1788. Consequenter concludit veritatem reddite ergo quae sunt Caesaris Caesari, et quae sunt Dei Deo; quasi dicat: vos estis Dei et Caesaris, et habetis in usu vestro et quae Dei sunt et quae Caesaris. Habetis divitias naturales a Deo, scilicet panem et vinum, et de his date Deo: habetis ista artificialia, ut denarios, a Caesare, et haec Caesari reddite.
1788. Next he concludes the truth: render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God, the things that are God’s, as though to say: you are God’s and Caesar’s, and you have in your use both things which are God’s and things which are Caesar’s. You have natural riches from God, namely bread and wine, and give of these to God; you have these artificial things, like the denarius, from Caesar, and these things render to Caesar.
Mystice sic: nos habemus animam quae est ad imaginem Dei, ideo eam Deo reddere debemus; secundum ea quae a mundo habemus, pacem cum mundo habere debemus. Etiam sancti viri hic elevati a mundo, quia tamen in mundo cum aliis conversantur, debent pacem requirere Babylonis, ut habetur Baruch I, 10 ss. Et hoc est quod omnia quae sunt carnis, quae sunt mundi, vel hominum cum quibus conversantur, reddant Deo.
Mystically, thus: we have a soul which is made to the image of God, and therefore we should render it to God; with regard to the things which we have from the world, we should have peace with the world. Even holy men, who are raised here above the world, since nevertheless they associate with others in the world, should seek the peace of Babylon (Bar 1:10). And this is what all things that are of the flesh, of the world, or of the men with whom they deal, render to God.
1789. Sequitur effectus et audientes mirati sunt, et relicto eo abierunt. Mirum fuit, quia statim, sapientia sua visa, debuissent esse conversi; sed non potuerunt capere, et recesserunt; Ps. CXXXVIII, 6: mirabilis facta est scientia tua ex me, confortata est, et non potero ad eam.
1789. There follows the effect: and hearing this they wondered, and leaving him, went their ways. It was astonishing, for having seen his wisdom they should have been converted immediately; but they were unable to understand, and withdrew; your knowledge has become wonderful to me: it is high, and I cannot reach to it (Ps 138:6).
Lectio 3
Lecture 3
Matrimonium in resurrectione
Marriage at the resurrection
22:23 In illo die accesserunt ad eum Sadducaei, qui dicunt non esse resurrectionem, et interrogaverunt eum [n. 1790]
22:23 That day there came to him the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, and they asked him, [n. 1790]
22:24 dicentes: Magister, Moyses dixit: si quis mortuus fuerit, non habens filium, ut ducat frater eius uxorem illius, et suscitet semen fratri suo. [n. 1793]
22:24 saying: Master, Moses said: if a man die having no son, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up issue to his brother. [n. 1793]
22:25 Erant autem apud nos septem fratres, et primus uxore ducta defunctus est, et non habens semen reliquit uxorem suam fratri suo. [n. 1794]
22:25 Now there were with us seven brothers: and the first having married a wife, died; and not having issue, left his wife to his brother. [n. 1794]
22:26 Similiter secundus et tertius usque ad septimum. [n. 1794]
22:26 In like manner the second, and the third, and so on to the seventh. [n. 1794]
22:27 Novissime autem omnium et mulier defuncta est. [n. 1794]
22:27 And last of all the woman died also. [n. 1794]
22:28 In resurrectione ergo cuius erit de septem uxor? Omnes enim habuerunt ea. [n. 1795]
22:28 At the resurrection therefore whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had her. [n. 1795]
22:29 Respondens autem Iesus ait illis: erratis nescientes Scripturas, neque virtutem Dei. [n. 1797]
22:29 And Jesus answering, said to them: you err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. [n. 1797]
22:30 In resurrectione enim neque nubent, neque nubentur, sed erunt sicut angeli Dei in caelo. [n. 1798]
22:30 For in the resurrection they will neither marry nor be married; but will be as the angels of God in heaven. [n. 1798]
22:31 De resurrectione autem mortuorum non legistis quod dictum est a Deo dicente vobis: [n. 1802]
22:31 And concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken by God, saying to you: [n. 1802]
22:32 ego sum Deus Abraham, et Deus Isaac, et Deus Iacob? Non est Deus mortuorum, sed viventium. [n. 1802]
22:32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. [n. 1802]
22:33 Et audientes turbae mirabantur in doctrina eius. [n. 1805]
22:33 And the multitudes hearing it, were in admiration at his doctrine. [n. 1805]
1790. In illo die. Hic ponitur secunda interrogatio, et tria facit.
1790. That day. Here the second questioning is set down, and he does three things:
Primo ponitur interrogatio;
first, the questioning is set out;
secundo responsio;
second, the response;
tertio effectus.
third, the effect.
Secunda ibi respondens autem Iesus etc.; tertia ibi et audientes turbae mirabantur.
The second is at and Jesus answering, said to them: you err; the third, at and the multitudes hearing it, were in admiration.
Circa primum
Concerning the first,
primo ponitur dispositio et conditio interrogantis;
first, the disposition and condition of those questioning is set out;
secundo interrogatio.
second, the questioning.
1791. Dicit ergo in die illo. Et quare in die illo? Non sine ratione, quia cum viderunt illos confusos, non sine praesumptione quaesierunt eum. Sed, secundum Chrysostomum, concordati erant ad invicem quod caperent eum in sermone, et quilibet volebat honorem victoriae: ideo illis confusis isti accedere voluerunt; Iob XIX, 12: venerunt latrones eius, et fecerunt sibi viam per me.
1791. It says then, that day. And why does he specify on that day? Not without reason, for since they saw the others perplexed, not without presumption did they question him. But, according to Chrysostom, they had agreed with one another that they would capture him in his words, and each one desired the honor of victory: so when those were perplexed these wished to approach. His troops have come together, and have made themselves a way by me (Job 19:12).
Duae enim erant sectae: Pharisaei, idest ‘divisi,’ et Sadducaei, idest ‘iusti.’ Et hi errabant in dogmatibus, quia non recipiebant prophetias, nec credebant resurrectionem. Item credebant quod mortuo corpore totus homo moreretur: et hoc est quod dicit qui dicunt non esse resurrectionem.
For there were two sects: the Pharisees, i.e., ‘the separated,’ and the Sadducees, i.e., ‘the just ones.’ And these men, i.e., the Sadducees, erred in their teachings, because they did not accept the prophets, nor did they believe in the resurrection. Likewise, they thought that when the body died the whole man died; and this is why it says, who say there is no resurrection.
1792. Sequitur interrogatio. Et
1792. There follows the questioning. And
primo ponit legem;
first, the law is set out;
secundo casum;
second, the situation;
tertio interrogationem.
third, the questioning.
1793. Dicunt ergo et interrogaverunt eum dicentes: magister, Moyses dicit: ‘si quis mortuus fuerit non habens filium’ et cetera. Deut. XXV, 5 s. Quae fuit causa legis? Populus carnalis fuit. Unde nil nisi temporalia quaerebat. Lex ergo illa promisit.
1793. They speak therefore, and asked him, saying: Master, Moses said: ‘if a man die having no son’ (Deut 25:5). What was the reason for the law? The people were carnal. Hence they sought nothing but temporal things. Therefore the law promised those things.
Manifestum enim est, quod homo non potest durare in se, ideo consolatio est ei quod maneat in suo simili, scilicet in filio; et hoc natura desiderat, ut quod non potest in se salvari, salvetur in suo simili. Unde contingebat quod aliquis sine filio moreretur, ideo subvenit huic casui Moyses secundum hanc legem, ut frater suus haberet uxorem suam. Nec ponebatur extraneus, qui nihil pertineret ad eum; item non haberet tantam curam de domo et familia sicut frater: et hoc est quod dicit et suscitaret semen fratri suo, idest generet filium qui habeat haereditatem illius.
For it is evident that a man cannot endure in himself, so it is a consolation to him that he remain in his like, namely in a son; and nature desires this, that what cannot be preserved in itself be preserved in its like. Hence it happened that someone died without a son, so Moses brought aid to this misfortune through this law, that his brother should have his wife. Nor was an outsider set down, who would not pertain to him at all; nor would he have only the care of the house and family, like a brother: and this is why it says, and raise up issue to his brother, i.e., he would beget a son who would have his inheritance.
1794. Posita lege, ponunt casum erant apud nos septem fratres, et primus, uxore ducta, defunctus est, et non habens semen reliquit uxorem suam fratri suo et cetera. Potest esse quod talis casus accidit, vel quod ipsi confinxerunt. Tamen secundum Augustinum per septem fratres homines mali signantur, qui in septem aetatibus moriuntur sine fructu. Apost. Rom. VI, 21: quem fructum habetis, vel habuistis, in his, in quibus nunc erubescitis? Ista mulier est mundana conversatio; Ps. ci, 27: ipsi peribunt, tu autem permanebis, et omnes sicut vestimentum veterascent.
1794. The law being set down, they set out the situation: now there were with us seven brothers: and the first having married a wife, died; and not having issue, left his wife to his brother. It could be that such a case happened, or that they made it up. Yet according to Augustine, the seven brothers signify evil men, who die in the seven ages without fruit. The Apostle: what fruit therefore had you then in those things, of which you are now ashamed? (Rom 6:21). This woman is worldly living; they will perish but you remain: and all of them will grow old like a garment (Ps 101:27).
1795. Unde quaerunt: omnes mortui sunt, et omnes eam habuerunt: cuius uxor erit in resurrectione, quia omnium esse non poterit? Ista opinio non est bona, et est contra Pharisaeos, quia credebant quod resurrectio debet esse quantum ad hanc vitam, quod quisque rehabeat uxorem suam et possessionem suam et cetera. Unde dicunt cuius erit uxor? Quia non potest esse uxor omnium. Ista opinio reprobatur in Iob VII, 10: non revertetur in domum suam. Unde non resurget ad eumdem modum vivendi.
1795. Hence they ask: all died; at the resurrection therefore whose wife of the seven will she be? Since she cannot be the wife of all of them. For they all had her. This idea is not good, and is against the Pharisees, because they thought that the resurrection should be with regard to this life, that each one would have his own wife and his own possessions. Hence they say, whose wife of the seven will she be? Since she cannot be the wife of them all. This idea is refuted: nor will he return any more into his house (Job 7:10). They will not rise again to the same manner of living.
1796. Sequitur responsio. Et
1796. There follows the response. And
primo ostendit errorem et causam;
first, he shows the error and its cause;