Matthew 6:24

The Lord had said above, that he that has a spiritual mind is able to keep his body free from sin; and that he who has not, is not able. Of this He here gives the reason, saying, "No man can serve two masters."

non occ.: Otherwise; it had been declared above, that good things become evil, when done with a worldly purpose. It might therefore have been said by some one, I will do good works from worldly and heavenly motives at once. Against this the Lord says, "No man can serve two masters."

Or otherwise; in what had gone before He had restrained the tyranny of avarice by many and weighty motives, but He now adds yet more. Riches do not only harm us in that they arm robbers against us, and that they cloud our understanding, but they moreover turn us away from God's service. This He proves from familiar notions, saying, "No man can serve two masters;" two, He means, whose orders are contrary; for concord makes one of many. This is proved by what follows, "for either he will hate the one." He mentions two, that we may see that change for the better is easy. For if one were to give himself up in despair as having been made a slave to riches, namely, by loving them, he may hence learn, that it is possible for him to change into a better service, namely, by not submitting to such slavery, but by despising it.

non occ.: Or; He seems to allude to two different kinds of servants; one kind who serve freely for love, another who serve servilely from fear. If then one serve two masters of contrary character from love, it must be that he hate the one; if from fear, while he trembles before the one, he must despise the other. But as the world or God predominate in a man's heart, he must be drawn contrary ways; for God draws him who serves Him to things above; the earth draws to things beneath; therefore He concludes, "Ye cannot serve God and mammon."

"Mammon," - riches are so termed in Syriac. Let the covetous man who is called by the Christian name, hear this, that he cannot serve both Christ and riches. Yet He said not, he who has riches, but, he who is the servant of riches. For he who is the slave of money, guards his money as a slave; but he who has thrown off the yoke of his slavery, despenses them as a master.

ord.: By "mammon" is meant the Devil, who is the lord of money, not that he can bestow them unless where God wills, but because by means of them he deceives men.

Whoso serves "mammon," (that is, riches,) verily serves him, who, being for desert of his perversity set over these things of earth, is called by the Lord, "The prince of this world." Or otherwise; who the two masters are He shews when He says, "Ye cannot serve God and mammon," that is to say, God and the Devil. "Either" then man "will hate the one, and love the other," namely, God; "or, he will endure the one and despise the other." For he who is mammon's servant endures a hard master; for ensnared by his own lust he has been made subject to the Devil, and loves him not. As one whose passions have connected him with another man's handmaid, suffers a hard slavery, yet loves not him whose handmaid he loves. But He said, "will despise," and not "will hate," the other, for none can with a right conscience hate God. But he despises, that is, fears Him not, as being certain of His goodness.

1. This calumny, then, of these men, having been quashed, it is clearly proved that neither the prophets nor the apostles did ever name another God, or call [him] Lord, except the true and only God. Much more [would this be the case with regard to] the Lord Himself, who did also direct us to “render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, and to God the things that are God’s;” naming indeed Cæsar as Cæsar, but confessing God as God. In like manner also, that [text] which says, “Ye cannot serve two masters,” He does Himself interpret, saying, “Ye cannot serve God and mammon;” acknowledging God indeed as God, but mentioning mammon, a thing having also an existence. He does not call mammon Lord when He says, “Ye cannot serve two masters;” but He teaches His disciples who serve God, not to be subject to mammon, nor to be ruled by it. …

Ex iis autem, qui ab hæresi ducuntur, Marciohis quidem Pontici fecimus mentionem, qui propter certamen, quod adversus Creatorem suscepit, mundanarum rerum usum recusat. Ei autem continentiæ causa est, si modo est ea dicenda continentia, ipse Creator, cui se adversari existimans gigas iste cum Deo pugnans, est invitus continens, dum in creationem et Dei opus invehitur. Quod si usurpent vocem Domini, qui dicit Philippo: “Sine mortuos sepelire mortuos suos, tu autem sequere me:” at illud considerent, quod similem cam is formationem fert quoque Philippus, non habens cadaver pollutum. Quomodo ergo cum carhem haberet, non habuit cadaver? Quoniam surrexit ex monumento, Domino ejus vitia morte afficiente, vixit autem Christo. Meminimus autem nefariæ quoque ex Carpocratis sententia mulierum communionis. …

Quod autem “ex consensu ad tempus orationi vacat” conjugium, doctrina est continentiæ. Adjecit enim illud quidem, “ex consensu,” ne quis dissolveret matrimonium; “ad tempus autem,” ne, dum ex necessitate exercet continentiam is, qui uxorem duxerit, labatur in peccatum, et dum suo conjugio parcit, alienum concupiscat. Qua ratione eum, qui se indecore getere existimat, quod virginem alat, recte cam dicit esse nuptum damrum. Verum unusquisque, tam is qui castitatem, delegit, quam is qui propter liberorum procreationem seipsum conjunxit matrimonio, in suo proposito firmiter debet perseverare, nec in deterius deflectere. Si enim vitæ suæ instimtum augere ac intendere porefit, majorem sibi apud Deum acquirit dignitatem, propter puram et ex ratione profectam continentiam. Si autem eam, quam elegit, regulam superaverit, in majorem deinde ad spem gloriam recidet. …

But we must as much as possible subject the soul to varied preparatory exercise, that it may become susceptible to the reception of knowledge. Do you not see how wax is softened and copper purified, in order to receive the stamp applied to it? Just as death is the separation of the soul from the body, so is knowledge as it were the rational death urging the spirit away, and separating it from the passions, and leading it on to the life of well-doing, that it may then say with confidence to God, “I live as Thou wishest.” For he who makes it his purpose to please men cannot please God, since the multitude choose not what is profitable, but what is pleasant. But in pleasing God, one as a consequence gets the favour of the good among men. …

In vain do we flatter ourselves as to the necessities of human maintenance, if, after faith sealed, we say, “I have no means to live?” For here I will now answer more fully that abrupt proposition. It is advanced too late . For after the similitude of that most prudent builder, who first computes the costs of the work, together with his own means, lest, when he has begun, he afterwards blush to find himself spent, deliberation should have been made before . But even now you have the Lord’s sayings, as examples taking away from you all excuse. For what is it you say? “I shall be in need.” But the Lord calls the needy “happy.” “I shall have no food.” But “think not,” says He, “about food;” and as an example of clothing we have the lilies. …

Why may not those who go into the temptations of the show become accessible also to evil spirits? We have the case of the woman, the Lord Himself is witness, who went to the theatre, and came back possessed. In the outcasting, accordingly, when the unclean creature was upbraided with having dared to attack a believer, he firmly replied, “And in truth I did it most righteously, for I found her in my domain.” Another case, too, is well known, in which a woman had been hearing a tragedian, and on the very night she saw in her sleep a linen cloth, the actor’s name being mentioned at the same time with strong disapproval, and five days after that woman was no more. How many other undoubted proofs we have had in the case of persons who, by keeping company with the devil in the shows, have fallen from the Lord! For no one can serve two masters. …

But I first say a word also about the crown itself. This laurel one is sacred to Apollo or Bacchus, to the former as the god of archery, to the latter as the god of triumphs. In like manner Claudius teaches; when he tells us that soldiers are wont too to be wreathed in myrtle. For the myrtle belongs to Venus, the mother of the Æneadæ, the mistress also of the god of war, who, through Ilia and the Romuli is Roman. But I do not believe that Venus is Roman as well as Mars, because of the vexation the concubine gave her. When military service again is crowned with olive, the idolatry has respect to Minerva, who is equally the goddess of arms, but got a crown of the tree referred to, because of the peace she made with Neptune. In these respects, the superstition of the military garland will be everywhere defiled and all-defiling. …

That position of Plato’s is also quite in keeping with the faith, in which he divides the soul into two parts, the rational and the irrational. To this definition we take no exception, except that we would not ascribe this twofold distinction to the nature (of the soul). It is the rational element which we must believe to be its natural condition, impressed upon it from its very first creation by its Author, who is Himself essentially rational. For how should that be other than rational, which God produced on His own prompting; nay more, which He expressly sent forth by His own afflatus or breath? The irrational element, however, we must understand to have accrued later, as having proceeded from the instigation of the serpent, the very achievement of (the first) transgression, which thenceforward became inherent in the soul, and grew with its growth, assuming the manner by this time of a …

Before proceeding to the next point, it may be well for us to see whether we do not accept with approval the saying, “No man can serve two masters,” with the addition, “for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other,” and further, “Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” The defence of this passage will lead us to a deeper and more searching inquiry into the meaning and application of the words “gods” and “lords.” Divine Scripture teaches us that there is “a great Lord above all gods.” And by this name “gods” we are not to understand the objects of heathen worship (for we know that “all the gods of the heathen are demons”), but the gods mentioned by the prophets as forming an assembly, whom God “judges,” and to each of whom He assigns his proper work. …

27. Nor let those persons flatter themselves that they need repent the less, who, although they have not polluted their hands with abominable sacrifices, yet have defiled their conscience with certificates. That profession of one who denies, is the testimony of a Christian disowning what he had been. He says that he has done what another has actually committed; and although it is written, “Ye cannot serve two masters,” he has served an earthly master in that he has obeyed his edict; he has been more obedient to human authority than to God. It matters not whether he has published what he has done with less either of disgrace or of guilt among men. …

Against those who have given money that they might be entirely undisturbed by evil, an accusation cannot be brought. For they have sustained the loss and sacrifice of their goods that they might not hurt or destroy their soul, which others for the sake of filthy lucre have not done; and yet the Lord says, “What is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” and again, “Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” In these things, then, they have shown themselves the servants of God, inasmuch as they have hated, trodden under foot, and despised money, and have thus fulfilled what is written: “The ransom of a man’s life are his riches.” For we read also in the Acts of the Apostles that those who in the stead of Paul and Silas were dragged before the magistrates at Thessalonica, were dismissed with a heavy fine. …

I. The lawgiver Moses said to the Israelites, “Behold, I have set before your face the way of life and the way of death;” and added, “Choose life, that thou mayest live.” Elijah the prophet also said to the people: “How long will you halt with both your legs? If the Lord be God, follow Him.” The Lord Jesus also said justly: “No one can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.” We also, following our teacher Christ, “who is the Saviour of all men, especially of those that believe,” are obliged to say that there are two ways, the one of life, the other of death; which have no comparison one with another, for they are very different, or rather entirely separate; and the way of life is that of nature, but that of death was afterwards introduced, it not being according to the mind of God, but from the snare …