Commentary on the Gospel according to Matthew

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

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

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.