first, so that one is understood to be preferred to the other, because I desire mercy more than sacrifice; hence one sacrifice is preferred to another. A lamb is a sacrifice and so is mercy; for by such offerings God shows mercy. Therefore, which of these is better? "To show mercy and judgment is more acceptable to the Lord than victims" (Pr 21:3).
Or secondly, so that one is approved and the rest rejected: I desire mercy, but not the sacrifice you make. Hence Isaiah (1:15): "I do not desire holocausts, because your hands are filled with blood."
Or, another way: I desire mercy and not sacrifice . For one is said to desire that which he wants for its own sake and not for the sake of something else. It is as though a physician said: "I desire health," and so among the works we offer God, we offer some for their own sake, as loving God and neighbor; others for the sake of these: "I will show you, O man, what is good; and what the Lord requires of you. Indeed, to do justice and to love mercy" (Mic 6:8).
Thirdly, the Lord gives another reason, based on his mission. It is as though an emissary, if he were prevented from exercising his office, should say: "You are foolish, because you are preventing what pertains to me." The Lord had come to save sinners; hence it was said above (1:21): "And you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." Therefore, he says, I have come to call not the just, but sinners . Luke adds, to repentance". And this addition is proper, for he did not come to call sinners and let them remain in their sins, but that they be removed from them.
But we might inquire about the just, because no one is just but God alone, and we are all sinners. Likewise, it seems that what he says is false, because John was just, and Simeon and Zechariah were just; yet he called them. For an answer we must make a distinction about justice, because one is called just for not being subject to sin. In this sense no one is just, because all are subject to mortal or venial or original sin, at least as far as the debt is concerned. This he totally blotted out: "He came that they might have life" (Jn 5:40). Hence he did not come to call the just, as just, but the just, in so far as they are sinners. Likewise, one is called just who is not subject to mortal sin; hence he came not to call these just to repentance, but to greater justice. Or, in this way: I came not to call the just , i.e., who put trust in their own justice, but sinners , who repent, not knowing their justice.
9—3
Mt 9:14-17
14. Then came to him the disciples of John, saying: Why do we and the Pharisees, fast often, but thy disciples do not fast? 15. And Jesus said to them: Can the children of the bridegroom mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then they shall fast. 16. And nobody putteth a piece of raw cloth unto an old garment. For it taketh away the fulness thereof from the garment, and there is made a greater rent. 17. Neither do they put new wine into old bottles. Otherwise the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish. But new wine they put into new bottles: and both are preserved.
(14) Here arises a question about banqueting, followed by the answer. But then there is the textual question as to why it seems from Mark (2:18) and Luke (5:29) that the question was proposed by others; for it says in Mark (2:18): "Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?" Therefore, the disciples did not put the question. Augustine answers that the Pharisees lay in wait for Christ; hence they sometimes drew the Herodians with them. But on this occasion they took John's disciples. Hence he could be asked both by others and by the disciples. But why did they fast? The answer is that it was due to their traditions or to the Law; as, for example, on the day of propitiation they were bound to fast: "The fast of the fourth month, and the fast of the fifth, and the fast of the seventh, and the fast of the tenth, shall be to the house of Judah seasons of joy and gladness, and cheerful feasts" (Zech 8:18). Likewise, John's disciples fasted because of the example of their master, who was a man of great austerity; but Christ's disciples did not fast.
(15) And Jesus said to them... Here Jesus answers in a subtle way: first, he assigns a cause on his part; secondly, on the part of the disciples (v. 16).
In regard to the first he does two things: first, he determines the time for feasting; secondly, of fasting (v. 15b).
He says, therefore: Can the wedding guests [children of the bridegroom]mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? Where he says mourn , another says "fast"; for although a fast involves some joy, yet as it says in Hebrews (12:11): "For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant." Hence there is a fast of spiritual joy, as it says in Daniel (9:3): "Then I turned my face to the Lord, seeking him by prayer and fasting and sackcloth and ashes." Likewise, it is mournful and afflictive, as when it involves pain.
The Lord answers concerning both. For the bridegroom is Christ; the one who has the bride is the bridegroom. For he is the bridegroom of the entire Church and is its source. The Old Law has one source; the New, another. For the Old Law had its beginning in fear; the New, in love: "You did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship" (Rom 8:13); "You have come to Mount Zion, and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem (Heb 12:22). The origin of the New Law was in love; consequently, he should nourish his disciples in love. Hence he calls himself a bridegroom and the disciples children, because they exist in the name of love. Hence it is good that I preserve them; consequently, I do not want to impose anything burdensome on them, lest they detest it and thus withdraw. Therefore, those who are new in the religious life should not be burdened. Hence Ambrose in a book scolds those who lay great burdens on novices. And this is what Christ says: Can the children of the bridegroom mourn? As if to say: It is not fitting that they fast, but that they live in a gentle atmosphere and in love, so that they may accept my law in love, as it says in Romans (6:4): "As Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too may walk in newness of life." Hence from Easter to Pentecost are not fasts, because the Church is then celebrating the newness of life.
The days will come , namely, when you succeed in achieving it, when the bridegroom will be taken away, and then they will fast . And he foretold this to them, saying: "You will weep, but the world will rejoice" (Jn 16:20). Those who lived before Christ, as Abraham and Isaiah and the other prophets, and desired the presence of Christ. Likewise, after his death his presence was desired by the apostles; hence Peter suffered continual grief on account of Christ's absence, and Paul said: "I desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ" (Phil 1:23). Hence this was the time for fasting. Another reason why they were not bound to fast in the time of Christ was that a fast should be undertaken as taming the flesh, so that it does not prevail against the spirit. But when he was present, he guarded them from excesses; therefore, it was not fitting that they fast. Hence John (17:12): "Father, while I was with them I have guarded them." But John the Baptist did not have this power; consequently, his disciples were expected to fast. Hence Paul says in 1 Corinthians (9:27): "I chastise my body and bring it under subjection."
(16) No one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment . Here he presents the other argument, the one on the part of the disciples. He gives two examples; one is explained by Augustine and the other by Jerome. According to Augustine he means to say: While Christ is present, the disciples were not to fast on account of their condition, because heavy burdens should not be imposed on the imperfect. Therefore, since they are imperfect, they should not be commanded to fast. So in order to stress this he touches upon it in metaphors dealing with cloth and wine. Because righteousness consists in external works and in newness of affection, he gives two examples. He says, therefore, No one puts... , i.e., if he wanted to add the new cloth, he would not sew a piece of new cloth on the old garment, because it would take away from the beauty; so, if someone imperfect has certain customs in his life, and you impose a burden on him, he abandons what he is accustomed to and a worse tear is made , as is indicated below.
(17) Neither is new wine put into old wineskins . Here he presents the example about wine. As if to say: My disciples are like old wineskins. The new wine is the New Law by reason of newness; hence when they receive the Holy Spirit, they are said to be filled with new wine (Acts 2:13). Therefore, neither is new wine put into old wineskins; if it is, the skins burst . Hence if you impose a new manner of life on an old man who has certain ways of acting, his heart bursts, because he cannot stand it. Likewise, the wine is expelled , i.e., is not preserved, and the skins are destroyed ; because they violate God's commands and, therefore, perish. But new wine is put into fresh wineskins , renewing spiritual teaching by love as the Apostle says (1 Cor 2:13): "Interpreting spiritual truths to the spiritual," and Proverbs (2:10): "For wisdom will come into your heart, and knowledge will be pleasant to your soul; discretion will watch over you; understanding will guard you, delivering you from the way of evil and from men of perverted speech."
Jerome explains it another way: For he calls the Pharisaic sect the old garment, the followers of the gospel the new. As if to say: It is not good to preserve old teachings, because that would make old tears; and so they could not accept the new teaching as we see that one more easily clings to his own doctrine, if he is not imbued with a contrary doctrine, than if he is imbued. Therefore, it is not good for them to be imbued with your [Pharisaic] doctrine.
9—4
Mt 9:18-26
18. As he was speaking these things unto them, behold a certain ruler came up, and adored him, saying: Lord, my daughter is even now dead; but come, lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live. 19. And Jesus rising up followed him, with his disciples. 20. And behold a woman who was troubled with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind him, and touched the hem of his garment. 21. For she said within herself: If I shall touch only his garment, I shall be healed. 22. But Jesus turning and seeing her, said: Be of good heart, daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour. 23. And when Jesus was come into the house of the ruler, and saw the minstrels and the multitude making a rout, 24. He said: Give place, for the girl is not dead, but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn. 25. And when the multitude was put forth, he went in, and took her by the hand. And the maid arose. 26. And the fame hereof went abroad into all that country.
He mentioned the miracles by which remedies are applied against the dangers of sin; here he mentions those by which remedies are applied against the dangers of death. This is divided into two parts: first, he tells how he restored a life; secondly, how he restored that life's actions (v. 23).
In regard to the first: first, the invitation to perform the miracle is presented; secondly, an indication; thirdly the preparation for the miracle (v. 25).
In regard to the first he does four things: first, the time of the invitation is described; secondly, the person inviting; thirdly, the invitation; fourthly, the acceptance of the invitation (v. 19).
(18) He says, therefore, While he was thus speaking to them , namely, in Matthew's house. But there is an objection: for Mark and Luke present a different sequence, namely, that he approached Jesus after the crossing. Augustine answers that when something pertaining to time is recounted, if it is mentioned immediately, then the historical sequence is being followed. Therefore, when it says, While he was thus speaking , the order of history is signified. But in Mark and Luke it is referred to the order of recollection. Or it can be said that this happened at an intermediate place; for sometimes they do not state whether something occurred immediately, after or when.
He continues, behold a ruler... Here is presented the person inviting, namely, the ruler of the synagogue, and he is named Jairus, illuminating or illuminated: "A mighty ruler is among us" (Gen 23:6). —The invitation follows and he does two things: first, he shows reverence, because he came in person. And adored him . Likewise, he confesses his power, because he says, Lord . This ruler signifies the fathers of old; because they approached by desire, and believing, they adored the Christ to come: "Let us worship in the place where his feet stood" (Ps 132:7). They also confessed: "Know that the Lord is God" (Ps 100:3). Then he continues: My daughter has just died . The contrary is stated in Luke (8:40) and in Mark (5:22), because it says there, "My daughter is dying." "And while he was still speaking, there came from the ruler's house some who said: 'Your daughter is dead'" (Mk 5:35). Augustine answers that when Jairus left his house, she was dying and believed that he would not find her alive; therefore, he was begging more that he revive her than cure her. That is why he says, My daughter is already dead . As if to say: I believe that she is dead by now. The others, therefore, recounted it as it was; but Matthew referred to the intention. Therefore, Augustine gives a good argument that it is not necessary to relate the same words; but it is enough if the mere intent is stated.