2 Sunday after Nativity

"And on the first of the week came Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and saw the stone taken away from the sepulchre." The first of the week is what Christian practice now calls the Lord's day, because of the resurrection of the Lord.

(de Con. Evang. iii. 24) Mary Magdalene, undoubtedly the most fervent in love, of all the women that ministered to our Lord; so that John deservedly mentions her only, and says nothing of the others who were with her, as we know from the other Evangelists.

(Tr. cxx) Una sabbati is the day which Christians call the Lord's day, after our Lord's resurrection. Matthew calls it prima sabbati.

(de Con. Evang. iii. 24.) What Mark says, Very early in the morning, at the rising of the sun (Mark 16:1), does not contradict John's words, when it was yet dark. At the dawn of day, there are yet remains of darkness, which disappear as the light breaks in. We must not understand Mark's words, Very early in the morning, at the rising of the sun, ἡλίου ἀνατεέλαντος to mean that the sun was above the horizon, but rather what we ourselves ordinarily mean by the phrase, when we want any thing to be done very early, we say at the rising of the sun, i. e. some time before the sun is risen.

(Con. Evang. iii. 24) Now took place what Matthew only relates, the earthquake, and rolling away of the stone, and fright of the guards.

Una sabbati, i. e. one day after the sabbath.

Now on the first day of the week, etc. The Evangelist treated above of those things which pertain to the Lord's incarnation and passion; from this place to the end he treats of those things which pertain to his resurrection. Therefore in this part is treated the manifestation of Christ's resurrection. And because the solicitude of the disciples preceded this manifestation, and our instruction or the certitude of faith followed, the solicitude of the disciples and women is first described, to whom he manifested himself.

The solicitude of Mary is noted both in her vigilance in seeking and in her diligence in reporting. She was indeed vigilant in seeking, because she came at the earliest dawn; therefore he says: Now on the first day of the week, namely the Lord's day, which is the first, that is, the first day of the week, that is, of the seven-day period, according to that passage in Luke 18: "I fast twice in the week." Sabbath is also the name of the seventh day; Exodus 20: "Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day." Mary Magdalene came early, as one anxious to see the Lord's body, and therefore she did not wait for daylight; and therefore he adds: While it was still dark, to the tomb. Chrysostom: "Mary, being wholly lovingly disposed toward the Master, because the Sabbath had passed, could not bear to rest, but came at deep dawn to the tomb, wishing to find a certain consolation from the place." And because it was early, therefore she found; Proverbs 8: "Those who watch for me early shall find me."

And she saw the stone: here is noted her diligence in reporting, in this, that she reports the opening of the tomb she had seen to the disciples; whence: And she saw the stone rolled away from the tomb. This removal of the stone was signified in Judges 16, where it is said that "Samson seized both doors of the gate with the posts and bars, and placing them on his shoulders, carried them to the top of the mountain."

Question. Since other women had come to the tomb with Magdalene, why does John speak only of her? Augustine responds in the third book of On the Harmony of the Evangelists: "Mary Magdalene," he says, "was far more fervent than the other women who had ministered to the Lord; on account of which John not undeservedly mentioned her alone, passing over in silence the others who were with her, as the other Evangelists attest."

Question. Concerning what he says: She came to the tomb in the morning. On the contrary: In Matthew 28 it is said that they came in the evening to see the sepulcher. Augustine responds saying that "in the evening of the Sabbath" is the same as "in the night of the Sabbath"; and he proves that it ought to be understood thus by the following text: "which dawns on the first day of the week," which cannot be the case if we understand only the beginning of the night; but evening by synecdoche gives us to understand the night, which begins to end at daylight. Others respond that this was said because in the evening they prepared themselves by buying spices, but in the morning at dawn they came, as John says.

Question. What is meant by what is said: While it was still dark, since in Mark 16 it is said: The sun having already risen? I respond: As Augustine says in the book On the Harmony of the Evangelists, Mary came twice: first, before she called the disciples, and afterward she returned again; and the first time she came while it was still dark; afterward, when the sun was shining.

Question. Concerning what he says: She saw the stone rolled away, etc. Would it not have been of greater power to go out with it closed? It seems so. And it must be said that the Lord rose while the tomb was closed, and it was opened afterwards by the Angel. Chrysostom: "Jesus indeed rose while the stone and the seals remained in place. But because it was necessary for others to be assured, the tomb is opened after the resurrection, and thus what had happened is believed."

No one, I suppose, will imagine that the inspired writers disagree or that they fix the time of the resurrection differently. But anyone who chooses to investigate the meaning of the indications they give of the time will find that their accounts add up. For early dawn and late night fix the same point of time, that is, the very dead of night, so to say. There is, therefore, no discrepancy between them. For the one, taking as his starting point the end of night, and the other the beginning, both reach the middle watch and meet at the same point, that is, as I just now said, the dead of night.

No very exact account seems to be offered in the Scriptures of the hour at which Jesus rose. For the Evangelists have given different descriptions of the parties who came to the sepulcher one after another, and all have declared that they found the Lord risen already. It was "in the end of the sabbath," as Matthew has said. It was "early, when it was yet dark," as John writes. It was "very early in the morning," as Luke puts it. And it was "very early in the morning, at the rising of the sun," as Mark tells us. And so, no one has shown us clearly the exact time when he rose. It is admitted, however, that those who came to the sepulcher in the end of the sabbath found him no longer lying in it, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week. And let us not suppose that the Evangelists disagree or contradict each other. But even though there may seem to be some small difficulty as to the subject of our inquiry, if they all agree that the light of the world, our Lord, rose on that one night, while they differ with respect to the hour, we may well seek with wise and faithful mind to harmonize their statements.

The reading of the holy Gospel which you have just heard, brothers, is very clear on the surface of its historical meaning, but we must seek out its mysteries in brief. Mary Magdalene came to the tomb while it was still dark. According to the historical account, the hour is noted; but according to the mystical understanding, the intelligence of the one seeking is signified. For Mary was seeking at the tomb the author of all things, whom she had seen dead in the flesh; and because she did not find him, she believed he had been stolen. Therefore it was still dark when she came to the tomb.

(Hom. in Ev. xxii.) It is well said, When it was yet dark: Mary was seeking the Creator of all things in the tomb, and because, she found Him not, thought He was stolen. Truly it was yet dark when she came to the sepulchre. And seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

Hidden first in a womb of flesh, he sanctified human birth by his own birth. Hidden afterward in the womb of the earth, he gave life to the dead by his resurrection. Suffering, pain and sighs have now fled away. For who has known the mind of God, or who has been his counselor if not the Word made flesh who was nailed to the cross, who rose from the dead and who was taken up into heaven? This day brings a message of joy: it is the day of the Lord's resurrection when, with himself, he raised up the race of Adam. Born for the sake of human beings, he rose from the dead with them. On this day paradise is opened by the risen one, Adam is restored to life and Eve is consoled. On this day the divine call is heard, the kingdom is prepared, we are saved and Christ is adored. On this day, when he had trampled death under foot, made the tyrant a prisoner and despoiled the underworld, Christ ascended into heaven as a king in victory, as a ruler in glory, as an invincible charioteer. He said to the Father, "Here am I, O God, with the children you have given me." And he heard the Father's reply, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool." To him be glory, now and for ever, through endless ages. Amen.

How can I recount for you these hidden realities or proclaim what goes beyond any word or concept? How can I lay open before you the mystery of the Lord's resurrection, the saving sign of his cross and of his three days' death? For each and every event that happened to our Savior is an outward sign of the mystery of our redemption. Just as Christ was born from his mother's inviolate virginal womb, so too he rose again from the closed tomb. As he, the only-begotten Son of God was made the firstborn of his mother, so, by his resurrection, he became the firstborn from the dead. His birth did not break the seal of his mother's virginal integrity. Nor did his rising from the dead break the seals on the sepulcher. And so, just as I cannot fully express his birth in words, neither can I wholly encompass his going forth from the tomb.

"The first day of the week" (that is, the Lord's day) "cometh Mary Magdalene, very early in the morning, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulcher." For He arose while both stone and seals lay over Him; but because it was necessary that others should be fully satisfied, the tomb was opened after the Resurrection, and thus what had come to pass was confirmed. This then was what moved Mary. For being entirely full of loving affection towards her Master, when the Sabbath was past, she could not bear to rest, but came very early in the morning, desiring to find some consolation from the place. But when she saw the place, and the stone taken away, she neither entered in nor stooped down, but ran to the disciples, in the greatness of her longing; for this was what she earnestly desired, she wished very speedily to learn what had become of the body.

To the Sun, before sun, once he had set in the tomb The young women bearing incense hastened at dawn, As though seeking the day and saying to one another, "O friends, come Let us anoint with spices The body, life-bearing and buried, The flesh which resurrects the fallen Adam That lies here in this tomb. Let us go, let us hurry like the magi, And let us kneel down and bring with us The myrrh as gifts— Not to him in swaddling clothes But to him wrapped in burial cloths. And let us weep and cry out: 'O Master! Arise! You who offer resurrection to the fallen.' " While these godly women were discussing These things among themselves, They considered another idea, which is full of wisdom, And they said to one another: "Women, why are we fooling ourselves? For surely the Lord is not in the tomb! Could it have held in subjection this long One who controls the breath of living beings? Would he still be lying there as a putrid corpse?… Let Mary go and see the tomb, And let us follow whatever she tells us, For most certainly, as he foretold, The immortal one has arisen, He who offers resurrection to the fallen." The wise women, giving due consideration to this idea, As planned, sent forward Mary Magdalene To the tomb, as the Theologian says. It was dark, but love lighted the way for her; And so she saw the great stone rolled away From the entrance to the tomb.

It seems to those who dissent that here also the words of the Evangelists do not agree with one another. On the contrary, it seems to me that on the basis of their accounts their words are perfectly consistent.… Indeed, John says, "Early … while it was dark." The word early is not referred here to the morning. In fact, he does not say while it was "still" dark, which should have been said with regard to morning. But he wrote, "while it was dark," that is, on the next day when the night began, by designating with the term early the entire day so that he might say the day after the sabbath. The holy Scripture usually defines both day and night with the word day, because the sun, after its course throughout the night and the day, makes the beginning of the next day by returning to its place in the west. And this is confirmed by Moses, who says, "And there was evening and there was morning, the first day," which he also says about the second and third days, and all the rest.… John says, "Early on the first day of the week," indicating the next day, that is, "on the first day of the week, when it was dark," in order to signify that when the night began, the women came, in order to perform the proper honor according to customs.

"The first day of the week" the Evangelist calls that day which we call the Lord's Day. For he calls the week of days "sabbath," and "the first day of the week" means the first day. In essence, every day is one. But one, taken many times and added together, makes up many. Thus, the first day is one; taken twice, it is the second; three times, the third; and so on. Such a day is an image of the future age, which is one day, neither interrupted by night nor having a midday. God is its Sun, never setting. Just as the Lord rose on this day, making His corruptible body incorruptible, so also shall we in the future age receive incorruption. So, on the first day of the week "Mary Magdalene comes." Since the Sabbath had passed, and movement was no longer forbidden by the law, she sets out, wishing to find some consolation from the place of the Lord's burial.

Or thus: The Jews called the days of the week sabbath, and the first day, one of the sabbaths, which day is a type of the life to come; for that life will be one day not cut short by any night, since God is the sun there, a sun which never sets. On this day then our Lord rose again, with an incorruptible body, even as we in the life to come shall put on incorruption.

But how came they to the sepulchre, while the soldiers were guarding it? an easy question to answer. After our Lord's resurrection and the earthquake, and the appearance of the angel at the sepulchre, the guards withdrew, and told the Pharisees what had happened.

2470 Having related the mysteries of the passion of Christ, the Evangelist now speaks of the resurrection. First, he says the resurrection was made known to certain women; secondly, to the disciples (v 19). The revelation of Christ's resurrection to the women went in stages: first, there is the open tomb; secondly, the appearance of the angel (v 11); thirdly, the sight of Christ (v 14). In regard to the first, he first mentions the sight of the open tomb; secondly, this news is reported to the disciples (v 2); and thirdly, they see for themselves (v 3).

2471 Four things can be noted about the first. First, the time: it was one day of the sabbath, that is, the first day of the week. The Jews considered the sabbath as a very sacred day, and all the other days were described in reference to the sabbath. Thus they spoke of the first day of the sabbath, the second day of the sabbath, and so on. Matthew [28:1] speaks of the "first day of the sabbath". But John speaks of "one day of the sabbath" because he is referring to a mystery, for this day of the resurrection was the beginning of a new creation: "When you send forth your Spirit, they are created; and you renew the face of the ground" (Ps 104:30); "For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation" (Gal 6:15). In Genesis (1:5), when Moses is speaking of the first day of creation he says "one day." "God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day." And so the Evangelist uses these words of Moses because he wants to express a newness. And also because this day begins the day of eternity, which is one day, no night interrupting it, because the sun which makes this day will never set. "And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine upon it, for the glory of God is its light, and its lamp is the Lamb" (Rev 21:23); "There will be one day, which is known to the Lord, not day and night, for at evening time there will be light" [Zech 14:7].

2472 Secondly, the person who saw the tomb is given, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark. A question arises here because Mark (16:1) makes mention of Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome; and Matthew (28:1) also mentions "the other Mary." According to Augustine the resolution is that Mary Magdalene was more ardent and more devoted to Christ than the other women. Thus we read that "Her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much" (Lk 7:47). And for this reason the Evangelist mentions her by name. This is also the reason why the Lord appeared to her first, "He appeared first to Mary Magdalene" (Mk 16:9); "She [Wisdom] hastens to make herself known to those who desire her" (Wis 6:14).

2473 Thirdly, the time is given, early, while it was still dark. Luke (23:55) tells us that the women who had come with Christ from Galilee saw his tomb and how his body was laid, and they prepared spices and ointments for it. They rested on the sabbath according to the commandment. As soon as the sabbath was over, on the first day of the week, before daylight, she [Mary Magdalene] came to the tomb, incited by her exceedingly great love: "Its flashes," the flashes of love, "are flashes of fire" (Song 8:6).

2474 The question arises why Mark says "very early, after the sun had risen" [Mk 16:2], while the Evangelist says, while it was still dark. The answer is that what Mark says should be understood as referring to the breaking of the day, so that the sun had risen, but had not yet appeared in the sky.

2475 Fourthly, we are told what Mary saw, she saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. This was a sign that either someone had taken Christ away, or that he had arisen. When Matthew (28:2) says that "an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone," we should not think the stone was rolled away before Christ arose, but only after. For since Christ came forth from the closed womb of the Virgin even though his body was not glorified, it is not surprising if he passed through the tomb with his glorified body. The stone was taken away so that people could see that Christ was not there, and more easily believe in his resurrection.

"She ran, therefore, and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid Him." Some of the Greek codices have, "They have taken my Lord," which may likely enough have been said by the stronger than ordinary affection of love and handmaid relationship; but we have not found it in the several codices to which we have had access.

(Tr. cxx) This is the way in which he usually mentions himself. Jesus loved all, but him in an especial and familiar way. And saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid Him.

(Tr. cxx) Some of the Greek copies have, taken away my Lord, which is more expressive of love, and of the feeling of an handmaiden. But only a few have this reading.

She ran therefore and came to Simon Peter, who above all others loved Christ, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, that is, to John, who does not name himself out of humility; and she says to them: They have taken the Lord from the tomb: in the Greek "my" is added to express her affection. They have taken, namely indefinitely, either the Jews or the guards, and I do not know where they have placed him, which was for her a cause of greater sorrow. For since she still knew and loved him carnally, therefore, with his flesh taken away, no consolation remained.

This excellent and pious woman would never have endured remaining at home and leaving the sepulcher [after the burial] if she had not had respect for sabbath law and the penalty that was incurred by those who transgressed it. This fear curbed her excessive zeal, allowing ancient custom to prevail, and to withdraw her thoughts from the object of her most earnest longings for awhile. But when the sabbath was already past and the dawn of the next day was appearing, she hurried back to the spot. And then, when she saw the stone rolled away from the mouth of the tomb, well-grounded suspicions seized her mind and, calling to mind the ceaseless hatred of the Jews, she thought that Jesus had been carried away. And so she accuses them of this crime in addition to their other misdeeds. While she was thus engaged and mulling over the possibilities in her mind, the woman returned to the men who loved the Lord, anxious to obtain the cooperation of the most intimate of his disciples in her quest. And so deep-rooted and impregnable was her faith that she thought no less of Christ because of his death on the cross but even when he was dead called him Lord, as she had always done, thereby showing a truly God-loving spirit.

Question: How is it that in John the disciples hearing Mary, and then coming to the sepulcher, believed. But in Luke it is said that "their words appeared in their sight as an idle tale and they did not believe?Answer: Mary, in John, told what she had seen to the chief apostles Peter and John alone, as declaring some secret. And they again, unknown to the other disciples, ran to the sepulcher, saw and believed. And there was nothing strange in the chief apostles having seen and believed while the rest to whom the women reported, not having received with their own eyes, did not believe them. Indeed, when the Savior appeared to the assembled disciples themselves, according to John, those who saw him rejoiced. But Thomas, since he was not with them and did not see, was not persuaded. But if he disbelieved the apostles, one would scarcely blame the rest because, not having as yet beheld him, they disbelieved the women. The Scripture shows much examination and carefulness on the part of the disciples, not readily assenting to their words but at first suspending judgment until they recognized the truth fully and clearly.

And therefore she ran to tell the disciples, that they might seek Him with her, or grieve with her: Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved.

She ran quickly and announced it to the disciples. But those ran before the others who loved more than the others, namely Peter and John.

(iii. Mor. ix.) She puts the part for the whole; she had come only to seek for the body of our Lord, and now she laments that our Lord, the whole of Him, is taken away.

This was the meaning of her running, and her words declare it. "They have taken away," she saith, "my Lord, and I know not where they have laid Him." Seest thou how she knew not as yet anything clearly concerning the Resurrection, but thought there had been a removal of the body, and tells all simply to the disciples? And the Evangelist hath not deprived the woman of such a praise, nor thought it shame that they should have learnt these things first from her who had passed the night in watching. Thus everywhere doth the truth-loving nature of his disposition shine forth.

And, having seen the stone rolled away from the tomb, she goes with great haste to Peter and John. The Lord rose at the time when the stone was still lying in its place and the seals were intact. But since someone needed to be witnesses of the resurrection and enter the tomb, the stone was rolled away by an Angel. Mary, not yet knowing anything about the resurrection, calls this event a theft and a removal.

2476 Next the Evangelist mentions that this was reported. Because of Mary's exceeding love she could not delay telling what she had seen to the disciples, so she ran, and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved: "This day is a day of good news; if we are silent and wait until the morning light, punishment will overtake us" (2 Kgs 7:9). And so one who hears the words of God should tell it to others without delay: "Let him who hears say, 'Come'" (Rev 22:17). Mary came to those who were the more important, and who loved Christ more ardently, so that they might either look for Jesus with her or share her sorrow.

She said to them, They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him. Mary saw the empty tomb, and not yet having it in her heart that Christ had risen, she said, and we do not know where they have laid him. We can see from this that Mary had not been alone at the tomb, and that she still had doubts about the resurrection. So it was not without reason that the Evangelist wrote that it was still dark, for this indicated the condition of their minds, in which there was the darkness of doubt: "They have neither knowledge nor understanding, they walk about in darkness" (Ps 82:5). Note that in the Greek manuscripts it reads, my Lord, which shows the impetus of her love and her affectionate devotion: "Whom have I in heaven but you? And there is nothing upon earth that I desire besides you.... God is the strength of my heart and my portion for ever" (Ps 73:25).

"Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre. So they ran both together: and that other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre." The repetition here is worthy of notice and of commendation for the way in which a return is made to what had previously been omitted, and yet is added just as if it followed in due order. For after having already said, "they came to the sepulchre," he goes back to tell us how they came, and says, "so they ran both together," etc. Where he shows that, by outrunning his companion, there came first to the sepulchre that other disciple, by whom he means himself, while he relates all as if speaking of another.

(Tr. cxx) After saying, came to the sepulchre, he goes back and tells us how they came: So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre; meaning himself, but he always speaks of himself, as if he were speaking of another person.

Simon Peter therefore went out. Here is noted the solicitude of the disciples, both in the swiftness of running and in the carefulness of examining. They were therefore solicitous, because, having heard that he had been taken away, they came quickly; whence he says: Simon Peter therefore went out, and that other disciple, and they came to the tomb; this is said by anticipation, that is, they set out on the journey to come to the tomb.

Question. Why is it that these alone ran, and not the others? It must be said that either because it was reported to these alone; or, as Gregory says, "those ran before the rest who loved before the rest."

Peter and John seem to come to the sepulcher in broad daylight (an opportune time). By not coming during the night and in darkness, no one can suspect them of what the chief priests falsely accused them, that is, that they came by night and stole him. Therefore the men did not come by night or while it was still dark but while it was broad daylight. But if the Gospel says that the disciples were gathered together for fear of the Jews, someone may object, "How then did those who were shut up visit the sepulcher in broad daylight?" We respond that it was natural that those who were living in the city in the midst of the Jews would be closed in, gathered together in one house. But those who came to the tomb, since they were outside the city, were far from fear of the Jews since they were going to a place deserted and empty of people. But perhaps it may also be the case that Peter and John, being above the fear of the other disciples, ventured more boldly to go out from the house while the others were too scared. In other matters it was recorded that they were considered worthy of more honor than the other apostles.

Be a Peter or a John; Hasten to the sepulcher, Running together, Running against one another, Vying in the noble race. And even if you are beaten in speed, Win the victory of showing who wants it more— Not just looking into the tomb, but going in.

But those ran before the others who loved more than the others, namely Peter and John. Now the two were running together, but John ran ahead more quickly than Peter and arrived first at the tomb, but did not presume to enter. Peter came later, and entered. What, brothers, what does this running signify? Surely this very subtle description by the evangelist is not to be thought devoid of mysteries? Not at all. For John would not have said that he both arrived first and did not enter, if he had believed that mystery was absent from his very hesitation. What then is designated by John except the Synagogue, what by Peter except the Church?

(xxii. in Evang.) But Peter and John before the others, for they loved most; Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre.

When then she came and said these things, they hearing them, draw near with great eagerness to the sepulcher, and see the linen clothes lying, which was a sign of the Resurrection. For neither, if any persons had removed the body, would they before doing so have stripped it; nor if any had stolen it, would they have taken the trouble to remove the napkin, and roll it up, and lay it in a place by itself; but how? they would have taken the body as it was. On this account John tells us by anticipation that it was buried with much myrrh, which glues linen to the body not less firmly than lead; in order that when thou hearest that the napkins lay apart, thou mayest not endure those who say that He was stolen. For a thief would not have been so foolish as to spend so much trouble on a superfluous matter. For why should he undo the clothes? and how could he have escaped detection if he had done so? since he would probably have spent much time in so doing, and be found out by delaying and loitering. But why do the clothes lie apart, while the napkin was wrapped together by itself? That thou mayest learn that it was not the action of men in confusion or haste, the placing some in one place, some in another, and the wrapping them together. From this they believed in the Resurrection. On this account Christ afterwards appeared to them, when they were convinced by what they had seen. Observe too here again the absence of boastfulness in the Evangelist, how he witnesses to the exactness of Peter's search. For he himself having gotten before Peter, and having seen the linen clothes, enquired not farther, but withdrew; but that fervent one passing farther in, looked at everything carefully, and saw somewhat more, and then the other too was summoned to the sight. For he entering after Peter, saw the grave-clothes lying, and separate. Now to separate, and to place one thing by itself, and another, after rolling it up, by itself, was the act of some one doing things carefully, and not in a chance way, as if disturbed.

Then the disciples come to the tomb and see the linens lying there alone; and this was a sign of the true resurrection. For if someone had moved the body, he would not have stripped it bare; and if someone had stolen it, he would not have taken care to roll up the napkin and place it separately in a special spot, but would have taken the body simply, as best he could. For this reason the evangelist said beforehand that the body of Christ was buried with much myrrh, which adheres the linens to the body no worse than pitch, so that when we hear that the napkin lay in a separate place, we would in no way believe those who say that the body of Christ was stolen. For a thief would not have been so foolish as to expend so much effort on a superfluous matter, without suspecting that the longer he occupied himself with it, the sooner he might be caught. At what hour the resurrection took place, no one knows, just as the time of the second coming is also unknown. If the evangelist Matthew says that the earthquake occurred late in the evening, and John says that Mary came and saw the stone rolled away in the morning, when it was still dark, there is no contradiction in this. For, first, according to Matthew, the women came late on the Sabbath, while in John the women are not mentioned now—since Matthew had already spoken of this, it would have been superfluous for John to speak of the same thing as well; but Mary Magdalene comes in the morning. The visits to the tomb are different: sometimes Mary comes with the other women, sometimes she alone. From this the appearance of disagreement among the evangelists arises, in that they are speaking of different visits, each of his own. Thus, first, we say that Matthew speaks of one visit—that of the women—while John speaks of another, the visit of a woman—the Magdalene. Then, late in the evening and morning, "when it was still dark," which one might call early morning, coincide as one and the same, so that all this time is the middle of the night. If you ask how Peter and John and the women entered the tomb when there were guards there, the answer is simple: when the Lord rose and with an earthquake an Angel appeared at the tomb, the guards went off to report this to the Pharisees, and thus the tomb was freed from the military guard, and the disciples could come without fear.

2477 The Evangelist next shows how this was investigated. First, he indicates the eagerness with which Peter and John acted, for they left the place where they were, Peter then came out with the other disciple. Those who want to look into the mysteries of Christ have in a sense to come out from themselves and from their carnal way of living: "Come out, O daughters of Zion, and behold King Solomon" [Song 3:11].

And they both ran together, quickly, namely, but in this swiftness unequally. And that other disciple outran Peter and came first to the tomb — therefore quickly, because they wished to apprehend: First Corinthians 9: "Those who run in a race all indeed run, but one receives the prize: so run that you may apprehend" — or because he was younger and could run faster, or because he was more fervent in seeing: but nevertheless Peter was more diligent in examining; whence there follows a disparity in the diligence of examination.

What then is designated by John except the Synagogue, what by Peter except the Church? Nor should it seem strange that the Synagogue is said to be signified by the younger and the Church by the elder, because even if the Synagogue is prior to the Church of the Gentiles in the worship of God, nevertheless the multitude of the Gentiles is prior to the Synagogue in the practice of the world, as Paul attests when he says: "Because what is spiritual is not first, but what is natural." Therefore by the elder Peter is signified the Church of the Gentiles, but by the younger John the Synagogue of the Jews. Both ran together, because from the time of its origin until its setting, the Gentile world ran with the Synagogue by a common and equal path, even if not with a common and equal understanding.

But this account of the Evangelist must not be thought to be without some mystical meaning. By John, the younger of the two, the synagogue; by Peter, the elder, the Gentile Church is represented: for though the synagogue was before the Gentile Church as regards the worship of God, as regards time the Gentile world was before the synagogue. They ran together, because the Gentile world ran side by side with the synagogue from first to last, in respect of purity and community of life, though a purity and community of understanding they had not.

Or thus: Peter is practical and prompt, John contemplative and intelligent, and learned in divine things. Now the contemplative man is generally beforehand in knowledge and intelligence, but the practical by his fervour and activity gets the advance of the other's perception, and sees first into the divine mystery.

2478 Secondly, we see the details of their search. First, it is said that they ran, they both ran, they who loved Christ more than the others: "I will run in the way of your commandments" (Ps 119:32); "So run that you may obtain it," the prize (1 Cor 9:25).

2479 Secondly, we see how the disciples arrived, the other disciple outran Peter. John arrived first, and Peter followed.

"And he stooping down," he says, "saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and saw the linen clothes lying, and the napkin, which had been about His head, not lying with the linen clothes, but folded up in one place by itself." Do we suppose these things have no meaning? I can suppose no such thing. But we hasten on to other points, on which we are compelled to linger by the need there is for investigation, or some other kind of obscurity. For in such things as are self-manifest, the inquiry into the meaning even of individual details is, indeed, a subject of holy delight, but only for those who have leisure, which is not the case with us.

And when he had stooped down, he saw the linen cloths lying there, yet he did not go in: and so in seeking he was swift, but in examination remiss, while Peter on the contrary.

The cloths lying within seem to me at once to furnish also a proof that the body had not been taken away by people, as Mary supposed. For no one taking away the body would leave the linens, nor would the thief ever have stayed until he had undone the linens and so be caught. And at the same time they establish the resurrection of the body from the dead. For God, who transforms the bodies of our humiliation so as to be conformed to the body of Christ's glory, changed the body as an organ of the power that dwelt in it, changing it into something more divine. But he left the linen cloths as superfluous and foreign to the nature of the body.

The Synagogue came first to the tomb, but did not enter, because although it received the commandments of the law and heard the prophecies concerning the incarnation and passion of the Lord, it refused to believe in the one who died. For John saw the linen cloths lying there, yet did not enter, because the Synagogue both recognized the mysteries of sacred Scripture and yet delayed entering through faith by believing in the Lord's passion. The one whom it had long prophesied from afar, it saw present and rejected; it despised him as a man and refused to believe that God had been made mortal in flesh. What does this mean, except that it both ran more quickly and yet stood empty before the tomb?

The synagogue came first to the sepulchre, but entered not: it knew the commandments of the law, and had heard the prophecies of our Lord's incarnation and death, but would not believe in Him who died.

(Hom. lxxxv) On coming he sees the linen clothes set aside: And he slooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying. But he makes no further search: yet went he not in.

Note, if you will, the humility of the evangelist, with which he testifies to the thoroughness of Peter's investigation. He himself arrived first, saw the linen cloths lying there, and investigates nothing further, but waits for Peter.

2480 It is not without reason that the Evangelist is careful to tell us the smallest details. For these two disciples signify two peoples, the Jews [by John] and the Gentiles [by Peter]. Although the Jews were the first to have knowledge of the one true God, the Gentiles were an older people, because even the Jews originated from the Gentiles: "Go from your country and your kindred" (Gen 12:1). These two people were both running over the course of this world: the Jews using the written law, the Gentiles using the law of nature. Or, they were both running by their natural desire for happiness and for a knowledge of the truth, which all men desire to know by their very nature. But the other disciple, that is, the younger one, outran Peter, because the Gentiles came to a knowledge of the truth more slowly than the Jews, since formerly God was known only in Judea. So the Psalm says, "He has not dealt thus with any other nation" (Ps 147:20).

The other disciple reached the tomb first, because he [John, the younger, representing the Jews] was the first to look upon the mysteries of Christ, and the promise was first made to the Jews: "They are the Israelites, and to them belong the... promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ" (Rom 9:4).

And stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. And stooping, under the yoke of the law, "All that the Lord has spoken we will do" (Ex 24:7), he saw the linen cloths lying there, that is, the figures or foreshadowings of all the mysteries, "But their minds were hardened; for to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains uplifted" (2 Cor 3:14). But he did not go in, for as long as he was unwilling to believe in the one who was dead he had not yet come to the knowledge of the truth. Another who did not go in was the brother of the prodigal son, for when he heard the celebrations, the music and the dancing, he "refused to go in" (Lk 15:28). Nevertheless, David promised that they would enter: "I will go to the altar of God" (Ps 43:4).

Then Simon Peter came, following him, and entered the tomb, not content merely to look from outside, as John. And so that saying of Matthew 19 was verified: "The last shall be first, and the first last." And he saw the linen cloths lying there, separately.

But Simon Peter came following him and entered the tomb, because the Church of the Gentiles, coming after, both recognized the mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ, dead in the flesh, and believed him to be the living God.

Then cometh Simon Peter, and enteredinto the sepulchre: the Gentile Church both knew Jesus Christ as dead man, and believed in Him as living God.

(Hom. lxxxv) Peter on the other hand, being of a more fervid temper, pursued the search, and examined every thing: Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, and the napkin, that was about His head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. Which circumstances were proof of His resurrection. For had they carried Him away, they would not have stripped Him; nor, if any had stolen Him, would they have taken the trouble to wrap up the napkin, and put it in a place by itself, apart from the linen clothes; but would have taken away the body as it was. John mentioned the myrrh first of all, for this reason, i. e. to show you that He could not have been stolen away. For myrrh would make the linen adhere to the body, and so caused trouble to the thieves, and they would never have been so senseless as to have taken this unnecessary pains about the matter.

2481 Now the Evangelist recounts the arrival of Peter. As for the literal meaning, the fact that they ran together was a sign of their passionate devotion. John arrived first because he was a younger man than Peter. But considering the mystical sense, Peter follows John because the Gentiles who were converted to Christ were not joined to another church different from the church of the Jews, but were grafted on to the already existing olive tree and church. The Apostle praises them saying, "For you brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus which are in Judea" (1 Thess 2:14).

2482 Thirdly, we see the order in which they entered, Peter first, and then John.

And the napkin that had been over his head, not placed with the linen cloths, as though this had been done in haste: but rolled up separately in one place: the linen cloths for covering the body: above in chapter 19: "They took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths"; the napkin for covering the face: above in chapter 11: "And his face was bound with a napkin." And so he examined all things diligently before John, who had preceded him, but nevertheless in diligent examination he follows him.

He saw the linen cloths lying there, and the cloth that had been over his head, not lying with the linen cloths but rolled up separately in one place. What do we believe it means, brothers, that the cloth from the Lord's head is not found with the linen cloths in the tomb, except that, as Paul attests, God is the head of Christ, and the incomprehensible mysteries of his divinity are separated from the knowledge of our weakness, and his power transcends the nature of creation? And it should be noted that it is said to be found not only separately but also rolled up in one place. For when a cloth is rolled up, neither its beginning nor its end can be seen. Rightly therefore was the cloth from his head found rolled up, because the majesty of divinity neither began to exist nor ceases; it is neither born through a beginning nor confined by an end.

And rightly is it added: "In one place," because God is not in the division of minds. For God is in unity, and those merit to have His grace who do not divide themselves from one another through the scandals of sects. But because sweat is usually wiped away from workers by a cloth, the labor of God can also be expressed by the name of cloth—He who indeed always remains quiet and unchangeable in Himself, yet nevertheless declares that He labors when He bears the harsh depravities of men. Whence He also says through the prophet: "I have labored in enduring." Now God appeared in the flesh, He labored from our infirmity. When unbelievers saw this labor of His passion, they refused to venerate Him. For they disdained to believe that He whom they saw mortal in the flesh was immortal in His divinity. Whence Jeremiah also says: "You will render to them their recompense, O Lord, according to the works of their hands; You will give them as a shield for the heart Your labor." For lest the darts of preaching should penetrate their hearts, since they disdained the labor of His passion, they held that same labor of His as if it were a shield, so that by the very fact that they saw Him labor even unto death, they would not permit His words to pass through to them.

But what are we except members of our Head, that is, of God? Therefore by the linens of the body are signified the bonds of labors which now bind all the elect, that is, His members. The cloth, therefore, which had been upon His head is found separately, because the passion itself of our Redeemer is far removed from our passion, since He without guilt bore what we endure with guilt. He willingly chose to succumb to death, to which we come unwilling.

The napkin about our Lord's head is not found with the linen clothes, i. e. God, the Head of Christ, and the incomprehensible mysteries of the Godhead are removed from our poor knowledge; His power transcends the nature of the creature. And it is found not only apart, but also wrapped together; because of the linen wrapped together, neither beginning nor end is seen; and the height of the Divine nature had neither beginning nor end. And it is into one place: for where there is division, God is not; and they merit His grace, who do not occasion scandal by dividing themselves into sects. But as a napkin is what is used in labouring to wipe the sweat of the brow, by the napkin here we may understand the labour of God: which napkin is found apart, because the suffering of our Redeemer is far removed from ours; inasmuch as He suffered innocently, that which we suffer justly; He submitted Himself to death voluntarily, we by necessity.

The fiery Peter entered inside the tomb and carefully examined everything. But understand how Peter is active and fervent, while John is perceptive and capable of comprehending Divine matters. The purely contemplative one arrives first through knowledge and giftedness, while the active one falls behind, yet through diligence and effort he overcomes the other's sharpness, and the active one is the first to discern some Divine mystery. Does not something similar happen in the sciences as well? Here too, of two boys, the less gifted and slower one surpasses through diligence the one who is by nature quicker and more talented. So also in spiritual matters, the active one who is unskilled in speech often understands better than the contemplative one.

2483 The Evangelist says that Peter entered the tomb. According to the literal meaning, although John arrived first, he did not enter because of his respect for Peter. But considering the mystical interpretation, this signifies that the Jewish people, who were the first to hear of the mysteries of the incarnation, would be converted to the faith after the Gentiles: "That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness have attained it... but that Israel who pursued the righteousness which is based in law did not succeed in fulfilling that law" (Rom 9:30). John saw only the linen cloths. He, Peter, also saw the linen cloths because we [Gentiles] do not reject the Old Testament, for as Luke says, "Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures" (Lk 24:45). But in addition Peter saw the napkin which had been on his head: "The head of Christ is God" (1 Cor 11:3). Thus to see the napkin which had been on the head of Jesus is to have faith in the divinity of Christ, which the Jews refused to accept. This napkin is described as not lying with the linen cloths, and rolled up, having a place by itself, because the divinity of Christ is covered over, and it is apart from every creature because of its excellence: "God who is over all be blessed for ever" (Rom 9:5); "Truly, you art a God who hides yourself" (Is 45:15). He saw the napkin rolled up, to form a circle. And when linen is rolled this way one can not see its beginning or end, for the eminence of the divinity neither begins nor ends: "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever" (Heb 13:8); "You are the same, and your years have no end" (Ps 102:27). The napkin was in one place, a place by itself, because God does not dwell where minds are divided; those who merit his grace are those who are one in charity: "His place is in peace" [Ps 76:2]; "For God is not a God of confusion but of peace" (1 Cor 14:33).

2484 Or, in another interpretation, the napkin, which workers use to wipe the sweat off their faces can be understood to indicate the labor of God. For while God always remains tranquil, he presents himself as laboring and burdened when he endures the stubborn depravity of mankind: "They have become a burden to me, I am weary of bearing them" (Is 1:14). Christ took on this burden in a special way when he took on a human nature: "Let him give his cheek to the smiter, and be filled with insults" (Lam 3:30). This napkin is found separate and apart from the other cloths because the sufferings of our Redeemer are far apart and separate from our sufferings. The other linen cloths, which are related to the members of the body as the napkin is to the head, indicate the sufferings of the saints, which are separate from the napkin, that is, the sufferings of Christ, for Christ suffered without fault what we suffer because of our faults: "For Christ also died... the righteous for the unrighteous" (1 Pet 3:18). He went to his death willingly ‑"No one takes it [my life] from me, but I lay it down of my own accord" (10:18); "Christ loved us and gave himself up for us" (Eph 5:2) ‑ while the saints go to their death reluctantly, "Another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go" (21:18).

2485 Why was the Evangelist so careful to mention all these details? Chrysostom says this was done to counter the false rumor spread by the Jews that the body of Christ had been secretly taken away, as we see from Matthew (28:13). For if Christ's body had been stolen away as they said, the disciples would surely not have removed the wrappings, especially since they had to work fast because the guards were near. Nor would they be so careful to lift off the napkin and roll it up and place it in a separate place. They would simply have taken the body as they found it. This was why he allowed himself to be buried with myrrh and aloes: they glue the cloths to the body so that they cannot be quickly removed.

"Then went in also that other disciple who had come first to the sepulchre." He came first, and entered last. This also of a certainty is not without a meaning, but I am without the leisure needful for its explanation. "And he saw, and believed." Here some, by not giving due attention, suppose that John believed that Jesus had risen again; but there is no indication of this from the words that follow. For what does he mean by immediately adding, "For as yet they knew not the scripture, that He must rise again from the dead"? He could not then have believed that He had risen again, when he did not know that it behoved Him to rise again. What then did he see? what was it that he believed? What but this, that he saw the sepulchre empty, and believed what the woman had said, that He had been taken away from the tomb? "For as yet they knew not the scripture, that He must rise again from the dead." Thus also when they heard of it from the Lord Himself, although it was uttered in the plainest terms, yet from their custom of hearing Him speaking by parables, they did not understand, and believed that something else was His meaning.

(Tract. cxxii) i. e. That Jesus had risen again, some think: but what follows contradicts this notion. He saw the sepulchre empty, and believed what the woman had said: For as yet they knew not the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead. If he did not yet know that He must rise again from the dead, he could not believe that He had risen. They had heard as much indeed from our Lord, and very openly, but they were so accustomed to hear parables from Him, that they took this for a parable, and thought He meant something else.

Then therefore that other disciple also entered, who had come first to the tomb, namely by the example of Peter, and he saw the things which have been mentioned, and he believed. But it is expounded differently according to Chrysostom and differently according to Augustine. For Chrysostom expounds: he believed, namely that He had risen; and he drew his argument from this, that if someone had taken Him away, he would not have left everything so orderly arranged, things which were more useful than the body. But Augustine expounds it differently: he believed, namely that the body had been taken away, as the woman had said; and he proves this by the following text.

Question. Since Luke says in the twenty-fourth chapter that Peter went to the tomb, speaking only of Peter, what does it mean that John here says two ran? And further, what necessity was there for John here to make mention of himself? It seems that he would have done better by keeping silent. Augustine responds in the third book of On the Harmony of the Evangelists that Luke mentioned Peter alone because Mary Magdalene first announced it to him; and yet he himself mentions both; whence Cleophas said: Some of our own went to the tomb, etc. To the other point that is asked: why does he make mention of himself? There is a twofold reason: the literal reason, namely, because he wished to place Peter before himself, so as to praise Peter and humble himself: because, although he himself arrived first, he entered after. The allegorical reason is that by John the Jewish people is signified, and by Peter the elder the Gentile people is designated. John ran first but did not enter: because the Jew first received the Law but did not believe; the Gentile, however, arriving later, believed.

When these men (I mean Peter and John, the writer of this book, for he gives himself the name of the other disciple) heard this news from the woman's mouth, they ran with all the speed they could and hurried to the sepulcher. They saw the marvel with their own eyes, being in themselves competent to testify to the event, for they were two in number as the Law enjoined. As yet they did not meet Christ risen from the dead, but they infer his resurrection from the bundle of linen clothes, and from that time on they believed that he had burst the bonds of death, as holy Scripture had long ago proclaimed that he would do. When, therefore, they looked at the issues of events in the light of the prophecies that turned out true, their faith was from that time forward rooted on a firm foundation.

Then therefore that disciple who had come first to the tomb also entered. After Peter entered, John also went in. He who had come first entered later. It should be noted, brothers, that at the end of the world Judea too will be gathered to faith in the Redeemer, as Paul testifies when he says: "Until the fullness of the Gentiles should enter, and so all Israel should be saved." And he saw and believed. What, brothers, what are we to think he believed? Was it that the Lord whom he was seeking had risen? Certainly not, because there was still darkness at the tomb, and the words that follow also contradict this when it says: "For they did not yet know the Scriptures, that he must rise from the dead." What then did he see, and what did he believe? He saw the linen cloths lying there, and he believed what the woman had said, that the Lord had been taken from the tomb.

But after Peter entered, John entered too; for at the end of the world even Judaea shall be gathered in to the true faith.

(Hom. lxxxv) After Peter however, John entered: Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.

Then he too (John), having entered after him (Peter), saw the burial linens lying separately from one another, and believed — not, however, that the Lord had risen, but that He had been stolen. He believed the words of Mary, that they had taken the Lord.

2486 When the Evangelist says, Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, he tells of John's entrance. John did not remain outside but entered after Peter, because when the world is ending, the Jews will also be gathered into the faith: "A hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in, and so all Israel will be saved" (Rom 11:25); "A remnant will be saved" [Is 10:21].

2487 Or, another interpretation, in the mystical sense. These two disciples stand for two kinds of people: John represents those who are devoted to the contemplation of truth, and Peter stands for those whose main interest is to carry out the commandments. In fact, "Simon" means "obedient." Now it very often happens that contemplatives, because they are docile, are the first to become acquainted with a knowledge of the mysteries of Christ ‑ but they do not enter, for sometimes there is knowledge, but little or no love follows. While those in the active life, because of their continuing fervor and earnestness, even though they are slower to understand, enter into them more quickly, so that those who are later to arrive, are the first to penetrate the divine mysteries: "So the last will be first, and the first last" (Mt 20:16).

For he did not yet know the Scripture, that He must rise from the dead: therefore he did not believe that He had risen, but that He had been taken away. Nevertheless, if we wish to hold the exposition of Chrysostom, the following text is continued thus: He saw and believed, that is, then for the first time he believed from seeing, because before he did not believe; for he did not yet know the Scripture.

"For they did not yet know the Scriptures, that he must rise from the dead." In this matter the greatness of divine providence must be considered, that the hearts of the disciples are both kindled to seek and yet delayed from finding, so that the weakness of the soul, tormented by its own sorrow, might become purer for finding, and might hold on more firmly when it found, the later it found what it was seeking.

Do you see that they clearly understood nothing about the resurrection? The Evangelist pointed out this very thing when he said, "As yet they did not know the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead." In addition to their failure to understand this, they were in much deeper ignorance about other things, such as the kingdom of heaven, that we are chosen as the first fruits, and his ascension into heaven. They were still confined to the ground and not yet able to fly.Such was the understanding they had. They expected that the kingdom would come to him immediately in Jerusalem because they had no better grasp of what the kingdom of heaven really is. Another Evangelist hinted at this when he said that they thought of it as a human kingdom. They were expecting him to enter into it but not to go to the cross and death. Even though they had heard it ten thousand times, they could not clearly understand.

Because he believed Mary and did not think of the resurrection? Because they did not yet know "the Scripture, that He must rise from the dead," and they believed Mary, who suspected that the body had been stolen and moved.

2488 Next when he says, he saw and believed, we see the effect of the investigation. At first glance it seems to mean that he saw the situation and believed that Christ had arisen. But according to Augustine this is not correct, because the next thing the Evangelist says is, for as yet they did not know the scripture, that he must rise from the dead. Therefore, one must say that he saw the empty tomb and believed what the woman had said, which is that someone had taken the Lord. Then we read, for as yet they did not know the scripture, because the meaning of the Scripture was not yet opened to them so they could understand it (Lk 24:45).

But certainly Christ had foretold his passion and resurrection? "I will rise on the third day" [Mt 20:19]. I answer that we should say that in keeping with the way they heard his parables, they failed here also to understand many things which he had said plainly, thinking that he meant something else.

2489 Or, according to Chrysostom's understanding, he saw the linen cloths so folded and arranged which would not have been the case if the body had been furtively snatched away; and believed, with a true faith, that Christ had risen from the dead. What follows, for as yet they did not know the scripture, refers to the statement, he saw and believed. It was like saying: before he saw these things he did not understand the scripture that he must rise from the dead; but when he saw he believed that he had risen from the dead.

Mary Magdalene had brought the news to His disciples, Peter and John, that the Lord was taken away from the sepulchre; and they, when they came thither, found only the linen clothes wherewith the body had been shrouded; and what else could they believe but what she had told them, and what she had herself also believed? "Then the disciples went away again unto their own" (home); that is to say, where they were dwelling, and from which they had run to the sepulchre. "But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping." For while the men returned, the weaker sex was fastened to the place by a stronger affection. And the eyes, which had sought the Lord and had not found Him, had now nothing else to do but weep, deeper in their sorrow that He had been taken away from the sepulchre than that He had been slain on the tree; seeing that in the case even of such a Master, when His living presence was withdrawn from their eyes, His remembrance also had ceased to remain. Such grief, therefore, now kept the woman at the sepulchre.

(Tr. cxxi. 1) i. e. To the place where they were lodging, and from which they had ran to the sepulchre. But though the men returned, the stronger love of the woman fixed her to the spot. But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping.

(de Con. Ev. iii. xxiv. 69) i. e. Outside of the place where the stone sepulchre was, but yet within the garden.

(Tr. cxxi. 1) The eyes then which had sought our Lord, and found Him not, now wept without interruption; more for grief that our Lord had been removed, than for His death upon the cross. For now even all memorial of Him was taken away.

The intense desolation of Mary is therefore intimated, which in its restlessness did not allow her to depart from the sepulcher, even when the other disciples were departing; therefore he says: The disciples therefore went away to their own homes, "that is, where they had been dwelling" before they had come to the tomb, so that they might receive some consolation.

Question. Since Peter loved the Lord so fervently, why did he not remain at the tomb weeping, as Mary did, but departed? And Chrysostom responds: "The female sex is in a certain way more given to compassion"; and therefore do not marvel that Mary wept bitterly at the sepulcher, while Peter felt no such compassion. Others take the reason from the side of faith: for because the woman hoped less concerning the resurrection, therefore she grieved more over the body having been taken away; but Peter, although not fully, nevertheless in some way had confidence: whence it is said in Luke that "he went away wondering to himself." Others take the reason from the side of love, namely because at that time she burned more vehemently than the disciples and was more fervent, therefore she was also more solicitous.

The wise disciples, after having gathered sufficiently satisfactory evidence of the resurrection of our Savior, were unsure, as it were, what to do with their confirmed and unshaken faith. Comparing the events as they had actually occurred with the prophecies of holy Scripture, they went back home and most likely hurried to see their fellow workers to recount the miracle and afterward consider what course should be pursued. They may have also had another motive in doing what they did. For the passion of the Jews was at its height, and the rulers were thirsting eagerly for the blood of every person who marveled at the teaching of the Savior and confessed his divine and ineffable power and glory. But most of all they thirsted for the blood of the holy disciples themselves, who then had good reason for shrinking from an encounter with them. This is why they left the sepulcher before it was quite light, since they could not have done so without risk if they were seen leaving in the daytime—the sun's rays revealing them to everyone. We are far from saying that they were cowards as a reason for their cautious flight. Rather, it is more likely that the knowledge of what was expedient for them was instilled in the minds of the saints by Christ who did not permit these who were destined to be lights and teachers of the world to run unnecessary risks.

(Hom. xxv. in Evang.) Mary Magdalene, who had been the sinner in the city, and who had washed out the spots of her sins by her tears, whose soul burned with love, did not retire from the sepulchre when the others did: Then the disciples went away again unto their own home.

Full of feeling somehow is the female sex, and more inclined to pity. I say this, lest thou shouldest wonder how it could be that Mary wept bitterly at the tomb, while Peter was in no way so affected. For, "The disciples," it saith, "went away unto their own home"; but she stood shedding tears. Because hers was a feeble nature, and she as yet knew not accurately the account of the Resurrection; whereas they having seen the linen clothes and believed, departed to their own homes in astonishment. And wherefore went they not straightway to Galilee, as had been commanded them before the Passion? They waited for the others, perhaps, and besides they were yet at the height of their amazement. These then went their way: but she stood at the place, for, as I have said, even the sight of the tomb tended greatly to comfort her. At any rate, thou seest her, the more to ease her grief, stooping down, and desiring to behold the place where the body lay.

So they returned to themselves, that is, by themselves, having learned nothing more.

2490 Having told how Mary Magdalene came to the opened tomb, the Evangelist now tells how she came to see the angels: first, we see her devotion; secondly, she sees the angels (v 12); thirdly, we have her conversation with them (v 13). Her devotion, which made her fit to see the angels, is praised for three things.

After speaking the foregoing parable, our Lord censures the ungrateful...

(de Quæst. Ev. l. ii. qu. 40.) The lepers may be taken mystically for those who, having no knowledge of the true faith, profess various erroneous doctrines. For they do not conceal their ignorance, but blazen it forth as the highest wisdom, making a vain show of it with boasting words. But since leprosy is a blemish in colour, when true things appear clumsily mixed up with false in a single discourse or narration, as in the colour of a single body, they represent a leprosy streaking and disfiguring as it were with true and false dyes the colour of the human form. Now these lepers must be so put away from the Church, that being as far removed as possible, they may with loud shouts call upon Christ. But by their calling Him Teacher, I think it is plainly implied that leprosy is truly the false doctrine which the good teacher may wash away. Now we find that of those upon whom our Lord bestowed bodily mercies, not one did He send to the priests, save the lepers, for the Jewish priesthood was a figure of that priesthood which is in the Church. All vices our Lord corrects and heals by His own power working inwardly in the conscience, but the teaching of infusion by means of the Sacrament, or of catechizing by word of mouth, was assigned to the Church. And as they went, they were cleansed; just as the Gentiles to whom Peter came, having not yet received the sacrament of Baptism, whereby we come spiritually to the priests, are declared cleansed by the infusion of the Holy Spirit. Whoever then follows true and sound doctrine in the fellowship of the Church, proclaiming himself to be free from the confusion of lies, as it were a leprosy, yet still ungrateful to his Cleanser does not prostrate himself with pious humility of thanksgiving, is like to those of whom the Apostle says, that when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, nor were thankful. (Rom. 1:21.) Such then will remain in the ninth number as imperfect. For the nine need one, that by a certain form of unity they may be cemented together, in order to become ten. But he who gave thanks was approved of as a type of the one only Church. And since these were Jews, they are declared to have lost through pride the kingdom of heaven, wherein most of all unity is preserved. But the man who was a Samaritan, which is by interpretation "guardian," giving back to Him who gave it that which he had received, according to the Psalm, My strength will I preserve for thee, (Ps. 59:9.) has kept the unity of the kingdom with humble devotion.

And it came to be, etc., ten leprous men met him. Leprous men can not unreasonably be understood as those who, not having the knowledge of true faith, profess various doctrines of error. For they do not hide their ignorance, but present it as supreme expertise to the light and display the boasting of their speech. And indeed there is no false doctrine which does not mix some truths among the false things. Hence true things mixed irregularly with false ones, appearing in one argument or narration of a man, as in the color of one body, signify leprosy, diversifying and staining human bodies with places of true and false colors. These therefore are to be avoided by the Church, so that if possible, being far removed, they may invoke Christ with a loud voice. Wherefore it is aptly added:

Second, with respect to the calamity of disease, he adds: And when he entered a certain village, there met him ten men who were lepers. In the literal sense, leprosy is a disease of wretched calamity, because it takes away the remedy of medicine, deprives of the solace of companionship, and afflicts with the burden of infirmity.

And such desolate ones ought to have recourse to the Father of mercies; therefore he adds: Who stood afar off, recognizing their uncleanness.

Spiritually, however, by the ten lepers is understood the universality of sinners sinning against the Decalogue; whence the Gloss: "Those who sin against the Decalogue, neither loving God, about whom they think wrongly, nor their neighbor, from whom they are divided, cry out to God under the number ten." Now the universality of sinners arises from four causes, namely from love that wrongly humiliates: and thus it is designated by the leprosy of Miriam in Numbers twelve, where it is said that after she murmured against Moses, "there appeared a leprosy shining white as snow."

Second, from love that wrongly inflames to the concupiscence of the flesh: and this is signified by the leprosy of Naaman the Syrian, of whom it is said that "he was a mighty and wealthy man, but a leper," in 4 Kings five.

Third, from love evilly inflaming to the concupiscence of the eyes: which is understood through the leprosy of Gehazi, Fourth Kings 5. For it was said to him on account of his covetousness and simony: "The leprosy of Naaman shall cleave to you and to your seed," etc.

Fourth, from love evilly inflaming to the pride of life: and this is understood through the leprosy of Uzziah, of whom it is said in Second Paralipomenon 26 that when he wished to place incense in the house of the Lord and usurp the priestly dignity, he was struck with leprosy.

As a figure of these four causes of leprosy, it is said in Fourth Kings 7 that "four leprous men were at the gate of Samaria," to designate the fourfold nature of the cause: and here there are ten to designate the universality of fault.

Spiritually, however, by leprosy is understood the vice against the Christian religion, which can come about in four ways; whence the Gloss: "Whoever, cleansed by the grace of God, has been freed from heretical depravity, or gentile superstition, or Jewish perfidy, or fraternal schism: it is necessary that he return to the Church."

Now by these four aforesaid vices the law of truth is especially assailed, which consists in the observance of the Decalogue: and therefore they are fittingly figured by four and by ten. Now sinners of this kind, although they walk through dark ways, according to that saying of Proverbs 4: "The way of the wicked is darksome; they know not where they fall," yet when the Lord enters the village, that is, comes in the flesh, they are illuminated to see the way, according to that saying of Isaiah 9: "To those dwelling in the region of the shadow of death, light has risen upon them." And they meet him, through repentance, which causes the face that was turned away to be turned back; Jeremiah 31: "Convert me, O Lord, and I shall be converted." "After you converted me, I did penance." Now this repentance causes one to stand afar off, through the humility of self-abasement: below, chapter 18: "The publican, standing afar off," etc.; it causes one to lift up the voice, through the bitterness of compunction; Habakkuk 3: "The deep uttered its voice," that is, the sinner; it also causes one to seek healing, through the confidence of prayer, according to that saying of the Psalm: "I said: Lord, have mercy on me; heal my soul."

The Saviour next manifests His glory by drawing over Israel to the faith. As it follows, And as he entered into a certain village, there met him ten men that were lepers, men who were banished from the towns and cities, and counted unclean, according to the rites of the Mosaic law.

Behold, "ten leprous men" met Jesus when He was about to enter a certain city. They met Him outside the city, for since they were considered unclean, they were not permitted to live inside the city (Lev. 13:46). They stood "afar off," as if ashamed of their supposed uncleanness and not daring to approach, thinking that Jesus too would be disgusted by them, as others did.

They therefore stand afar off as if ashamed of the uncleanness which was imputed to them, thinking that Christ would loathe them as others did.

They associated together from the sympathy they felt as partakers of the same calamity, and were waiting till Jesus passed, anxiously looking out to see Him approach. As it is said, Which stood afar off, for the Jewish law esteems leprosy unclean, whereas the law of the Gospel calls unclean not the outward, but the inward leprosy.

Those who stood afar off, and lifted up their voice, saying: Jesus, Master, have mercy on us. And well, that they may be saved, they call Jesus Master. For indeed, in his words, they show they have erred, calling him the humble teacher of salvation, and when they return to the knowledge of the teacher, they immediately recur to the form of salvation. For it follows:

And they lifted up their voice, expressing their misery: saying: Jesus, Master, have mercy on us, imploring divine mercy, according to that which the Prophet says in the Psalm: "I am afflicted and humbled exceedingly; I roared from the groaning of my heart."

Spiritually, however, by the ten lepers is understood the universality of sinners sinning against the Decalogue; whence the Gloss: "Those who sin against the Decalogue, neither loving God, about whom they think wrongly, nor their neighbor, from whom they are divided, cry out to God under the number ten." Now sinners of this kind, although they walk through dark ways, according to that saying of Proverbs 4: "The way of the wicked is darksome; they know not where they fall," yet when the Lord enters the village, that is, comes in the flesh, they are illuminated to see the way, according to that saying of Isaiah 9: "To those dwelling in the region of the shadow of death, light has risen upon them." And they meet him, through repentance, which causes the face that was turned away to be turned back; Jeremiah 31: "Convert me, O Lord, and I shall be converted." "After you converted me, I did penance." Now this repentance causes one to stand afar off, through the humility of self-abasement: below, chapter 18: "The publican, standing afar off," etc.; it causes one to lift up the voice, through the bitterness of compunction; Habakkuk 3: "The deep uttered its voice," that is, the sinner; it also causes one to seek healing, through the confidence of prayer, according to that saying of the Psalm: "I said: Lord, have mercy on me; heal my soul."

And they raised their voices and asked for mercy. In place they stood afar off, but through prayer they drew near. For the Lord is near to all who call upon Him in truth (Ps. 145:18). They ask for mercy not as from a mere man, but as from one who is above man. For they call Jesus Master, that is, Lord, Guardian, Overseer, which is very close to calling Him God.

Thus they stood afar off, but were made nigh unto Him by their prayers. For the Lord is nigh unto all them that call upon him in truth. (Ps. 145:18.) Therefore it follows, And they lifted up their voices, and said, Jesus, Master, have mercy upon us.

They do not merely supplicate or entreat Him as if He were a man, but they call Him Master or Lord, as if almost they looked upon Him as God.

They pronounce the name of Jesus, and gain to themselves the reality. For Jesus is by interpretation Saviour. They say, Have mercy upon us, because they were sensible of His power, and sought neither for gold and silver, but that their bodies might put on again a healthful appearance.

Today, the Lord rebukes those who keep the Passover the way the Jews did, just as he rebuked certain lepers he had cleansed. You recall that he loved the one who was thankful, but he was angry with the ungrateful ones, because they did not acknowledge their Deliverer. They thought more highly of their cure from leprosy than of him who had healed them.… Actually, this one was given much more than the rest. Besides being healed of his leprosy, he was told by the Lord, "Stand up and go on your way. Your faith has saved you."You see, those who give thanks and those who glorify have the same kind of feelings. They bless their helper for the benefits they have received. That is why Paul urged everybody to "glorify God with your body." Isaiah also commanded, "Give glory to God."

One of them, etc. This one, who returned glorifying God, signifies the devoted humility of the one Church to Christ. Who, well falling at the feet of the Lord, gave thanks. For he truly gives thanks to God, who, by repressing the thoughts of his own presumption, humbly sees how weak he is in himself, who attributes no virtue to himself, who acknowledges that the good deeds he performs come from the mercy of the Creator. Hence it is rightly added:

But one of them etc. After the cure of the incurable disease or infirmity, there is described here secondly the commendation of praiseworthy gratitude, concerning which three things are introduced, namely the giving of thanks, the rebuke of ingratitude, and the approval of gratitude.

First, therefore, as regards the giving of thanks, it is premised: But one of them, when he saw that he was cleansed, through the recognition, namely, of the benefit; Romans eleven: "See therefore the goodness of God toward you, if you shall continue in goodness."

He returned, with a loud voice glorifying God, through the glorification of the benefactor, according to that passage of Tobit twelve: "Bless the God of heaven and confess to him before all the living, because he has shown his mercy to you"; and the Psalm: "I will sing to the Lord, who has bestowed good things upon me" etc.

Whence also, astonished that one only out of the ten was thankful for his release to the divine grace, He does not command him to offer a gift according to the law, because he had already paid his tribute of gratitude when "he glorified God; for thus did the Lord will that the law's requirement should be interpreted.

But see, as we also said at the beginning, out of ten men nine, although they were Israelites, remained ungrateful.

But out of the ten, the nine Israelites were ungrateful, whereas the Samaritan stranger returned and lifted up his voice in thanksgiving, as it follows, And one of them turned back, and with a loud voice glorified God.

When he found that he was cleansed, he had boldness to draw near, as it follows, And fell down on his face at his feet giving him thanks. Thus by his prostration and prayers showing at once both his faith and his gratitude. It follows, And he was a Samaritan.

And he was a Samaritan. Indeed, Samaritan is interpreted as custodian. By this name, that people who, by giving thanks to Him from whom they received, attributes everything they received, is most aptly signified, in a manner singing from the Psalm: My strength I will guard for You, because You, O God, are my protector; my God, His mercy will precede me (Psalm LVIII). He falls moreover on his face, because he blushes from the evils he remembers having committed. For there man falls where he is ashamed. Hence also Paul, as if saying to some lying on their face, said: What fruit then did you have in those things of which you are now ashamed (Rom. VI)? On the other hand, concerning the rider of the horse, that is, about him who is lifted up in the glory of this world, it is said: His rider shall fall backward (Gen. XLIX). And again concerning the persecutors of the Lord it is written: They went backward and fell to the ground (John XVIII). What is this, that the chosen fall on their face and the reprobate fall backward, except that everyone who falls backward falls where he undoubtedly does not see; but he who falls forward falls where he sees? Therefore, the wicked, because they fall into things unseen, are said to fall backward, because they collapse where they cannot currently see what follows them. But the just, because they willingly cast themselves down in these visible things in order to be raised in the invisible, as if they fall on their face, because pierced by fear while seeing, they are humbled.

He fell upon his face, because he blushes with shame when he remembers the evils he had committed.

And he fell on his face before his feet, giving thanks to him, namely through the display of reverence and honor: Ezekiel 2: "I saw and fell upon my face"; and Revelation 1: "When I had seen him, I fell at his feet as though dead."

And this one was a Samaritan, to express the figure and signification. For this man, because he was a Samaritan and a foreigner, signifies the gentiles returning to the worship of Christ, just as that Samaritan woman, John 4. Moreover, he designates not only because he was a gentile, but also because he was one: in which is understood ecclesiastical unity. Whence the Gloss: "The one who returned signifies the devout humility of the one Church toward Christ." In designation of which, Song of Songs 6: "My dove is one"; and 1 Corinthians 9: "All indeed run, but one receives the prize." For this reason one is introduced here as having returned, just as in that multitude one is healed: John 5: "The water was stirred, and one was healed"; and Christ healed only one there, so that, as Augustine says, he might show that no one can be healed except within ecclesiastical unity: concerning which unity, Ephesians 4: "Being solicitous to preserve the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace." "One Lord, one faith, one baptism," etc. But this one is said to fall on his face, because the Church not only has unity through love, but also humility through gratitude and fear. This is what the falling on the face itself signifies: for falling on the face signifies reverence, according to that passage of Revelation 7: "And all the Angels stood round about the throne," etc.; but falling backward signifies ruin: John 18: "They went backward and fell to the ground"; and 1 Kings 4: "Eli fell from the seat backward." Whence the Gloss: "He who falls on his face sees where he falls; he who falls backward does not see. The good therefore fall on their face, because they humble themselves in these visible things, where they see what follows them, so that they may be raised to invisible things. The wicked fall backward, because they fall in invisible things, where they do not see what follows them." Moreover, one falls on his face in the revelation of heavenly wonders, as is said in Daniel 10: "I heard the voice of his words, and hearing I lay prostrate upon my face, and my countenance cleaved to the ground." In the petition for divine charisms: Judith 6: "All the people fell on their face, adoring God, and with common lamentation and weeping poured forth their unanimous prayers to the Lord," etc. In the reception of benefits: Genesis 17: "Abraham fell on his face and laughed," etc.

But the Samaritan, although he was of a foreign race, returned and expressed his gratitude (for the Samaritans were Assyrians), so that none of the Gentiles would despair, and none of those descended from holy ancestors would boast of this.

We may gather from this that a man is not one whit hindered from pleasing God because he comes from a cursed race, only let him bear in his heart an honest purpose.

(ord.) Or, the Lord whom they killed, came immediately rising from the dead, and brought to an evil end those wicked husbandmen, and gave up His vineyard to other husbandmen, that is, to the Apostles.

Like Caiaphas (John 11:49) so did they, not from themselves, prophesy against themselves, that the oracles of God were to he taken from them, and given to the Gentiles, who could bring forth fruit in due season.

That their answer is true, comes not of any righteous judgment in them, but from the case itself; truth constrained them.

Otherwise: Luke has given the answer of their lips, Matthew that of their hearts. For some made answer openly contradicting Him, and saying, God forbid, but their consciences took it up with He shall miserably destroy these wicked men. For so when a man is detected in any wickedness, he excuses himself in words, but his conscience within pleads guilty.

The verdict is given: "he will bring those evil men to an evil end," i.e., to destruction in the present and in the future. And they say "evil," i.e., bitterly. Above (7:2): "With what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again." Wis 6:7: "The mighty shall be mightily tormented." "He will bring those evil men to an evil end, and will let out his vineyard," i.e., his people, "to other husbandmen," i.e., to the apostles, "that shall render him the fruit in their seasons." Ps 1:3: "And he shall be like a tree which is planted near the running waters, which shall bring forth its fruit in due season." Job 34:24: "He shall break in pieces many and innumerable, and shall make others to stand in their stead." And here there is a question, why in Mark the Lord answers, while here the Jews do. Solution. I say that first the Lord said it, and afterwards they said it. Likewise, in Luke it is found that when the Lord was saying this, they said, "God forbid." The true answer is that first they said it; afterwards, understanding that it was against them, they said "God forbid." Likewise, it is true that the rulers said it. And although they perceived that it was against them, they did not contradict; but the people said "God forbid."

(Serm. 218. App.) Hear the sacrament of a great mystery. Moses before had shut up the light of day from the traitors the Egyptians; Christ by going down thither brought back light to them that sate in darkness. He fled that he might enlighten them, not that he might escape his foes.

The miserable tyrant supposed that by the Saviour's coming he should be thrust from his royal throne. But it was not so; Christ came not to hurt others' dignity, but to bestow His own on others.

(Hom. in. Nat. Innocent.) The flight into Egypt signifies that the elect are often by the wickedness of the bad driven from their homes, or sentenced to banishment. Thus He, who, we shall see below, gave the command to His own, When they shall persecute you in one city, flee ye to another, first practised what He enjoined, as a man flying before the face of man on earth. He whom but a little before a star had proclaimed to the Magi to be worshipped as from heaven.

The first time when he would teach Joseph that she was lawfully espoused, the Angel called the Virgin his espoused wife; but after the birth she is only spoken of as the Mother of Jesus. As wedlock was rightfully imputed to her in her virginity, so virginity is esteemed venerable in her as the mother of Jesus.

(Vers. 13, 14.) Behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying: Rise and take the child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and stay there until I tell you. For it will come to pass that Herod will seek the child to destroy him. So Joseph rose and took the child and his mother by night, and went to Egypt; and he stayed there until the death of Herod. When he takes the child and his mother to go to Egypt, he takes them by night and in darkness; but when he returns to Judea, neither night nor darkness are mentioned in the Gospel.

When he takes the Child and His mother to go into Egypt, it is in the night and darkness, when to return into Judæa, the Gospel speaks of no light, no darkness.

"And when they were departed, behold, an angel appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young Child and His mother, and flee into Egypt."

There is something here worth inquiring into, both touching the magi, and touching the Child; for if even they were not troubled, but received all with faith, it is worthy of examination on our part, why they and the young Child are not preserved, continuing there, but they as fugitives go into Persia, He with His mother into Egypt. But what? should He have fallen into the hands of Herod, and having fallen, not have been cut off? Nay, He would not have been thought to have taken flesh upon Him; the greatness of the Economy would not have been believed.

For if, while these things are taking place, and many circumstances are being ordered mysteriously after the manner of men, some have dared to say that His assumption of our flesh is a fable; in what degree of impiety would they not have been wrecked, had He done all in a manner becoming His Godhead, and according to His own power?

As to the wise men, He sends them off quickly, at once both commissioning them as teachers to the land of the Persians, and at the same time intercepting the madness of the king, that he might learn that he was attempting things impossible, and might quench his wrath, and desist from this his vain labor. For not alone openly to subdue His enemies, but also to deceive them with ease, is worthy of His power.

And besides what I have said, there is another lesson also, which we are hereby taught, tending not slightly to true self-command in us. Of what kind then is it? To look from the beginning for temptations and plots. See, for instance, how this was the case even at once from His swaddling clothes. Thus you see at His birth, first a tyrant raging, then flight ensuing, and departure beyond the border; and for no crime His mother is exiled into the land of the barbarians: that thou, hearing these things (supposing thee thought worthy to minister to any spiritual matter, and then to see thyself suffering incurable ills, and enduring countless dangers), shouldest not be greatly troubled, nor say, "What can this be? yet surely I ought to be crowned and celebrated, and be glorious and illustrious for fulfilling the Lord's commandment:" but that having this example, thou mightest bear all things nobly, knowing that this especially is the order of all things spiritual, to have everywhere temptations in the same lot with them.

Now the angel having thus appeared, talks not with Mary, but with Joseph; and what saith he? "Arise, and take the young Child and His mother." Here, he saith not any more, "thy wife," but "His mother." For after that the birth had taken place, and the suspicion was done away, and the husband appeased, thenceforth the angel talks openly, calling neither child nor wife his, but "take the young Child and His mother, and flee into Egypt;" and he mentions the cause of the flight: "For Herod," saith he, "will seek the young Child's life."

Joseph, when he had heard these things, was not offended, neither did he say, "The thing is hard to understand: Didst thou not say just now, that He should 'save His people?' and now He saves not even Himself: but we must fly, and go far from home, and be a long time away: the facts are contrary to the promise." Nay, none of these things doth he say (for the man was faithful): neither is he curious about the time of his return; and this though the angel had put it indefinitely thus: "Be thou there until I tell thee." But nevertheless, not even at this did he shudder, but submits and obeys, undergoing all the trials with joy.

And this because God, who is full of love to man, did with these hardships mingle things pleasant also; which indeed is His way with regard to all the saints, making neither their dangers nor their refreshment continual, but weaving the life of all righteous men, out of both the one and the other. This very thing He did here also: for consider, Joseph saw the Virgin with child; this cast him into agitation and the utmost trouble, for he was suspecting the damsel of adultery. But straightway the angel was at hand to do away his suspicion, and remove his fears; and seeing the young child born, he reaped the greatest joy. Again, this joy no trifling danger succeeds, the city being troubled, and the king in his madness seeking after Him that was born. But this trouble was again succeeded by another joy; the star, and the adoration of the wise men. Again, after this pleasure, fear and danger; "For Herod," saith he, "is seeking the young Child's life," and He must needs fly and withdraw Himself as any mortal might: the working of miracles not being seasonable as yet. For if from His earliest infancy He had shown forth wonders, He would not have been accounted a Man.

Because of this, let me add, neither is a temple framed at once; but a regular conception takes place, and a time of nine months, and pangs, and a delivery, and giving suck, and silence for so long a space, and He awaits the age proper to manhood; that by all means acceptance might be won for the mystery of His Economy.

Rather, however, both the people and the patriarch, going down thither, and coming up thence, were together completing the type of this His return. Thus, as they went down to avoid death by famine, so He death by conspiracy. But whereas they on their arrival were for the time delivered from the famine, this man, when He had gone down, sanctified the whole land, by setting His foot thereon.

At least it is observable how, in the midst of His humiliations, the tokens of His Godhead are disclosed. Thus, first of all, the angel saying, "Flee into Egypt," did not promise to journey with them, either in their descent or return; intimating that they have a great fellow-traveller, the Child that had been born; such an one as actually changed all things immediately on His appearing, and wrought so that His enemies should minister in many ways to this Economy. Thus magi and barbarians, leaving the superstition of their fathers, are come to worship: thus Augustus ministers to the birth at Bethlehem by the decree for the taxing; Egypt receives and preserves Him, driven from His home, and plotted against, and obtains a sort of first impulse towards her union unto Him; so that when in after-time she should hear Him preached by the apostles, she might have this at least to glory of, as having received Him first. And yet this privilege did belong unto Palestine alone; but the second proved more fervent than the first.

His flight then was not occasioned by fear but by what had come through the mystery of prophecy. The Evangelist planted the seed when he thus spoke: "Take the boy and his mother and flee into Egypt." And later, "that what was written might be fulfilled: 'From Egypt have I summoned my son.' " Christ fled so that he might establish the truth of the law, faith in prophecy and the testimony of the psalter. The Lord himself says, "It was needful that what was written in the law and the prophets and the psalms be fulfilled by me." Christ fled for us, not for himself. Christ fled so that at the right time he might serve as a steward of the sacraments [the divine mysteries]. Christ fled so that by granting absolution he might take away the source of abuses to come and that he might give proof of faith to those who would believe. And finally, Christ fled so that he might bestow on us faith even when we have to flee, because in the face of persecution it is better to flee than to deny the faith. For Peter, because he was unwilling to flee, denied the Lord. John, lest he deny the Lord, fled.

Was it Herod seeking the child, or the devil working through Herod? When Herod saw the magi for himself, he imagined in his fantasy that they had fled their governors. For Christ, though bound in swaddling clothes, though busy at his mother's breast, though keeping quiet, concealing his words, unable to walk, nevertheless transformed the magi (who had been standard-bearers of the devil) into his most faithful servants. The devil instantly realized what Christ could do when he came of age. So he spurred the Jews against him and, clever contriver that he was, impelled Herod that he might get the jump on Christ in his infancy. He hoped to deprive him of the coming emblem of his virtue, the cross, the banner of the greatest victory for us. The devil perceived that Christ would soon be restoring life to all the world with his teaching and his virtue. Even while still whimpering as a baby, Jesus was taking possession of this world from top to bottom. It was as the prophet said: "Before the child knows to cry to his father and mother he shall take the pride of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria." The Jews themselves attest to this when they say, "You see how the whole world hastens after him."

He says not, 'the Mother and her young Child,' but, the young Child and His mother; for the Child was not born for the mother, but the mother prepared for the Child. How is this that the Son of God flies from the face of man? or who shall deliver from the enemy's hand, if He Himself fears His enemies? First; He ought to observe, even in this, the law of that human nature which He took on Him; and human nature and infancy must flee before threatening power. Next, that Christians when persecution makes it necessary should not be ashamed to fly.

Here Matthew omits the day of purification when the first-born must be presented in the Temple with a lamb, or a pair of turtle doves, or pigeons. Their fear of Herod did not make them bold to transgress the Law, that they should not present the Child in the temple. As soon then as the rumour concerning the Child begins to be spread abroad, the Angel is sent to bid Joseph carry Him into Egypt.

For when the true light withdraws, they who hate the light are in darkness, when it returns they are again enlightened.

By this that the Angel appears always to Joseph in sleep, is mystically signified that they who rest from mundane cares and secular pursuits, deserve angelic visitations.

In Joseph is figured the order of preachers, in Mary Holy Scripture; by the Child the knowledge of the Saviour; by the cruelty of Herod the persecution which the Church suffered in Jerusalem; by Joseph's flight into Egypt the passing of the preachers to the unbelieving Gentiles, (for Egypt signifies darkness;) by the time that he abode in Egypt the space of time between the ascension of the Lord and the coming of Anti Christ; by Herod's death the extinction of jealousy in the hearts of the Jews.

And when they had departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young Child and His mother. Do you see now the reason why God permitted the Virgin to be betrothed? It is revealed to you here: that Joseph might care for her and watch over her. The angel did not say, "take thy wife," but "take the mother of the Child." For once his suspicion had been allayed, and the righteous man had understood from the miracles attendant at His birth that everything was of the Holy Spirit, the angel no longer calls her Joseph's "wife." And flee into Egypt. Even the Lord flees, to confirm that He was truly man. For if He had fallen into the hands of Herod and had not been slain, it would have seemed that He had been made flesh only in appearance. He flees into Egypt to sanctify even that place. For there were two lands that were the workshops of every iniquity: Babylon and Egypt. By means of the Magi He accepted the adoration of Babylon, and Egypt He sanctified by His own presence. And be thou there until I bring thee word. Remain there until you receive God's command. So we, too, should do nothing apart from the will of God. For Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him. Behold the foolishness of a man who labors to prevail against the will of God. For if it is not of God, what do you fear? But if it is of God, how can you destroy the Child?

Having showed how the Magi bore witness to the newborn Christ, the evangelist now shows how the Innocents gave testimony, not by speaking but by dying. In regard to this he does three things: first, he shows how Christ was concealed; secondly, the murder of the children (v. 16); thirdly, Christ's return (v. 19).

In regard to the first he does three things: first, he mentions the angel's warning; secondly, Joseph's obedience (v. 14); thirdly, the fulfillment of a prophecy (v. 15).

In regard to the first, three things are mentioned: first, the time of the appearance; secondly, the appearance itself and the manner of the appearance (v. 13b); thirdly, the warning given by the angel (v. 13c).

(13) The time is described at When they had departed. And it should be noted that the appearance did not occur immediately after the departure of the Magi, because everything mentioned in Luke (2:22), namely, the purification, should be interposed: "And when the time came for their purification..." For the thought of killing the child did not come to Herod right away. Hence, when he says Behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph..., he is said to have appeared in sleep, because that is when men cease their external activities, and a revelation can be made by angels: "In peace I will both lie down and sleep" (Ps 4:8); "When you lie down, your sleep will be sweet" (Pr 3:24).

In the warning the angel does two things: first, the angel persuades him to flee; secondly, he gives the reason. He says, therefore Rise. And note that, as Hilary says, the Blessed Virgin is called "wife" by the angel before the birth (Mt 1:5) but not after for two reasons: first to commend the Virgin, for as a virgin she gave birth. Secondly, on account of her dignity, for she was the mother of God, than which there is no greater dignity. Also because, as Chrysostom says, the child had not come on account of the mother, but rather conversely. Therefore, he says Take the child and its mother. But why flee into Egypt? Does it not say in Ps 18 (v. 3): "The Lord is my helper and my redeemer." But he fled for three reasons: first, to manifest his humanity; for as the divinity appeared in the star, so in flight the humanity: "Made in the likeness of men" (Phil 2:7). Secondly, as an example: "When they persecute you in one city, flee into another" (Mt 10:23). Thirdly, on account of the mystery; for just as he willed to die in order to call us back from death, so he willed to flee in order to call back those who flee from his face through sin: "Where shall I flee from your spirit?" (Ps 139:7).

And remain there. But why to Egypt rather than some other region? For two reasons: first, because it is distinctive of God to be mindful of mercy in his anger (Hab 3:2). For the Lord had been angry at the Egyptians pursuing the sons of Israel, because the sons of Israel were God's firstborn. Therefore, the Egyptians were granted the privilege of serving the Lord: "Behold, the Lord, riding on a swift cloud, comes to Egypt" (Is 19:1); "We have seen his glory, the glory, as it were, of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth" (Jn 1:14). Secondly, because he had brought forth darkness in Egypt, he willed to enlighten it first. Therefore, it was well that he fled there: "The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, on them has light shined" (Is 9:2).

Note that when anyone wills to flee sin, the first thing to do is shake off laziness: "Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead and Christ shall enlighten you" (Eph 5:14). Secondly, he should take trust from the mother and from the Son, namely, Christ: "In me all hope of life and virtue" (Sir 24:18). Thirdly, he ought to flee from sin with the help of the mother and child: "Yes, I have wandered far, I have lodged in the wilderness" (Ps 55:7).

He adds the cause of the flight. For Herod is about to search for the child to destroy him. Herod was deceived, because he wanted to destroy the one who would come to share his kingdom: "As my father appointed a kingdom for me, so do I appoint one for you" (Lk 22:29); secondly, because he wanted to destroy him who sought no worldly glory: "Who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross" (Heb 12:2).

Egypt full of idols; for after this enquiry for Him among the Jews, Christ leaving Judæa goes to be cherished among nations given to the vainest superstitions.

Christ promised that he would come incarnate, that he would go through the phases of life, that he would announce the glory of the kingdom of heaven, that he would proclaim the way of faith and that by the power of his word alone he would put demons to flight. He promised that he would give sight to the blind, gait to the lame, speech to the mute, hearing to the deaf, remission for sinners and life to the dead. All these things he promised through the law and the prophets. Thus it was that Christ, when he was to become a man, was not to flee the death he escaped as an infant.

But why into Egypt? The Lord, who keepeth not His anger for ever, remembered the woes He had brought upon Egypt, and therefore sent His Son thither, and gives it this sign of great reconciliation, that with this one remedy He might heal the ten plagues of Egypt, and the nation that had been the persecutor of this first-born people, might be the guardian of His first-born Son. As formerly they had cruelly tyrannized, now they might devoutly serve; nor go to the Red Sea to be drowned, but be called to the waters of baptism to receive life.

The straitness of every persecution may be called night—the relief from it in like manner, day.

And he arose and took the young Child and His mother by night, and departed into Egypt; and was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, "Out of Egypt have I called My Son" (Hosea 11:1).

The Jews say that this was said of the people whom Moses led out of Egypt. We reply, is it anything remarkable that something which was spoken of the people in type as a foreshadowing, was realized by Christ in truth? Furthermore, who is the Son of God? The Hebrew people who worshipped the idols and carvings of Beelphegor, or He Who truly is the Son of God?

(14) And he rose. Here is mentioned the execution of the angel's command both as to the flight and the length of the stay. He rose and took the child and his mother. The time is mentioned, when he says at night, on account of the fear and distress: "My soul desired you at night," i.e., in distress (Is 26:9); for in times of distress one must have recourse to God: "In the morning, they will come to me in their trouble" (Hos 10:1). He rose. Then was fulfilled the word of Is (19:1): "Behold, the Lord is riding on a swift cloud and comes to Egypt," which was fulfilled to the letter.

Joseph therefore was commanded to accept this boy about whom Isaiah had said, "For a boy has been born to you; a son has been given to you, whose rule has extended over his shoulders." Now he said "a son has been given to you" because Christ the Lord was born as a boy and was counted a son of Joseph and Mary. As to his going down into Egypt, Isaiah predicted this long before the fact when he said, "Behold, the Lord sits atop a swift cloud and will come into Egypt." By this statement the promise of the Lord's incarnation was clearly revealed. Since the Lord himself is invoked as "arising from on high, the sunlight of justice," it is right that he would come on a swift cloud. By this Isaiah means he would come in a hallowed body, a body weighed down by no sin and through which he covered the light of his own majesty with the envelope of the cloud of his body. Hosea as well points to this very fact when he says, "The king of Israel has been thrown down. Because Israel was small, I took delight in him. And I called my son from Egypt."19After Egypt's ancient, grave sin, after many blows had been divinely inflicted upon it, God the omnipotent Father, moved by devotion, sent his Son into Egypt. He did so that Egypt, which had long ago paid back the penalty of wickedness owed under Moses, might now receive Christ, the hope for salvation. How great was God's compassion as shown in the advent of his Son! Egypt, which of old under Pharaoh stood stubborn against God, now became a witness to and home for Christ. God's compassion toward Egypt was like that shown toward the magi, who deserved to know Christ the Lord. For, although the magi had for a long time dared resist the divine goodness under Moses, they now, having seen but a single star in heaven, believed in the Son of God. The cavalier magicians were handed over to punishment for their lack of faith. Others were brought to glory through faith, since they believed that God had been born in the flesh—God whom the Egyptian magicians were unwilling to recognize in all his divine excellence.

Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, who use it. In this it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew. Wherefore these two forms exist "Out of Egypt have I called my son," and "for he shall be called a Nazarene."

(Verse 15, 16.) So that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying: Out of Egypt I called my son. Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its districts, from two years old and under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men. Let those who deny the truth of the Hebrew scriptures answer where this is read in the Septuagint translators. But since they did not find it, we will tell them it is written in the prophet Hosea (Chapter 11), as they can also confirm with the copies we recently published. However, we can reconcile (or console) this passage differently for the contentious, whose behavior the Apostle Paul denies having. And we present the testimony from Numbers, with Balaam saying: God has called him out of Egypt; His glory is like a unicorn (Numbers 23:22).

(Epist. 57.7.) This is not in the LXX; but in Osee according to the genuine Hebrew text we read; Israel is my child, and I have loved him, and, from Egypt have I called my Son; where the LXX render, Israel is my child, and I have loved him, and called my sons out of Egypt.

(In Osee 11:2.) The Evangelist cites this text, because it refers to Christ typically. For it is to be observed, that in this Prophet and in others, the coming of Christ and the call of the Gentiles are foreshewn in such a manner, that the thread of history is never broken.

Let those who deny the authenticity of the Hebrew copies, show us this passage in the LXX, and when they have failed to find it, we will show it them in the Hebrew. We may also explain it in another way, by considering it as quoted from Numbers, God brought him out of Egypt; his glory is as it were that of a unicorn. (Num. 23:22.)

But wherefore, it may be said, is the young Child sent into Egypt? In the first place, the evangelist himself hath mentioned the cause, saying, "That it might be fulfilled, Out of Egypt have I called my Son." And at the same time beginnings of fair hopes were thenceforth proclaimed before to the world. That is, since Babylon and Egypt, most in the whole earth, were burnt up with the flame of ungodliness, He, signifying from the first that He means to correct and amend both, and inducing men hereby to expect His bounties in regard of the whole world likewise, sent to the one the wise men, the other He Himself visited with His mother.

And if the Jews should raise a question touching the prophecy, and say, that the words, "Out of Egypt have I called my Son," were uttered concerning themselves; we would tell them, This is a law of prophecy, that in many cases much that is spoken of one set of persons is fulfilled in another; of which kind is that which is said touching Simeon and Levi, "I will divide them," saith He, "in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel." And yet not in themselves did this come to pass, but in their descendants; and Noah's saying again about Canaan, came to pass in the Gibeonites, Canaan's descendants. And that concerning Jacob one may see to have so come to pass; for those blessings which say, "Be lord over thy brother, and let thy father's sons worship thee," had no accomplishment in himself (how could they, he being in fear and trembling, and worshipping his brother over and over again?), but in his offspring they had. The very same may be said in this case also. For which may be called the truer son of God, he that worships a calf, and is joined to Baalpeor and sacrifices his sons to devils? or He that is a Son by nature, and honors Him that begat Him? So that, except this man had come, the prophecy would not have received its due fulfillment. It is worth observing, too, that the evangelist intimates the same by the phrase, "that it might be fulfilled;" implying that it would not have been fulfilled, unless He had come.

And this makes the Virgin also in no common degree glorious and distinguished; that the very thing which was the whole people's supreme endowment in the way of praise, she also might thenceforth have for her own. I mean, that whereas they were proud of their coming up from Egypt, and used to boast of it (which indeed the prophet also was hinting at, when he said, "Have I not brought up the strangers from Cappadocia, and the Assyrians from the pit"), He makes this pre-eminence belong to the Virgin likewise.

Isaiah had foretold this flight into Egypt. Lo! the Lord shall ascend on a light cloud, and shall come into Egypt, and shall scatter the idols of Egypt. (Is. 19:1.) It is the practice of this Evangelist to confirm all he says; and that because he is writing to the Jews, therefore he adds, that it might be fulfilled, &c.

(15) And remained there. It is said that he was there seven years and lived in the city of Heliopolis. In regard to the mystery, by Joseph is signified preachers, i.e., the apostles, whose task is to replace the darkness with doctrine—they left the Jews and turned to the gentiles: "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it from you and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold we turn to the gentiles" (Acts 13:46).

And remain there till I tell you, i.e. until the unbelief of the Jews is ended: "Blindness has come upon part of Israel" (Rom 11:25). Then he applies the testimony of the prophet; hence he says, This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, "Out of Egypt I have called my son." The Septuagint is not the same, for it says: "Out of Egypt I have called his son."

There seems to be a question here, because this text does not appear to apply, in as much as it is preceded by the words: "When Israel was a child, I loved him"; hence, it seems to speak of Israel's call from Egypt. But it must be noted that in all the texts presented in the Old or New Testaments about Christ a certain distinction must be made: because some refer specifically to Christ, as Is (53:7): "He was led as a sheep to the slaughter"; but some are said of certain ones accordingly as they are a figure of Christ, such as the text in question. For they were called sons of Israel, because they possessed a likeness to the true only-begotten Son. And this is the meaning of "Out of Egypt I have called my son," i.e., special.

(non occ.) And while he thus persecutes Christ, he furnished an army (of martyrs) clothed in white robes of the same age as the Lord.

(Serm. 220. App.) Behold how this unrighteous enemy never could have so much profited these infants by his love, as he did by his hate; for as much as iniquity abounded against them, so much did the grace of blessing abound on them.

(Serm. 373. 3.) O blessed infants! He only will doubt of your crown in this your passion for Christ, who doubts that the baptism of Christ has a benefit for infants. He who at His birth had Angels to proclaim Him, the heavens to testify, and Magi to worship Him, could surely have prevented that these should not have died for Him, had He not known that they died not in that death, but rather lived in higher bliss. Far be the thought, that Christ who came to set men free, did nothing to reward those who died in His behalf, when hanging on the cross He prayed for those who put Him to death.

(Serm. 132. App.) The Magi had seen this unknown star in the heavens, not a few days, but two years before, as they had informed Herod when he enquired. This caused him to fix two years old and under; as it follows, according to the time he had enquired of the Magi.

(Gloss. ord.) Or because he feared that the Child to whom even stars ministered, might transform His appearance to greater or under that of His own age, or might conceal all those of that age: hence it seems to be that he slew all from one day to two years old.

(de Cons. Ev. ii. 11.) Or, disturbed by pressure of still more imminent dangers, Herod's thoughts are drawn to other thoughts than the slaughter of children, he might suppose that the Magi, unable to find Him whom they had supposed born, were ashamed to return to him. So the days of purification being accomplished, they might go up in safety to Jerusalem. And who does not see that that one day they may have escaped the attention of a King occupied with so many cares, and that afterwards when the things done in the Temple came to be spread abroad, then Herod discovered that he had been deceived by the Magi, and then sent and slew the children.

(Hom. in Nat. Innocent.) In this death of the children the precious death of all Christ's martyrs is figured; that they were infants signifies, that by the merit of humility alone can we come to the glory of martyrdom; that they were slain in Bethlehem and the coasts thereof, that the persecution shall be both in Jerusalem whence the Church originated, and throughout the world; in those of two years old are figured the perfect in doctrine and works; those under that age the neophytes; that they were slain while Christ escaped, signifies that the bodies of the martyrs may be destroyed by the wicked, but that Christ cannot be taken from them.

For Herod, as we have said, in his desire to destroy the Savior of the world, sent word to Bethlehem and commanded that all children two years of age and under be killed, figuring the age according to the time that he had learned from the magi. He thought that his edict would reach even to the Lord himself, the source of life. The Holy Spirit had already foreseen his wickedness beforehand. Solomon, speaking for the church, had said, "Who will give to you my brother, the one who nurses at the breast of his mother?" Moreover, by saying, "Who will give to you?" he was demonstrating that Herod would have no power over him who is the Lord and Prince of all powers. Thus the Lord spoke rightly when he bore witness about himself through the same Solomon: "Evil men will seek and not find me. For they hate wisdom and moreover have not partaken of the Word of God and have had no desire for it." The Spirit also said through David: "Since you are the one who gave birth to me, you are my hope, my mother, from the time I nursed at your breast … you are my protector." The blessed Moses also relates that Christ the Lord, an infant, could not have been killed while still nursing. He gave witness to this with his words, "You will not cook a lamb in the milk of its own mother." In this exact statement Moses revealed the expectation that Christ our Lord would be the true Lamb of God who was to suffer at the appointed time.

In Bethlehem therefore all the babies were slain. These innocents who died then on Christ's behalf became the first martyrs of Christ. David refers to them when he says, "From the mouths of nursing babies you have perfected praise because of your enemies, that you might bring ruin to the enemy." … For in this persecution even tiny infants and nursing babies were killed on Christ's behalf and attained to the consummate praise of martyrs. Meanwhile the wicked king Herod was destroyed, he who had usurped the realm to defend himself against the king of the heavens. Thus it is that those blessed babes have deservedly lasted beyond others. They were the first who were worthy to die on Christ's behalf.

"Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth."

Yet surely it was a case not for anger, but for fear and awe: he ought to have perceived that he was attempting impossible things. But he is not refrained. For when a soul is insensible and incurable, it yields to none of the medicines given by God. See for example this man following up his former efforts, and adding many murders to one, and hurried down the steep any whither. For driven wild by this anger, and envy, as by some demon, he takes account of nothing, but rages even against nature herself, and his anger against the wise men who had mocked him he vents upon the children that had done no wrong: venturing then in Palestine upon a deed akin to the things that had been done in Egypt. For he "sent forth," it is said, "and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men."

Here attend to me carefully. Because many things are uttered by many very idly touching these children, and the course of events is charged with injustice, and some of these express their perplexity about it in a more moderate way, others with more of audaciousness and frenzy. In order then that we may free these of their madness and those of their perplexity, suffer us to discourse a little upon this topic. Plainly, then, if this be their charge, that the children were left to be slain, they should find fault likewise with the slaughter of the soldiers that kept Peter. For as here, when the young child had fled, other children are massacred in the place of Him who was sought; even so then, too, Peter having been delivered from his prison and chains by the angel, one of like name with this tyrant, and like temper too, when he had sought him, and found him not, slew instead of him the soldiers that kept him.

"But what is this? it may be said; "why this is not a solution, but an enhancement of our difficulty." I know it too, and for this intent I bring forward all such cases, that to all I may adduce one and the same solution. What then is the solution of these things? or what fair account of them can we give? That Christ was not the cause of their slaughter, but the king's cruelty; as indeed neither was Peter to those others, but the madness of Herod. For if he had seen the wall broken through, or the doors overthrown, he might, perhaps, have had ground to accuse the soldiers that kept the apostle, of neglect; but now when all things continued in due form, and the doors were thrown wide open, and the chains fastened to the hands of them that kept him (for in fact they were bound unto him), he might have inferred from these things (that is, if he had been strictly doing a judge's office on the matters before him), that the event was not of human power or craft, but of some divine and wonder-working power; he might have adored the doer of these things, instead of waging war with the sentinels. For God had so done all that He did, that so far from exposing the keepers, He was by their means leading the king unto the truth. But if he proved senseless, what signifies to the skillful Physician of Souls, managing all things to do good, the insubordination of him that is diseased?

Wherefore art thou wroth, O Herod, at being mocked of the wise men? didst thou not know that the birth was divine? didst thou not summon the chief priests? didst thou not gather together the scribes? did not they, being called, bring the prophet also with them into thy court of judgment, proclaiming these things beforehand from of old? Didst thou not see how the old things agreed with the new? Didst thou not hear that a star also ministered to these men? Didst thou not reverence the zeal of the barbarians? Didst thou not marvel at their boldness? Wast thou not horror-struck at the truth of the prophet? Didst thou not from the former things perceive the very last also? Wherefore didst thou not reason with thyself from all these things, that this event was not of the craft of the wise men, but of a Divine Power, duly dispensing all things? And even if thou wert deceived by the wise men, what is that to the young children, who have done no wrong?

"Yea," saith one, "Herod thou hast full well deprived of excuse, and proved him blood-thirsty; but thou hast not yet solved the question about the injustice of what took place. For if he did unjustly, wherefore did God permit it?" Now, what should we say to this? That which I do not cease to say continually, in church, in the market-place and everywhere; that which I also wish you carefully to keep in mind, for it is a sort of rule for us, suited to every such perplexity. What then is our rule, and what our saying? That although there be many that injure, yet is there not so much as one that is injured. And in order that the riddle may not disturb you too much, I add the solution too with all speed. I mean, that what we may suffer unjustly from any one, it tells either to the doing away of our sins, God so putting that wrong to our account; or unto the recompense of rewards.

"But what kind of sin had these children," it may be said, "that they should do it away? for touching those who are of full age, and have been guilty of many negligences, one might with show of reason speak thus: but they who so underwent premature death, what sort of sins did they by their sufferings put away?" Didst thou not hear me say, that though there were no sins, there is a recompense of rewards hereafter for them that suffer ill here? Wherein then were the young children hurt in being slain for such a cause, and borne away speedily into that waveless harbor? "Because," sayest thou, "they would in many instances have achieved, had they lived, many and great deeds of goodness" Why, for this cause He lays up for them beforehand no small reward, the ending their lives for such a cause. Besides, if the children were to have been any great persons, He would not have suffered them to be snatched away beforehand. For if they that eventually will live in continual wickedness are endured by Him with so great long-sufferings, much more would He not have suffered these to be so taken off had He foreknown they would accomplish any great things.

And these are the reasons we have to give; yet these are not all; but there are also others more mysterious than these, which He knoweth perfectly, who Himself ordereth these things. Let us then give up unto Him the more perfect understanding of this matter, and apply ourselves to what follows, and in the calamities of others let us learn to bear all things nobly. Yea, for it was no little scene of woe, which then befell Bethlehem, the children were snatched from their mother's breast, and dragged unto this unjust slaughter.

And if thou art yet faint-hearted, and not equal to controlling thyself in these things, learn the end of him who dared all this, and recover thyself a little. For very quickly was he overtaken by punishment for these things; and he paid the due penalty of such an abominable act, ending his life by a grievous death, and more pitiable than that which he now dared inflict; suffering also countless additional ills, which ye may know of by perusing Josephus' account of these events.

Why did Christ do this? Christ is the judge of thoughts and the examiner of minds. Why did he desert those whom he knew were being sought because of himself and whom he knew would be killed for his sake? He was born a king, the king of heaven—why did he neglect the standard-bearers of his own innocence? Why did he disdain an army of the same age as himself? Why did he thus abandon those who were cut down as plunder from the same cradle as himself? Was it so that he, who would become the one king, might proceed against the forces of all his enemies? Brothers, Christ did not despise his own soldiers but promoted them and granted that they might walk in victory before they lived. He enabled them to participate in a victory without struggle. He gave to them the gift of the crown even before their bodies had grown. It was Christ's will that they pass over vice for virtue, attain heaven before earth and share in the divine life immediately. Thus it was that Christ sent his soldiers ahead. He did not abandon them. He gathered up his ranks. He did not leave them behind.

When the infant Jesus had subdued the Magi, not by the might of His flesh, but the grace of His Spirit, Herod was exceeding wrath, that they whom he sitting on his throne had no power to move, were obedient to an Infant lying in a manger. Then by their contempt of him the Magi gave further cause of wrath. For when kings' wrath is stirred by fear for their crowns, it is a great and inextinguishable wrath. But what did he? He sent and slew all the children. As a wounded beast rends whatsoever meeteth it as if the cause of its smart, so he mocked by the Magi spent his fury on children. He said to himself in his fury, 'Surely the Magi have found the Child whom they said should be King;' for a king in fear for his crown fears all things, suspects all. Then he sent and slew all those infants, that he might secure one among so many.

He is not satisfied with the massacre at Bethlehem, but extends it to the adjacent villages; sparing no age from the child of one night old, to that of two years.

In Joseph is figured the order of preachers, in Mary Holy Scripture; by the Child the knowledge of the Saviour; by the cruelty of Herod the persecution which the Church suffered in Jerusalem; by Joseph's flight into Egypt the passing of the preachers to the unbelieving Gentiles, (for Egypt signifies darkness;) by the time that he abode in Egypt the space of time between the ascension of the Lord and the coming of Anti Christ; by Herod's death the extinction of jealousy in the hearts of the Jews.

But (we hold the contrary): for Christ, by "accepting praise out of the mouth of babes and sucklings," has declared that neither childhood nor infancy is without sensibility, -the former of which states, when meeting Him with approving shouts, proved its ability to offer Him testimony; while the other, by being slaughtered, for His sake of course, knew what violence meant.

He gave orders that not only the children in Bethlehem but even those in the outlying districts of the town be killed, thinking that amid the multitude of those killed would be the one he was seeking. Herod ordered those who were two years old and under to be slaughtered. He had calculated such was the time that had passed from the incarnation of Christ, taking into account the time the magi had spent on their journey and that which he had spent on the throne. But Christ was taken out of Bethlehem once night had arrived. It is not possible that the birth of Christ be the cause of the killing of the children. But the disclosure of Herod's child-killing marked the beginning of a long string of wickedness. Even those who crucified Christ were not wicked at the time when they arrested Christ. Rather, they became wicked at the time when they undertook his murder. Yet for Christ's sake the children will receive a good reward, fitting to their martyrdom.

Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the Magi, was exceedingly wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem. As God used Moses to trick Pharaoh, so, too, He used the Magi to trick Herod. For both Herod and Pharaoh were child slayers: Pharaoh slew the male children of the Hebrews in Egypt, and Herod slew the male children of the Hebrews in Bethlehem. Herod vents his wrath against the Magi upon those who had wronged him in nothing. Why were the children allowed to be slaughtered? So that Herod's wickedness might be revealed. But perhaps you will ask me, "Why did the children suffer wrong to show Herod's wickedness?" Listen then. They were not wronged but were made worthy of crowns. For anyone who suffers some evil here, suffers either so that his sins might be absolved, or so that his crowns might be multiplied. So it is with these children; for their suffering they will receive a greater crown in heaven. And in all the region thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had carefully ascertained of the Magi.

(16) Then Herod... Here he tells of the slaughter of the infants. In regard to this he does three things: first, the occasion of the slaughter is mentioned; secondly, the slaying (v. 16b); thirdly, the prophecies are quoted (v. 17).

The occasion was Herod's anger; hence Herod was in a furious rage: "Man's anger does not work the justice of God" (Jas 1:20). And it should be noted that when a king suspects the loss of his kingdom, he quickly becomes inflamed with anger.

Then Herod, seeing that he had been tricked by the wise men, was in a furious rage. He is said to have been in a furious rage for two reasons: because when one is angry, he becomes furious at the slightest provocation. Hence, because he suspected the loss of his kingdom and had been tricked by the wise men, he went into a furious rage: "From a spark of fire come many burning coals" (Sir 11:32). And he sent... In that fury was cruelty in regard to three things: the place, the multitude and the time. In regard to the multitude, because to find the one he kills all. Hence it says, He sent and killed all the male children. And note that Augustine says: "He would never have benefited them as much by paying homage, as he benefited them by his hatred." But one might ask, since they did not have free will, how they are said to die for Christ? But, as it says in John (3:17): "God did not send his son into the world to judge the world, but that the world be saved by him." For God would never permit them to be killed, unless it were useful for them. Hence Augustine says that it is the same thing to doubt whether their killing profited them as to doubt whether baptism would have profited them: for they suffered as martyrs, and by dying confessed Christ, though not by speech: "I saw under the altar the souls of those slain for the word of God" (Rev 6:9). The second cruelty is that he killed in all that region, for he feared that he might flee to another city. He acted like a wounded beast, which does not care whom it injures: "Like a roaring lion or a charging bear, a wicked ruler over a poor people" (Pr 28:15). The third was in regard to time. Hence those who were two years old and under. And note that Augustine says that "the Innocents were killed in the year Christ was born."

But why does he say from two years old and under? Some say that the star appeared for two years previously. Hence, Herod was not sure that he was not born as soon as the star appeared. Hence, he says, according to the time which he had ascertained from the wise men. But others say that they were not killed in the same year but two years later. But why did he wait so long? Three reasons are given by different persons. One is that in the beginning he thought that the Magi had been deceived and would find nothing, but after he heard many things about Christ from Zechariah and Simeon and Anna, he felt it was necessary to make inquiries. Others say that he did this out of wariness, for he feared that the parents would conceal the child he sought. Hence, at first he wished to follow them. Others say that he was prevented by his business, because he sent after the Magi as far as Tharsus of Cilicia and burned their ships. He was also occupied, because he had been summoned to Rome, where his sons had accused him. And so, after his return he began to vent his rage.

He says or under, because he knew that he had such power that he could change his features.

By that killing is signified the killing of the martyrs, because they were children in humility and innocence: "Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not" (Mt 19:14); likewise below (18:3): "Unless you be converted and become as little children, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven."

In Bethlehem and in all that region, because they are killed through the whole world: "You will be witnesses to me," namely, by dying (Acts 1:8). The two years are the two loves—of God and of neighbor, because "faith without works is dead" (Jas 2:20). And note that after Christ was born, a persecution at once rages: because as soon as one is converted to Christ, he begins to be tempted: "Son, coming to the service of God, stand in justice and in fear, and prepare your soul for temptation" (Sir 2:1).

(ord.) She will not be comforted in this present life, for that they are not, but transfers all her hope and comfort to the life to come.

It could not be that they were not who seemed now dead, but by glorious martyrdom they were advanced to eternal life; and consolation is for those who have suffered loss, not for those who have reaped a gain. Rachel affords a type of the Church long barren now at length fruitful. She is heard weeping for her children, not because she mourned them dead, but because they were slaughtered by those whom she would have retained as her first-born sons.

(Vers. 17 seqq.) Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying: A voice was heard in Ramah, sobbing and loud lamentation; Rachel weeping for her children, and she would not be consoled, since they are no more (Jerem. XXXI, 15). From Rachel was born Benjamin, in whose tribe Bethlehem is not (Genes. XXXV). Therefore, it is asked how Rachel mourns the sons of Judah, that is, Bethlehem, as if they were her own. We will answer briefly, because she is buried near Bethlehem in Ephrath, and from the maternal womb, she received the name of the mother's lodging. Whether because Judah and Benjamin were two joined tribes, and Herod had ordered not only the killing of children in Bethlehem, but also in all its borders. By the slaughter of Bethlehem, we understand that many from Benjamin were also killed. But she wept for her children, and she did not receive consolation, according to a twofold interpretation. Either because she considered them dead for eternity, or because she did not want to console herself about those whom she knew would survive. But what is said in Rama, let us not think that this is the name of a place, near Gabaa, but 'rama' is interpreted as 'an elevated place', so the meaning is: A voice was heard in an elevated place, that is, far and wide dispersed.

(In Hierem. 31:15.) This passage of Jeremiah has been quoted by Matthew neither according to the Hebrew nor the LXX version. This shows that the Evangelists and Apostles did not follow any one's translation, but according to the Hebrew manner expressed in their own words what they had read in Hebrew.

By Ramah we need not suppose that the town of that name near Gibeah is meant; but take it as signifying 'high.' A voice was heard 'aloft,' that is, spread far and wide.'

Rachel's son was Benjamin, in which tribe Bethlehem is not situated. How then does Rachel weep for the children of Judah as if they were her own? We answer briefly. She was buried near Bethlehem in Ephrata, and was regarded as the mother, because her body was there entertained. Or, as the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin were contiguous, and Herod's command extended to the coasts of Bethlehem as well as to the town itself, we may suppose that many were slain in Benjamin.

This may be understood in two ways; either she thought them dead for all eternity, so that no consolation could comfort her; or, she desired not to receive any comfort for those who she knew had gone into life eternal.

"Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not."

Thus having filled the hearer with horror by relating these things: the slaughter so violent and unjust, so extremely cruel and lawless; he comforts him again, by saying, Not from God's wanting power to prevent it did all this take place, nor from any ignorance of His, but when He both knew it, and foretold it, and that loudly by His prophet. Be not troubled then, neither despond, looking unto His unspeakable providence, which one may most clearly see, alike by what He works, and by what He permits.

But what, it may be said, hath Rachel to do with Bethlehem? For it saith, "Rachel weeping for her children." And what hath Rama to do with Rachel? Rachel was the mother of Benjamin, and on his death, they buried her in the horse-course that was near this place. The tomb then being near, and the portion pertaining unto Benjamin her infant (for Rama was of the tribe of Benjamin), from the head of the tribe first, and next from the place of her sepulture, He naturally denominates her young children who were massacred. Then to show that the wound that befell her was incurable and cruel, He saith, "she would not be comforted because they are not."

Hence again we are taught this, which I mentioned before, never to be confounded when what is happening is contrary to the promise of God. Behold, for instance, when He was come for the salvation of the people, or rather for the salvation of the world, of what kind were His beginnings. His mother, first, in flight; His birth-place is involved in irremediable calamities, and a murder is perpetrated of all murders the bitterest, and there is lamentation and great mourning, and wailings everywhere. But be not troubled for He is wont ever to accomplish His own dispensations by their contraries, affording us from thence a very great demonstration of His power.

(Hil. Quæst. N. and V. Test. 9. 62.) Or, The sons of Benjamin, who were akin to Rachel, were formerly cut off by the other tribes, and so extinct both then and ever after. (see Judg. 20.) Then therefore Rachel began to mourn her sons, when she saw those of her sister cut off in such a cause, that they should be heirs of eternal life; for he who has experienced any misfortune, is made more sensible of his losses by the good fortune of a neighbour.

Or, it was heard on high, because uttered for the death of the innocent, according to that, The voice of the poor entereth into the heavens. (Ecclus. 35:21.) The 'weeping' means the cries of the children; 'lamentation,' refers to the mothers. In the infants themselves their death ends their cries, in the mothers it is continually renewed by the remembrance of their loss.

Or, The Church weeps the removal of the saints from this earth, but wishes not to be comforted as though they should return again to the struggles of life, for they are not to be recalled into life.

Rachel is well set for a type of the Church, as the word signifies 'a sheep' or 'seeing;' (vid. note i, p. 19.) her whole thought being to fix her eye in contemplation of God; and she is the hundredth sheep that the shepherd layeth on his shoulder.

The sacred Evangelist adds, to show the greatness of the mourning, that even the dead Rachel was roused to mourn her sons, and would not be comforted because they were not.

Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying. Lest anyone think that the slaying of the children took place against the will of God, the evangelist shows that God both knew of it beforehand and foretold it.

(17) Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah. Having mentioned the slaughter of the infants, the evangelist according to custom now mentions the prophecy foretelling this: (18) A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be consoled, because they were not (Jer 31:15). And it should be noted that, as Jerome says, wherever any text is introduced by the apostles and evangelists, it is not necessary to present it always word for word, but as the Holy Spirit gave it to them, sometimes sense for sense in our use. Thus we have in Jeremiah (31:15): "A voice is heard on high of lamentation and weeping and mourning. Rachel is weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are not." The sense is the same.

We should notice that as far as this text is concerned, it is one of those which are brought into the gospel, but which has a literal sense that is a figure of something in the New Testament. Hence, to understand it one must consider a bit of history, which is recorded in Judges, where it says that almost the whole tribe of Benjamin was wiped out on account of a sin committed against the wife of a Levite. It also states that there was greatest mourning there, so great, indeed, that it was heard from Gabsa to Ramah, a distance of 12,000 paces. Rachel is said to mourn this, because she was the mother of Benjamin; and it is a figure of speech used to express how great was the pain. But this is a prophecy about the past. In another way it is about the future in two ways: in one way it can refer to the captivity of Israel who, when they were led into captivity, are said to have wept on the road near Bethlehem; and then Rachel is said to have mourned, because she had been buried there (Gen 35:19). And this is said in the same manner of speaking as a place is said to weep over the evils which happen in the place. The prophet, therefore, desires to say that just as there was the greatest pain and grief when the tribe of Benjamin was destroyed, so in the future would be another excruciating pain in the time of the captivity. It is explained in a second way thus: the evangelist accepts the fact of the killing of the Innocents and amplifies the pain in four ways: first, from its extent; secondly, from the amount; thirdly, what the pain concerned; fourthly, its inconsolability.

He says, therefore: A voice in Ramah. This is a city in the tribe of Benjamin (Jos 18:25) and can be taken as the city of Liah. But here it is taken for the heights and can be interpreted in two ways: first, a voice uttered on high was heard, because a voice in a lofty place is spread far and wide: "Go up in a high mountain, O Zion, herald of good tidings; lift up your voice with strength" (Is 40:9). Or was heard in Ramah, i.e., in heaven before God (Sir 35:21): "The prayer of the humble pierces the clouds, and he will not be consoled until it reaches the Lord"; "Do not the tears of the widow run down her cheek, as she cries out against him who has caused them to fall?" (Sir 35:15).

Wailing: This can refer to the weeping of the infants who were slaughtered. And loud lamentation: This refers to the weeping of the mothers. Or both can refer to the infants: wailing, in as much as they were lifted up by the soldiers; lamentations, in as much as they were slain. The pain of the mothers is greater than that of the infants. Again, the mothers' pain was continual, that of the infants, brief. For this reason Zechariah (12:10) says: "They shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a first-born." Also from the source of the pain, because it was concerned with the death of the infants. Hence, Rachel laments. But it might be objected that Bethlehem was not in the tribe of Benjamin but in the tribe of Judah, who was Liah's son.

This is answered in three ways: first, because Rachel was buried near Bethlehem (Gen 35:19). Accordingly, she wept for the infants in the way in which any place is said to weep: "Be appalled, O heavens, at this, be shocked, be utterly desolate, says the Lord" (Jer 2:12). Or in another way: it was stated above that Herod killed the infants in Bethlehem and in all its surrounding territory. But Bethlehem lay within the confines of two tribes, namely, Judah and Benjamin. Hence, some infants from the tribe of Benjamin were killed. Thus the objection ceases, as Jerome explains. But Augustine explains it another way and says that it is customary, when one is habituated to prosperity, that he becomes sadder when adversities come. Liah and Rachel were sisters, and the ones killed were among the children of Liah. Thus they were killed bodily, lest they be punished eternally, as in the case of Gabaa. Therefore, she is said to weep, when she sees her children killed or damned. Or the Church is signified by Rachel, because it means "seeing God," and the Church sees by faith. She weeps over her slain children, not because they were slain, but because through them she could obtain others. Or she weeps not for the slain but for the slayers.

Then he mentions the inconsolable pain: she refused... This is explained in a number of ways: first, as referring to the people who existed then. For consolation should be forthcoming, as long as a remedy is hoped for; but when there is no hope for it, there is no consolation, as in the case of the hopelessly infirm. Therefore, he says in regard to the mothers' opinion, because they were no more, i.e., no longer visible: "The lad is gone" (Gen 37:30). Or she refused to be consoled, because they were no more, i.e., as if they were no more: for consolation is expected only for evil things. Hence, according to this it is referred to the opinion of the Church, which regards them as reigning; hence, it rejoices over them as reigning: "But we would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope" (1 Thes 4:13). Or she refused to be consoled at present but awaited consolation in the future: "Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted" (Mt 5:5).

Hil. Quaest. N. and N. Test.9. 62: Or, The sons of Benjamin, who were akin to Rachel, were formerly cut off by the other tribes, and so extinct both then and ever after. Then therefore Rachel began to mourn her sons, when she saw those of her sister cut off in such a cause, that they should be heirs of eternal life; for he who has experienced any misfortune, is made more sensible of his losses by the good fortune of aneighbour.

In Rama was there a voice heard. Rama is a place in Palestine of high elevation, for the name itself means "high." This place fell by lot to the inheritance of the tribe of Benjamin, who was the son of Rachel, and Rachel was buried in Bethlehem. By "Rachel," therefore, the prophet Jeremiah means "Bethlehem," for Rachel was buried in Bethlehem (Gen. 35:19). He is saying that weeping and lamentation will be heard from on high. Listen to what the prophet says: Lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, that is, Bethlehem weeping for its children, and would not be comforted, because they are not. In this life they are no more, but their souls are immortal.

(Hom. in Nat. Innoc.) This slaughter of the infants for the Lord's sake, the death of Herod soon after, and Joseph's return with the Lord and his mother to the land of Israel, is a figure showing that all the persecutions moved against the Church will be avenged by the death of the persecutor, peace restored to the Church, and the saints who had concealed themselves return to their own places. Or the return of Jesus to the land of Israel on the death of Herod shows, that, at the preaching of Enoch and Elijahc, the Jews, when the fire of modern jealousy shall be extinguished, shall receive the true faith.

(Eccles. Hist. i. 8.) For the sacrilege which Herod had committed against the Saviour, and his wicked slaughter of the infants of the same age, the Divine vengeance hastened his end; and his body, as Josephus relates, was attacked by a strange disease; so that the prophets declared that they were not human ailments, but visitations of Divine vengeance. Filled with mad fury, he gives command to seize and imprison the heads and nobles out of all parts of Judæa; ordering that as soon as ever he should breathe his last, they should be all put to death, that so Judæa though unwillingly might mourn at his decease. Just before he died he murdered his son Antipater, (besides two boys put to death before, Alexander and Aristobulus.) Such was the end of Herod, noticed in those words of the Evangelist, when Herod was dead, and such the punishment inflicted.

After the death of Herod, Joseph was advised by the angel to return to Judea with the boy and his mother. When he returned he heard that Archelaeus, son of Herod, was king. So he was afraid to go, but the angel admonished him to cross over into the region of Galilee, and they lived in the city of Nazareth.… Joseph resembles the apostles to whom Christ entrusted the spreading of the news about him. Similar to what happened with Joseph after the death of Herod, they must deal with the same people who caused the Lord to suffer. The apostles are commanded to preach to the Jews, for they were sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. But when they saw that the power remained in the hands of inherited faithlessness, they became afraid and retreated.

But when Herod died, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying: Rise, take the child and his mother, and go to the land of Israel.

Many here err from ignorance of history, supposing the Herod who mocked our Lord on the day of His passion, and the Herod whose death is here related, were the same. But the Herod who was then made friends with Pilate was son of this Herod and brother to Archelaus; for Archelaus was banished to Lyons in Gaul, and his father Herod made king in his room, as we read in Josephus.

From this we see that not Herod only, but also the Priests and Scribes had sought the Lord's death at that time.

"But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph saying, Arise, and take the young Child and His mother, and go into the land of Israel."

He no more saith "fly," but "go." Seest thou again after the temptation refreshment? then after the refreshment danger again? in that he was freed indeed from his banishment, and came back again to his own country; and beheld the murderer of the children brought to the slaughter; but when he hath set foot on his own country, he finds again a remnant of the former perils, the son of the tyrant living, and being king.

See how Joseph was set for ministering to Mary; when she went into Egypt and returned, who would have fulfilled to her this so needful ministry, had she not been betrothed? For to outward view Mary nourished and Joseph defended the Child; but in truth the Child supported His mother and protected Joseph. Return into the land of Israel; for He went down into Egypt as a physician, not to abide there, but to succour it sick with error. But the reason of the return is given in the words, They are dead, &c.

And that is said to have been done by the counsel of God for their conspiring with Herod against the Lord; as it is said, Herod was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

(De Cæl. Hierarch. 4.) See how Jesus Himself, though far above all celestial beings, and coming unchanged to our nature, shunned not that ordinance of humanity which He had taken on Him, but was obedient to the dispositions of His Father made known by Angels. For even by Angels is declared to Joseph the retreat of the Son into Egypt, so ordained of the Father, and His return again to Judæa.

Rachel is well set for a type of the Church, as the word signifies 'a sheep' or 'seeing;' (vid. note i, p. 19.) her whole thought being to fix her eye in contemplation of God; and she is the hundredth sheep that the shepherd layeth on his shoulder.

But if they were many who sought his destruction, how came they all to have died in so short a time? As we have related above, all the great men among the Jews were slain at Herod's death.

Or the Evangelist uses a figure of speech, by which the plural is used for the singular. These words, the Child's life, (or soul, i. e. the Apollinarians.) overthrow those heretics who taught that Christ did not take a soul, but had His Divinity in place of a soul.

But when Herod was dead. Herod came to a bitter end. For with fever, torment of the bowels, itching, swelling of the feet, rotting of the private parts, breeding of worms, difficulty in breathing, trembling and spasms in every member, he cast off his evil soul.

Behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying, Arise, and take the young Child and His mother, and go into the land of Israel. He did not say "flee" but "go," for there was no longer any need for fear. For they are dead which sought the young Child's soul. Where is Apollinarius, who said that the Lord did not have the soul of a man? For here he is reproved.

(19) Then he deals with Christ's being called back; hence, when Herod died, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph. First, he mentions that the angel appeared; secondly, the angel's command; thirdly, the execution of the angel's command.

In regard to the first, three things are done: first, the time is described; secondly, the person; thirdly, the manner of the appearance.

He says, therefore, But when Herod died: not the one involved in Christ's death, because that was his son; behold an angel appeared.

It should be noted that all trouble in the Church is terminated by the death of the persecutors: "When the wicked perish, there are shouts of gladness" (Pr 11:10). Note, also, that when the unbelief of the Jews has ended, Christ will return to them: "And then all Israel will be saved" (Rom 11:26).

Behold... appeared. It should be noted that the order between men and angels is such that divine illuminations are produced in us only by angels: "Are they not administering spirits sent forth to serve for the sake of those who are to obtain salvation?" (Heb 1:14). Hence, even Christ as man willed to be announced by angels.

The manner: in a dream to Joseph in Egypt.

(Verse 20) For those who sought the child's life are dead. From this we understand that not only Herod, but also the priests and scribes at the same time had planned the death of the Lord.

(20) The command: Rise, take the child and his mother. He does not say, "son" or "wife", but child, in order to designate the dignity of the child and the purity of the mother. In this is shown that Joseph was not given to her for the purpose of carnal intercourse but to minister and guard. And he assigns the cause: for those who sought the child's life are dead.

But one might ask why he says, are, for Herod alone had died. This is answered in two ways: first, because he had done so much evil that the Jews rejoiced in his death. When he had a foreboding of his death, he commanded his sister to kill the nobler Jews when he died. These had sought the life of the child with Herod: for those who sought the child's life are dead. Or another way: It is the custom of Sacred Scripture to use the plural for the singular: hence, they are dead, i.e. he is dead. Hence, the statement that those who sought the child's life destroys Apollinaris' error, that the godhead was in Christ in place of a soul.

Joseph was not disobedient to the angelic warning, but he arose, and took the young Child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel. The Angel had not fixed the particular place, so that while Joseph hesitates, the Angel returns, and by the often visiting him confirms his obedience.

But the figurative interpretation holds good any way. Joseph represents the Apostles, to whom Christ is entrusted to be borne about. These, as though Herod were dead, that is, his people being destroyed in the Lord's passion, are commanded to preach the Gospel to the Jews; they are sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

(Verse 21.) He rose and took the child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel. He did not say, 'I took my son and my wife,' but the child and his mother, as if a foster father, not a husband.

And he arose, and took the young Child and His mother, and came into the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither. Herod left three sons: Philip, Antipas, and Archelaus. He had directed Archelaus to be king, and the other two, tetrarchs. Joseph was afraid to go into the land of Israel, that is, Judea, because Archelaus was similar to Herod, his father. Antipas was the young Herod who slew the Forerunner. And being warned by God in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee. Galilee was not of the land of Israel, but of the Gentiles, and for this reason the Jews considered the Galileans an abomination.

(21) Then he mentions the execution of the command: and he rose and took the child and his mother. In regard to this he does three things: first, he shows how he returned to the land of Israel (v. 21); secondly, the section he avoided (v. 22); thirdly, the section he chose (v. 22b). He says, therefore, and he rose. Note that the angel did not say: "Go into the land of Judah," or "into Jerusalem," but universally, to the land of Israel, under which even Galilee can be included. Hence, it can be said that Joseph entered the boundaries of the land which Judah inhabited.

(De Con. Evan. ii. 10.) Here it may be asked, How then could his parents go up every year of Christ's childhood to Jerusalem, as Luke relates, if fear of Archelaus now prevented them from approaching it? This difficulty is easily solved. At the festival they might escape notice in the crowd, and by returning soon, where in ordinary times they might be afraid to live. So they neither became irreligious by neglecting the festival, nor notorious by dwelling continually in Jerusalem. Or it is open to us to understand Luke when he says, they went up every year, as speaking of a time when they had nothing to fear from Archelaus, who, as Josephus relates, reigned only nine years. There is yet a difficulty in what follows; Being warned in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee. If Joseph was afraid to go into Judaea because one of Herod's sons, Archelaus, reigned there, how could he go into Galilee, where another of his sons Herod was tetrarch, as Luke tells us? As if the times of which Luke is speaking were times in which there was any longer need to fear for the Child, when even in Judaea things were so changed, that Archelaus no longer ruled there, but Pilate was governor.

(De Con. Evan. ii. 9.) This may perhaps occur to some, that Matthew says His parents went with the Child Jesus to Galilee because they feared Archelaus, when it should seem most probable that they chose Galilee because Nazareth was their own city, as Luke has not forgot to mention. We must understand, that when the Angel in the vision in Egypt said to Joseph, Go into the land of Israel, Joseph understood the command to be that he should go straight into Judaea, that being properly the land of Israel. But finding Archelaus ruling there, he would not court the danger, as the land of Israel might be interpreted to extend to Galilee, which was inhabited by children of Israel. Or we may suppose His parents supposed that Christ should dwell no where but in Jerusalem, where was the temple of the Lord, and would have gone thither had not the fear of Archelaus hindered them. And they had not been commanded from God to dwell positively in Judaea, or Jerusalem, so as that they should have despised the fear of Archelaus, but only in the land of Israel generally, which they might understand of Galilee.

(De Con. Evan. ii. 5.) The whole of this history, from the account of the Magi inclusively, Luke omits. Let it be here noticed once for all, that each of the Evangelists writes as if he were giving a full and complete history, which omits nothing; where he really passes over any thing, he continues his thread of history as if he had told all. Yet by a diligent comparison of their several narratives, we can be at no loss to know where to insert any particular that is mentioned by one and not by the other.

(ord.) But then we might ask, why was he not afraid to go into Galilee, seeing Archelaus ruled there also? He could be better concealed in Nazareth than in Jerusalem, which was the capital of the kingdom, and where Archelaus was constantly resident.

But finding the seed of their hereditary unbelief still abiding, they fear and withdraw; admonished by a vision, to wit, seeing the Holy Ghost poured upon the Gentiles, they carry Christ to them.

(Verse 22) But hearing that Archelaus was reigning in Judea, in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And being warned in a dream, he withdrew to the region of Galilee. Many fall into error due to ignorance of history, thinking that he is the same Herod who mocked the Lord in his passion, and who is reported to be dead now. Therefore, this Herod, who later became friends with Pilate, is the son of that Herod, the brother of Archelaus; and Tiberius Caesar himself, the city of Lugdunum, which is in Gaul, banished him, and made his brother Herod successor to the kingdom. Read the story of Joseph.

But how did Archelaus reign over Judaea, when Pontius Pilate was governor? Herod's death had recently taken place, and the kingdom had not yet been divided into many parts; but as he had only just ended his life, the son for a while kept possession of the kingdom "in the room of his father Herod;" his brother also bearing this name, which is the reason why the evangelist added, "in the room of his father Herod."

It may be said, however, "if he was afraid to settle in Judaea on account of Archelaus, he had cause to fear Galilee also on account of Herod." I answer, By his changing the place, the whole matter was thenceforward thrown into shade; for the whole assault was upon "Bethlehem and the coasts thereof." Therefore now that the slaughter had taken place, the youth Archelaus had no other thought, but that the whole was come to an end, and that amongst the many, He that was sought had been destroyed. And besides, his father having come to such an end of his life before his eyes, he became for the future more cautious about further proceedings, and about urging on that course of iniquity.

Joseph therefore comes to Nazareth, partly to avoid the danger, partly also delighting to abide in his native place. To give him the more courage, he receives also an oracle from the angel touching this matter. Luke, however, doth not say that he came there by Divine warning, but that when they had fulfilled all the purification, they returned to Nazareth. What then may one say? That Luke is giving an account of the time before the going down to Egypt, when he saith these things. For He would not have brought them down thither before the purification, in order that nothing should be done contrary to the law, but he waited for her to be purified, and to go to Nazareth, and that then they should go down to Egypt. Then, after their return, He bids them go to Nazareth. But before this they were not warned of God to go thither, but yearning after their native place, they did so of their own accord. For since they had gone up for no other cause but on account of the taxing, and had not so much as a place where to stay, when they had fulfilled that for which they had come up, they went down to Nazareth.

Herod had nine wives, by seven of whom he had a numerous issue. By Josida, his first born Antipater—by Mariamine, Alexander and Aristobulus—by Mathuca, a Samaritan woman, Archelaus—by Cleopatra of Jerusalem, Herod, who was afterwards tetrarch, and Philip. The three first were put to death by Herod; and after his death, Archelaus seized the throne by occasion of his father's will, and the question of the succession was carried before Augustus Cæsar. After some delay, he made a distribution of the whole of Herod's dominions in accordance with the Senate's advice. To Archelaus he assigned one half, consisting of Idumæa and Judæa, with the title of tetrarch, and a promise of that of king if he showed himself deserving of it. The rest he divided into two tetrarchates, giving Galilee to Herod the tetrarch, Ituræa and Trachonitis to Philip. Thus Archelaus was after his father's death a duarch, which kind of sovereignty is here called a kingdom.

Or, we may apply it to the last times of the Jewish Church, when many Jews having turned to the preaching of Enoch and Elijah, the rest filled with the spirit of Antichrist shall fight against the faith. So that part of Judæa where Archelaus rules, signifies the followers of Antichrist; Nazareth of Galilee, whither Christ is conveyed, that part of the nation that shall embrace the faith. Galilee means 'removal;' Nazareth, 'the flower of virtues;' for the Church the more zealously she removes from the earthly to the heavenly, the more she abounds in the flower and fruit of virtues.

(22) Then he mentions the area he avoided: when he heard that Archelaus reigned in Judea. Here the history of Herod should be noted. For he had six sons, and before his death he killed Alexander and Aristobulus; at his death he commanded that Antipater be killed. Thus three remained, among whom Archelaus was the firstborn and usurped the kingdom; but he was later accused before Caesar Augustus by the Jews and his kingdom was taken away. It was then divided into four parts. Two were given to Archelaus and one each to Herod and Philip, as Luke (3:1) says. Archelaus himself was sent into exile after reigning for nine years.

Being warned in a dream. First the angel had said that he should go to the land of Israel, but because Joseph had not yet understood, the angel's message made explicit what was previously implicit. And this is indicated, when he says, being warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee.

But on the other hand, just as Archelaus ruled in Judea, so Philip in Galilee. But one must answer that this was immediately after the death of Herod, when Archelaus had the entire kingdom, because the division was made later. But then why did he not fear Archelaus? The answer is that Jerusalem was the seat of the kingdom; hence, he practically stayed there always. But why does Luke (2:41) state that they brought the child to Jerusalem every year? Augustine answers that it was safe to bring him on account of the vast throng that came there at that time; but it would have been dangerous, if he had tarried there for a long time. But why does the evangelist suggest that it was by accident that Joseph came to Nazareth, whereas Luke (2:39) says that he had his personal domicile in Nazareth. The answer is that the angel had told him to go into the land of Israel which, strictly speaking, did not include Galilee or Nazareth. That is the way Joseph understood it; therefore, he made no decision to go to Nazareth.

But if "the Nazarene" is interpreted to mean "holy" or, according to some, as "flower," this is the designation found in many instances. For Daniel calls him "holy" or "of the holy ones." Likewise we find in Isaiah: "A branch from the stock of Jesse and its flower." Even the Lord says of himself in the Song of Songs, "I am the bloom of the plain, the lily of the valleys."

To this he adds the Prophet's testimony, saying, That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophets, &c.

Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, who use it. In this it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew. Wherefore these two forms exist "Out of Egypt have I called my son," and "for he shall be called a Nazarene."

(Verse 23) And coming, he lived in a city called Nazareth, so that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, that he would be called a Nazarene. If he had set a fixed example from the Scriptures, he would never have said, what was spoken by the prophets; but simply, what was spoken by the prophet: but now, calling them prophets in the plural, he shows that he did not take words from the Scriptures, but the meaning. Nazarene, interprets as holy. But all Scripture testifies that the Lord would be holy. We can also say in another way, that even in the same words, according to the Hebrew truth, it is written in Isaiah: There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Nazarene shall rise out of his roots (Isa. 11:1).

Had he meant to quote a particular text, he would not have written 'Prophets,' but 'the Prophet.' By thus using the plural he evidently does not take the words of any one passage in Scripture, but the sense of the whole. Nazarene is interpreted 'Holyd,' and that the Lord would be Holy, all Scripture testifies. Otherwise we may explain that it is found in Isaiah (c. 11:1.) rendered to the strict letter of the Hebrew. There shall come a Rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Nazarene shall grow out of His rootse.

We see here the cause why the angel also, putting them at ease for the future, restores them to their home. And not even this simply, but he adds to it a prophecy, "That it might be fulfilled," saith he, "which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene."

And what manner of prophet said this? Be not curious, nor overbusy. For many of the prophetic writings have been lost; and this one may see from the history of the Chronicles. For being negligent, and continually falling into ungodliness, some they suffered to perish, others they themselves burnt up and cut to pieces. The latter fact Jeremiah relates; the former, he who composed the fourth book of Kings, saying, that after a long time the book of Deuteronomy was hardly found, buried somewhere and lost. But if, when there was no barbarian there, they so betrayed their books, much more when the barbarians had overrun them. For as to the fact, that the prophet had foretold it, the apostles themselves in many places call Him a Nazarene.

"Was not this then," one may say, "casting a shade over the prophecy touching Bethlehem?" By no means: rather this very fact was sure greatly to stir up men, and to awaken them to the search of what was said of Him. Thus, for example, Nathanael too enters on the inquiry concerning Him, saying, "Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?" For the place was of little esteem; or rather not that place only, but also the whole district of Galilee. Therefore the Pharisees said, "Search and look, for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet." Nevertheless, He is not ashamed to be named even from thence, signifying that He needs not ought of the things of men; and His disciples also He chose out of Galilee; everywhere cutting off the pretexts of them who are disposed to be remiss, and giving tokens that we have no need of outward things, if we practice virtue. For this cause He doth not choose for Himself so much as a house; for "the Son of Man," saith He, "hath not where to lay His head;" and when Herod is plotting against Him, He fleeth, and at His birth is laid in a manger, and abides in an inn, and takes a mother of low estate; teaching us to think no such thing a disgrace, and from the first outset trampling under foot the haughtiness of man, and bidding us give ourselves up to virtue only.

They might have read this in some Prophets who are not in our canon, as Nathan or Esdras. That there was some prophecy to this purport is clear from what Philip says to Nathanael. Him of whom Moses in the Law and the Prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth. Hence the Christians were at first called Nazarenes, at Antioch their name was changed to that of 'Christians.'

And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth. How is it that Luke says that after the Lord was born, He completed the forty days, was held in the arms of Simeon, and then went down to Nazareth (Lk. 2:22-40)? But here Matthew says that after the return from Egypt He went to Nazareth? Learn, therefore, that Luke spoke those things on which Matthew was silent. I will give an example: after the birth, He completed the forty days, and then went down to Nazareth. This is what Luke says. Matthew speaks of what took place afterwards, that He fled into Egypt, and then returned from Egypt to Nazareth, which took place later. They do not contradict each other. One of them, Luke, speaks of the descent from Bethlehem to Nazareth, while the other, Matthew, speaks of the return from Egypt to Nazareth, which took place later. That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. Which prophet said this? It is not to be found now. For many books have been lost, because of both the carelessness of the Hebrews and the frequent captivities. But perhaps this was an unwritten prophecy among the Jews. "Nazarene" means "sanctified" and as the Christ is holy, it is right that He is called "a Nazarene." For by many prophets the Lord was called "The Holy One of Israel" (Ps. 88:18, Is. 1:4, etc.)

(23) That what was spoken by the prophet might be fulfilled, "He shall be called a Nazarene." This is not found written, but it can be said that it was gathered from many passages. For Nazarene means holy; and because Christ is called holy: "Until the holy one is anointed" (Dan 9:24), therefore, he is said to be so called by the prophet. Or it can be said that by Nazarene is meant abounding with flowers, as in Is (11:1): "There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse and a flower shall grow out of his roots." This agrees with Song of Songs (2:1): "I am a rose of Sharon, a lily of the valleys."