This article will not be a detailed examination of Purgatory as a whole. An examination of purgatory and why it exists and the reason for it is available here: Is There a Scriptural Basis for Purgatory?
In this article I will go over Jesus' teaching on purgatory, and the focus will be on the passage of Matthew 5:21-26. I want to give a comprehensive look at this particular passage. Most of this writing will look at verses 25 & 26, but also the surrounding context. At the end of this paper, I will also look at 5:22 because even without going to the later verses, shows purgatory in that verse in and of itself. Catholics see purgatory as cleansing necessary for a person who dies in a state of grace, but has not had sins fully expiated, fully cleansed. However, one is right to ask, if purgatory exists, why didn't Jesus teach about it? I will attempt to go over the fact that Jesus actually talks about it in Matthew 5:21-26. I will go over Protestant objections, using Protestant apologist sources, to the use of this passage from books that critique the Catholic view.
Now, I have written elsewhere on what Jesus teaches in reference to justification, and that he does not teach faith alone, but by grace aided faith plus obedience: Jesus' Teaching on Salvation. But here my focus will be on Jesus' teaching that actually points to purgatory in Matthew 5:21-26. I will also look at Protestant critiques of Catholics using this Scripture. I am not saying this is the only Scripture of Jesus' teaching that points to purgatory, and will at another point in time do another writing that looks at other passages, but I will only focus on this one here. Protestants will hasten to say that the teaching of purgatory is 'unbiblical', and a tradition of man. Now, as noted, I have written elsewhere on purgatory. Many times, Protestant authors will examine Paul and use Paul to argue against purgatory. In this article though, my focus in this article will be taking into account Jesus' teaching only. It is not right to address Jesus' teaching on the matter by looking at Paul's examination of this issue. Of course, Paul's words are not any less inspired than Jesus, however, Jesus must be interpreted by Jesus. Of course, we know Paul was appointed by Jesus to spread the message of Jesus' salvation to the world. Nonetheless, however we interpret Paul's writing, it must align with Jesus' teaching on this issue. In this article, I will look at Jesus' words that point to the existence of purgatory and will examine Protestant objections (those that I could find) to the Catholic interpretation of these verses. Elsewhere in other writings on purgatory, I have addressed objections using Paul, if so interested you can see those objections addressed here: Response to Rhodes on Purgatory and here:
What Must I do to be Saved? Response on Purgatory.
Now, this will be a detailed look at Matthew 5:21-26. I will start off looking at a brief look at Matthew 5:21-26, and Protestant looks at the passage, word for word from books that critique the Catholic usage of this passage. I will also give a brief look at the Protestant view of justification. Then I will do an extensive look at Matthew 5:21-26, looking at the context and the heart of the passage in order to give a proper interpretation. And how that leads to a proper interpretation of Mt. 5:25-26. Then I will address the specific Protestant critiques of Matthew 5:25-26, including an additional critique that includes the concept of verse 26 pointing to hell, not purgatory. I will also narrow a focus on examination of Matthew 5:21-22 as separately referring to purgatory on its own as well. I will then finish by looking at Church Fathers interpretation of Matthew 5:25-26. Since this is fairly long, I also have specific sections where you can specifically click on, to get to a specific section that interests you, though I would appreciate it, if you can look at the whole thing, if you have time.
In this article I will have footnotes where I reference particular writings. When you go to a source, you can click on the footnote, to see the source of the citation, then click back to get exactly to the spot that you were reading
One of the tenets that lay the framework for purgatory is that Catholics believe that one must fully be clean, at the time of our death, in order to directly go to heaven. Why? Because God is truly holy and can not countenance sin. Here are a couple of passages, one in the Old Testament and one in the New Testament that reflects that holiness. We will then see how a Protestant will attempt to account for this.
Habakkuk 1:13:
This is the point of Luther's statement that we are "at the same time just and sinner" (simul iustus et peccator.) We are just by imputation even while sin still remains in us, though it does not reign in us.[1]
Thou who art of purer eyes than to behold evil and canst not look on wrong, why dost thou look on faithless men, and art silent when the wicked swallows up the man more righteous than he?
Revelation 21:27
But nothing unclean shall enter it, nor any one who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life.
Now Protestants will say, one is perfectly clean based on the perfect righteousness of Jesus being applied to our account. It is because Jesus doesn't actually make us clean. Our righteousness is actually like 'filthy rags' before him. They will add that if one is truly Christian, one will attempt to pursue holiness, but that pursuit is not a part of of how one is justified in God's eyes. A leading author, well known Protestant Calvinist, RC Sproul, has written a book entitled 'Faith Alone' and in this book he gives an account of this. How are we actually justified before God, even if we are actually active sinners who in the eyes of man, are still sinners, but are not sinners in God's eyes? He elaborates on this here:
By imparting or imputing Christ's righteousness to us sinners God reckons us just. It is "as if" we were inherently just. But we are not inherently just. But we are not inherently just. We are "counted" or "reckoned" just by imputation.
Sproul repeats himself that believers are not just. Made up for because Jesus died for what he terms 'the elect'. Believers are covered over with Christ's perfect righteousness that covers over the person's actual unrighteousness, though a truly elected believer will truly attempt to pursue holiness.
Let us look at the main passage in question, Mt. 5:25-26, and see how Protestants account for it.
Mt. 5:25-26
25 Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; 26 truly, I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny.
Here is a passage, part of the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus here speaks of a parable, with the context of how dealing with eternal consequences, Mt. 5:19, 22, that here He speaks of making friends with an accuser, and since he is speaking about of eternal consequences, that if you do not make friends with the accuser, one will be put in prison. Since the context is eternal life or death, if there is a prison, Catholics point to the prison, as purgatory, until the last penny, or farthing, is paid. So there is a recompense that is necessary. Some Catholics point to the accuser as the devil, others, flesh, others, the law of God, and we will look at the alternatives, and which is the best answer. Regardless of who the accuser is identified as, Catholics point to that prison as purgatory, and when that last 'farthing' is paid, one will get out of purgatory, and enter heaven. Church Fathers point to this Scripture as pointing to purgatory. So, with this quick analysis, what are Protestant responses to the Catholic use of this Scripture for purgatory? Let us go to one of the founders of Protestantism, John Calvin, in his 'Institute of Christian Religion' book responded to the Catholic use of Matthew 5:25-26 of purgatory, in this way:
The next passage they produce is the parable in Matthew: "Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily, I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost earthing, " (Mt. 5:25, 26). If in this passage the judge means God, the adversary the devil, the officer an angel, and the prison purgatory, I give in at once. But if every man sees that Christ there intended to show to how many perils and evils those expose themselves who obstinately insist on their utmost right, instead of being satisfied with what is fair and equitable, that he might thereby the more strongly exhort his followers to concord, where, I ask, are we to find their purgatory? [2]
So Calvin even admits if the adversary is the devil, the judge God, an officer the angel, the prison could point to purgatory. However, he thinks this is just dealing with temporal things. People just need to agree on things, get reconciled, and there would be no further trouble, is the way Calvin interprets it.
Next Norman Geisler takes a look at what he calls Catholic 'misuse' of Matthew 5:25-26. After quoting Ludwig Ott, a Catholic author of ' Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma', he argues the following, he gives several reasons why he says this passage doesn't point to purgatory:
Further, to make this an analogy or illustration of a spiritual prison after death (i.e., purgatory) is to beg the question, since one has to assume there is a purgatory where you "will not be released until you have paid" (v. 26) before it can be an illustration of it.[3] First, Jesus is not speaking about a spiritual prison after death but a physical prison before death. The previous verse makes the context clear: "Settle with your opponent quickly while on the way to concur with him. Otherwise your opponent will hand you over to the judge. . . and you will thrown in prison. (v. 25)" To be sure Jesus is not speaking of mere external things but of the spiritual matters of the heart (cf. vv. 21-22). However, nothing in the context warrants the conclusion that he intended the concept of a "prison" to refer to a place (or process) of purgation for sins in the next life, which is what one would have to conclude if this passage is made to speak of purgatory. . . .
So Geisler argues that this is only about a physical prison before death. About not wanting to getting thrown in an actual physical prison, not a spiritual prison. Catholics are supposedly reading something into the text that only is proving what it is assuming.
I'd like to round out the objections with a look by Ron Rhodes, who wrote a book, 'Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics', also gave objection to the Catholic use of Matthew 5:26 by going back to v. 25, the previous verse where he claims that the context shows it is not dealing with eternal consequences, but just with temporal manners only. He also tries to ask questions to turn it around on Catholics, which I will ultimately answer:
The Roman Catholic interpretation is completely foreign to the context. That Jesus is referring to a physical prison during earthly life and not a spiritual prison in the afterlife is clear from the previous verse: "Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, in order that your opponent may not deliver you to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison" (Matthew 5:25). Jesus is simply giving a practical teaching about reconciliation of human conflicts and the avoidance of situations that naturally lead to anger and personal injury (see Matthew 5:21-26).
Rhodes says the focus is on avoiding physical prison only, the look back at v. 25 shows that Jesus is only looking at that. Thus, Jesus has no concept of purgatory and Catholics are reading the presumption into the text.
Ask:
Would you please read aloud from Matthew 5:25-26?
In context, this is referring to a physical prison and not a future spiritual prison, right?
So can you see that this has nothing to do with purgatory?[4]
Also, besides giving these specific objections to this verse, in response, they would respond that the Catholic view made ineffective the 'finished work of Jesus Christ.' Again, I am not responding to Paul, the focus here is Jesus' words, Geisler for example writes:
Purgatory is a denial of the sufficiency of the cross, Protestants reject the doctrine of purgatory primarily because it in effect denies the all-sufficiency of Christ's atoning death. Scripture teaches that when Christ died on the cross he proclaimed, "It is finished John 19:30." Speaking of his work of salvation on earth, Jesus said to the Father, "I glorified you on earth by accomplishing the work that you gave me to do" (John 17:4).[5]
Rhodes responds by similarly quoting Jesus on the cross with a different translation attempting to drive home the point against the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 5:26:
Christ took the certificate of debt of all our lives (including all our sins) and nailed it on the cross. And Jesus said, "Paid in full" upon the cross (John 19:30). ("Paid in full" is another way of translating the Greek words for "Ir is finished," which Jesus uttered upon the cross in John 19:30.)[6]
So both Geisler and Rhodes believe that Catholics are devaluing Christ's work on the cross.
How to respond to these objections. Again, I am limiting my response on these passages that speak to Jesus' words. The thing to remember, is Jesus commissioned the apostles to preach the gospel that Jesus himself taught, Matthew 28:20, he commissioned them to teach 'All that I commanded you.' Yes, Paul is commissioned at a later point in time, but whatever the message on salvation that Paul, and the other apostles taught, must be consistent with the founder of faith, Jesus Himself. Paul's writings on salvation is in the range anywhere from about 20-35 years, after Christ's teaching on salvation. It is not like in-between Christ's teaching for three years to the apostles, to Paul's epistles, there was no knowledge on how to be saved. Christ's commission, would not be substantially changed by Paul or anybody else. Of course, Paul would run into different controversies which Jesus may not have had to address. Nonetheless, Jesus' teaching on salvation is enough to stand on His own. Paul is not needed to interpret Jesus. In any case, Paul can only supplement, not replace Jesus' teaching on salvation/justification.
As noted before, I have written and given the link to Jesus' teaching on salvation. However, the focus here is to address what makes one suited to get to heaven, according to Jesus himself. What are the requirements? Now, Jesus said we must believe, John 3:16, and obey, John 3:36. Jesus specifically was asked what one needs to do to get eternal life, He said 'If you want to enter life, keep the commandments', Matthew 19:17. Now many Protestants will say 'yes, but no one can perfectly keep the commandments, so that is an ideal, but no one can keep the commandments.' Now, Jesus did not say one has to perfectly keep the commandments. God is a loving Father, he would not cast us out for small imperfections. Now, on the night before his death, he reiterated:
John 15:10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love. John 14:15 "If you love me, you will keep my commandments.
Of course, Jesus taught more on salvation than this, but this is foundational to his teaching, as well as of course believing in him, John 3:16, 5:24. Only if one keeps the commandments will one abide in his love, so the command in Matthew 19:17 was not done away with. One must endure to the end to be saved, Mt. 10:22. He makes his judgment based on what one does or does not do, Matthew 25:31-46 and also John 5:24, but also John 5:28-29:
28 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29 and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.
Those who have done good, go to the Resurrection. It is a cause, not merely an effect. It is not self-help Pelagian stuff though. Jesus reiterated 'apart from Me you can do nothing', John 15:5. Any obedience that we have is by a grace given by Christ Himself. There is absolutely nothing in Jesus' teaching, nothing shown in any of the books that I have, that defend the teaching of 'Faith Alone', has Jesus teaching anywhere that one gets an alien, or foreign righteousness applied to our account, as RC Sproul mentioned. Jesus said He came to set us free from sin, John 8:31-36. We are called to be righteous, not covered over in a foreign righteousness, that we saw Sproul say. So, the beginning premise by Sproul is nowhere to be found in Jesus. However, even as children of God, we are imperfect. Now, they will say that Paul taught this 20-35 years after Jesus taught on salvation, and I vehemently disagree with that. It is implausible to believe that those Christians who died, some by martyrdom, some by natural death, before the time of Paul's writing, would have the RC Sproul interpretation of Paul, in mind before they died. They had access to Jesus' teaching only, and of course what His disciples taught Jesus' teaching was. The gospel they were commissioned to preach, was Jesus' teaching, which of course included salvation, Mt. 28:20.
With that said, let us go to the issue of purgatory, and a look at Matthew 5:25-26. Does Jesus teach about an intermediate state between our life on earth and heaven, because of lighter sins and does this passage show that? Let us go to the larger context. I will address the objections of Calvin, Rhodes and Geisler later on. But first I want to look at the larger context where this passage is. Does this passage show that there is a such an in-between state? The context is instructive to our take on this passage.
Matthew 5:18-30:
18 For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 19 Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 21 "You have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.' 22 But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire. 23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 25 Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; 26 truly, I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny. . 27 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' 28 But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.
Now this is a continuation of the Sermon on the Mount. Before this passage, Jesus spoke on the Beattitudes. Of course, it is important on how we are supposed to treat each other, but also our need to attain heaven. We need to be pure, and need to hunger and thirst for righteousness in order to enter the kingdom of heaven, v.6, 8. That is the means of attaining the kingdom of heaven, not merely something guaranteed once you placed faith in Him. Matthew 5:2-12 are things that we are to strive for, in order to attain heaven. Through grace, we must do these things, however, are we perfect in fulfilling Christ's exhortation? Perfection is not easy but possible. Christ tells us the law is not done away with, v. 18. However, in this context we see that Jesus actually makes a mention of hell, but also venial sin, prior to this very passage highlighted in verses 25 & 26. Notice verse 19 He says if one relaxes the least of the commandments, one will be least in the kingdom of heaven. So this must be venial sin, because this person still ultimately gets to heaven. In other words, if one commits sins that are light, and teaches others to commit lighter sins, they will still get to heaven, they will be least in the kingdom of heaven. When Jesus says 'least' he is talking about there are in fact greater and lesser sins, thus point to venial and mortal sins. This shows that the Protestant view of salvation is foreign to Jesus. Jesus then specifically says unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Scribes and Pharisees, one will not enter the kingdom of heaven, v. 20. So, in order to attain heaven, one must have an actual righteousness, i.e. as we Catholics call it, infused righteousness. It is not an 'imputed righteousness' so mentioned by Sproul. This is the means of attaining heaven. However, are we actually perfectly righteousness? That is another question that Jesus actually brings up shortly.
Jesus does show if one commits mortal sins, He specifically points to those who go to hell, vv. 22, 29, 30. (I will later look at exclusively 5:22, but for now, this shows that Jesus in two of the three sins spoken of, that person will face punishment, but still get to heaven.) Jesus warns in v. 22, you have a risk of breaking a sin mortally, you have a real risk of going to hell. This is of course totally opposed to the view of once saved always saved as asserted by Sproul, Geisler, or Rhodes, and other Protestant apologists.
In the context of the threat of hell-fire, then he goes on to speak of mending fences with brothers, verses 23-24. Don't have any grudges. In order to worship, at the time of Jesus, there was an altar that with a gift, you must have a clean conscience and get reconciled before approaching worship. This points to the fact you don't want to approach worship with God with grudges on your soul.
With all that as a background we can now dig into the actual verses, verses 25 and 26. So we know Jesus is speaking about eternity. Yes, actions that you do perform on earth, but those actions lead to eternal consequences. He talked about entering the kingdom of heaven, v. 19 immediately before this passage, he speaks of hell v. 22. Actions lead to consequences, even eternal consequences as the whole Sermon on the Mount teaches. So here there is an adversary that we are supposed to make agreement with, and there is a guard who hands us over to the judge and the judge will put us over in prison until we pay the last farthing, or as we would say, penny. Only then will we be released.
Now, who is the accuser and who is the judge? Since the whole context is about eternity, who can be the judge except God? God is the one who determines who goes to heaven, and hell, vs. 19, 20, 22, 29, 30. It is kind of hard to imagine, right in the middle of eternity being talked about one is not talking about the judge of judges, God himself. God has handed judgment over to Jesus himself. John Salza in his book on purgatory notes the following in going over this passage:
Every other time Jesus teaches about "judgment" in the New Testament, He is teaching about Gods judgment about sinners and usually in the contest of either the Particular or General Judgment. (Mt. 5:21-22; 7:2; 10:15, 11:22, 24, 12:36, 41-42, Lk10:14, 11:31-32, Jn 3:19, 5:22, 24, 27, 29, 30; 9:39; 12:31;16:8;11). In fact, this is the fundamental principle underlying Jesus' entire Sermon on the Mount. There is nothing in the text to suggest that Jesus is speaking about temporal matters in verses 25-26 and spiritual matters in the rest of His discourse. Hence, we can assume that Matthew 5:25-26 is about the judgment of the person's soul at death.[7]
So the first thing is Jesus is the judge.
Now, who is the accuser? There are different takes on who the accuser is, but purgatory is what the Church Fathers saw it speaking to even if there were varying interpretations on who the adversary is. Fathers have different interpretations but they see it much more than the Protestant take that he is only speaking of human judges, and only dealing with earthly courts. Jesus says in v. 25 to make friends with your accuser, Salza notes:
The word "accuser" (Greek, (antidikos) is used only three other times in the New Testament, once in Luke 12:58 (which is the related passage to Matthew 5:25-26), once in Luke 18:3 (which refers to a parable about a civil "adversary" in court), and once in 1 Peter 5:8 (which refers to "the devil" and how he seeks to ruin souls). The passage from Peter then, is most relevant because it is explicitly connected with the spiritual and the soul. The passage is also relevant because it provides the only New Testament definition of "accuser": the devil. Peter says, "Your" adversary (antidikos) the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour."[8]
Salza argues thus, who is the accuser but Satan himself? Now, in Revelation 12:7 for example, in the battle between Michael the Archangel and the Dragon, or the devil, it can be seen as referring to the 'dragon', Revelation 12:7, we see in Revelation 12:10 who is the accuser:
Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God.
So the accuser in these other situations is the devil.
Here I want to look at Tertullian approximately 210 AD, in his writing Treatise on the Soul. In this writing he refers to Matthew 5:25, 26, three times, I give a large context to see it overall. This is the earliest Church Father, who gives a fairly long examination of the text in question. He actually goes over different interpretations of who the adversary is. One of them includes the idea of an earthly adversary, he gives as an option for that but does not see that as the true interpretation:
Moreover, as often as the soul has fallen short as a defaulter in sin, it has to be recalled to existence, until it pays the utmost farthing, Matthew 5:26 thrust out from time to time into the prison of the body. To this effect does he tamper with the whole of that allegory of the Lord which is extremely clear and simple in its meaning, and ought to be from the first understood in its plain and natural sense.
Then, again, should you be disposed to apply the term adversary to the devil, you are advised by the (Lord's) injunction, while you are in the way with him, to make even with him such a compact as may be deemed compatible with the requirements of your true faith. Now the compact you have made respecting him is to renounce him, and his pomp, and his angels. Such is your agreement in this matter. Now the friendly understanding you will have to carry out must arise from your observance of the compact: you must never think of getting back any of the things which you have abjured, and have restored to him, lest he should summon you as a fraudulent man, and a transgressor of your agreement, before God the Judge (for in this light do we read of him, in another passage, as the accuser of the brethren, Revelation 12:10 or saints, where reference is made to the actual practice of legal prosecution); and lest this Judge deliver you over to the angel who is to execute the sentence, and he commit you to the prison of hell, out of which there will be no dismissal until the smallest even of your delinquencies be paid off in the period before the resurrection. What can be a more fitting sense than this? What a truer interpretation? [9]
Evil deeds (one may be sure) appertain to life. Moreover, as often as the soul has fallen short as a defaulter in sin, it has to be recalled to existence, until it pays the utmost farthing, Matthew 5:26 thrust out from time to time into the prison of the body. To this effect does he tamper with the whole of that allegory of the Lord which is extremely clear and simple in its meaning, and ought to be from the first understood in its plain and natural sense. Thus our adversary (therein mentioned ) is the heathen man, who is walking with us along the same road of life which is common to him and ourselves. Now we must needs go out of the world, 1 Corinthians 5:10 if it be not allowed us to have conversation with them. He bids us, therefore, show a kindly disposition to such a man. Love your enemies, says He, pray for them that curse you, Luke 6:27 lest such a man in any transaction of business be irritated by any unjust conduct of yours, and deliver you to the judge of his own (nation Matthew 5:25), and you be thrown into prison, and be detained in its close and narrow cell until you have liquidated all your debt against him.
So here Tertullian gives two interpretation for the adversary, for a heathen man, or the devil. He says the plain meaning is as the adversary the heathen man, but even there has to do with paying for sin, not a Protestant interpretation. He says that if the soul has fallen short and is 'defaulted in sin', he must pay the last farthing, exactly pointing to purgatory. He gives another explanation, he calls true, where the adversary is the devil. He shows how making an agreement with the devil is explained because one must renounce him. If one totally renounces him, he has nothing to accuse you of. But there is a payment of debt, in other words the final application of what Christ did on the cross, is applied to the soul, to fully cleanse one, when he gets to heaven. He has confidence that is the truest explanation of this important passage. Now, although he says hell, obviously he does not mean hell, because no one gets out of hell. He calls it a prison, there will be a deliverance, so that means there is a state, called purgatory, even if he did not use that technical term. The smallest of delinquencies must be paid off. There must be cleansing. Thus, for even the smallest of sins, there has to be a cleansing.
He goes on a little further in this book, goes to Chapter 58, he brings up Matthew 5:25 again, this time he writes, I want to give the full context. Catholics are sometimes said to use snippets and not give full contexts, so I will give it here:
Moreover, the soul executes not all its operations with the ministration of the flesh; for the judgment of God pursues even simple cogitations and the merest volitions. Whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her, has committed adultery with her already in his heart. Matthew 5:28 Therefore, even for this cause it is most fitting that the soul, without at all waiting for the flesh, should be punished for what it has done without the partnership of the flesh. So, on the same principle, in return for the pious and kindly thoughts in which it shared not the help of the flesh, shall it without the flesh receive its consolation. Nay more, even in matters done through the flesh the soul is the first to conceive them, the first to arrange them, the first to authorize them, the first to precipitate them into acts. And even if it is sometimes unwilling to act, it is still the first to treat the object which it means to effect by help of the body. In no case, indeed, can an accomplished fact be prior to the mental conception thereof. It is therefore quite in keeping with this order of things, that that part of our nature should be the first to have the recompense and reward to which they are due on account of its priority. In short, inasmuch as we understand the prison pointed out in the Gospel to be Hades, Matthew 5:25 and as we also interpret the uttermost farthing to mean the very smallest offense which has to be recompensed there before the resurrection, no one will hesitate to believe that the soul undergoes in Hades some compensatory discipline, without prejudice to the full process of the resurrection, when the recompense will be administered through the flesh besides.[10]
So here, Tertullian notes adultery in the heart is a sin, though not to the same extent as actually committing the act. He notes as Jesus does, we have to get at the root of sin. If we have thoughts that are impure, that can lead to acting on those thoughts. However, if one just goes there, as far as lusting in the heart, there are still some imperfections and we must cleanse ourselves of those thoughts. If such imperfections still remain on our soul, according to him, we go to Hades, for the smallest offenses. There is as he terms it 'recompense and reward' dealing with that. So thoughts, as Jesus mentions are sins. It means we are not as fully purified as Christ asks us to be, and because of these sins, the uttermost farthing needs to be expiated. He calls it here Hades. Tertullian notes his confidence that cleansing from such sin needs to take place. He said 'no one' hesitates to believe that compensation for such sins are absolutely necessary. It is as though it is a given, in the early 200s that this passage everybody understands it this way. It is as though there is no dispute that purgatory, even if the word is not used here, is a given.
Salza in his book on Purgatory, gives reason why the "accuser" would be the devil, and explains each of the characters, "officer", as well. Judge of course is God, or Jesus Christ, who has been assigned by God to be the judge of all, as noted in earlier references: Here is his take on the accuser of Matthew 5:25:
In Matthew 5:25-26, Jesus is referring to Satan when He says "accuser" When He tells us to make friends with the "accuser" before going to court. Jesus is not telling us to befriend Satan, but to settle our score with him by renouncing all of his empty promises in this life so that we do not have to be accused by him before the Judge in the next life. Many saints have said that both one's guardian angel and Satan are present at the Particular Judgment, with our angel revealing to Christ our good deeds and Satan accusing us of our bad deeds. This is how the "accuser" will hand us over to the "Judge". Jesus Christ is the "lawgiver and judge" to whom all judgment has been given by the Father. The ability to "make" friends" with Satan also means that we can grow in virtue and holiness and make satisfaction for our sins by overcoming his temptations. In other words, we can use Satan to our advantage in this life.[11]
St. Robert Bellarmine also examined this text. He did not accept the Devil as the adversary because, how can we get along with the Devil? Bellarmine says in mentioning how we must get along with the devil is contrary to our goal:
The Greek is, that is 'friendly and harmonious' but we cannot be friends with the devil; next, when he desires that we lust for his pomps, and tempts us for this purpose, then we should be consenting to him, if we were to desire his pomps and would offend God.[12]
St. Bellarmine then refers to another interpretation on what the adversary is, and he points to Church Father support for it:
Consequently, the truest explanation is that the adversary is the law of God, or God Himself, insofar as he commands things contrary to the flesh, or the conscience, which always objects the law of God to the sinner, since these nearly coincide in the same thing. Thus Ambrose, Bede, and Bonaventure (in Luke 12) explain it. Likewise, St. Anselm and St. Augustine on Matthew 5, and also the same Augustine in hom. 1 de verbis Domini, hom 5 in his book of 50 sermons, and in his book de decem chordis, c. 3, St. Gregory hom. 39, and Bernard, serm 85 in Cantica. For the law of God and our conscience are always with us on the road, always opposed to wicked desires, and it is of great advantage to be at peace with them, and to be freed from their enmity; at worst they will be accusers and witnesses against us in the judgment.[13]
So here he refers to a lot of backup for the interpretation of adversary as the law of God from the Fathers. His explanation as well seems to fit. But most importantly, the adversary in any analysis, is much larger than just about dealing with someone only as a matter of law on secular matters. However this passage is interpreted on what the adversary is, the response is dealing with eternal consequences. It surely is not dealing with just law and how one does not go only to an earthly jail.
What is the prison that Jesus is talking about? Remember, the whole background to the passage as we saw, is in reference to heaven, and hell. Jesus talked throughout how to be saved. He talked both before and after, about heaven and hell. The context is salvation so how is the word 'prison' used in a spiritual context? Three times it is used elsewhere in the New Testament, in this fashion, I'll give the passages:
1 Pet. 3:18-19 18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison.
Ok, three other times the word prison is used in a spiritual context. Now, each of these passages have their own interpretation and deserve their own interpretation and are worth it. There are varying interpretations on what the 1 Peter 3 prison means. Since this is on Matthew 5:25-26, and the interpretation here, I will not go into depth on these passages. However, for the purposes of this paper I want to relate this meaning to this extent. Jesus preached to spirits in prison. Whatever the meaning of this location, this was a temporary place that Jesus spoke of. A temporary place. Those Jesus spoke to, would not ultimately stay there, but will go somewhere else after. Next, Rev 2:10 the devil throws the faithful for 10 days into a prison while they are tested. Those who stay true to Christ, will thus be transferred to the 'crown of life', in prison a temporary place, not a permanent place. Revelation 20:7-8, Satan himself instead of throwing others into a temporary prison as mentioned in Revelation 2, himself will be loosed from a prison, a temporary place. So, whatever these places are, they are holding areas, that will lead to a transference to a different area. All three places, good, bad, indifferent, a temporary place. This fits right in with the view of purgatory and Tertullian. There is a change of status in each of these passages. So, the use of the term 'prison' shows that there will be a change of status. So there will be a change of status as well, in the passage in Matthew 5:26. There is a place of payment necessary that one will get out, just like in the 3 places, a change of status. As the whole context is heaven or hell, as Jesus has explicitly been speaking of, the prison in Matthew 5:25, fits exactly as a state from which one will get released when the last farthing is paid, which means the release is into heaven.
Rev 2:10 Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have tribulation. Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life.
Rev:20:7-8 7 And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be loosed from his prison 8 and will come out to deceive the nations which are at the four corners of the earth, that is, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea.
So now let us go back to the passage of Matthew 5:21-26 one more time, and with what we have examined, what is the best explanation for what we've seen?
21 "You have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.' 22 But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire. 23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 25 Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; 26 truly, I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny.
Now, first Jesus is speaking about the possibility of mortally sinning by being angry with your brother. If one is angry, he is liable to judgment. So, we see the background to the passage is that it is speaking about how one will be judged by God, and subject to hell. Now, since the focus of this writing here is on the meaning of verses 25 and 26, I will just focus on the background here leading to verses 25 and 26. However after the focus here, I will come back to verse 22, because I believe that this passage in and of itself speaks of purgatory, without having to go to verses 25 and 26. Here the attitude one has towards a brother matters greatly to whether one gets to eternal life, vs, 22. Verse 22 shows treatment of a brother can lead to eternal consequences, the worst treatment will lead to going to hell, or Gehenna.
Going to verses 23-24, Jesus says 'So' therefore He is continuing his thought he gives an example of how to treat a brother. He also says that we must be reconciled with our brother. In order to approach the altar we should be at peace with our brother, we need to be reconciled. Now of course at that time the altar was imperfect, as Hebrews specifically mentioned, in Hebrews 5 through 13. Now, Jesus does give us a once for all sacrifice. We now have an altar now with the Eucharist, which will make this passage apply even more. In this very book of Matthew, Jesus gives us a sacrament which forgives sins:
Matthew 26:27-28
27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you; 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
This sacrament forgives sins, however, even here, a distinction Jesus does make in Mt. 5:19, lesser sins, the distinction in v. 22 which mentions a distinction as well. However, one can not approach the altar with hatred in ones heart, as one is bound to hell. Jesus later gives the sacrament of confession to forgive sins, John 20:23. If one commits the sin mentioned in Matthew 5:22, 29, 30, he does later give this sacrament to get in the state that we can approach the altar of His once and for all sacrifice. If one puts oneself in a state of unworthiness, one can not approach the altar of sacrifice, as Paul specifically warns against taking the Body and Blood of Christ in an unworthy state, 1 Cor. 11:27. Hebrews also speaks of those who had forsaken the Blood of Christ no longer have access to the sacrifice, Hebrews 10:26. That means that those who have not forsaken the Blood of Christ do have access to the sacrifice. This is the altar that we now partake of, referred to in Hebrews 13:10, as Jesus himself notes in Matthew 26:28. We can not approach the altar if we are in a state of mortal sin (as Jesus specifically mentions in Matthew 5:22).
The words of Jesus and love towards brothers have eternal consequences is consistent with Jesus' words elsewhere, we see that in order to have eternal life, we must love our brother. We can only achieve eternal life if we have love. If we do not love our brother, Jesus says we will be liable to going to hell as mentioned in 5:22 here, (this is affirmed also in 1 John 3:14-15, where it says one who hates his brother will not have eternal life). However, if there is a dispute with a brother, that is not to the same extent as mentioned in v. 22, Jesus next speaks of a different judgment place from that of v. 22 the fires of hell. We need reconciliation with man, in the sense of not holding grudges against the brother, though of course in some cases, one can not control how the other person if on your end you attempt to be at peace with your brother.
Now, Jesus commands that one is to make friends quickly with the accuser. Now, we have seen that accuser can either be the devil or the law of God. He is now talking eternally, he is not talking about only dealing with stuff on earth, as the whole context is about eternal life or death. We need to be at peace with the law of God. Now, of course we do not believe we live totally by law as Paul writes we are not under law, per se, Rom. 6:14-15, Gal. 4:21. Indeed, since we are children of God, we do not get cast out by smaller, or venial sins. But God himself is perfection. Thus, if these type of sins are not taken care of, one will have to face a judge. Now of course who is the judge except God? Thus, this is specifically about judgment before God. And then Jesus says, 'you will be put in prison', no one will get out of that prison, until one has 'paid the last penny'. Since the context is judgment, here, Jesus thus refers to an intermediate state in v. 25-26, that is not hell. This is a place where one would be released from prison. Now, if he was speaking about hell, we know that there is no relief at all. Jesus condemns those to eternal condemnation with eternal punishment (Mt. 25:41, 46, cf., Mt. 5:22). There is no release from prison in hell. One can never 'get out' of hell. In heaven there is no punishment at all or any need to 'get out.' Thus, the place where one can 'get out' of prison, is purgatory. Here is where Jesus says that the last payment takes place. Only then can he then get to heaven.
Now, with this examination, let us go back to each of the Protestant critiques of the Catholic use of this passage one more time. I will requote the Protestant authors, and since I have gone over this passage, I will be able to deal with each objection.
John Calvin Objection:
The next passage they produce is the parable in Matthew: "Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily, I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost earthing, " (Mt. 5:25, 26). If in this passage the judge means God, the adversary the devil, the officer an angel, and the prison purgatory, I give in at once. But if every man sees that Christ there intended to show to how many perils and evils those expose themselves who obstinately insist on their utmost right, instead of being satisfied with what is fair and equitable, that he might thereby the more strongly exhort his followers to concord, where, I ask, are we to find their purgatory?[14]
Calvin admits that if the judge means God, and the adversary the devil, and the prison purgatory, he will admit it. He should have given in, as he said, but he did not. The whole background Jesus is teaching about eternal things, and eternal consequences. Yes, one exposes oneself to many perils in the day to day life, and one should try to be in concert with one's neighbors. Yes, of course that is a part of what Jesus is speaking to. However, not merely in working on being with agreement with people. He speaks of heaven and hell, attaining heaven by having an inherent righteousness, Matthew 5:20, 22, 29-30, so to imagine that Jesus is only speaking about the current life and not having to do with eternal consequences is belied by the context. No alien righteousness imagined by Calvin. As Calvin asks about purgatory, I ask about him 'where I ask are we to find their 'alien righteousness' in Jesus' words?' Nowhere, Jesus said ' your righteousness must exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees' in Mt. 5:20. Now, back to the context in vv. 25-26, He uses language that a debt that has to be paid when one has sins on one's soul. Jesus specifically uses a term, 'prison', that shows that in the other circumstances in the New Testament, is only a temporary state. Once the last farthing is paid, that will get that soul to heaven. Mr. Calvin, that is where purgatory is found, right in the midst of this passage.
Now let's go back to Norman Geisler's attempt to say the passage does not point to purgatory:
Further, to make this an analogy or illustration of a spiritual prison after death (i.e., purgatory) is to beg the question, since one has to assume there is a purgatory where you "will not be released until you have paid" (v. 26) before it can be an illustration of it.[15] First, Jesus is not speaking about a spiritual prison after death but a physical prison before death. The previous verse makes the context clear: "Settle with your opponent quickly while on the way to concur with him. Otherwise your opponent will hand you over to the judge. . . and you will thrown in prison. (v. 25)" To be sure Jesus is not speaking of mere external things but of the spiritual matters of the heart (cf. vv. 21-22). However, nothing in the context warrants the conclusion that he intended the concept of a "prison" to refer to a place (or process) of purgation for sins in the next life, which is what one would have to conclude if this passage is made to speak of purgatory. . . .
Geisler has to admit that Jesus is speaking of spiritual things, but forces onto the text that he is only speaking of things in this life. That Jesus is only speaking of working one's best to stay out of prison? Really? Jesus just spoke on the righteousness one what must have to attain the kingdom of heaven, vv 19-20. He just spoke on how one treats a neighbor can give you the consequence of hell, right in verse 22!! Now, it is far-fetched to all of a sudden now say how one treats the person has absolutely no eternal consequences. All I am supposed to worry now about is just stay out of an earthly prison? Why in the world would Jesus speak of getting to heaven or hell prior to and after this passage, and now say, don't worry about that, just worry about staying only of an actual earthly prison? As we saw the term that he used 'prison' has been explicitly used elsewhere (1 Pet 3:19, Rev. 2:10, 20:7-8), where the prison is a spiritual prison and only a temporary state where there is a passage to another stage. So this is not assuming onto the text anything. There will be a payment of the last 'farthing' which explicitly shows where one will be released, explicitly shows the next stage which will be heaven. So Geisler's attempt to limit only to staying out of a physical prison violates the whole context that Jesus is speaking to. Jesus is explicitly referring to getting from one spiritual state (purgatory) to another spiritual state (heaven) exactly by how we treat our brothers on earth. Forcing Jesus to only speak of worrying about staying out of an earthly prison is belied by the context. Jesus' warning is exactly an encouragement to be at peace with a brother in vv. 22 through 24. Then we don't have to worry about getting into a spiritual prison at all. Then we wouldn't have to pay for a 'farthing' at all so we can hopefully go straight to heaven, especially after warning of a hell or prison, that Geisler's theology is unable to account for. His theology is unable to account for a Christian worrying about either hell (v. 22, 29, 30) or purgatory (v. 22, 26). Jesus' theology in this passage in Matthew 5:21-26 explicitly reflects Catholic theology.
Ron Rhodes' critique:
The Roman Catholic interpretation is completely foreign to the context. That Jesus is referring to a physical prison during earthly life and not a spiritual prison in the afterlife is clear from the previous verse: "Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, in order that your opponent may not deliver you to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison" (Matthew 5:25). Jesus is simply giving a practical teaching about reconciliation of human conflicts and the avoidance of situations that naturally lead to anger and personal injury (see Matthew 5:21-26).
Rhodes makes the same mistake that Geisler and Calvin did. He says one really has to only worry about a physical prison. They focus on verses 25 & 26 as though there is not a surrounding context. Jesus first mentions there are smaller sins where still one can attain heaven, v.19, i.e. venial sins. Jesus says one must have an inherent, not imputed righteousness in order to attain the kingdom of heaven, v. 20. Then in verses 21 and 22 he says that how one treats a brother, if one treats a brother badly, that can send one to hell. Then in v. 23 and 24 he gives an example of having to be reconciled with a brother in order to approach an altar in good conscience. The love that one must have towards a brother, has eternal consequences. So now when he goes to about the adversary, Rhodes Calvin & Geisler put this as though Jesus is only talking about petty manners that have no eternal consequences. He interrupts his speaking of eternal things to talk about things that don't matter eternally. Right after Jesus speaks of this section in Matthew 5:21-26, he says this in Matthew 5:29-30:
Ask:
Would you please read aloud from Matthew 5:25-26?
In context, this is referring to a physical prison and not a future spiritual prison, right?
So can you see that this has nothing to do with purgatory?[16] 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.
So immediately after this passage in Matthew 5:21-26, He speaks again of eternal consequences of sin right here. Rhodes' take just doesn't fit the context where he is only speaking of mere day to day matters of human judges, and just do your best to stay out of jail. He asks a Catholic to read verses 25 & 26, doesn't it show he is talking only about not going to jail? Only if you ignore the larger context can you come to that conclusion. Since the context is life and death and how one gets to heaven and hell, the idea that Jesus is only referring to earthly things that have no eternal consequences just doesn't fit. Rhodes knows that a prison in a spiritual manner exactly fits purgatory. We saw that the term for 'prison' as only a holding cell, exactly fits purgatory. You pay the last farthing, get purified from sins, one gets released into heaven. Since Calvin, Geisler, and Rhodes realize that if it is a spiritual manner it fits purgatory, they must unspiritualize a Jesus who is talking about spiritual things and consequences.
As mentioned, Jesus is judge, to make it merely a human judge, does not fit. He is talking about heaven and hell, himself assigned to be God the judge, John 5:22. Rhodes' idea that he is talking about a human judge only, just doesn't fit. Besides this, when Jesus is speaking of a judge in this manner, he is talking about someone who is definitive. He says make peace with the adversary or you will get put into prison. It is definitive. One pays the last farthing and one will get out. It is definitive. Human judges are not as definitive, subject to bribes and can be imperfect. Jesus is talking definitively about the way a human judge is not.
The adversary of either the devil, or the law of God fits quite well. The adversary that Rhodes mentions is just some guy who you fight with and the guy can put you in jail if you don't make agreement with him. However, St. Bellarmine notices the definitiveness of the adversary in v. 25:
Here the Lord speaks about an adversary that is always with us on the way, and with whom we can always make an agreement as long as the road endures: but a human adversary often dies before his adversary and deserts him on the road. Nor yet may it be said that the just man who is on the road cannot be saved by repentance, if he cannot come to an agreement with his adversary.[17]
Thus, the definitiveness of the fact that there is a prison, spiritual prison it is. With humans with all the failings there is no such definitiveness both as a human judge as opposed to the judge of judges, Jesus himself. The adversary of either the devil, or the law of God is a constant thing that goes perpetually, the human adversary can change, can go away, will not survive as an adversary. The only way that this can be definitive is that it is a spiritual adversary. And the prison is a spiritual prison, from which a payment can be made that one can be released from. That fits purgatory.
These arguments I have addressed are from Protestants who say that Jesus is not talking about eternal consequences and the focus in Matthew 5:25-26 is only speaking about making peace with a human adversaries, so a human judge doesn't put you in jail. I found another argument from a 'Reformed' Web site that argues Jesus is speaking of hell right here. So they admit it has a spiritual and eternal application but that Matthew 5:26 speaks of hell. This 'Reformed' site critiques the application of Matthew 5:26 to purgatory by saying the following:
The point of this text is to emphasize that people should settle disputes quickly, before it reaches the judge. Debtors in biblical times could be imprisoned until they paid their debts. Here debtors being punished in an earthly prison, is the anti-type to being judged by God on the day of judgment. The "last penny" refers to quadrans, a low-value Roman bronze coin. So, in context, God's judgment knows no half measure. Even the smallest of sins can put one in Hell. Jesus is speaking about judgment in Hell, not Purgatory as the remainder of the chapter makes clear (Matt 5:21-22, 29-30).[18]
This Protestant take is that it is talking about a a spiritual sense, right now, and Jesus is judge, and eternity is at stake. This is not merely a prison from which one can get out of. But instead Jesus is speaking of hell. I will first say that in this desperation to avoid the implications of purgatory, for those who argue this, then it totally undercuts the Protestant view of salvation. This person would go along with RC Sproul's take on salvation. Remember, the 'Reformed' view is that one's righteousness, even empowered by the Holy Spirit, is 'filthy rags' before God. That is why we need an 'imputed' righteousness. However, Jesus himself says in v. 20:
For I tell you, Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
Notice Righteousness is a personal righteousness that one must have. Now, because those born of God, are children of God, John 1:12, Christians are treated as children, so even though smaller sins are least in the kingdom of heaven (v. 19), one still can ultimately reach that kingdom of heaven. Verse 19 talks about those who 'relax the commandments' but still attain heaven. That is a definition of venial sin. Nowhere to be found is the Sproul, or Third Millennium Ministry idea that you get an imputed alien righteousness. Jesus has specifically spoken on how we must have that righteousness in order attain eternal life spoken of in verses 2-12, and applied in v. 20. However, He spells out the difference between mortal and venial sins also in v. 22. Smaller sins, are venial in the first two judgments, but the larger, third one sends one to Gehenna, or hell, vs. 22. I will look at that in detail later. Jesus specifically says to His followers that in verses 29 & 30, one can cut themselves off from eternal life. This author even acknowledges those verses without acknowledging its implications. This totally undercuts 'Reformation' theology. Going back a few verses, as Jesus has already referred to difference between mortal and venial sins, he now goes to tell us in v. 22-24 how to conduct our lives in peace with our brothers. So, first Jesus' words undercut the whole Reformation theology, which is the once saved always saved, or once chosen always chosen theology. Jesus specifically shows here that our actions are a cause of our salvation. Also, one can be in God's grace and cut oneself off from that grace. If one was never in grace in the first place, as a Calvinist would say, one can not cut oneself off from it. That is before we approach on whether the 'prison' is dealing with purgatory or hell. So, even if this admission that it is speaking about a spiritual state, and destroys the overall Protestant outlook on salvation, does it at least do away with purgatory? Let us relook at verse. 26:
26 truly, I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny.
So this particular Protestant argument is that til or until stated here does not necessarily make a change of status. That is possible so the context matters. However, as an aside, they argue that the use of the word 'til' does not mean a change of status so that means the prison is hell. However, we can go back to Matthew 1:25 where it says that Joseph 'knew her not until she had born a Son.' So, if they take that vantage point, they must not use the Matthew 1:25 passage to argue against the perpetual virginity of Mary. If the status must persist, then that means Mary was perpetually a virgin. However, a Catholic can not say well just on its own well, it applies to Mary where the status does not change, but we must say it changes here. And it must be admitted that there is even Patristic support for the idea that 'you will never get out til you have paid the last penny' actually does not mean purgatory, but hell. So maybe these particular Protestants are correct on this idea? Sure, it kills their whole once saved always saved idea and faith alone as the instrument of salvation but maybe it at least kills the idea of purgatory being taught here? Obviously, Calvin, Geisler & Rhodes do not argue that this is talking about hell since it undercuts their whole theology on justification, but this 'Reformed' apologist says it speaks to hell. Let us look at what St. Augustine says on Matthew 5:25-26 that would seem to be in agreement with the 'Reformed' web site:
But now, with respect to paying the uttermost farthing, it may be understood without absurdity either as standing for this, that nothing is left unpunished; just as in common speech we also say to the very dregs, when we wish to express that something is so drained out that nothing is left: or by the expression the uttermost farthing earthly sins may be meant. For as a fourth part of the separate component parts of this world, and in fact as the last, the earth is found; so that you begin with the heavens, you reckon the air the second, water the third, the earth the fourth. It may therefore seem to be suitably said, till you have paid the last fourth, in the sense of till you have expiated your earthly sins: for this the sinner also heard, Earth you are, and unto earth shall you return. Then, as to the expression till you have paid, I wonder if it does not mean that punishment which is called eternal. For whence is that debt paid where there is now no opportunity given of repenting and of leading a more correct life? For perhaps the expression till you have paid stands here in the same sense as in that passage where it is said, Sit at my right hand, until I make Your enemies Your footstool; for not even when the enemies have been put under His feet, will He cease to sit at the right hand: or that statement of the apostle, For He must reign, till He has put all enemies under His feet; for not even when they have been put under His feet, will He cease to reign. Hence, as it is there understood of Him respecting whom it is said, He must reign, till He has put His enemies under His feet, that He will reign for ever, inasmuch as they will be for ever under His feet: so here it may be understood of him respecting whom it is said, You shall by no means come out thence, till you have paid the uttermost farthing, that he will never come out; for he is always paying the uttermost farthing, so long as he is suffering the everlasting punishment of his earthly sins. Nor would I say this in such a way as that I should seem to prevent a more careful discussion respecting the punishment of sins, as to how in the Scriptures it is called eternal; although in all possible ways it is to be avoided rather than known.[19]
St. Augustine indicates that you do not get out of that prison, and thus points to hell. Now he is not for sure on it, he says perhaps, because you see he is just wondering if what he is saying is true, not very sure of this argument. So, is it a possibility that these Protestants who deny their own theory on justification, admit that Jesus is talking about eternity here, but can at least prove Jesus is not speaking of purgatory here? Is he talking about hell as payment for the last farthing? So, we can't just argue that even though it sounds like there will be a change, that it must be a change. Of course we know St. Augustine teaches purgatory elsewhere, for example in his examination of 1 Cor. 3:15. Unfortunately for even this Protestant outlook, that outlook still is incorrect as I will show.
Notice the language that Jesus uses is of a small item, a farthing, an equivalent of a penny, is a very small amount. A payment of only a farthing at least seems to indicate that one can get out. It is not talking about somebody who has murder on one's soul, but more like the venial sins that Jesus himself spoke of in v. 19 & the first two judgments in v. 22.
Salza does note that 75 % of the time the word 'until' is used, the status does change. So apparently it is most often used in that way, but that is not determinative. The other thing is what notes in the study of the term 'prison' in the New Testament speaks against the Augustinian outlook that one never gets out of the prison, and that prison is hell. I have already looked at the three times in the New Testament, where the word 'prison' (Greek word Phulake) is used in a spiritual sense. For example 1 Peter 3:19, it was a temporary state and there was a release from that prison. Salza also notes:
Jesus' metaphorical use of money and debt (paying the last penny) also demonstrates that the man's stay in prison is temporary. On the money side because people have a finite amount of funds, and the purpose of the person's incarceration is to pay funds to satisfy debt, it follows that his stay in prison is terminated when he runs out of funds (that is, when he is finished making satisfaction). Jesus' use of the last penny also indicates that at some point, there will be nothing left to pay and thus no further detainment will be required. On the debt side because debt in Scripture is a metaphor for sin and indebtedness is a finite condition means that the sin (represented by the debt) is also finite. In other words, the sin being satisfied is venial and thus the punishment is temporal. This satisfaction is unnecessary in heaven and impossible in hell, which means the prisoner is in purgatory.
Finally, we note that scriptural references to the punishments of hell are never described in the context of money or paying debt. Paying debt is a temporal punishment only.[20] We first note that outside of Matthew 5:25-26 and its related passages the word "prison" is used 61 times in the New Testament yet it never refers to the hell of the reprobate. The Protestant therefore, is attempting to define "prison" in a way that Scripture never does. Even colloquially, the term "prison" refers to a place where someone must serve a sentence and, after he does, he is set free. Nothing in Matthew 5 indicates that Jesus is using the word "prison" in a manner other than its plain meaning.
Salza gives a strong argument especially of the use of the word 'farthing' gives a meaning that since it is so small, it is intended to be paid off. One will get out of that prison. He notes strongly that hell never is used in term of paying debt. Prison is never used in Scripture the way that this particular Protestant argument is used.
St. Bellarmine specifically addresses the St. Augustine argument that Jesus is speaking about hell in v. 26 in his own way. He speaks about proof Jesus is speaking about purgatory, not hell:
It is proved because it does not seem possible to rightly say, "Until you shall pay the last penny," unless at some point there will be an end of the payment. . . The examples of St. Augustine do not satisfy: When it is said "Sit at my right until I will place, etc." it is rightly inferred that therefore, at some point all the enemies of Christ will be put beneath his feet, otherwise that: "Until" would be said ineptly. So therefore, when it is said: "You will not go out until you have paid the last farthing," we rightly infer: Thus at some point he will pay the last farthing, and consequently he will go from there.[21]
He then compares the scope of sin, but after going over that he gives the true reason for Jesus' teaching.
It is proven from the foundation and scope of this parable; for the similitude is not taken from a murderer or adulterer, or traitor, who are condemned to death, or to life in prison, or to be a galley slave, but from a debtor who not on account of a crime, but on account of a monetary debt is thrown into prison until he pays. And men of this sort ordinarily go out after some time, as is clear. Therefore, the scope of this parable is that in this life we should settle with God, when we can easily obtain the remission of the penalty due for our sins, nor should we wait for a future age, in which it will be exacted severely.[22]
So as St. Bellarmine notes, the kind of sin here is a monetary debt, not as a murderer as such. It seems to be such a small item, a farthing, or penny, in our lingo, it is something that at least indicates one would get out of after the payment. As Salza mentions, hell is not portrayed in Scripture as something that you pay a debt to get out of. The main point of the teaching, is that especially with the background of speaking of lighter, or venial sins, verses 19 & the first two judgments of verse 22, you will not get to heaven immediately if you have such lighter sins on your soul. However, Christ is calling us to be a living testimony of the beatitudes that he spoke of in the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount, verses 2-12 of this same chapter. He is encouraging his listeners to be at peace with your brother, v. 21-24, and so that the accuser, either the devil, or the law of God, has nothing to accuse you of. Therefore, He sums up at the last part of chapter 5, 'You must be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect', Mt. 5:48. That is the goal that He is encouraging his listeners to strive for. However, if we fall short, purgatory is there to cleanse us to make us ready to enter heaven.
Let's go back to Geisler's attack on purgatory:
Purgatory is a denial of the sufficiency of the cross. Protestants reject the doctrine of purgatory primarily because it in effect denies the all-sufficiency of Christ's atoning death. Scripture teaches that when Christ died on the cross he proclaimed, "It is finished John 19:30." Speaking of his work of salvation on earth, Jesus said to the Father, "I glorified you on earth by accomplishing the work that you gave me to do" (John 17:4).[23]
Actually, the exact opposite is true with the Protestant theory of imputation as the grounds of justification. Of course, Jesus did all that he had to do for our salvation when he died on the cross for our sins, and the sins of the whole world. However, did Christ really come to cleanse us from sin, or did he pretend to cleanse us from sin? Jesus said in John 8:31-36 that He came to set us free, i.e. cleanse us from all sin. However, the Protestant view again says this:
But we are not inherently just. We are "counted" or "reckoned" just by imputation.
So really it is the Protestant view that has God playing a pretend game. All sufficiency means our works are filthy rags? He did everything He had to do on the cross for sure. However, what He did on the cross, must be applied to our actual lives. That is why Jesus says, 'If you want to enter life, keep the commandments' (Mt. 19:17). When He was dying on the cross, did He forget what He said in Matthew 19:17, or Matthew 5? He warns us in this specific passage of Matthew 5:22, 29-30 that we can specifically do things that can separate one from God. We must endure to the end in order to be saved, Mt. 10:22. You don't endure, you will not end up saved. When He was on the cross, for example, He didn't forget what He said right here, Mt. 5:29-30:
29 If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.
What He did on the cross did not make our actions irrelevant to our own salvation. Jesus died for everybody. Now Geisler, unlike Calvin and Sproul, believes in free will, and that He died for all. That one must choose to believe, in order to be justified in God's eyes. So if we are going to carry Geisler's idea that purgatory renders the cross insufficient, doesn't a justified believer have to believe in order to appropriate what Christ did on the cross? If one has to believe in order to appropriate an imputed righteousness to one's account, (nowhere found in any of Jesus' teaching and the premise is invalid) how does that not render Christ's suffering on the cross insufficient? If believing doesn't make the cross insufficient, neither does a full cleansing from sin render his suffering insufficient. Of course, Protestants will say a true Christian will pursue holiness but that is not the grounds of our salvation. Jesus specifically says otherwise all throughout the gospel. Purgatory is the final application of what He did on the cross, to our actual life. If we do not fulfill Jesus call to perfection on earth (Mt. 5:48), purgatory is that which makes what He did on the cross, fully applied. Paul did write He came to cleanse us from all iniquity, not a part of it, Tit. 2:11-14. Purgatory is the final application of what he did on the cross, so we can become fully holy so we can enter the kingdom of heaven, Rev. 21:27. That is, if we did not do it (through God's grace) on earth. Catholics do understand that apart from Christ we can do nothing, John 15:5. That means from beginning to end. The Protestant concept of justification makes Jesus' suffering insufficient, because what He did on the cross is unable to actually cleanse us. He only covers us over, and leave us as insufficiently cleansed, that Christ must look away, from how we really are.
Now, up to now I've only used verses 21 and 22 as the backdrop for verses 25 & 26. Here I want to focus on verse 22 itself with the background of verse 21:
21 "You have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.' 22 But I say to you that A) every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; B)whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, C) 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire.
I break down verse 22 into 3 segments, colored differently to focus as there are three judgments based on a gradation of sin. I do want to take a technical look at the passage first, on what Jesus is saying here specifically. Then after that I want to draw conclusions on the varying judgments Jesus speaks of:
The old Law, being a law, could control effectively only external acts. The new spirit reaches down to the innermost part of man and its sanctions are of the spiritual order. This double truth is expressed in Semitic fashion by our Lord in three parallel and synonymous sentences without crescendo, but with cumulative effect. For internal anger or a sharp, angry word man is to be accountable before the tribunal of God and thus liable to divine punishment. The tribunals mentioned (DV 'the judgment' and 'the council', i.e. Sanhedrin - - respectively local and central courts) are terms symbolic of God's judgement as the last sanction (hell-fire) shows and as the context demands. The Aramaic word 'Raca' or 'empty head') means much the same as the 'fool' of the later part of the verse.[24]
Jesus gives his followers the capacity to have a new spirit, that can get at the root of hatred and actions. But we have our free will to act otherwise in reference to others. As mentioned before, Jesus shows that not only killing people can separate one from God, even bad attitudes towards others can lead to eternal judgment. Verse 22 in and of itself shows purgatory. How? Notice there is a language of judgment by God himself. Now here Jesus shows judgment by God is coming. There is a gradation of judgment, reflecting a gradation of punishment. I break Jesus' words down to A, B, & C. A) One is just angry one faces judgment. So there will be some sort of judgment. B) If one insults a brother the judgment gets upgraded to be liable to the council. So it goes from lighter punishment to a harder punishment but apparently the sin is not mortal. One will still get to heaven after this judgment takes place. C) There is a third reference when someone calls a person 'a fool' or 'Raca'. That is an upgrading of the breaking of the commandment. This points to punishment in a prison that will be shown just a few verses later (purgatory), that one will eventually get released from. The first two judgments are punishing but those people do not go to hell. These sins are venial. However, the third case, or C, is such a violation of the commandment that the person will go to hell. This matches Jesus' words that every word we will be judged for, Mt. 12:36. So if we have not been expiated for those sins, we will face judgment for those actions/attitudes/sayings before we can get to heaven. That perfectly fits purgatory, as the place we get judged for, without going to Hell as referred to by Jesus in this very verse.
St. Bellarmine refers in this passage to the gradation of punishment:
Note here the discussion is certainly on the punishment enjoined in the court of God, as is clear from that: "he will be liable to the Gehenna of fire." That is why St. Augustine (lib 1 de serm. Domini in monte, chap 19) explains all three as referring to the penalties for souls after this life. Note secondly, that it is also certain that here three kinds of sins and penalties are distinguished, as Augustine explains in the same place, and eternal damnation is only given for the third kind of sin, i.e for crimes. But for others inasmuch as they are lighter sins, lighter punishments are given, and hence temporal ones. From that it is inferred that some souls after this life are punished with temporal punishments.[25]
The lighter punishments shows purgatory. A cumulative buildup of anger violates the heart of the commandment to love one another and can separate one from God. If one has imperfect love but does not violate the heart of the commandment, purgatory helps to cleanse such imperfection.
I have already looked at Tertullian, now in this section I want to look at some of the other Church Fathers that commented on Matthew 5:25-26, it is not meant to be an exhaustive list.
Cyprian of Carthage:
For to adulterers even a time of repentance is granted by us, and peace is given. Yet virginity is not therefore deficient in the Church, nor does the glorious design of continence languish through the sins of others. The Church, crowned with so many virgins, flourishes; and chastity and modesty preserve the tenor of their glory. Nor is the vigour of continence broken down because repentance and pardon are facilitated to the adulterer. It is one thing to stand for pardon, another thing to attain to glory: it is one thing, when cast into prison, not to go out thence until one has paid the uttermost farthing; another thing at once to receive the wages of faith and courage. It is one thing, tortured by long suffering for sins, to be cleansed and long purged by fire; another to have purged all sins by suffering. It is one thing, in fine, to be in suspense till the sentence of God at the day of judgment; another to be at once crowned by the Lord." [26]
St. Cyprian here points to the last farthing here paid here that is a prison one will get out of. He combines the Matthew passage with the 1 Cor. 3:15 passage which speaks of purging by fire, before getting to heaven.
Origen, (Luke 12:58-59) is the companion verse of Mt. 5:25-26
But if we owe a great deal of money, like that man of whom it is written that is owed ten thousand talents,
For if a man who owes a little will not go out until he pays the smallest farthing, then certainly someone that is liable to such a debt will have centuries numbered for him to repay." And on the Epistle to the Romans he says: "Although he is promised to go out from the prison at some point, nevertheless, it is indicated that he cannot go out from there until he shall pay the last penny."[27].
Origen agrees that the last farthing will have to be paid in order to get released. In his writing he also refers in Romans back to Mt. 5:26 as pointing to the release from purgatory.
Next St. Ambrose refers to Luke 12, again the companion verse of Mt. 5:25-26 he does a comparison of the Luke and Matthew passage:
So he says again, according to Matthew: "Agree with your adversary while you are with him on the way. The Greek said:? ? ? ? ? that is to say, benevolent: for if we free ourselves from the devil in this life, he will not be condemned because of us, and we will be removed from his bonds. . .
This judge, therefore, is Jesus Christ, through whom are repeated secret faults and inflicted the punishment of evil deeds. You want to know that Christ is this judge who delivers to the executor and throws in prison? question him; or rather read what he says in the Gospel: "Take it and cast it into darkness outside" (Matt. xxxiii. 13). . .
We recall that a farthing is usually given in the baths, the offering of which is made so that each man that pays receives the opportunity to wash there; so here he receives the opportunity to wash., because each man's sin is washed by the kind of situation described, although for a long time the guilty man is trained by punishments to pay the penalties of the error committed.[28]
Our adversary, according to Matthew, is the whole practice of virtue, the words of the Apostles and the Prophets, which binds us to painful commandments and to the lessons of an austere life; it is good for us to get along with him and to imitate him by our works, lest our stubbornness be denounced as having broken with him. According to Luke, on the contrary, no one is our adversary more than our fall, which accuses us of the proofs of our life: not that the future judge needs the ministry of any accuser, but because before the witness of all things our activity accuses us, when it is foreign to the practice of virtue and apostolic precepts. Thus our adversary is all vicious habit, our adversary is passion; adversity greed, adversary any perversity, adversary any iniquitous thought, all the bad conscience finally, which troubles us here below and later will accuse and denounce us, as the Apostle testifies when he says: "Their conscience testifying to them and their thoughts blaming or defending one another ". . .
St. Ambrose points to the adversary as the law of God that we must be at peace with. Jesus is the judge, and for smaller sins, we will have to get sins expiated. Punishments will come to pay the last farthing, where ultimately one will get to heaven, i.e., purgatory.
St. Basil the Great
I think that the noble athletes of God, who have wrestled all their lives with the invisible enemies after they have escaped all of their persecutions and have come to the end of life, are examined by the prince of this world and, if they are found to have any wounds from their wrestling, any stains or effects of sin, they are detained. If however, they are found unwounded and without strain, they are, as unconquered, brought by Christ into their rest.[29]
So St. Basil though notes there is a possibility of suffering, try to not fall into sins, so one can go directly to God. But if one falls short, one is detained, which points us to the prison shown in the Matthew passage.
St. Jerome makes the same connection: A farthing [penny] is a coin containing two mites. What he says then is, "Thou shalt not go forth (from prison) thence till thou hast paid for the smallest sins."[30]
So St. Jerome points to a thing where there is a release from prison for smaller sins, i.e., purgatory.
St. Caesarius of Arles, says the following on Matthew 5:25-26:
But these men, who have acted so as to be worthy of temporal punishments, to whom God has so directed his pronouncements that they do not go out from there until they have paid the last farthing, will pass through the fiery river.[31]
After death one will experience temporal punishments, paying the last farthing, one will 'go out from there.' The interpretation yet again points to purgatory.
We have seen that Matthew 5:21-26 supports the doctrine of purgatory. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus does teach extensively on salvation. He teaches the actions one must do in order to attain heaven in Matthew 5:2-12. In this specific section, we saw that one's own righteousness is necessary to attain heaven, not an imputed one. We do not forget that everything that we can do is by God's power. Verses 21-22 shows how we treat others can lead to eternal judgment. If one violates the heart of the commandment of love, can lead to eternal death the third judgment in that passage. If imperfect but still have love, one can still get to heaven but still get judgment through purgatory, as shown in the first two judgments of verse 22. We have seen that how we treat each other has eternal consequences. We have examined particularly the meaning of verses 25 & 26. He speaks of a Judge, that judge is God, Jesus Himself, not a mere human judge. We have seen that the Protestant objections saying Jesus' concern is only about staying out of jail, is farfetched. The adversary seen as only as an earthly opponent does not fit. Church Fathers have seen the adversary as different things, either the devil, or the law of God (the one that I lean to in agreement with St. Bellarmine and Ambrose) the most prominent ones with varying explanations, but many Fathers saw the Matthew 5:25-26 passages as pointing to purgatory. We've also seen the Matthean passage combined by some Fathers with the 1 Cor. 3:15 passage by 'Paying the last farthing' by being 'saved by fire'. As we saw, even in the early 200s Tertullian had written: "as we also interpret the uttermost farthing to mean the very smallest offense which has to be recompensed there before the resurrection, no one will hesitate to believe that the soul undergoes in Hades some compensatory discipline."[32] Absolutely no one hesitated to believe in the compensatory discipline, which shows purgatory.
We did an examination of the term prison and how payment of the last farthing or penny points to expiating venial sin, and making right with God, in God's righteous judgment. We looked at Protestant arguments that do not fit the context, either as only speaking about humans only, or the last option of no one getting out of the prison, and it being hell, which did not fit the context. The term 'prison' most aptly fits the Catholic understanding of purgatory. Everywhere in the New Testament it is used in a spiritual context, the prison is seen as a holding area, where there is a transference to a new state, of course that new state in this context is heaven.
We have examined the context in Matthew 5 which says how we treat each other has eternal consequences, actions lead to heaven, hell, or purgatory. Jesus spoke nowhere of an imputed righteousness. Thus, being covered over with an imputed righteousness where God acts as though we have no actual sin, is unbiblical. An imputed righteousness actually makes Christ's sacrifice on the cross as insufficient because it doesn't clean us at all in order to stand before Jesus. It has God playing a pretend game. God does not play pretend games. We need an actual cleansing before we can come into God's full presence. This passage in Matthew 5:21-26, is the last stage of Jesus setting us free from sin as he promised in John 8:31-36. We see in this passage in Matthew 5:21-26, that we are judged for all our actions and words, exactly reflecting Jesus' words in Matthew 12:36. Although the passage in Matthew 5:21-26 is an encouragement to be at peace with others and have the love that we need so we do not need to pay a last farthing, or penny, before we enter heaven. Nonetheless, those who have not been fully cleansed before death, even those who are in God's grace, will be judged for bad works. Following that we saw that God makes a distinction between sins that are mortal, or cause death to the soul, from those sins that are lesser, and venial, that wound, Mt. 5:19, v. 22 but do not cut off our relationship with the Father. Jesus in this very context does warn us we can commit mortal sin that separates us from heaven, v. 22, 29-30. Purgatory as shown in this passage reflects the final application of what He did on the cross, for those in His grace, to our souls so we can enter heaven. In this Sermon on the Mount, Christ though calls us to 'be ye perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect', v. 48. If we do so, only through God's grace of course, then we won't have to pay the last farthing Jesus speaks of that points to purgatory in verse. 26.
[1] RC Sproul, Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1995, p. 102.
[2] John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion., Chapter 5, Of the Modes of Supplementing Satisfaction- - VIZ. Indulgences and Purgatory.
[3] Norman Geisler and Ralph MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI, 1995, pp. 336-337
[4] Ron Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics, Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, Oregon, 2000, p. 249-250.
[7] John Salza, The Biblical Basis for Purgatory, Saint Benedict Press, LLC Charlotte, North Carolina, 2009, p.99.
[9] Tertullian, A Treatise on the Soul, 35, 1 212 AD, Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Anti-Nicene Fathers, Peabody, Massachusetts, 1995, p. 216.
[10] Tertullian, A Treatise on the Soul, 58, 1 212 AD, p. 235.
[12] St. Robert Bellarmine, On Purgatory: The Means of the Church Suffering, Mediatrix Press, Post Falls, ID, 2017, p, 64.
[13] St. Robert Bellarmine, pp, 65-66.
[14] John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion., Chapter 5, Of the Modes of Supplementing Satisfaction—VIZ. Indulgences and Purgatory.
[18] Is Purgatory Biblical?:Reformed Answers Third Millennium Ministries
[19] St. Augustine, Our Lord's Sermon on the Mount Ch. 30, Philip Schaff, and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., Peabody, Massachusetts, 1995, pp. 13-14.
[21] St. Bellarmine, pp. 69-70.
[24] Orchard, Bernard, ed. A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture. New York: Nelson, 1953, p. 861.
[26] St. Cyprian, To Antonianus, Epistle 51:20 (A.D. 253) (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Anti-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5 (Peabody MA 1994), p. 332.
[27] Origen, (hom 35 in Lucam), AD 234, 240, quoted in, St. Bellarmine, pp. 68-69.
[28] St. Ambrose on Luke, First paragraphs Quoted from Here. last paragraph quoted in St. Bellarmine, p. 69
[29] St. Basil, Homilies on the Psalms, 7:2 ante 370 AD, quoted in Salza, p. 157.
[30] St. Jerome, (Thomas Aquinas, Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels: Collected out of the Works of the Fathers: St. Matthew; emphasis added).
[31] St. Caesarius of Arles, Hom. 3 de Ephiphania , quoted in St. Bellarmine, p. 69.
[32] Tertullian, A Treatise on the Soul, 58, 1 212 AD, p. 235.
2020 Jesus' Teaching, Matthew 5:21-26, and Purgatory: Examination & Responses to Protestant Objections... Matt1618... This text may be downloaded or printed out for private reading, but it may not be uploaded to another Internet site or published, electronically or otherwise, without express written permission from the author.