Augustine of Hippo — Commentary on Scripture

Mark 9:7

Moses was there, and Elijah. The voice did not say: These are my beloved sons. For One only is the Son; others are adopted. It is he that is commended to them: He from whom the law and prophets derive their glory.

SERMONS ON NEW TESTAMENT LESSONS 28

Mark 9:24

Where faith fails, prayer perishes. For who prays for that in which he does not believe?… So then in order that we may pray, let us believe, and let us pray that this same faith by which we pray may not falter.

SERMONS ON NEW TESTAMENT LESSONS 65.1

Mark 9:24

In saying, “When the Son of Man shall come, shall he find faith upon the earth?” our Lord spoke of that faith which is fully matured, which is so seldom found on earth. The church’s faith is full, for who would come here if there were no fullness of faith? And whose faith when fully matured would not move mountains? Look at the apostles themselves, who would not have left all they had, trodden under foot this world’s hope, and followed the Lord, if they had not had proportionally great faith. And yet if they had already experienced a completely matured faith, they would have not said to the Lord, “Increase our faith.” Rather we find here an emerging faith, which is not yet full faith, in that father who when he had presented to the Lord his son to be cured of an evil spirit and was asked whether he believed, answered, “Lord, I believe, help me in my unbelief.” “Lord,” says he, “I believe.” “I believe”: therefore there was faith; but “help me in my unbelief”: therefore there was not full faith.

SERMONS ON NEW TESTAMENT LESSONS 65

Mark 9:34

Observe a tree, how it first tends downwards, that it may then shoot forth upwards. It fastens its root low in the ground, that it may send forth its top towards heaven. Is it not from humility that it endeavors to rise? But without humility it will not attain to higher things. You are wanting to grow up into the air without a root. Such is not growth, but a collapse.

THE GOSPEL OF JOHN, SERMON 38

Mark 9:38

His situation was in some ways parallel to that of one who, while not yet embracing the sacraments of Christ, nevertheless esteems the Christian name so far as even to welcome Christians and accommodate oneself to their service for this very reason and no other—that they are Christians. This is the type of person of whom it was said that he would not lose his reward. This does not mean, however, that such individuals ought prematurely to imagine themselves quite safe and secure simply on account of this kindness which they cherish toward Christians, while at the same time remaining uncleansed by Christ’s baptism, and not thereby incorporated into the unity of his body. Such persons are now already being guided by the mercy of God in such a way that they may also come to receive these loftier gifts, and so depart this present world in safety. Such persons assuredly are more profitable servants even before they become a part of the body of Christ, than those who, while already bearing the Christian name and partaking in the sacraments, recommend courses of action which are only fitted…

His situation was in some ways parallel to that of one who, while not yet embracing the sacraments of Christ, nevertheless esteems the Christian name so far as even to welcome Christians and accommodate oneself to their service for this very reason and no other—that they are Christians. This is the type of person of whom it was said that he would not lose his reward. This does not mean, however, that such individuals ought prematurely to imagine themselves quite safe and secure simply on account of this kindness which they cherish toward Christians, while at the same time remaining uncleansed by Christ’s baptism, and not thereby incorporated into the unity of his body. Such persons are now already being guided by the mercy of God in such a way that they may also come to receive these loftier gifts, and so depart this present world in safety. Such persons assuredly are more profitable servants even before they become a part of the body of Christ, than those who, while already bearing the Christian name and partaking in the sacraments, recommend courses of action which are only fitted to drag others along with them into eternal punishment.

HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS 4.6

Mark 9:38

There may be something catholic outside the Church catholic. The name of Christ could exist outside the congregation of Christ, as in the case of the man casting out devils in Christ’s name. There may by contrast exist pretenses within the church catholic, as is unquestionably the case of those “who renounce the world in words and not in deeds,” and yet the pretense is not catholic. So as there may be found in the church catholic something which is not catholic, so there may be found something which is catholic outside the church catholic.

ON BAPTISM, AGAINST THE DONATISTS 7.39 (76)

Mark 9:39

Some who are intent on severe disciplinary principles which admonish us to rebuke the restless, not to give what is holy to dogs, to consider a despiser of the church as a heathen, to cut off from the unified structure of the body the member which causes scandal, so disturb the peace of the church that they try to separate the wheat from the chaff before the proper time. Blinded by this error, they are themselves separated instead from the unity of Christ.

FAITH AND WORKS 4.6

Mark 9:39

We ought not be disturbed because some who do not belong or do not yet belong to this temple, that is, among whom God does not or does not yet dwell, perform some works of power, as happened to the one who cast out devils in the name of Christ. Although he was not a follower of Christ, Christ ordered that he be allowed to continue because it gave a valuable testimony of his name to many.… The centurion Cornelius also saw the angel that was sent to him to say that his prayers had been heard and his alms accepted, even before he was incorporated into this temple by regeneration.

LETTER 187, TO DARDANUS 36

Mark 9:40

We must take care that this saying of the Lord appear not to be contrary to that, where He says, He who is not with me is against me. (Luke 11:23) Or will any one say that the difference lies in that here He says to His disciples, For he that is not against you is on your part, but in the other He speaks of Himself, He who is not with me is against me? As if indeed it were possiblel that he who is joined to Christ's disciples, who are as His members, should not be with Him. How if it were so, could it be true that he that receiveth you receiveth me? (Matt. 10:40) Or how is he not against Him, who is against His disciples? Where then will be that saying, He who despiseth you, despiseth me? But surely what is implied is, that a man is not with Him in as far as he is against Him, and is not against Him in as far as he is with Him. For instance, he who worked miracles in the name of Christ, and yet did not join himself to the body of His disciples, in as far as he worked the miracles in His name, was with them, and was not against them: again, in that he did not join their society, he wa…

We must take care that this saying of the Lord appear not to be contrary to that, where He says, He who is not with me is against me. (Luke 11:23) Or will any one say that the difference lies in that here He says to His disciples, For he that is not against you is on your part, but in the other He speaks of Himself, He who is not with me is against me? As if indeed it were possiblel that he who is joined to Christ's disciples, who are as His members, should not be with Him. How if it were so, could it be true that he that receiveth you receiveth me? (Matt. 10:40) Or how is he not against Him, who is against His disciples? Where then will be that saying, He who despiseth you, despiseth me? But surely what is implied is, that a man is not with Him in as far as he is against Him, and is not against Him in as far as he is with Him. For instance, he who worked miracles in the name of Christ, and yet did not join himself to the body of His disciples, in as far as he worked the miracles in His name, was with them, and was not against them: again, in that he did not join their society, he was not with them, and was against them. But because they forbade his doing that in which he was with them, the Lord said unto them, Forbid him not; for they ought to have forbidden his being without their society, and thus to have persuaded him of the unity of the Church, but they should not have forbidden that in which he was with them, that is, his commendation of the name of their Lord and Master by the expulsion of devils. Thus the Church Catholic does not disapprove in heretics the sacraments, which are common, but she blames their division, or some opinion of theirs adverse to peace and to truth; for in this they are against us.

(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mark 9:40

This is the principle on which the whole church acts, not condemning common sacraments among heretics; for in these they are with us, and they are not against us. But she condemns and forbids division and separation, or any sentiment adverse to peace and truth. For in this respect they are against us, precisely because they are not with us, in the sense that and due to the fact that in not gathering with us, they are consequently scattering.

HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS 4

Mark 9:40

Both declarations are true: that “he who is not with me is against me, and he that gathers not with me scatters abroad”; and also the injunction, “Forbid him not; for he that is not against you is for you.”13 This means that one fittingly shares in the worshiping community insofar as one stands with the whole church, and not against it. Yet those same individuals must be reproached for separating themselves from the church, wherever their gathering inadvertently becomes a scattering. If then one seeks reconciliation with the church, one does not need to receive what one already possesses, but merely needs to be set aright on those points at which one had gone astray.

ON BAPTISM, AGAINST THE DONATISTS 1.7 (9)

Mark 9:41

By which He shows, that he of whom John had spoken was not so far separated from the fellowship of the disciples, as to reject it, as a heretic, but as men are wont to hang back from receiving the Sacraments of Christ, and yet favour the Christian name, so as even to succour Christians, and do them service only because they are Christians. Of these He says they shall not lose their reward; not that they ought already to think themselves secure on account of this good will which they have towards Christians, without being washed with His baptism, and incorporated in His unity, but that they are already so guided by the mercy of God, as also to attain to these, and thus to go away from this life in security.

(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mark 9:42

He did not shrink from using the same words three times over in one passage. And who is not terrified by this repetition and by the threat of that punishment uttered so vehemently by the lips of the Lord himself?

City of God 21.9

Mark 9:43-48

Here truly it appears that they who do acts of devotedness in the name of Christ, even before they have joined themselves to the company of Christians, and have been washed in the Christian Sacraments, are more useful than those who though already bearing the name of Christians, by their doctrine drag their followers with themselves into everlasting punishment; whom also under the name of members of the body, He orders, as an offending eye or hand, to be torn from the body, that is, from the fellowship itself of unity, that we may rather come to everlasting life without them, than with them go into hell. But the separation of those who separate themselves from them consists in the very circumstance of their not yielding to them, when they would persuade them to evil, that is, offend them. If indeed their wickedness becomes known to all the good men, with whom they are connected, they are altogether cut off from all fellowship, and even from partaking in the heavenly Sacraments. If however they are thus known only to the smaller number, whilst their wickedness is unknown to the genera…

Here truly it appears that they who do acts of devotedness in the name of Christ, even before they have joined themselves to the company of Christians, and have been washed in the Christian Sacraments, are more useful than those who though already bearing the name of Christians, by their doctrine drag their followers with themselves into everlasting punishment; whom also under the name of members of the body, He orders, as an offending eye or hand, to be torn from the body, that is, from the fellowship itself of unity, that we may rather come to everlasting life without them, than with them go into hell. But the separation of those who separate themselves from them consists in the very circumstance of their not yielding to them, when they would persuade them to evil, that is, offend them. If indeed their wickedness becomes known to all the good men, with whom they are connected, they are altogether cut off from all fellowship, and even from partaking in the heavenly Sacraments. If however they are thus known only to the smaller number, whilst their wickedness is unknown to the generality, they are to he tolerated in such a way that we should not consent to join in their iniquity, and that the communion of the good should not be deserted on their account.

(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mark 9:43-48

But those who hold that both of these, namely, the fire and the worm, belong to the pains of the soul, and not of the body, say also that those who are separated from the kingdom of God are tortured, as with fire, by the pangs of a soul, repenting too late, and hopelessly; and they not unfitly contend that fire may be put for that burning grief, as says the Apostle, Who is offended, and I burn not? (2 Cor. 11:29) They also think that by the worm must be understood the same grief, as is said: As a moth destroys a garment, and a worm wood, so grief tortures the heart of man. (Prov. 25:20. vulg.) All those who hesitate not to affirm that there will be pain both of body and soul in that punishment, affirm that the body is burnt by the fire. But although this is more credible, because it is absurd that there either the pains of body or of soul should be wanting, still I think that it is easier to say that both belong to the body than that neither; and therefore it seems to me that Holy Scripture in this place is silent about the pains of the soul, because it follows that the soul also is…

But those who hold that both of these, namely, the fire and the worm, belong to the pains of the soul, and not of the body, say also that those who are separated from the kingdom of God are tortured, as with fire, by the pangs of a soul, repenting too late, and hopelessly; and they not unfitly contend that fire may be put for that burning grief, as says the Apostle, Who is offended, and I burn not? (2 Cor. 11:29) They also think that by the worm must be understood the same grief, as is said: As a moth destroys a garment, and a worm wood, so grief tortures the heart of man. (Prov. 25:20. vulg.) All those who hesitate not to affirm that there will be pain both of body and soul in that punishment, affirm that the body is burnt by the fire. But although this is more credible, because it is absurd that there either the pains of body or of soul should be wanting, still I think that it is easier to say that both belong to the body than that neither; and therefore it seems to me that Holy Scripture in this place is silent about the pains of the soul, because it follows that the soul also is tortured in the pains of the body. Let each man therefore choose which he will, either to refer the fire to the body, the worm to the soul, the one properly, the other in a figure, or else both properly to the body; for living things may exist even in fire, in burnings without being wasted, in pain without death, by the wondrous power of the Almighty Creator. It goes on: And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feel to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched; where their worm, dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mark 9:43-48

Mark relates that the Lord said these things consecutively, and has put down some things omitted by every other Evangelist, some which Matthew has also related, others which both Matthew and Luke relate, but on other occasions, and in a different series of events. Wherefore it seems to me that our Lord repeated in this place discourses which He had used in other places, because they were pertinent enough to this saying of His, by which He prevented their forbidding miracles to be wrought in His name, even by him who followed Him not together with His disciples.

(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mark 10:3-4

(de Con. Evan. 2. 62) It makes nothing, however, to the truth of the fact, whether, as Matthew says, they themselves addressed to the Lord the question concerning the bill of divorcement, allowed to them by Moses, on our Lord's forbidding the separation, and confirming His sentence from the law, or whether it was in answer to a question of His, that they said this concerning the command of Moses, as Mark here says. For His wish was to give them no reason why Moses permitted it, before they themselves had mentioned the fact; since then the wish of the parties speaking, which is what the words ought to express, is in either way shown, there is no discrepancy, though there be a difference in the way of relating it. It may also be meant that, as Mark expresses it, the question put to them by the Lord, What did Moses command? was in answer to those who had previously asked His opinion concerning the putting away of a wife; and when they had replied that Moses permitted them to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away, (Matt. 19:4) His answer was concerning that same law, given by…

(de Con. Evan. 2. 62) It makes nothing, however, to the truth of the fact, whether, as Matthew says, they themselves addressed to the Lord the question concerning the bill of divorcement, allowed to them by Moses, on our Lord's forbidding the separation, and confirming His sentence from the law, or whether it was in answer to a question of His, that they said this concerning the command of Moses, as Mark here says. For His wish was to give them no reason why Moses permitted it, before they themselves had mentioned the fact; since then the wish of the parties speaking, which is what the words ought to express, is in either way shown, there is no discrepancy, though there be a difference in the way of relating it. It may also be meant that, as Mark expresses it, the question put to them by the Lord, What did Moses command? was in answer to those who had previously asked His opinion concerning the putting away of a wife; and when they had replied that Moses permitted them to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away, (Matt. 19:4) His answer was concerning that same law, given by Moses, how God instituted the marriage of a male, and a female, saying those things which Matthew relates; on hearing which they again rejoined what they had replied to Him when He first asked them, namely, Why then did Moses command?

(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mark 10:5

(cont. Faust. xix. 26) Moses, however, was against a man's dismissing his wife, for he interposed this delay, that a person whose mind was bent on separation, might be deterred by the writing of the bill, and desist; particularly, since, as is related, among the Hebrews, no one was allowed to write Hebrew characters but the scribes. The law therefore wished to send him, whom it ordered to give a bill of divorcement, before he dismissed his wife, to them, who ought to be wise interpreters of the law, and just opponents of quarrel. For a bill could only be written for him by men, who by their good advice might overrule him, since his circumstances and necessity had put him into their hands, and so by treating between him and his wife they might persuade them to love and concord. But if a hatred so great had arisen that it could not be extinguished and corrected, then indeed a bill was to be written, that he might not lightly put away her who was the object of his hate, in such a way as to prevent his being recalled to the love, which he owed her by marriage, through the persuasion of t…

(cont. Faust. xix. 26) Moses, however, was against a man's dismissing his wife, for he interposed this delay, that a person whose mind was bent on separation, might be deterred by the writing of the bill, and desist; particularly, since, as is related, among the Hebrews, no one was allowed to write Hebrew characters but the scribes. The law therefore wished to send him, whom it ordered to give a bill of divorcement, before he dismissed his wife, to them, who ought to be wise interpreters of the law, and just opponents of quarrel. For a bill could only be written for him by men, who by their good advice might overrule him, since his circumstances and necessity had put him into their hands, and so by treating between him and his wife they might persuade them to love and concord. But if a hatred so great had arisen that it could not be extinguished and corrected, then indeed a bill was to be written, that he might not lightly put away her who was the object of his hate, in such a way as to prevent his being recalled to the love, which he owed her by marriage, through the persuasion of the wise. For this reason it is added, For the hardness of your heart, he wrote this precept; for great was the hardness of heart which could not be melted or bent to the taking back and recalling the love of marriage, even by the interposition of a bill in a way which gave room for the just and wise to dissuade them.

(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mark 10:6

(cont. Faust. xix. 29) Behold the Jews are convinced out of the books of Moses, that a wife is not to be put away, while they fancied that in putting her away, they were doing the will of Moses. In like manner from this place, from the witness of Christ Himself, we know this, that God made and joined male and female, for denying which the Manichees are condemned, resisting now not the books of Moses, but the Gospel of Christ.

(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mark 10:11

God created marriage. As the union is from God, so divorce is from the devil. But one is allowed to divorce a wife in case of fornication for the precise reason that one never originally wished to have a wife who has not preserved conjugal fidelity to her husband.

TRACTATE ON JOHN 9.2.2