Jerome

(Vers. 31 seqq.) But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken by God, saying to you: I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob: God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. And when the crowds heard this, they were amazed at his teaching. To prove the truth of the resurrection, he could have used many other more obvious examples, among which is: The dead will be raised up, and those who are in the graves will rise again (Isaiah 26:19). And in another place: Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake: some unto everlasting life, and others unto shame and everlasting contempt (Dan. XII, 2). Therefore, it is asked what the Lord intended by this testimony, which seems ambiguous or not sufficiently related to the truth of the resurrection: I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; and as if having proclaimed this, he proved what he wanted by immediately adding: God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. Those who also surrounded the turmoil, knowing the mystery, were amazed at his teaching and answers. We have already said above that the Sadducees, confessing neither angel, nor spirit, nor resurrection of bodies, also preached the destruction of souls. These accepted only the five books of Moses, rejecting the prophecies of the prophets. Therefore, it was foolish to present testimonies whose authority they did not follow. Furthermore, in order to prove the eternal nature of souls, he presents the example of Moses: 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob' (Exodus 3:6). And immediately he deduces: 'God is not the God of the dead, but of the living,' so that when he has proven that souls continue to exist after death (for it could not be that God would be their God if they did not exist at all), the resurrection of the bodies, which have carried out good or evil deeds along with the souls, would consequently be introduced. In the final part of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, the apostle Paul expands on this topic more fully (1 Cor. XV).

(Verse 34 and following) But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him: "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. In his two commands, the whole law and the prophets hang. What we read about Herod and Pontius Pilate, that they conspired in the death of the Lord, we also see now concerning the Pharisees and the Sadducees, who are opposed to each other, but agree with the same mind in testing Jesus. Therefore, those who had already been confuted in the display of the coin and had seen the faction of the opposing party undermined, should have been warned by example not to plot further snares: but malice and envy nourish audacity. One of the legal experts, not desiring to not know but attempting, asks whether the one being questioned knew what was being asked, what the greater commandment is: not asking about the commandments, but what the first and great commandment is; so that when all that God has commanded is great: whatever he may answer, he may have an opportunity to slander, asserting that something else is great among many. Therefore, whoever knows and asks not by desire to learn, but by the desire to know, whether the one who is going to respond knows, approaches in the likeness of the Pharisees, not as a disciple, but as a tempter.

This passage is out of the 109th Psalm. Christ is therefore called David's Lord, not in respect of His descent from him, but in respect of His eternal generation from the Father, wherein He was before His fleshly Father. And he calls Him Lord, not by a mere chance, nor of his own thought, but by the Holy Spirit.

This question is still available for us against the Jews; for these who believe that Christ is yet to come, assert that He is a mere man, though a holy one, of the race of David. Let us then thus taught by the Lord ask them, If He be mere man, and only the Son of David, how does David call Him his Lord? To evade the truth of this question, the Jews invent many frivolous answers. They allege Abraham's steward, he whose son was Eliezer of Damascus, and say that this Psalm was composed in his person, when after the overthrow of the five kings, the Lord God said to his lord Abraham, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. Let us ask how Abraham could say the things that follow, and compel them to tell us how Abraham was born before Lucifer, and how he was a Priest after the order of Melchisedech, for whom Melchisedech brought bread and wine, and of whom he received tithes of the spoil?

(verses 41 onwards) But when the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus questioned them, saying, 'What do you think about the Christ, whose son is he?' They said to him, 'David.' He said to them, 'How then does David in the Spirit call him Lord, saying, "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool?" If David then calls him Lord, how is he his son?' Those who had gathered together to test Jesus and tried to capture the truth through deceitful questioning, gave an opportunity for their own refutation. They are asked (or, it is asked) about Christ whose son he is. The questioning of Jesus benefits us even today against the Jews. And indeed those who confess that Christ is to come assert that he is a simple man and a holy man from the lineage of David. Let us therefore question those who are taught by the Lord: if he is a simple man and only a son of David, how does David call him his Lord? Not by uncertain error or personal will, but in the Holy Spirit (or, but in the Holy Spirit, he is silent). The testimony, however, which he presents, is taken from the one hundred and ninth Psalm. Therefore, David is called Lord, not according to what he was born, but according to what he always was, born from the Father, surpassing his own Father in the flesh. The Jews, in order to evade the truth of the question, invent many idle things, asserting that the native of Abraham, whose son was Damascus Eliezer, and that the psalm was written from that person's perspective, in which the Lord God said to his lord, Abraham, after the slaughter of the five kings: Sit at my right hand, until I make thy enemies thy footstool. (Genesis 14). Whom should we ask: How did God say to Abraham these things that follow: With you is the beginning in the day of your power, in the splendors of the saints, I have begotten you before Lucifer; and: The Lord has sworn, and will not regret it; you are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek? And we should try to answer how Abraham was born before Lucifer and was a priest according to the order of Melchizedek: regarding whom Melchizedek offered bread and wine, and from whom he received tithes of the spoils.

They called those phylacteries “little pictures” of the Decalogue, because whoever had them had his own fortification and defense. But the knowledgeable Pharisees did not have them, because these things must be carried in the heart, not the body. They may have children and treasure boxes and granaries, but they do not have knowledge of God. Even today there are those superstitious ladies who have their “little Gospels.” In the absence of the true cross and other such things, they indeed have the zeal of God but no true knowledge of him. Even today, they too do these same kinds of things in front of us by liquefying gnats for drinking and gulping down honey. This is what some see as the small, short fringe mandated by the law. But a better case is the woman with the bloody flow who touched the fringe of the Lord’s garment. She was not motivated by the superstitious sentiments of the Pharisees. And what is more, she was healed at his touch. And so when they widened their phylacteries and lengthened their fringes, attracting the honor of the people, they were exposed in their hypocrisies, showing why they seek the first seats at dinners and the front chairs in synagogues. They point out gluttony and glory in public and are hailed by men as rabbi, which in colloquial Latin means “teacher.”

For the Lord, when He had given the commandments of the Law through Moses, added at the end, And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be ever before thine eyes; (Deut. 6:8.) the meaning of which is, Let my precepts be in thine hand so as to be fulfilled in thy works; let them be before thine eyes so as that thou shalt meditate upon them day and night. This the Pharisees misinterpreting, wrote on parchments the Decalogue of Moses, that is, the Ten Commandments, and folding them up, tied them on their forehead, so making them a crown for their head, that they should be always before their eyes. Moses had in another place given command that they should make fringes of blue in the borders of their garments, to distinguish the people of Israel (Numb. 15:39.); that as in their bodies circumcision, so in their garments the fringe, might discriminate the Jewish nation. But these superstitious teachers, catching at popular favour, and making gain of silly women, made broad hems, and fastened them with sharp pins, that as they walked or sat they might be pricked, and by such monitors be recalled to the duties of God's ministry. This embroidery then of the Decalogue they called phylacteries, that is, conservatories, because those who wore them, wore them for their own protection and security. So little did the Pharisees understand that they were to be worn on the heart and not on the body; for in equal degree may cases and chests be said to have books, which assuredly have not the knowledge of God.

Seeing they thus make broad their phylacteries, and make them broad fringes, desiring to have glory of men, they are convicted also in other things; For they love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues.

(cont. Helvid. 15.) All men may be called brethren in affection, which is of two kinds, general and particular. Particular, by which all Christians are brethren; general, by which all men being born of one Father are bound together by like tie of kindred.

It is a difficulty that the Apostle against this command calls himself the teacher of the Gentiles; and that in monasteries in their common conversation, they call one another, Father. It is to be cleared thus. It is one thing to be father or master by nature, another by sufferance. Thus when we call any man our father, we do it to show respect to his age, not as regarding him as the author of our being. We also call men 'Master,' from resemblance to a real master; and, not to use tedious repetition, as the One God and One Son, who are by nature, do not preclude us from calling others gods and sons by adoption, so the One Father and One Master, do not preclude us from speaking of other fathers and masters by an abuse of the terms.