Mateus 9
Augustine of Hippo · Comentário Patrístico (catena)
Mateus 9:1
[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] (De Cons. Ev. ii. 25.) That Matthew here speaks of his own city, and Mark calls it Capharnaum, would be more difficult to be reconciled if Matthew had expressed it Nazareth. But as it is, all Galilee might be called Christ's city, because Nazareth was in Galilee; just as all the Roman empire, divided into many states, was still called the Roman city. Who can doubt then that the Lord in coming to Galilee is rightly said to come into his own city, whatever was the town in which He abode, especially since Capharnaum was exalted into the metropolis of Galilee? (ubi sup.) And if we adopt this supposition, we must say that Matthew has omitted all that was done from the time that Jesus entered into His own city till He came to Capharnaum, and has proceeded on at once to the healing of the paralytic; as in many other places they pass over things that intervened, and carry on the thread of the narrative, without noticing any interval of time, to something else; so here, And, lo, they bring unto him a paralytic laying on a bed. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas
Mateus 9:9
[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] Or, perhaps it is more probable that Matthew here turns back to relate something that he had omitted; and we may suppose Matthew to have been called before the sermon on the mount; for on the mount, as Luke relates, the twelve, whom He also named Apostles, were chosen. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas
Mateus 9:10
[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] Matthew has not said in whose house Jesus sat at meat (on this occasion), from which we might suppose, that this was not told in its proper order, but that what took place at some other time is inserted here as it happened to come into his mind; did not Mark and Luke who relate the same show that it was in Levi's, that is, in Matthew's house. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas
Mateus 9:11
[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] Luke seems to have related this a little differently; according to him the Pharisees say to the disciples, Why do ye eat and drink with Publicans and sinners? (Luke 5:30.) not unwilling that their Master should be understood to be involved in the same charge; insinuating it at once against Himself and His disciples. Therefore Matthew and Mark have related it as said to the disciples, because so it was as much an objection against their Master whom they followed and imitated. The sense therefore is one in all, and so much the better conveyed, as the words are changed while the substance continues the same. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas
Mateus 9:12-13
[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] Luke adds to repentance, which explains the sense; that none should suppose that sinners are loved by Christ because they are sinners; and this comparison of the sick shows what God means by calling sinners, as a physician does the sick to be saved from their iniquity as from a sickness: which is done by penitence. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas
Mateus 9:14
[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] (ubi sup.) Though Matthew mentions only the disciples of John as having made this enquiry, the words of Mark rather seem to imply that some other persons spoke of others, that is, the guests spoke concerning the disciples of John and the Pharisees—this is still more evident from Luke; why then does Matthew here say, Then came unto him the disciples of John, (Luck 5:33.) unless that they were there among other guests, all of whom with one consent put this objection to Him? — Catena Aurea by Aquinas
Mateus 9:15-17
[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] (Serm. 210. 3.) Otherwise; Every one who rightly fasts, either humbles his soul in the groaning of prayer, and bodily chastisement, or suspends the motion of carnal desire by the joys of spiritual meditation. And the Lord here makes answer respecting both kinds of fasting; concerning the first, which is in humiliation of soul, He says, The children of the bridegroom cannot mourn. Of the other which has a feast of the Spirit, He next speaks, where He says, No man putteth a patch of undressed cloth. Then we must mourn because the Bridegroom is taken away from us. And we rightly mourn if we burn with desire of Him. Blessed they to whom it was granted before His passion to have Him present with them, to enquire of Him what they would, to hear what they ought to hear. Those days the fathers before His coming sought to see, and saw them not, because they were placed in another dispensation, one in which He was proclaimed as coming, not one in which He was heard as present. For in us was fulfilled that He speaks of, The days shall come when ye shall desire to see one of these days, and shall not be able. (Luke 17:22.) Who then will not mourn this? Who will not say, My tears have been my meat day and night, while they daily say unto me, Where is now thy God? (Ps. 42:3.) With reason then did the Apostle seek to die and to be with Christ. (De Cons. Ev. ii. 27.) That Matthew writes here mourn, where Mark and Luke write fast, shows that the Lord spake of that kind of fasting which pertains to humbling one's self in chastisement; as in the following comparisons He may be supposed to have spoken of the other kind which pertains to the joy of a mind wrapt in spiritual thoughts, and therefore averted from the food of the body; showing that those who are occupied about the body, and owing to this retain their former desires, are not fit for this kind of fasting. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas
Mateus 9:18
[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] (De Cons. Ev. ii. 28.) This narrative is given both by Mark and Luke, but in a quite different order; namely, when after the casting out of the daemons and their entrance into the swine, he had returned across the lake from the country of the Gerasenes. Now Mark does indeed tell us that this happened after He had recrossed the lake, but how long after he does not determine. Unless there had been some interval of time, that could not have taken place that Matthew relates concerning the feast in his house. After this, immediately follows that concerning the ruler of the synagogue's daughter. If the ruler came to Him while He was yet speaking that of the new patch, and the new wine, then no other act of speech of his intervened. And in Mark's account, the place where these things might come in, is evident. In like manner, Luke does not contradict Matthew; for what he adds, And behold a man, whose name was Jairus, (Luke 8:41.) is not to be taken as though it followed instantly what had been related before, but after that feast with the Publicans, as Matthew relates. While he spake these things unto them, behold, one of their chief men, namely, Jairus, the ruler of the synagogue, came to him, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, my daughter is even now dead. It should be observed, lest there should seem to be some discrepancy, that the other two Evangelists represent her as at the point of death, but yet not dead, but so as afterwards to say that there came afterwards some saying, She is dead, trouble not the Master, for Matthew for the sake of shortness represents the Lord as having been asked at first to do that which it is manifest He did do, namely, raise the dead. He looks not at the words of the father respecting his daughter, but rather his mind. For he had so far despaired of her life, that he made his request rather for her to be called to life again, thinking it impossible that she, whom he had left dying, should be found yet alive. The other two then have given Jairus' words; Matthew has put what he wished and thought. Indeed had either of them related that it was the father himself that said that Jesus should not be troubled for she was now dead, in that case the words that Matthew has given would not have corresponded with the thoughts of the ruler. But we do not read that he agreed with the messengers. Hence we learn a thing of the highest necessity, that we should look at nothing in any man's words, but his meaning to which his words ought to be subservient; and no man gives a false account when he repeats a man's meaning in words other than those actually used. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas
Mateus 9:22
The daughter of the synagogue ruler signifies the Jewish people, whereas the woman signifies the church of the Gentiles. The Lord Christ, born of the Jews in the flesh, was presented to those Jews in the flesh. But he sent others to the Gentiles; he did not go himself. His bodily and visible community ties were in Judea. Therefore the apostle says, "For I say that Christ has been a minister of the circumcision in order to show God's fidelity in confirming the promises made to our fathers." It was said to Abraham, "By your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves," "that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy." Therefore Christ was sent to the Jews. He went to restore life to the daughter of the synagogue ruler. The woman appears on the scene, and she is healed. She is healed first in faith, being practically ignored by the Savior, for he said, "Who touched me?" Here we have an ignoring attitude by God and faith in the mystery by her. It means something when someone who cannot ignore, ignores. And what does it mean? It points to the healed church of the Gentiles, the bodily presence of which is not seen by Christ, whose voice is heard in the psalm: "People whom I had not known served me. As soon as they heard of me they obeyed me." The world heard and it believed. The Jewish people saw and at first they crucified. But later they too came to him. Also the Jews will believe—but at the end of the world. — SERMONS 63B
Mateus 9:32-34
[(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)] (De Cons. Ev. ii. 29.) This account of the two blind men and the dumb dæmon is read in Matthew only. The two blind men of whom the others speak are not the same as these, though something similar was done with them. So that even if Matthew had not also recorded their cure, we might have seen that this present narrative was of a different transaction. And this we ought diligently to remember, that many actions of our Lord are very much like one another, but are proved not to be the same action, by being both related at different times by the same Evangelist. So that when we find cases in which one is recorded by one Evangelist, and another by another, and some difference which we cannot reconcile between their accounts, we should suppose that they are like, but not the same, events. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas