TRV
Jerome
Nicene & Post-Nicene · AD 325–500 · 5,299 passages across 63 books
Commentary
Matthew 11:25-26
At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
Let those hear who falsely argue, that the Saviour was not born but created, how He calls His Father Lord of heaven and earth. For if He be a creature, and the creature can call its Maker Father, it was surely foolish here to address Him as Lord of heaven and earth, and not of Him (Christ) likewise. He gives thanks that His coming has opened to the Apostles sacraments, which the Scribes and Pharisees knew not, who seemed to themselves wise, and understanding in their own eyes; That thou hast hid these things from the wise and understanding, and hast revealed them unto babes.
In these words moreover He speaks to the Father with the desire of one petitioning, that His mercy begun in the Apostles might be completed in them.
In these words moreover He speaks to the Father with the desire of one petitioning, that His mercy begun in the Apostles might be completed in them.
Matthew 11:26
Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.
(Verse 26.) Yes, Father, because it was pleasing to You in this way. Speaking with affection to the Father, that the work begun in the apostles may be completed.
Matthew 11:27
· 3 passages
All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
(Verse 27.) Everything has been handed over to me by my Father. And understand mystically the One who hands over the Father and the One who receives the Son. Otherwise, if we want to feel according to our weakness, when the one receiving starts to have, the one giving will start to not have. However, everything that has been handed over to Him does not mean the heavens and the earth, and the elements, and the rest that He Himself made and created: but those who, through the Son, have access to the Father, and who previously were rebellious, began to feel God afterwards.
And no one knows the Son except the Father, nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal. Let Eunomius be ashamed of claiming to have such knowledge of the Father and the Son as they have of each other. But if he persists in this and consoles himself in his madness because it follows, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal. It is one thing to know by the equality of nature what you know, and another by the dignity of the revealer.
And no one knows the Son except the Father, nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal. Let Eunomius be ashamed of claiming to have such knowledge of the Father and the Son as they have of each other. But if he persists in this and consoles himself in his madness because it follows, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal. It is one thing to know by the equality of nature what you know, and another by the dignity of the revealer.
For if we conceive of this thing according to our weakness, when he who receives begins to have, he who gives begins to be without. Or when He says, All things are committed to him, He may mean, not the heaven and earth and the elements, and the rest of the things which He created and made, but those who through the Son have access to the Father.
Let the heretic Eunomius therefore blush hereat who claims to himself such a knowledge of the Father and the Son, as they have one of anothera. But if he argues from what follows, and props up his madness by that, And he to whom the Son will reveal him, it is one thing to know what you know by equality with God, another to know it by His vouchsafing to reveal it.
Let the heretic Eunomius therefore blush hereat who claims to himself such a knowledge of the Father and the Son, as they have one of anothera. But if he argues from what follows, and props up his madness by that, And he to whom the Son will reveal him, it is one thing to know what you know by equality with God, another to know it by His vouchsafing to reveal it.
The Father entrusts. The Son receives. What is entrusted? All things have been entrusted to the Son, but this does not mean cosmically heaven and earth and the elements and the rest of nature which God himself made and established. Rather, it refers personally to the people who have access to the Father through the Son and who were formerly rebellious but afterward began to know God.
Matthew 11:28-29
· 2 passages
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
(Verse 28, 29.) Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will refresh you. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart, and you will find rest for your souls. The weight of sin is heavy, and the prophet Zacharias testifies, saying, iniquity sits upon a talent of lead (Zacch. 5). And the Psalmist laments: My iniquities have overwhelmed me (Psalm 38:4). Certainly, it invites those who were oppressed under the heavy yoke of the Law to the grace of the Gospel.
That the burden of sin is heavy the Prophet Zachariah bears witness, saying, that wickedness sitteth upon a talent of lead. (Zech. 5:7.) And the Psalmist fills it up, Thy iniquities are grown heavy upon me. (Ps. 38:4)
And how is the Gospel lighter than the Law, seeing in the Law murder and adultery, but under the Gospel anger and concupiscence also, are punished? Because by the Law many things are commanded which the Apostle fully teaches us cannot be fulfilled; by the Law works are required, by the Gospel the will is sought for, which even if it goes not into act, yet does not lose its reward. The Gospel commands what we can do, as that we lust not; this is in our own power; the Law punishes not the will but the act, as adultery. Suppose a virgin to have been violated in time of persecution; as here was not the will she is held as a virgin under the Gospel; under the Law she is cast out as defiled.
And how is the Gospel lighter than the Law, seeing in the Law murder and adultery, but under the Gospel anger and concupiscence also, are punished? Because by the Law many things are commanded which the Apostle fully teaches us cannot be fulfilled; by the Law works are required, by the Gospel the will is sought for, which even if it goes not into act, yet does not lose its reward. The Gospel commands what we can do, as that we lust not; this is in our own power; the Law punishes not the will but the act, as adultery. Suppose a virgin to have been violated in time of persecution; as here was not the will she is held as a virgin under the Gospel; under the Law she is cast out as defiled.
Matthew 11:29
Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
[Daniel 4:10] "'I saw, and behold there was a tree in the midst of the earth, and its height was very great...'" It was not only of Nebuchadnezzar, King of the Chaldeans, but also of all impious men that the prophet says: "I beheld the impious man highly exalted and lifted up like the cedars of Lebanon" (Psalm 37:35). Such men are lifted up, not by the greatness of their virtues, but by their own pride; and for that reason they are cut down and fall into ruin. Therefore it is good to follow the teaching of our Lord in the Gospel: "Learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart" (Matthew 11:29). But as for the fact that, according to Theodotion, he mentions his kutos or height - or else his kureia, as he himself later renders it, that is to say, his dominion (a word we have translated as "his appearance") - those same detractors of the historicity of this passage slanderously assert that Nebuchadnezzar's dominion never possessed the entire world. He did not rule over the Greeks or barbarians, or over all of the nations in the north and west, but only over the provinces of the East; tha…
[Daniel 4:10] "'I saw, and behold there was a tree in the midst of the earth, and its height was very great...'" It was not only of Nebuchadnezzar, King of the Chaldeans, but also of all impious men that the prophet says: "I beheld the impious man highly exalted and lifted up like the cedars of Lebanon" (Psalm 37:35). Such men are lifted up, not by the greatness of their virtues, but by their own pride; and for that reason they are cut down and fall into ruin. Therefore it is good to follow the teaching of our Lord in the Gospel: "Learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart" (Matthew 11:29). But as for the fact that, according to Theodotion, he mentions his kutos or height - or else his kureia, as he himself later renders it, that is to say, his dominion (a word we have translated as "his appearance") - those same detractors of the historicity of this passage slanderously assert that Nebuchadnezzar's dominion never possessed the entire world. He did not rule over the Greeks or barbarians, or over all of the nations in the north and west, but only over the provinces of the East; that is to say, over Asia, not over Europe or Libya. Consequently all these slanders require to be understood as attributable to the devil, for actually we ourselves should accept all this as spoken by way of hyperbole, having in view the arrogance of the impious king, who in Isaiah (chap. 14) makes as great a boast as this, claiming that he possesses the very heaven itself, and the whole earth besides, as if it were a nest full of birds' eggs.
Matthew 11:30
For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
(Verse 30.) For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. How is the Gospel lighter than the Law, when in the Law murder is condemned, but in the Gospel anger is condemned? In what way is the grace of the Gospel easier, when in the Law adultery is punished, but in the Gospel lust is punished? In the Law there are many precepts, which the Apostle teaches cannot be fully fulfilled (Acts 15). In the Law, works are required, and whoever does them shall live. In the Gospel, the will is sought, and even if it does not have the desired effect, it does not lose the reward. The Gospel commands what we are able to do: that we do not desire, namely, this is within our power. When the law does not punish the will, it punishes the effect, so that you do not commit adultery. Imagine a virgin prostitute in persecution. This virgin is accepted according to the Gospel, since she does not sin by her own will, but she is rejected in the Law as if corrupted.
Matthew 12:1
· 2 passages
At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.
(Chapter 12, Verse 1) At that time, Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath; and His disciples were hungry, and began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. In another Gospel, we also read that because of their great need, they did not even have a place to eat, and therefore they were hungry like men (Mark 2 and Luke 6). The fact that they rubbed the heads of grain with their hands and found solace in hunger is an indication of a more austere life; they sought simple food, not prepared feasts.
As we read in another Evangelist, they had no opportunity of taking food because of the thronging of the multitude, and therefore they hungred as men. That they rub the ears of corn in their hands, and with them satisfy themselves, is a proof of an austere life, and of men who needed not prepared meats, but sought only simple food. Observe, that the first Apostles of the Saviour broke the letter of the sabbath, contrary to the opinion of the Ebionitesa, who receive the other Apostles, but reject Paul as a transgressor of the Law. Then it proceeds to their excuse; But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred? To refute the false accusation of the Pharisees, He calls to mind the ancient history, that David flying from Saul came to Nobba, and being entertained by Achimelech the Priest, asked for food; (1 Sam. 21.) he having no common bread, gave him the consecrated loaves, which it was not lawful for any to eat, but the Priests only and Levites; esteeming it a better action to deliver men from the danger of famine than to offer sacrifice to God; for th…
As we read in another Evangelist, they had no opportunity of taking food because of the thronging of the multitude, and therefore they hungred as men. That they rub the ears of corn in their hands, and with them satisfy themselves, is a proof of an austere life, and of men who needed not prepared meats, but sought only simple food.
Observe, that the first Apostles of the Saviour broke the letter of the sabbath, contrary to the opinion of the Ebionitesa, who receive the other Apostles, but reject Paul as a transgressor of the Law. Then it proceeds to their excuse; But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred? To refute the false accusation of the Pharisees, He calls to mind the ancient history, that David flying from Saul came to Nobba, and being entertained by Achimelech the Priest, asked for food; (1 Sam. 21.) he having no common bread, gave him the consecrated loaves, which it was not lawful for any to eat, but the Priests only and Levites; esteeming it a better action to deliver men from the danger of famine than to offer sacrifice to God; for the preservation of man is a sacrifice acceptable to God. Thus then the Lord meets their objection, saying, If David be a holy man, and if you blame not the high-priest Achimelech, but consider their excuse for their transgression of the Law to be valid, and that was hunger; how do ye not approve in the Apostles the same plea which you approve in others? Though even here there is much difference. These rub ears of corn in their hands on the sabbath, those ate the Levitical bread, and over and above the solemn sabbath it was the season of new moon, during which when sought for at the banquet he fled from the royal palace.
Observe that neither David nor his servants received the loaves of show-bread, before they had made answer that they were pure from women.
As though He had said, Ye bring complaints against my disciples, that on the sabbath they rub ears of corn in their hands, under stress of hunger, and ye yourselves profane the sabbath, slaying victims in the temple, killing bulls, burning holocausts on piles of wood; also, on the testimony of another Gospel (John 7:23.), ye circumcise infants on the sabbath; so that in keeping one law, ye break that concerning the sabbath. But the laws of God are never contrary one to another; wisely therefore, wherein His disciples might be accused of having transgressed them, He shows that therein they followed the examples of Achimelech and David; and this their pretended charge of breaking the sabbath He retorts truly, and not having the plea of necessity, upon those who had brought the accusation.
The word Hic is not a pronoun, but an adverb of place here, for that place is greater than the Temple which contains the Lord of the Temple.
What I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, signifies, we have explained above. The words, Ye mould never have condemned the innocent, are to be referred to the Apostles, and the meaning is, If ye allow the mercy of Achimelech, in that he refreshed David when in danger of famishing, why do ye condemn My disciples?
Observe, that the first Apostles of the Saviour broke the letter of the sabbath, contrary to the opinion of the Ebionitesa, who receive the other Apostles, but reject Paul as a transgressor of the Law. Then it proceeds to their excuse; But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred? To refute the false accusation of the Pharisees, He calls to mind the ancient history, that David flying from Saul came to Nobba, and being entertained by Achimelech the Priest, asked for food; (1 Sam. 21.) he having no common bread, gave him the consecrated loaves, which it was not lawful for any to eat, but the Priests only and Levites; esteeming it a better action to deliver men from the danger of famine than to offer sacrifice to God; for the preservation of man is a sacrifice acceptable to God. Thus then the Lord meets their objection, saying, If David be a holy man, and if you blame not the high-priest Achimelech, but consider their excuse for their transgression of the Law to be valid, and that was hunger; how do ye not approve in the Apostles the same plea which you approve in others? Though even here there is much difference. These rub ears of corn in their hands on the sabbath, those ate the Levitical bread, and over and above the solemn sabbath it was the season of new moon, during which when sought for at the banquet he fled from the royal palace.
Observe that neither David nor his servants received the loaves of show-bread, before they had made answer that they were pure from women.
As though He had said, Ye bring complaints against my disciples, that on the sabbath they rub ears of corn in their hands, under stress of hunger, and ye yourselves profane the sabbath, slaying victims in the temple, killing bulls, burning holocausts on piles of wood; also, on the testimony of another Gospel (John 7:23.), ye circumcise infants on the sabbath; so that in keeping one law, ye break that concerning the sabbath. But the laws of God are never contrary one to another; wisely therefore, wherein His disciples might be accused of having transgressed them, He shows that therein they followed the examples of Achimelech and David; and this their pretended charge of breaking the sabbath He retorts truly, and not having the plea of necessity, upon those who had brought the accusation.
The word Hic is not a pronoun, but an adverb of place here, for that place is greater than the Temple which contains the Lord of the Temple.
What I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, signifies, we have explained above. The words, Ye mould never have condemned the innocent, are to be referred to the Apostles, and the meaning is, If ye allow the mercy of Achimelech, in that he refreshed David when in danger of famishing, why do ye condemn My disciples?
Matthew 12:2
But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
(V2.) But the Pharisees, seeing this, said to him: Behold, your disciples do what is not lawful for them to do on the Sabbath. Note that the first apostles of the Savior destroy the letter of the Sabbath against the Ebionites, who, while accepting the other apostles, reject Paul as a transgressor of the law.
Matthew 12:3-4
· 2 passages
But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
To put down the chicanery of the Pharisees it is recorded in ancient history that David was fleeing from Saul and came to Nob. Having been received by Ahimelech the priest, he asked him for food. Since Ahimelech had no common bread at hand, he gave David some holy bread, which only priests and Levites could lawfully eat. The priest asked whether the young men had kept themselves from women, and he received the answer “since yesterday and the day before.” He did not hesitate to give the bread, having thought it better, remembering that the prophet says, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice.” In view of the danger of hunger, Ahimelech judged it better to help people than to offer sacrifice to God. The slain victim pleasing to God is the salvation of humankind. If David is holy and the priest Ahimelech is not offensive to you, but they have broken both commandments of the law with a probable excuse—in this case, hunger—why do you not find acceptable the same hunger in the apostles that you find acceptable in others? However, in this there is a great difference: the disciples plucked grain…
To put down the chicanery of the Pharisees it is recorded in ancient history that David was fleeing from Saul and came to Nob. Having been received by Ahimelech the priest, he asked him for food. Since Ahimelech had no common bread at hand, he gave David some holy bread, which only priests and Levites could lawfully eat. The priest asked whether the young men had kept themselves from women, and he received the answer “since yesterday and the day before.” He did not hesitate to give the bread, having thought it better, remembering that the prophet says, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice.” In view of the danger of hunger, Ahimelech judged it better to help people than to offer sacrifice to God. The slain victim pleasing to God is the salvation of humankind. If David is holy and the priest Ahimelech is not offensive to you, but they have broken both commandments of the law with a probable excuse—in this case, hunger—why do you not find acceptable the same hunger in the apostles that you find acceptable in others? However, in this there is a great difference: the disciples plucked grain on the sabbath, whereas David ate the levitical bread.… Note that neither David nor his young men accepted the loaves of the presence until they replied that they had kept themselves from women.
(Ver. 3, 4.) But he said to them: Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? To refute the slander of the Pharisees, he recalls an old story, when David, fleeing from Saul, came to Nob and was received by the priest Ahimelech. He asked for food, and since he did not have any ordinary bread, Ahimelech gave him the consecrated bread, which only the priests and Levites were allowed to eat. And he merely asked if there were any boys in the world born of women; and when he responded, without hesitation, he did not hesitate to give bread, deeming it better to free people from the danger of hunger, as the prophet says: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice' (Hosea 6:6), rather than to offer sacrifice to God. For a merciful offering is pleasing to God and the salvation of humanity. Therefore, the Lord opposes and says: 'If even David, who is holy, and Ahimelech the high priest, are not condemned b…
(Ver. 3, 4.) But he said to them: Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? To refute the slander of the Pharisees, he recalls an old story, when David, fleeing from Saul, came to Nob and was received by the priest Ahimelech. He asked for food, and since he did not have any ordinary bread, Ahimelech gave him the consecrated bread, which only the priests and Levites were allowed to eat. And he merely asked if there were any boys in the world born of women; and when he responded, without hesitation, he did not hesitate to give bread, deeming it better to free people from the danger of hunger, as the prophet says: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice' (Hosea 6:6), rather than to offer sacrifice to God. For a merciful offering is pleasing to God and the salvation of humanity. Therefore, the Lord opposes and says: 'If even David, who is holy, and Ahimelech the high priest, are not condemned by you, but rather both have transgressed the command of the Law with a justifiable excuse, and hunger is the cause, why do you not approve the same hunger in the apostles, which you approve in others?' Although there is a great difference in this. Those people rubbed the ears of grain in their hands on the Sabbath, while others ate the Levitical loaves and came near the feast of the New Moon, on which day he was sought for at the banquet and fled from the royal court. Note that neither David nor his servants took the showbread before they answered that they were clean from women.
Matthew 12:5
· 2 passages
Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
You falsely accuse my disciples, Jesus says, for plucking ears of grain while passing through the standing fields. They did this because of their pangs of hunger. But you must violate the sabbath by immolating victims in the temple, slaughtering bulls and burning holocausts on a heap of firewood and, according to the testimony of the other Gospel, circumcising children on the sabbath. Thus, while you wish to observe the one law, you dishonor the sabbath. But God’s commands do not contradict each other.
(Verse 5.) Have you not read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple violate the Sabbath and yet are without guilt? But I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. If you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.” (Matthew 12:5-8) However, the Laws of God are never contradictory to themselves. And wisely, when his disciples were able to be accused of transgression, David and Achimelech mention examples that they followed: but he attributes the violation of the Sabbath, true and without excuse, to those who had committed slander.
Matthew 12:6
But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.
(Verse 6.) But I tell you that here is a greater temple. Here, is not a pronoun, but an adverb of place; that the place, which holds the Lord of the temple, is greater than the temple.
Matthew 12:7
But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
(Verse 7.) But if you knew what this means, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the guiltless. What it means, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,' we have already explained. But what follows, 'You would not have condemned the guiltless,' refers to the apostles. And the meaning is this: If you approved of Achimelech's mercy, because he refreshed David and his men who were in danger of starvation, why do you condemn my disciples, who have done nothing similar?
Matthew 12:8
For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
(Verse 8) And when he had passed from there, he came into their synagogue. And behold, there was a man with a withered hand. This is the thirteenth one who is healed in the synagogue. And it should be noted that his hand was healed not on the road or outside, but in the council of the Jews.
Matthew 12:9-13
And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue:
Because by fair instances He had vindicated His disciples from the charge of breaking the sabbath, the Pharisees seek to bring false accusation against Himself; whence it is said, And passing thence, he came into their synagogue. And they ask Him whether it is lawful to heal on the sabbath day, that if He should refuse, they might charge Him with cruelty, or want of power; if He should heal him, they might charge Him with transgressing the Law. Thus He answers their question in such a way as to convict the questioners of covetousness. If ye on the sabbath, saith He, would hasten to lift out a sheep or any other animal that might have fallen into a pit, not for the sake of the animal, but to preserve your own property, how much more ought I to deliver a man who is so much better than a sheep? In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and Ebionites use, (vid. note, p. 433.) and which we have lately translated into Greek out of the Hebrew, and which many regard as the genuine Matthew, this man who has the withered hand is described as a builder, and he makes his prayer in these words, 'I was…
Because by fair instances He had vindicated His disciples from the charge of breaking the sabbath, the Pharisees seek to bring false accusation against Himself; whence it is said, And passing thence, he came into their synagogue.
And they ask Him whether it is lawful to heal on the sabbath day, that if He should refuse, they might charge Him with cruelty, or want of power; if He should heal him, they might charge Him with transgressing the Law.
Thus He answers their question in such a way as to convict the questioners of covetousness. If ye on the sabbath, saith He, would hasten to lift out a sheep or any other animal that might have fallen into a pit, not for the sake of the animal, but to preserve your own property, how much more ought I to deliver a man who is so much better than a sheep?
In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and Ebionites use, (vid. note, p. 433.) and which we have lately translated into Greek out of the Hebrew, and which many regard as the genuine Matthew, this man who has the withered hand is described as a builder, and he makes his prayer in these words, 'I was a builder, and gained my living by the labour of my hands; I pray thee, Jesus, to restore me to health, that I may not disgracefully beg my bread.'
Until the coming of the Lord the Saviour, there was the withered hand in the Synagogue of the Jews, and the works of the Lord were not done in it; but when He came upon earth, the right hand was restored in the Apostles who believed, and given back to its former occupation.
And they ask Him whether it is lawful to heal on the sabbath day, that if He should refuse, they might charge Him with cruelty, or want of power; if He should heal him, they might charge Him with transgressing the Law.
Thus He answers their question in such a way as to convict the questioners of covetousness. If ye on the sabbath, saith He, would hasten to lift out a sheep or any other animal that might have fallen into a pit, not for the sake of the animal, but to preserve your own property, how much more ought I to deliver a man who is so much better than a sheep?
In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and Ebionites use, (vid. note, p. 433.) and which we have lately translated into Greek out of the Hebrew, and which many regard as the genuine Matthew, this man who has the withered hand is described as a builder, and he makes his prayer in these words, 'I was a builder, and gained my living by the labour of my hands; I pray thee, Jesus, to restore me to health, that I may not disgracefully beg my bread.'
Until the coming of the Lord the Saviour, there was the withered hand in the Synagogue of the Jews, and the works of the Lord were not done in it; but when He came upon earth, the right hand was restored in the Apostles who believed, and given back to its former occupation.