Chapter 17
The Transfiguration 17, 1-22.
1° Mt17, 1-8. Parallel. Mk 9, 1-7 Luke 9:28-36
Mt17.1 Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter, James, and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. – Six days later. This date, which is fixed in the same way by St. Mark 9:1, has as its starting point the confession of St. Peter and the promise of the Primacy. St. Luke, it is true, speaks of about eight days (8:28); but he must have included in his calculation the day of the confession of the Prince of the Apostles and that of the Transfiguration, while the first two Evangelists only counted the intervening days. Moreover, the third synoptic Gospel shows, by the use of the particle approximately that he should not pride himself, in this instance, on rigorous accuracy. Between the two events, therefore, about a week passed. This time must have been sad and painful for the Apostles, because of the dark thoughts that the Savior's last words had stirred in their minds. But the divine Master had in store for the chief among them a Sabbath full of sweetness, a day full of blessed rest. Jesus took with him…After the date of this mystery, the Evangelist mentions the witnesses, who were St. Peter and the two sons of Zebedee. These three Apostles had been chosen once before to attend, to the exclusion of the other nine, the resurrection of Jairus' daughter, cf. Mark 5:37: we will find them again later, very close to Jesus, during the terrible struggle in Gethsemane. They were close friends, privileged disciples: this is why they had the joy of being present at the most intimate scenes of Our Lord's life. "Why does he choose only these three apostles," says St. John Chrysostom, Hom. 56 in Matth., "if not because they were more perfect than the others? St. Peter, because he loved Jesus Christ more; St. John, because he was more loved by Him; and Saint James because of this response he gave with his brother: “We can drink from your cup,” and he did not stop at words, but went so far as to act on them.” Jesus did not want to take all the Apostles with him because he desired that the secret of his Transfiguration be kept for some time. Was it appropriate that Judas, whose hatred for his Master was already very pronounced, Cf. John 6, 65-72, witnessed such a mystery? – Secluded on a high mountain. The Transfiguration seemed to demand a sublime mountain; the choice of location had to correspond to the glory in which Christ was to appear. It is noteworthy that most of the extraordinary events in the Savior's life took place on mountains, for example, his prayers, several of his miracles, his Passion and Death, his Ascension, etc. The religious role of mountains in the Old Testament and in pagan cults was also very considerable. There is a natural symbolism here that is easy to discern, since all ancient peoples grasped it. Cf. Baur, Mythology Th. 1, p. 169. – It is rather difficult to specify precisely which mountain the mystery of the Transfiguration took place on. An ancient tradition, which goes back at least to the first third of the fourth century, bestows this honor upon Mount Tabor, whose name, in mystical language, has become synonymous with glory and triumph. It is an isolated dome, of extremely graceful form, which travelers all praise in their praise, situated at the northeastern edge of the Jezreel plain, about two hours from Nazareth, verdant from base to summit, 588 meters high, and notably surpassing all the surrounding heights. At its summit is a rounded plateau covered with considerable ruins, among them those of several churches built in memory of the Transfiguration. St. Cyril of Jerusalem is, among the Fathers, the earliest witness to the tradition we mentioned above; cf. Catech. 12, c. 16; St. Jerome, in turn, proclaims it loudly in several of his writings. "She went up Mount Tabor, on which the Lord was transfigured," he says of the illustrious St. Paula, Epitaph. Paulae, Ep. 86; Cf. Ep. 44 ad Marcell.; and likewise all the pious pilgrims who, from that remote era until the last century, have recorded in moving accounts the beliefs of their time on this point. It suffices to mention, before the Crusades, Antoninus Martyr (end of the sixth century), Arculf (around 696), St. Williblad (in 765), and Seovulf (around 1103). But, apart from very rare exceptions, the geographers and exegetes of our century unanimously deny Tabor its traditional glory, attributing it instead to some other mountain situated east of the Jordan and much further north. They act in this way for serious reasons: 1. We know from ancient and irrefutable testimonies that in the time of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the summit of Mount Tabor was surmounted by a fortified place and surrounded by considerable entrenchments, the foundations of which are still visible (cf. Polybius, 5, 70, 6; Josephus, Antiquities 14, 6, 3; Jewish War, 1, 8, 7): it was therefore not there that the divine Master sought the retreat he desired. 2. Although Mount Tabor is higher than the neighboring peaks, it hardly deserves the epithet high What does the Evangelist give him here? Can this word, the quintessential high mountain, designate a mountain that can be climbed in an hour? 3. The geographical details scattered throughout this part of the first Gospel and in parallel passages in St. Mark and St. Luke, quite clearly suggest that Jesus was then far from Galilee and Mount Tabor. At the time of St. Peter's confession (16:13), the divine Master was near Caesarea Philippi, in the far north of Palestine, on the left bank of the Jordan. Almost immediately after the Transfiguration (17:21, cf. Mark 9:29), the sacred writers mention his return to Galilee; but, in the interim, they make absolutely no mention of any journey. Have they not sufficiently indicated by this that it was outside of Galilee that Jesus Christ was transfigured? The six days that elapsed between the Promise of Primacy and the Transfiguration were indeed quite sufficient to travel from ancient Paneas to Tabor, since the journey can be made in only three days; but it is difficult to believe that such a considerable voyage took place without the Evangelists having recorded it, especially at a time when they were so meticulous in noting even the smallest points of interest. Might these various reasons not counterbalance a tradition, undoubtedly serious, but which remains completely silent before the year 400? We do not hesitate to agree with most contemporary authors in the affirmative: the first and third reasons in particular seem irrefutable to us. See the full exposition of the thesis in Robinson, Palaestina, 3, p. 462 ff.; Dr. Sepp and Mr. Gratz maintain the traditional opinion, although without delving further into the matter. But what will be the mountain of the Transfiguration, if Tabor thus loses all its rights? The choice cannot be difficult now, despite the silence of the Gospels. If the glorious episode we are studying took place in the vicinity of Caesarea, on the other side of the Jordan, there is only one mountain there truly worthy of the name, Mount Hermon, 2,814 meters high, a gigantic forerunner of the Anti-Lebanon, set upon an immense base. It is therefore its main summit, or at least one of its secondary peaks, that would have served as the scene of the Transfiguration of Jesus. No other place in Palestine could be better suited for such a scene than this mountain lost between heaven and earth. There, Our Lord could easily find, after an ascent of a few hours, the calm and solitary place he desired (cf. Ritter, 15, p. 394; Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, p. 10). 399; Schegg. Gedenkbuch einer Pilgerreise, 2, p. 139; Lichtenstein, Leben Jesu, p. 369, etc. De Wette decides in favour of Mount Panius located very near Caesarea; but this opinion is unlikely.
Mt17.2 And he was transfigured before them: his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became white as light. – After the preliminary details contained in the first verse, we come to the very event of the Transfiguration, which, according to St. Luke 9:29, began immediately after a new and mysterious prayer of Jesus. The phenomenon is first expressed by a single word, transfigured from the Vulgate, then described using some specific circumstances. The verb metamorphose This term is used primarily to describe an outward change of the face. St. Luke explains it with a periphrasis: "the appearance of his face became completely different." Indeed, it is on the physiognomy, which is the most mobile and intelligent part of the human body, that transfigurations of whatever nature are first manifested. We know that joy, A movement of deep affection, holiness, and intimate communion with God illuminate and transform the face, bestowing upon it an unusual beauty and radiance. Saints have been seen transfigured in this way on their deathbeds, in prayer, and after Holy Communion. Prophets were sometimes transfigured when God revealed his will to them. Moses, descending from Sinai, had such a radiant face that it was impossible for the Hebrews to look upon him (Exodus 34:29). But there is something more here than the radiance of a heavenly soul shining upon a human face; there is more than a reflection of the Divinity transforming the face of a saint. It is the divine Word himself who momentarily lays aside the form of servant, under which he humbly consented to hide himself out of love for us, and who assumes the form of the Father's only Son. From this perspective, we will say with Saint Thomas Aquinas that the Transfiguration was much less a miracle than the temporary cessation of a habitual miracle; for it was by virtue of a real prodigy that the Savior veiled and concealed the splendor with which his divine nature would have constantly flooded his holy humanity: «when he willed it, it was not seen, and when he willed it, it was seen, and so he appeared in his splendor.» In front of them It was under the rapturous gaze of the three Apostles that Jesus was suddenly transfigured. – St. Matthew notes two characteristic features of which they were witnesses: 1° Her face was radiant.…: This luminous, dazzling clarity (like the sun), which emanated from the face of Our Lord, was produced by an inner radiance of his divinity. The mortal shell of his body, which was ordinarily like a screen meant to contain his glory, was itself penetrated, invaded, by his splendors. – 2° Her clothes...Jesus' very garments participated in the marvelous radiance that emanated from all his limbs: his body shone through them, so to speak. They became sparkling not like snow, as the Vulgate says, but like light as we read in the Greek text. Such were, with regard to the sacred person of the Savior, the principal circumstances of the Transfiguration. They show us, in this mystery, a true prelude to the Resurrection, of the Ascension, of the eternal glory of heaven. The Evangelist will now move on to the more external circumstances of the miracle, vv. 3-5.
Mt17.3 And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, conversing with him. – And there you have it..Here we see the appearance of new witnesses to the Transfiguration, mysterious witnesses sent by the Heavenly Father, just as Peter, James, and John had been brought by Jesus. Appeared. This was a real, objective apparition, not a mere vision of the Apostles, as several exegetes following Tertullian claim. "It was in accordance with reason that, since Christ appeared in a glory that was neither feigned nor imitated, but true and clear, the witnesses should not be false or carried away by imagination, but truthful," Maldonatus. Cf. Luke 9:30 ff.; 2 Peter 1:16-18. Moses and ElijahAs the Fathers frequently attested, Moses and Elijah, as the two principal representatives of the Old Covenant, came to pay homage to the founder of the New: Moses in the name of the Law, Elijah in the name of the Prophets; Moses, who had been the mediator of the Jewish theocracy, and Elijah, who had contributed more than anyone else to its restoration and re-establishment during those dark times. “The Gospel is supported by the testimony of the Law and the Prophets. That is why, when the Lord wished to display his glory on the mountain, he stood between Moses and Elijah. In their midst, he received all honors; at his side, the Law and the Prophets bore witness to him,” St. Augustine, Sermon 252. Thus, following a very apt observation by M. de Pressensé, “while false Judaism rejects the Messiah, the true Judaism, in its most authentic representatives, recognizes and worships him. The Old and New Covenants meet on the glorious mountain as justice and love will soon unite on another hill that is already on the horizon of Jesus,” Jesus Christ, His Time, etc., p. 483. – But, it has been asked, how did the three Apostles know that it was Moses and Elijah who were then speaking with Jesus? They knew him either by some outward sign that characterized them, or by the very subject of the conversation of which they heard fragments, or by a subsequent communication from Jesus, or, what is more likely, by an immediate revelation:
Their eyes did not recognize them,
They recognized them by the light of the heart
Sedulius says it very well, Carm. Pasch. 286. – The ancient exegetes were deeply concerned about the manner of Moses' appearance, for which there was indeed a special difficulty, since he was not granted, as Elijah was, to live in flesh and blood until this day. But this is a question more curious than useful, to which it suffices to answer with the words of St. Thomas Aquinas: “Moses was there in spirit only. But in what manner was he seen? We must say: as the Angels are seen. Conversing with him. St. Luke will give us a general overview of the subject of this mystical conversation: «They were speaking of his departure, which was about to be accomplished in Jerusalem,» Luke 9:31. It is the Passion that is being discussed at such a moment. The very act of the Savior’s fleeting glorification is joined to the detailed account of the many sufferings through which he must merit, for his holy humanity, uninterrupted and unending glory.
Mt17.4 Speaking up, Peter said to Jesus, «Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, let us put up three tents: one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.» – Speaking, Pierre. On this particular use of the verb "to speak," compare 11:25 and the explanation. – According to the third Gospel, 9:33, it was at the moment when Moses and Elijah were beginning to withdraw that St. Peter, intoxicated with delight and scarcely knowing what he was saying (cf. Mark 9:5; Luke 11:11), suddenly cried out, addressing the divine Master: It is good for us to be here (in Greek, beautiful and good all at once). The words "we" and "here" are emphatic. All of us, including Moses and Elijah, whom the Apostle was specifically thinking of keeping. Let us remain here: our stay in this place is too sweet for us to think so quickly of leaving it. St. Peter expresses his happiness in simple and naive terms. St. John Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthymius wrongly attribute to him a cowardly and imperfect thought: "As he feared what he had recently heard, namely, that Jesus Christ was to go to Jerusalem to suffer there… He believed that this place was safe and that it was better to remain there," St. John Chrysostom, Hom. 56 in Matthew. – Hoping to make his proposal more palatable, Peter adds, even more naively, that he and his two friends are quite ready to build three tents where Jesus, Moses, and Elijah can comfortably settle. If you want. A delicate matter: he will do nothing without the express permission of his Master. Three tents He envisioned leafy huts, similar to those used by Jews as temporary dwellings during the Feast of Tabernacles. For a prolonged stay, as he desired, accommodations were needed on the summit of the holy mountain: he resolutely offered to build them immediately. One for you…In this enumeration arranged according to their dignity, Peter completely forgets himself and his two companions. He sees himself and them as servants of the august assembly. For them, shelter is unnecessary: let them simply be left where they are; they ask for nothing more. Heavenly and earthly things were, for that moment, all mingled in his mind because of the happiness he felt. He forgets that such a moment cannot last, cannot be fixed on earth.
Mt17.5 While he was still speaking, a bright cloud covered them, and a voice came from within the cloud, saying, «This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; listen to him.»
– However, the scene suddenly changes and we witness new wonders unfolding. When a cloud.... This is the divine tent, instead of the tents made by human hands that St. Peter proposed. In the Old Testament, theophanies, or manifestations of God, were always accompanied by a cloud, God concealing his glory beneath this mysterious veil because mortal eyes could not bear its brilliance (cf. Exodus 16:10; 40:32 ff.; Numbers 11:25, etc.); hence the well-known words of the Psalmist: «You make your chariots out of the clouds; you ride on the wings of the wind» (Psalm 103:3). The luminous cloud that suddenly appears is therefore a symbol of the divine presence, of the Schekina, to use the established language of the Rabbis. – The covers. They, that is to say, the three principal figures whom St. Peter has just named: Jesus, Moses, and Elijah. The pronoun refers neither to the disciples alone, nor to the entire assembly, as is very clear from the account in St. Luke 9:34. Although brilliant, the cloud that descended from heaven enveloped the Savior and his two visitors like a veil: they disappeared into the sanctuary from which the three Apostles remained excluded. This prodigy had scarcely occurred when a new miracle was produced: A voice. It was the voice of the Heavenly Father, as indicated by the name Son which she gives to Jesus. She greeted the Messiah at the time of his baptism (cf. 3:17); she will greet him again later on the eve of his Passion (cf. John 12:28); and she greets him today to proclaim him Lawgiver of the new Covenant. Saying. The words she speaks are hardly different from those she once uttered on the banks of the Jordan. «This is my Son,» she says first. These words are almost verbatim from the Second Psalm, verse 7. The following, «beloved, in whom I am well pleased,» are taken from Isaiah 42:1. And finally, the last, listen to him, The commands to obey him are simply a direct repetition of the recommendation Moses gave to the Hebrews concerning the Messiah (Deuteronomy 18:15). Thus, God the Father brings together three Messianic prophecies (Psalm 2:7; Isaiah 42:1; Deuteronomy 18:19) to apply them himself to Jesus. This, then, is the confession of St. Peter (16:16), directly confirmed by heaven.
Mt17.6 When they heard this voice, the disciples fell facedown to the ground and were terrified. – Hearing this voice… «for human frailty cannot bear the sight of a glory far above it; terror seizes its whole being, and it falls face down to the ground,» St. Jerome in hl. It is not to worship divine majesty that they throw themselves to the ground; their attitude is one of terror (cf. Genesis 17:3; Judea 13:20; Ezekiel 1:28; 3:23; Daniel 8:17; 10:9, etc.). Prostrate, they cover their faces with their hands, not daring to look at what is happening around them; for it was a belief among the Jews that one could not see God without dying.
Mt17.7 But Jesus came and touched them, saying, «Get up, do not be afraid.» – Jesus, approaching. However, the miracle of the Transfiguration is over: but the Apostles, unaware of this, remain face down on the ground, and the good Master must approach them to warn them. They touched : he gently touches them to show them that he himself is with them and that they have nothing to fear, Cf. Os. 6, 5-7; Dan. 10, 9-10; Apocalypse 1, 17; then he addresses them with a few kind words, in order to reassure them with his voice as well as with his gesture.
Mt17.8 Then, looking up, they saw only Jesus alone. – Looking up…A picturesque detail, entirely natural. The Apostles were so terrified by what they had seen and heard that at first they merely raised their heads timidly to look around. But they saw only Jesus: the celestial cloud had vanished, Moses and Elijah had withdrawn: Christ alone was there in his usual form, in the guise of a servant, like an ordinary man. Such, in its principal details, was the great mystery of the Transfiguration. It remained indelibly engraved in the minds of the three Apostles who had witnessed it. St. John is evidently alluding to it when he exclaims, in the Prologue of his Gospel, 1:14: “We have seen his glory, the glory as of the only Son from the Father.” St. Peter recounts it at length in his second letter, 1:16-18: “For we did not follow clever myths when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were witnesses of his majesty. He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice of majesty came upon him: ‘This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; listen to him.’ We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the holy mountain.” This account by the Prince of the Apostles, compared with the Gospel narrative, demonstrates beyond any doubt the real and literal nature of the glorious phenomenon of the Transfiguration. And yet, it has received all sorts of ridiculous interpretations in our time from the rationalist camp. The Transfiguration of Our Lord has been interpreted variously as a pure and simple dream (Kuinœl, Neander), a dream accompanied by a storm (Gabler), an atmospheric play of light, that is, an extraordinary mixture of shadows and light (Paulus, Ammon), an encounter between Jesus and two unknown disciples (Venturini, Hase), a myth (Strauss, Schulz), an allegory (Weisse, B. Bauer), and so on. On the other hand, without going so far down the negative path, several ancient and modern authors, for example Tertullian, adv. Mark 4:22, Heder, and Gratz, have claimed that the Transfiguration was a purely subjective event, a vision and nothing more, even though this vision was something supernatural. Others have viewed it as a partly subjective event—the appearance of Moses and Elijah—and partly objective—the Transfiguration itself (Meyer, etc.). For a refutation of these theories, we refer the reader to the rationalist polemic of Abbé Dehaut, *L'Évangile expliqué, défend*, vol. 3, p. 94 ff. It is a more pleasant task to note some of the many masterpieces of painting inspired by this magnificent scene, particularly those by Bellini, Pordenone, Perugino, Fra Angelico, and Raphael. In Fra Angelico's fresco, Christ's arms are outstretched in the form of a cross, and nothing is more majestic than his pose and the gaze that accompanies this silent allusion to the approaching bloody sacrifice. In his *History of Painters*, Charles Blanc describes Raphael's work thus: “Radiant figure of Christ, illuminating Mount Tabor, suspended in the air and borne on the wing of God; then the three dazzled disciples, overcome by the light emanating from the face and garments of the Son of Man, a glorious vision that only Elijah and Moses could contemplate… The head of Christ was the supreme effort of Raphael's genius. After completing it, he never touched his brushes again, and death struck him at that very moment.” Cf. Goethe, *Works*, Cotta edition, vol. 20, p. 134. – Finally, let us add that, according to the doctrine of the Holy Fathers, the Transfiguration of Jesus Christ is a comforting emblem and a living guarantee of our future resurrection: “By his transfiguration… he establishes the hope of the Church, revealing to the whole Body of Christ what transformation would be granted to it; its members would promise to share in the honor that had shone forth in their head,” St. Leo the Great, Sermon 94 on the Transfiguration. “In the Transfiguration… is announced the ultimate glory of the resurrection ", St. Gregory the Great, Moral. 32, 6.
Three incidents which relate to the Transfiguration, vv. 9-22.
a. Conversation concerning the coming of Elijah. vv. 9-13. Parall. Mark. 9, 8-12.
Mt17.9 As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus gave them this command: «Tell no one about this vision until the Son of Man has risen from the dead.» – As they descended…The conversation began immediately after the scene of the Transfiguration, as Jesus and his disciples descended the steep slopes of Mount Hermon. The Savior first forbade the three Apostles to recount the events they had been fortunate enough to witness. Jesus gave them this order It was a formal order, the execution of which he was very keen. Don't talk to anyone The secret had to be absolute; even those to whom Jesus Christ imposed it were not permitted to share it with the other apostles. However, this secret did not bind them in perpetuity: the Resurrection The Savior would put an end to it soon. Until the Son of Man… St. Luke, although he does not mention Jesus' defense, is careful to tell us, however, that "the disciples kept silent and told no one at that time anything they had seen" (9:36); St. Mark, 9:8 and 9, points out both the Master's command and the disciples' obedience. But what reasons could have led Our Lord to demand this extraordinary silence from his friends? We indicated them previously, when we encountered injunctions of the same kind (cf. especially 16:20). There is another, more specific reason that St. Jerome deduces, in the following terms, from the very fact of the Transfiguration: "He does not want this event to be preached to the people, for fear that the very magnitude of the prodigy might make it unbelievable, and that the cross which was to follow the manifestation of such great glory might be a scandal to coarse minds" (Comm. 16:20). In hl Cf. St. John Chrysostom, Hom. 56 in Matth. By prescribing secrecy, even for the Apostles, Jesus undoubtedly also intended to avoid troublesome rivalries within the circle of his closest friends. – What they saw must be understood as an objective manifestation, full of reality: it is by no means synonymous with vision, as the clearer expressions of St. Mark (9:9), “what they had seen,” and of St. Luke (9:36), “what they had seen,” show. Cf. Acts of the Apostles 7, 31; 9, 10-12; 10, 3; 11.5; etc.
Mt17.10 His disciples then questioned him, saying, «Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?» – His disciples questioned him. The important details that follow are completely absent from the third Gospel: St. Mark recounts them in almost the same terms as St. Matthew. Why then…On what does this «therefore» rest? What is the connection between the preceding events and the question the Apostles address to Our Lord so suddenly? Scholars vary greatly in their opinions when it comes to establishing the logical connection of ideas in this passage. Several link the disciples« objection to the prohibition Jesus had just given them: »You do not permit us to speak of these things.” Could it be because the Scribes are misleading us when they announce the future coming of Elijah? Others attribute the Apostles’ reflection to their astonishment at seeing that the prophet Elijah had appeared only after Jesus, even though he was supposed to be the forerunner of Christ, according to the teachings of the Doctors. Cf. St. John Chrysostom, Hom. 56 in Matthew; Euthymius, etc. Following a third, seemingly more natural sentiment, it was Elijah's abrupt departure that worried the Apostles. Why, they wondered, are we told that Elijah will come and restore all things, since, after such a brief appearance, he immediately vanished without doing anything? – Etc. – Whatever the particular sequence of events, the general connection is clear: “those who thought that the coming of Christ (that is, his taking possession as Messianic king) was imminent, and who did not see Elijah coming, wondered,” Maldonat in hl – Elijah must come first. The essential words are "must" and "before": the prophet would necessarily come, and his advent would precede that of Christ. The mysterious question of Elijah's return to earth greatly interested the Jews; it is therefore not surprising that it was part of the Scribes' teachings, and that the Apostles retained so well what they had been taught on this subject. The Talmudic writings are full of them: they seek in every way to fix the precise time of the Prophet's appearance. But they have only succeeded in determining one point, considered certain by the Rabbis, namely, that Elijah will not appear on a Sabbath day. Modern Jews are no less concerned with Elijah than their ancestors, for they have firm faith that this holy figure watches over them at all times, and that he attends, though invisibly, their religious ceremonies and family celebrations. Cf. Coypel, Judaism, p. 102, 229; Stauben, Scenes from Jewish life in Alsace, p. 96.
Mt17.11 He answered them, «Elijah does indeed come and restore all things. – Jesus answered them. A valuable answer that sheds considerable light on a previously very confusing question. Elijah must come So Elijah will come; he will come one day in person. The Doctors of the Law are not wrong when they announce this event. And when he comes, he will restore all things, He will bring about, especially among his people, a universal moral restoration, according to the word of the Lord that concludes the book of prophecies in the Old Testament: «Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a curse,» Malachi 4:5-6. But when will Elijah come, since Jesus Christ categorically affirms that he must come? At the end of the world, before the second coming of Christ, as the Catholic Fathers and Doctors unanimously teach. Most Protestants refuse to accept this interpretation, saying that verse 12 corrects verse 11 and shows «that Elijah has already come.» But we will answer them with one of their own, a man of talent and good faith: «Whoever, in this response of Christ, would wish to remove the manifest and striking confirmation of the fact that the coming of Elijah is yet to come, must do great violence to the words,» Stier, Reden des Herrn Jesu in hl. To deny the future and personal coming of Elijah is, says Bellarmine, a heresy, or an error that approaches heresy. De Rom. Pontif. l. 3, c. 6.
Mt17.12 But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, yet they treated him as they pleased; they will do the same to the Son of Man.» – But I'm telling you. Accurate on one point, the Scribes' teaching concerning Elijah was incomplete, inaccurate, on another. In the prophecy of Malachi, they had not known, or at least had not been able to distinguish, two distinct meanings concerning the twofold coming of Christ and the correlative twofold coming of his Forerunner. Elijah must come—this is the literal meaning of the prediction, according to verse 13. And yet, apart from this literal meaning, there is another, no less true, but merely typical, according to which the prophecy has already received a first fulfillment. Indeed, Elijah has already comeThe type, the faithful image of Elijah, has already appeared in the midst of the Jewish world, and this type, this image, is John the Baptist, of whom it had been foretold even before his birth that he would precede Christ in the strength and spirit of Elijah. Cf. Luke 117. Thus, “it should not be surprising if, after saying ‘that Elijah has already come,’ he nevertheless says that he must come again to restore all things. Both were true. When he says ‘that Elijah would come to restore all,’ he signifies, as I have said, the true Elijah and the conversion of the Jews; and when he says ‘that he has already come,’ he signifies Saint John, whom he calls Elijah, because he fulfilled the mission that Elijah fulfilled,” St. John Chrysostom, Hom. 57. And they didn't know him. Of the Forerunner, as of Christ, it is written that "his own did not receive him." Despite the great crowds we saw around him (3:5), the majority of the Jews remained unmoved by his preaching; above all, they did not recognize his true role, they did not see in him the Forerunner of the Messiah (cf. 11:18). But they made him…Allusion to the long imprisonment and death of John the Baptist: all that they wanted, that is to say, all that their evil passions desired, they accomplished in him. Undoubtedly, this accusation does not fall directly upon the entire Jewish people, since it was Herod with his corrupt court who had the Forerunner put to death; but, if his dignity had been recognized, he would have been defended against the tyrant. This is how the Son of Man. The ill-treatment inflicted on John the Baptist reminds Jesus Christ of the suffering he will soon endure in turn at the hands of the Jews, and he again associates the memory of his impending suffering with the Transfiguration.
Mt17.13 The disciples then understood that he had been speaking to them about John the Baptist. – The disciples then understood..This time, contrary to their usual practice, they immediately understood their Master's words. They saw that, in their last part, they referred to the Forerunner, and they now knew how to reconcile the disappearance of Elijah with the messianic character of Jesus. – Moreover, Our Lord had once publicly told the Jews, but probably in the absence of the Twelve, that St. John was "the prophet Elijah who is to come," Matthew 11:14: see the explanation.
Curing a lunatic 14-20. Parallel. Mk 9, 13-28; Luke 9:37-43.
Mt17.14 When they rejoined the crowd, a man approached, and, falling to his knees before him, – When they joined…What a contrast! From the Mount of Transfiguration, where heaven and earth had somehow merged, Jesus descends into the valley of tears to contemplate the spectacle of the most terrible consequences of sin. «Here unfolds a scene very different from the one Peter expected, v. 4. While Moses was on the mountain, the people became corrupt, Exodus 32:7. While Jesus was on the mountain, a matter among the people had not been properly handled,» Bengel, Gnomon in hl. We know the advantage that Raphael's genius drew from this contrast in his painting of the Transfiguration, which we mentioned earlier. While the upper part of the fresco is devoted to the mystery of Jesus' glorification, at the bottom, amidst the powerless Apostles and the unbelieving crowd, we see the young possessed man, violently agitated, whose contracted, livid features further emphasize the physiognomy of Jesus. A man approached.... As soon as he sees the Savior, this unfortunate father detaches himself from the crowd and rushes to meet him; then, falling to his knees, he addresses him with the motivated prayer that has been preserved for us in the first three Gospels.
Mt17.15 He said to him, "Lord, have mercy on my son who is moody and suffers cruelly; he often falls into the fire and often into the water. It is first and foremost a cry of pity: Have pity on my son, driven with all the more pain and energy because the supplicant had no other son, cf. Luke 9:38. Then comes the moving description of the sufferings endured by this poor child, and the dangers he faces, who is moody. We said, in explaining verse 24 of chapter 4, that this expression was a popular term for certain illnesses over which the moon, in its different phases, was believed to have, or in fact did have, some influence. According to the context, another, even more dreadful affliction had been added to the disorder of the organs, since this unfortunate young man was possessed by a demon. And who suffers cruelly The more complete pathological details of the second and third evangelists show us how terrible the suffering endured by this demoniac. His condition, as they describe it, bears a very strong resemblance to epilepsy. He often falls.... These words indicate the sudden and dangerous nature of the attacks: they occurred in circumstances such that the patient risked a horrible death at any moment. The physician Caelius Aurelianus, in his treatise on chronic diseases, 1.4, describes in almost the same terms the precarious situation of some of his patients suffering from the grand mal: "soiling themselves by falling in public places, subjected to external dangers, falling, falling into rivers or the sea.".
Mt17.16 I presented him to your disciples, and they were unable to heal him.» – I introduced him. He had come the day before, during Jesus' brief absence (see Luke 9:37); finding only the Apostles, he had begged them to heal his son. They had immediately set to work to cast out the demon, but in vain, for it had victoriously resisted all their exorcisms.
Mt17.17 Jesus replied, «O unbelieving and perverse generation, how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring him here to me.» – Jesus answered. This news filled the divine Master with holy sadness and holy indignation, which he immediately gave free rein to. O incredulous generation…As clear as the meaning of this reproach is, it is difficult to determine which part of the congregation it targets. According to Origen, it was addressed directly to the disciples and to them alone; on the contrary, according to most ancient commentators (see Maldonat in hl), it was applied only to the rest of the assembly, excluding the Apostles. It seems more accurate to say, with Olshausen, Stier, and several others, that it concerns the father of the demoniac, the crowd, and the disciples all at once. Indeed, while the word "generation" is too broad to designate only the Apostles, the private conversation they will soon have with Jesus (see vv. 18 and 19) will sufficiently prove that they too, to a certain extent, deserved the epithet of unbelievers. But, on the other hand, it was above all the imperfect sentiments of those present that contributed to giving the devil a hand and allowing him to triumph over the nine disciples. Just as Jesus had been unable to perform many miracles in Nazareth because of the unbelief of his fellow citizens (cf. 13:58), so too his Apostles remained powerless in the present circumstance because those around them did not have sufficient faith, worthy of a miracle. – The second epithet, perverse, denotes a moral upheaval, a sad disorder of the soul (cf. Deuteronomy 32:5). Until when?.These words seem so harsh, so extraordinary at first glance coming from the lips of Our Lord, that St. Jerome feels compelled to soften their effect, saying, moreover, with great delicacy and truth: “Not that we should conclude that he was weary of them, and that his kindness and gentleness finally burst into angry words; but that he was like a doctor seeing his patient act against his prescriptions, and who would say: How long must I visit you in your room? How long will you spoil my work, for I prescribe one thing and you do another?” (Comm. in hl). Deeply moved, the Savior wished that his task were finally completed, and that he might enjoy in heaven peace and rest, after so much trouble caused by those he came to save. Bring it to me. His displeasure does not hinder his kindness, and he prepares to heal the young invalid, whom he orders to be brought to him. Me here is emphatic, to me, since you have been so weak. The general will repair the defeat of his junior officers.
Mt17.18 And Jesus rebuked the demon, and the demon came out of the child, who was healed at that very hour. – And Jesus commanded…The accounts of St. Mark and St. Luke describe the terrible scene that then occurred, and the violence that the evil spirit inflicted on its victim before leaving her forever. Nevertheless, the demon was forced to obey, «and the demon went out.».
Mt17.19 Then the disciples came to Jesus privately and asked him, «Why couldn’t we drive him out?» – This verse and the two following contain the account of an interesting conversation which took place almost immediately after the miracle between Jesus and his Apostles, concerning the powerlessness of the latter. - Especially. The Master and the disciples are now alone; the crowd has dispersed, and they have been able to withdraw to a nearby house. Cf. Mark 9:27. The conversation is opened by the Apostles themselves, who question the Savior naively and familiarly, according to their custom. Why couldn't we? They did not fully grasp the meaning of Jesus' rebuke to the unbelieving and perverse generation; it did not occur to them that it might also apply to them. Moreover, since they had already made use, and victoriously, of the power that Jesus Christ had given them over demons (see Luke 10:17), they wondered with some bitterness what had caused their recent failure and the painful humiliation that had resulted from it.
Mt17.20 Jesus said to them, «Because of your lack of faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; and nothing will be impossible for you.”. – Jesus said to them. Jesus simply reveals to them the secret reason they wish to know, and takes this opportunity to teach them a lesson of the utmost importance. Because of your lack of faith This was the cause of their defeat. They too are unbelievers, not in the strict sense, no doubt, like the Scribes or the people animated by Pharisaical sentiments, but at least in a relative way. They do not have the faith that Jesus would have the right to expect from them after the special graces and enlightenment with which they have been filled. In truth... Having already affixed the seal of the oath to the promise he is about to make, Jesus Christ presents to his disciples the image of perfect faith, whose all-powerful effects he elaborates upon. If you had faith ; Not simply theological faith, but that living, effective faith, that complete trust in God, which allows one to accomplish astonishing miracles with the greatest ease. Like a mustard seed. «This grain seems very small, nothing more contemptible to the eye, but to the taste nothing more acrid. Is it not the emblem of the burning fervor and inner vigor of faith in the Church?» (St. Augustine, Sermon 256). We believe that here again Our Lord is alluding more to the smallness of the mustard seed than to the acridity and intrinsic strength of the mustard (cf. 13:31). «Jesus Christ, to show that a little true faith produced prodigious effects, compares it to this seed» (St. John Chrysostom, Homage 57 in Matthew). Just as it takes only a spark to ignite a violent fire, so too, to accomplish the wonders of which Jesus speaks, a little real and vigorous faith suffices. Certainly, the more one has, the more powerful one will be; but it is the quality that matters above all. – You will say to this mountain As he spoke these words, the Savior pointed with his hand towards the mountain of the Transfiguration, Mount Hermon, and its gigantic mass. Transport yourself from here to there A new gesture to show where the mountain should move in this strange displacement. And she will go there, docile as a child to the voice of its master. And it is a quantity of faith simply equal to a mustard seed that would move an enormous mountain. The smallest conceivable measure of spiritual power is therefore sufficient to reduce to obedience the most colossal powers of this world. «If you ask me: When did the Apostles move mountains? I will answer that they performed far greater miracles by raising the dead several times. But history teaches us that after the Apostles, saints who were inferior to them truly moved mountains in pressing necessities,» St. John Chrysostom. Among the lesser saints to whom the great Bishop of Constantinople alludes, let it suffice to mention the well-known story of St. Gregory the Wonderworker; cf. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History. 7, 23. Grotius, in his commentary, cites two other, more recent examples: «Nor will I deny… that what is said here came to pass when, at Nonon’s prayer, an enormous block of stone moved toward Soracte, according to the martyrology; and when the same thing happened in the presence of the Babylonian caliph in 1225 at the request of an Armenian bishop. Let us beware of despising these authors.» See also Corneille de Lapierre, Comm. in hl. We must therefore take literally this promise of Jesus Christ, which we will hear him repeat in several other circumstances (cf. 21:21; Luke 17:6). It confers upon true believers something other than the power to perform wonders in the moral order. «That faith has worked miracles in the external world,» says the Protestant Stier, “and that it still works them from time to time, only fools would deny, who imagine that with their unbelief they can succeed in setting aside all the facts of history,” Reden des Herrn Jesu, in hl. Faith, it is true, rarely makes use of this power that Jesus granted it; for it understands that the occasions on which it must exercise it prudently, in a manner conforming to the divine plan, do not present themselves every day: it uses it only under the influence of heavenly inspirations. The Savior did not thereby give just anyone the right to overturn the physical geography of the globe, according to the picturesque reflection of Father Curci, Lezioni, 3, p. 275. – But it does not only allow men endowed with a robust faith to be mountain-moving men, as the Rabbis called eloquent orators, he also adds: And nothing will be impossible for you. Whatever is in accordance with God's will and beneficial to my kingdom, you will be able to do. Faith thus places divine omnipotence in our hands.
Mt17.[21 Nothing can expel this species except prayer and fasting. – that species. All things are possible with faith, and yet there are works that it accomplishes with more difficulty than others: Jesus, returning directly to the question posed to him by the Apostles, shows that controlling evil spirits is more difficult than moving mountains: therefore, to fulfill the role of exorcist, one needs a faith of particular strength, activated by great means. Scholars wonder whether, by the words "that kind," Our Lord meant to designate the entire race of demons in general, St. John Chrysostom, or only the category to which belonged the infernal spirit that the Apostles had been unable to expel. This second view seems to us the most probable; it is, moreover, the most widely accepted. Only through prayer…Obviously, this refers to the prayer and fasting of the exorcist, although some strange minds have tried to attribute them to the possessed person himself. Obviously, too, this prayer and fasting should not be considered in isolation, but in conjunction with the faith that forms the subject of this discussion, or better yet, as means of increasing and strengthening faith. Jesus means that, in certain circumstances, the Wonderworker is in the presence of demons so powerful and superior that ordinary faith is insufficient to expel them: the Apostles had just found themselves in a similar situation. When this happens, one must stir one's faith to the level of the miracle one wishes to perform; and prayer and fasting produce results in this regard that are as swift as they are infallible. Prayer, which is fundamentally an act of faith, considerably strengthens this virtue in the heart. To live in prayer is to live in faith; the same is true of fasting. «Fasting united with faith produces a very great strength,» St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in lc. These two means combined are, therefore, according to the beautiful comparison of the holy Doctor, two wings that carry us high into the realms of faith. «He who knows how to unite prayer with fasting has, so to speak, two wings swifter than the winds; he is not affected in prayer by boredom or lukewarmness, faults so common in many; but he is more ardent than fire and higher than the earth, and such a man is above all fearsome to the devil,» ibid.
c. Second official announcement of the Passion, vv. 21-22. Parallel. Mark. 9, 29-31; Luke. 9, 44-45.
Mt17.22 As they traveled through Galilee, Jesus said to them, «The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men, – As they traveled. Jesus and his followers had left this province to go to Gaul (cf. 16:4, 5, 13); they are now returning after an absence that appears to have lasted a few weeks. They probably crossed the Jordan opposite Caesarea and traveled through all of Upper Galilee to go down to Capernaum (v. 23). This journey was mysterious and secret, as we learn from St. Mark 9:29. Jesus said to them. Along the way, the Savior reiterated to his disciples the sad news he had already communicated to them a few days before his Transfiguration: The Son of Man must be handed over…The closer the hour of the Passion approaches, the more the Apostles must become accustomed to the terrible cry «Crucify him!» which they will soon hear. Now, as we have seen, the era of the Passion was inaugurated, in a way, on the Mount of Transfiguration: this is why Jesus insists so strongly on the necessity of his sufferings, in order to prepare his disciples and strengthen them against the ordeal. Must be delivered, It is a necessity; the divine decree has been issued and it must be carried out. In the hands of men. The hands of men are wicked hands, David knew this from experience (cf. 2 Chronicles 22:13); therefore, the Son of Man will receive the worst treatment from them, which he summarizes here in the word die.
Mt17.23 and they will kill him, and he will rise again on the third day.» And they were very grieved. – to death. The first time Jesus predicted his suffering and death, he did so in more explicit terms (cf. 16:21); but it is likely that the evangelist is only giving us the theme of the Savior's conversation here, without going into all the details. And on the third day he will rise again. Our Lord once again unites the announcement of his Resurrection with that of his Passion; he does not want the slightest doubt to exist on this point in the souls of the Apostles. If he must suffer and die, the most complete triumph will soon follow his humiliations. However, the disciples, upon hearing this discourse, were especially struck by the somber ideas it contained; therefore, They were deeply saddened. Previously, they had reacted with indignation in an initial reaction of surprise; now they understood that there was some truth to the grim news their Master conveyed, since he was returning to it for the second time. And as his death was to be the overturning of all their prejudices, the ruin of their beautiful messianic dreams, they were deeply saddened when they sensed that it would occur. Their sorrow would have been even more profound had they been able to foresee that Jesus would be betrayed by one of their own into the hands of his executioners.
Mt17.24 When they returned to Capernaum, those who collected the didrachmas approached Peter and said to him, "Doesn't your teacher pay for the didrachmas?"« – Only St. Matthew has preserved for us the memory of this miracle, which, moreover, fit perfectly into his plan, for it contains very strong proof of the messianic character of Jesus Christ. It was, on the contrary, of only secondary interest to the readers of the second and third Gospels. When they returned to Capernaum. Jesus and the Apostles arrived in Capernaum: it was shortly before the Feast of Tabernacles, which would call them to Jerusalem; John 7:2 ff. Those who collected the didrachms…This last word refers to a silver coin which, as its etymology shows, had the value of two Attic drachmas, that is, half a shekel (two days' wages). This is clearly a tax to be paid by Our Lord Jesus Christ: the entire context proves it. But was it a civil tax owed to the Roman Empire, like the denarius that would soon be used to tempt the Savior (cf. 22:19), or a theocratic and religious tax, intended to support Jewish worship? This is what we must first determine; without this precaution, we risk failing to understand the meaning of the miracle and the profound dogmatic consequence it contains. Several early ecclesiastical writers, including Clement of Alexandria, Origen, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and Sedulius, and following them various modern commentators (Maldonatus, Corneille de Lapierre, Wieseler, etc.), have interpreted this didrachm as the payment of an ordinary, civil tax. Other Church Fathers (St. Hilary, St. Ambrose, Theophylact, and Theodoret) and most contemporary exegetes believe, on the contrary, that the tribute demanded of the Savior was essentially religious and sacred. Between these two opinions, a choice is scarcely possible today, the question having been fully resolved: indeed, all the circumstances of the narrative demonstrate that the tax demanded was not political, but national and theocratic. Those who collect it are not called publicans; they are special officials who bear no resemblance whatsoever to the fearsome tax collectors whose image we once painted. Jesus' argument loses all its force, and even its validity, in the first instance; on the contrary, it becomes irresistible according to the second. Finally, the sacred tribute of the Jews consisted precisely of a double drachma. This was a very ancient tax, once imposed by God himself on all Israelites over the age of twenty, to cover the costs of worship. (See Exodus 30:13.) It had been fixed at half a shekel in Jewish currency, but since Greek and Roman coins had largely supplanted Jewish currency after the conquest of Palestine, the name "half a shekel" had been replaced in common parlance by its equivalent, the didrachma. When the Temple replaced the Tabernacle, this tax continued to be paid (See 2 Chronicles 24:6); but it seems to have become truly regular only after the return from captivity. Cf. Nehemiah 10:33. In the time of Our Lord, it was certainly an annual event, as we learn from the two great Jewish writers, Josephus (loc. cit., 18.19.1) and Philo de Monarch. 2.3. According to the latter, the Jews scattered throughout all the provinces of the Roman Empire were themselves very diligent in having it brought to Jerusalem by special delegates, a detail confirmed by Cicero in his speech "pro Flacco": "It was the custom to transport every year from Italy, and from all the provinces, to Jerusalem, gold amassed by the Jews; an edict of Flaccus forbade this export to the Asiatics," and this was a very serious charge against the client of Tullius. After the destruction of the Temple and the conquest of the Jewish state, Vespasian awarded the half-shekel or didrachm to the Roman Capitol. Cf. Josephus, Jewish War, 7.6.6. From PierreWhy didn't the temple officials address Jesus directly? No doubt out of respect for him. But they knew Peter the fisherman, who had been living in Capernaum for so long, and it was to him they reminded him of his Master's debt. The didrachma was due in the month of Adar, the last month of the Jewish religious year. Doesn't your Master pay?…? The request is polite and delicate: the unrestrained tax collectors would not have proceeded with such tact. Moreover, the Talmudic tractate, speaking of the methods used to collect this tax, states that they were always gentle and appropriate: «Everywhere they gently requested half a shekel.» Despite the negative tone the collectors give to their question, they expect an affirmative answer, as happens in many similar Greek phrases. It is as if they were saying: Surely your Master pays the tax?
Mt17.25 «Yes,» said Peter. And as they were entering the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, «What is your opinion, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth collect taxes or dues? From their own children, or from foreigners?» – Yes, said Pierre. St. Peter did not hesitate for a moment to give an affirmative answer, either because Jesus had paid the half-shekel regularly in previous years, or because the Apostle believed he was insulting his Master's piety by supposing that he was dispensing with something that was regarded by everyone as the fulfillment of an important religious duty. And as they entered the house. However, Jesus, followed by his Apostles, had entered the house that served as his residence during his frequent stays in Capernaum. When Peter joined him there, Jesus warned him: He anticipated his disciple's thoughts, preempting the message his disciple was about to give him concerning the tribute, thus demonstrating his perfect understanding of the secrets of the human heart. The head of the Sacred College had gone too far in asserting that his Master would pay the temple tax; he had momentarily forgotten that Our Lord was "the Christ, Son of the living God," and that, by virtue of this twofold prerogative, he was not obliged to pay the theocratic tribute; indeed, moreover, by virtue of a high degree of propriety, he should no longer pay it since he had fully accepted the messianic role, since he had allowed himself to be proclaimed Son of God in the strictest sense. Therefore, Jesus reminds him of his exemptions, addressing him with the following question: What is your opinion?What is your opinion on this? The kings of the earth Jesus emphasizes this last word because he wants to draw a parallel between earthly kings and the King of heaven. Using as a point of comparison what happens in the families of the princes of this world, he deduces, through a fortiori reasoning, the kind of conduct that the Son of the heavenly king should adopt in this case. The tribute or the census. These words represent two distinct things: taxes levied on goods and taxes levied on people. Foreigners : these are, according to the context, all those who do not belong to the king's family, even if they are subjects of the kingdom.
Mt17.26 Peter answered, "Foreigners." "Then the sons," Jesus told him, "are exempt."« – Pierre replied…The solution was easy. Everyone knows that, in every state, the sons of kings are exempt from taxes; it is foreigners, that is to say, those unrelated to the king's lineage, ordinary citizens, who pay. Therefore, the threads are exempt.Jesus now draws the conclusion from the dilemma, the rights of earthly princes being here a perfect reflection of his own. Therefore, I, the "Son of God," I, head of the theocracy, am exempt from this temple tax that you want me to pay, and which is levied precisely for my Father and for me. The argument is entirely rigorous in proving the freedom enjoyed by Our Lord Jesus Christ concerning the tax in question: "This didrachma was required by the Law, yet it was not owed by the King's Son, but by foreigners. For why should Christ pay a ransom to the world, when he came to take away the sin of the world? Why should he redeem himself from sin, he who came to redeem the sins of all? Why should he redeem himself from bondage, he who emptied himself to give freedom to all?" Why should he, who took on flesh, redeem himself from death, so that by his death he might obtain for all the resurrection "?", St. Ambrose, Ep. 7 to Justus 12. But it is no less rigorous from another point of view, as the Fathers have already noted. It proves, in fact, in the most irrefutable way that Jesus Christ is the Son of God by nature and in the strict sense. "The didrachma could be demanded of Christ as a man. But to show that he was not subject to this law, and so that the divine glory of his Father might be manifested in him, he gave the example of the children of the kings of the earth, who are not subject to taxation," St. Hilary, Comm. In Matth. 11. "Notice how he distinguishes those who are sons from those who are not." If he had not truly been the Son of God, it would have been in vain for him to have cited the example of the children of the kings of the earth… For Jesus Christ does not speak simply of children, but of true children, legitimate children who share in the inheritance and the kingdom of their father,» St. John Chrysostom, Hom. 58 in Matthew. Concerning the plural. the threads, Sylveira, who at first glance seems less forceful than the singular, made this apt observation: «Jesus always spoke very modestly of himself. He doesn’t say: I am free. But he states a general proposition that implies that he is.» We can say even more precisely, with Grotius: «He uses the plural, not because he extends this freedom to others, but because the comparison demanded it, the one he drew not from the customs and morals of a single king, but of all.» We now understand that Jesus could not have argued in the same way if it had been a question of a civil tax required by Roman law: the Savior, in fact, was not the Son of Caesar. Therefore, he would have had to resort to another form of proof in that case to be exempt from the tax.
Mt17.27 «"But so as not to scandalize them, go to the sea, cast your line, take the first fish that comes up, and when you open its mouth, you will find a stater. Take it and give it to them for me and for you."» – So as not to scandalize them. Placed above the law by his divine nature, Our Lord nevertheless deigns to submit to the common law out of condescension and love. Peter had clumsily invoked the Master's word, and it was now difficult to withdraw the promise he had made without causing a real scandal in the city. The Savior's refusal could have been misinterpreted, seen as a mark of contempt for the temple and for divine worship; for the close relationship that united him to God was only imperfectly understood. "People who are involved in worldly affairs easily feel attacked by the saints when money is involved," says Bengel with his usual subtlety, Gnomon in hl – Go to the sea Capernaum being on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, Simon only had a few steps to take to obey Jesus' command. Pull the first fish, The first one to take the bait, the first one to be caught. This miraculous fish has its legend. You will find a stater there. It was a silver coin worth the Jewish shekel; it was therefore equivalent to two didrachmas or four Attic drachmas (cf. v. 24), and consequently sufficient to pay the tax for two people. Hence these other words of Jesus: And give it to them for me and for you. The expression is noteworthy. The Savior does not say for us, Because it is not in the same capacity that He and His disciple will deliver the temple tax. He is careful to separate himself from Peter. «You will pay for me, though I am exempt, for you, since you fall under the law.» – The order is given, but, remarkably, the evangelist does not recount its execution, although it clearly followed closely the dialogue we have just read. Peter went out, cast his line into the lake, and pulled out a fish with a stater in its mouth, and then he paid the tax with that coin. A true miracle had taken place, a miracle that was an effect either of the omnipotence of Our Lord or of His divine wisdom. Nothing is simpler than this marvel, and yet there are few actions of Jesus that have suffered as many attacks from rationalists. It was useless, we are told, and therefore unworthy of Jesus, who never performed miracles for his own benefit. Moreover, it was impossible; for what fish of average size could both hold a stater in its mouth and still take the bait? It is thus a myth, a mere anecdote about fishermen introduced into the Gospel, or even an embellished natural phenomenon. For example, the Savior meant to tell Peter, "You will catch a fish that you can sell for a stater," Koecher, Analecta, in hl; compare Paulus, who elaborates at length on this absurdity. But such interpretations are, as Meyer rightly says, true exegetical marvels, more extraordinary than the miracle they seek to overturn. Therefore, we will leave these points aside (cf. Dehaut, The Gospel Explained, vol. 3, p. 110), confining ourselves to addressing the objection based on the alleged uselessness of this miraculous event. Certainly, Our Lord could have obtained the sum he needed in another way; it is even possible that it was then contained in the common purse carried by Judas. But the lesson he wished to impart to St. Peter and the other Apostles required a miracle. His dignity had been practically forgotten; as a result of an ill-considered remark by one of his own, he found himself obliged to pay a tribute from which he was entirely exempt; should he not uphold his infringed rights and his momentarily disregarded dignity? This is what he first does, verbally. But, since this might not be enough for some, he adds to the reasoning of words the even more eloquent argument of facts. If he agrees to pay the tribute, it will be in a wondrous way, by which it will be clearly demonstrated that he is truly the Son of God. «So he paid the tax, but taken from the mouth of a fish, so that his majesty might be acknowledged,» Clarius in hl; Cf. Orig. Comm in hl – This prodigy provided Titian and Maraccio with the subject of remarkable paintings.
