AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 86. WHAT IS THE PROOF THAT MARY, MOTHER OF THE LORD, WAS OF THE TRIBE AND RACE OF DAVID? — Let's quote the words of a genuine witness. It is the angel himself who says to Mary: "The Lord God will give him the name of David his father, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever.” How could such a truthful witness give David as father to Jesus Christ, if his mother was not of David's own race?
(Luke 1:33) AMBROSIASTER 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 26. WE READ IN THE GOSPEL THAT THE ANGEL PREDICTED TO MARY, MOTHER OF THE LORD, THAT THE REIGN OF CHRIST WOULD “HAVE NO END.” DANIEL MAKES THE SAME PREDICTION: "THEN WILL ARISE AN ETERNAL KINGDOM THAT WILL NEVER BE DESTROYED.” ON THE CONTRARY, THE APOSTLE SPEAKING OF THE LORD SAYS: "WHEN HE HAS GIVEN HIS KINGDOM TO GOD HIS FATHER” (1 CORINTHIANS 15); HOW WILL HIS KINGDOM BE ETERNAL, SINCE HE MUST GIVE IT TO GOD HIS FATHER? — In so saying, the Son does not lose the kingdom by giving it to his Father, and so these words of the Apostle are true, without the angel and Daniel being in contradiction with them. Whoever thinks it their duty to call in question their testimony would bring unbelief to an excess. But we, whose faith cannot be shaken, see how it is to be understood that the Son hands the kingdom over to his Father, which the Apostle in another place explains in these terms: "Then the Son Himself will be subject to him who has subjected all things to Him, that God may be all in all." (1 Cor.15) This submission is the very act of surrender of the kingdom, so here is the interpretation that it is necessary to admit, not to deny that the Son is subject to his Father, and yet to recognize that his kingdom is eternal, that is to say, the kingdom of the Son, for in the name of Jesus every knee shakes in heaven, on the earth, and in hell. (Philip. 2) The Apostle St. Peter confirms this truth when he says:" No other name under heaven was given to men by which we were to be saved." (Acts 4) And did not the Lord Himself say to His disciples, “Until now you have not asked anything in my name, ask and I will answer you?" (Jn. 16) The reign of the Son therefore consists in the fact that it is in his name that all men are saved, and that all the prayers addressed to him until the end of the world are answered. But when all creatures have confessed Jesus Christ willingly or by force, and have been subjected to the power against which they have resisted, then the mystery of one God will be revealed to all men, and all thanksgivings will go back to God the Father, the principle of all things, that all preaching cease, one God be recognized in the mystery of the Trinity. Indeed, when all the powers, all the principalities and the dominions will have bowed their knee before Jesus Christ, then the Son will reveal that it is not the first principle from which all things come, but his Son in whom we see the Father. This is how he submits and gives the kingdom to his Father. In revealing that his Father is the first principle of all things, he submits to him by declaring that he comes from him. Indeed, the advent of the Son of God is surrounded by so much majesty and splendor that all the powers and choirs of the angels could believe that he is the only God par excellence. Now, the Savior declaring that he is not the one who is called the Father, but his Son, while continuing to reign, hands the kingdom over to his Father. Here we see both submission and surrender of the kingdom, for when he declares that he comes from the Father, he declares by the same that all that he has also comes from the Father, bringing everything back to him.
(Luke 1:34) AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 51. HOW MUST WE HEAR THE ANSWER GIVEN BY THE ANGEL GABRIEL TO THESE WORDS OF MARY: "HOW SHALL I KNOW WHAT YOU SAY TO ME, FOR I KNOW NO MAN? AND THE ANGEL GABRIEL ANSWERING SAID TO HIM, "THE HOLY GHOST WILL COME UPON YOU, AND THE VIRTUE OF THE MOST HIGH WILL OVERSHADOW YOU?” — To the doubt that Mary expresses on the conception which is announced to her, the angel responds by teaching her how it will be accomplished. "The Holy Spirit will come unto you," that is to say, Have no doubt, because you know no man. I said to you: You will conceive, it is the Holy Spirit who will arise in you, who will operate this conception, without the intermediary of a man. "And the virtue of the Most High will overshadow you." The virtue of the Most High is unquestionably Jesus Christ, for it is one of the attributes of his person. The Holy Spirit, coming unto the Virgin Mary, sanctified her by her action by forming of her body a pure and holy body in which the virtue called the Son of God could be born. This virtue was to cover her with her shadow, that is to say, that something of the divine immensity was to spread in the bosom of the Virgin, and the brilliance of this majesty caused the angel to say that virtue God, who is none other than God himself, will cover her with his shadow. Indeed, nothing comes out of the divine substance that is to be called God. It is one of the characters of the external and sensible things that it is found in the flesh of the parts to which we cannot give the name of flesh, as the hairs, the bones, the nerves, etc. To doubt that Mary expresses, etc. The virtue of the Most High is unquestionably Christ; for this denomination is one of the distinctive characters of the Son of God who is called the virtue of God. If we consider the divinity, the Father is also the virtue, the Holy Spirit is also, and these three persons have one and the same virtue, because they have one and the same nature. The Holy Spirit therefore formed the body in the Virgin the flesh of the Savior, and the virtue of the Most High, that is, Christ, covered him with his shadow by coming into this flesh formed by the Holy Spirit, so that this virtue was hidden both in the body and in the soul. But to remain hidden for the virtue of the Most High is not to be understood for a time. Let's look more closely at the full meaning of this expression: "He will cover her with his shadow. To express the strength it contains, we will say that when the virtue of the Most High covers its shadow, the body which it covers in this way seems to be a part of the virtue of God. This operation forms a complete whole, because divinity cannot suffer from sharing. So the angel adds: "Therefore the holy one who is born of you will be called the Son of God.” For what is born of the Holy Spirit, which the virtue of God, who is the Son of God, has covered with his shadow, in a word the body of the Son of God is born holy, it cannot be denied. The body of one who is holy necessarily participates in his holiness. The Son of God, even holiness, is born in a holy body; for David, speaking of the flesh of Jesus Christ, said, "Thou shalt not allow thy saint to see corruption," and it is the very thing which he had in view as a pure and undefiled body.
(Luke 2:6-7; Matthew 1:25) AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 53. IF GOD DOES ALL RIGHTLY, WHY IS IT SAID THAT THE SAVIOR WAS BORN THE EIGHTH OF THE CALENDS OF JANUARY? — Nobody will push extravagance to deny that God is inspired in everything he does by a sovereign right. So Jesus Christ, descending from heaven to save the world and wanting to show that he was the Creator of the world and the times, wanted to be born as a man to grow in God the human race, so diminished, so diminished, when the light, which is none other than the day, begins to grow after the shortest days. He wanted the time of his birth to be in keeping with his divine doctrine, which drew men from the shadow of death to increase their life.
(Luke 2:34) 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 73. WHAT DO THESE WORDS OF SIMEON MEAN TO MARY, MOTHER OF OUR LORD: "THIS IS ESTABLISHED FOR THE RUIN AND FOR THE RESURRECTION OF MANY IN ISRAEL.... AND THE SWORD WILL PIERCE YOUR SOUL SO THAT THE THOUGHTS HIDDEN IN THE BOTTOM HEARTS OF MANY ARE REVEALED?" — Simeon, that holy personage, of whom the divine Scriptures praise, reveals by divine inspiration what Jesus Christ will be for men, a principle of fall and ruin for those who look at each other, as unshakeable in the observance and knowledge of the law, but who do not believe in the works of Jesus Christ, and have no part in the promises made to their fathers; a principle of resurrection for those who did not enjoy any kind of consideration in the law, but who believed in Jesus Christ, that is to say that God made worthy of him those who were regarded as unworthy and useless and that he reproved those who seemed great in the world. It is this same truth that Our Lord expresses in another place: "I have come into this world for judgment, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind. (John 9:39) And in fact, it is not the teachers of the law, nor the Pharisees, nor the scribes who have followed Jesus Christ, but ignorant and uneducated sinners. This is what made the Savior says: "My Father, I give you thanks, because you have hid these things from the wise and the prudent, and have revealed them to the little ones." (Matt. 11:25) As for what Simeon adds: "And the sword will pierce your soul, so that the thoughts hidden in the depths of the hearts of many will be revealed," (Luke 2: 35) indicates that Mary, in whose bosom the mystery of the incarnation has been wrought, and there has been some doubt at the death of Our Lord, but doubts that the resurrection's brilliancy and the Savior's power soon changed into a firm and unshakable faith. At the death of the Savior, all under an impression of dread, let doubt enter their souls. However, they did not persevere in doubt. The sword only crosses the soul if doubt does not remain in thought; but he emerges from it by the force of the soul, which regains its rights. Who would not have been able to doubt, seeing the one who called himself the Son of God humiliated to death? But as I said, the resurrection of the Savior was to remove all doubt; that is why it is said that the sword will pass and not that it will fall on the heart, or that it will reach some member in passing. A line which is thrown and passes near a man may erase it, but without hurting it; so doubt was to produce sadness, but not until death, because it did not remain in the soul and it simply went through it, touching the hearts of the disciples like a shadow. See Cleophas and this other disciple who went to Emmaus; they were sad in the way, and told the Savior himself that they did not know him again: “We thought he was the one to deliver Israel.” They doubted then, but scarcely had they recognized the Lord that this doubt vanished. It is also said of Joseph that "iron shook his soul." (Ps 104:18) For a long time held in chains despite his innocence, it is not surprising that he could have doubted God's righteousness towards him, but as his hope in God was stronger, he could not persevere in doubt. Everyone is judged on the vice for which he has the most inclination. The Apocalypse of St. John confirms this truth, "Those who doubt," he said, "and the unbelievers will have their share in the lake burning with fire and brimstone.” (Rev. 21:8) He who therefore does not persevere in doubt is delivered from death, that is to say, he escapes death, for doubt about God or about Jesus Christ is a true death. He who ceases to doubt ceases to be subject to death.
(Luke 3:21-22, Matthew 3:13-17, Mark 1:9-11, 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.
(Luke 3:21-22, Matthew 3:13-17, Mark 1:9-11, 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.
(Luke 3:22; Matthew 3:17; Mark 1:11) 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.
(Luke. 3:23; Matthew 1:16) AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 56. WHY DID ST. MATTHEW WRITE THAT JACOB WAS JOSEPH'S FATHER, WHILE ST. LUKE GIVES HIM AS THE SON OF HELI, SO THAT HE IS NOT WISELY PRESENTED AS HAVING TWO FATHERS, OR DO NOT KNOW EXACTLY WHO HIS REAL FATHER IS? — There is no doubt that Jacob was Joseph's father. In fact, the genealogy starts from David, descends by Solomon and reaches in a straight line until Jacob, of which Joseph is the son. The genealogy of Heli, on the contrary, the son of Mathat, is true of David, but descends by Nathan, also son of David, until the time of the advent of the Savior. Now, the two evangelists, following the genealogy of each of the two brothers, made a split, that is to say that St. Matthew descends from David by Solomon to Joseph; while St. Luke ascends from Eli, contemporary with the Savior, by the line of Mathat, son of Nathan, son of David, and he unites the tribes of Eli and Joseph, to show that they are of the same family. By associating Heli with Joseph, he shows that their genealogy is no different, but that they are brothers, and that consequently the Savior is not only Joseph's son, but also Eli's son. For the same reason, in fact, that the Savior is called the son of Joseph, he is also the son of Heli and all the others who are of the same tribe, a truth which the Apostle expresses in these terms: fathers the patriarchs, and from whom came out according to the flesh, Jesus Christ. (Rom. 9:5) It is by a divine inspiration that St. Luke ascends from Heli by the line of Nathan to David, and by Tharam his father, to Sem, son of Noah, and before the flood, to Seth, son of Adam, given to him to replace Abel, and he presents the Savior as sons of Adam for the same reason that he calls him sons of Joseph and Eli. He raises him even above Adam, and before the existence of all flesh, he declares that Christ is the son of God. There are some who think that Heli had married Jacob's wife, following the law's prescription that if a man died childless, his brother or one of his relatives would marry his wife and give children to his brother. (Deut. 25:5) It is then understood, say they, that Joseph was begotten for his brother Jacob, whose wife he had married. The two genealogies are thus united, and it is not extraordinary that the evangelist gives Heli as his father to Joseph. This explanation has no probability and does not solve the difficulty. On the contrary, the sentiment which we have expounded above unites the two brothers of one father, and shows that Christ was the Son of God before any generation. How, indeed, does St. Luke express himself? "And Jesus, beginning his mission, was about thirty years old, as it was believed of Joseph, who was of Heli," that is, that it was believed that Jesus was the son of Joseph, and was not only Joseph's son, but also Eli's son. (Luke 3:23) He does not say that Joseph was son of Eli, but just as Jesus was called Joseph's son, he was also sons of Eli, because Joseph and Heli were sons of two brothers, that is, of Solomon and Nathan, sons of David, and thus going up by David unto Abraham, and Noah, and Seth, even unto Adam himself, and over Adam, he taught that the Christ was the Son of God. Indeed, saying: "Who was son of Seth, who was the son of Adam, who was the son of God, he shows that Christ was the son of Adam in the same way that he was called the son of Joseph, that Mary said, “and my son, why did ye do this, and behold, we, your father and I, were greatly afflicted." (Luke 2:48) But he rises above Adam for to unite Christ to God the Father, in order to make it clear that if he were called the son of all who descend from Adam to Joseph and Heli, he had before all these generations the true Son of God, and thus to confuse the error of Photius, who maintained that Christ came only from Mary and had not existed before him, so that he was given for fathers those of whom he was not the son, and denied that he was the God's true son, when he really was, if we adopt the explanation as improbable as useless as we have reported above, and according to he is called the son of Heli, the story of the evangelist simply means that Christ was the son of Adam, but not that he was the son of God. In going up, indeed, from the sons to the fathers, he arrives at Enoch, whose father is Seth, the father of Seth is Adam, and Adam has for father God; but I do not see that he was otherwise useful to express oneself in this way. If, on the contrary, each of those who form the continuation of the genealogy are called the fathers of Jesus Christ, in the same sense that he was called the son of Joseph, following these words: "Whose fathers are the patriarchs, and of whom went out according to the flesh Jesus Christ;" (Rom. 9:5) Following this order, we understand that the Evangelist says that he was son of Seth and son of Adam. And going back above all the patriarchs, he declares that he was the Son of God to show that he existed long before those of whom he is called the Son.
(Luke. 3:23; Matthew 1:16) AMBROSIASTER 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 6. WHY DOES ST. MATTHEW GIVE JOSEPH JACOB AS FATHER, WHILE ACCORDING TO ST. LUKE IT WOULD BE HELI, SO MUCH SO THAT JOSEPH IS REPRESENTED TO US WITH RATHER LITTLE SKILL AS HAVING TWO FATHERS OR A MAN WHOSE TRUE FATHER WE DO NOT KNOW? — There is no doubt that Jacob was Joseph's father. In fact, the genealogy starts from David, descends by Solomon and reaches in a straight line until Jacob, of which Joseph is the son. The genealogy of Heli, on the contrary, the son of Mathat, is true of David, but descends by Nathan, also son of David, until the time of the advent of the Savior. Now, the two evangelists, following the genealogy of each of the two brothers, made a split, that is to say that St. Matthew descends from David by Solomon to Joseph; while St. Luke ascends from Eli, contemporary with the Savior, by the line of Mathat, son of Nathan, son of David, and he unites the tribes of Eli and Joseph, to show that they are of the same family. By associating Heli with Joseph, he shows that their genealogy is no different, but that they are brothers, and that consequently the Savior is not only Joseph's son, but also Eli's son. For the same reason, in fact, that the Savior is called the son of Joseph, he is also the son of Heli and all the others who are of the same tribe, a truth which the Apostle expresses in these terms: fathers the patriarchs, and from whom came out according to the flesh, Jesus Christ. (Rom. 9:5) It is by a divine inspiration that St. Luke ascends from Heli by the line of Nathan to David, and by Tharam his father, to Sem, son of Noah, and before the flood, to Seth, son of Adam, given to him to replace Abel, and he presents the Savior as sons of Adam for the same reason that he calls him sons of Joseph and Eli. He raises him even above Adam, and before the existence of all flesh, he declares that Christ is the son of God. There are some who think that Heli had married Jacob's wife, following the law's prescription that if a man died childless, his brother or one of his relatives would marry his wife and give children to his brother. (Deut. 25:5) It is then understood, say they, that Joseph was begotten for his brother Jacob, whose wife he had married. The two genealogies are thus united, and it is not extraordinary that the evangelist gives Heli as his father to Joseph. This explanation has no probability and does not solve the difficulty. On the contrary, the sentiment which we have expounded above unites the two brothers of one father, and shows that Christ was the Son of God before any generation. How, indeed, does St. Luke express himself? "And Jesus, beginning his mission, was about thirty years old, as it was believed of Joseph, who was of Heli," that is, that it was believed that Jesus was the son of Joseph, and was not only Joseph's son, but also Eli's son. (Luke 3:23) He does not say that Joseph was son of Eli, but just as Jesus was called Joseph's son, he was also sons of Eli, because Joseph and Heli were sons of two brothers, that is, of Solomon and Nathan, sons of David, and thus going up by David unto Abraham, and Noah, and Seth, even unto Adam himself, and over Adam, he taught that the Christ was the Son of God. Indeed, saying: "Who was son of Seth, who was the son of Adam, who was the son of God, he shows that Christ was the son of Adam in the same way that he was called the son of Joseph, that Mary said, “and my son, why did ye do this, and behold, we, your father and I, were greatly afflicted." (Luke 2:48) But he rises above Adam for to unite Christ to God the Father, in order to make it clear that if he were called the son of all who descend from Adam to Joseph and Heli, he had before all these generations the true Son of God, and thus to confuse the error of Photius, who maintained that Christ came only from Mary and had not existed before him, so that he was given for fathers those of whom he was not the son, and denied that he was the God's true son, when he really was, if we adopt the explanation as improbable as useless as we have reported above, and according to he is called the son of Heli, the story of the evangelist simply means that Christ was the son of Adam, but not that he was the son of God. In going up, indeed, from the sons to the fathers, he arrives at Enoch, whose father is Seth, the father of Seth is Adam, and Adam has for father God; but I do not see that he was otherwise useful to express oneself in this way. If, on the contrary, each of those who form the continuation of the genealogy are called the fathers of Jesus Christ, in the same sense that he was called the son of Joseph, following these words: "Whose fathers are the patriarchs, and of whom went out according to the flesh Jesus Christ;" (Rom. 9:5) Following this order, we understand that the Evangelist says that he was son of Seth and son of Adam. And going back above all the patriarchs, he declares that he was the Son of God to show that he existed long before those of whom he is called the Son.
(Luke 4, Matthew 4, Mark 1) 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.
(Luke 4, Matthew 4, Mark 1) AMBROSIASTER 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.
(Luke 5:14; Matthew 8:4; Mark 1:44) 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.
(Luke 6:1-5; Matthew 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-28) 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.
(Luke 6:1-5; Matthew 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-28) 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.
(Luke 7, Matthew 3, 11, Mark 1) 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.
(Luke 7:17; Matthew 15) AMBROSIASTER 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 17. WHY DOES THE SAVIOR BEGIN TO REFUSE TO HAVE COMPASSION ON A FOREIGN WOMAN, THAT IS, THE CANANEAN (MATT.15), WHILE GRANTING THE BLESSING OF SALVATION TO THE CENTURION WHO WAS A STRANGER AND TO THE LEPER WHOM HE DECLARES HIMSELF NOT TO BE OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD? (LUKE 7:17) — The Savior's action finds its justification in the nature of the fact itself. It was unreasonable indeed and insulting to the promises made to the patriarchs, that a woman who did not recognize the God of the Jews, received a favor promised to the nation that adored her. Jesus began to deny her this grace. But as soon as she humbled herself by believing in the words of the Savior, and confessed that the Jews who believed were the children, and that the Gentiles were dogs or servitors, she unites with the Lord's faith; for the servants suppose the master, and there is no master without servants; from then on, the union settled between this woman who submitted to God and the people who were subjected to it. That's why she deserves what she asked for. As for the centurion, who immediately received from the Savior the benefit he beseeched, he had for a long time occupied himself with the things of God. Indeed, the chiefs of the Jews give him this testimony before the Lord: "It is worthy that you grant him this grace, and he has built us a synagogue." As for the leper, Our Lord calls him a stranger not by his faith but by the nation to which he belonged. Indeed, he was a Samaritan of those who were Babylonians of origin. And yet it was to the confession of his faith that he had the benefit of his cure; for our Lord had said to his disciples, “Go not to the nations, and do not go into the cities of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matt. 10) That is to say, he recommends them to preach the gospel to the Jews who had received the promise rather than to the Samaritans and Gentiles. But as soon as the Jews began to reject the faith of Jesus Christ which was offered to them, the Savior presented himself to the Samaritan woman, and to Cornelius the Centurion after his crucifixion, while he contented himself with welcoming the Cananean who sought him, because the time had not yet come to offer the Gentiles the grace of salvation.
(Luke 7:19; Matthew 11:3) AMBROSIASTER 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 14. JOHN ASKS THE LORD: ARE YOU THE ONE TO COME, OR SHOULD WE EXPECT ANOTHER? — John the Baptist pleads here under his name the cause of his disciples. We cannot admit the slightest doubt in the spirit of John, who said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, behold, he who takes away the sins of the world." It is therefore in the interest of his disciples that he send this request in his name, to give place to the Savior to confirm what he himself had taught them about his divine person, and so that after his death his disciples would follow Him without hesitation.
(Luke 14:33) AMBROSIASTER 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 27. THE SAVIOR SAYS, "IF ANYONE DOES NOT LEAVE ALL THAT HE HAS, THAT IS, HIS HOUSE, HIS FIELDS, AND THE REST, HE CANNOT BE MY DISCIPLE." NOW, EVANGELIST SAYS IN ANOTHER PLACE, "HERE IS A SENATOR NAMED JOSEPH, A RICH MAN, WHO WAS A DISCIPLE OF JESUS AND WAS WAITING FOR THE KINGDOM OF GOD, APPROACHED PILATE, ETC." (MARK 15, LUKE 23) HOW DOES THE EVANGELIST PRESENT AS A DISCIPLE THE ONE WHOM THE SAVIOR REJECTS? BESIDES, ZACCHAEUS WAS ALSO RICH, AS WELL AS CORNELIUS THE CENTURION, AND THE WOMEN WHO ASSISTED HIM WITH THEIR PROPERTY. — The Apostle resolves this difficulty in this few words: "Let those who have the goods of this world be as if they did not have them, those who use things of this world as if they did not use them, and those who buy as if they did not possess." (1 Cor. 7:30) So whoever has the goods of the earth as if he did not have them, actually seems to have abandoned them. He does not seek to avail himself of them, nor to glorify them: his whole exterior is as humble and modest as his soul, he understands that he is only the steward and the dispenser of his goods; is it not leaving all that we have? for we leave what we no longer desire, and which ceases to be agreeable.
(Luke 16:16) AMBROSIASTER 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 29. IF THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS LASTED UNTIL JOHN THE BAPTIST, FROM WHOM THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN WAS PREACHED, FOR IT WAS HE WHO INAUGURATED THIS NEW PREACHING, WHY DID HIS BAPTISM CEASE? — The baptism of John, once instituted, has not ceased to be given; it only added what was missing. In fact, John only baptized, but did not give the Holy Spirit to those who believed, as he says of the Savior, "For me, I baptize you in water for penitence, but he will baptize you in the Holy Spirit.” (Matt. 3, Mark 1, Luke 3) That is, it is through my baptism that the forgiveness of sins is granted, but not the Holy Spirit who gives to those who have been purified the name and the rights of children of God; for it was a prerogative reserved for the Savior, as for the Lord God, that men should not become children of God until the Son of God gave them the Holy Spirit. The effect tacitly produced by John's baptism without any question concerning the Savior, although his name was pronounced, received all his strength from the Trinity. This is what the Savior's goodness teaches us by establishing the consecrated formula of the three names which from the beginning contributed to the same works under the name and person of one God. The name of the three divine persons came therefore to join the baptism of John with the expression of the mystery for so long hidden. God still communicates to this baptism a much more precious grace, it is that those who were baptized became children of God by receiving the Holy Spirit. This baptism was thus enriched with new graces, but was not suppressed.
(Luke 16:16; Matthew 11:13) AMBROSIASTER 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 15. WHY DID THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS LAST UNTIL JOHN, AND THEN CEASE TO EXIST? BECAUSE THE ONE THEY ANNOUNCED HAD ARRIVED. BUT WHY DID THE LAW ONLY LAST UNTIL JOHN, SINCE THE APOSTLE TEACHES US THAT WE MUST BE SUBJECT TO THE LAW; FOR ALL THAT IS, SAYS HE, IS ESTABLISHED OF GOD? — Under one name, the law contains three different meanings. The first part of the law has God as its object. The name of law, lex, comes from lectio, choice, because it teaches you what you must choose between several things. Men in error have therefore received the law to help them choose the truth, that is, to make them choose God by renouncing the devil. The second part of the law is the one that includes the precepts, the first of which begins: "Honor your father and your mother." The third part deals with new moons, Sabbath-keeping, discernment, and the choice of food, circumcision and the sacrifices of animals. It is from this last part of the law that Our Lord says that it lasted only to John, and that henceforth it must not be observed any more. Because it was given to stop when its time would be accomplished; for it was not promulgated from the beginning, but for particular reasons, and for a fixed time, which was not to extend beyond the advent of the Savior. What remains then of the law is that which has God as its object, the precepts, and that which relates to the nature of God, which the Son of God, without doubt, cannot destroy. It is through him, in fact, that we tend towards the rewards we are promised; because fear produces attentive vigilance.
(Luke 21:25; 23:45) AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 105. HOW TO RECONCILE THE PROPHECIES WITH THE GOSPEL ON THE OBSCURATION OF THE SUN AND ON SOME OTHER POINTS? — The prophets predicted that at the first advent of the Lord, the sun would be darkened in the time of his passion, at the very time when, according to the Evangelists, the fact occurred, that is to say at noon. This is what the prophet Amos says: "In that day, says the Lord, the sun will disappear at midday, and the earth will be covered with darkness in the midst of the light." (Amos 8:9) The sun was thus darkened that day until the ninth hour, and the prophet's prediction was fulfilled. God wanted to give in the Savior's passion an image of what should happen at his second coming, because when he comes to judge the world, the stars will cease to give their accustomed light, according to these words of the Lord himself: "In those days the sun will be darkened and the moon will not shed its light." (Matt. 24:29) The prophet Joel also predicted this phenomenon so that one cannot doubt the fulfillment of a fact attested by several witnesses. “And the sun,” he says, “will be changed into darkness and the moon into blood before the great and terrible day of the Lord’s coming.” (Joel 2:31) As far as the literal meaning of these words indicates, they seem to be more fitting for the second advent, for then the Lord will manifest himself publicly to all men, to the testimony of Scripture: "Then every eye will see him, and all the tribes of the earth and those who have crucified him will strike their breast.” (Rev. 1:7) Now, if according to the oracles of the prophets the sun is to be covered with darkness in the two events of the Lord, what is the day when, according to the prophet Isaiah, the sun and the moon must shine with greater brilliance?" The highest mountains, the highest hills will be sprinkled with streams of running water after the days of carnage, after the fall of the towers. The light of the moon will shine like the light of the sun, and the light of the sun will be seven times brighter in the day when the Lord will close the plague of his people and heal their wounds, etc." (Isa. 30:25-26) What is this day when the Lord promised to close the plague of his people? I think that this is the day that Zachariah, father of John the Baptist, sang: "Blessed is the Lord God of Israel, because he has visited us, and has delivered his people, and has raised the sign of salvation in the house of David his servant, as he promised through the mouth of his holy prophets, who were in the beginning, to save us from our enemies and from the hand of all who lower us to fulfill His mercies towards our fathers." (Luke 1:68, etc.) Simeon also said, "This is established for the ruin and for the resurrection of many in Israel." (Luke 2:34) He wants to talk about the ruin of the Scribes, the Pharisees and the main Jews who are represented by the towers in the prophet's prediction. And while their unbelief was the cause of their ruin, others arose by the faith that negligence retained powerlessness and infirmity. That is why the Savior said: "I have come to this world for judgment, that those who do not see shall see, and those who see, blind; (Jn. 9:39) That is to say, those whom their knowledge and skill in the law made shine like lights became blind and the eyes of the blind, that is to say ignorant and publicans, open to the light by faith. So the prophet foretold that the Savior would take care of their infirmities, and this prophecy is fulfilled in his time, as we see in the Gospel: "He really has borne our torpor, of our sufferings.” (Isa. 1:4) All these predictions have received their consummation and fulfillment in the Savior's passion, and thus the salvation of the human race has been done in a true way for those who were on earth or in hell, for the prophecy of Zachariah embraces both of them at once. On earth, men have been freed from the oppression of their enemies by the intervention of the mercy of God, and in hell they were delivered from the sorrows they endured. Indeed, all those who hoped in Christ who had been promised to them awaited the coming of him who was to triumph over death and deliver them from hell. This is why Zechariah says: “To fulfill his mercies toward our fathers." (Luke 1:72) But if it is understood that this salvation must also come in the second advent, but it is especially in the second that the sun will be covered with darkness and the moon will not give its light, how to admit that the light of the sun and the moon will shine more brightly in the day when God will visit his people, since, in one as in the other time when the deliverance of this people begins and ends, we read that not only the light of the sun and the moon will be weakened, but that these stars will be completely obscured. We must therefore understand that the sun and the moon represent the saints here, just as in another place they are compared to the stars of heaven, to the testimony of the Apostle St. Paul, who declares that the saints shine in this world like the stars of the faith. We also read in the Gospel that the righteous will shine like the sun (Matt. 13:43), because the Lord compares good works to light. "May your light," he says, "shine before men, so that when you see your good works they will glorify your Father, who is in heaven.” (Matt. 5:16) Therefore those who have abandoned all their goods to follow the Lord, owe to their justice and holiness, to be compared to the sun and the moon seven times brighter. "There is no one," says the Savior, "who has left either his house, or his wife, or his children, or his fields, which has received seven times as much in this world.” (Luke 18:29) Now those who receive here seven times as much honor will be in the other life seven times brighter than the rest, that is, their resurrection will be like the sun and the moon and the resurrection of others like the stars. The glory of the saints who receives here seven times of brilliance, will receive seven times more in the resurrection, that is to say, that he who has here below the brightness of the moon will receive in the other life the brightness of the sun, and the one here below as bright as the sun will shine seven times brighter in the other life. The prophet Isaiah therefore rightly uses the comparison of the sun and the moon to predict the increase of the glory of the saints. If indeed our Lord is called the sun of righteousness, and the saints must be like him, to the testimony of the apostle St. John: “When he appears, we shall be like him." (1 Jn. 3:2) The prophet is right in comparing the saints with the sun, but pointing out that the brightness of the sun is seven times greater than that of the moon. When he predicts that the light of the moon will have the same brightness as that of the sun, but that the sunlight will be seven times brighter, he wants us to understand that the light of the moon will become seven times brighter to match that of the sun, that is, the moon will be as bright as the sun is now. Although the application of this comparison of the stars to the saints is in the opposite direction, yet it brings out in part the increase of their glory, that is to say, after the increase of the light of the sun and the moon, and the distance that will exist between one saint and another after they have received their reward will be as great as that which separates them in the present life.
(Luke 22) AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 84. WHY DO WE, WHO ARE KEEPING THE PASSOVER FEAST BY THE PHASE OF THE MOON, REPROACH THE PAGANS FOR OBSERVING THE DAYS AND THE DIFFERENT PHASES OF THE MOON? — Far from Christians the reproach of worshiping the stars, who have received from God a spiritual worship which teaches them to despise the things that appear, to unite with the invisible and celestial things, and to rise above all created objects to heaven, where they must be eternally with the angels of God. As for the worshipers of the stars, they will be with them or even under them; for how to place a man above what has been the object of his adoration? It is not therefore the course of the moon that the pagans observe, it is the moon itself, which they adore as a divinity. They imagine that they have discovered the influence of its different phases, and they decide accordingly what they will have to do or omit on certain days, by categorically submitting their conduct and all their life to its realm. Now, it is a recklessness in direct opposition to the order of God and which makes them fall, as we see, into frequent errors. God has established the stars to determine the times. We therefore observe the number of days of the moon, but we do not worship it, and we specify the time of the Passover on the fourteenth day of the moon, which is the first according to here. All things that God has done have a character of fullness; We are therefore permitted to celebrate the Passover for seven days, from the fourteenth day of the moon until the twenty-first, so as to contain in this space seven days from the preparation of the Passover until the resurrection of the Savior, avoiding that the passion falls on the thirteenth day, or the resurrection the fourteenth or the fifteenth, so that passion may not be celebrated before the first moon in our day, nor resurrection on another day than the day when the world was created. In fact, all the times that regulate the course of the world are included in the space of a single week, because it is in the space of seven days that God has given to the world the form and brightness that we admire it. He created the world in six days and stopped creating the seventh day, which we call Sabbath. These seven days include all the reason and the different numbers of the world. By continually returning to themselves, they give rise to the multiplication of times. After the Sabbath, the week begins again from the first day until the seventh, that is to say until the Sabbath, to teach us that the resurrection of the Lord was made the first day of the creation of the world, that we call the day of the Lord. God did it together with the evening, and after a seven-day revolution, he comes back again to be the first day of a new week. Things were thus regulated from the beginning in view of the mysteries of the incarnation of the Lord, of his passion and resurrection; for the resurrection of the body of the Lord was the resurrection, the repair of the world almost entirely. It is therefore well established that we do not worship the moon, but we observe the number of days that are marked by the course of the moon. The devil, therefore, who is the same as Satan, to give some authority to his deceptions and to put his lies in the colors of the truth, in the first month that he knows that we must celebrate the mysteries of the Lord, uses his power, which is great, to establish among the pagans mysteries which he also commands them to celebrate. he thus holds their minds in error for two reasons. As his lies precede the truth, he thus gives them superiority over her, and he makes this antiquity a prejudgment unfavorable to the truth. Secondly; as it is in the first month when the Romans place, like us, the equinox, that the pagans celebrate these sacrifices and affirm that the atonement is made by blood, as we say it is made by the cross; the devil, by this ploy, restrains them in error, persuades them that our truth is only an imitation of the truth and a superstition which we have invented in a spirit of rivalry. For, they say, one cannot look upon what is later invention as true. But miracles and wonders testify that we are certainly in possession of the truth, and the brilliance of these miracles sets us in all its glory. Since this proof is indeed the only one that easily convinces, God has opposed it to the ploys and tricks of the devil to reveal his lies. Who could, even if it were an enemy of the Christian religion, deny that the truth is where the divine power is revealed in all its strength?
AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 104. ON THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. — Our Lord, foreseeing the war that the Jews were going to declare on him, recommends to his disciples to arm themselves with swords. They obeyed this order, and when this impious war began under the leadership of Judas Iscariot, Peter, seeing the enemies ready to throw himself on his master, drew his sword and cut off the ear of the high priest's servant. This order, and when this impious war begins under the leadership of Judas Iscariot, Peter, seeing the enemies ready to throw himself on his master, draws his sword and cuts off the ear of the high priest's servant. (Luke 22:50) Then the Lord commanded Peter to put his sword in his sheath, "For all those," he says, "who use the sword will perish by the sword.: (Matt. 26:52) Why does he command to prepare swords since he forbids using them and even threatens to kill anyone who has struck with the sword? The Apostle, however, seems to have acted in all justice, for he has struck the man whom he saw armed against him. It was a duty for him to resist ungrateful servants who were armed to put the Savior to death. If you examine every circumstance of this fact, of which you ask the explanation, you will find other questions. What, indeed, was it that the one who had for support a very spiritual force should make his disciples prepare material weapons, and that after forbidding them to carry in their journey neither purse, nor money, nor baton he now revokes his defense? Let us begin by explaining why Our Lord commands his disciples to arm themselves with swords and forbids them to use them. It was not only against his enemies, but in the interests of his disciples themselves that he commanded them to obtain arms for the war that was about to break out. It must have been a new and surprising sight that the author of so many unusual and extraordinary prodigies suddenly fell into an excess of humiliations that subjected him to ill-treatment and death. Now, to show that these sufferings had not surprised him in the unforeseen, and as a man reduced to impotence, he predicted the advantages, thus showing that he had not the least doubt, but that he prepared to support them knowingly. And as his humiliations were voluntary, he does not want to be opposed to his enemies violent resistance, and he makes it clear that he was still what he had always been, when in the hands of his enemies he heals the ear that Peter had cut off and attached to what the action of the sword had detached; and it is not as a bodily doctor, but as the Creator of the bodies that he recreates his work that the sword had disfigured; because doctors can never restore detached limbs from the body. Therefore, so that the power of God might be reduced to him, and as it had always been, and also to show the truth of these words that he had said, "I have the power to give my life, and I have the power to take it back," (Jn. 10:18) that he commands his disciples to obtain swords, but without commanding them to use them to kill his enemies. We now have to consider why the Savior, witness of Peter's action, declares that whoever uses the sword will perish by the sword (Matt. 26:52), whereas, however, Peter had not used it unjustly; for, as we read in St. Luke, it was with the permission of the Lord that he struck Malchus and then heard the defense that was made to him. (Luke 22:50) The Savior gave him this permission to show that he could have taken revenge on his enemies, to show that he had the same power which he had shown, and that he could therefore avenge himself, and in order to convince his enemies that they seized him by virtue of a power they had received. He did not appear as vanquished, but as a man who abandons himself to their will. Why then does he say that whoever uses the sword will perish by the sword? It is because the judge alone has the right to destroy by the sword; and Peter had the permission only to strike, but not to take away life by the sword. This is why Our Lord forbids him to strike again. He also tells him that Christians are not allowed to kill their fellow men. They are under a law of mercy, and they are forbidden to use with harshness the right which has been conferred on society. As for the recommendation that he previously made to them to carry nothing with them in the road (Matt. 10:10), it is like a sign of peace, of the grace of miracles, of the sweetness of a doctrine that will be seen in the Apostles. What did they need to take with them on the road, since they had to offer everything to them at the sight of the miracles they were operating? But when the time came when he was to voluntarily give himself up to suffering, and was on the eve of a passing struggle rather than a war properly so called, he advised his followers to arm themselves not to resist his enemies, since his will was to be pleased, but to show, as I have said, that he had foreseen his passion, that it was subordinated to his power, and that if he consented to this excess of humiliation was for the salvation of the human race, as we will say in its place.
(Luke 23:44) AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 67. HOW TO EXPLAIN THESE WORDS OF THE SAVIOR ON THE CROSS: "MY FATHER, FORGIVE THEM, FOR THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY DO?” — If they do not know what they are doing, how can they be forgiven when King Abimelech said to God, "Will you lose an innocent nation because of its ignorance?” (Gen. 20:4) All ignorance is not free from punishment. Ignorance is excusable in those who have not been able to find the means of education. But the Savior asks his Father to forgive those who have no concern to learn when they can. This ignorance is therefore guilty of them, and it will be forgiven if they become converted. All ignorance is not free from punishment. He who could instruct himself and did not do it. Nothing no longer kept the teachers to learn, but pleasures or a bad disposition made them neglect this duty and rendered it completely inexcusable. This is what makes the Savior say by speaking of the Jews: "If I had not come, and if I had not spoken to them, they would have no sin.” (Jn. 15:22) As for the one who is in ignorance without his fault, because he has not found a teacher to educate him and he could not know by the public what it was necessary to think of such a doctrine, he is made free from fault and conviction. The Lord asks his Father to forgive if they convert, to those who took no care to learn the truth when he announced it to them and who ignorantly killed the very author of the truth. This is why the Apostle St. Peter tells them in Acts, "Convert ye, that your sins may be blotted out. (Acts 3:19)
(Luke 23:44; Matthew 27:45; John 19:14; Mark 15:25) 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.
(Luke 23:44; Matthew 27:45; John 19:14; Mark 15:25) 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.
(Luke 23:54; Matthew 27:62; Mark 15:42; 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.
(Luke 24:1-12; Matthew 28:1-8; Mark 16:1-8; 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.
(Luke 24:1-12; Matthew 28:1-8; Mark 16:1-8; 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 Luke Commentary >