: he will not break a bruised reed. And this in two ways: for it can be referred specifically to the Jews; secondly, in a general sense to all. In regard to the Jews there were two things in them, namely, a royal power and priestly dignity.

In His name the nations will put their hope.”

But when the same prophet represents to us even nations sometimes estimated as "the small dust of the balance," and as "less than nothing, and vanity," and sometimes as about to hope and "trust in the name" and arm of the Lord, are we at all misled respecting the Gentile nations by the diversity of statement?

(De Civ. Dei, xx. 30.) This last we now see fulfilled; and thus this which cannot be denied establishes the truth of that which some have denied through ignorance, the last judgment namely, which He will hold upon earth, when he Himself shall come from heaven.

And not only will that happen, but after their destruction the gentiles will hope in his name. Hence Genesis (49:10): "He will be the expected of the nations." Or another way: Thus he curbs his will, but when the enemy, death, is destroyed, all the gentiles will cling to him; and this will be on the day of judgment.

Then a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute was brought to Jesus, and He healed the man so that the blind and mute man could both speak and see.

The healing of the blind, mute, demon-possessed man follows. It was not without reason that, although he had said that all the multitudes were healed together, now a blind, mute man possessed by a demon was offered to him so that the same order of understanding might follow without any ambiguity.

The entire population of the Gentiles was blind, sitting in darkness and in the shadow of death. They could not see Christ with the eyes of their hearts blinded. This was because they did not know the law and could not praise God. They were possessed by a demon, because after such great idolatry and hunger for the demonic, they were led captive as it were by an unclean spirit.

Above the Lord refuted those who slandered both his doctrine and life; here he answers those who malign his miracles. First, a miracle is described; secondly, the perversity of the detractors (v. 23); thirdly, their refutation (v. 25). In regard to the miracle two things are presented: first, the manifold infirmity; secondly, the person cured (v. 22b).

The crowds were astounded and asked, “Could this be the Son of David?”

All the multitude were astonished at this which was done, but the jealousy of the Pharisees grew thereupon, And all the multitude were astonished and said, Is not this the Son of David?

(e Beda in Luc.) The multitude who seemed less learned, always wondered at the works of the Lord; they, on the other hand, either denied these things, or what they could not deny laboured to pervert by an ill interpretation, as though they were wrought not by a Deity, but by an unclean spirit, namely, Beelzebub, who was the God of Acharon: The Pharisees when they heard it said,…

Then the effect of the miracle, namely, the amazement of the crowd: and all the people were amazed. Also their confession; hence they said, i.e., confessed, Can this be the son of David? It had been promised in the prophets that Christ would be born of the seed of David: "I will raise up for David a righteous branch" (Jer 23:5).

But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “Only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, does this man drive out demons.”

Beelzebub is the same as Beel or Baal, or Beelphegor. Beel was father of Ninus king of Assyria; Baal was so called because he was worshipped on high; he was called Beelphegor from the mountain Phegor; Zebub was the servant of Abimelech the son of Gedeon, who, having slain his seventy brothers, built a temple to Baal, and set him up as Priest therein, to drive away the flies whi…

Although the Lord had departed for their sake, nevertheless they heard of it even from afar and slandered Him as He was doing good to men, and thus they were enemies of nature, as is the devil.

But when the Pharisees heard it they said, "It is only by Beelzebub that this man casts out devils." Beelzebub is the god of Ehron, as it says in 2 Kings (1:16). He is called the lord of flies on account of the foul rite of the blood sacrificed, by reason of which many flies gathered.

Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be laid waste, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand.

For a city or family is analogous to a kingdom, as it follows, And every city or house divided against itself shall not stand. But the word of God is rich, and whether taken simply, or examined inwardly, it is needful for our advancement. Leaving therefore what belongs to the plain understanding thereof, let us dwell on some of the more secret reasons.

But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said to them. In this part Jesus refutes his detractors: first, he argues against their statements; secondly, against the detractors (v. 31). He refutes their statements with four arguments, the second of which is at v. 26, the third at v. 26b, the fourth at v. 30.

If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand?

(Verse 26) And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand? A kingdom and a city divided against themselves cannot endure; but just as small things grow by harmony, so great things are destroyed by discord.

In saying this, he wanted it to be understood from their confession that they had chosen to live in him by not believing in the kingdom of the devil and that the devil could not stand divided against himself. So let the Pharisees choose what they want. If Satan could not cast out Satan, they could find nothing to say against the Lord.

If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. Casting out implies violent motion; therefore, it is necessary that where there is contradiction there is division: "There are always quarrels between the proud" (Pr 13:10). But someone could say that there was no casting out, because he went out voluntarily.

And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons drive them out? So then, they will be your judges.

And they are worthily appointed judges over them, to whom Christ is found to have given that power over the dæmons, which it was denied that He had. If then the disciples work by Christ, and Christ by the Spirit of God, already is the kingdom of God transferred to the Apostles through the office of the Mediator.

Or, because the Apostles well knew within their own conscience that they had learnt no evil art from Him.

If I cast out devils by Beelzebub. Here the second reason is given. If I cast out, I do this either by the devil's power or by the power of the Holy Spirit; whichever of these it is, you should not slander me. First, he continues the first reason; secondly, the second (v. 28). He says, therefore, If I cast out devils by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them out?

But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

Again, his ability "to cast out demons" in the Spirit was something which, as man, he had been made able to do, according to the divine economy. And if the work of the Spirit is the kingdom of God, we should in no way regard the Spirit as something added to the Godhead, as if brought in from the servile creation in order to prepare for the divine kingdom.

This means, if it is by divine power that I cast out demons, then I am the Son of God, and I have come for your sake, to do good to you. So, then, I have come unto you, and this is the kingdom of God. Why do you slander My coming which is for your sake?

But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. As if to say: He is a fool who rejects what would turn out for his good; but this, namely, to cast out devils, redounds to your good. From this, therefore, you can gather that it is by the Holy Spirit, because the finger of God is the Holy Spirit, as the Son is the hand.

Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man’s house and steal his possessions, unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can plunder his house.

Having then uttered His second refutation, He adds also a third, thus saying: "How can one enter into the strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man, and then spoil his goods?" For that Satan cannot possibly cast out Satan is evident from what hath been said; but that neither in any other way is it possible to cast him out, except one first get…

He calls the devil strong, not as though he were so by his created nature but as signifying his tyranny over us, which he has obtained through our own indolence. The Son says, in effect, "I will despoil him, not by allowing him to have human beings as worshipers but by changing their belief so that they might come to acknowledge God.

Or how can one enter a strong man's house? Here is presented the third reason through which the Lord intends to refute the contentions of the Pharisees, and it is an argument taken from things that occur among men. For when someone is well defended in his own home, he cannot be ejected from it or his vessels plundered, unless a stronger man overcomes him.

He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters.

Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men.

He condemns by a most rigorous sentence this opinion of the Pharisees, and of such as thought with them, promising pardon for all sins, but refusing it to blasphemy against the Spirit; Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men.

Therefore, no matter what they say in blasphemy—even against the Son of Man when they were scandalized under the economy of law according to the flesh, as I pointed out—our Lord makes it clear they will be forgiven on the excuse of their ignorance of the mystery, his self-abasement and humility shown as a man.

Therefore I tell you that every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men... After refuting their claim, he inveighs against them: first, for the gravity of their sin; secondly, their evil intention (v. 33); thirdly, the future judgment (v. 36). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he begins with several general statements; secondly, he explains (v. 32b).

Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in the present age or in the one to come.

Moreover, if the crime of Hymenaeus and Alexander-blasphemy, to wit-is irremissible in this and in the future. age, of course the apostle would not, in opposition to the determinate decision of the Lord, have given to Satan, under a hope of pardon, men already sunken from the faith into blasphemy; whence, too, he pronounced them "shipwrecked with regard to faith," having no lon…

Against this unmerited gift, against this free grace of God, the impenitent heart may continue to murmur. So it is unrepentance that is a blasphemy against the Spirit. It is not forgiven either in this world or in the next. Think of a person whose sins are entirely forgiven in faithful baptism and whom the church has welcomed.

Although every sin generally is against the triune and one God, yet by appropriation a certain sin is said to be against the Father, another against the Son, and another against the Holy Spirit.

Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is known by its fruit.

Thus did He at that present refute the Jews, who seeing Christ's works to be of power more than human, would notwithstanding not allow the hand of God.

(Serm. 72. 1.) Or this is an admonition to ourselves that we should be good trees that we may be able to bring forth good fruit; Make the tree good, and its fruit good, is a precept of health to which obedience is necessary.

He continues: Either make the tree good, and its fruit good; or make the tree bad, and its fruit bad. Above the Lord spoke against the manner of the Pharisees, in as much as they were speaking against his deeds by showing the gravity of sin; now against them he states that their doctrine is wrong. First, he presents an example; secondly, he adapts it (v.

You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks.

He taught that a corrupt outlook on life arises out of a corrupted nature. He taught that from an evil storehouse nothing can come but what is evil. An account must be rendered to God for every idle, careless and useless word. We are to be condemned or justified by the words we speak.

A brother asked Poemen about the words, 'Do not render evil for evil' (1 Thess. 5:15). He said to him, 'The passions work in four stages: first in the heart, then in the face, third in words, fourth in deeds – and it is in deeds that it is essential not to render evil for evil.

You brood of vipers... This is subsumed under the foregoing in various ways depending on the varying explanations. According to Augustine it is an application to the foregoing thus: It has been said, either make the tree good... But you do evil. You are an evil tree and, as such, you do evil, because you cannot say good things.

The good man brings good things out of his good store of treasure, and the evil man brings evil things out of his evil store of treasure.

"A good man out of his good treasure," saith He, "bringeth forth good things, and an evil man out of his evil treasure bringeth forth evil things." For think not by any means, saith He, that it is so in respect of wickedness only, for in goodness also the same occurs: for there too the virtue within is more than the words without.

When he says "treasure," Christ refers to the multitude of motives that lie in the soul. It is not by nature that people are good or bad but by their own choice.

The good man from his good treasure brings forth good. The statement that from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks he explains in particular. The word which proceeds from a thought is as a gift from a treasure. Hence if the thought is good, the word is good; and conversely.

But I tell you that men will give an account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken.

Again, it is said that "impeachment awaits us for every vain and needless word." It follows that, from whatever the Lord keeps us, the same He admonishes us to bear patiently from another.

The words which here follow depend on those that went before; By thy words thou shat be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. There is no doubt but that every man shall be condemned for his evil words which he speaks; but none shall be justified for his good words, unless they proceed from his inmost heart, and from a entire purpose.

I tell you... The Lord rebuked them for the gravity of their sin and their malice; here he warns them about the future judgment, which we hold by faith: "Be afraid of the sword, for anger brings the punishment of the sword; for know that there will be a judgment" (Jb 19:29); "He will make room for every act of mercy; everyone will receive in accordance with his deeds" (Sir 16:1…

For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.”

In like manner He inquires of Cain where his brother was, just as if He had not yet heard the blood of Abel crying from the ground, in order that he too might have the opportunity from the same power of the will of spontaneously denying, and to this degree aggravating, his crime; and that thus there might be supplied to us examples of confessing sins rather than of denying them…

"For by thy words thou shall be justified, and by thy words thou shall be condemned." Seest thou how far the tribunal is from invidiousness? how favorable the account required?

Then he gives the reason: for by your words you will be justified... In the courts of this world the innocent are sometimes punished and the wicked set free, because judgments are based on the statements of witnesses; but in God's court judgment is based on the person accusing himself, namely, on self-confession.

Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from You.”

Could then anything be more foolish than these men (not more impious only), who after so many miracles, as though none had been wrought, say, "We would see a sign from Thee?" With what intent then did they so speak? That they might lay hold of Him again.

They say the miracles he has performed are from devils. He only conjures up imaginary images on the earth. So come then, by your power: perform a miracle from heaven. For another Evangelist says clearly that they wanted Jesus to perform a sign from heaven as an action befitting his divine power.

Having answered those who maligned his miracles and doctrine, the Lord now deals with those testing him: first, a question testing him is presented; secondly, the reproval. He says, therefore, Then they said to him...

Jesus replied, “A wicked and adulterous generation demands a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.

That generation was evil, on account of the influence that had come to be in it from the evil one. It was adulterous because it had left her natural husband—the word or law of truth—and had come to be wedded to a lie. The law which is "in the members" of our flesh wars against "the law of the mind." It is an adulterer of the soul.

they attempted to bring a charge against him, saying to him in turn: We wish to see a sign from thee, that is, a sign such as that of Moses, which was for the punishment of men. But the Lord, knowing the thoughts of their hearts answered, saying: An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and no sign shall be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonas.

But he answered them... Then he refuses them and does two things: first, he denies the request; secondly, he predicts an indignity (v. 41). In regard to the first he tells what they were seeking; secondly, he denies (v. 39b). It is stated, therefore, that he answered them, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign." He says, evil, because they were laying traps.

For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Since, again, some who are reckoned among the orthodox go beyond the pre-arranged plan for the exaltation of the just, and are ignorant of the methods by which they are disciplined beforehand for incorruption, they thus entertain heretical opinions.

What shall we learn of the three days' time? [...] This one hath loosed the oath of death, this one hath comforted the firstborn of the dead, in this one the iron gates of death are broken down, in this one the brass of the rod of hell are broken. Now the prison of death is opened, now the prisoners are declared to be released...

For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, i.e., actually, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth. And in this the error of Manicheus is refuted which said that he did not truly die. And he says, in the heart of the earth, because as a man's heart is in the depths, so Christ was in the depth of the earth.

The men of Nineveh will stand at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now One greater than Jonah is here.

Now, that we may give a simpler answer, it was not fit that the Son of God should be born of a human father's seed, lest, if He were wholly the Son of a man, He should fail to be also the Son of God, and have nothing more than "a Solomon" or "a Jonas," -as Ebion thought we ought to believe concerning Him.

The Lord shows in these words that there shall be one resurrection of the good and the bad against certain heretics, who said that there should be two, one of the good, another of the bad.

The men of Nineveh will arise at the judgment with this generation. This is the indignity: first, the gentiles are preferred; secondly, the reason (v. 43). Note that a person is good, either because he does not sin or because he repents. First, therefore, he prefers those who have repented, namely, the gentiles; secondly, those who have sinned (v. 42).

The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and now One greater than Solomon is here.

The church of the Gentiles, which in truth is gathered "from the ends of the earth," fulfills the place of the queen of the south, not providing gifts in "perishable things, silver" and spices, but faith, the incense of knowledge, the outpouring of an offering, the sweat of the virtues and the blood of martyrdom.

the Queen of Sheba, that is, of the Homerite country, whom afterwards our Lord in the Gospels calls the Queen of the South, brought to Solomon spices from this very Barbaria, which lay near Sheba on the other side of the sea, together with bars of ebony, and apes and gold from Ethiopia which, though separated from Sheba by the Arabian Gulf, lay in its vicinity.

The queen of the South will arise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it because of wisdom, which they refused to receive. It is recorded of her in 1 Kings (10:24) that she came to hear the wisdom of Solomon.

When an unclean spirit comes out of a man, it passes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it.

The law which was given later intervened, casting out the unclean spirit dwelling in the hearts of the elect people. It kept that spirit away as if it were surrounding the people with its protective power.

He calls the hearts of the Gentiles, dry places, as lacking all the moisture of wholesome waters, that is of the holy Scriptures, and of spiritual gifts, and strangers to the pouring in of the Holy Spirit.

When the unclean spirit has gone out of a man... Above he showed that the gentiles were preferable to the Jews; here he wants to confirm this with an example. First, he presents the example; secondly, he applies it (v. 45b). He gives the example of an unclean spirit. But one must keep in mind that sometimes an example is taken from some occurrence, sometimes from a parable.

Then it says, ‘I will return to the house I left.’ On its return, it finds the house vacant, swept clean, and put in order.

Then it goes and brings with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and dwell there. And the final plight of that man is worse than the first. So will it be with this wicked generation.”

(Verse 45) And coming, he finds it empty, swept clean, and put in order. Then he goes and takes with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that man becomes worse than the first. So it will be with this wicked generation.

This is said with good reason. For when someone who has once been freed from evils loses self-control, he suffers a much worse fall than previously. For this reason "he passes through waterless places seeking rest." This indicates how thoroughly the demons' stratagem has taken hold of such a person—completely and absolutely.

Then he goes and brings with him seven other spirits more evil than himself. Here he deals with the second and more serious harassment. It is shown to be more serious, first, as to the number; secondly, as to duration; thirdly, as to effect. As to number, because he brings seven.

While Jesus was still speaking to the crowds, His mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to Him.

Because He had spoken all the aforesaid things in the power of His Father's majesty, therefore the Evangelist proceeds to tell what answer He made to one that told Him that His mother and His brethren waited for Him without; While he yet spake unto the people, his mother and his brethren stood without desiring to see him.

(De Cons. Ev. ii. 40.) We are to understand without doubt that this happened close upon the foregoing; for he begins to tell it with the words, And while he yet spake. What can that yet mean but that it was at the very time He spake the foregoing things?

In the preceding section Christ answered his opponents; now he uses the presence of his mother and brothers as an occasion for commending the disciples who believed. First, their presence is noted; secondly, the disciples are commended (v. 48). He says, therefore, While he was still speaking.

Someone told Him, “Look, Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to You.”

He that delivers this message, seems to me not to do it casually and without meaning, but as setting a snare for Him, whether He would prefer flesh and blood to the spiritual work; and thus the Lord refused to go out, not because He disowned His mother and His brethren, but that He might confound him that had laid this snare for Him.

(De Nat. et Grat. 36.) But whatever may be decided concerning these brethren, yet concerning the holy Virgin Mary, (for the honour of Christ,) when sin in her is in question, I would not have it brought into doubt.

Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, asking to speak to you." Why he said this and the need for it are explained in Luke (8:19), namely, there was such a crowd that they could not reach him.

But Jesus replied, “Who is My mother, and who are My brothers?”

They say that He testifies Himself to His not having been born, when He asks, "Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? " In this manner heretics either wrest plain and simple words to any sense they choose by their conjectures, or else they violently resolve by a literal interpretation words which imply a conditional sense and are incapable of a simple solution, as in this p…

After the baptism, when He was delivering a rule of life which was more perfect than this to the children of men, He was not persuaded to acknowledge parents after the body. "Who is My mother, and who are My brethren?" He said to him that spake of them to Him.

But he replied... Here he gives Christ's reply and does two things: first, he replies; secondly, he commends his disciples (v. 49). He says, "Who is my mother and who are my brothers?" From these words some have denied that Christ truly assumed flesh, but only seemed to. Hence they explained: this is not my mother and these are not my brothers.

Pointing to His disciples, He said, “Here are My mother and My brothers.

(in Luc. 8:21.) Nor does He overthrow the duty of filial submission, which is conveyed in the command, Honour thy father and thy mother, (Ex. 20:12.) but shows that He owes more to the mysteries and relationship of His Father, than of His mother; as it follows, And stretching out his hand to his disciples, he said, Behold my mother and my brethren.

Did not the Virgin Mary do the will of the Father, who believed in faith, conceived in faith, was chosen from whom salvation would be born among men, was created by Christ before Christ was created in her?

Then he commends the disciples: first, the immediate disciples; secondly, all believers. Therefore, the evangelist says, And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said: "Here are my mother and my brothers." As if to say: I love them more than the affections of my mother or brothers; for love of the Holy Spirit must rank first.

For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”

Knowing therefore these things, let us neither pride ourselves on children that are of good report, unless we have their virtue; nor upon noble fathers, unless we be like them in disposition. For it is possible, both that he who begat a man should not be his father, and that he who did not beget him should be.

But since he who does the will of the Father is called sister and brother of the Lord, on account of both sexes who are gathered to the faith, this is not surprising; yet it is greatly to be wondered how one is also called mother. For he deigned to call his faithful disciples brothers, saying: Go, announce to my brothers.

Hence it says, Whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother. For he had a heavenly generation and a temporal one, and he places the heavenly ahead of the temporal.

Matthew12