2 Afterfeast of the Nativity of Christ

(de Con. Evan. 2. 62) It makes nothing, however, to the truth of the fact, whether, as Matthew says, they themselves addressed to the Lord the question concerning the bill of divorcement, allowed to them by Moses, on our Lord's forbidding the separation, and confirming His sentence from the law, or whether it was in answer to a question of His, that they said this concerning the command of Moses, as Mark here says. For His wish was to give them no reason why Moses permitted it, before they themselves had mentioned the fact; since then the wish of the parties speaking, which is what the words ought to express, is in either way shown, there is no discrepancy, though there be a difference in the way of relating it. It may also be meant that, as Mark expresses it, the question put to them by the Lord, What did Moses command? was in answer to those who had previously asked His opinion concerning the putting away of a wife; and when they had replied that Moses permitted them to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away, (Matt. 19:4) His answer was concerning that same law, given by Moses, how God instituted the marriage of a male, and a female, saying those things which Matthew relates; on hearing which they again rejoined what they had replied to Him when He first asked them, namely, Why then did Moses command?

But Christ, Self-Existent Wisdom, answers them in such a way that He escapes their snares. He asks them: what did Moses command them?

(cont. Faust. xix. 26) Moses, however, was against a man's dismissing his wife, for he interposed this delay, that a person whose mind was bent on separation, might be deterred by the writing of the bill, and desist; particularly, since, as is related, among the Hebrews, no one was allowed to write Hebrew characters but the scribes. The law therefore wished to send him, whom it ordered to give a bill of divorcement, before he dismissed his wife, to them, who ought to be wise interpreters of the law, and just opponents of quarrel. For a bill could only be written for him by men, who by their good advice might overrule him, since his circumstances and necessity had put him into their hands, and so by treating between him and his wife they might persuade them to love and concord. But if a hatred so great had arisen that it could not be extinguished and corrected, then indeed a bill was to be written, that he might not lightly put away her who was the object of his hate, in such a way as to prevent his being recalled to the love, which he owed her by marriage, through the persuasion of the wise. For this reason it is added, For the hardness of your heart, he wrote this precept; for great was the hardness of heart which could not be melted or bent to the taking back and recalling the love of marriage, even by the interposition of a bill in a way which gave room for the just and wise to dissuade them.

"What," he said, "did Moses command you?" They replied, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away." To which Jesus responded, "It was because of the hardness of your hearts that he wrote you this, etc." What he says is this: Can God be contrary to himself, commanding one thing at first and then breaking his own decree with a new command? It should not be thought so. But Moses, when he saw that due to the desire for subsequent wives, who might be wealthier, younger, or more beautiful, the first wives were either being killed or leading a miserable life, chose to allow discord rather than for hatred and murders to continue and be perpetrated. At the same time, notice that he did not say, because of the hardness of your hearts, God permitted you, but Moses; that, according to the Apostle, it may be seen as the counsel of a man, not a command of God.

(Cat. in Marc. Oxon.) Or else, it is said, For the hardness of your hearts, because it is possible for a soul purged from desires and from anger to bear the worst of women; but if those passions have a redoubled force over the mind, many evils will arise from hatred in marriage. (Chrys. ubi sup.). Thus then, He saves Moses, who had given the law, from their accusation, and turns the whole upon their head. But since what He had said was grievous to them, He at once brings back the discourse to the old law, saying, But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.

"Whence it is impossible without His teaching to attain to saving truth, though one seek it for ever where the thing that is sought is not. But it was, and is, in the word of our Jesus. Accordingly, He, knowing the true things of the law, said to the Sadducees, asking on what account Moses permitted to marry seven, 'Moses gave you commandments according to your hard-heartedness; for from the beginning it was not so: for He who created man at first, made him male and female.' "

So true, moreover, is it that divorce "was not from the beginning," that among the Romans it is not till after the six hundredth year from the building of the city that this kind of "hard-heartedness" is set down as having been committed.

(cont. Faust. xix. 29) Behold the Jews are convinced out of the books of Moses, that a wife is not to be put away, while they fancied that in putting her away, they were doing the will of Moses. In like manner from this place, from the witness of Christ Himself, we know this, that God made and joined male and female, for denying which the Manichees are condemned, resisting now not the books of Moses, but the Gospel of Christ.

From the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. This is written in the beginning of Genesis. By saying male and female, He showed that second marriages are to be avoided. For He did not say male and females, as was sought from a prior divorce, but male and female, so that they might be bound in the companionship of one spouse.

(ubi sup.) He says not male and females, which the sense would have required had it referred to the divorce of former wives, but male and female, so that they might be bound by the tie of one wife.

I will call your attention to the law of monogamy. The very origin of the human race sanctions it. It is abundantly clear that God ordained it at the beginning as a pattern for posterity. For after he had made Adam, and had foreseen the necessity of providing a helpmate for him, he borrowed from his loins one alone. One woman only did he design for man.

But from the beginning it was not so: God joins two persons in the bond of marriage so that they become one, even leaving their own parents. Note that the Lord says: God does not permit polygamy, so that one wife could be divorced and another taken, and then that one abandoned and another married. If this had been pleasing to God, He would have created one husband and many wives; but it did not happen so, rather "God made them male and female," so that they would be joined — one husband with one wife.

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife. Similarly, He said, Cleave to his wife, not to wives.

(ubi sup.) And in like manner, because He says, he shall cleave to his wife, not wives. It goes on: And they twain shall be one flesh.

In a figurative sense, this can be understood as follows: the word of Teaching, sowing good seeds in the soul of a believing person, has the significance of a husband to the soul that receives it. And it leaves its father, that is, lofty thought, and its mother, that is, embellished speech, and cleaves to its wife, that is, to the benefit of the soul, adapting itself to it and often preferring humble thoughts and simple speech. And then they both become one flesh, that is, the soul believes that "the Word of God became flesh," and no human thought can any longer separate the soul from such faith.

And the two shall become one flesh. Therefore now they are no longer two, but one flesh. The reward of marriage is that two become one flesh. Chastity joined to the spirit becomes one spirit.

(ubi sup.) The reward then of marriage is of two to become one flesh. Virginity being joined to the Spirit, becomes of one spirit.

Thus, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, an intelligent man in other matters, says that there is only a "theological" opposition to divorce, and that it is entirely founded on "certain texts" in the Bible about marriages. This is exactly as if he said that a belief in the brotherhood of men was only founded on certain texts in the Bible, about all men being the children of Adam and Eve. Millions of peasants and plain people all over the world assume marriage to be static, without having ever clapped eyes on any text. Numbers of more modern people, especially after the recent experiments in America, think divorce is a social disease, without having ever bothered about any text. It may be maintained that even in these, or in any one, the idea of marriage is ultimately mystical; and the same may be maintained about the idea of brotherhood. It is obvious that a husband and wife are not visibly one flesh, in the sense of being one quadruped. It is equally obvious that Paderewski and Jack Johnson are not twins, and probably have not played together at their mother's knee. There is indeed a very important admission, or addition, to be realised here. What is true is this: that if the nonsense of Nietzsche or some such sophist submerged current culture, so that it was the fashion to deny the duties of fraternity; then indeed it might be found that the group which still affirmed fraternity was the original group in whose sacred books was the text about Adam and Eve. Suppose some Prussian professor has opportunely discovered that Germans and lesser men are respectively descended from two such very different monkeys that they are in no sense brothers, but barely cousins (German) any number of times removed. And suppose he proceeds to remove them even further with a hatchet; suppose he bases on this a repetition of the conduct of Cain, saying not so much "Am I my brother's keeper?" as "Is he really my brother?" And suppose this higher philosophy of the hatchet becomes prevalent in colleges and cultivated circles, as even more foolish philosophies have done. Then I agree it probably will be the Christian, the man who preserves the text about Cain, who will continue to assert that he is still the professor's brother; that he is still the professor's keeper. He may possibly add that, in his opinion, the professor seems to require a keeper.

And that is doubtless the situation in the controversies about divorce and marriage to-day. It is the Christian church which continues to hold strongly, when the world for some reason has weakened on it, what many others hold at other times. But even then it is barely picking up the shreds and scraps of the subject to talk about a reliance on texts. The vital point in the comparison is this: that human brotherhood means a whole view of life, held in the light of life, and defended, rightly or wrongly, by constant appeals to every aspect of life. The religion that holds it most strongly will hold it when nobody else holds it; that is quite true, and that some of us may be so perverse as to think a point in favour of the religion. But anybody who holds it at all will hold it as a philosophy, not hung on one text but on a hundred truths. Fraternity may be a sentimental metaphor; I may be suffering a delusion when I hail a Montenegrin peasant as my long lost brother. As a fact, I have my own suspicions about which of us it is that has got lost. But my delusion is not a deduction from one text, or from twenty; it is the expression of a relation that to me at least seems a reality. And what I should say about the idea of a brother, I should say about the idea of a wife.

In his mysterious plans the Father had destined a bride for his only Son and presented her to him under the guise of prophetic images. Moses appeared and with deft hand sketched a picture of bridegroom and bride but immediately drew a veil over it. In his book he wrote that a man should leave father and mother so as to be joined to his wife, that the two might in very truth become one. The prophet Moses spoke of man and woman in this way in order to foretell Christ and his church. With a prophet's penetrating gaze he contemplated Christ becoming one with the church through the mystery of water. He saw Christ even from the virgin's womb drawing the church to himself, and the church in the water of baptism drawing Christ to herself. Bridegroom and bride were thus wholly united in a mystical manner, which is why Moses wrote that the two should become one.… Wives are not united to their husbands as closely as the church is to the Son of God. What husband but our Lord ever died for his wife, and what bride ever chose a crucified man as her husband? Who ever gave his blood as a gift to his wife except the one who died on the cross and sealed the marriage bond with his wounds? Who was ever seen lying dead at his own wedding banquet with his wife at his side seeking to console herself by embracing him? At what other celebration, at what other feast is the bridegroom's body distributed to the guests in the form of bread? Death separates wives from their husbands, but in this case it is death that unites the bride to her beloved.

For the Word of God is to be considered as being more in one flesh with the soul than a man is one flesh with his wife. But to whom is it more becoming to be also one spirit with God, than to this human soul which has so joined itself to God by love as that it may justly be said to be one spirit with God?

Where are we to find language adequately to express the happiness of that marriage which the church cements, the oblation confirms, the benediction signs and seals, the angels celebrate, and the Father holds as approved? For all around the earth young people do not rightly and lawfully wed without their parents' consent. What kind of yoke is that of two believers who share one hope, one desire, one discipline, one service? They enjoy kinship in spirit and in flesh. They are mutual servants with no discrepancy of interests. Truly they are "two in one flesh." Where the flesh is one, the spirit is one as well. Together they pray, together bow down, together perform their fasts, mutually teaching, mutually entreating, mutually upholding. In the church of God they hold an equal place. They stand equally at the banquet of God, equally in crises, equally facing persecutions, and equally in refreshments. Neither hides anything from the other. Neither neglects the other. Neither is troublesome to the other.

What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate. What God has joined, making one flesh out of man and woman, man cannot separate, except perhaps God alone. Man separates when, due to the desire for a second wife, he dismisses the first. God separates whom He has joined, when by mutual consent, for the service of God, because the time is short, thus we have wives as though we had none.

(ubi sup.) What therefore God hath conjoined by making one flesh of a man and a woman, that man cannot separate, but God alone. Man separates, when we dismiss the first wife because we desire a second; but it is God who separates, when by common consent, for the sake of serving God, we so have wives as though we had none.

There are some who say outright that marriage is fornication and teach that it was introduced by the devil. They proudly say that they are imitating the Lord who neither married nor had any possession in this world, boasting that they understand the gospel better than anyone else. The Scripture says to them: "God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble." Further, they do not know the reason why the Lord did not marry. In the first place he had his own bride, the Church; and in the next place he was no ordinary man that he should also be in need of some helpmeet after the flesh. Nor was it necessary for him to beget children since he abides eternally and was born the only Son of God. It is the Lord himself who says: "That which God has joined together, let no man put asunder."

They are trying to break the vow of the knight as they broke the vow of the monk. They recognise the vow as the vital antithesis to servile status; the alternative and therefore the antagonist. Marriage makes a small state within the state, which resists all such regimentation. That bond breaks all other bonds; that law is found stronger than all later and lesser laws. They desire the democracy to be sexually fluid, because the making of small nuclei is like the making of small nations. Like small nations, they are a nuisance to the mind of imperial scope. In short, what they fear, in the most literal sense, is home rule.

Anyhow, to vary the legendary symbolism, it never seems to occur to the king in this fairy tale that the gold crown on his head is a less, and not a more, sacred and settled ornament than the gold ring on the woman's finger.

So the unfortunate man, who cannot tolerate the woman he has chosen from all the women in the world, is not encouraged to return to her and tolerate her, but encouraged to choose another woman whom he may in due course refuse to tolerate. And in all these cases the argument is the same; that the man in the intermediate state is unhappy. Probably he is unhappy, since he is abnormal; but the point is that he is permitted to loosen the universal bond which has kept millions of others normal. Because he has himself got into a hole, he is allowed to burrow in it like a rabbit and undermine a whole countryside.

One word should be added to this hasty sketch of the elements of the case. I have deliberately left out the loftiest aspect and argument, that which sees marriage as a divine institution; and that for the logical reason that those who believe in this would not believe in divorce; and I am arguing with those who do believe in divorce. I do not ask them to assume the worth of my creed or any creed; and I could wish they did not so often ask me to assume the worth of their worthless, poisonous plutocratic modern society. But if it could be shown, as I think it can, that a long historical view and a patient political experience can at last accumulate solid scientific evidence of the vital need of such a vow, then I can conceive no more tremendous tribute than this, to any faith, which made a flaming affirmation from the darkest beginnings, of what the latest enlightenment can only slowly discover in the end.

While free love seems to me a heresy, divorce does really seem to me a superstition. It is not only more of a superstition than free love, but much more of a superstition than strict sacramental marriage; and this point can hardly be made too plain. It is the partisans of divorce, not the defenders of marriage, who attach a stiff and senseless sanctity to a mere ceremony, apart from the meaning of the ceremony. It is our opponents, and not we, who hope to be saved by the letter of ritual, instead of the spirit of reality. It is they who hold that vow or violation, loyalty or disloyalty, can all be disposed of by a mysterious and magic rite, performed first in a law-court and then in a church or a registry office. There is little difference between the two parts of the ritual; except that the law court is much more ritualistic. But the plainest parallels will show anybody that all this is sheer barbarous credulity. It may or may not be superstition for a man to believe he must kiss the Bible to show he is telling the truth. It is certainly the most grovelling superstition for him to believe that, if he kisses the Bible, anything he says will come true. It would surely be the blackest and most benighted Bible-worship to suggest that the mere kiss on the mere book alters the moral quality of perjury. Yet this is precisely what is implied in saying that formal re-marriage alters the moral quality of conjugal infidelity. It may have been a mark of the Dark Ages that Harold should swear on a relic, though he were afterwards foresworn. But surely those ages would have been at their darkest, if he had been content to be sworn on a relic and forsworn on another relic. Yet this is the new altar these reformers would erect for us, out of the mouldy and meaningless relics of their dead law and their dying religion.

But if two persons, whom God has joined together, are not to be separated; much more is it wrong to separate from Christ, the Church, which God has joined to Him.

And in the house again, His disciples asked Him about the same matter. And He said to them: Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery. In Matthew, it is written more fully: Whoever divorces his wife except for fornication, and marries another, commits adultery (Matthew V).

(Vict. Ant. e Cat. in Marc.) There is no contrariety in Matthew's relating that He spoke these words to the Pharisees, though Mark says that they were spoken to the disciples; for it is possible that He may have spoken them to both.

This second question is said to be asked again by the Apostles, because it is on the subject of which the Pharisees had asked Him, that is, concerning the state of marriage; and this is said by Mark in his own person.

Since the disciples too were troubled regarding the divorce of husband and wife, they also approach Him and ask about the same thing. Their way of thinking was not yet completely sound.

But the disciples were offended, as not being fully satisfied with what had been said; for this reason they again question Him, wherefore there follows, And in the house, his disciples asked him again of the same matter.

We hold that a man should either remain as he is born or else marry only once. For a second marriage is a veiled adultery.

"For a woman is bound, as long as her husband is alive." As a consequence, therefore, the husband is also bound, as long as his wife is alive. This bond renders any further union impossible without the implication of adultery. Hence, four adulterers are produced of necessity from the two marriages, if the wife remarries and the husband marries an adulteress. However, a more infamous adultery is imputed to the one who remarries after the dismissal of his wife for other than the cause of fornication. Matthew spoke of this type of adultery. Such a one is not the only one who commits adultery, but, as we read in Mark: "Whoever puts away his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if the wife puts away her husband, and marries another, she commits adultery."

God created marriage. As the union is from God, so divorce is from the devil. But one is allowed to divorce a wife in case of fornication for the precise reason that one never originally wished to have a wife who has not preserved conjugal fidelity to her husband.

This declaration of the Lord applies equally to man and woman. It prohibits departing from marriage except in the case of fornication.

(ubi sup.) In Matthew it is more fully expressed, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication. (Matt. 19:9.) The only carnal cause then is fornication; the only spiritual cause is the fear of God, that a man should put away his wife to enter into religiono, as we read that many have done. But there is no cause allowed by the law of God for marrying another, during the lifetime of her who is quitted.

"After all," said Clare, "they had a right to happiness." We were discussing something that once happened in our own neighbourhood. Mr A. had deserted Mrs A. and got his divorce in order to marry Mrs B., who had likewise got her divorce in order to marry Mr A. And there was certainly no doubt that Mr A. and Mrs B. were very much in love with one another. If they continued to be in love, and if nothing went wrong with their health or their income, they might reasonably expect to be very happy.

It was equally clear that they were not happy with their old partners. Mrs B. had adored her husband at the outset. But then he got smashed up in the war. It was thought he had lost his virility, and it was known that he had lost his job. Life with him was no longer what Mrs B. had bargained for. Poor Mrs A., too. She had lost her looks — and all her liveliness. It might be true, as some said, that she consumed herself by bearing his children and nursing him through the long illness that overshadowed their earlier married life.

You mustn't, by the way, imagine that A. was the sort of man who nonchalantly threw a wife away like the peel of an orange he'd sucked dry. Her suicide was a terrible shock to him. We all knew this, for he told us so himself. "But what could I do?" he said. "A man has a right to happiness. I had to take my one chance when it came."

[...] Everyone (except Mr A. and Mrs B.) knows that Mr A. in a year or so may have the same reason for deserting his new wife as for deserting his old. He will feel again that all is at stake. He will see himself again as the great lover, and his pity for himself will exclude all pity for the woman.

In us it is not only the spirit which ought to be sanctified, but also our behaviour, manner of life, and our body. What does the apostle Paul mean when he says that the wife is sanctified by the husband and the husband by the wife? And what is the meaning of the Lord's words to those who asked concerning divorce whether it is lawful to put away one's wife as Moses commanded? "Because of the hardness of your hearts," he says, "Moses wrote this; but have you not read that God said to the first man, You two shall be one flesh? Therefore he who divorces his wife except for fornication makes her an adulteress." But "after the resurrection," he says, "they neither marry nor are given in marriage."

(non occ.) For a repetition of a saying of the Word, produces not weariness, but thirst and hunger; (Ecclus. 24:29) wherefore it is said, They that eat me shall yet be hungry, and they that drink me shall yet be thirsty; for the tasting of the honied words of wisdom yields all manner of savour to them who love her. Wherefore the Lord instructs His disciples over again; for it goes on, And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery upon her.

(Vict. Ant. e Cat. in Marc.) The Lord calls by the name of adultery cohabitation with her who is not a man's wife; she is not, however, a wife, whom a man has taken to him, after quitting his first; and for this reason he commits adultery upon her, that is, upon the second, whom he brings in. And the same thing is true in the case of the woman; wherefore it goes on, And if a woman shall put away her husband, and marry another, she committeth adultery; for she cannot be joined to another as her own husband, if she leave him who is really her own husband. The law indeed forbade what was plainly adultery; but the Saviour forbids this, which was neither plain, nor known to all, though it was contrary to nature.

The Lord answered them: whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery with this second wife; likewise a wife who has left her husband and joined with another becomes an adulteress.

Therefore, there is only one carnal cause, fornication: and one spiritual cause, the fear of God, so that a wife may be dismissed, as many are read to have done for the sake of religion. But no cause is prescribed by God's law, for the one who is left to marry another while she lives.

Or, He set forth the Prophets as it were winepresses, into which an abundant measure of the Holy Spirit, as of new wine, might flow in a teeming stream.

Or, The tower is the eminence of the Law, which ascended from earth to heaven, and from which, as from a watch-tower, the coming of Christ might be spied. And let it out to husbandmen.

(Verse 33.) Listen to another parable: There was a master of a house who planted a vineyard and put a fence around it and dug a winepress in it and built a tower and leased it to tenants, and then went on a journey. This is what the Lord meant by the proverb: It is hard to kick against the goads (Acts 9:5). The chief priests and the elders of the people, who questioned the Lord, said to him, 'By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?' And they desired to attain wisdom in words, they are surpassed by their own skill; and they listen in parables, because they did not deserve to listen with an open face. This man, the head of the household, is the one who had two sons; and in another parable, he hired workers for his vineyard; who planted a vineyard, of which Isaiah speaks most fully in the Song, bringing it to a conclusion: The vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel (Isaiah 5:7). And in the Psalm: You have brought a vine out of Egypt, he says, you have driven out the nations, and planted it (Psalm 80:9). And he surrounded her with a hedge, or with the walls of a city, or with the help of angels: and he dug into her a winepress, or an altar, or those things for pressing wine, which are noted in the title of three Psalms: the eightieth, and the eighty-third. And he built a tower: no doubt the temple, of which it is said through Micah: And you, O cloudy tower, daughter of Zion (Mic. 4:8). And he placed it for the farmers, whom elsewhere he called vineyard workers: who were hired at the first, third, sixth, ninth, and eleventh hour (Matt. 20). And he went on a journey: yes, not by a change of place; for how can God be absent where all things are fulfilled? And as it says through Jeremiah: I am a God who is near and not far away, says the Lord (Jeremiah 23:23). But he seems to be leaving the vineyard so as to leave the vine-dressers free will in their work.

He hath planted a vine of which Isaiah speaks, The vine of the Lord of Hosts is the house of Israel. (Isa. 5:7.) And hedged it round about; i. e. either the wall of the city, or the guardianship of Angels.

A winepress, that is to say, An altar; or those winepresses after which the three Psalms, the 8th, the 80th, and the 83d are entitled, that is to say, the martyrs.

And built a tower therein, that is, the Temple, of which it is said by Micah, And thou, O cloudy tower of the daughter of Sion. (Mic. 4:8.)

Not a change of place, for God, by whom all things are filled, cannot be absent from any place; but He seems to be absent from the vineyard, that He may leave the vine-dressers a freedom of acting.

Many things doth He intimate by this parable, God's providence, which had been exercised towards them from the first; their murderous disposition from the beginning; that nothing had been omitted of whatever pertained to a heedful care of them; that even when prophets had been slain, He had not turned away from them, but had sent His very Son; that the God both of the New and of the Old Testament was one and the same; that His death should effect great blessings; that they were to endure extreme punishment for the crucifixion, and their crime; the calling of the Gentiles, the casting out of the Jews.

Therefore He putteth it after the former parable, that He may show even hereby the charge to be greater, and highly unpardonable. How, and in what way? That although they met with so much care, they were worse than harlots and publicans, and by so much.

And observe also both His great care, and the excessive idleness of these men. For what pertained to the husbandmen, He Himself did, the hedging it round about, the planting the vineyard, and all the rest, and He left little for them to do; to take care of what was there, and to preserve what was given to them. For nothing was left undone, but all accomplished; and not even so did they gain, and this, when they had enjoyed such great blessings from Him. For when they had come forth out of Egypt, He gave a law, and set up a city, and built a temple, and prepared an altar.

"And went into a far country;" that He bore long with them, not always bringing the punishments close upon their sins; for by His going into a far country, He means His great long-suffering.

The householder is God, who in some parables is represented as a man. As it were a father condescending to the infant lisp of his little child, in order to instruct him.

Or, the hedge which God set round his people was His own Providence; and the winepress was the place of offerings.

Or, because God who had been with them in the cloud by day, and in the pillar of fire by night, (Exod. 13:21.) never after showed Himself to them in like manner. In Isaiah (Is. 5:7.) the people of the Jews is called the vineyard, and the threats of the householder are against the vineyard; but in the Gospel not the vineyard but the husbandmen are blamed. For perchance in the Gospel the vineyard is the kingdom of God, that is, the doctrine which is contained in holy Scripture; and a man's blameless life is the fruit of the vineyard. And the letter of Scripture is the hedge set round the vineyard, that the fruits which are hid in it should not be seen by those who are without. The depth of the oracles of God is the winepress of the vineyard, into which such as have profited in the oracles of God pour out their studies like fruit. The tower built therein is the word concerning God Himself, and concerning Christ's dispensations. This vineyard He committed to husbandmen, that is, to the people that was before us, both priests and laity, and went into a far country, by His departure giving opportunity to the husbandmen. The time of the vintage drawing near may be taken of individuals, and of nations. The first season of life is in infancy, when the vineyard has nought to show, but that it has in it the vital power. As soon as it comes to be able to speak, then is the time of putting forth buds. And as the child's soul progresses, so also does the vineyard, that is, the word of God; and after such progress the vineyard brings forth the ripe fruit of love, joy, peace, and the like. Moreover to the nation who received the Law by Moses, the time of fruit draweth near.

He is called man, by title, not by nature; in a kind of likeness, not in verity. For the Son knowing that by occasion of His human name He himself should be blasphemed as though he were mere man, spoke therefore of the Invisible God the Father as man; He who by nature is Lord of Angels and men, but by goodness their Father.

Or, by the hedge understand the protection of the holy fathers, who were set as a wall round the people of Israel.

Or, the winepress is the word of God, which tortures man when it contradicts his fleshly nature.

When, that is, Priests and Levites were constituted by the Law, and undertook the direction of the people. And as an husbandman, though he offer to his Lord of his own stock, does not please him so much as by giving him the fruit of his own vineyard; so the Priest does not so much please God by his own righteousness, as by teaching the people of God holiness; for his own righteousness is but one, but that of the people manifold. And went into a far country.

Morally; a vineyard has been let out to each of us to dress, when the mystery of baptism was given us, to be cultivated by action. Servants one, two, and three are sent us when Law, Psalm, and Prophecy are read, after whose instructions we are to work well. He that is sent is beaten and cast out when the word is contemned, or, which is worse, is blasphemed. He kills (as far as in him lies) the heir, who tramples under foot the Son, and does despite to the Spirit of grace. The wicked husbandman is destroyed, and the vineyard is given to another, when the gift of grace which the proud has contemned is given to the lowly.

He also introduces a parable of the mission to the vineyard of the Son (not the Father), who was sent after so many servants, and slain by the husbandmen, and avenged by the Father.

Yet another parable He brings to them, showing that though they were deemed worthy to receive an immeasurable degree of care for their condition, they did not get better. The "man, a householder" is the Lord Who in His love for man calls Himself a man. The vineyard is the Jewish people, planted by God in the land of promise. For He says, "Bring them in and plant them in Thy holy mountain" (Ex. 15:17). The hedge is the law which prevented them from mixing with the Gentiles; or, it is the holy angels who guarded Israel. The wine-press is the altar; the tower, the temple. The husbandmen are the teachers of the people, the Pharisees and the scribes. The householder, God, went into a far country when He no longer spoke to them in a pillar of cloud. Or, the departure of God into a far country is His long-suffering; for when He is long-suffering and not in hot pursuit of wrongdoers, demanding an account, He appears to be asleep or absent on a far journey.

"Hear another parable." The Lord had asked about the baptism, and they refused to answer; but now he questions covertly, so that they may not perceive; therefore he sets forth a parable, and does two things. First, he presents the parable; secondly, he demands their verdict, at "when therefore the lord of the vineyard shall come, what will he do to those husbandmen?" Concerning the first, three things. First, the benefit conferred is presented; secondly, the demand for recompense, at "and when the time of the fruits drew near" etc.; thirdly, the ingratitude, at "and the husbandmen laying hands on his servants" etc. Concerning the first, three things. First, the planting of the vineyard is presented; secondly, its adornment; thirdly, its leasing. He says therefore "there was a man, a householder, who planted a vineyard" etc. A similar passage is found in Isa 5:1, where it says: "A vineyard was made for my beloved on a horn of an olive tree." But here he says that the householder plants a vineyard. Some say that there he inveighs against the vineyard; hence he says: "What more could I have done for my vineyard?" But here against the husbandmen. Therefore it is explained in two ways according to Jerome and Chrysostom. The vineyard is called the Jewish people; Isa 5:7: "The vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel." It is against the husbandmen, because as regards the present, this malice did not proceed from the people, but from the rulers; John 7:48: "Hath any one of the rulers believed in him?" Therefore not against the vineyard. This vineyard is not the house of Israel, but the justice of God, which was secretly handed down in sacred Scripture; hence he says "there was a man, a householder, who planted a vineyard," i.e., the Jewish people; Ps 79:9: "Thou hast brought a vineyard out of Egypt." Or he placed justice in the teaching of the law. "And made a hedge round about it," for the protection of the vineyard; hence those things which are set for protection, whether they be the prayers of the saints, or the guardianship of angels, are called a hedge; hence Hosea 2:6: "I will hedge up thy way with thorns." But if the vineyard is called justice, by the hedge he means the hidden words of Scripture. For according to the mystical sense, the hidden things of Scripture are not to be disclosed to anyone, because "what is holy is not to be given to dogs," above (7:6). "And dug in it a winepress." A winepress is set up so that the wine of charity may be pressed out. If by the vineyard is understood the Jewish people, by the winepress is understood the altar of holocausts. Likewise, the martyrs are understood, who shed their blood for the faith; Isa 63:3: "I have trodden the winepress alone." Or it can also be understood as the order of prophets, in whom the wine of wisdom was pressed out. Or it can be called the depth of sacred Scripture. Likewise, all the fruit of the vineyard is gathered in the winepress: so whatever the soul can do, all should be gathered to the praise of God. "And built a tower." By the tower is understood the temple. Micah 4:8: "And thou, O cloudy tower of the flock, unto thee shall the first dominion come." Or the knowledge of God; Prov 18:10: "The name of the Lord is a strong tower." Then concerning the leasing: "and let it out to husbandmen," i.e., he established it on a fixed payment. The husbandmen are Moses and Aaron, who held the governance. Job 31:39: "If I have afflicted the soul of the tillers thereof." Gregory: those who are placed over the people. "He went abroad," the Lord, not by changing place, but by leaving man to his own free will. Sir 15:14: "God made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel," i.e., he dismissed him to his own free will. Hence he is said to go abroad, when he does not inflict punishment for every sin. Or he did not appear so manifestly as before, namely, as when he appeared in the bush (Exod 3:2).

At each step of their wickedness the mercy of God was increased, and at each step of the Divine mercy the wickedness of the Jews increased; thus there was a strife between human wickedness and Divine goodness.

The season of fruit, He says, not of rent-paying, because this stiff-necked nation brings forth no fruit.

Or, the first servants who were sent were the Lawgiver Moses himself, and Aaron the first Priest of God; whom, having beaten them with the scourge of their tongue, they sent away empty; by the other servants understand the company of the Prophets.

"The time of the fruit drew near" during the years of the prophets. For the servants who were sent are the prophets who were abused in various ways by the husbandmen, that is, the false prophets and false teachers of those times. One they beat, as they did to Micah when Sedek struck him on the jaw (III Kings, or I Kings, 22:24); another they killed, as they did to Zechariah [the father of John the Forerunner] between the temple and the altar; another they stoned, as they did Zechariah, the son of Jodae the high priest (II Chron. 24:21).

"And when the time of the fruits drew near." Whoever makes anyone bear fruit, expects a benefit: and so the Lord expects that benefit be rendered to him for his glory. With respect to an individual, the fruit is not in childhood, but in full age; hence when one comes to adolescence, then he demands fruit: so when the people had been planted and the law given, he demanded fruit, and they did not acknowledge him. Jer 8:7: "The kite in the air hath known her time; but my people hath not known the judgment of the Lord." "He sent his servants," i.e., the prophets, "to the husbandmen," i.e., to the Jews, "to receive the fruits thereof," i.e., to induce men to act well. Below (28:34): "I send to you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them you will kill" etc.

(Verse 35-36) And the vinedressers took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise. We read the letter of Paul to the Hebrews (Heb. XI); and from it we learn in great detail the sufferings endured by the servants of the Lord.

Beat them, as Jeremiah, killed them, as Isaiah, stoned them, as Naboth and Zacharias, whom they slew between the temple and the altar.

And "He sent His servants," that is, the prophets, "to receive the fruit;" that is, their obedience, the proof of it by their works. But they even here showed their wickedness, not only by failing to give the fruit, after having enjoyed so much care, which was the sign of idleness, but also by showing anger towards them that came. For they that had not to give when they owed, should not have been indignant, nor angry, but should have entreated. But they not only were indignant, but even filled their hands with blood, and while deserving punishment, themselves inflicted punishment.

Therefore He sent both a second, and a third company, both that the wickedness of these might be shown, and the love towards man of Him who sent them.

After this the malice is treated. And first with respect to the first group; secondly, with respect to the second; thirdly, with respect to the third. "And the husbandmen laying hands on his servants, beat one," as Micaiah, "killed another," as Isaiah, "and stoned another," as Naboth. Heb 11:37: "They were stoned, they were cut asunder, they were killed by the sword."

These more than the first who were sent, denote that time, when, after the preaching of single Prophets, a great number was sent forth together.

"Again he sent other servants." Likewise, he sent prophets individually, as Moses and Aaron and others; but after, in the time of David, he sent many companies of prophets. For the Lord wills to set his mercy against their malice. Hence "and they did to them in like manner." Deut 31:27: "You have always been contentious against the Lord."

By the Son sent at last, is denoted the advent of our Lord.

(Verse 37, 38.) But lastly, he sent his son to them, saying: They will respect my son. However, the farmers, upon seeing the son, said among themselves: This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and we shall have his inheritance. In the passage above, we read: Again, he sent other servants more than the previous ones, and they did the same to them. The patience of the householder is shown in that he sent them more frequently, in order to provoke the wicked tenants to repentance. But they treasured up wrath for themselves on the day of wrath (Rom. 2). Moreover, that which is joined: They fear for my son, he does not come from ignorance. For what does the head of the household not know, who in this place is understood as God the Father? But God is always said to be ambiguous, so that free will may be preserved for man. Let us ask Arius and Eunomius. Behold, the Father is said to be ignorant, and he tempers his judgement, and as far as you are concerned, he is proven to be lying. Whatever they may answer on behalf of the Father, let them understand it as being on behalf of the Son, who himself says that he does not know the day of consummation.

But when He says, They will reverence my Son, He does not speak as in ignorance. For what is there that this householder (by whom in this place God is intended) knows not? But God is thus spoken of as being uncertain, in order that free-will may be reserved for man.

Let us enquire of Arrius and Eunomius. See here the Father is said not to know somewhat. Whatever answer they make for the Father, let them understand the same of the Son, when He says that He knows not the day of the consummation of all things. (Mat. 22:36.)

And wherefore sent He not His Son immediately? In order that they might condemn themselves for the things done to the others, and leave off their wrath, and reverence Him when He came. There are also other reasons, but for the present let us go on to what is next. But what means, "It may be they will reverence?" It is not the language of one ignorant, away with the thought! but of one desiring to show the sin to be great; and without any excuse. Since Himself knowing that they would slay Him, He sent Him. But He saith, "They will reverence," declaring what ought to have been done, that it was their duty to have reverenced Him. Since elsewhere also He saith, "if perchance they will hear;" not in this case either being ignorant, but lest any of the obstinate should say, that His prediction was the thing that necessitated their disobedience, therefore He frames His expressions in this way, saying, "Whether they will," and, "It may be." For though they had been obstinate towards His servants, yet ought they to have reverenced the dignity of the Son.

He sent Him not as the bearer of a sentence of punishment against the guilty, but of an offer of repentance; He sent Him to put them to shame, not to punish them.

But some say, that it was after His incarnation, that Christ was called a Son in right of His baptism like the other saints, whom the Lord refutes by this place, saying, I will send my Son. Therefore when He thus meditated sending His Son after the Prophets, He must have been already His Son. Further, if He had been His Son in the same way as all the saints to whom the word of God was sent, He ought to have called the Prophets also His sons, as He calls Christ, or to call Christ His servant, as He calls the Prophets.

Later the Son of God was sent and He appeared in the flesh. He said, "They will reverence My Son," not unaware that they would kill Him, but signifying what ought to be. For, He says, they ought to honor the dignity of the Son even if they had killed the servants.

There follows thirdly: "and last of all he sent to them his son" etc., which was the height of consummate malice. And he does three things. First, the mercy of the Lord is presented; secondly, their malice; thirdly, the execution of the wicked plan. "And last of all he sent to them his son." Heb 1:1: "God, who, at sundry times and in divers manners, spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all, in these days, hath spoken to us by his Son." "He sent to them his son, saying: they will reverence my son." But what is it that he says, "they will?" Did he not know? Jerome says that this doubtful way of speaking signifies the freedom of the will, to show what they were going to be; because he who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father. Or he speaks thus because some did reverence him.

What then do these? When they ought to have run unto Him, when they ought to have asked pardon for their offenses, they even persist more strongly in their former sins, they proceed to add unto their pollutions, forever throwing into the shade their former offenses by their later; as also He Himself declared when He said, "Fill ye up the measure of your fathers." For from the first the prophets used to charge them with these things, saying, "Your hands are full of blood;" and, "They mingle blood with blood;" and, "They build up Sion with blood."

But they did not learn self-restraint, albeit they received this commandment first, "Thou shalt not kill;" and had been commanded to abstain from countless other things because of this, and by many and various means urged to the keeping of this commandment.

Yet, for all that, they put not away that evil custom; but what say they, when they saw Him? Come, let us kill Him. With what motive, and for what reason? what of any kind had they to lay to His charge, either small or great? Is it that He honored you, and being God became man for your sakes, and wrought His countless miracles? or that He pardoned your sins? or that He called you unto a kingdom?

But see together with their impiety great was their folly, and the reason of His murder was full of much madness. "For let us kill Him," it is said, "and the inheritance shall be ours."

And where do they take counsel to kill Him? "Out of the vineyard."

Seest thou how He prophesies even the place where He was to be slain. "And they cast Him out, and slew Him."

Or we may suppose this fulfilled in the case of those Jews who, knowing Christ, believed in Him. But what follows, But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir, come let us kill him, and let us seize on the inheritance, was fulfilled in those who saw Christ, and knew Him to be the Son of God, yet crucified Him.

After His entry into the Temple, and having cast out those who sold the animals for the sacrifices, then they took counsel to kill Him, Come, let us kill him. For they reasoned among themselves, It will happen that the people hereby shall disuse the practice of sacrificing, which pertains to our gain, and shall be content to offer the sacrifice of righteousness, which pertains to the glory of God; and so the nation shall no more be our possession, but shall become God's. But if we shall kill Him, then there being none to seek the fruit of righteousness from the people, the practice of offering sacrifice shall continue, and so this people shall become our possession; as it follows, And the inheritance shall be ours. These are the usual thoughts of all worldly Priests, who take no thought how the people shall live without sin, but look to how much is offered in the Church, and esteem that the profit of their ministry.

By what they say, This is the Son, He manifestly proves that the rulers of the Jews crucified the Son of God, not through ignorance, but through jealousy. For they understood that it was He to whom the Father speaks by the Prophet, Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance (Ps. 2:8.) The inheritance given to the Son is the holy Church; an inheritance not left Him by His Father when dying, but wonderfully purchased by His own death.

Or, The Jews endeavoured by putting Him to death to seize upon the inheritance, when they strove to overthrow the faith which is through Him, and to substitute their own righteousness which is by the Law, and therewith to imbue the Gentiles. It follows, And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.

But the husbandmen saw Him and said, "This is the heir; come, let us kill Him." The Jews, too, said, "This is the Christ," and they crucified Him. They cast Him out of the vineyard, for the Lord was slain outside of the city. But since we would also say that the vineyard is the people, Christ was slain by the Pharisees, the evil husbandmen, outside the vineyard, that is, outside and apart from the will of the guileless people.

Then the purpose of malice is presented. And first, the scheming is presented; secondly, the plan; thirdly, the malice. "But the husbandmen seeing the son, said among themselves: this is the heir; come, let us kill him, and we shall have his inheritance;" for the son is truly the heir of his father, because what he asks, he obtains. Ps 2:8: "Ask of me, and I will give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance." Likewise, he is the heir because whatever the Father has, he also has: for he is not called an heir as someone else who receives his inheritance upon the father's death, but because what is the Father's is always also his. But against this: "if they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory" (1 Cor 2:8). This is true if they had truly known; but they knew by conjecture. There follows the plan: "come, let us kill him." Wis 2:20: "Let us condemn him to a most shameful death." And what is the plan? "We shall have his inheritance." For they knew from the law that he was to rule over the Jewish people. Hence they feared lest he impose upon them the yoke of the law, and destroy their traditions. Therefore they would not endure the yoke of Christ; hence they endured the yoke of the Romans. Hence John 11:48: "Lest perhaps the Romans come, and take away our place and nation."

The householder in this parable is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. The vineyard he planted represents the Jewish people who were begotten from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, multiplied like the stars in the sky and the sand of the shore, liberated from the land of Egypt and the yoke of slavery, and led through the sea to the promised land, as the prophet said: "You brought a vine out of Egypt; you drove out the nations and planted it." The Lord planted the Jewish people in the promised land, flowing with milk and honey, so that they would bear the fruit of the commandments of God. "He surrounded it with a hedge" means that God fortified it with the protection of angels. The wine press he dug signifies the holy church, where the fruits of righteousness and holiness are gathered; just as the grapes are pressed only with great toil and effort, so also the holy martyrs are crushed like grapes and shed their blood only through great persecutions and tortures. The tower constructed in the middle of the vineyard is our Lord himself, who appeared like a strong tower in the midst of the holy church through the Virgin. Because of his presence, all the saints and martyrs are protected with spiritual weapons from their most wicked enemy, who is the devil. "When harvest time drew near, he sent his servants," that is, the prophets, "to the tenants," who were the teachers of the law, "to collect the fruit of the vineyard." He had already sent the prophets to them repeatedly to collect his fruit, but they were disdainful and rebellious toward the Lord and greeted his prophets with swords, beatings, stonings and other persecutions. They killed Isaiah, stoned Jeremiah, pursued Elijah and beheaded John the Baptist. Every nation that persecutes its teachers and fails to produce the fruit of the gospel is an accomplice to the Jews. "Finally, therefore, he sent his only son to them, saying, 'surely they will respect my son.' " The "only son" of the householder is the Lord, the Son of God, who came by the will of the Father to his vineyard, which is the Jewish people. "But when the tenants," who are the teachers of the law, "saw his son, they said to themselves, 'this is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours,' and they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him." They also crucified our Lord outside the city, while they shouted, "Crucify him! Crucify him!" Yet they did not in fact come to possess the inheritance of the law; instead, they sentenced themselves to death, for the Lord asked, "What will the owner of the vineyard do to the tenants when he comes?" They responded, "He will destroy the evil tenants and give the vineyard to other tenants who will produce its fruit in a timely manner." They condemned themselves by their own words, as the Lord implies when he speaks about himself and their faithlessness: "The stone which the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; therefore, I say to you that the kingdom of God will be removed from you and given to a people producing its fruits."

Christ was cast out of Jerusalem, as out of the vineyard, to His sentence of punishment.

(Verse 39) And they apprehended him, cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. And the Apostle speaks, that Jesus was crucified outside the gate (Heb. 13). We can also understand it differently; that he was cast out of the vineyard, and there he was killed: so that when the gentiles received him, the vineyard would be given to others.

Or, what He says, And cast him out of the vineyard, seems to me to be this; As far as they were concerned they judged Him a stranger both to the vineyard, and the husbandmen. When therefore the Lord of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?

Then the execution is presented: "and taking him, they cast him forth out of the vineyard, and killed him," because they crucified him outside the gate of the city, and so they killed him as though a stranger to the vineyard. Isa 53:7: "He was led as a sheep to the slaughter" etc. That they cast him out of the vineyard is found in John, that whoever confessed the name of Christ was cast out of the synagogue.

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

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

(Verse 40, 41.) When therefore the Lord of the vineyard shall come, what will he do to those farmers? They say to him: He will destroy those wicked men and will lease out his vineyard to other farmers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons. The Lord asks them not because he doesn't know what they will answer, but in order to condemn them by their own response. And a vineyard has been leased to us, and it has been leased under the condition that we render to the Lord the fruits in their seasons, and we should know at all times what we must either say or do.

The Lord asks them not as though He did not know what they would answer, but that they might be condemned by their own answer.

And Luke indeed saith, that He declared what these men should suffer; and they said, "God forbid;" and He added the testimony of Scripture. For "He beheld them, and said, What is it then that is written? The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner; and every one that falleth upon it shall be broken." But Matthew, that they themselves delivered the sentence. But this is not a contradiction. For indeed both things were done, both themselves passed the sentence against themselves; and again, when they perceived what they had said, they added, "God forbid;" and He set up the prophet against them, persuading them that certainly this would be.

Nevertheless, not even so did He plainly reveal the Gentiles, that He might afford them no handle, but signified it darkly by saying, "He will give the vineyard to others." For this purpose then did He speak by a parable, that themselves might pass the sentence, which was done in the case of David also, when He passed judgment on the parable of Nathan. But do thou mark, I pray thee, even hereby how just is the sentence, when the very persons that are to be punished condemn themselves.

"When He cometh." When? At the second coming? It seems to have this meaning, but a better meaning is this: the lord of the vineyard is God the Father Who sent His Son Who was slain by them. When He comes, that is, when He looks down on the lawlessness which the Jews committed, then He will miserably destroy them by sending the Roman army. And His vineyard, that is, His people, He will give to other husbandmen, that is, to apostles and teachers. Understand the vineyard to mean also the Divine Scriptures, in which the hedge is the letter, and the wine-press that is dug is the depth of the Spirit; the tower is theology, lofty and exalted. These Scriptures, then, were first possessed by bad husbandmen, the Pharisees; but God has let them out to us who cultivate them well. But they slew the Lord outside the vineyard, that is, outside those things of which Scripture spoke.

Then he demands their verdict: "when therefore the lord of the vineyard shall come, what will he do to those husbandmen?" So subtly does the Lord ask that they judge against themselves, as Nathan did with David when he sinned with Bathsheba.

He is become the head of the corner, because He is the union of both sides between the Law and the Gentiles.

(Verse 42.) Jesus said to them: Have you never read in the Scriptures: The stone which the builders rejected, the same has become the head of the corner? This is the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes. (Psalm 118:22-23). Various parables and different teachings are woven into this story. For those whom he previously called workers, vine-dressers, and farmers, he now calls builders, that is, masons. Hence the Apostle says: You are God's field, you are God's building. (1 Corinthians 3:9). So just as bricklayers and vine-growers take possession of a vineyard, they also took possession of a stone, which they either place in the foundations, next to the architect Paul (Ibid.), or in the corner, to join together two walls, that is, both peoples (Ephesians 2), who were rejected by them, became the cornerstone. And this was done by the Lord, not by human strength, but by the power of God. Peter also confidently speaks of this stone of support: This stone, which was rejected by you builders, has become the cornerstone (1 Peter 2:7). And Isaiah said: Behold, I will send a chosen, precious, corner stone into the foundations of Zion: and he that believeth in him, shall not be confounded (Isa. II, 16).

The same things are treated under various figures; whom above He called labourers and husbandmen, He now calls builders.

Then that they might learn that not only the nature of justice requires these things, but even from the beginning the grace of the Spirit had foretold them, and God had so decreed, He both added a prophecy, and reproves them in a way to put them to shame, saying, "Did ye never read, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner? this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes;" by all things showing, that they should be cast out for unbelief, and the Gentiles brought in. This He darkly intimated by the Canaanitish woman also; this again by the ass, and by the centurion, and by many other parables; this also now.

Wherefore He added too, "This is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes," declaring beforehand that the believing Gentiles, and as many of the Jews as should also themselves believe, shall be one, although the difference between them had been so great before.

Then, that they might learn that nothing was opposed to God's will of the things doing, but that the event was even highly acceptable, and beyond expectation, and amazing every one of the beholders (for indeed the miracle was far beyond words), He added and said, "It is the Lord's doing." And by the stone He means Himself, and by builders the teachers of the Jews; as Ezekiel also saith, "They that build the wall, and daub it with untempered mortar." But how did they reject Him? By saying, "This man is not of God;" "This man deceiveth the people;" and again, "Thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil."

That is, the stone is the gift of God to the whole building, and is wonderful in our eyes, who can discern it with the eyes of the mind.

When they seemed discontent, He brings forward Scripture testimony; as much as to say, If ye understood not My parable, at least acknowledge this Scripture.

As much as to say, How do ye not understand in what building that stone is to be set, not in yours, seeing it is rejected, but in another; but if the building is to be other, your building will be rejected.

But despite of their displeasure, the same stone furnished the head stone of the corner, for out of both nations He has joined by faith in Him as many as He would.

The stone means Christ Himself; the builders are the teachers of the Jews who rejected Him as if He were useless, saying, "Thou art a Samaritan and hast a demon." But when He rose from the dead, He was set in place as the head of the corner, that is, He became the head of the Church, joining Jews and Gentiles in one faith. For as the stone which forms the corner of a building makes continuous the walls leading to it and from it, so Christ has bound all together in one faith. This corner is marvelous, and is the Lord's doing (Ps. 117:22-23). For the Church which connects us and makes us one in faith is the Lord's doing, and is worthy of all wonder, so well is it built. And in another sense is it marvelous, because the Word of Christ has been confirmed and substantiated by marvels, that is, miracles, so that the composition of the Church is marvelous.

"Jesus saith to them." Here the confirmation is presented. And first the authority; secondly, the exposition. He says "have you never read in the Scriptures" (this is read in Ps 117:22): "the stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner?" And he presents four things. First, the rejection; secondly, the dignity; thirdly, the cause; fourthly, the wonder. He says "the stone" etc. The stone is Christ, who is called a stone from many likenesses. Isa 28:16: "Behold I will lay in the foundations of Sion a cornerstone" etc. The builders are the apostles. "Let each one see how he builds." Hence that stone which they rejected, i.e., cast out, "the same is become," i.e., was established, "the head of the corner," i.e., the head of Jews and Gentiles. Hence he was made the head of the Church. But they could say: he made himself the head; therefore he says "by the Lord this has been done." Ps 117:16: "The right hand of the Lord hath wrought strength" etc. And what is this exaltation like? "And it is wonderful in our eyes;" Hab 1:5: "Behold among the nations, and see: wonder, and be astonished: for a work is done in your days, which no man will believe, when it shall be told." For so great was the dignity, that it would not have been done, had not the grace of God accomplished it. Eph 2:8: "For by grace you are saved through Christ."