CHAPTER 1
(Mark 1, Matthew 4, Luke 4) AMBROSIASTER 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 8. WHY DOES THE SAVIOR RESIST THE TEMPTATIONS OF THE DEVIL ONLY BY SPEAKING TO HIM OF THE WORDS OF THE LAW? — The Savior not only responds to the devil who tempts him, but to the Jews as instruments of his cruelty against the Savior. He foresaw that the Jews would render him as an enemy of the law, so he fights by testimonies from the law the impudence of the devil their father, to thus condemn the father in the person of the children and the children in the person of the father.
(Mark 1, Matthew 4, Luke 4) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 9. WHY DID THE SAVIOR, AFTER HIS BAPTISM, LAST FOR FORTY DAYS AND THEN FEEL THE NEED FOR HUNGER? WHOEVER COULD HAVE FASTED FORTY DAYS COULD NOT FREE HIMSELF FROM THE NECESSITY OF HUNGER! — It is written, "My son, coming near to the service of God, abide in righteousness and fear, and prepare your soul for temptation." (Eccles. 2:1) The Savior wanted to fast in order to give us the example of applying ourselves to the practice of fasting, if we wish to triumph by the help of God from the attacks of the devil, and to teach ourselves by his example, that we must above all fear his pitfalls, when we embrace the service of God. Unhappy to see that we are moving away from him, the devil redoubles with fury against us. It is therefore in our interest and not for him that the Savior acts here. Likewise, if he agrees to feel the need of hunger, it is not for him, it is for us. Indeed, when he had triumphed by the fast of the temptations of the devil that are not all written, because they did not relate directly to our instruction, after forty days of fasting, he agreed to feel the need of hunger. What was in the nature of man, so that the devil he had conquered, perceiving in him this infirmity of hunger, was excited to tempt him again in the persuasion that he had been vanquished by a man. Such was indeed the mysterious conduct of the Savior, the devil insulted and made his tyrannical empire felt to the man he had conquered, God allowed that he in turn be vanquished by the man who owed to the divine power this victory, and Satan is thus deeply humbled, because he sees only one man and does not understand the power that is in man. He remains astonished and stupefied by this mystery, the knowledge of which escapes him; he has the power of approaching; he has not the power to conquer that which attacks him. Two things were tormenting here, he approached him emboldened by the weakness he saw and he met a virtue he did not suspect, so that in this man he had before him, he suspected the power of God. Our Lord therefore submits to the necessity of hunger to thwart the wiles of Satan. He no longer prolonged his fast, so to establish the agreement between him, Moses and Elijah.
(Mark 1, Matthew 3, 11, Luke 7) AMBROSIASTER 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 10. HOW IS IT THAT JOHN THE BAPTIST, WHO HAD FIRST BORNE WITNESS TO THE SAVIOR, THEN CONCEIVED OF DOUBTS BY ASKING HIM BY HIS DISCIPLES: ARE YOU THE ONE TO COME, OR SHOULD WE EXPECT ANOTHER? — Those who think that doubt may have entered the soul of John the Baptist slander the Savior. For they claim that John has reason to doubt, or they accuse Jesus Christ of ignorance, since in their feelings he would have praised a man who thought badly of him. But since it is impossible for the Savior to be mistaken, the praise he gives to John the Baptist is therefore well founded. If they are founded, John has no doubt about Jesus Christ. In fact, in the very time that John of his prison sends his disciples to Jesus to ask him, "Do you read whoever is coming, or should we expect another?" Jesus answers the disciples of his forerunner: "Go and tell John what you have heard and seen: The blind see, the deaf hear, the lepers are healed, the lame walk, the dead rise, and happy is he who is not offended because of me.” Now, as John's messengers were leaving, Jesus began to say of John the Baptist to the multitude: What did you go to see in the desert? A reed waved by the wind, or a man dressed softly? Those who are dressed softly live in the palace of kings. What did you go to see? A prophet! Yes, I say to you, and more than a prophet: for it is from him that it was written: Here it is that I send my angel before you, to prepare the way where you must walk. Then the publicans who were baptized with John's baptism, glorified the righteousness of God. What greater praise can the Savior make of John than to say that he is more than a prophet? The Savior goes on proclaiming blessed who has not been scandalized because of him; how could he have praised John who would have been scandalized by doubting the person of the Savior? But no, John Baptist did not doubt for a moment. The praises Jesus gives him prove that he is truly happy because he was not scandalized because of him. Why, indeed, does the Savior choose this very moment to make such a glorious eulogy of John the precursor? It is to show that the spirit of John was not worked by doubt. John, knowing that his death was near, and wishing to fortify his disciples in the Savior's faith, wanted him to confirm with his own mouth what he had taught them of his divine person. It is therefore to confirm the truth of his testimony that he has recourse to a more excellent authority, so that before this agreement of two witnesses, no doubt is possible. John the Baptist therefore thinks he ought to employ this means of sending his disciples who seem to doubt his words, so that when he hears the same teachings from the mouth of the Savior, their faith is confirmed by this persuasion. that the testimony of the Lord descended from heaven and that of his worthy representative could not be doubted. The Savior seems to be responding to John himself, so that his disciples could learn the truth by bringing John's question closer to the Savior's answer.
(Mark 1:2; Malachi 3:1) AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 57. HOW CAN ST. MARK ATTRIBUTE TO THE PROPHET ISAIAH THOSE WORDS WHICH WE READ IN THE PROPHET MALACHI? "BEHOLD, I SEND MY ANGEL BEFORE YOUR FACE TO PREPARE THE WAY FOR YOU." — St. Mark could not ignore what he wrote, for it cannot be supposed that he had not read the prophets, he who from his childhood had learned the Holy Scriptures, and who was versed in the study of the law, as one of the faithful companions of the Apostles. Since he therefore knew that everything must be brought back to his author, he attributes this quotation to the one who first expressed it by saying: "Voice of one who cries in the desert, prepare the way of the Lord." So, after having quoted the words of Malachi, the evangelist immediately adds: "The voice of him who cries in the desert," so that the two testimonies which express the same thought may be united under the name of the first prophet.
(Mark 1:9-11, Matthew 3:13-17, Luke 3:21-22, John 1:32-34) AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 50. IF THE SAVIOR WANTED TO BE BAPTIZED TO SERVE AS AN EXAMPLE, WHY, ALTHOUGH HE HAD BEEN CIRCUMCISED, DID HE FORBID OTHERS TO DO SO? — Circumcision is a commandment belonging to ancient times. It had to keep its authority until Jesus Christ, and remain in force until the birth of Christ promised to Abraham; Once the promise was fulfilled, circumcision was no longer necessary. It was like Christ's image that Isaac was promised to Abraham. God indeed says to him, "All nations shall be blessed in him that comes out of you," (Gen. 22:18), that is, in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ came to renew the faith that Abraham had received, so that all nations would be blessed in him who came out of Abraham, that is, in Jesus Christ, according to the promise made to Abraham. Circumcision was therefore the sign of the Son of God promised to Abraham, that is, Christ. This sign of the promise must have ceased at the birth of Christ; but he who was the object of the promise must have received at birth the sign of his father, to be recognized as the one who, according to the promise, was to justify all the nations by faith joined to the circumcision of the heart. The circumcision of the body was the outward sign that distinguished the children of Abraham according to the flesh; the circumcision of the heart is the invisible sign that distinguishes its spiritual children, and that is why carnal circumcision had to cease after the coming of Jesus Christ.
(Mark 1:9-11, Matthew 3:13-17, Luke 3:21-22, John 1:32-34) AMBROSIASTER 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 22. IF THE SAVIOR WAS BAPTIZED TO GIVE US AN EXAMPLE, WHY DOES HE FORBID OTHERS TO BE CIRCUMCISED AS HE WAS? — The use of circumcision has been authorized until Jesus Christ; Abraham had received the precept of circumcision as a sign of the promise of Christ, and the precept of circumcision was to be in effect until the birth of the Christ promised to Abraham, and which was to justify all nations by faith, as Abraham himself had been justified. Christ himself must have been subject to the precept of circumcision to make it well established that he was the one who was promised to Abraham; but once the promise was fulfilled, circumcision was no longer necessary. Baptism, on the contrary, has never ceased to be obligatory, because it is to Jesus Christ that this mode of regeneration begins. It was not in use before him, and did not receive its consummation after his advent; but it begins with Jesus Christ and must continue until the end of the world.
(Mark 1:11; Matthew 3:17; Luke 3: 22) AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 54. IF JESUS CHRIST, OF THE RACE OF DAVID, BECAME THE SON OF GOD ACCORDING TO THE FLESH, THAT IS, IF IN HIS BIRTH HE WAS THE SON OF GOD IN HIS TWO NATURES BECAUSE HE WAS BORN HOLY, HOW CAN HE BE LORD GOD TOLD HIM AFTER HIS BAPTISM: "YOU ARE MY SON, I BEGOT YOU TODAY”? (HEBREWS 5:5; ACTS 13:33; PSALM 2:7) — Christ is the Son of God from all eternity according to the spirit of holiness, but he was born Son of God of the race of David according to the flesh, and on one side as of the other he was not made, he is born Son of God. The words he hears at his baptism are not for him, but to signify the mystery that is fulfilled in baptism. They are addressed to him for all who receive him. They undoubtedly make appear in Jesus Christ made man the power of divinity; but their chief purpose is to confirm this title to those who are baptized, because they then begin to be the sons of God by receiving the Holy Spirit. The body of the Lord was holy in his birth, yet the Christ made man would not have been confirmed in the dignity of Son of God by the sacrament of regeneration if he had not received the Holy Spirit according to the decrees of the goodness of God in the regeneration of man. The Jews were also called sons of God by a feeling of affection, but not by virtue of the sacrament, whose main effect is to give them with the remission of sins, by the Holy Spirit that arises in them, that title children of God. The Savior is therefore born according to the flesh Son of God, and he was confirmed in this title at his baptism. It was impossible that what was born of the Holy Spirit was not born of God, but the Holy Spirit, who descended upon him, far from diminishing the purpose that God proposed in this mystery, gave him a new increase. Christ is the Son of God from all eternity, according to the Spirit, but he is born Son of God of the race of David according to the flesh. It is not by his baptism that he has become, because having been born of the Holy Spirit, his body was pure and holy from birth. At his baptism, he hears these words: "You are my Son, I begot you today," to show that it is baptism that makes men children of God. These words are spoken to him at the moment when the Holy Spirit descends and dwells on him, because they are not children of God until they have received baptism. It is therefore not for him, but for us that he hears these words, to teach us by example how we could become children of God. For it is not for him either, but for us that he was baptized; and just as he says in another place, "It is not for me that this voice has been heard, but for you, so that you may believe. Thus these words were spoken to him in his baptism so that he became our model.
AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 66. HOW DID THE EVANGELIST ST. MARK SAY THAT THE DEMONS KNEW JESUS AND CONFESSED HIM PUBLICLY, WHILE THE APOSTLE DECLARES THAT THE PRINCES AND POWERS OF THIS WORLD HAVE NOT KNOWN THE DIVINITY OF THE LORD JESUS? (1 COR. 2:8) — Indeed, St. Mark says, "They knew it was him.” The Apostle, on the contrary, assures us that none of the princes of this world knew him, for if they had known him, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory. (1 Cor. 2:8) If the demons knew him, how did the princes ignore him? Some think that by the princes of this world, we must understand the chief of the Jews, in the sense of these words of the apostle St. Peter: "You know, my brethren," he said to them, "that you have committed this crime by ignorance, as your leaders." (Acts 3:17) But these are the heads of the Jews, who were not princes of this world, and he said to their princes and not the princes of this world, since they declared that they had as king Caesar under the power of which they had been reduced. These princes are therefore those whom the Apostle said, "We have to fight, not against the flesh and the blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the princes of this world of darkness." (Eph. 6:12) The question has its reason for being. If these powers did not know Jesus, how could the demons know him? There is a big difference between what the demons knew in Christ, according to St. Mark, and what the princes of this world have ignored according to St. Paul. The demons knew that he was the Christ promised by the law, because they saw in him all the signs predicted by the prophets, as for example, that he would come out of the race of David, that he would be born of a virgin, and would be the Redeemer of Israel; but they did not know the mystery of his divinity as well as their princes. In fact, the devil is looking insincerely, it is true, of the Savior who is: "If you are the Son of God, etc." He saw in him sometimes signs of divine power, sometimes marks of human weakness, and doubt he entertained of this mixture was for him a torment. The Scriptures are therefore perfectly in agreement with the points that have been revealed. It is impossible, indeed, to suppose any contradiction between men inspired by the same spirit. Some think that by the princes and powers of this world, we must hear the first and the leaders of the Jews who, according to the apostle Peter, have ignored the greatness of the evil they had committed: “I know, my brothers, that you have committed this crime out of ignorance, like your leaders.” These are the princes or chiefs of the Jews, who could not be called the princes of this world, since they were reduced under the power of the Romans, and they declared that they had no other king than Caesar. These princes of the world are therefore those whom the Apostle said in another place: "We have to fight not against flesh and blood, but against the princes of this world of darkness.” If, then, these princes crucified Jesus Christ because they did not know that he was the Lord of glory, how could the demons have known? The knowledge of demons must not have been different from the knowledge of the princes of this world. They knew then that he was the one who had been promised in the law by the prophetic oracles, but they knew neither the mystery of his divine and eternal affiliation, nor the mystery of his Incarnation.
(Mark 1:44; Matthew 8:4; Luke 5:14) AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 60. IF THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS WERE ONLY IN EFFECT UNTIL JOHN THE BAPTIST, HOW DOES THE SAVIOR SEND LEPERS TO OFFER GIFTS TO PRIESTS FOR THE HEALING OF THEIR LEPROSY? — This prescription was no longer in force, it is true, but the Savior imposes it on the lepers for the condemnation of the Jews. They had not understood that the sovereign truth was manifested more clearly to them in better days in the interest of their salvation; the truth was thus lowered to the point of accusing them. They looked upon the Savior as an enemy of the law, because in a feeling of mercy he wanted to deliver them from the heavy yoke of the law, according to this prophet Jeremiah's prophecy: "And I will establish among them a new covenant, not such as the covenant I gave to their fathers.” (Jer. 31:32) And in order to establish that this step was to crush them, he adds: "To bear witness to them," that is to say, that she was a witness against them who dared to say that the Savior was an enemy of the law. The apostle St. Paul imitated this example; he taught that one should no longer submit to circumcision, and yet he did not fail to circumcise Timothy to avoid scandalizing the Jews. He preferred to do a useless action than to excite agitation among the false brethren. But this approach only confirmed the Jews in error. This satisfaction which was then given them became the cause of an error in which they persevere still. The apostle St. Paul imitates this example. He taught that the precept of circumcision no longer forced anyone, and yet he circumcised Timothy to avoid scandalizing the Jews. He preferred doing a useless thing rather than being scandalous to some uneducated minds that could be saved. The Lord has much the same attitude towards the Jews to destroy the opinion they had formed of him, that he was an enemy of the traditions of the Jews. So he commanded the leper to offer to the priest for his healing the gifts prescribed by the law of Moses, and he added: "To bear witness to them," so that this was a testimony against them that the Savior was not an enemy of the law. He therefore prescribed an action which had ceased to be obligatory. But as useless things are not harmful for this reason, this step became even useful to those who had formed a bad opinion of it by giving them cause to convince themselves that the Savior was not an enemy of the law.
(Mark 2:23-28; Matthew 12:1-8; Luke 6:1-5) AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 61. WHY DID THE SAVIOR, RESPONDING TO THE JEWS WHO ACCUSED THE DISCIPLES OF BREAKING THE SABBATH BY CRUSHING EARS OF CORN IN THEIR HANDS TO EAT THEM, BRING THEM THE EXAMPLE OF DAVID, WHO HAD EATEN BREADS THAT WERE PERMITTED TO BE SLAUGHTERED? ONLY TO THE PRIESTS, AN EXAMPLE WHICH, FAR FROM JUSTIFYING THEM, MAKES THEM GUILTY OF THE SAME FAULT AS DAVID, WHO, MOREOVER, DID NOT DO THIS ACTION ON A SABBATH DAY (1 SAM. 21:4). — The Savior wants to confuse the hypocrisy of the Jews with many examples. He therefore cites to them greater transgressions under the law without anyone having dared to accuse them, he shows the Sabbath violated several times in the law, the breads reserved for priests eaten by the priests by those who were not, and these transgressions having as authors men who enjoyed great authority under the law. The first was Joshua, the son of Nave, who, by the command of God himself, did not observe the Sabbath day and saw the walls of Jericho fall on his approach (Josh. 1:20). It was therefore very useful to him to have obeyed the command of God rather than the Sabbath law. The Maccabees, defeated in a first battle, delivered a second on the Sabbath and triumphed over their enemies (1 Mac. 2:38,41). David had already received the royal anointing and robbed the Philistine of his armies, whom he had killed by the power of God (1 Sam. 21:1). Now, finding himself on a journey, pressed by hunger, he received from the hands of the high priest some bread which he was forbidden to eat; but this defense was only out of necessity, which permitted its use. The high priest, before this necessity, gave him these loaves, and David, the chosen of God, did not hesitate to take them. It is the same with the Sabbath, so it is not forbidden to give circumcision on the Sabbath. Commands whose violation does not entail any danger must be observed; but if there is necessity, or can transgress them without any danger, because they have been given rather to impress a certain respect than as necessary to salvation. On the contrary, what is forbidden absolutely is never allowed, and transgression, whatever the necessity, is always harmful. What laws prohibit as essentially bad is always forbidden. As for the precepts of which we have said that transgression is sometimes permitted, it is for example the ages of obligation, which we may not observe in case of necessity without being guilty, if we are authorized by the weakness of the stomach or disease. The Jews did not ignore it, and their accusation against the disciples of breaking the Sabbath law was not sincere. Now, the Savior did not wish to oppose to them the time of the law which touched his soul in order not to irritate them more, but he fights their calumnious accusation by examples taken in the past much more favorable for them in the defense of the Sabbath and, as we have said above, he confounds them not only on the Sabbath article, but on the breads reserved for priests.
(Mark 2:23-28; Matthew 12:1-8; Luke 6:1-5) AMBROSIASTER 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 23. BECAUSE THE JEWS ACCUSED THE DISCIPLES OF TRANSGRESSING THE LAW BY TEARING OFF THE EARS OF THE SABBATH, THE SAVIOR BROUGHT THE EXAMPLE OF DAVID SAYING TO THEM, DO YOU NOT KNOW WHAT DAVID DID WHEN HE WAS HUNGRY, HOW HE TOOK THE BREAD OF PROPOSAL, ATE IT, AND GAVE IT TO THOSE WHO WERE WITH HIM, WHICH WAS PERMITTED ONLY TO THE PRIESTS ALONE? HOWEVER, THIS EXAMPLE DOES NOT SEEM TO EXCUSE THE DISCIPLES, WHO CAN BE PREVARICATORS OF THE LAW AS WELL AS DAVID WAS. —The Savior would not refute the accusation of the Jews for this reason that the Sabbath law had ceased to be obligatory; he did not judge them worthy to hear openly the truth because of their unbelief. He thus opposed them with reasons borrowed at a time on which they rested with complacency, that is, at a time when the Sabbath law was in full force, to repel the accusation directed against his disciples. to tear off ears and grind them in their hands to eat them at a time when the Sabbath law had ceased to oblige. Our Lord, leaving aside this reason, shows them that in the very time when the law of the Sabbath had all its strength, the Sabbath law was broken in case of necessity. Thus David did what was not permitted him; Joshua did what the law forbade when he commanded his armed soldiers to go round Jericho for seven days; the Maccabees paid what was forbidden to them by defending on the Sabbath. And the priests, adds the Savior, violate the Sabbath in the temple and are not guilty. He thus shows that the accusation of the Jews against the disciples was for malice more than error, since despite these examples that they knew of holy personages who had deliberately violated the Sabbath, they did not leave any doubt to accuse innocent people. The law of the Sabbath was obligatory, but if necessity required it, one was not guilty by not observing it. So it was not forbidden to circumcise the Sabbath day because there was need. Thus the disciples took ears, which the ancient law forbade, but the hunger which pressed them legitimized this action. So again David, also hungry, did what he was not allowed, knowing that hunger excused him. It is the same today for the fasts prescribed by law. Is a sick person guilty of breaking the fast? No, no doubt, because this transgression is without any danger. It is sometimes allowed, such as breaking the Sabbath under the old law. What, on the contrary, is never permitted does not admit the excuse derived from necessity.
(Mark 3:17) AMBROSIASTER 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 24. WHY DID THE SAVIOR CALL HIS DISCIPLES THE SONS OF THUNDER, WHO WERE RATHER THE SONS OF GOD, FOR THUNDER IS PRODUCED BY THE CLASH OF CLOUDS BETWEEN THEM? — As the thunder prints fear, Our Lord has wanted to give his disciples the name of sons of thunder, that is to say sons of the one to be dreaded; for although thunder is produced by the clash of clouds between them, yet the primary cause is the will of God, and that is why it inspires terror.
(Mark 6: Matthew 2, 14) AMBROSIASTER 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 11. HOW IS IT THAT WE READ ABOVE THAT HEROD WAS DEAD, AND LOWER DOWN, SEVERAL YEARS LATER HE PUT JOHN THE BAPTIST TO DEATH; WHILE IT IS SAID ABOVE THAT JOHN SURVIVED HEROD'S DEATH? — Herod was king of Judea, and had four sons: Archelaus, Herod, Philip, and Lysanias. Herod, being dead, was succeeded by his son Archelaus, after whom the kingdom of Herod was divided into four parts. One of these four parts was given to Pilate, who administered him not as king, but as governor, while the sons of Herod retained the title of king. Philippe being dead also, his brother Herod married the wife of Philip, a crime which John the Baptist reproaches him with, which determines this Herod, son of Herod, of whom we spoke earlier to put to death the holy precursor. What does the Evangelist say? "Herod the Tetrarch," that is to say, who governed the fourth part of the kingdom of his father Herod. What doubt is still possible with this addition of Tetrarch, which clearly proves that it is another Herod than the first? It was this same Herod who killed by the sword, James, brother of John, and soon struck by the angel of God, died and devoured by worms.
(Mark 7:24) AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 77. WHAT DO THESE WORDS OF ST. MARK THE EVANGELIST MEAN ABOUT OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST: "HAVING ENTERED A HOUSE, HE DESIRED THAT NO ONE SHOULD KNOW IT, BUT HE COULD NOT REMAIN HIDDEN?" WANTED TO REMAIN HIDDEN AND THAT HE COULD NOT; WAS HIS WILL MADE POWERLESS? — It is impossible that the will of the Savior will not have its effect, and he can only want what must be done, we must admit that he wanted everything that was done because his will never go beyond the power of his nature. The is therefore irreproachable as its nature. The fact referred to was over the confines of Tyre; Jesus entered a house and he did not want anyone to know it. Now, one asks how and for what reason he wished that one did not know his arrival. Note that this fact has its place on the confines of Gentiles, to whom the Gospel was not yet to be preached. When he gave his mission to his disciples, he said to them, "Go not to the nations, neither enter the cities of the Samaritans; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Matt. 10:5) So he would not let anyone know that he was in that house, he did not want to be sought, but he gladly welcomed those who came forward; for although the time of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles had not yet come, yet there would have been something bad not to receive those who came spontaneously to embrace the faith. Thus it was not the disciples who knew the coming of the Savior, but those who saw him enter the house, who spread the news of his coming. It was thus known that he was in this house, and all who wished to obtain any benefit entered it. Our Lord, therefore, did not wish his disciples to know that he was in this house, but he wanted to be sought after, and that was indeed the case; for he could not remain hidden once it was known that he had entered this house. Thus, as soon as the Chananean had heard of his arrival, she hastened to come to him and beg him to cast the demon out of her daughter's body (Matt. 15:22), and she certainly would not have obtained this grace if it had not previously been submitted by faith to the God of the Jews. The will of the Savior has been accomplished according to the explanation we have just given, and the discussion has us find what the short story of the Evangelist kept hidden.
(Mark 7:24) AMBROSIASTER 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 25. HOW TO EXPLAIN THE STORY OF THE EVANGELIST ST. MARK, ACCORDING TO WHICH THE WILL OF CHRIST COULD NOT BE FULFILLED: "ON ENTERING THE HOUSE, HE WANTED NO ONE TO KNOW IT, BUT HE COULD NOT REMAIN HIDDEN"! IF HE WANTED TO REMAIN HIDDEN WITHOUT SUCCESS, HIS WILL WAS FOUGHT AND ANNULLED? — This fact, which is presented in a very abbreviated way, as if to make its meaning more hidden, has passed over the confines of Tyre. The Lord having thus arrived on the confines of Tyre entered a house. As the time had not yet come to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, he forbade anyone to let him know his arrival, that is to say, he did not want anyone to know it. It must be understood that he did not wish his disciples to teach him that he was in this house, he did not wish to be sought, because the time had not come to offer grace to the Gentiles. Now this woman came, and having heard that Jesus was there by those who had seen him come into this house, begged him to cast out the devil from his daughter's body. But the Savior, who knew that the time had not yet come to give grace to the Gentiles, replied: "Let the children be satisfied first, for it is not permitted to take the children's bread and give it to the dogs. (Matt. 15:26.) This woman surrendered to the Savior's response and obtained the benefit she desired. By this acquiescence in the words of Jesus, she professed to unite with the God of the Jews. This is the reason why he would not let anyone know from his disciples that he was in this house, and the thing took place as he pleased.
(Mark 8:26) AMBROSIASTER 2ND CATEGORY OT & NT QUESTION 8. IT IS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF TOBIT (12:7), “IT IS HONORABLE TO REVEAL AND TO CONFESS THE WORKS OF GOD;” WHILE THE SAVIOR, AFTER DOING THE WORK OF GOD, RECOMMENDS NOT TO TELL IT TO ANYONE. (MARK 8:26) — The Savior did not recommend hiding the work of God, because he says in another place, "Go, and tell the great things that God did for you" (Mark 5:19), but he sometimes refused the testimony that men wanted to give him and repressed their vanity, so as not to appear to testify to himself, as a seducer, unreasonable conduct in the eyes of every prudent man.
(Mark 14:28; Matthew 26:32) AMBROSIASTER 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 20. WHEN THE SAVIOR FORETOLD HIS PASSION AND RESURRECTION THREE DAYS AFTER HIS DEATH, HE ADDED, "AFTER I AM RISEN, I WILL GO BEFORE YOU TO GALILEE, WHERE YOU WILL SEE ME." THE ANGEL HOLDS THE SAME LANGUAGE TO THE HOLY WOMEN, AND YET HE WAS SEEN IN JERUSALEM BY THE DISCIPLES AND BY THE HOLY WOMEN THEMSELVES. — The words of the Savior cannot be doubted without being guilty of unbelief; but, as I see, you do not doubt the words of the Savior; you only want to know why he says that his disciples will see him in Galilee, whereas he appeared to them in Jerusalem after his passion. Now he appeared in the city of Jerusalem, but only a few of his disciples to console them, while he manifested himself to all in Galilee. He therefore recommends to those who had seen him in Jerusalem only a small number to go to Galilee, where he was to manifest himself to all and formulate the precepts which were to serve as a foundation and rule for Christian discipline.
(Mark 15:25; Matthew 27:45; Luke 23:44; John 19:14) AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 65. IF THE EVANGELISTS HAD THE SAME THOUGHT, THE SAME LANGUAGE, HOW IS IT THAT WHEN THREE OF THEM, ST. MATTHEW, ST. LUKE AND ST. JOHN, SAY THAT THE SAVIOR WAS CRUCIFIED IN THE SIXTH HOUR, ST. MARK, ON THE CONTRARY, REPORTS THAT HE WAS AT THE THIRD HOUR? — It is not good to wrap the truth in obscure language. The three evangelists had only one thought, but Saint Mark wanted to mention a circumstance they had omitted and thought necessary. Indeed, it can not be supposed that this evangelist who, following the example of the other sacred writers, was educated with a deep sense of religion and a scrupulous care of what he wrote, and who was inspired by the Holy Spirit, could have made a mistake. It is therefore necessary to examine what his purpose was in expressing himself in this way. Let us first consider that it was not by Pilate but by the Jews that the Savior was crucified, for, according to the Roman laws, he declared that Jesus was innocent. Is not he the one who says to the Jews, "I find no crime in him?” (Jn. 19:4) They cry to him, "Crucify him,” and he answers them, What crime hath he done? Finally, as he insisted and wished to draw it from their hands, they had recourse to this slanderous accusation: "If you deliver this man you are not Caesar's friend, for whoever makes himself king, is decreed against Caesar. It is then that He gives them the Savior to be judged by them. Pilate did not pronounce the sentence, but the Jews. It was at the instigation of the leaders of the priests, says the evangelist, that they shouted to him: "Let him be crucified.” St. Mark therefore wished to make us understand that the sentence was pronounced at the third hour, when they repeated with their repeated cries that Jesus was crucified within the interval of nearly three hours, during which Jesus was taken to Herod's house and brought back to Pilate. In fact, every man condemned to death is regarded as dead from the moment the death sentence has been sentenced to him. St. Mark thus clearly establishes that it is not by virtue of the judge's sentence that Jesus was crucified; for it is difficult to prove the innocence of one who is condemned by a judicial sentence. He spoke in a different way to tell us that what was done in the sixth hour, not by law, but by the persevering malice of the Jews, began at the third hour.
(Mark 15:25; Matthew 27:45; Luke 23:44; John 19:1;) AMBROSIASTER 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 21. SENTENCE IS PRONOUNCED. BUT IT SEEMS CERTAIN THAT IT WAS BETWEEN THE FIFTH AND SIXTH HOURS THAT PILATE SAT DOWN ON HIS TRIBUNAL, AND PRONOUNCED SENTENCE, AS ST. JOHN TELLS IT. — It is not good to wrap the truth in obscure language. The agreement of the three evangelists is proof that they have spoken the truth. As to St. Mark, his account indicates that he wished to make known to us a circumstance which remained hidden. For it cannot be supposed that this evangelist, who, like the other sacred authors, had learned with as much religion as care what he should write, has fallen into error. We must therefore carefully examine what he wanted to teach us by expressing himself in this way. For it is not without reason that he departs here from the three other evangelists. Let us consider whether those who claim that the sentence was pronounced at the third hour, and that therefore the Savior was crucified at this time, are not right, although they cannot prove the truth of their feeling. They see this truth, but they do not know how to establish it. Let us, then, leave Pilate's person for a moment and see how far the sentence pronounced against the Savior can be traced, and we shall see then whether we can admit as true the sentiment of which we have just spoken. It is certain that it was at the instigation of the priests of the priests that the Jews demanded that Barabbas be delivered to them on the day of the feast, and that Jesus was crucified. Pilate resisted them long because he wanted to deliver the Savior; He returned and went out several times to speak to the Jews and tell them that he found no crime in him that was worthy of death. But the Jews insisted with greater force by shouting, "Let him be crucified. There was therefore a certain space of time during which Jesus was exposed to the mockery of the soldiers, who presented him to the people, clothed him with a rag of purple, and crowned with thorns, worshipped him in mockery, they spat in his face, flogged him, and suffered him, which led him to the sixth hour when Jesus was crucified. He was brought to Pilate, Pilate went out to come to the Jews, because they did not enter the courtroom themselves. He spoke to them, heard their false accusations, and sent Jesus to Herod. Then he came back, questioned again Jesus who answered him; then he went out again to the Jews and declared to them that he found no cause of death in the Savior. We had arrived at the third hour. Then the Jews told Pilate who wanted to deliver Jesus, "Let him be crucified.” Pilate resisted them for a long time, but being unable to obtain anything, he left Jesus at their will about the sixth hour, as the Evangelist expressly said: "He gave him to them to do what they wanted.” It is therefore true to say that the sentence of death was pronounced at the third hour, because it was not pronounced by Pilate, but by the Jews. Pilate consented to it only with regret and in spite of himself because of the perilous intimation that they sounded in his ears: "If you deliver him, you are not Caesar's friend." Let us see what St. Mark wanted to show that it was not by the sentence of the judge that the Savior had been condemned, because it is difficult for him who is sentenced by a truly judicial sentence, not to appear put to death with justice.
(Mark 15:42; Matthew 27:62; Luke 23:54; John 19:42) AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 55. WHY DID THE LORD WANT TO BE CRUCIFIED ON THE EIGHTH DAY OF THE CALENDS OF APRIL, THE TIME OF THE PASSOVER CELEBRATION FOR THE JEWS? — The Savior did all things in their place and in their time. To show that he created the world and all that it contains by the will of the Father, he wanted to redeem the world and renew it with his passion at the time he created it, that is to say in the equinox where the world began and the day becomes longer than the night. As he lived in the middle of the Roman Empire, he had to suffer the eighth day of the calends of April, time of the equinox of the Romans. It was then, in fact, that the reader spread over this part of the world and the day began to grow. The passion of the Savior led him from darkness to light. The conduct of the Creator is therefore safe from blame, since he repaired his fallen creature at the very time he created it. One can find nothing wrong with the time of the creation of a fallen thing when its repair takes place at the same time, and God wanted the joy of the renewal of the creature to take place on the very day of its inauguration.
(Mark 16:1-8; Matthew 28:1-8; Luke 24:1-12; John 20:1-13) AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 64. HOW CAN ONE PROVE THAT THE SAVIOR ROSE FROM THE DEAD AFTER THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS? — If you seek here the number followed by days and nights, you will not be able to understand these words: Moses has hunted forty days and forty nights (Exod. 24:18); However, this number is not entirely present, for the day on which he ascended, and the day on which he descended, are not strictly part of it. But the custom is not to count the night without counting the day, not to count either the day without the night, taking the part for the whole. It is in this sense that the Savior said, "As Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so the son of man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” (Matt. 12:40) As there were three nights, there are also three days. Night is mentioned not to appear to express something new and contrary to reason, since night is a consequence of the day. There is no doubt that the evening which is followed by the night was established before the light that gave birth to the day, and nothing absurd is advanced in asserting that the passion of the Lord began with the night. Just as light, that is, day, is the image of life, so night, that is, darkness, is the symbol of death; it is thus that Scripture itself establishes a striking contrast between the children of light and the children of darkness. Now, it is not surprising that although, always and everywhere, the day is placed before night, the light before darkness; here, however, the things which follow are placed before those which preceded them, or that in the present case the order is reversed, as we have already remarked. Indeed, the night seems much cleaner to be the image of death than the day. Death thus begins with the night, because it was impossible to find another way than by night in the empire of the prince of darkness and to triumph over him. It was necessary for the Lord of light, that is, of eternal life, to be for a moment subject to the prince of darkness or death, in order to become the liberator of all those upon whom death had reigned in the past, or would like to expand his empire in the future. Neither death would have been entirely destroyed, nor the clouds of darkness would have been dispelled, had it not been for the Lord to enter his empire. Before this bright light, the secret of death, in which all his strength was, vanishes, and one can only triumph entirely over him who is caught by his own arms or in his own domains. It is therefore by a design full of wisdom that in this great drama the night gets the pre-eminence to lose all its power. So that the unbelieving Jews would remain wrapped up in an eternal night, and that the day would not appear the author of so great a crime, of so enormous sacrilege, but of the night; the day against the natural order of things is submitted to the preceding night, just as the God and Lord of all things is subject to the prince of death, in order to deliver all men from the chains of death. If anyone were tempted to see here again some contradiction, which he considers to moderate his appreciation, that God in putting on the form, I will not say of the man, but of the servant, has voluntarily surrendered to the death. Why, then, demand that order be followed, the place where you see in all things this reversed order? For what is this light that has him in the darkness, and that the darkness have not understood? (Jn. 1:5) It is the Lord of light who allowed us to seize his person. Now, whoever knows that he is seized by him to put him to death, counts from this moment the time of his death. That night follows the day he was judged and crucified. Then comes the night that ends on the Sabbath and the Sabbath itself. There is still the evening following the Sabbath. This is why Moses had given the Jews the figurative precept to begin the Sabbath day in the evening, in which the Lord is risen and who embraces the whole day of Sunday, for there is no night without day or day without night. With this explanation we understand that the resurrection of Our Lord took place after three days and three nights.
(Mark 16:1-8; Matthew 28:1-8; Luke 24:1-12; John 20:1-13) AMBROSIASTER 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 18. HOW CAN ONE PROVE THE TRUTH OF THESE WORDS OF THE SAVIOR, THAT HE WOULD RISE FROM THE DEAD AFTER THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS, SINCE AFTER SUFFERING THE TORMENTS OF HIS PASSION ON THE DAY OF THE LORD'S SUPPER, HE RESURRECTED FIRST LIGHT OF SUNDAY WHEN DARKNESS STILL COVERED THE EARTH? THE NUMBER OF DAYS AND NIGHTS DOES NOT SEEM TO FIT. — The Savior, who foresaw all that was to happen to him, made this statement loudly, he knew with no doubt that the Jews would seize him to put him to death, and that he would oppose no resistance. to their sacrilegious effects, while it was so easy for them to thwart them. Was not he already their captive when he healed the ear of the high priest's servant whom Peter had cut off with a sword? He showed them that his humiliations were not the result of his weakness, but that by a providential disposition he yielded for a time to their criminal will to destroy thus the kingdom of hell. Indeed, the demon, in his improvidence, slipped into the soul of the Jews to push them to put the Savior to death, as if he had to win by being the life to him who taught the way of truth; and he did not know that death must turn against himself. It was then that he triumphed at the sight of the servitude in which the man had fallen as a result of his sin, that he was convinced of the crime of having put to death the innocent Christ, held captive among the sinners he who did not know sin, and thus lost the very ones on whom his power was stretched in the underworld. It is in the divine prescience that the Savior had of all these things that he counts for his death the night he was taken by his enemies. In fact, every prisoner who has no hope of escaping the hands of his judge sees himself as dead even before the blow that must hit him. Add to this night the day of his passion and the next night. Add the Sabbath by joining the night that ends with the dawn of Sunday and Sunday itself, and you have the full number of days predicted by the Lord. For it was the last night, when the darkness still covered the earth and the day was just beginning to dawn, that the Savior rose between light and darkness, so that the night was counted as the day and so the prediction that he had done was done in his integrity. |
Home > Gospel of Mark Commentary >