Thomas Aquinas Commentary Matthew 11

After saying these things, the Lord passed from there to teach and preach, and this was for three reasons.

1. So that what He had said by word, He might show by example: Jesus began to do and to teach (Acts 1:1).
2. To show that it is also necessary to preach to the unwise. Hence: To the wise and to the unwise, I am a debtor (Romans 1:14).
3. To give others a place for preaching, as it is stated: But if anything be revealed to another sitting, let the first hold his peace (1 Corinthians 14:30).

Now when John had heard in prison the works of Christ (Matthew 11:2). Having presented and confirmed Christ’s doctrine, and the preachers having been instructed, here the rebellious are refuted. First, He refutes John’s disciples; and second, He refutes the scribes, where it is said, And when they went their way, etc. (Matthew 11:7).

Concerning the first (refuting John’s disciples), He does three things:

1. He refutes the doubtful.
2. He accuses the crowds, where it is said, But whereunto shall I esteem this generation to be like? (Matthew 11:16).
3. He gives thanks for the Apostles’ faith, where it is said, At that time Jesus answered and said, etc. (Matthew 11:25).

Regarding the first of these (refuting the doubtful), initially, a question is posed, and second, the solution to the question is given, where it is said, And Jesus making answer, etc. (Matthew 11:4).

He says, therefore, Now when John had heard in prison the works of Christ (Matthew 11:2). The occasion for why he sent these men is related. The same event is also found in Luke 7, though in a different order. Therefore, the Evangelist says that John was in prison, as was said above (Matthew 4). Then Jesus began to work miracles. And this was fitting, just as the sun does not appear when there are clouds. It is said below: The prophets and the law were until John (Matthew 11, this chapter). Works, that is, miracles, of Christ: sending two of his disciples he said to him (Matthew 11:2–3).

Some men, because of this passage, wish to condemn John, arguing that he doubted whether Jesus was the Christ; and it is certain that a doubter of the faith is an unbeliever.

Ambrose, in his commentary on Luke, says that this question was not one of unbelief, but of piety. For John is not speaking about Christ’s coming into the world, but about His coming to His Passion. Therefore, John wonders if He had come to suffer, just as Peter said, Be merciful to Thyself, O Lord (Matthew 16:22).

But against this, Chrysostom says that John foreknew this from the beginning, since he said, Behold the Lamb of God (John 1:29). It is certain, therefore, that John knew Christ was to be a sacrificial victim. Hence, he is commended here by the Lord as being more than a prophet; but the prophets knew the future.

Gregory offers another reason: that it is not a question about Christ’s coming into the world, nor about His Passion, but about His descent into hell. Because John was near to death and his own descent, for that reason he wished to be assured, asking, Art thou he that art to come, etc.? (Matthew 11:3).

But Chrysostom objects to this. Among those who are in the realm of the dead (Sheol/Hades), there is no state of doing penance; therefore, it seems that this was said in vain.

However, this is not an argument against Gregory, because John did not wish to announce the conversion of the world to the captives in that realm, but to the just, so that they might rejoice.

There is another response. We read that the Lord would often ask questions, not because He doubted, but to prevent slander. For instance, in John 11:34, when He asked concerning Lazarus, Where have you laid him? He asked not because He did not know, but so that those who showed Him the tomb would not be able to deny the miracle or slander Him. For a similar reason, John sent his disciples—not because he doubted, but so that they would not slander Christ, but instead confess Him.

But why did John not send them earlier? It was because he was always with them and, for that reason, was assuring them himself. But when he was about to depart from them (through death), he wanted them to be convinced by Christ directly.

John’s disciples ask, therefore, Art thou he that art to come, or look we for another? (Matthew 11:3). It is true that our Fathers awaited You, as it is stated in Exodus 4.

And Jesus making answer said to them, etc. (Matthew 11:4). Here Christ’s response is mentioned. Christ had many disciples, as is stated in John 4. Therefore, there was a dispute among them because, seeing Christ’s works, some preferred Christ to John. On the other hand, seeing John’s abstinence, others preferred John to Christ. Hence, Christ first poses a question, and second, He commends John. Regarding the first, He responds concerning His coming to His Passion. The time will come when God [as man] will suffer, and many will be caused to stumble, because He is a stumblingblock unto the Jews (1 Corinthians 1:23). Therefore, He responds concerning when this will be.

According to Chrysostom, Christ wishes to show that He who came was the one whom the prophets foretold. The prophets promised three things:

• Sometimes, they promised the coming of God.
• At other times, the coming of a new teacher.
• And at other times, the coming of sanctification and redemption.

‘How, therefore, will we know that God Himself will come?’ And He answers in the way that it is answered in Isaiah 35:4: God himself will come and will save us. Hence, ‘you will see these miracles.’ Go and relate to John what you have heard, in My teachings, and seen, in My miracles (Matthew 11:4).

Likewise, a teacher was promised: You, O children of Sion, rejoice, and it continues, because he hath given you a teacher of justice (Joel 2:23). And this happened literally. It is also answered, if you ask, ‘When will He come?’ The spirit of the Lord is upon me: he hath sent me to preach to the meek (Isaiah 61:1), or, in other words, to preach the Gospel. This is signified when it is said, the poor have the gospel preached to them (Matthew 11:5). Christ wished to signify something proper to Himself, as if to say: ‘He will come to set forth a new doctrine.’ The poor have the gospel preached to them, that is, poverty is preached. Hence, it was said above: Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:3); and, The spirit of the Lord is upon me. Wherefore he hath anointed me and hath sent me to preach the gospel to the poor (Luke 4:18).

Likewise, someone sanctified will come, sanctifying sinners. Hence: Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself (Isaiah 8:13). Sanctification was thus promised to some men, and when they were sanctified, others were scandalized. Hence, it is said, And blessed is he that shall not be scandalized in me (Matthew 11:6). And so: Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people by his own blood, suffered without the gate (Hebrews 13:12). For that reason, He shows signs of His coming.

And if we speak morally, by this is signified the whole process of a person’s sanctification. For first, the sinner becomes blind when his reason is darkened: Fire hath fallen on them, and they shall not see the sun (Psalms 57:9); and, Bring forth the people that are blind, and have eyes (Isaiah 43:8).

A person is said to be lame when his mind is drawn away to various things, as it is said: How long do you halt between two sides? (1 Kings 18:21). Likewise, he becomes full of sores in his deceptions, and a leper, because then he cannot be drawn back and infects others. And afterwards, he is made deaf, because he does not hear correction. Furthermore, he dies: Rise, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead (Ephesians 5:14).

And the Lord heals all these people. Having been healed, they rise up to a certain firmness of mind, in which there is true peace: Much peace have they that love thy law, and to them there is no stumblingblock (Psalms 119:165).

And when they went their way, etc. (Matthew 11:7). Here Christ addresses the doubt of the crowds. For the crowds had heard John’s testimony concerning Christ, but now they seemed to be in doubt. They could have three doubts in their hearts, because someone changes his word for three reasons:

• On account of fickleness of mind.
• For the sake of some benefit.
• Due to the human spirit, when he does not know the truth and afterwards learns it.

The Lord knoweth the thoughts of men, that they are vain (Psalms 94:11). For that reason, Christ first excludes fickleness from John; second, He excludes the desire for benefit; and third, He shows that John possesses the truth from prophetic knowledge.

He says, therefore, And when they went their way, etc. (Matthew 11:7). The Lord teaches us great courtesy, because He did not wish to praise John with his disciples present, just as He also did not wish to praise someone in his own presence, as it is stated: Let another praise thee, and not thy own mouth: a stranger, and not thy own lips (Proverbs 27:2). Because if the person is good, praise embarrasses him; if he is wicked, it flatters him.

What went you out into the desert to see? Did you go out to see a reed? (Matthew 11:7, paraphrased). No. On the contrary, you went out to see a firm man. A reed, however, is easily moved by the wind; hence, a soul that is quickly changeable is compared to the wind: That henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind (Ephesians 4:14).

Likewise, John is not fickle for some benefit. But what went you out to see? (Matthew 11:8). For all riches pertain to some use for the body, either in food or in clothing; and it is clear that John makes no fuss about any of these. Therefore, it ought not to be believed that he would give testimony to Christ for some benefit. Hence, Christ says, What went you out to see? A man clothed in soft garments? (Matthew 11:8). And why does He not mention food? Because there could be no doubt about that, for John was clothed in camel’s hair. Hence, they that are clothed in soft garments are not in the desert, but in the houses of kings (Matthew 11:8, paraphrased).

Chrysostom explains this differently. Some men are fickle by nature; others are made fickle by reason of their sins, as it is said: Fornication, and wine, and drunkenness, take away the understanding (Hosea 4:11). Christ eliminates the first possibility by His first words. He eliminates the second possibility by what He says, clothed in soft garments (Matthew 11:8); for that reason, John is not inconstant because of sins in his life.

But here a question can arise concerning the pleasures derived from clothing: whether it is a sin. For if it is not a sin, it would not be charged against that rich man who was daily clothed in purple and fine linen (Luke 16:19).

Augustine responds that such things themselves ought not to be considered, but rather the disposition of the wearer. For every person ought to be clothed according to the manner of those living with him at the time. For that reason, the custom of clothing needs to be explained in more detail. In some lands, all or many people are clothed with silk. Therefore, some wear it sparingly, others wear it extensively. In either case, a distinction is made: either it is worn for vainglory, and this is evil; or it is worn because of its significance, as, for example, to designate a bishop or priest, and this is good.

Mystically, "men clothed in soft garments" signifies flatterers. For he is clothed with soft garments who makes great efforts with flattering words; for instance, proud men may seek glory from what he says. And it is said: A prince that gladly heareth lying words, hath all his servants wicked (Proverbs 29:12).

But they might say: ‘John is not inconstant, but he speaks by a human spirit.’ For that reason, Christ eliminates this possibility by saying, But what went you out to see? A prophet? etc. (Matthew 11:9). Therefore, He bears witness that John does not speak by a human spirit, but by a prophetic spirit. Hence, He first shows him to be a prophet; second, He shows him to be more than a prophet.

John was a prophet, as it is stated in Luke 1:76: And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest, etc. Likewise, Christ extols him above the prophets, saying, Yea I tell you, and more than a prophet (Matthew 11:9). This is true for three reasons:

1. It belongs to a prophet to foretell the future; John, however, shows not only the future but also the present, saying: Behold the Lamb of God. Behold him who taketh away the sin of the world (John 1:29).
2. He is not only called a prophet but also the Baptist, as said above (Matthew 3).
3. He is called the precursor, as it is stated: For thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways (Luke 1:76).

Moreover, he is more than a prophet regarding his manner of prophesying: for he acted more miraculously than the prophets, because he prophesied from the womb, while the others did not, as it is stated: For behold as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy (Luke 1:44).

For this is he of whom it is written (Matthew 11:10). Here the Lord proves John’s excellence. First, He proves it by the authority of a prophet; second, He proves it by John's special privileges, where it is said, Amen I say to you, etc. (Matthew 11:11). He says, therefore: ‘I have said that he is more than a prophet, concerning whom it is written: Behold I send my angel before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee, etc.’ (Malachi 3:1, quoted in Matthew 11:10).

In this passage, John’s points of excellence are set forth. First, Christ calls him an angel. An angel is above a prophet, because just as a priest is in the middle between a prophet and the people, so a prophet is between the angels and the priests. An angel, however, is between God and the prophets; hence, Zechariah says, The angel that spoke in me (Zechariah 1:9). ‘Angel’ is the name of an office, not of a nature; hence, John is called an angel from his office. For there is a difference between an angel and a prophet: angels see clearly, as it is stated below, where it says: For I say to you, that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven (Matthew 18:10). Angels always see the face of God, but prophets do not. Therefore, just as angels always see the Father’s face, so John specially saw Christ. And because he specially saw Him, for that reason Christ says, my angel.

Again, He says, Before my face. When a king walks in procession, many go before him, but those more intimately associated with him go immediately before his face. So John is said to be more honorable because he was sent before Christ’s face; for the nearer one is, the more honorable one is. Likewise, he was preparing the way because he was baptizing; hence, He says, Who shall prepare thy way before thee (Matthew 11:10).

Amen I say to you, etc. (Matthew 11:11). Above, the Lord commended John by the authority of a prophet; now He intends to commend him by His own words, and He explains the words of the prophet. He does three things. First, He commends him regarding the distinction of every order and state. And in this, He first commends him according to the difference between heavenly and earthly things; second, He commends him regarding the difference between the Law and the Gospel; and third, He commends him regarding the difference between the present age and the future. First, He shows him to be excellent among earthly things; second, He shows him to be the lesser among heavenly things, where it is said, yet he that is the lesser in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he (Matthew 11:11).

He says, therefore: ‘It was said that John is an angel, and that I may briefly summarize, I say to you: There hath not risen among them that are born of women a greater (than John the Baptist)’ (Matthew 11:11). He spoke in a strict sense when He said, Hath risen, because all humans are born children of wrath, as it is written: We were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest (Ephesians 2:3). Therefore, whoever can arrive at the state of grace, rises. Hence, Among them that are born of women, etc. (Matthew 11:11). And He speaks significantly, so that Christ is excluded from this universality, because the word mulier (woman) expresses corruption, but femina (female) expresses the sex. So, if elsewhere ‘son of a mulier’ is found, such as in John 19:26: Woman, behold thy son, it then names the sex, not the corruption.

But what does He mean when He says, There hath not risen among them that are born of women a greater (Matthew 11:11)? Is John, because of this statement, greater than all men? Jerome says that it does not follow that if a greater has not risen, then John is the greatest of all. Chrysostom, however, says that he is greater than all men.

Therefore, according to the first explanation (Jerome's), I say that this argument (that the one than whom none is greater is the greatest) is valid concerning angels, among whom there is a hierarchy, because that rank than which none is greater, is indeed the greatest. But among humans, it does not hold true, because among humans there is no hierarchy according to nature, only according to grace.

Likewise, if it is said that John is greater than all the Old Testament Fathers, it is not unfitting. For a person is greater and more excellent who is appointed to a greater office. Abraham is greater among the Old Testament Fathers regarding the trial of faith; but Moses is greater regarding the office of a prophet, as it is stated: There arose no more a prophet in Israel like unto Moses (Deuteronomy 34:10). All these men were precursors of the Lord; no one, however, possessed such excellence and favor. For that reason, John was appointed to the greater office: He shall be great before the Lord (Luke 1:15).

Yet he that is the lesser in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he (Matthew 11:11). Because of these words, certain men have found an opportunity for making false accusations, for they wish to condemn all the Old Testament Fathers. Their argument is that if John is greater than these other Fathers, it follows (in their view) that these Fathers do not belong to the number of the saved—especially because they designate "the kingdom of heaven" as the present Church. If, therefore, John did not belong to the present Church, he was not among the elect, and therefore he was less than these others (the elect). And this opinion is erroneous, because it is clear that what the Lord says is said in praise of John.

Now this statement can be explained in three ways:

1. It can be explained such that "the kingdom of heaven" means the whole company of the blessed (in heaven). In this case, he who is found as the lesser among them is greater than any person still living on earth (a "wayfarer"). For that reason, the Lord calls the present state of life a childhood. Hence: When I became a man, I put away the things of a child (1 Corinthians 13:11). Therefore, He calls those on earth (wayfarers) children. This interpretation holds if "lesser" is understood regarding actual excellence, for he who is already in possession of beatitude is actually excellent. It is different concerning potential excellence, just as a small plant is said to be more excellent by its potential, although another is greater in size.

2. Alternatively, it can be explained that "the kingdom of heaven" designates the present Church. The reason is that "the lesser" is not spoken of universally, but in relation to the time of Christ’s birth. He that shall come after me is preferred before me (John 1:15 and Matthew 3:11). Hence, He who is lesser in age (Christ) is greater than John.

3. Or, it can be explained in another way: someone is said to be "greater" in two senses. Either regarding merit—and in this way, many Patriarchs are greater than some people of the New Testament, just as Augustine says that the celibacy of John is not to be preferred to the marriage of Abraham. Or it is by comparing state to state, just as virgins are in a better state than married persons; nevertheless, not every virgin is better than every married person. Hence, John has this dignity, which is on a kind of borderline: he is greater than those on earth (wayfarers) but less than those actually possessing beatitude. Thus, he holds a middle place.

And from the days of John the Baptist until now, etc. (Matthew 11:12). Here John is commended regarding the division between the New and Old Testaments. And John’s excellence is pointed out, in that he is the beginning of the New Testament and the end of the Old Testament. ‘Therefore, I have said that he that is the lesser in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he’ (Matthew 11:11): and this pertains to the fact that John is the beginning of the New Testament. But from the days of John the Baptist, that is, from John’s preaching, the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence (Matthew 11:12).

This is explained in three ways:

1. You know that in a forceful taking (like robbery) there is a certain violence and a certain effort. Hence, it is necessary that for the sinner to come to the kingdom of heaven, he must rise up to spiritual things and make much effort.

2. It is explained differently. You know that the word "robbery" (or forceful taking) is used in its proper sense when what belongs to another is taken by force against the will of the owner. The preaching of salvation was sent to the Jews, and by Christ, it was ultimately sent everywhere. He says below, in Matthew 15:24: I was not sent but to the sheep, that are lost of the house of Israel. And when He was sent to them, they did not receive Him. Nevertheless, those to whom He was not initially sent were taking salvation by force because of their humility. Hence: Many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven; but the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into the exterior darkness (Matthew 8:11–12). And it is said below: The kingdom of God shall be taken from you and shall be given to a nation yielding the fruits thereof (Matthew 21:43). Therefore, these people violently take salvation by force.

3. This is Hilary’s explanation. There is a third explanation: That which is taken by force is forcibly taken with haste. Hence: As the torrent that passeth swiftly in the valleys (Job 6:15); and this is because of the speed of the movement. And because Christ’s preaching had so moved the hearts of all people, it seemed to be a speedy occurrence. For that reason, He says, Suffereth violence (Matthew 11:12), because they strive for the kingdom in a hasty manner. Hence, the Gospel began from John, and he himself is the ending of the Law. Thus, Christ says, For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John (Matthew 11:13), because all the prophets were pointing to Christ, and they began to be fulfilled from the time of John’s preaching. Hence: All things must needs be fulfilled which are written concerning me (Luke 24:44). And this prophesying of the prophets continued until John (Matthew 11:13).

But what does this mean? Were there no prophets after John? Do we not read below: Behold I send to you prophets and wise men and scribes, etc. (Matthew 23:34)?

It should be said that a prophet is sent for two reasons: to confirm the faith and to correct morals. When prophecy shall fail, the people shall be scattered abroad (Proverbs 29:18). A prophet is sent to confirm the faith, as it is stated: Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and diligently searched, who prophesied of the grace to come in you, searching what or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ in them did signify (1 Peter 1:10). Hence, prophecy was serving these two purposes. But now the faith has been established because the things promised regarding Christ are fulfilled. However, prophecy for correcting morals never fails, nor ever will fail. Therefore, John excels in that he is in the middle between the Old and New Law; hence, he was sent before Christ’s face almost at the same time as Christ.

And if you will receive it, he is Elijah that is to come (Matthew 11:14). Here Christ sets forth John’s excellence regarding the distinction between the present (John) and the future Elijah. For Elijah was a precursor of the Lord, like John. Hence: Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord, etc. (Malachi 4:5). And John is Elijah.

But what is the Lord saying? Because when John was asked if he was Elijah, he said that he was not (John 1:21). Now by this passage a certain heresy is extinguished, which proposed the transmigration of the soul—namely, that the soul went out from one body and entered into another. According to this heresy, the soul of Elijah entered John, as Christ was supposedly saying. But this opinion is false, because John himself denied that he was Elijah.

Christ, however, said that John was Elijah because of a threefold similarity:

1. John was Elijah because, just as one angel is said to be similar to another angel, so John and Elijah are equal in their office, for they both are precursors: For he shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways, etc. (Luke 1:76).
2. John was Elijah regarding his manner of life, because Elijah led an austere life, as it is stated in 1 Kings 19.
3. John was Elijah regarding persecution, because just as Elijah was persecuted by Jezebel, so John was persecuted by Herodias.

Hence, if you will receive it, as it ought to be received, he is Elijah (Matthew 11:14). And so that they might understand that this was said mystically, He adds, He that hath ears to hear, that is, who spiritually has ears, let him hear (Matthew 11:15), and understand.

Here He bursts out in a rebuke of the crowds. And first, He presents a question; second, He presents a kind of metaphor; and third, He explains it. He proceeds, therefore, in this way: ‘In this way John is compared to Elijah, but to what shall I compare this generation?’ And why does He say this? He says this just as when someone has done all the good he could do for another man, and that man is ungrateful, so that the benefactor does not know to whom he should be compared. So the Lord had done every good thing for this generation; therefore: What is there that I ought to do more to my vineyard, that I have not done to it? (Isaiah 5:4). ‘To what shall I compare such great malice?’

It should be noted that sometimes in Scripture a generation is understood as the congregation of the good, sometimes as the congregation of the wicked, and sometimes as the congregation of both. It is sometimes understood as the congregation of the good, as in: The generation of the righteous shall be blessed (Psalms 111:2). It is sometimes understood as the wicked congregation, where it is said above: An evil and adulterous generation (Matthew 12:39). It is sometimes understood as both, where it is said: One generation passes away, and another generation comes: but the earth stands forever (Ecclesiastes 1:4).

It is like children sitting in the market place, etc. Here He presents a kind of metaphor, and it can be explained according to the basic literal sense or according to the mystical sense. First, He presents the metaphor concerning the children; and second, He applies it, where it is said, John came neither eating nor drinking, etc.

For it should be noted that it is natural for man to seek pleasures, and he always seeks them. Unless he takes great care to detach himself, he immediately falls into evil pleasures. But children are not very careful; for that reason, they are unconcerned about their own affairs, and this is why they play.

Likewise, it should be noted that man is naturally social, because one man naturally needs another; therefore, he enjoys socializing. Hence, the Philosopher says in the first book of the Politics: “Every man who is a solitary is either better than a man, and then he is a god; or he is worse than a man, and then he is a beast.” Therefore, it is said, sitting in the market place, because no one wishes to play except in a public place where many people gather.

Likewise, it should be noted that it is natural for man to find pleasure in some representation. Therefore, if we see something well-sculpted that accurately represents what it is intended to, then we are delighted. For that reason, children, who delight in games, always make their games with some representation, either of war or of something similar.

Likewise, it should be noted that all the affections of the soul terminate in two passions, namely, either in joy or in sorrow.

Who crying, etc. This should be understood as follows. Let us suppose there are children on one side and others on the other, such that some are to sing and others are to dance. The first group of children is supposed to do one thing, and the others are supposed to respond to them. If the first group were to sing and the second group did not respond to them according to their plan, they would offend the first group. Hence, they say: We have piped to you, and you have not danced.

Likewise, nothing transforms the spirit as much as singing. Therefore, Boethius recounts in his De Musica an incident concerning a certain man who, in the presence of Pythagoras, was fighting with another man while other men were singing a song. Then Pythagoras had the music changed, and the man stopped fighting. Therefore, all men were trained in music.

For that reason, it should be noted that some singing is for the sake of joy, as it is stated in Sirach 40:20: Wine and music rejoice the heart; for that reason, it is said: We have piped, that is, we have sung a song of joy, and you have not danced.

Similarly, it is a common occurrence that just as some men are moved to joy by singing, so others are moved to weeping; therefore: Call for the mourning women, and let them take up a lamentation for us (Jeremiah 9:17–18).

For that reason, they say, We have lamented, that is, we have made mournful songs, and you have not mourned. Mystically, these children signify the people of the Old Testament, among whom some were motivators of spiritual joy, such as David: Rejoice in the Lord, O ye just (Psalms 32:1).

Certain others were motivators of sorrow, such as Joel: Be converted to me with all your heart, in fasting, and in weeping, and in mourning, etc. (Joel 2:12). Hence, they can say, We have piped, that is, we have incited you to spiritual joy, and you did not take it up. We have lamented, that is, we invited you to repentance, and you did not assent.

John came, etc. Here He applies the metaphor. And first, He applies it; and second, He gives the reasons. Men are drawn to a good life in two ways: some are drawn by the sight of holiness, while others are drawn by the way of friendliness.

The Lord and John divided these two ways between themselves. John chose—or rather, the Lord chose for John—the way of austerity; He chose for Himself the way of leniency. Nevertheless, the Jews were not converted by either one.

Hence, He says, John came neither eating nor drinking (and this is said literally, because he was often abstaining). And they say: He hath a devil, just as hypocrites turn something good into something evil. The Son of man came eating and drinking; that is to say, He was using food differently, and it does not profit Him, because you do not believe.

On the contrary you say, Behold a man that is a glutton and a wine drinker, a friend of publicans; this is opposed to what is written: Be not in the feasts of great drinkers (Proverbs 23:20).

Here it should be noted that he who heeds the sayings of men never does anything well: He that observeth the wind, shall not sow: and he that considereth the clouds, shall never reap (Ecclesiastes 11:4).

But here a question arises: Why did the Lord choose for Himself the more lenient way and demonstrate through John the more austere way? The reason for this is that the Lord was confirming His actions with miracles, while John, however, was not performing miracles.

For that reason, if John had possessed no particular excellence, his testimony would not have been accepted—just as we see with the Saints, that one has excellence in one thing and another in another; for instance, Augustine had excellence in doctrine, and Martin had excellence in miracles.

Likewise, another reason was that John was a mere man; for that reason, he refrained from carnal desires. Christ, however, was God. Therefore, if He were to practice austerity, His humanity might have been obscured; for that reason, He adopted a more common human life.

Likewise, John was the end of the Old Testament, which imposed heavy burdens; but Christ was the beginning of the New Law, which employs the way of mildness.

And wisdom is justified by her children. This saying can be understood in two ways. One way is by referring it back to what was said concerning both John and Christ.

Then the sense is: when a man does what he ought to do, and another man is not reformed, then he saves his own soul, and he is justified in his words. Wisdom is justified, namely, the Son of God, or Christ (that is to say, Wisdom), appeared just to her children because He showed to the Jews what He ought to have shown them: He showed abstinence by John, and mildness by Christ.

Or it can be understood in a different way. In this way, they might call His children devils, because he is glutton and a wine drinker.

But the children of wisdom understand that life does not consist in food and drink, but in equanimity of mind—using food and drink according to place and time, and similarly, abstaining when it is fitting, so that they neither exceed by too much nor fall short by too little. As the Apostle says: Everywhere and in all things I am instructed: both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need (Philippians 4:12).

For that reason, He would not seem to show full righteousness if He were to abstain completely, because it might be believed that all righteousness consists in abstinence. But it does not consist in this, but in equanimity of soul.

And note that He says, Wisdom, because using food or abstaining from food is done according to the moderation of wisdom, insofar as one abstains when one should and where one should.

Previously, He satisfied John’s followers; now He rebukes the unbelievers. He does two things: first, what was done by the Lord is described, and second, His words are described, where it is said, Woe to you, Corozain, etc.

Rebuking relates to benefits and to gifts. For the Lord had done a good deed, because He had enlightened them with His presence; therefore, they were ungrateful, and for that reason they were deservedly rebuked. Thus, it is written: My people, what have I done to you, or in what have I troubled you? (Micah 6:3). It is as if He were to say, ‘Nothing.’ He did not rebuke them because they had committed sins, but because they had not done penance. Therefore, what is said in Job 24:23 suited them: God has given him place for penance, and he abuses it to pride. And it is also said: Do you not know that the benignity of God leads you to penance? (Romans 2:4)

But here there is a literal question, because Luke relates this in a different order. For he relates this at the time of the sending out of the disciples; Matthew relates it here. Augustine responds to this objection. It seems that Luke more closely keeps the chronological order; this Evangelist, however, follows the sequence of his memory.

But then it is objected that here it is said, Then; therefore, it seems that the historical sequence is followed here. Augustine responds that then indicates an indefinite time. Alternatively, it can be said that He spoke these words twice, and for that reason He could have said these words both at this time, according to this Evangelist, and at another time, according to Luke.

Woe to you, Corozain, etc. Here the Lord’s words are presented. First, He speaks about the associated cities, and second, about the metropolis, where it is said, And you, Capharnaum, etc. In this, first, He compares guilt to guilt; second, He compares punishment to punishment, where it is said, But I say to you, etc. He says, therefore, Woe to you, Corozain, etc. These are cities or towns in Galilee where the Lord had performed many signs, yet they did not convert. For that reason, He says, Woe to you, etc.

But what is it that the Lord is doing? Conversely, it is written: Curse not (Romans 12:14). It should be pointed out that it is one thing to curse formally and another to curse materially. No one ought to curse formally, but one can curse materially.

Therefore, it should be observed that certain things are joined together in perception, which can nevertheless be separated by the intellect. For instance, in an apple, there are the smell and the taste, which cannot be separated by the senses, although they can be separated by the intellect. Similarly, wanting this man not to be punished and wanting the order of justice cannot coexist simultaneously, except in the intellect.

Therefore, if I curse this man because I delight in his harm, it is evil. If, however, I delight not in his harm but in the order of justice, then it is good. Consequently, the Lord’s words were not those of one delighting in harm, but of one declaring the work of justice.

Woe to you, Corozain. Corozain is interpreted ‘service to it.’ Bethsaida is interpreted ‘the house of fruits.’ To whom more is entrusted, from him more is demanded. And why was more shown to it? It is because He fulfilled His ministry there; for that reason, it is written: The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that suppress the truth of God in injustice (Romans 1:18). Bethsaida is ‘the house of fruits.’ If, therefore, the Lord bore fruit there, and they did not do penance, what will they deserve? I looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it has brought forth wild grapes (Isaiah 5:4). Woe to you… for if in Tyre and Sidon the miracles had been performed that have been performed in you, they would long ago have done penance in sackcloth and ashes. Long ago, that is, in the distant past.

And observe the manner of penance, because it was in ashes and sackcloth, for two things induce penance. One is the remembrance of sins; this is signified by the sackcloth, because it is made from the hairs of goats, for this animal was sacrificed for sin. The other is the consideration of death and the condition of human frailty; hence it is said: You are dust, and to dust you shall return (Genesis 3:19). And: Therefore I reprehend myself, and do penance in dust and ashes (Job 42:6).

But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. Here He compares guilt to guilt; because if they are found more guilty, it will be worse for them, for what they heard, they did not do. For that reason, Corozain will have greater guilt, according to what is said: If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin (John 15:22).

It should be noted that from these words He excludes three errors:

1. Some were saying all sins are equal, and similarly, all punishments are equal; He excludes this when He says that for these people it will be worse than for Tyre and Sidon.
2. Others said that only those whom He foreknew could be saved, because if He preached to them, they would be converted. He excludes this when He says it will be bad for Tyre and Sidon, but nevertheless worse for these people to whom the kingdom of God was announced. Hence, Augustine says in his Book of Perseverance: “The Lord does not remunerate for those things which one had done, but for those things which one does.”
3. He removes a third error from some who were saying that the Lord sent the prophets and preachers only to the Jews, and not to other people, because He knew that others would not receive them. But He excludes this, because if He had preached to them (Tyre and Sidon), they would have done penance.

But then a question remains: if the Jews did not believe, it would seem that the Lord had not done well, since He did not send to the people in Tyre and Sidon, who would have believed. Gregory says that it is not for humans to know God’s secrets. Nevertheless, as far as can be seen, it was because it had been promised to the Old Testament Fathers; for that reason, to confirm the promises to the Fathers, He first preached to the Jews. Likewise, it was so that their condemnation might be shown to be more just; for this reason, He preached to them and afterwards sent His disciples to them.

Remigius solves the question as follows: it was because, although more people from Tyre and Sidon would have believed in greater numbers, there were nevertheless among them some perverse individuals who were not yet prepared to believe; for that reason, He did not first send preachers to them.

Augustine offers a third explanation: the Lord foreknew that if they had believed, they would not have persevered in the time of the Passion, and for that reason, He did not send preachers to them.

There is another explanation from Augustine: that predestination is the foreknowledge of God’s benefits. Therefore, whatever things pertain to salvation are effects of predestination in the predestined. Consequently, the Lord distributes His gifts in different ways, because to some He gives a docile heart and an inclination to acting well; but this does not suffice unless there is an instructor.

Likewise, sometimes there is an instructor, but the heart is hard; and just as for the former people readiness to believe does not suffice, so a hard heart harms these others.

Therefore, to ask why He chooses one person and not another is a foolish question. Thus, Augustine says: “Why God draws this person and not that one, do not judge if you do not wish to err.” So, it is better that the whole matter be referred to God’s ordinance than to human merits.

And you, Capharnaum, will you be exalted to heaven? In this part He rebukes the more important city. First, He rebukes their pride (and this is because great people are often more proud); second, He rebukes their impenitence, where it is said, For if in Sodom the miracles had been performed, etc. Regarding their pride, first He rebukes it, and second, He threatens their punishment. He says, therefore, And you, Capharnaum, etc.

There is a double literal sense in this passage. One is interrogative: Will you be exalted to heaven? Another literal sense is, ‘You are the city that has been exalted to heaven.’ For it was exalted by the Lord, both by His presence and His many good actions; As great things as we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in your own country (Luke 4:23). Likewise, ‘You exalted yourself: therefore, were you exalted through pride, or by my doctrine? However much you were exalted, nevertheless, you will go down to hell.’ As it is written, He will be pulled down in the day of God’s wrath; this is the portion of a wicked man from God (Job 20:28–29). Therefore, you, who seemed to touch the sky, will be pulled down to hell. Thus, the proper punishment of pride is being cast down. In Isaiah 14:14 it is said against him who was saying, I will ascend the stars of heaven, and it continues, You will be brought down to hell.

Afterwards, He accuses them of impenitence. First, He compares them as to their guilt; and second, He compares them as to their punishment. He says, therefore, For if in Sodom, etc. And why does He say this? It is to signify the liberty of free will, because before a person are life and death. No one warned them; although Lot was among them, he nevertheless did not perform miracles. But these people saw the Lord teaching and performing miracles, therefore, etc. Capharnaum is interpreted ‘very pleasant village,’ and Jerusalem has a similar meaning. But I say to you: ‘On Judgment Day your punishment will be more severe than the punishment of that land, which was completely ruined.’ Or it can be understood of its inhabitants: And that servant, who knew the will of his lord and did not prepare himself and did not do according to his will, will be beaten with many stripes (Luke 12:47).

At that time Jesus answered and said: I confess to you, O Father, etc. Previously, the Lord had rebuked the infidelity of the crowds; now He gives thanks for the faith of the disciples and of the other believers. First, He renders thanks to the Father as the author; second, He shows Himself to have the same power, where it is said, All things are delivered to me by my Father. He says, therefore, At that time (namely, the time in which it occurred, etc.), Jesus answered. But to whom does He answer? Does not what is said in Job 15:2 apply to Him: Will a wise man answer as if he were speaking in the wind? It does not. He is answering a tacit objection. For someone might say, ‘These people to whom You have preached do not believe; others, however, would have believed if it had been preached to them.’ For that reason He answers, and by His answer He rebukes those who seek the reasons for election, that is, why some are raised up into heaven and others are cast down into hell. Take, for example, Origen, who asserted that a person’s election was due to their merits. But here He reproves this opinion, showing that this ought to be attributed to the Divine will. He says, therefore, I confess to you, O Father.

It should be observed that there are three kinds of confession:

1. The confession of faith; hence, in Romans 10:10, it is said: With the heart, we believe to justice; but, with the mouth, confession is made to salvation.
2. The confession of sins; Confess your sins one to another (James 5:16).
3. The confession of thanksgiving, about which it is said: Give glory to the Lord, for he is good (Psalms 105:1).

It is this latter kind that is understood in the Lord’s words, I confess to you, O Father, Lord of Heaven and earth.

Two heresies are excluded by these words: first, the heresy of Sabellius, who did not distinguish the Son from the Father; hence, He says, I confess to you, O Father, etc. Second, He excludes the heresy that the Father and the Son are not of the same nature. For that reason, He speaks of His own Father, which is against Arius. And He is truly the Lord, because He is the Father of Heaven and earth. And in Psalm 99:3 it is said: Know that the Lord, he is God; he made us. He is called His Father, not because He created Him, but because He begot Him: He will cry out to me: You are my father (Psalms 88:27).

And why does He give thanks? He gives thanks concerning a certain differentiation, and He puts it thus: Because you have hidden these things from the wise and prudent, and have revealed them to little ones. Therefore, one should consider here who are the little ones, and who are the wise and prudent.

People are said to be little ones in three ways:

1. Literally, the despised are called little ones; hence, in Obadiah 1:2, it is said: Behold I have made you small among the nations: you are exceedingly contemptible.
2. A person is said to be a little one by their humility, because they deem themselves to have but few good qualities.
3. Again, a person is said to be little by their simplicity; hence, the Apostle says: In malice be children (1 Corinthians 14:20).

Hence, that passage can be understood to mean: ‘You have revealed these things to little ones and to despised fishermen.’ And why is this? The Apostle gives the reason, saying it is because The foolish things of the world God has chosen, that he may confound the wise (1 Corinthians 1:27). Augustine expounds this passage thus: “To little ones, that is, to the humble who do not presume about themselves: for where there is humility, there is wisdom.” Hilary expounds this passage as concerning the simple: Seek him in simplicity .

Conversely, the wise and prudent do not seek Him in simplicity, because they endeavor to seek Him through carnal wisdom: Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom (Jeremiah 9:23). He did not reveal Himself to these people, but to rustic people not trusting in their own wisdom: I have said: I will be wise; and it departed farther from me, much more than it was (Ecclesiastes 7:24). For this reason the Apostle says: For they, not knowing the justice of God and seeking to establish their own, have not submitted themselves to the justice of God (Romans 10:3). Likewise, by “the wise” He understands proud people boasting about themselves, and He does not reveal Himself to such. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools (Romans 1:22). Similarly, He calls wise those living according to the flesh, seeking the things which are of the flesh, but not the things which are of God (Philippians 2:21). They are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge (Jeremiah 4:22).

And you have revealed. That you walk not as the Gentiles also walk in the vanity of their mind (Ephesians 4:17). Therefore, you have hidden these things from the wise by revealing them to little ones. He hid wisdom from the wise by not providing grace. Hence it is said: God delivered them up to a reprobate sense (Romans 1:28).

But does He give thanks because His Father hid these things from them? I say that He does not do this rejoicing in their blindness, but rejoicing in the justice of God, who ordains so wisely. And why? The reason is not to be sought here, for in such matters God’s will is, so to speak, the cause.

Yes, Father, for so it has seemed good in your sight. A builder can well give the reason why he placed certain stones in the foundation and certain ones higher; but that he placed this one here and another one there, there is no other reason except his own will. Thus, that the Lord saves some people is due to His mercy, and that He condemns others is due to His justice. But why He acts so mercifully toward one person, rather than toward another, pertains solely to His Divine will. Hence: He has mercy on whom he wills, and whom he wills, he hardens (Romans 9:18). Therefore, He does so on account of His good pleasure. In Psalm 118:108, it is said: Do your good pleasure, O Lord, etc.

All things are delivered to me by my Father. He had given thanks to His Father because He reveals His secrets to little ones; someone might believe that He Himself could not reveal these secrets. Therefore, to dispel this opinion, He first mentions the greatness of His power, and second, He invites people to Himself, as though He were to say, ‘Behold I am powerful; therefore come to Me,’ etc. And He does two things: first, He asserts the equality of the Son to the Father; and second, He applies this spiritually to the matter being discussed, where it is said, And no one knows the Son but the Father. He says, therefore: Someone could say, ‘Can He do all things?’ He answers, All things are delivered to me. And notice His equality, yet His origin is from His Father, which is against Sabellius.

But what does He mean when He says, All things? It can be explained in three ways:

1. All things means He is over every creature: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth (Matthew 28:18).
2. Or, All things are delivered to Me refers to the elect and the predestined, who are specially given to Him: Yours they were, and to me you gave them (John 17:5).
3. Likewise, All things refers to all things intrinsic to His nature that are given to Him, that is, every perfection of the divinity: As the Father has life in himself, so he has given to the Son also to have life in himself (John 5:26).

We should not understand this corporeally, because, although He gave all things to the Son, He also retained them for Himself. This explanation is Augustine’s and Hilary’s. But someone could say, ‘How did He give all things?’ For that reason, He adds the manner, when He says, By my Father. Therefore, He receives these things through His generation.

And no one knows the Son but the Father. Now He specifically comes to the point, not only regarding His equality to the Father, but also regarding His consubstantiality. For the Father’s substance is above all understanding, since the Father’s essence itself is called unknowable, just as the Son’s substance is called unknowable. Therefore, His equality may be observed here, and Arius is confounded, who says the Father is invisible but the Son is visible. No one knows the Son but the Father.

But what is this? Did not the Saints know the Son? I answer that they know by coming in contact with Him, or by faith, but not by comprehending Him.

But what is this? Does not the Holy Spirit know Him? He does indeed. But it should be observed that exclusive expressions are sometimes added to the essential Divine names, and sometimes they are added to the personal names. When they are joined to the personal names, they do not exclude that which is the same in nature; therefore, names added to the Father do not exclude the Son. Hence, where it is said, To the king of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory (1 Timothy 1:17), another Person is not excluded in His nature. Similarly, when He says here, But the Son, the Holy Spirit is not excluded, who is the same in nature. But when He says, No one knows, etc., no human is meant except the Son.

In this way it is held that the Son knows the Father. But this is against Origen, for the Son knows the Father by comprehension. Therefore, because He knows the Father perfectly, and the Father is perfectly knowable, for that reason He has the power of revealing the Father, just as the Father has. Thus it is said, And he to whom it will please the Son to reveal him. For the manifestation of the Father is through the Word: I have manifested your name to the people, etc. (John 17:6). And it is said, No one has seen God at any time (John 1:18). But He knew the Father; therefore, He could manifest Him. Consequently, what He had said about the Father, He attributed to Himself. For He had said, You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent, and have revealed them to little ones; thus, the Son can reveal just as the Father can, from whom He has the same power.

Come to me, all you, etc. ‘Come to My benefits.’ And first, the invitation is presented; second, the necessity of the invitation is shown; and third, its usefulness is declared. He says, therefore: Come to me. These words are also found in a Sapiential book: Come over to me, all you that desire me, and be filled with my fruits . Hence, ‘Draw near to Me, you unlearned,’ because He wishes to give Himself. But what is the necessity of drawing near to Him? It is because, ‘Without Me people labor too much’: You that labor. This particularly applies to the Jews, because they were laboring under the burdens of laws and commandments, as it is stated: This is the burden which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear (Acts 15:10). Likewise, this is said generally, referring to all people who labor on account of their human frailty: I am poor, and in labors from my youth (Psalms 87:16). And are burdened by the burden, namely, of their sins: My iniquities as a heavy burden have become heavy upon me (Psalms 37:5). ‘And what will we have if we come to You?’ I will refresh you. If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink (John 7:37).

He afterwards explains the invitation. First, He explains the invitation itself, and second, He assigns its reason, where it is said, For my yoke is sweet. Regarding the first point, it is as follows. He had put forth an invitation and had stated its purpose. Now He wishes to show what the invitation is, saying, Take up my yoke upon you.

But what is this? ‘You say that You want to refresh us and to take labor away from us, and immediately You command us to bear a yoke? We believed that we would be without a yoke.’ I say that it is true, you will be without the yoke of sin: For the yoke of their burden, and the rod of their shoulder, and the scepter of their oppressor you have overcome (Isaiah 9:4). It is not that you may be without the law of God, but that you may be without the yoke of sin: Let us cast away their yoke from us (Psalms 2:3). Return, O Israel, to the Lord your God: for you have fallen down by your iniquity, etc. (Hosea 14:2). Being then freed from sin, we have been made servants of justice (Romans 6:18).

Take up, therefore, my yoke; namely, the teaching of the Gospel. It is called a yoke because, just as a yoke joins and binds the necks of oxen for plowing, so the teaching of the Gospel binds both peoples to its yoke. And what is it that is said: Learn of me, because I am meek, and humble of heart? For the whole New Law consists in two things: meekness and humility. By meekness, a person is ordered toward their neighbor. Hence: O Lord, remember David, and all his meekness (Psalms 131:1). By humility, a person is ordered toward themself and toward God. Upon whom will my spirit rest, but upon him that is quiet and humble (Isaiah 66:2). Humility thus makes a person capable of being filled with God.

Likewise, He had said, I will refresh you. What is this refreshment? You will find rest for your souls. For the body is not refreshed as long as it is afflicted; when it is no longer afflicted, then it is said to be refreshed. Just as hunger is in the body, so desire is in the mind; hence, the fulfillment of desires is refreshment: Who satisfies your desire with good things (Psalms 102:5). This rest is the rest of the soul: I have labored a little, and have found much rest . In this way, the meek are not quieted in the world; hence, you will find everlasting rest, namely, the fulfillment of your desires.

‘But do not be surprised if I invite you to take up My yoke, because My yoke is not a burden.’ Why? For my yoke is sweet and enjoyable: How sweet are your words to my palate! (Psalms 118:103). And my burden light. These things can refer to two things: by a yoke oxen are held, but a burden is carried. Hence, His yoke refers to the negative precepts, and His burden to the positive precepts.

But this seems to be false, because the burden of the New Law appears very heavy. As it was said above: You have heard that it was said to them of old: You shall not kill… But I say to you, that whoever is angry with his brother will be in danger of the judgment (Matthew 5:21). And so it seems to be a heavy burden. Likewise, it was said above: Strait is the way that leads to life (Matthew 7:14). The Apostle also says, In many more labors (2 Corinthians 11:23). Therefore, it seems to be a very heavy yoke.

For that reason, two things should be considered: the effect of the doctrine and the circumstances of the works. In all things, Christ’s doctrine is light in practice because it changes the heart in that it makes us love not temporal things, but rather spiritual things. For a person who loves temporal things, losing a little is more burdensome than for a person who loves spiritual things to lose much. The Old Law did not forbid those temporal things, and for that reason, it was burdensome for those people to lose them. But now, even if it is somewhat heavy at the beginning, it is nevertheless light afterwards: I will lead you by the paths of equity, which when you will have entered, your steps will not be straitened (Proverbs 4:11–12).

Furthermore, regarding the works, the Law burdened with external acts. Our Law, however, is only in the will; hence, The kingdom of God is not meat and drink (Romans 15:17). Similarly, Christ’s Law gives joy; thus, the Apostle says, But justice and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit (Romans 14:17). Likewise, regarding the circumstances, it can be said that in the New Law there are many adversities; hence, They that will live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution (2 Timothy 3:12). But these are not heavy, because they are seasoned with love; for when someone loves another, whatever they suffer from that person does not burden them. Therefore, love makes all heavy and seemingly impossible things light. Consequently, if someone loves Christ well, nothing is heavy to them, and for that reason, the New Law does not burden.