Matthew 22

Matthew 22:1

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (de Cons. Ev. ii. 71.) This parable is related only by Matthew. Luke gives one like it, but it is not the same, as the order shows. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Jerome: (Chapter 22—Verses 1, 2.) And Jesus answered and spoke to them again in parables, saying: The kingdom of heaven is like a king who made a marriage for his son. The Pharisees, understanding that these parables were about them, sought to seize him and kill him. Knowing their intention, the Lord rebuked them, undeterred by their rage, and without fear, so as to convict the sinners. This king who made a marriage for his son is the almighty God. But it signifies the union of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Church, which is gathered from both Jews and Gentiles. — Commentary on Matthew

John Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. lxix.) Forasmuch as He had said, And it shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof, He now proceeds to show what nation that is. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom: Seest thou both in the former parable and in this the difference between the Son and the servants? Seest thou at once the great affinity between both parables, and the great difference also? For this also indicates God’s long-suffering, and His great providential care, and the Jews’ ingratitude.

But this parable hath something also more than the other. For it proclaims beforehand both the casting out of the Jews, and the calling of the Gentiles; and it indicates together with this also the strictness of the life required, and how great the punishment appointed for the careless.

And well is this placed after the other. For since He had said, “It shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof,” He declares next to what kind of nation; and not this only, but He also again sets forth His providential care towards the Jews as past utterance. For there He appears before His crucifixion bidding them; but here even after He is slain, He still urges them, striving to win them over. And when they deserved to have suffered the most grievous punishment, then He both presses them to the marriage, and honors them with the highest honor. And see how both there He calls not the Gentiles first, but the Jews, and here again. But as there, when they would not receive Him, but even slew Him when He was come, then He gave away the vineyard; thus here too, when they were not willing to be present at the marriage, then He called others.

What then could be more ungrateful than they, when being bidden to a marriage they rush away? For who would not choose to come to a marriage, and that a King’s marriage, and of a King making a marriage for a Son?

And wherefore is it called a marriage? one may say. That thou mightest learn God’s tender care, His yearning towards us, the cheerfulness of the state of things, that there is nothing sorrowful there, nor sad, but all things are full of spiritual joy: Therefore also John calls Him a bridegroom, therefore Paul again saith, “For I have espoused you to one husband;” and, “This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the Church.”

Why then is not the bride said to be espoused to Him, but to the Son? Because she that is espoused to the Son, is espoused to the Father. For it is indifferent in Scripture that the one or the other should be said, because of the identity of the substance.

Hereby He proclaimed the resurrection also. For since in what went before He had spoken of the death, He shows that even after the death, then is the marriage, then the bridegroom. — Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 69

Matthew 22:2

Cosmas Indicopleustes: The Kingdom of heaven is likened unto a certain King who made a marriage feast for his son, having selected the highest of the good things of this life, and likened them to the good things of the future life. — The Christian Topography, Book 5

Gregory the Dialogist: I remember that I have often said that frequently in the holy Gospel the present Church is called the kingdom of heaven. For the congregation of the righteous is called the kingdom of heaven. Because the Lord says through the prophet: “Heaven is my throne”; and Solomon says: “The soul of the righteous is the seat of wisdom”; Paul also says: “Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God”; we ought clearly to conclude that if God is wisdom, and the soul of the righteous is the seat of wisdom, since heaven is called the throne of God, therefore the soul of the righteous is heaven. Hence it is said through the Psalmist concerning the holy preachers: “The heavens declare the glory of God.” Therefore the kingdom of heaven is the Church of the righteous, because while their hearts seek nothing on earth, through the fact that they sigh for things above, the Lord already reigns in them as if in heavenly places. Let it therefore be said: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who was a king, who made a wedding feast for his son.”

Now your charity understands who this king is, the father of the king’s son: namely he to whom the Psalmist says: “O God, give your judgment to the king, and your justice to the king’s son.” He made a wedding for his son. For God the Father made a wedding for God his Son when he joined him to human nature in the womb of the Virgin, when he willed that God before all ages should become man at the end of the ages. But since this union is usually made from two persons, far be it from our understanding that we should believe the person of God and man, our Redeemer Jesus Christ, to be united from two persons. Indeed we say that he exists from two and in two natures; but we avoid as impious the belief that he is composed of two persons. Therefore it can be said more openly and safely that in this the Father made a wedding for his Son the king, by which through the mystery of the incarnation he joined the holy Church to him. Moreover, the womb of the Virgin mother was the bridal chamber of this bridegroom. Hence the Psalmist also says: “He has set his tabernacle in the sun, and he himself comes forth like a bridegroom from his chamber.” For like a bridegroom he came forth from his chamber, because God incarnate went out from the uncorrupted womb of the Virgin to join the Church to himself. — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 38

Gregory the Dialogist ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. in Ev. xxxviii. 2.) Here, by the wedding-feast is denoted the present Church; there, by the supper, the last and eternal feast. For into this enter some who shall perish; into that whosoever has once entered in shall never be put forth. But if any should maintain that these are the same lessons, we may perhaps explain that that part concerning the guest who had come in without a wedding garment, which Luke has not mentioned, Matthew has related. That the one calls it supper, the other dinner, makes no difference; for with the ancients the dinner was at the ninth hour, and was therefore often called supper.

(ubi sup.) G marriage feast for God the Son, when He joined Him to human nature in the womb of the Virgin. But far be it from us to conclude, that because marriage takes place between two separate persons, that therefore the person of our Redeemer was made up of two separate persons. We say indeed that He exists of two natures, and in two natures, but we hold it unlawful to believe that He was compounded of two persons. It is safer therefore to say, that the marriage feast was made by the King the Father for the King the Son when He joined to Him the Holy Church in the mystery of His incarnation. The womb of the Virgin Mother was the bride-chamber of this Bridegroom. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Hilary of Poitiers ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Rightly has the Father already made this wedding, because this eternal union and espousal of the new body is already perfect in Christ. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Origen of Alexandria ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): The kingdom of heaven, in respect of Him who reigns there, is like a king; in respect of Him who shares the kingdom, it is like a king’s son; in respect of those things which are in the kingdom, it is like servants and guests, and among them the king’s armies. It is specified, A man that is a king, that what is spoken may be as by a man to men, and that a man may regulate men unwilling to be regulated by God. But the kingdom of heaven will then cease to be like a man, when zeal and contention and all other passions and sins having ceased, we shall cease to walk after men, and shall see Him as He is. For now we see Him not as He is, but as He has been made for us in our dispensation.

Or, by the marriage of Bridegroom with Bride, that is, of Christ with the soul, understand the Assumption of the Word, the produce whereof is good works. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Pseudo-Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Otherwise; When the resurrection of the saints shall be, then the life, which is Christ, shall revive man, swallowing up his mortality in its own immortality. For now we receive the Holy Spirit as a pledge of the future union, but then we shall have Christ Himself more fully in us. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Matthew 22:3

Augustine of Hippo: All the faithful know the story of the marriage of the king’s son, and his feast. They know that the Lord’s table is open to all who are willing correctly to receive it. But it is important that each one examines how he approaches, even when he is not forbidden to approach.The holy Scriptures teach us that there are two feasts of the Lord: one to which the good and evil come, the other to which the evil do not come. So then the feast of which we have just now heard when the gospel was being read has both good and evil guests. All who excused themselves from this feast are evil, but not all those who entered in are good. I now address you, therefore, who are the good guests at this feast. You are taking careful note of the words “For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.” It is to you I speak. I plead with you not to look vainly for the good apart from the church but to bear with the evil within it. — SERMON 90.1

Gregory the Dialogist: Therefore he sent his servants to invite friends to this wedding. He sent once, he sent again, because he made the preachers of the Lord’s incarnation first prophets, and afterward apostles. Thus he sent servants twice to invite, because he both declared the incarnation of the Only-begotten as future through the prophets, and announced it as accomplished through the apostles. But since those who were first invited were unwilling to come to the wedding banquet, in the second invitation it is now said: “Behold, I have prepared my dinner, my bulls and fatted calves are slain, and all things are ready.” — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 38

Hilary of Poitiers ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Or; The servants who were first sent to call them that were bidden, are the Apostles; they who, being before bidden, are now invited to come in, are the people of Israel, who had before been bidden through the Law to the glories of eternity. To the Apostles therefore it belonged to remind those whom the Prophets had invited. Those sent with the second injunction are the Apostolic men their successors. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Jerome: (V. 3.) And he sent his servant to call the invited guests to the wedding, but they did not want to come. There is no doubt that it refers to Moses, through whom the Law was given to the invited guests. But if we read it in reference to the servants, as most copies have it, it should be understood as referring to the prophets, who were ignored by those invited through them. — Commentary on Matthew

Jerome ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): He sent his servant, without doubt Moses, by whom He gave the Law, to those who had been invited. But if you read servants as most copies have, it must be referred to the Prophets, by whom they were invited, but neglected to come. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom: And He not suddenly, but a long time before. For, “Tell,” He saith, “them that are bidden;” and again, “Call them that were bidden;” which circumstance makes the charge against them heavier. And when were they bidden? By all the prophets; by John again; for unto Christ he would pass all on, saying, “He must increase, I must decrease;” by the Son Himself again, “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will refresh you;” and again, “If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.”

But not by words only, but also by actions did He bid them, after His ascension by Peter, and those with him. “For He that wrought effectually in Peter,” it is said, “to the apostleship of the circumcision, was mighty also in me towards the Gentiles.”

For since on seeing the Son, they were wroth and slew Him, He bids them again by His servants. And unto what doth He bid them? Unto labors, and toils, and sweat? Nay but unto pleasure. For, “My oxen,” He saith, “and my fatlings are killed.” See how complete His banquet? how great His munificence. — Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 69

Origen of Alexandria ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Or; The servants who were first sent to call them that were bidden to the wedding, are to be taken as the Prophets converting the people by their prophecy to the festival of the restoration of the Church to Christ. They who would not come at the first message are they who refused to hear the words of the Prophets. The others who were sent a second time were another assembly of Prophets.

Or; The dinner which is prepared is the oracle of God; and so the more mighty of the oracles of God are the oxen; the sweet and pleasant are the fatlings. For if any one bring forward feeble words, without power, and not having strong force of reason, these are the lean things; the fatlings are when to the establishment of each proposition many examples are brought forward backed by reasonable proofs. For example, supposing one holding discourse of chastity, it might well be represented by the turtle-dove; but should he bring forward the same holy discourse full of reasonable proof out of Scripture, so as to delight and strengthen the mind of his hearer, then he brings the dove fatted. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Pseudo-Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): When the servants were sent to call them, they must have been invited before. Men have been invited from the time of Abraham, to whom was promised Christ’s incarnation.

whom He sent when He said unto them, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Mat. 10:5.) — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Matthew 22:4

Gregory the Dialogist: What do we understand by the bulls and fattened birds, dearest brothers, if not the fathers of the Old and New Testament? Because I speak to common people, I must also explain the very words of the Gospel reading. For we call “altilia” fattened birds; from the word “alere” (to nourish), we call them “altilia,” as if “alitilia.” Since it was written in the law: “You shall love your friend, and hate your enemy,” the just had then received permission to suppress God’s adversaries and their own with whatever strength they could, and to strike them by right of the sword. This is without doubt restrained in the New Testament, when Truth Himself preaches, saying: “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you.” Who then are signified by the bulls if not the fathers of the Old Testament? For since they had received from the permission of the law the right to strike their adversaries with the repayment of hatred, so to speak, what else were they but bulls, who struck their enemies with the horn of bodily strength? And what is figured by the fattened birds if not the fathers of the New Testament, who, receiving the grace of inner richness, striving upward from earthly desires, are lifted to the heights of their contemplation on wings? Indeed, to place one’s thought on lowly things—what else is this but a certain dryness of mind? But those who through understanding of heavenly things are already fed through holy desires with the food of inner delight from above grow fat, as it were, with more abundant nourishment. The Prophet had longed to be fattened with this richness when he said: “Let my soul be filled as with fat and richness.”

Therefore, because the preachers of the Lord’s incarnation who were sent endured persecution from unbelievers—first the prophets and afterward the holy apostles—it is said to those invited who refused to come: “My bulls and fattened birds have been slain, and all things are ready.” As if it were said more openly: Look upon the deaths of the fathers who went before, and consider the remedies for your life. It should be noted that in the first invitation nothing is said about bulls and fattened birds, but in the second it is now mentioned that the bulls and fattened birds have been slaughtered, because almighty God, when we refuse to hear His words, adds examples, so that everything we believe impossible becomes easier for us to hope for, the more we hear that others have already passed through it. — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 38

Gregory the Dialogist ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (ubi sup.) But because these who were first invited would not come to the feast, the second summons says, Behold, I have prepared my dinner.

(ubi sup.) By the oxen are signified the Fathers of the Old Testament; who by sufferance of the Law gored their enemies with the horn of bodily strength. By fatlings are meant fatted animals, for from ‘alere’, comes ‘altilia,’ as it were ‘alitilia’ or ‘alita.’ By the fatlings are intended the Fathers of the New Testament; who while they receive sweet grace of inward fattening, are raised by the wing of contemplation from earthly desires to things above. He says therefore, My oxen and my fallings are killed; as much as to say, Look to the deaths of the Fathers who have been before you, and desire some amendment of your lives.

(ubi sup.) It is to be observed, that in the first invitation nothing was said of the oxen or fatlings, but in the second it is announced that they are already killed, because Almighty God when we will not hear His words gives examples, that what we suppose impossible may become easy to us to surmount, when we hear that others have passed through it before us. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Hilary of Poitiers ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Or otherwise; The oxen are the glorious army of Martyrs, offered, like choice victims, for the confession of God; the fatlings are spiritual men, as birds fed for flight upon heavenly food, that they may fill others with the abundance of the food they have eaten. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Jerome: (Vers. 4, 5.) He sent other servants again, saying: Tell those who are invited: Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and fatted cattle have been slaughtered, and everything is ready: come to the wedding feast. But they disregarded him. The servants who were sent the second time are better understood as prophets than apostles, if the word ‘servant’ is written above. But if you read ‘servants’ in the same place, then the second servants should be understood as apostles. The prepared dinner, the oxen, and the slaughtered fatted cattle either describe the riches of the kingdom using a metaphor, so that the spiritual may be understood from the carnal, or certainly the greatness of doctrine and the richness of God’s teaching can be perceived. — Commentary on Matthew

Jerome ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): By the servants who were sent the second time, we may better understand the Prophets than the Apostles; that is to say, if servant is read in the first place; but if ‘servants,’ then by the second servants are to be understood the Apostles;

The dinner that is prepared, the oxen and the fatlings that are killed, is either a description of regal magnificence by the way of metaphor, that by carnal things spiritual may be understood; or the greatness of the doctrines, and the manifold teaching of God in His law, may be understood. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom: For since on seeing the Son, they were wroth and slew Him, He bids them again by His servants. And unto what doth He bid them? Unto labors, and toils, and sweat? Nay but unto pleasure. For, “My oxen,” He saith, “and my fatlings are killed.” See how complete His banquet? how great His munificence.

And not even this shamed them, but the more long-suffering He showed, so much the more were they hardened. For not for press of business, but from “making light of it” they did not come. — Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 69

Pseudo-Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): When therefore the Lord bade the Apostles, Go ye and preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand, it was the same message as is here given, I have prepared my dinner; i. e. I have set out the table of Scripture out of the Law and the Prophets.

Otherwise; He says oxen and fatlings, not as though the oxen were not fatted, but because all the oxen were not fat. Therefore the fatlings denote the Prophets who were filled with the Holy Spirit; the oxen those who were both Priests and Prophets, as Jeremiah and Ezekiel; for as the oxen are the leaders of the herd, so also the Priests are leaders of the people.

That He says, And all things are now ready, means, that all that is required to salvation is already filled up in the Scriptures; there the ignorant may find instruction; the self-willed may read of terrors; he who is in difficulty may there find promises to rouse him to activity. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Matthew 22:5

Gregory the Dialogist: There follows: “But they neglected it and went away, one to his farm, another to his business.” To go to a farm is to devote oneself immoderately to earthly labor; to go to business is to yearn for the profits of worldly activities. For when one person is intent on earthly labor and another is given over to the activities of this world, each refuses to consider the mystery of the Lord’s incarnation and to live according to it—as if going off to a farm or to business, he declines to come to the king’s wedding. — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 38

Gregory the Dialogist ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Whosoever then intent upon earthly business, or devoted to the actions of this world, feigns to be meditating upon the mystery of the Lord’s Passion, and to be living accordingly, is he that refuses to come to the King’s wedding on pretext of going to his farm or his merchandize. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Hilary of Poitiers ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): For men are taken up with worldly ambition as with a farm; and many through covetousness are engrossed with trafficking. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom: But not even so do these become better men nor more gentle, than which what can be worse? For this again is a third accusation. The first that they killed the prophets; then the son; afterwards that even when they had slain Him, and were bidden unto the marriage of Him that was slain, by the Very one that was slain, they come not, but feign excuses, yokes of oxen, and pieces of ground, and wives. And yet the excuses seem to be reasonable; but hence we learn, though the things which hinder us be necessary, to set the things spiritual at a higher price than all.

“How then do some bring forward marriages, others yokes of oxen? these things surely are of want of leisure.”

By no means, for when spiritual things call us, there is no press of business that has the power of necessity. — Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 69

Pseudo-Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Or, by the business of a farm, He denotes the Jewish populace, whom the delights of this world separated from-Christ; by the excuse of merchandize, the Priests and other ministers of the Temple, who, coming to the service of the Law and the Temple through greediness of gain, have been shut out of the faith by covetousness. Of these He said not, ‘They were filled with envy,’ but They made light of it. For they who through hate and spite crucified Christ, are they who were filled with envy; but they who being entangled in business did not believe on Him, are not said to have been filled with envy, but to have made light of it. The Lord is silent respecting His own death, because He had spoken of it in the foregoing parable, but He shows forth the death of His disciples, whom after His ascension the Jews put to death, stoning Stephen and executing James the son of Alphæus, for which things Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans. And it is to be observed, that anger is attributed to God figuratively and not properly; He is then said to be angry when He punishes. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Pseudo-Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (non occ. sed vid. Gloss. ord.) Or He says, All things are now ready which belong to the mystery of the Lord’s Passion, and our redemption. He says, Come to the marriage, not with your feet, but with faith, and good conduct. But they made light of it; why they did so He shows when He adds, And they went their way, one to his farm, another to his merchandize.

Or otherwise; When we work with the labour of our hands, for example, cultivating our field or our vineyard, or any manufacture of wood or iron, we seem to be occupied with our farm; any other mode of getting money unattended with manual labour is here called merchandize. O most miserable world! and miserable ye that follow it! The pursuits of this world have ever shut men out of life. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Matthew 22:6

Gregory the Dialogist: For when one person is intent on earthly labor and another is given over to the activities of this world, each refuses to consider the mystery of the Lord’s incarnation and to live according to it—as if going off to a farm or to business, he declines to come to the king’s wedding. And very often, what is more serious, some people not only reject the grace of him who calls but even persecute it. Hence it is added: “But the rest seized his servants, and after treating them with contempt, killed them.” — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 38

Gregory the Dialogist ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Nay often, which is worse, some who are called not only reject the grace, but become persecutors, And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them despitefully, and slew them. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Jerome: (Verse 6) And they went away, some to their own village, and others to their business. The rest held his servants, and treating them with contempt, they killed them. Among those who do not accept the truth of the Gospel, there is much diversity. For those who were occupied with other matters and did not want to come are guilty of a lesser crime than those who, despite the invitation of the host, turned their affection into cruelty and mistreated or killed the king’s servants. In this parable, the silence of the wedding guests and the deaths of the servants illustrate the contempt for the wedding feast. — Commentary on Matthew

John Chrysostom: And to me they seem moreover to make use of these excuses, putting forward these things as cloke for their negligence. And not this only is the grievous thing, that they came not, but also that which is a far more violent and furious act, to have even beaten them that came, and to have used them despitefully, and to have slain them; this is worse than the former. For those others came, demanding produce and fruits, and were slain; but these, bidding them to the marriage of Him that had been slain by them, and these again are murdered.

What is equal to this madness? This Paul also was laying to their charge, when he said, “Who both killed the Lord, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us.”

Moreover, that they may not say, “He is an adversary of God, and therefore we do not come,” hear what they say who are bidding them; that it is the father who is making the marriage, and that it is He who is bidding them. — Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 69

Matthew 22:7

Gregory the Dialogist: “But when the king learned of this, he sent his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city.” He destroys the murderers because he slays the persecutors. He burns their city with fire because not only their souls but also the flesh in which they had dwelt is tormented by the eternal flame of hell. It is said that he destroyed the murderers by sending armies because all judgment among humans is carried out through angels. For what are those hosts of angels if not the armies of our King? Hence the same king is called “Lord Sabaoth.” For Sabaoth is translated as “of armies.” Therefore he sends an army to destroy his adversaries because the Lord indeed executes vengeance through angels. The power of this vengeance our fathers once only heard about, but we now see it. For where are those proud persecutors of the martyrs? Where are those who raised the neck of their heart against their Creator and swelled with deadly pride over the glory of this world? Behold, the death of the martyrs now flourishes in the faith of the living, and those who gloried in their cruelty against them do not come into our memory even among the number of the dead. Thus we recognize in actual events what we hear in parables. — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 38

Gregory the Dialogist ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (ubi sup.) Or, The armies of our King are the legions of His Angels. He is said therefore to have sent His armies, and to have destroyed those murderers, because all judgment is executed upon men by the Angels. He destroys those murderers, when He cuts off persecutors; and burns up their city, because not only their souls, but the body of flesh they had tenanted, is tormented in the everlasting fire of hell. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Jerome: (Verse 7) But when the king heard this, he was angry. Regarding what was said above: The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding feast and showed acts of mercy. The man’s name was given, but now when it comes to vengeance, the man is silent and only the king is mentioned.

And having sent his armies, he destroyed those murderers, and burned their city. The armies, or avenging angels, of whom it is written in the Psalms: He sent upon them a destroying angel (Psalms 77:49); or we may understand the Romans, under the leadership of Vespasian and Titus, who, having killed the Jewish people, burned the rebellious city. — Commentary on Matthew

Jerome ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): When He was doing works of mercy, and bidding to His marriage-feast, He was called a man; (homini regi) now when He comes to vengeance, the man is dropped, and He is called only a King.

By His armies we understand the Romans under Vespasian and Titus, who having slaughtered the inhabitants of Judæa, laid in ashes the faithless city. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom: What then did He after these things? Since they were not willing to come, yea and also slew those that came unto them; He burns up their cities, and sent His armies and slew them.

And these things He saith, declaring beforehand the things that took place under Vespasian and Titus, and that they provoked the father also, by not believing in Him; it is the father at any rate who was avenging.

And for this reason let me add, not straightway after Christ was slain did the capture take place, but after forty years, that He might show His long suffering, when they had slain Stephen, when they had put James to death, when they had spitefully entreated the apostles.

Seest thou the truth of the event, and its quickness? For while John was yet living, and many other of them that were with Christ, these things came to pass, and they that had heard these words were witnesses of the events.

See then care utterable. He had planted a vineyard; He had done all things, and finished; when His servants had been put to death, He sent other servants; when those had been slain, He sent the son; and when He was put to death, He bids them to the marriage. They would not come. After this He sends other servants, and they slew these also.

Then upon this He slays them, as being incurably diseased. For that they were incurably diseased, was proved not by their acts only, but by the fact, that even when harlots and publicans had believed, they did these things. So that, not by their own crimes alone, but also from what others were able to do aright, these men are condemned. — Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 69

Origen of Alexandria ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Let those who sin against the God of the Law, and the Prophets, and the whole creation, declare whether He who is here called man, and is said to be angry, is indeed the Father Himself. If they allow this, they will be forced to own that many things are said of Him applicable to the passible nature of man; not for that He has passions, but because He is represented to us after the manner of passible human nature. In this way we take God’s anger, repentance, and the other things of the like sort in the Prophets.

Or, the city of those wicked men is in each doctrine the assembly of those who meet in the wisdom of the rulers of this world; which the King sets fire to and destroys, as consisting of evil buildings. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Pseudo-Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): The Roman army is called God’s army; because The earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof; (Ps. 24:1.) nor would the Romans have come to Jerusalem, had not the Lord stirred them thither. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Matthew 22:8

Augustine of Hippo: But someone will object, This is strange. What great matter is it that one man among this large crowd does not have a wedding garment? Why rivet attention on this one man? So what if he creeps in unperceived by the servants of the householder? How could it be said that because of just that one, “they invited in both good and bad together”? Attend therefore, beloved, and understand. This man represents a whole class of persons of whom there are many. — SERMON 90.4

Gregory the Dialogist: But he who sees that those invited despise him will not allow his son’s wedding to remain empty. He sends to others, because even if the word of God labors among some, nevertheless at some point it will find a place where it may rest. Hence it is added: “Then he said to his servants: The wedding indeed is prepared, but those who were invited were not worthy.” — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 38

Gregory the Dialogist ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (ubi sup.) But when He sees that His invitation is spurned at, He will not have His Son’s marriage-feast empty; the word of God will find where it may stay itself. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom: But if any one should say, that not then were they out of the Gentiles called, I mean, when the apostles had been beaten and had suffered ten thousand things, but straightway after the resurrection (for then He said to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all nations.”) We would say, that both before the crucifixion, and after the crucifixion, they addressed themselves to them first. For both before the crucifixion, He saith to them, “Go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel;” and after the crucifixion, so far from forbidding, He even commanded them to address themselves to the Jews. For though He said, “Make disciples of all nations,” yet when on the point of ascending into Heaven, He declared that unto those first they were to address themselves; For, “ye shall receive power,” saith He, “after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you, and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and unto the uttermost part of the earth;” and Paul again, “He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, was mighty in me also toward the Gentiles.” Therefore the apostles also went first unto the Jews, and when they had tarried a long time in Jerusalem, and then had been driven away by them, in this way they were scattered abroad unto the Gentiles.

And see thou even herein His bounty; “As many as ye shall find,” saith He, “bid to the marriage.” For before this, as I said, they addressed themselves both to Jews and Greeks, tarrying for the most part in Judaea; but since they continued to lay plots against them, hear Paul interpreting this parable, and saying thus, “It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you, but since ye judge yourselves unworthy, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.”

Therefore Christ also saith, “The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.”

He knew this indeed even before, but that He might leave them no pretext of a shameless sort of contradiction, although He knew it, to them first He both came and sent, both stopping their mouths, and teaching us to fulfill all our parts, though no one should derive any profit.

Since then they were not worthy, go ye, saith He, into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid; both the common sort, and the outcasts. For because He had said in every way, “The harlots and publicans shall inherit heaven;” and, “The first shall be last, and the last first;” He shows that justly do these things come to pass; which more than anything stung the Jews, and goaded them far more grievously than their overthrow, to see those from the Gentiles brought into their privileges, and into far greater than theirs. — Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 69

Origen of Alexandria ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): He saith to His servants, that is, to the Apostles; or to the Angels, who were set over the calling of the Gentiles, The wedding is ready.

Or otherwise; I suppose this first bidding to the wedding to have been a bidding of some of the more noble minds. For God would have those before all come to the feast of the divine oracles who are of the more ready wit to understand them; and forasmuch as they who are such are loth to come to that kind of summons, other servants are sent to move them to come, and to promise that they shall find the dinner prepared. For as in the things of the body, one is the bride, others the inviters to the feast, and they that are bidden are others again; so God knows the various ranks of souls, and their powers, and the reasons why these are taken into the condition of the Bride, others in the rank of the servants that call, and others among the number of those that are bidden as guests. But they who had been thus especially invited contemned the first inviters as poor in understanding, and went their way, following their own devices, as more delighting in them than in those things which the King by his servants promised. Yet are these more venial than they who ill-treat and put to death the servants sent unto them; those, that is, who daringly assail with weapons of contentious words the servants sent, who are unequal to solve their subtle difficulties, and those are illtreated or put to death by them. The servants going forth are either Christ’s Apostles going from Judæa and Jerusalem, or the Holy Angels from the inner worlds, and going to the various ways of various manners, gathered together whomsoever they found, not caring whether before their calling they had been good or bad. By the good here we may understand simply the more humble and upright of those who come to the worship of God, to whom agreed what the Apostle says, When the Gentiles which have not the Law do by nature the things contained in the Law, they are a law unto themselves. (Rom. 2:14.) — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Remigius of Rheims ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): That is, the whole sacrament of the human dispensation is completed and closed. But they which, were bidden, (Rom. 10:3.) that is, the Jews, were not worthy, because, ignorant of the righteousness of God, and going about to establish their own righteousness, they have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God. The Jewish nation then being rejected, the Gentile people were taken in to the marriage-feast; whence it follows, Go ye out into the crossings of the streets, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the wedding. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Matthew 22:9

Apollinaris of Laodicea: This wedding pictures the marriage of the church to the Word. The donation of the gifts of the wealthy provides for the wedding’s preparation and is compared with bulls and fattened calves prepared for lavish feasting. For Paul says that “in every way” we have been “enriched” in Christ, in our “speaking and knowledge.” The first and second are called servants. The first are those who run ahead in light of the coming of the Lord, fellow laborers and successors of the apostles. But a failure to watch carefully prevents those who are invited from attending. For they “who live their lives according to the flesh” do not follow the divine call which is according to Christ. In the case of the rest, with the calling of the nations there is no longer a separation of a people nor a special honor accorded to Israel. But grace is even [given] to the rejected and outcasts, “to the wise and to the foolish,” as Paul says, to the evil and to the good, as the parable teaches … if it is that they really obey the calling to do good, “having clothed themselves with the new humanity.” If this proves not to be true, though they were called, they were not chosen. Rather, their calling is even overturned. — FRAGMENT 111

Gregory the Dialogist: “Go therefore to the crossroads, and whomever you find, call to the wedding.” If in Sacred Scripture we understand ways as actions, we understand the crossroads as the failures of actions, because those whom no prosperity accompanies in earthly activities usually come easily to God. — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 38

Gregory the Dialogist ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (ubi sup.) Or otherwise; In holy Scripture, way is taken to mean actions; so that the crossings of the ways we understand as failure in action, for they usually come to God readily, who have had little prosperity in worldly actions. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Hilary of Poitiers ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): By the street also is to be understood the time of this world, and they are therefore bid to go to the crossings of the streets, because the past is remitted to all. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Jerome: (Verse 8 and following) Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding feast is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. Therefore, go to the street corners and invite to the wedding feast whoever you find.’ So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, the bad and the good alike, and the wedding hall was filled with guests. There were no Gentiles on the streets, but at the exits of the streets. However, it is questioned how among those who were outside, some bad and good ones were found. The Apostle to the Romans discusses this place more fully ((al. added, saying)) (Rom. 2:14): that the Gentiles, who naturally do the things that are of the law, condemn the Jews who have not made the written law. Among the ethnic groups themselves, there is infinite diversity; since we know that some are prone to vices and inclined to evil, while others are dedicated to the virtues of honorable customs. — Commentary on Matthew

Jerome ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): For the Gentile nation was not in the streets, but in the crossings of the streets. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Pseudo-Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Or; The streets are all the professions of this world, as philosophy, soldiery, and the like. And therefore He says, Go out into the crossings of the streets, that they may call to the faith men of every condition. Moreover, as chastity is the way that leads to God, so fornication is the way that leads to the Devil; and so it is in the other virtues and vices. Thus He bids them invite to the faith men of every profession or condition. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Matthew 22:10

Gregory the Dialogist: It follows: “And his servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good, and the wedding was filled with guests.”

Behold, now by the very quality of those dining together it is openly shown that through these royal nuptials the present Church is designated, in which both good and evil come together. For it is mixed with a diversity of children, because although it begets all unto faith, yet it does not lead all through a change of life to the liberty of spiritual grace, their faults preventing it. For as long as we live here, it is necessary that we proceed on the way of the present age in a mixed state. But then we are separated when we arrive. For the good alone are nowhere except in heaven; and the evil alone are nowhere except in hell. But this life which is situated between heaven and hell, just as it subsists in the middle, so it receives the citizens of both parts in common; whom nevertheless holy Church both now receives without distinction and afterward separates at their departure.

If therefore you are good, as long as you subsist in this life, bear with the evil patiently. For whoever does not tolerate the evil, he himself is a witness to himself through his intolerance that he is not good. For he refuses to be Abel whom the malice of Cain does not exercise. Thus on the threshing floor the grains are pressed under the chaff; thus flowers arise among thorns, and the rose which gives fragrance grows with the thorn which pricks. Indeed the first man had two sons; but one of them was chosen, the other was reprobate. The ark of Noah contained three sons; but two of them were chosen, and one was reprobate. Abraham had two sons; but one was chosen, the other was reprobate. Isaac had two sons; but one was chosen, the other was rejected. Jacob had twelve sons; but of these one was sold through innocence, while the others through malice were sellers of their brother. Twelve apostles were chosen; but one was mixed among them who would test, eleven who would be tested. Seven deacons were ordained by the apostles; but while six remained in the right faith, one became the author of error.

In this Church therefore neither can the evil be without the good, nor the good without the evil. Therefore, dearest brothers, bring back to mind the times past, and strengthen yourselves for the toleration of the evil. For if we are children of the elect, it necessarily remains that we walk by their examples. For he was not good who refused to tolerate the evil. For hence it is that blessed Job asserts of himself, saying: “I was a brother of dragons, and a companion of ostriches.” Hence through Solomon it is said in the voice of the bridegroom to holy Church: “As a lily among thorns, so is my beloved among the daughters.” Hence the Lord says to Ezekiel: “Son of man, unbelievers and subverters are with you, and you dwell among scorpions.” Hence Peter glorifies the life of blessed Lot, saying: “And he rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the injury of the wicked in their conduct; for in sight and hearing he was righteous, dwelling among those who from day to day tormented his righteous soul with their lawless deeds.” Hence Paul both praises and strengthens the life of his disciples, saying: “In the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, holding forth the word of life.” Hence John testifies to the Church of Pergamos, saying: “I know where you dwell, where the throne of Satan is, and you hold my name, and you have not denied my faith.” Behold, dearest brothers, running through almost all things we recognize that he was not good whom the depravity of the evil did not test. For if I may speak thus, the iron of our soul is by no means brought to the sharpness of a fine edge unless the file of another’s depravity has worn it down.

But it should not frighten you that in the Church there are both many who are evil and few who are good, because the ark amid the waters of the flood, which bore the type of this Church, was both wide in its lower parts and narrow in its upper parts, and at its very summit it grew to the measure of a single cubit. In its lower part it is to be believed it contained quadrupeds and reptiles, but in its upper part birds and human beings. It was wide where it held beasts; it was narrow where it preserved human beings, because indeed the holy Church is spacious in carnal matters but narrow in spiritual ones. For where it tolerates the bestial behavior of people, there it relaxes its fold more widely. But where it has those who are supported by spiritual reason, there indeed it is led to the summit, yet because they are few, it is narrowed. For “wide is the way that leads to destruction, and many are those who go by it; and narrow is the way that leads to life, and few are those who find it.” Moreover, the ark is narrowed at the top to such an extent that it is brought to the measure of a single cubit, because in the holy Church the holier any persons are, the fewer they are. At its summit it is brought to him who alone among human beings was born holy, without comparison to any other. Who, according to the voice of the Psalmist, was made “like a solitary sparrow on a rooftop.” Therefore the evil are to be tolerated all the more, the more abundantly they abound, because even on the threshing floor there are few grains that are stored in granaries, and great heaps of chaff that are burned with fire. — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 38

Gregory the Dialogist ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (ubi sup.) Or; He means that in this present Church there cannot be bad without good, nor good without bad. He is not good who refuses to endure the bad. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Jerome ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): For there is an infinite difference among the Gentiles themselves; some are more prone to vice, others are endowed with more incorrupt and virtuous manners. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom: Since then they were not worthy, go ye, saith He, into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid; both the common sort, and the outcasts. For because He had said in every way, “The harlots and publicans shall inherit heaven;” and, “The first shall be last, and the last first;” He shows that justly do these things come to pass; which more than anything stung the Jews, and goaded them far more grievously than their overthrow, to see those from the Gentiles brought into their privileges, and into far greater than theirs.

Then in order that not even these should put confidence in their faith alone, He discourses unto them also concerning the judgment to be passed upon wicked actions; to them that have not yet believed, of coming unto Him by faith, and to them that have believed, of care with respect to their life. For the garment is life and practice. — Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 69

Remigius of Rheims ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): These are the errors of the Gentiles. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Matthew 22:11

Gregory the Dialogist: But since you have now entered the house of the wedding, that is, the holy Church, by the Lord’s generosity, carefully observe, brothers, lest the king upon entering find fault with something in the attire of your mind. For with great fear of heart we must consider what is immediately added: “The king entered to see those reclining at table, and he saw there a man not clothed in a wedding garment.” What, dearest brothers, do we think is expressed by the wedding garment? For if we say the wedding garment is baptism or faith, who entered this wedding without baptism and faith? For by that very fact he is outside, because he has not yet believed. What then should we understand the wedding garment to be, except charity? For he enters the wedding, but does not enter with a wedding garment, who standing in the holy Church has faith but does not have charity. For rightly is charity called the wedding garment, because our Creator had this in himself when he came to the wedding of uniting the Church to himself. For it was accomplished solely by the love of God that his only-begotten Son united the minds of chosen people to himself. Hence John also says: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son for us.” He therefore who came to humanity through charity made known that same charity to be the wedding garment. Therefore everyone among you who, being placed in the Church, has believed in God has already entered the wedding; but he does not come with a wedding garment if he does not preserve the grace of charity. And certainly, brothers, if anyone were invited to a carnal wedding, he would change his garment, he would show by the very beauty of his attire that he rejoices with the bridegroom and bride, and he would be ashamed to appear in despised garments among those rejoicing and celebrating the feast. We come to the wedding of God, and we neglect to change the garment of our heart. The angels rejoice together when the elect are taken up to heaven. With what mind, then, do we behold these spiritual festivities, we who do not have the wedding garment, that is, charity, which alone presents us as beautiful?

It should be known that just as a garment is woven on two beams, namely the upper and the lower, so charity is held in two commandments, that is, in the love of God and of neighbor. For it is written: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength; and your neighbor as yourself.” In this matter it should be noted that in the love of neighbor a measure of love is established, when it is said: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself”; but the love of God is constrained by no measure, when it is said: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength.” For one is not commanded how much to love, but from how much, when it is said: “With all,” because he truly loves God who leaves nothing of himself for himself.

Therefore whoever takes care to have a wedding garment at the wedding must keep these two commandments of charity. For this is why, in the prophet Ezekiel, the vestibule of the gate of that city situated on the mountain is measured at two cubits, because surely the entrance to the heavenly city is not opened to us if in this Church, which is called a vestibule because it is still outside, the love of God and neighbor is not maintained. This is why scarlet twice-dyed is commanded to be woven into the curtains of the tabernacle. You are, brothers, you are the curtains of the tabernacle, who veil heavenly secrets in your hearts through faith. But twice-dyed scarlet must be in the curtains of the tabernacle. For scarlet has the appearance of fire. And what is charity, if not fire? But this charity must be twice-dyed, so that it may be dyed through the love of God, and dyed through the love of neighbor. For he who so loves God that through contemplation of Him he neglects his neighbor, is indeed scarlet, but not twice-dyed. Again, he who so loves his neighbor that nevertheless he abandons the contemplation of God through love of him, is scarlet, but not twice-dyed. Therefore, that your charity may be able to be twice-dyed scarlet, let it kindle itself both to the love of God and to the love of neighbor, so that it neither abandons the contemplation of God out of compassion for neighbor, nor, clinging to the contemplation of God more than it ought, casts aside compassion for neighbor. And so let every person living among people so yearn for Him whom he desires, that nevertheless he does not abandon the one with whom he was running; and let him so bring help to this one, that he in no way grows sluggish toward Him to whom he was hastening.

It must also be known that this love of neighbor is subdivided into two precepts, as a certain wise man says: “See that you do not do to another what you hate to have done to you.” And Truth Himself preaches through Himself, saying: “What you wish men to do to you, do the same to them.” For if we both give to others what we rightly wish to be rendered to us, and we ourselves avoid doing to others what we do not wish done to us, we preserve the laws of charity unharmed.

But let no one, when he loves someone, think that he immediately has charity, unless he first examines the very strength of his love. For if anyone loves someone, but does not love him for the sake of God, he does not have charity, but thinks he has it. True charity, however, is when a friend is loved in God, and an enemy is loved for the sake of God. For he loves those whom he loves for the sake of God, who already knows how to love even those by whom he is not loved. For charity is usually proven only through the adversity of hatred. Hence the Lord Himself says: “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you.” Therefore, he loves securely who loves for the sake of God the one by whom he understands he is not loved. These things are great, these things are lofty, and difficult for many to practice, but nevertheless this is the wedding garment.

Whoever does not have this garment while reclining at the wedding feast, let him now anxiously fear when the king enters, lest he be cast outside. For behold it is said: “The king entered the wedding feast to see those reclining at table, and he saw there a man not clothed with a wedding garment.” We are the ones, dearest brothers, who recline at the wedding feast of the Word, who already have faith in the Church, who are fed by the banquets of Sacred Scripture, who rejoice that the Church is joined to God. Consider, I ask, whether you have come to this wedding feast with a wedding garment; examine your thoughts with anxious inquiry. Weigh your hearts concerning each matter: whether you now hold hatred against no one, whether you are not inflamed by any torch of envy against another’s good fortune, whether you do not hasten to harm anyone through hidden malice. — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 38

Gregory the Dialogist ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (ubi sup.) What ought we to understand by the wedding garment, but charity? For this the Lord had upon Him, when He came to espouse the Church to Himself. He then enters in to the wedding feast, but without the wedding garment, who has faith in the Church, but not charity. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Hilary of Poitiers ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Or; The wedding garment is the grace of the Holy Spirit, and the purity of that heavenly temper, which taken up on the confession of a good enquiry is to be preserved pure and unspotted for the company of the kingdom of heaven. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Jerome: (Verse 11, 12.) But the king entered to see the guests, and he saw there a man who was not wearing a wedding garment. And he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you come in here without a wedding garment?’ But he was speechless. Those who were invited to the wedding feast had filled it up from the hedges and corners and streets and various places. But later, when the king came in to see the guests at his feast (that is, those who were resting in his trust, so that on the day of judgment he could visit the guests and discern the merits of each one), he found one who was not wearing a wedding garment. This one, all those who are associated with wickedness are understood. But the wedding garment, the commandments of the Lord, and the works that are fulfilled from the law and the Gospel, make the clothing of the new man. Therefore, if anyone is found at the time of judgment not having the wedding garment, that is, the garment of the heavenly ((Al. celestial)) man; but having a polluted garment, that is, the old man’s rags, he is immediately seized and it is said to him: Friend, how did you enter here? He calls his friend because he was invited to a wedding: he accuses him of impudence because he has stained the wedding with his dirty clothes. But he remained silent. For in that moment there will be no place for repentance, nor the opportunity to deny, when all the angels and the world itself are witnesses of sins. — Commentary on Matthew

Jerome ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Or; The marriage garment is the commandments of the Lord, and the works which are done under the Law and the Gospel, and form the clothing of the new man. Whoso among the Christian body shall be found in the day of judgment not to have these, is straightway condemned. He saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither, not having a wedding garment? He calls him friend, because he was invited to the wedding as being a friend by faith; but He charges him with want of manners in polluting by his filthy dress the elegance of the wedding entertainment.

For in that day there will be no room for blustering manner, nor power of denial, when all the Angels and the world itself are witnesses against the sinner. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom: Then in order that not even these should put confidence in their faith alone, He discourses unto them also concerning the judgment to be passed upon wicked actions; to them that have not yet believed, of coming unto Him by faith, and to them that have believed, of care with respect to their life. For the garment is life and practice.

And yet the calling was of grace; wherefore then doth He take a strict account? Because although to be called and to be cleansed was of grace, yet, when called and clothed in clean garments, to continue keeping them so, this is of the diligence of them that are called.

The being called was not of merit, but of grace. It was fit therefore to make a return for the grace, and not to show forth such great wickedness after the honor. “But I have not enjoyed,” one may say, “so much advantage as the Jews.” Nay, but thou hast enjoyed far greater benefits. For what things were being prepared for them throughout all their time, these thou hast received at once, not being worthy. Wherefore Paul also saith, “And that the Gentiles might glorify God for His mercy.” For what things were due to them, these thou hast received.

Wherefore also great is the punishment appointed for them that have been remiss. For as they did despite by not coming, so also thou by thus sitting down with a corrupt life. For to come in with filthy garments is this namely, to depart hence having one’s life impure; wherefore also he was speechless.

Seest thou how, although the fact was so manifest, He doth not punish at once, until he himself, who has sinned, has passed the sentence? For by having nothing to reply he condemned himself, and so is taken away to the unutterable torments. — Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 69

Origen of Alexandria ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): The marriage-feast of Christ and the Church is filled, when they who were found by the Apostles, being restored to God, sat down to the feast. But since it behoved that both bad and good should be called, not that the bad should continue bad, but that they should put off the garments unmeet for the wedding, and should put on the marriage garments, to wit, bowels of mercy and kindness, for this cause the King goes out, that He may see them set down before the supper is set before them, that they may be detained who have the wedding garment in which He is delighted, and that he may condemn the opposite.

But when He was come in, He found there one who had not put off his old behaviour; He saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment. He speaks of one only, because all, who after faith continue to serve that wickedness which they had before the faith, are but of one kind. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Pseudo-Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Or otherwise; Whenever God will try His Church, He enters into it that He may see the guests; and if He finds any one not having on the wedding garment, He enquires of him, How then were you made a Christian, if you neglect these works? Such a one Christ gives over to His ministers, that is, to seducing leaders, who bind his hands, that is, his works, and his feet, that is, the motions of his mind, and cast him into darkness, that is, into the errors of the Gentiles or the Jews, or into heresy. The nigher darkness is that of the Gentiles, for they have never heard the truth which they despise; the outer darkness is that of the Jews, who have heard but do not believe; the outermost is that of the heretics, who have heard and have learned. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Pseudo-Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): The King came in to see the guests; not as though there was any place where He is not; but where He will look to give judgment, there He is said to be present; where He will not, there He seems to be absent. The day of His coming to behold is the day of judgment, when He will visit Christians seated at the board of the Scriptures. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Tertullian: " Therefore they shall be “clothed in white raiment,” that is, in the bright beauty of the unwedded flesh. In the gospel even, “the wedding garment” may be regarded as the sanctity of the flesh. And so, when Isaiah tells us what sort of “fast the Lord hath chosen,” and subjoins a statement about the reward of good works, he says: “Then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thy garments, shall speedily arise; " where he has no thought of cloaks or stuff gowns, but means the rising of the flesh, which he declared the resurrection of, after its fall in death. — On the Resurrection of the Flesh

Tertullian: Therefore the apostate withal will recover his former “garment,” the robe of the Holy Spirit; and a renewal of the “ring,” the sign and seal of baptism; and Christ will again be “slaughtered; " and he will recline on that couch from which such as are unworthily clad are wont to be lifted by the torturers, and cast away into darkness, -much more such as have been stripped. — On Modesty

Matthew 22:12

Augustine of Hippo: Note that “the master of the house came in to look at the guests.” See, my beloved, the servants’ business was only to invite and bring in the good and bad. It is not said that the servants took notice of the guests, found among them a man who had no wedding garment and spoke to him. This is not written. The master of the house came in, the master saw him, the master of the house inspected, the master of the house hauled him off and threw him out. It is not fitting to pass over this quickly. But I have undertaken to establish another point, how that one man stands for many. “But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment; and he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?’ And he was speechless.” For the one who questioned him was one to whom he could give no deceptive reply. — SERMON 90.4

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (cont. Faust. xxii. 19.) Or, he goes to the feast without a garment, who goes seeking his own, and not the Bridegroom’s honour. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Gregory the Dialogist: Consider, I ask, whether you have come to this wedding feast with a wedding garment; examine your thoughts with anxious inquiry. Weigh your hearts concerning each matter: whether you now hold hatred against no one, whether you are not inflamed by any torch of envy against another’s good fortune, whether you do not hasten to harm anyone through hidden malice. Behold, the king enters the wedding and contemplates the condition of our heart, and to him whom he does not find clothed in charity, he immediately says in anger: “Friend, how did you enter here not having a wedding garment?” It is greatly to be wondered at, dearest brothers, that he both calls him friend and rejects him, as if he were saying to him more openly: “Friend and not friend; friend by faith, but not friend by works.” But he was struck silent, because—what cannot be said without groaning—in that strictness of the final rebuke, every argument of excuse ceases, since he who rebukes outwardly is the one who, as witness of conscience, accuses the soul within. But amid these things it must be known that whoever has this garment of virtue, but does not yet have it perfectly, ought not to despair of pardon at the entrance of the merciful king, because he himself also, granting us hope through the Psalmist, says: “Your eyes saw my imperfection, and in your book all shall be written.” — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 38

Origen of Alexandria ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): And forasmuch as he who is in sin, and puts not on the Lord Jesus Christ, has no excuse, it follows, But he was speechless. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Matthew 22:13

Apollinaris of Laodicea: The binding of their feet and hands puts a check on all their activity.… The outer darkness speaks of those things far removed from divine virtue and glory. — FRAGMENT 111

Augustine of Hippo: The garment that is required is in the heart, not on the body, for if it had been put on externally, it could not have been concealed even from the servants. But what is the wedding garment that must be put on? We learn it from these words, “May your priests be clothed with righteousness.” It is of that garment of righteousness that the apostle speaks when he says, “Because when we are clothed, we are not found naked.” In this way the unprepared man was discovered by the Lord of the feast, interrogated, bound and thrown out, one from among the many. — SERMON 90.4

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (de Trin. xi. 6.) The bonds of wicked and depraved desires are the chains which bind him who deserves to be cast out into outer darkness. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Gregory the Dialogist: But since we have said these few things for the consolation of one who has it but is weak, let us now turn our words to him who does not have it at all. It follows: “Then the king said to the servants: Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Then the feet and hands are bound by the strictness of the sentence, which now refused to be bound from wicked works through amendment of life. Or certainly, punishment then binds those whom guilt now bound from good works. For the feet that neglect to visit the sick, the hands that give nothing to the needy, are already bound from good work by their own will. Therefore, those who now are willingly bound in vice will then be unwillingly bound in punishment.

Moreover, it is well said that he is cast into the outer darkness. For we call the inner darkness the blindness of the heart, but the outer darkness the eternal night of damnation. Therefore, every condemned person is sent not into the inner but into the outer darkness, because he who here willingly fell into blindness of heart is there unwillingly cast into the night of damnation. Where there is said to be weeping and gnashing of teeth, so that there the teeth may gnash which here rejoiced in gluttony; there the eyes may weep which here were occupied with unlawful desires; so that each and every member may be subjected to punishment which here served in subjection to each and every vice. — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 38

Gregory the Dialogist ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (ubi sup.) The hands and feet are then bound by a severe sentence of judgment, which before refused to be bound from wicked actions by amendment of life. Or punishment binds them, whom sin had before bound from good works.

(ubi sup.) By inward darkness we express blindness, of heart; outer darkness signifies the everlasting night of damnation.

(ubi sup.) There shall gnash those teeth which here delighted in gluttony; there shall weep those eyes which here roamed in illicit desire; every member shall there have its peculiar punishment, which here was a slave to its peculiar vice. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Jerome: (Verse 13) Then the king said to the servants: Bind his hands and feet and send him into the outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. The hands and feet being bound, the weeping of the eyes, and the gnashing of teeth, signify the truth of the resurrection being tested. Or certainly, the hands and feet are bound so that they may not do evil and run to shed blood. In the weeping of the eyes and the gnashing of teeth, the intensity of the torments is shown metaphorically through the limbs of the body. — Commentary on Matthew

Jerome ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): By a metaphor taken from the body, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, is shown the greatness of the torments. The binding of the hands and feet also, and the weeping of eyes, and the gnashing of teeth, understand as proving the truth of the resurrection of the body. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom: Seest thou how, although the fact was so manifest, He doth not punish at once, until he himself, who has sinned, has passed the sentence? For by having nothing to reply he condemned himself, and so is taken away to the unutterable torments.

For do not now, on hearing of darkness, suppose he is punished by this, by sending into a place where there is no light only, but where there is also weeping and gnashing of teeth. And this He saith, indicating the intolerable pains.

Hear ye, as many as having partaken of the mysteries, and having been present at the marriage, clothe your souls with filthy deeds. Hear whence ye were called.

From the highway. Being what? Lame and halt in soul, which is a much more grievous thing than the mutilation of the body. Reverence the love of Him, who called you, and let no one continue to have filthy garments, but let each of you busy himself about the clothing of your soul.

Hear, ye women; hear, ye men; we need not these garments that are bespangled with gold, that adorn our outward parts, but those others, that adorn the inward. Whilst we have these former, it is difficult to put on those latter. It is not possible at the same time to deck both soul and body. It is not possible at the same time both to serve mammon, and to obey Christ as we ought.

Let us put off us therefore this grievous tyranny. For neither if any one were to adorn thy house by hanging it with golden curtains, and were to make thee sit there in rags, naked, wouldest thou endure it with meekness. But lo, now thou doest this to thyself, decking the house of thy soul, I mean the body, with curtains beyond number, but leaving the soul itself to sit in rags. Knowest thou not that the king ought to be adorned more than the city? so therefore while for the city hangings are prepared of linen, for the king there is a purple robe and a diadem. Even so do thou wrap the body with a much meaner dress, but the mind do thou clothe in purple, and put a crown on it, and set it on a high and conspicuous chariot. For now thou art doing the opposite, decking the city in various ways, but suffering the king, the mind, to be dragged bound after the brute passions.

Rememberest thou not, that thou art bidden to a marriage, and to God’s marriage? Considerest thou not how the soul that is bidden ought to enter into those chambers, clad, and decked with fringes of gold. — Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 69

Origen of Alexandria ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): He who has thus insulted the marriage feast is not only cast out therefrom, but besides by the King’s officers, who are set over his prisons, is chained up from that power of walking which he employed not to walk to any good thing, and that power of reaching forth his hand, wherewith he had fulfilled no work for any good; and is sentenced to a place whence all light is banished, which is called outer darkness. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Pseudo-Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Or, it points to the difference of punishment inflicted on sinners. Outer darkness being the deepest, inward darkness the lesser, as it were the outskirts of the place. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Tertullian: He affirms, lastly, that “the very hairs of our head are all numbered,” and in the affirmation He of course includes the promise of their safety; for if they were to be lost, where would be the use of having taken such a numerical care of them? Surely the only use lies (in this truth): “That of all which the Father hath given to me, I should lose none,” -not even a hair, as also not an eye nor a tooth. And yet whence shall come that “weeping and gnashing of teeth,” if not from eyes and teeth?-even at that time when the body shall be slain in hell, and thrust out into that outer darkness which shall be the suitable torment of the eyes. — On the Resurrection of the Flesh

Matthew 22:14

Augustine of Hippo: What is that wedding garment, then? This is the wedding garment: “The goal of this command is charity,” says the apostle, “which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.” This is the wedding garment. Not charity of any kind whatever—for very often they who are partakers together of an evil conscience seem to love one another. Those who commit robberies together, who love the destructive arts of witchcraft, and who go to the coliseum together and join together in the shout of the chariot race or the wild beast fight—these too in some sense very often may be said to love one another.But in these is no charity from a pure heart, a good conscience and a faith unfeigned. The wedding garment is charity such as this: “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels and have not charity, I have become like a sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal.” Suppose someone who speaks in tongues comes in and is asked, “How did you get in here without a wedding garment?” Suppose he answers, “But I have the gift of prophecy and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains.” But if he has no charity, he has nothing. Such may be the clothing of those who in fact lack the wedding garment. “Though,” he says, “I have all these and have not Christ, I am nothing.” Is then “the gift of prophecy” nothing? Is then “the knowledge of mysteries” nothing? It is not that these are nothing. But “I, if I have them, and have not charity, am nothing.” — SERMON 90.6

Gregory the Dialogist: But when one has been rejected, in whom clearly the whole body of the wicked is represented, a general judgment is immediately added, in which it is said: “For many are called, but few are chosen.” What we have heard is greatly to be feared, dearest brothers. Behold, we who have all now been called through faith come to the wedding feast of the heavenly king, we both believe and confess the mystery of his incarnation, we receive the banquet of the divine Word, but on the future day of judgment the king will enter. That we are called, we know; whether we are chosen, we do not know. Therefore it is necessary that each one of us humble himself in humility all the more because he does not know whether he is chosen. For some do not even begin good works, while others do not persist at all in the good works they have begun. One person is seen to lead nearly his whole life in wickedness, but near the end of his life he is called back from his wickedness through the lamentations of severe penance; another seems to lead a chosen life, and yet it happens that near the end of his life he turns aside to the wickedness of error. One begins good well and finishes better; another casts himself down in evil deeds from his earliest age, and in the same works is always finished worse than himself. Therefore let each one anxiously fear for himself all the more because he does not know what remains, for, what must often be said and retained without forgetfulness: “Many are called, but few are chosen.”

But because sometimes the examples of the faithful convert the minds of hearers more than the words of teachers, I wish to tell you something from nearby, which your hearts may hear with all the more fear, since it sounds to them from close at hand. For we are not speaking of things done long ago, but we recall those of which witnesses exist, and who report that they were present. My father had three sisters, who were all three sacred virgins: one was called Tharsilla, another Gordiana, another Aemiliana. All were converted with one ardor, consecrated at one and the same time, living under regular discipline, they led a common life in their own home. And when they had been for a long time in the same manner of life, Tharsilla and Aemiliana began to grow daily with increasing love for their Creator, and though they were here only in body, daily they passed in spirit to eternal things. But on the contrary, Gordiana’s spirit began to grow lukewarm from the warmth of inner love through daily losses, and little by little to return to the love of this world. Often Tharsilla used to say to her sister Aemiliana with great sighing: “I see that our sister Gordiana is not of our lot; for I perceive that she flows outward, and does not keep her heart to what she has professed.” They took care to correct her with gentle daily reproof, and to reform her from levity of manners to the gravity of her state. She would indeed suddenly assume an expression of gravity amid the words of correction, but when the hour of that correction had passed, the assumed gravity of respectability immediately passed as well, and she soon returned to frivolous words. She rejoiced in the company of lay girls, and any person who was not devoted to this world was very burdensome to her.

But one night to this Tharsilla, my aunt, who among her sisters had excelled in the honor and height of sanctity by virtue of continuous prayer, zealous mortification, singular abstinence, and gravity of life, as she herself related, my great-great-grandfather Felix, bishop of this Roman Church, appeared in a vision, and showed her a mansion of perpetual brightness, saying: “Come, for I receive you into this mansion of light.” She was immediately seized by a fever the following day and came to her final day. And just as when noble women and men are dying many gather to console their relatives, at the very hour of her departure many men and women stood around her bed, among whom my mother also was present; when suddenly she looked upward and saw Jesus coming, and with great earnestness began to cry out to those standing around, saying: “Depart, depart, Jesus comes.” And as she gazed upon him whom she saw, that holy soul was released from the flesh; and suddenly such a fragrance of wondrous odor was spread about that the sweetness itself showed to all that the author of sweetness had come there. And when her body was stripped to be washed as is the custom for the dead, it was found that hardened skin had grown on her elbows and knees, in the manner of camels, from long practice of prayer, and her dead flesh testified to what her living spirit had always done.

These things occurred before the day of the Lord’s Nativity. When that had passed, she soon appeared to her sister Aemiliana in a vision of the night, saying: “Come, so that since I spent the Lord’s Nativity without you, I may now spend the holy day of Theophany with you.” She, immediately anxious about the salvation of their sister Gordiana, replied: “And if I come alone, to whom do I leave our sister Gordiana?” To her, as she reported, Tharsilla said again with sad countenance: “Come, for our sister Gordiana has been reckoned among the laywomen.” This vision was soon followed by bodily illness, and just as had been said, before the day of the Lord’s appearing, with that illness growing worse, she died. But Gordiana, as soon as she found herself left alone, her wickedness increased, and what had previously lain hidden in the desire of thought, she afterward carried out in the effect of wicked action. For forgetful of the fear of the Lord, forgetful of modesty and reverence, forgetful of her consecration, she afterward took the steward of her fields as a husband. Behold, all three were first converted with one ardor, but they did not remain in one and the same devotion, because according to the Lord’s voice, “Many are called, but few are chosen.”

I have said these things therefore, lest anyone already established in good work attribute to himself the strength of good work, lest anyone trust in his own action, because even if he knows today what he is like, he still does not know what he will be tomorrow. Let no one therefore rejoice securely in his own works, since while still in the uncertainty of this life he does not know what end will follow.

But because I have related a matter which terrified you from divine severity, I also relate another thing from nearby which may console your terrified hearts from divine mercy; which however I remember that I already said in another sermon, but you were by no means present. Two years ago, a certain brother came to my monastery, which is situated near the Church of the blessed martyrs John and Paul, for the purpose of conversion. After being tested according to the rule for a long time, he was eventually admitted. His brother followed him to the monastery not out of zeal for conversion but out of carnal affection. Now the one who had come for conversion was very pleasing to the brothers; but his brother, on the contrary, was far different from his life and character. He lived in the monastery more from necessity than from choice. And though he was perverse in all his actions, he was patiently tolerated by everyone for the sake of his brother. For he was frivolous in speech, wicked in action, refined in clothing, unrefined in character; and he could not bear it if anyone spoke to him about adopting the religious life. Indeed, his way of life had become burdensome for all the brothers to witness, yet, as was said, he was tolerable to all for the sake of his brother. He greatly despised it if anyone spoke to him about correcting his depravity. He could not only not do good things, but could not even hear about them. He kept declaring, with oaths, anger, and mockery, that he would never embrace the religious life.

But in that plague which recently consumed a great part of the population of this city, he was struck in the groin and brought to the point of death. When he was breathing his last, the brothers gathered to protect his departure with their prayers. His body was already dead from the extremities, and vital warmth still lingered only in his chest. All the brothers began to pray more earnestly for him as they saw him departing so quickly. Suddenly, with the brothers standing by, he began to cry out with whatever effort he could and to interrupt their prayers, saying: “Withdraw, withdraw! Behold, I have been given to a dragon to be devoured, and because of your presence he cannot devour me. He has already swallowed my head in his mouth; give him room so that he may torment me no longer but do what he is going to do. If I have been given to him to be devoured, why do I suffer this delay because of you?” Then the brothers began to say to him: “What are you saying, brother? Make the sign of the holy cross upon yourself.” He answered as best he could, saying: “I want to sign myself, but I cannot, because I am pressed down by the dragon.” When the brothers heard this, they prostrated themselves on the ground and with tears began to pray more intensely for his deliverance. And behold, suddenly the sick man began to improve and to rejoice with whatever voice he had, saying: “Thanks be to God! Behold, the dragon who had taken me to devour me has fled; driven out by your prayers, he could not remain. Now intercede for my sins, because I am ready to be converted and to abandon the worldly life entirely.” Therefore this man, who, as was already said, had been dead from the extremities of his body, was preserved for life and was converted to God with his whole heart. He was disciplined by long and continuous afflictions in that same conversion, and died a few days ago when his bodily illness increased. As he was dying, he did not see the dragon, because he had conquered it through the transformation of his heart.

Behold, my brothers, Gordiana, whom I mentioned above, fell from the height of the religious habit to punishment, and this brother, about whom I have told these things, returned from the very moment of death to eternal life. Therefore no one knows what is being done concerning himself in the hidden judgments of God; for “many are called, but few are chosen.” Since, therefore, no one is certain about himself that he is chosen, it remains that all should tremble, all should fear concerning their conduct, all should rejoice only in divine mercy, and no one should presume upon his own strength. — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 38

Gregory the Dialogist ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (ubi sup.) For some never begin a good course, and some never continue in that good course which they have begun. Let each one’s care about himself be in proportion to his ignorance of what is yet to come. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Hilary of Poitiers ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): For to invite all without exception is a courtesy of public benevolence; but out of the invited or called, the election will be of worth, by distinction of merit. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Jerome: (Verse 14) For many are called, but few are chosen. This parable encompasses in a brief sentence: that in the work of the vineyard, in the building of the house, and in the wedding feast, the focus should be on the end rather than the beginning. — Commentary on Matthew

Jerome ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): And because in the marriage and supper the chief thing is the end and not the beginning, therefore He adds, For many are called, but few chosen. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom: What then? Shall we not go over unto blessedness so great? Shall we not come unto these angels; shall we not receive clean garments, and join in the ceremonies of this wedding feast; but shall we continue begging, in no respect in a better condition than the poor in the streets, or rather in a state far worse and more wretched? For much worse than these are they that are rich in evil ways, and it is better to beg than to spoil, for the one hath excuse, but the other brings punishment; and the beggar in no degree offends God, but this other both men and God; and undergoes the labors of rapine, but all the enjoyment thereof other men often reap.

Knowing then these things, let us lay aside all covetousness, and covet the things above, with great earnestness “taking the kingdom by force.” For it cannot be, it cannot be that any one who is remiss should enter therein.

But God grant that we all having become earnest, and watchful may attain thereto, by the grace and love towards man of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and might, world without end. Amen. — Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 69

Tertullian: “And therefore many are called, but few chosen.” It is not asked who is ready to follow the broad way, but who the narrow. — On Flight in Persecution

Matthew 22:15

Jerome: (Verse 15.) Then the Pharisees went and plotted how to trap him in his words. And they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that you are sincere, and teach the way of God in accordance with truth, and show deference to no one; for you do not regard people with partiality. Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?” Caesar Augustus had appointed Herod, the son of Antipater, a foreigner and a proselyte, as the king of the Jews, who would be in charge of collecting taxes and obeying the Roman rule. Therefore, the Pharisees sent their disciples along with the Herodians, that is, the soldiers of Herod, or those who were called Herodians by the Pharisees because they paid taxes to the Romans and were not devoted to divine worship. Some Latin speakers foolishly believed that the Herodians were those who believed Herod to be the Christ, but we never read this anywhere at all. — Commentary on Matthew

Jerome ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Lately under Cæsar Augustus, Judæa, which was subject to the Romans, had been made tributary when the census was held of the whole world; and there was a great division among the people, some saying that tribute ought to be paid to the Romans in return for the security and quiet which their arms maintained for all. The Pharisees on the other hand, self-satisfied in their own righteousness, contended that the people of God who paid tithes and gave first-fruits, and did all the other things which are written in the Law, ought not to be subject to human laws. But Augustus had given the Jews as king, Herod, son of Antipater, a foreigner and proselyte; he was to exact the tribute, yet to be subject to the Roman dominion. The Pharisees therefore send their disciples with the Herodians, that is, with Herod’s soldiers, or those whom the Pharisees in mockery called Herodians, because they paid tribute to the Romans, and were not devoted to the worship of God. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom: Then. When? When most of all they ought to have been moved to compunction, when they should have been amazed at His love to man, when they should have feared the things to come, when from the past they ought to have believed touching the future also. For indeed the things that had been said cried aloud in actual fulfillment I mean, that publicans and harlots believed, and prophets and righteous men were slain, and from these things they ought not to have gainsaid touching their own destruction, but even to believe and to be sobered.

But nevertheless not even so do their wicked acts cease, but travail and proceed further. And forasmuch as they could not lay hands on Him (for they feared the multitude), they took another way with the intention of bringing Him into danger, and making Him guilty of crimes against the state. — Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 70

Origen of Alexandria ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): From this place we learn by the Saviour’s example not to be allured by those things which have many voices for them, and thence seem famous, but to incline rather to those things which are spoken according to some method of reason. But we may also understand this place morally, that we ought to give some things to the body as a tribute to Cæsar, that is to say, necessaries. And such things as are congenial to our souls’ nature, that is, such things as lead to virtue, those we ought to offer to God. They then who without any moderation inculcate the law of God, and command us to have no care for the things required by the body, are the Pharisees, who forbad to give tribute to Cæsar, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created. (1 Tim. 4:3.) They, on the other hand, who allow too much indulgence to the body are the Herodians. But our Saviour would neither that virtue should be enfeebled by immoderate devotedness to the flesh; nor that our fleshly nature should be oppressed by our unremitting efforts after virtue. Or the prince of this world, that is, the Devil, is called Cæsar; and we cannot render to God the things that are God’s, unless we have first rendered to this prince all that is his, that is, have cast off all wickedness. This moreover let us learn from this place, that to those who tempt us we should neither be totally silent, nor yet answer openly, but with caution, to cut off all occasion from those who seek occasion in us, and teach without blame the things which may save those who are willing to be saved. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Pseudo-Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): As when one seeks to dam a stream of running water, as soon as one outlet is stopped up it makes another channel for itself; so the malevolence of the Jews, foiled on one hand, seeks itself out another course. Then went the Pharisees; went to the Herodians. Such as the plan was, such were the planners; They send unto Him their disciples with the Herodians. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Matthew 22:16

Jerome: (Verse 16.) Teacher, we know that you are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and you do not care about anyone’s opinion. For you do not show partiality to people. So tell us, what do you think? Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not? This is a clever and deceitful question, designed to trap the one being questioned and force him to fear God more than Caesar, and say that taxes should not be paid, so that the Herodians listening will immediately arrest him for sedition against the Roman ruler. — Commentary on Matthew

John Chrysostom: For they were now tributaries, their state having passed under the rule of the Romans. Forasmuch then as they saw that Theudas and Judas with their companies for this cause were put to death, as having prepared for a revolt, they were minded to bring Him too by these words into such a suspicion. Therefore they sent both their own disciples, and Herod’s soldiers, digging, as they thought, a precipice on either side, and in every direction setting the snare, so that, whatever He should say, they might lay hold of it; and if He should answer in favor of the Herodians, themselves might find fault with Him, but if in their favor, the others should accuse Him. And yet He had given the didrachmas, but they knew not that.

And in either way indeed they expected to lay hold of Him; but they desired rather that He should say something against the Herodians. Wherefore they send their disciples also to urge Him thereto by their presence, that they might deliver Him to the governor as an usurper. For this Luke also intimates and shows, by saying, that they asked also in the presence of the multitude, so that the testimony should be the stronger.

But the result was altogether opposite; for in a larger body of spectators they afforded the demonstration of their folly.

And see their flattery, and their hidden craft. “We know,” their words are, “that Thou art true.” How said ye then, “He is a deceiver,” and “deceiveth the people,” and “hath a devil,” and “is not of God?” how a little while before did ye devise to slay Him?

But they are at everything, whatsoever their craft against Him may suggest. For since, when a little before they had said in self will, “By what authority doest Thou these things?” they did not meet with an answer to the question, they look to puff Him up by their flattery, and to persuade Him to say something against the established laws, and opposed to the prevailing government.

Wherefore also they testify the truth unto Him, confessing what was really so, nevertheless, not with an upright mind, nor willingly; and add thereto, saying, “Thou carest not for any man.” See how plainly they are desiring to urge Him to these sayings, that would make Him both offend Herod, and incur the suspicion of being an usurper, as standing up against the laws, so that they might punish Him, as a mover of sedition, and an usurper. For in saying, “Thou carest not for any man,” and, “Thou regardest not the person of man,” they were hinting at Herod and Caesar, “Tell us therefore, what thinkest Thou?” Now ye honor Him, and esteem Him a Teacher, having despised and insulted Him oftentimes, when He was discoursing of the things that concern your salvation. Whence also they are become confederates.

And see their craftiness. They say not, Tell us what is good, what is expedient, what is lawful? but, “What thinkest Thou?” So much did they look to this one object, to betray Him, and to set Him at enmity with the rulers. And Mark declaring this, and more plainly discovering their self-will, and their murderous disposition, affirms them to have said, “Shall we give Caesar tribute, or shall we not give?” So that they were breathing anger, and travailing with a plot against Him, yet they feigned respect. — Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 70

Pseudo-Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): This is the commonest act of hypocrites, to commend those they would ruin. Thus, these break out into praises of Him, saying, Master, we know that Thou art true. They call Him Master, that, deceived by this show of honour and respect, He might in simplicity open all His heart to them, as seeking to gain them for disciples. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Severus of Antioch: Jesus’ opponents expect that one of two outcomes must result for them from Jesus’ response. They think they can show clearly that Jesus was acting wrongly against the law of Moses or against the power of the Romans. “Indeed, if he responds that it is necessary for us to pay the tribute,” the Pharisees will necessarily slander him alongside those who obey the Romans, saying, “He is guiding us outside the law of Moses away from the service of God. He is leading us to a foreign power and a foreign race.” That is indeed why Luke says, “They could not catch him at fault in his teaching before the people.” For it is publicly, that is to say, in the midst of the people, that they are questioning him, in order to set the people against him. And if he does not permit the tax to be paid, the Herodians will immediately lay their hands on him as on one who does not submit to the Roman authorities.Observe what is the passion of hypocrisy, how it has hidden all the hostility and the homicidal thought of the Jews beneath flattery’s vile veil, and how those who hate involuntarily honor as they attempt to cause a death. Indeed, those who were saying, “We are the disciples of Moses, but we don’t know where that one is from” call him “Master.” Those who were calling him a “deceiver” and “seducer” say, “We know that you are truthful.” Those who were doing their best to resist with jealousy and with ignorance, saying, “This man does not come from God, because he does not observe the Sabbath” and “he has a demon” witness that he teaches the way of God in all truth. — CATHEDRAL SERMONS, HOMILY 104

Matthew 22:17

Jerome ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): This smooth and treacherous enquiry was a kind of challenge to the answerer to fear God rather than Cæsar, and immediately they say, Tell us therefore, what thinkest Thou? Is it lawful to give tribute to Cæsar or not? Should He say tribute should not be paid, the Herodians would immediately accuse Him as a person disaffected to the Emperor. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Severus of Antioch: What then does the Wisdom and the Word of God do? Jesus allows all their passion to appear for all to see, without them taking back the words they were speaking to no purpose. And like a skillful physician, he then lances their passion with a deep incision, when he cut with the first word. “Why are you testing me, hypocrites?” And after having shown by a reproach that the skin of deceitful hypocrisy was dead, it is gently, and to speak this way, insensibly and tranquilly that he nipped like the web of a spider their inescapable question. Indeed, he said, “Show me a denarius for the tax.” And they presented a coin. And he said to them, “This image and this inscription concern whom?” They said to him, “Caesar.” Then he said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” “If the coin is Caesar’s,” Jesus says, “because that is what you have said—it is necessary to give it to Caesar himself.““What then! You permit us to serve a man, and not god? And how is this not a violation of the law?” It will amount to nothing. Indeed, the act of giving tax to Caesar does not prevent the service of God, although you would like to think so. This is why it is necessary for you to give to God equally what is God’s, in such a manner that if what is Caesar’s is kept for the service of God, it is necessary that God be preferred to him. If you remain a tributary of Caesar, you should attribute this to your sins, not to God. In the same way, Paul similarly applies himself to the same distinction. In sending a letter to the Romans he wrote, “Pay to the world, therefore, what is due to the world; to those you owe taxes, taxes; to those you owe tribute, tribute.” — CATHEDRAL SERMONS, HOMILY 104

Matthew 22:18

Jerome: (Verse 18.) But Jesus, knowing their wickedness, said: Why do you tempt me, hypocrites? The first virtue of a respondent is to understand the minds of those who ask, and to call not disciples, but tempters. Therefore, a hypocrite is called someone who is one thing and pretends to be another, that is, someone who acts one way in action and another in words. — Commentary on Matthew

Jerome ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): This is the first excellence of the answerer, that He discerns the thoughts of His examiners, and calls them not disciples but tempters. A hypocrite is he who is one thing, and feigns himself another. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom: What then saith He? “Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?” Seest thou how He talks with them with more than usual severity? For since their wickedness was now complete and manifest, He cuts the deeper, first confounding and silencing them, by publishing their secret thoughts, and making it manifest to all with what kind of intent they are coming unto Him.

And these things He did, repulsing their wickedness, so that they might not suffer hurt in attempting the same things again. And yet their words were full of much respect, for they both called Him Master, and bore witness to His truth, and that He was no respecter of persons; but being God, He was deceived by none of these things. Wherefore they also ought to have conjectured, that the rebuke was not the result of conjecture, but a sign of His knowing their secret thoughts. — Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 70

Pseudo-Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): He makes an answer not corresponding to the smooth tone of their address, but harsh, suitable to their cruel thoughts; for God answers men’s hearts, and not their words.

He therefore calls them hypocrites, that seeing Him to be a discerner of human hearts, they might not be hardy enough to carry through their design. Observe thus how the Pharisees spoke fair that they might destroy Him, but Jesus put them to shame that He might save them; for God’s wrath is more profitable to man, than man’s favour. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Matthew 22:19

Jerome: (Verse 19.) Show me the coin of the census. And they offered him a denarius. Wisdom always acts wisely, so that its accusers are mainly confuted by their own words. Show me, he said, the denarius, that is, the kind of coin which was valued at ten coins and had the image of Caesar. — Commentary on Matthew

Jerome ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Wisdom does ever wisely, and so the tempters are best confuted out of their own words; therefore it follows, show me the tribute money; and they brought unto Him a denarius. This was a coin reckoned equivalent to ten sesterces, and bore the image of Cæsar. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom: He stopped not, however, at the rebuke, although it was enough merely to have convicted them of their purpose, and to have put them to shame for their wickedness; but He stops not at this, but in another way closes their mouths; for, “Shew me,” saith He, “the tribute money.” And when they had shown it, as He ever doth, by their tongue He brings out the decision, and causes them to decide, that it is lawful; which was a clear and plain victory. So that when He asks, not from ignorance doth He ask, but because it is His will to cause them to be bound by their own answers. For when, on being asked, “Whose is the image?” they said, “Caesar’s;” He saith, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” For this is not to give but to render, and this He shows both by the image, and by the superscription. — Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 70

Matthew 22:20

Jerome: (Verse 20) And Jesus said to them, Whose image is this and superscription? Those who think that this question indicates ignorance on the part of the Savior, and not dispensation, let them learn from the present passage that Jesus could certainly know whose image was on the coin; but he asks in order to respond appropriately to their words. — Commentary on Matthew

Jerome ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Let those who think that the Saviour asks because He is ignorant, learn from the present place that it is not so, for at all events Jesus must have known whose image was on the coin. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Matthew 22:21

Desert Fathers: Some of the hermits once came to Joseph in Panephysis, to ask him if they should break their fast when they received brothers as guests, to celebrate their coming. Before they asked their question, Joseph said to them, ‘Think about what I am going to do today.’ He put two seats made of reeds tied in bundles, one on his left and the other on his right, and said, ‘Sit down.’ Then he went into his cell and put on rags; he came out, and walked past them, and then went in again and put on his ordinary clothes. The visitors were astonished, and asked him what it meant. He said to them, ‘Did you see what I did?’ They said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘Did the rags change me for the better?’ They said, ‘No.’ He said, ‘Did good clothes change me for the worse?’ They said, ‘No.’ He said, ‘So I am myself whether I wear good clothes or rags. I was not changed for better or worse because I changed my clothes. That is how we ought to be when we receive guests. It is written in the Holy Gospel, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matt. 22:21). When visitors come we should welcome them and celebrate with them. It is when we are by ourselves that we ought to be sorrowful.’ When they heard this they were amazed that he knew what they intended to ask him, and they praised God. — The Desert Fathers, Sayings of the Early Christian Monks

Hilary of Poitiers ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): For if there remain with us nothing that is Cæsar’s, we shall not be bound by the condition of rendering to him the things that are his; but if we lean upon what is his, if we avail ourselves of the lawful protection of his power, we cannot complain of it as any wrong if we are required to render to Cæsar the things of Cæsar. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Hilary of Poitiers ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): It behoves us also to render unto God the things that are His, namely, body, soul, and will. For Cæsar’s coin is in the gold, in which His image was pourtrayed, that is, God’s coin, on which the Divine image is stamped; give therefore your money to Cæsar, but preserve a conscience void of offence for God. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Jerome: (Verse 21) They said to Him, ‘Caesar’s.’ Then He said to them, ‘Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.’ We cannot consider Augustus as Caesar, but Tiberius is understood to be his stepson, who succeeded him and under whom our Lord suffered. However, all the Roman emperors, from the first Caesar, who seized power, have been called Caesars. Furthermore, what He says, ‘Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,’ that is, the tribute and money, and to God the things that are God’s, let us understand as tithes, first fruits, offerings, and sacrifices, just as He Himself paid taxes for Himself and Peter (Matthew 17). And He rendered to God the things that are God’s, doing the will of the Father (John 6). — Commentary on Matthew

Jerome ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): They say unto Him, Cæsar’s; not Augustus, but Tiberius, under whom also the Lord suffered. All the Roman Emperors were called Cæsar, from Caius Cæsar who first seized the chief power. Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s; i. e. the coin, tribute, or money.

That is, tithes, first-fruits, oblation, and victims; as the Lord Himself rendered to Cæsar tribute, both for Himself and for Peter; and also rendered unto God the things that are God’s in doing the will of His Father. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom: Then that they might not say, Thou art subjecting us to men, He added, “And unto God the things that are God’s.” For it is possible both to fulfill to men their claims and to give unto God the things that are due to God from us. Wherefore Paul also saith, “Render unto all their dues; tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear.”

But thou, when thou hearest, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s,” know that He is speaking only of those things, which are no detriment to godliness; since if it be any such thing as this, such a thing is no longer Caesar’s tribute, but the devil’s. — Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 70

Tertullian: Idolatry is condemned, not on account of the persons which are set up for worship, but on account of those its observances, which pertain to demons. “The things which are Caesar’s are to be rendered to Caesar.” It is enough that He set in apposition thereto, “and to God the things which are God’s. — On Idolatry

Tertullian: Will it be “Ye cannot serve God and mammon” to devote your energies to mammon, and to depart from God? Will it be “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things which are God’s,” not only not to render the human being to God, but even to take the denarius from Caesar? Is the laurel of the triumph made of leaves, or of corpses? Is it adorned with ribbons, or with tombs? Is it bedewed with ointments, or with the tears of wives and mothers? It may be of some Christians too; for Christ is also among the barbarians. — De Corona

Tertullian: And as a matter of course, he is already a king-although he even now owes to Caesar the things which are Caesar’s. — On the Resurrection of the Flesh

Tertullian: Then he goes on also to show how he wishes you to be subject to the powers, bidding you pay “tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom,” that is, the things which are Caesar’s to Caesar, and the things which are God’s to God; but man is the property of God alone. — Scorpiace

Tertullian: Since, therefore, Caesar has imposed nothing on us after this fashion of a tributary sect-in fact, such an imposition never can be made,-with Antichrist now close at hand, and gaping for the blood, not for the money of Christians-how can it be pointed out to me that there is the command, “Render to Caesar the things which are Caesar’s? " A soldier, be he an informer or an enemy, extorts money from me by threats, exacting nothing on Caesar’s behalf; nay, doing the very opposite, when for a bribe he lets me go-Christian as I am, and by the laws of man a criminal. — On Flight in Persecution

Matthew 22:22

Jerome: (Verse 22) And those who listened were amazed. They, who should have believed in such wisdom, were amazed that their cunning for plotting had found no opportunity.

And having left him, they departed. Bringing back unfaithfulness along with a miracle. — Commentary on Matthew

Jerome ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): They who ought to have believed did but wonder at His great wisdom, that their craft had found no means for ensnaring Him: whence it follows, When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left Him, and went their way, carrying away their unbelief and wonder together. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom: What then? did they believe? By no means, but they “left Him, and went their way;” and after them, “came to Him the Sadducees.”

O folly! When the others had been put to silence, these made the attack, when they ought to have been the more backward. But such is the nature of rashness, shameless, and importunate, and attempting things impossible. Therefore the evangelist also, amazed at their folly, signified this very thing, by saying, “On that day came to Him.” On that day. On what day? In which He had convicted their craftiness, and put them to shame. But who are these? A sect of the Jews different from the Pharisees, and much worse than they, who said, “that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit.” For these were some of a grosser sort, and eager after the things of the body. For there were many sects even amongst the Jews. Wherefore Paul also saith, “I am a Pharisee, of the strictest sect amongst us.”

And they say nothing indeed directly about a resurrection; but they feign a story, and make up a case, which, as I suppose, never so much as had an existence; thinking to drive Him to perplexity, and desiring to overthrow both things, both the existence of a resurrection, and of such a resurrection. — Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 70

John Chrysostom: When they heard these things, their mouths were stopped, and they “marvelled” at His wisdom. Ought they not then to have believed, ought they not to have been amazed. For indeed, He gave them proof of His Godhead, by revealing the secrets of their hearts, and with gentleness did He silence them. — Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 70

Matthew 22:23

Gregory the Dialogist ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Mor. xiv. 55.) But there are who observing that the spirit is loosed from the body, that the flesh is turned to corruption, that the corruption is reduced to dust, and that the dust again is resolved into the elements, so as to be unseen by human eyes, despair of the possibility of a resurrection, and while they look upon the dry bones, doubt that they can be clothed with flesh, and be quickened anew to life. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Jerome: (Verse 23) On that day the Sadducees approached him, who say that there is no resurrection. There were two sects among the Jews: the Pharisees and the Sadducees. The Pharisees prioritized the righteousness of traditions and observances, which they call ‘second law’, and this is why they were referred to as ‘separated’ from the people. However, the Sadducees, who are referred to as ‘just’, claimed for themselves what they were not: while the former believed in the resurrection of the body and soul and confessed angels and spirits, the Sadducees denied all of these (according to the Acts of the Apostles). These are two houses, of which Isaiah teaches more clearly that they are causes of offense in the stumbling block (Isaiah 8). — Commentary on Matthew

Jerome ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): There were two sects among the Jews, the Pharisees and the Sadducees; the Pharisees pretended to the righteousness of traditions and observances, whence they were called by the people ‘separate.’ The Sadducees (the word is interpreted ‘righteous’) also passed themselves for what they were not; and whereas the first believed the resurrection of body and soul, and confessed both Angel and spirit, these, according to the Acts of the Apostles, denied them all, as it is here also said, Who say that there is no resurrection. (Acts 23:8.) — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Jerome: I say nothing of the Jewish heretics who before the coming of Christ destroyed the law delivered to them: of Dositheus, the leader of the Samaritans who rejected the prophets: of the Sadducees who sprang from his root and denied even the resurrection of the flesh: of the Pharisees who separated themselves from the Jews on account of certain superfluous observances, and took their name from the fact of their dissent: of the Herodians who accepted Herod as the Christ. — The Dialogue Against the Luciferians, Section 23

Origen of Alexandria ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): They not only denied the resurrection of the body, but took away the immortality of the soul. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Origen of Alexandria: Now it is not one of the prophets merely who predicted the advent of Christ. But although the Samaritans and Sadducees, who receive the books of Moses alone, would say that there were contained in them predictions regarding Christ, yet certainly not in Jerusalem, which is not even mentioned in the times of Moses, was the prophecy uttered. — Against Celsus, Book 1

Pseudo-Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): As soon as the Pharisees were gone, came the Sadducees; perhaps with like intent, for there was a strife among them who should be the first to seize Him. Or if by argument they should not be able to overcome Him, they might at least by perseverance wear out His understanding.

For the Devil finding himself unable to crush utterly the religion of God, brought in the sect of the Sadducees denying the resurrection of the dead, thus breaking down all purpose of a righteous life, for who is there would endure a daily struggle against himself, unless he looked to the hope of the resurrection?

But the Sadducees thought they had now discovered a most convincing argument in favour of their error. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Pseudo-Tertullian: For of Judaism’s heretics I am silent - Dositheus the Samaritan, I mean, who was the first who had the hardihood to repudiate the prophets, on the ground that they had not spoken under inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Of the Sadducees I am silent, who, springing from the root of this error, had the hardihood to adjoin to this heresy the denial likewise of the resurrection of the flesh. — Against all Heresies 1.1

Tertullian: They who are so anxious to shake that belief in the resurrection which was firmly settled before the appearance of our modern Sadducees, as even to deny that the expectation thereof has any relation whatever to the flesh, have great cause for besetting the flesh of Christ also with doubtful questions, as if it either had no existence at all, or possessed a nature altogether different from human flesh. — On the Flesh of Christ

Tertullian: Their specious inquiry concerned the flesh, whether or not it would be subject to marriage after the resurrection; and they assumed the case of a woman who had married seven brothers, so that it was a doubtful point to which of them she should be restored. Now, let the purport both of the question and the answer be kept steadily in view, and the discussion is settled at once. — On the Resurrection of the Flesh

Tertullian: Therefore no solicitude arising from carnal jealousy will, in the day of the resurrection, even in the case of her whom they chose to represent as having been married to seven brothers successively, wound any one of her so many husbands; nor is any (husband) awaiting her to put her to confusion. The question raised by the Sadducees has yielded to the Lord’s sentence. — To His Wife Book I

Tertullian: If, then, forasmuch as there is in the law a precept that a man is to take in marriage the wife of his brother if he have died without children, for the purpose of raising up seed to his brother; and this may happen repeatedly to the same person, according to that crafty question of the Sadducees; men for that reason think that frequency of marriage is permitted in other cases as well: it will be their duty to understand first the reason of the precept itself; and thus they will come to know that that reason, now ceasing, is among those parts of the law which have been cancelled. — On Monogamy

Matthew 22:24

Jerome: (Vers. 24 seqq.) And they asked him, saying: Master, Moses said: If any man die, having a wife, and he have no children, that his brother should take her to wife, and raise up seed to his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, having taken a wife, died; and, not having issue, left his wife to his brother. In like manner the second and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Those who did not believe in the resurrection of the body and thought that the soul perished with the body rightly invent such a fable, which demonstrates their madness in asserting the resurrection of the dead. However, it is possible that this might actually happen in their nation at some point. — Commentary on Matthew

Jerome ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): As they disbelieved the resurrection of the body, and supposed that the soul perished with the body, they accordingly invent a fable to display the fondness of the belief of a resurrection. Thus they put forward a base fiction to overthrow the verity of the resurrection. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom: And again, these too attack Him with a show of moderation, saying, “Master, Moses said, If a man die, not having children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased; and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother. Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife shall she be of the seven?”

See Him answering these like a teacher. For though out of craft they came unto Him, yet was their question rather one of ignorance. Therefore neither doth He say unto them, “Ye hypocrites.”

Moreover, in order that He might not blame, saying, “Wherefore had seven one wife?” they add the authority of Moses; although, as I have said before, it was a fiction, in my judgment at least. For the third would not have taken her, when he saw the two bridegrooms dead; or if the third, yet not the fourth or the fifth; and if even these, much more the sixth or the seventh would not have come unto the woman, but have shrunk from her. For such is the nature of the Jews. For if now many have this feeling, much more then had they; when at least, even without this, they often avoided marrying in this way, and that when the law was constraining them. Thus, at any rate, Ruth, that Moabitish woman, was thrust off to him that was further off from her kindred; and Tamar too was thus compelled to obtain, by stealth, seed from her husband’s kinsman.

And wherefore did they not feign two or three, but seven? In order the more abundantly to bring derision, as they thought, upon the resurrection. Wherefore they further say, “they all had her,” as driving Him into some difficulty. — Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 70

John Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (non occ.) For because death to the Jews, who did all things for the present life, seemed an unmixed evil, Moses ordered that the wife of one who died without sons should be given to his brother, that a son might be born to the dead man by his brother, and his name should not perish, which was some alleviation of death. And none other but a brother or relation was commanded to take the wife of the dead; otherwise the child born would not have been considered the son of the dead; and also because a stranger could have no concern in establishing the house of him that was dead, as a brother whose kindred obliged him thereto. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Matthew 22:25

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Quæst. Ev. i, 32.) Mystically; by these seven brethren are understood the wicked, who could not bring forth the fruit of righteousness in the earth through all the seven ages of the world, during which this earth has being, for afterwards this earth also shall pass away, through which all those seven passed away unfruitful. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Matthew 22:28

Jerome: (Verse 28) Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife will she be? For they all had her. They oppose the absurdity of the story in order to deny the truth of the resurrection. — Commentary on Matthew

Jerome ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): They conclude with asking, in the resurrection whose shall she be? Though it might be that such an instance might really occur in their nation. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Matthew 22:29

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Enchir. 88.) But that earthy matter of which the flesh of men is made perishes not before God; but into whatsoever dust or ashes reduced, into whatsoever gases or vapours dispersed, into whatsoever other bodies incorporated, though resolved into the elements, though become the food or part of the flesh of animals or men, yet is it in a moment of time restored to that human soul, which at the first quickened it that it became man, lived and grew. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (cont. Faust. xvi. 24.) Seasonably may we confute the Manichæans by this same passage by which the Sadducees were then confuted, for they too though in another manner deny the resurrection. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Jerome: (Verse 29.) But Jesus, answering, said to them: You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. Therefore, they err because they do not know the Scriptures, and because they are ignorant of the Scriptures, they consequently do not know the power of God, that is, Christ, who is the power of God and the wisdom of God (I Cor. 1). — Commentary on Matthew

Jerome ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): They therefore err because they know not the Scriptures; and because they know not the power of God. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom: For what saith He? “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God.” For since, as if they knew them, they put forward Moses and the law, He shows that this question is that of men very ignorant of the Scriptures. For hence also arose their tempting Him, from their being ignorant of the Scriptures, and from their not knowing the power of God as they ought.

“For what marvel then is it,” He saith, “if ye tempt me, who am as yet unknown to you, when at least ye know not so much as the power of God, of which ye have had so much experience, and neither from common sense nor from the Scriptures have become acquainted with it;” if indeed even common sense causes us to know this, that to God all things are possible. And in the first place He answers to the question asked. For since this was the cause for their not believing a resurrection, that they think the order of things is like this, He cures the cause, then the symptom also (for thence arose the disease too), and shows the manner of the resurrection. — Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 70

John Chrysostom: What then saith Christ? He replies unto both, as taking His stand not against the words, but the purpose, and on every occasion revealing the secrets of their hearts; and at one time exposing them, at another time leaving the refutation of them that question Him to their conscience. See, at any rate here, how He proves both points, as well that there will be a resurrection, as that it will not be such a resurrection as they suspect. — Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 70

Origen of Alexandria ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Two (1 Cor. 1:24.) things there are which He says they know not, the Scriptures and the power of God, by which is brought to pass the resurrection, and the new life in it. Or by the power of God, which the Lord here convicts the Sadducees that they knew not, He intends Himself, who was the power of God; and Him they knew not, as not knowing the Scriptures which spoke of Him; and thence also they believed not the resurrection, which He should effect. But it is asked when the Saviour says, Ye do err not knowing the Scriptures, if He means that this text, They neither marry, nor are given in marriage, is in some Scripture, though it is not read in the Old Testament? We say that these very words are indeed not found, but that the truth is in a mystery implied in the moral sense of Scripture; the Law, which is a shadow of good things to come, whenever it speaks of husbands and wives, speaks chiefly of spiritual wedlock. But neither this do I find any where spoken in Scripture that the Saints shall be after their departure as the Angels of God, unless one will understand this also to be inferred morally; as where it is said, And thou shalt go to thy fathers, (Gen. 15:15.) and He was gathered to his people. (Gen. 25:8.) Or one may say; He blamed them that they read not the other Scriptures which are besides the Law, and therefore they erred. Another says, That they knew not the Scriptures of the Mosaic Law, for this reason, that they did not sift their divine sense. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Origen of Alexandria: But someone might inquire if [passage], ‘You are in error, not knowing the Scriptures,’ which is said to the Sadducees who did not recognize any other Scripture than the Law, has reference to other Scriptures than the Law of Moses. This person, therefore, might say in respect of this same passage that the Sadducees are so called because in not recognizing the Scriptures which come after the Law they are in error since they do not know them. Another person might say: it is sufficient for the Sadducees to be reproved of error for not understanding the Scriptures according to Moses such that they apprehend the divine meaning in them. To be sure, however, he claims that the Sadducees do not know two things: one, the Scriptures, and the other, the power of God, which is the power by which those of the resurrection and the new life in it comes to be. — Commentary on Matthew, Book 17, Section 35

Pseudo-Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Or, when He says, In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, He referred to what He had said, Ye know not the power of God; but when the proceeded, I am the God of Abraham, &c. to that Ye know not the Scriptures. And thus ought we to do; to cavillers first to set forth Scripture authority on any question, and then to show the grounds of reason; but to those who ask out of ignorance to show first the reason, and then the authority. For cavillers ought to be refuted, enquirers taught. To these then who put their question in ignorance, the first shows the reason, saying, In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Pseudo-Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Wisely does He first convict them of folly, in that they did not read; and afterwards of ignorance, in that they did not know God. For of diligence in reading springs knowledge of God, but ignorance is the offspring of neglect. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Rabanus Maurus ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): These things which are spoken concerning the conditions of the resurrection He spoke in answer to their enquiry, but of the resurrection itself He replies aptly against their unbelief. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Tertullian: God; who have restored the honour of their flesh, and who have already dedicated themselves as sons of that (future) age, by slaying in themselves the concupiscence of lust, and that whole (propensity) which could not be admitted within Paradise! Whence it is presumable that such as shall wish to be received within Paradise, ought at last to begin to cease from that thing from which Paradise is intact. — On Exhortation to Chastity

Matthew 22:30

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (de Civ. Dei, xxii. 17.) To me they seem to think most justly, who doubt not that both sexes shall rise again. For there shall be no desire which is the cause of confusion, for before they had sinned they were naked; and that nature which they then had shall be preserved, which was quit both of conception and of child-birth. Also the members of the woman shall not be adapted to their former use, but framed for a new beauty, one by which the beholder is not allured to lust, which shall not then be, but God’s wisdom and mercy shall be praised, which made that to be which was not, and delivered from corruption that which was made. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cosmas Indicopleustes: For God divided the one place which extends from the earth to the higher heaven by interposing in the middle the second heaven, and thus made two places; and to this mortal and mutable state he assigned the lower place, and to the immortal and immutable state the higher, which is called also the Kingdom of Heaven, and about which the Lord Christ speaks thus in the Gospel of Matthew: For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven; — The Christian Topography, Book 3

Cosmas Indicopleustes: when the Lord in arguing with the Pharisees and Sadducees concerning the resurrection he speaks thus: For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. — The Christian Topography, Book 5

Cosmas Indicopleustes: the Jews acknowledge a resurrection for men, but say that we shall live upon the earth and eat and drink and marry and be given in marriage, as, in the Gospels, the Sadducees proposed a question to the Lord, saying: In the resurrection of which of the seven shall she be the wife? These the Lord very summarily convicted of error and of not knowing divine scripture, in which there is the power of God, saying to them: For, in the resurrection, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. It is therefore proved against these, both from what is written and from the figure of the world prepared from its foundation, that the upper place was not made without occasion—but that there is a second heavenly state prepared from the foundation of the world. — The Christian Topography, Book 6

Hilary of Poitiers ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): It had been enough to have cut off this opinion of the Sadducees of sensual enjoyment, that where the function ceased, the empty pleasure of the body accompanying it ceased also; but He adds, But are as the Angels of God in heaven. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Hilary of Poitiers ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): The same cavil that the Sadducees here offer respecting marriage is renewed by many who ask in what form the female sex shall rise again. But what the authority of Scripture leads us to think concerning the Angels, so must we suppose that it will be with women in the resurrection of our species. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Jerome: (Verse 30) For in the resurrection neither do they marry, nor are they given in marriage; but they are as the angels of God in heaven. The Latin custom does not correspond to the Greek idiom. For to marry is properly said of women, and to take wives of men; but let us simply understand the statement, that to marry is written of men, and to be given in marriage of women. If in the resurrection they do not marry, nor are they given in marriage, then the bodies that are able to marry and be given in marriage will rise again. For no one indeed says about a stone and a tree, and these things which do not have reproductive organs, that they do not marry, nor are they married; but about those things which can marry, they do not marry in a different way. But what is brought forth: But they are like the angels of God in heaven. A spiritual conversation is promised. — Commentary on Matthew

Jerome ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): In these words the Latin language cannot follow the Greek idiom. For the Latin word ’nubere’ is correctly said only of the woman. But we must take it so as to understand marry of men, to be given in marriage of women.

This that is added, But are as the Angels of God in heaven, is an assurance that our conversation in heaven shall be spiritual.

For none could say of a stone and a tree or inanimate things, that they shall not marry nor be given in marriage, but of such things only as having capacity for marriage, shall yet in a sort not marry. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom: “For in the resurrection,” saith He, “they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as angels of God in Heaven.” But Luke saith, “As Sons of God.”

If then they marry not, the question is vain. But not because they do not marry, therefore are they angels, but because they are as angels, therefore they do not marry. By this He removed many other difficulties also, all which things Paul intimated by one word, saying, “For the fashion of this world passeth away.”

And by these words He declared how great a thing the resurrection is; and that moreover there is a resurrection, He proves. And indeed this too was demonstrated at the same time by what He had said, nevertheless over and above He adds again to His word by what He saith now. For neither at their question only did He stop, but at their thought. Thus when they are not dealing with great craft, but are asking in ignorance, He teaches even over and above, but when it is of wickedness only, not even to their question doth He answer. — Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 70

Origen of Alexandria: Our Savior does not explain the meaning of the passage from Moses’ law, rejecting them as unworthy of the knowledge of such a great mystery. He only represents matters in the simplest way as he speaks and teaches from the divine Scriptures concerning the resurrection of the dead. He teaches that there is no marriage in heaven but that those who are risen from the dead are like the angels in heaven. And, just as the angels in heaven neither marry nor are given in marriage, so he says it is with those who are risen from the dead. But I think he means that only those who are considered worthy of the resurrection of the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage as the angels in heaven. Furthermore, their “humble” bodies are changed to become like the bodies of the angels, ethereal and brilliant. — COMMENTARY ON Matthew 17.30

Pseudo-Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): In this life that we may die, therefore are we born; and we marry to the end that that which death consumes, birth may replenish; therefore where the law of death is taken away, the cause of birth is taken away likewise.

It should be noted, that when He spoke of fasting, alms, and other spiritual virtues, He did not bring in the comparison of Angels, but only here where He speaks of the ceasing of marriage. For as all acts of the flesh are animal acts, but this of lust especially so; so all the virtues are angelic acts, but especially chastity, by which our nature is bound to the other virtues. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (de Divin. Nom. i.) For then when we shall be incorruptible and immortal, by the visible presence of God Himself we shall be filled with most chaste contemplations, and shall share the gift of light to the understanding in our impassible and immaterial soul after the fashion of the exalted souls in heaven; on which account it is said that we shall be equal to the Angels. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Tertullian: The ogdoad, or eightfold number, therefore, is not concerned in our formation; for in the time it represents there will be no more marriage. We have already demonstrated the conjunction of the body and the soul, from the concretion of their very seminations to the complete formation of the f£tus. — A Treatise on the Soul

Tertullian: “For this corruptible”-and as he spake, the apostle seemingly pointed to his own flesh-“must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality,” in order, indeed, that it may be rendered a fit substance for the kingdom of God. “For we shall be like the angels.” This will be the perfect change of our flesh-only after its resurrection. Now if, on the contrary, there is to be no flesh, how then shall it put on incorruption and immortality? Having then become something else by its change, it will obtain the kingdom of God, no longer the (old) flesh and blood, but the body which God shall have given it. — Against Marcion Book V

Tertullian: To this discussion, however, our Lord’s declaration puts an effectual end: “They shall be,” says He, “equal unto the angels.” As by not marrying, because of not dying, so, of course, by not having to yield to any like necessity of our bodily state; even as the angels, too, sometimes were “equal unto” men, by eating and drinking, and submitting their feet to the washing of the bath-having clothed themselves in human guise, without the loss of their own intrinsic nature. If therefore angels, when they became as men, submitted in their own unaltered substance of spirit to be treated as if they were flesh, why shall not men in like manner, when they become “equal unto the angels,” undergo in their unchanged substance of flesh the treatment of spiritual beings, no more exposed to the usual solicitations of the flesh in their angelic garb, than were the angels once to those of the spirit when encompassed in human form? We shall not therefore cease to continue in the flesh, because we cease to be importuned by the usual wants of the flesh; just as the angels ceased not therefore to remain in their spiritual substance, because of the suspension of their spiritual incidents. Lastly, Christ said not, “They shall be angels,” in order not to repeal their existence as men; but He said, “They shall be equal unto the angels,” that He might preserve their humanity unimpaired. When He ascribed an angelic likeness to the flesh, He took not from it its proper substance. — On the Resurrection of the Flesh

Tertullian: With what consistency do we mount that (future) judgment-seat to pronounce sentence against those whose gifts we (now) seek after? For you too, (women as you are, ) have the self-same angelic nature promised as your reward, the self-same sex as men: the self-same advancement to the dignity of judging, does (the Lord) promise you. — On the Apparel of Women Book I

Tertullian: “But if ‘in that age they will neither marry nor be given in marriage, but will be equal to angels,’ is not the fact that there will be no restitution of the conjugal relation a reason why we shall not be bound to our departed consorts? “Nay, but the more shall we be bound (to them), because we are destined to a better estate-destined (as we are) to rise to a spiritual consortship, to recognise as well our own selves as them who are ours. Else how shall we sing thanks to God to eternity, if there shall remain in us no sense and memory of this debt; if we shall be reformed in substance, not in consciousness? Consequently, we who shall be with God shall be together; since we shall all be with the one God-albeit the wages be various, albeit there be “many mansions”, in the house of the same Father having laboured for the “one penny” of the self-same hire, that is, of eternal life; in which (eternal life) God will still less separate them whom He has conjoined, than in this lesser life He forbids them to be separated. — On Monogamy

Matthew 22:31

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (in Joan. Tr. xi. 8.) God is therefore called in particular The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, because in these three are expressed all the modes of begetting the sons of God. For God begets most times of a good preacher a good son, and of a bad preacher a bad son. This is signified in Abraham, who of a free woman had a believing son, and of a bondslave an unbelieving son. Sometimes indeed of a good preacher He begets both good and bad sons, which is signified in Isaac, who of the same free woman begot one good and the other bad. And sometimes He begets good sons both of good and bad preachers; which is signified in Jacob, who begot good sons both of free women and of bondmaids. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Jerome: (Vers. 31 seqq.) But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken by God, saying to you: I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob: God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. And when the crowds heard this, they were amazed at his teaching. To prove the truth of the resurrection, he could have used many other more obvious examples, among which is: The dead will be raised up, and those who are in the graves will rise again (Isaiah 26:19). And in another place: Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake: some unto everlasting life, and others unto shame and everlasting contempt (Dan. XII, 2). Therefore, it is asked what the Lord intended by this testimony, which seems ambiguous or not sufficiently related to the truth of the resurrection: I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; and as if having proclaimed this, he proved what he wanted by immediately adding: God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. Those who also surrounded the turmoil, knowing the mystery, were amazed at his teaching and answers. We have already said above that the Sadducees, confessing neither angel, nor spirit, nor resurrection of bodies, also preached the destruction of souls. These accepted only the five books of Moses, rejecting the prophecies of the prophets. Therefore, it was foolish to present testimonies whose authority they did not follow. Furthermore, in order to prove the eternal nature of souls, he presents the example of Moses: ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’ (Exodus 3:6). And immediately he deduces: ‘God is not the God of the dead, but of the living,’ so that when he has proven that souls continue to exist after death (for it could not be that God would be their God if they did not exist at all), the resurrection of the bodies, which have carried out good or evil deeds along with the souls, would consequently be introduced. In the final part of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, the apostle Paul expands on this topic more fully (1 Cor. XV). — Commentary on Matthew

Jerome ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): In proof of the resurrection there were many plainer passages which He might have cited; among others that of Isaiah, The dead shall be raised; they that are in the tombs shall rise again: (Is. 26:19. juxta LXX.) and in another place, Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake. (Dan. 12:2.) It is enquired therefore why the Lord should have chosen this testimony which seems ambiguous, and not sufficiently belonging to the truth of the resurrection; and as if by this He had proved the point adds, He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. We have said above that the Sadducees confessed neither Angel, nor spirit, nor resurrection of the body, and taught also the death of the soul. But they also received only the five books of Moses, rejecting the Prophets. It would have been foolish therefore to have brought forward testimonies whose authority they did not admit. To prove the immortality of souls therefore, He brings forward an instance out of Moses, I am the God of Abraham, &c. and then straight subjoins, He is not the God of the dead, but of the living; so that having established that souls abide after death, (forasmuch as God could not be the God of those who had no existence any where,) there might fitly come in the resurrection of bodies which had together with their souls done good or evil. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom: And again by Moses doth He stop their mouths, since they too had brought forward Moses; and He saith, “But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” Not of them that are not His meaning is, and that are utterly blotted out, and are to rise no more. For He said not, I was, but, I am; of them that are, and them that live. For like as Adam, although he lived on the day that he ate of the tree, died in the sentence: even so also these, although they had died, lived in the promise of the resurrection.

How then doth He say elsewhere, “That He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living?” But this is not contrary to that. For here He speaks of the dead, who are also themselves to live. And moreover too, “I am the God of Abraham,” is another thing from, “That He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.” He knew of another death too, concerning which He saith, “Let the dead bury their dead.” — Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 70

Matthew 22:32

Hilary of Poitiers ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): It should be further considered, that this was said to Moses at a time when those holy Patriarchs had gone to their rest. They therefore of whom He was the God were in being; for they could have had nothing, if they had not been in being; for in the nature of things that, of which somewhat else is, must have itself a being; so they who have a God must themselves be alive, since God is eternal, and it is not possible that that which is dead should have that which is eternal. How then shall it be affirmed that those do not, and shall not hereafter, exist, of whom Eternity itself has said that He is? — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Jerome: (Vers. 31 seqq.) But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken by God, saying to you: I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob: God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. And when the crowds heard this, they were amazed at his teaching. To prove the truth of the resurrection, he could have used many other more obvious examples, among which is: The dead will be raised up, and those who are in the graves will rise again (Isaiah 26:19). And in another place: Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake: some unto everlasting life, and others unto shame and everlasting contempt (Dan. XII, 2). Therefore, it is asked what the Lord intended by this testimony, which seems ambiguous or not sufficiently related to the truth of the resurrection: I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; and as if having proclaimed this, he proved what he wanted by immediately adding: God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. Those who also surrounded the turmoil, knowing the mystery, were amazed at his teaching and answers. We have already said above that the Sadducees, confessing neither angel, nor spirit, nor resurrection of bodies, also preached the destruction of souls. These accepted only the five books of Moses, rejecting the prophecies of the prophets. Therefore, it was foolish to present testimonies whose authority they did not follow. Furthermore, in order to prove the eternal nature of souls, he presents the example of Moses: ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’ (Exodus 3:6). And immediately he deduces: ‘God is not the God of the dead, but of the living,’ so that when he has proven that souls continue to exist after death (for it could not be that God would be their God if they did not exist at all), the resurrection of the bodies, which have carried out good or evil deeds along with the souls, would consequently be introduced. In the final part of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, the apostle Paul expands on this topic more fully (1 Cor. XV). — Commentary on Matthew

Origen of Alexandria ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): God moreover is He who says, I am that I am; (Ex. 3:14.) so that it is impossible that He should be called the God of those who are not. And see that He said not, I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. But in another place He said thus, The God of the Hebrews hath sent me unto thee. (Exod. 7:16.) For they who in comparison of other men are most perfect before God, have God entirely in them, wherefore He is not said to be their God in common, but of each in particular. As when we say, That farm is theirs, we show that each of them does not own the whole of it; but when we say, That farm is his, we mean that he is owner of the whole of it. When then it is said, The God of the Hebrews, this shows their imperfection, that each of them has some small portion in God. But it is said, The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, because each one of these possessed God entirely. And it is to the no small honour of the Patriarehs that they lived to God. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Matthew 22:33

John Chrysostom: “And when the multitudes heard this, they were astonished at His doctrine.” Yet not even here the Sadducees; but these go away defeated, while the impartial multitude reap the benefit. — Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 70

Pseudo-Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): And see how the assault of the Jews against Christ becomes more faint. Their first challenge was in a threatening tone, By what authority doest thou these things, to oppose which firmness of spirit was needed. Their second was with guile, to meet which was needed wisdom. This last was with ignorant presumption which is easier to cope with than the others. For he that thinks he knows somewhat, when he knows nothing, is an easy conquest for one who has understanding. Thus the attacks of an enemy are vehement at first, but if one endure them with a courageous spirit, he will find them more feeble. And when the multitudes heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite: …but, then, when we have become incorruptible and immortal, and have reached the Christlike and most blessed repose, according to the Divine saying, we shall be “ever with the Lord,” fulfilled, through all-pure contemplations, with the visible manifestation of God covering us with glory, in most brilliant splendours, as the disciples in the most Divine Transfiguration, and participating in His gift of spiritual light, with unimpassioned and immaterial mind; and, even in the union beyond conception, through the agnostic and most blessed efforts after rays of surpassing brilliancy, in a more Divine imitation of the supercelestial minds. For we shall be equal to the angels, as the truth of the Oracles affirms, and sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. — The Divine Names, Chapter I

Remigius of Rheims ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Not the Sadducees but the multitudes were astonished. This is daily done in the Church; when by Divine inspiration the adversaries of the Church are overcome, the multitude of the faithful rejoice. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Matthew 22:34

Cyril of Alexandria: After the humiliation of the Sadducees Jesus was highly regarded by the crowds. The Pharisees, filled with envy out of an immeasurable shamelessness, again were testing him, hypocritically asking if he might deliver a ruling concerning the first commandment. By doing so, perhaps Jesus would amend the commandment in a manner that might lead to an accusation against him. Now, Matthew and Luke call the person who asked the question a lawyer, while Mark calls him a teacher of the law. This does not indicate a disagreement. For they both represent the questioner as one learned in the law and as a teacher of the law who is an interpreter of the law to the people. But the Lord publicly reveals their evil. They were not coming to have him interpret the law so that they might benefit but because they were seized by envy. So Jesus teaches that one should not measure out one’s devotion, loving God in part but also clinging in part to the concerns of this world. Through his teaching Jesus said that his commandment was the summary of all the commandments. The lawyer thought he could cast Jesus into danger as one who makes himself out to be God. Jesus failed to respond in the manner he expected, but he ends up praising Jesus, as Mark says. — FRAGMENT 251

Jerome ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): The Pharisees having been themselves already confuted (in the matter of the denarius), and now seeing their adversaries also overthrown, should have taken warning to attempt no further deceit against Him; but hate and jealousy are the parents of impudence.

The Pharisees and Sadducees, thus foes to one another, unite in one common purpose to tempt Jesus. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Jerome: (Verse 34 and following) But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him: “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” What we read about Herod and Pontius Pilate, that they conspired in the death of the Lord, we also see now concerning the Pharisees and the Sadducees, who are opposed to each other, but agree with the same mind in testing Jesus. Therefore, those who had already been confuted in the display of the coin and had seen the faction of the opposing party undermined, should have been warned by example not to plot further snares: but malice and envy nourish audacity. One of the legal experts, not desiring to not know but attempting, asks whether the one being questioned knew what was being asked, what the greater commandment is: not asking about the commandments, but what the first and great commandment is; so that when all that God has commanded is great: whatever he may answer, he may have an opportunity to slander, asserting that something else is great among many. Therefore, whoever knows and asks not by desire to learn, but by the desire to know, whether the one who is going to respond knows, approaches in the likeness of the Pharisees, not as a disciple, but as a tempter. — Commentary on Matthew

John Chrysostom: Again doth the evangelist express the cause, for which they ought to have held their peace, and marks their boldness by this also. How and in what way? Because when those others were put to silence, these again assail Him. For when they ought even for this to hold their peace, they strive to urge further their former endeavors, and put forward the lawyer, not desiring to learn, but making a trial of Him, and ask, “What is the first commandment?”

For since the first commandment was this, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God,” thinking that He would afford them some handle, as though He would amend it, for the sake of showing that Himself too was God, they propose the question. — Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 71

Origen of Alexandria: Now the Pharisees, hearing that he had imposed silence on the Sadducees, gathered together, and one of them, tempting him, asked him: Master, which is the greater commandment in the law? But he said to him: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And the second is like to this: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

When the Lord, in answer to the questioning of the Sadducees, had by an example drawn from the practice of the law demonstrated to those willing to hear that there is a resurrection, Matthew spoke thus: Jesus imposed silence on the Sadducees, wishing to show that the brightness of truth caused the bitter and harmful voice of falsehood to fall mute. As therefore the Savior by the word of his teaching imposed silence on the Sadducees and confidently refuted the false doctrine (which among them was thought to be truth), so also the imitators of Christ will do by the examples of the Scriptures, by which, according to “sound doctrine,” every voice of Pharaoh must be made to fall mute — the voice in which, boasting, he says “the rivers are mine, and I made them,” as it is written in Ezekiel. The Sadducees therefore, “who say that there is no resurrection,” questioned the Savior concerning the things that are written, supposing that they would impose silence upon him. But neither Jesus nor his beloved disciples are ever stopped up by the impious. For it is proper that silence be imposed on the Sadducees by Christ. For the righteous man indeed keeps silence, knowing “a time to keep silence and a time to speak,” yet he does not fall mute. And just as it is proper to the righteous man to keep silence but not to fall mute, so it is proper to the Sadducees, or to all who are teachers of falsehood, to fall mute indeed but not to keep silence; for even if they fall mute as to the matter, they do not on that account keep silence. Therefore the Lord too said not to a man, but to the sea, “be still and fall mute,” rebuking it when it was troubled.

Nevertheless the Pharisees, who agree that there is a resurrection, hearing that he had imposed silence on the Sadducees, gathered together — evidently because the doctrine of the resurrection was prevailing — and those were assembled who were not being assembled, so long as silence had not been imposed on the Sadducees. Nonetheless, even though they had assembled because the proof of the resurrection held firm, yet one of them asked — not as though wishing to learn from him the things he was asking, but tempting our Lord. Every man, therefore, who questions any of the teachers about whatever heading, not for the sake of learning but for the sake of tempting, and not out of a simple disposition, we ought to reckon a brother of that Pharisee who tempted the Savior by his questioning. For all things that are done to the saints of Christ, whether by those who lie in wait or by those who love them, he takes upon himself entirely; for according to the things that are written we ought to treat also of the things that are not written. For it is written that, on account of those who hungered and thirsted, he said “I hungered” and “I thirsted”; and on account of the naked and the strangers and the sick and those placed in prison, “I was naked” and “I was a stranger” and “I was in prison” and “I was infirm.” According to the logic of the likeness let us also add: I suffered injuries, I was beaten and I was tempted, and all things. And just as in those things which are written the saying of the Lord is true when he says “in as much as you did it to one of these least, you did it to me,” so when the righteous man has suffered injury or been blasphemed or suffered some such thing, place Christ among those who did it, saying: inasmuch as “you did it to one of these least,” to me you did the injury, me you tempted, me you blasphemed. — COMMENTARY ON Matthew 1

Origen of Alexandria ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Jesus had put the Sadducees to silence, to show that the tongue of falsehood is silenced by the brightness of truth. For as it belongs to the righteous man to be silent when it is good to be silent, and to speak when it is good to speak, and not to hold his) peace; so it belongs to every teacher of a the Not indeed to be silent, but to be silent as far as any good purpose is concerned. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Pseudo-Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Or the Pharisees meet together, that their numbers may silence Him whom their reasonings could not confute; thus, while they array numbers against Him, showing that truth failed them; they said among themselves, Let one speak for all, and all speak, through one, so if He prevail, the victory may seem to belong to all; if He be overthrown, the defeat may rest with Him alone; so it follows, Then one of them, a teacher of the Law, asked him a question, tempting him. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Tertullian: For in this law given to Adam we recognise in embryo all the precepts which afterwards sprouted forth when given through Moses; that is, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God from thy whole heart and out of thy whole soul; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself; Thou shalt not kill; Thou shall not commit adultery; Thou shalt not steal; False witness thou shall not utter; Honour thy father and mother; and, That which is another’s, shall thou not covet. — An Answer to the Jews

Matthew 22:35

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (de Cons. Ev. ii. 73.) Let no one find a difficulty in this, that Matthew speaks of this man as putting his question to tempt the Lord, whereas Mark does not mention this, but concludes with what the Lord said to him upon his answering wisely, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. (Mark 12:34.) For it is possible that, though he came to tempt, yet the Lord’s answer may have wrought correction within him. Or, the tempting here meant need not be that of one designing to deceive an enemy, but rather the cautious approach of one making proof of a stranger. And that is not written in vain, Whoso believeth lightly, he is of a vain heart. (Ecclus. 19:4.) — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Origen of Alexandria ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): All who thus ask questions of any teacher to try him, and not to learn of him, we must regard as brethren of this Pharisee, according to what is said below, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of mine, ye have done it unto me. (Matt. 25:40.) — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Matthew 22:36

Jerome ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Or he enquires not for the sake of the commands, but which is the first and great commandment, that seeing all that God commands is great, he may have occasion to cavil whatever the answer be. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Origen of Alexandria: Let us now look at the proposition of the one testing him: Master, he says, which is the greater commandment in the law? The tester was saying Master because he was not uttering this word as a disciple of Christ. This will become clearer from an example we shall give. Consider: a father is the father of his own son, and no one can properly call him father except his son; and a mother is the mother of her own daughter, and no woman can call her mother except her daughter alone. So too a master is the master of his own disciple, and a disciple is the disciple of his own master. Therefore no one can rightly say Master except a disciple. And see whether it is not for this reason — because not all who call him master say it rightly, but only those who have the will to learn from him — that he was saying to his disciples, “You call me master and lord, and you say rightly: for so I am.” Rightly, then, do the disciples of Christ call him master, and serving his word they rightly call him lord. Whence the Apostle rightly said, “but for us there is one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.” And consider this also, that he said, “it is enough for the disciple that he become” not simply as the master, but “as his master.” If, therefore, anyone learns nothing from the Word and does not hand himself over with his whole soul, so as to become his beloved planting, but says to him Master, he is a brother of the Pharisee who tests Christ and says to him Master. So too is everyone who says “Our Father who art in heaven” yet ought not to have “the spirit of servitude in fear, but the spirit of the adoption of sons.” But whoever does not have “the spirit of the adoption of sons” and says “Our Father who art in heaven” lies, since he is not a son of God when he calls God his father.

Now the question itself is of this kind: Which is the great commandment in the law? On this it is fitting that we set out something concerning the difference among commandments. For certain commandments are great, and certain others follow after them; and thus, going in order, one must inquire all the way down to the least commandments. For if he had not answered the Pharisee who tested him and said Which is the greater commandment in the law, we would consequently have supposed that no commandment is greater than another commandment. But now, since in answering he says: You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind. This is the great and first commandment, we learn a necessary judgment concerning the commandments — that there is one that is great and there are lesser ones down to the least. And attend further to this also, that the Pharisee indeed asked Which is the great commandment in the law, but the Lord in answering him teaches us that to love the Lord is not only the great commandment but also the first — first, however, not in the order of Scripture but in the dignity of its virtue. And this too must be attended to as fitting to this passage: that, as though many commandments have been established, so now he has called this the great and first commandment, You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind, while the second is like the first, and on account of its likeness great, You shall love your neighbor as yourself; so that in accordance with this we may understand that there is another which is third in magnitude and order, and yet another which is fourth, and so, numbering the commandments of the law in order and receiving wisdom from God, one may set them in order down to the least. And this is the work of no other than Christ alone, who is “the power of God and the wisdom of God.” From the times of Moses, therefore, until the coming of the Savior, when the law was read, perhaps it was being asked which was the great commandment in it. For the Pharisee would not have asked this had it not long been sought among them concerning this matter and not found, until Jesus came and taught not only what was great, but also what was first, and what was the second, like the first. His, therefore, is the work of finding both the third and the fourth and the rest.

But you will ask whether there is any commandment not having both — that is, both being first and great — but only one of them. And I think the Apostle says something of this sort to the Ephesians: “Honor your father and mother, which is the first commandment with a promise, that it may be well with you and you shall be long-lived upon the earth.” Therefore it is first indeed, but not also great: “Honor your father and mother”; and if there is some commandment that is great indeed but not also first, you will look for it within the difference of the magnitude of the commandments. And because, in comparison with commandments, there are others that are least, it is useful to bring forward as an example what the Lord himself says: “If anyone shall loose one of these little commandments, and shall so teach men, he shall be called least in the kingdom of God.” And the Savior indeed, in handing down what was the great and first commandment, in answer to the questioning of the Pharisee who tested him, and adding also the second, like the first, which was You shall love your neighbor as yourself, adds, saying, On these two commandments hang the whole law and the prophets. The Apostle, however, says to the Romans, “You shall not commit adultery, you shall not kill, you shall not steal, and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this word: you shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Let us see, then, whether it is one thing for the whole law and the prophets to hang on these two commandments concerning the love of God and of neighbor, and another thing for every commandment to be summed up in this commandment “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” — or whether all the commandments both hang and are summed up in both commandments. Someone, therefore, will say that commandments hang from commandments, and that the second, which is like the first, hangs from the first and great one, and the third from the second, and thus in turn all those that come after the second hang from the ones preceding; and that the Apostle indeed, according to the consideration of the matter, said that every commandment hangs from the commandment “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” whereas the Savior taught that these two commandments hold dominion over all the commandments. But another, examining closely, will ask how that saying was spoken: “You shall not commit adultery, you shall not kill, you shall not bear false witness, you shall not steal, and if there is any other commandment in the law, it is summed up in this word: you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” He will therefore say: that commandment too — You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind — is summed up in that commandment “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” But how could that which he says be true — “and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this word” — unless the commandment also which was laid down concerning the love of God is summed up in the second and one like the first? And if the first commandment is summed up in the second, then the second must necessarily be greater than the first. Every commandment, therefore, is summed up. But that first and great one too is summed up in this second, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” since, loving ourselves, if we do anything, we also love God himself, who has become the author of our love, that we may love one another and be loved by one another. For giving thanks in this — that we are rational and have been called to the knowledge of God and obtain his benefits and grace — we sum up the love of God in the second commandment, which is like the first.

The great and first commandment in the law, therefore, is this: You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind. But whoever subtracts anything from that whole commandment — that is, either from what it says with your whole heart or with your whole soul or with your whole mind — subtracts from its magnitude and from its primacy. And perhaps all who love their Lord God, unless they also fulfill the parts that follow and love him with their whole heart and with their whole soul and with their whole mind, keep the commandment only in part; but those alone take up its magnitude and primacy within themselves who not only love their Lord God but have also taken up those three — that is, so that with their whole heart they store up within themselves that whole one and his works and his thoughts, and with their whole soul, that is, so that they are ready to lay it down for the piety of God who created all things, when the usefulness of the word demands it, out of the fact that with the whole soul one loves God, in such a way that no part of the soul is torn away toward any thing that is foreign to the faith, and in our whole mind thinking or bringing forth nothing else but “the things that are of God.” And see whether you can take heart to mean the intellect, which gazes upon intelligible things and shows the source and beginning of them, which is God, and mind to mean the bringing forth of things (for it is with the mind that we bring forth individual things, and through each thing that is signified we walk about, as it were, with our mind and bring it forth). And if anyone should understand ingeniously the commandment which was laid down concerning love in all those three things that have been named, and should consider in each of the several faithful the love of God, he will perhaps find the whole commandment either in one, or perhaps the second or the third (and this if it should be granted), but in all of them the love of God having less — whether a little or more — either from what it says with your whole heart or from what it says with your whole soul or with your whole mind. — COMMENTARY ON Matthew 2

Origen of Alexandria ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): He said Master tempting Him, for none but a disciple would thus address Christ. Whoever then does not learn of the Word, nor yields himself wholly up to it, yet calls it Master, he is brother to this Pharisee thus tempting Christ. Perhaps while they read the Law before the Saviour’s coming, it was a question among them which was the great commandment in it; nor would the Pharisee have asked this, if it had not been long time enquired among themselves, but never found till Jesus came and declared it. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Pseudo-Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): He who now enquires for the greatest commandment had not observed the least. He only ought to seek for a higher righteousness who has fulfilled the lower. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Matthew 22:37

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (De Doctr. Christ. i. 30. et 26.) But since the Divine substance is more excellent and higher than our nature, the command to love God is distinct from that to love our neighbour. But if by yourself, you understand your whole self, that is both your soul and your body, and in like manner of your neighbour, there is no sort of things to be loved omitted in these commands. The love of God goes first, and the rule thereof is so set out to us as to make all other loves center in that, so that nothing seems said of loving yourself. But then follows, Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself, so that love of yourself is not omitted. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (de Doctr. Christ. i. 22.) Or otherwise; You are commanded to love God with all thy heart, that your whole thoughts—with all thy soul, that your whole life—with all thy mind, that your whole understanding—may be given to Him from whom you have that you give. Thus He has left no part of our life which may justly be unfilled of Him, or give place to the desire after any other final good; but if aught else present itself for the soul’s love, it should be absorbed into that channel in which the whole current of love runs. For man is then the most perfect when his whole life tends towards the life unchangeable, and clings to it with the whole purpose of his soul. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria: Therefore the first commandment teaches every kind of godliness. For to love God with the whole heart is the cause of every good. The second commandment includes the righteous acts we do toward other people. The first commandment prepares the way for the second and in turn is established by the second. For the person who is grounded in the love of God clearly also loves his neighbor in all things himself. The kind of person who fulfills these two commandments experiences all the commandments. — FRAGMENT 251

John Chrysostom: What then saith Christ? Indicating from what they were led to this; from having no charity, from pining with envy, from being seized by jealousy, He saith, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”

But wherefore “like unto this?” Because this makes the way for that, and by it is again established; “For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light;” and again, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.” And what in consequence of this? “They are corrupt, and become abominable in their ways.” And again, “The love of money is the root of all evils; which while some coveted after they have erred from the faith;” and, “He that loveth me, will keep my commandment.” — Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 71

Origen of Alexandria ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Or otherwise; With all thy heart, that is, in all recollection, act, thought; with all thy soul, to be ready, that is, to lay it down for God’s religion; with all thy mind, bringing forth nothing but what is of God. And consider whether you cannot thus take the heart of the understanding, by which we contemplate things intellectual, and the mind of that by which we utter thoughts, walking as it were with the mind through each expression, and uttering it. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Origen of Alexandria: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your mind, and with all your soul, and with all your strength. You shall love your neighbor as yourself — not the neighbor with all the heart, with all the soul, and with all the strength, and with all the mind. Again, he says: Love your enemies — and he did not add, “with all the heart.” The divine word is not disordered, nor does it command impossible things, nor say, “Love your enemies as yourselves,” but only, “Love your enemies”; it is enough for them that we love them and do not hold them in hatred. But the neighbor, as yourself. And God, with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the mind, and with all the strength. — HOMILIES ON THE SONG OF SONGS, HOMILY 2

Pseudo-Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): But the Lord so answers him, as at once to lay bare the dissimulation of his enquiry, Jesus saith unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. Thou shalt love, not ‘fear,’ for to love is more than to fear; to fear belongs to slaves, to love to sons; fear is in compulsion, love in freedom. Whoso serves God in fear escapes punishment, but has not the reward of righteousness because he did well unwillingly through fear. God does not desire to be served servilely by men as a master, but to be loved as a father, for that He has given the spirit of adoption to men. But to love God with the whole heart, is to have the heart inclined to the love of no one thing more than of God. To love God again with the whole soul is to have the mind stayed upon the truth, and to be firm in the faith. For the love of the heart and the love of the soul are different. The first is in a sort carnal, that we should love God even with our flesh, which we cannot do unless we first depart from the love of the things of this world. The love of the heart is felt in the heart, but the love of the soul is not felt, but is perceived because it consists in a judgment of the soul. For he who believes that all good is in God, and that without Him is no good, he loves God with his whole soul. But to love God with the whole mind, is to have all the faculties open and unoccupied for Him. He only loves God with his whole mind, whose intellect ministers to God, whose wisdom is employed about God, whose thoughts travail in the things of God, and whose memory holds the things which are good. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Tertullian: Accordingly, the divine law enjoins duties in respect of both these attributes: Thou shalt love God, and, Thou shalt fear God. It proposed one for the obedient man, the other for the transgressor. — Against Marcion Book II

Tertullian: To recapitulate, then: Shall that very flesh, which the Divine Creator formed with His own hands in the image of God; which He animated with His own afflatus, after the likeness of His own vital vigour; which He set over all the works of His hand, to dwell amongst, to enjoy, and to rule them; which He clothed with His sacraments and His instructions; whose purity He loves, whose mortifications He approves; whose sufferings for Himself He deems precious;-(shall that flesh, I say), so often brought near to God, not rise again? God forbid, God forbid, (I repeat), that He should abandon to everlasting destruction the labour of His own hands, the care of His own thoughts, the receptacle of His own Spirit, the queen of His creation, the inheritor of His own liberality, the priestess of His religion, the champion of His testimony, the sister of His Christ! We know by experience the goodness of God; from His Christ we learn that He is the only God, and the very good. Now, as He requires from us love to our neighbour after love to Himself, so He will Himself do that which He has commanded. — On the Resurrection of the Flesh

Tertullian: Thus, “love covers the multitude of sins; " and loving God, to wit, with all its strength (by which in the endurance of martyrdom it maintains the fight), with all its life (which it lays down for God), it makes of man a martyr. — Scorpiace

Tertullian: And we know the quality of the hortatory addresses of carnal conveniences, how easy it is to say, “I must believe with my whole heart; I must love God, and my neighbour as myself: for `on these two precepts the whole Law hangeth, and the prophets, ’not on the emptiness of my lungs and intestines. — On Fasting

Matthew 22:38

Origen of Alexandria ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): If the Lord had given no answer to the Pharisee who thus tempted Him, we should have judged that there was no commandment greater than the rest. But when the Lord adds, This is the first and great commandment, we learn how we ought to think of the commandments, that there is a great one, and that there are less down to the least. And the Lord says not only that it is a great, but that it is the first commandment, not in order of Scripture, but in supremacy of value. They only take upon them the greatness and supremacy of this precept, who not only love the Lord their God, but add these three conditions. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Matthew 22:39

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (de Doctr. Christ. i. 30.) It is clear that every man is to be regarded as a neighbour, because evil is to be done to no man. Further, if every one to whom we are bound to show service of mercy, (vid. Rom. 13:10.) or who is bound to show it to us, be rightly called our neighbour, it is manifest that in this precept are comprehended the holy Angels who perform for us those services of which we may read in Scripture. Whence also our Lord Himself would be called our neighbour; for it was Himself whom He represents as the good Samaritan, who gave succour to the man who was left half-dead by the way. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (de Trin. viii. 6.) He that loves men ought to love them either because they are righteous, or that they may be righteous; and so also ought he to love himself either for that he is, or that he may be righteous. And thus without peril he may love his neighbour as himself. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (de Doctr. Christ, i. 22.) But if even yourself you ought not to love for your own sake, but because of Him in whom is the rightful end of your love, let not another man be displeased that you love even him for God’s sake. Whoso then rightly loves his neighbour, ought to endeavour with him that he also with his whole heart love God. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Hilary of Poitiers ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Or otherwise; That the second command is like the first signifies that the obligation and merit of both are alike; for no love of God without Christ, or of Christ without God, can profit to salvation. It follows, On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Origen of Alexandria ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Nor did He only teach the first and great commandment, but added that there was a second like unto the first, Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself. But if Whoso loveth iniquity hath hated his own soul, (Ps. 11:5.) it is manifest that he does not love his neighbour as himself, when he does not love himself. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Origen of Alexandria: The second commandment is like it, since it is the love of a human being who was made according to the image of God, and perhaps also according to his likeness. But in the exposition of the commandment which is set down concerning the love of one’s neighbor, these things also must be said. For, according to what is said in the tenth Psalm, “he who loves iniquity hates his own soul”, and according to what is said in Proverbs, “he who rejects discipline hates himself”, it is manifest that no one who loves iniquity loves his neighbor as himself, since he does not even love himself; and no one who rejects discipline loves his neighbor as himself, seeing that he does not love his very self either. And thus it comes about that he who “loves iniquity”, and “hates his own soul”, cannot keep the second commandment. Likewise also “he who rejects discipline” loves some sin; and therefore he too who rejects any word of God’s discipline “hates his own soul”. — COMMENTARY ON Matthew 3

Pseudo-Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): But who loves man is as who loves God; for man is God’s image, wherein God is loved, as a King is honoured in his statue. For this cause this commandment is said to be like the first. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Tertullian: Are we to paint ourselves out that our neighbours may perish? Where, then, is (the command), “Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself? " “Care not merely about your own (things), but (about your) neighbour’s? " No enunciation of the Holy Spirit ought to be (confined) to the subject immediately in hand merely, and not applied and carried out with a view to every occasion to which its application is useful. — On the Apparel of Women Book II

Matthew 22:40

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Quaest. Ev. i. 33.) Hang, that is, refer thither as their end. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (de Trin. viii. 7.) Since there are two commandments, the love of God and the love of our neighbour, on which hang the Law and the Prophets, not without reason does Scripture put one for both; sometimes the love of God; as in that, We know that all tilings work together for good to them that love God; (Rom. 8:28.) and sometimes the love of our neighbour; as in that, All the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this, Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself. (Gal. 5:14.) And that because if a man love his neighbour, it follows therefrom that he loves God also; for it is the selfsame affection by which we love God, and by which we love our neighbour, save that we love God for Himself, but ourselves and our neighbour for God’s sake. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom: But His commandments, and the sum of them, are, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and thy neighbor as thyself.” If therefore to love God is to love one’s neighbor, “For if thou lovest me,” He saith, “O Peter, feed my sheep,” but to love one’s neighbor worketh a keeping of the commandments, with reason doth He say, “On these hang all the law and the prophets.”

So therefore what He did before, this He doth here also. I mean, that both there, when asked about the manner of the resurrection, He also taught a resurrection, instructing “For charity envieth not.” By this He shows Himself to be submissive both to the law and to the prophets. — Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 71

John Chrysostom: But His commandments, and the sum of them, are, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and thy neighbor as thyself.” If therefore to love God is to love one’s neighbor, “For if thou lovest me,” He saith, “O Peter, feed my sheep,” but to love one’s neighbor worketh a keeping of the commandments, with reason doth He say, “On these hang all the law and the prophets.” — Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 71

Origen of Alexandria: After this you will ask how all the law and the prophets hang upon these two commandments. For the text seems to show that everything whatsoever that is written, whether in Exodus or in Leviticus or in Numbers or in Deuteronomy, hangs upon these two commandments. But how does the law that has been laid down concerning lepers, or concerning those who suffer a flow of blood, or concerning menstruating women, hang upon these commandments? And further, how also does the prophecy that has been laid down concerning Jerusalem being taken, or the vision of Egypt in Isaiah and the other prophets, how too the vision of Tyre, or whatever things are prophesied concerning Tyre or concerning the prince of Tyre, how also the vision of the four-footed beasts in the desert in Isaiah, hang upon these two commandments? But what seems to me in this passage is of this kind. He who has fulfilled all the things that are written concerning the love of God and of neighbor is worthy to receive the greatest graces from God, over which is set “the word of wisdom through the Holy Spirit”, after which comes “the word of knowledge” which is “according to the Spirit”. And having been made worthy of all these gifts, he exults in the wisdom of God, having his heart full of the love of God, and his whole soul illumined with the light of knowledge, and his whole mind with the word of God. And having obtained gifts of this kind from God, he assuredly understands that all the law and the prophets are some part of the whole wisdom and knowledge of God, and he understands that all the law and the prophets hang and cleave from the principle of the love of the Lord God and of neighbor, and that the perfection of piety consists in love.

Sufficient indeed are also these things which we have said; nevertheless, for the demonstration of its greatness it is fitting no less to add also these words: “charity is patient, is kind; charity is not puffed up, does not act perversely, is not ambitious, is not provoked, does not think evil, does not rejoice over iniquity, but rejoices together with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things. Charity never falls away”. For no one who is fainthearted possesses charity, nor anyone doing something contrary to kindness, nor anyone envying with the envy which the patriarchs had against Joseph, or Aaron and Miriam against Moses. And no one puffed up has love, nor one doing anything perversely, nor one who is roused into wrath. Likewise no one thinking evil, defiled in his heart, possesses charity. He who has charity never rejoices over any unjust thing, but always rejoices together with the truth. He who has charity endures all the evils that befall him, and does not believe in part but “believes all things”, and does not hope in part but “hopes all things”, nor is there anything that love does not endure, but “endures all things”. And since “charity never falls away”, the Apostle, confident that he had taken it up wholly, said: “who shall separate us from the love of God? Tribulation, or distress, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or the sword? As it is written: for thy sake we are put to death all the day long, we are counted as sheep for the slaughter”. For because of love he said: “but in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us”. For from charity that never falls away came those words which said: “for I am confident that neither death nor life nor angels nor principalities nor things present nor things to come nor powers nor height nor depth nor any other creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord”. And since the Apostle had the two commandments of love, of God and of neighbor, therefore he had within himself the manifested mysteries of the whole law and the prophets, so that, understanding them, he might say that all the law and the prophets hang upon these two commandments. — COMMENTARY ON Matthew 4

Origen of Alexandria ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Or, because he that has fulfilled the things that are written concerning the love of God and our neighbour, is worthy to receive from God the great reward, that he should be enabled to understand the Law and the Prophets. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Rabanus Maurus ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): For to these two commandments belongs the whole decalogue; the commandments of the first table to the love of God, those of the second to the love of our neighbour. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Matthew 22:41

Jerome: (verses 41 onwards) But when the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus questioned them, saying, ‘What do you think about the Christ, whose son is he?’ They said to him, ‘David.’ He said to them, ‘How then does David in the Spirit call him Lord, saying, “The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool?” If David then calls him Lord, how is he his son?’ Those who had gathered together to test Jesus and tried to capture the truth through deceitful questioning, gave an opportunity for their own refutation. They are asked (or, it is asked) about Christ whose son he is. The questioning of Jesus benefits us even today against the Jews. And indeed those who confess that Christ is to come assert that he is a simple man and a holy man from the lineage of David. Let us therefore question those who are taught by the Lord: if he is a simple man and only a son of David, how does David call him his Lord? Not by uncertain error or personal will, but in the Holy Spirit (or, but in the Holy Spirit, he is silent). The testimony, however, which he presents, is taken from the one hundred and ninth Psalm. Therefore, David is called Lord, not according to what he was born, but according to what he always was, born from the Father, surpassing his own Father in the flesh. The Jews, in order to evade the truth of the question, invent many idle things, asserting that the native of Abraham, whose son was Damascus Eliezer, and that the psalm was written from that person’s perspective, in which the Lord God said to his lord, Abraham, after the slaughter of the five kings: Sit at my right hand, until I make thy enemies thy footstool. (Genesis 14). Whom should we ask: How did God say to Abraham these things that follow: With you is the beginning in the day of your power, in the splendors of the saints, I have begotten you before Lucifer; and: The Lord has sworn, and will not regret it; you are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek? And we should try to answer how Abraham was born before Lucifer and was a priest according to the order of Melchizedek: regarding whom Melchizedek offered bread and wine, and from whom he received tithes of the spoils. — Commentary on Matthew

John Chrysostom: Then since He had answered, He asks also in turn, “What think ye of Christ, whose Son is He? They say unto Him, The Son of David.”

See after how many miracles, after how many signs, after how many questions, after how great a display of His unanimity with the Father, as well in words, as in deeds; after having praised this man that said, that there is one God, He asks the question, that they may not be able to say, that He did miracles indeed, yet was an adversary to the law, and a foe to God.

Therefore, after so many things, He asks these questions, secretly leading them on to confess Him also to be God. And the disciples He asked first what the others say, and then themselves; but these not so; for surely they would have said a deceiver, and a wicked one, as speaking all things without fear. So for this cause He inquires for the opinion of these men themselves.

For since He was now about to go on to His passion, He sets forth the prophecy that plainly proclaims Him to be Lord; and not as having come to do this without occasion, nor as having made this His aim, but from a reasonable cause.

For having asked them first, since they answered not the truth concerning Him (for they said He was a mere man), to overthrow their mistaken opinion, He thus introduces David proclaiming His Godhead. For they indeed supposed that He was a mere man, wherefore also they said, “the Son of David;” but He to correct this brings in the prophet witnessing to His being Lord, and the genuineness of His Sonship, and His equality in honor with His Father.

And not even at this doth He stop, but in order to move them to fear, He adds what followeth also, saying, “Till I make Thine enemies Thy footstool;” that at least in this way He might gain them over.

And that they may not say, that it was in flattery he so called Him, and that this was a human judgment, see what He saith, “How then doth David in spirit call Him Lord?” See how submissively He introduces the sentence and judgment concerning Himself. First, He had said, “What think ye? Whose Son is He?” so by a question to bring them to an answer. Then since they said, “the Son of David,” He said not, “And yet David saith these things,” but again in this order of a question, “How then doth David in spirit call Him Lord?” in order that the sayings might not give offense to them.

And He Himself too in like manner for this cause introduces the doctrine in the way of question and inference, saying, “How then doth David in spirit call Him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on my right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool;” and again, “If David then call Him Lord, how is He then his Son,” not taking away the fact that He is his Son, away with the thought; for He would not then have reproved Peter for this, but to correct their secret thoughts. So that when He saith, “How is He his Son?” He meaneth this, not so as ye say. For they said, that He is Son only, and not also Lord. And this after the testimony, and then submissively, “If David then call Him Lord, how is He his Son?”

But, nevertheless, even when they had heard these things, they answered nothing, for neither did they wish to learn any of the things that were needful. Wherefore He Himself addeth and saith, that “He is his Lord.” Or rather not even this very thing doth He say without support, but having taken the prophet with Him, because of His being exceedingly distrusted by them, and evil reported of amongst them. To which fact we ought to have especial regard, and if anything be said by Him that is lowly and submissive, not to be offended, for the cause is this, with many other things also, that He talks with them in condescension.

Wherefore now also He delivers His doctrine in the manner of question and answer; but He darkly intimates even in this way His dignity. For it was not as much to be called Lord of the Jews, as of David.

But mark thou also, I pray thee, how seasonable it is. For when He had said, “There is one Lord,” then He spake of Himself that He is Lord, and showed it by prophecy, no more by His works only. And He showeth the Father Himself taking vengeance upon them in His behalf, for He saith, “Until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool;” and great unanimity even hereby on the part of Him that begat Him towards Himself, and honor. And upon His reasonings with them He doth set this end high and great, and sufficient to close fast their mouths. — Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 71

Origen of Alexandria: Now when the Pharisees had gathered together, Jesus questioned them, saying: What do you think concerning the Christ? Whose son is he? They say to him: David’s. Jesus says to them: How then does David in the spirit call him lord, saying: The Lord said to my lord: Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies the footstool of your feet? If therefore David calls him lord, how is he his son? And no one was able to answer him a word. Nor did anyone dare from that hour to ask him anything.

These very words are indeed set down in Psalm one hundred and nine [110]: “The Lord said to my lord: Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies the footstool of your feet”. And, as though the Pharisees were confessing that the one who spoke is indeed the Lord God, but that the one to whom he spoke is a second lord, the Christ, the Savior questions them, saying: What do you think concerning the Christ? Whose son is he? And to the answer of those who said: David’s, he adds, saying: If David calls him lord, how is he his son? It is therefore a matter worthy that we should see what the Savior intends in setting before the Pharisees the question concerning the Christ, so that they might answer what they thought, and what was the cause that the Pharisees were unable to give an answer. And some simpler person among those who examine these things will say that this was the will of the Savior, namely, to restrain the audacity of the Pharisees, who were setting many propositions before him, and likewise of the Sadducees, who had set before him the matter of the seven brothers and their one wife. Since, therefore, the Pharisees and Sadducees, in setting forth many things, seemed to be saying something, and in doing this were not desiring to learn as disciples but were tempting Christ, and seemed to be teachers of the law when they were not, therefore it was necessary that the Lord too should set a question before them, who professed that they had the knowledge of the law, so that before the people he might convict them, since they gave no answer to the things asked, while he himself answered all things; for he indeed was competent, according to the profession befitting teachers, to make manifest and hand down the divine doctrine, whereas they did not know even the very prophet who was the summit of the prophets. And further, one to whom this exposition is pleasing will add, saying: for this reason the scripture of the Gospel adds thus, saying And no one was able to answer him a word, nor did anyone dare from that hour to ask him a word. And the cause why they did not dare to ask him thereafter a word was this: that, when questioned, they could not answer him. For if their questioning had been out of a will to learn, he would never have set before them such things that thereafter they would not dare to ask. But they were questioning to tempt, and therefore he willed to shut their mouths by his questioning, so that, blushing, they might rest from their audacity and thereafter ask him nothing. These things we have spoken according to the understanding of the simple interpreter. — COMMENTARY ON Matthew 5

Origen of Alexandria: But we say that our Savior and Lord knew himself to have been made indeed “of the seed of David according to the flesh, but predestined Son of God in power”, and that he was all those things which he himself, teaching about himself, was saying: “I am the truth and the way and the life”, “I am the door”, “I am the resurrection”, “I am the living bread who came down from heaven”, and knowing that he existed even before the birth of Abraham himself (on account of which he also said: “before Abraham was, I am”), and knowing that he was wisdom and the living word (wisdom indeed, which “God created as the beginning of his ways for his works”, but the word which “was in the beginning with God, the Word was God”). Knowing all these things about himself and seeing the Pharisees—that they knew from the divine Scriptures that which pertained to the human dispensation and was for the sake of men, so that they might be able to grasp him, namely that he was “of the seed of David according to the flesh”, and perhaps also that they altogether supposed him to be the son of David, but seeing that they were far from the understanding of his divinity, according to which he was the beginning of the whole creation, established the son of no one except “of God who is over all things”—wishing to expose their wavering estimation about him and to provoke them by his words, so that they might be willing to ascend by the word and to see according to which he was God the Word, who “was in the beginning with God”, in the first place he said: What do you think concerning the Christ? Whose son is he? When they answered thus and said: David’s, he again answered them, making manifest the sublimity of his divinity, which was shown in the very beginning of the Psalm, saying: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand, until I place your enemies as a footstool for your feet, so that, even if at that time they could not answer him, nevertheless they might take occasion from his words, so that, considering the whole Psalm, they might perceive something greater concerning the Christ, who was not only surpassing human nature, but also the other begotten natures, according to what it says: “in the splendors of the saints, from the womb before the morning star I begot you”. For it did not designate specifically in the splendors of which saints, but generally concerning all the saints, that is not only of men but also of angels, saying: “in the splendors of the saints, from the womb before the morning star I begot you”. And if indeed they had wisely considered also that: “the Lord has sworn and he will not repent: you are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek”, they would surely have subjected themselves like disciples to such a Savior of ours, who had been sent from God as a teacher and priest. But the reason on account of which the Pharisees could not answer the words of Christ was this: that they perceived nothing great about Christ set down in the holy Scriptures, but only concerning his human dispensation, and not even that itself worthily of the divine dispensation. For I think that they did not even know that which it said: “behold, a virgin shall conceive in her womb, and they shall call his name Emmanuel”, nor that: “behold, a star shall arise out of Jacob”, namely concerning the birth of Christ. — COMMENTARY ON Matthew 6

Matthew 22:42

John Chrysostom: Then since He had answered, He asks also in turn, “What think ye of Christ, whose Son is He? They say unto Him, The Son of David.”

See after how many miracles, after how many signs, after how many questions, after how great a display of His unanimity with the Father, as well in words, as in deeds; after having praised this man that said, that there is one God, He asks the question, that they may not be able to say, that He did miracles indeed, yet was an adversary to the law, and a foe to God.

Therefore, after so many things, He asks these questions, secretly leading them on to confess Him also to be God. And the disciples He asked first what the others say, and then themselves; but these not so; for surely they would have said a deceiver, and a wicked one, as speaking all things without fear. So for this cause He inquires for the opinion of these men themselves.

For having asked them first, since they answered not the truth concerning Him (for they said He was a mere man), to overthrow their mistaken opinion, He thus introduces David proclaiming His Godhead. For they indeed supposed that He was a mere man, wherefore also they said, “the Son of David;” but He to correct this brings in the prophet witnessing to His being Lord, and the genuineness of His Sonship, and His equality in honor with His Father. — Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 71

Pseudo-Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): The Jews tempted Christ, supposing Him to be mere man; had they believed Him to be the Son of God, they would not have tempted Him. Christ therefore, willing to show that He knew the treachery of their hearts, and that He was God, yet would not declare this truth to them plainly, that they might not take occasion thence to charge Him with blasphemy, and yet would not totally conceal this truth; because to that end had He come that He should preach the truth; He therefore puts a question to them, such as should declare to them who He was; What think ye of Christ? whose Son is He?

I suppose that He formed this question, not only against the Pharisees, but also against the heretics; for according to the flesh He was truly David’s Son, but his Lord according to His Godhead. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Matthew 22:43

Jerome ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): This passage is out of the 109th Psalm. Christ is therefore called David’s Lord, not in respect of His descent from him, but in respect of His eternal generation from the Father, wherein He was before His fleshly Father. And he calls Him Lord, not by a mere chance, nor of his own thought, but by the Holy Spirit. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom: And that they may not say, that it was in flattery he so called Him, and that this was a human judgment, see what He saith, “How then doth David in spirit call Him Lord?” See how submissively He introduces the sentence and judgment concerning Himself. First, He had said, “What think ye? Whose Son is He?” so by a question to bring them to an answer. Then since they said, “the Son of David,” He said not, “And yet David saith these things,” but again in this order of a question, “How then doth David in spirit call Him Lord?” in order that the sayings might not give offense to them. Wherefore neither did He say, What think ye of me, but of Christ. For this reason the apostles also reasoned submissively, saying, “Let us speak freely of the Patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried.”

And He Himself too in like manner for this cause introduces the doctrine in the way of question and inference, saying, “How then doth David in spirit call Him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on my right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool;” and again, “If David then call Him Lord, how is He then his Son,” not taking away the fact that He is his Son, away with the thought; for He would not then have reproved Peter for this, but to correct their secret thoughts. So that when He saith, “How is He his Son?” He meaneth this, not so as ye say. For they said, that He is Son only, and not also Lord. And this after the testimony, and then submissively, “If David then call Him Lord, how is He his Son?” — Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 71

Matthew 22:44

Jerome ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): This question is still available for us against the Jews; for these who believe that Christ is yet to come, assert that He is a mere man, though a holy one, of the race of David. Let us then thus taught by the Lord ask them, If He be mere man, and only the Son of David, how does David call Him his Lord? To evade the truth of this question, the Jews invent many frivolous answers. They allege Abraham’s steward, he whose son was Eliezer of Damascus, and say that this Psalm was composed in his person, when after the overthrow of the five kings, the Lord God said to his lord Abraham, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. Let us ask how Abraham could say the things that follow, and compel them to tell us how Abraham was born before Lucifer, and how he was a Priest after the order of Melchisedech, for whom Melchisedech brought bread and wine, and of whom he received tithes of the spoil? — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Origen of Alexandria: Now this very thing which he says in the Psalm: “the Lord said to my lord: sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies the footstool of your feet”, someone will indeed expound more fittingly when he has set himself to expound that Psalm itself. Yet for now let us lightly taste its sense. Do not depict for yourself perceptible seatings and two thrones, and the Father and the Son sitting upon them in human fashion; but understand that these things are said morally of the kingdom of God and of the kingdom of the Son, which has been established by the Father and is always at the Father’s right hand. But if anyone does not wish these things to be understood morally, let him explain how this too is true which says the Lord said to my lord: sit at my right hand and that which he says elsewhere: “but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to give, but for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father”. He therefore who does not wish to understand these things worthily, according to the greatness of the mind of Christ, must be compelled to say that at one time indeed he sits at the Father’s right hand, but at another time (relinquishing a dignity of this kind, of sitting at the Father’s right hand) he sits privately with those for whom the Father has prepared that they should sit at his right hand or at his left. Likewise he must still further be compelled to say that, while sitting at the Father’s right hand, he still has enemies; for he sits beside him just so long, until they are placed by the Father as the footstool of the feet of Christ. But when he shall have ceased to sit at the Father’s right hand, then he will no longer have enemies, when those who previously had been his own footstool of the feet shall have begun to sit at his right hand or at his left according to the Father’s ordinance. And so it comes about that some of those who sit, sit in the Father’s former place. But what can be more ridiculous than these things? Then, wishing to understand the seating bodily, you will find in the same Psalm that both the Son sits at the Father’s right hand, according to what it says: “the Lord said to my lord: sit at my right hand”, and the Father sits at the Son’s right hand, according to what is declared in what follows, saying: “the Lord at your right hand has shattered kings in the day of his wrath”. But we say: it is not necessary to introduce bodily consideration into these things which are to be understood spiritually; for morally both the Son is at the Father’s right hand, and the Father is always at the Son’s right hand. — COMMENTARY ON Matthew 7

Origen of Alexandria: In what way the Savior’s enemies also are set by the Father as a footstool for his feet, it is fitting to see worthily, according to the kindness of the God who sets his enemies as a footstool for his feet. For it must not be supposed that God sets the enemies of Christ as a footstool for his feet in the same way as the enemies of earthly kings, who exterminate their own enemies, are set under their feet. Do not such kings trample down their own adversaries without mercy? But God does not set the enemies of Christ as a footstool for his feet unto their destruction, but unto their salvation, as we shall bring forward examples of the holy Scriptures signifying this very thing. For it is written in the Lamentations of Jeremiah, in the second Aleph: “How has the Lord darkened the daughter of Zion in his anger, cast down from heaven to earth the glory of Israel, and was not mindful of the footstool of his feet?” And see that, inasmuch as Israel was the footstool of God’s feet, it was glorious in heaven; but after it was cast down, so as not to be the footstool of his feet, it also ceased to be in heaven. For attend diligently to what he says: “He cast down from heaven to earth the glory of Israel, and was not mindful of the footstool of his feet”. Likewise also that saying: “Heaven is my seat, but the earth is the footstool of my feet” signifies not the dishonor but the glory of the earth, which understands concerning God some small and last part, which is morally called his feet. So also the Church upon earth, in the beginnings indeed of the worship of God and the knowledge of Christ, is the footstool of his feet; just as that “sinful woman” doing penance was at the feet of Jesus in the beginnings of her penance, for she was not yet able to pour out the ointment of the fragrance of her good deeds upon the head of Christ. For it was desirable for her even to stand beside the Lord’s feet and anoint them. And each one of us, understanding himself to be what the Apostle says, “we too were once without understanding, unbelieving, wandering, and serving diverse desires and pleasures”, will see how, inasmuch as he was such before he was washed from those things, he had been an enemy of Christ, an enemy of righteousness, of truth, of wisdom, of peace; “but after the kindness of our God the Savior appeared”, he first became a footstool for the feet of Christ. And I, being confident that this is the meaning of the Scripture, do not hesitate to affirm that the Father thus says to the Son: Sit at my right hand, until I set your enemies as a footstool for your feet. And the Apostle in the first Epistle to the Corinthians introduces such a meaning of the Scripture, that we should understand it of the subjection of those who were once enemies, that they become a footstool for the feet of Christ, speaking in this manner: “But now Christ is risen from the dead, he has become the firstfruits of them that sleep. For since by man came death, by man also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: in the beginning Christ, then those who are Christ’s, who believed at his coming; then the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God and the Father, when he shall have made void all rule and power and might. For he must reign, until he sets all his enemies under his feet. But the last enemy, death, shall be destroyed. For he has subjected all things under his feet. But when he says that all things are subjected to him, manifestly it is except him who subjected all things to him. But when all things shall have been subjected to him, then the Son himself also shall be subjected to him who subjected all things to himself, that God may be all in all”. Of all these things indeed we have made a full explanation in its proper place. See, however, how in all these passages the word of subjection is set down unto the salvation of those subjected. — COMMENTARY ON Matthew 8

Origen of Alexandria ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): For God puts Christ’s enemies as a footstool beneath His feet, for their salvation as well as their destruction. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Remigius of Rheims ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): That He says, Sit thou on my right hand, is not to be taken as though God had a body, and either a right hand or a left hand; but to sit on the right hand of God is to abide in the honour and equality of the Father’s majesty.

But till is used for indefinite time, that the meaning be, Sit Thou for ever, and for ever hold thine enemies beneath thy feet. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Tertullian: Therefore, (as they further hold, ) those other words, “Before the morning star did I beget thee from the womb,” are applicable to Hezekiah, and to the birth of Hezekiah. — Against Marcion Book V

Matthew 22:45

Augustine of Hippo: Here then there is need for caution, lest Christ himself be thought to have denied that he was the Son of David. He did not deny that he was the Son of David, but he probed his detractors on the particular way this can be. You have said that Christ is the Son of David. I do not deny it. But “if David thus calls him Lord, how is he his Son?” Tell me how he could be his son who is also his Lord? They did not answer him but were dumbfounded.Let us then answer them by the explanation given by Christ himself. Where given? Through his apostle. By what source can we prove that Christ himself has explained it? The apostle says, “Would you receive a proof of Christ who speaks in me?” So it is through the apostle’s voice that Christ has allowed this question to be solved. In the first place, do you remember what Christ said, speaking by the apostle to Timothy? “Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel.” So it is easy to see that Christ is the Son of David. But how is he also David’s Lord? Let the apostle again tell us of the one who, “though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped.” Acknowledge David’s Lord. If you acknowledge David’s Lord, our Lord, the Lord of heaven and earth, the Lord of the angels, equal with God, in the form of God, how is he David’s Son? Note what follows. The apostle shows you David’s Lord by saying, “Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” And how is he David’s Son? “But he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being found in human form, he humbled himself, having become obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God has also highly exalted him.” Christ “of the seed of David,” the Son of David, rose again because “he emptied himself.” How did he empty himself? By taking upon himself that which he was not, not by losing that which he was. He emptied himself. He “humbled himself.” Though he was God, he appeared as a man. He was despised as he walked on earth, he who made the heaven. He was despised as though a mere man, as though of no power. He was not only despised but also killed! He was that stone that was laid aside on the ground, which the Jews stumbled against and were shaken. And what does he himself say? “He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls, it shall grind him to powder.” First he was laid low, and they stumbled against him. He shall come from above, and he will “grind” them that have been shaken “to powder.” Thus you have heard that Christ is both David’s Son and David’s Lord: David’s Lord always, David’s Son in time. David’s Lord, born of the substance of his Father; David’s Son, born of the Virgin Mary, conceived by the Holy Spirit. Let us hold fast both. The one of them will be our eternal habitation; the other is our deliverance from our present exile. — SERMON 92.2-3

John Chrysostom: “If David then call Him Lord, how is He then his Son,” not taking away the fact that He is his Son, away with the thought; for He would not then have reproved Peter for this, but to correct their secret thoughts. So that when He saith, “How is He his Son?” He meaneth this, not so as ye say. For they said, that He is Son only, and not also Lord. And this after the testimony, and then submissively, “If David then call Him Lord, how is He his Son?”

But, nevertheless, even when they had heard these things, they answered nothing, for neither did they wish to learn any of the things that were needful. Wherefore He Himself addeth and saith, that “He is his Lord.” Or rather not even this very thing doth He say without support, but having taken the prophet with Him, because of His being exceedingly distrusted by them, and evil reported of amongst them. — Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 71

Matthew 22:46

Jerome: (Verse 46) And no one was able to answer him a word, nor did anyone dare from that day on to ask him any more questions. The Pharisees and Sadducees, seeking an opportunity to accuse him, and to find some word by which they could trap him, because they were confounded by his teachings, no longer questioned him, but were clearly apprehended and handed over to the Roman authorities. From this we understand that the poisons of envy can indeed be overcome, but it is difficult for them to rest. — Commentary on Matthew

John Chrysostom: For they were silent from thenceforth, not willingly, but from their having nothing to say; and they received so deadly a blow, as no longer to dare to attempt the same things any more. For, “no one,” it is said, “durst from that day forth ask Him any more questions.”

And this was no little advantage to the multitude. Therefore also unto them doth He henceforth direct His word, having removed the wolves, and having repulsed their plots.

For those men gained nothing, taken captive by vainglory, and having fallen upon this terrible passion. For terrible is this passion and many-headed, for some set their heart upon power for the sake of this, some on wealth, some on strength. But proceeding in order it goes on unto almsgiving also, and fasting, and prayers, and teaching, and many are the heads of this monster. — Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 71

Origen of Alexandria ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): For had their question sprung of desire to know, He would never have proposed to them such things as should have deterred them from asking further. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Rabanus Maurus ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Hence we learn that the poison of jealousy may be overcome, but can hardly of itself rest at peace. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas