|
68 |
|
Compiled by: Michael Lewis & Friends (Angel Investors) with the Smart Singaporeans
Important note: Please print this if you need it for future reference, as what listed here will be archived (from 18 April 2026) to make room for Summaries of the Latest Saints’ Commentaries. Although we have done our best to summarise the Saints’ Commentaries (including comparison with AI), please refer to the original Saints’ commentaries listed after reading these. Thanks for following us.
2. God is the source of all wisdom and goodness Chrysostom then explains Paul's questions: “Who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been His counsellor?” God does not obtain His wisdom from anyone else. He is Himself the source of wisdom. No counsellor instructs Him, and no external source supplies what He needs. Likewise: “Who hath first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?” God is not indebted to anyone. Everything good ultimately comes from Him, rather than God receiving something from us and subsequently repaying us. This leads naturally to Paul's great declaration: “For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things.” For Chrysostom, this means that God is: the origin of all things — “of Him”; the active means and Sustainer of all things — “through Him”; the final end and destination of all things — “to Him.” Therefore Paul concludes: “To whom be glory for ever. Amen.” Saint John Chrysostom notes that Paul repeatedly responds to profound mysteries in this way: when human understanding reaches its limit, worship begins. 3. Chrysostom then turns from theology to Christian conduct This is an important feature of the commentary. Chrysostom does not leave Romans 11 as an abstract discussion about God's wisdom. He asks, in effect: If God is so merciful and wise, how should Christians live? His first warning is against confidence in ancestry or inherited privilege. The Jews had a great natural relationship to Abraham, yet unbelief made them “aliens”; Gentiles were naturally far removed from Abraham, yet faith brought them into relationship with the saints. Therefore, Chrysostom says that the truly important relationship is not merely physical descent, but likeness of character. In his striking formulation, people become brothers not simply because they share ancestry, but because they share the same zeal and character. 4. Christians should seek to become God's children by imitation Chrysostom connects this with Christ's teaching: “Be ye therefore perfect, as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” (Matthew 5:48) We call God “Father”, he says, not merely to remember the privilege we have received, but also to remind ourselves that we must live in a manner worthy of that relationship. And what particularly makes us resemble God? Mercy, love, gentleness, and doing good even to those who mistreat us. Chrysostom points especially to Christ's command to: pray for those who persecute us; do good to those who hate us; show mercy to those in distress. God Himself shows kindness even to those who blaspheme Him. Therefore mercy toward others is one of the clearest ways in which human beings become like God. 5. Mercy is more important than the amount of money given Chrysostom then develops a lengthy application concerning poverty and almsgiving. He stresses that God does not measure generosity simply by the numerical size of the gift, but in relation to the means of the giver. Consequently: A poor person who gives little may actually give more, proportionally, than a rich person who gives much. Poverty should not necessarily be regarded as an obstacle to doing good. Even someone who possesses no money can show mercy. Compassion itself is valuable before God. A person can help others by: visiting the sick; visiting prisoners; comforting those who suffer; defending someone who is being wronged; weeping with those who weep; offering even something as small as a cup of cold water. Thus Christian charity is not restricted to financial charity. 6. The real danger of wealth is the formation of the heart Chrysostom's concern is not simply whether someone possesses wealth. He is concerned about what wealth can do to the soul. The wealthy person can become proud, attached to possessions, and less willing to inconvenience himself for others. The person with little may actually have greater freedom to sympathize with the suffering of others. Consequently, Chrysostom sees mercy as a kind of spiritual treasure-house: once a person has acquired a compassionate heart, that compassion becomes a source from which many good works flow. In summary Chrysostom's interpretation can be condensed into this progression: God's plan → human wonder → recognition of God's incomprehensible wisdom → worship → imitation of God → mercy toward others. The central message is therefore not simply “God's wisdom is mysterious.” It is: Because God's wisdom and mercy exceed our understanding, we should respond not with pride, but with humility, thanksgiving, mercy, and imitation of God's goodness. And Chrysostom sees a particularly important connection between Romans 11:33–36 and Christian life: the person who truly understands God's mercy should become merciful himself. That is why his commentary ultimately moves from Paul's cosmic doxology—“of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things”—to the very practical command that Christians should show mercy and love to their fellow human beings. Matthew 16:13-20 (wallpaper) from Catena Aurea (Saints’ Commentaries) https://www.ecatholic2000.com/catena/untitled-23.shtml The Church Fathers and medieval commentators on Matthew 16:13–19, centred on Peter's confession, Christ's promise concerning the Church, and the giving of the keys. Here is a structured summary: 1. Christ asks first about the opinions of others — vv. 13–14 The Fathers see Christ's question, “Whom do men say that the Son of Man is?”, as deliberate preparation for the disciples' confession. Saint John Chrysostom says Christ takes the disciples away from Jewish territory to Caesarea Philippi so that they can speak freely, away from fear of the Jews. The question concerns the common people's opinions, rather than those of the hostile Pharisees. The people were mistaken about Christ, but their errors were not deliberately malicious. The various answers — John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets — demonstrate that there were many inadequate conceptions of Jesus. Saint Hilary of Poitiers stresses the expression “Son of Man.” Christ's humanity was genuinely present, but something greater lay hidden beneath His human appearance. Faith must therefore confess both His humanity and His divinity. Thus, the first stage is to establish the inadequacy of merely human opinions about Jesus. 2. Peter gives the decisive confession — v. 16 Christ then asks: “But whom say ye that I am?” According to Saint John Chrysostom, this second question is addressed specifically to the disciples because they had witnessed Christ's miracles and teaching and therefore should possess a higher understanding than the multitude. Peter answers: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” This is presented by the Church Fathers as much more than simply identifying Jesus as the Messiah. The essential point: Jesus is truly the Son of God Saint Origen of Alexandria contrasts Peter's confession with the mistaken identifications of the multitude. Jesus is not merely another prophet. Saint Jerome explains “living God” in contrast with the dead gods of paganism. Saint Hilary of Poitiers sees Peter's confession as expressing the complete Christian faith: the Son is truly God, eternally from the Father, and this divine Son has taken human flesh. Saint John Chrysostom goes particularly far in emphasizing that Peter is confessing Christ's unique sonship — not merely that Jesus is one of God's adopted sons, but that He is Son by nature and of the same substance as the Father. So the confession contains two inseparable truths: Jesus is the Christ (Messiah) + Jesus is the Son of the living God. 3. Peter's knowledge comes by divine revelation — v. 17 Christ responds: “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” The Church Fathers strongly emphasize that Peter's confession was not merely the result of human reasoning. Saint Jerome says that “flesh and blood” means human teaching — particularly the teaching of the Pharisees. Peter did not arrive at this confession through their instruction. Rather, the truth was revealed through the grace of God and the Holy Spirit. Saint Hilary of Poitiers says Peter was blessed because he had seen beyond Christ's visible humanity and recognized the divine Son. Saint John Chrysostom argues that this revelation establishes the unique character of Christ's sonship: the Father reveals the Son, while the Son reveals the Father. This gives the passage a profound theological structure: The Father reveals the Son → Peter confesses the Son → Christ blesses Peter → Christ entrusts Peter with a particular ecclesial authority. 4. “Thou art Peter” — v. 18 Christ now responds to Peter's confession: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.” This is the central question in the passage. The Fathers represented in your source give two closely related interpretations. A. Peter himself as the rock Saint Jerome, Saint John Chrysostom, and Saint Hilary of Poitiers strongly connect Peter's new name with the rock. Peter has confessed Christ, and Christ consequently declares him to be Peter (Rock). Saint John Chrysostom interprets: “Upon this rock” as referring particularly to Peter's faith and confession — the truth that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. B. Christ as the ultimate Rock Saint Augustine is especially important here. He explicitly acknowledges that he had previously interpreted the passage as meaning that the Church was built upon Peter. But he says that he subsequently often explained it as referring to Christ, whom Peter confessed. His reasoning is: Peter is called Peter because of the Rock. The Rock is Christ. Peter represents the Church because he makes the confession which the whole Church makes. Therefore the Church is ultimately founded upon Christ and the faith in Christ. Augustine concludes that the reader may consider either interpretation the more probable. The common ground Despite differences of emphasis, the Church Fathers agree on something fundamental: The Church is founded upon the revelation and confession of Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Peter is inseparably associated with that foundation because he is the first to make this confession in its fullness and is consequently given the name Rock. 5. The Church cannot be overcome — “the gates of hell...” — v. 18 Christ continues: “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” The Church Fathers understand this in several complementary ways. Saint Jerome: the gates of hell include sin, vice, and heretical doctrines. Saint Origen of Alexandria: spiritual sin itself constitutes a gate of hell. Saint Rabanus Maurus: persecution, evil works, unbelief, and destructive ways of life are all “gates of hell.” Saint Hilary: the promise demonstrates the firmness and permanence of the Church. Saint Origen of Alexandria makes the strongest general statement: whether “it” refers to the rock or to the Church built upon the rock, the powers of hell cannot ultimately overcome either. Thus the promise concerns the indefectibility and security of Christ's Church in the face of persecution, sin, heresy and spiritual opposition. 6. Peter receives the keys — v. 19 Christ then gives Peter another extraordinary promise: “I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” The Church Fathers regard the keys as representing genuine spiritual authority. What do the keys signify? Saint Rabanus Maurus gives two aspects: Power — the authority to bind and loose. Discernment — the ability to distinguish the worthy from the unworthy. Chrysostom emphasizes the extraordinary nature of this authority. Christ gives Peter things that ultimately belong to God: authority concerning forgiveness of sins and the stability of the Church. The keys therefore signify authority concerning entrance into the kingdom and ecclesial judgment. 7. “Binding and loosing” Christ says: “Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” The Church Fathers understand this as genuine ecclesiastical authority, but they also insist that it is not arbitrary power. Jerome's important qualification Jerome compares the priest's function to the Old Testament priest examining a leper. The priest did not make a person leprous. Rather, he recognized and declared what was already the case. Similarly, the bishop or presbyter does not simply manufacture guilt or innocence by personal whim. He exercises an authority of discernment and judgment concerning the person's sins. Saint Origen of Alexandria adds that the person exercising this authority must himself be righteous, since he must be worthy to bind and loose. 8. Is this authority given only to Peter? An important distinction appears in the passage. Saint Rabanus Maurus says that the authority of binding and loosing was not actually restricted to Peter. It was also given to: the other Apostles, and bishops and presbyters in the Church. But Peter receives something special: “Peter received in a special manner the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and a supremacy of judicial power.” Thus the commentary distinguishes between: Authority shared by the Apostles and clergy The Gloss develops this into the idea of Peter as the principal head/Vicar of Christ, whose special position serves the unity of the Church. 9. Peter and the unity of the Church This is one of the strongest ecclesiological themes in the supplied commentary. The Gloss says that Peter's special authority was given: “that we might thereby be invited to unity.” The argument is that if there were multiple competing heads possessing equal supreme authority, the unity of the Church could be endangered. Therefore Peter's position is presented as serving visible ecclesial unity. Saint Rabanus Maurus similarly connects Peter's keys with communion in the faith and warns against separation from ecclesial unity. 10. Saint Origen of Alexandria gives the passage a wider spiritual application Origen does not restrict the significance of “Peter” entirely to the historical Apostle. He argues that those who confess Christ through the Father's revelation and imitate Christ can themselves become, spiritually speaking, “rocks.” The principle is: Confession of Christ + faith + virtuous Christian life = participation in the stability symbolized by Peter. Conversely, someone who allows the “gates of hell” to overcome him cannot properly represent the rock upon which Christ's Church is built. This makes the passage not merely about ecclesiastical authority, but also about the spiritual condition of every Christian. Theme and Patristic teaching Who is Jesus? He is the Christ, the Son of the living God. How is He recognized? Ultimately through divine revelation, not merely human reasoning. Why is Peter blessed? He is the first here to confess Christ's divine Sonship in its fullness. What is the rock? Peter is intimately associated with the rock, while Augustine especially identifies the ultimate Rock with Christ and Peter's confession of Him. What is the Church? The Church is built upon this rock/faith in Christ and cannot ultimately be overcome by hell. What are the keys? Spiritual authority concerning the kingdom, including binding and loosing. Why is Peter given special authority? To signify and preserve ecclesial unity, while binding and loosing is also shared with the other Apostles and the Church's ministers. In one sentence The Fathers understand Matthew 16:13–19 as the revelation of Jesus' true identity as the divine Son, publicly confessed by Peter through heavenly revelation, after which Christ establishes His Church upon this rock of faith and confession, promises its ultimate victory over hell, and gives Peter a special authority symbolized by the keys, while the broader power of binding and loosing belongs also to the Apostles and the Church's ministers. One particularly interesting feature of this collection is that it does not present a completely uniform explanation of “this rock.” Chrysostom, Jerome and Hilary strongly associate the rock with Peter's confession/Peter himself, whereas Augustine explicitly records and discusses his own two interpretations, ultimately emphasizing Christ as the Rock whom Peter confessed. At the same time, the commentary strongly supports a special Petrine role in the unity and governance of the Church. The Church Fathers’ commentary on Matthew 16:20–21 centres on two closely connected questions: Why did Jesus command the disciples not yet to proclaim Him as the Christ? and Why did He immediately begin teaching them about His Passion and Resurrection? 1. Why Jesus ordered silence about His identity — Matthew 16:20 Saint Origen of Alexandria sees the command as appropriate to the stage of the disciples’ understanding. Peter had just confessed Jesus as “the Christ, the Son of the living God,” but the disciples were not yet ready to proclaim publicly the full meaning of that confession. Origen offers several complementary explanations: The disciples might previously have spoken of Jesus merely as a remarkable or holy man, without publicly proclaiming Him as the Messiah. Even if they had already used the title Christ, Jesus now wanted them to keep that proclamation temporarily quiet, allowing the truth they had received to become firmly established in their minds. Most importantly, the disciples could not properly preach Christ without also preaching His Cross and Resurrection. The complete Christian proclamation would be not merely “Jesus is the Christ,” but “Christ who was crucified and who rose again.” Thus, the silence was temporary, not a denial of His messianic identity. 2. Saint Jerome: “Christ” and “Jesus Christ” Saint Jerome notices an apparent contradiction. Earlier Jesus had sent His disciples to preach, whereas here He tells them not to tell anyone that He is Jesus the Christ. Jerome distinguishes between: Christ — a title of dignity, meaning the Anointed One/Messiah. Jesus — the proper name of the Saviour. More importantly, Jerome says that Jesus was postponing the full public proclamation of His messianic identity until after His Passion. Why? Because if the people proclaimed His majesty before understanding the Cross, His subsequent humiliation would appear to contradict their expectations. They would see the One proclaimed as Messiah scourged, rejected and crucified, and their faith could be shaken. After the Resurrection, however, the proclamation would rest upon the complete truth: Christ has suffered, died, and risen again. 3. The Passion explains the command to remain silent Jerome therefore connects verses 20 and 21 very closely. Jesus says, in effect: Do not yet proclaim publicly that I am the Christ; first understand what kind of Messiah I am. He immediately follows the command with the announcement: He must go to Jerusalem; He will suffer many things; He will suffer at the hands of the elders, chief priests and scribes; He will be killed; He will rise again on the third day. For Jerome, this explains the timing of the prohibition. The disciples must not preach a glorious Messiah detached from the Cross. 4. Saint John Chrysostom: Jesus prepares the disciples gradually St. John Chrysostom emphasizes the pastoral wisdom of Jesus. The disciples had only just reached the point of recognizing Him as the Christ. They were therefore not yet prepared to hear that the Christ must suffer and die. Chrysostom's point is essentially that a truth which has been firmly established before being tested is much harder to overthrow. Jesus therefore repeats the prediction of His sufferings and death so that the disciples will gradually become accustomed to the idea. When the Passion actually occurs, they will remember that Jesus had already foretold it. The Passion would otherwise appear to them as an unexpected catastrophe; Christ teaches them beforehand that it is part of God's plan. 5. Saint Origen of Alexandria: “began to show,” not merely “began to teach” Origen pays particular attention to Matthew's wording: Jesus “began to show” His disciples these things. He sees an important distinction between merely speaking about the Passion and revealing its mystery to the disciples. At this point they could receive only the beginning of the revelation. Later, when they were spiritually prepared, Christ would reveal it more fully. Origen therefore sees the disciples' understanding as progressive: confession of Christ → preparation for the Cross → Passion → Resurrection → fuller understanding of Christ's mystery. 6. Jerusalem below and Jerusalem above Saint Origen of Alexandria then gives the passage a more spiritual interpretation. Jesus must go to Jerusalem, where He will be killed. But His Resurrection points beyond the earthly Jerusalem to the heavenly Jerusalem. Consequently: Christ suffers in the earthly Jerusalem; He rises and reigns in the heavenly Jerusalem; those who belong to Him are consequently directed away from merely earthly expectations toward the heavenly reality. The earthly authorities—the elders, chief priests and scribes—reject Him, while the heavenly reality receives and glorifies Him. Origen therefore sees Christ's Passion as a movement from earthly humiliation to heavenly glory. 7. The third day Saint Origen of Alexandria also gives a symbolic interpretation of the third day. Christ's Resurrection is not merely His return from death. Through it He begins the work of delivering humanity from the evil one and bringing believers into new life. His mention of three days also becomes, for Origen, a Trinitarian image: Father, Son and Holy Spirit are continually associated with those who have become children of light. This is a more allegorical interpretation than Chrysostom's historical and pastoral reading. The central teaching of the Church Fathers The Church Fathers essentially read Matthew 16:20–21 as a deliberate transition from “Who Christ is” to “what kind of Christ He is.” Peter has just made the great confession: Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. But Jesus immediately teaches that His Messiahship cannot be understood in terms of earthly glory alone. The Messiah must suffer, die, and rise again. The sequence is therefore: Confession → Silence → Revelation of the Cross → Death → Resurrection → Full proclamation. This also explains why the command in verse 20 is only temporary. The disciples are not to suppress the truth permanently. They must wait until they can proclaim the whole Gospel: not simply that Jesus is the Christ, but that the Christ has suffered, been crucified, and risen from the dead. In one sentence For Saint Origen of Alexandria, Saint Jerome, and Saint John Chrysostom, Jesus forbids premature proclamation because the disciples must first learn that His Messiahship is inseparable from His Passion and Resurrection; once the Cross and Resurrection have occurred, “Jesus is the Christ” can be proclaimed in its complete and unshakable meaning. Past work https://emmanuel-maria.biz/index_files/Page3418.htm Sending Peace, Love & Joy to you from Singapore!
Click “Next” for earlier records.
|