Gospel according to Saint Matthew, commented on verse by verse

Chapter 12

Mt12.¹ At that time, Jesus was walking through the wheat fields on the Sabbath, and his disciples, being hungry, began to pick some ears of grain and eat them. – In this verse we have a simple statement of the facts; in the next, the accusation of the Pharisees; and in verses 3-8, Jesus' defense of the disciples. At that time. The date is vague and general, showing that St. Matthew did not intend to adhere strictly to chronological order. The other two Synoptic Gospels place this event at an earlier point in the Public Life, between the calling of St. Matthew and the mission of the twelve Apostles, and they are probably correct. As for the precise time of year when it took place, it is sufficiently determined by the very nature of the event. Ripe ears of grain are only found in the fields shortly before harvest; and wheat is generally harvested in Palestine towards the end of March or the beginning of April. The scene takes place in Galilee, but we do not know exactly where. wheat fields. Perhaps Jesus and his disciples were going to or returning from the synagogue; for the Jews readily built their houses of prayer some distance from their homes. At least it is certain that they were not traveling at that time, since on the Sabbath one could only travel a very limited distance, determined according to the Law. One Sabbath day Some manuscripts say it was the "second-first" Sabbath, 6:1, an expression that designates the first Sabbath following the second day of Passover. His disciples, being hungry…They lacked food that day: something that must have happened to them more than once during the apostolic journeys they undertook following the One who had not a stone on which to lay his head. Yet Jesus was called a “greedy man and a wine drinker.” They began to tearSeveral authors take this word literally, as if it meant that the Apostles had barely begun their modest meal when they were suddenly interrupted by the Pharisees. Others, finding this interpretation too meticulous, give the phrase the simpler meaning of "snatched away." And to eat them, after having brought out the grains of wheat by rubbing the ears between their hands, as St. Luke adds, 6, 1.

Mt12.² When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, «Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.» – The accusers are not far away. Perhaps, as some ancient exegetes have said, they had followed the apostolic group at some distance, to see if it might overstep the prescribed boundary by a few steps. The role of spy was perfectly in keeping with the character of these austere hypocrites. In any case, they have found an excellent opportunity to harm Jesus, and they are seizing it eagerly. Here is, "They're out!" they exclaimed, filled with malicious glee. "Look and judge for yourself; we caught them red-handed!" They are doing what is not allowed to doNote well that they do not condemn the act itself, as if the Disciples had committed injustice and theft; for the Law expressly authorized anyone passing through a vineyard or a wheat field to pick as many bunches of grapes or as many ears of grain as they wished and to eat them without scruple, provided they ate their meal within the field or vineyard (cf. Deuteronomy 23:24-25). This custom still persisted even in the ancient homeland of the Jews. “The country we were crossing,” recounts Dr. Robinson, Palaestina, 2.319, “was largely covered with fields of wheat. The ears of grain were ripe, and we witnessed a living interpretation of Holy Scripture.” Our Arabs were hungry, and as we were crossing the fields, they began to pluck ears of grain, rubbing the kernels between their hands and eating them. When we asked them about this, they replied that it was an ancient custom and that no one would object to it… We later had many other examples of the same kind.” It was therefore the timing of the event that, in the eyes of the Pharisees, rendered the conduct of Jesus’ disciples illicit and culpable. Plucking ears of grain and rubbing them between their hands—weren’t these two servile acts, and therefore a criminal profanation of the Sabbath? “It is reprehensible to harvest on the Sabbath, even in small quantities; and plucking ears of grain is a kind of harvest,” Talmud. To give us a true understanding of the scandal caused by the Pharisees on this occasion and in other similar cases where we will see them so vehemently accuse the Savior of violating the Sabbath rest, it is helpful to delve into some historical details provided by the ancient and even modern customs of the Israelites. The observance of the Sabbath has always been considered one of the most important commandments of the Decalogue and of the Mosaic religion. But for a long time, the Pharisees had seized upon it to perfect, they believed, on this point as on so many others, what was lacking in the Law—that is to say, as Our Lord Jesus Christ would reproach them, to add to the divine precepts human traditions that were sometimes ridiculous, sometimes contrary to religious morality, always burdensome, and ultimately unbearable for weak mortals. Nowhere had their narrow-mindedness been more evident than with regard to the Sabbath. Undoubtedly, the boundary between the work The prohibition and permissibility of certain actions are quite difficult to define in many cases, and since the Law did not go into every detail, it fell to the Doctors of the Church to enlighten public opinion. But they had fulfilled this function in the most petty way, to the point of making the Sabbath day as tedious as a Puritan Sunday and almost incompatible with an active life. Where God had prescribed only the cessation of work itself, the Pharisees had prescribed the cessation of all activity, or nearly so. Without being as rigid as that Samaritan sect whose members pledged to maintain throughout the entire Sabbath the position they had at its beginning, they had made extreme Sabbath observance the defining characteristic of their religion. This is evident from the long list of works they forbade on Saturday. They had divided them into 39 categories (fathers), themselves subdivided into numerous secondary sections (generations) and the work accessory or derivative work, as they called it, was no less prohibited than primary or fundamental labor. That is why Jesus' disciples were currently profaning the Sabbath, their action being of the same nature as the work of the harvester. That is why it was forbidden to climb a tree on the Sabbath, not because the act itself was forbidden, but because doing so risked breaking some branches, which has an affinity with the work of the woodcutter and thus remains an outlaw. The course of events will provide us with the opportunity to cite other examples: those we have recounted suffice to show the difference between the truly sweet and light yoke of the Savior, and the intolerable yoke of the Pharisees and the Jewish Doctors. The Pharisaical spirit still persists among some in Israel: it is known, in fact, that the Jews who have remained believers observe the Sabbath with as much rigor as their fathers. There are those who do not even dare to wind their watches on that day, who call upon a Christian to light the fire they prepared the day before, who would believe they would commit a grave sin by writing a single line. In the 19th century, a German rabbi addressed a protest to the Ministry of the Interior in Berlin because, with elections being scheduled for Saturday, Jewish voters were, he said, either unable to vote or forced to transgress their religious commandments, since it was necessary to write the name of the candidate on the ballot paper.

Mt12.³ But he answered them, «Have you not read what David did when he and those with him were hungry? ⁴ how he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which was not permitted to him or those with him to eat, but only to the priests? – Jesus immediately speaks to exonerate his beloved disciples, and also to protest vigorously against an exaggerated interpretation which, while seeking to honor the letter of the commandment, degraded its spirit and destroyed its dignity. The defense takes place from two different perspectives: from the perspective of the Old Covenant (vv. 3 and 4) and from the perspective of the New Covenant (vv. 5-8). The Savior first points to an aspect of David's life which, when compared to the disciples' conduct, completely excused them, showing that "necessity has no law." Haven't you read...Mark 2:25 is even more forceful: “Have you never read?” Jesus refers these so-called scholars back to the Bible. They had read the passage in question, and more than once; but they had never understood it. What David didThis episode is recounted in detail in Samuel's first book21:1-6. David was fleeing to escape Saul's murderous plans. Arriving at Nob, a small town in Judea, located to the north and a short distance from Jerusalem, he was hungry; destitute, he entered the tabernacle, designated by the words the house of the LordSee Exodus 23:19, and asked the high priest Ahimelech to give him something to eat. Ahimelech had only "sanctified bread" (v. 4), or, as it is called later (v. 6), the showbread. In Hebrew, this referred to twelve loaves placed in the sanctuary on a golden table, as a perpetual offering from the twelve tribes to God. See Leviticus 24:5-7. That he was not allowed…Cf. Leviticus 24:8-9. These loaves were renewed every Saturday morning. But, by remaining eight days in the tabernacle, they had acquired a sacred character; therefore, according to a very explicit ordinance of the Law, only the priests could eat them, and only in the holy place. Nevertheless, Ahimelech did not hesitate to give David some of this sanctified bread, and the holy king did not hesitate to eat it. What follows from this conduct, which the Rabbis unanimously justify? It is that there is sometimes a clash, in human life, between several distinct obligations, and then positive law yields to natural law. This had legitimately occurred in the case of David, and it also legitimately occurred in the case of the Apostles. – The example cited by the divine Master was admirably chosen. If David, the holy king, the model of Jewish piety, the man after God's own heart, could act in this way without sin, could one go astray by imitating his example? And besides, it was a law emanating from God himself that forbade the profane to touch the showbread, while the act of plucking a few ears of grain on the Sabbath day had been prohibited only by a human tradition.

Mt12.⁵ Or have you not read in the Law that on the Sabbath day the priests in the temple violate the Sabbath and yet commit sin? – Or perhaps you haven't read it.... David's example was only indirectly related to the issue at hand, as it simply demonstrated that even religious prescriptions can lose their value in the face of urgent necessity; the second example, drawn from the functions of the priests on the Sabbath, is perfectly suited to the question, as we will indicate in a brief commentary. In the Law See Numbers 28:9; Leviticus 24:5. In these passages, God commands the priests to perform various sacred tasks each Saturday, which required a considerable amount of activity and were therefore incompatible with Sabbath rest. Thus, from a material standpoint, it could be said of the priests that they violent the sabbath (That's the technical term.) They do things that, if done by others and for a different purpose, would certainly be a desecration of the Sabbath. And yet, They are not guilty., the divine order fully justifying them. Indeed, according to a Talmudic axiom, "The servile work that is done in the sanctuary is not servile," Shabb. f. 19.1. "There is no observance of the Sabbath at all in the temple," Maimonides, in Pesach. c. 1.
Mt12.⁶ But I tell you that there is someone here greater than the temple. – I'm telling you. A solemn affirmation, which usually announces some important revelation. There is someone taller here...It is these words that transport us to the realm of the New Testament. It seems that Jesus Christ is anticipating an objection. “You are not priests,” his opponents might have replied. Making a fortiori argument, he continues: “If the ordinary laws concerning Sabbath rest are abolished for the service of the temple and for divine worship, how much more so are they abolished for me, who am greater than the temple, and for my disciples, who are my priests.” “By these words of the Law, he excused his disciples and implied that priests were permitted to act freely. Now, David was a priest in the eyes of God, even though he was persecuted by Saul, for every righteous king possesses the priestly rank. All the disciples of the Lord were also priests, they who here below had neither fields nor houses as an inheritance, but who constantly devoted themselves to the service of the altar and of God,” St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 1. 4, 3. The Jews said, “There is no Sabbath for the temple.” Jesus said in turn, “There is no Sabbath for the Messiah or for his disciples.”

Mt12.⁷ If you understood this statement: "I want mercy, "And not sacrifice," you would never have condemned innocent people. – It was not enough for Jesus Christ to have demonstrated the innocence of his Apostles; he had to scourge, as they deserved, these heartless Pharisees, these rigid formalists who would let men starve to death rather than allow them a slight and purely material violation of the Sabbath, intended to provide them with a little food. Had they forgotten the principle they themselves had formulated at a time when their senses were not blinded by passion: “Every danger of death drives away the Sabbath”? If you knew… Jesus presented the testimony of history (verses 3 and 4) and then that of the Law (verse 5) against the Pharisees; now he brings the testimony of the Prophets against them. I want mercy…We have already seen, cf. 9:13, this oracle of Hosea 6:6, on the lips of the Savior in a similar circumstance, on the occasion of another unjust accusation leveled by the Pharisees against the first disciples. God prefers mercy to sacrifice and all sorts of ceremonial observances; the good and charitable God desires above all that men practice among themselves the royal law of love; should not the Doctors have remembered this great principle so clearly stated in Scripture? “If you approve of the compassion with which Ahimelech restored David, who was in danger of dying of hunger, why do you condemn my disciples?” St. Jerome. You would never have condemned innocent people.. To condemn innocent people, to condemn them without reason and deliberately, is certainly a grave injustice. The Pharisees committed this injustice against the disciples by rashly accusing them of violating the Sabbath.

Mt12.⁸ For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.» – Jesus Christ concludes the apology of his disciples with a powerful statement, the force of which Grotius and several other commentators have unfortunately greatly weakened by applying the words Son of man to all men without exception. These writers should have noticed that they are thus introducing a false and dangerous idea. On what grounds, indeed, could the first man who came along be the Lord of the Sabbath? Here, as everywhere else in the Gospel, the Son of Man is therefore Our Lord Jesus Christ himself. This being established, the idea becomes as simple as it is true. Jesus, in his capacity as Messiah, and even more so in his capacity as Son of God, is truly the Lord of the Sabbath; master of interpreting its obligations, of dispensing from them, of ennobling it, just as God himself does. Cf. John 5:18 and 19. His disciples, had they had no other excuse, are therefore blameless: he had the right to allow them to act as they did. – The Pharisees do not answer: but what could they have answered to the Savior's irrefutable arguments? – The particle translated by even in the Vulgate, it appears not to be authentic.

vv. 9-14. Parallel. Mark. 3, 1-6; Luke. 6, 6-11.

Mt12.⁹ Jesus left that place and went into their synagogue. – Although the three Synoptic Gospels recount this new miracle of Jesus in much the same way, each of their accounts nevertheless contains interesting details which, taken together, form a charming whole. One would think, according to St. Matthew's narrative, that Jesus, immediately after the scene we have just studied, went to the synagogue near which it had taken place, and that he healed the poor invalid whose hand had long been withered that same day; but St. Luke expressly states that this second episode took place "on another Sabbath day," 6:6, perhaps the following Saturday. Cf. St. Augustine, The Agreement of the Evangelists, Book 2, Chapter 35. – In their synagogue; from them, that is to say, either from the Pharisees who had so unjustly attacked the disciples of the Savior, or better yet, from the inhabitants of the place. Cf. 4:23; 11, 1. It has been assumed, but without sufficient reasons, that the cities of Tiberias or Capernaum had been the scene of this double controversy relating to the Sabbath.

Mt12.¹⁰ Now there was a man there who had a withered hand, and they asked Jesus, «Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath day?» This was to have a pretext for accusing him. – A man with a withered hand. St. Jerome, in his commentary, provides us with some curious details about this sick man: “In the Gospel used by the Nazarenes and the Ebionites, which we recently translated from Hebrew into Greek and which is called by many the authentic text of Matthew, it is written that the man with the withered hand is a mason, who prays for help with words such as: ‘I was a mason, I earned my living with my hands; I pray to you, Jesus, to restore my health, otherwise I will have to shamefully beg for my food.’ St. Jerome, in Matthew 12:13. His ailment is described in popular terms (cf. 1 Kings 13:4); it was a partial atrophy, as a result of which movement, and then vital action, had completely disappeared from the affected limb. When this infirmity has existed for some time, it is considered entirely incurable.” St. Luke adds that it was the right hand that had been injured, an aggravating circumstance and one truly deserving of pity. they asked Jesus. According to the other two accounts, the Pharisees remained silent, attentively observing the Lord's conduct: the question came from Jesus (Mark 3:2-4; Luke 6:7-9); but reconciliation is easy. The Pharisees, after observing at their leisure, were the first to ask the Savior the question preserved for us by St. Matthew; then Jesus answered them, as in other similar cases, with another question, thus placing in a cruel predicament those who would have wanted to embarrass him himself. Is it permitted : cf. 19, 3; Luke.13, 23; 22, 49; Acts of the Apostles 1, 6; 19, 2, etc. – Healing on the Sabbath Day. The question was insidious and contained a cleverly concealed trap, as indicated by the following words, to have a pretext to accuse him. – Based on Jesus' usual conduct, his interrogators assumed in advance that he would take pity on the infirm man and agree to heal him immediately; this would allow them to immediately file a Sabbath-violation charge against the miracle worker with the synagogue dignitaries, who formed a third-order tribunal. Indeed, according to the rabbinic principles of the time, faithfully recorded in the Talmud, any attempt at healing was considered incompatible with Sabbath rest, unless there was genuine danger in delaying the intervention; undoubtedly because the art of medicine, being then very complex, required numerous manipulations, which the Rabbis considered work in the true sense of the word. “Those who are healthy should not take any medicine on the Sabbath day.” One who has a kidney ailment should not anoint the affected area with oil and vinegar. However, he may anoint it with oil alone, provided it is not rose oil. One who has a toothache should not ingest vinegar. Rather, he should spit it out. But it is permitted to ingest it if he swallows it. One who has a sore throat should not gargle with oil. But it is permitted to swallow oil. If it cures him, so much the better! He should not chew mastic, nor should he chew spices with his teeth as a remedy. But if he does so anyway, it is permitted to him to perfume his mouth,” Maimon, in Shabb. c. 21: What a series of absurd prescriptions and blatant contradictions! Let us not be surprised if the school of Shammai went so far as to forbid visiting and comforting the sick on a Sabbath day. Shabbat 12:1.

Mt12.¹¹ He answered them, «Which of you, having only one sheep, if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath day, does not take hold of it and lift it out?” – In accordance with his principles and usual conduct, Jesus Christ could have given an affirmative answer; but knowing the hostile disposition of the Pharisees, he preferred to skillfully thwart their plans and cover them in confusion. Which man among you...?.. He counters one moral dilemma with another, then draws an irrefutable conclusion that will completely shield him from their hateful accusations. A sheep. A poor man who possesses only a sheep as his sole wealth will be more excusable if he works on the Sabbath to save it; Our Lord deliberately notes this mitigating circumstance. If she falls into a pit. These accidents are frequent in eastern regions, where cisterns are usually concealed in the middle of fields, covered with branches and grass. He won't take it.The Pharisaic school, in fact, permitted the owner to do whatever was necessary to pull his animal from the well, without regard for the Sabbath; for, it said, "one must take extreme care of the animals of the Israelites"; it is true that later it strictly forbade this, no doubt to protest against this passage of the Gospel. – The words of the Savior contain an ad hominem argument (opposing their own actions to their adversaries) full of divine wisdom: they show the interrogators that they did not hesitate to violate the rest of the holy day when their personal interests were at stake.

Mt12.¹² Now, how much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.» – Jesus now applies his conscience to the pending question. Elsewhere, he had said that man is superior to the lily of the field, to the sparrow that flies carefree in the air; he now places him with the same simplicity above the poor man's single sheep. SO, This is the conclusion of his syllogism, the minor premise of which we saw in line 11, and the major premise in the first part of line 12. It is permissible to do goodThe natural conclusion would be, “It is permitted to heal”; but the divine Master deliberately varies the expression to strengthen his argument. He thus reveals works of mercy in a new light, so as to distinguish them entirely from vulgar, servile works. Doing good is always permitted, even on the Sabbath; but healing is a benefit performed for humanity, a tribute paid to the Creator; how then could it conflict with Sabbath rest? The answer is so striking that, once again, the Pharisees remain silent.

Mt12.¹³ Then he said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and it was restored to its original health. – Then he said to the manDuring this brief argument by Jesus Christ, the crippled man had stood in the middle of the assembly, next to the one whose mercy he had implored. With what anxiety had he not heard the Pharisees' question and the Savior's reply? But his fears soon gave way to the liveliest hope when these gentle words rang in his ears: "How much better is a man than a sheep!" Extend your hand. With the true doctrine of the Sabbath expounded, slander no longer has any hold. For, without any contact, with the voice alone, he heals the man. Something that no kind of Sabbath violation could accomplish. The act of healing was understood in this order. To say to a man whose hand is contracted by paralysis: "Stretch out your hand," is to say to him: "You are healed." He stretched it out ; The disabled man obeyed in faith, he stretched out his hand which was immediately found to be completely healed and as healthy as the other, adds the evangelist.

Mt12.¹⁴ The Pharisees went out and plotted against him how they might destroy him. – The Pharisees having left.This outcome reveals the full extent of their malice. Increasingly blinded by hatred, furious to see that, far from having amassed, as they had hoped, material for accusations against Jesus, they had instead only succeeded in being caught in their own trap, they go out to hide their rage, or rather, to give it free rein away from the eyes of the crowd. They meet in secret to decide ways to lose it. The death of Jesus was decided in principle, but the method of execution was a source of confusion for them. We shall see that it would remain so until the last days of Our Lord's life.

Mt12.¹⁵ But when Jesus learned of this, he withdrew from that place. A large crowd followed him, and he healed all their sick. ¹⁶ And he commanded them not to make it known:– Jesus, having learned of it…The Savior, knowing through his divine wisdom the infamous machinations of his enemies, immediately left the scene of the two events we have heard recounted. His hour had not yet come, and he did not wish by his presence to increase the exasperation of those who had sworn his death, and thus hinder the execution of divine plans. He therefore acted first upon the advice he had given to the Apostles (10:23), and he escaped by flight from the schemes of his persecutors. And many followed him. Mark 3:7-12 paints a vivid picture of the crowd that followed Jesus; they came from all the provinces of Palestine and even from the surrounding pagan countries. If the divine Master departs, it is therefore like a victor taking with him many friends and many captives who have willingly attached themselves to him. And he healed them allThat is to say, according to the other two synoptic Gospels, all those among them who needed physical or spiritual healing. – The expression "all" highlights both the admirable condescension of Jesus Christ and the great number of the sick. And he commanded them. He insisted strongly on this point, so as not to needlessly worsen the situation created for him by the Pharisaic party. More than ever, he desired calm and moderation, for the reason we have already mentioned several times. The growing enthusiasm of the crowd (see Mark 11 and Luke 6:18-19) dictated this course of action in the present circumstances.

Mt12.¹⁷ so that the word of the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: – By thus avoiding anything that might unnecessarily provoke his adversaries, by showing himself humble and gentle towards them, and also gentle and humble towards the multitudes by which he was constantly assailed, he was aware of fulfilling a famous prophecy of the prophet Isaiah, 42:1-4. So that it may be accomplished cf. 1:21. As in several other places, St. Matthew does not strictly follow either the Hebrew text or the Septuagint translation in the quotation he combines with his narrative; but he himself translates freely in the manner of a Targum, "adhering more to the meaning than to the words," according to the apt observation of St. Jerome, Letter 121 to Algasia. We give here the literal translation from the Hebrew, so that the reader may more easily see that the evangelist has not committed any serious infidelity: "Behold, my servant whom I maintain, my chosen one in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him. He will bring justice to the peoples. He will not cry out or raise his voice in the streets. A bruised reed he will not break, nor will he extend a smoldering wick. In faithfulness he will bring forth justice." And he will not falter, nor will he be softened until he has established justice on the earth; and the islands await his teaching.” Verses 2 and 3 of the prophet are the only ones directly related to the thesis that St. Matthew wished to demonstrate; the evangelist nevertheless quotes the complete passage for greater clarity: verse 1 will serve as his introduction and verse 4 as his conclusion. – The letter of St. Jerome “to Algasia,” or “Capitula 11 quaestionum Algasia,” which we mentioned above, contains a fine commentary on this prophecy.

Mt12.¹⁸ «Here is my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved, in whom I am well pleased. I will put my Spirit on him, and he will bring justice to the nations.”.Isaiah describes three things: 1) the Messiah's calling, 2) his conduct, 3) the results he achieved. The calling of Christ is discussed in verse 18. Here is my servant. In the Latin text, "Puer" can refer indiscriminately to the son or servant of the family; the Hebrew text speaks very explicitly of the servant of God. But the one whose name recurs so frequently in the second part of the Book of IsaiahChapters 40-56, is none other than the Messiah, considered in his humiliations voluntarily accepted for our salvation. Cf. Phil. 2:7. The Rabbis almost all recognized him. Thus, in the Chaldean paraphrase, we read the following translation of our passage: behold my servant, the Messiah. That I chose. God, who is supposed to utter these words, affirms before heaven and earth that, from all eternity, he has chosen his Christ to be the regenerator of humanity. In whom I have placed all my affection. The voice that resounded at the time of Jesus' baptism (3:17), and the one that would resound at his Transfiguration (17:5), expressed precisely the same thought, the same love of absolute devotion. In the Greek text, the use of the accusative case is more expressive and indicates a perpetual inclination of divine affection toward Christ. My mind: " It should not be surprising that the word "soul" is used to express the affections of God, since in a moral sense, and according to the different ways of interpreting Holy Scripture, all the parts of the human body are also attributed to it," St. Jerome, Letter 121 to Algasia. I put In Hebrew, the verb is in the perfect tense: "I have placed" (cf. Isaiah 12:1). "The spirit," observes St. Jerome, Comm. in hl, "is placed not on the Word of God nor on the only Son who proceeds from the Father, but on him of whom it is said: 'Behold my servant.'" And he will announce justice…The Messiah has been chosen, prepared; now begins the exposition of his role. But what is this judgment that Christ is to announce to the Gentiles, as well as to the Jews? Is it justice properly speaking, in the sense that the Messiah was truly instituted by God as the supreme judge of the good and the wicked? Or is it, more generally, “that which is just and good,” the truth, the only true religion? These two interpretations, which have been adopted in turn, seem to us to be both contained within the role of the Messiah: therefore, we will not attempt to separate them.

Mt12.¹⁹ He will not quarrel, he will not shout, and his voice will not be heard in the public squares. ²⁰ He will not break the bruised reed or snuff out the smoking wick until he has brought justice to victory. – The role of Christ is admirably expressed in these verses through touching allegories. We are first shown his sublime nature from a negative perspective. He will not compete…Passion never guides his conduct; he is neither violent nor turbulent, but gentle, peaceful, and modest. He is not a partisan who attracts crowds with noisy words; on the contrary, he asks that silence be cast over his name and his miracles. In public places, the usual stage for orators who want to become popular. – We move on to another aspect of the Messiah's activity: it is as kind and gentle as it is humble, as we learn from two proverbial expressions, which develop better than any other language the well-known motto of Jesus: "The Son of Man came to save what was lost," Matthew 18:11. He will not break the reed…This crumpled reed, this half-extinguished wick, now worthless objects, represent very well the poor souls whose moral life hangs by a thread, and whom a slightly abrupt, unkind touch would be enough to kill forever. Christ is careful not to destroy this faint remnant of life: on the contrary, he gently resurrects and revives those who, without him, would soon have perished completely. He won't extinguish the fuse“The part closest to the bark (of flax stems) is called tow; it is a flax of inferior quality, and hardly suitable for anything other than making lamp wicks,” Pliny, Natural History 19, 3. If it had pleased the divine Master to behave toward the unbelieving Jews like a severe judge, who among them could have withstood his wrath? He would have crushed them, stifled them without difficulty, just as one breaks a reed and extinguishes the light of a lamp; but no. He always spared them, seeking to the very end to convert them through means full of kindness. until he has made justice prevailThis is the final result he will obtain. “That is, until he has accomplished what concerns him. Then he will exact eternal vengeance on his enemies,” St. John Chrysostom, Hom. 40 in Matthew. Pure and simple justice will therefore then take the place of kindnessand this justice will prevail triumphantly, overturning anything that tries to resist it.

Mt12.²¹ In his name, the nations will place their hope.» – In his name. “This judgment will not only end in punishing the guilty, but will also draw the whole earth to itself. And the nations will hope in his name »According to the Hebrew, it is not precisely the name, but the doctrine of the Messiah that is the object of the Gentiles’ expectation; however, the difference is not considerable, since in the name of Christ one certainly finds the principle of his teaching: those who await his law cannot fail to have confidence in his name, that is to say, in his all-powerful personality.” The nations, as in verse 18; for the Gentiles too, as the Prophets continually reiterate, were called to Messianic salvation. – Although this beautiful passage from Isaiah is more specifically linked to Jesus' humble flight and his condescension toward the people, it nevertheless applies to his entire public life and to his whole conduct as Messiah.

Controversy concerning the healing of a demoniac, vv. 22-50. Parall. Mark. 3, 20-35; Luke. 11, 24-32; 8, 19-21.

Mt12.²² They then presented him with a blind and mute possessed man, and he healed him, so that this man spoke and saw. – We have already encountered a similar case above, 9.32; the two cures are certainly distinct, despite the contrary assertions of rationalists (Strauss, de Wette, etc.). Blind and mute ; The unfortunate man brought before Jesus was not only possessed by a demon. As a result of this possession, he was also deprived of sight and speech. And he healed him, so…By removing the cause, the Savior also removes the effects. “Three miracles were performed in the healed possessed man: the mute spoke, the blind man saw, and the possessed man was delivered from the demon. These three miracles are renewed every day in the conversion of the faithful; first, the demon is cast out; then, they see the light of faith and open their mouths to praise God.” A beautiful reflection by St. Jerome.

Mt12.²³ And all the people, filled with amazement, said, "Is this not the son of David?"« – seized with astonishment, This is a very forceful expression that Saint Matthew uses only in this passage. Admiration is therefore at its peak, and it quickly spreads to the considerable crowd that accompanied Jesus (cf. Mark 3:7-8). Isn't that it?…that is to say, could this not be the son of David, or the Messiah? Cf. John 4:29. This language expresses a nascent faith, one that is not yet complete and that struggles with doubt. The multitude is suspended between affirmation and negation, while leaning more toward the former. If one of those Pharisees we see in the crowd were to raise his voice and say, “Yes, this is truly the Messiah, for his miracles prove it,” then immediately the whole people would believe.

Mt12.²⁴ But the Pharisees, hearing this, said, "He casts out demons only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons."« – Unfortunately, they will do the opposite. Doesn't St. Mark tell us that they had come all the way from Jerusalem to spy on the Savior and to turn those good Galileans away from him? Cf. Mark 3:22. He doesn't chase away demons.…Such is the infamous accusation they dare to level against him. It is true that it perfectly served their purpose. “All the crowds,” the entire populace, were slipping away from them to give themselves to Jesus: If they can succeed in spreading among these ignorant masses the belief that the universally admired Wonderworker is in intimate communication with the enemy of humankind, with the prince of demons, his reputation will soon be tarnished. The Pharisees are therefore striking a desperate blow. Only by Beelzebub. The miracle is too evident for them to deny its reality; but they attack it from another point of view. In cases of this kind, can the supernatural not come from God or from Satan? When Jesus casts out demons, these wretches cry, it is not by virtue of a divine principle, but by satanic interference, by a monstrous operation. Prince of Demons The Jews conceived of infernal spirits as an organized army, headed by a commander-in-chief to whom the lesser demons submitted. We have attempted to explain why Satan was then called Beelzebul. See 10:25 and the commentary.

Mt12.²⁵ Jesus, who knew their thoughts, said to them, «Every kingdom divided against itself will be desolate, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. – Jesus, who knew their thoughtsJesus thus knew the full enormity of their malice. If he had previously, in 9:34, left a similar accusation unanswered, it is impossible that he would allow the Pharisees to take advantage of his silence to become increasingly emboldened and gradually undermine his work and his authority among the people. This time, he speaks to refute the odious insult that had just been hurled at him. He delivers a veritable plea for his own cause; in it, he demonstrates that he is in no way, as he is accused, an ally of Satan. All the qualities we have already admired in his speeches and replies are found here united in their entirety: gentleness and the’humility that no personal offense, not even the most degrading insult, can refute; the calm and sublime temperament that does not return insult for insult; the holy anger of the judge in harmony with love who instructs and persuades; the fullness of wisdom which, on every occasion, reveals the secrets of hearts and declares the truth with penetrating power; finally, the majesty of his person which is affirmed in all things. There are two parts to this short discourse of the divine Master: the speaker first takes a defensive stance and refutes, with a series of unshakeable arguments, the Pharisees' crude accusation, vv. 25-30; then, becoming the aggressor himself, he highlights the crime of his enemies and the punishment that will befall them if they persist in their unworthy conduct, vv. 31-37. – Part One. The refutation begins with a reductio ad absurdum argument, vv. 25 and 26. Satan casting out Satan—is that not utter nonsense? And yet, this is precisely the assertion of the Pharisees when they claim that Our Lord derives from the devil the power he exercises against the devil. The twofold comparison used to develop this proof makes it very vivid and increases its force. Every kingdom dividedWho could deny these two facts of experience, so often witnessed, and whose sad and perpetual truth is attested to by proverbial sayings identical to those quoted by Jesus? "What house is so solid," said Cicero, "what city is so firmly established, that it cannot be destroyed by hatred, deceit, and jealousy?" And Sallust: "Indeed, through union, small things grow, but through discord, the greatest collapse." Home metaphorically refers to the family, which is assumed to occupy a house on its own.

Mt12.²⁶ If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself: how then will his kingdom stand? – Jesus Christ applies the sententious words of verse 25 to the kingdom of Satan. If Satan chases Satan. Fritzsche and de Wette translate it as: If one Satan drives out another Satan; but in doing so, they significantly weaken the Savior's thought. The true meaning is therefore: If Satan expels himself, if he is both the subject and object of the expulsion. It is divided. Demons only left the bodies of the possessed against their will; if it is their own will that compels them to do so, it is divided against itself insofar as it forms a moral unity with all the other evil spirits, arranged under its jurisdiction: at the same time, it both wants and does not want to leave. Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas in hl – So how...?.A very legitimate and entirely indisputable conclusion. No organized society—whether it be called a kingdom, a city, a family, or even an infernal empire, it matters little—can withstand an internal war. Now, the works performed by Jesus Christ are clearly opposed to the kingdom of Satan; it is therefore impossible for him to be allied with Satan, because that would amount to saying that Satan is allied against himself, which is absurd. Consequently, the expression "casting out demons by Beelzebul" is nothing but a completely meaningless play on words, a pure sophism invented to throw dust in the eyes of the ignorant. "But does the most perfect union exist among demons? Is it not, on the contrary, in the nature of evil to separate, to divide for selfish ends? Undoubtedly, hatred, jealousy, and discord reign among demons; However, when it comes to fighting against the kingdom of good, they know how to unite and form a tight phalanx,” Bisping, in hl. Would anyone believe that they would ever agree to lend a hand to someone to do good, that is, to ruin themselves?

Mt12.²⁷ And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. – And if I hunt by Beelzebub…Our Lord Jesus Christ does not hesitate to admit for a moment this monstrous hypothesis, in order to better refute it. What noble calm in his argument! It seems as if his name has not been directly involved in the matter. In this verse, the refutation takes place by opposing the adversary with his own words. So be it, it is thanks to the help of Beelzebul that I manage to cast out demons; but then your sons, who also cast them out, from whom do they receive this power? – The words your sons This obviously refers to the disciples of the Pharisees; it is a Hebraism similar to that which formerly called "Sons of the Prophets" (1 Kings 20:35; 2 Kings 2:3, etc.), men trained in the school of Samuel, Elijah, and other inspired seers. Who are they being chased away by? Was it through Jesus or through Beelzebul? This reasoning assumes that there were exorcists among the Jews at that time who, using the divine name and various formulas, sometimes succeeded in driving demons out of bodies. We know this from the Book of Acts, 19:13, and from the writings of Josephus, Antiquities 8, 2, 5; ; Jewish War, 7, 6, 3, etc., that it was indeed so. Several Fathers also point out this fact (cf. St. Justin, adv. Tryph. p. 311, Origen, Against Celsus, books 1 and 4, and St. Irenaeus, adv. 2, 7), whose words are as follows: “All is subject to the Almighty, and, by invoking his name, even before the coming of Our Lord, men were delivered from evil spirits… Even today the Jews cast out demons by this invocation.” That is why they themselves will be your judges.You praise them and condemn me, though our works are the same: you are therefore not consistent with yourselves. Thus, your exorcists will be your judges, showing by their conduct that you have spoken against your conscience because of the hatred you harbor for me. – St. John Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius, St. Hilary, Maldonatus, etc., suppose that Jesus Christ referred to his own disciples as “your sons.” Maldonatus: “The apostles, who are of your people, by whom do they expel them?” But this is a manifestly erroneous interpretation, which deprives the argument of almost all its force: in what sense, moreover, would Our Lord call his Apostles the sons of the Pharisees?

Mt12.²⁸ If it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, The kingdom of God has therefore come to you. – Jesus now draws from the preceding arguments an important conclusion. If I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, or rather “by the finger of God,” according to the picturesque expression in Luke 11:20. This is more than a hypothesis, for Jesus Christ can only cast out demons with God’s help or through Satan’s assistance; yet he has just proven that the second part of the dilemma is false; the first, therefore, necessarily remains true. He uses a powerful spirit to heal the possessed, but it is the Spirit of God and not a satanic spirit, as he is accused of doing. The kingdom of God has therefore come to you. This is what they should have understood. Satan's kingdom is visibly collapsing; therefore, the kingdom of God, the messianic kingdom, must already be established on earth, and, if this is so, Christ, its founder, must have appeared, and Christ is none other than Jesus.

Mt12.²⁹ And how can one enter the house of a strong man and plunder his furniture, without first tying up that strong man? Only then can one plunder his house. If someone wants to plunder the house of a powerful man with whom they are feuding, they must first be able to bind him. Only then can they carry out their plans for revenge: thus, Jesus must be stronger than Satan, since he succeeds in binding him and stealing his possessions. In this parable, "someone" represents Christ, while Satan is naturally designated by the expression "strong man." The house of the prince of demons is the land over which God has allowed him to exercise a certain power. His furniture, From the Hebrew, "utensils" refers to utensils and furniture in general; these are the men whom he had held in his hands for far too long like mere tools. The Savior Jesus, by casting out the demons, manifested his omnipotence over them, and at the same time took men away from them to return them to God, their true master.

Mt12.³⁰ Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.– who is not with me…The meaning of these words is clear. It is as if Jesus had said, “He who is not a friend is considered an enemy.” When, on a given point, two hostile parties are facing each other, and only these two parties are possible, no one is permitted to remain impartial: one must be either for or against. Now, this is precisely the case, says Jesus. “I am on the side of God. Therefore, he who is not of my camp is my enemy, my adversary,” Erasmus. But to whom did Our Lord intend to apply this statement? There is controversy on this point among commentators. “The context shows that he is referring to the devil; for the works of the Lord cannot be compared to those of the devil,” writes St. Jerome. Similarly, St. Thomas Aquinas says: “And the devil serves him who is not with me.” The proverb quoted by Jesus would thus contain a further refutation of the Pharisees (cf. Wetstein, de Wette, Arnoldi, etc. Bengel and Neander apply these words even less successfully to the Jewish exorcists mentioned above, verse 27; others apply them to the Pharisees and their hostile sentiments against Jesus. We prefer to regard them, with Grotius, as a general statement applicable to the entire audience of the Savior. There were many wavering, indecisive men there, who, struck on the one hand by the miracles they had witnessed, and on the other by the Pharisees' reasoning, did not know which side to take. Our Lord gives them a serious warning, showing that in such a matter neutrality is impossible. The golden mean cannot exist when principles are at stake, as they were then; for, in such a case, indifference would be hatred. who does not amass…The same thought, clothed in an image borrowed from the harvest. To not side with the divine Reaper is to imitate the fool who would scatter the barely harvested grain far and wide. Here again, there is no middle ground: one either gathers or scatters.

Mt12.³¹ Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven them. – After refuting his adversaries, Jesus Christ attacks them in turn, and, in attacking them, he tries to inspire in them a salutary fear by depicting their malice and the dangers to which it exposes them with regard to the afterlife. Such will be the general tone of this second part of the Savior's defense, vv. 31-37. “After defending himself; after satisfying all objections; after exposing the impudence of his enemies, he then frightens them with his threats. For it is no small proof of his zeal for the salvation of mankind that he was not content merely to justify himself before them and persuade them of his innocence, but to intimidate them even with threats,” St. John Chrysostom, Hom. 41 in Matthew. That's why This does not refer to what Jesus has just said, but to the accusation in verse 24. "Therefore," since, despite the evidence to the contrary, you dare to claim that it is with the help of Beelzebul that I cast out demons, know well what a terrible sin you can commit by speaking in such a way. I'm telling you ; A solemn formula, as always. Every sin and every blasphemy…St. Augustine regarded verses 31 and 32 as the most difficult in the entire Bible; he frequently attempted to explain them, gradually supplementing his initial interpretation with new developments. Cf. Jansenius in hl – Jesus begins with a general proposition: all sin and all blasphemy will be forgiven. The word “sin” indicates the kind, while “blasphemy” designates a particular type of sin, about which the Savior wishes to make an important restriction. Will be handed over Naturally, if the necessary conditions for this are met by the guilty party. It follows that there is no truly unforgivable sin. “Let no one, at the thought of their past sins, despair of divine rewards. God will know how to modify his sentence if you know how to correct your sin,” St. Ambrose, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, 1. – And yet, Jesus Christ immediately establishes an exception: Blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgivenWe have two things to examine here: 1. What is meant by blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? 2. Why, and in what sense, is this sin unforgivable? The noun "blasphemy" comes, as we said above, from the Greek word that directly designates words harmful to someone's reputation. In our passage, it is a blasphemy directed against the Holy Spirit (cf. v. 32 and Mark 3:29), a circumstance that singularly increases the malice of the act. However, as Maldonat very rightly says: "It is certain that the sin against the Holy Spirit is not a sin against the person of the Holy Spirit, as Saint Augustine astutely observes.” Jesus Christ speaks in accordance with the language of the Old Testament, the only one accessible to his listeners; by the words “Holy Spirit” he therefore designates the Spirit of God in general, that is, the divine activity which manifests itself either outwardly through sensible effects or inwardly through the operations of grace (cf. Schegg, in hl), and not the third person of the Holy Trinity so as to exclude the Father and the Son. According to the context, blasphemy against the Spirit of God is the ultimate degree of human malice. The clarifications we seek concerning its nature are provided by the scene presented to us in the account of St. Matthew. Jesus Christ had performed a striking miracle, which visibly revealed the action of God; Nevertheless, the Pharisees, closing their eyes to the light, had dared to say that this miracle came from the devil. From this, Our Lord affirms that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven; he shows by this very fact that his adversaries had committed, or at least had been on the verge of committing, this unforgivable sin. If this is so, the fault he speaks of consists in a willful hardening of the heart against the most authentic manifestations of the Holy Spirit, in an outrage directed against the most evident divine operations, in an open and calculated struggle against God. He who commits it knowingly and freely turns his will away from the truth recognized as such. Will not be handed overA terrible sentence, the reason for which is now easy to understand. The unforgivable nature of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit does not exist on God's side, for His goodness and power are infinite; it exists only on the side of the sinner, whose state is such that forgiveness is practically impossible. Indeed, for a sin to be forgiven, it is necessary that one regret it, that one have sincere contrition; but this contrition can hardly occur when one blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, since one hardens oneself in evil, loves one's sin, and persists in it despite the evidence. "It must therefore be said that the scriptures and the fathers taught that the sin against the Holy Spirit "It is irredeemable because it is usually and most of the time not forgiven," Bellarmine, De Poenitentia, Book 2, Chapter 16. It is therefore usually an anticipation of eternal damnation. It is the sin of Satan and the fallen angels, which has never been and never will be forgiven.

Mt12.³² And whoever speaks against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.–And whoever has spoken… Here we find the same thought as in verse 31: only, Jesus Christ adds important details, which further clarify the two points we examined above. First, he puts himself on stage, contrasting blasphemy against the Holy Spirit with blasphemy that which can be committed against one's own person, considered from a particular point of view. Against the Son of Man“Speaking against” is synonymous with “blasphemy” and also represents an outrageous statement. The expression “Son of Man” shows that Our Lord is speaking here of his human nature, of his humble appearance in the form of a slave; however, one could be mistaken in this regard; prejudices and ignorance made error possible and diminished the offense. Therefore, in this case, forgiveness is it insured? He will be forgiven.“Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, deceived by my human appearance and considering me merely as a man, his error, though blasphemy and a culpable error, will nevertheless be pardonable because of the weakness of my humanity,” St. Jerome. On the contrary, one is inexcusable when one blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, because one is then knowingly resisting the light, the grace, as has been said concerning verse 31. “The blasphemies you utter against the Holy Spirit are an unforgivable crime… Because the Holy Spirit is not unknown to you, and you shamelessly attack a truth that is all too clear,” St. John Chrysostom, Hom. 41 in Matthew. Origen gives a similar explanation when he says: “If sin is more serious, it is not because the Holy Spirit is superior to the Word, but because he who has received the Holy Spirit is higher in the Christian life.” But the antithesis established by Jesus Christ between his person and the Holy Spirit has been singularly exaggerated when it has been claimed that these two verses contain three distinct sins, committed against each of the divine persons, and deriving their greater or lesser degree of guilt from their relationship with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. First of all, there is no mention whatsoever of God the Father in this passage; Furthermore, it is unclear how a fault committed against the second or third person of the Holy Trinity could be less serious than an offense against the first divine person, whereas it is perfectly understandable that there might be a difference between blaspheming against the Son of Man and blaspheming against the Spirit of God. Neither in this world, nor in the world to comeEarlier, Jesus had simply said, "It will not be forgiven"; now he insists and strongly emphasizes this expression through the elaboration he gives it. The Rabbis often mention, in the Talmud, "the present age" and "the age to come." The present age is generally the time preceding the Last Judgment and, for each individual, the duration of their earthly life; the age to come is eternity, which begins for each individual at the moment of their death and after the end of the world for all humanity. "Although the pagans live peacefully in the present age, it will not be so in the age to come," says the Midrash Tehillin, f. 45, 4. "The age to come exists as soon as man has departed from this world," Tanchum, f. 52, etc. To assert that a sin will not be forgiven in this world or the next is to very explicitly assert that it will never be forgiven throughout all eternity.

Mt12.³³ Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for a tree is known by its fruit.– Jesus Christ already pointed out the inconsistency of the Pharisees in verse 27; he returns to it again from another point of view. “He shows them that their accusations were entirely unreasonable, and that they contradicted the natural order of things…. To confound them completely he says to them: If you wish to accuse me of my actions, I do not prevent you: but let your accusations at least appear somewhat reasonable, and let them not contradict themselves,” St. John Chrysostom, Homilies 42 in Matthew. Say that the tree is goodEither say that the tree is good and its fruit is good too; or say that the tree is bad and its fruit is likewise bad. This interpretation is very classical, cf. Raphel, Hersot. p. 154; Xenophon said in this sense: you declare that they are enemies, Hist. 6, 3, 5 cf. John 8, 53; 10, 33; 19, 7; 1 John, 1, 10; 5. 10. – The tree is Our Lord Jesus Christ; the fruit is the expulsion of demons. – The Pharisees admitted that the Savior truly cast out demons, consequently, that he produced excellent fruit; On the other hand, they declared that the tree from which these fruits were produced was worthless, meaning that Jesus was the instrument of the devil when he healed the possessed. The divine accused argues against them "from effect to cause" and demonstrates that their reproach is simply absurd. Do one harvest grapes from thornbushes and figs from thistles? "If the devil is evil, he cannot perform good works; therefore, if the works you see are good, it follows that it was not the devil who did them; for good cannot come from evil, nor evil from good," St. Jerome. However, some authors, following St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, apply the words of Jesus Christ to the Pharisees. “Jesus rebuked them for their hypocrisy because, wanting to appear as good trees, they produced bad fruit, or because, being bad trees, they wanted to give the impression that they produced good fruit. And he commands them to be either openly bad or openly good.” (Maldonat). It is easy to see that this explanation weakens the thought considerably and interrupts the flow of Jesus’ reasoning.

Mt12.³⁴ You brood of vipers, how could you say anything good, being so wicked? For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.-The enemies of the divine Master have committed the most heinous blasphemy against his sacred person, but this should not surprise us: can men so profoundly evil do anything but evil? Race of vipers See 3:7. Never had the Pharisees more deserved this title; had they not, out of pure malice, poured out their venom on the most innocent of beings? how could you… It is morally impossible for them to utter good words, since their hearts are full of malice, and the human heart is the source from which flow the expressions that come out of its mouth. It is from the abundance of the heart.A perfectly true statement: words are the infallible indicator of the heart; we speak of what we are. One can conceal the true state of one's soul for a time; but whether one likes it or not, language soon reveals what one truly is. "What the heart is full of, the mouth overflows with," says a German proverb. Just as the fruit reveals the nature of the tree, so too does human speech outwardly betray the feelings of the one who utters it.

Mt12.³⁵ A good man brings good things out of the good treasure of his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of an evil treasure.– In this verse, Jesus Christ develops the maxim he quoted earlier. Everything is connected, he says, in man. If he is fundamentally good, he nurtures within himself good feelings which then escape in good words; ; good things… good treasure If it is bad, the opposite happens. Therefore, it is not good or bad words that make a good or bad person, but a good or bad heart. The heart, whether good or bad, is like a treasure, a spiritual reservoir, from which each person draws the thoughts they express outwardly through speech. "There truly is a treasure in every person, and a latent wealth." Bengel, Gnomon in hl

Mt12.³⁶ I tell you, on the day of judgment, people will give account for every careless word they have spoken.Jesus Christ announces to his adversaries, in the form of an "a fortiori" argument, the punishment they bring upon themselves by their conduct toward him. – From every word... – vain According to several modern commentators, this would be synonymous with "bad." However, we have no sufficient reason to depart from the literal meaning and the unanimous interpretation of the ancient authors. But what is idle, vain speech? The Fathers answer this question clearly: "Useless (idle, superfluous) speech is speech that does not edify the listeners, that is spoken without benefit to the one who speaks it and to the one who listens," St. Jerome; "Useless speech is speech that does not correspond to a just need or a pious intention," St. Greg. Past. Cur. 3, 15; "Useless speech is speech that has no valid motive. What reasonable explanation can be given for speech that is foreign to reason?" St. Bern. De tripl. Custodia. The men will answerIn the supernatural realm, even the slightly guilty acts of the sensual and animal man, as St. Paul calls him, will be justly punished. “People say, as a result of willful folly: ‘A word or two that meant nothing, what is that? I have done only a very small wrong.’ The history of the world and of human life refutes this foolish excuse everywhere, loudly repeating that words are actions that operate for a long time and profoundly.” Stier, Reden des Herrn Jesu, in hl – Jesus himself does not draw the conclusion to which he wanted to lead his listeners; but it was easy for them to deduce it themselves. “Here is the explanation of empty words"This word is not without peril for the one who utters it. And on the day of judgment, each person will have to give an account of their words. All the more so for you who slander the works of the Holy Spirit." St. Jerome.

Mt12.³⁷ For you will be justified by your words, and you will be condemned by your words.»– The Savior again emphasizes the importance of words and the serious account each of us must give to the sovereign Judge of those we have spoken. Because you will be justified The particle "for" closely links the two verses. It is according to his words that man will be justified, that is, declared righteous, or condemned in the next life. He will be justified if they were good; he will be condemned if they were bad, because, in both cases, they will attest to his inner morality. Cf. Luke 19:22; Job 15:6. We recognize the bird by its song, man by his speech. Thus, "with the tongue we write for ourselves the most decisive protocol of our future examination before the tribunal of supreme justice," Stier, 1c. Let us return briefly to the whole of the Apology of Our Lord, in order to better highlight the connection between the details that compose it. Jesus had healed a deaf and mute demoniac, v. 22; the astonished crowd tended to conclude from this that he was the Messiah, v. 23; but the Pharisees asserted that he had only accomplished this miracle through Satan's cooperation, v. 24. The Savior gave them this reply: Every kingdom divided against itself inevitably perishes, v. 25; Satan's kingdom is no exception to this rule; if the devil helps me cast out the devil, then his authority is lost, v. 25. Moreover, it is either by Beelzebub or by the Spirit of God that I heal the demon-possessed; in the first case, your disciples do as I do, v. 27, in the second case the reign of the Messiah has begun, and I myself am the Messiah, v. 28. How could I indeed cast out the devil, if I were not stronger than he? v. 29. Let them take careful note. In the struggle you are waging against me on this ground, it is impossible to remain neutral (v. 30). Moreover, know what you are risking by thus insulting me: you are blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, which is an unforgivable sin by its very nature (vv. 31-32). To claim, as you do, that the fruit is good while the tree is bad is a palpable inconsistency (v. 33). But nothing should surprise us coming from you: one speaks badly when one has a bad heart (v. 34), for words correspond to the inner state of the soul (v. 35). You will suffer the consequences of this conduct, since at the Messianic judgment you will have to give an account of the slightest words (v. 36), and the sentence of the sovereign Judge will conform to the language spoken on earth (v. 37).

Mt12.³⁸ Then some of the scribes and Pharisees spoke up and said, «Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.»-The Pharisees, confounded, remained conspicuously silent after this vigorous argument. A few of them, who had not participated in their colleagues' accusation against Jesus (cf. Luke 11:15-16), nevertheless tried to steer the conversation away from this burning and humiliating subject for the entire sect. Taking the floor (cf. 11:25), and addressing the Savior with outward displays of respect, they said to him: Master (that is, Rabbi), we want to see a sign from you. A sign, This word is important and takes on a particular meaning in the present circumstance. A sign is something intended to prove something else; for the Pharisees, it is a prodigy of a special and truly decisive nature, which will show that Jesus is the Messiah. According to them, miracles Our Lord's previous acts were therefore not signs: to convince them of his messianic character, he would have to consent to produce, at their request, some sudden revolution in the heavens (cf. Luke 11:16), an eclipse, for example, a storm under a clear sky, a meteor, etc. On this condition, they would believe in him. As if it would not have been possible for them, rightly observes St. Jerome, to attack even a miracle of this kind. Moreover, the evangelist St. Luke expressly tells us that it was a trap they were setting for the Savior: "They asked him for a sign from heaven to test him." Jesus, who reads the depths of their hearts their most secret thoughts, will punish these audacious tempters as they deserve.

Mt12.³⁹ He answered them, «This wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah:– Wicked and adulterous generation. It is adulterous in the theocratic sense. God's relationship with the Jewish people is frequently compared to a marriage in various Old Testament writings (cf. Jeremiah 3:20, etc.): the nation, when it forgets its God, is thus likened to an unfaithful wife. Ask for a signas if signs weren't being showered upon him daily. That single request was a grave insult. It will not be given to him ; at least she will not have the one she so insolently demands. But Jesus, in his immense goodness, will continue to give her the daily signs of his miracles; then, in the near future, he will grant her the exceptional sign he is currently foretelling under the name of sign of the prophet JonahWhat did he mean by these words? Was it, as many rationalists claim, “his preaching and his entire appearance,” which, we are assured, bore the greatest resemblance to the preaching and conduct of Jonah in Nineveh? But how was this a sign? One could easily dismiss, by this loophole, Jesus’ great prophecy concerning his resurrection; this is the real reason why his words have been given such a vague meaning. However, the book of Jonah On the one hand, and on the other, the explanation of Jesus Christ himself in verse 40, are too clear and too precise to allow for any misunderstanding, unless done knowingly and deliberately. The sign of Jonah is the mysterious preservation of this prophet, to which corresponds the Resurrection miraculous of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The commentary of the divine Master will not allow the slightest doubt on this subject cf. 16, 4.

Mt12.⁴⁰ Just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the fish, so the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.– Just like Jonas… See. John 2, 1 and following. The history of the Old Testament presents no more striking example of a completely providential preservation, when death was bound to occur according to the ordinary laws of nature. Jesus Christ now reveals to us the principal purpose that God had in performing such a miracle. Jonah's sojourn in the belly of the fish was to be, according to the divine plan, the type and figure of the resurrection The Messiah, Jonah, in the song of thanksgiving he sang after his miraculous deliverance, had depicted himself as lost "in the heart of the seas," 2:4; the Savior makes a clear allusion to this feature of the ancient prophecy when he speaks of his own sojourn in the heart of the earth. What did he mean by this expression? His burial, according to several authors; limbo, according to several others (Tertullian, St. Irenaeus, etc.); perhaps also both. The Pharisees had asked for a sign from heaven; Jesus Christ promises them one that will come from the heart of the earth. Three days and three nights. These figures would be inaccurate according to our ordinary method of counting; but they are perfectly accurate if assessed according to language. digital then used among the Jews, language to which Our Lord Jesus Christ naturally had to conform in the present circumstance. Whenever expressions of this kind were used, great liberties were taken, following this principle: "Day and night constitute time, and a part of time is like the whole of time," Shabb. 12:1. The Savior was buried on Friday evening and rose again early Sunday morning; therefore, he actually remained in the tomb for only two full nights, one full day, and small portions of two other days. The Hebrews, less strict than we are in such cases, counted a day begun as a complete one: Friday evening, Saturday, and the first hours of Sunday were equivalent for them to "three days and three nights." This point presents no difficulty whatsoever. – Such will be the sign of Jesus. The word that announced it was doubtless obscure to the audience; but events will take care of revealing it. Who today does not recognize that the Resurrection Is the sign of Our Lord Jesus Christ, his miracle par excellence, the strongest proof of his mission and his divinity?

Mt12.⁴¹ The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the voice of Jonah, and there is something greater than Jonah here.– This verse and the following one contain a terrible prophecy for Israel. The men of Nineveh. After drawing the comparison we have just read between Jonah and himself, Jesus moves on to examine the results they each obtained. What a difference in this respect between the Prophet and the Messiah! At the voice of Jonah, that is, on the mere assertion of a foreigner, corrupt pagans immediately repented; at the voice of Christ, confirmed by numerous and astonishing miracles, most of the Jews remained unmoved. But what shame for the latter when, on the day of the general judgment, they see the Ninevites rise up against them, as witnesses did before the courts, and condemn them by their examples, which will serve as indictments. Here, that is to say very close. With a single stroke, Jesus highlights the enormous abuse of grace they will have committed: And there is more here than Jonah. St. John Chrysostom draws a beautiful parallel between Jesus Christ and Jonah: “Jonah was the servant, and I the Master. He came forth from a whale, and I will come forth alive from the tomb. He announced to a people the destruction of their city, and I announce to you the kingdom of heaven. The Ninevites believed without any miracle. And I have made a great many of them. They had received no instruction before the preaching of this prophet, and I have instructed you in all things, and I have revealed to you the secrets of the highest wisdom. Jonah came to the Ninevites as a servant who spoke to them from his master, and I have come as Master and as God. I have not threatened like him, I have not come to judge you, but to offer you to all forgiveness of your sins. Moreover, these Ninevites were a barbaric people, whereas the Jews had always heard the preaching of the prophets. No one had foretold to the Ninevites the birth of Jonah, and the prophets had foretold countless things about Jesus Christ, and events responded punctually to the prophecies… Finally, Jonah was a foreigner unknown to the Ninevites; and I am of the same race as the Jews, and according to the flesh I have the same ancestors as they,” Hom. 43 in Matth.

Mt12.⁴² The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something greater than Solomon is here.– Another example from Jewish history, and no less humiliating for the Savior's incredulous contemporaries. – The Queen of the South. This is obviously the Queen of Sheba, whose visit to Solomon is recounted at length in the Old Testament, 1 Kings 10, by the historian Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 8, 5, 5, and by Arab writers. Our Lord vaguely indicates, no doubt in the popular style of his time, the land from which she came. The kingdom of Sheba, which she ruled according to canonical writings, was probably located in present-day Yemen or Arabia Felix, therefore southeast of Palestine. Josephus and an ancient Abyssinian tradition place her in the land of Seba or Ethiopia: but we must certainly adhere to the indications in the Bible. This queen, too (the Arabs call her Belkis and the Abyssinians Makkedah), will protest by her conduct against the unbelief of the Jews. She came from the ends of the earth. A popular hyperbole meaning: from a distant country. To hear the wisdom of Solomon “Solomon,” the sacred text says, “answered all the questions she had put to him; there was not a single thing that could remain hidden from the king without his answering her. Then the Queen of Sheba, seeing all the wisdom of Solomon, was as if beside herself. And she said to the king, ‘All that I have heard in my own country about your words and your wisdom is perfectly true. I could not believe what I was told; but having come myself, I have seen with my own eyes and experienced that I had not been told even half the truth. Your wisdom and your works far surpass your reputation. Blessed are your servants who are continually in your presence and who witness your wisdom.’” 1 Kings 10:3-8. And there is more here than Solomon. Solomon was merely a wise man, Jesus Christ was uncreated wisdom. And yet the Jews rejected him, while a pagan princess had come from afar to see if everything she had been told about Solomon was true.

Mt12.⁴³ «When an unclean spirit goes out of a man, it goes through dry places, seeking rest, and finds none. – “Let us turn to a passage that is very difficult to access, not because of the words themselves, but because of the context,” Frizsche. It seems clear that the beautiful allegory contained in verses 43-45 falls squarely upon the adversaries whom Our Lord Jesus Christ has been addressing since verse 25. “This is what will happen to this very wicked generation,” he will say in conclusion; now, according to the preceding verses (cf. verses 39-41), the generation he thus threatens with a dreadful, but perfectly deserved, fate is composed primarily of the Pharisees and the Scribes. However, the group of unbelievers among the Jews is not excluded; represented by its leaders, it is also included under the heading “this generation,” and the parable we are about to explain concerns it all too well, both now and in the future. You are possessed by Beelzebub, The Masters in Israel had told Jesus. He patiently refuted them, graciously warned them, and severely rebuked them. Having reached the conclusion of his discourse, and wishing to announce the destiny of the people, he vigorously refuted the accusation they had leveled against him: this wicked generation is the great demonic one against whom all prior exorcism will have been completely futile. When the spirit is impure..The allegory was highly topical, since the moving scene we are witnessing began with the expulsion of a demon, v. 22. Has come out is an understatement: it was by force and against his will that the demon left the body he had possessed until then. Shamefully expelled, He wanders in arid places. These two expressions refer to the desert where the Holy Scriptures, using easily grasped symbolism, often place the dwelling place of demons (cf. Isaiah 13:21-22; 34:14; Tobit 8:3; Baruch 4:35; Revelation 18:2). What abodes could be more fitting for infernal spirits than these desolate, dreadful regions, brought about by sin, and living images of the fall of man and the evil angels? Looking for rest.... A poetic embellishment, yet one based on an undeniable truth. Driven from a dwelling he found comfortable, the demon flees to the desert seeking rest; but for this wicked and perverse being, there can be no rest except by tempting and tormenting humankind, and humankind is not in the desert. Cf. Bossuet, Sermon for the First Sunday of Lent.

Mt12.⁴⁴ Then he said, "I will return to my house from which I came." And when he came back, he found it empty, cleaned, and decorated.– This short monologue, which rings out amidst the demon's comings and goings, is very effective in the description. I will return to my home. He calls his house the man he once owned, v. 43. Although he was violently driven out, he still dares to claim it as his, and he cleverly compensates for his defeat by adding where I came from, as if it had been a completely voluntary departure on his part. And returning. No sooner said than done; but he initially only makes a simple reconnaissance of the premises before taking steps to regain possession of his former residence. The outcome of his visit is described by three expressions that indicate a most favorable situation for him. He finds it empty., It is empty, empty of grace, of virtue, of God; therefore, access to it is very easy. cleaned and decoratedPerfectly furnished, filled with everything that makes a house pleasant to live in. Obviously, one shouldn't try to emphasize these various features in such a way as to make them signify that the man in question is in the most resplendent moral state; for then Satan would have no hold over him. "All the things that encourage one to dwell in a place are written. The comparison relates to man, for man loves a clean house." Crombez.

Mt12.⁴⁵ Then he goes and takes with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter and dwell in that house, and the last state of that man is worse than the first. So it will be with this wicked generation.»Having found the dwelling more to his liking than ever, he is now taking steps to settle there permanently. take seven more..Seven is a round and mystical number signifying many. But why does he consider assembling such a large entourage? Undoubtedly, to be more certain of entering the house, despite any resistance that might be put up against his new possession; and also, to be able to inflict more harm on the unfortunate man he wants to seize forever. That is why he chooses allies. worse than him. – The operation was a complete success., they enter the house It seems they encounter no difficulty whatsoever and penetrate without a fight. They are completely at ease there. – The result of their combined wickedness soon appears in all its horror. The latest state represents the final state, the’aharit of the Hebrews; ; the first depicts the previous state which corresponded to the first possession, v. 43; this is the Resith Hebrew. Jesus means by this that the devil, after returning to what he calls his house, will cause far more terrible damage than he did before his temporary expulsion. This is what will happen to this generation. This is the application of the parable. «What happens to this man physically will happen to this generation spiritually,» Bengel. As we said regarding verse 43, it is generally accepted that this allegory relates to the history of the Jews contemporary with Our Lord Jesus Christ. The ancient demon of idolatry, which had brought divine punishments upon their ancestors, had been expelled by the sufferings of captivity, from which the nation emerged better and purified. Returning to the Promised Land, they became for a time better than at any other period in their history. Unfortunately, this prosperous state was not long-lasting; for the demon, angered at having been driven from his former palace, returned in another form, more powerful and more evil than before. Thanks to Sadducean errors and Pharisaic hypocrisy, he succeeded in reconquering his former dwelling place and exerting an influence seven times more pernicious, the effects of which, already visible in the time of Jesus Christ, became even more apparent after his Ascension, until the complete ruin of the nation occurred under Vespasian and Titus. Cf. St. John Chrysostom, Hom. 43 in Matthew. – Some authors, however, broaden the scope of this application considerably; St. Jerome, for example, traces the first expulsion of the devil back to the institution of the Jewish theocracy at Sinai. Cf. Maldonat in 11. Others, on the contrary, restrict it, so as to include only the Pharisees and the doctors of the Law. – On a moral level, one can find an important fulfillment of this prophetic parable in the individual history of a great number of Christians. Delivered early from the devil by the sacramentsThrough religious education and fleeting conversion, they gradually lost the graces they had received, thus preparing themselves for a second satanic invasion far more terrible than the first. Cf. 2 Peter 2:20-22; Hebrews 6:4. 6.

Mt12.⁴⁶ While he was still speaking to the people, his mother and brothers were outside, seeking to speak to him. – As he was still speaking. This formula demonstrates the close connection between Jesus' discourse to the Pharisees and the present episode, which is recounted simultaneously by the three Synoptic Gospels. His mother and his brothers. The Mother of Our Lord Jesus Christ had not been mentioned in the first Gospel since the end of the second chapter; she is greeted with joy every time she appears beside her divine Son. And his brothers The brothers of Jesus are mentioned here for the first time; we will soon see the true nature of the bonds that attached them to his sacred person. Cf. 13:55-56. [the word cousin does not exist in Aramaic, so cousins are called brothers] – Were outside. According to the account in St. Mark 3:20, the entire preceding scene, vv. 22-45, took place inside a house that the crowd immediately invaded; Jesus' mother and brothers, arriving in the meantime, could not, adds St. Luke 8:10, reach him because of this large crowd. Trying to talk to himWhat did they want to tell him? The reason for the interview they so urgently requested, omitted by St. Matthew and St. Luke, is given in unusual terms by the second Evangelist, Mark 3:20-21. Having learned that Jesus, in his boundless charity, was giving himself entirely to the crowds surrounding him, to the point of not even having time to eat a little food, they cried out that he was mad, and they came to seize him and take him away with them. We will explain their conduct by commenting on this passage from St. Mark: suffice it to say for now that, whatever the motive, the Blessed Virgin was not for a single moment misled about the role and character of her Son. Having heard that Jesus' situation was perilous because of his conflict with the Pharisees, she came to him, just as she would later join him at a far more dangerous time. Moreover, while it is possible that Our Lord's brothers were indeed harboring ill intentions toward him (cf. John 5), it is also possible, as several authors admit, that they rushed to his aid or even to protect him. "One might think," says Maldonat, "that his parents were worried about his safety. That was why they came. They brought his mother with them to try to move her. That is why they intervened. That is why those who thought waiting would be a serious matter, for fear that he would be arrested by the Pharisees during his discourse, acted as intruders."

Mt12.⁴⁷ Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside, and they want to speak to you."« – After vainly trying to break through the crowd that closed off the approaches to the house, the Savior’s parents made themselves known; the news of their arrival spread from mouth to mouth to the closest neighbors of Jesus Christ, and one of the assistants thought he could interrupt him to warn him that his mother and brothers were waiting for him outside.

Mt12.⁴⁸ Jesus answered the man who asked him this, «Who is my mother and who are my brothers?» – At first glance, Our Lord's response seems harsh towards his Mother and those close to him. But it loses much of its apparent coldness if one pays attention: 1° that it is not addressed directly to Married and to the brothers of Jesus, but to the one among the listeners who had taken the liberty of interrupting the divine Master, the one who had said that; 2° that it has much analogy with two other answers previously given by Jesus Christ to his Mother, either in the temple of Jerusalem, Luke 2:19, or at the wedding in Cana, John 24, and which contained nothing offensive or disrespectful; 3° that in speaking this way, the Savior wished to give his listeners an example of noble detachment from earthly affections and profound attachment to heavenly things, to the interests of God. “He does not despise the mother, but he puts the Father first,” Bengel. “He shows that he owes himself more to the ministry entrusted to him by his father than to maternal affection,” St. Ambrose.

Mt12.⁴⁹ And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, «Here are my mother and my brothers. ⁵⁰ For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.» – And extending his hand. The description is quite graphic: it clearly comes from an eyewitness. Jesus did not limit himself to this beautiful gesture by which he slowly swept his hand over his large audience: according to St. Mark 3:34, to the movement of his arm, he added a similar movement of his head and eyes: "And looking at all those who were sitting in a circle around him." Here are my mother and my brothers. Language of inimitable condescension, worthy of the heart of Jesus. The Savior considers his filial and fraternal relationships from the point of view of duty before considering them from the point of view of nature. Here is the second Adam, to whom all souls are closely united in God. But let us listen to the explanation he gives of this astonishing assertion. Because whoever... ; Therefore, there is no exception, provided the required condition is properly established, and the condition simply consists of fulfilling the will of Jesus' Heavenly Father; this complete submission to the divine will forming an indissoluble bond of union between Our Lord and the truly obedient one. That one is my brother and sister....An ascending gradation that expresses an increasingly tender affection. If there is a physical and natural kinship, there is also a spiritual and supernatural kinship, and all Christians can easily contract it with Jesus. “What an honor. What virtue is required of one who heads towards such a summit….You must not desire him alone, but the path that leads you to the desired thing, you must tread with zeal,” St. John Chrysostom.

Gospel according to Saint Matthew, commented on verse by verse

Chapter 12

Summary (hide)

Introduction to the Old Testament

"My son, if you come to serve the Lord, prepare yourself for the trial" (Sirach 2:1)

Vatican: When Leo XIV extends a hand to Mahmoud Abbas

«On that day the eyes of the blind will see» (Isaiah 29:17-24)

Letter to Philemon

Book of Baruch

Also read

Catholic Prayer: Cultivate Your Faith Daily

The Gospel according to Saint John, commented on verse by verse

Epistle of Saint Paul to Philemon

Understanding Catholic spirituality in everyday life

«Whoever does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple» (Lk 14:25-33)

«By your perseverance you will gain your life» (Lk 21:5-19)

«The Lord is near» (Philippians 4:4-7)

The Lord of the universe "gives strength to the weary" (Isaiah 40:25-31)

«The last kingdom will crush and destroy all the others, but it itself will endure forever» (Dan 2:31-45)

"My son, if you come to serve the Lord, prepare yourself for the trial" (Sirach 2:1)

This revolutionary biblical method divides experts

This is why the allegorical methods of the Ancients surpass our modern approach

The 7 parables of Jesus that transform our daily lives