Thomas Aquinas Commentary Matthew 5:20-26

"For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven. Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire. If therefore thou art offering thy gift at the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way, first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. Agree with thine adversary quickly, while thou art with him in the way; lest haply the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou have paid the last farthing." — Matthew 5:20-26 (ASV)

For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees. Above, the Lord showed that it was not His intention to destroy the Law but to fulfill it; therefore, here He begins to fulfill it. In the Law there were four things: namely, moral precepts, judicial precepts, figurative precepts, and promises. The Lord fulfilled three of these by His words: the moral precepts, the promises, and the judicial precepts, meaning that He teaches us to fulfill these things. On the other hand, He fulfilled the figurative precepts by a deed, namely, by His Passion. Thus, this part is divided into three sections. In the first section, He fulfills the Law regarding the moral precepts; in the second section, regarding the promises; and in the third section, regarding the judicial precepts.

The moral precepts are of two kinds: some are prohibitive and others are permissive. First, He fulfills the precepts of the first kind, and second, He fulfills the precepts of the second kind, where it is said, And it has been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife. Concerning the first kind, He does two things. First, He forbids murder, and second, He forbids adultery, where it is said, You have heard that it was said to them of old: You shall not commit adultery, etc. Concerning the first point (forbidding murder), He does two things: first, He relates the necessity, and second, He relates His fulfillment of the precept, where it is said, You have heard that it was said to them of old: You shall not kill.

He says, therefore, For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees. Notice that justice is understood in two ways. Sometimes justice is a special virtue, one of the four cardinal virtues, and it has a specific matter, namely, exchangeable goods which serve the use of human life. At other times, however, justice is said to be a general virtue, which is a common virtue that the Philosopher calls legal justice, pertaining to the fulfillment of the law. And it is taken in this sense here.

And unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees. He says, scribes and Pharisees, because they were more excellent in legal justice, as they were even adding certain observances. Therefore, in order to indicate the excellence of the New Testament, He shows that it even transcends the justice of those men. Therefore, it is said that he that is the lesser in the kingdom of heaven, meaning in the Church, is greater than he (Matthew 11:11). Thus, the meaning is, Unless your justice abound more, meaning unless it is more perfect, than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Note that the state of the Gospel is the middle ground between the state of the Law and the state of glory. This is evident because the Apostle compares the state of the Law to a child and the state of the Gospel to maturity. So he says in Galatians 4, So we also, as long as we were children, were serving under the elements of the world, etc. (Galatians 4:3). This is after Wherefore the law was our pedagogue in Christ, etc. (Galatians 3:24), and, When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, etc. (1 Corinthians 13:11).

Therefore, there is a middle state, and this is natural, because no one can reach the end unless he starts at the beginning. For no one can arrive at old age unless he passes through childhood; so the Lord says that no one can arrive at the state of the kingdom of heaven unless he also passes through the other states.

Likewise, a greater reward is acquired by greater labor: He who soweth sparingly shall also reap sparingly: and he who soweth in blessings shall also reap blessings (2 Corinthians 9:6). Now, in the Law temporal and earthly rewards were promised: If you be willing, and will hearken to me, you shall eat the good things of the land (Isaiah 1:19). But here, heavenly things are promised. Therefore, justice should abound in us because a greater reward is expected.

But it is objected against this that the Lord says, Unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, because the justice of the Law consists in fulfilling the Decalogue; but he who fulfills the precepts of the Decalogue will have eternal life: If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments (Matthew 19:17). The objection is solved as follows. It is universally said, first, that the observers of the Decalogue could never enter eternal life except in faith and through the redemption of Christ’s blood: For if justice be by the law, then Christ died in vain (Galatians 2:21).

Therefore, it must be said that the passage, If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments, should be understood with faith presupposed. The scribes and Pharisees, however, did not have faith: Israel, by following after the law of justice, is not come unto the law of justice. Why so? Because they sought it not by faith, etc. (Romans 9:31–32). And this solution is good enough.

Another solution is that of Augustine, who says that all these fulfillments which Christ accomplished are contained in the Old Law, because anger is also forbidden there: Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart (Leviticus 19:17). Therefore, why did the Lord give His prohibition in addition to these? The answer is that He added a prohibition because He supplemented their limited understanding, that is, of the scribes and Pharisees. They believed that in the precept, You shall not kill, they were not forbidden to be angry except out of fear of an act, namely, the act of murder. Therefore, the Lord expounded this precept, and thus He does not simply say, ‘Unless your justice abound more than the Law,’ but, Unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees.

A second solution of Augustine is as follows. For Christ had said, He that shall do and teach, etc., and, He that shall break one of these least commandments, etc. Now, the Pharisees and scribes do not do and teach: For they say, and do not, etc. (Matthew 23:3). Therefore, Unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, etc., meaning that ‘you say and you should also do. Therefore, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’

But another question remains, because the Lord said, He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments… shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven, and he who does not abound in justice will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, will he who breaks the commandments be in the kingdom of heaven? Chrysostom solved this objection, saying that it is one thing to be in the kingdom of heaven and another to enter it.

For they properly enter who share in the ownership of a kingdom, but they are in a kingdom who reside anywhere within it; thus, those who are detained in prison are said to be in the kingdom. So also in the kingdom of heaven, those brought to punishment are in the kingdom of heaven, but they do not share in the kingdom.

Augustine solved this differently, saying that from these words we can understand that the kingdom of heaven is twofold: one kingdom of heaven is that into which those who do not have justice do not enter, and this is eternal life; another is that into which those breaking the commandments enter, and this is the present Church.

You have heard that it was said to them of old. Here the fulfillment of the precepts is related, and concerning this He does three things. First, He relates the precepts; second, He fulfills them; and third, He admonishes the observance of their fulfillment. The second point is where it is said, But I say to you; and the third point is where it is said, If therefore you offer your gift. Concerning the first point, He does two things. First, He relates the precepts prohibiting murder; and second, He relates the punishment for murder.

He says, therefore, You have heard that it was said to them of old: You shall not kill. This passage is found in Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17. And He says, to them of old, because, according to Chrysostom, it is as if a teacher were to say to one of his students, ‘I have taught you the basic elements long enough; it is time that you learn greater things,’ so the Lord does similarly: For whereas for the time you ought to be masters, you have need to be taught again what are the first elements of the words of God, etc. (Hebrews 5:12).

It should be observed that regarding this precept, three errors are made. Some have said that it was unlawful to kill even the smallest animals. But this is false, because it is not a sin to use those things which are subject to human power. For it is the natural order that plants exist for the nourishment of animals, certain animals for the nourishment of other animals, and all animals for human nourishment: And every thing that moveth, and liveth shall be meat for you: even as the green herbs have I delivered them all to you (Genesis 9:3). The Philosopher also, in his Politics, says that hunting is like a just war.

The second error is that of certain people who said, You shall not kill, namely a human being; thus, they call all secular judges murderers, who condemn according to certain laws. Against this error, Augustine says that God did not deprive Himself of the power of killing; thus it is said, I will kill and I will make to live: I will strike, and I will heal, and there is none that can deliver out of my hand (Deuteronomy 32:39). Therefore, it is lawful for those secular judges to kill because they kill by God’s command, for then God is doing this. For every law is a commandment of God: By me kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things (Proverbs 8:15), and, For he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God’s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil (Romans 13:4). Therefore, You shall not kill should be understood to mean that one should not kill on one’s own authority.

The third error is that some supposed You shall not kill another person, but that it is lawful to kill oneself. This is found concerning Samson and Cato and certain virgins who cast themselves into a river, according to what Augustine recounts. But Augustine replies that he who kills himself kills a human being. Because one should not kill another person, except by God’s authority, nor oneself except by God’s will or an instinct of the Holy Ghost; and in this way he excuses Samson.

And whosoever shall kill. Here the punishment for murder is related, namely, shall be in danger of the judgment, meaning the punishment which the Law will adjudicate: He that striketh a man with a will to kill him, shall be put to death (Exodus 21:12).

He continues: But I say to you, etc. Having related the precept of the Old Law, here the Lord fulfills it. This fulfillment does not nullify the Law but rather leads to a greater fulfillment, because he who gets angry is prone to commit murder, though sometimes he who gets angry does not commit murder.

This anger is in some way contained in this commandment, because this law was given by God. There is a difference between human law and God’s law: namely, that humans judge external actions, but God judges internal actions. For men seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart (1 Samuel 16:7). Therefore, in these words, You shall not kill, the impulse to kill is also included.

But there is a twofold impulse to injure one’s neighbor: namely, of anger and of hatred. Hatred is not the same thing as inveterate anger, but is its causal result, because hatred comes from inveterate anger. Therefore, there is a difference: anger does not desire evil to one’s neighbor except insofar as it wants revenge. Thus, once revenge has been taken, anger rests. In hatred, however, the injury itself is wanted, and the desire to injure one’s neighbor never rests. Therefore, the impulse of hatred is more serious than that of anger.

God, however, not only forbids the impulse of hatred but also that of anger, which is less serious: But he that hateth his brother is in darkness and walketh in darkness and knoweth not whither he goeth: because the darkness hath blinded his eyes (1 John 2:11).

Now He presents three degrees of anger. The first degree is anger hidden in the heart; the second degree is anger appearing externally; and the third degree is anger breaking forth into injury. The first is where it is said, But I say to you. Augustine says that the reading should be, ‘without cause,’ because he who gets angry without cause shall be in danger of the judgment. Jerome, however, says that ‘without cause’ is not in the text, because then room would have been left for anger; the Lord, however, left no room for anger.

But is all anger contrary to virtue? It should be known that, as Augustine says, there were two opinions of the philosophers about this. The Stoics said that the wise person is free from all passions; furthermore, they maintained that true virtue consisted in perfect tranquility of soul. The Peripatetics, on the other hand, held that the wise person is subject to anger, but in a moderate degree. This is the more accurate opinion.

It is proved both from authority, since in the Gospels we find these passions in some way attributed to Christ, in whom was the fullness of wisdom; and from reason, because if all passions were contrary to virtue, there would be some powers of the soul whose function is harmful, as they would not have appropriate acts. Then the irascible and concupiscible powers would have been given to humans in vain. Therefore, it should be said that anger is sometimes a virtue, but at other times it is not.

Now anger can be understood in three ways. First, it is taken as it exists solely in the judgment of reason without any disturbance of soul; this, however, is not called anger but judgment. For in this way the Lord, when punishing the wicked, is said to be angry: I will bear the anger of the Lord (Micah 7:9).

Second, it is taken as being a passion. This is in the sensitive appetite and is twofold. Sometimes it is directed by reason and is restrained within proper limits by reason, as when one gets angry as much as one ought, toward whom one ought, and so on; then it is an act of virtue and is called zealous anger. Thus, the Philosopher also says that meekness does not consist in never getting angry in any way. And so Chrysostom says that if anger were entirely taken away, discipline would also be taken away, etc. Therefore, this kind of anger is not a sin.

There is a third kind of anger, which overthrows the judgment of reason. This is always a sin, but sometimes it is a venial sin, and at other times it is a mortal sin; it is deemed a mortal sin when it comes from a gravely evil impulse to injure one’s neighbor.

For something is a mortal or venial sin in two ways: from its genus or from its circumstances, or in other words, by its act or from the consent to the act. For example, murder is an act of a mortal sin by reason of its genus because it is directly opposed to a divine precept, and therefore consent to murder is a mortal sin. This is because if an action is a mortal sin, then consent to that action is also a mortal sin.

Likewise, if an action were a venial sin, then consent to the action would be a venial sin, and so on. Sometimes, however, a sin is mortal by reason of its genus, but nevertheless, the impulse is not a mortal sin, because it is without consent.

For example, if an impulse of concupiscence arises for fornication and there is no consent, then it is not a mortal sin. Similarly, anger is an impulse to avenge a wrong done.

For this is anger, properly speaking. If, therefore, this impulse—for example, to commit murder—comes solely from a state of passion so that reason is also overcome, then it is a mortal sin. If, however, reason is not overcome, then it is a venial sin.

If, however, an impulse is not by reason of its genus a mortal sin, then consent to it does not, in itself, make the resulting act a mortal sin.

Therefore, what the Lord says, Whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment, is to be understood concerning an impulse tending to do injury and coming solely from a state of passion; and if there is consent to this impulse, it is a mortal sin. And all things that serve, God will bring into judgment for every error, whether it be good or evil (Ecclesiastes 12:14). And this is the meaning of But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment.

And observe that no prophet speaking of the Law of Moses spoke in this way, But I say to you, etc., but instead they were only persuading people to observe the Law of Moses. From this it is evident that the Lord shows He has authority and that He is the Legislator of the Law when He says, But I say to you, etc.

Next, the second degree of anger is related, namely, when it appears externally without any infliction of injury.

Raca, according to some, is a word not signifying any specific concept, but is an interjection of someone getting angry. According to Augustine, it is like ‘heu,’ an interjection of someone in pain, and it signifies a certain emotion; thus, the anger has already broken forth externally, nevertheless it has not broken forth into an injury. According to Chrysostom, it is an interjection of someone despising, and denotes contempt.

Now both of these things are forbidden: namely, both to show bitterness to one’s brother, as the Apostle says, Let all bitterness and anger and indignation and clamour and blasphemy be put away from you, with all malice (Ephesians 4:31), and to despise him, Why then doth every one of us despise his brother, violating the covenant of our fathers? (Malachi 2:10).

According to others, raca is a word signifying a specific concept. According to this, there are two opinions. According to Augustine, it means the same thing as ‘ragged’ (pannosus), coming from the Greek ράκος, meaning ‘a rag,’ and this agrees with the opinion of Chrysostom. According to Jerome, raca signifies ‘empty’; thus, raca signifies, as it were, ‘without a brain.’ This is a great injury; indeed, it is an injury to the Holy Ghost when one calls a wise brother full of the Holy Ghost ‘empty-headed,’ etc.

But Chrysostom asks if ‘empty’ is the same as ‘fool,’ because the Lord says afterwards, And whosoever shall say, You fool. And he said that there are words in every idiom which do not signify an insult but, from their usage and custom of speech, have become an insult. For although raca means the same thing as fool, they nevertheless do not have the same usage, because raca is said informally; and it is a sin when it is said in anger.

He shall be in danger of the council. Augustine says that it is a worse thing before God to be in danger of the council than to be in danger of the judgment. This is because before the judgment, when the accused is still being judged and it is doubted whether one is guilty, there is still an opportunity for defense: I charge thee… that thou observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing by declining to either side (1 Timothy 5:21). But after the accused has been convicted of a crime, the accused is no longer being judged; instead, the judges bring him to the Council for the punishment to be inflicted.

Hilary says that the accused shall be in danger of the council of the Saints, because he who does an injury to the Holy Ghost deserves to be condemned by the Saints.

Chrysostom says that the Apostles explained this verse as follows: He shall be in danger of the council, meaning that he would be numbered among those who came into Council against Christ.

And whosoever shall say, You fool. Here the third degree of anger is related, which is when one inflicts an injury with one’s words. And just as he who calls his brother Raca inflicts an injury to the Holy Ghost, so he who says, You fool, inflicts an injury to the Son of God, who is made unto us wisdom and justice and sanctification and redemption (1 Corinthians 1:30).

He shall be in danger of hell fire. This is the first place where mention is made of hell, Gehenna, as no one ever used this word before.

Near Jerusalem there was a certain deserted valley called the valley of Topheth or the valley of the sons of Ennom. In it, however, the children of Israel worshipped idols, and God threatened them through Jeremiah that in it their carcasses would be thrown to the ground. Thus, it is said, Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that this place shall no more be called Topheth, nor the valley of the son of Ennom, but the valley of slaughter. And I will defeat the counsel of Juda and of Jerusalem in this place: and I will destroy them with the sword in the sight of their enemies, and by the hands of them that seek their lives: and I will give their carcasses to be meat for the fowls of the air, and for the beasts of the earth (Jeremiah 19:6).

Gehenna, according to the Hebrews, is the same place as the valley of Ennom. And so, because when they were going down from Jerusalem many were thrown to the ground and killed by Nebuchadnezzar in it, He therefore calls the place of hell Gehenna.

For, just as He changed the earthly promises in the Old Law into heavenly and eternal goods, so He changed the temporal punishments which the Old Law inflicted into eternal punishments.

Now, just as the guilts are also related to each other—because it is worse to show external anger than to hold internal anger, and worse still to inflict an injury—so in the first place is judgment, in the second place is the council, and in the third place are specific punishments. And all these things—namely, judgment, the council, and Gehenna—signify the pain of hell.

And He says many things, because He shows in this diversity of punishments that those who inflict harm will be punished more.

But then a question arises: Did he who said to his brother, Raca, sin mortally? Some say that he shall be in danger of the council is said hyperbolically in order to frighten, but this is false, because Christ’s teaching is a teaching full of truth.

Therefore, it should be known that the third sin includes the second, and the second includes the first. In the first, the sin of anger is understood, which is a mortal sin. And if from that anger one breaks forth into injurious words or inflicts an injury, one sins mortally. Similarly, he who said, Raca, broke forth into injurious words, and there is anger which is a mortal sin.

But it was necessary for the Apostle to have done this, who said the words, O senseless Galatians, who hath bewitched you that you should not obey the truth? (Galatians 3:1). I reply that he was not speaking out of anger, but out of the necessity of justice, and for the same reason scourging is not a sin.

And therefore Augustine says that when He said, whosoever is angry, He added the phrase “without cause,” and in the second and third statements, Augustine also says that the phrase “without cause” was present. Yet, according to him, the meaning is also the same even if the phrase “without cause” is not included.

Next, when He says, If therefore you offer your gift, having explained the fulfillment of the precept, You shall not kill, He shows how it should be observed. First, He shows how a person should treat the one whom he has injured; second, He shows how a person should treat one who has harmed him, where it is said, Be at agreement with your adversary quickly.

Concerning the first part, He does three things. First, He presents good advice; second, He presents the obstacles to carrying out His advice; and third, He presents a remedy for these obstacles.

The second part is where it is said, And there you remember that your brother has anything against you; and the third part is where it is said, Leave there your offering before the altar.

He says, therefore, If therefore you offer your gift at the altar. It is as if He were to say, ‘Because you should not offend anyone, if therefore you offer your gift at the altar, and there you remember that your brother has anything against you, etc.’ By this gift, we honor God because we recognize that all things are given to us by God: All things are thine: and we have given thee what we received of thy hand, etc. (1 Chronicles 29:14).

Likewise, we honor the Church, because from such gifts the poor are supported by the Church: Honour the Lord with thy substance, and give him of the first of all thy fruits (Proverbs 3:9). Honour the Lord with thy substance (Proverbs 3:9), and not with your neighbor’s substance. For I am the Lord that love judgment, and hate robbery in a holocaust (Isaiah 61:8).

If therefore you offer your gift at the altar, do so not to idolaters: Beware lest thou offer thy holocausts in every place that thou shalt see, but in the place which the Lord shall choose (Deuteronomy 12:13–14).

An offense to one’s neighbor is an obstruction to offering gifts to God; thus He says, And there you remember that your brother has anything against you. Observe that sometimes you have something against your brother, and at other times your brother has something against you, namely, when you offend him or he offends you.

But you should spare him. For the Apostle says, Bearing with one another and forgiving one another, if any have a complaint against another (Colossians 3:13). And because the one who is offended is not said to ask pardon of him who offended him, but vice versa, therefore He says, And there you remember that your brother has anything against you, etc.

When, according to Chrysostom, you do more than this, it is more perfect: With them that hated peace I was peaceable: when I spoke to them they fought against me without cause (Psalms 120:7).

And He says, there you remember, because perhaps before you did not remember; therefore He gives three counsels. First, Leave there your offering. The Lord never wants a good deed to be completely abandoned on account of an evil deed, since one is offering a good thing; but He wants one to stop offering it on account of the evil deed: But a beast that may be sacrificed to the Lord, if any one shall vow, shall be holy and cannot be changed: that is to say, neither a better for a worse, nor a worse for a better, etc. (Leviticus 27:9–10).

And therefore He says, Leave there your offering, and not ‘stop your offering,’ meaning, keep the intention and remove the impediment. This is the meaning of the words, and go first to be reconciled.

But here Augustine objects that if the Lord means this literally, then something problematic follows, since one’s brother can be on the other side of the sea. It should be understood that if one does not have the opportunity to find him, one should go with one’s heart.

You should also understand that by the altar, faith is signified, without which it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6). Augustine also says that if a mortal sin is remembered before the altar, and one wishes to offer a gift, if one does not have an opportunity for confessing, one can offer with contrition and the intention of confessing.

Therefore, go first to be reconciled to your brother, at least in one’s heart, and then coming you shall offer your gift. The most High approveth not the gifts of the wicked: neither hath he respect to the oblations of the unjust, nor will he be pacified for sins by the multitude of their sacrifices .

Afterwards He says, And then coming you shall offer your gift, in which it is noted that by the exercise of charity towards one’s neighbor, we come to the charity of God: If any man say: I love God, and hateth his brother; he is a liar, etc. (1 John 4:20).

Be at agreement with your adversary quickly. Above, the Lord set forth earlier one useful teaching for putting the fulfillment into practice; now He presents another. This teaching can be connected with the preceding ones in two ways. First, it is as follows: the Lord determined above how you should behave with him whom you have injured; now He teaches how you should behave with someone who has injured you, and this is what is said here, Be at agreement, etc. Alternatively, adversary is taken in a broad sense, as either he who injured you or him whom you have injured.

Thus the Lord teaches that you should be reconciled with your brother. But someone could say, ‘I will be reconciled, but not so quickly.’ Therefore the Lord says, betimes (quickly): Let not the sun go down upon your anger (Ephesians 4:26). And it should be observed that, as Jerome says, at agreement is the translation of a certain Greek word meaning “benevolent” or “clement.”

But it is asked, who is this adversary? It should be known that there are five adversaries with whom we should be at agreement: the person who injured you, the devil, the flesh, God, and God’s word.

1. Concerning the first adversary, the person who injured you, it is written, Give heed to me, O Lord, and hear the voice of my adversaries (Jeremiah 18:19).
2. Concerning the second adversary, the devil, it is written, Let my enemy be as the ungodly, and my adversary as the wicked one (Job 27:7).
3. Concerning the third adversary, the flesh, it is written, The flesh lusteth against the spirit: and the spirit against the flesh: For these are contrary one to another (Galatians 5:17), and, I see another law in my members, fighting against the law of my mind (Romans 7:23).
4. Concerning the fourth adversary, namely God—who is opposed to those sinning, both when He punishes and also when He commands contrary precepts—it is written, Thou art changed to be cruel toward me, and in the hardness of thy hand thou art against me (Job 30:21).
5. Concerning the fifth adversary, God’s word, it is written, Deliver me, O my God, out of the hand of the sinner, and out of the hand of the transgressor of the law and of the unjust (Psalms 70:4), and, How very unpleasant is wisdom to the unlearned, and the unwise will not continue with her .

Therefore, this is the reason Augustine asks: Which of these adversaries is understood in this passage? It is not understood as the person who injured you, for two reasons.

• First, on account of what follows: lest perhaps the adversary deliver thee to the judge. For how could a person deliver you to Christ, who will judge you both at the same time?
• Second, it is not understood as the person whom you injured because if he dies, would not the hope of pardon be ended? Therefore, it cannot be understood of a human being.

Third, it cannot be understood as the devil. For God would not want this, since by the fact that a person previously consented to him, that person fell into misery. Although some other exegetes, according to Jerome, explain the adversary as referring to the devil, saying that we are at agreement with the devil when we keep the pact that we made with him at our baptism (for example, when we said the words, “I renounce Satan”), this exposition is distorted.

Fourth, it cannot be understood as the flesh. Fifth, it cannot be understood as God, since He says, Be at agreement with your adversary quickly, while you are in the way with him. For, although God is with every person, not every person is with God.

Thus, Augustine says that it is understood of God’s words and laws, which laws are opposed to us to the extent that we sin. Nevertheless, the exposition of Jerome and Chrysostom is more literal. They say, Be at agreement with your adversary, meaning make peace with the person who injured you or whom you injured, and do this betimes (quickly): Delay not to be converted to the Lord, and defer it not from day to day , in the way, meaning in this life.

Next, He assigns the reason for His advice, based on the four troubles that would follow from not following it. He states the first trouble where it is said, Lest perhaps the adversary deliver thee to the judge. If the adversary is understood as God’s words, the literal meaning is clear. Christ is here taken as the judge: The Father hath given all judgment to the Son (John 5:22), and, It is he who was appointed by God to be judge of the living and of the dead (Acts 10:42).

Thus, God’s words deliver us to Christ because they accuse us of sin which we committed against God’s laws. Thus, The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day (John 12:48).

If, however, the adversary is understood as the person who injured you, then he would deliver you causally or occasionally, because discord is the reason why you would be delivered to the judge, and from that sin you are made a criminal to the judge.

And He says perhaps, because if that person should die and you remain in this life, an opportunity for repentance will not be taken from you, because God, whom you should have loved, suffices for a reconciliation. Nevertheless, if God were the adversary, reconciliation is easier.

He states the second trouble, where it is said, And the judge deliver thee to the officer, etc. Here, the officer, according to Augustine, refers to the good angels: Bless the Lord, all ye his angels: you that are mighty in strength, and execute his word, hearkening to the voice of his orders. Bless the Lord, all ye his hosts: you ministers of his that do his will (Psalms 103:20–21). Nor is there any doubt that the angels will come with Christ to the Judgment and will be the executors of what is done there: And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty (Matthew 25:31).

Chrysostom understands the officer to mean evil angels, as if the punishment were under the devil’s power. But is the devil said to be God’s minister? I reply that someone can be said to be another person’s minister in two ways: regarding the deed, meaning that he does another’s will, or regarding the intention. In this second way, the devil is not God’s minister, because he does not serve on account of God’s justice, but on account of his hatred of humans, whom he punishes.

Thus, only in the first way is he said to be God’s minister, and something similar is stated in Jeremiah 27: I have given all the lands of the earth into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon my servant (Jeremiah 27:6).

He states the third trouble, where it is said, and thou be cast into prison. Here the prison is understood as the prison of hell, concerning which it is said, Behold, the devil will cast some of you into prison, etc. (Revelation 2:10). And hell is said to be a prison by analogy, because those who are there have their free will bound, as they are obstinate in evil. Nevertheless, if the officer is understood to mean the good angels, it should be known that they sometimes punish. According to Dionysius, they never punish the good but the wicked; for example, they struck the army of Sennacherib (2 Kings 19:35–36).

He states the fourth trouble, where it is said, Amen I say to thee, thou shalt not go out from thence till thou repay the last farthing. A farthing is a certain small Roman coin which contains two mites, and it is called a farthing because it was a fourth part of a larger coin.

Therefore, the Lord wishes to say, Thou shalt not go out from thence till you pay the punishments and satisfy for even the least venial sins. Thus, the comparison of the farthing is adopted on account of its smallness.

Or, according to Augustine, the metaphor can be adopted on account of its number. Thus, it can signify sins which are committed from love of earthly things, and earth is the fourth element.

But why did He say, Thou shalt not go out till, implying that going out happens? I reply that the word till sometimes designates a limited time, and at other times an unlimited time, as that passage reads, For he must reign, until he hath put all his enemies under his feet (1 Corinthians 15:25). Does it follow that He will cease to reign afterwards? Certainly not.

Thus, the word is used limitlessly in that passage, and so it is used here, where it is said, Thou shalt not go out till, meaning one will never go out, because one will never pay the last farthing.

For this reason, Hilary explains this passage as follows: Undoubtedly, no sin is forgiven except through charity: Charity covereth all sins (Proverbs 10:12). Therefore, he who dies with discord dies without charity and so will never be purged from his sins.

And observe in these words that people are punished eternally in hell not only for mortal sins but also for venial sins: from thence till thou repay the last farthing.

On account of this difficulty from the word till, other explanations are proposed. Thus, into prison means into the prison of the tribulations of the present life: Behold, the devil will cast some of you into prison, that you may be tried: and you shall have tribulation ten days (Revelation 2:10).

Sometimes when God punishes someone in the present life for his sins, He does not relent unless that person is completely purged. Chrysostom, since he says that the whole passage can be explained in relation to the present life, says to be reconciled as quickly as possible, not only because eternal punishment is imminent, but also because temporal harm in this life is imminent.

Therefore, he explains lest perhaps, etc., literally. And Christ says perhaps, because this does not always happen, for the Gospel promises concern eternal goods. Nevertheless, the Lord presents temporal promises and eternal punishments, and this is what is said: Amen I say to thee, etc.