(printed p. 108 — Book II)
This question is important and useful for many things. Because our Maldonatus treated it seriously and learnedly, in his own manner, on Matthew chapter 5, number 21, it has seemed most advantageous to bring his words here, lest I thrust my bronze or iron in place of his gold.
“All heretical interpreters,” he says, “hold it as settled, for the Holy Spirit has revealed their opinion to them, that Christ corrects not the law, but the traditions and interpretations of the scribes and Pharisees; and on this point they shamelessly criticize the ancient authors because they thought otherwise. The Pelagians, other heretics of old, once taught the same thing, as Jerome writes in the first book against them. Among Catholics,
[margin: Whether the scribes began in Ezra’s time. Two opinions; the first.]
(printed p. 109)
I do not know whether anyone taught it besides Strabus, and in our own time certain men who read the commentaries of the heretics with less caution than befits Catholics.
“Nor do I deny that there are some arguments for this opinion which could move a less learned or less steadfast reader. First, they weigh the word repeated in each commandment: ‘It was said,’ as if he had therefore said ‘said’ and not ‘written’ because he was speaking not about the law, but about the tradition and explanation of the Pharisees. Second, because Christ opposes himself to them as a good legislator to perverse interpreters, not in any way to the old legislator, whether that was himself or the Father, who gave the old law through Moses.
“Further, because the things that Christ adds in Matthew 5 were contained in the old law. For not only adultery, but also concupiscence was prohibited: ‘You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife,’ Exodus 20:17. Saint Paul is witness: ‘I did not know concupiscence unless the law said, You shall not covet,’ Romans 7:7. Therefore Christ added to the Pharisees’ interpretation his own interpretation, not something to the law.
“Further, the law did not command hatred of enemies, but rather love. Exodus 23:4: ‘If you meet your enemy’s ox or ass wandering, bring it back to him. If you see the ass of him who hates you lying under its burden, you shall not pass by, but shall lift it up with him.’
“Further, when Christ is asked by that young man what he must do to possess eternal life,
[margin: Arguments for the first opinion, 1-5.]
(printed p. 110)
he answers nothing other than, ‘Keep the commandments,’ Luke 18:18. Therefore nothing was lacking in the commandments of the law that Christ could add.
“Finally, there is no greater perfection in the Gospel, nor indeed can one be imagined, than to love God with the whole heart, with the whole mind, with the whole soul, and with all one’s strength. Yet the law prescribed this very thing, Deuteronomy 6:5.
“Moreover, Christ says in the same place, verse 20, ‘Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven,’ as though indicating that he wished to correct not the law but the Pharisees’ interpretation.
“Christ also says that many things were said to the ancients which are not found in the law, such as that phrase in the same place, verse 21, ‘He shall be liable to judgment,’ and that phrase in verse 33, ‘You shall not swear falsely,’ and that in verse 43, ‘You shall hate your enemy.’
“Let those things be as they are; as I think, the ancient authors saw them. Yet with an incredible unanimity they all taught that Christ corrected the old law itself, by adding those things which were lacking for evangelical perfection. This was not because the law was not perfect in its own kind, but because it was less perfect than the Gospel. For it had been given to the Jews as a pedagogue, as to boys to be instructed rather rudely, until the better master, Christ, proposed more perfect things to minds that were now stronger. And in this way we say that Christ fulfilled the law, because he added what was lacking in it. Thus Irenaeus,
[margin: Arguments for the first opinion, 6-8. The second opinion, twofoldly approved by Maldonatus: first, by the authority of the ancients.]
(printed p. 111)
book 4, chapter 37; Tertullian, in On Patience; Clement of Alexandria, book 6 of the Stromata; Hilary, canon 4 on Matthew; Epiphanius against the Ptolemaeans, heresy 33; Basil, homily on Psalm 14; Chrysostom, homily 16 on Matthew; the author of the imperfect homily, homily 11; Ambrose, sermon 5 on Psalm 118; Saint Jerome in the letter to Gerontia on monogamy; Chromatius; Theophylact; and Euthymius, in their commentaries on the passage of Saint Matthew.
“I judge this opinion to be most true, not only because I have been compelled by the authority of so many ancient authors, but also by stronger arguments in this direction.
“First, as the heretics weigh that word, ‘It was said,’ so I, on the contrary, weigh what follows, ‘to the ancients,’ that is, to those to whom Moses gave the law, as though he were opposing Christians and evangelicals to Mosaic and legal men: ‘But I say to you.’ For if he were speaking only about the traditions and interpretations of the Pharisees, he would not say, ‘You have heard that it was said,’ as though they had not heard it from the one who said it, but had received it from others by whom they had heard it. Rather, he would have said simply, ‘You have heard, You shall not kill,’ or, ‘It has been said to you, You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.’ Nor, in rebuking them, would he have left the scribes and Pharisees unnamed; rather, he would have said openly, ‘You have heard from the scribes and Pharisees.’ For we see that Christ always used this freedom. ‘Beware,’ he says, ‘of the leaven, that is, the doctrine, of the Pharisees and Sadducees,’ Matthew 16:6
[margin: The same opinion is proved by six arguments, 1.]
(printed p. 112)
and 11-12. Nor can they be called ancient who had existed only a little before; for the Pharisees arose not long before the times of Christ, as is gathered from Josephus.
“Second, because Christ corrects many things in this passage which, it is clear, were introduced not by the Pharisees but were expressed in the law. One example is verse 31: ‘Whoever dismisses his wife, let him give her a bill of divorce,’ Deuteronomy 24:1. What, I ask, had the Pharisees corrupted here? Yet Christ corrects it: ‘But I say to you.’ Likewise verse 33, ‘You shall not swear falsely,’ for the law says this in Leviticus 19:12, and the Pharisees were not corrupting it.
“As for the claim that the Pharisees were accustomed to teach that those who swore by heaven or by earth did not sin, we shall refute it later. But the fact that Christ rebuked the Pharisees in Matthew 23:16 for saying, ‘Whoever swears by the temple, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple is bound,’ is a different matter. For Christ is not rebuking a false interpretation of the law in them. If he had intended to do that, he certainly would have said it not there, but here in Matthew 5. Nor did the law prohibit swearing by the temple; Christ first prohibited it. Rather, he rebuked their greed, because those who swore by the temple they absolved, while those who swore by the gold they condemned, as if they were more moved by the honor of gold than by the honor of God.
“Further, where did the law say that if anyone struck you on one cheek, you should turn the other to him? Or why should it be the Pharisees’ fault that they did not interpret it in this way, since the law had not said it,
[margin: It was said above. Arguments 2-3.]
(printed p. 113)
when even now, with Christ himself teaching, we can scarcely grasp it? Where was it written that we should leave our cloak to the man who takes away our tunic? Therefore Christ does not merely interpret the law; he establishes a new law and brings a new doctrine.
“Further, where does the law say, ‘Love your enemies’? For the text brought forward from Exodus 23:4, ‘If you meet your enemy’s ox,’ is nothing. It is speaking of a Jew, with whom a Jew was forbidden to have enmity. And so the man who is there called an enemy is called a brother in Deuteronomy 22:1: ‘You shall not see your brother’s ox or sheep wandering and pass by; rather, you shall bring them back.’ But when the law speaks of true enemies, it commands not only that they be hated but also that they be destroyed: ‘You shall blot out his name from under heaven; beware lest you forget,’ Deuteronomy 25:19. In the Gospel it is lawful to hate absolutely no one, and to destroy no one by private authority.
“Finally, we see that Christ in this passage amplified the rewards and punishments of the old law. Why, then, unless because he increased the perfection of the law?
“From what we have said, those with some ability will not have much difficulty gathering how the contrary arguments should be answered; still, it will not be tiresome to show less learned readers the manner of replying. What is objected first, that Christ did not say ‘it is written’ but ‘it was said,’ is far too slight. For either there is no mystery in that word, since we see the Evangelists using these two words without distinction,
[margin: Arguments 4-6. Solution to the arguments of the first opinion, to argument 1.]
(printed p. 114)
as in ‘as was said through the prophets’ and ‘as it is written’; or, if there is some mystery in that word, it is not what the heretics think, but what Chrysostom and Theophylact noted: that if he had named the Father by whom it had been said, he would have seemed either to oppose himself to him or even to set himself above him; and if he had named himself, since he too had given the old law, he would have stirred up the hatred of the hearers against himself.
Or, as I suspect, he is not tacitly opposing himself to himself or to the Father, but to Moses. For although the old law had been given by God, nevertheless, because the people had received it not from God but from Moses, Moses seemed to be its author. “The law,” he says, “was given through Moses,” John 1:17. And, “Did not Moses give you the law?” John 7:19. Finally, it is called the law of Moses in Luke 2:22 and 24:44; John 7:23; Acts 13:38, 15:5, and 28:23. And the things that were written and commanded in the law are said to have been written and commanded by Moses, John 8:5 and 1:45. Therefore Christ tacitly opposes himself to Moses when he says, “But I say to you,” but he did not wish to name him, in order to avoid envy.
By this reasoning not only the first argument, but also the second is easily solved. The third is answered thus: there is no doubt that concupiscence was prohibited in the old law, but much less expressly and precisely than it is prohibited here by Christ. For the law merely said, “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife”; it did not say that the man who looks upon her with unchaste eyes is guilty of adultery.
[margin: To arguments 2-4.]
(printed p. 115)
“The fourth argument we solved a little earlier, incidentally, while dealing with another point. For we showed that the law commanded certain public enemies not only to be hated, but even to be utterly abolished. Christ alludes to this when he says, ‘But I say to you, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,’ Matthew 5:44.
“In the fifth argument it is proved only that not all the things Christ added to the law are precepts. This need not be denied, for many are evangelical counsels. Therefore Christ requires from that young man only that he keep the commandments. Yet if he wishes to follow evangelical perfection, let him sell all that he has, give to the poor, and follow him. This is what Matthew 5 means when it says to let the cloak go also: naked, follow the naked Christ.
“But what greater perfection is there than to love God with the whole heart? I answer: to love him more with the whole heart. For the person who loves in such a way that he places the love of no thing above the love of God loves God with the whole heart. But the person who, for this reason, leaves all that he has and follows Christ, as we read the Apostles did, loves more with the whole heart. I will say it in one word: to love God with the whole heart is to love him in such a way that we do not also love idols or anything else contrary to him. God required this perfection from Abraham when he said, ‘Walk before me and be perfect,’ Genesis 17:1.
“As for Christ’s saying, ‘Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes
[margin: To arguments 5-7.]
(printed p. 116)
and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven,’ he does not say this in order to rebuke their doctrine, but their life. For elsewhere he says, ‘The scribes and Pharisees have sat upon Moses’ chair; therefore whatever they tell you, observe and do. But do not act according to their works, for they say and do not do,’ Matthew 23:2. He also says it because the Pharisees professed themselves to be so devoted to the law that, if Christ taught anything better and more perfect, they would reject it outright.
“Nor do I deny that the scribes and Pharisees badly interpreted the law in many matters. For I know, and it was explained above, that elsewhere Christ warned his disciples to beware their leaven, that is, their doctrine, Matthew 16:12. I only say that in this passage Christ is not aiming to rebuke the traditions or interpretations of the Pharisees, but to perfect the law by adding partly precepts and partly evangelical counsels.
“As for what was objected in the last place, that many things are recited by Christ in Matthew 5 as said to the ancients which are not found in the law, I deny this. For the phrase in the same chapter, verse 21, ‘He shall be liable to judgment,’ has the same meaning as Leviticus 24:21, ‘Whoever strikes a man shall die,’ and Numbers 35:16, ‘If anyone strikes with iron and the one struck dies, the one who struck him shall be guilty of homicide, and he himself shall surely die,’ verses 17 and 30. The phrase in verse 33, ‘You shall not swear falsely,’ is taken, with respect to its meaning,
[margin: To argument 8.]
(printed p. 117)
from Leviticus 19:12, ‘You shall not swear falsely in my name,’ or, as it is word for word in Hebrew, ‘You shall not swear in my name to falsehood,’ or to a lie. This is, in Exodus 20:7 and Deuteronomy 5:11, to take the name of the Lord in vain. Finally, the phrase in verse 43, ‘You shall hate your enemy,’ is taken from Deuteronomy 25:19, as was explained above.”