COMMENTARIES ON THE GOSPELS
(c) Copyright,1993, by William G.Most
THE THOUGHT OF ST.MATTHEW
Cf.also the 7 pages of general introduction to the Gospels
Introduction
Early in the 20th century, Form Critics used to say the
Evangelists were not authors, just "stringers of beads".They
meant that the writers just gathered up reports of individual
sayings or acts of Jesus and strung them together. Predictably,
there has been an equal and opposite reaction. Now the critics
see wonderful artistry.
Matthew does show more structure than the other Gospels.
After a few preliminaries, there are five units which critics
sometimes call "books". Each unit opens with a narrative,
followed by a discourse, ending with some such words as: "When
Jesus finished these words."(7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:11).
Preliminaries: Genealogy of Jesus, His birth, flight into Egypt,
return to Nazareth: chapters 1 & 2.
Unit 1: a)Narrative: Chapters 3 & 4: John the Baptist, the
Baptism of Jesus, His inaugural retreat and temptation in the
desert, His call of the first disciples.
b)Discourse: Sermon on the Mount: chapters 5,6,7.
Unit 2: a)Narrative: chapters 8,9. Begins to announce the Kingdom
of God, works many miracles to show His authority and power.
b)Discourse: the trial missionary mission: 10.1 to 11.1.
Unit 3: a)Narrative: chapters 11,12: People begin to reject Him.
b)Discourse: chapters 12,13. He turns to parables because of
their blindness and rejection.
Unit 4: a)Narrative: 14.1 -16:13: Death of the Baptist, more
miracles, conflict with Pharisees, the Canaanite woman,
multiplication of loaves and fishes.
b)Discourse: 16:13-19:1 - Characteristics of the Church,
it will be built on Peter
Unit 5: a) Narrative: chapters 19,20,21,22,23: He leaves Galilee
for Jerusalem.
b)Discourse: the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the
world. 24:1 to 26:1
Epilogue: Passion and resurrection.
Commentary on St.Matthew
Literary genre of chapters 1-2, the infancy narratives: Pope Paul
VI,in an Allocution of Dec.28,1966 (Insegnamenti de Paolo
VI,IV,pp.678-79,Vatican Press,1966) complained that some, "try to
diminish the historical value of the Gospels themselves,
especially those that refer to the birth of Jesus and His
infancy. We mention this devaluation briefly so that you may know
how to defend with study and faith the consoling certainty that
these pages are not inventions of people's fancy, but that they
speak the truth.... The authority of the Council has not
pronounced differently on this: 'The Sacred Authors
wrote...always in such a way that they reported on Jesus with
sincerity and truth' (Constitution on Divine Revelation 19."
Although the Council had used extreme care in LG 55 to make
clear it was not giving assurance that the sacred writers of Gen
3:15 and Is 7:14 understood as much as the Church now sees in
these texts,yet when in 56- 57 it spoke of the material of
the Infancy Gospels,it used no such reservations at
all.Rather,for example, it said in 57: "This union of the Mother
with the Son in the work of salvation is manifested from the time
of the virginal conception of Christ even to His death...in His
birth, when the Mother of God joyfully showed her firstborn, who
did not diminish but consecrated her virginal integrity, to the
shepherds and the Magi." (In passing we note it spoke of virginal
integrity, a physical word, ruling out the idea that the texts on
her virginity were meant only spiritually - as a theologoumenon).
Pope John Paul II,in a General Audience of Jan.28,1988 said:
"To identify the source of the infancy narrative, one must go
back to St.Luke's remark: 'Mary kept all these things, pondering
them in her heart,' ... Mary who 'kept these things in her heart'
...could bear witness, after Christ's death and resurrection,in
regard to what concerned herself and her role as Mother,
precisely in the apostolic period when the New Testament texts
were being written and when the early Christian tradition had its
origin."
R.E.Brown,in The Birth of the Messiah (Doubleday,1977)
thought that the Gospel writers had little factual basis for the
infancy Gospels - rather they, especially Luke, built up scant
data by using parallels to Old Testament texts. But John
L.McKenzie,a real friend of Browns,' in his review of that book
(National Catholic Reporter, Dec.2,1977, p.10) wrote:"One wonders
how a gentile convert...could have acquired so quickly the
mastery of the Greek Old Testament shown...in Luke's infancy
narratives....Luke must have had a source for his Old Testament
texts and allusions; and as it is hard to think of such a
collection of texts without a narrative for them to illustrate, a
pre-Lucan infancy narrative is suggested,I beg to submit." We
recall St.Luke in his opening lines did say he used written
accounts.
There are some specific objections about certain things
within the infancy narratives. We will answer each at the
suitable point.The most considerable is about the census,
mentioned by Luke,and the fact that Luke speaks of Quirinius as
"governing" [though not as governor].Usually scholars have put
the birth of Christ as between 4 and 6 BC. But new research by
E.L.Martin, in The Star that Astonished the World (ASK
Publications, Portland,Box 2500,1991). We summarize Martin's
work:
(1).The date of the birth of Christ hinges on just one
thing,the statement of Josephus (Antiquities 17.6-8) that Herod
died shortly after an eclipse of the moon. Astronomers supply the
dates for such eclipses around those years: None in 7 or 6 BC. In
5 BC, March 23, 29 days to Passover. Also in 5 BC. Sept 15,7
months to Passover. In 4 BC.March 13, 29 days to Passover.3 and 2
BC.no eclipses. In 1 BC. January 10, 12 1/2 weeks to Passover.
(2).Josephus also tells what events happened between the
Eclipse and the Passover (cf.Martin pp.85-87).They would occupy
probably about 12 weeks. Martin also,pp. 99-101 shows that the
eclipse of Sept 15,5 BC could not fit with known data,especially
the fact that Herod was seriously ill in Jericho (over 800 feet
below sea level) when the eclipse happened - but Jericho was a
furnace of heat at that time,Sept 15. Herod would not have stayed
there when he could have had the much better climate of
Jerusalem. But if the eclipse was in midwinter - Jan 10-- Herod
would find Jericho comfortable.
(3).We know from an inscription from Paphlagonia in Asia
Minor - cf.Lewis and Reinhold, Roman Civilization, Source Book
II,pp.34-35 - that in 3 BC all the people took an oath of
allegiance to Augustus.The same oath is also reported by the
Armenian historian Moses of Khorene, and by the later historian
Orosius.
(4).Augustus was to receive the great title of Pater Patriae
on Feb.5,2 BC. So the actual governor of Palestine, probably
Varus,would have had to go to Rome for the festivities,and since
sailing on the Mediterranean stopped about Nov.1,and did not
resume until Spring, he must have gone in the early fall of 3 BC.
But Quirinius was nearby, had just finished a successful war
against the Homonadenses. So he was left as acting Governor. Luke
does not use the noun governor,but the participle, "governing".
(5).There is an obscure decade in history, 6 BC to 4 AD, as
Classicists readily recognize. Yet this period is
important,including the time when Tiberius was absent from
political life at Rome, being at Capri. It is hard to fit the
events of this period into place if we make the birth of Christ
early as is commonly done. But if we put it in 3 BC the
difficulties are over.For example, we know Augustus received his
15th acclamation for a major victory,won by one of his generals,
around this time. If we pick 4 BC for the death of Herod,we
cannot find a victory to warrant the acclamation, which came in 1
AD. But if we put the birth of Christ in 3 BC,then the war would
be running at about the needed time,and finished in 1 AD.
Objection:a) Josephus says Herod had a reign of 37 years
after being proclaimed king by Romans,and had 34 yrs after death
of Antigonus,which came soon after Herod took Jerusalem.
b)Further,his 3 successors,Archelaus,Antipas and Philip started
to reign in 4 BC.So Herod died in 4 BC.
Reply:a) That calculation would make death of Herod actually
in 3 BC,not in 4 BC - scholars have to stretch the date to 4 BC,
since no eclipse of moon happened in 3 BC. - But, Herod took
Jerusalem late in 36 BC (on Yom Kippur in a sabbatical year,so
well remembered - and Josephus says Pompey had taken Jerusalem in
63 which was 27 yrs to the day of Herod's capture of Jerusalem).
Using the common accession year dating,we see Herod started his
34 years on Nisan 1 in 35 BC,and those years would end on Nisan 1
BC. So 34 years after 35 BC yields 1 BC for death of Herod after
eclipse of Jan 10. --b) As to the 3 successors,Herod lost favor
of Augustus in 4 BC, on a false report, was no longer "Friend of
Caesar", but "Subject". Antedating of reigns was common - reason
here was to make the three seem to connect with the two
"royal"sons, of Hasmonean descent, Alexander and Aristobulus,whom
Herod executed on false reports from Antipater (do not confuse
with Antipas).
The Star: In the evening of June 17,2 BC, there was a
spectacular astronomical event in the western sky. Venus moved
eastward seemingly going to collide with Jupiter. They appeared
as one star,not two, dominating the twilight of the western sky
in the direction of Palestine. This conjunction had not happened
for centuries,would not happen again for more centuries. Jupiter
was considered the Father,Venus the Mother. Then 19 days later,on
August 31st Venus came within .36 degrees of Mercury. On Sept 11
came the New Moon,the Jewish New Year. This happened when
Jupiter,the King planet was approaching Regulus,the King star.
Further,there were three conjunctions of Jupiter and Regulus
within the constellation of Leo,the lion which was considered the
head of the Zodiac. Now Gen 49:10 had foretold there would always
be a ruler from Judah, whom Jacob called the lion, until the time
of the Messiah. Leo was dominated by the star Regulus, which
astronomers called the King Star. The Magi,being astronomers and
astrologers,would surely read these signs. (The three
conjunctions with Regulus were Aug 12,3 BC; Feb.17,2 BC,and May
8/9 2BC).
Also,on Dec.25 of 2 BC,Jupiter stopped for 6 days over
Bethlehem. This is a normal motion for Jupiter, it stops twice,
and reverses its seeming movement.This may have been the very
time the Magi came with their gifts.This was also the time of the
Hanukkah festival,during which it was customary for Jewish
Fathers to give gifts to their children.
Martin thinks the birth of Jesus was in September 3 BC,and
the probable date of the Magi was Dec.25,2 BC.
More than 600 planetariums here and in Europe have revised
their Christmas star show to match this work of E.L.Martin.
OT prophecies in St.Matthew: Matthew is noted for citing
fulfillment of prophecies. In what sense does he mean these?
There are chiefly three senses of Scripture admitted by all:
(1)Literal sense-- not the crude sense, but what the author meant
to assert by his words (in studying it, we take into account
literary genre: what the writer asserts); (2)Typical sense: in it
one thing stands for another. It is a real sense, which we can be
sure of only from the use by many Fathers and approval by the
Church, e.g., Isaac carrying the wood for his own sacrifice is a
type or forecast of Jesus carrying His cross. (3)Accommodated
sense: This sense is not really contained in Scripture: a speaker
or writer merely adapts the words to a sense he wishes to bring
out.
In addition many believe there can be a Fuller sense
(sensus plenior). In it, the Chief Author, the Holy Spirit, would
have in mind more than the human author saw. Vatican II, DV 12
had an opening to affirm or deny the existence of such a sense.
It chose vague wording which did neither. However, in LG 55 it
actually made use of a fuller sense. Speaking of Genesis 3:15 and
Is 7:14 it said: "These primaeval documents, as they are read in
the Church, and understood in the light of later and full
revelation, gradually bring to light the figure of the woman, the
Mother of the Redeemer. She, in this light, is already
prophetically foreshadowed in the promise, given to our first
parents fallen into sin, of victory over the serpent (cf.Gen
3.15)...." It is clear that the Council wanted to avoid saying
it was certain that the human authors saw all that the Church now
sees - whether what the Church now sees is literal or typical
sense (typical sense,as we said,is a real sense of Scripture).
The use of cf. is to underscore this position.
Many authors admit there at least can be multiple
fulfillment of a prophecy - it can have two fulfillments, go
through more than once. It is commonly thought that we have such
a case in 2 Tim 3:1 -- "in the last days" can mean either all the
time for the ascension to the return of Christ, and can also mean
more specially the times just before that return. Another very
likely case, as we shall see, is Matthew's use of Is 7:14. For
more on this sense, cf.Wm.Most,Free From All Error
(Libertyville,Il.1985), chapter 5.
1.1-17:Genealogies: Endless are the discussions on how to
reconcile the genealogy in Matthew with that in Luke. It has
been suggested that Luke gives the line for Our Lady - but that
was not usual at all for Jews to give. It has been suggested that
if we assume a few levirate marriages (cf.Dt. 25:5-6) the two
could harmonize. That law provided that if a married man died
without offspring, his brother should take his wife to continue
the line.
But really we need to note that in ancient times genealogies
were not always intended as family trees: they were often
constructed to present other relationships. Cf.R.Wilson,
Genealogy and History in the Biblical World (Yale,
1977,esp.p.166) and idem, in Biblical Archaeologist,Winter
19,pp.11-22.
1:18-24: Angel speaks to Joseph: After the engagement,but before
the marriage itself, Joseph found that his wife was with child.
He had several options: he could denounce her to the tribunal to
annul the engagement; he could keep her and celebrate the
marriage itself; he could repudiate her in public, but without
asking for any punishment, or he could do it privately before two
witnesses without having to give a motive,and without dating the
bill of rejection,to save her honor. It is this last option that
Joseph was planning to use, for he was "just",that is,a man who
did everything that was morally right- such is the sense of
Hebrew sedaqah and sadiq. He was interiorly convinced of her
honor and moral rightness even though he could not reconcile that
with the pregnancy. If he did not have that conviction he might
have publicly repudiated her. But in divine matters at times we
meet two conclusions which clearly clash.Then we should hold to
both without straining either one until finally, we hope, a
solution may appear.
It is obvious that she had not told Joseph of the
annunciation. As soon as the angel told her that her Son would
reign over the house of Jacob forever, she at once knew He was to
be the Messiah, for only the Messiah was to reign forever. (She
most likely knew also of His divinity - more on that in our
commentary on Luke).
An ordinary soul might have reasoned: "Now my people have
been waiting for this day for centuries. I should share the joy
with them,and especially I should tell the authorities in
Jerusalem. And Joseph- if I do not tell him,soon he will not be
able to avoid dark suspicions. Yet guided by the Holy Spirit
through the Gifts, she did nothing of the kind. She kept
silent,so silent that it was necessary for God to send an angel
to tell Joseph the truth.
An objection is raised: In Matthew, the angel speaks to
Joseph, in Luke, to Our Lady. Reply: This is not problem at all,
both things could easily happen.
Further objection: How can the two accounts, of Matthew and
of Luke, be reconciled? John P.Meier,in A Marginal Jew [Jesus!]
p.216 even speaks of "the somewhat contorted or suspect ways in
which Matthew and Luke reconcile the dominant Nazareth tradition
with the special Bethlehem tradition...may indicate that Jesus'
birth at Bethlehem is to be taken not as a historical fact but as
a theologoumenon," that is, merely a way of saying Jesus was son
of David.
Reply: There is nothing contorted in Scripture. The sequence
is this: Jesus was born at Bethlehem - Meier thinks nothing of
the prophecy of Micah 5! He was then circumcised on the 8th day,
presented in the Temple of the 40th day. Then He was taken either
back to Bethlehem, or, to Nazareth. Lk 2:39 could imply a return
to Nazareth, though it would not have to imply it. Yet from Mt
2:22 on the return from Egypt it seems they had first thought of
going to Bethlehem, changed mind only because of the rule of
Archelaus in Judea. and then went back to Bethlehem.In this
second possibility the Holy Family may have finally intended to
settle in Bethlehem, but changed because of the angel's warning
to the Magi. There was definitely enough time for these travels,
because Herod ordered infants to be slain up to 2 years of age.
He was a crazy tyrant, and gave himself a margin, yet it does
mean there must have been some time. Matthew does definitely
speak of their being in a house, not a stable, when the Magi
came. For as we said there would have been some time before their
coming. At once then,after the warning, they fled to Egypt. As
noted above, Mt 2:22 seems to imply on their return they had
planned to settle in Bethlehem, changed to Nazareth because they
found Archelaus was reigning in Judea. This fact fits as we said
with the supposition that they had earlier intended to settle in
Bethlehem - and Joseph had obtained a house there, in which the
Magi found them.
If we ask why Matthew has some facts, Luke others, there is
more than one possibility. One very good one is this: Ancient
witnesses all put Matthew's composition before that of Luke
(cf.our remarks in the general introduction on Marcan alleged
priority). Considering Our Lady's remarkable modesty and humility
- which led her to not even tell Joseph - it could be that the
author of Matthew did indeed speak to her, but she modestly
omitted the items that pertained to her. Yet later, Luke might
have privately induced her to speak, and so he brought out the
Marian elements. Luke might have thought it not needed to record
the Matthean elements since they were already known. (Cf.the
theory that John in his Gospel intended to supplement the earlier
Gospels). We recall too that Luke in his opening lines said he
had used written accounts - that could have included Matthew.
1:23:Matthew cites Isaiah 7:14, and understands it of the
virginal conception. Vatican II in LG 55, as cited above, was
careful to avoid saying that the human writers of Gen 3:15 and Is
7:14 understood as much as the Church now sees. So we do not know
if Isaiah himself saw this text as a prophecy of the virginal
conception. All admit today that the child in 7:14 is the same as
the child in Is 9:5-6: "A child is given to us...his name will be
called,wonderful counsellor,Mighty God...." The reason is that
both passages belong to a stretch we call the Book of Immanuel.
Yet the characteristics shown fit partly Jesus, partly Hezekiah,
son of Achaz, to whom Isaiah spoke. On the one hand,a sign to
come more than 700 years in the future would not be much a sign
for Achaz. On the other hand, the characteristics given in 9:5-6
are much too grandiose for Hezekiah. So we had best see 7:14 as a
case of multiple fulfillment: a divine prophecy can go through,be
fulfilled more than once.
So Matthew is right in seeing it fulfilled in Jesus. And of
course Our Lady, seeing it fulfilled in herself, could not miss
the true sense.
We add: very much help can be had from the Targums.These are
old Aramaic versions of the Old Testament - we have them for
nearly all the Old Testament. They surely show how the Jews
understood the prophecies, without seeing them fulfilled in
Christ, whom they hated. Further, a great modern Jewish scholar,
Jacob Neusner, in his study, Messiah in Context (Fortress,1984)
reviewed all Jewish writings from after 70 to the Babylonian
Talmud (500-600 AD).He found no interest in the Messiah up to
500, then interest only in saying He was to be of the line of
David - other features of the prophecies were not mentioned.In
contrast,the Targums see the Messiah in so many texts, in so many
respects. On this cf.Samson Levey, The Messiah:An Aramaic
Interpretation, Hebrew Union College, 1974. It is evident,the
sections on Messianic prophecies had to be written before 70 A.D.
Some think they go back, in oral form, to the time of Ezra.
Now oddly, the Targums do say 9:5-6 is messianic,but do not
say it of 7:14 - even though it is evident the child is the same
in both places. The answer to the riddle comes again from Jacob
Neusner, op.cit. p.174,who cites Hillel, one of the greatest
teachers at the time of Christ, saying that Hezekiah had been the
Messiah - and so 7:14 was messianic. But Neusner adds, on p.190,
that when the Jews found Christians using 7:14 they began to say
it was not messianic. Samson Levey,op.cit p.152,n.10 admits the
Jews did such things. So also does H.J.Schoeps, Paul
(Westminster,1961,p.129). (We note too, Isaiah used Hebrew
almah,which can readily mean virgin, but need not - instead of
betulah, which would be fully clear. The Septuagint later used
Greek parthenos, which is clearly virgin. Vatican II, LG 55,as
we said, carefully avoided saying the original authors of Gen
3:15 and Is 7:14 saw in their writings all that the Church now
sees - hence a reason for almah.
In 1:25 Joseph had no relations until she bore her son. The
actual Scriptural usage of the word until sometimes means a
change at that point, at other times does not. Examples of the
latter: DT.34:6; Ps.110:1; Ps.72:7; 2 Sam 6:23; Mt 11:23; Mt
28:20. Some manuscripts here add the word firstborn ,probably
taken from Lk 2:7. It expresses the special position of the bekor
in the Hebrew family, does not have to imply more sons later. A
Greek tomb inscription at Tel el Yaoudieh (Biblica 11,1930,369-
90) uses that word in connection of a mother who died in
childbirth. Another epitaph like this is from Leontopolis
(Biblical Archaeology Review, Sept/Oct.1992,p.56.
Further, even J.P.Meier (op.cit.pp.340-41) admits that the
rabbis beginning with Philo, held that Moses, after his first
encounter with God, no longer had sex with his wife. What then of
Our Lady who had a nine months encounter with Him in her womb,in
which He even took flesh from her! And Joseph, knowing the
conception was by the Holy Spirit, surely would have had the same
attitude.
As to the mentions of brothers and sisters of Jesus we first
notice that Hebrew and Aramaic had few words for relationships,
and so used ah for all sorts of relatives. Yes, Greek did have
words, but in so many places to understand the Greek we need to
look to the Hebrew word that is in the mind of the writer,e.g.,
in Rom (9:13 Paul cites Mal 1:2-3:"I have loved Jacob and hated
Esau." Hebrew and Aramaic had no degrees of comparison,and so
used such language where we would say: "I love one more and the
other less." Again,in 1 Cor 1:17 Paul says "Christ did not send
me to baptize but to preach". Yet Paul did baptize. We would say:
One role is greater than the other. Also, in Rom 5:19 Paul uses
the word polloi, "many" for all, since all receive original
sin.(Polloi reflects Hebrew rabbim).
Further at the time of His death, Jesus asked John to take
care of His Mother. If He had 4 blood brothers and some
sisters,this would have been out of place. More specifically, we
know that James, a "brother" was still alive in 49 AD (cf.Gal
1:19).
2:1-12: Visit of the Magi: The Greek historian Herodotus tells us
(1.101) that the Magi were originally one of the six tribes of
the Medes.They were a priestly caste comparable to the Levites
among the Israelites. In their early history they were
counsellors to the Kings of the Medes,Persians and Babylonians.
Josephus (War 6.313) reports that the Jews expected one from
their own country would rule the earth. Suetonius, (Vespasian 4)
reports the same belief. So does Tacitus (History 5.13).
Suetonius (Nero) 40 even says some of the court astrologers of
Nero advised him to move his capital to Jerusalem, since it was
to become the capital of the world. These beliefs would be known
to the Magi,in fact, it seems that the Zoroastrian traditions
spoke of a king to come from the line of Abraham. Jacob Neusner
(op.cit.p.12) tells of the "intense, vivid ,prevailing
expectation that the Messiah was coming soon."
Martin (chapter 13) argues ingeniously, though not
conclusively, that the birth of Jesus was early September in 3
BC, probably on Sept 11,the Day of the Trumpets,and the visit
of the Magi was about Dec.25 of the next year, 2 B.C. Then Jesus
would have been about 15 months old.This fits with the word
Matthew 2:14 uses for Him, paidion,whereas at birth He was called
brephos,infant.
We do not know how many Magi there were -- the mention of
three gifts, often leads to supposing there were three Magi.
2:13-23: Flight to Egypt and return: Egypt was a common place of
refuge at the time.There were several large Jewish communities
there.
Matthew's use of the text about Rachel in Ramah weeping for
her children to apply to the slaughter of the Innocents, Ramah,
usually considered the place of the tomb of Rachel, is not
fanciful. He wants to connect theologically three major places in
previous salvation history: Bethlehem, the city of David,the city
for the Messiah; and the two most sorrowful events,the
persecution in Egypt,and slaughter of Hebrew boys and the exile;
Ramah was the gathering and mourning place for setting out for
the exile (Cf.Jer.40:1-2). Ramah is about 5 miles north of
Jerusalem. Bethlehem is about 5 miles south of Jerusalem:
theologically and poetically, Rachel hears and mourns, the
mourning is so loud.
Matthew likes to think of Jesus as the new Moses. Here are
some points: 1)Amran father of Moses,according to tradition, knew
in a dream of the birth of Moses, future liberator of Israel.
Joseph similarly. 2)Pharaoh by astrologers knew of the birth of a
child who would liberate Israel. Herod knew through the Magi.
3)The Egyptians feared - so did Herod. 4) Pharaoh consulted his
wise men. So did Herod. 5)Pharaoh ordered the murder of Hebrew
boys. So did Herod. 6)Moses and Jesus both escaped. 7)Moses
liberated Hebrews; Jesus all men.
In this perspective, Matthew quotes Hosea 11:1: "Out of
Egypt I called my son." In the original context it meant the
whole people of Israel. Matthew makes it refer to Christ's return
from Egypt. This could be a case of multiple fulfillment or of
fuller sense. Those who dislike to admit fuller sense in general
would say that there is a common background of salvation history
in both instances.
On the return,Joseph hears that Archelaus is ruling. Not
long before, he had slaughtered 3000 worshippers at the time of
the Passover in 1 BC. He was so brutal that Augustus banished
him in 6 AD.
"He will be called a Nazarean": The name of the town
Nazareth varies in ancient spellings: Nazaret(h) appears 10 times
in the NT, Nazara appears twice. It is never mentioned in any
preChristian Jewish writings. But there is no specific OT
prophecy saying He will be called a Nazarean. Probability is that
Matthew is alluding to nazir, consecrated to God. It seems to be
a play on words. Such plays are known in Scripture. A dramatic
one is found in 2 Kings 1:10 and repeated in 1:12. The king sends
two detachments of 50 to Elijah who is sitting on a hill. The
captain says - If you are the man of God, come down. Elijah
answers: "If I am a man of God, let the fire of God come down and
consume you". It did, for each of the two detachments. Man is
ish, fire is esh. Matthew may also have in mind Hebrew neser,
branch - a word often taken to stand for the Messiah by the
Targums. Cf.Isaiah 11:1.
3:1-6:John the Baptist: The "wilderness of Juda" was a vaguely
defined place including the lower Jordan valley north of the Dead
Sea,and also the land immediately west of the Dead Sea.It as
arid,but not entirely without population. It was used for pasture
(cf.Psalm 65:12). It was steppe or prairie land, with a short-
lived crop of grass after the winter rains.
- His clothing of camel's hair and a leather belt reminded
one of Elijah (2 Kings 1:8).This was also the garb of the poor.
Locusts which he ate were large grasshoppers - still eaten in the
Near East. along with wild honey.
Matthew now cites Isaiah 40:3, and says that John is the one
of whom Isaiah spoke.Isaiah had told of a voice crying in the
wilderness, to prepare the way for the King, God Himself, to go
through. Messengers in the ancient Near East did have the work of
making sure the roads were passable for a royal journey. In
Isaiah the thought seems to be that the way will be made clear
for God to bring His people back from the Babylonian exile:
nothing will be able to stop it.
Instead of using the usual formula "thus was fulfilled" etc.
here Matthew says in equivalent words: "This is the one of whom
the prophet spoke." So we may have here another case of multiple
fulfillment, or at least, an indication that the complete
fulfillment of Isaiah does not come until the coming of Christ.
In Isaiah the way is prepared for God Himself - so there is
an implication here that Jesus is God. We find the same
implication in the relation of Mt 11:3 (Lk 7:20) to Malachi 3:1.
In the Hebrew that verse said: "Behold,I send my messenger and he
will prepare the way before my face." In Malachi it mean God
Himself would come, as even R.H.Fuller observes (Foundations of
New Testament Christology, Scribner's, 1965,p.48). Jesus in Mt
11:3 cites the line in the form current in His day: "Behold, I
send my messenger before your face, who will prepare the way
before you." That form came from a fusion of Malachi 3:1 with Ex
23:20. Jesus cited it to refer to John being His own forerunner
- so even though Jesus used the then current wording, there was
an implication, not hard to see, that Jesus was God Himself. Yet
He did not make it entirely clear, in line with His policy of
very gradual self-revelation.
Washings or baptisms were known even among the pagans.
Sacred baths were found in Hellenistic mystery cults, and also in
Egypt, Babylonia and India. These were thought to bring cleansing
from moral and ritual impurities.
We distinguish ritual from moral cleansing. The OT
prescribed washing for removing various kinds of ritual
impurities, e.g., after being cured of leprosy (Lev 14:8 ff),
after contracting personal uncleanness (15:1ff). It would be
usually just a washing, not an immersion, for water was too
scarce for many immersions. The Mosaic Law prescribed chiefly the
washing of garments, the rabbis extended it to washing pots and
pans etc.(Mk 7:4; Lk 11:38). But these washings removed only
ritual impurity, not moral guilt.
Since John's Baptism called for repentance, it was aimed at
moral cleanness. Confession of sin was part of the duty of a
priest(Lev 5:5; 26:40; Num 5:6-7). The repentance, reflects
Hebrew naham ,sorrow for one's actions,and shub, turning to new
actions. So Greek metanoia mans not only "change your mind" as
one unfortunate commentator proposed, but a change of heart: see
what I have done is wrong,regret it,propose to avoid it in the
future.
Of course,John's Baptism was not a sacrament,which by its
inherent power given by Christ would produce its effect if the
recipient placed no obstacle (ex opere operato). Yet surely God
would take occasion of this repentance and baptism to really
remit sins.In Ez 33:14-16 God says that if the wicked man turns
from his wicked way, he will surely live. That condition was
obviously verified in those who sincerely came to John's Baptism.
May we add a speculation as to the process involved: In
Ezekiel God did not ask for perfect contrition, for sorrow
because sin offends God who is good in Himself,but just for
sincerely turning from the evil way. Now all God's attributes are
identified with His nature,as we gather from 1 John 4:8, "God IS
love."Similarly,He is righteousness,mercy,goodness.These are
identified in Him. So if someone,seeing what he has done is
contrary to what is right,what God wills, then He too regrets
because it is against God who is righteous, who is good. Since
at this time the Sacrament of Penance had not been instituted,
the ritual of John would be the suitable occasion for such
forgiveness, within good order (Cf.Summa I.19.5.c). But now that
Christ has established that Sacrament,if someone were to say: I
do not want to do it the way you planned it,to confess to the
Apostles or their successors to whom you said, "Whose sins you
forgive they are forgiven them." No, just forgive me without that
process - It would be contrary what is right, to good order,
which God loves, to forgive sins in a person who knows of that
Sacrament of Penance.
In any event,clearly God's goodness is so immense,His desire
for our salvation so great,that He would not pass by an
opportunity to forgive such as was contained in the scene of
John's baptism.
3:7-10:We specified this would happen in those who were sincere.
Pharisees and Sadducees also came, either to look on or to go
through the ritual as a matter of the hypocrisy for which Jesus
later upbraided them. To them John spoke harshly,indicating he
read their hearts,and did not see true repentance. He told them
not to presume on the fact that Abraham was their ancestor.That
is not enough, even though the Jews were inclined to think so,as
echoed in the Talmud,Sanhedrin 10.1: "All Israel has part in the
world to come." But John called them a brood of vipers -language
like that of Is 14:29, later to be used by Jesus Himself: Mt
12:3.We gather it is not wrong to use harsh language when it is
called for. And John said that now the axe is at the root of the
tree - to separate the really good from those of false
appearance, or.to use the language Paul would later employ,there
is a difference between the real sons of Abraham,those who
imitate his faith,and those who have only carnal descent: cf.Rom
4:12.
Today many try to make the Jews look better,and say that
the strictures of Jesus against the Pharisees were not really
made by Him - it was later in the first century that Jews and
Christians quarrelled, and then the Christians used such
language. But that would mean the Gospel was not telling the
truth. In this connection, recent discoveries in the Dead Sea
Scrolls make clear that the later picture of the Pharisees in
rabbinic literature holds also for the time of Christ, since the
Damascus Document, once thought to be late, now is known to come
from Qumram: Cf.Bible Review, June 1992,pp. 30-33,54, "New Light
on the Pharisees".
Supplement 1: kingdom of heaven
John said that the kingdom of heaven was at hand. The Hebrew
malkut and Aramaic malkuta regularly meant reign. It was under
that influence that the New American Bible in the first edition
regularly used reign,instead of kingdom. But even R.E.Brown
admits that was a mistake. In Responses to 101 Questions on the
Bible (Paulist,1990,p.12), he said that the editor made some
unfortunate changes in the original copies , "Some bad choices
were made e.g., to render 'the kingdom of God' by 'the reign of
God." In The Churches the Apostles Left Behind
(Paulist,1984,pp.51-52) he said that in some of the later parts
of the NT,"The kingdom and the church have begun to be partially
identified." Now we readily admit that most ancient words and
phrases have a broad range of possible meaning,and "kingdom of
God" is one of them. Yet it is not only in the later parts that
we see this identification. It is clear in the Gospels,
especially in Mt 21,43: "The kingdom will be taken away from you
and given to a nation that will yield a rich harvest." He was
telling the Pharisees, after the parable of the dishonest
tenants, that they would no longer be part of the People of
God,the Church - the gentiles would yield better fruit. The same
idea is evident in the parable of the net, the parable of the
weeds in the wheat, and the parable of the mustard seed. In fact,
right after saying this happened in the late part of the NT,Brown
himself cites the parable of the weeds in the wheat! Actually
"kingdom of heaven" sometimes means the Church in the next world,
and not just in this world.
We can grant that the Apostles at first did not understand
what the kingdom meant. Real confusion shows in the question
recorded in Lk 17:20-21 (cf.19:11). And just before the ascension
one of them asked (Acts 1:6):"Lord are you going to restore the
kingdom to Israel at this time?" So we are not required to think
John the Baptist understood fully - really, we do not know how
much he may have grasped. Deeply spiritual men almost by a sort
of connaturality grasp spiritual truths deeply and early.
Actually, on a broader base, Jesus used a very gradual form
of self-revelation. The use of the Son of Man title is one
instance of this. Had He at the start said: "I and the Father are
one," or:"Before Abraham was, I am," they would have stoned Him
at once.
Supplement 2:
Why did John himself live a life of such austerity and
penance? (special comments on 3:4)
There was a gradual clarification of thought on these
matters.
In the Old Testament 1)Fasting and almsgiving help get
requests granted that are made in prayer. Thus David in 2 Sam
12:16 ff fasted in the hope of saving his son's life. When that
failed,he stopped fasting. Cf.Psalm 32:13 and 69:9-10,and Judges
20:26; 1 Sam 13:24; 1 Kings 21:9; Ezra 8:21-23;Jer 14:12 and 36:6
& 9. 2)Almsgiving can atone for sin:
Tobit 12:8:"Prayer with fasting is good,but better than both is
almsgiving along with righteousness....For almsgiving saves from
death,and cleanses away every sin." Sirach 3:30: "Water puts out
a blazing fire; and almsgiving atones (exilasetai) for sin.:
(Cf. ibid. 17;22; 29:12; 40: 17 & 24) .
3)The Holiness of God wants
atonement,i.e, make-up for sin,even if the sin is committed
unintentionally (sheggagah).All of Leviticus chapter 4 brings
this out.Cf.Numbers 15:22-29.
4)The use of creatures makes it harder
to see the true goods: Wisdom 4:12:"The witching spell of things
that are little makes it hard to see the good things." Wisdom
9:15:"The corruptible body weighs down the soul."
In the New Testament The same values are presented,but more
clearly. Jesus calls on His disciples if they want to be
perfect,to sell all they have and give it to the poor:Mt 19:21.
But this is not only to affect possessions: they are to deny
themselves and take up their cross: Mt 16;24. In Mt.19:29 Jesus
promises those who have left home, or brothers, or parents or
lands for His name are to receive a hundredfold in this life, and
eternal life later. Mark and Luke in the parallel passages make
clear the hundredfold comes even in this life.
St.Paul considered all the things of this world as so much
rubbish,to gain Christ:Phil 3:8-9. Even though he had great
hardships in his work,he added fasting: 2 Cor 11:23-27. He
treated his body harshly (hypopiazo) so it would not rebel and
lead him into sin,and he might lose his eternal reward: 1 Cor
9:27. He urged all to practice detachment,to be as though not
using this world: 1 Cor 7:31.
The intertestamental writers taught the same. Philo ( On
Special Laws 2.195) says that fasting helps control the
tongue,the belly and the organs below the belly. The Psalms of
Solomon (1 cent.,B.C.) 3:7-8 says the righteous man atones for
even unintentional sins. Fasting is greatly extolled in the
History of the Rechabites (1-4 centA.D.); in Apocalypses of
Abraham (1-2 cent A.D.) 12:1-2; of Elijah (1-4 cent.A.D.) 1.15-
22; of Zephaniah (1 cent BC or AD) 7;6; in 2 Baruch) early 2d
cent.AD) 20:5,and in the Testament of Isaac (2d cent AD) 4:1-2
and Testament of Jacob (prps.2-3 cent.,AD) 7:17-18.
Rabbinic writings are strong on the concept that sin is a
debt, which must be paid for.There are numerous texts.For
example, the Sifre on Dt,Piska 32 even says,"If a man is
prosperous all his life,no sin of his can be forgiven."Semahoth
III.11.reports that R.Yehudah ben Ilai said the ancient pious men
used to have to suffer intestinal illness for 10 to 20 days
before death so they might be pure to enter into the world to
come.
The Fathers of the Church stress the value of celibacy for
spiritual growth,in line with St.Paul in 1 Cor 7. The Eastern
Fathers stress the need for detachment from all kinds of things,
not just from sex,though that is specially stressed. St.Gregory
of Nyssa, who seems to have been married, wrote,in On Virginity
20: "No more do our emotional powers have a nature that can at
one and the same time follow after the pleasures of sense and
cultivate the spiritual union,nor,furthermore,can both goals be
attained by the same course of life. Continence,mortification of
the passions, avoidance of fleshly needs are the means of the one
union; but all that are the reverse of these are the agents of
bodily cohabitation." This is true even though marriage is
good,and Paul VI,in an address to the 13th Congress of the
Italian Feminine Center (Feb.12,1966) taught: "Christian marriage
and the Christian family...are not an easy way of Christian life,
even though...the one which the majority of the children of God
are called on to travel. Rather, it [marriage] is a long path
toward sanctification." There is need for so much denial of self,
once the early stage of emotional high has subsided, due to the
great differences of male and female psychology,and the need of
sacrifice for children.
We may attempt a theological fill-in with the help of
Matthew 6:21: "Where your treasure is,there is your heart also."
In the narrow sense the treasure would be a box of coins buried
under the floor of a man's house for safe-keeping. If he had such
a stash, of course he would like to think of it, it would be like
a magnet pulling his thoughts and heart to itself. To that
extent, it would be somewhat less easy for thoughts and heart to
rise to the divine level.
But one can put his treasure in all sorts of things:in huge
meals,in gourmet meals, in sex, in travel, in study, in the study
of theology.- All these are lower than God Himself, some much
lower than others. So here is one factor: how much lower than God
is the attraction one feels. The second factor is this: how
strongly does one let these things pull him? In some, they pull
only as far as to lead to imperfection, which is less than venial
sin - in others, to occasional venial sin - in others, to
habitual venial sin - in still others,to occasional mortal sin -
in still others,to habitual mortal sin.
So If one lets creatures pull him as far as habitual mortal
sin, and the creatures to which he is pulled are low,then, it is
all the harder for his thoughts and heart to rise to the divine
level. Really,it may be impossible, as we shall see now.
We can supplement the above with a modern comparison, which
means the same thing. We think of a galvanometer, which is just a
compass needle on its pivot, with a coil of wire around it. We
send a current into the coil - the needle swings the right
direction and the right amount, measuring the current. Now it
should read correctly if there is no competition from outside
pulls, such as a 30,000 volt power line, or a lot of magnetic
steel. Then two forces hit the needle: the current in the coil,
and the outside pulls. If the current in the coil is gentle and
the outside pulls very strong, the current in the coil may make
no impression at all: the outside pulls swamp it. Now this is a
picture of my mind, my mental meter. The current in the coil is
grace, which is gentle, in that it respects my freedom - while
the outside pulls, if one gives himself much to them, take away
freedom. When God sends an actual grace to lead and enable one to
do a particular good thing here and now,the first thing the grace
needs to do is to cause the meter to swing to the right position.
It will do so if the outside pulls are not too strong. But if
they swamp the current in the coil,then the man is blind or
hardened. Grace cannot do the first thing needed,namely, to cause
him to see what God asks of him. Without grace he is eternally
lost. So unless some other soul does heroic work in prayer and
penance for him, to get him an extraordinary grace, comparable to
a miracle,he will be lost.
At the other end of the scale, if one cuts down on the pull
of creatures so that they do not even lead to imperfection ,then
that person's spiritual sensitivity is high, it will register the
slightest movement of grace.By much self-denial one reaches that
point. John knew this, at least in a general way. So he
abstained from creatures heroically. Even the pagan Socrates saw
this, for he often, in various dialogues of Plato, said that the
man who seeks the truth should have as little as possible to do
with the things of the body! (For example, cf. Phaedo 66 and 82-
83, Republic 485-86). It is obvious that these considerations
mean much in regard to spiritual growth.
Our analysis of Mt 6:21,plus the words of St.Paul in 1 Cor 7
on detachment should not lead one to trying to be without
feeling.Jesus wept at the tomb of Lazarus. He took little
children in His arms, seemingly enjoying their natural
charm,which He,the Creator, had given them
St.Francis de Sales,in his Letter 217 wrote,to a married
woman,that the forms devotion takes vary with state in life.So he
said, "your husband will love it if he sees that as your devotion
increases,you become more warm and affectionate toward him (p.104
Classics of Western Spirituality ed).
It is almost as if there were a competition or contrary
pulls in what we have said.Really not,there is need of a fine
balance.All things fit together well.We should avoid letting any
feeling or love of creature pull us to the extent that it would
lead us into even imperfection. But if this is done,then to use
feelings to carry out things that are part of God's plan,
especially if part of the duties of our state in life - that is
not spiritually harmful. Rather,then one is using feelings to
help do the will of God. In this it is important to do these
things i.e., to be warm,not just for the pleasure of doing so -
though it is not wrong to feel that pleasure -- but basically as
a means of fulfilling that part of Our Father' s plan. Then what
St.Francis said will be sanctifying.
It is true.St.Paul in 1 Cor 7 did speak of those who have
wives being as though not having them. In 7:5 he spoke of
voluntary abstention from sex in marriage but only for a time, by
mutual consent,so you may be free for prayer. But he viewed the
use of sex within marriage as normal: then go back together again
he concluded after 7:5.
There is a second good reason (rebalance of the objective
order),which was indicated more briefly above: God loves
everything that is morally right and good. If a sinner takes what
he has no right to have from the scales of the objective
order,that scales is put out of balance. A helpful image comes
from Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar,writing about 170 AD,claiming to be
quoting Rabbi Meir, from earlier in the same century
(Tosefta,Kiddushin, 1.14:"He [anyone] has committed a
transgression. Woe to him! He has tipped the scales to the side
of debt for himself and for the world." The concept that sin is a
debt is found extensively in Old and New Testaments ,in the
Intertestamental literature of the Jews, in the Rabbis, and in
the Fathers of the Church. Pope Paul VI expressed it strongly in
the doctrinal introduction to his Constitution on Indulgences of
January,1967.
In other words,the sinner takes from one pan what he has no
right to take: the scale is out of order. The Holiness that God
is wants it rebalanced. If the sinner took property, be begins to
rebalance by giving it back; if he stole a pleasure, he can begin
to rebalance by giving up some pleasure of corresponding weight.
These things only begin to rebalance,for even one mortal sin is
an infinite imbalance: the Person offended is infinite. So if the
Father wanted it - He was not required of course - the only way
to achieve it was to send a Divine Person to become Man. He could
generate an infinite value in the redemption. He did that,
superabundantly, giving up more than all sinners had taken.
To return to John the Baptist: John of course knew the theme
that sin is a debt. By penance, he was helping to begin to
restore the balance.The fact that Christ was to do that work
infinitely does not mean humans cannot or should not join with
Him. No, St.Paul's great theme is this: we are saved and made
holy if and to the extent that we are not only members of Christ,
but like Him - which includes likeness in the work of
rebalancing. Cf.especially Romans 8:17:"We are heirs of God,
coheirs with Christ, provided that we suffer with HIm,so we may
also be glorified with Him."
Strongly spiritual souls perceive these thoughts, perhaps
not in the clear formal way we have presented them, but deeply
and substantially.
3:11-12:John says a more powerful one is coming,who will baptize
with the Holy Spirit and fire. So John does know who Jesus is. In
John 1:29-34 John calls Him the "lamb of God', the victim for
sacrifice, and says he recognized Him because he saw the Holy
Spirit coming upon Him in the form of a dove.
Jesus was to baptize with fire, probably meaning a cleansing
force. The two expressions form a unit: the purifying action of
the Holy Spirit. The mention of the Holy Spirit by John need not
refer to the Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity. That phrase,
Holy Spirit, already occurs a few times in the OT: Is 63:10; Ps
51.11; Wisdom 9:17. It also appears at times in the literature of
Qumran. Of course, since John was filled with the Holy Spirit
even before his birth (Lk 1:41). So perhaps God interiorly made
known to Him the truth of the Holy Spirit.
This passage does not at all support charismatic and
fundamentalist claims of a Baptism in the Spirit, especially
since many charismatics assert that their phenomena are simply
the actuation of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, which all persons
in the state of grace have - and so they conclude all should
become charismatics. The theology is completely flawed. There are
two great categories of graces, sanctifying and charismatic. The
Gifts belong to the sanctifying category, the phenomena to the
charismatic - one category cannot be the actualization of the
other, which is a very different category.
3:13-17: Baptism of Jesus: John of course objects to baptizing
Jesus, for he knows Him, as we said. Yet Jesus insists, saying
"we should fulfill all righteousness". The meaning here is much
discussed. But if we recognize that the Holiness of God wants
everything that morality and right order (cf.Summa I.19.5.c) call
for to be done. Now Jesus of course, was in a completely
different position from the sinners who came to John, for He was
sinless. Yet in Phil 2:7 St.Paul says that He "emptied Himself".
That did not of course mean giving up divinity, which is
impossible. But it did mean He would not use His divine claims to
exempt Himself from the ordinary human lot or from suffering,
even from the lifelong anguish of knowing from the first instant
of conception precisely all that He was to suffer. (Cf.Wm.Most,
The Consciousness of Christ, Christendom Press, 1980).
So here it is a matter of suitability, in line with His
self-emptying. It is also in accord with the shocking text of
St.Paul in Galatians 3:13-14 (citing Dt 21:23): "Christ redeemed
us from the curse of the law, becoming a curse for us, for it is
written, 'Cursed be everyone who hangs on the wood'", and the
equally shocking 2 Cor 5:21 "Him who did not know sin, He [the
Father] made to be sin for us, so that we might become the
righteousness of God in Him." Of course, He did not become sin,
nor was He cursed. But He identified with us, and took on our
condition, so as to overcome it, so we would overcome in Him, as
2 Cor 5:14 says: "Judging this, that one has died for all,
therefore all have died." And Paul continues: "And He died for
all, so that the living might no longer live for themselves, but
for Him who died for them and rose."
Here we see the syn Christo theme, the Mystical Body
framework. We are saved and made holy if and to the extent that
we are not only members of His, but also like HIm, in living to
or for Him. We find the elements of this theme in Romans 6:3,6,8
(we died with Him are buried with Him in baptism); Col 3: 1,4
(since we have been raised with Him, we should think of the
things that are above); Eph 2:5-6 (we have even taken our seat in
heavenly places with him).
These things are true as part of the Mystical Body theme:
since one has died,all have died. But they also demand that we be
like Him, in order to be saved. Luther argued:The merits of
Christ are infinite. They are. Therefore, he said, we need do
nothing, can even sin freely. Wrong. For we must be like Christ
as the texts above show,especially the last part of 2 Cor
5:14,and Romans 8:17:"We are coheirs with Him, provided we suffer
with Him,so we may also be glorified with Him" When the Galatians
thought they could sin freely, Paul.in 5:19-26 said that if we do
not follow the Spirit,but follow instead the flesh, we will not
inherit the kingdom (5:21). The word inherit is significant.We
inherit as children, without having earned a place in the
mansions of our Father. But we could earn to be disinherited. It
is about that that Paul warns in 5:21.
So since we are fellow heirs with Christ, provided that we
suffer with Him, so we may also be glorified with Him (Rom
8:17),then, there is nothing but sin that is a loss for us (Rom
8:28), "For those who love God, all things work together for
good." This is even true of those who suffer anxiety, for He did
suffer it, knowing from the first moment of conception all He had
to suffer. Confidence in God can help, can make things easier,
but we should not accuse someone of lack of faith if he still
worries when awaiting the report from the Doctor whether or not
he has cancer. God did not promise no one would ever get cancer.
He did promise that all things, even that, can work together for
good for those who love God, who live for Christ, as His members
who want to be like Him.
After Jesus was baptized, the Spirit came down in the form
of a dove. Who saw it? The text is unclear. Surely Jesus,
probably John. As to the others, we do not know. We compare the
remarkable text of John 12:27-29 where,in anguish over His coming
passion, He allowed Himself to break into a discourse to a crowd
in Jerusalem saying: "Now my heart is troubled. What shall I say?
Father, save me from this hour." Then a voice came from the sky
saying: "I have glorified you, and will glorify you again." But
the crowd did not understand the voice, they thought it was
thunder.
Rationalists and too many who claim not to be such, dismiss
this manifestation, or call it a theologoumenon - meaning it did
not happen, the words are merely a way of making a different
point.
4:1-11:His fast and temptation: Jesus was led by the Holy Spirit
into the desert for a fast. We recall Is 11:1-3, which foretold
He would have the Gifts of the Holy Spirit.
So we have a question: Jesus was divine,what need of the
Holy Spirit? Some in the Patristic age pursued this sort of
question very far: Why would He even need a human soul, when the
Divine Word could carry on all those functions? This led to the
heresy of Apollinaris, which denied He had a human rational soul.
The reason for His having the Gifts is this: God loves
everything that is right, and that includes good order. St.Thomas
(Summa I.19.5.c) said that God in love of good order is pleased
to have one thing in place to serve as a reason or title for
giving a second thing, even though the title does not move Him.
So in this love of good order, He did will that Jesus have a
complete humanity, not a body without a rational soul.He also
willed that He should have the full complement of supernatural
gifts, including the Gifts of the Holy Spirit. Guidance through
these Gifts is the highest form. Beneath it would be guidance by
human reason, or by the whim of the moment - which Aristotle
called ( Ethics 1.5) "a life fit only for cattle".
Jesus did also have human emotions - He could marvel at the
faith of the centurion, He could be angry at the sellers in the
temple, He could even experience fear in Gethsemani.On these
matters,cf two articles by W.Most,in Homiletic & Pastoral Review,
in June 1983,and November 1985.
Some of the Fathers, probably under influence of Stoicism,
fell into the error of saying He had no inner feelings at all:
Clement of Alexandria in Stromata 6.9.71.2 (RJ 426): "He was in
general without emotion (apathes) and no movement of feelings
went within Him, whether pleasure or pain. " Clement probably
meant just that He had no immoderate movements, since he
continues,using similar language about the Apostles. Similarly
St.Hilary of Poitiers (On the Trinity 10.23: RJ 876): "These
things did indeed inflict on HIm the force of suffering, but did
not bring the pain of suffering...the body received on itself the
force...without the sense of pain." He seems to mean that there
could be physical pain, but no interior reaction - unworthy of
the Man-God.
The opposite error was that of Theodore of Mopsuestia, a
forerunner of Nestorianism, who said Christ had even disorderly
emotions. A General Council of Constantinople II in 553 condemned
this notion, and spoke of "wicked (impium) Theodore of
Mopsuestia" (DS 434).The same applies of course to the movie The
Last Temptation".
So as to the temptations by satan, He could feel these, even
as in Gethsemani He experienced a desire to avoid the passion,
but these things caused no disorderly emotions in Him.
He had a free human will, but yet was incapable of sinning.
The reason is that if we define "person" correctly, it means the
center to which we attribute things: e.g., he knew this, he felt
this, he experienced this etc. Another person may have the same
or similar experiences, yet they are individualized by belonging
to the one person. Therefore, since in Him there was only one
person, the Divine Person, if He had sinned, it would have been
attributed to a Divine Person - which is impossible.
The first temptation was a temptation because it would have
been contrary to the policy of the Father set in Phil 2:7, of
emptying Himself, i.e., He should not use His divine power for
Himself. Otherwise He had the power to turn stones to bread, and
He surely needed food. Jesus answers with the words of Dt.
8:3.Jesus' food is to do the will of Him who sent Him (Jn 4:34).
In the second temptation,the evil one takes Him to the
pinnacle of the temple. The corner over the Brook Cedron was
about 180 meters above the brook. Josephus said people could get
dizzy from there (Antiquities 15.11.5). Was that done literally,
or by way of a vision? Most likely the latter. The devils, being
fallen angels, still retain very great powers which are natural
to them, beyond nature for us. They can work on a person's inner
or outer senses and cause him to see things. Here the devil
quotes Psalm 91:11-12. The Psalm was telling in very strong
language what confidence in God one may have. But to put oneself
in a situation where a miracle is needed, without reason, and
expect God to do it - this is tempting God. For example if
someone has a broken appendix, and does not call a surgeon, but
says God will take care of it - that is tempting God.
In the third temptation,the devil takes Him to a very high
mountain, from which He can see all the kingdoms of the world. Of
course no mountain is high enough for that, so this seems to mean
a vision. The devil claims he controls all of these. He does not
of course have a legitimate power over kingdoms, yet the
sinfulness of men gives him much actual power. So St.Paul in 2
Cor 4:4 speaks of him as "the god of this world" (cf.John 12:31).
Did the devil at this time know of the divinity of Jesus?
Not likely. But he surely knew He was the Messiah.
4:12-17: Move to Capernaum: It is evident that the Evangelists
do not always or even often try for chronological order: they
have other designs. (Compare the practice of the later Roman
biographer Suetonius). That fact is very evident here, for the
text says that when Jesus heard John had been arrested He moved
from Judea to Capernaum, and made that His headquarters.
Actually,the story of John's martyrdom is not told until chapter
14.
The purpose here seems to be to relate His use of
Capernaum as headquarters to the prophecy of Isaiah 9:1-2 that a
great light would shine in the land formerly belonging to the
tribes of Zebulon and Naphtali. They had been in darkness, for
the Assyrians under Tiglath-Pileser (2 Kings 15:29 and 1 Chron
5:26) had invaded and taken them captive. At the time of Christ,
many gentiles lived in that area along with the Jews, hence the
name, "Galilee of the Gentiles". The Jews of Judea looked down
on that region. Capernaum was on the west shore of the Lake of
Genesareth, along the Road of the Sea - which ran to the sea,and
to the other shore of the Jordan. Capernaum was an important
communications center frequented by many types of people. Today
Capernaum is only ruins, seemingly on the site of Tell Houm.
In Hebrew the word Sea can refer to a lake. The name Lake
of Gennesareth comes from the plain of Kinnereth on the northwest
shore. The lake or sea was about 12,1/2 miles at its greatest
length, and 8,3/4 miles at its greatest width. Its surface is 682
feet below the level of the Mediterranean.
Some versions say Jesus made this move, "so that the words
of the prophet might be fulfilled. St.Matthew used the Greek
conjunction hina. Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic all have more than
one structure which can be taken as either purpose or result --
according to the sense. Translators seem to have a strong
inclination to make most of these instances purpose, as if they
did not know that hina and the other constructions could express
result as well as purpose - in 5th century B.C. Attic Greek hina
would have meant only purpose. But by the time of Christ that had
changed. In Jn 19:24 we meet again that hina .The soldiers cast
lots for his garments. To translate "in order that" would mean
the soldiers intended to fulfill the prophecy. Of course they did
not. But as a matter of fact (result) they did fulfill it. Yet
the versions commonly translate the hina there as purpose. Cf.Jn
17:12: Judas was lost so that Scripture might be fulfilled!
4:18-22: Call of the first disciples: Near the Sea of Galilee,
Jesus sees and calls Simon and his brother Andrew. He also called
the two sons of Zebedee, James the Elder and John. Then they
"followed" Him. That verb follow is a rabbinic term for becoming
a disciple. If we compare the account in John 1:35-521 it seems
that Andrew and Simon had been disciples of John the Baptist, who
told them Jesus was the lamb of God. After that they stayed a
while with Jesus, but seemingly went back to their fishing for a
while. It was after that that the account in Matthew fits in,
describing the second call at which they actually became
followers of Jesus.
So they had known Him before the call related in
Matthew.Their first call seems to have been one to believe Jesus
was the Messiah. Of course their idea of the Messiah was hardly
what Jesus intended; it was more like that of most Jews at the
time. It excluded suffering from the Messiah (cf.Mk 8:31-33), but
probably did include hope for a temporal conqueror: cf.Acts 1:6.
When James and John left their father, that was not leaving
him alone, for Mk 1:20 speaks of hired men remaining with
Zebedee. Luke 5:10 says that James and John were "koinonoi",
partners with Simon.
4:23-25:Jesus preaches and cures in Galilee: This is a summary
section, such as is often found in narrative literature. It also
shows the geographical extent of Jesus ministry at the time He
covered Galilee and Syria,and crowds came to hear Him from the
Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea, and Tranjordan.
Galilee was not large, about 70 by 40 miles. The name Syria
is ambiguous.To Romans it would be the Roman province taking in
all Palestine. Except for Galilee it was under Herod Antipas at
the time. But Matthew more likely meant by Syria the area north
of Galilee.
Josephus, writing about a generation later, said Galilee
then had 240 cities and villages, each with no less than 15,000
population (Life, 235; War III.41-43). If Jesus visited 2
villages per day, it would probably take about 3 months to
complete the circuit.
Chapters 5-7: The Sermon on the Mount: The most usual view is
that Matthew has gathered together things Jesus said on more than
one occasion. Of course, He really did say these things even so.
The sermon is the first of five major discourses in Matthew, each
of which follows a block of narrative material.
St.Luke's Gospel has a similar sermon, called the Sermon on
the Plain. We note especially the differences in the beatitudes
between the two Gospels. The most likely explanation is this:
there is no doubt that Jesus was a traveling speaker, and as
such, He would doubtless say the same things in many places, with
perhaps some variation in each place. Therefore Luke may be
reporting a different sermon. Yet the differences may come from
the editorial work of each Evangelist: Matthew 5:17-37 and 6:1-18
is material Matthew's Jewish readers might find specially
interesting, while Luke wrote for a different audience. Again,
Luke has some things Matthew does not have: compare Mt 5:12 with
Lk 6:23-26 or Mt 5:47 with Lk 6:33-35.
5:1-12: The Beatitudes:Each beatitude pronounces certain persons
makarioi, which seems to mean well-off, fortunate,both in this
life and in the world to come.
First,the poor in spirit are blessed. Poverty then,and now,
was often thought of as sheer misfortune. Jesus does not say that
mere physical poverty is blessed. He speaks of poverty in the
spirit, that is, in detachment from the things of the world, so
one does not let them get a hold on him with their pulls. Above,
in speaking of the austerity of the life of John the Baptist, we
explained what this detachment meant, in the light of Mt.6:21.
Physical poverty does make easier this detachment. Yet if not
taken patiently, it may be spiritually harmful.Hence the wisdom
of Proverbs 30:8 prays that God may give him neither poverty nor
riches. Physical poverty can tempt one to be too much interested
in material things and even to complain against God; riches make
it harder to be detached. Hence the famous saying of Jesus about
the camel and the needle's eye.
The poor in spirit remind us of the Old Testament anawim,
the people who realized their own frailness and dependence on
God,who is their only help.Is 57:15 and 66:2 praise them. The
precise words poor in spirit do not occur in the Old Testament,
but are found in the War Scroll of Qumran.
Some commentators,not understanding this matter of
detachment, have tried to say that Luke's presentation of the
same beatitude in 6:20 refers only to material poverty.But Jesus
would not call that blessed in itself. The original NAB version
of Mt said "theirs is the reign of God." Hard to find any sense
in it at all. Rather, it means that it is of such persons as the
detached poor that the kingdom consists in this world, and they
will inherit the kingdom in the world to come.
The second beatitude speaks of those who mourn as blessed.
It is not mourning as such that makes one blessed, it is mourning
over their own sins, and over the infidelity of Israel that makes
it deserve God's punishment all the more since Israel sins in
spite of His special favor. We could also see here a reversal of
attitudes: commonly in the Old Testament evil was thought of as a
punishment for sin - cf.the book of Job. But Jesus showed us the
positive value of suffering as a means of likeness to Him:Rom
8:17-18.
God's response is found in Isaiah 40:1. Comfort, comfort, my
people.
These first two beatitudes recall Is 61: 1-3 cited by Jesus
in Lk 4:18-19.
The third beatitude declares the meek are blessed: they will
inherit the land. The meek are those who are unassuming,
considerate, and far from the spirit of revenge. The land
originally would mean God's promise of the land to Abraham and
his descendants. By the time of Jesus it had been reinterpreted
to mean heaven.But even in this life, meekness often brings
returns. Those who are at the top in their own field are often
remarkably meek and humble.
The fourth beatitude declares that those who hunger and
thirst for righteousness will obtain all of it that they desire.
Righteousness means all that the objective moral order calls for:
sedaqah. God's supreme Holiness loves all that is right. By this
beatitude a person imitates God in this respect.
The fifth beatitude promises that the merciful will obtain
mercy. The merciful forgive those who offend against them, and
help in all sort of need. God who loves all that is right, will
do the same for them. But if one does not forgive, he will not be
forgiven. Mt 7:2 adds: Whatever measure you use [in treating
others] the same measure will be used on you. So we write our
own ticket: if we demand the last cent of others, God will demand
the same of us. We cannot afford that!
The sixth beatitude says that the pure in heart will see
God. The purity here is not just sexual, but complete moral
purity. We recall again the development of the thought of Mt 6:21
we saw above (in speaking of John the Baptist). Complete
detachment makes one more capable of perceiving divine things
even in this life.
The seventh beatitude declares blessed those who make peace:
they will be called children of God. Hebrew shalom means not only
peace in the narrow English sense, but well-being in general.
Right after His resurrection, He greeted the Apostles with: Peace
be to you. Those who work for this, cooperate in the work of
Christ, and so are His brothers, children of the Father.
The last beatitude promises heaven to those who suffer
persecution for what is right. The Church has always understood
this to apply specially to the martyrs. While it was never
official teaching, the belief was widespread in the Patristic age
that only martyrs could reach the vision of God before the end of
the world. We now know that belief was wrong, yet others may have
debts to pay in purgatory.
Not only martyrs suffer persecution. 2 Timothy 3:12 adds
that all who try to live a godly life will meet with persecution.
Their very way of life is a living reproach to many others. And
Romans 8:17 tells us that "we are heirs together with Christ,
provided we suffer with Him, so we may also be glorified with
Him."
Verse 11 continues the theme of verse 10 on persecution,
changing to second person.
Some "beatitudes" have been found at Qumran (BAR
November/Dec.1992, pp.53-55,66. But the similarities to those of
Jesus are only in form. The ones from Jesus announce reversals of
what most people would think. Those at Qumran do not,e.g,
"Blessed is he who speaks truth with a pure heart and who does
not slander with his tongue." There is no reward promised, still
less a reward that would be unexpected by many of that age.
5:13-16: Salt of earth, light of world: In ancient times,salt was
used not only to flavor foods, but also as a preservative to slow
decay. Actually,salt cannot lose its saltiness,for sodium
chloride is a stable substance. But most salt then came from salt
marshes or the like, and so had many impurities.The salt itself
was more soluble, and so could be leached out. What was left was
so diluted it was of little worth. The Greek for "loses its
saltiness" is moranthe, which also means to make or become
foolish. In the background may be an Aramaic play on words: tapel
(foolish) and tabel (salted).
Many cities then were built of limestone, which would gleam
in the sun, and so could not be easily hidden. The thought is
that the Apostles are to give the light of sound doctrine and
example to the world, and that light should not be hidden. Hence
Jesus said that all should see their good deeds and so praise the
Father.
Two points are needed here. First, good example is very
powerful. St,Augustine reached a point when he admitted in his
Confessions (8.5), that he had no further intellectual
difficulties against the Church. but his bad habits held him from
entering. It was hearing of good examples that brought him over.
Second, in 6:4 & 6, Jesus will say that when they give alms, it
should be done in secret and when they pray, they should pray in
secret. Those verses do not contradict our present passage.
Rather we see a Semitic way of teaching: using seemingly opposite
statements, enticing the listener to put them together. He meant
that on the one hand, there is a real duty of giving good
example, to help others, on the other hand, there should be no
motive of pride and ostentation in doing so.
5.17-20: Not to destroy but to fulfill: Jesus says He came not to
destroy the law and the prophets -- the entire Old Testament -
but to fulfill. This is true in that He Himself fulfilled all the
messianic prophecies. He also came to perfect the law proper.
He did seem to break the law, but He did not break God's
law, only the foolish or even immoral additions made by the
Pharisees. We see a case of His objecting to immoral commands in
Mark 7:11. God commanded all to honor father and mother. This
meant not just obedience while a minor, but also and specially,
support, financial and psychological, if parents need it in their
old age. This is a sort of divine social security system: when we
were young, they did everything for us; when they are old and in
need, it is our turn. But the Pharisees taught a man might
declare his goods "corban", dedicated to God. He would not
necessarily give them to the temple nor was he prevented from
using them for himself. It did mean the 4th commandment no longer
held.
Why was Jesus so stern to Pharisees? why did He say so many
hard things about them? He was so wonderfully merciful to sinners
in general, in fact His conduct to the woman taken in adultery
shocked some of the Christians, with the result that that passage
is missing from some of the best manuscripts.
The reason is simply pride, hypocritical pride. If one is
proud, he takes to himself credit for what good he does. Really,
1 Cor 4:7 says: "What have you that you have not received?" That
is: Any bit of good you are or have or do, is simply God's gift.
But the proud man at least implicitly says he is good by his own
power. Aristotle can help here. He noted that if I am at one
place, and want to to travel to another, there must first be the
capacity for the trip. He likes to call that capacity potency. If
the trip happens, the capacity or potency is filled or fulfiiled.
But the same pattern happens in any change: first the
capacity,then the fulfillment. Now that capacity clearly involves
some lack or emptiness that wants to be filled.If it is filled,
where does the added being come from? It is created, made out of
nothing by God Himself at that very monment. But to feel one does
good by his own power is to claim, implicitly, the power of
creation.
Further, much sin can cause blindness, in the way we
pictured in explaining Mt 6:21 in Supplement 2. No sin blinds so
fully, so readily as pride. This happened to the Pharisees. Hence
even though God was willing to grant them grace, they were
incapable of perceiving even that a grace was being offered.
There were many foolish commands of the Pharisees.Thus the
schools of Hillel and Shammai debated: if a hen lays an egg on a
feast day, is one permitted to eat it - thus getting the fruit of
illicit work. Hillel said no, Shammai said one may eat it.
Again, a group of Essenes in Jerusalem at that time noted
the command of Dt. 23:12-14 to build the latrine outside the
camp. They said now the camp is Jerusalem. So they built the
latrine outside the city, a distance of 3000 cubits, more than
one was permitted to walk on the Sabbath! (Cf.BAR Sept-Oct.,
1984, p.45).
A problem emerges: Jesus says He has come to fulfill the
law; Paul says we are free from the law. We must remember first
that Paul is hardly clear. The Second Epistle of Peter 3:15-16,
speaking of Paul's Epistles warns that "there are in them many
things hard to understand." We find a key to the present problem
in 1 Cor 6:9-10. There Paul, after giving a list of the chief
great sins and sinners, warns that they who do such things, "will
not inherit the Kingdom of God." The word kleronomesousin,
inherit,is to be taken in the strict sense. It is true,it can
sometime mean merely to get, without the special color of
inheriting. But Paul so often speaks of us as adopted children of
the Father, who as such, can inherit: cf.Rom 8:17. Now when
children inherit from their Father,it is obvious the children did
not earn what they get - they get it because the Father is good,
not because they are good. On the other hand, they could have
earned to lose it, to be disinherited. To sum up, as to
salvation: we do not earn it, but we could earn to lose it. This
is specially explicit in Rom 6;23: "The wages of sin [what we
earn is death, but the free gift of God [what we do not earn] is
eternal life." So when Paul says we are free from the law, he
merely means we do not have to earn heaven, we inherit it as
children of the Father, as coheirs with Christ. He seems to have
gotten into such language in reaction to the claims of the
Judaizers, who were saying, in effect, that Christ is not enough:
we must have the law too. Paul reacted: We are free from the law.
Now this same attitude shows abundantly in the Gospels, for
Jesus constantly stresses God is our Father. So we inherit from
Him, we do not earn heaven. Hence His strong words in Mt.18:3:
"Unless you change and become like little children, you will not
enter the kingdom of heaven."
He adds that unless their righteousness is more than that of
the Scribes and Pharisees, they will not get into the kingdom of
heaven at all. The trouble with the Scribes and Pharisees was
externalism and depending on their own merits, in pride,as we
explained above. On externalism, God warned many times through
the prophets,e.g, Isa 19:13: "This people honors me with their
lips,but their heart is far from me." They were proud, and
counted on their own merits from observing the law. They imposed
heavy burdens on others, and did not really carry them
themselves.
Was this all true, or was this a case of retrojection from a
later period when Christians began to quarrel with Jews? There is
such a thing as retrojection, reporting something as happening
before the resurrection, which really happened after it. Provided
that Jesus really said the things in question, this is not an
illegitimate retrojection. But if He actually did not say such
things as his strictures on the Pharisees, it would be fakery in
the Gospels - which inspiration rules out. (It would also be an
illegitimate retrojection if one pictured a prophecy as being
made before the event happened, when it was really spoken after
the event.)
E.P.Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, seems to say that
Paul did not really know what Judaism was. This is outrageous:
Paul was a Pharisee of the Pharisees. He surely knew what they
meant. And we saw above some of the ridiculous things they did
with the law. A large study, by A.Marmorstein,
The Doctrine of Merits in Old Rabbinical Literature (Ktav,1968)
documents the excesses of the ideas of Pharisees on merits. A
recent discovery that the Damascus Document, once thought to be
late, is really by the men of Qumran lets us see that the
picture of Pharisees given in later writings is basically the
correct one for the time of Christ : L.Schiffman, "New Light on
the Pharisees - Insights from the Dead Sea Scrolls" in Bible
Review, June 1992. We saw concrete examples above in commenting
on Mt.5:17-20. We can add that their esteem for the law was so
extreme that the Palestinian Targum on Deuteronomy 32:4 says
that God Himself divides His day into four parts. For three hours
He works and is occupied in the study of the Torah. (Same in
Talmud, Aboda Zara fol.3.b).
5:21-30: Extensions of the Torah on anger and lust:
The law already did condemn murder,Jesus goes to the root of
it,which is anger. Anger in itself is a neutral things,neither
good nor bad.It depends on what use one makes of it.If it is in
proportion to what the case deserves,it is permitted,even good,as
the case of Jesus driving the sellers out of the Temple.
There is a gradation in the sin and the punishment as Jesus
tells us: 1)the internal sin, to be punished by the tribunal of
twenty in each city; 2) an insult given to another such as saying
"raca" an Aramaic word meaning fool,imbecile. This is to be
punished by the supreme tribunal of Jerusalem, the Sanhedrin;
3)Charging another with impiety or atheism. The punishment for
this is to come from God Himself, Gehenna or hell. (Gehenna was a
valley south of Jerusalem where once the Jews offered human
sacrifice to Moloch (2 Kings 23:10; Jer 7.31). Later it turned
into a burning dump. Often in the New Testament Gehenna seems to
stand for hell.
Scripture even speaks at times of God Himself as being
angry. There are two components in human anger: the bodily
changes, mostly in biochemistry,and the mental interpretation.The
chemistry for anger and fear is very similar. The difference
lies in the mental interpretation. If I see before me something
outrageous, I interpret it as anger; if I see something dangerous
before me,the interpretation is fear. God HImself of course do
not have the biochemistry, but He does have the mental
interpretation. Sin calls for rectification of the objective
moral order. He will provide for that at whatever time He wills.
To stress the importance of this fraternal harmony,Jesus
says that even if one is ready to offer a gift at the altar, and
recalls his brother has something against him, he should leave
the gift without offering it, and go for reconciliation instead.
The recalls the line of Hosea 6:6,(cited also by Jesus Himself at
Mt 9:13 and 12:7): "I desire obedience to the covenant [hesed]
more than sacrifice." In Hosea God was not rejecting
sacrifices,but empty sacrifices,those made without the interior
disposition of obedience to God in the heart.So too in this line
Jesus wants not the external sacrifice alone, but the right
disposition, which includes reconciliation. (The usual
translations of Hoses 6:6 are poor, since they use "mercy" to
render Hosea's Hebrew hesed. Greek had no word for hesed,
obedience to the covenant, and so regularly used eleos, mercy.
As to our version "more than," this reflects the proper sense of
the Hebrew, which lacked the degrees of comparison, and so would
commonly say: "I want one thing,not another," when the sense was
really, "I want one thing more than another").
In the same vein, Jesus calls for reconciliation before
coming to court. The court is that of God's judgment. In the
world of His day, there was prison for debtors who could not or
would not pay.
5:27-30:Internal adultery: The OT command against adultery in Ex
20:14 and Dt 5:18 was often thought by the Jews to be more
directly a matter of stealing a wife,as some other one's
possession, rather than a matter of purity.Jesus redirects it
here,insists that if a man look at a married woman with a view of
enticing her to sex, that is already adultery in the heart.
To avoid confusion here let us clarify. A thought comes to a
man, or he sees a beautiful woman. This thought or look offers
him a sexual pleasure. If he lets himself go and just enjoys
it,that is mortal sin. But if he does not do that, but instead
tries to get rid of the thought or mental image, even if it takes
a dozen times before the incident is over, there is no mortal
sin. More likely there is much merit. There is a confusing
related pattern in addition.If one is busy doing something that
holds attention partly, then a thought can crawl into the back of
his head, can unroll itself almost like a movie, for some time,
before there comes a sort of wake-up point at which he says to
himself: I should not be having this! Then he gets busy against
it. At most, there would be a little carelessness, not mortal
sin, up to that point.
Jesus underscores how grave the matter is by saying that
even if someone's eye leads him into sin, he should pluck it out.
He did not mean to physically gouge out an eye, or to cut off a
right hand. No. This is just a dramatic way of saying that
whatever actually proves to be a near occasion of sin for
someone, he must get rid of it, even if it is as dear to him as
an eye or a hand. A near occasion is any person, place, or thing
such that one can say, from experience, that if he goes back to
it a few more times, he will be very likely get into the same sin
again.
5:31-32: divorce: Jesus is referring to Dt.24:1-4 which allowed
divorce for something displeasing (erwat dabar "something
indecent") in the wife. We must of course compare this passage
with Mt 19:3-12 which says that if someone divorces her except
for porneia (the Greek word in Matthew) he causes her to commit
adultery, the assumption being that she will again attempt
marriage. Porneia in Greek in general meant illicit sex. Both in
ancient and in modern times this seeming exception has been much
discussed. Perhaps the best view is to take it as meaning: "I say
to you, whoever dismisses his wife - the provision of Dt 24:1 is
not involved -- makes her to commit adultery." Then we could take
the porneia to mean that the marriage was invalid in the first
place, was mere concubinage, and so could be broken.
For certain the Catholic Church takes this to mean no
divorce at all in a sacramental marriage is permitted unless the
marriage was invalid in the first place. For the passages in
Matthew of course must agree with Mc 10:11-12; Lk 16:18; 1 Cor
7:10-11. Of course,Jesus took back the concession given in Dt.24
in Mt 19.8-9.
The Rabbis disrupted much about what reason was required.
The school of Shammai at the time of Jesus said only adultery
would suffice; the school of Hillel said just about anything
would suffice, even badly preparing a meal. The historian
Josephus (Life 76,426) divorced his wife because he did not like
her behavior, although she had already borne three children of
his.
5:33-37:Oaths:Incredible casuistry was in vogue in the time of
Jesus in regard to oaths. To swear by heaven and earth was not
binding, nor was swearing by Jerusalem binding - but swearing
toward Jerusalem was binding. A whole tractate in the Mishnah was
given over to this sort of thing:Shebuoth. Because of such
foolish things, Jesus said it would be better to abolish oaths
than to go into such things. According to some rabbinic opinions,
to double yes or no amounted to an oath.
The first Christians understood Jesus did not really mean to
abolish all oaths, just to correct such foolish excesses. St.Paul
took oaths: Rom 1:9; 2 Cor 1:23; 1 Thes 2:5 &10.
Some commentators assert that Jesus here goes against Dt
6:13:"By His name alone shall you swear" But the meaning is that
if you swear, do not swear by any false gods, but only by the
true God. And it does not command,merely permits that. Rightly
understood, the words of Jesus do not forbid all oaths,as we have
shown.
The lex talionis (like for like) is found in Ex.21;24; Lev
24;19-20; and Dt 19:21.It is also found in the code of
Hammurabi,king of Babylon in late 18th century BC (## 196-200).
The purpose seems to have been to restrain vengeance, setting a
limit,so someone would not demand 5 times as much as the
offense.At the time of Christ,the courts seldom imposed this lex
talionis Jesus of course,in line with His spirit, wants a spirit
of mildness instead. He even says if someone strikes you on one
cheek, turn the other. But it is clear this was meant to
inculcate an attitude,rather than something to be taken to the
letter. When a servant in the Jewish court struck Jesus Himself
on the cheek, He did not turn the other cheek, but rebuked the
servant (Jn 18:22-23). St.Thomas Aquinas (II-II.40.1 ad 2) quotes
with approval the remark of St.Augustine: "These things are
always to be observed in readiness of soul. But at other
times,one must act differently, for the same of the common
good,or to restrain evildoers." Thomas also quotes another text
of Augustine: " Nothing is so unhappy as the happiness of
evildoers in which lack of punishment for crimes is fostered, and
an evil will.is nourished."
The attitude is to be encouraged in individuals. But a state
may not turn the other cheek: It obliged to defend its citizens
even at times by war. It is simply not true that all the Fathers
were pacifists. Among those who were not are: St.Justin Martyr,
St.Cyprian, Eusebius, Lactantius (one text), St.Athanasius,
St.Basil, St.Ambrose, St.Augustine. St.Augustine in Epistle 189
to a solider names Boniface tells him that when he puts on his
armor he should remember that his strength is a gift of God. --
There are only 4 clear cases of pacifists,but all commit heresy:
Marcion (who rejected the entire Old Testament, most of the new,
Tatian, founder of the heresy of Encratites, Tertullian (after he
became a heretical Montanist, Lactantius (Institutes 6.28 where
he rejects even capital punishment, contradicting St.Paul, Romans
13:4). Origen (Against Celsus 8.73) is a special case. He says it
is not fitting for Christians to be soldiers - does not say it is
wrong. Similarly God told David in 1 Chron 22:8 that he should
not build the temple because he had so much blood on his hands -
even though God had commanded David's wars, and helped him - and
in contrast in 1 Kings 14:8 God praises David as a perfect man,
who always did God's will. So it is again a matter of
fittingness, not of something morally wrong.
Under Mosaic law -- Ex 22:26-27 and Dt.24:13 - the outer
cloak was practically an inalienable possession. If the cloak was
taken as a pledge, it had to be returned before night, so the
poor man might have something to sleep in. Again, Jesus is
teaching an attitude here.
Roman law had a practice of commandeering civilians
(impressment) to carry military baggage. (Cf.the case of Simon
the Cyrenian helping Jesus) But it was to be done for only one
mile. Again, Jesus wants His followers to be twice as generous.
The next injunction calls for not only interest-free loans,
but also a generous spirit of giving things outright.
However, it is also good to report precisely where the moral
lines lie, since Jesus again is teaching an ideal attitude.
First about interest-free loans,we must notice that the
Latin word usura, "usury", is very broad,and can mean anything
from moderate to excessive interest. In some economies, money is
not productive and so little could be morally asked for. In
others, money is highly productive. The attitude of the Church
appears in 1515 in the text of the Fifth Lateran Council: " This
is the proper interpretation of (excessive) interest: when gain
and increase is sought from the use of a thing that is
nonproductive and with no labor, no expense,and no risk."(DS
1442). Deuteronomy 23:21 makes clear that not all interest is
immoral: "You may lend at interest to a stranger, but not to a
countryman." If all interest were wrong, it could not be
permitted even in loans to strangers.
About almsgiving: Vatican II, Church in Modern World 69
added a footnote 10, quoting a message of John XXIII (AAS
54.682):"The obligation of every man,the urgent obligation of the
Christian man, is to reckon what is superfluous by the needs of
others...." The words of John XXIII seem to allude to the scale
in common use among moral theologians:
1)Goods necessary for life are those without which life
cannot be sustained. So goods superfluous to life are those left
over after this.
2)Goods necessary to one's state in life are those without
which that state cannot be maintained. Goods superfluous to one's
state of life are all else.
3)Good necessary for fitting maintenance of one's state in
life are those without which one's state, though it could be
maintained, could not be maintained fittingly. Goods superfluous
in the fullest sense are all else.
We have seen that there are three senses of the word
superfluous. Similarly, there are three senses of the word
necessary:
1)I neighbor is in extreme necessity,i.e.,lacks the
necessities of #1 above, we must come to the aid with things
mentioned in ## 2 & 3 above. But we need not give up things
necessary for our own life.
2)If neighbor is in grave necessity, but not lacking the
essentials of life, we must help out of goods that are
superfluous in #3 above.
3)If neighbor is in ordinary need, a lesser need, we must
help some of the poor sometimes. We cannot determine the
obligation precisely for any one individual, for there are many
who can help,and the need is only ordinary.
We conclude that as far as strict obligation is concerned,
Vatican II has this scale in mind, since in the next note on the
above passage it says: "In extreme necessity, all goods are
common,all goods are to be shared. On the other hand,for the
order, extension, and manner by which the principle is applied
in the proposed text, besides the modern authors, consult
St.Thomas, Summa, II-II.66.7."
We have carefully drawn the above lines,not to suggest
anyone hold down to a minimum, but to help understand that some
statements we meet in the Fathers on giving to the poor are
rhetorical. We still urge all to take on the wonderfully generous
spirit pictured by Our Lord.
5:43-47:Hatred and love: Jesus says they have heard that one
should love neighbor and hate enemies. He calls for love of even
enemies.Further,the Jews of His time commonly understood neighbor
to mean only fellow Jews. By the parable of the Good Samaritan He
made clear that all are our neighbors.
Lev.19:18 does call for love of neighbor. But it did not
call for hatred of enemies. Of course it is not hard to believer
such ideas were current then. The Qumran sectaries did require
love of neighbor, but also called for hatred of enemies: cf.1QS
1:4,10; 2:4-9.
Love does not require,nor even essentially consist in
feeling. If it did the commands of Jesus would be impossible, for
we have only indirect control over our feelings. To love is an
act of will, willing good to another for the other's sake. If we
pray for others, we have a minimum degree of love. Love of God of
course is different: we cannot will good to God, who is infinite
Goodness. Rather, Scripture pictures Him as pleased when we obey,
displeased when we do not. This is not that He gains anything
from our obedience or "service" - they do Him no good. But since
He is Goodness and Holiness, He loves all that is right and good:
goodness says creatures should obey their Creator, children their
Father. Further, He wants to give good to us: but that is in vain
if we are not open to receive. Hence His commandments are really
directions for how to be open to Him,so He may give, and
simultaneously steer us away from the evils that lie in the very
nature of things for sin, e.g., a hangover after a drunk, or a
great danger of a loveless marriage after much premarital sex. So
in practice, to love God is to obey Him. Hence 2 John 6: "This
is love, that we walk according to His commandments." Cf.also
John 14:21. Interestingly in the late second millennium Hittite
vassal treaties the inferior king is ordered to "love" the great
king.
Tax collectors or publicans were despised as agents of a
foreign power oppressing their own people, and for contact with
gentiles, which made them unclean. In many Roman provinces the
system was tax farming. Publican companies ( groups of business
men, different from the local publican collectors) would bid for
the right to collect taxes for the coming year. The highest
bidder got it,and paid that amount to the Roman treasury. He
should be moderate, and the governor ought to hold down greed.But
the governor came up the political ladder without pay, and still
had no salary, only an expense account. No wonder there was
corruption.
5:48:The command to be perfect: Jesus tells us to be perfect as
our Heavenly Father is perfect. Since His Holiness is infinite,it
is evident no creature can ever attain that. So one can never say
he has done enough,gone far enough. It means one must constantly
strive and keep on moving.
In an Encyclical for the third centenary of St.Francis de
Sales, Pius XI commented on this command of Our Lord: "Let no
one think that this invitation is addressed to a small very
select number and that all others are allowed to stay in a lower
degree of virtue...this law obliges everyone, without exception."
Paul VI,in an address to the 13th National Congress of the
Italian Feminine Center in 1966 said: that marriage "is a long
path toward sanctification." For explanation, cf.Wm.Most,Our
Father's Plan, pp.145-49.
We distinguish three kinds of perfect love of God. The first
would love God as much as He deserves. No creature is capable of
that. The second would love God with all its powers, constantly,
at every moment, without any intermission or slackening. This is
possible only in Heaven. The third kind is that which it possible
on this earth: It is a love that puts our wills perfectly in
harmony with His, so that it positively wills everything the soul
knows He positively wills, and preserves a pliability for those
things in which His will is not yet clear,or not entirely clear.
Imagine what this requirement meant in our Blessed Mother.
At the time of her Son's death, she knew that it was the will of
the Father that He die, die then, die so horribly. So she was
called on to not just acquiesce, but to positively will it! And
this in collision with her love which was so great even at the
start of her life that Pius IX wrote (in Ineffabilis Deus,1854),
speaking of her holiness, (which in practice is the same as
love): "none greater under God can be thought of, and only God
can comprehend it." That meant strictly, literally
incomprehensible suffering!
The will is the only free thing in us. If we could make it
perfectly aligned with His, there would no more to be done. It
excludes not only mortal and deliberate venial sin, but also
every voluntary imperfection. In that condition, a soul will
still commit some venial sins of frailty or surprise. Not all of
these can be avoided in this life. But fully deliberate venial
sins can be avoided, and definitely block progress. If a soul has
an "affection" to venial sin, no further growth is possible.
Affection means the souls's attitude if expressed completely,
would be like this: I do not intend to commit any mortal sin, nor
every venial sin that tempts me. But on the other hand, I do not
plan to avoid every venial sin: sometimes it would be
inconvenient to avoid lying, and it is good fellowship at times
to join in a bit of uncharitable conversation. These are as it
were gaps in the soul's purpose of amendment, they as it were put
a clamp on one's heart, setting limits. Absolutely no further
progress can be made as long as a soul harbors even one of these
affections.
Commentary on St.Matthew continued
6:1-6:Ostentation: Public fasts were announced by the blowing of
trumpets. And alms were thought to increase the efficacy of the
fasts. This may be origin of the warning here. Of course this
could be also a case of Semitic exaggeration, like that of the
camel and the needle's eye. Those who made a display of
almsgiving were really aiming to get praise from people. They
would get it - but that is all, nothing from the Father in
Heaven. The words "Let not your right hand know what your left
hand is doing" is a fine Semitic device again. Hands know
nothing. The sense is that we should not dwell mentally on the
goodness of anything we do - we may at least subconsciously be
taking undue credit for ourselves.
Next there is the warning about ostentation in prayer. In
the synagogue someone might be asked to pray publicly standing in
front. This does not contradict 14:16 - please see the comments
on that verse.
6:7-8:Repetitious prayer: Jesus Himself prayed at length ( Lk
6:12) and repeated His prayer (Mt.26:44). He even urged them to
keep up praying if they did not at first get what they asked :
(Lk 18:1). He objects to babbling prayer, mechanical repetition,
which the pagan gods were said to love. He objects to saying
useless things,or long formulas thought to have an almost magical
efficacy. The priests of Baal went in for such things : 1 Kings
18,26ff. There are lists of Babylonian hymns and formulas and
magical incantations. The Roman philosopher Seneca said that such
prayers "weary the gods" (Epistle 31.5.Cf. Horace,Odes 1.2.23 and
Livy 1.11.2 and Apuleius,Metamorphoses 10.26.
This is no objection to the Rosary,in which the chief thing
is not the repetition but the meditation - we are not asked to
pay attention to every word of 50 Hail Marys in 5 decades, but to
think on the mysteries announced. The words could be compared to
background music.
The word St.Matthew uses is a rare one, battalogeo, which
may come from Aramaic battal, useless, idle.
6:9-13: The Our Father: It is only in this prayer that Jesus
speaks of our Father. Elsewhere He may say my Father or your
Father. In Rabbinic sources the words "Our Father who art in
Heaven" are found often enough but the Jews did not have a great
perception that God was the Father of all people. They tended to
think of Him as only their Father. An introduction to some
prayers was Avinu malkenu; Our Father,Our King." This was good to
bring out the two major aspects of love and closeness on the one
hand, and a sense of majesty, infinite greatness on the other.
We gather the sense of "hallowed be thy name" from such
texts as Isaiah 5:15-16: "Man is bowed down, and men are brought
low. But the Lord of Hosts will be exalted in right judgment
[mishpat] and the God, the Holy One, will show Himself holy
[niqdesh - root of qadosh,holy] by moral rightness [i.e.,by doing
what moral rightness calls for." Similarly in Ezekiel 28:22:"They
shall know that I am the Lord when I inflict punishment on her
[Sidon],and I shall show myself holy in her [niqdashtil]. The
gods of Mesopotamia,Greece and Rome were thought to be amoral,not
just immoral.If immoral,they would know what is right but could
get away with violations.Amoral means they act as if there is no
such aa thing as morality.In contrast, the true God is
holy:cf.Psalm 11:7: "For the Lord is righteous, and He loves
things that are righteous." So,the sense of this petition is that
God's moral rightness may be recognized by all.
Within the covenant, God shows His righteousness by giving
benefits or punishment according to the response of the people to
the covenant. Hence Deuteronomy 11:26: "Behold, today I am
putting before you a blessing and a curse. The blessing, if you
obey...and the curse if you do not." Romans 3:24-26 says God has
actually shown Himself righteous by fully rebalancing the scale
of the objective order by the death of Jesus. For sinners take
from one pan of the scale what they have no right to have: the
scale is out of balance,and the holiness of God wants it
rebalanced. A human can begin to rebalance after stealing by
giving it back, or after stealing a pleasure by giving up some
other pleasure. But the imbalance from even one mortal sin is
infinite. So,if the Father wanted full rebalance -He was not
obliged to that - it could be done only by sending a Divine
Person, who could really generate an infinite value to fully
rebalance. (Cf.The Doctrinal introduction to Paul
VI,Indulgentiarum Doctrina,Jan 1,1967 and Wm.G.Most,Our Father's
Plan, chapters 4 ff).
About the words "Thy kingdom come": "kingdom" in the Gospels
often,though not always, means the Church in this world or in the
next or both, as we can see readily from the parable of the
wicked tenants,and parables of the mustard seed, of the net etc.
Even.R.E.Brown, in The Churches the Apostles Left Behind
(Paulist,1984,pp.51-52) admits this,and in Responses to 101
Question on the Bible (Paulist,1990,p.12) he says that the editor
of the NAB made a bad choice in changing kingdom to reign.
So "thy kingdom come" can readily be a prayer for the spread
of the Church. It could also, however, be a prayer that all will
accept the will of God, His reign. Then this petition would mean
the same as "Thy will be done."
May it be done on earth as it is in heaven. The only free
thing in a human is the free will. If one could make that will
entirely in accord with the will of God, that would be
perfection. That perfect accord is found in heaven. But on earth
it is difficult to achieve fully. One might be tempted to think
it possible to kneel down and say a prayer of acceptance, such as
that of St.Ignatius, "Take O Lord and receive all my liberty, my
memory, my understanding and my will...."
There are two reasons why instant perfection is not
possible. First, at this time we cannot foresee all that God will
will us to do before the end of our lives. Second, although
perfection is found in the spiritual will, in this life the
development of that harmony of will is tied to development in
what psychologists call somatic resonance. The explanation is
simple: since we are made of body and spirit ,and since the two
are so closely joined as to add up to one person, the result is
that for normal running, a condition on either one of the two
sides should have a parallel on the other side, That parallel
condition is called a resonance. When the resonance is on the
side of the body, we call it somatic (Greek soma = body). For
example, love is in the will, willing good to another for the
other's sake. The resonance could be anything from the nonsexual
response of parents to their own children to explicitly sexual
responses in marriage. Sadly, some young people mistake the
resonance, which is really chemistry, for the love. They
sometimes have a lot of chemistry, no real love. They marry on
the strength of that,and find out later! The only way to assure
real love is developing is to follow our Father's rules, moral
rules. To violate those is to put each other in a state such that
if death came, one would be wretched forever. Real love could
hardly develop in that atmosphere. (For further data
cf.Wm.Most,Our Father's Plan,chapter 16).
Now somatic resonance, since it a bodily thing, must grow
according to the laws of growth of bodies. Bodies of people,
animals, plants, all grow in a sort of step graph - long
plateaus, with occasional short rises in between. The rises are
normally short, unless something happens - such as a severe trial
well accepted as the will of God - to loosen up the resonance so
a large rise will be possible.
We need to note too that there are some things God
positively wills, some He merely permits. We cannot always know
for certain which is the case. Further, we may often know His
positive will only partly. The goal is to positively will all
that He positively wills, and to take an attitude of pliability,
being ready to take that which has not yet become clear when it
does become clear. (Picture the tremendous suffering of Our Lady
at the cross: She knew the Father, and the Son too, positively
willed that He die, die then, die so horribly. So she was called
on to will that, and to do it going counter to a love beyond our
understanding - for Pius IX in 1854 (Ineffabilis Deus) said her
holiness (in practice same as love) at the start was so great
that "none greater under God can be thought of, and no one but
God can comprehend it!
In praying for our daily bread, we ask for all needed for
sustenance. For Hebrew lehem was used broadly for all food. The
word commonly translated as daily is Greek epiousios, which is
very rare in and out of Scripture, and hence there is room for
difference. From Lk 11:3 it seems likely that the translation
daily is the best. Some have proposed translating "for tomorrow"
but Jesus urges us not to be solicitous for the morrow: Mt 6:34.
Some of the Fathers of the Church thought it could refer to the
Eucharist. But Jesus had not yet promised the Eucharist at this
point.
Next we ask forgiveness for our debts. St.Matthew uses Greek
opheilemata. The concept that sin is a debt,which the Holiness of
God wants paid is common in the Old and New Testaments,and in
intertestamental literature. Please recall our explanation of the
rebalance of the objective order in the commentary on Mt 3:4.
We ask to be forgiven only according as we forgive those who
have offended us. So one who refuses to forgive when the other
apologizes is really asking God not to forgive him. However,God
Himself does not forgive without repentance.
What does it mean to forgive? As we saw above on the
holiness of God in the Our Father,and in Supplement 2 after 3:7-
10,all sin is a debt. It is the Holiness of God that wants the
debt paid,that is,wants the objective order rebalanced. He went
so far as the terrible death of His Son to rebalance that order.
But part of that restoration of the order includes that we also
forgive others.To forgive means to be willing to overlook the
offense. Often, even though not here, the New Testament uses
Greek charizein, which means to make a present of what was owed,
of a debt.Here the word aphienai is used,which means to let go.
Forgiveness is basically an attitude of our will,not of our
feelings. Our will decides to let go the debt, to not demand that
it be paid,even though we would have a right to call for that.But
since God does not demand that we repay the immense debt of our
sins,we too ought to not demand what we might claim from another.
But we also have feelings,and ideally,they should track with
our attitude of will.But feelings are not on as it were an
electrical switch,so we can turn hem off or on at will.We work
indirectly, by turning attention to something else. Unpleasant
feelings toward the offender can coexist with real forgiveness.
In difficult cases,we might even interiorly pray for the offender
when these feelings arise: for real love,in the will,cannot
coexist with hatred. As we said, this is a matter of the attitude
of our will - our feelings might continue to be averse even if
our will is right. We need however to try not to dwell on the
feelings, although intellectually we may continue to disapprove
of what is really a moral fault.
Further,forgiveness does not require that we take the
offender back into the same degree closeness as before. Yet,with
marriage partners,this really needs to be done or the marriage
may be spoiled.
There is also the side of the mind: From the offense one may
learn abvout the character of the other, and see that he/she is
not capable of being tusted.So one can be careful in handling
them in the future. This does not contradict what we said above
about the attitude of will and of feelings.
If we really have forgiven, we will not,when there is a new
offense by the same person, recite the list of all the past
faults of the offender.One reasonable translation of 1 Cor 13:5
is:"Love does not keep a record of faults", to bring them up on
later occasions.That exacerbates the difference,makes real
reconciliation much more difficult.
Further we can get some good advice from the Roman historian
Tacitus,who wrote (Agricola 42):"It is characteristic of human
nature to dislike the one you have offended", so it is even best
to try not to let the offender know very strongly that we are
offended - then he is psychologically inclined to think we are
not good,for if we are good,he would have to face that fact that
he has done wrong.Easier for him to think we must be not good,and
so he is right in doing what he has done.
"Lead us not into temptation...." Two kinds of temptation
could be on mind here. If we think of tempting to sin, of course
God does not lead us into that, though He may permit it. There is
however a Hebrew pattern of speaking which says God directly does
something He only permits. Thus in 1 Samuel 4:3 after a defeat by
the Philistines, the Jews asked: "Why did God strike us today
before the face of the Philistines?" And in the account of the
ten plagues in Egypt,a few times Pharaoh was near to letting them
go,but then the text may say, "God hardened his heart" or,less
often, "Pharaoh hardened his heart."
The other type of temptation is of the sort God used on
Abraham, to bring out Abraham's obedience. This line seems not to
refer to it, for that type of temptation is an occasion for
merit, cf.James 1:12: "Blessed is the man who endures temptation,
for when he has been proved he will receive the crown of life."
Luke's version of the Our Father,in 11:1-4,is shorter. It is
very possible Jesus gave this prayer more than once in different
places. We note Luke has the setting in which the disciples ask
Him to teach them to pray.
Some ask: Why do we pray at all, for God knows in advance
what we will ask for? St.Tbomas says (I.19.5.c) that God in His
love of good order likes to have a title or reason in place for
giving something, even though that reason did not move Him. So as
to prayer,He could give things without prayer,but He prefers to
bind Himself in this way. Does this mean prayer counts for
nothing? No,in making His decisions,He can take into account the
fact that someone will pray for it in the right way.
At the end,in v 14,He adds that if we forgive,God will
forgive us. If not, He will not forgive us.This something to
ponder when we are tempted to refuse forgiveness.The thought
really was contained in the earlier words in which we ask Him to
forgive our debts as (same as "if") we forgive our debtors.
6:16-18.-This is a repetition of the theme given earlier in 6;1-
6.
6:19-21: We are urged to store up treasure in heaven,where it
cannot be lost,rather than on the earth,where thieves may get it.
The sense is easy: Instead of being intent on storing up
money etc.be intent on merit in heaven. Now as to merit. Merit
is a claim to a reward.Our most basic claim is justification =
first sanctifying grace.That makes us children of the Father,who
as such have a claim to a place in their Father's house. But
after becoming His children without merit,then,the fact that we
are such,gives us a great dignity,which gives a basis for a claim
to a reward for further things we do.But even then,we must
remember that everything good we are and have and do is simply
His gift (1 Cor.4:7). Further,we are saved and made holy only if
and to the extent that we are members of Christ and like Him.We
do not generate any claim (merit) on our own) but we merely get
in on the claim He generated when we are His members and like
Him.(Cf.DS 1532 and 1582).
Verse 21 suggests an important train of thought:
"Where your treasure is,there will your heart be also). "Please
recall the comments made in the treatment of the asceticism of
St.John the Baptist in commentary on 3:1-12 (special comment on
3:4).
6:22-23: The sense is this: just as the eye guides the whole
body, so an understanding of the above principles of Christ
should guide one's spiritual life. If they do, it will be full of
light, goodness, and the person will know where he is headed.
6:24: One cannot serve two masters - the imagery comes from
slavery as it was practiced then. A slave obviously could not
serve two. So we should make up our minds whether we mean to
serve God or the things of this world.They lead us in opposite
directions. Please recall again the special comments on 3:4
above.
Could a person avoid all mortal sin,and many venial sins,and
still go after the things of this world? Yes, he could reach
final salvation, but his pursuit would be less successful of the
spiritual goods,and his life less happy even in this world.
6:25-35: The message is: avoid all excessive care for the things
of this life. It does not mean to make no provision for the
future. (If we compare Lk 14:28-33, that passage speaks of giving
up all to follow Christ- not of worldly provision).
7:1-2.The injunction, "Judge not", has given rise to much
confusion.People say: Don't be judgmental. We should distinguish
carefully two things: 1)the objective moral rating of a thing in
itself; 2)the interior dispositions of a person who does such a
thing. There is no objection at all to stating the first,the
objective rating,e.g., murder is wrong. What we should not do is
to say with assurance that we know the interior of the one who
did it. For in general we cannot know much of the person's
interior, and cannot be sure. To say something is certain when we
do not have adequate evidence is rash judgment.
This sin is often committed by those who charge Catholics
with worshipping the Blessed Virgin. They say with
determination, even when we say we do not worship: "O but you
do." Again ,we turn to the two check points: 1)To have a picture
or statue and to burn a candle is not by nature worship. Cf.the
eternal flame at the grave of JFK. Can the objectors know our
interior dispositions? Of course not. So they should be told,
politely but firmly, that they are in violation of this command
of Our Lord Himself!
Verse 2 adds another topic: we get back the measure we give.
That is, if we are generous with others,we are apt to get
generosity in return. If we are tight, we will get that treatment
back. This of course do not always happen, but there is a
tendency. And it is important to notice: If we are strict with
others, then God will be strict with us. We cannot afford that!
That is similar to the lines of the Our Father:
"Forgive us our debts.as we forgive." There is a similar line in
the Talmud (Sanhedrin 100a) : Rabbi Eleazar said: In the kettle
in which you have cooked others, you will be cooked in turn."
7:3-5: We easily become inconsistent,in seeing small faults in
another while overlooking larger ones in ourselves. Speaking of a
"beam" in the one's own eye is of course Semitic exaggeration.
The name hypocrite is one Jesus used specially for the Pharisees.
7:6.Cast not your pearls before swine. Pearls were considered the
most precious of all things, cf.Pliny Sr. Natural History
9.34.106. The original sense probably meant not to teach
indisposed or even hostile people some points of doctrine. The
Didache 9.5. applied this to excluding nonchristians from
receiving the Holy Eucharist. St.Cyprian -- very unecumenical of
him! -- used this on Demetrianus (Against Demetrianus 1),
who,said Cyprian,came not to him not to learn but to ridicule
and charge Christians with the responsibility for recent
calamities. The verse also perhaps was the basis of the
Discipline of the Secret which held back certain doctrines until
the candidates were ready for Baptism. In the persecution of
Diocletian,many Christians died rather than hand over the
Scriptures to the pagans.
7:7-11: On ask and you shall receive. This promises infallible
efficacy of prayer, but certain conditions are required. First,we
must not pray for things that would be harmful. God knows that if
He would grant them, they would hurt us (in passing:notice here
the universal belief that He acts this way, which requires that
He know the futuribles,i.e,what would happen in certain
conditions).
Second the promise really refers to things needed for
salvation,for in comparison to salvation,other things are of no
account.And it must be for our own salvation -- He is more than
willing to grant it to others,but if they resist,He respects
their freedom. Suppose there is to be a great sports event.The
fans for both teams pray earnestly. Clearly, not both can win.
St.Teresa of Avila, in Way of Perfection 1.5 urged: "Let us not
pray for worldly things, my sisters. It causes me to laugh, but
yet it makes me sad, when I hear of the things which people come
here to ask us to pray for. We are to ask His Majesty for money,
and to give them incomes - I wish some of these people would ask
God for the grace to enable them to scorn all such things...I do
not myself believe God ever hears me when I pray for such things.
The world is on fire [refers to Protestant revolt].... They would
raze His Church to the ground - and should we waste time on
things which if God granted them, would perhaps bring one soul
less to heaven?"
It is also necessary to pray with perseverance - God
sometimes wants us to work harder. Cf.Luke 18:1-8 on the wicked
judge who gave in to the persevering plea of the widow.
We must pray diligently, trying to avoid distractions.
Distractions are inevitable, but if we try to eject them every
time we notice them (for we may be in a reverie part of the time
and not notice) we may please God more, than if all went
easily,even with pleasure.It is not that difficulty is good in
itself, but the strong effort made means our wills are more
attached to His will.
We need to pray with confidence - if we show we do not trust
Him, of course He will not hear our prayer. Our confidence is
based on His goodness, and on His promise to listen.
May we pray for a miracle? Yes,if the need is great
enough.But we cannot be sure of getting it,for the promise here
does not cover extraordinary things. There are misguided souls
who whip themselves into an emotional state,and think then they
will get even a miracle, thinking of the faith that moves
mountains. But that faith is a different kind of faith, a
charismatic faith, that is, it is a special gift of God. If He
gives it,it is then certain He will follow through. But it
depends not on us, but on Him, when and whether He gives the
faith that works miracles.
We mentioned above that the promise applies only to things
for our own salvation - for if we pray for another,that one may
resist. But an extraordinary grace can forestall or even cut
through resistance without taking freedom altogether away. But
precisely since this kind of grace is extraordinary, comparable
to a miracle, it needs extraordinary effort, that is, much prayer
and penance. One needs as it were, to put an extraordinary weight
into the scales to call for an extraordinary grace. For example,
St.Augustine for much of his early life was hardened. It was only
the heroic work of his Mother that rescued him. Otherwise he
would be in hell now.
Why pray at all, since He knows what we need? Answer: 1)In
His love of good order - explained by St.Thomas in Summa I.19.5.c
- He is pleased to have one thing in place to provide a title or
reason for giving the second - even though that does not move
Him. So that is why He bound Himself to hear prayers, under the
proper conditions explained above. 2) His decisions have taken
into account in advance the prayers He knew would be made.
7:12: The golden rule. Since this involves love of neighbor at
all points,and since that love is inseparably tied to love of
God, if one fulfills this, he fulfills all else too - both the
law and the prophets, i.e., all Scripture.Cf.St.Paul,Romans 13:9-
10. A similar saying was known among the rabbis,cf.
Talmud,Shabbat 31a. But it was only in the negative form, "Do not
do to others what you would not like". Jesus made it also
positive.
7:13-14: If we compare this passage with the parallel in Luke
13:22-27, Luke's version is much fuller, and includes a setting
which makes clear the question is about final salvation. In
Matthew that seems to be the case, but some have taken it to
refer to entering the Church - speaking of the difficulties in
involved. Because Luke's version is fuller, we will use it for
our discussion. A person asks Jesus point-blank whether many or
few are saved. (Here the word saved means reaching final
salvation - often it means entering the Church)
It is important to know that that very question was much
discussed among the Jews at that time. We gather this clearly
from some of their intertestamental writings, that is, works that
are not part of Scripture. The Fourth Book of Ezra, according to
the opinion of the editor of that section, B.M.Metzger (In James
H.Charlesworth, general editor, The Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha,Doubleday,1983) comes from late first century
A.D. In 8.1-3: "The Most High made the world for the sake of the
many, but the world to come for the sake of the few." In 8.14-16:
"There are more who perish than those who will be saved." This is
the background of the thought in 7:46: "It would have been better
if the earth had not produced Adam." The same thought occurs also
in 2 Baruch 48.42 (dated between 1st and 2nd decades of second
century, A.D.) and elsewhere. These texts of course do not mean
all rabbis held such ideas - there was no central teaching
authority in Judaism. But their gloomy remarks applied to our
race in general.As to the Jews, nearly all would be saved. So
Talmud,Sanhedrin 1.10 saws :"All Israel has a part in the age to
come." It does list a few exceptions to that for the very worst
kinds of sinners.
It is against this background that we must look at the
passages in Luke and probably also Matthew. First, is it
inherently likely Jesus would reveal the truth on the matter?
Hardly. To say most are saved could lead to laxity.To say most
are lost could easily bring despair.
So,what He seems to mean is this: You people think you have
it made because Abraham is your Father. But you do not. Do not
rest on that, get going and work out your salvation.
Further, there were two Scriptural passages whose seeming
sense led so many Fathers to take pessimistic view. One is our
present passage about the narrow way, the other is that of the
banquet in Mt 22:1-14 and Luke 14:15-24. The version in Matthew
ends with "Many are called but few are chosen." Jesus seems to
have in mind at last primarily the Jews,and not all persons. -
The word "many" almost certainly reflects Hebrew rabbim,which
means the all who are many. So it means all Jews were invited to
the messianic kingdom - few were entering. So the path is narrow.
The Fathers of the Church generally took that parable to
refer to both God's call to be part of the chosen People, and to
refer to final salvation. That was unfortunate, for the two are
quite different. One can be saved without formally entering the
Church, and some who do formally enter will not be saved.
Are we obliged to accept the Patristic interpretation?
No,for there is no sign they are passing on a teaching from the
beginning. Rather, they are on their own, and telescope two
things that greatly need to be kept distinct, as we said.
The old Congregation of the Index in more recent times
condemned two writings. One by P.Gravina, which held that by far
the greater number are saved, was condemned on May 22,1772.
However, some of his arguments were foolish and he used
apocryphal revelations. The general idea of the greater number of
persons saved was also held earlier by Venerable Joseph of
St.Benedict. As part of the process, 40 theologians were
appointed to examine his writings along with other doctors
elsewhere. None objected to his thesis. On the other hand,on July
30, 1708 a work under the pen name of Amelincourt - actually it