Commentary on Matthew 10.18–10.25

“But Jesus said to them, A prophet is not without honour except in his own country.” We must inquire whether the saying can be referred universally and equally to every prophet, as if each of the prophets was dishonoured in his own country only—not that everyone dishonoured was dishonoured in his country—or whether, because it is said in the singular, it is said about one. If it is said about one, what has been said is enough, since we refer the text to the Saviour. But if it is universal, then according to the literal account it is not true; for neither was Elijah dishonoured in Tishbe of Gilead, nor Elisha in Abel-meholah, nor Samuel in Ramathaim, nor Jeremiah in Anathoth. Interpreted figuratively, however, it is entirely true. For we must take their country to be Judea, their kinsmen that Israel, and their house perhaps the body. For all were dishonoured in Judea by Israel according to the flesh while they were still in the body, as is written in the Acts of the Apostles, said in reproof to the people: “Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute, who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One?” And in Paul, in the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, similar things are said: “For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus; for you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and do not please God, and oppose all men.” A prophet, then, is not without honour among the Gentiles; for either they do not know him at all, or having learned of him and accepted him as a prophet they honour him. Such are those of the church. The prophets are dishonoured, first, by being persecuted by the people according to the literal account; second, by the people’s not believing their prophecy. For if they had believed Moses and the prophets, they would have believed Christ, who showed that believing Christ follows for those who believe Moses and the prophets, and not believing Moses for those who do not believe Christ. Further, just as God is dishonoured through the transgression of the law, so the prophet is dishonoured by one who disbelieves the prophecies. It is useful, as regards the literal account, to gather what Jeremiah suffered among the people, on account of which he said, “And I said, I will not speak, nor will I name the name of the Lord,” and again elsewhere, “I have been continually mocked.” And what he suffered also from the king of Israel of that time is recorded in his prophecy. That those of the people came many times to stone Moses is also written; and his country was not the stones of some place but the people who followed him, among whom he too was dishonoured. And Isaiah is recorded to have been sawn in two by the people. And if anyone does not accept the account because it is found in the apocryphal Isaiah, let him believe what is written thus in the Epistle to the Hebrews: “They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were tempted”; for “they were sawn in two” refers to Isaiah, just as “they died by the slaughter of the sword” refers to Zechariah, who was slain between the temple and the altar, as the Saviour taught, bearing witness, I think, to a writing not found in the common and published books, but probably found in apocryphal ones. And they were dishonoured in their country among the Jews, “going about in sheepskins, in goatskins, destitute, afflicted,” and so on. “For all who wish to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.” It is likely that Paul, knowing that a prophet has no honour in his own country, though he preached the word in many places, did not preach in Tarsus. And the apostles for this reason left Israel and did what was commanded by the Saviour: “Make disciples of all the nations,” and, “You shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” They did what was commanded in Judea and Jerusalem; but since a prophet has no honour in his own country, when the Jews did not accept the word they went away to the Gentiles. Consider, if you can, whether because “I will pour out of my Spirit on all flesh, and they shall prophesy” was fulfilled after the coming of the Saviour in the churches from the Gentiles, one may say that those who were formerly of the world, and through believing have become no longer of the world, having received the Holy Spirit and prophesying, have no honour in their own country, the world, but are dishonoured. Therefore they are blessed who suffer the same things as the prophets, according to what the Saviour said: “For so their fathers did to the prophets.” One who attends to these things carefully, if because of living very strictly and rebuking sinners he is hated and plotted against, as one persecuted and reproached for righteousness’ sake, will not only not be grieved but will rejoice and exult, being persuaded that on this account he has a great reward in heaven from the one who made him like the prophets by his having suffered these things. The one who strives after the prophetic life, then, and has received the Spirit that was in them, must be dishonoured in the world and among sinners, who find the life of the righteous a burden.

Next we may consider: “He did not do many mighty works there because of their unbelief.” By these words we are taught that the mighty works took place among those who believed, since “to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance”; but among the unbelieving not only did the mighty works not operate, but, as Mark recorded, they could not even operate. Note the words: “He could do no mighty work there.” For he did not say “he would not,” but “he could not,” as though there comes to the power at work a cooperation from the faith of the one in whom the power works, and the power is hindered from working by unbelief. See, then, that to those who said, “Why could we not cast it out?” he said, “Because of your little faith”; and to Peter, who began to sink, it was said, “O you of little faith, why did you doubt?” But the woman with the flow of blood, too, who did not ask to be healed but only reckoned that if she touched the fringe of his garment she would be healed, was healed at once; and the Saviour acknowledges the manner of the healing, saying, “Who touched me? For I perceived that power had gone out from me.” And perhaps, just as among bodies some have a natural attraction toward certain others, as the magnet stone toward iron and what is called naphtha toward fire, so such faith has toward divine power; as it is said also: “If you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, Move from here to there, and it will move.” And Matthew and Mark, wishing to show the surpassing greatness of the divine power—that it can work even amid unbelief, but cannot work as much as it can amid the faith of those who are benefited—seem to me to have spoken exactly, saying not that he did no mighty works because of their unbelief, but that he did not do many mighty works there. And Mark did not say that he could do no mighty work there and stop at that, but added: “except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them,” the power in him overcoming even so the unbelief. It seems to me that, just as in bodily things, farming is not sufficient for gathering in a harvest unless the surrounding air cooperates for this—or rather the one who orders the air with whatever quality he wishes and makes it as he wills—nor is the air sufficient without farming—or rather the one who provides would not make things spring up from the earth without farming, for he did that once, in “Let the earth bring forth green grass, sowing seed according to its kind and likeness”—so neither do the operations of the powers show a work complete in itself for healing without the faith of those being healed, nor does faith, however great it may be, without the divine power. And you will apply what is written about wisdom to faith and to each of the virtues, so as to frame a saying like this: “For even if one is perfect in faith among the sons of men, if the power that comes from you is absent, he will be reckoned as nothing”; or perfect in self-control among the sons of men, if the self-control that comes from you is absent, he will be reckoned as nothing; or perfect in righteousness and the other virtues, if the righteousness from you and the other virtues from you are absent, he will be reckoned as nothing. Hence: “Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, nor the strong man in his strength.” For what is worthy of boasting is not ours, but is a gift of God: the wisdom that comes from him, and the strength that comes from him, and so …

“At that time Herod the tetrarch heard the report about Jesus, and said to his servants, This is John the Baptist.” So it is in Mark, and so in Luke. The Jews held different opinions: some false, such as the Sadducees held about the resurrection of the dead, that the dead are not raised, and about angels, that they do not exist, but that what is written about them is only to be taken figuratively and has nothing true as regards the literal account; and others true, as the Pharisees taught about the resurrection of the dead, that the dead are raised. The question in this passage, then, is whether there was some such opinion about the soul, which Herod held mistakenly, and some of the people, that John, who had shortly before been put to death by him, rose from the dead after being beheaded and was the same person using another name and now called Jesus, receiving his powers, which had formerly worked in John. What plausibility is there that one so well known to the whole people and famous in all Judea, whom they said was the son of the carpenter and of Mary, and had such brothers and sisters, should be thought to be none other than John, whose father was Zechariah and mother Elizabeth, who were themselves not obscure among the people? It is likely that the people, thinking that John was truly a prophet, and being so many that the Pharisees feared, lest they seem to say something displeasing to the people, to answer whether his baptism was from heaven or from men, were not ignorant that he was the son of Zechariah. And perhaps the vision seen in the temple, when Gabriel appeared to Zechariah, had reached some of them too. What plausibility, then, has the error of Herod, or of some of the people, in thinking that John and Jesus were not two persons, but one, and that John himself, having risen from the dead after being beheaded, was called Jesus? Someone might say that the false opinion of transmigration of bodies was in Herod and some of the people, from which they thought that John of old had come into being by birth and come out of the dead into life as Jesus. But the interval between the birth of John and that of Jesus, which was not more than six months, does not allow even this false opinion to seem plausible. Perhaps rather some such supposition was in Herod: that the powers which had worked in John had passed over to Jesus, on account of which he was believed by the people to be John the Baptist. And one might use an argument like this: just as it is said of John, because of the spirit and power of Elijah, and not because of his soul, “He is Elijah who is to come,” since the spirit that was in Elijah and the power in him had passed over to John, so Herod thought that the powers in John had worked in John the things of baptism and teaching—“for John did no sign”—but in Jesus the mighty works. Someone will say that those who said that “Elijah had appeared” in Jesus, or that “one of the old prophets had risen,” supposed the same. The opinion of those who said, “He is a prophet like one of the prophets,” raises no question. False, then, is the view about Jesus recorded either of Herod or as said by certain people. Yet the analogy of John’s having gone before “in the spirit and power of Elijah” seems to me more plausible as an account of what they now supposed about John and Jesus. And since we learned first that after the temptation the Saviour, having heard that John had been handed over, withdrew into Galilee; second, that John, being in prison and hearing what concerned Jesus, “sent two of his disciples and said to him, Are you the one who is coming, or shall we look for another?”; and third, simply that Herod said of Jesus, “This is John the Baptist; he has been raised from the dead,” but we had nowhere learned beforehand the manner of the Baptist’s death—for this reason Matthew now recorded this too, and Mark likewise; but Luke passed over in silence much of the account found in these.

Matthew’s wording is as follows: “For Herod had seized John and bound him in prison.” On this it seems to me that, just as “the law and the prophets were until John,” after whom the prophetic grace ceased from the Jews, so the authority of those who ruled among the people, which extended to putting to death those they thought worthy of death, lasted until John; and when the last of the prophets had been unlawfully put to death by Herod, the king of the Jews was deprived of the authority to put to death. For if Herod had not been deprived of it, Pilate would not have passed the sentence of death on Jesus; Herod, with the council of the chief priests and elders of the people, would have sufficed for this. And then, I think, what was said by Jacob to Judah was fulfilled in this way: “A ruler shall not fail from Judah, nor a leader from Israel, until what is laid up comes, and he is the expectation of the nations.” And perhaps the Jews were deprived of this authority because divine providence was giving the teaching of Christ room to spread among the people, so that, even if it was hindered by the Jews, the hindrance might not go as far as putting believers to death under an appearance of being done according to law. “Herod seized John, bound him in prison, and put him away,” making this a symbol, as far as lay with him and the wickedness of the people, of binding and shutting up the prophetic word, and preventing it from remaining any longer a herald of the truth in freedom, as before. Herod did this “because of Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip; for John said to him, It is not lawful for you to have her.” This Philip was tetrarch of Iturea and the region of Trachonitis. Some think, then, that when Philip died leaving a daughter, Herodias, Herod married his brother’s wife, though the law allows that marriage only when there is no child. But we, finding nowhere clearly that Philip had died, [think] the … still greater …

Therefore John, adorned with prophetic boldness, not dismayed by the royal dignity of Herod, and not keeping silent about so great a sin through fear of death, said to Herod, filled with a divine spirit: “It is not lawful for you to have her”; for it is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife. Herod, then, having seized John, bound him and put him away in prison, not daring to kill him outright and to take the prophetic word away from the people. But the wife of the king of Trachonitis, who is a kind of wicked opinion and vicious teaching, bore a daughter of the same name, whose seemingly graceful movements, pleasing Herod, who loved the things of birth, became the cause of there no longer being a prophetic head among the people. And I think that to this day the movements of the Jewish people that seem to be according to the law are nothing other than those of the daughter of Herodias. But the dancing of Herodias was the opposite of the holy dancing which those who have not danced will be reproached for, when they hear: “We piped to you, and you did not dance.” And at the birthday feasts of the lawless word that reigns over them they dance, so that their movements please that word. [Here the scan text has a passage that interrupts the sentence: “John rebuked Herod for having his brother’s wife unlawfully. For the law commanded a man to take his brother’s wife only when the brother had died childless; but here Philip did not die childless, for he had …”] Now one of those before us observed the birthday of Pharaoh recorded in Genesis, and explained that it is the worthless man, who loves the things of birth, who celebrates a birthday; and we, taking this starting point from him, have found in no Scripture a birthday kept by a righteous man. For Herod was more unrighteous than that Pharaoh: by Pharaoh, on his birthday, a chief baker is put to death, but by Herod John, “than whom none greater has arisen among those born of women,” of whom the Saviour says: “But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet.” But we must give thanks to God that, even if the prophetic grace has been taken away from the people, a grace greater than all of that has been poured out on the Gentiles through our Saviour Jesus, who became “free among the dead,” and “was crucified out of weakness, but lives by the power of God.” Observe further the word among whom clean and unclean foods are scrutinized, but prophecy is despised, being brought in on a platter in place of food. And the Jews do not have the head of prophecy, since they deny Christ Jesus, the head of all prophecy; and the prophet is beheaded because of an oath, in a case where it would have been better to break the oath than to keep it. For the charge of rashness in swearing, and of the perjury that the rashness would entail, was not the same as the charge of killing a prophet. And he is not beheaded for this reason alone, but also because of those reclining with him, who wished rather that the prophet be put to death than that he live. And those who rejoice at his birthday recline and feast with the vicious word that reigns over the Jews. You may at times make apt use of this text against those who swear rashly and want to make good oaths taken for some lawless deed, saying that not every keeping of oaths is fitting, as Herod’s was not. Observe further that Herod murders John not openly but secretly and in prison. For the present word of the Jews also does not deny the prophecies openly, but denies them in effect and in secret, and is convicted of disbelieving them. For as, “if they believed Moses, they would have believed” Jesus, so, if they believed the prophets, they would have received the one prophesied. But disbelieving him, they disbelieve them too; and having shut the prophetic word up in prison they cut it off, and they have it dead and divided and nowhere whole, since they do not understand it. But we have Jesus entire, since the prophecy that speaks of him has been fulfilled: “Not a bone shall be broken.”

“And his disciples came and buried his body, and went and told Jesus.” And he withdrew into a desert place, the Gentiles; and after the killing of the prophets the crowds followed him from the cities everywhere; seeing that they were many, he had compassion on them and healed their sick, and after this he feeds those who had followed him with loaves that were blessed and multiplied from a few. “Now when Jesus heard it, he withdrew from there in a boat to a desert place apart.” The literal text teaches us to withdraw, as far as we can, from persecutors and from the prospect of being plotted against through words; for this would be in keeping with good sense; but for one who is able to keep out of danger to go out to meet it is rash and reckless. And who would still doubt about avoiding such things, since Jesus not only withdrew at what befell John but also taught, saying: “If they persecute you in this city, flee to the other”? A temptation that comes upon us not of our own doing must be endured very nobly and courageously; but when it is possible to avoid it, not to do so is reckless. But since, after the literal sense, the passage must also be examined anagogically, we must say that, when prophecy had been plotted against among the Jews and slain because the things of birth were honoured among them, and in approval of empty movements that had taken place, which in the judgment of truth are out of rhythm and out of tune, but which, as the ruler of the wicked and those who feast with him suppose, are graceful and pleasing to them, Jesus withdraws from the place in which prophecy, plotted against, was condemned; and he withdraws into the place among the Gentiles that was deserted by God, so that the Word of God, the kingdom being taken from the Jews and given “to a nation producing its fruits,” might come to be among the Gentiles, and that through him “the children of the desolate one,” who had been taught neither law nor prophets, might be more numerous “than those of her who has the husband,” the law. When of old the Word was among the Jews, then, it was not among them as it is among the Gentiles; therefore it is said that he went in a boat, that is, in the body, into the desert place apart, when he heard of the killing of the prophet. And having come apart into the desert, he was in it in this sense, that the Word was set apart, and his teaching came among the Gentiles contrary to their customs and established usages. And the crowds among the Gentiles, hearing that the Word had come to dwell in their desert and was apart, as we explained before, followed him from their own cities, in that each had left the ancestral customs of superstition and come over to the law of Christ. They followed him on foot and not in a boat, since they followed the image of God not with the body but with the bare soul and with the will persuaded by the Word. And Jesus goes out to these, since they are not able to come to him, so that, going out to those outside, he may bring those outside within. And great is the crowd outside, to which the Word of God goes out; and pouring the light of his visitation upon it, he saw it; and seeing that they were the more deserving of mercy because of the state they were in, he who is impassible, as one who loves humankind, felt compassion; and he not only had compassion but also healed their sick, who had various and manifold sicknesses from wickedness.

If you want to see what the sicknesses of the soul are, consider, I pray, the lovers of money, the lovers of glory, those too fond of their children, and anyone who is too fond of women; for these too he saw among the crowds, had compassion on them, and healed them. Not every sin, however, is to be thought a sickness, but only one that has settled upon the whole soul. For in this way one can see the lovers of money wholly bent on money and on guarding and amassing it, and the lovers of glory on a little glory, for they gape after the praise of the many and the more vulgar. And you will understand the like in the case of the others we have named, and of anything else similar to them. Since, then, in explaining “He healed their sick,” we said that not every sin is a sickness, it is worth showing from Scripture the difference between them. The Apostle, then, writing to the Corinthians, who had various sins, says: “For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a good number are asleep.” Notice in these words the conjunction “and,” weaving a combination out of different sins, in that some are weak, others are sick, which is more than weak, and others besides both are asleep. For those whose soul is so feeble that it slips easily into any sin whatever, even if they are not wholly given over to some kind of sin as the sick are, are only weak; but those who, instead of loving God with the whole soul and the whole heart and the whole mind, love money, or a little glory, or a wife, or children, these have suffered more than weakness, and are sick. And those are asleep who, when they ought to pay attention and keep awake in soul, do not do so, but from great inattention nod in their will and slumber in their thoughts; who, “dreaming, defile the flesh, reject lordship, and blaspheme glories.” These, because they are asleep, are in empty fancies, like dreams, … not accepting the waking and true things, but deceived by what is in their empty fancies; of whom it is said in Isaiah: “As a thirsty man dreams that he is drinking, and when he rises is still thirsty, and his soul has hoped in vain, so shall be the wealth of all the nations that have marched against Jerusalem.” If we have seemed to digress in explaining the difference between the weak, the sick, and those asleep because of what the Apostle said in the Epistle to the Corinthians, which we have set out, we made the digression wishing to show what is meant spiritually by “And he healed their sick.”

After this the word says: “When it was evening, his disciples came to him, saying, The place is desert, and the hour is already past; send the crowds away, then, so that they may go into the villages and buy themselves food.” And first observe that, being about to give the loaves of blessing to the disciples for them to set before the crowds, he healed the sick, so that, being made healthy, they might partake of the loaves of blessing; for those who are still sick cannot receive the loaves of Jesus’ blessing. But if anyone who ought to heed the saying, “Let each one examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread,” and the rest, does not heed it, but partakes of the bread of the Lord and of his cup carelessly, he becomes weak or sick, or even, if I may so put it, asleep, stupefied by the power of the bread.