Jerome

[Daniel 8:16-17] "And I heard the voice of a man in the midst of the Ulai, and he cried out and said: 'Gabriel, make this vision intelligible (Vulgate: make this man to understand the vision).' And he came and stood near to where I was standing." The Jews claim that this man who directed Gabriel to explain the vision to Daniel was Michael. Quite appropriately it was Gabriel, who has been put in charge of battles, to whom this duty was assigned, inasmuch as the vision had to do with battles and contests between kings and even between kingdoms themselves. For Gabriel is translated into our language as "the strength of, or the mighty one of, God." And so at that time also when the Lord was about to be born and to declare war against the demons and to triumph over the world, Gabriel came to Zacharias (Luke 1:11-20) and to Mary (Luke 1:26-27). And then we read in the Psalms concerning the Lord in His triumph: "Who is this king of glory? The Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle; He is the King of glory" (Psalm 24:8). But whenever it is medicine or healing that is needed, it is Raphael who is sent, for his name is rendered as "the healing of," or "the medicine of God" - that is, if one cares to accept the authority of the Book of Tobias (Tobit 12:11-15). And then, when favorable promises are made to the people, and hilasmos, which we might render as "propitiation" or "expiation," is the thing required, then it is Michael who is directed to go, for his name means, "Who is like God?" Of course the significance of the name indicates the fact that the only true remedy is to be found in God.

"And he said to me: 'Son of man, understand that in the time of the end the vision shall be fulfilled.'" Inasmuch as Ezekiel and Daniel and Zechariah behold themselves to be often in the company of angels, they were reminded of their frailty, lest they should be lifted up in pride and imagine themselves to partake of the nature or dignity of angels. Therefore they are addressed as sons of men, in order that they might realize that they are but human beings.

Holy Mary, blessed Mary, mother and virgin, virgin before giving birth, virgin after giving birth! I, for my part, marvel how a virgin is born of a virgin, and how, after the birth of a virgin, the mother is a virgin.Would you like to know how he is born of a virgin and, after his nativity, the mother is still a virgin? “The doors were closed, and Jesus entered.” There is no question about that. He who entered through the closed doors was neither a ghost nor a spirit. He was a real man with a real body. Furthermore, what does he say? “Touch me and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.” He had flesh and bones, and the doors were closed. How do flesh and bones enter through closed doors? The doors are closed, and he enters, whom we do not see entering. Whence has he entered? Everything is closed up. There is no place through which he may enter. Nevertheless he who has entered is within, and how he entered is not evident. You do not know how his entrance was accomplished, and you attribute it to the power of God. Attribute to the power of God, then, that he was born of a virgin and the virgin herself after bringing forth was a virgin still.

[Daniel 8:16-17] "And I heard the voice of a man in the midst of the Ulai, and he cried out and said: 'Gabriel, make this vision intelligible (Vulgate: make this man to understand the vision).' And he came and stood near to where I was standing." The Jews claim that this man who directed Gabriel to explain the vision to Daniel was Michael. Quite appropriately it was Gabriel, who has been put in charge of battles, to whom this duty was assigned, inasmuch as the vision had to do with battles and contests between kings and even between kingdoms themselves. For Gabriel is translated into our language as "the strength of, or the mighty one of, God." And so at that time also when the Lord was about to be born and to declare war against the demons and to triumph over the world, Gabriel came to Zacharias (Luke 1:11-20) and to Mary (Luke 1:26-27). And then we read in the Psalms concerning the Lord in His triumph: "Who is this king of glory? The Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle; He is the King of glory" (Psalm 24:8). But whenever it is medicine or healing that is needed, it is Raphael who is sent, for his name is rendered as "the healing of," or "the medicine of God" - that is, if one cares to accept the authority of the Book of Tobias (Tobit 12:11-15). And then, when favorable promises are made to the people, and hilasmos, which we might render as "propitiation" or "expiation," is the thing required, then it is Michael who is directed to go, for his name means, "Who is like God?" Of course the significance of the name indicates the fact that the only true remedy is to be found in God.

"And he said to me: 'Son of man, understand that in the time of the end the vision shall be fulfilled.'" Inasmuch as Ezekiel and Daniel and Zechariah behold themselves to be often in the company of angels, they were reminded of their frailty, lest they should be lifted up in pride and imagine themselves to partake of the nature or dignity of angels. Therefore they are addressed as sons of men, in order that they might realize that they are but human beings.

He will have it that Mary bore other sons, and he quotes the passage, "And Joseph also went up to the city of David to enroll himself with Mary, who was betrothed to him, being great with child. And it came to pass, while they were there, the days were fulfilled that she should be delivered, and she brought forth her first-born son." From this he endeavours to show that the term first-born is inapplicable except to a person who has brothers, just as he is called only begotten who is the only son of his parents.

Our position is this: Every only begotten son is a first-born son, but not every first-born is an only begotten. By first-born we understand not only one who is succeeded by others, but one who has had no predecessor. [Numbers 18:15] "Everything," says the Lord to Aaron, "that opens the womb of all flesh which they offer unto the Lord, both of man and beast, shall be yours: nevertheless the first born of man shall you surely redeem, and the firstling of unclean beasts shall you redeem." The word of God defines first-born as everything that opens the womb. Otherwise, if the title belongs to such only as have younger brothers, the priests cannot claim the firstlings until their successors have been begotten, lest, perchance, in case there were no subsequent delivery it should prove to be the first-born but not merely the only begotten. [Numbers 18:16] "And those that are to be redeemed of them from a month old shall you redeem, according to your estimation for the money of five shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary (the same is twenty gerahs). But the firstling of an ox, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat, you shall not redeem; they are holy." The word of God compels me to dedicate to God everything that opens the womb if it be the firstling of clean beasts: if of unclean beasts, I must redeem it, and give the value to the priest. I might reply and say, Why do you tie me down to the short space of a month? Why do you speak of the first-born, when I cannot tell whether there are brothers to follow? Wait until the second is born. I owe nothing to the priest, unless the birth of a second should make the one I previously had the first-born. Will not the very points of the letters cry out against me and convict me of my folly, and declare that first-born is a title of him who opens the womb, and is not to be restricted to him who has brothers? And, then, to take the case of John: we are agreed that he was an only begotten son: I want to know if he was not also a first-born son, and whether he was not absolutely amenable to the law. There can be no doubt in the matter. At all events Scripture thus speaks of the Saviour, "And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were fulfilled, they brought him up to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord, every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord) and to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtle-doves, or two young pigeons." If this law relates only to the first-born, and there can be no first-born unless there are successors, no one ought to be bound by the law of the first-born who cannot tell whether there will be successors. But inasmuch as he who has no younger brothers is bound by the law of the first-born, we gather that he is called the first-born who opens the womb and who has been preceded by none, not he whose birth is followed by that of a younger brother. Moses writes in Exodus, [Exodus 12:29] "And it came to pass at midnight, that the Lord smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt, from the first-born of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the first-born of the captive that was in the dungeon: And all the first-born of cattle." Tell me, were they who then perished by the destroyer, only your first-born, or, something more, did they include the only begotten? If only they who have brothers are called first-born, the only begotten were saved from death. And if it be the fact that the only begotten were slain, it was contrary to the sentence pronounced, for the only begotten to die as well as the first-born. You must either release the only begotten from the penalty, and in that case you become ridiculous: or, if you allow that they were slain, we gain our point, though we have not to thank you for it, that only begotten sons also are called first-born.

[Daniel 4:4] "I, Nebuchadnezzar, was at ease in my house and prospering in my palace." The narrative is clear indeed and requires but little interpretation. Because he displeased God, Nebuchadnezzar was turned into a madman and dwelt for seven years amongst the brute beasts and was fed upon the roots of herbs, Afterwards by the mercy of God he was restored to his throne, and praised and glorified the King of heaven, on the ground that all His works are truth and His ways are justice and He is able to abase those who walk in pride. But there are some who claim to understand by the figure of Nebuchadnezzar the hostile power which the Lord speaks of in the Gospel, saying: "I beheld Satan falling from heaven like lightning" (Luke 10:18). Likewise John in Revelation, in the passage where the dragon falls upon the earth drawing a third of the stars with him (Revelation 12:4). Likewise Isaiah: "How hath the morning star fallen, which used to rise early in the morning" (Isaiah 14:12). These authorities assert that it was absolutely impossible for a man who was reared in luxury to subsist on hay for seven years and to dwell among wild beasts for seven years without being at all mangled by them. Also they ask how the imperial authority could have been kept waiting for a mere madman, and how so mighty a kingdom could have gone without a king for so long a period. If, on the other hand, anyone had succeeded him on the throne, how foolish he would have to be thought to surrender an imperial authority which he had possessed for so long. Such a thing would be especially incredible since the historical records of the Chaldeans contain no such record, and since they recorded matters of far less import, it is impossible that they should have left things of major importance unmentioned. And so they pose all of these questions and offer as their own reply the proposition that since the episode does not stand up as genuine history, the figure of Nebuchadnezzar represents the devil. To this position we make not the slightest concession; otherwise everything we read in Scripture may appear to be imperfect representations and mere fables. For once men have lost their reason, who would not perceive them to lead their existence like brutish animals in the open fields and forest regions? And to pass over all other considerations, since Greek and Roman history offer episodes far more incredible, such as Scylla and the Chimaera, the Hydra and the Centaurs, and the birds and wild beasts and flowers and trees, the stars and the stones into which men are related to have been transformed, what is so remarkable about the execution of such a divine judgment as this for the manifestation of God's power and the humbling of the pride of kings? Nebuchadnezzar says, "'I was at ease in my house and prospering in my palace...'" or as Theodo-tion renders it "upon my throne." Now those who follow the interpretation we are opposing understand by the devil's home this world of ours. Concerning the world Satan himself in the Gospel says to the Savior: "All these things have been given over to me" (Luke 4:6). Likewise the Apostle says: "The world lieth in the Wicked One" (1 John 5:19).

Why does John send his disciples to the Lord to ask him: Are you the one who is coming, or should we expect another? (Matthew 11:3 and Luke 7:20) When he had previously said about the same person: Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sins of the world. (John 1:29) We have spoken more fully on this question in the Commentaries of Matthew. Therefore, it is clear that you do not have these books yourself, since you ask such questions. However, we must briefly summarize so as not to seem completely silent. John sent his disciples while he was in prison, seeking to learn from them, and about to be beheaded, to teach them to follow the one whom he acknowledged as the master of all through his questioning. For he could not be unaware of him whom he had shown to those who were unaware, and of whom he had said, "He who has a bride is the bridegroom" (John 3:29); and "I am not worthy to bear his sandals" (Matthew 3:11); and "He must increase, but I must decrease" (John 1:27). And he heard the Father thundering out: This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased (Ibid. 3:30). But what he says: Art Thou He that shall come, or look we for another? (Matth. 3: 17). This utterance too may have this meaning: I know that Thou art He Who hast come to take away the sins of the world; but because I am to descend into hell, I ask this also of Thee, whether Thou too wilt descend thither, or is it impious to believe this of the Son of God, and wilt Thou send another thither? This, however, I wish to know, that I who have proclaimed Thee among men on earth, may also in hell proclaim Thee, if Thou art perchance coming. For Thou it is Who hast come to loose the captives, and to set free them that were bound. The Lord, understanding the purport of his inquiry, answered rather through works than by word, and bade John be told that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead rise again, and (what is greater than these) the poor have the Gospel preached to them (Matth. 11; Luc. 7). The poor, however, are distinguished either by humility or by riches so that no difference in salvation exists between the poor man and the rich man, but all are called equally. And it is inferred: "Blessed is he who is not scandalized in me" (Matthew 11:6), he who strikes not John but his disciples who had first come to him, saying: "Why do we and the Pharisees fast often, but your disciples do not fast?" (Mark 18; and Luke 5:33). And to John: "Master, you bear witness concerning him near Jordan. Behold, his disciples baptize, and many come to him" (John 3:26). With these words, he indicates jealousy about the size of the signs which comes from biting envy why should the one who was baptized by John dare to baptize? and a much larger crowd gathers to him than had previously come to John. And lest the people, unknowingly, think that John is being blackened because of what was said, he delivers a speech in his praise and begins to speak to the surrounding crowds about John: What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind? But what did you go out into the wilderness to see? A man clothed in soft clothing (Matthew 11:7-8; Luke 7:24-25)? and so on. The sense of this statement is as follows: Did you come out into the wilderness to see a man, like a reed shaken by the wind, being bent in various directions? Let him doubt now about whom he had previously praised, and concerning whom he had previously said, Behold the Lamb of God, let him now ask whether he is the one himself, or whether another one will come or is coming. And because every false preaching seeks profit and strives for human glory, so that gains may be born through glory: he affirms, wearing clothing made of camel's hair, that no one can yield to flattery; and he who feeds on locusts and wild honey (Matt. 3: 4), does not seek riches or other earthly pleasures, avoids the rigid and austere life of the palace, which those who are clothed with purple and fine linen and silk and soft feathers seek. And he says that he is not only a prophet who is accustomed to predicting the future, but he is more than a prophet, because the one whom they had said would come, he has shown has come, saying: Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29) : especially since he has attained the privilege of the prophetic summit of John; that he who had said, I ought to be baptized by you (Matthew 3:14), himself has baptized him: not by the presumption of being greater, but by the obedience of the disciple and the fear of the servant. And although he affirms that among those born of women, no one greater has arisen than John (Matthew 11:11), he mentions himself, who was born of a virgin, as being greater: or he precedes all men on earth before every angel in heaven, who is least. For we progress into angels; and not angels into us, just as some snoring heavily dream. Nor is this enough in the praises of John, unless he who preached the baptism of repentance, is first reported to have said: Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand (Matthew 3:1) . From the days of his preaching, the kingdom of heaven suffers violence (Ibid. 11.12); such as that man is born. He desires to be an angel; and an earthly animal seeks a heavenly abode. For the Law and the Prophets prophesied up to John (Ibid. 13): not that John is the end of the Prophets and the Law, but he who was preached by the testimony of John. But according to the mystery which is written in Malachy (chapter 4, verse 5), John is Elijah who is coming (Matthew 11:14): not that the same soul (as the heretics suspect) was in Elijah and in John, but that he had the same grace of the Holy Spirit, girded with a belt like Elijah, living in the desert like Elijah, suffering persecution from Herodias as he endured from Jezebel: just as Elijah was the precursor of the second coming, so John welcomed the Lord Savior who was coming in the flesh, not only in the wilderness but even in his mother's womb, and announced it with the joy of his body.

What is the meaning of what is written in the Gospel according to Luke: "And they did not receive him: because his face was going to Jerusalem" (Luke 9:53). Hastening, the Lord went to Jerusalem to fulfill the days of his assumption and to celebrate the Passover, about which he had said: "With desire I have desired to eat this Pasch with you, before I suffer" (Ibid. 22:15), and drink the cup, of which he said: "The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?" (John 18:11). He confirmed all his doctrine on the gallows, according to what is written: "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to myself." (Ibid. 12:32). He set his face steadfastly to go to Jerusalem. For it is necessary to have steadfastness and strength for one who is hurrying spontaneously toward passion. Hence to Ezekiel, to whom God had said: Son of man, thou dwellest in the midst of scorpions, and art not afraid of them: I have made thy face strong against their face (Ezekiel 2:6 and 3:9); so that if perchance the hammer of the whole earth had risen up against him, he would be like a most enduring anvil and crush the hammer, of which it is written: "How is the hammer of the whole earth broken and shattered!" (Jeremiah 50:23) And he sent messengers, that is, Angels, before his sight (Luke 9:52). For it was fitting that the Angels should minister to the Son of God. Whether he calls the Apostles Angels, because even John, the precursor of the Lord, was called an Angel (Malachi 3:1; Matthew 11:10). And when they entered a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him, they did not receive him, because his face was going toward Jerusalem. The Samaritans and Jews are at odds with each other in enmity, and while all nations hate them, they are raging against each other with their own fury, while both contend for possession of the Law, and they persecute one another so much that after the Jews returned from Babylon, the Samaritans always obstructed the building of the Temple. And when even they wanted to build the Temple with them, the Jews replied: It is not lawful for us and you to build the Lord's house (1 Esdr. 4). Finally, for a great injury, the Pharisees reproached the Lord: Do you not have a demon, and are you not a Samaritan? (John 8.48). And in the parable of Jerusalem descending to Jericho, the Samaritan is placed as a sign and a miracle that he did good (Luke 10): and it is written to the Samaritan woman at the well: For Samaritans do not count themselves among the Jews (John 4.9). Therefore, the Samaritans seeing the Lord go towards Jerusalem, that is, to his enemies, as they had heard from his disciples who had come to prepare lodging, recognized him to be a Jew: and, as a Jew and a stranger, and one going to his enemies, they did not want to receive him. Although, with other understanding being submitted to us, it was the will of the Lord not to be received by the Samaritans, because he hastened to go to Jerusalem, where he was to suffer and shed his blood, so that, occupied with Samaritan hospitality and the teaching of that nation, he might not delay the day of suffering to which he had come. Hence he says in another place: "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 15:24). And he commanded the Apostles: "Do not enter the city of Samaria" (Ibid. 10:5), wishing to remove all occasion of Jewish persecution, so that they might not afterwards say, "We have crucified him," because he had joined himself to our enemies and adversaries. Therefore his face was set towards Jerusalem. And accordingly, by another interpretation, the Samaritans did not receive him: for he was hastening to enter Jerusalem. But that they did not receive him, was of the Lord's will. Finally, the Apostles, versed in the Law, in which they knew only justice- an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth- seek to avenge the injury, and to imitate Elijah, at whose word two captains of fifty soldiers were consumed by fire: and they say to the Lord: Wilt thou, we say, that fire should come down from heaven, and consume them? (Luke 9:51). Beautifully, they say, Wilt thou, we say: for even Elijah had said: If I be a man of God, let fire come down from heaven upon thee (2 Kings 1:10). Therefore, for the effectiveness of the speech of the Apostles, it is the will of the Lord. For if He had not commanded it, the Apostles would speak in vain, asking that fire descend upon them, and in other ways. If fire descended from heaven to the injury of Elijah's servants, and consumed the Jews and not the Samaritans, how much more should the flame rage against the impious Samaritans, to the contempt of the Son of God? The Lord, who had come not to judge but to save, not in power but in humility, not in the glory of the Father but in the lowliness of man, rebukes them because they have not remembered His doctrine and the goodness of the Gospel, in which He said: 'If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also' (Matt. 5:39) and 'Love your enemies' (Luke 6:35).

[Daniel 4:4] "I, Nebuchadnezzar, was at ease in my house and prospering in my palace." The narrative is clear indeed and requires but little interpretation. Because he displeased God, Nebuchadnezzar was turned into a madman and dwelt for seven years amongst the brute beasts and was fed upon the roots of herbs, Afterwards by the mercy of God he was restored to his throne, and praised and glorified the King of heaven, on the ground that all His works are truth and His ways are justice and He is able to abase those who walk in pride. But there are some who claim to understand by the figure of Nebuchadnezzar the hostile power which the Lord speaks of in the Gospel, saying: "I beheld Satan falling from heaven like lightning" (Luke 10:18). Likewise John in Revelation, in the passage where the dragon falls upon the earth drawing a third of the stars with him (Revelation 12:4). Likewise Isaiah: "How hath the morning star fallen, which used to rise early in the morning" (Isaiah 14:12). These authorities assert that it was absolutely impossible for a man who was reared in luxury to subsist on hay for seven years and to dwell among wild beasts for seven years without being at all mangled by them. Also they ask how the imperial authority could have been kept waiting for a mere madman, and how so mighty a kingdom could have gone without a king for so long a period. If, on the other hand, anyone had succeeded him on the throne, how foolish he would have to be thought to surrender an imperial authority which he had possessed for so long. Such a thing would be especially incredible since the historical records of the Chaldeans contain no such record, and since they recorded matters of far less import, it is impossible that they should have left things of major importance unmentioned. And so they pose all of these questions and offer as their own reply the proposition that since the episode does not stand up as genuine history, the figure of Nebuchadnezzar represents the devil. To this position we make not the slightest concession; otherwise everything we read in Scripture may appear to be imperfect representations and mere fables. For once men have lost their reason, who would not perceive them to lead their existence like brutish animals in the open fields and forest regions? And to pass over all other considerations, since Greek and Roman history offer episodes far more incredible, such as Scylla and the Chimaera, the Hydra and the Centaurs, and the birds and wild beasts and flowers and trees, the stars and the stones into which men are related to have been transformed, what is so remarkable about the execution of such a divine judgment as this for the manifestation of God's power and the humbling of the pride of kings? Nebuchadnezzar says, "'I was at ease in my house and prospering in my palace...'" or as Theodo-tion renders it "upon my throne." Now those who follow the interpretation we are opposing understand by the devil's home this world of ours. Concerning the world Satan himself in the Gospel says to the Savior: "All these things have been given over to me" (Luke 4:6). Likewise the Apostle says: "The world lieth in the Wicked One" (1 John 5:19).