Selections of Juan de Maldonado’s Commentary on the Holy Gospels on the Jews

Juan de Maldonado (Maldonatus), S.J. (1534–1583) was one of the foremost Catholic exegetes of the Counter-Reformation, whose Commentarii in Quatuor Evangelistas became a standard reference in Catholic biblical scholarship for centuries. The following selections are drawn from his commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew and bear directly on the theological standing of the Jewish people, their rejection of Christ, the abrogation of the Mosaic Law, Jewish leadership, and the divine judgment visited upon Israel.

All passages are quoted directly from the English translation published by J. Hodges, London, 1888. Volume and page references are supplied where the OCR text permits. No paraphrases are included; only direct quotations.

I. The Jews as Adversaries of the Faith — General Character

On the Genealogy of Christ (Matt. 1) — the opponents of Christianity:

“The opponents of the Christian faith — the Jews, Celsus, Julian, Porphyry, and others — denied this, and affirmed that Mary the Mother of God was of the tribe of Levi.”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 1)

On the Magi and the Jews being “without excuse” (Matt. 2:1–2):

“Their coming to Jerusalem would appear to have been caused not so much by their desire for knowledge as by the will of God — partly that the Jews might be without excuse, as S. Jerome says; partly that Christ being born a King might be announced by the Gentiles before it was so by the Jews, lest the testimony of the Jews to their own King might appear matter of suspicion.”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 2:2)

“Who, indeed, could suppose that men of Persia would know this, but that the Jews would be ignorant of it?”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 2:2)

II. The Pharisees and Sadducees — Generation of Vipers

On Matt. 3:7 — John’s rebuke:

“John compares the excessive malice of the Pharisees and Sadducees to the most noxious of animals, especially the calumniating and backbiting of the saints, which is as proper and peculiar to the Pharisees and Sadducees as venom to the viper, as is explained by S. Jerome (On Isaiah xxx.) and S. Gregory (Horn. xx. on the Gospels).”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 3:7)

“Vipers are known as the most venomous of beasts, so that when S. Paul was bitten by one, and did not immediately swell out and die, the people thought him a god. John compares the excessive malice of the Pharisees and Sadducees to the most noxious of animals.”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 3:7)

“You who are vipers rather than men.”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 3:7)

On Matt. 23:33 — Christ’s rebuke:

“You serpents, generation of vipers. (Vide chap. iii. 7.) The meaning is, as they were the sons of vipers, what could they be but vipers themselves? for the offspring cannot be better than their parents, though they are often worse.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 23:33)

“How will you flee from the judgment of hell? That is, how can you be saved, being, as you are, vipers? This is not said as a thing impossible, for they might bring forth penitence and be saved: but that those who have persisted long and obstinately in wickedness rarely repent; or they might have been so hardened as to appear beyond the hope of amendment.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 23:33)

III. The Jews as the Most Avaricious of Men — Scribes and Pharisees

On Matt. 15:5 — the Corban tradition:

“But this is not credible, even of the Jews, the most avaricious of men.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 15:5)

“The Scribes and Pharisees no doubt were hypocrites, but it is not plain why Christ called them such here, when he was treating, not of hypocrisy, but of perverse doctrine. Euthymius says that it was because, when they wished to appear the most careful observers of the Law, they were transgressors of it through their traditions.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 15:7)

“Isaiah did not speak of the Scribes and Pharisees only, but of the whole people of the Jews; and not of that which was to be, but of that which then was. The words, therefore, are not so much those of prophecy as of accusation. But Christ applies them to the Scribes and Pharisees, meaning that the accusation of Isaiah of the Jews which then were, apply to the Scribes and Pharisees.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 15:7–8)

IV. The Abrogation of the Mosaic Law — Supersessionism

On Matt. 5:17 — “I am not come to destroy but to fulfil”:

“How does Christ say that He is not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it, when, in fact, He did destroy and abrogate it? For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John (S. Matt. xi. 13; Heb. vii. 12), and therefore Christ is contrary to the Law, and cannot profit those who keep the Law (Gal. v. 2.).”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 5:17)

“This is how He abrogated the Law: not by destroying, but by fulfilling; not by violating, but by perfecting.”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 5:17)

“When he began to preach it began to sicken, and it was to die not long after the death of Christ. The Law was abrogated because it was perfected by the Gospel. When the Gospel began to be preached, it began to be abrogated; and the more the Gospel flourished, the more the Law declined; and when the Gospel was fully preached, the Law was fully done away.”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 5:18)

“He showed forth the promises of the Law, and represented what had been shadowed forth by the ceremonies and types. So almost all the ancient authors interpret it — S. Irenaeus, iv. 27, 67; Tertullian, De Patient.; S. Hilary, iv.; S. Athanasius, Cont. Omn. Haeres.; S. Cyril, De Adorat.; S. Augustin.”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 5:17)

V. The Jews‘ Rejection of Christ — Obstinacy and Perverseness

On Matt. 10:23 — the unbelief of the Jews:

“Christ desired to signify not only the multitude of cities, but also, by the way, the unbelief of the Jews, which would be so great that the Apostles would be fully occupied in converting them until the Son of man should come.”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 10:23)

“Some imagine the unbelief of the Jews to be remarked upon, and that it is meant that the Gentiles would come into the faith before the Jews, as S. Paul says (Rom. xi.). So S. Hilary, whose opinion seems the more admissible.”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 10:23)

On Matt. 17 — the cause of Jewish unbelief:

“Christ, therefore, desired to say that this was not the cause of the unbelief of the Jews, but their perverseness and obstinacy.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 17:14)

On Matt. 13:13 — speaking in parables as punishment for Jewish unbelief:

“What, then, was taken away from the Jews which they had, because they would not accept the Gospel which was freely offered to them? S. Jerome, S. Chrysostom, and The Author answer that nature itself was in a manner taken from them, that is, the natural knowledge of things, because they were blinded so that they could not understand even what Nature herself teaches.”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 13:12)

“That is, They see with their eyes My miracles, the most sure proofs of what I say, and they hear with their ears, and they will neither see nor believe. In punishment, then, of their unbelief, Christ speaks to them darkly, because while they would not understand what was said to them clearly and plainly, they deserved that Christ should so speak to them that even if they wished they could not understand. Thus does God, by His most just judgment, take away entirely from those who refused His offered Word.”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 13:13)

“S. Chrysostom most correctly replies that ‘He would not have them understand that they might understand.’ For the interest of the listeners is roused, and they diligently enquire when they hear what they do not understand, yet see that it is of great moment and significance. Thus their punishment might have turned out their improvement unless they had abused the punishment itself.”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 13:13)

“‘Christ so wished the Jews not to be converted nor their sins remitted, as He wished them not to understand what He said.’ He shut the door of salvation against them, not for ever, but for a time, that they might knock.”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 13:13, citing S. Chrysostom)

VI. The Jews as Trees to Be Cut Down — On the Axe at the Root

On Matt. 3:10 — “Now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees”:

“The trees are the Jews, for it is spoken of them. Abraham is the root from which, like divers trees, all the Jews were propagated. John, then, shows that they ought not to be content because they were the sons of Abraham, nor to trust in that root which was shortly to be plucked up.”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 3:10)

“For the Jews are said to be cut off from Abraham as their root, when they are declared by divine sentence not to be the true sons of Abraham, because they do not follow his faith and works (Romans ix. 7, 8; Galat. iv. 28).”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 3:10)

“They are said to be cut off now and not before, because the Jews took pleasure before in being the sons of Abraham according to the flesh; because, too, the law was given to them which was not given to the other nations, and they could be saved more easily by the law than without the law (Romans iii. 1, 2). But after the coming of Christ, it availed them not at all, because the Gospel was not preached more to them than to the other nations.”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 3:10)

“The Gentiles are not said to be cut off, because they never were in the root: that is, they never were the sons of Abraham.”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 3:10)

VII. The Talmud and Jewish Tribunals

On Matt. 5:21–22 — the Jewish courts:

“It has been observed from the Talmud that there were three Tribunals among the Jews. The first consisted of three judges, who took notice of lesser cases. The second of twenty-three, who decided greater, and even capital ones. The third, of seventy-one chosen men, who decided the most weighty questions, especially public ones, as those of peace or war, of false prophets, of the High Priest.”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 5:21)

“S. Augustin was told by a Jew, whom he consulted on the subject, that the word was not a substantive, but an interjection of anger, like the Latin ‘Hem.’ This may be so, but what others have said appears more probable, that רקא is a Chaldaean or Syriac word… Hence, a man of very little judgment was called, as we have said, by the Talmudists רקא — which means properly one who is vain and empty.”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 5:22)

VIII. Christ Sent to the Jews Alone — Jews Called “Children,” Gentiles “Dogs”

On Matt. 15:24–26 — the Woman of Chanaan:

“He was sent to the Jews alone. Christ says then that He was sent to the Jews alone. All of these were not predestinated, but the greater part were reprobate. He was not sent, therefore, for the predestinate alone. He says that He was not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 15:24)

“He calls the Jews ‘sheep’ (x. 6); the Gentiles ‘dogs’ (26).”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 15:24)

“The bread is the grace of miracles and of the Gospel generally, which was in a sense confined to the Jews alone, as by the covenant with Abraham, of whom He calls the Jews the children, as (Exodus iv. 22) Israel my first-born.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 15:26)

“He knew that the children never would be filled, but would reject with contempt the bread offered them from heaven.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 15:26)

“Others think that He went thither because the Jews would not receive His doctrines, as S. Paul and Barnabas said (Acts xiii. 46).”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 15:21)

IX. The Synagogue as the Barren Fig Tree — Supersession of the Old Covenant

On Matt. 21:19 — the cursing of the fig tree:

“The mystery is that the Synagogue was the tree planted by God in His own vineyard, from which He had often sought fruit, but on which He had never found any, as is said Isaiah v. 2, and by the parable of the other fig-tree in S. Luke xiii. 6, 7. As that one, therefore, was cut down, so now Christ withered up this one; that is, He did away with the Law and the Synagogue, because they bore the fruits of no good works.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 21:19)

“Christ shows that it should be given to the Gentiles because they would bring forth the fruits of it, and taken away from the Jews because they had brought forth none; rather, they had slain the only son and heir of the lord of it.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 21:19)

X. The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen — Rejection and Deicide

On Matt. 21:33–43:

“Not only the priests but the whole nation of the Jews were meant by the husbandmen, because Christ concluded that the vineyard should be taken from the Jews and given to other husbandmen, that is, to the Gentiles.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 21:33)

“The fifth point is the servants whom the Lord of the vineyard sent at different times to collect the fruits. All authorities are agreed that these, as is evident from the words of Christ Himself, were the ancient Prophets. How some of these were slain and others stoned may be read in Heb. xi.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 21:34–35)

“The sixth is the son. That he was Christ even the priests themselves, against whom the parable was directed, could not be ignorant of.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 21:37)

“Christ upbraids the priests who professed the knowledge of the Law with their ignorance of it.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 21:42)

“He foretold that the Jews would dash against Him and be broken.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 21:42)

On Matt. 21:43 — The kingdom taken from the Jews:

“The kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation yielding the fruits thereof. This is the conclusion of the parable, by which is signified the abolition of the Synagogue and the transference of the Church of God, which is here called the kingdom of God, and is described above as the vineyard, to the Gentiles, as SS. Paul and Barnabas said to the Jews.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 21:43)

“Indirectly, the sin of the Jews is noted for which it was taken from them, namely, that they did not render the fruits of it.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 21:43)

“It was said to have been done by the Lord alone, not by human design; that when the Jews did not believe, the Gentiles should do so.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 21:42)

XI. The Parable of the Marriage Feast — Roman Armies as Divine Punishment

On Matt. 22:2–7:

“The king sending forth his army to destroy those murderers shows that the wrath of God will descend upon all who refuse His invitation. There may, however, be something in the suggestion of S. Chrysostom, The Author, and Euthymius, that the Roman armies of Titus and Vespasian may be foreshown, as about to take the most utter vengeance on the Jews.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 22:7)

XII. The Woes Against the Scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 23)

On Matt. 23:13 — shutting the kingdom of heaven:

“The Scribes and Pharisees are said to shut the kingdom of heaven because they taught men that no one could enter unless they themselves opened, that is, taught them how to enter; under which idea they placed upon the people all the traditions they pleased, like heavy burthens.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 23:13)

On Matt. 23:14 — devouring widows’ houses:

“The Scribes and Pharisees are said to devour widows’ houses, that is, their property… Others suppose that widows sought them as men of holiness, and purchased their prayers. This is more likely, as the words that follow immediately, ‘Praying long prayers,’ show: giving the probable reason of their devouring their houses, that they sold these prayers.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 23:14)

“It was a much greater wickedness in the Scribes and Pharisees to devour the substance of widows, who should rather have received comfort and support, than to consume the property of other less unhappy persons.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 23:14)

On Matt. 23:15 — making proselytes twofold children of hell:

“That is, you leave nothing undone to make one proselyte… the Scribes and Pharisees… endeavoured most anxiously to draw the Gentiles to the Jewish religion, either from ambition that they might increase the number of the people of God, and have the government of them from their holiness and doctrine, as some say; or, as The Author and others think, that by augmenting the number of the Jews, they might increase the number of sacrifices, and thus get greater profit for themselves.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 23:15)

“And when he is made, you make him the child of hell… you merit a twofold condemnation and punishment, but you make him merit a more than twofold.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 23:15)

“S. Chrysostom says that the Pharisees deliberately endeavoured to make their converts from idolatry worse than themselves.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 23:15)

On Matt. 23:24 — straining the gnat and swallowing the camel:

“Who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel. In hot climates gnats are apt to get into the wine, so that it is often necessary to strain it before drinking. A camel is named, after the custom of the country, as the greatest object opposed to the least.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 23:24)

On Matt. 23:29–32 — building the sepulchres of the prophets:

“Christ convicts the Scribes and Pharisees out of their own lips of being the sons of those who slew the Prophets: ‘If we had been in the days of our fathers we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the Prophets’ — that they bear witness against themselves that they are the sons of those who killed the Prophets.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 23:31)

“That is, ‘Kill those Prophets whom, as they were not yet in existence, your fathers could not kill.’ Christ means Himself and those whom He said (verse 34) that He would send.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 23:32)

On Matt. 23:35 — all righteous blood from Abel to Zacharias:

“Christ evidently intended to say that they should suffer punishment for the death of all the Prophets who had been slain by the Jews. Abel is numbered among the Prophets, because he seemed to foreshow the sacrifice of Christ by his own, as S. Paul says (Heb. xi. 4). Christ enumerates Abel amongst those who were slain by the Jews, when he was not so, because Cain, by whom he was slain, was the head of all murderers, and although he was not by nature the father of the Jews, he was so by imitation. The Jews are said to be his sons, therefore, in the sense in which they are said to be the sons of the devil (S. John viii. 44; S. Jude 11).”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 23:35)

On Matt. 23:36 — “all these things shall come upon this generation”:

“Christ means the whole race of Jews by the words ‘this generation’. It is a Hebraism, and the word means genus.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 23:36)

On Matt. 23:37–38 — “your house shall be left unto you desolate”:

“All ancient authorities agree that the meaning is, that God called the Jews to a better mind, and they would not come, as is shown in the parable in the preceding chapter (verse 3); and in Prov. i. 24: ‘Because I called, and you refused; I stretched out My hand, and there was none that regarded.'”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 23:37)

“By ‘your house’ Christ either meant the city… or, as is more probable, the Temple, as S. Jerome and Theophylact say; because, as of old, so in these days, the Jews so trusted to their Temple that they thought themselves to possess a most certain protection in it.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 23:38)

On Matt. 23 — punishment heaped upon the Scribes and Pharisees at the destruction of Jerusalem:

“In that destruction it was scarcely possible that the Scribes and Pharisees could have undergone greater punishments than they did, as Josephus has related in full. But if they had put no other prophet or disciple of Christ to death, they would have merited punishments far more heavy for having crucified Christ Himself. Thus they were so far from having expiated the guilt of their forefathers, that they did not suffer the full penalty even for their own offences; but they are said to have paid the penalty of the blood of all the Prophets, because they suffered the most they could.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 23:35–36)

XIII. Destruction of Jerusalem as Divine Punishment — Matt. 24

On Matt. 24 — the destruction of Jerusalem as figure and type:

“Christ therefore passes from the end and destruction of Jerusalem to the end of the world. For the destruction of Jerusalem was a figure and type of the destruction and end of the world.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 24:24)

XIV. Deicide — The Passion and Crucifixion

On Matt. 26:2 — delivered to be crucified:

“Christ says that He shall be delivered up to be crucified, because He was given up to Pilate by the Jews to that end, when they cried, ‘Crucify Him, crucify Him’ (S. Luke xxiii. 21).”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 26:2)

On Matt. 27:2 — the Jews desired the crucifixion:

“The cross was a punishment introduced into Judaea by the Romans, and the Jews desired to crucify Christ, this being of all deaths the most ignominious.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 27:2)

“S. John signifies that it was not from the virtue of the Jews, but rather from their cruelty, and from the divine counsel by which it was decreed that Christ should be crucified, that the Jews would not judge Him by their law.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 27:2)

On the conduct of Pilate and the Jews:

“But the hatred of the Jews and the unjust conduct of Pilate prevailed. But Pilate still endeavoured to release Christ, for when the Jews insisted, ‘Away with Him, crucify Him’ (S. John xix. 15), he exclaimed: ‘Shall I crucify your king?’ as if it were against their honour to do this deed.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 27:15–23)

“These events are all related by the Evangelists, no doubt to show us how unjustly Christ was condemned — (1) when a wicked and unjust judge sought again and again, from mere motives of religion and justice, to set Him free; (2) from a comparison of Pilate and the Jews to show the incredible iniquity and injustice of both.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 27:19)

On Matt. 27:24 — Pilate washes his hands:

“Pilate expressed in words what he signified by the act of washing; and before he condemned Christ he acquitted Him, calling Him ‘that just man.'”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 27:24)

On Matt. 27:25 — “His blood be upon us and upon our children”:

“His blood be upon us and upon our children. This is a Hebraism for ‘We will bear the penalty’ (Levit. xx. 9, 12, 16; Josh. ii. 19; 2 Kings i. 16; Ezek. xxxiii. 4; Osea xii. 14).”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 27:25)

On Matt. 27:38 — crucified with thieves, the Jews‘ design:

“It is not improbable that the Jews even solicited Pilate to crucify Christ with the thieves, that His death might be more ignominious. That Christ was placed between the two thieves may be thought the result at once of the human design of the Jews and of the divine counsel of God. Of the Jews, to show that Christ was the head and chief of wicked men, and therefore should be crucified in the midst of such, that by this kind of contumelious distinction His disgrace might be the more augmented.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 27:38)

XV. The Daughters of Jerusalem — Punishment Foretold

On Luke 23:28 (cited in context of Matt. 27:32):

“It cannot be doubted that He meant the coming destruction of Jerusalem — that by Titus and Vespasian, when all the Jews, and especially the women, underwent sufferings so dreadful that, as related by Josephus, some were compelled to eat even their own infants. He bids them weep for themselves, because they would soon have to pay the penalty of His death — the destruction of Jerusalem, its result, being imminent.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 27:32)

“Christ argues, therefore, from the less to the greater: If God have not spared Me who am innocent, but have commanded Me to undergo such heavy punishment for others, how will He spare those who have brought Me to the cross?”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 27:32)

XVI. The Theological Enmity Between Jews and Christians — “Friends and Enemies”

On Matt. 20:19 — Jews and Gentiles as friends and enemies:

“There is an antithesis here between Jews and Gentiles, as if between friends and enemies. As if it were said: ‘The Jews will not be content to punish the Son of man ipsi per se, but they will give Him over to His enemies that He may be punished the more severely and be put to death.'”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 20:19)

On Matt. 8:5 — the Jews under the Roman yoke:

“It is clear even from his title that he was a Gentile; nor is it credible, as SS. Chrysostom and Augustin have pointed out, that when the Jews were under the Roman yoke centurions should have been made of their nation.”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 8:5)

On Matt. 7:6 — the Jews at Antioch who trod the Gospel under foot:

“And to the Jews at Antioch, because they not only did not receive it, but even trod it under foot, and threatened the lives of the two Apostles (Acts xiii. 46).”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 7:6)

XVII. The Jews‘ Five Arguments Against the Virgin Birth Prophecy (Isaiah 7:14)

On Matt. 1:23:

“The Jews are the most persistent objectors to this, to prove that that prophecy does not apply to Christ.”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 1:22–23)

“The SECOND argument is that it is against all common sense to say that a virgin, remaining such, should conceive… The ancient Fathers reject this as not only false, but also absurd and ridiculous; for in this case there would have been no sign, and no miracle.”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 1:23)

“The FIFTH objection is one raised by the more modern Jews. The ancients have scarcely noticed it.”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 1:23)

XVIII. Jewish Unbelief and the Priority Given to the Gentiles

On Matt. 19:28 — the twelve tribes and the Gentiles:

“The Jews who did not believe were accounted as Gentiles; I, when a Gentile, was made a Jew by believing.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 19:28)

“The Gentiles who believed the Gospel were, as it were, inserted among the Jews and gifted in a manner with citizenship so that they were no longer Gentiles, but Jews; that is, as believing and confessing, they were enrolled among the chosen people into the twelve tribes.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 19:28)

On Matt. 21:42 — the stone the builders rejected:

“Because He signifies that though rejected by the Jews He would be held in the greater honour by the Gentiles.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 21:42)

“It justly seemed wonderful to the Jews, in whose person this was said by David, that the grace of Christ should be given not only to the Jews, but, when they had wickedly rejected it, much more abundantly to the Gentiles.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 21:42)

XIX. The Jews and the Land — No Promised Earthly Kingdom

On Matt. 5:17–18 — the temporal promises of the Law transformed:

“For its temporal rewards and punishments He substituted eternal ones. And thus, as there were in the Law and the Prophets four parts — (1) Promises and Prophecies, (2) Precepts of the Decalogue, (3) Ceremonies, (4) Judgments — Christ fulfilled all… the Judicial, by the change of corporeal and temporal rewards and punishments into spiritual and eternal.”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 5:17)

“Christ willed by it to destroy the difference of nations, the wall having been broken down, and there being in Him neither Jew nor Greek, but a new creature; so that the Jews were no longer a peculiar people to Him, but there was to be one fold and one shepherd.”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 5:43–44)

XX. The Pharisees and Sadducees United Against Christ — Jewish Sectarian Enmity Set Aside

On Matt. 16:1 — the two most opposite sects conspiring together:

“We may observe how the two most opposite sects of Jewish heretics agree among themselves to oppose Christ. For the Pharisees and Sadducees carried on an internecine war among themselves, as we learn not only from Josephus, but also from S. Luke (Acts xxiii. 6). So Pilate and Herod, when they had previously been enemies, became friends and united to persecute Christ (S. Luke xxiii. 12). So now the followers of Luther and Calvin very widely differ among themselves, but conspire against the Catholic Church; that is, the Body of Christ. Christ, as Tertullian says, is always crucified between two thieves.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 16:1)

XXI. The Leaven of the Pharisees is Hypocrisy — Their Doctrine Corrupted

On Matt. 16:6–12:

“That teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees in which they were heretics, and corrupted the Law, is alluded to, and which Christ reprehends (xv. 3, 5, 6)… the words of S. Luke (xii. 1), ‘Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy,’ may appear contrary. It may be answered, as Bede seems to say, that He called the doctrine itself of the Pharisees and Sadducees, hypocrisy; because they taught one thing and practised another, or because all their teaching tended to hypocrisy.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 16:6–12)

XXII. Christ Speaks Against the Scribes and Pharisees with Fixed Design — Matt. 23 Opening

On Matt. 23:13 — the nature of Christ’s woes:

“Christ speaks with great anger of the Scribes and Pharisees to the end of the chapter, especially accusing them of hypocrisy: not in any sudden outbreak of powerless anger or slander, but with the fixed plan and determination of warning the unhappy people before His approaching death not to be deluded by the false pretences of these men.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 23:13)

On Matt. 23:2–4 — sitting in the seat of Moses, binding heavy burdens:

“The meaning is not, as S. Chrysostom thinks, of ceremonial burdens; because, as said before, Christ had not yet done away the Law of which S. Peter spoke in Acts xv. 10, but of those traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees which were either wholly contrary to Scripture, or certainly not necessary to salvation.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 23:4)

“Christ opposes the finger to the shoulders. The Scribes and Pharisees would not help the unhappy persons whom they had burthened with their senseless laws even by their little finger; they would neither encourage them by their example to bear their burthens, nor act as stewards in their own traditions, when they would often do so in the law of God; that is, they would not move them with a finger.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 23:4)

On Matt. 23:5 — phylacteries made broad from ambition:

“Christ proves the truth of the words immediately preceding by two of the most trivial things — their phylacteries and fringes. For how could they who placed their pride in such matters care for greater ones?”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 23:5)

“The Scribes and Pharisees increased their size more than the other Jews. S. Jerome says that they even used to fasten them with very sharp thorns, which pricked them when they walked or sat down, and by the pain reminded them of the Law… It is more likely, as Theophylact thinks, that they did it to make themselves more conspicuous as they walked about, and that they might be seen to be observers of the Law; or, as is the opinion of S. Chrysostom, that they might show that they kept the Law more carefully than the other Jews.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 23:5)

XXIII. The Blind Leaders of the Blind — Matt. 15:14

On Matt. 15:14:

“All heretic teachers are blind, and leaders of the blind. Hence not only the masters, but those also who follow them, fall into the ditch, and they cannot be excused from ignorance.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 15:14)

XXIV. The Jews Called Christ Nazarene in Contempt — and Still Call Christians Notsrim

On Matt. 2:23 — “He shall be called a Nazarene”:

“Christ was called by the Jews, in contempt, a Nazarene, and we know that all Christians were known to the Gentiles by the same term of contempt, as they are termed נוצרים by the Jews to this day; and this has been one great hindrance to many to confess Christ to be the Messiah.”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 2:23)

“The Evangelist desired to change the odium of the word into honour, and whence Christ was derided, to prove that He was indeed the true Messiah… the very name which was given to Christ by the Jews in contempt had been ascribed to Him by the Prophet as an honour. He thus retorted their calumny upon themselves.”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 2:23)

On Matt. 1:18 — the Jews despised Christ as the son of a carpenter:

“If the Jews despised Him as the son of a carpenter, what would they not have done in this case?”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 1:18)

XXV. Christ Delivered — by the Jews from Hatred

On Matt. 26:2 — the several agents of the Passion:

“He was delivered with a different animus by different agents. (a and b) By Himself and by His Father to redeem men. (c) By the devil to prevent the Redemption and to incite sinners to that wickedness. (d) By Judas from avarice. (e) By the Jews from hatred. (f) By Pilate from fear, lest he should not appear sufficiently the friend of Caesar.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 26:2)

XXVI. The Assembly of the Chief Priests and Elders — Clandestine Counsel to Slay Christ

On Matt. 26:3–5:

“A clandestine assembly, about putting to death a man of the greatest holiness… All their designs tended to this result, for they had often endeavoured to kill Him before.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 26:3–5)

“Who was called Caiaphas. A very avaricious and abandoned man, for an account of whom vide Josephus (Antiq., xviii. 3, 6).”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 26:3)

“That by subtlety they might apprehend Jesus. Secretly and by fraud, not by open violence; for they feared the people, as S. Luke says (xxii. 2).”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 26:4)

XXVII. False Witnesses Suborned Against Christ

On Matt. 26:61 — the false witnesses at the trial:

“They wished, however, by their iniquitous conduct, to make some show of justice.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 26:59)

“They are called false witnesses because they repeated with a wicked intention and in a perverted sense, and in other words, what Christ had said. He did not speak of that second Temple of Solomon, but of His own body, as S. John has explained. Nor did He say, ‘I am able to destroy’ — though He was so — but ‘Destroy this Temple.'”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 26:61)

“They were undoubtedly two in number, because they had been prepared and suborned by the chief priests and elders. They chose two because the Law ordered it thus (Deut. xvii. 6; xix. 15). So in like manner they sent two other false witnesses against S. Stephen (Acts vi. 13).”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 26:61)

XXVIII. The High Priest’s Condemnation — Jews Call It Blasphemy for a Man to Call Himself Son of God

On Matt. 26:63 — Caiaphas adjures Christ:

“For it was blasphemy among them for any man to call himself the Son of God; for he could not be such by nature, unless he were God Himself. Thus the heresy of Arius was confuted even in the opinion of the Jews.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 26:63)

“He thought that when asked the question under trial Christ would not deny it, and that he could not find a better reason for condemning Him to death than His being convicted of blasphemy.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 26:63)

XXIX. The Malevolent Jews — Their Slander Even After Christ Paid Tribute

On Matt. 17:24–27 — the temple tribute:

“The glory of God required Him, as He could easily pay this tribute, not to offend the publicans, and give occasion for accusation to the malevolent Jews. For even when He had always paid the tribute, He was subsequently accused of forbidding to pay tribute to Caesar (S. Luke xxiii. 2).”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 17:26)

XXX. The Scribes and Pharisees Raging Against Christ in the Temple

On Matt. 21:12–13 — the cleansing of the Temple:

“It seems more wonderful that, as one Man, and He at the time contemptible and so vile as to be subsequently crucified, with the Scribes and Pharisees raging against Him, and seeing their gains destroyed, He could by the stripes of His single scourge cast out so great a multitude, overthrow the tables, break the seats, and do other things, which a whole army could not have done. For something of fire and of the sidereal flashed from His eyes, and the majesty of His Divinity shone in His face.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 21:12)

XXXI. The Jews Most Fit for Punishment — The Green Tree and the Dry

On Luke 23:31 (cited in the Passion context, Matt. 27:32):

“Christ compares Himself to the green tree and the Jews to the dry, because as a green tree is ill adapted for burning and the dry is very fit for it, so He is very little fit for — that is, is no way worthy of — punishment, but the Jews are most fit — that is, most worthy — if for no other reason, at least for this, that they delivered Christ to death, whom they ought to have received as their Saviour.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 27:32)

XXXII. The Destruction of Jerusalem Foretold — “Not One Stone upon Another”

On Matt. 24:2 — total destruction confirmed by Josephus:

“The words used by Christ describe a total destruction such as Josephus describes (Antiq., xv. 14, and De Bell. Jud., vii. 9, 10); though none may think for a moment that He used any exaggeration or hyperbole.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 24:2)

“S. Chrysostom (Cont. Jud. Orat., ii. 3), S. Gregory Nazianzen (Cont. Julianum Apostatam), Theodoret (Hist., iii. 20), tell us that Julian the Apostate permitted the Jews to rebuild the Temple, which they set about with the utmost alacrity. But when they had dug out the old foundations of the Temple to lay a new one, flames burst forth from the foundation and killed many of those who were engaged in the work. Thus the Jews fulfilled the prophecy of Christ — with their own hands destroying the former Temple so completely, if anything remained of it, that there was left no stone upon another, while they were forbidden by divine interposition from building a new one.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 24:2)

XXXIII. The Other Jews Slaughtered Like Victims at the Destruction of Jerusalem

On Matt. 24:16 — flight of the Christians, doom of the unbelieving Jews:

“Eusebius says (Hist., iii. 5) that the Christians who were in the city then received divine warning to escape. But the other Jews, who not only did not believe in Christ, but even persecuted Him, not only received no such warning, but came into the city from all parts of Judaea, partly for fear, and partly for the sake of the Paschal Feast, and were shut up in it and slaughtered like victims, as Eusebius says again.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 24:16)

XXXIV. The Rage of the Jews and the Injustice of Pilate

On Matt. 27:15–23 — Barabbas preferred to Christ:

“Who could have supposed that Barabbas — a homicide, a seditious man, and a public robber — would have been preferred to Christ, against whom nothing could be objected, or at least substantiated? But the hatred of the Jews and the unjust conduct of Pilate prevailed.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 27:21–23)

“Pilate still endeavoured to release Christ, for when the Jews insisted, ‘Away with Him, crucify Him’ (S. John xix. 15), he exclaimed: ‘Shall I crucify your king?’ as if it were against their honour to do this deed, however bad His conduct — for kings are beheaded, not crucified.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 27:22–23)

XXXV. The Penitent Thief Condemns the Jews

On Luke 23:40 (cited in the context of Matt. 27:44):

“Some think it the condemnation of the Jews, as if the meaning were, ‘Neither dost thou fear God more than these Jews, though thou deservest the same punishment as they for the contumelies heaped upon Christ.'”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 27:44)

XXXVI. “I Have Not Found So Great Faith in Israel” — The Gentile Centurion and the Children of the Kingdom Cast Out

On Matt. 8:10 — the faith of the Gentile preferred to all of Israel:

“When Christ says here that He has not found so great faith, even in Israel, where there ought to be more faith, because he was a son of Abraham, the father of all the faithful, He shows clearly that the centurion was a Gentile.”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 8:10)

“S. Jerome thinks that the faith of the one centurion was not compared with that of single Jews, but that the faith of the Church of the Gentiles (which was signified by the centurion) was compared to that of the whole Church of the Jews, and was preferred to it.”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 8:10)

“A little faith in the latter was therefore greater than the very greatest in the former.”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 8:10)

On Matt. 8:11 — the Gentiles to sit with the Patriarchs:

“Christ speaks of the calling of the Gentiles, which was foretold by Isaiah (xliii.; xliv. 5–7), and of which the entire Epistle to the Romans, especially chapter ix., treats at large.”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 8:11)

“It was not the custom of the Gentiles, nor were they allowed, to sit with the Jews, but Christ teaches us that in the kingdom of heaven they shall sit down with the Patriarchs of the Jews — Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob — and be preferred to the Jews themselves.”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 8:11)

“The faith of the centurion came nearer to that of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, than the faith of the Jews.”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 8:11)

On Matt. 8:12 — the children of the kingdom cast into exterior darkness:

“They are called the sons of the kingdom by a Hebraism, because they were born to it and intended for it… They were called the children of the kingdom, because they were born in the kingdom of Judaea, which was a kind of shadow or commencement of the kingdom of heaven, that the Jews may be opposed to the Gentiles, as natives to foreigners.”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 8:12)

“As Christ had said that the Gentiles should sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob — that is, in the first place in heaven — so He now says that the Jews shall be in the last place in hell.”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 8:12)

“According to Theophylact, there are many degrees of punishment there, and the heaviest of all is called the exterior darkness.”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 8:12)

XXXVII. Woes on Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum — Gentile Cities Preferred

On Matt. 11:21–22 — Tyre and Sidon would have repented:

“Christ opposes these two cities to them for three reasons — (1) Because they were Gentiles; (2) because they were near; (3) because they were full of idolatry, sensuality, avarice, and every kind of wickedness, as the Prophets Isaiah (xxiii. 1), Ezekiel (xxvi. 2; xxvii. 3; xxviii. 2, 12), Amos (i. 9) bear witness.”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 11:21)

“They would not have waited as long as you. They would not have wanted so many exhortations, or so many miracles.”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 11:21)

“That is, they would have brought forth extreme penitence, for this was the garb of the deepest penitence (Isaiah lviii. 5; Jeremiah vi. 26; xxv. 34; Lamentations ii. 10; Daniel ix. 3).”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 11:21)

On Matt. 11:23 — Capernaum thrust down to hell:

“Thou shalt be thrust down, not descend of thy own free will (chap. xxiii. 12; Abdias i. 4). Christ does not speak of the destruction of the city, but of the eternal condemnation of the people. It is to be understood, not of all, but only of the greater number, or of the chief men, such as the Scribes and Pharisees.”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 11:23)

XXXVIII. “An Evil and Adulterous Generation” — The Sign of Jonas Given to Condemn

On Matt. 12:39 — the nature of the Jewish demand for signs:

“An evil and adulterous generation. By a Hebraism a generation here means the race of men; an adulterous generation one which has degenerated from its forefathers.”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 12:39)

“Others say, with more propriety, that a sign was not to be given to them, that is, as they asked for and demanded it: for they did it with an evil disposition and with the intention of tempting.”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 12:39)

“Christ then does not speak of the sign, to persuade as the Pharisees required, but to condemn, and He uses an ambiguity of terms. For, when they sought a sign, to belief, He answered that He would not give them a sign such as they asked, to belief; but He would give them such as they did not ask, to condemnation. This sign was that although the men of Nineveh, who were Gentiles, and barbarous, and with no knowledge of the Law, at one word of Jonas, whilst strangers, and unknown to him, believed and brought forth notable penance: yet the Pharisees, after they had heard so many exhortations, and had seen so many miracles of Christ, not only did not believe, but said that He had a devil.”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 12:39)

“Christ wished only to teach that what Jonas was to the Ninevites, He Himself was to the Jews; but that He was so much greater than Jonas, as it was greater to be raised from the dead, than to be cast up again after having been swallowed by the whale; and yet the men of Nineveh believed Jonas, though the Jews did not believe Him.”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 12:40)

XXXIX. The Pharisees’ Blasphemy Against the Holy Ghost

On Matt. 12:31–32 — sin against the Holy Ghost unforgivable:

“The Pharisees had said that He cast out devils by Beelzebub, clearly ascribing the manifest works of the Holy Ghost to the devil. This is therefore to sin against the Holy Ghost.”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 12:31)

“He who ascribes the plain works of the Holy Ghost to the devil does not deserve forgiveness, as having no possible excuse for his sin.”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 12:31)

“It is not that it never can be forgiven, for the rule of faith must be kept, that there is no sin which God cannot forgive… but that they who sin against the Holy Ghost can have no excuse for their sin, and, therefore, by the nature of the case, cannot merit forgiveness.”

(Vol. I, on Matt. 12:31)

XL. The Parable of the Two Sons — The Jews Said “I Go” and Went Not

On Matt. 21:28–30 — the two sons as Gentiles and Jews:

“The Ancients agree with wonderful unanimity that they were the Gentiles and the Jews. The former, when commanded by God to labour in the vineyard, by the natural law, replied that he would not; for he would not observe that law. But he afterwards repented and went into the vineyard; that is, he received not only the natural law, but also the evangelical law, and kept them. The Jew, on the other hand, when ordered by God to go into the vineyard, that is, to keep the Law, answered that he would go, as in Exodus xix. 8, but afterwards he went not, that is, he did not obey the Law.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 21:28–30)

“The second class was the priests and Pharisees, who, when ordered to labour in the vineyard, answered that they would go, that is, they professed obedience to the Law, and a close and perfect one; but, in fact, they went not, because they in no way kept the Law, nor believed in John.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 21:29–30)

On Matt. 21:31 — publicans and harlots enter the kingdom before the priests:

“He says that the publicans and harlots go before, not that the priests follow, but that as they were teachers of the Law, and ought to go before, they not only do not this but will not even follow, as He said (viii. 11, 12).”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 21:31)

On Matt. 21:32 — the stubbornness and obstinacy of the priests:

“Christ reprehends the priests for two things: (1) Unbelief: from which they did not believe John as His messenger; and (2) Stubbornness and obstinacy: from which, when they had seen the publicans and harlots believe, they would not believe themselves.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 21:32)

XLI. “Ye Err, Not Knowing the Scriptures” — Christ Rebukes the Sadducees

On Matt. 22:29:

“Because the Sadducees had appealed to the Scriptures, Christ answers that they did not understand the Scriptures, as S. Chrysostom says. Christ shows two sources of error in them; one, that they did not understand the Scriptures: the other, that they did not allow for the goodness and power of God, as S. Mark (xii. 24) describes more plainly.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 22:29)

XLII. The Potter’s Field — “What Is That to Us?” — The Priests’ Blindness in the Face of Innocent Blood

On Matt. 27:4 — Judas confesses innocent blood:

“Innocent blood; that is, a just man to death. Judas did not believe Christ to be God, but he confessed Him to be a just man, and innocent. God chose that Christ should have the testimony of every class against the wickedness of the priests and elders; even that of His judge Pilate, of Pilate’s wife, and of His betrayer who had sold Him.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 27:4)

On Matt. 27:4 — “What is that to us?” — the priests’ response:

“These, as S. Ambrose says, are the words of men blinded and ‘who thought that they were absolved by the wickedness of the agent, rather than bound by it. In pecuniary affairs,’ he continues, ‘if the price is refused the obligation is at an end. These priests accept the terms, and follow up their sacrilege, pertinaciously claiming for themselves the mortal sin of bloodshed, when the trafficker would have refunded the price of his crime.'”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 27:4)

On Matt. 27:6 — the priests refuse to put blood money in the treasury:

“They ought to have added ‘of a just man,’ as even Judas had done, but men who are blinded by error know not how either to think or speak the truth.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 27:6)

“They decided by analogy not to offer the price of blood to God (verse 6); nor, which was greater foolishness still, to put it into the treasury. When they took the silver pieces, they accepted them as an oblation made to God, thus, like madmen, judging that more reverence was to be paid to the treasury than to God.”

(Vol. II, on Matt. 27:6)

Sources