Matthew 15

What then saith Christ? He did not set Himself against it, neither made He any defense, but straightway blames them again, plucking down their confidence, and signifying that he who commits great sins ought not to be strict with others concerning small matters. "What? when you ought to be blamed," saith He, "do ye even blame?"

But do thou observe, how when it is His will to set aside any of the things enjoined by the law, He does it in the form of an apology; and so He did in that case. For by no means doth He proceed at once to transgress it, nor doth He say, "It is nothing;" for surely He would have made them more audacious; but first He clean cuts away their boldness, bringing forward the far heavier charge, and directing it upon their head. And He neither saith, "they do well in transgressing it," lest He should give them a hold on Him; nor doth He speak ill of their proceeding, lest He should confirm the law: nor again, on the other hand, doth He blame the elders, as lawless and unholy men; for doubtless they would have shunned Him as a reviler and injurious: but all these things He gives up, and proceeds another way. And He seems indeed to be rebuking the persons themselves who had come to Him, but He is reprehending them that enacted these laws; nowhere indeed making mention of the elders, but by His charge against the Scribes casting down them also, and signifying that their sin is twofold, first in disobeying God, next in doing so on men's account; as though He had said, "Why this, this hath ruined you, your obeying the elders in all things."

And He said not, "the elders' tradition," but "your own." And, "ye say;" again He said not, "the elders say:" in order to make His speech less galling. That is, because they wanted to prove the disciples transgressors of the law, He signifies that they themselves are doing so, but that these are free from blame. For of course that is not a law, which is enjoined by men (wherefore also He calls it "a tradition"), and especially by men that are transgressors of the law.

Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 51

(V. 3.) But he, answering, said to them: Why do you also transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? He refutes false slander with a true response. For, he says, you disregard the precepts of the Lord for the sake of human tradition, why do you think that my disciples should be accused, because they disregard the commands of the elders, in order to maintain the knowledge of God?

Commentary on Matthew

Since ye because of the tradition of men neglect the commandment of God, why do ye take upon you to reprove my disciples, for bestowing little regard upon the precepts of the elders, that they may observe the commands of God?

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

(cont. Adv. Leg. et Proph. ii. 1.) Christ here clearly shows both that that law which the heretic blasphemes is God's law, and that the Jews had their traditions foreign to the prophetical and canonical books; such as the Apostle calls profane and vain fables.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

(cont. Faust. xvi. 24.) The Lord here teaches us many things; That it was not He that turned the Jews from their God; that not only did He not infringe the commandments, but convicts them of infringing them; and that He had ordained no more than those by the hand of Moses.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

3–6

The Pharisees were accusing the disciples of transgressing the commandment of the elders, but Christ shows that the Pharisees were transgressing the law of God (See Ex. 20:12; 21:16). For they were teaching sons to give nothing to their parents but to offer whatever they had to the treasury of the temple. There was a coffer in the temple in which he who so wished could put money, and the contents were distributed to the poor. So the Pharisees first persuaded sons not to give anything to their parents but to offer it instead to the treasury of the temple, and then taught them to say, "O my father, the help that you seek from me is a gift, that is, it is offered to God." And then the Pharisees and the sons would divide the money among themselves, and the parents were being left uncared for in their old age. The money lenders had the same practice. For if one of them would lend money to someone who proved to be a bad debtor who did not pay back what was owed, then the money lender would say to the ungrateful debtor, "What you owe me is Corban," that is, a gift offered to God. Then the debtor, as one who was now in debt to God, would pay up although unwillingly. This is what the Pharisees were teaching sons to do.

Commentary on Matthew

But he answering, said to them. The Lord does two things: he does not respond by excusing the disciples, but shows that they themselves are not worthy to reprehend them. Above, 7:5: you hypocrite, cast out first the beam from your own eye. It is evident that to transgress the commandment of God is graver than to transgress the traditions of men; and therefore those who transgressed the commandments of God were offending in greater matters. Therefore he first shows them to be transgressors of the law; second, that they transgress the commandment. He says therefore why do you transgress the commandment of God, and do not observe it, for the sake of your tradition? Rom. 10:3: being ignorant of the justice of God, and seeking to establish their own, they have not submitted themselves to the justice of God. Isa. 3:8: their tongue and their devices are against the Lord, to provoke the eyes of his majesty.

Commentary on Matthew

4–6

And since this had no shade of contrariety to the law, to command men to wash their hands, He brings forward another tradition, which is opposed to the law. And what He saith is like this. "They taught the young, under the garb of piety, to despise their fathers." How, and in what way? "If one of their parents said to his child, Give me this sheep that thou hast, or this calf, or any such thing, they used to say, 'This is a gift to God, whereby thou wouldest be profited by me, and thou canst not have it.' And two evils hence arose: on the one hand they did not bring them to God, on the other they defrauded their parents under the name of the offering, alike insulting their parents for God's sake, and God for their parents' sake."

But He, omitting the first, the reward appointed for them that honor their parents, states that which is more awful, the punishment, I mean, threatened to such as dishonor them; desiring both to dismay them, and to conciliate such as have understanding; and He implies them to be for this worthy of death. For if he who dishonors them in word is punished, much more ye, who do so in deed, and who not only dishonor, but also teach it to others. "Ye then who ought not so much as to live, how find ye fault with the disciples?"

"And what wonder is it, if ye offer such insults to me, who am as yet unknown, when even to the Father ye are found doing the like?" For everywhere He both asserts and implies, that from Him they began with this their arrogance.

But some do also otherwise interpret, "It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;" that is, I owe thee no honor, but it is a free gift from me to thee, if indeed I do honor thee. But Christ would not have mentioned an insult of that sort.

And Mark again makes this plainer, by saying, "It is Corban, by whatsoever thou mightest be profiled by me;" which means, not a gift and present, but properly an offering.

Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 51

4–10

(Verse 4 onwards) For God said, 'Honor your father and mother, and whoever curses his father or mother, let him be put to death.' But you say, 'Whoever says to his father or mother, Whatever help you would have received from me is given to God,' and does not honor his father or mother, you have made void the commandment of God because of your tradition. Hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, 'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me' (Exodus 20, Leviticus 20). But they worship me without cause, teaching doctrines and commandments of men. And, calling the multitude to him, he said to them: Hear and understand. Honor in the Scriptures is not only felt in greetings and deference to offices, but also in acts of charity and the offering of gifts (Exodus 20:12, 21 and Leviticus 20). The Apostle says, 'Honor widows who are truly widows' (1 Timothy 5:3); here honor is understood as a gift. And in another place: Elders are to be honored with double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine of God (ibid., 17). And by this command we are commanded not to close the mouth of the ox that is treading out the corn (Deut. XXV) . And may the worker be worthy of his wage (Luke X) . The Lord had commanded, considering the weaknesses, ages, and hardships of parents, that children should honor their parents even in providing for their basic needs. The scribes and Pharisees, desiring to undermine this most provident Law of God and to introduce impiety under the name of piety, taught the worst sons that if anyone wished to vow to God (who is the true Father) those things which are to be offered to parents, the offering of the Lord should take precedence over the gifts of the parents; or certainly, the parents themselves, fearing that they would incur the crime of sacrilege by rejecting what had been consecrated to God, were consumed by poverty. And so it happened that the offering of children, under the pretext of the temple of God, went to the profits of the priests. This wicked tradition of the Pharisees came from another occasion. Many, having debts to pay and unwilling to repay what was owed, entrusted it to the priests, so that the money collected would be used for the services of the temple and their own needs. And this can also be understood briefly. He says, 'You compel the children to say to their parents: whatever gift I was going to offer to God, I consume it as food for you, Father, and it benefits you, Mother, so that they, fearing to receive what seems to be dedicated to God, would rather live in poverty than eat from the consecrated offerings.'

Commentary on Matthew

For God hath said, Honour thy father and thy mother. Honour in the Scriptures is shown not so much in salutations and courtesies as in alms and gifts. Honour, (1 Tim. 5:3.) says the Apostle, the widows who are widows indeed; here 'honour' signifies a gift. The Lord then having thought for the infirmity, the age, or the poverty of parents, commanded that sons should honour their parents in providing them with necessaries of life.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Then when he says for God said etc., he presents what this commandment is, which is about honoring parents. And first he presents the commandment; second, the punishment. Hence he says for God said: honor your father and your mother. And it should be noted that honor is nothing other than reverence shown in testimony of virtue. For he shows reverence who administers what is necessary; hence a man is bound not only to rise in respect, but also to provide necessities. Sir. 2:21: those who fear the Lord will keep his commandments. And that such honor is owed is clear, because Tobias lent to Gabelo what the Lord had commanded him to do. Exodus 20:12 immediately adds the reward: that you may be long-lived upon the land. Likewise, Lev. 20:9 adds the punishment for transgressors: he that curses his father or mother shall die the death. And so in the blessing it is understood not only that you bless with the mouth, but also that you bestow blessing; Prov. 20:20: he that curses his father and mother, his lamp shall be put out in the midst of darkness. But since he placed an incentive from the side of punishment, why did he not place a reward from obedience? Because men are more frightened by punishment than they desire reward; for even a brute is frightened by punishment. From this it follows that if those who detract from father and mother are worthy of death, then those who move others to detract from them are worthy of death; therefore they are not worthy of accusation. Therefore you are not worthy to accuse them.

Commentary on Matthew

For the Scribes and Pharisees desiring to overturn this foregoing most provident law of God, that they might bring in their impiety under the mask of piety, taught bad sons, that should any desire to devote to God, who is the true parent, those things which ought to be offered to parents, the offering to the Lord should he preferred to the offering them to parents.

Or it may briefly have the following sense; Ye compel children to say to their parents, What gift soever I was purposing to offer to God, you take and consume upon your living, and so it profits you; as much as to say, Do not so.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

5–6

The scribes were entirely preoccupied with something else. The Lord instead was teaching them to take care of the needs of the body, so long as they were encouraged to cultivate virtue. When the Pharisees observed his disciples unconcerned about washing, they censured him on the grounds that he had not taught them with enough care that it was a matter of utmost importance that they not eat what they had not washed. What reply, then, does the Lord make to this? “Why do you transgress the commandments of God for the sake of your tradition?” Thus he reframes the question into an even graver accusation. They had not only broken God’s command but also misused it for mistaken ends. The metaphor shifts: God had commanded that parents be honored by their children. That honor was owed to them to such an extent that whichever of their children sinned stubbornly against them merely by word would be condemned. “But you say, ‘If any one tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is given to God, he need not honor his father. You say that it is up to the children whether to honor their parents or not. You imply that a son says nothing out of bounds to a father when he says, “I will give a thank offering instead of taking care of you, my own father, and no further care is to be taken of you.” In this way, by your own peculiar traditions, you yourselves are dishonoring the gifts of almighty God.

Fragment 79

5–6

(Quæst. Ev. i. 16.) Otherwise; The gift whatsoever thou offerest on my account, shall profit thee; that is to say, Whatsoever gift thou offerest on my account, shall henceforth remain with thee; the son signifying by these words that there is no longer need that parents should offer for him, as he is of age to offer for himself. And those who were of age to be able to say thus to their parents, the Pharisees denied that they were guilty, if they did not show honour to their parents.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

(ap. Anselm.) In this interpretation the sense will be, What I offer to God will profit both you and myself; and therefore you ought not to take of my goods for your own needs, but to suffer that I offer them to God.

(ap. Anselm.) Or the sense may be, Whosoever, that is, of you young men, shall say, that is, shall either be able to say, or shall say, to his father or mother, O father, the gift that is of me devoted to God, shall it profit thee? as it were an exclamation of surprise; you ought not to take it that you may not incur the guilt of sacrilege. Or, we may read it with this ellipsis, Whosoever shall say to his father, &c. he shall do the commandment of God, or shall fulfil the Law, or shall be worthy of life eternal.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

But you say etc. Here he touches on how they transgress. And first he shows this; second, he presents the authority. And regarding the first, he shows their custom; second, what followed. He says you say: whoever shall say to his father or mother etc. This is read in many ways. In one way, so that it is a complete construction, and then it reads thus: whoever, i.e., anyone whatsoever, shall say, i.e., shall be able to say. In another way, so that it is an incomplete construction, thus whoever shall say etc., supply: keeps the commandment, and is free from punishment. What does this saying mean? It is explained in three ways. Rabanus said that spiritual good is to be preferred to temporal good; therefore they said to those who had poor parents that they should say to them: father, do not be displeased if I do not give you necessities, because the offering that I make profits you spiritually. But this was not true, according to that saying: the Most High does not approve the gifts of the wicked. And Prov. 28:24: he that steals anything from his father or from his mother and says this is no sin, is the partner of a murderer. Therefore if someone has a father or mother and they cannot live without him, he who would say to them, go overseas, or enter religious life, falls under this condemnation. There is another exposition. Jerome, however, reads it interrogatively, i.e., will it profit you? In Lev. 22:2, it is stated that a stranger could not consume what had been consecrated to the Lord; therefore they would admonish sons who had poor parents to offer things to God. And if the parents wished to be sustained from those things, they would say to them: if you take anything from what I ought to offer to God, will it profit you? No, rather it will be to your condemnation. Augustine explains it thus. The Jews said that children, while they were under the guardianship of their father, were bound to them. Hence when the sons are small, the parents offer for the children, and it profits them; but when they come of age, then the devotion of another does not profit them. Hence they said that everyone who could reach this state and say to his father the gift which proceeds from me shall profit you, was not bound to his father.

Commentary on Matthew

And thus the parents refusing what they saw thus dedicated to God, hat they might not incur the guilt of sacrilege, perished of want, and so it came to pass that what the children offered for the needs of the temple and the service of God, went to the gain of the Priests.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

(ap. Anselm.) And thus through these arguments of your avarice, this youth shall Honour not his father or his mother. As if He had said; Ye have led sons into most evil deeds; so that it will come to pass that afterwards they shall not even honour their father and mother. And thus ye have made the commandment of God concerning the support of parents by their children vain through your traditions, obeying the dictates of avarice.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

But from this teaching two absurdities follow: one against one's neighbor, and another against God. Against one's neighbor, because he who would speak thus, and he who was thus instructed, does not honor his father. Hence Rom. 1:30: inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents. And it follows: those who do such things are worthy of death. Likewise, against God; hence he says and you have made void the commandment of God, as if to say: not only have you acted against your neighbor, but you have even made void the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition.

Commentary on Matthew

7–8

I have previously quoted some of the words of Isaiah that precede the verse quoted in the Gospel and some of the words that follow the verse quoted in the Gospel. In this way we may show the way in which the word promises that it will close “the eyes” of those of the people who were “out of their senses” and “drunken” and who had been given to drink a “spirit of stupefaction.” The word also promises to “close the eyes both of their prophets and their rulers” who claim to “see the hidden things.”I suppose that these very things happened after the Savior had dwelt with these people. For “all the words,” the words of the Scriptures in their entirety and also those of Isaiah, became to them “as the words of a sealed book.” Now the word sealed was said as if the book was sealed with obscurity and not opened with clarity. The book is unclear to those who right from the start are “not able to read it” simply because “they are illiterate.” It is also equally unclear to “those who are literate” because they do not understand the meaning in the things that have been written. Hence the word rightly adds to these things that the people would “fall into unconsciousness” because of their sins and would be “out of their senses” with madness against the word. The word also adds that the people would “be drunk” against it “with a spirit of stupefaction.” The Lord would give them this “spirit of stupefaction” to drink when he “closed their eyes,” because they were unworthy of seeing. This would happen to the eyes of “both their prophets and their rulers” that claimed to “see the hidden things” of the mysteries in the divine Scriptures. The word says that when all these things had happened and when their eyes had been closed, then the prophetic words would be sealed and concealed from them. This is exactly what the people experienced along with those who did not believe in Jesus as Messiah.

Commentary on Matthew 11.11

7–9

Having then signified that they who were trampling on the law could not be justly entitled to blame men for transgressing a command of certain elders, He points out this same thing again from the prophet likewise. Thus, having once laid hold of them severely, He proceeds further: as on every occasion He doth, bringing forward the Scriptures, and so evincing Himself to be in accordance with God.

And what saith the prophet? "This people honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."

Seest thou a prophecy in exact accordance with His sayings, and from the very first proclaiming beforehand their wickedness? For what Christ laid to their charge now, of this Isaiah also spake from the very first; that the words of God they despise, "for in vain do they worship me," saith He; but of their own they make much account, "teaching," saith He, "for doctrines the commandments of men." Therefore with reason the disciples keep them not.

Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 51

Hypocrite signifies dissembler, one who feigus one thing in his outward act, and bears another thing in his heart. These then are well called hypocrites, because under cover of God's honour they sought to heap up for themselves earthly gain.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

7–8

Esaias saw before the hypocrisy of the Jews, that they would craftily oppose the Gospel, and therefore he said in the person of the Lord, This people honoureth me with their lips, &c.

Also, they honoured Him with their lips when they said, Master, we know that thou art true, (Mat. 22:16.) but their heart was far from Him when they sent spies to entangle Him in His talk.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

7–9

Through the voice of the prophet Isaiah (Is. 29:13) Christ shows that the Pharisees and scribes are disposed to Him in the same way that they are to His Father. For they were evil, and by their evil deeds they had distanced themselves from God, and so were speaking the words of God only with their mouth. For it is utterly in vain for those who dishonor God by their deeds to worship Him and to believe that by so doing they honor Him.

Commentary on Matthew

You hypocrites. Properly speaking, hypocrites were those who entered the theater and had one character but simulated another with masks. These therefore are hypocrites, who outwardly pretend to be other than what they are within; hence inwardly they sought profit, but outwardly they moved men to offer to God. Job 36:13: dissemblers and crafty men provoke the wrath of God, nor do they cry out when they are bound.

Commentary on Matthew

For the Jewish nation seemed to draw near to God with their lips and mouth, inasmuch as they boasted that they held the worship of the One God; but in their hearts they departed from Him, because after they had seen His signs and miracles, they would neither acknowledge His divinity, nor receive Him.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

8–9

(ap. Anselm.) Or, They honoured Him in commending outward purity; but in that they lacked the inward which is the true purity, their heart was far from God, and such honour was of no avail to them; as it follows, But without, reason do they worship we, teaching doctrines and commandments of men.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Well did Isaiah prophesy of you. This is found in Isa. 29:13. First he presents their duplicity; second, the futility of their worship, at but in vain do they worship me. He says therefore this people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. And this is literally true, because they honored with their lips but in heart were far from God, because they did not receive Christ coming in the name of God. Or thus: this people honors me with their lips etc.; for in saying that a man ought to offer to God, it seems they honor God, but their heart is far, because they did not tend toward the honor of God but toward greed; hence the greater the greed, the less the charity. This is found in Jer. 12:2: you are near in their mouth, but far from their heart.

Commentary on Matthew

The vitality and recurrent victory of Christendom have been due to the power of the Thing to break out from time to time from its enveloping words and symbols. Without this power all civilisations tend to perish under a load of language and ritual. One instance of this we hear much in modern discussion: the separation of the form from the spirit of religion. But we hear too little of numberless other cases of the same stiffening and falsification; we are far too seldom reminded that just as church-going is not religion, so reading and writing are not knowledge, and voting is not self-government.

A Miscellany of Men, The Thing (1912)

Therefore they shall not have their reward with the true worshippers, because they teach doctrines and commandments of men to the contempt of the law of God.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

But does this pretense profit them? No, because it does not please the Lord; hence there follows but in vain do they worship me. But what does this mean? Fasting is a teaching of men, and canons are traditions of men; do those who teach these things worship God in vain? It must be understood as referring to what prejudices the commandments of God. Job 32:21: I will not equate man with God. Acts 5:29: we ought to obey God rather than men. Why? Because God cannot be deceived. Isa. 1:13: offer sacrifice no more in vain. From this we understand that a man ought to make more of conscience about transgressing a commandment than about transgressing an ecclesiastical ordinance.

Commentary on Matthew

But what reason is there in going to prayer with hands indeed washed, but the spirit foul?-inasmuch as to our hands themselves spiritual purities are necessary, that they may be "lifted up pure" from falsehood, from murder, from cruelty, from poisonings, from idolatry, and all the other blemishes which, conceived by the spirit, are effected by the operation of the hands. These are the true purities; not those which most are superstitiously careful about, taking water at every prayer, even when they are coming from a bath of the whole body.

On Prayer

10–11

Having, you see, given them their mortal blow; and from the facts first, then from their own suffrage, then from the prophet having aggravated the charge, with them indeed He discourses not at all, incorrigibly disposed as they are now come to be, but directs His speech to the multitudes, so as to introduce His doctrine, great and high, and full of much strictness; and taking occasion from the former topic, He proceeds to insert that which is greater, casting out also the observance of meats.

But see when. When He had cleansed the leper, when He had repealed the Sabbath, when He had shown Himself King of earth and sea, when He had made laws, when He had remitted sins, when He had raised dead men, when He had afforded them many proofs of His Godhead, then He discourses of meats.

For indeed all the religion of the Jews is comprised in this; if thou take this away, thou hast even taken away all. For hereby He signifies, that circumcision too must be abrogated. But of Himself He doth not prominently introduce this (forasmuch as that was older than the other commandments, and had higher estimation), but He enacts it by His disciples. For so great a thing was it, that even the disciples after so long a time being minded to do it away, first practise it, and so put it down.

But see how He introduces His law: how "He called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear and understand."

Thus He doth by no means simply reveal it to them, but by respect and courtesy, first, He makes His saying acceptable (for this the evangelist declares by saying, "He called them unto Him"): and secondly, by the time also; in that after their refutation, and His victory over them, and the accusation by the prophet, then He begins His legislation, when they too would more easily receive His sayings.

And He doth not merely call them unto Him, but also makes them more attentive. For "understand," saith He, that is, "consider, rouse yourselves; for of that sort is the law now about to be enacted. For if they set aside the law, even unseasonably, for their own tradition, and ye hearkened; much more ought ye to hearken unto me, who at the proper season am leading you unto a higher rule of self restraint."

And He did not say, "The observance of meats is nothing, neither that Moses had given wrong injunctions, nor that of condescension He did so;" but in the way of admonition and counsel, and taking His testimony from the nature of the things, He saith: "Not the things that go into the mouth, defile the man, but the things that go out of the mouth;" resorting to nature herself both in His enactment and in His demonstration. Yet they hearing all this, made no reply, neither did they say, "What sayest Thou? When God hath given charges without number concerning the observance of meats, dost thou make such laws?" But since He had utterly stopped their mouths, not by refuting them only, but also by publishing their craft, and exposing what was done by them in secret, and revealing the secrets of their mind; their mouths were stopped, and so they went away.

But mark, I pray thee, how He doth not yet venture distinctly to set Himself with boldness against the meats. Therefore neither did He say "the meats," but, "the things that enter in defile not the man;" which it was natural for them to suspect concerning the unwashen hands also. For He indeed was speaking of meats, but it would be understood of these matters too.

Why, so strong was the feeling of scruple about the meats, that even after the resurrection Peter said, "Not so, Lord, for I have never eaten anything common or unclean." For although it was for the sake of others that He said this, and in order to leave Himself a justification against his censurers, by pointing out that he actually remonstrated, and not even so was excused, nevertheless it implies the depth of their impression on that point.

Wherefore you see He Himself also at the beginning spake not openly concerning meats, but, "The things that go into the mouth;" and again, when He had seemed afterwards to speak more plainly, He veiled it by His conclusion, saying, "But to eat with unwashen hands defileth not the man:" that He might seem to have had His occasion from thence, and to be still discoursing of the same. Therefore He said not, "To eat meats defileth not a man," but is as though He were speaking on that other topic; that they may have nothing to say against it.

Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 51

10–11

He no longer converses with the Pharisees, as they were incurable, but with the multitude. Christ sees fit to honor the multitude by calling them to Himself so that they might accept His word, and He says, "Hear and understand," urging them to be attentive. As the Pharisees had blamed the disciples for eating with unwashed hands, the Lord speaks of food, saying that no food defiles a man. And if food does not defile, how much less does eating with unwashed hands? What defiles the inner man is to say those things which he should not. Here He is alluding to the Pharisees who defile themselves by speaking spiteful words. Behold His wisdom, how He neither openly enjoins the eating with unwashed hands, nor forbids it. But He teaches something different, not to spew evil words from the heart.

Commentary on Matthew

And having called together the crowds to him, he said to them etc. Above, the Lord showed the Pharisees who were making accusations to be unworthy of reprehending the disciples, because they were involved in greater sins; but now, passing over them, he instructs others, so that what was said above, 11:25, may be fulfilled: you have hidden these things from the wise and prudent, and have revealed them to little ones. And first he instructs the crowds; second, the disciples, at then the disciples came to him etc. And regarding the first, he does two things. First, he prepares them for hearing; second, he gives his teaching. The second begins at not that which goes into the mouth defiles a man. It should be noted that for hearing someone, attention is required, by which a man is recalled to interior things and gathered within himself. And this he does when he says and having called them together, because it is necessary that we be gathered to him; Ps. 33:6: come to him, and be enlightened. Second, diligence in hearing is necessary; therefore he says hear; Prov. 1:5: the wise man hearing will be wiser. Likewise, understanding is required; hence he says and understand; Ps. 93:8: understand, you senseless among the people; and, you fools, be wise at last.

Commentary on Matthew

Meantime they huff in our teeth the fact that Isaiah withal has authoritatively declared, "Not such a fast hath the Lord elected," that is, not abstinence from food, but the works of righteousness, which he there appends: and that the Lord Himself in the Gospel has given a compendious answer to every kind of scrupulousness in regard to food; "that not by such things as are introduced into the mouth is a man defiled, but by such as are produced out of the mouth; " while Himself withal was wont to eat and drink till He made Himself noted thus; "Behold, a gormandizer and a drinker: " (finally), that so, too, does the apostle teach that "food commendeth us not to God; since we neither abound if we eat, nor lack if we eat not.

On Fasting

Now anyone who has come to this place in the text can agree that it is “not what goes into the mouth that defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man,” even if it is considered to be defiling by Jews. In exactly the same way it is “not what enters into the mouth” that makes the person holy. This is so even if that which is called the bread of the Lord is considered to make the person holy by some of the more impeccable disciples. The two cases are similar. It is not the food but the conscience of the one who eats with doubt about its propriety that defiles the person who has eaten. For “the one who doubts is condemned if one eats, because one is not eating from faith.” It is also like the case in which “nothing is pure to the one who is defiled and unbelieving.” The thing involved is impure not because of itself but because of the person’s defilement and unbelief. In the same way, that which is “made holy through the word of God and prayer” does not on its own account make the one who uses it holy. For if it did, it would also make holy the one who eats of the Lord “in an unworthy manner” and no one would become “weak” or “sickly” or would “sleep” because of this food. For this is what Paul showed in the statement, “Because of this many among you are weak and sickly and a significant number are falling asleep.” Therefore, in the case of the bread of the Lord, the one who uses it derives benefit when one shares in the bread with a mind that is undefiled and a conscience that is pure.

Commentary on Matthew 11.14-15

We are accused by the Jews and Ebionites of being violators of the laws that we read in Leviticus and Deuteronomy concerning clean and unclean food. But by means of what is said in this passage we are clearly taught by the Savior not to think that the simple meaning of these laws is the aim intended in the Scripture. For Jesus says, “Not that which enters into the mouth defiles a person but that which comes out of the mouth.” Especially significant is what is said in the Gospel of Mark: “Thus he declared all foods clean.” Since all this is so, it is obvious that we are not defiled when we eat things that are said to be unclean by Jews, who want to serve the letter of the law. Instead, we are defiled when we say whatever happens to be on our mind and we talk about things that we should not talk about, even though our lips should be bound “with perception” and we should make for them “a measuring balance and a standard of measure.” The spring of sins comes to us from such talking.

Commentary on Matthew 11.12

The Lord wanted to show up the uncalledfor offense taken by the scribes and the Pharisees about unwashed hands. So he beckoned the crowd to him and said, “What goes into the mouth does not defile a man; but that which comes out of the mouth, that defiles a man.” He explained that a man is defiled not from the food that enters his mouth but from the perverse thoughts of his mind, which proceed from his heart. For the food we receive for eating was created and blessed by God to sustain human life. So, it cannot defile a man. Indeed, wicked and perverse thoughts that proceed from the heart, as the Lord himself noted—“murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, blasphemy,” the author of which is the devil—these are the things that really defile a man.

Tractate on Matthew 53.2

(Verse 11.) It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles a person; but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles a person. The word, properly speaking, is communicated through Scripture and is not worn out in everyday conversation. The Jewish people, boasting to be a part of God, call common foods, which all humans use, 'unclean.' For example, pork, oysters, rabbits, and other animals that do not have split hooves, do not chew the cud, and are not scale-covered in fish. And it is also written in the Acts of the Apostles: 'What God has cleansed, you must not call common' (Acts 10:15). Therefore, that which is commonly available to other people, and is as if it is not from God's side, is called impure. It is not what enters the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth that defiles a person. Let a wise reader oppose and say: If what enters the mouth does not defile a person, then why do we not eat idol-offerings? And the Apostle writes: You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons (1 Corinthians 10:20). Therefore, it must be understood that while food itself, being a creature of God, is clean, it becomes unclean through the invocation of idols and demons.

Commentary on Matthew

The word here [communicat] 'makes a man common' is peculiar to Scripture, and is not hackneyed in common parlance. The Jewish nation, boasting themselves to be a part of God, call those meats common, of which all men partake; for example, swine's flesh, shell fish, hares, and those species of animals that do not divide the hoof, and chew the cud, and among the fish such as have not scales. Hence in the Acts of the Apostles we read, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. (Acts 10:15.) Common then in this sense is that which is free to the rest of mankind, and as though not in part of God, is therefore called unclean.

The thoughtful reader may here object and say, If that which entereth into the mouth defileth not a man, why do we not feed on meats offered to idols? Be it known then that meats and every creature of God is in itself clean; but the invocation of idols and dæmons makes them unclean with those at least who with conscience of the idol eat that which is offered to idols, and their conscience being weak is polluted, as the Apostle says.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

(cont. Faust. vi. 6.) This declaration of the Lord, Not that which entereth into the mouth defileth a man, is not contrary to the Old Testament. As the Apostle also speaks, To the pure all things are pure; (Tit. 1:15.) and Every creature of God is good. Let the Manichæans understand, (1 Tim. 4:4.) if they can, that the Apostle said this of the very natures and qualities of things; while that letter (of the ritual law) declared certain animals unclean, not in their nature but typically, for certain figures which were needed for a time. Therefore to take an instance in the swine and the lamb, by nature both are clean, because naturally every creature of God is good; but in a certain typical meaning the lamb is clean, and the swine unclean. Take the two words, 'fool,' and 'wise,' in their own nature, as sounds, or letters, both of them are pure, but one of them because of the meaning attached to it, not because of any thing in its own nature, may be said to be impure. And perhaps what the swine are in typical representation, that among mankind is the fool; and the animal, and this word of two syllables (stultus) signify some one and the same thing. That animal is reckoned unclean in the law because it does not chew the cud; but this is not its fault but its nature. But the men of whom this animal is the emblem, are impure by their own fault, not by nature; they readily hear the words of wisdom, but never think upon them again. Whatever of profit you may hear, to summon this up from the internal region of the memory through the sweetness of recollection into the mouth of thought, what is this but spiritually to chew the cud? They who do not this are represented by this species of animal. Such resemblances as these in speech, or in ceremonies, having figurative signification, profitably and pleasantly move the rational mind; but by the former people, many such things were not only to be heard, but to be kept as precepts. For that was a time when it behoved not in words only, but in deeds, to prophesy those things which hereafter were to be revealed. When these had been revealed through Christ, and in Christ, the burdens of observances were not imposed on the faith of the Gentiles; but the authority of the prophecy was yet confirmed. But I ask of the Manichæans, whether this declaration of the Lord, when He said that a man is not defiled by what enters into his mouth, is true or false? If false, why then does their doctor Adimantus bring it forward against the Old Testament? If true, why contrary to its tenor do they consider that they are thus defiled?

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

But if any one's faith be so strong that he understands that God's creature can in no way be defiled, let him eat what he will, after the food has been hallowed by the word of God and of prayer; yet so that this his liberty be not made an offence to the weak, as the Apostle speaks.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Consequently he proposes the most exalted teaching, which is the perfection of the moral life. Hence it should be noted that something is changed by an external thing, as water is heated by fire; and something is changed by an internal thing, as a man is changed by sin. However much a man may be moved externally, it is not sin unless the man consents interiorly; Job 37:9: from the interior comes the tempest. Hence first he shows that defilement is not from external things; second, that it is from the interior. He says therefore not that which goes into the mouth defiles a man. Against this, one may object from the old law; for in Lev. 11 many foods are forbidden, and men were made unclean by them. Augustine responds, against Faustus, saying that something is called unclean in two ways. In one way, according to its own nature; and in this way nothing is unclean, according to 1 Tim. 4:4: every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving. Likewise, something can be unclean according to its signification. And thus some thing can be a sign of uncleanness or of cleanness: for if we take the pig and the lamb in their nature, each is good; yet in their signification the pig signifies uncleanness, the lamb innocence; therefore as regards signification, one is clean, the other unclean. And because before the coming of Christ it was a time in which they lived under figures, since the truth was not yet manifest, those observances had to be kept and fell under precept. But because at the coming of Christ the truth was made manifest, the figure ceased; etc. But again another question remains, because in Acts 15:20 the apostles commanded that those converted should abstain from things strangled and from blood. Therefore it seems that while the truth endures, those observances should be maintained. The ancients said that this is to be understood literally, that one must still abstain from these things, because they are unclean. But this is nothing, because it contradicts the authority of the Apostle, Titus 1:15: all things are clean to the clean. Some said that this is to be understood partly literally, partly morally: for what is said about fornication, that they prohibited literally; but what is said about blood, this is to be understood as meaning that innocent blood should not be shed; and what is said about things strangled, it was to be understood so that no one should inflict injury on another. But it should not be understood in this way, although the exposition may be true. For the question was whether converted Gentiles were bound to those things which the apostles prohibited. Therefore it must be understood according to what was customary for the Jews. Therefore it should be said otherwise, that the apostles considered something and prohibited it either because it was unlawful in itself, or because it was an occasion of scandal; hence they prohibited fornication as unlawful; but blood, lest they give scandal to others, so that scandal might be removed. And this is what the words of the Apostle convey, 1 Cor. 8:9: but take heed lest perhaps this your liberty become a stumbling block to the weak. Likewise, if one objects: suppose someone in Lent eats meat; is he not defiled? It must be said that he is defiled not from the food, but from the violation of the precept; Rom. 14:17: the kingdom of God is not meat and drink. But the things which proceed out of the mouth, these defile a man. Here he seems to touch only on sins which proceed from the mouth, and these defile; Luke 19:22: out of your own mouth I judge you, you wicked servant. And above, 7:2: out of your own mouth you shall be judged. But it must be said that the proper function of the mouth is to speak. Now there is a twofold speaking: outwardly with the bodily mouth, and inwardly with the mouth of the mind, of which Ps. 13:1 says: the fool said in his heart: there is no God. Thus therefore by the mouth can be understood the mouth of the heart, namely the mind of man, and thus every sin is from the mouth; because there is never sin except from a purpose of the mind. Thus therefore what proceeds from the mouth, namely of the heart, this defiles, because sin is so voluntary that if it is not voluntary, it is not sin.

Commentary on Matthew

"The Lord (beholdeth and) knoweth them that are His; " and "the plant which (my heavenly Father) hath not planted, He rooteth up; " and "the first shall," as He shows, "be last; " and He carries "His fan in His hand to purge His threshing-floor.

The Prescription Against Heretics

What He intends then by a plant not planted of His Father, is that tradition of men under cover of which the Law had been transgressed, this He instructs them must be rooted up.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Since the scribes and Pharisees had burst forth in great arrogance and transgressed the divine law, they “planted” their own precepts but not God’s. They wanted these to be observed as divine law. So, not without good reason, did they too, with this planting of their own doctrine, deserve to be uprooted by the Lord. And so the Lord said, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up.” Indeed, that plant was not of God but of people. Any iniquitous plant, not only of the scribes and Pharisees but also of all heretics, shall be uprooted by the Lord. Though it may extend its branches of infidelity in due season, it cannot be firmly rooted, for such a plant is not of God but of the devil. Furthermore, it must be uprooted and consigned to perpetual fire, since it yields no fruit of faith and wholesomeness.

Tractate on Matthew 53.7

What then saith Christ? He did not remove the offense in respect of them, but reproved them, saying, "Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up." For He is wont both to despise offenses, and not to despise them. Elsewhere, for example, He saith, "But lest we should offend them, cast an hook into the sea:" but here He saith, "Let them alone, they be blind leaders of the blind: and if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."

Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 51

What then saith Christ? "Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up."

This, they that are diseased with the Manichaean pest affirm to be spoken of the law; but their mouths are stopped by what had been said before. For if He was speaking of the law, how doth He further back defend it, and fight for it, saying, "Why do ye transgress the commandments of God for your tradition?" And how doth He bring forward the prophet? But of themselves and of their traditions He so speaks. For if God said, "Honor thy father and thy mother," how is not that of God's planting, which was spoken by God?

Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 51

Even what seems to be clear in the Scriptures presents many problems. Christ said, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted.” Does this mean, therefore, that there will be uprooted also that plant which the apostle speaks of when Paul says, “I have planted, Apollos watered”? The problem is solved, however, from the words that follow: “But God has given the growth.” He also says, “You are God’s field, God’s building.” And in another place we read, “We are God’s coworkers”; therefore, if we are his coworkers, with Paul planting and Apollos watering, God plants and waters with his workers.

Commentary on Matthew 2.15.13

(Verse 13.) But he answered and said, Every plant which my heavenly Father planted not, shall be rooted up. Even those things which seem plain in the Scriptures, are full of questions. Every plant, he says, which my heavenly Father planted not, shall be rooted up. Therefore, that plantation also shall be rooted up, of which the Apostle says, I have planted, Apollos watered (1 Cor. III, 6). But the question is resolved by what follows: But God gave the increase (Ibid., 9). He himself also says: You are God's field, God's building (1 Corinthians 3:9). And in another place: We are God's co-workers. Now if we are co-workers, then God is the one who plants and waters, while Paul and Apollos are only servants who work with God (1 Corinthians 3:6-7). Some people misuse this passage, introducing various interpretations, and say: If the planting that the Father did not plant will be uprooted, then the planting that he did plant cannot be uprooted. But listen to what Jeremiah says: 'I planted a true vineyard, how have you turned into the bitterness of a foreign vine?' (Jeremiah II, 21). Indeed, God planted it, and no one can uproot His plantation. But because this planting is in the will of one's own free choice, no one else can uproot it unless it itself gives consent.

Commentary on Matthew

Shall that plant also be rooted up of which the Apostle says, I planted, Apollos watered? (1 Cor. 3:6.) The question is answered by what follows, but God gave the increase. He says also, Ye are God's husbandry, a building of God; and in another place, We are workers together of God. And if when Paul plants, and Apollos waters, they are in so doing workers together with God, then God plants and waters together with them. This passage is abused by some who apply it at once to two different kinds of men; they say, 'If every plant, which the Father hath not planted shall be rooted up, then that which He has planted cannot be rooted up.' But let them hear these words of Jeremiah, I had planted thee a true vine, wholly a right seed, how then art thou turned into the bitterness of a strange vine? (Jer. 2:21.) God indeed has planted it, and none may root up His planting. But since that planting was through the disposition of the will of him which was planted, none other can root it up unless its own will consents thereto.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Every false doctrine and superstitious observance with the workers thereof cannot endure; and because it is not from God the Father, it shall be rooted up with the same. And that only shall endure which is of God.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

13–14

It is the Judaic ordinances and the traditions of the elders that He says will be rooted up, not the commandments of the law, as the Manichean heretics believe. The law is a plant of God, so it has not been rooted up. Its root, that is, the hidden Spirit, remains, but its leaves, namely, the visible letter, have fallen. For we no longer understand the law according to the letter, but according to the Spirit. As the Pharisees were hopeless and incurable, He said, "Let them be." Here we learn that it is not to our detriment to give offense to those who willingly take offense and are incorrigible. He calls them blind teachers of the blind; He says this to draw the multitudes away from them.

Commentary on Matthew

13–14

(interlin.) Or, the plant here spoken of may be the doctors of the Law with their followers, who had not Christ for their foundation. Why they are to be rooted up, He adds, Let them alone; they are blind, leaders of the blind.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

But he answering said. Here the Lord's response is presented, and he shows that their scandal is to be disregarded: first, because they are alien to God; second, because they are harmful to men, at let them alone: they are blind, and leaders of the blind. He says therefore but he answering said: every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted shall be rooted up. From these words, those who posited two natures wished to confirm their error, because they said the evil nature was from the evil god, the good from the good; hence they say: if someone is of the evil creation, even though he seem to do good, he cannot persevere. But this is not so; for as Jerome says, the contrary is found in Jer. 2:21: I planted you a chosen vineyard, all true seed; how then are you turned into bitterness? This is clear, therefore, that it is not from God. Thus therefore what was turned through this planting is not nature; but something supervening is understood, and this is a perverse will; hence nature always remains, but the perverse will is rooted up. Hence this planting can be understood of the tradition of men, which is to be rooted up if it is against God; but the tradition which is from God is never to be rooted up. Hence every plant, i.e., every tradition which is not from God my Father, shall be rooted up. And this is found in Acts 5:39, from Gamaliel, who said: if this be of God, you cannot overthrow it. This is also evident in all things. You will see someone who does good works founded in charity; Eph. 3:17: rooted and grounded in charity; and these cannot be rooted up. But other things which do not have a good foundation, such as giving alms for the sake of vanity, are rooted up; hence Sir. 14:20: every corruptible thing shall fail in the end, and the worker thereof shall go with it. Hence this is how Wis. 4:3 should be understood: the spurious plantings shall not take deep root. Against this is found 1 Cor. 3:6, where Paul says: I have planted, Apollo watered. Therefore Paul shall be rooted up. I say that Paul did not plant as the principal agent, but as a minister.

Commentary on Matthew

You therefore, who seek after their fashion, looking to those who are themselves ever seeking, a doubter to doubters, a waverer to waverers, must needs be "led, blindly by the blind, down into the ditch." But when, for the sake of deceiving us, they pretend that they are still seeking, in order that they may palm their essays upon us by the suggestion of an anxious sympathy, -when, in short (after gaining an access to us), they proceed at once to insist on the necessity of our inquiring into such points as they were in the habit of advancing, then it is high time for us in moral obligation to repel them, so that they may know that it is not Christ, but themselves, whom we disavow.

The Prescription Against Heretics

“They are blind guides of blind people.” Who are these blind guides? The Pharisees, whose minds “the god of this age has blinded” because they are “unbelieving,” since they did not believe in Jesus Christ. The god of this age has blinded them “so that the light of the gospel of the glory of God in the face of Christ would not shine on them.” We ought to avoid being guided by those blind persons. Not only should we do this, but we certainly should also listen with caution in the case of those who claim to lead in the way of healthy teaching and ought to apply healthy judgment to what they say. We should do these things so that we ourselves do not appear to be blind because we do not see the meaning of the Scriptures. We would become blind like this if we were guided by the ignorance of people who are blind and people who do not perceive the issues of healthy teaching. If we were led by such people, both the one who leads and the one who is led would fall into the pit.

Commentary on Matthew 11.14

He then goes on to say, “Let them alone; they are blind guides of blind men. But if a blind man guide a blind man, both fall into a pit.” These words were intended to expose the scribes and Pharisees, who were blinded by the error of their unbelief. Not only were they unable to recognize the light of truth—not believing in Christ—but also they were attracting others into the pit of death. Nevertheless the words also apply to heretics. Denying that Christ is the “true light from true light, and God from God,” they too were steeped in blindness. Because of their perverse doctrine, they also proved to be guides and leaders to those adrift.

Tractate on Matthew 53.8

And what follows also indicates, that of themselves it was said, and of their traditions. Thus He added, "They are blind leaders of the blind." Whereas, had He spoken it of the law, He would have said, "It is a blind leader of the blind." But not so did He speak, but, "They are blind leaders of the blind:" freeing it from the blame, and bringing it all round upon them.

Then to sever the people also from them, as being on the point of falling into a pit by their means, He saith, "If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."

It is a great evil merely to be blind, but to be in such a case and have none to lead him, nay, to occupy the place of a guide, is a double and triple ground of censure. For if it be a dangerous thing for the blind man not to have a guide, much more so that he should even desire to be guide to another.

Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 51

(Verse 14.) Let them alone, they are blind, leaders of the blind. But if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit. This is what the Apostle commanded: Avoid a heretical man after the first and second admonition, knowing that he is perverted and condemned by himself (Titus 3, 10). In this sense, the Savior also commanded that the worst teachers should be left to their own discretion, knowing that they are difficult to be drawn to the truth, and that they are blind and lead the blind people into error.

Commentary on Matthew

This is also the same as that Apostolic injunction, A heretic after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that such a one is perverse. (Tit. 3:10, 11.) To the same end the Saviour commands evil teachers to be left to their own will, knowing that it is hardly that they can be brought to the truth.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

They are blind, that is, they want the light of God's commandments; and they are leaders of the blind, inasmuch as they draw others headlong, erring, and leading into error; whence it is added, If the blind lead the blind, they both fall into the ditch.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

There follows let them alone, they are blind. Here he shows that their scandal is to be disregarded because they are harmful to men. And first he teaches that it should be disregarded; second, their presumption; third, the harm. Regarding the first: you say that they are scandalized; let them be, and do not concern yourselves. But should one not be concerned about scandal? Did not the Lord, to avoid scandal, send Peter to the sea to pay the tribute? It must be said that scandal sometimes arises from the truth; hence that scandal should be avoided which can be avoided without prejudice to truth, or life, or teaching, or justice. Hence a judge ought not to abandon his judgment if someone is scandalized by it. But nevertheless a distinction must be made, because some are scandalized from weakness, and some from deliberate malice. The scandal of the weak should be avoided, truth being preserved; and yet a man can defer or remit. But if from malice, no; and thus these men are scandalized. Hence if they were not scandalized from malice, the Lord would not have said let them alone, but rather, instruct them. Titus 3:10: a man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid; Jer. 51:9: we would have cured Babylon, but she is not healed. And why are they blind? Spiritually, the blind are the ignorant; Isa. 56:10: his watchmen are all blind. And because they act from deliberate malice, they are not only blind, but also leaders of the blind and teachers; Job 19:4: if I have been ignorant, my ignorance shall be with me. That they are leaders of the blind, this is good; but that they are blind, this is evil. If the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit. Job 40:8: hide them in the dust, namely as to the body.

Commentary on Matthew

“Without understanding” is what the Lord calls those who, like the Pharisees, make a fuss about external matters and have not yet discovered the inner life. Meats, therefore, he says, have to do with filling up the body, but they do not reach into the heart. But that which does not reach to the heart is not able to defile the faithful [genuine] man or cause him to become unclean.

Fragment 185

16–20

The Saviour rebukes the disciples and censures their lack of sense, either because they took offense or because they did not understand the obvious. For He says, "That which is understood and is apparent to all, you do not understand; that food does not remain within but passes out below, not at all polluting a man's soul, for it does not remain inside. But thoughts are engendered within and remain there, and when they come out, that is, proceed to deed and act, they pollute the man." For the thought of fornication stains while it remains within, but when it issues forth into deed and act, it utterly defiles.

Commentary on Matthew

But he said: are you also yet without understanding? For the Lord answered all in the person of Peter, who spoke for all. Here he reproves them. But why? One reason is that which Jerome gives, because what was plainly spoken, they thought was spoken in parables. For just as one who reveals hidden things is to be reproved, so conversely, one who hides manifest things; Ps. 31:9: do not become like the horse and the mule, who have no understanding etc. Another reason is that of Chrysostom, because Peter seemed to be zealous for the Jews, since he was brought up in the teaching of the law; therefore he seemed to be saddened by it.

Commentary on Matthew

The Pharisees, as Peter made clear, begrudgingly grasped the dictum of the Lord which says, “It is not what enters the mouth that defiles a man.” God indicated through Moses long ago that not everything about the use of food must be considered clean. He declared that certain things were clean and other things were unclean. But now we must ask why God prohibited the people long ago to eat these things. Since all things created by God to be used as human food were blessed at the very beginning and they remain no less so by their very nature, why is it that divine law later prescribed to the Jewish people certain things as lawful for eating because they were clean and certain things as unlawful because they were unclean? First, precepts of this type were given by the Lord because of the dissipation and immoderate appetite of the people. For since they were overly concerned with eating and drinking, these people began to overlook God’s precepts. They made for themselves a molten calf in Horeb, about which it was written, “The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play.” Those necessary things were forbidden by the Lord, so that with the best food having been denied and their immoderate appetites mortified, the people might abide more easily by the discipline of divine observance. It was only after their disobedience with the molten calf that we find those things were prohibited. Concerning them, as though to rebuke this stiffnecked people, the Lord made a mild and merciful pronouncement: “They shall be unclean to you.” Not that they are in themselves unclean, but “shall be.” Nor did he say “to all” but “to you.” He thus made it clear that neither were they unclean nor would they be unclean to people other than themselves. And certainly they deserved this prohibition of many foods, for these people preferred the meats of Egypt, as well as cucumbers and muskmelons, to heavenly manna.

Tractate on Matthew 53.3

17–18

(Ver. 17, 18.) Do you not understand that everything that enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is expelled into the sewer? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile a person. All the passages of the Gospels among heretics and evil-doers are full of scandals. And some people falsely accuse this statement, saying that the Lord, ignorant of physical processes, thinks that all foods go into the stomach and are digested there: whereas immediately after being ingested, the nourishment is distributed through the limbs and veins, as well as the marrow and nerves. And so, many people who suffer from a constant stomach disorder, immediately vomit what they have eaten after meals and snacks, and yet they are still corpulent: because at the first touch, more liquid food and drink are poured through the limbs. But while these people want to criticize the ignorance of others, they show their own. For although a thin and liquid food, when it has been cooked and digested in the veins and limbs, passes through the hidden passages of the body, which the Greeks call πόροι, and goes to the lower regions and into the intestines.

Commentary on Matthew

17–18

Some cavil at this, that the Lord is ignorant of physical disputation in saying that all food goes into the belly, and is cast out into the draught; for that the food, as soon as it is taken, is distributed through the limbs, the veins, the marrow, and the nerves. But it should be known, that the lighter juices, and liquid food after it has been reduced and digested in the veins and vessels, passes into the lower parts through those passages which the Greeks call 'pores,' and so goes into the draught.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

17–18

And the Lord includes herein man's two mouths, one of the body, one of the heart. For when He says, Not all that goeth into the mouth defileth a man, He clearly speaks of the body's mouth; but in that which follows, He alludes to the mouth of the heart, But those things which proceed out of the mouth, come forth from the heart, and they defile a man.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

The nourishment of the body being first changed into corruption, that is, having lost its proper form, is absorbed into the substance of the limbs, and repairs their waste, passing through a medium into another form, and by the spontaneous motion of the parts is so separated, that such portions as are adapted for the purpose are taken up into the structure of this fair visible, while such as are unfit are rejected through their own passages. One part consisting of fæces is restored to earth to reappear again in new forms; another part goes off in perspiration, and another is taken up by the nervous system for the purposes of reproduction of the species.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Consequently he explains. And first he explains what he had said, namely that which enters the mouth; second, what he had said, namely but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man; third, he draws the conclusion. He says therefore do you not understand that whatsoever enters the mouth goes into the belly, and is cast out into the drain? And why does the Lord speak thus? Chrysostom says that he speaks to them as those accustomed to the observances of the law. Now the intent of the law was that while food was in the mouth undigested, it was unclean; but when digested, clean. Hence it is always said in the law, he shall be unclean until the evening. Therefore let us suppose that these observances should be kept; nevertheless they do not render a man unclean, except for a time. Hence what passes through cannot make them unclean. Or alternatively: nothing can defile the soul which does not touch it. But food does not touch the soul; and this is the sign, because it goes into the belly, and is cast out into the drain. But, as Jerome says, against this some object, saying that the Lord was ignorant of natural science, because not everything is expelled into the drain. Hence some, wishing to understand it as meaning that everything is expelled, hold that nothing is converted into human nature, but only what was drawn from Adam is multiplied, and this will rise again. Hence what comes from food, according to them, will not rise again. Hence also artisans place lead with gold, so that the lead is consumed and the gold is preserved. Thus foods resist, lest natural heat consume that which is from the power of nature. But this seems impossible, because nothing can become larger except through rarefaction, since rarefaction is nothing other than assuming a greater quantity. Likewise, man shares in common with animals the sensitive and nutritive powers, and with plants in the vegetative power. But it is the case that these are increased and nourished from nourishment. Therefore men are likewise increased and nourished in the same way. What therefore is it that he says, that it is cast out into the drain? Jerome says that this is understood not only of unclean waste, but in whatever way it happens, whether through excrement or another way. And this is also according to the Philosopher, because although something remains according to species, it nevertheless flows according to matter, as if a fire remains in species, but the matter is consumed. It can also be said thus: everything that enters the mouth goes into the belly, in some part; hence sometimes in Scripture the whole is taken for the part.

Commentary on Matthew

But what proceeds out of the mouth: it has already been said that by the mouth is understood the mind. Come forth from the heart, and those things defile a man: because the sins of the heart are thoughts and affections; Isa. 1:16: take away the evil of your thoughts from before my eyes.

Commentary on Matthew

19–20

(Verse 19, 20.) For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies: these are the things that defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a person. 'For out of the heart,' he says, 'come evil thoughts.' Therefore, according to Christ and not according to Plato, the soul's principal place is in the heart, not in the brain. Those who believe that evil thoughts are instilled by the devil and not born out of one's own will can be argued against based on this statement. The devil can be a helper and instigator of evil thoughts, but he cannot be the author. However, if he is always lying in wait, he may ignite the slightest spark of our thoughts with his fuel, but we should not assume that he can explore the secrets of our hearts. Rather, we should judge what we have within us by our physical appearance and actions. For example, if he sees us frequently admiring a beautiful woman, he understands that our hearts have been wounded by Cupid's arrow.

Commentary on Matthew

“Out of the heart,” he said, “come evil thoughts.” Therefore the soul or principle of action is not in the brain according to Plato but in the heart according to Christ. On this point, those who believe that thoughts are introduced by the devil and do not originate from our own will are to be repudiated. The devil can aid and abet evil thoughts but he cannot originate them, even though, ever lying in wait, he kindles a small spark of our thoughts with his tinder. We must not hold the opinion that the devil can also probe the depths of our heart. However, he can judge from our demeanor and gestures what we are thinking about. For example, if he sees us gazing often at a beautiful woman, he surmises that our heart has been wounded with the dart of love.

Commentary on Matthew 2.15.19

The principle therefore of the soul is not according to Plato in the brain, but according to Christ in the heart, and by this passage we may refute those who think that evil thoughts are suggestions of the Devil, and do not spring from our proper will. The Devil may encourage and abet evil thoughts, but not originate them. And if he be able, being always on the watch, to blow into flame any small spark of thought in us, we should not thence conclude that he searches the hidden places of the heart, but that from our manner and motions he judges of what is passing within us. For instance, if he see us direct frequent looks towards a fair woman, he understands that our heart is wounded through the eye.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

(non occ.) And from evil thoughts proceed evil deeds and evil words, which are forbidden by the law; whence He adds Murders, which are forbidden by that commandment of the Law, Thou shalt not kill; Adulteries, fornications, which are understood to be forbidden by that precept, Thou shalt not commit adultery; Thefts, forbidden by the command, Thou shalt not steal; False witness, by that, Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbour; Blasphemies, by that, Thou shalt not take the name of God in vain.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Likewise he lists sins which are against the precepts of the second table: murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts. Likewise, sins of the mouth against one's neighbor: false testimonies; blasphemies, against the precepts of the first table.

Commentary on Matthew

These things are what “defiles the person” when they come out from the heart and, after they have gone out from it, go through the mouth. Thus if they did not occur outside of the heart but were held by the person somewhere around the heart, not being allowed to be spoken through the mouth, they would very quickly disappear and the person would not be defiled any longer. Therefore the source and beginning of every sin is “evil reasonings.” For if these reasonings did not prevail, there would be neither murders nor acts of adultery nor any other of such things. Because of this each one ought to keep one’s own heart with all watchfulness.

Commentary on Matthew 11.14-15

Having named the vices which are forbidden by the divine Law, the Lord beautifully adds, These are they that defile a man, that is, make him unclean and impure.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

(non occ.) And because these words of the Lord had been occasioned by the iniquity of the Pharisees, who preferred their traditions to the commands of God, He hence concludes that there was no necessity for the foregoing tradition, But to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Hence these are the things that defile a man, because these proceed from the mind. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man. Here he concludes, and presents this conclusion so as to respond to the principal point. Likewise, because the disciples were not understanding, he concludes that it was being said only against the tradition.

Commentary on Matthew

Therefore it was to Israel that he spake when He said, "I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Not yet had He "cast to the dogs the children's bread; " not yet did He charge them to "go into the way of the Gentiles.

The Prescription Against Heretics

Marcion must even expunge from the Gospel, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel; " and, "It is not meet to take the children'sbread, and to cast it to dogs," -in order, forsooth, that Christ may not appear to be an Israelite.

Against Marcion Book 4

The Lord remains patiently silent, reserving the privilege of salvation for Israel. And the pitying disciples join in a plea. But he, holding in his hands the secret of his Father’s will, answers that he was sent to the lost sheep of Israel. It thus became absolutely clear that the daughter of the Canaanite woman represented a type of the church when the woman kept asking for what was bestowed upon the others. Not that salvation was not to be imparted also to the Gentiles, but the Lord had come to his own and among his own, awaiting the first fruits of faith from those people he took his roots from. The others subsequently had to be saved by the preaching of the apostles. And so he said, “It is not fair to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” The Gentile people are dubbed with the name of dogs. But the Canaanite woman is saved because of her faith. Certain of the inner mystery, she responds by talking about crumbs that fall from the table, to be eaten by little dogs. The disparagement of “dogs” was mitigated by the blandishment of a diminutive name.

Commentary on Matthew 15.4

But Christ saith, "I am not sent, but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

What then did the woman, after she heard this? Was she silent, and did she desist? or did she relax her earnestness? By no means, but she was the more instant. But it is not so with us; rather, when we fail to obtain, we desist; whereas it ought to make us the more urgent.

And yet, who would not have been driven to perplexity by the word which was then spoken? Why His silence were enough to drive her to despair, but His answer did so very much more. For together with herself, to see them also in utter perplexity that were pleading with her, and to hear that the thing is even impossible to be done, was enough to cast her into unspeakable perplexity.

Yet nevertheless the woman was not perplexed, but on seeing her advocates prevail nothing, she made herself shameless with a goodly shamelessness.

Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 52

Jesus did not say this to accord with the pride of the Pharisees or the arrogance of the scribes but lest he seem to contradict the instruction he had earlier given: “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans.” For he was unwilling to give his detractors an opportunity to accuse him and was reserving a fully accomplished salvation for the Gentiles at the time of his Passion and resurrection. The disciples, yet unaware of the mysteries of the Lord or having been moved to mercy, beseeched the Lord on behalf of the Canaanite woman (whom the other Evangelist calls a Syro-Phoenician). Or else they wanted to be rid of this importuning woman, for she repeatedly called upon him loudly, not as though he were a kind but an austere physician.

Commentary on Matthew 2.15.23

(Verse 24.) But he answered and said: I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Not that he was not sent also to the Gentiles, but that he was first sent to Israel, so that when they did not receive the Gospel, the migration to the Gentiles might be justified. And he significantly said, to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, so that from this passage we may also understand one wayward sheep from another parable.

Commentary on Matthew

He says that He is not sent to the Gentiles, but that He is sent first to Israel, so that when they would not receive the Gospel, the passing over to the Gentiles might have just cause.

And He adds of the house of Israel, with this design, that we might rightly interpret by this place that other parable concerning the stray sheep.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

A question arises here on that point: How is it that we have come from the Gentiles to the sheepfold of Christ if he was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel? What is the meaning of this puzzling dispensation? The Lord knew why he came—certainly to have a church among all the Gentiles—and he yet said that he was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel? We accordingly understand that he had to manifest in due sequence to that people first the presence of his body, his birth, the display of miracles and then the power of his resurrection. It had thus been predetermined from the beginning, such and such had been foretold and fulfilled, that Christ Jesus had to come to the Jewish people and to be seen and killed and to win for himself those whom he knew beforehand. The Gentiles were not to be condemned but to be winnowed like grain. A multitude of chaff was there, the hidden dignity of grain was there, burning was to take place there, and a storehouse to be filled there. In fact, where were the apostles if not there? Where was Peter? Where were the rest?

Sermon 77.2

In this way also He was sent specially to the Jews, because He taught them by His bodily presence.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Then follows the response of Christ: but he answering etc. The woman seemed to have shown piety sufficiently, but this seemed to be natural; therefore the Lord demanded a profession of faith. Therefore he was rejecting her, and said I was not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. This was the peculiar heritage of the Hebrews; hence they said: we are his people and the sheep of his pasture. And those sheep had perished, because they had been led astray by various observances; hence above, 9:36: seeing the multitudes, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and lying like sheep not having a shepherd; Ps. 118:176: I have gone astray like a sheep that is lost. But what does it mean that he says I was not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel? Is it not found in Isa. 49:6: I have given you to be the light of the Gentiles, that you may be my salvation even to the farthest part of the earth? Therefore he was sent not only to the Jews but also to the Gentiles. It must be said that he was sent to all, to gather all into one, but he was sent first to the Jews, so that from the Jews he might transfer to the Gentiles; Rom. 15:8: I say that Christ Jesus was minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises of the fathers.

Commentary on Matthew

" Marcion must even expunge from the Gospel, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel; " and, "It is not meet to take the children'sbread, and to cast it to dogs," -in order, forsooth, that Christ may not appear to be an Israelite.

Against Marcion Book 4

" The like lesson He both inculcates by examples, and repeatedly handles in parables, when He says, "Doth a father take away bread from his children, and hand it to dogs? " and again, "Doth a father give his son a stone when he asks for bread? " For He thus shows what it is that sons expect from their father.

On Prayer

What then saith Christ? Not even with all this was He satisfied, but He makes her perplexity yet more intense again, saying, "It is not meet to take the children's bread and to cast it to the dogs."

And when He vouchsafed her a word, then He smote her more sharply than by His silence. And no longer doth He refer the cause to another, nor say, "I am not sent," but the more urgent she makes her entreaty, so much the more doth He also urge His denial. And He calls them no longer "sheep," but "children," and her "a dog."

What then saith the woman? Out of His own very words she frames her plea. "Why, though I be a dog," said she, "I am not an alien."

Justly did Christ say, "For judgment am I come." The woman practises high self-command, and shows forth all endurance and faith, and this, receiving insult; but they, courted and honored, requite it with the contrary.

Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 52

26–27

Those of whom the Lord speaks as children are the Patriarchs and Prophets of that time. By the table is signified the Holy Scripture, by the fragments the best precepts, or inward mysteries on which Holy Church feeds; by the crumbs the carnal precepts which the Jews keep. The fragments are said to be eaten under the table, because the Church submits itself humbly to fulfilling the Divine commands.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Christ speaks of her as a dog, because the Gentiles led an unclean life and were involved with the blood of meat sacrificed to idols, while the Jews He speaks of as children.

Commentary on Matthew

(ap. Anselm.) The Jews were born sons, and brought up by the Law in the worship of one God. The bread is the Gospel, its miracles and other things which pertain to our salvation. It is not then meet that these should be taken from the children and given to the Gentiles, who are dogs, till the Jews refuse them.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

He answering, said: it is not good to take the bread of the children and cast it to the dogs. This is added to test her humility, because it was already sufficiently established concerning her faith, showing the superiority of the Jews over the Gentiles; for then humility is proven when one suffers reproach cast upon one's own nation; hence he says it is not good etc. The Jews were called children; hence: I have brought up children and exalted them, but they have despised me: because they were instructed in the commandments of God, John 10:34. The bread is teaching; Sir. 15:3: she fed them with the bread of life and understanding. This bread can be called the miracles of the Lord, or the teachings of the law. This bread, then, is owed to the faithful, namely the Jews. It is not good therefore to take the bread of the children, i.e., of the Jews, who have long been children, and cast it to the dogs, namely the Gentiles; because just as the dog is an unclean animal, so are the Gentiles. Hence above, 7:6: give not that which is holy to dogs. Hence they had not yet totally rejected them, but, as Jerome says, it is fitting that the Jews be called dogs, according to Ps. 21:17: many dogs have surrounded me. And Eph. 4:28: but we are children.

Commentary on Matthew

What then saith Christ? "O woman, great is thy faith."

Yea, therefore did He put her off, that He might proclaim aloud this saying, that He might crown the woman.

"Be it unto thee even as thou wilt." Now what He saith is like this: "Thy faith indeed is able to effect even greater things than these; nevertheless, Be it unto thee even as thou wilt."

This was akin to that voice that said, "Let the Heaven be, and it was."

"And her daughter was made whole from that very hour."

Seest thou how this woman too contributed not a little to the healing of her daughter? For to this purpose neither did Christ say, "Let thy little daughter be made whole," but, "Great is thy faith, be it unto thee even as thou wilt;" to teach thee that the words were not used at random, nor were they flattering words, but great was the power of her faith.

The certain test, however, and demonstration thereof, He left to the issue of events. Her daughter accordingly was straightway healed.

But mark thou, I pray thee, how when the apostles had failed, and had not succeeded, this woman had success. So great a thing is assiduity in prayer. Yea, He had even rather be solicited by us, guilty as we are, for those who belong to us, than by others in our behalf. And yet they had more liberty to speak; but she exhibited much endurance.

And by the issue He also excused Himself to His disciples for the delay, and showed that with reason He had not assented to their request.

Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 52

Having seen her advocates unsuccessful, the woman then appeals for herself and does not stop but in effect says to the Lord, “Help me, I haven’t been asking this for my own sake.” Then the Savior in turn says, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and to cast it to dogs.” He uses the term dog on account of the Gentiles’ unclean lifestyle and proneness to idolatry, while he calls the Jews children on account of the fact that they appeared to be devoted to God. But he uses the word bread not only to speak of his teaching, which was through words, but also of that which nourished the faithful by means of signs. But in this case the word preceded the condemnation of the Jews, since when life in the Lord had been given to them as bread, they did not accept it. The woman does not complain, even when insulted. What does the Savior do? By his answer, he showed what he had premeditated from the outset. For it was for this reason that he postponed giving a reply: that the woman might cry aloud with this word. Thereby he would show her to be worthy of a thousand crowns. For it was not because he did not want to give her the gift that he delayed but because he sought and took care beforehand to reveal her faith. With his accolades he honors her as presenting a type of the church that is from the Gentiles. Note that he did not say, “Let your child be healed,” but “Be it done for you as you desire,”

in order to show that it was the power of her faith that elicited the healing. Even if she were worthy of even greater things, nevertheless that which she wanted was what was given to her.FRAGMENT 83

See, brothers, how in this woman who was a Canaanite—who came from the Gentiles and represented a type (namely, a figure of the church)—how her humility is highly praised. Indeed, the Jewish people, as castigated in the Gospel, were puffed up with pride because they were chosen to receive the law, because the patriarchs proceeded from that people, the prophets appeared and God’s servant Moses performed great miracles in Egypt, which we hear about in the Psalms. He led the people through the Red Sea with the waters receding, and he received the law, which he gave to the same people. These were the grounds for extolling the Jewish people. Because of that pride, they were unwilling to respond to Christ the author of humility, the restrainer of swellheadedness, the physician God who, because he was God, became man that as a man he might know himself as man. What great medicine! If this medicine does not cure pride, what could possibly cure it? I do not know. God became a man. He put aside his divinity. That is to say, in a certain measure he kept out of sight—he hid what was his own, while it was evident what he had taken upon himself. He became a man, even though he is God. Yet man does not yet recognize that he is a man, that he is mortal; he does not recognize that he is weak, a sinner, sick, and that being a sick person, he should seek a physician! What is even worse, he sees himself as being healthy!Because of this, that people did not draw near—that is, because of their pride. And they were called from the olive tree—that is, from that people begotten of the patriarchs—broken natural branches (namely, Jews by right, barren in the spirit of pride). And in that olive tree a wild olive shoot was grafted. This wild olive shoot represents the Gentile people. But the apostle says that the wild shoot was grafted into the olive tree but the natural branches were broken. They were broken because of pride; the wild olive shoot was grafted in because of humility. The woman manifested this humility, saying, “Yes, Lord, I am a dog. I desire crumbs.” Jesus found favor also with the centurion, who had this humility. After he asked the Lord to cure his servant, the Lord said, “I will come and cure him.” He responded, “Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof; but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. I am not worthy that you should come under my roof.” He did not receive the Lord under his roof; he received him in his heart. The more humble a person is, the more receptive and full he becomes. Hills repel water; valleys are filled up. What did the Lord reply, after the centurion said, “I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof”? He said, “Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith”—that is, among those people to whom I have come, “I have not found such faith.” What is the meaning of the word such? So great. In what way great? To say the least, great in humility. “I have not found such faith”: like a grain of mustard seed—the smaller it is, the more potent it is. The Lord therefore grafted the wild olive shoot into the olive tree. He did this when he said, “Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.”

Sermon 77.11-12

(Quæst. Ev. i. 18.) And that to heal the Centurion's servant, and the daughter of this Chananæan woman, He does not go to their houses, signifies that the Gentiles, among whom He Himself went not, should be saved by His word. That these are healed on the prayer of their parents, we must understand of the Church, which is at once mother and children; the whole body of those who make up the Church is the mother, and each individual of that body is a son of that mother.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Great indeed was her faith; for the Gentiles, neither trained in the Law, nor educated by the words of the Prophets, straightway on the preaching of the Apostles obeyed with the hearing of the ear, and therefore deserved to obtain salvation.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Now Jesus shows the reason why He put off healing her at the beginning. So that the faith and understanding of the woman might be made manifest, Christ did not immediately give His assent at the beginning and even drove her away. But now when her faith has been revealed she hears the words of praise, "Great is thy faith." By saying, "Be it unto thee even as thou wilt," Christ showed that if she had not had faith she would not have obtained her request. So, too, if we desire to obtain something, nothing prevents us from obtaining what we desire. Notice that even if saints should ask on our behalf, as the apostles did for the woman, still, we accomplish even more when we ask for ourselves. The Canaanite woman is also a symbol of the Church gathered from among the Gentiles. For Gentiles who first were even driven away, later were advanced to the rank of sons and were deemed worthy of the Bread, I mean, the Body of the Lord; while the Jews became dogs, thinking that they were being fed by the crumbs, that is, the minute and insignificant details of the letter of the law. "Tyre" means "besieged," "Sidon" "they who hunt," and "Canaan" "made ready by humility." Therefore the Gentiles, who were besieged by evil in that the demons were among them hunting for souls, were also made ready by humility. For the righteous were made ready for the heights of the kingdom of God.

Commentary on Matthew

Therefore the Lord granted her request: then Jesus answering, said to her etc. And he does three things. First, her commendation is presented; second, the granting of her request; third, the effect. When she humbles herself, he says great is your faith. Great, because she believes great things. Likewise, because of its rectitude; James 1:6: but let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. Likewise, great because of its fervor. Hence if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain: remove from here to there, and it shall remove. Therefore the granting of her request follows: be it done to you as you will; Ps. 144:19: he will do the will of those who fear him. The effect follows: and her daughter was cured from that hour. Hence in the beginning, Gen. 1:3, he said, be light made, and light was made; so also here, be it done to you; for that word was the eternal Word; Eccles. 8:4: his word is full of power.

Commentary on Matthew

In this way, by his speech, Christ had so disposed their souls that they had even become self-forgetful and had taken no care to provide for food or other inevitable needs. They had not grown weary, even in the desert, of being with Christ. But Christ understood the weakness of our nature and that we require food for the health of our bodies. He makes preparation even for this, that it might be evident that he is concerned not only about our souls but about our bodies as well. For he himself is the Creator of both soul and body. He is not merely the Lord of one or the other, as the lunacies of the Manichaeans hold. They teach different creators, one for the soul and another for the body.

Fragment 97

Or, they spend the whole time of the Lord's passion with the Lord; either because when they should come to baptism, they would confess that they believed in His passion and resurrection; or, because through the whole time of the Lord's passion they are joined to the Lord by fasting in a kind of union of suffering with Him.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Both above, when going to do this miracle, He first healed them that were maimed in body, and here He doth the self-same thing; from the healing of the blind and the lame, He goes on to this again.

But why might it be, that then His disciples said, "Send away the multitude," but now they said not so; and this, though three days had past? Either being themselves improved by this time, or seeing that the people had no great sense of hunger; for they were glorifying God for the things that were done.

But see how in this instance too He doth not proceed at once to the miracle, but calls them forth thereunto. For the multitudes indeed who had come out for healing durst not ask for the loaves; but He, the benevolent and provident one, gives even to them that ask not, and saith unto His disciples, "I have compassion, and will not send them away fasting."

For lest they should say that they came having provisions for the way, He saith, "They continue with me now three days;" so that even if they came having any, it is all spent. For therefore He Himself did not this on the first and second day, but when all had been consumed by them, in order that having first been in want, they might more eagerly accept His work.

Therefore He saith, "Lest they faint in the way;" implying both their distance to be great, and that they had nothing left.

"Then, if thou art not willing to send them away fasting, wherefore dost thou not work the miracle?" That by this question and by their answer He might make the disciples more heedful, and that they might show forth their faith, coming unto Him, and saying, "Make loaves."

But not even so did they understand the motive of His question; wherefore afterwards He saith to them, as Mark relates, "Are your hearts so hardened? Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not?"

Since, if this were not so, wherefore doth He speak to the disciples, and signify the multitude's worthiness to receive a benefit, and add also the pity He Himself feels?

But Matthew saith, that after this He also rebuked them, saying, "O ye of little faith, do ye not yet understand, nor remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? nor the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?" So completely do the evangelists harmonize one with another.

What then say the disciples? Still they creep on the ground, although He had done so very many things in order that that miracle might be kept in memory; as by His question, and by the answer, and by making them minister herein, and by distributing the baskets; but their state of mind was yet rather imperfect.

Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 53

32–38

(Sup. c. 14:15.) As we have spoken of this above, it would be tedious to repeat what has been already said; we shall therefore only dwell on those particulars in which this differs from the former.

For these are not five, but four thousand; the number four being one always used in a good sense, and a four-sided stone is firm and rocks not, for which reason the Gospels also have been sacredly bestowed in this number. Also in the former miracle, because the people were neighbours unto the five senseso, it is the disciples, and not the Lord, that calls to mind their condition; but here the Lord Himself says, that He has compassion upon them, because they continue now three days with Him, that is, they believed on the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Christ first took away the infirmities of the sick, and afterwards supplied food to them that had been healed. Also He calls His disciples to tell them what He is about to do; Then Jesus called his disciples unto him, and said, I have compassion on the multitude. This He does that He may give an example to masters of sharing their counsels with the young, and their disciples; or, that by this dialogue they might come to understand the greatness of the miracle.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

(Verse 32) But Jesus, calling together his disciples, said: I have compassion for the crowd, because they have persevered with me for three days already and have nothing to eat. And I do not want to send them away hungry, lest they faint on the way. He wants to feed those whom he has healed; first, he removes their weakness so that later he can offer food to the healthy. He also calls his disciples and speaks to them about what he is going to do, either to provide an example to the teachers, that they should share their plans with their subordinates and disciples, or so that they understand the magnitude of the miracle from their conversation, responding that they do not have loaves of bread in the desert. He said, 'I have compassion for the crowd, because they have been staying with me now for three days and have nothing to eat. If I send them away hungry to their homes, they will faint on the way; and some of them have come from a great distance.' Therefore, he who hurries to reach the desired dwelling without heavenly bread is in danger. Thus the angel speaks to Elijah: Arise and eat, for you will walk a long way.

Commentary on Matthew

In this Gospel lection we must consider in Christ the work of His humanity, and of His divinity. In that He has compassion on the multitudes, He shows that He has feeling of human frailty; in the multiplication of the loaves, and the feeding the multitudes, is shown the working of His divinity. So here is overthrown the error of Eutyches1, who said, that in Christ was one nature only.

Or, because correcting by penitence the sins that they have committed, in thought, word, and deed, they turn to the Lord. These multitudes the Lord would not send away fasting, that they should not faint by the way; because sinners turning in penitence, perish in their passage through the world, if they are sent away without the nourishment of sacred teaching.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Or, this is said because in all time there have only been three periods when grace was given; the first, before the Law; the second, under the Law; the third, under grace; the fourth, is in heaven, to which as we journey we are refreshed by the way.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

The multitude did not dare to ask for bread, as they had come for healing. But He Who loves mankind takes thought for them. So that no one could say, "They have other provisions," He says, "Even if they had, they would have been used up, for it has already been three days." He shows that they came from a distance when He says, "lest they faint on the way." He says these things to the disciples, wishing to encourage them to say to Him, "You are able to feed them as you did the five thousand." But the disciples still lack understanding.

Commentary on Matthew

(ap. Ans.) It should be noted, that the Lord first removes their sicknessess, and after that feeds them; because sin must be first wiped away, and then the soul fed with the words of God.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Then Jesus, having called his disciples together etc. Here the doctrine of Christ is shown to be praiseworthy through the refreshment of the good. And first, the motive is set forth; second, the material; third, the distribution; fourth, the refreshment. The second is at and the disciples say to him etc.; the third is at and he commanded the multitude to sit down upon the ground; the fourth is at and they all ate, and were filled. It should be noted that this motive is placed after the preceding, because the sick cannot be fed, because their soul abhorred all manner of food, Ps. 106:18. Therefore it is necessary that before they are fed, they be healed: so also in spiritual matters. Augustine says: to a sick palate, bread is a punishment, which to a healthy one is delightful, etc. And therefore the Lord feeds them after the healing. And it should be noted that he first calls his disciples together so as to make them attentive, that they may be mindful of the miracle. Likewise, so as to give us an example that however great a man may be, he ought to bear himself toward his inferiors; Ecclus. 3:20: the greater thou art, humble thyself in all things. Hence having called together his disciples, he said: I have compassion on the multitude etc. This was the motive, and so he shows a humanity befitting divinity. Mercy is a passion, because one who is merciful has a wretched heart, who reckons another's misery as his own. But mercy especially befits God; Ps. 102:8: the Lord is compassionate and merciful, long-suffering and plenteous in mercy. And that which he reckons as his own, he ought to repel as his own. Hence the Lord, inasmuch as he repels misery, is called merciful. But a threefold motive of mercy is set forth. First, he sets forth perseverance; second, want; third, impending danger. First, perseverance is set forth, when it says for they continue with me now three days. From this you can know that those who persevere with Christ are refreshed with his bread: because he that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved. By the three days you can understand the confession of the Holy Trinity; hence below at the end, 28:19: going into the whole world, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Or a threefold act, namely of heart, mouth, and work. Likewise the threefold time of the world, namely the time of the law of nature, the Mosaic law, and the law of grace, and of glory at the end. Ps. 16:15: I shall be satisfied, when thy glory shall appear. Or by the three days, the three days of Christ's death. Hence those endure the Lord for three days who have conformed themselves to the death of Christ; Hosea 6:3: he will revive us after two days; on the third day he will raise us up. Hence through the death of Christ we await justification. Gal. 6:17: always bearing about in our body the mortification of Jesus. The second thing touched upon is want; hence he says they have not what to eat. But why did he wait for three days? Lest they could object that they had been refreshed with food which they had carried with them. According to the mystery, he has compassion on those who recognize their own misery; Apoc. 3:17: thou knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked etc. The third is the danger: and I will not send them away fasting, lest they faint in the way. For those who are not refreshed by the word of God faint on the way; Deut. 8:3: not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God; Ecclus. 15:3: she fed him with the bread of life and understanding.

Commentary on Matthew

Why had he earlier said to his disciples, “Send away the multitude,” but now he does not send them away, even though three days had passed? It may be that they themselves had changed and improved by this time. Or it may be that since the people were glorifying God for what had been done, they had no great sense of hunger.Observe in this instance that he does not proceed immediately to the miracle but calls them out even into the desert. The multitudes who had come for healing were not even daring to ask for food. But he is here seen to be the benevolent and provident one who gives even to those that do not ask. He said to his disciples, “I have compassion and will not send them away hungry.” And lest someone might say that they came having provisions for the way, he noted, “They have been with me now three days and have nothing to eat, so that even if some came with provision, it has by now been consumed.” Therefore Jesus did not do this on the first or second day but only when everything had been entirely consumed, in order that having first been in need, they might more eagerly receive the miracle of food. He offered them compassion, saying, “Lest they faint in the way”; he implied that both the distance to food was great and that they had nothing left. Then disciples asked, if you are not willing to send them away hungry, “Where are we to get bread enough in the desert to feed so great a crowd?” Jesus responded, in order to stimulate their faith and make them more compassionate: “How many loaves have you?” But even then they did not fully understand the motive of his question. Hence afterwards he said to them, as Mark relates, “Are your hearts so hardened? Having eyes, do you not see? Having ears, do you not hear?”

Gospel of Matthew, Homily 53.1

Since however they still spake of the multitude merely, and the place, and the wilderness (for "whence," it is said, "should we have in a wilderness so many loaves, as to fill so great a multitude"?); and not even so understood what He said, He proceeds to contribute His own part, and saith unto them,

"How many loaves have ye? And they say, Seven, and a few little fishes."

And they no more say, "But what are these among so many?" as they had said before. So that although they reached not His whole meaning, yet nevertheless they became higher by degrees. For so He too, arousing their mind hereby, puts the question much as He had done before, that by the very form of the inquiry He might remind them of the works already done.

But as thou hast seen their imperfection hereby, so do thou observe the severity of their spirit, and admire their love of truth, how, writing themselves, they conceal not their own defects, great as they were. For it was no small blame to have presently forgotten this miracle, which had so recently taken place; wherefore they are also rebuked.

And herewith consider also their strictness in another matter, how they were conquerors of their appetite; how disciplined to make little account of their diet. For being in the wilderness and abiding there three days, they had seven loaves.

Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 53

(de Cons. Ev. ii. 50.) Surely it will not be out of place to suggest upon this miracle, that if any of the Evangelists who had not given the miracle of the five loaves had related this of the seven loaves, he would have been supposed to have contradicted the rest. But because those who have related the one, have also related the other, no one is puzzled, but it is understood at once that they were two separate miracles. This we have said, that wherever any thing is found done by the Lord, wherein the accounts of any two Evangelists seem irreconcilable, we may understand them as two distinct occurrences, of which one is related by one Evangelist, and one by another.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

34–38

He teaches frugality by having them sit on the ground; and He teaches us to give thanks before eating by Himself giving thanks. Do you ask why it is that when there were five loaves and five thousand being fed, twelve baskets remained, but here where there are more loaves and fewer people only seven baskets were left over? It could be said either that spyrides were a larger type of basket than kophinoi, or that He did not wish the numerical equality of this miracle with the previous one to cause it to be forgotten. For if on this occasion, too, twelve baskets had been left over, because of the numerical equality they would have forgotten that He performed the miracle with the loaves a second time. But you, O reader, must also know this, that the four thousand, that is, they who are perfect in the four virtues, are fed with seven loaves, that is, with more spiritual and perfected words, for the number seven is a symbol of the seven spiritual gifts. They fall down to the earth putting beneath them all earthly things and treading them down, just as the five thousand fell down onto the grass, that is, putting beneath them the flesh and its glory. "For all flesh is grass and all the glory of man as the flower of grass" (Is. 40:6; Ps. 102:15). Here there are seven baskets of remnants, because it was the spiritual and more perfect things that they were unable to eat. For the amount left over was what seven baskets could contain, that is, what only the Holy Spirit knew. "For the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God" (1 Cor. 2:10).

Commentary on Matthew

34–38

(ord.) The seven loaves are the Scripture of the New Testament, in which the grace of the Holy Spirit is revealed and given. And these are not as those former loaves, barley, because it is not with these, as in the Law, where the nutritious substance is wrapped in types, as in a very adhesive husk; here are not two fishes, as under the Law two only were anointed, the King, and the Priest, but a few, that is, the saints of the New Testament, who, snatched from the waves of the world, sustain this tossing sea, and by their example refresh us lest we faint by the way.

Or, they sit down there on the grass, that the desires of the flesh may be controlled, here on the ground, because the earth itself is commanded to be left. Or, the mountain in which the Lord refreshes them is the height of Christ; there, therefore, is grass upon the ground, because there the height of Christ is covered with carnal hopes and desires, on account of the carnal; here, where all carnal lust is banished, the guests are solidly placed on the basis of an abiding hope; there, are five thousand, who are the carnal subjected to the five senses; here, four thousand, on account of the four virtues, by which they are spiritually fortified, temperance, prudence, fortitude, and justice; of which the first is the knowledge of things to be sought and avoided; the second, the restraining of desire from those things that give pleasure in the world; the third, strength against the pains of life; the fourth, which is spread over all the love of God and our neighbour. Both there, and here women and children are excepted, because in the Old and New Testament, none are admitted to the Lord who do not endure to the perfect man, whether through the infirmity of their strength, or the levity of their tempers. Both refreshings were performed upon a mountain, because the Scriptures of both Testaments commend the loftiness of the heavenly commands and rewards, and both preach the height of Christ. The higher mysteries which the multitudes cannot receive the Apostles discharge, and fill seven baskets, to wit, the hearts of the perfect which are enlightened to understand by the grace of the seven-fold Spirit. (Is. 11:2.) Baskets are usually woven of rushes, or palm leaves; these signify the saints, who fix the root of their hearts in the very fount of life, as a bulrush in the water, that they may not wither away, and retain in their hearts the palm of their eternal reward.

Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Then how much material was at hand is set forth; hence Jesus said to them: how many loaves have you? And he did not ask as one who did not know, but so that the miracle might be shown. Hence he also had them recall the few fishes, above, in the other miracle. And it is said that they had five loaves and two fishes, in which the teaching of the law was signified; and those loaves were of barley; here there are seven, and they are not said to be of barley, in which is signified the new law formed by the sevenfold grace of God. Likewise, in that first miracle there were only two fishes, but in this one many small fishes. God hath chosen the poor in the world, rich in faith. And in Ps. 8:9: the birds of the air and the fishes of the sea, that pass through the paths of the sea, i.e., of this world.

Commentary on Matthew