(14) And if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come . Here he shows John's greatness as far as the distinction between present and future is concerned. For Elijah was the Lord's precursor; hence Malachi (4:5): "Behold, I will send you Elijah, the prophet...," and John is Elijah . but what is the Lord saying? For when John was asked if he was Elijah, he said that he was not. But this refutes a heresy which posited transmigration of souls, namely, that the soul went from one body and entered another body; therefore Elijah's soul had entered John, so they said. But this opinion is false, because he denied that he was Elijah. But Christ said that John was Elijah on account of three similarities: first, because, as one angel is said to be similar to another angel, because they are equal in office, so Elijah and John were equal in office, because both were precursors: "He will go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways" (Lk 1:76). Also as to manner of life, because he led an austere life (1 Kg 19:6). Again, as to persecution, because as he was persecuted by Jezebel, so John by Herod. Hence if you are willing to accept it in the sense in which it should be taken, he is Elijah .
(15) And so that they might understand that he was speaking in a mystical way, he adds, he who has ears to hear, let him hear , i.e., he that has ears spiritually, let him hear and understand.
11—2
Mt 11:16-19
16. But whereunto shall I esteem this generation to be like? It is like to children sitting in the market place. 17. Who crying to their companions say: We have piped to you, and you have not danced: we have lamented, and you have not mourned. 18. For John came neither eating nor drinking; and they say: He hath a devil. 19. The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say: Behold a man that is a glutton and a wine drinker, a friend of publicans and sinners. And wisdom is justified by her children.
(16) But to what shall I compare this generation? Here he breaks forth into rebuking the crowd: first, he places a question; secondly, a likeness; thirdly, he explains.
He proceeds, therefore, in this manner: John is compared to Elijah by reason of his office, but to what shall I compare this generation? Why does he say this here? Because as a person who has done all he could for someone and he is ungrateful does not know to what he should be compared, so the Lord had done all kinds of favors for this generation; hence Isaiah (5:4): "What more ought I have done for my vineyard, and have not done it?" To what, therefore, can I compare such malice?
It should be noted that in Scripture a generation sometimes is taken for a group of good people, sometimes of wicked, sometimes of both. For a group of good people, Psalm (112:2): "the generation of the just will be blessed"; for a group of wicked people, Matthew (12:39): "An evil and adulterous generation..."; for both, Ec (1:4): "A generation goes and a generation comes, but the earth remains forever."
It is like children sitting in the market place... Here he presents a comparison which can be explained according to the literal sense or the mystical. First, he makes a comparison with boys; secondly, he adapts it (v. 18).
It should be noted that it is natural for man to seek pleasures and always to seek them; and unless he is withdrawn by anxieties, he immediately rushes into evil pleasures. But children do not have anxieties; therefore, they spend their time on what befits them, namely, playing. It should also be noted that man is naturally social, because one naturally needs another; hence he delights in being with others, so that the Philosopher says in Politics I: "Every man who lives alone is either better than men and is a god, or he is worse than man and is as beast." Hence he says, sitting in the market place , because no one wishes to play alone but in the market place, where many are gathered. Also it should be noted that it is natural for man to delight in representations; hence if we see something well sculptured, which well represents what it ought, we are pleased. Therefore boys, who are delighted in games, always make their games consist of some representation, such as of war or something of that sort. Note also that all affections of the soul always end in either of the two emotions, joy or mourning.
(17) And calling to their playmates . The sense is this: suppose that some boys are in one place and others in another, so that some should sing and some dance; one group does one thing, the other is to react. If they sing and the others do not respond according to their role, the former are hurt and say: We sang to you and you did not dance . Against nothing so moves the spirit as song; hence Boethius in his Music tells of a person who was arguing with another in Pythagoras' presence, and the others conversed in song. Then Pythagoras ordered them to sing a different song, and the first man settled down. Therefore it should be noted that some songs are joyful, as it says in Sirach (40:20): "wine and music gladden the heart"; hence it says, we sang , i.e., a joyful song, and you did not dance . Likewise it happens that just as some are moved to joy, so others to tears; hence Jeremiah (9:17): "Send for the mourning women and let them raise a wailing over us." Therefore they say, we wailed , i.e., sang sad songs, and you did not mourn .
Mystically by the boys is signified the people of the Old Law, among whom some inspired spiritual joy, as David: "Rejoice, you just, in the Lord" (Ps 33:1); some grief, as Joel (2:13): "'Turn to the Lord with your whole heart, with fasting, with tears and wailing." Hence they can say, we sang , i.e., incited to spiritual joy, and you have not acknowledged it; we wailed , i.e., invited you to repentance, and you have not accepted.
(18) John came neither eating nor drinking... Here he applies the comparison: first, he applies it; secondly, he assigns reasons (v. 19b). Men are drawn to a good life in two ways: some at the sight of holiness, others by the way of companionship. The Lord and John divided the two ways between themselves: John, or rather the Lord through John, shows the way of austerity; he himself shows a way less severe. Yet they were converted by neither. Hence he says, John came neither eating nor drinking . And this was literally true, because he was extremely abstemious; and they say, He has a demon . Like the hypocrites they turn good into evil.
(19) The Son of man came eating and drinking , i.e., using food differently; but to no avail, because they do not believe. They say, Behold a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors , against what is said in Proverbs (23:20): "Be not among winebibbers, or among gluttonous eaters of meat." Here it should be noted that one who pays attention to what men say will never do any good: "He who observes the wind will not sow, and he who regards the clouds will not reap" (Ec 11:4). But here a question arises: Why did the Lord choose a more lenient life and through John demonstrate a harsher one? The reason is that the Lord supported his actions with miracles, which John did not perform; therefore if he possessed no excellence, his testimony would not have been accepted, as we observe in the saints that one excels in one thing and another in another: thus Augustine was excellent in doctrine but Martin in miracles. Another reason is that John was a man of purity and so abstained from carnal desires; but Christ was God, and if he had taught severity, he would not have been shown to be man. Therefore he assumed a life more human. The final reason was that John was the end of the Old Testament, wherein heavy burdens were imposed; but Christ was the beginning of the New Testament, which proceeds by way of meekness.
And wisdom is justified by her deeds . This can be taken in two ways: in one way by turning it back to whatever was said about John and Christ; and then the sense is that when a man does what he ought and the other is not reformed, then the former saves his own soul and is justified in his words. Wisdom is justified (this is the Son of God, or Christ), i.e., appeared just to its children, because it manifested what it should have to the just: abstinence by John, meekness by Christ. Or it can be explained another way: the children of the devil say that he is a glutton and a wine-bibber, but the children of wisdom understand that life does not consist in food and drink but in stability of mind, which uses food according to place and time and abstains when it is fitting, so that they do not exceed by using too much or fail by using too little. Accordingly, the Apostle says in Philippians (4:12): "In any and all circumstances I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and want." Therefore he would not seem to manifest complete wisdom, if he abstained entirely, because it would suppose that all justice lies in abstinence; but it does not lie in this but in stability of mind.
And note that he says, wisdom , because to use food or to abstain in accord with the moderation of wisdom is to abstain when one ought and to partake when one ought.
11—3
Mt 11:20-30
20. Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein were done the most of his miracles, for that they had not done penance. 21. Woe thee, Corozain, woe to thee, Bethsaida: for if in Tyre and Sidon had been wrought the miracles that have been wrought in you, they had long ago done penance in sackcloth and ashes. 22. But I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment, than for you. 23. And thou Capharnaum, shalt thou be exalted up to heaven? thou shalt go down even unto hell. For if in Sodom had been wrought the miracles that have been wrought in thee, perhaps it had remained unto this day. 24. But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for thee. 25. At that time Jesus answered and said: I confess to thee, O Father, Lord of Heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to little ones. 26. Yea, Father: for so hath it seemed good in thy sight. 27. All things are delivered to me by my Father. And no one knoweth the Son but the Father: neither doth any one know the Father, but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal him. 28. Come to me all you that labor and are burdened, and I will refresh you. 29. Take up my yoke upon you, and learn of me, because I am meek, and humble of heart: And you shall find rest to your souls. 30. For my yoke is sweet and my burden light.
Having satisfied John's disciples, he now rebukes non-believers: first, the Lord's deed is described; secondly, his words (v. 21).
(20) He says, therefore, Then he began to upbraid the cities . The upbraiding is concerned with the benefits and with gifts. For the Lord had conferred a great benefit, because he had enlightened them by his presence; but they were ungrateful and, consequently, deserved rebuke: "O my people, what have I done to you? In what way have I wearied you?" (Mic 6:3). And he did not rebuke them for having sinned but for not having done penance; hence Job (24:23): "He gave him opportunity to do penance, and he abused it unto pride" applied to them, as did Romans (2:4): "Do you know that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?"
But there is a textual question, because Luke (10:13) put this in another context. For he places it at the time of sending the disciples, but Matthew here. Augustine's answer is that it seems Luke is following the order of history, but Matthew the order of recollection. But then the objection is raised that here it says, then . So it seems that Matthew is also following the order of history. Augustine answers that then suggests an indeterminate time. Or, another way, it can be said that he said these words on two occasions, so that it could be then according to both Matthew and Luke.
[ Woe to you, Chorazin... These are the words of the Lord. First, they are about the suffragan cities, secondly about the metropolis, at and you Capharnaum etc. First he compares the sins, then the penalties, at But I tell you etc.]
(21) Woe to you, Chorazin... These are cities or villages of Galilee, where the Lord had performed many signs, and yet they were not converted. So he says, Woe to you... But what is the Lord doing? For it is written in Romans (12:14): "Do not curse..." The answer is that cursing is formal or material: no one should curse formally, but he may curse materially. Hence it should be noted that certain things are joined as far as sense perception goes, but they can be separated in the intellect; thus in an apple are odor and taste, which cannot be separated by sense perception, although they can by the intellect. Similarly, to will that one not be punished and to will the order of justice cannot co-exist except in the intellect. Hence if I curse a person, because I delight in his harm, it is evil. But if not for his evil but for the order of justice, then it is good. Hence the Lord's word is not the word of one taking pleasure, but the word of one desiring justice.
Woe to you, Chorazin... Chorazin is interpreted "a service to him," Bethsaida, "the house of fruit." To whom more is entrusted, more is demanded. And why did he manifest more there? Because he fulfilled his ministry there; therefore, "God's anger has been revealed from heaven on all ungodliness and the injustice of those men who held back the truth of God" (Rom 1:18). Bethsaida is the house of fruit. Therefore, if the Lord produced much fruit there, and they did no penance, what will happen to them? (Is 5:4): "When I looked for it to yield grapes, why did it yield wild grapes?"