Mateus 22

Jerome · Comentário Patrístico (catena)

Mateus 22:1-2

(Chapter 22—Verses 1, 2.) And Jesus answered and spoke to them again in parables, saying: The kingdom of heaven is like a king who made a marriage for his son. The Pharisees, understanding that these parables were about them, sought to seize him and kill him. Knowing their intention, the Lord rebuked them, undeterred by their rage, and without fear, so as to convict the sinners. This king who made a marriage for his son is the almighty God. But it signifies the union of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Church, which is gathered from both Jews and Gentiles. — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 22:3

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] He sent his servant, without doubt Moses, by whom He gave the Law, to those who had been invited. But if you read servants as most copies have, it must be referred to the Prophets, by whom they were invited, but neglected to come. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 22:3

(V. 3.) And he sent his servant to call the invited guests to the wedding, but they did not want to come. There is no doubt that it refers to Moses, through whom the Law was given to the invited guests. But if we read it in reference to the servants, as most copies have it, it should be understood as referring to the prophets, who were ignored by those invited through them. — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 22:4-5

(Vers. 4, 5.) He sent other servants again, saying: Tell those who are invited: Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and fatted cattle have been slaughtered, and everything is ready: come to the wedding feast. But they disregarded him. The servants who were sent the second time are better understood as prophets than apostles, if the word 'servant' is written above. But if you read 'servants' in the same place, then the second servants should be understood as apostles. The prepared dinner, the oxen, and the slaughtered fatted cattle either describe the riches of the kingdom using a metaphor, so that the spiritual may be understood from the carnal, or certainly the greatness of doctrine and the richness of God's teaching can be perceived. — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 22:4-5

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] By the servants who were sent the second time, we may better understand the Prophets than the Apostles; that is to say, if servant is read in the first place; but if 'servants,' then by the second servants are to be understood the Apostles; The dinner that is prepared, the oxen and the fatlings that are killed, is either a description of regal magnificence by the way of metaphor, that by carnal things spiritual may be understood; or the greatness of the doctrines, and the manifold teaching of God in His law, may be understood. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 22:6

(Verse 6) And they went away, some to their own village, and others to their business. The rest held his servants, and treating them with contempt, they killed them. Among those who do not accept the truth of the Gospel, there is much diversity. For those who were occupied with other matters and did not want to come are guilty of a lesser crime than those who, despite the invitation of the host, turned their affection into cruelty and mistreated or killed the king's servants. In this parable, the silence of the wedding guests and the deaths of the servants illustrate the contempt for the wedding feast. — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 22:7

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] When He was doing works of mercy, and bidding to His marriage-feast, He was called a man; (homini regi) now when He comes to vengeance, the man is dropped, and He is called only a King. By His armies we understand the Romans under Vespasian and Titus, who having slaughtered the inhabitants of Judæa, laid in ashes the faithless city. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 22:7

(Verse 7) But when the king heard this, he was angry. Regarding what was said above: The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding feast and showed acts of mercy. The man's name was given, but now when it comes to vengeance, the man is silent and only the king is mentioned. And having sent his armies, he destroyed those murderers, and burned their city. The armies, or avenging angels, of whom it is written in the Psalms: He sent upon them a destroying angel (Psalm 77:49); or we may understand the Romans, under the leadership of Vespasian and Titus, who, having killed the Jewish people, burned the rebellious city. — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 22:9

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] For the Gentile nation was not in the streets, but in the crossings of the streets. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 22:9-10

(Verse 8 and following) Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding feast is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. Therefore, go to the street corners and invite to the wedding feast whoever you find.' So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, the bad and the good alike, and the wedding hall was filled with guests. There were no Gentiles on the streets, but at the exits of the streets. However, it is questioned how among those who were outside, some bad and good ones were found. The Apostle to the Romans discusses this place more fully ((al. added, saying)) (Rom. 2:14): that the Gentiles, who naturally do the things that are of the law, condemn the Jews who have not made the written law. Among the ethnic groups themselves, there is infinite diversity; since we know that some are prone to vices and inclined to evil, while others are dedicated to the virtues of honorable customs. — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 22:10

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] For there is an infinite difference among the Gentiles themselves; some are more prone to vice, others are endowed with more incorrupt and virtuous manners. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 22:11-12

(Verse 11, 12.) But the king entered to see the guests, and he saw there a man who was not wearing a wedding garment. And he said to him, 'Friend, how did you come in here without a wedding garment?' But he was speechless. Those who were invited to the wedding feast had filled it up from the hedges and corners and streets and various places. But later, when the king came in to see the guests at his feast (that is, those who were resting in his trust, so that on the day of judgment he could visit the guests and discern the merits of each one), he found one who was not wearing a wedding garment. This one, all those who are associated with wickedness are understood. But the wedding garment, the commandments of the Lord, and the works that are fulfilled from the law and the Gospel, make the clothing of the new man. Therefore, if anyone is found at the time of judgment not having the wedding garment, that is, the garment of the heavenly ((Al. celestial)) man; but having a polluted garment, that is, the old man's rags, he is immediately seized and it is said to him: Friend, how did you enter here? He calls his friend because he was invited to a wedding: he accuses him of impudence because he has stained the wedding with his dirty clothes. But he remained silent. For in that moment there will be no place for repentance, nor the opportunity to deny, when all the angels and the world itself are witnesses of sins. — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 22:11-12

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] Or; The marriage garment is the commandments of the Lord, and the works which are done under the Law and the Gospel, and form the clothing of the new man. Whoso among the Christian body shall be found in the day of judgment not to have these, is straightway condemned. He saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither, not having a wedding garment? He calls him friend, because he was invited to the wedding as being a friend by faith; but He charges him with want of manners in polluting by his filthy dress the elegance of the wedding entertainment. For in that day there will be no room for blustering manner, nor power of denial, when all the Angels and the world itself are witnesses against the sinner. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 22:13

(Verse 13) Then the king said to the servants: Bind his hands and feet and send him into the outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. The hands and feet being bound, the weeping of the eyes, and the gnashing of teeth, signify the truth of the resurrection being tested. Or certainly, the hands and feet are bound so that they may not do evil and run to shed blood. In the weeping of the eyes and the gnashing of teeth, the intensity of the torments is shown metaphorically through the limbs of the body. — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 22:13

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] By a metaphor taken from the body, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, is shown the greatness of the torments. The binding of the hands and feet also, and the weeping of eyes, and the gnashing of teeth, understand as proving the truth of the resurrection of the body. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 22:14

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] And because in the marriage and supper the chief thing is the end and not the beginning, therefore He adds, For many are called, but few chosen. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 22:14

(Verse 14) For many are called, but few are chosen. This parable encompasses in a brief sentence: that in the work of the vineyard, in the building of the house, and in the wedding feast, the focus should be on the end rather than the beginning. — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 22:15

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] Lately under Cæsar Augustus, Judæa, which was subject to the Romans, had been made tributary when the census was held of the whole world; and there was a great division among the people, some saying that tribute ought to be paid to the Romans in return for the security and quiet which their arms maintained for all. The Pharisees on the other hand, self-satisfied in their own righteousness, contended that the people of God who paid tithes and gave first-fruits, and did all the other things which are written in the Law, ought not to be subject to human laws. But Augustus had given the Jews as king, Herod, son of Antipater, a foreigner and proselyte; he was to exact the tribute, yet to be subject to the Roman dominion. The Pharisees therefore send their disciples with the Herodians, that is, with Herod's soldiers, or those whom the Pharisees in mockery called Herodians, because they paid tribute to the Romans, and were not devoted to the worship of God. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 22:15

(Verse 15.) Then the Pharisees went and plotted how to trap him in his words. And they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, "Teacher, we know that you are sincere, and teach the way of God in accordance with truth, and show deference to no one; for you do not regard people with partiality. Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?" Caesar Augustus had appointed Herod, the son of Antipater, a foreigner and a proselyte, as the king of the Jews, who would be in charge of collecting taxes and obeying the Roman rule. Therefore, the Pharisees sent their disciples along with the Herodians, that is, the soldiers of Herod, or those who were called Herodians by the Pharisees because they paid taxes to the Romans and were not devoted to divine worship. Some Latin speakers foolishly believed that the Herodians were those who believed Herod to be the Christ, but we never read this anywhere at all. — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 22:16

(Verse 16.) Teacher, we know that you are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and you do not care about anyone's opinion. For you do not show partiality to people. So tell us, what do you think? Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not? This is a clever and deceitful question, designed to trap the one being questioned and force him to fear God more than Caesar, and say that taxes should not be paid, so that the Herodians listening will immediately arrest him for sedition against the Roman ruler. — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 22:17

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] This smooth and treacherous enquiry was a kind of challenge to the answerer to fear God rather than Cæsar, and immediately they say, Tell us therefore, what thinkest Thou? Is it lawful to give tribute to Cæsar or not? Should He say tribute should not be paid, the Herodians would immediately accuse Him as a person disaffected to the Emperor. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 22:18

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] This is the first excellence of the answerer, that He discerns the thoughts of His examiners, and calls them not disciples but tempters. A hypocrite is he who is one thing, and feigns himself another. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 22:18

(Verse 18.) But Jesus, knowing their wickedness, said: Why do you tempt me, hypocrites? The first virtue of a respondent is to understand the minds of those who ask, and to call not disciples, but tempters. Therefore, a hypocrite is called someone who is one thing and pretends to be another, that is, someone who acts one way in action and another in words. — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 22:19

(Verse 19.) Show me the coin of the census. And they offered him a denarius. Wisdom always acts wisely, so that its accusers are mainly confuted by their own words. Show me, he said, the denarius, that is, the kind of coin which was valued at ten coins and had the image of Caesar. — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 22:19

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] Wisdom does ever wisely, and so the tempters are best confuted out of their own words; therefore it follows, show me the tribute money; and they brought unto Him a denarius. This was a coin reckoned equivalent to ten sesterces, and bore the image of Cæsar. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 22:20

(Verse 20) And Jesus said to them, Whose image is this and superscription? Those who think that this question indicates ignorance on the part of the Savior, and not dispensation, let them learn from the present passage that Jesus could certainly know whose image was on the coin; but he asks in order to respond appropriately to their words. — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 22:20

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] Let those who think that the Saviour asks because He is ignorant, learn from the present place that it is not so, for at all events Jesus must have known whose image was on the coin. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 22:21

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] They say unto Him, Cæsar's; not Augustus, but Tiberius, under whom also the Lord suffered. All the Roman Emperors were called Cæsar, from Caius Cæsar who first seized the chief power. Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's; i. e. the coin, tribute, or money. That is, tithes, first-fruits, oblation, and victims; as the Lord Himself rendered to Cæsar tribute, both for Himself and for Peter; and also rendered unto God the things that are God's in doing the will of His Father. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 22:21

(Verse 21) They said to Him, 'Caesar's.' Then He said to them, 'Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.' We cannot consider Augustus as Caesar, but Tiberius is understood to be his stepson, who succeeded him and under whom our Lord suffered. However, all the Roman emperors, from the first Caesar, who seized power, have been called Caesars. Furthermore, what He says, 'Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's,' that is, the tribute and money, and to God the things that are God's, let us understand as tithes, first fruits, offerings, and sacrifices, just as He Himself paid taxes for Himself and Peter (Matthew 17). And He rendered to God the things that are God's, doing the will of the Father (John 6). — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 22:22

(Verse 22) And those who listened were amazed. They, who should have believed in such wisdom, were amazed that their cunning for plotting had found no opportunity. And having left him, they departed. Bringing back unfaithfulness along with a miracle. — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 22:22

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] They who ought to have believed did but wonder at His great wisdom, that their craft had found no means for ensnaring Him: whence it follows, When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left Him, and went their way, carrying away their unbelief and wonder together. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 22:23

I say nothing of the Jewish heretics who before the coming of Christ destroyed the law delivered to them: of Dositheus, the leader of the Samaritans who rejected the prophets: of the Sadducees who sprang from his root and denied even the resurrection of the flesh: of the Pharisees who separated themselves from the Jews on account of certain superfluous observances, and took their name from the fact of their dissent: of the Herodians who accepted Herod as the Christ. — The Dialogue Against the Luciferians, Section 23

Mateus 22:23

There were two heresies among the Jews: one of the Pharisees and the other of the Sadducees. The Pharisees preferred tradition and the observance of the law, which two things they referred to as "divine service." They preferred them over justice. The Sadducees, however, were thought to be just and punished themselves because they were not. Hence the two parties were thought by the people to be quite different. The Sadducees denied everything about the resurrection. As we find in the Acts of the Apostles, they were opposed to the believers and confessors of the resurrection of the body and soul. These are the two houses about which Isaiah clearly teaches that because they had climbed high they would surely be knocked down on the ground. — COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 3.22.23

Mateus 22:23

(Verse 23) On that day the Sadducees approached him, who say that there is no resurrection. There were two sects among the Jews: the Pharisees and the Sadducees. The Pharisees prioritized the righteousness of traditions and observances, which they call 'second law', and this is why they were referred to as 'separated' from the people. However, the Sadducees, who are referred to as 'just', claimed for themselves what they were not: while the former believed in the resurrection of the body and soul and confessed angels and spirits, the Sadducees denied all of these (according to the Acts of the Apostles). These are two houses, of which Isaiah teaches more clearly that they are causes of offense in the stumbling block (Isaiah 8). — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 22:23

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] There were two sects among the Jews, the Pharisees and the Sadducees; the Pharisees pretended to the righteousness of traditions and observances, whence they were called by the people 'separate.' The Sadducees (the word is interpreted 'righteous') also passed themselves for what they were not; and whereas the first believed the resurrection of body and soul, and confessed both Angel and spirit, these, according to the Acts of the Apostles, denied them all, as it is here also said, Who say that there is no resurrection. (Acts 23:8.) — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 22:24-27

(Vers. 24 seqq.) And they asked him, saying: Master, Moses said: If any man die, having a wife, and he have no children, that his brother should take her to wife, and raise up seed to his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, having taken a wife, died; and, not having issue, left his wife to his brother. In like manner the second and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Those who did not believe in the resurrection of the body and thought that the soul perished with the body rightly invent such a fable, which demonstrates their madness in asserting the resurrection of the dead. However, it is possible that this might actually happen in their nation at some point. — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 22:24-27

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] As they disbelieved the resurrection of the body, and supposed that the soul perished with the body, they accordingly invent a fable to display the fondness of the belief of a resurrection. Thus they put forward a base fiction to overthrow the verity of the resurrection. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 22:28

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] They conclude with asking, in the resurrection whose shall she be? Though it might be that such an instance might really occur in their nation. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 22:28

(Verse 28) Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife will she be? For they all had her. They oppose the absurdity of the story in order to deny the truth of the resurrection. — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 22:29

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] They therefore err because they know not the Scriptures; and because they know not the power of God. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 22:29

(Verse 29.) But Jesus, answering, said to them: You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. Therefore, they err because they do not know the Scriptures, and because they are ignorant of the Scriptures, they consequently do not know the power of God, that is, Christ, who is the power of God and the wisdom of God (I Cor. 1). — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 22:29

On account of these things, they erred since they did not know the Scriptures. Because they were ignorant of the Scriptures, they denied the power of God, that is, Christ, who is the power of God and the wisdom of God. — COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 3.22.29

Mateus 22:30

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] In these words the Latin language cannot follow the Greek idiom. For the Latin word 'nubere' is correctly said only of the woman. But we must take it so as to understand marry of men, to be given in marriage of women. This that is added, But are as the Angels of God in heaven, is an assurance that our conversation in heaven shall be spiritual. For none could say of a stone and a tree or inanimate things, that they shall not marry nor be given in marriage, but of such things only as having capacity for marriage, shall yet in a sort not marry. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 22:30

(Verse 30) For in the resurrection neither do they marry, nor are they given in marriage; but they are as the angels of God in heaven. The Latin custom does not correspond to the Greek idiom. For to marry is properly said of women, and to take wives of men; but let us simply understand the statement, that to marry is written of men, and to be given in marriage of women. If in the resurrection they do not marry, nor are they given in marriage, then the bodies that are able to marry and be given in marriage will rise again. For no one indeed says about a stone and a tree, and these things which do not have reproductive organs, that they do not marry, nor are they married; but about those things which can marry, they do not marry in a different way. But what is brought forth: But they are like the angels of God in heaven. A spiritual conversation is promised. — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 22:31-33

(Vers. 31 seqq.) But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken by God, saying to you: I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob: God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. And when the crowds heard this, they were amazed at his teaching. To prove the truth of the resurrection, he could have used many other more obvious examples, among which is: The dead will be raised up, and those who are in the graves will rise again (Isaiah 26:19). And in another place: Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake: some unto everlasting life, and others unto shame and everlasting contempt (Dan. XII, 2). Therefore, it is asked what the Lord intended by this testimony, which seems ambiguous or not sufficiently related to the truth of the resurrection: I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; and as if having proclaimed this, he proved what he wanted by immediately adding: God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. Those who also surrounded the turmoil, knowing the mystery, were amazed at his teaching and answers. We have already said above that the Sadducees, confessing neither angel, nor spirit, nor resurrection of bodies, also preached the destruction of souls. These accepted only the five books of Moses, rejecting the prophecies of the prophets. Therefore, it was foolish to present testimonies whose authority they did not follow. Furthermore, in order to prove the eternal nature of souls, he presents the example of Moses: 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob' (Exodus 3:6). And immediately he deduces: 'God is not the God of the dead, but of the living,' so that when he has proven that souls continue to exist after death (for it could not be that God would be their God if they did not exist at all), the resurrection of the bodies, which have carried out good or evil deeds along with the souls, would consequently be introduced. In the final part of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, the apostle Paul expands on this topic more fully (1 Cor. XV). — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 22:31-33

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] In proof of the resurrection there were many plainer passages which He might have cited; among others that of Isaiah, The dead shall be raised; they that are in the tombs shall rise again: (Is. 26:19. juxta LXX.) and in another place, Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake. (Dan. 12:2.) It is enquired therefore why the Lord should have chosen this testimony which seems ambiguous, and not sufficiently belonging to the truth of the resurrection; and as if by this He had proved the point adds, He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. We have said above that the Sadducees confessed neither Angel, nor spirit, nor resurrection of the body, and taught also the death of the soul. But they also received only the five books of Moses, rejecting the Prophets. It would have been foolish therefore to have brought forward testimonies whose authority they did not admit. To prove the immortality of souls therefore, He brings forward an instance out of Moses, I am the God of Abraham, &c. and then straight subjoins, He is not the God of the dead, but of the living; so that having established that souls abide after death, (forasmuch as God could not be the God of those who had no existence any where,) there might fitly come in the resurrection of bodies which had together with their souls done good or evil. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 22:32

Mateus 22:34-35

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] The Pharisees having been themselves already confuted (in the matter of the denarius), and now seeing their adversaries also overthrown, should have taken warning to attempt no further deceit against Him; but hate and jealousy are the parents of impudence. The Pharisees and Sadducees, thus foes to one another, unite in one common purpose to tempt Jesus. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 22:34-36

(Verse 34 and following) But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him: "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" What we read about Herod and Pontius Pilate, that they conspired in the death of the Lord, we also see now concerning the Pharisees and the Sadducees, who are opposed to each other, but agree with the same mind in testing Jesus. Therefore, those who had already been confuted in the display of the coin and had seen the faction of the opposing party undermined, should have been warned by example not to plot further snares: but malice and envy nourish audacity. One of the legal experts, not desiring to not know but attempting, asks whether the one being questioned knew what was being asked, what the greater commandment is: not asking about the commandments, but what the first and great commandment is; so that when all that God has commanded is great: whatever he may answer, he may have an opportunity to slander, asserting that something else is great among many. Therefore, whoever knows and asks not by desire to learn, but by the desire to know, whether the one who is going to respond knows, approaches in the likeness of the Pharisees, not as a disciple, but as a tempter. — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 22:36

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] Or he enquires not for the sake of the commands, but which is the first and great commandment, that seeing all that God commands is great, he may have occasion to cavil whatever the answer be. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 22:41-45

(verses 41 onwards) But when the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus questioned them, saying, 'What do you think about the Christ, whose son is he?' They said to him, 'David.' He said to them, 'How then does David in the Spirit call him Lord, saying, "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool?" If David then calls him Lord, how is he his son?' Those who had gathered together to test Jesus and tried to capture the truth through deceitful questioning, gave an opportunity for their own refutation. They are asked (or, it is asked) about Christ whose son he is. The questioning of Jesus benefits us even today against the Jews. And indeed those who confess that Christ is to come assert that he is a simple man and a holy man from the lineage of David. Let us therefore question those who are taught by the Lord: if he is a simple man and only a son of David, how does David call him his Lord? Not by uncertain error or personal will, but in the Holy Spirit (or, but in the Holy Spirit, he is silent). The testimony, however, which he presents, is taken from the one hundred and ninth Psalm. Therefore, David is called Lord, not according to what he was born, but according to what he always was, born from the Father, surpassing his own Father in the flesh. The Jews, in order to evade the truth of the question, invent many idle things, asserting that the native of Abraham, whose son was Damascus Eliezer, and that the psalm was written from that person's perspective, in which the Lord God said to his lord, Abraham, after the slaughter of the five kings: Sit at my right hand, until I make thy enemies thy footstool. (Genesis 14). Whom should we ask: How did God say to Abraham these things that follow: With you is the beginning in the day of your power, in the splendors of the saints, I have begotten you before Lucifer; and: The Lord has sworn, and will not regret it; you are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek? And we should try to answer how Abraham was born before Lucifer and was a priest according to the order of Melchizedek: regarding whom Melchizedek offered bread and wine, and from whom he received tithes of the spoils. — Commentary on Matthew

Mateus 22:43-44

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] This passage is out of the 109th Psalm. Christ is therefore called David's Lord, not in respect of His descent from him, but in respect of His eternal generation from the Father, wherein He was before His fleshly Father. And he calls Him Lord, not by a mere chance, nor of his own thought, but by the Holy Spirit. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 22:44-45

[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] This question is still available for us against the Jews; for these who believe that Christ is yet to come, assert that He is a mere man, though a holy one, of the race of David. Let us then thus taught by the Lord ask them, If He be mere man, and only the Son of David, how does David call Him his Lord? To evade the truth of this question, the Jews invent many frivolous answers. They allege Abraham's steward, he whose son was Eliezer of Damascus, and say that this Psalm was composed in his person, when after the overthrow of the five kings, the Lord God said to his lord Abraham, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. Let us ask how Abraham could say the things that follow, and compel them to tell us how Abraham was born before Lucifer, and how he was a Priest after the order of Melchisedech, for whom Melchisedech brought bread and wine, and of whom he received tithes of the spoil? — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mateus 22:46

The Pharisees and Sadducees had been looking for an opportunity for deceiving him, looking to find some word that might be taken advantage of by the plotters. Yet they had been totally confounded in their conversations. So they asked nothing further. What did they do then? All they could do was turn him over to the custody of the Roman authorities. From this we learn that the faults of the jealous are indeed able to be overcome but are difficult to put to rest. — COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 4.22.46

Mateus 22:46

(Verse 46) And no one was able to answer him a word, nor did anyone dare from that day on to ask him any more questions. The Pharisees and Sadducees, seeking an opportunity to accuse him, and to find some word by which they could trap him, because they were confounded by his teachings, no longer questioned him, but were clearly apprehended and handed over to the Roman authorities. From this we understand that the poisons of envy can indeed be overcome, but it is difficult for them to rest. — Commentary on Matthew