Thomas Aquinas Commentary Matthew 15

Above, the Lord showed the power of His teaching under figures; now He shows its sufficiency. This is shown in two ways. Firstly, He shows that He does not require the observances of the Law; and secondly, He shows that His teaching may not only be given to the one nation of the Jews, but also to the Gentiles, where it is said, Jesus went from thence, and retired into the coast of Tyre and Sidon.

Regarding the first, the Evangelist does three things:

1. The circumstances of an accusation are mentioned.
2. The accusation is mentioned.
3. An explanation of the accusation is mentioned.

The second is where it is said, Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the ancients? And the third is where it is said: For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.

Now the Jews’ bad behavior is worsened by three things.

1. It is worsened by the time, because at the time when He was performing these signs and miracles, they were giving proofs of their wickedness, which is why they were maligning Him. You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent, etc. (Matthew 11:25).
2. The worsening was compounded by the place, because although the Jews were spread throughout Judea, nevertheless, those who were in Jerusalem were the wise men, and yet, they were worse than the rest. In the land of the saints he has done wicked things, and he shall not see the glory of the Lord (Isaiah 26:10).
3. It was worsened by the condition of the persons, because from the great men came the Scribes, who were more learned, and the Pharisees, who were reckoned to be more holy. I will go therefore to the great men, and will speak to them: for they have known the way of the Lord (Jeremiah 5:5).

Then the matter about which they were accusing them is related, and so it is said, Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the ancients? It had been ordered, as it is stated in Deuteronomy 4:2: You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it. Hence, by adding traditions, they were acting contrary to the Law; not because it was not allowed to make an ordinance, but because they were ordering that their decrees be observed just like the Lord's Law. For they do not wash their hands, etc. Here is explained what their traditions were.

This is explained more in Mark 7:2, for there it is said that When they had seen some of his disciples eat bread with common, that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault. That they were not washing their hands can be explained in the literal sense. Why were they not washing their hands? It was because they were so preoccupied with the word of God that they did not even have time. Hence, due to their preoccupation with spiritual things, they were not washing their hands in the manner that the Jews did, as it is stated in Mark 7, because all the Jews do not eat without often washing their hands. For that reason, the disciples were not washing their hands according to their ritual. Hence, the Jews themselves were thinking literally, washing what was exterior, and not what was interior.

But he answering, said to them. The Lord does two things: namely, He does not answer by excusing the disciples, but He shows that the men who were correcting them were themselves unworthy. You hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of your own eye (Matthew 7:5). It is clear that to transgress God's commandment is worse than to transgress the traditions of men; and, for that reason, those who were transgressing God's Commandments were sinning in greater matters. And so He firstly shows that they are the transgressors of the Law; and secondly, He shows which Commandment they are transgressing.

He says, therefore, Why do you transgress the commandment of God, and you do not observe it, for your tradition? 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). Their tongue, and their devices are against the Lord, to provoke the eyes of his majesty (Isaiah 3:8).

Then, when He says, For God said, etc., He relates which Commandment this is, namely, the Commandment concerning the honoring of one's parents. And firstly, He relates the Commandment; and secondly, He relates its penalty. Hence, He says: For God said (Exodus 20:12): Honour your father and mother. And it ought to be observed that honor is nothing other than reverence shown as a testimony of virtue. For he who shows reverence furnishes the things that are needed; hence, a man is not only bound to stand up out of respect, but also to supply the necessities of his parents. They that fear the Lord, keep his commandments . And it is evident that such honor is due, because Tobias loaned to Gabelus, which the Lord had commanded to be done. Exodus 20:12 immediately adds the reward: That you may be long lived upon the land. Likewise, Leviticus 20:9 adds the penalty to transgressors of this Commandment: He that curses his father, or mother, dying let him die. And so by the word “blessing” it ought not only be understood that you should bless with your mouth, but that you also pay out a blessing; He that curses his father, and mother, his lamp shall be put out in the midst of darkness (Proverbs 20:20).

But since He put forward an incentive by way of a punishment, why did He not put forward a reward of obedience? It was because men are more terrified by a punishment than by the desire for a reward; for a beast is also terrified by a punishment. For due to this, it is stated that if someone withholds the support of his father and mother, he is worthy of death, and so he who instigates others to withhold their support is also worthy of death; for which reason, the disciples are not deserving of blame. Therefore, ‘you are not worthy to accuse them.’

But you say, etc. Here He mentions how they transgress God's Commandment. And firstly, He shows this; and secondly, He cites a passage of Scripture. Regarding the first, He depicts their custom; and secondly, He shows what is the consequence of their custom. He says: You say: Whosoever shall say to father or mother, etc. This is read in many ways. It may be read in one way as a complete sentence, and then it is understood as follows: Whosoever, meaning anyone at all, shall say, shall be able to say. It may be read in another way as an incomplete sentence, and then it is understood as follows: when it is said, Whosoever shall say, etc., supply the words, ‘he keeps the commandment, and so is immune from punishment.’

What is the meaning of this verse? It is explained in three ways. Rabanus said that a spiritual good ought to be preferred to a temporal good; for that reason, they were speaking to those who had poor parents, so that they might say to them: ‘Father, may it not displease you if I do not give you what you need, because the gift that I offer benefits you spiritually.’ But this was not true, according to what is written: The most High does not approve the gifts of the wicked . And it is said: He that steals anything from his father, or from his mother, and says, This is no sin, is the partner of a murderer (Proverbs 28:24). For that reason, if someone has a father or a mother, and they cannot live without him, then he who would say to him, ‘Go beyond the sea,’ or ‘Enter religion,’ falls under this sentence.

There is another explanation. Now Jerome reads this sentence interrogatively, that is to say, “Shall it profit you? No. Rather, it shall be for your greater condemnation.” Augustine expounds this as follows. The Jews were saying that children were bound to them while they were under their father's tutelage. Hence, when the children were small, the parents offer for their children and it benefits them; but when they are reckoned to be free, then another's devotion does not benefit them. Hence, they were saying that everyone who can attain to this state can also say to his father, The gift whatsoever proceeds from me, shall profit you; and he was not bound to support his father.

But two difficulties follow from this teaching. One is contrary to one's neighbor, and the other is contrary to the Lord. One is contrary to one's neighbor because he who would speak in this manner and who is so instructed, does not honor his father. Hence: Inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents (Romans 1:30). And it continues: They who do such things, are worthy of death (Romans 1:32). It is likewise contrary to God; hence, He says: You have made void the commandment of God. It is as though He were to say: ‘You not only have done contrary to your neighbor, indeed, you even made void the commandment of God for your tradition.’

Hypocrites. Men were called hypocrites in the strict sense, who entered the theater and had one personality but pretended to have another by using masks. Therefore, these men are hypocrites, who outwardly pretend to be something different than they are inwardly. Hence, they were inwardly intending profit, and outwardly they were inducing men to offer gifts to God. Dissemblers and crafty men prove the wrath of God, neither shall they cry when they are bound (Job 36:13).

Well has Isaiah prophesied of you. This quotation is found in Isaiah 29. He firstly sets forth their duplicity; and secondly, He sets forth the futility of their religious practices, where it is said, And in vain do they worship me. He says, therefore, This people honors me with their lips: but their heart is far from me. And this was literally true, because they were honoring God with their lips, but their hearts were far from God, because they were not receiving Christ coming in God's name. Or it is thus: This people honors me, etc., for since they say that a man ought to offer gifts to God, it seems that they honor God, but their heart is far from me, because they were not striving after God's honor, but after their own gain: hence, the more greed there is, the less charity there is. This is stated in Jeremiah 12:2: You are near in their mouth, and far from their reins. But did not this pretense benefit them? It did not, because it did not please the Lord; hence, He continues, And in vain do they worship me.

But what is the meaning of these words? To fast is a doctrine of men, and the canons are traditions of men; do those who teach these things worship God in vain? It should be understood that their worship was vain in that it was prejudicial to God's Commandments. I will not level God with man (Job 32:21). We ought to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29). Why is this? It is because God cannot be deceived. Do not offer sacrifice in vain (Isaiah 1:13). From this, we maintain that a man should be more conscious of the transgression of a Commandment than of the transgression of an ecclesiastical ordinance.

And having called together the multitudes unto him, etc. Above, the Lord showed that the calumniating Pharisees were unworthy to rebuke the disciples because they were involved in greater sins; now, however, disregarding them, He instructs other men. This was to fulfill what was said above: You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent, and have revealed them to little ones (Matthew 11:25). And firstly, He instructs the multitudes; and secondly, He instructs the disciples, where it is said, Then came his disciples, etc. Regarding the first, He does two things. Firstly, He prepares them to listen; and secondly, He gives His teaching. The second is where it is said, Not that which goes into the mouth defiles a man.

It should be observed that, to listen to someone else, attention is required, by which a man is recalled to interior things, and is gathered together into himself. And He does this when He says, And having called together, because it is fitting that we be gathered to Him; Come you to him and be enlightened (Psalms 33:6). Secondly, effort is necessary in listening: for that reason, He says, Hear you; A wise man shall hear, and shall be wiser (Proverbs 1:5). Likewise, understanding is required; hence, He says, And understand; Understand, you senseless among the people: and, you fools, be wise at last (Psalms 93:8).

Afterwards, He sets forth the highest teaching, which is the perfection of a moral life. Hence, it should be noted that some things are changed from without (for example, water is warmed by fire), while other things are changed from within (for example, a man is changed by sin). For however much a man is moved exteriorly, it is not a sin unless he interiorly consents; Out of the inner parts shall a tempest come (Proverbs 37:9). Hence, He firstly shows that a man is not changed by exterior things; and secondly, He shows that a man is changed by interior things. He says, therefore, Not that which goes into the mouth defiles a man.

On the contrary, one may make an objection by quoting what is stated in the Old Law; for it is stated in Leviticus that many foods are prohibited, and hence, the men who ate them were made unclean.

Augustine responds (Contra Faustum) saying that something is said to be unclean in two ways. A thing is said to be unclean in one way on account of its nature: and, in this way, nothing is unclean, according to what is written: For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving (1 Timothy 4:4). Likewise, something can be unclean according to its signification; and, in this way, something can be a sign of uncleanness or of cleanliness. For example, if we consider a pig or a lamb in their natures, both are good; nevertheless, with respect to their signification, a pig signifies uncleanness, and a lamb signifies innocence. For that reason, with respect to their signification, one is clean and the other is unclean. And because, before the coming of Christ, there was a time in which men lived under figures, because the truth had not yet appeared, for that reason, those observances were to be retained, and they were matters of precept. But because the truth was manifested at Christ’s coming, the figures ceased; therefore, etc.

But again another question remains, because it is stated in Acts 15 that the Apostles commanded that converts abstain from things strangled and from blood. Therefore, it seems that while maintaining the truth, those observances should be kept.

The ancients said that this passage should be understood literally, because one should still abstain from these things since they are unclean. But this is nonsense, because it contradicts the words of the Apostle: All things are clean to the clean (Titus 1:15). Some men said that this passage should be understood partly literally, and partly morally: for what is said about fornication, they forbade literally; however, what is said about abstaining from blood, this should be understood to mean that innocent blood should not be shed; but what is said about a thing strangled should be so understood that no one ought to calumniate another. But this passage should not be understood in this way, even though it is a true explanation.

For the question revolves on whether converted Gentiles were held to not eat these things that the Apostle forbade. For that reason, it should be understood that these things were forbidden according to what was the custom of the Jews. Therefore, we must hold differently, that the Apostles were reflecting upon one thing and were forbidding something else, either because it was in itself illicit, or because it was an occasion of scandal. Hence, they forbade fornication as being illicit; they forbade eating blood lest they cause scandal to others, and so that a scandal might be removed. And the words of the Apostle convey the same sense: But take heed lest this your liberty become a stumblingblock to the weak (1 Corinthians 8:9).

Likewise, it is objected: It may be claimed that someone may eat meat in Lent, and will they not be defiled? It should be said that they are not defiled from the food, but from the violation of the precept; For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink (Romans 14:17).

But what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man. Here He seems to treat only of sins which come out of the mouth, and these defile; Out of your own mouth I judge you, you wicked servant (Luke 19:22). And, Out of your own mouth you will be judged (Matthew 7:2). But it should be answered that the distinctive function of the mouth is to speak. Now to speak is twofold: exteriorly with the mouth of the body, and interiorly with the mouth of the mind, concerning which it is said: The fool has said in his heart: There is no God (Psalms 13:1). Accordingly, therefore, by the mouth, the heart's mouth may be understood, that is to say, a man's mind, and, in this way, every sin is from the mouth; because there never is a sin unless it is from the mind's intent. Consequently, what comes out of the mouth, namely, the mouth of the heart, this defiles, because the sin is truly voluntary, because if it were not voluntary, it is not a sin.

Then came his disciples, etc. Here He instructs his disciples about avoiding scandal, and about the primary question, where it is said, And Peter answering. Regarding the first, the Evangelist does two things. First, the disciples' question is related; and secondly, Christ's response is related. Here it should be understood that the Pharisees and the disciples heard this statement, in view of which, they were thinking that He was overthrowing all their traditions and not, however, the Lord's precepts. For that reason, while detesting this statement they said nothing, but they were disturbed; therefore, the disciples said: Do you know that the Pharisees, when they heard this word, were scandalized?

This word, ‘scandal’, is frequently found in the Scriptures; hence, one should see what it means. ‘Scandal’ in Greek is the same thing as a stumbling block, such as a rock on a path; hence, something is called a stumbling block when it is an occasion of a spiritual downfall. But sometimes a man actively scandalizes, and other times he does so passively. A scandal is said to be active when it is some deed that is not only evil in itself, but is also a stumbling block to others; for that reason, something less than rightly said or done that occasions spiritual downfall is called a scandal. It is not said of thought because it needs to be exposed. Likewise, one does not say that a scandal is something evil, but something less right, because it is necessary that it have the appearance of evil; From all appearance of evil refrain yourselves (1 Thessalonians 5:22). Similarly, there is a passive scandal, for example, if someone were to say a good word, or were to pray, and another would be scandalized, and takes to himself an occasion of his spiritual downfall. Hence, the Lord did not scandalize, but those men took an occasion of scandal. Hence, His disciples said that the Pharisees took scandal from it, and this was foretold by Isaiah: He shall be a sanctification to you. But for a stone of stumbling, and for a rock of offence (Isaiah 9:14).

But he answering, said. Here the Lord's reply is related, and He shows that their scandal should be condemned, firstly, because they are strangers to God; and secondly, because they are harmful to men, where it is said, Let them alone: they are blind, and leaders of the blind. He says, therefore, Every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted, shall be rooted up. From these words, those who maintained that there are two kinds of nature wished to support their error, since they said that an evil nature was from an evil God, and a good nature from a good God. Hence, they say: ‘If a man originates from an evil creation, even if he seems to do good deeds, he is unable to persevere.’ But this is not so: for, as Jerome says, the contrary is stated in Jeremiah 2:21: Yet, I planted you a chosen vineyard, all true seed: how then are you turned into bitterness? And so it is clear that this vineyard's bitterness is not from God. Therefore, it was turned into bitterness by its plants, and not from its nature; but something supervening is understood, and this is the perverse will. Hence, nature always remains the same, but a perverse will is rooted up.

Hence, these plants can be understood to represent traditions of men, which are to be rooted up if they are opposed to God; but a tradition that is from God should never be rooted up.

Hence, Every plant, that is, every tradition which is not from God My Father, shall be rooted up. And this is stated in Acts 5:39, concerning Gamaliel who said: If it be of God, you cannot contradict it. This is also apparent in all things.

You will see someone who does good deeds that are founded in charity—Being rooted and founded in charity (Ephesians 3:17)—and these cannot be rooted up. But other deeds which do not have a good foundation, such as to give alms on account of vanity, are rooted up; hence: Every work that is corruptible shall fail in the end: and the worker thereof shall go with it (Ephesians 14:20). Hence, what is written should be understood in this manner: Adulterous plants shall not take deep root .

Contrary to this, is what is stated in 1 Corinthians 3:6, where Paul says: I have planted, Apollo watered. Therefore, Paul will be rooted up. I say that Paul did not plant as the principal agent, but as a minister.

He continues, Let them alone: they are blind. Here He shows that their scandal should be condemned, because they are harmful to men. And He teaches that firstly, their scandal should be condemned; secondly, their presumption should be condemned; and thirdly, their harm to men should be condemned. Regarding the first, He says: ‘You say that they are thus scandalized, but I say, Let them alone, and do not be concerned about them.’

But should one never be concerned about scandal? Did not the Lord, to avoid scandal, send Peter to the sea, so that he might pay the tribute? It should be said that scandal sometimes arises from the truth; hence, it is said: Scandal must be avoided if it can be avoided without prejudice to the truth or justice. Hence, a judge should not change his verdict if someone is scandalized by it. But, nevertheless, a distinction should be made, because some men are scandalized due to their weakness, and others are scandalized due to their certain malice. Scandal of the little ones should be avoided, while preserving the truth; and, even so, a man can delay or forego an action. But scandal does not need to be avoided if it is due to malice: and these men were scandalized in this way.

Hence, if they were not scandalized due to malice, the Lord would not have said, Let them alone, but rather, ‘Instruct them.’ A man that is a heretic, after the second admonition, avoid (Titus 3:10); We would have cured Babylon, but she is not healed (Jeremiah 51:9).

And why are they blind? The ignorant are spiritually blind; His watchmen are all blind (Isaiah 56:10). And because they were scandalized due to certain malice, not only are they blind, but they are also leaders of the blind, and teachers of the blind. If I have been ignorant, my ignorance shall be with me (Job 19:4). That they are leaders of the blind, this is something good; but because they themselves are blind, this is something bad. If the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit. Hide them in the dust (Job 40:8), namely, as far as their body is concerned.

And Peter answering. He is instructing them here concerning the main question, in which place the Evangelist does three things:

1. Peter's request is related.
2. The Lord's rebuke is related.
3. His teaching is related.

The second thing is where it is said, Are you also yet without understanding? The third thing is where it is said, Do you not understand, etc. He says, therefore: And Peter answering, said to him: Expound to us this parable. Peter was accustomed to hearing many parables from Him; for that reason, he supposed that He was speaking parabolically. Or perhaps it was because Peter was brought up in the Legal observances, as he said in chapter 10 of the Acts of the Apostles: Far be it from me.

For I never did eat anything that is common and unclean (Acts 10:14). For that reason, he supposed that He was not speaking literally, but parabolically. He shall understand a parable and the interpretation, the words of the wise, and their mysterious sayings (Proverbs 1:6). But he said: Are you also yet without understanding? For the Lord answered all the disciples in Peter, who spoke for them all. Here He rebukes them. But why? One reason, which Jerome gives, is that because His words were spoken publicly, they supposed that they were said parabolically. For just as a man who reveals secrets should be rebuked, so conversely, a man who hides things that have been revealed should be rebuked; Do not become like the horse and the mule, who have no understanding, etc. (Psalms 31:9). Another reason is Chrysostom's, namely, that he seemed to be zealous for the Jews because he was raised in the teaching of the Law; for that reason, he seemed to be saddened by this.

Afterwards, He expounds His words. And He expounds firstly what He had said, namely, That which goes into the mouth; secondly, He expounds what follows what He had said, But what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man; and thirdly, He concludes what He intended to prove. He says, therefore: Do you not understand, that whatsoever enters into the mouth, goes into the belly, and is cast out into the privy?

And why does the Lord speak in this fashion? Chrysostom says that He speaks to them as to men accustomed to the observances of the Law. Now it was the intention of the Law that when food was undigested in the mouth, it was unclean; but when it was digested, it was clean. Hence, it was always said in the Law, He shall be unclean until the evening. For that reason, let us affirm that these observances were to be kept; nevertheless, they did not make a man unclean, except for a time. Hence, a thing which passes cannot make them unclean.

Or it may be understood otherwise. Nothing can make the soul unclean which does not come in contact with it. Now food does not come in contact with the soul; and this is the proof, namely, that food goes into the belly, and is cast out into the privy.

But as Jerome says, against this some men object, saying that the Lord was ignorant of natural science, because not all the food is transmitted into the privy. Hence, certain men wishing to understand His words such that all the food is cast out, want to believe that nothing is converted into human nature, but that only what is derived from Adam is multiplied, and only this will rise again. Hence, workmen put lead with gold so that the lead may be consumed, and the gold preserved. So the foods resist, lest the natural heat consume that which is derived from the power of nature. But this seems impossible, because something cannot become larger except by rarefaction, because to be rarified is nothing else than to take on a greater quantity.

Likewise, man is like the animals in his sensitive nature, and he is like the plants in his nutritive and vegetative nature. But so it is that these things grow and are nourished from nutrition. Therefore, men also grow and are nourished in the same way. But what is it, therefore, that He says, is cast out into the privy?

Jerome says that not only unclean feces are understood; in fact, this may occur in whatever way, whether by dung, or in another way. And this is in accord with the Philosopher, who says that although a thing may remain according to its species, nevertheless, it flows away according to its matter, just as if fire would remain in species but the matter is consumed. It can also be said thus: Whatsoever enters into the mouth, goes into the belly, can mean that something of whatever enters the mouth, goes into the belly; hence, sometimes in Scripture the whole is taken for the part.

But the things which proceed out of the mouth: it was already said that by the mouth the mind is understood. Come forth from the heart, and those things defile a man: because the sins of the heart are the thoughts and affections; Take away the evil of your thoughts from my eyes (Isaiah 1:16). Likewise, He sets forth the sins which are against the precepts of the Second Tablet: murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts. Similarly, He sets forth the sins of the mouth against one's neighbor: false testimonies; blasphemies—these are the sins against the First Tablet. Hence, these are the things which defile a man, because these things proceed from the mind. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man. Here He concludes, and He makes this conclusion to answer the primary question. Likewise, it was because the disciples did not understand, and for that reason, He concludes that His statement was spoken merely against a tradition of the Pharisees.

Above, the sufficiency of His teaching was shown, because it did not require the observance of the Law. Here He shows that it is not restricted to one nation, but it also suffices for the salvation of the Gentiles. Now three effects of His teaching upon the Gentiles are shown:

1. An effect is shown in His delivering from the power of the devil;
2. An effect is shown in His delivering from the infirmities of sins;
3. An effect is shown in the spiritual refreshment.

The second effect is where it is said, And when Jesus had departed from there, He came near the Sea of Galilee; and the third is where it is said, And Jesus called together His disciples, and said.

His delivering from the power of the devils is shown in that He delivered a woman possessed by the devil. In this account:

1. The place is described;
2. The woman’s request is described;
3. The granting of her request is described.

The second part of this account is where it is said, And behold a woman of Canaan, etc. The third part is where it is said, Then Jesus answering, said to her, etc.

He says, therefore, And when He had gone out, He came into the coast of Tyre and Sidon. Tyre and Sidon are cities of the Gentiles. Because He was being rejected by the Jews, He therefore withdrew to the Gentiles, according to what is written: To you it was fitting for us first to speak the word of God: but because you reject it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold we turn to the Gentiles (Acts 13:46).

And first, the Lord shows that the conversion of the observers of the Law is preeminent; second, He shows the turning to the Gentiles. This turning was signified in Acts 10, where it is said that when Peter was near Cornelius, he saw a linen sheet, etc., and it was said to him: What God cleanses, do not you call unclean, etc.

Then the text says, And behold a woman. Here the woman’s request is related. Concerning her petition, three things are denoted, and these are necessary to obtain one’s petition:

1. Her piety.
2. Her faith (this is shown where it is said, But she came and adored Him).
3. Her humility (this is shown where it is said, But she said: Yes, Lord).

The narrative then details the interaction. First, the initial encounter is related, which includes:

• The woman’s piety.
• Christ’s silence, where it is said, Who answered her not a word.

Second, the disciples’ help is related, where it is said, And His disciples came and implored Him.

He says, therefore, And behold a Canaanite woman.

We can take note of six things:

1. The conversion of the one asking. Before prayer prepare your soul: and be not as a man that tempts God . For a man prepares his soul when he cleanses himself from his vices: When you multiply prayer, I will not hear: for your hands are full of blood . And this is designated by this name, Canaanite, which means ‘changed’: This is the change of the right hand of the Most High (Psalms 76:11). Likewise, a man who is converted ought not only to avoid sin, but also the occasion of sin: Flee from sins as from the face of a serpent .
2. Her devotion ought to be observed, because she was crying out. A cry indicates a great affection: I cried to the Lord: and He heard me (Psalms 119:1).
3. Her piety is observed, because she considered the misery of another to be her own; hence, she says, Have mercy on me. This is great compassion: I wept previously for him that was afflicted, and my soul had compassion on the poor (Job 30:25). Similarly, her humility is mentioned, because she asked out of confidence in God’s mercy: Who keeps the covenant, and mercy to them that love You, and keep Your commandments (Job 9:4).
4. Her faith is mentioned, which is necessary for a petition: But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering (James 1:6). Moreover, she confesses His divine nature, in that she says, Lord; Know you that the Lord He is God (Psalms 99:3). Likewise, she confesses His human nature in that she says, You son of David, who was of the seed of David: Who was made to Him of the seed of David, according to the flesh (Romans 1:3).
5. Again, the telling of her need is mentioned: My daughter is grievously, that is greatly, troubled by a devil. And she can be a type of the whole church of the Gentiles, or a type representing anyone’s conscience, which is troubled by the devil: And they that were troubled with unclean spirits were cured (Luke 6:18).
6. And she says, Grievously, in which she associates a sin with the sickness: I have sinned, O Lord, I have sinned, and I know my iniquity; take me not away together with my iniquities (Psalms 25:9 and Psalm 50:5-6; 2 Kings 12:13).

Afterwards, Christ’s silence is related: Who answered her not a word. But this seems surprising that the font of mercy was silent. Three reasons are assigned for this.

The first is that it was so that He would not seem to go against what He had said above, Go not into the way of the Gentiles (Matthew 10:5). For that reason, He did not wish to give her a favorable hearing right away; yet, nonetheless, because she was insistent, He granted what she asked. For that reason, it is to be understood that on account of the insistence of the petition, what was above the Law was obtained. For it was part of the Law that only the Jews might be saved; but she, by her insistence, obtained what was above the Law.

The second reason for His silence is that it was so that her devotion might grow more: How long, O Lord, shall I cry, and You will not hear? Shall I cry out to You suffering violence, and You will not save? Why have You shown me iniquity and grievance, to see plunder and injustice before me? (Habakkuk 1:2–3).

The third reason is that it was so He might give an opportunity to His disciples, so that they might themselves intercede for her, because no matter how good someone is, he still needs the prayers of others.

The intercession of the disciples immediately follows. First, their request is related; and second, Christ’s reply is related. He says, therefore, And His disciples came and implored Him.

Why did they come near Him? One reason is that they did not know why He was delaying so much. The second is that they were moved with compassion and likewise could not endure the woman’s persistence: If he shall continue knocking, I say to you, although he will not rise and give him because he is his friend; yet, because of his importunity, he will rise and give him as many as he needs (Luke 11:8).

The disciples, however, do not say, ‘Heal her,’ but Send her away; meaning, ‘Tell her that You will have nothing to do with her.’ This is a manner of speech, because when we intend one thing, we say another.

But it is objected that in Mark 7 it is said that she entered the house and asked there. Why then is it said here, For she cries after us? Augustine says that without a doubt she first was in the house, and there she said, Have mercy on me, and then Jesus left the house and she followed Him.

Then Christ’s response follows: And He answering, etc. The woman seemed to show enough piety, but this seemed to be natural, and so the Lord demanded a profession of faith. For that reason, He rebuffed her and said: I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel.

The Hebrews were the chosen people; hence, they were saying, We are the people of His pasture and the sheep of His hand (Psalms 94:7). And those sheep perished because they were led astray by various observances; hence, Seeing the multitudes, He had compassion on them: because they were distressed, and lying like sheep that have no shepherd (Matthew 9:36); and I have gone astray like a sheep that is lost (Psalms 118:176).

But what does it mean when He says, I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel? Is it not written: I have given you to be the light of the Gentiles, that you may be My salvation even to the farthest part of the earth (Isaiah 49:6)? Therefore, He was sent not only to the Jews, but also to the Gentiles.

It should be said that He was sent to all people, but He was sent first to the Jews, so that He might bring the Jews to the Gentiles: For I say that Christ Jesus was minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers (Romans 15:8).

But she came and adored Him; hence, she intrudes herself. First, this woman’s profession of faith is related; and second, His response is related.

Her profession of faith is related in that she recognized that He is God, because she adored Him. For even though she might have been driven back by the Apostles, nevertheless, she intruded herself and adored Him. In doing this she recognized that He is God: The Lord your God you shall adore, and Him only shall you serve (Deuteronomy 6:13); Let all the earth adore You, etc. (Psalms 65:4).

Then Christ, answering, said: It is not good to take the bread of the children and to cast it to the dogs. This is added to prove her humility, because she already was standing firm enough in the faith, showing the superiority of the Jews to the Gentiles. For then her humility is proved when her nation is reproached; hence, He says, It is not good, etc.

The Jews are called the children; hence, it is written: I have brought up children, and exalted them: but they have despised Me (Isaiah 1:2). They are called the children because they were instructed in the commandments of God (John 10). The bread is doctrine: With the bread of life and understanding, she shall feed him .

This bread can be said to be the Lord’s miracles or the teachings of the Law. Therefore, this bread was due to the faithful, namely, to the Jews. It is not good to take the bread of the children (that is to say, of the Jews, who were still the children) and to cast it to the dogs (namely, to the Gentiles). Hence, it is said above: Give not that which is holy to dogs (Matthew 7:6).

Hence, they had not yet completely rejected Him. But, as Jerome says, it is fitting that the Jews be called dogs, according to that passage: Many dogs have encompassed me (Psalms 21:17). And: Now we, brethren, are the children (Galatians 4:28).

But she said: Yes, Lord. Here the woman’s marvelous humility and wisdom are mentioned. He seemed to despise her nation, but it is a mark of her humility that she overlooks the insult that was spoken. Hence, she says, Yes, Lord.

Likewise, greater humility is shown, because the Lord had said dogs, but this woman said whelps; hence, she says, the whelps also eat of the crumbs. Similarly, the Lord had called the Jews children, but she calls them masters; hence, she says, That fall from the table of their masters.

And she knew how to humbly compel the Lord in this way. It is as though she were to say, ‘I do not ask, Lord, that You confer so many benefits upon us as You did confer upon the Jews, but only that You give to us some of the crumbs.’ The prayer of him that humbles himself shall pierce the clouds . And, He has had regard to the prayer of the humble (Psalms 101:18).

For that reason, the Lord granted her request: Then Jesus answering, said to her, etc. And He does three things:

1. Her praise is related.
2. The granting of her request is related.
3. The effect is related.

When she abases herself, He says, Great is your faith. Her faith is great because she believes great things. Likewise, it is great because of its steadfastness: But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering (James 1:6). Moreover, it was great on account of its fervor. Hence: If you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain: Remove from here to there, and it shall remove (Matthew 17:19).

Wherefore the granting of her request follows: Be it done to you as you will; He will do the will of them that fear Him (Psalms 144:19). The effect follows: And her daughter was cured from that hour.

Hence, just as at the beginning of time He said, Be light made. And light was made (Genesis 1:3), so He says here, Be it done to you. For that word is the eternal Word: His word is full of power .

Previously, the Gospel teaching was confirmed by the deliverance of the Gentiles from the power of the devil through Christ’s might; now He confirms it through the deliverance from spiritual sicknesses, in that He cured many men. The Evangelist does three things:

1. The place is related.
2. The bringing forth of the sick is related.
3. The deliverance is related.

The second point is where it says, And there came to him great multitudes, and so on; and the third is where it says, And he healed them. The place is first described in general: when he had passed, namely, from the region of the Gentiles, he came near the sea in Judea, which is sometimes called Gennesaret, and sometimes the Sea of Galilee.

By His returning to the Jews, it is signified that a remnant of Israel will be saved: Even so then, at this present time also, there is a remnant saved according to the election of God’s grace (Romans 11:5). Then the place is described in particular, saying: And going up into a mountain, he sat. By the mountain, the loftiness of the Word is signified: Thy justice is as the mountains of God (Psalms 35:7). Now Jesus did not stand, but sat, because unless He had descended, we would not have known Him, as it is written: Lord, bow down thy heavens and descend (Psalms 143:5). Again, by the mountain the height of heavenly glory is signified, as it is stated: Save thyself in the mountain, etc. (Genesis 19:17). This signifies that in that place there is true rest, and not here: We have not here a lasting city: but we seek one that is to come (Hebrews 13:14), meaning that we are waiting for the glory to come.

The bringing forth of the sick follows: And there came to him great multitudes, and so on. Here, three things are depicted:

1. The great size of the crowds.
2. The bringing forth of the sick.
3. The manner in which they were brought.

Regarding the first, it is said, Then came to him great multitudes; All the nations thou hast made shall come and adore before thee, O Lord (Psalms 85:9). They did not come to Him aimlessly, for they came having with them the dumb, the blind, the lame, and others. This signifies that those who are converted to the Lord ought to offer others to the Lord. This is what He says: having with them the dumb, the blind, the lame, the maimed.

The term ‘maimed’ (debiles in Latin) signifies a lack of strength. However, in Greek, a man is said to be maimed who has a crippled hand. For just as a man is said to be lame who is injured in his feet, so a man is said to be maimed who has a withered hand.

These men signify various kinds of spiritual sicknesses. The dumb signify those who are unable to praise God, about whom it is written: Dumb dogs not able to bark (Isaiah 56:10). Those are called lame who never walk firmly toward good, but quickly turn to evil: How long do you halt between two sides? If the Lord be God, follow him (1 Kings 18:21). The blind signify unbelievers, who are deprived of the light of faith: We have groped in the dark (Isaiah 59:9–10). The maimed signify those who have a weak heart: My strength is dried up like a potsherd (Psalms 21:16).

The phrase And many others shows their great faith, because they brought not only their own sick, but others also. Likewise, they show their devotion by their manner of acting. Sometimes they asked Him to lay His hand on them (as is said above in chapter 9); while at other times, they asked to touch the hem of His garment (as was said above in the same place, namely, in chapters 9 and 14). But now it sufficed to place the sick at His feet.

And by this, we are to understand mystically that we ought not to make the sinners whom we convert subservient to ourselves, as is found in 1 Corinthians 4:1: Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ and the dispensers of the mysteries of God.

He continues concerning the healing. Here:

1. The healing is related.
2. The admiration is related.
3. The effect is related.

He says, therefore, And he healed them. He sent his word, and healed them: and delivered them from their destructions (Psalms 106:20). And in another place it is said: Who forgiveth all thy iniquities: who healeth all thy diseases (Psalms 102:3). The admiration follows: So that the multitudes marvelled seeing the dumb, etc. Here the effect is related. This was foretold in Isaiah 35:5: Then shall the eyes of the blind be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped, etc.; and in Psalm 108:3 it is said: Wonderful are thy works.

But it is asked: Why does he not mention the maimed? It is because there was no opposite action to which it could correspond.

But observe that some men, after they had seen miracles, blasphemed (as is stated above in chapter 14); but these men were highly praising Him. Hence, they glorified the God of Israel.

And Jesus called together his disciples, and so on. Here it is shown that Christ’s doctrine is praiseworthy through His feeding of good men. Four aspects are related:

1. His reason for acting.
2. The food.
3. The arranging.
4. The feeding.

The second part is where it says, And the disciples say unto him, and so on; the third is where it says, And he commanded the multitude to sit down; and the fourth is where it says, And they did all eat, and had their fill.

It should be observed that this reason for acting is set forth after the previously mentioned events, because Their soul abhorred all manner of meat (Psalms 106:18). For this reason, it was fitting that before they were fed, they were healed; so it is also in spiritual matters. Augustine says: “To a sick palate bread is a punishment, but to one that is healthy it is pleasant.” And, therefore, the Lord feeds after healing.

And it should be noted that first, He called together the disciples to make them attentive, so that they might remember the miracle. Likewise, it was to give us an example that no matter how great a man is, he should concern himself with his inferiors: The greater thou art, the more humble thyself in all things .

Hence, He called together his disciples, and said: I have compassion on the multitudes, and so on. This was His reason for acting; thus, He shows that compassion is befitting the divinity. Mercy is a passion, because to be merciful is to have a compassionate heart that regards another’s unhappiness as its own. But mercy is most befitting to God: The Lord is compassionate and merciful (Psalms 102:8). And what a man regards as his own unhappiness, he ought to repel as his own. Hence, the Lord, insofar as He repels unhappiness, is said to be merciful.

Now a threefold motivation for having compassion for the multitudes is pointed out:

1. He points out their perseverance.
2. He points out their neediness.
3. He points out their imminent danger.

First, their perseverance is pointed out when He says, Because they continue with me now three days. From this, you can learn that those who persevere with Christ are refreshed with His bread, because He that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved (Matthew 24:13). By “three days” you may understand the confession of the Holy Trinity: Going into the whole world, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19). Or three actions may be understood: namely, the confession of the heart, of the mouth, and of deeds. Likewise, three ages of the world may be understood: namely, the time of the natural law, the time of the Mosaic law, and the time of the law of grace and the time of glory at the end of the world: I shall be satisfied when thy glory shall appear (Psalms 16:15). Or by the three days may be understood the three days of Christ’s death. Hence, those may be said to wait for the Lord three days who conform themselves to Christ’s death: He will revive us after two days: on the third day he will raise us up (Hosea 6:3). Hence, as a result of Christ’s death, we hope for justification: We bear the marks of the Lord Jesus in our body (Galatians 6:17).

The second motivation mentioned is their neediness; hence, He says, They have not what to eat. But why did He wait three days? He should not be unjustly blamed, because they were fed for three days with the food that they had brought with them. The mystical meaning is that He has mercy on those who know their own misery: Knowest not that thou art wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked (Revelation 3:17).

The third motivation is their danger: I will not send them away fasting, lest they faint in the way. For they faint on the way who are not refreshed with the word of God: Not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God (Deuteronomy 8:3); With the bread of life and understanding, she shall feed him .

And the disciples say unto him, and so on. Here the food is related. First, how He gave it is related; and second, how much was on hand. Thus, he says, Whence then should we have so many loaves in the desert? Here the disciples’ slowness of understanding and their forgetfulness are reproached, because, previously, the Lord had filled five thousand men with five loaves. Hence, they are reproached for their slowness of understanding and forgetfulness.

In a mystical sense, this signifies God’s grace and mercy, who reveals His mysteries to the unworthy, and through them He administers the sacraments: I cannot speak, for I am a child (Jeremiah 1:6). To whom the Lord said, “Say not: I am a child.” Also: I have more impediment and slowness of tongue, etc. (Exodus 4:10); and, I am no healer, and in my house there is no bread, nor clothing: make me not ruler of the people (Isaiah 3:7).

Then it is related how much food was on hand; hence, Jesus said to them: How many loaves have you? He did not ask as if He did not know, but so that the miracle might be shown. For this reason, He also brought to mind the few fish in the other miracle.

It is said that they had five loaves and two fish in that other miracle, in which the doctrine of the Law was signified; and those loaves were barley loaves. Here there are seven loaves, and they are not said to be barley loaves; this signifies the New Law informed by God’s sevenfold grace. Likewise, in the former miracle there were only two fish; in this miracle, however, there are many little fish. Hath not God chosen the poor in this world, rich in faith (James 2:5)? And in Psalm 8:9 it is said: The birds of the air, and the fishes of the sea, that pass through the paths of the sea, that is, the sea of this world.

And he commanded the multitude to sit down upon the ground. Here the arranging is related. First, He arranges the multitude; second, He takes up the food; third, He gives thanks, breaks, and distributes the food. He says, therefore, And he commanded. In the other feeding of the multitude it is stated that He made them recline upon the grass. By the grass, temporal things are signified; hence, All flesh is grass, and all the glory thereof as the flower of the field (Isaiah 40:6). Hence, in the Old Law the foundation was upon temporal things; in the New Law the foundation is solely upon the stability of glory: The earth standeth for ever (Ecclesiastes 1:4). Or by the grass it is signified that we ought to sit upon temporal things. Hence, ownership of temporal things is not forbidden, but the love or affection for them: Love not the world, nor the things which are in the world (1 John 2:15).

And taking the seven loaves: this signifies that any spiritual thing administered to others was first in Christ; hence: Jesus began to do and to teach (Acts 1:1). All spiritual things were in Him. Hence: God doth not give the Spirit by measure (John 3:34). And giving thanks, he brake, and gave to his disciples: hence, He gave us an example so that we would give thanks: Giving thanks in all things (1 Thessalonians 5:18). Then He gives an example that all things do not belong to everyone, as it is stated in 1 Corinthians 16. Likewise, it is written: There are diversities of graces (1 Corinthians 12:4).

Afterward, the ordered distribution of the food follows, because he says, and He gave to his disciples, and the disciples gave to the people. He first gave to His disciples, who were mediators: I was the mediator and stood between the Lord and you at that time, to shew you his words (Deuteronomy 5:5). And: Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ and the dispensers of the mysteries of God (1 Corinthians 4:1).

Thereafter, he relates the fullness of the feeding from the abundance of the remains and from the number of those eating: And they that did eat. Someone might say that many men can partake from a small amount of bread, so that each man would have a little; but it was not so. On the contrary, they had their fill; hence, they ate until they were filled: They did eat, and were all filled (Psalms 77:29). Likewise, many loaves were left over, because they took up seven baskets.

But why was it that when there were fewer loaves, more leftover loaves remained (namely, when He filled five thousand with five loaves)? It can be said that the miracles were the same, or, furthermore, that the seven baskets of this miracle were of larger capacity than the twelve baskets of the former. Chrysostom says that He performed two different miracles, and He performed them in different ways, so that the disciples would remember them better. In the first miracle, there were as many baskets left over as Apostles. Here, however, there were the same number of baskets as the initial number of loaves of bread. This signifies that spiritual men ought to be refreshed with God’s sevenfold grace: For the sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 2:14).

The number of those eating follows: And they that did eat, were four thousand men. Previously, there were five thousand, because they were open to follow their five senses, or this was on account of the five books of Moses. Here, however, there are four thousand men on account of the four cardinal virtues or on account of the four Evangelists, Beside children and women.

But why are these excepted? It is because the imperfect and the weak are excluded from true doctrine: Until we all meet unto a perfect man (Ephesians 4:13).