Augustine of Hippo

The Lord acted according to their faith. He restored their eyes. He has been healing sickness within, deafness within and deadness within. Now he is healing blindness within. The eyes of the heart are closed. Jesus is passing by so that we might shout to him.What does it mean that Jesus was passing by? He is coming to us in time. Only for a short time is Jesus passing by us. What does it mean that Jesus is passing by? He is acting in a moment that comes to pass. Note how many things he has now done which have already passed by. He was born of the Virgin Mary in time. Is he being born always? As an infant he was nursed. Is he still being nursed? No, he matured through the successive ages of life until he came to adulthood. Is he always growing physically? After infancy came boyhood, after boyhood came youth; after youth he came to full human stature in several developing stages of growth. Even the very miracles that he did have “passed by.” Now we read about them and believe. They were written about so that they might be read later. But when they were occurring they were passing by like all temporal events. Finally, not to dwell long on this, he was crucified. Is he still hanging on the cross? In a similar temporal flow, he was buried, he rose again, he ascended into heaven. Now “he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him.” Now his divinity abides forever; yes, even the immortality of his body now shall never pass away. But nevertheless all those things that were done by him in time have passed by, and having passed by they were written down in order to be read and preached to be believed. In all these things then “Jesus was passing by.”

(Quæst. Ev. i. 28.) The two blind men sitting by the wayside, denote certain of both nations already by faith coming in to that temporal dispensation, according to which Christ is the way, and seeking to be enlightened, that is, to know something concerning the eternity of the Word. This they desired to obtain from the Lord as He passed by, for the merit of that faith by which He is believed to be the Son of God, to have been born man, and to have suffered for us; for in this dispensation, Jesus, as it were, passes by, for all action is of this world. Also it behoved that they should cry out so loud as to overpower the din of the multitude that withstood them; that is, so to fortify their minds by perseverance and prayer, and mortifying continually the usage of fleshly lusts, (which as a crowd ever beset one that is endeavouring to come to the sight of eternal truth,) and by the straitest painfulness to get the better of the multitude of carnal men who hinder spiritual aspirations.

(Serm. 88, 13.) For bad or lukewarm Christians are an hindrance to good Christians, who seek to perform the commandments of God. Notwithstanding these cry and faint not; for every Christian at his first setting about to live well and to despise the world, has to endure at the first the censures of cold Christians; but if he persevere, they will soon comply, who but now withstood him.

(de Cons. Ev. ii. 66.) In this quotation from the Prophet, there is some variety in the different Gospels. Matthew quotes it as if the Prophet had expressly mentioned the she-ass; but it is not so quoted by John, nor in the Church-copies of the translation in common use. (John 12:15) This seems to me to be accounted for by the account, that Matthew wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew language. And it is clear that the translation called the LXX, has some things different from what are found in the Hebrew, by those who know that tongue, and who have rendered the same books out of the Hebrew. If the reason of this discrepancy be asked, I consider nothing more likely than that the LXX interpreted with the selfsame spirit with which the original was written, which is confirmed by that wonderful agreement among them of which we are told. By thus varying the expression, while they did not depart from the meaning of that God whose words they were, they convey to us the very same thing as we gather from this agreement, with slight variety, among the Evangelists. This shows us that it is no lie, when one relates any thing with such diversities in detail, as that he does not depart from his intention with whom he ought to agree. To know this is useful in morals in avoiding lies; and for faith itself, that we should not suppose that the truth is secured in sacred sounds, as though God imparted to us not the matter only, but the words in which the matter is conveyed. Rather the matter is in such sort conveyed in words, that we ought not to want words at all, if it were possible that the matter could be known by us without words, as God and His Angels know it. It follows, But the disciples went and did as Jesus commanded them, and brought the ass, and the colt. The other Evangelists say nothing of the ass. And if Matthew had not mentioned the colt, as they do not mention the ass, the reader ought not to have been surprised. How much less then should it move him, when one has so mentioned the ass which the others have omitted, as not to forget the colt which they have mentioned. For there is no discrepancy where both circumstances may have occurred, though one only related one, and another another; how much less then where one mentions both, though another mentions only one? It follows, And they put on them their clothes, and set him thereon.

(de Cons. Ev. ii. 68.) It must be considered that Mark relates the wonder of the disciples at the withering of the tree, and the answer of the Lord concerning faith, to have been not on the day following the cursing of the tree, but on the third day after; and that on the second day Mark relates the casting of the merchants out of the Temple, which he had omitted on the first day. On the second day then he says that He went forth out of the city in the evening, and that as they passed by in the morning, the disciples then saw that the fig tree was withered. But Matthew speaks as though all this had been done on the day following. This must be so taken as that when Matthew, having related that the fig tree was dried up, adds immediately, omitting all the events of the second day, And when the disciples saw if, they marvelled, he yet meant that it was on another day that they marvelled. For the tree must be supposed to have withered at the time it was cursed, not at the time they saw it. For they did not see it withering, but when it was withered, and by that they understood that it had withered immediately upon the Lord's words.

Now in order to convey this truth the Lord acted prophetically. By this I mean that in reference to the fig tree, it was not his will merely to exhibit a miracle but rather through this sign to convey an intimation of that which was to come. He often taught and persuaded us by such means. So even when our wills resist, he persuades us and brings us to faith.We first ask how was it the tree's fault that it had no fruit? Even if it had no fruit in its proper season, its season of mature fruit, still the tree would bear no fault. For the tree is without sense and reason, so it could not be blamed. But to this perplexity is added another, which we read in the narrative of the other Evangelist who expressly mentions this: "It was not the time for that fruit." For this was the time when the fig tree was just shooting forth its tender leaves, which come, as we know, long before the fruit. This sequence has a spiritual meaning. The time for fruit was soon coming with the day of the Lord's Passion, which was at hand. And so to make this clear, the Evangelist, to his credit, notes that "the time of figs was not yet." So then, if it was only a miracle that was being demonstrated and not something to be prophetically prefigured, it would have been much more worthy of the clemency and mercy of the Lord if he had found a withered tree and restored it to life. This would seem more in accord with his healing of the sick, cleansing lepers and raising the dead.
But to the contrary, as though against the ordinary rule of his charity, he found a green tree, not yet bearing fruit, even before its fruit-bearing season but still awaiting the hope of fruit, and what does he do? He withers it straight away! This is a prophetic anticipation of things soon to come, by which he in effect says to us: "I have no delight in the withering away of this tree. By doing so I want to convey to you that I am not acting absurdly but for a lesson you might take more seriously. It is not this literal tree that I have cursed. It is not on an insensible tree that I have inflicted punishment. Rather, I have made you fear, whoever you are who considers this matter, that you should not fail Christ when he is hungry and that you might hope to be in the coming season of fruit than to be in the preparatory season of leaves." …
Therefore, beloved, I must tell you and teach you according to my poor abilities that which the Lord has given me for your benefit. I must convey to you what you may hold as a rule in the interpretation of all Scripture. Everything that is said or done is to be understood either in its literal signification, or else it signifies something figuratively; or it may contain both of these at once, both its own literal interpretation and a figurative signification also.…
Thus Christ, wishing to convey this lesson to us, wanted us to produce fruit and in this way set forth for us a figurative fiction which is not a deceiving fiction but a fiction worthy of praise.

(de Cons. Ev. ii. 70.) Mark does not give this as their answer, but relates that the Lord after His question put to them, made this answer to Himself. But it may be easily explained, that their words are subjoined in such a way as to show that they spoke them, without putting in 'And they answered.' Or this answer is attributed to the Lord, because, what they said being true, might well be said to have been spoken by Him who is truth.

(ubi sup.) This troubles us more, how it is that Luke not only does not relate this to have been their answer, but attributes to them a contrary answer. His words are, And when they heard it they said, God forbid. (Luke 20:16.) The only way that remains for understanding this is, therefore, that of the listening multitudes some answered as Matthew relates, and some as Luke. And let it perplex no one that Matthew says that the Chief Priests and elders of the people came to the Lord, and that he connects the whole of this discourse in one down to this parable of the vineyard, without interposing any other speaker. For it may be supposed that He spoke all these things with the Chief Priests, but that Matthew for brevity's sake omitted what Luke mentions, namely, that this parable was spoken not to those only who asked Him concerning His authority, but to the populace, among whom were some who said, He shall destroy them, and give the vineyard to others. And at the same time this saying is rightly thought to have been the Lord's, either for its truth, or for the unity of His members with their head. And there were also those who said, God forbid, those namely, who perceived that He spoke this parable against them.