Church Fathers Commentary Matthew 22

St. John Chrysostom: Since He had said, And it shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof, He now proceeds to show which nation that is.¹

Glossa Ordinaria: "Answered," that is, responding to their evil thoughts of putting Him to death.²

St. Augustine of Hippo: This parable is related only by Matthew. Luke gives one like it, but it is not the same, as the order shows.³

St. Gregory the Great: Here, the wedding feast denotes the present Church, while the supper there signifies the final and eternal feast. For into this Church enter some who will perish; into that eternal feast, whoever has once entered will never be cast out. But if anyone should maintain that these are the same lessons, we may perhaps explain that the part concerning the guest who had come in without a wedding garment, which Luke did not mention, Matthew has related. The fact that one calls it a supper and the other a dinner makes no difference, for with the ancients the dinner was at the ninth hour and was therefore often called a supper.⁴

Origen of Alexandria: The kingdom of heaven, regarding Him who reigns there, is like a king. Regarding him who shares the kingdom, it is like a king's son. Regarding those things that are in the kingdom, it is like servants, guests, and the king's armies. It is specified, "A man who is a king," so that what is spoken may be as from a man to men, and so that a man may govern men who are unwilling to be governed by God.

But the kingdom of heaven will then cease to be like a man when zeal, contention, and all other passions and sins have ceased. Then we will cease to follow human ways and will see Him as He is. For now we see Him not as He is, but as He has been made for us in our present state.

St. Gregory the Great: God the Father made a wedding feast for God the Son when He joined Him to human nature in the womb of the Virgin. But far be it from us to conclude that, because a marriage takes place between two separate persons, the person of our Redeemer was therefore made up of two separate persons. We say indeed that He exists of two natures and in two natures, but we hold it unlawful to believe that He was composed of two persons.

It is safer, therefore, to say that the wedding feast was made by the King the Father for the King the Son when He joined the Holy Church to Him in the mystery of His incarnation. The womb of the Virgin Mother was the bridechamber of this Bridegroom.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: Alternatively, when the resurrection of the saints occurs, then the Life, which is Christ, will revive humanity, swallowing up its mortality in His own immortality. For now we receive the Holy Spirit as a pledge of this future union, but then we will have Christ Himself more fully in us.

Origen of Alexandria: Or, by the marriage of the Bridegroom with the Bride—that is, of Christ with the soul—understand the assumption of the Word, the fruit of which is good works.

St. Hilary of Poitiers: The Father has rightly already prepared this wedding, because this eternal union and espousal of the new body is already perfect in Christ.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: Since the servants were sent to call them, they must have been invited before. People have been invited since the time of Abraham, to whom Christ's incarnation was promised.

St. Jerome: "He sent His servant"—without doubt Moses, by whom He gave the Law to those who had been invited. But if you read "servants," as most copies do, it must refer to the Prophets, by whom they were invited but neglected to come. By the servants who were sent the second time, we may better understand the Prophets than the Apostles, if "servant" is read in the first place. But if "servants," then the second servants are to be understood as the Apostles.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: ...whom He sent when He said to them, "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 10:5).

Origen of Alexandria: The servants who were first sent to call those who were invited to the wedding are to be taken as the Prophets, converting the people by their prophecy to the festival of the Church's restoration to Christ. Those who would not come at the first message are those who refused to hear the words of the Prophets. The others who were sent a second time were another group of Prophets.

St. Hilary of Poitiers: Or, the servants who were first sent to call those who were invited are the Apostles. Those who, having been previously invited, are now invited to come in, are the people of Israel, who had been invited before through the Law to the glories of eternity. Therefore, it was the Apostles' role to remind those whom the Prophets had invited. Those sent with the second command are their successors, the Apostolic men.

St. Gregory the Great: But because those who were first invited would not come to the feast, the second summons says, "Behold, I have prepared my dinner."

St. Jerome: The dinner that is prepared, the oxen and the fatlings that are killed, is either a description of royal magnificence as a metaphor, so that spiritual things may be understood through carnal things, or it may refer to the greatness of the doctrines and the diverse teaching of God in His law.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: Therefore, when the Lord commanded the Apostles, "Go and preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand," it was the same message given here: "I have prepared my dinner." That is, I have set out the table of Scripture from the Law and the Prophets.

St. Gregory the Great: By the oxen are signified the Fathers of the Old Testament, who, by the allowance of the Law, gored their enemies with the horn of physical strength. By fatlings are meant fatted animals, for from "alere" comes "altilia," as it were "alitilia" or "alita." By the "fatlings" are intended the Fathers of the New Testament, who, while they receive the sweet grace of inner nourishment, are raised by the wing of contemplation from earthly desires to things above.

He says therefore, "My oxen and my fatlings are killed," as if to say, "Look to the deaths of the Fathers who have gone before you, and you should desire some amendment of your lives."

Pseudo-Chrysostom: Alternatively, He says "oxen and fatlings," not as though the oxen were not fattened, but because not all the oxen were fat. Therefore, the fatlings denote the Prophets who were filled with the Holy Spirit; the oxen represent those who were both priests and prophets, like Jeremiah and Ezekiel, for as the oxen are the leaders of the herd, so also the priests are leaders of the people.

St. Hilary of Poitiers: Or again, the oxen are the glorious army of Martyrs, offered as choice victims for the confession of God. The fatlings are spiritual men, like birds fed for flight on heavenly food, so that they may fill others with the abundance of the food they have eaten.

St. Gregory the Great: It is to be observed that in the first invitation nothing was said of the oxen or fatlings, but in the second it is announced that they are already killed. This is because when we will not hear His words, Almighty God gives examples, so that what we suppose is impossible becomes easier for us to overcome when we hear that others have passed through it before us.

Origen of Alexandria: Or, the dinner that is prepared is the oracles of God. And so, the mightier oracles of God are the oxen; the sweet and pleasant ones are the fatlings. For if anyone presents feeble words, lacking power and strong reasoning, these are the lean things. The fatlings are when many examples, backed by reasonable proofs, are brought forward to establish each proposition.

For example, supposing one is discoursing on chastity, it might well be represented by the turtledove. But if he presents the same holy discourse full of reasonable proof from Scripture, so as to delight and strengthen the mind of his hearer, then he brings the fatted dove.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: That He says, "And all things are now ready," means that all that is required for salvation is already fulfilled in the Scriptures. There the ignorant may find instruction, the self-willed may read of terrors, and he who is in difficulty may find promises to rouse him to activity.

Glossa Ordinaria: Or, "All things are now ready," that is, the entrance into the kingdom, which had been closed until now, is now ready through faith in My incarnation.⁵

Pseudo-Chrysostom: Or He says, "All things are now ready" which belong to the mystery of the Lord's Passion and our redemption. He says, "Come to the wedding," not with your feet, but with faith and good conduct. "But they made light of it." He shows why they did so when He adds, "And they went their way, one to his farm, another to his merchandise."⁶

St. John Chrysostom: These occupations seem to be entirely reasonable, but we learn from this that however necessary the things that take up our time, we ought to prefer spiritual things to everything else. But it seems to me that they only pretended to have these engagements as a cloak for their disregard of the invitation.

St. Hilary of Poitiers: For men are preoccupied with worldly ambition as with a farm, and many are engrossed with business through greed.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: Alternatively, when we work with the labor of our hands—for example, cultivating our field or our vineyard, or any craft of wood or iron—we seem to be occupied with our "farm." Any other way of getting money that does not involve manual labor is here called "merchandise." O most miserable world! And miserable are you who follow it! The pursuits of this world have always shut men out of life.

St. Gregory the Great: Whoever, then, is intent on earthly business or devoted to the actions of this world, and pretends to be meditating on the mystery of the Lord's Passion and living accordingly, is the one who refuses to come to the king's wedding on the pretext of going to his farm or his merchandise. Indeed, often, which is worse, some who are called not only reject grace but also become persecutors: "And the remnant took his servants, and treated them shamefully and killed them."

Pseudo-Chrysostom: Or, by the business of a farm, He signifies the Jewish populace, whom the delights of this world separated from Christ. By the excuse of merchandise, He signifies the priests and other ministers of the Temple, who, coming to the service of the Law and the Temple through greed, have been shut out from the faith by covetousness. Of these He did not say, "They were filled with envy," but "They made light of it." For those who crucified Christ through hate and spite are the ones who were filled with envy, but those who, being entangled in business, did not believe in Him are not said to have been filled with envy, but to have made light of it.

The Lord is silent respecting His own death because He had spoken of it in the foregoing parable, but He shows the death of His disciples, whom the Jews put to death after His ascension, stoning Stephen and executing James the son of Alphaeus. For which acts Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans. It should be observed that anger is attributed to God figuratively, not literally; He is said to be angry when He punishes.

St. Jerome: When He was doing works of mercy and inviting to His wedding feast, He was called a man; now when He comes to vengeance, the "man" is dropped, and He is called only a "King."ⁱ

Origen of Alexandria: Let those who sin against the God of the Law, the Prophets, and the whole creation declare whether He who is here called a man, and is said to be angry, is indeed the Father Himself. If they allow this, they will be forced to admit that many things are said of Him applicable to the passible nature of humanity—not because He has passions, but because He is represented to us in the manner of a passible human nature. In this way, we understand God's anger, repentance, and other similar things in the Prophets.

St. Jerome: By "His armies" we understand the Romans under Vespasian and Titus, who, after slaughtering the inhabitants of Judea, laid the faithless city in ashes.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: The Roman army is called God's army because "The earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof" (Psalm 24:1); nor would the Romans have come to Jerusalem if the Lord had not stirred them to go there.

St. Gregory the Great: Or, the armies of our King are the legions of His angels. He is therefore said to have sent His armies and destroyed those murderers because all judgment is executed upon humanity by the angels. He destroys those murderers when He cuts off persecutors, and He burns up their city because not only their souls but also the fleshly bodies they inhabited are tormented in the everlasting fire of hell.

Origen of Alexandria: Or, the city of those wicked men is, in every doctrine, the assembly of those who gather in the wisdom of the rulers of this world. The King sets this city on fire and destroys it, as it consists of evil structures.

St. Gregory the Great: But when He sees that His invitation is spurned, He will not allow His Son's wedding feast to be empty; the word of God will find a place to reside.

Origen of Alexandria: "He says to His servants"—that is, to the Apostles, or to the angels who were put in charge of calling the Gentiles—"The wedding is ready."

Remigius of Auxerre: That is, the whole sacrament of the human dispensation is completed and closed. "But they which were bidden," that is the Jews, "were not worthy," because, "being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, they have not submitted to the righteousness of God" (Romans 10:3).

The Jewish nation then being rejected, the Gentile people were taken in to the wedding feast, from which it follows, "Go out therefore into the highways, and as many as you find, invite to the wedding."

St. Jerome: For the Gentile nation was not in the main roads, but at the crossroads.

Remigius of Auxerre: These represent the errors of the Gentiles.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: Or, the streets are all the professions of this world, such as philosophy, the military, and the like. And therefore He says, "Go out into the crossroads," so that they may call people of every condition to the faith. Moreover, as chastity is the way that leads to God, so fornication is the way that leads to the devil; and so it is with the other virtues and vices. Thus, He bids them invite people of every profession or condition to the faith.

St. Hilary of Poitiers: The "street" is also to be understood as the time of this world, and they are therefore told to go to the crossroads because the past is forgiven for everyone.

St. Gregory the Great: Or alternatively, in Holy Scripture, the "way" is taken to mean actions, so we understand the "crossroads" as failure in action, for those who have had little prosperity in worldly actions usually come to God readily.

Origen of Alexandria: Or again, I suppose this first invitation to the wedding was an invitation to some of the more noble minds. For God desires that those who have a quicker wit to understand them should, above all others, come to the feast of the divine oracles. And since such people are reluctant to come to that kind of summons, other servants are sent to persuade them to come and to promise that they will find the dinner prepared. For just as in physical matters, one is the bride, others are the inviters to the feast, and those who are invited are yet others, so God knows the various ranks of souls, their powers, and the reasons why some are placed in the position of the Bride, others in the rank of the servants who call, and others among the number of the invited guests.

But those who had been thus especially invited despised the first inviters as poor in understanding and went their way, following their own devices, delighting more in them than in those things which the King promised by his servants. Yet these are more forgivable than those who mistreat and kill the servants sent to them—that is, those who daringly attack the sent servants with weapons of contentious words, who are unable to solve their subtle difficulties, and are mistreated or killed by them.

The servants going out are either Christ's Apostles leaving Judea and Jerusalem, or the Holy Angels from the inner worlds. Going to the various paths of life, they gathered whomever they found, not caring whether they had been good or bad before their calling.

By the "good" here, we may simply understand the more humble and upright of those who come to the worship of God, with whom what the Apostle says agrees: "When the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, they are a law to themselves" (Romans 2:14).

St. Jerome: For there is an infinite difference among the Gentiles themselves; some are more prone to vice, while others are endowed with more incorrupt and virtuous characters.

St. Gregory the Great: Or, He means that in this present Church there cannot be bad without good, nor good without bad. He is not good who refuses to endure the bad.

Origen of Alexandria: The wedding feast of Christ and the Church is filled when those who were found by the Apostles, being restored to God, sat down to the feast. But since it was necessary that both bad and good should be called—not so that the bad would remain bad, but so that they would take off the garments unsuitable for the wedding and put on the wedding garments, namely, hearts of mercy and kindness—for this reason the King goes out to see them seated before the supper is served. He does this so that those who have the wedding garment in which He delights may be kept, and that He may condemn the one who does not.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: "The King came in to see the guests," not as though there is any place where He is not, but where He intends to give judgment, there He is said to be present; where He does not, there He seems to be absent. The day of His coming to see them is the day of judgment, when He will visit Christians seated at the table of the Scriptures.

Origen of Alexandria: But when He had come in, He found there one who had not put off his old behavior: "He saw there a man who did not have on a wedding garment." He speaks of only one because all who, after coming to faith, continue to serve the wickedness they served before faith, are of one and the same kind.

St. Gregory the Great: What should we understand the wedding garment to be, but charity? For the Lord had this on Him when He came to wed the Church to Himself. Therefore, he who has faith in the Church but does not have charity enters the wedding feast without the wedding garment.

St. Augustine of Hippo: Or, the one who goes to the feast without a garment is the one who goes seeking his own honor, and not the Bridegroom's.⁷

St. Hilary of Poitiers: Or, the wedding garment is the grace of the Holy Spirit and the purity of that heavenly disposition, which, having been received upon the confession of a good inquiry, is to be preserved pure and spotless for the company of the kingdom of heaven.

St. Jerome: Or, the wedding garment is the commandments of the Lord and the works that are done under the Law and the Gospel, which form the clothing of the new man. Whoever among the Christian body is found on the day of judgment not to have these is immediately condemned. "He says to him, Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?" He calls him "friend" because he was invited to the wedding, being a friend by faith; but He charges him with a lack of decorum for polluting the elegance of the wedding celebration with his filthy clothes.

Origen of Alexandria: And since he who is in sin and does not put on the Lord Jesus Christ has no excuse, it follows, "But he was speechless."

St. Jerome: For on that day there will be no room for a defiant attitude or the power of denial, when all the angels and the world itself are witnesses against the sinner.ⁱ

Origen of Alexandria: He who has thus insulted the wedding feast is not only cast out from it, but is also chained by the king's officers, who are in charge of his prisons. He is restrained from the power of walking, which he did not use to walk toward any good thing, and from the power of reaching out his hand, with which he had accomplished no good work. He is then sentenced to a place from which all light is banished, which is called "outer darkness."

St. Gregory the Great: The hands and feet, which previously refused to be restrained from wicked actions by amending one's life, are then bound by a severe sentence of judgment. Or, punishment binds those whom sin had previously bound from doing good works.

St. Augustine of Hippo: The chains that bind the one who deserves to be cast out into outer darkness are the bonds of wicked and depraved desires.⁸

St. Gregory the Great: By "inner darkness" we mean blindness of heart; "outer darkness" signifies the everlasting night of damnation.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: Or, it points to the different punishments inflicted on sinners. "Outer darkness" is the deepest, while "inner darkness" is the lesser, like the outskirts of the place.

St. Jerome: The greatness of the torments is shown by a metaphor taken from the body: "there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Also, understand the binding of the hands and feet, the weeping of the eyes, and the gnashing of the teeth as proof of the truth of the resurrection of the body.

St. Gregory the Great: Those teeth that here delighted in gluttony will gnash there; those eyes that here roamed in illicit desire will weep there. Every member that was a slave to its particular vice here will have its own particular punishment there.

St. Jerome: And because the most important thing in the wedding and the supper is the end and not the beginning, He therefore adds, "For many are called, but few are chosen."

St. Hilary of Poitiers: For to invite everyone without exception is an act of public benevolence; but from among the invited or called, the election will be of the worthy, based on a distinction of merit.

St. Gregory the Great: For some never begin a good course, and others never continue in the good course they have begun. Let each person's concern for himself be proportional to his ignorance of what is yet to come.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: Or alternatively, whenever God intends to test His Church, He enters it to see the guests. And if He finds anyone not having on the wedding garment, He asks him, "How then were you made a Christian if you neglect these works?" Christ gives such a person over to His ministers—that is, to deceiving leaders—who bind his hands (his works) and his feet (the movements of his mind) and cast him into darkness, that is, into the errors of the Gentiles or the Jews, or into heresy. The nearer darkness is that of the Gentiles, for they have never heard the truth that they now despise. The outer darkness is that of the Jews, who have heard but do not believe. The outermost darkness is that of the heretics, who have heard and have learned.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: Just as when someone tries to dam a flowing stream, as soon as one outlet is blocked, it carves out another channel for itself; so the malevolence of the Jews, when foiled in one attempt, sought another course.

Then the Pharisees went to the Herodians. Such was the plan, and such were the planners. They sent their disciples to Him with the Herodians.

Glossa Ordinaria: Since they were unknown to Him, they were more likely to ensnare Him. Through them, they hoped to capture Him—something they were afraid to do themselves because of the crowd.¹

St. Jerome: Recently, under Caesar Augustus, Judea had been made a tributary state subject to the Romans when the census of the whole world was taken. This caused a great division among the people. Some argued that tribute should be paid to the Romans in return for the security and peace their armies maintained for all.

The Pharisees, on the other hand, self-satisfied in their own righteousness, contended that the people of God—who paid tithes, gave first-fruits, and did all the other things written in the Law—should not be subject to human laws.

Augustus had appointed Herod, son of Antipater, a foreigner and a proselyte, as king of the Jews. He was to collect the tribute while remaining subject to Roman rule. The Pharisees, therefore, sent their disciples with the Herodians—that is, with Herod's soldiers, or perhaps those whom the Pharisees mockingly called Herodians because they paid tribute to the Romans and were not devoted to the worship of God.

St. John Chrysostom: They sent their disciples and Herod's soldiers together so that any opinion He gave could be faulted. Yet they would have preferred Him to say something against the Herodians. Since they were afraid to arrest Him themselves because of the crowd, they sought to endanger Him over the issue of His liability to pay tribute.²

Pseudo-Chrysostom: This is the most common tactic of hypocrites: to praise those they intend to ruin. Thus, they broke out in praise of Him, saying, Teacher, we know that you are true. They call Him Teacher so that, deceived by this show of honor and respect, He might in simplicity open His whole heart to them, as if He were trying to win them as disciples.

Glossa Ordinaria: There are three ways a person might fail to teach the truth. First, on the part of the teacher, who may either not know or not love the truth. To guard against this, they say, We know that you are true.³

Second, concerning God, some people set aside all fear of Him and do not honestly speak the truth they know about Him. To rule this out, they say, and you teach the way of God in truth.

Third, concerning our neighbor, sometimes a person withholds the truth out of fear or affection. To rule this out, they say, and you care for no one, for you do not regard the person of man.

St. John Chrysostom: This was a veiled reference to Herod and Caesar.

St. Jerome: This smooth and treacherous inquiry was a challenge for the one answering to fear God rather than Caesar. They immediately ask, Tell us, therefore, what do you think? Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?

If He said that tribute should not be paid, the Herodians would immediately accuse Him of being disloyal to the Emperor.

St. John Chrysostom: They knew that others had previously been executed for this very thing, for plotting a rebellion against the Romans. Therefore, through this line of questioning, they sought to bring Him under the same suspicion.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: He gives an answer that does not match the smooth tone of their address but is harsh and suitable for their cruel thoughts, for God answers people's hearts, not their words.

St. Jerome: This is the first sign of excellence in the one answering: He discerns the thoughts of His questioners and calls them tempters, not disciples. A hypocrite is someone who is one thing and pretends to be another.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: He, therefore, calls them hypocrites so that, seeing He is a discerner of human hearts, they might not be bold enough to carry out their plan. Observe, then, how the Pharisees spoke politely in order to destroy Him, but Jesus shamed them in order to save them. For God's wrath is more beneficial to humanity than human favor.

St. Jerome: Wisdom always acts wisely, and so the tempters are best refuted by their own words. Therefore, He says, Show me the tribute money. And they brought Him a denarius. This was a coin considered equivalent to ten sesterces, and it bore the image of Caesar.

Let those who think the Savior asks because He is ignorant learn from this passage that this is not so. Jesus certainly must have known whose image was on the coin.

They say to Him, Caesar's. This referred not to Augustus, but to Tiberius, under whom the Lord also suffered. All the Roman Emperors were called Caesar, after Gaius Caesar, who first seized supreme power. Jesus then says, Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's—that is, the coin, tribute, or money.

St. Hilary of Poitiers: For if we possess nothing that belongs to Caesar, we are not bound by the condition to render to him the things that are his. But if we rely on what is his, and if we make use of the lawful protection of his power, we cannot complain that it is wrong to be required to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's.

St. John Chrysostom: But when you hear this command to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, know that it only refers to things that in no way oppose religion. If a requirement does oppose religion, it is no longer Caesar's tribute but the Devil's. Furthermore, so they could not say He was subjecting them to man, He adds, and to God the things that are God's.

St. Jerome: This means rendering tithes, first-fruits, offerings, and sacrifices to God. In the same way, the Lord Himself rendered tribute to Caesar, both for Himself and for Peter, and also rendered to God the things that are God's by doing the will of His Father.

St. Hilary of Poitiers: It is also our duty to render to God the things that are His: namely, our body, soul, and will. For Caesar's coin is the gold on which his image is portrayed, but God's coin is the person on whom the divine image is stamped. Therefore, give your money to Caesar, but preserve a conscience void of offense for God.

Origen of Alexandria: From this passage, we learn by the Savior's example not to be drawn to things that are popular and seem famous, but to incline instead toward things that are spoken with reason. We can also understand this passage morally: we ought to give some things to the body as a tribute to Caesar—that is, its necessities. And those things that are suited to our soul's nature—that is, things that lead to virtue—we ought to offer to God.

Therefore, those who immoderately impose the law of God and command us to have no concern for the body's needs are like the Pharisees, who forbade giving tribute to Caesar. They are the ones forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created (1 Timothy 4:3).

On the other hand, those who allow too much indulgence to the body are like the Herodians. But our Savior desires neither that virtue be weakened by immoderate devotion to the flesh, nor that our fleshly nature be oppressed by relentless efforts toward virtue.

Alternatively, the prince of this world—that is, the Devil—is called Caesar. We cannot render to God the things that are God's unless we have first rendered to this prince all that is his, which means casting off all wickedness.

Furthermore, let us learn from this passage that when dealing with those who tempt us, we should be neither completely silent nor answer too openly. Instead, we should respond with caution to cut off any opportunity from those who seek to find fault in us, and to teach blamelessly the things that can save those who are willing to be saved.

St. Jerome: Those who should have believed merely wondered at His great wisdom, because their craftiness had found no way to ensnare Him. From this it follows, When they had heard these words, they marveled, and left Him, and went their way, carrying their unbelief and wonder away with them.

St. John Chrysostom: After the disciples of the Pharisees and the Herodians were refuted, the Sadducees came forward next, when the defeat of those before them should have held them back. But arrogance is shameless, stubborn, and willing to attempt the impossible. So the Evangelist, wondering at their folly, makes this observation: "The same day the Sadducees came to him."

Pseudo-Chrysostom: As soon as the Pharisees were gone, the Sadducees came, perhaps with a similar intent, for there was a rivalry among them over who would be the first to seize Him. Or, if they could not overcome Him by argument, they hoped that by their persistence they might at least wear down His mind.

St. Jerome: There were two sects among the Jews: the Pharisees and the Sadducees. The Pharisees claimed a righteousness based on traditions and observances, which is why the people called them "separate." The Sadducees (a word interpreted as "righteous") also presented themselves as something they were not. While the Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the body and soul and acknowledged both angels and spirits, the Sadducees, according to the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 23:8)ⁱ, denied all of these, as it is also said here: who say that there is no resurrection.

Origen of Alexandria: They not only denied the resurrection of the body but also took away the immortality of the soul.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: For the Devil, finding himself unable to completely crush the religion of God, introduced the sect of the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection of the dead. This undermined the entire purpose of a righteous life, for who would endure a daily struggle against himself unless he looked to the hope of the resurrection?

St. Gregory the Great: But there are those who, observing that the spirit is released from the body, that the flesh turns to decay, that the decay is reduced to dust, and that the dust dissolves back into the elements until it is unseen by human eyes, despair of the possibility of a resurrection. As they look upon the dry bones, they doubt that they can be clothed with flesh and be brought to life again. ¹

St. Augustine of Hippo: But the earthy matter from which human flesh is made does not perish in the sight of God. No matter into what dust or ashes it is reduced, into what gases or vapors it is dispersed, or into what other bodies it is incorporated—even if it dissolves into the elements or becomes food for animals or other people—it is in a moment of time restored to the human soul that first gave it life, so that it became a man, lived, and grew. ²

Pseudo-Chrysostom: But the Sadducees thought they had discovered a most convincing argument in support of their error.

St. John Chrysostom: Because death seemed a pure evil to the Jews, who did everything for the sake of this present life, Moses ordered that the wife of a man who died without sons should be given to his brother. This was so that a son might be born to the dead man through his brother, ensuring his name would not perish, which was some consolation for death. ³

No one other than a brother or close relative was commanded to take the wife of the deceased. Otherwise, the child born would not have been considered the son of the dead man. This was also because a stranger would have no interest in establishing the household of the deceased, unlike a brother, who was obligated by kinship to do so.

St. Jerome: Since they disbelieved the resurrection of the body and supposed that the soul perished with it, they invented a fable to show the foolishness of believing in a resurrection. They put forward this base story to overthrow the truth of the resurrection, concluding with the question, "In the resurrection, whose wife shall she be?" It is possible, however, that such a case could have actually occurred among their people.

St. Augustine of Hippo: Mystically, these seven brothers represent the wicked, who could not produce the fruit of righteousness on the earth through all the seven ages of the world during which this earth exists. For afterward, this earth will also pass away, and through it all seven brothers passed, remaining unfruitful. ⁴

Pseudo-Chrysostom: Wisely, He first convicts them of folly for not reading the Scriptures, and afterward of ignorance for not knowing God. For diligence in reading produces knowledge of God, while ignorance is the offspring of neglect.

St. Jerome: They err, therefore, because they know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.

Origen of Alexandria: He says there are two things they do not know: the Scriptures and the power of God, through which the resurrection and the new life within it are brought about.

Alternatively, by "the power of God," which the Lord here convicts the Sadducees of not knowing, He means Himself, who was the power of God (1 Corinthians 1:24)ⁱ. They did not know Him because they did not know the Scriptures that spoke of Him; for that reason, they also did not believe in the resurrection, which He would bring about. But it is asked, when the Savior says, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures," does He mean that the text, "they neither marry nor are given in marriage," is found somewhere in Scripture, even though it is not read in the Old Testament? We would say that while these exact words are not found, the truth is mysteriously implied in the moral sense of Scripture. The Law, which is "a shadow of the good things to come," whenever it speaks of husbands and wives, speaks primarily of spiritual marriage.

Nor do I find it stated anywhere in Scripture that the saints, after their departure, shall be like the angels of God, unless one understands this also to be inferred morally. This might be implied where it is said, "And you shall go to your fathers" (Genesis 15:15), and "he was gathered to his people" (Genesis 25:8). Alternatively, one might say that He blamed them for not reading the other Scriptures that are outside the Law, and for this reason they erred.

Another commentator says that they did not know the Scriptures of the Mosaic Law because they did not discern their divine meaning.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: Or, when He says, "In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage," He was referring to His statement, "You do not know the power of God." But when He continued, "I am the God of Abraham..." and so on, He was referring to His statement, "You do not know the Scriptures."

This is how we ought to act: for cavilers, we should first present the authority of Scripture on any question and then show the grounds of reason. But for those who ask out of ignorance, we should first show the reason and then the authority. For cavilers must be refuted, while inquirers must be taught. To these men, then, who asked their question in ignorance, He first shows the reason, saying, "In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage."

St. Jerome: In these words, the Latin language cannot follow the Greek idiom, for the Latin word "nubere" is properly said only of the woman. We must, however, understand "marry" as referring to men and "to be given in marriage" as referring to women.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: In this life, we are born in order to die, and we marry so that birth may replenish what death consumes. Therefore, where the law of death is removed, the reason for birth is also removed.

St. Hilary of Poitiers: It would have been enough to refute the Sadducees' opinion about sensual enjoyment by showing that where the function ceases, the empty physical pleasure that accompanies it also ceases. But He adds, "but are like the angels of God in heaven."

St. John Chrysostom: This is a fitting reply to their question. Their reason for concluding there would be no resurrection was their assumption that their condition after rising would be the same. He removes this reason, therefore, by showing that their condition will be different.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: It should be noted that when He spoke of fasting, almsgiving, and other spiritual virtues, He did not use the comparison to angels, but only here where He speaks of the cessation of marriage. For just as all acts of the flesh are primal, especially the act of lust, so all virtues are angelic, especially chastity, through which our nature is connected to the other virtues.

St. Jerome: The addition, "but are like the angels of God in heaven," is an assurance that our way of life in heaven will be spiritual.

Pseudo-Dionysius: For then, when we are incorruptible and immortal, we will be filled with the purest contemplations by the visible presence of God Himself. We will share the gift of light to the understanding in our impassible and immaterial soul, in the same manner as the exalted souls in heaven. For this reason, it is said that we shall be equal to the angels. ⁵

St. Hilary of Poitiers: The same objection that the Sadducees offer here regarding marriage is renewed by many who ask in what form the female sex will rise again. But whatever the authority of Scripture leads us to think concerning the angels, we must suppose it will be the same for women in the resurrection of our human race.

St. Augustine of Hippo: To me, those who do not doubt that both sexes will rise again seem to think most correctly. For there will be no lust, which is the cause of shame; before they sinned, they were naked. That nature which they had then will be preserved, free from both conception and childbirth. ⁶

The woman's physical members will not be adapted to their former use but will be shaped for a new beauty—one by which the beholder is not lured to lust, which will not exist then. Instead, God's wisdom and mercy will be praised, which brought into being what did not exist and delivered from corruption what had been made.

St. Jerome: For no one could say of a stone, a tree, or other inanimate objects that they will not marry or be given in marriage. This can be said only of those who have the capacity for marriage but who, in that future state, will not marry.

Rabanus Maurus: He spoke these things concerning the conditions of the resurrection in answer to their inquiry, but concerning the resurrection itself, He replies fittingly against their unbelief.

St. John Chrysostom: And because they had brought up Moses in their question, He refutes them using Moses, adding, "But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read..."

St. Jerome: In proof of the resurrection, there were many clearer passages He could have cited, among them that of Isaiah, "The dead shall be raised; they that are in the tombs shall rise again" (Isaiah 26:19, Septuagint), and in another place, "Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake" (Daniel 12:2).

The question is therefore raised why the Lord chose this testimony, which seems ambiguous and not directly related to the truth of the resurrection, and then, as if He had proved His point, adds, "He is not the God of the dead, but of the living."

We have said above that the Sadducees acknowledged neither angels, nor spirits, nor the resurrection of the body, and also taught the death of the soul. They accepted only the five books of Moses, rejecting the Prophets. It would have been foolish, therefore, to present testimonies whose authority they did not admit. To prove the immortality of souls, He brings forward an example from Moses, "I am the God of Abraham..." and so on, and then immediately adds, "He is not the God of the dead, but of the living." Once it was established that souls continue to exist after death—since God could not be the God of those who did not exist anywhere—the resurrection of bodies, which had done good or evil together with their souls, could then be fittingly introduced.

St. John Chrysostom: How then is it said in another place, "Whether we live or die, we are the Lord's" (Romans 14:8)? What is said here differs from that. The dead are the Lord's—that is, those who are to live again, not those who have disappeared forever and will not rise again.

St. Hilary of Poitiers: It should be further considered that this was said to Moses at a time when those holy Patriarchs had already gone to their rest. Therefore, those of whom He was the God must have existed, for they could possess nothing if they did not exist. In the nature of things, that which possesses something must itself exist. So those who have a God must themselves be alive, since God is eternal, and it is not possible that what is dead could possess what is eternal. How then can it be affirmed that those of whom Eternity itself has spoken do not exist now and will not exist hereafter?

Origen of Alexandria: Moreover, God is He who says, "I am that I am" (Exodus 3:14), so it is impossible that He should be called the God of those who do not exist. Notice that He did not say, "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," but rather, "The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." In another place, however, He said, "The God of the Hebrews has sent me to you" (Exodus 7:16).

Those who are most perfect before God, in comparison with other people, possess God entirely. For this reason, He is not said to be their God in common, but the God of each one individually. For example, when we say, "That farm is theirs," we show that each of them does not own all of it. But when we say, "That farm is his," we mean that he owns all of it. So when it says, "The God of the Hebrews," this shows their imperfection, as each of them has only a small portion in God. But it says, "The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob," because each one of them possessed God entirely. And it is to the great honor of the Patriarchs that they lived for God.

St. Augustine of Hippo: We may also fittingly refute the Manichaeans with this same passage by which the Sadducees were refuted, for they too, though in a different way, deny the resurrection. ⁷

God is therefore called in particular "The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob" because these three men express all the ways of producing the sons of God. For God most often produces a good son from a good preacher and a bad son from a bad preacher. This is signified in Abraham, who from a free woman had a believing son and from a bondwoman an unbelieving son. Sometimes, however, God produces both good and bad sons from a good preacher, which is signified in Isaac, who from the same free woman fathered one good and one bad son. And sometimes He produces good sons from both good and bad preachers, which is signified in Jacob, who fathered good sons from both free women and bondwomen. ⁸

Pseudo-Chrysostom: See how the assault of the Jews against Christ becomes weaker. Their first challenge was in a threatening tone—"By what authority do you do these things?"—which required spiritual firmness to oppose. Their second was with deceit, which required wisdom to meet. This last challenge was with ignorant presumption, which is easier to handle than the others.

For he who thinks he knows something when he knows nothing is easily conquered by one who has understanding. Thus, an enemy's attacks are intense at first, but if one endures them with a courageous spirit, he will find they become weaker.

And when the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching.

Remigius of Auxerre: Not the Sadducees but the crowds were astonished. This happens daily in the Church: when the adversaries of the Church are overcome by divine inspiration, the multitude of the faithful rejoices.

St. Jerome: The Pharisees, having been refuted in the matter of the denarius and now seeing their adversaries also overthrown, should have taken warning not to attempt any further deceit against Him. But hate and jealousy are the parents of impudence.

Origen of Alexandria: Jesus had put the Sadducees to silence to show that the tongue of falsehood is silenced by the brightness of truth. For just as it is characteristic of the righteous man to be silent when it is good to be silent, and to speak when it is good to speak, it is characteristic of every teacher of a lie not to be silent, but to be silenced as far as any good purpose is concerned.

St. Jerome: The Pharisees and Sadducees, though enemies to one another, unite in one common purpose to tempt Jesus.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: Or, the Pharisees met together so that their numbers might silence Him whom their reasoning could not refute. In this way, by using their numbers against Him, they showed that truth had failed them. They said among themselves, "Let one speak for all, and let all speak through one. That way, if he prevails, the victory may seem to belong to everyone; but if he is defeated, the blame may rest on him alone." So it follows, "Then one of them, a teacher of the Law, asked him a question, tempting Him."

Origen of Alexandria: All who ask questions of any teacher to test him, and not to learn from him, we must regard as brothers of this Pharisee, according to what is said below: Inasmuch as you have done it to one of the least of my own, you have done it to me (Matthew 25:40).

St. Augustine of Hippo: Let no one be troubled by this, that Matthew speaks of this man as asking his question to tempt the Lord, whereas Mark does not mention this, but concludes with what the Lord said to him upon his answering wisely: Thou art not far from the kingdom of God (Mark 12:34). For it is possible that, though he came to tempt, the Lord's answer may have brought about a change of heart in him.¹

Or, the "tempting" mentioned here does not have to mean the deception of an enemy, but rather the cautious approach of one testing a stranger. And that is not written in vain: Whoso believeth lightly, he is of a vain heart (Ecclesiasticus 19:4).

Origen of Alexandria: He said "Master," tempting Him, for none but a disciple would address Christ this way. Therefore, whoever does not learn from the Word, nor surrenders himself completely to it, yet calls it Master, is a brother to this Pharisee who was tempting Christ. Perhaps while they read the Law before the Savior's coming, it was a question among them which was the great commandment in it. The Pharisee would not have asked this if it had not long been debated among them, but was never resolved until Jesus came and declared it.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: He who now asks for the greatest commandment had not even kept the smallest. Only the one who has fulfilled the lesser righteousness should seek for a higher one.

St. Jerome: Or, he asks not for the sake of the commands, but to know which is the first and great commandment, so that, seeing all that God commands is great, he may have an occasion to quibble, whatever the answer might be.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: But the Lord answers him in such a way as to at once expose the insincerity of his question: "Jesus said to him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." He says, "You shall love," not "fear," for to love is more than to fear. To fear belongs to slaves, to love to sons; fear is in compulsion, love is in freedom. Whoever serves God in fear escapes punishment but does not have the reward of righteousness, because he acted rightly out of fear, not willingness. God does not desire to be served like a slave by men, as by a master, but to be loved as a father, because He has given the spirit of adoption to men.

To love God with the whole heart is to have the heart inclined to love no one thing more than God. To love God with the whole soul is to have the mind fixed on the truth and to be firm in the faith. For the love of the heart and the love of the soul are different. The first is, in a way, physical, that we should love God even with our flesh, which we cannot do unless we first turn away from loving the things of this world. The love of the heart is felt in the heart, but the love of the soul is not felt but is perceived, because it consists in a judgment of the soul. For he who believes that all good is in God, and that apart from Him there is no good, loves God with his whole soul.

But to love God with the whole mind is to have all one's faculties available and dedicated to Him. He only loves God with his whole mind whose intellect serves God, whose wisdom is concerned with God, whose thoughts labor on the things of God, and whose memory retains what is good.

St. Augustine of Hippo: Or, to put it another way: You are commanded to love God "with all your heart," so that all your thoughts; "with all your soul," so that your whole life; and "with all your mind," so that your entire understanding may be given to Him from whom you received them. Thus He has left no part of our life that can rightly be empty of Him or make room for the desire of any other ultimate goodⁱ. But if anything else presents itself for the soul to love, it should be drawn into that channel where the entire current of love flows.

For a person is most perfect when their whole life is directed toward the unchangeable lifeⁱ and clings to it with their soul's entire purpose.²

Glossa Ordinaria: Or, "with all your heart," i.e., understanding; "with all your soul," i.e., your will; "with all your mind," i.e., memory; so you shall think, will, and remember nothing contrary to Him.³

Origen of Alexandria: Or, to put it another way: "With all your heart," that is, in all recollection, action, and thought; "with all your soul," that is, to be ready to lay it down for the sake of one's faith in God; "with all your mind," producing nothing that is not from God. And consider whether you cannot thus take the "heart" for the understanding, by which we contemplate intellectual things, and the "mind" for that by which we speak thoughts, walking, so to speak, with the mind through each expression and speaking it.

If the Lord had given no answer to the Pharisee who tempted Him, we would have judged that there was no commandment greater than the rest. But when the Lord adds, "This is the first and great commandment," we learn how we ought to think of the commandments: that there is a great one, and that there are lesser ones down to the least. And the Lord says not only that it is a great, but that it is the first commandment—not in its order in Scripture, but in its supremacy of value.

Only those who not only love the Lord their God but also add these three conditions can grasp the greatness and supremacy of this commandment. Nor did He only teach the first and great commandment, but added that there was a second like the first: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. But if Whoso loveth iniquity hath hated his own soul (Psalm 11:5), it is clear that he does not love his neighbor as himself, since he does not love himself.

St. Augustine of Hippo: It is clear that every person is to be regarded as a neighbor, because evil is to be done to no one. Furthermore, if everyone to whom we are bound to show a service of mercy, or who is bound to show it to us, is rightly called our neighbor, it is clear that the holy angels are included in this commandment, for they perform for us those services of which we may read in Scripture.⁴

For this reason our Lord Himself would be called our neighbor, for it was Himself whom He represents as the good Samaritan, who gave aid to the man who was left half-dead on the road.

He who loves people ought to love them either because they are righteous or so that they may become righteous. In the same way, he ought to love himself either because he is righteous or so that he may become righteous. And thus, without danger, he may love his neighbor as himself.⁵

But if you should not love even yourself for your own sake, but because of Him who is the rightful end of your love, then another person should not be displeased that you love them for God's sake. Therefore, whoever rightly loves his neighbor ought to strive together with him, so that he too may love God with his whole heart.⁶

Pseudo-Chrysostom: But he who loves man is like one who loves God, for man is God's image, in whom God is loved, just as a king is honored in his statue. For this reason this commandment is said to be like the first.

St. Hilary of Poitiers: Or, to put it another way, that the second command is like the first means that the obligation and merit of both are the same, for no love of God without Christ, or of Christ without God, can be profitable for salvation.

It follows, "On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."

St. Augustine of Hippo: "Hang," that is, they refer to them as their ultimate purpose.⁷

Rabanus Maurus: For the whole Decalogue belongs to these two commandments: the commandments of the first table to the love of God, and those of the second to the love of our neighbor.

Origen of Alexandria: Or, because he who has fulfilled the things that are written concerning the love of God and our neighbor is worthy to receive the great reward from God of being enabled to understand the Law and the Prophets.

St. Augustine of Hippo: Since there are two commandments, the love of God and the love of our neighbor, on which hang the Law and the Prophets, Scripture, with good reason, often uses one commandment to represent both. Sometimes it is the love of God, as in, We know that all things work together for good to them that love God (Romans 8:28); and sometimes the love of our neighbor, as in, All the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself (Galatians 5:14).⁸

This is because if a man loves his neighbor, it follows from this that he loves God also. For it is the very same affection by which we love God and by which we love our neighbor, except that we love God for Himself, but ourselves and our neighbor for God's sake.

But since the divine substance is more excellent and higher than our own nature, the command to love God is distinct from the one to love our neighbor. However, if by "yourself" you understand your whole self—that is, both your soul and your body—and likewise for your neighbor, then no category of things to be loved is omitted from these commands. The love of God comes first, and its rule is presented to us in such a way that all other loves are centered in it, so that it seems nothing is said about loving yourself.⁹

But then follows, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, so that love of yourself is not omitted.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: The Jews tempted Christ, supposing Him to be a mere man; if they had believed Him to be the Son of God, they would not have tempted Him. Christ, therefore, willing to show that He knew the treachery of their hearts and that He was God, would not declare this truth to them plainly, so they could not use it as an occasion to charge Him with blasphemy. Yet, He would not conceal this truth completely, because He had come for the very purpose of preaching the truth.

He therefore asks them a question that would declare to them who He was: What do you think of the Christ? Whose Son is He?

St. John Chrysostom: He first asked His disciples what others said about Christ, and then what they themselves said, but He did not do so with these men. For they would have said that He was a deceiver and a wicked person. They thought that the Christ was to be a mere man, and therefore they say to Him, The Son of David. To reprove this, He brings forward the Prophet, who witnesses to His dominion, His proper Sonship, and His shared honor with the Father.¹

St. Jerome: This passage is from Psalm 109. Christ is therefore called David's Lord, not because of His descent from him, but because of His eternal generation from the Father, in which He existed before His earthly father. And David calls Him Lord, not by mere chance or his own idea, but by the Holy Spirit.

Remigius of Auxerre: When it says, Sit thou on my right hand, this is not to be taken as though God has a body, with either a right hand or a left hand. Rather, to sit at the right hand of God is to remain in the honor and equality of the Father's majesty.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: I suppose that He formed this question not only against the Pharisees but also against the heretics, for according to the flesh He was truly David's Son, but his Lord according to His divinity.

St. John Chrysostom: But He does not stop with this. So that they might be afraid, He adds, Till I make thine enemies thy footstool, hoping that at least through fear He might win them over.

Origen of Alexandria: For God places Christ's enemies as a footstool beneath His feet, for their salvation as well as their destruction.

Remigius of Auxerre: But "until" is used here for an indefinite time, so that the meaning is, "Sit forever, and forever hold your enemies beneath your feet."

Glossa Ordinaria: That the enemies are put under the Son by the Father does not denote the Son's weakness, but the union of His nature with the Father's. For the Son also puts the Father's enemies under Him when He glorifies His name on earth. He concludes from this authority, If David then call Him Lord, how is He his son?²

St. Jerome: This question is still useful for us against the Jews, for those who believe that the Christ is yet to come assert that He is a mere man—though a holy one—from the line of David. Let us, then, taught by the Lord, ask them: If He is a mere man and only the Son of David, how does David call Him his Lord?

To evade the truth of this question, the Jews invent many frivolous answers. They allege that this Psalm was composed from the perspective of Abraham's steward (whose son was Eliezer of Damascus), when after the overthrow of the five kings, the Lord God said to his lord Abraham, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Let us ask how Abraham could say the things that follow, and compel them to tell us how Abraham was born before Lucifer, and how he was a Priest after the order of Melchizedek, for whom Melchizedek brought bread and wine, and from whom Abraham received a tenth of the spoils.

St. John Chrysostom: He put this conclusion to their questioning as a final and sufficient answer to silence them. From that point on, they held their peace—not by their own goodwill, but because they had nothing to say.

Origen of Alexandria: For if their question had sprung from a desire to know, He would never have proposed to them such things as would have deterred them from asking further.

Rabanus Maurus: From this we learn that the poison of jealousy can be overcome, but can hardly ever, on its own, be at peace.