PREFACE
AMBROSIASTER 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 2. SINCE IT IS CERTAIN THAT WE HAVE FOUR AUTHENTIC BOOKS OF THE FACTS AND WORDS OF OUR LORD, IN WHAT ORDER SHOULD WE PLACE THEM? — The classification of the four Gospels is determined more by the order of the subjects than by the time they were written. St. Matthew is placed first because he begins his gospel with the promise, that is, by Abraham to whom the promise of the incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ was made. After him comes Saint Luke, because he tells the different circumstances of the incarnation. The third is St. Mark, who attests that the gospel preached by Jesus Christ was promised in the law. The fourth is St. John, who by this exordium: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," openly proclaims the divinity of him whose incarnation was promised to Abraham, as told by St. Luke, and of which St. Mark shows that the gospel was preached according to the prophet Isaiah's prediction.
(Matthew 1:1) AMBROSIASTER 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 3. WHY DOES ST. MATTHEW, WRITING THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST, BEGIN LIKE THIS: "THE BOOK OF THE GENERATION OF JESUS CHRIST, THE SON OF DAVID,” SINCE ABRAHAM IS BEFORE DAVID? — St. Matthew begins thus, because he wanted to place at the head of the genealogy of the Savior the promise of his incarnation, according to these words of the Apostle: "Whose fathers are the patriarchs, and from whom came out according to the flesh Jesus Christ." (Rom. 9) He says," The book of generation," because the incarnation of Christ is the result of many different people from the same stock; the ancestors of Christ followed various ways, and the Savior desired that all should concur in forming the body of which he was clothed. There are among them Jews and Gentiles, righteous men and sinners; Ruth was Moabite, and Bersabee of adultery became a lawful wife. The Savior borrows the flesh of all to bring them all back to unity. St. Matthew says, "Of Jesus Christ, the son of David," though Abraham is before David, because Jesus Christ is called especially David's son because of his kingship, that is to say, as God comes from God, and that as king he descends from a king according to the flesh, for it was said to David, "I will place on your throne a son that will be born of you.” (Ps. 131)
(Matthew 1) AMBROSIASTER 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 4. WHY DOES THE APOSTLE ST. MATTHEW DIVIDE ALL GENERATIONS INTO THREE SETS? — This division is based on the difference of things and times. So the first set goes from Abraham to David, because it includes a first order of things, Abraham being the father of faith as David is the father of kingship; for Saul he made himself unworthy of the throne, which he lost through his fault. Another order of things begins from David to transmigration, where the disapproved Jews of God were removed from the royal authority. After the transmigration of Babylon to Jesus Christ, opens a third period of calamities and miseries, captivity and dispersion of the Jewish people; for although after the transmigration of Babylon and the seventy years passed, the Jews were sent back to their homeland by Cyrus, they never again had a fixed state of rest. Judea had no more kings, and the Jews never ceased to live a restless and wandering life. At the very time of Christ's coming, they recognize that they are in captivity. "We do not have, they say, any other king than Caesar." (Jn. 19) This is the reason why St. Matthew established three sets of generations, to show the various states and changes deserved of the Jewish people from the promise to the advent of Jesus Christ, but times did not fail to converge to the end to the same grace.
(Matthew 1) AMBROSIASTER 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 5. WHY DID THE EVANGELIST SAY THERE ARE ONLY FORTY-ONE GENERATIONS WHEN THERE ARE FORTY-TWO, BECAUSE THREE TIMES FOURTEEN ARE FORTY-TWO? — Numerically one counts only forty-one generations; logically, we find forty-two. Jeconiah, who was born in transmigration and to whom we give the title of king, as we read in the book of Chronicles, finishes the second part; and as after the transmigration king Nebuchadnezzar allowed him to remain in his kingdom, he also begins the third series which continues until Jesus Christ. Jeconiah is counted twice, that is to say that he finishes the second part and begins the third. Indeed, the Evangelist continues: "And after the transmigration of Babylon, Jeconiah begot Salathiel." Until this Salathiel, the kings of Judah of the family from which Joseph was born were seated on the throne, and Jeconiah had a first son named Assur, but since Joseph was born from Salathiel, the Evangelist passes Assur in silence, and puts Salathiel immediately after Jeconiah his father, to descend to Joseph, husband of the virgin Mary, after Josiah comes Jeconiah. Though it is by Joachim, father of Jeconiah, that we reach Joseph, the Evangelist passes over Joachim in silence, and immediately puts Jeconiah not to exceed the number of fourteen generations, and after Jeconiah, Saluthiel and his son, from which Joseph descends.
(Matthew 1:16; Luke. 3:23) 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.
(Matthew 1:17) AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 85. IT IS CERTAIN THAT FROM DAVID UNTIL THE TRANSMIGRATION OF BABYLON, THERE ARE SEVENTEEN GENERATIONS; WHY, THEN, DOES THE EVANGELIST COUNT FOURTEEN, PUTTING OCHOSIAS WHO AFTER JEHORAM IS THE SON OF JEHOSHAPHAT, AS WELL AS JOASH OF OCHOSIAS AND AMASIAS SON OF JOASH? — It must be admitted that the evangelist has conformed here to the spirit of the law. It is therefore rightly that these kings have been cut off from the series of generations; for their impiety has been perpetuated without the slightest interruption. After beginning in Joram, he continued on to Osias, son of Amasias, and none of these princes could find in the virtues of their father a support which enabled them to appear in the series of kings of Judah. Jehoram gave himself up to all kinds of crimes, but Jehoshaphat had to be kept among the kings. Uzziah owed the same favor to Joatham's wife. The life of these three princes was only continual impiety against God. It was thanks to his father's merit that Solomon remained on the throne, and his son Rehoboam had to be preserved in spite of his criminal life among the kings of Judah. As for these three impious kings, they have been shut up in the midst of their crimes and cut off from genealogy; for the example of vice entails the ruin of a whole race when it is given with brilliancy and without discontinuity. To be more precise, these kings have been omitted, because Joseph does not descend from their race. The Evangelist, indeed, has followed from Abraham the genealogy of those of whom Joseph descends, to whom Mary was born, from whom was born the Christ.
(Matthew 1:18) AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 52. IF CHRIST WAS BORN OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, THAT IS TO SAY IF IT WAS BY HIS OPERATION THAT HE WAS MADE FLESH OF THE FLESH OF MARY, WHY IS IT WRITTEN: "WISDOM, WHICH IS CHRIST, BUILT A HOME?" (PROV. 9:1) — This question can be heard from a double point of view. First, the house of Jesus Christ is the Church, which was built by his blood. His body may also be called his house, just as it is called his temple. If it is called its temple because it is inhabited, it can also very well be called its home, as we read in the law. But if the body was formed by the operation of the Holy Spirit and we thought we could give it the name of house, we will ask why we attribute this formation to the person of Jesus Christ. The Son's operation is the Father's operation, because they have one and the same virtue. In the same way the operation of the Holy Spirit is the operation of the Son of God, because of the unity of nature and will. Whether the action comes from the Father, or from the Son, or from the Holy Spirit, it is the Trinity who acts, and all that is done by the three divine persons is the work of one God. The Son's operation is the Father's operation, because the Father and the Son have one and the same virtue. In the same way, the operation of the Holy Spirit is the operation of Christ, because the Holy Spirit has received from what was his. If we consider the action of persons, it is by the operation of the Holy Spirit that Christ was made flesh, that is, made man; but if we consider the action of the divine nature, it is Christ who has worked in the virgin to become flesh; for the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ have one and the same divinity, and therefore the work of the Holy Spirit is the work of Jesus Christ.
(Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:6-7) 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.
(Matthew 2:2) AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 63. HOW COULD THE MAGI OF CHALDEA LEARN THE BIRTH OF CHRIST, KING OF THE JEWS, ON THE APPEARANCE OF A STAR THAT IS MORE COMMONLY THE SIGN THAT ANNOUNCES A KING OF THE EARTH? — These Magi of Chaldea studied the course of the stars not for any evil, but out of curiosity. As the Evangelist's account suggests, they followed the Balaam tradition that Balak had brought to curse the people of God and that a divine impulse forced him to bless him. (Num. 21:20) They knew by this historical fact that the providence of God was to bring out a king of Jacob; Balaam had indeed clearly predicted that a star would rise from Jacob. The Magi, faithful to this tradition, seeing a star shine in the sky outside the ordinary course of the stars, understood that it was the one that Balaam had foretold as the future sign of the birth of the king of the Jews. This fact goes directly against the enemies of religion. Here religion receives a testimony from those who are in the habit of attacking it, for astrologers are enemies of the truth. It is not for an evil reason that the Magi of Chaldea, etc. “A star will come out of Jacob, an offshoot will rise from Israel; he will smite the heads of Moab and ruin all the children of Seth; he will possess Edom, etc.” (Num. 24:17) This prophecy comes from Balaam; he was not a prophet, but God chose him to defend the cause of his people and forced him in spite of himself to serve his purposes. Thus we see those whom Saul had sent to seize David, seized with the prophetic spirit, and it is said of Saul himself: "Is Saul also among the prophets?” God wished to show by how great was the majesty of the God of the Jews, who so changed the heart of him who had come to curse, that this false prophet regarded it as a good and commendable action to bless the people of God. God could not fear the curse of him whose heart was in his power. Now, one is allowed to believe that the tradition of this prophet had been preserved by those who applied to the same studies; by carefully examining the stars, they saw an unknown star shining so brightly that it shone out the sunlight (for it was visible during the day), and having conferred between them, they discovered that was the star predicted by Balaam.
(Matthew 2, 14; Mark 6) 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.
(Matthew 2:18) AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 62. WHY DOES IT SAY THAT RACHEL IS MOURNING HER CHILDREN WHEN IT WAS LIA'S CHILDREN WHO HAD BEEN PUT TO DEATH? — According to history, in fact, Rachel's children are of the tribe of Benjamin, in punishment of their personal crimes, that is to say, Sodom's crimes and the abominable crime they committed on the wife of a Levite, they were completely destroyed and destroyed by the other tribes. (Jud. 19) Rachel, therefore, does not wish to receive any consolation, because she knows that there is no hope for those who have perished in this way. The sons of Lia, on the other hand, were put to death in their early years for the cause of the Savior. Also Lia does not want to be mourned, because these innocent victims have been sacrificed for God and have certainly received from him for reward the eternal life. For Rachel's sons, they are worthy of tears, because they are forever dead for time and for eternity. The children of Lia shed tears, it is true, but they received spiritual consolations. But the children of Rachel, whose life was carnal, will be consumed in the immaterial flames of hell. But the Evangelist testifies that Rachel mourned the deaths of the children of Lia because she was dying on the fate of her own children seeing the children of her sister massacred for a cause so glorious that their death assured them the inheritance of eternal life. In fact, for the one who is in misfortune, the happiness of others causes them to bitterly deplore their own misfortunes.
(Matthew 3:14) AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 49. WHY WAS THE SAVIOR, WHO WAS A SAINT FROM HIS BIRTH AND WHO RECEIVED THE NAME OF CHRIST THE LORD, BAPTIZED, SINCE BAPTISM WAS INSTITUTED TO PURIFY SIN? — It is a truth of course that the Savior did not need to be baptized, because he was not made, but was born Christ, as the angel told the shepherds: "Behold, today is to you a Savior, who is the Christ, the Lord.” (Luke 2:11) Also John the Baptist, who knew his holiness, refused to give him baptism; but the Savior insisted on receiving him, not to blot out his sins, but to accomplish all justice. It was fitting, in that person, that he who came to teach men that by baptism they would become children of God, set an example for the future children of God. It was fitting that he who promised that God would give the Holy Spirit to all who would believe, saw the Divine Spirit descending visibly upon him, to give the faithful the sure hope that they would receive the same Spirit, though from an invisible way. Indeed, the Savior who was born of the Holy Spirit, had a pure body of all sin. The divine anointing had been communicated spiritually to his flesh in the womb of the Virgin. The Holy Spirit purified what was taken from the Virgin Mary to form the body of the Savior, and it was the anointing that was given to his body. This is why he received from his birth the name of Christ. What God gave through the ministry of the prophets and the anointing of holy oil to those who received royal consecration, the Holy Spirit gives to Jesus Christ by adding the power to atone for sins. Those who had previously betrayed the name of Christ received exclusively by this anointing the power of command; the Savior received this power in his birth, at the same time that he was born in a state of perfect holiness. What sovereign impropriety, in fact, that the Son of God was born in a body enslaved by sin? Since he came to take charge of the interests of men and teach them to become the children of God through the sacrament of regeneration, he himself had to receive baptism to confirm his doctrine by his example; for a master easily persuades the truth of his teachings when he puts them first into practice. The miracles that accompanied the baptism of the Lord had the effect of manifesting Him as the Son of God, who by the ministry of regeneration came to heal the passions of the body, and to show by His example to those who were to be His brethren, that the sacrament regeneration communicates to him who receives it a divine power.
(Matthew 3:13-17, Mark 1:9-11, Luke 3:21-22, John 1:32-34) AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY 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.
(Matthew 3:13-17, Mark 1:9-11, Luke 3:21-22, John 1:32-34) AMBROSIASTER 2ND CATEGORY 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.
(Matthew 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3: 22) AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY 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 QUESTION 7. IT IS CERTAIN THAT THE SAVIOR WAS CALLED FROM HIS BIRTH SON OF GOD AND CHRIST; FOR WHAT THEN DOES THE TEMPTER COME TO HIM AFTER HIS BAPTISM, SAYING TO HIM, "IF YOU ARE THE SON OF GOD, ETC."— The Savior when born to a virgin was both Christ and the Son of God not by creation, but by virtue of his birth. However, in the first years of his life he annihilated, so to speak, and concealed his power so as not to provoke the impudence of the devil. But when, after his baptism, the Holy Spirit descended on him, and when he appeared to men clothed with the testimony of God the Father, jealousy excited against him that enemy whose event disturbed the plans, for he understood that the institution of baptism was for the salvation of men. He therefore approaches the Savior, the author of this institution, not to approve of it, but to find a way to make him fall into his trap. In fact, temptation is intended sometimes to test, sometimes to overthrow, by cunning, that which it attacks. The demon was anxious to gain from the Savior an answer conforming to his ploys will, which would leave him in full and peaceful possession of all the rights of his empire, because under the guidance of the Savior who would submit to his doctrine, no one could escape from the death which he weighs on all men.
(Matthew 3, 11, Mark 1, 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.
(Matthew 3:14; John 1:31-33) 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 58. FOR WHAT REASON CAN JOHN THE BAPTIST DENY THAT HE KNEW CHRIST BEFORE HIS BAPTISM, WHEN HE TOLD HIM WHEN HE APPROACHED HIM TO BE BAPTIZED: "IT IS I WHO MUST BE BAPTIZED BY YOU, AND YOU COME TO ME?" HOW DID HE NOT KNOW WHO HE FORBADE BAPTIZING BY HUMBLING HIMSELF DEEPLY BEFORE HIM? — John the Baptist was raised from his cradle to such eminent sanctity that one cannot admit either that he could have been deceived or misled others, nor that he did not know his Lord, who in the bosom of his mother had filled him with the brightest lights by the Holy Spirit. It is certain that he knew him when the Holy Spirit descended on him and he was not without knowing him before he came to him to be baptized. Yes, he knew him, but he did not know if he was the one who was to bring to the earth the gift that God had previously promised to the patriarchs. This is what he says he knew when he saw the Holy Spirit coming down on him. This is, indeed, the sign that God had given him: "He on whom you will see the Holy Spirit come down and rest, it is he who baptizes in the Holy Spirit." (Jn. 1:33) The apostle testifies to the same truth when he says, "I say that Jesus Christ was the minister of the gospel to the circumcised Jews, to verify the word of God, and to confirm the promises made to our fathers." (Rom. 15:8) This is what John the Baptist did not know in the Lord; for although his greatness was not unknown to him, he did not know, however, that it was through him that the promises made to Abraham were to be fulfilled.
(Matthew 4, Mark 1, 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.
(Matthew 4, Mark 1, Luke 4) 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.
(Matthew 5:17) AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY QUESTION 69. IF THE LAW HAS CEASED TO BE OBLIGATORY TO THE PREACHING OF JOHN THE BAPTIST OR THE SAVIOR, HOW CAN WE EXPLAIN THESE WORDS OF OUR LORD: "I DID NOT COME TO DESTROY THE LAW OR THE PROPHETS, BUT TO FULFILL IT?" IF IT WERE FORBIDDEN TO OBSERVE IT, WAS IT NOT DESTROYED BY LOSING THE AUTHORITY IT HAD OVER THE CONDUCT OF MEN? — All that was predicted of Jesus Christ was accomplished, and our Lord Himself fulfilled the law and the prophets when He did all that the Scriptures had said of Him; he destroyed nothing, but confirmed all things. It was he who had been the object of the prophetic oracles, and the predictions concerning him no longer have to wait for fulfillment after him; just as after him the prophets could not make similar predictions, because they had no object and the one they had predicted had come. They have embraced everything in their writings, they have foretold his incarnation, his life, his passion, his resurrection, the manifestation of his divinity, the judgment to come, and therefore their prophetic ministry had to cease when the work they predicted was fulfilled. Now, the law has ceased in two ways, but not entirely, because what has ceased can still remain if one remains in the condition of the law. We must distinguish here in what has ceased the sentence of the law, of the law itself. When John the Baptist preached the baptism of penance for the remission of sins, the sentence of the law that declared sinners guilty ceased, so were the burdens of the law that were imposed upon the Jews because of the hardness of their hearts, like the precepts which had for their object food, new moon, sabbath, or other similar things. The reign of justice was to give place to the reign of mercy. The fear of suffering himself from what he was forbidden to do to others kept him away from any act of aggression. But the Savior elevates this commandment to a much higher degree of righteousness: "For my sake I say to you not to resist evil, but if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, show him the left," (Matt. 5:39; Luke 6:29) and thus offers the means of being perfect to one who does not render evil for evil. To render evil for evil is an act of justice, but which is far from being full and complete; to conceal the injury we have received, that is the full and perfect justice. The vengeance that comes from evil can give satisfaction for a moment, but one gets an eternal joy by returning this vengeance to the future judgment. The Savior has thus fulfilled the law by making more just those to whom the law teaches justice, without being able to do more. It is therefore a real joy for the law to see its disciples more educated. The Savior had destroyed the law if he had taught men to sin with impunity. Now, it differs from rendering the sentence to leave to the one who has misused the time of repentance; if he does not profit by it, this sentence falls all the more severe on him, because he did not wish to acknowledge that God had delayed it only to give him time to correct himself.
(Matthew 5:17) AMBROSIASTER 2ND CATEGORY QUESTION 13. IF THE LAW HAD TO STOP AT THE PREACHING OF THE SAVIOR OR OF JOHN THE BAPTIST, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THESE WORDS OF THE SAVIOR: I DID NOT COME TO DESTROY THE LAW OR THE PROPHETS, BUT TO FULFILL THEM? IF THE LAW CEASED TO EXIST, HOW WAS IT NOT DESTROYED, SINCE IT LOST ITS STRENGTH AND AUTHORITY? — The oracles of the prophets who announced the coming of the Messiah, received their fulfillment at his coming. When the object of a prediction comes true, it is accomplished. The law which, as we have said, was given for a time, ceases with the time that it was forbidden for it to go beyond, because it then received its fulfillment. The law would have lost its authority, it would have seemed destroyed, if it had not ceased at the appointed time. A successor is given to a man of dignity, will it be said that he is destroyed? The law would have been truly destroyed if it had been denounced, accused when it was in all its force. And notice that the Savior does not say that He filled, but fulfilled the law and the prophets. Now, the word accomplish means to add to make complete. What is adding to the prophets? It is to establish the worship of God under the name of the Trinity. No doubt the prophets taught and took back the people in the name of God, but this mystery remained hidden. To fulfill the law is to add new precepts to the ancients, for example: "You have learned that the ancients have been told: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. And I say to you not to resist abuse, but if anyone struck you on the right cheek, show him the left again." (Matt. 5:38-39) This is how the Savior fulfill the law. He does not destroy it, he adds to it more perfect precepts, not to condemn as guilty the one who avenges himself, but to show that it is more perfect not to avenge himself. He wanted only what is contained in the law well understood, but he perfected the intention of the law. To teach justice to man, and to save him by the same, the law condemned him who had snatched an eye to lose an eye himself; The law wanted to inspire men with fear, to turn them away from doing what they would not have done to them, and to find their salvation in observing this precept. But since the human race is fragile and prone to sin, it exposes itself to suffer what it does not want to be done to it. The Savior therefore changed the terms of the law and taught what is truly helpful to salvation to fulfill the true meaning of the law. The fear of law being powerless to save men, they would be thus overcome by patience and brought to correct themselves. This precept was given so that men of mild morals could find life in the exercise of patience, by not rendering harm to those who do them, by not rendering evil to those who make them of it, and that if they wish to correct themselves, the good ones could benefit from it, and the wicked a double punishment. Therefore, justice has not been destroyed, since we see it exercised by the Apostles, and Peter has used it against Ananias and Sapphire. (Acts 5:1) The chosen vessel, far from rejecting it, made use of it itself by blinding the magician Elymas who resisted the voice of the Lord. (Acts 13:11) There is yet another point where the law has been fulfilled. Our Lord says, "You have heard that it has been said, You will love your neighbor, and you will hate your enemy. But I say to you, Love your enemies.” (Matt. 5:43) He adds to the law, that is, he does it, because he does not destroy the old commandments, but he adds to it more excellent precepts to lead men to perfection. The enemies, that is, the wicked, could not have been corrected and made better by the punishment permitted by justice. Our Lord wants to save them by love and benevolence, which is what the law contained in its womb. His intention was to remove all enmity, and men, terrified of the punishment which threatened them, ceasing to be at war with one another. But men have gone so far as to despise the fear of the law and of nature; they have become day by day worse; it was then that the Savior wanted to triumph over these enmities by humility, so that men would be brought back to good by seeing that they were not made enmity for enmity, and that those who persevered in feelings of hatred punished more severely, since they could not be vanquished by the humility of the one they should have felt just revenge. The justice that exerts vengeance has not been destroyed, it is only suspended in both cases. It has ceased for the one who knows himself; it rigorously punishes the one who is rebellious to his prescriptions.
(Matthew 5:25) AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 70. OUR LORD CERTAINLY COMMANDS US TO BE ENEMIES OF THE DEVIL; WHY, THEN, DOES HE TELL US IN THE GOSPEL: "DO YOU FIGHT TO BE RECONCILED WITH YOUR ADVERSARY?” WHO IS THE MAN'S ADVERSARY, IF NOT THE DEVIL? — There is no doubt that the devil is the enemy of man and especially of the faithful Christian. It is against the servants of God that he sharpens his most formidable features. In the same way that the demon is the enemy of the good, so the law is opposed to the wicked, for who is not opposed to the one who despises it? The Lord thus warns the sinner to agree with the commandments which condemn his disobedience, to submit to their will, and to become a friend instead of an enemy, as he was. Indeed, the contempter of the law is his enemy because he resists his will. The Lord therefore exhorts the sinner to be reconciled to the law by his good works, lest it accuse him before the judge on the day of judgment, and then be condemned to the just punishments of his contempt for the law. For, says the Savior, the doctrine of the Lord is an enemy of every man who desires to do evil; if he does not agree with it, he will be thrown into hell that has been prepared for the devil, the true enemy of the human race.
(Matthew 5:44; Revelation 6:10) AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY QUESTION 68. OUR LORD COMMANDS US TO PRAY FOR OUR ENEMIES, HOW THEN TO EXPLAIN THIS PLACE OF REVELATION, WHERE THE SOULS OF THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN KILLED ASK GOD TO AVENGE THEM? (REV. 6:10) — The souls of those who were put to death demanded revenge as the blood of Abel cried out for vengeance from the earth (Gen. 4:10); it is the facts themselves that cry out for vengeance even though they are deprived of language. What, indeed, does the blood ask for, except that it is avenged, and it cries out for vengeance not by speaking, but by the very fact of its bestowal? It is thus said that a work praises the one who made it by that alone that it rejoices his eyes. The saints are not so impatient that they urge God to do what they know must be done at the appointed time and whose fulfillment cannot be anticipated or deferred. Saint John wanted to teach us by these words that God would one day avenge the blood of his saints, lest the patience he uses make him believe in the impunity of this impious war that is made to the saints, and at the same time to inspire the persecutors of the servants of God with dread and to encourage those who suffer for his name. The soul of the sufferer regains courage when she learns that they will be avenged by a powerful hand. They are full of hope at the thought that their death has not the approval of their judge, for they are certain then of their innocence. God is merciful and patient, but he acts with great moderation. He expects the ungodly to open their hearts to faith and sinners to convert; if they do not profit by this grace, they will be punished for having despised the long patience of God. Now, he gives us examples of this truth even in the time when his mercy is announced so that his patience is not treated with insensibility which cannot be touched, neither by the sufferings, nor by the feelings of the piety. This is why he says through his prophet, "I am silent, but will I keep quiet?" (Isa. 42:14) and Our Lord Himself: "Will not God do justice to his elect who cry to him day and night?” They shout in the manner we have said above. If, then, a Christian avenges himself here below without excessive rigor, and without shedding blood, he does not sin; it will be better, however, to abandon this vengeance to God, who is his judge.
(Matthew 5:44; Revelation 6:10) AMBROSIASTER 2ND CATEGORY QUESTION 12. THE LORD HAS TAUGHT US TO PRAY FOR OUR ENEMIES, SO WHY DO THE SOULS OF THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN KILLED ASK TO BE AVENGED AND IMPLORE THIS VENGEANCE OF THE LORD? (REV. 6:10) — The author of the Apocalypse, predicting the future calamities and tribulations by which the righteousness of God should punish the ungodliness and crimes of men, and by showing from the look of enlightened faith the punishment of every sin says that the souls of those who have been slain cry vengeance night and day to prove that no act of impiety or cruelty will go unpunished. Now, there is nothing in this that is contrary to the precept of the Lord. Indeed, God is the author of this law, after having exercised his vengeance on the day of judgment. This precept is therefore for the present life, and the souls of those who have been put to death are excusable, since they ask for vengeance while they are in possession of the other life. However, to give a truer explanation, it is the very fact of their shed blood that cries out here revenge. This fact is not silent, it does not stop asking for revenge. As God said to Cain, "The blood of your brother is crying out to me from the earth.” (Gen. 4:10) What is the meaning of these words? It is that the very act of the crime demands justice and cries for vengeance; just as we say that the earth praises the Lord, because it is his work, although it has neither voice nor feeling. One cannot suppose in the saints either so much patience or so much ignorance that they ask God to avenge them before the day of judgment and that they urge him to do what they know they should not do to accomplish that at the time marked. This is what the Savior says in express terms: "Will not God do justice to his elect who cry to him night and day?"
(Matthew 8:4; Mark 1:44; Luke 5:14) AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY 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.
(Matthew 11:3, Luke 7:19) 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.
(Matthew 11:13, Luke 16:16) 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.
(Matthew 11:25-26) AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 100. ON THE GOSPEL OF ST. MATTHEW. — You have heard, my dear brothers, what our Lord says in his Gospel: "I give you glory, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the prudent, and you revealed them to the little ones. Yes, my Father, because it pleased you so. "(Matt. 11:25-26) If we are to weigh the meaning of these words of Our Lord, we will see that they are meant to encourage the faithful, those who, because they despise the wisdom of the world, appear small in the eyes of the sages of the world, who, without any merit, claim to be wise, and so God has judged it unworthy of him to discover the truth; is to the humble who do not presume of themselves and submit to the divine will, that justice requires that he reveal his secrets. He is cautious in the eyes of God, and truly careful of his salvation, who prefers to his knowledge the law of God, which he sees supported not by the proud noise of words, but on authentic testimonies of the divine power. And, indeed, it is at once a folly and a vanity to put one's confidence in something that has no support for the power of God. It is not therefore to the cultivated minds of the age that God promises his kingdom, but to the faithful; it is not those that examine the stars, but to those who do good that eternity is promised; it is not to the dialecticians who endeavor to obscure the truth by their sophisms and the subtlety of their reasonings that he grants glory, but to those who are more careful to do well than to say well. God condemns those who prefer brilliant speeches to good works. It is to want to bring back to oneself the glory of God, to pretend to put on the truths of God the ornaments of the word. These truths must please themselves, it is not the words that express them, it is the very meaning of these words which is worthy of praise. If it is the meaning that gives birth to the expressions, and if the words were invented only to express the truth, why not express it purely and simply, so that it inspires us more easily the desire to save our soul. That is why Our Lord has chosen as apostles simple men, without letters and without ploys, by their perseverance in faith and by a holy life, to burst in them the truth of God. This is what makes the Apostle St. Paul say: "And I, my brethren, when I came, did not come with the brilliance of eloquence and human wisdom.” (1 Cor. 2:1) And in another place: “The kingdom of God does not consist in words but in virtue.” (1 Cor. 4:20) For words are subject to contradiction, but virtue makes a striking witness to the law of God, and the most sublime speeches are lowered before it. These considerations, my dear brothers, are made in the interest of the simple minds who might think themselves unworthy of the grace of God, because they do not know the secrets of oratorical art, while their simplicity is rather for them a privilege; for what the wise men of the world do not see being blinded by the pride of human science, simple souls believe it, because their prudence consists not in words, but in true wisdom. They know that God rested complacently in good works, and that he asks rather for faith rather than the elegance of speeches: "On whom shall I rest," he says by his prophet, "otherwise on the one who is humble and meek, and hears my words with trembling?" (Isa. 66: 2) If we therefore want to be worthy of the rewards we are promised, we must fulfill the Lord's commandments in the assurance that God loves those who keep his words, which the Savior says to his disciples: "If you love me, keep my commandments," (Jn. 14:15) so that after being faithful servants of God we will become the heirs of His kingdom by Our Lord Jesus Christ.
(Matthew 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-28; Luke 6:1-5) AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY 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
(Matthew 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-28; Luke 6:1-5) AMBROSIASTER 2ND CATEGORY 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.
(Matthew 15, Luke 7;17) 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.
(Matthew 17:26) AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 75. WHY DOES THE LORD ONLY PAY THE DIDRACHM FOR HIMSELF AND PETER, AND NOT FOR THE OTHER APOSTLES? SINCE ALL HAD ABANDONED THEIR PROPERTY TO FOLLOW HIM, WAS HE NOT TO PAY THIS TRIBUTE FOR ALL? — This didrachm was a personal tribute, not the tax on the property of each. (This tax was called rags gold, because it was demanded of the poor themselves.) For the Savior possessed nothing in this world, though he was putting it out of the world. After his death, he was buried at the expense of others; and we, to whom the world is a stranger, desire to increase our goods; it is thus that in dying we attest not only by our words, but by our writings, that we have invaded the world, and that our own declaration makes us condemn by the sovereign matter of this world. This is why the Lord says in the Gospel: "He who has not abandoned all things to follow me cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26) Therefore whoever possesses the goods of this world without placing his hope in it, and being willing to renounce it for faith, walks in the way that leads to our Lord Jesus Christ. This tribute was therefore demanded of those who traded or practiced any profession. Now, since neither the Savior nor his disciples were involved in any of the affairs of this world, we should not ask them this tax. But as the demon was constantly in ambush to seize the opportunity to triumph over the Savior, he seized the soul of the collectors of the didrachm to make them the instruments of his will and inspire them to go find Peter, the first of the apostles, and to tell him that their master had to pay this tax when they were perfectly discharged; for they did not engage in any of the occupations of the world. Since the Savior did not have enough to pay this tax, the devil wanted to make it scandalous or force him to lower himself to beg another to pay for him. It was then that Our Lord, to show that the devil, in his improvidence, was weaving out frames where he was to be taken himself, commanded his apostle to go to the seashore, to open the mouth of the first fish he would find and take the coin required for this tax. In paying for this tribute, he not only avoided scandalizing those who were in charge of collecting it, and he did not need to go so far as to ask others to pay for him, but he gave proof of his great power by drawing to himself those who were in the chains of the devil, to make him find his torment in his own inventions and in his ploys. The collectors of the didrachma therefore told the apostle Saint Peter: "Your master does not pay the tribute, etc.; And they went to find his master to make him pay this tax for all the disciples. The Savior, in commanding to pay him for Peter and for himself, seems to pay him for all his disciples; for just as they were all in the Savior as the disciples in their master, so after the Savior they were all combined in Peter; "For our Lord made him to be their leader and the shepherd of the Lord's flock. In this way, Jesus said to his disciples, Watch and pray so as not to enter into temptation.” (Matt. 26:41) But to Peter he says: "Behold, Satan has desired to sift you like wheat, and I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail, and you, when you are converted, strengthen your brothers.” (Luke 22:3l) What doubt can remain? He prayed for Peter and did not pray for James and John, not to mention others. It is evident that they were all combined with Peter; for when he prays for Peter, one must recognize that he prays for all other disciples. It is always, in fact, in the one at his head that the people receive reproaches or praises. And our Lord Himself says in another place, "I pray for those whom my Father has given me, and be with me where I am." (Jn. 17:9,24)
(Matthew 24:20) AMBROSIASTER 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 19. WHY DOES THE SAVIOR SAY, "PRAY THAT YOUR FLIGHT WILL NOT COME IN WINTER OR ON THE SABBATH”; SINCE THE TIME OF THIS PERSECUTION CANNOT BE DIVIDED, ACCORDING TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE APOSTLE: "THE MAN OF SIN, THE SON OF PERDITION," HE SAYS, "WILL BE REVEALED IN HIS DAY”; (2 THESS. 2:3) AND HE SAYS AGAIN IN THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES: "DETERMINING THE TIMES OF THE DURATION OF PEOPLES AND THE LIMITS OF THEIR ABODE?” (ACTS 17) WHY, THEN, DOES THE SAVIOR LET US UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS NOT GOOD TO FLEE IN THE WINTER OR ON THE SABBATH? — The flight during the winter is not exempt from danger, the cold, the continual rains, the snow, the frost, the overflowing of the rivers, are all obstacles which make the flight very difficult. You cannot seek refuge in forests, mountains, or caves. On the Sabbath day, the Jews could not get far from the city or climb the mountains, and by the same escape was impossible that day. Now, just as these two circumstances leave all safety to flight because of the obstacles we have pointed out; thus our flight will not be safe from danger if this persecution finds us chained in servitude to the hindrances of the flesh. Indeed, the desires of the age or the goods of this world are so many chains that hold captive men and prevent them from escaping the tyrannical treatments of the devil. We must therefore pray that the difficulties of winter and the Sabbath do not come in the time when we will have to flee, but that God has relieved us of these obstacles and gives us his help, to destroy in us all desire that would make us slaves of the world. As the Savior spoke of the last persecution of which the Antichrist is the author, he takes as a term of comparison the winter which is the last season of the year, and the Sabbath which is the last day of the week, for us to make it clear that if flight is painful and difficult in these two circumstances, the persecutions and trials of this last time will be so heavy and so overwhelming that there will be hardly anyone who can escape it.
(Matthew 26:32; Mark 14:28) 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.
(Matthew 27:3-10) AMBROSIASTER QUESTION 94. DID JUDAS ISCARIOT, WHO BETRAYED OUR LORD, HANG HIMSELF BEFORE THE SAVIOR'S PASSION? — Our Lord was delivered into the hands of his enemies, and it was on the morning of the day of preparation, when all the princes of the priests, the scribes, and the elders of the people, gathered in the house of Caiaphas, where they knew that they had to bring Jesus in order to hear him. This is what the Evangelists St. Matthew and St. Mark report, and from their story none of them went out of the house of Caiaphas before this work of impiety was consummated, for all their zeal, all their religion for Passover celebration had only one object, the death of the Savior. But since the princes of the priests were busy from the morning until the ninth hour to press the execution of the death of the Savior, how could one admit that Judas had postponed the price of his betrayal to them before the crucifixion and that he had told them in the temple: "I sinned, delivering innocent blood?” (Matt. 27:4) It is certain, indeed, that not all princes of priests and elders of the people were in the temple before the death of the Savior, and one proof is that they insulted when he was on the cross. It cannot be concluded either from what this fact is told before the passion of Our Lord; for it is a great number of facts which, although having passed before, are nevertheless recounted last, just as when the opportunity arises, the sacred writers anticipate the narrative of a fact which took place only after. Thus it is evident that Psalm fifty is earlier than the third. It sometimes happens that later events are told in anticipation. So again it is proved that Mary after the resurrection of her brother Lazarus, six days before the feast of Easter, had scattered perfumes on the feet of the Lord in a feast, and the Evangelist anticipates the story of this fact because of its signification. Mary, he says, was the one who spread perfumes on the Lord. (Jn. 11:2) St. John tells this fact before Lazarus' death, and if we did not learn that it took place after, we would not know when it place it. Perhaps it might be said that Judas postponed the money at the ninth hour, and seeing the Savior put to death, the torn veil of the temple, the earth quaking, the rocks breaking, the elements upset (Matt. 27:51), he conceived under the inspiration of fear, the repentance of his crime. But at the ninth hour, the elders and princes of the priests were entirely, it seems to me, preparing for the Passover that they were to celebrate on the evening of that day. Besides, the law forbade carrying money on the Sabbath. I believe, therefore, that the day or the time when Judas hung himself cannot be fixed in a plausible way.
(Matthew 27:45; Luke 23:44; 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.
(Matthew 27:45; Luke 23:44; 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.
(Matthew 27:62; Mark 15:42; 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.
(Matthew 28:1-8; Mark 16:1-8; 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.
(Matthew 28:1-8; Mark 16:1-8; 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 Matthew Commentary >