Church Fathers Commentary Matthew 12

Glossa Ordinaria: After relating the preaching along with the miracles of one year before John's inquiry, He moves on to those of another year, specifically, after John's death, when Jesus was already being opposed in all things. This is why it says, "At that time Jesus passed through the grainfields on the sabbath day." ¹

St. Augustine of Hippo: What follows here is related by both Mark and Luke without any question of a discrepancy. Indeed, they do not say, "At that time," so perhaps Matthew has preserved the order of time here, while they followed the order of their recollection. We could also understand the words in a broader sense, "At that time," meaning the period in which these many and various things were done. From this, we can understand that all these things happened after the death of John, for it is believed he was beheaded shortly after he sent his disciples to Christ. So when Matthew says "at that time," he might only mean an indefinite time. ²

St. John Chrysostom: Why, then, did He lead them through the grainfields on the Sabbath, since He knew all things, unless He wanted to break the Sabbath? He did indeed desire this, but not absolutely. Therefore, He did not break it without cause but provided a sufficient reason, so that He both brought the Law to an end and yet did not offend against it. ³

To soften the Jews' reaction, He introduces a natural necessity here. This is what is meant by, "And his disciples being hungry, began to pluck heads of grain, and to eat." Although in things that are obviously sinful there can be no excuse—one who kills another cannot plead rage, nor can one who commits adultery plead lust, or any other cause—here, by saying that the disciples were hungry, He frees them from all accusation.

St. Jerome: As we read in another Evangelist, they had no opportunity to take food because of the pressing crowd, and therefore they were hungry, as any person would be. That they rub the heads of grain in their hands and with them satisfy their hunger is proof of an austere life, and of men who did not need prepared meals but sought only simple food.

St. John Chrysostom: Here, admire the disciples, who are so limited in their desires that they have no concern for the things of the body but despise the sustenance of the flesh. They are overcome by hunger, and yet they do not leave Christ; for if they had not been hard-pressed by hunger, they would not have done this.

What the Pharisees said in response is added: "The Pharisees seeing it said unto Him, Behold, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the sabbath."

St. Augustine of Hippo: The Jews charged the Lord's disciples with breaking the Sabbath rather than with theft. This was because it was commanded to the people of Israel in the Lawⁱ that they should not seize anyone as a thief in their fields, unless he tried to carry anything away with him. But if anyone touched only what he needed to eat, they allowed him to depart freely and without penalty. ⁴

St. Jerome: Observe that the first Apostles of the Savior broke the letter of the Sabbath, contrary to the opinion of the Ebionites,ⁱ who accept the other Apostles but reject Paul as a transgressor of the Law.

The text then proceeds to their defense: "But he said unto them, Have you not read what David did, when he was hungry?" To refute the false accusation of the Pharisees, He recalls the ancient story that David, fleeing from Saul, came to Nobⁱ and was received by Ahimelech the Priest. He, having no common bread, gave him the consecrated loaves, which it was not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests and Levites. He considered it a better action to deliver people from the danger of famine than to offer sacrifice to God, for the preservation of a person is a sacrifice acceptable to God.

In this way, then, the Lord counters their objection, saying: If David is a holy man, and if you do not blame the high priest Ahimelech but consider hunger a valid excuse for their transgression of the Law, how can you not approve in the Apostles the same plea that you approve in others? Even here, however, there is a great difference. Those men ate the Levitical bread, and besides it being the solemn Sabbath, it was also the time of the new moon, during which David was sought at the banquet and had to flee the royal palace.

St. John Chrysostom: To clear His disciples, He brings forward the example of David, whose glory as a prophet was great among the Jews. Yet they could not answer here that this was lawful for him because he was a prophet, for it was not prophets, but only priests who were allowed to eat it. And the greater the person who did this, the stronger the defense of the disciples. Yet even though David was a prophet, those who were with him were not.

St. Jerome: Observe that neither David nor his servants received the loaves of showbread before they had answered that they were pure from women.

St. John Chrysostom: But someone will say, "How is this example applicable to the question at hand?" For David did not transgress the Sabbath. Here the wisdom of Christ is shown, in that He brings forward an example more significant than breaking the Sabbath. For it is by no means the same thing to violate the Sabbath and to touch that sacred table, which is lawful for no one. And again, He adds yet another answer, saying, "Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?"

St. Jerome: It is as if He had said: You bring complaints against My disciples that on the Sabbath they rub heads of grain in their hands under the strain of hunger, and you yourselves profane the Sabbath by slaying victims in the temple, killing bulls, and burning whole offerings on piles of wood. Also, according to the testimony of another Gospel,ⁱ you circumcise infants on the Sabbath. So, in keeping one law, you break the one concerning the Sabbath.

But the laws of God are never contrary to one another. Therefore, He wisely shows that where His disciples might be accused of transgressing the laws, they were following the examples of Ahimelech and David. And He turns this pretended charge of breaking the Sabbath back on His accusers, who do not have the plea of necessity.

St. John Chrysostom: But so that you cannot say to me that finding an example of another's sin does not excuse our own—indeed, where the action itself is accused and not the one who did it, we excuse the action. But this is not enough; He said what is even more significant: that they are blameless. See what powerful points He introduces: first, the place, in the Temple; second, the time, on the Sabbath; the setting aside of the Law, in the word "profane," not merely "break"; and that they are not only free from punishment but also from blame: "and are blameless."

This second example is not like the first one He gave concerning David, for that was done only once, by David who was not a priest, and it was a case of necessity. But this second action is done every Sabbath, by the priests, and according to the Law. Therefore, the disciples are to be held blameless not only by way of allowance, as the first case would establish, but by the strictness of the law itself.

But are the disciples priests? Yes, they are even greater than priests, inasmuch as He was there who is the Lord of the Temple, who is the reality and not the type. And therefore it is added, "But I say to you, one greater than the Temple is here."

St. Jerome: The word 'hic' [Latin for 'here'] is not a pronoun, but an adverb of place, for the place that contains the Lord of the Temple is greater than the Temple itself.

St. Augustine of Hippo: It should be observed that one example is taken from royalty, like David, and the other from the priesthood, like those who profane the Sabbath for the service of the Temple. Therefore, the charge of rubbing the heads of grain can much less apply to Him who is truly both King and Priest. ⁵

St. John Chrysostom: And because what He had said seemed harsh to those who heard it, He again exhorts them to mercy, introducing His statement with emphasis, saying, "But if you had known what this means, 'I will have mercy and not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent."

St. Jerome: We have explained above what "I will have mercy, and not sacrifice" signifies. The words, "You would not have condemned the innocent," refer to the Apostles, and the meaning is: If you allow for the mercy of Ahimelech, in that he refreshed David when he was in danger of starving, why do you condemn My disciples?

St. John Chrysostom: Observe again how, in leading the discussion toward a defense for them, He shows His disciples to be beyond the need of any defense, and to be truly blameless, as He had said of the priests above. And He adds yet another argument that clears them of blame: "For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."

Remigius of Auxerre: He calls Himself the Son of Man, and the meaning is: He whom you suppose to be a mere man is God, the Lord of all creatures and also of the Sabbath, and He therefore has the power to change the law as He pleases, because He made it.

St. Augustine of Hippo: He did not forbid His disciples to pluck the heads of grain on the Sabbath, so that He might convict both the Jews of that time and the Manichaeans who were to come, who will not pluck a plant for fear of committing a murder. ⁶

St. Hilary of Poitiers: Figuratively, first consider that this discourse was held "at that time"—that is, when He had given thanks to the Father for giving salvation to the Gentiles. The field is the world, the Sabbath is rest, and the grain is the ripening of those who believe for the harvest. Thus, His passing through the grainfield on the Sabbath represents the Lord's coming into the world during the rest provided by the Law. The hunger of the disciples is their desire for the salvation of humanity.

Rabanus Maurus: They pluck the heads of grain when they draw people away from devotion to the world; they rub them in their hands when they tear people's hearts away from the lusts of the flesh; they eat the grain when they incorporate those who are reformed into the body of the Church.

St. Augustine of Hippo: But no one passes into the body of Christ until he has been stripped of his fleshly clothing, according to the Apostle's words, "Put off the old man" (Ephesians 4:22). ⁷

Rabanus Maurus: They do this on the Sabbath—that is, in the hope of eternal rest, to which they invite others. Also, those who delight in meditating on the Scriptures walk through the grainfields with the Lord. They are hungry while they desire to find the bread of life—that is, the love of God—within the Scriptures. They pluck the heads of grain and rub them in their hands while they examine the testimonies to discover what lies hidden beneath the literal text, and they do this on the Sabbath—that is, while they are free from distracting thoughts.

St. Hilary of Poitiers: The Pharisees, who thought that the key of the kingdom of heaven was in their hands, accused the disciples of doing what was not lawful. Whereupon the Lord reminded them of deeds in which a prophecy was concealed under the guise of historical facts.

So that He might show the power of all things, He further added that this story contained the pattern of the work that was to come: "If you had known what this means, 'I will have mercy'..."; for the work of our salvation is not in the sacrifices of the Law, but in mercy. With the Law having ceased, we are saved by the mercy of God.

If they had understood this gift, they would not have condemned the innocent—that is, His Apostles, whom, in their jealousy, they were to accuse of having transgressed the Law—where, with the old sacrifices having ceased, the new dispensation of mercy came through them to the aid of all.

St. Jerome: Because He had vindicated His disciples with sound examples from the charge of breaking the Sabbath, the Pharisees sought to bring a false accusation against Him. This is why it says, And passing from there, He came into their synagogue.

St. Hilary of Poitiers: For what had happened before was said and done in the open air, and after this, He entered the synagogue.

St. Augustine of Hippo: One might have supposed that the incident with the heads of grain and this subsequent healing occurred on the same day, since it is mentioned to be the Sabbath in both cases. However, Luke has shown us that they were on different days.

Therefore, what Matthew says, And when he had passed from there, he came into their synagogue, should be understood to mean that He did not enter the synagogue until after He had left that place. But whether several days passed in between or He went there immediately is not expressed in this Gospel. This leaves room for the account of Luke, who tells of the healing of this paralysis on another Sabbath.¹

St. Hilary of Poitiers: When He entered the synagogue, they brought a man with a withered hand, asking Him whether it was lawful to heal on the Sabbath day, seeking an opportunity to convict Him from His answer. As it follows, they brought Him a man with a withered hand and asked Him, saying, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath day?"

St. John Chrysostom: They did not ask so that they might learn, but so that they might accuse Him, as it follows, that they might accuse him. Although the action itself would have been enough, they also sought an opportunity against Him in His words, thus providing themselves with greater cause for complaint.²

St. Jerome: They asked Him whether it is lawful to heal on the Sabbath day so that if He refused, they could charge Him with cruelty or a lack of power; but if He healed the man, they could charge Him with transgressing the Law.

St. Augustine of Hippo: An inquiry may be raised as to how Matthew can say that they asked the Lord, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?" seeing that Mark and Luke relate that it was the Lord who asked them, "Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do evil?" (Luke 6:9).

It should be understood, then, that they first asked the Lord, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath day?" Then, understanding their thoughts and that they were seeking an occasion to accuse Him, He placed the man He was about to heal in the middle of them. He then put to them the question that Mark and Luke say He asked.

When they remained silent, He made the comparison about the sheep and concluded that one may do good on the Sabbath day. As it follows, He said to them, "What man is there among you who has one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath day, will he not take hold of it and lift it out?"³

St. Jerome: In this way, He answers their question so as to convict the questioners of greed. He says, "If you on the Sabbath would hasten to lift out a sheep or any other animal that had fallen into a pit—not for the sake of the animal, but to preserve your own property—how much more should I deliver a man, who is so much better than a sheep?"

Glossa Ordinaria: Thus He answers their question with a fitting example to show that they profane the Sabbath by works of greed, even as they were charging Him with profaning it by works of charity. They are evil interpreters of the Law, who say that on the Sabbath we ought to rest from good deeds, when it is only from evil deeds that we ought to rest. As it is said, "You shall do no servile work in it" (Leviticus 23:3), that is, no sin. So it is in the everlasting rest: we shall rest only from evil, and not from good.⁴

St. Augustine of Hippo: After this comparison concerning the sheep, He concludes that it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath day, saying, "Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."⁵

St. John Chrysostom: Observe how He shows many reasons for this breaking of the Sabbath. But because the man was incurably sick, He proceeds immediately to the work, as it follows: "Then he says to the man, 'Stretch out your hand.' And he stretched it out, and it was restored, whole like the other."

St. Jerome: In the Gospel that the Nazarenes and Ebionites useⁱ, which we recently translated into Greek from Hebrew, and which many regard as the genuine Matthew, this man with the withered hand is described as a builder. He makes his prayer in these words: "I was a builder and earned my living by the labor of my hands; I pray to you, Jesus, to restore me to health, so that I do not have to shamefully beg for my bread."

Rabanus Maurus: Jesus teaches and works chiefly on the Sabbath, not only because of the spiritual Sabbath, but also because of the gathering of the people, seeking for all to be saved.

St. Hilary of Poitiers: Figuratively, after their departure from the grain field, from which the Apostles had received the fruit of their sowing, He came to the Synagogue to prepare the work of His harvest there as well; for afterward, many who were with the Apostles were healed.

St. Jerome: Until the coming of the Lord and Savior, the withered hand was in the Synagogue of the Jews, and the works of the Lord were not done in it. But when He came to earth, the right hand was restored in the Apostles who believed and was returned to its former work.

St. Hilary of Poitiers: All healing is done by the word, and the hand is restored like the other. That is, it is made like the ministry of the Apostles in the work of granting salvation. It also teaches the Pharisees that they should not be displeased that the work of human salvation is done by the Apostles, since if they would believe, their own hands would be made capable for the ministry of this same duty.

Rabanus Maurus: Alternatively, the man with the withered hand represents the human race, barren of good works and dried up by the hand that was stretched out to the fruit.ⁱ This was healed by the stretching out of the innocent hand on the Cross.

This withered hand is rightly said to have been in the Synagogue, for where the gift of knowledge is greater, the danger of an incurable affliction is also greater. When the withered hand is to be healed, it is first told to be stretched out, because the weakness of a barren mind is healed by no better means than by generosity in giving to the poor. A person's right hand is affected when he is negligent in giving alms, while his left hand is whole when he is attentive to his own interests. But when the Lord comes, the right hand is restored as whole as the left, because what he had gathered greedily, he now distributes freely.

St. Hilary of Poitiers: The Pharisees were moved by jealousy at what had been done. Because they saw only the outward body of a man, they did not recognize God in His works. "The Pharisees went out and sought counsel against him, how they should destroy him."

Rabanus Maurus: He says, "went out," because their minds were estranged from the Lord. They took counsel on how they might destroy life, not on how they themselves might find life.

St. Hilary of Poitiers: And He, knowing their plots, withdrew so that He might be far from the counsels of the evil-hearted, as it follows, Jesus knowing it departed from there.

St. Jerome: Knowing their designs against Him, He withdrew in order to remove from the Pharisees all opportunity for sin.

Remigius of Auxerre: Or, He withdrew from there to avoid the schemes of His own people when they persecuted Him. It may also be because it was not the time or place for Him to suffer, for as He Himself spoke, “It cannot be that a Prophet should perish out of Jerusalem” (Luke 13:33).

The Lord also avoided those who persecuted Him out of hatred and went to a place where He found many who were attached to Him with affection, which is why it follows, And great multitudes followed him.

The one whom the Pharisees with one accord plotted to destroy, the unlearned crowd with one accord loved and followed. And so, they soon received the fulfillment of their desires, for it follows, And he healed them all.

St. Hilary of Poitiers: He commanded silence from those whom He healed, which is why it follows, And he charged them that they should not make him known. For their restored health was a witness to each person. By commanding them to hold their peace, He avoids making a show of Himself, and yet at the same time, He provides knowledge of Himself in that very command to be silent. For the act of keeping silent points to the very thing that is to be kept secret.

Rabanus Maurus: In this, He also instructs us that when we have done anything great, we should not seek public praise.

Remigius of Auxerre: He also commands them not to make Him known, so that by persecuting Him, they would not fall into a worse state.

St. John Chrysostom: So that you are not troubled by these events and the incredible madness of the Pharisees, He introduces the Prophet's words. For such was the diligence of the Prophets that they did not omit even this, but had noted all His ways and movements, and the purpose with which He acted.

This was so that you might learn that He spoke all things by the Holy Spirit. For if it is impossible to know the thoughts of men, it is much more impossible to know the mind of Christ, unless the Holy Spirit revealed it. Therefore, it follows, That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the Prophet, saying, Behold my servant whom I have chosen.

Remigius of Auxerre: The Lord Jesus Christ is called the servant of Almighty Godⁱ, not with respect to His divinity, but with respect to the reality of the flesh He assumed. For by the cooperation of the Holy Spirit, He took flesh from the Virgin without the stain of sin. Some manuscripts have, “Elect, whom I have chosen,” for He was chosen by God the Father—that is, predestined—that He should be the Son of God, proper and not adopted.

Rabanus Maurus: It says, Whom I have chosen, for a work that no one else has done: to redeem the human race and make peace between God and the world. It follows, My beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased, for He alone is the Lamb without the spot of sin, of whom the Father speaks, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matthew 17:5).

Remigius of Auxerre: That he says, “My soul,” is not to be understood as if God the Father had a soul, but by way of adaptation, showing how God is disposed toward Him. And it is no wonder that a soul is ascribed to God in this manner, seeing that all other members of the body are as well.

St. John Chrysostom: The Prophet puts this at the beginning so that you might learn that what is said here was according to the Father's counsel. For the one who is beloved acts according to the will of the one who loves him. And again, the one who is chosen does not break the law like an enemy, nor like an adversary of the lawgiver, but as one in agreement with Him. Therefore, because He is beloved, I will put my Spirit upon him.

Remigius of Auxerre: God the Father also put His Spirit upon Him when, by the working of the Holy Spirit, He took flesh from the Virgin. As soon as He became man, He received the fullness of the Holy Spirit.

St. Jerome: But the Holy Spirit is put, not on the Word of God, but on the Only-Begotten, who came forth from the bosom of the Father—that is, on Him of whom it is said, Behold my servant. And what He will do through Him, He adds, And he shall declare judgment to the Gentiles.

St. Augustine of Hippo: In that He preached the judgment to come, which was hidden from the Gentiles.¹

St. John Chrysostom: Further, to show His humility, He says, He shall not strive; and so He was offered up as the Father had willed and gave Himself willingly into the hands of His persecutors. Neither shall he cry; so He was silent as a lamb before its shearer. Nor shall any hear his voice in the streets.

St. Jerome: For the way is broad and wide that leads to destruction, and many walk in it. And being many, they will not hear the Savior's voice, because they are not on the narrow way but on the broad one.

Remigius of Auxerre: The Greek word for “streets” corresponds to the Latin word for “broadness” (latitudo). Therefore, no one has heard His voice in the streets, because He has not promised pleasant things in this world to those who love Him, but hardships.

St. John Chrysostom: The Lord sought to heal the Jews by this gentleness. But though they rejected Him, He did not resist them by destroying them. This is why the Prophet, displaying His power and their weakness, says, A bruised reed he shall not break, and a smoking flax he shall not quench.

St. Jerome: He who does not hold out his hand to a sinner, nor bear his brother's burden, breaks a bruised reed. And he who despises a weak spark of faith in a little one, quenches a smoking flax.

St. Augustine of Hippo: So He neither bruised nor quenched the Jewish persecutors, who are here compared to a bruised reed that has lost its wholeness, and to a smoking flax that has lost its flame. He spared them because He had not come to judge them, but to be judged by them.

In the smoking flax, it is observed that when the flame is out, it causes a foul smell.²

St. John Chrysostom: Or, this phrase, He shall not break a bruised reed, shows that it was as easy for Him to break them all as it is to break a reed—and a bruised one at that. And, He shall not quench a smoking flax, shows that their rage was inflamed, and that Christ's power was strong enough to quench such rage with complete ease. This, therefore, shows the great mercy of Christ.

St. Hilary of Poitiers: Or, he means by this bruised reed that is not broken, that the perishing and bruised bodies of the Gentiles are not to be broken, but are instead reserved for salvation.

He shall not quench a smoking flax shows the feebleness of that spark which, though not quenched, only smolders in the flax. It shows that among the remnants of that ancient grace, the Spirit is not yet entirely taken away from Israel, but the power still remains for them to resume the whole flame on a day of repentance.

St. Jerome: Or, the reverse: He calls the Jews a bruised reed, who, tossed by the wind and shaken from one another, the Lord did not immediately condemn but patiently endured.

And He calls the people gathered from the Gentiles a smoking flax. Having extinguished the light of the natural law, they were lost in the wandering mazes of thick, dark smoke, which is bitter and hurtful to the eyes. This He not only did not extinguish by reducing them to ashes, but on the contrary, from a small and almost dead spark, He raised a mighty flame.³

St. John Chrysostom: But one might ask, “Will things always be this way? Will He endure forever those who lay traps and are mad against Him?” Far from it. When His own work is all complete, then He will attend to these things also. He signifies this by saying, Until he shall send forth judgment to victory.

This is to say, when He has accomplished all things that pertain to His work, then He will bring perfect vengeance. They will receive their punishment when He has made His victory glorious, so that no disrespectful opportunity for contradiction is left to them.

St. Hilary of Poitiers: Or, Until he shall send forth judgment to victory, that is, until He takes away the power of death and brings in judgment and the return of His splendor.

Rabanus Maurus: Or, until that judgment which was being carried out in Him should achieve victory. For after He had overcome death by His resurrection and had driven out the prince of this world, He returned as a conqueror to His kingdom to sit at the right hand of the Father, until He puts all His enemies under His feet.

St. John Chrysostom: But the effects of this plan will not end only with the punishment of those who have not believed; He will also draw the world to Himself, which is why it follows, And in his name shall the Gentiles hope.

St. Augustine of Hippo: This last part we now see fulfilled. And so, this undeniable reality establishes the truth of what some have denied through ignorance—that is, the last judgment, which He will hold on earth when He Himself comes from heaven.

For who could have expected that the Gentiles would hope in Christ's name when He was in the hands of His enemies—when He was bound, scourged, treated with contempt, and crucified? Even His disciples had lost the hope they had begun to have in Him!

What one thief barely hoped for on the cross, the nations scattered far and wide now hope for. And so that they may not die forever, they are marked with that very cross on which He died. Let no one, then, doubt that the last judgment will be conducted by Christ Himself.⁴

Remigius of Auxerre: It should be known that the meaning not only of this passage, but of many others as well, is supported by this testimony from the Prophet.

The words, Behold my servant, may be referred to the place where the Father had said earlier, This is my Son (Matthew 3:17). The words, I will put my Spirit upon him, refer to the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Lord at His baptism.

He shall declare judgment to the Gentiles refers to what He says later: When the Son of Man shall sit in the seat of his Majesty (Matthew 25:31).

What He adds, He shall not strive nor cry, refers to how the Lord answered the Chief Priests and Pilate very little, and Herod nothing at all.

He shall not break the bruised reed refers to His avoiding His persecutors so that they might not be made worse. And finally, In his name shall the Gentiles hope, refers to what He Himself says later: Go and teach all nations (Matthew 28:19).

Glossa Ordinaria: The Lord had already refuted the Pharisees above, when they brought false charges against Christ's miracles, claiming He had broken the Sabbath by performing them. But since, with even greater wickedness, they perversely attributed the miracles Christ performed by divine power to an unclean spirit, the Evangelist therefore first presents the miracle from which they took the opportunity to blaspheme, saying, "Then one who was demon-possessed, blind, and dumb was brought to Him."¹

Remigius of Auxerre: The word "Then" refers to the event mentioned above, where after healing the man who had the withered hand, He went out of the synagogue. Or it may refer to a more extended time; "Then," namely, when these things were being done or said.

St. John Chrysostom: We may wonder at the wickedness of the demon; he had obstructed both gateways by which a person could believe, namely, hearing and sight. But Christ opened both, from which it follows, "And he healed him, so that the blind and dumb man both spoke and saw."

St. Jerome: Three miracles were worked in one and the same person at the same time: the blind sees, the dumb speaks, and the possessed is delivered from the demon. This was done in the flesh at that time, but it is now fulfilled daily in the conversion of those who believe. The demon is cast out when they first behold the light of the faith, and then their mouths, which were previously stopped, are opened to utter the praises of God.

St. Hilary of Poitiers: Not without reason, after mentioning that the entire multitude was healed together, does the evangelist present the cure of this man separately—a man who was demon-possessed, blind, and dumb. For after the man with the withered hand was brought before Him and healed in the synagogue, it was fitting that the salvation of the Gentiles should be represented in the person of another afflicted man. He who had been the habitation of a demon—blind and dumb—should be made fit to receive God, to contain God in Christ, and by confession of God to give praise to the works of Christ.

St. Augustine of Hippo: For whoever does not believe is truly demon-possessed, blind, and dumb. And whoever does not understand the faith, nor confesses it, nor gives praise to God, is subject to the devil.²

This narrative is given by Luke, not in this place but after many other intervening events, and he speaks of the man as only dumb, not blind. But Luke should not be thought to be speaking of a different man just because he is silent about this one detail, for in what follows, he agrees exactly with Matthew.³

St. Hilary of Poitiers: The entire multitude was astonished at what was done, but the jealousy of the Pharisees grew because of it: "And all the people were amazed and said, 'Is not this the Son of David?'"

Glossa Ordinaria: Because of His mercy and goodness toward them, they proclaim Him the Son of David.⁴

Rabanus Maurus: The multitude, who seemed less learned, always marveled at the Lord's works. The Pharisees, on the other hand, either denied these works or, when they could not deny them, labored to distort them with a malicious interpretation. They claimed the works were performed not by God but by an unclean spirit, namely Beelzebub, who was the god of Ekron: "The Pharisees, when they heard it, said, 'This man does not cast out demons but by Beelzebub, the prince of the demons.'"⁵

Remigius of Auxerre: Beelzebub is the same as Beel, Baal, or Beelphegor. Beel was the father of Ninus, king of Assyria. Baal was so-called because he was worshiped on high, and he was called Beelphegor from Mount Phegor.

Zebub was the servant of Abimelech, the son of Gedeon. After slaying his seventy brothers, Abimelech built a temple to Baal and set Zebub up as priest in it. His role was to drive away the flies that were drawn by the abundant blood of the victims, for "Zebub" means "a fly."

Beelzebub is therefore interpreted as "the man of flies." Because of this most unclean worship, they called him the Prince of the demons. Having nothing more vile to say about the Lord, they claimed that He cast out demons by Beelzebub. It should also be known that this word is not to be read with a "d" or "t" at the end, as some corrupt copies have, but with a "b."

St. Jerome: The Pharisees attributed the works of God to the prince of demons. The Lord, however, answers not what they said, but what they thought, so that they might be compelled to believe his power, who saw the secrets of the heart. This is why the Gospel says, Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said to them...

St. John Chrysostom: Previously, they had accused Christ of having cast out demons by Beelzebub. At that time, however, he did not rebuke them, allowing them, if they wished, to acknowledge him from further miracles and to learn his greatness from his teaching. But because they persisted in saying the same things, he now rebukes them, although their accusation was completely unreasonable.¹

But jealousy does not care what it says, so long as it says something. Yet Christ does not treat them with contempt, but answers with gracious gentleness, teaching us to be gentle to our enemies. We should not be troubled, even if they say things against us that we do not recognize in ourselves and that have no basis in reason.

In this, he also proves that what they had said against him was false, for it is not characteristic of one who has a demon to show such mercy and to know the thoughts of others. Moreover, because their accusation was so unreasonable and they feared the multitude, they did not dare to proclaim it openly but kept it in their minds. This is why he says, Knowing their thoughts.

He does not repeat their thoughts in his answer, so as not to expose their wickedness; his object was to do good to the sinners, not to publicize their sin. He does not answer them from the Scriptures, because they would not listen to him, since they interpreted them differently. Instead, he refutes them using common reasoning.

For external assaults are not as destructive as internal quarrels, a principle that holds true for physical bodies and all other things. Meanwhile, he draws examples from more familiar matters, saying, Every kingdom divided against itself shall be brought to desolation. For there is nothing on earth more powerful than a kingdom, and yet even that is destroyed by internal conflict.

What then must we say about a city or a family? Whether it is great or small, it is destroyed when it is in conflict with itself.

St. Hilary of Poitiers: For a city or family is analogous to a kingdom, as the passage continues, And every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.

St. Jerome: For just as small things grow through harmony, so the greatest things fall apart through dissension.

St. Hilary of Poitiers: But the word of God is rich, and whether taken literally or examined for its deeper meaning, it is necessary for our spiritual growth.

Therefore, leaving aside the literal interpretation, let us consider some of the deeper meanings. The Lord is about to answer what they had said concerning Beelzebub, and in doing so, he frames his response in a way that sets the terms for their own reply. For instance, the Law was from God, and the promise of the kingdom to Israel came through the Law. But if the kingdom of the Law is divided against itself, it must surely be destroyed. And so, Israel lost the Law when the nation to whom the Law belonged rejected its fulfillment in Christ.

The city spoken of here is Jerusalem. When it raged with the madness of its people against the Lord—driving out his apostles along with the multitude of believers—it became divided and therefore could not stand. And so (as soon happened as a result of this division), the destruction of that city is foretold.

Again, he puts forward another case: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then shall his kingdom stand?

St. Jerome: This is as much as to say that if Satan fights against himself, and demon is an enemy to demon, then the end of the world must be near. For then these hostile powers, whose mutual war is peace for humanity, would have no place.

Glossa Ordinaria: He therefore holds them in this dilemma: Christ casts out demons either by the power of God or by the prince of demons. If by the power of God, their accusations are malicious. If by the prince of demons, his kingdom is divided and will not stand, and therefore they should depart from his kingdom. He suggests that they had chosen this latter alternative for themselves when they refused to believe in him.²

St. John Chrysostom: Or, to put it another way: if Satan is divided, he is made weak and perishes. But if he perishes, how can he cast out another?

St. Hilary of Poitiers: Alternatively, if the demon was driven to this division in order to afflict other demons, even so we must attribute a higher power to the one who caused the division than to those who are divided. Thus the kingdom of the devil, once this division is made, is destroyed by Christ.

St. Jerome: But if you think, you Scribes and Pharisees, that the demons depart from the possessed in obedience to their prince, so that people may be deceived by a coordinated fraud, what can you say about the healing of diseases which the Lord also performed? It is a far greater stretch to also assign to demons the power over bodily infirmities and the performance of acts that appear to be spiritual virtues.