Mateus 12

Jerome · Comentário Patrístico (catena)

Mateus 12:1

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] As we read in another Evangelist, they had no opportunity of taking food because of the thronging of the multitude, and therefore they hungred as men. That they rub the ears of corn in their hands, and with them satisfy themselves, is a proof of an austere life, and of men who needed not prepared meats, but sought only simple food. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 12:1

(Chapter 12, Verse 1) At that time, Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath; and His disciples were hungry, and began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. In another Gospel, we also read that because of their great need, they did not even have a place to eat, and therefore they were hungry like men (Mark 2 and Luke 6). The fact that they rubbed the heads of grain with their hands and found solace in hunger is an indication of a more austere life; they sought simple food, not prepared feasts. — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 12:2

(V2.) But the Pharisees, seeing this, said to him: Behold, your disciples do what is not lawful for them to do on the Sabbath. Note that the first apostles of the Savior destroy the letter of the Sabbath against the Ebionites, who, while accepting the other apostles, reject Paul as a transgressor of the law. — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 12:2

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] Observe, that the first Apostles of the Saviour broke the letter of the sabbath, contrary to the opinion of the Ebionites, who receive the other Apostles, but reject Paul as a transgressor of the Law. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 12:3-4

To put down the chicanery of the Pharisees it is recorded in ancient history that David was fleeing from Saul and came to Nob. Having been received by Ahimelech the priest, he asked him for food. Since Ahimelech had no common bread at hand, he gave David some holy bread, which only priests and Levites could lawfully eat. The priest asked whether the young men had kept themselves from women, and he received the answer "since yesterday and the day before." He did not hesitate to give the bread, having thought it better, remembering that the prophet says, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice." In view of the danger of hunger, Ahimelech judged it better to help people than to offer sacrifice to God. The slain victim pleasing to God is the salvation of humankind. If David is holy and the priest Ahimelech is not offensive to you, but they have broken both commandments of the law with a probable excuse—in this case, hunger—why do you not find acceptable the same hunger in the apostles that you find acceptable in others? However, in this there is a great difference: the disciples plucked grain on the sabbath, whereas David ate the levitical bread.… Note that neither David nor his young men accepted the loaves of the presence until they replied that they had kept themselves from women. — COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 2.14.4

Mateus 12:3-4

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] Then it proceeds to their excuse; But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred? To refute the false accusation of the Pharisees, He calls to mind the ancient history, that David flying from Saul came to Nobba, and being entertained by Achimelech the Priest, asked for food; (1 Sam. 21.) he having no common bread, gave him the consecrated loaves, which it was not lawful for any to eat, but the Priests only and Levites; esteeming it a better action to deliver men from the danger of famine than to offer sacrifice to God; for the preservation of man is a sacrifice acceptable to God. Thus then the Lord meets their objection, saying, If David be a holy man, and if you blame not the high-priest Achimelech, but consider their excuse for their transgression of the Law to be valid, and that was hunger; how do ye not approve in the Apostles the same plea which you approve in others? Though even here there is much difference. These rub ears of corn in their hands on the sabbath, those ate the Levitical bread, and over and above the solemn sabbath it was the season of new moon, during which when sought for at the banquet he fled from the royal palace. Observe that neither David nor his servants received the loaves of show-bread, before they had made answer that they were pure from women. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 12:3-4

(Ver. 3, 4.) But he said to them: Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? To refute the slander of the Pharisees, he recalls an old story, when David, fleeing from Saul, came to Nob and was received by the priest Ahimelech. He asked for food, and since he did not have any ordinary bread, Ahimelech gave him the consecrated bread, which only the priests and Levites were allowed to eat. And he merely asked if there were any boys in the world born of women; and when he responded, without hesitation, he did not hesitate to give bread, deeming it better to free people from the danger of hunger, as the prophet says: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice' (Hosea 6:6), rather than to offer sacrifice to God. For a merciful offering is pleasing to God and the salvation of humanity. Therefore, the Lord opposes and says: 'If even David, who is holy, and Ahimelech the high priest, are not condemned by you, but rather both have transgressed the command of the Law with a justifiable excuse, and hunger is the cause, why do you not approve the same hunger in the apostles, which you approve in others?' Although there is a great difference in this. Those people rubbed the ears of grain in their hands on the Sabbath, while others ate the Levitical loaves and came near the feast of the New Moon, on which day he was sought for at the banquet and fled from the royal court. Note that neither David nor his servants took the showbread before they answered that they were clean from women. — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 12:5

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] As though He had said, Ye bring complaints against my disciples, that on the sabbath they rub ears of corn in their hands, under stress of hunger, and ye yourselves profane the sabbath, slaying victims in the temple, killing bulls, burning holocausts on piles of wood; also, on the testimony of another Gospel (John 7:23.), ye circumcise infants on the sabbath; so that in keeping one law, ye break that concerning the sabbath. But the laws of God are never contrary one to another; wisely therefore, wherein His disciples might be accused of having transgressed them, He shows that therein they followed the examples of Achimelech and David; and this their pretended charge of breaking the sabbath He retorts truly, and not having the plea of necessity, upon those who had brought the accusation. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 12:5

You falsely accuse my disciples, Jesus says, for plucking ears of grain while passing through the standing fields. They did this because of their pangs of hunger. But you must violate the sabbath by immolating victims in the temple, slaughtering bulls and burning holocausts on a heap of firewood and, according to the testimony of the other Gospel, circumcising children on the sabbath. Thus, while you wish to observe the one law, you dishonor the sabbath. But God's commands do not contradict each other. — COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 2.12.5

Mateus 12:5

(Verse 5.) Have you not read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple violate the Sabbath and yet are without guilt? But I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. If you had known what this means, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath." (Matthew 12:5-8) However, the Laws of God are never contradictory to themselves. And wisely, when his disciples were able to be accused of transgression, David and Achimelech mention examples that they followed: but he attributes the violation of the Sabbath, true and without excuse, to those who had committed slander. — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 12:6

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] The word Hic is not a pronoun, but an adverb of place here, for that place is greater than the Temple which contains the Lord of the Temple. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 12:6

(Verse 6.) But I tell you that here is a greater temple. Here, is not a pronoun, but an adverb of place; that the place, which holds the Lord of the temple, is greater than the temple. — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 12:7

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] What I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, signifies, we have explained above. The words, Ye mould never have condemned the innocent, are to be referred to the Apostles, and the meaning is, If ye allow the mercy of Achimelech, in that he refreshed David when in danger of famishing, why do ye condemn My disciples? — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 12:7

(Verse 7.) But if you knew what this means, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the guiltless. What it means, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,' we have already explained. But what follows, 'You would not have condemned the guiltless,' refers to the apostles. And the meaning is this: If you approved of Achimelech's mercy, because he refreshed David and his men who were in danger of starvation, why do you condemn my disciples, who have done nothing similar? — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 12:8

(Verse 8) And when he had passed from there, he came into their synagogue. And behold, there was a man with a withered hand. This is the thirteenth one who is healed in the synagogue. And it should be noted that his hand was healed not on the road or outside, but in the council of the Jews. — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 12:9

(Verse 9.) And they asked him, saying: Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day? that they might accuse him. Because he had previously defended himself and his disciples against the accusation of breaking the sabbath by a valid example, the Pharisees now want to falsely accuse him. They ask whether it is lawful to heal on the sabbath day, so that if he does not heal, they can accuse him of cruelty or weakness; but if he does heal, they can accuse him of transgression. — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 12:9

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] Because by fair instances He had vindicated His disciples from the charge of breaking the sabbath, the Pharisees seek to bring false accusation against Himself; whence it is said, And passing thence, he came into their synagogue. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 12:10

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] And they ask Him whether it is lawful to heal on the sabbath day, that if He should refuse, they might charge Him with cruelty, or want of power; if He should heal him, they might charge Him with transgressing the Law. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 12:11-12

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] Thus He answers their question in such a way as to convict the questioners of covetousness. If ye on the sabbath, saith He, would hasten to lift out a sheep or any other animal that might have fallen into a pit, not for the sake of the animal, but to preserve your own property, how much more ought I to deliver a man who is so much better than a sheep? — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 12:11-12

(Vs. 10 seqq.) But he said to them: Which one of you, having a sheep, if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not take hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath. In this way, he solved the proposed question, so as to condemn those who were questioning out of greed. If, he said, on the Sabbath you hurry to rescue a sheep or any other animal that falls into a pit, not because of the animal, but because of your greed, how much more should I free a man, who is much more valuable than a sheep! — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 12:13

(Verse 13) Then he said to the man, \"Stretch out your hand.\" And he stretched it out, and his health was restored like the other. In the Gospel used by the Nazarenes and Ebionites (which we recently translated from Hebrew into Greek, and which some call the authentic Gospel of Matthew), this man, who has a withered hand, is said to be a mason, praying for help with these words: \"I was a mason, seeking food with my hands. I beg you, Jesus, to restore my health, so that I may not shamefully beg for food.\ Until the coming of the Savior, the hand of God was dry in the synagogue of the Jews, and His works were not performed in it: but after He came to the earth, His right hand was restored to the believing apostles, and the former work was renewed. — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 12:13

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and Ebionites use, (vid. note, p. 433.) and which we have lately translated into Greek out of the Hebrew, and which many regard as the genuine Matthew, this man who has the withered hand is described as a builder, and he makes his prayer in these words, 'I was a builder, and gained my living by the labour of my hands; I pray thee, Jesus, to restore me to health, that I may not disgracefully beg my bread.' Until the coming of the Lord the Saviour, there was the withered hand in the Synagogue of the Jews, and the works of the Lord were not done in it; but when He came upon earth, the right hand was restored in the Apostles who believed, and given back to its former occupation. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 12:14

(Verse 14) But the Pharisees went out and plotted against him, how they might destroy him. The reason they plot against the Lord is envy. For what had he done to provoke the Pharisees to kill him? It was because he had stretched out his hand. For who among the Pharisees does not stretch out their hand on the Sabbath, carrying food and extending a cup, and all the other things that are necessary for sustenance? Therefore, if it is not a crime to stretch out one's hand and lift up food or drink on the Sabbath, why do they accuse him of doing something they themselves are guilty of, especially when this builder did not carry such things, but only stretched out his hand in accordance with the command of the Lord? — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 12:14

Envy is responsible for the fact that they set a trap for our Lord. What had he done to incite the Pharisees to kill him? Certainly it was because the man had stretched out his hand. Who of the Pharisees did not stretch out his hand on the sabbath day when he was carrying food, when he was offering a drinking cup or performing the other actions that are necessary for nourishment? So if stretching forth one's hand and lifting up food or drink on the sabbath are not offenses, why should they make this accusation? They themselves are found guilty of doing the same, especially since that stonecutter had not carried anything of the sort that they had but had only stretched out his hand at the order of our Lord. — COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 2.12.14

Mateus 12:15

(Verse 15 and following) But Jesus, knowing this, departed from there, and many followed him, and he healed them all. And he commanded them not to make him known, so that what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled, saying, Knowing their plot, that they wanted to destroy their Savior, he departed from there, in order to take away from the Pharisees the opportunity for wickedness against himself. — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 12:15

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] Knowing, that is, their designs against Him withdrew Himself, that He might remove from the Pharisees all opportunity of sin. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 12:15-20

What does it mean that it is written in Matthew: 'A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench' (Matthew 12:20). For the explanation of this passage, the whole testimony that Matthew takes from the Prophet Isaiah must be set forth, even the words of Isaiah (Isaiah 42): according to the Septuagint interpreters and the Hebrew itself, to which Theodotus, Aquila, and Symmachus agree. Thus of the four Evangelists, only Matthew relates: "And Jesus knowing it, retired from thence: and many followed him, and he healed them all. And he charged them that they should not make him known. That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaias the prophet, saying: Behold my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved in whom my soul hath been well pleased. I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles." (Chapter 12, verses 15-18) He will not strive, nor cry out, nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed he will not break, and smoking flax he will not extinguish, until he brings forth judgment unto victory. And in his name the Gentiles will hope" (Matthew 12:15 and following). For which in Isaiah, according to the Septuagint interpreters, it is thus written: "Jacob my servant, I will uplift him. My chosen one, my soul has received him. I have given my spirit upon him, he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not cry, nor have respect to person, neither shall his voice be heard abroad. The bruised reed he shall not break: and smoking flax he shall not extinguish: but he shall bring forth judgment unto truth. He shall shine, and shall not be broken, until he set judgment in the earth: and the countries shall wait for his law." However, we translate it from Hebrew like this, "Behold my servant, I will uphold him; my chosen, my soul has delighted in him. I have given my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. "He will not cry out, nor raise his voice, nor make it heard in the street. A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out. In truth he will bring forth justice. He will not grow faint or be discouraged till he has established justice on the earth; and the islands will put their hope in his law." This shows that the Gospel writer Matthew, not bound by authority of the old interpretation, dismissed the Hebrew truth and brought forth to the nations, educated in the Law of the Lord, the things he had read in Hebrew as if he were a Hebrew among Hebrews. For if it is to be taken thus, as the Seventy Interpreters have given it: Jacob is my servant, I will receive him; Israel is my chosen, my soul has received him, how do we understand that it has been fulfilled in Jesus, what has been written concerning Jacob and Israel? We read that Blessed Matthew did this not only in this testimony, but also in another place: Out of Egypt I called my son (Hosea 11:2): for which the Seventy translated: Out of Egypt I called his sons. Certainly, if we do not follow the Hebrew truth, it is evident that it does not pertain to the Lord and Savior. For it follows: but they sacrificed to Baalim. And that which is less in the assumed testimony in the Gospel: it shall shine and not be shaken, until he shall place judgment upon the earth, seems to have happened by the error of the first writer who, reading the higher sentence to be finished in the word judgment, thought that the final word of the lower sentence was judgment, and he omitted a few words which were in the middle, that is, between judgment and judgment. And again, that which is read among the Hebrews: And in his law shall the islands hope, Matthew, interpreting the sense rather than the words, put for law and islands, a name and nations. And not only in the present place, but wherever the testimonies of the Evangelists and Apostles from the old Instrument have been brought forth, it should be observed more diligently: not that they followed words, but the sense: and where they differ from the Hebrew in the Septuagint, they expressed the Hebrew sense in their own words. Therefore, the Child of the almighty God, according to the dispensation of assumed flesh, which is sent to us, is called the Savior. To whom and in another place the Father says: It is great for you to be called my child, to gather the tribes of Jacob (Isai. 49.3). This is the vineyard of Sorec, which is interpreted as chosen. This is the beloved son, in whom the soul of God is pleased; not because God has a soul, but because every affection of God is shown in the soul. And it is not surprising if the soul is named in God, when all the members of the human body, according to the laws of tropology, and various intelligences, are said to have it. He also placed his spirit upon him: the Spirit of Wisdom and Understanding, the Spirit of Counsel and Strength, the Spirit of Knowledge and Piety, and the Spirit of the Fear of the Lord (Isaiah 11): He who descends upon him in the form of a dove, about whom John the Baptist narrates having heard from God the Father: "The One upon whom you see the Holy Spirit descending and remaining upon, He is" (John 1:33). And He will announce judgment to the Gentiles; concerning whom it is also written in the Psalms: "Give the king your justice, O God, and your righteousness to the son of a king" (Psalm 71:1). He Himself speaks about it in the Gospel: "For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son" (John 5:22). He will not contend: like a lamb led to the slaughter: He will not argue in the hearing. Nor will he cry out, in accordance with what the Apostle Paul writes: Let all clamor, and anger, and bitterness be taken away from you (Ephesians 4:31). He will not cry out: because Israel did not do justice, but cry out. Nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets or outdoors. For all the glory of the daughter of the king is within (Psalm 44:14): And, Narrow, and cramped is the way that leads to life (Matthew 7:14). Therefore his voice is not heard in the streets, where wisdom confidently acts, not entering a broad and spacious way, but accusing and condemning. And so he spoke to those who were outside, not in his own voice, but in parables: 'The reed, he said, shaken does not break; or, as the Septuagint translated, the broken reed not to be crushed. The broken reed that was once vocal, and sang in praise of the Lord, is called Israel, who, because he stumbled on a corner stone and fell on it, was broken in it; therefore it is said of him: Rebuke, O Lord, the beasts of the reed (Ps. 67. 31): and in the volume of Jesus he is called the torrent of the cane, that is, of the reed; who has turbid waters, which Israel chose, despising the purest streams of the Jordan: and turning his mind back to Egypt, and desiring the marshy and swampy region, and pumpkins, and onions, and garlic, and cucumbers, and the pots of Egyptian flesh, is rightly called a broken reed by Isaiah: he who wants to lean on which, his hand will be pierced. For whoever, after the advent of the Lord and Savior and leaving behind the spirit of interpreting the Gospel, rests in the death of Jewish literature, all the works of that person are harmed. Even smoking linen will not extinguish a people gathered from the nations who, with the ardor of natural law extinguished, are wrapped in the bitter smoke, which is hurtful to the eyes, and enveloped in the darkness of errors. He who not only did not restrain and reduce to ashes, but on the contrary, from a small spark, and almost dying, raised the greatest fire; so that the whole world burned with the fire of the Lord and Savior, whom he came to send upon the earth, and in all desires to burn (Luke 12:49). According to the tropology, what we see in this place, we have briefly noted in the Commentaries of Matthew. But he who has not broken the bruised reed, and has not extinguished the smoking flax, has also brought judgment unto victory (Isai. 42:3), whose judgments are true, justified in themselves (Psalm 18), so that he may be justified in his words and may overcome in judgment (Psalm 50), and so that the light of his preaching may shine in the world, not be crushed by anyone, and may overcome all snares, until he establishes judgment on earth and that which is written may be fulfilled: 'Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven' (Matthew 6:10). And, in his name shall the Gentiles hope (Isaiah 11:10); or the islands shall hope in his law (Ibid. 42:4). For just as the islands are struck by the blast and rush of winds and frequently buffeted by storms, but they are not overturned, as an example of the Gospel house built on a sturdy foundation of rock (Matthew 7; and Luke 6), so the Churches, which hope in the law and in the name of the Lord and Savior, speak through Isaiah: I am a strong city, a city that cannot be taken (Isaiah 27:3, LXX). — Letter 121, Chapter 2

Mateus 12:18

Through Isaiah the prophet the person of the Father states this: "I shall put my Spirit upon him." The Spirit is not placed upon the Word of God nor upon the only begotten Son who proceeds from the Father but upon the One about whom it is said, "Here is my Son." — COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 2.12.18

Mateus 12:18

(Verse 18.) Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased. I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall show judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry out. Through the prophet Isaiah, this is spoken in the person of the Father: I will put my spirit upon him (Isaiah 42:1). The spirit is not placed upon the Word of God, nor upon the only begotten, who proceeded from the Father's bosom, but upon him of whom it is said: Behold my servant (ibidem). — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 12:18

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] But the Holy Spirit is put, not on the Word of God, but on the Only-Begotten, who came forth from the bosom of the Father; on Him, that is, of whom it is said, Behold my servant. And what He will do by Him He adds, And he shall declare judgment to the Gentiles. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 12:19

(Verse 19.) Neither will anyone hear his voice in the streets. For the way is broad and spacious that leads to destruction, and many enter through it (Mat. 7:13). Those who do not hear the voice of the Savior are many, because they are not on the narrow path, but on the spacious one. — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 12:19

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] For the way is broad and wide which leads to destruction, and many walk in it; and being many, they will not hear the voice of the Saviour, because they are not in the narrow but in the broad way. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 12:20

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] He that holds not out his hand to a sinner, nor bears his brother's burden, he breaks a bruised reed; and he who despises a weak spark of faith in a little one, he quenches a smoking flax. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 12:20

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] (Ep. 121.2.) Or, the reverse, He calls the Jews a bruised reed, whom tossed by the wind and shaken from one another, the Lord did not immediately condemn, but patiently endured; and the smoking flax He calls the people gathered out of the Gentiles, who, having extinguished the light of the natural law, were involved in the wandering mazes of thick darkness of smoke, bitter and hurtful to the eyes; this He not only did not extinguish, by reducing them to ashes, but on the contrary from a small spark and one almost dead He raised a mighty flame. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 12:20-21

The one who does not stretch out a hand to a sinner and does not carry a brother's load breaks the crushed reed. And the one who despises the small spark of faith in children extinguishes the smoking wick. Christ did neither of these. He came for this purpose: to save those who were perishing. — COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 2.12.20

Mateus 12:20-21

(Verse 20, 21.) He will not break a bruised reed, and he will not extinguish smoking flax, until he brings forth judgment to victory. And in his name the Gentiles will hope. He who does not reach out his hand to the sinner, nor carries the burden of his brother, he breaks the bruised reed. And he who despises the small spark of faith in the little ones, he extinguishes smoking flax. Christ has done neither of these; for this is why he came, to save what was lost. — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 12:22

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] Three miracles were wrought in one and the same person at the same time; the blind sees, the dumb speaks, the possessed is delivered from the dæmon. This was at that time done in the flesh, but is now daily being fulfilled in the conversion of them that believe; the dæmon is cast out when they first behold the light of the faith, and then their mouths which had before been stopped are opened to utter the praises of God. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 12:22

(Verse 22.) Then a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute was brought to him, and he healed him, so that he could speak and see. All the crowds were amazed and said, 'Could this be the Son of David?' But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, 'This man does not cast out demons except by Beelzebul, the prince of demons.' Three signs were performed simultaneously in one man: the blind see, the mute speak, and the one possessed by a demon is set free. This was indeed done in a physical sense at that time, but it is also fulfilled daily in the conversion of believers, so that after the demon is expelled, they first see the light of faith, and then their mouths are opened in praise of God. — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 12:25

(Verse 25) But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said to them: Every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate, and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand. The crowds marveled and confessed that he, who performed such great signs, was the son of David. But the Pharisees attributed the works of God to the prince of demons. To them, the Lord did not respond to their words, but to their thoughts, so that they might be compelled to believe in his power, who saw the hidden things of the heart. — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 12:25-26

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] The Pharisees ascribed the works of God to the Prince of the dæmons; and the Lord makes answer not to what they said, but to what they thought, that even thus they might be compelled to believe His power, Who saw the secrets of the heart; Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said unto them. For as small things grow by concord, so the greatest fall to pieces through dissensions. As much as to say, If Satan fight against himself, and dæmon be an enemy to dæmon, then must the end of the world be at hand, that these hostile powers should have no place there, whose mutual war is peace for men. But if ye think, ye Scribes and Pharisees, that the dæmons depart out of the possessed in obedience to their Prince, that men may be imposed upon by a concerted fraud, what can ye say to the healing of diseases which the Lord also wrought? It is something more if ye assign to the dæmons even bodily infirmities, and the signs of spiritual virtues. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 12:26

(Verse 26) And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand? A kingdom and a city divided against themselves cannot endure; but just as small things grow by harmony, so great things are destroyed by discord. Therefore, if Satan fights against himself, and a demon is an enemy of a demon, then the end of the world should have already come; so that opposing powers would not have a place in it, and their war would be the peace of mankind. But if you think, O scribes and Pharisees, that the expulsion of demons is by the power of their prince, in order to deceive ignorant men by fraudulent pretense, what can you say about the healings of bodies, which the Lord performed? It is one thing if the weakness of limbs and the signs of spiritual virtues are also assigned to demons. — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 12:27

If they were exorcists casting out devils by invoking God's name, he intimates by clever questioning that they should declare the work to be of the Holy Spirit. He goes on to say, "If the casting out of devils by your [the Pharisees'] children is attributed to God and not to devils, how come the same work does not have the same cause?" Therefore "they shall be your judges," not by authority but by comparison. While they attribute to God the casting out of devils, you attribute it to Beelzebub the prince of devils. But it was said about the apostles (and this we should bear in mind), they will be the judges of those children, for they will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. — COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 2.12.27

Mateus 12:27

(Verse 27) And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. He indicates the sons of Judaeans, either the exorcists of that nation according to custom, or the apostles generated from their lineage. If exorcists, who were casting out demons by invoking God, are constrained by wise questioning to confess that it is the work of the Holy Spirit. He says that if the expulsion of demons is attributed to God and not to demons in your sons, why should the same work and cause not apply to me? Therefore your judges will be, not by power, but by comparison: while they assign the expulsion of demons to God; you to Beelzebub, the prince of demons. But if it is said of the apostles, which we must understand more, they will be their judges: because they will sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matthew 19 and Luke 22). — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 12:27-28

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] But if ye think, ye Scribes and Pharisees, that the dæmons depart out of the possessed in obedience to their Prince, that men may be imposed upon by a concerted fraud, what can ye say to the healing of diseases which the Lord also wrought? It is something more if ye assign to the dæmons even bodily infirmities, and the signs of spiritual virtues. He alludes, as is His manner, under the name children of the Jews, either to the exorcists of that race, or to the Apostles who are by race of that nation. If He means the exorcists who by the invocation of God cast out dæmons, He thus constrains the Pharisees by a wise enquiry to confess that their work was of the Holy Spirit. If, He would say, the casting out of the dæmons by your children is imputed to God, and not to dæmons, why should the same work wrought by Me not have the same cause? Therefore shall they be your judges, not by authority but by comparison, they ascribe the casting out of the dæmons to God, you to the Prince of the dæmons. But if it is of the Apostles also that this is said, (and so we should rather take it,) then they shall be their judges, for they shall sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. For the kingdom of God denotes Himself, of whom it is written in another place, The kingdom of God is among you; (Luke 17:21) and, There standeth one in the midst of you whom ye know not. (John 1:26) Or surely that kingdom which both John and the Lord Himself had preached above, Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. (Mat. 3:2 4:17.) There is also a third kingdom of the Holy Scripture which shall be taken from the Jews, and be given to a nation that brings forth the fruit thereof. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 12:28

(Verse 28.) But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. In Luke, we read this passage as follows: But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you (Luke 11:20). This is the finger that the Magi confessed, who were making signs against Moses and Aaron, saying: This is the finger of God (Exodus 8:19). By this finger, the stone tablets were written on Mount Sinai (Deuteronomy 9). Therefore, if the hand and arm of God is the Son, and his finger is the Holy Spirit, then the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are of one substance: let the inequality of the members not scandalize you, for the unity of the body builds it. Therefore, the kingdom of God has come upon you. It signifies either himself, about whom it is written in another place: The kingdom of God is within you (Luke 17:21). And: One stands among you, whom you do not know (John 26). Or certainly that kingdom which both John and the Lord himself preached: Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand (Matthew 3:2). There is also a third kingdom of Holy Scripture, which is taken away from the Jews and will be given to a nation producing its fruits (Matthew 21). — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 12:29

(Verse 29.) Or how can anyone enter the strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house. We should not be secure: Our adversary is strong, which is confirmed by the voice of the victor. His house is the world, which is situated in evil (1 John 5), not by the dignity of the Creator, but by the greatness of the transgressor. We were once his vessels. The strong man has been bound, and bound in Tartarus, and crushed by the foot of the Lord. And with the seats of the tyrant plundered, captivity has been taken captive. — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 12:29

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] His house is this world, which is set in evil, not by the majesty of the Creator, but by the greatness of the sinner. The strong man is bound and chained in tartarus, bruised by the Lord's foot. Yet ought we not therefore to be careless; for here the conqueror Himself pronounces our adversary to be strong. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 12:30

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] But let none think that this is said of heretics and schismatics; though we may apply it besides to such; but it is shown by the context to refer to the Devil; in that the works of the Saviour cannot be compared with the works of Beelzebub. He seeks to hold men's souls in captivity, the Lord to set them free; he preaches idols, the Lord the knowledge of the true God; he draws men to sin, the Lord calls them back to virtues. How then can these have agreement together, whose works are so opposite? — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 12:30-31

(Verses 30, 31.) Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. Therefore I say to you: every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven to men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Let no one think that this is said about heretics and schismatics (although it can be understood in that way from what is said in excess), but it refers to the consequences and context of the discourse to the devil: because the works of the Savior cannot be compared to the works of Beelzebub. He desires to hold captive the souls of men; the Lord desires to set them free. He preaches idols; this one preaches the knowledge of the one God. He draws towards vices; this one calls back to virtues. How, then, can they have concord, whose actions are divided (or different)? — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 12:31-32

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] Or the passage may be thus understood; Whoso speaks a word against the Son of Man, as stumbling at My flesh, and thinking of Me as no more than man, such opinion and blasphemy though it is not free from the sin of heresy, yet finds pardon because of the little worth of the body. But whoso plainly perceiving the works of God, and being unable to deny the power of God, speaks falsely against them prompted by jealousy, and calls Christ who is the Word of God, and the works of the Holy Ghost, Beelzebub, to him it shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, nor in the world to come. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 12:32

(Verse 32.) And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, neither in this age nor in the age to come. And how is it that some of our bishops and priests, after blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, are reinstated in their positions, when the Savior says that all sins and blasphemies will be forgiven to men, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in the present time or in the future? Unless perhaps we take that example from the evangelist Mark, who expressed the causes of such anger more clearly, saying: 'Because they were saying, He has an unclean spirit.' Therefore, whoever attributes the works of the Savior to Beelzebub, the prince of demons, and says that the Son of God has an unclean spirit, to this person blasphemy will never be forgiven. Or perhaps this passage should be understood as follows: Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, being scandalized by my flesh and considering me only human, that I am the son of a carpenter and have brothers named James, Joseph, and Judas; and that I am a glutton and a drunkard, such an opinion and blasphemy, although it is not without fault of error, nevertheless will receive forgiveness on account of the lowliness of the body. But those who clearly understand the works of God, since they cannot deny the power, driven by the same envy, they slander; and they say that Christ, the Word of God, and the works of the Holy Spirit are Beelzebub: these will not be forgiven, neither in this age, nor in the age to come. — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 12:33

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] Thus He holds them in a syllogism which the Greeks call 'Aphycton,' the unavoidable; which shuts in the person questioned on both sides, and presses him with either horn. If, He saith, the Devil be evil, he cannot do good works; so that if the works you see be good, it follows that the Devil was not the agent thereof. For it cannot be that good should come of evil, or evil of good. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 12:33

(Verse 33.) Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad. For the tree is known by its fruit. It constrains them with an unassailable argument, which the Greeks call ἄφυκτον and we can call inevitable: it concludes from questions asked here and there, and presses with both horns. If, he says, the devil is evil, he cannot do good works. But if the works you see are good, it follows that the one who does them is not the devil. For it is not possible for good to arise from evil, or for evil to arise from good. But as follows: — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 12:34

(Verse 34.) Brood of vipers, how can you speak good when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. It reveals that they are a bad tree, producing fruit of blasphemy, which have the seeds of the devil. — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 12:35

(Verse 35) A good man brings forth good treasures. And an evil man brings forth evil treasures. Either it shows the Jews themselves blaspheming the Lord, from what wicked treasure they bring forth blasphemies, or with the previous question, the opinion clings that just as a good man cannot bring forth evil things, nor can an evil man bring forth good things, so Christ cannot do evil things, and the devil cannot do good works. — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 12:35

Mateus 12:36

This, too, goes with what was said before, and the meaning is that on the day of judgment each person must render an account of his or her words. If an idle word which by no means edifies the listeners is not without harm to the speaker, how much more will you Pharisees, who criticize the works of the Holy Spirit and say that I cast out devils by Beelzebub the prince of devils, have to render an account of your criticism? An idle word is what is spoken without benefit to the speaker and the listener. We overlook serious things and utter frivolous things and tell old wives' tales. One who acts like a buffoon and makes mouths drop with boisterous laughter and who utters disgraceful things—that person shall be held to account, not for an idle word but a slanderous word. — COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 2.12.36

Mateus 12:36-37

(Verse 36, 37.) But I tell you that every idle word that men speak, they shall give an account thereof in the day of judgment. For by your words you shall be justified, and by your words you shall be condemned. This also aligns with what was said before. And the meaning is this: If an idle word, which does not edify the listeners, is not without danger for the one who speaks it, and each person will have to give an account for their own words on the day of judgment, how much more will you, who revile the works of the Holy Spirit and say that I cast out demons by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, have to give an account for your slander! Idle speech is that which is spoken by the speaker and heard by the listener without any usefulness: if we omit serious matters and talk about frivolous things, and tell old stories. However, whoever responds with jests and breaks out in laughter and utters something shameful, they will be held guilty not of idle speech, but of a crime. — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 12:36-37

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] What He says, The good man out of the good treasure of his heart, & c. is either pointed against the Jews, that seeing they blasphemed God, what treasure in their heart must that be out of which such blasphemy proceeded; or it is connected with what had gone before, that like as a good man cannot bring forth evil things, nor an evil man good things, so Christ cannot do evil works, nor the Devil good works. And the meaning is; If every idle word which does not edify the hearers is not without danger to him that speaks it, and if each man shall render an account of his words in the day of judgment, how much more shall you, who have spoken falsely against the works of the Holy Spirit, saying that I cast out dæmons through Beelzebub, render an account of your false charge? being spoken without the profit of either the speaker or hearer; as if laying aside weighty matters we should speak of frivolous trifles, or relate old fables. For he that deals in buffoon jests to create laughter, or brings forth any thing shameful, he will be held guilty not of an idle, but of a sinful word. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 12:38

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] They require a sign of Him, as though what they had seen were not signs; and in another Evangelist what they required is more fully expressed, We would see of thee a sign from heaven. Either they would have fire from heaven as Elias did; or after the example of Samuel they would that in summer-time, contrary to the nature of the climate, thunder should be heard, lightnings gleam, and rain descend; as though they could not have spoken falsely even against such miracles, and said that they befel by reason of divers hidden motions in the air. For if thou cavillest against what thou not only beholdest with thine eyes, but feelest with thine hand, and reapest the benefit of, what wilt thou do in those things which come down from heaven. You might make answer, that in Egypt the magi also had given many signs from heaven. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 12:38

(Verse 38) Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, "Teacher, we want to see a sign from you." They demand a sign as if the signs they had seen were not enough. But in another Gospel it is explained more fully what they are asking for: "We want to see a sign from heaven" (Mark 8:11). They either wanted fire to come down from above like Elijah, or they wanted thunder to roar, lightning to flash, and rain to pour down in the summertime against the natural order of the place, so that they could not accuse Jesus of working these wonders in secret or attribute them to various natural phenomena. For those who calumny the things which they see with their eyes, hold with their hand, and experience through usefulness: what will you do with those things which have come from heaven? Surely you will respond that the magicians in Egypt performed many signs from heaven (Exod. VII). — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 12:39

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] Excellently is that said, and adulterous, seeing she has put away her husband, and, according to Ezekiel, has joined herself to many lovers. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 12:39

(Verse 39.) And he answered and said to them: An evil and adulterous generation. Admirably said adulterous: because she had dismissed her husband, and according to Ezekiel, had joined herself to many lovers (Ezek. 16). — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 12:40

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] Not that He remained three whole days and three nights in hell, but that this be understood to imply a part of the preparation day, and of the Lord's day, and the whole sabbath day. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 12:40

(Verse 40.) He seeks a sign, and a sign will not be given to him, except the sign of Jonah the prophet (John 2). For just as Jonah was in the belly of the great fish for three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights. We have discussed this passage more fully in the Commentaries of the prophet Jonah; therefore, we leave it to the diligence of the reader to refer to that passage. Having briefly mentioned this, we are content that the whole should be understood in part through synecdoche: not that the Lord stood in hell for all three days and three nights, but that in part of the day of Preparation, the day of the Lord, and the whole day of the Sabbath, three days and three nights are understood. — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 12:41

(Verse 41) The men of Nineveh will rise up in judgment with this generation, and will condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonah. Not by the power of judgment, but by the example of comparison. And behold, here is more than Jonah. Here, 'here' is an adverb of place, not a pronoun. Jonah, according to the Septuagint Interpreters, preached for three days: I for so much time. He to the unbelieving Assyrians: I to the people of God, the Jews. He to foreigners: I to fellow citizens. He spoke in simple words, doing nothing of signs: I doing so many signs, enduring the slander of Beelzebub. Therefore, there is more of Jonah here, that is, currently among you. — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 12:41-42

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] Not by a sentence of judgment, but by the comparison of their example; as He adds, For they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here. This word 'hic' is to be taken as an adverb of place, not as a pronoun. Jonas (according to the LXX) preached for three days, (Jonah 3:4 ἔτι τρδῖς ἡμέδαι) I for this so long time; he to the Assyrians an unbelieving nation, I to God's own people the Jews; he preached with his voice only, doing no miracles, I, doing so many wonders, am falsely accused as Beelzebub. So the queen of the south will condemn the Jews in the same manner as the men of Nineveh will condemn unbelieving Israel. This is the queen of Saba, of whom we read in the book of Kings and Chronicles, who leaving her nation and kingdom came through so many difficulties to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and brought him many gifts. Also in these instances of Nineveh and the queen of Saba, the faith of the Gentiles is significantly set above that of Israel. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 12:42

(Verse 42.) The Queen of Austria will rise in judgment with this generation, and will condemn it because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon. And behold, someone greater than Solomon is here. In the same way, the Queen of Austria will condemn the people of Judah, just as the men of Nineveh condemned the unbelieving Israel. This, however, is the Queen of Sheba, of whom we read in the Book of Kings and Chronicles: she, despite all the difficulties and leaving her people and empire behind, came to Judah to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and she brought him many gifts. But in Nineveh, the faith of the nations is secretly preferred to that of Israel. — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 12:43

(Verse 43) But whenever an unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it roams through arid places, searching for rest but does not find any. Then it says, 'I will return to my house from which I came.' And when it comes, it finds the house empty, swept clean, and put in order. Then it goes and brings along with it seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and dwell there. And the last state of that person becomes worse than the first. For heretics are in a much worse condition than the Gentiles: because in the former there is hope of faith, and in the latter there is the battle of discord. Although this understanding seems to prefer applause and the appearance of doctrine, I do not know whether it has the truth. For from the fact that a finite or parabolic, or exemplary, sequence follows: so it will be for this wicked generation: we are compelled not to refer to heretics and any other people, but to the Jewish people as a parable, so that the context of the passage does not flow passively and vaguely in different directions and is confused like the custom of fools; but let it adhere to itself, either responding to what came before or what comes after. An unclean spirit went out from the Jews, when they received the Law, and walked through dry places, seeking rest for itself. Being driven out by the Jews, it walked through the deserted places of the Gentiles; and when they later believed in the Lord, he, not finding a place among the nations, said: — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 12:43-45

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] Some suppose that this place is spoken of heretics, because the unclean spirit who dwelt in them before when they were Gentiles, is cast out before the confession of the true faith; when after they went over to heresy, and garnished their house with feigned virtues, then it is that the Devil, having taken to him other seven evil spirits, returns and dwells in them; and their last state becomes worse than their first. And indeed heretics are in a much worse condition than the Gentiles; for in the heretics was a hope of faith, in the Gentiles a war of discord. Yet though this exposition has a plausibility and a show of learning, I am doubtful of its truth. For by the concluding words of this, whether it be parable or example, Titus shall it he to this evil generation, we are compelled to refer it, not to heretics, or to men in general, but to the Jewish people. So the context of the passage may not shift about loosely and vaguely, and be like unmeaning speeches, but may be consistent with itself from first to last. The unclean spirit then went out from the Jews when they received the Law; and being cast out of the Jews, he walked through the wilderness of the Gentiles; as it follows, He walketh through dry places seeking rest. And when they believed on the Lord, the Devil, finding no place among the nations, said, I will return into my house whence I came out; I have the Jews from whom I formerly departed. And when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. For the temple of the Jews was empty, and had not Christ to dwell therein, He having said, Arise, let us go hence. (John 14:31) Seeing then they had not the protection of Angels, and were burdened with the useless observances of the Law, and the traditions of the Pharisees, the Devil returns to his former dwelling, and, taking to him seven other dæmons, inhabits it as before. And the last state of that nation is worse than the first, for they are now possessed by a larger number of dæmons in blaspheming Jesus Christ in their synagogues, than they were possessed with in Egypt before they had knowledge of the Law; for it is one thing to have no belief that He should come, another not to receive Him when He is come. A number seven-fold is joined with the Devil, either because of the sabbath, or from the number of the Holy Spirit; (Is. 11:2) that as in Isaiah upon the bud which comes from the root of Jesse, seven spirits of virtues are related to have descended; so on the other hand an equal number of vices should be poured forth upon the Devil. Beautifully then are seven spirits said to be taken to him, either because of the breaking of the sabbath, or because of the heinous sins which are contrary to the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 12:44

(Verse 44.) I will return to my home, from which I departed. This is, I will go to the Jews, whom I had dismissed before. — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 12:45

(Verse 45) And coming, he finds it empty, swept clean, and put in order. Then he goes and takes with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that man becomes worse than the first. So it will be with this wicked generation. For the temple of the Jews was empty, and it did not have Christ as a guest, who said: Rise, let us go from here (John 14:31). And in another place: Your house shall be left to you desolate (Luke 13:35). Therefore, since both God and the angels did not have protection, and they were adorned with superfluous observances of the Law and traditions of the Pharisees, the devil returns to his former seat: and adding to himself a group of demons, he inhabits his former home, and the last things of that people become worse than the previous ones. For now they are possessed by a much greater number of demons, blaspheming Christ Jesus in their synagogues, than they were possessed in Egypt before the knowledge of the Law: for it is one thing not to believe in the coming One, and another not to receive Him who has come. But the number seven, whether understood to refer to the devil because of the Sabbath, or because of the number of the Holy Spirit: just as it is narrated that the seven spirits of virtues descended upon the rod from the root of Jesse and the flower that ascended from the root (Isa. XI); so, on the contrary, the number of vices is consecrated in the devil. — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 12:46

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] (in loc.) But some suspect the brethren of the Lord to be sons of Joseph by another wife, following the idle fancies of apocryphal writers, who have coined a certain woman called E sea. But we understand by the brethren of the Lord, not the sons of Joseph, but cousins of the Saviour, sons of a sister of Mary, an aunt of Our Lord, who is said to be the mother of James the Less, and Joseph, and Jude, whom in another place of the Gospel we find called the brethren of the Lord. (Mark 6:3) And that cousins are called brethren, appears from every part of Scripture. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 12:46

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] (cont. Helvid. 14, et seq.) From this is taken one of Helvidius's propositions, on the ground that mention is made in the Gospel of the brethren of the Lord. How, says he, are they called brethren of the Lord, if they were not his brethren? But now it should be known that in divine Scripture men are said to be brethren in four different ways, by nature, by nation, by kindred, and by affection. By nature, as Esau and Jacob. By nation, as all Jews are called brethren, as in Deuteronomy, Thou shalt not set over thee a foreigner who is not thy brother. (Deut. 17:15) They are called brethren by kindred who are of one family, as in Genesis, Abraham said unto Lot, Let there not be strife between thee and me, for we are brethren. (Gen. 13:8) Also men are called brethren by affection, which is of two kinds, special and general. Special, as all Christians are called brethren, as the Saviour says, Go tell my brethren. General, inasmuch as all men are born of one father, we are bound together by a tie of consanguinity, as in that, Say unto them that hate you, Ye are our brethren. (Is. 66:5 sec. LXX.) I ask then, after which manner these are called the Lord's brethren in the Gospel? According to nature? But Scripture saith not, neither calling them sons of Mary nor of Joseph. By nation? But it is absurd that some few out of all the Jews should be called brethren, seeing that all the Jews who were there might have thus been called brethren. By affection, either of a human sort, or of the Spirit? If that be true, yet how were they more His brethren than the Apostles, whom He instructed in the inmost mysteries. Or if because they were men, and all men are brethren, it was foolish to say of them in particular, Behold, thy brethren seek thee. It only remains then that they should be His brethren by kindred, not by affection, not by privilege of nation, not by nature. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 12:46-48

(Verse 46 and following) While he was still speaking to the crowds, behold his mother and brothers stood outside seeking to speak to him. But someone said to him: Look, your mother and brothers stand outside seeking you. But he answered the one who told him, saying: Who is my mother, and who are my brothers? And stretching out his hand towards his disciples, he said. The Lord was occupied with the work of speaking, teaching the people, and fulfilling the duty of preaching, while his mother and brothers came and stood outside, desiring to speak to him. Then someone announces to the Savior that his mother and brothers are standing outside, seeking him. It seems to me that this person who announces it is not doing so by chance and simply: but is setting a trap for the Savior, whether he prefers spiritual work over flesh and blood. Therefore, the Lord, not because he denied his mother and brothers, ignored their request to go out; but because he responded to the one laying a trap, extending his hand towards his disciples, he said: — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 12:46-50

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] Let us also expound in another way. The Saviour is speaking to the multitude—that is, He teaches the Gentiles the inward mysteries; His mother and His brethren, that is the synagogue and the Jewish people, stand without. And when they shall have asked and enquired, and sent a messenger, they shall receive for answer, that their will is free, and that they can enter in, if they will believe. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 12:47

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] He that delivers this message, seems to me not to do it casually and without meaning, but as setting a snare for Him, whether He would prefer flesh and blood to the spiritual work; and thus the Lord refused to go out, not because He disowned His mother and His brethren, but that He might confound him that had laid this snare for Him. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 12:49-50

(Verses 49, 50.) Behold my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father who is in heaven, he is my brother and sister and mother. These are my mother, who daily begets me in the souls of believers. These are my brothers, who do the works of my Father. Therefore, he did not deny his mother, as Marcion and Manichaeus believed, that he was born from a phantom; but he preferred the apostles to kinship, so that we may also prefer the spirit to the flesh in comparison of love. Behold, your mother and brothers are standing outside, seeking you. Some of the Lord's brothers suspect that Joseph had children by another wife, following the delusions of the apocryphal writings and inventing a certain Melcha or Escha as a little woman. But as it is contained in the book that we wrote against Helvidius, by the brothers of the Lord, we understand the children of Mary's sister, who is said to be the mother of James the Lesser and Joseph and Judas, whom we read are called the brothers of the Lord in another place in the Gospel. But Scripture demonstrates that brothers are called consobrinos. Let us also say differently: The Savior speaks to the crowds, teaching the nations from within. His mother and brothers, that is, the synagogue and the Jewish people, stand outside and desire to enter, but they become unworthy of his word. And when they ask, inquire, and send a message, they receive the answer that they are free to enter and believe if they wish, but they cannot enter unless they ask someone else. — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 12:49-50

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] He did not then, as Marcion and Manichæus say, disown His mother, so as to be thought to be born of a phantasm, but He preferred His Apostles to His kindred, that we also in a comparison of our affections should set the spirit before the flesh. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas