Ver. 1. Going out from thence, i.e., from Capernaum, where He raised Jairus’ daughter.

He went into His own country, i.e., to Nazareth, where He was brought up.

Ver. 2. They were in admiration at His doctrine: literally, they admired in His doctrine. This is a Hebraism. For the Hebrews use ב as a preposition of contact either corporal or mental in the place of an accusative. Thus they say, I touch in the hand, instead of, I touch the hand; I believe in God, instead of, I believe God; I admire in wisdom, for I admire wisdom.

Ver. 5. And He could not do any miracles there. Could not, i.e., would not, because He did not think it proper to give what was holy to dogs, that is, to force His miracles upon unbelieving and ungrateful citizens. So could not is used for would not (Gen. xxxvii. 4, and John vii. 7). “Because,” says Victor of Antioch on this passage, “two things must coincide for the attaining of health, namely, the faith of those who need healing, and the power of him who will heal; therefore, if either of these be wanting, the blessing of a cure will not readily be attained.”

Ver. 6. He wondered because of their unbelief. This seems to conflict with what is said in Luke iv. 22, And all bare Him record, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of His mouth. I answer, that the inhabitants of Nazareth wondered, indeed, that Jesus, the son of a carpenter, their well-known neighbour, should be so wise and eloquent, and yet were incredulous with respect to His doctrine and person, that He was in very deed the Messias or Christ. And that this was so is plain from what Luke subjoins.

Ver. 13. They anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them. Some are of opinion that this anointing was the same as that of which S. James speaks in his Epistle (v. 14), that is to say, the Sacrament of Extreme Unction. So Bede, Theophylact, Lyra, and others, who think that the Sacrament of Extreme Unction was at this time instituted by Christ, and that the Apostles by His command conferred it upon the sick, although they had not as yet been ordained priests.

But the contrary seems more probable. 1. Because the priest alone is the minister of this sacrament; but the Apostles were not yet priests, for Christ created them priests afterwards.

2. Because the Apostles here anointed all sorts of sick persons, those not baptized, and those not about to die. But Extreme Unction is conferred only upon those who are baptized, and in danger of death.

3. All who were here anointed by the Apostles were healed. But this is not the case in Extreme Unction, which has primary reference to the health and strength of the soul.

4. Because the Council of Trent (Sess. 14) says that the Sacrament of Extreme Unction was hinted at in S. Mark, but was commanded and promulgated to the faithful by S. James, the Lord’s brother. This anointing, therefore, was a type, and as it were a prelude, of the institution of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, not the sacrament itself. This, then, was a miraculous anointing, or a gift of miracles, bestowed upon the Apostles for a time, that they might by its means confirm their preaching of Christ. It was not the sacrament itself. So S. Genoveva and many holy authorites were wont to heal the sick by means of oil blessed by them and sent to the sick. Victor of Antioch gives the reason why they used oil rather than wine,—“oil, amongst other things, assuages the affliction of labours, cherishes light, and promotes gladness.” Oil, therefore, which is used in the holy anointing, signifies the mercy of God, the healing of disease, and the enlightenment of the heart. In a similar way the baptism of John was not a sacrament, but a type and prelude of the Sacrament of Baptism.

Ver. 16. Which Herod hearing, said, John whom I beheaded, he is risen again from the dead. It was as if he said, The soul of John has passed into Jesus, and so there, as it were, by rising again, has become more divine, and works such great and stupendous miracles. Luke (ix. 7) says that Herod doubted at first, but afterwards, on account of the universal fame of the miracles of Jesus, believed that John had risen again in Him. So S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Augustine, and others. For the opinion of Pythagoras concerning the metempsychosis or transmigration of souls was then very prevalent. S. Chrysostom says, “How great a thing is virtue! for Herod fears even the dead man.” For, as Rabanus says, “it is agreed by all that the saints shall have greater power when they rise again.” So also Bede.

Ver. 17. For Herod himself had sent and apprehended John, and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, the wife of Philip his brother, because he had married her. This Herod was not the Great, who was called Herod of Ascalon, who slew the infants of Bethlehem, but his son, surnamed Antipas, who arrayed Christ in a white robe and mocked Him. He it was who beheaded John the Baptist.

You will say, Herod Antipas was only a tetrarch, for so Matthew calls him (xiv. 1). Why, then, does Mark here call him a king? I reply, he calls him king because he was the chief potentate in his tetrarchy, equal to a king in his kingdom. Wherefore he assumed the name of king, and it was given him by others, even by S. Matthew himself (xiv. 9).

In prison. Josephus adds that John was incarcerated in the fortress of Macher, on the confines of Galilee and Arabia, where he was beheaded. This prison was made famous by S. John, for the place, says Philo (lib. de Joseph.), was not so much a prison as a school of discipline. Seneca says (in Consolat. ad Albinam), “When Socrates entered his prison, he was about to deprive the very place of ignominy, for that could not seem to be a prison where Socrates was.” Whence S. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 1, ad Martyr.) says, “0 blessed prison, which your presence has made illustrious: 0 darkness, brighter than the sun himself, where the temples of God have been!” The same (lib. 3, epist. 25) says concerning the chains of the martyrs, “They are ornaments, not bonds. They do not link the feet to infamy, but glorify them for the crown.” Wherefore S. Ambrose says (lib. de Joseph. c. 5) “Let not the innocent be distressed when they are the victims of false accusations. God visits His own, even in their prison. Then, therefore, is there the more help where is the greater peril. And what marvel is it if God visit those who are in prison, who speaks of Himself as shut up with His people in prison? I was in prison, He says, and ye visited Me not” (Matt. xxv. 44).

On account of Herodias. This Herodias was the daughter of Aristobulus, Herod’s brother. Herod, then, had married her who was his niece, being his brother’s daughter. So Josephus. Herodias, therefore, was the sister of Herod Agrippa, who killed James, and who was himself slain by an angel (Acts xii.). Wherefore Rufinus, and following him S. Jerome, Eusebius, and Bede, are in error, who say that she was a daughter of Aretas, a king of the Arabians. For they confound Herod’s first wife, who was the daughter of Aretas, with Herodias, his second wife. For Herod repudiated the daughter of Aretas to marry Herodias. For this reason Aretas made war upon him, and cut his army to pieces, as Josephus relates (lib. xviii. Antiq. c. 7), adding, “It was an opinion among the Jews that Herod’s army was destroyed by the just vengeance of God because of John the Baptist, a holy man, whom he had slain.”

His brother’s wife. You will say that Josephus (lib. xviii. Ant. c, 7, 9) says that she was the wife of another Herod, who was the brother of Philip and Herod Antipas. I reply that Josephus is in error in this matter, as well as in many others; unless you choose to suppose that Herodias was previously married to Herod Antipas. Josephus falls into another mistake in the same place, when he says that John was put to death not because of Herodias, but because Herod was afraid lest, on account of the concourse of the people to John, an insurrection might occur.

Whether Herodias married Herod whilst her husband Philip was alive, or after his death, commentators are not agreed. But it is certain that either way it was an illicit marriage, and involved incest, to which was added adultery, if Philip were still alive. For by Leviticus (xviii. 16) it is forbidden for a brother to marry his brother’s wife if there were offspring of the marriage, and Philip had left this dancing daughter, whom Josepbus calls Salome. But I say that Herod did marry Herodias during his brother’s lifetime, and against his will, and so committed a threefold sin,—the first, adultery; the second, incest; the third, violence. This is proved: 1st Because Josephus expressly asserts it (lib. xviii. Ant. c. 7). 2nd Because the incestuous marriage took place about the fifteenth year of Tiberius Cæsar; for that was when John began to preach, as is plain from Luke iii. 1; but Philip died in the twentieth year of Tiberius, as Josephus affirms (xviii. 6), where he praises him for his justice and modesty. 3rd Because the Fathers everywhere accuse Herod of adultery, because he took away his wife from his brother, who was of a meek disposition, whilst he was yet living. Thus Herod took advantage of his gentleness.

Ver. 20. For Herod was afraid of John, knowing him to be a just man and a holy. At first, therefore, it was only Herodias who wished to kill John, as the rebuker of her adultery. Herod did not assent, as Mark here signifies, and Luke (ix.). But afterwards she persuaded Herod, which she did the more easily, because, as Josephus asserts, he was of a malignant disposition, and prone to cruelty; and he was incensed against John on account of his frequent reproofs. “Herodias was afraid,” says Bede, lest Herod should some time or other come to a proper mind under John’s rebuke, and dissolve the marriage, and restore Herodias to his brother Philip.”

Ver. 22. And when the daughter of the same Herodias had come in, and danced, and pleased Herod. That female dancers were formerly introduced into their feasts by the Jews out of luxuriousness appears from Josephus (lib. xii. Ant. c. 4). That there was a similar fashion among the Greeks we learn from Xenophon’s Symposium, and from Lucian’s Dialogue de Saltatricibus, where he shows by many examples, and by the opinions of philosophers, that dancing enervates even a manly mind. Truly saith Ecclesiasticus (c. 9), “Use not much the company of a female dancer, nor listen to her, lest perchance thou perish through her influence.” Truly saith Remigius (on Matt. xiv.), “The shameless woman brought up a shameless daughter, teaching her to dance instead of to be modest. Nor was Herod less to be blamed for allowing a woman to make a theatre of his palace-hall.”

Ver. 25. I will that forthwith thou give me in a dish the head of John the Bapist. You will say, John the Baptist was not, then, a martyr, because Herod slew him not because of his faith, nor because of his rebuking him for his adultery, but for the sake of pleasing this dancing girl, and fulfilling his promise. I answer by denying the conclusion. For, 1st This girl asked the head of John at the instigation of her mother, who wished to cut off John for reproving her adultery. Herodias, therefore, was the virtual cause of John’s death, because she impelled Herod to behead him. 2nd Herod assented to her. Knowing the malignant disposition of his wife, he gave way to her, and killed John. 3rd Herod himself desired to kill John, as Matthew says expressly (xiv. 5); but he did not dare to do it through fear of the people, who made great count of John as a holy man. Lastly, many are of opinion that probably all was done collusively and of set purpose—namely, that Herod had suggested to Herodias that she should send her dancing daughter in to supper, and that she should ask for the head of John; that thus he might have from his promise a colourable pretext for killing him; and that this is the reason why Christ calls him a fox (Luc. xiii. 32). S. John, therefore, was a victim of chastity, because he died a martyr for it, like S. Paul, S. Matthew, S. Clement, and many others.

Moreover, S. Gregory Nazianzen assigns a loftier cause for the early death of John from the hidden counsel of God (Orat. 20). “Who,” saith he, “was the precursor of Jesus? John, as a voice of speech, as a lantern of light; before Whom also he leapt forth in strength, and was sent forward to Hades by Herod, that there likewise he might preach Him who was shortly to come.” The same Nazianzen (Orat. 39) teaches that S. John, by the spirit of prophecy, was aware of this his martyrdom. For he says, “I ought, 0 Christ, to be baptized by Thee; yes, and for Thee.” For he had found out that he was to be baptized by martyrdom. For he knew what was to come; that as after Herod Pilate would reign, so Christ would follow him after life was over.

Ver. 26. The king was sorry, i.e., he pretended to be so, say SS. Hilary and Jerome. For he really wished John to be killed, as Matthew says. Wherefore the Gloss on the fourteenth of S. Matthew says, “Herod’s sorrow was like Pilate’s repentance” And the Interlinear, “The dissembler showed sorrow in his face, but was glad in his heart.”

But more simply. S. Chrysostom and Euthymius think that Herod was really sorry is the meaning of SS. Matthew and Mark. For though he wished John to die, yet he was sorry for his cruel and shameful death, that he should have killed so great a prophet for the gratification of a dancing girl.

For his oath’s sake. Herod made a pretext of his oath; for he knew that in such a case, that is, at such an iniquitous and sacrilegious a request of the girl, it was not binding. However, he thought it a king’s part not to retract it before the nobles, according to the saying, The word of the king is the king. Thus this worldling acted. Whence S. Augustine says, “A girl dances, and a mother rages, and there is rash swearing in the midst of the luxurious feast, and an impious fulfilment of what was sworn.” For, as S. Isidore says, faith ought to be broken in wicked promises; that is, an impious promise which is fulfilled by a crime.

Ver. 27. But sending an executioner, that is, a hangman; for soldiers were executioners and attendants of the prætors, and were armed with javelins (spicula). Hence they were called spiculators. (the word in the Vulgate translated executioner is spiculator). Our Gretzer (lib. 1, de Cruce, c. 25) is of opinion, from Suidas, that hangmen (carnifices) were called speculatores (for the Greek has σπεκουλάτωζα, which is really a Latin word, and the same as speculator), Gr. ο̉πτη̃ζας, because it was their office to spy out the plans and movements of an enemy, to be around princes as their bodyguard, and to execute those whom they condemned. So also Franc. Lucas on this passage, Lipsius on Tacitus, and some others. These assert that Suetonius and Tacitus call a carnifex, speculalar. But they cite no passage in support of what they say. Neither have I been able to find any in which the word speculator is used for an executioner (carnifex), with the exception of this one in S. Mark. Spiculator, then, becomes σπεκουλάτωρ in Greek. For the Greeks often change the vowel i into e, as the Italians also do.

He commanded his head to be brought in a dish. Thus did the savage season his feast with this horrible spectacle of cruelty. Bede adds, he wished all his guests to be associated with him in his cruelty. Moreover, S. Gregory says (Moral. lib. 3, c. 4), “God afflicts His own with infirmities, because He knows how to reward them in the highest. If God exposes to anguish those whom He loves, what are those about to suffer whom He rejects?”

S. John, then, has many laurels—1st That of doctor; 2nd of virginity; 3rd of martyrdom; 4th of a prophet; 5th of a hermit; 6th of an apostle; 7th of the precursor, index, and baptizer of Christ.

You will ask, At what time was John put to death? 1st Abulensis says it cannot be determined.

2nd. Bede, and from him Baronius (A.C. 33), Maldonatus, and Barradi think that John was slain about the time of the Passover in Christ’s thirty-third year. They support this view, because Matthew says (xiv. 13) that Christ departed into the wilderness when He heard of the death of John, and there fed the 5000, an event which happened about the time of the Passover (John vi. 4).

3rd. And very probably, our Salianus (Annal. tom. 6, in fin. ad ann. Christi 32, num. 20) thinks that John suffered at the end of the thirty-second year of the life of Christ, probably in December. He proves this, because Nicephorus (lib. 1, c. 19) says that John at his death was thirty-two years and a half old; that is, at the completion of Christ’s thirty-second year. For John was born on the 24th of June, and was just six months older than Christ, who was born on the 25th of December of the same year. He gives us a second reason, because although Christ’s departing into the desert (Matt. xiv.) occurred about the time of the Passover, yet John’s death preceded it by some considerable time. For Christ departed not so much on account of John’s death, as because the fame of His own miracles had so greatly increased that many thought John had risen again in Him. But this took place when some considerable time, comparatively speaking, had elapsed after John’s death. That is to say, John’s being put to death took place in December, and Christ’s retiring into the desert about the following March. And the intervening period must have been taken up by the miracles which Christ wrought after John’s death, and by the fame of them being so widely spread abroad as to lead Herod to suspect that John had risen again in Jesus. This led Jesus to retire into the desert lest Herod should kill Him also.

Lastly, some think that John suffered on the 29th of August, because the Church keeps the Feast of the Decollation of S. John the Baptist on that day. Baronius, however, thinks that this day is kept in memory of the Invention of the head of S. John.

Ver. 28. And brought his head in a dish: and gave it to the damsel, and the damsel gave it to her mother. S. Chrysostom (in Matt. Hom. 49), S. Austin (Serm. 36, de Sanctis), S. Ambrose (lib. 3, de Virgin.) enlarge upon the indignity, yea, the sacrilege, of this murder. Apostrophising Herod, the latter cries, “Behold his eyes, even in death the witnesses of thy cruelty! He turns them away from the sight of thy dainties. His eyes are closed, not so much by the constraint of death, as by horror at thy luxury. That lifeless golden mouth, whose sentence thou couldst not endure, is silent, and yet it is dreaded.”

S. Jerome says that Herodias insulted the severed head, and punctured his most holy tongue with a needle; upon which the Father exclaims, “Do not boast thyself so much because thou hast done what scorpions and flies do. So did Fulvia to Cicero, and Herodias to John, because they could not bear the truth; they pierced the tongue that spoke the truth with a needle” (S. Jerome, Apolog. cont. Rufin. sub finem).

Wherefore the just vengeance of God burned against all who were concerned in this crime. Herod was defeated by Aretas. Afterwards he was banished with Herodias to Lyons, and deprived of his tetrarchy and everything by Caligula, at the instigation of Agrippa, the brother of Herodias, as Josephus relates (xviii. 10). Moreover, the head of the dancing daughter was cut off by means of ice. Hear what Nicephorus says, “As she was journeying once in the winter-time, and a frozen river had to be crossed on foot, the ice broke beneath her, not without the providence of God. Straightway she sank down up to her neck. This made her dance and wriggle about with all the lower parts of her body, not on land, but in the water. Her wicked head was glazed with ice, and at length severed from her body by the sharp edges, not of iron, but of the frozen water. Thus in the very ice she displayed the dance of death, and furnished a spectacle to all who beheld it, which brought to mind what she had done.” Hear also L. Dexter (in Chron. A.C. 34), “ Herod Antipas, with Herodias his incestuous mistress, was banished first to Gaul, and afterwards to Ilerda in Spain. Herodias dancing upon the river Sicoris when it was frozen, fell through the ice, and perished miserably.”

Placed it in a tomb. S. Jerome says that the body of S. John was buried at Sebaste, the former Samaria, where also the prophets Elisha and Obadiah were buried. Moreover, S. John wrought so many miracles at Sebaste that Julian the Apostate ordered his body to be burnt, but the Christians secretly conveyed away his relics. (Top)

CHAPTER VII.

Ver. 2. To eat with common, that is, with unwashen hands. Hands unwashed were called common, because unclean and profane things were common to both Jews and Gentiles, to clean and unclean persons alike.

Observe, the Apostles were not so boorish as not to wash their hands before dining or supping, which even husbandmen and artisans do before meals; but they abstained from the ceremonial, or rather the superstitious washing of the Pharisees, which they scrupulously observed from the tradition of their ancestors.

Ver. 3. Often washing: Syr. betilarth, i.e., diligently or carefully; Gr. πυγμη̃, zealously; Heb. caph el cabh, i.e., hand to hand, namely, by constant rubbing, as they do who wish to cleanse defiled hands.

Ver. 4. From the market. Because in the market are all kinds, both of persons and things, clean and unclean, by coming in contact with which they feared they had incurred pollution, and so they thought they could not cleanse themselves from such contamination except by washing, not their hands only, but their whole body. Whence it follows:

Unless they be baptized, i.e., unless they immerse and wash their whole body, as the Jews do frequently, even at the present time. For to be baptized is more than to wash the hands. Because, therefore, by conversing with and touching Gentiles in the market they were compelled to handle some things that were unclean, they washed themselves all over when they came home.

Of pots: Gr. ξεστω̃ν, i.e., of wine-drinking vessels. The Syriac has ænophororun, vessels in which wine is carried. Vatablus understands wooden vessels, which were turned and polished, or ornamented with carving.

And beds: on which they reclined at table.

Ver. 15. Make a man common (Vulg.), i.e., defile him, as some MSS. read.

Ver. 19. Because it entereth not into his heart, i.e., into his soul, and cannot therefore defile it. But goeth into the belly, where the purer portion of the food, being separated, proceeds to the liver and heart; but that which is impure and feculent into the draught, by its going forth, purging, i.e., leaving pure all meats. For in that it, the impure, goeth away, it cleanses and purifies the remainder of the food.

Ver. 26. A Gentile: Gr. έλλήνις, i.e., a Grecian woman, for where the Greeks bore sway, all Gentiles were called Greeks. Hence the expression in the first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, “The Jew first, and also the Greek” i.e., the Gentile.

A Syrophonician, i.e., belonging to that part of Phœnicia which looks towards Syria.

Ver. 32. And dumb: Gr. μογιλάλον, i.e., speaking with difficulty or an impediment, stammering. For when he was healed by Christ he spake right, i.e., freely, as it is in the 35th verse. He was not, therefore, entirely dumb, as they are who are born deaf. These are called in Greek άλαλοι.

Ver. 33. And spitting, He touched his tongue. Christ wrought harmoniously, as though by His healing saliva He would moisten and loosen the dumb mouth, which was bound through drought.

Now He spat not upon the mouth of the mute, but upon His own finger, and by means of His finger applied the saliva to the mouth of the mute, as may be gathered from the Greek. This was required by propriety and decorum. Moreover, when Christ opened the ears and unloosed the tongue of the body, He opened also the ears and tongue of the soul, that they might listen to His inspiration, and believe that He was the Messiah, and that they might ask and obtain of Him pardon of their sins.

Tropologically: Every one ought to seek the same thing, and say with the Psalmist, “0 Lord, open Thou my lips, and my mouth shall show forth Thy praise” (Ps. li. 17). We ought to do the same as regards our ears, that we may be able to sing aloud with Isaiah (1. 4), “The Lord God hath given me the tongue of the learned, that I should know how to speak a word in season to him that is weary: He wakeneth morning by morning, He wakeneth mine ear to hear as the learned.” Now this is done when He Himself with His own Finger, that is, the Holy Ghost (for He is “the Finger of God,” Exod. viii. 19), and the spittle of Heavenly Wisdom, which is He Himself proceeding forth from the mouth of the Most High, touches the tongue of the soul.

Ver. 34. And looking up to heaven (because from thence come words to the dumb, hearing to the deaf, healing for all infirmities, says Bede), He groaned; both because He sympathised with the misery of the deaf and dumb man, as because in groaning He prayed and obtained healing for him from God.

Ephpheta, which is, Be thou opened, ie., which so signifies. “Where,” says Bede, “the two natures of the one and the same Mediator between God and man are plainly set forth. For, looking up to heaven as man, He groaned, being about to pray to God; presently by a single word, as having the power of Divine Majesty, He healed.” For we all have eyes, but the blind have theirs shut and closed, which in the Syriac idiom are elegantly said to be opened when their shutters are unclosed, as Angelus Caninius says (in Nom. Heb. c. 10). Moreover, the Heb. patach signifies to open. From whence is the imperative passive, or Niphal, hippateach, by crasis hippatach, for which the Syrians use Ephpheta, be open.

Ver. 36. He charged them that they should tell no man. This was not properly a command, involving a fault if disobeyed, but merely a token of urbanity and modesty, that, indeed, He might signify He would not make a parade of His miracles, or by their means obtain the vain glory of men. Wherefore they did not commit sin who nevertheless divulged them. Wherefore it follows, the more He charged them, so much the more a great deal did they publish it. “We are taught by this,” says Theophylact, “that when we confer benefits we should not seek for applause therefrom; but when we have received benefits we should praise our benefactors, even though they are unwilling to be praised.” And S. Augustine says, “By His prohibition the Lord wished to teach us how very fervently they ought to preach to whom He has given a command to preach, when they who were commanded to be silent could not hold their peace”

Ver. 37. He hath done all things well: Gr. καλω̃ς, i.e., beautifully, becomingly, harmoniously. Christ did nothing which the Pharisees or such like fault-finders could justly blame. Again, the Heb. for well is heteb, i.e., beneficently, because He gave hearing to the deaf, speech to the dumb. Indeed, Christ’s whole life was one continuous beneficence. (Top)

CHAPTER VIII.

Ver. 15. Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the leaven of Herod. The leaven is the doctrine of the Pharisees, by which they taught children to say to their parents corban, as well as other things contrary to the law of God. The leaven of Herod is the doctrine of the Sadducees, for with them Christ had had His most recent controversy, as appears from Matt. xvi. 1-12. For Herod, as well as many of the principal people at that time, were Sadducees (see Jos. xviii. c. 2). They denied the immortality of the soul, and lived as Atheists. So Herod lived in adultery, killed John, and committed many other crimes, having no fear of God. For although he thought that John had risen again in Christ, yet that opinion did not arise, out of faith, but was wrung out of him by fear. Others, with Origen and S. Jerome, understand by leaven the sect of the Herodians, who flattered Herod, saying that he was the Messiah. But that referred to Herod of Ascalon, not Herod Antipas, as I have shown on Matt. xxii. 16.

Ver. 23. And taking the blind man by the hand, He led him out of the town, i.e., outside of Bethsaida, as is plain from ver. 22.  He led him forth for the same reason that when He was about to heal the deaf and dumb man He took him aside from the multitude. This was, 1st For the sake of prayer, that, being alone, He might collect His thoughts, and unite Himself wholly to God, and pray the more intently and collectedly. 2nd To fly from the applause of men, and teach us to do the same. 3rd Because the citizens of Bethsaida were unworthy of the miracle of Christ; for although they had seen Him work so many miracles, they would not believe in Him.

And spitting upon his eyes. Fasting spittle does good to the purblind, but does not illuminate those who have actually lost their sight. The saliva, therefore, of Christ was not a natural but a supernatural remedy for blindness, being the instrument by which Christ’s Godhead wrought.

S. Hilarion imitated this miracle by which Christ gave sight to a blind man, as S. Jerome relates in his Life. “A blind woman was brought to S. Hilarion, who said that she had expended all her substance upon physicians. Hilarion said to her, If thou hadst given to the poor what thou hast thrown away upon physicians, Christ the true Physician would have healed thee.”

Laid His hands, i.e., when He had placed His hands upon the eyes of the blind man, and again removed them. For that is improbable which the Scholiast in S. Chrysostom says, that this blind man saw people (ver. 24) when Christ’s hands were over his eyes. For this would have been a new and uncalled-for miracle.

Ver. 24. And looking up, he said, I see men as it were trees, walking. As much as to say, I see something obscurely and confusedly; for I see men walking, but in such a way that I cannot distinguish whether they are men or trees. Just as it happens to ourselves, says Bede; when we see people at a great distance, we can only distinguish men from trees by their motion, because men walk, but trees do not. The word walking must be referred to men, not to trees, as is plain by the Greek. The word walking in the Latin text, however, might refer to trees in this sense: I see men as it were trees split, and therefore two-footed, and so walking. This blind man, therefore, as yet in darkness, saw men as it were through a mist and cloud, in which they appeared greater than they really were, it might be as thick and tall as trees, as by means of magnifying glasses letters appear larger than they are in reality.

It is related of S. Gregory Thaumaturgus, that in the Decian persecution he fled with his deacon to a certain hill. A certain traitor made known where they were to the persecutors, who carefully searched the whole hill to discover Gregory. With strong faith in God, he stood in prayer, with eyes immovable and hands stretched out. But God smote the persecutors with inability to see. They returned and reported that they had seen nothing on the hill except two trees a little distant from one another. When they had gone away, the traitor himself went up the hill and saw two men, Gregory and his deacon, instead of the trees. He acknowledged that it was the work of Divine power that they had appeared to the persecutors to be trees, and he fell down at their feet, and from a traitor became a confessor of the faith. (S. Greg. Nyss. in Vita.)

Mystically: The Scholiast in S. Jerome says, “The blind man is a penitent sinner. He sees men as trees walking, because he esteems every one superior to himself. With David he counts himself unworthy to be called a man, deeming himself to be a dead dog and a flea” (2 Sam. xvi.).

Ver. 25. After that again He laid His hands upon his eyes, and he began to see, and was restored, so that he saw all things clearly. Christ wished not suddenly, but by degrees, perfectly to illuminate this blind man: 1st That He might exhibit miracles of every description. 2nd That this miracle might be more esteemed. 3rd And principally, That He might accommodate Himself to the imperfect faith of the blind man and those who brought him, their faith increasing as the miracle proceeded; and that He might the more kindle in them faith, hope, and desire that it might be brought to a perfect work. “In the first place, He cured this blind man imperfectly,” says Euthymius, “inasmuch as he believed imperfectly, that he who as yet had but a little vision might by means of the little light believe more perfectly, and be healed more completely; for He was the wise Physician.” And by and by he says, “Increase of faith deserved increase of healing.”

Tropologically: Christ wished to teach us that the unbeliever and the sinner are gradually illuminated by God, and that they ought correspondingly to make gradual increase in the knowledge and worship of God. “He did it,” says Bede, “that He might show the greatness of human blindness, which is wont to arrive step by step, and by certain grades, as it were, of progression, at the light of the Divine knowledge.” For as the Scholiast says, “There are degrees of knowledge; neither can any one arrive in a single hour, or, indeed, without considerable time, at perfect knowledge.” We have experience of this in children and scholars, who must be taught and instructed step by step. For if the teacher, being impatient of delay and trouble, should wish to teach them everything at once, he would crush their memory and intellect, so that they would take in nothing. It is like wine when it is poured into a vessel with a narrow neck; if you try to pour it all in at once, you pour in scarcely anything, but nearly the whole is spilled. Worthy of note is the Italian proverb, “Gently, gently, if you would go far;” or the saying of the philosopher, “Progression is by degrees.”

Symbolically: The Scholiast in S. Jerome says, “Christ laid His hands upon his eyes, that he might see all things clearly, that is, that by visible works he might understand things invisible, and which eye hath not seen; and that after the film of sin he might clearly behold the state of his soul with the eye of a clean heart. For blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.”

Ver. 34. In this adulterous generation, of depraved Jews, who are sons of God, though not genuine ones, but like spurious children, the offspring of adultery. For they are degenerate from the faith of their fathers, the Patriarchs, since they will not receive Me, who am the Messiah promised to them. Therefore they are not so much children of God as of the devil. Such are called in Hebrew bene nechar, i.e., children born of a strange, alien, or adulterous father. See what has been said on S. Matt. x. 33.

Ver. 39. The kingdom of God, i.e., the glory of the kingdom of God, which is about to be in My transfiguration.

Coming, i.e., appearing, and showing itself to Peter, James, and John. In power, i.e., with great power, glory, splendour, and majesty. (Top)

CHAPTER IX.

Ver. 12. And be despised: Gr. ε̉ξουδενωθη̃, i.e., be nothing accounted of. Understand, thus shall it happen to Elias, that when by his great labours he has restored the faith, he shall in return for such great benefits receive curses and ill-treatment from the ungrateful and the impious, and shall at last be killed by them.

Ver. 15. And presently all the people seeing Jesus, were astonished, and struck with fear: and running to Him, they saluted Him. They were astonished because they saw Jesus so unexpectedly present after His absence, and at so opportune a time, to defend His disciples against the scribes. Again, it was because they saw in the face of Jesus, who had a little while before been transfigured, some remaining rays of His splendour; just as there were in the countenance of Moses, after his converse with God, rays, and, as it were, horns of light.

Ver. 19. Troubled him. Gr. ε̉σπάραξεν, i.e., bruised, tore, convulsed his whole body. Wherefore it is added in explanation, and being thrown down upon the ground, he wallowed about foaming, because, in fact, the demon was experiencing the power of Christ, and foresaw that he would speedily be cast out, therefore with indignation and gnashing of teeth he thus grievously afflicted and tormented the energumen.

Ver. 29. They passed through Galilee, and He would not that any one should know it. Lest He should be detained by the Galileans from love of Himself and His benefits. For He was hastening to Jerusalem to His cross and death, about which He was speaking privately to His disciples, that He might accomplish the will of His Father, and redeem the human race.

Ver. 31. But they understood not the word. That is to say, in what manner, and for what cause, Christ was to die; and how these words concerning His near approaching death agreed with what He had often told them, that His kingdom was at hand. For otherwise the Apostles understood and believed that Christ would die (see Matt. xvii. 23), when they are said to have been sorry at this saying of Christ concerning His death. Unless you prefer to say that they were ignorant of the death of Christ, because they were in hesitation with respect to it on account of the different sayings of Christ, apparently inconsistent with one another, and that accordingly they inclined to the view which was the more pleasing to them. For it was this which they wished to be true. “For so lovers frame dreams for themselves.” So they endeavoured to persuade themselves that these words of Christ concerning His death had some other hidden meaning, and that they were not to be taken literally, but mystically.

Ver. 37. John answered Him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in Thy name, who followeth not us, and we forbade him. It is as though he said, “Have we done well or ill?” John asks this question not out of envy, as Calvin would have it, but out of love and zeal for the honour of Christ. And it was occasioned by what He had said in the preceding verse, Whosoever shall receive one such little child in My name receiveth Me. As though he said, If he who receives a little one in Thy name receiveth Thy Father and Thyself, what must we think concerning him who works miracles in Thy name, and yet followeth not us, that is, is not Thy attendant and disciple, as we are? “Because,” says Cyril (in Catena in Luc. xi. 49), “the Saviour had given power to His Apostles to cast out unclean spirits, they thought that it had been conceded to none others save themselves to enjoy such dignity.” So Theophylact and Victor.

Here observe that those who thus cast out devils in the name of Christ, and yet did not follow Him, were believers, but imperfect ones, forasmuch as they shrank from the rugged poverty and renunciation of their goods, such as was the lot of the Apostles. They shrank from following Christ in His evangelical labours and His persecutions. Still they have some faith in Christ, by virtue of which they cast out devils. So S. Ambrose (in Luc. xi. 49). And in so doing Christ wrought and co-operated with them, that His power and glory might be the more made manifest, which wrought such great things by means of those who were so imperfect, and, as it were, aliens.

Observe, in the next place, that the Apostles did not forbid such people through hatred, but out of zeal for Christ, as though they were detracting from the glory of Christ and His ordinance, according to chap. iii. 15, where Christ gives to His Apostles only the power of casting out devils. But this zeal of theirs was indiscreet, especially because they had rashly, without consulting Christ, forbidden them. And Christ showed them that this was so for a double reason. The first is what He brings forward in the next verse. In a similar manner, when Joshua saw Eldad and Medad prophesying, he wished to forbid them, as if they were detracting from the glory of Moses, in that they had not received the spirit of prophecy from Moses. But Moses checked him by saying, “Enviest thou for my sake? Would that all the people were prophets, and that the Lord would put His Spirit upon them!” (Num. xi. 29). This is the Spirit of Christ, the spirit of love and of the Holy Ghost, which makes large the heart, and envieth none, but rejoices in all good things, by whomsoever and in what way soever they are wrought (see 1 Cor. xiii.).

Ver. 38. But Jesus said, Do not forbid him, for there is no man that doth a miracle in My name, and can soon (Gr.τάχα, i.e., easily) speak ill of Me. Do not hinder him in a good work, and one that honours Me; because even if he does not follow Me, yet he is doing the selfsame thing which you do, that is to say, he is celebrating My name, and he is making it known to men by casting out devils. Wherefore he does nothing that is against My name, but rather propagates and glorifies it.

Ver. 39. For he that is not against you is for you. This man, therefore, is not your adversary, in that he does the same that you do. He stands on your side. He helps you; he does not oppose you.

Ver. 40. For whosoever shall give you to drink a cup of water in My name, because you belong to Christ: Amen I say to you, he shall not lose his reward. This is Christ’s further reason to show why the man must not be forbidden to cast out devils. It is as though Christ said, “If he who gives you a drink of water in My name, and for My sake, does well, and shall receive a reward from God, so likewise shall he who drives out devils in My name. For both the one and the other do a good work, and are profitable to their neighbours in regard and respect of Me. But the one confers so much the greater benefit than the other, by as much as the devil whom he drives out is more hurtful than the thirst which the other alleviates by a draught of water.” So Theophylact.

Ver. 41. And whosoever shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in Me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were east into the sea. This is antithetical to the 36th verse. For Christ returns after the question interposed by John to what He had said concerning those who should receive a little child in His name. For as he who receives and cherishes the little ones who believe in Me, receives Myself, and shall be rewarded by Me with eternal glory in heaven; so, on the other hand, whoso shall cause one of these little ones to offend, offendeth Me, and shall be by Me condemned to Gehenna.

Ver. 42. And if thy hand scandalize thee, cut it of. For a scandal is so pernicious that it harms not only the doer but the sufferer of it. Wherefore, if thou sufferest a scandal from thy hand, cut it off. That is, if any one, relative or friend, as useful and as dear to thee as thy hand, thy foot, thine eye, scandalize thee, that is, draw thee into sin, separate such an one from thy company, lest he drag thee with him into Gehenna.

Ver. 43. Where their worm dieth not. He quotes Isa. lxvi. 24. Christ repeats this saying three times, that He may impress these dreadful worms and these fires upon us, that through horror of them we may avoid every scandal and every sin.

Ver. 48. For every one shall be salted with fire: and every victim shall be salted with salt.

1st. Franc. Lucas and Maldonatus understand the fire of hell, that Christ gives the reason of what He had just said, where their worm, &c. The reason is, for every one, namely, such as are adjudged to Gehenna, shall be salted with fire, that is, shall be burnt and tormented with fire, but in such manner that by the same fire, as it were by salt, they shall be preserved incorrupt for everlasting torments. For salt possesses the properties both of burning and preserving. It burns and torments by burning; by its saltness it preserves from corruption. The fire of hell does the same thing, wherefore it is appropriately compared to salt.

And every victim: and, that is, like as. As though He said, As every victim of God is wont to be seasoned with salt, according to the Law (Lev. ii. 13), so whosoever shall be adjudged to Gehenna shall be a victim, as it were, of the justice and vengeance of God for ever, and so shall be salted with fire unquenchable as with salt, that is, shall be burnt and tormented, and shall at the same time remain unconsumed in the fire.” So Isaiah teaches that the wicked shall in their torments be victims of God’s vengeance (xxxiv. 6; see also Ezek. xxxix. 17, and Jer. xlvi 10). For the wicked are, as it were, victims immolated to the honour of God’s justice. This sense is very plain, apposite, and in accordance with the context.

2nd Others refer the words more remotely to what Christ said in the 42nd and following verses about avoiding scandals, and that to do so a hand or a foot must be cut off. It would be as though He said, “Cut off from thee the person who is as dear and as necessary to thee as a hand or an eye, if he scandalize thee; for every one who seeks to please God, and to offer himself to Him as a spiritual victim, must cut off from him, as by the fire of mortification, the man who causes him to offend, however dear he may be. He must, therefore, be salted by suffering tribulation, that is, he must be crucified and purified. He must be salted with the mystical salt of prudence, discretion, and evangelical wisdom, which teaches us that it is better to cut off our hand than to go into hell.” There is an allusion to, or, indeed, in a mystical sense, a citation of Lev. ii. 13, “Whatsoever thou shalt offer in sacrifice, thou shalt season with salt.” So Theophylact on this passage of S. Mark; Theodoret, Procopius, Bede, Radulphus, Ruperti, on Lev. ii., and Cyril (lib. 15, de Adorat.). Wherefore it is added, salt is good. Hear the Gloss, “To be salted with fire is for the love of Christ to deny ourselves of those who are nearest to us, and as dear as a hand or an eye.” Hear also Bede, “The heart of the elect is the altar, the victims are good works, the salt is wisdom.” Christ opposes the fire of mortification to the fire of hell, and the salt to the undying worm. As though He said, “That ye may escape the fire and the worm of hell, which concupiscence generates, be zealous for the fire of mortification and the salt of wisdom. For this shall take away the putridity of concupiscence, from which are generated the undying worms which shall be burned in the fire of hell.”

3rd By fire Bede understands charity and the Holy Spirit, and His gift of discretion, by which He guides us into all good.

Lastly, the Scholiast in S. Jerome by salt understands also the fire of Purgatory. Hear what he says, “The victim of the Lord is the human race, which in this life is seasoned with the season of wisdom, when the corruption of the blood, which is the source of putridity, that is, the mother of worms, is consumed, and after this life is tried by purgatorial fire.”

Salt is good, i.e., useful. “Ye, 0 ye Apostles, who have been chosen by Me to be the salt of the earth, are profitable to the world, that ye may season with your wisdom and evangelical doctrine all nations.” Hear the Scholiast, “It is a good thing to hear the Word of God; to season the heart with the salt of wisdom; yea, to be salt, like the Apostles, i.e., to minister wisdom unto others.” Also Theophylact, “Salt preserves flesh; so the speech of a doctor prevents the unquenchable fire from being generated in carnal men.”

But if the salt become unsavoury (the Gr. contains an elegant pun, άλς άναλον, i.e., saltless salt), wherewith (i.e., with what other salt) will ye season it? It is as if He said, “If ye, 0 ye Apostles, who are the salt of the earth, lose this virtue of saltness, and become unsavoury and insipid, that through love or fear of men, through cupidity or ambition, ye fall away from My doctrine and an evangelical life, who shall restore you to your former wisdom, vigour, and sanctity?” Christ plays upon the word salt. For salt in Lev. ii. 13 is to be understood literally, but here it is to be taken mystically for wisdom, and metonymically for the Apostles, who had in themselves this mystic salt. Hear the Scholiast in S. Jerome, “Salt is savourless which loves the chief place, and which dares not either to rebuke or confess, loving the praise of men more than the praise of God.” Christ has a reference to Judas, who being corrupted by the love of money, and becoming unsavoury, lost his Apostleship, and did not hesitate to betray the Lord.

Have salt in yourselves, i.e., the salt of wisdom and a Christian life, as humility, charity, contempt of the world, but especially peace; as Christ adds, saying, And have peace among yourselves. “Do not ambitiously contend among yourselves for the primacy, as ye have contended” (ver. 33), to which Christ refers. For such a contention will be a scandal to the whole world; and for that reason Christ subjoined what is said concerning the avoidance of scandal in verses 36 and 41. But if ye preserve peace and mutual concord, ye shall be for the edification of the whole world; and being united one with another in the bond of charity, ye will be invincible, and will draw all men to yourselves and Christ. Therefore by peace the Interlinear understands love. And the Scholiast thus expounds, Have salt in yourselves, “The love of one’s neighbour tempers the salt of correction; and the salt of justice preserves love.”

Have peace, &c. That is, let him who speaks eloquently greatly fear lest by his eloquence unity be broken. For, as Bede says, “to have salt without peace is not a gift of virtue, but a proof of condemnation; for the wiser any one is, the greater his sin if he fall.” “For there are many,” says the Gloss, “that whilst greater knowledge lifts them up, it separates them from the society of others; and the wiser they are, the more they fall from the virtue of concord.”

Lastly, the Gloss thus expounds, Have salt in you, i.e., have discretion: and have peace among yourselves. By wisdom and discretion peace is both acquired and preserved among men. For the prudent and discreet do nothing which may offend others and disturb peace. The same bear with the infirmities of others, while those who are impatient are angry, and strive with them. (Top)

CHAPTER X.

Ver. 21. And Jesus regarding him, with a benignant and pleasant countenance, loved him, showed him marks of His love, taking his hand and smiling upon him, embracing and kissing him.

One thing is wanting unto thee, namely, for the perfection of a holy and evangelical life.

Follow Me. The Greek adds, Taking up thy cross. The Syriac has, Take thy cross, and come after Me.

Ver. 24. Little children (Vulg.); the Syriac, My sons. By His bland address He softens the hardness of the matter. He is like one who loves his children most dearly; and as such He would tell them the truth in sincerity, and persuade them to renounce riches as a bar to salvation.

That trust in riches. For rich men trust in their riches rather than in God, according to the saying in Proverbs (x. 15), “The substance of a rich man is the city of his strength” (Vulg.). With difficulty, therefore, are they saved, because salvation cometh only from God. Wherefore those who wish to be saved must put their trust in God, and must ask and wait for salvation from Him, as the poor do. For inasmuch as they have no riches in which to trust, they are obliged to place all their hopes in God, according to the words (Ps. xiv. 6), “Ye have shamed the counsel of the poor, because the Lord is his hope.” Therefore if rich men wish to be saved, let them turn their hope, their heart, their love from riches, and fix them upon God.

Ver. 30. Who shall not receive an hundred times as much, now in this time; houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions: and in the world to come life everlasting. I have explained this hundredfold in S. Matt. xix. 29. Mark here adds, with persecutions. The Arabic has, in tribulations. “Let him who has relinquished his possessions and friends for the love of Christ, and is set in the midst of persecutions, and is encompassed by them on every side, be faithful. For there will not be wanting a hundred, that is, very many, who will succour and cherish him, as brothers, fathers, and mothers.” So Jerome, Bede, &c.

This is added because in persecutions the believer especially needs the help and assistance of others. Also, because this is a rare and marvellous thing, that in persecution, when a man is wont to be left destitute of help and friends, and when all, through fear of danger, withdraw themselves from him, those who follow Christ experience the exact contrary, and find a hundred, i.e., very many to succour them.

Again, with persecutions may be taken thus—that persecutions and tribulations undergone for Christ’s sake reward which shall be given, together with the hundredfold, to those who follow Christ. For to suffer for Christ is a great gift of God, as the Apostle teaches (Phil. ii. 19).

Ver. 32. They were in the way, from Jericho, . . . and Jesus went before them, as with alacrity, affording himself as a guide in the way to the frightened Apostles, who shrank from Jerusalem, because they knew that Jesus was there sought for by the princes to be put to death. Yea, a decree had been made to that effect by their great council, the Sanhedrin (John xi. 52). Whence it follows—

They were astonished, and following, were afraid. Gr. ε̉θαμβου̃ντο, i.e., they were astonished with great fear and dread. The imminent peril of death, says Bede, was the cause of their fear. They were amazed that Christ with so prompt and resolute a mind should bring Himself and His disciples into such open peril of death. They were afraid lest they might suffer and be put to death with Christ.

Ver. 38. Or be baptised with the baptism wherewith I am baptized. Christ calls His Passion a baptism, because He was to be evidently immersed and drowned in it, according to what David says of himself, but much more of Christ (Ps. lxix. 12), “Save me, 0 God; for the waters are come in unto my soul. I sink in deep mire, where there is no standing: I am come into deep waters, where the floods overflow me.”

Ver. 42. Ye know that they who seem to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them. Gr. κατακυριεύουσιν αυ̉τω̃ν, i.e, dominate over them, or against them. For who seem, the Gr. is οί δοκου̃ντες, i.e., who please themselves, and rejoice in ruling. For none rule more imperiously and harshly than those who are delighted with ruling and commanding. Whence the Arabic translates, they who think themselves princes of the people are their lords, i.e., they exercise, as it were, a tyrannical domination over them.

Ver. 46. Bartimæus, the son of Timæus. This blind man, then, was called by a proper name, Bartimæus, i.e., the son of Timæus, as Bartholomew is the same as son of Ptolemy. The same was called also by the same name as his father Timæus. Timæus was the name of that Pythagorean philosopher who wrote the life of Pythagoras.

Moreover, Bartimæus is interpreted by Pagnini in three ways (in Nom. Hebraicis). The first is from S. Jerome, to the effect that Bartimæus means the blind son, or the son of blindness. He says that it is a Syriac name, but corrupted from Barsemia, or Barsamæus. Bar is son, semaia, blindness.

The second opinion is, that it means the son of honour; as if compounded of the Syriac bar, a son, and the Gr. τιμή, honour.

The third is, that it means the son of the admirer, or admirable corn, or admirable purity. For this was what the blind man received from Christ. For being illuminated in body, he was far more illuminated in his soul. For bar means meal, or wheat, or purity, as well as son. Tamah is to admire.

And followed Him in the way. Moraliter: Says the Gloss, Let us consider the way in which He goeth, and follow Him by humility and labours. The way is that of which He saith, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” This is “the narrow way,” which leads to the heights of Jerusalem and Bethany, to the Mount of Olives, which is the mount of light and consolation; yea, which leads to Zion and the heavenly Jerusalem. The blind man therefore sees and follows, for he who rightly understands the life of Christ ought to follow and imitate it by his works. (Top)

CHAPTER XI.

Ver. 10. Blessed be the kingdom of our father David that cometh. It means, blessed by the benediction and goodness of God, i.e., “let it be happy, propitious, flourishing, firm, and abounding in all good things, this kingdom of our father David, which is the kingdom of Israel—that kingdom which was most ample and flourishing under David and Solomon his son, and which fell to pieces at the Babylonian captivity, and subsequently. Now does that kingdom come. It returns, and is restored by this our Messiah, the Son of David, who shall restore it to its pristine glory and beauty, yea, who shall make it far more strong and flourishing.”

Ver. 16. And He suffered not that any man should carry a vessel through the temple. Vessel, utensil, instrument, or furniture, for profane uses, such as basket, pot, ewer, or burden. Through the temple, i.e., through the outermost court of the temple, which was the court of the Gentiles, where the Gentiles might tarry and pray. For to those who wished to pass from the sheep-market, called Bethesda, or by corruption Bethsaida, to the upper city, or Solomon’s palace, the nearest way was through this porch or court of Solomon’s. For otherwise they would have to traverse the whole exterior boundary of this court. It was not surprising, therefore, that servants and children, who were carrying any burden, should take the nearer way through this court. But Christ forbade their doing so, both by His word and the gestures which He made with His hand, and compelled them to go back. What, then, would He have done with respect to the Holy Place itself? What with respect to our churches? (See Vilalpandus, tom. 2, in Ezek. l. 3, c. 9.)

Ver. 22. Have faith, i.e., full and perfect faith. (Top)

CHAPTER XII.