A For those who had been allotted the distinguishing names in Israel, that is to say, "the chief priests and the elders of the people," having been moved—whether by tradition or by their own deduction or by hidden writings—concerning the powers and the orders of the mysteries in heaven, saw Jesus performing miraculous signs, and this not without some power that was with Him. They wished, therefore, to learn the nature and character of this power from the knowledge that Jesus possessed, or from what they supposed to be the knowledge in Him. If those who were questioning the Savior at that time had been holy and blessed "chief priests" (such as Aaron or Eleazar or Phinehas or those who performed the duties of the liturgy in a praiseworthy manner) and "elders" resembling those whom Moses had chosen by the command of God, it is likely that, as men who were not tempting Him but were eager to learn and worthy of such great teachings, the Savior would have begun a discourse to them which even the whole world could not contain. A Yet someone might say in response to this, that it was ridiculous for them to ask by what power Jesus was doing these things; for He would not have answered that it was by the power of the devil. And I do not merely say that the Savior would not have answered this, but not even the "man of sin, the one who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship" would say to those who asked him the truth, that he performs every power and sign and wonder by the power of the devil, through which he might strike terror and deceive, if possible, even the elect. If even that one would not say that he performs his signs and "prodigies of lies, which are being accomplished in every deception of iniquity to those who are perishing," how much more would the Savior, even if He had not asked a reciprocal question, have answered nothing else than that He was doing these things by the power of God? Therefore, to suggest that they proposed a question for which there was so easy and ready an answer, and that the Savior did not answer it, seems to me completely absurd.
2. Consider, then, whether the meaning of this passage might be of this nature: in the wisdom of God, which contains the knowledge of divine and human things and the reasons for these, there exist treasures, such as the treasures of wisdom and knowledge ought to be, and these are hidden. And if anyone has been judged worthy to "hear secret words which it is not permitted for a man to speak," C he would know that wisdom "hidden in a mystery, which God foreordained before the ages for the glory" of the just. There are, therefore, in the hidden treasures of wisdom and knowledge, deep and secret discourses concerning distinct powers—generally two, but specifically, in each of these two, there are more and harder to be seen. The two general powers are such that some are of the better order; and just as there are men of God who are not ordinary, and blessed angels of God, and prophets of God who are inspired by God, so there are certain powers of God, about which the Apostle speaks when glorifying Christ. B For the question they proposed was one to which the answer was so easy and ready—namely, that He did these things by the power of God—that it seems quite absurd to me to claim that they asked this question and that Christ did not answer it. If, however, someone should say that the leaders were not asking in order to learn by hearing, but in order to terrify Him—just as, if someone does something among our own that we do not like, we say to him, "Who commanded you to do this?" not wishing to hear but terrifying him so that he, knowing that no one commanded him to do it, might desist from the act—so the leaders were asking the Lord to terrify Him rather than to inquire, so that He, as if conscious that He was not doing this by the power of God, might cease from His work. C But what of the fact that Jesus would never have spoken thus if He had perceived that they were asking not for the sake of learning but for the sake of terrifying? And what of the fact that Christ answered in this way: "Tell me you also this, and I will tell you by what power I do these things." There are, then, powers, which are generally two: one on the part of God, the other on the part of the devil, though specifically they are many and incomparable. Concerning these, the Apostle, glorifying Christ, writes to the Colossians, saying that all things were created in Him that are in heaven and on earth, whether visible or invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers. He did not say one principality, or one dominion, or one throne, or one power, but many. And just as they are on the part of God, so they are also on the part of the devil—many principalities, many powers, as the Apostle testifies, saying: "Our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and po---
powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places." B And one would have said which is the power of the changing of Moses’ hand into snow, and from the contrary side, which power was breathing together with the enchanters of the Egyptians in each case, when they seemed to imitate the signs of God. And thus, he would have gone through the ten plagues of the Egyptians and the sending against them of evil angels. And he would have said, moreover, what power served the passage of the people through the Red Sea and the drowning of the Egyptians, and what power served the change by wood of bitter water into sweetness. He would have also told of the power that ministered to the water from the rock. And he would have set forth either the same or another power that served the rain of manna and the arrival of the quails. He would have also said what is the power that turned the same manna on the six days into worms and stench, but guarded it on the day of the Sabbath. And why must I, by gathering the wonders in the wilderness until the death of Moses, show that the Savior would have spoken concerning this power, if "the chief priests and the elders of the people" C had been worthy of an answer to their question?
Colossians, that: "The Savior is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation, in whom all things were created in heaven and on earth, whether visible or invisible, whether thrones, or lordships, or principalities, or powers: all things were created through him and for him; and he is before all." One kind, therefore, of those things under God are the powers created in Christ, different from the principalities, and the thrones, and the lordships; and each is powerful over certain things, appointed by God according to some ineffable worthiness over those worthy to be governed according to their difference under each of the powers. And great would be the account and difficult to interpret concerning those things that are according to these powers, and of the things governed by them. But as there are some powers of God, so also there are contrary ones, analogous to the men of sin and the angels of the devil; and it is indeed to those who wrestle no longer against flesh and blood, but because they have ascended by strength—it is to those struggling for things above these that the wrestling is against the powers contending against the athletes of piety. And as there were many ranks under God, so also in the opposing realm there are not only powers, but also the world-rulers of this darkness, and the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places; and perhaps also principalities. I, for my part, think that all things are homonymous with those of God, even in the contrariety. Having therefore distinguished that those who had inherited the different names in Israel, that is to say, the chief priests and the elders of the people, were moved when they were inquiring about the powers—whether from traditions, or by proposing them, or from secret books (I do not know if reasonably D or senselessly)—they saw God performing the wonders not without some power present with Him; therefore, they wished to learn the kind of this power from the knowledge of Jesus, or from what seemed to them to be knowledge in Him. And if there had been any holy and blessed chief priests, such as Aaron, or Eleazar, or Phinehas, or as many as performed the things of the liturgy in a praiseworthy manner, who then inquired of the Savior, and elders similar to those whom Moses chose according to the command of God—it is likely that, as men who are not tempting but are eager to learn, and worthy of such great teachings, the Savior would have begun the discourse, which not even the whole world could contain; and, having begun, he would have delivered the knowledge concerning the blessed powers, and the difference between them, and the reason for them having come to be powers, and of those under them, whether they be souls or any rational beings whatsoever; and he would have also gone through the account concerning the contrary powers.
and would have set forth their differences. A And it is likely that he would have taught proportionally to that saying: “The law being ordained by angels,” and that other: “If the word spoken through angels was made sure”; I say, proportionally to the account concerning the angels who ministered to the Law, and concerning the power according to the Scriptures: for instance, in what power each of the marvels that occurred in Egypt was done; and which was the power ministering to the changing of the rod of Moses into a snake; and which, on the contrary, was that which ministered to the transformation of the Egyptian rods into B serpents; and he would have stated the strength of the power from which the rod of Aaron swallowed those of the Egyptians; and he would have said also what was the power of the transformation of the hand of Moses into snow, and from the contrary side what power was breathing along with each of the enchanters of the Egyptians, when they seemed to imitate the signs of God; and so he would have gone through the ten plagues of the Egyptians, and the sending against them of evil angels; and he would have told also what power served the crossing of the people through the Red Sea, and the drowning of the Egyptians; and what power served in the changing of bitter water into sweetness by means of the wood; and he would have also stated the power which ministered to the water from the rock; and he would have set forth either the same, or another power which ministered to the shower of manna C and to the arrival of the quails; and he would have told also what was the power that caused the same manna on the first six days to turn into worms and stench, but on the Sabbath day to be preserved. And what need is there for me to run through the marvels that happened in the desert until the death of Moses, showing that the Savior would have spoken about these powers, if the high priests and elders of the people had been worthy of an answer to their question? And to you, as you go through the whole Scripture, the analogy is available to see: both the power for the sun to stand still over Gibeon, and the moon over the valley of Aijalon; and far earlier, the power by which the Jordan river was crossed, and the manna ceased. And in the book of Judges too D many such things might be sought and found, such as the marvels concerning Gideon, and concerning Samson; but also, from the Books of Kings, those concerning Samuel, and Elijah, and Elisha, and Hezekiah. And thus the Savior, having gone through and having traversed the mystery according to the various powers, would have taught in what power, and how surpassingly, he performed the marvels which the people saw, which were given to him not from some angel and minister of God, nor through any of those inferior to God, but from the Father Himself.
A 3. But since the chief priests and elders of the people who were present there were not at all worthy of such insights, He does not answer them, but asks a question in return; so that, by their failing to answer the questions concerning John, He might reasonably persuade those who were asking Him that it was not without cause that He answered them, saying: "Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things." I ask, however, regarding this passage, whether each of those who performed marvels in any authority did so in one and the same authority, or whether some did so at first in one, but as they progressed, in a greater one; yet the Savior seems to have performed all these things in one authority, which He received from the Father. For the words, "Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things," were those of someone who was professing that He had done these things by some authority; but in what authority, He did not at all declare to them, nor did He explain its property, nor all that He might have discussed concerning it, had He undertaken to define its pre-eminence and excellence over the rest of the authorities in which the prophets who preceded Him had performed marvels. And now, too, Christ is in the temple—that is to say, in the Church—and He is teaching in it, and certain persons similar to those chief priests and elders of the people are asking Him questions, but they do not obtain an answer, being unworthy to know what they wish to learn. B Someone might ask whether it was because He wished to drive them away that He asked them the question about John, as if He had asked about any other similar person, or whether He necessarily asked about John, so that He might append to the answer concerning him the things that follow regarding authority. To me, indeed, it does not seem that the case in this passage is mere chance, but because John was "the voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord," and he was the one of whom the prophet said: "Behold, I will send my messenger before your face, who shall prepare your way before you." C For this reason, I believe, He asks about him, not, it is true, because He was unaware that, when they had considered it, they would say: "We do not know"—on account of the things that have been recorded—but through a hypothesis... [the text here appears to repeat part of the exposition] ...and He had disclosed the mystery of the authorities and their differences, and the account and differences of the contrary authorities. Therefore, He does not give them an answer, but asks a question in return, so that because they do not answer the question proposed to them concerning John, He might also reasonably not answer them. I ask, however, if each one of those who performed signs in any authority, whether they did so always in one, or in the first instance in that one, but as they were progressing, in another, greater authority. Nevertheless, the Savior is seen to have done all things in one authority, which He received from the Father. For this which He answers, saying, "Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things," teaches that He performed them in one authority indeed; but in what kind of authority He did not declare, nor did He make manifest its property, nor the pre-eminence which that authority had over other authorities in which the prophets before Him had performed virtues. And now in the temple of the Church Christ is held, and He teaches in it, and there are certain chief priests similar to those former ones, and elders similar to those elders, and they question Jesus, and they do not receive an answer from Him, because they are not worthy to know what they desire. Likewise I ask, whether Jesus, wishing to remove them from Himself, proposed this question to them about John by chance, as if He were questioning them about any other person whatever...
or if He necessarily questioned them specifically about John for the sake of their own benefit. And it seems to me that He did not question them about this by chance, but because John had been "the voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the ways of the Lord, make straight his paths" [Is. XL, 3; Matt. III, 3]. And this is he of whom God said through the prophet: "Behold, I send my angel before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee" [Ex. XXIII, 20; Matt. XI, 10]. For this reason, I believe, He questioned them about him, not because He was ignorant of the fact that, in their deliberations, they would say A "We do not know," according to what is written, but in order to signify, as far as they were concerned, that he was as if from men. And so, as if they had answered that he was from men, He introduced the subsequent parable.
The Parable of the Two Sons Sent by the Father into the Vineyard
4. "But what do you think? A certain man had two sons. And coming to the first, he said: Son, go, work today in the vineyard" [Matt. XXI, 28], and the rest, up to: "But you, seeing it, did not even repent afterwards, that you might believe him" [Matt. XXI, 32]. Matthew alone recorded this parable, which, in my opinion, contains the history of Israel, which does not obey God, and of the people who from the Gentiles gave their name to Christ. For these are the two sons whom God had, behaving as a man holding the ways of his son. B And he, coming to the first, whom he had acquired from the beginning, whom he foreknew and predestinated, said to him: "Son, go, work today in my vineyard." But he, fleeing from this estate because of the heat and the labors to be endured there, refused to go, saying: "I will not." But in the end, however, moved by repentance for what he had said to his father, "I will not," he went into the vineyard and obeyed the will of his father. But after the first answered, "I will not," the father approached the other and said likewise, then the second answering said: "I go, Lord" [Matt. XXI, 30]; yet he did not go into the vineyard of the Word C and into the field of the Father. And it is manifest that he who said, "I will not," and later felt remorse, and went, and worked in the vineyard, performed the will of the Father by his deed; for he who promised by word, but did not perform it, refused to do the will of the Father by his deeds. But see further if you can apply this parable to those who promise little, or nothing at all, neither virginity nor any other action commanded in the Gospel; yet by their deeds and actions they provide and exhibit the opposite of this to Him. D For he who promised by word and did not perform, denied by his works the doing of the "will of the Father." But consider, if you are able, whether you can also use the parable against those who promise less or nothing at all, neither virginity nor any other action according to the Gospel, yet who by their works demonstrate the opposite, which they did not even promise in the first place through the utterances of good words of actions, and furthermore against those who promise great things but do nothing according to their promise. One man, for instance, says: "This virginity is greater than I am, 'I will not,'" and "It is better for my worth to have renounced life and to be occupied with the Word"; while another says to each of the great works he hears in the Scripture: "I go, Lord." And it is possible to see some who, as if out of repentance, make progress toward the better and care for themselves for the best, contrary to the initial expectation, and others who have promised many things too rashly, but in their deeds have acted against their promises.
After the parable, he brings forward, B toward the one who said, "I will not," and later repented, and went away, "Truly I say to you, that the tax collectors and the harlots go before you into the kingdom of God;" C and toward the one who said, "I, Lord," and did not go away, "For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him." And, "You having seen, did not repent afterwards, to believe in him."
Considering that those coming to the Word from a most wicked life, and believing in Christ, and who cultivate the Law and the Prophets, but disbelieve the Son of God, and live wickedly; and are cruel toward those of their own race, will see the statement of Jesus to be true, "that the tax collectors and the harlots go before Israel into the kingdom of God." And he himself, that Israel, who saw Jesus, does not even up to now repent, so that he might even later believe in the truth.
Observe also this: "They go before you into the kingdom of God," D not excluding that Israel from entering into the kingdom of God; for no one goes before one into a place where he himself will not be in any way. Observe, then, lest it be shown that, when the fullness of the Gentiles has entered, then all Israel shall be saved. But let Israel be understood, not the one "according to the flesh," but the one characterized by the nobility of the soul, and 772 having natural aptitude toward understanding and discernment, though not having been nurtured worthily of that natural aptitude in faith and in a good life.
"Hear another parable. There was a householder who planted a vineyard, and put a hedge around it, and dug a winepress in it," and what follows, up to, "and will be given to a nation producing its fruits." [Matt. XXI, 33]. To one not torturing the elements of the parable further, nor examining every word, it will seem to be very clear, having obtained such an exposition: the people before us, being the "portion" of God, was the vineyard planted by the householder according to the parable, and the protection of God around them was the hedge, and the temple was the tower, and the place of libations was the winepress, and the husbandmen were the elders and the wise men of the people, and the going into another country of the master [was] when the Lord, who was with them in a "pillar of cloud by day" and in a "pillar of fire by night," until he planted them, having led them "into his holy mountain and into his dwelling places," no longer appeared to them in that way.
A But the chief priests and the elders and the wise men of the people, "when they saw the son," not having become totally insensible to their own superiority, supposed him to be the heir. They even dare to kill him, that they themselves might become masters of the vineyard, and having cast him out and judged him "outside" the affairs of Israel, they "killed him." And immediately "the lord of the vineyard" whom they "killed" makes his presence felt, having risen from the dead, and "wretchedly destroys the wretched" husbandmen, and entrusts "to other husbandmen," his own apostles, those of the people who believed—that is to say, "the vineyard," who yield "the fruits in" their proper "seasons" to the master of the house. Then, after the parable, when they ask what was spoken of above—"By what authority do you do these things?"—the Savior answers from the prophecy, teaching them that by those [builders] he was rejected, but with God he is honorable and the head of the whole building and of the bond of it, and indeed a head "marvelous in the eyes" of those who know how to see it.
On the vineyard that was planted and delivered to the husbandmen.
5. "Hear another parable: There was a householder who planted a vineyard, and set a hedge about it, and digged a winepress in it," and so forth until: "And it shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits of it." To him who does not examine the things of the parable excessively, nor scrutinize each word, it will seem to be very clear, provided it is explained thus: The people who were before us, being a portion of God, was the vineyard planted by the householder referred to in the parable; and the protection of God around it was the hedge; and the tower was the temple; and the winepress was the place of libations; and the husbandmen were the elders and wise men of the people; and the journeying away of the master—since the Lord, who was with them in a cloud by day and in a pillar of fire by night until he planted them, bringing them into his holy mountain and into his dwelling places, no longer appeared to them as such—signifies that the time which drew near for the fruits was the time of the prophets demanding the fruit from the husbandmen and the vineyard, so that they might already show that they had received the law by their living according to it; and the servants sent to the husbandmen to receive the fruits were the earlier prophets, whom the rulers and wise men of the people insulted by beating them, and some they even killed, and others they made to be stoned; and other servants after these, more numerous than the first, were the time of the many prophets, whose names are written in the second book of Chronicles, and in Jeremiah, and in the twelve [minor prophets], and in Daniel; for one might say that Ananias, Azarias, and Misael also were prophets. And with these, therefore, being more in number than the former prophets, they dealt in the same way, beating, killing, and stoning them. Last of all, the householder sends his own son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who could bring the vineyard and the husbandmen to shame—but the chief priests and the elders C ...
THE INTERPRETATION.
6. In that time, Jesus said to his disciples this parable: There was a householder who planted a vineyard, and so forth. To those who do not discuss this parable more abundantly, nor scrutinize single words, it seems sufficiently manifest if it be understood in this way: The people who were before us, when they were a portion of God, who was planted by God, was the vineyard of God, and the protection of God which existed around it was its hedge. The tower, moreover, was the temple. The winepress was the place of libations. The husbandmen, moreover, were the priests and the wise men of the people. D The journeying of the Lord, when the Lord who had been with them in a cloud by day and in a column of fire by night, until he planted them, leading them into his holy mountain and into his dwellings, no longer appeared to them in that way. The time, moreover, approaching for the fruits to be gathered, was the time of the prophets demanding from the husbandmen, and from the vine itself, that they should show whether those who had received the law had lived according to it. And the servants sent to the husbandmen to receive the fruits were the prophets who were before: whom the princes and wise men of the people injured, beating some, and killing, and stoning. And other servants, more numerous after them, were the time of the many prophets, whose names are written in the second book of Chronicles, and in Jeremiah, and in the twelve, and in Daniel. And someone might say that Ananias, and Azarias, and Misael, were prophets of that time. And these, therefore, being very many, they likewise abused, beating, and killing, and stoning. Lastly, however...
A they were not entirely senseless regarding their own preeminence; they perceived that He was the heir. They dared even to kill Him, that they themselves might become masters of the vineyard; and having cast Him out, and having judged Him to be outside the affairs of Israel, they killed Him. And immediately the Lord of the vineyard, whom they had killed, arrives, having risen from the dead, and the wicked husbandmen He destroys wickedly; and to other husbandmen, namely His own apostles, He delivers those who believed from the people—the vineyard, that is to say—who render the fruits in their own seasons to the householder.
After those who had previously asked, "In what authority do you do these things?" B appended after the parable what is subjoined in the words, "He will wickedly destroy the wicked," the Savior answers by teaching them from the prophecy that He was indeed rejected by them, but is honorable before God, and the head of the entire building, and of the bond that coheres with it, and a wonderful head in the eyes of those who are able to behold it. Then, prophesying concerning the calling from the Gentiles, He says to the teachers of the Jews who do not believe in Him: "The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."
But, as we have said before, such an explanation is somewhat general and not C according to the letter; for a spiritual man, able to examine all things, might encounter many difficulties while knocking at the door of the hidden meanings here, closed by obscurity, and if he seeks rightly, he might find them, and if he asks of God, he might receive. We also, according to our humble ability, imagine such things concerning this passage: that the "householder" is God, of whom it is written: "The Lord thy God bare thee, as a man is wont to bear his child." For He is called a "man" in some parables, because, while He helps men, He maintains human customs for the benefit and advantage of men; and in this place, because of the vineyard, and the hedge placed around the vineyard, and the winepress which He dug, and the tower which He built, and the servants whom He possesses, and whom He sends to the husbandmen, and those whom He sends again in greater D number, He is called a "man" who is a householder; and as a householder, He delivered the vineyard to the husbandmen, which, having been taken away from them, He gave to others.
Again, in the earlier passages, a "man who is a householder" is spoken of by these words: "For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard." And as a householder possesses a vineyard and hires husbandmen, so too there is for Him a steward, to whom He says: "Call the labourers and pay them their wages, beginning from the last unto the first." But in the parable concerning the supper and the marriage of His Son and the calling, He is not called a householder, but a king. And the wise men of the people seeing the Son, not having become entirely senseless of their own preeminence, have supposed Him to be the heir; and they dare even to kill Him, that they themselves might become lords of the vineyard; and having cast Him out, and having judged Him to be outside the affairs of Israel, they killed Him.
A For the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a household who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard; and as the master of a household, he has a vineyard and hires laborers; and he has a steward also, to whom he says: "Call the laborers and give them their pay, starting from the last up to the first." But in the parable concerning the supper B and the marriage of his son, and the calling, he is not called master of a household, but a king; for he is greater than a master of a household, sending an army as a king, and destroying those who arrested his servants and insulted them and killed them; and with royal authority, not as a master of a household merely, he commanded the servants to bind the feet and hands of the one who had entered into the marriage festivities, not having a wedding garment, and to cast him into the outer darkness. But when it is said further above: "A certain man had two sons," he is called neither master of a household nor king, but simply a man. Just as, therefore, there are many conceptions of God throughout the divine Scriptures, so too is there a difference in why he is called a man—whether simply, or as master of a household, or as king. And these things hold as they are among Matthew; but the parable in Luke which corresponds to this one calls him a man, with these words: "A man planted a vineyard and let it out to tenants." Nay, and Mark also says: "A certain man planted a vineyard and set a hedge about it." Again, Luke, in expounding the parable of the calling, says: "A certain man made a great supper and called many." C But you, gathering all the passages in which God is called a man, and comparing spiritual things with spiritual in a discussion of this matter, and seeking correctly the things according to the contexts, will find many things in proportion to your inquiry concerning the fact that God is called a man. But this master-of-a-household man planted a vineyard, concerning which, without leaving aside such a great parable without examination, we must dispute more accurately.
7. What then is that vineyard, being something different from the first and the second tenants, which the master-of-a-household man planted? D
OLD INTERPRETATION.
to the teachers of the Jews: "The kingdom of God will be taken away from you and will be given to a nation bearing its fruits." To which things, if anyone is spiritual and prepared to discuss all things, he will be able to speak, knocking at its obscurity, that is, the closed door; and he who seeks will find: and we, according to our mediocrity, surmise such things in the passage: since the man who is master of a household is God, of whom it is written: "The Lord thy God chastened thee, as if a man should chasten his son." For thus, because he chastens men, that he might improve the character of men, he is called a man in certain parables, just as if a father might converse with his little child in infancy, so that he might descend to the words of his son, and chasten him. Therefore, I judge that all the righteousnesses which God has handed down to men are as it were childish regarding the own righteousnesses of God.7. What then is this vineyard, apart from the prior and the second tenants, which the master of a household planted? What is this vineyard first handed over to the injurious tenants, and afterwards to other tenants bearing its fruit in its own time, concerning which the Lord says: "The kingdom of God will be taken from you, and will be given to a nation bearing its fruits." Must we think, then, that this is the kingdom of God, and that the vineyard which is cultivated by the first tenants and is given to others is the same? Or must we consider the vineyard to be one thing, and the kingdom of God another? Let us see then, first, having shown from Scripture that the people is called a vineyard, if…
A all that is contained in this passage can correspond to such an interpretation. Isaiah therefore says: “I will sing to my beloved a song of the beloved regarding my vineyard. A vineyard was made for my beloved on a horn, in a fertile place. And I put a hedge around it and trenched it, and planted a Sorek vine,” and the rest, up to “It wrought iniquity, and not justice, but a cry.” I have set forth the song from Isaiah, wishing to examine it alongside this parable, to see if the vineyard is understood to be the same thing in both passages of Scripture. And discern B which of the phrases set forth are similar, and which are not similar, so that, by seeing the differences between what is similar and what is dissimilar, you may thus attain the mind of Scripture. Similar, then, is “He planted a vineyard, and put a hedge around it, and dug a winepress in it, and built a tower” to “A vineyard was made for my beloved on a horn, in a fertile place. And I put a hedge around it and trenched it, and planted a Sorek vine, and I built a tower in the midst of it, and I dug a winepress C in it.” For compare to “He planted a vineyard” the phrase “I planted a Sorek vine,” and to “He put a hedge around it” the phrase “I put a hedge around it,” and to “[He dug] a winepress in it” [the corresponding phrase]. And while such an exposition can agree, for Isaiah says: “I will sing now to my beloved a song of my beloved’s vineyard. A vineyard was made for my beloved, in a horn, in a fertile place: and I hedged it about, and staked it, and planted a Sorek vineyard, and built a tower in the midst of it, and dug a winepress in it, and I expected it to make grapes, but it made thorns.” And after D some things, he says: “For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the man of Judah, his new planting.” I have therefore brought forward the song of Isaiah, wishing to consider whether, according to this parable, this vineyard can be understood in the same way as that one. And see how some things have similarities, while others have dissimilarities: so that, by seeing the differences of the similar to the similar, you may learn the meaning of Scripture. Therefore, it is similar to what is said: “He planted a vineyard, and hedged it about, and dug a winepress in it, and built a tow
Aer in the midst of it.” And a mention of the fruits of the vineyard is made in both places. In Isaiah, indeed, it is said: “I looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth thorns.” But in the parable of the Gospel, it is evident that the vine is not accused as if it had not given its fruits when their season arrived; rather, these husbandmen are accused, who, having taken the servants of the householder, beat one, killed another, and stoned another. And when he sent other servants, more than the first, the husbandmen are again accused for having done the same to them. And a third accusation is cast upon the husbandmen for having said: “This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize his inheritance,” and having cast him out of the vineyard, they killed him. B
In Isaiah, the Word indeed utters threats against the vineyard itself, saying: “I will take away its hedge, and it shall be for a spoil; I will pull down its wall, and it shall be for a trampling. And I will leave my vineyard, and it shall not be pruned nor dug, and thorns shall come up upon it as upon uncultivated land.” Moreover, when He commands the clouds “that they rain no rain upon the vineyard,” He threatens the vineyard, which the prophet said was the house of Israel and the man of Judah, which provided no fruit—namely judgment and justice—but rather brought forth thorns, which is iniquity and clamor. But in the Gospel, we find that the vineyard suffers nothing, but rather, if it is permitted to speak thus, it is cared for and provided for so that it might bear its own fruits for the householder. For He who cares for C the vineyard and looks after it takes it from the former husbandmen, who answer the Savior when He asks and says: “When, therefore, the Lord of the vineyard shall come, what will He do to those husbandmen?” And they say—whether forced by the logic and the sequence D of the events, or indeed unwillingly, so to speak, prophesying about themselves—that the Lord of the vineyard will wretchedly destroy those wicked husbandmen when He arrives, and will lease the vineyard to other husbandmen, who will return to Him the fruit in its season.
Consequently, also in Jeremiah it is said to the people: “I planted thee a fruitful vineyard, all true; how then art thou turned into the bitterness of a strange vine?” You see, then, that in the prophets the Jewish people is called the vineyard, and the threat of the householder is made against the vineyard; but in the Gospel, the vineyard is not blamed at all, but rather its husbandmen. But he who wishes to consider the evangelical words carefully will by no means be able to clearly prove that the vineyard is the people. But perhaps, according to the Gospel, the vineyard is the kingdom of God, that is, the doctrine which, possessing the providence of God, has been inserted into the holy Scriptures. For what it says: “The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth fru
fruit,” which is subjoined to the parable of the vineyard, I deem clearly to demonstrate that the vineyard which the householder planted is to be called the mysteries of the kingdom of God. A This vineyard, therefore—which I consider to be the Law and the Prophets, and all divine Scripture—the Lord of the vineyard entrusted to the husbandmen: first to that people, for in fact “to them were entrusted the oracles of God” (Rom. III, 2), and second to the nation bringing forth the fruits of it, the Church gathered from the nations. But it is a difficult task to harmonize, if the vineyard according to the Gospel is understood in this way, the fence placed about it, seeing that it suffers nothing of the sort described concerning the fence in Isaiah, of which it is written: “I will take away the B hedge thereof, and it shall be for a spoil” (Isa. V, 5). Consider, however, whether we might be able to establish by a natural line of reasoning that the vineyard is the oracles of God. Consequently, according to the same natural reason, the blameworthy life of men and their most excellent morals would be the fruits of that very vineyard; and the Scriptures themselves, and the letters of the Scriptures, would be the hedge placed extrinsically about the vineyard, so that the vineyard might not be seen by those who are outside, especially its fruits which are in secret. C And the depths of the oracles of God would be the winepress of his vineyard, into which those who have made progress concerning the oracles of God, and have become perfect fruits of them, pour their own studies as if they were fruits which they gather from the very oracles. I consider the tower built in it, possessing ascent and prominence and height above the vineyard itself, and the hedge, and the winepress, to be the Word concerning God Himself, and concerning the dispensations of Christ, and the temple of the divine understanding which is held therein. And of such a tower I think D the Saviour speaks in that place of the Gospel: “Which of you, intending to build a tower, does not first count the cost, whether he has sufficient to finish it, lest haply, after he has laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish?” (Luke XIV, 28-30). For he who wishes to speak about God ought to consider if he can, in beginning, finish all the things that are sought concerning the exposition of God, lest haply, beginning the dogmas of piety, he might leave an imperfect tower of the word about God, and not build a crown upon it. If
A you do not build a crown, someone will fall from the understanding of God, and will perish. B This vineyard, as we have explained it, God delivered to the husbandmen, that is, to the people who were before us, and went away to his own tower, after he had given the husbandmen, from those things which he himself planted, and encompassed, and dug, and built, the means and the resources whence they might be able to offer fruit in their own seasons. Therefore, to individuals, but also to the whole people, I think, the times of the fruits arrived; but to explain accurately what the seasons of the fruits are, or if he have not built a crown for it, someone will fall from the understanding of God, scandalized, and will die. C This vineyard he delivered to the husbandmen, that is, to the people before us, as well to the priests as to the laity; and he went away to his own tower, giving the husbandmen opportunities from that which he himself planted, and encompassed with a hedge, and dug as a winepress, and built as a tower, of bringing forth fruit, when the time of fruits had approached. For the times of the fruits approach both according to each one D individually, and, I think, generally to the universal people. But to explain the approach of the time of the fruits truly as it is, is above our talent and belongs to a purer heart. Nevertheless, according to our ability, we begin in this way, beginning according to each one of men.
CONCERNING THAT WHICH IS WRITTEN: I WILL TAKE AWAY THE HEDGE THEREOF, AND IT SHALL BE FOR A SPOIL, AND THE WINEPRESS DUG THEREIN, AND THE TOWER BUILT.
And see if we are able to call the interpretation according to the divine Scripture the vineyard; and the life that follows the true interpretation, bearing fruit in virtue and most excellent habits, to be the fruit of the vineyard; and the rational place and every letter of Scripture to be the hedge surrounding the vineyard from without, so that the vineyard and its fruit, which is especially in secret, might not be viewed by those without; and the depth of the soul that receives these fruits, having cast off everything superficial, to be the winepress dug in the vineyard; and the tower built in the vineyard, having height and elevation and altitude above the vineyard, and the hedge, and the winepress, the word concerning God, I think, is a temple of the divine mind within it. And I think it is of such a tower that it was spoken by the Saviour: «Which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, saying: This man began to build, and was not able to finish?» For by a parable, it seems to me, it is said there also, that if you are about to discourse of God, and apply your mind to the studies of theology, you must see if you are able, having begun, to finish all that the word requires of you for theology, so that, having begun the dogmas of piety, you may not leave the tower concerning God imperfect, and may not build a crown upon it; for if you do not build a crown, someone will fall from the thought concerning God, and will perish. And this vineyard, as we have explained, God delivered to the husbandmen, to the people before us, and went away to his own watchtower, giving the opportunities to the husbandmen, from the things which he himself planted...
A to arrive, requires a greater capacity and a heart more pure and discerning than our own; nevertheless, we shall undertake the explanation of this passage to the best of our ability, having made a beginning from the individual men. Let the Word planted by the Master of the house in each soul be understood as the vine, or the vineyard as the occasions of all the problems necessary for salvation. Just as, therefore, with the vines there is some season when they put forth leaves, and another when they show the beginnings of the fruits being still small, and another when B they flower, and another when they turn color, and another when it is the season to harvest the perfected fruits, ready to provide the quality of wine; so the first season of man's life, corresponding to infancy, should have the vine clothed with nothing, but only possessing the vital principle. But when the Word begins to be fulfilled, let it be the season of the first flowering; and the more the soul, being cultivated, progresses, so much the more does the cultivated vineyard bear specimens of the coming clusters—flowering indeed, and in the beginning bearing a scent of the fragrance of future virtue—and later, they even become sour, at which time there is indeed malice C in youth, but it is not that which remains, but that which necessarily arises and never turns toward the worse, but is always, if one must use such a term, journeying toward virtue.
8. Thus, in every soul, let the Word sown by the father of the family be understood as the vine, or the vineyard as the supply of all things that contribute to salvation. For just as with vines there is a time when they send forth leaves; another when they begin to show certain small rudiments of fruits; another likewise when those fruits that have sprouted are distinguished into berries; another indeed when they darken; and yet another at last when it is the season for harvesting the perfect fruits and those that are mature for the making of wine: in the same way, the first age of man's life, which is contained by infancy, represents a vine clothed in nothing, but endowed only with life; but when reason begins to attain perfection, that time is like the one when flowers first begin to be shed. And how much more the cultivated soul progresses, by so much the more does the cultivated vineyard bring forth more specimens of flowering grapes, and in those very beginnings sends forth a sweet odor of future virtue, which later also become sour, and not yet ripe, because malice is expressed in them—not that which is constant and permanent, but that which necessarily underlies them, and never—
[Note: The remaining text of the Latin column corresponds closely to the preceding Greek analysis and Vetus Interpretatio; minor repetition in source text acknowledged.]
A but always strives toward virtue, if one may put it so. But if malice persists, and we do not travel further upon the path to virtue, but instead continue to tread the same ground, always as if to make progress in virtue, the grape becomes sour and unripe, and whoever eats of it, according to the prophet, “his teeth shall be set on edge.” But he who makes progress toward the better possesses a grape that is darkening, yet not yet perfect. A certain good state succeeds this progress, when indeed the cultivated vine yields fruit—perfect clusters, that is, of charity, joy, peace, patience, and all the rest that are enumerated by the Apostle and in countless other places of Scripture. B For in it there is one cluster according to the text: “Blessed are the poor in spirit”; and another according to the text: “Blessed are those who mourn”; and another according to the text: “Blessed are the meek”; and another according to the text: “Blessed are the peacemakers”; and another according to the text: “Blessed are the pure in heart.” And why need I list the clusters that beget the beatitudes? I have examined these things at greater length because I wished to understand and explain the text: “When the time of fruits drew near.”
It belongs to the master of the house, and to his divine knowledge, to know the time of each human being, when “the time of fruits” is near and when it is still far off. And we too, if we give more attention by comparing the time from which we were called with the entire time of our faith, shall be able to see how some, as though “they ought to be teachers for the time,” again C have need to be taught “what are the first elements of the oracles of God.” Thus, while some, as far as the time of God's dispensation and the calling of all is concerned, ought to be bearing fruits already, they either do not have them at all, or they have them budding out of season, and not in the proper time for being raw. If it is understood by you in each individual case how one must interpret the statement, “when the time of fruits drew near,” turn your attention, if you can, to those who received the law through Moses, for their “time of fruits” also drew near at some point, and he “sent his servants to the husbandmen,” the first ones who had been “entrusted with the oracles of God,” to “receive the fruits” of the vineyard in each one. D It is easy, indeed, to say that he calls the prophets servants, but it must be inquired how they are sent to the husbandmen to receive the fruits of the vineyard. For someone says that it is not to receive...
it should be noted that it is easy to say the prophets are signified by the servants. But this question arises: in what way are they sent to the tillers of the vineyard for the sake of receiving its fruits? For anyone could say that the prophets are not sent to receive fruits, but rather to till the soil and contribute to the bringing forth of fruits. See, therefore, if we might say that spiritual fruits and divine offerings are given by those who have cultivated the vineyard to the servants who are sent, so that they, as priests, may dedicate to God the fruits of him who offers them. But the tillers, having seized the servants sent to them from the people to collect the fruits of the vineyard, struck one, A as "Sedekiah son of Kenaanah struck Micaiah on the cheek," when the false prophet said to him after he had prophesied, "What spirit of the Lord is it that has spoken in you?" Another they killed, as they did Zechariah between the temple and the altar; another they stoned, as they did Azariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, just as it is written in the second book of Chronicles: "For when the Spirit of God clothed Azariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, and he stood over the people and said, 'Thus says the Lord: Why do you transgress the commandments of the Lord? And you shall not prosper, because you have forsaken the Lord, and he will forsake you,' they set upon him, and stoned him by the order of Joash the king, in the court of the house of the Lord. And Joash did not remember the mercy shown to him by Jehoiada his father, and killed his son. And as he was dying, he said, 'May the Lord see, and judge.'" B
Next in the parable is that "again he sent other servants more than the first, and they did to them likewise." And the Scripture is full of the things that happened to the prophets whom he "sent" on behalf of the people, that they might offer up their fruit to God as holy priests through their prayers. C Later he sent his son after the prophets, namely, Christ. And you will ask: how is it that he who sends "the son" says, "They will respect my son," as though he had not foreseen the future event that would happen to him? For they do not appear on the face of it to have respected him. They are sent to the tillers to receive the fruits of the vineyard; for one might say that the prophets are not sent to receive the fruits, but rather to till and to cooperate with the fruits. See, therefore, if we can say that spiritual fruits and divine offerings are given from those who have cultivated the vineyard to the servants sent, so that they might bring—as priests to God—the fruits of him who offers; but the tillers, having seized the servants sent to them from the people to receive the fruits of the vineyard, struck one, as D "Sedekiah son of Kenaanah struck Micaiah on the cheek," when the false prophet said to him after he had prophesied: "What spirit of the Lord is it that has spoken in you?" Another they killed, as they did Zechariah between the temple and the altar; another they stoned, as they did Azariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, just as it is written in the second book of Chronicles: "For when the Spirit of God clothed Azariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, and he stood over the people, and said: Thus says the Lord: Why do you transgress the commandments of the Lord? And you shall not prosper; because you have forsaken the Lord, and he will forsake you. They set upon him, and stoned him by the order of Joash the king, in the court of the house of the Lord. And Joash did not remember the mercy shown to him by Jehoiada his father, and killed his son. And as he was dying, he said: May the Lord see, and judge." Next in the parable is that "again he sent other servants more than the first, and they did to them likewise." And the Scripture is full of the things that happened to the prophets whom he sent on behalf of the people, that they might offer up their fruit, as they might bring, they bring. The one whom they beat, like Azariah the son of Jehoiada. Zechariah, [illegible], may he see, may he judge.
A And to this, someone will say that when they were conversing with one another as to who he might be, some said that this is the Christ; to whom others answered, "When the Christ comes, no one knows from where he is; but we know where this man is from." Then, because they were struck by the signs and wonders and divine powers, they indeed thought him to be the Christ of God, but they did not confess it. And it was true that "They will reverence my Son," and it was also true that—with them having despaired that he could be the Son—it was said, "This is the heir; come, let us kill him." For this reason the Savior says, "You both know me and know from where I am." And if one pays heed to what is written about Herod, when he learned from the Magi that the "King of the Jews" had been born, he will see that those who killed the Savior, having known that he was the Son, were none the less bent on plotting against him. For Herod, too, having learned from the scribes that "in Bethlehem" "the Christ is born," and having agreed that the one being born was Christ, sends them away, saying— holy priests, to God through prayers. B Afterward He sent His Son after the prophets, the Christ. But you will ask how He who sends the Son says indeed, "They will reverence my Son," as if He did not foresee what was to happen to him—He said this; for they do not appear, according to the literal sense, to have reverenced him. And to say further in these things that the Father of the sent Son did not foreknow the future, but that He had hoped for other things, with others having come to pass, is impious; and to say again that the vinedressers did indeed reverence him is contrary to the evidence: "For the vinedressers, seeing his Son, said among themselves, 'This is the heir,'" and the rest. Well then, one might say regarding these things that it was necessary for that which was said, "They will reverence my Son," to come to pass, even if it did not happen at that time. But someone else will say that the Father, when sending the Son, did not say, "My Son will receive the fruit from the vinedressers," but that "they will reverence him"; for they did reverence him in knowing that this was the Son, and in saying among themselves, "This is the heir." And not at all, even if they reverenced him and were struck at the beginning, have they now also done the things of those who reverence him. C And at the same time one might ask who these vinedressers are who said, "This is the heir; come, let us kill him," for the Jews do not appear to have killed him as the Son of the master of the house. And to this someone will say that, when they were conversing with one another as to who he might be, some said that this is the Christ; to whom others responded, "When the Christ comes, no one knows from where he is; but we know from where this man is." Then, since they were struck by the signs and the wonders and the divine powers, they indeed thought him to be the Christ of God, but they did not confess it. And it was true that "They will reverence my Son," but it was also true that—even with them having despaired that he was the Son—the saying "This is the heir" was uttered. Someone might therefore say regarding these things: "With them having despaired that he was the Son." By "having despaired," he means "having known," just as if I, having despaired of the beloved one, believed her to be no longer living. Those who killed the Savior, having known that he was the Son, were nonetheless able to plot against him. I know if I despair— [...] D [This section repeated in original text block due to layout error, translation skips duplicate] holy priests, to God through prayers...
A of the Law, “Come, let us kill him.” For this reason the Savior says: “You both know me, and you know where I am from.” If anyone pays attention to those things written about Herod, when he learned from the Magi that the King of the Jews had been appointed, he will see that those who killed the Savior, having recognized that He was the Son, were nonetheless plotting against Him. For even Herod, having learned from the scribes that the Christ was being born in Bethlehem, and having agreed that the one born was indeed the Christ, sends them away, saying: “Go, search accurately for the child, so that I also may come and worship him.” Nevertheless, after they had returned, he plotted against the child, not out of disbelief that He was the Christ—for he would not have, B in total disbelief, killed all the children who were in Bethlehem and in its environs from two years old and under, according to the time he had ascertained from the Magi—but he believed Him to be the Christ who was prophesied, and he wished to kill Him, and as far as it lay in his power, he did kill Him.
Thus, therefore, those who plotted against the Savior were able to say, though not in such a way that their speech reached others: “For they said among themselves: ‘This is the heir,’” and nonetheless to have slain Him. For they thought, having killed Christ and not understanding His resurrection (for “if they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory”), that they themselves would be masters of the situation, since their wickedness had blinded them, and they did not know the mysteries of God; and as though they did not know them, they “cast” the Son of God “out of the vineyard” and “killed” Him. And the phrase, “they cast Him out of the vineyard,” seems to me to mean this: as far as it lay in their power, they judged Him to be an alien to both the vineyard and to its farmers when they were passing the vote of death upon Him. And upon these things, the Savior asks those very wicked farmers, saying to them: “When therefore the lord of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those farmers?” And they say to Him, being judged and condemned by their own mouth as wicked men effectively destroying themselves and no longer destined to have C the oracles of God, “He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and he will lease the vineyard to other farmers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons.” And they are, as it were, prophesying in a manner similar to Caiaphas, the high priest of “that year,” who did not speak the truth “of his own accord,” but [prophesied] because he was “high priest.” D
A They prophesy B regarding the nations, that they will give the Master of the house the fruits in their seasons. And he will hand over the vineyard to other husbandmen, “who will render to him the fruits in their seasons.”
12. C Thereafter, the Savior reproves them from the Scripture, as they were thinking themselves to be builders of the people, [showing] that the Father will place as head of the whole building the stone that was both Himself and rejected by them, as it holds together the two corners of the Old and New Testaments, and the building of the two peoples. For such is that which is written: “Have you never read in the Scriptures: ‘The stone which the builders rejected, this became the head of the corner? This was from the Lord, and it is marvelous in our eyes’?” The passage is situated in the 117th Psalm, which is placed before the psalm of many verses, and the text has it thus: “The stone which the builders rejected, this became the head of the corner. This was from the Lord, and it is marvelous in our eyes. This is the day which the Lord has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it.” And if anything else of those things prophesied about Christ can convict him who examines the things written with a right mind, this also should be set among them. For if the prophet does not speak these things about a stone devoid of sense—as some foolish man might say—it would be clear that Jesus, who was rejected by those wise men, chief priests, elders, and scribes among that people, truly became as the head of the Church “into a head of the corner,” uniting and gathering into one the two Testaments. And “this” head is a gift given by the Lord to the whole building, and a “marvelous” head “in our eyes,” for those who are able to see it. And on account of this, since the builders rejected this stone, the oracles of God, in which was the kingdom of God, were taken away from those husbandmen and those builders; and it was given to a nation producing its fruits. But if that is true: “It will be given to a nation producing its fruits,” [what] will D he do to those husbandmen? They answered, judged by their own mouth, that he will miserably destroy the wicked, and will give the vineyard to other husbandmen. For they are prophesying just as the priest Caiaphas, who did not speak the truth of himself, but because he was high priest of that year, he prophesied; so also these did not prophesy of themselves against themselves, since the oracles of God were to be taken from them and given to the nations who would produce the fruit in its time.
12. “Did you never read in the Scriptures: ‘The stone which the builders rejected, this became the head of the corner? This was from the Lord, and it is marvelous in our eyes’?” Because, then, those priests thought themselves to be builders of the people, when they were not worthy builders—for if they had been worthy they would not have rejected a stone of this kind—nevertheless, he says to them from the Scriptures that the Father has placed the stone, which he [Christ] is and which was rejected by them, as the head of the entire building, so that it might comprehend the two corners of the Old and New Testament and the edification of the two peoples; for this is what it means: “The stone which the builders rejected, this became the head of the corner.” And this stone is a gift given by God to the universal building, and an admirable head in our eyes, which we who are able to see it with the eyes of the mind [can behold]. If, therefore, it is true what he says: “The kingdom of God will be taken from you, and it will be given to other husbandmen, who will render to him the fruit in its seasons,” then without doubt the kingdom of God, that is, the word of the Lord, is given to none except those who render fruit.