ORIGEN'S COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW: TENTH TOME
A 1. "Then he sent the multitudes away, and went into the house. And his disciples came to him, saying: Expound to us the parable of the cockle of the field." When Jesus is with the multitudes, he is not in the house; for the multitudes are outside the house, and it is a work of his philanthropy to leave the house and go to those who cannot come to him. But when he has sufficiently discoursed in parables to the multitudes, he dismisses them and comes into his own house, where his disciples come to him, not having remained with those dismissed by him.
And those who hear Jesus more genuinely first follow him, then, inquiring about his dwelling, are permitted to see it; and having come, they look upon it and "remain with him," all of them "that day," and perhaps some of them even longer. And I think such things are indicated in the Gospel according to John by these words: "The next day again John stood, and two of his disciples." Further, to show that the one who is distinguished and becomes an apostle is of those who are permitted to walk with Jesus and see his house, it is added to these: "Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, was one of the two who had heard of John, B and followed him."
We too, therefore, if we desire not to hear Jesus as the multitudes whom he dismisses when he goes into the house, but wish to take upon ourselves something exceptional compared to the multitudes, let us become intimate with Jesus, so that as his disciples we may come to him when he has entered the house, and, having approached, may ask him for an exposition of a parable, whether of the cockle of the field or of any other kind.
But in order that what thing the "house" of Jesus represents may be more accurately understood, let one gather from the Gospels all that is said concerning the house of Jesus, and what has been spoken or performed by him therein;
for all these things, when gathered together, will persuade the one who pays attention to this reading that the letters of the Gospel are not merely simple, as some think, but that for those who are simple, according to the economy [of salvation], they have been made to appear simple, while for those who wish and are able to hear them more sharply, wise matters worthy of the Word of God have been hidden therein.
A After this, he answered and said: *He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man.* Concerning these [matters], although we have already discoursed as far as we were able in the preceding pages, nevertheless, let it now be said what may be adapted to them, even if it holds a discourse according to another interpretation. And pay attention if you can to accepting the "good seed" as the "sons of the kingdom," in addition to what has been previously rendered, in another way—namely, that whatever good grows in the human soul, these are the offspring brought to light by the Word of God who was "in the beginning with God," so that the wholesome arguments concerning each [virtue] are the sons of the kingdom. B But when those who do not act according to the command of Jesus—who says, "Watch and pray that you enter not into temptation"—are sleeping, the devil, watching, sows over them what are called the tares, that is, the wicked doctrines, among what are called by some the natural concepts and the good seeds that come from the Word. According to this view, the field could be called the whole world, and not merely the Church of God; for in every world, the Son of man sowed the good seed, while the wicked one sowed the tares, which are the wicked arguments—that is, the sons of the wicked one created from malice. C And there will be a need, at the end of things—the thing which is called the "consummation of the age"—for a harvest, so that the angels of God appointed for this task may gather up the evil doctrines that have attached themselves to the soul and deliver them for destruction, overturning them by means of the so-called burning fire. And in this way, the angels and servants of the Word shall gather out of all the kingdom of Christ all the scandals that exist in [men's] souls and the reasonings that practice lawlessness, which, in consuming them, they shall cast into the furnace of fire that is burning; there, also, those who have become aware of themselves, because they have received within themselves the seeds of the wicked one while they were sleeping, shall weep and, as it were, be enraged against themselves.
B For this is the gnashing of teeth, wherefore it is also said in the Psalms: "They gnashed upon me with their teeth." Then especially shall the righteous shine, no longer with differences, as in the beginning, but all of them as one sun in the kingdom of their Father. And since the Savior was revealing a mystery, perhaps through all the things mentioned in the phrasing of the parable, but perhaps most especially through the words: "Then shall the righteous shine as the sun in the kingdom of their Father," He adds: "He that has ears to hear, let him hear," teaching those who fancy that the parable is set forth in its phrasing so very clearly that it can be understood even by casual readers, that even the things of the narrative of the parable stand in need of clarification.
5. But since we said above, regarding the words: "Then shall the righteous shine as the sun," that the righteous will no longer shine with differences as before, but that they will all be as one sun, we must necessarily set forth what has appeared to us concerning this passage. Daniel D seems to have said, "And they that understand shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and from among the many righteous as the stars for ever and ever," acknowledging those who understand and the many righteous to differ in glory, [as being] the "light of the world." And the Apostle, too, in the passage: "There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory, so also is the resurrection of the dead," says the same things as Daniel, having taken this mind from his prophecy. Someone will therefore inquire how some speak of a difference in the light among the righteous, while the Savior [speaks] the opposite, [saying] that they will shine as one sun. I suppose, therefore, that at the beginning of the blessed states among those who are being saved, because those who are not like this have not yet been purified, it is the case that there is a difference in the light of those who are being saved;
B but when, as we have explained, all scandals and those who do what is lawless are gathered out of the whole kingdom of Christ, and the thoughts that cause them are cast into the furnace of fire, and the baser things are consumed, and when these things have come to pass, those who have received the words of the sons of the evil one come to an awareness of what has happened, then, having become one solar light, the righteous will shine in the kingdom of their Father. To whom, then, will they shine if not to those who are lower, who will enjoy their light, in the same way as the sun now shines for those upon the earth? For surely they will not shine for themselves. Or perhaps it is also possible to transcribe the phrase, "Let your light shine C before men," as "on the breadth of the heart," according to what was said by Solomon in three ways, so that the light of the disciples of Jesus shines now before the rest of men, and after the departure before the resurrection, and after the resurrection, until all have "attained to a perfect man" and all become one sun; then they will shine as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like to a treasure hidden in a field, which a man, having found, hid." He spoke the former parables to the crowds; but this one and the two following it—which are not parables but comparisons relating to the kingdom of heaven—it seems he spoke after having gone into the house to the disciples. Concerning this, let one who pays attention to the reading examine whether the next two are perhaps not parables either; for in the case of those others, the Scripture did not hesitate to place the name of "parable" before each one, but in the case of these, it has not done the same. And it has done this reasonably. For if He spoke to the crowds "in parables," and "all these things Jesus spoke in parables, and without a parable He did not speak to them," but having gone "into the house" He D converses not with the crowds but with the disciples who came to Him therein, it is clear that the things spoken in the house are not parables; for He speaks in parables to those "outside," and to those to whom "it is not given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven." Someone will say, then: if these are not parables, what are they? Perhaps, then, in following the wording of Scripture, we shall say that they are comparisons. But a comparison differs from a parable; for it is written in Mark:
B: "To what shall we compare the kingdom of God, or in what parable shall we put it?" From this it is evident that there is a difference between a comparison and a parable. It seems, therefore, that the comparison is the genus, while the parable is the species. Perhaps the comparison, being most generic, contains the parable within the species, just as, while the parable is included, the comparison is also synonymous with the general term. This follows in other cases, too, as observed by those skilled in the ordering of many names; they say that "impulse" (*horme*) is most generic and covers many species, just as "opportunity" (*aphormē*) and "impulse" itself—saying that in species, it is taken synonymously with the genus in order to distinguish the impulse from the opportunity.
In this, we must examine separately the field and, separately, the treasure hidden in it, and in what manner the man, having found this treasure hidden, departs for joy and sells all that he has, so that he may buy that field. One must also ask what it is that he sells. It seems to me, accordingly, that the field is the Scripture, planted with the manifest truths of the history, the law, the prophets, and the remaining meanings—for the planting of the truths of the C entire Scripture is vast and varied—while the treasure hidden in the field is the meanings of wisdom hidden and underlying the manifest ones, "in a mystery" hidden and in Christ, "in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." Another might say that the "field" is indeed the one that is truly "full, which the Lord has blessed," the "Christ of God," and the treasure hidden in Him is what Paul stated was hidden in Christ, when he spoke concerning Christ of the "treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden" in Him.
The heavenly things, therefore, and the kingdom of heaven are written in the Scriptures as in an image—these Scriptures being the kingdom of heaven—or the Christ Himself, the King of the ages, is the kingdom of heaven, likened to a treasure hidden in a field. Having arrived at this passage, you will inquire whether the kingdom of heaven is likened only to the treasure hidden in the field, so as to understand the field as something other than the kingdom, or whether it is likened to this whole—to the field and to the treasure hidden in the field—so that the kingdom of heaven is, according to the comparison, both the field and the treasure hidden in the field. D A man having come into the field, whether the Scriptures or Christ who is composed of manifest and hidden things, finds the hidden treasure of wisdom, whether in Christ or in the Scriptures; for traversing the field and searching the Scriptures and seeking to understand Christ, he finds the treasure in Him. And having found it, he hides it, not thinking it safe to reveal the secret meanings of the Scriptures or the "treasures of wisdom and knowledge" in Christ to those he chances upon. Having hidden it, he departs, concerned about how he may buy the field—that is, the Scriptures—so as to make them his own possession, having taken from those of God the "oracles of God," which the Jews were "entrusted" with first.
A And when the one who has been made a disciple of Christ has bought the field, the "kingdom of God"—which in another parable is the vineyard—is taken away from them, and is given to "a nation producing its fruits," to the one who, through faith, has bought the field by having sold all his possessions, and—since no wickedness previously belonged to him—by not continuing to have any of those former things in his own possession.
You will apply this same principle even if the field that has the hidden treasure is Christ. For those who "have left all" and are following Him have, in a manner of speaking, sold their possessions for another reason: so that, through having sold and surrendered those things, and having been helped by God to receive, in exchange for them, a good moral disposition, they might acquire the field that has the treasure hidden within itself—a field of great B price and worth.
*The kingdom of heaven is also like a merchant seeking beautiful pearls.* Since the kingdom of heaven is like this, while there are many merchants trading in many things, it is not like any of those, but like the one who is seeking beautiful pearls and has found one pearl of great value, worth all the others, which he bought in place of everything. I think it reasonable to examine the nature of this pearl. Observe carefully that he did not say he sold all the pearls he had; for he did not sell only those he had purchased while seeking beautiful pearls, but sold *everything* that he had, so that he might buy that beautiful pearl.
We have found, then, in the writings of those who have studied the nature of stones, that among pearls, some are terrestrial and some are marine. C The terrestrial ones are found only among the Indians, being suitable for seals, rings, and necklaces. As for the marine ones, the superior ones are found among those same Indians, and they are the best, being produced in the Red Sea. Second in rank, as far as pearls go, are those taken from the ocean near Britain. Third, and falling short not only of the first but even of the second, are those found near the Bosporus in the region of Scythia.
A Furthermore, these things were said regarding the Indian pearl: that it is produced within shells similar in nature to large spiral snails. These are recounted as engaging in their feeding in the sea in herds, as if a certain leader of the herd, distinguished in color and size and surpassing those under him, directs them, such that he bears a proportion to what is called a king bee. It has also been recounted regarding the hunting of those that stand apart — that is, those in India — as follows: that the locals surround a large circle of the shore with nets and dive down, aiming to catch the one leader out from all of them; for they say that when this one is caught, the hunting of the herd under him becomes effortless, as none of those belonging to it remains still, but they are as if bound by a strap and follow the leader of the herd. It is said also that the genesis of the pearls in India reaches completion over periods of time, with the animal undergoing B more turnings and changes until it is finished.
Furthermore, this also has been recounted: that the shell opens with a gap similar to that of the animal bearing the pearl, and once opened, it receives into itself the heavenly dew, of which, when it becomes filled, pure and undimmed, its luster shines through and it gives birth to a large and well-proportioned stone. But if at any point it should partake of turbid and uneven dews in winter, it carries a cloudy pearl with a blameworthy blemish. Furthermore, we have also found this: that if, while it is traveling toward the completion of the stone it carries, it should be interrupted by lightning, it shuts and, as if in fear, it scatters and disperses the offspring into what are called the air-bladders. There are times when, just as in premature births, small stones are born, and they have some mistiness, C though they are well-proportioned.
Furthermore, the Indian pearl has this in comparison to others: it is white in color, similar to translucent silver, and its sheen shines through with a light, greenish tint; for the most part, it has a round shape. It is also delicate in color and softer than a stone should be. And it is so pleasant to behold that, as the one who wrote regarding stones said, it is even celebrated in song among the more notable people.
A Furthermore, this also is a sign of an excellent pearl: that it has a rounded circumference, and a color that is most white and clear, and is of the greatest magnitude. These things, then, regarding the Indian pearl. But that which is in the direction of Britain is of a golden hue in its surface, though somewhat hazy and blunter in its luster. But that which is found in the strait near the Bosporus is cloudier than the British, and livid, and altogether dim, soft, and of great size. And that which is in the strait by the Bosporus is not generated in the *pinnae*, which is a kind of pearl-bearing shell, but in those called mussels. For these, I mean those by the Bosporus, their pasture is in the marshes. It is also recorded that there is a fourth class of pearls around Acarnania, in the *pinnae* of shellfish; but these are not valuable, but are also irregular, and their shape and color are altogether murky and filthy. And there are others besides these around the same Acarnania that are, for every reason, rejected. Having gathered these facts from the treatise on stones, I say that the Savior, knowing the difference between pearls—among the kind of which there are both good ones and others of inferior quality—said that “the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant man seeking the goodly pearls.” For if there were not also some of inferior quality among pearls, it would not have been said, “seeking goodly pearls.” B And among the various discourses that profess truth and those who bring them forward, seek the pearls; and let them be—to name them so—the shells that conceive from the heavenly dew and carry from heaven the word of truth, the prophets, the goodly pearls, which the merchant man in the passage before us seeks. But the leader of the herd of pearls, to whom, when he is found, the rest are also found with him, is the pearl of great price, Christ of God, the Word that is above the precious letters and thoughts of the law and the prophets, to whom, being found, all other things are easily attained. For the Savior converses with all the disciples as with merchant men who not only seek the goodly pearls, but have also found and possessed them, among whom He says:
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine." It is clear that these things were spoken to the disciples, because before these words it is written: "And seeing the multitudes, He went up into a mountain; and when He was set, His disciples came unto Him"; for in the sequence of those words it was said: "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine." Perchance, then, he who does not have pearls or the pearl of great price is not even a disciple of the Savior; and [he who has] the good pearls, not the cloudy or the misty ones—such as are the doctrines of the heterodox, not born towards the east but towards the west or towards the north, if one ought to take into account also these things because of the difference we found in pearls being produced in different places. Perhaps those darkened discourses and the heresies wrapped up in the works of the flesh are the misty ones, and those pearls which are formed in swamps are not good. You shall join to him who seeks good pearls the saying: "Seek, and ye shall find," and, "Every one that seeketh findeth." For what do you "seek," or what does "every one that seeketh find"? I shall dare to say [they are] the pearls and the pearl which he who has given up all and suffered loss acquires, for whose sake Paul says: "I have suffered the loss of all things, that I may win Christ," calling "all things" the good pearls, and "that I may win Christ" the one pearl of great price. A lamp is indeed precious to those in darkness, and there is need of a lamp until the sun rises; precious also is the glory upon the face of Moses—and I think, moreover, that of the prophets—a fair spectacle, by which we are led to be able to see the glory of Christ, to which the Father bears witness, saying: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." But "that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth," and we have need first of the glory that admits of being done away with, for the sake of "the glory that excelleth," just as there is need of the knowledge which is in part, which "shall be done away when that which is perfect is come."
Every soul, therefore, that is coming to infancy and is journeying "unto perfection," requires, until "the fulness of the time" is come for it, a pedagogue and stewards and guardians, so that after all these things, the one who formerly "differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all," may receive, having been set free from the pedagogue and the stewards and guards, the father’s inheritance—the things proportional to the precious pearl and to the coming perfection, which "does away with that which is in part," when anyone is able to contain "the excellency of the knowledge of Christ," having been previously exercised in the [knowledges which are], if I may so call them, surpassed by the knowledge of Christ. But the many, not understanding the beauty of the many pearls of the Law and the knowledge which is still "in part"—all that is prophetic—think they can, without those being made distinct and grasped through and through, find the one precious pearl and behold "the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus," by comparison with whom all things before such a knowledge of such magnitude, though not being "dung" by their own nature, appear as such—things which are perhaps the fertilizers applied to the fig tree by the vineyard-keeper, which are the causes of its bearing fruit.
"To everything, therefore, there is a time and a season for every matter under heaven," and there is a "time to gather together the good pearls" and a time, after their gathering, to find the one precious pearl, when it is fitting to go away and sell all things that one has, in order that he may buy that pearl. Just as for everyone who is to be wise in the words of truth it will be necessary to be taught the elements first and to progress further than the elementary training, and to value the training highly, yet not to remain in the training as one who honored it at the beginning, but having passed "unto perfection" to have gratitude for the introduction as having been useful for former things, so—when the legal and prophetic writings are perfectly understood—this is the foundation for the gospel which is perfectly grasped, and for all the meaning concerning the works and words of Christ Jesus.
Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net that was cast into the sea.
Just as in the case of paintings and statues, the likenesses are not in every respect likenesses of those things which they represent—but the painting, for instance when it is executed on a flat wooden surface, renders the likeness of the surface together with the color, yet it no longer preserves the indentations and the protrusions, but only an impression of them; whereas the molding of statues attempts to preserve the likeness regarding the indentations and the protrusions, but no longer the likeness regarding the colors; and if a wax cast is made, it attempts to preserve both, that is to say, both the colors and the indentations and the protrusions, yet it is not an image of things that are in depth—so too, understand for me in the case of the likenesses in the Gospel that the kingdom of heaven is compared to something, not because of all the qualities belonging to the thing to which it is likened, but because of certain qualities of which the argument being taken up has need.
Therefore, in this place, the kingdom of heaven is like a net cast into the sea, not as some think when they present the argument that there are underlying natures distinct from the wicked and the righteous who have come under the net—so as to suppose that because it gathered from every kind, there are many and diverse natures of the righteous, and in the same way of the wicked—for all the Scriptures that manifest free will, and that blame those who sin, and approve those who do what is right, are opposed to such an interpretation; for blame would not justly follow for those who are naturally of such a kind from base origins, nor praise for those from more noble ones. For the cause of bad and good fish is not in the souls of the fish, but in that which the Word knew when He said: "Let the waters bring forth creeping creatures of living souls," when also "God created great sea creatures and every soul of creeping animals which the waters brought forth after their kinds." Therefore, in that passage, "the waters brought forth every soul of creeping animals after their kinds," the cause not being in the soul itself.
A Here, however, we ourselves are the cause of our being good and worthy of the vessels being spoken of, or rotten and worthy of being cast out; for it is not nature in us that is the cause of wickedness, but willing choice, which is capable of doing evil. And so, neither is nature the cause of righteousness, as if it were incapable of receiving injustice, but the word which we have received is what makes us righteous. For indeed, one cannot see the kinds of aquatic creatures changing from base kinds, as among fish, to noble ones, or from better to worse, whereas among men one can always observe the righteous or the wicked either attaining virtue from vice, or undergoing a dissolution from progress in virtue back into the flow of vice. For this reason, in Ezekiel, concerning him who turns from lawlessness to the keeping of the divine commandments, such things are written: "And if the lawless man turns from all his lawlessness that he has committed," and the rest, down to "as his turning from his evil way and living." And concerning him who is dissolved from progress in virtue into the flow of vice: "But in the turning of the righteous from his righteousness and doing injustice," and the rest, down to "and in his sins which he has sinned, in them he shall die." Or let those who introduce [different] natures from the parable of the dragnet tell us: when "the lawless man" later turns "from all his lawlessness that he has committed," and guards "all the commandments" of the Lord, and does "righteousness and mercy," of what nature was he when he was lawless? Certainly not of a praiseworthy one. But if, then, [he was] of a blameworthy one, of what nature would it reasonably be said he is when he turns "from all his lawlessness that he has committed"? For if he was of a base nature on account of his former deeds, how did he change to better ones? But if he was of a noble nature on account of his latter deeds, how, while being of a noble nature, was he lawless? You will raise the same difficulty also concerning the righteous man turning "from his righteousness" and doing "injustice according to all the lawlessness." For before he turned from righteousness, while he was in righteous works, he was not of a base nature; for a base nature could not exist in righteousness, since a corrupt tree cannot bear good fruits, which come from virtue.
A Again, on the other hand, being of a noble and immutable nature, he would not have turned away from the good—after having been called righteous—"from his righteousness" to "do iniquity according to all his iniquities which he has done."
These things having been said, we must consider the kingdom of heaven to be likened to a net cast into the sea, which gathers of every kind, for the purpose of exhibiting the diversity of human wills, which have a very great difference among themselves; so that the phrase "gathers of every kind" implies both those who are praiseworthy and those who are blameworthy in their inclinations toward the forms of virtues or vices. The kingdom of heaven is likened to the complex knitting of a net by reason of the Old and New Scripture, which is woven from all sorts of varied thoughts.
And just as, of the fish falling under the net, some are found in these parts of the net and others in other parts, and each is held by the part where it was caught, so you might find that those who have come under the net of the Scriptures are some held by the prophetic knitting—for example, by this or that saying of Isaiah, or Jeremiah, or Daniel—others by the legal, others by the evangelical, and some by the apostolic B. For a person, being first caught by the Word—or appearing to be caught—is taken by a certain part of the whole net.
Nor is there anything absurd if some of the fish that have been caught are contained within the whole knitting of the net that is in the Scriptures, and are held fast and governed from every side, being unable to escape, but as it were being enslaved from every direction and not allowed to fall out of the net. This net has been cast into the sea—that is, into the life of men throughout the whole world, which is tossed by waves, and into the salt-crusted affairs in which they swim.
This net, before our Savior Jesus, was not fully filled; for the prophetic and legal knitting lacked Him who said, "Do not think that I have come to destroy the law or the prophets;
I have come not to destroy but to fulfill." And the knitting of the net has been fulfilled in the Gospels and the words of Christ through the apostles. For this reason, therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was cast into the sea and gathered of every kind. But, apart from what has been set forth, "gathering of every kind" can signify the calling of the nations from every race. Now, those who ministered to the net cast into the sea are the Lord of the net, Jesus Christ, and the angels who have come and will minister to Him, who do not draw the net up from the sea, nor do they bring it to the beach that is outside it—that is, the affairs outside this life—unless the net is filled; that is, until "the fullness of the Gentiles" has entered into it. And when it has entered, then they draw it up from the things here and below, and they bring it to the shore that is spoken of metaphorically; where it will be the task of those who have drawn it up to sit by the shore and establish themselves there, so that they may set each of the good things found under the net into its proper rank according to the vessels of them that are named therein, and cast out those that are in a contrary state and are called "rotten." Now, that place "outside" is the furnace of fire, as the Savior interpreted, saying: "So will it be at the close of the age; the angels will come and separate the evil from among the righteous and throw them into the furnace of fire." Nevertheless, it must be noted that we are already taught, through the parable of the weeds and the present comparison, that angels are to be entrusted with the task of distinguishing and separating the base from the righteous; for earlier it is said that "the Son of Man will send His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, and throw them into the furnace of fire; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." But here, it is said that the angels will go out and separate the evil from among the righteous and throw them into the furnace of fire.
D This does not lead to the conclusion that some think, namely that humans who are being saved in Christ are superior to the holy angels; for how can those who are cast into vessels by the holy angels be compared with those who cast them into the vessels, being placed under the authority of the latter? We say this not without acknowledging that there are certain angels who have not been entrusted with such a stewardship, nor even that those who will be saved in Christ are superior to all of these; for we have also read the passage, "into which angels desire to look," where it is not stated, "all angels." We also know the text, "we shall judge angels," where it is not said, "all angels." Since these things have been recorded concerning the net and those under the net, anyone who wishes, before the end of the age and before the angels go out to separate the wicked from among the righteous, to claim that there are no wicked under the net gathered from every kind, seems neither to have understood the Scripture nor to desire the impossible. Therefore, let us not be surprised if, before the wicked are separated from among the righteous by the angels sent out for this purpose, we see our assemblies filled also with the wicked. But I pray that these who will be cast into the furnace of fire may not turn out to be more numerous than the righteous. Since we said in the beginning that parables and similitudes are not adopted in everything to which they are compared or likened, but only in certain respects, this must also be established from what will be said, that in the case of the fish, as far as their life is concerned, it is something bad for them to be found under the net; for they are deprived of the life natural to them, and whether they are cast into vessels or thrown outside, they suffer nothing more than the loss of the life belonging to fish. But in the case of those for whom the parable is employed, it is a bad thing to be in the sea and not to come under the net, so as to be cast with the good into vessels. Thus, while bad fish are thrown outside and cast away, the bad, according to the present similitude, are cast into the furnace of fire, so that the things said in Ezekiel concerning the furnace may also befall them: "And the word of the Lord came to me, saying: Son of man, the house of Israel has become to me all mixed with bronze and iron," and the rest up to, "and you shall know that I, the Lord, have poured out my wrath upon you."
D
14. "Have you understood all these things? They say, Yes." Christ Jesus, who knows what is in the hearts of men—as John also taught concerning this in his Gospel—does not ask because he is ignorant, but having once taken on man, he uses all things human, among which is the act of asking. And it is not surprising that the Savior does this, given that God, the Lord of all, adapting himself to men "as a man might adapt himself to his son," also asks questions, as in, "Adam, where are you?" and "Where is Abel your brother?"
But someone, forcing the issue, might say that the words "Have you understood" were not spoken interrogatively but declaratively, and he will argue that the disciples, bearing witness to His declaration, say "Yes" to Him. However, whether He is asking or stating a fact, it is necessarily said not as pointing only to "these things," nor only to "all," but to "all these things."
He appears now to present the disciples as having become "scribes" for the kingdom of heaven; but this will be contradicted by the passage in the Acts of the Apostles spoken in this manner: "Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlettered and private men, they marveled, and recognized that they had been with Jesus." Someone will therefore inquire regarding these: if they were scribes, how are they called "unlettered and private men" in the Acts? And if they were "unlettered and private men," how are they quite clearly called scribes by the Savior?
It might be said in response to these questions that either not all the disciples, but rather Peter and John, are called "unlettered and private men" in the Acts, while the disciples were more numerous, and it is concerning these who understand all things that it is said, "Every scribe," and the rest; or else, "scribe" is defined as everyone taught in the instruction according to the letter of the Law, so that even those who are unlettered and private men, yet governed by the letter of the Law, are called scribes in a certain sense. And it is especially characteristic of private men, being unable to understand allegory or the spiritual ascent of the Scriptures, but believing in and defending the bare letter, to be designated as scribes.
[GREEK COLUMN] A In this way one might also explain the saying, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!” as spoken to everyone who knows nothing beyond the letter. Here you might inquire whether, just as there is a scribe of the Law, so too is there a scribe of the Gospel, and whether, just as one who reads and hears the Law and says, “Which things are allegorical,” might do the same with the Gospel, in such a way as to know how, while preserving the history of things that happened, to be led unerringly to spiritual things, lest the teachings be “spiritual forces of wickedness,” but on the contrary, existing as spiritual forces of goodness, opposed to spiritual forces of wickedness. B A scribe is discipled to the kingdom of heaven in a simpler sense, when someone takes up the ecclesiastical teaching of Jesus Christ from Judaism; but in a deeper sense, when someone, having received the introductions through the letter of the Scriptures, ascends to the spiritual things that are called the kingdom of heaven. And indeed, concerning every thought that is attained, and understood, and illustrated, and demonstrated as having been ascended into, it is possible to understand it as the kingdom of heaven, so that one who abounds in the truth-telling knowledge becomes, in the kingdom, someone who possesses a multitude of heavens thus interpreted. C In this way you will also interpret figuratively: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has drawn near,” so that those scribes, that is, those who content themselves with the bare letter, repenting from such an interpretation, may be discipled to the spiritual teaching brought about through Jesus Christ, the living Word, which is called the kingdom of heaven. For this reason, also, as long as Jesus Christ, the God-Word who was “in the beginning with God,” does not dwell in a soul, the kingdom of heaven is not in that soul; but whenever someone becomes near to containing the Word, to that person the kingdom of heaven draws near. D If the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God are the same in substance, even if not in concept, it is clear that to those to whom it is said, “The kingdom of God is within you,” to them it could also be said that “the kingdom of heaven is within you,” and this is especially the case through the repentance from the letter to the spirit, because “whenever” anyone “turns to the Lord, the veil” upon the letter “is taken away; and the Lord is the Spirit.” But he who is truly the householder is both free and rich; rich through having been discipled to the kingdom of heaven through the study of Scripture, “in every...”
word” that comes from the Old Testament, “and in all knowledge” concerning the new teaching of Christ Jesus. And having this wealth laid up in his own treasure-house, in which he stores it up as one who has been discipled to the kingdom of heaven, “in heaven, where neither moth consumes, nor thieves break in.” B And it is truly possible to define, regarding him who has stored in heaven as we have explained, that not even one moth of the passions is able to touch his spiritual and heavenly riches. By “moth of the passions,” I have spoken taking my starting point from the Proverbs, in which it is written: “As a moth in a garment and a worm in wood, so does grief harm a man’s heart.” For grief is a worm and a moth, harming the heart that does not have its treasures in heaven and in spiritual things; for in whatever a man may store up his treasure, since “where the treasure is, there also is the heart,” he has his heart in heaven, and because of it he says: “If a camp should be set against me, my heart will not fear.” Thus, neither can the thieves—concerning whom the Savior said, “All who came before me are thieves and robbers”—break into the things stored up C in heaven and the heart that is present to them, and which therefore says, “He raised us up and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ,” and “our citizenship exists in heaven.” Since every scribe who has been discipled to the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house who brings forth out of his treasure things new and old, it is clear that also, according to the so-called conversion of the proposition, everyone who does not bring forth out of his treasure things new and old is not a scribe discipled to the kingdom of heaven. We must therefore attempt to gather in every way in our heart, through heeding “the reading, the exhortation, the teaching,” and “meditating in the law of the Lord day and night,” not only the new sayings of the Gospels and the Apostles and their revelation, but also the old, from the law that has “a shadow of the good things to come” and from the prophets who prophesied in accordance D with them.
B These things shall be gathered together when we both read and understand, and, being mindful of these things, we opportunely compare “spiritual things with spiritual,” not comparing things that cannot be compared with one another, but things that are comparable and have a certain likeness, with the wording, the meanings, and the doctrines signifying the same thing, so that “at the mouth of two or three” or even more “witnesses” from the Scripture we may establish and confirm “every word” of God. And by these things, we must also put to shame those who, so far as in them lies, divide the Godhead and cut off the new from the old, as being far removed from the likeness to the householder who brings forth from his treasure things new and old.
Since, however, the one who is likened to someone is different from him to whom he is likened, the scribe who has been instructed in the kingdom of the heavens will be the one who is likened, while the householder, who brings forth from his treasure things new and old, is someone other than him; but the one who is likened to him, as though imitating him, wishes to do what is similar. Might it not be, then, that the householder is the man Jesus himself, bringing forth from his treasure, at the time of teaching, the new—that is, the spiritual things that are always being renewed by him in the inner man of the righteous, which is “day by day” being renewed—and the old—those “inscribed in letters on stones” and on the stony hearts of the "old man," so that by the comparison of the letter and the presentation of the Spirit, C he may make wealthy the scribe who has been instructed in the kingdom of the heavens and make him like himself, until the disciple “becomes as the teacher,” imitating first the imitator of Christ, and after him Christ himself, according to what was said by Paul: “Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.”
It is also possible, more simply, that Jesus the householder brings forth from his treasure the new, namely the evangelical teaching, and the old, namely the comparison of the expressions taken from the Law and the Prophets, examples of which it is possible to find in the Gospels. Concerning these old and new things, one must also listen to the spiritual law saying in Leviticus: D
«And you shall eat old things and the old of the old, and you shall bring out the old from before the new; and I will place my tabernacle among you.» For we eat the old things—the prophetic words—with blessing, and the old of these old things, that is, the legal words; and when the new and evangelical things have come, by living according to the Gospel, we bring out the old things of the letter from before the new. And He places His own tabernacle among us, fulfilling the promise which He spoke: «I will dwell and walk among them.» B
And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these parables, that He departed thence. And coming into His own country. Since in the foregoing we examined whether the things spoken to the crowds were indeed parables, and those spoken to the disciples were similitudes, and we set forth the observations pertinent to this—which, I think, are not to be disregarded—it must be known that it will seem to all those [who hold that view] that the following phrase, «And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these parables, He departed thence,» stands in opposition to them, because it is applied not only to the parables but also to the similitudes, as we have designated them. We ask, therefore, whether all those former things are to be rejected, or if two kinds of parables are to be spoken of—those spoken to the crowds and those communicated to the disciples—or if the name "parable" is to be considered homonymous, or if the clause, «And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these parables,» is to be referred only to the preceding parables, those before the similitudes. For because of the saying, «To you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to the rest in parables,» C it is not possible to say that the Saviour spoke in parables to the disciples, inasmuch as they were not among those "outside." And what follows from this is that either the clause, «And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these parables, He departed thence,» is to be referred to the aforementioned highest parables, or that the name of "parable" is homonymous, or that there are two kinds of parables, or else that those we have called "similitudes" are not properly parables at all. But note that He speaks the parables outside His own country, and that when He had finished them, He departed thence, and coming into His own country, He taught them in their synagogue. D And Mark also says:
A “And He came into His own country, and His disciples follow Him.” B One must therefore inquire, even according to the letter, whether he calls Nazareth his country, or Bethlehem. Nazareth, because of the text, “He shall be called a Nazarene,” but Bethlehem, since he was born in it. C Furthermore, I pause to consider whether the evangelists, being able to say “coming into Bethlehem” or “coming into Nazareth,” did not do so, but called it his country because of something mystically signified in that place regarding his country, which is the whole of Judea, in which he was dishonoured according to the text: “A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country.” And if anyone considers Jesus Christ, D “to the Jews indeed a stumbling block,” among whom he is persecuted even until now, but among the Gentiles, preached and believed—for his word has run into all the earth—he will see that Jesus did not have honour in his own country, but among the strangers “of the covenants,” the Gentiles, he is honoured.
But what he was teaching when he said this in their synagogue, the evangelists have not recorded, but [only] that it was of such magnitude and character that all were astonished; and it is likely that the things said were beyond writing. Yet he taught in their synagogue, not separating himself from it nor rejecting it.
The question, “Whence hath this man this wisdom?” clearly displays a more abundant and excellent wisdom in the words of Jesus, worthy of the text: “And behold, a greater than Solomon is here.” B And he performed works of power greater than those of Elijah and Elisha, and even earlier than those of Moses and Joshua the son of Nun. But those who were wondering said, not knowing him to be the son of a virgin, nor believing, even if it were said, but assuming him to be the son of Joseph the carpenter: “Is not this the carpenter’s son?” And degrading his entire apparent immediate kin, they said, “Is not his mother called Mary? and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?” C They thought, therefore, that he was the son of Joseph and Mary. But some say that the brothers of Jesus—moved by the tradition of the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or the Book of James—were sons of Joseph from a former wife who had lived with him before Mary.
Those who hold this view wish to preserve the A dignity of Mary in virginity until the end, so that the body which was chosen to administer to the Word—who said, "The Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow you"—would not know the intercourse of a man after the Holy Spirit had come upon her and the power from on high had overshadowed her. And I think there is reason for holding that Jesus was the firstfruits of the purity of men in chastity, and Mary the firstfruits of women; for it is not seemly to assign the firstfruits of virginity to any other than her.
This is the James whom Paul says he saw in the Epistle to the Galatians, saying: "But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother" (Gal. I, 19). And this James shone so brightly among the people for his righteousness that Flavius Josephus, wishing to set forth the reason for the people’s having suffered such great things that B even the temple was razed to the ground, said that these things had befallen them by the wrath of God on account of what they had dared to do to James, the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the amazing part is that, although he did not acknowledge our Jesus as the Christ, he nevertheless testified to such great righteousness in James. And he says that the people also thought they had suffered these things on account of James.
Jude also wrote an Epistle, short in length, but filled with the vigorous words of heavenly grace; he says in the prologue: "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James." Regarding Joseph and Simon, we have no recorded history.
And the phrase, "And are not his sisters all with us?" C seems to me to signify something like this: they think as we do, not as Jesus does, and they possess nothing strange of exceptional intelligence, not as Jesus does. Or perhaps it is indicated by these words that a difficulty arises regarding the fact that Jesus was not even a human being, but something more divine—being in the estimation of the crowd the son of Joseph and Mary, and the brother of four [males], and no less of other females, and possessing nothing similar to any of his kin, nor having attained such wisdom and power from instruction and teaching. For elsewhere they say: "How does this man know letters, having never learned?" (John VII, 15), which is similar to what is said here. D
A However, those who were saying these things, and were so greatly perplexed and astonished, did not believe; rather, they were scandalized in him, as if the eyes of their mind were being restrained by the powers over whom He was about to triumph on the wood at the time of His passion. B And Jesus said to them: "A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country." We must inquire whether this saying can be taken universally regarding every prophet, such that each of the prophets is dishonored only in his own country—and not that everyone who is dishonored is dishonored in his [own] country—or whether these things are said in the singular because they were spoken of one person. If, then, these things are said about one, what has been said suffices, as we refer the writing to the Savior. But if it is universal, it is not true from a historical standpoint; for neither was Elias dishonored in Thesbon of Galaad, nor Elisha in Ebalmaula, nor Samuel in Armathaim, nor Jeremiah in Anathoth. C But when interpreted tropologically, it is entirely true. For we must consider their country to be Judea, and their kinsmen that Israel—and their house, perhaps, the body; for they were all dishonored in Judea by the Israel "according to the flesh," while they were still in the body, as it is written in the Acts of the Apostles in a rebuke spoken to the people: "For which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? [And they killed] those who announced beforehand concerning the coming of the Just One." And similar things are said by Paul in the first epistle to the Thessalonians: "For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus; for you suffered the same things yourselves from your own countrymen, just as they did from the Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and chased us out, and do not please God, and are contrary to all men." D Therefore, a prophet is not without honor among the nations; for they either do not know him at all, or, having learned of him and accepted him, they honor him as a prophet. Such are those from the Church. The prophets are dishonored, first, by being persecuted according to history by the people, and second, by their prophecy not being believed by the people.
For if they had believed Moses and the prophets, they would have believed Christ, since believing in Christ follows upon believing Moses and the prophets, and not believing in Moses follows upon not believing in Christ. Furthermore, just as one who sins is said to dishonor God «through the transgression of the law,» so too, by not believing what is prophesied, the prophet is dishonored by the one who disbelieves in the prophecies. It is useful, with regard to the history, to recall what Jeremiah suffered among the people, concerning which he said, «And I said, I will not speak, nor will I mention the name of the Lord,» and in another place, «I continued to be mocked.» Everything that he also suffered at the hands of the king of Israel at that time is written in his prophecy. And it is also written that the people often came to stone Moses; A but his country was not the stones of a certain place, but those who followed him—the people—among whom he himself was also dishonored. And Isaiah is recorded to have been sawn in two by the people. If anyone does not accept this history because it is found in the apocryphal Isaiah, let him believe what is written in the Epistle to the Hebrews: «They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were tested.» For «they were sawn in two» refers to Isaiah, just as «they died by the slaying of the sword» refers to Zechariah, who was murdered «between the temple and the altar,» as the Savior testified, being, as I think, a Scripture B not existing in the common and public books, but likely existing in the apocryphal ones. They were dishonored in their own country by the Jews, and having gone about «in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, afflicted,» and the rest. For «all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.» It is likely that Paul, knowing this—that a prophet does not have honor in his own country—preached the word in many places, but did not preach it in Tarsus. And it is for this reason that the apostles left Israel and did what was commanded by the Savior: «Make disciples of all the nations,» and «You shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and even to the end of the earth.» C They had indeed done what was commanded in Judea and Jerusalem; but since a prophet does not have honor in his own country, and the Jews did not accept the word, they departed to the nations.
A Mark well, if you are able, how the statement, "I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh, and they shall prophesy," was fulfilled after the coming of the Savior in the churches from the nations; and you may say that those who previously were of the world, having become so through believing, are no longer of the world in their own country—the world—and, having received the Holy Spirit and prophesied, they do not have honor, but are dishonored. Wherefore blessed are they who suffer the same things as the prophets, according to the Savior’s word: "For in the same way did their fathers treat the prophets." Anyone who diligently attends to these things, if he should be hated and plotted against for living very vigorously and for rebuking those who sin—being persecuted and reviled "for righteousness' sake"—will not only not be grieved, but will rejoice and exult, being persuaded that for these things he has a great reward "in the heavens" from Him who compared him to the prophets because he suffered the same things. Therefore, one who seeks the prophetic life and has received the Spirit that was in them ought to consider it a small thing to be dishonored in the world and among sinners, who are burdened by the life of the righteous man. B Next, it is possible to see the passage: "He did not do many mighty works there because of their unbelief." By these things we are taught that mighty works occurred in those who believed, since "to everyone who has will be given, and he will have abundance," whereas in those who are faithless, the mighty works not only did not operate but, as Mark wrote, "could not" operate. Mark well the phrase, "He could not do any mighty work there." For he did not say "He would not," but "He could not," as if the power that was working required the cooperation of the faith of the one in whom the power was working, and was hindered from working by unbelief. See, then, that to those who said, "Why could we not cast it out?" He said, "Because of your little faith," and to Peter, who had begun to sink in the water, it was said: "O you of little faith, why did you doubt?" Furthermore, the woman with the issue of blood, not requesting regarding her healing, but only calculating that if she touched "the hem of his garment," she would be healed, "was healed immediately," and the Savior acknowledges the manner of the healing, saying, "Who touched me? C
I know that power has gone out from me." A And perhaps, just as in the case of physical bodies there is a natural attraction between certain things—as with a magnetic stone and iron, or with what is called naphtha and fire—so it is with such faith toward divine power; according to which it is also said, "If you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move."
It seems to me that Matthew and Mark, desiring to present the superiority of divine power, have precisely stated that it can operate even in the presence of unbelief, but that it cannot operate as extensively as it does in the faith of those being benefited; thus they have said not that he did not perform miracles because of their unbelief, but that "he did not do many miracles there." And Mark did not say that "he could not do any miracle there" and stop there, but added: "unless he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them," the power that was in him overcoming even that unbelief.
It also seems to me that just as in physical matters, neither is agriculture sufficient for the harvest of fruits, if that which contains them does not cooperate in this—or rather, the One who contains them, through whatever quality it pleases Him who orders it and makes it as He wills—nor does the containment, without agriculture—or rather, the One who provides—make that which springs from the earth to spring forth without agriculture; for He once performed this in the saying, "Let the earth bring forth the grass of the field, yielding seed according to its kind and likeness"; B so, neither can the operations of the powers be displayed as a perfect work for healing without the faith of those being healed, nor can faith, whatever sort it may be, do so without divine power. And the writing concerning wisdom you shall also adapt to faith and to the virtues by species, so as to form such a statement as this:
"Even if someone is perfect in faith among the sons of men, if the power from You is absent, it shall be reckoned as nothing"; or perfect in temperance, as among the sons of men, if your temperance is absent, it shall be reckoned as nothing; or perfect in justice and the rest of the virtues, if your justice and the rest of your virtues are absent, it shall be reckoned as nothing. Whence: "Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, nor the strong man in his strength"; for that which is deserving of boasting is not ours, but is the gift of God, and from Him is wisdom, and from Him is strength, and so on.
C 20. "At that time Herod the tetrarch heard of the fame of Jesus, and he said to his servants, 'This is John the Baptist.'" Now among Mark this is so, and among Luke it is so. The opinions of the Jews were varied; some were false, such as those embraced by the Sadducees regarding the resurrection of the dead, as if they do not rise, and as if angels do not exist; but as for what has been written of them, they relate it only to tropology, and in no way to the truth of history. Others, however, were true, just as the Pharisees taught, who taught that the dead rise.
What is therefore sought after in accordance with this passage is this: what kind of thought did Herod and some of the common people have regarding the soul, in that he held the false opinion that he—namely, John, whom he himself had put to death a little while before, after having decapitated him—had risen from the dead, and was the same person, using another name, and was now called Jesus, capable of the same powers that he had previously exercised in John? D What probability, therefore, does this possess, that someone so well known to all the people, and celebrated throughout all Judea, whom they said to be the son of the carpenter and of Mary, and who was said to have brothers and sisters, as if he were not the other one, John, whose father was Zacharias and whose mother was Elisabeth—who themselves were not obscure among the people—was thought to be him? In truth, it is likely that
A even some of these had reached the visions seen in the temple 28, for when Gabriel had appeared to Zacharias, a belief arose—whether it was the error of Herod or of some of the people—that there were not two people, John and Jesus, but one and the same John, who, having been beheaded and having returned from the dead, was called Jesus. Could anyone truly hold the false opinion that there is a transmigration of souls 50? This had occurred in the case of Herod and some of the people, who, when they heard that John was at that time moving among the people and had come from the dead into life, as Jesus, thought this. But even this false belief does not have probability: for the time between the birth of John and Jesus does not exceed a few months. Perhaps it was rather this opinion that was in Herod, namely that the powers which had been active in John had passed over unto Jesus, from which it was believed among the people that John the Baptist was he; and some dared to use this argument: "Just as, because of the spirit and power of Elijah, it is written of John 36: 'He is the Elijah who is to come,' because the spirit and B power that were in Elijah had passed over into John; thus Herod supposed that the powers that were in John were indeed in John, as those 469 which pertain to baptism and teaching—'John did no sign,' 37—but in Jesus were prodigious powers." Someone might say that the same people thought this, "for Elijah appeared in Jesus, as in antiquity one of the prophets arose 38." In no way, however, does the opinion of those who said "that Jesus was a prophet, as one of the prophets" 39 belong to this question. Therefore, the word of Jesus, whether it was written that it belonged to Herod, or was uttered by others, is false. But it seems to me much more probable that the opinion, namely that John had risen, preceded the one who was beheaded and called Jesus after he was dead. C The attentive reader can easily perceive that this was not necessary to conclude, as Matthew, Mark, and Luke explicitly wrote, from which the preceding facts establish the contrary. D By the opinion of those who believe that there was in him the error of the transmigration of souls, which is meant here and below in Matthew 17, and explicitly in Matthew 15, he is tacitly accused of being infected by Marcionism. But we have discussed these matters at length in our work on Origen. 51 "That he is a prophet as one," etc. Where other codes read: "that he is the prophet, as one of the prophets"; others: "that he is a prophet, as one of the prophets."
A Perhaps also the manifestation of the vision seen in the temple, when Gabriel appeared to Zechariah, had reached some of them. What plausibility, then, does the deception of either Herod or some of the people possess, in supposing that there were not two distinct persons, John and Jesus, but that one and the same John, having risen from the dead after being beheaded, was called Jesus? One might say that the false doctrine of metempsychosis [reincarnation] existed in Herod and some of the people, from which they thought that the one who was once John had come into being and arrived from the dead into this life as Jesus. But the intervening time between the birth of John and Jesus, which is not more than six months, does not allow even this false doctrine to be considered plausible.
B Perhaps rather such a conception existed in Herod, that the powers that had been active in John had moved onto Jesus, by which it was believed among the people that John was the Baptist. And one might use such an argument: just as because of the spirit and power of Elijah—and not because of his soul—it is said of John, "He is Elijah who is to come," since the spirit that was in Elijah and the power that was in him had passed over to John, so Herod thought that the powers that were in John had acted in John, bringing about his baptism and teaching—"for John did no sign"—but in Jesus they were bringing about the miraculous powers. One would say that those who said that Elijah had appeared in Jesus, or that a prophet "of the ancients" had risen, had assumed something similar.
C There is nothing that holds up to investigation in the dogma of those who said "that Jesus was a prophet as one of the prophets." The statement, therefore, that is recorded regarding Jesus—whether that of Herod or that which was said by some others—is false. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the analogy to "having come in the spirit and power of Elijah" holds greater plausibility for [explaining] the things now being surmised by them regarding John and Jesus.
D Since we have learned, first, that after the temptation the Savior, "having heard that John had been delivered up, withdrew into Galilee," and second, that John, while being in prison, having heard the things concerning Jesus, "sending two of his disciples, said to him:
Art thou he that art to come, or look we for another?" And third, simply that Herod said concerning Jesus that he is John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead; but we did not previously know the manner of the Baptist’s putting to death—for this reason Matthew has now recorded this, and Mark likewise to him; but Luke has left silent most of the history found in them. A The wording of Matthew stands thus: "For Herod had laid hold on John and bound him in prison." Therefore, it seems to me regarding these things that, just as "the law and the prophets were until John," after whom the prophetic grace among the Jews ceased, so the authority of those who reigned over the people—which existed among them until they put to death those deemed worthy of death—only held until John; and upon the slaying of the last of the prophets unlawfully by Herod, the king of the Jews was stripped of the authority to put to death. For if Herod had not been stripped of it, Pilate would not have judged Jesus unto death, but Herod—along with the counsel of the chief priests and the elders of the people for this purpose—would have sufficed for this. B And then, I believe, what was spoken by Jacob to Judah in this manner was fulfilled: "The prince shall not fail out of Judah, nor a leader from Israel, until he come for whom it is reserved, and he is the expectation of the nations." Perhaps also the Jews were stripped of this authority, as Divine Providence provided scope for the teaching of Christ among the people, so that, even if it were hindered by the Jews, it might not proceed as far as the slaughter of those who believe—which might seem to be done according to law. C Herod, however, having laid hold on John, "bound him in prison and put him away," making this a symbol—as much as in him lay and in the wickedness of the people—of binding and shutting up the prophetic word and preventing it from remaining any longer a herald of the truth in freedom, as it did before. And Herod did this because of Herodias, the wife of Philip his brother; for John was saying to him: "It is not lawful for thee to have her." D Now this Philip was tetrarch "of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis." Therefore, some indeed think that, Philip having died leaving a daughter, Herod married Herodias, the wife of his brother, the law permitting such a marriage in the case of childlessness.
We, however, not finding it clear anywhere that Philip had died, consider Herod's transgression to be even greater, because he took away the wife of his brother A while he was still alive. Therefore, John, adorned with prophetic boldness and not struck with fear by the royal dignity of Herod, and not keeping silent about such a great sin out of fear of death, said to Herod, being filled with divine wisdom: "It is not lawful for you to have her," for "it is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife." Herod, having seized John, bound him and put him in prison, not daring to kill «the prophetic word» entirely and remove it from the people. But the wife of the king B of Trachonitis—a certain wicked opinion and evil teaching—bore a daughter of the same name, whose movements, appearing graceful and pleasing to Herod who loved the things of his birth, became the cause of there no longer being a prophetic head among the people. And up to this point, I think that the movements of the people of the Jews that seem to be according to the law are nothing other than those of the daughter of Herodias. But the dancing of C Herodias was contrary to the holy dance, regarding which those who have not danced will be reproached, hearing: "We played the flute for you, and you did not dance." And in the birthday celebrations of the lawless word reigning over them, they dance, so that their movements please that word. Indeed, someone before us observed the birthday of Pharaoh recorded in Genesis and recounted that the wicked man, loving the things of his birth, celebrates his birthday. But we, having discovered this starting point from him, D have found no mention in any Scripture of a birthday being celebrated by a righteous man. For Herod is more unjust than that Pharaoh; for while under the latter a chief baker is killed on his birthday, under the former John is killed, than whom "there has risen no one greater among those born of women," about whom the Savior says: "But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I say to you, and more than a prophet." But we must give thanks to God that, even if the prophetic grace has been taken away from the people, that which is greater than all of that has been poured out upon the nations through our Savior Jesus, "who became free among the dead."
B Yet if he was also crucified out of weakness, he lives by the power of God. Further, observe the people among whom pure and impure foods are examined, while prophecy is held in contempt, being presented on a platter instead of a main course. The Jews do not possess the head of prophecy, denying Christ Jesus, who is the head of all prophecy. And the prophet is beheaded because of oaths, for which it would have been better to perjure oneself than to keep them; for the offense of rash oaths is not the same as the offense of taking away a prophet because of that rashness. And he is beheaded not only for this reason, but also because of those reclining at the table, who wished for the prophet to be taken away rather than to live. Those who rejoice in his birth recline and feast together with a wicked word C that reigns over the Jews. You may use this passage gracefully against those who swear rashly and desire to confirm oaths taken for lawless purposes, saying that not every keeping of an oath is proper, just as Herod’s was not. Furthermore, observe that Herod kills John not with boldness, but secretly and in prison; for the present people of the Jews also do not deny the prophecies with boldness, but in power and in secret they deny them and are convicted of disbelieving them. For just as if they believed Moses, they would have believed in Jesus, so if they believed the prophets, they would have accepted the One prophesied. But disbelieving Him, they disbelieve them also and cut off, having shut him in prison, "the prophetic word," and they hold him dead and divided and nowhere whole, since they do not understand him. But we have Jesus whole, the prophecy having been fulfilled which says of him: "A bone of him shall not be broken." But the disciples of John, having come, bury his remains, and coming, they reported it to Jesus. And he withdrew into a deserted place, the nations; and after the taking away of the prophets, crowds followed him from the cities everywhere. Seeing that they were many, he had compassion and healed their sick, and after this he feeds those who followed him with the loaves that were blessed and multiplied from a few. And hearing, Jesus withdrew from there in a boat into a deserted place by himself.
B The literal sense teaches us to what extent one should withdraw from those who persecute and who are expected to conspire against one on account of the Word; for this is what might be done according to reason, whereas for one who could be outside of such circumstances to move forward to meet those things head-on is rash and bold. And who would still doubt about avoiding such things, since Jesus not only withdrew on account of the events regarding John, but also taught it, saying: "If they persecute you in this city, flee to the other." When a trial comes upon us that is not in our power to avoid, it is necessary to endure it very nobly and courageously; but when it is possible to avoid it, not to do so is reckless.
Since, after the literal sense, the passage must also be examined according to the anagogical sense, it must be said that because the prophecy had been conspired against by the Jews and put to death—due to the fact that worldly affairs were honored among them and were conducted according to an acceptance of empty impulses, which, as judged by the truth, were discordant and ill-tuned, but as the ruler of the wicked and those feasting with him assumed, were well-tuned and pleasing to them—Jesus withdrew from the place in which the prophecy, having been conspired against, was condemned. He withdraws into the place deserted of God among the nations, so that the Word of God, as the kingdom is taken from them and given to "a nation producing the fruits of it," might come to be among the nations, and that through Him "the children of the deserted"—which has learned neither law nor prophets—might become "many more than those of her who has the husband," namely, the Law. C When, therefore, the Word was formerly among the Jews, it was not so much with them as it is with the nations; for this reason it has been said that he went in a boat, that is, in the body, into the deserted place by himself, having heard about the execution of the prophet. And "by himself," having come into the desert, he was in it, in that the Word and his teaching were peculiar—as they were accustomed to happen and were held among the nations. And the crowds in the nations, having heard that the Word had visited their desert and that it was happening "by himself," as we have set forth beforehand, followed him from their own cities, in that each had abandoned the ancestral customs of superstition and had approached the Law of Christ.
they followed him on foot and not in a boat, inasmuch as they followed not with the body, but with the soul unadorned and with the choice persuaded by the Word, following the image of God. And Jesus goes out to them, since they were not strong enough to approach him, so that by becoming outside, he might lead those who were outside to the inside. Great indeed is the multitude outside, to whom the Word of God goes out, and having poured out the light of his visitation upon it, he saw it; and seeing them to be worthy of pity rather because they were in such conditions, being a lover of mankind, the impassible One felt compassion and moved with bowels of mercy, and not only was he moved with compassion, but he also healed their sick, who were holding various and manifold sicknesses from wickedness.
But if you wish to see what the sicknesses of the soul are, consider for me the lovers of money, and the lovers of glory, and the lovers of children, and if there is anyone who is a lover of women; for, seeing these also among the multitudes and being moved with compassion for them, he healed them. However, not every sin is to be considered a sickness, but that which has fallen upon the whole soul. For thus it is possible to see the lovers of money wholly stretched out toward silver and the guarding and gathering of it; and the lovers of glory [stretched out] toward small glories, for they gape after the praise that comes from the many and more vulgar people. And you will understand the analogy in the case of the others we have named, and of anything else that is similar to these.
Since, therefore, while explaining that "he healed their sick," we said that not every sin is a sickness, it is worthy to offer consolation from Scripture also regarding the difference between these things. For the Apostle, writing to the Corinthians who had various sins, says: "For this cause many among you are weak and sickly, and many sleep" (1 Cor. XI, 30). Hear indeed in these words the "and" conjunction, weaving together and making a composite from different sins, inasmuch as some are weak, others are sickly—more so than the weak—and others, beyond both, are those who sleep. For those who slip easily due to the weakness of the soul to commit any sin whatsoever, even if they are not entirely [given over] to some form of sin as the sickly are, they are merely weak.
A But those who, with their whole soul, their whole heart, and their whole mind, instead of loving God, love silver, or little honors, or women, or boys, have suffered more than weakness, and are “sickly.” And they are “asleep” who, being obligated to pay attention and be awake in their soul, do not do this, but out of great inattention doze off in their volition and fall asleep in their thoughts; these are they who “in their dreamings defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of dignities.” These, because they are asleep, are in empty fancies and comparable dreams, failing to accept the real and true things concerning realities, but being led astray by those things that are in empty fancies. Concerning whom it is also said in Isaiah: “As when a thirsty man dreams he is drinking, and having awakened is still thirsty, his soul having hoped in vain, so shall be the wealth of all the nations who have campaigned against Jerusalem.” B If, therefore, we seemed to have digressed by explaining the difference between the weak, the sickly, and the sleeping, we have made this digression because the Apostle said in his [epistle] to the Corinthians what we have set forth, wishing to show what is meant intellectually by the [words], “and he healed their sick.” After this the Word says that “when evening had come, his disciples came to him saying: The place is desolate and the hour is already past; dismiss therefore the crowds, so that having gone into the villages, they may buy food for themselves.” C And first, observe that, being about to give the loaves of the blessing to the disciples, so that they might set them before the crowds, he “healed the sick,” so that, having become healthy, they might partake of the loaves of the blessing; for those who are still sick cannot contain the loaves of Jesus’ blessing. But also, if anyone, having to hear the [words], “Let a man test himself, and so let him eat of the bread” and the rest, does not heed these, but partakes of the Lord’s bread and cup as it happens, he becomes weak or sickly, or even, so to speak, being weighed down by the power of the bread, falls asleep.
ORIGEN'S COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW, BOOK XI
A "And when it was evening, his disciples came to him," that is, at the consummation of the age, in which it is opportune to say the words, "It is the last hour," which are contained in the Epistle of John. They, not yet understanding what the Word was about to do, say to him that the place is "desert," seeing the desolation of the divine law and word in the multitude. And they say to him, "and the hour has now passed," as if the opportune time of the law and the prophets has gone by. Perhaps they were saying this, referring the word [to that state of affairs] and because John had been beheaded, and the law and the prophets, which were until John, had ceased. The hour, they say, has therefore passed, and food is not present, because the time for it is no longer at hand, so that those in the desert who followed you might serve the Law and the Prophets. And the disciples further say, "Dismiss the multitudes, therefore, so that each one, if not from the cities, then from the villages—that is, the more humble hamlets—may buy food for themselves." These things the disciples were saying, despairing that food of a marvelous and new kind would be found for the multitudes after the letter of the law had been abolished and prophecy had ceased.
But see what Jesus answers the disciples, as if crying out and clearly saying: "You indeed suppose that if this great multitude departs from me while in need of food, they will find it in the villages rather than with me, and in the gatherings of men who are not citizens but rather villagers, more than when they remain with me. But I declare to you that where you suppose them to have need, they have no need; for they have no need to depart. And where you think they have no need—that is, of me, as though I were not able to feed them—in this, contrary to your expectation, they have need. Since, therefore, having instructed you, I have made you capable of giving rational food to those in need, you give the multitudes that have followed me to eat; for you have the power, having received it from me, to give the multitudes to eat, which if you had understood, you would have perceived that I am able to feed them by much more, and you would not have said, 'Dismiss the multitudes, so that they may go away and buy food for themselves.'" B C D
'" A Jesus, therefore, because of the power he had given to the disciples for feeding others, said: "Give them yourselves to eat." But they, while not denying their ability to give bread, but thinking themselves to be far fewer and insufficient to feed those who had followed Jesus, and not perceiving that Jesus, taking each loaf or 60 word, extends it as far as he wishes, making it sufficient for all whom he desires to feed, say: "We have here nothing but five loaves and two fish"—perhaps implying by the five loaves the perceptible words of the Scriptures and therefore equal in number to the five senses, and by the two fish, the spoken word and the thought-out word, acting as a relish for the perceptible contents of the Scriptures, or perhaps even the word that had reached them regarding the Father and the Son. Therefore, even he himself B "ate a part of a broiled fish" after he had risen, "having taken" it from the disciples, and having accepted the theology regarding the Father which they were able to explain to him in part. We, therefore, have been able to arrive at a logos regarding the five loaves and two fish in this way. It is likely, however, that those who are more able than we are to gather the five loaves and the two fish C among themselves could provide a greater and better meaning regarding these things. It must be noted, however, that the disciples say they have the five loaves and the two fish in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, without noting that they were wheaten or barley; but John alone said the loaves were barley, for which reason perhaps even the disciples do not admit [to having] them among themselves in the Gospel of John, but say in it that "There is a lad here who has five barley loaves and two fish." And D inasmuch as these five loaves and two fish were not brought by the disciples to Jesus, they did not increase, nor did they multiply, nor were they able to feed more people;
but when the Savior took them and first looked up to heaven, by the rays of His eyes, He, as it were, brought down power from thence, which was to be mingled with the loaves and the fish, which were about to feed the five thousand. After this, He blessed the five loaves and the two fish, increasing and multiplying them by the Word and by the blessing; and thirdly, He distributed and broke them, and gave them to the disciples that they might set them before the crowds A. Then the loaves and the fish sufficed, so that all ate and were filled, and some of the blessed loaves could not even be eaten. For there remained over for the crowds so much that, according to the measure of the crowds, it was not there, but according to the disciples who were able to take up the remainder of the fragments and place them into baskets filled with the leftovers, being in number as many as were the tribes of Israel. Regarding Joseph, indeed, it is written in the Psalms: "His hands served in the basket" (Ps. LXXX, 7). But regarding the disciples of Jesus, that the twelve took up the remainder of the fragments—I think they were twelve baskets, not half-full, but full. And I think that even until now, and until the consummation of the age, there are twelve such full baskets of fragments of the living bread, which the crowds cannot eat, B but which are with the disciples of Jesus who are superior to the crowds. Those who ate of the five loaves, before the twelve baskets remained over, were kindred to the number five, having reached up to sensible things, and for this reason they were five thousand; or perhaps those who ate reached only up to sensible things, since even these were fed by Him who looked up to heaven and blessed and broke them—and they were not children or women, but men. For I believe there are differences even in sensible foods, so that some of them have done away with "the things of the infant," while others are still infants and carnal "in Christ" (1 Cor. XIII, 11). C
And these things have been said by us on account of the text: "The number of those eating was five thousand men, apart from women and children," which is ambiguous. For either those who ate were five thousand men and there was no child or woman among those eating, or else only the men were five thousand, without women or children being numbered.
A Some, as we have said before, have interpreted it in this way, that neither children nor women were present among those who increased and multiplied from the five loaves and the two fish. But one might say that, since many ate and partook of the loaves of blessing according to their worth and capacity, the men were those deserving to be numbered—analogous to the twenty-year-old Israelites numbered in the Book of Numbers—while those not deserving of such account and number were children and women.
He interprets for me the children according to, “I could not speak to you as spiritual, but as carnal, as infants in Christ,” and the women according to, “But I wish to present you all as a pure virgin to Christ,” and the men according to, “When I became a man, I put away the things of an infant.” B Let us not pass over, without interpretation, the detail: "And having commanded the crowds to recline upon the grass, he took the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and having broken them, he gave the loaves to the disciples, and the disciples to the crowds. And all ate." For what is the meaning of, "And having commanded all the crowds to recline upon the grass," and what is worthy in the command of Jesus to understand in this passage? I think that he commanded the crowds to recline on the grass because of what is said in Isaiah, "All flesh is grass," meaning to place the flesh underneath and to subject "the mind of the flesh," so that in this way one might be able to partake of the loaves which Jesus blesses.
Furthermore, since there are different ranks of those in need of the food from Jesus, C and not all are nourished by the same principles, for this reason I think Mark has written: "And he commanded them all to recline by companies upon the green grass. And they reclined in plots by hundreds and by fifties," and Luke: "He said to his disciples, 'Make them sit down in groups of about fifty.'" For it was necessary for those who were to rest upon the food of Jesus to be either in the rank of the hundred—a sacred number and one consecrated to God on account of the monad—or in the rank of the fifty, a number containing the remission according to the mystery of the Jubilee which occurs every fifty years, and the feast of Pentecost.
A I believe that the twelve baskets were with the disciples to whom it was said, "You shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." And just as it might be said that there is a mystery in the throne that judges the tribe of Reuben, and a throne that judges the tribe of Simeon, and another for the tribe of Judah, and so on in order, so too might there be a basket of food for Reuben, and another for Simeon, and another for Levi. But it is not my present purpose to wander so far from the matter at hand as to gather what pertains to the twelve tribes and to speak specifically about each one of them and say what each tribe of Israel is.
4. B "And immediately he constrained the disciples to get into the boat and to go before him to the other side, while he dismissed the crowds." It must be observed how many times in the same passages the name "the crowds" and the other name "the disciples" are mentioned, so that from the observation and the gathering of this it may be perceived that the intention of the evangelists was, through the evangelical history, to present the differences of those who come up to Jesus—of whom some are crowds and are not called disciples, while others are disciples, being better than the crowds. C It is sufficient for the present for us to set forth a few scriptural passages, so that someone, prompted by these, may do the same for all the Gospels. It is written, therefore, that while the crowds were below, the disciples were able to approach Jesus when he had ascended the mountain, where the crowds were not able to be, in something like this: "Seeing the crowds, he went up to the mountain; and when he had sat down, his disciples approached him; and opening his mouth he taught them, saying: Blessed are the poor in spirit," and what follows. And again in another place, since the crowds were in need of healing, it is said: "Large crowds followed him, and he healed them." D We have not found a recorded healing regarding the disciples; for if anyone is already a disciple of Jesus, he is healthy, and being well, he has need of Jesus not as a physician, but according to his other powers. Again in another place: "While he was speaking to the crowds, his mother and his brothers stood outside, seeking to speak to him"; which was made known to him, to whom he answered "stretching out his hand," not towards the crowds but "towards the disciples, and said:
A “Behold my mother and my brothers”; and bearing witness to the disciples that they do the will of the Father in heaven and for this reason are deemed worthy of the relationships and most intimate names in relation to Jesus, he adds to "Behold my mother and my brothers": "Whoever does the will of my Father who is in the heavens, he is my brother and sister and mother." And again in another place it is written that "all the crowd stood on the shore, and he spoke to them many things in parables"; then after the parable of the sower, "having approached," not the crowds anymore but "the disciples, they said to him," not "Why do you speak to us in parables?" but "Why do you speak to them in parables?" When he also "answered and said," not to the crowds but to the disciples: "To you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of the heavens," "but to the rest in parables." Therefore, of those approaching in the name of Jesus, those who know "the mysteries of the kingdom of the heavens" may be called disciples; but those to whom such a thing "is not given," these would be called crowds, inferior to the disciples. For observe carefully that he said to the disciples: "To you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of the heavens," while concerning the crowds, "but to them it is not given." And in another place he leaves "the crowds," but not the disciples, and goes "into the house"; and "into his house" there "approached him," not the crowds but "his disciples, saying: Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field." Furthermore, in another place, when "having heard" the things concerning John, "Jesus withdrew in a boat into a solitary place by himself," "the crowds followed him," when "having gone out he saw a great crowd and having compassion on them he healed their sick ones," of the crowds, not of the disciples; "and when evening was come, they approached him," not the crowds but "the disciples, saying," as others among the crowds, "dismiss the crowds, that they may go into the villages and buy themselves food." B C D
A Moreover, when "taking the five loaves and the two fish, looking up to heaven he blessed them, and having broken the loaves," he gave them not to the crowds but "gave them to the disciples," in order that the disciples might give them "to the crowds," who were unable to receive them from him but received them with difficulty through the disciples—the loaves of Jesus’ blessing. And they did not even eat all of these, for the crowds, having been satisfied, left "the remainder" in twelve baskets full. And the reason we have recounted these things is to address the matter at hand: that Jesus, having separated the disciples from the crowds, compelled them to get into the boat and to go before him to the other side, until he himself should dismiss the crowds. For the crowds could not go to the other side, as they were not spiritually "Hebrews," which is translated "those who cross over"; but this was the work of the disciples of Jesus—I mean B the work of going to the other side and passing beyond "the things seen" and bodily things as being "temporal," so as to reach "the things unseen and eternal."
Therefore, a sufficient benefit was given to the crowds by Jesus—though they were unable, being crowds, to go to the other side—to be dismissed by Jesus. This dismissal no one has the authority to grant except Christ alone, and no one can be dismissed without first having eaten of the loaves which Jesus blesses; nor can anyone eat of the loaves of Jesus’ blessing unless he has done as Jesus commanded and reclined "upon the grass," as we have explained. But even this the crowds could not do unless they had followed Jesus C from their own cities when he "withdrew to a desert place by himself." And though previously entreated by the disciples to dismiss "the crowds," he did not dismiss them until he had fed them with the loaves of blessing; but now he does dismiss them, after the disciples had first been compelled to get into the boat, and he dismisses them while they were still down below, for the desert is a low place; and he himself "went up to the mountain to pray."
And this also is to be noted, that immediately after the five thousand had been fed, Jesus compelled the disciples to get into the boat and to go before him to the other side.
A Yet the disciples were not able to go before Jesus to the other side; but, having reached the middle of the sea, with the boat being buffeted because the wind was contrary to them, they became afraid, until Jesus came to them about the fourth watch of the night. And had Jesus not gone up into the boat, neither would the wind opposing the rowing disciples have ceased, nor would they who were sailing have "passed over and come" to the other side. And perhaps, desiring by this trial to teach them that it is not possible to go to the other side without him, he compelled them to enter the boat and to go before him to the other side; but appearing to them when they were unable to cross more than the middle of the sea, and having performed the things written, he showed that the one who comes to the other side does so when Jesus is sailing with him.
What, then, is the boat into which Jesus compelled the disciples to enter, if not, perhaps, the struggle of temptations and crises, into which one is compelled by the Word, and comes as it were against one's will, the Savior desiring the disciples to be exercised in this boat which is buffeted by the waves and the contrary wind? B Since, however, [the text says] "immediately he compelled the disciples to enter the boat and to go before him to the other side," and Mark also wrote it, slightly changing the expression and saying: "And immediately he compelled his disciples to enter the boat and to go before him to the other side to Bethsaida," it is necessary to consider the "compelled," after we have first observed the slight variation of Mark, who indicates something more specific through the addition of the article; for it is not the same thing that is indicated by "he compelled the disciples," as there is something more in the "his disciples" written by Mark, compared to the simple "the disciples." C Perhaps, then, that we may establish this also by the expression, the disciples, being unable to be torn away from Jesus, could not be separated from him even for a moment, wishing to be with him; but he, having judged it necessary for them to receive a trial of waves and a contrary wind—which would not have happened if they were with Jesus—imposed upon them the necessity of being separated from him and entering into a boat. The Savior, therefore, compels his disciples to enter the boat of temptations and to go before him to the other side, and beyond the crises, so that they may become victors over them.
A And if those who have come into the middle of the sea—and who are beset by waves in their trials and by contrary winds forbidding them to go to the other side—are struggling, they are unable without Jesus to overcome the waves and the contrary wind and to reach the other side. Therefore, the Word, having had mercy on them after they had done everything in their power to get to the other side, came to them walking upon the sea, which had no waves nor wind able to oppose him, even if it had wished to. For it is not written that he came to them walking upon the waves, but upon the waters. And Peter said: “Command me to come to you,” not upon the waves, but upon the waters; and when, at the beginning, at Jesus’ saying “Come,” he climbed down from the boat, he walked not upon the waves but upon the waters to come to Jesus. But when he doubted, he saw the wind to be strong—though it was not strong to the one who had put aside little faith and hesitation. And when Jesus had ascended into the boat with Peter, the wind ceased, being able to exercise no further power over it once Jesus had ascended. And then the disciples, having crossed over, came to the land of Gennesaret; if we knew the interpretation of this, we would profit from it for the narrative before us. B Observe, however, since “God is faithful,” who does not suffer the crowds to be tempted beyond what they are able, in what manner the Son of God compelled the disciples to enter the boat, as being stronger and able to reach the middle of the sea and to endure the trial from the waves, until they should become worthy of divine help and see Jesus and hear [him speaking and be able], upon his ascent, to cross over and reach the land of Gennesaret; while the crowds he dismissed, not having undergone trial as being weaker than the boat and the waves and the opposing wind, and he went up onto the mountain privately to pray. But about what should he pray? Perhaps for the crowds, that, having been dismissed after the loaves of the blessing, they might do nothing contrary to the dismissal given by Jesus; and for the disciples, that, having been compelled by him to enter the boat and to go before him to the other side, they might suffer nothing in the sea, neither from the waves tormenting their boat nor from the contrary wind? And with confidence I would say that, by reason of Jesus’ prayer to the Father for the disciples, they suffered nothing, though the sea and the waves and the contrary wind were working against them. C The simpler person, therefore, may be satisfied with the history; but we, if ever we fall into the necessities of temptations, let us be reminded that Jesus has compelled us to enter the boat, wishing us to go before him to the other side. For it is not possible to reach the other side without having endured the temptations of the waves and the contrary wind.
A And when we see the many heavy and harsh matters surrounding us, and struggling with them in moderation we swim through them for a while, we consider that our boat is in the midst of the sea, being at that time tormented by the waves, intending to bring us to shipwreck "concerning the faith" or one of the virtues. But when we see the spirit of the evil one acting against us in our affairs, let us understand that the wind is at that time contrary to us. When, therefore, we have endured these things and have passed through three watches of the night—that is, the darkness in temptations—striving well as far as possible and keeping ourselves from suffering shipwreck "concerning the faith" or one of the virtues, the first watch being the father of darkness and wickedness, and the second his son, who opposes and exalts himself "above every so-called god or object of worship," and the third the spirit opposed B to the Holy Spirit, then let us believe that the fourth watch being present, when "the night is far spent and the day is at hand," the Son of God will come to us, that he may prepare the sea for us, walking upon it. And when we see the Word appearing to us, we shall be troubled before we clearly grasp that the Savior has come to us, still imagining that we see a ghost, and fearing, we shall cry out; but he himself will immediately speak to us, saying: "Take courage, it is I, be not afraid." And moving more warmly by this "Take courage," if there be found among us a Peter, journeying "toward perfection," but not yet having become such, he will descend from the boat, as if becoming outside of that temptation in which he was being tormented; at first he will walk, wishing to come to Jesus upon the waters, but as he is still of little faith and as he is still wavering, he will see the strong wind and will be afraid, and he will begin to sink into the deep, but he will not suffer this, because he calls to Jesus with a loud voice and says to him: "Lord, save me." And then, immediately, while such a Peter is still speaking and saying, "Lord, save me," the Word will stretch forth his hand, offering help to such a one, and he will take hold of him as he begins to sink, and will reproach him for his little faith and his wavering. C But note that he did not say "faithless," but "of little faith," and that it has been said:
«Why did you doubt?» having some part of faith, yet inclining also toward the opposite of it? And upon these things indeed, both Jesus and Peter will go up into the boat, and the wind will cease, and those in the boat, having realized from what kind of dangers they were saved, will worship him, saying, not simply, "You are the Son of God," as the two demoniacs also said, but, "Truly you are the Son of God," which the disciples in the boat say; for I do not think others among the disciples said this. B And when we have been in all these things, having traveled across, we shall come into the land where Jesus commanded us to go before. Perhaps, indeed, some ineffable and hidden mystery is signified regarding some who were saved by Jesus from the time when "the men of that place recognized him," it being clear that it was the place beyond, "sent into all that surrounding region," the surrounding region of the beyond, not in the beyond itself, but around it, "and brought to him all who were ill." In this, note that they brought unto him not only many who were ill, but all those who were in that surrounding region. And those who were brought to him, being ill, were beseeching him that they might touch at least the fringe of his garment, asking this favor from him, since they were not as was the "woman with the issue of blood for twelve years," who "coming from behind" and touching "the fringe of his garment," because "she said within herself: If I only touch his garment, I shall be saved"—for note the conformity C in the things concerning the fringe of his garment, wherefore "immediately the flow of her blood stopped." But those from the surrounding region of the land of Gennesaret, into which Jesus and his disciples came having traveled across, did not come to Jesus of their own accord, but were brought by those who had sent them, in that they were not able, because they were very ill, to come of their own accord, and they did not even touch the fringe alone, as the woman with the issue of blood, but with those others beseeching. Nevertheless, even of these, as many as touched him were saved. But if there is any difference between the "were saved" spoken of these and the "to be saved" [of that woman]—for it was said to the woman with the issue of blood: "Your faith has saved you"—you yourself will also consider this. Then there come to him from Jerusalem Pharisees and scribes, saying,
A "Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread." He who observes the time at which the Pharisees and scribes came from Jerusalem to Jesus, saying, "Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?" and what follows, will know that Matthew has not unnecessarily recorded that the Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem came to the Savior inquiring of him about the matters set forth; rather, he has done so: "Then there come to him from Jerusalem." When, therefore, is this "then"? It must be understood. It was when "crossing over, they came to the land of Gennesaret" in the boat, Jesus and his disciples, the wind having ceased from the time Jesus embarked in the boat, and when "the men of that place, recognizing him, sent into all that region B and brought to him all who were ill, and begged that they might even just touch the fringe of his garment; and as many as touched were saved." At that time there came to him from Jerusalem Pharisees and scribes, not astonished at the power in Jesus which had healed even those who had "just touched the fringe of his garment," but fault-finding, leveling charges against the Teacher, not about the transgression of a commandment of God, but of one tradition of the Jewish elders. And it is likely that this very indictment of the fault-finders demonstrates the piety of the disciples of Jesus, in that they gave no pretext for reproach C as if concerning a transgression of God's commandments to the Pharisees and scribes, who would not have brought the accusation of transgression against the disciples of Jesus, as transgressing the commandment of the elders, if they had been able to seize upon those accused and prove them to be transgressing a commandment of God. But do not suppose these things are intended to establish that the Law according to the letter of Moses ought to be kept, since the disciples of Jesus guarded it up until that time; for it was not until before he suffered that he, who in his passion for men "became a curse for us," D "redeemed us from the curse of the law."
But as Paul, in accordance with his duty, "became to the Jews as a Jew" "that he might win the Jews," what is there to blame if the apostles, while passing their time among Jews—even though they understood the spiritual meaning of the Law—also employed this accommodation, just as Paul did when he circumcised Timothy A and offered a sacrifice according to a certain legal vow, as is written in the Acts of the Apostles? Nevertheless, those men appear to be utterly captious, for they have nothing to blame in the disciples of Jesus concerning the command of God, but only concerning this one tradition of the elders. And their captious nature is most clearly shown by the fact that they bring the charge in the presence of those who had been healed of their infirmities—seemingly against the disciples, but in truth out of a desire to slander the Teacher, seeing that there was a tradition of the elders that washing [the hands] was necessary for piety. B For they thought that the hands of those who had not washed before eating bread were common and unclean, whereas those washed with water had become clean and holy, not symbolically, but analogously to the letter of the Law of Moses. But we, not according to the tradition of the elders of those people, but according to what is reasonable, endeavor to cleanse our own actions and thus to wash the hands of our souls whenever we are about to eat the "three loaves" which we ask of Jesus, who desires to be our friend; for one should not partake of the loaves with "common" and "unwashed" and unclean hands.
9. Jesus, however, does not rebuke them concerning the tradition of the Jewish elders, but concerning two of the most necessary commands C of God, of which one was the fifth of the Decalogue, which reads: "Honor your father and your mother, that it may be well with you, and that you may live long upon the land which the Lord your God gives you"; and the remaining one was written in Leviticus D as follows: "If a man speaks evil of his father or his mother, let him be put to death; he has spoken evil of his father or mother, he shall be guilty." But since we wish to see the very phrasing which Matthew set forth, that "he who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death," observe whether it was perhaps taken from the place where it is written:
A "He who strikes his father or his mother, let him be put to death," and "He who speaks evil of his father or his mother, let him be put to death." Thus, then, stood the words of the Law regarding the two commandments. But Matthew set them forth partially and in shortened form, and not in the very same words. We must observe what the Savior reproaches in the Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem, saying that they transgress the commandment of God for the sake of their own tradition. For God said, "Honor your father and your mother," teaching that the one born of them should render the due honor to his parents. Part of this honor toward parents was the sharing with them of the necessities of life for food and clothing, and whatever else one was able to bestow upon his own parents. The Pharisees and the scribes, however, handed down a tradition contrary to the Law—a tradition lying in greater obscurity within the Gospel, which we ourselves would not have grasped had not one of the Hebrews explained to us how matters stand in that place. B It happens, he says, that creditors, encountering difficult debtors who are able but unwilling to pay their debt, would assign what was owed to the account of the poor—to whom, as everyone who wished to share with them was able, an offering was cast into the treasury. Thus they would sometimes say to those who owed them, in their own native dialect: "Corban is that which you owe me," that is to say, "a gift; for I have dedicated it to the account of piety toward God for the poor." Then the debtor, as though he were no longer owing men, but God and the piety toward Him, was as it were constrained to the point that, even if he did not wish to pay back the debt—no longer to the creditor, but now to God, under the account of the poor, in the name of the creditor—he was bound. Therefore, what the creditor did to the debtor, some of the children would sometimes do to their parents, and would say to them: "Whatever you might have benefited from me, father or mother, know this: you are receiving it from the Corban, from the account of the poor dedicated to God." C Then the parents, hearing that Corban is that which is dedicated to God, would no longer wish to receive what was being given to them by their children, even if they were in desperate need of the necessities of life.
A The elders, therefore, taught such a tradition to those among the people, saying that whoever might say to his father or mother, “That which is given to any of them is Corban, that is, a gift,” this one is no longer a debtor to his father or mother in the giving of things necessary for the life of the body. The Saviour, therefore, rebukes this tradition as not being sound, but rather as opposing the commandment of God. For if God says, “Honour thy father and thy mother,” while the tradition said, “One ought not to honour his father or mother by giving to them, if one has dedicated to God as Corban what would have been given to those who sired him,” it is clear that the commandment of God concerning the honour of parents was being invalidated by the tradition of the Pharisees and scribes, which said that he who has once dedicated to God what his parents might have received ought no longer to honour his father and his mother. And since the Pharisees were indeed lovers of money, intending under the pretext of the poor to receive even those things that would have been given to the parents of any person, they taught such things. And the Gospel indeed testifies to their love of money, saying: “And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things, and they derided him.” B If, therefore, anyone among those who are called elders among us, or whoever the leaders of the people may be, wishes rather by the name of the common good to give to the poor than to the kindred of those who give—if the latter should happen to be in need of the necessities of life, and the givers are unable to do both—such a person might justly be called a brother of those Pharisees who invalidated the word of God because of their own tradition and were rebuked by the Saviour as hypocrites. And it is a very great deterrent, from the account of the poor, to receive anything eagerly and to think “that piety is a means of gain,” and not only these things, but also the things written concerning Judas the traitor, who in appearance interceded on behalf of the poor and, being indignant, said: “This ointment could have been sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor,” C but the truth was that “he was a thief, and having the money-box, he carried what was cast into it.” If, therefore, anyone even now, having the money-box of the Church, speaks indeed, as Judas did, in support of the poor, but carries away what is cast into it, let him place his own share with Judas, who did these things.
because of which, as if it had taken root like gangrene in his soul, the devil cast into his heart A to betray the Savior, and having received the "fiery dart" concerning this later, he himself entered into his soul and filled him. And perhaps when the apostle says: “The love of money is the root of all evils,” he speaks of the love of money of Judas, which is the root of all the evils that were against Jesus.
10. But let us return to the matters proposed, in which the Savior set forth two commandments summarized from the Law: one from the Decalogue in Exodus, and the other from Leviticus or from somewhere else among those in the Pentateuch. B Then, since we have narrated how they annulled the word of God saying: “Honor your father and your mother,” by those who say: “He shall not honor his father or his mother, whoever says to his father or to his mother, ‘It is a gift, whatever you might have been helped by me,’” someone might ask how the passage “He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him die the death” is not rendered superfluous. For suppose he does not honor his father and mother, because he dedicates to what is called Corban the things that would have been given for the honor of father and mother, how, then, does the tradition of the Pharisees annul even the saying: “He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him die the death”? C But perhaps he who says to his father or to his mother, “It is a gift, whatever you might have been helped by me,” brings as it were a reproach upon his father or mother, such as by calling his parents sacrilegious for receiving from the one who dedicated them to him the things laid up for the Corban. The Jews, therefore, punish as those who speak evil of father or mother those who say to their father or their mother, “It is a gift, whatever you might have been helped by me,” according to the Law; but you, by your one tradition, annul two commandments of God. Furthermore, do you not feel shame in accusing my disciples who transgress no commandment—for they “walk in all his commandments and ordinances blamelessly”—but transgress the tradition of the elders out of reverence for not transgressing the commandment of God? D Which, if it were set before you, you would have kept the commandment concerning the honor of father and mother, and the one saying, “He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him die the death,” but you would not have kept the tradition of the elders that is opposed to these commandments.
Volume Eleven
A Having thus wished to refute all the traditions of the elders among the Jews by the prophetic words, he cited a passage from Isaiah which, in its very words, runs as follows: "And the Lord said: This people draws near to me with their mouth," and what follows. And we have already said that Matthew did not transcribe the prophecy in the very same words. But if it is necessary, because the Gospel has made use of it, to explain it as far as possible, we shall take up the aforementioned wording—profitably, I think, and preserved for our exposition—of that which has been taken from the prophet in the Gospel. The passage in Isaiah runs thus from the beginning: "Be stunned and amazed, be reeling, not from strong drink or from wine; for the Lord has made you drink a spirit of deep sleep, and he will seal their eyes, and those of their prophets and their rulers, those who see the hidden things. And all these words shall be to you as the words of a book that is sealed, which if they give to a man who knows letters, saying, 'Read this,' he will say, 'I cannot read, for it is sealed.' And this book shall be given into the hands of a man who does not know letters, and he will say to him, 'Read this,' and he will say, 'I do not know letters.' And the Lord said, 'This people draws near to me,'" and what follows, up to the words, "Woe to those who hide their counsel and whose works will be in the dark."
Having therefore taken up the passage set forth in the Gospel, I have included some of the words before it and some of those that follow it, in order that we might demonstrate in what way the Word threatens to "seal the eyes" of those of the people who have become amazed and reeled and have been made to drink of a "spirit of deep sleep," and he threatens to seal also their prophets and their rulers who profess to see "the hidden things." B These things, I think, have come to pass among that people after the sojourn of the Savior; for all the words of the entirety of the Scriptures, and of Isaiah too, have become to them "as the words of a sealed book." And the word "sealed" is spoken as if it were closed by obscurity and not opened by clarity; which is equally obscure to those who cannot read it at all, because they do not know letters, and to those who profess to know letters, for they do not know the sense hidden in the written words.
B Therefore, He well adds regarding them that when the people have been released from their sins, and being beside themselves, rave against Him—with which they shall also reel against Him by a “spirit of deep sleep,” which they shall be made to drink by the Lord, as He closes their eyes as unworthy of seeing; and [not only the eyes of the people, but] those of their prophets and their rulers who profess to see the hidden mysteries in the divine Scriptures—and when their eyes are closed, then the prophetic words shall be for them sealed and hidden; which is the very thing that has befallen the people who do not believe in Jesus as the Christ. But when the prophetic words become for them “like the words of a sealed book,” not only to those who do not know letters, but even to those who profess to know them, then the Lord said that the people of the Jews draw near to God with “the mouth” C alone; and He says they honor Him with “the lips,” because “their heart” is far from the Lord by reason of their unbelief in Jesus. And now, especially since they denied our Savior, the word of God might be spoken regarding them: “In vain do they worship Me; for they no longer teach the commandments of God, but those of men and doctrines”—no longer those from the wisdom of the Spirit, but human ones. Whence, these things happening to them, God has removed the people of the Jews and destroyed “the wisdom” of those among them who were wise—for there is no longer wisdom among them, as there is no longer prophecy—but the Lord has also buried and hidden somewhere “the understanding of the prudent” among the people, and it is no longer bright and manifest. Therefore, even if they appear to devise a plan D “deeply,” they are to be blamed because they do not devise it through the Lord; and even if they profess certain hidden things of divine counsel, they lie, since their works are not of light [and of day], but of darkness and night. It seemed good to us to set forth succinctly the prophecy and a measure of its clarity, since Matthew made mention of it. Mark also made mention [of it], from whom we shall usefully set forth, regarding the transgression of the elders who thought to wash their hands when the Jews eat bread, how the matters regarding the passage stand:
A “For the Pharisees and all the Jews, if they do not wash their hands with the fist, do not eat, holding the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market, if they do not baptize themselves, they do not eat; and there are many other things which they have received to hold, the baptisms of cups and pots and vessels of bronze and couches.” B And having called the crowd to him, he said to them: “Hear and understand,” and what follows. Clearly, through these words we are taught by the Savior, while reading in Leviticus and in Deuteronomy concerning clean and unclean foods—for which the carnal Jews and the Ebionites, who differ little from them, reproach us as transgressors—not to think that the scope of Scripture is the obvious meaning regarding these things. For if it is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what comes out of the mouth, and most of all because in the Gospel according to Mark, C the Savior said these things “cleansing all foods,” it is clear that we are not defiled by eating what the Jews—wishing to serve the letter of the Law—say are unclean; but rather we are defiled when, our lips having needed to be bound with “perception” and to make for us what we call a “yoke and balance,” we speak of things that occur to us, and contemplate what we ought not, from which the wellspring of sins comes to us. D And it is fitting for the Law of God to forbid things that come from wickedness, and to command things in accordance with virtue, but to leave things indifferent to their own logos in their own place, since they can, through our choice and the reason within us, be done wrongly if one sins, or be done well if one acts dutifully. Whoever understands these things diligently will see that it is possible even for things considered good to be taken wrongly and from passion, and thus one sins; and it is possible for things called unclean to be reckoned clean when they come into our use in accordance with reason.
A For just as the circumcision of the Jew who is sinning will be reckoned as uncircumcision, but the uncircumcision of the man from the Gentiles who acts uprightly will be reckoned as circumcision, so too those things thought to be clean will be reckoned as unclean by one who does not use them as he should, or when he should, or in the amount he should, or from a source he should; and the things called unclean «all» become «clean to the pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is clean, for their mind and conscience are defiled»; and these things which are defiled make everything they touch polluted, just as, conversely, the pure mind and the pure conscience make everything clean, even if it happens to be thought unclean. For the righteous do not use foods or drinks out of licentiousness or out of love of pleasure or with a discernment dragging them towards either side, keeping in mind that «whether you eat or drink, or do anything else, do it for the glory of God.»
If it is necessary to outline the foods that are unclean according to the Gospel, we shall say that such are those procured from greed and gained through sordid gain and taken out of the love of pleasure and for the sake of the belly, which is honored as a god, whenever it and the cravings directed toward it—and not reason—rule our soul. B But also, knowing that someone has used things for demons—or not knowing, but suspecting and being in doubt concerning this—if we should use such things, we have not used them «for the glory of God» nor in the name of Christ, not only because of the assumption concerning their being sacrificed to idols which condemns the one eating, but also because of the doubt concerning this. «For the one who doubts, according to the Apostle, if he eats, is condemned, because it is not of faith; and everything that is not of faith is sin.»
Therefore, he eats «of faith» who has believed that what is being eaten was not sacrificed in idol temples, nor is it strangled or blood; but he is not «of faith» who is in doubt concerning any of these things. And he also becomes a partner «of demons» who knows that they were sacrificed «to demons» and nonetheless uses them with a defiled perception concerning those who shared in the sacrifice to the demons. C And indeed, the Apostle, knowing that the nature of foods is not the cause of harm to the one who uses them or of benefit to the one who abstains, but rather the doctrines and the indwelling principle, said: «But food will not bring us into the presence of God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse.» And since he knew those who understand more nobly, in accordance with the Law, which things are clean and which are unclean, having departed from the distinction concerning the use of things as clean and unclean and from the superstition—I think—in different things, to be indifferent in the use of foods and for this reason to be judged by the Jews as transgressors of the Law, for this reason he said somewhere:
“Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink,” A and the rest, teaching us that things according to the letter are a shadow, but the true meanings of the Law stored away in these are the good things to come, in which it is possible to find what are the pure spiritual foods of the soul and what are the impure, which in lying and contrary words injure the one who is nourished by them; “for the law had a shadow of the good things to come.”
And just as in many things one must observe what was wondered at among the Jews regarding the words of the Savior, that they were spoken with authority, so also in the things mentioned in this passage. Having therefore called the crowd to him, he said to them: “Hear and understand,” and the rest; and he said this while the Pharisees were scandalized at this word, as they were not the plantation of his Father in heaven because of their wicked dogmas and their base interpretation of the Law, and for this reason they were being rooted up; for they were rooted B up, not having received the true vine, Jesus Christ, who is cultivated by the Father. For how could those who were scandalized at the words of Jesus be the plantation of the Father, while they depart from, “Touch not, nor taste, nor handle, which are all to perish with the using, after the commandments and doctrines of men,” and incite their intelligent hearer to seek those things which are above, and “not the things on the earth,” as the Jews do? And since the Pharisees, because of their wicked dogmas, were not the plantation of the Father in heaven, for this reason he says to the disciples concerning them as if they were incurable: “Let them alone.” Let them alone for this reason: because they are blind, and although they ought to perceive their blindness and seek guides, they, insensitive to their own blindness, even claim to lead the blind, not realizing that they will fall into a ditch, regarding which it is written in the Psalms: C “He hath dug a pit and hollowed it out, and he shall fall into the ditch which he hath wrought.” Elsewhere, indeed, it is written that “seeing the multitudes, he went up into the mountain; and when he was set, his disciples came unto him,” but here he stretches out a hand to the crowd, having called it to him and causing it to depart from the literal interpretation of questions concerning the Law, when he first of all said to them: D
"Hear and understand," for they did not yet understand what they were hearing, but he continued to speak to them in parables: "Not that which enters into the mouth defiles the man, but that which goes out." A After this, it is worth examining a phrase slandered by those who claim that the God of the Law and the God of the Gospel of Jesus Christ are not the same; these people say that the heavenly Father of Jesus Christ is not the farmer of those who imagine that they are piously worshipping God according to the Law of Moses. Jesus himself declared the Pharisees, who were worshipping the God who created the world and the Law, to be a "plant which my heavenly Father has not planted," and that for this reason it must be rooted up. B Indeed, they might also say this: that if the Father of Jesus were he who "brought in" and planted the people who came out of Egypt "into the mountain of his inheritance," "into a prepared dwelling place" of his own, Jesus would not have said of the Pharisees that "every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted shall be rooted up."
To these things, however, we shall say that as many as, by reason of their wicked interpretation of the things pertaining to the Law, were not a plant of the Father in the heavens, these had been blinded in "their thoughts," as "not believing the truth but taking pleasure in unrighteousness," by him who has been made a god by the sons of this age, and for this reason is called by Paul the god "of this age." And do not think that Paul says he is truly a god for us; for just as the belly, not being a god, is said by Paul to be the "god" of those who greatly honor pleasure and are lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, so also the ruler of this age, not being a god—concerning whom the Savior says, "Now the ruler of this world has been judged"—is said to be the god of those who have not wished to receive the "spirit of adoption," so that they might become sons of that age and "of the resurrection from the dead," and who for this reason have remained in the sonship of this age. C These things, it seemed to me, even if they were said by way of digression, were necessarily included because of the saying, "They are blind guides of the blind." Who, then, are these? The Pharisees, whose "thoughts" the god of this age has blinded, being "unbelievers," since they had not believed in Jesus Christ, and he blinded them "so that the illumination of the Gospel of the glory of God in the face of Christ might not shine upon them." And we must take heed not only to be guided by those blind men who perceive that they are in need of guides—from whom indeed one has not received the power of seeing—but even more than all else we must listen with great diligence and care to those who profess to be guides in sound doctrine, and apply healthy judgment to what is said, lest, having been led along according to the ignorance of the blind, and those who do not see the things of sound doctrine, we ourselves turn out to be blind in that we do not see the mind of the Scriptures, as...
A both the leader and the led fall into the pit of which we spoke before. Following this, it is written how Peter, answering, said to the Savior, not having understood the [saying], "Not that which enters into the mouth defiles the man, but that which proceeds out of the mouth," [and asked him] "to explain the parable to us." To which the Savior says, "Are you also still without understanding?" as if to say: being with me for so much time, do you still not understand the intention of what is said, and do you still not perceive that for this reason [it] does not defile the man, since that which enters into his mouth goes into the stomach, and passing on from there is cast out into the draught? It was not because of the Law, in which they seemed to believe, that the Pharisees were not a plant of the Father of Jesus, but because of their wretched interpretation of the Law and of what was written therein. B For since two things are understood in the Law—the ministry of "death," which is engraved in "letters" and has nothing akin to the spirit, and the ministry of life, which is understood in the spiritual Law—those who are able, from a truthful disposition, to say the words, "For we know that the Law is spiritual," and because of this, "the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy, and just, and good," these were the plant which the heavenly Father planted. But those who were not such, and only concerned themselves with the "letter" which kills, were not a plant of God, but of him who had hardened their hearts and placed a veil upon them, which remained valid in those who did not turn to the Lord;
A «for if one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed; and the Lord is the Spirit.» One might say, having arrived at this passage, that just as that which enters into the mouth does not defile a man—even if it is thought by the Jews to be defiling—so too that which enters into the mouth does not sanctify a man, even if it is thought by the simpler folk that what is called the bread of the Lord does sanctify. And the argument, I believe, is not to be slighted, and for this reason it requires a clear exposition, which seems to me to be thus: Just as it is not the food, but the conscience of the one eating with discernment that defiles the eater—for «he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because it is not of faith»—and just as nothing is clean in itself to the defiled and unbeliever, but is rather such because of his defilement and unbelief, so too that which is sanctified «by the word of God and prayer» does not sanctify the user by its own word. For if this were the case, it would also sanctify the one eating «unworthily» of the Lord, and no one would become weak or sick or asleep because of this food; for Paul indicated something of this sort in the words: «For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and many sleep.» B And so, in the case of the Lord's bread, the benefit is for the one who partakes of it, when he partakes of the bread with an undefiled mind and a pure conscience. Thus, neither «do we lack» any good by not eating—in and of itself, not eating from the bread which has been sanctified by the word of God and prayer—nor do we «abound» in any good by eating. For the cause of deficiency is wickedness and sins, and the cause of abundance is righteousness and virtuous deeds; so that the statement made by Paul, «neither if we eat do we abound, nor if we do not eat do we lack,» is of this nature. But if everything that enters the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, then the food which is sanctified «by the word of God and prayer,» as regards its material aspect, also goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught. But according to the prayer that comes upon it «according to the proportion of faith,» it becomes beneficial and is the cause of the discernment of the mind which perceives that which is beneficial; and it is not the matter of the bread, but the word spoken over it, that benefits the one who does not eat it «unworthily» of the Lord. And these things hold for the typical and symbolic body. C In like manner, the Word of God became flesh, both flesh and blood, for our salvation, and as our Savior had in the same way, by the prayer of His own given Eucharist, the food, from which flesh and blood by transformation nourish us, so he who has been incarnate, Jesus, was taught to be flesh and blood. D
A Much could be said also concerning the Word Himself, who became "flesh" and "true food," which he who eats shall certainly "live unto eternity," for no wicked man can eat it. For if it were possible that one still remaining wicked could eat the Word having become flesh, who is also the living bread, it would not have been written that "everyone who eats this bread shall live unto eternity."
Next to this, let us see how the things that go forth and defile a person do not defile a person because they go forth from the mouth, but rather the cause of the defilement has its origin in the heart; for when they go out from it, before those things that go forth through the mouth, there exist wicked thoughts, the species of which are murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies. For these are the things that defile a person when they go out from the heart, and having gone out from it, they pass through the mouth. B If they were not to occur outside of the heart, but were held back somewhere around the heart, not being permitted to be spoken through the mouth, they would very quickly vanish and a person would no longer be defiled. Therefore, the source and beginning of all sin are wicked thoughts; for if these do not prevail, there will be no murders, nor adulteries, nor anything else of that kind. For this reason, with all vigilance, each one must guard his own heart; for indeed, in the day of judgment, when "the Lord" comes, "he will bring to light the hidden things of darkness and will make manifest the counsels C of the hearts," when "among" all "the thoughts" of men "accusing or even excusing," their own deliberations encompass them. And such are the wicked thoughts, that sometimes they make even those things that seem good, and, as far as the judgment of the many is concerned, praiseworthy, to become blameworthy. Therefore, if we perform "alms" "before men," yet in our thoughts we have as our aim "to be seen" by men as philanthropists and to be glorified for our philanthropy, we have received "the reward" from men. And simply put, everything that is done with the intent in the one who performs it to be glorified "by men" does not have the goal offered by Him who sees "in secret" and who gives the reward to those who are pure in secret.
B Thus, therefore, even that which appears to be purity, if it harbors thoughts of vainglory or of greed, and that which is considered ecclesiastical teaching, if it becomes illiberality through flattering speech or under the pretext of avarice or because someone seeks the glory that comes from men for their teaching, is not accounted as such by those set by God "in the church," first apostles, second prophets, and third teachers. You will say the same thing also regarding someone who aspires to "the episcopate" for the sake of glory before men, or flattery from men, or gain from those who approach the Word, offering it under the pretext of piety. For such a bishop does not "desire a good work," nor can he be irreproachable, nor sober, nor temperate, being drunk on glory and insatiably indulging in it. The same you will say also regarding presbyters and deacons. But see if these things, even if we appear to some to have spoken them in a digression, have not been spoken necessarily, because wicked thoughts are the source of all sins, capable of defiling even the things which, if they were done without them, would have justified the one who did them.
What, therefore, are the things which defile has been examined by us according to our ability. And to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man; but, if one must be bold enough to say it, it is to eat anything with an unwashed heart that defiles, which is what our faculty of reason is naturally inclined to consume.
"And Jesus went out from thence and withdrew into the parts of Tyre and Sidon, and behold, a Canaanitish woman..." From where "from thence"? Either from the land of Gennesaret, about which it was said before: "And having crossed over they came to the land of Gennesaret"? He withdrew perhaps because the Pharisees were scandalized, having heard that "it is not what enters in, but what proceeds out that defiles the man." That, however, He withdrew on account of those suspected of plotting, whenever it occurred, is clear from the passage: "And having heard that John was delivered up, He withdrew into Galilee." Perhaps for this reason Mark also, in recording the matters concerning the place, says that "He arose and went into the borders of Tyre. And having entered into the house, He would have no man know it;" and [it is] likely that He was avoiding the Pharisees who had been scandalized by His teaching, waiting for the time that was more suitable for suffering and well-defined. One might say that Tyre and Sidon are mentioned in place of the nations; having withdrawn, therefore, from Israel, He arrives at the parts of the nations. C D
A Tyre, indeed, when named among the Hebrews, is translated as *Sor*, which is interpreted as "distress." Sidon, when similarly named among the Hebrews, is translated as "those who hunt." Now among the nations, these "hunters" are the evil powers, and there is much distress among them, consisting in wickedness and the passions.
Having, therefore, departed from Gennesaret, Jesus withdrew from Israel, but He came not into Tyre and Sidon themselves, but into the parts of Tyre and Sidon; for the fact that those from the nations believe now only in part is as if, had He dwelt in all of Tyre and Sidon, no unbeliever would have been left in them. According to Mark, «rising up, Jesus came to the borders of Tyre,» the distress of the nations, so that even from those borders those who believe might be able to be saved, when they have gone out from them. B For pay attention to the «and behold, a Canaanite woman came out from those borders and cried out, saying: Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely tormented by a demon.» And I think that she would not have been able, being still within those borders, to cry out to Jesus from such great faith, as she was attested to have.
And «according to the measure of faith,» one comes out from the borders that are among the nations, which «when the Most High divided the nations, He set according to the number of the sons of Israel,» and restrained their greater momentum. C Here, then, certain borders of Tyre and Sidon are spoken of, but in Exodus, we read of the borders of Pharaoh, in which, they say, the plagues against the Egyptians occur. And we must think that each one of us, when sinning, is in the borders of Tyre or Sidon or Pharaoh and of Egypt, or of some place outside the inheritance of God; but when one turns from wickedness to virtue, one departs from the borders associated with evil things, and arrives at the borders of the portion of God; and there is a difference even in these, which will appear to those who are able to establish the things of the partition and the inheritance of Israel in proportion to the spiritual law. D Pay attention also to the meeting, as it were, that occurred between Jesus and the Canaanite woman; for He comes as if to the parts of Tyre and Sidon, while she, having gone out from those borders, cries out, saying: «Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David.» Now the woman was a Canaanite, which is translated as "prepared for humiliation."
The righteous are prepared for the kingdom of the heavens and for the exaltation that is within the kingdom of God; but the wicked are prepared for the humiliation of the wickedness within them, [both] those who prepare themselves for it and the sin that reigns "in their mortal body." Nevertheless, the Canaanite, having gone out from those borders, was departing from being prepared for humiliation, crying out and saying: "Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David."
Gather from the Gospels which persons call Him "Son of David," as this woman and the blind men in Jericho do, and which ones call Him "Son of God"—some without the addition of "truly," as the demoniacs saying: "What have we to do with You, Son of God?"—and others with the addition of "truly," as those in the boat who worshiped Him, saying: "Truly You are the Son of God." For I believe that the gathering of these instances will be useful to you for observing the difference between those who approach Him: which ones approach Him, as it were, as having come "from the seed of David according to the flesh," and which ones [approach Him] as having been "declared Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness," and among these, which [approach] with the "truly" and which without it.
Then note that the Canaanite is not beseeching Him on behalf of a son (whom she does not appear to have even begun to bear), but on behalf of a daughter severely possessed by a demon; [while] another mother receives back a son alive who was being carried out dead. And again, the ruler of the synagogue petitions on behalf of his twelve-year-old daughter as though she were dead, [while] the nobleman [petitions] on behalf of his son as still sick and about to die. Therefore, a demon-possessed daughter and a dead son were the cases of two mothers, and a dead daughter and a son sick unto death were those of two fathers, of whom one was the ruler of the synagogue and the other was the nobleman. I am persuaded that these things have meanings regarding the varieties of souls which Jesus, by giving life, heals. And all the things He heals among the people, especially those recorded by the evangelists, indeed occurred at that time so that those who would not believe otherwise, unless they saw "signs and wonders," might believe; but those events were symbols of the things being accomplished at all times by the power of Jesus. For there is never a time when each of the things written does not take place by the power of Jesus according to the merit of each individual.
C For the sake of her stock, the Canaanite woman was not worthy of receiving an answer from Jesus, who confessed that he was sent by the Father for no other purpose than for the lost sheep of the house of Israel, a stock of insightful souls that had gone astray. But because of her resolve and because she had worshipped Jesus as the Son of God, she obtains an answer, which rebukes her ignoble birth and sets forth her worthiness, [showing] that she was worthy of crumbs, like a dog, and not of bread. D Yet, as she intensifies her resolve and, having accepted Jesus’ word, lays claim to receiving at least crumbs, even as a dog, and confesses those more noble as lords, then she obtains a second answer testifying that her faith is great and promising that what she desires will be hers.
I think we must understand the Canaanite woman, the mother of her who was dreadfully vexed by a demon, as a symbol of the mother of such a soul, in a manner corresponding to that “Jerusalem above,” the free, the mother of Paul and those akin to him. And consider whether it is not logical that there should be many fathers and many mothers, corresponding to the fathers of Abraham, to whom the patriarch went, and to Jerusalem the mother, as Paul says concerning himself and those like him. It is likely that this [soul], of whom the Canaanite is a symbol, having come forth from the borders of Tyre and Sidon—of which those earthly places were types—and having approached the Savior, has deemed him worthy, and still deems him worthy even now, saying: “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely demon-possessed.” Then he who answers both those on the outside and the disciples, when it is necessary, said that he was not sent, teaching that there are certain primary souls, rational and insightful, that have gone astray—metaphorically called the sheep of the house of Israel—which I think those who are simpler, supposing the text to have been spoken concerning the “Israel according to the flesh,” will necessarily admit that our Savior was sent by the Father to no others than those lost Jews. But we, who pray to speak from the truth: “Even if we once knew Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him no longer,” know that the primary work of the Word is to save those with greater understanding; for these are more akin to him than those who are duller.
B But since the lost sheep of the house of Israel, apart from the “remnant according to the election of grace,” were disobedient to the Word, for this reason “God chose the foolish things of the world,” the non-Israel, and those not endowed with discernment, “that he might put to shame the wise” of Israel, and he called “the things that are not” a prudent nation, having delivered to them what they were able to contain, “the foolishness of the preaching,” and having been pleased to “save” those who “believe” in this, that he might refute “the things that are,” having prepared for himself “praise from the mouth of infants and nursing babes,” since it had become hostile to the truth. C The Canaanite woman, having come, was worshipping Jesus as God, saying: “Lord, help me.” And he, in response, said: “It is not right to take the bread of the children and cast it to the little dogs.” One might seek the intention of this saying, since, given that the measure of the bread was such that it was impossible for the children to eat bread at the same time as the household puppies, either because of the quality of the well-wrought bread—inasmuch as it is not possible, according to sound reason, for the well-wrought bread of the children to be given as food to little dogs—no such thing is apparent in the power of Jesus, from which it was possible for both the children and the so-called little dogs to partake. D See, then, whether perhaps, in response to “It is not right to take the bread of the children,” it must be said that he who emptied himself to take on the “form of a servant” brought along a measure of power, according to which the things in the world were contained—from which power he also perceived a certain quantity going out from him, as is clear from “Someone touched me; for I perceived power going out from me.” From this measure of power, therefore, he apportioned, giving more to those who were primary and called sons, and less to those who were not such, as to the little dogs. But even if these things were done so, nonetheless, where there was great faith, he gave the bread of the children as to a child to her who, because of her birth in Canaan, was a little dog. Perhaps there are also certain breads of the words of Jesus which it is right to give only to the more rational ones, as to children, and other words that are, as it were, crumbs from the great hearth and table of the more noble and the masters, which certain souls might use as dogs. And according to the law of Moses, it is also written concerning certain things “to the dog” to cast them, and it concerned the Holy Spirit to give instructions concerning certain foods, so that they might be left for the dogs.
B Let others, who are strangers to the ecclesiastical word, suppose that souls pass over from human bodies into canine bodies according to the degree of their wickedness. We, however, finding this in no way in the divine Scripture, say that a more rational state changes into a more irrational one, suffering such a thing because of great laxity and neglect. Likewise, a more irrational volition, because of having neglected the Word, sometimes turns back to being rational, just as the former little dog, who loved to eat from the crumbs falling from its masters’ table, comes into the state of a child. For virtue contributes greatly toward making one a child of God, while vice, and what is rabid in insulting words, and what is shameless, contribute toward making someone—according to the word of Scripture—a dog. You will understand the same thing also regarding the rest of the names applied to irrational animals. C But he who has been reproved as a dog and has not been indignant at being unworthy to be called a child of the bread, and who with all longsuffering has spoken that word of the Canaanite woman who said: “Yes, Lord; for even the little dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table,” shall obtain the gentlest answer from Jesus, who says to him: “Great is your faith,” when he has taken up such faith, and who says: “Let it be done to you as you wish,” so that he himself may be healed, and if he has produced any fruit in need of healing, this also may be cured. And Jesus departing from there—it is clear from what was said before that he came from the parts of Tyre and Sidon by the sea of Galilee, which is the lake commonly called Gennesaret—again went up into the mountain, where, having ascended, he sat down. D It is possible, therefore, to say that it is not only those who are healthy who ascend into this mountain where Jesus sits, but that those who have suffered various afflictions also ascend along with the healthy. And perhaps this mountain, where Jesus sits after having ascended, is what is more commonly called the Church, lifted up because of the word of God above the rest of the earth and those upon it;
A where not only the disciples approach, having left the crowds behind as in the case of the Beatitudes, but many crowds who themselves are not accused of being deaf or suffering from anything, but who bring such people with them. For it is possible to see among the crowds coming up to this mountain, where the Son of God is sitting, some who are deaf to the things being promised, others who are blind in soul and do not see "the true light," others who are lame and unable to walk according to the Word, and others who are maimed and unable to labor according to the Word. These people, then, who suffer such things in their souls, having ascended the mountain with the crowds where Jesus was—insofar as they are outside the feet of Jesus, they are not healed by Him; but when, suffering from such afflictions, they are cast by the crowds at his feet—that is, at the extremities of the body of Christ, though they are unworthy of these things so far as they themselves are concerned—then they are healed by Him. And when you see in the gathering of what is more commonly called the Church those cast down among her last ones, as if also by the feet of the body of Jesus—that is, the Church—namely, catechumens who have approached with their own deafness, blindness, lameness, and maimedness, and who in time are being healed according to the Word, you would not be wrong to say that such people have ascended with the crowds of the Church onto the mountain where Jesus was, have been cast at his feet, and have been healed, so that the crowd of the Church marvels, seeing changes for the better from such great evils, so that they might say: "Those who were formerly deaf later speak the word of God, and the lame walk," with the prophecy of Isaiah being fulfilled not only in bodily but also in spiritual matters, when he says:
«Then the lame shall leap as a hart, and the tongue of the stammerers shall be clear.» A And there, if the expression «the lame shall leap as a hart» has not been spoken by lot, we shall say that it is not in vain that those who were formerly lame, and who leap like a hart because of Jesus, are compared to a hart—a clean animal, an enemy of snakes, and one capable of suffering no harm from their venom. And that prophecy which says «the tongue of the stammerers shall be clear» is also fulfilled, in the sense that the [spiritually] deaf are seen speaking, or rather that which says «Hear, O deaf.» And the blind also see, in accordance with the prophecy that says, following «Hear, O deaf,» «and [you] blind, look up to see.» Now the blind see when, looking at the world, they contemplate its Creator «from the greatness of the beauty of the created things» accordingly; and when they «clearly see»—that is, diligently and plainly behold and understand—«his invisible things [of God] from the creation of the world, being understood by the things that are made.» Seeing these things, the crowds B glorified the God of Israel, and they glorify Him, being persuaded that the same God is the Father of Him who healed those aforementioned, and the God of Israel; for He is not «the God of the Jews alone,» but «also of the Gentiles.» Let us therefore bring up with ourselves onto the mountain where Jesus is seated His Church, those who wish to ascend it with us—the deaf, the blind, the lame, the maimed, and many others—and let us cast them at the feet of Jesus, so that He may heal them, so that the crowds may marvel at the healing of these. For the disciples are not recorded as marveling at such things, even though they were present with Jesus at that time, as is clear from «and Jesus having called His disciples to Him, said: I have compassion on the crowd,» and what follows. Perhaps, if you pay close attention to the fact that «great crowds came to Him,» you might find that the disciples did not come to Him at that time, but having begun to follow Him long ago, they followed Him even up to the mountain. But those [who were] less than the disciples, and who were then coming to Him for the first time, came to Him, [who] did not experience things similar to those who had ascended with Him.
Observe also in the Gospel who are recorded as having followed Jesus, who as having come to Him, who as having been led to Him, and who as having been divided into those going before and those following, and of those who came, which ones came to Him in the house and which ones elsewhere. For you would find many things from this observation, comparing "spiritual things to spiritual," worthy of the precise wisdom in the Gospels.
Concerning the seven loaves.
19. "Jesus then calling His disciples to Him said." Above, in the history concerning the loaves that is similar to this one, before the loaves, "going out [Jesus] saw a great crowd, and was moved with compassion for it and healed their sick. And when evening had come, the disciples came to Him saying: The place is desert and the hour has already passed; send them away," and the rest; but now, after the healing of the deaf and the rest, He is moved with compassion for the crowd that has already been waiting for Him for three days and has nothing to eat. And there, the disciples petition [Him] concerning the five thousand, but here, He speaks of those of the four thousand of His own accord. And those [people] are fed in the evening, having spent a day with Him, but these, having been testified to that they remained with Him for three days, partake of the loaves, so that they might not faint on the way. And there, the disciples say they have "five loaves and two fish" only, [at a time when He had] not asked, but here, [they answer] Him who had asked concerning seven loaves and a few small fish. And there, He commands "the crowds to recline," not to lie down, "upon the grass"; for Luke also wrote "make them recline," and Mark says He "ordered them all to recline," but here, He does not command, but gives instructions to the crowd to lie down. Again, there, in the very same words, the three evangelists say that "taking the five loaves and the two fish, looking up to heaven, He blessed," but here, as Matthew and Mark have written, Jesus having given thanks, He broke [them]. And there they recline "on the grass," but here they lie down on the ground. And you shall inquire, regarding [these] places, into that which is changed in John, who, concerning that event, wrote that Jesus said:
B "Make the people lie down," and that "having given thanks, he distributed" to those reclining some of the loaves; but of this [the second account] he did not even mention the beginning. Observing, therefore, the difference in the accounts concerning the loaves in these places, I think that these people are of a different order from the others; for this reason, these [latter] are fed on a mountain, while the former were in a desert place, and these remained with Jesus for three days, while the former remained only one, being fed in the evening.
Furthermore, if it is not the same thing for Jesus to act entirely of his own accord as to act having heard from the disciples, see whether those who were benefited by Jesus do not differ, seeing that he [in the second instance] fed them immediately upon the move to benefit them. But if, according to John, the loaves were of barley, from which the twelve baskets "abounded," and nothing of the sort is said regarding these [latter loaves], how are these not better than the former? And whereas in the case of the former "he healed the sick," C here he heals not the sick among the crowds, but the blind, the lame, the deaf, and the maimed; hence, the four thousand wonder at these things, while regarding the sick nothing of the sort is recorded.
They are better, I think, those who ate of the seven loaves for which thanks were given, than those who ate of the five which were blessed, and those who ate of the few small fishes [are better] than those who ate of the two; perhaps also those who lay down upon the earth are superior to those who reclined "on the grass." And whereas those [former ones] left "twelve baskets" from fewer loaves, these [latter ones] left seven large hampers from more, because they were more capable of containing greater things. And perhaps these latter ones overcome all earthly things and recline upon them, while those "on the grass" [recline] only upon their own flesh; for "all flesh is grass."
Observe also, after these things, that Jesus does not wish to send these away fasting, lest they faint as being void of the loaves of Jesus, and while still on the road to their homes, come to harm. Note also whether it is recorded anywhere that Jesus had "sent away," so that you may see the difference D between those sent away after being fed by him and those sent away otherwise; an example of one sent away otherwise is, "Woman, you are released from your infirmity." In addition to these things, the disciples, who are always with Jesus, are not sent away from him, but the crowds, having eaten, are sent away. Just as, again, the disciples, thinking nothing great regarding the Canaanite woman, say: "Send her away, for she is crying out behind us," but the Savior does not appear to send her away at all; for having said to her, "O woman, great is your faith; let it be done for you as you desire," he healed her daughter "from that very hour," yet it is not written that he sent her away. So much have we been able to examine and see regarding the scripture set forth at the present time.
of those who were dismissed after having been fed, and of those who were dismissed in another way. An example of one dismissed in another way is that: “Woman, be it done to you for your infirmity.” Furthermore, the disciples are always with Jesus, and he does not dismiss them; but the crowds, having been fed, are dismissed. And as the disciples feel nothing great about the Canaanite, they say: “Dismiss her, for she cries out behind us”; and the Savior does not seem to dismiss her at all, for having said to her: “Woman, great is your faith; be it done to you as you wish,” he healed her daughter from that hour, yet it is not written that he dismissed her. These things, then, we have been able to investigate and discern regarding the passage lying before us. A
BOOK TWELVE
On those who asked for a sign from heaven to be shown to them.
A “And the Sadducees and Pharisees came up, and testing him, asked him to show them a sign from heaven.” Those who disagree with each other concerning the most necessary doctrines, the Sadducees and the Pharisees—for the Pharisees advocate the resurrection of the dead, hoping that there is some future age, while the Sadducees know of nothing awaiting man after this life, whether he has progressed in virtue or has not even attempted to depart from the bounds of wickedness—these men, in order to test Jesus, are of one mind. A similar thing occurred among them, as Luke recorded, regarding Herod and Pilate, who became friends with each other so that they might kill Jesus; for perhaps the struggle they had with one another would have caused Herod, out of favor to the people shouting “Crucify, crucify him,” not to demand that he be put to death, and would have caused Pilate, having some inclination toward releasing Jesus, not to have condemned him, had the hostility toward Herod not been added to the inclination that already existed toward releasing Jesus.
A Indeed, it is possible for someone, perhaps even on account of a recent friendship, to be inclined to do something for Herod and for the whole Jewish people. But it is common even now to see in life that those who hold most divergent doctrines, whether in the philosophy of the Greeks or in other discourses, appear to be of one mind in mocking and opposing the disciples of Jesus. From these things, I believe, it is possible for the discourse to proceed to observe whether, perhaps, the state of opposing powers—as Pharaoh is to Nebuchadnezzar B and Tirhakah, King of the Ethiopians, is to Sennacherib, King of the Assyrians—might not happen in opposition to Jesus and his people. Thus, perhaps, "the kings of the earth have stood up, and the rulers have been gathered together against the same," though they were in no way previously in accord, having plans against the Lord and his Christ, to destroy the Lord of glory.
2. Moreover, we have reached this point in the discourse because of the Pharisees and Sadducees who came to Jesus together—those who disagree among themselves regarding the resurrection—and who, in a sense, concurred in order to tempt our Savior and to ask him to "show them a sign from heaven." C For not content with the portents in the healings of every disease and every infirmity among the people, and with the other wonders which our Savior had done in the knowledge of many, they wished him to show them a sign from heaven. And I surmise that they suspected the signs on earth could also possibly not be from God (for they did not hesitate to say that "by Beelzebub, the prince of the demons, Jesus casts out the demons"); but it seemed to them that a sign from heaven could not be brought about by Beelzebub or any other evil power. Yet they erred regarding both, the signs on earth and the signs from heaven, not being approved money-changers, nor knowing how to discern the working spirits, which are from God and which are far removed from him.
A And it was fitting for them to know that even the many wonders in Egypt during the time of Moses were clearly not from God, even if they did not come from heaven; and the fire that fell from heaven upon the flocks of Job was not from God. For the same fire—both that which they had, and that which carried off the captives, and that which formed the three divisions of horsemen—was against the flocks of Job. I think, moreover, that even in Isaiah, as signs can be shown to be from the earth and from heaven, they are indeed from God: "In all power, and in signs, and in lying wonders," from the evil one, it is said to Ahaz: "Ask for yourself a sign from the Lord your God, into the deep, or into the height." For if there were no signs, B or if there were not signs from the Lord God in the deep or in the height, it would not have been said, "Ask yourself a sign from the Lord your God, into the deep, or into the height." But turn your attention to what was said by the Apostle concerning the "man of sin," the "son of perdition," that "with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and all deceit of unrighteousness in them that perish" he shall appear, imitating all the wonders of the truth. And just as the sorcerers and magicians of the Egyptians, being inferior to the "man of sin" and the "son of perdition," imitated certain powers, signs, and wonders of the truth, performing those of falsehood so that the true things might not be believed, so I think the man of sin will imitate the signs and the powers. Perhaps, suspecting these things because of the prophecies concerning him, "the Pharisees" [—and I ask whether the "Sadducees" as well—] "testing him, asked him to show them a sign from heaven." But if we should not say that they suspected this, what shall we say they experienced regarding the wonders performed by Jesus, while remaining unyielding and unpersuaded by the miracles that occurred? C If anyone might assume that we are providing excuses for the Pharisees and Sadducees, where they say that the demons were cast out by Jesus in Beelzebub, whereas where they ask Jesus for a sign from heaven: let him know that we say they were moved by a certain likelihood to be among those who did not believe in the miracles of Jesus; yet they are not worthy of pardon for this, since they could by no means fulfill the things that the evil power could perform.
A Furthermore, the teaching that calls one to the love of the Creator, in harmony with the Law and the Prophets, and which restrains the passions and shapes morals according to piety, what else did it show to those able to see, but that he who was accomplishing such things was "truly the Son of God"? Regarding which he also said to the disciples of John: "Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight," and what follows.
3. After these things, let us observe in what manner, being asked for a sign, so that he might show one "from heaven" to the Pharisees and Sadducees who had asked, he answers and says, B "An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, and no sign will be given to it, except the sign of the prophet Jonah." That sign of Jonah, according to their request, was not merely a sign, but also a sign "from heaven," C so that to those who tempt him and ask for a sign from heaven, he nonetheless gave a sign according to his exceeding goodness. For just as Jonah spent three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, and then rose from it, whence we say the sign of the resurrection of Jesus occurred, so also the Son of man was in the heart of the earth, and after that rose from it; D and for this reason he appears to me to be joining the sign for himself to the word concerning the sign of Jonah, saying that he is not giving a sign merely similar to that one, but that very sign itself: for observe this: "And no sign will be given to it but the sign of the prophet Jonah." For that is not the only thing, but that which has the explanatory power of this. For the resolution of the sign, since it has an obscurity in itself, has both the Savior having spent three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. But at the same time we learn something general, that if a sign signifies anything, each of the things written, whether as a historical event or as a precept, signifies something else to be fulfilled later, as the sign of Jonah coming out after three days and three nights from the belly of the sea monster—which is the sign of the resurrection of our Savior after three days and three nights — and the circumcision mentioned...
by Paul is a sign, expressed in the words: "For we are the circumcision." A Seek also for yourself what sign in the ancient writings is a type of something in the New Testament; and what sign described in the New Testament is indicative of something either in the age to come, or in generations subsequent to the occurrence of that sign.
4. B He called them an evil generation because of the quality that they had contracted from evil; for evil is voluntary wickedness. But he called it an adulterous generation because the Pharisees and the Sadducees, having abandoned the Truth (who is the man figuratively spoken of by the law), have committed adultery with falsehood and the law of sin. For there are two laws: that which wars in our members against the law of the mind, and the law of the mind—that is to say, the spiritual man, who is wedded to God. For the soul is wedded to the law as a husband, according to what is written: C "And the soul under the law is joined to the living husband, who is the law," and what follows. Observe then in these things that the law is lord over man so long as the law lives, and the soul under the law is bound to the living husband, who is the law. But if the husband dies, the law is rendered ineffective, that is, the man. He dies to the law, having ascended to blessedness, and no longer living under the law; but it is Christ who acts, and who has been made under the law for those under the law, that he might gain those who are under the law. Thus, he neither remained under the law, nor did he leave those under the law whom he had liberated; but he led them with himself into the divine life, which is above the law, D and which brings remission of sins to those who are less perfect and still liable to sins — for the sinless one, who is no longer in need of legal sacrifices, has transcended them — and perhaps he made the spiritual man perfect who, as regards those living in the flesh, had become flesh, but who to those who are no longer fighting according to the flesh, is revealed to be as he was, the Word before God, and he reveals the Father. Three things, therefore, are to be considered in this place: a wife under a husband according to the law, a wife commiting adultery, and the soul of the one whose husband is the Word.
A For the woman subject to a husband, she is bound to the living husband by law; but if the husband dies, she is discharged from the law. Yet the law dies for the one who has ascended to blessedness and no longer lives under the law, but acts as Christ acts, who, although he became "under the law" for the sake of those under the law, "that he might gain those who are under the law," remained neither under the law nor left those whom he had set free under the law. For he brought them up along with himself to the divine life that is above the law, which includes—with regard to those who are less perfect and still sinning—sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins. Therefore, he who is without sin and no longer in need of legal sacrifices has perhaps even surpassed the spiritual law, having become perfected, and has come to be in the Word that is above it, who, to those living in the flesh, had become "flesh," but to those who are in no way still warring "according to the flesh," he is seen as he was "in the beginning with God," being God the Word, and he reveals the Father. B Indeed, every opposing power that prevails over the human soul and is mingled with it is an adulterer of it; for he who has the Word given to him by God as husband, if he goes away to another, is an adulteress. After this it is written that "having left them," how then was the Word, who is the husband, not to leave the adulterous generation and go away from it? And if someone says that the God-Word has gone away from the synagogue of the Jews, as if from an adulteress, and has taken to himself a wife of whoredom—those who are from the Gentiles—since they were harlots, inasmuch as they were C as those who were harlots, but they—as they were the faithful city (2), having become harlots, who received the spies of Jesus—were saved in their entirety, being no longer harlots after this, but (3) having come to the feet of Jesus, D and to the sister of Lazarus, and having anointed the dead one with ointments [alt-version omitted]
A in tears of repentance, and anointing them with the fragrance of the ointments of a holy life, for which He said to Simon the leper (the previous people) the things that are written, chiding him.
Of the Leaven of the Pharisees
• And when His disciples had come across to the other side, they forgot to take bread. Since the loaves which they had before passing over were no longer useful, and the disciples who had passed over needed other loaves, and others still were needed before they had crossed, and others after they had crossed—on this account, being careless about taking the loaves for crossing over, they forgot to take them with them. But the disciples of Jesus, who have passed from bodily to spiritual things, and from sensible to intelligible things, had B actually become such. And perhaps, so that He might turn back those who, having begun to move across to the other side, were nonetheless relapsing into carnal things, Jesus says to those who had crossed over: “See and beware.” For the yeast of teaching is truly old, the one according to the bare letter, and on this account it was not rid of the wickedness which the Pharisees and Sadducees provided, from which Jesus does not wish His own disciples to eat further. Having made C for them a new and spiritual dough, He presents Himself to the apostles, so that they should not have the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees, but rather, having come to Him, He presents Himself as the living bread that has come down from heaven and gives life to the world. But since there is a way for one who is no longer to use the leaven and dough and teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees, first by considering, and second by bewareing, D lest he taste the forbidden leaven through not seeing and through carelessness—on this account He first says “See” to the disciples, and second says “Beware.” It is therefore necessary, with discernment and attention, to separate the leaven of the Sadducees and Pharisees, and to accept the food—which is of “unleavened bread of sincerity and truth”—from the living bread and the one that has come down from heaven, so that, by not partaking of the Pharisees and Sadducees, but by eating the living and true bread, we might…
strengthen the soul. A We might also appropriately apply the scriptural passage to those who choose to live in a "Jewish" manner bodily, along with their Christian profession; for these people neither see nor "take heed of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees," but, contrary to the will of Jesus who forbade it, they eat the "Pharisaic" bread. And all, I think, who do not want to realize that the law is spiritual and contains a shadow of the good things to come, or who do not seek the shadow of which future good each of the laws is a shadow, do not see or "take heed of the leaven of the Pharisees." Those, moreover, who reject the resurrection of the dead B and do not guard against the "leaven of the Sadducees"—there are many of these among those who hold views contrary to the Church because of their disbelief in the resurrection of the dead—are those who are infected with the Sadducean leaven. When Jesus said these things, the disciples were reasoning, not saying this aloud, C as some imagine, but in their hearts—"We have not received bread." And what they were saying was something like this: "If we had bread, we would not have needed to take from the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees; but because we are in danger of falling into taking from that leaven due to the lack of bread, the Savior does not want us to turn back to their teaching, and for that reason he said to us, 'Look, and take heed of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees'." These things, then, they were reasoning; but Jesus, seeing into their hearts and hearing the words that were being held within them, as the true inspector of hearts, rebukes them as not being mindful, nor remembering the bread which they had received from him—on account of which, even when they seemed for a moment to be in need of bread, they had no need of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. D 6. Then, explaining and signifying more openly to those who were perplexed by the homonymy of bread and leaven that he was not speaking to them about sensible bread but about the leaven contained in their teaching, he adds: "How do you not understand that I did not speak to you about bread, as you take heed of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees?" Yet even without his disclosing the interpretation, and though he remained in his figurative language, the disciples understood that it was about teaching—about the figurative leaven which the Pharisees and Sadducees taught—that the Savior was speaking. "So long, therefore, as we have Jesus with us, fulfilling the promise which says: 'Behold, I am with you all the days, even to the end of the age,' we have no need to fast, nor are we in need of food, as for that reason we seek it even from the Pharisees and Sadducees..."
and we are eager to eat it. And if that time, when He is present, were to fail us for food, as has been said above, 'They have been here with me three days, and have nothing to eat,' even so, if that should happen, being unwilling that we should faint on the way, He does not let us go away hungry; but He gives thanks over the loaves that are with the disciples, and causes an abundance to remain for us from the seven, as we have explained about the loaves, and for the sixth basket. But this also must be observed, for the sake of those who think it not fully proved that the Savior is God, from the Gospel according to Matthew, that the disciples were reasoning among themselves, and that Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said: 'Why do you reason among yourselves, O you of little faith, because you have no bread?' and that it was for the most part human for Him to know the hearts of men, as Solomon says in the third book of Kingdoms. B But since, after Jesus had said, 'Beware of the leaven,' the disciples understood that He did not say to beware of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees, you should notice that wherever leaven is mentioned, it signifies in the way of a trope either the law or the things that follow the law in the Scriptures; thus also, leaven is never offered upon the altar, for prayers do not have the manner of such instruction, but are only requests for good things from God. Someone might ask regarding those things written for us by the disciples who passed over: can someone who has passed over be reproached by anyone as of little faith, and as not yet understanding, nor remembering C the things done by Jesus? It will not be difficult, I suppose, to say to this that, in relation to the perfect, which when it has come, 'that which is in part shall be done away,' all our faith here is little faith, and we do not yet understand or remember in relation to that other state as those who know in part; for we are not able to take up an enduring and constant memory, weighed down by the nature of the contemplations.
7. Furthermore, it is possible to learn from this that even for thoughts alone which we reason within ourselves, D we are sometimes accused and reproached as being of little faith. I suppose that, just as someone who commits adultery in his heart, by no means immediately proceeds to the act, so also the rest of those things prohibited are not to be committed in heart alone. As therefore he who commits adultery in his heart will be punished in a manner analogous to such adultery, so also he who has done such things—to speak, having stolen in heart alone, or having borne false witness in heart alone—does not, as he who has done so in deed, 8 bear the punishment, nor is he compared in the interpretation of Erasmus, although they are found in the Regius, Anglican, Vatican, and Tarinian codices.
punished, and this is so if it did not come from him and [and] B toward the wicked deed. For if, in addition to having desired it, he has attempted it but has not succeeded, he shall be punished, not as one who has sinned in his heart alone, but as one who has sinned in the deed as well. One might ask, with respect to such things, if a man commits adultery in his heart alone, even if he does not perform the act of adultery, does he not remain chaste in his heart alone? You shall do the same regarding the remaining things that are worthy of praise. This passage possesses something that might lead us to fall into error, which, I think, should be removed in the following way: Adultery committed in the heart is a lesser sin than if one were to add the deed to it; but it is impossible for chastity to exist in the heart in such a way that it hinders chaste action, unless perhaps one takes, for this case, the virgin violated in the wilderness, according to the Law, as an example. For let us suppose that someone's heart is most pure, but that force of an unchaste kind has brought a blemish upon the chaste body of the woman. She seems to me to be entirely chaste in the hidden man, but not pure in body in the same way she was before the force was brought upon her; yet, not because she is not pure is she also unchaste. These things are said because of the passage: "They reasoned among themselves, saying, 'We have taken no bread,'" to which is added: "But Jesus, knowing it, said, 'O you of little faith, why do you reason among yourselves?'" and what follows; for it was necessary for the reproach of those things which are in secret to be examined, and, placed alongside it, the praise of those things that are in secret.
8. I marvel if the disciples, before the word was clarified for them by Jesus, C had brought themselves to assume that their teacher and Lord was commanding them to guard against the perceptible leaven of the Pharisees or Sadducees, as if it were not pure and therefore forbidden, so that, because they had not taken bread, they should not use their leaven. We might seek something similar in other instances; but it suffices, for the sake of example, to use what is written of the Samaritan woman in these words: "Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again; but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst." For there, as far as the letter is concerned, the Samaritan woman will seem to think that the Savior is promising perceptible water when He says: "Whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst." Therefore, those things must also be interpreted tropologically, D and the water of the fountain of Jacob, from which the Samaritan woman was drawing, must be compared with the water of Jesus, and the same must be done here; for perhaps the loaves were not even baked, but were merely raw leaven, the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
A For we are not able to acquire a sufficient and all-encompassing memory, given the multitude of the nature of the speculative investigations. Moreover, one may learn from this that even for our thoughts alone, which we reason out "within ourselves," there are times when we are accused and rebuked as being of "little faith." And I believe that, just as one commits adultery "in the heart" alone, not necessarily proceeding to the deed, so too does one perform the rest of the prohibited acts in the heart alone. Therefore, as one who has committed adultery "in the heart" will be punished in proportion to such adultery, so also he who has done any of the prohibited things in the heart—let us say, having stolen in the heart alone or having borne false witness in the heart alone—will be punished not as one who has stolen in deed or who has actually carried out the action of false witness, but as one who has committed such things only in the heart. This applies provided that he did not advance from himself to the evil deed; for if, in addition to having willed it, he made an attempt but did not succeed, he will be punished not as having sinned in the heart alone, but as having sinned in the deed as well. B One might inquire regarding such things: if one commits adultery "in the heart" alone even if he does not commit the act of adultery, does he not necessarily also practice self-control in the heart alone?
I marvel, however, if «the disciples» thought, before the word was clarified to them by Jesus, that their master and lord was forbidding them to keep the sensible leaven of the «Pharisees» or «Sadducees» as if it were not pure and therefore forbidden, so that not even «when they had not taken» bread, they might use those people’s leaven. And we might seek for the similar thing in other places, but it suffices for the sake of an example [to consider] the case of the Samaritan woman in the passage: «Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again; but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst forever.» For there, so far as the letter is concerned, the Samaritan woman will seem to think that the Savior is making promises about sensible water when He says, «But whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst forever.»
Those things, therefore, ought to be interpreted figuratively and examined together: the water of «Jacob’s» well, from which the Samaritan woman was drawing, with the water of Jesus; and here the like is to be done. For perhaps there were not even loaves that had been baked, but a certain leaven, raw and nothing more, which was the teaching «of the Pharisees and Sadducees. When Jesus came into the regions of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples.»
And those who claimed that Jesus was Jeremiah—and that Jeremiah was not a type of Christ—were perhaps moved by what was said at the beginning of Jeremiah concerning Christ, things which were not fulfilled in the prophet at that time, but which began to be fulfilled in Jesus, whom God appointed «over nations and over kingdoms, to root out and to pull down and to destroy and to build and to plant,» making him a prophet to nations to whom he preached the Word. But even those who said that he was one «of the prophets» supposed such things about him because of the things in the prophets that were spoken as if to them, but were not fulfilled in them. But the Jews, as being worthy of the veil over their hearts, held false opinions concerning Jesus. «Peter,» however, as a disciple not of flesh and blood but one who had received a revelation from the Father «in heaven,» confessed him to be the Christ. Indeed, that which was said by Peter to the Savior, that «You are the Christ,» not known by the Jews to be the Christ, was great;
A if you are willing to receive it, he himself is Elijah who is to come,» and as having «ears» they heard what was said, some would not have said he was «Elijah.» And those who said he was «Jeremiah,» if they had seen that the majority of the prophets had taken up symbolic things of him, they would not have said he was «Jeremiah;» and likewise neither would others [have said he was] «one» of «the prophets.» Perhaps, however, if we say that which «Simon Peter answered and said» in the «you are the Christ the Son of the living God,» not as flesh and blood having revealed it to us, but light having shone upon our heart from the Father «in heaven,» we also become what Peter was, being blessed in a way similar to him because the causes of the blessing [are] for him, and [now] have reached even to us, in that flesh and blood have not revealed to us concerning Jesus being the Christ, the Son «of the living God,» but the Father in «heaven,» from the heavens themselves, in order that we might live as citizens «in heaven,» having revealed to us a revelation that leads up to the heavens, which indeed take away every «veil» from the heart, and having taken up the spirit of «wisdom» of God and of «revelation.»
A Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord only to Peter, and will no other of the blessed ones receive them? But if it is common also to others: «I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven», how is it not the case that all that precedes and all that follows are also spoken as if to Peter? For here too, what is said seems to be said as if to Peter: «Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven», and the following; but in the Gospel according to John, the Savior, having given the Holy Spirit to the disciples through the insufflation, says: «Receive the Holy Spirit», and so on. Therefore, many will say to the Savior: «You are the Christ, the Son of the living God», but not all who say this will say it to him having learned it in no way from flesh and blood, but with the Father himself who is in the heavens having removed the veil lying upon their heart, so that after this, «with unveiled face beholding the glory of the Lord», they may speak in the Spirit of God, saying about him: «Jesus is Lord», and to him: «You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.» And if anyone says this to him, not having it revealed from flesh and blood, but by the Father who is in heaven, he will attain those things which, as B some say...
OLD INTERPRETATION
Spiritual men drink the spiritual drink. And just as according to the name of Christ all who are his are called Christians, as the Prophet says: «To save his Christs», so since justice is called Christ, all the just are of justice: and they are of wisdom, according to which Christ is wisdom. And thus you will find in all the remaining names of Christ, so that it is rightly said to all: «You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.» Against what? Against the rock upon which Christ builds the Church, or against the Church which he builds upon the rock, it does not express clearly. However, it is manifest that neither against that rock upon which the Church is built, nor against the Church which is built upon such a rock, shall the gates prevail.
C (28) "But were they given to Peter alone," etc. We have said that the prior passage of Origen must be explained, and we declare that this one should be explained in the same way, namely, that the keys of the kingdom of heaven were handed over to all the apostles, but not by the same right and in the equal condition as they were handed over to Peter. Therefore Origen notes further down in Matthew: etc., where, whereas he teaches that in the one case [Peter holds them] while Peter can bind and loose in all, he attributes to Peter a fuller and larger authority than to any others. Augustine, *Serm. 26, de diversis*: "Did Peter alone receive these keys, and Paul not receive them? Did Peter receive them, and John and James and the other apostles not receive them? Or are these keys not in the Church where sins are daily forgiven? But since in signification Peter bore the person of the Church, what was given to that one man was given to the Church. Therefore Peter bore the figure of the Church; the Church is the body of Christ." *Tr. in Joan.*: "Just as when the number twelve was even in the apostles, that is, divided into four groups of three, and all were questioned, Peter alone answered: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and it is said to him: 'To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven,' as if he alone received the power of binding and loosing, when he said that one thing for all, and received this with all, as bearing the person of unity itself. Therefore he is one for all, because there is unity in all." Moreover, he corrupted Barlaam, when he thus says in the book *De primatu papae*: "I indeed confess that Blessed Peter was constituted the universal pastor and teacher of the whole Church of God, and that this is true: but not he alone, but each one of the twelve with equal dignity to him. For the matter stands thus: he promised that he would give the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter, and by what followed, he showed them to be the power of binding and loosing; but he appears to have given this also to the remaining apostles: For whatever, he says, you have bound on earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you have loosed on earth, shall be loosed also in heaven; and again: Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose you retain, they are retained." D HUETIUS.
letter of the Gospel, to this Peter were these things said; as that spirit, which teaches the one who has become such as Peter is, teaches, that any person who has become such as Peter is will obtain the things spoken of, as the letter of the Gospel 29 says, because his spirit teaches him, toward everyone who has become such as that Peter is. All who are imitators of Christ, being named after the spiritual 31 rock that follows those who are being saved—so that they may drink from it the spiritual drink—are named after the rock, just as Christ is; but since they are members of Christ, they have been given the name Christians 52. Having taken an occasion from these things, you will say that the righteous are named after Christ as the Righteousness, and the wise after Christ as the Wisdom; and thus you will do regarding the rest of his titles that are named after the saints; and to all such as these it would be said by the Savior the passage: "You are Peter" and the following, up to "shall not prevail against it." But of what "it"? Is it of the rock, upon which Christ builds "the Church," or of the Church [for the phrasing is ambiguous], or as being one and the same, the rock and the Church? I believe this C to be the truth; for neither against the rock upon which Christ builds "the Church," nor against the Church, will "the gates of hell prevail," just as even "the way of a serpent upon a rock" [according to what is written in Proverbs] could not be found. And if "the gates of hell shall prevail" against anyone, such a one could neither be the rock upon which Christ builds "the Church," nor the Church built by Christ upon the rock. For the rock is indeed inaccessible to the serpent, and stronger than the gates of hell that oppose it, so that on account of its strength, the gates of hell do not prevail against it; and the Church indeed, as the building of Christ, who wisely
...and is A incapable of the gates of hell, which prevail indeed against any man who is outside the rock and the Church, but are powerless against it.
12. But since we understand that every one of the sins by which B one descends to hell is a "gate of hell," we shall understand that the soul which "has a spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing," and which, because of its wickedness, is neither holy nor blameless, is neither the rock upon which Christ builds, nor the Church, nor a part of the Church which Christ builds upon the rock. If, however, anyone wishes to shame us on these points because of the multitude of those who are considered to be believers in the Church, it must be said to him not only: "Many are called, few are elect," but also what was said by the Savior to those who were coming to Him, as it is related in the Gospel according to Luke, to this effect: "Strive to enter through the narrow door, for many, I tell you, will seek to enter through the narrow one and will not be able"; and the statement written in the Gospel according to Matthew must also be spoken of in this way: "For the gate is narrow and the way is constricted that leads to life, and few are those who find it." C And paying attention to the words: "For many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able," you will understand that this is referred to those who boast of being of the Church, but who live weakly and contrary to the word. Those, therefore, who are not able to enter while they are seeking to enter will not be able to do so because the gates of hell prevail against them; but those against whom the gates of hell do not prevail, these, seeking to enter, will be able to do so, being able to do all things in Christ Jesus who strengthens them. And thus each D
OLD INTERPRETATION.
12. For since we know that every sin by which one descends to hell is a gate of hell, we understand that every soul which receives sin upon itself, and for that reason is not holy, is not the rock upon which Christ builds the Church, nor is it the Church, nor a part of the Church which Christ builds upon the rock. If, however, anyone wishes to contradict you because of the multitude of men who are thought to believe, he may be satisfied by the ecclesiastical response which says: "Many are called, but few are elect"; likewise by that which the Lord answered those approaching Him: "Strive to enter through the narrow opening; for I tell you that many will seek to enter and will not be able"; likewise: "How narrow is the gate, and constrained is the way that leads to life, and few are those that find it." Considering, however, how He says: "Many will seek to enter, and will not be able," you will understand that this is said about those who indeed glory that they are of the Church, but walk negligently and not according to the commandment of the Lord. Those, therefore, who seek to enter and cannot, are unable to do so because the gates of hell prevail against them. But those against whom they do not prevail will without doubt be able to enter, since they can do all things in Christ who strengthens them. And this we ought to know, that just as each of the cities has its own proper names for its gates, so each one of the gates of hell has a proper name according to the character of each individual sin: as, for example, one gate is called fornication, through which all fornicators enter into tartarus. Another, however, is the denial of Christ, through which the deniers of Christ...
God descend into hades. And now indeed each of the heterodox, and those who have spawned a knowledge falsely so called, has built a gate of hades—Marcion one, Basilides another, and Valentinus another. And thus each of the fathers of evil judgment has become the architect of some gate of A hades, while those who cooperate with the teaching of their architect are certain ministers and stewards serving the evil architectural doctrine of impiety.
But since there are many and innumerable gates of hades, no gate of hades shall prevail against the rock or the Church which Christ builds upon it. Nevertheless, these «gates» possess a certain strength, by which they hold sway over some who do not resist and contend against them, while by others—those who, because they do not depart from him who said, «I am the door,» have broken down all the gates of hades from their own souls—they are conquered. B Indeed, it must also be known that just as the gates of cities have their own names, in the same way the gates of hades can be named according to the various forms of sins, so that one gate of hades may be called fornication, through which fornicators perform their journey, and another denial, through which those who deny God descend into hades. And now indeed each of the heterodox—and those who have fathered a knowledge falsely so called—has constructed a gate of hades; Marcion one thing, Basilides another, and Valentinus yet another.
13. The gates of hades are spoken of here; but in the Psalms the Prophet C gives thanks, saying: «You who raise me up from the gates of death, that I may declare all your praises in the gates of the daughter of Zion.» And from this place we learn that it is impossible for anyone who has not been raised up from the gates of death, and arrived at the gates of Zion, to be able to declare all the praises of God. Now the gates of Zion can be understood as contrary to the gates of death, inasmuch as the gate of death is licentiousness, but the gate of Zion is temperance; the gate of death is injustice, but Zion is justice, which the Prophet pointing out says: «This is the gate of the Lord; the D righteous shall enter into it.» And again, for cowardice, the gate of death; but for courage, Zion; and for folly, the gate of death, and its contrary...
that is, the opposite of the false knowledge, is the gate of Zion. You must note further that because of the words: A «We have no struggle against flesh and blood,» and so forth, each «power» (39) and «ruler of this darkness» and «spiritual wickednesses in high places» may be said to be a gate of Hades and a gate of death. Therefore, the gates of Hades may be called the principalities and powers against which «our struggle» is, while the gates of righteousness are «the ministering spirits.» B And just as in the case of the better things many gates are foretold, and after the many comes one, in the words: «Open to me the gates of righteousness; I will enter through them and confess to the Lord,» and «This is the gate of the Lord; the righteous shall enter into it,» so too with their opposites: there are many «gates of Hades» and of death, each power, [against which our struggle is], but above all these is the wicked one himself [who is the gate of death and Hades]. And let us pay attention to each sin, as if we were descending into some gate of «Hades» when we sin; but, being lifted up «from the gates of death,» let us «proclaim all the praises» of the Lord «in the gates of the daughter of Zion.» For example, in one gate of the daughter of Zion, named temperance, we proclaim from temperance the praises of God, and in another, named [justice], from justice we proclaim the praises of God.
A and those who are in the gates that are contrary to this gate—in sins—that is, the gates of Hades or of death. But if you do not hear it thus, "They hated him that rebuked in the gates," it will either have been said in vain, or inquire how that which is said concerning the prophetic Spirit can be appropriate.
14. After this, let us see how it is said to Peter, and to everyone who is Peter: B "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." And first indeed I think it is to be understood that, as it is written: "The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it," it is consequentially subjoined: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven"—for he who is fortified against the gates of Hades so that the gates of the underworld shall not prevail against him, is worthy to receive from the Word himself the keys of the kingdom of heaven; as if receiving prizes C for the fact that the gates of "Hades" could achieve nothing against him, he receives the keys of the kingdom of heaven, that he may open for himself the gates that were closed for those who are overcome by the gates of "Hades." And he enters, as a temperate man, through a certain gate of temperance being opened by the key that opens temperance, and through another, as a just man, the gate of justice being opened by the key of justice; and so for the remaining virtues. For I think that for each D virtue, certain mysteries of wisdom are opened up, appropriate to the kind of virtue, to him who has lived according to virtue, the Savior bestowing upon those who have not been conquered by the gates of "Hades" as many "keys" as there are virtues, opening an equal number of gates, appropriate according to the revelation of the mysteries, for each virtue. And perhaps each virtue is also a kingdom of heaven, and all together the kingdom of "heaven"; so that in this respect he who lives according to the virtues is already in the kingdom of "heaven," so that, according to this, the saying "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" refers not to a time, but to actions and disposition.
A Since those who claim for themselves the place of the episcopacy make use of this saying as if they were Peter, and, having received from the Savior "the keys of the kingdom of heaven," teach that the things bound—that is to say, condemned—by them are bound also "in heaven," and that the things loosed by them—that is, those that have received forgiveness—are loosed also "in heaven," it must be said that they speak soundly if they possess the work for which it was said to that Peter: "You are Peter," and if they are of such magnitude that the Church might be built upon them by Christ, and this might reasonably be referred to them. B But the "gates of Hades" ought not to prevail against the one who wills to bind and to loose. But if "he is bound with the ropes of his own sins," he binds and looses in vain. And perhaps you may say that the wicked man is bound "in" the "heavens"—those being the virtues in the wise man—and again, the earnest man is loosed in them, having received an amnesty for the sins he committed before his attainment of virtue. C Just as God would not bind one who has no ropes of sins, nor sins likened to "a long rope" or "a yoke-strap of a heifer," so neither would He bind whoever it may be that is Peter. If there is anyone who is not Peter, and who D [does not possess the things here spoken of, he is not the one against whom the gates of Hades do not prevail, for he who desires to bind is held by the "ropes of his own sins," and he binds and looses in vain. Perhaps you might be able to say that the wicked man is bound in the heavens that are in the wise man, in the virtues; and that, conversely, the good man is loosed in them, having succeeded in having all the sins committed by himself before his virtue wiped away by oblivion. But assuredly God does not bind the man who possesses no sins, nor is he bound by the long rope and yoke-strap of the heifer; so, likewise, no one who is Peter [is so bound]. If, however, there is anyone who is not Peter, and who does not possess what is spoken of here...]
A just as Peter thinks that he will bind upon earth, and that what things have been bound shall be bound in heaven, and will loose upon earth, so that what things have been loosed shall be loosed in heaven, [such a one] has been inflated—not knowing the sense of the Scriptures—and has fallen into the B pride of the devil.
15. “Then he charged the disciples that they should tell no one that he was the Christ.” Above it is written that he sent even these twelve, saying to them, “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles,” and what follows is written as having been said to them, sending them into the apostolate. Are we then to infer that, since they were already performing the work of the apostles, he wished to preach that he himself was the Christ? For if he wished [to do so], it is worth inquiring why now he charges his disciples that they should not say that he himself is the Christ; if, however, he did not wish it, how can the apostolic duties be saved? But if anyone has inquired into this, seeing that he sent the twelve, he did not send them [after they were] sent—not [as though they were] sending them [out] thinking that he himself was the Christ. If the twelve were thinking this, Peter, of course, was also thinking it; why then is he blessed now? For the passage indicates through these words that it was now for the first time that Peter confessed him to be the Christ, the Son of the living God. Matthew, then, has written, according to some of the copies, “Then he charged the disciples that they should tell no one that he is the Christ”; but C Mark, he says, “rebuked them that they should tell no one about him”; and Luke, he says, “having rebuked them, he commanded them to tell no one this.” And what is “this,” unless it is that, when Peter also answered him in response to the [question,] “Who do you say that I am?” [he said:] “The Christ of God”? One should know, however, that some of the copies of [the Gospel] according to Matthew have “he rebuked.” The inquiry, then, seems to me to be a very noble one; but an unanswerable resolution of it is to be sought, and let him who finds one, if it is more faithful than what will be said by us—who are, as it were, of modest [ability]—bring it forward. Consider, then, if you are able to say that being believed to be Jesus the Christ is less than knowing what has been believed; and perhaps there is also a difference in knowing Jesus to be the Christ, as not everyone who knows him knows him equally. D
A That believing without knowledge is less than knowing is clear from the Gospel according to John: "If you abide in my word, you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." That there is also a difference in knowing Jesus to be the Christ—in that those who know him do not know him equally—the very clarity of the matter makes manifest to anyone who gives it even a little thought. For who would not admit that, for instance, Timothy, while knowing Jesus to be the Christ, was not as enlightened in his knowledge of him as the Apostle Paul was enlightened? And who would not accept this further point: that even if many people, speaking truthfully about God, say "He has given me true knowledge of things that are," they will not say this while making the things known as distinct and graspable in the same way, nor will they know as many things in number? B And it is not only in the variation of knowing that those who know do not know in the same way; it is also in the realization of that knowledge, such that in this regard, the one who has known the Son as revealed by the Father [as Peter is witnessed to have known him] possesses the highest blessedness.
A Perhaps someone may support this argument by saying that the Jews were taught by the apostles in a rudimentary way the glorious things concerning Jesus, so that in due time the things concerning Christ himself might be built upon them. Perhaps, too, many things spoken to them were said in power for all who were about to believe; for the saying, "And you will be brought before governors and kings for my sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles," did not apply only to the apostles—perhaps not even to the apostles at all—but to all who would believe, just as the saying, "And brother will deliver brother to death," and the rest. But also the saying, "Everyone therefore who shall confess me," and the rest, was not spoken exclusively to the apostles, but to all who believe. According to this, then, B the things spoken to the apostles are a foreshadowing of doctrine, which would later come to be for their use and for the use of every teacher.
But anyone who wishes to maintain that the fact that He is the Christ had also been proclaimed beforehand by those apostles who heard the word, "What I tell you in the dark, say in the light," C uses a poor argument, unless he is one of those who do not care about the accuracy of the scriptures. For Mark and Luke, when they wrote, did not record the blessedness spoken to Peter, nor the blessing following the blessedness which says, "You are Peter," and the following. But they were looking only to the fact that He was the Christ, and they did not record that he was proclaimed blessed; they did not think it necessary to write down any of the things which Matthew alone recorded, since those things were not necessary for their purpose—which was to show that He is the Christ. D For those who have considered Matthew's account of Peter's confession and the Savior's response to him, and then compare it with the silence of the other evangelists regarding this, will recognize that there is a difference in their aims, since not all the evangelists wrote about the same things in the same way or with the same focus.
A And that which you hear in the ear, preach upon the housetops (Matt. X, 27), as if he desired to instruct them first—those who were to be the hearers of the apostles from Christ—and then allow this thought to be, as it were, digested in the minds of the listeners; so that, once a silence had been established, the elements of this doctrine, which had been previously delivered, might be more easily built upon by Jesus Christ crucified and risen from the dead—which the apostles themselves did not know at the start, as is written in the passages now under examination, that from that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer these things. B And if the apostles now learn from Jesus what will happen to him—the way he is to be laid in wait for by the elders and the way he will be put to death, and how after that, on the third day, he will rise from the dead—what ought we to think they would have suffered if they had previously learned from the apostles about Jesus, and that he was being proclaimed to them as Christ, in a rudimentary way, without the deeper aspects of his life being clearly explained? For our Savior wished, while charging the disciples that they should tell no one that he is the Christ, to reserve the more perfect instruction about him for a more suitable time, when those who had seen him being crucified could testify to those who had seen him regarding the matters of his resurrection—the disciples who had seen him both crucified and risen. For if the apostles who were always with him, and who had seen all the marvelous things he did, and who testified to his words, that they were words of eternal life, were scandalized on the night he was betrayed, C what do you think those who had learned beforehand that he was the Christ would have suffered? It was out of pity for them, I believe, that he gave these instructions.
18. He who wishes to refer what has been said to the twelve and to the times that followed, and to say that the apostles did not proclaim to their listeners in any way that he was the Christ, claims that he wished for this notion of Christ, interwoven with the name of Jesus, to be reserved for a better and more saving proclamation.
A For, as if the disciples had known at that time that Jesus was the Christ, the Son ["of the living God"], the Father having revealed it to them, he proclaims—[instead of their believing in Jesus Christ ["crucified"]]—that they should believe in Jesus Christ who is about to be crucified; and further—[instead of their believing in Jesus Christ, and him ["raised from the dead"]]—he teaches them to believe in Jesus Christ, and him who is about to be raised from the dead. But since "having put off the principalities and powers, he made a show of them, triumphing over them openly in the wood," if anyone is ashamed of the cross of Christ, he is ashamed of the dispensation through which those powers were triumphed over. Rather, one who believes and has understood these things ought also to ["glory in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ"]; ["by whom"]—that is, by Christ being crucified—the world having been crucified to the believer, the principalities were made a show of and were triumphed over, among which [I think] was also the ruler of this age. B For this reason, drawing near to his passion, he said, ["Now is the ruler of this world judged,"] and, ["Now the ruler of this world shall be cast out; and if I be lifted up"]—he says—["from the earth, I will draw all"]
A notice the word "show," for just as sensible things are said to be shown, so too those things spoken of by Jesus are said to be shown "to his disciples." And I do not think that things were so shown to those who saw Him in the flesh "suffering many things from the elders" of the people—each of the things seen—as the rational demonstration concerning this was shown "to the disciples." [And] at that time "he began to show," but it is likely that after this He showed them more clearly to those who were becoming capable of receiving it, no longer as if beginning to show them to novices, but already advancing in the showing. And if it is reasonable to think that whatever "Jesus began" He fully accomplished, He certainly at some point finished what He "began to show to his disciples" concerning the fact that He must "suffer" the things written. For when one grasps from the Word the perfect knowledge concerning these [mysteries], then it must be said, with the mind seeing from rational demonstration the things being shown, that the demonstration has been perfected for one who both wills and is able to see these things, and who does in fact see them.
And since "it is not possible for a prophet to perish outside Jerusalem," and the destruction which has a proportion to the "He who loses his soul for my sake shall find it," for this reason it was necessary for him to go to Jerusalem, so that by suffering many things in those places, he might perform the first-fruits of the resurrection from the dead in B Jerusalem, and by abandoning and destroying and dissolving the Jerusalem which was on earth with all its worship. For when Christ had not yet risen, and his disciples had not yet risen with him, that which was sought below was the city of God, and when this has happened, it is no longer so, but the things above are. In order for these to be established, "he" had to "go to" the lower "Jerusalem and suffer many things" there "at the hands of the elders and chief priests and scribes of the people" who were in it, so that he might be glorified by those who contain his benefits—the heavenly "elders" and the more divine "chief priests" who are ordered under the one chief priest—and he might be glorified by the "scribes of the people" who are occupied with writings, not those written "in ink but" those brought to light "by the Spirit of the living God," and he might be killed in the lower Jerusalem, but reign having risen in "Mount Zion and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem." And "on the third day" he rose from the dead, so that having rescued [us] "from the evil one" and his son, in whom was the lie and injustice and war and all things contrary to what Christ is, and furthermore from the profane spirit that transforms itself into a holy spirit, he might bring about for those who have been rescued that they be baptized in soul and spirit and body "into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," which are the three days that have together remained eternally for those who through them [have become] sons of light. Since he [Peter] thought that the sufferings were unworthy of Christ the Son "of the living God," and even less worthy of the Father who had revealed to him such great things about him [for the things about [Christ] suffering had not been revealed to him], for this reason "taking him aside" and as if forgetting the dignity of Christ, and that "the Son of the living God" says or does nothing worthy of rebuke, "he began to rebuke him," and as if he were in need of propitiation [for he did not yet know that "God had put him forward as a propitiation by faith in his blood"] he said:
A "God be merciful to you, Lord!" Admitting his intention but rebuking his ignorance, because his intention was right, he says to him: "Go behind me," as if he had abandoned that through which he was ignorant and was not following Jesus correctly. But because of his ignorance, as one who held something opposed to the things of God, he said: "Satan," which is in Hebrew "Opponent." If he had not spoken out of ignorance, nor rebuked the Son B of the "living God" by saying to him, "God be merciful to you, Lord; this shall never happen to you," he would neither have said to him, "Go behind me," as if he had ceased to be behind him and to follow him, nor would he have called him "Satan," as one who had spoken things opposed to what had been said by him. But now Satan had prevailed upon him—even though he had followed Jesus and was walking behind him—to depart from following him and from C being behind the Son of God, and to make him, through what he said out of ignorance, worthy of being called Satan and a "stumbling block" to the Son of God, and [one who is] not "setting his mind on the things of God, but on the things of men." That Peter was previously behind the Son of God [before he sinned in this matter] is clear from the passage: "Come behind me, and I will make you fishers of men." At the same time, you may observe D that to Peter he said: "Go behind me, Satan," but to the devil [when he said to him: "All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me"] he said: "Go, Satan," without the addition of "behind me." For it is a good thing to be "behind" Jesus; wherefore it was said: "Come behind me, and I will make you fishers of men."
A 21. For because he thought it unworthy for the Son of the living God to suffer anything, and deemed it also unworthy for the Father, who had revealed such things to him; and because that mystery had not yet been divinely signified to him; on this account, B taking him, and as if forgetting the dignity of Christ, and that he was the Son of the living God, he did not say or do what was fitting, C but "began to rebuke him," and as if he required atonement (for he did not yet know that God had set him forth as a propitiation through faith in his blood); he said: "Propitious to thee, Lord"; and while he approved of his intention, D yet because of his ignorant rebuke, he said to him who had the right intention in the matter, but not the right knowledge, "Get thee behind me," as if leaving those things of which he was ignorant and was not rightly speaking, so that he might follow Jesus; but because of his ignorance, as one holding something contrary and opposite to those things which pertain to God, he said: "Satan," which among the Hebrews sounds as "adversary." A Which, if he had spoken out of ignorance, he would not have rebuked the Son of the living God, saying to him: "Far be it from thee, Lord, this shall not be unto thee"; nor would he have said to him: "Get thee behind me," as if he were one who was going behind him, and had ceased to follow him: nor would he have said: "Satan," as if he had brought forward things contrary to what had been said. For when he saw him following Jesus, and walking after him, he could not draw him away, so that he would no longer follow, nor could he, after the Son of God, render him who was willing to follow the same, B worthy of being called Satan, and the scandal of the Son of God, and "not savoring the things that be of God, but those that be of men." C But that Peter was before the Son of God before he had sinned in this matter, is evident from hence: "Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men."
VETUS INTERPRETATIO. For because the Son of the living God was doing nothing worthy of the rebuke he uttered, he began to rebuke him, and as if he had something necessary to say by way of propitiation: "Propitious be it to thee, Lord." And he did not know as yet that "God had set forth this propitiation through faith in his blood." Jesus, indeed, receiving his affection, but rebuking his ignorance, said: "Get thee behind me," as if desisting from his ignorance, and from the things he was not rightly saying, so that he might follow Christ. But he said "Satan" to him, as if, on account of ignorance, he held something contrary to God: which the Hebrews interpret as "adversary." If, however, he had not spoken out of ignorance, he would not have rebuked the Son of the living God, D saying: "Propitious be it to thee, Lord, and this shall not be unto thee," nor would he have said: "Get thee behind me," as if he were ceasing to go after him and to follow him. And if he had not said things contrary to that which was said by him, he would not have called him Satan. But now Satan had prevailed in him, that he might cease to go after him and follow him; and he made him, for the things he said in ignorance, worthy to be called Satan, and the scandal of the Son of God, and "not knowing the things of God, but those of men." For since Peter was after the Son of God before he sinned, it is manifest from the fact that at the beginning of their calling it was said to them: "Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men," and having left all, they followed him.
A Likewise, compare what he said to Peter: "Get behind me, Satan," with what he said to the devil who said to him: "All these things I will give you, if you fall down and worship me": "Get behind me, Satan," without the addition, "me." For to be behind Jesus is a good thing; hence it has been said: "Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men." Of a similar nature also is the saying: "Whoever does not take up his cross and follow after me, is not worthy of me." And, in general, observe the word "after," for it is a good thing when someone walks after the Lord God, and comes to be after Christ; but it is the opposite when someone casts the words of God behind him, or when he transgresses the commandment which says: "Go not after your lusts." And Elias also in the third book of Kings says to the people: "How long will you limp between two sides? If the Lord is God, walk after him; but if Baal is the Lord, walk after him." And Jesus says this to Peter B having turned around, and he does this for his benefit. You, therefore, having gathered more examples of the word "turned," and especially those applied to Jesus, and having compared them with one another, would find that the word is not used superfluously; but it suffices for the present to cite from the Gospel according to John: "And Jesus turned, and seeing them"—namely Peter and Andrew—"following him, he says to them: What do you seek?" See, for even in these instances, the "turned" occurs for the benefit of those toward whom he turned.
OLD INTERPRETATION
C Furthermore, consider the difference in the word: when he said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan," and to the devil saying to him, "All these things I will give you, if you fall down and worship me," he said, "Get behind me, Satan," without the addition "me." For to go after Jesus is good. Therefore, according to Mark, he says thus: "He saw Simon and Andrew his brother, and said to them: Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men." Such also is that which he says: "Whoever does not take up his cross and follow me, is not worthy of me." And to speak briefly, consider that wherever the phrase "after me" is used, it is said in a good sense. For it is good when anyone walks after the Lord; but it is the contrary when anyone casts the words of the Lord behind him: or who transgresses that commandment: "Go not after your lusts." Likewise, Elias in the third book of Kings says to the people: "How long will you limp on both your feet? If the Lord is God, go after God; but if Baal is Lord, go after him." D And saying this, because they were turning toward the devil, for he is Satan. And he did not say to Peter, "Get before me, Satan," but "Get behind me, Satan," and Jesus says this to Peter having turned toward him; for he did this also for his benefit. And blessed is he toward whom Christ turns, even if he turns for the sake of correction, just as he turned toward Peter. And you indeed will be able to collect more examples of this kind, in which it is posited, "Turned," and you will find for the most part that it is posited for the benefit of those toward whom Jesus turns. It suffices for me to cite in the present that prophetic word saying: "Turn, Lord, a little." Likewise: "He turned and looked at Peter." Where also by his turning, Peter was enlightened and recognized his sin, and wept most bitterly. Likewise according to John: "And his two disciples heard him, and they followed Jesus. And Jesus having turned, saw them following him, and said to them: What do you seek? And they said to him: Master, where do you stay?"
A 23. Next, it must be inquired how it is that he said to Peter: "You are a scandal to me"; especially since David says: "Great peace have they who love your law, and there is no scandal for them." For one might say: If, on account of the steadfastness of those who possess love, and who are not liable to be scandalized—for "Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things; love never fails"—this is stated in the prophet, how is it that the Lord himself, who upholds all those who are falling and raises up all those who are crushed, said to Peter: "You are a scandal to me"? B It must be said that not only is the Savior not liable to be scandalized, but neither is one who has attained perfection in love; yet, insofar as it rests with the one who speaks or does such things, he is a scandal, even to one who would not have been scandalized otherwise; unless perhaps Jesus calls a sinning disciple a scandal, and that his own, inasmuch as, on account of love, he would be even more ready than Paul to say: "Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is scandalized, and I do not burn?" where it is possible that he instead meant: "Who is scandalized, and I am not scandalized?" But if Peter was then called a scandal by Jesus because of his saying: "Far be it from you, Lord, this shall not be to you," as one who in those things which he said was not minding the things of God, but the things of men, C what must be said of all those who profess to be disciples of Jesus, yet do not mind the things of God, and do not look upon the things that are not seen and are eternal, but mind the things of men, and look upon the things that are seen and are temporary, but that such men would be even more especially called a scandal by Jesus? And since they are his scandals and those of his brothers, for whom, as he says: "I was hungry, and you did not give me to eat," and the rest, might he not also say: "Did you cause me to be scandalized as I ran?" Therefore, let us not think it a light sin to mind the things of men, when one ought in all things to mind the things of God. And it will be appropriate to say this also concerning everyone who has fallen away from the doctrines of God, and from ecclesiastical words, and from the true mind; minding instead, if one might say, the things of Basilides, or...
25. But furthermore, I inquire why he said to Peter: "You are a scandal to me," most especially when in the one hundred and eighteenth psalm the Prophet proclaims, saying: "Great peace have they who love your law, and there is no scandal for them." For someone will say, since it is characteristic of those who have perfect love toward God that they are never scandalized. "For love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things: love never fails." How then does the Lord himself, who confirms all who are confirmed, and raises up all who are crushed, say to Peter: "You are a scandal to me"? But it must be answered thus, that not only is Jesus not scandalized, but neither is any man who is perfect in the love of God; but as far as concerns the one who does or speaks such a thing, he is a scandal to another, even if that person is incapable of being scandalized. Or indeed, he calls every sinning disciple a scandal to himself: just as Paul says of such disciples: "Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is scandalized, and I am not burning?" If therefore Peter was called a scandal to Christ only because he said: "Be it far from you, Lord, this shall not be to you," as one who did not mind the things that were of God, but the things of man: what must be said of those men who profess themselves to be disciples of Christ, but do not mind the things that are of God, nor look upon the things that are not seen, the eternal, but look upon the things of men, which are seen, and are temporal? Without doubt, such men are to be called the scandals of Christ much more. But he who leads his brother into scandal is also a scandal of Christ, according to what he himself says: "I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat," and the rest. Just as, therefore, he who feeds his brother feeds Christ, so he who has been a scandal to his brother has become a scandal to Christ. It is not therefore a light sin to mind the things of men, when one ought in all things to mind what is of God. This, however, which he says: "You are a scandal to me, because you do not mind the things of God, but the things of men," is not only to be called a sin...
and consider also this: as there are many ways of dying, the Son of God was crucified by being hung “upon a tree,” so that all those who die “to sin” might not die to it in any other way than according to the cross. Therefore, they shall say: “I have been crucified with Christ,” and: “God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord [Jesus Christ], by whom the world is crucified to me, and I to the world.” For perhaps even each person who is crucified with Christ puts off “the principalities and powers,” and makes a show of them, and triumphs over them in the tree—or rather, Christ does these things in them. “For whoever desires to save his soul shall lose it.” The first word is ambiguous; for it is possible to understand these things from it in one way: if anyone, as a lover of life and thinking that the present life is good, cares for his own “soul” so that it may live in the flesh, fearing to die, as if by [this] death he would lose it, this person, in that very desire to save his “soul” in this way, “shall lose it,” making it an alien to the boundaries of blessedness.
A “Where they crucified him.” But Jesus, who, according to John—if I may so term him—bears his own cross, and “went out bearing it”; while he who is according to Matthew, and Mark, and Luke, does not bear it himself, for Simon of Cyrene bears it for him. And this one perhaps refers to us, who bear the cross of Jesus for the sake of Jesus; but Jesus himself refers to himself. 544 For as the cross can be understood in a twofold way by the mind, so that one is that which Simon of Cyrene bears, and another that which Christ himself bears.
25. Furthermore, regarding the text: “Let him deny himself,” it seems useful to me to apply what is said by Paul, who denied himself, and which is thus: “I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me.” For the “I live, yet I not,” was the voice of one denying himself, as if having put away his own life, and having received Christ into himself, so that he himself might live in Him as righteousness, and as wisdom, and as sanctification, and as our peace, and as the power of God, working all things in him. Moreover, B pay heed to this: that because there are many ways of dying, the Son of God was crucified, suspended on a tree, so that all who die to sin might not die in any other way than by the cross. Therefore they shall say: “I have been crucified with Christ,” and: “Far be it from me to boast except in the cross of the Lord, by whom the world is crucified to me, and I to the world.” Perhaps each of those who are crucified with Christ “spoils principalities and powers, and brings them to shame, and triumphs over them in the tree,” or rather Christ does these things in them. C
VETUS INTERPRETATIO. ...comes; by this very fact, that he acts wisely, he confesses Christ. For he who “believes with his heart unto righteousness, and with his mouth confesses unto salvation,” bears witness to Christ both by works and by words, as one who has confessed Christ before men through all these things, so that Christ may confess him before the Father of all. So, on the contrary, he who does not deny himself confesses himself indeed, but denies Christ: and as one who has denied Christ, he shall also be denied by Christ. Therefore, let all our thought and intellect, and every word and deed, breathe our denial, but also the testimony and confession of Christ. For I believe that all the acts of a perfect man are a testimony to Christ, and that the abstinence from all sins is the denial of man leading [the way] after Christ. For this person is thus crucified with Christ, and taking up his cross follows him who for our sake bore his own cross: according to what is written in John: “They took Jesus therefore, and led him away, and they laid the cross upon him, and bearing his own cross he went forth to the place which is called Calvary.”
25. But furthermore, concerning what is said: “Let him deny himself,” it seems useful to me to use the example of Paul, who said: “I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me.” For what he means by saying, “I live, yet not I,” is the voice of one denying himself: as if he had laid aside his own life, but had received Christ into himself, so that he might live in him as righteousness, as wisdom, as sanctification, as our peace, as the power of God, and that he might work all these things in him. But further, observe this, that because there were many ways of dying, the Son of God was suspended and crucified, so that all who die to sin might not die in any other way than by being crucified with him, to say: “I am crucified with Christ.” Item: “Far be it from me to glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified to me, and I to the world.” Although, therefore, it may seem that a person abstains from sin, and is dead as far as sin is concerned, yet unless he believes in the cross, and in the faith that he who has been crucified has abstained from sin, he cannot say: “I am crucified with Christ.” Perhaps also each of those who are crucified with Christ “spoils principalities and powers, and leads them away, and triumphs over them in the tree”; or rather Christ does all these things in them.
“I gave Ethiopia and Egypt and Syene as an exchange for you, from the time you became precious in my sight, you were glorified.” For an exchange—to name an example—for the firstborn of Israel, the firstborn of the Egyptians were offered, and for the sake of Israel, the Egyptians who perished in the remaining plagues which came upon Egypt and in the drowning that occurred after the plagues. From these, let him who is able examine whether the true Ethiopia and—if I may call it so—the spiritual Egypt, and the Syene of Egypt, are given by God, who “redeems Israel from all his iniquities,” as an exchange for the true Israel. To inquire more boldly, perhaps Syene is an exchange for Jerusalem, Egypt for Judea, and Ethiopia for those who fear him, assuming these are distinct from Israel, the house of Levi, and the house of Aaron. “For the Son of Man is about to come in the glory of his Father with his angels.” Now, indeed, “the Son of Man” has come, but not “in his glory.” For “we saw him, and he had no form nor beauty, but his form was dishonored and failing compared to the sons of men;
whereas to those who are perfect he comes “in the glory of his Father.” They will say: “And we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.” For indeed, to those who are perfect, the glory of the Word appears, and his character as the Only-Begotten from the Father who is God, and that which is “full of grace,” and likewise of “truth”—something which he who needs the folly of “the proclamation” in order to believe cannot contain.
The “Son of Man” is “going to come in the glory of his Father,” not alone, but “with his angels.” And if you are able to conceive of all the coworkers of the glory of the Word and of the revelation of the wisdom [which is Christ] dwelling alongside him, you will see in what manner the “Son of Man comes in the glory of his Father with his angels.” And take heed, if you are able in these things to say that the prophets who suffered before had a correspondence to the Word who did not have “form or beauty,” because he did not possess any “form or beauty” of words.
But if “he will render to everyone according to their action,” not only the good [without the bad], but also not the bad without the good, it is manifest that “he will render to everyone according to” every bad and “according to” every good “action.” I suppose, [being persuaded in these matters also by the Apostle, and comparing also the words of Ezekiel, in which the sins of one who has completely repented are wiped away, and the previous virtuous deeds of one who has totally fallen away are not taken into account], that for the one who has been perfected and has completely cast off wickedness, the sins are wiped away, but for the one who has completely apostatized from piety, whatever good he may have done previously is not taken into account; while to us, who stand between the perfect one and the apostate “before the judgment seat of Christ,” what we have done is given, “whether good or bad”; for we have not been so purified that the bad deeds should not be reckoned to us at all, nor have we fallen so far that our better deeds should be forgotten by Him. “Amen I say to you, [that] there are some of those standing here, who shall not taste of death.”
A And it is said in Isaiah to Israel: “I gave Ethiopia and Egypt and Syene as your ransom.” For you became honorable in my eyes, and glorious; for the price of exchange, so to speak, for the firstborn of Israel became the Egyptians, and for the sake of those of Israel who died in the remaining plagues which came upon Egypt, and in that very submersion which followed the plagues. Afterwards, let him who can examine whether, for the sake of the true Israel redeemed by God “from all his iniquities,” there might be given in exchange true Ethiopia, and thus I shall name it, spiritual Egypt, and Egyptian Syene; and, if one might dare to investigate, perhaps Syene [is] for Jerusalem, Egypt for Judea, but Ethiopia for those who fear [God], B and others are from Israel, and from the house of Levi, and from the house of Aaron.
29. “For the Son of man is to come in the glory of His Father with His angels.” Now, indeed, the Son of man comes, but not in glory: “We saw him, and he had no form, 548 nor beauty; but his form was dishonored, and failing beyond the sons of men, a man in plague existing and labor, and knowing how to bear infirmity, because his face is turned away, despised, and was not accounted of.” And it was fitting for him to come in such a way, “that he might bear our sins, and grieve for our sakes”; for it was not fitting that he should bear our sins and grieve for our sakes, who is glorious, but he comes in glory, so that he might prepare the disciples at his appearing, which is without form and beauty. And after he became like them C for the sake of all, he gave his precious blood as a ransom for all: for we have not been redeemed with corruptible silver, or gold, but with the precious blood of the immaculate Lamb.
29. For the Son of man is to come in the majesty of His Father with His angels; and then he shall render to each according to his work. Now, indeed, the Son of man comes, but not in glory. “We saw him, and he had no form nor beauty; but his form was dishonored, and contemptible beyond the sons of men, a man when he was in plague and disgrace, and knowing how to bear infirmity, because his face was turned away, and he was held as nothing.” And it was necessary for him to come in such a way, that he might bear sins, and grieve for us. For it was not fitting that he, established in glory, should bear sins, nor grieve for our sakes. But he will come in glory, when he has prepared for himself his disciples for his coming by not having D form or beauty, having become like them, so as to make them like himself—conformed to the image of his glory. Since he first became himself conformable to the “body of our humiliation,” when he emptied himself by taking the form of a servant, so that he might restore it into the form of God, when those things come to pass, when that apostolic [word] is fulfilled which says: “For we must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in his own body, whether it be good, or bad.” But if to each according to his act he shall render, not for good things alone shall he render [good]—not for bad things [shall he render] good, but according to each...
act, good and according to every bad act, each shall receive. But I think that in the case of those who are believed to be Apostles, because sins are removed from them in that they are perfectly converted, and because they have fallen more fully, their preceding righteousness is not reckoned to them. To us, however, who are among the perfect and between the apostates, is rendered before the tribunal of Christ according to what we have done, whether good or bad; because we have not yet turned toward God so fully that all our acts are not reckoned to us, nor have we turned away, so as to forget God if we have done good things.
50. But if you could morally understand the differences of the Word, and that he is announced in the foolishness of preaching to those who are being saved and in wisdom to the perfect, you will see how the Word whom they have newly received as for them who are entering [the faith], has the form of a servant, so that they may say: “We saw him, and he had no form or comeliness, but his form was without honor, failing beyond all the sons of men.” And these things they shall say who have seen his glory, concerning the times before their own, when in the beginning the Word which is apprehended in the introductory phase “had not” for them “form or comeliness.” There is, therefore, a certain royal dignity appearing in the Word who has most clearly taken up the beginning over all words, seen by some of those “standing” by Jesus, when they are able to follow him as he leads them and ascends “the high mountain” of his own manifestation. Such of those “standing” by Jesus are deemed worthy, if they be either Peter, against whom “the gates of Hades do not prevail,” or “sons of thunder,” being born of the mighty voice of God thundering and shouting great things from heaven to those who have “ears” and [who are] wise. Such ones, at any rate, do not taste death.
And one might perceive this [namely, that they are] in no way still reigned over by sin—the sin that reigns in the mortal body of those who transgress—but are always arrayed under the King, who is the God of all whose kingdom is in potentiality “within us,” but in actuality and [as Mark named it] in power and in no way in weakness, “within” the perfect alone. These things, therefore, Jesus promised, prophesying not about all the disciples standing there, but about certain ones.
But we must consider what it means to “taste death.” Life is He who said, “I am the life.” And this very “life” is “hidden with Christ in God,” and “when Christ, our life, is revealed, then with him” will those be revealed who are worthy to be revealed “with him in glory.” The enemy of this life, who moreover is the “last enemy [to be] destroyed” of all his enemies, is “death,” which the sinning soul dies, being disposed in a manner contrary to that which occurs concerning the soul that succeeds in doing right and lives by its success in doing right. And whenever it is said in the Law:
and perhaps those who sin rarely and little only taste of “death,” but those who have accepted a [more perfect spiritual] virtue do not even taste of it, but are always fed by the living bread. It was therefore consistent for Peter, against whom “the gates of Hades shall not prevail,” not even to taste of “death,” since one tastes of “death” and eats of “death” at that time when the “gates of Hades” prevail over him, and he eats or tastes of “death” in proportion to the extent that they prevail over him, more or less, and to the extent that there are more or fewer gates of Hades. But also, for the sons of “thunder,” born of [loud-voicedness, that is, from] thunder, a heavenly thing, it was impossible to taste of “death,” since they were very far from their mother, thunder.
He says, A [he refers] to the ascent of the three apostles into the high mountain with Jesus privately; and they, explaining it in this way, say that Peter and the other two did not taste of death before they saw the Son of Man coming in his kingdom, in his glory. For, having seen Jesus transformed before them, so that his face shone, and the rest, they have seen “the kingdom of God having come in power.” For just as certain guards surround a king, so Moses and Elias appeared to those who had ascended into the mountain, speaking with Jesus. And it is worth noting whether the sitting at the right and left hand of the Savior in his kingdom is referred to these, so that the saying, “but for whom it has been prepared,” would be spoken for them. B And this explanation concerning the three apostles not tasting of death until they saw Jesus transformed, is suitable for those who, as Peter named them, have become “as newborn infants, desiring the rational, guileless milk,” to whom Paul says: “I have given you milk to drink, not food,” and the rest. And all explanation, I think, which is able to edify according to the letter those who cannot contain greater things, might reasonably be called milk, flowing from the holy land of the Scriptures, a land flowing with milk and honey. But he who has been weaned, as was Isaac, worthy of the joy and feast which Abraham made at the weaning of his son, would seek in these and in all Scripture that which—I think—is solid, being food, but not solid nourishment, and the things called figuratively herbs, which to one weaned but not strong, but weak, is food, according to the saying: “He who is weak eats herbs.” Similarly, he who is like Samuel, weaned and dedicated by his mother to God (this was Hannah, whose name is interpreted as C Grace), would be a son of grace, seeking, as...
it were, the flesh of God, the holy food of those who are perfect and at the same time priests, being nourished in the temple of God.
A 52. What, then, are the things looking toward this present passage? There were some standing where Jesus was, having the foundations of their soul fixed beside Jesus, and the manner of their standing was akin to the standing of which Moses spoke in the text: “And I stood on the mountain forty days and forty nights” (Deut. X, 10); and he was deemed worthy also of the words, “But do you stand here with me” (Deut. V, 51), addressed to him by God who deemed him worthy to stand beside Him. These, then, who stand beside Jesus—that is, beside the Word of God—do not all stand equally; for there is a difference among those who stand beside Jesus. Therefore, not all who stand beside the Savior, but some of them, inasmuch as they stand better, do not taste death until they see the Word that has sojourned among men, and on account of this is called the Son of man, coming in His kingdom; for not whenever Jesus comes, does He come in His kingdom. For to those who are being introduced, He is such that, when they see Him, they would say that He is neither glorious nor great, but a word lower than many among them: B “We saw Him, and He had no form, nor beauty; but His form was dishonored, failing beyond all the sons of men” (Isa. LIII, 2, sq.). And those who see His glory will say these things about their former times, when at the beginning the Word conceived in the synagogue had for them no form nor beauty. There is, therefore, a kingly, manifested dignity of Him who is the Reason above all reasons.
C 52. What I think upon this present place is as follows. There were certain ones standing there beside Jesus, that is, beside the Word of God, but they did not all stand equally; for there is a difference in standing among those who stood beside Jesus. Therefore, not all who stood beside Jesus, but certain ones of them—those who, as it were, stood better—are said not to taste of death until they see the Word of God who comes to men. Now, that Word is referred to as coming in His kingdom as the Son of man, because the Word does not always come in His kingdom when He comes. For to those who are brought to faith at first, He is such that, when they see Him, they describe Him as neither glorious nor great, but lower than many of the words of men: “We saw Him, and He had no form, nor beauty; but His form was without honor, and despised beyond the sons of men.” Those who see His glory will say these things concerning their past times, when at first it did not seem to them that the Word had a glorious form in the way they understood Him at the beginning. Therefore, beyond this common and most manifest understanding, which those approaching the faith understand at the beginning, there is some worthier and, as it were, royal understanding in the Word, which not all who stand beside Jesus see; but those who are able to follow Him as He precedes and ascends the high mountain of His manifestation—who are like Peter, whom we described above, or like the sons of thunder, who are born from the magniloquence of the thundering God, and the magnificent voice calling from heaven to those who have ears and are wise. These, then, who are like Peter or like the sons of thunder, James and John, will not taste of death until they have seen the Son of man coming in His kingdom and in His glory, and the kingdom of God coming in power. But so that we might explain more clearly what it is to see the Word coming in His kingdom and in His glory, and D what it signifies to see the kingdom of God coming in power—whether while He shines of Himself in our hearts, or while He is found by those seeking Him, or while He enters into our thoughts—let each one judge what we have set forth as he wills. Yet he who sees and comprehends the eminence of the Word of God, which will dissolve and overcome all the persuasions of lies that claim to be the truth, sees the Son of man, that is, the Word, coming in His kingdom. And he who sees the Word of God, the Son, not only as dissolving and convincing the adver
adversaries A but also as declaring His own evidences, sees not only the kingdom, but also the glory of the Word of God. And such a one as this sees in himself the kingdom of God coming in power, not in weakness; but he who is not so confident in the kingdom of God that he is content to suffer all things for its sake, but is doubtful and timid regarding the hope of the kingdom, he does not see in himself the kingdom of God coming in power. And this he sees in whom sin does not reign, nor is he held under the domination of sin which reigns in the mortal body of those who sin, but he is under the King of all, God. For the Apostle says: "And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to carnal; as to little ones in Christ, I gave you milk to drink, not meat; for you were not yet able, nor are you able even now. For whereas there is among you envying and contention, are you not carnal, and walk according to man?" Elsewhere also: "But we speak wisdom among the perfect." If, therefore, those who are still carnal and little ones in Christ, and are not perfect, cannot understand the wisdom of the Word, nor do they grasp His spiritual understanding, how should they see with their mind the eminence of the Word, that is, the kingdom of the Word, and the glory of the Word, who are wrapped in diverse sins?
But B apart from the Word of the promise of Jesus, we might not unreasonably suppose that one has "tasted of death," insofar as we have not yet been deemed worthy to see "the kingdom of God come in power" and "the Son of man coming in His glory and in His kingdom." And since here it is written by the three evangelists that they "shall not taste of death," while in other places there are different things said concerning death, it is not absurd to set those forth as well, to examine them in connection with "tasting." For in the Psalms it is said: "Who is the man that shall live and shall not see death?" And again in another place: "Let death come upon them, and let them go down alive into hell," and in one of the prophets: "Death prevailed and swallowed up," and in the Apocalypse "death and hell follow" some. In these passages, it seems to me that it is one thing to taste of "death," and another to see it, and another for it to come upon some, and a fourth to be meant—contrary to the aforementioned—by "Death prevailed and swallowed up," and a fifth thing besides these, from "death and hell follow them."
C ...and the Word having been most clearly taken up, seen by some of those who stand by Jesus, when they are able to follow Him as He leads them on, and ascends the high mountain of His own manifestation. Such things are those who stand by Jesus deemed worthy of, if they be either Peter, against whom the gates of hell do not prevail, or the sons of thunder, and being born of the greatness of the voice of God thundering, and loudly crying from heaven to those who have ears and are wise. Such, therefore, do not taste of death.
What is to be understood by tasting of death? And 33. the Life is He who said: "I am the life," and this life, indeed, is "hid with Christ in God," D and "when Christ shall appear, our life, then shall they also appear with Him," those worthy to appear with Him in glory. But the enemy of this life, who is also the last enemy to be destroyed of all His enemies, is death, by which the sinning soul dies, being disposed in a manner contrary to what happens to the soul that succeeds in its actions, and lives by its success; and when it is said in the Law, "I have set before thy face life," concerning Him who said "I am the life," the Scripture says these things, and also concerning His enemy, death; one of which each of us always chooses by what he does. And when, life being before our face, we sin, the curse which says, "And thy life shall be hanging before thee," is fulfilled upon us, and the following things down to: "And thou shalt see from the visions of thine eyes." As, therefore, there is Life, and the Living Bread which descended from heaven, and gives life...
A to the world, so the enemy of this, death, is dead bread. Every rational soul is fed either by living bread or dead bread, through which it receives either noble or base dogmas. And just as it happens with more common foods that sometimes one only tastes them, while other times they are eaten in abundance, so also with these breads: one eats them more sparingly, only tasting them, while another becomes gorged with them. The one who is good, or who is journeying toward becoming good, partakes of the living bread which descended from heaven; but the base one partakes of the dead bread, which is death. And perhaps those who sin rarely and slightly only taste of death, while those who have taken hold of virtue do not even taste of it, but are always fed by the living bread. It was fitting, therefore, for Peter—against whom the gates of Hades shall not prevail—not even to taste of death, since one then tastes of death, and eats of death, when the gates of Hades prevail against him; and he eats or tastes of death in proportion to how much or how little they prevail against him, and according to whether more or fewer gates of Hades prevail against him. But it was also impossible for the sons of thunder, born of the celestial thunder, to taste of death, which is far removed from the thunder of which they were born as from a mother. The Word predicts these things to those who are to be perfected, and who, B from having stood by the Word, have progressed to such a degree that they do not even taste of death, until they behold the epiphany, and the glory, and the kingdom, and the excellence of the Word of God, according to which He surpasses every word that draws away and pulls along, by the fantasy of truth, those who are unable to break the bonds of distraction and ascend to the height of the excellence of the true Word.
54. But because someone might think to circumscribe the Savior's promise—that they would not taste of death—by a measure of time, as if they were not to taste of death "until they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom," and then afterward would taste of it; let us demonstrate, according to a certain usage of Scripture, that the word "until" signifies the time at hand regarding the thing disclosed, without being so defined that after the "until" something contrary to what was disclosed must necessarily happen. For the Savior says to C those who are to be perfected, and who from having stood by the Word have progressed... [that] they do not even taste of death, until they behold... the excellence of the Word of God, according to which He surpasses every word that draws away and pulls along those who are unable to break the bonds of distraction and ascend to the height of the excellence of the Word of truth.
54. But because someone might think to circumscribe the Savior's promise—that they would not taste of death—by a measure of time, as if they were not to taste of death "until they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom," and then afterward would taste of it; let us demonstrate, according to a certain usage of Scripture, that the word "until" signifies the time at hand regarding the thing disclosed, without being so defined that after the "until" something contrary to what was disclosed must necessarily occur: but it explains D the thing which is necessary. For the Lord says to His eleven disciples when He rose from the dead: "And behold, I am with you always, even unto the consummation of the age." Therefore, He was to be with them until the consummation of the age; but after the consummation of this age, in the instant of the coming age, He did not promise that He would no longer be with them, as though it were better for the disciples to have this time which is before the consummation of the age than that future time. For even if someone might dare to say that...
after the A consummation of the age the Son of God will no longer be with the disciples; since the expression says that he will be with them to such an extent, until the consummation of the age should come. It is clear that the question was whether the Son of God was about to be with the disciples even before the future age and the hoped-for reciprocal promises of God. The question might have been, conceding that He is to be with them, whether He will be with them at some time and not at another; wherefore, absolving us from the suspicion of doubting, He declared that He was about to be with the disciples already and for all the days, not abandoning those who had become His disciples until the consummation of the age—yet not in such a way that, if the sun set for anyone, He was not with them during the nights. But if “until the consummation of the age” is such a thing, it is evident that we shall not be compelled to admit that those who have seen the Son of man coming in His kingdom, after being deemed worthy to see Him as such, will have to taste death; but just as in the passage we set forth, the pressing need was for us to learn that until the consummation of the age He will not leave us, but will be with us all the days, so also in this case, I suppose it to be clear to those who know how to perceive the sequence of events, that he who has once seen the Son of man […] B
OLD INTERPRETATION
Since it is clear that until the consummation of the age He is with His disciples, I ask whether He is always with His disciples, or if He is with them at some times and not at others? I ask this because of what He said: “And behold, I shall be with you all the days,” lest perhaps He is with His disciples during the days, but is not during the nights. But if because He said He would be with the disciples in the days, He is not in the nights, we think it absurd to say that He denied He would be with His disciples during the nights; without doubt we are not forced to accept that understanding, so as to say that those who saw the Son of man coming in His kingdom taste death after they have been deemed worthy to see Him as such. But just as in that Scripture we mentioned, it was necessary to know that He would not have left us until the consummation of the age, but that He would be with us all the days—and after the consummation of the age, He left it as something manifest that He would be with us even more—so also in this place I consider it most manifest to all who can understand the sequence of things, that He who has once seen the C Son of man coming in His kingdom, after He has been deemed worthy to behold such a sight, will not have to taste of death […]. D
But apart from the Word of the promise, I should not have supposed it unreasonable that we should taste death, forasmuch as we have not yet been deemed worthy to see the kingdom of God come in power, and the Son of man coming in His glory and in His kingdom.
55. But whereas it is written here by the three evangelists, "They shall not taste of death," while among others things different concerning death have been handed down, it is not absurd to compare those also with that which is meant by "tasting." For it is said in the Psalms: "Who is the man that shall live and shall not see death?" and again in another place: "Let death come upon them, and let them go down alive into Hades." And in one of the prophets: "Death has swallowed, having prevailed." And in the Apocalypse: "Death and Hades follow some." B It seems to me that to taste death is one thing, to see it is another, and to have it come upon one is a third, and what is signified by the aforesaid "Death has swallowed, having prevailed" is a fourth, and what is signified by these words following it, "And death and Hades follow them," is a fifth. But you would perhaps find other differences besides those which I have set forth, if you were to collect them, and by comparing them one with another, and investigating them correctly, you would find the matters signified in each place. C But I inquire whether it is a less evil to see death, but a greater one to taste it; and what is even worse: to have death follow someone, and not that alone, but also to have it come upon him and seize him who was previously following; and lastly, the swallowing of all these seems to me to be the most grievous. And if you attend to the difference between these things that we have said, and the sins that are committed, you will not doubt, I think, that such things are ascribed by the Spirit, who has perfectly searched out these matters, to the divine oracles to move the soul. D And if beyond what we have related it is necessary that it be set forth more clearly—
OLD INTERPRETATION
[the sequence of things, that He who has once seen the Son of man coming in His kingdom, and seen Him in His glory, and the kingdom of God coming in virtue, after so great a spectacle of good things, will by no means taste of death. But without the promises of Jesus, perhaps not without reason we might have supposed that men should taste death, as long as they had not been deemed worthy to see the Son of man coming in his kingdom, and in his glory, and the kingdom of God in virtue.55. But since it is written here by the three evangelists: "They shall not taste of death," whereas in other Scriptures various things concerning death are said: it is not superfluous to compare them also with these discussions concerning death. In the Psalms it is said: "Who is the man who lives and shall not see death?" And in another place: "Let death come upon them, and let them go down alive into Hades." And in another of the prophets: "Death has swallowed, having prevailed." Also in Revelation: "Death and Hades follow certain ones."]
THE TRANSFIGURATION OF THE LORD
And not only is He Himself transfigured "before" such disciples, nor does He only add to the transfiguration that "His face did shine as the sun," but also "His garments" appear "white as the light" to those who have been led up by Him "into" the "high mountain apart." Now the "garments" of Jesus are the expressions and the letters of the Gospels, which He put on. And I think that the things revealed by the apostles concerning Him are also the "garments" of Jesus, which become "white" for those who ascend "into" the "high mountain" with Jesus. But since there are also differences in whites, "His garments" become "white as" the most brilliant and purest white of all things; and this is "the light." Therefore, whenever you see someone not only accurately understanding the theology concerning Jesus, but also clarifying the entire expression of the Gospels, do not hesitate to say that for such a one "the garments" of Jesus have become "white as the light." And when the Son of God is so understood and perceived to be transfigured, that "His face" is [as] the sun and "His garments white as the light," immediately there would be seen by him who has thus seen Jesus "Moses," the law, "and Elijah," synecdochically not one alone but all the prophets, holding communion with Jesus; for such is the thing signified by "talking with Him," and according to Luke: "Moses and Elijah appeared in glory," and the rest up to "at Jerusalem." And if anyone has seen the glory of Moses, having understood the spiritual law as being one with the Word of Jesus, and the "wisdom which in a mystery is hidden" in the prophets, he has seen Moses and Elijah "in glory," when he saw them "with" Jesus.A And the one showing to those who have ascended "his garments" gleaming and brighter than the fuller's work can make them, is the Word, manifesting in the words of the Scriptures—which are despised by many—the gleaming of the meanings, when the "clothing" of Jesus, according to Luke, becomes "white" and "dazzling." Let us see, therefore, after these things, what the thought was when "Peter answering said to Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here; let us make three tabernacles," and what follows. This must be searched for all the more because Mark adds to them, as if from his own persona, "for he did not know what he answered," while Luke says "not knowing what he says." You will observe, therefore, whether he spoke these things in an ecstasy, being filled with the Spirit that moved him to say these things, which cannot be the Holy Spirit; for John taught in the Gospel, before the resurrection of the Savior, that no one had yet received the Holy Spirit, saying, "For the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified."
It is indicated by the seeing of the Son of Man coming into His kingdom, or in His glory, and what is signified by the seeing of the kingdom of God having come in power; these things—whether they are those shining in our hearts, or those found by seekers, or those entering our thoughts (let each judge as he wishes)—we shall set forth. B He who contemplates and grasps the excellence of the Word, who dissolves and refutes all the plausibilities that are advanced on behalf of falsehoods but claim to be truth, sees the Son of Man, according to the word of John, the Word of God coming in His own kingdom. But if such a one perceives the Word not only dissolving all the plausibility of the opposition but also setting forth his own truths most clearly, he would see His glory in addition to His kingdom. And such a one would see in Him the kingdom of God having come in power; and this he would see, as one no longer ruled by the sin reigning in the mortal body of those who sin, but as one always arranged under the King who is the God of all, whose kingdom is in power within us, but in actuality—and as Mark named it, in power—and in no way in weakness, is within the perfect alone. These things, then, Jesus promised to the disciples, prophesying not about all of them, but about some.
Concerning the Transfiguration of the Savior.
"And after six days," according to Matthew and Mark, "He takes Peter, and James, and John his brother, and brings them up to a high mountain apart; and He was transfigured before them." Let this be considered of old, even before the narrative that appears to us according to these things, and as to the letter. It seems to me that those brought up by Jesus to the high mountain, and deemed worthy to behold His transfiguration apart, are not brought up after six days of the aforementioned words in vain. For since in six days, a perfect number, the whole world has been made, the perfection...(Fragmentary text continues in the Latin column translation as follows:) ...it seems to me, therefore, in these matters, that it is one thing to taste death, another to see death, another for death to come upon some, another to absorb death, and another to follow death. I inquire, however, in these things, whether by chance it is more grave to taste death than to see it; likewise, it is worse, the one whom death follows, than the one who tastes it; and not only that it follows, but also that death comes upon someone, and grasps the one it was following. But to be absorbed by death seems to me to be graver for all. But if you have considered the differences of sinners, I think you will not doubt to accept these things which have been discussed by us concerning the difference of death, and spoken in the Scriptures through the Holy Spirit.
"And after six days," according to Matthew and Mark, "taking Peter, and James, and John his brother, He led them up onto a high mountain apart, and He was transfigured before them." Those who are led by Jesus onto the high mountain, and are deemed worthy to see His transfiguration secretly, seem to me not to be led after six days in vain. For since in six days of the perfect number the whole visible world was made, therefore I think that he who transcends all the things of the world, considering now not the things which are seen—for they are temporal—but the things which are not seen—since they are eternal—is able to ascend the high mountain, with Christ going before him, and he is able also to see the glory of the Word of God. If, therefore, any of us desires, with Christ taking us, to ascend the high mountain, and to see His transfiguration secretly.
A Or let those who wish to maintain that the Apostles had become perfect even before the Passion tell us whence it was that "Peter and those with him," at the time of Jesus' transfiguration, "were weighed down with sleep." If, to anticipate something of what follows for the matter at hand, I were to ask such questions as these: Is it possible for anyone to be scandalized in Jesus without the action of the devil who causes the scandal? And is it possible to deny Jesus—and that before a serving-maid and a doorkeeper and most insignificant people—without the spirit of the enemy being present to the one denying, contrary to the spirit and wisdom given to those who, according to some merit of theirs, are helped by God toward the confession [of the faith]? But he who has learned to trace the roots of sins back to the father of sin, the devil, will not say that the Apostles were scandalized, or that Peter denied Him before that cock-crowing three times, without him.
This is a perfect creation; for this reason, I think, the person who surpasses all the things of the world by looking B no longer at the things seen—for these are temporal—but already at the things not seen, and only at the things not seen, because they are eternal, is described in the words: "After six days Jesus takes these some." If, therefore, any of us wishes, with Jesus taking him, to be led up by Him into the high mountain, and to be counted worthy to see His transfiguration in private, let him surpass the six days, by not looking at the things seen, nor loving the world anymore, nor the things in the world, nor desiring any worldly desire, which is [the] desire for bodies, and for wealth in the body, and for glory according to the flesh, and whatever is wont to distract the soul and pull it away from the better and more divine things, and drag it down, and fix it in the deceit of this age—in wealth and glory and the other desires hostile to the truth. For when he has passed beyond the six, as we have said, he will keep a new Sabbath, rejoicing on the high mountain at seeing Jesus transfigured before him; for the Word has various forms, appearing to each as is expedient for the one who sees, and appearing to no one beyond what the beholder can contain.
You will ask, moreover, whether, when He was transfigured before those who were led up by Him into the high mountain, C He was seen by them in the form of God, which He had formerly—having the form of a servant to those who were down below, but not that, rather the form of God, to those who followed Him after six days into the high mountain? But hear these things, if you are able, paying attention also spiritually, that it was not said simply, "He was transfigured," but with a certain necessary addition, which Matthew and Mark recorded; for according to both, "He was transfigured before them." And according to this, you will say it is possible for Jesus to be transfigured before some with this transfiguration, while before others, at the same time, He is not transfigured. But if you wish to see the transfiguration of Jesus before those who ascended the high mountain in private with Him, look for me at the one in the Gospels...
sake, if it be false, you will ask who moved it to be spoken, especially since, according to John, «when he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own, for he is a liar and the father of it,» and just as there is no truth without the action of Him who said, «I am the truth,» so neither is there any truth without the enemy of the truth. Therefore, these opposites were still in Peter: truth and falsehood. And from truth he said, «You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,» but from falsehood, «Far be it from you, Lord; this shall not be to you,» and also, «It is good for us to be here.» But one who does not wish to say that Peter spoke these things by the action of some worse [spirit], but that the words were from his own bare choice, when required to explain how he would present the «not knowing what he was saying» and the «for he did not know what he answered,» will say that even there he considered it as scandalous and unworthy of Jesus to accept that the Son «of the living God» should be killed, the Christ whom the Father had already revealed to him.
A Consider for me Jesus in the Gospels, understood simply and, as one might say, known according to the flesh by those who do not ascend through the works and words that lead upward to the high mountain of wisdom; but no longer known according to the flesh, but theologized through all the Gospels, and beheld in the form of God according to the knowledge of them: for it is before these that Jesus is transfigured, and to none of those who are below. B When He is transfigured, and His face shines as the sun, that He may be revealed to the children of light who have put off the works of darkness, and have put on the armor of light, and are no longer children of darkness or night, but have become sons of day, and walk becomingly as in the day; and being revealed, He will shine upon them, not simply as the sun, but showing them that He is the sun of righteousness.
And not only is He Himself transfigured before such disciples, nor does He only add to the transfiguration that His face shines as the sun, but also His garments appear white as the light to those who are led up by Him C into the high mountain privately; and the garments of Jesus are the words and the letters of the Gospels with which He was clothed. I think, moreover, that the things said by the apostles concerning Him are also the garments of Jesus, becoming white for those who ascend the high mountain with Jesus. But since there are also differences in white things, His garments become white as the brightest and purest of all white things; and this is the light. D When, therefore, you see someone not only accurately investigating the theology concerning Jesus, but also clarifying every word of the Gospels, do not hesitate to say to such a one that the garments of Jesus have become white as the light. When the Son of God is thus understood and beheld transfigured, so that His face is as the sun, and His garments as white as the light, at once there would be seen by the one who sees such things Jesus, Moses the...
Law, and Elias by synecdoche—that is, not he alone, but all the prophets A communicating with Jesus; for such is the thing signified: "Talking with him." And according to Luke: "Moses and Elias appeared in majesty," and what follows, up to "in Jerusalem." If anyone has seen the glory of Moses, having understood the spiritual law as one word with Jesus and the wisdom hidden in mystery among the prophets, he has seen Moses and Elias in glory, when he has seen them with Jesus.
Furthermore, B since according to Mark it will be necessary to narrate that: "And as he was praying, he was transfigured before them," it must be said that perhaps it is most possible to see the Word transfigured before us, if we have done the things previously mentioned, and we have ascended the mountain, and we have seen the Word Himself discoursing with the Father, and praying to Him on behalf of those for whom a true high priest would pray to the only true God. In order that He might thus converse with God and pray to the Father, He ascends the mountain; then, according to Mark, "His garments become white and glistening as the light, such as a fuller on earth cannot make white." And perhaps C the fullers on earth are the wise men of this age, who busy themselves with the language which they consider bright and pure, so that even base thoughts and false dogmas seem to be adorned by their, so to speak, "fulling" art. But He who displays His glistening garments to those who have ascended, and which are more splendid than what their fuller's art can make white, is the Word, who stands in the language of the Scriptures—despised by many—to show the "glistening" of the meanings. When Moses, the Law, D showed us the glorious form of Himself, and the brightness of His garments, it was not of Himself alone, but also of the spiritual Law, which is seen in glory with Jesus. Moses also showed us all prophecy, which does not die after the incarnation, but is taken up into heaven, of which Elias was a symbol. Finally, since according to Mark: "And it came to pass as he was praying," the appearance—"And he brings them up onto a high mountain by themselves, and he was transfigured before them"—the Law and Elias by synecdoche, not one man alone, but all the prophets, are involved in conversation with Jesus.
A I believe that God, in dissuading Peter from making "three tabernacles" under which he intended—so far as his will was concerned—to dwell, shows a single and superior tabernacle—if I may call it so—which differs by much, namely the cloud. For if it is the work of a tabernacle to overshadow the one within it and to protect him, and the "bright cloud overshadowed them," God has, as it were, made for them a more divine tabernacle, precisely because it is bright, as an example of future rest. For a "bright cloud" overshadows the righteous, who are both protected and at the same time enlightened and illuminated by it. B And what would the "bright cloud" overshadowing the righteous be, if not perhaps the power of the Father, from which comes the "voice" of the Father, testifying to the Son as the beloved and the one in whom He is well-pleased, and exhorting those being overshadowed by it to hear Him and no one else? He says this just as He did of old, and always does, through whomever He wishes. And perhaps the Holy Spirit is the "bright cloud," overshadowing the righteous and prophesying, C as the things of God are active within it and He speaks:
Perhaps He also teaches the disciples that He who is properly the "Son" of God and His "beloved," in whom He is well pleased, and to whom one must especially listen, was the one then beheld, who was transfigured and shone in appearance "as the sun" and was clothed in "garments white as the light." After this it is written that, having "heard" the voice [from] the cloud testifying to the Son, the three apostles, not bearing the glory of the voice and the power [attendant] upon it, fell on their "faces" and besought God; for they "feared" greatly the paradox of the vision and of the things said by the vision. But attend, if you are able to say these things also concerning the circumstances of the place, that the disciples, having understood that the Son of God had spoken to Moses, and that He was the one who had said: "For no man shall see my face and live," and [having seen the "face" of the Son of God become "as the sun," and] having accepted the testimony of God concerning Him, were humbled—as they could not bear the rays of the Word—"under the mighty hand of God." But after the touch of the Word, "lifting up their eyes, they saw Jesus only," and no one else. A His precious blood; or let those who wish to say that the apostles had become perfect even before the passion of Jesus tell us whence B "Peter and those with him were weighed down with sleep at the time of the transfiguration of Jesus." But so that, anticipating something of what follows, I may take up what is before me, I might raise such questions: Is it possible for anyone to be scandalized in Jesus without the operation of the devil who scandalizes? Is it possible to deny Jesus, and that before a servant girl, and a doorkeeper, and most contemptible people, if the spirit of the enemy is not present with the one denying, as opposed to the spirit that is given, and [in contrast to] the wisdom [given] to those who are aided by God to confess Him according to some merit of their own? But surely he who has learned to trace the roots of sins back to the father of sin, the devil, will by no means say that the apostles were scandalized without him, or that Peter denied [Him] three times before that cock-crowing. Now, if this is so, perhaps he—insofar as it was within his power to scandalize Jesus and divert Him from that economy which was undertaken with such great zeal and was productive of salvation for humanity through His passion—was bringing into act things which seemed to contribute to this end; and here, too, he sought to drag Jesus away as if deceitfully and craftily, as if exhorting Him no longer to condescend to men and not to come to them and undertake death for them, but to remain on the high mountain with Moses and Elijah. Furthermore, he signified that he would make three tabernacles; one indeed privately for Jesus, another for Moses, and another for Elijah, as if the three could not be contained by one tabernacle, if they were to remain in tabernacles upon the high mountain. Perhaps in this, too, he who brought it about that [Peter] "knew not what he said" was working maliciously, wishing not for Jesus, Moses, and Elijah to be together, but to separate them from one another on the pretext of those three. C And false was also: "It is good for us to be here." For if it had been good, they would have remained there; but if it was a lie, you will ask who worked for the lie to be spoken, especially since, according to John, "When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own, for he is a liar and the father of it." And just as there is no truth without the operation of the One who said: "I am the truth," so neither is there a lie without the enemy of truth. D
ANCIENT INTERPRETATION
...as they were still strangers to Him who was about to redeem them from the enemy and purchase them with His precious blood. Or let those who contend that the apostles were perfect before the passion of Christ tell us whence it came about that at the time of the transfiguration of Jesus "Peter and those who were with Him were weighed down with sleep." And that I may, by way of anticipation, take up from what follows some things to accommodate to the present discussion, I shall also pose these questions: Can anyone be scandalized in Jesus without the operation of the scandalizing devil? Can one deny Jesus, and that before a servant girl, a doorkeeper, and most contemptible men, if the spirit of the enemy is not present with the one denying, [as opposed to] the spirit that is his and of the wisdom which is granted to those who, because of some merit of their own, are aided by God to confess Him? Yet he who has learned to refer the roots of sins to the father of sin, the devil, will by no means say that the apostles suffered scandal without him, or that Peter denied [Him] three times before that cock-crowing. If, therefore, these things are so, see whether perhaps he who, insofar as he could, sought to scandalize Jesus and avert Him from the administration of salvation to humanity—a work undertaken and accomplished with much zeal through His passion—was bringing into act whatever seemed to contribute to this; and here, too, he sought fraudulently and craftily to call Jesus away, as if, under the color of good, exhorting Him no longer to condescend to men, nor to come to them, nor to undergo death for them, but to remain on the high mountain with Moses and Elijah. Moreover, he signified that he would make three tabernacles, one privately for Jesus, another for Moses, and a third for Elijah, as if one tabernacle could not contain them all, in which they ought all to have remained together. Perhaps in this, too, he acted maliciously through him who knew not what he was saying, being unwilling for Jesus, Moses, and Elijah to be together, but wishing to separate them from one another on the pretext of three tabernacles, which could not be done. For if Christ, the Law, and the prophets are in one [place], then Christ is proved to be the Son of God, and the law and the prophets are found to have prophesied truly, since the law and the prophets gave testimony concerning Christ, foretelling those things which were to come to pass concerning Christ, and Christ gave testimony to the law and the prophets, inasmuch as they prophesied truly, fulfilling their prophecy in the very events themselves. But if they are separated from one another, neither is Christ shown, nor are the prophets found to have spoken the truth. This was what the bad suggestion of Peter desired when he said: "Let us make three tabernacles, one for Thee, one for Moses, one for Elijah," on account of which the evangelists said of Peter: "He knew not what he was saying." But false also was that which he said: "It is good for us to be here." For if it had been good for them to be there, they would certainly have remained there and would not have refused what was good. But if what he said was false, "It is good...
for us to be here," understand who suggested speaking the false, unless it be he who is the liar and his father? And just as there is no truth without the work of Him who said, "I am the truth," so also there is no speaking of a lie without the devil as the author of the lie. Therefore, opposite things were still in Peter: truth and falsehood. And from the truth he said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God," in which he was also blessed, and by promise merited to become the foundation of the Church. From the lie, however, he said, "Be it far from thee, Lord; this shall not be unto thee." For it was found to be false which he said, "This shall not be unto thee." For after he went to Jerusalem, he suffered many things from those from whom he suffered. And what he said, "It is good for us to be here," he said with the lie suggesting it to him. But he who does not wish to say that Peter said these things by the operation of some evil spirit, but from his own pure will, how shall he defend that which the evangelists said of him: "But Peter said this not knowing what he was saying"? In truth, however, because also there he judged it as something execrable and unworthy that the Son of the living God—whom the Father had already revealed to him—should be killed, he said, "Be it far from thee, Lord; this shall not be unto thee." B And here, as he saw the two forms of Jesus Christ, but the one which had been manifested in the transfiguration was far more excellent, delighted by it he said, "It is good for us to be here," so that he himself and those who were with him might be exhilarated by seeing the transformation of His and His face shining like the sun, and His garments white as the light, and moreover that those who once saw them in glory—namely Moses and Elijah—might always behold them endowed with the same glory; and also that they might be delighted by the things which they were about to hear them discussing with one another, Moses and Elijah with Christ, and Christ with them.
41. Since, however, we have not yet carefully examined how the things in this place are to be interpreted allegorically, C but having only searched out the signification of the words we have said these things, let us consequently see whether perhaps Peter, whom we have already mentioned, and the sons of thunder, being lifted up to the height of the true dogmas and having beheld the transformation of Jesus, and of Moses and Elijah who were seen with Him in glory, might wish to make tabernacles in themselves for the Word of God who was to dwell in them, and for the law with...
A which had been seen in them in glory, and for the prophecy which spoke of Christ’s departure; and Peter, desiring that spectacle of life and its delight, preferring his own benefit to the benefit of the many which could accrue to men from Christ’s descent to them, said: “It is good for us to be here; let us make, if you wish, three tabernacles.” But since charity “seeks not its own things,” Jesus did not do what seemed good to Peter, but descended from the mountain to those who could not ascend it to see the transfiguration of the Son of God, so that they might see Him at least such as they were able to comprehend. Therefore, it is the work of a just man, and of one who possesses charity that does not seek its own things, to be free from all, but to make himself a servant to all those who are below, so that he may gain the greater number of them.
42. “And while he was yet speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them,” and what follows. I indeed think that God, by turning Peter away from the making of three tabernacles under which they were to dwell according to his will, showed one tabernacle, and a better one, and one much more glorious than those which he wanted to make; for this is the proper work of a tabernacle: to overshadow those who are under it. And the bright cloud overshadowing them was a representation B more divine and more splendid.
[alt-version omitted]
A Having been viewed with glory, and with the prophecy speaking of the departure of Jesus which He was about to fulfill, and as Peter had loved the contemplative life and had preferred the delight in it to being among many with some annoyance—yet with the intent of benefiting those who wished—he said, “It is good for us to be here.” But since “love seeks not its own,” Jesus did not do what was thought to be good by Peter; therefore He descended from the mountain to those who could not ascend upon it to see His transfiguration, so that, if even such as they were able, they might see Him. It is, therefore, the duty of a just man, and of one who has love that does not seek its own, to be free from all, but to enslave himself to all those below, that he might gain the more of them. One might say B concerning the things given regarding the ecstasy and the operation of the spirit that was worse in Peter regarding “not knowing what he was saying,” that one should not admit that account—that there are some among Paul “desiring to be teachers of the Law,” who do not know about what they speak, but because they do not clarify the nature of the things said, nor understand their intent, they assert things about which they know nothing—[that] Peter had suffered something of this kind, for not having grasped what the good thing was concerning the economy of Jesus, and of Moses and Elijah who were seen on the mountain, he says: “It is good for us to be here,” and what follows, “not knowing what he was saying. For he did not know what he was talking about.” For indeed, if a wise man understands the things that proceed from his own mouth, and wears discernment upon his lips, he who is not thus does not understand the things from his own mouth, nor does he perceive the nature of the things being said by him. Next to these is: “While he was yet speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them,” and what follows. I think, indeed, that God, turning Peter away from making three tabernacles under which he was intending, so far as he was concerned, to dwell, descended from the mountain, and it is a work of His love for mankind to leave the house and go away to those who are unable to come to Him.
A wishing, I should rather say, to deter them, and to show them a better tabernacle, if I may so call it, a cloud that differs greatly. For if it is the work of a tabernacle to overshadow the one within it and to protect him, and the shining cloud overshadowed them, God has made for them, as it were, a more divine tabernacle, inasmuch as it is also shining, as an example of the future resurrection; for a shining cloud overshadows the righteous, who are at once covered and illuminated and enlightened by it. And who might this shining cloud be that overshadows the righteous? Is it perhaps the paternal power from which the Father’s voice proceeds, testifying to the Son as beloved and well-pleasing, and urging those who are overshadowed by it to hear Him and no one else? He whom He speaks through, as of old, so also always, through those whom He wills. B Perhaps, too, the Holy Spirit is the shining cloud, overshadowing the righteous and prophesying the things of God, with Him working within it and saying: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." And I would even boldly say that our Savior is a shining cloud. For Peter, in saying, "Let us make here three tabernacles," wanted one from himself, one from the Son, and one from the Holy Ghost; for the shining cloud of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost overshadows the true disciples of Jesus; or else the cloud overshadows the Gospel, the law, and the prophets, shining to him who is able to behold the light of it in the Gospel, the law, and the prophets. Now the voice from the cloud perhaps addresses Moses and Elijah, whom He C brings to speak, as they desire to see the Son of man, and to hear Him, and to behold Him as He is in glory, saying: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear Him." But perhaps He is teaching the disciples that He who is truly the Son of God, and His beloved, in whom He is well pleased, and to whom one must chiefly listen, was the one who was then being seen, and who had been transfigured, and had shone in His face as the sun, and had put on garments as white as light.
After these things it is written that the three, having heard the voice of the cloud testifying to the Son, D were struck with fear. But perhaps the voice also instructs us, who with the apostles desire to see the Son of God and to hear Him, teaching us that He who is truly the Son of God and most beloved by God, in whom He is well pleased, and whom it is fitting to hear above all, is the very one who was then seen and transfigured, and who shone like the sun, and whose garments were made as light. 43. It is written, therefore, that the three apostles, having heard the voice from the cloud and the testimony concerning the Son, were overcome with fear.
A For not bearing the glory of the voice, nor the power proceeding from it, they besought God, falling upon their faces. They greatly feared the strangeness of the sight and the things spoken from the sight. And consider, if you are able, how to speak of these things concerning the place, that the disciples, having understood that the Son of God had spoken to Moses, and that He Himself was the one who said, "For no man shall see my face and live," and having received the testimony of God concerning Him, as not bearing the rays of the Word, they were humbled under the mighty hand of God. But after the touch of the Word, lifting their eyes, they saw Jesus only, and no one else. Moses, who is the Law, and Elias, the prophecy, have become one and the same as Jesus, that is, the Gospel; and they did not remain as they were before, three, but the three have become one.
Understand these things for me as pertaining to mystical matters; for according to the bare intention of the letter, Moses and Elias, having appeared in glory and conversing with Jesus, departed—whence they had come, perhaps to deliver the words which Jesus spoke with them to those who were soon to be benefited by Him at the time of the passion, when B "many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep," with their tombs opened, were about to go into the truly holy city, Jerusalem, which was not wept over by Jesus, and there to appear to many.
But after the dispensation on the mountain, as the disciples were descending from the mountain, in order that they might come to the multitude and minister to the Son of God concerning their salvation, Jesus commanded the disciples, saying: "Tell the vision to no one, until the Son of man is risen from the dead." That saying, "Tell the vision to no one," C is similar to the one we examined above, when He commanded the disciples that they should tell no one that He is the Christ. Therefore, the things said in that place can be useful to us also for the present matter, since in these things too Jesus wishes that what pertains to His glory should not be spoken of before His glory after the passion.
that which He will obtain after the passion: for those who had heard it, and especially the crowds, would have been most offended when they had seen Him crucified, Whom they had received as having been adorned with such glory. Wherefore, since it was akin to His transfiguration, and to His face which appeared shining as the sun, to be glorified by the resurrection, for this reason He desires that these things be proclaimed by the apostles then, when He shall have risen from the dead.
TOMUS XIII.
B 567 1. "And the disciples questioned Him, saying, Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?" The disciples who had ascended with Jesus were mindful of the things handed down by the scribes concerning Elijah, namely, that Elijah, coming before the advent of Christ, would prepare for Him the souls of those who were to receive Him; but that vision which occurred on the mountain, in which Elijah appeared, seemed not to accord with what had been said, since it did not seem to them that Elijah had come before Jesus, but after Him. Therefore, thinking the scribes were lying, they say these things. To this the Savior answers, not rejecting the things handed down concerning Elijah, but declaring that there was another advent of Elijah, unknown to the scribes, before that of Christ; in which, not recognizing him, they did in him whatever they wished, as if they themselves had provided the cause for him to be cast into prison by Herod and to be put to death by him; then, in accordance with the things which were done against Elijah, C they did to him whatever they wished.
1. "And His disciples questioned Him, saying: Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?" The discourse of the disciples' question, saying: "Why then do the scribes say?" has regard to something of those things which were written above; for which reason, in so far as we are able, let us attempt to make this manifest. The disciples who had ascended the mountain with Christ were mindful of the traditions of the scribes concerning the prophet Elijah, that he was to come before the advent of Christ, so that he might prepare the souls that would receive Him. The vision, however, which had taken place on the mountain, in which Elijah was also seen, seemed to them not to agree with the tradition of the scribes concerning Elijah: because it did not seem to them that Elijah had come before Christ, but with Christ. Therefore, thinking the tradition of the scribes false on account of this kind of vision concerning Elijah, they said: "Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first? For Thou hast been manifested to us before Elijah, and before He came to this human life." To this Jesus answered, not indeed rejecting what was said by the scribes
they had said concerning Elijah, but affirming that their understanding of the scripture was correct. For those who heard the words, "Elijah is already come," and what follows, which was said by the Savior, referred this to John the Baptist. A And this may suffice for the sake of clarifying the passage set before us.
Thirteenth Volume
But now let us examine, according to our ability, the matters lying hidden within it. In this passage, Elijah is not, in my opinion, to be understood as the soul, lest we fall into the doctrine alien to the Church of God concerning the transmigration of souls, which is neither taught by the apostles nor found anywhere in the Scriptures. For it is contrary to what is written, since the things that are seen are temporal, B and the end of this age shall be consummated. "Heaven and earth shall pass away," it is said, and "Yet a little while and the fashion of this world passes away," and "The heavens shall perish." If, then, we were to posit that in the order of things from the beginning unto the end, the same soul could twice enter into a body, for what cause would it undergo this? If it undergoes the body on account of sin, why does it not undergo it three or more times? For if it descends into a body only on account of its movement and migration, then what becomes of the movement of the world, C as stated, "Heaven and earth shall pass away"? If we were to grant this position, that one who is entirely without sin would no more return into a body, would it not be found, after the passage of time, that every soul has been purified, and thus no one would be in need of further transmigration? Yet even so, among the fixed number of souls, D have they been handed down from Elijah, or does the fact that He points to another coming of Elijah indicate something they, the Scribes, were ignorant of? But the ignorant, having in a way become participants in his suffering, did to him as they wished, and in like manner will they do to Christ. Therefore, Jesus answering says: "Elijah is indeed to come first, and shall restore all things." But he says, "Elijah is already come, and they have not known him." And what he says regarding John, "Elijah is already come," is not to be understood as the soul, that we might clarify the doctrine of transmigration, which is alien to ecclesiastical truth. For the contrary is what the Apostle says: things that are seen are temporal, and this world has an end, and what the Lord says is: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, and the works of Thy hands, O Lord, have laid the foundations of the earth. They shall perish." If, according to their opinion, the soul can twice be in a body, from the beginning of the age until the end, I ask: why twice? Is it on account of sin? Why then not three or more times is the soul in the body, not on account of life, but on account of the sins committed therein, for which this theory of transmigration, the only one which according to this opinion brings vengeance upon sinning souls, is introduced? Which, if it were consistently granted, it would perhaps follow that the soul would not cease to again and again receive a body. It would always return on account of preceding transgressions, and thus there would not be that consuming of the world. For if, according to this argument, a soul is given, not to return into the body, which has no sin at all, then for how many years do you suppose you can find one soul that is entirely pure from sin, and has no[ ]need of returning to the body? If it is from the fixed number of souls that a soul is transferred, and it no longer comes into a body, it will eventually happen that, as one who has understood the generation of the world for an infinite number of years—or for one, or two, or a few more—and these also have completed their course, the world will be destroyed, because those who come into bodies will be lacking. This interpretation does not please A the Scripture; for He knows the multitude of sinners in the time of the destruction of the world, because they are being joined to the Word. "But when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?" as we found it written in Matthew: "As the days of Noah were, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be; for as it was in the days of the flood," and so on. For the requital of sins will not be in transmigration—for those who are still sinning B are taken up, or punished in another way after this—and therefore there will be two general modes of punishment: one in transmigration and in a body, and the other outside of such a body. And let those who treat the causes and differences of these explain how they who are punished are those who shed their sins on the spot, those who are left over at the consummation, or, which is better, there is one mode of punishment for those who have sinned in the body, and the one outside C of this present life is to suffer according to the worth of what they have sinned. For each of these, to anyone capable of considering the facts, makes the opinion of those who introduce transmigration of souls into bodies fundamentally groundless. For if those who introduce the transmigration of souls into various bodies, as if consistent with this doctrine, do not wish the world to be destroyed, and at the same time they oppose the Scriptures that declare the world will be destroyed, they must either disbelieve them, or devise explanations for the accounts of the consummation, which, even if they wish, they will not be able to do. Moreover, this D is also a bold thing to say, that if we say the world will be destroyed, and it is not that the world is destroyed but that it is infinite, God will not have known all things before their coming to be. But if He knows each part, or each thing, before it comes to be, or some things even after these again,
VETUS INTERPRETATIO. To receive transfiguration? But if thus a certain soul is always from a defined number of souls transferred, and no longer returning to the body, it will eventually fail for some innumerable ages of nativities, the world being reduced to one, or two, or three; and after these have achieved their own perfection, and have become irreversible, the world will be consumed, those who return to the body being the ones who are lacking. Because what is not pleasing to the truth of Scripture: they know that the multitude of sinners will be found in the time of the consummation, as the Lord Himself manifests, saying: "Yet when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith upon the earth?" Item elsewhere: "As it was in the days of Noah, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be. For as they were before the flood eating, drinking, marrying, and giving in marriage, until he entered into the ark, and the flood came, and took them all away," and it will be for them that there will be punishment of sinners, not in transcorporation, but in fire. Whence it is necessary, that those who defend transcorporation, desiring to say that the consequences are there, deny that the world is eventually to be consumed. Against whom we answer: If the world is not consumed, but will be without end, God does not know all things before they come to be, if perhaps He knows one part, or the other, as future before it happens.
A For things that are infinite in nature cannot be comprehended by a limited knowledge, as things destined to be known by a definitive nature; and from this it follows that prophecies cannot be made concerning everything, seeing that all things are infinite.
2. I think it necessary to have occupied oneself with study and effort in the inquiry into the question of the migration of souls into various bodies, because of the suspicion of some who have been persuaded that the soul under discussion is the same as that of Elijah and John—first called Elijah, and then truly John; nor do I think that John was called so accidentally, as is evident from the fact that the angel who appeared to Zacharias said to him: B «Fear not, Zacharias, for your prayer has been heard; and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John;» and from the fact that Zacharias recovered his voice after he had written on the tablet that the one who was born was to be called John. But if this soul were Elijah, it ought to have been called Elijah when it was born a second time, or certainly some explanation ought to have been offered for why the name was changed, as in the cases of Abram and Abraham, of Sara and Sarah, of Jacob and Israel, and of Simon and Peter. Yet not even then would the argument hold in their case; for in the cases we mentioned, the changes of name occurred within one and the same life. C But someone might ask: if the soul of Elijah was not first in the Tishbite and then in John, what then was it that was called Elijah by the Savior in both? And I say that Gabriel, in his discourse with Zacharias, suggested what the same nature was that existed in Elijah and John; for he says: «And he will turn many of the sons of Israel to the Lord their God; and he himself shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah.» Observe, for he did not say, "in the soul of Elijah," so that there might be room for the theory of transmigration, but «in the spirit and power of Elijah.» For the Scripture clearly knows the difference between spirit D and soul.
A Since, however, our present purpose is not to examine everything, but only the passage before us, let us by way of allegorical interpretation see whom we can identify as the one who is "moonstruck" and as the father who pleads for him; what it means for the sufferer to fall, not always but "often," at one time "into the fire" and at another "into the water"; and what is signified by the fact that he could not be healed by the disciples, but only by Jesus Himself. For it is reasonable to suppose that if every disease and every infirmity which our Lord then healed "among the people" refers to the various afflictions of the soul—as those who were paralyzed in soul and had it lying motionless in the body are signified by the paralytics, those who were blind to the things that can only be seen by the soul are signified by the blind, and those who were deaf to the reception of the saving word are signified by the deaf—then the case of the moonstruck man must be examined in a way analogous to these. This affliction befalls the sufferers at significant intervals, during which the one who is afflicted, other than at the time when the seizure is not acting B upon him, does not seem to differ from one in health. He will be restored, so that upon restoration, and having become capable of receiving the glory of Christ through this restoration, the Son of God, who is to be seen in glory, may appear. If, furthermore, Elijah is a certain "Word," inferior to the Word who in the beginning was God with God, C he too might be able, as a kind of training, to reside among the people prepared by him, so that they might be made ready to receive the perfect Word. One might also ask whether the spirit and power of Elijah suffered what was in John, and what is meant by, "They did to him whatsoever they wished." D Regarding this, it shall be said more simply that there is nothing absurd in the idea that those who provide help should suffer in sympathy with those who are being helped because of love; for Jesus Himself says, "For the sake of the weak I was weak, and for the sake of the hungry I hungered, and for the sake of the thirsty I thirsted." More profoundly, however, it is not said, "But they did to him whatsoever they wished in him," for the things that were suffered were rooted in the spirit and power of Elijah, while the soul of John was in no way Elijah, and perhaps the body was not either. For in one way the soul, spirit, and power are in the body, but in another way the body of the righteous man exists in the higher realities, as if rooted in them and depending on them. "Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you." For the soul of the sinner is in the flesh, but the soul of the righteous man is in the spirit. Furthermore, one might ask to whom the phrase, "But they did to him whatsoever they wished," refers. Does it refer to the scribes, concerning whom the disciples, while questioning, used to say, "Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?" But John does not seem to have suffered much at the hands of the scribes, unless perhaps it is that they did not believe him, or that, as we said above, they became accessories to the deeds dared against him by Herod. Another might say that the passage, "But they did to him whatsoever they wished," does not refer to the scribes, but to Herodias, her daughter, and Herod, who did to him whatever...
A they pleased: "a narration of piety is wisdom at all times," but regarding those who have been given over: "the fool changes like the moon." And one is able in such cases to see impulses capable of seizing those who have not stood firm against their instability toward praise; so that one might say that there is, as it were, a full moon in them, or at least nearly a full moon. But you would see again the light that seems to be in them waning—not being daylight, but nocturnal [and lunar] light—and to such a degree failing that not even that which seems to be light is observed to exist in them. But whether those who first gave names to things called the affliction of epilepsy "moon-struck" for some such reason or not, you yourself shall consider. The father of the one who is moon-struck is perhaps the angel who has been allotted to him [if indeed every human soul must be said to have been placed under some angel [as under some father]], beseeching the physician of souls on behalf of his son, that he might rescue him, since he could not be healed of the affliction by the lower word that was in the disciples. That these things are to be understood as multiple spirits that are better in the same person. And this we also put forward because of the fact that John came before Christ B in the spirit and power of Elias, so that the text "Elias has already come" may be referred to the spirit of Elias that was in John, as the three disciples who went up with him also understood, that he spoke to them concerning John the Baptist. For on Eliseus alone did the spirit of Elias rest; but John came before, not in the spirit alone, but also in the power of Elias; wherefore Eliseus would not have been called Elias, but John himself was Elias. If it is necessary to set forth the Scripture from which the scribes said that Elias must come first, hear Malachias saying: "And behold I will send you Elias the Thesbite," and the rest up to: "Lest I come and strike the earth utterly." And it seems that it is signified by these things that Elias will make ready for the glorious advent of Christ, through certain holy words and through the restoration in souls of those who have been found suitable for this, which those on earth would not have borne due to the surpassing weight of the glory, if they had not been made ready by Elias. But in these matters, I do not take "Elias" to mean the soul of that prophet C, but his spirit and his power; for these are the things by which all things will be restored.
[alt-version omitted]
A And those, who have been restored and have become capable of that glory of Christ, which is to be seen when the Son of God shall come in glory. But if Elias is some word inferior to the Word who "in the beginning was with God, God the Word," that word might B be able, as by a preliminary exercise, to make those who are to be restored become prepared to receive the perfect Word. But someone might doubt whether the spirit and the power of Elias which were in John, have suffered something, in accordance with the saying, "And they did unto him whatsoever they listed"; and in regard to this it has been said—not indeed to the simple, for there is nothing unreasonable in the idea that one who is being helped should suffer together with the one who helps—but to those who are being helped, for Jesus says, C"For them that are infirm," and for the infirm, and for the thirsty—the deeper meaning is that it is not said, "But they did unto him whatsoever they listed," for it is not the soul of John that has been made to suffer for the spirit and the power of Elias; but perhaps even the body; for in another way the soul, and the spirit, and the power are in the body; and in another way the body of the righteous person is in the better things, as if clinging to them and hanging from them. "They that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you." For the soul of the sinner is in the flesh, but that of the righteous man is in the spirit. Furthermore, this also might be inquired: D "But they did unto him whatsoever they listed," to whom does this refer? For do the disciples, when inquiring, say: "Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?" But it does not appear that John was much injured by the scribes; unless, perhaps, because they did not believe him, or because, as we have said above, they were fellow-actors with those things which were done to him by Herod. Or another might say that the saying "And they did unto him whatsoever they listed," does not refer to the scribes, but to Herod, and to Herodias, and to her daughter, and to Herod, who did unto him whatever they wished.
OLD INTERPRETATION
And if you wish to accept it, he himself is Elias who is to come. But let us see what it says: "And they did unto him whatsoever they listed." To whom does this refer? Whether to the Scribes, of whom the disciples inquiring said: "Why then say the Scribes that Elias must first come?" But we do not find that John suffered anything from the Scribes, unless it be that they did not believe him. Or unless, as we have said, they were accomplices in the things which Herod brought upon John. But others say this, that "And they did unto him whatsoever they listed," does not refer to the Scribes, but to Herod, and to Herodias, and to her daughter: on account of this which follows: "So shall the Son of man suffer atA their hands," it may be referred to the Scribes, if that which precedes is also referred to the Scribes; but if it is referred to Herod and Herodias and her daughter, then this later part also refers to them; for Herod appears to have been a party to the death of Jesus, with his wife perhaps privy to it and a participant in the wicked plots against Christ.
Concerning the Lunatic
B And when they were come to the multitude, there came to him a man kneeling down to him, and saying: Lord, have mercy on my son. They who suffer, or the kinsmen of those who suffer, are with the multitudes; wherefore, when Jesus has dispensed the things that are above the multitudes, he descends to them, so that those who cannot ascend because of the diseases that possess their soul may be helped, the Word having descended to them from higher places. It must be inquired in the case of which diseases the sufferers themselves believe and ask for their own healing; and in the case of which others do this for them, such as the centurion for his servant, and the nobleman for his son, and the ruler of the synagogue for his daughter, and C the Canaanitish woman for her daughter possessed of a devil, and now the man who kneels before him for his lunatic son. Along with these, one must also examine when the Savior heals of his own accord and without being asked by anyone, as the paralytic; for these healings, when compared with one another and examined together, reveal much to one who is able to hear that which is hidden in the mystery.
OLD INTERPRETATION
...to them, it is consequently said: if the first refers to the Scribes, this also refers to the Scribes. But if the first refers to Herod, and Herodias, and his daughter, then the second also refers to them; for even Herod is found to have been privy to the death of Christ, and his whole house.
5. At that time, as Jesus was descending from the mountain, there came to him a man, kneeling down to his knees saying: Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is a lunatic, and suffers severely. For sometimes he falls into the fire, and sometimes into the water, and I brought him to thy disciples, and they could not cure him. They who suffer, or those who are of the household of the sufferers, are held with the common people, not on the mountain. Therefore, on account of the people, he descends to the human dispensation, as if from the high mountain of divinity: just as, by the grace of the elect disciples who followed him, he ascends into the high mountain, and there he transformed himself into his own glory. For first he indeed descends, on account of those ignorant of him, to human humility: but when he has become known to them, he leads them to the knowledge of his divinity, so that they may say with the Apostle: "If we have known Christ according to the flesh, but now we know him so no longer." He descends, therefore, to the multitude, in order that D those who could not ascend on account of the infirmities of their souls might be helped by him. And so now the man who knelt before him, saying: "Lord, have mercy on my son," would not have approached him had he not come to the multitude with his chosen disciples. And it must be considered in which infirmities those who suffer believe and pray for their own salvation, or touch the hem of his garment and are healed; and in which cases they who suffer do not do this, but others do it for them; as for example, the centurion for his servant, the nobleman for his son, the ruler of the synagogue for his daughter, the Canaanitish woman for her vexed daughter, and now he who kneels down for his lunatic son. With these you shall consider also that point, when the Savior heals even though asked by no one, as the paralytic who had been in infirmity for thirty and eight years. For these very salvations...
of the hidden wisdom of God, and they will declare the decrees concerning the various illnesses of souls and the methods of healing them.
A Now, because we are not dealing with everything, but only with the passage before us, let us see how we can interpret figuratively who this lunatic is, and why his father asks about him, and what it means that the sufferer is not always, but often, falling—at times into the fire, and at times into the water; and what it means that he could not be healed by the disciples, but only by Jesus Himself. For it is reasonable that, if the Savior then healed every sickness and every infirmity among the people, it is referred to the various symptoms in the soul: those who are paralyzed in the soul, lying down with their soul in a state of paralysis, are designated by the paralytics; those who are blind in regard to things that can be seen only by the soul are shown by the blind—indeed, they are the blind; and those who are deaf to the reception of the saving word are designated by the deaf. Similar to this, those matters pertaining to the lunatic must be examined. This B affliction (75) happens by significant intervals to those who are suffering, as they seem in no way different from those who are healthy when the epilepsy is not acting upon them. You might find certain symptoms in some souls which are, for the most part, comparable to themselves and discussed, and which disclose many secrets of wisdom to those who can discern them.
4. But because we are not dealing with everything, but only with the passage before us, let us see how we can interpret morally who this lunatic is; then, who we think his father is, who is making the request for him; thirdly, what it means that the patient does not always fall, but frequently, sometimes into fire, sometimes into water, and what is the reason that he could not be healed at all by the disciples of Christ, but only by the Lord Jesus Himself. For there is a reason for this. Since every langor and every infirmity which the Savior then healed among the people refers to the spiritual infirmities of souls according to the differences of their passions, we consider those who have their soul paralyzed to be the paralytics; those who are blind in soul, C who do not consider what is just or unjust with their mind, to be the blind; and those who are deaf in soul, who are not prepared for the reception of saving arguments, to be the deaf. Consequently, it is necessary that what pertains to the lunatic should be examined.
(75) "This affliction, etc." Every disease in human bodies is believed by some to be caused by the moon, [hence] "lunacy"; and those who suffer from it can be called "lunatics" or "furious"—demoniacs and epileptics are so called. Vettius Valens, whom it has pleased God to bring from darkness into light, in his *Anthology* IV, says: "As for the conjunction or opposition, if they prevail, or at the diameters, and according to the phases of the moon, some lunatics—the manic, the ecstatic, the spirit-possessed—are created by the moon's influence." Further, where he wants to prove this by example, D he brings forward the temperaments of men, and notes that most especially those who are called "lunatics," or who are later spoken of, whether they be called *caducus* [falling] or *cadivos* [fallen]—the term "lunatic" comes into use. Aretaeus adds to the result, also a disease, just as most called it the sacred one. For he claims that the moon is also responsible for this disease, and the ancients attributed this disease to the moon. They say that the name "lunatic" is given to those who are affected by this disease at the time of the moon. Isidore, book 4 of *Etymologies*, chapter 1: "Called *caducus*, or 'falling,' that is, *lunaticus*, because he suffers at a certain time of the moon." For it seems to those who are affected by the moon that the disease comes upon them. — Huetius.
A And it will seem to those people that these things are equivalent, because "He began to show to the disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests." But this is not the case. For it is not the same thing to be "shown to the disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes" and, after suffering, "to be killed and" after being killed "on the third day to be raised," as it is for it to have been said to them while they were "in Galilee" [which we did not learn above], that therefore "the Son of Man was about to be betrayed." For the word "betrayed" was not mentioned above, whereas now it adds "into the hands of men." Wherefore let us inquire by whom or by what people He is about "to be betrayed into the hands of men." B Those who are thought to be healthy in self-control and the other virtues, at times, as it were, seized by some epilepsy arising from their passions, fall away from the state in which they seemed to stand, and are convulsed concerning the deception of this age and other desires. Perhaps, then, you would not be wrong in calling such people, so to speak, spiritually "lunatic," being cast down by "the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places," and faring badly often at the time when the passions that seize their soul are at work; sometimes falling into the fire of their burning desires, when they become, according to what is said in Hosea, "adulterers, like an oven heated for the baking of the combustion from the flame"; C sometimes into the water, when the king of all the dragons in the waters casts them down from the freedom they seemed to enjoy to breathe, into the depths of the waves of the sea of human life. This account of ours regarding the lunatic will be confirmed for us by the one who says in Wisdom, concerning the consistency of the righteous man: "The discourse of the pious is always wisdom"; and concerning those who have been given over: "But the fool changes like the moon." And it is possible even in such people to see urges capable of seizing upon praise from those who have not understood their instability, so that one might say there is a full moon in them, or almost a full moon. D You might see, again, that light which seemed to be in them being imitated—not being a daytime light, but rather a nocturnal light, waning to such a degree that it is not even seen to be a light at all when looked at in them. But whether those who first gave names to things called the disease of epilepsy "lunacy" because of some such thing, or not, you yourself will consider.
5. Now the father of the lunatic is perhaps the angel to whom he was allotted (whether one must say every human soul... [VETUS INTERPRETATIO] ...is a change from better to worse, because he who suffers this differs in no way from those who are healthy, at the time when the change itself is not working in him. Yet the infirmity of the soul of a young man, in some people who are frequently considered to be healthy in chastity or mercy, and to live according to the will of justice, is wasting. Sometimes, however, they are gripped by passions as if by a certain correction of the spirit, and they fall from that state of good in which they were thought to stand, and are turned to the seduction of this age and to other carnal concupiscences. Perhaps you will not sin if you say that such people are, (if I may say so), spiritually lunatic, who are cast down by the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places, and who fare badly frequently at the time when they have been gripped by their soul's passions, and fall into the fire of the conflagration, when adulterers (as Hosea says) become like a burning oven of fire. Such people sometimes fall into the water, when the king of all things that are in the waters, the dragon, casts them down from the freedom of the soul into the depth of the waves of the sea, that is, into the very worst evils of this human life, which is likened to the sea. Now our interpretation of the lunatic is commended by what Wisdom says, concerning the consistency of the righteous man: "A wise man remains like the sun"; but concerning the inconstancy of the sinner: "But the fool changes like the moon." And it is possible to see in such people certain impulses of what are seemingly good deeds creeping in, so that they can creep away with praise from men—from those men, however, who do not know the hidden inconstancy of their heart. But you see them decrease again, and what seemed to be light in them is found not to be daytime light, but nocturnal and lunar, and to decrease for so long, that it is not seen to be light at all, which was supposed to be light.
A It must be said that the soul is subject to some angel, imploring the physician of souls as if for a son, that he might heal him, since the word which is inferior, that which is in the disciples, could not cure him of his affliction. A spirit that is mute and deaf must be tropologically interpreted as movements toward what seems to be good, cast out by the Word, so that what someone was previously doing through an irrational impulse, believed by those who see it to be good, one might no longer do irrationally, but according to the reason of the teaching of Jesus. From this, Paul also was moved to say: "If I have all faith, so as to remove mountains" (I Cor. XIII, 2); for he who has all faith—which is like a grain of mustard seed (Matth. XVII, 19; XIII, 31)—removes not only one mountain, but many like unto it. For faith is despised by men, and appears to be very small and cheap; but when it has obtained good ground—that is to say, a soul that is able to receive such a seed well—it becomes a great tree, so that those which are wingless, B but those which are winged, spiritually, the birds of the air, are able to nest in the branches of such faith.
Now therefore let us attend also to the letter, and let us inquire first how he who is darkened and cast down by some unclean, deaf, and mute spirit is said to be moonstruck, and why "moonstruck" is a name derived from the great luminary in heaven, second after the sun, which God set "for the beginnings of the night" (Gen. I, 16). Let physicians, indeed, C discourse on natural causes, since they do not even believe that an unclean spirit
OLD INTERPRETATION
the soul of man is set under some angel, as if under some father) the father of such a moonstruck person is called, beseeching the physician of souls as for a son, that he might deliver him who cannot be healed of his affliction by the humble word of the disciples of Christ. But if also the mute and deaf demon must be understood morally, we say that the irrational impulse itself, which seems to have the appearance of good, must be called a mute and deaf demon, which is cast out by the Word of Christ alone: for he who is such does not see what is just or unjust, like a blind man; nor does he receive the admonition of the disciples of Christ, like a deaf man. Therefore he has need of the word of Christ, so that he who was doing through irrational utterance what might be thought by onlookers to be good, may no longer act without reason. According to the word of the teaching of Christ, such passions are difficult to heal, because they are strongly cast down after they have done things that were thought to be good, and there is an operation that works evil in them, and it is so great and strong among all evils that it is likened to a mountain, and is not expelled from the patient, nor does it go out, except through the total faith of him who knows how to heal such passions. For by all faith such mountains are removed. Now all faith is compared to a mustard seed, as can be made manifest from that which is written: "If you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain: Remove from hence hither, and it shall remove." And by the Apostle: "If I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains." Therefore, I believe that all faith is compared to a mustard seed, because faith is indeed despised by men, and appears to be something small and vile, but when it has obtained a good soul, that is, the earth of an upright man, such a seed becomes a great tree, so that those who are not wingless, but those who are winged, who are spiritually birds of the air, dwell in its branches.
is vexed by an unclean spirit, and why the passion itself received a name from the moon, which after the great sun is a luminary...
A that they think stands in its place, but that it is a bodily symptom; and let the physiologists say that the humors in the head are moved, according to some sympathy peculiar to lunar light, which possesses a moist nature. We, however, who believe the Gospel that this disease is from an unclean spirit, mute and deaf, and is observed to be working in those who suffer from it, and seeing that those who are accustomed to promise healing in such cases—much like the Egyptian enchanters—sometimes seem to succeed therein, will say this: that perhaps, to avoid slandering the works of God, so that "iniquity may not be spoken on high, and they may set their mouth against heaven," this unclean spirit observes certain configurations of the moon and acts accordingly, so that by this observation of such a lunar configuration, people appear to suffer and the cause of such great evil is attributed not to the mute and deaf demon, but to the great luminary in heaven which is set for the beginnings of the night, and which has no beginning of such a disease among men. B "And they speak iniquity on high," all those, namely, who beside the relation of the stars, say that the cause of all things on earth—whether universal or of individual occurrences—is to be found therein. And such people truly "have set their mouth against heaven," calling some of the stars malevolent and others benevolent, although no star was made by the God of all things in order to do evil, according to Jeremiah, as it is written in the Lamentations: "Out of the mouth of the Lord shall proceed things both fair and good." It is likely that just as this unclean spirit—the one working what is called lunacy—observes the configurations of the moon so as to act upon the one who for certain reasons has been delivered over to it, and has not rendered himself worthy of angelic protection, so too do other spirits and demons observe the configurations of the other stars, so that not only the moon, but also the remaining stars are reviled by those who "speak iniquity on high." It is certainly worth the effort to hear the genethliacs, who refer the cause of all madness and fury sent by a demon to the configurations of the moon. C It is called. Let the physicians, then, say what they will—those who do not think it an unclean spirit, but some bodily passion, and who say that the humors are moved in the head according to some proportion to the lunar light, which has a moist nature. We, however, who are believers in the Gospel, say that an unclean spirit works this passion in men. For it observes certain schemata of the moon, and works in such a way that, through the observation of certain lunar schemata, it makes it appear that people are suffering, and by this means it shows God’s creature to be blameworthy; so that all, as we have said, "speak iniquity on high," who think that the cause of all infirmities, whether general or special, consists in the efficiency of the stars, casting blame upon the works of God, and saying that some stars are malevolent, while others are benevolent, whereas no star was made by God to do evil. For according to Jeremiah, as he says in the Lamentations: "From the mouth of the Lord there shall not proceed evils and goods." Perhaps, then, just as this unclean spirit observes certain lunar schemata in order to work in him who, for some causes, has been delivered over to it: so too do other demons, in accordance with some schemata of the stars D
A That those suffering from what is called lunacy sometimes fall into water is evident; that they also fall into fire, though more rarely, is nevertheless a thing that happens, and that this malady is difficult to heal, so that even those who possess the grace to heal demoniacs sometimes abandon the hope of curing this, while at other times they successfully heal it according to their desire with fastings, and prayers, and many labors. But you will inquire whether, just as among men, so also among spirits there are such symptoms, so that some of them speak, while others are mute; and some hear, while others are deaf. For it will be found that, just as the cause of their being impure exists in them, so also, through their own free will, they have been condemned to be mute and deaf. For, indeed, certain men will suffer such a condemnation, provided that the prayer of the prophet, which is as though it had been spoken to the Holy Spirit, is heard, in which it is said concerning certain sinners: "Let deceitful lips become mute." Perhaps in the same way those who have abused their ears and lent an ear to vain reports are made deaf by Him who said: "Who has made the mute and the deaf?" so that they may no longer lend an ear to vain reports. B
Since the Savior said, "O faithless and perverted generation," He indicates C that wickedness has entered in from perversion, having become contrary to nature and having made us perverted. And the Savior, I think, being burdened by the whole race of men on earth because of their wickedness, and bearing with their company with difficulty, said: "How long shall I be with you?" We have already said in part concerning the passage: "If you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain," and the rest; nevertheless, these things will be said again in this place, as they seem to us to contribute more clearly to the understanding of the matter. By mountains here, I think, are meant the opposing and hostile powers, endowed with a great and widespread wickedness, which are, as it were, fixed in the souls of certain men. Therefore, when someone has all faith, so that he no longer disbelieves any of the things contained in the sacred scriptures, and has such faith itself as was the faith of Abraham, who believed God to such an extent that his faith was reckoned to him as righteousness, such a man has all faith as a grain of mustard seed. Then such a person will say to this mountain: D — and I am referring to the mute and deaf one —
A in the spirit, which is said to be moon-struck: — "Move hence," evidently from the man who is suffering, perhaps into the abyss, "and it will move." The Apostle, I think, taking the cue from this, said with apostolic authority: "And if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains." For he who has all faith, which is as a grain of mustard seed, moves not one mountain only, but also many things analogous to it; and nothing will be impossible to this one who believes to such a degree. But let us also attend to this: "This kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting," so that if ever it should be necessary for us to occupy ourselves with the healing of someone who suffers such a thing, we might not adjure, nor question, nor speak to the unclean spirit as if it were listening, but by dedicating ourselves to prayer and fasting, we might prevail while praying for the one who suffers, and by our own fasting we might drive the unclean spirit from him.
8. Turning their steps to Galilee, Jesus said to them: "The Son of Man is about to be delivered into the hands of men." And it will seem to some that these things are equivalent to what was said previously B, that He began to show the disciples that it behoved Him to go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests; but the matter is not so, for it is not the same thing to show the disciples that it behoved Him to go to Jerusalem, and to suffer many things from the elders and chief priests, and scribes, and after suffering to be killed, and after being killed on the third day to rise again, and to say to them while they were in Galilee (which we have not learned before, that, as it were, the Son of Man was about to be delivered; for "to be delivered" is not said above, but now, and "into the hands of men," regarding which let us inquire by whom or by which [men] He is about to be delivered into the hands of men; for there we are taught by whom He will suffer, and in what place He will suffer; but here we learn in addition, through those whom we mentioned above, that He is to suffer them, although they [the men] are not the primary cause why He suffers many things, but rather C it is introduced from the perversity of malice which had occurred contrary to nature. I think, however, that because of the perversity of the whole human race, as if burdened by their malice and by His conversation with them, He said: "How long shall I be with you? How long shall I suffer you?" Let us also see that which He says: "This kind does not go out except in fastings and in prayers"; and if at any time it should be necessary for us to remain for the sake of the healing of those who suffer any such thing, let us not adjure, nor question, nor speak as if to an unclean spirit that hears; but remaining in prayers and fastings, let us obtain salvation for the sufferer from God, and let us drive away unclean spirits by our fastings and our prayers. D
A It happens from the aforesaid that the causes of his suffering many things are not those first ones, but rather [the cause is] the one delivering him or those delivering him into the hands of men. Now, one man will say that the Apostle, explaining this, says concerning God: "He who did not spare his own Son, but delivered him up for us all." And the Son himself also gave himself to death for our sake, so that he was delivered up not only by the Father, but also by himself. Another man, however, gathering together not only that point but also the things set forth to the same effect, will say that the Son was first delivered up by God to the ruler of this age and to his other princes, that he might afterwards be tempted, and then might undergo suffering, and subsequently might suffer for the sake of men, or even for the whole world in order to take away its sin, [delivered up] to the ruler of this age and his other princes; then, by these, he was delivered up into the hands of men, of those who were to slay him.
B An example will be taken from the things concerning Job: "Behold, all that he has I give into your hand; but do not touch him." Then, as if delivered up by the devil to his princes, to those leading into captivity, to the horsemen, to the fire descending as if from heaven, to the great wind coming from the desert, and to the one who tore down the house. You will observe whether, just as he delivered the things of Job to those leading into captivity and to the horsemen, so also by some operation C under the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience, the fire from heaven that was falling upon the sheep of Job appeared as falling to the one reporting to Job, that "fire fell from heaven and burned up his sheep, and likewise consumed the shepherds." In a similar manner to these, you will inquire whether the great wind that suddenly came from the desert and struck the four corners D of the house was not one of those under the devil, to whom the devil delivered the banquet of the sons and daughters of Job, so that the collapsing house might crush the children.
VETERAN INTERPRETATION
above, "for it will come to pass that the Son of man is delivered." "To be delivered" was not spoken of above; but here we hear not only of being delivered, but being delivered into the hands of men. In this, let us inquire by whom he is to be delivered into the hands of men, or into whose hands. For there we are taught by whom he will suffer, and in what place he will suffer. But here we learn that he is to suffer many things from the aforementioned, not because they themselves provided the cause that he should suffer many things, but because of him, or them, who delivered him into the hands of men. Therefore, the Apostle, in narrating that the Son was delivered, shows that he was delivered by God the Father thus: "Who did not spare his own unique Son, but delivered him up for us all." Another man, however, gathering not only that thought but also the consequences into the same, says that the Son was indeed delivered by God to the ruler of this age and the rest of his princes; then, by them, he was delivered into the hands of men who killed him. And for an example, take also that which is written about Job, who was first delivered by God into the hand of the devil, just as he says: "Behold, I deliver all that he possesses into your hand. Behold, I deliver him to you; only spare his life." Now, the devil, receiving the goods...
A of the devil, which was one of those things under the devils, to whom the devil delivered the feast of the sons and daughters of Job, so that the house might fall upon the children of the just one, and they might die. Let it be, therefore, as in the case of Job, that the Father first delivers the Son to the opposing energies, and then they deliver him into the hands of men, among which men was also Judas, "into whom after the sop Satan entered," delivering him more authoritatively than Judas. But see, lest you B might, by comparing the delivering of the Son by the Father to the opposing energies, with his being delivered by them into the hands of men to be the Savior, think that the "delivering" mentioned in both cases is the same. For consider that the Father, for the sake of us all, delivered him out of philanthropy; but the opposing powers, delivering the Savior into the hands of men, were not aiming to deliver him for the salvation of anyone, but as far as it depended on them, since none of them knew the wisdom of God C hidden in a mystery, they delivered him to be killed, so that his enemy, death, might take him under its control, similarly to those dying in Adam. And the men who killed him, being molded by the will of those who wanted Jesus to become subject to death, were doing this. I think, however, that these things also need necessarily be examined, because Jesus, when delivered into the hands of men, was not delivered by men into the hands of men, but by the powers to whom the Father, for the sake of D us all, delivered the Son, in the very act of him being delivered, and becoming subject to those to whom he was delivered, destroying him who had the power of death; "for through death he abolished him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and delivered those who, through fear of death, were subject to slavery all their lives." And one must consider that the devil holds the "power of death," not that of the intermediate and indifferent, according to which all who are composed of soul and body die, as their soul departs from the body: but the [power] of death [alt-version omitted] into his power, he delivered him to the robbers and horsemen who made three bands. See, therefore, lest perhaps just as the devil delivered the goods of Job into the hands of the robbers, having first received power from God, so too by some operation the prince of the power of the air, who works in the sons of disobedience, delivered him into the hands of men, among which men was also Judas, into whom after the bread Satan entered. Consider, however, that the Father, in delivering the Son to the opposing powers, did not simply deliver him, but because of his mercy, so that he might save the human race. The opposing powers, however, delivering the Lord into the hands of men, did not deliver him for the salvation of any; but as far as concerned them, because none of them knew the wisdom of God hidden in a mystery, they delivered him so that his enemy, death, might subject him to itself, just as all men who were dying in Adam. But also the men who killed him had a will not according to the will of God now ordained, but according to the will of the powers, by which they wished the Son of God to be made subject to death. Not therefore by men was he delivered into the hands of men, but by the powers to whom the Father delivered him for us all, so that in that which is delivered, and is made subject to the one to whom it is delivered, he might destroy the one who had the power of death; all die who are composed of soul and body, their soul departing from the body: but the [power] of death
by which those who are composed of soul and body die, when their soul is separated from the body; but [it is different] from the contrary and enemy of Him who said, "I am the life," according to which, "the soul that sinneth, it shall die." But that it was by no means God who delivered Him into the hands of men, the Saviour shows when He says: "If My kingdom were of this world, then would My servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews." For when He was delivered to the Jews, He was delivered into the hands of men, not by His own servants, but by the prince of this world, who said concerning the powers that are in the invisible realms, that is to say, the kingdoms which stand against men: "All these things will I give Thee, if Thou wilt fall down and worship Me." Wherefore it must be thought that it was said concerning them: A "The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against His Christ." And those kings indeed and rulers stood up and were gathered together against the Lord and against His Christ; but we, having received benefit from the fact that He was delivered by them into the hands of men and was slain, say: "Let us break their bonds asunder, and cast away their yoke from us." For when we become conformed to the death of Christ, we are no longer under the bonds of the kings of the earth, as we have explained, nor under the yoke of the rulers of this age who were gathered together against the Lord. And for this reason, "God spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all," B in order that they who took Him and delivered Him into the hands of men might be mocked by Him who dwelleth in the heavens, and be held in derision by the Lord, as those who, contrary to their expectation, had, in destroying their own kingdom and authority, taken the Son from the Father, who on the third day rose again, having destroyed his enemy, death, and having made us conformed not only to His death, but C also… in which neither the intermediate death is meant, according to the text: "In Adam they die," wherefore there is an indifferent life, which is neither good in itself nor evil. For as there is a certain indifferent life, which happens to be neither good nor evil, according to which we say that even the impious and the irrational animals live, and another which is not indifferent, but good... thus thou wilt call the death that is contrary to the indifferent life an indifferent death, if [thou considerest] those paths that lead to the intermediate death.
A and of the resurrection, by whom we walk in newness of life, no longer sitting in the region and shadow of death, because the light of God has risen upon us. When the Savior had said, “The Son of man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him, and on the third day he will rise,” they were greatly saddened, in that he was to be delivered into the hands of men and killed, as those who stood over gloom-filled things worthy of grief; but not heeding the fact that he would rise on the third day, which required no longer time, so that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death.
Of those who demand the didrachma
B And when they came to Capernaum, those who received the didrachma came to Peter. There are some kings of the earth, and their sons, who do not pay taxes and tribute; and there are others, beyond their own sons, who are strangers to the kings of the earth, from whom the kings of the earth take taxes or tribute. And their sons are indeed free before the kings of the earth, as before fathers; but those who are bound to them by no kinship are free as regards outsiders of the earth, but according to those who hold dominion over them and enslave them, as the Egyptians lorded it over the sons of Israel, and embittered their life, and enslaved them with violence, they are slaves; for the sake of those who are in slavery—in accordance with the slavery of the Hebrews—the Son of God took on only the form of a slave, doing no work of clay or of a slave. Since he bears that form of a slave, he pays the custom and tribute, none other than that which is given by his disciple; for the same C stater sufficed, and the one coin was enough for Jesus and his disciple. Yet this coin was not in the house of Jesus, but was in the sea, and was in the mouth of the sea fish—which I also think was benefited when it came up, taken by the hook of Peter, who had become a fisher of men, in whom was also that which is tropically called the fish, so that it might be taken away from...
D ...nor under the yoke of the princes of this world, who have gathered together against the Lord. Therefore, the Father did not spare his only Son, but delivered him up for all, so that the princes who receive him and deliver him into the hands of men might be mocked by him who dwells in the heavens and derided by the Lord, since they were doing everything for the dissolution of their own kingdom and rule, delivering him into the hands of men who, rising again on the third day and destroying his death, made us conformable not only to his death, but also to his resurrection. As the Lord foretold that the Son of man would be delivered into the hands of men, and they would kill him, and he would rise on the third day, the disciples were greatly saddened, understanding the delivery into the hands of men and the killing, but not heeding that which he said: “And on the third day he will rise,” nor considering who he was, for whom the time of three days sufficed to destroy death.
...asked: Does your teacher not pay the didrachma? He said: Yes. And when he went into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying: What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth receive tribute or custom? From their sons, or from strangers? Peter says to him: From strangers. Jesus says to him: Then are the sons free. But that we may not scandalize them, go to the sea, and cast a hook, and take the fish that comes up first, and opening its mouth you will find a stater. Taking that, give to them for me and you. There are therefore some kings of the earth, and their sons, who do not...
A receive the coin bearing the image of Caesar, and he is reckoned among those whom they have caught by fishing, who have been taught the art of fishing for men. Whoever therefore has the things that are Caesar’s, let him render them to Caesar, that he may then be able to render the things that are God’s to God. But since Jesus, who is the image of the invisible God, did not have the image of Caesar—for the prince of this world had nothing in Him—on this account He takes the image of Caesar from a suitable place in the sea, that He might give it to the kings of the earth for Himself and His disciple, so that they who take the didrachmas might not assume Him to be their debtor, and [the debtor] of the kings of the earth. For He paid the debt without having taken it, nor possessed it, nor procured it, nor ever having made it His own property, so that the image of Caesar might never be found alongside the image of the invisible God.
It may be said in another way: There are some who are sons of the kings of the earth, and yet are not their sons, but sons, and absolutely sons; others, however, because they are distinct from the sons of the kings of the earth, are not sons of any of those who dwell upon the earth, but are for this very reason sons B either of God, or of His Son, or of some one of those who belong to God. If therefore the Savior questions Peter, saying: “The kings of the earth, from whom do they take taxes or tribute? From their own sons, or from the strangers?” and Peter answers that it is “not from their own sons, but from the strangers,” the Savior speaks concerning those who are strangers to the kings of the earth, and because they are free, they happen to be sons, saying: “Therefore the sons are free,” for the sons of the kings of the earth are not free, “since everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin;” but they are free who have remained in the truth of the word of God, and for this reason have known the truth. C
If, therefore, one is a son merely, and does not pay tribute or tax, while others besides their sons are strangers to the kings of the earth, from whom the kings of the earth take tribute or tax: and while their sons are indeed free before the kings of the earth, just as sons are before their fathers, the strangers on the other hand are indeed free outside the earth, but on account of those who rule over them and oppress them, as the Egyptians did the children of Israel, they are slaves. On account of these who are in servitude, the Son of God took the form of a slave, He who did no clay-like or servile work. As if, therefore, having the form of that slave, He gave the tribute and tax; not other than that which His disciple gave, for the stater itself was sufficient, with one coin being given for Jesus and for His disciple. This coin, moreover, was not in the house of Jesus, but was in the sea, and was in the mouth of a sea-fish; which fish I think was adjured to rise to the hook of Peter and was caught by him who had been made a fisher of men, in whom was he who is now morally called a fish, that the coin which had the image of Caesar might be taken from it and belong among those who have fished for him. Whoever therefore has the things that are Caesar’s, let him render them to Caesar, that hereafter he may be able to render to God the things that are God’s. Since Jesus did not have the image of Caesar—for the prince of this world had nothing in Him—on this account He received the image of Caesar not from His own, but from a convenient place in the sea, that He might give it to the kings of the earth for Himself and for His disciple, so that they who received the didrachma might not think Him to be a debtor to the kings of the earth; for He paid the debt without receiving it, nor possessing, nor acquiring, nor making it for Himself a possession, so that the image of Caesar might never be with the invisible God.
11. We have spoken of this in one way, because there is a double meaning in this discourse. But others can say such things. Of the sons, some are sons of the kings of the earth; others, however, because they are alien to the sons of the kings of the earth, are not sons of any of those who are upon the earth, but are of God, or of the Son of God, or of some of the sons of God. When therefore the Savior questions Peter, saying: “The kings of the earth from whom...”
do they receive toll or tribute? from their sons or from strangers?” A and Peter answers: “From strangers,” the Lord says to him: “Then are the sons free.” And since it is clear that the sons of the kings of the earth are indeed free, and yet they are nonetheless counted among those who are not kings of the earth, but are their sons, and among those who collect the didrachma, he says: “Lest we scandalize them, go, cast a hook, and take up the fish that first comes up,” and so forth. I would gladly ask those who love to invent fables about natures, what kind of natures were the kings of the earth, or their sons, or those who collect the didrachma, whom the Savior did not wish to scandalize? For it appears, at least so far as we are here discussing, that they are not of the natures to be commended, and yet the Savior is concerned that they should not be scandalized, and nonetheless he prevents a scandal from occurring among them, that is, in their lack of understanding, and also in that they wish, B if they so desire, to be saved, and to be approved by Him who spared them, so that they might not be scandalized. And as also in the passage about Capernaum (for so is Capernaum expounded), he exhorts his disciple to be free and to be a son, [but] gives him the power to catch the fish first, so that the fish that comes up might be exhorted with Peter, and caught, and that the stater be taken from its mouth, to be repaid to those who own the stater, and to those who demand their own coin.
12. And [the soul] would also speak at some time, C if it were to use this saying against the lover of money, who has nothing else in his mouth but money, when you see him cured by some Peter
OLD INTERPRETATION
of whom they receive tribute or census, from their own sons or from strangers? Being told by Peter, not from his sons, but from strangers, the Lord says to those that they are strangers to the kings of the earth: “Therefore the sons are free,” since the sons of God are free. But the sons of the kings of the earth are not free, “for everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin.” But they are free who remain in the words of Jesus, and because they have known the truth, and the truth has made them free from the servitude of sin. If, therefore, in some mystery the kings of the earth, being from the sons of God, demand the didrachma of Caesar, bearing his image, it follows that as often as certain ones rise up who, for their own righteousness, take away our earthly things, the kings of this earth transmit them and demand from us what is theirs. Whoever therefore is simple, and not a son of the kings of the earth, he is free. But when they are, he acts carefully lest he scandalize those same kings, or their sons, and those who receive the didrachma. So he says: “But lest we scandalize them, go and cast a hook,” and so forth. And although they were wicked, Christ acted carefully, so that he might not scandalize them, and by his own example forbids any such scandal to be made even for men of this sort: whether that they might not sin further by being scandalized, or that they might be saved, receiving those whom he spared so that they might not be scandalized; and thus in the field of consolation (for so is interpreted Capernaum), he consoles his disciple, and pronounces him free, and a son, and gives him the power of fishing for the fish first, so that, as it ascends, Peter might receive consolation together with him, after he has fished.
12. And on account of this, the stater was taken from its open mouth, to be given to those to whom the stater belongs, and who demand such a coin as their own: you will conveniently be able to use this text against the greedy, for whom nothing else is in their mouth than money, when you see him—
A in the sea and the bitter business of life, and in the waves of the cares and anxieties of avarice, having a stater in his mouth, as long as he is a non-believer and greedy; but having ascended from the sea, caught by the hook of reason, and having been benefited by some Peter who taught him the truth, he no longer has the stater in his mouth, but instead of it, those things which bear the image of the Word of God.
15. Furthermore, upon that passage: "And they that received the didrachma came to Peter,"
B you should note from Numbers that for the saints, according to the Law of God, 15. It is further written upon that passage: "And they that received the didrachma came to Peter," that not a didrachma only, but the holy didrachma is given to the saints. For it is written: "And you shall take five shekels according to the didrachma; and the shekel is twenty obols." 11 Now Origen seems to establish a double didrachma, one holy and one profane; just as the moderns have established a double shekel, one holy and one of the sanctuary, and one common, or profane, or royal: whereas others decide that the Hebrews used only one shekel. Those who maintain the former opinion, among whom R. Solomon Iarchi leads the family, are not consistent with themselves, for they are uncertain about the price and weight of each shekel; yet the most common opinion is that one, which George Agricola, Robert Cenalis, Michael Neander, Caspar Waserus, Peter Gassendi, and many others have embraced, that the shekel of the sanctuary was weighed at four Attic drachmae, or half an ounce; but the profane at two drachmae, and the holy shekel indeed as a tetradrachm, which they argue from Exod. xxx, 13; Num. III, 47, and six hundred other passages of Scripture. C Then indeed they can use the testimonies of Josephus, Antiq. lib. iv, c. 10: "The shekel, a coin of the Hebrews, receives four Attic drachmae." Of Philo, lib. De spec. leg.; of Jerome in Ezech. iv, 10: "A shekel, that is, a stater, has four Attic drachmae"; of Hesychius: "Shekel, a tetradrachm." But they declare the profane [shekel] from 4 Kings xiv, 26, and 1 Mach. x: "Upon these five thousand shekels of silver, which they received by the account of the saints for each year," which is thus rendered by Josephus. That is also from Epiphanius, lib. De pond. et mens.: "Shekel, which is also called a quadrans, is the fourth part of an ounce, but half a stater, worth two drachmae," according to Hesychius. The shekel is worth two Attic drachmae. And that which in the Latin tongue is corruptly called a shekel, is a Hebrew name, having among them the weight of an ounce; but among the Latins and Greeks, it is the fourth part of an ounce, and half of a stater, weighing two drachmae. Whence, when it is read in the divine scriptures, a shekel is an ounce; but when it is read in the books of the Gentiles, it is the fourth part of an ounce. But Juan Bautista Villalpando refutes that doctrine at length, nor will we waste time in relating the various and manifold arguments by which it is accustomed to be impugned both by him and also by others. I would wish to warn the reader of this, however, that Villalpando errs in this, that disputing against Graespius, who had cited the aforementioned place of Epiphanius to prove a double shekel, he thinks that in the text of Epiphanius and Isidore for the words "shekel" and "siclus" one should substitute "sicilicus": for Epiphanius and Isidore are not dealing in these places with Roman coinage, but with the Hebrew shekel. Villalpando also errs when he writes that the Seventy intended to substitute for the Hebrew coin another Greek one, which would only be similar to the former in that the didrachma was then more in the mouth and hands of all the Greeks, just as the tetradrachm shekel once was in the eyes and hands of the Hebrews; for was it so customary for the Seventy Elders to propose a more common coin, that they therefore departed from the truth by a whole half? As if for the tetradrachm from which they were fleeing, they could not have rendered two didrachmae. Dion Petau wrote much more learnedly and astutely on this matter in his Animadversions on Epiphanius, De pond. et mens.: He writes that there was a shekel of only one kind, namely the tetradrachm; but that from there another was thought up over and above by some, who, because they read "didrachma" among the Seventy Interpreters for "shekel," and had received from other most accurate authors that a shekel consists of four drachmae, considered that two shekels, that is, a tetradrachm, were to be admitted; D and that the Seventy Elders therefore rendered "didrachma" for "shekel" because they were writing at Alexandria, and for the sake of the Alexandrians, among whom both the talent and the drachma had a double ratio to the Attic talent and drachma, as is apparent from Hero and Festus.A for the holy is given according to the law of God, you will bring forth from the book of Numbers; for it is written: “And you shall take five shekels per head; according to the holy didrachma; but also for all the children of Israel a holy didrachma is numbered head by head.” Since, therefore, it is not possible to have, in addition to the holy didrachmas, profane ones also—if I may so speak—the holy didrachma of God cannot be, for this reason, they who collect the non-holy didrachmas, and who questioned Peter and said: “Does your Master not pay the didrachma?” the Savior commands a stater to be paid, in which were contained two didrachmas, found in the mouth of the fish that first ascended, so that it might be paid for the master and the disciple.
Concerning those who were saying: Who is greater? And concerning the child called by Jesus.
14. In that time the disciples approached Jesus, saying: “Who, do you think, is greater in the kingdom of heaven?” B In order that Matthew might teach us what the disciples who approached Jesus wished to learn from him, and also how he responded to their inquiry, when he could have narrated this same thing only, he added these things according to certain copies: “In that hour the disciples approached Jesus”; but according to others: “In that day.” And indeed the intention of the evangelist is not to be passed over without necessary examination; therefore, directing the mind to those things which these words instruct. ... holy. But also for all the children of Israel, according to the head, a holy didrachma is given. Since, therefore, it is not permitted for the holy of God to have a defiled didrachma with the holy didrachmas, for this reason, to those receiving the non-holy didrachmas, and questioning Peter, and saying: “Does your Master not pay the didrachma?” the Savior commanded a stater to be given, in which were two didrachmas, which was found in the mouth of the fish ascending first: which the master gave, and his disciples always give for their own salvation, and the glory of Christ, so that they may make far from themselves all things that have the image of Caesar. ... heaven? And taking a child, he set him in the midst of them, and said: Amen I say to you, unless you have been converted, and made as children, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven. If anyone, therefore, shall have humbled himself as this child, he is the greater in the kingdom of heaven. And he who shall have received such a child in my name, receives me. Since Matthew could, for the sake of our instruction, set forth only this, what the disciples of Jesus who approached him asked him, and how he responded to their interrogation, he added according to certain copies indeed “in that hour, the disciples of Jesus approaching,” according to others, however, “in that day.” And it is necessary that we not leave the intent of the evangelist undiscussed. On account of which, explaining in the first place what he says, “in that hour,” or “in that day,” let us see if this addition of the day, or hour, is necessary. They came... C ... D ... [alt-version omitted]
then, to Capharnaum; and Jesus came to his disciples, where those who collected the didrachma came to Peter, and asking him, said: “Does your master not pay the didrachma?” Then, upon Peter answering them and saying, “Yes,” Jesus, intending to explain the payment of the didrachma, sent Peter to cast a hook and drag up the fish, which he said would contain in its mouth a stater to be given for himself and for Peter. B It seems to me, therefore, that those who supposed this to be a very great honor bestowed by Jesus upon Peter, and who judged him to be greater than the rest of his companions, wished to ascertain precisely what they suspected, through inquiring of Jesus and hearing from Him, as they supposed, that He had judged Peter to be greater than them. At the same time, they were hoping to learn the reason why Peter had been preferred over the rest of the disciples. I think, then, that Matthew, wishing to clarify this, added: C “Having taken,” that is to say, the stater, and “given it for me and thee,” the statement, “In that day the disciples came to Jesus, saying, Who then is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” Perhaps also they were perplexed because three had been preferred at the Transfiguration; and they were in doubt about which of the three had been judged greater by the Lord. For John had leaned upon His breast—a very special sign of love—and he had seen many tokens of love toward him D from the Lord before the supper. But Peter had been declared blessed in his confession because of: “Thou art Christ the Son of the living God;” yet again, because of: “Get behind me, Satan, you are a stumbling block to me; for you do not mind the things of God, but the things of men,” they were in uncertainty and doubt whether perhaps one of them was not the greater.
INTERPRETATION
Indeed, in Capharnaum, Jesus came to his disciples, and those demanding the didrachma approached Peter and asked: “Does your master not pay the didrachma?” Upon Peter replying to them, “Yes,” Jesus, speaking about the didrachma, sent Peter to catch a fish with a hook, in whose mouth he said this stater would be found to be given for himself and Peter. I suspect that because they thought this to be the greatest honor bestowed by Christ upon Peter, as if by this he had judged him better than the other disciples, they wanted to know for certain what they suspected. At the same time, they hoped that by their inquiry they would indicate the reason for this revelation. Wishing, therefore, to show this, Matthew added what follows: “Taking this for me and thee; in that day, the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Who then is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” Perhaps they were also doubting because, even above those three, someone seemed to have been more honored, having been taken into the mountain with Him when they saw the transfiguration of His glory. They doubted which of them was judged better by Christ. Their minds were divided by various reasons. At one moment they thought John perhaps better, because he had reclined upon the Savior’s breast at supper, and secret counsels had been declared to him. At another moment they thought Peter greater, because he had been declared blessed by Christ for: “Thou art Christ the Son of the living God;” and Christ had said to him: “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, for flesh and blood have not revealed it to you, but my Father who is in heaven; and I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,” and so forth. Yet again, the opinion was shaken because Christ had said to Peter, what He had not said to others: “Get behind me, Satan, for you do not mind the things of God, but the things of men.”(12) “Intending to explain”: Thus Tarin’s codex has, and soon after, in the English text, “dragging up.” Huet’s edition has “intending to explain” and “dragging up.” (13) “It seems to me, therefore, that, etc.”: Brief interpretation by Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius. Huet. (14) “About that, etc.”: Cod. Tarin, “concerning that.”
A We must, therefore, turn away from worldly desires and humble “himself,” not simply “as the child,” but according to what is written, “as this child.” And to humble “one’s self as the child” is that [humbling of one’s self for God and] the imitating of the Holy Spirit who humbled Himself for the salvation of men. That the Savior and the Holy Spirit were sent by the Father for the salvation of men is indicated in Isaiah from the person of the Savior saying, “And now the Lord and His Spirit have sent me.” One should know, however, that the statement is ambiguous: for either God sent, and the Holy Spirit also sent the Savior, or [as we have understood it] the Father sent both, the Savior and the Holy Spirit. “Greatest, therefore, in the kingdom of heaven” is he who has humbled “himself” beyond all those who humble themselves in imitation of that child. They were concerned lest this one might not be the greatest, but another of the sons of Zebedee. So much for: “In that day, or hour, in which the things concerning the stater had happened.”
Next, we must consider this: “The disciples approached Jesus,” as disciples to a teacher, proposing problems and examining, “Who, then, is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” And we should, indeed, imitate in these things the disciples of Jesus; if ever any sought-after matter is not found among us, let us, with all concord regarding the matter sought, approach Jesus who is present where two and three are gathered in His name, and who is ready in His power to illuminate the hearts of those who desire to be His disciples in truth, for the grasp of the things sought. Nor is it inappropriate for us to approach one of those teachers appointed by God in the Church and propose some problem analogous to, “Who, then, is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” B What, then, was already known to the disciples concerning this question? And what was being sought? For they had grasped that there is no equality among those deemed worthy of the kingdom of heaven; and that, since there is no equality, there is someone who is greatest, and so on in order down to the least; but they were still seeking what kind of person the greatest is, how the least has lived, and who those in between are, unless perhaps it is more accurate to say that they knew who the least was from the [passage]: “Whoever breaks one of these least commandments, and so teaches men, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven.” And they knew who was great from the fact that he says, “Whoever does and so teaches, shall be called great.” But among many who are great, who was the greatest, this was not manifest to them.
(15) For “teacher,” the Royal codex has “of the Savior.” (16) “Of what kind the greater.” In this way, C Phrynichus asks about character; it is wise, it is mild. One ought, therefore, to ask in this manner: “What sort of person does he seem to you to be?” D Those things are incongruous, and Stephanus wishes it to be, and in digging out the meaning he incredibly twists himself; but Nunnesius wishes it to be disapproved of by Phrynichus if it is used otherwise than for signifying character. Both are mistaken; for Phrynichus wishes it to be rejected, not the word *potapos* as such, but only when used to determine class. But even if the word is spurious and not of good standing, if you wish to use it, use it for signifying character. Although it is better and safer to ask thus. Thomas the Master understood it in this way: he says, “It is better, therefore, to ask about character thus: ‘What sort of person does he seem to you to be?’ rather than *potapos*.”
Mark therefore says that the twelve “disputed on the way” as to “who” among them “is the greatest”; therefore, he also “sitting down, called” them and teaches who is the greatest, saying that the one who has become “last of all” through modesty and gentleness will attain, as the greatest, to the honors, so that one might not accept the place of the one served, but rather that of the one serving, and this not to some and not to others, but to all absolutely. For attend to: “If any man desires to be first, he shall be last of all, and servant of all.” And following these, he says that “taking a child [that is, Jesus, obviously], he set him in the midst” of his disciples, “and taking him in his arms, he said to them: Whoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receives me.” And what child did Jesus take and take into his arms, according to the deeper reasoning in these passages, if not the Holy Spirit? And to this child indeed some were made like, concerning whom he said: “Whoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receives me.” According to Luke, however, a “thought” did not arise among the disciples, but “entered” [the question] concerning “who of them should be the greatest.”
A If one breaks one of these least commandments, and teaches men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but who is the greatest of all they did not know, even if they were grasping that: “Whoever shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven”; for there being many great ones, who is the greatest of the great, as among men, was not clear to them. And that there are indeed many great ones, but the great are not equally great, the name “great” placed upon Isaac will show, “who advancing became greater, B exceedingly exceedingly”; this is said also of Moses, and of John the Baptist, and of the Savior; and everyone will acknowledge that all these also were great according to Scripture, but the Savior was greater than them. But if John was greater than Isaac and than Moses, than whom no one greater has been among those born of women, whether he is not indeed greater [than them], but equal to both, or to one of them, it is not safe to pronounce. And from the [text]: “Isaac however C advancing became greater, until he became a great man,” not simply, but with the addition of “exceedingly,” twice repeated, it is possible to learn that there is a difference of great ones, one being great, another exceedingly great, and another exceedingly exceedingly great.
The disciples therefore, having approached Jesus, were seeking to learn who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven; and perhaps they, hearing from him, desired to learn such a thing as: So-and-so is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. But he leads the discourse toward the more universal, showing of what sort by quality one is greater D in the kingdom of heaven, which we may understand according to potency from the things written: “For Jesus having called a child,” and so forth.
It is possible first to explain straightforwardly.
One explaining the Savior’s discourse on these matters in a straightforward manner might say that if any man, being so far 46. Primum autem id rudiore opera exponere licet. Dixerit ergo qui Servatoris sermonem hoc loco habitum leviter perstringet et enarrabit, quod si Salvator. Ex eo ergo quod est propositum in Isaac, “donec fieret magnus valde valde,” non simpliciter, sed cum additamento duplice, valde valde, cognoscere possumus quoniam differentiæ sunt magnorum, et alius quidem est magnus, alius autem magnus valde valde. Ergo discipuli quidem quæsierunt quis esset major; ipse autem pleniorem facit sermonem, demonstrans eis etiam quomodo quis actibus major efficiatur in regno cœlorum, sicut subsequens sermo demonstrat dicens: Et vocans Jesus puerum, statuit eum in medio eorum, et dixit: Amen dico vobis, nisi conversi fueritis ut efficiamini sicut pueri, non intrabitis in regnum cœlorum. Quicunque ergo humiliaverit se sicut parvulus iste, hic major erit in regno cœlorum; qui acceperit puerum talem in nomine meo, me accipit. [alt-version omitted] 46. Primum simpliciter exponamus propositum verbi: hoc est, si quis constitutus usque ad mortem mortificaverit viriles concupiscentias suas in spiritu mortificans corporales actus, et semper mortem Jesu.[А] For he lives as one immortal, and he must receive it from Jesus himself [as established by Jesus] “in the name” of Jesus, from whom Jesus is not separated when He comes to be with the one who receives the child, as it has been said in this regard: “Whoever receives this child in my name, receives me.” Furthermore, since the Father is inseparable from the Son, [the Father also] comes to be with the one who has received the Son; hence it is said: “And whoever receives me, receives the One who sent me.” But one who has received the child, and the Savior, and the One who sent Him, is “the least among all” the disciples of Jesus, making himself small; and in whatever measure he makes himself small, in that same measure he becomes “great” [by] the One who commands him to make himself small and causes him to progress into greatness; for pay attention to this: “he who is the least among you all, this one is great.” We have read elsewhere also: “and he shall be great.” According to Luke, if anyone does not “receive the kingdom of God as a child, he shall by no means enter into it.”
The expression is ambiguous; for it may mean either that he who receives the kingdom of God should become as a child, or that he should receive the kingdom of God having become as a child for his sake. Perhaps, indeed, in this present time, those who receive the kingdom of God receive it in the state of a child, but in the world to come, it is no longer as a child—due to the magnitude of perfection in that spiritual maturity (if I may so call it)—that it is revealed to all those who have received it in the present time while it is in the state of a child. A “Woe to the world because of offenses.” The word “world” is used in itself and absolutely in the passage, “He was in the world, and the world knew him not.” But in terms of relative connection, with the implication of that of which it is the world, it is named in the passage: “Lest, having looked up to heaven and having seen the sun and the moon and all the world of heaven, you be led astray and worship them and serve them.” You may say the same is stated in Esther regarding her, when it is written that she cast off “all her world.” For the “world” is not simply the same thing as the “world of heaven” or the “world of Esther.”
And among those names, they say there is fear; for example, the lack of malice in children, even in those times of tears, for they change in an instant, and laugh, and play with those by whom they were supposed to be grieved and frightened, but who in reality had done no such thing. B So also will a man humble himself, as Jesus called a child; for there does not fall upon a child pride, and a conceit of nobility, or wealth, or any of those things that are considered goods, but are not. Hence, it is possible to see infants up to three or four years of age similar to those of low birth, even if they seem to be noble, and they do not necessarily love wealthy children more than poor ones. If, therefore, a disciple of Jesus, by reason, humbles himself in that which children suffer contrary to their age regarding the things that exalt the foolish—such passions—as Jesus showed the child, not exalting himself over a little glory, nor puffed up by wealth, nor by dress, nor swollen with pride over nobility, and especially C those who, as the Word has demonstrated, have turned back, as the child whom Jesus took, are to be accepted and imitated in the name of Jesus; since Christ is especially in these, and for this reason He says: “And whoever receives one such child in my name, receives me.”
The next part is difficult to narrate in sequence with what was previously put forward; for one might say: how is he who has turned and become as a child small among those who believe in Jesus, and susceptible to being scandalized? But let us attempt to clarify this also in order. How he who is to Jesus as a Son D and says: “Unless you do this, I kill you, I burn you,” or something similar, does such a child fear? As, therefore, other passions are not firm in children, so neither is fear. If, however, anyone also humbles himself as a child—for it does not fall to a child to know anything great, nor does the boasting of nobility, or wealth, or other things that are considered good but are not, fall to a child—whence we see infants up to the third or fourth year, even if they were noble, show themselves similar to base children, nor do they love rich children more than the poor. If, therefore, any man should take upon himself in reason the disposition that children have by age, expelling those things which move the senseless, he has become as a child, not exalting himself in honors, nor carrying himself highly in wealth, nor lifting himself up in the fame of his kinship: such a one is to be received and honored in the name of Jesus, since Jesus is especially in such. Therefore He says: “Whoever receives one such in my name, receives me. But whoever scandalizes one of the little ones who believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone be hung on his neck and he be drowned in the depth of the sea.”
A Whoever believes that Jesus is the Son of God, in accordance with the true history that has been written about him, and travels through the actions prescribed in the Gospels to live according to the norm of virtue, has turned and makes the journey towards becoming like children; it is impossible for such a one not to enter the kingdom of the heavens. There are, to be sure, very many such people; but not everyone who has turned to becoming like children has attained the point of being made identical to children. Rather, each person is as far from the likeness to children as he is far from the state of the children, which is given as being free from passions. In all the multitude of believers, therefore, there are also those who have, as it were, just now turned toward becoming like children, who, by the very fact of their turning so that they might become as children, are called "little ones." And those who have turned from these things so that they might become as children, but are still far from being exactly like children, are liable to be scandalized. Each of these is as far from the likeness to them as he is far from the state of the children, which is given as being free from passions; and to these we must never provide causes for being scandalized. For if we do not, the one who has provided the scandal will have need of that which is profitable for his healing: that a millstone donkey-driven be hung about his neck and he be drowned in the depth of the sea. B For having thus paid the sufficient penalty in the sea, where the dragon is, whom God ‹fashioned to make sport of him,› and for his own profit towards the end, the one who has been punished and has suffered will, in what follows, be among those who are freed from the toils in the depth of the sea, which he endured while being dragged down by the donkey-driven millstone. For there are differences in millstones, so that one of them, as I might name it, is human, and another donkey-driven. And indeed that which is human is the one about which it is written: ‹“Two women will be grinding at one mill; one is taken and one is left.”› But the donkey-driven one is that which will be put around the one who has given scandal. One might say—I do not know whether speaking correctly or incorrectly—that the donkey-driven millstone is the heavy and downward-tending body of the wicked man, which he will take up in the resurrection C so that he might be drowned in the depth of the sea, called the abyss. D For it is possible to enter the kingdom of heaven. For many are turned so that they may become as a child, but not all who are turned so that they may become as a child already arrive there, so that they may become like children; but each one has so much less of the likeness of children, as far as he is from the childlike state towards carnal passions. In every multitude of believers, therefore, there are some who are as if recently converted so that they might become as children. These, on account of this very thing—that they are so converted that they might become as children, but are not yet made so, and appear to be recently converted—are held to be little ones in Christ, and are small, receivers of scandal, to whom we ought not to provide an occasion for scandal. Otherwise, ‹“whoever scandalizes one of the little ones who believe in me, it is expedient for him,”› as useful for the healing of sin, ‹“that a millstone donkey-driven be hung at his neck, and that he be drowned in the depth of the sea.”› Thus, rendering...
A unto him—that is, the devil, whom God formed to be mocked by him—he shall be plunged into the abyss which is called the depth of the sea, where that dragon is. Another will refer the scandalizing of one of the little ones to those powers which cannot be apprehended by human eyes; for very many scandals originate from them against those shown by Jesus to be little ones. But when they shall scandalize one of the little ones shown by Jesus, of those believing in Him, he shall take up a donkey-driven millstone—that is, the corruptible body, which weighs down the soul—suspended from his neck, which draws him down toward the affairs of this life; so that by these means their arrogance may be suppressed, and having paid the penalty, they may, at the profitable time, gain through the benefit of the donkey-driven millstone that which is expedient for them.
B 18. Let another narrative, besides that which is more simply told, be spoken—whether it be offered as a dogma or for the sake of exercise—and let us inquire what sort of child Jesus, having called, set in the midst of the disciples. See if you can say that the Holy Spirit, who humbled Himself, (having been called by the Savior and set in the midst of the ruling power of the disciples) is the child whom Jesus called. Or whether He wishes us, having turned away from all other things, to turn toward the examples suggested by the Holy Spirit, so that we might become as children who themselves have also turned and have been made like unto the Holy Spirit; which children God gave to the Savior, according to that which is said in Isaiah: C «Behold, I and the children whom God hath given me.» Nor indeed is it permitted to enter into the kingdom of heaven if one has not turned away from worldly affairs and become like unto the children who possess the Holy Spirit; which Holy Spirit Jesus, having summoned from His own perfection, having descended to men as a child, set in the midst of the disciples. It is necessary, therefore, having turned away from worldly desires, to humble oneself, not simply as the child, but according to that which is written, as this child. D To humble oneself, then, as the child—dignified punishment in the sea, where also the dragon is, whom God formed to be mocked by him—and thus, having suffered what is expedient, he who is punished will afterwards be outside the pains which are in the depth of the sea, which the drawing of the donkey-driven millstone has borne. But there are also differences of millstones, so that some are (if I may so speak) human, but others donkey-driven. The human one is indeed that of which it is written: «Two women shall be grinding at one mill; one shall be taken, and the other left.» The donkey-driven one, however, is that which is imposed upon him who scandalizes one of the little ones who believe in Christ, that he might be drowned in the depth of the sea. But the donkey-driven millstone can not irrationally be said to be the most heavy body of the wicked man, which drags downward, which every sinner will receive in the resurrection, that he may be drowned in the abyss which is called the depth of the sea.
A For it is to the benefit of the little one who has been scandalized—when the one who has scandalized him is punished—that that which is recorded concerning the one who causes scandal be difficult and unbearable. If we were to reflect more carefully on these things, we would guard against sinning "against the brothers" and striking "their weak conscience," lest we sin "against Christ," for they are often destroyed not only by our "knowledge" but also by some others of the brethren around us, for whom "Christ died." Concerning those for whom we sin "against Christ," we shall pay the penalty when the soul of the one who perishes because of us cries out for justice against us. Next, we must examine the name of "necessity" in the phrase "for it is necessary that scandals come," and its equivalent in Luke: "it is impossible for scandals not to come" (or rather, it is impossible).
To humble oneself as that little child is to imitate the Holy Spirit, who humbled himself for the salvation of humanity. That the Savior and the Holy Spirit were sent by the Father for the salvation of humans is shown in Isaiah, speaking from the person of the Savior: "And now the Lord has sent me and his Spirit." We must know, however, that the expression is ambiguous; for either God sent, and the Holy Spirit also sent the Savior, or, as we have interpreted it, the Father sent both the Savior and the Holy Spirit. B Therefore, he who humbles himself more than all those who humble themselves in imitation of that child will be greatest in the kingdom of heaven. For there are many who want to humble themselves like that child; but he who in every way becomes most like the child who humbled himself, he would be found to be the one who is called greatest of all in the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Jesus, most especially in the very reality of Jesus himself. And just as he receives Jesus who receives one such little child in his name, so he rejects and casts out Jesus who is not willing to receive one such little child in the name of Jesus. C
If there is a difference among those who are deemed worthy of the communion of the Holy Spirit, since believers receive the Holy Spirit in greater or lesser measure—such that some might indeed be vulnerable to being scandalized, namely the least of those who believe in God, and the Word [avenges] the scandalizing of them, by them who have been converted and have become like the Holy Spirit who was placed in their midst—these are the children whom God the Father gave to Christ, according to what is written in Isaiah, saying: "Behold I and the children whom God gave me." And it is not possible to enter the kingdom of heaven unless one has been averted from worldly affairs and has become like those little children who had the Holy Spirit in them. Jesus, calling that Holy Spirit, descending from his perfection to humans, set him as it were a child in the midst of his disciples, so that each one might humble himself, not simply as a child, but as it is written, "as this child"; yet in such a way that one humbles himself for God, just as the Holy Spirit humbled himself for the salvation of humans.
Since both Jesus and the Holy Spirit were sent by the Father into this world for the salvation of humans, it is manifest in the prophet Isaiah, who says from the person of the Savior himself: "And now the Lord has sent me, and his Spirit." But because in Greek the Holy Spirit is of neuter gender, and not masculine, as it is with us [in Latin], and has three similar cases—the nominative, accusative, and vocative—those translating into the Latin language have therefore transferred the nominative instead of the accusative case and said: "And now the Lord has sent me, and his Spirit"; whereas it is more true to have it this way in Greek: "And now the Lord has sent me, and the Holy Spirit." D Nevertheless, if anyone wishes to defend with violence against the reason of truth that it was said thus, "and now the Lord has sent me, and his Spirit," we understand without doubt that the Son of God is sent by the Holy Spirit, just as he was also led by the Holy Spirit into the desert according to human nature, which Christ, taking on, imitated in all things, so that he is also led by the Holy Spirit, as are all of God’s people. Therefore, he who has humbled himself before all those who humble themselves is greater in the kingdom of heaven, following the imitation of that child: and there are many who do not want to humble themselves like that child. But he who before all others has been made nearer to that child, he shall be greater than all. We must therefore receive such a child in the name of Jesus, since Jesus dwells in him. And just as he receives Jesus who receives one such child in the name of Jesus, since in his name...
A he speaks regarding those who have offended them: “It is better for him that a millstone be hung about his neck and he be drowned in the depths of the sea.” Let these things have been said according to the aforementioned sayings of Matthew.
Let us also see the similar points from the others. Mark, therefore, says that the twelve disputed on the way as to which of them was greater; for this reason, having sat down, he called them and taught who is the greater, saying that he who becomes the last of all through humility and gentleness will attain to the first places as the greater, so that he would not accept the place of the one served, but that of the one serving, and this not toward some while not toward others, but toward all absolutely; for pay attention to: “If anyone wishes to be first, he shall be the last of all, and servant of all.” And next to these he says that, “Having taken a child,” (Jesus, clearly,) “he set him in the midst of his disciples,” and having embraced him, he said to them: “Whoever receives one of the children in my name, receives me.” But what child did Jesus take and embrace according to the deeper meaning in the passages? Was it the Holy Spirit? And to this child, indeed, some were likened, concerning whom he said: “Whoever receives one of such children in my name, receives me.” According to Luke, however, a “reasoning” did not arise among the disciples, but B “entered” concerning this, which of them might be greater. And “Jesus, seeing the reasoning of their heart,” inasmuch as he has eyes that see the reasonings of hearts; “seeing the reasoning of their heart,” and not even being asked according to Luke, “he took the child and set him,” not only in their midst, as Matthew and Mark have stated, but already also beside himself, and he said to the disciples not only this: “Whoever receives one such child,” or “Whoever receives one of such children in my name, receives me,” but already also more advanced than that: “Whoever receives this child in my name, receives me.” It is necessary, therefore, according to Luke, to receive in the name of Jesus that child whom C Jesus, having taken, set by himself. And I do not know if anyone is able not to interpret figuratively the “shall be.” Let it be settled. But now also from the more advanced point: “Whoever receives this child.” Such a child, “Whoever shall receive this child.” Therefore, he says, he will receive such a child.
A for those who have been offended—the Word says regarding those who have offended them: “It is better for him that a millstone of a donkey be hung upon his neck, and he be drowned in the depth of the sea.” Let these things be said regarding the set-forth sayings of Matthew.
19. Let us now see how things stand among the others regarding what pertains to them. Mark, therefore, says that the twelve disputed on the way as to which of them was greater; therefore, having sat down, he called them, and taught who is the greater, saying that first place, as if to a greater one, would be attributed to the one who, by his modesty and lenity, has been the last of all, so that he has not arrogated to himself the place of the one to whom service is rendered, but of the one serving, and this not to some while not to others, but clearly before all; for attend to this: “If anyone wishes to be first, he will be the last of all, and the servant of all.” Then he says afterwards: B that taking a child (Jesus, namely), he set him in the midst of his disciples: whom when he had embraced, he said to them: Whoever receives one of the children in my name, receives me. What sort of child, truly, did Jesus receive and embrace, according to the deeper interpretation of these places? Was it the Holy Spirit? And to this child indeed some have been made like, concerning whom he said: “Whoever receives one of such children in my name, receives me.” According to Luke, however: “A thought” did not ascend into the disciples, but “entered” on that matter, which of them might be greater. But Jesus seeing the thoughts of their heart, as one having C eyes that behold the thoughts of hearts; “seeing the thoughts of their heart,” not even being asked, according to Luke, he apprehended the child, and “set him,” not only in the midst of them, as has been handed down by Matthew and Mark, but even beside himself, and said to the disciples not only that: “Whoever shall have received one such child” or “Whoever one of such children shall have received in my name, receives me,” but even more deeply progressing: “Whoever shall have received this child in my name, receives me.” That child, therefore, whom Jesus having apprehended set beside D himself: thus he refutes and repulses Christ, who does not wish to receive such a child in the name of Jesus, even though he be the least, so that he might be offended because he has not more fully imitated the childlike humility.
19. And let us compare the words of the evangelists regarding this chapter, if perhaps the sense might be made clearer on account of the Holy Spirit whom we said that child could be understood to be. And Matthew indeed and Mark say: “And taking a child, he set him in the midst of the disciples, and having embraced him said to them: If anyone shall receive one such child in my name.” Luke however thus: “And he took the child and placed him not only in the midst of them, as Matthew and Mark say, but beside himself,” and said to his disciples not thus, if anyone shall have received one such child, or one of such children, but thus: “If anyone shall have received this child in...”
A my name.” For we must receive that child, whom Jesus then set by himself having taken him, each of us in the name of Jesus; for he lives as one immortal, and it is necessary to receive him from Jesus himself in the name of Jesus, from whom Jesus is not separated, and he is with him who has received the child, so that according to this it has been said: “Whoever shall receive this child in my name, receives me.” Then, since the Father is inseparable from the Son, He is with him who has received the Son; wherefore it is said: “And whoever shall receive me, receives Him who sent me.” But he who has received the child, and the Savior, and the One who sent Him, is less than all the disciples of Jesus, making himself small; for by as much as he makes himself small, by so much does he become great, He granting him growth who also made him present himself as small; for pay attention to this: “The B smaller among you all, he is great.” We have read also in other places: “He shall be great.” But according to Luke: “If anyone shall not have received the kingdom of God as a child, he shall not enter into it.” And the expression is ambiguous; for it is either that he who receives the kingdom of God may become as a child, or that he may receive the kingdom of God as one having become as a child to him. And perhaps here those who receive the kingdom of God receive it as it is, as a child, but in the world to come it is no longer as a child, and they attain the magnitude of perfection in that, if I may so call it, spiritual age, proving themselves present to all those who in the present time have received it, being here as a child. C “Whoever shall receive this child in the name... Woe unto the world because of scandals.” “The world” is a word taken absolutely—as in “He was in the world, and the world knew him not”—but according to a relative connection with the things related to it, it is stated in this place: “Lest perhaps having lifted up your eyes to heaven, and having seen the...” D “in my name.” For according to Matthew and Mark one might doubt whether by the child he means the Holy Spirit; because they have said thus: “If anyone shall have received such a child.” But according to Luke who would doubt that the child can be understood as the Holy Spirit, when he says: “If anyone shall have received this child in my name?” Therefore, according to Luke, we ought to receive that child—that is, the Holy Spirit—whom Jesus, taking, placed by himself, in the name of Jesus. For that child lives as immortal: and we ought to receive him, being set by Jesus himself with Jesus, in the name of Jesus; since, as Jesus is never departing from that child, he comes to be with him who has received the child in His name. And since the Father does not depart from the Son, if anyone has received the Son, he receives with him also the Father. But he who has received both the child in the name of Jesus, and Jesus in the name of the Father, shows himself in all things lesser than the disciples of Christ, making himself small, and by how much the more he shall have made himself small, by so much the greater is he made by Him who gave him the commandment of smallness. “...to him through whom the scandal comes.” It is a worthy matter to inquire in this place what he says is the world to which the woe is promised, and to which all scandals bring woe. We shall be able, however, to understand something if we gather the Scriptures...
seeing the sun and the moon, and all the ornament of heaven, deceived by error you should adore them, and worship them." You will say that a similar thing is said about her in the book of Esther, when it is written: "Having put off all her ornament (Esth. xiv, 2)." For the world is not simply the same thing A as the ornament of heaven, or the ornament of Esther; but what is now in question is something else. I think, therefore, that according to the divine Scriptures, the world is not that structure which consists of heaven and earth, but only this place which surrounds the earth, and indeed not that which is understood to surround the entire earth, but only that which is inhabited by us: for "in the world was the true light," in that place, namely, which is understood to surround our earth; "and the world knew him not," that is, the men who dwell around the earth, and perhaps also the powers native to this region. For it is absurd to say that the structure which consists of heaven and earth, and the things that are in them, is signified; so that we would have to maintain that the sun, and the moon, and the host of the stars, and all the angels who are in the whole of this world, did not know the true light, B and yet, not knowing it, preserved the order assigned to them by God. Furthermore, even when it is said by the Savior in the prayer to the Father: "And now glorify me, O Father, with yourself with the glory which I had with you before the world was (Joan. xvii, 5)," one should not understand "world" to be spoken of as the habitable earth among us; for from this world the Father gave C humanity to the Son, concerning whom the Savior asks the Father, and not—
It seems to me that, just as there are different sizes in human bodies, so that some of them are small, others large, and others between these, and again there are differences of smallness being more or less, and likewise of greatness and of those in between, so also in the souls of men there are certain things that characterize their smallness, others their greatness—if I may say so—and simply others corresponding to the physical differences in terms of the middle state. But in the case of bodies, it is not because of the person's own choice, but because of the seminal reasons, that one is short and small, another large, and another in between. But in the case of souls, our own free will and such actions and such a character are the cause of one being large or small or falling in between; and it is within our own power either to progress in age by increasing in magnitude, or, by not progressing, to be short. And it is in this way that I hear about the Savior having also assumed a human soul, that "Jesus increased" (in stature). D
Concerning the "little ones" and those who have entered into the Kingdom.
And "they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders; and kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers." You will therefore pay attention on account of these things also to the passage "do not despise one of the little ones," lest it be that "their angels," who guide them, are those who bring them "in their arms" when they are sons, but also carry on their "shoulders" those who are called "daughters," and from these are the "nursing fathers" who are called "kings," and the "nursing mothers" who are named "queens." And since those who are pointed out by our Savior as little ones are attended to as if by nursing mothers and nursing fathers, because of this I suppose also Moses, believing himself to have already been set in the place of the great ones, said towards the words "my angel shall go before you" the statement, "If thou thyself dost not go with me, do not lead me up from hence."
Then again one might ask, at what time do those who are called the "angels" of the "little ones" shown by the Savior begin to take charge: whether they begin to administer the economy concerning them from the time when, "through the washing of regeneration" [by which they were born], they crave "as newborn babes the rational and guileless milk," and are no longer subject to any evil power; or whether from birth, having been assigned by God's foreknowledge and His predestination to those whom "He also foreknew and predestinated" God would make to be "conformed" to the "glory" of Christ. To the claim that they have angels from birth, one might say the following: A "He who set me apart from my mother's womb," and "From my mother's womb Thou art my protector," and "Thou didst take me from my mother's womb," and "Upon Thee I was cast from the womb," and in the Epistle of Jude: "To those who are beloved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ, being called," are all certainly kept by the guardian angels.
But as to the view that when they have become "in Christ" "babes" through the "washing," no holy angel is present for those still in wickedness—but rather that at the time of their unbelief they are under the angels of Satan—that person should not be a lover of life, but should say with Paul: B "To me the world is crucified, and I to the world." For the saints, who are in this tabernacle, "groan, being burdened" by the body of humiliation, and do everything so that they may be found worthy in the mystery of the resurrection, when God "will transform" the "body of humiliation"—not of all, but of those truly discipled to Christ—into that which is "conformed to the glory" of Christ. C For just as none of the "woes" happen to any of Christ's disciples, so neither does that saying, "Woe to the world because of scandals"; for although ten thousand scandals occur, they will not touch those who are no longer of the world. But if anyone is susceptible to being scandalized because of the instability of his faith and the insecurity of his submission to the word of God, let him know that he is not yet accounted a disciple of Jesus. One must believe that such scandals are coming that the "woe" does not reach only certain parts of the earth, but the whole world that is in it.
"And it is necessary that scandals come," which I consider to be different from the people through whom they come. D Therefore, the coming scandals are an army of the devil: his angels, and a wicked chorus of unclean spirits, which, while seeking instruments through whose aid they can operate, frequently find those who are entirely strangers from piety, and sometimes even some of those who are thought to believe in the word of God, to whom the woe is worse than the woe to the one scandalized; just as it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for the places in which Jesus worked signs and wonders, yet he was not believed. One might, just as one could make a treatise from the Scriptures out of those who are pronounced blessed and the things for which they are blessed, so also from the written woes and those…
for which the woe was pronounced. B Furthermore, regarding the fact that the woe against the one who causes scandal is worse than that against the one who is scandalized, you will adduce this passage: "But whoever scandalizes one of these little ones who believe in me, it is better for him," and the rest. For since it is the little one who has been scandalized who is avenged by Him, against the one who scandalized him, so great a benefit is that which is written to be the heavy and unbearable thing for the scandalizer. If we were to consider these things more carefully, we would have been on our guard not to sin against our brothers and strike their weak conscience, so as not to sin against Christ, for they are often destroyed not only by our knowledge, but also by other brothers around us, "for whom Christ died." C We shall pay the penalty for those for whom we sin against Christ, when the soul of those who perished because of us is required from us.
25. Next, we must examine the term "necessity" in the passage: "For it is necessary that scandals come," and what is equivalent to it in Luke: "It is impossible for scandals not to come," that is, "it is impossible." And just as it is necessary for the mortal to die, and it is impossible that it should not die, and it is necessary for one who is in a body to be nourished—for it is impossible for one who is not nourished to live—so it is necessary and impossible that scandals should not come, since it is necessary that wickedness should pre-exist virtue in men, from which wickedness scandals flow. For it is impossible for a man to be found entirely without sin, and to have received virtue without sin (for the wickedness that is in the evil powers, happening to be the source of the wickedness in men, D forces everyone to act against the men of the world through certain instruments). Perhaps, also, the evil powers are more enraged when they are cast out by the word of Jesus, and when their worship is diminished, and the accustomed sacrifices are not offered to them; and it is necessary that these things come, though it is not necessary that they should come through any particular person. Therefore, as for one who has given place to the...
[Remainder of text in the original Latin rendering provided by Migne]
... asinaria to his neck, and is drowned in the depth of the sea," because God thus vindicates those who have been scandalized by those who have caused them, and if we understood this, we would fear: we would never sin against our brothers, nor strike their weak consciences, for whom Christ died, for whom we shall undergo penalties as if sinning against Christ, when the souls that perished because of us are sought from us. For Luke similarly explains it, saying: "It is impossible that scandals should not come." And as it is necessary for a mortal to die, and it is impossible that he should not die: and as it is necessary for a man constituted in a body to eat, and it is impossible that one who is corporeal should live without food: so it is necessary that scandals should come, and it is impossible that they should not come. And see if you can take as an example that the malice which exists in the heavenly realms is necessarily conjoined with the virtues. For it is impossible for a man to be found entirely without sin, and to be able to possess virtues without sin: because there cannot be true good unless it has an opposition of evil. As therefore it is necessary to sustain the malice of the heavenly [powers], and it is impossible not to sustain it: so it is necessary that scandals should come, and it is impossible that they should not come. Especially if you have understood the malice of the malignant powers to be the principal cause of this malice which is in men, and that it is always looking for certain organs through which it may work against the men of the world. Perhaps also the malignant powers are more irritated, the more the word of Christ, growing in men, drives out from them the malignant powers which had previously been accustomed to dwell in their souls: and the demons, who took delight in the blood of sacrifices, are enraged when...
A their cult is diminished, and neither are their customary sacrifices offered to them; therefore it is necessary that scandals come. And indeed, while it is necessary that scandals themselves should come, it is not necessary that they should come by such-and-such a man; wherefore, to him through whom they come, there shall be woe, because he gave place to the malignant operation in himself, being willing to cause scandal.
Do not imagine that scandals exist in nature or in the constitution of things, such that they seek out certain men through whom they might arise. For just as God did not create death, so neither did He create scandals; but [human] free will gave birth to the scandal in some, who were unwilling to undergo the labors for the sake of virtue.
And it would indeed be good if the eye and the hand were worthy of praise, so that the eye might not be able with reason to say to the hand, "I have no need of you." B But if anyone in the whole body of the assemblies of the Church, having acted as a hand by reason of his practical activity, should change and become a scandalizing hand, let the eye say to such a hand: "I have no need of you," and having said it, let him cut it off and cast it from himself. And so it will be well, if both the head be blessed, and the members be worthy of the blessed head, so that the head, keeping what is fitting for itself, may not be able to say to the feet: "I have no need of you." However, if any foot should be found becoming a scandal to the whole body, let the head say to such a foot: "I have no need of you," and having cut it off, let it cast it from itself. C
And if anyone is to be found who becomes a scandal to the whole body—a hand or a foot—let the eye or the head of that body say to such a one: "I have no need of you," and let it cut him off and cast him away. For it is better that [that member] should perish, than that the entire body should be dragged into the danger of the fire. D
A Another person, relying on the wording and not wishing to interpret it externally, will say that these things are not said about every sin, because he who commits those great sins is not even a brother, but is—if indeed he even is—called a brother, as the Apostle says: "If anyone who is named a brother is a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater [and so on], with such a one not even to eat." For no idolater is a brother, nor a fornicator, nor a covetous man; for if he has any of these, while seeming to bear the name of Christ, he might rightly be called "a brother who is named," but not a brother. Just as, therefore, he who said that such things were spoken with respect to every sin provided reasons for undermining the [goodness] of Christ to an extreme degree—even if the sin were murder, or sorcery, or child-molestation, or anything of that magnitude—so, on the contrary, he who distinguishes a brother from "one named a brother" might teach that he who does not repent after the reproach for lesser human sins should be accounted as a Gentile and a tax-collector regarding sins that are "not unto death," or [as the law in Numbers named them] those that are not death-dealing; which would seem to be rather cruel, considering the whole world of men.
But our Savior also says: "And I come to you, and am no longer in the world." He does not mean the earthly world; for one must not think that he is stating contradictions when he says, "And I come to you, and am no longer in the world," and: "I am in the world." But even here: "And these things I speak in the world," the earthly place must be understood. This is clearly signified also by: "And the world hated them, because they are not of the world." For it hated us from the time we no longer look at the things that are seen, but at the things that are not seen, because of the teaching of Jesus; not the world that consists of heaven and earth and everything in them, but the people on earth who live with us. B The phrase "They are not of the world" is equal to "They are not of the earthly place." Thus, the disciples of Jesus are not of the world, just as He Himself was not of the world. Furthermore, the saying: "That the world may believe that You sent Me," which is said twice in the Gospel according to John, does not refer to the most excellent of men, but to those human beings who have need to believe that the Father sent the Son into this world; and among the Apostle’s writings, too, "Your faith is proclaimed in the whole world."
If, then, there is "woe" to people everywhere on earth from scandals, by which also scandals are touched, and the disciples are not of the world—not looking at the things that are seen—just as their Teacher is not of the world, then to none of the disciples of Jesus is there a "woe from scandals," since "great peace have those who love the law of God, and there is no scandal for them." But if anyone seems to be named a disciple, yet is still of the world because he loves the world and the things in it—I mean the life in this earthly place, and the money in it, or possessions, or any wealth whatsoever—in such a way that the phrase "They are not of the world" does not fit him, but rather, as one who is of the world, that which happens to the world, "Woe because of scandals," will happen to him. C But he who wishes to avoid the woe, let him [obey] the law of God, the God. D [*Note: the translated text here mirrors the Latin repetitions in the source.*]
A For I do not suppose it will easily be found that someone has been reproved three times for the same type of sin—for instance, by railing (by which those who rail speak ill of their neighbors), or by haughtiness, or by drunkenness, or by a false and idle word, or by anything commonly found among the many. You will inquire, therefore, whether a certain observance inadvertently lies in the passage, and [is meant for] those who, because of the seeming kindness of the word, grant forgiveness even to those who have sinned most grievously; and [instructs] those who teach [us] to consider even the least sins—[and that is why, immediately,] they make the one who has [been reproved twice or] three times for lesser sins equivalent to a pagan and a publican, estranged from the Church. What lies hidden from both sides appears to me to be this: the Word, having established the phrase "you have gained your brother" [only] for the one who alone has heard, no longer places it upon the one who has stumbled and been reproved a second or third time, but has left the equivalent of what was to be said about the one second or third reproved as if in suspense. It is not, then, absolutely the case that he is gained, nor that he is absolutely lost or will receive blows. B And attend carefully to the first speaker: [those] desiring us to act with piety; and [regarding] a son or daughter, [those] wishing us—as much as lies in their power—to stand apart from the Church of Christ and from His love. But even if the wife who is in our bosom, or a friend who is the equal of our soul, becomes a stumbling block to us, let us not spare them, but having cast them out from ourselves, let us put them outside our soul, as not kin, but enemies of our salvation. For whoever does not hate father or mother and the things that follow—when there is a time to hate them as hostile and treacherous, in order to be able to gain Christ—he is not worthy of the Son of God. And concerning these, it is possible to say that, as it were, a lame man is saved by losing a foot—for instance, a brother—and alone inherits the kingdom of God; and a maimed person attains salvation when his father is cut off; but they perish, while he himself is separated from them so as to attain the blessings. C So too, one who is one-eyed is saved, having cut off the eye of his own house, namely his wife who has committed adultery, so that he may not, by having two eyes, go away into the gehenna of fire. "See that you do not despise one of these little ones." It seems to me that, just as there are different sizes in human bodies—so that some are small, others large, and others medium—and again, that there are differences among those who are small, as well as the large, and those in between; so also in the souls of men there are certain things characterizing their smallness, and others, if I may so speak, greatness, and, in a word, proportional to the physical ones, the intermediate state. But in the case of bodies, it is not through the fault of the man.
but on account of certain reasons of the seed, that one person is short, another tall, and another intermediate. Regarding souls, however, it is within our power, both by our own actions and by such character, to become great, or small, or to happen to be in the intermediate state; and it is from the things within our control whether we progress in stature by increasing in size, or, by not progressing, remain small. And thus do I understand what is said concerning the Savior, who also assumed a human soul: “Jesus was progressing.” B For just as the progress in wisdom and grace belonged to His soul from what was in our power, so too did the progress in stature. And the Apostle says: “Until we all come into a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.” For one must consider the attainment of a man, and that a perfect one, according to the inner man, as one who has passed beyond the things of a child, and has arrived at the man, and has done away with the things of a child, and simply brought to completion the things of a man. Thus, one must also conceive that there is a certain measure of spiritual C stature, unto which a most perfect soul can attain by magnifying the Lord and becoming great. Therefore, in this way, those who are recorded in the scriptures as having become great, such as Isaac, and Moses, and John, and, above all, the Savior Himself, became so; for even concerning Him the Savior said: “He shall be great.” But the little ones are the newly born infants, desiring “the rational, guileless milk,” who also have need of the tutors and nurses mentioned by Isaiah, who speaks concerning the calling from the Gentiles: “And they shall bring thy sons D in their bosom, and thy daughters they shall carry upon their shoulders; and kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their princesses thy nursing mothers.” You will therefore observe, because of this, the word: “Do not despise one of these little ones,” lest their angels—those who guide them—be carrying them in their bosom when they are sons, but also carrying on their shoulders those called daughters; and from this, those called kings are tutors, and those named princesses are nurses. And since those appearing as little ones to our Savior are provided for as if by tutors and nurses, for this reason I believe that Moses [alt-version omitted]
A considering himself now established in the rank of the mature, said to that which was spoken: "My angel shall go before you," the following: "If you yourself do not go with me, do not lead me up from here." B For if the small one is indeed an heir, but is a child differing in no way from a slave while he is a child, and in so far as he is small, "he has a spirit of slavery unto fear," whereas he who is no longer such in any way has no longer the spirit of slavery, but already that of adoption, when "perfect love casts out fear," it will be clear to you that, according to these things, the angel of the Lord is said to encamp round about those who fear Him, and to deliver them. You will also remark, according to these things, whether the angels of the little ones—who are led by the spirit of slavery into fear, since the angel of the Lord camps round about those who fear Him and delivers them—are indeed such; but for the mature, the Lord Himself, who is greater than the angels, who would say concerning each one of them: "I am with him in tribulation." And for as long as we are imperfect and in need of Him who aids us in being delivered from evils, we need the angel of whom Jacob spoke: "The angel who delivers me from all evils." But having been perfected, and having passed beyond the state of being under nurses, and tutors of households, and guardians, we move on to be governed already by the Lord Himself.
Then again one might ask, when do the so-called angels of those little ones shown by the Savior stand over them? Whether they receive the stewardship to manage them from the time when, through the washing of regeneration, they became as newborn infants, desiring the rational and guileless milk, and no longer subject to any evil power—or from birth, according to the foreknowledge and predestination of God.
CONCERNING THE SAYING, "THE ANGEL," AND "I MYSELF SHALL GO BEFORE YOU, AND I SHALL REST YOU."
You will observe, according to these things, C that since those who are little to our Savior are governed by nurses and tutors, I think it came about that Moses, believing himself to be already in the order of the mature, said to that which is spoken: "My angel shall go before you," the following: "If you do not go yourself with me, do not lead me up from this place." For although the little one is also an heir, the child differs in nothing from a slave so long as he is a child and in so far as he is a child, "he has a spirit of slavery to fear." But he who is no longer such possesses no longer a spirit of slavery, but already one of adoption, when, naturally, "perfect love casts out fear." It will be clear to you that according to these things the angel of the Lord is said to encamp round about those who fear Him and to deliver them. D Concerning these things, however, you will weigh in your mind whether those who are indeed little—to whom fear is struck by the spirit of slavery—have angels, since the angel of the Lord camps round about those who fear Him and delivers them; but for the mature, the Lord is Himself greater than the angels, who might say of each one of them: "I am with him in tribulation." And so long as we are imperfect and have need of a helper so that we may be delivered from evils, we need an angel of whom Jacob used to speak: "The angel who delivers me from all the evils." But after we have escaped and become perfect, and have cast off our nurses, governesses, agents, and tutors, we can be governed by Christ Himself. Whether those who are called their angels are placed in charge of the care of those little ones shown by the Savior, or whether they undertook their government from when they were born again through the washing of regeneration, by the aid of which they were made as newborn infants, "concupise the rational, guileless milk," and are no longer subject to any evil power; or whether from birth, these having been ordained according to the predestination of God, who foreknew and predestined them to be conformed to the glory of Christ. You see that for whoever might carefully discuss both, it is his to affirm which of them is true and to bring forward Scripture as testimony consistent with one of the two. For in each part much speech can indeed be made; nevertheless, from much, let us bring forward a little. For those who wish that, as soon as each of those who are foreknown by God is born, he receives an angel set over him, will use the voice of the Apostle. And though the Fathers universally handed down that an angel is assigned to the guardianship of each human being from the sacred writings, nevertheless the Magdeburg Centuriators had no fear in traducing this opinion as insane, nor...
is there a small difference in Peter having received the “keys” not of one heaven, but of several, A so that whatever he binds “on earth” might be bound not in one heaven [only], but in all heavens, whereas for the many [who are] needing “on earth” and loosing “on earth” [it is said in this way], so that these things might be bound and loosed not in “heavens,” as in the case of Peter, but in one “heaven”; for they do not extend with the same authority as Peter, so that they might bind or loose in all “heavens.” By as much, therefore, as the one binding is superior, [by so much is the one bound more fully bound than in one heaven, and by as much as the one loosing] is superior, by so much the more blessed is the one loosed, so that his loosing is everywhere in the heavens. B [From the Expository Commentaries of Origen on the Gospel according to Matthew], Tome 13. “Again I say to you that if two of you shall agree on earth, concerning every matter that they shall ask, it shall be done for them.” The name of agreement is properly applied to harmonies in voices according to music; and there are indeed among musicians tones concordant with tones and others dissonant.
For instruments adjusted “with strength and songs” contained within them the musical harmony, which is so potent that, when only “two” bring their request with the petition for divine and spiritual harmony to the Father who is “in the heavens” regarding whatever matter it may be, the Father grants the petitions to those who have agreed “on earth” [which is a most paradoxical thing]—those things which they would ask if they had agreed to the aforementioned harmony. I hear the apostolic dictum in this way: “Do not deprive one another, unless perhaps by agreement for a time, so that you may have leisure for prayer.” Since the name of harmony is applied to those marrying according to God in the phrase from Proverbs so ordered: “Fathers divide house and substance to their children, but a wife is fitted to a husband from the Lord,” it is consistent that, with the harmony from God, the name and the work enjoy the agreement for prayer, which is signified in the words “unless perhaps by agreement.”
A It is possible for a soul, being base at the beginning, to be later able to believe in a manner analogous to him who believes, and to progress so far that he becomes an angel, one of those who always look upon the face of the Father who is in the heavens; beginning from this time to believe in accordance with the one foreknown at such a time, and being joined to the one predestined, out of the unutterable and unsearchable judgments of God, which are like the abysses, very reasonably gathering all such harmony, angels to men. It is possible, too, just as happens with a man and woman who are both unbelievers, that sometimes the man who believed first in time saves the woman, and sometimes the woman, having begun later, at length persuades the man; and so it may come about with angels and men. Whether or not such a thing happens with other angels, you yourself shall examine; though perhaps it does not befit one to say such a thing concerning every angel, who is so honored according to the word of our Savior that he is said to look always upon the face of the Father who is in the heavens.
B Since we said above that there are angels for the little ones, and that the great ones have passed through such an order, someone might contradict us from the Acts of the Apostles, where it is written that Rhoda, a servant girl, came to listen when Peter knocked at the door, and upon recognizing Peter’s voice, ran in and announced that Peter was standing before the gate; and those who were gathered in the house wondered, and because they thought it impossible that Peter truly stood there, they said, “It is his angel.” For he will say that once they had learned that each of the believers has some angel, they knew that there was also a certain angel of Peter. He who stands against what we have said, however, will declare that the speech of Rhoda is not necessarily to be taken as a dogma—perhaps because they were not certain when a person is ministered to by angels as one who is small and fearing God, and when [he is ministered to] already by C others. [...] D and until they have led them to salvation, they also possess the confidence of seeing the face of the Father. For how, since they always attend to the face of the Father through their care and industry in achieving the salvation of men, could they, if a man had fallen through their negligence, not know that the matter is also their own peril? I do not see what color can be given to this error; we would permit it if Origen had said that the sins of men suffuse the angels with shame, just as Theophylact does, even though they themselves, being suffused with shame on account of our lack of boldness, do not have the boldness to look upon the face of God and to intercede for us.
But if it is necessary to point out from the ancient writings those who "agreed upon the earth, three," so that the Word might be "in the midst of them," uniting them, observe the inscription of the Psalms, as that of the forty-first stands: "Unto the end, for understanding, to the sons of Korah." For since there were three sons of Korah, whose names we found in Exodus: Asher, which is interpreted as TRAINING; and the second, Elkanah, which is translated as THE POSSESSION OF GOD; and the third, Abiasaph, which in the Greek tongue would be called CONGREGATION OF THE FATHER; the prophecies were not divided, but as though by one Spirit and one voice working truly in unison in one soul, they were both spoken and written, and the three speak as one, saying: "As the hart panteth after the fountains of water, so panteth my soul after thee, O God." And they say it also in the plural in the forty-third: "O God, we have heard with our ears." But if you wish to see even more clearly those who agree "upon the earth," see those who have heard: B to the Lord. Following this, for the proof of why we have taken the "little one" to be understood as one who will be called [so], [we note] that we do not have a need for a commandment regarding not despising the great, but we do need it regarding the little; for this reason it has not been said simply: "Do not despise one of these," denoting all the disciples, but "one of these little ones," denoting [those] whom Him who sees the smallness and greatness of the soul points out. Another, however, might say that the perfect one is meant by the "little one" among these, using the testimony: "For he who is lesser among you all, this one is great," and he will say that he who humbles himself and becomes as a child in the midst of all who believe—even if he be an apostle or a bishop—and becomes such as a nurse might cherish her own children, this is the one pointed out by Jesus as "little," and worthy indeed of such a one for his angel to behold the face of God. For to say that the perfect ones are "little" here, according to the words: "For he who is lesser among you all, this one is great," and as Paul said: "To me, the very least of all the saints, this grace was given," would seem to harmonize with: "Whoever shall cause one of these little ones to stumble," and with: "So it is not the will before my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish." For as has been rendered, the one who is now "little" would not be caused to stumble, nor would he perish: C "For great peace have they who love the name of God, and there is no stumbling block for them," and he who is the least of all among the disciples of Christ, and for this reason becoming great, would not perish; and since he would not perish, he would be able to say: "Who shall separate us from the love [of God]?" and so on. But he who wishes to hold this latter interpretation will say that the soul of the righteous is also subject to change, as Ezekiel also testifies, saying that the righteous man can depart from the commandments of God, as [he is] not... D [This completes the column: the Latin section *Vetus Interpretatio* begins]
OLD INTERPRETATION
...one of these little ones," whom He knew to be little, who could see the meagerness and greatness of invisible souls. We said similar things above: "If anyone shall cause to stumble one of these little ones believing in me," [or] "he who is lesser among you all, the same shall be greater." For he who humbles himself, being an imitator of Him who humbled Himself for human salvation in the midst of those who believe, whether he be an apostle or a bishop, he himself is the "little one" whom Christ points out. Paul also shows himself to be such a "little one," saying: "To me, the least of all the saints, was this grace given." But to this type of exposition, that which is said: "If anyone shall cause to stumble one of these little ones," and so on, does not seem to fit, nor does that which is said: "It is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish," since such a little one who is truly perfect is not caused to stumble, nor does he perish: "For great peace have they who love the law of God, and there is no scandal to them." And since such a little one does not perish, he can say: "Who shall separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus?" and so on. But he who thinks this exposition true says that the soul of a righteous man is also mutable, and is caused to stumble at some time, though not easily, just as Ezekiel testifies, saying that even the righteous person can depart from the commandments of God, so that his former righteousness is not imputed to him. Therefore he says: "If anyone shall cause to stumble one of these little ones"; and because it is not the will of the Father...
who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish. Those things which concern the hundred sheep you have in the homilies which we written on Luke. B 30. "If your brother sins, go, reprove him between you and him alone." He who lays stress on the text, representing the exceeding philanthropy of Jesus, will say that since the words do not distinguish between sins, they who apply this rule only to lighter sins act redundantly and contrary to the kindness of Jesus, for these words do not express a difference of sins. Another, however, weighing this place attentively, and not wishing these things to be understood as outside the matter, nor wishing them to be said concerning every sin, will say that he who commits those great wickednesses is not even a brother, but is if anything a "so-called" brother, as the Apostle says: "If anyone called a brother is a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater," and the rest, "with such a one do not even eat"; for no idolater is a brother, nor fornicator, nor covetous man. For if he who is called a brother, and seems to bear the name of Christ, has any of these things, he could by no means justly be called a brother. Just as, therefore, the fantasy of Christ’s excessive C long-suffering afforded grounds for one saying that such things were said concerning every sin, even if the sin be murder, or sorcery, or child-molesting, or anything of that magnitude; so on the contrary, he who distinguishes the brother from the so-called brother teaches that on account of lesser human sins, he who has not turned after reproof should be considered as a gentile and a tax collector, for sins which are "not unto death," or as the law in Numbers named them, not mortal—which indeed would appear too cruel; for I do not think that anyone can easily be found who has not been reproved three times regarding the same kind of error, for example: railing, by which those who rail speak evil of their neighbors, or those who are angry, or by drunkenness, or by a false word.
A You will inquire, therefore, whether any observation escapes notice regarding this passage, as well as those who, imagining the kindness of the Word and granting forgiveness to those who have committed the greatest sins, also teach that one should reckon those who have sinned in the smallest matters as a gentile and a publican, and exclude from the Church the one who has, after three times, committed lesser sins. B The thing that escapes both sides seems to me to be this: the Word, having established the phrase "You have gained your brother" when he hears alone, no longer placed it regarding the one who faulted a second or third time, and was reproved, but rather left as if suspended the analogy to "You have gained your brother," which was to be said regarding the one who was reproved a second or third time. Therefore, he is not absolutely gained, nor is he absolutely lost, nor will he receive blows. And pay close attention to the first, who says: "If he hears you, you have gained your brother," and to the second, who says at that place in the text: "But if he does not hear you, take with you one or two, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established." C What then, after every word has been established in the mouth of two or three witnesses, will be the state of the one who was admonished a second time, he has left for us to consider; and again: "If he does not hear them"—it is clear, that is, the witnesses who were taken—"tell it," he says, "to the Church." And he did not say what he will suffer if he does not hear the Church, but he taught that if he does not hear the Church, he must be to the one who has admonished him three times—and has not been heard—henceforth as a gentile and a publican. Therefore, he is not absolutely gained, nor is he absolutely lost; but whatever he will suffer—he who first did not hear, but requested witnesses, or even disobeyed them, but was brought before the Church—God would know; for we do not pronounce judgment, according to the words: D "Do not judge, so that you may not be judged, until the Lord comes, who will both illuminate the hidden things of darkness and manifest the counsels of the hearts." Toward what seems harsh toward those who have committed lesser sins, one might say that it is not permitted—once he has not heard for the second time—
[VETUS INTERPRETATIO]
alone with the one alone; and if he who has committed such things hears, one might immediately say he is gained; and if he does not hear, he is not compelled to be cast out of the Church, unless he has first been reproved before witnesses, and by the Church, and has persisted in his prior act? We are not ignorant, however, that another, following the words and looking upon the immense mercy of Christ, can say that because the very words of Christ make no distinction of sins, they make it superfluous, and contrary to the mercy of Christ, for those who distinguish that these pertain only to the smallest matters. But I do not think that he who feels this way feels it for the common utility. Another, however, carefully considering the words themselves, and wishing to imply nothing extrinsic, does not defend that these things are said of every sin, because he who commits those great sins is not a brother, unless perhaps he is called a brother. For there is a difference between a brother and one who is called a brother. And because they are distant from each other, therefore the Apostle says: "If any man called a brother among you be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater," and the rest; "with such an one not to eat." For no idolater, or fornicator, or covetous man is a brother. Although he may bear the name of Christ, yet he is called a brother, but is not properly a brother. Just as, therefore, by the estimation of the eminent mercy of Christ, he gives an occasion of sinning to the negligent, who explains that these things generally pertain to every sin: so, on the contrary, he who teaches that one sinning in the smallest and human sins, after the recognition of witnesses or the Church, must be treated as a publican and a gentile in sins which are not unto death, or as the Law calls them in Numbers, not deadly, seems to have some cruelty—
A regarding the command, "Judge not, that you be not judged," until the Lord comes, who will illuminate the hidden things of darkness and manifest the counsels of the hearts. Now, regarding the fact that this seems to be pronounced more harshly against those guilty of lighter offenses, one might say that he who has not complied when admonished twice in order, cannot, on the third time, be unable to obey in such a way that he must therefore be treated as a publican and a gentile, nor that there is any need for him to be rebuked before the whole Church. For this must be called to mind: "So it is not the will before my Father who is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish," for since we all must stand before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive according to what he has done through the body, whether good or evil, everyone ought to strive that he may not receive the punishment for the many evil things he has done through the body, even if he is to receive retribution for all the worse things he has done; and he must be ambitious to receive B the reward for many good deeds, since "with what measure we measure, it will be measured to us again," and "it will befall us according to the works of our hands." And they will not receive according to infinite measures, but those who have sinned will receive from the hand of the Lord either double or sevenfold, when it is not rendered to someone strictly according to the works of his hands, but more than what he has done. For Jerusalem, as Isaiah taught, "received from the hand of the Lord double for all her sins," but the neighbors of Israel, whoever they may be, will receive sevenfold, according to what is said in the Psalms: "Render to our neighbors sevenfold into their bosom, their reproach, with which they have reproached you, O Lord." And other forms of recompense might be found, which, if we understand them, we shall know that it is profitable to repent after any number of sins whatsoever, C so that besides our not being punished for a multitude of things, there may also be some hope left for us later regarding good deeds after what has been done, even if a myriad of things have previously been committed by someone. For it is absurd that the worse things should be accounted to a person, while the better things following the worse should be of no benefit—things which also, from Ezekiel, those who diligently keep the sayings regarding such matters can learn.
OLD INTERPRETATION
...to lead them. For we do not think that there is easily found in the Church someone who has not already been rebuked three times for the same fault—for example, in detraction, by which men mutually disparage their neighbors, or in pride, or in gluttony, or in a word of falsehood or an idle word, or in some such light fault, which is frequently found even in those who seem to be progressing in the Church. Consider, therefore, D lest perhaps the understanding of the passage escapes both those who, by the estimation of the immense mercy of Christ, interpret these things as pertaining even to greater sins, and those who assert that these things pertain to the smallest sins, and therefore think that if a sinner has not amended himself after being rebuked twice or three times, he is immediately to be treated as a gentile and a publican. What then? Whether he who, having been rebuked three times, has become as a gentile and a publican to the one rebuking, perishes altogether or suffers something, God knows; but we cannot pronounce judgment, according to what is written: "Judge not, that you be not judged." Again: "Judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes who will illuminate the hidden things of darkness and manifest the counsels of hearts," firstly because, granted that he who was rebuked three times did not obey, he may yet obey in the fourth instance, so that he is no longer as a gentile and a publican. For we ought to be mindful of what was said: "So it is not the will of my Father that one of these little ones should perish," for so it behooves us all to be presented before the tribunal of Christ, that each one may report what he did through the body, whether good or evil. Next, because it is written: "According to the works of your hands it will happen to you"; and sinners will not receive from the hand of the Lord in a manifold, or double, or sevenfold way. Sometimes, however, it is not rendered to him according to the works of a man's hands, but more than he has sinned: for Jerusalem, as Isaiah taught, received double from the hand of the Lord for her sins. But the neighbors of Israel, whoever they are, receive sevenfold, according to what he says in the Psalm: "Render to our neighbors sevenfold in their borders." And other modes of retribution are found, which, if we understand them, we shall know that it is profitable to receive in this world. Lastly, because he did not say "likewise," as "a gentile and a publican," but "so let it be to you." He, therefore, who has been rebuked three times for a light sin, according to the...
A judgment that he be as a gentile and a publican, is justly bound; and if he who has rebuked him three times is not heard, he who is judged as a gentile and a publican remains bound, since no one of those who are in heaven rescinds the decision of him who has bound him. Likewise, also, he who has been rebuked once, having done things worthy of being won over, and having been loosed through the admonition of him who has won him over, and no longer being bound by the chains of his own sins for which he was rebuked, shall be judged loosed by those in the heavens. Nevertheless, it seems that what was given uniquely to Peter above is declared to have been given to all those who bring the three rebukes to all who have sinned, so that, if they are not heard, they may bind on earth him who is judged to be as a gentile and a publican, just as such a person is bound in heaven. B But since it was necessary, even if something common is said regarding Peter and those who have rebuked their brothers, for Peter to have something preeminent over those who have rebuked three times, this is set forth privately concerning Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens," and that which follows: "And whatever you bind on earth," and the rest. And yet, if we attend carefully to the evangelical writings, we would find even in these things that seem to be common to Peter and to those who have rebuked the brothers three times, a great difference and preeminence arising from the things said to Peter above the others; for it is not a small difference that Peter has received the keys... C
INTERPRETATION OF THE VETERAN
...that which we have said, he does not amend himself, we for our part must consider him as a publican and a gentile, abstaining from him so that he may be put to shame. But whether he is judged by God as a publican and a gentile, it is not for us to pronounce, but it is in the judgment of God.
51. He has fitly added, after the three arguments have been made against the one who has become as a publican and a gentile: "Whatever things you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatever things you loose on earth, shall be loosed also in heaven." For he who has rebuked three times and has not been heard has justly bound him who has become as a publican and a gentile. Therefore, such a one is bound and condemned before all who are in heaven. So also, if he who is rebuked amends himself, so that he is no longer bound by the ropes of his sins, he is justly loosed even by those who are in heaven. Nevertheless, those things which were spoken above to Peter alone seeem to be spoken also to all these, who have rebuked those sinning three times, if they have not been heard, and have bound them on earth, judging the sinner as a publican and a gentile. But since it was necessary for Peter to have something greater than those who have rebuked three times, therefore it was said to him: "And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, shall be loosed in the heavens; and whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in the heavens." Therefore, it is no small difference that to Peter were given the keys not of one heaven, but of many heavens, so that whatsoever he binds on earth, may be bound not only in one heaven, but in all heavens, and whatsoever he looses on earth... D
and those who have chided their brothers seem to be shared. For the difference is not small, that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of many; and whatever he shall have bound upon earth, it is bound not in one heaven, but in all of them—unlike very many others who on earth both bind and loose, so that these things bound or loosed are not in the heavens as was granted to Peter, but in one heaven; for they do not possess the power to traverse [the heavens] as Peter does, so that they might bind or loose in all the heavens. By as much, therefore, as the one who binds is better, by so much is the one who is loosed more blessed, since he is loosed in all the heavens indeed. [VETUS INTERPRETATIO] ...earth, may be loosed not only in one heaven, but in all the heavens. But to those who are many—binders and loosers on earth—He says this, so that they might loose and bind, not in the heavens like Peter, but in one heaven, because they are not in such perfection as Peter, that they might bind or loose in all the heavens. By as much, therefore, as the one who binds is better, by so much is the one who is bound, bound more than in one heaven; and by as much as the one who looses is better, by so much the more blessed will he be who is loosed, since he is loosed in all the heavens.
TOMUS XIV.
“Again I say to you, that if two of you shall agree on earth, concerning any matter whatever they may ask, it shall come to pass for them.” The name “symphony” is applied properly to harmonies of sound in music. And there are indeed in music sounds that are consonant with sounds, and others that are dissonant; and the evangelical Scripture is also acquainted with this name applied to things musical in the passage: “He heard a symphony and dancers.” For it was fitting that, upon the symphony of repentance towards the Father of the son who had been found after he was lost, a symphony of joy should be heard in the house. But the impious Laban is not ignorant of the name of symphony, where he says to Jacob: “And if you had told me, I would have sent you away with joy, and with music, and with timbrels, and with harps.” And akin to such a symphony is that which is written in the second book of Kings, when the brothers of Aminadab “were trading before” the ark; but David and the young men themselves were praising before the Lord with instruments...
OLD INTERPRETATION
1. “Again I tell you, that if two of you shall have agreed on earth, concerning any matter whatever they may ask, it shall come to pass for them from my Father who is in heaven. For where two or three shall have been gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” Let us first consider wisely whether this consensus can exist among many, or in the whole assembly, so that Christ may be in their midst: because “narrow and tribulated is the way that leads to life, and few there are who find it.” But perhaps by this kind of consensus not even a few agree with one another in all things, but perhaps two or three, like Peter, and James, and John, to whom, as they were in a sense in consensus with one another in all things, the Word of God showed His glory, insofar as He had no form nor comeliness, changing Himself to His glory so as to show His garments shining like light to them. Two also agreed, Paul and Sosthenes, writing the first Epistle to the Corinthians. Likewise, Paul and Timothy sending the second.B And three also agreed, when Paul, and Silvanus, and Timothy were teaching by means of the ark, and David and the sons were playing before the Lord on instruments set to strength and psalms. For instruments set to strength and psalms contained in themselves musical harmony, which has such power that, when only two, together with the petition for divine and spiritual harmony, present an entreaty to the Father in heaven for anything whatsoever, the Father grants the requests to those who have agreed on earth—which is most paradoxical—making them be what they would have asked if they had agreed in the aforementioned harmony. Thus, I also interpret these words of the Apostle: "Do not withhold from one another, unless perhaps by agreement for a time, so that you may have leisure for prayer." For since the word "harmony" is applied to those who marry according to God, in a certain passage of Proverbs which goes like this: "House and wealth are divided by fathers to children, but from God a wife is joined to a husband," it follows that the harmony which is from God, and the very name of symphony and consensus, and the thing itself, should be enjoyed in prayer, C which is made clear by the expression: "Unless perhaps by agreement." Then, the Word, further explaining the agreement of "two on earth," that this is the same as agreeing with Christ, adds: "For where there are two or three gathered in my name." Therefore, those gathered in the name of Christ, two or three, are those who agree on earth, not only when there are two, but sometimes even when there are three. One who is able will observe whether this harmony and such an assembly—in the midst of which Christ is—can be found in more than that, since "the gate is narrow and the way constricted that leads to life, and few are those who find it." D Yet perhaps not even a few, but two or three agree, just as Peter, and James, and John, to whom agreeing the Word of God showed His glory. And three also agreed, that Christ might be in their midst, Paul, and Silvanus, and Timothy, writing to the Thessalonians. Likewise, in the Old Testament, we find three agreeing upon the earth, so that the Word of God might be in their midst, as the superscription of the forty-first Psalm shows, containing this: "Unto the end, in agreement, to the sons of Core." Since there were three sons of Core, whose names we find in Exodus—Asir, which is interpreted as "erudition"; the second, Helcana, which is understood as "creature of God"; the third, Abiasaph, which is interpreted as "congregation of the father"—the prophecies, therefore, are not divided, but as if from one spirit, as if from one soul and from one voice, with consensus clearly working in them, they were spoken and written, and the three spoke as if one, saying: "As the deer longs for the fountains of waters, so my soul longs for Thee, O God." They said also in the plural in the forty-third: "O God, we have heard with our ears." Therefore, the Apostle also enjoins, saying: "That you may be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment." And in Acts, concerning those who agree, he says: "The multitude of believers had one heart and one soul"; for they had become one, if however it is possible, as we said, to be found in the many as feeling one in all things, so that there is not even a slight dissension among them. But the Corinthians were not agreeing, saying: "I indeed am of Paul, I am of Apollo, I am of Cephas, and I of Christ"; but even in them there was a schism, by the dissolving of which they were gathered with the spirit of Paul and the power of the Lord Jesus, that they might no longer be biting and devouring one another, so as to be consumed by one another. For dissension consumes, just as consensus gathers, and it separates Jesus, who is found only in the midst of those who agree with Him. And, in fact, consensus is produced correctly in these two kinds: in faith, as the Apostle says: "That you may be perfect in the same mind," that is, according to the same dogmas, "and in the same judgment," that is, that they may behave similarly. Therefore he says: "If two of you shall agree upon earth concerning any matter, whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done for them." It is manifest, however, that where there is not agreement concerning every matter
A Sylvanus and Timotheus through the Epistle to the Thessalonians gave precepts. But if from the ancient Scripture three are to be produced who have agreed upon earth, so that in their midst the Word has been present, by whom they were joined into one, consider the inscription of the Psalms; that one, for example, of Psalm XL, which is as follows: «Unto the end, for understanding, to the sons of Core.» For since there were three sons of Core, whose names we find in Exodus, namely Aser, which is interpreted as "boy," and the second, Helcana, which is rendered as "possession of God," and the third, Abiasaph, which can be turned to "congregation of the father," the prophecies were in no wise divided, but by one Spirit and one voice, in one soul, were truly and concordantly worked out, uttered, and inscribed; and as if one, the three spoke these things: «As the hart panteth after the fountains of waters, so panteth my soul after thee, O God.» B Furthermore, in Psalm XLII, in the plural number they say: «O God, we have heard with our ears.» But if you wish to see even more clearly those who agree upon earth, look at those who heard: «That you may be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment,» and who yearned for this: «The multitude of them that believed were of one heart and one soul,» having become (if indeed it is possible for such a thing to be found among many) so that not even the smallest disagreement existed among them, just as the strings of the ten-stringed psaltery to not two agree upon earth. And this is the cause for which we are not heard when we pray, because we do not agree with one another concerning every matter upon earth, neither in doctrine nor in manner of life. Moreover, if we are the body of Christ, and God has placed the individual members in the body so that the members may think the same thing, and agree, and be solicitous, and that if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it, and if one is glorified, all rejoice with it.
C In regard to «in the decachord and the psaltery,» which the Hebrew here calls *nebel* simply, and in Psalm XXXI, 2 and CXLIII, 9, it is called *nebel* decachordum—that is, the ten-stringed psaltery—the word *nebel* is used simply, and sometimes *nebel* signifies decachord if we are to listen to Jerome. The psaltery also, he says, is called *Nablon* in Hebrew, but in Greek *psalterion*, and in Latin *Laudatorium*, of which it is written in Psalm fifty-four (read LVI for LIV): «Arise, psaltery with the harp.» It is, however, with ten strings, as it is written: «Upon a ten-stringed psaltery I will sing to thee in shape four-square.» Drusius plays the prophet when, regarding this place in Psalm XXXII, 2, he invents I know not what, relying on no authority, but trampling upon the authority of all interpreters. D For he has ill-understood the Hebrews whom he uses for his defense. All the interpreters, however—the Syrian, the Arab, the Chaldean, and the Ethiopian, and even the LXX themselves—do not recognize that in Psalm XXXII, 2, nor in Psalm CXLIII, 9. Concerning this former *nabli* form which we have mentioned, Josephus says in *Antiquities*, book VII, c. 12: «The harp is stretched with ten strings, and is struck with a plectrum; but the *nabla*, containing twelve notes, is plucked with the fingers.» The Chaldean interpreter confuses *nebel* when, at Psalm XCI, 4, he writes: «In the decachord and the psaltery.» «Upon the mouth of the harp of ten strings, upon the mouth of the *nabli* and in the exultation of the harp.» Athanasius Kircher in *Musurgia*, tom. I, lib. II, 4, part I, sets forth the figures of the decachord, the *nabli*, and the harp from an ancient Vatican codex.
A there is no discrepancy between the strings of the harp. But they did not agree on earth who said, «I indeed am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ,» but there were schisms among them; which being dissipated, they were brought together with the spirit of Paul, by the power of the Lord Jesus Christ, that they might no longer bite and devour one another, so that they were consumed by one another. For discord consumes and wears down, just as concord gathers and accumulates; and he is capable of receiving the Son of God, who is found only in the midst of those who agree. And there are two general ways in which concord properly exists: consensus, when the same opinions are held in the mind; and the consent of the same will, when the tenor of life is equal and similar in both respects. B For as to whether, «if two of us agree on earth concerning any matter that they may ask, it shall be done for them by the Father of Jesus who is in heaven,» as often as any requests are not obtained from the Father who is in heaven, it is evident that those two did not agree on earth; and the cause why we do not obtain our vows and prayers is that we do not agree with each other on earth, neither in opinions nor in the institution of life. Furthermore, if we are the body of Christ, and God has set the members, each one of them in the body, «that the members might be solicitous for one another,» and agree with one another, «and if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or if one member glories, they rejoice together,» we ought to practice the symphony which arises from divine music, so that, when we are gathered into the name of Christ, Christ may be in our midst, who is the Word of God, and the wisdom of God, and His power.
C These things indeed, concerning the two and the three whom the Word calls to agree, are understood in a common way; but let us now approach another interpretation, which someone before us related, exhorting those who are married to chastity and purity. For he says that the Word wills that these two, who agree on earth, be understood as husband and wife, depriving themselves by consent of corporeal intercourse, that they may find time for prayer, so that when «praying concerning any matter that they may ask,» they shall obtain it, the request made from such consent being granted to them by the Father of Jesus Christ who is in heaven. And it seems to us that this exposition does not bring about the dissolution of marriage, but an exhortation to mutual consent; so that if one partner D wishes to remain pure, and the other does not wish to, he might yield to the one who does not wish to or cannot.
OLD INTERPRETATION
...in all things, we ought to preserve in ourselves this musical concent. For just as in musical matters, unless there is a convenience of voices, it does not delight the listener; so also the Church, unless it has concord, God is not delighted in her, nor does He listen to their voices. Let us agree, therefore, that when we are gathered in the name of Jesus, Jesus may be in our midst, namely the Word of God and His wisdom and power.
2. And this exposition of these words, which he relates, exhorts those before us to chastity in spouses. If two, he says, of you shall agree, that is, husband and wife separating themselves by consent from each other from corporeal union, that they may find time for prayer; then, praying for every matter that they may ask, they shall obtain it, God granting them this through such consent of chastity. And this consent does not appear
A when one party wishes to act chastely, but the other does not; and for this reason, if the one who wishes and is able to act better yields to the will of the one who does not wish or is not able, both will not achieve the result—that whatever they may ask for, it should be granted to them by the Father of Jesus Christ who is in heaven.
I know also another exposition, after those things which we have said concerning married persons, of such a nature regarding the consent of the two: In the wicked, sin reigns over the soul, established as if upon its own throne in this mortal body, so that the soul obeys its desires; but in those who have cast out from the throne of the body the sin that previously reigned, and who struggle against it—B where "the flesh lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh"—in those who have already attained perfection, the spirit has prevailed and has put to death the deeds of the body, and imparts its own life to the body, so that it comes to pass that "He shall quicken also our mortal bodies by His spirit that dwells in us," and a consent of the two is brought about, of body and spirit upon the earth. Once this is established, a concordant prayer is also sent up from the heart; for "with the heart man believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation," so that the heart is no longer far from God, and with this, the just one draws near to Him also with his lips and mouth. C And it is even more blessed if the three are gathered together in the name of Jesus, so that that [word] may be fulfilled: "May God sanctify you wholly, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."
One might inquire regarding the aforementioned consent of spirit and body, whether it is possible for these indeed to be in agreement, but not also the third, that is to say, the soul; whether perhaps it does not follow the agreement of these upon the earth, and after the two have been gathered in the name of Christ, the three are not already being gathered in His name, in the midst of whom comes the Son of God, as all things are consecrated to Him—I mean the three, and with no one being an adversary to Him, not only with the spirit not opposing, but neither the soul, and furthermore, not even the body. D
It is also charming to learn to understand and represent the consent of the two testaments, that of the
OLD INTERPRETATION
. If one wishes to act chastely, but the other does not wish to or cannot, and for this reason the one who is willing and able does not concede to the one who is unwilling and unable, there will not be in them that which is said: "It shall be done for them concerning every matter which they ask."I know also of another exposition. In evil men, sin rules over the flesh in its desires. But in those who have cast out, as if from the throne of their body, the sin that had previously reigned in them, and who struggle against it, "The flesh indeed lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh." In perfect men, however, the spirit has obtained [the victory], and has mortified the works of the flesh, and has commended its own life to the flesh, that He may quicken their mortal bodies "by His spirit dwelling in them," and the consent of the two, spirit and flesh, is made upon the earth; with which consent completed, the prayer also is transmitted, by the heart indeed believing unto righteousness, and by the mouth confessing unto salvation, so that the heart may not be far from God, but with Him, so that it may no longer draw near to Him [only] with the lips; and thus the two are made to be gathered in the name of Jesus. Furthermore, it is more blessed if the three have come together in the name of Jesus, so that that apostolic vow may be fulfilled: "And may God sanctify you to perfection, and your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved without spot unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." But it is possible that two may agree without the third.
And then, when the account is settled, there shall be brought to the accounting not only "every idle word that men shall speak," but also if anyone has ever given "a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple." And these things shall be, when that which is written in Daniel shall come to pass, namely that "the books were opened, and the judgment sat." For there is, as it were, a record of all that has been said, and done, and thought; and by divine power, everything hidden of ours shall be manifested, and everything covered shall be revealed. So that when one is not found to have "given diligence to be delivered" from the adversary, he shall be hauled by the officer, the judge, and the minister to the prison, until he has paid the last mite; but when one has indeed "given diligence to be delivered" from him, and, owing "no man anything," has already multiplied the mina tenfold or fivefold, or, having doubled the "five talents" or made the "two" into four, has received the due reward, he shall enter "into the joy of his lord," or be set "over all that he hath," or hear the words, "have thou authority over ten cities," or "have thou authority over five cities."
A If any man disbelieves in the speed of God’s power concerning these things, he has not yet understood the God who made all things, for He had no need of long periods of time to create such a vast world of heaven and earth and all that is in them. For even if it seems that He made these things in six days, there is need of understanding to perceive how it is said that they were made in six days, for the reason that "this is the book of the generation of heaven and earth," and what follows. Therefore, one must dare to say that the time of the expected judgment has no need of long ages, but as the resurrection is said to occur "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye," so, I think, does the judgment also. After this we must speak to the passage, "and when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed ten thousand talents." This seems to me to have the following meaning: the "time for judgment to begin" is at the start "at the house of God," it being said, as also is written in Ezekiel, to the angels who are appointed over the punishments: "begin at my sanctuary," and it is like unto a "twinkling of an eye," while the reckoning B of the account has its beginning, conceived by the intellect—for we have not forgotten what was said before—from those who owe more.
He who comes to Jesus, so as to be a disciple of His Spirit illuminating the mind of him who has advanced thus far according to his worth, would know; but we, who fall short of that friendly magnitude toward Jesus, it is desirable if we can even speak a little concerning the place. Therefore, the number six seems to be a productive and laborious one, while the number seven contains rest. And observe, if thou canst, that he who loves the world, and works the things of the world, and does material deeds, might be said to sin six times, and the end of these sins is the number seven, as I imagine Peter perceived such a thing, and wished to forgive the brother who had sinned against him seven times. Since, however, the decades and hundreds corresponding to the units have a certain common proportion to the number in the units, and He knew that some would extend their sins even further, for this reason I think Jesus added to the number seven the seventy, and said that forgiveness must be granted to the brethren here, and to those who have sinned in the affairs of this world. But if anyone, having gone beyond the matters of this world and this age, has sinned, even if this were small, he would no longer have a reasonable forgiveness of sins; for forgiveness reaches to the affairs here, and to the things sinned in these places, whether the forgiveness occurs more slowly or more quickly. But there is no forgiveness for the brother who has sinned beyond seventy times seven. And thou mightest say that he who sins in such a way, whether as against the brother Peter, or as against Peter, against whom "the gates of hell shall not prevail," in the case of such sins, he is in the lesser number of sin; but in the case of those that are still worse, he is in the number that has no forgiveness of sins.
Concerning the king who wanted to settle his accounts with his servants, to whom a debtor of ten thousand talents was brought.
"Therefore I say unto you: The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants." The meaning C of the parable wishes to teach forgiveness of the injuries we have suffered from those who have offended us, D as Peter understood, thinking to forgive his neighbor seven sins against him. Since, however, decades and hundreds have some common discourse with the number which is in the monads, and Christ knew that some extend their sins even further, for this reason I think Christ, alongside the number seven, also added seventy, that He might say that forgiveness must occur for brothers living in this world, and to those who sin according to the affairs of this world. But if anyone, going beyond those sins which are usually committed in worldly and secular affairs, should sin further—if indeed this were even possible—he would no longer have the just remission of his sins; since remission has its place in these matters, and in these sins is justly granted, whether the remission be made later or sooner. There is, therefore, no remission for the brother who sins above seventy times seven. But consider, if thou canst, in the nature of all sins, wherever or whenever they are done, or are capable of being done, that there is a difference, having some thought regarding the numbers: so that thou mightest say that the worst of all sins are those that are above the number seventy-seven, when even Jesus would not advise His Peter to forgive sins beyond that number, even if they be done by a brother against him. And further consider, if thou canst, according to those things which we have handed down concerning Peter, against whom the gates of hell shall not prevail, and here to understand him, so that as if someone should sin against Peter, who has sinned in such a manner as Peter was, and according to such sins be in the lesser number that does not have remission of sins. 6. "In that time, Jesus said to his disciples this parable: The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man that is a king, who would take account of his servants."
A If this were to happen outside of mankind, who could it be but the devil, who has destroyed as many as have received him and worked the sin? "For a man is great," and "an honorable man is a merciful one," honorable as being worthy of a talent, or of gold—as the lampstand made of gold was worth one talent—or of silver, or of any material whatsoever that is taken symbolically. The types of these things are recorded in the Books of Days, when David became rich with many talents, the number of which was also shown: so many talents of gold and so many of silver and of the rest of the material mentioned there, from which the temple of God was constructed. Furthermore, not having the means to "repay" the talents—for he had lost them—he possesses a "wife and children" and other things concerning which it is written: "all that he has." And it was possible for him, when sold with his own, to gain plenty, to be purchased by one who would provide—through the price of himself and his own—the entire debt; and it was possible for him to no longer be a servant of the king, but to become the servant of the one who bought him. And indeed, he claims the right not to be sold along with his own to remain in the king's house. B It concerns those who have sinned against us, and especially if, after the injury, the one who committed the wrong seeks the one who was wronged with a request that the sins be forgiven him. This is what the parable wishes to teach us, showing that even of the sins already forgiven us by God, for which we have received atonement, there might be a demand made even after the forgiveness, if we do not forgive those who have wronged us their sins, so that not even the slightest memory of being wronged is any longer left in us, but the whole heart, benefited by the absence of resentment—which is no mean virtue—forgives the one who has offended us for the evils that have been wickedly and insidiously carried out against any one of us by him. C After the perception of the parable, it is possible to examine it more simply, word for word, so that he who pursues it might derive profit from the interrogation of what is said, diligently and fruitfully searching through each of the things previously written. It is likely, however, that there is also a higher and more recondite interpretation, and one which, because it is not obvious to attain, allows one to investigate everything contained in it, in the manner of the parables explained by the evangelists: for instance, who is the king, and who are the servants, and what is the principle of "taking account," and who is the one of many who is a debtor of talents, and who is his wife, and who are the children, and what are all the things mentioned besides these, which the king ordered to be sold so that the debt might be repaid from his possessions; and what is the significance of the one departing who had been forgiven the many talents, and who is the one found among the servants—not to the master of the house, but to the one who had been forgiven—in debt; and what is intended by the number of the one hundred denarii; and what of the phrase: "He choked him, saying: Pay what you owe," and what is the prison into which the one who had been forgiven all the talents went and cast his fellow servant; and who are the fellow servants who were saddened and reported to the Lord all that had happened, and who are the torturers to whom the one who had cast his fellow servant into prison was delivered; and how, when delivered to the torturers, he repaid all that was owed, so as to owe nothing more. It is possible that other things might be brought to the discourse by one who is more inquisitive, the explanation and interpretation of which I believe to be greater than human, and in need of the Spirit of Christ.
For just as A "no one among men knows the things of a man, except the spirit of the man which is in him; and no one has known the things of God, except the Spirit of God [I Cor. II, 11]," so no one, after God, knows the things spoken by Christ in proverbs and parables, except the Spirit of Christ. He who partakes of this Spirit—not only as it is the Spirit of Christ, but also as it is the Spirit of Christ insofar as He is Wisdom and the Word—will be able to contemplate the things revealed to him in this passage. But regarding this highest interpretation, while I do not claim to possess it, neither do I despair of receiving it from Christ, who is the Wisdom of God, being helped to understand what is signified in the parable. Whether or not such things should be dictated here in this writing, may God suggest to us in Christ to do what is pleasing to Him, provided only that the word of wisdom given by God through the Spirit and the word of knowledge administered according to the Spirit be also granted for these matters.
B "The kingdom of heaven has been likened [to a man who was a king]," and so forth. If it has been likened to such a king who has done such things, whom must we call him but the Son of God? For He Himself is the King of the heavens; and just as He is Wisdom itself, Righteousness itself, and Truth itself, so perhaps He is also the Kingdom itself? The Kingdom is not of one of those things below, nor of a part of those above, but of all the things above which have been called heavens.
And if you inquire into the verse, C "Theirs is the kingdom of heaven [Matt. V, 3]," you may say that Christ is theirs, insofar as He is the Kingdom itself, reigning over every thought of the one who is no longer subject to the power of sin, which reigns in the mortal body of those who have submitted themselves to it. And when I say "reigning over every thought," I mean this: that He reigns insofar as He is Righteousness, and insofar as He is Wisdom, Truth, and the other virtues, in the one who has become the heaven by bearing the image of the heavenly [man], and of every power, whether angelic or the others named, not only in this age but also in [the age to come]. D And just as He is Wisdom itself... who is more [so than] the soul of Jesus, which is, even if only in a similar way, joined to the Lord, to the Word Itself, and to Wisdom Itself, and to Truth Itself, and to Righteousness Itself? See Euthymius.
A For it is the work of the Wisdom of God to render an account, in whatever way written by the divine Spirit, of those things which are prophesied concerning the beings individually qualified, or rather, conditioned by such-and-such qualities [whether in invisible powers, or in certain men]. But since we, not having yet attained a sufficient mind—the mind capable of being mingled with the mind of Christ, and extending to reach such depths, and, with the Spirit, of "searching all things, even the deep things of God"—still take an indefinite notion about the things pertaining to this place, we suppose that the wicked servant disclosed by the parable refers to a certain one, being represented here as regards the debt of "many talents."
But when did the King (according to the parable), who is a man, "desire to settle accounts with his servants"? It is worth investigating, and to what time the words should be referred. For if it were after the consummation or at it [at the time of the expected judgment], how could one save the account of him who owed "a hundred denarii" and was being choked by the one to whom the many talents had been forgiven? He is about to have A holy men and those worthy of such a kingdom. This, then, is the kingdom of heaven: when it "was made in the likeness of sinful flesh, to condemn sin in the flesh," precisely when He who "knew no sin" was "made sin for us," and in that it bears the body of our sin, it "was likened to a king, a man," understood in the sense of Jesus, being united to Him more fully—if one might dare so to speak—having that toward which it is united, and becoming in all ways one with "the firstborn of all creation," or "he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit" with Him. B And this kingdom of heaven, having been likened to the king, a man, who is understood in the sense of the Savior, and having been united to Him, is said anticipatorily that he "desired to settle accounts with his servants." For he is about to settle accounts with them, so that it may appear how each one used the Master’s proved silver and rational coins.
And indeed, in the parable, the example is taken from masters settling accounts with their own servants. We shall understand more accurately what is denoted by the parable in these things if we fix our mind upon what is done by the servants to whom the master's money has been dispensed, and from whom an account of it is required. For each of them, receiving different amounts of the master's money, has used it either as was necessary, so as to increase the master's money, or has spent it wastefully on things not necessary, C squandering it thoughtlessly without care, the things which were entrusted to him. And there are some who have managed these funds and so much money rightly, while others have dissipated it; and when the master settles the account with them, the loss of each is calculated, and the profit he brought is also numbered, and according to the value of how he managed it, he is either honored, or payment is exacted, or in some cases he is pardoned, while in some things he is deprived.
Come, then, let us first look at those rational coins and the master's proved silver, which one man receives more of, another less; for according to the power of each, to one are given five talents, as one capable of managing so much; to another, two, as not being able to contain what the one before him did; to another, one, as being even inferior to the second. D Is it the case that these are the only differences? Or are these things mentioned in passing in the rest of the Gospel, and are there also other differences besides these, and are some found in other parables, where for one there are debtors of two amounts, the one of five hundred, the other of fifty denarii—those who have been entrusted with these and have managed them badly, being less in power than the one entrusted with the talent; for although we have not learned that these received, yet
we seem to have learned from the parable that they were debtors. There are found also ten A other servants, each of whom was entrusted with one mina. And if one were to consider the variety of the human soul, and the natural gifts and defects that differ greatly from one another toward more or fewer virtues, or toward these virtues or those, he might perhaps conceive how each soul has come with certain coins of the Master, which appear with the fulfillment of the Word, and with the diligence and exercise following that fulfillment toward what is necessary, or with diligence and exercise toward other things—either useful, such as crafts, or partly useful and partly not, such as doctrines that are neither entirely true nor entirely false.
But thou wilt ask among these whether all men can be called servants of this King, or some are servants whom He foreknew and predestinated, while others are the bankers who deal with the servants. And so thou wilt ask whether those outside the servants from whom the Master promises to exact with interest are not only those alien to the worship of God, but also some of the faithful. For the servants are only the stewards of the Word. But the King, B Reckoning with his servants, demands also from those who have borrowed from the servants, whether it be a hundred cors of wheat, or a hundred baths of oil, or whatever it may be.
On the necessity of the soul's variety
And if one should consider the variety of human souls and the difference in men’s minds, since this one acts toward many virtues, that one toward fewer, and another acts toward these but not toward those, one might perhaps conceive how each soul comes into this world with certain property belong to the Master, which shines forth with the perfection of reason and with the diligence that follows this perfection and exercise in necessary things; or with diligence and exercise in things that are either useful, such as studies, or partly useful and partly not, such as doctrines which are neither entirely true nor entirely false. C But concerning these you will ask whether all men can be called servants of this King, or whether some are servants, whom He indeed foreknew and predestinated; while others are those who deal with the servants, who are called bankers. And so you will inquire whether there are some beyond the servants, not only those alien to the true worship of God, but also some of the believers, from whom the head of the house signifies that he will exact an account with interest. The servants, however, are only the stewards of the Word. But the King, reckoning with the servants, demands also from those who are outside His family, whether he exacts a hundred cors of wheat, or a hundred baths of oil, or whatever might be owed to him by his own servants' debtors.
D And there are others too, as if less powerful, and others still, as if even more impotent. And if one considers the variety of human souls, and the differences in men’s natural capacities, since this one tends toward more virtues, another toward fewer, and another toward these but not those, perhaps one can understand how every soul comes into this world with certain divine funds.
…foreknew and predestinated, while others were not servants, but were those dealing with the servants? Concerning whom it is said to a certain servant: "Was it not appropriate for you to give my money at the bank, so that I, coming with interest, might have received it?" And thus you will inquire whether there are those outside the servants, from whom the Lord promises to receive with interest—not only those alien to the faith, but also some of the believers; though the servants, as far as these parables are concerned, are only those held to be stewards of the Word, and to whom it has been committed that they should transact business and lend at interest. For it is not clear to everyone that the saying, "Do business until I return," refers to all. And it follows that when an account has been settled with the servants, an investigation is also made into whatever the servants did with those who were outside the King's house. For a fellow-servant is not found to have been the steward of iniquity to that man when he owed a hundred cors of wheat (Luke xvi, 6, etc.).
Origen thought that the souls of all men were created before their bodies, and that the souls of the prophets and of those noble in holiness were angels themselves. We have already observed this last point before; but now it is permitted to note the former point, and indeed more openly below at the chapter... Item, book... and book II, chapter 9, and book IV, chapter 2, and in John IV, 38, where he teaches that souls are introduced into bodies through the ministry and aid of angels; and in John VIII, 38, and in six hundred places; but especially in book I, *Against Celsus*, where he recognizes Pythagoras, Empedocles, and Plato as the authors of this doctrine. See Laertius on Pythagoras and Empedocles; and Plato in the *Phaedo*, and X *Laws*, and *Epinomis*, and X *Republic*, and *Timaeus*, and many other places. Plato received this opinion from his teacher Socrates, he from the Italian philosophers, and they from Pythagoras. But Jerome attacks it everywhere in Origen, especially in his letter to Avitus. But sometimes he does so while concealing Origen’s name; for instance, in the letter to Demetrias and in Jeremiah XXVIII. But enough has been said of these in the *Origeniana*. HUETIUS.
*Codex Regius* [reads] the same correctly, just as the ancient interpreter reads. *Codex Anglicanus* [has] Luke XVI, others read *cados*. Vulgate [has] "a hundred baths of oil," others [read] Origen, and Josephus, *Antiquities* VIII, chapter 2, [gives] in Hebrew *bath*. The change from *bathon* to *cados* took place. Certainly, though different in name, they are one in fact and capacity; for a *bath* contains a metretes, that is, a cadus, or the Attic amphora, or the Roman hydria: indeed *chamos* is read in Epiphanius, but erroneously. HUETIUS.
The Gospel according to Luke clearly represents that a nobleman, having gone A into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and to return, when setting out, called ten servants and gave them ten minas, and said to them: "Trade until I come." And this nobleman, being hated by his own citizens who sent an embassy after him, not wishing him to reign over them, returned having received the kingdom, and said for the servants to whom he had given the money to be called to him, that he might know what they had traded. Having seen what they had done, to the one who had made the mina ten minas, he returned praise through the saying, "Well done, good servant, because you were faithful in a very little," and gives him authority over ten cities under his kingdom. And to another who had multiplied the mina fivefold, he did not return the praise which he had ordained for the first, nor did he define the name of authority as he had done for the former, but said to him, "And you be over five cities." To the one who had tied up the mina in a handkerchief, he said: "From your mouth I will judge you, wicked servant," and said to those standing by: "Take away from him the mina and give it to the one who has the ten minas."
Those who have received what is outside the household of the king; for he who owes the hundred cors of wheat and the hundred baths of oil is not found B according to the parable to be a fellow-servant of the "unjust steward," as is clear from the words: "How much do you owe my lord?" Understand, then, that every good and appropriate deed is like gain and profit, while an evil one is like a loss. And just as there is one kind of gain that more coins produce, and another that fewer produce, of which the multitude or paucity is greater or lesser; so excellent deeds are compensated at a greater or lesser price. The judgment of these matters belongs to Him alone who is skilled in inquiring into them, and He strives to estimate—from the affection of the soul, and from the word, and from the action, and from things which, although they are not in our power, nevertheless assist those things which depend on our will—what action is of great profit, what is less, and what is least. And so likewise with contrary things: what sin, when reckoning is made with the servants, is found to be a great loss, what is less, and what, if one must so name it, is the loss of the last lepton or the last quadrant.
Therefore, a reckoning of the whole and entire life is demanded by that which is called the kingdom of heaven, and is likened to a man a king, since "it is necessary for all of us to stand before the judgment seat of Christ, that each may receive the things through the body according to what he has done, whether good or evil." And then, as the reckoning is made, there shall be brought into the accounting "every idle word that men speak," and even if one has at any time offered a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple. C And these things shall be, when that which was written by Daniel comes to pass: "The books were opened, and the judgment sat." For there is, as it were, a recording of all things said, and done, and thought, and by divine power every hidden thing will be made manifest to us, and everything covered will be revealed, so that when someone is not found to have given effort to be reconciled with the adversary, he may be led through the official, and the judge, and the officer to the prison.
A And after he has given the effort so that he might be released from him, and owes no one anything, and has already increased the mina tenfold, or fivefold, or has doubled the five talents, or has made two into four, he may obtain the deserved reward, entering into the joy of his Lord, or being established over all his possessions, or hearing: "Behold, having authority over ten cities," or "Behold, having authority over five cities." We deem that these things are said as if they required much time, in order that the account regarding the totality of the times of the life here might be joined to us, such that one might suppose that, as the king takes an account from each one of so many servants, the matters require so much time until what happened from the beginning of the world until the consummation of the age—not of one, but of many ages—comes to an end. B But the truth is not so; for God, wishing to stir up all things in the memories of all, in order that each one may become conscious of his own better or worse deeds, would do everything that has occurred throughout all time for each person by an ineffable power. For we, wishing to bring to mind certain things, require sufficient time for the passing in review of the things spoken by us, and which bring to remembrance what we wish to recall, but not so God; wishing to remind us of the things done in this life, so that, having become conscious of what we have done, we may grasp those things for which we are punished or rewarded, He would do it. If anyone, however, does not believe in the speed of God’s power regarding these things, he has not yet understood God, who made all things and did not require times to create such a great mass of heaven and earth and the creatures in them. For even if it seems that He made these things in six days, there is need of intelligence to understand how it is said, "in six days," because of the text: "This is the book of the generation of heaven and earth," and what follows. One must, therefore, be bold and say that the time of the expected judgment does not require spans of time, C but as the resurrection is said to occur "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye," so, I think, is the judgment.
After these things, it must be said regarding the text: "And having begun..." 10. For it must be discussed whether the matter itself perhaps requires a long time, until all things reach their end, which have been done by all from the beginning of the world until the consummation of the age—not of one, but of many ages. But it is not so. For God, wishing to examine the minds of all, so that each one may perceive his own acts, whether good or evil, will quickly cause all things done by all at all times to be known to each individual, by an ineffable power. For just as we, wishing to bring something to someone’s mind that he has done, do not have need of sufficient time for the completion of the things that are spoken by us and are brought into memory, so too does God not have need of time when He wishes to bring to our mind everything we have done in life, so that, knowing all the things we have done, we may understand why we are punished or honored. If anyone, however, does not believe in the speed of the divine power in completing all these things, he has not yet understood God, who created all things and did not need any span of time to create heaven and earth and all that is in them. For even if God appears to have made all things in six days, mostly because it says, "This is the book of the generation of heaven and earth, on the day that heaven and earth were made," still it must be dared and said that the time of the future judgment will not have need of a span of time, but as the resurrection is said to be future "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye," so I think the judgment will be. 10. Next, let us see what is meant by: "Having begun to settle the account, there was brought to him one who was a debtor of many talents..."
For just as Jerusalem is a bride adorned "for her husband" Christ, so those might be the mothers of certain powers who have been allotted them as, so to speak, wives or brides. And just as there are certain children of Jerusalem as mother and Christ as father, so there might be children of Soene or Memphis or Tyre or Sidon and the rulers appointed over them [as fathers]. Perhaps, therefore, this "one" who was brought to the "king as a man" as a "debtor of many talents," also has [as we have explained] a "wife" and "children," whom the king at first "ordered to be sold," and further ordered to be "sold also all that he had," but later, "being moved with compassion, released him and forgave him all the debt," not because he was ignorant of the future, but so that we might learn what had happened, he is recorded as having acted in this way. Each, therefore, of those who have [as we have explained] a "wife" and "children," will render an account when the king comes to "settle the account," having received "the kingdom" and returned; and each of them has, as a ruler of some Soene or Memphis or Tyre or Sidon or something similar, debts also.
And who could these be, if not those set over the punishments? At the same time, pay attention for the sake of those from the heresies who use this parable: if they accuse the Creator of being irascible because of the passages that describe the anger of God, they ought also to accuse this King, since "being angry, he delivered" the debtor "to the torturers." Furthermore, it must be said to those who do not wish for anyone to be delivered by Jesus "to the torturers": explain to us, O sirs, who is the King that delivers the wicked servant "to the torturers"? Let them also attend to the words, "So also will my heavenly Father do to you." And to the same people it might be said, even more strongly, what is in the parable of the ten minas: that the Son of the good God said, "But as for those enemies of mine who did not want me" and the things that follow. The conclusion of the parable, however, fits even the simpler folk; for we are all taught together that those who have received forgiveness of sins and do not forgive their brothers will suffer the things that happened to him who was forgiven but did not forgive his fellow servant. "And it happened that when Jesus had finished these sayings" [...].
[...]. For diligent observance would suggest the greatest meanings to those who know how to compare "spiritual things with spiritual" and for this reason speak "not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit." Another, hearing the word "finished" (ἐτέλεσεν) perhaps more inquisitively—a word assigned to the more mystical matters [insofar as one person "handed over mysteries and initiations to his subordinates" not commendably, while another handed over mysteries of God to those who are worthy, and accordingly initiations to such mysteries]—might say that He performed an initiation by instructing them, through which initiation the words were revealed as cohesive, so that the "gospel" of Jesus might be preached "in the whole world" and prevail through the divine initiation in every soul which the Father draws to the Son, according to what was said by the Savior: "No one comes to me unless the Father who sent me draws him."
On account of this, the word of those sent to preach the gospel by the grace of God and their "preaching occurred not in the persuasiveness of wise words, but in the demonstration of the Spirit and power," by which the doctrines of the teaching of Jesus were brought to completion. And you, therefore, will observe how often "He finished" is said, and concerning whom.
[GREEK COLUMN] not simply followed, but "having risen"; for "having risen" is a significant addition. There are, therefore, always some who are "crowds," "many" who follow, having neither risen so as to follow, nor having left behind all their former things; but few are they who have risen and who have "left all" and followed, who shall also sit "in the regeneration" "on twelve thrones." Nevertheless, if anyone desires to be healed, let him follow Jesus. After this, it is written that "the Pharisees came unto him, tempting him and saying, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" [And Mark also recorded what is equivalent to this.] Therefore, among those who approached and asked Jesus questions, there were some who asked Him "tempting" Him; but while such a Savior of ours is being tempted, who among His disciples—being appointed for instruction—could be indignant at Him being tempted by certain ones asking questions not from a love of learning, but from a desire to tempt?
For if He had said to give, they would have accused Him of subjecting the people of God to men and attaching them to the Romans rather than to the law of God; but if He had said not to give, they would have accused Him of stirring up war and sedition, and of inciting those who were unable to stand against such a great army. But they did not see how blamelessly and wisely He answered them. Note also how blamelessly He answered: first, by denying that a man might dismiss "his wife for every cause," and second, by answering regarding the matters of the bill of divorce. For He saw that not every cause reasonably dissolves a marriage, and that a husband ought to live with his wife, "giving honor as unto the weaker vessel," and bearing her "burdens" in sins.
A But note also that regarding those made "according to the image," it is not "man and woman" that is said, but "male and female." We have observed this even in the Hebrew: for "man" is signified by the voice *IS*, but "male" by *ZAKHAR*; and again, "woman" by the voice *ISSA*, but "female" by *NEKEVA*. For never is a woman "according to the image," nor a man, but the ones who differ are "male," and the others are "female."
"» "I wish all men to be as I am, but each has his own gift from God, one this way, another that." Those who are joined together by God both think and do: "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church." The Savior truly commanded that what "God has joined, let no man" separate; but a man wishes to separate "what God has joined" when, having fallen away "from" the sound "faith," he gives heed "to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, through the hypocrisy of liars whose own consciences are seared, who forbid" not only fornication but also "marriage," and dissolve even those who have already been joined by the providence of God. Let these things then be said as we observe the sayings regarding "male" and "female," and "man" and "woman," as the Savior taught in his answer to the Pharisees.
And he has indeed left behind, for the sake of the Church, the Lord who was the husband to whom he was "Father" when he existed "in the form of God"; he has left behind also "the mother," though he himself is the Son of the Jerusalem above, and he was joined to his "wife" who had fallen down here, and they have become here "the two into one flesh." For on her account he also became flesh, when "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us," and they are "no longer two, but" now "one" indeed is "flesh," since to the woman [the Church] it is said, "But you are the body of Christ, and members in particular." For there is not any other body of Christ separately, apart from the Church, which is "his body and members in particular." And God has joined together these who are no longer "two," but have become "one flesh," commanding that "man" not separate the Church from the Lord. And he who pays attention to himself so as not to be separated [from Christ], is confident that he will not be separated and says, "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?" Here, then, it is written that what is said to the Pharisees is, "What God has joined together, let not man separate." But it might be said as well to those who are better than the Pharisees.
from the beginning, however, it was not so." If, moreover, one ascends to the Gospel of Christ Jesus, which teaches that "the law is spiritual," he will seek the spiritual meaning of this law as well. He who wishes to interpret tropes will also say regarding these matters that, just as when Paul, confident in the divine grace he possessed, said: "A wife is bound for as long a time as her husband lives; but if her husband falls asleep, she is free to marry whom she wishes, only in the Lord. But she is happier if she remains as she is, according to my judgment; and I think that I also have the Spirit of God" [for in these words—"according to my judgment"—lest he be despised as empty of the Spirit of God, he well added, "And I think that I also have the Spirit of God"], so also in the case of Moses, because of the authority given to him to legislate, so that he might even permit certain things "because of the hardness of the heart" of the people, among which was the "divorcing of wives," one ought to be persuaded that those things which he legislated according to his own judgment were likewise enacted with the Spirit of God. And he will say that, if one law is spiritual while another is not of this kind, yet this too is law, then this also is spiritual, and its spiritual sense must be sought.
A sign of the scroll of divorce is also the fact that they are unable to keep the feasts, even according to the letter, since the will of the Law commanded them to keep the feasts «in the place which the Lord God shall choose.» But also the fact that the whole congregation was unable to stone those who had sinned in this or that way, and ten thousand other things that were commanded, are a sign of the scroll of divorce, and that «there is no longer a prophet,» and that they say: «We have seen no signs» anymore; for the Lord took away, it is said, «from Judea and from Jerusalem, according to the word of Isaiah, the mighty man and the mighty woman, the giant and the mighty man,» and the rest up to the intelligent listener.
Christ was able first to take the congregation as a wife and live with her, but later she did not «find favor in his sight»; and the cause of her not finding «favor in his sight» was the discovery of «some unseemly thing in her.» For what is more unseemly than to have considered it worthy to release Barabbas the robber [in the feast], and to condemn Jesus? A Now, among those coming to and questioning Jesus, there were some who were testing him. Since our great Saviour was being tested, which of his disciples, appointed for teaching, would be offended that he was being tested by some who were questioning him not out of a love of learning, but out of a desire to test him? You could gather many things, if you brought them together, in which the Pharisees tested our Jesus, and others besides them, such as a certain lawyer, and perhaps also a scribe, so that by bringing together the things concerning those who tested him, you might find something useful from the examination for the species of these discourses.
Nevertheless, the Saviour answers even those who test him with doctrines. For they said: «Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?» He answered and said: «Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female?» and the rest. B And I think that for this reason the Pharisees proposed this discourse, as those who would take hold of him, whatever he might say. For instance, if he said, "It is lawful," they would accuse him of dissolving marriages for trivial reasons. But if he said, "It is not lawful," they would accuse him of allowing a man to live with a woman even when there were sins—just as in the case of the tax: for if he said "Give," they accused him of subjecting the people to the Romans and not to the law of God; but if he said "Do not give," they accused him of causing war and sedition, and of stirring up those who could not stand against such a great army. C And they did not see how irreproachably and wisely he answers them, first by denying the divorce of the wife for any cause whatever, and second by answering concerning the scroll of separation. For he saw that not every cause reasonably dissolves a marriage, and that the husband must «live with» the wife, «as with a weaker vessel, bestowing honor,» and «bearing the burdens» of her sins, and he shames them from the things in Genesis.
A Therefore, the former wife who did not «find favor before» the man, because there was found «in her an unseemly thing,» departed from «the house» of the man, «and going away» has become the wife of «another man» to whom she submitted herself, whether one must call the man [being tropologically the devil] Barabbas the thief, or some wicked power. And in the case of some of that assembly, the former thing written in the Law has happened, while in others the latter; for the last man hated the woman «and will write for her,» at the end of things, «a book of divorce [God managing this] and will give it into her hands and will send her away out of his house»; for just as the good God will put «enmity» «between» the serpent «and the woman, and between» his «seed, and between her seed,» so will He manage it, so that «the last man may hate her.» But there are some to whom it has happened that the husband, not having hated them, continues to dwell in the house of the last man, who took their assembly as a wife for himself. But even in these cases, the last man dies, perhaps when «the last enemy, death, shall be destroyed by Christ.»
He shames the Pharisees who boasted in the letters of Moses, saying: «Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning, made them male and female?» and what follows; and adding for them, through the words, «And they shall be two into one flesh,» a consequence to «into one flesh,» a teaching, namely: «So then they are no longer two, but one flesh.» It is a deterrent against putting away the wife for any cause, and the words, «What God has joined, let not man put asunder.» B It must be observed, however, in the exposition of the sayings from Genesis in the Gospel, that not what was written successively is what is said; and I think that it does not even refer to the same things—those created in the image of God, and those from the clay of the earth and one of Adam's ribs; for where it is said, «Male and female He created them,» it is about those in the image; but where He also said, «For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother,» and the rest, it is not about those in the image; for later, after them, the Lord God fashioned man, taking clay from the earth, and from his rib, the helper. And at the same time, note that regarding those in the image, it is not said «man and woman,» but «male and female.» We have noted this also in the Hebrew; for man is indicated by the voice *ish*, and male by *zachar*; and again, woman by the voice *essa*, and female by *ankeva*; for never is the woman in the image, nor the man, but the former are distinguished as male, and the latter as female. But even if a man leaves his mother and father, he clings not to the female, but to his wife, and they become, since man and woman are in flesh, into one flesh. Then, delineating that one must be among those joined by God worthily of being joined by God, the Savior adds: «So they are no longer two,» and where there is concord and agreement and harmony of a husband toward a wife, of the one as ruler, and the other obeying the command, C «He shall rule over you,» it is truly possible to say of such: «They are no longer two.»
VETUS INTERPRETATIO
...[that] the husband ought to live with the wife, as with a weaker vessel, and to render her honor, and to bear the burdens of her vices, he convicts those who boasted in the letter of the Law, from the very Scriptures of Moses, saying: «Have you not read that He who made them from the beginning, made them male and female?» and the rest. Nevertheless, because we touch upon that place where even that is written: «She shall be called woman, because she was taken from her man,» it must be known that it has nothing peculiar regarding the Greek or the Latin language, such that she is called woman because she was taken from her man. Therefore, those reading the Hebrew have found that this etymology is conveniently placed in the Hebrew. For the Hebrew has it thus: *Essa*, which is understood as both woman and taken. For among the Hebrews, woman is called taken. Likewise *vira*, which is from man. You see how it is joined to *ish*, that is, taken from man. Whence Theodotion has placed it thus: «She shall be called woman, a taking, because she was taken from her man.» But Symmachus [has it] thus: «She shall be called [that which] is woman from man.» D And what ought to be between...
A those who are joined must be maintained by the one who is joined to God, in order to become one spirit with Him, has been said concerning those who are joined by God, along with the word: «So they are no longer two, but one flesh.» And it is God who joins the two into one, so that they may no longer be two, by whom the woman is fitted to the man; and since God has joined them, for this reason there is a grace in those who are joined by God, which Paul, knowing, also says that pure celibacy is a grace, and that marriage according to the Word of God is a grace, saying: «I wish all men to be as I am myself, but each has his own grace from God, one this way, another that way.» But those who are joined by God both think and do this: «Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the Church.» The Savior, then, commanded that what God has joined, man should not separate; but man wishes to separate what God has joined, when, having «departed from the sound faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, in the hypocrisy of those who speak lies, B having their own conscience seared, forbidding not only to commit fornication but also to marry,» he dissolves even those who already were joined by the providence of God. And let these things be said, while the passages concerning male and female, and husband and wife are observed, as the Savior taught in his answer to the Pharisees.
Since, however, the Apostle applies to Christ and the Church the words: «And the two shall be C one flesh,» it must be said that Christ did not divorce the former woman—if I may call her that—the former synagogue, for any other reason, keeping the word: «Whom God has joined, let not man separate,» than that this woman, having been corrupted by the evil one, committed fornication, and having plotted with him against her husband, and having killed him, in saying: «Take D away such a man...»
OLD INTERPRETATION
Those who are joined from God, worthy of God who joined them, he added, saying: «So they are no longer two.» For where there is harmony and consent of the husband to the wife, and of the wife to the husband—the one as if of the master, the other as of one obeying his command, according to what is said: «And he shall rule over you»—it is truly said of them: «They are no longer two.» Therefore, it is God who has joined the two into one, so that they may no longer be two, where the wife is compared to the man from God. And since God has joined them, therefore there is grace in those whom God has joined. Paul, knowing this, called a chaste union a grace, saying: «I wish all to be as I am myself, but each has his own grace from God, one indeed this way, another that way.» For those who are joined from God both think and do what the Apostle commands: «Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the Church»; likewise: «[Let] the woman [see] that she fear her husband, as the Church [fears] Christ»; their union is the grace of God.
A take such a one away from the earth, crucify, crucify him.» She departed, therefore, rather than her husband sending her away, having put her away. For this reason, reproaching her for departing from him, he says in Isaiah: «What is the book of the divorce of your mother, whom I have sent away?» And the One who created from the beginning «the one according to the image,» who «being in the form of God made him male,» and the Church [as] female, having granted the [image] according to the image to both. And the Lord, the Husband, indeed left the Father whom He saw, «when He was in the form of God» for the sake of the Church; He also left [His] mother, though He was the Son of the Jerusalem above, and was joined to His wife who had fallen down here, and they became here the two into one flesh. For on her account He Himself also became flesh, when «the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us,» and «they are no longer two, but now one flesh,» since it is said to the woman: «But you are the body of Christ, and members in part» (48); for Christ's body is not something separate from the Church, which is His body, and members in part. And God indeed joined together these who are not two, but have become one flesh, commanding that «a man» not «separate» the Church from the Lord. And he who pays attention to himself so as not to be separated, trusts as one not to be separated, and says: «Who will separate us from the love of Christ?»
B Here, then, it is written, being said to the Pharisees: «What God joined together, let man not separate»; but it might also be said to the better sort among the Pharisees: «What therefore God joined together, let nothing separate, neither rule nor authority; for God, who joined [them], is stronger than all which anyone might be able to name, having understood them.»
After this we shall examine the argument of the Pharisees which they said to Jesus in: «Why then did Moses command to give a book of divorce, and to send [her] away?» And reasonably we shall take for this the expression from Deuteronomy concerning the matter of the divorce.
C
THE INTERPRETATION OF THE VETERAN
...as I think, in Christ and in the Church; it must be said that Christ did not send away His first wife, that is, the first Synagogue, preserving according to another spiritual sense that which was said: «What God joined together, let man not separate»; unless when that wife is an adulteress, corrupted by an adulterous enemy, by whose counsel she also plotted against the man, and wished to kill Him, saying: «Take from the earth such a one,» and «crucify, crucify him.» She departed, therefore, rather than her husband sending her away. For the sake of the Church, Christ the husband left the Father with whom He was, when He was in the form of God. He left also the mother, though He Himself was the Son of the Jerusalem which is above according to the body, and He was joined to His wife, who had fallen down here, and the two became into one flesh. For on that account He Himself became flesh, when He was the Word, and «dwelt among us,» and they are one flesh, since it is said of the woman the Church: «You are the body of Christ, and members from a member.» Nor is there another body of Christ apart from the body of the Church, but they are one body. And God united them, commanding that man not separate the Church from Christ, whom God has joined. Whence every soul that knows itself to be inseparable from Christ says thus: «Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress?» and the rest. And «be confident, for neither death, nor life,» nor any of the things which follow, shall be able to separate us from the charity of God, which is in Christ Jesus.
A For if we do not pay attention, perhaps we too shall receive the book of divorce, and we shall either remain without a protector or go off to another husband. I, for my part, consider that this—if I may so call it—is not auspicious, that we should receive angels toward the marriage of our soul. Now, having come to this place, I might say that if we are seeking out some matter regarding the Apostle’s legislation concerning ecclesiastical affairs, we might perhaps be able now to understand and clearly present it, even though it happens to be difficult to grasp and difficult to discern. For Paul does not desire that anyone from the church who has received some prominence over the many, as in symbols, should attempt a second marriage. For, in legislating concerning bishops in the first epistle to Timothy, he says: «If any man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. It behooveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent,» and the rest. And concerning deacons, he says: «Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling well their children and their own houses,» and the rest.
B The text is as follows: «If a man take a wife and live with her, and it shall be, if she find not favor in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her,» and the rest, up to: «And you shall not defile the land, which the Lord your God giveth you for an inheritance.» Now I inquire concerning the things in this law, whether one ought to seek nothing beyond the literal text in it, since God did not give it; or whether it was spoken necessarily to the Pharisees, who used [the text]: «Moses commanded to give a book of divorce and to put away [her],» [that is, the text]: «Because Moses, by reason of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not so.» If anyone should ascend to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which teaches that the law is spiritual, he will also seek the spiritual meaning of this law. And he who wishes to interpret tropes will also say these things: that just as for Paul, relying on the grace he possessed, it was said: C «A woman is bound as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband die, she is at liberty: let her marry to whom she will: only in the Lord. But more blessed shall she be, if she so remain, according to my counsel; and I think that I also have the spirit of God.» For in these words, «According to my counsel,» in order that it might not be scorned as being devoid of the Spirit of God, he aptly added: «And I think that I also have the spirit of God.» Thus, also to Moses, because of the authority granted to him to legislate, so that he even permitted certain things for the hardness of the heart of the people, among which was the putting away of wives, it was permitted to be obeyed in the things which he legislated according to his own judgment, such that in these matters also the legislation happened according to the Spirit of God. And one will say that if one law is spiritual, and another is not such, but this was also a law, this too is spiritual, and its spiritual [meaning] must be sought.
D Remembering the things said by us above on the passage of Isaiah regarding the book of divorce, we shall say that the mother of the people estranged herself from her husband, Christ, not having received the book of divorce; but later, when an uncleanness was found in her, and she did not find favor in his eyes, the book of divorce was written for her. For the New Testament, in effect, summoning those from the nations into the house of Him who has put away the former wife, has given the book of divorce to her who had previously separated from the husband of the Law and the Word; and for this reason, He himself, having separated from her, married—if I may so name it—another, handing over to the hands of the former the book of divorce, even if she wishes.
A From what has been said regarding the law of the book of divorce, I consider whether, since the bishop, the presbyter, and the deacon are a symbol of the true realities corresponding to these names, He intended them to be symbolically monogamous, so that he who is able to understand these matters might find from the spiritual law that one is unworthy of ecclesiastical leadership whose soul has not "found grace before" her husband, because an "unseemly thing has been found in her," and she has become worthy of the book of divorce. For such a soul, having lived with a second, and having been hated by such a one, can no longer, after the second book of divorce, return to the former husband. It is likely, then, that even among those much wiser than us, and more capable of discerning such momentous things, arguments will be found, whether regarding the law of the book of divorce or the apostolic prohibitions against the twice-married holding office in the Church or being preferred in it.
B The book; on account of this, they are no longer able to perform the things commanded them according to the law because of the book of divorce. And a sign that she has received a book of divorce is that Jerusalem has been razed, along with what they called the sanctuary, and the revered things believed to be within it, and the altar of burnt offerings, and all the worship connected with it. A sign, too, of the book of divorce is that they are not able to keep the feasts, even according to the letter, since the purpose of the law commanded them to keep the feasts in the place which the Lord God would choose; but also that the whole synagogue cannot stone those who have sinned in this way; and ten thousand other such things that are commanded are a sign of the book of divorce. And that "there is no longer a prophet," and that they say: "We see no more signs: for the Lord has taken away," he says, "from Judea and from Jerusalem," according to the word of Isaiah, "the mighty and the mighty woman, the giant who prevails," and the rest, until "the understanding listener."
C Christ is able to have taken the synagogue as a wife and to have lived with her, but afterwards she did not find grace in His sight; and the cause of her not finding grace in His sight is that an "unseemly thing" was found in her. For what is more unseemly than that, when they were offered one to release at the feast, they chose to release the robber Barabbas, but to condemn Jesus? What is more unseemly than that all said concerning Him: "Crucify, crucify him, and take such a man from the earth"? And how could it not be unseemly, that [word]: "His blood be upon us and upon our children"? Therefore, while He was being vindicated, Jerusalem was surrounded by camps, and its desolation came upon it, and there was left [of it] "their house," and "the daughter of Zion was abandoned as a booth in a vineyard, and as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers, and as a city being besieged." D At the same time, I believe, the husband wrote a book of divorce to the former wife, and gave it into her hands, and sent her away from his house. But for the one from the Gentiles, the scroll has been blotted out, about which the Apostle says: "Having blotted out the handwriting in ordinances that was against us, and He took it out of the midst, nailing it to the cross." For Paul, indeed, became [a leader] to the one from the nations, and other proselytes became [part] of Israel. The former wife, therefore, went out from the house of the man, because she did not find grace before the man, because an unseemly thing was found in her; and after she departed, she applied herself to another.
A And it must be said that this man to whom she submitted herself is either this Barabbas—by whom the devil is tropically signified—or some other nefarious power. Truly, to some of that synagogue, it happened as it is written in the law in the first place; to others, however, as in the second; for that last husband hated the wife, and at the end of things, God ordaining it, he will write her a bill of divorcement and put it into her hands, and will cast her out of his house. For as the good God will put «enmity between the serpent and the woman, and between his seed and her seed,» B so will God ordain that the last husband should hate her.
There are some to whom it happens that the husband, not hating them, dwells with them, as they remain in the house of the last husband who has taken their synagogue as a wife for himself; but even upon these the last husband dies, perhaps when «the last enemy, death, is destroyed» (1 Cor. xv, 26). But whichever of these occurs—whether the former or the latter to the woman—the former husband, he says, who sent her away, «shall not be able, after he has returned, to take her to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for she is an abomination,» he says, «before the Lord thy God» (Deuter. xxiv, 4). But these things will seem not to be consistent with: «If the fulness of the Gentiles be come in, all Israel shall be saved» (Rom. xi, 25, 26); yet observe that it may be answered to this, that if she is to attain salvation, it is necessary that, C when the former husband returns and takes her to be his wife, after she has been defiled, she should attain salvation. A priest, then, shall not take a harlot and a woman put away to be his wife, but another man is not forbidden, as being inferior to the priest, to do such a thing. But if you inquire about the harlot in the calling of the Gentiles, you will use this: «Take unto thee a wife of whoredoms, and children of whoredoms» (Osee i, 2), and what follows; for just as the priests in the temple profaning the Sabbath are blameless (Matth. xii, 5), so in the proper time he who takes a wife of whoredoms, putting away the former wife, is also blameless, having done this according to the instruction of him who, when it was necessary and as long as it was fitting, said: D «A harlot shall not be taken to wife,» and when it was reasonable, said: «Take unto thee a wife of whoredoms.» For as the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath, and not a slave of the Sabbath as the people are, so He who gives the law is Lord, able to give it «until the time of correction» (Hebr. ix, 10), and to change the law; but when the time has come,
«from the beginning it was not so.» After these things our Savior says, in no way permitting the breaking of marriages for any other sin than for fornication found in the wife, that «whoever shall put away his wife, except for the reason of fornication, makes her commit adultery.» It might be asked whether this is [the only] reason He commands to put away the wife, [and what will become of the case] if she is not caught in fornication, but let us say, in sorcery or the murder [in the absence of her husband] of the child born to them, or in any other act of murder? Moreover, if she is found also robbing and [scattering or] plundering the husband's house, though not acting like a harlot, one might ask if he reasonably discards such a one, since the Savior forbids one to put away his «wife» «except for the reason of fornication.» For in both directions something absurd seems to appear, though I do not know if it is truly absurd. For to endure such great sins, which seem to be worse than adultery and fornication, will appear unreasonable; and again, everyone would agree that to act contrary to the will of the Savior’s teaching is an act of impiety. I pause, therefore, as to why He did not say:
and he who withdraws himself from his wife "makes her many times to be committed adultery," by not fulfilling her desires, even if he does so under the pretense of greater dignity and self-control. And perhaps this man, who—as far as he has control—causes "her to be committed adultery" by failing to fulfill her desires, is more reprehensible than he who puts her away "except for the cause of fornication," but does so on account of sorcery or murder or some other most grievous sin. But just as a woman is an adulteress, even if she seems to be married to a man while the former is still alive, so also a man who seems to marry one who has been "put away" does not marry—according to the decision of our Savior—but rather "commits adultery." A
Following this, the disciples of Christ, having considered all the casualties that can occur in marriages, which a husband must endure—and in regards to this, either enduring it or releasing her in the most severe manner, or, by not enduring, breaking the law against the words of Christ—say to Him, taking refuge in celibacy as something simpler and more advantageous than marriage, as marriage is thought to be advantageous; or [refuge in] the angel appointed over us. For if we do not pay heed, perhaps we too shall receive the bill of divorce, and we shall be widowed of our guardian, or we shall come unto another husband. I, however, consider that this is not fitting, if I may so term it, that we should receive B angels for the marriage of our own soul.
Having arrived at this point, I would say that we may already be able to understand something that is sought after regarding the Apostle's legislation on ecclesiastical affairs, which happens to be difficult to discern; for Paul wishes that no one from the Church who has received some superiority over the many, as in symbols, C should have attempted a second marriage. For in legislating concerning bishops in the first Epistle to Timothy, he says: "If any man desires the bishopric, he desires a good work. A bishop therefore must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober," and so forth; and concerning deacons: "Let the deacons," he says, "be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well," and the rest. And when appointing widows: "Let a widow," he says, "be taken in, not less than sixty years old, having been the wife of one man," and after this D he speaks of the consequences, as if these were second and third in importance. And in the Epistle to Titus: "For this cause," he says, "I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed you. If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children," namely, and the rest. We were in doubt, then, seeing that it is possible for some who have been married twice to be far better than those married only once, why Paul does not permit those married twice to be appointed to ecclesiastical offices; for it seemed to me to be a matter worthy of investigation, in that it is possible for one who was unfortunate regarding two marriages while yet young, and who lost the second wife, to have lived most temperately and purely for the remaining time until old age. Who then would not reasonably be in doubt, when the ruler of the Church is being sought?
A For we do not appoint as a ruler such a man of two marriages, on account of the words of marriage, and even if he happens to have lived with his wife until old age, we take him as a ruler who has not even exercised himself in chastity and temperance? But from the things said concerning the law of the bill of divorce, I reflect: might it be that, since the bishop, and the presbyter, and the deacon are symbols of the true realities contained in these names, he wished to appoint them as symbolically monogamous, so that he who is able to attend to the realities may find, from the spiritual law, that he is unworthy of ecclesiastical rule whose soul has not found grace before its husband, by the discovery of something unseemly in it, and it having become worthy of the bill of divorce? For such a soul, having cohabited with a second husband and having been hated by such a one, can no longer, after the second bill of divorce, return to the former husband. B But it is likely that among those more experienced—and who are more perceptive than we are in such matters—other expositions will be found, whether on the law of the bill of divorce, or on the apostolic injunctions by which those who bear office in the Church and are set over it are forbidden to be bigamous. We, however, until better things occur, and things which could obscure what we have said with the great light of doctrine, have brought forward those things which have presented themselves to us on these passages.
23. But even if we have seemed to touch upon matters there that are greater and more serious than our grasp, nevertheless, on account of the words of Scripture, these things also must be said: that certain laws were enacted, not as if endowed with some excellence and superiority, but as if accommodated and composed to the infirmity of those who are subject to the law; for something of this kind is signified by these words C: "Moses, because of your hardness of heart, permitted you to send away your wives"; but the primary and superior part of the law, which was written because of the hardness of heart, is revealed in the saying: "But from the beginning it was not so." And in the New Testament, too, there are certain things ordained analogous to that: "Because Moses, because of your hardness of heart, permitted you to send away your wives." For it is as if—because of the hardness of their heart—in place of that weakness, the saying was written: "But on account of fornication, let each man have his own wife, and each woman D [have her own husband]."
INTERPRETATION
23. After these things, let us pass to the word of the Pharisees which they said to Jesus: "Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to send her away?" Since Moses, while writing the law, did not look only to what is the true justice, but, condescending to the infirmity of those for whom the law was being placed, commanded many things, as is also the law of giving a divorce. Since, however, it was given according to their infirmity, and not according to justice, the following discourse demonstrates, saying: "But from the beginning it was not so." And in the New Testament also there are certain things constituted not according to true justice, but according to the hardness of the heart of carnal men, to wit: because of the hardness of your heart, the law was given, saying: "It is good for a man not to touch a woman; but on account of fornication, let each one have his own wife, and each woman her own husband," and the rest. But if this was commanded because of the hardness of our heart, how much more is that [other] thing because of the hardness of our heart, which he says elsewhere concerning widows wishing to marry again: "But if she..."
For it is written: “Propter fornicationem autem unusquisque suam uxorem habeat (Let every man have his own wife), A et illud: ‘Uxori vir debitum reddat; similiter autem et uxor viro.’ (Let the husband render the debt to the wife; and in like manner the wife to the husband.)” To these is subjoined: “Hoc autem dico secundum indulgentiam, non secundum imperium (But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment).” And also that: “Mulier alligata est quanto tempore vir ejus vivit; quod si dormierit vir ejus, liberata est, cui vult nubat; tantum in Domino (A woman is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband die, she is at liberty: let her marry to whom she will, only in the Lord).” This was said by Paul to us on account of the hardness of heart or infirmity of those who do not wish to strive for the greater gifts, and to become more blessed. Already, some of those who preside over the Church have, beyond what is written, B permitted a woman to marry while her husband is still alive, acting against what is written, in which it is said: “A woman is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth,” and the other: “Therefore, if she shall live with another man, she shall be called an adulteress, while her husband liveth.” Yet they did not act altogether without reason; for it is likely that this compromise was permitted in comparison with worse things, rather than what was ordained and written from the beginning.
Perhaps one of those who dare to oppose the doctrine of our Savior, a Jewish man, will say that Jesus himself, when he said: C “Whoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery,” permitted the putting away of the wife in the same way as Moses, who he said had legislated due to the hardness of the heart of the people. And he will say that this is the same as the word concerning fornication for which a wife might reasonably be put away by her husband: “Because he hath found some uncleanness in her.” But it must be said to him that, if the woman who is an adulteress according to the law is to be stoned, it is clear that the "uncleanness" is not understood as that. For it is not for adultery that one must write a bill of divorce and give it into the hands of the wife, nor for any such great indecency. D But perhaps Moses called every sin an "uncleanness" which, if found by the husband in a wife who does not find grace...
before the husband, a bill of divorce is written, and the wife is sent away from the house of her husband; "but from the beginning it was not so." A Afterward, our Savior says, in no way permitting the dissolution of marriages for any other transgression except only for fornication found in the wife, this: "Whoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, makes her to commit adultery." It might be asked whether, for this reason, he forbids the putting away of a wife if she be found not in fornication, but—for argument's sake—in sorcery or in the murder of the infant born to them, during the husband's absence, or any other murder whatever. If she be found plundering and robbing the house of the husband, but not committing fornication, one might ask if B a man would reasonably cast out such a one, as the Savior forbids one to put away his own wife except for a cause of fornication. For on both sides some absurdity appears, though whether it is truly absurd, I do not know; for to endure and tolerate such iniquities, which may be deemed worse than adultery and fornication, will seem contrary to reason; again, to act contrary to the will of the Savior's teaching, everyone would confess to be impious. I therefore deliberate why He did not say: "Let no one put away his wife except for a cause of fornication," but says: "Whoever puts away his own wife, except for a cause of fornication, makes her to commit adultery." C For the man who puts away his wife, she not having committed fornication, surely causes her, as far as it depends on him, to commit adultery; for if "while her husband lives, she shall be called an adulteress if she becomes another man's," the one who puts her away gives her an occasion for a second marriage, and clearly, because of this, he makes her to commit adultery. But as to the one found guilty of sorcery or who has committed murder, whether or not there might be a defense for her, you yourself might inquire; for a man can, besides by divorce, cause his own wife to commit adultery through other means, such as by allowing her D beyond what is proper to do as she pleases, and to come into familiarity with men whom she pleases.
And it must be answered that if, according to the Law, an adulteress is stoned, it is manifest that it is not in this sense that a "shameful thing" is understood. For in the case of adultery, there is no need to give a bill of divorce. But perhaps Moses called every sin of the woman a "shameful thing," which, if found in a wife who does not find grace before her husband, a bill of divorce is written for her, and she is dismissed from the husband’s house: which from the beginning was not so. After this, however, the Lord does not permit a wife to be dismissed on account of any other transgression, except for the sole cause of fornication, saying: "Whoever shall dismiss his wife, except for the cause of fornication, makes her to commit adultery." It must be inquired, however, if He commands not to dismiss a wife for the sole cause of fornication, what if the woman has not committed fornication, but has done something more grievous, for instance, if she is found to be a poisoner, or the murderess of their child, or has committed any homicide, or is pillaging the house, squandering the husband's substance, or stealing from her husband; if such a woman may be justly dismissed, when the Lord forbids dismissing her except for the cause of fornication? For on both sides something seems dishonest, though I do not know if it is truly dishonest. For to tolerate such sins of a woman, which are worse than adulteries and fornications, will seem irrational. Likewise, doing the opposite of the will of the Savior's doctrine, everyone will confess to be impious. I argue, therefore, that He did not command preceptively that no one should dismiss a wife except for the cause of fornication, but as if explaining the matter, He said: "Whoever shall dismiss his wife, except for the cause of fornication, makes her to commit adultery." And truly, as far as it depends on him, he makes her to commit adultery, dismissing her even though she is not committing adultery. For if, while her husband lives, she is called an adulteress if she has become another's, undoubtedly he who dismisses her gives her the occasion for second nuptials, and on account of this, he makes her to commit adultery. But as to the man who, as far as it depends on him, makes his wife commit adultery by dismissing her—for instance, if she is a poisoner or a murderess or someone of that sort—you shall consider whether he has a just excuse before God. For a man can also, even without dismissal, for other reasons cause his wife to commit adultery; for instance, he who permits his wife to act beyond measure.
A Yet if there is a place for defense, or not, for such men in such occurrences, you shall investigate diligently and declare your findings upon the questions we have posed concerning this matter.
He also who abstains from his wife often causes her to commit adultery, since he does not satisfy her sexual desire, even if he does so under the guise of greater holiness and temperance. And perhaps this man is more worthy of blame, in that so far as it lies with him, he causes her to commit adultery by not satisfying her desires, than he who dismisses her—other than for the reason of fornication—on account of sorcery, or murder, or some one of the weightiest sins. Just as a woman is an adulteress, even if she seems to be married to a man while her former husband is still alive, so also a man who seems to marry a woman who has been dismissed does not marry her, according to the judgment of our Savior, in such measure as he commits adultery.
B After these things, the disciples of Christ, having perceived how many occurrences can arise in marriages which a man must endure, and how on this account he must avoid the harshest outcomes, or—failing to endure them—sin against the words of Christ, said to Him, fleeing toward celibacy as toward something easier and seemingly more profitable than marriage: "If the cause of the man with the woman is so, it is not profitable to marry."
To this the Savior replied to them, C teaching us that the total state of purity is a gift given by God, and that it is not attained by exercise alone, but is given by God through prayers, saying: "Not all receive this word, but those to whom it is given." And since some cavil at the phrase "to whom it is given," as if those who have willed to live in purity in celibacy, but have been overcome by their desires, have an excuse, it must be said that, if we trust in the things that have been written, why do we seize upon "but those to whom it is given," and not instead pay heed to "Ask, and it shall be given to you," and to that which follows it: "For everyone who asks, receives." For if those who do receive the word regarding total purity
not receive—even if they seem to have asked—has truly asked, since it is not lawful to say that "Everyone who asks receives" is false. Who, then, is it that asks? It is he who is persuaded by Jesus when He says: "If you stand praying, believe that you receive, and you shall have it." And he who asks must do all that lies within his power, so that he may pray in spirit, and pray also with the mind, and pray without ceasing, keeping in mind also that which says: "He spoke a parable to them to the effect that they ought always to pray and not lose heart, saying: 'There was a judge in a certain city,'" and what follows. It is useful for knowing what "to ask" and "to receive" is, and what this is: "Everyone who asks receives," and that which says: "I say to you, even if he will not give to him because he is his friend, yet because of his importunity he will arise and give him as much as he needs," B and it is added, then: "And I say to you, ask, and it shall be given to you," and the rest. Furthermore, it is a further encouragement through the words, "Not everyone accepts this word, but those to whom it is given," to ask in a manner worthy of receiving, and the passage: "Or what father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will instead of a fish hand him a serpent?" and the rest. Therefore, God will grant the good gift—complete purity in celibacy and chastity—to those who, with their whole soul and with faith and without ceasing, ask Him for it in prayers. C Great is the power of accepting that chastity which comes from the word of the soul, which not everyone accepts, but those to whom it is given; and it is given to all who have asked God for the rational sword, and have duly made use of it, so that they may make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.
OLD INTERPRETATION
[Vetus Interpretatio]: ...having a kind of excuse, and indeed wishing to be in chastity, but not being strong enough. To them it must be answered: If indeed we take simply what is said: "But to whom it is given," yet do not attend to what he says elsewhere: "Ask, and it shall be given you," and "Everyone who asks, receives," we are either not faithful or not knowledgeable of the Scriptures; for whoever wishes to be capable of the word which is posited concerning chastity, let him ask, believing Him who says it, and he shall receive, not doubting concerning that which is said: "Everyone who asks, receives." Who therefore is he who asks? He who believes Christ saying: "If you shall stand praying, believe that you shall receive." D But he who asks ought to do all things, as far as he is able, that he may pray in spirit and pray with the mind, mindful of the apostolic word which says: "Pray without ceasing." And it is useful to know what one ought to ask, that he may deserve to receive. And as for what he says: "I say to you: Even if he will not give to him rising because he is his friend; yet because of his importunity he will give him as many as he shall wish." And he adds: "And I say to you: Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you. For everyone who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it shall be opened." ... [The text continues with various citations, including II Cor. XII, 7-9 regarding the "thorn in the flesh" and mentions of St. Jerome and others.]VOLUME FIFTEEN.
On the difference between eunuchs.
A 1. "There are eunuchs who were born so from their mother's womb," up to the words: "He who is able to receive it, let him receive it" (Matt. xix, 12). Having set forth two false explanations which can be brought forward for this passage, before that one which seems to us to approach nearer to the truth, and having then, as far as we are able, refuted them, so that having avoided every error in the things we shall say, and having attained the true meaning of this passage, we might lead a better life—being thus prepared and instructed, let us approach the proposed subject. B For since some have thought that, as it follows from the operation of the two eunuchisms which we see exercised upon the body, the third also pertained to the body, they have, out of fear of God, but inconsiderately and rashly, subjected themselves to a castration similar to the former; and thus have exposed themselves to be assailed by reproaches, and perhaps also by ignominy, not only among those who are aliens to the faith, but even among those who are accustomed to bear more indulgently with all human affairs, than with a vain fear of God taking seat in the mind, and an immoderate love of chastity enduring labors and the mutilation of the body, and whatever else one who has undergone such a thing can suffer. Others, however—and indeed not many—have thought otherwise, not having weighed the coherence of the words; for they have deemed that the two former were declared by the Savior as being referred to the body, as if He proposed nothing beyond the sensible; but they have not thought that the third was so brought forward that it should be interpreted according to the letter; but they have judged that castration which is effected by the aid of reason to be indicated, when, for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, after having—with the greatest power of cutting—cut away such concupiscences through the word, they have despised the insults to the body, C inasmuch as the soul, which had curtailed desire by the word, could no longer be overcome by them. But it must be known that those former ones, having become lovers of the evangelical letter, and not having observed that Jesus also spoke these things in parables, and that they are spoken in spirit, more consistently...
A they have understood the first two eunuchisms corporeally; for they have aligned the third with the first two, not erring in regard to the consequence for the three, but necessarily erring by having overlooked the principle of the things in this passage; for it follows from the fact that the two were spoken of corporeally, that the third is also corporeal. But others have rightly apprehended the third, thinking that the excision of the passion from the soul, accomplished by the aid of the Word, is signified by this; yet they have not observed that it was fitting for such an interpretation B to allegorize the first two eunuchisms in the same way as the third, or to align the third to the first two in a similar manner. If, then, it is fitting to say regarding many other passages, not only of the Old but also of the New Testament: «The letter kills, but the spirit gives life,» this must also be acknowledged in the same manner for the passage before us; for the literal meaning of the two eunuchisms, one might say, has killed those who understood the third in the same way as the first two, and who dared to say that, as they were conforming to the word of the Lord, they were doing it for the sake of «the kingdom of heaven» in the same way as those who were eunuchized C as the former.
If anyone wishes to receive other examples of the New Testament containing a killing letter, let him hear, by way of example, the manner in which the Savior said to the apostles: «When I sent you without a purse, and bag, and sandals, did you lack anything?» To which it is added: «And they said: Nothing.» Jesus therefore said to them: «But now, he who has a purse, let him take it, and likewise a bag; and he who has none, let him sell his garment and buy a sword.» For if anyone, not penetrating the sense of this passage, sells his own sensible garment and buys a murderous sword, because these things were spoken by Jesus, he will perish, because he took such a sword and acted contrary to the will of Jesus, the sense of His words being poorly understood; perhaps he will even perish by the sword: but what that sword is, is not for us to inquire now. Furthermore, that [saying]: «Salute no one by the way...» D [The interpreters] said that these are carnal and that nothing is to be understood spiritually in them; but as for the third eunuchization, they said it was by the Word, not corporeal, when by the hope of the heavenly kingdom they cut off the passion of concupiscence by the most severe word. And the former indeed became lovers of the evangelical letter, and, not understanding that Jesus spoke these things also in parables, they consequently understood the third eunuchization corporeally just like the first two, not indeed sinning with regard to the consequence, but they sinned necessarily, since from the beginning they thought those two eunuchizations were to be understood only corporeally: for it was consistent, after they had understood the first ones corporeally, that they should also think the third was corporeal. The second interpreters, however, healthfully explained the third eunuchization as taking place through the excision of the word; they did not, however, consider that such an explanation was also fitting for the first two eunuchizations, in accordance with the likeness of that third one.
We, however, who once understood Christ, the Word of God, according to the flesh and according to the letter, but now know Him no longer in this way, do not approve of those who, taking the third eunuchization upon themselves under the pretext of the kingdom of heaven, have thus interpreted it. And we would not have spent more time on the refutation of one who wishes to understand the third [eunuchization] bodily, in a manner similar to the first two, had we not seen those who have dared to do so, and had we not encountered those who possess a more fervent soul, one indeed faithful, but not sufficiently rational, towards such a daring act. A Sextus says in his...
[The continuation of the text begins:]
B But one ought to know that a person who wishes to submit to the Word, and to act as an advocate for both the things said before and for those who have taught this through their writings, could find no small number of persuasive arguments for the construction that the three eunuchizations are bodily. We have not wished, however, to set them forth, lest by positing the arguments and setting out the resolution of each for the sake of exercise, we might become a pretext for those who do not grasp the "word" concerning eunuchization as Jesus wishes, toward what one must understand as "receiving," and to suppose it bodily, when it is necessary to live "in the Spirit" and to "walk in the Spirit," and to be persuaded that all three eunuchizations are spoken of spiritually. "Then were brought to him children," and the rest, until "and having laid his hands upon them, he went away from thence." C Then, certainly, the recorded history took place of the "children" being brought to Jesus, with those who were bringing them wishing that he would "lay his hands upon them and" pray.
But also this: "Salute no man by the way." If anyone, having not examined what Jesus wished when he commanded this, were to salute no one by the way, as if emulating the apostolic life, he would appear inhuman to those who behold him as such. And when they refer the cause of one who thought thus to the Word—for which reason he seemed to do this—they would be led to hate the Word of God, as one that renders those who are in it wild and inhuman. And anyone who, having taken the cause for this, greets no one by the way, might suffer death by the pretext of the letter, the letter slaying him. D And if anyone were to gouge out his right eye, as the cause of seeing badly, or the right hand of the body, or the right foot according to the flesh, he might suffer together with those who are slain by the letter, in that he himself also remained at the level of the letter, when it was necessary for him to ascend to the spirit of what is said. Others, therefore, of those before us, have not hesitated in their own writings to provide opportunities for some to dare to suffer the third eunuchization under the pretext of the kingdom of heaven, it being similar to the previous two.
We, however, who once understood Christ, the Word of God, according to the flesh and according to the letter, but now know Him no longer, do not approve as having interpreted well those who also bring the third eunuchization upon themselves under the pretext of the kingdom of heaven.
A Thus speaks Sextus in the *Sentences*, a book handled by many as being of good repute: "Whatever part of the body compels you to intemperance, cast it away from you; for it is better to live chastely, though mutilated in a part, than to live profligately while possessed of it." And again, progressing in the same book, exhorting in almost the same manner, he says: "You see men cutting off and casting away parts of themselves for the sake of preserving the health of the rest of the body; how much more for the sake of preserving chastity?" Furthermore, Philo, who in his many volumes of diligent study on the Law of Moses has earned the praise even of men of gifted intellect, says in the book to which he gave the title, *That the Worse is Wont to Attack the Better*, that it is better to be castrated than to indulge in unlawful and nefarious intercourses. But one must not place faith in these men, for they have not grasped the intent of the holy scriptures concerning these matters; for if chastity is enumerated among the fruits of the Spirit, along with charity, joy, patience, and the rest, one ought rather to yield this as a fruit and preserve the male body given by God than to dare anything else; B so much so that someone might transgress, by way of application to the matter at hand, this very commandment: "You shall not spoil the appearance of your beard." It is also useful to deter those youths endowed with a more fervent faith, who must be admitted to be carried by a zeal for chastity, but "not according to knowledge." *If two men fight together, a man with his brother*, and so forth, down to the point where it says, *Your eye shall not spare her.* For if the hand is amputated which has grasped the testicles of a man, why should not he who, being ignorant of the way by which one arrives at continence, has involved himself in such a calamity, likewise be judged? Indeed, let him who seeks to commit such a deed consider in his own mind what he is to suffer from those who, attacking him with reproaches and insults, make use of these words: C "An eunuch whose testicles are crushed or cut off shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord," numbering this man among the castrated. But I pass over those things which someone will endure, having been untimely impeded in the—as the physicians say—downward flow from the head, D and at the same time the flow also meets with the menses and with the seed in virgins; and in both the boy and the virgin, the hair appears once the outer skin has become thin; and at the same time, the hair has a moderate moisture for its nourishment, and no less than that. So it is also on the chin of a man; for the skin becomes thin, as the moisture moves into it from the head. For the hair has a moderate moisture for its nourishment both during acts of lust and in the interval of time; but most of all when the time is at hand for the fluid to descend from the head in the act of lust, lingering far from the chest, upon the chin. And those who are castrated by the ears, these indeed lust and emit fluid, but very little, and it is weak and...
infecund; for the greatest part of the semen flows from the head, by the ears, into the spinal marrow. But this passage, once the scar from the incision has been made, becomes solid. For there are veins near the ears, which, if someone should cut, those who are castrated become infecund. Also, in the book *On Airs, Waters, and Places*: "For there are veins near the ears, which, if someone should cut, those who are cut become infecund." A And those who consider that they must physically castrate themselves for the sake of the kingdom of the heavens, what might they suffer? Or what weights of the head and dizzinesses, which sometimes anticipate and reach even to the command center, and which disturb the imaginative power of the soul, so that it imagines strange things from such matter?
But before I come to the narrative of the things concerning this place, it must be said that, if Marcion has done anything consistent with himself—by asserting that the Scripture ought not to be allegorized—he also wished these passages to be regarded as not spoken by the Savior. He must have supposed that one must either accept them, while saying that the Savior spoke these things, and that a believer would be persuaded to surrender himself to such things as a duty; or else, if one does not reasonably dare to do such great things, which would result in blasphemy against the Word, he must not believe that these are the words of the Savior, if they are not allegorized.
B We, however, who wish to preserve the coherence and connection of the three castrations, and who approve of the tropological explanation of the third, shall say such things also regarding the previous two: eunuchs, tropically understood, may now be called those who are cold toward lust and sluggish, and who do not give themselves over to sexual debaucheries and impurities, or to things similar to them. There are, I think, three kinds of those who are sluggish toward these things: for some are of this sort by natural constitution—concerning whom it may be said: "There are eunuchs who were born so from their mother’s womb." C Others, however, are persuaded by words to exercise restraint of lusts and of all the debauchery concerning the matter. Yet, the motive that begot in them such a purpose, and exercise, and, if I may so call it, correction, was not the Word of God, but human words—whether of those who philosophized among the Greeks, or of those who forbid marriage, abstaining from foods, in the D instruction of moral edification.
Eunuchs, now, are to be called those who morally abstain from sexual relations. There are three differences among those who contain themselves: some are by nature more frigid than other men, of whom it is rightly said: "There are some eunuchs who are born thus from their mother's womb." Others, however, are continent on account of the words of men, whose virile concupiscence is cut off not by the divine Word, but by human words; as, for instance, those who philosophized among the ancients in the nations, or
A even those who now abstain from foods, and the discourses of heretics. These indeed seem to me to be signified by His words: “There are eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men.” B But he is worthy of the Word, if one taking the living and active Word, which is sharper than any two-edged sword, and which the Apostle called the sword of the Spirit, cuts away the affection of his soul without touching his body; and he does this having contemplated the kingdom of heaven, and that it greatly contributes to obtaining the kingdom of heaven to cut away with the Word the affective part of his soul. To such ones this applies, and not, as they think, to those who interpret physically those things which concern the state, saying: “There are eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven.”
B Great, moreover, is the power to receive this eunuchism from the Word of the soul, which not all receive, but they to whom it is given; yet it is given to all who ask for the rational sword from God, and have rightly used it, that they might make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. And if it is necessary to examine the Scriptures concerning the anagogical sense indicated to us, we shall say that there are some eunuchs of Pharaoh, void of every good, so that they may serve him wine, and provide food for him, being for this reason eunuchs of men, that they might build up their Jerusalem. Concerning the former, it is written in Genesis; concerning the second example, in the second Ezra, which says: C “And I was a eunuch of the king.” And it came to pass in the month Nisan, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king, and so forth, until: “And it pleased the king, and he sent me.” But reading the book of Ezra, you will find all things regarding this place, and for what reason the holy one became a leader of the rebuilding of the temple of God. They say also that the Hebrew children, Daniel and those with him, were eunuchs, for the Scripture says in the history of the captivity of Israel that the chief of the eunuchs took them. But let us return to the connection, and let us consider the disciples who D were rebuking those who brought the infants and “children” to Jesus [such ones, that is to say, little children in faith and not yet sufficiently instructed, who] are considered the more rational ones of those teachers [of those simpler ones] and for this reason are called “disciples” of Jesus, before they learned the things concerning the infants and the [such] children, they rebuke those who teach more simply and who bring [infants and children to Jesus]. You will understand such a thing clearly, having attended to: “For you see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world” and [“the weak things” and “the base things” and] “the things that are not, to bring to naught the things that are.”
And [Jesus] Himself, not only historically but also allegorically, humbled Himself as a child, so that He could say, just as “Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart,” so also does He command to “Learn of me,” having become as a child. How do I mean that? Concerning the saying, “For of such is the kingdom of heaven,” meaning “of such” as children are, concerning whom He does not permit the disciples to rebuke those who bring them.
A It is said that the three with him—Ananias, Azarias, and Misael—were made eunuchs in Babylon, fulfilling the prophecy spoken to Ezechias by Isaias: “From thy seed they shall take, and they shall make them eunuchs in the house of the king of Babylon.” They say also that Isaias prophesied regarding these, saying: “Let not the stranger who attaches himself to the Lord say, ‘The Lord will surely separate me from His people,’” and the rest, up to “[he is] better than sons and daughters.” It is good, therefore, regarding the mystical sense of this place, not to procreate in Babylon, but to be barren regarding Babylon, like Daniel, so that we may procreate—having conceived from the Divine Spirit, as he and those with him did—visions and prophecies. B One must know that he who wishes to argue for the discourse and support the aforementioned, and to demonstrate this through the writings, would find not a few probable arguments that the three fulfillments were physical. However, we have not wished to set them forth, lest by putting forth the arguments for the sake of exercise and explaining the solution of each, we provide a pretext for those who do not understand the discourse regarding eunuchism as Jesus intends, for one must understand “to receive” in another sense, and not assume it physically when it is necessary to live in the Spirit and walk in the Spirit and to be convinced that the three eunuchisms have been spoken of spiritually.
C Daniel has sons according to the same spiritual birth, whom his prophecy begat; for he had no carnal sons. For he was a eunuch, as they say; and this is evident, for he was delivered by them to the chief eunuch. And he was a continent man, so that the Jews thought him to be a castrate. But the king of the Babylonians, Nabuchodonosor, having taken the most noble of the Jewish youths, and the kinsmen of the king Sedekias, who were also outstanding in the prime of their bodies and the beauty of their countenances, delivered them to tutors and to the training through them, having made some of them castrates.
OLD INTERPRETATION
Regarding the first, it is written in Genesis; regarding the second, in the second book of Esdras, which said: “And I was the king's eunuch.” And you therefore, considering, will find why a eunuch was deemed worthy to be set over the restoring of the temple of God. D For the children of the Hebrews say that Daniel and the three youths were made eunuchs in Babylon, that the word of God might be fulfilled regarding Ezechias: “For they shall take from thy seed, and they shall make eunuchs in the house of the king of Babylon.” They also say that Isaias prophesied concerning them, saying: “Let not the eunuch say, ‘Lo, I am a dry tree.’ Thus says the Lord to the eunuchs: If they keep My commandments...”
A And let these things be useful for those who rebuke the disciples because children are being brought to Jesus by those who bring them. But one should know that even if the children are not able to follow all the things that are said, Jesus nonetheless “laid his hands” upon the children, and “having laid them on,” he “departed thence.” And having imparted power to the children through his touch, he “departed” from the children, as they were not able to follow Jesus in the same way as the disciples. If the evangelical writings are indeed “the words of the Lord,” and “pure words,” and “silver refined,” a “touchstone” sent forth “to the earth” and precisely “purified” and “seven times” refined, there ought to be a logical reason why Matthew, while setting forth the events at that place, mentioned two of the purposes for which the children were brought to Jesus, yet does not add others following those two. For the children were brought, not only “so that Jesus might lay his hands upon them,” but in addition to this, so that “he might also pray.” Yet it is written [after this] that “and having laid his hands upon them, he departed thence,” for he did not add: and having prayed. [For it could have been said:
Concerning the children who were brought to Jesus so that he might lay his hands upon them
“Then were brought unto him children,” and so forth, down to: “And having laid his hands upon them, he departed thence.” B The recorded history then took place, with children having been brought to Jesus, since those who were bringing them wished for him to lay his hands upon them, and to pray. But one must know that there is no time when children are not brought in soul to Jesus, of whom he might say, as if having received them as a deposit from God: “Behold, I and the children whom God has given me.” And of these children, let some be called infants, and others let them be called sucklings, as being lower than the infants, and may our Lord perfect praise out of the mouth of both, so that, having perceived such a benefit of his toward the children, we may say: “Out of the mouth of infants and sucklings you have perfected praise.” But by children must be understood those who are carnal in Christ, and infants, such as the Corinthians, whom the apostle Paul, knowing them, said: “And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.” Such children were brought then, and are always being brought to Jesus. And a sign of the bringing of such infants C is the multitude of those in the Church who are babes in Christ and sucklings, needing milk and not solid food, to whom he would say, just as a nurse cherishing her own children would cherish them: “I have fed you with milk, and not with meat; for hitherto ye were not able to bear it.” Then, since the mentioned evangelists who recorded the events at that place—that, as Matthew says, “children were brought to Jesus,” or, as Mark says, “they brought also infants to him”—left it unsaid by whom they were brought, or who brought them, leaving it to us to examine what was left out, it is worth seeing whether it was by chance left out by the three, although they were able to record it: that they were brought to him by their parents, or by their mothers, or...whether they did so by a wise and rational deliberation, so that the angels who approach and serve Jesus might declare, with a more divine mind, which children or infants should be offered to Jesus, in order that, having been presented to him, they might be blessed by him, and when; and they know also which ones should not be, or for what period of time it is not appropriate. For I do not A think that such a multitude of children approach Jesus through angelic arrangement. But the desire of those bringing the children is, according to Matthew, "that Jesus might lay his hands on them and pray"; but according to Mark, "that he might touch them"; and according to Luke, who called them infants, "that he might touch them." For through the prayer of Jesus and his touch, children and infants, being not yet able to hear what those who are already spiritual hear, can receive help and the benefit of which they are capable: for the power of Jesus takes hold of them, once he has laid the hands of his own supervision upon them, and nothing of the worse kind touches them any longer. Perhaps also, according to the literal meaning, the intention of those bringing the infants and children to B him was such, concluding that it was impossible, once Jesus had touched the infants or children and infused power into them through the touch, for any accident, or demon, or anything else to touch the one whom Jesus had once touched.
I believe, moreover, that since many evil forces are occupied from the beginning around the human soul, plotting against it in various ways, for this reason, as those who brought the infants to the Savior had already learned of his power from previous events, they did this so that, through the laying on of his hands and the prayer for the children and infants, the worse things might be driven away by the touch, and a power might be engendered C and differ—
7. Since, however, nefarious powers are occupied from the beginning with many snares in building up various things against the human soul, I believe that those who brought the infants to the Savior, having already perceived his power and might, acted so that, through his laying on of hands and the prayer spilled out for the little children and infants, evils might be driven away by the aid of his touch; and that an exceptional virtue might be infused into them, so that even the infants [might be] as the Apostle, knowing the Corinthians, said: "And I could not speak to you as to spiritual [people], but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ." Such are the children who were offered then, and are offered daily to Jesus. And the sign of the offering of children is the many who, having been established as babes in Christ, and sucklings, and having need of milk, and not solid food, approach the faith: of whom he says, who said: "As if a nurse cherishes her own children, feeding them, I gave you milk to drink, not meat: for you were not yet able, nor are you able even up to now." The evangelists, in explaining this passage, reported indeed that the children were offered to Jesus, but they did not make manifest by whom they were offered, leaving it to us to seek what was omitted by them, whether all the evangelists omitted it by chance, since they could have recorded whether they were offered by parents, or by mothers: or whether they did this by divine reason and wisdom, to show that those who offer the children are the angels who approach and serve him: since they themselves wisely know the difference of the children or infants who ought to be offered to Christ. The desire of those offering the children is that Jesus lay his hands upon them, and pray. For the prayer of Jesus Christ and his touch, for children and infants who cannot hear what those who are already spiritual hear, suffices for the help of their instruction. For the power of Jesus Christ takes hold of them when he has placed the hands of his contemplation upon them, and now no evil touches them. Perhaps, too, as far as the text goes, the desire of those offering to him the children and infants was of this kind, considering that it is impossible that, after the Lord has touched the children or infants, and through his touch has given them divine power, any demon could touch them. D [...]
(12) "That it was not possible that, having been touched, [there would be] impassibility [and] sinlessness." Indeed Jerome, in his letter to Ctesiphon, in the second chapter, and in other places which are published in our Origenian collection, [notes this]. Origen believed that those who were strengthened could be made perfect, not to be struck by the allurements of sins. Jerome objects to this [in the same letter].
A one must not think that the command "do good" is in conflict with the statement "Why do you ask me about what is good? There is one who is good," which was said to the one who inquired and asked, "Teacher, what good deed must I do?" Matthew, therefore, recorded it as if the Savior were asked about a good work in the question "What good must I do?" But Mark and Luke say that the Savior replied, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except one, God," as if the name "good" were assigned to God in such a way that it could not be assigned to anyone else. For God is not called "a good man" in the same sense as one who brings forth good things "from the good treasure [of his heart]." And the Savior, just as he is "the image of the invisible God," is also "the image of His goodness." And in every lesser being to whom the term "good" is applied, it has a meaning different from that which is said of God himself, if indeed he is "the image of goodness" in relation to the Father, while in relation to others he is what the Father's goodness is to him.
B ...and sufficient for what follows, as it serves to prevent contact with adversaries. Therefore, the Savior, knowing that such a thing is not simple and indifferent, but rather salutary to those who were touched by Him through the laying on of hands, says to the disciples who were rebuking [those who brought the children] and who were by their rebuke preventing the children from being brought, 80: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them from coming to me." If, then, the things said regarding him have a reasonable basis—who they were by whom they were brought, or who brought them—one might consistently understand them as certain exceptional disciples of Jesus, holy powers instructed by the Son of God. For it is reasonable that the name of Jesus' disciples should extend even to such beings, so that not only men might be His disciples, but even angels, if anyone wishes to believe in Him, from the name that is named not only in this age, but also in the age to come.
If, however, someone should think such an interpretation forced, wishing to restrict the name of disciples not to others but only to men—those who rebuke those bringing infants and children to Jesus—then these would be the simpler of those who undertake to teach the word, those having a discourse that is like milk even for children, giving drink to those who have need of milk, and presenting infants and children to Jesus; for they are not able to persuade those who are more logical than their own state, as the one who was able to say, "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
C But those who think themselves possessed of greater eloquence than those teachers who present infants and children to Jesus, and are therefore called Jesus' disciples, before they have learned about infants and children, rebuke those who teach more simply and present children. You will clearly understand such a thing if you pay attention to: "For consider your calling, brothers, that not many of you were wise according to the flesh, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth; but God chose the foolish things of the world, and the things that are not, in order to bring to nothing 83: the things that are." Let someone, therefore, see any of those who profess ecclesiastical instruction and doctrine, presenting the foolish things of the world, and the D [disregarded things of the world, and the lowly, and the things that are not, God chose, in order to put to shame the things that are; and the weak things of the world God chose, in order to put to shame the strong; and the base things of the world, and the things that are despised, God chose, and the things that are not.]
A If, therefore, someone should see one of those who profess to transmit ecclesiastical precepts and doctrine offering to such a Savior and Master infants and children—people who are foolish in the eyes of the world, despised, and ignoble, and who are therefore to be attracted under the name of children—and should rebuke him as one acting rashly, he should consider whether what we are treating is not applicable to such situations: those who offer the children, that Jesus might lay His hands upon them and pray, and the disciples who rebuke them. But the Master, and Savior, and Lord says to those who are rebuking the children brought to Jesus: «Suffer the children, and do not forbid them to come to me.» Then, exhorting the disciples, though they were men, to descend to the benefit of the children, so that they might become children to the children in order to win the children, the Savior says, «For of such is the kingdom of heaven.» For He Himself, B «being in the form of God, did not think it robbery to be equal with God,» but became a child, such that it was said to the Magi by Herod concerning Him: «Go, search carefully for the child»; and by Matthew: «The star which they saw in the East went before them, until it came and stood over where the child was»; and after a little, «Entering,» he says, «the house, they saw the child with Mary His mother.» Indeed, the angel who appeared to Joseph called our Savior, despite being so great, a child, saying: «Arise, take the child and His mother, and flee into Egypt.» And again, when Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying: «Arise, take the child and His mother.» C And so, Jesus, not only according to the history, but also according to the anagogical sense, humbled Himself as a child, so as to be able to say such things as, «Learn from me, for I am meek and lowly in heart,» and likewise: Learn from me, who have become as a child, how I say: «For of such is the kingdom of heaven,» such as the children are, concerning whom the Savior [speaks of] children and infants. For they cannot be nourished with a more specialized discourse than that which the state of their narrow understanding demands, those who can say like him who said: «I am a debtor both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to wise and to unwise.» To those, therefore, offering to the Savior children and D infants of this kind—that is, novices in the faith and as yet less learned, who may seem to be more perfect than those simpler teachers and are therefore disciples of Jesus—before they learn the principle of justice concerning such children and infants, they rebuke those who teach simply and through simple doctrine offer the children and infants to Christ. You will be able to understand this clearly, if you consider what the Apostle says: «See your calling, brothers, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many powerful, not many noble; but the foolish things of the world God chose, and the weak things, and the things that are not, that He might destroy the things that are.» If, therefore, anyone of those who profess ecclesiastical doctrine sees someone offering certain foolish things of the world, and ignoble and weak ones, who for this reason are called children and infants, let him not, as if he were acting without judgment, forbid the one who offers such children and infants to the Savior and Master. And see if it is not appropriate to refer what we are discussing to the disciples: some indeed offering children, that Jesus might lay His hands upon them and pray, others however forbidding them, so that to those who forbid the offerings of children to Christ, the Master and Savior and Lord says: «Suffer the children, and do not forbid them to come to me.» After this, exhorting the disciples, now constituted as men, to condescend to the needs of the children, so that they might become as children to children, that they might win the children, Jesus says: «For of such is the kingdom of heaven.» For «when He Himself was in the form of God, He did not think it robbery to be equal with God, but became a child,» as Matthew says of Him, since «the star which...
A they saw in the East, went before them, until it came and stood where the child was.» Not only Matthew, but also the angel himself who appeared to Joseph, called our Saviour such and so great, a child, saying: «Arise, take the child and His mother, and go into Egypt.» Humbling Himself, therefore, He became as a child, that He might rightly say: «Suffer and do not forbid the children to come to me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.»
8. To these things, therefore, we must diligently attend, so that we do not, by an opinion of wisdom and excellence, despise those who are small in the Church and children, as if we were greater; but knowing what is said: «For of such is the kingdom of heaven,» let us become such, that through us even children might be saved; not only allowing them to be offered to Jesus, nor only not hindering them from being offered to Him, but let us ourselves also, having become children with the children, fulfill the will of the Saviour, that having humbled ourselves, we may be exalted by God; for this can be understood to mean something like: «He who humbles himself shall be exalted,» especially since it is written above: «Whoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.» And these things indeed B should be useful to the disciples who rebuke those bringing children to Jesus. But although children, as they are children, cannot possibly grasp in their understanding whatever is said, let them know that Jesus did indeed lay hands upon the children, but when He had laid hands upon them, He went away from there, and having infused virtue into the children through the touch, He went away from the children, who were not able, like the perfect disciples, to follow Jesus. Since, however, the «words of the Lord are pure words, as silver examined by fire, proved, cast into the earth, perfectly purified, and seven times,» could there be any reasonable cause why Matthew, recounting the present history, said that the children were offered to Jesus for two reasons, C but did not relate what follows to those twin causes? For it was not for that reason alone that they were offered. D Therefore we ought to diligently attend and not, through an estimation of wisdom and excellence, despise the little ones of the Church as if they were great, but knowing what is written: «For of such is the kingdom of heaven,» let us be made such, that even the little ones may be saved in their understanding through us; not only not forbidding the children to go to Jesus, but also ourselves, having been made children with the children, let us fulfill the will of the Lord in humility, that we may be exalted by God. Know, however, that children of this kind, although they cannot follow all that is said as children, nevertheless Jesus laid hands upon them. But having placed [His hands], He went away from there, and leaving virtue in the children, He departed by the act from the children, namely, the children not being able to follow Christ, as His other perfect disciples [could]. Since, however, the «words of the Lord» are evangelical words, «pure, and silver examined by fire, silver likely [to be used], sent into the earth, and well cleaned, and seven times cleaned,» there without doubt must be some suitable cause for which Matthew, explaining this place, [states] two
A children, and does he not relate them to the two that follow? For the children were brought, not only that Jesus might lay his hands upon them, but furthermore also that he might pray for them.
It is written, however, that «and having laid his hands upon them, he departed thence»; for he did not add, «and having prayed»; for it could have been said: And having laid his hands and having prayed for them, he departed thence. See then if you can say that the prayer of Jesus is reserved for the older children, who are capable both of the imposition of his hands and of the prayers poured out for them to the Father; while for the little children, the imposition of his hands is sufficient.
As for what is delivered concerning B the [saying], «For of such is the kingdom of heaven,» which urges even the most wise man not to be proud against the little ones in the Church, nor to despise the children and those who are infants in Christ, it is useful to bring forth from that in Luke: «Amen, I say to you, whoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a child,»—not that he is a child in reality, but a man who has put away the things of a child, becoming a child to children, and saying to them: «I could not speak to you as to spiritual, but as to carnal, as to infants in Christ; I gave you milk to drink, not meat.» The whole context therefore in Luke is such: «And they were bringing to him also infants, that he might touch them,» and the rest, down to: «Whoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a child, shall not enter into it.» And Mark has set forth the latter part in almost the same words. C
Concerning the rich man who questioned Jesus, and said: "Good Master," and the rest.
And behold, one coming up said to him: "Good Master, what good shall I do that I may have eternal life?" and the rest, down to: "But many that are first shall be last, and the last, first." In the Psalms it is written, as if man were able to do good, again: "Who is he that desires life, and loves to see good D days?"
A Turn away from evil, and do good; refrain your tongue from evil, and your lips from speaking guile." Here, indeed, the Savior, to him who said, "What good thing shall I do, that I may inherit eternal life?", replied, as if "good" in the proper sense applies to no one but God: "Why do you ask me concerning what is good? One is good." But it must be known that here "good" is properly attributed only to God; in other cases, however, it is used abusively, applied to good works, to a good man, and to a good tree; and you may see "good" ascribed to many other things as well. B It is not, therefore, to be thought that these words, "Do good," conflict with those said to him who, while asking, says, "Good Master, what good thing shall I do?" For Matthew wrote that the Savior was questioned as if concerning a good work with the words: "What good thing shall I do?" But Mark and Luke report that the Savior said: "Why do you call me good? No one is good, except one, God." This is to such a degree that that term, "good," attributed to God, is to be attributed to no one else thereafter; for not in the same way that God is good can it be said, "A good man, bringing forth good things out of the good treasure." C And the Savior, just as He is the image of the invisible God, so also is the image of His goodness. Since He Himself differs from the goodness of the Father as an image of goodness differs from primary goodness, so also all those in whom the name of goodness is found differ from the goodness of the Son. D For all good things differ more from the goodness of the Son than the goodness of the Son differs from the paternal goodness, because the Son is more closely akin to the Father in all good things than all things are to the Son. Perhaps it was also on account of him who said, "What good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?" that Christ answered him: "Why do you call me good? No one is good except one, God."
A Indeed, the meaning of this word "good" is different when it is applied to any inferior being; if, with respect to the Father, he is the image of his goodness, and in relation to all other things he maintains that same ratio which the goodness of the Father bears toward him, or rather, if one may observe a certain closer and more intimate analogy in the goodness of God toward the Savior, who is the image of his goodness, than the analogy observed in the Savior toward a good man, or a good work, or a good tree; for the pre-eminence in the Savior toward inferior goods is greater, inasmuch as he is the image of the goodness of God himself, than the pre-eminence of God, who is good, toward the Savior who said: "The Father who sent me is greater than I," B who is also, in the estimation of others, the image of the goodness of God. Perhaps, indeed, the connection to those things said above concerning "What good thing shall I do?" (and those things said were: "Why do you ask me about the good? One is good") is held by that passage: "When you have done all things which are commanded you, you ought to say: We are unprofitable servants; what we ought to have done, we have done." For if whatever we have within our duties has been performed by us, not even then, according to the signification of this passage, have we done anything good; for if the things we do were good, it would by no means be written that, after the custom of performing the commandments, it should be said: "We are unprofitable servants." But we are permitted to call them good by catachresis, just like the saying: "Depart from evil, and do good." C But I think that he who does that which is commanded in "Depart from evil, and do good," does good with respect to the deeds performed by other men; but with respect to the truly good, just as "no one living shall be justified in the sight of God," when all human justice is tested as not being justice, when the justice of God is seen in the Son; nor is there any dissimilarity or distance of goodness in the Son. On account of this, it ought not to be considered any kind of blasphemy that it is said "No one is good, except one, God"; D so that it should be thought that Christ or the Holy Spirit is denied to be good; but, as we said above, the principal goodness is to be understood as being in God the Father, from whom both the Son is born and the Holy Spirit proceeds, and they without doubt retain the nature of his goodness, which is in that fountain from which the Son is born or the Holy Spirit proceeds. Now, indeed, if any other things are called good in the Scriptures, whether an angel, or a man, or a treasure, or a good heart, or a good tree, all these are said by catachresis, because they do not contain goodness in themselves in a substantial way. And these things would avail for the purging of Origen, if the interpreter of those books, Rufinus, had not warned the reader in the preface prefixed to them, that he had either omitted or changed those things by which the majesty of the Holy Trinity seemed to be harmed. Therefore, I would wish our Origenian works to be consulted here. Huetius.
For having looked closely into his mind, He saw a man who conscientiously professed to have fulfilled the aforementioned commandments. And Mark and Luke would not have left out the more summary and distinct commandment, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," in addition to the other commandments, unless one were to say that the things written are similar, but were not said about the same person. And how even to him who was not yet perfect, and who was claiming to be [fulfilling the] commandment, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," alongside others, did Jesus say: "If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor," and so on? And if there were not a disagreement between different manuscripts regarding many other things, so that all the matters in Matthew did not harmonize with one another, and likewise the other gospels, someone might have seemed impious for suspecting that the commandment, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," had been added here without having been spoken by the Savior to the rich man.
A God’s righteousness; thus, not even he who might be called "good" when compared to inferior things would be entitled to be called "good" before the good God. One might say that the Savior, knowing the disposition and intent of the one making inquiry—which was very far from doing the good that is attainable for men—said to him when he asked, "What good shall I do?", "Why do you ask Me about the good?" as if He were saying: "Being unprepared for the things that might be said about the good, do you ask what good you shall do in order to inherit eternal life?" Then He teaches that He who is truly good is one, regarding whom the Law also says: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is One." B For He who is the Savior is strictly Lord, and strictly good; I am convinced that He does all things as good. You will inquire how even those things that are not understood by those who, as much as lies in them, slander the God of the Law and accuse Him of things that it is not easy to say quickly even regarding a man, breathe of His goodness. For I am convinced that the "I will kill" of God’s goodness breathes no less than "And I will make to live"; and likewise, "I will strike" [breathes] no less of Him than "And I will heal." But if He also causes pain, it should be known that a physician often causes pain. Having caused pain, God restores again; and thus, out of goodness, He struck those whom He struck. "For as to sons being disciplined, so God acts toward them; for what son is there whom a father does not discipline?" C But also, "all discipline seems not to be a matter of joy at the present, but of grief; but afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been exercised by it." Therefore, just as God struck, so also He healed; for true is that saying: "He struck, and His hands healed." And even if what is going to be said is strange, nevertheless it shall be said. The anger of the good God, when so named, performs a saving work by reproving, and His so-called wrath, because it belongs to the good God, disciplines. Many things could be said to those who are able...
furor, as it is commonly called, produces a salutary result when it corrects; and the wrath of God, since it belongs to a good God, chastises for the sake of amendment. Indeed, much could be said to those whom such a matter would not offend regarding the goodness of God and the multitude of His sweetness, which He does not without reason hide from those who fear Him, A lest, by despising the riches of His goodness, patience, and long-suffering, they should, according to their hardness and impenitent heart, treasure up for themselves B greater wrath than what they would have treasured up had the multitude of the goodness of God not been hidden from them. Concerning, then, the question, "Who is good?" and "What good shall I do?" let what we have been able to conceive upon this passage be said.
12. Following this, it is to be observed how it is said: "But if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments," C in which, observe this: that as though he were still outside of life, the Savior says to the one inquiring about the good, "If you wish to enter into life." Here it is necessary to consider carefully what it is to be "outside of life," and what it is to "enter into life." Perhaps, therefore, in one way, he is outside of life who is currently outside of Him who said, "I am the life," and is alienated from Him; but in another way, everyone upon the earth, even if he be most righteous, can indeed exist in the shadow of life—as he says: "Christ the Lord is the spirit of our face, of whom we have said: In His shadow we shall live among the nations"—yet not in life itself, D inasmuch as he is clothed in the body of death and says: "Who will deliver me from the body of this death?" and, "Sitting in the region and shadow of death," and not yet having arrived at the land of the living. For indeed, the life, not only of the wicked but even of Paul and the apostles while upon the earth, was hidden in God. He says, therefore: "Your life is hidden with Christ in God; when Christ, our life, shall appear, then you also shall appear with Him in glory." You shall observe, then, all things concerning the "within" and the "without," that you may collect the things pertinent to "If you wish to enter into life," as for instance: "Pray therefore to the Lord of the harvest, that He may send out laborers into His harvest." For you shall ask, "Send out from where?" And if the laborers sent into the harvest of the Lord are here, they are outside of the place from whence they were sent; and the things of the harvest will be well done.
A After the works of the harvest have been rightly performed, they shall enter into life, having been purged from dead works, and performing works contrary to them; no longer speaking dead words, but speaking according to the living and active word of God. So also, in a manner analogous to words of eternal life, there are things contrary to the accusing thoughts, when, at the day of judgment, through the thoughts accusing or else defending, he whose thoughts are defending shall be saved, but he whose thoughts become accusers shall perish. If, therefore, we also wish to enter into life, let us hear Jesus saying: "If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments," and according to the proportion of the keeping of the commandments we shall enter into life, becoming its possessors, either to its innermost and most blessed parts, or wherever the keeping of the smaller and dimmer commandments leads us. B And he having heard, "Keep the commandments," says: "Which?" that we might learn which commandments Jesus most wishes us to keep; for to the "Which?" He said: "You shall not commit adultery; you shall not murder; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; honor your father and mother," and, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." And perhaps these and things similar to them are sufficient to enter, if I may so term it, into the beginnings of life, which would not be sufficient to attain integrity; so that one who has sinned equally against one of these commandments is not even able to enter into the beginning of life. Therefore, he who reflects on entering into life must be innocent of adultery, and of murder, and of every kind of theft; for as an adulterer and a murderer shall not enter into life, C so neither shall he who steals. Many of those who are called believers in Christ are guilty of this sin, being convicted in the affairs of life, both in the monies entrusted to them, and in the meaner trades which they practice, as not being clear of theft. And not only the thief shall not enter into life, but also his partner, and he who runs with him; for it is written in Isaiah: "Participants..."
D ...in the heart, but living. For as there are dead works, and living works, and dead words, and living words, so also there are dead thoughts and living thoughts. Concerning which the Apostle says: "By thoughts accusing one another, or even defending, in the day when the Lord shall judge the secrets of men." And he indeed whose thoughts shall be defending shall be saved; but he whose thoughts shall be accusing shall perish. If therefore we also wish to enter into life, let us hear Jesus saying: "If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments"; and according to the measure of the observation of the commandments we shall enter into life, either into its interior and more blessed parts, or into the middle ones, or to whatever part of that life the observation of the commandments shall lead us.
...Jesus to observe. To which interrogation He said: "You shall not murder; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; honor your father and your mother; and: You shall love your neighbor as yourself." And perhaps these things are sufficient for one to enter, if I may so term it, into the beginning of life, but these or other things similar to these are not sufficient to introduce anyone into its interior. But he who has passed over one of these commandments shall not even enter into the beginning of life. Therefore, every one wishing to enter even into the beginning of life must abstain from adultery, from murder, from theft. For as an adulterer and a murderer do not enter into life, so neither does a thief. For in this sin many even of those who seem to have believed in Christ fall, carrying on the business of this world, and the pecuniary acts which are entrusted to them, and those who practice these meaner arts,
A “go, sell what you possess and give to the poor.” It would be the task of noble men, and those who possess everything that characterizes a bishop, to exhort those who are both able and willing to be persuaded by this exhortation, and to encourage others to do the same by providing for them from the common store; for this would become a kind of image of the life of the agreement of believers according to the apostles. But one might ask [consequently] that, if he is “perfect” who possesses all virtues and no longer does anything out of vice, how could one be “perfect” who has sold his “possessions and” given them to the “poor”? For let it be assumed that someone has done this, but how then could he also become instantly free from anger, if he chances to be prone to anger? Or how could he be free from sorrow, and superior to anything whatsoever that could happen to provoke sorrow? Or how will he be entirely without fear of labors or death, or whatever else is able to frighten a soul that is still less perfect? Or in what way will he who has sold his “possessions and” distributed them to the “poor” be outside of all desire? B Those who love the gifts of thieves; and in the forty-ninth Psalm, it is forbidden to recount the ordinances of God and to take His covenant upon one’s lips, for he who is rebuked says: “If you saw a thief, you ran with him,” and as it was stated first: “You placed your portion with adulterers.” And he did not call such a person a thief or an adulterer, but one who runs with a thief and places his own portion with adulterers. And he who is coming into life must not even bear false witness; and he who does not fulfill the command that says, “Honor your father and mother,” is cast out of life. But perhaps to keep these commands is not very difficult; but it is a greater task, and useful for those who have been led into it by the previous commands, to fulfill: C “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” And since, according to the Apostle, “You shall not murder; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this word, in the: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’”; and the perfect man is he who has fulfilled every commandment, clearly he would be perfect who has fulfilled the commandment, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” But if this man is perfect, one might ask how, with the young man saying, “All these I have kept from my youth; what do I still lack?” the Savior answered, as if he who had done all these things were not perfect, and as if agreeing with his having said, “I have done all these things,” by saying: “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven, and come, follow me.” Pay attention, therefore, if we are able to answer the proposed question in one way, that perhaps the [command], D “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” can be suspected [of not being that which makes one perfect].
For if we say that someone has become perfect simply by this alone, even if he has not taken up what we set forth, we shall fall into an absurdity, saying that a man is both perfect and a sinner at the same time—for the irascible man is a sinner, as is he who feels the sorrow of the world, he who fears hardships or death, he who desires what he lacks, and he who irrationally puffs up his soul over things that are not good, as if they were good. Or, if we say that immediately upon someone selling his property and distributing it to the “poor,” he has become, as it were, divinely inspired (θεόληπτον), has taken up all the virtues, and has cast off every vice, we shall be speaking faithfully (if I may use a more common term), but I do not know if we shall be speaking truthfully; and perhaps those who hear such a solution applied to the problem raised will laugh at us, as if we were not saying intelligent things. It would seem, therefore, that a man would be thought wiser [to speak] by preserving the letter of the text and in no way interpreting it figuratively, answering in this way; but whether he is indeed faithful, and whether he understands what is said in a manner worthy of the passage or not, you yourself shall judge.
But someone who gives this defense will say that there is no necessity for this to be understood as having occurred on that very day, when he sold “the possessions” and distributed them “to the poor,” but that perhaps from that day the divine visitation began to lead him toward such things—I refer to the praiseworthy apatheia and every virtue. And “advancing” like Isaac, because of the help from God in Christ, he will be “greater,” until, increasing, he becomes “very, very great” in every virtue, with all wickedness having vanished from his soul. And indeed, the one who has provided this narrative will not be forced to say that he became a perfect man just by this, [because he handed over “the possessions to the poor,”] while sinning in other respects.
But another [I know not if he is flourishing in faith [and] in the imagination of transitioning to prudence, and I know not if he has also sought and found some greatness in the passages of thoughts worthy of God] will abandon the literal sense, will ascend to tropology, and will say that “possessions” for each person are the things that follow him after his departure, so that there is a good store of possessions for the righteous, but the opposite for the wicked.
“And give to the poor,” and the rest. And if there were not a discrepancy between the copies regarding many other things as well, such that all the matters according to Matthew do not agree with each other—and similarly with the other Gospels—an impious person would surely appear to be the one who suspects that the commandment, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” was inserted here, though not spoken by the Savior to the rich man. But now, it is clear that there is a great difference among the copies, whether from the laziness of certain scribes, or from the bold and wicked correction of what is written, or even from those who, in their correction, add or subtract what seems right to them.
However, with God granting the ability, we were able to find a remedy for the discrepancy in the copies of the Old Testament, having used the remaining editions as a criterion. For concerning the disputed matters among the Seventy A due to the discrepancy of the copies, having made our judgment from the remaining editions, we preserved what was in accord with them; and some things we marked with an obelus because they were not present in the Hebrew, not daring to remove them entirely; but some things we added with asterisks, so that it might be clear that we added from the other editions that are in agreement with the Hebrew what was not found among the Seventy, and so that he who wishes may set them aside; but let him whom such a thing offends decide for himself regarding their reception or non-reception. Therefore, he who wishes that the commandment, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” not have been thrown in here, but truly spoken by the Lord at that time after the previous ones, B [may decide as he wishes].
For regarding the disputed matters, I say this, not hesitating to investigate both the writings according to the Jews and to compare all our own with theirs, and to see the differences among them. If it is not irksome to say, we have done this as much as possible, exercising their minds in all the editions and their differences, along with practicing the interpretation of the [Scriptures] all the more.
[NOTE: The translation merges the Latin and Greek streams, which recount the process of cross-referencing and the handling of textual variants.]
And indeed, if it were not the case that in many other copies discrepancies occur, such that all the matters in Matthew and the other Gospels likewise do not agree with each other, he would surely appear impious who suspected that the command, “You shall love your neighbor as C yourself,” was here inserted, having not been alleged by the Savior toward the rich man. But now, whether because of the negligence of certain scribes, or because of the wicked boldness of some who amend the Scriptures, or because of those who add or subtract at their own will when they amend, a great difference exists among the copies.
Indeed, we have been able, by the grace of God, to provide a remedy for the discrepancy that occurs in the copies of the Old Testament; having used the rest of the editions so that we might make a judgment from them. For those things which, among the interpreters of the LXX, were doubtful because of the variety of the copies, having made a determination from the remaining editions, we retained their perpetual consensus with them. And some things, indeed, which do not exist in the Hebrew, we have marked with an obelus, since we have by no means dared to reject them entirely; but some things we have added with asterisks, so that it may be clear that we added them from the remaining editions that are consonant with the Hebrew, since they were not found in the LXX interpreters; and may he who wishes omit them; but whoever is offended by this, let him decide according to his own judgment concerning admitting them or not. But as for this commandment: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” that it was not D inserted here, but [spoke] after it... For according to Mark, he says thus: “Looking upon him who had said: ‘All these I have kept from my youth,’ he loved him,” or “he kissed him.” For he seems to have affirmed the profession of him who said that he had fulfilled all those things. For looking upon him, he saw in his mind a man confessing from a good conscience that he had fulfilled the proposed commandments. For never, if he had not—beyond the other commandments—also said that he had fulfilled that one: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” would Mark and Luke have omitted such a capital and greatest commandment: unless perhaps one says that although they are similar writings, they are not said about the same exact thing.
How, moreover, would Jesus have answered as if to one who was not yet perfect, to him who had fulfilled, beyond the others, even this commandment: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself”: “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell all that you possess, and give to the poor.” For we find much difference between the copies, whether through the negligence of those writing, or from the rashness of some, or because of those who neglect to amend the Scriptures, or because of those who, in their own opinion, either add to or subtract from the emendations. And in the copies of the Old Testament, whatever was inconsistent, by God’s grace, we were able to bring into agreement, using the judgment of the other editions: for those things which appeared to be doubtful among the Septuagint because of the harmony of the copies, making a judgment from the other editions, we preserved such as were convenient. And some things we noted as not set down in the Hebrew, not daring to remove them altogether; but some things we added with asterisks, so that it might be manifest that those things which were not set down among the Septuagint, we added from the other editions conveniently to the Hebrew.
But in the copies of the New Testament, I did not think that I could do this same thing without danger. I thought it not irrational, however, to set forth my suspicions, and the reasons and causes of those suspicions, just as in this place where it is said: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” since it is not set down in Mark and Luke. Let those who are able judge whether what we discuss is true or false. Nevertheless, as if this were indeed posited: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” let us treat this passage otherwise. It is written in a certain Gospel, which is called according to the Hebrews, if it pleases anyone to accept it, not for authority, but for the manifestation of the proposed question. He says, it records, to him, another of the rich men: “Master, what good thing doing shall I live?” He said to him: “Man, keep the law and the prophets.” He answered him: “I have done so.” He said to him: “Go, sell all that you possess, and divide to the poor, and come, follow me.” But the rich man began to scratch his head, and it did not please him. And the Lord said to him (Matt. xix, 19, etc.).
Origen in his Epistle to Africanus: It is therefore true what we have written in the book *On the Best Manner of Interpretation*, that even in Origen’s own times the editions of the LXX interpreters varied greatly, so that no one should wonder whence such great differences of copies exist today, since Origen had even introduced new ones in those Hexapla and Tetrapla of his. Furthermore, it is probable that this is signified here as we have demonstrated in the Origenian book.
He will say that our Savior, wishing to rebuke that rich man gently and directly, as one who was not telling the truth in saying he had kept the commandment, «You shall love your neighbor as yourself,» said to him: «If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you possess, and give to the poor;» for in this way you will appear to be telling the truth about A having kept the commandment, «You shall love your neighbor as yourself.»
15. But if anyone, looking at human weakness and the difficulty of performing such a deed for the sake of attaining perfection in God, should despise the literal words and turn his mind to allegories, he will be shamed by certain Greek histories, in which some are recorded to have done, because of the wisdom current among the Greeks, the very thing that is here enjoined upon the rich man by the Savior. For they say that Crates the Theban, having chosen for the sake of freedom and as a pattern of a frugal life—and as he supposed, wishing B to present himself to the Greeks as blessed and in need of nothing—sold all his substance and bestowed it upon the people of the Thebans, having said at the same time: «Today Crates, the Theban, sets Crates free.» If, then, because of gentile wisdom and dogmas that captivate the human soul, someone has done a thing of this kind, how much more possible is it for one to do so who is striving for perfection for himself? But if anyone also wishes to be persuaded from the divine Scriptures that such a thing is possible, let him hear what is recorded by Luke in the Acts of the Apostles C concerning those who were urged by the power in the apostles to believe and to live perfectly according to the word of Jesus; and thus the scriptures go: «All of those who believed were together and had all things in common.»
OLD INTERPRETATION
How do you say, «I have fulfilled the Law and the prophets»? Since it is written in the Law: «You shall love your neighbor as yourself,» and behold, many of your brethren, the sons of Abraham, are clothed in filth, dying of hunger, and your house is full of many good things, and nothing at all comes out of it to them. And turning, he said to Simon his disciple who was sitting D near him: «Simon, son of John, it is easier for a camel to enter through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.» It is true, therefore, that the rich man did not fulfill the commandment: «You shall love your neighbor as yourself,» who despised many poor people and did not share with them anything of such great wealth of his. For it is impossible both to fulfill the commandment which says, «You shall love your neighbor as yourself,» and to be a rich man, and especially to have such great possessions. Whoever, therefore, does not think that this word should be cast aside as if it were false, «You shall love your neighbor as yourself,» but should be received as the truth [D?] spoken by the Lord, will say, since he has not yet sufficiently found an argument, because our Lord, wishing to rebuke that rich man not harshly and not insultingly, as though he were not telling the truth when he asserted that he had fulfilled even that commandment: «You shall love your neighbor as yourself,» said to him: «If you wish to be perfect, go, sell all that you possess, and give to the poor.» For thus you will appear to be telling the truth, if you loved, or love, your neighbor as yourself.
15. If anyone, looking at human weakness and thinking it difficult for man to fulfill this, should despise the words and turn to the allegorical understanding: let him also hear the history of certain gentiles, in which, on account of the wisdom of the world, they record that which this Lord commands the rich man to do, a certain Theban...
did for the sake of the liberty of his soul and as an example of a more easy life; and, wishing to show himself blessed to the gentiles and to demonstrate that he had no need of the works of this world, he handed over his entire substance to the people of the Thebans. A If, therefore, a gentile man could do this for the sake of the wisdom of the gentiles and dogmas that set the soul free, as they supposed, how much more easily can he do it who desires to receive within himself the perfection of Christ? But if one desires to be calmed by the divine Scriptures B regarding the possibility of what Christ commanded, let him hear the history in the Acts of the Apostles, written thus: "And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and their possessions and goods they sold, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart." C And a little later it is written again in the same book, that "the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul," and the rest, even to: "And brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet." Then there are added to these the things concerning Ananias and Sapphira, who had indeed sold their own property, but had pilfered part of the price, and, not bringing the whole, but having deposited only a part at the feet of the apostles, they suffered for their sin the things recorded; D for they were worthy to receive here, from divine inspection, the punishment for what was sinned through the theft, in order that they might depart from life more purified, having been punished by the correction that met them in a common death, because they too had believed and had laid a part at the feet of the apostles. And it seems to me that Ananias, upon hearing these words, fell down and gave up the ghost for this reason, because he could not endure the conviction, but being so tormented he was punished, and so gave up the ghost, as Peter's words went through to his soul. And one must not think that Peter slew Ananias here, but that he could not endure the severity of Peter saying to him: "Why hath Satan filled thine heart?" and the rest, even to: "And great fear came upon all them that heard these things." And it is likely, concerning the repayment of Ananias, in which we have defended Peter, that someone might interpose a question about Sapphira, since she, not knowing what had happened, entered in. And Peter answered her, saying: "Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much. Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. And she fell down straightway at his feet, and gave up the ghost." But it could be said that even she, being rebuked and burdened in soul, partly by the conviction of her sin, partly by the calamity of her husband and the grief relative to him, and partly by the grief according to God, gave up the ghost, Peter having foreseen by the Spirit what was to happen to her. All these things have been said by us, wishing to establish that it is possible for one who desires to become perfect to be persuaded by Jesus who says: "Go, sell that thou hast, and give to the poor." And I think they are noble, and possess all the things that characterize the bishop,
and the part of the perfect men, that they should exhort those who have the means, and through the common distribution of resources, urge others to do the same; for this would be an image of the harmony of the life of the believers in the time of the apostles. A
16. One might ask, if a man is perfect and has all the virtues, and no longer commits any evil, how can he become perfect by selling his possessions B and giving them to the poor? For if some have done this, how can they still be blameless—if it should happen—at the sudden impulse of anger? How can he be free from pain, and superior to whatever might befall him, avoiding the grief that is stirred up? How will he be entirely beyond fear, neither fearing pains, nor death, nor whatever else can cause trembling in a soul that is still imperfect? And how, if someone has sold his possessions and distributed them to the needy, will he be subject to no desire? For if one were to say that it is impossible for such a person to have given away all that he possessed, having suffered human weakness through poverty, to repent of what he dared to do, and to desire the similar possession—and if so-called "pleasure" is an irrational swelling of the soul, C how then can a person at once surrender everything and give it to the poor, and at the same time be rid of irrational pleasure? And one might add to this inquiry, that he who is able to surrender his possessions and distribute them to the poor, can also become wise in the wisdom of God, so as to be able to answer everyone who asks him about his faith, D concerning the things he has believed.
For in that he did not commit adultery, nor murder, nor steal, nor bear false witness, but even as a young man honored "his father and mother," and was grieved at the words of Jesus proposing perfection and promising it if he would give up "what he possessed," there was something graceful in him. But in that he "went away" from Jesus "grieving" because of his "possessions," when he ought to have rejoiced that instead of those things he was about to have "treasure in heaven," and by following Jesus to walk in the footsteps of the Son of God, he was worthy of blame. But when he had gone away, "Jesus said to his disciples: Verily I say unto you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven." Upon which it is to be observed how the Savior’s word that is recorded is precise. For He did not say that a "rich man" shall "not enter into the kingdom of heaven," since if He had said such a thing, He would [altogether] have excluded the rich man from the kingdom "of heaven."
It shows that while it is naturally impossible for "a camel to go through the eye of a needle," [yet it is possible as far as God is concerned; and so too, for "a rich man," as far as He is concerned, it is not impossible to "enter into the kingdom" of heaven]. Thus, because "all things are possible to God," this too is possible for Him—whether by His ineffable power He thins the thickness of the vile, or whether He makes the narrowness of the entrance [capable] of receiving him. For that He took the needle's eye and the "camel" as an example of the "difficult" [task of] entering the kingdom of heaven, and not of the impossible, is clear from what was said to the disciples [who had asked: "who then can be saved?"]: "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." Therefore, even the "camel's" entering through the eye of a needle is possible; it is only "not possible with men," [but with God it is]. And so too for the rich man to enter "into the kingdom of God." As for the methods of how God might make such things "possible," He Himself would know, and His Christ, and he to whom His Son may reveal it. A And [it is a matter] of each of the things entrusted, and concerning what is spoken cryptically in the Holy Scriptures. Notice that the difficulty is general—or rather, [it is] a noble one and not easily solved. For whether we say that someone has become perfect simply by this very act (even if he has not taken up what we set forth), we shall fall into an absurdity by saying that someone is both perfect and a sinner at the same time. For a sinner is he who is irascible and he who is grieved by the sadness of the world, and he who fears hardships and death, and he who desires things that are absent, and he who irrationally puffs up his soul, [regarding] things that are not good as if they were good; or whether, as soon as one has sold his substance and distributed it to the poor, we shall say that he, having become as if God-possessed, has taken up all the virtues and laid aside all wickedness—we say this faithfully, to use a more common expression, but I do not know if we say it truthfully. And perhaps those who hear such a solution offered to the one who is perplexed will mock us as speaking things that are not prudent. B A person might seem to be more prudent, therefore, if he kept to the sense of the letter and did not allegorize what is in it, replying in such a way as a believer would, though whether he does so in a manner worthy of the meaning of the passage is for you yourself to judge. He will say, then, that if he who distributes to the poor is helped by their prayer, receiving for his own salvation the spiritual abundance of those who are in need of money—to [supply] his own deficiency, as the Apostle hinted in the second Epistle to the Corinthians—who else could experience this and be helped by a great aid, with God hearkening to the prayers of so many poor people, among whom perhaps there might be some who are like the apostles, or only slightly inferior to them, being poor in bodily things, as they were, but rich in spiritual things? This man, then, who exchanges wealth for poverty in order to become perfect, having been persuaded by the words of Jesus, would be helped at once, as
the apostles were, to become wise in Christ, and courageous, and just, and prudent, and free from every passion. And he who defends his position in this way will say that it is not necessary to understand this as happening on the very day that a man has given away his possessions and distributed them to the poor; but perhaps from that day onward divine providence will begin to lead him toward such things—I speak of the praiseworthy freedom from passion and all virtue—and, advancing like Isaac because of the help afforded him by God in Christ, he will be greater, until, growing, he becomes very great in every virtue, with all wickedness having vanished from his soul. And he who offers this account B will not be compelled to say that a man who was otherwise given to sins becomes perfect by this act alone.
Another, perhaps—I do not know if he falters in faith by imagining that he can pass on to prudence, or if he has sought and found a certain greatness in meanings worthy of God—having left behind the letter, will ascend to tropology, and will say that the possessions of each person are those things that follow him after his departure; so that the just abound in good possessions, but the wicked in the opposite. Here, then, he says that the rich man who possesses many goods is a symbol of one who has acquired many base things, among which can be the love of wealth, the love of glory, and other earthly things that have filled his soul with reprehensible wealth. Since, therefore, one who is rich in this way can be free from certain base things, such as adultery, homicide, theft, and the bearing of false witness, and can fulfill the duty of honor toward parents, and be humane toward his neighbor, and yet not be perfect, the Savior commands such a person, through symbols, to sell these nefarious goods and, as it were, to hand them over to those powers that work them—those who are destitute of every good, and for this reason do not withstand the threat, according to what is written: «But he who is poor does not withstand a threat.» I know for certain that this explanation will seem very forced and violent, for while it does not unintelligently solve the question posed concerning perfection, it does not explain the laying aside of wickedness, and the C possessions that arise from wickedness.
18. Further, regarding the question of whether one who—as is human—has had certain passions, and if any other person has suffered this same poverty and has been aided by great assistance, God having heard the prayers of so many poor people who are refreshed: who, however, are like the apostles, or slightly inferior, poor indeed in corporal things like them, but rich in spiritual things. Or in this way: He who has exchanged wealth for poverty so that he might become perfect, believing in the words of Christ, will be helped in his reason just as the apostles of Christ were, so that he may become wise in Christ, and magnanimous, and just, and chaste, and altogether without any passion. Yet we must not understand this to mean that on the very day, or in the very time that he has handed over his goods to the poor, he becomes altogether perfect. But consequently, from that day forth, the contemplation of God will begin to lead him to all virtues, so that he may begin from that point to advance like Isaac because of the help of God bestowed upon him, and he will grow more and more day by day, until, aided like Isaac, he becomes very great in every virtue, with all malice clearly torn from his soul. And so, he who wishes to defend this exposition is not compelled to say that a man becomes perfect by the very fact that he has handed over his goods to the poor, having been delinquent in other respects. D One who has sought and found a certain greatness in thoughts worthy of God, abandoning the simplicity of the text and the moral exposition, will pass on to higher meanings, saying that the substance of each soul is its own deeds after its departure, so that it may be a substance which...
A persuades one to sell their means and give to the poor. Whoever assents to this opinion and is found here will say that, in proportion to one’s sins, the sinner is filled with spirits; just as, if he were a fornicator, he is filled with what is called in the prophets the spirit of fornication; if irascible, with a spirit of wrath; and so also if he is a backbiter, with a spirit of backbiting. Thus, a man who is wicked has acquired these means, and by having a share in the worse spirits, he has become more complex than Typhon. B And just as he acquired them, having purchased them with a faculty yielding to base things, so he might sell them to those whom this word desires, the poor, by being persuaded by Jesus. For just as the peace of the apostles returns to them, if he who hears the "Peace be to you" does not happen to be a "son of peace," so too fornication and all sins would return to the poor who are the causes of the sins. And there is no reason to hesitate about the fact that one who has thus sold all the goods that were given back, and has given them to the poor, becomes perfect. But if the property is given back over a long time, and a great deal of time is needed to give it to the poor of whom we spoke, nothing would prevent the word from becoming perfect C by giving it over time, in proportion to what is given back to the poor; and he who does these things will clearly have a treasure in heaven, and will himself become heavenly. For just as the earthy man—the wicked one, clearly—is, such are the earthy [men]; and such as the heavenly man is, that is, Christ, such are the heavenly ones. In his own portion, therefore, in heaven, he who has wished to become perfect and has sold all his property and given it to the poor will have a treasure. But do not suppose that someone of this magnitude can be found among those who are rich in the things of this life; for who among them has sold their greed for wealth and their—if I may so call it—love of luxury? And who has entirely sold the spirit of vainglory, so that he may hold in his own heaven a treasure of glory? D Interpretatio: The good acts of the just, however, are of the just, but their evil acts are of the wicked. Here, therefore, it says that the man who had many possessions was rich in the mystery of one who possesses many evil works, in which there may also be a love of money, a desire for glory, and other earthly things filling his soul. Since, therefore, one who is rich in this way can sometimes abstain from certain evils—for instance, from homicide, adultery, theft, false testimony, and from returning to parents what is appropriate with a certain honor—he can also be merciful toward his neighbors, yet not be perfect. Therefore, Christ, in advising such a man, commands him to sell all his evil substance and, as it were, to hand it over to the virtues that are working it—virtues which are poor in every good, and for this reason do not suffer threats, according to what is written: "But the poor man does not suffer threats." But I know that this exposition will seem very strained, although it does indeed resolve honestly what is said about perfection, it is not, however, very persuasive that one who puts away things of malice should be understood as selling substance and giving it to the poor. But as if anticipated in such a place, I would say: one who defends this exposition can say that a sinner is full of spirits according to the measure of his sins, as for example a fornicator, according to what is said in the Scriptures, is full of the spirit of fornication; if he is a man of fury, he is full of a spirit of fury; if evil-tongued, of a spirit of accusation. The man who was evil acquired this substance, and he became more abundant and manifold in these same evils through participation in evil spirits. But just as he acquired it by purchasing it with his own will, satisfying the evils, so he sells it and gives it to such poor as the word speaks of, in that he has believed the words of Christ and has left it behind. For as the peace of the apostles returns to them unless one is a "son of peace," so do fornication and all sins return to the poor who are the authors of the sins, when he is not using their evils. And thus there will be no doubt that he who has thus sold all his own means, as we have delivered it, and has given them to the poor, immediately becomes perfect. If, however, such facilities are sold over a long time, and a long time is necessary for them to be handed over to whom we have said—the poor—it is not contradictory; but according to the estimation of the evils handed over to the poor over time, he who has done such things becomes perfect. It is manifest, however, that he who has done such things has a treasure in heaven.
A And who is it that cast aside the spirit of desire, and of fear, and of pleasure, and of anger? For it is desirable, in the case of the apostles, to pronounce judgment after truly examining such matters. And this man is also able to follow Jesus—he who, as we have explained, has sold everything and has a treasure in heaven; for he is not held back by any wicked possession, so as not to follow Jesus.
A Next to these things it is said, "When the young man heard the word, he went away sorrowful; for he was having many possessions." And you shall see, as regards the anagogical interpretation, how deeply rooted in our mind is the belief that riches and this earthly glory are something good; yet we prefer, since we love desire, to attain those things that are evilly desired, rather than be delivered from desire; and we prefer to fall into those things that we imagine to be fearful, rather than to lay aside the fear that is hostile to the fear of God. B But neither is some elder introduced as having been established, nor a man who has brought to an end the things of a child, but a young man who, when he heard the word, went away sorrowful. For such was he in his soul, and therefore, having left Jesus, he went away. For it is said in reproach: "He went away," and "he went away sorrowful," being sorrowful with the "sorrow of the world," which "works death." For who is he who loves to be angry, and to be sorrowful, having many possessions which he loved, because of which he went away sorrowful, and all the things that had taken hold of his soul out of wickedness? If, however, you were to remain at the level of the history according to some of the previously declared interpretations, you would find this young man half-praiseworthy and half-blameworthy; C for he indeed did not commit adultery, nor did he murder, nor did he steal, nor did he bear false witness, but, being already a young man, he honored his father and his mother; and he was saddened at the words of Jesus proposing perfection and promising it, so that if he were to sell his possessions—there was something noble in him; but he went away.
OLD INTERPRETATION
...he himself has become heavenly. For as is the earthly one, that is, the malicious one, such also are the earthly ones; and as is the heavenly one, that is, Christ, such also are the heavenly ones. In a part of his own heaven, therefore, he will have a treasure who has willed to be perfect, and has sold all his faculties, and has given to the poor. But do not think that a man of this kind is found among the wealthy of the sort that exist now. For who among them lays aside the love of riches, and—so to speak—the love of the world? Who has fully laid aside the spirit of vainglory, so as to receive in his own heaven the treasure of the glory of God, and the riches that are in every word and in every wisdom of God? Who has laid aside the spirit of cupidity, and of fear, or of anger, or of personal pleasure? Therefore, he who wishes to discuss the truth according to its subtlety will proclaim this to be in the apostles, and in those who have been like them. Such a man, moreover, will be able to follow Christ, who, as we have said, sold everything and had a treasure in heaven. For such a man is not distracted by any evil possession, so as not to follow Christ.
19. "When the young man heard the word, he went away sorrowful; for he was having many possessions." And consider, according to human conversation, how with difficulty we are pulled away from the goods of earthly riches, or from the cupidity of vainglory. For we more greatly desire to acquire even those things that we evilly desire than to be liberated from evil desires; and we more greatly desire not to fall into those things that we deem to be fearful than to lay aside the fear that is hostile to the fear of God. But see that no elder is introduced in this place, nor a man who has emptied out what once were the things of a child; but a young man who, hearing the word, went away sorrowful. For he was an adolescent in respect of his soul, and therefore, abandoning Christ, he went away. For it is said for his reproach, "and he went away sorrowful": sorrowing with the sorrow of the world, which works death. For he was having many possessions which he loved, loving to be angry, loving to be sorrowful: because of which he also went away sorrowful, and [he went away with] as many things as were being born in him from evil, which were holding his soul. If, however, you wish to understand the history according to the exposition of some, which we have touched upon in part above, in half you will find this young man praiseworthy,
in that he neither committed murder nor adultery, nor did anything of those things which the law forbids; but being yet a young man he honored his father and mother. He is blameworthy, however, because he was saddened by the words of Christ calling him to perfection and promising him that, if he had given away all that he had, he would be made great.
20. "But when he had departed," Jesus said to his disciples, "Amen I say to you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven." Here one must observe how accurate the Savior’s discourse is, which is related here; for He did not say that a rich man will not enter into the kingdom of heaven—since if He had said such a thing, He would have certainly excluded the rich from the kingdom of heaven—but He says: "A rich man shall hardly enter," teaching that the attainment of salvation is difficult for a rich man, yet that it does not exceed his powers, which seems to follow from the context itself; since it is not without difficulty that the rich can withstand their affections and sins, so that they are not completely seized and invaded by them. But if the rich man be understood tropologically, you will inquire how he can also enter the kingdom of heaven with difficulty; A however, the Savior declares that the rich man, understood in either way, can only enter with difficulty by the parable using these words: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven." In which parable the rich man is compared to a camel, not only because of this animal’s uncleanness, as the law taught—
On the Difficulty of the Rich Man’s Entrance
B Some say that the "camel" is not an animal, but a thick rope used by sailors to cast anchors, as also in Mark x, 25 and Luke xviii, 25, and [as] Euthymius [says]; and [it is a matter] of the word itself, for in Syriac and Arabic it signifies both: both the camel as a beast and a rope. Hence the Latin *camelus*, the Hispanic *gumena*, the Italian *gomena*, and the French *gomène*. The term *câble*, which the French and Belgians use to designate a hawser, comes from a Hebrew word of the same meaning, which word has spread into all languages akin to the Hebrew—Syriac, Chaldean, Arabic, and Ethiopic. It is clear from what has been said above that it can be rightfully doubted whether "camel" in this place signifies the beast, especially since our Savior appears to have instituted a comparison with the thinner cords or threads which are inserted into needles, not with this deformed beast, with which a needle has absolutely nothing to do. The Quran favors this opinion; in its Surah concerning the "ropes," this passage of the Gospel is produced, and in it not a beast but a rope is understood.
A
OLD INTERPRETATION
Gathered, inquiring how or with what difficulty the rich man will enter the kingdom of heaven. But it manifests the difficulty of the entry of both rich men to salvation by the subjoined parable, saying: "It is easier for a camel to enter through the eye of a needle than for a rich man into the kingdom of heaven." In which parable the rich man is compared to a camel not only because of the animal's uncleanness, as the law taught, but also because of the tortuosity of its whole body. The kingdom of heaven, however, is likened to the eye of a needle, so that it might be demonstrated from this that the entry into the celestial kingdom is sufficiently narrow and beyond measure constrained. It shows, moreover, that of itself it is impossible for a camel to enter through the eye of a needle, but it is possible as far as God is concerned. Thus also for the rich man, as far as he himself is concerned, it is impossible to enter into the kingdom of heaven, but it is possible as far as God is concerned, who is able by His ineffable virtue either to refine the thickness of the wicked man’s evils or to make the narrowness of the entry capacious for him. B Since, however, it is because of the difficulty of entry and not because of impossibility that it accepts the eye and the camel as an example, it is clear from the fact that to the disciples saying: "Who then can be saved?" he answers: "With men it is impossible, but with God all things are possible." Therefore it is possible for a camel to enter through the eye of a needle, yet not with men, but with God. How, moreover, God makes these things possible, He Himself knows, and His Christ, and he to whom Christ has revealed it. He, however, who excels in wisdom and speech, will dare perhaps more abundantly to expound both about the needle and its eye. But we have added this alone, that there are certain things which are in the law in a stitched craft, having need of a necessary needle, so that according to the wisdom of God one may perform the works of the craft which he has undertaken. However, therefore, one may understand the stitched works, the stitching itself will give one to understand what things ought to be understood in this place. C Which things now to say and manifest is perhaps indeed above us, but it would perhaps seem to one who knows much to have an irrelevant conclusion. Two things, therefore, being proposed, a camel to enter through the eye of a needle, and a rich man into the kingdom of heaven, it teaches that the former is easier. And you will seek among men, on the one hand, a camel entering through the eye of a needle, and on the other, a rich man, [entering] not by the power of men, but the power of God, into the kingdom of God. D
A And so it is also for the eye of a needle, because while it is impossible for men—whoever the camel might be found to be, and whoever the camel might be found to be, to enter through the eye of a needle—with God even this is possible. But whether these things signify and present certain final mysteries, and [things] leading to an end through certain paths possible only to God, or not, let him who is able examine it.
It follows to see the matters concerning: “Then Peter answering said to him: Behold we have left all things, and have followed thee: what therefore shall we have?” And this, some will interpret according to the literal word; another, however, refuting that of the word as not being sufficiently lofty, will recur to a tropological exposition. B He who will have regard for the literal sense will say these things: Just as in the case of a donation, God, accepting not the gift itself, but the intention and the zeal, justifies and receives him who has given less with a perfect intention, rather than him who has given more from a greater abundance, but with an inferior disposition—as is evident from what is recorded concerning the donation of the rich, and the two mites which the widow cast into the treasury for the sake of the poor—so also concerning those who, on account of their love for the Divine, have left behind what they possess, in order that they might follow the Christ of God without distraction, doing everything according to his word; the one who left more is not necessarily more acceptable than the one who left less, and especially when one happens to have left the lesser things with his whole soul, compared to one who might seem to have despised a greater amount. C For even if Peter had left behind small and cheap things together with his brother Andrew, when both heard [the words]: “Come after me, and I will make you to be fishers of men,” and immediately, leaving the nets, followed him, it is not counted as small by God, who understood that he had done it from such a habit. D Therefore [it is for the reader to examine] concerning the camel and the eye of the needle. And it presents certain final mysteries. “Final mysteries” [are those] leading to an end. Regarding final goods, some of them are final, others are productive. If these things might be called goods, as in medical aids, one must understand that they are not final goods of medicine, but productive; a final good, however, according to medicine, is the health of the body.
A And to proceed after the discourse concerning "Israel" and the "twelve" tribes [so as to speak of "twelve" general orders of souls, of which some are distinguished in eminence and others are arranged in a second order according to eleven parts], it is beyond us, not beholding such things, to be able to set forth how the fathers of the "twelve" tribes of "Israel" are "twelve" stars, just as the prophetic dream [if I may so call it] of Joseph revealed. It is as if also each of the Israelites being judged shall be judged by some star either synonymous or similar to a star, an apostle, and one who has lived the apostolic life. If then anyone has left "everything" and followed Jesus, he shall attain to the things said to Peter according to his inquiry; but if he has not left "everything" but rather follows, such a man "shall receive manifold and shall inherit eternal life." But what things are not "everything" but specifically mentioned, must be understood from "And everyone who has left brothers or sisters" and what follows.
A For if they possessed many estates, and a great many belongings, they would not be held by them, nor would their impulse to follow Jesus be hindered; and trusting, I think, in the disposition rather than the material things which Peter had left behind, speaking boldly, he said to Jesus: "Behold, we have left everything and followed you; what then shall be for us?" It is likely that he left not only nets, but also a house and a wife whose mother, upon Jesus standing over her, was freed from a fever; and one might conjecture that it is possible he also left behind children, and it is not impossible also some small property. A great thing, therefore, is signified concerning Peter and his brother, since, having heard: "Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men," they delayed for nothing, "immediately leaving the nets, they followed him," not having imitated him who said: "But first permit me to go away to my house, and to bid farewell to those in my house," nor having done anything similar to him who said: "Permit me first to go away, and to bury my father." B And observe diligently that, greatly struck by the command of Jesus and his promise, and believing that, by leaving a small fishing business for fish, they were about to hunt men for salvation, and as it were wounded by both the one toward Jesus and the humane ministry he promised them—that they are going to hunt men—they "immediately leaving the nets," and as if forgetting those at home, "followed him," so that it became worthy for Peter on account of that impulse to glory and to have said the aforementioned. At the same time, it must be observed that Peter said this having considered the voice uttered by Jesus, "If you wish to be perfect," C saying: "Go, sell what you possess, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven, and come, follow me." But having seen the young man who had heard this and had gone away with sorrow, since he had esteemed the many things over the D and if Peter left behind even minimal and contemptible things with his brother, when hearing "Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men," they immediately left the nets and followed him, but before God these are not estimated as minimal, He considering that from such a fullness of love they left those minimal things, so that even if they had possessed many properties, they doubtlessly would have left all, and would not have been held back by them in any way, or hindered by the impulse of such love. And I think that Peter, trusting more in his own affection than in the quantity of the things left behind, confidently said: "Behold, we have left everything and followed you. What then shall be for us?" It is consequent to think that he left not only nets, but also a house and a wife perhaps, and children, and certain possessions, even if small. Something great, therefore, is demonstrated concerning Peter and his brother, since, hearing "Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men," they, thinking of nothing, immediately left the nets and followed him, and did not imitate him who said: "But first permit me to go and renounce those who are in my house"; nor did they do anything similar to him who said: "Permit me first to bury my father." And attend diligently, since most honorably struck by the precept of Christ and his promises, and believing that by leaving a small catch of fish they were to fish men for salvation, they immediately, leaving the nets, and as if forgetting all their own, followed him so that they might be deemed worthy of this interrogation which he made, saying: "Behold, we have left
for even on earth, it is easy to describe the many "brothers" and "sisters" whom one has left behind for the sake of the Word of God; for in this world, those who are brothers by faith are many more than those who, because of unbelief, were abandoned by those who had come to believe. And so, one receives as parents all the blameless bishops and irreproachable presbyters in place of the two he left behind; and likewise, as "children," all those who are of the age of children. But how one inherits more "lands or houses" than one has left behind is not as easily explained, unless perhaps one should force such a meaning upon a few, which is not reasonable; but if one allegorizes the "lands" and "houses," one will be compelled by the sequence to interpret those preceding them in the same way. A There are, then, among the holy and blessed powers, "brothers" who have arrived at "a perfect man," having attained the "measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ," and "sisters" who have presented themselves as a pure virgin to Christ, and this not only from among men, but from among the other powers as well. And who would such parents be, if not those about whom it was spoken to Abraham? Having realized that the possession of lands is the end of becoming perfect in God, and having realized the difficulty for the rich to enter into the kingdom of the heavens—as though he himself were not doing an easy thing in having left all behind and followed the Savior—he said the things that are set before us. B And for this reason, the Savior answers Peter, when he spoke with confidence, with the promise of that great reward which follows, namely, that Peter would be one of the judges of Israel.
But one who is not satisfied by the literal sense and, looking down upon a high-minded listener, believes—as with other passages of Scripture that have a solemn meaning in their anagoge—that he should say such things as this: that the very statement, "Lo, we have left everything and followed you," when a net had been left behind, and a poor home, and a life labored in poverty, has not been said altogether worthily of such a disciple, to whom "flesh and blood did not reveal that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God, but His Father who is in the heavens," and to whom it was said: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." But perhaps the things given for the interpretation of the story, "Go, sell what you possess," and what follows, are useful for the things set before us. C For Peter had left behind all things in which he was a sinner, and on account of which he said, "Depart from me, O Lord, for I am a sinful man." And it was his great praise, having taken confidence in no longer sinning, to say, "We have left everything," and we have not only left behind the worse things, but also "we have followed you." And the phrase, "We have followed you," may be of equal power to saying, "Because the Father has revealed to us who you are, and that you are righteousness, we have followed you, inasmuch as you happen to be righteousness; and so also inasmuch as you are sanctification, and inasmuch as you are wisdom, and inasmuch as you are peace, and inasmuch as you are truth, and inasmuch as you are the Way that leads to God, and inasmuch as you are the true life." Therefore, like an athlete who, after the struggle, asks… [to God.] [alt-version omitted] D For he had preferred many earthly possessions to being perfect in God; considering also the difficulty for the rich to enter into the kingdom of the heavens, he spoke—as if he himself had not performed an easy task in leaving all things behind and following Jesus—saying: "Lo, we have left everything and followed you." Because of this, to Peter, who was speaking with such confidence, Christ answered with that greatest promise, that he would be one of those judges.
22. But because the plainness of the words is not enough to satisfy the listener who possesses a more excellent mind, we shall also treat this passage in moral expositions, in the way that this very thing which he says: "Lo, we have left everything and followed you," is understood. To have left behind contemptible nets, or a poor house, and a life full of sorrows in poverty, is not so great, nor is it worthy of such a disciple, to whom flesh and blood had not revealed that Jesus Christ was the Son of the living God, but the heavenly Father; to whom also it had been said: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Are, then, perhaps the things that were delivered above concerning the words of Christ, saying: "Go and sell all that you possess, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in the heavens, and come, follow me," useful and true in the present? For Peter left behind all things in which he was a sinner. On account of which he had also said: "Depart from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man." And it was a great praise for him, who was confessing that he would not sin hereafter, to have said: "We have left everything," and we have not only left behind evils, but "we have also followed you." But that which he says, "And we have followed you," can be said according to everything that the Father revealed to Peter to be His Son; we have followed you as righteousness, according to what you are righteousness; we have followed you as sanctification, according to what you are sanctification, and wisdom, and peace, and truth, and the life that leads to God, and the true life. On account of which, as a victorious athlete after—
A the contest, if by chance he does not know the prizes on account of the struggle, he questions the judge, saying after the boldness regarding his noble deeds: "What then shall be for us?" And if we also wish to receive those things spoken to Peter and his questioning, let us thus leave all things, no longer being held by wickedness and the operation according to it, and let us follow the Word of God, that He may say to us and to all those who have followed Him the things that follow, being thus: "And Jesus said to them, 'Amen I say to you, that you who have followed me,'" and the things that follow, which also themselves contain both a simpler exhortation to the mind to leave behind the things that belong to it, and B another deeper one beyond this. He who therefore interprets the place of the Gospel according to the letter will say these things: the Word said for all to follow Jesus, but he named those who were the apostles at that time and those like them who followed Him persistently, but he indicated those of a later time by: "And everyone who has left brothers, or sisters," and the things that follow. But as someone might overturn the "following" as having been narrated violently, saying that the "following" was spoken about all in the place: "Whoever does not take up his cross and follow after me, is not worthy to be my disciple." Those, therefore, who have followed the Savior will sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve C tribes of Israel, and they will receive this power in the resurrection of the dead; for this is the regeneration, being a certain new birth, when a new heaven and a new earth are created for those who have renewed themselves, and the New Testament is handed over, and its cup. The beginning of that regeneration D is what is called by Paul the washing of regeneration, and of that newness is that which follows the washing of regeneration in the renewal of the spirit. And perhaps indeed in the birth no one is clean from filth, [even if his life be but of one day], on account of the mystery of our carnal birth.
OLD INTERPRETATION
As a contestant, he questions the judge what are the prizes of such a struggle, which he did not yet know. "What then shall be for us?" And we, if we wish to receive what are promised to Peter, let us similarly leave all things, that generally no malice may hold us, nor any of its works, but let us follow the Word of God, that it may be said also to us, and to all following Him, what He says in the things that follow: "Amen I say to you, that you who have followed me, in the generation when the Son of Man shall sit upon the seat of His majesty, you shall also sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Which also itself has both a simple interpretation exhorting to leave behind the goods of the age on account of Christ, and a spiritual and higher one. He who therefore wishes to understand according to the letter, says such things: Not all, says the discourse, follow Christ, but he called those who were then the apostles, and those who similarly had followed Him, those who followed. But he manifested later ones by that which he said: "And everyone who has left brothers, or sisters," and the rest. Those therefore who have followed Christ, not leaving some things, but all, will sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And they will receive this power in the resurrection of the dead; for that itself is the generation and a certain new birth constituted, when both a new heaven and a new earth is created for those who have renewed themselves, and the New Testament is handed over, and its cup. The mystery of that newness is this renewal of the spirit. And perhaps indeed according to this birth no one is pure from filth, even if his life be of one day, on account of the mystery of our carnal birth.
regarding which every one of all those who have come into existence might say what was spoken by David in the fiftieth Psalm: *"For in iniquities I was conceived, and in sins my mother labored with me."* A But according to the regeneration from the laver, every one who is born from above of water and spirit is pure from filth, and—if I may make so bold—pure *through a glass and in a riddle.* Yet in the other regeneration, *when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory,* B everyone who has attained to that regeneration which is in Christ is most pure from filth, *face to face;* and he himself, having attained to that regeneration through the laver of regeneration, now experiences it. If, however, you wish to understand that laver, perceive how John, who baptizes in water unto repentance, says concerning the Saviour: *"He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."* For in the regeneration by the laver, we were buried with Christ; *for we were buried with him by baptism,* C according to the Apostle. But in the regeneration by the laver of fire and spirit, we are made conformed to the body of the glory of Christ, who sits upon the throne of his glory; and we ourselves also, sitting upon twelve thrones, if we have indeed left all—in whatever way it may be, but especially by the laver—and followed thee. Then, when the Son of man shall sit upon the throne of his glory, shall be fulfilled the prophecy which says: *"The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool,"* D and that: *"He must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet,"* until *"the last enemy, death, is destroyed."* When this is destroyed, there will no longer be death before the face of those who are saved, but only the life which is believed; for while death is before the face, life is not believed by those held in its power because of it, but when death is destroyed, life is believed by all.
In the Law, however, according to what David says in the person of all who are born of flesh and blood: *"For in iniquities I was conceived, and in sins my mother labored with me."* According to the regeneration of baptism, indeed, everyone is pure from filth who has been reborn of water and spirit; but, to speak boldly, he is pure *through a glass in a riddle.* But according to the third regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, everyone who has come into that regeneration which is in Christ shall be most pure from filth, and shall see face to face, and he himself, coming through the laver of regeneration to this very regeneration. But if you wish to understand that laver, understand how John, baptizing in water unto repentance, says concerning the Saviour, that *He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.* In this regeneration of baptism, therefore, we have been buried with Christ according to the Apostle through baptism: but in that regeneration of baptism which shall be in the Spirit and in fire, we shall be made conformed to the body of the glory of Christ who sits on the throne of his glory, and we ourselves also sitting upon twelve thrones, if indeed, leaving all things, we have followed Christ according to both interpretations made above, but especially according to the second. Then, when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, the prophecy will be fulfilled which says: *The Lord said unto my Lord: Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool;* and: *Then he must reign until God hath put all his enemies under his feet, until the last enemy, death, is destroyed.* That being destroyed, there will no longer be death before the face of the saved, but only the life that is believed.
And there are "last" [though nevertheless remaining] "last," those who live by far more contemptibly than those designated as belonging to the Church. After this, consider if you are able to call the race of angels "first," as more honorable [than] the race of men, who are [thought to be] "last." For as it is written in Job: "When the stars were made, all my angels praised God," as being older and more honorable not only than man, but also than the whole of the cosmic creation that came after them. [And thus one] might dare to declare that while many of the angels who were "first" become "last" compared to certain men, many of the men who are "last" by nature happen to become "first" compared to certain angels—who were [ranked among the first, but due to certain causes became last]—through their life and the Word of God. Having taken into this [matter] texts from the first epistle of [Peter] and the former epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, you will be led [to agree] that the word is spoken soundly. For Peter says:
for those who are on earth of the heavenly things are "last," while those in heaven of the things on earth are "first." And many of the heavenly and first [ones] become "last," being kept "in eternal chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day." But many of the last [ones], who have taken on birth upon the earth, ascend, so as to speak with confidence: "our commonwealth exists in the heavens," [and they become first]. Indeed, even he who fell "from heaven" like lightning was first when he walked "in all his ways" blameless, until lawlessness was found in him and he became last, having descended into Hades, so that those observing him marvel at him and say: "You too have been taken captive as we are, and you have been reckoned among us. Your glory has been brought down to Hades, and your great mirth." Thus, also, everyone is last who is foolish and disobedient, serving "diverse lusts and pleasures," living "in malice and envy," hateful and hating; but he has become first, "when the kindness and philanthropy of our Savior God appeared" "through the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit," and he received Him who said: "He who receives me, receives Him who sent me."
A And having prayed to God and called upon "the name of our Lord Jesus [Christ]," let us set forth the parable and see what it shall be granted to us to examine and to speak concerning it, or even to dictate; it stands thus: "The kingdom of heaven is like a householder, who went out early in the morning to hire laborers" and the rest, until "for many are called, few are chosen." B Indeed, the whole parable can be accepted for this reason: so that we may learn how "the last" who came to the work as if called first received the reward "first," and in what manner "the first" to be called were placed in the last rank by the householder, and for this reason also received the reward last.
A He who is able ought to examine the reason for his "hiring laborers into the vineyard" "early in the morning," and after that, not about the second, but "about the third hour [he hired] others," and in succession to this, not about the fourth or fifth, but "about the sixth," then after that [not about the seventh or eighth, but about the "ninth," and then at the end not about the tenth, but] "about the eleventh." For there must be a reason worthy of Jesus regarding those three equal intervals between "early in the morning" and the third, the sixth, and the ninth hours, and after that, a smaller interval regarding those standing "about the eleventh," which was the interval from the "early in the morning" until the third.
One should not give only passing attention to the fact that the householder agreed with those taken on "early" in the morning for a "denarius each," whom he "sent into his vineyard," but to those called "about" the third hour he did not explicitly name the wage, but rather said, "whatever is right I will give you." One should also observe that he acted in the same manner toward those called "about the sixth and ninth hours," and that to those "about the eleventh," who had defended themselves regarding their idleness throughout the day, he said, "You also go into the vineyard." Furthermore, [that] as one who was outside the vineyard and found the "laborers" there, he sends the first "into the vineyard," but to the second he says: "You also go into the vineyard," and in like manner [he uses] the same expression for those called [about] "the eleventh": "You also go into the vineyard." Let him who is able understand what the marketplace is, in which the householder, having "gone out," "found" the idle ones who were "standing" there when he summoned the second group.
A For seeing as they were, through unbelief, cut off from the good olive tree, they became the last. For on account of the advent of Christ, who "came into this world for judgment," so that those who do not see (the Gentiles, of course) might see, and those who do see (namely, the Israelites, on account of their unbelief) might become blind, we, who are a foreign people, have been lifted up to the highest things and have become the first; but Israel, who was first before us, has become the last and has been cast down to the lowest place. In the same sense, it may also be understood: "If anyone wishes to be first, he shall be the last of all," as if He were saying: "Since now those from the Gentiles who believe in Me, who are considered the last in Israel, are receiving the primacies, but the whole people of those in Israel who have disbelieved are judged by God to be the last, even if they are thought to be first on account of time; if anyone wishes to grasp the true first position, let him become one of those who are now considered last by the current Israel." For as long as one remains among those who think themselves to be first, he will fall from the primacies that have passed over to the Gentiles and will be numbered among the last. For those from the Gentiles become the head through faith, but the unbelieving Israel becomes B the tail through unbelief. According to this reasoning, many, though not all, will be from the first the last; and again, many of the last will be first. Yet it is not the case that if anyone, having come as one of the last, wishes to be counted with those from the Gentiles who believe, he will thus be reckoned among the first; for there are also "first firsts," such as the apostles of Christ, being Israelites and from the seed of Abraham, and there are "last lasts," those living in a manner far inferior to many of those who are named among the Church.
27. Concerning the Angels
After this, consider if you can say that the order of the angels is the first, as being precious, C and saying it is of those who were created as the last of humans, for as it is written in Job: "When the stars were made, all His angels praised God," as being elders and more precious not only than man, but also than all...
OLD INTERPRETATION
...and become faint-hearted, as if possessing something less than those before them, for the reason that they received the dogmas of Christianity as the newest. It also has another interpretation, that the Israelites are indeed first, who have become the last on account of their infidelity and betrayal in Christ; but the Gentiles, who were the last, have been made first; if, however, they have remained in the faith, "not conceited, but consenting to the humble," and thus communicating with the root of the patriarchs and the fatness of the word of the fathers in which they were planted according to the purpose of the spiritual law and according to the will of the prophets: if, however, they also are understood spiritually, just as the law, those namely who were cut off from the good olive tree on account of infidelity. For Christ, coming into this world for judgment, so that the Gentiles who did not see might see, but the Israelites, seeing, might become blind on account of infidelity—we who were proselytes, ascending through faith, have been made upwards and first; but the Israelites, who were the earlier, have been made the last, falling through infidelity. Thus is to be understood also that which He says: "If anyone wishes to be first, he will be the last," as if He were saying: "Since now those who believe in Me from the Gentiles will receive the primacy, who are thought to be the last among the Israelites; but all the Israelites will be judged the last by God, even if they are seen to be first on account of the times." If, therefore, anyone wishes to become truly first, let him become among those who are now considered the last by the Israelites. But whoever wishes to be among those who are seen to be first, with the primacy transferred to the Gentiles, shall be counted among the last. But see cautiously what the discourse says. "Many, it says, who are first shall be last." Not all who are first shall be last, and not all who are last shall be first. For there are those who were first, and nonetheless remain first, just as the apostles of Christ, who were Israelites of the seed of Abraham, who even now are held to be first: and there are those who remain the last nonetheless, who act badly concerning the Christian people, and are seen to be of the Church.
27. But see also if you can say the first race is that of the angels, as more honorable than men D who are seen to be last before the angels. For just as it is written in Job: "When the stars were made, [alt-version omitted]
all my angels praised me," as if they were created not only after man, but with all creation for his sake. And so, a person might dare to say that many of the angels who were earlier than men are made inferior to certain men. But many men who are by nature the most recent are made superior to certain angels, for they were the first, but were made the most recent due to certain causes. But accept these things from the words of the Apostle saying: "Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more the things of this world?" And Scripture says: "Since the angels of God who kept not their principality, but abandoned their own habitation, God has reserved in eternal chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day." See, therefore, how insofar as they kept their principality, and did not abandon their own habitation, they were much better, and were before the men whose soul was humbled into the dust, who were in the body of humility, so as to say at times: "Wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" But men who in comparison with angels were the most recent, are made the first of the angels, those whose soul was not humbled, but who did not "abandon their own habitation," receiving power at the beginning according to the words: "Have thou power over ten cities," or "Have thou power over five cities."
COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW, BOOK XV
Since there are various parables mentioning a vineyard, one might inquire whether the vineyard is taken to represent different things in each case, or whether it refers to the same thing. I believe it is necessary to examine why the householder did not answer all those who came first and supposed that "they would receive more," and who murmured "against the householder," but said to "one of them" only: "Friend, I do you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius?" and "I wish to give to this last even as to you." That the set-forth parable admits of these and similar questions that one might ask about it, I would affirm; but that it is not possible to speak worthily of the parable except for the one who could say, while speaking the truth, "But we have the mind of Christ," this too I will proclaim with confidence. "Who," then, "has known" the "mind of Christ" in this parable, if not the one who has submitted himself to the Paraclete, concerning whom the Savior says that "He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I have said to you"?
And if Matthew has wisely kept silence regarding the narrative of this parable, it is clear that even if someone is able to understand it in part, he might perhaps wisely hint at something of the narrative that appears true to him; yet he would not be without the danger inherent in expounding mysteries if he were to clarify everything revealed to him while trusting in his own writing. Come then, let us—who fall so far short of the depth of the things in the parable and imagine so little regarding it—in part render some things with prayer, and by pointing out a few of the things that are apparent, let us pass on after speaking appropriately about the parable and on to the things that follow it. And first, therefore, let us look at the matters concerning the "day" in the parable under discussion. And see if we are able to speak of the whole present age as a certain day, great indeed in relation to us, but small and short-lived in relation to the life of God and of Christ and of the Holy Spirit. For perhaps it is even a day for some of the blessed powers who have attained a higher state, by comparison with the many races beneath the foundational Trinity.
A Thus, in a corresponding manner, one will fall into an abyss of concepts, imagining the remaining feasts in such days, and the entire weekly year, in which God bestows upon the poor, the proselytes, and the beasts of the earth the fruits that sprout from previous cultivation in a season when the land is not being cultivated. But who is able to ascend to the number of the days of the abyss in the jubilee—and by "abyss" I mean the depth of the doctrines—so that one might ascend and see the fiftieth year and the things legislated in it being fulfilled? Nevertheless, seeking the one day of the proposed parable and thinking it to be the entire present age, we have inadvertently entered into the depths of God, needing the Spirit that searches "all things," "even the depths of God."
The last to be called to the work are said to be such because they received the reward before the first. Having prayed to God and invoked the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, let us set forth the parable, and let us see what it will be granted to us to examine and to speak concerning it, or even to have dictated; and it is as follows:
Concerning the laborers hired.
"For the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house, who went out early in the morning to hire laborers," and the rest up to: "For many are called, but few are chosen." B Indeed, the whole parable may be taken for this reason: that we may learn how those who came to the work last, just like those who were called first, received the reward first; and in what manner those who were called first were assigned to the last place by the master of the house, and therefore received the reward last.
It must be known that, as a parable of Jesus, "in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge," when it is examined, so many doctrines of the wisdom hidden in mystery will be found, hinting at things for those able to find such things, that one could reasonably apply to this parable above all the words of the Savior: "I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things from the beginning," and: "I will utter things hidden from the foundation." For it is necessary for one who is going to understand the parable to see the day indicated in it, and the hours in it, and that not by a casting of lots does the master of the house deliver the works of the vineyard to the five groups of laborers. But one able to do so will examine the cause of hiring some laborers for the vineyard in the morning, and after that not at the second, but at the third hour, others, and following this not at the fourth or fifth, but at the sixth; then after this at the eleventh. For there must be some reason worthy of Jesus for the time after the morning period to be divided into three equal intervals—the third, sixth, and ninth hours—and after that a shorter interval for those standing at the eleventh hour, as much as was the interval from early morning until the third hour. C And not perfunctorily should one attend to the fact that the master of the house has agreed... (for it is) not by a casting of lots (that) the master of the house delivers the works of the vineyard to the five groups of laborers. And not by a casting of lots should one worship an ibis, or a goat, or a female ox. "According to a casting of lots," "by lot," "casting of lots."
A why do you stand here all the day idle?" And after this, we seek how it is that the householder does not deliver the works of the vineyard to the five groups of laborers by a casting of lots: first, when "he went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard;" second, when "going out about the third hour, he saw others standing in the marketplace idle;" third and fourth, when "going out again about the sixth and ninth hour, he did the like;" and fifth, to those "about the eleventh hour," when "going out he found others standing, and says to them: Why do you stand here all the day idle?" And see whether you can call the first group that which is according to Adam, at the creation of the world; for "the householder went out early in the morning" [and, so to name him,] hired Adam and Eve, that they might work "the vineyard" of piety.
B The householder [gave] to those taken along at daybreak the one denarius, which he sent into his vineyard; but to those called about the third hour, he did not specify the wage in an orderly way, but that: "Whatever is right, I will give you." It should be noted that he did the same to those called about the sixth and ninth hours, and that he said to those about the eleventh hour, who were making excuses for their idleness throughout the whole day, "Go you also into the vineyard." But also, as one who happened to be outside the vineyard and found the laborers there, the first he sends into the vineyard, but to the second he says: "Go you also into the vineyard"; and similarly, he spoke the same phrase to those called about the eleventh hour: "Go you also into the vineyard." Whoever is able, let him consider what this marketplace is, in which the householder, going out, found the second group standing idle; and thus let it also be examined who those are who were found standing about the eleventh hour, to whom the householder says: "Why do you stand here all the day idle?" Let one also pay attention to the excuse of those who stood idle all the day, and to the travail of those who endured to stand through the whole day, saying with boldness that they were indeed eager to work, but no one hired them, as there were many who would have been hired, but not who would hire.
C Nor should one neglect to note that when "it was evening, the lord of the vineyard said to his steward: Call the laborers, and pay the wage, beginning from the last even to the first."
OLD INTERPRETATION
The dogmas of wisdom hidden in a mystery are found by those who are able to find such things, so that the Savior says most of all concerning this parable: "I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden from the foundation of the world." For it is necessary that he who wishes to understand should see what the day is that is referred to in it, and what its hours are, and that the householder did not turn over the works of the vineyard to five orders of laborers by eventuality alone. Then it is to be sought, for him who is able to seek, why some laborers were hired in the morning, and after this, not about the second hour, but about the third hour others were hired; and after their hiring, why not about the fourth or fifth, but about the sixth hour; thus not about the seventh or eighth, but about the ninth; and lastly, not about the tenth, but the eleventh. For there ought to be some reason worthy of Jesus, why the time taken between the morning and the third hour is short, and not according to the times posited between the third and sixth, or between the sixth and ninth. After this, moreover, why there is one hour between the ninth and eleventh, just as above between the morning and the third. Nor is it to be observed negligently, by what reason the householder, with the mercenaries whom he had hired early in the morning, made a pact specifically for a denarius for the day; but to those hired about the third hour he did not establish a certain wage by name, but thus: "Whatever is right I will give you." Similarly, he also did this to those called about the sixth hour and the ninth; and because to those who were called about the eleventh, excusing themselves on account of the idleness of the whole day, he said thus: "Go you also into the vineyard." But also, since the householder was established as if outside the vineyard, and finding the laborers there, he sent the first indeed into the vineyard, but to the second he said: "Go you also into the vineyard"; similarly the same discourse, and to those who had been called about the eleventh: "Go you also into the vineyard." Let him understand, moreover, who can, what the marketplace is, which is rendered as *nundina* in Greek, in which Jesus found them standing idle. Second, it is to be sought similarly, who they are who are found standing about the eleventh hour, to whom he says: "Why do you stand here all the day idle?" Moreover, let one look at what the excuse is of those who had stood idle all the day, and what the pain of standing was of those who endured to stand idle all the day, so that they could answer with confidence, since they were indeed prepared for the work, but no one hired them: as if there were many who were to be hired, but not those who were to hire. "Call the laborers, and pay them the wage, beginning from the last even to the first." You will seek, moreover, what moved the lord of the vineyard to order the steward of the vineyard to call the laborers, and pay them the wage beginning from the last, and ascending even to the first: that the first indeed might receive, who were hired about the eleventh, but the second who [were hired] about the ninth, the third who about the sixth, the fourth who about the third, the lastwho A early in the morning were hired? For this is clearly indicated by, "Pay the wages, beginning from the last even unto the first." But who, besides the Lord of the vineyard, is the Lord’s steward, who gives the wages according to the Lord’s command? But if they who were called at the ninth hour did not bear the burden of the day and the heat, it is manifest that these did not murmur against the householder, saying, "These last have wrought one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, who have borne the burden of the day and the heat." Nor did they who were called at the sixth hour B bear the burden of the day, but if anything, half of the day. And they who were called at the third hour did not bear the burden of the whole day, but if one must speak accurately, half and a quarter of the day. Only they who were hired from the early morning bore the burden of the day and the heat; those hired from the early morning [bore] the whole, while the rest, besides the last, [bore] in proportion to the time they had labored in the vineyard.
30. Since there are various parables mentioning a vineyard, one might ask whether the vineyard is taken in each case to signify different things, or the same thing. I think one ought to inquire why the householder did not answer all who came first, and who thought that they C would receive more, and who had murmured against the householder, but said to one only of them, "Friend, I do thee no wrong; didst not thou agree with me for a penny? I will give unto this last even as unto thee." That the parable before us admits of these things and others similar to them, I would maintain, but that there is no one else to whom it belongs to discourse upon the parable according to its worth than he who truthfully said, "But we have the mind of Christ," this I will confidently affirm. Who therefore has known the mind of Christ D hidden in this parable, except he who has given himself over to the Paraclete, of whom the Savior says, "He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you"? For unless the Paraclete teaches all things that Jesus said, and this parable itself, it would not be
possible for anything worthy of Jesus to be brought forward concerning it. And indeed, those who have investigated it according to the saying of Jesus—everyone who unfolds the Gospel according to John—have surely not A paid heed to those who, as if from the Paraclete, attend to "spirits of error and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared," so that they pronounce the spirits of error and the demons by the great name of the Paraclete, as though they were similar to the apostles, which the Savior promised. I am persuaded, indeed, that Matthew knew the mysteries involved in this parable—as well as those in the parable of the tares among the wheat—but judged it not fitting to record the interpretation of this one as he did the B others, not believing that the explanation of this parable should be committed to writing, just as he recorded the full account of the others. And if Matthew was right in suppressing the account of this parable, clearly so that whoever could understand even a part of it might perhaps rightly hint at the reasons for the things appearing to him, yet not explain all things revealed to him, and by trusting to writing, avoid the danger involved in the exposition of the mysteries.
31. Come then, let us, though we are far removed from the depth of the things C in the parable and conceive but very little in our minds about it, propose what we have with some slight measure of prayer, and after having set forth a part of our opinion, and having pointed out a little of what appears, let us then, after having fulfilled what is required regarding the parable, proceed to the rest. First, therefore, let us look at what is meant by "that day" concerning which the parable speaks; and let us see if we can understand the "day" in the sense of the "day" mentioned D below.
OF THE LATIN INTERPRETATION.
[The text continues from the Latin column, which mirrors the Greek argument regarding the parable of the laborers in the vineyard:]
And he said to one of them: "Friend, I do you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius?" But I wish to say, just as you do, concerning this last one: Since the present parable accepts this, one might ask who is in it; and no one can say anything worthy, unless it be he who said: "We have the mind of Christ."
51. Come, let us who are far from the depth of the parable, guess at some small things, if we may, and first we see what this present age is that we tell of as "one day," great indeed in respect to us, but small and of short duration in respect to the life of God the Father, and of Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. And what is this "short time" compared to the life of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit? Perhaps [it is as] the life of certain blessed virtues and sublime things, compared with the generation of the ages. For this [is] one day compared to the life of all who live, just as this whole age is [short] compared to the life of the supernal virtues. And if it is of such little moment compared to the life of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, let he who can, ask whether such a mystery is demonstrated in the canticle where it is said: "Remember the ages," or, if he asks, let him seek to understand that which is similar to the tradition that says: "And eternal years I have had in my mind, and I meditated by night with my heart, and I exercised my spirit and said: 'Will God not cast away for ages?'" For it is one thing to cast away God for one age: but he perhaps casts away sins that are not remitted, not in this [age] in the future. And perhaps I will say boldly, that in ages [He] does not cast away God: but he casts away perhaps in the second age, when sins are not remitted, not in this, nor in the future. Who is sufficient for those six days and the seventh of rest, and how they refer, and after the Sabbath and the New Moons, and in the fourteenth of the month of Pascha, and in the other days of Unleavened Bread? And so let him who follows [the argument] fall into the abyss of the intellect, considering the other festivals according to this day, and the great weekly [festival] in which [God] gives to the poor, and to strangers, and to the beasts of the earth his fruits, which in the first working of the earth were generated in the time when no one will work the earth. But I call the abyss, because of the altitude of the dogmas, as I ascend, one who sees the fiftieth year, and [as to] what is constituted in the Law, and fulfilled. But seeking one day proposed by the parable, and believing this to be the whole of this present age, we arrived at the altitudes, having the work of the Spirit of God who searches all things, even the altitudes of God. I myself, however, think that just as in the ending of the year certain things are said—
[The text resumes from the Greek column at the start of the next page:]
"He [so] did" to those "around the sixth and ninth hour," clearly he said to them also: "Whatever is just, I will give you." And they can indeed have performed an equal work in the vineyard to those who labored "along with" the dawn, those wishing to intensify the power and energy for the work in less time, not having been fatigued beforehand, which happened to those who were called "along with" the dawn. But someone will ask, how is it that the master of the house says to those who were not only idle but "standing all the day," that is, during the whole time before the eleventh hour, "going out about the eleventh" hour: "Why do you stand here all the day idle?" I suspect that a secret [reason] concerning the soul is hidden also in these things, when they were idle "all the day" until the eleventh hour, wishing indeed to work, but not being taken "into the vineyard," those who confidently defend themselves and say:
I seek also what is outside "the vineyard," where those laborers are found by Him who went out to "hire" them; and I observe whether the region of souls prior to the body is perhaps the place outside "the vineyard," while the vineyard itself is not only things here, but also things outside the body, where I think the laborers work. For the souls that have departed from the body, once they have been taken as laborers into the master's field, are not in idleness. And Samuel, indeed, while outside the body, worked by prophesying, as did Jeremiah in praying "for the people." Let us therefore be zealous and work "the vineyard," "whether at home or away," that we may receive "whatever is right." And certainly, as far as the parable is concerned, no one is sent into it who will not work the works of the vineyard; for the householder did not reproach anyone for having done the work less adequately, even if he did reproach them for hoping for a "wage" that was greater and better.
A We might call the whole present age a certain day, great indeed in relation to us, but small and short-lived in relation to the life of God, and of Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. For perhaps, even to some of the blessed powers who have ascended higher, in comparison with the many begotten things that are below the primary Trinity, the whole present age has the same ratio to their life as the day among men has to the whole time a man can possibly live. But whether such a mystery is revealed in Deuteronomy according to the song in which it is written, "Remember the days of old" (Deut. XXXII, 7), or not, he who is able will inquire; then, if such are the days of the age, it would follow that one should conceive of a similar interpretation for the passage: "I remembered the days of old, and I meditated in the night with my heart; I was deeply troubled, and my spirit searched, and I said, 'Will the Lord cast off for ever?'" (Ps. LXXVI, 6, 7, 8). B And perhaps, to speak more boldly, the Lord will not cast off "for ever," for it is a great thing to cast off the Lord even for one age; but perhaps He will cast off for a second age, when such sin is forgiven neither in the present age nor in the age to come. Who then is capable of raising the six days, and the seventh day of the resurrection, to such days, and after the Sabbaths the new moons, and the feasts in the first month, and the Passover on the fourteenth day of the month, and the days of unleavened bread that follow? In the same way, someone will fall into an abyss of thoughts, imagining the other feasts in such days, and the whole hebdomadal year, in which God grants to the poor and to the proselytes, and to the beasts of the earth, the fruits springing up from the former C cultivation, during a time when the earth is not being cultivated. But who can ascend to the number of the days of the abyss in the jubilee (and by "abyss" I mean the depth of the dogmas), so that one may ascend and see the fiftieth year and the things legislated in it being fulfilled? But since we are searching for the one day of the parable set before us, and have thought it to be the whole present age, we have inadvertently stepped into the depths of God, needing the Spirit who searches all things, even the "depths of God" (I Cor. II, 10). I think, however, that just as it is said that certain things must happen at the exit of the completion of the year, so too, as if at the completion of more ages, whether they be fulfilling some year or whatever it may be, for the D setting aside of sin—
A Jesus our Lord appeared, so that after the completion of the ages—as it were a year of days—another beginning might follow, and God might show, in the ages to come, the surpassing riches of his kindness toward those whom he himself knows are to be shown it. And these things have been said on account of the day in the parable; you can confirm them also from the Epistle of John, which says: "Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have arisen, from which we know that it is the last hour." For the last hour succeeds the eleventh hour of the proposed parable, since in the parable the householder went out B about the eleventh hour and found others standing, and says to them, "Why do you stand here idle all the day?"
700 32. Next, we must investigate why the householder did not distribute the task of cultivating the vineyard to the five bands of laborers by chance or at random. Indeed, concerning the first, when he went out early in the morning to hire laborers into the vineyard; and concerning the second, when he went out about the third hour and saw others standing in the marketplace idle; and thirdly and fourthly, when he again went out about the sixth and ninth hours and did likewise; and finally, concerning the one who was found about the eleventh hour, when he went out and found others standing, and says to them, "Why do you stand here idle all the day?" See if you can say the first order is that which had its beginning from Adam along with the creation of the world; C for the Householder went out early in the morning, and, if I may so speak, hired Adam and Eve so that they might cultivate the vineyard of piety. The second order is that which is reckoned from Noah and the covenant made with him; the third is that which pertains to Abraham, with whom it must be understood that those things pertaining to the fathers up to Moses are also included; the fourth pertains to Moses and all the stewardship in Egypt and the legislation established in the desert; the final order signifies the coming of Christ Jesus about the eleventh hour. But there is one man, the householder, as the proposed parable has it, who went out five times, and has come to these matters, in order that D he might...
“The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” All, therefore, who work the works of “the vineyard,” performing the works of the kingdom of God in a manner worthy of salvation, shall “receive the penny.” After dictating these things regarding this present parable, there occurred to us these further points, which may be useful to those who are making progress in a deeper and more secret interpretation. Someone will say, then, that the whole of human life is the day according to the parable.
A And those who are pious from childhood and have labored and constrained their youth—if they are to have an equal salvation with those who were idle from their youth regarding piety until old age, and who were idle in unbelief, and who came to faith and the works of faith only for a short time—are indignant at this. Now the vineyard, according to this narrative, would be the Church of God, and the marketplace and those things outside "the vineyard" are those things outside the Church, from where the Master of the house takes those who are called and sends them into "the vineyard," the Church. But they would not be counted according to this narrative among the "laborers" of the vineyard, those who were indeed called to piety earlier, but not having kept the things of faith, were conquered by passions and left; for even if, after being filled with sinful pleasures, they wish, as if repenting, to work in the vineyard [again from the beginning], they cannot say to the Master of the house, "No one hired us," for they were hired at the time when they were first called to believe. But it shall not be said to them: B There was still some final work left for the vineyard, which required a new and fresh calling, one capable of working out with speed and suddenly in a short time what was lacking in the vineyard; and this was the work of the New Testament. The intervals of those called at the third, and sixth, and ninth hours are therefore equal; and analogous to the interval from the beginning to the third hour is the interval from the ninth hour of Moses to the eleventh of the advent of Christ Jesus in the flesh. The Master of the house agreed with those who were taken at daybreak for a denarius; this, I suppose, is the coin of salvation, not including those things that are considered in terms of glory; for I think the name of salvation will be the denarius; but what is beyond the denarius, if it is named anywhere, are the coins of him who multiplied the given mina fivefold or tenfold. And he who says to those taken at the third hour, "Whatever is just, I will give you," C encouraged the laborers of the third hour to do everything that they were able to do; but he kept for himself the judgment of what is the just wage for the work done. And since he did the same for those of the sixth and ninth hours, it is evident that he also said to them, "Whatever is just, I will give you." And those who are willing to exert the power and energy for the work in a shorter time are able to have done an equal amount of work in the vineyard as those who labored at daybreak, and they do not toil less, which is what happened to those who were called at daybreak. But one might ask how the Master of the house, having gone out about the eleventh hour, says to those who are not only idle but indeed have been standing there the whole day—that is, during all the time before the eleventh hour—"Why do you stand here all the day idle?" D I, however, suspect that a secret doctrine regarding the soul is hidden also in these words, when they were idle the whole day until the eleventh hour; wishing indeed...
to work, and being ready in spirit, they were not invited A into the vineyard by those who confidently excused themselves, saying, "No one has hired us." We, therefore, being induced both by various Scriptures and by this proposed parable, have dared to put forth such things, in order to declare how it is that those who were summoned about the eleventh hour stood idle all day long, because no one had hired them.
35. But for those to whom these sentiments do not at all appeal, let them teach us the significance B of this whole day, and also of those who, though ready in spirit for work, stood idle the whole day and were not invited into the vineyard, and dared to respond, "No one has hired us." For if the soul is sown together with the body, how did they stand idle the whole day? Or let them tell us what that whole day is, and the various callings of the laborers according to the different hours; and whether those whom the householder mentioned in the parable hired were blessed, and whether there were other laborers hired C by other householders, or by the same one; and whether they were blessed, or not equally blessed. To understand such things according to their worth is altogether beyond our ability, or to commit to writing as we understand them. I, for my part, search out even the places that are outside the vineyard, in which the laborers are found by him who went out to hire them, and I ponder D whether the place of souls before the body is the place outside the vineyard; and whether the vineyard signifies not only things here, but also things outside the body, in which I believe the laborers work; for the souls of the laborers that have been released from the body when they are taken into the field of the householder are not in idleness. At any rate, Samuel, even outside the body, worked while prophesying, and Jeremiah while praying for the people. Let us therefore strive and work in the vineyard, whether dwelling in the body or departing from it, that we may receive whatever is just; and no one, so far as the parable is concerned, is sent into it without working the works of the vineyard.
A For the master of the house did not rebuke him as one who had done the work less perfectly, even if he did rebuke him because he had hoped for a greater and more abundant reward. And perhaps the place outside the vineyard is the marketplace, where those who were standing idle were. Great indeed is the defense which suggests that they were worthy to receive the wages for the whole day, in that they said, "No one has hired us." Therefore he hired them, and, if I may so say, paid them the wage for having stood patiently the whole day and for having awaited the one who would hire them until evening. After this, when evening had come—that is, the consummation of the age and of the day mentioned in the parable—the Lord says to His steward, whether to one of the angels set over the wages, or to one of the many stewards who exercised stewardship, according to what is said: "A heir, as long as he is a child, is under tutors and governors." B Therefore, at the command of the master of the house, the laborers are called by the steward, so that the wage might be given to the last first; for the former laborers, "having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise, God providing something better for us"—those called at the eleventh hour—"that they should not be perfected without us." And we have received mercy in that we stood for the whole day, and desired for the one who would hire us to come to us, and, though having been idle, were deemed worthy after an excuse to participate in the work; and having received mercy, we, who are Christ’s acquaintances, expect to receive the wages first. He will then subsequently give the wage to those who worked before us, and then to those before them, and so on until he reaches the first. C But let one who has seen the place where Samuel dwelt, and has subsequently considered the matter regarding the laborers called at the eleventh hour, see in what way the former ones bore the burden and the heat of the day; but those called at the eleventh hour, as though they had not borne the burden of the day and the heat, yet did bear the burden of having stood idle. Before the coming of the Master to us, who said to us: "Come to me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (for the burden was the idleness itself, and the fact that we were not judged worthy in the meantime to perform the works of the vineyard), those who were called before the eleventh hour bore the heat, each according to the estimation of his calling. Now, not knowing the master of the house...
A and that it is not right to murmur against him, the first ones thought they would receive something more than the salvation which the last ones receive, and they murmured against the master of the house, envying us who are the last, who have labored for the one hour until the consummation, and have become equal to those called from the beginning to the divine vineyard. But the master of the house said to one of them, perhaps to Adam: "Friend, I do thee no wrong. Didst thou not agree with me for a denarius? Take what is thine, and go." For the denarius is salvation. "For I will," he says, "to give to this one even as to thee." And he did not say, "to these," but showed B one person in particular, whom it is bolder to say who he is, yet one might not implausibly conjecture to be the Apostle Paul, who labored for one hour, perhaps more than all those before him. And if it is necessary to say something about the vineyard, taking a starting point from him who interpreted the vineyard in another parable, we shall say that the vineyard is the kingdom of God. For thus he himself said in the text: "The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." All, therefore, who work the works of the vineyard, performing the works of the kingdom of God worthily of salvation, shall receive the denarius. C After dictating these things upon the set-forth parable, and these things occurred to us regarding it, as being able to be useful to those who stumble at deeper and more recondite interpretation. Someone, then, will say...
OLD INTERPRETATION
...the dignity of the first, and because they ought not to murmur against him, they thought they should receive more of salvation than the last; and they murmured against the father of the family, envying us the last, who for one hour even unto the consummation have worked, and have become similar to those who from the beginning of the day were called to the divine vineyard. But the father of the family said to one of them (perhaps to Adam): "Friend, I do thee no wrong. Did I not agree with thee for a denarius? Take what is thine (for thine is salvation, which is the denarius) and go. But I will to give to this last one even as to thee." And he did not say "to these last ones," but showed D some one according to this outcome, whom it is indeed rash to name, yet not incredibly can one think to be the Apostle Paul, who worked for one hour, and perhaps over all those who were before him, as he himself testifies, saying: "But I labored more than they all." But if it is necessary to say anything about the vineyard, I accept the occasion from him himself, who interpreted in another parable concerning the vineyard, that the vineyard is the kingdom of God. For thus he himself said: "The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and shall be given to a nation producing its fruit." All, therefore, who perform the works of the vineyard, that is, the works of the kingdom of God, and those who perform things worthy of salvation, shall obtain the denarius. 36. After we have declared these things in the present parable, there come to us also these things which are useful to those who profit in a higher and more secret exposition. For someone will say that every life is...
represented as a day in the parable; and that, for this reason, those who are called from their tenderest years to the works of God’s kingdom are those whom the householder is said to have hired at the very break of day. Those, however, who come to piety after they have become youths are those who arrive at the third hour; those who are already men are those sent to the vineyard around the sixth hour; those who have turned to the worship of God at a more advanced age, and are taken up by the Word of God A after the heat of youth has subsided and the burden of the period before old age has been removed, signify the ninth hour; and old men, already close to death, are represented by those who are called to the works of the vineyard around the eleventh hour. Since, therefore, it is the intention B and the zeal, not the time, that is weighed, on account of which someone has persevered in faith, those who have labored for as long as they have been called receive the equal reward of salvation. Hence, those who have been faithful from childhood, and have exercised themselves in labors, and have borne the intensity of youth, are resentful that those who have been idle from the worship of God until old age, and have only come to the works of faith for a short time, should attain equal salvation.
37. According to this interpretation, the vineyard is the Church; the market, however, and what is outside the vineyard, signify what is outside the Church; whence the Word takes those who are called and sends them into the vineyard, that is, the Church. C But it does not require this exposition to recount as laborers of the vineyard those who, having been called to divine worship earlier, did not obey the commandments of faith, but were overcome by their passions and fell away; for even if, after they have been satiated with wicked pleasures, they desire to cultivate the vineyard as if with repentance, yet they do not belong to the number of those who have labored at the eleventh hour, for they have not received the heat and the burden of the day, having spent their youth in sin. And when they have dared to do these things to Jesus, then those who delivered Him were abandoned, and the high priests ceased to be high priests, so that there were no longer high priests among them. Then, too, those scribes who condemned Jesus D to death, having their intellect calloused and their reason blinded, did not see the purpose of the holy Scriptures. And all those who condemned Jesus to death were delivered to the death which is the enemy of Christ, and having mocked Jesus, they became a mockery when Jerusalem was surrounded by armies, when "its desolation drew near." Moreover, they themselves were scourged, having scourged Jesus, and they are being scourged until "the fullness of the Gentiles shall come in," for "he who throws a stone into the air throws it upon his own head." And all these things have happened so that their office might depart from them and pass to those from the Gentiles, who are being saved together with the remnant "according to the election." For "if the Lord of Sabaoth had not left" them "a seed, they would have become as Sodom, and would have been made like unto Gomorrah."
A they truly cannot say to the householder: "No one has hired us," for they were hired when they were first called to the faith; nor will it be said to them: "Why do you stand here all the day idle?" especially if "having begun in the spirit," they were afterward "made perfect in the flesh," and wish to return to living again from the beginning in the spirit. Yet we do not say these things to deter those who have fallen from rising again, or to signify that we would not have wanderers return to the path, or those who have squandered the resources of evangelical instruction through luxury return to their father's house; for it is right that, because of their repentance and the fact that they have been apprehended in a converted life, they should receive rewards B greater than those caught in their sins; yet they are not to be considered equal to those who sinned in their youth because they were utterly ignorant of the precepts of the faith. Therefore, the householder wishes to give the denarius—that is to say, salvation—to the last just as he does to the first, since it is permitted to him to do what he wills with his own, and he rebukes him who, because the householder is good, has an evil eye. "So the last shall be first, and some of the first called shall be last; for many are called, but few are chosen." It is likely that one who is more skilled than we are, and who has been judged by God worthy of a clearer and richer grace of the word of wisdom through the Spirit of God, and of the gift of knowledge that is in the word according to the Spirit, and who possesses every faculty of understanding, will find higher and greater things in this parable, and will be able to provide an abundance of proofs by C taking up more magnificent scriptural passages. As for us, since we have expounded the meaning of the parable as we were able, we ask for indulgence from our readers if we have not been able to attain the dignity of the matters written here; for we may perhaps deserve some measure of approval for our zeal and for not having shrunk back from the task.
OLD INTERPRETATION
Whence the Lord's discourse accepts those who are called by Christ and sends them into the vineyard, that is, into the Church. But according to this exposition, those who were indeed called first to the service of God, but did not keep what pertained to the faith and were overcome and departed from the vineyard—that is, from the Church of God, or from the faith of the truth, or from the righteousness of the heavenly kingdom—having sinned, and after the fulfillment of their lusts, having desired as if in repentance to work in the vineyard again from the beginning, were not counted among the laborers of the vineyard. Nor can they say to the householder: "No one has hired us." For they were hired according to the first time in which they were called to the faith. Nor will it be said to them: "Why do you stand here all the day idle?" especially if, beginning in the spirit, they were afterward made perfect in the flesh, and if they wish after these things to go back, so that they might live again in the spirit. And we have not said these things to dissuade those who have fallen from rising, or to prevent the averted from being converted, so that those lustful sons who have lived luxuriously and consumed the substance of evangelical teaching might not return to their father's house. For on account of their repentance, because they were overcome by perverse vices, they have a better consolation of salvation than those who might have been caught in sins; yet we ought not to think that they are equal to those who sinned in their youth because they had not yet learned what belonged to the faith. Therefore, the householder wishes to give the denarius of salvation to the last in the same way as to the first, since it is permitted to him to do what he wills in his own affairs, and to rebuke him who has an evil eye, because the householder is good. Therefore many of the last shall be called first, and some of the first shall be last: for "many are called, but few are found chosen."
«λαὸς» δὲ ὁ τῶν ἐθνῶν «ὁ καθήμενος ἐν σκότει εἶδε φῶς», οὐχ ὁποῖον ὁ Ἰσραὴλ μικρόν [μικρὸν γὰρ φῶς ἕκαστος ἦν τῶν προφητῶν], ἀλλὰ «λαὸς ὁ καθήμενος ἐν σκότει εἶδε φῶς μέγα», τὸν κύριον καὶ σωτῆρα ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, οὗ τὸ μέγεθος φαίνεται διατείνοντος «ἀπὸ πέρατος γῆς εἰς τὸ πέρας αὐτῆς εὐρώστως, καὶ διοικοῦντος» τὰς ἐκκλησίας «χρηστῶς», ὅτε τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ πεπλήρωκε τὴν οἰκουμένην, πληρωθείσης τῆς λεγούσης προφητείας, «ἐν ταῖς ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις ἐμφανὲς» ἔσεσθαι «τὸ ὄρος τοῦ θεοῦ»· καὶ νῦν «πορεύονται ἐπ’ αὐτὸ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη», καὶ ἔστι τοῦτο Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς. «Τότε προσῆλθεν αὐτῷ ἡ μήτηρ τῶν υἱῶν Ζεβεδαίου μετὰ τῶν υἱῶν αὐτῆς» καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως τοῦ «ἀκούσαντες δὲ οἱ δέκα ἠγανάκτησαν περὶ τῶν δύο ἀδελφῶν». τὸ δ’ ὅμοιον αὐτῷ καὶ ὁ Μᾶρκος ἀνέγραψε τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον· «καὶ προςπορεύονται αὐτῷ Ἰάκωβος καὶ Ἰωάννης οἱ υἱοὶ Ζεβεδαίου καὶ λέγουσιν αὐτῷ» καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως τοῦ «ἤρξαντο ἀγανακτεῖν περὶ Ἰακώβου καὶ Ἰωάννου». Ἄξιον ἐν τοῖς προκειμένοις ζητῆσαι νοῦν οὐκ εὐκαταφρόνητον καὶ ἀληθῶς εὐαγγελίῳ πρέποντα Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.
VOLUME SIXTEENTH.
A “And as Jesus was about to go up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside in the way, and said to them,” and the rest, until, “And on the third day he shall rise again.” Marcus has written the equivalent of these in this manner: “And they were in the way going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was proceeding before them,” and the rest, until, “And on the third day he shall rise again.” And Luke also seems to agree with these, having written: “And taking the twelve, he said to them,” and the rest, until, “And they understood none of these things.” Paul, who urges us to imitate him, just as he also imitated Christ, and who said, “Be imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ,” having seen Christ going resolutely toward the obvious dangers, and going up to Jerusalem, knowing beforehand that he would be delivered to the chief priests and scribes, and would be condemned to death, and the rest, did something similar. For Agabus, having taken his girdle, and binding his own hands and feet, said: “Thus saith the Holy Spirit: The man whose this girdle is, so shall they bind him when he has gone to Jerusalem.” B Having learned these things, Paul, as if imitating his master, went up eagerly to Jerusalem, and having been humanly affected by those who, because of their love for him, were weeping and preventing him from going up to Jerusalem, he said: “What do you mean by weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be bound at Jerusalem, but also to die for the name of my Lord Jesus.” Considering these things, then, and being at times aware of the painful temptations that lie ahead, C we should resolutely resist them, as will be consistent with reason; [taking] an example of this kind, first indeed from the Savior, then also from the apostle Paul. And do not think that these things are contrary to what we said earlier, and frequently, that “If any one persecutes you in this city, flee into another,” and that hearing the Lord [say to] John…
OLD INTERPRETATION.
1. At that time, while Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took his twelve disciples aside in the way, and said to them: “Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man shall be delivered up to the chief priests.” Paul, who exhorts us to become his imitators, just as he himself imitated Christ, knowing that Christ had most promptly gone up through these things to manifest dangers, knowing that he was to be delivered to the chief priests and scribes, and was to be condemned to death, and was to be delivered to the Gentiles to be mocked, and scourged, and crucified, did something similar. For when Agabus had taken his girdle, and had bound his own hands and feet, saying: “Thus saith the Holy Spirit: The man whose this girdle is, the Jews shall bind him thus in Jerusalem, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles;” hearing these things, Paul, having imitated his master, was going up most promptly to Jerusalem. And when he had suffered something human from those who, for the sake of their love for him, had begun to weep and prevent him from going up to Jerusalem, he said: “What do you mean by weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Considering these things, therefore, and recognizing them, we ought to know that because we shall frequently undergo certain temptations, we ought to offer ourselves to pain, according to what is just, in order to avoid temptations, taking an example of this kind, first indeed from the Savior, then also from the apostle Paul. And do not consider these things to be contrary to what we said above, and frequently, that “If any one persecutes you in this city, flee into another,” and what hearing the Lord [saying] that John [incurs]…
imprisonment, we say that not at all times is it necessary to retreat from dangers, nor at all times is it necessary to submit to them; but there is need for a man wise in Christ to examine at what time it is required to withdraw, and at what time it is necessary to undertake the struggle without any retreat, and much more without fleeing. And these things, indeed, may be said in accordance with the intent of the present passage of Scripture, as an exhortation to despise death and dangers. B
2. Next, it must be observed that when Jesus is about to go up to Jerusalem, where He took the twelve aside—of the twelve, that is, that Judas was one, and He took Judas aside—it is reasonable [to ask] whether he was worthy to be taken aside with the other eleven; and when on the way He said to them, “Behold, we go up to Jerusalem,” and what follows, it is evident that He judged this one [Judas] to be among those hearing and trusting in the Teacher, not despairing that Judas was still ignorant of what he would do, as each of us is [ignorant]; for we do not know what the morrow shall bring. But not yet, I think, had the devil cast into the heart of Judas Iscariot C the intention to betray Jesus. And since it is necessary now to examine the passage according to Matthew, he who is able to apply himself more carefully to the matters set before us might inquire whether Judas has yet been accused by Matthew, or rather, only in the catalog of the twelve he said, “Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.” More has been said by us previously for the defense of Judas as being like the other apostles, when we examined that He said, “These twelve,” Jesus sent out, commanding them, saying, “the things prescribed.” But comparing the things said here to the things previously said, D since Judas was already handed over to prison, he departed from there. But it must be known that it is always fitting to decline dangerous situations, and not always to meet dangers. However, it is the part of a wise man in Christ to know what kind of time requires declination, and what kind requires the confronting of dangers. And these things we have spoken according to the intent of the present Scripture, urging men sometimes to despise death.
2. After this, it must be observed that, as He was about to ascend to Jerusalem, He took [them] aside; but he was still among the twelve; therefore also Judas he took aside. For it was thought that he was still worthy to be taken aside with the rest; and in the way he said, “Behold, we ascend to Jerusalem,” and the things that follow—him, no doubt, he judged to be one of those who heard and obeyed the Master—not yet, as I think, had Satan cast into the heart of Judas Iscariot the will to betray Jesus. And one who can, should see whether from the beginning of the Gospel until now Matthew has nowhere accused Judas; unless in the catalog of the twelve he said: “And Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.” Much, however, on this, since he made Judas like the others, was treated...
Let it be granted that both apostles, as men still imperfect and understanding nothing deeper concerning the kingdom of Christ, harbored such thoughts regarding those sitting with Jesus; but when Jesus, as if agreeing that it is a great thing to sit at His “right hand or left,” heightens the claim and says, “You do not know what you are asking,” and “It is not mine to give, but [to those] for whom it has been prepared by my Father,” one who considers himself a wise hearer of Scripture would inquire what it means to sit at the “right hand or left” of Jesus “in His kingdom.” And to those who suppose that we seek these things with too much curiosity, one must gather the things written concerning the "sittings" of God or of Christ, so that by the testing of the things gathered for this purpose and by the comparison of them with one another, some magnitude of dogma, taken from a simpler example, might be able to arise. For instance, in the third book of Kings it is written that “Micaiah said”: “I saw the God of Israel sitting upon His throne, and all the host of heaven stood round about Him on His right hand and on His left,” and the rest.
And in the second book of Chronicles the same Micaiah says things similar to these in [the passage]: “Hear the word of the Lord. I saw the Lord sitting upon the throne of His glory, and all the host of heaven stood on His right hand and on His left,” and the rest. And in Isaiah it is also written: “And it came to pass in the year that king Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up,” and the rest. Furthermore, such things are also written in Daniel: “I beheld until thrones were set, and the Ancient of Days sat,” and the rest. It is possible to find things similar to these also in Ezekiel at the beginning of his prophecy, when he says: “Above the firmament that was over their head [it being clear that this refers to the cherubim], as the appearance of a sapphire stone, the likeness of a throne, and upon the likeness of the throne the likeness as the appearance of a man from above.” And in the one hundred and ninth Psalm, the [verse] “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at My right hand,” indicates the session of the Father and another [session] of the Savior sitting at His right hand. And again in another Psalm, the prophet praying says:
A regarding the enemy of Christ’s death and those who mocked Jesus, they have become a mockery, when Jerusalem was surrounded by camps, when also “its desolation drew near.” But also those who scourged Jesus were themselves scourged, and are being scourged “until the fullness of the Gentiles shall enter in”; for “he who casts a stone on high, casts it upon his own head.” And all these things happened, so that visitation might depart from them, and pass over to those being saved from the Gentiles together with “the remnant according to election; for if the Lord of Sabaoth had not left us a seed, we would have become as Sodom, and been made like unto Gomorrah.”
I think that B just as the worship performed long ago as a pattern and shadow of heavenly things was abolished for the sake of the heavenly things, and upon the coming of the true High Priest, the symbolic high priest ceased; and as the true sacrifices for sins were performed, the symbolic ones were destroyed; so when the true Jerusalem received Jesus having ascended upon the beast of His own body, in whom also the daughter of Zion rejoiced greatly, and the daughter of the Jerusalem above proclaimed, then the Jerusalem which is a shadow was destroyed, and the temple made of dead stones fell down, because of the temple built of living stones. The lower altar was also razed, C because the heavenly one replaced it, Jesus Himself having celebrated its dedication in the true worship.
But if, according to some of the things signified, men are the city, even now in Jerusalem (for so I call those who place their hopes on the place on earth) Jesus is betrayed; and those who profess themselves to be the Jews serving God, and who happen to be as high priests, and the scribes who boast of explaining the divine Scriptures, condemn Jesus to death, through whom they speak evil of Him. And there is no time when they do not deliver Jesus to the nations, mocking Him and His teaching among them; and they always scourge with their tongues the worship of God through Jesus Christ, and they themselves crucify Him, by which they anathemetize and wish to destroy His teaching; but He, being better than they, rises after a little while, and appears living to those who have received sight. For now, “who is blind,” as Isaiah says from the person of God, “or my servants? And who are deaf, if not those who rule over them?” For he says with great and prophetic feeling and spirit: D “You deaf, hear; and you blind, look up.”
A For Jesus came “into judgment for this world, that those who do not see (and these are the nations) might see, and those who see (namely Israel) might become blind.” Since, therefore, such a true light had risen, and the Word had shown it forth, saying: “Behold a man, the Orient is his name,” they nonetheless did not see the light, because their wickedness blinded them, and they did not know the mysteries of God. A paradox occurred for that people and for the nations: the people saw that every one of the prophets was a lamp, but they did not recognize the Sun of Justice who had risen. Therefore, if they were thought to have any lamp, it was taken away from them. But the people of the nations, sitting in darkness, saw a light—not such a light as Israel had seen, a small one (for each of the prophets was a small light)—but the people sitting in darkness saw a great light, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, whose magnitude is revealed as he “reaches from one end of the earth to the other mightily, and disposes” B the Churches “sweetly,” when his Spirit filled the earth, the prophecy being fulfilled which says that in the last days the mountain of God will be manifest; and now “all nations go toward it,” and this is Jesus Christ.
Concerning the sons of Zebedee.
4. “Then came to him the mother of the sons of Zebedee with her sons,” and the rest, up to: “And when the ten heard, they were indignant about the two brothers.” The same was recorded by Mark in these words: “And there come to him James and John, the sons of Zebedee, and say to him,” and the rest, up to: “They began to be indignant about James and John.” It is worthwhile to investigate here something by no means to be despised, and truly befitting the Gospel of Jesus Christ; since for the simpler, and everywhere for those who are guileless, and for those who are ignorant of God and his Scripture, what was below appeared as what was heavenly, the dedication of which Jesus performed in true service. But if, according to a certain signification, men are a city, and are now in Jerusalem—for I so call those who place their hope in the place of that Jerusalem which once was on earth—and now, therefore, C Jesus is handed over to those who profess themselves to be servants of God, to the Jews, and as chief priests are appointed, and the scribes, who think they know the divine Letters, condemn Jesus to death by those things which they speak against him; and there is no time that they do not hand Jesus over to the nations, mocking him and his doctrine among themselves, and always lashing him with their tongues, and the worship of God which was introduced through Jesus. And they indeed crucify him, by the fact that they anathematize and wish to take away his doctrine. But he, being appointed better than them all, rising a little failing, appears living to the nations that have received the ability to see.
4. “At that time, the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to Jesus with her two sons, worshiping and asking something of him.” But he said to her: “What do you want?” She says to him: “Say that these my two sons may sit, one at your right hand, and the other at your left, in your kingdom.” It is worthy in the present passage to seek a meaning not contemptible, but truly worthy of the Gospel of Christ. I have premised this because the text, for those who are simple and ignorant of the heights of God and his Scripture, shows the simplicity of someone's request, and the simple answer of Christ to it. D To those, however, who even in some part have proposed Scriptural...
problems, the meaning that appears on the surface is shallow and contemptible, and possesses nothing of greatness—especially when Jesus responds—that is in harmony with his high-mindedness. For just as in a worldly kingdom, those who sit with the king who is seated in royal attire, or who manage any of the king's affairs, are thought to be in a position of advancement, so the mother of the sons of Zebedee—or, as Mark wrote, James and John—imagining B such a thing according to the letter, appears to request of the Savior that one of them sit at his right hand in his kingdom, and the other at his left; and it was nothing strange for a woman, out of simplicity and ignorance, to think such things worth requesting. Let it be granted, moreover, that the two apostles also, being as yet immature men who understood nothing deeper concerning the kingdom of Christ, presumed such things concerning those who sit with Jesus. But when Jesus, as if agreeing that it is a great thing for someone to sit at his right or left hand, raises the request and says, "You do not know what you are asking," and, "It is not mine to give, but to those for whom it is prepared by my Father," one who would seem to be an intelligent reader of Scripture would ask what it means to sit at the right or left hand of Jesus in his kingdom. And for the sake of those who think we are inquiring into these things too curiously, one must gather what is written concerning the sitting of God or of Christ, so that by the examination of those things collected for this purpose, and their comparison with one another, the greatness of the doctrine might be able to shine forth from the simpler example. For example, it is written in the third book of Kings that Micaiah said, C "I saw the God of Israel sitting upon his throne, and all the host of heaven standing about him on his right hand and on his left," and so on. And in the second book of Chronicles, the same Micaiah says similar things in these words: "Hear the word of the Lord. I saw the Lord sitting upon the throne of his glory, and all the power of heaven was standing on his right hand and on...
his left." And in Isaiah it is written: A "In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and lifted up," and what follows. And in Daniel similar things are written: B "I beheld until thrones were placed, and the Ancient of days sat," and so on. Similar to these is it to find also in Ezekiel at the beginning of the prophecy, where it says: "Above the firmament that was over their heads," — it is clear that it refers to the cherubim — "was as the appearance of a sapphire stone, the likeness of a throne upon it, and upon the likeness of the throne was as the appearance of a man above." And in the one hundred and ninth Psalm: "The Lord said unto my Lord: Sit thou at my right hand," signifies the sitting of the Father, and another thing is declared by the Saviour sitting at his right hand. C And again in another psalm the praying prophet says: "Thou that sittest upon the cherubim, manifest thyself," and again: "God sitteth upon his holy throne." And if you wish to take an example from the Gospels, hear Matthew recording how Jesus said to his disciples: "Verily I say unto you, that ye who have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory," and the rest; and: "From henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power." Matthew also states these things: "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory," and so on; D and: "From henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power." Mark also wrote to the same effect: "And ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." Nor does Luke bring forward anything similar in this place: "Hereafter shall the Son of man be sitting on the right hand of the power of God." But as for what pertains to collecting more things of the same kind, and simpler and humbler, regarding the sitting of Christ in the kingdom, and concerning those who sit on his right hand or his left, do I wish to exhibit an interpretation, crowded with mysteries, for those who are able to raise their mind to divine thoughts, so that, by investigating with some reason, they may be able to find what is worthy of the "spiritual" man, "who judgeth all things," and is himself judged by no one?
OLD INTERPRETATION.
By the collation of these things with one another, the magnitude of the dogma might be made clear. But to extend this further, we propose one thing which Micah says: A "I saw the God of Israel sitting upon his throne, and all the host of heaven was standing around him on his right and on his left." Every one, therefore, who is spiritual, and wishes to discuss all things with judgment, will say that the spiritual sitting of God upon a spiritual throne, and likewise the sitting of Christ, does not signify a bodily sitting in the literal sense. For it is ridiculous to suppose that these sitting positions of God or of Christ are in any way bodily.
(Regarding the text)
And as regards the testifying to these things, a person will not rely only on the passage, "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me," as being drunk painfully by him who receives the struggles in martyrdom, until someone, having endured all the things brought against him during the trial in martyrdom, drinks it up; but also on that which is said in the one hundred and fifteenth Psalm: "What shall I render unto the Lord for all his benefits toward me? I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the Lord. I will pay my vows unto the Lord now in the presence of all his people. Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints." For we can render nothing more to the Lord for the benefits we have received than to take the cup of salvation willingly and to call upon the name of the Lord in order to drink it. In the drinking of which, one pays all his vows "unto the Lord in the presence of all his people." And he taught clearly in these words that the cup [which is martyrdom] is that which brings upon those who are associated with the cup the saying, "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints."
A For if he does not acknowledge those who have confessed their sins in any way whatsoever, then the saying, "Everyone therefore who will acknowledge me," and so forth, will not be true. I do not think, however, that the Savior will acknowledge before the Father who is in heaven anyone who is liable to sin; for the confession before the Father, made by the Son when he possesses boldness, is for the one being acknowledged as worthy of the confession of Christ before the Father.
Let it not disturb us if the Savior, according to Mark, also drinks the cup and is baptized with the baptism; for when John "came into all the region about the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins," and Jesus "arrives at John to be baptized by him," it is as if he were washing away our sins, so that we might be purified by his washing. Rather, it is indicated that we are purified by his martyrdom itself, inasmuch as he was baptized having taken upon himself our sins, so that he might loosen them both from us and from himself; wherefore "as he died, he died to sin"—that is, our sin, since he died "to sin," not his own, but ours, if such a line of reasoning shall seem to have any validity for some.
A Divine concepts are capable of being examined and of finding something worthy of him who examines all things spiritually, and he himself is examined by no one, analogous to the words of Paul concerning the spiritual utterances of the Gospels. For, just as Paul, having interpreted the matters concerning the manna, and the rock, and the water flowing from it according to the spiritual law, says: B "And all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink (for they used to drink from the spiritual rock that followed them; and the rock was Christ)"; so might the spiritual man, who is standing upon this rock and thanking God for this, also say of himself, "He set my feet upon a rock, and directed my steps," because the sitting of God upon a spiritual throne is spiritual; similarly, the sitting of Christ, and Christ sitting at the right hand of Power, is spiritual. B Nothing in accordance with these things is indicated regarding a bodily sitting, which they have defined to be a resting of the haunches upon some seat. For it is ridiculous, because these things are named bodily, to think that there are certain thrones created—I know not from what material—capable of the sitting of God or of Christ, or of those sitting at the right or left of Christ, for whom the Father has prepared such things. I do not know if it is pious to think that the host of heaven stands at the right or left of God bodily, or, again, to imagine that those who are saved and praised are at the bodily right hand of our King, Jesus Christ, and that those who are blamed and destroyed are at the analogous bodily left hand. C But perhaps the return to the kingdom, with Christ receiving his own authority, once the sin reigning in the mortal bodies of men has been rendered null, and every principality, power, and authority of the wicked has been abolished, this is what is meant by his sitting upon the throne of his glory; and the fact that God makes all things "the right hand," so that there is no longer anything "left" toward him, this is the state of those who are to be at the right hand of Power, who are, by way of example, to look upon the right hand of Power, sitting at his right and left in the kingdom of Christ the Word; whom God restores, having worked with them and prepared their approach to the excellence of Christ, so that the one... C ...and the other, that those who have been restored by God, after he has conferred benefit upon them and that they might draw nearer to the sublimity of Christ... D ...to exist, but as to whether the heavenly host stands at the right or left hand of God, and again to think that those who are saved, indeed, and are praiseworthy are at the bodily right hand of our King Jesus, but those who are evil and destroyed are likewise at the bodily left hand, I hardly know. We should understand it in this way, that with the sin that is in the mortal bodies of men destroyed, and every principality of alien powers and authority destroyed, this is what it means for Christ to sit on the seat of his glory. Moreover, that God makes all things right and left is so that there is no longer any evil before him. Let him who can, therefore, understand that Christ has received the eminence of the kingdom among men, and has been glorified to the glory that he had before the world was, before those who sinned had sinned, and he had glory with the Father; and D of those who approach in the first, or in the second, or in the third place, as...
A he who excels among those approaching Christ is placed at his right hand, and as it were touches him, and cleaves to the right of the Word; while he who is inferior in dignity and merits is near his left. See whether you can conceive in your mind that those things at the right hand of Christ are the invisible creatures, which are called the works of God, and at the left, those which are visible and corporeal; but Christ reigns over all. And now, of those who approach him, some have obtained the right and intelligible things, others the left and sensible things. And perhaps the true mother of the sons of Zebedee, whom the Saviour called Boanerges, that is, sons of thunder, B having formed a great opinion in her mind concerning her sons James and John (for indeed they were great), and thinking that they were able to take the first place beyond all created nature, inasmuch as they had attained his high-sounding words, approached the Lord, asking that he set one of them at his right hand and the other at his left; but the Saviour, rebuking even the high-sounding mother of James and John, as one who did not know who were the superior ones, and that such a gift is the grace of God who is over all, and who bestows his favor and help, and places in such a degree of sublimity those whom he knows to be meet for it, said: “You know not what you ask,” and: “To sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to give, but to those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.” C But he who is able will observe what things are given by the Saviour, and what things by the Father, since he sees that some things are not given by the Son, but by the Father himself. But whether the Gospels also show something of this kind, when they sometimes present the Saviour praying for some favors, that his requests may be granted by the Father; and at other times acting without prayer, as if he already possessed those things which had been requested, it is a bold thing to inquire, yet he who is able may examine these things also with reverence. D Moreover, wishing to point out to the mother of the sons of Zebedee and to them themselves, that they still lacked what was attainable by men toward perfection, and that these were not ordinary things, he answered and said, [men constituted according to their measure having to sit at the right or at the left of Christ in his kingdom, whom God will restore, co-operating with them, and preparing them to approach the eminence of Christ. Those indeed who excel the rest of those approaching Christ are at the right hand of Christ: namely, those who touch him, and are joined to the right hand of the Word itself; but those who are inferior are at his left. See, if you can, whether you understand the invisible creature of Christ at the right, and the visible and corporeal at the left. And Christ indeed reigns over all; but of those approaching him, some obtain the right and intelligible things, others the left and sensible ones. And lest perhaps the true mother of the sons of Zebedee, whom Christ called sons of thunder, indicating by the very title the great things of her sons, James and John—for they were truly great—and thinking that they could possess the first place above all human nature, as those who could grasp his high-sounding speech, approached and prayed to God that he might confirm one at the right and the other at the left. But the Saviour, rebuking even this magniloquence, as if the mother of James and John were ignorant of who were the more eminent, and since such a gift is of God alone who is over all, who conspires, and co-operates, and confirms in such eminence those whom he has seen fit, and therefore said, Matth. xx, 22, 23.]
Beyond these things said by the Savior regarding the request of the mother of John and James, or of the sons of Zebedee themselves, as they heard of it, "the ten were indignant concerning the two brothers," as having sought to be preferred above the rest. Observe, however, that Judas was also among those who were indignant [and Mark recorded this as well]. But if he were among those who were indignant along with the other nine, perhaps the devil had not yet "put into the heart" of Judas "that he should betray" our Lord, but that in his resolution, Judas was still one of the apostles. Having said much about him in the previous sections, we do not repeat it here to establish that Judas, being of the same resolution as the others, fell and ensnared himself in the trap of the wicked one, and through love of money betrayed the Savior. A "But Jesus, calling them to him, said: You know that the rulers of the nations lord it over them," and the rest until "and to give his life as a ransom for many." Mark recorded the equivalent of these things as well.
It has been said beforehand that James and John were laying claim to the first places among those with Jesus, and requested to be allowed to sit at his right and left hand in his kingdom [or that their mother was asking this on their behalf]; and it has been said that at this, as they also were laying claim to the first places among those with Jesus, the remaining "ten were indignant," if James and John wish to snatch away, as being above the other ten, the proximity to Jesus in terms of glory. Now, these things having been said beforehand in accordance with reason, "Jesus" calls to himself either the ten who were indignant, or even with the remaining two, and teaches the way by which someone shall be "great" and "first" before God. A His people. He clearly taught in these things that the cup is what brought upon those according to the cup the saying: "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints." By way of conception, martyrdom is twofold: the one of which is called the cup of salvation, and the remainder is baptism. And in so far as one endures the pains, it is a cup drunk by the one who bears everything brought upon himself, taking it up, and as it were drinking the torments, and not pushing them away, nor rejecting them, nor vomiting them out. But in so far as the one who endures receives the forgiveness of sins, it is baptism. For if baptism promises the forgiveness of sins, just as we have received concerning the baptism in water and spirit, and he too who endures the baptism of martyrdom receives the forgiveness of sins, martyrdom may reasonably be called baptism. And that the forgiveness of sins happens to the one who endures martyrdom is evident from the saying: "Everyone who confesses me before men, I also will confess him before my Father who is in heaven." B Indeed, the Savior confesses before the Father who is in heaven everyone who has confessed him, even if he happens to have sinned anything whatsoever before the confession. For if he will not confess those who have sinned anything whatsoever, it will not be true that "Everyone, therefore, who confesses me," and the rest. But I do not think that the Savior will confess before the Father in heaven one who is guilty of any sin whatsoever; for the confession before the Father is made for the one being confessed, as worthy of the confession before the Father. And let it not disturb us if the Savior, according to Mark, also drinks the cup and is baptized with the baptism; for indeed, when John "came into all the surrounding country of the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins," Jesus also arrives to John, of the bap- C tism of salvation I shall receive, and I will call upon the name of the Lord. I will pay my vows to the Lord in the presence of all his people. Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints." For we can render nothing worthy to God for all the good things he has done for us, except that we might promptly receive the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the Lord, that we may be able to drink it magnanimously: in the drinking of which we pay our vows to the Lord in the presence of all his people. He shows manifestly in these things that the cup is martyrdom, from the fact that immediately on account of the cup that has been drunk he added, thus: "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints." But in understanding, all martyrdom is twofold, of which one is called the cup of salvation, and the remainder is baptism. And this indeed, that one endures pains, is the cup which everyone who bears all things brought upon him will drink, and he does not reject, nor vomit up any of them: but that one receives in the passion the forgiveness of sins is baptism. For if baptism promises the indulgence of sins, as we have received concerning the baptism of water and spirit, and he too who undergoes the baptism of martyrdom receives the forgiveness of sins: without doubt, martyrdom itself is reasonably called baptism. Since, however, the forgiveness of sins happens to everyone who endures martyrdom, it is manifest from what he says: "Everyone who has confessed me before men, and I will confess him before my Father who is in heaven." The Savior therefore confesses before his Father every man who has confessed him before men, even if he was previously having some sins before the confession. For if indeed Christ does not confess before his Father those who have confessed while having some sins, then what he said will not be true: "Everyone who has confessed me," and the rest. But otherwise, I do not know if Christ confesses a sinner before his Father. For the confession of the Son is of him who glories in the paternal sight over him
A, B and approaches Jesus to be baptized by him, as if our sins were being washed away by him, that we might be cleansed by his bath. Indeed, it appears that we are cleansed more by his very martyrdom, in which he was baptized, having taken our sins upon himself, that he might loosen them from us and from himself. Therefore, "in that he died, he died unto sin" [Rom. VI, 10], since it was not his own, but our sin, unto which he died. If that seems to accord with reason, the sons of Zebedee surely drank the cup and were baptized with the baptism, since Herod put James, the brother of John, to death by the sword [Act. XII, 2]; but the Roman emperor, as tradition teaches, condemned John, who was bearing witness to the word of truth, to the island of Patmos. C John himself, passing over the one who condemned him, teaches us about his own martyrdom in the Apocalypse, in these words: "I, John, your brother and partaker in tribulation and kingdom, and patience in Jesus, was on the island which is called Patmos, for the word of God," and the rest [Apoc. I, 9]. And it seems he witnessed the Apocalypse on the island.
He who adds, after the given narrative concerning the cup and the baptism, says such things: "Just as there is a food of the Savior of which he says: 'My food is that I may do the will of him who sent me, and complete his work,' so the cup corresponds to that food," which it is bold to distinguish from the food and to set forth in a practical sense; however, let him who is able observe whether the food perhaps signifies the practical, while the drink signifies the contemplative. For according to him who eats, the doing of the will of him who sent him and the completing of his work is drinking the will. D
And he A who makes this claim will say that for this reason he first gives the bread, having blessed and broken it for the disciples, since action is first; and after this, having taken the cup and given thanks, he gave it to them saying, "Drink from this, all of you." But since he had regulated the things of action, and had proceeded to the contemplation of them—for according to the prophet it is said, "Sow for yourselves righteousness, reap the fruit of life," in order that we might first do what is necessary—he subsequently says, "Illuminate for yourselves the light of knowledge." For someone, after he has cleansed his morals, would walk on the path toward knowledge, and be illuminated in it. B And these things have been said by way of digression on account of the deeper examination of the cup. And in the twenty-second Psalm it is said first, "You have prepared a table before me, in the presence of those who afflict me," and next also, "Your cup which inebriates me is as the best." But let not the one reading this Scripture suppose that we are holding that it was necessary to explain in some way the matters concerning the written sittings of God or of Christ; for we apologize, as our only intention was to repel from the literal text the matters concerning the sitting, and to turn the reader away from a more lowly interpretation; for at another time it would be necessary to C undertake a primary inquiry concerning the sitting, and standing, and walking of God or of Christ, which the present narrative does not require; for the digression would have been very great and untimely. Furthermore, regarding these things spoken by the Savior in response to the request of the mother of John and James, or of the sons of Zebedee themselves, he says, "The ten heard and were indignant about the two brothers," as having sought [for themselves... ] D of him, it is also a drink. And this it is indeed rash to distinguish, and to show by the things themselves. Yet let him who can understand that perhaps what is in action is food, but what is in consideration is drink. For to eat of Christ is to do the will of him who sent him, and to complete his work. But to drink is to have wisdom according to the will of him who sent him, and to complete the knowledge of it. According to this difference is understood also that which he says, "My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink." For the true food of souls is action. But true drink is the recognition of the truth. Therefore he first gives the bread, blessing and breaking it for his disciples, since in the first place is action. And afterward, taking the cup and giving thanks, he said, "Drink from this, all of you," since it is fitting first to fulfill the things of action, and to delight in a good work, and thus to come to the knowledge of things; and according to the prophet who says, "Sow for yourselves for righteousness, and reap the fruit of life," that we should first do good works, and after this that which he says, "Illuminate for yourselves the light of knowledge," as if by a certain way, after one has amended his morals, he proceeds to knowledge and is illuminated. And in the twenty-second Psalm it is said first, "You have prepared a table in my presence against those who afflict me, you have anointed my head with oil." And after this, "Your cup inebriating, how excellent it is." Let not him who reads these words blame us, since it was necessary to interpret in some manner that which was said concerning the sittings of God, or of Christ. We answer that it was our intention only to appease the matters of the sittings from the Scriptures, and to avert the reader from that lowly tradition. The primary exposition concerning the sitting of God, and standing, and walking, is of another time, which the present exposition does not require. 8. But that the ten are saddened about the two brothers, because they asked the others to be proposed. And see that Judas also was among the indignant, although he was among the other indignant men, lest perhaps the devil had not yet sent it into his heart that he should betray the Lord, but he was in the same intention in which the other apostles were.
A Since we have said many things about him in what preceded, we do not now repeat the argument that Judas had fallen by the same intention as the others and had fallen into the trap of the wicked one, both by loving money and by betraying the Savior. "But Jesus, having called them, said: 'You know that the rulers of the nations lord it over them,'" and the rest, up to: "And to give his life a ransom for many." B Mark wrote down the equivalents of these things as well. We have observed, just as in many other instances, that Matthew and Mark preserve the order of the things recorded, whether of healings or of discourses; just so also here, for the things from: "And Jesus, being about to go up to Jerusalem, took the twelve disciples aside," up to: "And he will immediately send them," have all been preserved in order by Mark as well, from: "And they were on the way ascending to Jerusalem," up to: "He will immediately send him back here." But you, by placing the Gospels side by side in these places and comparing them, will find what is said. Even Luke wrote something similar in part, prefacing for them the fact that: "A rivalry arose among them, as to which of them was greater." For among these he adds: "But he said to them: 'The kings of the nations lord it over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called benefactors. But you shall not be so,'" and the rest. Let these things, then, have been said, so that the things concerning the equivalence of the things kept in this place by Matthew and Mark, and in part by Luke, may not escape us. C And now we must examine the meaning of what is being said. It has been said before that James and John were disputing the primacy with Jesus, and were asking to receive the right to sit at his right hand and at his left, having claimed to be preferred before the rest. Note that Mark also recorded that they were asking to be preferred before the rest; note that Judas also was among the indignant ones.
OLD INTERPRETATION
Jesus then, calling them, said: "You know that the rulers of the nations lord it over them, and those who are greater exercise power over them. It shall not be so among you; but whoever wishes to be greater among you, shall be your minister; and whoever wishes to be first among you, shall be your servant." Because the two brothers wished to snatch the glory for themselves over the other apostles, the others being indignant, Jesus, taking the occasion from this, sets a rule of justice for the faithful, as to how anyone can obtain primacy before God. D The rulers of the nations, not content only to rule their subjects, strive to dominate them violently. But among you who are mine, these things shall not be, lest perhaps those who seem to hold some primacy in the Church should dominate their own brethren or exercise power over them. For just as all carnal things are placed in necessity, not in will—but spiritual things are in will, not in necessity—so also spiritual leaders, their leadership ought to be placed in the love of those under them, not in bodily fear. But also he who wishes to be greater before my Father in comparison to his other brethren, let him be made the minister of those over whom he wishes to be greater. And he who desires the primacy of the Church ought to become the servant of all in servile humility, so that he may comply with all in those things which pertain to salvation. And this is what the divine word teaches us. But we, either not understanding the divine will placed in the Scriptures, or contemning such a recommendation—
A For the “Son of man did not come to be served, but to serve.” Even though he was served, when “angels came and served him,” and again he was served by Martha, yet he did not come for the sake of “being served.” For he visited the human race in order that he might serve and journey so far in his service to our salvation as to “give his own soul a ransom for many” of those who have believed in him. And if, hypothetically, all had believed in him, he would have given “his soul a ransom for” all. But to whom did he give “his soul a ransom for many”? Certainly not to God. Can it, then, be to the wicked one? For he was holding us until the “ransom” for us, the soul of Jesus, should be given to him, for he was deceived B [clearly, and imagined] that he could master it, not seeing that he could not bear the torment of holding it.
A Luke takes the kings and those who exercise authority over the nations into his discourse, turning away anyone who wishes to be greater among the brothers from imitating royal power or the desire for adulation found in those who rule. He teaches us that he who is truly greater among us should become as the younger, that is, as a child, for the sake of simplicity and equality; and the leader (and I think it proper to call the one known in the churches as bishop by this name) should be as one who ministers to those who are served. And these things the Word of God teaches us. But we, whether because we do not understand the intention of Jesus' instruction here, or because we despise such great precepts of the Savior, are at times such that we even surpass the pride of the worst rulers among the nations, and almost seek, like the kings, to have bodyguards. B By making ourselves formidable and difficult to approach, especially to the poor, we show ourselves to those who come to us to make requests to be such as not even tyrants, or the most cruel of rulers, show themselves to be toward suppliants. Indeed, it is possible to see in many established churches, and especially in those of the larger cities, the leaders of the people of God allowing no equality, sometimes not even to the best of Jesus' disciples, in their relations with them. And the Apostle gives a commandment to masters concerning their servants, saying, "Masters, provide what is just and equal to your servants, knowing that you also have a Lord in heaven." He teaches masters also to let go of threats against their servants. Yet it is possible to see some who threaten cruelly, sometimes under the pretext of sin, and sometimes out of contempt for the poor, contrary to the Apostolic word in which it is said, "They gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcision; only that we should be mindful of the poor." They do not even imagine the equality owed to those under them, nor do they reflect that it is fitting for Christians, above all, to practice gentleness and equality, especially those who bear some ecclesiastical title; for it is written, "The greater you are, the more you should humble yourself, and you will find grace before the Lord." C We ought also to know what is said in Proverbs: "Before destruction a man's heart is haughty, and before glory it is humbled." It is necessary to avoid falling into such pride, or saying the word that the man said who wanted to justify himself before Jesus, who taught, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," for he was not ashamed to say to the Savior, "And who is my neighbor?" D The leader, however, I think, should be as one who ministers to those who are served. Leaders ought not [to act as rulers], but ought to imitate Christ, who was accessible, and who spoke to women, and laid his hands upon children, and washed and wiped the feet of his disciples, giving them an example that they themselves might do likewise for their brothers. Perhaps, indeed, because the Lord, though he was ordained, served for the salvation of our human race, it is therefore said that he took the form of a servant and humbled himself even unto death, for which reason the Lord also superexalted him. Whoever wishes, therefore, to be exalted should do likewise, that he may be exalted through these things: as the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister. For even if the angels ministered to him when they approached him, and Martha served him, he did not, however, come for that purpose—to be ministered unto—but to minister.
before it is broken, the heart of man is plowed, and before it is glorified, it is humbled; and we must also avoid falling into that opinion, and uttering the same remark as he who, wishing to defend himself with an excuse before Jesus from whom he had received that commandment: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," did not blush to answer the Savior: "And who is my neighbor?" It would have been fitting to learn this also from Paul: "When we could have been a burden to you, as the apostles of Christ, we became gentle among you, as a nursing mother tends her own children." It was fitting to imitate also this: "Or did I commit a sin, humbling myself, so that you might be exalted?" Therefore, let the princes of the nations use their authority over them violently; but as for the princes of the Church, let them serve her; and let the grandees of the nations hold unjust power over them, but let the faithful obey this saying: "Learn from me, for I am meek and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls." B Let us also learn not to accept flattery, nor to be glad to be called "benefactors" by men, for those things in which we seem to have done some good. We do not say these things ignorantly, but wishing ourselves to be humbled "under the mighty hand of God," and according to his word, under ecclesiastical ministry; yet there is a time when it is necessary, according to the apostolic voice, to "rebuke those who sin before all, that the others also may have fear." There is a time when it is necessary, having used authority, "to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord." But such a thing is rarely to be done; "for the unruly must be admonished, and the faint-hearted must be comforted, and the weak must be supported, and we must be patient toward all, and render to no one evil for evil." Nor should the one who sins be considered an enemy, but the Apostle must be heard who says: "Do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother." C And all these things have been said by me because I wished, according to the word of God, to make it clear to the prince of the Church that he is not to imitate the prince of the nations, nor to emulate those who exercise their empire and power violently, and who are endowed with royal dignity; but rather Christ is to be imitated in such matters with all one’s might, to whom approaches are most easy, who converses with women, and lays his hands upon children. But even if the fact that Jesus poured water into a basin and washed the feet of the disciples has a deeper meaning, nonetheless we must also listen to him speaking about these things in the sacred context: "You call me Teacher and Lord, and you speak well; for so I am," and the rest; for through these words he teaches the disciples to become imitators of his praiseworthy humility. D And perhaps, since he was the Lord and served for the salvation of men to our race, on account of this he is said to have taken the form of a servant, and to have humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death; and if for this reason God highly exalted him, he who wishes to be exalted let him do the things similar to him who was on account of this highly exalted; for even the Son of man, if he was served when "angels came," grew so much in serving that he gave his life as a ransom for many who believed in him. To whom did he give his life as a ransom for many? For it is not fitting to say, to God. Could it be, perhaps, to the evil one? For he was holding dominion over us, until the ransom for us, the soul of Jesus, was given to him, as he was deceived, and thought that he could manage him, and did not see that he would not be able to endure the torments of holding him.
B And for this reason, death, which seemed to have overcome him, no longer overcomes him, since he became "free among the dead," and stronger than the power of death. And he is stronger to such a degree that all who wish to follow him, from among those held by death, are able to follow, as death has no more power over them. For everyone who is with Jesus is unassailable by death.
In the passages of the Gospel which we are examining, it is written that our Savior said he "gave his soul as a ransom for many." C But it is said by Peter that "we were redeemed not with corruptible things, like silver and gold, from our futile manner of life handed down from our fathers, but with precious blood." And the Apostle also says, "You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men." We were therefore bought with the precious blood of Jesus, and the soul of the Son of God was given as a ransom for us—but not his spirit, for he had previously entrusted it to the Father, saying, "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit"—nor his body, for we find nothing of the sort written about it. And since his soul was given as a ransom for many, but did not remain with him to whom the ransom for many had been given, for this reason he says in the 15th Psalm, "My soul will not be abanD doned..."
COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW TOMUS XVI
See, then, if you are able, remembering what we have already set forth regarding the parable in the Gospel according to Luke, "A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers," and if you are able to take care to say whether "Jericho" here might be a symbol of this earthly place which is commonly called "the world" in Scripture. The one who is going down "from Jerusalem to Jericho," Adam [that is, man], has fallen among "robbers." But because of the many who are in "Jericho" [for there is a "great crowd" in "Jericho"], our Jesus, having been there with his disciples, should go forth, making it his business [since he had entered into "Jericho"] to guide those who wish to follow. For they who are in "Jericho" do not know how to come out from the worldly mindset unless they behold not only Jesus going out "from" "Jericho," but also his disciples.
And they were ministering to him; and again he was ministered to by Martha. But it is not for this purpose that he came, to be ministered to; for he sojourned with the race of men in order that he might minister, and travel so far ministering for our salvation as to give his own soul as a ransom for many of those who have believed in him. And if, by hypothesis, all had believed in him, he would have given his soul as a ransom for all. To whom, then, did he give his soul as a ransom for many? Truly not to God. Might it be, then, to the evil one? For he held us until the ransom for us, the soul of Jesus, was given to him, as he was deceived, and thought that he could manage him, and did not see that he would not be able to endure the torments of holding him. And for this reason, death, which seemed to have overcome him, no longer overcomes him, since he became "free among the dead," and stronger than the power of death. And he is stronger to such a degree that all who wish to follow him, from among those held by death, are able to follow, as death has no more power over them. For everyone who is with Jesus is unassailable by death. In the passages of the Gospel which we are examining, it is written that our Savior "gave his own soul as a ransom for many." But it is said by Peter that "we were redeemed not with corruptible things, like silver and gold, from our futile manner of life handed down from our fathers, but with precious blood." And the Apostle also says, "You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men." We were therefore bought with the precious blood of Jesus, and the soul of the Son of God was given as a ransom for us—but not his spirit, for he had previously entrusted it to the Father, saying, "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit"—nor his body, for we find nothing of the sort written about it. And since his soul was given as a ransom for many, but did not remain with him to whom the ransom for many had been given, for this reason he says in the 15th Psalm, "My soul will not be aban—
abandoned in Hades." A Having once arrived at this point, I would remind those who, through a fantasy of glorifying Christ, confuse the matters concerning the Firstborn of all creation with those concerning the soul and body of Jesus, and perhaps also his spirit, and believe that that which was seen and moved in this life is something entirely simple and uncomposed, that they do not speak soundly. For let us ask them if the divinity of the "image of the invisible God B and the excellence of the Firstborn of all creation," if he, "in whom all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, whether visible or invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers," was given as a ransom for many; and to whom that was given as a ransom, unless to the enemy holding us captive until he should receive the ransom; and if one such as he was capable of receiving such a great ransom for captives. And I do not speak these things as one who despises the soul of Jesus, or minimizes or diminishes it, but because I contend that the soul was indeed given as a ransom by the whole Savior, to the extent that it was possible for it to be given, while that excellence and divinity could by no means have been given as a ransom. Therefore, I do not today divide Jesus from Christ, but much rather I know Jesus Christ to be the same, C and I acknowledge his soul and the "Firstborn of all creation"; but also his body, as something more, if it is permissible to name it thus, to be one whole, that which "is joined to the Lord and is one spirit."
Concerning the two blind men.
9. "And as they went out of Jericho, a great multitude followed him; and behold, two blind men sitting by the way," and the rest. Let the history of the things narrated in this place be true, and that, when Jesus was departing from Jericho with his disciples, a great multitude followed him, and that two blind men sitting by the way of the exit from Jericho, having heard that Jesus was passing by that place, D themselves also cried out and said, "Have mercy on us, O Lord, Son of David," and agreed in crying out what is written; and that Jesus, because of the blind men imploring mercy, stopped and called them, so that he might not pass by and leave them without calling them. But let us also see whether the "Behold, two blind men" contains a demonstration. If, therefore, we are able to follow the revealing word and see these two blind men, we shall say that Israel and Judah, before the arrival of Jesus, were "blind," yet sitting "by the way" while occupying themselves with the Law and the prophets; "blind," indeed, because the true word in the Law and the prophets was not seen by them before the arrival of Jesus into their souls; but crying out, "Have mercy on us, O Lord, Son of David," because of the perception of their own [blindness], not seeing the purpose of the Scriptures, and wishing to recover their sight and see the glory within them. And as they were still blind and did not imagine anything great concerning Jesus, but were thinking only of his flesh, they called the one who was "born of the seed of David according to the flesh," since they understood nothing more than this, "Son of David." And all their apparent loud-voicedness because of their piety did not know how to say anything more about the Savior than that he was the son of "David." But if I say that the "two" blind men are Israel and Judah before the arrival of Jesus into their souls, lead yourself to the [two] kingdoms, and consider how, according to the times of Rehoboam, the people were divided into Israel and Judah; and following this, see the prophets, at one time prophesying to Israel, at another to Judah, and where, at the same time, to both. You would find, therefore, by applying yourself to the reading of the prophets, in what way they prophesy to each separately, and at the same time to Israel and Judah, when God promises through Jesus to accomplish "a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant which He made" with their fathers when they were coming "out of the land of Egypt."
A And the blind men, now more clearly expounding their own petition, say that they wish their eyes to be opened by Jesus. But the Lover of men, and the Savior who follows with compassion, being moved with pity for the blind—moved with pity, I think, because they had already anticipated the calling forth, if I may so name it, of the mercy of Jesus—namely, by having cried out and said, "Have mercy on us, Lord, Son of David," and having believed, they petitioned that their eyes might be opened. Having touched their eyes, and infused into their eyes, by the touch, a healing medical power, He may have caused the blind to see back again; and they, in return, gratefully followed Jesus. And let anyone who credits these things, and also knows the saying, "Unless you believe, you shall not understand" (Isa. VII, 9), receive understanding from having believed in accordance with the analogy of faith. And having received it, let him speak about these things, interpreting them after the faith which serves as the foundation for them, according to the saying, "I believed, therefore I have spoken" (Ps. CXV, 1). B And let such a one not only be a believer in Jesus and in those things written concerning this place, but let him also know the meaning concerning them; for he who abides in the truth of faith, and by the works of the Word abides in the Word, according to Jesus' promise, knows the truth, and is set free by it (John VIII, 32). And as for us, since we do not understand the intention of what is said when we do not believe, but when we understand we understand from believing, come, let us set forth what comes to our mind regarding the passage, having prayed to Him who rescues us from having the Gospel veiled from us, as far as we are able. And first, let us consider what it means that, as the disciples of Jesus were departing from Jericho, a great crowd followed Him along with the Savior. Consider then if you are able, mindful of what we have dictated regarding the parable in the Gospel according to Luke: "A certain man was descending from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves" (Luke X, 30), whether perhaps here too Jericho is a symbol of the lower place habitually called "the world" according to Scripture. C The one who is mindful of what we have dictated, D maybe Jericho is also here a symbol of the lower place habitually called in Scripture the world. [alt-version omitted]
A And the one “going down from Jerusalem to Jericho” is Adam—that is, the human being—who fell among thieves. For this reason, since there were many at Jericho (for the crowd was great in Jericho), our Jesus, having come into it with the disciples, was moving on; but by the act of going out of Jericho, he was leading those who wanted to follow him. For those in Jericho do not know how to go out from worldliness, unless they see not only Jesus going out from Jericho, but also his disciples. Seeing these things, a great crowd follows him. And it is for those who are considering those who wish to live according to the Word, and who wish to despise both the world and earthly things, to follow Jesus and his disciples, and to walk in their footsteps as they go out from Jericho, to look at the sense of this place. Therefore, a great crowd follows Jesus, so that, walking after him and using him as the guide of their journey, they may go up to Jerusalem.
B 10. “It is written,” it is added a little later, “that when they drew near to Jerusalem, and came to Bethphage, to the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent his disciples,” and so on. Then, immediately after this, as though the Scripture were pointing to the blind men who were soon to be healed, it is stated: “And behold, two blind men sitting by the wayside, hearing that Jesus was passing by, cried out, saying: Have mercy on us, Lord, Son of David.” Pay attention here to see if in these words, “And behold two blind men,” the word “Behold” contains any indication. If we can follow the Scripture pointing out two blind men, and look into them, we will say that Israel and the Jews were blind before C the coming of Christ; but they were “sitting by the wayside,” because they were lingering in the Law and the prophets. They were blind indeed, because before the coming of Christ into their souls, they did not perceive the true and legitimate senses understood in the Law and the prophets; but that they cried out, “Have mercy on us, Lord, Son of David,” comes from their being aware that they did not know the intention of the writings, and that they wanted to recover their sight and to see the glory that is in them. For as yet they were blind and thought nothing great of Jesus, but as they were only understanding what was fleshly in him, D they called the one born from the seed of David.
OLD INTERPRETATION
those who wish to live according to the Word, and desiring to hold in contempt the world and all worldly things, following Christ and his disciples, so that walking after him, and using him as their guide, they may ascend into that heavenly Jerusalem. 10. “And behold two blind men sitting by the wayside: and hearing that Jesus was passing by, they cried out saying: Have mercy on us, Lord, Son of David.” We can say that the two blind men are Judah and Israel, who were blind before the coming of Christ, but were lingering by the wayside because they were occupying themselves with the Law and the prophets. They were blind, indeed, because before the advent of Christ into their souls, they were not understanding the true senses contained in the Law and the prophets. But, because they were crying out: “Have mercy on us, Lord, Son of David,” this comes from [their awareness] that they did not know the sense of the Scriptures, yet they wanted to recover their sight and to know the dogmas contained in the Scriptures. But as yet they were like blind men, not yet perceiving anything great about Jesus, but only thinking upon that which was fleshly in him, and they called upon him who was born from the seed of David according to the flesh, for they understood nothing more than that he was the son of David, and all that was visible to them on account of God’s eloquence, they sought nothing further from Christ.A If, however, I say that the two blind men are Israel and Judah before Jesus’ coming into their souls, turn your mind to the Kingdoms, and consider how, in the times of Rehoboam, the people were divided into Israel and Judah, and thereafter how the prophets prophesied now to Israel, now to Judah, and sometimes to both together. Now, one who pays attention to the reading of the prophets will indeed discern how they prophesied to each separately, and how they prophesied to Israel and Judah together at the time when God promised, through Jesus, that He would complete a New Covenant over the house of Judah, not like the covenant He made with the fathers when they were coming out of the land of Egypt. And being blind, Israel—concerning whom I have often spoken while distinguishing him from the carnal Israel—and Judah in like manner, when they heard that Jesus was passing by, cried out. B For they heard, he says—being, I think, among those who were crying out concerning Jesus’ coming, and because he was passing by, the Jericho that is to pass away, entering into it but about to depart from it—and they were apprehensive lest he pass them by without showing mercy; wherefore they cried out to him, saying, “Have mercy on us, Lord, Son of David.” But the Savior, as one who confers benefits, does not pass by, but stands still, so that when he has stood, the blessing may not flow away and pass by them, but, as from a standing fountain, may come to be for those who are being benefited. Jesus, therefore, having stood and been struck by their cry and their petition, C calls them to himself, already making the beginning of the benefit when he called them; for he would not have called them in vain, and to the end that nothing should be accomplished in those invited. Would that, as we too cry out to him and say, “Have mercy on us, Lord,” he would call us, beginning from the Son of David!
And he remains standing, if he were not the Son of David. We have said the two blind men are the two peoples divided into two kingdoms in the time of Rehoboam, and see the prophets, how they prophesied now to Israel, now to Judah, and sometimes to both together. These peoples, therefore, since they had heard by some prophetic sign that Jesus was passing, cried out. For I think they had heard from those who prophesied the advent of Christ. And since he is passing—coming into it, indeed, and going out of it—fearing lest he should perchance pass them by without showing them mercy, they cried out, “Have mercy on us, Lord, Son of David.” But Jesus does not pass by, but stands, so that while he stands, the benefit does not flow away, but the mercy flowing as from a standing fountain may reach them. The crowd, that is, those who had gone before believing, even rebuked those who were crying out, “Son of David, have mercy on us,” that they might be silent and not call him by a contemptible name, but rather say, “Son of God, have mercy on us.” D For he did not call them in vain. Would that, when we cry out and say, “Have mercy on us, Lord,” he would call us, beginning from Son of David: and let him call us while standing, as if attending to our supplications. But he said to them, “What do you wish that I should do [for] you?” Which I think is equivalent to this: Show clearly what you wish, so that all who are going out from Jericho and following me may hear and see the deed. They however answered, “That our eyes may be opened.” Noble, indeed, because they were of Israel and Judah, but blind…
through wickedness, and conscious of it, and having heard what is said about the Savior; and they say that which is most important, those who, while unfolding the holy Scripture, are not unaware that they are blind regarding its inner meaning. For they say: “Have mercy on us, and we wish that our eyes may be opened.” Would that we too, sitting by the same path of the Scriptures, in which we are blind and unable to see, after we have perceived that Jesus is passing by, might be able by our prayer to make him stop, and say that we wish our eyes to be opened! And if we say this from a disposition desiring to see the things which are granted by the Savior’s grace after he has touched the eyes of the soul, he will be moved with compassion, our Savior, and since he is Power, and Word, and Wisdom, and all that is written about him, he will touch our eyes that do not see before his coming. And when he touches them, the darkness and ignorance will flee away, and immediately we shall not only see, but we shall also follow him, since he himself has restored our sight for his own sake, that we may follow only him who brought it about that we should see, and do nothing else besides this, so that, always following him, we may be led by him to God; and by our eyes, which have been made to see through him, we may behold God, together with those who are called blessed because they have a pure heart. We have, therefore, those who come out of Jericho and follow Jesus, being a great crowd, who are not Israel nor Judah; but the two blind men who heard that Jesus was passing by, and knew that he is the Son of David, and were aware of their own blindness, and asked that their eyes be opened, were Israel and Judah, who were given over, whose eyes were closed and who, through his touch, were made to see Jesus. A And if one brings forward these such things with respect to the noble soul, which has been brought to such poverty and has reached the point of begging, he will not altogether miss the point. Since, however, it seemed good to Mark to record also the name of the father of the blind man, that he was Timaeus, and the name of the blind man, that he was called Bartimaeus, we ask whether perhaps Mark intended something deeper in this passage. And perhaps he necessarily added the name from the history, but one might also say that he did so because it was useful. And if we do not appear cold by reaching as far as an examination of such matters, we inquire regarding Timaeus, whose name implies honor, and his son Bartimaeus, which is to say "son of Timaeus." Perhaps because of the honor of the patriarch Jacob and Israel, he is tropologically that Timaeus; but those who possess nobility from him are the blind Bartimaeus, due to the aforementioned reasons, likewise also sitting “by the way” and “begging.” Then, since he says to him: B stay, from the phrase, “Son of David,” and having stopped, he has honored us by paying heed to our request! He said, therefore, to them: “What do you want me to do for you?” Which I think is of this sort: “What do you wish? Present it, declare it, that all those coming out from Jericho and following me may hear and see the deed.” They answered: “Lord, that our eyes may be opened.” Which response noble men indeed, by being from Israel and Judah, use against him, and signify that they wish their eyes to be opened—men blinded by wickedness, and yet conscious of it, and having heard of C what is said concerning the Savior; and they say to him that they wish their eyes to be opened. And especially do they say this, those who, in the course of studying the Holy Scripture, are not insensible to their own blindness regarding the meaning within it; for these are they who say: “Have mercy on us,” and, “We wish that our eyes may be opened.” Would that we too, sensing the things in which we are blind and do not see, sitting by this very path of the Scriptures, after hearing that Jesus is passing by, might through our request stop him and say that we wish our eyes to be opened! If we should say this from a disposition desiring to see the things which the Savior—having touched the eyes of the soul—grants to be D seen, he will be moved with compassion, our Savior, and, as he is Power, and Word, and Wisdom, and all those things that are written about him, he will touch our eyes which do not see before him; and when he has touched them, darkness and ignorance will flee away, and immediately we shall not only see, but we shall also follow him, he himself who caused us to see working with us so that we do nothing else than follow him who caused us to see, that, always following him, we may be led by him to God, and may see God with our eyes that have been made to see through him, together with those who are blessed because they have a pure heart. We have, therefore, those who come out from Jericho, and who follow Jesus, being a great crowd, who are not Israel, nor Judah; but the two blind men who heard that Jesus was passing by, and knew that he is the Son of David, and were aware of their own blindness, and asked that their eyes be opened, were Israel and [alt-version omitted] Judah, those who were surrendered, whose eyes were closed, and who, being shut, saw Jesus through his touch. These things, then, according to Matthew. 12. Since, however, Mark and Luke...
relate the same history, though according to some another one similar to it, it is worthy to see what they say as well. And first, one must consider that which is according to Mark, who wrote of the affairs of the region in this way: A “And he comes into Jericho: and as he was going out from there, and his disciples, and a great crowd, behold the son of Timaeus, Bartimaeus the blind,” and what follows, up to, “And he followed him in the way.” Now he who holds to the bare history, and does not wish to show the evangelists at variance, will say that the account according to Matthew and Mark did not happen at the same time, but that what happened concerning the two blind men who received their sight occurred at one visit to Jericho; and that what happened concerning this one son of Timaeus, Bartimaeus, occurred at another; and that what is according to Luke happened at yet another. For if we believe accurately that the Gospels were written with the cooperation of the Holy Spirit, and that those who wrote B them were clearly not mistaken in remembering them—since it is not possible that it is true both that two blind men were healed at one and the same visit, and that one was—then a different visit is indicated by Matthew, another by Mark, and now also another by Luke, as it is possible for one who has carefully considered the difference between them and the others to assert this with confidence. And it is no marvel if one who has observed the former healing among those in Jericho should wish, through the wording and the similar request, to contend that they were healed in the same place. One might say so, and that the blind man healed according to Luke is someone else. However, he who seeks a deeper account C of all these things will say that one and the same matter is represented by different expressions; for there are indeed two blind men, as Israel and Judah represent; but the people of all these is one, when it is shown that one blind man is healed. Since, therefore, a great crowd from the nations was journeying out from the worldly matters with Jesus and his disciples, an Israelite remnant sitting by the way, and being impoverished in understanding, and begging for the needs of the soul, having heard that Jesus the Nazarene was there, approached crying out loudly, entreating the Savior as the Son of David to grant him mercy; and when you see the D ones from the nations... [alt-version omitted]
who believe in Jesus, A you will perceive how this blind man says: "Son of David, have mercy on me," whom many rebuke. For many are those coming forth from Jericho out of the nations, rebuking the poverty of those B who appear to believe from among the Jews. And if you refer such things to a soul noble by birth, yet destitute of matters of this kind and reduced to beggary, you will not be far from the truth. Since it pleased Mark to write down the name of the father of the blind man, that he was Timaeus, and that of the blind man, that he was called Bartimaeus, we ask whether Mark perhaps perceived something deeper in this place; and perhaps necessarily, having taken it from history, he added the name, though one might say he also made it useful. And if we do not appear to be trifling by reaching until the examination of such things, we seek Timaeus, the one whose name means "of honor," and his son Bartimaeus, which is "son of Timaeus." Perhaps because of the honor of the patriarch Jacob and Israel, that man is Timaeus in a tropical sense; but those who have obtained nobility from him are Bartimaeus. C
And when you see of those from among the Jews, there are some who also accept Jesus, vaunting themselves to be Christians because of this, yet they also wish to live according to the law of the Jews, as do the multitudes of the Jews. These are the two types of Ebionites, who acknowledge Jesus to be from a virgin just as we do, or else not born in this way, but rather as other men, as both affirm. Yet they do not acknowledge him as pre-existing as God the Word and Wisdom in the same way, and they were led by the impiety of their predecessors; especially when they were also eager to maintain the bodily worship concerning the Law just like them. D Concerning Christ, I do not know if I can say whether they themselves, being led by the same wickedness as those aforementioned concerning Cerinthus and Merinthus, consider him to be a bare man, or, as the truth holds, they maintain he was born of Mary through the Holy Spirit.
* * *
[Regarding the footnote-style block:] [alt-version omitted]
Some sit by the way as remnants, destitute of thoughts and begging for the necessities of the soul, and when they had heard that Jesus the Nazarene was there, they approach crying out with a loud voice and imploring the mercy of the Savior as the Son of David. And after you have scrutinized the faith in the Savior of those Jews who believe in Jesus—who sometimes thought him to be born of Mary and Joseph, and at other times of Mary alone and the Holy Spirit, but by no means reckoned him with his theological knowledge—you will easily understand how the blind man says this: "Son of David, have mercy on me," whom many rebuke. For many Gentiles come forth from Jericho, pressing upon those seen to embrace the faith of the Jews on account of their poverty; and if you relate this to a soul noble by birth but destitute of such things, and reduced to the point of beggary, you will not have strayed far from reason. But since it seemed fit to Mark to hand down to writing the name of the father of this blind man (that name was Timaeus) and also of the blind man himself, who was called Bartimaeus, we ask whether Mark did not understand something more sublime in this place; and perhaps indeed, having taken the name from history, he necessarily added it and, as some might say, inscribed it because it was a useful thing. But if these words do not extend to their very dispute, he says crying out: "Son of David, have mercy on me." Jesus, however, standing, calls him, no longer as in Matthew, but commands him to be called. After this he says: "But he, casting off his garment, leaping up, comes to Jesus." Lest by chance the garment of the blind man and beggar be understood as the veil of blindness and of beggary...
beggary with which Bartimaeus was clothed, which the blind man cast off when he heard: "Be of good courage, arise, he calleth thee." And having cast off the coverings and wrappings of his beggary, he leapt up and arose that he might come to Jesus; and having obtained from Him the response given to his request, "What wilt thou that I should do unto thee?" he spoke a voice greater than, "Thou Son of David, have mercy on me." For a greater thing has been conceived than "Thou Son of David," by him who says "Rabboni," and who has represented the nature of the mercy by the words, "That I may receive my sight." And the Savior, on the one hand, through the words, "Thou Son of David, have mercy on me," does not grant the benefit, neither when the garment of beggary was wrapped about him, nor when he sat by the way begging; but through B the words, "Rabboni, that I may receive my sight," He said to him: "Go thy way, thy faith hath made thee whole." And the Savior on the one hand said to him, "Go thy way," but he [the blind man] has done more than this command; for he was not wrapped [in it]—he who, casting it off, came to Jesus, and confessed with a more worthy voice, saying: "Rabboni." For it is more worthy to say "Rabboni," or as it is said in others, "Lord," than "Thou Son of David." Whence also the Lord, because of that which he said, "Thou Son of David, have mercy on me," did not grant the healing, nor C because he was D sitting by the way.
OLD INTERPRETATION.
(85) The Ebionite signifies "the needy." But since these blind beggars called Christ the Son of David, not the Son of God, because they seemed to detract from His dignity, he compares them to the Ebionite, who was also a beggar by name, and who also knew that Christ was sprung from the seed of David. HUETIUS.
(86) "And leaping up came to Jesus." Some codices, Mark x, 50, and the Vulgate edition, [have] "leaping." But it is commonly read [as] "rising," which follow the Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic. A little later, however, Origen, "having risen, he leapt up and arose."
(87) Codex Regius, "coverings and wrappings."
A he has not departed, but followed Jesus on the way, since he immediately regained his sight. Let us also look at the account of Luke, which stands thus: “It came to pass that he was drawing near to Jericho, and a certain blind man was sitting by the way, begging,” and so on, up to: “And all the people, when they saw it, gave praise to God.” As for those things which are common to this and the others, since we have already explained them as it seemed fit to us, we shall not repeat them; but those things which pertain to the matter, and are proper to it, we shall set forth to the best of our ability. And first, observe that Matthew and Mark have recorded the event concerning the blind man or blind men as having occurred when Jesus was leaving Jericho accompanied by his disciples; but Luke says: “And it came to pass, as he was drawing near to Jericho.” Therefore, according to Luke, he was entering Jericho, and having come near it, he performed the dispensation concerning the blind man. And one might B say, according to the mystical sense, that the account of Luke is the first, that of Mark the second, and that of Matthew the third; for first one must draw near to Jericho, then enter into it, and then go out from it. Luke, therefore, wrote: “It came to pass as he was drawing near to Jericho,” while Mark wrote: “And he comes to Jericho, and as he was going out from thence,” and Matthew did not write of drawing near to Jericho, nor that he comes to Jericho, but only that, “as they were departing from Jericho, a great crowd followed him.” It is possible, then, that according to Luke, he did it when he had drawn near to Jericho; according to Mark, when he had entered Jericho; and according to Matthew, when he had departed from it. You see also that the blind man in Luke, “hearing a crowd passing by,” and not, I suppose, Jesus, inquired what it might be; but the one according to Mark, “hearing that it is Jesus the Nazarene, began to cry out”; while those according to Matthew, two blind men sitting by the way, when they heard that Jesus was passing by, cried out. And the Jesus in Matthew is not [called] Jesus the Nazarene by the blind men, but [he is so called] by the others, of whom the one in Mark hears that it is Jesus the Nazarene; but the one in Luke, when he was inquiring of the crowd what this might be, learned from those who reported it to him that Jesus the Nazarene was passing by; and next to these, he observes that to him who cried out C when he was sitting, veiled in the garment of blindness and beggary, nor when he was sitting by the way begging. But because of this which he said: “Rabboni, that I may see,” he said to him: “Go, thy faith hath saved thee.” Now let us see according to Luke, what he said in common, and touch upon what is proper to him. For while Mark and Matthew place it as Jesus was leaving Jericho, Luke says: “And it came to pass as he was drawing near to Jericho, and was in the neighborhood, he enlightened the blind man.” And one might say according to the spiritual mystery, that the first is what Luke says, the second what Mark says, and the third what Matthew says. For first it is necessary to approach Jericho, and thus to enter into it, and afterward to go out of it. Luke therefore writes: “And it came to pass as he was drawing near to Jericho.” But Mark says: “And he comes to Jericho, and as he was departing thence.” Matthew, however, does not write that he approached Jericho, nor that...
he was departing from it, but only “as they were departing from Jericho.” A One may therefore say, according to Luke, that he was approaching Jericho; but according to Mark, that he was entering Jericho; and according to Matthew, that he was departing from Jericho. Consider this, for he rebuked the blind man who cried out, saying: “Have mercy on me, O Son of David,” and those who went before rebuked him that he should be silent. B It is as if they were saying: “If those who first believed rebuked the one shouting: ‘O Son of David,’ that he should be silent, and not compel Him with a lower name, but, as it were, were saying: ‘O Son of God, have mercy on me,’ he, however, shouted all the more: ‘O Son of David, have mercy on me.’” Then, he says, when He had stopped, Jesus commanded him to be brought to Him. And see that he is not inferior, just as we have noted, this blind man; for neither did Jesus call him, nor did He say for him to be called, but as if he were not able to come by his own strength, He commanded him to be brought to Him. C Then, he says, when he had drawn near to Him, He questioned him, saying: “What do you wish that I should do?” And he did not question him before he had drawn near; and since he had drawn near, for that reason, having been questioned, he said: “That I may receive my sight, Lord.” Then, he says, Jesus answered and said to him: “Receive your sight, your faith has saved you.” D The blind men according to Matthew have something more, about whom it is written that Jesus touched their eyes, neither did Mark nor Luke touch upon this. But here there is again a prerogative in the one according to Luke, since when he immediately received his sight, he not only followed Him, but he had something more than the others: “He followed Him, for he says, glorifying God.” And what was the end in this one, following and glorifying God, for all the crowd seeing it to give glory to God? These things, for the present, whether we have known or whether we have received (89), we have seen. May God grant to whom He wishes more abundantly the word of wisdom and with the word, clearer with the light of knowledge, so that, being compared with such gifts, one may be found to be as a lamp near the sun!
Concerning the donkey and the colt.
14. And when they had drawn near to Jerusalem, and had come to Bethphage, to the Mount of Olives, and so forth, unto the words: “Upon a donkey and a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.” And Mark also in that place has written: “And as they drew near to Jerusalem, and to Bethphage at the Mount of Olives,” and so forth, unto the words: “Upon a donkey and a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.” Regarding other places, we have noted that Matthew and John did not set forth the prophecy in the same words; for “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion, [proclaim, O daughter of Jerusalem]” is not the same as: “Say to the daughter of Zion” [or: “Fear not, O daughter of Zion”], but [rather, the things] preceding “He is lowly” after “Behold, your King comes to you,” Matthew did not set forth, having it thus: “Just and saving is He.” Furthermore, instead of “and sitting upon a donkey and a colt, the foal of a beast of burden,” [there lies: “and sitting upon a donkey] and a young colt,” or as it is in some manuscripts, “a colt of a beast of burden.” And John, instead of “sitting upon a beast of burden [and a young colt],” has made it: “coming, he sits upon a colt of a donkey;” which expressing that the passage needs understanding, he adds: “These things His disciples did not know at first.”
A For the synagogue of that time was bound by sins, and bound also was the colt, he who would later become the young people believing from the nations; and when the Savior drew near to the ascent unto the heavenly Jerusalem, He commanded that both of these be loosed by the disciples, giving them the Holy Spirit and saying, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.” And always, indeed, the disciples of Christ, whom He “made sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit,” loosing the “bound donkey” and the “colt,” lead them to Jesus, who wishes to make use of the conveyances loosened from the bonds of ancient sins by his own genuine disciples. And it is fitting for the Son of God thus to have need (for He is a lover of mankind) of the bound donkey and of the colt bound “with her”; and He has need of them, in order that by sitting upon them He may give them rest, rather than find rest from those upon whom He sits.
But someone will inquire how the account of what follows will be consistent with what has been set forth, as it stands thus: “And immediately he will send them,” or: “When they draw near to Jerusalem and to Bethany, to the Mount of Olives,” and the rest, up to “And immediately he sends him.” And Luke in this manner, having said these things: “He was walking in front, ascending to Jerusalem,” and the rest, up to: “You shall say thus, that the Lord has need of him.” It is truly worth while, regarding such passages of the Gospel, to dwell upon the intention of those who wrote them and their purpose: what they were aiming at in recording, alongside the wonders and miracles performed by the Savior, things that signify nothing of the sort. For let it be that the Evangelists busied themselves B with the recovery of sight for the blind, the healing of the paralyzed, the resurrection of the dead, and the cleansing of the lepers, for the edification in the faith of Christ of those reading their writings regarding Jesus; but what is it that they intend by the passage before us, whereby, when Jesus had drawn near to Jerusalem with the disciples and had come to Bethphage near the Mount of Olives, He sent two disciples, instructing them concerning a donkey and a colt, that they should loose them and lead them to Him—to C Him who at other times did not shrink from traveling a longer road on foot and completing a journey on His own feet, as when He was passing through Samaria from Jerusalem and, having arrived at the well, being weary from the journey, sat down beside it? And what is the point for Jesus Himself in ordering a donkey bound along with a colt to be untied, and commanding to tell him who might say anything about this that the Lord has need of them, and that he would immediately send them back? For such a Lord, having need of a donkey and a colt that have long been bound, should show something worthy of His majesty. The prophet Zechariah, son of Berechiah, intensifies the difficulty of the inquiry at this point, having prophesied a prophecy concerning these things worthy of attention, in which these things are written in these very words: “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Sion; declare, O daughter of Jerusalem; behold, your King comes to you, righteous and saving, He is meek D and...
seated upon an animal and a young foal.” If you wish to learn from the Prophet A how it is that the daughter of Sion should rejoice greatly on account of the things foretold to her, hear what he says: “And He shall destroy the chariots from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem, and the war bow shall be destroyed, and the multitude, and peace from the nations; and He shall have dominion over the waters as far as the sea, and from the rivers to the ends of the earth. And you, in the blood of the covenant, have set forth your prisoners from the pit that has no water. You shall sit in the stronghold, you prisoners of the congregation, and instead of one day of your sojourn, I will render back to you double.” And that we may not draw out this discourse further, let us leave it to anyone who wishes to compare the prophecy with the history according to the Gospel, to examine all matters in their respective places as the text lies before us.
We have noted, as we have in other places, that Matthew and John did not quote the prophecy in the very same words; for “Rejoice greatly, daughter of Sion” is not the same as “Say to the daughter of Sion.” Furthermore, after the words B “Behold, your King comes to you,” those which precede—namely “meek”—are not quoted by Matthew, who has it instead: “Just and saving Himself”; moreover, for “And sitting upon a donkey and a young foal,” it is written “and a young foal,” or, as some write, “a foal of a beast of burden.” John, however, instead of “Sitting upon an animal,” has written: “Sitting, He comes upon the foal of a donkey;” and intending to show that this passage requires understanding, he adds: “These things His disciples did not know at first.”
One might ask how it is reasonably commanded, according to the Prophet, that the daughter of Sion should rejoice greatly and that the daughter of Jerusalem should proclaim this C on account of His magnificence. What is the meaning of the fact that the Prophet Zechariah also foretold concerning this in these words: “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Sion; proclaim, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, your King comes to you, righteous and saving, He is meek and sitting upon a beast of burden and His young foal.” But if you wish to learn from the Prophet how Sion had this great joy, hear what he says: “And He destroyed the chariots from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem, and the war bow shall be destroyed, and the multitude, and peace from the nations; and He shall have dominion over the waters as far as the sea, and from the rivers to the limits of the earth. And you, in the blood of the covenant, have sent forth your prisoners from the pit that has no water.” We have noted, however, as in other cases, that Matthew and John did not produce the same prophecy in the same language. For it is not the same thing to say “Rejoice greatly, daughter of Sion, proclaim, daughter of Jerusalem,” as it is to say “Say to the daughters of Sion,” or “Fear not, daughter,” and the rest, which they did not set down in the same way.
15. One must inquire how it is that the Prophet reasonably commands the daughter of Sion to rejoice greatly, and the daughter of Jerusalem to proclaim, on account of Him who sat upon the donkey and the young foal, since shortly after... D
seeing Jerusalem, He wept over it, A which kills the prophets, and so on. Observe, therefore, if you are able, whether Sion, now called the daughter of Him who commands her to rejoice, and Jerusalem, again the daughter of Him who orders her to proclaim, might refer to the heavenly things; concerning these it is written in the Epistle to the Hebrews: "But you have come to Mount Sion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels." And in the Epistle to the Galatians: "But the Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all." B Perhaps these are symbols of the Savior having loosed His own vehicles through His disciples—those who then believed from the people, as well as those from the Gentiles; for the ancient Synagogue was once bound by sins, and the young foal was bound with her, representing the people recently gathered from the Gentiles. C And as the Savior approached the ascent to the Jerusalem above, He ordered both of them to be loosed by the disciples who taught them, giving them the Holy Spirit and saying: "Receive the Holy Spirit; if you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." And ever do the disciples, whom He made capable ministers of the New Testament, not of the letter but of the spirit, D loose the bound donkey and the foal, leading them to Jesus, who desires to use as vehicles those who have been released from their ancient bonds by His true and genuine disciples. Indeed, it becomes the Son of God to have such need—for He is a lover of mankind—the need of the bound donkey and the foal bound with her. He has need of them, in order that, by sitting upon them, He might give them rest rather than be rested by those upon whom He sits.
16. But someone will ask how the sequence of what follows is consistent with what we have explained, as it stands: "Seeing Jerusalem, He wept over it, saying: Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which kills the prophets," and so on. Consider, therefore, if perhaps by Sion who is to rejoice, and Jerusalem who is to proclaim, He does not mean the one which crucified the Lord, but that which has received the Crucified, the heavenly Sion, concerning which the Apostle says to the Hebrews: "But you have come to Mount Sion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem," etc. Likewise to the Galatians: "But the Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all." Perhaps, then, all these are mysteries of the Savior, who looses through His disciples the bonds of the people from the Jews and of the people who come from the Gentiles. For the Synagogue that then existed was bound by sins; the foal was also bound with her, which subsequently became the new believing people from the Gentiles. And, approaching the heavenly Jerusalem—that is, ascending into heaven—He commanded His disciples to loose them, giving them the Holy Spirit, saying: "Receive the Holy Spirit; if you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them: and if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." And ever do the disciples of Christ, releasing the bound donkey and the foal, lead them to Jesus, who desires to use as vehicles those released by His disciples from the bond of their prior sins. And it is worthy of the Son of God that He should have need of them in this way. For He is merciful toward the bound donkey and the foal with her. He has need of them, that sitting upon them He might give them rest, rather than be rested by them.
A And “He will send them immediately,” or “And straightway he will send him back hither.” You shall solve the stated problem by weighing the mission of either the two according to Matthew, or the foal according to Mark. That no one else was the Lord of those bound, but our one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and to whom none of those saying, “Why do you untie the foal?” or whatever else they might say, was about to gainsay—is manifest. For just as if they would not oppose Him at all, the Savior said, “And if anyone says anything to you, say that the Lord has need of them,” or “If anyone says to you, ‘Why do you untie the foal?’ say that the Lord has need of it,” and according to Luke also, “If anyone asks you, ‘Why do you untie?’ you shall say, ‘Because the Lord has need of it.’” And you shall inquire whether, after Jerusalem and the Savior’s having mounted these or this B, a certain mission was to take place to some necessary task in that place, so that the donkey and the foal might perform some work according to that which is passed over in silence, but which is nonetheless signified, though not clearly. I receive the conception of such a thing by attending to the order of the Beatitudes in the Gospel according to Matthew, in which, after “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven,” there is written next, “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” For observe in these that, first, the kingdom of heaven belongs to those who are blessed, and second, they shall inherit the earth—not that they are to be on it for the whole age; for, having been comforted, and C because they have hungered and thirsted for righteousness, and having been filled with it, and having received mercy, and having seen God, and having been called His sons, they are again restored to the kingdom of heaven. If the donkey and the foal which the Savior mounts happen to be those who have been given this interpretation, do not stumble at the account that compares to dumb beasts of burden those who carry Jesus as He rides them. For perhaps the Prophet, having understood something of this sort, said that he had become brutish, not absolutely, but before God or before Christ, saying, “And I became as a beast of burden before Thee.” For as towards the Word Himself and D towards the greatness of God, we are beasts of burden—not only we, but also… [index: entries preserved]
far more logical and wiser than we are; and in this way, just as we are sheep of the shepherd in relation to the rational nature, because he who is compared among men and the most perfect ones to the Word himself—the Word—has a greater distance from Him than the soul of an ass or a foal or a sheep has from a human. And perhaps the beast of burden, or even the foal, that carries Jesus up to Jerusalem are of such a nature. But having arrived there, they do not remain a beast of burden or a foal, but are sent away, having been changed, and aided, and having shared in the divinity of the Word and the excellence of knowledge, so that they might be sent away for the glory of God, to the place from which they were unloosed before, the Lord having transformed them and having given them a reward for having brought Him, namely that very transformation, so that they might be sent back to their former place, no longer for their former works; for our benevolent Lord, having once received them and honored them both by the unloosing from their bonds and by his own mounting of them, was not about to send them again to the bonds or to works lesser than the work they had performed when they bore the Son of God upon their backs. B And it was fitting for this mystery and for the things spoken concerning Him to rejoice greatly and for the fruit of the Spirit, the daughter of God, Zion, and her daughter, Jerusalem, to increase her joy and to proclaim [it]; for the King was coming to her, just and saving, yet keeping with it that He is just, and saving with justice, and preparing those who are to be saved for salvation. He Himself was coming to Zion and Jerusalem, meek and C mounted upon a beast of burden and a young foal, as we have set forth, visiting Israel by destroying the chariots from Ephraim, which are similar to the chariots of Pharaoh, when he cast the chariots of Pharaoh and his power into the sea; and He was coming also destroying the war-animal, the horse, from Jerusalem, so that He might create peace for Israel, returning his lost sheep, and peace also for Jerusalem, leading back its children who had been cast out. How, then, was this matter not worthy of great joy, for the just King and the one who saves and is meek to be coming into Jerusalem? When every war-bow was about to be destroyed, so that sinners might no longer stretch bows, nor prepare arrows D
[VETUS INTERPRETATIO]
...above those whom the Word mounts, let not the discourse seem insipid to you in that faithful men are compared to animals. For perhaps understanding something of the sort, the Prophet says that he has become as a beast of burden; not simply a beast of burden, but as a beast of burden before God, or before His Christ, according to what he says: "I became as a beast of burden before you" (Ps. LXXI, 25). For in relation to God, we are beasts of burden, not only we, but even those much more prudent than we. But thus, in relation to Christ the shepherd, we are also His sheep: since there is as great a distance between Him and us as [there is] between a human and any beast of burden whatsoever. And perhaps when the ass and the foal have ascended into Jerusalem, with Jesus sitting upon them, and having been made [perfect] there, they will not remain there, but will be sent back, already changed, and edified, and nourished by the divinity of the Word, and [by its] eminence, knowledge, [and] honesty: so that they may be thought worthy, to the glory of God, to be sent back to the place from which they were taken, the Lord first improving them and, as it were, bestowing this reward upon them because they carried Him and rested in Him: so that, as we have said, they may be held worthy to be sent back to the place of this earth from which they had been taken, no longer to their former works. For it is not right that the merciful God, [having been] established as Lord, after He has once received them, and honored them, and loosed them from their bond, and made them His own seat, should send them back again to the bonds and to evil works, after they have once received the Son of God upon their hearts. In all these things it was very fitting to rejoice, and to extend [the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. v, 22)].
we proclaim "that the Lord has need of them," of those previously bound. He has need of them while riding upon them, once they have been loosed from their sins and have received the forgiveness thereof; for Jesus does not sit upon those who remain bound and constrained by the "reins of their own sins" (Prov. v, 22). According to Mark and Luke, however, there is a colt tied, "on which no man has ever sat"; for nothing rational or done according to human custom had ever been practiced or established by the colt from among the Gentiles. And this animal, upon which no rational person had previously sat, was blessed to have the Divine Word, the Son of God, sit upon it, so that, being led by Him as its charioteer, it might arrive at the Jerusalem of God. These are the aspects of the passage that we have seen for the present; but whoever is able and has the capacity for greater understanding of this passage, let him speak greater and better things, and let him rather be heard by those who thirst for the clarity of the Gospel. "And the disciples went and did as Jesus commanded them, and brought the ass and the colt," and so on, until "the [prophet] from Nazareth of Galilee" (Matt. xxi, 6, 11).
A Following the things set forth concerning the two disciples sent to untie "the ass" that was "tied and the colt" that was "with her," and all the things stated concerning that place, we shall also narrate the things set forth, in which it is said that "the two disciples having gone and done" what was commanded them by the Savior, "brought" to him "the ass and the colt"; whom they did not leave naked, but put upon them an adornment, in garments causing seemliness, having adorned the "ass and" the "colt with her" that had been untied by them, with which they themselves also were adorned and covered, [and] so that, as they were adorned with the ass and the colt [and] with the garments of the disciples who had taught them, the Word of God might ascend and rest and be seated, becoming alone the rider and charioteer of those that had been untied and were carrying him. But Jesus sits upon the ass and the young colt with the cloaks of the teaching disciples placed upon them, because it was necessary for each one to contribute something to Christ, the gentle King mounted upon a beast of burden and a young colt. [And the most part of the multitude spread their own garments in the way, and others cut down branches from the trees and spread them in the way.] There was indeed a "most part of the multitude" who were entering Jerusalem with Jesus, and these showed a fruit of the acceptance of the Savior in the way they spread "their own garments," and the adornment and covering which they possessed, for the one sitting upon the ass and the colt. In "the way," therefore, along which he was leading "the ass and the colt" toward Jerusalem, "the most part of the multitude spread" their "own garments," so that the ass and the colt might enter Jerusalem [with feet] pure of the earth and earthly things and in no way having dust on them. And a third order, besides the "two disciples" and the most part of the multitude who spread "their garments in the way," has now been recounted: for "others" were preparing a certain beauty B for the way along which Jesus was traveling toward Jerusalem, riding upon the aforementioned. There was a place, and Bethany is the house of obedience. To the house of obedience, therefore, are brought those things that are being untied or that which is being untied, so that from there Jesus may mount them; and to the house of the jawbone, concerning which it is possible to speak, having taken occasions naturally from the Book of Judges, in which there is a spring called "the Jawbone," from which Samson drank when he was thirsty, or perhaps because to one who strikes the jaw one must offer also the other, Bethphage was a symbol of the long-suffering of those who obtain salvation, from where Jesus was seated upon those that had been untied by the disciples according to the Lord's command. And it is the Mount of Olives, which, they say, being fruit-bearing are fine olive trees. "But I am like a fruit-bearing olive tree in the house of God," and those who are beginning and are being led in among them are "as the new plants of olive trees round about the" table of Christ, being his children and sons. But if one must also attend to the two disciples whom Jesus sent for the tied ass and the colt with her, so that having untied them they might bring them to him, it must be said that perhaps the two disciples are Peter and Paul, giving each other the right hands of fellowship, so that Peter might be for the circumcision, for the beast of burden—the one who had been brought under the yoke of the law—and Paul for the Gentiles, for the young and untamable colt. And both were, I say the beast of burden and the colt, before Jesus, in a village, and not a city, where they had been tied. But the disciples of Jesus untie and lead both to Jesus. And further, if one interprets the two disciples anagogically, you will say that there is indeed one order of those who minister to those from the circumcision, and another to those from the Gentiles. C Nevertheless, there is a communion of their works, as they untie the things commanded.
ANCIENT INTERPRETATION
Bethphage is interpreted as "house of jawbones." It was, however, a village of the priests, since the jawbone was the proper portion of the priests by law. In which we can say we take the greatest occasion from the Book of Judges, since in these was the fountain that was called the fountain of the jawbone, from which Samson had drunk when he was thirsty. Or perhaps that fountain was a mystery of the long-suffering of the faithful, to whom the Lord says: "He who strikes you on one cheek, offer him also the other." Bethany, however, is "house of obedience." Into the house of obedience, therefore, are brought all who are unloosed from the bond of their sins, or to the priestly house of the jawbones, or of long-suffering, so that from there the Lord may ascend upon those whom his disciples have untied according to his commandment and brought to him. The Mount of Olives is the Church, in which the fruit-bearing faithful can say: "But I am like a fruitful olive tree in the house of God." But those who are first led to D the priestly village of the jawbones... [alt-version omitted]A and the beauty of the branches being cut "from the trees" and spread on either side of the garments which were laid down—unless perhaps this was a fourth order. For other are the "disciples" who untie, and another is the ass being untied, and the colt "with her," and thirdly "the very large crowd," and fourthly those who cut "the branches from the trees and" spread them "on the road." Discern also for me, from these, a fifth and sixth order enumerated: those going before Jesus and those following him. And you will say that those going before are from the people before the manifestation, perhaps of the righteous and the prophets; but those following are those from after the manifestation who follow the Word and follow him, whether they be righteous or apostles of Christ. However, the ones going before were not saying different things than those who were following; for they all cried out together as a chanting and harmonious choir and said, hymning the humanity of the Savior in the "Hosanna to the Son of David," and his second coming in the "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord," and his restoration into the holy things in the "Hosanna in the highest."
With these three shouts being uttered by the harmony of those going before and those following Jesus, he entered "into" the true "Jerusalem." But the heavenly powers having been astonished, they who are said to be "the whole city," said, "Who is this?" corresponding to those things prophesied in the twenty-third Psalm concerning the ascension of the Savior and the astonishment of the heavenly powers, astonished at the new sight of his bodily vehicle. It exists thus in the Psalm: "Lift up your gates, O princes, and be lifted up, eternal gates, and the King of glory shall enter in," and the rest. And in Isaiah also similar things are prophesied concerning the ascent of the Savior after the economy; for it is written: "Who is this that comes from Edom, the redness of his garments from Bosor?" B
Things ordained by Jesus to be untied; and while they are untying them, if anyone says to them, "Why are you untying the colt?" or whatever it may be, he says concerning both, we proclaim that the Lord has need of those formerly bound. He has need of them, being about to mount them, having been freed from sins and having received the forgiveness of them; for Jesus does not mount those who are still bound and "constrained by the ropes of their own sins." According, however, to Mark and Luke, "a colt is bound upon which no man has ever sat," for nothing rational and done according to order had happened, and it was established by the colt from the Gentiles; and this one, upon which nothing rational had previously been seated, was fortunate to have God upon it, the Word, the Son of God, so that, being led by him acting as charioteer, it might reach the Jerusalem of God. So much have we seen concerning this passage for the present; but one who is able and who can take in greater things for this passage, let him say greater and better things, and let that one be heard rather by those who thirst for evangelical clarity.
"And the disciples went and did as Jesus commanded them, and they led the ass and the colt," and the rest, until: "Of Nazareth of Galilee." And Mark sets it forth thus according to the passage: "And going away they found a colt bound at the door outside in the street, and they untie it," and the rest, until: "Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David; peace in the highest." And Luke says such things: "And they who were sent went and found, as he said to them, the colt standing," and the rest, until: "If these become silent, the stones will cry out." C
[Concerning the] VETUS INTERPRETATIO: Those having the beginnings of faith are "like the young olive trees in the circle of the table of Christ," because they are his sons. But if it is necessary also to explain the mystery of the two disciples whom the Lord sent: perhaps we can not unreasonably say that they existed in the mystery of Peter and Paul, who gave to each other the right hands of fellowship, so that Peter indeed might go into the circumcision to the yoke-fellow, to preach to the people of the Jews living under the yoke of the Law; but Paul to the Gentiles, to the new and untamed colt. Both were (that is, the people from the Jews and the people from the Gentiles) in a village, and not in the city of Sion or Jerusalem; but the disciples of Christ untie both and lead them to Christ, that he might ascend upon them when they have been freed from sins, receiving the remission of them. Upon those who are still bound and constrained by the chains of their own sins, Jesus does not sit. According to Mark and Luke, however, even a colt is introduced to be bound, upon which no man has sat: for nothing rational, nor that which is accustomed to be done according to human customs, had ever happened among the Gentiles, nor had any discipline been founded in them, but contrary to their merit they were obtained by God, so that the Word of God might sit upon them, so that he leading, they might ascend into the Jerusalem of God. D "And they placed their garments upon him, and he sat upon him." Bringing therefore the ass and the colt to Christ, they did not leave them naked, but placed upon them the ornaments with which they had been adorned, and the garments with which they themselves had been covered, adding to them honesty, whom they themselves had untied by their own zeal: so that upon those adorned with the garments of the disciples of Christ, Christ might ascend and rest in them, and among them the Word of God might be poured out, since it was proper for each of the disciples to confer something to Christ the gentle king, so that they might be able to say that we are participants of Christ's work. "But a very great crowd spread their garments on the way. Others however were cutting branches from the trees, and were spreading them on the way." A great crowd therefore was ascending with Christ.
A And according to the things set forth regarding the two disciples sent to untie the bound ass and the colt that was with her, and all things said to those in that place, we shall also relate the things set out, in which it is said that the two disciples going and doing the things ordered for them by the Savior, led the ass and the colt to him, whom they did not leave naked, but put ornaments upon them, covering them with garments to provide decorum, having adorned the ass untied by them and the colt with her; with which they themselves were also adorned and covered, so that the Word of God, having become the driver of the untied animals that were bearing him, might rest and be settled upon the ass and the colt adorned by the garments of the disciples who taught them, and might remain alone upon them. But Jesus sits upon the ass and the colt, since the garments of those who taught were placed upon them; yet since it was necessary for each one to contribute something to the meek King riding upon a beast of burden and a young colt, and since there was a very great crowd accompanying Jesus into Jerusalem, these too showed the fruit of their reception of the Savior by spreading their own garments, which they had as decoration and covering, for the one sitting upon the ass and the colt. B Therefore, on the road along which he led the ass and the colt to Jerusalem, the great crowd spread their own garments, so that the ass and the colt might enter into Jerusalem upon things clean and free from earthly matters and in no way having dust. And a third company is now recounted besides the two disciples and the great crowd who spread their garments on the road; for others were providing beauty to the road through which Jesus was traveling to Jerusalem, riding upon the aforementioned animals; and the beauty was from branches being cut from trees and spread on either side of the garments that were spread down; unless perhaps this was a fourth company: for there were the disciples who were untying, another was the untied ass and the colt with her, and a third the C great crowd that spread their garments on the road. For others were providing beauty to the road along which Jesus was traveling to Jerusalem, riding upon the aforementioned animals. D And that he might be adorned by the ass and the colt with the garments of the disciples who taught... But upon the garments of those who taught, placed upon the ass and the colt, etc. ...of those who taught, to, of those who taught... I know that some have understood the bound ass as those believing from the circumcision, who are released from many bonds by those who have been truly and spiritually taught by the Word; and the colt as those from the nations...
OLD INTERPRETATION
And those who were in Jerusalem, and they too have demonstrated the fruit of the reception of Christ, spreading their garments and whatever ornaments they had on the way through which the ass was passing, namely, that walking cleanly, they might in no way touch the earth and the dust of earthly things, or allow the ass and the colt, as they were ascending into Jerusalem, to tread upon them in that path. And a third company is introduced after the disciples and the great crowd spreading their garments, who were making some beauty for the journey through which Jesus was traveling into Jerusalem. The crowd, however, which went before and followed, were crying out, saying: "Hosanna to the son of David: Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest." And those going before Jesus are said to be the holy prophets and the other just men who were before the coming of Christ: those following, however, are the apostles who were after his coming. [It seems he attributed this] to teaching; for he [speaks] thus in the places above. Item, a little later, [it is that] of those who taught, by whose precepts the ass and the colt—namely the circumcision and the nations, or whoever else—have been instructed as bearers of Christ. Origen, Homily on Luke: "The ass, untied by the disciples and carrying Jesus, walks upon the garments of the apostles, when it imitates their doctrine and life." Jerome: "But the apostolic garment, or the doctrine of virtues, or the exposition of the Scriptures can be understood; or the varieties of ecclesiastical dogmas, without which, if the soul has not been instructed and adorned, it will not deserve to have the Lord as its rider." But the old interpreter of Origen seems to have attributed the meaning of learning, not [as] praised: "As upon the garments of the disciples adorned by Christ," etc. Item: "Since it was fitting for each of the disciples to contribute something to Christ." Origen relates this same history in his Commentary on John, book xi, etc. The same, Homily on the Canticles: "Blessed are those souls which have curved their backs so that they may receive the rider, the Word of God, upon them, and they endure his reins, so that he may direct them wherever he wishes, and lead them with the reins of his precepts." Certainly, it is probable that the word *disco* (to learn) has flowed from *disco*—but I pause.A Observe in this passage the formation of a fifth and sixth rank from among those who preceded and followed Jesus. And indeed, you will say that those who precede are gathered perhaps from the saints and prophets who lived before the Advent; but those who follow are from the righteous, or the apostles of Christ, who have pursued the Word after the Advent. However, those who were preceding were not saying one thing, and those who were following another; for they all cried out together, as it were a harmonious and consonant chorus, and they were speaking, praising the humanity of the Savior in the words: "Hosanna to the Son of David;" and at his second coming, with this hymn: "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord;" and at his restitution into the holy places, saying: "Hosanna in the highest."
B Now, as these three exclamations were being uttered by the concord of those who preceded and followed Jesus, he entered the true Jerusalem; and the heavenly powers, which are said to be the entire city, being struck with astonishment, were saying: "Who is this?" just as those things having been predicted in the twenty-third psalm regarding the Savior’s reception in heaven, and the heavenly powers being astonished at the new sight of his bodily vehicle. It is written thus in the psalm: "Lift up your gates, O princes, and be lifted up, eternal gates, and the King of glory shall enter in," and what follows. C Isaiah also prophesies similar things concerning the Savior’s ascension after his work was administered; for it is written: "Who is this who comes from Edom, the redness of his garments from Bosra, this one beautiful in his robe?" You yourself, by gathering them together, can understand all the things of this place, what the astonished powers say concerning the ascension of the Savior’s body, and what answer is given to them.
These things have been brought forward by me because I wished to preserve the sequence of the tropology according to the Scripture, because "when he had entered Jerusalem, the whole city was moved, saying: Who is this?" After this, it is written that many said: "This is Jesus the prophet from Nazareth of Galilee," confessing him of whom the prophecy had been published: "Because he shall be called a Nazarene," namely, one strictly D and always consecrated to God. But let this place be circumscribed by this exposition, and let what follows provide the beginning of another member, so that no one is forced, by connecting the narrative of those things with the former, to seek its interpretation there.
The remaining faithful who followed the Word of God—nevertheless, those who preceded were not saying one thing and those who followed another; but all were crying out at once with a consonant voice, praising the human dispensation of Christ in that they said: "Hosanna to the Son of David," and "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord," and his restitution into the holy places, in that they said: "Hosanna in the highest."
19. At that time, when Jesus had entered Jerusalem, the whole city was moved, saying: "Who is this?" In these two clamors now stated, by the consent of those preceding and following Jesus, he himself entered into the true Jerusalem; and the heavenly powers, which are called the city, were filled with wonder.
A But since the sequence now requires us to speak according to the wording of Matthew regarding those things set forth, let us call upon the Father of wisdom and see if we can speak anything worthy of the bold action of Jesus in this place. And first, it must be said what "the temple of God" is, which God himself confessed, saying through the prophet: "My house shall be called a house of prayer." Now, analogous to the circumcision according to the flesh and the bodily feasts and sacrifices of the Law, the structure built first of inanimate stones by Solomon and later rebuilt by Ezra—though it was razed by the Romans after the economy of the Savior—was deemed to be "the temple of God." And that "house" was supposed to be of prayer; and when it was razed, it was necessary for the Jews, as no longer having a house "of prayer," to say that they no longer possessed the preeminence of God's oversight, which they thought they possessed because of praying in the house "of prayer," nor to perform the requirements of the legal worship. B Being cast out from the temple of God, some are reproved, as having made the house of prayer a den of robbers. I do not know, however, if, even if one forces it, one can follow [the passage] "Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion," [and] save the whole sequence of what follows for the things set forth. After these things, let us also examine this: "Hosanna to the son of David: Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest," [and] what meaning it has. Clearly, then, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord" lies in the very same words in the psalm before the greatest psalm, called in some copies the 117th. And it seems to me that the things before "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord," [which stand] in place of "O Lord, save now," are expressed in Hebrew as "Hosanna to the son of David." And the Hebrew wording was thus: "Anna Adonai Oseinnan. Anna Adonai asai. Anna Baruch abbab saim Adonai." It seems to me that, because the Evangelists were constantly being written down by Greeks who did not know the language, these things [in the original text] concerning the place have been confused with what is from the aforementioned psalm. C But if you wish to learn the exact meaning of the word, hear Aquila interpreting it thus: "O now, Lord, save now. O now, Lord, prosper now: Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord." But let us summarize the things regarding the place, and say that either Paul and Peter, or the two kinds of teachers, having loosed [the beings] from their bonds according to... D ...saying: "Who is this?" according to what had been prophesied in the psalm concerning his ascension, and concerning the admiration of the heavenly powers because of the new vehicle of his body. It stands, moreover, thus: "Lift up your gates, you princes, and be lifted up, you eternal gates, and the king of glory shall enter. Who is this king of glory? The Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle." And in Isaiah some similar things are prophesied regarding the return...
And now I also think that the Church is the "temple" built of living stones, and that there are some in it who do not live as if in a church but who fight "according to the flesh," and who by their own wickedness make the house of "prayer" [built] of living stones a "den of robbers." For who, having considered the sins committed in certain churches by [such Christians] who think "godliness is a means of gain" for others, and who, though they ought to live solely "from the Gospel," do not do this, but instead gather wealth and many possessions—who would not say that the so great mystery of the Church has become a "den of robbers"? So that Jesus might say, regarding the sins committed in the living temple which He built, both that which is from the Psalms: "What profit is there in my blood, when I have gone down to the pit?" and that which is from [as I think] Hosea, where the soul of Jesus, displeased with the life of those who sin and yet seem to be in the temple, says: "Woe is me! for I have become as one who gathers straw in the harvest, and as the grape-gleanings in the vintage, there being no cluster to eat, the first-fruits."
A Having thus served the letter of the text, we have explained it tropologically, as far as we were able; but since the sequence requires that we discuss the matters set forth according to the narrative of Matthew, having invoked the Father of wisdom, let us see if we can say something worthy of the bold action of Jesus in this place. B And first, it must be said what that temple of God is, which God acknowledged when He said in the Prophet: "My house shall be called a house of prayer" (Isa. LVI, 7). According, therefore, to the circumcision according to the flesh, and the bodily feasts and sacrifices of the Law, that structure made of inanimate stones, first built by Solomon and then restored by Ezra, but after the economy of the Savior destroyed by the Romans, was considered the temple of God; and that house was believed to be a house of prayer. When it was destroyed, it was necessary to say that the Jews, as no longer having a house of prayer, no longer had the special privilege of the visitation of God, a privilege they were believed to enjoy because they prayed in the house of prayer after they had performed the duties of the legal worship. But our Savior, who issued symbols of His own spiritual actions, bodily cast out from that temple those who were selling and buying, overturned the tables of the money-changers and the chairs of those who were selling the doves, and said what is written for the conversion of the people then present, who, when they ought to have celebrated the holy festival in the name of God, occupied themselves with sales and purchases not in a place suitable for such things, but in the temple. C Here, where they gathered, they ought to have prayed as in a house of prayer; but they were doing things contrary to prayer within it, just as in a house dedicated to trade, selling and buying, exchanging money, and sitting in chairs for the sake of selling doves. Jesus, moreover, took away the foulness of the Jews' crime when He rebuked them for trading and for indulging in bodily pleasures when they ought to have celebrated the feast according to the prescription of the Law.
21. But now I consider the temple formed of living stones to be the Church, and that there are some in it who do not live as if in a Church, but who "war according to the flesh" (II Cor. X, 3), and who by their own wickedness make the house of prayer constructed of living stones a den of thieves. For who, having perceived the sins committed in certain Churches by those who are thought D to make piety a means of gain, and [who are] obligated...
to live on the Gospel alone, yet do not do so, but gather wealth and many possessions, would not say that such a great mystery of the Church has become a den of thieves? So that Jesus might say regarding the sins committed in the living temple which He Himself built, both that which is from the Psalms, which has it thus: “What profit is there in my blood, when I go down to corruption?” and that which is from, as I suppose, Hosea, B where the soul of Jesus speaks, being displeased with the life of those who sin, and who yet seem to be in the temple: “Woe to me! For I have become as one gathering stubble in the harvest, and as a grape-gleaning in the vintage, when there is no cluster to eat of the first-fruits. Woe to me, O my soul, for the pious has perished from the earth, and there is none upright among men.” C And if you are offended by Jesus saying these things, and by His mourning for our failures, saying, “Woe to me, O my soul,” consider along with these things that which is from the Gospel, where it is written that, “seeing Jerusalem, He wept over it, and said.” And more so, if He reasonably wept over Jerusalem, He will weep more reasonably over the Church, which was built to be a house of prayer, but which has become, through the base greed and luxury of some—and would that it were not also [through that] D of the leaders of the people—a den of thieves. But then, indeed, Jesus entered into the temple of God and cleansed it, casting out all those who sold and bought in the temple, and overturning the tables of the money-changers, together with the seats on which those who sold the doves were sitting. But now, in as much as those who come together in the name of Jesus Christ in meetings are not inspected, they are those who sell and buy in the temple, and do the rest, and nowhere does Jesus appear to them, that by casting them out He might save the rest, or by having those [others] cast out, He might make them perceive their sin, and enter into the temple, no longer with selling and buying, or the other…
things previously mentioned, but with the dignity belonging to Him. A If, however, it is necessary to contend for the clarity of Scripture and to explain more carefully the three types of people listed here, we must consider whether those among the people who are occupied with nothing in the world except for buying and selling, and who rarely persevere in prayer or in the works that the divine Word requires, are the ones "selling and buying in the temple of God." Those, moreover, who are not good deacons, who do not manage the treasury of the Church well, but are ever handling these funds, yet not ordaining them rightly—rather hoarding up what is considered wealth and money so that they might grow rich from the things given for the sake of the poor—these are the money-changers having "tables" of money, which Jesus "overturned." B And those who have been entrusted with the first seats, the bishops and presbyters of the people, who effectively sell whole churches to those to whom they should not, and who install as rulers those who ought not to be [installed], these are the ones selling "the doves," whose "seats" Jesus "overturned."
A For when He enters "into the temple" of God—the whole, entire Church, [from which the Church is constituted] gathered in the name of Christ until the consummation of the age—He will cast out those whom He finds occupied with selling and buying among those who are thought to be "in the temple" [as being unworthy of the "temple of God"]. And whomsoever He finds having set up "tables" and becoming money-changers, He will convict, overturning their "tables" and showing by the Word what kind of sin they have committed regarding money; then He will also overturn "the" [as we have explained] "seats of them that sold the doves." But if anyone has none of these three types of things and is found in the temple of God, let him take courage; for he will neither be cast out by Jesus, nor will any of his things be overturned, nor will he be reproached as a B robber for having made the house "of prayer a den of thieves," when those who have made the house "of prayer a den of thieves" through their own robbery and injustice are punished. Since, therefore, the interpretation that occurred to us in regard to the text and which has been applied in two ways to the Church has been stated, come, let us see after this if the matters concerning the place can also be understood in this way.
A For this reason, even until today, the Jews do not have Jesus [for they have not believed in the Son of God], but they have with them Barabbas, the robber, from the spiritual "hosts of wickedness," already captured and "shut up in prison," whom they demanded for themselves to be released. Therefore, Barabbas the robber rules over the unbelieving Jews. "And the blind and the lame came to Him in the temple, and He healed them," and so on, until the words, "Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants You have perfected praise" [Matt. 21]. The narrative in the letter of the text is clear. But following the allegorical interpretations previously provided, it must be said that "in the temple" of God, in the house of prayer, in the Church, not everyone is seeing, nor—if I may put it this way—are they walking uprightly. For there are some among those gathered who are "blind" and others who are "lame," who, upon realizing their own blindness and lameness and knowing that it is the work of no one but God and the Word of God to heal them, approach "Him" and are healed.
A "Do you hear what these are saying?" We shall understand this even better if we pay attention to how frequently those who are burning in spirit, who go as far as the prisons to visit the unbelievers, who despise every danger, and who practice purity and virginity with all vigor, are rebuked by the blameworthy "chief priests" as being disorderly, and are accused by them before Jesus, as if the chief priests were acting more righteously than these simple and earnest children. But "Jesus" bears witness to the children, while He charges the chief priests with ignorance of the "Scriptures" by saying: "Have you never read, 'Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes You have perfected praise'?" And when you see in the Church those like Peter, who "as newborn infants desire the rational, unadulterated milk" and are nursing it, being given that milk to drink, and who even praise God by their faith and their life, perceive that this is being fulfilled in them: "Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes You have perfected praise." For God perfects "praise" for Himself in such souls, by whom the Son, giving thanks to the Father, says:
A Barrabas the robber, already held fast and bound in prison, whom they asked to be released — this is why the robber Barabbas holds the [sovereign] rule over the unbelieving Jews.
On those who were healed in the temple, the blind and the lame.
24. "And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple, and he healed them," and so on, up to "Out of the mouths of infants and nursing babes you have perfected praise." The literal meaning is easy, but if one follows the spiritual interpretations handed down above, it must be said that in the temple of God, the house of prayer, that is, the Church, not everyone sees, nor is everyone — so to speak — walking uprightly. For among those B who are gathered there are some who are blind and some who are lame, who have a sense of their own blindness and lameness and understand that they can be healed only by God, and by the Word of God, and having come to Him, they are healed.
25. After this it is written that the chief priests and scribes, although they saw the wonders which Jesus performed, and heard the children shouting praises to the Son of God in the temple, that is, in the Church, were indignant that the children were praising Jesus, and in their indignation they said to the Savior: "Do you hear what these are saying?" And He, putting them to shame, C answered: "Have you never read, 'Out of the mouths of infants and nursing babes you have perfected praise'?" As if to say, "Do you despise the little ones in the Church and the children who praise me, who am the Son of my Father who is in heaven?" How then, according to history, can these chief priests and scribes be reproved, if not according to the anagoge? There are some chief priests and bishops who possess the name of the episcopate but do not adorn it with their life and character, nor are they clothed with knowledge and truth. Therefore, even if they indeed see the miracles, yet they despise those who are D truly little ones and children in the Church and who praise God and His Christ, and they are indignant at their progress and accuse them before Jesus.
ANCIENT INTERPRETATION
he casts them out of the temple: but they, joining with the thieves, said of Jesus: "Crucify, crucify him"; but of the robber Barabbas: "Release Barabbas to us." For which reason to this day the Jews have not Jesus, for they did not believe in him: but they have the robber Barabbas, whom they asked to be released even while he was held bound against them. Therefore the rule of the faithless Jews is Barabbas.
24. "And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple, and he healed them." These things, indeed, according to the simple understanding, have a manifest sense. But according to the consequence of the things mentioned above, morally interpreted, it must be said that in the temple of God, that is in the Church, not all are seeing, nor do all walk uprightly: but some are indeed blind, some are lame. Who, out of this fact, understand their own weakness and know that no one else's work it is except that of Christ Jesus and the Word of God that they are healed, so that, approaching the Word of God, they might receive the health of those who come to receive healing.
25. "But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the miracles that he did, and the children crying out in the temple, and saying: Hosanna to the son of David; they were indignant and said to him: Do you hear what these are saying? But Jesus said to them: Have you never read: Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes you have perfected praise?" How, according to history, are these chief priests and scribes to be rebuked: so also according to the Church of Christ, those who are to be rebuked are some bishops and presbyters, who do not adorn their life at all, nor are they clothed with the knowledge of truth, and although they see the miracles of Christ, they nevertheless despise the little ones of the Church, and the infants praising God and His Christ, and are indignant at their advance, and accuse them before Jesus. 94 Matt. xxi, 14 et seq. 95 ibid. 15. 96 ibid. 16. 97 ibid. (51) Codex Regius, *καὶ ἑαυτῶν*.
ἑαυτῶν*. A And the disciples "seeing [it], marveled, saying: How is it that the fig tree immediately withered away?" For with the eyes of the soul they saw the mystery of the withered fig tree, and they "marveled," not so much that it had withered, but that it had withered "immediately," for they saw the fig tree, that is, that people of Israel, already withered. And to the disciples who were marveling at having seen the fig tree withered "immediately," "Jesus answered and said" [confirming what was said with the word "Amen"] that "if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain: Be lifted up and thrown into the sea, it shall happen." Therefore, the disciples who believe and do not doubt do also "what was done to the fig tree," saying to it: "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you; but since you do not judge yourselves worthy, behold, we turn to the Gentiles," and abandoning it, they wither it, so that its vital power might pass over to those from among the Gentiles, and the spirit that previously held that people might pass over to those from among the Gentiles.
The mountain appearing to and pointed out by Jesus is therefore taken up in the case of each of those being fashioned by the Logos unto salvation, and it is cast "into the sea," in accordance with the word of the disciple who attains the teaching of Jesus, who says to the "mountain" within each of the hearers: "Be taken up and cast into the sea," and who says this with the possession of "faith and no" wavering, so that what is spoken may also come to pass. And all things whatsoever he who has "faith and does not" waver shall ask "in prayer," believing, he shall receive.
Now this is Bethany, where the friend of Jesus, who rose from the dead, dwelt. And everyone who obeys the word of God and has the word of obedience established [and lodging] within himself is a HOUSE of OBEDIENCE and a Bethany, in which Jesus lodges and rests. A Since, however, we must take from the things spoken matters worthy of the wisdom of God, from which the gospels were written, attend to whether, according to those who understand more simply, the phrase "he left them and went out of the city" is superfluous; for how could he "go out of the city" without "leaving" those former ones with whom he had been?
A Perhaps, just as in the case of the seed, "a sower went out to sow," and "some fell by the roadside, and the birds of the air came and devoured them," while others fell upon "the rocky places," and others among "the thorns," and others into "the good" and honest ground, so too there are various fig trees. And if a fig tree is on the good and honest ground, it bears "fruit" and provides it to Jesus when he is hungry. But when it is "by the roadside," like this one concerning which it is written, "and seeing a single fig tree by the roadside," it gives no fruit to Jesus upon his arrival; for he finds "nothing" in the fig tree "by the roadside" B "except leaves only." Therefore, "he says to it," since it was "by the roadside" and had only leaves as an impression of being alive but not bearing fruit, "May no fruit come from you ever again." So then, as long as he does not reach a certain fig tree and does not yet seek its fruit, but shows forbearance, waiting to see if perchance the fig tree might bear fruit, it does not wither.
But he who is not prepared to provide for Jesus, when he hungers and stands over him, the fruit of confession or of self-control, "immediately" withers; for he who denies him withers, and likewise he who commits fornication, even though he may have displayed a vital power—as it were, bearing around the "leaves" of the fig tree—during the time before his temptations. And the "disciples" marvel in the case of such people, how Jesus stood by hungering and seeking the fruit, but upon not finding it, he immediately "spoke and it came to pass," and the fig tree "that was not prepared" to bear fruit "immediately withered." And often someone who has been a "fig tree" for many years does not wither, but when Jesus comes to stand by in a time of temptation and demands the fruit, he who has not given it to him "immediately" withers and loses the life of so many years. And this comes to pass because, according to the word of the Savior, "to everyone who has, more will be given and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he seems to have will be taken away from him," so that "what he seems to have" may not be idle. And each of the disciples, "if" he has "faith and does not" waver, both performs "that which concerns the fig tree" and fulfills that which follows upon it.
A And it is better that the deceitful "fig tree," which is thought to be alive but is not bearing fruit, should, having been exposed as fruitless, appear withered by the words of the disciples of Jesus, than that it should continue to deceive "the hearts of the innocent" and those easily misled by its supposed life and the pretense of [the promise]. It appeared, therefore, to be a good work, both of Jesus and of his disciples, that which concerns the withered "fig tree." And over every B [I think] unbeliever and lawless person, a mountain lies heavy, in proportion to his unbelief and lawlessness, which is, by the word of the disciples of Jesus, lifted up and cast "into the sea" of his punishment. And "all things whatsoever" the disciples of Jesus, "believing," ask "in prayer" they shall receive, since as disciples they will ask for none of the things that are not fitting, and as those persuaded by the Teacher, they will ask for nothing else but the great and heavenly things; for Jesus said to his disciples: "Ask for the great things, and the small shall be added to you; and ask for the heavenly things, and the earthly shall be added to you."
And it is a fruit of the Spirit to love him who loves you, though not, if I may so name it, in the season of figs. But when someone incites a believer to hatred—deceiving him, plotting against him, and being corrupt in his character, so as to seem worthy of being hated—and yet the righteous man does not hate even such a person but, as a son "of him who makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good," loves him even then, he is blessed, giving the fruit of love as it were in a season not for figs. You will understand a similar thing regarding joy. For to bear the fruit of the Spirit, which is joy, when nothing is inciting one to grief and displeasure, is not difficult; but when the circumstances incite one to grief, despondency, and discontent, yet one progresses in the benefit derived from the Word to such a degree that, even in times of apparent displeasure, one is well-pleased, and in times of being dishonored and scourged one rejoices, and simply in every circumstantial time one remembers "rejoice always," such a person would be blessed, bearing the fruit of joy even in a season not, if I may so name it, for figs.
B
It is not difficult to perform the same analysis regarding the other fruits of the Spirit. For God, who addresses His word to a person, wishes that person to be superior to human nature, and demands from him things that are paradoxical and—if I may use the expression—the works of God rather than of man. Therefore, He says to all whom He calls to this blessedness: "I said: You are gods, and all sons of the Most High," while rebuking those who do not wish to be deified and to become sons of the Most High, He says: "But you die as men." For in every sin, when we are "fleshly and walking according to man," we do nothing other than to die; and it is clear that "if we live according to the flesh, we are about to die," as the apostle taught. These things are also said on account of the phrase, "for it was not the season for figs." C But Peter, according to Mark, seeing "the fig tree withered from the roots," said to the Savior: "Behold, the fig tree which you cursed has withered." For a curse from the Word is the lot of that which brings forth no fruit for the Word when He seeks it. Finally, the word D contains an exhortation for those who believe that they will receive; for we shall not receive otherwise, unless we ask.
Thus, let the disposition be worthy of obtaining what we ask, and let the prayer be offered with knowledge, and let our requests be heavenly, and great, and worthy to be granted by God. [h Tomus Decimus Septimus /h]
A That these things concerning this passage are not simple, as some think, and easy to understand, but mystical and in need of a profound heart, will be evident from careful consideration. Let us, therefore, agree with the plausibility of those who interpret the passage more simply; for they will say that those who know of two general powers—the better one, that of God, and the worst one, that of the devil—"the chief priests and the elders of the people" asked the Savior, "by what authority" He performed these great works and from whom He had received it. Then "Jesus," in order not to argue, asked them in return, wishing at the same time to rebuke those who asked Him, as having acted contrary to right reason in their attitude toward John the Baptist. And His counter-question was intended to serve two purposes: the rebuke for their unbelief in John and to distract those who asked, so that it might seem reasonable to them that He did not answer. But one might say in response to this that it was ridiculous to ask "by what authority" Jesus did these things;
VOLUME SEVENTEENTH
A Concerning those of the chief priests and elders who questioned the Lord, saying: "In what authority do you do these things?"
"And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, saying, 'In what authority do you do these things?'" and so on, down to, "Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things." Since all three evangelists have thought it necessary to record this passage, it is worth seeing what the chief priests and elders of the people grasped as they were questioning the Savior, not making one inquiry, but two; for they brought before him on the one hand, "In what authority do you do these things?" and on the other, "And who gave you this authority?" And what the Savior intended by answering them only on the first point—for he saw that they were unworthy of receiving a reply to the question about the second point, and of being told the history of the second—is something that, while some think to be simple and easy to understand, will be shown by closer examination to be mysterious and to require a deep heart. Let us, then, join those who interpret these matters in the simpler sense—for they will say that since there are two generic authorities, the better one of God and the worse one of the devil, the chief priests and the elders of the people were questioning the Savior as to in which of these two authorities he was performing these wonders, and from which he received them. And the Lord, by responding with a counter-question to them, both desired to refute those who questioned him and—as he was making the right kind of argument in his own questioning by bringing up John the Baptist—intended two things: to refute their disbelief in John and to drive out C and anyone who might be deemed worthy to know the "unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter," might perhaps know the "wisdom in a mystery, the hidden, which God ordained before the world unto the glory" of the righteous. There are, therefore, in the "hidden treasures of wisdom and knowledge" deep and unspeakable words concerning various authorities; generically two, but specifically, according to each of the two, several and difficult to discern. The two generic authorities are of this kind: some are of the higher order; and just as there are men of God who are not just anyone, and blessed angels of God, and prophets of God who are filled with God, so too are there certain powers of God, concerning which the Apostle, praising Christ, says in his letter to the Colossians that the Savior is "the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature," in whom "were all things created, in heaven and in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: and he is before all things." One type, then, of those things under God are the powers created in Christ, which are distinct from the principalities, and the thrones, and the dominions.
A For those who had been allotted the distinguishing names in Israel, that is to say, "the chief priests and the elders of the people," having been moved—whether by tradition or by their own deduction or by hidden writings—concerning the powers and the orders of the mysteries in heaven, saw Jesus performing miraculous signs, and this not without some power that was with Him. They wished, therefore, to learn the nature and character of this power from the knowledge that Jesus possessed, or from what they supposed to be the knowledge in Him. If those who were questioning the Savior at that time had been holy and blessed "chief priests" (such as Aaron or Eleazar or Phinehas or those who performed the duties of the liturgy in a praiseworthy manner) and "elders" resembling those whom Moses had chosen by the command of God, it is likely that, as men who were not tempting Him but were eager to learn and worthy of such great teachings, the Savior would have begun a discourse to them which even the whole world could not contain. A Yet someone might say in response to this, that it was ridiculous for them to ask by what power Jesus was doing these things; for He would not have answered that it was by the power of the devil. And I do not merely say that the Savior would not have answered this, but not even the "man of sin, the one who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship" would say to those who asked him the truth, that he performs every power and sign and wonder by the power of the devil, through which he might strike terror and deceive, if possible, even the elect. If even that one would not say that he performs his signs and "prodigies of lies, which are being accomplished in every deception of iniquity to those who are perishing," how much more would the Savior, even if He had not asked a reciprocal question, have answered nothing else than that He was doing these things by the power of God? Therefore, to suggest that they proposed a question for which there was so easy and ready an answer, and that the Savior did not answer it, seems to me completely absurd.
2. Consider, then, whether the meaning of this passage might be of this nature: in the wisdom of God, which contains the knowledge of divine and human things and the reasons for these, there exist treasures, such as the treasures of wisdom and knowledge ought to be, and these are hidden. And if anyone has been judged worthy to "hear secret words which it is not permitted for a man to speak," C he would know that wisdom "hidden in a mystery, which God foreordained before the ages for the glory" of the just. There are, therefore, in the hidden treasures of wisdom and knowledge, deep and secret discourses concerning distinct powers—generally two, but specifically, in each of these two, there are more and harder to be seen. The two general powers are such that some are of the better order; and just as there are men of God who are not ordinary, and blessed angels of God, and prophets of God who are inspired by God, so there are certain powers of God, about which the Apostle speaks when glorifying Christ. B For the question they proposed was one to which the answer was so easy and ready—namely, that He did these things by the power of God—that it seems quite absurd to me to claim that they asked this question and that Christ did not answer it. If, however, someone should say that the leaders were not asking in order to learn by hearing, but in order to terrify Him—just as, if someone does something among our own that we do not like, we say to him, "Who commanded you to do this?" not wishing to hear but terrifying him so that he, knowing that no one commanded him to do it, might desist from the act—so the leaders were asking the Lord to terrify Him rather than to inquire, so that He, as if conscious that He was not doing this by the power of God, might cease from His work. C But what of the fact that Jesus would never have spoken thus if He had perceived that they were asking not for the sake of learning but for the sake of terrifying? And what of the fact that Christ answered in this way: "Tell me you also this, and I will tell you by what power I do these things." There are, then, powers, which are generally two: one on the part of God, the other on the part of the devil, though specifically they are many and incomparable. Concerning these, the Apostle, glorifying Christ, writes to the Colossians, saying that all things were created in Him that are in heaven and on earth, whether visible or invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers. He did not say one principality, or one dominion, or one throne, or one power, but many. And just as they are on the part of God, so they are also on the part of the devil—many principalities, many powers, as the Apostle testifies, saying: "Our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and po---
powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places." B And one would have said which is the power of the changing of Moses’ hand into snow, and from the contrary side, which power was breathing together with the enchanters of the Egyptians in each case, when they seemed to imitate the signs of God. And thus, he would have gone through the ten plagues of the Egyptians and the sending against them of evil angels. And he would have said, moreover, what power served the passage of the people through the Red Sea and the drowning of the Egyptians, and what power served the change by wood of bitter water into sweetness. He would have also told of the power that ministered to the water from the rock. And he would have set forth either the same or another power that served the rain of manna and the arrival of the quails. He would have also said what is the power that turned the same manna on the six days into worms and stench, but guarded it on the day of the Sabbath. And why must I, by gathering the wonders in the wilderness until the death of Moses, show that the Savior would have spoken concerning this power, if "the chief priests and the elders of the people" C had been worthy of an answer to their question?
Colossians, that: "The Savior is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation, in whom all things were created in heaven and on earth, whether visible or invisible, whether thrones, or lordships, or principalities, or powers: all things were created through him and for him; and he is before all." One kind, therefore, of those things under God are the powers created in Christ, different from the principalities, and the thrones, and the lordships; and each is powerful over certain things, appointed by God according to some ineffable worthiness over those worthy to be governed according to their difference under each of the powers. And great would be the account and difficult to interpret concerning those things that are according to these powers, and of the things governed by them. But as there are some powers of God, so also there are contrary ones, analogous to the men of sin and the angels of the devil; and it is indeed to those who wrestle no longer against flesh and blood, but because they have ascended by strength—it is to those struggling for things above these that the wrestling is against the powers contending against the athletes of piety. And as there were many ranks under God, so also in the opposing realm there are not only powers, but also the world-rulers of this darkness, and the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places; and perhaps also principalities. I, for my part, think that all things are homonymous with those of God, even in the contrariety. Having therefore distinguished that those who had inherited the different names in Israel, that is to say, the chief priests and the elders of the people, were moved when they were inquiring about the powers—whether from traditions, or by proposing them, or from secret books (I do not know if reasonably D or senselessly)—they saw God performing the wonders not without some power present with Him; therefore, they wished to learn the kind of this power from the knowledge of Jesus, or from what seemed to them to be knowledge in Him. And if there had been any holy and blessed chief priests, such as Aaron, or Eleazar, or Phinehas, or as many as performed the things of the liturgy in a praiseworthy manner, who then inquired of the Savior, and elders similar to those whom Moses chose according to the command of God—it is likely that, as men who are not tempting but are eager to learn, and worthy of such great teachings, the Savior would have begun the discourse, which not even the whole world could contain; and, having begun, he would have delivered the knowledge concerning the blessed powers, and the difference between them, and the reason for them having come to be powers, and of those under them, whether they be souls or any rational beings whatsoever; and he would have also gone through the account concerning the contrary powers.
and would have set forth their differences. A And it is likely that he would have taught proportionally to that saying: “The law being ordained by angels,” and that other: “If the word spoken through angels was made sure”; I say, proportionally to the account concerning the angels who ministered to the Law, and concerning the power according to the Scriptures: for instance, in what power each of the marvels that occurred in Egypt was done; and which was the power ministering to the changing of the rod of Moses into a snake; and which, on the contrary, was that which ministered to the transformation of the Egyptian rods into B serpents; and he would have stated the strength of the power from which the rod of Aaron swallowed those of the Egyptians; and he would have said also what was the power of the transformation of the hand of Moses into snow, and from the contrary side what power was breathing along with each of the enchanters of the Egyptians, when they seemed to imitate the signs of God; and so he would have gone through the ten plagues of the Egyptians, and the sending against them of evil angels; and he would have told also what power served the crossing of the people through the Red Sea, and the drowning of the Egyptians; and what power served in the changing of bitter water into sweetness by means of the wood; and he would have also stated the power which ministered to the water from the rock; and he would have set forth either the same, or another power which ministered to the shower of manna C and to the arrival of the quails; and he would have told also what was the power that caused the same manna on the first six days to turn into worms and stench, but on the Sabbath day to be preserved. And what need is there for me to run through the marvels that happened in the desert until the death of Moses, showing that the Savior would have spoken about these powers, if the high priests and elders of the people had been worthy of an answer to their question? And to you, as you go through the whole Scripture, the analogy is available to see: both the power for the sun to stand still over Gibeon, and the moon over the valley of Aijalon; and far earlier, the power by which the Jordan river was crossed, and the manna ceased. And in the book of Judges too D many such things might be sought and found, such as the marvels concerning Gideon, and concerning Samson; but also, from the Books of Kings, those concerning Samuel, and Elijah, and Elisha, and Hezekiah. And thus the Savior, having gone through and having traversed the mystery according to the various powers, would have taught in what power, and how surpassingly, he performed the marvels which the people saw, which were given to him not from some angel and minister of God, nor through any of those inferior to God, but from the Father Himself.
A 3. But since the chief priests and elders of the people who were present there were not at all worthy of such insights, He does not answer them, but asks a question in return; so that, by their failing to answer the questions concerning John, He might reasonably persuade those who were asking Him that it was not without cause that He answered them, saying: "Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things." I ask, however, regarding this passage, whether each of those who performed marvels in any authority did so in one and the same authority, or whether some did so at first in one, but as they progressed, in a greater one; yet the Savior seems to have performed all these things in one authority, which He received from the Father. For the words, "Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things," were those of someone who was professing that He had done these things by some authority; but in what authority, He did not at all declare to them, nor did He explain its property, nor all that He might have discussed concerning it, had He undertaken to define its pre-eminence and excellence over the rest of the authorities in which the prophets who preceded Him had performed marvels. And now, too, Christ is in the temple—that is to say, in the Church—and He is teaching in it, and certain persons similar to those chief priests and elders of the people are asking Him questions, but they do not obtain an answer, being unworthy to know what they wish to learn. B Someone might ask whether it was because He wished to drive them away that He asked them the question about John, as if He had asked about any other similar person, or whether He necessarily asked about John, so that He might append to the answer concerning him the things that follow regarding authority. To me, indeed, it does not seem that the case in this passage is mere chance, but because John was "the voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord," and he was the one of whom the prophet said: "Behold, I will send my messenger before your face, who shall prepare your way before you." C For this reason, I believe, He asks about him, not, it is true, because He was unaware that, when they had considered it, they would say: "We do not know"—on account of the things that have been recorded—but through a hypothesis... [the text here appears to repeat part of the exposition] ...and He had disclosed the mystery of the authorities and their differences, and the account and differences of the contrary authorities. Therefore, He does not give them an answer, but asks a question in return, so that because they do not answer the question proposed to them concerning John, He might also reasonably not answer them. I ask, however, if each one of those who performed signs in any authority, whether they did so always in one, or in the first instance in that one, but as they were progressing, in another, greater authority. Nevertheless, the Savior is seen to have done all things in one authority, which He received from the Father. For this which He answers, saying, "Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things," teaches that He performed them in one authority indeed; but in what kind of authority He did not declare, nor did He make manifest its property, nor the pre-eminence which that authority had over other authorities in which the prophets before Him had performed virtues. And now in the temple of the Church Christ is held, and He teaches in it, and there are certain chief priests similar to those former ones, and elders similar to those elders, and they question Jesus, and they do not receive an answer from Him, because they are not worthy to know what they desire. Likewise I ask, whether Jesus, wishing to remove them from Himself, proposed this question to them about John by chance, as if He were questioning them about any other person whatever...
or if He necessarily questioned them specifically about John for the sake of their own benefit. And it seems to me that He did not question them about this by chance, but because John had been "the voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the ways of the Lord, make straight his paths" [Is. XL, 3; Matt. III, 3]. And this is he of whom God said through the prophet: "Behold, I send my angel before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee" [Ex. XXIII, 20; Matt. XI, 10]. For this reason, I believe, He questioned them about him, not because He was ignorant of the fact that, in their deliberations, they would say A "We do not know," according to what is written, but in order to signify, as far as they were concerned, that he was as if from men. And so, as if they had answered that he was from men, He introduced the subsequent parable.
The Parable of the Two Sons Sent by the Father into the Vineyard
4. "But what do you think? A certain man had two sons. And coming to the first, he said: Son, go, work today in the vineyard" [Matt. XXI, 28], and the rest, up to: "But you, seeing it, did not even repent afterwards, that you might believe him" [Matt. XXI, 32]. Matthew alone recorded this parable, which, in my opinion, contains the history of Israel, which does not obey God, and of the people who from the Gentiles gave their name to Christ. For these are the two sons whom God had, behaving as a man holding the ways of his son. B And he, coming to the first, whom he had acquired from the beginning, whom he foreknew and predestinated, said to him: "Son, go, work today in my vineyard." But he, fleeing from this estate because of the heat and the labors to be endured there, refused to go, saying: "I will not." But in the end, however, moved by repentance for what he had said to his father, "I will not," he went into the vineyard and obeyed the will of his father. But after the first answered, "I will not," the father approached the other and said likewise, then the second answering said: "I go, Lord" [Matt. XXI, 30]; yet he did not go into the vineyard of the Word C and into the field of the Father. And it is manifest that he who said, "I will not," and later felt remorse, and went, and worked in the vineyard, performed the will of the Father by his deed; for he who promised by word, but did not perform it, refused to do the will of the Father by his deeds. But see further if you can apply this parable to those who promise little, or nothing at all, neither virginity nor any other action commanded in the Gospel; yet by their deeds and actions they provide and exhibit the opposite of this to Him. D For he who promised by word and did not perform, denied by his works the doing of the "will of the Father." But consider, if you are able, whether you can also use the parable against those who promise less or nothing at all, neither virginity nor any other action according to the Gospel, yet who by their works demonstrate the opposite, which they did not even promise in the first place through the utterances of good words of actions, and furthermore against those who promise great things but do nothing according to their promise. One man, for instance, says: "This virginity is greater than I am, 'I will not,'" and "It is better for my worth to have renounced life and to be occupied with the Word"; while another says to each of the great works he hears in the Scripture: "I go, Lord." And it is possible to see some who, as if out of repentance, make progress toward the better and care for themselves for the best, contrary to the initial expectation, and others who have promised many things too rashly, but in their deeds have acted against their promises.
After the parable, he brings forward, B toward the one who said, "I will not," and later repented, and went away, "Truly I say to you, that the tax collectors and the harlots go before you into the kingdom of God;" C and toward the one who said, "I, Lord," and did not go away, "For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him." And, "You having seen, did not repent afterwards, to believe in him."
Considering that those coming to the Word from a most wicked life, and believing in Christ, and who cultivate the Law and the Prophets, but disbelieve the Son of God, and live wickedly; and are cruel toward those of their own race, will see the statement of Jesus to be true, "that the tax collectors and the harlots go before Israel into the kingdom of God." And he himself, that Israel, who saw Jesus, does not even up to now repent, so that he might even later believe in the truth.
Observe also this: "They go before you into the kingdom of God," D not excluding that Israel from entering into the kingdom of God; for no one goes before one into a place where he himself will not be in any way. Observe, then, lest it be shown that, when the fullness of the Gentiles has entered, then all Israel shall be saved. But let Israel be understood, not the one "according to the flesh," but the one characterized by the nobility of the soul, and 772 having natural aptitude toward understanding and discernment, though not having been nurtured worthily of that natural aptitude in faith and in a good life.
"Hear another parable. There was a householder who planted a vineyard, and put a hedge around it, and dug a winepress in it," and what follows, up to, "and will be given to a nation producing its fruits." [Matt. XXI, 33]. To one not torturing the elements of the parable further, nor examining every word, it will seem to be very clear, having obtained such an exposition: the people before us, being the "portion" of God, was the vineyard planted by the householder according to the parable, and the protection of God around them was the hedge, and the temple was the tower, and the place of libations was the winepress, and the husbandmen were the elders and the wise men of the people, and the going into another country of the master [was] when the Lord, who was with them in a "pillar of cloud by day" and in a "pillar of fire by night," until he planted them, having led them "into his holy mountain and into his dwelling places," no longer appeared to them in that way.
A But the chief priests and the elders and the wise men of the people, "when they saw the son," not having become totally insensible to their own superiority, supposed him to be the heir. They even dare to kill him, that they themselves might become masters of the vineyard, and having cast him out and judged him "outside" the affairs of Israel, they "killed him." And immediately "the lord of the vineyard" whom they "killed" makes his presence felt, having risen from the dead, and "wretchedly destroys the wretched" husbandmen, and entrusts "to other husbandmen," his own apostles, those of the people who believed—that is to say, "the vineyard," who yield "the fruits in" their proper "seasons" to the master of the house. Then, after the parable, when they ask what was spoken of above—"By what authority do you do these things?"—the Savior answers from the prophecy, teaching them that by those [builders] he was rejected, but with God he is honorable and the head of the whole building and of the bond of it, and indeed a head "marvelous in the eyes" of those who know how to see it.
On the vineyard that was planted and delivered to the husbandmen.
5. "Hear another parable: There was a householder who planted a vineyard, and set a hedge about it, and digged a winepress in it," and so forth until: "And it shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits of it." To him who does not examine the things of the parable excessively, nor scrutinize each word, it will seem to be very clear, provided it is explained thus: The people who were before us, being a portion of God, was the vineyard planted by the householder referred to in the parable; and the protection of God around it was the hedge; and the tower was the temple; and the winepress was the place of libations; and the husbandmen were the elders and wise men of the people; and the journeying away of the master—since the Lord, who was with them in a cloud by day and in a pillar of fire by night until he planted them, bringing them into his holy mountain and into his dwelling places, no longer appeared to them as such—signifies that the time which drew near for the fruits was the time of the prophets demanding the fruit from the husbandmen and the vineyard, so that they might already show that they had received the law by their living according to it; and the servants sent to the husbandmen to receive the fruits were the earlier prophets, whom the rulers and wise men of the people insulted by beating them, and some they even killed, and others they made to be stoned; and other servants after these, more numerous than the first, were the time of the many prophets, whose names are written in the second book of Chronicles, and in Jeremiah, and in the twelve [minor prophets], and in Daniel; for one might say that Ananias, Azarias, and Misael also were prophets. And with these, therefore, being more in number than the former prophets, they dealt in the same way, beating, killing, and stoning them. Last of all, the householder sends his own son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who could bring the vineyard and the husbandmen to shame—but the chief priests and the elders C ...
THE INTERPRETATION.
6. In that time, Jesus said to his disciples this parable: There was a householder who planted a vineyard, and so forth. To those who do not discuss this parable more abundantly, nor scrutinize single words, it seems sufficiently manifest if it be understood in this way: The people who were before us, when they were a portion of God, who was planted by God, was the vineyard of God, and the protection of God which existed around it was its hedge. The tower, moreover, was the temple. The winepress was the place of libations. The husbandmen, moreover, were the priests and the wise men of the people. D The journeying of the Lord, when the Lord who had been with them in a cloud by day and in a column of fire by night, until he planted them, leading them into his holy mountain and into his dwellings, no longer appeared to them in that way. The time, moreover, approaching for the fruits to be gathered, was the time of the prophets demanding from the husbandmen, and from the vine itself, that they should show whether those who had received the law had lived according to it. And the servants sent to the husbandmen to receive the fruits were the prophets who were before: whom the princes and wise men of the people injured, beating some, and killing, and stoning. And other servants, more numerous after them, were the time of the many prophets, whose names are written in the second book of Chronicles, and in Jeremiah, and in the twelve, and in Daniel. And someone might say that Ananias, and Azarias, and Misael, were prophets of that time. And these, therefore, being very many, they likewise abused, beating, and killing, and stoning. Lastly, however...
A they were not entirely senseless regarding their own preeminence; they perceived that He was the heir. They dared even to kill Him, that they themselves might become masters of the vineyard; and having cast Him out, and having judged Him to be outside the affairs of Israel, they killed Him. And immediately the Lord of the vineyard, whom they had killed, arrives, having risen from the dead, and the wicked husbandmen He destroys wickedly; and to other husbandmen, namely His own apostles, He delivers those who believed from the people—the vineyard, that is to say—who render the fruits in their own seasons to the householder.
After those who had previously asked, "In what authority do you do these things?" B appended after the parable what is subjoined in the words, "He will wickedly destroy the wicked," the Savior answers by teaching them from the prophecy that He was indeed rejected by them, but is honorable before God, and the head of the entire building, and of the bond that coheres with it, and a wonderful head in the eyes of those who are able to behold it. Then, prophesying concerning the calling from the Gentiles, He says to the teachers of the Jews who do not believe in Him: "The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."
But, as we have said before, such an explanation is somewhat general and not C according to the letter; for a spiritual man, able to examine all things, might encounter many difficulties while knocking at the door of the hidden meanings here, closed by obscurity, and if he seeks rightly, he might find them, and if he asks of God, he might receive. We also, according to our humble ability, imagine such things concerning this passage: that the "householder" is God, of whom it is written: "The Lord thy God bare thee, as a man is wont to bear his child." For He is called a "man" in some parables, because, while He helps men, He maintains human customs for the benefit and advantage of men; and in this place, because of the vineyard, and the hedge placed around the vineyard, and the winepress which He dug, and the tower which He built, and the servants whom He possesses, and whom He sends to the husbandmen, and those whom He sends again in greater D number, He is called a "man" who is a householder; and as a householder, He delivered the vineyard to the husbandmen, which, having been taken away from them, He gave to others.
Again, in the earlier passages, a "man who is a householder" is spoken of by these words: "For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard." And as a householder possesses a vineyard and hires husbandmen, so too there is for Him a steward, to whom He says: "Call the labourers and pay them their wages, beginning from the last unto the first." But in the parable concerning the supper and the marriage of His Son and the calling, He is not called a householder, but a king. And the wise men of the people seeing the Son, not having become entirely senseless of their own preeminence, have supposed Him to be the heir; and they dare even to kill Him, that they themselves might become lords of the vineyard; and having cast Him out, and having judged Him to be outside the affairs of Israel, they killed Him.
A For the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a household who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard; and as the master of a household, he has a vineyard and hires laborers; and he has a steward also, to whom he says: "Call the laborers and give them their pay, starting from the last up to the first." But in the parable concerning the supper B and the marriage of his son, and the calling, he is not called master of a household, but a king; for he is greater than a master of a household, sending an army as a king, and destroying those who arrested his servants and insulted them and killed them; and with royal authority, not as a master of a household merely, he commanded the servants to bind the feet and hands of the one who had entered into the marriage festivities, not having a wedding garment, and to cast him into the outer darkness. But when it is said further above: "A certain man had two sons," he is called neither master of a household nor king, but simply a man. Just as, therefore, there are many conceptions of God throughout the divine Scriptures, so too is there a difference in why he is called a man—whether simply, or as master of a household, or as king. And these things hold as they are among Matthew; but the parable in Luke which corresponds to this one calls him a man, with these words: "A man planted a vineyard and let it out to tenants." Nay, and Mark also says: "A certain man planted a vineyard and set a hedge about it." Again, Luke, in expounding the parable of the calling, says: "A certain man made a great supper and called many." C But you, gathering all the passages in which God is called a man, and comparing spiritual things with spiritual in a discussion of this matter, and seeking correctly the things according to the contexts, will find many things in proportion to your inquiry concerning the fact that God is called a man. But this master-of-a-household man planted a vineyard, concerning which, without leaving aside such a great parable without examination, we must dispute more accurately.
7. What then is that vineyard, being something different from the first and the second tenants, which the master-of-a-household man planted? D
OLD INTERPRETATION.
to the teachers of the Jews: "The kingdom of God will be taken away from you and will be given to a nation bearing its fruits." To which things, if anyone is spiritual and prepared to discuss all things, he will be able to speak, knocking at its obscurity, that is, the closed door; and he who seeks will find: and we, according to our mediocrity, surmise such things in the passage: since the man who is master of a household is God, of whom it is written: "The Lord thy God chastened thee, as if a man should chasten his son." For thus, because he chastens men, that he might improve the character of men, he is called a man in certain parables, just as if a father might converse with his little child in infancy, so that he might descend to the words of his son, and chasten him. Therefore, I judge that all the righteousnesses which God has handed down to men are as it were childish regarding the own righteousnesses of God.7. What then is this vineyard, apart from the prior and the second tenants, which the master of a household planted? What is this vineyard first handed over to the injurious tenants, and afterwards to other tenants bearing its fruit in its own time, concerning which the Lord says: "The kingdom of God will be taken from you, and will be given to a nation bearing its fruits." Must we think, then, that this is the kingdom of God, and that the vineyard which is cultivated by the first tenants and is given to others is the same? Or must we consider the vineyard to be one thing, and the kingdom of God another? Let us see then, first, having shown from Scripture that the people is called a vineyard, if…
A all that is contained in this passage can correspond to such an interpretation. Isaiah therefore says: “I will sing to my beloved a song of the beloved regarding my vineyard. A vineyard was made for my beloved on a horn, in a fertile place. And I put a hedge around it and trenched it, and planted a Sorek vine,” and the rest, up to “It wrought iniquity, and not justice, but a cry.” I have set forth the song from Isaiah, wishing to examine it alongside this parable, to see if the vineyard is understood to be the same thing in both passages of Scripture. And discern B which of the phrases set forth are similar, and which are not similar, so that, by seeing the differences between what is similar and what is dissimilar, you may thus attain the mind of Scripture. Similar, then, is “He planted a vineyard, and put a hedge around it, and dug a winepress in it, and built a tower” to “A vineyard was made for my beloved on a horn, in a fertile place. And I put a hedge around it and trenched it, and planted a Sorek vine, and I built a tower in the midst of it, and I dug a winepress C in it.” For compare to “He planted a vineyard” the phrase “I planted a Sorek vine,” and to “He put a hedge around it” the phrase “I put a hedge around it,” and to “[He dug] a winepress in it” [the corresponding phrase]. And while such an exposition can agree, for Isaiah says: “I will sing now to my beloved a song of my beloved’s vineyard. A vineyard was made for my beloved, in a horn, in a fertile place: and I hedged it about, and staked it, and planted a Sorek vineyard, and built a tower in the midst of it, and dug a winepress in it, and I expected it to make grapes, but it made thorns.” And after D some things, he says: “For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the man of Judah, his new planting.” I have therefore brought forward the song of Isaiah, wishing to consider whether, according to this parable, this vineyard can be understood in the same way as that one. And see how some things have similarities, while others have dissimilarities: so that, by seeing the differences of the similar to the similar, you may learn the meaning of Scripture. Therefore, it is similar to what is said: “He planted a vineyard, and hedged it about, and dug a winepress in it, and built a tow
Aer in the midst of it.” And a mention of the fruits of the vineyard is made in both places. In Isaiah, indeed, it is said: “I looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth thorns.” But in the parable of the Gospel, it is evident that the vine is not accused as if it had not given its fruits when their season arrived; rather, these husbandmen are accused, who, having taken the servants of the householder, beat one, killed another, and stoned another. And when he sent other servants, more than the first, the husbandmen are again accused for having done the same to them. And a third accusation is cast upon the husbandmen for having said: “This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize his inheritance,” and having cast him out of the vineyard, they killed him. B
In Isaiah, the Word indeed utters threats against the vineyard itself, saying: “I will take away its hedge, and it shall be for a spoil; I will pull down its wall, and it shall be for a trampling. And I will leave my vineyard, and it shall not be pruned nor dug, and thorns shall come up upon it as upon uncultivated land.” Moreover, when He commands the clouds “that they rain no rain upon the vineyard,” He threatens the vineyard, which the prophet said was the house of Israel and the man of Judah, which provided no fruit—namely judgment and justice—but rather brought forth thorns, which is iniquity and clamor. But in the Gospel, we find that the vineyard suffers nothing, but rather, if it is permitted to speak thus, it is cared for and provided for so that it might bear its own fruits for the householder. For He who cares for C the vineyard and looks after it takes it from the former husbandmen, who answer the Savior when He asks and says: “When, therefore, the Lord of the vineyard shall come, what will He do to those husbandmen?” And they say—whether forced by the logic and the sequence D of the events, or indeed unwillingly, so to speak, prophesying about themselves—that the Lord of the vineyard will wretchedly destroy those wicked husbandmen when He arrives, and will lease the vineyard to other husbandmen, who will return to Him the fruit in its season.
Consequently, also in Jeremiah it is said to the people: “I planted thee a fruitful vineyard, all true; how then art thou turned into the bitterness of a strange vine?” You see, then, that in the prophets the Jewish people is called the vineyard, and the threat of the householder is made against the vineyard; but in the Gospel, the vineyard is not blamed at all, but rather its husbandmen. But he who wishes to consider the evangelical words carefully will by no means be able to clearly prove that the vineyard is the people. But perhaps, according to the Gospel, the vineyard is the kingdom of God, that is, the doctrine which, possessing the providence of God, has been inserted into the holy Scriptures. For what it says: “The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth fru
fruit,” which is subjoined to the parable of the vineyard, I deem clearly to demonstrate that the vineyard which the householder planted is to be called the mysteries of the kingdom of God. A This vineyard, therefore—which I consider to be the Law and the Prophets, and all divine Scripture—the Lord of the vineyard entrusted to the husbandmen: first to that people, for in fact “to them were entrusted the oracles of God” (Rom. III, 2), and second to the nation bringing forth the fruits of it, the Church gathered from the nations. But it is a difficult task to harmonize, if the vineyard according to the Gospel is understood in this way, the fence placed about it, seeing that it suffers nothing of the sort described concerning the fence in Isaiah, of which it is written: “I will take away the B hedge thereof, and it shall be for a spoil” (Isa. V, 5). Consider, however, whether we might be able to establish by a natural line of reasoning that the vineyard is the oracles of God. Consequently, according to the same natural reason, the blameworthy life of men and their most excellent morals would be the fruits of that very vineyard; and the Scriptures themselves, and the letters of the Scriptures, would be the hedge placed extrinsically about the vineyard, so that the vineyard might not be seen by those who are outside, especially its fruits which are in secret. C And the depths of the oracles of God would be the winepress of his vineyard, into which those who have made progress concerning the oracles of God, and have become perfect fruits of them, pour their own studies as if they were fruits which they gather from the very oracles. I consider the tower built in it, possessing ascent and prominence and height above the vineyard itself, and the hedge, and the winepress, to be the Word concerning God Himself, and concerning the dispensations of Christ, and the temple of the divine understanding which is held therein. And of such a tower I think D the Saviour speaks in that place of the Gospel: “Which of you, intending to build a tower, does not first count the cost, whether he has sufficient to finish it, lest haply, after he has laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish?” (Luke XIV, 28-30). For he who wishes to speak about God ought to consider if he can, in beginning, finish all the things that are sought concerning the exposition of God, lest haply, beginning the dogmas of piety, he might leave an imperfect tower of the word about God, and not build a crown upon it. If
A you do not build a crown, someone will fall from the understanding of God, and will perish. B This vineyard, as we have explained it, God delivered to the husbandmen, that is, to the people who were before us, and went away to his own tower, after he had given the husbandmen, from those things which he himself planted, and encompassed, and dug, and built, the means and the resources whence they might be able to offer fruit in their own seasons. Therefore, to individuals, but also to the whole people, I think, the times of the fruits arrived; but to explain accurately what the seasons of the fruits are, or if he have not built a crown for it, someone will fall from the understanding of God, scandalized, and will die. C This vineyard he delivered to the husbandmen, that is, to the people before us, as well to the priests as to the laity; and he went away to his own tower, giving the husbandmen opportunities from that which he himself planted, and encompassed with a hedge, and dug as a winepress, and built as a tower, of bringing forth fruit, when the time of fruits had approached. For the times of the fruits approach both according to each one D individually, and, I think, generally to the universal people. But to explain the approach of the time of the fruits truly as it is, is above our talent and belongs to a purer heart. Nevertheless, according to our ability, we begin in this way, beginning according to each one of men.
CONCERNING THAT WHICH IS WRITTEN: I WILL TAKE AWAY THE HEDGE THEREOF, AND IT SHALL BE FOR A SPOIL, AND THE WINEPRESS DUG THEREIN, AND THE TOWER BUILT.
And see if we are able to call the interpretation according to the divine Scripture the vineyard; and the life that follows the true interpretation, bearing fruit in virtue and most excellent habits, to be the fruit of the vineyard; and the rational place and every letter of Scripture to be the hedge surrounding the vineyard from without, so that the vineyard and its fruit, which is especially in secret, might not be viewed by those without; and the depth of the soul that receives these fruits, having cast off everything superficial, to be the winepress dug in the vineyard; and the tower built in the vineyard, having height and elevation and altitude above the vineyard, and the hedge, and the winepress, the word concerning God, I think, is a temple of the divine mind within it. And I think it is of such a tower that it was spoken by the Saviour: «Which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, saying: This man began to build, and was not able to finish?» For by a parable, it seems to me, it is said there also, that if you are about to discourse of God, and apply your mind to the studies of theology, you must see if you are able, having begun, to finish all that the word requires of you for theology, so that, having begun the dogmas of piety, you may not leave the tower concerning God imperfect, and may not build a crown upon it; for if you do not build a crown, someone will fall from the thought concerning God, and will perish. And this vineyard, as we have explained, God delivered to the husbandmen, to the people before us, and went away to his own watchtower, giving the opportunities to the husbandmen, from the things which he himself planted...
A to arrive, requires a greater capacity and a heart more pure and discerning than our own; nevertheless, we shall undertake the explanation of this passage to the best of our ability, having made a beginning from the individual men. Let the Word planted by the Master of the house in each soul be understood as the vine, or the vineyard as the occasions of all the problems necessary for salvation. Just as, therefore, with the vines there is some season when they put forth leaves, and another when they show the beginnings of the fruits being still small, and another when B they flower, and another when they turn color, and another when it is the season to harvest the perfected fruits, ready to provide the quality of wine; so the first season of man's life, corresponding to infancy, should have the vine clothed with nothing, but only possessing the vital principle. But when the Word begins to be fulfilled, let it be the season of the first flowering; and the more the soul, being cultivated, progresses, so much the more does the cultivated vineyard bear specimens of the coming clusters—flowering indeed, and in the beginning bearing a scent of the fragrance of future virtue—and later, they even become sour, at which time there is indeed malice C in youth, but it is not that which remains, but that which necessarily arises and never turns toward the worse, but is always, if one must use such a term, journeying toward virtue.
8. Thus, in every soul, let the Word sown by the father of the family be understood as the vine, or the vineyard as the supply of all things that contribute to salvation. For just as with vines there is a time when they send forth leaves; another when they begin to show certain small rudiments of fruits; another likewise when those fruits that have sprouted are distinguished into berries; another indeed when they darken; and yet another at last when it is the season for harvesting the perfect fruits and those that are mature for the making of wine: in the same way, the first age of man's life, which is contained by infancy, represents a vine clothed in nothing, but endowed only with life; but when reason begins to attain perfection, that time is like the one when flowers first begin to be shed. And how much more the cultivated soul progresses, by so much the more does the cultivated vineyard bring forth more specimens of flowering grapes, and in those very beginnings sends forth a sweet odor of future virtue, which later also become sour, and not yet ripe, because malice is expressed in them—not that which is constant and permanent, but that which necessarily underlies them, and never—
[Note: The remaining text of the Latin column corresponds closely to the preceding Greek analysis and Vetus Interpretatio; minor repetition in source text acknowledged.]
A but always strives toward virtue, if one may put it so. But if malice persists, and we do not travel further upon the path to virtue, but instead continue to tread the same ground, always as if to make progress in virtue, the grape becomes sour and unripe, and whoever eats of it, according to the prophet, “his teeth shall be set on edge.” But he who makes progress toward the better possesses a grape that is darkening, yet not yet perfect. A certain good state succeeds this progress, when indeed the cultivated vine yields fruit—perfect clusters, that is, of charity, joy, peace, patience, and all the rest that are enumerated by the Apostle and in countless other places of Scripture. B For in it there is one cluster according to the text: “Blessed are the poor in spirit”; and another according to the text: “Blessed are those who mourn”; and another according to the text: “Blessed are the meek”; and another according to the text: “Blessed are the peacemakers”; and another according to the text: “Blessed are the pure in heart.” And why need I list the clusters that beget the beatitudes? I have examined these things at greater length because I wished to understand and explain the text: “When the time of fruits drew near.”
It belongs to the master of the house, and to his divine knowledge, to know the time of each human being, when “the time of fruits” is near and when it is still far off. And we too, if we give more attention by comparing the time from which we were called with the entire time of our faith, shall be able to see how some, as though “they ought to be teachers for the time,” again C have need to be taught “what are the first elements of the oracles of God.” Thus, while some, as far as the time of God's dispensation and the calling of all is concerned, ought to be bearing fruits already, they either do not have them at all, or they have them budding out of season, and not in the proper time for being raw. If it is understood by you in each individual case how one must interpret the statement, “when the time of fruits drew near,” turn your attention, if you can, to those who received the law through Moses, for their “time of fruits” also drew near at some point, and he “sent his servants to the husbandmen,” the first ones who had been “entrusted with the oracles of God,” to “receive the fruits” of the vineyard in each one. D It is easy, indeed, to say that he calls the prophets servants, but it must be inquired how they are sent to the husbandmen to receive the fruits of the vineyard. For someone says that it is not to receive...
it should be noted that it is easy to say the prophets are signified by the servants. But this question arises: in what way are they sent to the tillers of the vineyard for the sake of receiving its fruits? For anyone could say that the prophets are not sent to receive fruits, but rather to till the soil and contribute to the bringing forth of fruits. See, therefore, if we might say that spiritual fruits and divine offerings are given by those who have cultivated the vineyard to the servants who are sent, so that they, as priests, may dedicate to God the fruits of him who offers them. But the tillers, having seized the servants sent to them from the people to collect the fruits of the vineyard, struck one, A as "Sedekiah son of Kenaanah struck Micaiah on the cheek," when the false prophet said to him after he had prophesied, "What spirit of the Lord is it that has spoken in you?" Another they killed, as they did Zechariah between the temple and the altar; another they stoned, as they did Azariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, just as it is written in the second book of Chronicles: "For when the Spirit of God clothed Azariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, and he stood over the people and said, 'Thus says the Lord: Why do you transgress the commandments of the Lord? And you shall not prosper, because you have forsaken the Lord, and he will forsake you,' they set upon him, and stoned him by the order of Joash the king, in the court of the house of the Lord. And Joash did not remember the mercy shown to him by Jehoiada his father, and killed his son. And as he was dying, he said, 'May the Lord see, and judge.'" B
Next in the parable is that "again he sent other servants more than the first, and they did to them likewise." And the Scripture is full of the things that happened to the prophets whom he "sent" on behalf of the people, that they might offer up their fruit to God as holy priests through their prayers. C Later he sent his son after the prophets, namely, Christ. And you will ask: how is it that he who sends "the son" says, "They will respect my son," as though he had not foreseen the future event that would happen to him? For they do not appear on the face of it to have respected him. They are sent to the tillers to receive the fruits of the vineyard; for one might say that the prophets are not sent to receive the fruits, but rather to till and to cooperate with the fruits. See, therefore, if we can say that spiritual fruits and divine offerings are given from those who have cultivated the vineyard to the servants sent, so that they might bring—as priests to God—the fruits of him who offers; but the tillers, having seized the servants sent to them from the people to receive the fruits of the vineyard, struck one, as D "Sedekiah son of Kenaanah struck Micaiah on the cheek," when the false prophet said to him after he had prophesied: "What spirit of the Lord is it that has spoken in you?" Another they killed, as they did Zechariah between the temple and the altar; another they stoned, as they did Azariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, just as it is written in the second book of Chronicles: "For when the Spirit of God clothed Azariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, and he stood over the people, and said: Thus says the Lord: Why do you transgress the commandments of the Lord? And you shall not prosper; because you have forsaken the Lord, and he will forsake you. They set upon him, and stoned him by the order of Joash the king, in the court of the house of the Lord. And Joash did not remember the mercy shown to him by Jehoiada his father, and killed his son. And as he was dying, he said: May the Lord see, and judge." Next in the parable is that "again he sent other servants more than the first, and they did to them likewise." And the Scripture is full of the things that happened to the prophets whom he sent on behalf of the people, that they might offer up their fruit, as they might bring, they bring. The one whom they beat, like Azariah the son of Jehoiada. Zechariah, [illegible], may he see, may he judge.
A And to this, someone will say that when they were conversing with one another as to who he might be, some said that this is the Christ; to whom others answered, "When the Christ comes, no one knows from where he is; but we know where this man is from." Then, because they were struck by the signs and wonders and divine powers, they indeed thought him to be the Christ of God, but they did not confess it. And it was true that "They will reverence my Son," and it was also true that—with them having despaired that he could be the Son—it was said, "This is the heir; come, let us kill him." For this reason the Savior says, "You both know me and know from where I am." And if one pays heed to what is written about Herod, when he learned from the Magi that the "King of the Jews" had been born, he will see that those who killed the Savior, having known that he was the Son, were none the less bent on plotting against him. For Herod, too, having learned from the scribes that "in Bethlehem" "the Christ is born," and having agreed that the one being born was Christ, sends them away, saying— holy priests, to God through prayers. B Afterward He sent His Son after the prophets, the Christ. But you will ask how He who sends the Son says indeed, "They will reverence my Son," as if He did not foresee what was to happen to him—He said this; for they do not appear, according to the literal sense, to have reverenced him. And to say further in these things that the Father of the sent Son did not foreknow the future, but that He had hoped for other things, with others having come to pass, is impious; and to say again that the vinedressers did indeed reverence him is contrary to the evidence: "For the vinedressers, seeing his Son, said among themselves, 'This is the heir,'" and the rest. Well then, one might say regarding these things that it was necessary for that which was said, "They will reverence my Son," to come to pass, even if it did not happen at that time. But someone else will say that the Father, when sending the Son, did not say, "My Son will receive the fruit from the vinedressers," but that "they will reverence him"; for they did reverence him in knowing that this was the Son, and in saying among themselves, "This is the heir." And not at all, even if they reverenced him and were struck at the beginning, have they now also done the things of those who reverence him. C And at the same time one might ask who these vinedressers are who said, "This is the heir; come, let us kill him," for the Jews do not appear to have killed him as the Son of the master of the house. And to this someone will say that, when they were conversing with one another as to who he might be, some said that this is the Christ; to whom others responded, "When the Christ comes, no one knows from where he is; but we know from where this man is." Then, since they were struck by the signs and the wonders and the divine powers, they indeed thought him to be the Christ of God, but they did not confess it. And it was true that "They will reverence my Son," but it was also true that—even with them having despaired that he was the Son—the saying "This is the heir" was uttered. Someone might therefore say regarding these things: "With them having despaired that he was the Son." By "having despaired," he means "having known," just as if I, having despaired of the beloved one, believed her to be no longer living. Those who killed the Savior, having known that he was the Son, were nonetheless able to plot against him. I know if I despair— [...] D [This section repeated in original text block due to layout error, translation skips duplicate] holy priests, to God through prayers...
A of the Law, “Come, let us kill him.” For this reason the Savior says: “You both know me, and you know where I am from.” If anyone pays attention to those things written about Herod, when he learned from the Magi that the King of the Jews had been appointed, he will see that those who killed the Savior, having recognized that He was the Son, were nonetheless plotting against Him. For even Herod, having learned from the scribes that the Christ was being born in Bethlehem, and having agreed that the one born was indeed the Christ, sends them away, saying: “Go, search accurately for the child, so that I also may come and worship him.” Nevertheless, after they had returned, he plotted against the child, not out of disbelief that He was the Christ—for he would not have, B in total disbelief, killed all the children who were in Bethlehem and in its environs from two years old and under, according to the time he had ascertained from the Magi—but he believed Him to be the Christ who was prophesied, and he wished to kill Him, and as far as it lay in his power, he did kill Him.
Thus, therefore, those who plotted against the Savior were able to say, though not in such a way that their speech reached others: “For they said among themselves: ‘This is the heir,’” and nonetheless to have slain Him. For they thought, having killed Christ and not understanding His resurrection (for “if they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory”), that they themselves would be masters of the situation, since their wickedness had blinded them, and they did not know the mysteries of God; and as though they did not know them, they “cast” the Son of God “out of the vineyard” and “killed” Him. And the phrase, “they cast Him out of the vineyard,” seems to me to mean this: as far as it lay in their power, they judged Him to be an alien to both the vineyard and to its farmers when they were passing the vote of death upon Him. And upon these things, the Savior asks those very wicked farmers, saying to them: “When therefore the lord of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those farmers?” And they say to Him, being judged and condemned by their own mouth as wicked men effectively destroying themselves and no longer destined to have C the oracles of God, “He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and he will lease the vineyard to other farmers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons.” And they are, as it were, prophesying in a manner similar to Caiaphas, the high priest of “that year,” who did not speak the truth “of his own accord,” but [prophesied] because he was “high priest.” D
A They prophesy B regarding the nations, that they will give the Master of the house the fruits in their seasons. And he will hand over the vineyard to other husbandmen, “who will render to him the fruits in their seasons.”
12. C Thereafter, the Savior reproves them from the Scripture, as they were thinking themselves to be builders of the people, [showing] that the Father will place as head of the whole building the stone that was both Himself and rejected by them, as it holds together the two corners of the Old and New Testaments, and the building of the two peoples. For such is that which is written: “Have you never read in the Scriptures: ‘The stone which the builders rejected, this became the head of the corner? This was from the Lord, and it is marvelous in our eyes’?” The passage is situated in the 117th Psalm, which is placed before the psalm of many verses, and the text has it thus: “The stone which the builders rejected, this became the head of the corner. This was from the Lord, and it is marvelous in our eyes. This is the day which the Lord has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it.” And if anything else of those things prophesied about Christ can convict him who examines the things written with a right mind, this also should be set among them. For if the prophet does not speak these things about a stone devoid of sense—as some foolish man might say—it would be clear that Jesus, who was rejected by those wise men, chief priests, elders, and scribes among that people, truly became as the head of the Church “into a head of the corner,” uniting and gathering into one the two Testaments. And “this” head is a gift given by the Lord to the whole building, and a “marvelous” head “in our eyes,” for those who are able to see it. And on account of this, since the builders rejected this stone, the oracles of God, in which was the kingdom of God, were taken away from those husbandmen and those builders; and it was given to a nation producing its fruits. But if that is true: “It will be given to a nation producing its fruits,” [what] will D he do to those husbandmen? They answered, judged by their own mouth, that he will miserably destroy the wicked, and will give the vineyard to other husbandmen. For they are prophesying just as the priest Caiaphas, who did not speak the truth of himself, but because he was high priest of that year, he prophesied; so also these did not prophesy of themselves against themselves, since the oracles of God were to be taken from them and given to the nations who would produce the fruit in its time.
12. “Did you never read in the Scriptures: ‘The stone which the builders rejected, this became the head of the corner? This was from the Lord, and it is marvelous in our eyes’?” Because, then, those priests thought themselves to be builders of the people, when they were not worthy builders—for if they had been worthy they would not have rejected a stone of this kind—nevertheless, he says to them from the Scriptures that the Father has placed the stone, which he [Christ] is and which was rejected by them, as the head of the entire building, so that it might comprehend the two corners of the Old and New Testament and the edification of the two peoples; for this is what it means: “The stone which the builders rejected, this became the head of the corner.” And this stone is a gift given by God to the universal building, and an admirable head in our eyes, which we who are able to see it with the eyes of the mind [can behold]. If, therefore, it is true what he says: “The kingdom of God will be taken from you, and it will be given to other husbandmen, who will render to him the fruit in its seasons,” then without doubt the kingdom of God, that is, the word of the Lord, is given to none except those who render fruit.
A For concerning the vineyard, it was written in the former case that “he let it out to husbandmen,” but concerning the kingdom of God, that “it shall be given to a nation producing the fruits thereof.” And the situation in this passage would be insoluble if, just as “he let it out to husbandmen” was written concerning the first, it had been said concerning the second that it “shall be let out to a nation producing the fruits thereof,” and if, just as it was said concerning the second, “and it shall be given to a nation producing the fruits thereof,” it had been said concerning the first that he gave “it to husbandmen.” These points, then, we have raised as difficulties regarding the passage, and we have said what seemed to us to be true; but he who is able both to understand and to speak better, let him be heard rather than us.
“And when the chief priests and the Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake B of them. And when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.” “And when the chief priests and the Pharisees had heard his parables,” of which the beginning of the one was: “A certain man had two sons,” and of the other: “A certain householder, who planted a vineyard,” they perceived that he was speaking concerning them, according to the one parable, where the second son says: “I go, sir: and went not”; and according to the other, because this has been said against those who had transgressed before. C D [alt-version omitted] [index: entries preserved]
A “The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof” (Matt. xxi, 43); and those who knew that He was speaking about them sought to seize Him, and to do to Him I know not what; but they could not, for they were unable to endure the impulse of the crowds who held Jesus to be a prophet (90). For those who wish to seize the Word with evil intent, so that they might subdue Him as one who has been seized, are never able to seize Him, because the crowds who are above Him consider Him to be a prophet of God, and keep watch over those who wish to seize Him and lay snares for Him. After this, it is to be noted that there are differences among those who seek to seize Jesus. For in one way did the chief priests and the Pharisees seek to seize Him, B and in another way did the bride in the Song of Songs, who sought Him, and arose, and went about in the city, in the streets and in the broad ways, and hardly found Him at all—when she went a little past those who were guarding and going about in the city—and having found Him, seized Him, at the time when she also says: “I have seized him, and will not let him go, until I have brought him into the house of my mother, and into the chamber of her that conceived me.” But even this same bride, at the beginning of the Song of Songs, says: “I have seized him into the house of my mother, and into the chamber of her that conceived me”; but toward the end of the same book, as one who has made progress and is about to seize Him in another and better way than before, she says: “I said: I will go up into the palm tree, I will take hold of the fruits thereof.” C But that you may understand who the chief priests and Pharisees are that seek to seize Him, and yet do not seize Him, consider that while it is not possible to seize the Word of Christ in the way that others do, yet he who has turned aside from the words of others, and is able to grasp the Word of the Lord, and to embrace the sense of those who have propounded dogmas, can refute the refined [doctrine], just as the Scripture names [him]; for thus, as the man who is the spiritual one (92) who judges all things, yet he himself is judged by no one.
He judges, examines, and discusses other discourses, whether they be those of the wise men of this world or those of such as hold and excel among the heretics; yet the mind of Christ that is in him is not judged, nor is it comprehended, nor can it be captured by those who had set out to refute him: «For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him?» It is manifest that if anyone is to instruct the mind of someone, he must first know it, and subsequently instruct: «Who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him?»—for he himself will be captured by that one and will eventually yield to him. And let these things be said by us A on account of that [passage]: «And seeking to take him, they feared the multitudes, because they held him as a prophet.»
B Though the multitudes praise Jesus, they think indeed something true concerning him, yet they do not understand his magnitude. For Jesus was indeed also a prophet, as is clear to him who has understood: «The Lord thy God shall raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken in all things C whatsoever that prophet shall speak.» And whosoever shall «not hearken unto that prophet, shall be destroyed.» Yet his preeminence did not consist in his being a prophet, but in his being the Son of God, the «firstborn of all creation,» and the image «of the invisible God,» in whom «all things were created in heaven and on earth, whether visible or invisible,» and what follows. And his preeminence was rather in his being that Wisdom which says: «The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works,» before making anything, and «before the age he established me in the beginning, before he made the earth,» and what follows. D
We shall hesitate, while characterizing the Evangelist, and in an hortatory discourse, that which is for the verification of the things concerning Jesus, to call the things written by the apostles a Gospel in a certain way. Yet it is possible to adduce from the things said by Paul concerning the whole of the New [Testament] being the Gospels, when, for instance, he writes: «According to my Gospel.» For in the writings of Paul we do not have a Gospel commonly so called; but everything that he preached and spoke was the Gospel; and what he preached and spoke, these things he also wrote; and what he wrote, was therefore the Gospel. But if the things of Paul were the Gospel, it is consistent to say that the things of Peter were also the Gospel, and, simply put, the things which constitute the advent of Christ and construct his presence. «Take the Epistle of blessed Paul the apostle; what did he first write to you at the beginning of the Gospel?» In truth, he sent you spiritually concerning him, and Cephas, and Apollos, as the Gospel says, [that] the whole world then lay in the evil one. [The Gospel] is four-fold.
A its excellence was contained, in that Wisdom says: "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways for his works, before he did anything, and before the age he founded me in the beginning, before he made the earth," and the rest. Now, the chief priests and Pharisees fear this multitude, which thinks thus about him and is ready to fight for him against his enemies, and although they plot, wishing to lay hands on him, they are by no means able to take him. Here indeed it is written: "For they held him as a prophet." But you could add still more, that although according to the context of the Scripture the crowds do not hold him as a prophet, yet in whatever place they do hold him, they hold him far below his dignity, not attaining even to the partial knowledge of those who know him in part, and clarifying nothing about him. I say this, however, about those who think truly concerning him; for those who think falsely about him, under the pretense of glorifying him, are not to be considered as being for him; B of which kind are those who confuse the notion of the Father and the Son, and give that the Father and the Son are one in hypostasis, dividing that one underlying reality only by conception and by names alone; and the heretics who, under the pretense of thinking great things about him, speak "iniquity against the height" and speak evil of the Creator, are not for him; for they are not with him, and for this reason they are against him.
THE OLD INTERPRETATION
C ...and they are not for him, neither are the scribes and priests able to comprehend the knowledge of those who know him in part, declaring nothing worthy of him. But I say this concerning those who are truly for him. For those who think falsely are not for him, those who think they glorify him: such are the heretics who confuse the substance of the Father and the Son, saying that the Father and the Son are one, dividing them by suspicion alone and by names alone. D ...The heretics, they were also called Patripassians, as Philastrius, her. liv, and Augustine, tract. 56 and 57 in Joann., and Rufinus in the explanation of the Apostles' Creed ad Attic. "I believe in God the Father," and the deacon Ferrandus in his epistle to Severus, tom. iii of the Bibliotheca; by which name Isidore, Origin. lib. viii, cap. 5, reveals that the Noetians were also previously distinguished. The Praxeani, too, and the Hermogeniani, have deserved this name by their own error. Athanasius, in his epistle to Epictetus, and Pope Leo, epistle to Turibius, c. 1, attribute the same opinion to the Apollinarists and the Priscillianists. Clothed therefore in this dogma, Sabellius pronounced that the hypostasis of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit was one and the same: as Epiphanius relates, her. lxii, "For he established, and those who are called Sabellians from him, that the Father is the same, the Son the same, the Holy Spirit the same, so that there are three appellations in one hypostasis, or as in man, body, and soul, and spirit." It is to be noted besides that the ancient interpreter of this commentary on Matthew erroneously rendered "substance" for "subsistence" in this passage, as has been observed by the most illustrious man Henri de Valois, in his brilliant work of Annotations on Eusebius. Although it is agreed that some synods have spoken [so], and have confused [it] with some of the ancient Fathers. But Gregory of Nyssa wrote a book concerning their difference. But we have discussed these things more fully in the Origeniana. Ib. The Gerdonians, Marcionites, Valentinians, and others. Ib.
A and they do not find what they are to do to accomplish what they desire, because all the people who have believed in him have been anticipated and are attached to the love for Jesus, and hanging upon the hearing of his teaching and his word. And it is indeed possible to see even until now in what way those who pretend to the care of God as his high priests, and the divine Scripture as scribes, and the ancient way as the elders of the people, seek to destroy Jesus and to blot out the glory concerning him, doing everything to this end in accordance with the will of their fathers, yet not finding what they should do in order to separate from him the people who are attached to Jesus and to erase him from their thoughts. Perhaps even all those who have any opinion whatsoever concerning the Divine and who represent it in a way alien to the teaching of Jesus truly wish to destroy Jesus, but they cannot, since all his crowd hangs upon him, listening.
For he who is not with me, he says, is against me. Thus, even if those who do not think truly concerning the Son gather in the name of Jesus, they scatter rather than gather. For the Savior says: “And he who does not gather with me, scatters.” And note that it was not said simply, “He who does not gather scatters,” but with the precise addition, “with me”; for it is necessary for him who gathers to gather with him. You will understand the one who gathers with him by paying heed to this: “When you are gathered, and my spirit, with the power of the Lord Jesus, to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh,” B for “When you are gathered, and my spirit, with the power of the Lord Jesus,” signifies the one who gathers with him. And you would not say that “When you are gathered in the power of the Lord Jesus” is appropriate for those who gather with one who lives wickedly, or who are gathered, or with one who thinks wickedly and impiously concerning God or his Christ. These things are said because the crowds who were thinking about Jesus, those who were for him, and [yet] thinking far less than his worth, were saying that he had been [sent] as a prophet.
Having examined along with these the passage of Luke concerning similar matters, you will, I think, make the things previously said more clear; for he says: “And he was teaching daily in the temple. The high priests, however, and the scribes, and the elders of the people were seeking to destroy him and were not finding what they would do; for all the people were hanging upon him, listening.” And in these things also it is signified that those who illicitly preside over the Jewish discourses, who are called high priests and scribes, the enemies of Jesus, and the elders of the people, seek indeed to destroy Jesus and to obliterate his name from among men, and the faith concerning him; but they do not find what they should do to fulfill what they desire, since all the people who have believed in him have been anticipated, and are attached to the love of Jesus, and hanging upon the hearing of his teaching and his word. C And it is indeed possible to see this even until now, in what way those who pretend to the care of God as his high priests, and the divine Scripture as scribes, and [the elders of the] crowds seek [to destroy Jesus].
and to make the glory concerning him vanish, doing everything for this purpose in accordance with the will of their fathers, yet not finding what they might do to turn away the people who are attached to Jesus, and to erase him from their thoughts. Perhaps, indeed, all those who have any opinion concerning the divine, and who advocate for it in a way alien to the teaching of Jesus, wish to destroy Jesus, but they cannot, since every crowd hangs upon him in hearing. But also those who apply their minds to whatever books of any wisdom whatsoever, and are therefore tropologically called "scribes," wish to destroy Jesus from among men; yet they find no effective way to do this. And indeed B all the elders of the teachings of the Greeks and of the barbarians wish to destroy Jesus, but they cannot, being overcome by all the people, who hang upon Jesus the teacher, in hearing and perceiving his teaching. And Mark also puts forward similar things, saying: "And the chief priests and the scribes heard, and they sought how they might destroy him; for they feared him, because all the people were astonished at his teaching." For all the people of Christ are astonished at his teaching, and nothing can be done by the aforementioned chief priests and scribes, who seek to destroy Jesus from among men, and to undo the astonishment of all his people.
Concerning those called to the wedding.
C And Jesus answering, said again in parables unto them, saying: "The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a certain king, who made a marriage for his son, and sent forth his servants," and so forth until: "For many are called, but few are chosen." This parable also, when understood more generally, will seem to be clear, in which the man who is king is tropologically said to be God and the Father of Christ Jesus, and the marriage of the king's son is the restoration of the bride, the Church of Christ, to Christ her bridegroom. And the servants who are sent D "to call them that were bidden to the wedding" are the prophets, existing according to the time, who turn those from the people through the prophecies to the joy brought about by the restoration of the Church to Christ. And those who did not wish "to come," having been called beforehand, were those who did not hear the words of the prophets; and the other servants who are sent are another gathering of prophets. And the prepared "dinner," in which the king's "oxen" and his "fatlings" were "killed," were the solid and rational feedings of the mysteries of God.
A Likewise, "all things" are "prepared," meaning the discourses treating of all things that exist, which, when "that which is perfect" has come, those who have followed the calling shall eat and drink. But since, among those called through the prophets, some only neglected what was said and were occupied with worldly affairs—though they did not act wickedly against them—for this reason, wishing to set forth the difference between them, he said: "But they neglected, and went away, one to his own farm, another to his trade. But the rest took his servants, and treated them with contumely, and killed them." Then, consistently with this simpler exposition, the "wrath" of the king is understood, of which the Apostle also makes mention when speaking regarding the Jews: "But wrath has come upon them to the end." Following this, the war against the Jews B and the destruction of Jerusalem, and the slaughter of the people after the advent of Christ, is prophesied in the words: "And sending his army, he destroyed those murderers, and burned their city."
The passage: "Then he says to his servants: The wedding indeed is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. Go therefore to the exits of the roads, and as many as you find, call to the wedding," may be referred to the apostles of Jesus Christ, who stated to the Jews: "It was necessary for you to announce the word of God." C But because they were unworthy, they turned to the Gentiles to invite them to the wedding. D
A The "outgoings of the ways" are external to Israel, and those who are found by the apostles there are called to the wedding. The apostles gathered everyone they could find; they looked for those who would listen, and they did not concern themselves, while they were calling them, with whether those who were being called were wicked or good before the invitation, for they called everyone they found.
Here, however, the "good" should be understood more simply as the more modest of those coming to the worship of God, to whom one might apply the following apostolic word: "When the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are a law unto themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness" (Rom. ii, 14, 15). And thus the wedding of Christ and the Church was filled, and those found by the apostles were restored and reclined to enjoy the wedding feast.
Then, since it was necessary that the bad and the good be called, yet not so that the bad should remain bad, but that they should change their attire and put off the garments alien to the wedding and put on those of the "wedding"— B "hearts of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, patience" (these, in fact, are the garments of the "wedding")—for this reason, "the king" enters "to view the guests," before he sets before them the prepared "dinner," the oxen and the "fattened calves," and "all" things "ready," so that having viewed them, he might keep those who have the "wedding garment" and make them glad, but condemn those who are opposed.
Having "entered," therefore, he finds one of those invited and having come to the wedding who had not changed his character nor put on the "wedding garment," and says to him: "How did you enter here not having a wedding garment?" Then, because the one who has sinned, and has not been renewed, nor has put on the Lord Jesus Christ, has no ground for a defense, he is silenced; for this reason it is written: "And he was silenced" (Matt. xxii, 12). And it is not enough for the one who dishonored the invitation to be cast out of the wedding; for it is necessary that he be [bound] by the servants of the king who are appointed over the bonds.
A And in order that the Word might set forth the fear and the trembling and the grim realities and the toils in which those who have not put on a "wedding garment" shall be, it says, "There will be weeping," and not only "weeping," but also "the gnashing of teeth." And to the whole parable, because it has been shown that many were called but not all have come, but rather few of them, [the Scripture] adds, "For many are called, but few are chosen."
These things then let it be said in a more general way concerning the parable; but we shall endeavor, returning, to investigate it according to our present capacity, if indeed, being helped by the Spirit of wisdom, we might be able to find some deeper meanings in the parable to build upon, and according to what is reasonable, to keep silent or to hint at or to expound. B
17. The Kingdom of Heaven is like to a king
. C Inasmuch as it is the king who reigns, it is like to a human king; inasmuch as it is the king who reigns with the King, it is like to his Son. D And inasmuch as it relates to those who are reigned over, it is like to the servants and to those who are called to the wedding, of whom some were not willing to enter, while others, neglecting to enter, went away, one to his own farm, another to his business; and others, seizing the servants, abused them and killed them. Moreover, there are those who are reigned over, and the army of the king, and those gathered from the ends of the ways, both bad and good, until the wedding was filled.And he who is among the guests who does not have a wedding garment, and the ministers who were ordered to bind the one who does not have the wedding garment by his feet and hands, and throw him into the outer darkness. It could, indeed, have been written: “The kingdom of heaven is made like to a king,” without this addition, “to a man”; but since that word, “to a man,” A is added, it too must necessarily be explained, which, to my mind, has been explained in this way: A certain man, by whom the book comprising the allegories of the holy laws was already written before me, when he was explaining the expressions by which God is declared to be a participant in the human condition, and also those by which His divinity is asserted, wishing to show that God is said to be like to a man, taking care of human nature, used this one place: B “The Lord thy God carried thee, as a man is wont to carry his little son.” But in order to reveal that God is not like to a man, he brought forward this one: “God is not as a man, that he should vacillate.”
18. But we have a great abundance of examples from the Gospels in which God, according to certain parables, is likened to a man. Therefore, for the defense of those parables which, according to the letter, state that the Father of Christ is subject to the affections of the human condition, we will use those that call God a man, and we will say to the heterodox who, because they have not understood those things said in this way in the Old C Scriptures, stumble against the God of the Law and the Prophets and the Creator of the world, that if God is indeed likened “to a man” (in accordance with the parables of the Gospel), why do you not consistently admit, in accordance with these same parables, that the wrath, the fury, the repentance, the turning away of the face, the sitting, the standing, and the walking of God are also parables? For they have either not observed His sleeping which is recorded in the prophecies, or they will confess it to be a parable. Having [on] a wedding garment, and those who were D ordered to bind the one who did not have the wedding garment by his feet and hands, and to throw him into the outer darkness. It could, indeed, have been written: “The kingdom of heaven is made like to a king,” without the addition, “to a man”; but since there is added also, “to a man,” it is necessary to explain this too. And another man before me has interpreted it just as it seems to me. For he made a book concerning the holy laws, and he brought forth the discourse where God is turned according to the passible nature of men; and first indeed he said, where He is turned according to the passible nature, dispensing for men, according to what is said: “The Lord thy God carried thee, as a man is wont to carry his little son.” Then he brought forth where God is not as a man, according to what is said: “Not as a man is our God.” 18. But we, having a great abundance of examples from the Gospels in which God the Father is likened to a man, set forth the parables calling God quasi-man, and we say to certain heretics who, not understanding what is said in this way in the Old Scriptures, sin against the God of the Law and the prophets, and those gathered from the ways are the bad and the good, etc. [index: entries preserved]
A and they will be hard-pressed in either case, both because out of a desire not to have the one who is angered—the one who is preparing a "wedding for his son"—be the Father of Christ because of this anger, and because they are forced, because of "the wedding" and the son, to accept that he whose Father Christ has is indeed the Father, and that he is angered. But if they attempt to provide an interpretation for the anger, we shall say to them: O you people, what is this partitioning, that you do not flee the one in the Gospel who is preparing a "wedding for his son" because of his anger and seek another, but in the Law and the Prophets, because of this same name of anger and things similar to it, you seek to fabricate another god than the God of the Law and the Prophets? B Therefore, in so far as we are human, and it is not profitable for us to behold the wealth of the "kindness" of God and the "great multitude of his kindness" while it is hidden by Him (so that we might not be harmed), the "kingdom of heaven was likened to a king, a man," so that He might speak to humans as a human and provide for humans who are not able to be provided for by God, God remaining God in every way, both in speaking through the prophets and in providing for humans.
C As for the creation of the world, that: If God is likened to a man according to the parables of the Gospel, why, consistently with these parables, do you not accept as a parable the anger, the wrath, and the repentance, and the turning away of the face, and the sitting, and the standing, and the walking of God? For they have either not observed Him recorded in the prophecies as sleeping, or they will confess it to be a parable. And we shall say further to them this: If you do not wish to hear the things in the Scriptures which declare things about Him in a human manner in a parable, consistently with the way God is called a man in a parable, then demonstrate how God, who is called the God of all things according to the Gospel, is said to have nothing human in Himself, as you suppose.
Moreover, we shall show, by way of superabundance, that they have not even examined the writings of the New Testament, in which, according to the parable here, the man who is the king and who is preparing a wedding for his son became angry at those who did not wish to come to the wedding according to his invitation, and at those who had neglected to dine at the wedding, and had gone off to their own farm or to their business; and he was angry also at those who had seized his servants, and insulted them, and killed them. For let them tell us whether this one who was angered, inasmuch as he is preparing a wedding for his son, is the Father of Christ, or is some other Father of His besides the one who, as far as the parable goes, was angered; D and in either case they will be hard-pressed, either from the fact that they do not wish the one who was angered, who is preparing a wedding for his son, to be the Father of Christ because of the anger, or from the fact that they are forced, because of the wedding and the son, to accept that he himself is the Father of Christ, and that he is angered. But if they attempt to bring forward an explanation for the being angered, we shall say to them: O you people, what is this partitioning, that you do not flee—
A from the one who works marriages for his Son in the Gospel because of anger, and seek another in the Law and the Prophets, because of the same name of anger and things similar to it, seeking to fashion another God besides the God of the Law and the Prophets?
19. As long as we are human, and it is not profitable for us to behold the wealth of the goodness of God, and the great multitude of his goodness hidden by him, lest we be harmed, the kingdom of the heavens was necessarily likened to a human king, in order that he might speak to humans as a human, and order those who are not capable of being ordered by God, while he remains entirely God, both in speaking through the prophets and in ordering humans. B And then the likeness of the kingdom of the heavens to a human will cease, when, with zeal and strife and the other passions and sins having ceased, and the walking according to man having ended, we become worthy to hear from God: "I said: You are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High" (or from his Christ), no longer doing such things for which it might be said: "But you shall die like men." But I think that not only will the likeness of the kingdom of the heavens to a human king cease, but also ten thousand other things which a sinful human needs, such as is written in Hosea: "But I am as a panther to Ephraim, and as a lion in the house of Judah," and in another place: "I will meet them," he says, C "as a bear bereaved." Therefore, he will one day cease to be as a panther, and as a lion, and as a bear bereaved, when, because those who have done these things no longer need the "as a panther," and the "as a lion," and the "as a bear," he himself—no longer having those who need him to be such—will manifest himself as he is.
I understand this also concerning the saying: "Our God is a consuming fire," since insofar D as those things worthy of being consumed are within us, to that extent "our God is a consuming fire" to them; but when those things by nature adapted to be consumed by the fire that consumes have been consumed by it, then he will no longer be "our God a consuming fire," but will only be, as John said, light, saying: "God is light." If these things are moved, pay attention, if you can, to the passage from John's catholic epistle which stands thus: "Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be. We know that if he is revealed, we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is," so as to take it in this way. For now, even if we are deemed worthy to see God with the mind and the heart, we do not see "him as he is," but as he becomes for us by reason of our dispensation; but at the end of all things and of the "restoration of all things of which he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old," we shall see him, not as now, which is not his being, but as is fitting then, which is what he is.
are those of being consumed, to such an extent that our God is a consuming fire to those things. But when those things which are by nature fitted to be consumed by that consuming fire have been consumed, then our God will no longer be a consuming fire, but only, as John said, light; for he says: "God is light."
When these points have been raised, consider if you can interpret in this same way the passage from John's Catholic Epistle, which runs as follows: B "Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not yet appeared what we shall be. We know that if it should appear, we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is." For now, even if we are deemed worthy to see God with the mind and the heart, we do not see him as he is, but as he becomes to us for the sake of our dispensation. But at the end of all things, and at the restoration of all that he "spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets who have been from the age," we shall see him, not as he now is—which is not as he is—but as it then behooves him to be, which is what he is.
Having once stated these things regarding "The kingdom of heaven has been likened to a man who is a king," we are also able to find the cause for the Savior constantly calling himself the Son of Man, or a son of man, C showing that, just as God, while dispensing for men, is called a man, as if in parables—and perhaps in some way he even becomes so—so too the Savior, being primarily the Son of God, and God, and the Son of his love, and "the image of the invisible God," does not remain in that which he is primarily, but becomes, according to the dispensation of him who is called man in the parables—being God—the Son of man, according to the imitation of when he dispenses for men, the Son of man.
20. After we have elaborated upon the passage "The kingdom of heaven D has been likened to a man who is a king," we can also find the reasons for which the Savior often calls himself the Son of man, declaring that, just as God, while dispensing for men, is in parables called a man—and is, perhaps, in a certain sense brought forth as such—so too the Savior, who is primarily the Son of God, and is God, and the Son of his love, and "the image of the invisible God," does not remain in that which he is primarily, but is made, according to the dispensation, the son of man, of him who is called man in the parables, according to the likeness of man, when he begins to dispense for men. But we ought not to ask "what man" the God who is called man in the parables is, so that we might call the Savior the son of that man; rather, remaining in the sense of God and of the parables that declare him to be a man, let us wisely listen to him saying that he is the Son of man. Among us men, therefore, "the kingdom" is likened to a man.
A But among those who are called gods according to the Scriptures, those in whose "synagogue God stood, judging gods in their midst," [Ps. LXXXI, 1] the kingdom of heaven is like God the King.
21. You will also ask whether, as among men who are by nature inferior to angels, and thrones, and dominions, and principalities, and powers, "the kingdom of heaven is likened to a man the king," it might not likewise come to pass that among thrones the kingdom of heaven is likened to a throne-king; among dominions, to a dominion-king; among principalities, to a principality-king; and among powers, to a power-king. For someone will say: What is the principle of selection and distinction, such that for men the kingdom of heaven is likened to a man the king, but for those who excel men, the same thing does not occur in proportion? B He who is likened to a man the king, making a marriage for his son, "sent his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding." [Matth. XXII, 3] And you will observe whether, just as the bride who marries is distinct from the servants who summon and the guests who are invited to the wedding, so also in mystical matters some are taken into the constitution of the bride, while others are in the order of the servants who are sent to call those invited to the wedding, and a third group beyond these are those who are invited to the wedding. But God knows the diverse orders of souls, or the powers alongside them, and the cause for which some are taken into the constitution of the bride, others into the order of the servants who minister to the calling, and others into the number of the invited. C In spiritual marriages, understand the communication of the bridegroom Word—who produces a harvest in season—to the bride soul, which is married to the Word and is not corrupted by him, but rather at every communion with him partakes of incorruption and brings forth such rational fruits as would come from such a marriage. And in such marriages, understand the "feast" being prepared as coming from solid food in spiritual doctrines. And consider the solid food transformed for me in the "bulls," D and also the spiritual aspect of the same contemplation in the "fattened cattle" being sacrificed, and the other variety—the spiritual contemplation analogous to bodily things—in the phrase "and all things are ready." For the King makes such a feast with a royal bounty, worthy of his kingdom and his wealth. It seems to me that the primary calling "to the wedding" has occurred for certain noble Israelite souls. For God desires primarily, through those who call by the word of instruction, that those who are more apt for understanding should come to this blessed feast.
B And it is evident that those who are unwilling to come to this invitation are sent away, and other servants come to call those who were unwilling, and they promise that if they come, those invited will participate in the feast prepared by the King, and in the bulls which are considered cleaner than all that are clean, and in the greater fattened animals, representing the many and varied proofs of the ideas set forth for each question. For he serves up the word as if it were a feast, and the interpretation C mentioned in the tropology offers a full and thorough proof of the proposed question; while one who puts forward, according to a hypothesis, a few rather weak arguments to support those things that seem to be the case, and whose arguments are fine, thin, and, so to speak, naked—such are the things prepared at the King’s feast. It is in reference to this that he says: D "My bulls and my fattened animals are slaughtered," and thus "everything is ready," so that in the standing of the servants and the ministry of the spiritual cupbearers, each of the deacons may bring to the feast that which he has been assigned, and in which he has learned to serve. And encouraging those who, as I said, are secondary according to the parable, he said: "Behold, I have prepared my feast, my bulls and my fattened animals are slaughtered, and everything is ready; come to the wedding." But those previously called, being poor and destitute in mind, "paid no attention and went off," attending to their own affairs and rejoicing in them rather than in what the King was promising through the servants sent out. And see that one of them, having his "own field," did not come "to the wedding," while another, possessing "merchandise," wishing in some way to imitate what is said in the parable of the merchant of pearls, who sought "goodly pearls" and found "one precious one" and sold the many in order to buy the one.
But this commerce is B not auspicious, seeing that the one who went away to it did not partake of the feast prepared by the King, nor of the slaughtered bulls and fatted calves, nor of all else that was ready. Those, therefore, of the perceptive who, when invited, do not come to the invitation, but who also do not treat with contumely or slay the slaves sent to call them, are more moderate than those who have dared to do such things, and they rest, one in his own field, and another at his trade. But let us see who the others, beyond these, may be. It seems to me that these have fallen into the preparation of contentious and sophistical arguments; in these, they treat with contumely those ministers of the calling, whether by overcoming the slaves sent—who are not at all prepared to solve such sophisms—or by appearing to overcome them. And one may indeed see those who have practiced the exercise of the divine words, and who wish to present them with divine wisdom, being treated with injury by those who are gifted with sharpness of intellect, yet who are unwilling to accommodate their faith to the truth; some of these are even slain by those with whom the King is said to be angry, after that which is called wrath has C come upon them.
The work of this wrath is the sending forth of the King's army, that is, the "multitude of the heavenly host," or the angels appointed over the punishments. And they slay the murderers of the ministers of the Word, and the King burns their whole city. For a city and a system of sorts exists in every one of the dogmas constructed in the wisdom of "the rulers of this age," which the King burns and causes to vanish, as consisting of wicked buildings. And whenever you might discern the tearing down of either a "falsely named knowledge" or of any words whatsoever promising truth, and the noble overturning of them, do not hesitate to say that such a thing has been brought to pass by the soldiers of God, burning the cities of the enemies of the truth. Indeed, the city of the Jewish teaching was also burned after the advent of Christ; and once it was burned, the King said to his slaves, the apostles of Christ or the angels of God appointed over the calling of the Gentiles: "The marriage indeed is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy." He says, following the parable: "Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my bulls and my fatted calves are slaughtered, and all things are ready; come to the marriage." But those previously called, as if poor and destitute in mind, neglected it and went away, pursuing their own interests and being pleased with these rather than with the things which the King promised through the sent slaves. And see how one of them, having his own field, did not come to the marriage; the other possesses commerce, wishing in some way to imitate what is said in the parable of the merchant of pearls, who sought the goodly pearls and found one of great value, and sold the many in order that he might buy the one. But this commerce is not auspicious, for by pursuing it, the one invited did not partake of the dinner prepared for the King, nor of the slaughtered bulls, and fatted calves, and all things ready. Those, therefore, of the perceptive who are invited and do not come to the invitation, but who do not however abuse and slay the slaves sent to call them, are more moderate than those who have dared to do such things, and they rest, one in his own field, another in his own business. But as for those remaining beyond these, let us see who they are. I think that these are those who have fallen into the preparation of contentious and crafty words, in which they apprehended—or appeared to have apprehended—the sent slaves, who were not prepared to solve their guileful questions, and they visited the ministers of the invitation with contumely. And it is possible to see daily how the simple inviters of God, not being very crafty according to the flesh, wish to teach such people with their divine wisdom; but they suffer injuries from those who indeed understand but do not wish to believe the truth. Others are even slain by them, with whom the King is said to be angry, since wrath has come upon them.
A The King burns the city; for it is as if the city and the system of each of those doctrines established in the wisdom of the princes of this age were being burnt and extinguished by the King, as if it consisted of wretched buildings. And whenever you might perceive the overthrow, whether of false knowledge or of any words whatsoever proclaiming the truth, and a noble subversion of them, do not hesitate to say that such a thing has been done by the soldiers of God, burning the cities of the enemies of the truth. Indeed, the city of the Jewish doctrine was also burned after the coming of Christ; when it was burned, the King said to his servants, the apostles of Christ, or to the angels of God appointed over the calling of the nations: "The wedding indeed is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. Go forth, therefore, to the outlets of the ways, and as many as you find, call to the wedding."
B And it is possible to see from every common street, and from the doctrines that are not common, according to the customs of the nations, and cities, and villages, and places, those who are invited to the wedding by those who were commanded to do this. And the servants went forth, whether they were the apostles of Christ from Judea and Jerusalem, or the blessed angels from the inner borders in which they were, and they came to the roads and gathered—and shall gather—all whom they might find, the bad, so that by casting away their wickedness—the garment alien to the wedding—and by putting on, along with the so-called good works, the "garment of the wedding," they might fill the wedding feast of those reclining.
When, therefore, the "wedding is filled with those reclining" and resting in the faith and piety, then "the King" shall come in to inspect and judge concerning those reclining, so that he may convict and punish the one not having the "wedding garment," and set before the rest the prepared "dinner" and the "sacrificed fattened beasts" with the bulls and all the other things he has prepared. C But he "saw" the one "not clothed with a wedding garment," referring to one genus or kind, those who have kept the wickedness that was before the faith and have not stripped it off.
And the King burns it; for it is, as it were, a city and a system of each of those things established in the wisdom of the princes of this age consisting of dogmas, which the King burns and makes to disappear, as if it consisted of evil buildings. And whenever you see the destruction, whether of some falsely-named knowledge or of any words whatsoever that profess the truth, and a valid overthrow, do not regret to say that this has been done by the soldiers of God, who are accustomed to burn the city of the enemies of the truth of God. The city of the Jewish doctrine was also burned after the coming of Christ: when it was burned, the King said to his servants, that is, to the apostles or the angels of God who were set over the calling of the nations, saying: "The wedding indeed is prepared, but those who were invited were not worthy. Go forth therefore to the exits of the roads, and as many as you find, call to the wedding." And it is to see from every road of ignorant dogmas, which were according to the customs of the nations, and cities, and villages, those who are called to the wedding. And the servants going forth, whether the apostles of Christ from Judea and Jerusalem, or from the inner borders in which were the holy angels, and coming to the roads diverse in their different customs, gathered and will gather whomsoever they find, the bad indeed, so that by laying aside their malice, which is the garment foreign to the wedding, and clothing themselves with good works, which are the wedding garments, they might fill the wedding banquet, reclining and resting in faith.
24. After the wedding of those reclining and those resting in faith and piety is filled, then the King shall enter to see and to judge concerning the quality of those reclining, so that he may convict and condemn the one who does not have the wedding garment, but set before the rest the prepared dinner. He saw, however, one not having a wedding garment: that is, because all who keep their malice after the faith, which they had before the faith, and do not lay it aside, are of one kind; he convicts them as those who have done evil, because they dared to enter into such a wedding not receiving garments worthy of the wedding, that is, the texture of virtues, clear
A garments, about which Solomon commanded in Ecclesiastes, saying: "At all times let your garments be white." He who dared to enter into this bright wedding without a wedding garment is rendered speechless, and can say nothing, as he is condemned as worthy of punishment and judgment by Him who says to the servants—others besides the heavenly hosts—that having bound his feet and hands (which he did not use as he ought, for he neither walked the course he should have, nor performed the deeds he ought to have), they should cast him not only out of the wedding feast, but also into the outer darkness, which is completely devoid of light. In this way, having thirsted for light after having been in the outer darkness, he may weep toward Him who is able to benefit him and save him from there, and he may gnash the teeth that, because of wickedness, ate the unripe grape and therefore were set on edge. For, "The one who ate the unripe grape, his teeth shall be set on edge."
By the unripe grape, one must consider that wickedness is meant, which does not extend itself to the things before, but remains in it—when it ought to have traveled toward the ripe and made sweet the grape of virtue. He adds to the whole parable, because of the many who were called and did not become worthy, the saying: "For many are called"; and because of those who entered into the wedding and sat down there, being few, the saying: "But few are chosen." B And if one were to consider the populous assemblies of the—to use a simpler term—Churches, and examine how many are those living in a more seemly way and are transformed "by the renewing of the mind," and how many are those who live more sluggishly and are fashioned "according to this age," one would see that the voice of the Savior saying, "For many are called, but few are chosen," is necessary. And elsewhere it has been said: "Many will seek to enter and will not be able," and "Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for few find it."
C But by the sour grape one should understand the wickedness of him who does not forget what is behind, nor does he extend himself toward the things that are before, but remains in the same place, when he ought to have journeyed toward the ripe and turned the grape of virtue sweet. He applies to the whole parable, for the sake of the many who are called and have not become worthy, the saying: "For many are called"; and for the sake of those who entered into the wedding and were reclined there in such small numbers, the saying: "But few are chosen." And if anyone were to consider the populous assemblies of the—to use a simpler term—Churches, and examine how many are those who live more modestly and are "transformed by the renewing of the mind," and how many are those who behave more sluggishly and are "fashioned according to this age," he would see D that the word of the Savior is useful.
A voice: "For many are called, but few are chosen." And elsewhere it is said: "Many will seek to enter, and will not be able," and "Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for few find it." A
Concerning those who questioned him about the census.
"Then the Pharisees went and took counsel against him, how they might entangle him in his talk," and so on, until: "And they left him and went away." The intention of the passage set before us, according to the letter, seems to me to be this: The Jews, because they possessed a teaching peculiar to them according to the Law of Moses, and a way of life alienated from the conduct of the Gentiles, and held to the dogma that says, "Strive for the truth unto death, and the Lord will fight for thee," were accustomed to resist the nations that ruled over them in order not to transgress the Law of God; and often they were in danger of being destroyed root and branch when the Romans wished to bring the statue of Caesar into the temple of God, resisting and hindering those who had become stronger than them, because of the Jews having sinned. B We have found in the historical writings of the time of Tiberius Caesar that in fact under Pontius Pilate the people were in danger, with Pilate forcing the setting up of the statue of Caesar in the temple, and they—even beyond their strength—resisting. And the like is recorded to have happened also in the times of Gaius Caesar. And we conjecture that so long as the people were watched over, and were fenced off by what is called according to the prophets C the "hedge" [of the vineyard—the "vineyard of the Lord, the house of Israel," and "his beloved new plant, the man of Judah"], nothing of such a kind happened. But the most paradoxical thing is: Pilate himself, to whom they delivered Jesus, was the first to dare to defile the temple of God. And so, at the time of the Savior, when the Jews were ordered to pay tribute to the Romans, there was reflection and debate among the Jews as to whether it was fitting for those consecrated to God and being his portion to pay tribute to the rulers, or to fight for freedom if they were not permitted to live as they wished, and not pay tribute. And it is recorded that Judas the Galilean, whom Luke also mentions in the Acts of the Apostles, having led away a great multitude of the Jews, taught that they ought not to give tribute to Caesar nor to proclaim Caesar as lord; but the tetrarch of that time wished to persuade the people to yield to the present situation and not to choose a war against stronger ones of their own accord, but to pay the taxes. D
And the text of the Gospel A clearly signifies such things as these; but one who is able to see what is set forth as it has been examined, perceives that these things are so. For the Pharisees, wishing to ensnare B Jesus in speech, having sent their own disciples with the Herodians to ask Him whether it is lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not, would have had no snare if it had been agreed upon among them that it was to be given, or if it had been agreed that it was not to be given.
26. C But see whether or not the truth shines forth from this history, that the Pharisees, who wished to ensnare Jesus in speech, did not send only their own disciples to inquire about the tribute, but [did so] with the Herodians. For it is likely that those who looked toward the liberty of the people—who were preserved by divine protection, as it were a vineyard of the Lord of Sabaoth—would not have had anything of this sort befall them. In the first place, however, Pilate, to whom they had delivered D Christ, dared to bring upon them what was a heavier form of captivity than any they had often suffered: that is, the affliction of the body, and the introduction of the statue into the temple at the time of the destruction of all. And therefore at the time of Christ, when they were ordered to pay tribute to the Romans, the reflection and deliberation among the Jews—whether they ought to be the Lord’s own people, and a portion of God, or whether they should pay tribute to the rulers—convinced many, as we read, that Judas the Galilean, whom Luke mentions in the Acts of the Apostles, stirred up a great multitude of Jews, teaching that they ought not to pay tribute to Caesar, nor to call Caesar lord. The tetrarch of that time B wished to persuade the people to yield to the present situation and not to choose a war against stronger ones of their own accord, but to pay the taxes. And the text of the Gospel clearly signifies such things as these; but one who is able to examine what is set forth, perceives that these things are so. For the Pharisees, wishing to ensnare C Jesus in speech, having sent their own disciples with the Herodians to ask Him whether it is lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not; and it was agreed that if it were to be given—
And observe if it signifies this: the history now set forth of those who wished to ensnare Jesus in speech, the Pharisees, and who had sent their own disciples to inquire about the tribute, but with the Herodians; for it is likely that, if someone does not wish these things to be so, he should explain how, wishing to ensnare Him, "the Pharisees send their own disciples," D and send also the Herodians to inquire concerning the tax. For what snare was there in Jesus answering whether He wishes the census to be paid to "Caesar" or not, unless, as we have explained, [by His] forbidding the paying of "tribute to Caesar," the Herodians were about to hand Him over to the Romans as one teaching sedition, and [by His] permitting it, "the Pharisees" were about to accuse Jesus as one who looks "to the person of man" rather than teaching "the way of God in truth"? But examine for yourself that the disciples of the Pharisees, by saying: "Teacher, we know that Thou art true and teachest the way of God in truth, and carest not for anyone, for Thou lookest not to the person of man," as it were, provoke Him through this praise to not take account of the person of the Herodians and those who favored the things of Caesar, so that by declaring, according to the wish of the Pharisees, that one ought not to give tribute to "Caesar," He might be handed over by them to the Herodians.
A Observe also the phrase: "But Jesus, knowing their wickedness, said: Why do you tempt me, ye hypocrites?" He knew, therefore, that He was being tempted by the Pharisees who were approaching Him with wickedness, so that whatever He might answer, they might from His answer plot against Him. Let these things then, from the Gospel before us, be said as regards the literal meaning of the passage, to which the accounts of Mark and Luke concerning similar matters also harmonize, as you may see if you compare the Gospels and examine them one with another; for there is no other sense here than that which has been expressed by Matthew concerning these matters, and the account in Mark is similar to Matthew. At the same time, we are taught by our Savior not to pay attention to what is said by the many, which appears glorious on account of a pretense of piety toward God, but rather to those things which are established by examination and the consequence of the argument. B For observe that, when the question was asked whether one ought to give "tribute to Caesar" or not, He did not simply declare what He thought, but by saying, "Show me the tribute money," He inquired, "Whose is this image and inscription?" And when they said, "Caesar's," He answered that one ought to give to "Caesar" the things that are his when he asks for them, and not to deprive him of his own under a pretense of piety; but it is certainly not the case that while one must give "the things of Caesar" to "Caesar," one must not also give "the things of God to God," and no one is prevented, while giving "to Caesar the things of Caesar," from also giving "to God the things of God."
One may also interpret the passage in this way: We are composed of soul and body, and we owe a certain payment, as it were, to the ruler of the bodies, who is called "Caesar"—namely, those things which are necessary for the body, which bear the bodily image of the ruler of bodies; these things are food, and covering, and necessary rest, and sleep. And we owe other things, C since the soul is by nature the image of God, to its King, God, which are things profitable and appropriate to the nature and substance of the soul.
D (35) *But those who, under a pretense of liberty,* etc. In the same way the Sadducees and Herodians were in such agreement that the Herodians have been thought by some to be a party of the Sadducees; so it is likely that the Galilaeans went out from the schools of the Pharisees, for even when they are puffed up into proclaiming things that are self-evident—that is, into warring and doing harm—they are able to resist kings, as Josephus says, *Antt.* XVII, c. 3, and Judas the Gaulanite, when he was about to begin his defection, joined the Sadducean Pharisee to himself, as may be learned from the same Josephus, *Ant.* XVIII, c. 1; and both of them, so that they might not bind their faith to Caesar by oath, endured all the harshest things steadfastly. Josephus, *Ant.* XVIII, c. 1, and *Bell. Jud.*, c. 27. It is this, however, that Origen seems to hint at in this passage. (36) *Preventing him from giving*, etc. Hieronymus, Chrysostom, *Brief Enarratio*, Theophylact. Idem.
A For these in their entirety are the paths that lead towards virtue, and the acts done according to virtue. Those, then, who are instructed in the law of God regarding the affairs of the body and the duties owed to it, do not all hold the same opinion. For some follow the pattern of those who advise against giving “tribute to Caesar,” by mortifying the body as much as possible through fasts and vigils, and by abstaining from everything that is for the sake of the body and its necessary functions. Others, however, are different from these; they understand the matters concerning this passage clearly, yet they imagine that it is also necessary to render to the body what is owed to it. But our Savior, who is “the Word of God,” clearly distinguishing the reasonable debts owed to the body from the [spiritual] debts of the soul, says: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” For the tribute carries the image of Caesar and of bodily affairs, which is the only thing, and nothing more, that we owe to the body.
I know, too, of another interpretation commonly offered for this passage. In the tropological sense, the ruler of this age is called Caesar, while the King of [all] the ages, who is found in no symbol, is everywhere called God. B Were they intending to accuse Jesus of looking more at the person of a man than at teaching the way of God in truth? Test this by evaluating it alongside the fact that the disciples of the Pharisees said: “Teacher, we know that you are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and do not care about anyone; for you do not look at the person of men.” It is as if they were inciting him through their praise not to show partiality to the Herodians, and to those who favored the things of Caesar, so that by declaring—according to the will of the Pharisees—that it was not necessary to pay tax to Caesar, he might be handed over by them to the Herodians. Observe also the point: “But Jesus, knowing their wickedness, said, ‘Why do you test me, you hypocrites?’” Therefore, He knew that He was being tested by the Pharisees, who were approaching Him with craftiness so that, whatever He might answer, they could plot against Him based on His response. C These things, then, let it be said in plain terms regarding this locus of the Gospel before us, with which the statements of Mark and Luke regarding the same things also agree, as you can see by laying the Gospels out and examining them alongside one another. For there is no other meaning voiced in Matthew regarding the matters in this passage, and it is similar to Matthew in Mark.
But we are also taught by our Savior not to give heed to things said by the many, and which therefore appear glorious, under the pretext of piety toward God, but rather to give heed to those things which are established and proven by examination and by the sequence of the discourse. Observe, for instance, that when the question was raised whether or not tax should be paid to Caesar, He did not simply state whatever He thought, but said: “Show me the coinage of the tax,” and He asked whose image and inscription it was. And when they said it was Caesar’s, He answered that one must render to Caesar the things that are his when he asks, and not deprive him of what is his own under the pretext of piety. D Yet surely it does not follow that one must render the things of Caesar to Caesar, but not the things of God to God; nor is anyone prevented, while rendering to Caesar the things of Caesar, from rendering to God the things of God.
27. This passage can also be interpreted by someone in a tropological sense. We are composed of soul and body; but as for the fact that we also consist of spirit, let us for the present refrain from speaking of that. And we are owed a certain thing to give as if it were a tribute of bodies.
A To the ruler who is called Caesar, we ought to pay the things necessary for the body, which contain the bodily image of the ruler of bodies; these things are food, and clothing, and necessary rest, and sleep. And we owe other things, since the soul is by nature in the image of God, to its King, God, which are things advantageous and appropriate to the nature and essence of the soul. These are the paths that lead to virtue, and the deeds that are in accordance with virtue. Those, therefore, who are taught the law of God concerning the things of the body and what is owed to it, do not hold the same opinions; for some act analogously to those who counsel not to give tribute to Caesar, wearing down the body as much as possible with fasts and vigils, and with every abstinence for the sake of the body and its necessary functions. Others, however, are different, who perceive things in this place unclearly, but imagine that one must also pay the debts to the body. But our Savior, the Word of God, clearly separating the reasonable debts for the body from the debts of the soul, says: B "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's" (Mt. XXII, 21); for the tribute of bodily things bears the image of Caesar, which alone, and nothing more, we owe to the body.
I know also another interpretation that is current regarding this passage. The ruler of this age is tropologically called Caesar; but the King of the ages, being in no symbol, is everywhere called God. Since, therefore, we have something of the ruler of this age, that is, things according to wickedness, and we are not able to render the things of God to God beforehand, unless we render—having laid aside all things of wickedness—the things of Caesar to Caesar; for this reason... C ...that is, food, clothing, and sleep, and whatever things are necessary for the repose of the simple nature of the flesh, without which the nature of the flesh cannot exist. Likewise, since the soul as to its nature is according to the image of God, its King, we must offer to God whatever things are suitable to the nature of souls, that is, all the paths that lead to virtue. Therefore, those who teach the law of God in a way that is above measure, and command that one should not care at all for bodily things and the debts of the body, are the Pharisees who forbade the rendering of tribute to Caesar; that is, those who with all their might persuade that one must absolutely afflict the body with fasts and vigils, and abstain from all things that are bodily and necessary to the body, so that nothing of us might be attributed to the prince of the body, such as those of whom the Apostle speaks: "In the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe." Others, however, are those who think that one should indulge bodies beyond measure, and in all things satisfy the prince of bodies; and these are according to the likeness of the Herodians who said that one must pay tribute to Caesar. But our Savior, the Word of God, clearly separating the reasonable debts of the body from the spiritual debts of the soul, said: "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and the things that are God's, to God." For every bodily thing has the image of Caesar, and every virtue has the image of God. If, therefore, we thus render to the prince of the flesh the things that are carnal, so that we do not defraud God of His spiritual virtues, then we render to the prince of bodies the things that are of the body, that is, those things alone which the nature of the flesh has as necessary, and nothing more that pertains to the standard of virtues. And if we serve the virtues so that the nature of the flesh is not burdened by its necessities, then we have rendered to God the things that are God's; so that neither virtue is diminished while we serve the flesh beyond measure, nor is the nature of the flesh burdened while we more abundantly adhere to the virtues. D ...the rulers of the nations are set in the person of the princes of the world. But the King of all the ages, God, is not in one mystery, but God is everywhere. Because, therefore, we have certain things in us that belong to this prince...
A, the Savior, when the coin was shown to him and the image imprinted upon it, says: "Render the things that are Caesar's to Caesar, and the things that are God's to God." And let us contemplate this in its proper place, that if ever we are tempted by those who seek opportunities and propose questions—not that they might learn, but that they might accuse us with all the power they possess—and we hear words meant to tempt us, we ought not to be fully silent, nor to answer at random, but cautiously and with foresight, so as to cut off as much as possible the opportunities for those who seek them, and to teach blamelessly the things that save those who wish to be saved in listening. Now the Pharisees may be taken as the teachers of the various Jewish traditions, and the Herodians as those whom many consider to be royalty among the Jews, of the sayings that are thus B more simply spoken. From both sides, therefore, they ask the Savior about the tribute; and he answers them, as we have set forth. Yet, since they do not wish to learn from questioning him, but rather to entrap him in his speech and to tempt him, for this reason, having heard what seemed good to him in reply to their prompt, and having marveled that he gave them no opportunity to plot against him, they did not stay with him as the disciples did; nor did they simply go away, as is written of others, but "leaving him, they went away," and such are those who leave the Word, and do not believe in it, and depart from C him after having heard him. And he will not be wrong who says regarding those who stand off after hearing that such have left Jesus and gone away; but we shall use that of the bride: "I grasped him, and did not let him go."
On the Sadducees, who questioned Jesus regarding the woman who had taken seven husbands.
29. "In that day there came to him the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection," and the rest.
Interpretation of the Old
...ways, that is, diverse evils, and we cannot first render to God the things that are God's, unless we have rendered to the prince the things that are the prince's, that is, unless we have put away all evil; therefore the Lord, when the coin was shown to him and its image, D answered: "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God, the things that are God's." And let us learn this from the present place, that if ever we are tempted by those who desire an opportunity and propose certain propositions to us, not in order to learn, but that they might find a cause of accusation against us, we ought not to be silent at all, nor answer simply, but with thought and circumspection, that as much as is possible for us, we may cut off the opportunity for those who seek an opportunity in us, and teach irreproachably the things that can save those who wish to be saved. 29. "In that day, there came to Jesus the Sadducees who say there is no resurrection," and they asked...
For even if, for the sake of argument, the resurrection believed in by the many were not true, he who denies it does not hope "in this life only in Christ," since the soul is alive; it does not receive back that same body, but is clothed in one that is ethereal and superior. But neither would we be "of all men most miserable," if we were to say that the soul lives and exists, but that we do not clothe it again with this body, or say that it receives it back. Moreover, in order to show that the Apostle is taking his stand precisely on this point in his first letter to the Corinthians, we shall also make use of the passage: "If the dead rise not at all, why are they then baptized for them? And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?" And also: "If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me? If the dead rise not, let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we die." For even if we assume what is thought by the many to be true—that the resurrection of the dead is not true—how does it follow from this that our suffering danger in the struggle for the salvation of our souls is in vain? And how is there no advantage for him who fought with beasts for Christ, according to what is arranged for each man's worth, if he does not receive back his former body?
How does the eating and drinking—"for tomorrow we die"—follow from the "non-existence" of the resurrection of the flesh? We do not say these things because we disbelieve what is written in Isaiah in this manner: "All flesh shall see the salvation of God," or what is said by Job: "For He is eternal who is about to deliver me upon the earth, and to raise up my skin which endures these things." Nor do we disbelieve the apostolic voice saying: "He shall quicken your mortal bodies by His spirit that dwelleth in you." But let us clear away, as much as we are able, the meaning of the word "resurrection" in the passage of the Gospel that lies before us; for this reason we have also cited the phrases from the first epistle to the Corinthians. A The Sadducees, therefore, "came" to Jesus, who said "that there is no resurrection"—that is, the resurrection according to their own definition, as we have explained—and they "asked" our Lord, "saying: Moses said, if any man die having no children, his brother shall perform the kinsman's duty to his wife and shall raise up seed unto his brother." It seems to me, therefore, worthwhile to cite for this the word of Moses, to which the Sadducees referred when they said what is written in the Gospel. The passage in Deuteronomy, therefore, stands thus: "If brethren dwell together, and one of them die," and so on until "the house of him whose shoe has been unloosed." The Sadducees, having no hope of the resurrection, hearing this passage basely and thinking nothing worthy of God regarding the law set forth, supposed that if there "is a resurrection," it must follow that the man will be a man again, having male organs, and the woman will rise as a woman, clothed in a female body. And, assuming in a low manner that the things concerning the resurrection were spoken on account of their thinking that these things followed from it, they fashioned a certain fable about "seven" brothers having married one "wife," and they raised the difficulty: "whose" wife would such a one be, having risen, having once served as wife to "seven" men. B They denied the resurrection of the flesh, which is what is named, but they also entirely destroyed not only the immortality of the soul but also its continued existence, thinking that the life of the soul after these things is nowhere indicated in the writings of Moses. The Samaritans, to this day, hold the same doctrine regarding the soul of man as the Sadducees, and they build upon it that they are learned in the law, and they contend even unto death concerning the Law of Moses and circumcision. This meaning concerning the resurrection—I mean that which is held by the Sadducees and Samaritans—denies the life of the soul after these things; some of the Corinthians at the time of the Apostle, understanding this, were teaching that there is no resurrection, concerning whom he writes these things: "But if Christ be preached that He rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?" That those in Corinth saying that there is no resurrection of the dead, according to the meaning of the Sadducees, were denying the resurrection—that is, the continued existence of the soul—is made evident by this: "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are more miserable than all men." Which, if you examine it diligently, you will see that he who denies this in the Church C is held to have more prudent discourses, saying that there is no resurrection. For the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, were denying not only this which in custom is called the resurrection of the flesh, but they were also destroying the immortality of the soul. According to whom the Samaritans also think even now. D [alt-version omitted]
A And if someone denies the resurrection of the dead as received and believed in the Church, even if he denies it falsely, he does not entirely have his hope placed in Christ only in this life; for if we suppose that the resurrection believed by the many is not true, one who rejects it has not placed his hope in Christ only in this life, if the soul lives and does not indeed resume that body, but puts on some other, better, ethereal something; nor are we "more miserable than all men," if we should say that the soul lives and survives, but that this body is not added back to it, nor do we say that it resumes it. Further, in order to confirm B that the Apostle stands particularly for this point in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, we shall also use the passage: "If the dead are not raised at all, why are they baptized for them? And why do we stand in jeopardy every hour?" (1 Cor. xv, 29, 30) and that: "If, after the manner of men, I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what is the profit to me, if the dead do not rise? Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die" (1 Cor. xv, 32). For let it be granted that what is thought by the many to be true, namely the resurrection of the dead, is not true. How does it follow from this that we struggle in vain, laboring for the salvation of our souls? And how is there no profit to him who has fought with beasts for Christ, according to merit, if he does not resume his former body? How does it follow, from there being no resurrection of the flesh, that "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die"? We do not say these things because we disbelieve what is written in Isaiah in this way: "All flesh shall see the salvation of God" (Luke iii, 6); or what is said by Job: "For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that He shall raise up upon the earth my skin that C endureth these things" (Job xix, 25). Nor do we disbelieve the apostolic voice saying: "He shall quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in you" (Rom. viii, 11). But as much as is in our power, we clarify the meaning of the word "resurrection" in the passage of the Gospel that lies before us, and we have cited the testimonies from the first Epistle to the Corinthians. *Therefore the Sadducees, who said there was no resurrection*, came to Jesus, and they asked our Lord, "saying, Moses said, If any man die, not having D children..." [alt-version omitted]
A his brother shall take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
50. It seems to me appropriate here to set forth the saying of Moses, to which the Sadducees alluded regarding the things written in the Gospel as having been said by them. The text in Deuteronomy is as follows: "If brethren dwell together, and one of them die," and so on, down to: "The house of him that hath his shoe loosed" (Deut. xxv, 5). The Sadducees, interpreting this passage incorrectly, as those who have no hope of the resurrection and conceiving nothing in their minds worthy of God concerning the law set forth, thought that it followed from there being a resurrection that a man, once he had risen, would again be a man, possessing male organs, and that a woman would rise again as a woman, clothed in a female body; and, having low thoughts of what is said about the resurrection because they believed these things followed for them, they fashioned a fable about seven brothers who married one wife, and asked whose wife such a woman would be when she had risen, having once been the wife of seven men. They could, however, have raised this same question without such a fiction, drawing their argument from women who had married many men, or from men who had taken many wives. But our Savior, answering them, did not explain the intent of the Mosaic law, as they were unworthy of the knowledge of such a mystery; but He only declared, saying that even the divine Scriptures proclaim concerning the resurrection from the dead, that there are no marriages there, but those who rise from the dead become like the angels in heaven; and just as the angels in heaven neither marry nor are given in marriage, so, He says, are those who rise from the dead. I, for my part, believe that it is shown by these words that those who are accounted worthy of the resurrection from the dead become like the angels in heaven not only in the respect of not marrying and not being given in marriage, but also in the transformation of their bodies from humility B to a higher state; and as for the phrase, "a man will rise again possessing male organs," the nature of those who are under the dominion of death is in need of this distinction, while for those who have become immortal, the female sex is altogether superfluous. But we shall treat these matters more fully in the *Origeniana*.
30. Since, therefore, the Sadducees bring forward the example from the Mosaic law as a defense of their error, it seems to me appropriate to set forth the very text of the law which the Sadducees cite, which in Deuteronomy is provided in this manner: "If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and he have no seed, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel. And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel. Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her; Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot." C D
It seems to me, according to one account, that the soul of man is a woman, marrying first the letter of the Law and bearing no children from it, and secondly the spiritual Law, and from this bringing forth fruit and begetting, yet not departing, regarding the one begotten, from the honor due to the letter of the Law which has died to her. And perhaps every soul that is to be blessed, and is figuratively called a woman, is entirely married first, according to the introductions, to the letter of the Law, which dies as the soul of the woman progresses, so that she may attain to the more holy and fruitful marriage, when “she shall be saved through the bearing of children,” provided that the children “continue in faith, and love, and holiness with sobriety,” not being saved before this childbearing or apart from it. The children, moreover, of this woman, the soul, from the second husband, the spiritual Law, are the works according to that Law. And they are two brothers, both born from one mother, the mind, the two Laws which always dwell “together in one place”; for their house is not separated from one another, but they are “brothers,” and both interpretations are as in one house, the letter which contains them.
and another soul [the woman] living according to God, when the former husband has died and is overturned, not wishing to go “outside” and to a “man who does not draw near,” but being married to the brother of the deceased and dwelling “together” with him, when “the husband’s brother comes in to her” and becomes within her soul and takes “her to himself as a wife” and dwells with that soul for her blessedness, inasmuch as she is married according to the will of God to the second and spiritual law. “And the child which she may bear” and bring forth, the soul-woman who has dwelt with the second and spiritual brother, is established “from the name” of his brother “who has died,” and comes into being not from the former, yet is namesake to the former; for the name for the offspring from the spiritual law is the name of the deceased, since he too was called the law of God, and it is not right that “the name” of the deceased husband be erased from the discerning and truly Israel, even if he himself is erased. Let these things be said in part concerning the law.
A “we shall judge angels,” as well as from that: “into which the angels desire to look.” But if anyone also admits the Epistle of Jude, let him see what follows from this doctrine, because of that: B “But the angels who did not keep their own principality, but left their own domicile, he has kept in everlasting bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day.” But he who has dared to inquire into such matters, let him see how those things written in Genesis are to be understood: “Seeing” (that is, “the sons of God [seeing] the daughters of men, that they were beautiful, they took to themselves wives from all whom they chose.” But openly to raise questions about the things of that passage, and to examine the coherence of them, and to trust to paper the clarity of such things, was perhaps not safe; for it is enough for us to have been this bold regarding what has already been said.
C I do not think it inopportune to set forth the wording of the law from Deuteronomy once, to see how its intention might be understood. We must seek, therefore, in it who is this one woman, and who are the two men who were brothers to one another; the one who marries the woman first, but brings forth no fruit from her; and the second, the brother of the deceased, who marries and raises up a child in the name of the deceased. And after this you will seek who he is who does not wish to marry the wife of his brother, and because of this is stripped of one sandal before the elders, and is spat upon in the face by the woman who ascends to the gate, and says: “My husband’s brother does not wish to raise up the name of his brother in Israel.” Further, that too will have to be examined in the same place, who are those elders, and what is the gate to which the woman ascends while saying the things that were mentioned above. But that every law which is said to have proceeded from God is something august and worthy of veneration; and that it is not at all a law of God which is not holy and venerable, everyone who is not utterly foolish will admit. But whether or not we shall find the holiness and majesty of this law, God himself first would know, and his Christ, and after these, he who is according to the Scripture… D not to the acknowledgment of the mystery, but he simply told them about the future resurrection, as the divine Scriptures also testify, since there are no marriages there, but they will be as the angels in heaven who have risen, and because he will transform the bodies of their humility according to the celestial and luminous bodies of the angels.
[index: entries preserved]
…let us explain to some extent. I seek, therefore, who is this one woman and the two brothers, the first of whom indeed had a wife and left no fruit from her; but the second, the brother of the dead man, who took her and generated from the name of the dead: and who is he who does not wish to take the wife of his brother, and on account of this the woman takes off one shoe from him before the elders, and spits in his face, ascending to the gate and saying: “My husband’s brother does not will to raise up the name of his brother in Israel”; and who are the elders, and what is the gate to which that woman ascends? There are, therefore, two brothers: the first is the word of the Law, the second is the word of the Gospel. Both of these did the mother Wisdom bring forth, and one house always held them, that is, the same Scripture of the Old Testament, and they dwelt in the same one always. But at the coming of Christ, the former brother died, that is, the word of the Law, in that he was made void by the New Testament and rendered useless. But the woman of that word is every soul, or the Synagogue which was first under the law: such was the soul of Paul, or Peter, and of the others from that people. Every upright soul, moreover, which was a lover of that word, and wishes to keep his memory and name with itself always, so that she may never cease to be called his wife, becomes the wife of the other brother, not of a foreign and strange word which does not draw near. But a foreign and strange word is every gentile word, which is far from the kind of the law of God: but she took to herself a husband, the evangelical word, C as Matthew was the first to sound the trumpet in his Gospel. Mark also, Luke, and John sounded with their individual priestly trumpets. Peter also sounds with two of his Epistles. James also, and Jude. Likewise in Matthew XII: And Judas also wrote an Epistle, short in lines indeed, but filled with the words of those who have been endowed with heavenly grace.
A And Christ himself shall know it, then also he who is called by Scripture a money-changer of integrity and proven faith, and who knows how to "prove all things; and to hold fast that which is good; and to abstain from every form of evil." Come then, let us desire to explain this proposed question of the law, having called upon Him who said: "I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world." Let us say those things which, if He himself has granted them to us, it shall go well with us; if not, then what in this place occurs to us; the judgment surely will remain with the reader. B And according to one interpretation indeed, the woman seems to me to be the soul of man, wedded first to the letter of the law, and bringing forth no offspring from it; but to the spiritual law secondly, and from it conceiving and bearing fruit, yet not ceasing, even when children have been received, to show honor to the literal law which is dead to her. And perhaps every soul that is to be blessed, and which is metaphorically a woman, when it is first instructed, is necessarily wedded to the letter of the law, which indeed dies so that the woman—that is, the soul—may be delivered, in order that she may contract a more dignified and fruitful marriage, when surely she "shall be saved by the child-bearing, if they continue in faith, and love, and sanctification with sobriety," but she will in no way attain to salvation before she has given birth to children, or if she has not done so. C The children, however, of this woman (the soul), conceived by the second husband—the spiritual law—are the works performed according to it. And the brothers generated from one mother (the mind) are the two laws, which also dwell in the same place; for their house is not separated one from the other; but both are, and both interpretations are, as in a certain house, the letter which contains them. And see if this cannot be proven from: "If brothers dwell together," then what follows: "And one of them die, and he have no seed," which I have explained to the best of my ability. Let us also look at that which says: "The wife of the dead shall not be married without unto a man that is not akin," D and which woman, that is to say, which soul, transgresses this law, and which one keeps it. As matters of this kind stand, therefore, after the death and the subversion of the interpretation of the law according to the letter, I consider that a certain soul, contrary to God’s commandment, takes to herself a man who is not a brother of her deceased husband, nor a kinsman according to the divine genus, so as to have children from him. From the former discourse she could produce no child, because "by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." But the children born of the woman by the second husband—his works are holy, and she herself is a woman keeping the commandment of the law. And I think that every soul in its beginning first received the word according to the simple history of the law, which will undoubtedly die when that soul begins to progress toward greater things. Thus, the simple word being dead, she is joined to a more special word, which is according to the higher mysteries in the Scriptures. But the soul that does not keep the commandment of the law, which was formerly under the law, after the death of the law becomes the wife of a man who does not approach, when she takes a word that does not correspond in any way to the former law, nor is it according to its sense, but is held to be entirely foreign. And such are...
all the souls of heretics; for them, the word of the ancient law is indeed dead, but they have wished to be wedded to a spiritual word which had always dwelt therein with the ancient law under one and the same roof of the same Scripture. But they have wedded some foreign word, and one that is alien both to the New and to the Old Testament, and one that never drew near to them. But when an upright soul, herself dead to the law as we have said, accepts over herself the evangelical word, the brother of the deceased law, then the brother of the dead one—that is, the word of the new law—enters into that soul and becomes within her, and takes her for his wife, and cohabits with that soul in all her blessedness, and brings forth fruit from her. And whatever infant is born to her—that is, whatever work is brought to pass by her—is rendered good by the name of the deceased brother; and although it is not born from the law, yet it bears the name of the prior law, and that work is said to be generated from the law, and the name of the law of God is named in that good work, since that law too was called the law of God; and the name of that law is not deleted from every work of a holy soul, even if it itself has been rendered void A.
For every soul spits upon the word that neither begets children nor brings forth fruit, and by the overthrowing of it, it looses it in those things in which it stumbles, and "answering" says that "thus shall they do to the man who does not build the house of his brother." And observe here again that "man" is named a second time for him who sins, and now indeed for one who does not build "the house of his brother." Therefore, let everyone who sees this man being loosed from his sandal and spat upon, and hearing her saying, "Thus shall they do to the man who does not build the house of his brother," do "all things for the building up" of his brother; for if he should not build "the house of his brother" B [the law], "one sandal" shall be loosed, and he shall be spat upon, and "the name" of any such person "in Israel" shall be called before all who see it, [the house] of him whose sandal was loosed. Let us see also a second explanation regarding the passage set forth, and let there be two brother laws, according to which he who has kept the former was not "lawless toward God," and he who keeps the second is "lawable in Christ." C
52. Therefore, let this be said in part concerning the law; but again, there is need for us—or rather, a greater need—for God, who in Christ enlightens our mind toward the vision of the things that follow. "If, however," he says, "the man does not wish to take the wife of his brother, then the wife of his brother shall go to the gate to the elders, and shall say," the things that follow. And first of all, observe that as long as the woman also was doing what had been commanded by the law, and the man entering in to her was dwelling with her and begetting children from her, he was not called a man, but the brother of the husband of the woman; but when he does not wish to take the wife of his brother, and does not wish to raise up the name of his brother, and, having been summoned by the elders of the city, has said: "I do not wish to take her," then he is no longer called a brother, but a man. For instance, as long as he performs the commandment of the law, the Scripture says to him: "I have said, You are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High." But if he has passed by it, it is said to him: "But you, as men, shall die." Now the kinsman who does not wish to take the wife of his brother is taken to be every sermon of a heresiarch, since after the death of the law, there came to be another certain erratic tradition of the law, and not spiritual, nor true; which, although it is perverse, nevertheless has its generation from the law, since from occasions D [of] Deut. xxv, 5. Ibid. 7.
And consider for me, at the coming of Christ, the death of the former law, as the man of human souls, since «that which was glorified was not glorified in this respect» before, «because of the surpassing glory» of the second; and consider the second law as of Christ, being a brother of the former—both through Moses and the Word, who is the Son of the same, who also begat the former. When therefore these two brothers were dwelling «in the same place,» especially at the time of His presence, the one of them died and had no seed. But the woman of the deceased, after the death of the former husband, the soul that is under the law, does not become «outside [to] a man not approaching»; for a man approaches—the law of the Gospel, as a brother of the husband who died for the former law—and he enters into the wife of the brother. As an example, look at Paul’s soul «under the law,» then, because Christ bought him from the law, becoming «under the Gospel.» And look to see if the husband of Paul’s soul did not die, and nonetheless, even when he died, the wife of the deceased did not become «outside,» as those of the heresies think, nor «to a man not approaching.»
A And the name [of the man refusing] in Israel, and being called by the senate of the city, says: «I do not wish to take her,» and he is disgraced by having his shoe loosened, and he is spat upon in the face by the woman, and he is surnamed, so that his name may be, «The house of him whose shoe is loosened»; then he is called a man. B For as if, for the keeping of the law, it was said to him: «I said, You are gods»; but through doing things contrary to the law, he is, as it were, reproved by the Word saying to him: «But you die as men.» And attend if you are able to discern, after the death of the interpretation of the letter, that there is another interpretation of the law, erroneous and not spiritual, nor blameless, yet having its generation, though erroneous, proceeding from the occasion of the things written in the law, and not wishing to raise up the name of their brother, and to honor the name of the law. C Such an interpretation does not wish to take the wife of his brother, that is, the soul; for it does not wish to bring forth fruit for the glorifying of the name of the deceased brother; wherefore the woman does not stand below—she who is ready to honor her former husband—but she ascends to the gate and the entrance of the city, which has its own senate. And let these things be understood as happening according to the Church and the introduction and entry into it. The woman therefore reproves the man who does not wish to bring forth fruit for such a discourse, and says: «The brother of my husband does not wish to raise up the name of my brother in Israel.» Then the senate of that city, examining such a man, inquires if he truly does not wish it; and when he has answered that he does not wish it, she approaches him who did not wish to raise up seed to his brother, and before the senate she reproves him, and disgraces him, loosening his one shoe. And look in these things, because of «Loosen the shoe from your feet,» D said to Moses and to Joshua, and that which is written, «I am not worthy to loosen the strap of his shoe,» written in accordance with Luke and Mark and John—lest perhaps «to loosen the shoe» is not the same as «to unshoe»; for neither is Moses or Joshua or John commanded to be unshod.
A And when, therefore, «the eldership» asks that kind of man if the woman speaks the truth about him, and he does not wish to raise up seed to his brother, then «the wife» of the deceased approaches «before the eldership» and loosens «the one shoe from his foot,» so that even if he were shod with the name of Christ, he might be unshod regarding the name of God, and for this very reason might not be wearing the name of Christ gloriously or truly. The woman also spits «into the face» of such a man and reproaches him as a man, and one who did not wish to be divinized by bearing fruit. She says that this will happen to everyone who does not build «the house of his brother,» that is, the evangelical word, which is both legal and prophetic. And he who does not build will have no other name among the Israelites save this: that this is «the house of the one who has had his shoe loosened.» Everyone, therefore, who is in heresies—especially those that sever the Godhead and the law from the Gospel—being unraveled, is «the house of the one who has had his shoe loosened,» being spat upon «in the face» and having «the one shoe» loosened. B
Concerning the Savior, he named the action of loosening.
This one, therefore, who acts unlawfully is neither completely unshod nor is he adorned with the full footwear, but has each thing by half; wherefore the woman, having convicted him before the eldership, spits in his face. For every soul spits upon him who does not beget children and does not bear fruit in the Word, and through the refutation she loosens him in the things wherein he errs. «And answering, she says, Thus shall they do to the man who does not build the house of his brother.» And observe again here, that for the second time he who is as it were a man has been named concerning the one who sins, but now (he is named) as not building the house of his brother. Therefore, everyone who sees this man being unshod by a woman, and being spat upon, and hearing her saying, «Thus shall they do to the man who does not build the house of his brother,» let him do all things for the edification of his brother; for if he does not build the house of his brother, one shoe shall be loosened, and he shall be spat upon, and the name of any such one in Israel C among those who see him shall be called «the house of the one who has had his shoe loosened.» But let us see a second interpretation of the law set before us, and let there be two brothers, laws: according to which he who kept the former was not lawless toward God, but he who keeps the latter is lawful toward Christ. And understand for me, at the time of Christ’s presence, that the former law has died—a man of human souls—since that which was glorified in this part has not been glorified in the degree of the surpassing glory which the latter possessed; the latter, indeed, is the law of Christ, D which is the brother of the former and Mosaic law, and the son of the same Word who also gave birth to the former. Since, therefore, these two brothers were dwelling upon the same thing, especially at the time of the presence, one of them died, and he had no seed; but the wife of the deceased—that is, the soul under the law—after the death of the former husband, does not pass over to a man who is a stranger and not related to her. For that man—the law of the Gospel—being as it were the brother of the dead husband, is joined by affinity to the former law, and comes to the wife of the brother. Take, for example, the soul of Paul, which was under the law, and then consider it as having been made subject to the Gospel on account of Christ, who redeemed it from the law; and see if the husband of Paul’s soul did not die, and yet, at the death of the deceased, his wife did not go outside, as the heretics are persuaded, nor was she joined to a man in no way related to her: for the brother of her husband approached her. Moses, nor John speaking of the Savior, said «to unshoe,» but «to loosen.» That one, however, who acts against the law is unshod. For every dogma, since it is born from the occasion of the truth of the Scriptures, generally says what is true in some part, but in another part what is false. In the part, therefore, where it says what is false, in that part it is refuted, and having been convicted by the holy soul, it is unshod from the color of its plausible error, although it had been shod. And therefore every heresiarchal teaching is neither fully unshod nor fully adorned with footwear. On account of this, that woman spits in his face before the elders, renouncing him. For every soul seems to spit into the face of a wandering dogma by the very fact that it renounces and abdicates it. And truly, unless the soul has renounced every perverse dogma, it cannot firmly marry the Word of truth. And answering, it will say: «Thus shall they do to the man who does not build the house of his brother.» Therefore, everyone who sees this man being unshod by a woman, and being spat upon, and hearing her saying: «Thus shall they do to every man who does not build the house of his brother,» ought to do all things for the edification of his brother. If, however, he will not have built the house of the law of his brother, one shoe shall likewise be loosened, and he shall be spat upon, and his name shall be called in Israel by all who see him, «the house of the loosened shoe.» Now, since the husband of the soul was the former wordA of Paul, and that one having died, the wife of the deceased has not gone outside—as those from the heresies think—nor to a man who does not approach; for the brother of her husband entered unto her, and took her for himself as a wife, and lived with her, and there came to be the fruit, and the offspring, and the child, and that which was born from the name of the deceased. For according to the spiritual law, the Gospel names everything, and the name of the deceased has not been erased when the law of the Gospel has arrived; for among the true Israel, the name of the former is also preserved.
Who, then, after this is the man not willing to take the wife of his own brother, if not the word in the heresies, which is not willing to accept the soul that honored the former husband, and the memory of the former husband? Against whom the wife of his brother ascends to the gate, concerning which it has been said: «This is the gate of the Lord, the righteous shall enter into it,» and she ascends to the senate, and denounces him who is unwilling to raise up seed to his brother in Israel, nor to honor the law of God given through Moses. When, therefore, the senate asks such a man if the wife speaks the truth about him, and he does not wish to raise up seed to his brother, then the wife of the deceased approaches before the senate, and she loosens the shoe from off his foot, so that even if he is bound by the name of Christ, he may be loosened from the name of God, and for this reason he bears the name of Christ neither gloriously nor truly. And the wife also spits in the face of such a man, and reproaches him as a man who did not will to be made godlike by bringing forth fruit; and she says that this shall be so for everyone who has not built the house of his brother, which is the Gospel word, which is both legal and prophetic. And he who does not build his name among the Israelites will have no other name but this: that this is the house of him whose shoe has been loosened.
Whoever, therefore, is wallowing in heresies, especially those which divide the divinity, and which separate the law from the Gospel, he is «the house of the loosened shoe,» spat upon in the face, and having one shoe removed. We have also received a third such interpretation of this passage, which we shall state briefly. Wisdom is called the wife because of the saying, «I sought to take her as a bride for myself,» and B one must love [her] according... C D
A to the saying of Solomon: «Love her, and she shall keep thee.» The wise man is her husband; if, therefore, the wise man, having begotten no one from Wisdom, departs from this life, let the brother who dwelt with him, and who rested in the same words, act as a representative of the same [Wisdom], so that there may be born from Wisdom he who shall procure glory for the one who has departed from the association, to present [to him] the fruit. But if the brother who is left behind should not wish to act as a representative of the words, he shall be dishonored by Wisdom, who will loosen him by half; for neither will such a one [go entirely] unloosened, nor will he be loosened completely.
And for the establishing of the fact that the Law is called the man, according to Scripture, and the soul the woman, we shall adduce what is written in the Epistle to the Romans, as follows: «Or are you ignorant, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man for as long as he lives?» and what follows, until: «being joined to another man.» But more has been said by us on this topic, while we were explaining the passage of the Epistle to the Romans in our commentaries upon it.
55. These things, even if they seem to have been said by way of digression, have been spoken for the sake of clarifying the Law according to Moses, concerning which the Sadducees, making mention, asked the Savior, saying: «Moses said: If any man dies not having children,» and the rest. But come, after these things let us examine the other parts of the Gospel beginning from: «There were seven brothers among us, and the first, having taken a wife, died,» and what follows. B Isaiah indeed says in the prophecy: «Seven women shall take hold of one man, saying: We will eat our bread, and we will be clothed with our garments, only let thy name be called upon us; take away our reproach.» But the Sadducees who approached the Savior say the contrary to the prophecy concerning seven men having married one woman; and their problem seems to be a fabrication, they having purposed through the fabrication to subvert the discourse concerning the resurrection, and thinking that it follows that in the resurrection each of those rising again has the same relation towards those whom he had in this life, so that the husband may recover the wife after achieving the resurrection; and the father remains in the relation toward the son, and the brother toward the brother. They were ignorant, then, that the Creator, doing everything for what is useful, where there is birth and decay, has necessarily created such relations, in order that one might be a husband C served by a woman through the birth of children; and those who are born might have some connection by way of the birth through the same, [being] kin. D
If, therefore, in the blessedness those who are deemed worthy on account of the present age—in which they lived well—will exist in that life, and no one of those who have not contended here is deemed worthy of the resurrection from the dead, it is clear that those things for which there was a need here for the sake of birth, these will not be there. For God makes nothing in vain, nor does anything happen without purpose beside Him. But the Sadducees ought to have seen the consequence of their own assumption concerning each one’s receiving back his own wife, that again there would be child-bearings there, and births of children, and deaths; and if these, then diseases; and if births and infancies and advancements from infancy to the completing of discourse, and later the Word, and in the completion of the Word, wickedness, and with difficulty virtue again being found in the few who seek it. But of these things what could be more vain? And it is better that there «should not be a resurrection» than that it should be such as the «Sadducees» supposed it, assuming it follows from the resurrection from the dead that each one receives back his wife; to which it followed that each of the things mentioned would also happen.
But if there is A a brother of a different kind than "according to the flesh," and in a different way than things in generation a father and son—not through a woman or through shameful parts of the body, but analogous to the Savior also being the Son of God—he who is able to rightly inquire into such great things will understand, having grasped the "Spirit" that searches "all things, even the depths of God." I, however, apply this different and as it were homonymous meaning not only in these cases—I mean those of brother, father, and son—but also regarding wife and husband. For B "in the resurrection" of the dead, it is true that "they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels in heaven;" but it is also true, as spoken in a parable concerning something different from marriages on earth, in the passage: "The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son," and the rest; and in, "Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps," and the rest. Therefore, the King's Son "in the resurrection" of the dead enters into a marriage beyond every marriage, which eye has seen, and ear has heard, and "it has not entered into the heart of man." Brothers; the work of generation was also father and son, and mother and daughter. If, therefore, in that blessedness those deemed worthy of the ageless life because of the present age in which they lived well will exist in that life, and no one of those who have not striven here is deemed worthy of the resurrection from the dead, then clearly those things for which there was a need here for the sake of C generation will not be there; for God does nothing superfluous, nor does anything happen in vain at His hand. The Sadducees ought to have seen the consequence of their assumption regarding each one receiving back his own wife, that for there to be generation there again, and births of children, and deaths; and if these, then diseases; and if births, then infancy and progressions from infancy to the completion of speech, and later of reason; and in the completion of reason, [there would follow] wickedness, and with difficulty, at some time, virtue again, for the few who seek it. What could be more vain than these things? And it is better that there be no resurrection than that it be of the kind that the Sadducees D supposed, assuming that it follows upon the resurrection from the dead that each one receives back his own wife; to which [supposition] it followed that each of the things mentioned would also happen. But if there be there either father, or brother, or anything of that kind, it is not according to carnal birth, nor through a woman, nor through shameful parts of the body. I, however, think that there are not only fathers and sons there according to the impassible spirit, but also wife and husband in the unity of the spirit, according to that parable which says: The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man...
who made a marriage for his son, and the rest. Therefore, the son of the king in the resurrection of the dead shall make a marriage beyond all the marriages which eye has seen, and ear has heard, and which have ascended into the heart of man; and those marriages shall be chaste and divine, and spiritual, established in mystical words which it is not permitted for men to speak. And you will ask whether, in the resurrection, there can exist also the marriages of others according to the marriage of Christ, or whether Christ alone, the bridegroom, destroying all marriages, shall make a marriage, so that they may be two in one flesh: nay, rather, not only two C according to the impassible spirit, but also wife and husband in the unity of the spirit, according to that parable which says: The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man, who made a marriage for his son, and the rest; and in that: Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, who took their lamps, and the rest. D Therefore, the son [who] made a marriage for his son, and so forth. Therefore, the king's son in the resurrection of the dead will effect a marriage outside of all those marriages which the eye has seen, and the ear has heard, and into which the heart of man has ascended: and those marriages shall be chaste and divine, and spiritual, constituted in mystical words, which it is not lawful for men to speak. And you will inquire if in the resurrection there can be also the marriages of others according to the marriage of Christ, or rather if Christ alone, the bridegroom, destroying all marriages, shall make a marriage, so that they may be two in one flesh: but rather, not only two...
but that it is more fitting to say that the bridegroom and the bride are one spirit. A But take heed lest, hearing such words, you slip into accepting the myth-making about masculine and feminine Aeons, according to the doctrine of those who have fashioned their unions—things not at all revealed by the Holy Scriptures. But if—even if it is said, "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shall be joined unto his wife, and the two shall be into one flesh"—the saying must not be heard as if it indicated no mystery; for "this mystery is great" B [as Paul says] and is referred "unto Christ and unto the Church." And having set forth a little while ago the matter regarding her who is married to the brother of her deceased husband, we examined the intent of the law as we were able. There are also ten thousand other laws regarding woman and man [such as that concerning the book of divorce, and those regarding two women becoming one man, one loved and the other hated, and regarding the captive married to him who fell in love with her, who is married after being shorn and weeping for her father and her mother in mourning], each of which has its gravity and divinity in the true tropology that is found.
C Since the question of the Sadducees regarding the seven brothers who had one wife requires no tropology, come, let us consider the words of the Savior regarding these matters, in which he says, "You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God; for in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels in heaven." But to this, one will seek such things as the Savior saying to the Sadducees: "You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God," indicates according to the Scriptures that it is settled that there are no marriages in the resurrection of the dead, D as those who rise again are like the angels in heaven, among whom there is no marriage. What Scripture, then, shows that in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage? And where do we learn from the law or the prophets regarding those who rise again that they shall be as the angels in heaven? For clearly such things are... 34. Since the question of the Sadducees regarding the seven brothers who had one wife requires no tropology, come, let us consider the words of the Savior regarding this matter, in which he says: "You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." And someone might propose such a question regarding this: The Savior, saying to the Sadducees, "You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God," declares that it is taught in the Scriptures that in the resurrection of the dead there will exist no marriages, inasmuch as for the angels who are in heaven, with whom there are no marriages, those who rise again will be similar. What Scripture therefore teaches that in the resurrection they will neither marry nor be given in marriage? And in what place of the law or the prophets do we learn that those who rise again will be similar to the angels of heaven? For this is not clearly written in the Old Testament, and let him who wishes seek if he can find it. But we say that it is written, not, however, in those very words that clearly state these things, but indicating them in mystery according to a moral understanding. For since the law is a shadow of good things to come, and [while] saying certain things about husbands and wives, and expounding on marriages, it is not primarily understood of those very marriages—which we do not imagine to be marriages simply according to the flesh, but of such marriages as we have expounded above to be future in that age, concerning Christ and the Church. For instance, "Abraham..."
A had two sons, one by the slave woman, and one by the free woman; and the one by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but the one by the free woman was born through the promise." B Indeed, I must not take my stand on the sensible marriage of the free woman, nor on the custom with the slave woman; for these things are allegorized. C But even if "for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh," these things are not to be heard as if they signified no mystery; for "this mystery is great," and, as Paul says, refers to Christ and the Church. And a short while ago, when we were expounding the law concerning the woman who marries the brother of her deceased husband, we examined the intention of the law as best we could. There are also a thousand other laws concerning wife and husband, such as that concerning the bill of divorce, and that concerning the two women whom one man has, one of whom is loved, while the other is hated, and that D also concerning the captive who marries the one by whom she was loved—marrying after she has been shorn, and having lamented and mourned her father and mother in mourning attire; each of these laws contains something holy and divine in the true tropology.
Since Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God, and the Sadducees were ignorant of Him, as "not knowing the Scriptures nor" the nature of how things will serve His resurrection of the saved from the dead. And whoever is not pleased with the resolution, through tropology, of the problem posed by "you err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God," will have to do one of two things: either he will disbelieve the set passages as not having been well recorded, on the grounds that the Savior would not have spoken what was not recorded as if it were recorded, or he will dare to disbelieve Jesus as if He were not telling the truth. And someone could, as a third party, flee to the apocryphal accounts, where the things concerning the blessed life seem to be recorded more clearly, and say that the reference of the words recorded here in "you err, not knowing the Scriptures" is to those. But see whether he will not fall into impossibilities on every side because of fleeing from tropology. For if he disbelieves the Scripture, he will act against the ecclesiastical word; if he disbelieves Jesus, he will act like a Jew according to the flesh; if he flees to the apocryphal accounts, he will not come to a matter agreed upon by those who have believed.
In the old Scripture we do not find it; with regard to Luke, this will not be sought, for he recorded the Savior as having said: "The sons of this age beget and are begotten, they marry and are given in marriage," and what follows, and did not say anything in that place to the Sadducees, and about this being signified in the Scriptures; but with regard to Matthew, it might be investigated, and likewise with regard to Mark; for in his account, Jesus, in response, said to the Sadducees: "Do you not err because of this, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God? For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels in the heavens." Therefore, let each one of those who have attended to our questioning seek from the Scriptures the things that stand as evidence for what was said by the Savior regarding those after the resurrection; but we shall say such things as this: that the Scriptures contain these things not word for word, nor in such a way as to be understood by whoever happens upon them, but in a tropology. For "the law having a shadow of the good things to come," and having legislated certain things concerning women and men, and having recounted lawful marriages, does not speak primarily about these things, as one might gather from the ready letter, but about the things we have already declared, setting forth the things concerning the marriage of the Savior following in the age to come.
A For if someone, while reading the Law, and going through the things written concerning the marriage of women and men, thinks that nothing more is indicated or found than what the letter signifies, he errs, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God.
35. For someone might inquire whether the words, “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures,” spoken to the Sadducees, who did not accept any other Scripture than the legal one, have reference also to other Scriptures besides the law of Moses. One person, therefore, will say that the Sadducees are accused of this very thing, because, not accepting the Scriptures which follow the law, they err in not knowing them. But another will say: in order to refute the error of the Sadducees, it suffices that they do not know the Scriptures according to Moses, by not grasping the divine meaning which lies hidden in them. B However, he says that two things are not known by the Sadducees: one, the Scriptures themselves; and the other, the power of God, from which power the things of the resurrection come to pass, and the new life in it. But someone might say that the not knowing the power of God is said to refer the Sadducees to the Savior himself, since Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God, C and the Sadducees did not know him, as they did not know the Scriptures concerning him, nor what things he would minister to the resurrection from the dead for those who were to be saved. But he who is not pleased that the difficulty concerning “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God,” should be solved by way of tropology, will do one of two things: either he will disbelieve the passages set forth, as if they were not well recorded, for the Savior would not have said things not written as if they were written, or he will dare to disbelieve Jesus, as if he did not speak the truth. And a third person, fleeing to the apocryphal books, where the things concerning the blessed life seem to have been written more clearly, D will say that the reference of the things written here in the “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures” is to those books. And see whether he will not from every side fall into absurdities because of fleeing from tropology: for whether he disbelieves the Scripture, he will act contrary to the ecclesiastical discourse; or if he disbelieves Jesus, he will do such a thing as a Jew according to the flesh; or if he flees to the apocryphal books, he will not come to a matter agreed upon by those who have believed.
A Therefore, it does not seem to me that “You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God: for in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage,” can be resolved in any other way than by the allegory that is similarly applied by the Apostle in the Epistle to the Galatians regarding the bondwoman and the free woman, and concerning the remaining Scriptures in which anything is said about a husband and a wife. And just as they err who, because they do not tropologically interpret the writings of the prophets, imagine that after the resurrection we are to eat and drink corporeal foods, because the words of the Scriptures contain such things; so too, when they hold to the letter concerning the things written about marriages, and husbands and wives, and imagine that we shall then use sexual intercourse—for which even in this world it is not possible to be free for prayer, since those who use sexual things are in some way defiled and unclean—they err.
36. Next I ask whether the saying, “You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God,” refers only to that which is said, “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage,” or also to this: “But they are as the angels of God in heaven.” For I do not find anywhere in the Scripture that those who are to be saved are said to be like the angels in heaven, unless perhaps one might claim this is declared in the passage, “But you shall go to your fathers in peace, nourished in a good old age,” and in that: “He was gathered to his people,” or in that which is said in Deuteronomy regarding man, as being established by God in heaven and on earth; B if you look for the phrase yourself, you will find it. Next, it is necessary to expound upon this: “Concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read that which was spoken to you by God, saying: I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” Regarding this, however, we shall say that there are ten thousand...
[alt-version omitted]
...historical narratives, he will necessarily have to do one of two things: either not believe the present words of Christ, as if Christ spoke amiss in saying that a thing was in the Scriptures which was not there; or take refuge in secret books, in which it seems to be more manifest C that that blessed life is written; and he will say that what the Lord here says to the Sadducees, “You err, not knowing the Scriptures,” refers to those Scriptures. And see whether anyone who rejects the moral understanding of the Scriptures does not fall on every side. Therefore, it does not seem to me that what is said, “You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God,” can be resolved in any other way than by one who, listening to the Scriptures morally, understands one thing from another, demonstrating in what passages the Scriptures speak of husbands and wives: and just as they err who, not understanding the prophetic Scriptures morally, think that after the resurrection men will eat and drink carnal foods; and likewise, because the prophetic Scriptures contain such things, just as they also contain things written about the marriages of men and women, they imagine, understanding them according to the text, that even after this life we will be in the use of carnal nuptials, on account of which no one can be free for prayer without blemish even in this world. D [it] pertains to what he says: “In the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage”; or also from that which he says: “But they shall be as the angels in heaven.” Nor do I find anywhere the Scripture saying that the saints will be after this life like the angels of God, unless perhaps someone understands even this morally, according to that which is said: “But you shall go to your fathers in peace, nourished in a good old age.” Likewise: “He was gathered to his people,” or, “He was gathered to his kin.” It remains that we speak of that which he says: “Have you not read regarding the resurrection that...
A this Jesus Christ, whose “God and Father is blessed,” granted to his genuine disciples that he should be not only their God, but also their Father. For, rising from the dead, he says to Mary, “Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.’” I believe that then he granted to Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, that God should no longer be their God only, but also their Father. Luke added to the phrase, “God is not the God of the dead, but of the living,” which is also found in Matthew and Mark, the words, “for all live to him.” This was no ordinary praise of the patriarchs, inasmuch as our great Savior testified of them not only that they live, but that they live to God, and to no one else. And this, “for all live to him,” is a beautiful thing for us to practice and adopt, so that we may all live in Christ to no one else but God.
B Regarding the Savior being able to demonstrate from the prophets that a future life is prepared for men, he did not do so because the Sadducees accepted only the Scripture of Moses, from which he intended to persuade them with a syllogism signifying something of this sort: God said to Moses, “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,” when he revealed himself to him at the bush. Therefore, either God is the God of those who exist, or the God of those who do not exist. But it is absurd to say that God, who said, “I am who I am, this is my name,” is the God of those who do not exist at all. If this is absurd, he is the God of those who are, and who live, and who exist, and who are conscious of the grace C which God bestowed upon them, declaring himself to be their God and saying, “This is my memorial unto eternity.” Abraham, therefore, Isaac, and Jacob live, being conscious of God and his grace, and he is called the God of each one of them individually; for it is not written, “I am the God of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob,” but, “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote it this way so that, I suppose, they might demonstrate to those who pay attention to the reading that God is God of each one of them, granting this as a special privilege; for they were not like the Hebrews, so that God would be called their God collectively, as he was called God of the others. For of those it is written, “The God of the Hebrews sent me,” but of these individually, D that the Word might show that one Abraham is of equal honor to the whole nation of the Hebrews. For is God not equally the God of Abraham and the God of the Hebrews? You will say the same concerning him being the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, as he is the God of the Hebrews; and I think Elijah was also accounted worthy of such honor, for which reason it is written in the fourth book of Kings, “The God of Elijah.” Thus, God was only the God of Abraham, and likewise of Isaac and of Jacob; but of our Savior, who is greater than them, God is not only God, but also Father. Hence it is well said by the Apostle, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” This Jesus Christ, whose God and Father is blessed, granted to his genuine disciples...