Commentary on the Gospel according to Matthew

He judges, examines, and discusses other discourses, whether they be those of the wise men of this world or those of such as hold and excel among the heretics; yet the mind of Christ that is in him is not judged, nor is it comprehended, nor can it be captured by those who had set out to refute him: «For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him?» It is manifest that if anyone is to instruct the mind of someone, he must first know it, and subsequently instruct: «Who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him?»—for he himself will be captured by that one and will eventually yield to him. And let these things be said by us ^A on account of that [passage]: «And seeking to take him, they feared the multitudes, because they held him as a prophet.»

^B Though the multitudes praise Jesus, they think indeed something true concerning him, yet they do not understand his magnitude. For Jesus was indeed also a prophet, as is clear to him who has understood: «The Lord thy God shall raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken in all things ^C whatsoever that prophet shall speak.» And whosoever shall «not hearken unto that prophet, shall be destroyed.» Yet his preeminence did not consist in his being a prophet, but in his being the Son of God, the «firstborn of all creation,» and the image «of the invisible God,» in whom «all things were created in heaven and on earth, whether visible or invisible,» and what follows. And his preeminence was rather in his being that Wisdom which says: «The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works,» before making anything, and «before the age he established me in the beginning, before he made the earth,» and what follows. ^D

We shall hesitate, while characterizing the Evangelist, and in an hortatory discourse, that which is for the verification of the things concerning Jesus, to call the things written by the apostles a Gospel in a certain way. Yet it is possible to adduce from the things said by Paul concerning the whole of the New [Testament] being the Gospels, when, for instance, he writes: «According to my Gospel.» For in the writings of Paul we do not have a Gospel commonly so called; but everything that he preached and spoke was the Gospel; and what he preached and spoke, these things he also wrote; and what he wrote, was therefore the Gospel. But if the things of Paul were the Gospel, it is consistent to say that the things of Peter were also the Gospel, and, simply put, the things which constitute the advent of Christ and construct his presence. «Take the Epistle of blessed Paul the apostle; what did he first write to you at the beginning of the Gospel?» In truth, he sent you spiritually concerning him, and Cephas, and Apollos, as the Gospel says, [that] the whole world then lay in the evil one. [The Gospel] is four-fold.

^A its excellence was contained, in that Wisdom says: "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways for his works, before he did anything, and before the age he founded me in the beginning, before he made the earth," and the rest. Now, the chief priests and Pharisees fear this multitude, which thinks thus about him and is ready to fight for him against his enemies, and although they plot, wishing to lay hands on him, they are by no means able to take him. Here indeed it is written: "For they held him as a prophet." But you could add still more, that although according to the context of the Scripture the crowds do not hold him as a prophet, yet in whatever place they do hold him, they hold him far below his dignity, not attaining even to the partial knowledge of those who know him in part, and clarifying nothing about him. I say this, however, about those who think truly concerning him; for those who think falsely about him, under the pretense of glorifying him, are not to be considered as being for him; ^B of which kind are those who confuse the notion of the Father and the Son, and give that the Father and the Son are one in hypostasis, dividing that one underlying reality only by conception and by names alone; and the heretics who, under the pretense of thinking great things about him, speak "iniquity against the height" and speak evil of the Creator, are not for him; for they are not with him, and for this reason they are against him.

THE OLD INTERPRETATION

^C ...and they are not for him, neither are the scribes and priests able to comprehend the knowledge of those who know him in part, declaring nothing worthy of him. But I say this concerning those who are truly for him. For those who think falsely are not for him, those who think they glorify him: such are the heretics who confuse the substance of the Father and the Son, saying that the Father and the Son are one, dividing them by suspicion alone and by names alone. ^D ...The heretics, they were also called Patripassians, as Philastrius, her. liv, and Augustine, tract. 56 and 57 in Joann., and Rufinus in the explanation of the Apostles' Creed ad Attic. "I believe in God the Father," and the deacon Ferrandus in his epistle to Severus, tom. iii of the Bibliotheca; by which name Isidore, Origin. lib. viii, cap. 5, reveals that the Noetians were also previously distinguished. The Praxeani, too, and the Hermogeniani, have deserved this name by their own error. Athanasius, in his epistle to Epictetus, and Pope Leo, epistle to Turibius, c. 1, attribute the same opinion to the Apollinarists and the Priscillianists. Clothed therefore in this dogma, Sabellius pronounced that the hypostasis of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit was one and the same: as Epiphanius relates, her. lxii, "For he established, and those who are called Sabellians from him, that the Father is the same, the Son the same, the Holy Spirit the same, so that there are three appellations in one hypostasis, or as in man, body, and soul, and spirit." It is to be noted besides that the ancient interpreter of this commentary on Matthew erroneously rendered "substance" for "subsistence" in this passage, as has been observed by the most illustrious man Henri de Valois, in his brilliant work of Annotations on Eusebius. Although it is agreed that some synods have spoken [so], and have confused [it] with some of the ancient Fathers. But Gregory of Nyssa wrote a book concerning their difference. But we have discussed these things more fully in the Origeniana. Ib. The Gerdonians, Marcionites, Valentinians, and others. Ib.

^A and they do not find what they are to do to accomplish what they desire, because all the people who have believed in him have been anticipated and are attached to the love for Jesus, and hanging upon the hearing of his teaching and his word. And it is indeed possible to see even until now in what way those who pretend to the care of God as his high priests, and the divine Scripture as scribes, and the ancient way as the elders of the people, seek to destroy Jesus and to blot out the glory concerning him, doing everything to this end in accordance with the will of their fathers, yet not finding what they should do in order to separate from him the people who are attached to Jesus and to erase him from their thoughts. Perhaps even all those who have any opinion whatsoever concerning the Divine and who represent it in a way alien to the teaching of Jesus truly wish to destroy Jesus, but they cannot, since all his crowd hangs upon him, listening.

For he who is not with me, he says, is against me. Thus, even if those who do not think truly concerning the Son gather in the name of Jesus, they scatter rather than gather. For the Savior says: “And he who does not gather with me, scatters.” And note that it was not said simply, “He who does not gather scatters,” but with the precise addition, “with me”; for it is necessary for him who gathers to gather with him. You will understand the one who gathers with him by paying heed to this: “When you are gathered, and my spirit, with the power of the Lord Jesus, to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh,” ^B for “When you are gathered, and my spirit, with the power of the Lord Jesus,” signifies the one who gathers with him. And you would not say that “When you are gathered in the power of the Lord Jesus” is appropriate for those who gather with one who lives wickedly, or who are gathered, or with one who thinks wickedly and impiously concerning God or his Christ. These things are said because the crowds who were thinking about Jesus, those who were for him, and [yet] thinking far less than his worth, were saying that he had been [sent] as a prophet.

Having examined along with these the passage of Luke concerning similar matters, you will, I think, make the things previously said more clear; for he says: “And he was teaching daily in the temple. The high priests, however, and the scribes, and the elders of the people were seeking to destroy him and were not finding what they would do; for all the people were hanging upon him, listening.” And in these things also it is signified that those who illicitly preside over the Jewish discourses, who are called high priests and scribes, the enemies of Jesus, and the elders of the people, seek indeed to destroy Jesus and to obliterate his name from among men, and the faith concerning him; but they do not find what they should do to fulfill what they desire, since all the people who have believed in him have been anticipated, and are attached to the love of Jesus, and hanging upon the hearing of his teaching and his word. ^C And it is indeed possible to see this even until now, in what way those who pretend to the care of God as his high priests, and the divine Scripture as scribes, and [the elders of the] crowds seek [to destroy Jesus].

and to make the glory concerning him vanish, doing everything for this purpose in accordance with the will of their fathers, yet not finding what they might do to turn away the people who are attached to Jesus, and to erase him from their thoughts. Perhaps, indeed, all those who have any opinion concerning the divine, and who advocate for it in a way alien to the teaching of Jesus, wish to destroy Jesus, but they cannot, since every crowd hangs upon him in hearing. But also those who apply their minds to whatever books of any wisdom whatsoever, and are therefore tropologically called "scribes," wish to destroy Jesus from among men; yet they find no effective way to do this. And indeed ^B all the elders of the teachings of the Greeks and of the barbarians wish to destroy Jesus, but they cannot, being overcome by all the people, who hang upon Jesus the teacher, in hearing and perceiving his teaching. And Mark also puts forward similar things, saying: "And the chief priests and the scribes heard, and they sought how they might destroy him; for they feared him, because all the people were astonished at his teaching." For all the people of Christ are astonished at his teaching, and nothing can be done by the aforementioned chief priests and scribes, who seek to destroy Jesus from among men, and to undo the astonishment of all his people.

Concerning those called to the wedding.

^C And Jesus answering, said again in parables unto them, saying: "The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a certain king, who made a marriage for his son, and sent forth his servants," and so forth until: "For many are called, but few are chosen." This parable also, when understood more generally, will seem to be clear, in which the man who is king is tropologically said to be God and the Father of Christ Jesus, and the marriage of the king's son is the restoration of the bride, the Church of Christ, to Christ her bridegroom. And the servants who are sent ^D "to call them that were bidden to the wedding" are the prophets, existing according to the time, who turn those from the people through the prophecies to the joy brought about by the restoration of the Church to Christ. And those who did not wish "to come," having been called beforehand, were those who did not hear the words of the prophets; and the other servants who are sent are another gathering of prophets. And the prepared "dinner," in which the king's "oxen" and his "fatlings" were "killed," were the solid and rational feedings of the mysteries of God.

^A Likewise, "all things" are "prepared," meaning the discourses treating of all things that exist, which, when "that which is perfect" has come, those who have followed the calling shall eat and drink. But since, among those called through the prophets, some only neglected what was said and were occupied with worldly affairs—though they did not act wickedly against them—for this reason, wishing to set forth the difference between them, he said: "But they neglected, and went away, one to his own farm, another to his trade. But the rest took his servants, and treated them with contumely, and killed them." Then, consistently with this simpler exposition, the "wrath" of the king is understood, of which the Apostle also makes mention when speaking regarding the Jews: "But wrath has come upon them to the end." Following this, the war against the Jews ^B and the destruction of Jerusalem, and the slaughter of the people after the advent of Christ, is prophesied in the words: "And sending his army, he destroyed those murderers, and burned their city."

The passage: "Then he says to his servants: The wedding indeed is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. Go therefore to the exits of the roads, and as many as you find, call to the wedding," may be referred to the apostles of Jesus Christ, who stated to the Jews: "It was necessary for you to announce the word of God." ^C But because they were unworthy, they turned to the Gentiles to invite them to the wedding. ^D

^A The "outgoings of the ways" are external to Israel, and those who are found by the apostles there are called to the wedding. The apostles gathered everyone they could find; they looked for those who would listen, and they did not concern themselves, while they were calling them, with whether those who were being called were wicked or good before the invitation, for they called everyone they found.

Here, however, the "good" should be understood more simply as the more modest of those coming to the worship of God, to whom one might apply the following apostolic word: "When the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are a law unto themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness" (Rom. ii, 14, 15). And thus the wedding of Christ and the Church was filled, and those found by the apostles were restored and reclined to enjoy the wedding feast.

Then, since it was necessary that the bad and the good be called, yet not so that the bad should remain bad, but that they should change their attire and put off the garments alien to the wedding and put on those of the "wedding"— ^B "hearts of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, patience" (these, in fact, are the garments of the "wedding")—for this reason, "the king" enters "to view the guests," before he sets before them the prepared "dinner," the oxen and the "fattened calves," and "all" things "ready," so that having viewed them, he might keep those who have the "wedding garment" and make them glad, but condemn those who are opposed.

Having "entered," therefore, he finds one of those invited and having come to the wedding who had not changed his character nor put on the "wedding garment," and says to him: "How did you enter here not having a wedding garment?" Then, because the one who has sinned, and has not been renewed, nor has put on the Lord Jesus Christ, has no ground for a defense, he is silenced; for this reason it is written: "And he was silenced" (Matt. xxii, 12). And it is not enough for the one who dishonored the invitation to be cast out of the wedding; for it is necessary that he be [bound] by the servants of the king who are appointed over the bonds.

^A And in order that the Word might set forth the fear and the trembling and the grim realities and the toils in which those who have not put on a "wedding garment" shall be, it says, "There will be weeping," and not only "weeping," but also "the gnashing of teeth." And to the whole parable, because it has been shown that many were called but not all have come, but rather few of them, [the Scripture] adds, "For many are called, but few are chosen."

These things then let it be said in a more general way concerning the parable; but we shall endeavor, returning, to investigate it according to our present capacity, if indeed, being helped by the Spirit of wisdom, we might be able to find some deeper meanings in the parable to build upon, and according to what is reasonable, to keep silent or to hint at or to expound. ^B

17. The Kingdom of Heaven is like to a king

And he who is among the guests who does not have a wedding garment, and the ministers who were ordered to bind the one who does not have the wedding garment by his feet and hands, and throw him into the outer darkness. It could, indeed, have been written: “The kingdom of heaven is made like to a king,” without this addition, “to a man”; but since that word, “to a man,” ^A is added, it too must necessarily be explained, which, to my mind, has been explained in this way: A certain man, by whom the book comprising the allegories of the holy laws was already written before me, when he was explaining the expressions by which God is declared to be a participant in the human condition, and also those by which His divinity is asserted, wishing to show that God is said to be like to a man, taking care of human nature, used this one place: ^B “The Lord thy God carried thee, as a man is wont to carry his little son.” But in order to reveal that God is not like to a man, he brought forward this one: “God is not as a man, that he should vacillate.”

18. But we have a great abundance of examples from the Gospels in which God, according to certain parables, is likened to a man. Therefore, for the defense of those parables which, according to the letter, state that the Father of Christ is subject to the affections of the human condition, we will use those that call God a man, and we will say to the heterodox who, because they have not understood those things said in this way in the Old ^C Scriptures, stumble against the God of the Law and the Prophets and the Creator of the world, that if God is indeed likened “to a man” (in accordance with the parables of the Gospel), why do you not consistently admit, in accordance with these same parables, that the wrath, the fury, the repentance, the turning away of the face, the sitting, the standing, and the walking of God are also parables? For they have either not observed His sleeping which is recorded in the prophecies, or they will confess it to be a parable. Having [on] a wedding garment, and those who were ^D ordered to bind the one who did not have the wedding garment by his feet and hands, and to throw him into the outer darkness. It could, indeed, have been written: “The kingdom of heaven is made like to a king,” without the addition, “to a man”; but since there is added also, “to a man,” it is necessary to explain this too. And another man before me has interpreted it just as it seems to me. For he made a book concerning the holy laws, and he brought forth the discourse where God is turned according to the passible nature of men; and first indeed he said, where He is turned according to the passible nature, dispensing for men, according to what is said: “The Lord thy God carried thee, as a man is wont to carry his little son.” Then he brought forth where God is not as a man, according to what is said: “Not as a man is our God.” 18. But we, having a great abundance of examples from the Gospels in which God the Father is likened to a man, set forth the parables calling God quasi-man, and we say to certain heretics who, not understanding what is said in this way in the Old Scriptures, sin against the God of the Law and the prophets, and those gathered from the ways are the bad and the good, etc. [index: entries preserved]

^A and they will be hard-pressed in either case, both because out of a desire not to have the one who is angered—the one who is preparing a "wedding for his son"—be the Father of Christ because of this anger, and because they are forced, because of "the wedding" and the son, to accept that he whose Father Christ has is indeed the Father, and that he is angered. But if they attempt to provide an interpretation for the anger, we shall say to them: O you people, what is this partitioning, that you do not flee the one in the Gospel who is preparing a "wedding for his son" because of his anger and seek another, but in the Law and the Prophets, because of this same name of anger and things similar to it, you seek to fabricate another god than the God of the Law and the Prophets? ^B Therefore, in so far as we are human, and it is not profitable for us to behold the wealth of the "kindness" of God and the "great multitude of his kindness" while it is hidden by Him (so that we might not be harmed), the "kingdom of heaven was likened to a king, a man," so that He might speak to humans as a human and provide for humans who are not able to be provided for by God, God remaining God in every way, both in speaking through the prophets and in providing for humans.

^C As for the creation of the world, that: If God is likened to a man according to the parables of the Gospel, why, consistently with these parables, do you not accept as a parable the anger, the wrath, and the repentance, and the turning away of the face, and the sitting, and the standing, and the walking of God? For they have either not observed Him recorded in the prophecies as sleeping, or they will confess it to be a parable. And we shall say further to them this: If you do not wish to hear the things in the Scriptures which declare things about Him in a human manner in a parable, consistently with the way God is called a man in a parable, then demonstrate how God, who is called the God of all things according to the Gospel, is said to have nothing human in Himself, as you suppose.

Moreover, we shall show, by way of superabundance, that they have not even examined the writings of the New Testament, in which, according to the parable here, the man who is the king and who is preparing a wedding for his son became angry at those who did not wish to come to the wedding according to his invitation, and at those who had neglected to dine at the wedding, and had gone off to their own farm or to their business; and he was angry also at those who had seized his servants, and insulted them, and killed them. For let them tell us whether this one who was angered, inasmuch as he is preparing a wedding for his son, is the Father of Christ, or is some other Father of His besides the one who, as far as the parable goes, was angered; ^D and in either case they will be hard-pressed, either from the fact that they do not wish the one who was angered, who is preparing a wedding for his son, to be the Father of Christ because of the anger, or from the fact that they are forced, because of the wedding and the son, to accept that he himself is the Father of Christ, and that he is angered. But if they attempt to bring forward an explanation for the being angered, we shall say to them: O you people, what is this partitioning, that you do not flee—

^A from the one who works marriages for his Son in the Gospel because of anger, and seek another in the Law and the Prophets, because of the same name of anger and things similar to it, seeking to fashion another God besides the God of the Law and the Prophets?

19. As long as we are human, and it is not profitable for us to behold the wealth of the goodness of God, and the great multitude of his goodness hidden by him, lest we be harmed, the kingdom of the heavens was necessarily likened to a human king, in order that he might speak to humans as a human, and order those who are not capable of being ordered by God, while he remains entirely God, both in speaking through the prophets and in ordering humans. ^B And then the likeness of the kingdom of the heavens to a human will cease, when, with zeal and strife and the other passions and sins having ceased, and the walking according to man having ended, we become worthy to hear from God: "I said: You are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High" (or from his Christ), no longer doing such things for which it might be said: "But you shall die like men." But I think that not only will the likeness of the kingdom of the heavens to a human king cease, but also ten thousand other things which a sinful human needs, such as is written in Hosea: "But I am as a panther to Ephraim, and as a lion in the house of Judah," and in another place: "I will meet them," he says, ^C "as a bear bereaved." Therefore, he will one day cease to be as a panther, and as a lion, and as a bear bereaved, when, because those who have done these things no longer need the "as a panther," and the "as a lion," and the "as a bear," he himself—no longer having those who need him to be such—will manifest himself as he is.

I understand this also concerning the saying: "Our God is a consuming fire," since insofar ^D as those things worthy of being consumed are within us, to that extent "our God is a consuming fire" to them; but when those things by nature adapted to be consumed by the fire that consumes have been consumed by it, then he will no longer be "our God a consuming fire," but will only be, as John said, light, saying: "God is light." If these things are moved, pay attention, if you can, to the passage from John's catholic epistle which stands thus: "Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be. We know that if he is revealed, we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is," so as to take it in this way. For now, even if we are deemed worthy to see God with the mind and the heart, we do not see "him as he is," but as he becomes for us by reason of our dispensation; but at the end of all things and of the "restoration of all things of which he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old," we shall see him, not as now, which is not his being, but as is fitting then, which is what he is.

are those of being consumed, to such an extent that our God is a consuming fire to those things. But when those things which are by nature fitted to be consumed by that consuming fire have been consumed, then our God will no longer be a consuming fire, but only, as John said, light; for he says: "God is light."

When these points have been raised, consider if you can interpret in this same way the passage from John's Catholic Epistle, which runs as follows: ^B "Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not yet appeared what we shall be. We know that if it should appear, we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is." For now, even if we are deemed worthy to see God with the mind and the heart, we do not see him as he is, but as he becomes to us for the sake of our dispensation. But at the end of all things, and at the restoration of all that he "spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets who have been from the age," we shall see him, not as he now is—which is not as he is—but as it then behooves him to be, which is what he is.

Having once stated these things regarding "The kingdom of heaven has been likened to a man who is a king," we are also able to find the cause for the Savior constantly calling himself the Son of Man, or a son of man, ^C showing that, just as God, while dispensing for men, is called a man, as if in parables—and perhaps in some way he even becomes so—so too the Savior, being primarily the Son of God, and God, and the Son of his love, and "the image of the invisible God," does not remain in that which he is primarily, but becomes, according to the dispensation of him who is called man in the parables—being God—the Son of man, according to the imitation of when he dispenses for men, the Son of man.

20. After we have elaborated upon the passage "The kingdom of heaven ^D has been likened to a man who is a king," we can also find the reasons for which the Savior often calls himself the Son of man, declaring that, just as God, while dispensing for men, is in parables called a man—and is, perhaps, in a certain sense brought forth as such—so too the Savior, who is primarily the Son of God, and is God, and the Son of his love, and "the image of the invisible God," does not remain in that which he is primarily, but is made, according to the dispensation, the son of man, of him who is called man in the parables, according to the likeness of man, when he begins to dispense for men. But we ought not to ask "what man" the God who is called man in the parables is, so that we might call the Savior the son of that man; rather, remaining in the sense of God and of the parables that declare him to be a man, let us wisely listen to him saying that he is the Son of man. Among us men, therefore, "the kingdom" is likened to a man.

^A But among those who are called gods according to the Scriptures, those in whose "synagogue God stood, judging gods in their midst," [Ps. LXXXI, 1] the kingdom of heaven is like God the King.

21. You will also ask whether, as among men who are by nature inferior to angels, and thrones, and dominions, and principalities, and powers, "the kingdom of heaven is likened to a man the king," it might not likewise come to pass that among thrones the kingdom of heaven is likened to a throne-king; among dominions, to a dominion-king; among principalities, to a principality-king; and among powers, to a power-king. For someone will say: What is the principle of selection and distinction, such that for men the kingdom of heaven is likened to a man the king, but for those who excel men, the same thing does not occur in proportion? ^B He who is likened to a man the king, making a marriage for his son, "sent his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding." [Matth. XXII, 3] And you will observe whether, just as the bride who marries is distinct from the servants who summon and the guests who are invited to the wedding, so also in mystical matters some are taken into the constitution of the bride, while others are in the order of the servants who are sent to call those invited to the wedding, and a third group beyond these are those who are invited to the wedding. But God knows the diverse orders of souls, or the powers alongside them, and the cause for which some are taken into the constitution of the bride, others into the order of the servants who minister to the calling, and others into the number of the invited. ^C In spiritual marriages, understand the communication of the bridegroom Word—who produces a harvest in season—to the bride soul, which is married to the Word and is not corrupted by him, but rather at every communion with him partakes of incorruption and brings forth such rational fruits as would come from such a marriage. And in such marriages, understand the "feast" being prepared as coming from solid food in spiritual doctrines. And consider the solid food transformed for me in the "bulls," ^D and also the spiritual aspect of the same contemplation in the "fattened cattle" being sacrificed, and the other variety—the spiritual contemplation analogous to bodily things—in the phrase "and all things are ready." For the King makes such a feast with a royal bounty, worthy of his kingdom and his wealth. It seems to me that the primary calling "to the wedding" has occurred for certain noble Israelite souls. For God desires primarily, through those who call by the word of instruction, that those who are more apt for understanding should come to this blessed feast.

^B And it is evident that those who are unwilling to come to this invitation are sent away, and other servants come to call those who were unwilling, and they promise that if they come, those invited will participate in the feast prepared by the King, and in the bulls which are considered cleaner than all that are clean, and in the greater fattened animals, representing the many and varied proofs of the ideas set forth for each question. For he serves up the word as if it were a feast, and the interpretation ^C mentioned in the tropology offers a full and thorough proof of the proposed question; while one who puts forward, according to a hypothesis, a few rather weak arguments to support those things that seem to be the case, and whose arguments are fine, thin, and, so to speak, naked—such are the things prepared at the King’s feast. It is in reference to this that he says: ^D "My bulls and my fattened animals are slaughtered," and thus "everything is ready," so that in the standing of the servants and the ministry of the spiritual cupbearers, each of the deacons may bring to the feast that which he has been assigned, and in which he has learned to serve. And encouraging those who, as I said, are secondary according to the parable, he said: "Behold, I have prepared my feast, my bulls and my fattened animals are slaughtered, and everything is ready; come to the wedding." But those previously called, being poor and destitute in mind, "paid no attention and went off," attending to their own affairs and rejoicing in them rather than in what the King was promising through the servants sent out. And see that one of them, having his "own field," did not come "to the wedding," while another, possessing "merchandise," wishing in some way to imitate what is said in the parable of the merchant of pearls, who sought "goodly pearls" and found "one precious one" and sold the many in order to buy the one.

But this commerce is ^B not auspicious, seeing that the one who went away to it did not partake of the feast prepared by the King, nor of the slaughtered bulls and fatted calves, nor of all else that was ready. Those, therefore, of the perceptive who, when invited, do not come to the invitation, but who also do not treat with contumely or slay the slaves sent to call them, are more moderate than those who have dared to do such things, and they rest, one in his own field, and another at his trade. But let us see who the others, beyond these, may be. It seems to me that these have fallen into the preparation of contentious and sophistical arguments; in these, they treat with contumely those ministers of the calling, whether by overcoming the slaves sent—who are not at all prepared to solve such sophisms—or by appearing to overcome them. And one may indeed see those who have practiced the exercise of the divine words, and who wish to present them with divine wisdom, being treated with injury by those who are gifted with sharpness of intellect, yet who are unwilling to accommodate their faith to the truth; some of these are even slain by those with whom the King is said to be angry, after that which is called wrath has ^C come upon them.

The work of this wrath is the sending forth of the King's army, that is, the "multitude of the heavenly host," or the angels appointed over the punishments. And they slay the murderers of the ministers of the Word, and the King burns their whole city. For a city and a system of sorts exists in every one of the dogmas constructed in the wisdom of "the rulers of this age," which the King burns and causes to vanish, as consisting of wicked buildings. And whenever you might discern the tearing down of either a "falsely named knowledge" or of any words whatsoever promising truth, and the noble overturning of them, do not hesitate to say that such a thing has been brought to pass by the soldiers of God, burning the cities of the enemies of the truth. Indeed, the city of the Jewish teaching was also burned after the advent of Christ; and once it was burned, the King said to his slaves, the apostles of Christ or the angels of God appointed over the calling of the Gentiles: "The marriage indeed is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy." He says, following the parable: "Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my bulls and my fatted calves are slaughtered, and all things are ready; come to the marriage." But those previously called, as if poor and destitute in mind, neglected it and went away, pursuing their own interests and being pleased with these rather than with the things which the King promised through the sent slaves. And see how one of them, having his own field, did not come to the marriage; the other possesses commerce, wishing in some way to imitate what is said in the parable of the merchant of pearls, who sought the goodly pearls and found one of great value, and sold the many in order that he might buy the one. But this commerce is not auspicious, for by pursuing it, the one invited did not partake of the dinner prepared for the King, nor of the slaughtered bulls, and fatted calves, and all things ready. Those, therefore, of the perceptive who are invited and do not come to the invitation, but who do not however abuse and slay the slaves sent to call them, are more moderate than those who have dared to do such things, and they rest, one in his own field, another in his own business. But as for those remaining beyond these, let us see who they are. I think that these are those who have fallen into the preparation of contentious and crafty words, in which they apprehended—or appeared to have apprehended—the sent slaves, who were not prepared to solve their guileful questions, and they visited the ministers of the invitation with contumely. And it is possible to see daily how the simple inviters of God, not being very crafty according to the flesh, wish to teach such people with their divine wisdom; but they suffer injuries from those who indeed understand but do not wish to believe the truth. Others are even slain by them, with whom the King is said to be angry, since wrath has come upon them.

^A The King burns the city; for it is as if the city and the system of each of those doctrines established in the wisdom of the princes of this age were being burnt and extinguished by the King, as if it consisted of wretched buildings. And whenever you might perceive the overthrow, whether of false knowledge or of any words whatsoever proclaiming the truth, and a noble subversion of them, do not hesitate to say that such a thing has been done by the soldiers of God, burning the cities of the enemies of the truth. Indeed, the city of the Jewish doctrine was also burned after the coming of Christ; when it was burned, the King said to his servants, the apostles of Christ, or to the angels of God appointed over the calling of the nations: "The wedding indeed is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. Go forth, therefore, to the outlets of the ways, and as many as you find, call to the wedding."

^B And it is possible to see from every common street, and from the doctrines that are not common, according to the customs of the nations, and cities, and villages, and places, those who are invited to the wedding by those who were commanded to do this. And the servants went forth, whether they were the apostles of Christ from Judea and Jerusalem, or the blessed angels from the inner borders in which they were, and they came to the roads and gathered—and shall gather—all whom they might find, the bad, so that by casting away their wickedness—the garment alien to the wedding—and by putting on, along with the so-called good works, the "garment of the wedding," they might fill the wedding feast of those reclining.

When, therefore, the "wedding is filled with those reclining" and resting in the faith and piety, then "the King" shall come in to inspect and judge concerning those reclining, so that he may convict and punish the one not having the "wedding garment," and set before the rest the prepared "dinner" and the "sacrificed fattened beasts" with the bulls and all the other things he has prepared. ^C But he "saw" the one "not clothed with a wedding garment," referring to one genus or kind, those who have kept the wickedness that was before the faith and have not stripped it off.

And the King burns it; for it is, as it were, a city and a system of each of those things established in the wisdom of the princes of this age consisting of dogmas, which the King burns and makes to disappear, as if it consisted of evil buildings. And whenever you see the destruction, whether of some falsely-named knowledge or of any words whatsoever that profess the truth, and a valid overthrow, do not regret to say that this has been done by the soldiers of God, who are accustomed to burn the city of the enemies of the truth of God. The city of the Jewish doctrine was also burned after the coming of Christ: when it was burned, the King said to his servants, that is, to the apostles or the angels of God who were set over the calling of the nations, saying: "The wedding indeed is prepared, but those who were invited were not worthy. Go forth therefore to the exits of the roads, and as many as you find, call to the wedding." And it is to see from every road of ignorant dogmas, which were according to the customs of the nations, and cities, and villages, those who are called to the wedding. And the servants going forth, whether the apostles of Christ from Judea and Jerusalem, or from the inner borders in which were the holy angels, and coming to the roads diverse in their different customs, gathered and will gather whomsoever they find, the bad indeed, so that by laying aside their malice, which is the garment foreign to the wedding, and clothing themselves with good works, which are the wedding garments, they might fill the wedding banquet, reclining and resting in faith.

24. After the wedding of those reclining and those resting in faith and piety is filled, then the King shall enter to see and to judge concerning the quality of those reclining, so that he may convict and condemn the one who does not have the wedding garment, but set before the rest the prepared dinner. He saw, however, one not having a wedding garment: that is, because all who keep their malice after the faith, which they had before the faith, and do not lay it aside, are of one kind; he convicts them as those who have done evil, because they dared to enter into such a wedding not receiving garments worthy of the wedding, that is, the texture of virtues, clear

^A garments, about which Solomon commanded in Ecclesiastes, saying: "At all times let your garments be white." He who dared to enter into this bright wedding without a wedding garment is rendered speechless, and can say nothing, as he is condemned as worthy of punishment and judgment by Him who says to the servants—others besides the heavenly hosts—that having bound his feet and hands (which he did not use as he ought, for he neither walked the course he should have, nor performed the deeds he ought to have), they should cast him not only out of the wedding feast, but also into the outer darkness, which is completely devoid of light. In this way, having thirsted for light after having been in the outer darkness, he may weep toward Him who is able to benefit him and save him from there, and he may gnash the teeth that, because of wickedness, ate the unripe grape and therefore were set on edge. For, "The one who ate the unripe grape, his teeth shall be set on edge."

By the unripe grape, one must consider that wickedness is meant, which does not extend itself to the things before, but remains in it—when it ought to have traveled toward the ripe and made sweet the grape of virtue. He adds to the whole parable, because of the many who were called and did not become worthy, the saying: "For many are called"; and because of those who entered into the wedding and sat down there, being few, the saying: "But few are chosen." ^B And if one were to consider the populous assemblies of the—to use a simpler term—Churches, and examine how many are those living in a more seemly way and are transformed "by the renewing of the mind," and how many are those who live more sluggishly and are fashioned "according to this age," one would see that the voice of the Savior saying, "For many are called, but few are chosen," is necessary. And elsewhere it has been said: "Many will seek to enter and will not be able," and "Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for few find it."

^C But by the sour grape one should understand the wickedness of him who does not forget what is behind, nor does he extend himself toward the things that are before, but remains in the same place, when he ought to have journeyed toward the ripe and turned the grape of virtue sweet. He applies to the whole parable, for the sake of the many who are called and have not become worthy, the saying: "For many are called"; and for the sake of those who entered into the wedding and were reclined there in such small numbers, the saying: "But few are chosen." And if anyone were to consider the populous assemblies of the—to use a simpler term—Churches, and examine how many are those who live more modestly and are "transformed by the renewing of the mind," and how many are those who behave more sluggishly and are "fashioned according to this age," he would see ^D that the word of the Savior is useful.

A voice: "For many are called, but few are chosen." And elsewhere it is said: "Many will seek to enter, and will not be able," and "Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for few find it." ^A

Concerning those who questioned him about the census.

"Then the Pharisees went and took counsel against him, how they might entangle him in his talk," and so on, until: "And they left him and went away." The intention of the passage set before us, according to the letter, seems to me to be this: The Jews, because they possessed a teaching peculiar to them according to the Law of Moses, and a way of life alienated from the conduct of the Gentiles, and held to the dogma that says, "Strive for the truth unto death, and the Lord will fight for thee," were accustomed to resist the nations that ruled over them in order not to transgress the Law of God; and often they were in danger of being destroyed root and branch when the Romans wished to bring the statue of Caesar into the temple of God, resisting and hindering those who had become stronger than them, because of the Jews having sinned. ^B We have found in the historical writings of the time of Tiberius Caesar that in fact under Pontius Pilate the people were in danger, with Pilate forcing the setting up of the statue of Caesar in the temple, and they—even beyond their strength—resisting. And the like is recorded to have happened also in the times of Gaius Caesar. And we conjecture that so long as the people were watched over, and were fenced off by what is called according to the prophets ^C the "hedge" [of the vineyard—the "vineyard of the Lord, the house of Israel," and "his beloved new plant, the man of Judah"], nothing of such a kind happened. But the most paradoxical thing is: Pilate himself, to whom they delivered Jesus, was the first to dare to defile the temple of God. And so, at the time of the Savior, when the Jews were ordered to pay tribute to the Romans, there was reflection and debate among the Jews as to whether it was fitting for those consecrated to God and being his portion to pay tribute to the rulers, or to fight for freedom if they were not permitted to live as they wished, and not pay tribute. And it is recorded that Judas the Galilean, whom Luke also mentions in the Acts of the Apostles, having led away a great multitude of the Jews, taught that they ought not to give tribute to Caesar nor to proclaim Caesar as lord; but the tetrarch of that time wished to persuade the people to yield to the present situation and not to choose a war against stronger ones of their own accord, but to pay the taxes. ^D

And the text of the Gospel ^A clearly signifies such things as these; but one who is able to see what is set forth as it has been examined, perceives that these things are so. For the Pharisees, wishing to ensnare ^B Jesus in speech, having sent their own disciples with the Herodians to ask Him whether it is lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not, would have had no snare if it had been agreed upon among them that it was to be given, or if it had been agreed that it was not to be given.

26. ^C But see whether or not the truth shines forth from this history, that the Pharisees, who wished to ensnare Jesus in speech, did not send only their own disciples to inquire about the tribute, but [did so] with the Herodians. For it is likely that those who looked toward the liberty of the people—who were preserved by divine protection, as it were a vineyard of the Lord of Sabaoth—would not have had anything of this sort befall them. In the first place, however, Pilate, to whom they had delivered ^D Christ, dared to bring upon them what was a heavier form of captivity than any they had often suffered: that is, the affliction of the body, and the introduction of the statue into the temple at the time of the destruction of all. And therefore at the time of Christ, when they were ordered to pay tribute to the Romans, the reflection and deliberation among the Jews—whether they ought to be the Lord’s own people, and a portion of God, or whether they should pay tribute to the rulers—convinced many, as we read, that Judas the Galilean, whom Luke mentions in the Acts of the Apostles, stirred up a great multitude of Jews, teaching that they ought not to pay tribute to Caesar, nor to call Caesar lord. The tetrarch of that time ^B wished to persuade the people to yield to the present situation and not to choose a war against stronger ones of their own accord, but to pay the taxes. And the text of the Gospel clearly signifies such things as these; but one who is able to examine what is set forth, perceives that these things are so. For the Pharisees, wishing to ensnare ^C Jesus in speech, having sent their own disciples with the Herodians to ask Him whether it is lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not; and it was agreed that if it were to be given—

And observe if it signifies this: the history now set forth of those who wished to ensnare Jesus in speech, the Pharisees, and who had sent their own disciples to inquire about the tribute, but with the Herodians; for it is likely that, if someone does not wish these things to be so, he should explain how, wishing to ensnare Him, "the Pharisees send their own disciples," ^D and send also the Herodians to inquire concerning the tax. For what snare was there in Jesus answering whether He wishes the census to be paid to "Caesar" or not, unless, as we have explained, [by His] forbidding the paying of "tribute to Caesar," the Herodians were about to hand Him over to the Romans as one teaching sedition, and [by His] permitting it, "the Pharisees" were about to accuse Jesus as one who looks "to the person of man" rather than teaching "the way of God in truth"? But examine for yourself that the disciples of the Pharisees, by saying: "Teacher, we know that Thou art true and teachest the way of God in truth, and carest not for anyone, for Thou lookest not to the person of man," as it were, provoke Him through this praise to not take account of the person of the Herodians and those who favored the things of Caesar, so that by declaring, according to the wish of the Pharisees, that one ought not to give tribute to "Caesar," He might be handed over by them to the Herodians.

^A Observe also the phrase: "But Jesus, knowing their wickedness, said: Why do you tempt me, ye hypocrites?" He knew, therefore, that He was being tempted by the Pharisees who were approaching Him with wickedness, so that whatever He might answer, they might from His answer plot against Him. Let these things then, from the Gospel before us, be said as regards the literal meaning of the passage, to which the accounts of Mark and Luke concerning similar matters also harmonize, as you may see if you compare the Gospels and examine them one with another; for there is no other sense here than that which has been expressed by Matthew concerning these matters, and the account in Mark is similar to Matthew. At the same time, we are taught by our Savior not to pay attention to what is said by the many, which appears glorious on account of a pretense of piety toward God, but rather to those things which are established by examination and the consequence of the argument. ^B For observe that, when the question was asked whether one ought to give "tribute to Caesar" or not, He did not simply declare what He thought, but by saying, "Show me the tribute money," He inquired, "Whose is this image and inscription?" And when they said, "Caesar's," He answered that one ought to give to "Caesar" the things that are his when he asks for them, and not to deprive him of his own under a pretense of piety; but it is certainly not the case that while one must give "the things of Caesar" to "Caesar," one must not also give "the things of God to God," and no one is prevented, while giving "to Caesar the things of Caesar," from also giving "to God the things of God."

One may also interpret the passage in this way: We are composed of soul and body, and we owe a certain payment, as it were, to the ruler of the bodies, who is called "Caesar"—namely, those things which are necessary for the body, which bear the bodily image of the ruler of bodies; these things are food, and covering, and necessary rest, and sleep. And we owe other things, ^C since the soul is by nature the image of God, to its King, God, which are things profitable and appropriate to the nature and substance of the soul.

^D (35) *But those who, under a pretense of liberty,* etc. In the same way the Sadducees and Herodians were in such agreement that the Herodians have been thought by some to be a party of the Sadducees; so it is likely that the Galilaeans went out from the schools of the Pharisees, for even when they are puffed up into proclaiming things that are self-evident—that is, into warring and doing harm—they are able to resist kings, as Josephus says, *Antt.* XVII, c. 3, and Judas the Gaulanite, when he was about to begin his defection, joined the Sadducean Pharisee to himself, as may be learned from the same Josephus, *Ant.* XVIII, c. 1; and both of them, so that they might not bind their faith to Caesar by oath, endured all the harshest things steadfastly. Josephus, *Ant.* XVIII, c. 1, and *Bell. Jud.*, c. 27. It is this, however, that Origen seems to hint at in this passage. (36) *Preventing him from giving*, etc. Hieronymus, Chrysostom, *Brief Enarratio*, Theophylact. Idem.

^A For these in their entirety are the paths that lead towards virtue, and the acts done according to virtue. Those, then, who are instructed in the law of God regarding the affairs of the body and the duties owed to it, do not all hold the same opinion. For some follow the pattern of those who advise against giving “tribute to Caesar,” by mortifying the body as much as possible through fasts and vigils, and by abstaining from everything that is for the sake of the body and its necessary functions. Others, however, are different from these; they understand the matters concerning this passage clearly, yet they imagine that it is also necessary to render to the body what is owed to it. But our Savior, who is “the Word of God,” clearly distinguishing the reasonable debts owed to the body from the [spiritual] debts of the soul, says: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” For the tribute carries the image of Caesar and of bodily affairs, which is the only thing, and nothing more, that we owe to the body.

I know, too, of another interpretation commonly offered for this passage. In the tropological sense, the ruler of this age is called Caesar, while the King of [all] the ages, who is found in no symbol, is everywhere called God. ^B Were they intending to accuse Jesus of looking more at the person of a man than at teaching the way of God in truth? Test this by evaluating it alongside the fact that the disciples of the Pharisees said: “Teacher, we know that you are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and do not care about anyone; for you do not look at the person of men.” It is as if they were inciting him through their praise not to show partiality to the Herodians, and to those who favored the things of Caesar, so that by declaring—according to the will of the Pharisees—that it was not necessary to pay tax to Caesar, he might be handed over by them to the Herodians. Observe also the point: “But Jesus, knowing their wickedness, said, ‘Why do you test me, you hypocrites?’” Therefore, He knew that He was being tested by the Pharisees, who were approaching Him with craftiness so that, whatever He might answer, they could plot against Him based on His response. ^C These things, then, let it be said in plain terms regarding this locus of the Gospel before us, with which the statements of Mark and Luke regarding the same things also agree, as you can see by laying the Gospels out and examining them alongside one another. For there is no other meaning voiced in Matthew regarding the matters in this passage, and it is similar to Matthew in Mark.

But we are also taught by our Savior not to give heed to things said by the many, and which therefore appear glorious, under the pretext of piety toward God, but rather to give heed to those things which are established and proven by examination and by the sequence of the discourse. Observe, for instance, that when the question was raised whether or not tax should be paid to Caesar, He did not simply state whatever He thought, but said: “Show me the coinage of the tax,” and He asked whose image and inscription it was. And when they said it was Caesar’s, He answered that one must render to Caesar the things that are his when he asks, and not deprive him of what is his own under the pretext of piety. ^D Yet surely it does not follow that one must render the things of Caesar to Caesar, but not the things of God to God; nor is anyone prevented, while rendering to Caesar the things of Caesar, from rendering to God the things of God.

27. This passage can also be interpreted by someone in a tropological sense. We are composed of soul and body; but as for the fact that we also consist of spirit, let us for the present refrain from speaking of that. And we are owed a certain thing to give as if it were a tribute of bodies.

^A To the ruler who is called Caesar, we ought to pay the things necessary for the body, which contain the bodily image of the ruler of bodies; these things are food, and clothing, and necessary rest, and sleep. And we owe other things, since the soul is by nature in the image of God, to its King, God, which are things advantageous and appropriate to the nature and essence of the soul. These are the paths that lead to virtue, and the deeds that are in accordance with virtue. Those, therefore, who are taught the law of God concerning the things of the body and what is owed to it, do not hold the same opinions; for some act analogously to those who counsel not to give tribute to Caesar, wearing down the body as much as possible with fasts and vigils, and with every abstinence for the sake of the body and its necessary functions. Others, however, are different, who perceive things in this place unclearly, but imagine that one must also pay the debts to the body. But our Savior, the Word of God, clearly separating the reasonable debts for the body from the debts of the soul, says: ^B "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's" (Mt. XXII, 21); for the tribute of bodily things bears the image of Caesar, which alone, and nothing more, we owe to the body.

I know also another interpretation that is current regarding this passage. The ruler of this age is tropologically called Caesar; but the King of the ages, being in no symbol, is everywhere called God. Since, therefore, we have something of the ruler of this age, that is, things according to wickedness, and we are not able to render the things of God to God beforehand, unless we render—having laid aside all things of wickedness—the things of Caesar to Caesar; for this reason... ^C ...that is, food, clothing, and sleep, and whatever things are necessary for the repose of the simple nature of the flesh, without which the nature of the flesh cannot exist. Likewise, since the soul as to its nature is according to the image of God, its King, we must offer to God whatever things are suitable to the nature of souls, that is, all the paths that lead to virtue. Therefore, those who teach the law of God in a way that is above measure, and command that one should not care at all for bodily things and the debts of the body, are the Pharisees who forbade the rendering of tribute to Caesar; that is, those who with all their might persuade that one must absolutely afflict the body with fasts and vigils, and abstain from all things that are bodily and necessary to the body, so that nothing of us might be attributed to the prince of the body, such as those of whom the Apostle speaks: "In the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe." Others, however, are those who think that one should indulge bodies beyond measure, and in all things satisfy the prince of bodies; and these are according to the likeness of the Herodians who said that one must pay tribute to Caesar. But our Savior, the Word of God, clearly separating the reasonable debts of the body from the spiritual debts of the soul, said: "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and the things that are God's, to God." For every bodily thing has the image of Caesar, and every virtue has the image of God. If, therefore, we thus render to the prince of the flesh the things that are carnal, so that we do not defraud God of His spiritual virtues, then we render to the prince of bodies the things that are of the body, that is, those things alone which the nature of the flesh has as necessary, and nothing more that pertains to the standard of virtues. And if we serve the virtues so that the nature of the flesh is not burdened by its necessities, then we have rendered to God the things that are God's; so that neither virtue is diminished while we serve the flesh beyond measure, nor is the nature of the flesh burdened while we more abundantly adhere to the virtues. ^D ...the rulers of the nations are set in the person of the princes of the world. But the King of all the ages, God, is not in one mystery, but God is everywhere. Because, therefore, we have certain things in us that belong to this prince...

^A, the Savior, when the coin was shown to him and the image imprinted upon it, says: "Render the things that are Caesar's to Caesar, and the things that are God's to God." And let us contemplate this in its proper place, that if ever we are tempted by those who seek opportunities and propose questions—not that they might learn, but that they might accuse us with all the power they possess—and we hear words meant to tempt us, we ought not to be fully silent, nor to answer at random, but cautiously and with foresight, so as to cut off as much as possible the opportunities for those who seek them, and to teach blamelessly the things that save those who wish to be saved in listening. Now the Pharisees may be taken as the teachers of the various Jewish traditions, and the Herodians as those whom many consider to be royalty among the Jews, of the sayings that are thus ^B more simply spoken. From both sides, therefore, they ask the Savior about the tribute; and he answers them, as we have set forth. Yet, since they do not wish to learn from questioning him, but rather to entrap him in his speech and to tempt him, for this reason, having heard what seemed good to him in reply to their prompt, and having marveled that he gave them no opportunity to plot against him, they did not stay with him as the disciples did; nor did they simply go away, as is written of others, but "leaving him, they went away," and such are those who leave the Word, and do not believe in it, and depart from ^C him after having heard him. And he will not be wrong who says regarding those who stand off after hearing that such have left Jesus and gone away; but we shall use that of the bride: "I grasped him, and did not let him go."

On the Sadducees, who questioned Jesus regarding the woman who had taken seven husbands.

29. "In that day there came to him the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection," and the rest.

Interpretation of the Old

...ways, that is, diverse evils, and we cannot first render to God the things that are God's, unless we have rendered to the prince the things that are the prince's, that is, unless we have put away all evil; therefore the Lord, when the coin was shown to him and its image, ^D answered: "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God, the things that are God's." And let us learn this from the present place, that if ever we are tempted by those who desire an opportunity and propose certain propositions to us, not in order to learn, but that they might find a cause of accusation against us, we ought not to be silent at all, nor answer simply, but with thought and circumspection, that as much as is possible for us, we may cut off the opportunity for those who seek an opportunity in us, and teach irreproachably the things that can save those who wish to be saved. 29. "In that day, there came to Jesus the Sadducees who say there is no resurrection," and they asked...

For even if, for the sake of argument, the resurrection believed in by the many were not true, he who denies it does not hope "in this life only in Christ," since the soul is alive; it does not receive back that same body, but is clothed in one that is ethereal and superior. But neither would we be "of all men most miserable," if we were to say that the soul lives and exists, but that we do not clothe it again with this body, or say that it receives it back. Moreover, in order to show that the Apostle is taking his stand precisely on this point in his first letter to the Corinthians, we shall also make use of the passage: "If the dead rise not at all, why are they then baptized for them? And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?" And also: "If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me? If the dead rise not, let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we die." For even if we assume what is thought by the many to be true—that the resurrection of the dead is not true—how does it follow from this that our suffering danger in the struggle for the salvation of our souls is in vain? And how is there no advantage for him who fought with beasts for Christ, according to what is arranged for each man's worth, if he does not receive back his former body?

How does the eating and drinking—"for tomorrow we die"—follow from the "non-existence" of the resurrection of the flesh? We do not say these things because we disbelieve what is written in Isaiah in this manner: "All flesh shall see the salvation of God," or what is said by Job: "For He is eternal who is about to deliver me upon the earth, and to raise up my skin which endures these things." Nor do we disbelieve the apostolic voice saying: "He shall quicken your mortal bodies by His spirit that dwelleth in you." But let us clear away, as much as we are able, the meaning of the word "resurrection" in the passage of the Gospel that lies before us; for this reason we have also cited the phrases from the first epistle to the Corinthians. ^A The Sadducees, therefore, "came" to Jesus, who said "that there is no resurrection"—that is, the resurrection according to their own definition, as we have explained—and they "asked" our Lord, "saying: Moses said, if any man die having no children, his brother shall perform the kinsman's duty to his wife and shall raise up seed unto his brother." It seems to me, therefore, worthwhile to cite for this the word of Moses, to which the Sadducees referred when they said what is written in the Gospel. The passage in Deuteronomy, therefore, stands thus: "If brethren dwell together, and one of them die," and so on until "the house of him whose shoe has been unloosed." The Sadducees, having no hope of the resurrection, hearing this passage basely and thinking nothing worthy of God regarding the law set forth, supposed that if there "is a resurrection," it must follow that the man will be a man again, having male organs, and the woman will rise as a woman, clothed in a female body. And, assuming in a low manner that the things concerning the resurrection were spoken on account of their thinking that these things followed from it, they fashioned a certain fable about "seven" brothers having married one "wife," and they raised the difficulty: "whose" wife would such a one be, having risen, having once served as wife to "seven" men. ^B They denied the resurrection of the flesh, which is what is named, but they also entirely destroyed not only the immortality of the soul but also its continued existence, thinking that the life of the soul after these things is nowhere indicated in the writings of Moses. The Samaritans, to this day, hold the same doctrine regarding the soul of man as the Sadducees, and they build upon it that they are learned in the law, and they contend even unto death concerning the Law of Moses and circumcision. This meaning concerning the resurrection—I mean that which is held by the Sadducees and Samaritans—denies the life of the soul after these things; some of the Corinthians at the time of the Apostle, understanding this, were teaching that there is no resurrection, concerning whom he writes these things: "But if Christ be preached that He rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?" That those in Corinth saying that there is no resurrection of the dead, according to the meaning of the Sadducees, were denying the resurrection—that is, the continued existence of the soul—is made evident by this: "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are more miserable than all men." Which, if you examine it diligently, you will see that he who denies this in the Church ^C is held to have more prudent discourses, saying that there is no resurrection. For the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, were denying not only this which in custom is called the resurrection of the flesh, but they were also destroying the immortality of the soul. According to whom the Samaritans also think even now. ^D [alt-version omitted]

^A And if someone denies the resurrection of the dead as received and believed in the Church, even if he denies it falsely, he does not entirely have his hope placed in Christ only in this life; for if we suppose that the resurrection believed by the many is not true, one who rejects it has not placed his hope in Christ only in this life, if the soul lives and does not indeed resume that body, but puts on some other, better, ethereal something; nor are we "more miserable than all men," if we should say that the soul lives and survives, but that this body is not added back to it, nor do we say that it resumes it. Further, in order to confirm ^B that the Apostle stands particularly for this point in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, we shall also use the passage: "If the dead are not raised at all, why are they baptized for them? And why do we stand in jeopardy every hour?" (1 Cor. xv, 29, 30) and that: "If, after the manner of men, I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what is the profit to me, if the dead do not rise? Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die" (1 Cor. xv, 32). For let it be granted that what is thought by the many to be true, namely the resurrection of the dead, is not true. How does it follow from this that we struggle in vain, laboring for the salvation of our souls? And how is there no profit to him who has fought with beasts for Christ, according to merit, if he does not resume his former body? How does it follow, from there being no resurrection of the flesh, that "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die"? We do not say these things because we disbelieve what is written in Isaiah in this way: "All flesh shall see the salvation of God" (Luke iii, 6); or what is said by Job: "For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that He shall raise up upon the earth my skin that ^C endureth these things" (Job xix, 25). Nor do we disbelieve the apostolic voice saying: "He shall quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in you" (Rom. viii, 11). But as much as is in our power, we clarify the meaning of the word "resurrection" in the passage of the Gospel that lies before us, and we have cited the testimonies from the first Epistle to the Corinthians. *Therefore the Sadducees, who said there was no resurrection*, came to Jesus, and they asked our Lord, "saying, Moses said, If any man die, not having ^D children..." [alt-version omitted]

^A his brother shall take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.

50. It seems to me appropriate here to set forth the saying of Moses, to which the Sadducees alluded regarding the things written in the Gospel as having been said by them. The text in Deuteronomy is as follows: "If brethren dwell together, and one of them die," and so on, down to: "The house of him that hath his shoe loosed" (Deut. xxv, 5). The Sadducees, interpreting this passage incorrectly, as those who have no hope of the resurrection and conceiving nothing in their minds worthy of God concerning the law set forth, thought that it followed from there being a resurrection that a man, once he had risen, would again be a man, possessing male organs, and that a woman would rise again as a woman, clothed in a female body; and, having low thoughts of what is said about the resurrection because they believed these things followed for them, they fashioned a fable about seven brothers who married one wife, and asked whose wife such a woman would be when she had risen, having once been the wife of seven men. They could, however, have raised this same question without such a fiction, drawing their argument from women who had married many men, or from men who had taken many wives. But our Savior, answering them, did not explain the intent of the Mosaic law, as they were unworthy of the knowledge of such a mystery; but He only declared, saying that even the divine Scriptures proclaim concerning the resurrection from the dead, that there are no marriages there, but those who rise from the dead become like the angels in heaven; and just as the angels in heaven neither marry nor are given in marriage, so, He says, are those who rise from the dead. I, for my part, believe that it is shown by these words that those who are accounted worthy of the resurrection from the dead become like the angels in heaven not only in the respect of not marrying and not being given in marriage, but also in the transformation of their bodies from humility ^B to a higher state; and as for the phrase, "a man will rise again possessing male organs," the nature of those who are under the dominion of death is in need of this distinction, while for those who have become immortal, the female sex is altogether superfluous. But we shall treat these matters more fully in the *Origeniana*.

30. Since, therefore, the Sadducees bring forward the example from the Mosaic law as a defense of their error, it seems to me appropriate to set forth the very text of the law which the Sadducees cite, which in Deuteronomy is provided in this manner: "If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and he have no seed, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel. And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel. Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her; Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot." ^{C D}

It seems to me, according to one account, that the soul of man is a woman, marrying first the letter of the Law and bearing no children from it, and secondly the spiritual Law, and from this bringing forth fruit and begetting, yet not departing, regarding the one begotten, from the honor due to the letter of the Law which has died to her. And perhaps every soul that is to be blessed, and is figuratively called a woman, is entirely married first, according to the introductions, to the letter of the Law, which dies as the soul of the woman progresses, so that she may attain to the more holy and fruitful marriage, when “she shall be saved through the bearing of children,” provided that the children “continue in faith, and love, and holiness with sobriety,” not being saved before this childbearing or apart from it. The children, moreover, of this woman, the soul, from the second husband, the spiritual Law, are the works according to that Law. And they are two brothers, both born from one mother, the mind, the two Laws which always dwell “together in one place”; for their house is not separated from one another, but they are “brothers,” and both interpretations are as in one house, the letter which contains them.

and another soul [the woman] living according to God, when the former husband has died and is overturned, not wishing to go “outside” and to a “man who does not draw near,” but being married to the brother of the deceased and dwelling “together” with him, when “the husband’s brother comes in to her” and becomes within her soul and takes “her to himself as a wife” and dwells with that soul for her blessedness, inasmuch as she is married according to the will of God to the second and spiritual law. “And the child which she may bear” and bring forth, the soul-woman who has dwelt with the second and spiritual brother, is established “from the name” of his brother “who has died,” and comes into being not from the former, yet is namesake to the former; for the name for the offspring from the spiritual law is the name of the deceased, since he too was called the law of God, and it is not right that “the name” of the deceased husband be erased from the discerning and truly Israel, even if he himself is erased. Let these things be said in part concerning the law.

^A “we shall judge angels,” as well as from that: “into which the angels desire to look.” But if anyone also admits the Epistle of Jude, let him see what follows from this doctrine, because of that: ^B “But the angels who did not keep their own principality, but left their own domicile, he has kept in everlasting bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day.” But he who has dared to inquire into such matters, let him see how those things written in Genesis are to be understood: “Seeing” (that is, “the sons of God [seeing] the daughters of men, that they were beautiful, they took to themselves wives from all whom they chose.” But openly to raise questions about the things of that passage, and to examine the coherence of them, and to trust to paper the clarity of such things, was perhaps not safe; for it is enough for us to have been this bold regarding what has already been said.

^C I do not think it inopportune to set forth the wording of the law from Deuteronomy once, to see how its intention might be understood. We must seek, therefore, in it who is this one woman, and who are the two men who were brothers to one another; the one who marries the woman first, but brings forth no fruit from her; and the second, the brother of the deceased, who marries and raises up a child in the name of the deceased. And after this you will seek who he is who does not wish to marry the wife of his brother, and because of this is stripped of one sandal before the elders, and is spat upon in the face by the woman who ascends to the gate, and says: “My husband’s brother does not wish to raise up the name of his brother in Israel.” Further, that too will have to be examined in the same place, who are those elders, and what is the gate to which the woman ascends while saying the things that were mentioned above. But that every law which is said to have proceeded from God is something august and worthy of veneration; and that it is not at all a law of God which is not holy and venerable, everyone who is not utterly foolish will admit. But whether or not we shall find the holiness and majesty of this law, God himself first would know, and his Christ, and after these, he who is according to the Scripture… ^D not to the acknowledgment of the mystery, but he simply told them about the future resurrection, as the divine Scriptures also testify, since there are no marriages there, but they will be as the angels in heaven who have risen, and because he will transform the bodies of their humility according to the celestial and luminous bodies of the angels.

[index: entries preserved]

…let us explain to some extent. I seek, therefore, who is this one woman and the two brothers, the first of whom indeed had a wife and left no fruit from her; but the second, the brother of the dead man, who took her and generated from the name of the dead: and who is he who does not wish to take the wife of his brother, and on account of this the woman takes off one shoe from him before the elders, and spits in his face, ascending to the gate and saying: “My husband’s brother does not will to raise up the name of his brother in Israel”; and who are the elders, and what is the gate to which that woman ascends? There are, therefore, two brothers: the first is the word of the Law, the second is the word of the Gospel. Both of these did the mother Wisdom bring forth, and one house always held them, that is, the same Scripture of the Old Testament, and they dwelt in the same one always. But at the coming of Christ, the former brother died, that is, the word of the Law, in that he was made void by the New Testament and rendered useless. But the woman of that word is every soul, or the Synagogue which was first under the law: such was the soul of Paul, or Peter, and of the others from that people. Every upright soul, moreover, which was a lover of that word, and wishes to keep his memory and name with itself always, so that she may never cease to be called his wife, becomes the wife of the other brother, not of a foreign and strange word which does not draw near. But a foreign and strange word is every gentile word, which is far from the kind of the law of God: but she took to herself a husband, the evangelical word, ^C as Matthew was the first to sound the trumpet in his Gospel. Mark also, Luke, and John sounded with their individual priestly trumpets. Peter also sounds with two of his Epistles. James also, and Jude. Likewise in Matthew XII: And Judas also wrote an Epistle, short in lines indeed, but filled with the words of those who have been endowed with heavenly grace.

^A And Christ himself shall know it, then also he who is called by Scripture a money-changer of integrity and proven faith, and who knows how to "prove all things; and to hold fast that which is good; and to abstain from every form of evil." Come then, let us desire to explain this proposed question of the law, having called upon Him who said: "I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world." Let us say those things which, if He himself has granted them to us, it shall go well with us; if not, then what in this place occurs to us; the judgment surely will remain with the reader. ^B And according to one interpretation indeed, the woman seems to me to be the soul of man, wedded first to the letter of the law, and bringing forth no offspring from it; but to the spiritual law secondly, and from it conceiving and bearing fruit, yet not ceasing, even when children have been received, to show honor to the literal law which is dead to her. And perhaps every soul that is to be blessed, and which is metaphorically a woman, when it is first instructed, is necessarily wedded to the letter of the law, which indeed dies so that the woman—that is, the soul—may be delivered, in order that she may contract a more dignified and fruitful marriage, when surely she "shall be saved by the child-bearing, if they continue in faith, and love, and sanctification with sobriety," but she will in no way attain to salvation before she has given birth to children, or if she has not done so. ^C The children, however, of this woman (the soul), conceived by the second husband—the spiritual law—are the works performed according to it. And the brothers generated from one mother (the mind) are the two laws, which also dwell in the same place; for their house is not separated one from the other; but both are, and both interpretations are, as in a certain house, the letter which contains them. And see if this cannot be proven from: "If brothers dwell together," then what follows: "And one of them die, and he have no seed," which I have explained to the best of my ability. Let us also look at that which says: "The wife of the dead shall not be married without unto a man that is not akin," ^D and which woman, that is to say, which soul, transgresses this law, and which one keeps it. As matters of this kind stand, therefore, after the death and the subversion of the interpretation of the law according to the letter, I consider that a certain soul, contrary to God’s commandment, takes to herself a man who is not a brother of her deceased husband, nor a kinsman according to the divine genus, so as to have children from him. From the former discourse she could produce no child, because "by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." But the children born of the woman by the second husband—his works are holy, and she herself is a woman keeping the commandment of the law. And I think that every soul in its beginning first received the word according to the simple history of the law, which will undoubtedly die when that soul begins to progress toward greater things. Thus, the simple word being dead, she is joined to a more special word, which is according to the higher mysteries in the Scriptures. But the soul that does not keep the commandment of the law, which was formerly under the law, after the death of the law becomes the wife of a man who does not approach, when she takes a word that does not correspond in any way to the former law, nor is it according to its sense, but is held to be entirely foreign. And such are...

all the souls of heretics; for them, the word of the ancient law is indeed dead, but they have wished to be wedded to a spiritual word which had always dwelt therein with the ancient law under one and the same roof of the same Scripture. But they have wedded some foreign word, and one that is alien both to the New and to the Old Testament, and one that never drew near to them. But when an upright soul, herself dead to the law as we have said, accepts over herself the evangelical word, the brother of the deceased law, then the brother of the dead one—that is, the word of the new law—enters into that soul and becomes within her, and takes her for his wife, and cohabits with that soul in all her blessedness, and brings forth fruit from her. And whatever infant is born to her—that is, whatever work is brought to pass by her—is rendered good by the name of the deceased brother; and although it is not born from the law, yet it bears the name of the prior law, and that work is said to be generated from the law, and the name of the law of God is named in that good work, since that law too was called the law of God; and the name of that law is not deleted from every work of a holy soul, even if it itself has been rendered void ^A.

For every soul spits upon the word that neither begets children nor brings forth fruit, and by the overthrowing of it, it looses it in those things in which it stumbles, and "answering" says that "thus shall they do to the man who does not build the house of his brother." And observe here again that "man" is named a second time for him who sins, and now indeed for one who does not build "the house of his brother." Therefore, let everyone who sees this man being loosed from his sandal and spat upon, and hearing her saying, "Thus shall they do to the man who does not build the house of his brother," do "all things for the building up" of his brother; for if he should not build "the house of his brother" ^B [the law], "one sandal" shall be loosed, and he shall be spat upon, and "the name" of any such person "in Israel" shall be called before all who see it, [the house] of him whose sandal was loosed. Let us see also a second explanation regarding the passage set forth, and let there be two brother laws, according to which he who has kept the former was not "lawless toward God," and he who keeps the second is "lawable in Christ." ^C

52. Therefore, let this be said in part concerning the law; but again, there is need for us—or rather, a greater need—for God, who in Christ enlightens our mind toward the vision of the things that follow. "If, however," he says, "the man does not wish to take the wife of his brother, then the wife of his brother shall go to the gate to the elders, and shall say," the things that follow. And first of all, observe that as long as the woman also was doing what had been commanded by the law, and the man entering in to her was dwelling with her and begetting children from her, he was not called a man, but the brother of the husband of the woman; but when he does not wish to take the wife of his brother, and does not wish to raise up the name of his brother, and, having been summoned by the elders of the city, has said: "I do not wish to take her," then he is no longer called a brother, but a man. For instance, as long as he performs the commandment of the law, the Scripture says to him: "I have said, You are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High." But if he has passed by it, it is said to him: "But you, as men, shall die." Now the kinsman who does not wish to take the wife of his brother is taken to be every sermon of a heresiarch, since after the death of the law, there came to be another certain erratic tradition of the law, and not spiritual, nor true; which, although it is perverse, nevertheless has its generation from the law, since from occasions ^D [of] Deut. xxv, 5. Ibid. 7.

And consider for me, at the coming of Christ, the death of the former law, as the man of human souls, since «that which was glorified was not glorified in this respect» before, «because of the surpassing glory» of the second; and consider the second law as of Christ, being a brother of the former—both through Moses and the Word, who is the Son of the same, who also begat the former. When therefore these two brothers were dwelling «in the same place,» especially at the time of His presence, the one of them died and had no seed. But the woman of the deceased, after the death of the former husband, the soul that is under the law, does not become «outside [to] a man not approaching»; for a man approaches—the law of the Gospel, as a brother of the husband who died for the former law—and he enters into the wife of the brother. As an example, look at Paul’s soul «under the law,» then, because Christ bought him from the law, becoming «under the Gospel.» And look to see if the husband of Paul’s soul did not die, and nonetheless, even when he died, the wife of the deceased did not become «outside,» as those of the heresies think, nor «to a man not approaching.»

^A And the name [of the man refusing] in Israel, and being called by the senate of the city, says: «I do not wish to take her,» and he is disgraced by having his shoe loosened, and he is spat upon in the face by the woman, and he is surnamed, so that his name may be, «The house of him whose shoe is loosened»; then he is called a man. ^B For as if, for the keeping of the law, it was said to him: «I said, You are gods»; but through doing things contrary to the law, he is, as it were, reproved by the Word saying to him: «But you die as men.» And attend if you are able to discern, after the death of the interpretation of the letter, that there is another interpretation of the law, erroneous and not spiritual, nor blameless, yet having its generation, though erroneous, proceeding from the occasion of the things written in the law, and not wishing to raise up the name of their brother, and to honor the name of the law. ^C Such an interpretation does not wish to take the wife of his brother, that is, the soul; for it does not wish to bring forth fruit for the glorifying of the name of the deceased brother; wherefore the woman does not stand below—she who is ready to honor her former husband—but she ascends to the gate and the entrance of the city, which has its own senate. And let these things be understood as happening according to the Church and the introduction and entry into it. The woman therefore reproves the man who does not wish to bring forth fruit for such a discourse, and says: «The brother of my husband does not wish to raise up the name of my brother in Israel.» Then the senate of that city, examining such a man, inquires if he truly does not wish it; and when he has answered that he does not wish it, she approaches him who did not wish to raise up seed to his brother, and before the senate she reproves him, and disgraces him, loosening his one shoe. And look in these things, because of «Loosen the shoe from your feet,» ^D said to Moses and to Joshua, and that which is written, «I am not worthy to loosen the strap of his shoe,» written in accordance with Luke and Mark and John—lest perhaps «to loosen the shoe» is not the same as «to unshoe»; for neither is Moses or Joshua or John commanded to be unshod.

^A And when, therefore, «the eldership» asks that kind of man if the woman speaks the truth about him, and he does not wish to raise up seed to his brother, then «the wife» of the deceased approaches «before the eldership» and loosens «the one shoe from his foot,» so that even if he were shod with the name of Christ, he might be unshod regarding the name of God, and for this very reason might not be wearing the name of Christ gloriously or truly. The woman also spits «into the face» of such a man and reproaches him as a man, and one who did not wish to be divinized by bearing fruit. She says that this will happen to everyone who does not build «the house of his brother,» that is, the evangelical word, which is both legal and prophetic. And he who does not build will have no other name among the Israelites save this: that this is «the house of the one who has had his shoe loosened.» Everyone, therefore, who is in heresies—especially those that sever the Godhead and the law from the Gospel—being unraveled, is «the house of the one who has had his shoe loosened,» being spat upon «in the face» and having «the one shoe» loosened. ^B

Concerning the Savior, he named the action of loosening.

^A of Paul, and that one having died, the wife of the deceased has not gone outside—as those from the heresies think—nor to a man who does not approach; for the brother of her husband entered unto her, and took her for himself as a wife, and lived with her, and there came to be the fruit, and the offspring, and the child, and that which was born from the name of the deceased. For according to the spiritual law, the Gospel names everything, and the name of the deceased has not been erased when the law of the Gospel has arrived; for among the true Israel, the name of the former is also preserved.

Who, then, after this is the man not willing to take the wife of his own brother, if not the word in the heresies, which is not willing to accept the soul that honored the former husband, and the memory of the former husband? Against whom the wife of his brother ascends to the gate, concerning which it has been said: «This is the gate of the Lord, the righteous shall enter into it,» and she ascends to the senate, and denounces him who is unwilling to raise up seed to his brother in Israel, nor to honor the law of God given through Moses. When, therefore, the senate asks such a man if the wife speaks the truth about him, and he does not wish to raise up seed to his brother, then the wife of the deceased approaches before the senate, and she loosens the shoe from off his foot, so that even if he is bound by the name of Christ, he may be loosened from the name of God, and for this reason he bears the name of Christ neither gloriously nor truly. And the wife also spits in the face of such a man, and reproaches him as a man who did not will to be made godlike by bringing forth fruit; and she says that this shall be so for everyone who has not built the house of his brother, which is the Gospel word, which is both legal and prophetic. And he who does not build his name among the Israelites will have no other name but this: that this is the house of him whose shoe has been loosened.

Whoever, therefore, is wallowing in heresies, especially those which divide the divinity, and which separate the law from the Gospel, he is «the house of the loosened shoe,» spat upon in the face, and having one shoe removed. We have also received a third such interpretation of this passage, which we shall state briefly. Wisdom is called the wife because of the saying, «I sought to take her as a bride for myself,» and ^B one must love [her] according... ^{C D}

^A to the saying of Solomon: «Love her, and she shall keep thee.» The wise man is her husband; if, therefore, the wise man, having begotten no one from Wisdom, departs from this life, let the brother who dwelt with him, and who rested in the same words, act as a representative of the same [Wisdom], so that there may be born from Wisdom he who shall procure glory for the one who has departed from the association, to present [to him] the fruit. But if the brother who is left behind should not wish to act as a representative of the words, he shall be dishonored by Wisdom, who will loosen him by half; for neither will such a one [go entirely] unloosened, nor will he be loosened completely.

And for the establishing of the fact that the Law is called the man, according to Scripture, and the soul the woman, we shall adduce what is written in the Epistle to the Romans, as follows: «Or are you ignorant, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man for as long as he lives?» and what follows, until: «being joined to another man.» But more has been said by us on this topic, while we were explaining the passage of the Epistle to the Romans in our commentaries upon it.

55. These things, even if they seem to have been said by way of digression, have been spoken for the sake of clarifying the Law according to Moses, concerning which the Sadducees, making mention, asked the Savior, saying: «Moses said: If any man dies not having children,» and the rest. But come, after these things let us examine the other parts of the Gospel beginning from: «There were seven brothers among us, and the first, having taken a wife, died,» and what follows. ^B Isaiah indeed says in the prophecy: «Seven women shall take hold of one man, saying: We will eat our bread, and we will be clothed with our garments, only let thy name be called upon us; take away our reproach.» But the Sadducees who approached the Savior say the contrary to the prophecy concerning seven men having married one woman; and their problem seems to be a fabrication, they having purposed through the fabrication to subvert the discourse concerning the resurrection, and thinking that it follows that in the resurrection each of those rising again has the same relation towards those whom he had in this life, so that the husband may recover the wife after achieving the resurrection; and the father remains in the relation toward the son, and the brother toward the brother. They were ignorant, then, that the Creator, doing everything for what is useful, where there is birth and decay, has necessarily created such relations, in order that one might be a husband ^C served by a woman through the birth of children; and those who are born might have some connection by way of the birth through the same, [being] kin. ^D

If, therefore, in the blessedness those who are deemed worthy on account of the present age—in which they lived well—will exist in that life, and no one of those who have not contended here is deemed worthy of the resurrection from the dead, it is clear that those things for which there was a need here for the sake of birth, these will not be there. For God makes nothing in vain, nor does anything happen without purpose beside Him. But the Sadducees ought to have seen the consequence of their own assumption concerning each one’s receiving back his own wife, that again there would be child-bearings there, and births of children, and deaths; and if these, then diseases; and if births and infancies and advancements from infancy to the completing of discourse, and later the Word, and in the completion of the Word, wickedness, and with difficulty virtue again being found in the few who seek it. But of these things what could be more vain? And it is better that there «should not be a resurrection» than that it should be such as the «Sadducees» supposed it, assuming it follows from the resurrection from the dead that each one receives back his wife; to which it followed that each of the things mentioned would also happen.

But if there is ^A a brother of a different kind than "according to the flesh," and in a different way than things in generation a father and son—not through a woman or through shameful parts of the body, but analogous to the Savior also being the Son of God—he who is able to rightly inquire into such great things will understand, having grasped the "Spirit" that searches "all things, even the depths of God." I, however, apply this different and as it were homonymous meaning not only in these cases—I mean those of brother, father, and son—but also regarding wife and husband. For ^B "in the resurrection" of the dead, it is true that "they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels in heaven;" but it is also true, as spoken in a parable concerning something different from marriages on earth, in the passage: "The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son," and the rest; and in, "Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps," and the rest. Therefore, the King's Son "in the resurrection" of the dead enters into a marriage beyond every marriage, which eye has seen, and ear has heard, and "it has not entered into the heart of man." Brothers; the work of generation was also father and son, and mother and daughter. If, therefore, in that blessedness those deemed worthy of the ageless life because of the present age in which they lived well will exist in that life, and no one of those who have not striven here is deemed worthy of the resurrection from the dead, then clearly those things for which there was a need here for the sake of ^C generation will not be there; for God does nothing superfluous, nor does anything happen in vain at His hand. The Sadducees ought to have seen the consequence of their assumption regarding each one receiving back his own wife, that for there to be generation there again, and births of children, and deaths; and if these, then diseases; and if births, then infancy and progressions from infancy to the completion of speech, and later of reason; and in the completion of reason, [there would follow] wickedness, and with difficulty, at some time, virtue again, for the few who seek it. What could be more vain than these things? And it is better that there be no resurrection than that it be of the kind that the Sadducees ^D supposed, assuming that it follows upon the resurrection from the dead that each one receives back his own wife; to which [supposition] it followed that each of the things mentioned would also happen. But if there be there either father, or brother, or anything of that kind, it is not according to carnal birth, nor through a woman, nor through shameful parts of the body. I, however, think that there are not only fathers and sons there according to the impassible spirit, but also wife and husband in the unity of the spirit, according to that parable which says: The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man...

who made a marriage for his son, and the rest. Therefore, the son of the king in the resurrection of the dead shall make a marriage beyond all the marriages which eye has seen, and ear has heard, and which have ascended into the heart of man; and those marriages shall be chaste and divine, and spiritual, established in mystical words which it is not permitted for men to speak. And you will ask whether, in the resurrection, there can exist also the marriages of others according to the marriage of Christ, or whether Christ alone, the bridegroom, destroying all marriages, shall make a marriage, so that they may be two in one flesh: nay, rather, not only two ^C according to the impassible spirit, but also wife and husband in the unity of the spirit, according to that parable which says: The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man, who made a marriage for his son, and the rest; and in that: Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, who took their lamps, and the rest. ^D Therefore, the son [who] made a marriage for his son, and so forth. Therefore, the king's son in the resurrection of the dead will effect a marriage outside of all those marriages which the eye has seen, and the ear has heard, and into which the heart of man has ascended: and those marriages shall be chaste and divine, and spiritual, constituted in mystical words, which it is not lawful for men to speak. And you will inquire if in the resurrection there can be also the marriages of others according to the marriage of Christ, or rather if Christ alone, the bridegroom, destroying all marriages, shall make a marriage, so that they may be two in one flesh: but rather, not only two...

but that it is more fitting to say that the bridegroom and the bride are one spirit. ^A But take heed lest, hearing such words, you slip into accepting the myth-making about masculine and feminine Aeons, according to the doctrine of those who have fashioned their unions—things not at all revealed by the Holy Scriptures. But if—even if it is said, "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shall be joined unto his wife, and the two shall be into one flesh"—the saying must not be heard as if it indicated no mystery; for "this mystery is great" ^B [as Paul says] and is referred "unto Christ and unto the Church." And having set forth a little while ago the matter regarding her who is married to the brother of her deceased husband, we examined the intent of the law as we were able. There are also ten thousand other laws regarding woman and man [such as that concerning the book of divorce, and those regarding two women becoming one man, one loved and the other hated, and regarding the captive married to him who fell in love with her, who is married after being shorn and weeping for her father and her mother in mourning], each of which has its gravity and divinity in the true tropology that is found.

^C Since the question of the Sadducees regarding the seven brothers who had one wife requires no tropology, come, let us consider the words of the Savior regarding these matters, in which he says, "You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God; for in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels in heaven." But to this, one will seek such things as the Savior saying to the Sadducees: "You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God," indicates according to the Scriptures that it is settled that there are no marriages in the resurrection of the dead, ^D as those who rise again are like the angels in heaven, among whom there is no marriage. What Scripture, then, shows that in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage? And where do we learn from the law or the prophets regarding those who rise again that they shall be as the angels in heaven? For clearly such things are... 34. Since the question of the Sadducees regarding the seven brothers who had one wife requires no tropology, come, let us consider the words of the Savior regarding this matter, in which he says: "You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." And someone might propose such a question regarding this: The Savior, saying to the Sadducees, "You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God," declares that it is taught in the Scriptures that in the resurrection of the dead there will exist no marriages, inasmuch as for the angels who are in heaven, with whom there are no marriages, those who rise again will be similar. What Scripture therefore teaches that in the resurrection they will neither marry nor be given in marriage? And in what place of the law or the prophets do we learn that those who rise again will be similar to the angels of heaven? For this is not clearly written in the Old Testament, and let him who wishes seek if he can find it. But we say that it is written, not, however, in those very words that clearly state these things, but indicating them in mystery according to a moral understanding. For since the law is a shadow of good things to come, and [while] saying certain things about husbands and wives, and expounding on marriages, it is not primarily understood of those very marriages—which we do not imagine to be marriages simply according to the flesh, but of such marriages as we have expounded above to be future in that age, concerning Christ and the Church. For instance, "Abraham..."

^A had two sons, one by the slave woman, and one by the free woman; and the one by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but the one by the free woman was born through the promise." ^B Indeed, I must not take my stand on the sensible marriage of the free woman, nor on the custom with the slave woman; for these things are allegorized. ^C But even if "for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh," these things are not to be heard as if they signified no mystery; for "this mystery is great," and, as Paul says, refers to Christ and the Church. And a short while ago, when we were expounding the law concerning the woman who marries the brother of her deceased husband, we examined the intention of the law as best we could. There are also a thousand other laws concerning wife and husband, such as that concerning the bill of divorce, and that concerning the two women whom one man has, one of whom is loved, while the other is hated, and that ^D also concerning the captive who marries the one by whom she was loved—marrying after she has been shorn, and having lamented and mourned her father and mother in mourning attire; each of these laws contains something holy and divine in the true tropology.

Since Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God, and the Sadducees were ignorant of Him, as "not knowing the Scriptures nor" the nature of how things will serve His resurrection of the saved from the dead. And whoever is not pleased with the resolution, through tropology, of the problem posed by "you err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God," will have to do one of two things: either he will disbelieve the set passages as not having been well recorded, on the grounds that the Savior would not have spoken what was not recorded as if it were recorded, or he will dare to disbelieve Jesus as if He were not telling the truth. And someone could, as a third party, flee to the apocryphal accounts, where the things concerning the blessed life seem to be recorded more clearly, and say that the reference of the words recorded here in "you err, not knowing the Scriptures" is to those. But see whether he will not fall into impossibilities on every side because of fleeing from tropology. For if he disbelieves the Scripture, he will act against the ecclesiastical word; if he disbelieves Jesus, he will act like a Jew according to the flesh; if he flees to the apocryphal accounts, he will not come to a matter agreed upon by those who have believed.

In the old Scripture we do not find it; with regard to Luke, this will not be sought, for he recorded the Savior as having said: "The sons of this age beget and are begotten, they marry and are given in marriage," and what follows, and did not say anything in that place to the Sadducees, and about this being signified in the Scriptures; but with regard to Matthew, it might be investigated, and likewise with regard to Mark; for in his account, Jesus, in response, said to the Sadducees: "Do you not err because of this, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God? For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels in the heavens." Therefore, let each one of those who have attended to our questioning seek from the Scriptures the things that stand as evidence for what was said by the Savior regarding those after the resurrection; but we shall say such things as this: that the Scriptures contain these things not word for word, nor in such a way as to be understood by whoever happens upon them, but in a tropology. For "the law having a shadow of the good things to come," and having legislated certain things concerning women and men, and having recounted lawful marriages, does not speak primarily about these things, as one might gather from the ready letter, but about the things we have already declared, setting forth the things concerning the marriage of the Savior following in the age to come.

^A For if someone, while reading the Law, and going through the things written concerning the marriage of women and men, thinks that nothing more is indicated or found than what the letter signifies, he errs, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God.

35. For someone might inquire whether the words, “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures,” spoken to the Sadducees, who did not accept any other Scripture than the legal one, have reference also to other Scriptures besides the law of Moses. One person, therefore, will say that the Sadducees are accused of this very thing, because, not accepting the Scriptures which follow the law, they err in not knowing them. But another will say: in order to refute the error of the Sadducees, it suffices that they do not know the Scriptures according to Moses, by not grasping the divine meaning which lies hidden in them. ^B However, he says that two things are not known by the Sadducees: one, the Scriptures themselves; and the other, the power of God, from which power the things of the resurrection come to pass, and the new life in it. But someone might say that the not knowing the power of God is said to refer the Sadducees to the Savior himself, since Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God, ^C and the Sadducees did not know him, as they did not know the Scriptures concerning him, nor what things he would minister to the resurrection from the dead for those who were to be saved. But he who is not pleased that the difficulty concerning “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God,” should be solved by way of tropology, will do one of two things: either he will disbelieve the passages set forth, as if they were not well recorded, for the Savior would not have said things not written as if they were written, or he will dare to disbelieve Jesus, as if he did not speak the truth. And a third person, fleeing to the apocryphal books, where the things concerning the blessed life seem to have been written more clearly, ^D will say that the reference of the things written here in the “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures” is to those books. And see whether he will not from every side fall into absurdities because of fleeing from tropology: for whether he disbelieves the Scripture, he will act contrary to the ecclesiastical discourse; or if he disbelieves Jesus, he will do such a thing as a Jew according to the flesh; or if he flees to the apocryphal books, he will not come to a matter agreed upon by those who have believed.

^A Therefore, it does not seem to me that “You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God: for in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage,” can be resolved in any other way than by the allegory that is similarly applied by the Apostle in the Epistle to the Galatians regarding the bondwoman and the free woman, and concerning the remaining Scriptures in which anything is said about a husband and a wife. And just as they err who, because they do not tropologically interpret the writings of the prophets, imagine that after the resurrection we are to eat and drink corporeal foods, because the words of the Scriptures contain such things; so too, when they hold to the letter concerning the things written about marriages, and husbands and wives, and imagine that we shall then use sexual intercourse—for which even in this world it is not possible to be free for prayer, since those who use sexual things are in some way defiled and unclean—they err.

36. Next I ask whether the saying, “You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God,” refers only to that which is said, “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage,” or also to this: “But they are as the angels of God in heaven.” For I do not find anywhere in the Scripture that those who are to be saved are said to be like the angels in heaven, unless perhaps one might claim this is declared in the passage, “But you shall go to your fathers in peace, nourished in a good old age,” and in that: “He was gathered to his people,” or in that which is said in Deuteronomy regarding man, as being established by God in heaven and on earth; ^B if you look for the phrase yourself, you will find it. Next, it is necessary to expound upon this: “Concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read that which was spoken to you by God, saying: I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” Regarding this, however, we shall say that there are ten thousand...

[alt-version omitted]

...historical narratives, he will necessarily have to do one of two things: either not believe the present words of Christ, as if Christ spoke amiss in saying that a thing was in the Scriptures which was not there; or take refuge in secret books, in which it seems to be more manifest ^C that that blessed life is written; and he will say that what the Lord here says to the Sadducees, “You err, not knowing the Scriptures,” refers to those Scriptures. And see whether anyone who rejects the moral understanding of the Scriptures does not fall on every side. Therefore, it does not seem to me that what is said, “You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God,” can be resolved in any other way than by one who, listening to the Scriptures morally, understands one thing from another, demonstrating in what passages the Scriptures speak of husbands and wives: and just as they err who, not understanding the prophetic Scriptures morally, think that after the resurrection men will eat and drink carnal foods; and likewise, because the prophetic Scriptures contain such things, just as they also contain things written about the marriages of men and women, they imagine, understanding them according to the text, that even after this life we will be in the use of carnal nuptials, on account of which no one can be free for prayer without blemish even in this world. ^D [it] pertains to what he says: “In the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage”; or also from that which he says: “But they shall be as the angels in heaven.” Nor do I find anywhere the Scripture saying that the saints will be after this life like the angels of God, unless perhaps someone understands even this morally, according to that which is said: “But you shall go to your fathers in peace, nourished in a good old age.” Likewise: “He was gathered to his people,” or, “He was gathered to his kin.” It remains that we speak of that which he says: “Have you not read regarding the resurrection that...

^A this Jesus Christ, whose “God and Father is blessed,” granted to his genuine disciples that he should be not only their God, but also their Father. For, rising from the dead, he says to Mary, “Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.’” I believe that then he granted to Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, that God should no longer be their God only, but also their Father. Luke added to the phrase, “God is not the God of the dead, but of the living,” which is also found in Matthew and Mark, the words, “for all live to him.” This was no ordinary praise of the patriarchs, inasmuch as our great Savior testified of them not only that they live, but that they live to God, and to no one else. And this, “for all live to him,” is a beautiful thing for us to practice and adopt, so that we may all live in Christ to no one else but God.

^B Regarding the Savior being able to demonstrate from the prophets that a future life is prepared for men, he did not do so because the Sadducees accepted only the Scripture of Moses, from which he intended to persuade them with a syllogism signifying something of this sort: God said to Moses, “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,” when he revealed himself to him at the bush. Therefore, either God is the God of those who exist, or the God of those who do not exist. But it is absurd to say that God, who said, “I am who I am, this is my name,” is the God of those who do not exist at all. If this is absurd, he is the God of those who are, and who live, and who exist, and who are conscious of the grace ^C which God bestowed upon them, declaring himself to be their God and saying, “This is my memorial unto eternity.” Abraham, therefore, Isaac, and Jacob live, being conscious of God and his grace, and he is called the God of each one of them individually; for it is not written, “I am the God of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob,” but, “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote it this way so that, I suppose, they might demonstrate to those who pay attention to the reading that God is God of each one of them, granting this as a special privilege; for they were not like the Hebrews, so that God would be called their God collectively, as he was called God of the others. For of those it is written, “The God of the Hebrews sent me,” but of these individually, ^D that the Word might show that one Abraham is of equal honor to the whole nation of the Hebrews. For is God not equally the God of Abraham and the God of the Hebrews? You will say the same concerning him being the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, as he is the God of the Hebrews; and I think Elijah was also accounted worthy of such honor, for which reason it is written in the fourth book of Kings, “The God of Elijah.” Thus, God was only the God of Abraham, and likewise of Isaac and of Jacob; but of our Savior, who is greater than them, God is not only God, but also Father. Hence it is well said by the Apostle, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” This Jesus Christ, whose God and Father is blessed, granted to his genuine disciples...