But why is it that it will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come ? Are there any sins that will be forgiven in the age to come? Augustine says not. Therefore, it does not say that some sins are forgiven in the present and some in future, but that sins are so forgiven here, that the forgiveness is valid in the future. Or another way: some sins, namely, mortal, are forgiven in the present age, but others, namely, venial, in the age to come; so if someone dies in venial sin, it is clear that they can be forgiven. Hence there will be some mercy in the age to come, because then he will still be on the way. Chrysostom's explanation is quite clear and says that here he is speaking of two kinds of blasphemy, namely, against the Son of man and the Holy Spirit. They blasphemed the Son of man, because they said that he was a wine-bibber. Their blasphemy was also against the Holy Spirit, because they said that he cast out devils by a devil-spirit. For the first they had an excuse, because they did not know; but they had not excuse for what they said against the Holy Spirit, because they could not verify it by the Scriptures; therefore, they will not be forgiven. But why neither in this age nor in the age to come ? This is said, because some sins are punished in this age, some in the other, some both here and there. Some sins are punished only in this age, as in the case of penitents. Some only in the age to come, as those of whom it says in Job (2:13): "They spend their days in prosperity, and in a moment they go down into hell." The one punished here and in the age to come is the sin against the Holy Spirit; hence it will be forgiven neither in this age nor in the age to come , not because there might be forgiveness in the age to come, but because there will be punishment. Hence the meaning is that it will not be forgiven without punishment by suffering in this age and in the age to come. 'Thus do the saints speak about that sin.
It should be noted that the Master [Peter Lombard] in the Sentences, dist. 43, book 2, art. 3, makes a distinction and assigns six species of sin against the Holy Spirit: despair, presumption, impenitence, obstinacy, attack upon the known truth, and envy of a brother's grace. Hence those are said to sin against the Holy Spirit who sin against qualities appropriated to the Holy Spirit. To the Father is appropriated power, to the Son wisdom, to the Holy Spirit goodness. Therefore, one who sins from weakness is said to sin against the Father; from ignorance against the Son; from malice against the Holy Spirit. But it should be pointed out that one sins from malice, when he sins voluntarily, which is from certain malice; and this is two ways: either because he has an inclination to sin, or because he does not. For when a person commits many sins, a habit of sinning is left in him, and so he sins from choice. Again, someone sins because that by which he was kept from sin is removed. But he is kept from sin by the hope of eternal life; hence a person who does not hope in eternal life sins from certain malice: "Despairing, they have given themselves to licentiousness" (Eph 4:19). Hence a person who sins from inclination sins against the Holy Spirit, namely, from the fact that what restrains from sin has departed. But this happens in six ways. For in God are mercy and justice. From scorning mercy arises despair; from scorning justice, presumption. Again on the part of turning away from God, because one turns to a fragile good obstinacy comes. Again on the part of turning away from God, because one does not propose to return to God, impenitence results. Then on the part of the remedy, namely, of hope and charity, there come attack on the known truth and envy of brotherly love. These are sins against the Holy Spirit. Therefore, if there is actual impenitence, it is not forgiven, not because it is not forgiven at all, but because it is not easily forgiven; for it lacks the disposition to be forgiven, but only by God's grace: just as if a person has a fever, say, tertian, he has the capacity to be cured; but if he has emitreteum he does not have the resources to be cured, because he is not cured except by divine help.
(33) 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 and example; secondly, he adapts it (v. 34); thirdly, he assigns a reason (v. 34b). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he presents the example; secondly, the proof (v. 33b). He says, therefore: Either make the tree good, and its fruit good ... This is explained in two ways. One explanation is according to Chrysostom and Jerome; the other according to Augustine. According to Chrysostom it is this: He wants to show that their vituperation is unreasonable; hence he compares actions to life, as fruit to a tree. If a person sees good fruit, he judges that the tree is good; but conversely, if it is evil. They saw Christ's actions, for example, the expulsion of demons, and this was good; therefore, what you say is quite unreasonable. And most suitably he goes from effect to cause, as the Apostle says in Romans (1;20): "The invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen from the things that were made..." Hence he wants to say either you , namely, the Pharisees, make , i.e., concede, that if the fruit is good, the tree is good; or make, i.e., say that the fruit is evil, and thus the tree is evil. And this you cannot say.
Augustine, however, refers to the intention. They said that he cast out devils by Beelzebub Therefore, he wants to show from what root this accusation proceeded, because it was from the malice in their hearts. So he says, either make ... Here two things are presented: one is meritorious and ought to be done, namely, make the tree good , i.e., do the work and apply the energy required for being a good tree, which a man cannot be without preparation. Hence, do what is required to be a good tree, and then the fruit will be good and your words good. But the statement which follows indicates something to avoid, namely, or make the tree evil and its fruit evil , i.e., or you will pursue malice, and so you will be on an evil tree and your fruit evil: "I have planted you a choice vine, wholly of pure seed. How then have you turned degenerate and become a wild vine?" (Jer 2:21). According to both renditions the proof which follows is suitable: For the tree is known by its fruit , because by good fruit a good tree is known, and by evil fruit an evil one.
(34) 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. According to others' explanation, he is showing the source from which this malice comes and calls the Pharisees a brood of vipers, because those who are malicious from their youth retain it more firmly; therefore, their malice is called the malice of a viper: "A young man according to his way, when he is old, he will not depart from it" (Pr 22:6). Consequently, it often happens that those with evil parents are readier for evil: "We have known the iniquities of our fathers" (Jer 12:20). Hence it is good for a man to be trained in the good. Also it is the nature of serpents to eject poison with their tongues, and evil men do likewise: "The tongue of a viper will kill him" (Jb 20:16); "They make their tongue sharp as a serpent's" (Ps 140:3). And so he says, How can you speak good? He does not say "do good," but speak , because you are the offspring of a viper, which inflicts injury with the tongue; therefore, since you are imitators of the crime of your fathers, how can you speak good? As if to say: You cannot.
He assigns the reason: first, in general; secondly, in particular (v. 35). He says, therefore: So you are unable to speak good. Why? Because you are evil. Why? Because from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks , for the word is the messenger of the mind. He says, from the abundance of the heart , because, according to Chrysostom, when a person speaks from malice, it is a sign that greater malice is in the heart, for no one fears what he keeps within. Therefore, when he utters something out of malice, it is a sign that more is within, although he dares not say it. Hence he says, from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks . And from the abundance of malice within the mouth speaks, and this is true of good and of evil. Hence Jeremiah (20:9): "The Lord's word is in me as a burning fire." In regard to evil it is similar, because from malice some conceive something they cannot keep within: "The spirit within me impels me" (Jb 32:18).
(35) 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. The good treasure is knowledge of the truth and fear of the Lord: "Abundance of salvation, wisdom and knowledge; the fear of the Lord is his treasure" (Is 33:6). Likewise, and evil treasure is evil thinking; and from this treasure only evil proceeds: "Treasures of wickedness do not profit" (Pr 10:2). Note: what is said there of words is understood also of deeds. For as the thought is the wellspring of speech, so intention is of action. Therefore, if the intention is good, the action is good. Hence a Gloss: "You do according as you intent." This statement seems open to objection in regard to good. Suppose that someone wants to steal in order to give an alms: the act is evil and the intention good. Therefore... I answer that intending and willing are sometimes distinguished, namely, when in one and the same act the willing and the intention differ. Willing bears on the object wanted, but intention on the end. Willing, for example, is when I will to go to a window to see the people passing by; the latter is the intention. Hence it is necessary that willing and intending be one. Hence we can consider intention and willing in a wide sense, as in the assertion that if the willing is evil, the act is evil. Yet if it be excluded and taken in the proper sense, it is not true. But granted that intention and the act of willing are one, what then? I answer that the root of merit lies in charity, but consequently in the merit of other virtues. For merit looks at the essential reward, within which charity is considered. Thus, any work whatsoever that is performed with greater charity has more merit. But charity alone has God for object and end. Hence the merit of charity corresponds to the substantial reward, the merit of the other virtues to the accidental reward. Therefore, because charity permeates the intention, to the extent that one does something from greater charity to that extent he achieves; but in regard to accidental reward, this is not so.
(36) 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 16:14). Again 2 Corinthians (5:10): For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body." Hence there will be an investigation, because each one will render an account of his deeds. Therefore, he also adds something about words: I say to you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter . This is said in Wisdom (1:9): "He that speaks unrighteous things will not escape notice" and that the sound of murmuring will not go unheard. Why does he say for every carless [idle] word ? A word is called idle in two ways: in on way every evil word is called idle; because that is called idle which does not attain its purpose, as when a person hunts for a man and does not find him, the search is said to have been idle. But if a word is given to instruct, when it succeeds, it is not idle: "Let no evil talk come out of your minds, but only such as is good for edifying, that it may impart grace to those who hear" (Eph 4:29). And according to Chrysostom, it refers to the fact that they said, "by Beelzebub". That word was most pernicious and also idle. According to Jerome the former is a word that inflicts harm, and idle one is that which does not afford any benefit. According to Gregory any word lightly spoken is called idle, unless it has a pious use or a pious need. But it is clear that they spoke a pernicious word. Why does he mention only idle? Because he wishes to argue from the lesser; because if one must render an account for an idle word, then more so for a pernicious one.
(37) 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. Hence lest you suppose that you will be judged on the basis of what others say about you rather than what you say about yourself, he says, by your words you will be justified and by your words you will be condemned : "I will condemn you out of your own mouth, you wicked servant" (Lk 19:22).
12—3
Mt 12:38-45
38. Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying: Master, we would see a sign from thee. 41. The men of Ninive shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they did penance at the preaching of Jonas. And behold a greater than Jonas here. 42. The queen of the south shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold a greater than Solomon here. 43. And when an unclean spirit is gone out of a man he walketh through dry places seeking rest, and findeth none. 44. Then he saith: I will return into my house from whence I came out. And coming he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. 45. Then he goeth, and taketh with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is made worse than the first. So shall it be also to this wicked generation.
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.
(38) He says, therefore, Then they said to him ... This is after they had seen many miracles and heard many words of wisdom, to fulfill what was said in Sirach (22:7): "He who teaches a fool is like talking to a person asleep." Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you . They say, Teacher , as part of the testing: "They speak peace with their neighbors, while mischief is in their hearts" (Ps 28:3). We wish to see a sign from you . Had they not seen many signs? Yes, but another evangelist presents it this way: "We wish to see a sign from heaven" (Lk 11:16), as it is written in 1 Samuel (12:18) that Samuel made it thunder and Elijah made fire come from heaven (2 Kgs 1:10). For the Jews are wont to seek a sign, as it says in 1 Corinthians (1:22). But since he had given earthly signs and they did not believe, they would not have believed if he had given them signs from heaven: "If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?" (Jn 3:12).
(39) 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. A person is called evil, because he harms his neighbor. Therefore an evil generation of wicked children. It is called an adulterous generation: "You draw near hither, sons of the sorceress, offspring of the adulterer and the harlot" (Is 57:3). Therefore that generation, so subject to sin, seeks a sign; but no sign shall be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah : "Ask a sign of the Lord, your God; let it be as deep as Sheol or as high as heaven" (Is 7:10). Therefore they sought a sign from heaven, but they were unworthy to see it. For he gave this to his apostles, who saw him ascending and who saw God's glory on the mount. But the others will be given only a sign in hell as to the soul and on earth as to the body. Hence no sign will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah . Hence Christ's death is denoted and God's love shown, as the Apostle says: "When we were yet sinners according to the time Christ died for us..." (Rom 5:8). Furthermore, the power of the one raising is shown, as is indicated in 1 Cor (15:20 ff). And these are the signs of things that ought to be present in us. By Christ's death is signified that we should die to sin; by the resurrection, that we should rise from sin.
(40) 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. Or, in the heart of the earth , i.e., in the heart of the worldly mind of the disciples who despaired of him, as it says in Luke (24:21): "We had hope that he was the one to redeem Israel." For three days and three nights . But a question arises here. For this passage seems to be false, because he died at 3 o'clock, was buried in the evening, but rose on the morning of the third day. Augustine says that some want to say that one must start from the hour when he was put on the cross. Hence they call the darkness which appeared the first day, the second day was the night of the evening star, the third was the day of Sabbath. But according to Augustine, this is invalid; although it would help, if he had been in the tomb for the entire Sunday. Therefore we must have recourse to another solution, namely, that a natural day composed of day and night is taken as an interval of twenty-four hours. But, as Augustine says, in Scripture a part is sometimes taken for the whole. Therefore we must say that it is by synecdoche that Christ is said to have been in the tomb for three days and three nights, because Friday is taken for the whole day and even the previous night; there is no doubt about the second day, but the third is taken for the night and the following day. Yet if we regard what actually happened, it was a case of two nights and one day, to denote that his single destroyed our double. Punishment and guilt were in us, but only punishment in him; therefore...
Another question arises. Had he not worked many miracles? Had he not raised Lazarus and a number of others? Why then does he say, no sign shall be given to it except the sign of Jonah the prophet ? I answer that the kind of sign they demand will not be given; or no sign that will benefit them will be given, for he knew that they would not be converted, because they were hardened. But he performed many signs for the sake of the elect and believers, of whom there were many afterwards.
(41) 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 Lord had compared his resurrection to Jonah; therefore they could believe that it would happen to them as to the Ninevites, who were set free. But the Jews were not only set free, they were dispersed. Hence the men of Nineveh ... In these words an error of the Jews is excluded, namely, that the resurrection will occur before the judgment and that in the meantime Jerusalem will be rebuilt. And they appeal to Isaiah (25:6): "On this mountain the Lord will make a feast of fat things." Others said that the just and martyrs will rise one thousand years before the others, and they appeal to Revelation (20:1): "Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain. And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years were ended." Both are excluded when he says, They will arise with this generation , the good and those not good together. And will condemn it , by comparison but not by any authority, because they will rise among those to be condemned: "This is Jerusalem; I have set her in the center of the nations, with countries round about her. And she has wickedly rebelled against my statutes more than the countries round about her" (Ez 5:5). And why will they condemn them? Because they repented ; but the scribes and Pharisees were not willing to do penance.
The Lord began his preaching with penance as the theme, as did John, but they did not listen: "No one repents of his wickedness" (Jer 8:6). Furthermore, the others did penance at one preaching by Jonah; but Jesus had preached to them many times, and yet they were not converted: "If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin" (Jn 15:24). Again, the former were converted by the preaching of one prophet; but the latter had not only a prophet but the Son of God. Hence it says in Hebrews (1:1): "In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he has appointed heir of all things, through whom also he created the world." And he continues: and behold a greater than Jonah here , as in Hebrews (3:3): "Yet Jesus was counted worthy of as much more glory than Moses as the builder of a house has more glory than the house. Therefore the Ninevites are preferred, because they did penance.
(42) 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. She signifies the Church of believers: "At your right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir." The Church is called queen , because it ought to rule: "A king who sits on the throne of judgment winnows all evil with his eyes" (Pr 20:8). Of the south by reason of the Holy Spirit: "Awake, O north wind, and come, O south wind. Blow upon my garden..." (S of S 4:16). That queen will arise in the judgment with that generation . Note that it does not say she did not sin, but that she was not rebellious. Why? Because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon , as it says in 1 Kings (10:24); and there was no need for you to come from the ends of the earth, because he is here. Hence: behold a greater than Solomon here , because he was a temporal king and a sinner, but hers is one innocent and eternal: "His power is an everlasting power which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed" (Dan 7:14).
(43) 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 present the example; secondly, he applies it (v. 45b).