Saint Peter seems to have outlined the method of the synoptic gospels: "beginning from Galilee after the baptism which John preached, etc." (Acts 10:37). Matthew shows that in the sojourn and preaching which Christ long conducted in Galilee, the prophetic oracle was fulfilled; then he follows how Christ, selecting disciples for himself, establishes the beginnings of his kingdom. When he withdraws into Galilee on account of the envy of the Jews and selects disciples from the Galileans, it is already sufficiently manifest that Christ's work was being hindered in Judea itself.
What the evangelist narrates in Mt 4:12 and following is separated by a rather long interval from v. 11. He himself indicates this in two ways; for first he assigns the time, after John the Baptist had been put in prison. Therefore after the baptism and temptation all those things are omitted by Matthew which are related in John 1:19-4:54, and mention is made here of that journey into Galilee about which John begins to narrate in 4:1-3. Then the same thing becomes clear from the word "withdrew" (ἀνεχώρησεν) into Galilee, which word means to retreat, and indeed usually into a safer, more hidden place, or to withdraw from the crowd and tumult and retire to a quiet place; cf. Mt 2:14, 22; Mt 9:24; Mt 12:15; Mt 14:13; Mt 15:21; Mark 3:7; John 6:15; Acts 23:19; Acts 26:31. Now no one is said to retreat from the desert and solitude as if into a quieter region into Galilee; therefore from the very expression it is clear that Christ withdrew from Judea, in which region plots were already being prepared against him or at least some tumult and envy was being stirred up against him, so that he might go into Galilee as a safer region. This fits very well with John 4:1, in which Christ is said to have been moved by the envy of the Pharisees to leave Judea. But this was especially turned against him after their former adversary, who had severely attacked their vices (3:7), was thrust into prison and reduced to silence. Therefore this refers to his second journey into Galilee after baptism, and Saint Augustine notes well: "it is understood that these three evangelists did not narrate things contrary to the evangelist John, but passed over the first coming of the Lord into Galilee after he was baptized, when he converted water into wine there; for John had not yet been handed over" (cf. Mark 1:14; Luke 4:14; John 3:24), and Bede, Rabanus, and Albertus note the same. But Christ withdrew, as Saint Chrysostom notes, yielding somewhat to the envy of the Jews and, as Saint Paschasius adds, already teaching by his own example what he later handed down: "if they persecute you in one city, flee to another" (Matt. 10:23). Since Galilee was largely inhabited by Gentiles, Christ being forced to depart from Judea already foreshadows that the kingdom, rejected by the Jews, would pass to others. Therefore Saint Chrysostom observes: "I would like you to consider how, when about to go to the Gentiles, he always receives occasions from the Jews" (similarly Saint Thomas, Lapide). The tetrarch of Galilee was Herod Antipas, who had thrown the Baptist into prison. Therefore when Christ withdraws into Galilee, he avoids the persecutions and envy of the Pharisees; "he came to his own and his own did not receive him"; it was certain enough from Herod's character that he would do nothing and care little about what was done in religious matters unless incited by the Pharisees.
What is said in Mt 4:13, "leaving Nazareth" (καταλιπὼν τὴν Ναζαρά), can mean either that the city was passed by, omitted, neglected with respect to habitation (Cajetan, Lapide, Schegg, Keil) just as Euthymius already has "passing by, for he did not enter Nazareth," or in the sense that he first entered the city and then departed from it to Capernaum. But from Luke 4:16-30 about the rejection of Christ by the Nazarenes, which event could not have escaped Matthew's notice, it follows that the word should be taken in this latter sense. And for Christ's preaching, the city of Capernaum was much more suitable than Nazareth. For it was a wealthy city, frequented by commerce and also by the gathering of foreigners, situated on the northern part of the Lake of Gennesaret, not far from where the Jordan flows into the lake; therefore great facility was offered for making journeys into neighboring regions by land and sea, and from the city itself, because of the gathering of people and commerce, Christ's fame easily spread far and wide. The city is not named in the books of the Old Testament; even after Christ it seems soon to have declined from its former splendor (Matt. 11:23), since Josephus mentions the village Capharnaum, as it is called (Life 72), only once; moreover in the region of Gennesaret he mentions a very abundant spring which is called Capharnaum by the natives (Jewish War 3.10.8). Modern scholars debate whether Tell Hum or Khan Minyeh today designates the site of that city. Among the Syrians and in the village it is called Nahum, which name some interpret as "house of consolation" (נַחוּם); Saint Jerome at 11:24 explains it as "most beautiful village" (from כְּפַר or כְּפַר). It is called "by the sea" (παραθαλασσία), i.e., which was situated by the Lake of Gennesaret, by the Sea of Tiberias.
The evangelist further adds a description of the region from the earlier history of the people: "in the borders of Zebulun and Naphtali," in that region where once the tribes of Zebulun and Naphtali were neighbors, therefore on the borders of Lower Galilee and Upper Galilee; cf. Joshua 19:10ff., 27, 34. But the evangelist notes this in order better to prepare minds for properly understanding the oracle. For it did not happen by chance that Christ, the light of the world, the true light (John 1:9; 8:12; 12:46), remained longer in that region and preached his teaching. Therefore it can in no way be an offense that Christ spent much time in Galilee, a region despised at that time by the zealots of the law because of the cohabitation of Gentiles, and there (being forced to depart from Judea) instituted his preaching and the beginnings of his kingdom; rather this especially commends his divine mission, because Isaiah had already predicted that the messianic light would shine forth in that very region. The oracle is quoted (with a few words omitted) according to the Hebrew text of Isaiah 8:23; 9:1. First the region is designated in Mt 4:15, then in Mt 4:16 equally the people dwelling there, by way of apposition or explanation; that region, i.e., the people, saw a great light. Since in the Greek it is constantly read "the way of the sea" (ὁδὸν θαλάσσης), "way" must be explained adverbially, as the Hebrew דֶּרֶךְ is sometimes used, "toward," on the way to the sea; therefore the land of Zebulun and Naphtali is more accurately determined insofar as that region is especially regarded which is toward the sea, i.e., toward the Lake of Gennesaret, as Theophylact already well explains: "the region lying toward the way of the sea," and Maldonatus: "toward the sea," while Euthymius: "those along the way... dwell." Then the region "beyond the Jordan," on the eastern bank of the Jordan, is named, in which region Christ also often stayed; finally "Galilee of the Gentiles" (גְּלִיל הַגּוֹיִם, Isaiah 8:23), properly "circle of the Gentiles," a region chiefly inhabited by Gentiles, which word the Septuagint already translated as "Galilee of the nations" (Γαλιλαία τῶν ἐθνῶν). Upper Galilee is understood, bordering Syria and Phoenicia, "Galilee above" (Josephus, Jewish War 3.3.1) and in 1 Maccabees 5:15 "Galilee of the allophyles" (foreigners). Having described the region, the very condition of the people is declared in Mt 4:16. And indeed in Isaiah the condition of the people afflicted with difficult circumstances is immediately expressed, oppressed by servitude and overwhelmed by miseries, because that region was severely afflicted by the Syrian wars and especially despoiled of its inhabitants by Tiglath-Pileser (cf. 2 Kings 15:29; 1 Chronicles 5:26). But the prophet promises to that region, first oppressed and despised in time, afterward, in the last time, a great light. But that the light is understood as messianic is already most certain in the prophet from what he expounded in Is 4:5 and Is 7:14 and Is 8:10 and from what he immediately adds in Is 9:5ff.; moreover Isaiah often designates the Messiah by the name of light: Is 42:6; Is 49:6; Is 60:1-3, 19; see my Commentary on Isaiah I p. 218ff.
Since according to the character of the Old Testament calamity and misery are the penalty of impiety and defection from God, darkness and the shadow of death already in the prophet also sufficiently indicate the miserable condition of morals and religion. Therefore these expressions are aptly understood concerning the darkness of errors and impiety in which that region was immersed (Saint Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius); therefore they are also said "to sit," i.e., comprehended on all sides by darkness, they can make no effort to dispel them or emerge from them, they rest there fixed (Saint Chrysostom, Albertus). And Albertus not unsuitably explains "shadow of death": "for the outer darkness which is in hell projects its shadows into this life, and these shadows are the interior darkness of ignorance and the obscurity of sin," and Cajetan: "just as a shadow is like a trace of that whose shadow it is, so the shadow of death is like a trace of death; and properly it signifies the terrors and horrors of death, and by metaphor it is transferred to the death of the soul, and the interior darkness of the soul, ignorance and sins, are here literally called the shadow of death, as if death itself were eternal damnation by which the soul without hope of life is dead." Therefore to the most miserable the light "has arisen"; the office of the Messiah is indicated, who like a physician brings help to the sick, his prevenient grace is indicated, offered even to the undeserving, as Theophylact notes on "has arisen": "for we did not seek it, but it appeared to us as if seeking us."
What kind of light the Light itself, the Messiah, brings to them is briefly declared in Mt 4:17: "from that time" (ἀπὸ τότε), not as if Christ had not preached at all in Judea before, but the expression refers back to Mt 4:13 and designates the beginning of preaching in Capernaum and its borders; "he began to preach" (κηρύσσειν), by which word a certain solemnity and the authority of a legate is expressed, as: to be a herald and to make a proclamation. He begins, as Saint Chrysostom notes, from the announcement of good things, from salvation, adding nothing of threats, and if there is anything harsh in repentance and penance, "the sweetness of the fruit compensates for the bitterness of the root, hope delights in the dangers of the sea; hope of health mitigates the pain of medicine; he who desires the kernel must break the nut; similarly let him do penance who wishes to be present for good" (Zacharias Chrysopolitanus; Migne 186, 111). He begins from the same theme of preaching with which John began; see on 3:2; whence he shows that John was his forerunner (Euthymius), that he was the one who cried out in the voice of John (Glossa ordinaria, Saint Paschasius), and to confirm John's preaching and for our example, that we should not disdain to pursue good things begun by others who are lesser (Saint Thomas, Cajetan). Using the Baptist's words, he also begins his ministry from humility, not from some prodigy, as the devil had suggested (Schanz), and by his own authority also teaches that the way to the messianic kingdom is not that Pharisaic confidence nor pomp nor the slaughter of enemies, but a change of morals; therefore he immediately opposes to the Jewish expectation of an earthly kingdom the spiritual character of his kingdom, the removal of sins, just as very often in the prophets the restoration of the theocracy is depicted as excelling in holiness.
To found and propagate his kingdom he summons companions. But that the Pharisees and priests, the leaders of the old synagogue who sit on Moses' seat, cannot be such has already been sufficiently shown by what was said by the Baptist (Mt 3:7-10; John 1:26) and by what Christ experienced in the temple and in Judea (John 2:18ff., 24; Jn 3:19ff.; Jn 4:1-44). He chooses Galileans, simple men accustomed to hard labors. What is narrated in v. 18ff. is not the first but the second invitation; this is clear from what is narrated in John 1:37ff. For first John and Andrew and Simon knew Jesus by the Jordan, before Jesus went for the first time after baptism into Galilee; they also followed him often afterward, but did not yet cling to him inseparably (cf. Saint Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels 2.17.37; Saint Chrysostom, Euthymius, Theophylact, etc.). Whence we learn how Christ gradually leads his disciples to higher things. For now, after they had already conversed with him for quite some time and had also been witnesses in Cana of Galilee and also in Judea of what Christ had done (John 4:45), they are invited to a closer following. The Sea of Galilee or also the Sea of Tiberias (John 6:1; Jn 21:1) is called the Lake of Gennesaret; it is also called "the sea" in the Old Testament, Numbers 34:11; Joshua 12:3; Josh 13:27. According to Josephus's account (Jewish War 3.10.7), the lake extended forty stadia in width and besides one hundred others in length, of sweet and most drinkable water. Josephus (ibid. 8) praises the pleasantness and fertility of that region with great commendation: "But Gennesaret extends before the lake, a region of the same name, admirable both in nature and beauty; for by its fertility it refuses no tree, and farmers have planted all kinds; and the temperature of the air is suited even to diverse things; for walnuts... grow in great abundance, where also palm trees which thrive in heat, and next to these fig trees and olives by which a softer breeze is indicated... and not only does it nourish various fruits beyond expectation, but also preserves them long; for the most excellent of all, namely grapes and figs, it supplies without interruption for ten months, and the other fruits throughout the whole year aging together with them."
Saint Thomas notes that just as once the brothers Moses and Aaron were chosen and sent by God to free the people, so also brothers are called to Christ's discipleship. Simon, to whom Christ immediately from the beginning announced his dignity: "You shall be called Cephas (which is interpreted Peter, John 1:42)" and Andrew. Why brothers are called, Euthymius piously meditates: "both because it is fitting to govern in a brotherly manner, and because those who are taught by Christ ought to understand in a brotherly manner," and Saint Bruno: "O happy military service which is gathered from brothers, for whom there is one heart and one soul!" But the unlettered are chosen and sent to preach, says Saint Jerome, lest the faith of believers be thought to come not from the power of God but from eloquence and learning. He chooses simple men, devoted to labors; "by which he signified that he especially delights in the humble and that they are more capable of the gospel than those who are pleased with themselves on account of human wisdom; then that he might confound the wise of this world and better prove the power of evangelical truth, while the conversion of the world could not be attributed to human power or wisdom" (Jansen). He says to them in Mt 4:19: "Come after me," i.e., follow me, cling to me, associate with me as disciples. For the disciples of the rabbis were accustomed to be almost continually companions of their teachers. Because Simon and Andrew had already previously devoted themselves to Christ, now they are invited to a closer and more continuous following. But they are invited with a promise both sweet and magnificent; sweet because of the play on words, magnificent because it concerns leading people to salvation: "and I will make you become fishers of men"; for, as Saint Hilary notes: "in the choice of fishermen, from the art of men the work of their future office is revealed, so that just as fish from the sea, so henceforth men from the world are to be drawn up to a higher place, that is, into the light of the heavenly dwelling"; and with a similar play on words we also read about David: "He took him from the sheepfolds, from following the ewes he brought him to shepherd Jacob his servant" (Psalm 77:70; Maldonatus). Therefore Christ says: I will change your office into something greater, "I will make," "because preaching labors in vain outwardly unless the grace of the Redeemer is present inwardly; for they did not draw men by their own power, but by Christ's operation" (Saint Thomas). But there is contained, as Albertus observes, "a promise of offices, which however he did not immediately impose, because they still had to be instructed through teaching and perfected through virtue and exercised through the proof of works and temptations."
How powerful Christ's invitation is, or rather what powerful grace he joined to the external voice, is declared in Mt 4:20: "immediately leaving the nets they followed him"; "consider both their faith and obedience; for even in the middle of their work (and you know how eager a thing fishing is), hearing him commanding they did not delay nor hesitate, they did not say: let us return home and speak to our relatives, but leaving all things they followed, just as Elisha also did with Elijah. Such obedience, namely, Christ seeks from us, so that we should not defer even for a moment of time" (Saint Chrysostom). Although we cannot say with Saint Gregory (Homily 5 on the Gospel) that they followed the Lord whom they had seen perform no miracles yet, from whom they had heard nothing yet about the reward of eternal retribution, nevertheless their faith and promptness of obedience is greatly to be commended. And, as Albertus says, the evangelist notes three things in their obedience: swiftness, ease or expedition (leaving the nets), and perfection which is in following. Nor is anything taken away from their praise from the fact that they left little. For, these are the words of Saint Gregory (ibid.), "in this matter we ought rather to weigh the affection than the property; he left much who retained nothing for himself; he left much who, however little it was, abandoned everything; therefore Peter and Andrew left much, when each also abandoned even the desires of possessing; he left much who renounced concupiscences along with possessed property," similarly Bede, Rabanus, Albertus, Thomas, etc. Behold how greatly Christ, by his majesty, is lord and king of souls!
With the same power and kindness he calls to himself two other brothers, James and John, the sons of Zebedee, in Mt 4:21. John is that disciple whom Jesus loved, who had previously been a disciple of the Baptist and was sent by him to Jesus together with Andrew (John 1:35ff.). Peter, John and his brother James (the Greater) were disciples most familiar to the Lord Jesus; cf. Matthew 17:1; Mt 26:37; Mark 5:37; 13:3; Luke 8:51, etc. In these brothers an even greater promptness and renunciation is described, since they also left their father with equally ready hearts, so that they might immediately follow the Lord in Mt 4:22.
The words of Christ "I will make you fishers of men" were expressed in Christian antiquity with multiple applications in churches, baptisteries, and sacred vessels. From this it came about that the fish became a symbol of the faithful, inasmuch as they, caught by the apostles, are snatched from the sea of worldly malice, or by another consideration, are generated by the water of baptism. Hence Tertullian already says (On Baptism, 1): "We little fish, according to our ΙΧΘΥΣ [fish] Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor can we be saved otherwise than by remaining in water." In the hymn which is read at the end of the Paedagogue of Clement of Alexandria, the Savior himself is called the fisher of men who catches fish from the sea of malice, from the hostile wave, with the hook of sweet life. Therefore the preaching of the gospel is quite often depicted by the symbol of fishing, and Clement of Alexandria urges the faithful that those who wear rings should take care that the figure of a fish be engraved on them, lest they forget their origin. See more about that symbol in Mamachi, Origins and Antiquities of Christianity, book 1 § VI p. 84ff., Rome 1749, and especially in the Encyclopedia of Christian Antiquities, ed. Kraus, Freiburg i. B. 1882 I p. 524ff. Note: The letters that make up the word for fish IXΘΥΣ (Ichthys) form an acronym for the phrase, Iēsoûs Christós Theou Yiós Sōtēr = Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.
If one asks whether this calling is the same as that which is related in Luke 3:1ff., there is great disagreement among interpreters. For not a few distinguish two events, and therefore say that these disciples were called three times by Christ; namely in John 1, in our passage (and Mark 1:16-20) and Luke 5:1, and finally a fourth time they were chosen as apostles. Thus distinguish, for example, Saint Augustine, Rabanus, Albertus, Thomas, Cajetan, Maldonatus, Sylveira, Menochius, Kilber, Calmet, Patrizi, Coleridge, Lohmann (The Life of Jesus, 2nd ed. Paderborn 1889), Arnold, Schanz, Keil, etc. In which opinion it is again asked whether the calling in Matthew 4:18 is to be placed second or third. That the second calling is narrated in Luke 5:1 is the opinion of Saint Augustine, Maldonatus, Sylveira, Menochius, Arnold, and others. Those therefore who distinguish these narrations from each other insist on those things by which they seem to differ from each other; for in Matthew, Christ walks beside the sea while Simon and Andrew cast nets into the sea, and he calls them; proceeding from there he sees two others in a boat with their father mending nets; both, leaving their nets, follow him, not leaving all things, as Cajetan subtly notes. Otherwise in Saint Luke: there are two boats; the fishermen wash the nets; Christ ascends into Simon's boat, teaches the people, commands them to put out into the deep; the miraculous catch follows; Christ speaks to Simon alone: "From now on you will be catching men"; Simon's partners are James and John; nothing about Andrew; having brought the boats to land, leaving all things they followed him.
Nevertheless quite many hold that both in Matthew and in Luke it is a question of one and the same calling, and the two narrations can easily, indeed must be reconciled with each other; thus for example Zacharias Chrysopolitanus, Tostatus qu. 96-97, Jansen, Barradius, Lapide, Tirinus, Lamy, Reischl, Grimm (III p. 582), Cornelius a Lapide, Meschler, Fillion. The matter is told briefly in Matthew, more fully in Luke; in both something is omitted, other things narrated, which however can easily be combined into one complete narration. And they should be so joined, since it cannot be that twice, leaving all things, they followed the Lord. On which matter Lapide says: "nor is it likely that once plainly and fully called and having followed Christ, they again defected from him and as it were apostatized, so that they had to be called a third time in Luke." Cajetan indeed objects that it does not say "leaving all things" but only "the nets"; therefore in Luke, finally leaving all things, they fully adhered to the Lord. But I doubt whether the explanation is valid. Christ's invitation or admonition is made in general terms; if mention is made of nets, this is explained from the matter itself since they were occupied with them; nor however does it follow that only the nets were left from Mt 4:22. Those who refer the matter to the nets alone seem rather to pursue that ridiculous conclusion, that they did not follow Jesus in such a way that they carried the nets with them. The same can also be said against those who establish Luke 5:1ff. as a second and in Matthew a third calling.
Various ways of reconciling the narrations with each other have been proposed. Among these is commended the way by which in the same event some things are narrated by one, other things omitted by the other, so that from the double narration a certain sequence is made of events converging to one thing, namely to following the Lord. This way Jansen follows in the former place and Barradius prefers: "First the Lord called Peter and Andrew; then James and John, as Matthew and Mark narrate; meanwhile the fellow fishermen who had remained in their boats descended, as Luke says, from the boats and were washing the nets," etc. Let us say thus: Matthew and Mark narrate the calling itself; but Luke narrates the miracle which preceded and by which they were prepared to promptly embrace Jesus' invitation; he does not narrate the calling explicitly; that it was done he himself also sufficiently declares, saying that leaving all things they followed.
As the greatest of prophets Jesus is described, with his teaching set forth in chapters 5-7 and every kind of miracle narrated in chapters 8-9. As a kind of preface or summary or inscription of this part, Mt 4:23-25 can be considered. In the first place Saint Matthew describes Christ as the head of the prophets, who was announced as the light of the gentiles, whose law the islands await (Isaiah 42:4, 6; Is 49:6), who should be a leader and commander to the peoples (Isaiah 54:4). And just as the prophet proved his legation and mission from God by true miracles, so Christ, the head of the prophets, accomplished so many and such great things for the confirmation of his mission and teaching as no other prophet. But Isaiah also had sufficiently indicated that a remarkable multitude of miracles would occur in the messianic time, Is 35:5-6. How very aptly therefore Matthew begins his narration from Christ preaching and confirming his teaching with miracles. For thus he teaches and demonstrates that Jesus is the promised Messiah, and at the same time, describing him as teacher, he openly warns that the character of the messianic kingdom is spiritual, the hinge of the whole matter turns on the amendment of morals, minds must be recalled from the vain expectation of a temporal kingdom.
With the calling of the disciples sketched, Christ shows by his own example how one ought to be a fisher of men. As is the custom among kings of proceeding to war with an army assembled, so Christ, having called his disciples, proceeds to fight against the devil through the office of preaching (Opus imperfectum, Thomas): "he went about all Galilee," by which words his very great solicitude is already described, as Saint Thomas notes, "because he did not seek his own rest and because he was not a respecter of persons, lands, or villages, but went about all Galilee," "teaching in their synagogues," i.e., openly, in a public and solemn place (Euthymius, Albertus). After the exile synagogues were frequent; every town of Palestine in Christ's time seems certainly to have had a synagogue; in larger cities there were also several (Acts 9:2, 20), indeed if faith were to be given to the Talmudists, in Jerusalem there existed 460 or even 480 synagogues. To that place the Jews convened on sabbath days and feast days, to perform public prayers, to hear the reading of the law and prophets, and to receive explanation of what had been read; for making which explanation or exhortation any man who was upright and skilled could be invited (cf. Luke 4:16; Lk 6:6; Lk 13:10; Acts 13:15; Acts 15:21); concerning which matter see more in Schürer, History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ II p. 457ff. Therefore in the synagogues Christ taught in such a way that from the reading made he took occasion for exhortation and proposing his own teaching. The explanation of the reading or exhortation was called דְּרָשָׁה (derasha), he who made it דַּרְשָׁן (darshan), and he was accustomed to sit in a higher place.
But besides this teaching office which can be called ordinary from custom and usage, he also exercised another, "and preaching the gospel of the kingdom": i.e., not only did he teach in synagogues, but moreover publicly in other places and at various times, as a herald, legate sent with a certain heavenly solemnity, κηρύσσων, he announced the good and saving message of his kingdom which the heavenly Father was now about to establish; concerning the gospel see p. 26; concerning the kingdom see on 3:2. He confirms this his mission and new teaching and persuades men by miracles by which it most clearly stood that God was with him and approved him and his teaching; "he begins from signs, that what he teaches may be believed" (Theophylact); "and therefore he was believed to preach the truth, because he was able to do mighty works" (Opus imperfectum). And Saint Chrysostom well notes, just as God illustrated various ages of sacred history with signs as pledges of his power, in the time of Noah, Abraham, the Sinaitic legislation, so also now a new and exalted institution is being introduced by the multitude and excellence of signs: "and healing every disease," πᾶσαν νόσον; but νόσος is "a chronic alteration of the body's habit" (Euthymius), "and every infirmity," μαλακίαν, which Euthymius defines: "the beginning of the body's weakness, forerunner of disease." But that the speech and testimony of God was contained in these signs, the Israelites were sufficiently taught by sacred history; moreover, since the expectation of the Messiah was strong at that time, since John the Baptist had announced him, since the announcement of the kingdom or kingdom of heaven could not fail to be understood concerning the messianic kingdom, in the very multitude of signs also they should have recognized him present whom they had read of in the prophets, as Saint Hilary says. The ancient interpreters do not omit to note how Christ by this preaching and journey through Galilee teaches by his own example that teachers ought to be diligent and industrious in the preaching of the word of God, and to go around not a part but the whole flock entrusted to them, and zealously to seek those to whom they may bring help (Bede, Rabanus, Glossa ordinaria, Paschasius).
CONTINUE
Comments
Post a Comment