The Divine Lamp

Due to reasons which have nothing to do with stblogs, their service, or the stblogs community, I have decided to make THE DIVINE LAMP accessible on a Wordpress hosted site. I will continue to post content here, however, the blog on my new site will have much more to offer.

For more notes on Romans by Piconio and others see here.

1. Brethren, the will of my heart, and my prayer to God is for them, to salvation,
2. For I bear them witness that they have the zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3. For ignoring the justice of God, and seeking to establish their own, they have not been subject to the justice of God.
4. For the end of the law is Christ, to justice to every believer.

Ch. 10. In this chapter the Apostle again urges and enforces the doctrine already stated, that’ salvation is attainable by all the human race, and can only be attained, by the sincere acceptance, and the public profession, of the
faith of Jesus Christ. This imposes upon Christians the duty of making the Gospel known to all nations, but this should be done in submission to the authority of the Church.

1. For them, to salvation. The Greek text reads for Israel to salvation. The whole of this chapter has special reference to the peculiar circumstances of the Jewish people, but the principle stated is equally applicable to all nations. The word will is in the Greek good will. He has said sad things already, and has something sadder yet to say; and to remove all suspicion of any enmity or dislike (towards the Jews) he speaks with elaborate caution and kindness in this exordium. Saint Chrysostom. Saint Paul cannot have considered the Jews as reprobate and incapable of salvation, or he would not have prayed for their salvation. He refers, as in the last chapter, to their fall from justice, which is not irrecoverable.

2. They have the zeal of God. Zeal for the law of God, but not knowledge. Ill-directed zeal is a frequent cause of mischief. The impulse of the heart alone is not a safe guide, because the judgment is fallible, and knowledge
limited; but we are safe in acting according to the teaching of the Church.

3. Ignoring the justice of God. The ignorance of the Jews is not admitted as an excuse by the Apostle. For they must have known, since they diligently studied the Scriptures, that Christ is the end of the law, and that through faith in Christ; they must obtain the remission of sins for which the law confessedly contains no provision. This remission of sins through Christ is the justice of God. They sought, instead of seeking this, to prove their own, which by the terms of the law itself they knew to be impossible. Their ignorance being wilful, zeal is no compensation for it.

5. For Moses wrote, that the justice, which is of the law, the man that does shall live in it.
6. But the justice which is of faith, speaks thus: Who shall ascend to heaven? that is, to bring down Christ.
7. Or who shall descend into the abyss? that is, to bring up Christ from the dead.
8. But what saith the Scripture? The word is near thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart: this is the word of faith which we proclaim.
9. That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and in thy heart believe that God has raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10. For with the heart is belief to justice: but with the mouth confession is made to salvation.

5. Moses wrote Lev 18:5, keep my laws andjudgments, which the man who does shall live in them. The lawyer said to Christ, Luke 10:27, Thou shall love the Lord thy God with all thy heart. This was the summary of the law. Christ
answered, Thou hast answered right: do this and thou shall live. He acknowledged that he was convicted from his own mouth: for who has ever done this? Perfect obedience to the law of God, such as will obtain justice in
God’s sight, is unattainable by human nature. All stand in need of the remission of sin, the justice which is of faith. And this is not laborious or difficult. It is not necessary to ascend to heaven, or go down to hell (cross the seas) in search of it, Deut 30:12. Christ will come down from heaven, re-ascend from hell. What we have to do to obtain the justice which comes from faith, is to believe. This is the word faith which we proclaim; near thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart (Deut 30:14). With thy mouth confess the Lord Jesus Christ, with thy heart believe his incarnation, passion, resurrection—all which briefly are summed up in the belief that God has raised him from the dead—and thou shall be saved.

10. Confession is made unto salvation. Who shall confess me before men, him will I confess. Matt 10:32.

The facility of faith, and its reasonableness, are stated by Tertullian in the words: Credible, because incredible; not to be ashamed of, because shameful. That is, if the mysteries of God are far above our intelligence, this is what we should expect, and a reason for accepting them. And if they are ridiculed by a wicked and thoughtless world, this a reason to honour and reverence them. Whoever is ashamed of me and my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, Luke 9:26. Who is ashamed of Christ as unworthy to serve him, much less reign with him.

11. For the Scripture saith: Every one who believeth in him, shall not be confounded.
12. For there is no distinction of Jew or Greek: for the same Lord of all, is rich to all who invoke him.
13. For every one, whosoever shall have called upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved.

11. The Scripture saith: Is 28:16. Vulgate, who believes need not make haste. He who believes in Christ and perseveres in faith is sure of salvation, and need not be in solicitude and anxiety, for his hope will not be disappointed or confounded, as in ch. 5:5, Hope does not confound. The statement of the ancient Prophet is universal and comprehensive. He makes no limitations or
distinctions. Every one who believes, Jew or Greek. God is the Creator of all men, of all nations, and therefore is abundant in kindness and mercy to all the race of man, if they believe him, trust him, and invoke his mercy. God is rich as he is just; not only in himself, but in the communication to man of the true justice and the true riches.

13. Every one whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved. The words are quoted from Joel 2:32. Ask and you shall receive. It is, however, to be understood that the invocation of the name of God must be accompanied with real faith, hope, contrition, and charity. Turks, heretics, ungodly Christians, often call on the name of God, yet they are not thereby saved, because they have not these indispensable conditions.

Prayer includes faith, hope, charity, and all religion. Faith prays, says Saint Augustine.

14. How, therefore, shall they invoke him, in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe in him, whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?
15. But how shall they preach unless they are sent? as it is written: how beautiful are the feet of them that evangelize peace, that evangelize good things!
16. But not all obey the Gospel. For Isaias says: Lord, who has believed our report?

14. How, therefore, shall they invoke him? This appears to be an objection urged in excuse of the incredulity of the Jews, to whom the whole of this chapter is intended especially to apply. If the invocation of Christ is the means God has appointed for salvation, how shall the Jews, now scattered over all the regions of the world, benefit by this means, if they have not believed in Christ, nor heard his teaching, which was confined to Judea and
Galilee, and no one has been sent to instruct them? For it would seem that it was then only recently that the Apostles, who mostly remained together at Jerusalem for fifteen years after the Ascension of Christ, separated to carry the Gospel to distant lands. The Apostle replies to this in verse 18, but he first observes that the fault is in great measure with the Jews themselves. The message was one they ought to have received with joy. Remission of sins, reconciliation with God, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, eternal glory, were offered them by Christ and the Apostles, in accordance with the prediction of Isaias 52:7. How beautiful are the feet of them that evangelize peace, that announce good tidings ! Yet the Jews in Christ’s own land did not all obey the Gospel, though he announced it himself, and still less those who heard it from
the mouth of the Apostles. Is 52:1. Lord, who hath believed our report? literally our hearing; our report of the things we have heard from the lips of Christ.

17. Therefore faith is of hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
18. But I say: Have they not heard? And indeed their sound went out into all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.
19. But I say: Did Israel not know? First Moses says: I will send you for emulation among not a nation, into a foolish nation I will send you in wrath.
20. And Isaias is bold, and says: I have been found by those who sought me not: I appeared openly to those who interrogated me not.
21. But to Israel he says: All day I have held out my hands to a people unbelieving and contradicting.

17. Faith is of hearing. Occasionalitcr. Faith is a gift of God; but is ordinarily communicated, at least to adults, by hearing the word of Christ explained and taught. The Greek text has the Word of God, and so has the Syriac version. No doubt it is true, that to believe, the Jews must hear. But, have they not heard? What does the Prophet David say, Ps 18:5. Their sound went forth, like the thunder, over all the land, their words to the end of the earth. This magnificent prophecy has since been fulfilled on a larger scale, and with grander results; but even in the days of Saint Paul, when this Epistle was written, it was so far true that during the twenty years, or more, that had elapsed since the Ascension of Christ, and the descent of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, the Jews at least, in all accessible parts of the world, must have heard the teaching of the Apostles, and learned the coming of Christ.

Saint Thomas, referring to this prophecy of David, considers the question what opinion we ought to hold of those who have never heard the Gospel of Christ? His answer is, that they are excusable up to a certain point from the charge of infidelity; but that they are damned on account of original sin and the other sins which they have added. But he proceeds to say that if they had
done what was within their power and knowledge, God would, in his mercy, have provided for them by sending them a preacher, as he sent Saint Peter to Cornelius, Saint Paul to the Macedonians. At the same time the grace to do what was already in their power itself, proceeded from God, who moved their hearts.

10. But I say: Did not Israel know? Certainly they knew, from the very fact that they saw the Gentiles all around them accepting the faith of Christ, from which in their obstinacy they excluded themselves. Moses and Isaias both foretold this long ago. Moses first Deut 32:21, as in the text~” I will urge you to jealousy by that which was no nation; I will provoke you to wrath by a
foolish people”: the Gentiles, namely, whom the Jews regarded as foolish, and who were not of the race of Abraham. Isaias exhibited great courage when he faced the prejudices of his own nation, in very difficult times, and boldly predicted the conversion of the Gentiles. He speaks in the person of Christ: I was found by them that sought me not, I appeared to them who did not interrogate me, but consulted instead their own augurs, oracles, and false divinities. But if the Gentiles, or multitudes among them, joyfully accepted salvation in Christ, the Jews remained incredulous, obstinate, cavilling. Is 65:2~”All day long—all the time of my mortal life—I stretched forth my hands, in earnest persuasion. All the day, one day, I stretched them out on the cross: but they contradicted and blasphemed.

Doctrinal Corollary.
Saint John Chrysostom observes at the conclusion of this chapter that Saint Paul has given a perfectly clear solution of the objections proposed to him, or which he foresaw might probably be offered to his argument, and proved that the infidelity of the Jews was the consequence of their obstinacy alone, and that no valid excuse can be offered for them. A father will sometimes call his child, and the child will not come; but if another listens to the call, emulation will effect what obedience wonld not, and he will then run to his father’s presence. Thus God, having in vain called upon the Jews, with outstretched arms, all day, provoked them at length to emulation by calling the Gentiles, whom they despised and looked down upon, and brought these into his Holy
Catholic Church. Alas! this failed too. The Jews still remained obstinate. What excuse can they find?

The cause of the rejection of the Jews, as assigned by the Apostle, is solely and entirely their own obstinacy and malice; not any reprobating decree of God: to which he makes no allusion, and which, if it existed, would render his argument irrelevant.

The Gentiles, called by God, and sought, came and were found. I appeared; the grace of prevention and vocation. I was found: the co-operation of the Gentiles with the grace of faith.

Bernardin de Piconio (Picquigny) was a Capuchin Friar who wrote a series of commentaries on St Paul’s Epistles in the late 17th century.  This was originally posted on my primary blog. I have expanded the notes below with some excerpts from St Thomas Aquinas.

Rom 1:8  First, I give thanks to my God, through Jesus Christ, for you all: because your faith is spoken of in the whole world.
Rom 1:9  For God is my witness, whom I serve in my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make a commemoration of you:
Rom 1:10  Always in my prayers making request, if by any means now at length I may have a prosperous journey, by the will of God, to come unto you.
Rom 1:11  For I long to see you that I may impart unto you some spiritual grace, to strengthen you:
Rom 1:12  That is to say, that I may be comforted together in you by that which is common to us both, your faith and mine.

8.  First I give thanks.  Most skilfully and considerately the Apostle proceeds to express his deep solicitude and affection for the Roman Christians; to win their confidence; and the desire he had long felt to visit them.  And first he thanks God for their faith, which was spoken of all over the world.  Thanksgiving is an Apostolic devotion, and is frequent and constant in the writings of Saint Paul.  Here he begins with it.

I’m reminded of what St Thomas Aquinas wrote in his famous commentary:  “For it is necessary that in all affairs we begin by giving thanks: ‘Give thanks in all circumstances’ (1 Th 5:18); indeed, a person is not worthy to receive a blessing if he does not express thanks for past blessings: ‘The hope of an ungrateful man will melt like wintry frost’ (Wis 16:29), and ‘to the place where the streams flow, there they return’ (Ec 1:7), because to the source whence blessings come they return, namely, by giving thanks, to flow again by repeated blessings.

But we need God’s blessings in all we seek or do; consequently, before all else thanks should be given” (Lect. 5, #75).

First, I give you thanks.  All religion may be resolved into receiving God’s benefits, and returning them.  We should not less careful in thanking than in asking.

9.  God is my witness, Whom I serve in my spirit, not in the ceremonies of the Hebrew law; in preaching The Gospel of His Son, not the law of Moses

10. If by any means now at length I may have a prosperous journey, by the will of God, to come unto you. This accumulation of adverbs marks the Apostle’s vehement desire to visit the Romans; expressed also by the use of the verb επιποθω in the next verse (επιποθω is translated above in verse 11 as “I long to”.  the verb expresses an intense desire or craving).  He shows three other things: 1. When he calls God to witness, he shows us that an oath rightly taken may be an act of religion (see my note below).  2. Earnest and unwearied prayer for the Church is the duty of the true pastor, and of the true Christian.  3. To pray under the condition he names, by the will of God.  If, when the salvation of such great multitudes was at stake, says Theodoret, the Apostle thus prays, how can we be excused if we leave not all things to the will of God, and depend wholly upon it?

Concerning #1 above, Aquinas writes: “But since, as Augustine says, it is the same to say ‘God is my witness’ and ‘I swear by God’ the Apostle seems to be acting against the Lord’s command: ‘I say to you, do not swear at all’ (Mt 5:34); ‘Aove all, my brethren, do not swear’ (James 5:12).

“However, as Augustine also says, the meaning of Sacred Scripture is gathered from the actions of the saints.  For it is the same Spirit Who inspired the sacred Scriptures: ‘Men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God’ (2 Pt 1:21) and Who moves holy men to act: ‘All who are led by the Spirit are sons of God’ (Rom 8:14).

“Consequently, if Paul is found to swear, it shows that the Lord’s sord and that of the Apostle James are not to be understood as indicating that an oath is absolutely unlawful, but that men should strive as far as possible not to use oaths as though they were something good and desirable of their very nature.  And this on account of the dange involved in frequent swearing, namely, the possibility of perjury due to a slip of the tongue.  Sirach says: ‘Do not accustom your mouth to oaths for many are tripped by them’ (23:9).  Also because it seems contrary to the reverence we owe to God for one to call God as witness without necessity.  For this reason the Apostle neve made an oath except in writing, when a man speaks with greater deliberation and caution” (lect. 5, #80-82)

11.  I long to see you, not for curiosity, or for love of gain, motives which bring so many foreigners to Rome: but to impart to you some spiritual grace.

Aquinas: I long to see you: ‘I yearn for you all with the affection of Christ Jesus’ 9Phil 1:8), not for a trifling reason as in worldly friendship, but that I may impart to you some spiritual gift, not as its author but as its minister: ‘One should regard us as stewards of the mysteries of God’ (1 Cor 4:2); and this to strengthen you in the faith you have received: ‘When you have been converted, strengthen your brethren’ (lk 22:32)

Theodoret observes that these two verses, 11 and 12, are full of genuine humility.  He does not say to give you, but to impart to you, communicate to you of that which I have myself received.  To strengthen you, for the great Peter had first presented the great Evangelical doctrine to them.  I wish, not to give you anything new, but to confirm that which has already been offered to you; to water the trees already planted.  And lest even this should be thought to have a ring of arrogance, he hastens to add that the consolation was to be mutual, and that he was to accept from them as well as give.

12. That I may be comforted together in you.  The Prelate may gather from verse 11 the real end and motive of Visitations: To impart unto you some spiritual grace.  The visitor is the bearer and distributer of the gifts of God.  His office is to confirm in faith and good works.  This is a source of mutual consolation to the Pastor and the flock.  The sheep are consoled and edified by the Shepherd’s fructifying faith; the shepherd, by the faith of his flock, which he has himself increased and strengthened.  In such visitations there is nothing vain and purposeless, no secular and worldly rejoicing, no curious sight-seeing, no lordly and arrogant display.  All is ordered according to the spirit and the will of God to the spiritual profit and advancements of the subjects.

Aquinas: “For it is a mutual source of consolation to be one in the faith.” (Lect 5, #88)

This commentary was posted on my primary blog on August 5, it was the Gospel reading for that day.

Verse 13. Into the quarters of Caesarea Philippi.

All know that there were two Caesareas. One, the ancient, which was formerly called the Tower of Strato. It was enlarged by King Herod, and adorned by him with many noble works, and called Caesarea in honour of Augustus Caesar, as we learn from Josephus (Antiq., xv. 13, and De Bell. Jud., xvi.) and from S. Jerome on this passage. It was situated on the coast of the Mediterranean, between Dora and Joppa. There was another, more modern, in Phoenicia, at the foot of Mount Libanus, where the Jordan takes its rise, which had been previously called Paneas, and which Philip, the son of Herod the Great, and tetrarch of the region of Trachonitis (S. Luke iii. I, 2), adorned and enlarged, and called Caesarea in honour of Tiberius. After wards, King Agrippa, to flatter Nero, called it Neronias, as Josephus says (Antiq., xx. 8). The assertion of S. Jerome that it was then called Paneas does not seem to
have been said by a lapse of memory; but it was very likely that in his time the adulatory name of Caesarea had been lost, and the city had resumed its ancient name of Paneas. It was called Caesarea Philippi ; Philip the tetrarch
having so named it to distinguish it from the other Caesarea of Herod.

And He asked His disciples.  S. Mark (viii. 27) says that this happened on the way, and S. Luke (ix. 18) when He was alone praying.  Euthymius answers that He took His journey and prayed at the same time.  This hardly seems probable.  The opinion of S. Augustin (De Consens., ii. 53) seems more probable, that it happened by the way, before He reached the place to which He was going. He turned aside out of the way to some solitary spot to pray, and, when He had finished His prayer, He went on, and then asked the disciples whom men said that He was.  “As He was praying” (S. Luke ix. 18) is a Hebraism for “When He had finished,” as Ps 125:1: “When the Lord brought
back”; that is, “When,” or “after He had”.

Whom do men say.  Many Latin copies, and most Greek ones, have “Whom
do men say that I, the Son of man, am?”  There is a three fold version. (1).  “Whom do men say that the Son of man is?”  (2) Whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am?”  (3) “Whom do men say that I am?”  In the first, almost all
the Latin copies and all authors agree.  In the second, only S. Epiphanius (In Anchoratus), Theophylact, and, as it seems, S. Hilary. In the third, only S. Chrysostom (Hom. lv.).

The first, which is the most usual one, and that in common use, seems much the best, and the conjecture that it was written at first (“Whom do men say that the Son ofman is?”) seems very excellent. Then perhaps some Greek, to show that Christ spoke of Himself, inserted “that I am,” into the margin; another may have transferred it to the text  ; and thus it may have begun to be read, “Whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am?”  And, lastly, that some transcriber, thinking that there was a redundancy, removed the words, “the Son of man,” which were obscure, and left the “Me,” “that I,” which was
clearer.  I know that many read it either way, and either without an interrogation, and by apposition: “I, the Son of man;” or, with an interrogation: “Whom do men say that I am? the Son of man?”   Both readings seem absurd; the second the more so of the two.  For Christ does not call Himself the Son of man honourably, but in humility; nor does He speak in the third person of any but Himself.

Observe the antithesis. Christ asks: “Whom do men say that the Son of man is?”  Peter answers: “Thou art the Son of the living God”.  Hence it seems that in the first passage we ought to read the words, “the Son of man,” for the antithesis. For Christ seems designedly, and in the most contemptuous terms, to have called Himself the Son of man, to try their faith, and to give them an opportunity of saying freely what their thoughts of Him were, even if
they held Him no more than a mere man.

Men. A Hebraism, as in chap. v. 13, which S. Luke explains. To S. Matthew’s, “Whom do men say?” S. Luke (ix. 18), adds, “Whom do the people say that I am?” as in explanation. S. Matthew, as we have shown, keeps the words; S. Luke the meaning and explanation.

Verse 14. Some, John the Baptist. Why some said John the Baptist, some Elias, some Jeremias, vide chap. xi. 4 ; xiv. 2.

Verse 1 5. But whom do you say that I am? Here is a plain antithesis. S. Jerome thinks that Christ opposed the Apostles to men, as being something more than men.  “Observe,” he says, “that from what follows and from the text of the discourse, the Apostles are not called men, but gods.  For when Christ had said: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? He added: But whom do you say that I am?”  It may be believed that Christ did not oppose them to men as gods, but He seems to have opposed them to the vulgar, as not ordinary men, which S. Chrysostom also thinks.  “You who have been with Me always, who have seen Me do many wonderful things, who in My name have yourselves done many acts of power, whom do you say that I am?”

Verse 1 6. Simon Peter answered.  The Ancients give many reasons for Peter’s having answered before the rest.  (1) That Peter was the princeps
all, as S. Chrysostom (Horn. LV.) says.  (2) Because he was of a more ardent temperament, as S. Hilary and S. Jerome on chap. xiv. 28 say.  (3) Because He was as the mouth of the Apostles, and was accustomed to speak for all, as S.
Chrysostom (in loco) and S. Augustin say; for in S. John vi. 68, when Christ asked all the disciples if they also would go away, Peter answered: “Lord, to whom shall we go?  Thou hast the words of eternal life.”  Whether he answered
here for himself only, or for all, we will endeavour to show on verse 18.

Thou art the Son of the living God.  Peter calls Christ the Son, by nature, not by adoption.  For all confessed Him to be the Son of God by adoption, as being a just man and a prophet.  The most certain proof that Peter thought Christ the Son of the living God was his opposing Him to John, Elias, Jeremiah, and the Prophets, who, it is certain, were the sons of God by adoption.  He calls Christ, therefore, the Son of God, not by adoption,
but by nature. The Ancients rightly proved the Divinity of Christ from this passage; as S. Hilary (in his Comment., and De Trin., vi.), S. Athanasius (Serm. cont. Arian.> Serm. iii.), and Dionysius Alexandria (Cont. Arian).

The living.  Peter calls Him the living God to distinguish Him from idols, which are lifeless things, as S. Jerome, Bede, and Euthymius have observed. S. Basil (De Pcenit.) terms Him the Son of the Holy God. Rightly, then, Theophylact notes the addition of the Greek article to the word Son, to show, not that He was an ordinary man, but that He was the one only Son of God by nature. ( Vide chap. X. 2.).

Verse 17. Simon Bar jona.  So called by contraction for Bar-johanna, which in the Chaldee means the son of John, as he is called (S. John xxi. 15). S. Luke uses a like contraction (iii. 30).

Because flesJi and blood.  Man, that is, consisting of flesh and blood. The Evangelist opposes men to God.  “My Father,” He says, “who is in heaven,” and as Gal. i. 16; 5. John i. 13. Thus Scripture opposes men who savour of carnal things to God, or to those who savour of divine things (i Cor. xv. 50).  So it is called the wisdom of the flesh (Rom. viii. 6, 7).

Verse 18. And I. A forcible antithesis; but the Greek is still more forcible:
δέ κἀγώ λέγω, “and I assuredly say.”  As if Christ had said: You, who are a man, have called me the Son of the living God; but I, who am the Son of the living God, say that thou art Peter, that is, My vicar, whom thou hast confessed to be the Son of God.  For My Church which is built upon Me I will build, as upon a second foundation, upon thee also.

Thou art Peter.  Some think that he was not called Peter before, but that the name was only promised him. S. John i. 42: “Jesus, looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jonas.  Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.”  It is more probable, as S. Augustin says (De Cons., ii.),
that he was so called from the beginning of his vocation, as S. Mark (iii. 16) and S. Luke (vi. 14) show. And, therefore, when Christ said to him (S. John i. 42), ” Thou art Simon the son of Jona; thou shalt be called Cephas, which is
interpreted Peter,” He gave him a name;  as if He had said: Henceforth thou shalt not be called Simon, but Cephas, i.e. Peter; as God gave Abram the name of Abraham, speaking of the future (Gen. xvii. 5).

And upon this rock I will build My Church.  Some ancient authors take this rock to mean this faith, or this confession of faith, by which Peter had called Him the son of the living God.  Such are S. Hilary (De Trin. vi.); S. Gregory of Nyssa (Cont. Jud.); S. Chrysostom (Hom. Iv. in loc., and Orat.u. adv. Jud.);  S. Cyril Alexandria (Dial. iv. de Trin) , and the author of the Commentaries on
the Epistles of S. Paul, which are ascribed to S. Ambrose (On Gal. iv.).

But the interpretation of S. Augustin (On S. John xxvii. and cxxiv. 4, and Serm. xiii. de verb. Dom. sec. S. Matt.).  “Upon this rock, that is, upon Myself,” because Christ was the Rock (i Cor. x. 4, and iii. 11), is still further from the meaning. Origen takes it of all who have the same faith (Tract, in S. Matt.).

Nothing could be more alien to the meaning of Christ than to suppose Him to say that He built the Church upon Himself, or upon any other foundation than S. Peter. For (1) the demonstrative pronoun “this” is here evidently put
for the relative “which.”  As if Christ had said: “Thou art a rock upon which I will build My Church,” for Petrus and Petra are the same word, only of different genders.  It may be doubted why, if not S. Matthew himself, yet the
Greek translator of S. Matthew, made that distinction of word and gender. The answer is, that in the Greek Πέτρος (Petros) and πέτρα (petra) are masculine and feminine.  Peter, because he was a man, could not be spoken of by the word Petra, but must be described by his own proper masculine name Petrus. (2) When Christ spoke of the foundation of the building, He called him not Petrus but Petra, though both words meant the same thing.  And in buildings of this kind, the feminine form of the word is more used than the
masculine the masculine being Attic and rare. Besides, who doubts that by these words Christ meant to bestow some great and singular gift upon Peter as a reward of his confession of faith, or wished to promise such? But
what would Christ have given to him if He had only given him the name of Peter?  Nay, He would not have given him the name, for, as has been shown, he was already called Peter; but by the words, “upon this rock,” He
signified that He would bestow upon him the great and singular dignity of founding upon him His Church; that is, of making him the head of the Church, and His own vicar in it.  From the words that follow: “And I will give
to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” it is clear that the words in question apply to Peter, for it is absurd that a change either of things or persons could be made by so
few words. As, then, Christ said, “I will give unto thee the keys,” so He said, “Upon this rock,” that is, upon thee, “I will build My Church”.

He gave him the same thing in different words, and by different metaphors, that he should be His vicar in the Church.  This dignity (prior to that of the foundation), when He said, “Upon this rock I will build My Church,” He afterwards confirmed by the metaphor of chief or head of the Church, when He gave him the keys like those of a city: Christ Himself being both head and foundation of the Church; by which two names and metaphors, not two, but one and the same thing is signified.

It may be asked why Christ did not directly, and in one word, say: “Upon thee will I build My Church?”  The obvious reply is, that the grace and force of His words would in that case have been lost These consisted in Christ s using terms applicable to a building when speaking of the Church as a building; but it would not have been consistent to say, “Upon thee,” for buildings are not
founded upon men, but upon rocks, as S. Jerome says.  Besides, if the meaning were “upon this rock,” that is, upon this faith, or upon Myself, it would be very greatly in favour of the opponent who thinks that Peter spoke not for himself alone, but for all the Apostles; which, it must be confessed, some of the ancient Fathers thought as well (S. Chrysostom, S. Jerome, in loc.; S. Augustin, Serm. xiii. de verb. Dom. ap. S. Matt.), who shall shortly be commented on with due respect.  We have now to refute the errors of the followers of Calvin.  If Peter spoke for all, why did not Christ say to all, “Blessed are ye?”   Why were not the names of all changed? Why was it not said
to all, “To you I give the keys?”  Again, when Christ asked all, why did not all reply? Especially when a little before, when He asked whom men said that He was, not only Peter, but all, or as many as would, answered: “Some say John the Baptist, others Elias, others Jeremias, or one of the Prophets”.  All other authors, then, have seen more correctly that Peter answered for himself alone.  Not that the others did not believe the same thing, and would have
said it, had not Peter anticipated them; but that Peter, with a great faith, was the first to break out with a confession.  These authors meant this alone, when they said that he answered for all, and called him the mouth of the Apostles. It is consonant with this, that as Christ chose the twelve Apostles, after the form of the twelve Patriarchs, so He should choose one like Abraham, who, because of his great faith, was the head of all; and that as Abraham was the foundation of the Old Testament so Peter should be of the Church of the Gospel.  For all things are equal in both.  Abraham excelled in faith, so did Peter. Abram’s name was changed to Abraham, as he was to be the father of many nations (Gen. xvii. 5); and so Peter’s, who was to be the father and head of all Christians.  For the one sole reason given by the heretics for denying that the Church was founded upon Peter, that it could have no other foundation but that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus (i Cor. iii. n), is altogether false.  For S. Paul (Eph. ii. 20) calls the Apostles and Prophets the foundation of the Church.  The heretics interpretation of this, as meaning
the faith and doctrine, is wholly perverse.  For the Apostle adds: “Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone”.  In these words, he signifies that in the Church, as in the foundations of other buildings, there are many stones, the
first and chief corner-stone being Christ, into whom all others are united; the second ones being the Apostles and Prophets, who are themselves built upon the first, but who were the foundation of other Christians; as S. John says in
the Apocalypse (xxi. 14), in plain words, which have not yet met with any heretical explanation.

Why, then, did S. Paul not say that we are built upon Christ rather than upon the Apostles and Prophets? The answer is easy.  We are placed further from Christ in the building of the Church than from the Apostles and Prophets.  For Christ is in the first place.  He is the first and corner-stone.  Upon Christ are the Apostles and Prophets.  Upon the Apostles and Prophets are built
ourselves.

Lastly, except these heretics, all ancient authors teach that the Church was built upon Peter.  So, then, S. Clement Rome (Ep. to James), Hippolytus (De Consum. Mundi), Dionysius (Ep. to Tim.), Tertullian (De Prcescript. and De Pudicitia), S. Cyprian (Eps. to Jubaian. and Cornell), Origen (Horn. v. on Exod.), S. Epiphanius (Anchorat.), S. Gregory Nazianzen (Orat. de Moderat.), S. Basil (Hom, de Paenit., and ii., Against Eunom.), S. Ambrose (Serm. xlvii.
de Fide Petri, and Ixviii. de Nat. Pet. et Paul.), and the Hymn of the Church, which is said by S. Augustin to be the composition of S. Ambrose:

“Hoc, ipsa petra Ecclesias
Canente, culpam diluit”
“And singing this the Church’s rock itself,
His fault condoned”.

So, S. Jerome (Ep. to Marcella against Montanus, and bk. 1, Adv.Jovin the author of the Commentaries on the Epistles of S. Paul which are commonly ascribed to S. Ambrose (On Gal. ii.), Leo (Serm. ii. de Pet. et Paulo, Ep. to Pp. Vienna and Ep. to Geminian),\he whole Council of Chalcedon, Juvencus
(Psellus ap. T/ieod., and iii., In Cant.), and lastly, those authors who are thought to have held the contrary.  For S. Hilary (De Trin., vi.), when he said that Christ founded the Church upon the faith of Peter, uses these words:
“After his confession of this mystery, the blessed Simon, laying it as the foundation in the edification of the Church, and receiving the keys.”  And (On Ps. cxxxi.): ” So great was Christ’s zeal of suffering for the salvation of the human race, that He named Peter, with the railing of Satan.”  (Satanae convicio), “the first confessor of God, the foundation of the Church, the door-keeper of the kingdom of heaven, and in earthly judgment the judge of heaven.”  “O thou, happy in the naming of thy new name, blessed foundation of the Church, and rock worthy of that edification which shall destroy the laws of hell, the gates of Tartarus, and all the bars of death” (Can. xvi. on S. Matt.). And S. Chrysostom (Horn. ii. on Ps. 1.): “Hear what Christ said to Peter, the column and foundation of the faith, who, for the strength of his confession, was called Peter: Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build My Church”. S. Cyril (ii., On S. John xii.): “Thou art Simon, the son of Jona; thou shalt be called Cephas” rightly showing, by the name itself, that on him, as on a rock and most firm stone, He would build His Church.” And S. Augustin (Serm. xlix. in verb. Dom. sec. Joann: “He said to Peter, on whom He establishes His Church, Peter, lovest thou Me?” And (lib. i. 21 of Retract.) the opinion of those who should say that the Church was built upon Peter he does not disapprove.

From this it appears that those authors who explain the words “upon this rock” by “this faith” received it in a different sense to these heretics.  It would seem the best explanation to say that they meant that the Church was built upon the faith and confession of Peter; that is, upon Peter because of his faith and confession, as all other authors say.

We use such expressions daily, as when we say that the kingdom was built upon the faith of one man; that is, on one man because of his faith, as S. Ambrose (De Resurrect. Fide) said: ” It was not the body of Peter that walked upon the waters, but his faith; for it was not his body, but his faith that made him do it”.  It is clear from these words that they do not deny, as the heretics do, that S. Peter is the foundation of the Church.

It may be said : If all others, not only Apostles, but also Prophets, as S. Paul says, are the foundation of the Church, what in particular is given to S. Peter in those words? The answer is, that among all the Prophets and Apostles, he,
after Christ, was the first foundation of the Church, and fills Christ s place in His absence.  But when others are a foundation also, nothing less could be given to him than that he should be the second foundation-stone after Christ,
and in the same way in which Christ is such; that is, that not only one part, but the whole Church, should rest on him (niteretur). There is this difference, that Christ is the foundation by His own power, Peter by Christ’s; and Christ rests on no other foundation, but Peter rests on another, that is, Christ.

My Church.  Christ calls the Church His, to show that He was God and the Lord of the Church, as Theophylact has rightly shown.

And the gates of hell.  That by the gates of hell all the powers of the devil is
meant is beyond question ; but it is doubtful why, by the word “gates,” powers is signified, and why Christ did not call it by its proper name of power, but by a metaphorical one of the gates. The reason may be easily conjectured.  Christ speaks of the Church as if it were some city.  The gates were the strongly fortified parts of the city (as in Ps. cxlvii. 13) ; and because cities were most commonly taken through the gates, as Gen. xxii. 17, xxiv. 60: “Thy
seed shall possess the gates of thine enemies;” that is shall possess the cities of their enemies; and Judges v. 8; 3 Kings viii. 37.

For this reason, therefore, the power of the devil is not called the power, but the gates of hell.  But why is it called hell, and not the devil, who is the enemy of the Church, as Moses said? (Gen. xxii. 17).  This also is easy. Because, as Christ speaks of the Church, He speaks of hell, where the devil rules, as if of some city, as Ps. cvi. 16: “Because he hath broken gates of brass, and burst iron bars”.  For these are two cities: one of God, the other of the devil, of which S. Augustin wrote his books.

Shall not prevail.  Shall not overcome, or have the mastery.  The meaning
of these words does not appear to be that which most authors, except S. Hilary, seem to suppose.  For they think that the meaning is, that the power of the devil may try The Church, but will never be able to overcome it, never to oppress it.  This meaning, though true, is poor, and does not fill up the place and words of Christ.  Christ seems to have intended something better. For gates do not over come, but resist; so that it is not the power of offending,
but of defending, that must be meant by the gates.  The meaning, then, seems to be that there will be a time when the Church, founded by Christ upon a rock, shall so take by storm all the power of the devil that he will be able by
no power and no arts to resist. The Hebrew is “will not be able to resist it”. It is clear that S. Hilary is of this opinion. The Church, he says, shall break to pieces all the laws and gates of hell, and all the bonds of death.  By the gates of hell, that is, the power of the devil, some of the Ancients understand heresies; as S. Epiphanius (In Anckorat.).  Others, vices, as S. Ambrose (De Bon. Mortis., chap, xii., and Comments, on S. Luke, ix.).  Others both, as Origen (Tract. 1. on S. Matt.), S. Jerome, and Bede. Others, the blasphemies of heretics and their persecution of the Church, as Euthymius.  Others, all
persecutors of the Church, as Theophylact.  It is better not to narrow the meaning, but to understand generally all the power of the devil.

Against it.  Origen (Tract. i. on S. Matt.) and S. Chrysostom (Hom. Lv.) think that the relative is to be referred either to the rock or to the Church. Doubtless to the latter, which the ancient authors think more probable, and the rest think true; although Christ said that the gates of hell should not
prevail against the Church, because it was founded upon a rock (as above, vii. 24, 25); except that there it is said that that house resisted the rains and waves and winds, and here that the Church shall not only resist hell, but shall take it by storm, because it is founded upon a strong rock.  For the Church and hell are spoken of, as we have said, as like two cities or strong citadels, near to and at war with one another; of which the one that hath the better foundation, and is the most strongly fortified, shall take the other.

Verse 19. And I will give to thee the keys. The power of opening and shutting the kingdom of heaven is called the keys by metaphor (Luke 9:52). The same power is immediately expressed by the other metaphor of binding and loosing.

The question is, in what this power consists? The followers of Luther and Calvin say that it means (merely) the teaching that their sins have already been forgiven, or that they will be if we believe the Gospel. But if so, Christ,
in giving Peter the keys, gives him nothing more than that which the Scribes and Pharisees had before (23:2, and5. Luke 9:52): “Woe to you lawyers, for you have taken away the key of knowledge; you yourselves have not entered in, and those that were entering in you have hindered”. It has been proved, however, that Christ not only gave more to Peter than to the Scribes and Pharisees, but more even than to the other Apostles. Something, then, is meant by the power of the keys more than the power of teaching. Besides, Christ gave this power not only to the twelve Apostles, but also to the seventy-two disciples (Luke 10:1). But the keys and the power of binding and loosing He gave to the Apostles alone. Thus, the power of binding and loosing and the power of teaching are not one and the same power. Besides, Christ had already given the power of teaching to the Apostles (10:7);but that of the keys He had not given.

It has been shown that the Apostles had had given to them a general power of teaching; but the use of it was restricted for a time, that they should not go among theGentiles, because it was not fitting that the Gospel should be preached to the Gentiles before it had been preached to the Jews. Supposing a special power only to have been given to them, what would it have to do with the present question? Certainly, if to teach and to remit sins be one and the same thing, wherever they could teach they could also forgive sins. But we see that the power of teaching had been given them, but the power of the remission of sins had not been given. Therefore they are not the same power.

We see, also, that in this place where the keys are given, and with them the power of binding and loosing, no mention is made of teaching. On the other hand (28:19, and 5. Mark 16:15), where the Apostles are commanded to preach the Gospel to every creature, no mention is made of the keys, or of binding and loosing. For, from the words of S. John (20:22, 23), we learn that Christ, when He sent the Apostles, said: “Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins ye retain, they are retained.” Though it was said to be about the same time, it was not said to have been actually the same. Besides, as in many other instances, S. John relates this as having been passed over by the other Evangelists.

It is not the least argument that the power of remitting sins was given to the Apostles with a different ceremony to that of teaching. For, when He gave the former, He is said to have breathed upon the Apostles, and said,  “Receive ye the Holy Ghost”. But when He gave the latter, He is not said to have either breathed upon them nor given them the Holy Spirit. The power of teaching, then, was different to that of remitting sins. Add to this, that if men only remit sins in this manner by teaching, whoever teaches another, even if the teacher be a woman, will remit sins, which is both unheard of and most senseless.

Again, if to teach is to loosen, that is, to remit sins, not to teach is to bind, that is, to retain them. So that everyone who does not teach has the power of binding, that is, of retaining sins. Again, if to teach is to loosen, and not to teach is to bind, Christ had not given the Apostles power to bind when He commanded them to teach all nations; that is (if their opinion be true), to loosen all, and to bind none. To what end was this power of binding, if no one were to be bound? It follows, from their own opinion, that the saying of Christ was false. For if to teach is to loosen, it is not the case that whatever the Apostles loosed upon earth would be loosed in heaven; for how many have been taught well whose sins, for their unbelief, have not been loosed in heaven! Nay, how many who have believed and been well taught, and have
believed rightly, will be lost!

Finally, those whom we read of as having been bound in Scripture, were not bound either by teaching or not teaching. S. Paul bound the Corinthian (1 Cor 5:5). He bound those heretics (1 Tim 1:20), not by teaching, but by
delivering them to Satan, when he had taught them well before; as now the Catholic Church binds the heretics with whom we are now at issue by excommunicating them, that is, by delivering them over to Satan.

So far one of these heretics on this passage has been answered. The second is their denial that anything was given to S. Peter by these words, which was not given equally to all the other Apostles.

This has to be answered, not by disputing the words, “Upon this rock,” of which enough has been said, and proof shown that it was given to Peter alone, that the Church should be built upon him. We are now to treat of the
words: “I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven”.

By these words, I maintain, against the opinion of the followers of Calvin, and even of some Catholics, that the primacy of the Church was given to Peter; not that these Catholics deny it, but because they think it not to have
been given him but in the preceding words, “Upon this rock I will build My Church”; and that the keys were not given to S. Peter alone, but to all the Apostles collectively. It appears that in both forms of words the primacy of the Catholic Church was given to Peter.

The words mean this. For the keys of a house or city are given into the keeping of the chief of the house or city. Therefore, the primacy is signified in Scripture by the keys, as in Isaiah 22:22: “I will lay the key of the
house of David upon his shoulder”; that is, I will give to him the supreme power in the kingdom of heaven. The words, “Upon his shoulder,” when keys are not laid upon the shoulder but carried in the girdle, are used, as is
frequently the case in Scripture, by a confusion of two metaphors, signifying one and the same thing; one of the keys, the other of the sceptre; each of which terms expresses the supreme power; and because the sceptre is laid
upon the shoulder, He says that He would place the keys of the house of David on his shoulder, as in Isaiah 9:6; ” And the government is upon his shoulder”. In the same sense Christ says (Apoc 1:18) that He has the keys of death and hell; that is, that He is the Lord of life and death; and (3:7) that He has the keys of David: “He that hath the key of David; He that openeth and no man shutteth, shutteth and no man openeth”. In this sense, then, the keys were given to Peter; that is, the supreme power in the Church, that he might shut and no man open, and that he might open and no man shut; that is, that no man should loose what he has bound, and no man bind what he has loosed. Hence, the power of the Roman Pontiff is most effectually proved ad reservatos casus; and hence it is concluded that to Peter alone it was said in this place: “I will give to thee the keys of heaven and hell”; and so said as if they were not to be given to any other, because he alone answered: “Thou art Christ the Son of the living God”; as it was said to him alone; ” On this rock I will build My Church”. For by both metaphors, one of the foundation, and the other of the keys, one and the same primacy is signified, and the explanation of one is that of the other.

2. It cannot be denied that the other Apostles had also their own keys; that is, the power of binding and loosing; as all ancient authors teach, saying that the keys were given to all; but I deny that they had the keys which are now in
question, and that those which all Catholics call keys, and rightly so, but in a different sense, are ever called keys in Scripture. It is a most unanswerable proof of the truth of this, that when Christ gave the other Apostles (18:18;
John 20:23) the power of binding and loosing, He made no mention of the keys. Peter alone, therefore, had those keys by which he so opened that no one could shut, and so shut that no one could open. So, in a house, all or many have their own keys, but the master alone has all the keys, and the secret ones, by which, when he wills, he can so shut that no one can open, and so open that no one can shut.

3. The third error of the followers of Calvin is that the power which was given to S. Peter was not given also to his successors; and therefore, even if it be granted that Peter had the primacy of the Church, it does not follow that his successors had the same, but that this power was given (to use his own words) to Peter personally. Tertullian (De Pudicitia) seems to say the same, but he spoke not as a Catholic, but as a heretic, when he deserted the camp
of the Church to join that of Montanus. S. Jerome (Lit. de Script. Eccl.) says that that work of Tertullian was written against the Church.

We have shown that the keys and the rock upon which Christ built the Church mean the same thing. Who is so senseless as to believe that Christ built an immortal Church upon a mortal man, after whose death the Church
must necessarily fall into ruins? Not upon Peter alone, then, but upon him and his successors was the Church founded; and as these will never fail, the Church will remain for ever. The same must be said of the keys which, as we have said, mean the same thing. How, too, did Christ give this power to Peter alone and to his successors? For He instituted His Church; He instituted her officers; and that not to the honour of persons, but to the good of the Church. These were to endure as long as the Church herself, especially that which, as it is the greatest of all, so it was the most necessary of all: the head of the Church, who was also to be its foundation. Therefore, as the other and lesser offices were not to be transferred to later ages, it was yet necessary that this should be so, as all ancient writers teach.

4. The fourth error of these men is the denial that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Peter. They say that Peter was either never at Rome at all, or if he were, it cannot be shown that whoever was the Roman Pontiff then was his immediate successor. This error shall be confuted elsewhere. Here we simply bid the assertors fight against the whole world. For there never was any before them, Catholic or heretic, who did not affirm (1) That Peter died at Rome; (2) That the Roman Pontiffs were his successors. As the Wise Man says therefore (Wisdom 5:21): “The whole world shall fight with him against the unwise”.

And whatsoever thou shalt bind. This is a metaphorical saying, by which the same thing is signified as was contained in the two former verses, that Peter had the supreme power of remitting or retaining sins; but I do not consider that it was said to Peter in the same sense as that in which it was said to the other Apostles, though all authors apparently, except Origen, take it so; but in the sense in which the Church was built upon Peter alone, and in which to him alone were given the keys, so to bind as no one should be able to loose, and in so to loose as no one should be able to bind. This is to be proved by the same arguments as we have used already to prove his primacy.

It is asked in what the power of binding and loosing consists? S. Thomas, in his Commentaries, has noticed three errors on the subject to be marked and avoided.

1. That of those who appear arrogantly to think that the priesthood can arbitrarily bind or loose whomsoever they please; and that every act of theirs, whether right or wrong, will be ratified in heaven. And if we look at the
mere words, they do seem to bear this meaning. For “Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven”.  But it is not so. For Christ
only intended to give to Peter first, and then to the other Apostles, to perform His offices as if He were on earth: binding those that were to be bound, and loosing those who were to be loosed; with this sole exception, that Christ would bind or loose in His own power, the Apostles in another s, that is, Christ’s. From the fact, then, that He gave over to them His own functions, we understand that they should bind and loose, not according to their own judgment, but according to His ; so that, as S. Cyprian rightly says:
“Let no one prejudge Christ the Judge”. This is what theologians and Doctors of the Church call “Clave non errante“.

2. The second error is, that to bind or to loose is nothing else than the declaration that men are already bound or loosed by God, as, in the Old Testament, the priest neither made nor healed the leper, but merely declared that he was actually a leper, or was truly healed of his leprosy.  This error is confuted by the passage before us. For, if this were so, and the priest could only loose and bind in this manner, Christ would not have said, “Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven,” but, “What is bound in heaven you shall bind on earth”. But, as He says, on the contrary,
“Whatsoever you shall bind on earth it shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth it shall be loosed also in heaven,” He signifies most clearly that it shall be loosed by the Apostles on earth before it is loosed by God in heaven. This was a gift befitting the Apostles, as representing the Person of Christ, that, as when Christ Himself was on earth, whatever He loosed on earth was loosed by the Father in heaven, so, when He had returned to heaven, whatever the Apostles loosed on earth should be loosed by Him also in heaven. I do not think that the opinion of S. Jerome was at all different, nor that he would have countenanced the above error, but that he only desired to confute the former one.

3. The third error is that, “as in sin there are two things the fault, and the penalty of eternal punishment and a man is absolved from both by contrition, the eternal punishment being commuted into a temporal one, the priest can do no more by his absolution than diminish some part of the temporal penalty”. This is easily answered, for Christ said (John 20:23): “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained”. The priest, then, remits not only the penalty but the fault. Nor ought it to appear more wonderful, the priest doing this by the sacrament of penitence than by that of baptism, as S. Ambrose says against the Novatians (lib. i. 2, De Pænit). It may be objected that, as the priest, when he binds, does not make men sinners, but only declares them to be such, so, when he absolves, he does not make men righteous, but only declares that they are so, and absolved from their sins. The answer may be that this is not a sequitur. For the power of binding and loosing was given to the Apostles, not for the righteous, but for sinners. For those who are righteous, that is, who are loosed, God will not have bound. But those who are sinners, that is, who are bound, He desires to have loosed, if they are worthy, and to be bound, if they are unworthy. Besides, the priest is not able to bind and to loose in the same way. He cannot bind in the same manner as that in which he looses. He looses by truly loosing; he binds by not loosing, that is, not by causing, but as S. John says, by retaining sins.

On earth. Some conclude from this that the power of the Church of binding and loosing does not apply to the dead, because they are not upon earth, that is, under the jurisdiction of the Church. So says Strabo, the author of what is termed the ordinary gloss. Whether this be so or not, it can only be said at present that this conclusion does not follow from the words in question, for the words “on earth” are to be referred, not to those who are bound or loosed, but to those who bind or loose ; as if Christ had said, “What ever you who are living on earth shall bind or loose shall be bound or loosed by God, who dwells in heaven,” or, more briefly, “Whatever is loosed or bound by you men
shall be loosed or bound by God”. For men are signified by “earth,” and God by “heaven”. It is an elegant antithesis by which, from the great distance between heaven and earth, the power given to the Apostles is commended. As if a prince should say to some dependant: “Whatever you do, even in the Indies, I shall value very highly,” to show how thoroughly he confided in him, and how ample power he gave to him. For we are less used to ratify what is done in our absence, in our name, by someone else, than if we were present or at hand. Servants, the longer their master is away, are the more apt to take
greater licence, as the parable shows (Matt 24:48, 49).

Two premisses ought to be fixed and certain:

1. That the Church has the power of excommunicating even the dead that is, of depriving them of the prayers of the Church, which seems to have been always practised by SS. Cyprian and Augustin; and,

2. That the Church has the power of freeing those who are in purgatory by her prayers.

This passage is also one from which the practice of ecclesiastical confession is most clearly proved. For this power which was given to the Apostles could not have been exercised without their knowledge of the sinners, nor could the sins, which are for the most part secret, be known without the explicit confession of the sinner. Thus all the ancient Fathers have based on this passage the practice of penance; e.g., S. Cyprian (Serm. on “Lapsed”), S. Athanasius (Hom, on the words, “Go into the village”), S. Basil
(Ep. to Amphilock.). We may add that Christ, in these words, not only gave the Apostles the power of absolving, but He laid upon all Christians the obligation of confession.

The meaning, then, will be not only that whatever the Apostles loosed on earth, He Himself would loose in heaven: but also that He would neither loose nor bind anything in heaven, except what His Apostles or their successors had loosed or bound on earth. For He bestowed on them His own power to govern the Church for Him. So that He would have everyone who needed forgiveness come to the Apostles or their successors as if to Him, if He were on earth, and seek from them absolution when they had made their confession, as, if He were living on earth, He would absolve no one from his sins unless he had first made confession of them.

But He as God could do so without that sacrament, the Apostles as men could only do so through the sacrament; as if that were the hand of Christ; that is, as if a king when sending some minister to a distant province to govern for him, should say: “Whatever you do I approve,” and he should give orders to the people to refer any question or difference to his substitute as to himself, and plead all causes before him; not that he deprived himself of his power, so that he could not judge a cause if he pleased, but that, by the transference of all ordinary power to his substitute, he reserved the extraordinary to himself. This is to be understood of Christ and the Apostles. The ordinary remedies instituted in the Church for the remission of sins are the sacraments, without which men cannot remit them. Christ is able to do this, but He does it extra
ordinarily, and very much more rarely than through the sacraments. For He would not have men trust to extra ordinary means, which are both rare and uncertain, for the remission of sins ; but He would have them seek the ordinary, and, so to say, the visible aids of the sacraments. And He has, therefore, given the precept, as of baptism and the Eucharist, so of confession and penance.

Verse 20. That they should tell no man. Why Christ so frequently forbade His acts, which clearly discovered Him to be the Son of God, to be made public
has been explained (8:4; 9:30). Why He forbade it now, we learn from S. Mark (8:30), S. Luke (9:20), and S. Matthew in verse following. For all these three Evangelists relate that Christ, immediately on Peter s confession that He was the Son of God, began to explain to them how He must suffer many things at Jerusalem, and be put to death. From this, it is concluded that He would not
have the Apostles publish it, that He was the Son of God, lest the hearers, if they should afterwards see Him dying, should be offended by that weakness of the flesh and lose their faith. For, while He was hanging on the Cross, some
of those who had heard that He was the Son of God, said (27:40): “If Thou be the Son of God, come down from the Cross”. Christ would not have that happen to all at His death which did happen to some. This is the reason that S. Chrysostom, S. Jerome, and Bede give.

A double question here arises, 1. Why (chap 10:7) He sent the Apostles to preach the kingdom of God, which was nothing but the coming of the Son of God? 2. Why He so often called Himself the Son of God, or called God His
Father, if He would not have men know that He was the Son of God? The heretic who answers that that mission was merely temporal, says nothing to the purpose. For, what does it matter whether it were temporal or eternal,
if they preached the Advent of the Son of God? Origen (Tract, 1. on S. Matt.} answers, that the Apostles preached not Christ, but the kingdom of God. S. Jerome, on the contrary, says that they preached Christ indeed, but not Jesus; that is, they taught that He was a righteous man, a Prophet, the author of many extraordinary miracles, the Messiah promised by God; but not that He was the Son of the living God: that is, the true essential God by nature, which Peter now confessed Him to be; for perhaps even the Apostles themselves, at that time, did not under stand this. And He now forbade them to say that He was Jesus Christ, as is found in some copies. For Jesus is
the name of God, and means the Saviour; Christ is the name of the Man. The reason seems a good one, and is approved by S. Ambrose (On S. Luke 9) and Euthymius. It is certain that before His passover, Christ never told
His disciples to preach that He was the Son of God, and He never very openly said so; because, while some were offended at His calling God His Father, He derided their halting opinion by the ambiguity of the term, as in John 10:34, 35 1 36: “Is it not written in your law, I said you are gods? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God was spoken, and the Scripture cannot be broken, do you say of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said I am the Son of God?”

Verse 21. From that time. It is plain that the Evangelist wished to show that Christ, from the time when Peter confessed Him to be the Son of God, began to speak of His coming death, and not once, but very frequently, to admonish the Apostles as to what was to happen; as if the Evangelist had said, from that
time He did not keep the knowledge back as a secret that He must suffer, but spoke of it openly and plainly. We may ask why He did so at this time rather than before? The reason is obvious, as S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and
Theophylact show. It was because He had not been sufficiently known by the Apostles, or declared by public confession to be the Son of God by nature; and it was to be feared that if He had made mention of the shame of His future death, they might be offended, or leave Him, or be hindered in the course of their faith. But why afterwards ? For the same reason clearly; for when they had confessed Him to be the Son of God, they seemed to be prepared for having the mystery of His impending death explained to them. It was very necessary that this should be done, lest afterwards, if they had not been forewarned and had seen Him suffer, they might have doubted of His Divinity, as has been observed by Theophylact. He did the same at another time, and for a similar cause (John 16:). Some give another reason : that by His own example Christ might strengthen His disciples, as is learnt from verse 24 and 1 Peter 2:21.

Must. Not absolutely, but from His Father’s will, by which He must suffer and die for the salvation of men (Luke 24:46).

Verse 22. And taking Him. προσλαμβάνω (proslambanō), separating or leading Him apart, as if  he did not venture to blame Him before the others. So say S. Chrysostom and Jerome, Bede and Euthymius.  παρá προσλαμβανεσθε in the Scriptures is often used to express compassion, as Rom 14:1: “Now him that is weak in faith, take unto you,: that is, to take compassion; 15:7: “Wherefore receive one another,” take him to you, or practise mutual compassion one to another. This agrees well with the context that Peter, when he heard of Christ’s approaching sufferings, moved with compassion, that is, “receiving Him,” began to dissuade Him. This meaning is adopted by S. Jerome. “S. Peter,” he says, “receiving Christ into his sympathy.” Began to rebuke Him. Not as blaming Him, but as a friend giving Him counsel, as Bede and Euthymius think. SS. Chrysostom and Jerome
speak of the modesty of Peter on this occasion; for, as before (verse 16), in confessing Christ to be the Son of God, he had shown greater faith than the rest of the Apostles, so he now showed more love for Him.

Lord, be it far from Thee. Our version could not have rendered better the Greek λεως σοί ( hileōs soi).  No doubt the Greek translator of the S. Matthew
borrowed the expression from the LXX.; for these used it in two places and senses (1) when it meant pax tibi, from the Hebrew
שׁלום לכם (as in Gen 43:23); or (2) when it meant “prohibition,” that is, absit (as in 1 Kings 14:45; 20:2, 9). It is, therefore, a word of aversion and deprecation against what is threatened from happening.

Verse 23. Who turning. That is, looking back (as  Mark 8:33). It is perhaps a Hebraism by which a contrary answer is given, as if the Evangelist had said that Peter rebuked Christ because He would suffer, but Christ on the other part rebuked Peter because he would not have Him suffer (as Ps 70:2; 84:7): that is, as Thou first destroyedst us, so now on the other hand Thou shalt bring us back again.

Go behind Me.  Hebrew expression, meaning properly “Follow Me,” as S. Hilary explains it; as if Christ had said: “Thou oughtest rather to follow Me and imitate My suffering than call Me away from it”. Origen (Tract, 1. on
S. Matt.} and S. Jerome (in his Commentaries) so explain it. So too S. Augustin (Serin, xiii. de verb. Dom. sec. Matt.); for he renders it, “Retire behind Me”. It is certain that they are the words of one commanding another to go back, as Christ had said to Satan before (4:10).

Satan. S. Hilary shrank from the idea of the name of Satan having been given to S. Peter; and he takes the passage as if Christ had said to Peter “Vade retro” and then turned, as it were, to the devil who had put it into the mind of Peter
to dissuade Him from death, and said: “Satan, thou art an offence unto Me. This is the more to be wondered, because in his Comments, on the Psalms (131) he says that Peter himself had been called Satan. We may wonder with S. Augustin (Serm. xiii. de verb. Dom. sec. S. Matt.) why Christ in so short a time called the same Peter both blessed and Satan. S. Jerome says that
the Church was not yet built on him, and that he therefore erred, and could be called Satan. S. Augustin and Theophylact say that he was called “blessed” because not flesh and blood, but the Father in heaven had revealed it to him, and “Satan” when he savoured not of the things of God, but of the things of men.

Note: The following notes are based primarily on a commentary by Bishop MacEvily.  The Scripture text is that of the Douay-Rheims translation and it appears in black boldface.  In his commentary the Bishop supplied a paraphrase for each verse and these are reproduced in a purple boldface. The Bishop’s notes are in plain black script.  My additions are in plain red script.This was originally posted on my primary blog.

Analysis of Chapter 1:

The Apostle commences this Epistle with the usual form of Apostolical salutation (1-2). In the next place, he gives thanks to God for the gifts of grace and the divine virtues of faith, hope, and charity, bestowed on the Colossiafis (3-5). These gifts and virtues were to terminate in the enjoyment of the future blessings promised in the Gospel. From the mention of the Gospel, he takes occasion to confirm the doctrine preached to them by Epaphras, as a faithful minister of the Gospel. He prays that the Lord would grant, them a more perfect knowledge of his holy will, and strength and power to lead lives worthy of God, in the performance of good works, and the patient endurance of sufferings for his sake (6-12).
The Apostle then renders thanks to God for the grace of faith, and the other blessings of redemption bestowed on all Christians; and from this, takes occasion to point out the attributes of Christ, and his superior excellence over the angels. He claims for him in a special way, the prerogatives of Creator and Redeemer, of which the heretics wishes to deprive him, by transferring them to the angels. The apostle, therefore, asserts, that
he is the image of the invisible God—the Creator of all things, the angels included—the preserver, by his Providence, of all things created—the Redeemer of all men, Jews and Gentiles—the head of the Church—the reconciler of offended Heaven with sinful man—the very fulness of the Divinity (12-21.)

He says that the Colossians will be partakers of the blessifigs of Redemption, provided they persevere in the faith announced to them, which is the same with that preached throughout the rest of the world. He declares himself to be appointed by the will of God a minister of the Gospel, in order to announce to the Gentiles a mystery hitherto concealed from them—a mystery for the fulfilment or accomplishment of which among the Gentiles, he cheerfully submits to suffering and pi’ivations of every kind.

Notes:

Col 1:3  Grace be to you and peace, from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ. We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you.

May you enjoy the abundance of all spiritual gifts from their efficient cause, Got the Father, and their meritorious cause, our Lord Jesus Christ.  We always gives thanks to God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and always pray for you.

“Grace,” &c., the ordinary Apostolic form of salutation. The words, “and the Lord Jesus Christ,” are wanting in many MSS. and rejected by modern critics. They are found in the Armenian and Coptic versions. “We give thanks to God,” &c. The Apostle usually commences his Epistles with acts of thanksgiving and prayer. He gives thanks for past favours, and prays for their future continuance. “To God and the Father.” For this St. Chrysostom reads, To God the Father, &c.

When used in the salutations of NT letters, the words grace and peace denote the fullness of God’s salvific bounty (i.e., his covenant blessings).  St Thomas Aquinas, in his lecture on Colossians 1:1-2 two says of grace and peace: “he wishes them all good things that lie between these two.”  Some of the graces St Paul would like to see the Colossians grow in are mentioned in verses 9ff (knowledge, wisdom, understanding, endurance, patience in joy, thanksgiving, perseverance, etc.).

Peace reflects the Hebrew word shalom, a word which means much more than just the absence of strife: a total state of well-being.  This state is the product of God’s grace.  In 3:15 St Paul will exhort the Colossians to “let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts.”  The verses which precede this passage (12-14) indicate what makes for peace, while the verses that follow (16-17) indicate how peace manifests itself among believers.

Col 1:4  Hearing your faith in Christ Jesus and the love which you have towards all the saints.

After we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the charity which you exercise towards all the faithful.

Their faith and love is what motivates Paul’s thanksgiving.

St Thomas Aquinas: “Our blessings or goods consist especially in faith, hope, and the love of charity: for by faith we have a knowledge of God; by hope we are raised up to him; but by the love of charity we are united to him. As we read: “So faith, hope, love, abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love” (1 Cor. 13:13). So he gives thanks for these three. First, that they have the faith; although he was not the one who preached to them, but rather a disciple by the name of Epaphras, and later Archippus. Thus he says, we have heard of your faith, which is the beginning of the spiritual life: “The righteous shall live by his faith” (Hab 2:4); “For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him” (Heb 11:6).

“But this faith is dead without an active love, as James says (2:26), and so an active love must also be present: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation” (Gal 6:15). And so he continues, and of the love which you have for all the saints….

Col 1:5  For the hope that is laid up for you in heaven, which you have heard in the word of the truth of the gospel,

In the hope of securing these future blessings, treasured up for you in heaven; these blessings of the life to come, you have heard announced and promised to you, by the preaching of the gospel of truth.

Here St Paul moves from what has motivated his prayer, to what has motivated the Colossians’ response to the Gospel.

This love of their brethren they exercised in the hope of the future rewards, &c. “In the word of the truth of the gospel,” i.e., in the word of the most true gospel in which there is contained no falsehood. Hence, it is a laudable thing, to propose the rewards of the life to come, as the motive of our good works.

St Thomas Aquinas: “Further, the fruit of worldly love is obtained in this world; but the fruit of the love of charity is in eternal life. This leads him to mention hope: because of the hope laid up for you in heaven, that is, because of your eternal glory, which is called hope because it is considered as certain: “This hope has been put in my heart,” as we read in Job (19:27) [Vulgate].” (source)

Col 1:6  Which is come unto you, as also it is in the whole world and bringeth forth fruit and groweth, even as it doth in you, since the day you heard and knew the grace of God in truth.

Which gospel has come to you, as it was preached all over the earth, where it fructifies and is become extended, as it has fructified and extended among you, from the day you heard it, and knew the true doctrine regarding the gratuitous goodness of God in reference to man’s redemption.

The words “and groweth,” are not in the Greek, Their genuineness is now
admitted, being found in the ancient MSS., in that used by St. Chrysostom among the rest. ” Knew the grace of God in truth,” may also mean, have known the grace of God truly and without any admixture of error. In this verse, the Apostle wishes to remove any erroneous impressions, which the false teachers might endeavour to create in their minds, regarding the imperfection of the gospel preached to them, compared with that preached by the Apostles, probably with the view of making their own erroneous doctrine, the complement of the gospel preached to the Colossians.

Argument: Cardinal Tomasi in the collection of arguments collected from Origen, gives the following as meanings of this psalm.  That Christ, the Good Shepherd, predestinates His sheep with eternal rest.  The voice of the Church to the Lord touching the Jews.  The voice of Christ to the Apostles touching the Jews.  The voice of the Church advising to repentance.

Venerable Bede in his exposition of the Psalms says concerning this one: “Praise denotes devotion of voice; song, cheerfulness of mind, for David, Christ our Savior, to the end that we may come together and rejoice, not in vain delights, but in the Lord.  The prophet forseeing the rejection of Christ, invites the chosen people to come and praise God.  Secondly, the Lord Himself speaks that the aforesaid people should not harden its heart lest that if befall them which befell their fathers who did not reach the Land of Promise” (Migne P.L. vol xciiim p. 478).

1.  Oh, come let us sing unto the Lord.  Let us heartily rejoice in God our savior.  Let us come before His Face in confession, and in psalms let us rejoice before Him.

St Augustine (in Ennarationes in Psalmos), commenting on this verse, remarks that the prophet invites us to rejoice, not in the world, but in the Lord.  In saying Oh come, he means that those who are far off are to draw near.  But how can we be far off from Him Whom is present everywhere?  By unlikeness to Him, by an evil life, by bad habits.  A man standing still in one spot draws near to God by loving Him, and by loving that which is evil he withdraws from God.  Although he does not move his feet, he can yet both draw nigh and retire; for in this journey our feet are our affections.  Come, as sick men to a doctor to obtain relief, as scholars to a master to learn wisdom, as thirsty men to a fountain, as fugitives to a sanctuary, as blind men to the sun.  Thus writes the Carmelite, Michael Angriani.  Let us sing to the Lord.  Why then do we find it said: Blessed are they that mourn and Woe to you that laugh (Matt 5:4 and Luke 6:25)?  Surely because they are blessed who mourn to the world, and the woe is to them that laugh to the world; but blessed are they who exalt unto the Lord, who know not how to be glad of violence, of fraud, of their neighbor’s tears.  He joys in the Lord, who in word, deed, and work, exults not for himself but for his maker.  Thus states St Peter Chrysologus (Migne, P.L., vol liii. p. 328). Our Savior. St Jerome in his version of the psalms translates these words simply as “Jesus our Rock.”

Let us come before His face, that is, says St Augustine, let us make haste to meet Him, not waiting till He sends to call us before Him.  Not that we can in anyway forestall His grace and bounty to us, but that we may offer our thanksgiving with sufficient promptness to avoid the charge of ingratitude.

In confession, which may either be the confession of God’s might and goodness, or of our frailty and sin, the confession of praise, or the confession of grief.  In this second sense we are called upon to come away from our sins, to come in penance to God before He comes in judgment.  Confession in the Psalms is often used s equivalent to thanksgiving, for if we confess our unworthiness we must be filled with gratitude to God for His mercy in granting us forgiveness and restoring us to His favor.   The Face of God often stands in Holy Writ for His wrath, e.g., Turn away Thy Face from my sins (Psalm 50:9); and also for offering sacrifice (see Hosea 5:5-6; Habakkuk 2:20.  Modern translations may read ‘before, ‘ or ‘presence.’).   The sacrifice of thanksgiving under the Mosaic code was an oblation of cakes of fine flour and wafer bread; and thus in this place, says Fr. Lorin, S.J., we see a prophecy of the Sacrifice of the New Law, that Eucharistic oblation of praise and thanksgiving wherein Christ is Himself offered to the Father.

And in psalms let us rejoice before Him.-Psalms, says St Ambrose, denote the combination of will and action in good works because the word implies the use of an instrument as well as of a voice (Migne, P.L., vol xiv).  And, says Denis, the Carthusian, we may rejoice in psalms when we are alone, as well as when joining with others in the offices of the Church, saying, Oh come all ye powers of my soul, my whole being and all that is within me, especially my reason, memory and will, let us be glad together in the Lord.

2.  For the Lord is a great God and a great King above all gods: For the Lord will not repel His people, for in His hands are all the ends of the earth, and the heights of the mountains doth He behold.

Says Fr. Corder, To us the words teach the mystery of the Eternal Son, pointing out that our Lord even in His mortal body is a great God, by reason of the Hypostatic Union, and also because He is the express Image of the Father; whence we find this very title given Him by the Apostle saying: Looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ (Titus 2:13).  Christ, says St Bruno, is moreover the King whom all the gods, all those saints and rulers of His Church whom He has made partakers of Him, obey and love: I have said ye are gods (Jn 10:34).

For the Lord will not repel His people, That Christian folk, says Cardinal Hugo, which He hath purchased with His own Blood, He will not reject it, crying, praying, seeking or knocking to Him.

In His hands are all the ends of the earth.-If we take this as descriptive of the power of God over creation there is no better commentary on them that the words of Isaiah: He hath measured the waters in the hollow of His hand and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure and weighed the mountains in scales and the hills in a balance (Isaiah 40:12).  But the fuller explanation is to take it as showing that whilst false gods are worshipped in special places, He alone is Lord everywhere.  And thus we see here a reference to the Church, no longer confined to the narrow limits of one people, but made up from all the nations of the earth.  The ends of the earth may denote all the powers and faculties of man, a notion which is brought out better by the Hebrew-all the deep places of the earth.

The heights of the mountains are types of the exalted citizens of heaven: thus says Fr. Lorin.  St Bruno says the earth is often put for men of earthly nd groveling minds, mountains for the saints lifted high by contemplation of Divine things.

3.  For the sea is His and He made it, and His hands formed the dry land.  Come let us worship and fall down before God: Let us weep before the Lord who made us, for He is the Lord our God: but we are His people and the sheep of His pasture.

Besides the obvious interpretation concerning the wonder of creation, the sea, says St Augustine, denotes the Gentile nations tossed about in the bitterness and barreness of heathendom whom the Jews, in their spiritual pride, refused to believe God’s children.  Yet He made them, as it is written: Doubtless Thou art our Father though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: Thou, O Lord, art our Father, our Redeemer (Isaiah 63:16).   And His hands have formed the dry land. This land, differing from the sea in stability and in capacity of fruitfulness, denotes the Church or any holy soul.  It is dry, says St Bruno, because without the grace of God it can do nothing, as land will not bear unless it be watered, but gaspeth for Him as a thirsty ground (see Ps 144:6).  He formed it, which means more than he made it, implying that He gave shape and beauty and fulness to that which before was without form and void (Gen 1:2) by reason of Adam’s sin.  (Note: the commentator is applying a text about creation to the idea of re-creation.  Adam’s sin affected creation inasmuch as it caused disunity among men with one another and with God, as Genesis 3:8-13 shows.  Also, as a result of Adam’s sin, God cursed the earth so that in some ways it rebels against man, as we see in Gen 3:17-19.  In some sense it can be said that the earth is without form and is void because it no longer retains the fulness of purpose for which it was intended by God; this is why St Paul can write that “all creation groans in eager anticipation of the full revelation of the sons of God” in Romans 8:19).

We are to worship, that is, to bend the head as servants to their master, to fall down as subjects acknowledging their king.  To weep, for as Cassiodorus says: God calls His people first to rejoice, while they, yet, do not know the spiritual life, lest they be alarmed and repelled by its sorrows and austerities; but when they have once accepted the faith, He then summons them to repent of their sins (Migne, P.L., lxx).  But, says St Peter Chrysologus, they are tears of joy; for gladness, as well as sorrow, brings weeping, and grief for our past sins is blended with the hope of blessing and glory to come.  Some commentators, who take this Psalm as having special reference to our Lord’s nativity, see here a command to adore Him in the manger, undeterred ty the tokens of mortality and poverty around.

But we are His people and the sheep of His pasture.-St Augustine tells us that we are hereby taught that we, even as people, are sheep, in respect to God, needing Him as a Shepherd, and only to be satisfied with His green pastures.  Yet we are not unreasoning sheep to be driven with a staff.  We are guided with God’s Own hands, the very hands which made us and are so loving and ever heedful to prevent any harm that may come from negligence, ignorance, or malice of those inferior shepherds, to whom He commits, in a measure, the task of tending His flock.  He feeds us, says St Bruno, with Bread from heaven, as He once fed our spiritual forefathers with mann in the wilderness; and He cares for us as a shepherd cares for his flock, so that we need not be solicitous, but cast all our care on Him.  Says St Bonaventure, we must be like sheep in trustfulness, patience and innocence, and yet men in understanding, according to His Own saying: And ye My flock, the flock of My pasture, are men, and I am your God, saith the Lord (Ezek 34:31).

4.  Today if ye shall hear His voice harden not your hearts, as in the provocation and as in the day of temptation in the desert: Where your fathers tempted Me, proved Me and saw My works.

Today, that is, daily while it is called today, as the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews explains in one of his threefold citations of this verse: But exhort one another daily while it is called today (Heb 3:13). So long as the night has not yet come, so long as the door of mercy is not shut.  today, at once, not deferring till tomorrow.

If you will hear His voice is the reply to the assertion in the previous verse: We are the sheep of His pasture; for the proof of being one of Christ;s flock is according to His own words-My sheep hear My voice and I know them and they follow Me (Jn 10:27).  This flock He gave in its entirety, both sheep and lambs, to His apostle Peter to be fed for Him (Jn 21:15-17).  So if we are fed by Peter we are fed by Christ, and belong to His one fold.  You call yourself His sheep; prove your claim, then, by hearing His voice.  And yet, as St Bernard tells us, there is no difficulty at all in hearing His voice; on the contrary, the difficulty is to stop our ears effectually against it, so clear is its sound, so constantly does it ring in our ears.  The Jews, remarks the Carmelite, sinned by refusing to listen to the voice of our Lord; and we also sin in the same way when we put off or refuse to repent.  Satan’s counsel, observes St Basil, is “today for me, tomorrow for God”; whereas, He that hath promised pardon to repentance hath not promised tomorrow to the sinner.

Harden not your hearts.-For in doing so, says St Albert the Great, you set yourselves in direct opposition to the will of God, which is to soften those hearts, in that He said: My doctrine shall drop as the rain, My speech shall distill as the dew (Deut 32:2), to moisten the dry ground that it may bring forth the tender buds of grace; whereas it is said of sinners that their hearts are stony: I will take the stony heart out of your flesh and I will give you a heart of flesh (Ezek 36:26); and of Leviathan, the type of evil power, His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of nether millstone (Job 41:24).

As in the provocation and as in the day of temptation.-Some commentators refer the word provocation to the resistance of the Jews to the authority of Moses and temptation to their unbelief in the providence of God: And he called the naem of the place Massah and Meribah, because of the chiding of the children of Israel, and because they tempted the Lord, saying, Is the Lord among us nor not? (Exodus 17:7).  Cardinal Hugo points out that the words which follow in the wilderness, are an aggravation of guilt, because it was exactly there, in the absence of all other help, that the thoughts of the Jews should have been most firmly set on God Who had so wonderfully brought them out of Egypt.  Those who come out of the Egypt of sin or worldliness, who begin a life of repentance, are at first in the wilderness.  They are deserted by those they have left behind; and, not attaining yet to what they seek, they re much exposed, in that stage of spiritual progress, to the risk of rebellion, of unbelief in God, and of resisting the pleadings of the Holy Ghost.

Where your fathers tempted Me.-There is a stress on your fathers, implying that we are the same nations which sinned in a former period of its history and are therefore likely to fall again.  The Carmelite remarks, we may tempt God in several ways: His mercy, by careless prayer; His patience, by remaining in sin; His justice, by desiring revenge; His power, by not trusting Him during perils; His wisdom, by undertaking to teach others without previous study and meditation.

Proved Me.-This is more than tempting, which denotes the bare experiment, whereas proving implies its success, for the God, whose power they doubted, slew them all in the wilderness.

And saw My works.-That is, says Fr. Lorin, although they saw them, and that during forty continuous years, yet they did not believe and were never subdued, but renewed their experiment after each miracle and judgment.

5.  Forty years was I nigh to this generation, and said, these do always err in heart; in truth they have not known My ways.  Unto whom I swore in My wrath that they should not enter into My rest.

Forty years.-The writers do not fail to point out the mystical meaning of the number forty, repeated in the fasts of Elijah and our Lord, and in the great forty days after Easter; and they tell us that as ten is the first limit we meet in computation, so that this number and its multiples give all the subsequent names to sums, it serves as a type of fulness; while four, as denoting either the seasons of the year or the quarters of the heavens, extends that fulness to all time and place; and thus forty years stands here for the entire span of our earthly sojourn.  Remigius, monk as St Germain (see Migne, P.L. 131), points out the stress on years, because the journey of Elijah teaches us that the Israelites could have passed through the desert in forty days had they only been obedient (1 Kings 19:8).

Nigh.-Some commentators take this word in the sense that one who punishes is near the criminal, or of a teacher who keeps beside an idle and refractory pupil to compel his attention.  St Augustine explains it of God’s continual presence in signs and miracles; while St Bernard interprets it of an inward voice and inspiration.  The cause of God’s anger was the ingratitude of the children of Israel for His unceasing watch over them.

This generation.-And whereas this applies literally to the 60,000 who came up out of Egypt, and then by accommodation, to all living men at any time while it is called today, there is also a special fitness in taking it of the Jews after the Passion of Christ; for, says Perez of Valentia, the interval which lay between that and the final destruction of Jerusalem was almost precisely forty years, up to which time the door of hope was still open for Israel, and it was still today ere that terrible night set upon the Temple worship.

Always do these err in their heart.-This is much more forcible, observes Cardinal Hugo, than if it were said, they err in act; for the error of an act has a definite end, whereas the error of the will has no end.  Death puts an end to the evil doings of a sinner, not because he has lost the will to sin, but because he has no longer the power to do so.

For they have not known My ways.-The word known does not here signify acquaintance with God’s ways which may be gathered from reading or meditation, but that knowing which comes from a careful keeping to His ways themselves, that is, from living lives fruitful in good works.  And the ways of God, as St Bonaventure remarks, are all reducible to one, that is Jesus Himself, the Way, the Truth, and the Life (Jn 14:6); moreover, they all lead to the same heavenly country.  They are one way in their making, their maker, and their end; they are many ways according to the diversities of the working of grace, the variety of vocations and of disposition among those who journey home through the wilderness.

Unto whom I swore in My wrath that they should not enter into My rest.-This He did when the spies brought back evil reports of the Land of Promise and the children of Israel prepared to elect a leader to take them back to Egypt (Num 14:26).  It is a terrible warning, comments St Augustine.  We began the Psalm with rejoicing but we end with awful dread.  It is a great thing that God should speak; but how much more that God should swear.  A man who hath sworn is to be feared, lest he should, for his oath’s sake, do aught against his will.  How much more then ought we not to fear God Who cannot swear rashly?  Let no one say in his heart, that which he promiseth is true, that which he threateneth is false.  As sure as thou art of rest,happiness, eternity, immortality, if thou keep the commandments, so certain shouldest thou be of destruction, of the burning of everlasting fire, of damnation with the devil, if thou despise His Law.  He hath sworn that these shall not enter into His rest, and yet, it remaineth that some must enter therein (Heb 4:6), for it could not be designed for no occupant.  And this rest, which meant the early Canaan to the Jews of old, means for us that Sabbath of the heavenly Fatherland whereof the Epistle to the Hebrews tells us: Now there remained a rest to the people of God (Heb 4:9).  Even here, on earth, says the Carmelite, before reaching the blessed Land, there remaineth a rest for God’s people, whereof the weekly Sabbath is a sign and a pledge.  This is the rest from sin, common to all the just, and the rest from bodily cares and stilling of temptation, which comes in measure to contemplative saints; while, crowning all, there is the rest of the blessed, whence sorrow is banished for evermore.  Let us labor therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief (Heb 4:11) and be included under the terrible oath of exclusion; and in prayer for grace that it may not be so, O come let us worship and fall down and weep before the Lord our Maker. Thus says the Carthusian.

Gloria Patri:

Glory be to the Father, the great King above all gods; Glory be to the Son, the Strength of our salvation; Glory be to the Holy Ghost who saith, Today if ye hear His voice harden not your hearts.

I just started a Catholic Scripture Forum and will be focusing on Romans for the time being.  Please consider joining and taking part in discussions, sharing your own insights, reflections and constructive critiques.

I’m new to this format so please, if you have any problems, see the host site’s FAQ’s before contacting me.

The rules are simple: “By using our services you agree to be bound by and comply with any and all applicable laws, regulations, ordinances or other such requirements of any applicable Federal, State or local government. Forums MAY NOT contain any of the following, including but not limited to:
-Adult Content / Obscene Content
-Harassment
-Illegal Drugs
-Terrorism
-Piracy, Hacking, Viruses
-Racism/Hate/Derogatory/Slanderous
-Promotion of or distribution of copyrighted materials which includes but is not limited to, the following:
-links to download pirated movies, software, games etc from megaupload, rapidshare, and other such hosts/FTP/private servers
-Malicious software
-Non FreeForums.org sponsored ads“

Source.

1.  Paul, servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an Apostle, separated to the Gospel of God.
2.  Which He had promised in former times by His prophets, in the Holy Scriptures.
3.  Concerning His Son, who was made to him of the seed of David according to the flesh.
4.  Who was predestined the Son of God in virtue according to the Spirit of Sanctification from the resurrection of the dead, our Lord Jesus Christ: (RSV Translation of this verse- and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,)
5.  Through whom we have received grace and Apostolate for the obedience of faith in all the nations for his name,
6.  Among whom are you also, the called of Jesus Christ:
7.  To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints, grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

In this magnificent prologue the Apostle fixes the attention of his readers at Rome upon his own claim to be listened to by them, as an apostle of Christ.  We shall find that in the verses that succeed, 8-17, he continues to press the same subject on them, on the ground of his care and solicitude for their spiritual welfare.  In the remainder of the chapter he enters upon the task he has principally set himself in this Epistle, to prove that Justification is of faith, not of the law, natural or positive; and turning first to the Gentiles, convicts them of systematic and flagrant disobedience to the known laws of God.

Romans 1:1-17 forms a single literary sub-unit, consisting of a greeting (1-7), a thanksgiving (8-15), and statement of primary theme (16-17).  I refer to 1:1-17 as a sub-unit because it forms part of a larger literary section of the Gospel, namely, 1:1-4:25.  This broader unit has a concentric structure which may be outlined as follows:

A1) 1:1-17. The purpose of the letter is announced.  Justification is by faith.

B)  1:18-3:20.  Neither Jew nor Gentile can save themselves because the wrath of God is upon all who sin, whether men in general (1:1-18), or Jews under the law (2:1-3:20).

A2)  3:21-4:25.  St Paul expounds upon justification by faith.

For more details on the structure of Romans see SEVEN PAULINE LETTERS by Peter F. Ellis.

Paul.  The Apostle’s Hebrew name was Saul.  He may have had two names given him in circumcision, and this is the opinion of Origen, Saint Anselm, and Saint Thomas.  Or his name may have been changed to Paul in the same way that that of Simon was changed to Cephas, or Peter: this is the opinion of Saint Chrysostom.  Or else he took the name Paul from his first convert of distinction, Sergius Paulus, the proconsul of Cyprus; which is the view of Saint Jerome, followed by Baronius (see Acts13:12).  Or lastly, he may have assumed the name Paul, which means little, out of humility, being small of stature, and considering himself the least (Eph 3:8), which is the opinion of Saint Augustine.  At any rate it is certain that he is called Paul from the date of his mission to Cyprus with Saint Barnabas, and takes this name in all his Epistles.

The opinions concerning the name of Paul have a long history, right up into modern times.  The fact is, however, that no reason is given for the change of name: “Acts simply says, ‘Saul, who is also called Paul,’ and that is all there is to it” (Stanley B. Marrow, PAUL, HIS LETTERS AND HIS THEOLOGY pg 7).

Servant of Jesus Christ. There are several modes of servitude to God, says St Chrysostom: by creation, by faith, by institute (office) of life; and St Paul was God’s servant in all three.  The Greek word “servant,” as well as the Latin one, means literally “slave.”

Concerning St John Chrysostom, here is what he wrote: “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ.” Why did God change his name, and call him Paul who was Saul? It was, that he might not even in this respect come short of the Apostles, but that that preëminence which the chief of the Disciples had, he might also acquire (Mc 3,16); and have whereon to ground a closer union with them. And he calls himself, the servant of Christ, yet not merely this; for there be many sorts of servitude. One owing to the Creation, according to which it says, “for all are Thy servants” (Ps 119,91); and according to which it says, “Nebuchadnezzar, My servant” (Jr 25,9), for the work is the servant of Him which made it. Another kind is that from the faith, of which it saith, “But God be thanked that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from a pure heart that form of doctrine which was delivered unto you: being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.” (Rm 6,17-18). Another is that from civil subjection (toliteia”), after which it saith, “Moses my servant is dead” (Jos 1,2); and indeed all the Jews were servants, but Moses in a special way as shining most brightly in the community. Since then, in all the forms of the marvellous servitude, Paul was a servant, this he puts in the room of the greatest title of dignity, saying, “a servant of Jesus Christ.”

The title “servant” has its origins in the Old Testament, wherein we find numerous individuals, especially prophets or those chosen for a special mission, referred to as such (2 Sam 24:10; Amos 3:7; Jer 25:4).  The title was also used of  the people of Israel in general, especially in relation to worship, the service of God.  St Paul is using the word here in reference to his mission, a mission he also sees in priestly terms (Rom 15:15-21), for the sake of making a priestly people (Rom 12:1-2).

Called to be an Apostle. The Greek word kletos called, is an adjective, not a participle.  It means an Apostle by vocation, or the call of Christ, not by his own intrusion into the office, or any human appointment.  The same adjective occurs in verses 6 and 7,  and has in both cases an analogous meaning: saints y God’s calling.

St Paul often emphasizes the gratuitous nature of his office.  This is usually done in response to opponents who were apparently claiming Paul had no right to the ministry and had taken it upon himself, without Divine warrant (see Gal 1:1, 11-17).  At other times St Paul refers to its gratuitous nature to highlight God’s mercy (1 Tim 1:12-17).

Separated. Has reference to the words of Christ in Acts 9:15, and 13:2.  Here the meaning has the sense of “appoint”, as in Galatians 1:15. The three terms, servant, called, separated to the Gospel, are perhaps insisted upon to counteract some unfavorable rumors which may have been prevalent at Rome regarding the purity of the Pauline doctrine.  But they are also the inalienable marks of the true Bishop of the Church of God in all times.  He is to teach the Gospel of God, not human inventions.  He must have a divine call, not a merely human one.  And he must live, labor, suffer, die, if necessary, in the service of God and his Church.

The Gospel of God. The Good News of Salvation in Christ Jesus.  The Good News is the announcement of the coming Reign of God (Mk 1:14); which is brought near in the death and resurrection of Christ, who now reigns in power and who, through the Church, is bringing the Reign and the Gospel to fulfillment (Matt 28:18-20).

Which He promised. God’s Gospel is no novelty.  It was announced and expected from the beginning of the world…St Paul sees the OT Scripture as being oriented towards the eschatological age in which we know live (see Rom 15:4; 1 Cor 9:10).  It is for this reason that the OT Scripture can only be understood in the light of the Gospel (2 Cor 3:7-4:7; 2 Tim 3:15 ).

Who was made to him. Who in time was made man, and born of the Virgin Mary, of the race of David.  The Greek word ginomai is also used for the birth of Christ in Galatians 4:4.  St Paul often employs this word in Christological contexts, perhaps implying Christ’s pre-existence.

Who was predestined the Son of God. This phrase has a long and complex interpretive history which cannot be gone into here.  Most modern scholars, rightly in my opinion, reject the Vulgate translation being used here.   The RSV reads: “and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord…” The full significance of Jesus being the Son of God and Messiah could not be adequately known until after his resurrection and the giving of the Spirit, when the prophecies of Scripture could be seen as fulfilled.

Through whom we have received grace and Apostolate. Sanctification gratuitously given of God’s mercy: all free and supernatural gifts; and the Apostolate, to be exercised in Christ’s name and by his authority among all nations.  Clearly the author of these comments sees a twofold reference here.  More likely, “gace and Apostolate” means “the grace of apostleship,” thus building upon the references to himself as servant, called, and separated in vs 1.

For the obedience of faith. St Chrysostom: He does not say, to be brought into question and debate, or to be loudly canvassed: but obeyed. We are not sent to put forward syllogisms and arguments; but to deliver that which is committed to our trust.  What God has pronounced and affirmed, men are not to criticize or cavil at, but to listen receive.  The spirit of faith is the spirit of obedience.  Not a simple and natural operation of the mind, or exercise of reason, but the submission and adhesion of the will of man by the help of grace, to the word of God.  Concerning the obedience of faith, see here.  See also 2 Cor 10:1-6.

Among whom you also. Among the other nations of the earth, to whom our mission extends universally, are you also, Romans, and to you therefore I write, who are the called of Jesus Christ. This word (called) is more than once repeated, for the faithful to understand that they are Christians by the grace of God.

Grace and peace. Grace, to unite them to God; peace to untie them to one another.  The two words are repeatedly joined in this manner in St Paul’s Epistles.  This form of salutation was given y Christ to his Apostles, (Luke 10:5).  The two words together imply the fullness of covenant blessing.

Called to e saints. Sanctity is the end of your vocation.  Observe here the grandeur of the Christian Vocation.  The Christian belongs to Christ.  He is “the called of Jesus Christ;” and he is “beloved of God.”  And he is a “saint,” being sanctified by Baptism.

On the words of the gospel, Luk 12:15  “And he said unto them, take heed, and keep yourselves from all covetousness.”1

1. I Doubt not but that ye who fear God, do hear His word with awe, and execute it with cheerfulness; that what He hath promised, ye may at present hope for, hereafter receive. We have just now heard the Lord Christ Jesus, the Son of God, giving us a precept. The Truth, who neither deceiveth, nor is deceived, hath given us a precept; let us hear, fear, beware. What is this precept then: “I say unto you, Beware of all covetousness”?2 What is, “of all covetousness”? What is, “of all”? Why did He add, “of all”? For He might have spoken thus “Beware of covetousness” It suited Him to add, “of all; and to say, “Beware of all covetousness.”

2. Why He said this, the occasion as it were out of which these words arose, is shown to us in the holy Gospel. A certain man appealed to Him against his brother, who had taken away all his patrimony, and gave not back his proper portion to his brother. Ye see then how good a case this appellant had. For he was not seeking to take by violence another’s, but was seeking only for his own which had been left him by his parents; these was he demanding back by his appeal to the judgment of the Lord. He had an unrighteous brother; but against an unrighteous brother had he found a righteous Judge. Ought he then in so good a cause to lose that opportunity? Or who would say to his brother, “Restore to thy brother his portion,” if Christ would not say it? Would thatjudge be likely to say it, whom perhaps his richer and extortionate brother might corrupt by a bribe? Forlorn then as he was, and despoiled of his father’s goods, when he had found such and so great a Judge he goes up to Him, he appeals to, he beseeches Him, he lays his cause before Him in few words. For what occasion was there to set forth his cause at length, when he was speaking to Him who could even see the heart? “Master,” he says, “speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me.”3 The Lord did not say to him, “Let thy brother come.” No, He neither sent for him to be present, nor in his presence did He say to him who had appealed to Him, “Prove what thou wast saying.” He asked for half an inheritance, he asked for half an inheritance on earth; the Lord offered him a whole inheritance in heaven. The Lord gave more than asked for.

3. “Speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me.” Just case, short case. But let us hear Him who at once gives judgment and instruction. “Man,” He saith. “O man;” for seeing thou valuest this inheritance so highly, what art thou but a man? He wished to make him something more than man. What more did He wish to make him, from whom He wished to take covetousness away? What more did He wish to make him? I will tell you, “I have said, Ye are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High.”4 Lo, what He wished to make him, to reckon him that hath no covetousness among the “gods.” “Man, who made Me a divider among you?”5 So the Apostle Paul His servant, when he said, “I beseech you, brethren, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you,”6 was unwilling to be a divider. And afterwards he thus admonished them who were running after his name, and dividing Christ: “Every one of you saith, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?”7 Judge then, how wicked are those men, who would have Him to be divided, who would not be a divider. “Who,” saith He, “hath made Me a divider among you?”

4. Thou hast petitioned for a kindness; hear counsel. “I say unto you, Beware of all covetousness.”8 “Perhaps,” he would say, “thou wouldest call him covetous and greedy, if he were seeking another’s goods; but I say, seek not even thine own greedily or covetously.” This is “Of all, beware of all covetousness.” A heavy burden this! If by any chance this burden be imposed on them that are weak; let Him be sought unto, that He who imposes it, may vouchsafe to give us strength. For it isnot a thing to be lightly regarded, my Brethren, when our Lord, our Redeemer, our Saviour, who died for us, who gave His Own Blood as our ransom, to redeem us, our Advocate and Judge; it is no light matter when He saith, “Beware.” He knoweth well how great the evil is; we know it not, let us believe Him. “Beware,” saith He. Wherefore? of what? “of all covetousness.” I am but keeping what is mine own, I am not taking away another’s; “Beware of all covetousness.” Not only is he covetous, who plunders the goods of others; but he is covetous too, who greedily keeps his own. But if he is so blamed who greedily keeps his own; how is he condemned who plunders what is another’s! “Beware,” He saith, “of all covetousness: For a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.” He that stores up great abundance, how much does he take therefrom to live? When he has taken it, and in a way separated in thought sufficient to live upon from it, let him consider for whom the rest remains; test haply when thou keepest wherewith to live, thou art gathering only wherewith to die. Behold Christ, behold truth, behold severity. “Beware,” saith truth: “Beware,” saith severity. If thou love not the truth, fear severity. “A man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.” Believe Him, He doth not deceive thee. On the other hand, thou sayest, “Yea, ‘a man’s life’ does ‘consist in the abundance of the things which he possesses.’“ He doth not deceive thee; thou deceivest thyself.

5. Out of this occasion then, when that appellant was seeking his own portion, not desiring to plunder another’s, arose that sentence of the Lord, wherein He said not, “Beware of covetousness;” but added, “of all covetousness.” Nor was this all: He giveth another example of a certain rich man, “whose ground had turned out well.”9 “There was,” He saith, “a certain rich man, whose ground had turned10  out well.” What is, “had turned out well”? The ground which he possessed had brought forth a great produce. How great? So that he could not find where to bestow it: suddenly, through his abundance he became straitened—this old covetous man. For how many years had already passed away, and yet those barns had been enough? So great then was the produce, that the accustomed places were not sufficient. And the wretched man sought counsel, not as to how he should lay the additional produce out, but how he should store it up; and in thinking he discovered an expedient. He seemed as it were wise in his own eyes, by the discovery of this expedient. Knowingly did he think of it, wisely hit upon it. What was this he wisely hit upon? “I will destroy,” he says, “my” old “barns, and will build new ones greater, and will fill them; and I will say to my soul.” What wilt thou say to thy soul? “Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years, take thine ease, eat, drink, be merry.”11 This did the wise discoverer of this expedient say to his soul.

6. “And God,” who doth not disdain to speak even with fools, “said unto him.”12 Some of you may peradventure say, And how did God speak with a fool? O, my Brethren, with how many fools does He speak here, when the Gospel is read! When it is read, are not they who hear and do not, fools? What then did the Lord say? For he, I repeat, thought himself wise by the discovery of his expedient. “Thou fool,” He saith; “Thoufool,” who seemest wise unto thyself; “Thou fool,” who hast said to thy soul, “Thou hast much goods laid up for many years: to-day is thy soul required of thee!” Thy soul to which thou hast said, “Thou hast much goods,” to-day is “required,” and hath no good at all. Let it then despise these goods, and be herself good, that when she is “required,” she may depart in assured hope. For what is more perverse13 than a man14 who wishes to have “much goods,” and does not wish to be good himself? Unworthy art thou to have them, who dost not wish to be what thou dost wish to have. For dost thou wish to have a bad country house? No indeed, but a good one. Or a bad wife? No, but a good one. Or a bad hood?15 Or even a bad shoe? And Why a bad soul only? He did not in this place say to this fool who was thinking on vain things, building barns, and who had no regard to the wants16 of the poor; He did not say to him, “To-day shall thy soul be hurried away to hell:” He said no such thing as this, but “is required of thee.” “I do not tell thee whither thy soul shall go; yet hence, where thou art laying up for it such store of things, must it depart, whether thou wilt or no.” Lo, “thou fool,” thou hast thought to fill thy new and greater barns, as if there was nothing to be done with what thou hast.

7. But peradventure he was not yet a Christian. Let us hear then, Brethren, to whom as believers the Gospel is read, by whom He who spake these things, is worshipped, whose mark is borne by us on our forehead, and is held in the heart. For of very great concernment is it where a man hath the mark of Christ, whether in the forehead, or both in the forehead and the heart. Ye have heard to-day the words of the holy prophet Ezekiel, how that before God sent one to destroy the ungodly people, He first sent one to mark them, and said to him, “Go and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and moan for the sins of my people that are done in the midst of them.”17 He did not say, “which18 are done without them;” but “in the midst of them.” Yet they “sigh and moan;” and therefore are they “marked on the forehead:” in the forehead of the inner man, not the outer. For there is a forehead in the face, there is a forehead in the conscience. So it happens that when the inner forehead is stricken, the outer grows red; either red with shame, or pale with fear. So then there is a forehead of the inner man. There were they “marked” that they might not be destroyed; because though they did not correct the sins which were “done in the midst of them,” yet they sorrowed for them, and by that very sorrow separated themselves; and though separated in God’s sight, they were mixed with them in the eyes of men. They are “marked” secretly, are not hurt openly. Afterwards the Destroyer is sent, and to him it is said, “Go, lay waste, spare neither young nor old, male nor female, but come not near those who have the mark on their forehead.”19 How great security is granted to you, my Brethren, who among this people are sighing, and moaning for the iniquities which are being done in the midst of you, and who do them not!

8. But that ye may not commit iniquities, “beware of all covetousness.” I will tell you in its full extent, what is “of all covetousness.” In matter of lust he is covetous, whom his own wife suffices not. And idolatry itself is called covetousness; because again in matter of divine worship20 he is covetous, whom the one and true God suffices not. What but the covetous soul makes for itself many gods? What but the covetous soul makes to itself false21 martyrs? “Beware of all covetousness.” Lo, thou lovest thine own goods, and dost boast thyself in that thou seekest not the goods of others; see what evil thou doest in not hearing Christ, who saith, “Beware of all covetousness.” See thou dost love thine own goods, thou dost not take away the goods of others; thou hast the fruits of thy labour, they are justly thine; thou hast been left an heir, some one whose good graces thou hast attained has given it to thee; thou hast been on the sea, and in its perils, hast committed no fraud, hast sworn no lie, hast acquired what it hath pleased God thou shouldest; and thou art keeping it greedily as in a good conscience, because thou dost not possess it from evil sources, and dost not seek what is another’s. Yet if thou give not heed to Him who hath said, “Beware of all covetousness,” hear how great evils thou wilt be ready to do for thine own goods’ sake. Lo, for example, it hath chanced to thee to be made a judge. Thou wilt not be corrupted, because thou dost not seek the goods of others; no one giveth thee a bribe and says, “Give judgment against my adversary.” This be far from thee, a man, who seekest not the things of others, how couldest thou be persuaded to do this? Yet see what evil thou wilt be ready to do for thine own goods’ sake. Peradventure he that wishes thee to judge evilly, and pronounce sentence for him against his adversary is a powerful man, and able to bring up false accusation against thee, that thou mayest lose what thou hast. Thou dost reflect, and think upon his power, think of thine own goods thou art keeping, which thou dost love: not which thou hast possessed, but in whose power22 rather thou art thyself unhappily fixed. This thy bird-lime, by reason of which thou hast not the wings of virtue free, thou dost look to; and thou sayest within thine own self, “I am offending this man, he has much influence in the world; he will suggest evil accusations against me, and I shall be outlawed,23 and lose all I have.” Thus thou wilt give unrighteous judgment, not when thou seekest another’s, but when thou keepest thine own.

9. Give me a man who has given ear to Christ, give me a man who has heard with fear “Beware of all covetousness;” and let him not say to me, “I am a poor man, a plebeian of mean estate, one of the common people, how can I hope ever to be a judge? I am in no fear of this temptation, the peril of which thou hast placed before mine eyes.” Yet lo, even this poor man I will tell what he ought to fear. Some rich and powerful person calls thee to give false witness for him. What wilt thou be doing now? Tell me. Thou hast a good little property of thine own; thou hast laboured for it, hast acquired, and kept it. That person requires of thee; “Give false witness for me, and I will give thee so and so much.” Thou who seekest not the things of others, sayest, “That be far from me: I do not seek for what it has not pleased God to give me, I will not receive it; depart from me.” “Hast thou no wish to receive what I give? I will take away what thou hast already.” See now prove thyself, question now thine own self. Why dost thou look at me? Look inward on thine own self, look at thine own self within, examine thine own self within; sit down before thine own self, and summon thine own self before thee, and stretch thyself upon the rack of God’s commandment, and torment thyself with His fear, and deal not softly with thyself; answer thine own self. Lo, if any one were to threaten thee with this, what wouldest thou do? “I will take away from thee what with so great labour thou hast acquired, if thou wilt not give false witness for me.” Give him that; “Beware of all covetousness.” “O my servant,” He will say to thee, “whom I have redeemed and made free, whom from a servant I have adopted to be a brother, whom I have set as a member in My Body, give ear to Me: He may take away what thou hast acquired, Me he shall not take away from thee. Art thou keeping thine own goods, that thou mayest not perish? What, have I not said unto thee, ‘Beware of all covetousness’?”

10. Lo, thou art in confusion, tossed to and fro; thy heart as a ship is shaken about by tempests. Christ is asleep: awake Him, that sleepeth, and thou shalt be exposed no more to the raging of the storm. Awake Him, who was pleased to have nothing here, and thou hast all, who came even to the Cross for thee, whose “Bones” as He was naked and hanging “were numbered” by them that mocked Him; and “beware of all covetousness.” Covetousness of money is not all; “beware of covetousness” of life. A dreadful covetousness, covetousness much to be feared. Sometimes a man will despise what he has, and say, “I will not give false witness; I will not. You tell me, I will take away what thou hast. Take away what I have; you do not take away what I have within. For he was not left a poor man, who said, ‘The Lord gave, the Lord hath taken away; it is done as it pleased the Lord; blessed’ therefore ‘be the Name of the Lord. Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, naked shall I return to the earth.’24 Naked outwardly, well-clothed within. Naked as regards these rags, these corruptible rags outwardly, clothed within. With what? ‘Let thy priests be clothed with righteousness.’”25 But what if he say to thee, when thou hast despised the things which thou possessest, what if he say to thee, “I will kill thee”? If thou have given ear to Christ, answer him, “Wilt Thou kill me? Better that thou shouldest kill my body, than that I by a false tongue should kill my soul! What canst thou do to me? Thou wilt kill my body; my soul will depart at liberty, to receive again at the end of the world even this very body she hath despised. What canst thou do to me then? Whereas if I should give false witness for thee, with thy tongue do I kill myself; and not in my body do I kill myself; ‘For the mouth that lieth killeth the soul.’“26 But peradventure thou dost not say so. And why dost thou not say so? Thou wishest to live; thou wishest to live longer than God hath appointed for thee? Dost thou then “beware of all covetousness”? So long was it God’s will that thou shouldest live, till this person came to thee. It may he that he will kill thee, to make a martyr of thee. Entertain then no undue desire of life; and so thou wilt not have an eternity of death. Ye see how that covetousness everywhere, when we wish for more than is necessary, causes us to sin. Beware we of all covetousness, if we would enjoy eternal wisdom.

This post also appears on my primary blog.

Ver. 25.—And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up. “What ought I to do to obtain eternal life?” This lawyer is not the same as the one mentioned by S. Mat_22:35, as is clear from the circumstances there recorded.
And tempted Him. He asked the question, not for any good motive, but with the design of tempting Christ to give some answer concerning Himself or His doctrine, which might lay Him open to the charge of being a breaker or a despiser of the law. Toletus.

Ver. 29.—But he, willing to justify himself. To justify himself, i.e. to show himself to be more just than others. “Show me any one who comes nigh me in righteousness, who is as just and upright as I am. Such an one you will scarcely find.” So Titus, Euthymius, and Isidore of Pelusium, who think that the lawyer spoke with the pride and arrogance of a Pharisee.

“He thought,” says Isidore, “that the neighbour of a righteous man must be righteous, and the neighbour of an exalted man one of high degree. Show me some one so great as to be worthy to be compared with me.”

But the answer of Christ proved the contrary, as is clear from a consideration of the passage. For when this lawyer heard Christ commend the answer he had given, his purpose changed, and his aversion turned into love and reverence for the Lord. Hence he earnestly asked, Who is my neighbour? that by loving him he might fulfil the law.

Hence, “willing to justify himself,” means that he wished to show his love for that which was right, that he was anxious out of an awakened conscience to understand and learn the law of God, in order that he might fulfil its precepts. Toletus, Jansenius, and others.

And who is my neighbour? There was much questioning amongst the scribes concerning this, and much error. For because it is written, Lev_19:18, “Thou shalt love thy friend” (רע rea), they inferred the contrary, “thou shalt hate thy enemy,” i.e., the Gentile, every one not a Jew: an error which Christ corrected, S. Mat_5:43.

Hence the scribes thought that the Jew alone, as a worshipper of the one true God, and, of the same religion and race, could be a friend, or a neighbour, and even of their countrymen only those who were faithful in their observance of the law, were to be loved or to be held in honour.

Well, therefore, might this lawyer ask, Who is my neighbour? I love all my countrymen who walk uprightly, and regard them as my neighbours, but are there others whom I ought to love? Christ answers that all men are our neighbours, because they partake of the same life, the same grace, the same salvation through Christ, the same sacraments, the same vocation and calling and are journeying with us to the same eternity of happiness.

Every man, therefore, is our “rea,” our friend and our fellow; or in the Greek נכחףןע, near to us, from נוכבזש or נכש, I draw nigh, which is more forcibly rendered in Latin by “proximus,” because we are “proximi” next or nearest to each other in a direct sense by virtue of the life we live in common with them, and the blessings which we enjoy.

But by proximus Cicero and the Latins understood vicinissimus, i.e. neighbour in the strictest sense. Hence Isidore (lib. x. etymol.). We call him the nearest to us, who is next of kin; and Cicero (lib. II De legibus), “Whatever is best, that we must look upon as next or nigh unto God.” But now all men are our neighbours by creation, and by their redemption and calling in Christ.

Figuratively. The word “neighbour” is suggestive of the tenderest affection and love, such as that of brother for brother, or of a son for his father, for no one comes between them, inasmuch as there is no higher relationship; yet there are degrees of this love, for we must love our father more than our brother, and our brother more than any more distant relation, for amongst our nearest of kin one is nearer to us than another, and therefore more to be loved.

Ver. 30.—And Jesus answering said. Taking up or continuing His discourse. Euthymius. I.e. answering the lawyer and explaining fully and clearly to whom “neighbour” applied.

A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves. A Jew, S. Augustine says; and an inhabitant of the holy city. Bede.  The parable is founded on incidents of at that time frequent occurrence, and is therefore a true history. For, as S. Jerome observes, between Jerusalem and Jericho was a place infested with robbers, called in the Hebrew tongue Adommim, or rather Addammim, i.e. red or bloody, because of the blood which was shed there. So Adrichomius describes Adommim as a place infamous even in later times for robberies and murders, terrible to behold, and so dangerous that no one dared to pass through it without an escort.
There the Samaritan met with this man who, like many another traveller, had been grievously wounded by robbers. The place itself lay four leagues to the west of Jericho, and was situated on the confines of Judah and Benjamin. A fort had been built there, and garrisoned with soldiers, for the protection of travellers. Close by was a large cavern, and the country round was hilly, so that robbers could see from afar the approaching wayfarer, and lie in ambush to attack him. Hence in Joshua xv. 7 the place is called the going up to Adommim.

Which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed leaving him half dead. Stripped him of his raiment, money, and all that he had, and left him half dead by the wayside, where he would have died of his wounds had no one come to succour him. For it is the custom of robbers, in order to avoid detection, to murder their victims. The Syriac version makes the meaning clear. “They wounded him, and left him when there was scarce any life remaining in him.”

Ver. 31.—And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. By chance, humanly speaking, but really by the providence of God, for all things are foreordained by Him. Passed by on the other side, “ב̉םפינבזח̃כטום.” The priest, terrified at his appearance, turned away from him, and went by on the other side. Christ here draws attention to the perversity of the priests of that day, who were zealous in carrying out all the outward observances of the law, but were utterly wanting in true religion and in showing mercy and pity. For this priest left his fellow-countryman and neighbour in his direst distress without even a word of consolation or comfort.

Ver. 32.—And likewise a Levite when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. The Levite amongst the Jews, like the deacons in the Church, assisted the priest in his ministrations. He was therefore of one mind with the priest, for as the priest so is the Levite, as the prelate so the deacon, as the master so the servant, as the teacher so the disciple. And so he also passed by on the other side.

Ver. 33.—But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him. A Samaritan one of an entirely different race and religion, and therefore, as a heretic and schismatic, more hateful to the Jews than any other of the Gentiles. Yet this despised Samaritan had pity on the poor traveller who had, been abandoned by both priest and Levite. Hence we learn that not only our friends but also our enemies are our neighbours, and Christ holds up this Samaritan as an example of brotherly kindness and love, because he had compassion on one who was hateful to himself and his people.

Ver. 34.—And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine. Went to him, got off the horse or the ass on which he was riding, and poured into the wounds the oil and wine which he carried with him as refreshment for the way.

The order is inverted. He first, in accordance with the practice of the physicians of that day, washed the wounds with wine; for wine (1.) removes the coagulated blood; (2.) arrests corruption; (3.) closes the wound and strengthens the nerves against the effects of the bruises.
Then he anointed the wounds with oil—(1) To sooth their smart; (2.) to allay the pain; and (3.) to help forward the cure.

Hence S. Gregory says (lib. xx. chap. 8, Moral), By wine we may understand the gnawings of conscience; by oil the healing influences of religion—and so mildness must be mingled with severity if we would heal the wounds of the soul, and rescue sinners from the power of sin. But S. Chrysostom considers the wine to be the blood of the Passion, the oil the unction wherewith we are anointed, i.e. the unction of the Holy Spirit. Interlinear Gloss.
And set him on his own beast. On his ass. Syriac.

Allegorically. S. Augustine explains the beast to mean the flesh of Christ, and to be set thereon, to believe in the incarnation.  S. Ambrose says, He places us on His beast whilst He bears our sins; and Theophylact, He made us to be His members and partakers of His body.

And brought him to an inn. וי̉ע נבםהןקוי̀ןם, in stabulum. Vulgate. The resting-place built for the accommodation of all—the stabulum, where travellers stopped or stood to rest,

And took care of him. Providing everything which his case required.

Ver. 35.—And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence—i.e. not two pence in the ordinary signification of the words, but sufficient to supply the wants of the wounded man until his return.  S. Augustine says, “The two pence are the two precepts of love, which the apostles received for the evangelising of the world, or the promise of this life, and of that which is to come.”

And gave them to the host, &c. Learn hence how great was the love of the Samaritan, for he provided everything that was needful for the poor traveller’s cure.

Allegorically. The traveller is Adam wounded, and all but dead in trespasses and sins. For Adam went from Jerusalem to Jericho when he fell from grace into the power of Satan. For the thieves are the evil spirits who tempted Adam and Eve to sin, and corrupted the souls of all with the lust of concupiscence. The priest and Levite represent the ancient law, which was unable to remedy the consequences of Adam’s fall.

The Samaritan is Christ, by whom men are rescued from sin and promised salvation. The beast is his human nature, to which the divine is united, and on which it is carried and borne. The inn is the Church, which receives all believers. The wine is the blood of Christ, by which we are cleansed from sin. The oil represents his mercy and pity. The host, who is the head of the inn, i.e. of the Church, is S. Peter. So S. Ambrose, Origen, and the Fathers.
Hear also Origen more particularly: “A certain preacher thus interprets the parable. The man who went down from Jerusalem is Adam. Jerusalem is Paradise, Jericho the world. The thieves are the powers which are against us. The priest is the law, the Levite, the prophets. The Samaritan is Christ. The beast whereon he sat, the body of the Lord, i.e. His humanity. The inn the Church. By the two pieces of money we may understand the Father and the Son, and by the host, the head of the Church, him to whom its governance is committed. The return of the Samaritan is the second coming of the Lord;” and this interpretation seems reasonable and true.

Again the Fathers and Theologians teach from this parable that Adam was stripped of those gifts and good things which were of grace, but wounded in those things which were of nature, not indeed in his nature pure and incorrupt, for nature is the same after sin as before, but in his nature established by grace, cleansed and renewed by justification imputed by God. For in a nature of this kind all the appetites and passions as well as the lust of concupiscence are subjected to the understanding, so that a man does not wish or desire anything but that which is right. For deprived through sin of original justification we experience in ourselves, unwittingly and contrary to our will, evil desires. This is the wound which nature has received.

Ver. 36.—Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? The true meaning of the passage is this, Which of these three seems to thee to have acted as neighbour to the wounded man? and in this sense it was understood by the lawyer who answered, “He that showed mercy upon him.” Christ asked the lawyer which of the three by his actions showed that he looked upon the wounded man as a neighbour. For neighbour is a correlative term, and a man can only be a neighbour to a neighbour, just as a man can only be compassionate to one who needs pity.
Hence Christ indicates the one by the other, and thus answers the lawyer’s inquiry. Christ inverted His answer, in order to give an example of the perfection of brotherly love, so that the lawyer and all men might learn to imitate the Samaritan. Hence Jesus said, “Go and do thou likewise,” v. 37.
So also in the parable of the two debtors, Christ asks, “Which of them will love him most?” See chap. vii. 42.  S. Augustine, Bede, and all the Fathers.

Ver. 37.—And he said, He that showed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise. Hereby we understand, says S. Augustine, “that he is our neighbour to whomsoever we must show compassion, if he need it, and would have shown it if he had needed it.” Hence it follows that even he who must in turn show us this duty is our neighbour. For the name of neighbour relates to something else, nor can any one be a neighbour except to a neighbour.

Hence it is clear that to no one, not even to our enemy, is mercy to be denied. And S. Augustine very appositely adds, “What more remote than God from men? For God possesses two perfections, righteousness and immortality. But man two evils, sin and death. God was made man, and so like unto us, yet not like us, for He was without sin, and by bearing the punishment, but not the guilt of sin, He abolished both the guilt and the punishment.”

Isidore of Pelusium assigns the cause. Relationship is reckoned according to nature, not virtue; in essence, not by worth; by compassion, not by place; by the manner of treatment, not by neighbourhood. For we must account him as a neighbour who is most in need of our aid, and be willing at once to render him help.

This post also appears on my primary blog.  Notations in red are my additions.

15. Who is the image of God the invisible, firstborn of all
creation;
16. Because in him all things were created, in the heavens
and in earth, visible and invisible, whether Thrones, or
Dominations, or Principalities, or Powers ; all were created
through him and in him;
17. And he is before all, and in him all things consist.

God the Son is the image of God the Father, who is invisible, whom no man has seen nor can see (1 Tim 6), in all things like him, equal to him, consubstantial with him, proceeding from him per intellectum , his equal Word.  And through this consubstantial Image of the Father, painted in the colours of the flesh, he becomes visible in time, who is invisible in eternity. Firstborn of all creation, that is, born before all creation, and therefore higher in dignity than anything created; elder than creation by all eternity, himself its Creator in time.  First born, Saint Chrysostom observes, not first created.  It is generation, not creation, which is predicated of him.  Because, this marks that what follows is an explanation of the statement just made. Christ is the firstborn of creation in this sense, that in him all things were made.  Made by God the Father through the agency or intervention of God the Word.  In heaven or in earth, visible or invisible, and including therefore the angels (this is stated in opposition to the doctrine of Simon Magus) however lofty their dignity, however great their powers and faculties.  All created things were made through Christ, and, in the Greek, to or for him.  God the Father did not create the universe by himself, or for himself, but it was made through the agency of the Son, and for the pleasure of the Son.  He is before all creatures in time, and in him they consist and are kept in being.

18. And he is the head of the body, the Church, who is the
principle, the first-begotten from the dead ; that he may in all
things hold primacy.
19. Because in him it pleased God that all fullness should
dwell.

Christ is the head of the Church, and the head is the seat and source of life, will, and sensation.  And he is the Principle, Principium.  Saint John applies this term to God the Father: In Principio, in the Principle, in the great First
Cause, in the bosom of the Father from eternity, was the Word.  But Moses seems to apply it to the Son, as the Principle or beginning of the Creation: In Principio, in the Principle, in  the Divine Word, God the Father created the heavens and the earth.  But some Greek writers instead of ἀρχή (arche) read
απαρχη (aparche) which means literally the beginning of a sacrifice, and was usually a lock of haircut from the head of the victim and thrown into the fire.  Generally it came to mean the firstfruits, the representative or more valuable part of anything (see 1 Cor 15:20).  Saint Chrysostom says: He calls him the first-fruits, implying that he has hallowed us all by the oblation of his sacrifice.  The first-fruits of the human race, offered for the rest in sacrifice to God; and also the Prince of the resurrection, the first-born from the dead. Thus in all things he holds primacy and pre-eminence, as the only-begotten son of the Father, as the author and beginner of the creation, as the Victim for mankind, as the Head of the Church, as the leader of the resurrection.  For it pleased the Father, of his own love and generosity, of free grace, not the merit of Christ, that in Christ all fullness should dwell, the perfection of wisdom, grace, and power.  Men receive these gifts in part, Christ has them all, and in all fullness.  And in him they dwell, perpetually and inseparably, both by grace and in his Divine nature.  But the life that dwells in the head flows also into the body, and having recourse to Christ we draw from the fullness of the fountain of divine grace.

20. And through him to reconcile all things to himself, making peace through the blood of his Cross, whether the things that are on earth, or the things that are in the heavens.

The infinitive depends upon complacent (i.e., “pleased”) in the previous verse.  It was the good pleasure of the Father to reconcile all things to himself by the blood of Christ shed on the Cross.  The words in ipsum (in him) are a Hebraism, and equivalent to sibi. Sin had introduced enmity between heaven and earth, but by the
Cross of Christ sin is done away.  By the blood of Christ angels and men are made at peace.