Commentary on Matthew

“Then he left the crowds and went into his house, and his disciples came to him, saying, ‘Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.’” When Jesus is with the crowds he is not in his house, for the crowds are outside the house; and it is a work of his love for humankind to leave the house and go away to those who cannot come to him. Having spoken enough to the crowds in parables, he dismisses them and goes into his own house, where his disciples come to him, not having stayed behind with those he dismissed. And those who hear Jesus more genuinely first follow him; then, asking about his dwelling, they are allowed to see it, and having come they see, and remain with him, all of them for that day, and perhaps some of them even longer. I think such things are indicated in the Gospel according to John by these words: “The next day again John was standing with two of his disciples.” And further, to show that of those who were allowed to go with Jesus and see his house the one who excels also becomes an apostle, there is added: “One of the two who heard John and followed him was Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter.” So we too, if we wish not to hear Jesus as the crowds do, whom he dismisses when he goes into the house, must take up something exceptional beyond the crowds and become intimate with Jesus, so that as his disciples we may come to him when he has gone into the house, and having come, ask for the explanation of a parable, whether that of the weeds of the field or of any other. And that it may be understood more exactly what reality the house of Jesus represents, let someone gather from the Gospels all that is said about the house of Jesus and what was spoken or done by him in it. For all these things brought together will convince one who attends to this reading that the letters of the Gospel are not simply plain, as some think, but that for the simple they have become simple by a dispensation, while for those who wish and are able to hear them more acutely there are hidden in them things wise and worthy of the Word of God.

“He answered and said, ‘The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man.’” Although we have treated these things as well as we could in what precedes, nonetheless now too we will say what can be fitted to them, even if it follows another line of explanation. See whether the good seed, the children of the kingdom, can, besides what has already been given, be taken in another way as well: that whatever good things grow in the human soul have been sown by the Word of God who was in the beginning with God, and are offspring of the kingdom of God, so that the sound words about each matter are the children of the kingdom. And while those sleep who do not act according to the command of Jesus, who says, “Watch and pray, that you may not enter into temptation,” the devil, lying in wait, sows what are called weeds, the wicked doctrines, among what some call natural notions and among the good seeds that come from the Word. In this sense the field might be said to be the whole world, and not only the church of God; for in the whole world the Son of Man sowed the good seed and the evil one the weeds, if indeed the weeds are the wicked words, which, coming from wickedness, are children of the evil one. And at the end of things, which is called the consummation of the age, there must be a harvest, so that the angels of God appointed for this may gather up the base doctrines that have grown into the soul and hand them over for destruction to what is called burning with fire, overthrowing them. And so the angels and servants of the Word will gather out of the whole kingdom of Christ all the stumbling blocks present in souls and the thoughts that do lawlessness, and, destroying them, will cast them into the furnace of burning fire. There those who become aware that through sleeping they have received the seeds of the evil one into themselves will weep and, as it were, be angry with themselves; for this is the gnashing of teeth. That is why it is said in the Psalms, “They gnashed their teeth at me.” Then above all the righteous will shine, no longer diversely as at the beginning, but all as one sun in the kingdom of their Father. Indicating a mystery, then, perhaps through all the parts of the explanation of the parable, but perhaps most of all through “Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father,” the Saviour adds, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear,” teaching those who think that in the explanation of the parable …

But since above, at “Then the righteous will shine like the sun,” we said that the righteous will not shine diversely as before but will all be as one sun, we must set out what occurs to us on the passage. Daniel, it seems, knowing that those who understand are the light of the world, and that the many among the righteous differ in glory, said: “And those who understand will shine like the brightness of the firmament, and from the many righteous like the stars forever.” And the Apostle too, in the words “There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory; so also is the resurrection of the dead,” says the same as Daniel, having taken this thought from his prophecy. One might ask, then, how they speak of a difference in the light of the righteous, while the Saviour says the opposite: “They will shine as one sun.” I suppose, then, that at the beginning of the blessedness of those who are saved, because those who are not such have not yet been purified, there is the difference in the light of those who are saved; but when, as we have explained, all the stumbling blocks are gathered out of the whole kingdom of Christ, and the thoughts that do lawlessness are cast into the furnace of fire, and the worse things are consumed, and when, as this happens, those who received the words that are children of the evil one come to awareness, then the righteous, having become one light like the sun, will shine in the kingdom of their Father. But for whom will they shine? Or will those below them enjoy their light, as the sun now shines for those on earth? For surely they will not shine for themselves. But perhaps also “Let your light shine before men” can be written threefold on the breadth of the heart, according to what was said by Solomon, so that the light of Jesus’ disciples shines now before the rest of men, and after their departure before the resurrection, and after the resurrection, until all attain to a perfect man and all become one sun; then they will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. On the parable of the treasure hidden in the field.

“Again, the kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in the field, which a man found and hid.” The earlier parables he spoke to the crowds; but this one and the two that follow it, which are not parables but similitudes of the kingdom of heaven, he seems to have spoken to the disciples when he was in the house. Concerning this one and the two that follow, let the attentive reader examine whether they are not parables at all. For in those cases Scripture did not hesitate to prefix the name “parable” to each one, but in these it has not done so. And it did this with reason. For if he spoke to the crowds in parables, and “all these things he spoke in parables, and without a parable he did not speak to them,” but when he has gone into the house he converses not with the crowds but with the disciples who came to him there, it is clear that the things spoken in the house are not parables; for to those outside he speaks in parables, and to those to whom “it has not been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven.” Someone will say, then: “If these are not parables, what are they?” Perhaps, following the wording of Scripture, we shall say that they are similitudes. A similitude differs from a parable; for it is written in Mark: “To what shall we liken the kingdom of God, or in what parable shall we set it?” From this it is shown that there is a difference between a similitude and a parable. It seems, then, that the similitude is generic and the parable specific. And perhaps the similitude, being the most generic, the genus of the parable, contains among its species both the parable and a similitude that bears the same name as the genus. This happens in other cases too, as those skilled in the assigning of names have observed: they say that “impulse” is the most generic of many species, such as repulsion and impulse, and that in the species “impulse” is used homonymously with the genus, in contrast to repulsion.

Here too we must inquire separately about the field and separately about the treasure hidden in it, and in what way the man, having found this hidden treasure, goes away from joy and sells all that he has in order to buy that field. We must also inquire what the things are that he sells. It seems to me, then, that in these terms the field is the Scripture, planted with the plain words of the literal account, of the law, of the prophets, and with the other thoughts; for the planting of the words of the whole Scripture is great and varied. And the treasure hidden in the field is the thoughts hidden and lying beneath the plain ones, of the wisdom hidden in a mystery, and in Christ, “in whom are hidden the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” Another might say that the field is the one truly full, which the Lord blessed, the Christ of God, and that the treasure hidden in him is what Paul says is hidden in Christ, when he says of Christ: “In whom are hidden the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” The heavenly realities, therefore, and the kingdom of heaven, are written as in an image in the Scriptures, which are the kingdom of heaven; or else Christ himself, the king of the ages, is the kingdom of heaven, likened to treasure hidden in the field.

When you come to the passage, you will inquire whether the kingdom of heaven is likened only to the treasure hidden in the field, so that the field is understood as something other than the kingdom; or whether it is likened to this whole, treasure hidden in the field, so that the kingdom of heaven, according to the similitude, includes both the field and the treasure hidden in the field. Now a man who comes to the field, whether the Scriptures or the Christ who is made up of things manifest and things hidden, finds the hidden treasure of wisdom, whether in Christ or in the Scriptures. For going about the field, searching the Scriptures and seeking to understand Christ, he finds the treasure in it; and having found it he hides it, thinking it not without danger to disclose to just anyone the secret meanings of the Scriptures or the treasures of wisdom and knowledge in Christ. And having hidden it he goes away, working out how he may buy the field, that is, the Scriptures, to make them his own possession, receiving from those of God the oracles of God with which the Jews were first entrusted. And when the one who has become Christ’s disciple buys the field, “the kingdom of God is taken” from them—which in another parable is a vineyard—“and is given to a nation producing its fruits,” to the one who bought the field by faith, having sold all his possessions and no longer keeping with him anything of what he possessed before; and what he possessed was wickedness. You will apply the same if the field that has the hidden treasure is Christ. For those who left everything and followed him have, as it were, in another sense sold their possessions, so that, having sold and given up those things, and having received in their place from God a good choice of will, being helped by him, they may buy, at the great price that the field is worth, the field that has the treasure hidden in …

“Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seeking fine pearls.” Since, although there are many merchants trading in many things, the kingdom of heaven is like none of them, but like the one seeking fine pearls, who found one pearl worth the many, a very precious pearl, which he bought in exchange for all, I think it reasonable to examine the nature of the pearl. Observe carefully that he did not say that he sold all the pearls he had; for the one seeking fine pearls sold not only those he had bought but also everything he had, in order to buy that pearl. Now we have found the following about the nature of the pearl among those who have written on stones. Of pearls some are of the land and some of the sea. Those of the land occur only among the Indians and are suited for signets, settings and necklaces. Of the sea pearls, the superior ones are found among the same Indians; they are also the best, and occur in the Red Sea. Second among pearls are those taken from the Ocean off Britain; and third, falling short not only of the first but also of the second, are those found at the Bosporus near Scythia. Further, this was said of the Indian pearl: that it is formed in shells resembling in nature large spiral sea snails. These, it is recorded, feed in the sea as if in troops, as though led by a herd leader, conspicuous in colour and size and different from those under it, so that it is analogous to what is called the king of the bees. It is also recorded about the catching of the superior ones, that is, those in India, that the inhabitants surround a great circle of the shore with nets and dive down, aiming to take out of them all the one that leads; for when this is caught, they say, the catching of the herd under it becomes effortless, none of those under it staying still any longer, but each following the herd leader as though bound by a thong. It is said also that the formation of the pearls in India takes time, the creature undergoing many turns and changes until it is perfected. And this too is recorded: that the shell of the creature that bears the pearl opens as if yawning and, when opened, receives the heavenly dew into itself; when it is filled with dew that is pure and unclouded, it becomes radiant and gives birth to a large and well-proportioned stone. But if it ever receives darkened, irregular and wintry dew, it conceives a cloudy pearl, blemished with spots. And this too we have found: that if, while it is advancing toward the completion of the stone it carries, it is intercepted by lightning, it closes, and as if from fright scatters and pours out its offspring into what are called blisters. Sometimes small ones are born, as if prematurely, with something of cloudiness, but well-proportioned. Further, the Indian pearl has this beyond the others: it is white in colour, like translucent silver, gently shining with a faintly greenish gleam, and generally round in shape; it is also of delicate colour and softer than a stone. It is so delightful to see that, as the writer on stones said, it is praised among the more eminent. And this too is a sign of the best pearl: that its circumference is as if turned on a lathe, its colour whitest and most translucent, and its size the greatest. So much for the Indian pearl. The one from Britain, they say, has a golden surface colour, but is somewhat cloudy and duller in its sparkle; the one in the strait at the Bosporus is darker than the British, livid, quite dim, soft and elongated. And the pearl in the strait at the Bosporus is formed not in the pinnae, a kind of pearl-bearing shellfish, … but in those called mussels; and for these, I mean those at the Bosporus, the feeding ground is in marshes. A fourth kind of pearl is recorded around Acarnania, in the pinnae among the oysters; these are not very good, but irregular in shape and quite turbid and dirty in colour. And there are others besides these around the same Acarnania, to be rejected on every count.

Having gathered these things from the treatise on stones, I say that the Saviour, knowing the difference among pearls, of which in the one kind some are fine and others base, said: “The kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seeking the fine pearls.” For if some pearls were not also base, it would not have been said, “seeking fine pearls.” Among words of every sort that profess the truth, and among those who bring them, he seeks the pearls. And let the shells that conceive from the heavenly dew and become pregnant with the word of truth from heaven be—if I may so name them—the prophets: these are the fine pearls which the merchant in the present text seeks. And the herd leader of the pearls, with whose finding the others are found together, the very precious pearl, is the Christ of God, the Word who surpasses the precious letters and thoughts of the law and the prophets; when he has been found, all the others too are easily taken. The Saviour converses with all the disciples as with merchants who not only seek the fine pearls but have also found them and possess them, where he says: “Do not throw your pearls before the swine.” That this was said to the disciples is clear from what precedes those words: “Seeing the crowds, he went up on the mountain, and when he sat down his disciples came to him”; for in the sequence of those words it is said: “Do not give what is holy to the dogs, nor throw your pearls before the swine.” Perhaps, then, the one who does not have pearls, or the very precious pearl, is not even a disciple of the Saviour—fine pearls, I mean, not the cloudy or the misty, such as are the words of the heterodox, which are born not toward the east but toward the west or the north, if we must also take this into account because of the difference we found in pearls born in different places. And perhaps the turbid words and the heresies wrapped up in the works of the flesh are the misty pearls, and those born in marshes, which are not fine.

You will connect with the one seeking fine pearls the saying, “Seek, and you will find,” and this: “Everyone who seeks finds.” For what are you seeking? Or what does everyone who seeks find? I will venture to say: the pearls, and the pearl which the one who has given all and suffered the loss of all acquires; the one on account of whom Paul says, “I have suffered the loss of all things, that I may gain Christ,” meaning by “all things” the fine pearls, and by “that I may gain Christ” the one very precious pearl. A lamp, then, is precious to those in darkness, and there is need of a lamp until the sun rises; and precious too is the glory on the face of Moses—and, I think, of the prophets as well—and a fine sight, by which we are led on so as to be able to see the glory of Christ, to whom the Father bears witness, saying, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” But “what was glorified has not been glorified in this respect because of the glory that surpasses it”; and we need first the glory that admits of being done away, for the sake of the glory that surpasses it, as we need the knowledge that is in part, which will be done away when the perfect comes. Every soul, then, that comes into infancy and is travelling toward perfection needs, until the fullness of time comes upon it, a tutor, stewards and guardians, so that after all these things the one who formerly differed in nothing from a slave, though he is lord of all, may, set free from tutor, stewards and guardians, receive his father’s inheritance—which corresponds to the very precious pearl and to the perfect that comes and does away with what is in part—when one is able to contain the surpassing worth of the knowledge of Christ, having first been exercised in the kinds of knowledge that are, if I may so put it, surpassed by the knowledge of Christ. But the many, not having understood the beauty of the many pearls of the law and the knowledge, still in part, of all prophecy, think that without these being made clear and fully grasped they can find the one very precious pearl and behold the surpassing worth of the knowledge of Christ Jesus, in comparison with which all things that come before such great and lofty knowledge—not being refuse by their own nature—appear as refuse; they are perhaps the dung put round the fig tree by the vinedresser, which is the cause of its bearing fruit.

For all things, then, there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven; there is a time to gather the fine pearl stones, and a time, after gathering them, to find one very precious pearl, when it is fitting for one to go away and sell all that he has in order to buy that pearl. For just as everyone who is to become wise in the words of truth must first be taught the elements, and pass through the elementary teaching more fully, and value it highly—yet not remain in the elements, as one who honoured them at the beginning, but having passed on to perfection, be grateful for the introduction as having been useful at the earlier stage—so the things of the law and the prophets, when perfectly understood, are an elementary teaching toward the perfect understanding of the Gospel and of the whole meaning of the works and words of Christ Jesus.

“Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was cast into the sea.” In portraits and statues the likenesses are not likenesses in every respect of the things of which they are made. A portrait painted in wax on a flat wooden board, for example, has the likeness of the surface with its colour, but no longer preserves the depressions and projections, only an appearance of them; the moulding of statues tries to preserve the likeness in the depressions and projections, but no longer in colour; and if a wax cast is made, it tries to preserve both—I mean both the colour and the hollows and projections—but it is not an image of what lies in depth. So too, I would have you understand, in the similitudes of the Gospel the kingdom of heaven, when it is likened to something, is likened not in all the features of the thing to which it is compared, but in those which the subject in hand requires. Here too, then, “the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was cast into the sea,” not, as some think who distort the passage, so as to show that there are different underlying natures among the wicked and righteous who have come into the net, so that because of “gathering from every kind” one should think there are many different natures of the righteous, and likewise of the wicked. For all the Scriptures that show free will stand against such an interpretation, blaming those who sin and approving those who do right; for blame would not justly follow those who belong to such kinds by nature, nor praise those of the better kinds. For the cause of fish being bad or good does not lie in the souls of the fish, but in that which the Word knew when he said, “Let the waters bring forth creeping things that have living souls,” when also “God made the great sea creatures and every soul of living creeping things, which the waters brought forth according to their kinds.” There, then, the waters brought forth every soul of living creeping things according to their kinds, the cause not lying in the soul itself; but here it is we who are the cause of being good kinds, worthy of what are called vessels, or rotten and worthy to be cast out. For it is not nature in us that is the cause of wickedness but deliberate choice, which works evil; and so neither is nature the cause of righteousness, as if it could not admit unrighteousness, but the word which we have received, which makes men righteous. For one cannot see the kinds of water creatures changing from bad fish, as fish go, to good, or from the better to the worse; but among men one can always see the righteous or the wicked either arriving at virtue from wickedness, or falling away from progress toward virtue into the flood of wickedness. That is why in Ezekiel this is written concerning the one who turns from lawlessness to keeping the divine commandments: “And the lawless man, if he turns from all his lawless deeds which he has done,” and so on as far as “that he turn from his wicked way and live”; and concerning the one who falls away from progress toward virtue into the flood of wickedness, this: “But when a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits unrighteousness,” and so on as far as “and in his sins which he has sinned, in them he shall die.” Let those who introduce natures on the strength of the parable of the net tell us: the lawless man who later turns from all his lawless deeds which he has done, and keeps the commandments of the Lord, and does righteousness and mercy—of what nature was he when he was lawless? Surely not of the praiseworthy one. But if of the blameworthy, of what nature could he reasonably be said to be when he turns from all his lawless deeds which he has done? If of the bad nature because of his former deeds, how did he change to the better? If of the good nature because of his later deeds, how, being of a good nature, was he lawless? You will raise the same difficulty about the righteous man who turns from his righteousness and commits unrighteousness in all the lawless deeds. For before he turned from righteousness, while he was engaged in righteous works, he was not of a bad nature; a bad nature could not be in righteousness, since a bad tree—wickedness—cannot produce good fruits, the fruits of virtue. And again, if he were of a good and unchangeable nature, he would not have turned from the good, after having been called righteous, from his righteousness to commit unrighteousness in all the lawless deeds which he did.

With this said, we must suppose that “the kingdom of heaven is likened to a net that was cast into the sea and gathered from every kind” to show the variety of choices among men, which differ from one another as widely as can be, so that “gathering from every kind” means those who are praiseworthy and blameworthy in their inclinations toward the kinds of virtues or of vices. And the kingdom of heaven was likened to a net of varied weave because of the Old and New Scripture, woven of thoughts of every sort and variety. Just as of the fish that fall into the net some are found in these parts of the net and others in others, each in the part by which it has been caught, so you would find of those who have come into the net of the Scriptures that some are caught in the prophetic weave—say, of Isaiah in this passage, or of Jeremiah, or of Daniel—others in the weave of the law, others in that of the Gospel, and some in that of the apostles. For when someone is first caught by the Word, or seems to be caught, he is taken from some part of the whole net. And there is nothing strange if some of the fish caught are enclosed by the whole weave of the net in the Scriptures, and are held and gripped on every side, unable to escape, but, as it were, made captive from every side and not allowed to fall out of the net. This net has been cast into the sea, that is, into the life of men tossed by waves everywhere in the inhabited world and swimming in the bitter affairs of life. Before our Saviour Jesus this net was not wholly complete; for the weave of the law and the prophets lacked the one who said, “Do not think that I came to abolish the law; I did not come to abolish the prophets but to fulfil.” And the weave of the net has been completed in the Gospels and in the words of Christ through the apostles. For this reason, then, “the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was cast into the sea and gathered from every kind.” Besides what has been said, “gathering from every kind” can also indicate the calling of every race of the nations. Those who serve the net cast into the sea are Jesus Christ, the lord of the net, and “the angels who came and served him”; they do not draw the net up out of the sea, nor bring it to the shore outside it—the things outside this life—until the net is filled, that is, until “the fullness of the Gentiles has come in” to it. But when it has come in, then they draw it up from the things here below and bring it to what is figuratively called the shore. There it will be the task of those who drew it up to sit down by the shore and settle themselves there, so that they may set each of the good things in the net in its own rank, according to what are here called their vessels, and cast out those of the opposite kind, which are called rotten. The “outside” is the furnace of fire, as the Saviour explained, saying: “So it will be at the consummation of the age: the angels will come out and separate the wicked from the midst of the righteous, and will cast them into the furnace of fire.” Note, however, that already through the parable of the weeds and through the present similitude we are taught that angels are to be entrusted with judging and separating the bad from the righteous. For above it is said, “The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all stumbling blocks and those who do lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth”; and here …

It does not follow from this, as some think, that the men saved in Christ are better even than the holy angels. For how can those who are cast into vessels by the angels be compared with those who cast them into the vessels, being placed under their authority? We say this not unaware that the men who will be saved in Christ surpass some angels, those who have not been entrusted with such a stewardship—though not even all of these. For we have read: “Into which angels long to look,” where it is not said “all angels.” We know also: “We shall judge angels,” where it is not said “all angels.” Since these things are written about the net and those in the net, the one who wants that, before the consummation of the age and before the angels come out and separate the wicked from the midst of the righteous, there should be no wicked of every kind in the net, seems not to have understood the Scripture and to desire the impossible. So let us not be surprised if, before the wicked are separated from the midst of the righteous by the angels sent out for this, we see our assemblies filled with wicked people too. But may those who will be cast into the furnace of fire not be more numerous than the righteous! And since we said at the beginning that parables and similitudes are not taken in respect of everything with which they are compared or likened, but in respect of certain things, this must be shown also from what follows. For in the case of the fish, as regards their life, it is something bad that befalls them to be found in the net; for they are deprived of the life natural to them, and whether thrown into vessels or outside they suffer nothing more than losing the life of fish. But in the case of those for whom the parable is taken, it is bad to be in the sea and not to come into the net so as to be cast into vessels with the good. So bad fish are cast out and thrown away; but those who are bad according to the present similitude are cast into the furnace of fire, so that what is said in Ezekiel about the furnace may reach them too: “And the word of the Lord came to me, saying, Son of man, behold, the house of Israel has become to me all mixed with bronze and iron,” and so on as far as “and you will know that I the Lord have poured out my wrath upon you.”

“Have you understood all these things? They say, Yes.” Christ Jesus, who knows what is in the hearts of men, as John taught about this too in his Gospel, does not ask out of ignorance; but having once taken up manhood, he uses all that belongs to it, one part of which is asking. And it is not surprising that the Saviour does this, since even the God of all, bearing with men as a man might bear with his son, inquires, as in “Adam, where are you?” and “Where is Abel your brother?” But someone forcing the text here will say that “you have understood” is said not as a question but as a statement; and he will say that the disciples, bearing witness to his statement, say to him, “Yes.” However, whether he asks or states, it was necessary to say, not just “these things,” which is demonstrative, nor just “all,” but “all these things.” He seems now to show that the disciples had become scribes before the kingdom of heaven. But against this will stand what is said in the Acts of the Apostles in this way: “When they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlettered and common men, they were amazed, and recognized that they had been with Jesus.” Someone might ask, then: if they were scribes, how are they called unlettered and common in the Acts? And if they were unlettered and common, how are they most plainly named scribes by the Saviour? To what has been asked it might be said, either that not all, but Peter and John, are called unlettered and common in the Acts, while the disciples were more numerous, and to them, since they understood all, was said “Every scribe,” and so on; or that everyone who has been instructed in the teaching according to the letter of the law is called a scribe, so that those who are unlettered and common but are led by the letter of the law are called scribes in a certain sense. Indeed it belongs above all to common men, who do not know how to interpret figuratively, nor understand the anagogical sense of the Scriptures, but believe the bare letter and defend it, to be called scribes. In this way someone will also explain “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites,” as said to everyone who knows nothing but the letter. Here you will inquire whether, just as there is a scribe of the law, so there is also a scribe of the Gospel; and whether, just as one reads, hears and speaks the law, “which things are an allegory,” so also the Gospel; so as to know, while the literal account of what happened is preserved, the unerring anagogical sense that leads to spiritual things—not lessons of “the spiritual hosts of wickedness,” but, contrary to the spiritual hosts of wickedness, spiritual things of goodness. A scribe is made a disciple to the kingdom of heaven, in the simpler sense, when someone comes from Judaism and takes up the church’s teaching of Jesus Christ; in the deeper sense, when someone, having received the introductions given through the letter of the Scriptures, ascends to the spiritual things, which are named the kingdom of heaven. And with every thought that is attained, rightly understood in its ascent, set forth and proved, one can conceive the kingdom of heaven, so that the one who abounds in true knowledge comes to be in the kingdom of the multitude of heavens thus explained. In this way you will also interpret figuratively “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has drawn near,” so that the scribes, that is, those who rest on the bare letter, repenting of such an interpretation, may be made disciples by the spiritual teaching given through Jesus Christ, the living Word, which is called the kingdom of heaven. That is why, as long as Jesus Christ, the God Word who was in the beginning with God, does not dwell in a soul, the kingdom of heaven is not in it; but when someone comes near to containing the Word, to him the kingdom of heaven draws near. And if the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God are the same in reality, even if not in concept, then clearly to those to whom it is said, “The kingdom of God is within you,” it could also be said, “The kingdom of heaven is within you,” and above all because of the turning from the letter to the spirit; for “when one turns to the Lord, the veil over the letter is taken away; and the Lord is the Spirit.” The true householder is both free and rich; rich because, from being a scribe, he has been made a disciple to the kingdom of heaven, in every word of the Old Testament and in all knowledge of the new teaching of Christ Jesus; and he has this wealth laid up in his treasure, which he stores up, as one made a disciple to the kingdom of heaven, in heaven, “where neither moth consumes nor thieves break in.” Indeed one may truly define the one who, as we have explained, stores up treasure in heaven as one whose spiritual and heavenly riches not a single moth of the passions can touch. I said “moth of the passions” taking occasion from the Proverbs, where it is written: “As a worm in wood, so grief harms a man’s heart.” For grief is a worm and a moth, harming the heart that does not have its treasures in heaven and in spiritual things; but whoever stores up treasure there, since “where the treasure is, there is the heart also,” has his heart in heaven, and because of it he says: “Though an army encamp against me, my heart shall not fear.” So neither can the thieves, of whom the Saviour said, “All who came before me are thieves and robbers,” break into what is stored up in heaven, nor into the heart present with it, which therefore says: “He raised us up with him and made us sit with him in the heavenly places in Christ,” and, “Our citizenship is in heaven.”

Since “every scribe who has been made a disciple to the kingdom of heaven is like a householder,” clearly also, by what is called the conversion of the proposition, everyone who does not bring out of his treasure things new and old is not a scribe made a disciple to the kingdom of heaven. We must try, then, in every way to gather in our heart, by attending to reading, to exhortation, to teaching, and by meditating “on the law of the Lord day and night,” not only the new oracles of the Gospels, of the apostles and of their Revelation, but also the old things of the law that has a shadow of the good things to come, and of the prophets who prophesied in accordance with it. And these will be gathered when we both read and know them, and, keeping them in memory, compare spiritual things with spiritual at the right time—not comparing things that cannot be compared with one another, but things comparable, which have some likeness of wording with the same meaning, and of thoughts and doctrines—so that on the mouth of two or three or even more witnesses from Scripture we may establish and confirm every word of God. Through these words we must also put to shame those who, as far as in them lies, divide the Godhead and cut off the new things from the old, as being far from likeness to the householder who brings out of his treasure things new and old. And since one who is likened to someone is other than the one to whom he is likened, the one likened will be the scribe made a disciple to the kingdom of heaven, and other than he the householder who brings out of his treasure things new and old. And the one likened to him, as imitating him, wishes to do the like. Perhaps, then, the householder is Jesus himself, who brings out of his treasure, at the time of his teaching, new things—the spiritual things, always renewed by him in the inner man of the righteous, who are always “renewed day by day”—and old things, those engraved in letters on stones and on the stony hearts of the old man, so that by comparing the letter and setting forth the spirit he may enrich the scribe made a disciple to the kingdom of heaven and make him like himself, until the disciple becomes like the teacher, imitating first the imitator of Christ, and after him Christ himself, according to what Paul said: “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.” More simply, Jesus the householder can be said to bring out of his treasure new things, the teaching of the Gospel, and old things, the comparison of texts taken from the law and the prophets, examples of which can be found in the Gospels. Concerning these old and new things we must also listen to the spiritual law, which says in Leviticus: “And you shall eat old things, and old things of old things, and you shall bring out the old because of the new, and I will set my tabernacle among you.” For we eat with blessing the old things, the words of the prophets, and the old things of these old things, the words of the law; and when the new things of the Gospel have come, living according to the Gospel, we bring out the old things of the letter because of the new; and he sets his tabernacle among us, fulfilling the promise he spoke: “I will dwell and walk among them.”

“And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these parables, he went away from there; and coming into his own country …” Since above we examined whether the things spoken to the crowds were parables and those spoken to the disciples similitudes, and set out the observations that occurred to us on this, which are, I think, not to be despised, we must know that all of them will seem to be contradicted by the fact that “And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these parables, he went away from there” is said not only of the parables but also of what we have explained as similitudes. We ask, then, whether all that must be set aside; or whether we must speak of two kinds of parables, those spoken to the crowds and those announced to the disciples; or whether we must consider the name “parable” homonymous; or whether “It came to pass, when Jesus had finished these parables” must be referred only to the parables above, those before the similitudes. For because of “To you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to the rest in parables,” it is not possible to say that the Saviour spoke in parables to the disciples, since they were not among those outside. It follows from this, then, either that “It came to pass, when Jesus had finished these parables, he went away from there” refers to the parables spoken first, or that the name “parable” is homonymous, or that there are two kinds of parables, or that what we have named similitudes are not parables at all. Note that he speaks the parables outside his own country; and “when he had finished them, he went away from there, and coming into his own country he taught them in their synagogue.” And Mark says: “And he came into his own country, and his disciples follow him.” We must inquire, then, also according to the wording, whether by his own country he means Nazareth or Bethlehem: Nazareth because of “He shall be called a Nazarene,” Bethlehem since he was born there. I further consider whether the evangelists, though they could have said “coming into Bethlehem” or “coming into Nazareth,” did not do so, but named it “his country,” because something is indicated mystically in the passage about his country, namely the whole of Judea, in which he was dishonoured, according to the saying, “A prophet is not without honour except in his own country.” And if one considers Jesus Christ—“to the Jews a stumbling block,” among whom he is persecuted to this day, but preached and believed among the Gentiles (for his word has run to the whole earth)—he will see that Jesus had no honour in his own country, but is honoured among “the strangers to the covenants,” the Gentiles. What he said when he taught in their synagogue the evangelists have not recorded, but only that it was so great and of such a kind that all were astonished; and it is likely that what was said was beyond writing. However, he taught in their synagogue, not separating from it nor setting it aside …

But “Where did this man get this wisdom?” clearly shows the greater and exceptional wisdom of the words of Jesus, worthy of “And behold, something greater than Solomon is here”; and he did greater mighty works than those done through Elijah and Elisha, and still earlier through Moses and Joshua the son of Nun. Those who marvelled spoke, not knowing that he was the son of a virgin, nor believing it even if it was said, but supposing him to be the son of Joseph the carpenter: “Is not this the carpenter’s son?” And belittling the whole of what appeared to be his nearest kin, they said: “Is not his mother called Mary? And his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?” They thought, then, that he was the son of Joseph and Mary. As for the brothers of Jesus, some say, basing themselves on a tradition of the Gospel entitled “according to Peter,” or of the Book of James, that they were sons of Joseph by a former wife who had lived with him before Mary. Those who say this wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity to the end, so that that body which was chosen to serve the Word that said, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you,” might not know the bed of a man after the Holy Spirit had come upon her and the power from on high had overshadowed her. And I think it reasonable that Jesus became the firstfruits of the purity that consists in chastity among men, and Mary among women; for it is not fitting to ascribe the firstfruits of virginity to any other woman than her. This James is the one whom Paul says he saw, in the Epistle to the Galatians, saying: “But I saw none of the other apostles except James the brother of the Lord.” This James was so renowned among the people for righteousness that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the Jewish Antiquities in twenty books, wishing to set out the cause of the people’s having suffered so much that even the temple was razed, said that these things befell them by the wrath of God because of what they had dared against James the brother of Jesus who was called Christ. And the remarkable thing is that, though he did not accept our Jesus as Christ, he nonetheless bore witness to such great righteousness in James. He says that the people too thought they had suffered these things because of James. And Jude wrote an epistle of few lines, but filled with the strong words of heavenly grace, who said in the opening: “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James.” Of Joseph and Simon we have learned nothing. But “And his sisters, are they not all with us?” seems to me to mean something like this: they think as we do, not as Jesus does, and have nothing strange of exceptional understanding as Jesus has. But perhaps through these words a doubt is expressed whether Jesus was even a man, and not something more divine, being, as they supposed, the son of Joseph and Mary and the brother of four, and of other women besides, yet having nothing like any of his kin, and having come to such wisdom and power not from education and teaching either. For elsewhere too they say: “How does this man know letters, having never studied?” What is said here is similar. Yet those who said this, and doubted so much and were astonished, did not believe, but “took offence at him,” as though the eyes of their understanding were held by the powers which he was to triumph over on the tree at the time of his passion.

“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.

“When it was evening, his disciples came to him,” that is, at the consummation of the age, concerning which it is fitting to say what is in the Epistle of John: “It is the last hour.” Not yet understanding what the Word was about to do, they say to him that “the place is desert,” seeing the desolation of God, of the law, and of the Word among the many; and they say to him, “And the hour is past,” as though the fit time of the law and the prophets had passed. And perhaps they said this referring also to John’s having been beheaded, and to the law and the prophets, which were until John, having ceased. “The hour is past,” then, they say, “and there is no food at hand, since its time is no longer present, so that those who followed you into the desert might serve the law and the prophets.” And further the disciples say: “Send them away, then, so that each, if he cannot buy food from the cities, may at least buy it from the villages,” the meaner places. The disciples said this because they despaired that unexpected and new foods would be found for the crowds after the letter of the law had been abolished and prophecy had ceased. But see what Jesus answers the disciples, all but crying out and saying plainly: “You suppose that if the great crowd go away from me in need of food, they will find it in villages rather than with me, and in communities of men who are not citizens but villagers, rather than by staying with me; but I declare to you that what you suppose they need, they do not need, for they have no need to go away; but what you think they do not need, that is, me, as though I could not feed them, of this, contrary to your expectation, they have need. Since, then, having trained you, I have made you competent to give rational food to those who need it, you give the crowds that have followed me something to eat; for you have the power, received from me, to give the crowds to eat; and if you had paid attention to it, you would have perceived that I am much more able to feed them, and you would not have said: ‘Send the crowds away, that they may go and buy themselves food.’”

Jesus, then, because of the power he had given the disciples, the power of nourishing others too, said: “You give them something to eat.” They did not deny that they could give loaves, but thought them far too few and not enough to feed those who had followed Jesus; and not perceiving that Jesus, taking each loaf, a word, extends it as far as he wishes, making it suffice for all whom he wishes to feed, they say: “We have here only five loaves and two fish”; perhaps hinting that the five loaves are the sense-perceptible words of the Scriptures, and are therefore equal in number to the five senses; and the two fish either the spoken word and the word within the mind, being like a relish to the sense-perceptible things set down in the Scriptures, or perhaps the word about the Father and the Son that had reached them. Therefore he himself, after he rose, also ate of a broiled fish, taking a portion from the disciples and accepting the account of the Father which they were able to declare to him in part. We, then, have been able to approach the account of the five loaves and the two fish in this way; but it is likely that those who are better able than we to gather the five loaves and the two fish within themselves could give a fuller and better sense of them. It must be observed, however, that in Matthew, Mark, and Luke the disciples say that they have the five loaves and the two fish, without indicating whether they were of wheat or of barley; John alone said that the loaves were barley. Therefore perhaps in John’s Gospel the disciples do not even acknowledge that they have them themselves, but say to him: “There is a lad here who has five barley loaves and two small fish.” And as long as these five loaves and two fish were not carried by Jesus’ disciples, they did not grow or multiply, and could not feed more people; but when the Saviour took them, first he looked up to heaven, as though bringing down power from there by the rays of his eyes, to be mingled with the loaves and the fish that were to feed the five thousand; and after this he blessed the five loaves and the two fish, increasing and multiplying them by the word and the blessing; and third, dividing and breaking them, he gave them to the disciples for them to set before the crowds. Then the loaves and the fish sufficed, so that all ate and were filled, and some of the blessed loaves they could not eat. For so much was left over for the crowds, beyond the capacity of the crowds but within that of the disciples, who could take up what was left over of the fragments and put it into baskets filled with the leftovers, as many in number as the tribes of Israel. Now of Joseph it is written in the Psalms: “His hands served in the basket”; but of the disciples of Jesus, that the twelve took up what was left over of the fragments, twelve baskets, I think, not half full but full. And there are, I think, to this day and until the consummation of the age, the twelve full baskets of the fragments of the living bread, which the crowds cannot eat, with the disciples of Jesus, who are better than the crowds. And those who ate of the five loaves, before the twelve baskets that were left over, were akin to the number five: those who ate reached as far as the things of sense, since they too were fed by him who looked up to heaven, blessed the loaves, and broke them; and they were not children, nor women, but men. For there are, I think, differences even among foods of sense, so that some of them are for those “who have done away with childish things,” and others for those who are still infants and fleshly in Christ.

We have said these things because of the words: “Those who ate were five thousand men, besides children and women,” which is ambiguous: either those who ate were five thousand men, and there was no child or woman among those eating; or the men alone were five thousand, neither children nor women being counted. Some, then, as we said before, have taken it to mean that neither children nor women were present when the loaves and fish were increased and multiplied from the five loaves and the two fish. But one might say that, when many ate and partook of the loaves of blessing according to their worth and capacity, those worthy of being numbered, like those numbered in the book of Numbers from twenty years old, were Israelite men; but those not worthy of such an account and numbering were children and women. And I take the children figuratively according to “I could not speak to you as to spiritual people, but as to fleshly, as to infants in Christ”; the women according to “I wish to present you all as a pure virgin to Christ”; and the men according to “When I became a man, I did away with childish things.” Let us not pass over unexplained this either: “Commanding the crowds to recline on the grass, he took the five loaves and the two fish, looked up to heaven, and blessed; and having broken the loaves he gave them to the disciples, and the disciples to the crowds; and all ate.” For what might “And he commanded all the crowds to recline on the grass” mean, and what is it worth understanding about Jesus’ command in this passage? I think that he commanded the crowds to recline on the grass because of what is said in Isaiah, “All flesh is grass,” that is, to put the flesh underneath and to subject “the mind of the flesh,” so that one may thus be able to partake of the loaves that Jesus blesses. Then, since there are different ranks among those who need the food that comes from Jesus, not all being fed with the same words, for this reason, I think, Mark wrote: “And he commanded them all to recline by companies on the green grass, and they sat down in groups of hundreds and of fifties”; and Luke: “And he said to his disciples, Make them recline in companies of about fifty each.” For those who were to rest upon Jesus’ foods had to be either in the rank of the hundred, a sacred number, dedicated to God because of the unit, or in the rank of the fifty, a number that contains release, according to the mystery of the jubilee, which comes every fifty years, and of the feast of Pentecost. And I think that the twelve baskets were with the disciples, to whom it was said: “You will sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” And just as it might be said to be a mystery that there is a throne of one judging the tribe of Reuben, a throne of one judging the tribe of Simeon, another judging the tribe of Judah, and so on in order, so there might be a basket of food for Reuben, another for Simeon, and another for Levi. But it does not suit the present discourse to depart so far now from the subject before us as to gather what concerns the twelve tribes, and separately what concerns each of them, and to say what each tribe of Israel is.

“And immediately he compelled the disciples to get into the boat and go before him to the other side, until he should send the crowds away.” We must observe how often in the same passages the name “the crowds” occurs, and another name, “the disciples,” so that from observing and collecting this it may be seen that the evangelists’ purpose was to set out through the Gospel narrative the differences among those who come to Jesus: some of them are crowds and are not called disciples, while others are the disciples, who are better than the crowds. For the present it is enough for us to set out a few texts, so that someone, stirred by these, may do the like for the whole of the Gospels. It is written, then, as though the crowds were below, while the disciples could come to Jesus when he had gone up the mountain, where the crowds were not able to be, as follows: “Seeing the crowds, he went up the mountain; and when he had sat down, his disciples came to him; and opening his mouth he taught them, saying, Blessed are the poor in spirit,” and so on. And again in another place, as though the crowds needed healing, it is said: “Many crowds followed him, and he healed them.” But we have not found healing recorded of disciples; for if anyone is already a disciple of Jesus, he is healthy, and being well he needs Jesus not as a physician but according to his other powers. Again in another place: “While he was speaking to the crowds, his mother and his brothers stood outside, seeking to speak to him”; this was made known to him, and he answered the one who told him, “stretching out his hand,” not toward the crowds, but “toward the disciples, and he said, Here are my mother and my brothers”; and, bearing witness to the disciples that they do the will of the Father in heaven: “He is my brother and sister and mother.” And again in another place it is written that “the whole crowd stood on the shore, and he spoke many things to them in parables”; then after the parable of the sower it was no longer the crowds but the disciples who came and said to him, not “Why do you speak to us in parables?” but “Why do you speak to them in parables?”; when he also answered and said, not to the crowds but to the disciples: “To you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven,” but to the rest in parables. Therefore, of those who come to the name of Jesus, those who know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven would be called disciples; but those to whom this has not been given, crowds, who would be said to be inferior to the disciples. For notice carefully that he said to the disciples, “To you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven,” but of the crowds, “But to them it has not been given.” And in another place he dismisses the crowds “and goes into the house,” but not the disciples; and into his house there “came to him” not the crowds but “his disciples, saying, Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.” And in another place too, when Jesus, hearing what concerned John, “withdrew in a boat to a desert place apart, the crowds followed him,” when, “going out, he saw a great crowd, and had compassion on them, and healed their sick,” the sick of the crowds, not of the disciples. “When it was evening, there came to him” not the crowds but “the disciples, saying,” as being different from the crowds, “Send the crowds away, so that they may go into the villages and buy themselves food.” And also when, “taking the five loaves and the two fish, he looked up to heaven and blessed, and broke the loaves,” he gave them not to the crowds but “to the disciples,” so that the disciples might give them to the crowds, since they were not able to receive them from him, but scarcely received the loaves of Jesus’ blessing through the disciples; and they do not even eat all of these, for the crowds, having been filled, left what remained over in twelve full baskets.

The reason we have adduced these texts is the matter before us, that Jesus, separating the disciples from the crowds, “compelled them to get into the boat and go before him to the other side, until he himself should send the crowds away.” For the crowds could not go away to the other side, since they were not Hebrews in the mystical sense, a name interpreted as “those who cross over”; this was the work of Jesus’ disciples—I mean, to go away to the other side and pass beyond the things that are seen and bodily, as temporary, and to reach the things that are not seen and eternal. It was therefore a sufficient benefit, given to the crowds by Jesus, since, being crowds, they could not go away to the other side, to be sent away by Jesus; a dismissal that no one has authority to grant except Christ alone; and it is not possible for anyone to be sent away who has not first eaten of the loaves that Jesus blesses; and it is not possible to eat of the loaves of Jesus’ blessing without having done as Jesus commanded and reclined on the grass, as we have explained. But the crowds cannot do even this unless they have followed Jesus from their own cities when he withdrew to a desert place apart. And before, when asked by the disciples to send the crowds away, he did not send them away until he had fed them with the loaves of blessing; but now he sends them away, after the disciples have first been compelled to get into the boat; and he sends them away while they are somewhere below, for the desert is below; but he himself “went up the mountain to pray.” And this too must be observed: immediately after the five thousand had been fed, Jesus “compelled the disciples to get into the boat and go before him to the other side.” But the disciples were not able to go before Jesus to the other side; having reached the middle of the sea, the boat being tormented because the wind was against them, they were afraid, when Jesus came to them about the fourth watch of the night. And if Jesus had not gone up into the boat, the wind that opposed the disciples as they sailed would not have ceased, nor would those sailing have crossed over and come to the other side. And perhaps, wishing to teach them by experience that it is not possible to go away to the other side without him, he “compelled them to get into the boat and go before him to the other side”; and when they could not get beyond the middle of the sea, he appeared and did what is written, and showed that one who reaches the other side arrives there because Jesus sails with him. And what is the boat into which Jesus compelled the disciples to get? Perhaps the struggle of temptations and difficulties, into which a person comes when compelled by the Word, and as it were unwillingly, the Saviour wishing to train the disciples in this boat tormented by the waves of the contrary wind. And since Mark too has recorded “immediately he compelled the disciples to get into the boat and go before him to the other side” with a slight change of wording, writing, “And immediately he compelled his disciples to get into the boat and go before him to the other side, to Bethsaida,” it is necessary to consider the word “compelled,” once we have first looked at Mark’s slight variation, which indicates something more definite through the added word. For the same thing is not indicated by “immediately he compelled the disciples”: “his disciples,” as written in Mark, has something more than simply “the disciples.” Perhaps, then, to present it according to the wording too: the disciples, being hard to tear away from Jesus, cannot be separated from him for any ordinary reason, since they want to be with him; but he, having judged that they should have experience of waves and a contrary wind, which would not have happened if they had been with Jesus, laid on them the necessity of being separated from him and getting into a boat. The Saviour, then, compels the disciples to get into the boat of temptations and to go before him to the other side, and to come to be beyond difficulties by conquering them; but they, having come into the middle of the sea and of the waves in temptations, with the contrary winds hindering them from going away to the other side, struggled but could not without Jesus conquer the waves and the contrary wind and reach the other side. Therefore the Word, having pity on them, since they had done all in their power to reach the other side, came to them walking on the sea, which for him had no waves, nor any wind able to oppose him, even if it wished; for it is not written, “He came to them walking on the waves,” but “on the waters”; just as Peter, when at first Jesus said to him, “Come,” got down from the boat and walked, not on the waves, but “on the waters,” to come to Jesus; but when he doubted, he saw the wind as strong, which is not strong for one who has put away little faith and doubting. And when Jesus went up with Peter into the boat, the wind ceased, no longer able to do anything, since Jesus had gone up into it.

And then the disciples, “having crossed over, came to the land of Gennesaret”; if we knew the interpretation of this name, we might gain something from it for the explanation of the matter before us. But observe, since God is faithful and does not let the crowds be tempted beyond what they are able, how the Son of God compelled the disciples to get into the boat, as being stronger and able to reach the middle of the sea and to endure the torment of the waves, until they should become worthy of divine help, and see Jesus, and hear him, and, when he had gone up into the boat, “cross over and come to the land of Gennesaret”; but “having sent away the crowds,” who, being weaker, had no experience of boat and waves and contrary wind, “he went up the mountain by himself to pray.” And to pray for what? Perhaps for the crowds, that, having been sent away after the loaves of blessing, they might do nothing contrary to their dismissal by Jesus; and for the disciples, that, having been compelled by him to get into the boat and go before him to the other side, they might suffer no harm on the sea or from the contrary wind? And I would make bold to say that because of Jesus’ prayer to the Father for the disciples they suffered nothing, though sea and waves and contrary wind worked against them. Let the simpler person, then, be content with the narrative; but as for us, if ever we fall into the compulsion of temptations, let us remember that Jesus compelled us to get into their boat, wishing us to go before him to the other side. For it is not possible to reach the other side without enduring temptations of waves and contrary wind. Then, when we see the many hard things that surround us, and, struggling moderately, have swum through them for a while, let us reckon that our boat is in the middle of the sea, then tormented by the waves, which want us to suffer shipwreck concerning the faith or some one of the virtues; and when we see the spirit of the evil one working against our affairs, let us realize that then the wind is against us. When, then, suffering these things, we have passed through three watches of the night, of the darkness that is in temptations, struggling well as far as we can and guarding ourselves against shipwreck concerning the faith or some one of the virtues—the first watch against the father of darkness and wickedness, the second against his son, the adversary, “who exalts himself against everything called God or object of worship,” and the third against the spirit opposed to the Holy Spirit—then let us believe that, when the fourth watch has come, when “the night is far gone and the day is at hand,” the Son of God will come to us, to make the sea calm for us, walking on it. And when we see the Word appearing to us, we shall be troubled before we clearly grasp that the Saviour has come to us, thinking we still see a phantom, and in fear we shall cry out; but he himself will at once speak to us, saying: “Take heart, it is I; do not be afraid.” And if there is found among us a Peter, moved more warmly by “Take heart,” on the way to perfection but not yet become such, he will get down from the boat, as coming out of that temptation in which he was being tormented, and at first he will walk, wishing to come to Jesus on the waters; but being still of little faith and still doubting, he will see the strong wind, and will be afraid, and will begin to sink; yet he will not suffer this, because he calls on Jesus with a loud voice and says to him: “Lord, save me.” Then at once, while such a Peter is still speaking and saying, “Lord, save me,” the Word will stretch out his hand, extending help to such a one, and will take hold of him as he begins to sink, and will reproach him for his little faith and doubting. But observe that he did not say “faithless” but “you of little faith,” and that it is said, “Why did you doubt?”—as of one having something of faith, but inclining also toward its opposite.

And upon this both Jesus and Peter will go up into the boat, and the wind will cease; and those in the boat, perceiving from what dangers they have been brought safely through, will worship him, saying, not simply, “You are the Son of God,” as the two demoniacs also said, but “Truly you are the Son of God”; which the disciples in the boat say, for I do not think that any others than the disciples said this. And when we have come through all these things, having crossed over we shall come to the land to which Jesus commanded us to go before him. And perhaps some secret and hidden mystery is also indicated concerning some who have been saved by Jesus, in the words: “And when the men of that place recognized him”—clearly, of the place on the other side—“they sent into all that surrounding region”—the region around the other side, not the other side itself but around it—“and brought to him all who were sick.” And in this observe that they brought to him not only many “who were sick,” but “all” those in that region; and those brought to him, being sick, “begged him that they might only touch the fringe of his garment,” asking this grace from him, since they were not like “the woman with a flow of blood for twelve years, who came up behind and touched the fringe of his garment,” when she said in herself: “If I only touch his garment, I shall be saved.” For observe, in what is said about the fringe of his garment, for what reason the flow of her blood stopped at once. But those from the region around Gennesaret, to which Jesus and his disciples came when they had crossed over, did not come to Jesus of themselves, but were brought by those who sent word, since, being very sick, they could not come of themselves; nor did they touch the fringe on their own, as the woman with the flow of blood did, but at the request of those others. Yet of these too, “as many as touched were brought safely through.” And whether there is some difference between “were brought safely through,” said of these, and “to be saved”—for it was said to the woman with the flow of blood, “Your faith has saved you” … [Heading of the next chapter:] On the Pharisees and scribes who came and asked, “Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?”

“Then Pharisees and scribes came to him from Jerusalem, saying, Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.” One who observes at what time Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem, saying, “Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?” and so on, will know that Matthew necessarily did not simply record that the Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem came to the Saviour to ask him about the matters set out, but wrote: “Then they came to him from Jerusalem.” When, then, is “then” to be understood? When Jesus and his disciples had crossed over and come in the boat to the land of Gennesaret, the wind having ceased from the time Jesus went up into the boat; and when “the men of that place, recognizing him, sent into all that surrounding region, and brought to him all who were sick, and begged that they might only touch the fringe of his garment; and as many as touched were brought safely through.” At that time Pharisees and scribes came to him from Jerusalem, not struck with wonder at the power in Jesus that healed those who only touched the fringe of his garment, but, in a fault-finding spirit, bringing a charge before the teacher, not about a transgression of a commandment of God, but of one tradition of Jewish elders. And it is likely that this very charge of the fault-finders shows the piety of Jesus’ disciples, who gave the Pharisees and scribes no handle for blame as regards transgressing commandments of God; for they would not have brought against the disciples the charge of transgressing the commandment of the elders, if they had been able to fasten on those they accused and show them transgressing a commandment of God. But do not think that this establishes that the law of Moses must be kept according to the letter, because Jesus’ disciples kept it until then; for it was not before he suffered that he “redeemed us from the curse of the law,” he who in suffering for human beings “became a curse for us.” But just as Paul too fittingly “became a Jew to the Jews, in order to win Jews,” what is strange in the apostles, who spent their time among Jews, even if they understood the spiritual meaning of the law, using accommodation, as Paul too did when he circumcised Timothy and offered a sacrifice according to a vow under the law, as is written in the Acts of the Apostles? Yet again they appear fond of bringing charges, since they have nothing to charge Jesus’ disciples with concerning a commandment of God, but only concerning one tradition of elders; and their love of accusation shows itself especially in this, that they bring the charge in the presence of those healed of their sickness, seemingly against the disciples, but in truth intending to slander the teacher; and the washing was a tradition of the elders, held as necessary for piety. For they thought that the hands of those who had not washed before eating bread were common and unclean, but that the hands of those who washed them with water had become clean and holy—not symbolically, in a way corresponding to the law of Moses according to the letter. But we, not according to the tradition of the elders among them, but according to sound reason, try to purify our actions, and so to wash the hands of our souls, when we are about to eat the three loaves that we ask of Jesus, who wishes to be our friend; for we must not partake of the loaves with common, unwashed, and unclean hands.

But Jesus does not bring a charge against them about a tradition of Jewish elders, but about two most necessary commandments of God, of which one was the fifth of the Decalogue, which runs: “Honour your father and your mother, that it may be well with you, and that you may live long on the land which the Lord your God gives you”; and the other had been written in Leviticus in this way: “If a man speaks evil of his father or his mother, let him surely be put to death; he has spoken evil of father or mother; he shall be guilty.” But since we wish to see the very wording that Matthew set out, “Whoever speaks evil of father or mother, let him die the death,” consider whether it was not taken from the place where it is written: “Whoever strikes his father or his mother, let him die the death; and whoever speaks evil of his father or his mother, let him die the death.” Such, then, were the words of the law about the two commandments; Matthew set them out in part and abridged, and not in their very words. What charge the Saviour brings against the Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem, in saying that they transgress the commandment of God because of their tradition, we must consider. God said, “Honour your father and your mother,” teaching that one born of parents should render them due honour. A part of this honour toward parents was also sharing with them the needs of life, for food and clothing, and anything else one was able to bestow on one’s parents. But the Pharisees and the scribes handed down a tradition opposed to the law, which is set down rather obscurely in the Gospel and which we ourselves would not have grasped had not one of the Hebrews given us the facts of the passage, as follows. Sometimes, he says, lenders, falling in with awkward debtors who were able but unwilling to pay the debt, dedicated what was owed to the fund of the poor, for whom each of those who wished to share with them cast into the treasury as much as he could. So they would sometimes say to their debtors in their own language: “What you owe me is Corban,” that is, a gift; “for I have dedicated it to the poor, as an act of piety toward God.” Then the debtor, owing no longer to human beings but to God and to piety toward him, was as it were constrained, even against his will, to pay the debt, no longer to the lender but now to God, for the fund of the poor, in the lender’s name. What the lender did to the debtor, then, some sons once did to their parents, and said to them: “Whatever you would have gained from me, father or mother, know that you receive it from the Corban, from the fund of the poor dedicated to God.” Then the parents, hearing that what was given them was Corban, dedicated to God, no longer wished to take it from their sons, even if they were in great need of necessities. The elders, then, told the people such a tradition: “Whoever says to his father or mother that what is given to either of them is Corban and a gift is no longer a debtor to his father or mother for giving what the needs of life require.” The Saviour, then, convicts this tradition as unsound and as opposed to the commandment of God. For if God says, “Honour your father and mother,” but the tradition said, “He who has dedicated to God as Corban what would have been given to his parents is not bound to honour his father or mother with a gift,” it is clear that the commandment of God about honour to parents was annulled by the tradition of the Pharisees and scribes, which said that one who had once dedicated to God what his parents would have received was no longer bound to honour his father and mother. And it was as lovers of money that the Pharisees taught such things, so that on the pretext of the poor they might receive even what would have been given to someone’s parents. And the Gospel bears witness to their love of money, saying: “The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard these things, and they ridiculed him.” If, then, any of those called presbyters among us, or rulers of the people in whatever way, wishes to give in the name of the common fund to the poor rather than to the relatives of the givers, if these happen to be in need of necessities and the givers cannot do both, such a one might justly be called a brother of the Pharisees who annulled the word of God for the sake of their own tradition and were convicted by the Saviour as hypocrites. And very strong deterrents against anyone’s eagerly taking from the fund of the poor, and against thinking “that the piety of others is a means of gain,” are not only these things but also what is written of Judas the traitor, who in appearance championed the cause of the poor and said indignantly, “This ointment could have been sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor,” but in truth “was a thief, and having the money box used to carry off what was put into it.” If, then, anyone now who has the money box of the Church speaks, like Judas, on behalf of the poor, but carries off what is put into it, let him set his portion with Judas, who did these things; because of which, when they had spread in his soul like gangrene, the devil put it into his heart to betray the Saviour; and when he had received the flaming dart for this, afterwards the devil himself entered into his soul and filled him. And perhaps when the Apostle says, “The love of money is a root of all evils,” he says it because of Judas’s love of money, which was the root of all the evils against Jesus.

But let us return to the matter before us, in which the Saviour, abridging two commandments from the law, set them out: the one from the Decalogue in Exodus, the other from Leviticus, or the other from some other of the books of the Pentateuch. Then, since we have explained how those who say, “He shall not honour his father or his mother, whoever says to his father or his mother, It is a gift, whatever you would have gained from me,” annulled the word of God that says, “Honour your father and your mother,” one might ask how “Whoever speaks evil of father or mother, let him die the death” is not superfluous. For granted that he does not honour his father and mother who dedicates to what is called Corban what would have been given in honour of father and mother; how, then, does the tradition of the Pharisees annul also the word that says, “Whoever speaks evil of father or mother, let him die the death”? But perhaps whoever says to his father or mother, “It is a gift, whatever you would have gained from me,” is as it were casting abuse at his father or mother, as if calling his parents sacrilegious for taking from the one who dedicated them things dedicated to the Corban. The Jews, then, punish according to the law, as speaking evil of father or mother, those who say to their father or mother, “It is a gift, whatever you would have gained from me”; but you by your one tradition annul two commandments of God. And then you are not ashamed to bring a charge against my disciples, who transgress no commandment—for they walk in all his commandments and ordinances blamelessly—but transgress a tradition of elders out of reverent care not to transgress a commandment of God. And if this had been your aim too, you would have kept the commandment about honour of father and mother, and the one that says, “Whoever speaks evil of father or mother, let him die the death”; but you would not have kept the tradition of the elders that opposes these commandments.

After these, wishing to refute from the words of the prophets all the traditions of the elders among the Jews, he set beside them a text from Isaiah, which in its very words runs thus: “And the Lord said, This people draws near to me with their mouth,” and so on. And we said before that Matthew did not record the prophetic text in its very words. If, because the Gospel used it, we must explain it as far as possible, we will take in addition the wording above it, which has been preserved, I think, usefully for us for the explanation of what the Gospel took from the Prophet. The text in Isaiah runs thus from the beginning: “Faint and be amazed; be drunk, not from strong drink nor from wine; for the Lord has made you drink a spirit of stupor, and he will close their eyes, and those of their prophets, and of their rulers who see hidden things. And all these words shall be to you like the words of the sealed book, which, if they give it to a man who knows letters, saying, Read this, he will say, I cannot read it, for it is sealed. And this book will be given into the hands of a man who does not know letters, and one will say to him, Read this; and he will say, I do not know letters. And the Lord said, This people draws near to me,” and so on, as far as “Woe to those who make counsel in secret, and their works shall be in darkness.” Having taken in addition, then, the wording set out in the Gospel, I have set down some of what precedes it and some of what follows it, so that we may show how the word threatens to close the eyes of those of the people who are amazed and drunk and have been made to drink a spirit of stupor; and it threatens to close those of their prophets too, and of their rulers who profess to see hidden things. This, I think, has happened since the Saviour’s coming among that people: for all the words of the whole of Scripture, and of Isaiah too, have become to them “like the words of a sealed book.” “Sealed” is said as of a book shut by obscurity and not opened by clarity; which is equally obscure to those who cannot read it at all because they do not know letters, and to those who profess to know letters, since they do not know the sense in what is written. He rightly adds, then, that when the people, fainting from its sins and amazed, rages against him, it will also be drunk against him with a spirit of stupor, which it will be made to drink by the Lord, who closes their eyes as unworthy of seeing, and those of their prophets and of their rulers who profess to see the hidden things of the mysteries in the divine Scriptures; and when their eyes are closed, then the prophetic words will be sealed and hidden for them; which is what the people of those who do not believe in Jesus as the Christ have suffered. And when the prophetic words have become to them “like the words of a sealed book,” not only for those who do not know letters but also for those who profess to know them, then the Lord said that the people of the Jews draws near to God with the mouth only; and he says that they honour him with their lips, because their heart, through their unbelief in Jesus, is far from the Lord. And now especially, since they denied our Saviour, God might say of them: “In vain do they worship me”; for they no longer teach the commandments of God but “of men,” and no longer the teachings that come from the wisdom of the Spirit but human ones. Hence, these things having befallen them, God has removed the people of the Jews, and has destroyed the wisdom of their wise; for there is no longer wisdom among them, as there is no longer prophecy either; and God has buried somewhere and hidden the understanding of the understanding ones of the people, and it is no longer bright and manifest. Therefore, even if they seem to make some deep counsel, since they do not make it through the Lord, they are wretched; and even if they profess to know some hidden things of the divine counsel, they lie, since their works are not of light but of darkness and night. We have thought fit to set out the prophecy briefly, and to clarify it to some degree, since Matthew mentioned it; and Mark mentioned it too, from whom we shall usefully present what the passage says about the transgression of the elders who held that Jews should wash their hands when they eat bread: “For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands with the fist, holding the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market place they do not eat unless they wash; and there are many other things which they have received to keep, … and of couches.”

“And calling the crowd to him, he said to them, Hear and understand,” and so on. Through these words we are clearly taught by the Saviour, when we read in Leviticus and Deuteronomy what concerns clean and unclean foods—over which the bodily-minded Jews, and the Ebionites who differ little from them, accuse us of transgressing the law—not to think that the aim of Scripture concerning them is the obvious sense. For if “it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth,” and especially since, according to Mark, the Saviour said this “making all foods clean,” it is clear that we are not defiled by eating what the Jews, who want to serve the letter of the law, say is unclean; but we are defiled when, though our lips ought to be bound with understanding and we ought to make for what we say a yoke and a balance, we say whatever comes to hand and harbour thoughts we should not, from which the spring of our sins comes to us. And it befits a law of God to forbid what comes from wickedness and to command what accords with virtue, but to leave in their place things indifferent in their own nature, which, because of our choice and the reason within us, are done badly when we sin in them, and turn out well when we do them rightly. One who understands this carefully will see that even what are thought to be good things can be a sin when taken badly and from passion, and that the things called unclean, when used by us according to reason, can be reckoned clean. For as the circumcision of the Jew who sins will be reckoned as uncircumcision, and the uncircumcision of one from the Gentiles who does right as circumcision, so the things thought clean will be reckoned unclean for one who uses them not as he should, nor when he should, nor as much as he should, nor for the reason he should; but as for the things called unclean, “to the pure all things are pure; but to the defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure, since both their mind and their conscience are defiled”; and these, being defiled, make defiled everything they touch; as again, on the contrary, the pure mind and the pure conscience make all things pure, even if they seem to be unclean. For the righteous do not use foods or drinks from licentiousness, nor from love of pleasure, nor with a doubt that drags them two ways, remembering the saying: “Whether you eat or drink or do anything else, do all to the glory of God.” And if we must describe the foods that are unclean according to the Gospel, we will say that they are such as are procured by greed, gained by shameful profit, taken out of love of pleasure, and from honouring the belly as a god, when it and its appetites, and not reason, rule our soul. But also, if we know that some things have been offered to demons, or, not knowing, suspect it and are in doubt about it, and use such things, we have not used them to the glory of God nor in the name of Christ; for not only the belief that they have been offered to idols condemns the one who eats, but also the doubt about it: “For whoever doubts,” according to the Apostle, “is condemned if he eats, because it is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.” He eats from faith, then, who believes that what he eats has not been sacrificed in idol temples, and is not strangled, nor blood; and he does not eat from faith who is in doubt about any of these; and one becomes a partner of demons who knows that these things have been sacrificed to demons and none the less uses them, his imagination defiled with the demons who shared in the sacrifice. And the Apostle, knowing that it is not the nature of foods that causes harm to the one who uses them or benefit to the one who abstains, but our opinions and the reason within, said: “Food will not commend us to God; for we are no better off if we eat, and no worse off if we do not eat.” And since he knew that those who understood more nobly what things are clean and what unclean according to the law had given up the distinction about using things as clean or unclean, and the superstition, I think, of making differences among indifferent things in the use of foods, and for this reason were judged by Jews as transgressors of the law, he said for this reason: “Let no one, then, judge us in food or in drink,” and so on, teaching us that what is according to the letter is a shadow, but the true meanings of the law stored up in it are the good things to come, in which one can find what are the clean spiritual foods of the soul, and what are the unclean, in false and contrary words, which harm the one nourished on them: “For the law had a shadow of the good things to come.”

As in many places one must observe what the Jews wondered at in the Saviour’s words, that they were spoken with authority, so too in this passage. Calling the crowd to him, at any rate, he said to them, “Hear and understand,” and so on; and he said this when the Pharisees were offended at this word, since, because of their vicious opinions and their bad interpretation of the law, they were not a planting of his own Father in heaven and for that reason were being uprooted; for they were uprooted because they did not accept the true vine cultivated by the Father, Jesus Christ. For how could those be a planting of the Father who were offended at the words of Jesus, which draw people away from “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch—things which all perish as they are used—according to the commandments and teachings of human beings,” and lead their intelligent hearer to seek concerning these things what is above, and not on earth, as the Jews do? And since, because of their vicious opinions, the Pharisees were not a planting of the Father in heaven, he therefore says to the disciples, as of people beyond cure: “Let them alone”; let them alone for this reason, that, though they are blind, and ought to perceive their blindness and seek guides, they, insensible of their own blindness, profess to guide the blind, not reckoning that they will fall into a pit, of which it is written in the Psalms: “He dug a pit and hollowed it out, and he will fall into the hole that he has made.” Elsewhere it is written that “seeing the crowds, he went up the mountain, and when he sat down his disciples came to him”; but here he stretches out a hand to the crowd, calling it to him and drawing it away from the literal interpretation of the questions of the law, when first he said to them, “Hear and understand,” though they did not yet understand what they heard; and next he said to them, as in parables: “It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out.”

After this it is worth looking at a text that is maligned by those who say that the God of the law and the God of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not the same; who say that the heavenly Father of Jesus Christ is not the cultivator of those who think they worship God according to the law of Moses. Jesus himself, they say, said that the Pharisees, who worshipped the God who created the world and the law, were not a planting that his heavenly Father had planted, and that for this reason it was being uprooted. But you might also say this: that even if the Father of Jesus was the one who brought in and “planted” the people that came out of Egypt “in the mountain of his inheritance, in his prepared dwelling place,” Jesus would still have said of the Pharisees: “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted.” To this we will say that all those who, because of their vicious interpretation of what is in the law, were not a planting of the Father in heaven, had their minds blinded, as not believing the truth but taking pleasure in unrighteousness, by him who has been made a god by the sons of this age, and is for this reason called by Paul “the god of this age.” And do not think that Paul tells us that he is truly God; for just as the belly of those who prize pleasure too highly, “lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,” though it is not a god, is said by Paul to be their god, so the ruler of this age, though not God—of whom the Saviour says, “Now the ruler of this world has been judged”—is said to be the god of those who did not wish to receive the spirit of adoption so as to become sons of that age and of the resurrection from the dead, and who for this reason remained in the sonship of this age. These things, even if said by way of digression, seemed to me necessary to include because of “They are blind guides of the blind.” And who are they? The Pharisees, whose minds the god of this age blinded, since they were unbelievers in not having believed in Jesus Christ; and he blinded them “so that the light of the gospel of the glory of God in the face of Christ might not shine on them.” And we must not only avoid being guided by those blind ones who perceive that they need guides because they have not yet recovered the power of seeing by themselves; but also, in the case of all who profess to guide in sound teaching, we must listen carefully and bring sound judgment to what is said, lest, being guided in ignorance by the blind, who do not see the matters of sound teaching, we too prove to be blind, because we do not see the sense of the Scriptures, so that both, the guide and the guided, fall into the pit of which we spoke before. Next after this it is written how Peter answered and said to the Saviour, as not having understood “It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth”: “Explain the parable to us.” To which the Saviour says: “Are you also still without understanding?”—as if to say: having been with me so long, do you still not understand the intent of what is said, and do you not yet perceive that what goes into his mouth does not defile a person for this reason, that it passes into the belly and, passing on from it, is cast into the latrine? It was not because of the law in which they seemed to believe that the Pharisees were not a planting of the Father of Jesus, but because of their vicious interpretation of the law and of what is written in it. For since two things are understood in the law, the ministry of death engraved in letters, which has nothing akin to the spirit, and the ministry of life understood in the spiritual law, those who could say with a sincere disposition, “For we know that the law is spiritual,” and therefore “the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good,” were a planting which the heavenly Father planted; but those who were not such, but clung only to the letter that kills, were not a planting of God but of him who hardened their heart and laid a veil over it, which had force in them so long as they did not turn to the Lord; “for when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed; and the Lord is the Spirit.” One who has come to this passage might say that, just as it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, even if it is thought by Jews to be defiled, so it is not what goes into the mouth that sanctifies a person, even if what is called the bread of the Lord is thought by the simpler to sanctify. And the point is, I think, not to be despised, and therefore needs a clear explanation, which seems to me to be as follows. Just as it is not the food but the conscience of one who eats with doubt that defiles the one who has eaten—“for whoever doubts is condemned if he eats, because it is not from faith”—and just as nothing is pure to the defiled and unbeliever, not because of the thing itself, but because of his defilement and unbelief, so what is “sanctified by the word of God and prayer” does not by its own nature sanctify the one who uses it. For if it did, it would sanctify even the one who eats the bread of the Lord unworthily, and no one would become weak or sick or fall asleep because of this food; for Paul showed something of the kind in the words, “For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a good number are asleep.” In the case of the bread of the Lord, then, there is benefit to the one who uses it when he partakes of the bread with an undefiled mind and a pure conscience. And so neither are we deprived of any good merely by not eating of the bread sanctified by the word of God and prayer, nor by eating do we abound in any good; for the cause of the lack is wickedness and sins, and the cause of the abundance is righteousness and right actions; so that this is the meaning of what Paul says: “If we eat, we do not abound, and if we do not eat, we do not lack.” And if “whatever goes into the mouth passes into the belly and is cast out into the latrine,” the food sanctified by the word of God and prayer too, as regards its material part, passes into the belly and is cast out into the latrine; but by the prayer that has come upon it, according to the proportion of faith, it becomes beneficial and a cause of the mind’s clear sight as it looks to what is beneficial; and it is not the matter of the bread but the word spoken over it that benefits the one who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And so much concerning the typical and symbolic body; but much might also be said about the Word himself, who became flesh and true food, which whoever eats will surely live for ever, no wicked person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who still remains wicked to eat him who became flesh, being the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written that “everyone who eats this bread will live for [ever].”

Next to this let us see how the things that come out and defile a person do not defile a person because they come out of the mouth, but have the cause of the defilement in the heart, when evil thoughts come out of it before the things that issue through the mouth; of which the kinds are “murders, adulteries, sexual immoralities, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies; these are what defile a person,” when they come out of the heart and, having come out of it, pass through the mouth; so that if they did not come to be outside the heart, but were held fast somewhere about the heart itself, not being allowed to be spoken through the mouth, they would very quickly vanish, and a person would no longer be defiled. The spring and beginning of all sin, then, is evil thoughts; for if these do not prevail, there will be neither murders nor adulteries nor anything else of the kind. Therefore one must guard one’s heart with all vigilance; for indeed in the day of judgment, when the Lord comes, he “will bring to light the things hidden in darkness, and will disclose the purposes of hearts,” all the thoughts of human beings meanwhile accusing or excusing them, when their own counsels surround them. Such are evil thoughts that they sometimes make blameworthy even what seem to be good things and, as far as the judgment of the many goes, praiseworthy. If, for instance, we give alms before people, aiming in our thoughts to be seen by people as loving toward humankind and to be glorified for our love of humankind, we have our reward from people; and, in a word, everything done with the doer’s consciousness that it is for being glorified by people has no fruit from him who sees in secret and gives the reward to those who are pure in secret. So, then, the seeming chastity too, if it has thoughts of vainglory or love of gain; and what is thought to be the teaching of the Church, if it becomes servile in flattering speech, or on the pretext of greed, or when someone seeks glory from people for his teaching, is not reckoned among the teaching of those whom “God has appointed in the Church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers.” And you will say the same of one who “aspires to the office of bishop” for the sake of glory among people, or the flattery of people, or the gain from those who come to the word and give on the pretext of piety; for such a bishop “does not desire a noble work,” nor can he be “above reproach, sober, self-controlled,” being drunk with glory and gorging himself on it without restraint. And you will say the same of presbyters and deacons. And though we may seem to some to have said these things by way of digression, consider whether they have not been said of necessity, because evil thoughts are the spring of all sins, able to defile even what, if done without them, would have justified the doer. What defiles, then, we have examined as best we could; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile a person; rather, if one may make bold to say it, what defiles is eating with an unwashed heart anything whatever that our ruling faculty is by nature fitted to eat. [Heading of the next chapter:] On the Canaanite woman.

“And Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon; and behold, a Canaanite woman.” From where, “from there”? Was it from the land of Gennesaret, of which it was said before, “And having crossed over they came to the land of Gennesaret”? And he withdrew perhaps because the Pharisees were offended when they heard that it is not what goes in but what comes out that defiles a person. That he used “withdrew” because of those suspected of plotting against him is clear from “Now when he heard that John had been arrested, he withdrew into Galilee.” Perhaps for this reason Mark too, recording what concerns this passage, says: “Rising, he went to the region of Tyre, and entering a house he wished no one to know.” It is likely that he was keeping out of the way of the Pharisees who had been offended at his teaching, awaiting the time more suitable for suffering and rightly appointed. But someone might say that Tyre and Sidon stand for the Gentiles. Withdrawing, then, from Israel, he comes to the districts of the Gentiles. Now Tyre, as it is named among the Hebrews, is rendered Sor, which is interpreted “constraint”; and Sidon, named so among the Hebrews as well, is rendered “hunters.” And among the Gentiles there are both the hunters, the wicked powers, and much constraint among them, the constraint in wickedness and the passions. Going out, then, from Gennesaret, Jesus withdrew from Israel, and came not into Tyre and Sidon, but into the districts of Tyre and Sidon, because those of the Gentiles now believe in part; for if he had visited the whole of Tyre and Sidon, no unbeliever would have been left in it. According to Mark, “Rising, Jesus went to the region of Tyre,” the constraint of the Gentiles, so that those who believe may be saved from those regions too, when they go out of them. For notice: “And behold, a Canaanite woman came out from those regions and cried out, saying, Have mercy on me, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon.” And I think that had she not gone out from those regions she could not have cried out to Jesus from great faith, as was testified of her; and according to the proportion of faith one goes out from the regions among the Gentiles which, “when the Most High divided the nations, he fixed according to the number of the sons of Israel,” checking their further advance. Here, then, certain regions of Tyre and Sidon are spoken of; and in Exodus the regions of Pharaoh, in which, they say, the plagues against the Egyptians take place. And we must think that each of us, when he sins, is in the regions of Tyre or Sidon, or of Pharaoh and Egypt, or of one of those outside God’s allotted inheritance; but when he changes from wickedness to virtue, he goes out from the regions of evil things and reaches the regions of the portion of God, and there is a difference among these too, which will be apparent to those who can relate the matters of the division and allotment of Israel to the spiritual law. Notice also the meeting, as it were, that took place between Jesus and the Canaanite woman: he comes as to the districts of Tyre and Sidon, and she, going out of those regions, cried out, saying: “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David.” The woman was a Canaanite, which is interpreted “prepared for humiliation.” The righteous are prepared in the kingdom of heaven and for the exaltation in the kingdom of God; but sinners are prepared for humiliation by the wickedness in them and by the deeds that accord with it, which prepare them for it, and by the sin that reigns in their mortal body. But the Canaanite woman, going out from those regions, went out from being prepared for humiliation, crying out and saying: “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David.”

Gather from the Gospels who call him Son of David, as she does, and the blind men in Jericho; and who call him Son of God, either without the addition “truly,” like the demoniacs who say, “What have we to do with you, Son of God?”, or with the addition “truly,” like those in the boat who worshipped him, saying to him, “Truly you are the Son of God.” For the collection of these will be useful to you, I think, for seeing the difference among those who come to him: some come as it were to him who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, others to him who was “declared Son of God in power according to the spirit of holiness,” and of these some with the “truly,” others without it. Then notice that the Canaanite woman made her request not about a son, whom she does not seem to have borne at all, but about a daughter severely possessed; another mother receives back alive her son who was being carried out dead; and again the ruler of the synagogue asks for a twelve-year-old daughter, as having died, and the royal official for a son, as still sick and about to die. A possessed daughter and a dead son, then, belonged to two mothers; and a dead daughter and a son sick to the point of death to two fathers, of whom one was ruler of the synagogue and the other a royal official. I am persuaded that these things contain meanings about different kinds among souls, which Jesus heals by giving them life. And all the healings that he performs among the people, especially those recorded by the evangelists, took place at that time so that those who would not otherwise believe unless they saw signs and wonders might believe; for the things done then were symbols of what is always being accomplished by the power of Jesus. For there is no time when each of the things written is not taking place by the power of Jesus, according to the worth of each. Because of her race, then, the Canaanite woman was not worthy even to receive an answer from Jesus, who acknowledged that he had been “sent” by the Father for nothing else than “to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” a lost race of discerning souls; but because of her resolve and because she worshipped Jesus as the Son of God she receives an answer, which exposes her low birth and shows her worth: that she was worthy of crumbs, as a little dog, and not of loaves. But when she intensified her resolve and, accepting Jesus’ word, claims to receive crumbs even as a little dog, and acknowledges the nobler as masters, then she receives a second answer, bearing witness to her faith as great and promising that what she wishes will be hers. And I think we will need to understand the Canaanite woman, mother of the severely possessed daughter, by analogy with “the Jerusalem above, the free,” the mother of Paul and those like him, as the symbol of the mother of such a soul. And consider whether it is not reasonable that there are many fathers and many mothers, like the fathers of Abraham, to whom the patriarch went away, and Jerusalem the mother, as Paul says of himself and those like him. And it is likely that she of whom the Canaanite woman is a symbol, having gone out from the regions of Tyre and Sidon, of which the places on earth were types, came to the Saviour and asked him, and still now asks him, saying: “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon.” Then, answering both those outside and the disciples when necessary, he said, “I was not sent …,” teaching that there are certain preeminent souls, intellectual and discerning, that are lost, figuratively called “sheep of the house of Israel.” The simpler, I think, thinking that this is said of Israel according to the flesh, will necessarily admit that our Saviour was sent by the Father to none other than those lost Jews. But we who pray to say in truth, “Even if we once knew Christ according to the flesh, we know him so no longer,” know that it is the principal work of the Word to save the more intelligent; for these are more akin to him than the duller. But since “the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” apart from “the remnant chosen by grace,” disobeyed the Word, for this reason “he chose the foolish things of the world,” that which was not Israel nor discerning, “to shame the wise” of Israel; and he called “the things that are not,” handing over to them an understanding nation, who could receive “the foolishness of the preaching,” and was pleased to save those who believe in it, so that he might confound “the things that are,” having “prepared praise for himself out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes,” since it had become hostile to the truth. And the Canaanite woman came and worshipped Jesus as God, saying: “Lord, help me. But he answered and said, It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.” One might ask the intent of this saying too. For where the measure of loaves is such that both the children and the little dogs of the house, or others besides, cannot eat loaves, it is not reasonable, when the loaves are well made, for the children’s well-made bread to be given as food to little dogs. But nothing of the kind appears in the case of Jesus’ power, from which both the children and the so-called little dogs could partake. Consider, then, whether in answer to “It is not right to take the children’s bread” we should say that he “who emptied himself” by taking on “the form of a servant” brought a measure of power, as much as the things in the world could contain; from which power he also perceived a certain quantity going out from him, as is clear from “Someone touched me; for I perceived that power had gone out from me.” From this measure of power, then, he dispensed, giving more to those who were preeminent and called sons, and less to those who were not such, as to the little dogs. But even if these things were so, none the less, where faith was great, he gave the children’s bread, as to a child, to her who was a little dog because of her low birth as a Canaanite. And perhaps among the words of Jesus too there are some loaves which may be given only to the more rational, as to children, and other words, like crumbs from the great hearth and table of the nobler and the masters, which some souls might use, like dogs. And in the law of Moses it is written of certain things, “you shall throw them to the dog,” and the Holy Spirit took care to give a command about certain foods, that they be handed over to dogs. Let others, then, strangers to the teaching of the Church, suppose that souls pass from human bodies into dogs’ bodies according to their different wickedness; but we, finding this nowhere in the divine Scripture, say that a more rational condition changes into a less rational one, suffering this from great sloth and neglect; and likewise a less rational will, which has neglected reason, sometimes turns back to being rational, so that the one who was once a little dog, glad to eat of the crumbs that fall from its masters’ table, comes to the condition of a child. For virtue contributes greatly to making one a child of God; and wickedness, and rabid fury in insulting words, and shamelessness, to one’s being called, according to the word of Scripture, a dog. And you will understand the like also of other names taken from irrational animals. But one who is reproved as a dog, and is not indignant at being said to be unworthy of the children’s bread, and says with all forbearance the word of that Canaanite woman who said, “Yes, Lord, for even the little dogs eat of the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table,” will obtain the gentlest answer of Jesus, who says to him, “Great is your faith,” when he has taken up such great faith, and says, “Let it be done for you as you wish,” so that he himself may be healed, and, if he has borne any fruit that needs healing, this too may be cured. [Heading of the next chapter:] On the crowds who were healed.

“And Jesus passed on from there.” It is clear from what was said before that it was from the districts of Tyre and Sidon that “he came beside the Sea of Galilee,” which is the lake usually called Gennesaret, and again “went up the mountain,” where, having gone up, he sat. One may say, then, that to this mountain where Jesus sits not only the healthy go up, but with the healthy also those who have suffered various afflictions. And perhaps this mountain, where Jesus went up and sat, is what is more commonly called the Church, raised up by the word of God above the rest of the earth and those who belong to it; where not the disciples, leaving the crowds, come to him, as in the case of the beatitudes, but great crowds, who themselves were not charged with being dumb or having suffered anything, but have such people with them. For one can see, with the crowds that come to this mountain where the Son of God sits, some deaf to what is proclaimed, others blind in soul and not seeing the true light, others lame and unable to walk according to reason, and others maimed and unable to work according to reason. These, then, who have suffered such things in soul, who have gone up with the crowds to the mountain where Jesus was, are not healed by him so long as they are away from the feet of Jesus; but when, as having suffered such things, they are cast by the crowds at his feet, the last parts of the body of Christ, not being worthy even of these as far as lies in themselves, then they are healed by him. And when you see in the assembly of what is more commonly called the Church the catechumens cast down after its last members, as it were at the feet of the body of the Church of Jesus, who have come with their own deafness and blindness, lameness and maimedness, and in time are healed according to the Word, you would not be wrong in saying that such people, having gone up with the crowds of the Church to the mountain where Jesus was, were cast at his feet and were healed, so that the crowd of the Church marvels at seeing changes for the better from such great evils, so as to say: Those formerly dumb now speak the word of God, and the lame walk; the prophecy of Isaiah being fulfilled not only in bodily things but also in spiritual, which says: “Then the lame shall leap like a deer, and the tongue of the stammerer shall be clear.” And there, if “The lame shall leap like a deer” is not said at random, we will say that it is not without purpose that those formerly lame, who leap like a deer because of Jesus, have been compared to the deer, a clean animal, an enemy of serpents, which cannot be harmed by their venom. And when the dumb are seen speaking, the prophecy is fulfilled that says, “And the tongue of the stammerers shall be clear,” or rather the one that says, “You deaf, hear”; and the blind see, according to the prophecy that says next, “You deaf, hear, and you blind, look up to see.” And the blind see when, looking at the world, they contemplate by analogy, from the greatness of the beauty of created things, their maker, and when they perceive the invisible things of God, from the creation of the world, being understood through the things made, that is, see them carefully and clearly and understand them. And seeing these things the crowds “glorified the God of Israel,” and glorify him, being persuaded that the same God is Father of him who healed those mentioned and God of Israel; for he is not the God of the Jews only but also of the Gentiles. Let us, then, bring up with us to the mountain where Jesus sits, his Church, those who wish to go up to it with us, the deaf, the blind, the lame, the maimed, and many others, and let us cast them at the feet of Jesus, so that he may heal them, so that the crowds marvel at their healing; for the disciples are not recorded as marvelling at such things, although they were with Jesus then too, as is clear from: “But the Lord called his disciples to him and said, I have compassion on the crowd,” and so on. And perhaps if you attend carefully to “Great crowds came to him,” you would find that the disciples did not come to him then, but, having begun to follow him long before, followed him to the mountain too. Those less than the disciples came to him, and coming to him then for the first time, had not suffered the same things as those who had gone up with them. Observe in the Gospel who are recorded as having followed Jesus, who as having come to him, who as having been brought to him, who as being divided into those going before and those following, and among those who came to him, who came to him in the house and who came to him elsewhere. For from such observation, “comparing spiritual things with spiritual,” you would find much that is worthy of the exact wisdom in the Gospels.

[Heading:] On the seven loaves. “And Jesus called his disciples to him and said.” Above, in the similar narrative about the loaves, before the loaves, “Jesus went out and saw a great crowd, and had compassion on them, and healed their sick. And when it was evening the disciples came to him, saying, The place is desert, and the hour is already past; send them away,” and so on; but now, after the healing of the deaf and the rest, he has compassion on the crowd that has already remained with him three days and has nothing to eat. And there the disciples make the request about the five thousand; but here he speaks of his own accord about the four thousand. And those are fed in the evening, after spending a day with him; but these, who are attested to have remained with him three days, partake of the loaves lest they faint on the way. And there the disciples say that they have only five loaves and two fish, without his asking; but here, when he asks, they answer about seven loaves and a few small fish. And there he commands the crowds to recline or sit down on the grass—for Luke wrote, “Make them recline,” and Mark says, “He commanded them all to recline”—but here he does not command, but instructs the crowd to recline. Again, there the three evangelists say in the same words that “taking the five loaves and the two fish, he looked up to heaven and blessed”; but here, as Matthew and Mark wrote, “Jesus gave thanks and broke”; and there they recline on the grass, but here they sit down on the ground. And you will inquire in these passages into the variation in John, who recorded of that event that Jesus said, “Make the people sit down,” and that having given thanks he gave of the loaves to those who were reclining; but of this one he made no mention at all. Attending, then, to the difference in what is written about the loaves in these passages, I think that these people belong to a different rank from those; therefore these are fed on a mountain, those in a desert place; and these remained with Jesus three days, those one, in the evening of which they were fed. And if it is not the same thing for Jesus to act of his own accord and to act after hearing from the disciples, consider whether those who received his benefit differ, when he fed them on his own initiative in order to benefit them. And if according to John the loaves from which the twelve baskets were left over were barley, but nothing of the kind is said of these, how are these not better than the former? And of those he healed the sick; but here, with the crowds, he heals not the sick but the blind, the lame, the deaf, and the maimed; therefore the four thousand marvel at these, but nothing of the kind is said about the sick. And those who ate of the seven loaves over which thanks were given are, I think, better than those who ate of the five that were blessed; and those who ate of the few small fish than those who ate of the two; and perhaps also those who sat down on the ground. And those leave twelve baskets from fewer loaves, but these seven baskets from more, because they are able to contain greater things. And perhaps these tread upon all earthly things and sit down on them; but those on the grass sit on their flesh alone: “For all flesh is grass.” Notice also after this that Jesus does not wish to send these away fasting, lest they faint, being empty of Jesus’ loaves, and come to harm while still on the way, the way to their own homes. Note too wherever Jesus is recorded to have sent people away, so that you may see the difference between those sent away after being fed by him and those sent away otherwise. An example of one sent away otherwise is “Woman, you are set free from your infirmity.” Besides this, the disciples who are always with Jesus are not sent away from him; but the crowds, having eaten, are sent away. So again the disciples, thinking nothing great of the Canaanite woman, say, “Send her away, for she is crying out after us”; but the Saviour does not appear to send her away at all; for having said to her, “O woman, great is your faith; let it be done for you as you wish,” he healed her daughter from that hour; yet it is not written that he sent her away. This much we have been able to examine and see on the text before us for the present. [Heading of the next chapter:] On those who asked him to show them a sign from heaven.

“And the Sadducees and Pharisees came, and testing him they asked him to show them a sign from heaven.” The Sadducees and Pharisees, who disagree with each other about the most necessary doctrines—for the Pharisees uphold the resurrection of the dead, hoping that there is an age to come, while the Sadducees know of nothing stored up for a person after this life, whether he has advanced in virtue or has not even tried to come out of the bounds of wickedness—these agree in order to test Jesus. Something similar to this happened, as Luke recorded, with Herod and Pilate, who became friends with each other in order to kill Jesus. For perhaps their quarrel with each other would have kept Herod from demanding, to please the people who said, “Crucify, crucify him,” that he be put to death; and Pilate, who had some inclination toward not condemning him, would have had his enmity toward Herod added to the inclination he already had to release Jesus. But their supposed friendship made Herod more forceful in his demand against Jesus before Pilate, who wished perhaps, because of the new friendship too, to do Herod and the whole Jewish nation a favour. And often even now one can see in life those who hold the most discordant doctrines, whether in the philosophy of the Greeks or in other systems, seeming to agree, in order to mock and make war on Jesus Christ in his disciples. And from these things, I think, one may pass in thought to seeing whether, among opposing powers that are in discord with one another, as Pharaoh was with Nebuchadnezzar, and Tirhakah king of the Ethiopians with Sennacherib king of the Assyrians, an agreement does not sometimes come about against Jesus and his people. So perhaps also “the kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers gathered together” in one, never before in agreement with one another, so that, having taken counsel against the Lord and against his Christ, they might kill the Lord of glory.

We have come to these things in our discourse because of the Pharisees and Sadducees who came to Jesus together, who disagree about the resurrection and as it were came to an agreement in order to test our Saviour and ask him to show them a sign from heaven. For not content with the wonders among the people in the healing of every disease and every sickness, and with the other marvels which our Saviour had done in the knowledge of many, they wanted him to show them a sign from heaven as well. And I conjecture that they suspected the signs on earth, as possibly not being from God; at any rate they did not hesitate to say that “Jesus casts out the demons by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons”; and it seemed to them that a sign from heaven could not come from Beelzebul or any other evil power. But they erred about both, the signs on earth and those from heaven, not being approved money-changers, nor knowing how to discern the spirits at work, which are from God and which have revolted from him. And they ought to have known that many of the wonders against Egypt in the time of Moses, though they were not from heaven, were clearly of God, and that the fire that fell from heaven on Job’s sheep was not from God; for that fire belonged to the same one to whom belonged both those who took captives and those who formed three companies of horsemen against Job’s cattle. And I think that in Isaiah too—as though signs could be shown both from the earth and from heaven, the true ones from God, but those “with all power and signs and lying wonders” from the evil one—it was said to Ahaz: “Ask a sign for yourself from the Lord your God, in the depth or in the height.” For if there were not signs, some in the depth and some in the height, that are not from the Lord God, it would not have been said, “Ask a sign for yourself from the Lord your God, in the depth or in the height.” I know well that such an interpretation of “Ask a sign for yourself from the Lord God” will seem forced to some; but attend to what is said by the Apostle about the man of sin, the son of perdition, that “with all power and signs and lying wonders and with all deception of unrighteousness” he will appear to those who are perishing, imitating all the wonders of the truth. And just as the enchanters and sorcerers of the Egyptians, being inferior to the man of sin and son of perdition, imitated certain powers and signs and wonders of the truth, doing those of falsehood so that the true might not be believed, so I think the man of sin will imitate the signs and the powers. And perhaps the Pharisees suspected these things too because of the prophecies about him; but I ask whether the Sadducees too, testing him, asked Jesus to show them a sign from heaven. And if we do not say that they suspected this, what shall we say they felt in face of the wonders done by Jesus, when they remained unmoved and were not abashed by the marvels that took place? But if anyone supposes that we have given the Pharisees and Sadducees grounds for a defence, both where they say that the demons were cast out by Jesus by Beelzebul, and where, testing Jesus, they ask about a heavenly sign, let him know that we say they were drawn away by plausibility into not believing Jesus’ marvels, but not so as to be pardonable, since they did not see the words of the prophets fulfilled in the deeds of Jesus, which no evil power was able to imitate. For to bring back a soul that had departed, so that one already stinking and on his fourth day came out of the tomb, belonged to none other than him who heard from the Father, “Let us make man according to our image and likeness.” And to command the winds and stop the surge of the sea by a word belonged to none other than him through whom all things came into being, the sea itself and the winds too. Further, the teaching that calls people to the love of the Creator in harmony with the law and the prophets, and restrains the passions, and shapes character to piety—what else did it show to those able to see than that he who did such things was truly the Son of God? In view of which he said also to the disciples of John: “Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight,” and so on.

After this let us observe how, when asked about one sign, that he should show it from heaven to the Pharisees and Sadducees who asked him, he answers and says: “An evil and adulterous generation seeks a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah the prophet”; when also “he left them and went away.” The sign of Jonah, then, was, in accordance with their request, not simply a sign but also one from heaven; so that even to those who tested him and sought a sign from heaven he none the less gave the sign, in his great goodness. For if as Jonah spent three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so did the Son of Man in the heart of the earth, and after this he rose from it, from where would we say the sign of Jesus’ resurrection came, if not from heaven? And especially since at the time of the passion he became a sign to the robber to whom it was granted to enter the paradise of God; after this, I think, descending to Hades to the dead, “as free among the dead.” And the Saviour seems to me to join the sign that comes from himself to the account of the sign concerning Jonah, saying not only that a sign like that one is given by him, but that very sign; for attend to: “And no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah the prophet.” That sign, then, was this one, in that the former became indicative of the latter, so that the solution of that sign, which in itself was obscure, was the Saviour’s suffering and his spending three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. At the same time we also learn something general: that, if a sign signifies something, each of the signs recorded, whether as in an event of history or as in a commandment, is indicative of something fulfilled later; for instance, the sign of Jonah, coming out after three days from the belly of the sea monster, was a sign of the resurrection of our Saviour, rising after three days and three nights from the dead; and circumcision, which is called a sign, was a sign of the circumcision shown by Paul in the words, “For we are the circumcision.” And seek for yourself what each sign in the old writings is a sign of in the New; and what is named a sign in the New Testament, what it indicates either in the age to come or in later generations, after the sign has taken place.

And he called them an evil generation because of the quality from the evil one that had come to be in them—for wickedness is voluntary evil-doing; and adulterous for this reason, that the Pharisees and Sadducees, having left the one figuratively called husband, the word of truth or the law, were led into adultery by falsehood and the law of sin. For if there are two laws, the one “in our members, warring against the law of the mind,” and the law of the mind, we must say that the law of the mind, that is, the spiritual law, is a husband, to whom the soul was joined by God as wife, to the husband who is the law, according to what is written: “A wife is joined to a husband by God”; but the other is the adulterer of the soul that is subject to it, which because of him is called an adulteress. That the law is the husband of the soul Paul clearly shows in the Epistle to the Romans, saying: “The law is lord of a person as long as he lives; for the married woman is bound to the living husband,” the husband who is the law, and so on. For notice in these words that the law is lord of a person as long as the law lives, as a husband is of a wife; for the married woman, the soul under the law, is bound to the living husband, who is the law; but if the husband dies, she is discharged from the law, which is the husband. And the law dies for one who has gone up to blessedness and no longer lives as a citizen under the law, but acts as Christ did, who, though he came to be under the law for the sake of those under the law, in order to win those under the law, neither remained under the law nor left under the law those whom he had set free; for he led them up with himself to the divine citizenship above the law, which contains, as for the more imperfect and those still sinning, sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins. One who is without sin, then, and no longer needs the sacrifices of the law, has perhaps, when perfected, passed beyond even the spiritual law and come to be in the Word who is above it; who for those living in the flesh had become flesh, but for those who no longer at all make war according to the flesh is contemplated as he was in the beginning with God, being God the Word, and reveals the Father. Three things, then, are to be understood in this passage: a married woman under the husband, the law; an adulterous woman, the soul, which while the husband, the law, lives, becomes another man’s, the law of the flesh; and a woman married to the brother of the dead husband, to the living Word who does not die, who, “having been raised from the dead, dies no more; death no longer has dominion over him.” And this because of “If the husband dies, she is discharged from the law of the husband,” and because of “Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she becomes another man’s while her husband lives,” and because of “If the husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress if she becomes another man’s.” We have adduced this very text, “Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress while her husband lives,” wishing to show clearly why Jesus said to the Pharisees and Sadducees who tested him and sought him to show them a sign from heaven not only “an evil generation” but also “adulterous.” In general, then, “the law in the members, warring against the law of the mind,” is, as an adulterous man, the adulterer of the soul; and indeed every opposing power that gains mastery over the human soul and mingles with it is its adulterer, since the soul has the Word as bridegroom, given to it by God. After this it is written that “he left them and went away”; for how was the Word, the bridegroom, not going to leave the adulterous generation and go away from it? And you might say that the Word of God, leaving the synagogue of the Jews as adulterous, went away from it and “took a wife of harlotry,” those from the Gentiles; since those who were “Zion, the faithful city,” have become harlots, but these are like Rahab the harlot, who received the spies of Jesus and was saved with all her house, and after this no longer played the harlot, but came to the feet of Jesus, and wet them with the tears of repentance, and anointed them with the fragrance of the ointments of holy living; because of whom, reproaching Simon the leper, the former people, he said what is written. [Heading of the next chapter:] On the leaven of the Pharisees.

“And when his disciples came to the other side, they forgot to take bread.” Since the loaves from before the other side were of no use to the disciples who had come to the other side—for they needed some loaves before the other side and needed others on the other side—for this reason, neglecting to bring loaves with them as they went away to the other side, they “forgot to take” them with them. And those disciples of Jesus have come to the other side who have crossed over from bodily things to spiritual, and from things of sense to things of the mind. And perhaps, to turn back those who by reaching the other side had begun in the spirit from running back to fleshly things, Jesus said to those on the other side: “See and beware”; for there was a lump of teaching and of truly old leaven, that according to the bare letter and therefore not free of what comes from wickedness, which the Pharisees and Sadducees provided, and of which Jesus no longer wishes his own disciples to eat, having made them a new and spiritual lump, giving himself to those who had left the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees and come to him, as living bread that came down from heaven and gives life to the world. And since for one who will no longer use the leaven and lump and teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees the way is first to see and second to beware, lest from not seeing and from inattention one partake of their forbidden leaven, for this reason he says to the disciples first, “See,” and second, “Beware.” It belongs, then, to the discerning and attentive to separate the leaven of the Sadducees and Pharisees, and all food that is not of “the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth,” from the living bread that came down from heaven, so as not to admit the things of the Pharisees and Sadducees, but by eating the living and true bread to be strengthened in soul. And we might fittingly apply the text to those who, while being Christians, choose to live as Jews in a bodily way; for these do not see nor beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees, but, contrary to the will of Jesus who forbade it, eat the bread of the Pharisees. And all, I think, who will not consider that the law is spiritual, and has a shadow of the good things to come, and is a shadow of things to come, and do not seek what good thing to come each of the laws is a shadow of, do not see nor beware of the leaven of the Pharisees; and those who reject the resurrection of the dead do not guard against the leaven of the Sadducees; and indeed many among the heterodox, because of unbelief about the resurrection of the dead, are kneaded with the leaven of the Sadducees. While Jesus was saying this, the disciples reasoned, not saying it aloud, but in their hearts: “Because we did not take bread.” And what they said was something like this: “If we had loaves, we would not have taken of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees; but since through lack of loaves we are in danger of taking of their leaven, and the Saviour does not wish us to run back to their teaching, for this reason he said to us, See and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” This they reasoned; but Jesus, seeing what was in their hearts and hearing the words in them, as the true overseer of hearts, rebukes them as not understanding, nor remembering the loaves they had received from him, because of which, even when they seemed to be in want of loaves, they had no need of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Then, making it clear, and showing more plainly to those who were being led astray by the double sense of “bread” and “leaven” that he was not speaking to them about bread of sense but about the leaven in teaching, he adds: “How do you not understand that I did not speak to you about bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” And though he had not laid bare the interpretation but still kept to the figure, the disciples understood that the Saviour’s word was about teaching, figuratively called leaven, which the Pharisees and Sadducees taught. As long, then, as we have Jesus with us fulfilling the promise that says, “Behold, I am with you all the days, until the consummation of the age,” we cannot fast nor lack food, so as through lack of it to seek to take and eat the forbidden leaven even from Pharisees and Sadducees. There may at times be an occasion, while he is with us, of our being without food, as was said above in the words, “They have already remained with me three days and have nothing to eat.” But even if this happens, not wishing to send us away fasting, lest we faint on the way, he gives thanks over the loaves the disciples have and makes the seven baskets left over for us from the seven loaves, as we have explained. This too must be observed, because of those who think that the divinity of the Saviour is not at all shown in the Gospel according to Matthew: that, when the disciples were reasoning among themselves and saying that they had no bread, Jesus knew their reasonings and said, “Why do you reason among yourselves, you of little faith, that you have not taken bread?”—this was not human; for the Lord alone knows the hearts of human beings, as Solomon says in the third book of Kingdoms. And since, when Jesus said, “Beware of the leaven,” the disciples understood that he did not tell them to beware of the loaves but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees, you will consider whether wherever leaven is named it is taken figuratively of teaching, whether in the law or in the Scriptures that come after the law; and so perhaps leaven is not offered on the altar, for prayers ought not to have the character of teaching, but should be only requests for good things from God. One might ask, because of what has been explained about the disciples who came to the other side, whether one who has come to the other side can be reproached as of little faith and as not yet understanding nor remembering what Jesus had done. It is not hard, I think, to answer that, in relation to the perfect—“when it comes, the partial will be done away”—all our faith here is little faith, and in relation to that we who know in part do not yet understand nor remember; for we cannot attain a memory sufficient and extending to the great number of the objects of contemplation.

We may also learn from this that we are sometimes charged, and reproached as of little faith, for the reasonings alone that we reason within ourselves. And I think that, just as one commits adultery in the heart alone without going on to the act at all, so one does the rest of the forbidden things in the heart alone. As, then, one who has committed adultery in the heart will be punished in proportion to such adultery, so too one who has done any of the forbidden things in the heart—for example, has stolen in the heart alone, or borne false witness in the heart alone—will be punished not as one who has stolen in deed too, or carried out the act of false witness, but as one who did such things in the heart alone; and this, if it was owing to himself that he did not go on to the vicious act. For if, besides having willed it, he made the attempt but did not succeed, he will be punished as having sinned not in the heart alone but also in act. One might ask on such matters whether, while one can commit adultery in the heart alone even without doing the deed of adultery, one cannot be chaste in the heart alone. And you will do the like with the rest of the praiseworthy things. The passage contains something that can plausibly mislead us, which, I think, must be cleared up in this way: adultery committed in the heart is a lesser sin than if one added the act as well; but it is impossible for there to be chastity in the heart while one hinders the chaste act—unless one should here too take as an example the virgin who, according to the law, was forced in a solitary place. For let it be granted that someone’s heart is most pure, but that violence, in the licentious man, has brought about the corruption of the body of the chaste woman. She seems to me to be wholly chaste in secret, but in body no longer pure, as she was before the violence; but not, because she is not pure, therefore also unchaste. I have said this because of “They reasoned among themselves, saying, Because we did not take bread,” to which is added, “But Jesus, aware of it, said, You of little faith, why do you reason among yourselves?” and so on; for the blame of things done in secret had to be examined, and alongside it the praise of things in secret.

But I wonder whether the disciples thought, before the saying was made clear to them by Jesus, that their teacher and Lord was forbidding them to guard against a sense-perceptible leaven of the Pharisees or Sadducees, as unclean and therefore forbidden, so that they should not use that leaven because they had not taken loaves. We might inquire into the like in other cases too, but for an example the passage about the Samaritan woman suffices: “Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again; but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst.” For there too, as far as the wording goes, the Samaritan woman will seem to have thought that the Saviour was promising sense-perceptible water when he said, “Whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst.” Those words, then, must be taken figuratively, and the water of the spring of Jacob from which the Samaritan woman drew must be examined together with the water of Jesus; and here the like must be done; for perhaps there were not even baked loaves, but only some raw leaven, the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. [Heading of the next chapter:] On Jesus’ question at Caesarea, who people say that he is.

“Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples.” Jesus asks the disciples whom people say him to be, so that we may learn from the apostles’ answer the various opinions about our Saviour that arose among the Jews at that time; and perhaps also so that the disciples of Jesus may be taught always to take an interest in what people say about them; for this will help those who do it, so that, if something bad is said, they may remove the occasions for it in every way, and if something good, they may increase the grounds for it. But observe how, because of the various movements among the Jews about Jesus, some, from unsound opinions, said that he was John the Baptist, like Herod the tetrarch, who said to his servants: “This is John the Baptist; he has been raised from the dead, and for this reason the powers are at work in him”; and others that the one now called Jesus is Elijah, having either undergone a second birth, or having lived in the flesh since then and appeared at the present time. And those who said that Jesus was Jeremiah, and not that Jeremiah was a type of the Christ, were perhaps moved by what is said at the beginning of Jeremiah about Christ, which was not fulfilled in the prophet at that time, but began to be fulfilled in Jesus, whom “God set over nations and kingdoms, to uproot and tear down and destroy and rebuild and plant,” making him a prophet to the nations, to whom he preached the word. And those who said that he was one of the prophets held such opinions about him because of things in the prophets that were spoken as of themselves but were not fulfilled in them. But the Jews, as deserving the veil on their heart, held false opinions about Jesus; Peter, however, as a disciple not of flesh and blood, but as one who had received a revelation from the Father in heaven, confessed that he was the Christ. What Peter said to the Saviour, “You are the Christ,” when the Jews did not know that he was the Christ, was great; but greater still that he knew him to be not only the Christ but also “the Son of the living God,” who said through the prophets, “I live,” and “They have forsaken me, the spring of living water”; and he is also life, as from the Father, the spring of life, he who said, “I am the life.” And consider carefully whether, as the spring of a river is not the same as the river, so the spring of life is not the same as life. And we have added this because to “You are the Christ, the Son of God” there was added “living”; for something exceptional had to be shown in what is said of the God and Father of all, as living beyond both life itself and the things that participate in it. And since we said that those who declared Jesus to be John the Baptist, or one of the others named, said it from unsound opinions, let us establish this too, saying that if they had chanced upon Jesus when he went away to John for baptism, and upon John baptizing Jesus, or had heard it from someone, they would not have said that Jesus was John. And if they had grasped the teaching from which Jesus said, “If you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come,” and had heard what was said as those who have ears, some would not have said that he was Elijah; and those who said that he was Jeremiah, if they had seen that most of the … , would not have said that he was Jeremiah; and likewise the others would not have said that he was one of the prophets.

And perhaps, if we say what Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” as Peter did, flesh and blood not having revealed it to us, but a light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we too become what Peter was, being pronounced blessed as he was, because the grounds of his blessedness have reached us too: flesh and blood did not reveal to us that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, but the Father in heaven, from the heavens themselves, so that we may have our citizenship in heaven, revealed to us the revelation that leads up to the heavens those who remove every veil from the heart and receive “the Spirit of the wisdom of God and of revelation.” And if we too have said, like Peter, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” not as though flesh and blood had revealed it to us, but by a light from the Father in heaven shining in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us too it might be said by the Word: “You are Peter,” and so on. For every disciple of Christ is a rock, of whom those drank who drank from “the spiritual rock that followed”; and on every such rock is built every word of the Church and the way of life that accords with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the sum of the words and deeds and thoughts that make up blessedness, is the Church being built by God.

But if you think that the whole Church is built by God on that one Peter alone, what would you say about John, the son of thunder, or each of the apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say that the gates of Hades will not prevail against Peter in particular, but will prevail against the other apostles and the perfect? Is not the saying already quoted, “The gates of Hades will not prevail against it,” true of all and of each of them? And also “On this rock I will build my Church”? Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter alone, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” is common to others too, how are not all the things said before, and those added after, as spoken to Peter, common as well? For here what seems to be said as to Peter is “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,” and so on; but in the Gospel according to John the Saviour, giving the Holy Spirit to the disciples by breathing on them, says: “Receive the Holy Spirit,” and so on. Many, then, will say to the Saviour, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”; but not all who say this will say it to him having learned it not at all from flesh and blood revealing it, but from the Father in heaven himself, who has removed the veil lying on their heart, so that after this, “beholding with unveiled face the glory of the Lord,” they may speak in the Spirit of God, saying of him, “Lord Jesus,” and to him, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And if anyone says this to him as Peter did, flesh and blood not having revealed it to him, but the Father in heaven, he will obtain what was said—as the letter of the Gospel says, to that Peter, but, as its spirit teaches, to everyone who has become such as that Peter was. For all imitators of Christ take their name from the rock, the spiritual rock that follows those who are being saved, so that they may drink from it the spiritual drink. And these take their name from the rock, as Christ does; but also, being members of Christ, they have been named Christians after him, and Peters after the rock. And taking a starting point from this you will say that the righteous take their name from Christ the righteousness, and the wise from Christ the wisdom; and so with his other names you will make names derived from them for the saints; and to all such the Saviour’s saying might be said: “You are Peter,” and the rest, as far as “will not prevail against it.” But against what is “it”? Is it the rock, on which Christ builds the Church? Or the Church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as though the rock and the Church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for the gates of Hades will prevail neither against the rock on which Christ builds the Church nor against the Church, just as “the way of a serpent upon a rock,” as is written in Proverbs, could not be found. But if the gates of Hades prevail against anyone, such a one would be neither a rock on which Christ builds the Church nor the Church built by Christ on the rock; for the rock is inaccessible to the serpent, and stronger than the gates of Hades that wrestle against it, so that because of its strength the gates of Hades do not prevail against it; and the Church, as the building of Christ, “who built his house wisely upon the rock,” is not open to the gates of Hades, which prevail against every person outside the rock and the Church, but can do nothing against it.

And when we have understood that each of the sins through which one comes to Hades is a gate of Hades, we shall grasp that the soul “that has spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind,” and because of wickedness is neither holy nor blameless, is neither a rock on which Christ builds, nor a Church, nor part of the Church which Christ builds on the rock. But if anyone wishes to put us to shame on these points because of the great numbers of those thought to believe in the Church’s way, we must say to him not only “Many are called, but few are chosen,” but also what was said by the Saviour to those who came to him, as it is said in the Gospel according to Luke, as follows: “Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter through the narrow one and will not be able”; and what is written in the Gospel according to Matthew must also be quoted, thus: “For narrow is the gate and hard the way that leads to life, and few are those who find it.” And attending to “For many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able,” you will understand that this refers to those who boast that they belong to the Church but live weakly and contrary to the word. Those among the seekers who are not able to enter, then, will not be able because the gates of Hades prevail against them; but those against whom the gates of Hades do not prevail will be able, when they seek to enter, being able for all things in Christ Jesus who strengthens them. And so each of the fathers of a vicious opinion has become the architect of some gate of Hades; and those who work with the teaching of the architect of such things are assistants and stewards serving a vicious architect’s word of impiety. And though the gates of Hades are many and hard to number, no gate of Hades will prevail against the rock or the Church which Christ builds on it. Yet these gates have some strength, by which they master some who do not resist or struggle against them; but they are conquered by others, who, by not departing from him who said, “I am the door,” have pulled down all the gates of Hades from their own soul. And this too one must know, that as the gates of cities each have their own names, in the same way the gates of Hades might be named according to the kinds of sins, so that one gate of Hades is called sexual immorality, through which those who commit sexual immorality pass; and another denial, through which those who deny God go down to Hades. And indeed each of the heterodox, who have begotten some knowledge “falsely so called,” has built a gate of Hades, Marcion one, Basilides another, and Valentinus …

Here, then, gates of Hades are spoken of; but in the Psalms the prophet gives thanks, saying: “You who lift me up from the gates of death, that I may declare all your praises in the gates of the daughter of Zion.” And from this we learn that perhaps no one can declare all the praises of God unless he has been lifted up from the gates of death and has come to be at the gates of Zion. And the gates of Zion might be understood as opposite to the gates of death, so that one gate of death is licentiousness, and a gate of Zion self-control; and so of death unrighteousness, and of Zion righteousness, which the prophet shows, saying, “This is the gate of the Lord; the righteous shall enter by it”; and again cowardice is a gate of death, but courage a gate of Zion; and folly a gate of death, but its opposite, prudence, a gate of Zion. And to all the gates of the knowledge falsely so called one gate is opposed, that of knowledge without falsehood. Consider whether, because of “Our wrestling is not against blood and flesh,” and the rest, you can say that each “authority, and world ruler of this darkness, and spiritual force of wickedness in the heavenly places” is a gate of Hades and a gate of death. Then the principalities and authorities against which we wrestle might be called gates of Hades, and the gates of righteousness “the ministering spirits.” And just as in the case of the better things many gates are first spoken of, and after the gates one, in “Open to me the gates of righteousness; I will enter by them and give thanks to the Lord,” and “This is the gate of the Lord; the righteous shall enter by it,” so too in the opposite case there are many gates of Hades and of death, each authority, and beyond all these the evil one himself. And let us take heed in each sin, as though we were going down into some gate of Hades if we sin; but being lifted up from the gates of death, let us declare all the praises of the Lord in the gates of the daughter of Zion: for instance, in one gate of the daughter of Zion, called self-control, we shall declare the praises of God by self-control; and in another, righteousness, the praises of God by righteousness; and in a word, in all the praiseworthy things in which we come to be, in these we come to be in some gate of the daughter of Zion, declaring at it some praise of God. We must examine how it is said in one of the Twelve: “They hated the one who reproves in the gates, and abhorred the holy word.” Perhaps, then, the one who reproves in the gates is one who, from the gates of the daughter of Zion, reproves those who are in the sins opposed to that gate, and of the gates of Hades or death. But if you do not so understand “They hated the one who reproves in the gates,” either “in the gates” will have been said superfluously, or you must seek how what is said could be worthy of the prophetic Spirit.

After this let us see how it was said to Peter, and to every Peter: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” And first, I think that “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” is said in consequence of “The gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” For he is worthy to receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven from the same Word who has fortified himself against the gates of Hades, so that they do not prevail against him; receiving the keys of the kingdom of heaven as a prize, as it were, because the gates of Hades could do nothing against him, so that he may open for himself the gates that are shut to those who are conquered by the gates of Hades. And he enters, as self-controlled, through a gate of self-control opened by a key that opens self-control; and through another, as righteous, the gate of righteousness opened by the key of righteousness; and so with the other virtues. For I think that for each virtue certain mysteries of the knowledge of wisdom corresponding to the kind of virtue are opened to one who has lived according to virtue, the Saviour giving to those not mastered by the gates of Hades as many keys as there are virtues, which open an equal number of gates, each corresponding to a virtue in the revelation of the mysteries. And perhaps each virtue is a kingdom of heaven, and all together the kingdom of the heavens; so that by this reckoning one who lives according to the virtues is already in the kingdom of the heavens; so that by this reckoning “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near” refers not to a time but to deeds and disposition; for Christ, who is all virtue, has come and speaks, and for this reason “the kingdom of God is within” his disciples, and not “here or there.” And see how much authority the rock has on which the Church is built by Christ, and everyone who says, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”: that his judgments remain firm, as though God were judging in him, so that in the very act of judging the gates of Hades do not prevail against him. Against one who judges unjustly, then, and does not bind on earth according to the word of God, nor loose on earth according to his will, the gates of Hades prevail; but one against whom the gates of Hades do not prevail judges justly. Therefore he has the keys of the kingdom of heaven, opening to those loosed on earth, so that they may be loosed and free in heaven too; and shutting to those bound on earth by his just judgment, so that they may be bound and judged in heaven too. But since those who claim the place of the episcopate use this text as Peter did, and, as having received the keys of the kingdom of heaven from the Saviour, teach that what is bound by them, that is, condemned, is bound in heaven too, and what has received forgiveness from them is loosed in heaven too, we must say that they speak soundly if they have the works because of which it was said to that Peter, “You are Peter,” and if they are such that the Church is built on them by Christ, and this might reasonably be applied to them; and the gates of Hades ought not to prevail against the one who wishes to bind and loose. But if he “is held fast in the cords of his sins,” he binds and looses in vain. And perhaps you can say that in the heavens that are in the wise man, the virtues, the wicked man is bound; and again in them the earnest man is loosed, receiving amnesty for the sins he committed before his virtue. And just as God himself would not bind one who has no cords of sins, nor sins compared “to a long rope or the strap of a heifer’s yoke,” so neither would any Peter whatever. But if anyone who is not a Peter, and does not have what is spoken of here, thinks that, like Peter, he will bind on earth so that what is bound is bound in heaven, and loose on earth so that what is loosed is loosed in heaven, he is puffed up, not knowing the intent of the Scriptures, and “being puffed up has fallen into the condemnation of the devil.”

“Then he strictly charged his disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.” Above it is written that Jesus sent out these twelve, saying to them, “Do not go on the road of the Gentiles,” and all that is recorded next as said to them when he sent them on their mission. Did he, then, wish them, when they were already doing the work of apostles, to proclaim that he was the Christ? For if he wished it, it is worth asking why he now charges the disciples not to say that he was the Christ; and if he did not wish it, how can what concerns their mission be maintained? And one might also ask this in the passage: whether, when he sent out the twelve, he did not send them out believing that he was the Christ; and if the twelve believed this, clearly Peter did too; how then is he now pronounced blessed? For the wording here shows that Peter now for the first time confessed him as the Christ, the Son of the living God. Matthew, then, according to some of the copies, wrote: “Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ”; but Mark says, “He rebuked them, to speak to no one about him”; and Luke says, “Rebuking them, he commanded them to tell this to no one.” But what is “this”? That, according to him too, Peter answered the question “Who do you say that I am?” with “The Christ of God.” It must be known, however, that some copies of the Gospel according to Matthew have “he rebuked.” Now the difficulty raised seems to me a most genuine one; let an unanswerable solution of it be sought, and let whoever finds it bring it forward, if it is more convincing than what we shall say, which is of modest worth. Consider, then, whether you can say that believing that Jesus is the Christ is less than knowing what is believed; and perhaps there is also a difference in knowing that Jesus is the Christ, since not everyone who knows him knows him alike. That believing without knowledge is less than knowing is clear from what is in John: “If you abide in my word, you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free”; and that there is a difference also in knowing that Jesus is the Christ, since not all who know him know him equally, the very evidence of the matter shows to anyone who considers it even a little. For who would not admit that, for instance, Timothy, though he knew that Jesus was the Christ, had not been enlightened to the knowledge of him as far as the apostle Paul had been? And who would not also accept this, that even if many say truthfully of God, “He has given me unerring knowledge of the things that are,” they will not say it with equal clarity and grasp of what is known, nor knowing as many things in number? And those who know do not know alike not only by the difference in knowing, but also by what imparted the knowledge; so that, by this reckoning, one who has come to know the Son by the Father’s revelation, as Peter is attested to have known him, has the highest blessedness. If what we have said is sound, you will consider whether the twelve first believed but did not know; and next, after believing, they had the beginnings of knowing too, and knew rather few things about him; and later they advanced in knowing, so as to be able to receive the knowledge from the Father who reveals the Son, the state in which Peter was when he was pronounced blessed. For he is pronounced blessed not for having said “You are the Christ” only, but with the addition “the Son of the living God.” At any rate, Mark and Luke, who recorded that Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ,” without adding what stands in Matthew, did not record the blessing upon what was said, nor the benediction that followed the blessing, which says …

But first we must also examine this: that they were proclaiming other things about him as great and wonderful, but were not yet proclaiming that he was the Christ, so that the Saviour might not seem to be taking from them the authority to proclaim him as the Christ which he had given them before. And perhaps someone will support such an argument by saying that the Jews were taught by the apostles the glorious things about Jesus by way of introduction, so that in due time the truth that he was the Christ might be built on them; and perhaps many of the things said to them were said in effect to all who believe. For “You will be brought before governors and kings for my sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles” did not apply to the apostles alone; and perhaps “Brother will deliver brother to death,” and so on, was said not to the apostles at all, but to all who would believe; and also “So everyone who confesses me,” and so on, was said not specially to the apostles but to all who believe. In this sense, then, there is a preliminary outline of teaching in what was said to the apostles, later both for them and for every teacher …

But one who holds that the truth that he is the Christ had also been proclaimed earlier by the apostles, who had heard, “What I tell you in the dark, say in the light; and what you hear in the ear, proclaim on the housetops,” will say that he wished first, as it were, to instruct those who would hear the name of Christ from the apostles, and then to let this be digested, as it were, in the minds of the hearers, so that, after a silence in the proclamation of such a thing about him, Christ Jesus crucified and raised from the dead might be built more fittingly on those already instructed; which at the beginning not even the apostles themselves knew. For it is written in the passage now being examined: “From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem,” and suffer this and that. And if the apostles now learn from Jesus what would befall him—the plot of the elders, and that he would be killed, and that after this on the third day he would rise from the dead—what must we think that those who were being taught by the apostles had known about Jesus before, except that, even if Christ was proclaimed to them, he was proclaimed by way of an introduction that did not make clear what concerned him? For our Saviour, in charging the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ, wished to keep the more perfect teaching about him for a more suitable time, when the disciples who had seen him crucified and risen could testify about his resurrection to those who had seen him crucified. For if the apostles, who were always with him and had seen all the wonders he did, and testified of his words that they were words of eternal life, were offended on the night when he was betrayed, what do you suppose would have befallen those who had earlier learned that he was the Christ? It was to spare them, I think, that he gave this charge.

But one who holds that what was said to the twelve refers to the times after this, and that the apostles had not yet proclaimed to their hearers that he was the Christ, will say that he wished the notion of the Christ, interwoven with the name of Jesus, to be kept for the more perfect and saving proclamation, such as Paul knew when he said to the Corinthians: “For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” Therefore earlier they proclaimed Jesus as one who did certain things and taught certain things; but now, when Peter confesses him to be the Christ, the Son of the living God, since he did not wish to be proclaimed already as the Christ, so that he might be proclaimed at a more suitable time, and as crucified too, he charges the disciples to tell no one that he is the Christ. And that this was his intent in forbidding it to be proclaimed that he was the Christ is shown in some measure by “From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders,” and what follows. For then, at the right moment, as it were, he proclaims to the disciples who knew that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God, the Father having revealed it to them, that instead of believing in Jesus Christ crucified, they should believe in Jesus Christ who would be crucified; and also, instead of believing in Christ Jesus and him raised from the dead, he teaches them to believe in Christ Jesus and him who would be raised from the dead. And since, “having stripped the principalities and authorities, he made a public example of them, triumphing over them boldly on the tree,” if anyone is ashamed of the cross of Christ, he is ashamed of the dispensation through which those powers were triumphed over; whereas one who both believes and knows these things ought even to boast in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which, when Christ was crucified, the principalities were made a public example and triumphed over before the believing world; among them, I think, was also the ruler of this age. Therefore, when he was near his suffering, he said, “Now the ruler of this world has been judged,” and, “Now the ruler of this world will be cast out. And if I am lifted up from the earth,” he says, “I will draw all people to myself,” since the one who hinders is no longer so able to keep those drawn by him from coming to Jesus.

It is necessary, then, in proclaiming Jesus Christ, to proclaim him crucified; and the proclamation that Jesus is the Christ does not seem to me so deficient when any of his other wonders is passed over in silence as when his having been crucified is passed over. Therefore, reserving for the apostles a more perfect proclamation of the things concerning him, “he charged his disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ,” and prepared them to say that he is the Christ who was crucified and rose from the dead, when he began not only to say, nor merely to advance as far as teaching, but “to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem,” and so on. For attend to the word “show”: just as sense-perceptible things are said to be shown, so the things spoken by Jesus to his disciples are said to be shown by him. And I do not think that each of the things seen was shown to those who saw him bodily suffering many things from the elders of the people as clearly as the rational demonstration about this was shown to the disciples.

Then he began to show; and it is likely that after this he showed more clearly to those who had become capable, no longer beginning to show, as to beginners, but already advancing in showing; and if it is reasonable to think that whatever Jesus began he certainly finished at some time, he finished what he began to show his disciples about his having to suffer what is written. For when someone grasps from the Word the perfect knowledge of these things, then it must be said that, by a rational demonstration, the mind seeing what is shown, the showing is completed for one who wishes and is able to contemplate these things, and does contemplate them. And since “it cannot be that a prophet should perish outside Jerusalem”—a perishing that corresponds to “Whoever loses his life for my sake will find it”—for this reason he had to go to Jerusalem, so that, having suffered many things there, he might make the firstfruits of the resurrection from the dead in the Jerusalem above, abolishing and dissolving the earthly one with all the worship in it. For as long as “Christ had not been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep,” and those who become conformed to his death and resurrection had not been raised with him, the city of God was sought below, and the temple, the purifications, and the rest; but when this had happened, no longer those, but the things above; and so that these might be established, “he had to go” to the Jerusalem below, “and suffer many things” there “from the elders” in it, “and chief priests and scribes” of the people, so that he might be glorified by the heavenly elders who receive his benefits, and by diviner high priests ranked under the one high priest; and might be glorified by the scribes of the people who busy themselves with letters not written in ink but made clear by the Spirit of the living God; and might be killed in the Jerusalem below, but having risen might reign on Mount Zion and in the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. And on the third day he rose from the dead, so that, having rescued them from the evil one and from his son, in whom were falsehood, unrighteousness, war, and all things opposed to what Christ is, and further from the profane spirit that disguises itself as the Holy Spirit, he might obtain for those rescued that they be baptized in spirit, soul, and body into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, which are three days present together eternally to those who through them are sons of the light.

… But since he thought the sufferings unworthy of Christ, the Son of the living God, and such things about him beneath the Father who had revealed such great things to him—for what concerned his coming suffering had not been revealed to him—for this reason, “taking him aside,” and as though forgetting the dignity of the Christ, and that the Son of the living God says or does nothing deserving rebuke, “he began to rebuke him”; and as to one who needed propitiation (for he did not yet know that “God put him forward as a propitiation through faith in his blood”), he said: “God be merciful to you, Lord.” Accepting his intention but rebuking his ignorance, because of the intention, which was right, he says to him: “Get behind me,” as to one who, through the things of which he was ignorant and did not speak rightly, had left off following Jesus; but because of the ignorance, as to one who had something opposed to the things of God, he said: “Satan,” which in Hebrew is “adversary.” But if he had not spoken from ignorance, nor rebuked the Son of the living God, saying to him, “God be merciful to you, Lord; this shall never happen to you,” he would not have said to him, “Get behind me,” as to one who had left being behind him and following him; nor would he have said, as to one who had spoken things opposed to what he had said, “Satan.” But as it was, Satan had been able to draw him, who had followed Jesus and was walking behind him, away from following him and from being behind the Son of God, and to make him, by what he said from ignorance, worthy to be called Satan and a stumbling block to the Son of God, “not minding the things of God but the things of men.” That Peter was behind the Son of God before he committed this sin is clear from: “Come behind me, and I will make you fishers of men.”

At the same time compare what he said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan,” with what he said to the devil when he said to him, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me”: “Go away, Satan,” without the addition “behind me”; for to be behind Jesus is a good thing. Therefore it is said, “Come behind me, and I will make you fishers of men.” Of the same kind is: “Whoever does not take up his cross and follow behind me is not worthy of me.” And in general observe the word “behind”: it is a good thing when one walks behind the Lord God and comes to be behind the Christ; but the opposite when one casts the words of God behind him, or when one transgresses the commandment that says, “Do not walk behind your desires.” And Elijah too, in the third book of Kingdoms, says to the people: “How long will you limp on both your hams? If the Lord is God, walk behind him; but if Baal is lord, walk behind him.” And Jesus says this to Peter “having turned,” and he does this to do him good. And if you collect more examples of “having turned,” especially those set down of Jesus, and examine them together, you would find that the word is not set down superfluously; for the present it is enough to set down this from the Gospel according to John: “And Jesus turned and saw them”—clearly Peter and Andrew—“following, and said to them, What are you seeking?” For see that in these words too “having turned” is for the benefit of those to whom he turned.

After this we must ask how he said to Peter, “You are a stumbling block to me,” especially since David says, “Great peace have those who love your law, and there is no stumbling block for them.” For someone will say: if this is said in the prophet because of the steadfastness of those who have love and are incapable of being made to stumble—“for love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things; love never fails”—how did the Lord himself, “who upholds all who are falling and sets upright all who are broken down,” say to Peter, “You are a stumbling block to me”? We must say that not only the Saviour but also one who has been perfected in love is incapable of being made to stumble; but, as far as lies in himself, one who says or does such things is a stumbling block even to one who will not be made to stumble; unless indeed Jesus calls the sinning disciple a stumbling block even to himself, as one who would say from love, much more than Paul, “Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to stumble, and I do not burn?”—beside which one could put: “Who is made to stumble, and I am not made to stumble?” And if Peter was then called a stumbling block by Jesus for saying, “God be merciful to you, Lord; this shall never happen to you,” as not minding the things of God in what he said but the things of men, what must be said of all who profess to be disciples of Jesus, but do not mind the things of God, nor look at the things unseen and eternal, but mind the things of men and look at the things seen and temporal, except that such people would be called by Jesus still more his stumbling block? And because they are stumbling blocks to him and to the brothers, as he says concerning them, “I was hungry and you did not give me to eat,” and so on, so he might also say, “When I was running you made me stumble.” Let us not, then, think that minding the things of men is a chance sin, since we ought in all things to mind the things of God. And it will be fitting to say this also to everyone who has fallen away from the doctrines of God and the teachings of the Church and the true mind, and who holds as true, for example, the teachings of Basilides, or Valentinus, or Marcion, or of anyone who teaches human things as divine.

“Then Jesus said to his disciples, If anyone wishes to follow behind me,” and the rest. By these words it is shown that wishing to come behind Jesus and follow him does not come from ordinary manly virtue, and that no one who has not denied himself could come behind Jesus. And one denies himself who, by a notable change, wipes out his own former life spent in wickedness: for example, one who was formerly licentious denies his licentious self by becoming self-controlled, and so on. But someone may well object: whether, as he denied himself, so he also confesses himself, denying his unjust self but confessing his just self? But if Christ is righteousness, one who has taken up righteousness confesses not himself but Christ; so too one who has found wisdom confesses Christ by the very fact of having wisdom. And such a one, “believing with the heart unto righteousness and confessing with the mouth unto salvation,” and bearing witness to Christ by his works, as one who has confessed Christ by all these before men, will be confessed by him before the Father in heaven. So too one who has not denied himself, but has denied Christ, will undergo the saying, “I too will deny him.” Therefore let every reasoning and thought of ours, and every word and every act, be a denial of ourselves and a witness concerning Christ and in Christ; for I am persuaded that every act of the perfect man is a witness to Christ Jesus, and that abstaining from every sin is a denial of oneself, which brings one behind Jesus. Such a one has been crucified with Christ, and taking up his own cross follows him who for our sake bears his own cross, according to what is said in John: “So they took him and laid on him,” and the rest, as far as “where they crucified him.” But the Jesus according to John, if I may so call him, bears the cross for himself, and “bearing it went out”; but the Jesus according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke does not carry it himself, for Simon of Cyrene carries it. And perhaps Simon refers to us, who take up the cross of Jesus for Jesus’ sake, and Jesus himself to himself; for there are, as it were, two aspects of the cross: one which Simon of Cyrene carries, and another which Jesus carries himself for himself.

Further, on “Let him deny himself,” what was said by Paul, who denied himself, seems useful to me, as follows: “It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me”; for “It is no longer I who live” was the voice of one denying himself, as one who had put off his own life and taken Christ into himself, so that he might live in him as righteousness, as wisdom, as sanctification, as our peace, and as the power of God, working all things in him. And attend to this too, that though there are many ways of dying, the Son of God was crucified, hung on a tree, so that all who die to sin might die to it in no other way than that of the cross. Therefore they will say, “I have been crucified with Christ,” and, “Far be it from me to boast except in the cross of the Lord, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.” For perhaps each of those crucified with Christ “strips off the principalities and authorities, and makes a public example of them, and triumphs over them on the tree”; or rather, Christ does these things in them.

“For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it.” The first phrase is ambiguous; for one can understand it in one way thus: if anyone, as a lover of life, thinking the present life a good, cherishes his own life with a view to living in the flesh, fearing to die, as though he would lose it through death, this man, by the very wish to save his life in this way, will lose it, putting it outside the bounds of blessedness. But if anyone, despising the present living because of my word, which has persuaded him to contend for truth even to death for the sake of eternal life, loses his own life, handing it over for piety to what is more commonly called death, this man, as having lost his life for my sake, will rather save it and preserve it. And in another way we might take the text thus: if anyone, having understood what salvation is, wishes to obtain the salvation of his own soul, let this man, renouncing this life, and denying himself, and taking up his cross and following me, lose his soul to the world; for losing it for my sake and for the sake of all my teaching, he will obtain salvation as the end of such loss.

And at the same time observe that at the beginning “whoever wishes” is said, but next “whoever loses it.” Wishing, then, for it to be saved, let us lose it to the world, as those crucified with Christ and having our boast in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world will be crucified to us and we to the world, so that we may obtain the end, the salvation of our souls, which begins from our losing it for the sake of the word. But if we understand the saving of the soul to be blessed, referring it to salvation in God and to the blessednesses with him, there must also be a loss of the soul that is good, and for Christ’s sake, which will be a prelude to the blessed salvation. It seems to me, then, that in analogy with denying oneself, as explained, each must lose his own soul. Let each, then, lose his sinning soul, so that, having lost the sinning one, he may take up the one that is being saved in doing right. “For a man will be profited nothing if he gains the whole world”; and he gains the world, I think, to whom the world is not crucified; and to whom the world is not crucified, for him there will be the loss of his own soul. Two things being set before us—either to lose the world for the sake of gaining the soul, or to lose the soul for the sake of gaining the world—it is much more to be chosen that we lose the world and gain the soul by losing it for Christ.

But the saying, “Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?”, if taken as a question, will seem able to indicate that one gives “an exchange for his soul” who after his sins has given away his whole substance, “to feed the poor with his possessions,” as though to be saved by this; but taken as a statement, it indicates, I think, that there is nothing a man has which he could give as “an exchange for his soul,” when it is held fast by death, and so redeem it from death’s hand. A man, then, could give nothing as “an exchange for his soul”; but God has given as the exchange for the souls of us all the precious blood of Jesus, according to which “we were bought with a price,” “redeemed not with perishable things, with silver or gold, but with precious blood, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot, Christ.” And in Isaiah it is said to Israel: “I gave Ethiopia as your exchange, and Egypt and Syene for you, since you became precious in my sight, you were glorified”; for, for example, the firstborn of the Egyptians became the exchange for the firstborn of Israel, and for Israel the Egyptians who died in the remaining plagues that came on Egypt and in the drowning after the plagues. From these things let one who is able examine whether the true Ethiopia, and, so to call it, the spiritual Egypt, and the Syene of Egypt, are given as the exchange for the true Israel by God, “who redeems Israel from all their iniquities.” And to inquire more boldly: perhaps Syene is given for Jerusalem, Egypt for Judea, and Ethiopia for those who fear the Lord, who are other than Israel and the house of Levi and the house of Aaron.

“For the Son of Man is to come in the glory of his Father with his angels.” Now, indeed, the Son of Man has come, not in his glory: “For we saw him, and he had no form or beauty; but his form was without honour, and failing beside the sons of men; a man in affliction and toil, and knowing how to bear weakness, for his face was turned away; he was dishonoured and not esteemed.” And he had to come such as this, so that he might “bear our sins and suffer pain for us”; for it was not fitting for one in glory to “bear our sins and suffer pain for us.” But he also comes in glory, having first prepared the disciples through his appearing that had no form or beauty; and having become as they are, so that they might become as he is, “conformed to the image” of his glory—since he first became conformed “to the body of our humiliation,” when “he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant”—he is restored to the form of God and makes them conformed to it.

If you are able to perceive the differences of the Word, proclaimed “in the foolishness of preaching” to those who believe, and spoken “in wisdom” among the perfect, you will see how the Word has the form of a servant to those being introduced, so that they would say, “We saw him, and he had no form or beauty”; but to the perfect he comes in the glory of his Father, and they would say: “And we beheld his glory, glory as of the only-begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.” For to the perfect there appears the glory of the Word, and his being only-begotten of God the Father, and his fullness of grace, and likewise of truth; which one who needs “the foolishness of preaching” in order to believe cannot receive. And “the Son of Man is to come in the glory of his Father,” not alone, but “with his angels.” And if you can perceive all the fellow workers of the glory of the Word and of the revelation of wisdom, which is Christ, coming with him, you will see how “the Son of Man comes in the glory of his Father with his angels.” And consider whether in these terms you can say that the prophets who suffered before had, by their word that had no form or beauty, a likeness to the Word who had no form or beauty. And as “the Son of Man comes in the glory of his Father,” so the words in the prophets, becoming angels, come with him, keeping the proportion of their own glory. And when the Word comes in such a way with his angels, he will give to each a share of his own glory and of the brightness of his angels, according to each one’s deeds. We say these things without rejecting the second coming of the Son of God understood in the simpler way. And when will these things come about? Is it not when that apostolic saying is fulfilled which says, “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each may receive what was done through the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad”? And if he will repay each according to his deeds, not the good alone, nor the bad apart from the good, it is clear that he will repay each according to every bad and every good deed. And I suppose—trusting the Apostle in this, and comparing also the words of Ezekiel, in which the sins of one who has turned completely are wiped out, and the former right deeds of one who has fallen away entirely are not reckoned—that for one who has been perfected and has entirely put off wickedness, the sins are wiped out; and for one who has entirely apostatized from godliness, any good he did before is not reckoned; but to us who are between the perfect and the apostate, when we appear before the judgment seat of Christ, is given what we have done, whether good or bad; for neither have we become so pure that our bad deeds are not reckoned against us at all, nor have we fallen away so far that our better deeds are forgotten.

“Truly I tell you, there are some of those standing here who will not taste death.” Some refer these words to the ascent, after six days or, as Luke says, eight, of the three apostles with Jesus to the high mountain apart; and those who explain it so say that Peter and the other two did not taste death before seeing “the Son of Man coming in his kingdom,” in his glory. For seeing Jesus transfigured before them, so that his face shone, and so on, they saw “the kingdom of God come in power.” For as certain bodyguards stand around a king, so “Moses and Elijah appeared” to those who had gone up the mountain with Jesus, “talking with him.” And it is worth considering whether sitting at the right and left of the Saviour in his kingdom refers to these, so that “but for those for whom it has been prepared” was said on their account. This explanation, that the three apostles would not taste death until they saw Jesus transfigured, suits those who have become, as Peter called them, “as newborn infants, longing for the rational, pure milk,” to whom Paul says, “I gave you milk to drink, not solid food,” and so on. And every explanation that, keeping to the letter, can build up those who cannot receive greater things might reasonably be called milk, flowing from the holy land of the Scriptures, which flows with milk and honey. But one who, like Isaac, has been weaned, worthy of the feast and reception that Abraham made at the weaning of his son, would seek in these words and in all Scripture the food that is solid—different, I think, from what is food indeed but not solid nourishment, and from what are figuratively called vegetables, which are food for one who has been weaned but is not strong, but weak, according to the saying, “The weak eats vegetables.” Likewise one who, like Samuel, has been weaned and dedicated by his mother to God—she was Hannah, which is interpreted “grace”—and would be a son of grace, seeks, as one nourished in the temple, the meat of God, the holy food of those who are at once perfect and priests.

What we see on the passage before us for the present is this. There were some standing where Jesus was, having the foundations of their soul firmly planted beside Jesus, and the standing of their feet was akin to the standing of which Moses said, “And I stood on the mountain forty days and forty nights,” who was also thought worthy of “But you, stand here with me,” said to him by God, who thought him worthy to stand beside him. These, then, who stand beside Jesus, that is, beside the Word of God, do not all stand equally; for there is a difference among those standing beside Jesus. Therefore not all who stand beside the Saviour, but some of them, as standing better, do not taste death until they see the Word who came to dwell among human beings, and is for this reason called Son of Man, coming in his own kingdom; for it is not always, when Jesus comes, that he comes in his kingdom, since to beginners he is such that they would say, seeing him not glorious nor great, but a word inferior to many among them: “We saw him, and he had no form or beauty; but his form was without honour, failing beside all the sons of men.” And those who have seen his glory will say this of their own former times, when at the beginning the Word as understood in the synagogue had no form or beauty for them. There is, then, a royal dignity manifested of the Word who has most manifestly taken up the rule over all words, seen by some of those standing beside Jesus, when they are able to follow him as he goes before them and goes up to the high mountain of his manifestation. Of this some of those standing beside Jesus are thought worthy, if they are either a Peter, against whom the gates of Hades do not prevail, or the sons of thunder, begotten of the great voice of God as he thunders and cries great things from heaven to those who have ears and are wise. Such, at any rate, do not taste death.

And what tasting death is must be considered. Life is he who said, “I am the life”; and this life “is hidden with Christ in God”; and “when Christ, our life, appears,” then with him will appear those worthy to appear with him “in glory.” And the enemy of this life, who is also the last of all his enemies to be abolished, is death, which the sinning soul dies, being disposed in the opposite way to what happens to the soul that does right and lives from doing right. And when it is said in the law, “I have set life before your face,” Scripture says this about him who said, “I am the life,” and about his enemy, death; one of which each of us always chooses by what he does. And when we sin though life is before our face, the curse is fulfilled upon us which says, “And your life shall hang before you,” and so on, as far as “and from the sights of your eyes which you will see.” As, then, the life is also the living bread “that came down from heaven and gives life to the world,” so his enemy, death, is dead bread. And every rational soul is fed either with living bread or with dead, through the doctrines, good or bad, that it accepts. Then, just as with more ordinary foods one sometimes only tastes them and sometimes eats more of them, so too with these loaves one person eats rather sparingly, only tasting them, while another is filled—if he is good, or on the way to being good, with the living bread that came down from heaven; if wicked, with the dead bread, which is death. And perhaps those who sin rarely and little only taste death; but those who have taken up virtue do not even taste it, but are always fed on living bread. It was consistent, then, for Peter, against whom the gates of Hades will not prevail, not even to taste death, since one tastes death and eats death when the gates of Hades prevail against him; and he eats or tastes death in proportion as more or fewer gates of Hades prevail over him to a greater or lesser degree. And for the sons of thunder too, begotten of heavenly thunder, it was impossible to taste death, which is very far from their mother, the thunder. These things the Word prophesies to those who will be perfected and who, from standing beside the Word, have advanced so far that they do not even taste death until they see the manifestation, the glory, the kingdom, and the pre-eminence of the Word of God, by which he excels every word that, with an appearance of truth, distracts and drags away those who cannot break the bonds of distraction and go up to the height of the pre-eminence of the Word of truth.

But since someone might think that the Saviour’s promise limits not tasting death to a time—that they will not taste death “until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom,” but after this will taste it—let us show from a certain usage of Scripture that “until” indicates the time that is pressing as regards the thing indicated, not a limit, so that after the “until” the opposite of what is indicated must certainly happen. The Saviour says to the eleven disciples, when he had risen from the dead, among other things: “Behold, I am with you all the days, until the consummation of the age.” Did he, then, in saying this, promise that he would be with them until the consummation of the age, but that after the consummation of the age, when the other age, called the coming one, sets in, he would no longer be with them? So that by this reckoning the state of the disciples until the consummation of the age would be better than their state at the consummation of the age? But I do not think anyone would dare to say that after the consummation of the age the Son of God will no longer be with the disciples, because the wording says that he will be with them so long, until the consummation of the age sets in. For it is clear that what was in question was whether, before the coming age and the hoped-for promises of God in reward, the Son of God would already be with the disciples. And it might have been asked, granted that he would be with them, whether he was sometimes with them and sometimes not; therefore, freeing us from the suspicion of doubt, he declared that already, and on all the days, he would be with the disciples, not leaving those who had become his disciples until the consummation of the age—not, however, that during the nights, when the sun had set, he was not with them. If such is the sense of “until the consummation of the age,” clearly we shall not be compelled to admit that those who saw the Son of Man coming in his kingdom tasted death after being thought worthy to see him so; but, as in the text we adduced the pressing point was for us to learn that until the consummation of the age he will not leave us but will be with us all the days, so in this case too it is clear, I think, to those who know how to see the sequence of things, that one who has once seen “the Son of Man coming in his kingdom,” and seen him “in his glory,” and seen “the kingdom of God come in power,” would not taste death after the contemplation of such great goods. But apart from the word of Jesus’ promise, we might not unreasonably have supposed that we taste death so long as we have not yet been thought worthy to see the kingdom of God come in power, and the Son of Man coming in his glory and in his kingdom.

And since here the three evangelists have written “will not taste death,” while elsewhere various things are said about death, it is not out of place to set those beside it too and examine them together with “taste.” In the Psalms, then, it is said, “Who is the man who will live and not see death?”; and again in another place, “Let death come upon them, and let them go down to Hades alive”; and in one of the prophets, “Death, having prevailed, swallowed up”; and in the Revelation, “Death and Hades follow” some. In these it seems to me that tasting death is one thing, seeing it another, its coming upon some another; a fourth thing besides these is signified by “Death, having prevailed, swallowed up,” and a fifth besides these by “Death and Hades follow them.” And you too, on reading, might perhaps find other differences besides those we have mentioned; and by setting them beside one another and searching rightly you would find the things signified in each passage. And I ask whether among these seeing death is a lesser evil, tasting it a greater one, and worse still death following someone, and not only following, but also already coming upon him and overtaking the one whom it followed before; and being swallowed up seems to me heavier than all those mentioned. Attending to what has been said and to the difference of sins, you will not hesitate to accept that something of this kind was intended by the Spirit who caused these things to be written in the oracles of God. And if, beyond what has been said, we must set out more clearly what is shown in seeing the Son of Man coming in his kingdom, or in his glory, and what is signified in seeing the kingdom of God come in power, we shall set out what either shines in our hearts, or is found as we search, or occurs to our thoughts (let each judge as he will). One who contemplates and grasps the pre-eminence of the Word, as he refutes and exposes all the plausibilities that support falsehoods while professing truth, sees the Son of Man—according to John’s way of speaking, the Word of God—coming in his own kingdom; and if such a one should see the Word not only refuting all the plausibility of opponents, but also setting forth his own teachings most clearly, he would see, besides the kingdom, his glory too. And such a one would see in himself the kingdom of God come in power; and he would see this as one no longer at all ruled by sin reigning in the mortal body of those who sin, but always ranked under the King, the God of all, whose kingdom is within us potentially, but actually—and, as Mark called it, “in power,” and not at all in weakness—within the perfect alone. These things, then, Jesus promised prophetically to the disciples standing there, not about all of them but about some. [Heading of the next chapter:] On the transfiguration of the Saviour.

“And after six days,” according to Matthew and Mark, “he takes Peter and James and John his brother, and leads them up a high mountain apart; and he was transfigured before them.” And before the explanation of these things that occurs to us, let it be granted that this took place long ago, and according to the letter. But it seems to me that those who are led up by Jesus to the high mountain, and thought worthy to see his transfiguration apart, are led up not without purpose six days after the words spoken before. For since in six days, a perfect number, the whole world, this perfect work of creation, was made, for this reason, I think, the one who goes beyond all the things of the world, in that he looks no longer at the things that are seen—for these are temporary—but now at the things that are not seen, and at those alone, because they are eternal, is indicated in “After six days Jesus takes” certain persons. If, then, any of us wishes, when Jesus takes him, to be led up by him to the high mountain and to be thought worthy to see his transfiguration apart, let him go beyond the six days, by no longer looking at the things that are seen, nor loving the world any longer, nor the things in the world, nor desiring any worldly desire, which is the desire of bodies, and of the wealth that is in the body, and of glory according to the flesh, and of all that by nature distracts the soul and drags it away from better and more divine things, brings it down, and fixes it in the deceit of this age, in wealth and glory and the other desires that are hostile to truth. For when he has passed through the six days, as we have said, he will keep a new sabbath, rejoicing on the high mountain at seeing Jesus transfigured before him; for the Word has different forms, appearing to each as is profitable for the one who sees, and being manifested to no one beyond what the one who sees can receive.

You will ask whether, when he was transfigured before those whom he led up the high mountain, he appeared to them in the form of God in which he existed of old; so that for those below he had the form of a servant, but for those who followed him after six days to the high mountain, not that form but the form of God. But hear these things, if you can, attending spiritually at the same time: it is not said simply, “He was transfigured,” but with a necessary addition, which Matthew and Mark recorded; for according to both, “He was transfigured before them.” And by this you will say that it is possible for Jesus to be transfigured with this transfiguration before some, and at the same time not to be transfigured before others. And if you wish to see the transfiguration of Jesus before those who went up the high mountain apart with him, see, I pray, the Jesus in the Gospels, understood more simply, and, as one might say, known according to the flesh by those who do not go up, through elevated works and words, to the high mountain of wisdom; but no longer known according to the flesh, but spoken of as God throughout the Gospels, and contemplated in the form of God according to the knowledge of those who do go up; for before these Jesus is transfigured, and before none of those below. And when he is transfigured, his face too shines like the sun, so that he may be manifested to the children of light, who have put off the works of darkness and put on the armour of light, and are no longer children of darkness or night, but have become sons of the day, and walk decently as in the day; and being manifested he will shine on them, not simply as the sun, but showing them that he is the sun of righteousness.

And not only is he himself transfigured before such disciples, nor does he add to the transfiguration only the shining of his face like the sun; but his garments too appear white as the light to those whom he led up the high mountain apart. And the garments of Jesus are the expressions and letters of the Gospels with which he clothed himself. And I think that the words in the apostles that make known the things about him are also garments of Jesus, which become white to those who go up the high mountain with Jesus. But since there are differences among white things too, his garments become white like that which is brightest and purest of all white things, and this is the light. When, then, you see someone not only exact in the theology about Jesus but also making clear the whole wording of the Gospels, do not hesitate to say that for such a one the garments of Jesus have become white as the light. And when the Son of God is so understood and contemplated as transfigured, so that his face is a sun and his garments white as the light, at once there would be seen, by one who has seen Jesus so, Moses—the law—and Elijah—by synecdoche not one only but all the prophets—conversing with Jesus; for such is what is shown in “talking with him”; and according to Luke, “Moses and Elijah, appearing in glory,” and so on, as far as “in Jerusalem.” And if anyone has seen the glory of Moses, having understood the spiritual law as a discourse in harmony with Jesus, and the wisdom hidden in mystery in the prophets, he has seen Moses and Elijah in glory, when he saw them with Jesus.

Then, since according to Mark we shall need to explain “And as he was praying he was transfigured before them,” we must say that perhaps it is most possible to see the Word transfigured before us if we do the things said before, and go up the mountain, and see the Word himself conversing with the Father and praying to him for what the true high priest would pray to the only true God. And so that he may thus converse with God and pray to the Father, he goes up the mountain; and then, according to Mark, “his garments become white and glistening like light, such as no fuller on earth can whiten them.” And perhaps the fullers on earth are the wise of this age, who take pains over a diction that they think bright and pure, so that even shameful thoughts and false doctrines seem to be adorned by their fulling, if I may so call it; but the one who shows his garments glistening to those who have gone up further, and brighter than their fulling can make them, is the Word, who displays, in the wording of the Scriptures despised by many, the glistening of the thoughts, when “the clothing of Jesus,” according to Luke, becomes “white and dazzling.”

Let us see after this what Peter had in mind when he answered and said to Jesus: “Lord, it is good for us to be here; let us make three tents,” and so on. These things must be inquired into especially for this reason, that Mark added to them, as in his own person, “For he did not know what to answer,” and Luke says, “not knowing what he was saying.” You will consider, then, whether he spoke these things in ecstasy, filled with the spirit that moved him to say them, which cannot have been holy; for John taught in his Gospel that before the Saviour’s resurrection no one had had the Holy Spirit, saying: “For the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” And if the Spirit was not yet, and the one who did not know what he was saying spoke moved by some spirit, the one causing these things to be said was one of the spirits that had not yet been triumphed over on the tree, nor made a public example of with those of whom it is written: “Having stripped the principalities and authorities, he made a public example of them, triumphing over them boldly on the tree.” And this was perhaps what was called a stumbling block by Jesus, and the Satan spoken of in “Get behind me, Satan; you are a stumbling block to me.” I know well that such things will offend many readers, who think it unreasonable to speak ill of one who shortly before had been pronounced blessed by Jesus because the Father in heaven had revealed to him the truth about the Saviour, that he is Jesus, and the Christ, and the Son of the living God. But let such a one attend closely to Peter and the other apostles, and to their having needs as well, as being still strangers to him who would redeem them from the enemy and buy them with his precious blood; or let those who will have it that the apostles became perfect even before Jesus’ passion tell us how it was that “Peter and those with him,” at the time of Jesus’ transfiguration, “were weighed down with sleep.” And, taking in advance something of what follows for the matter in hand, I would raise this question: is it possible to be made to stumble in Jesus without the working of the devil who causes stumbling? And is it possible to deny Jesus, and that before a slave girl and a doorkeeper and the meanest of people, without there being with the one who denies a spirit hostile to the Spirit, and to the wisdom, that are given to those helped by God to confess according to some worth of theirs? But one who has learned to trace the roots of sins back to the father of sin, the devil, will not say that without him either the apostles were made to stumble or Peter denied three times before that cock-crow. And if this is so, perhaps the one who, in order to make Jesus stumble as far as lay in him, and to turn him from the saving dispensation through the passion that he undertook for human beings with great eagerness, worked what seemed to lead to this, here too wished as it were deceitfully to draw Jesus away, as calling on him no longer to come down to human beings, and come to them, and accept death for them, but to stay on the high mountain with Moses and Elijah. And he promised also to make three tents, one apart for Jesus, another for Moses, and another for Elijah, as though, if they had to be in tents even on the high mountain, one tent could not hold the three. And perhaps in this too the one working in him who “did not know what he was saying” acted maliciously, not wishing Jesus and Moses and Elijah to be together, but to separate them from one another, on the pretext of those three tents. And “It is good for us to be here” was also a falsehood; for if it was good, they would have stayed there. And if it was a falsehood, you will ask who caused the falsehood to be spoken; especially since, according to John, “When he speaks the lie, he speaks from his own, for he is a liar and its father”; and as there is no truth without the working of him who said, “I am the truth,” so there is no falsehood without the enemy of the truth. There were, then, still opposites in Peter, truth and falsehood; and from truth he said, “You are the Christ, the Son of God,” but from falsehood, “God be merciful to you, Lord; this shall never happen to you,” and also, “It is good for us to be here.” But one who will not have Peter say these things from some worse working, but holds his words to be of his bare choice, when asked how he would explain “not knowing what he was saying” and “For he did not know what to answer,” will say that there he held it blasphemous and unworthy of Jesus to accept that the Son of the living God, the Christ, whom the Father had already revealed to him, should be killed; and here, having seen the two forms of Jesus, and the one in the transfiguration far superior, being well pleased with it, he said it was good to spend their time on that mountain, so that he and those with him might rejoice in contemplating the transfiguration of Jesus, his face shining like the sun, and his garments white as the light, and besides these might always contemplate in glory Moses and Elijah, who had once been seen in glory; and might rejoice at whatever they should hear from them as they talked and conversed with one another, Moses and Elijah with Jesus, and Jesus with them.

But since, without yet having taken pains to interpret the passage figuratively, we have said these things examining them according to the letter, let us next see whether those led up to the height of the doctrines of truth, who have seen the transfiguration of Jesus and Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory with him—the Peter we have spoken of, and the sons of thunder—might wish to make tents in themselves for the Word of God, who would dwell in them, and for his law, contemplated with glory, and for the prophecy that speaks of the departure of Jesus which he was to fulfil; and whether Peter, as one who loved the contemplative life and preferred its delight to being among the many with some trouble for the purpose of helping those who wish it, said, “It is good for us to be here.” But since love “does not seek its own,” Jesus did not do what Peter thought good; therefore he came down from the mountain to those unable to go up it and see his transfiguration, so that they might at least see him such as they can receive. It belongs, then, to the righteous man, who has the love that does not seek its own, “being free from all, to make himself a slave to all” those below, “that he may win the more” of them. But someone might say, in answer to what was explained about ecstasy and the working of a worse spirit in Peter concerning “not knowing what he was saying,” not admitting that explanation, that in Paul some “desiring to be teachers of the law” do not know what they are talking about—not in that sense, but in that, not making plain the nature of what they say nor understanding its intent, they make confident assertions about what they do not know; and that Peter too had experienced something of this kind. For not having grasped what was good concerning the dispensation of Jesus and the appearance of Moses and Elijah on the mountain, he says, “It is good for us to be here,” and so on, “not knowing what he was saying”; “for he did not know what he was saying.” For if “the wise will understand what comes from his own mouth, and carries knowledge on his lips,” one who is not so does not understand what comes from his own mouth, nor grasp the nature of what he says.

Next after these is: “While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them,” and so on. I think that God, turning Peter away from making three tents, under which he was going to dwell as far as his wish went, shows a better tent, so to speak, and one far superior: the cloud. For if the work of a tent is to overshadow and cover the one in it, and the bright cloud overshadowed them, God made for them, as it were, a more divine tent, since it was bright, as a pattern of the resurrection to come; for a bright cloud overshadows the righteous, who are at once sheltered and enlightened and illumined by it. And what might the bright cloud overshadowing the righteous be? Perhaps the Father’s power, from which comes the voice of the Father, bearing witness to the Son as beloved and well-pleasing, and urging those overshadowed by it to listen to him and to no one else? And he speaks, as of old, so always through whom he wills. Perhaps also the Holy Spirit is the bright cloud that overshadows the righteous and prophesies the things of God, who works in it and says, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” And I would make bold to say that our Saviour too is a bright cloud. Peter, then, said, “Let us make three tents here” … one from himself, and one from the Son, and one from the Holy Spirit; for a bright cloud of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit overshadows the genuine disciples of Jesus. Or a cloud overshadows the Gospel and the law and the prophets, bright to one who can see by its light in the Gospel and the law and the prophets. And the voice from the cloud perhaps says to Moses and Elijah, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; listen to him,” since they longed to see the Son of Man and hear him and behold him as he is; and perhaps it teaches the disciples that the one who is properly Son of God, his beloved in whom he is well pleased, to whom above all one must listen, was the one then being contemplated, transfigured, shining in his face like the sun, and clothed in garments white as the light.

After this it is written that the three apostles, hearing the voice from the cloud bearing witness to the Son, and not bearing the glory of the voice and the power upon it, fell on their faces and besought God; for they were greatly afraid at the strangeness of the sight and of what was spoken from the sight. Consider whether you can say this too about the passage: that the disciples, having understood that the Son of God had spoken with Moses, and that it was he who said, “For no one shall see my face and live,” and having received in addition God’s testimony about him, being unable to bear the rays of the Word, humbled themselves under the mighty hand of God; but after the touch of the Word, lifting up their eyes, they saw Jesus only, and no one else. Moses, the law, and Elijah, prophecy, became one only with Jesus, the Gospel; and they did not remain three as they were before, but the three became one. Understand these things, I pray, as regards the mystical matters; for as regards the bare intent of the letter, Moses and Elijah, having appeared in glory and talked with Jesus, went away to where they had come from, perhaps to give of the words that Jesus spoke with them to those who were very soon to receive his benefit at the time of the passion, when “many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep,” their tombs being opened, were to go away into the truly holy city—not the Jerusalem wept over by Jesus—and appear there to many. And after the dispensation on the mountain, as the disciples came down from the mountain so as to go to the crowd and serve the Son of God for their salvation, “Jesus commanded the disciples, saying, Tell no one the vision until the Son of Man is raised from the dead.” And “Tell no one the vision” is like what was examined above, when “he charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.” Therefore what was said on that passage can be useful to us for the matter before us too, since here too Jesus wishes the things of his glory not to be told before his glory after the passion; for the hearers, especially the crowds, would have been harmed on seeing one so glorified being crucified. Therefore, since his being glorified in the resurrection was akin to his transfiguration and to his face appearing like the sun, for this reason he wishes these things to be told by the apostles then, when he has risen from the dead.

“The disciples asked him, saying, Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?” The disciples who had gone up with Jesus remembered what the scribes handed down about Elijah: that before the coming of Christ, Elijah would come and make ready for him the souls of those who would receive him. But the vision on the mountain, in which Elijah appeared, did not seem to agree with what had been said, since it seemed to them that Elijah had come not before Jesus but after him. That is why they say this, thinking that the scribes were lying. To this the Saviour answers, not setting aside what was handed down about Elijah, but saying that there was another coming of Elijah, before Christ, which the scribes did not recognize; in it, not knowing him, they became accessories to his being thrown into prison by Herod and to his being put to death by him, and “they did in him whatever they wished.” Then he says that the Son of Man will suffer at the hands of the same people in a manner corresponding to what they did to Elijah. The disciples asked about these things as about Elijah, and the Saviour answered; but those who heard understood that “Elijah has already come,” and what the Saviour said next, referred to John the Baptist. Let this much be said to make the passage before us clear; now let us, as far as we can, also examine the matters stored up in it. In these words “Elijah” does not seem to me to mean the soul, lest I fall into the doctrine of transmigration of souls into bodies, which is foreign to the church of God, neither handed down by the apostles nor appearing anywhere in the Scriptures. For it is contrary to the truth that the things that are seen are temporary, and that this age will come to its consummation; and also to the fulfilment of “Heaven and earth will pass away,” and “For the form of this world is passing away,” and “The heavens will perish,” with what follows it. For if, for the sake of argument, the same soul can come to be in a body twice within the order of things from the beginning to the consummation of the world, for what reason would it come to be in it? If it comes to be in a body twice because of sin, why not three times, and more often, since the punishments for this life and the sins committed in it would be paid back to it in this one way only, by transmigration? If this is granted as a consequence, there will perhaps never be a time when a soul is not transmigrated; for it will always come to dwell in the body because of its earlier sins, and so there will be no room for the passing of the world, according to which “Heaven and earth will pass away.” And if, on this hypothesis, it is granted that one who is wholly without sin will no longer come into a body through birth, how long a time do you think it will take to find one soul wholly purified and not needing transmigration? Yet even so, if one soul at a time is always removed from the fixed number of souls and no longer comes into a body, birth will at some point fail, after what are, as it were, endless ages, when the world has come down to some one or two, or a few more; after these too are perfected the world will be destroyed, because there is no one left to come into a body. But this does not please Scripture; for it knows of a multitude of sinners at the time of the world's destruction. This is clear when one examines “Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?” together with what we found said in Matthew: “As the days of Noah were, so will the coming of the Son of Man be; for as they were in the days of the flood,” and what follows. For the people of that time the exaction for their sins will not be by transmigration. For if they are taken while still sinning, then either they will be punished afterwards by another mode of punishment, and in that case there will be two general modes of punishment, one by transmigration and the other outside such a body (and let them state the causes and differences of these); or they will not be punished, as if those left at the consummation had cast off their sins all at once; or, which is better, there is one mode of punishment for those who have sinned in a body: to suffer, outside the state of this life, what their sins deserve. Each of these, for anyone able to look into the matter, overturns transmigration. And if the Greeks who bring in transmigration, laying it down as consistent with their views, necessarily refuse to have the world destroyed, then it is time for them too, faced with the Scriptures that plainly declare that the world will be destroyed, either to disbelieve them or to invent ingenious explanations of the account of the consummation; which, even if they wish, they will not be able to do. Further, to those who would dare to say that the world will not be destroyed we shall say this also: if the world is not destroyed but goes on without limit, God will not be one who knows all things before they come to be. But if he does, then only part by part: either he will know each thing before it comes to be, or some things, and after these again others; for things infinite by nature cannot be comprehended by knowledge, which by nature sets limits to what it knows. And it follows from this that there cannot be prophecies about all things whatsoever, since they are infinite …

I think it was necessary to spend time on examining the doctrine of transmigration because of the suspicion of some who supposed that the soul under discussion was the same in Elijah and in John, called Elijah the first time and John the second; and that it was not without God that he was called John, as is clear from the angel who appeared to Zechariah having said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer has been heard; and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you will call his name John,” and from Zechariah's recovering his voice after writing on the tablet that the child who had been born was to be called John. But if the soul was Elijah, then when he was born a second time he ought to have been called Elijah, or some reason for the change of name ought to have appeared, as with Abram and Abraham, Sarai and Sarah, Jacob and Israel, Simon and Peter. And yet even so the argument would not hold in their case; for these changes of name came to the people mentioned within one and the same life. Someone might ask: if the soul is not Elijah, first in the Tishbite and second in John, what would it be in both that the Saviour called Elijah? I say that Gabriel, in his words to Zechariah, has set out what the substance was that was the same in Elijah and in John. For he says, “He will turn many of the sons of Israel to the Lord their God; and he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah.” Notice that he did not say, “in the soul of Elijah,” so that transmigration might find a place, but “in the spirit and power of Elijah.” For Scripture plainly knows a difference between spirit and soul, as in “May God sanctify you wholly, and may your spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ”; and “Bless the Lord, you spirits and souls of the righteous,” which is found in Daniel according to the Seventy, sets out the difference between spirit and soul. So John was called Elijah not because of the soul but because of the spirit and the power; and it does no harm at all to the church's teaching if these were first in Elijah and later came to be in John. Also: “And the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets,” but souls of prophets are not subject to prophets; and: “The spirit of Elijah has rested upon Elisha.” But we must inquire whether the spirit of Elijah is the same as the Spirit of God that was in Elijah, or whether these are different from each other; and whether the spirit of Elijah that was in him was something extraordinary compared with the spirit of each human being that is in him. For the Apostle plainly showed that the Spirit of God, even if it is in us, is different from the spirit of each human being which is in him, where he says, “The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,” and where he says, “No one among men knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him; so also no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.” Do not be surprised concerning Elijah if, just as something strange happened to him beyond all the saints on record, in that he was taken up into heaven in a whirlwind, so his spirit had something exceptional, so that it not only rested upon Elisha but also came down with John into birth; and that John, on the one hand, was “filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother's womb,” and on the other “went before” Christ “in the spirit and power of Elijah.” For it is possible for several spirits to be in the same person, not only worse ones but also better ones. David, at any rate, asks to be strengthened by a governing spirit, and that a right spirit be renewed within him. And if, so that the Saviour might impart to us something of the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and godliness, he was also filled with the spirit of the fear of God, then these too can be understood as several better spirits in the same person. We have set this down because John went before Christ “in the spirit and power of Elijah,” so that “Elijah has already come” may be referred to the spirit of Elijah that was in John, as the three disciples who went up with him also understood that he spoke to them about John the Baptist. Now on Elisha only the spirit of Elijah rested; but John went before not in the spirit alone but also in the power of Elijah. That is why Elisha would not have been called Elijah, but John himself was Elijah. And if we must cite the Scripture from which the scribes said that Elijah must come first, hear Malachi saying, “And behold, I will send you Elijah the Tishbite,” and what follows, as far as “lest I come and strike the earth utterly.” Through these words it seems to be shown that Elijah will make ready beforehand, for the glorious coming of Christ, by certain holy words and dispositions in their souls, those who have become fit for it; for those on earth could not have borne that coming because of the surpassing glory, unless they had first been made ready by Elijah. Here too by Elijah I take not the soul of that prophet but his spirit and his power; for these are the things by which all things will be restored, so that … and when they have become able, through the restoration, to receive the glory of Christ, the Son of God, who will be seen in glory, may come to dwell among them. And if Elijah is also a kind of word, lower than the Word who was God in the beginning with God, perhaps he could come first, as a preliminary exercise, to the people being made ready by him, so that it may be prepared to receive the perfect Word. Someone might raise the question whether the spirit and the power of Elijah suffered what was done in John, and “they did in him whatever they wished.” To this it will be said, more simply, that there is nothing absurd in helpers suffering, out of love, with those whom they help; Jesus, at any rate, says, “Because of the weak I was weak, and because of the hungry I hungered, and because of the thirsty I thirsted.” But at a deeper level, that the words are not “But they did to him whatever they wished in him”; for the things that suffered were supported by the spirit and the power of Elijah, while the soul of John was in no way Elijah, and perhaps the body as well. For soul, spirit, and power are in a body in one way; but the body of the righteous is in the better things in another way, as if supported by them and depending on them. “Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh but in the spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you”; for the soul of the sinner is in the flesh, but the soul of the righteous is in the spirit. Further, it might also be asked to whom “But they did in him whatever they wished” refers. To the scribes, about whom the disciples were inquiring when they said, “Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?” But John does not seem at all to have suffered anything from the scribes, unless perhaps that they did not believe him, or that, as we said above, they became accessories to what Herod dared against him. Another might say that “But they did in him whatever they wished” refers not to the scribes but to Herodias and her daughter and Herod, who “did in him whatever they wished.” And what follows, “So also the Son of Man is about to suffer at their hands,” would refer, on the first view, to the scribes; on the second, it too will refer to Herod and Herodias and her daughter; for Herod seems to have voted with those who wanted Jesus to die, his wife perhaps also sharing with him in the plot against him.

“And when they came to the crowd, a man came up to him, kneeling before him and saying, Lord, have mercy on my son.” Those who suffer, or the relatives of those who suffer, are with the crowds. That is why, whenever Jesus has carried out the things that are above the crowds, he comes down to them, so that those who cannot go up because of the diseases that hold their souls may be helped, when he has come down to them from the loftier things of the Word. We must examine in which diseases the sufferers themselves believe and ask for their own healing, and in which others do this for them: the centurion for his servant, the royal official for his son, the ruler of the synagogue for his daughter, the Canaanite woman for her demon-possessed daughter, and now “the man kneeling before him” for his moonstruck son. Together with these you will examine when the Saviour heals of his own accord, asked by no one, as with the paralytic. For these healings, compared with one another and examined together, will present to anyone able to hear many teachings of the wisdom of God hidden in a mystery, both about the various afflictions that befall souls and about the manner of their healing.

But since our task now is to examine not all of these but the passage before us, let us see, interpreting figuratively, whom we can say the moonstruck boy is, and the father who makes the request for him, and what it means that the sufferer falls not always but often, sometimes into fire and at other times into water; and what it means that he could not be healed by the disciples, but only by Jesus himself. For it is reasonable, if every disease and every infirmity which our Saviour then healed among the people refers to the various afflictions in souls, that those paralysed in soul, who have it lying paralysed upon the body, are signified by the paralytics; that those who are blind to the things that are visible to the soul alone are signified by the blind, and are blind; and that those who are deaf to receiving the saving word are signified by the deaf. In the same way the things concerning the moonstruck boy must be examined. This affliction attacks those who suffer from it at considerable intervals, during which the one who has it seems no different from a healthy person, except at the time when the seizure is acting on him. You might find some such afflictions in certain souls, which are often thought to be healthy in self-control and the other virtues, and then sometimes are seized, as if by a kind of epilepsy, by the passions, and fall from seeming to stand, and are convulsed by the deceit of this age and by the other desires. Perhaps, then, you would not be wrong to say that such people are, so to speak, spiritually moonstruck, being thrown down by “the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places,” and that they are often ill at the times when the passions seize their soul: sometimes falling into the fire of burning passions, when, according to what is said in Hosea, they become “adulterers, like an oven burning for baking, from the flame”; and sometimes into water, when the king of all the dragons in the waters throws them down from seeming to breathe freely, into the depths of the waves of the sea of human life. The one who speaks in Wisdom will also help us with this account of the moonstruck boy, when he says of the evenness of the righteous, “The discourse of a godly man is wisdom at all times,” and of those set against them, “But the fool changes like the moon.” In such people too one may see impulses able to carry away into praise those who have not noticed their instability; so that one would say there is, as it were, a full moon in them, or nearly full. But again you might see the light that seemed to be in them imitating not the light of day but the light of night, waning until not even what seems to be light is any longer seen in them. Whether those who first gave things their names called the affliction of epilepsy “moonstruckness” for some such reason, or not, you will consider for yourself.

The father of the moonstruck boy is perhaps the angel to whom he was allotted (if indeed we must say that every human soul is placed under some angel), asking the Physician of souls, as for a son, to rescue him, since he could not be healed of the affliction by the lesser word that was in the disciples. The dumb and deaf spirit must be interpreted figuratively as the irrational impulses, even toward what seems good, which are cast out by the Word, so that what someone used to do by an irrational impulse, thought good by those who saw it, he no longer does irrationally but according to the reason of Jesus' teaching. Starting from this, Paul too said, “If I have all faith, so as to remove mountains”; for the one who has all faith, which is like a grain of mustard seed, removes not one mountain only but many like it. For faith is despised by people, and appears to be something very small and cheap; but when it finds good soil, that is, a soul well able to receive such seed, it becomes a great tree, so that none of the creatures without wings, but the birds of heaven that are winged spiritually, can nest in the branches of such faith.

Let us now attend also to the wording itself, and first inquire how one who is darkened and thrown down by an unclean, deaf, and dumb spirit is said to be moonstruck, and why “being moonstruck” takes its name from the great light in heaven, second after the sun, which God appointed “to rule the night.” Let physicians, then, give their natural explanations, since they do not think there is an unclean spirit in the case at all, but a bodily affliction; and, explaining it by nature, let them say that the moist parts in the head are moved by a certain sympathy with the light of the moon, which has a moist nature. But we, who also believe the Gospel that this disease is seen to be worked in those who suffer from it by an unclean, dumb, and deaf spirit, and who see that those who, like the enchanters of the Egyptians, are accustomed to promise the healing of such people sometimes seem to succeed with them, shall say this: perhaps, in order to slander the creatures of God, so that “unrighteousness may be spoken on high, and they may set their mouth against heaven,” this unclean spirit watches for certain phases of the moon and acts accordingly, so that, from observing that people suffer at such and such a phase of the moon, the cause of so great an evil may be thought to be not the dumb and deaf demon but the great light in heaven, appointed to rule the night, which has no part in causing such a disease among people. And all who say that the cause of everything on earth, whether general events or individual ones, lies in the positions of the stars “speak unrighteousness on high”; such people truly “have set their mouth against heaven,” saying that some of the stars work evil and others work good, though no star was made by the God of the universe to work evil, according to Jeremiah, as it is written in Lamentations: “Out of the mouth of the Lord will come good things and what is good.” It is likely that, just as this unclean spirit which produces what is called moonstruckness watches the phases of the moon, so as to act on one who for certain reasons has been handed over to it and has not made himself worthy of an angel's guard, so also other spirits and demons watch certain positions of the other stars, so that not only the moon but the other stars as well may be reviled by “those who speak unrighteousness on high.” One can, at any rate, hear the casters of nativities referring the cause of all madness and all demon-possession to the phases of the moon. That those who suffer from what is called moonstruckness sometimes fall into water is clear; that they also fall into fire is rarer, but this too happens. It is also clear that this disease is hard to heal, so that even those who have the gift of healing the demon-possessed sometimes give up in the face of it, and sometimes succeed only with fastings and prayers and greater labours. You will inquire whether, as among human beings, so also among spirits there are such afflictions, so that some of them speak and others are dumb, and some hear and others are deaf. For it will be found that, just as the cause of their being unclean lies in themselves, so also, because of their free will, they have been condemned to be dumb and deaf. For some human beings too will suffer such a condemnation, if the prophet's prayer, spoken as by the Holy Spirit, is heard, in which it is said of certain sinners, “Let the deceitful lips be made dumb.” So too, perhaps, those who have misused their hearing and received an empty report will be made deaf by him who said, “Who made the hard of hearing and the deaf?”, so that they may no longer receive an empty report.

Since the Saviour said, “O faithless and perverse generation,” he shows that wickedness has come in through perversion, having arisen contrary to nature and having made us perverse. And I think it was because the Saviour was weighed down by the whole race of people on earth on account of its wickedness, and by his stay among them, that he said, “How long shall I be with you?” We have already spoken in part on “If you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain,” and what follows; nonetheless these things too will be said on the passage more clearly, as it appears to us. By mountains here I think are meant the opposing powers that have been poured out in wickedness and have become great, which are, as it were, firmly lodged in certain human souls. Whenever, then, someone has all faith, so as no longer to disbelieve anything that lies in the sacred writings, and has such faith as was the faith of Abraham, who believed God to such a degree that his faith was reckoned to him as righteousness, he has all faith, as a grain of mustard seed. Then such a person will say to this mountain (I mean the dumb and deaf spirit in the one said to be moonstruck), “Move from here,” clearly from the suffering man, perhaps into the abyss, “and it will move.” And the Apostle, I think, taking his starting point from here, said with apostolic authority, “And if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains”; for the one who has all faith, which is as a grain of mustard seed, removes not one mountain only but many like it; and nothing will be impossible to one who believes to such a degree. Let us also attend to “This kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting,” so that, if ever we must busy ourselves with the healing of someone who suffers in this way, we may not adjure it, nor question it, nor speak as though the unclean spirit could hear, but, giving ourselves to prayer and fasting, may succeed as we pray for the sufferer, and by our own fasting may drive the unclean spirit away from him.

“And as they were going about in Galilee, Jesus said to them, The Son of Man is about to be delivered into the hands of men.” This will seem to some to be equivalent to “He began to show his disciples that he must go away to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests.” But that is not so. For it is not the same thing to show the disciples “that he must go away to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes,” and after suffering be killed, and after being killed be raised on the third day, as to say to them while they were in Galilee (which we did not learn above) that the Son of Man was about to be delivered. For “being delivered” was not said above; but now it is said, and also “into the hands of men.” On this let us inquire by whom he is about to be delivered into the hands of men, or by which ones. There we are taught by whom he will suffer and in what place he will suffer; here we learn in addition that his suffering many things happens at the hands of those already mentioned, but that they are not the first causes of his suffering many things; rather, the one who delivers him, or those who deliver him, into the hands of men. One person will say that the Apostle, explaining this, says of God, “He who did not spare his own Son but delivered him up for us all”; and the Son also gave himself up to death for us, so that he was delivered not only by the Father but also by himself. Another, gathering together not only that passage but also the ones set out here, will say that the Son was first delivered by God, to be tempted, then to contend, then to suffer for human beings, or rather for the whole world, so as to take away its sin, to the ruler of this age and to his other rulers; and then by these delivered into the hands of men, those who would kill him. An example will be taken from the story of Job: “Behold, all that he has I give into your hand; but do not touch him himself”; then, as it were, Job was delivered by the devil to his rulers: to the raiders, to the horsemen, to the fire coming down as from heaven, to the great wind that came from the desert and threw down the house. You will consider whether, just as he delivered Job's possessions to the raiders and to the horsemen, so he delivered them also to some power under “the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit now at work in the sons of disobedience,” so that the fire coming down from there on Job's sheep might be seen as coming down from heaven by the one who reported to Job that “fire fell from heaven and burned up his sheep, and devoured the shepherds likewise.” In the same way you will inquire whether the great wind that suddenly came from the desert and struck “the four corners of the house” was one of the powers under the devil, to whom the devil delivered the banquet of Job's sons and daughters, so that the house might fall on the righteous man's children and they might die. Let it be, then, as with Job: the Father first delivers the Son to the opposing powers, and then they deliver him into the hands of men, among whom was Judas, “into whom after the morsel Satan entered,” who delivered him in a more primary way than Judas did. But perhaps, examining the Son's being delivered by the Father to the opposing powers together with the Saviour's being delivered by them into the hands of men, you may think that the “delivering” spoken of in both cases is the same. But consider that the Father delivered him up for us all out of love for humankind; whereas the opposing powers, when they delivered the Saviour into the hands of men, did not aim at delivering him for anyone's salvation. Rather, as far as lay with them, since none of them knew the wisdom of God hidden in a mystery, they delivered him over to die, so that his enemy death might get him under its hand, like those who die in Adam; and the men who killed him did this, shaped by the will of those who wanted Jesus to become subject to death. I think it was necessary to examine these things also, because Jesus, who is delivered into the hands of men, is delivered into the hands of men not by men but by powers to whom the Father delivered the Son for us all; and in his very being delivered, and coming under those to whom he was delivered, he destroys the one who has the power of death. “For through death …”

We must hold that the devil has the power of death: not of the intermediate and indifferent death by which beings composed of soul and body die when the soul is separated from the body, but of the death that is opposed and hostile to him who said, “I am the life,” the death according to which “the soul that sins, it shall die.” The Saviour shows that it was not God who delivered him into the hands of men when he says, “If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be delivered to the Jews.” For in being delivered to the Jews he was delivered into the hands of men, not by his own servants, but by the ruler of this age, who said, concerning the powers in the invisible realm, the kingdoms set up against human beings, “All these I will give you, if you fall down and worship me.” Therefore we must hold that this too was said concerning them: “The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against his Christ.” Those kings and rulers stood up and were gathered together against the Lord and against his Christ; but we, having been helped by his being delivered by them into the hands of men and killed, say, “Let us burst their bonds and cast their yoke from us.” For when we are conformed to the death of Christ, we are no longer under the bonds of the kings of the earth, as we have explained them, nor under the yoke of the rulers of this age who were gathered together against the Lord. And for this reason “the Father did not spare his own Son, but delivered him up for us all,” so that those who received him and delivered him into the hands of men might be laughed at by “him who dwells in the heavens” and be mocked by the Lord, having received the Son from the Father, contrary to their expectation, for the destruction of their own kingdom and rule; the Son who was raised on the third day by having abolished his enemy death, and who has made us conformed not only to his death but also to his resurrection, through which “we walk in newness of life,” no longer sitting in the region and shadow of death, because the light of God has risen upon us. When the Saviour said, “The Son of Man is about to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him, and on the third day he will rise,” “they were greatly grieved.” They fixed their attention on his being about to be delivered into the hands of men and on his being killed, as things gloomy and worthy of grief, but they did not attend to his rising on the third day; he needed not even a longer time, in order through death to destroy the one who has the power of death.

“And when they came to Capernaum, those who collected the double drachma came to Peter.” There are certain kings of the earth, and their sons, who do not pay tolls or tribute; and others besides their sons, strangers to the kings of the earth, from whom the kings of the earth take tolls or tribute. Their sons are free in the presence of the kings of the earth, as with their fathers; but the strangers, though free with respect to things outside the earth, are slaves with respect to those who lord it over them and enslave them, as the Egyptians lorded it over the sons of Israel, “and made their life bitter,” and enslaved them by force. For the sake of those who are in slavery, in a manner corresponding to the slavery of the Hebrews, the Son of God took only the form of a slave, doing no work of clay or of a slave. As one, then, who has the form of that slave, he pays toll and tribute, no other than that paid by his disciple; for the same stater was enough, the one coin given for Jesus and for his disciple. This coin was not in the house of Jesus; it happened to be in the sea, in the mouth of the sea fish. I think that the fish too was benefited when it came up caught on the hook of Peter, who had become a fisher of men, in whom was the fish figuratively spoken of, so that the coin bearing the image of Caesar might be taken from it, and it might come to be among those caught by people who have learned to fish for men. So let the one who has the things of Caesar render them to Caesar, so that after this he may be able to render the things of God to God. But since Jesus, being the image of the invisible God, did not have the image of Caesar (for the ruler of this age had nothing in him), for this reason he takes the image of Caesar from the sea, the place proper to it, to give it to the kings of the earth for himself and his disciple, so that those who collected the double drachma might not suppose that Jesus was their debtor or the debtor of the kings of the earth. For he paid the debt without having taken it up or possessed it or acquired it, or ever having made it his own possession, so that the image of Caesar might never be beside the image of the invisible God.

It might also be put in another way. Some are sons of the kings of the earth; others are not their sons, but sons nonetheless, sons in the absolute sense. These others, because they are strangers to the sons of the kings of the earth, are sons of no one on earth, but are sons in just this sense: of God, or of his Son, or of someone who belongs to God. If, then, the Saviour asks Peter, “From whom do the kings of the earth take toll or tribute? From their own sons, or from strangers?”, and Peter says, not from their own sons but “from strangers,” Jesus says concerning those who are strangers to the kings of the earth and who, because they are free, are sons: “Then the sons are free.” For the sons of the kings of the earth are not free, “since everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin”; but those are free who have remained in the truth of the word of God, and for this reason have known the truth, so that they may also be set free by it. If, then, anyone is simply a son, and not, wholly, a son of the kings of the earth, that one is free; and yet, though free, he has taken care not to cause offence even to the kings of the earth and their sons and those who collect the double drachma. Therefore he says, “But so that we may not offend them, go and cast a hook, and take the first fish that comes up,” and what follows. I would ask those who delight in myth-making about natures of what nature they were, the kings of the earth, or their sons, or those who collected the double drachma, whom the Saviour takes care not to offend. It appears, on their hypothesis, that they are not of a praiseworthy nature; and yet he took care that they should not be offended, and prevented any stumbling-block from arising for them, so that they might not sin worse, and with a view to their being saved, if they wish, also through accepting the one who spared them so that they would not be offended. And as in a place of consolation (for that is the meaning of Capernaum), consoling his disciple, who was both free and a son, he gives him power to catch the first fish, so that when it came up Peter might be consoled at the fish that came up and was caught, and at the stater taken from its mouth, which was to be paid to those to whom the stater belonged, who demanded such a coin as their own.

You might sometimes apply the passage gracefully to a lover of money, who has nothing in his mouth but talk about money, when you see him healed by some Peter, who takes away the stater, the symbol of all his love of money, not only from his mouth and his words but also from his whole disposition. For you will say that such a person was in the sea, in the salty affairs of life and the waves of the cares and anxieties of avarice, having the stater in his mouth while he was unbelieving and avaricious; but that he came up from the sea caught on the hook of reason, and, benefited by some Peter who taught him the truth, no longer has the stater in his mouth, but instead of it the oracles of God, which bear his image.

Further, on “Those who collected the double drachma came to Peter,” you will cite from Numbers that for the holy ones, according to the law of God, it is not simply a double drachma that is given but a holy double drachma; for it is written, “And you shall take five shekels a head, according to the holy double drachma”; and for all the sons of Israel a holy double drachma is given per head. Since, then, the holy one of God cannot have, along with the holy double drachmas, double drachmas that are, if I may call them so, profane, for this reason the Saviour orders that a stater, in which were the double drachmas, found in the mouth of the first fish that came up, be given to those who collected the double drachmas that were not holy and who asked Peter, “Does your teacher not pay the double drachma?”, so that it might be given for the teacher and for the disciple.

“In that day the disciples came to Jesus, saying, Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” To teach us what the disciples came to Jesus asking to learn from him, and how he answered their question, Matthew could have told only this; but he added, according to some of the copies, “In that hour the disciples came to Jesus,” and according to others, “In that day.” It is necessary not to leave the evangelist's intention unexamined. Therefore, attending to what comes before “In that day” or “hour,” let us consider whether it is possible to find a way from it to see the addition “in that day” or “hour” as necessary. Jesus, then, had come to Capernaum together with his disciples, where “those who collected the double drachma came to Peter” and asked him, “Does your teacher not pay the double drachma?” Then, when Peter had answered them and said, “Yes,” Jesus, to give a further defence concerning the payment of the double drachma, sends Peter to draw up a fish with the hook, in whose mouth, he said, would be found the stater to be given for himself and for Peter. It seems to me, then, that they thought this was the greatest honour from Jesus to Peter, as if he had judged him greater than his other followers, and that they wanted to make sure of what they suspected by asking Jesus and hearing from him whether, as they supposed, he had judged Peter greater than them; and at the same time they hoped also to learn the reason why Peter had been preferred to the other disciples. Wishing, I think, to show this, Matthew added to “Take that” (clearly the stater) “and give it to them for me and for you” the words “In that day the disciples came to Jesus, saying, Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” Perhaps they were also in doubt because three had been preferred at the transfiguration; and they were in doubt which of the three had been judged greatest by the Lord. For John reclined on his breast because of love, and it is likely that before the supper they had seen many tokens of special honour from Jesus toward John; Peter, on the other hand, at his confession, heard himself called blessed because of “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”; but again, because of “Get behind me, Satan; you are a stumbling-block to me, because you do not think the things of God but the things of men,” they were distracted by the thought that perhaps he was not the greatest, but rather one of the sons of Zebedee. So much on “In that day” or “hour,” the day in which the matter of the stater had happened.

Next we must consider “the disciples came to him,” as disciples putting problems to their teacher and inquiring who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. In this we must imitate the disciples of Jesus: if ever something we are investigating is not found, let us come in full agreement about the question to Jesus, who is present where two or three are gathered in his name, and who is ready, by his presence in power, to enlighten the hearts of those who genuinely wish to be his disciples, so that they grasp what is sought. And it is not out of place for us also to come to one of the teachers appointed by God in the church and put to him a problem like “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” What, then, of the matters in this question was already known to the disciples, and what was being sought? They had grasped that there is no equality among those deemed worthy of the kingdom of heaven; and that, since there is no equality, there is someone greater, and so on in order down to the least. But what sort of person the greater is, and how the least has lived, and who are those in between, they were still seeking. Or perhaps it is more accurate to say that they knew who the least was from “Whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches people so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven,” but did not know who was greatest of all, even if they grasped “But whoever does and teaches them, he will be called great in the kingdom of heaven”; for since there are many who are great, who among the great is greater, as among human beings, was not clear to them. That there are many great ones, but that the great are not equally great, will be shown by the word “great” applied to Isaac, “who, advancing, became greater, very [great],” and said also of Moses, of John the Baptist, and of the Saviour. Everyone will agree that all these were great according to Scripture, but that the Saviour was greater than they. But whether John, than whom none among those born of women was greater, was greater than Isaac and Moses, or not greater but equal to both, or to one of them, it is not without danger to declare. And from “Isaac, advancing, became greater, until he became very great,” not simply but with the added word “very,” set down twice, one can learn that there is a difference among the great: one is great, another very great, and another very, very great. The disciples, then, coming to Jesus, sought to learn who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven; and perhaps they wished to learn it by hearing from him something like, “So-and-so is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” But he leads the discussion to something more general, showing what sort of person in quality is greatest in the kingdom of heaven; let us understand this, as far as we can, from what is written: “For Jesus, calling a child,” and what follows.

First one may explain it simply. One who explains the Saviour's words here in the simple sense might say this: if a man so far puts to death the desires of a man, putting to death the deeds of the body by the Spirit and “always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus,” that he has the condition of a child who has not tasted sexual pleasure and has no thought of a man's impulses, such a person has turned and become like the children. And to the one who has the children's condition with regard to such impulses, so much more than those who are in training and have advanced only so far in chastity, the Saviour added the words “is greater in the kingdom of heaven.” What has been said of children in the matter of sexual pleasure might also be said of the other passions, infirmities, and diseases of the soul, into which children who have not yet reached the full use of reason do not by nature fall. For example, one may turn and, being a man, become toward anger such as the child is; and such as a child sometimes is toward grief at the time when a father or mother or some brother has died, so as to laugh and play at that time, such would one become who has turned like the children and has acquired, by reason, a state that does not admit grief, so as to become toward grief such as the little child is. You will say the same about what is called pleasure, by which the base are irrationally elated; children do not feel it, nor do those who have turned and become like the children. It has been demonstrated with precision by others too that none of the passions befalls children who have not yet reached the full use of reason; and if none, then clearly not fear either. But if there is something in children analogous to the passions, it is faint, very quickly overturned and healed, so that it is something to be content with if one who has turned like the children attains to this: to have only so much of the suggestion, as it were, of the passions as children have. Concerning fear, then, one might think much as has been said: children do not suffer the fear of the base, but something else, which those who distinguish precisely the matters of the passions and of their names say is fear. Such too is children's freedom from bearing grudges at the very time of their tears: in an instant they change, and laugh and play with those who are thought to have grieved and frightened them, but who did not truly do these things. So too one will humble himself like the child whom Jesus called. For loftiness of mind and conceit about noble birth or wealth or any of the things that are thought to be good but are not, do not befall a child. That is why one can see very young children, up to three or four years old, behaving like the low-born even if they seem to be of noble birth, and not seeming at all to love rich children more than poor ones. If, then, the disciple of Jesus has, by reason, what children have by reason of their age toward such passions as elate the foolish, and has humbled himself like the child Jesus showed, not elated by a little glory, nor puffed up by wealth or by fine clothing, nor swollen with pride in noble birth, then above all those who, as the Word has shown, have turned like the child whom Jesus took, must be received and imitated in the name of Jesus, since Christ is in these most of all. And for this reason he says, “And whoever receives one such child in my name receives me.”

What follows is laborious to explain consistently with what was set out before. For someone might say: how is one who has turned and become like the children a little one among those who believe in Jesus, and liable to be made to stumble? Let us try to make this clear too, consistently. Whoever has assented to Jesus as the Son of God according to the true history about him, and journeys through the deeds of the Gospel toward living according to virtue, has turned and is journeying toward becoming like the children; it is impossible that such a one should not enter the kingdom of heaven. Such people are many, but not all who have turned toward becoming like the children have arrived at being made like the children; each falls short of likeness to the children by as much as he falls short of the children's disposition toward the passions described above. In the whole multitude of believers, then, there are also those who have, as it were, just turned toward becoming like the children, who, by the very fact of having turned so as to become like the children, are called little ones; and of these, those who have turned to become like the children but fall far short of becoming exactly like the children are liable to be made to stumble. Each of them falls short of likeness to the children by as much as he falls short of the children's disposition toward the passions described above. To these one must not give occasions of stumbling; otherwise, the one who made them stumble will need, as something profitable to him for healing, “to have a donkey millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” For having thus paid the sufficient penalty in the sea, where is the dragon “which God formed to mock at it,” the one who has been punished and has suffered as far as is profitable for the end in view will afterwards be past the labours in the depth of the sea which he endured, dragged down by the donkey millstone. For there are differences among millstones too: one of them is, so to speak, a human millstone, another a donkey millstone. The human one is that of which it is written, “Two women will be grinding at one mill; one is taken and one is left”; the donkey one is that which will be placed around the one who causes stumbling. Someone might say (I do not know whether rightly or mistakenly) that the donkey millstone is the heavy and downward-tending body of the wicked man, which he will take up in the resurrection, so as to be drowned in the abyss, which is called the depth of the sea, where is the dragon “which God formed to mock at it.” Another will refer the causing of one of the little ones to stumble to the powers invisible to human beings; for many stumbling-blocks come from these too to those whom Jesus shows to be little ones. And whenever they cause one of the little ones shown by Jesus, who believe in him, to stumble, they will take up, as a donkey millstone, the perishable body that weighs down the soul, hanging from the neck that drags them down to the things of this world, so that through these their conceit may be pulled down, and, having paid the penalty, they may come to something profitable to them through the donkey millstone.

Let another interpretation besides the simpler one also be stated, whether as doctrine or for the sake of exercise; and let us inquire what child Jesus called and set in the midst of the disciples. See whether you can say that the child Jesus called is the Holy Spirit, who humbled himself, was called by the Saviour, and was set in the midst of the ruling faculty of the disciples of Jesus; and whether he wishes us, turning away from all other things, to be turned toward the examples set before us by the Holy Spirit, so that we may thus become like the children who themselves have turned and been made like the Holy Spirit; children whom God gave to the Saviour, according to what is said in Isaiah: “Behold, I and the children whom God has given me.” And it is not possible to enter the kingdom of heaven without turning from the affairs of the world and being made like the children who have borne the Holy Spirit. Jesus called this Holy Spirit, which had come down from its own perfection to human beings as a child, and set it in the midst of the disciples. One must therefore turn from worldly desires and humble oneself, not simply as the child, but, as it is written, “as this child.” And to humble oneself as that child is to imitate the Holy Spirit, who humbled himself for the salvation of human beings. That the Saviour and the Holy Spirit were sent by the Father for the salvation of human beings is shown in Isaiah, where the Saviour says in his own person, “And now the Lord has sent me, and his Spirit.” One must know, however, that the expression is ambiguous: either God sent the Saviour, and the Holy Spirit also sent him; or, as we have taken it, the Father sent both, the Saviour and the Holy Spirit. Greater in the kingdom of heaven, then, is the one who has humbled himself more than all who humble themselves in imitation of that child. For many wish to humble themselves as that child; but the one who has become altogether like the child that humbled itself would be found to be the one called greatest of all in the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Jesus, being truly in Jesus himself most of all. And as whoever receives one such child in his name receives Jesus, so the one who will not receive one such child in the name of Jesus rejects and casts out Jesus. And if there is a difference among those deemed worthy of the Holy Spirit, believers receiving more or less of the Holy Spirit, there would be some little ones among those who believe in God who can be made to stumble. Avenging them when they are made to stumble, the Word says of those who caused them to stumble, “It is better for him that a donkey millstone be hung around his neck and that he be drowned in the depth of the sea.” Let this be said on the passages of Matthew set out above.

Let us also look at the parallels in the other Gospels. Mark, then, says that the twelve disputed on the way which of them was greater; so he sat down and called them, and teaches who is greater, saying that the one who has become last of all through moderation and gentleness will obtain the first place as greater, so as to take not the place of the one who is served but that of the one who serves, and this not toward some and not toward others, but toward all without exception. For note: “If anyone wishes to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all.” And next to this he says, “Taking a child” (clearly Jesus), “he set it in the midst of his disciples, and taking it in his arms said to them, Whoever receives one of the children in my name receives me.” What child, according to the deeper meaning in these passages, did Jesus take and embrace, if not the Holy Spirit? And to this child some have been made like, about whom he said, “Whoever receives one of such children in my name receives me.” According to Luke, however, a “reasoning” did not “go up” among the disciples, but “entered” them, about “which of them might be greatest. And Jesus, seeing the reasoning of their heart”: since he has eyes that see the reasonings of hearts, “seeing the reasoning of their heart,” and not even asked, according to Luke, he “took the child and set it” not only in their midst, as Matthew and Mark have said, but now “beside himself,” and said to the disciples not only “Whoever receives one such child” or “Whoever receives one of such children in my name receives me,” but now, going higher, “Whoever receives this child in my name receives me.” According to Luke, then, we must receive in the name of Jesus that child whom Jesus took and set beside himself. And I do not know whether one can avoid interpreting figuratively “Whoever receives this child in my name.” For each of us must receive, in the name of Jesus, that child whom Jesus then set beside himself, taking hold of it. For it lives, as being immortal; and we must receive it from Jesus himself in the name of Jesus; and Jesus, not being separated from it, comes to be with the one who receives the child, so that in this sense it is said, “Whoever receives this child in my name receives me.” Then, since the Father is inseparable from the Son, he comes to be with the one who has received the Son; therefore it is said, “And whoever receives me receives him who sent me.” The one who has received the child, and the Saviour, and the one who sent him, is lesser among all the disciples of Jesus, making himself small; but the more he makes himself small, the greater he becomes, his very making himself smaller causing him to advance in greatness. For note: “He who is least among you all, he is great.” We have read in other copies also, “will be great.” And according to Luke, “Whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a child will not enter it”; and the expression is ambiguous: either that the one who receives the kingdom of God becomes like a child, or that he receives the kingdom of God, which has become to him like a child. Perhaps here those who receive the kingdom of God receive it as being like a child, but in the age to come no longer as a child; for it will show the greatness of its perfection, in what I may call spiritual maturity, to all who at present have received it as being here like a child.

“Woe to the world because of stumbling-blocks.” The word “world” (kosmos) is used by itself, in an absolute sense, in “He was in the world, and the world did not know him”; but in a relative sense, joined with that of which it is the kosmos, it is used in “Lest, looking up to heaven and seeing the sun and the moon and all the array (kosmos) of heaven, you be led astray and worship them and serve them.” You will say that the same is said of Esther in Esther, where it is written, “having taken off all her adornment (kosmos)”; for “the world” simply is not the same as “the array of heaven” or “the adornment of Esther.” What we are now seeking is something else. I think, then, that according to the divine writings the world is not the system made up of heaven and earth, but only the region around the earth; and this not understood as the whole earth, but as our inhabited world. For the true light was in the world, that is, in the region around the earth understood as ours; “and the world did not know him”: the people in the region around the earth, and perhaps also the powers that belong to this place. For it is absurd to say that it means the system of heaven and earth and the things in them, so that one would say that the sun and the moon and the choir of stars, and the angels in this whole world, did not know the true light, and yet, while not knowing it, kept the order appointed to them by God. But also when the Saviour says in his prayer to the Father, “And now glorify me, Father, with yourself, with the glory which I had with you before the world was,” we must understand “world” to mean our inhabited earth. For it is from this world that the Father gave people to the Son, for whom alone the Saviour asks the Father, and not for the whole world of human beings. And the Saviour, when he says, “And I come to you, and I am no longer in the world,” speaks of the earthly world; for we must not think that he says contradictory things when he says, “And I come to you, and I am no longer in the world,” and “I am in the world.” In “And these things I speak in the world,” too, we must understand the region around the earth. This is clearly signified also by “And the world hated them, because they are not of the world.” For what hated us, from the time when, because of Jesus' teaching, we no longer look at the things that are seen but at the things that are not seen, is not the whole world composed of heaven and earth and the things in them, but the people on earth among us. “They are not of the world” is equivalent to “They are not of the region around the earth”; and so the disciples of Jesus are not of the world, as he himself was not of the world. Further, “that the world may believe that you sent me,” said twice in the Gospel according to John, refers not to beings higher than human beings but to the people who need to believe that the Father sent the Son into the world here; and in the Apostle, “your faith is proclaimed in the whole world.”

If “woe” is to people everywhere on earth “because of stumbling-blocks,” since the stumbling-blocks touch them, but the disciples, who do not look at the things that are seen, are not of the world, just as the Teacher is not of the world, then for none of the disciples of Jesus is there “woe because of stumbling-blocks,” since “great peace have those who love the law of God, and there is no stumbling-block for them.” But if someone seems to bear the name of disciple, yet is still of the world because he loves the world and the things in it (I mean life in the region around the earth, and the money or possessions in it, or property of any kind), so that “They are not of the world” does not fit him, then what happens to the world, “Woe because of stumbling-blocks,” will happen to him as to one who is of the world. Let the one who wishes to escape this woe not be a lover of life, but let him say with Paul, “The world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.” For the saints, “being in the tent, groan, being burdened” by “the body of humiliation,” and do everything so that they may become worthy to be found in the mystery of the resurrection, when God “will transform” not everyone's “body of humiliation,” but that of those who are genuinely Christ's disciples, so that it becomes conformed to the glory of Christ. For just as none of the woes befalls any of Christ's disciples, so neither does “Woe to the world because of stumbling-blocks”; for even if countless stumbling-blocks occur, they will not touch those who are no longer of the world. But if anyone is liable to stumble because of the instability of his faith and the insecurity of his assent to the word of God, let him know that he is not yet called by Jesus his disciple. We must think that so many stumbling-blocks come that the woe reaches not merely certain parts of the earth but the whole world on it.

“For it is necessary that stumbling-blocks come.” I think these are other than the people through whom they come. The stumbling-blocks that come, then, are a kind of army of the devil, his angels and a wicked choir of unclean spirits, which, seeking instruments through which to work, often find those who are wholly strangers to godliness, but sometimes also some of those thought to believe the word of God. For these the woe is worse than the woe for the one who is made to stumble, just as “it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment” than for the places where Jesus did signs and wonders and yet was not believed. One might make a kind of treatise from the Scriptures by collecting those who are called blessed and the things for which they are called blessed, and also the woes that are written and the things for which “woe” is said. Further, that the woe of the one who causes stumbling is worse than that of the one who is made to stumble, you will show by “But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble, it is better for him,” and what follows. For when the little one who was made to stumble is avenged on the one who made him stumble, so heavy and hard to endure is what is written as “better” for the one who causes stumbling. If we considered these things more carefully, we would guard against “sinning against the brothers and wounding their weak conscience,” so that “we may not sin against Christ,” since often brothers around us perish, not only “through our knowledge” but also through other things, brothers “for whom Christ died.” For these, sinning against Christ, we shall pay the penalty, when the soul of those who perish because of us is avenged on …

After this we must test the word “necessity” in “For it is necessary that stumbling-blocks come,” and its equivalent in Luke, “It is impossible that stumbling-blocks should not come,” where “not admissible” is used for “impossible.” And just as it is necessary that what is mortal should die, and impossible that it should not die; and necessary that one who is in a body should be nourished, for it is impossible for one who is not nourished to live; so it is necessary, and impossible not to happen, that stumbling-blocks should come, since it is also necessary that wickedness should exist in human beings before virtue, and from this wickedness come the stumbling-blocks. For it is impossible that a human being should be found wholly without sin, and to have taken up virtue without sin. For the wickedness in the evil powers, being the origin of the wickedness in human beings, impels them all to work, through certain instruments, against the people of the world; and perhaps the evil powers are enraged even more when they are cast out by the word of Jesus, and their worship diminishes, as the customary sacrifices are no longer offered to them. It is necessary that these things should come, but it is not necessary that they come through this or that particular person. Therefore the woe falls on the person through whom the stumbling-block comes, as on one who has given place to the evil power that chooses to cause stumbling. But do not think that the stumbling-blocks, which seek people through whom to come, are what they are by nature and by constitution. For just as God did not make death, so he did not create stumbling-blocks either; but free will gave birth to the stumbling-block in some who would not endure the labours that virtue requires.

It is good, then, if the eye and the hand are praiseworthy, so that the eye cannot reasonably say to the hand, “I have no need of you.” But if someone in the whole body of the congregations of the church, called a hand because of his active role, should change and become a hand that causes stumbling, let the eye say to such a hand, “I have no need of you,” and, having said it, let it “cut it off and throw it” from itself. So too it is good if a head is blessed and the feet are worthy of the blessed head, so that the head, keeping what befits it, cannot say to the feet, “I have no need of you.” But if some foot should be found becoming a stumbling-block to the whole body, let the head say to such a foot, “I have no need of you,” and let it cut it off and throw it from itself. For it is much better that the rest of the body should enter into life lacking the foot or the hand that caused stumbling, than that the stumbling-block should spread through the whole body and it be thrown into the Gehenna of fire with the two feet or the two hands. So too it is good that one who has been able to become the eye of the whole body should be worthy of Christ and of the whole body; but if ever such an eye should change so as to become a stumbling-block to the whole body, it is good to take it out and throw it out of the whole body, and that the rest of the body be saved without that eye, rather than that, with the whole body harmed along with it, the whole body be thrown into the Gehenna of fire. For the hand that causes stumbling, the foot that causes stumbling, and the eye that causes stumbling can also be the soul's faculty of walking, if I may call it so, when used sinfully, and its faculty of seeing, when used sinfully; it is better to cast these off and, having put them away, to enter into life without them, as it were lame or maimed or one-eyed, than to lose the whole soul with them. Likewise with the soul: it is good and blessed to use its power for the best things; but if we are about to perish because of some one power, it is preferable to cast off the use of it, so that we may be saved with the other powers.

These sayings can also be applied to those most closely related to us, who are, as it were, our members because of our great closeness to them, whether of kinship or of what I may call friendly intimacy; they are regarded as our members, but we must not spare them when they harm our soul. Let us cut off from ourselves, as a hand or a foot or an eye, a father or mother who want us to do things contrary to godliness, and a son or daughter who, as far as lies with them, draw us away from the church of Christ and from his love. Even if the wife in our bosom, or the friend who is as our own soul, becomes a stumbling-block to us, let us not spare them, but cutting them off from ourselves let us cast them out of our soul, as not our own but as enemies of our salvation. For whoever does not hate father or mother, and the rest that follows, when it is time to hate them as hostile and treacherous, so that he may be able to gain Christ, is not worthy of the Son of God. And in these cases it may be said that, through force of circumstances, someone is saved as it were lame, having lost a foot (say, his brother), and he alone inherits the kingdom of God; and someone is saved maimed, his father not being saved along with him, but they perishing and he being separated from them, so that he alone obtains the blessings; and so too someone is saved one-eyed, having cut out the eye of his own house, his wife who had committed sexual immorality, so that he may not go with two eyes into the Gehenna of fire.

“See that you do not despise one of these little ones.” It seems to me that, just as among human bodies there are different sizes, so that some are small, others large, and others in between, and again there are differences among the small, some being more and some less small, and likewise among the large and those in between, so also in the souls of human beings there are things that mark their smallness, and others that mark their greatness, and, analogously to bodies, their in-between state. But with bodies it is not through any cause in the person, but through the seminal principles, that one is short and small, another large, another in between; whereas with souls, what lies in our power, and particular actions, and a particular character, are the cause of someone's being great or small or being among those in between. And it lies within our power either to advance in stature, growing into greatness, or, by not advancing, to remain short. It is in this way too that I understand the words about the Saviour, who took a human soul, “Jesus advanced.” For just as his advance in wisdom and grace came from the free choice of his soul, so also his advance in stature. And the Apostle says: “Until we all attain to the perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.” For attaining to the man, and to the perfect man, must be understood of the inner man, who has passed through the things of the infant and reached manhood, and has done away with the things of the infant, and, in short, has brought to completion the things of the man. So too we must suppose that there is a measure of spiritual stature, to which the most perfect soul can attain by magnifying the Lord and becoming great. In this way, then, those of whom this is recorded became great: Isaac, Moses, John, and above all the Saviour himself; for of him too it was said, “He will be great.” But little ones are “the newborn babes, longing for the rational, pure milk,” who also need the nurses and foster-fathers spoken of in Isaiah, which says concerning the calling of the Gentiles, “And they will bring your sons in their bosom, and carry your daughters on their shoulders; and kings will be your foster-fathers, and their princesses your nurses.” On this account, then, you will consider, in connection with “Do not despise one of the little ones,” whether their angels are those who bring them in the bosom when they are sons, and also carry on their shoulders those called daughters; and of these, the so-called kings are foster-fathers, and those named princesses are nurses. And since the little ones pointed out by our Saviour are cared for as by nurses and foster-fathers, it is for this reason, I think, that Moses, believing that he was already ranked among the great, said in reply to “My angel will go before you”: “If you yourself do not go with me, do not bring me up from here.” For if the little one, even though an heir, is an infant, differing in no way from a slave while he is an infant, and is small, he has “the spirit of slavery leading to fear”; but the one who is no longer such at all has no longer the spirit of slavery but now that of adoption, when “perfect love casts out fear.” It will then be clear to you that it is in accordance with this that the angel of the Lord is said to encamp around those who fear him and to deliver them. You will consider, accordingly, whether the little ones, who are led to fear by a spirit of slavery, have angels, since the angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear him and delivers them; while the great have the Lord, who is greater than the angels, who might say of each one of them, “I am with him in affliction.” So long as we are imperfect, and need someone to help us to be delivered from evils, we need an angel, of whom Jacob said, “The angel who delivers me from all evils”; but when we have been perfected, and have passed beyond being under nurses and foster-fathers, stewards and guardians, we advance to being cared for by the Lord himself.

Then again someone might ask when the so-called angels of the little ones pointed out by the Saviour take charge of them: whether they received the charge of administering them from the time when, through the washing of regeneration by which they were born, “as newborn babes, they long for the rational and pure milk,” and are no longer subject to any evil power; or from birth, these angels having been appointed by God, according to his foreknowledge and predestination, over those “whom” God “also foreknew and predestined” to be “conformed to the glory of Christ.” In favour of having angels from birth one might cite these words: “who set me apart from my mother's womb”; and “From my mother's womb you are my protector”; and “He took hold of me from my mother's womb”; and “Upon you I was cast from the womb”; and in the Epistle of Jude, “To those who are called, beloved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ,” surely kept by the guardian angels.

In favour of the view expressed in “From the time I became an infant in Christ through the washing,” one might say that a holy angel is not present to those who are still in wickedness, but that during the time of unbelief they are under the angels of Satan; while after the new birth the one who redeemed us with his own blood hands us over to a holy angel, who because of his purity sees the face of God. A third account of the passage might be one which says this: it is possible that, just as a human being changes from unbelief to faith, and from licentiousness to self-control, and in short from vice to virtue, so also the angel entrusted with a soul at its birth may at first be bad, but later at some time believe as the believer does, and advance so far as to become one of the angels who always see the face of the Father in heaven. Beginning from this time, he is joined to the one who was foreknown to believe at this time and was predestined; for the ineffable and unsearchable judgments of God, which fittingly resemble abysses, have brought together all such harmony, angels with human beings. It is possible too that, just as with a husband and wife who are both unbelievers, sometimes the husband believes first in time and saves the wife, and sometimes the wife begins and later at some time persuades the husband, so it may happen also with angels and human beings. Whether this happens in the case of other angels or not, you will examine for yourself; but perhaps it is not fitting to say such a thing of the angel of each of the little ones, so highly honoured according to our Saviour's word that he is said always to see the face of the Father in heaven. And since we said above that the little ones have angels, while the great have passed beyond such an order, someone will object to us from the Acts of the Apostles, where it is written that when Peter knocked at the door a servant girl named Rhoda came to answer, and, recognizing Peter's voice, ran in and reported that Peter was standing before the gate; and those gathered in the house, amazed and thinking it impossible that Peter was really standing there, said, “It is his angel.” For he will say that they, having once learned that each believer has a particular angel, knew that Peter too had an angel. But one who supports what we have said will say that Rhoda's word is not necessarily doctrine, and that perhaps they had not understood precisely when someone is cared for by angels as a little one who fears God, and when he is now cared for by the Lord himself. After this, to establish that “little one” is to be understood as we have taken it, it will be said that we do not need a commandment not to despise the great, but we do need it in the case of the little ones. That is why it is not said simply, “Do not despise one of these,” as if all the disciples were being pointed to, but “one of these little ones,” pointed out by him who sees the smallness and greatness of the soul.

Another might say that “little one” here means the perfect, making use of “For he who is least among you all, he is great.” He will say that the one who humbles himself and becomes an infant among all believers, even if he is an apostle or a bishop, and becomes “as a nurse cherishing her own children,” is the little one pointed out by Jesus, and that it is fitting that such a person's angel should see the face of God. For calling the perfect “little ones” here, in line with “For he who is least among you all, he is great,” and with Paul's words, “To me, the very least of all the saints, this grace was given,” will seem to agree with “Whoever causes one of these little ones to stumble” and with “So it is not the will of my Father in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.” For the one who is now little in the sense explained would not be made to stumble, nor would he perish: “For great peace have those who love the name of God, and there is no stumbling-block for them”; and the one who is least among all the disciples of Christ, and for that reason becomes great, would not perish; and since he would not perish, he might say, “Who shall separate us from the love,” and what follows. But the one who wishes to hold this last interpretation will say that even the soul of the righteous is liable to fall, as Ezekiel too testifies when he says that the righteous man can turn away from God's commandments, so that his former righteousness is not reckoned to him; and so it is said, “Whoever causes one of these little ones to stumble,” and “It is not the will of my Father in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.” As for the hundred sheep, you have it in the Homilies on Luke.

“If your brother sins, go, reprove him between you and him alone.” One who relies on the wording, and presents the surpassing kindness of Jesus, will say that, since the words do not suggest any distinction among sins, those who understand them as applying only to lesser sins add something superfluous and contrary to the goodness of Jesus. But another, also relying on the wording and not wishing to supply these things from outside, will say that it is not said of every sin, because one who commits those great sins is not even a brother, but at most is named a brother, as the Apostle says, “But if anyone named a brother is sexually immoral, or greedy, or an idolater,” and what follows, “with such a one do not even eat.” For no idolater is a brother, nor a sexually immoral person, nor a greedy person; for if someone who seems to bear the name of Christ has any of these, he is named a brother, but would not justly be called a brother. Just as, then, the one who says that such things are said of every sin, even if the sin is murder or sorcery or the corruption of boys or any sin of such gravity, would give occasion to imagine an excessive leniency in Christ; so, on the other side, the one who distinguishes the brother from the one named a brother would teach that, for the lesser human sins, one who did not turn after the reproof is to be reckoned as a Gentile and a tax collector, for sins “not unto death,” or, as the law named them in Numbers, not deadly. And this might seem rather harsh; for I do not think anyone will easily be found who has not been reproved three times for the same kind of sin: for example, reviling, by which revilers speak ill of their neighbours when they are angry, or heavy drinking, or false or idle speech, or one of the other sins common among the many. You will inquire, then, whether something in the passage escapes notice, both by those who, imagining the goodness of the Word, grant pardon even to those who have committed the greatest sins, and by those who teach that for the least sins a person is to be reckoned as a Gentile and a tax collector, making the one who has sinned three times in lesser matters a stranger to the church. What escapes both seems to me to be this. The Word set “You have gained your brother” for the one who listened at the first reproof only, and no longer set it for the one who fell a second or third time and was reproved, but left in suspense, as it were, the corresponding “You have gained your brother,” which might be said of one reproved a second or third time. Such a one, then, is not certainly gained, nor will he certainly perish or receive stripes. Note carefully the first step, which says, “If he listens to you, you have gained your brother,” and the second step in the wording, which says, “But if he does not listen, take with you one or two more, so that every word may be established at the mouth of two or three witnesses.” What, then, will happen to the one admonished a second time, after every word has been established at the mouth of two or three witnesses, he has left to us to consider. And again: “If he refuses to listen to them” (clearly, to the witnesses who were brought), “tell it,” he says, “to the church.” He did not say what he will suffer if he does not listen to the church; but he taught that if he refuses to listen to the church, he must from then on be, to the one who admonished him three times and was not heard, as the Gentile and the tax collector. Such a one, then, is not certainly gained, nor will he certainly perish; but whatever will befall the one who did not listen at first, and needed witnesses, or refused to listen even to them and was brought before the church, God would know. For we do not pronounce judgment, in keeping with “Judge not, that you be not judged,” “until the Lord comes, who will also bring to light the things hidden in darkness and disclose the purposes of the hearts.” As for what seems harsh toward those who have committed the lesser sins, one might say that it is not impossible for one who twice in succession did not listen to listen the third time, so that for this reason he is no longer as a Gentile and a tax collector, or no longer needs the reproof before the whole church. For one must remember, “So it is not the will of my Father in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.” And indeed, if “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each may receive according to what he has done in the body, whether good or bad,” one must do what lies with oneself as far as one can, so as not to receive for more bad deeds done in the body, even if one is going to receive for all the worse things one has done; and one must strive to receive the reward for more good deeds, since “with the measure we measure it will be measured back to us,” and “According to the works of our hands it will happen to us.” And those who have sinned will receive their sins from the hand of the Lord not infinitely many times over, but either double or sevenfold, when someone is repaid not according to the works of his hands but more than he has done. For Jerusalem, as Isaiah taught, “received from the hand of the Lord double for her sins”; and the neighbours of Israel, whoever they may be, will receive sevenfold, according to what is said in the Psalms: “Repay to our neighbours sevenfold into their bosom the reproach with which they reproached you, O Lord.” Other modes of repayment might also be found; if we understand them, we shall know that it is profitable to repent after however many sins, so that, besides our not being punished for more, some hope of good may also be left to us from what we have done later, even if before that someone has stumbled countless times. For it is absurd that the worse things should be reckoned to someone, but the better things done after the worse should benefit him nothing, as those who carefully observe the sayings about such things can learn from Ezekiel too.

It seems to me that “Truly I say to you” (clearly to those who judged someone to be as the Gentile and the tax collector) “whatever you bind on earth,” and what follows, is well joined to the case of one who, after being admonished three times, was judged to be as the Gentile and the tax collector. For the one who admonished three times and was not heard justly bound the one judged to be as a Gentile and a tax collector. Therefore such a person, bound and condemned by such a one, remains bound, since none of those in heaven undoes the sentence of the one who bound him. So too the one who was admonished once and did what made him worthy of being gained, being loosed through the admonition of the one who gained him, and no longer bound by the cords of his own sins for which he was admonished, will be judged loosed by those in heaven. It seems, however, that what was given above to Peter alone is shown here to have been given to all who bring the three admonitions to all who have sinned, so that, if they are not heard, they may bind on earth the one judged to be as a Gentile and a tax collector, such a one being bound in heaven. But since it was necessary, even if something common was said of Peter and of those who admonish the brothers three times, that Peter should have something special beyond those who admonish three times, this was set out specially for Peter beforehand: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” before “And whatever you bind on earth,” and what follows. And yet, if we attend carefully to the Gospel writings, we would find in them too, even in the things that seem to be common to Peter and to those who admonish the brothers three times, a great difference and pre-eminence in what was said to Peter compared with the second group. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of several, and that whatever he binds on earth will be bound not in one heaven but in all of them, compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that what they bind and loose is bound and loosed not in the heavens, as in Peter's case, but in one heaven; for they do not reach as far in power as Peter, so as to bind or loose in all the heavens. By as much, then, as the one who binds is better, by so much more blessed is the one who is loosed, so that his being loosed holds everywhere in the heavens.

“Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them.” The word “agreement” (symphonia) is properly used of the harmonies of voices in music. Among musicians some notes are concordant with others, and others discordant; and the Gospel Scripture also knows the word as used of music, in “He heard music and dancing”; for it was fitting that, at the agreement through repentance with the father of the son who was found again after being lost, music should be heard at the rejoicing of the house. The wicked Laban does not know the word “music” in what he says to Jacob: “And if you had told me, I would have sent you away with rejoicing, with musicians and drums and harp.” Kindred to such agreement is what is written in the second book of Kings, when “the brothers” of Aminadab “went before the ark, and David and the sons were playing before the Lord on tuned instruments, with might and with songs.” For the instruments tuned with might and with songs had in them musical concord, which is so powerful that, when only two bring their request, with the concord of divine and spiritual music, to the Father in heaven about anything whatever, the Father grants the requests to those who ask while agreeing on earth (which is most wonderful): whatever those who have agreed in the concord described might ask. In this way I understand also the apostolic saying, “Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a season, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer.” For since the word “harmony” is used of those who marry according to God, in the saying from Proverbs, “Fathers divide house and property among their children, but a wife is joined in harmony to a husband by God,” it follows from the harmony that comes from God that both the name and the work should enjoy agreement for prayer, which is shown in “except perhaps by agreement.” Then the Word, explaining further the “agreeing of two on earth,” shows that this is the same as agreeing with Christ, and adds, “For where two or three are gathered in my name.” Those who are gathered in the name of Christ, two or three, are therefore those who agree on earth, not only two but sometimes also three. One who is able will consider whether this agreement, and such a gathering in whose midst Christ is, can be found among many, since “narrow and hard is the way that leads to life, and few are those who find it.” And perhaps not even a few but two or three agree in this way, like Peter and James and John, to whom, as they agreed, the Word of God showed his glory. Two agreed, Paul and Sosthenes, when they wrote the first Epistle to the Corinthians; and after that, Paul and Timothy, when they sent the second to the same people; and three agreed when Paul and Silvanus and Timothy instructed the Thessalonians by letter. And if we must also show from the old writings three who agreed on earth, so that the Word was in their midst uniting them, consider the titles of the Psalms, such as that of the forty-first, which reads, “For the end; for understanding; for the sons of Korah.” For there were three sons of Korah, whose names we found in Exodus: Assir, which is interpreted “instruction”; the second, Elkanah, which is translated “possession of Christ”; and the third, Abiasaph, which in Greek would be called “gathering of the father.” Their prophecies were not divided, but by one spirit and one voice working truly in concord in one soul they were spoken and written, the three speaking as one: “As the deer longs for the springs of water, so my soul longs for you, O God.” And in the forty-third they speak in the plural: “O God, we have heard with our ears.” And if you wish to see still more clearly those who agree on earth, look at those who heard “that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment,” and who emulated “the soul and heart of all who believed was one,” becoming such (if indeed such a thing can be found among many) that there was not even the slightest discord among them, just as there is no discord between the strings of the ten-stringed psaltery. But those did not agree on earth who said, “I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ”; there were divisions among them, and when these were removed they were gathered together with the spirit that was in Paul, with the power of the Lord Jesus Christ, so that they might no longer bite and devour one another and be consumed by one another. For discord consumes, as agreement gathers together and makes room for the Son of God, who comes to be in the midst of those who agree. Agreement, properly speaking, comes about in two general things: in what the Apostle called being joined together in the same mind, by holding the same doctrines with understanding, and in the same judgment, by living alike. But if, when “two of us agree on earth about anything they ask, it is done for them by the Father in heaven,” then where this does not happen, not even two have agreed on earth; and the cause of our not being heard when we pray is this: that we do not agree with one another on earth either in doctrines or in life. Further, if we are the body of Christ, and “God has set the members, each one of them, in the body,” so that “the members may have the same care for one another” and agree with one another, “and if one member suffers, all suffer with it, and if one is honoured, all rejoice with it,” we must practise the agreement that comes from divine music, so that, when we are gathered in the name of Christ, Christ may be in our midst, the Word of God and the wisdom of God and the power …

So much, then, taking the two and three whom the Word calls to agree in a more general sense. Now let us take up another interpretation, which one of those before us used to give when exhorting married people to purity and chastity. The two whom the Word wishes to agree on earth, he says, must be understood as husband and wife, who by agreement deprive one another of bodily intercourse so that they may devote themselves to prayer; then, when they pray “about anything they ask,” they will receive it, the request that comes from such an agreement being granted them by the Father of Jesus Christ in heaven. This interpretation seems to us not to bring about the dissolution of a marriage but to be an exhortation to agreement. So if one of the two wished to remain pure and the other did not, and for this reason the one who both wished and was able to do the better thing gave way to the one who either did not wish or was not able, the two of them would not have what is promised, that “about anything they ask,” it will be done for them by the Father of Jesus Christ in heaven.

I know also another interpretation, besides the one about married people, concerning the agreement of the two, as follows. In the wicked, sin reigns over the soul, seated as on its own throne in this mortal body, so that the soul obeys its desires. In those who have roused themselves and driven the sin that reigned before from the throne of the body, as it were, and are contending against it, “the flesh desires against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh.” But in those already perfected the spirit has prevailed and has put to death the deeds of the body, and imparts of its own life to the body, so that now there comes to pass also “He will give life to our mortal bodies too, through his Spirit who dwells in us”; and there comes about an agreement of the two, body and spirit, on earth. When this has been achieved, the prayer too is sent up in concord, the prayer of the one who “believes with the heart unto righteousness and confesses with the mouth unto salvation,” so that the heart is no longer far from God, and with it the righteous man draws near to God with his lips and his mouth as well. Still more blessed is it if the three are gathered together in the name of Jesus, so that this may be fulfilled: “May God sanctify you wholly, and may your spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Someone will inquire, concerning the agreement of spirit and body just described, whether it is possible for these two to agree while the third, I mean the soul, does not; and whether perhaps it does not follow from the agreement of these two on earth, after the two have been gathered in the name of Christ, that the three are now also gathered in his name, in whose midst the Son of God comes, as though all three were dedicated to him and none of them were opposed to him: not only the spirit not opposing him, but neither the soul, nor yet the body.

It is also a graceful exercise to understand and set forth the agreement of the two Testaments, the one before the Saviour's bodily coming and the new one. For in the things in which the two Testaments agree, so that there is nothing in them in which one is discordant with the other, prayers would be found such that “about anything they ask,” it is done for them by the Father in heaven. And if you long for a third, who gathers the two together, do not hesitate to say that it is the Holy Spirit himself, since the words of the wise, whether of those before the coming, or of those at the time of it, or after it, are “like goads, and like nails firmly fixed, which were given from the collections by one shepherd.” Do not leave this unobserved either: he does not say, “Where two or three are gathered, there I will be in their midst,” but “there I am”; not about to be, nor delaying, but found there himself at once with the agreement, and coming to be in their midst.

“Then Peter came up and said to him, Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him?” To think that these words were said in a more simple sense, by Peter as asking whether he should forgive a brother who sins against him seven sins but no longer the eighth, and by the Saviour as teaching that one should sit and count up the sins of one's neighbour against oneself, so as to pardon “seventy times seven,” but from the seventy-eighth not to forgive the one who has wronged him, seems to me altogether simple-minded and unworthy both of Peter's standing with Jesus and of Jesus' divine greatness of mind. Perhaps, then, these words too contain an obscurity akin to “Hear my voice, wives of Lamech,” and what follows. The true account, the one that Jesus himself would have had in mind in saying these things, would be known by anyone who has already become a friend of Jesus, so as to be taught by his Spirit, which illuminates the ruling faculty of one who has advanced so far as he deserves. But we, who fall short of the greatness of friendship with Jesus, must be content if we can say even a little about the passage. The number six seems to be a number of work and toil, while seven contains rest. Consider, then, whether you can say that the one who loves the world, and does the works of the world, and busies himself with material things, sins six times, and that the end of their sin is the number seven; as if Peter, understanding something like this, wished to pardon his brother seven of the sins committed against him. But since the tens and hundreds corresponding to the units have a common relation of proportion to the number in units, yet he knew of a relation that is intensified and greater, for this reason, I think, Jesus added to the number seven the number seventy also, and said that forgiveness must be given to brothers here who have sinned in the things of this world; but that if anyone, having gone beyond the things of the world and this age, should sin, even if the sin is small, he would no longer have a reasonable claim to forgiveness of sins. For forgiveness reaches as far as the things here, and in sins committed here forgiveness may come either more slowly or more quickly. But there is no forgiveness even for a brother who has sinned beyond the seventy-seven. You might say that the one who sins in this way, either against Peter as a brother, or against Peter, against whom the gates of Hades do not prevail, is, as regards such sins, in the lesser number of sin, but as regards still worse sins, in the number that has no forgiveness of sins.

“Therefore I say to you, The kingdom of heaven is like a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants.” The general sense of the parable aims to teach us to forgive those who have wronged us the sins they have committed against us, especially if, after doing the wrong, the wrongdoer asks the one he wronged, begging that his sins be forgiven him. The parable also wishes to teach us this: that even for sins already forgiven us by God, for which we have received forgiveness, payment may be exacted even after the forgiveness, if we do not forgive those who have wronged us their sins, so that not even the slightest memory of having been wronged remains in us; rather, with the whole heart, helped by freedom from bearing grudges (no ordinary virtue), we should pardon the one who has wronged us for the things he has done to any of us maliciously and treacherously. After the general sense of the parable, one can also examine the whole of it more simply, word by word, so that one who carefully advances in rightly seeking out each of the things written beforehand may profit from testing what has been said. There is also, it is likely, a higher interpretation, more mystical and hard to attest, according to which, in the same way as the parables interpreted by the evangelists, one might inquire into each thing in this parable: for example, who the king is, and who the servants, and what is the beginning of settling accounts, and who is the one debtor of many talents, and who his wife, and what the children, and what are all the other things mentioned besides these, which the king ordered to be sold so that the debt might be paid out of his possessions; and what is the going out of the one who was forgiven the many talents, and who is the one servant who was found owing, not to the master but to the one who had been forgiven; and what the number of the hundred denarii means; and what “He took him by the throat, saying, Pay what you owe” means; and what is the prison into which the one forgiven all the talents went and threw his fellow servant; and who are the fellow servants who were grieved and explained to their lord all that had happened; and who are the torturers to whom the one who threw his fellow servant into prison was handed over; and how, when handed over to the torturers, he paid back all that was owed, so that he owed nothing more. It is likely that other questions too could be brought into the discussion by one more given to inquiry; the explanation and interpretation of these I believe to be greater than human, and to need the Spirit of Christ, who spoke them, so that they may be understood as Christ spoke them. For as “no one among men knows the things of a man except the spirit that is in him, and no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God,” so no one after God knows the things spoken by Christ in proverbs and parables except the Spirit of Christ. One who shares in it, not only as it is the Spirit of Christ, but also as it is of Christ as Wisdom and as Word, could behold what is revealed to him concerning the passage. As for the highest interpretation, we make no promise; yet neither do we despair, if helped by Christ, who is the wisdom of God, of grasping the things shown in the parable. But whether we shall be able also to dictate such things in this writing, God would suggest in Christ, that we may do what is pleasing to him, if only the word of wisdom given through the Spirit from God, and the word of knowledge supplied according to the Spirit, be given us about these things too.

“The kingdom of heaven,” he says, “is like,” and what follows. If it is likened to a king who did such and such things, whom should we say he is if not the Son of God? For he is the king of the heavens; and just as he is wisdom itself, and righteousness itself, and truth itself, so perhaps he is also the kingdom itself: a kingdom not of anything below, nor of a part of the things above, but of all the things above, which have been named heavens. And if you inquire into “Theirs is the kingdom of heaven,” you can say that Christ is theirs, in so far as he is the kingdom itself, reigning in every aspect of himself over the one who is no longer ruled by sin, which reigns in the mortal body of those who have subjected themselves to it. When I say “reigning in every aspect of himself,” I mean something like this: he is righteousness reigning, and wisdom, and truth, and the other virtues, over the one who, through bearing the image of the heavenly, has become heaven; and over every power, whether angelic or of the others that are named, not only in this age but also in the age to come, of saints worthy of such a kingdom. This kingdom of heaven, then, when it came to be “in the likeness of sinful flesh, so as to condemn sin in the flesh,” when God made “him who knew no sin to be sin” for us who bear the body of our sin, “was likened to a man, a king,” the man understood in Jesus. It was united to him (if one may dare to say so) more closely, so as to be united and wholly become one with “the firstborn of all creation,” than “he who is joined to the Lord” becomes “one spirit” with him. This kingdom of heaven, likened to the man, the king, understood in the Saviour, and united to him, is said by anticipation to have wished to settle accounts with his servants. He is going to settle accounts with them so that it may appear how each one has used the householder's approved silver and coins of reason. The example in the parable is taken from masters who settle accounts with their own servants. We shall understand more precisely what the parable shows here if we fix our minds on what happens with household servants who have managed their masters' money and have an account of it demanded from them. For each of them, receiving different amounts of their master's money, uses it either as he should, so as to increase the master's money, or spends it prodigally on things he should not, pouring out what was entrusted to him without discernment and without caution. And there are some who managed such and such sums well but lost others; and when he gives the account, as the master settles accounts with them, it is reckoned how much loss each has caused, and counted how much profit he has brought; and according to how he has managed, he is either honoured, or has payment exacted from him, or is pardoned in some things and deprived in others. Come, then, let us first see from what has been said the coins of reason and the approved silver of the master, of which one receives more and another less. For according to the ability of each, to one are given five talents, as able to manage so much; to another two, as not capable of what the one before him has; to another one, as inferior to the second also. Are these the only differences? Or are these said of certain people in later parts of the Gospel, while there are also others besides these, found in other parables? In one there are two debtors, one of five hundred denarii and the other of fifty, either entrusted with these sums and having managed them badly, being lesser in ability than the one entrusted with the talent; that they received these sums we have not learned, but that they owed so much we seem to be taught by the parable. Others too are found: ten servants, each entrusted with one mina. And if anyone were to consider the variety of the human soul, and the natural aptitudes and lack of aptitude, differing greatly from one another, for more or fewer virtues, and for these virtues or those, he might perhaps understand how each soul has come with certain coins of the householder, which come to light with the completion of reason and with the care that follows the completion of reason, and with training toward what is fitting; or with care and training toward other things, either useful, such as the arts and pursuits, or useful in some ways and not in others, such as doctrines that are neither wholly true nor wholly false.

You will inquire here whether all human beings can be called servants of this king; or whether some are servants, those whom he foreknew and predestined, and others are those who do business along with the servants, called bankers. You will also inquire whether, outside the servants, there are those from whom the householder declares he will exact payment with interest: not only those who are strangers to godliness, but also some of the believers. Only the stewards of the word are servants; but the king, settling accounts with the servants, demands payment also from those who have borrowed from the servants, whether a hundred measures of wheat, or a hundred baths of oil, or anything whatever … According to the parable, the one who owes the hundred measures of wheat or the hundred baths of oil is [not] found to be a fellow servant of “the unjust steward,” as is clear from “How much do you owe my master?” Understand that every action that is good or fitting resembles profit and yield, and a wicked one resembles loss; and just as there is a profit of more silver and another of less, and in varying degrees more and less, so in good actions there is, as it were, an assessment of greater or lesser profits. It belongs to him alone who knows how to examine such things, who sees from the disposition, the reasoning, and the action, and from the things not in our power that work together with those in our power, to reckon what kind of work is a great profit, what a lesser one, and what the least; and so too with the opposites, what sin is found, when he settles accounts with the servants, to be a great loss, what a lesser one, and what, if it must be so named, a loss of the last lepton or the last quadrans. The account of the whole and entire life, then, is settled by the kingdom of heaven described, which was likened to a man, a king, when “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive according to what he has done in the body, whether good or bad.” And then, when the account is settled, there will be brought into it both “every idle word that people speak,” and whether anyone ever “gave a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple.”

And this will be when what is written in Daniel comes to pass: “Books were opened, and the court sat.” For there comes to be, as it were, a record of all that has been spoken and done and thought, and by divine power everything of ours that is hidden will be made manifest and everything covered will be revealed. So when someone is not found to have made an effort to be released from his adversary, he will go by way of the ruler and the judge and the officer to the prison, until he pays the last lepton; but when one has made an effort to be released from him, and owes nothing to anyone, and has already made the mina tenfold or fivefold, or doubled the five talents, or made the two into four, he obtains the due reward, entering into the joy of his Lord, or being set over all his possessions, or hearing, “Have authority over ten cities,” or, “Have authority over five cities.” We might think that these things are said as needing a long time, so that the account of the whole time of life here may be settled with us; so that one might suppose that, as the king settles accounts with each of so many servants, the matter needs as long a time as it takes for what has happened from the beginning of the world to the consummation of the age to come to its end; and not of one age only, but of many. But the truth is not so. For God, wishing all at once to rekindle in the memories of all, so that each may become aware of what he has done better or worse, all that has happened to each throughout the whole of time, could do it by ineffable power. When we wish to remind someone of certain things, we need enough time to go through what we say and what brings to remembrance the things we wish to recall; it is not so with God when he wishes to remind us of what we have done in this life, so that, becoming aware of what we have done, we may understand why we are punished or honoured; he could do it at once. If anyone disbelieves that the power of God can act so quickly in these matters, he has not yet understood the God who made the universe, who did not need periods of time to make so great a creation of heaven and earth and the things in them. For even if he seems to have made these in six days, understanding is needed to grasp how “in six days” is meant, because of the words “This is the book of the generation of heaven and earth,” and what follows. We must dare, then, to say that the time of the expected judgment needs no periods of time; but as the resurrection is said to happen “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye,” so too, I think, will the judgment.

After this we must speak on “When he began to settle accounts, one was brought to him who owed many talents,” which seems to me to have this meaning. The time of beginning is when the judgment begins from the house of God, as it is written also in Ezekiel, when he says to those appointed over the punishments, “Begin from my holy places”; and it is like the twinkling of an eye. The time of settling accounts is the same, distinguished only in thought; for we have not forgotten what was said before about those who owe more. That is why it is not written, “As he was settling accounts,” but “When he began to settle, there was brought,” at the beginning of his settling accounts, “one who owed many talents,” as one who had caused countless losses: he had been entrusted with great things and believed with much, but had brought his master no profit, and instead had caused countless losses, so that he owed many talents. Perhaps he owed many talents because he often followed the woman named Lawlessness, who sits on the talent of lead. Understand in this passage that each very great sin is a loss of the householder's talents; and such sins are committed by the sexually immoral, adulterers, men who lie with males, the effeminate, idolaters, murderers. Perhaps, then, the one debtor of many talents who was brought to the king had sinned in nothing small, but in all things great and grievous. If you look for him among human beings, you might perhaps find him to be “the man of sin, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship”; and if outside human beings, who would he be but the devil, who has destroyed so many who received him as he worked sin in them? “For a man is a great thing, and a merciful man is precious”: precious as worth a talent, either of gold, as the lampstand of a talent was of gold, or of silver, or of whatever material is understood in a figurative sense. Symbols of these are recorded in Chronicles, where David became rich in many talents, whose number is also given: so many talents of gold, so many of silver, and of the other materials named there, from which the temple of God was built.

But not having the means to repay the talents, for he had lost them, he has a wife and children and other things, of which it is written, “all that he has.” It was possible, if he were sold with his own, for him to find a buyer who would make up the whole debt with the price of him and his; and it was possible for him to be no longer the king's servant but to become the buyer's. And he pleads that he may not be sold along with his own, but may remain in the king's house. That is why “falling down he worships him,” knowing the king to be God, and says, “Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.” For he was, it seems, an active man, who saw that by later actions he could make up all that was lacking from the earlier loss of the many talents. And this good king had compassion even on the debtor of the many talents, and then released him, granting him something more than he had asked. For the debtor promised to repay all the debts to his master if he were patient; but the lord, having compassion on him, did not merely let him go for the time, so as to recover the debt by being patient, but released him completely and forgave him all the debt. But this wicked servant, though he had asked his master for patience over the many talents, acted without mercy. “For finding one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii, he seized him and took him by the throat, saying, Pay what you owe.” How did he not display an excess of wickedness, seizing his fellow servant over a hundred denarii, choking him and depriving him of free breath, when he himself, over the many talents, was neither seized nor choked, but was first ordered to be sold with his wife and children and possessions, and later, after he had worshipped, when his lord had compassion on him, was released and forgiven all the debt? It is a hard task to say, in keeping with Jesus' intention, who is the one fellow servant found owing a hundred denarii, not to his own lord but to the one who owed many talents; and who are the fellow servants who saw the one choking and the other being choked, and were greatly grieved, and clearly reported to their lord all that had happened. As to how the matters stand in truth, I declare that no one can explain them except Jesus, who explained all things privately to his own disciples. He does so by coming to dwell in their ruling faculty, opening all the treasures in the parable, dark, hidden, and invisible, and fully convincing, by clear demonstrations, whomever he wishes to enlighten with the light of the knowledge of the things in this parable; so as to show at once who is the one debtor of many talents brought to the king, the man, and what follows, and who is the other one who owed him the hundred denarii, and the rest: whether he can be the man of sin explained above, or the devil, or neither of these but someone else, either a human being or one of those under the devil. For it is the work of the wisdom of God to explain also the prophecies about those of a particular quality, or who have been qualified with such and such qualities, whether among invisible powers or among certain human beings, recorded in whatever way by the divine Spirit. But since we have not yet acquired a sufficient mind, one that can be blended with the mind of Christ, reaching far enough to contain so much, and to search all things with the Spirit, even the depths of God, we think, while still forming only an indefinite impression of the passage, that what is set forth here concerning the debt of many talents refers to some one wicked servant shown through the parable.

It is worth considering when the king, the man in the parable, wished to settle accounts with his servants, and to what time we should refer what is said. For if it is after the consummation, or at it, at the time of the expected judgment, how will one make sense of what is said about the one who owed a hundred denarii and was choked by the one who had been forgiven the many talents? But if it is before the judgment, how could one show an account settled before it by the king, the man, with his servants? We must think in general, about every parable whose explanation has not been recorded by the evangelists (even though Jesus explained everything privately to his own disciples), that those who wrote the Gospels concealed the clear meaning of the parables for this reason: that the things signified by them were greater than the nature of written letters, and each solution and clear explanation of such parables was such that not even the world itself could contain the books that would be written on such parables. But it may be that a suitable heart is found, which because of its purity can contain the letters of the clear explanation of the parables, so that they may be written in it by the Spirit of the living God. Someone will say, however, that perhaps we act impiously, we who wish, because of the secret and mystical character of certain heavenly writings, that these should be signs of them, and who try to make them clear, even if it seems, for the sake of argument, that we have carefully grasped their meaning. To this too it must be said: if there are any who have received the gift of understanding these things accurately, they know what they must do. But we, who confess that we fall short of being able to reach the depth of what is signified in these things, even if we grasp to some extent a somewhat coarser general sense of the passage, shall say this: some things which we seem to find after much testing and inquiry, whether by the grace of God or by the power of our own mind, we do not dare to entrust to writing; but some things, for the sake of our own exercise and that of those who will read them, we set out to some extent. Let this be said in our defence, because of the depth of the parable. As to when the king of the parable, the man, wished to settle accounts with his servants, we shall say that it seems to take place around the proclaimed time of the judgment. This is shown by one parable towards the end of the present Gospel, and one in the Gospel according to Luke. So as not to lengthen the discussion by setting out the very wording, since anyone who wishes can take it from the Scripture itself, we shall say that the parable according to Matthew shows that “a man going abroad called his own servants and delivered to them his possessions, and to one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one”; then they did their business with what had been entrusted to them; “And after a long time the lord of those servants comes,” and it is written in these very words that he also settles accounts with them. Compare this with “And when he began to settle accounts,” and see that he called the time of the householder's absence abroad the time in which, “while we are at home in the body, we are away from the Lord,” and called his coming, when “after a long time the lord of those servants comes,” the time at the consummation, at the judgment; for “after a long time the lord of those servants comes and settles accounts with them,” and what follows takes place. The parable according to Luke shows more clearly that “a nobleman went into a far country to receive a kingdom for himself and to return”; as he was going, he called ten servants and gave them ten minas, and said to them, “Trade until I come.” This nobleman, hated by his own citizens, who sent an embassy after him because they did not want him to reign over them, returned having received the kingdom, and said that the servants to whom he had given the money should be called to him, “so that he might know what they had gained by trading.” Seeing what they had done, he gave praise to the one who had made the mina into ten minas, saying, “Well done, good servant, because you were faithful in a very little,” and gives him authority over ten cities, those under his kingdom; but to another, who had made the mina fivefold, he did not give the praise he had assigned to the first, nor did he use the word “authority” as he had specified for the first, but said to him, “And you, be over five cities”; and to the one who had tied up the mina in a cloth he said, “Out of your own mouth I judge you, wicked servant,” and to those standing by he said, “Take the mina from him and give it to the one who has the ten minas.” Who, then, will not say of this parable too that the nobleman who went into a far country to receive a kingdom for himself and to return is Christ, going abroad, as it were, to receive the kingdom of the world and of the things in it; that those who received the ten minas are those entrusted with managing the word with which they were entrusted; and that his citizens, when he lived as a citizen in the world by becoming man, those who did not want him to reign, are perhaps Israel which disbelieved him, and perhaps also the nations that disbelieved him?

I have said these things, however, because I refer his return, when he comes with the kingdom, to the consummation, when “he said that the servants to whom he had given the money should be called to him, so that he might know what they had gained by trading”; and because from this I wish to show from the parable of the talents too that “who wished to settle accounts with his servants” also refers to the consummation, when he is already king, having received the kingdom, for which, according to the other parable, he went into a far country to receive a kingdom for himself and to return. Having returned, then, and received the kingdom, “he wished to settle accounts with his servants, and when he began to settle, one was brought to him who owed many talents.” He was brought, as to a king, by the ministers appointed by him, I think angels. And perhaps he is one of those under the kingdom who was entrusted with some great stewardship and did not manage it well, but squandered what was entrusted to him, so that he became a debtor of the many talents he had lost. This one, perhaps having nothing with which to repay, is ordered by the king to be sold together with his wife, through partnership with whom he became the father of certain children. It is no ordinary task to see a father and a mother and children among the things perceived by the mind. As for the truth, God would show this task to whom he wishes; and whether he has given it to us or not, let the one who is able judge. We understand, however, something like this about the passage. Just as “the Jerusalem above” is “the mother” of Paul and of those like him, so there may be a mother of others, analogous to Jerusalem the mother: say, Syene of Egypt, or Sidon, or whatever cities are named in the Scriptures. Then, just as Jerusalem is a bride adorned for her husband Christ, so those mothers may be, as it were, wives or brides of certain powers which have them as their allotted portion. And just as there are certain children of Jerusalem as mother and of Christ as father, so there may be certain children of Syene and Memphis, or Tyre or Sidon, and of the rulers set over them. Perhaps, then, this one debtor of many talents who was brought to the king has, in the sense we have explained, a wife and children; and the king first ordered them to be sold, and all that he had to be sold, but later, having compassion, released him and forgave him all the debt. He was not ignorant of what would happen, but it is recorded that he did so in order that we might learn what took place. Each, then, of those who have, in the sense we have explained, a wife and children will give an account when the king comes to settle accounts, having received the kingdom and returned; and each of them, as ruler of some Syene or Memphis or Tyre or Sidon or some similar place, also has debtors. This one, released and forgiven all the debt, going out from the king, “found one of his fellow servants,” and what follows. And it was for this reason, I think, that he choked him: because he had gone out from the king; for had he not gone out, he would not have choked his fellow servant. Then observe the precision of Scripture: the one fell down and worshipped; the other fell down and did not worship, but entreated. The king had compassion, released him, and forgave him all the debt; but the servant would not even have mercy on his fellow servant. The king, before the forgiveness, ordered him to be sold, with his possessions; but the one who had been forgiven threw his fellow servant into prison. Note too that the fellow servants did not slander him or merely talk, but explained clearly; and that the king did not say “wicked” at the beginning, about the money, but kept it for later, about the fellow servant. See also the restraint of the king: he did not say, “You worshipped me,” but “You entreated me”; and he no longer ordered him to be sold with his possessions, but “delivered him to the torturers,” the worse fate, because of his wickedness. Who might these be but those appointed over the punishments? At the same time note this, because of those from the heresies who make use of the parable: if they accuse the Creator of being wrathful because of the words that show the anger of God, they ought to accuse this king too, since in anger he delivered the debtor to the torturers. Further, it must be said to those who do not want anyone to be delivered by Jesus to torturers: “Explain to us, you people, who is the king who delivers the wicked servant to the torturers?” And let them attend to “So also my heavenly Father will do to you.” To the same people one might also say, still more, what is in the parable of the ten minas: that the Son of the good God said, “But those enemies of mine who did not want me,” and what follows. The conclusion of the parable, however, fits the simpler too; for we are all taught together that those who have received forgiveness of sins and do not pardon their brothers will suffer what the servant suffered who was forgiven and did not forgive.

“And it came to pass when Jesus had finished these words.” The one who goes through each of the problems set before him completely, so as to leave none of them lacking, finishes his own words. One could speak more confidently about this after attending more carefully to the whole reading of the Old and New Testaments. For if “he finished these words” is used of no one, neither of Moses nor of any of the prophets, but only of Jesus, then one might dare to say that Jesus alone finished words, he who came to bring things to their end and to fill up what the law lacked, through “It was said to those of old,” and what follows; and again, “so that what was spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled.” But if it is written somewhere of them too, then one would examine the words finished by them alongside those finished by the Saviour, so as to find the difference between them. And there too it might be asked whether “he finished” is used of words spoken by divine oracle, or of those spoken by Moses or one of the prophets, or of both. For careful observation might suggest the greatest thoughts to those who know how to “compare spiritual things with spiritual,” and who for this reason “speak not in words taught by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit.” Another, taking “he finished” (etelesen) more curiously, as used of more mystical things (for just as one person handed on to those under him mysteries and initiations that are not praiseworthy, so another hands on mysteries of God to the worthy, and initiations corresponding to such mysteries), might say that he performed an initiation, initiating them, and that through this initiation the words appeared powerful, so that the Gospel of Jesus was preached in the whole world and, through the divine initiation, prevailed over every soul that the Father draws to the Son, according to what the Saviour said: “No one comes to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.” That is why the word of those who by God's grace are ambassadors of the Gospel, and their preaching, “was not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power”: those in whom the words of Jesus' teaching were brought to completion. You, then, will observe how often “he finished” is said, and of what. You will take as an example what was said after the beatitudes and the whole teaching that follows them, which ends: “And it came to pass when Jesus finished these words, all the crowds were astonished at his teaching.” And now too “Jesus finished these words” refers immediately to the most mystical parable, in which “the kingdom of heaven was likened to a man, a king, who wished to settle accounts with his servants,” and further, beyond it, to what is recorded before it.

But “when Jesus had finished these words,” having spoken them in Galilee around Capernaum, he then departed from there and came to the region of Judea, which is distinct from Galilee. He came to the borders of Judea, not to the middle but, as it were, to the outer parts; there great crowds followed him, and he healed them at the borders of Judea, beyond the Jordan, where baptism was given. You will observe the difference between the crowds who simply followed, and Peter and the others who left everything and followed, and Matthew, who “rose and followed him”: he did not simply follow, but rose. The addition “rose” is a great one. There are always, then, some who follow like the great crowds, neither having risen in order to follow nor having left all their former things; but few are those who have risen and followed, who will also sit in the regeneration on twelve thrones. However, if anyone wishes to be healed, let him follow Jesus.

After this it is written that “the Pharisees came to him, testing him and saying, Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?” Mark too recorded the equivalent. So among those who came to Jesus and questioned him there were some who asked him in order to test him. When our Saviour, great as he is, was tested, which of his disciples who has been appointed to teach would be indignant at being tested by some who question him not from a love of learning but from the wish to test him? If you gathered them together you would find many occasions on which the Pharisees tested our Jesus, and others besides them, such as a lawyer, and perhaps also a scribe; so that, gathering together what concerns those who tested him, you might find from the examination something useful for this kind of discourse. But the Saviour answers with teachings even those who test him. For they said, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?” And he answered and said, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female?” and what follows. I think the Pharisees put forward this question so as to lay hold of him whatever he might say. If he said, “It is lawful,” they would accuse him of dissolving marriages for trivial reasons; if, “It is not lawful,” of allowing a husband to live with a wife even when there are sins; as in the case of the tribute: if he said to pay it, they would accuse him of subjecting the people to the Romans and not to the law of God; and if not to pay it, of causing war and sedition and stirring up those who could not stand against so great an army. They did not see in what way he answers them blamelessly and wisely: first denying that a man may divorce his wife for any cause, and secondly answering what concerns the bill of divorce. For he saw that not every cause reasonably dissolves a marriage, and that the husband must “live with the wife as with a weaker vessel, giving her honour,” and bear her burdens when she sins. And he puts to shame, from what is written in Genesis, the Pharisees who boasted in the writings of Moses, saying, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female?” and what follows; and, from “And the two shall become one flesh,” he adds for them the teaching that follows from “one flesh”: “So they are no longer two, but one flesh.” And as a rebuke against divorcing a wife for any cause he adds: “What God has joined together, let not man separate.” One must observe, however, in the citing of the passages from Genesis in the Gospel, that they are not quoted in the order in which they stand one after another; and I think they are not even said of the same beings: those made in the image of God, and those made from the dust of the earth and from one of the ribs of Adam. For where it is said, “Male and female he made them,” it is about those made in the image; but where he said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother,” and what follows, it is not about those in the image; for at a later time than those, the Lord God formed man, taking dust from the earth, and from his side formed the helper. Note too that of those in the image it is not said “man and woman,” but “male and female.” We have observed this in the Hebrew as well: “man” is expressed by the word is, “male” by another word …; again “woman” by the word essa, “female” by another word … For never is “woman” said to be in the image, nor “man,” but the superior are called “male” and the secondary “female.” But when a man leaves mother and father, he is joined not to the female but to his wife; and they become one flesh, since man and wife are in the flesh. Then, describing what must be found in those whom God has joined, in a manner worthy of being joined by God, the Saviour adds, “So they are no longer two.” And where there is concord and agreement and harmony of husband with wife, he as ruling and she obeying “He shall rule over you,” one can truly say of such people, “They are no longer two.” Then, since it was fitting to keep for the one who is joined to God that he becomes one spirit with him, of those whom God has joined it is said, after “So they are no longer two,” “but one flesh.” And it is God who has joined the two into one, so that they are no longer two, since it is by him that a wife is joined in harmony to a husband. And since God has joined them, there is for this reason a gift of grace in those whom God has joined. Knowing this, Paul says that, just as holy celibacy is a gift of grace, so too marriage according to the Word of God is a gift of grace, saying, “I wish all people to be as I myself am; but each has his own gift from God, one of this kind and another of that.” And those whom God has joined both think and do this: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church.” The Saviour, then, commanded that what God has joined man should not separate. But man wishes to separate what God has joined when, “having departed from the sound faith, giving heed to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the hypocrisy of liars whose own conscience is seared, who forbid” not only sexual immorality but also “to marry,” he dissolves even those who have already been joined by the providence of God. Let this much be said, keeping to the sayings about male and female, and man and woman, as the Saviour taught in his answer to the Pharisees.

Since the Apostle takes “And the two shall become one flesh” of Christ and the church, it must be said that Christ did not divorce his former wife, if I may call her so, the former synagogue, for any other cause (keeping “What God has joined together, let not man separate”) than when that wife committed sexual immorality, having been seduced into adultery by the evil one, and with him plotted against her husband and killed him, saying, “Away from the earth with such a one; crucify, crucify him.” She, then, removed herself rather than being sent away by her husband in divorce. That is why, reproaching her for having departed from him, he says in Isaiah, “What is the bill of divorce of your mother, with which I sent her away?” And he who from the beginning created the one in the image, who exists in the form of God, made him male and the church female, granting to both the one state of being in the image. And the Lord, the husband, for the church's sake left the Father whom he saw when he was in the form of God; and he left also the mother, being himself a son of the Jerusalem above; and he was joined to his wife who had fallen down here, and here the two have become one flesh. For because of her he too became flesh, when “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us”; and “they are no longer two, but now are one flesh,” since it is said to the wife, “You are the body of Christ, and members each in part.” For there is not some body of Christ by itself, other than the church, which is his body, and members each in part. And God has joined these, who are no longer two but have become one flesh, commanding that man should not separate the church from the Lord. And the one who takes heed to himself so as not to be separated is confident that he will not be separated, and says, “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?” Here, then, it is written as said to the Pharisees, “What God has joined together, let not man separate”; but to those better than the Pharisees it might be said, “What God has joined together, let nothing separate, neither principality nor power”; for God who joined them is stronger than all the things that anyone could conceive and name.

After this we shall discuss what the Pharisees said to Jesus: “Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce and to send her away?” For this we shall reasonably take up the passage from Deuteronomy about the bill of divorce, which reads: “If anyone takes a wife and lives with her, and it happens that she does not find favour before him, because he has found in her some shameful thing,” and what follows, as far as “And you shall not defile the land which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance.” I ask, concerning what is in this law, whether one must seek nothing in it beyond the letter, since it was not God who gave it; or whether it was said of necessity to the Pharisees, who appealed to “Moses commanded to give a bill of divorce and to send her away,” that “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it was not so.” But if someone goes up to the Gospel of Christ Jesus, which teaches that the law is spiritual, he will seek a spiritual meaning of this law too. The one who wishes to interpret figuratively will also say this. Paul, confident in the grace he had, said, “A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband falls asleep, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. But she is more blessed if she remains as she is, in my judgment; and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.” In these words, so that “in my judgment” might not be despised as empty of the Spirit of God, he rightly added, “And I think that I too have the Spirit of God.” So too in the case of Moses, because of the authority given him to legislate, so that he even permitted certain things because of the hardness of heart of the people, among which was the divorcing of wives, one could be persuaded, concerning what he legislated according to his own judgment, that in these matters too the legislation was made with the Spirit of God. And he will say that, if it is not the case that one law is spiritual and another is not, but this too is law, then this too is spiritual, and its spiritual meaning must be sought …

Remembering what we said above on the saying of Isaiah about the bill of divorce, we shall say that the mother of the people removed herself from her husband, Christ, without receiving the bill of divorce; but later, when a shameful thing was found in her, and she did not find favour before him, a bill of divorce was written for her. For in effect the New Covenant, calling those from the nations into the house of him who had cast off his former wife, gave the bill of divorce to the one who had earlier departed from her husband, the Law and the Word. That is why he too, having departed from her, married, if I may say so, another, having given the bill of divorce into the hands of the former wife. And that is why they can no longer do the things commanded them in the law, because of the bill of divorce. A sign that she has received the bill of divorce is that Jerusalem has been pulled down, together with what they called the sanctuary, in which were the things believed to be holy, and the altar of burnt offerings, and all the worship connected with it. Another sign of the bill of divorce is that they cannot even keep the feasts, although, according to the letter, the intention of the law commanded them to keep the feasts in the place which the Lord God would choose; and that it is not possible for the whole congregation to stone those who have committed such and such sins. Countless other commandments too are a sign of the bill of divorce, and so is the fact that “there is no longer a prophet,” and that they say, “We no longer see signs.” For the Lord, he says, “has taken away from Judea and from Jerusalem,” according to the word of Isaiah, “the strong man and the strong woman, the mighty giant,” and the rest, as far as “the intelligent hearer.” It is possible that Christ took the synagogue as wife and lived with her, but that later she did not find favour before him; and the cause of her not finding favour before him was that a shameful thing was found in her. For what is more shameful than, when it was proposed to release one at the feast, to have said to release Barabbas the robber, and to condemn Jesus? What is more shameful than that they all said of him, “Crucify, crucify him, and away from the earth with such a one,” and “His blood be on us and on our children”? Therefore, when he was avenged, Jerusalem was surrounded by armies, and her desolation came upon her, and “their house was left” to them, and the daughter of Zion was left “like a booth in a vineyard, and like a lodge in a cucumber field, and like a besieged city.” At the same time the husband wrote for his former wife a bill of divorce and gave it into her hands, while for those from the nations the record of debt was wiped out, of which the Apostle says, “having wiped out the record of debt that stood against us in its decrees, he took it out of the way, nailing it to the cross.” For Paul too, and others, became proselytes of Israel for the bride from the nations. The former wife, then, who did not find favour before her husband because a shameful thing was found in her, went out from her husband's house, and having gone away she has become another man's, to whom she has subjected herself: whether one should say that this husband is Barabbas the robber, who is figuratively the devil, or some evil power. And in the case of some of that synagogue what is written first in the law has happened, in the case of others the second; for the last husband hated the wife, and at some time, at the end of things, he writes her a bill of divorce (God arranging this) and will give it into her hands and send her out of his house. For just as “the good God will put enmity between the serpent and the woman, and between his seed and her seed,” so he will arrange that the last husband hate her.

There are some with whom it has happened that the husband lives with them without having hated them, because they remained in the house of the last husband, who took their synagogue as his wife; but in their case too the last husband dies, perhaps when “the last enemy” of Christ, “death, is destroyed.” Whichever of these happens to the wife, the first or the last, “the former husband,” it says, “who sent her away, will not be able to return and take her to be his wife after she has been defiled, since it is an abomination,” it says, “before the Lord your God.” But this will seem not to agree with “When the fullness of the nations has come in, all Israel will be saved.” Consider whether this too can be said in reply: that if she is saved, she will certainly be saved by her former husband returning and taking her to be his wife after she has been defiled. A priest, it is true, will not take for himself a prostitute or a woman who has been cast out; but someone else, as being lower than the priest, is not prevented from doing such a thing. And if you look for the prostitute in connection with the calling of the nations, you will use “Take for yourself a wife of prostitution and children of prostitution,” and what follows. For as “the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless,” so the one who casts out his former wife and in due season takes a wife of prostitution is also guiltless, having done it at the command of the one who said, when it was necessary and for as long as it was needed, “He shall not take a prostitute as wife,” and, when it was reasonable, says, “Take for yourself a wife of prostitution.” For as the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath, and not a slave of the Sabbath as the people are, so the one who gives the law is lord to give it “until the time of reformation,” and to change the law; and when the time of reformation has come, to give, after the former way and after the former heart, another way and another heart, “in an acceptable time and in a day of salvation.” Let this be said, according to one interpretation, on the law about the bill of divorce.

One might ask whether the human soul can be called figuratively a wife, and the angel set over her as her ruler, toward whom her conduct is directed as one who has lordship over her, a husband; so that in this sense each angel lawfully lives with the soul that is worthy of the protection of a divine angel. And at some time, after a long period of living together, there might arise in the soul a cause for her not finding favour before the angel who is lord and ruler over her, namely that a shameful thing is found in her; and, as records of debt are written, a bill of divorce might be written and given into the hands of the one who is cast out, so that the one who is sent out of his house no longer belongs to her former guardian. And the one who has gone out from the former house might become another man's, and might fare badly with him, not only, as with the former husband, not finding favour before him because a shameful thing is found in her, but also being hated by him; and a bill of divorce might be written for her by the second husband as well, and given into her hands by the last husband as he sends her out of his house. Whether there can be a change in the life of the angels who live with human beings, such that this is, as far as concerns our relation to them, their “death,” one might inquire, boldly indeed, but still inquire. However it may happen, the one who has once fallen away from her former husband will not return to him: “For the former husband who sent her away will not be able to return and take her to be his wife after she has been defiled.” And if one must dare to support such a view from a writing that is used in the church but not acknowledged by all to be divine, one might take the passage from the Shepherd about certain people who, when they believe, come under Michael, but through love of pleasure fall away from him and come under the angel of luxury, then under the angel of punishment, and after him under the angel of repentance. For you see that the wife, that is, the soul, that has once lived in luxury does not return to the first ruler, but, even after punishment, comes under one inferior to Michael; for the angel of repentance is inferior to him. We must take heed, then, lest a shameful thing be found in us and we do not find favour before our husband, Christ, or before the angel set over us. For if we do not take heed, perhaps we too shall receive the bill of divorce, and shall either be widowed of a guardian or come to another husband. And I think that it is not, if I may put it so, an auspicious thing for us to receive angels in marriage with our soul.

Having come to this passage, I would say that we shall perhaps now be able to understand something that is asked about the Apostle's legislation on church matters and that is hard to see. For Paul wishes that none of those in the church who have received some pre-eminence over the many, as if in symbols, should have experienced a second marriage. For, legislating about bishops in the first Epistle to Timothy, he says, “If anyone aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober, self-controlled,” and what follows; and about deacons, “Let deacons,” he says, “be husbands of one wife, managing their children and their own households well,” and the rest. And in appointing widows, he says, “Let a widow be enrolled who is not less than sixty years old, having been the wife of one husband”; and after this he gives what follows, as secondary and tertiary to this. And in the Epistle to Titus he says, “For this reason I left you in Crete, so that you might set right what remains and appoint presbyters in every city, as I directed you: if anyone is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children,” and what follows. We were puzzled, seeing that some who have been married twice can be much better than those married once, why Paul does not permit the twice-married to be appointed to the offices of the church. For such a question seemed to me worth inquiring into, since it is possible that someone who was unfortunate in two marriages, having lost the second wife while he was still young, has lived the rest of his life until old age with the greatest self-control and purity. Who, then, would not reasonably be puzzled as to why, when a ruler of the church is sought, we do not appoint such a twice-married man because of the words about marriage, but take the once-married man as ruler, even if he happens to have lived with his wife until old age, and sometimes has not even been trained in chastity and self-control? From what has been said on the law about the bill of divorce I consider whether perhaps, since the bishop, the presbyter, and the deacon are symbols of the true realities that correspond to these names, he wished to appoint them as once-married symbolically, so that one who is able to attend to the realities may find from the spiritual law that he is unworthy of church office whose soul did not find favour before her husband, because a shameful thing was found in her, and became worthy of the bill of divorce. For such a soul, having lived with a second husband and been hated by him, can no longer, after the second bill of divorce, return to her former husband. It is likely, then, that other reasons will be found by those much wiser than we, and better able to see such great matters, whether on the law about the bill of divorce or on the apostolic texts that prevent the twice-married from ruling the church or from presiding in it as men held in honour. But we, until better things are found which can, by the great superiority of the light of knowledge, eclipse what we have said, have said what occurred to us on these passages.

Even if we seem to have touched on matters deeper than our ability in these passages, nonetheless these things too must still be said, because of the letter: that some of the laws were written not as excellent in themselves, but as accommodating the weakness of those for whom they were made. Something like this is shown in “Moses, because of your hardness of heart, permitted you to divorce your wives”; while what is primary and excellent, beyond the law written because of hardness of heart, is shown in “But from the beginning it was not so.” In the New Covenant too some things have been legislated analogous to “Moses, because of your hardness of heart, permitted you to divorce your wives.” For it is as it were because of our hardness of heart, because of weakness, that it is written: “But because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and each woman her own husband,” and “Let the husband give to his wife what is due, and likewise the wife to her husband.” At any rate, there is added to these words: “This I say by way of concession, not of command.” And also “A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband falls asleep, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord” is said by Paul because of our hardness of heart or weakness, to those who do not wish to strive for the greater gifts and to become more blessed. But now, contrary to what is written, some of the leaders of the church have even permitted certain things, so that a woman is married while her husband is living. They act contrary to what is written, where it is said, “A wife is bound as long as her husband lives,” and “So then she will be called an adulteress if she becomes another man's while her husband is living”; yet not altogether without reason, for it is likely that this concession was permitted in comparison with worse things, contrary to what was legislated and written from the beginning.

Perhaps one of the Jews, of those who dare to oppose the teaching of our Saviour, will say that Jesus too, in saying, “Whoever divorces his wife except on the ground of sexual immorality makes her commit adultery,” permitted divorcing a wife just as Moses did, who, he said, legislated because of the hardness of heart of the people; and he will say that “because he found in her a shameful thing” is the same as the ground of sexual immorality, for which a wife might reasonably be cast out by her husband. It must be said to him that, if a woman who commits adultery is to be stoned according to the law, clearly the “shameful thing” is not understood in this sense. For in the case of adultery, or of any shameful act of such gravity, one must not write a bill of divorce and give it into the hands of the wife. But perhaps Moses called every sin a “shameful thing”; if it is found by the husband in a wife who does not find favour before him, the bill of divorce is written, and the wife is sent out of her husband's house. “But from the beginning it was not so.” After this our Saviour, in no way permitting marriages to be dissolved for any other sin than sexual immorality alone, when it is found in the wife, says, “Whoever divorces his wife except on the ground of sexual immorality makes her commit adultery.” It might be asked whether he therefore forbids a man to divorce his wife if she is convicted not of sexual immorality but, say, of poisoning, or of killing the child born to them while the husband was away from home, or of any murder whatever. And if she is found pilfering and robbing her husband's house, but not committing sexual immorality, one might ask whether he would reasonably cast out such a woman, since the Saviour forbids anyone to divorce his own wife except on the ground of sexual immorality. For either way something seems absurd, though I do not know whether it is truly absurd. To bear with such great sins, which seem to be worse than adultery and sexual immorality, will seem unreasonable; and again, to act contrary to the intention of the Saviour's teaching everyone would admit to be impious. I consider, then, why he did not say, “Let no one divorce his wife except on the ground of sexual immorality,” but says, “Whoever divorces his wife except on the ground of sexual immorality makes her commit adultery.” For the one who divorces his wife when she has not committed sexual immorality admittedly makes her, as far as lies with him, commit adultery. For if “while her husband lives she will be called an adulteress if she becomes another man's,” and by divorcing her he gives her a pretext for a second marriage, clearly by this he makes her commit adultery. But whether there is a defence for dismissing a woman convicted of poisoning, or one who has committed murder, you too might inquire. For a husband can also make his own wife commit adultery through causes other than divorce: for example, by allowing her, beyond what is fitting, to do what she wishes and to enter into friendship with whatever men she wishes; for such falls often happen to wives through the simplicity of their husbands. But whether there is room for a defence or not for such husbands in such cases, you will declare after careful inquiry, as also on the questions we have raised on this passage. And the one who deprives his wife of himself often makes her commit adultery by not satisfying her desires, even if he does this under the appearance of greater dignity and self-control. And perhaps this man is more blameworthy, who, as far as lies with him, makes her commit adultery by not satisfying her desires, than the one who divorced her not on the ground of sexual immorality but for poisoning or murder or one of the gravest sins. And just as a woman is an adulteress, even if she seems to be married to a man, while the former husband is still living, so also a man who seems to marry a divorced woman does not, according to our Saviour's pronouncement, so much marry her as commit adultery. After this, the disciples of Christ, considering how many misfortunes can occur in marriages which the husband must bear (and so fare very harshly in this respect), or else, not bearing them, transgress the words of Christ, say to him, taking refuge in celibacy as easier, and more profitable than marriage seems to be: “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not profitable to marry.” To this the Saviour said to them, teaching us that complete purity is a gift given by God, not only attained by discipline but given by God in answer to prayers: “Not all receive this word, but those to whom it is given.” Then, since some misrepresent “to whom it is given,” as though those who wished to remain pure in celibacy but were overcome by their desires had an excuse, it must be said: if we believe what is written, why do we seize on “but those to whom it is given,” and no longer attend to “Ask, and it will be given you,” and to what follows it, “For everyone who asks receives”? For if those to whom it is given receive the word about complete purity, let the one who wishes ask, persuaded by and believing him who says, “Ask, and it will be given you,” and not doubting “Everyone who asks receives.” At this point you will inquire who is the one who asks; for none of those who do not receive has asked, even if he seemed to have asked, since it is not permitted to say that “Everyone who asks receives” is false. Who, then, is the one who asks, if not the one who is persuaded by Jesus when he says, “Whenever you stand praying, believe that you receive, and you will receive”? The one who asks must do everything in his power, so that he prays with the spirit and prays also with the mind, and prays without ceasing, remembering also “He told them a parable, to the effect that they ought always to pray and not lose heart, saying, There was a judge in a certain city,” and what follows. For knowing what asking is and what receiving is, and what “Everyone who asks receives” means, “I tell you, though he will not get up and give him because he is his friend, yet because of his persistence he will rise and give him as much as he needs” is also useful; at any rate there follows, “And I tell you, Ask, and it will be given you,” and what follows. Further, because of “Not all receive this word, but those to whom it is given,” “Which of you, if his son asks his father for a fish, will give him a serpent instead of a fish?” and what follows, is also an encouragement to ask in a way worthy of receiving. God, then, will give the good gift, complete purity in celibacy and chastity, to those who ask him with their whole soul, and with faith, and without ceasing, in their prayers.

“For there are eunuchs who were born so from their mother’s womb,” and so on, up to “Let the one who is able to receive it receive it.” Before the account of the passage that appears to us to be true, we will set out two misinterpretations that arise about this passage and then overturn them as far as we can, so that, guarding against every error so far as what is to be said is concerned, we may, if we can grasp the true intent of the passage, live the better life; and so we shall come to the matter before us. Some, thinking that the third eunuchism too was bodily, as following from the working of the two eunuchisms that are seen in the bodily realm, dared to submit themselves, out of fear of God but without understanding, to a eunuchism of the same kind as the first two; and they have exposed themselves to reproach, and perhaps also to shame, not only among those who are strangers to the faith but also among all who are rather indulgent toward human failings, because of what was only the appearance of fear of God and an immoderate love of chastity, which brought forth pains and mutilation of the body and whatever else one might suffer who gave himself over to so great an act. Others, and not many, have understood it thus, without testing the sequence of the words: the first two they took to have been said by the Saviour plainly and bodily, as indicating nothing beyond the things perceived by the senses; but the third they no longer thought was spoken according to the letter; rather they considered that in the third a eunuchism by reason is signified, when, for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, having cut out with the cutting reason the desiring faculty for such things, people have despised the assaults of the body, which cannot overcome a soul that has cut out desire by reason. One must know that the former … having become friends of the letter of the gospel rather …, and having observed that Jesus spoke these things too in parables and that they were said in the Spirit, understood the passage more consistently, inasmuch as they agree that the first two eunuchisms are spoken bodily; for they made the third conform to the first two, not erring as regards consistency among the three, but necessarily erring in having overlooked the starting point of the passage; for if the two are spoken bodily, it follows that the third also is bodily. The latter rightly applied themselves to the third, thinking that it shows the cutting out of the passionate part from the soul by reason; but they did not see that it was fitting, with such an interpretation, to allegorize the first two eunuchisms in the same way as the third, or else to make the third conform likewise to the first two. If, then, in the case of certain other sayings, not only of the Old Testament but also of the New, it is fitting to say, “The letter kills, but the spirit gives life,” this must be acknowledged also in the present case; for one might say that the letter of the two eunuchisms, when kept, killed those who understood the third consistently with the first two and dared to say that, according to the word of the Lord, those who can receive it do this “for the sake of the kingdom of heaven,” castrating themselves just as those castrated earlier were.

If anyone wishes to take other examples too of the New Testament having a letter that kills, let him hear, by way of example, how the Saviour said to the apostles: “When I sent you out without purse and bag and sandals, did you lack anything?” To which is added: “They said, Nothing. Then Jesus said to them, But now let the one who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag; and let the one who has none sell his cloak and buy a sword.” For if someone, because Jesus said this, not perceiving the intent of what was said, sells his perceptible cloak and buys a murderous sword, as though … a sword of that kind, and, acting against the intent of Jesus because he misunderstood his word, he will perish; and perhaps he will even perish by the sword. But what kind of sword it is, this is not the occasion to explain. And again, the saying “Greet no one on the road”: if anyone, without examining what Jesus intended in giving this command, were to greet no one on the road, as one emulating the apostolic life, he would seem inhuman to those who see him behave so; and when they trace the cause of his so understanding it back to the word on account of which he seemed to act so, they might be led to hate the word of God, as making those who believe it savage and inhuman; and the one who greets no one on the road, having taken his reason for it from that word, might suffer death on account of the letter, the letter killing him. And if someone should cut out his right eye as the cause of seeing wrongly, or the right hand of his body, or the right foot of his flesh, he would suffer with those who are killed through the letter, since he too stayed with the letter when he ought to have risen to the spirit of what is said. Now others before us did not shrink from giving occasion in their own writings for some to dare to undergo the third eunuchism on the pretext of the kingdom of heaven, as being like the first two.

But we, who once knew Christ of God, the Word of God, according to the flesh and according to the letter, but now know him so no longer, do not approve of those who, as though they had understood rightly, inflict the third eunuchism on themselves on the pretext of the kingdom of heaven. And we would not have spent longer in refuting the one who wishes to take the third bodily, like the first two, if we had not both seen those who dared it and come upon writings able to move a rather warm soul, faithful but not reasoning, to such a daring act. Sextus says in his Sentences, a book current among many as approved: “Every part of the body that persuades you not to be chaste, throw away; for it is better to live chastely without the part than ruinously with it.” And again, further on in the same book, giving occasion for something similar, he says: “You may see men cutting off and throwing away parts of themselves so that the rest of the body may be strong; how much better for the sake of chastity?” And Philo too, among his many treatises on the law of Moses, which are esteemed also among men of understanding, says in the one he entitled That the Worse Is Wont to Attack the Better that it is better to be made a eunuch than to rage after unlawful intercourse. But they must not be trusted, since they have not grasped the intent of the sacred writings about these things. For if among the fruits of the Spirit, together with love and joy and patience and the rest, self-control is also listed, one must rather bear the fruit of self-control and keep the male body given by God than dare anything else, so as even to transgress the saying that is useful even in its literal sense: “You shall not mar the appearance of your beard”—useful for turning away young men who are warm in faith, of whom one must acknowledge that they have a love of chastity, “but not according to knowledge”; and the saying: “If men fight together, a man with his brother,” and what follows, up to “Your eye shall not spare her.” For if the hand that seized a man’s private parts is cut off, how much more one who, through ignorance of the road that leads to chastity, has given himself over to such a plight? Let the one, then, who is about to dare such a thing reckon what he will suffer from those who reproach him and use against him the words, “One who is crushed or cut off shall not enter the assembly of the Lord,” counting him among those who have cut off their manhood. I do not yet speak of what one may suffer when there is untimely hindrance to the seeds which, as the sons of physicians say, descend from the head to the male parts, and which, descending through certain veins about the cheeks, by the natural warmth of what descends make men grow hair about the chin; of this hair are deprived also those who think they must make themselves eunuchs bodily for the kingdom of heaven. And what might they suffer—heaviness of the head and dizziness, at times reaching even the ruling faculty and disturbing the imagination, so that it forms strange images from such matter? But before I come to the explanation of the passage, it must be said that if Marcion had done anything consistent with himself in saying that Scripture must not be allegorized, he would have wished these passages also to be regarded as not spoken by the Saviour, since he would have had to choose either to accept, along with saying that the Saviour said these things, that the believer will be persuaded to dare to give himself over to such things, or, since no one would reasonably dare acts so great, which would bring the word into ill repute, not to believe that the words are the Saviour’s, unless they are allegorized.

But we, who wish to keep the consistency of the three eunuchisms and approve of the figurative reading of the third, will say something like this about the first two as well. Those who are inactive toward sexual pleasures, and do not give themselves over to the licentiousness and impurities belonging to them or the like, might now be called eunuchs figuratively. There are, I think, three kinds among those who are inactive in these things. Some are such by constitution, of whom it may be said: “There are eunuchs who were born so from their mother’s womb.” Others, urged on by words, practise abstinence from sexual pleasures and from all intemperance in this area; yet what produced in them this purpose and discipline and, if I may call it so, achievement was not the word of God but human words, whether of those who have philosophized among the Greeks or of those in the heresies who “forbid marriage and abstinence from foods.” These, it seems to me, are indicated in the words: “There are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men.” But it is worthy of acceptance if someone, taking up the Word that is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and what the Apostle named the sword of the Spirit, should cut out the passionate part of the soul without touching the body; and should do this having understood the kingdom of heaven, and that cutting out by reason the passionate part of one’s own soul contributes very greatly to inheriting the kingdom of heaven. To such persons—and not in the way those think who have taken the passage bodily—the saying would fit: “There are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.”

It is a great power to receive the eunuchism of the soul by reason, which not all receive, but those to whom it has been given; and it is given to all who ask God for the sword of reason and use it as they ought, so that they may make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. If we must also touch on the narratives in the Scriptures, together with the higher sense of them that appears to us, let us say that there are certain eunuchs of Pharaoh, barren of all good, made eunuchs so that they may pour wine for him and bake his bread; but there are also men of God who are eunuchs for this reason, that they may build up Jerusalem that has fallen. Of the former it is written in Genesis; of the latter an example is the one written of in Second Esdras, who says: “And I was a eunuch to the king. And it came to pass in the month Nisan, in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes,” and so on, up to “And it pleased the king, and he sent me.” And you too, reading Second Esdras, will find all that concerns the passage, and will notice why a holy man who had become a eunuch was the leader in rebuilding the temple of God. The sons of the Hebrews say that Daniel and the three with him, Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, were made eunuchs in Babylon, in fulfilment of the prophecy spoken to Hezekiah by Isaiah: “From your seed they shall take, and they shall make eunuchs in the house of the king of Babylon.” And they say that Isaiah also prophesied about them, saying: “Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say, Surely the Lord will separate me from his people,” and so on, up to “better than sons and daughters.” It is good, then, as regards the mystical sense, not to beget in Babylon but to be barren toward Babylon, like Daniel, so that we may beget, having conceived from the divine Spirit, as he and those with him did, visions and prophecies. One must know that whoever wished to support the view that the three eunuchisms are bodily, and to plead the cause of those mentioned before who taught this also in their writings, could find not a few plausible arguments for it. But we did not wish to set them out, lest, by stating the arguments as an exercise and giving the solution of each, we should become an occasion for those who do not receive the word about being a eunuch as Jesus intends to understand “receive” in another way and to take it bodily; whereas one who lives by the Spirit and walks by the Spirit ought to be persuaded that the three eunuchisms are spoken spiritually. [On the children brought to Jesus that he might lay his hands on them.]

“Then children were brought to him,” and so on, up to “And having laid his hands on them, he went away from there.” At that time the recorded event took place: children were brought to Jesus, those who brought them wishing him to lay his hands on them and pray. But one must know that there is no time when children in soul are not brought to Jesus; of these he might say, having received them from God as a trust: “Behold, I and the children whom God has given me.” And of these children let some be called infants, and let others be said to be nursing, as being below the infants; and let our Lord perfect praise from the mouth of both, so that, perceiving such kindness of his toward the children, we may say: “Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes you have perfected praise.” By children we must understand those in Christ who are fleshly and infants, such as the apostle Paul knew the Corinthians to be when he said: “And I could not speak to you as to spiritual people, but as to fleshly, as to infants in Christ.” Such children were brought then, and are always brought, to Jesus. A sign of the bringing of infants is the many in the church who are infants in Christ and nursing, needing milk, not solid food; to them he might say, cherishing them as a nurse cherishes her own children: “I gave you milk to drink, not food; for you were not yet able.” Next: the evangelists who recorded this passage wrote that, as Matthew says, “children were brought to Jesus,” or, as Mark says, “they were bringing even babes to him”; but they have all passed over by whom they were brought, or who brought them, leaving us to examine what was omitted. It is worth seeing whether the three omitted this by chance, though they could have written, “they were brought to him by their parents,” or “by their mothers,” or “their mothers were bringing babes or children to him”; or whether they did this by a reasoning of knowledge and wisdom, to show that angels who came to Jesus and ministered to him, seeing with a more divine mind the differences between the children or babes, know which ought to be brought to Jesus, so that, being brought to him, they may have his hands laid on them, and when; and they know also which ought not, or that for some time they ought not. For I do not think that so many children come to Jesus without the ordering of angels. The intention of those who brought the children is, according to Matthew, “that Jesus might lay his hands on them and pray”; according to Mark, “that he might touch them”; and according to Luke, who said that they were babes, “that he might touch them.” For by the prayer of Jesus and by his touch, the children and babes, who cannot hear what those already spiritual hear, have enough for their help and for the benefit they can receive; for the power of Jesus touches them, when he simply lays on them the hands of his oversight, and none of the worse powers touches them any longer. And perhaps, as regards the literal sense too, the intention of those who brought babes and children to him was of this kind: they understood that, when Jesus had touched babes or children and through his touch instilled power into them, no misfortune or demon or anything else could touch those whom Jesus had touched first.

I think also that, since many evil powers have from the beginning busied themselves about the human soul, plotting against it in various ways, those who brought the babes to the Saviour, having already learned his power from earlier events, did this so that, through the laying on of his hands and his prayer for the children and babes, the worse powers might be driven away by the touch, and an excellent power, instilled in them, might last for what followed, as a hindrance to the touch of the opposing powers. And so the Saviour, knowing that such a thing was not something simple and of no account, but saving for those on whom he laid hands, since he touched them, says to the disciples who rebuked them, and by rebuking hindered the children from being brought: “Let the children be, and do not hinder them from coming to me.” If, then, what was said about by whom they were brought, or who brought them, is reasonable, consistently with it certain chosen disciples of Jesus might be understood, holy powers that have become disciples of the Son of God. For it is reasonable that the name of Jesus’ disciples should reach even to such, so that not only human beings are his disciples, but also the angels to whom he appeared, and whoever wishes to believe in him from “every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come.” But if anyone thinks this forced, wishing the name of disciples—those who rebuked the ones bringing babes and children to Jesus—to be applied to none but human beings, then those who bring babes and children to Jesus would be the simpler among those who undertake to teach the word, whose word reaches only to children, being like milk, and who give drink to those who need milk; for they cannot persuade those more rational than their own level, as the one could who was able to say: “I am a debtor both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish.” And while these bring babes and children to Jesus, those who think themselves more rational than these teachers, and are therefore called disciples of Jesus, before they have learned what concerns babes and children, rebuke those who teach more simply and bring the children. You will understand this clearly if you consider: “For consider your calling, brothers, that not many are wise according to the flesh, not many powerful, not many of noble birth; but God chose the things of the world, and the things that are not, to bring to nothing the things that are.” Let someone, then, see one of those who profess the church’s catechesis and teaching bringing the foolish things of the world, the despised and the low-born, which for that reason might also be called children; and seeing it, let him rebuke, as acting without judgment, the one who brings babes and children to so great a Saviour and teacher. And consider whether it is not fitting to refer what is now being examined to such things: some bringing children that Jesus may lay his hands on them and pray, and the disciples rebuking them. And to those who rebuke over the children brought to Jesus, the Teacher and Saviour and Lord might say: “Let the children be, and do not hinder them from coming to me.” Then, urging the disciples, who are men, to stoop to the benefit of the children, so that they may become children to the children in order to gain the children, let the Saviour say: “For of such is the kingdom of heaven.” For he himself too, “being in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,” and became a child, so that Herod said of him to the Magi: “Go and search diligently for the child,” and Matthew: “The star which they had seen in the East went before them, until it came and stood over where the child was”; and a little later: “Coming into the house,” he says, “they saw the child with Mary his mother.” And the angel who appeared to Joseph called our so great Saviour a child, saying: “Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt.” And again, when Herod had died, an angel of the Lord appears in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying: “Rise, take the child and his mother.” Jesus, then, not only according to the narrative but also according to the higher sense, humbled himself like a child, so that, just as he might say, “Learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart,” so also: Learn from me, who became like a child, how I say, “For of such is the kingdom of heaven”—of such as the children are, about whom he does not permit the disciples to rebuke those who bring them. And Paul too, as one who understood “For of such is the kingdom of heaven,” though he could have been a burden as an apostle of Christ, became gentle, like a nurse cherishing her own child and speaking words like a child for the child’s sake.

These things must be heard carefully, so that we may not, through an appearance of wisdom and of having advanced, despise as great persons the little ones and children in the church; but, knowing how it was said, “For of such is the kingdom of heaven,” let us become such, so that through us too the children may be saved. And not only letting the children be brought to Jesus, nor only not hindering them from being brought to him, but ourselves becoming children with the children, let us do the will of the Saviour, so that, as the children are saved also through us who have become such, we, as having humbled ourselves, may be exalted by God. For something of this kind can be understood in the saying, “Everyone who humbles himself will be exalted,” especially since it is written above: “Whoever, then, humbles himself like this child, he is the greater in the kingdom of heaven.” Let these things be useful against the disciples who rebuke those who bring children to Jesus. And let the children know—even if, being children, they cannot follow all that is said—that Jesus laid his hands on the children, and having laid them on, went away from there; and having instilled power into the children through his touch, he went away from the children, since they could not follow Jesus as the disciples could. If the sayings of the gospel too are “words of the Lord,” and “pure words,” and “silver tried by fire, proved, sent to the earth,” and “purified to the utmost, sevenfold,” there ought to be a reasonable cause why Matthew, in setting out the passage, stated two purposes for which the children were brought to Jesus, but then does not add what follows to match both. For the children were brought, not only that Jesus might lay his hands on them, but besides this that he might also pray.

It is written: “And having laid his hands on them, he went away from there”; for he did not add, “and having prayed,” though it could have been said: “And having laid his hands on them and prayed for them, he went away from there.” Consider, then, whether you can reserve the prayer of Jesus for those greater than children, who are able to receive both the laying on of his hands upon them and his prayer to the Father for them; while for the children, I would say, the laying on of his hands suffices. And if what has been said about the words “For of such is the kingdom of heaven” urges even the wisest not to be arrogant toward the little ones in the church, nor to despise the children and infants in Christ, it is useful to take this from the Gospel according to Luke: “Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a child”; this is done by one who is not a child, but a man who has put away the things of an infant, yet becomes a child to children and says to them: “I could not speak to you as to spiritual people, but as to fleshly, as to infants in Christ; I gave you milk to drink, not food.” The whole context in Luke is this: “And they were bringing even babes to him, that he might touch them,” and so on, up to “Whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a child shall not enter it.” And Mark set out almost the same words, especially the last ones, in the same way. [On the rich man who asked Jesus and said, “Good Teacher,” and so on.]

“And behold, one came up and said to him, Teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?” and so on, up to “But many who are first will be last, and the last first.” In the Psalms it is written, as though man were able to do good: “Whoever desires life, loving to see good days, keep your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking deceit; turn away from evil and do good.” But here the Saviour, to the one who said, “What good thing shall I do, that I may inherit eternal life?”, said—since the good in the proper sense is referred to none but God—“Why do you ask me about the good? One there is who is good.” One must know that here “good” is applied in the proper sense to God alone, but elsewhere in an extended sense, as to good works, to a good man, and to a good tree; and you too might find “good” applied to many other things. So one must not think that “Do good” conflicts with “Why do you ask me about the good? One is good,” which was said to the one inquiring, who said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do?” Matthew, then, recorded it as though the Saviour were asked about a good work in “What good thing shall I do?”; but Mark and Luke say that the Saviour said, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but one, God,” as though the name “good,” as applied to God, could not be applied also to anyone else; for not in the sense in which God is good would “a good man, who out of the good treasure brings forth good things,” be so called. And the Saviour too, as he is the image of the invisible God, so is he also “the image of his goodness”; and whereas the word “good” is applied to everything inferior, what is said of him has another meaning, if in relation to the Father he is an image of goodness, but in relation to the rest … Or rather, one may see a closer correspondence in the goodness of God in relation to the Saviour, who is the image of his goodness, than in the Saviour in relation to a good man, a good work, and a good tree; for the superiority in the Saviour, insofar as he is the image of God’s goodness, over lesser goods is greater than the superiority of God, who is good, over the Saviour who said, “The Father who sent me is greater than I,” who is, in relation to others, also an image of the goodness of God. And perhaps connected with the intent of what was said to the one who asked, “What good thing shall I do?”, and of the answer given him, “Why do you ask me about the good? One is good,” is this: “When you have done all that was commanded you, you ought to say, We are unprofitable servants; we have done what we ought to have done.” For if we do all that was commanded, not even so, as far as the words here go, have we done anything good; for if what we do were good, it would not have been said that, when what was commanded has been done, one must say, “We are unprofitable servants.” But one may call these things good in an extended sense, as in “Turn away from evil and do good.” I think that the one who does what is commanded in “Turn away from evil and do good” does what is good in comparison with what others do, not what is truly good. Just as “no one living will be justified before God,” all human righteousness being shown not to be righteousness when the righteousness of God is beheld, so no one who might be called good by comparison with lesser things will be called good before the good God.

Someone might say that the Saviour, knowing the disposition and choice of the inquirer, which fell far short of doing the good attainable by a human being, said to him when he asked, “What good thing shall I do?”, the words, “Why do you ask me about the good?”—as if he said: Not being prepared for what might be said about the good, you ask by doing what good thing you will inherit eternal life. Then he teaches that one is truly good, of whom the law too says: “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord.” For he in the proper sense is Saviour, and in the proper sense Lord, and in the proper sense good, who, I am persuaded, does all things as good. You will inquire how his goodness breathes even in the things not understood by those who, so far as in them lies, slander the God of the law and accuse him of things that it is not easy to say lightly even about a man. For I am persuaded that “I will kill” breathes of the goodness of God no less than “and I will make alive”; and likewise “I will strike” no less than “and I will heal.” If he himself causes pain, one must know that a physician too often causes pain; and God, having caused pain, restores again; and so also it was out of goodness that he struck those whom he struck. “For God deals with those being disciplined as with sons; for what son is there whom the father does not discipline?” But also “all discipline for the present seems to be not of joy but of grief; but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.” Therefore as God struck, so also he healed; for this is true: “He struck, and his hands healed.” Even if what is about to be said is paradoxical, it will nevertheless be said: what is called the wrath of the good God does a saving work by reproving, and his so-called anger, since it is the anger of a good God, disciplines. Much might be said, to those able to hear it without harm, about the goodness of God and “the multitude of his kindness,” which he reasonably “hid for those who fear him,” lest, despising the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, they should, according to their hardness and impenitent heart, store up for themselves more wrath—which they would not store up while the multitude of God’s kindness was hidden from them. Concerning “Who is the good one?” and “What good thing shall I do?”, let what we have been able to see in the passage suffice.

Next we must consider how it was said: “If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” Notice in this that he says “If you wish to enter into life” to the one inquiring about the good as to one who is still outside life. Here, then, we must understand what it is to be outside life and what it is to enter into life. Perhaps, in one way, the one who is outside him who said “I am the life,” and is a stranger to him, is outside life; in another way, everyone on earth, even if most righteous, can be in the shadow of life, saying, “The breath of our face, Christ the Lord, of whom we said: In his shadow we shall live among the nations,” but not in life itself, since he is clothed with a body of death and says, “Who will deliver me from the body of this death?” and is “sitting in the region and shadow of death,” and has not yet come to the land of the living. For the life not only of the wicked but also of Paul on earth, and of the apostles, was hidden in God. He says at least: “Your life is hidden with Christ in God; when Christ, our life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.” You will observe all that is said about “within” and “without,” to gather what corresponds to “If you wish to enter into life”; for example: “Pray therefore the Lord of the harvest to send out workers into his harvest.” For you will ask: send them out from where? And if the workers here are sent out into the harvest of the Lord, they are outside the place from which they were sent out; and having done the works of the harvest well, they will enter into life, cleansed from dead works and doing living works, the opposite of those; no longer speaking dead things, but speaking according to the living and active word of God. In the same way there is a correspondence between words of eternal life and the thoughts that stand against accusing thoughts: since “the thoughts accuse or else excuse” on the day of judgment, the one whose thoughts excuse him will be saved, and the one whose thoughts become his accusers will perish. If, then, we too wish to enter into life, let us hear Jesus saying, “If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments,” and in proportion to our keeping of the commandments we shall enter into life, coming either into its innermost and most blessed parts, or into those which bring us … of life, of lesser …

And having heard “Keep the commandments,” he says, “Which?”—so that we may learn which commandments in particular Jesus wishes us to keep. For in answer to “Which?” he said: “You shall not commit adultery; you shall not murder; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; honour your father and mother”; and: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” And perhaps these, and things like them, suffice for entering, if I may so name it, into the beginning of life, though they do not suffice for perfection; so that one guilty of anything like a breach of one of these commandments cannot enter even into the beginning of life. One who wishes even to come into life must therefore be clean of adultery and murder and every theft; for as an adulterer and a murderer will not enter into life, so neither will one who steals. Of such a sin many of those said to believe in Christ are guilty, being shown, in the business affairs of life, in the money matters entrusted to them, and in the ordinary trades they practise, not to be clean of theft. And not only will the thief not enter into life, but also his partner and the one who runs with him; for in Isaiah it is written: “Partners of thieves, loving gifts”; and in the forty-ninth Psalm the one convicted by the words “If you saw a thief, you ran with him” is forbidden “to declare the ordinances of God and to take his covenant upon his lips”; and so it is said first: “You set your portion with adulterers.” He did not call such a person a thief or an adulterer, but one who runs with a thief and sets his portion with adulterers. The one who is to come into life must not bear false witness either; and the one who does not fulfil the commandment that says, “Honour your father and mother,” is cast out of life. But to keep these commandments is perhaps not very hard; the greater work, and one useful to those brought into life by the former commandments, is to fulfil “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” And since, according to the Apostle, “You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, and any other commandment, is summed up in this word, in: You shall love your neighbour as yourself,” and he is perfect who has fulfilled every commandment, clearly he would be perfect who has fulfilled the commandment, “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.”

If this man is perfect, someone might ask how it is that, when the young man said, “All these I have kept from my youth; what do I still lack?”, the Saviour answered—as though the one who had done all these were not perfect, and yet as though agreeing with “All these I have done”—“If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” Consider, then, whether we can meet the question before us in one way thus: perhaps it may be suspected that “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” was not taken up by the Saviour here, but was added by someone who did not understand the precision of what was said. The suspicion that “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” was added here will be supported by the account of the same events in Mark and Luke, neither of whom added “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” to the commandments taken up by Jesus in the passage. And the one who maintains that the commandment “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” was thrown in out of place will say that, if the same things are recorded by the three in different words, Jesus would not have said, “You lack one thing,” or “One thing you still lack,” to one who professed to have fulfilled “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” But since, according to Mark too, looking at this rich man who said, “All these I have kept from my youth,” he loved him, he seems to have agreed that he had done what he professed to have fulfilled. [The commandment; especially if, according to the Apostle, “You shall not murder,” and “any other commandment, is summed up in this word, in: You shall love your neighbour as yourself.”] For having looked intently into his mind, he saw a man who in good conscience professed to have fulfilled the commandments set before him. And if, besides the other commandments, “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” had also been spoken, Mark and Luke would not have left out the more comprehensive and excellent commandment—unless someone should say that what is written is similar but was not said about the same person. And how, too, would Jesus have said to one who professed to have fulfilled, besides the others, the commandment “You shall love your neighbour as yourself,” as to one not yet perfect, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor,” and what follows? Now if there were not disagreement among the copies about many other things as well, so that not all the copies of Matthew agree with one another, and likewise those of the other Gospels, anyone who suspected that the commandment “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” had been thrown in here, not having been spoken by the Saviour to the rich man, might have seemed impious. But as it is, plainly the difference among the copies has become great, whether from the carelessness of some scribes, or from the wicked daring of some in correcting what is written, or from those who in correcting add or remove what seems good to them. The disagreement in the copies of the Old Testament, God granting, we found a way to heal, using the other editions as a criterion. For in the passages of the Seventy that are in doubt because of the disagreement of the copies, we made the judgment from the other editions and kept what agreed with them; and some things we marked with an obelus as not found in the Hebrew, not daring to remove them altogether, while some we added with asterisks, so that it might be clear that we added them, not being found in the Seventy, from the other editions in agreement with the Hebrew. And whoever wishes may accept them; and the one who is offended by such a thing may do as he wishes about accepting them or not. The one, then, who wishes that the commandment “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” was not thrown in here, but was truly spoken then by the Lord after the former ones, will say that our Saviour, wishing gently and indirectly to show that rich man to be not speaking the truth when he said he had kept the commandment “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” as well, said to him, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor”; for in this way you will be shown to be speaking the truth about having kept the commandment “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.”

But if someone, looking at human weakness and at how hard it would be for anyone to do such a thing for the sake of perfection in God, despises the literal text and turns to allegory, he will be put to shame by certain Greek histories too, in which some are recorded to have done, for the sake of the wisdom of the Greeks, what the Saviour said here to the rich man. For they say that Crates the Theban, having chosen this for the sake of freedom and as an example of a frugal life, and wishing to present himself to the Greeks as, so he thought, blessed and in need of nothing, sold all his property and gave it to the people of Thebes, saying: “Today Crates frees Crates.” If someone did such a thing because of Greek wisdom and doctrines that had taken hold of a man’s soul, how much more is it possible for someone seeking perfection for himself to do such a thing? And if anyone wishes to be persuaded from divine Scripture as well that such a thing is possible, let him hear what Luke records in the Acts of the Apostles about those who were moved by the power in the apostles to believe and to live perfectly according to the word of Jesus. The words are these: “And all who believed were together and had all things in common,” and so on, up to “praising God and having favour with all the people”; and a little later it is written again in the same book that “the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and soul,” and so on, up to “he brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.” Then is added the account of Ananias and Sapphira, who sold a property of theirs but kept back part of the price, and laid not the whole but a part at the feet of the apostles, and for this suffered for their sin what is recorded. For they were worthy, by divine oversight, to receive here the penalty of their sin of keeping back, so that they might depart from life purer, punished by the discipline that met them in a common death, because they had both believed and laid some part at the feet of the apostles. It seems to me that Ananias, hearing those words, fell and expired because he could not bear the reproof; tormented, he was so punished that he even expired, the words of Peter striking home to his soul. And it is not to be thought that Peter killed Ananias here, but that Ananias could not endure the vehemence of Peter, who said to him, “Why has Satan filled your heart?” and so on, up to “And great fear came upon all who heard.” It is likely that someone will object, on account of Sapphira, to the explanation about Ananias by which we defended Peter, since she came in not knowing what had happened. “And Peter answered her, saying, Did you sell the land for so much? And when she said, For so much, Peter says to her, Why is it that you have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of those who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out. For she too fell immediately at his feet and expired.” But it might be said that she too, rebuked and weighed down in soul, partly by the reproof of her sin, partly by her husband’s misfortune and her grief over him, and partly by godly grief, …, Peter having foreseen in the spirit what would befall her. All this we have said, wishing to establish that it is possible for one who wishes to become perfect to obey Jesus when he says, “Go, sell your possessions and give to the poor.” And it would be the work, I think, of noble men, who have all the marks that characterize the bishop, to urge those who are able and are persuaded by the exhortation, and, by providing them with what they need from the common fund, to invite others also to do this; for there would then be an image of the life of concord of the believers in the time of the apostles.

Someone might ask: if the one who has all the virtues and no longer acts from wickedness is perfect, how could the one who has sold his possessions and given to the poor become perfect? For suppose someone has done this: how could he become free of anger all at once, if he happened to be prone to anger? How could he become free of grief, and superior to anything whatever that may happen to provoke grief? How will he be entirely free of fear—of pains, or of death, or of whatever can frighten a still imperfect soul? In what way will the one who has sold his possessions and distributed them to the poor be outside all desire? For someone might say that it is possible, just because he sold all his possessions, that, suffering something human from poverty, he should repent of what he dared and desire a similar possession. And if so-called pleasure, being an irrational elation of the soul, is a passion, how could someone at one and the same time sell all his possessions and give to the poor, and be freed from irrational elation? Someone might add to the difficulty: how can a person, by having sold his possessions and distributed them to the poor, become wise with the wisdom of God, so as to give an account to everyone who asks him about the faith that is in him, about each of the things believed, and about the things said in hidden ways in the sacred Scriptures? See that the difficulty is far-reaching, or rather weighty and not easily solved. For if we say that someone has become perfect merely by this, even without having taken up the things we set out, we shall fall into absurdity, saying that someone is at once perfect and a sinner; for the angry man is a sinner, and so is the one who grieves with the grief of the world, the one who fears hardships and death, the one who desires what is absent, and the one irrationally elated in soul at things not good as though they were good. Or if we say that, at the same moment as someone sells his property and distributes it to the poor, he becomes as it were possessed by God and takes up all the virtues and lays aside all wickedness, we shall speak faithfully, to use a common expression, but I do not know whether truly; and perhaps those who hear such a solution offered to the difficulty will laugh at us as speaking without sense.

One might, then, seem more sensible who keeps to the letter and in no way takes the passage figuratively, and answers in this way—as a believer; but whether I understand what is said in the passage worthily or not, you yourself will judge. He will say that, if the one who shares with the poor is helped by their prayer, receiving, for his own salvation, the abundance in spiritual things of those who lack material things to supply his own lack, as the Apostle hinted in the Second Letter to the Corinthians, who else would experience this, and be helped with great help, so much as he, since God hears the prayers of so many poor who have been refreshed, among whom there might perhaps be some like the apostles, or a little below them, poor in bodily things as they were, but rich in spiritual things? This man, who in exchange for wealth takes poverty in order to become perfect, persuaded by the words of Jesus, would be helped all at once, as the apostles of Christ were too, to become wise in Christ, and courageous, and just, and temperate, and outside every passion. And the one who defends the passage in this way will say that it is not necessary to understand that this befalls on that very day the one who has sold his possessions and gives to the poor; but perhaps from that day divine oversight will begin to lead him to such things—I mean the praiseworthy freedom from passion and all virtue; and advancing, like Isaac, through the help given him by God in Christ, he will become greater, until, growing, he becomes very great indeed in every virtue, all wickedness having vanished from his soul. And the one who has given this explanation will not be compelled to say that a man who sins in other respects became perfect merely by this.

Another—whether limping in faith through an appearance of advancing to understanding, I do not know, or whether he has sought and found a certain greatness and passages of thoughts worthy of God, I do not know—will leave the letter and go up to a figurative reading, and will say that each person’s possessions are the things that follow him after his departure, so that among possessions there is a good possession for the righteous and the opposite for the wicked. Here, then, he says, the rich man with many possessions is a symbol of one who has acquired many wicked things, among which may be the love of wealth, the love of glory, and other earthly things that have filled his soul with blameworthy wealth. Since, then, one who is rich in this way can sometimes abstain from certain wicked things, such as adultery, murder, theft, and false witness, and can render to his parents their due with some honour, and be also kind to his neighbour, and yet not be perfect, the Saviour symbolically commands such a one to sell his wicked possessions and, as it were, to hand them over to the powers that produced them, which are poor in every good and therefore do not withstand a threat, according to what is written: “But the poor man does not withstand a threat.” But I know well that such an explanation will seem very forced: it solves not ignobly the difficulties about perfection, but it is not at all convincing how putting off wickedness is selling the possession that comes from wickedness and giving to the poor. Caught in such a position, the one who supports this view will say that the sinner is filled with spirits in proportion to his sins: for example, if he is sexually immoral, with what is called in the prophets “a spirit of sexual immorality”; if he is wrathful, with a spirit of wrath; and likewise, if a slanderer, with a spirit of slander. These, then, are the possessions someone acquired while wicked, becoming, by sharing in the worse spirits, more complex than Typhon. And just as he acquired them, buying them with a will that yielded to wicked things, so he may sell them, by obeying Jesus, to those whom this account means by “the poor.” For just as the peace of the apostles returns to them if the one who hears “Peace to you” happens not to be a son of peace, so sexual immorality and all the sins would all return to the poor who caused the sins. And one need not doubt that the one who has thus sold all the possessions to be sold and given to the poor becomes perfect. And if the possessions are sold over a long time, and much time is needed to give them to the poor we spoke of, nothing would prevent this account, granting time, from making the one who does this perfect in proportion to what has been sold to the poor. Clearly the one who has done this will have treasure in heaven, becoming himself heavenly; for “as is the earthly one”—the evil one, that is—“so are those who are earthly; and as is the heavenly one”—that is, Christ—“so are those who are heavenly.” In his own heaven, then, the one who wished to become perfect, and sold all his possessions and gave to the poor, will have treasure. But do not suppose that such a one can be found among those who are rich in the things of this life. For which of them has sold the love of wealth and, if I may so name it, the love of the world? Who has entirely sold the spirit of vainglory, so as to hold in his own heaven a treasure of the glory of God and of the riches that are in all the word and all the wisdom of God? Who has put off the spirit of desire, and of fear, and of pleasure, and of anger? For it would be much if, examining things truly, one could declare this even of the apostles. And the one who has sold everything, as we have explained, and has treasure in heaven, is also able to follow Jesus; for he is not dragged about by any wicked possession so as not to follow Jesus.

Next after this it is said: “When the young man heard the word, he went away grieving; for he had many possessions.” And you will see, as regards the higher sense, how hard it is for us to be torn away from thinking that wealth, or glory here below, is a good; rather we prefer, since we love desire, to obtain what is wickedly desired than to be freed from desire, and rather to fall into the things we imagine to be fearful than to put off the fear that is hostile to the fear of God. And it is not an elder of settled years who is brought in, nor a man who has put away the things of a child, but a young man who heard the word and went away grieving. For such was he in soul; therefore he left Jesus and went away. For “he went away” is said in blame, and “he went away grieving,” with “the grief of the world that works death.” For who … that loves being angry and grieving, having many possessions which he loved—and for this reason he went away grieving—and all the things that came from wickedness and had mastered his soul? If, however, you remain with the narrative according to one of the explanations given before, you would find this young man half praiseworthy and half blameworthy. Insofar as he did not commit adultery, nor murder, nor steal, nor bear false witness, but even as a young man had already honoured his father and mother, and was grieved at the words of Jesus that set out perfection and promised it if he sold his possessions, there was something fine in him; but insofar as he went away from Jesus grieving because of his possessions, when he ought to have rejoiced that instead of them he would have treasure in heaven and, following Jesus, would walk in the footsteps of the Son of God, he was blameworthy.

When he had gone away, “Jesus said to his disciples, Truly I say to you, a rich man will enter the kingdom of heaven with difficulty.” Here we must observe that the recorded saying of the Saviour is precise. For he did not say, “A rich man will not enter the kingdom of heaven”; for had he said this, he would have shut the rich man out of the kingdom of heaven. But he says, “A rich man will enter with difficulty,” presenting the difficulty, not the impossibility, of the rich man’s salvation. In the literal sense this plainly appears reasonable, since rich men can with difficulty resist passions and sins and not be wholly overcome by them; but if the rich man is taken figuratively, you will inquire how he will enter the kingdom of heaven even with difficulty. The difficulty of entry for the rich man, understood either way, is shown by the parable: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.” In the parable the rich man is compared to a camel, not only because of the uncleanness of the animal, as the law taught, but also because of its whole crookedness; and the kingdom of heaven to the eye of a needle, to show that the entry into the kingdom of heaven is very narrow and exceedingly hard for the rich man in either sense. He makes plain that in itself it is impossible for the camel to go through the eye of a needle; but since all things are possible to God, this too is possible to him, when by his unspeakable power he makes the grossness of the wicked fine, or makes the narrowness of the entrance passable for him. That he took the eye and the camel as an example of the difficulty, not of the impossibility, of the rich man’s entering the kingdom of heaven is clear from what was said to the disciples when they said, “Who then can be saved?”: “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” So it is possible for the camel to enter through the eye of a needle, though not possible with men; and so also for the rich man to enter the kingdom of God. The ways by which God would make such things possible he himself would know, and his Christ, and the one to whom the Son reveals it. One who has advanced in wisdom and word might venture further, on the explanation of the needle and its eye. But how much shall we set out? That there are certain things in the law that are made by the art of the embroiderer, who needs a needle, so that he may make, according to the wisdom of God, the works of the art he has taken up. As, then, the works of the embroiderer and that needle are understood, so will what is said here be understood; to say and make this clear now is perhaps beyond us, and perhaps, even for one who knows it, it would involve a long and untimely digression. Of the two things proposed, a camel entering through the eye of a needle and a rich man entering the kingdom of God, he says the former is easier. And you will seek, among men, one who is the camel entering through the eye of a needle, and another who is the rich man entering the kingdom of God—impossibly for men, but possibly for God. So also with the eye of a needle: it is impossible for men that whoever is found to be a camel, whoever he may be, should enter through the eye of a needle; but with God this too is possible. Whether these things indicate and present certain mysteries concerning the end, leading to the end by certain ways possible to God alone, or not, let the one who is able examine.

Next we must look at the words: “Then Peter answered and said to him, Behold, we have left everything and followed you; what then shall we have?” One person will keep this according to the letter; another, setting aside the literal sense as not lofty, will take it figuratively. The one who stands by the letter will say something like this: As with giving, God, accepting not what is given but the intention, justifies and accepts the one who gave less with a more perfect intention above the one who gave more out of greater means and with an inferior disposition—as is clear from what is recorded about the giving of the rich and the two mites which the widow, as one of the poor, cast into the treasury—so also with those who, for love of the divine, leave what they possess in order to follow the Christ of God without distraction, doing all things according to his word: the one who has left more is not in every case more acceptable than the one who has left less, especially when someone happens to have left lesser things with his whole soul, compared with one who seems to have despised greater things. Even if, then, Peter, together with his brother Andrew, left small and cheap things when both, hearing, “Come, follow me, and I will make you fishers of men, immediately left their nets and followed him,” yet it has not been reckoned small by God, who perceived that they did it from such a disposition that, even if they had possessed many possessions and very great property, they would not have been held back by them, nor would their impulse to follow Jesus have been hindered. And taking courage, I think, from the intention rather than from the material of what he had left, Peter spoke boldly and said to Jesus: “Behold, we have left everything and followed you; what then shall we have?” It is likely that he left not only nets but also a house and a wife, whose mother was freed from fever when Jesus stood over her; and one might conjecture that he possibly left children too, and not impossibly a small property. Something great, then, is shown about Peter and his brother, since, hearing “Come, follow me, and I will make you fishers of men,” without any delay “they immediately left their nets and followed him,” not imitating the one who said, “But first permit me to go to my house and bid farewell to those at my house,” nor doing anything like the one who said, “Permit me first to go and bury my father.” And notice carefully that, struck as they deserved by the command of Jesus and his promise, and believing that, leaving a little fishing for fish, they would catch men for salvation, and as if wounded by … for Jesus and for the humane ministry he had promised them, since they were to hunt men, “they immediately left their nets,” and, as if forgetting those at home, “followed him”; so that it was fitting for Peter to take pride in that impulse and to say what was said above. At the same time we must observe that Peter said this having understood the saying spoken by Jesus, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me”; and having seen the young man who heard it and went away with grief, because he had preferred his many possessions on earth to becoming perfect in God; and having understood also the difficulty of the rich man’s entering the kingdom of heaven, he said what is before us, as though he himself had done no easy thing in leaving everything and following the Saviour. Therefore to Peter, who spoke boldly, the Saviour answers with the great promise that follows, that Peter would be one of the judges of Israel.

But the one who despises the letter as unable to persuade a hearer of lofty mind—since other words of Scripture also have their dignity in the higher sense—will say something like this: that this very saying, “Behold, we have left everything and followed you,” when what was left was a little net, a poor house, and a toilsome life in poverty, is not at all spoken worthily of so great a disciple, to whom flesh and blood did not reveal that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, but his Father in heaven, and to whom it was said: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” But perhaps what was given in the explanation of “Go, sell your possessions,” and what follows, is useful for the matters before us. For Peter left everything in which he was a sinner, and on account of which he said, “Depart from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man”; and it is great praise of him that, having taken courage in no longer sinning, he says, “We have left everything”; and not only have we left the worse things, but also “we have followed you.” And “we have followed you” can be equivalent to: Since the Father revealed to us who you are, and that you are righteousness, we have followed you insofar as you are righteousness; and so also insofar as you are sanctification, and wisdom, and peace, and truth, and the way that leads to God, and true life. Therefore, as an athlete after the contest asks the president of the games, if he happens not to know the prizes of the contest, so Peter asks the Saviour, saying, after his bold speech about his brave deeds, “What then shall we have?” And if we too wish to receive what was said to Peter in answer to his question, let us leave everything in this way, no longer held fast by wickedness and the activity that goes with it, and let us follow the Word of God, so that he may say to us and to all who have followed him the words that follow: “And Jesus said to them, Truly I say to you, that you who have followed me,” and so on. These words too have both a simpler sense, urging us to leave our possessions, and another, deeper than this. The one who interprets the Gospel passage according to the letter will say something like this: The word told all to follow Jesus; but it named those who were then apostles, and those like them who followed him constantly; and it indicated those who came later by the words, “And everyone who has left brothers or sisters,” and so on. Someone will refute him as having interpreted “following” in a forced way, saying that “following” is said of all in the words, “Whoever does not take up his cross and follow after me cannot be my disciple.” Those, then, who have followed the Saviour will sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel, and they will receive this authority in the resurrection of the dead. For this is the regeneration, which is a kind of new genesis, when a new heaven and a new earth are created for those who have renewed themselves, and a new covenant is delivered, and its cup.

The prelude to that regeneration is what Paul calls “the washing of regeneration”; and the prelude to that newness is what is added to the washing of regeneration in the words, “of renewal of the Spirit.” And perhaps according to birth “no one is clean from filth, not even if his life be but one day,” because of the mystery concerning birth, at which each of all who have come into birth might say what was said by David in the fiftieth Psalm: “For I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins my mother conceived me.” But according to the regeneration from the washing, everyone who has been born from above of water and Spirit is clean from filth—clean, if I may dare to say it, “through a mirror and in a riddle”; while according to the other regeneration, “when the Son of Man sits on the throne of his glory,” everyone who has reached that regeneration in Christ is most clean from filth, “face to face” …, himself reaching that regeneration through the washing of regeneration. And if you wish to understand that washing, understand how John, “who baptizes in water for repentance,” says of the Saviour: “He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire.” In the regeneration through the washing, then, we were buried with Christ: “For we were buried with him,” according to the Apostle, “through baptism.” But in the regeneration of the washing through fire and Spirit, we become conformed to the body of the glory of Christ, who sits on the throne of his glory, and we ourselves sit on twelve thrones—if indeed, having left everything in either sense, but especially according to the washing, we have followed you. And then, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of his glory, the prophecy is fulfilled that says: “The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies the footstool of your feet”; and: “He must reign until he has put all enemies under his feet,” until “the last enemy, death, is abolished.” When it is abolished, there will no longer be death before the face of those who are saved, but only life, which is then believed. For while death is before the face, life is disbelieved, because of death, by those held fast by it; but when death has been abolished, life is believed by all. In the law you will find: “I have set life and death before your face,” and: “Your life will be hanging before your eyes,” and: “You will not believe your life.” The Son of Man sits on the throne of his glory when no one dishonoured and inglorious in God is ruled by him; for then all who do not receive glory from men, nor act so as to be glorified by men, but seek the glory that comes from the only God, will be ruled by the one who sits on the throne of his glory. And then is granted what the Saviour asked in his prayer, when he said: “Father, glorify me with the glory which I had with you before the world was.”

If you are able to understand the Word as restored—after he became flesh, and became for those who are born what each of them needed him to become, so that he might gain all—restored so as to become such as he “was in the beginning with God,” being God and Word in his own glory, in the glory proper to such a Word, you will see him sitting on the throne of his glory, and the Son of Man, the man understood in Jesus, not other than he. For in this way he becomes one with the Word, far more than those who, by being joined to the Lord, become one spirit with him. And then, when these things take place in the restoration of the Saviour, those who left everything and followed him will also sit, as “conformed to the body” and to the throne “of the glory of Christ,” on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. For the whole life of the righteous will judge the twelve tribes of Israel that have not … And the apostles will judge, and those who have emulated and achieved the apostolic life, those who are well-born because they are Israelites, but have not done what is worthy of their good birth. And perhaps the words “by you the world is judged,” spoken to the Corinthians, are said to those from the Gentiles; and the words “You yourselves also will sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel,” to the apostles and to those who have emulated the apostolic life, who judge Israel, the most well-born of the whole world. But understand in these words, worthily of the greatness of mind of the Gospel, an Israel that is well-born and of a better nature, but has not believed. But to raise to a higher sense, after the word about Israel, the word about the twelve tribes as well, so as to speak of twelve general orders of souls, and more well-born ones, of which some, excelling, are in preeminence, while the rest, arranged in eleven portions, are in the second rank—this is beyond us, who do not see so far as to be able to show how the fathers of the twelve tribes of Israel are twelve stars, as the prophetic dream, if I may so name it, of Joseph indicated; and how each of the Israelites who are judged will be judged, as it were, by some apostle bearing the name of a star, or like a star, and by one who has lived the apostolic life.

If, then, someone has left everything and followed Jesus, he will obtain what was said to Peter in answer to his question; but if he has left not everything, but the things mentioned next, such a one will receive many times as much and will inherit eternal life. What these are—not everything, but particular things that are named—must be understood from the words: “And everyone who has left brothers or sisters,” and so on. That this saying has a meaning not to be despised, even according to the simple interpretation, and urges us to despise all fleshly kinship and all possession, everyone whatever will agree. Whether it also admits a higher sense, one person will hesitate, while another declares that it does. And according to the letter it is clear that many who believed in our Saviour were hated by their relatives, and chose to leave them and every possession in order to inherit eternal life, persuaded that everyone who has left his brothers according to the flesh, and sisters related only by the body, and the parents of his body, and the children of the flesh, and fields in the cursed earth, and houses in it, and has left them for no other reason than for the sake of the name of Jesus, will receive many times as much. For spiritual things are many times—and, if one must so name it, infinitely—greater than bodily things; and having come to receive many times as much, not in a temporary life but in eternal life, he will inherit it. It is easy to explain how one receives many times as many brothers and sisters as he left for the sake of the word of God; for even in this world the brothers in faith are many times more numerous than those whom believers have left because of their faith. So also one receives as parents all the irreproachable bishops and blameless presbyters, in place of the two he has left; and likewise as children all who are of the age of children. But how one inherits many times as many fields or houses as he has left can no longer be explained in the same way, unless by forcing someone shows it in a few cases, which is not easy. But once one allegorizes the fields and houses, he will be compelled, by consistency, to explain what comes before them in the same way. There are, then, I think, among the holy and blessed powers, brothers—those who have attained “to a perfect man,” of those who have reached “the measure of the stature of Christ”; and sisters—all who have been presented as a pure virgin to Christ, not only, I think, from among men but also from the other powers. And parents would be such as those of whom it was said to Abraham: “But you shall go to your fathers in peace, nourished in a good old age.” And if these ever become fathers of others, in a way corresponding to those fathers, they too will receive many times as many children, like Abraham. And understand for me the fields and houses, many times as many as those left behind, in the rest of the divine paradise, and in the city of God, of which glorious things were spoken, “whose God is known in her towers, when he helps her,” so that those who inherit the houses there might say: “As we have heard, so have we seen, in the city of the Lord of hosts, in the city of our God”; of which it is also said: “Distribute her towers.” On such terms, then, it is blessed to inherit eternal life, having so many heirs, and so many trees cultivated by God, and houses of living stones, in which everyone will rest who has left brothers or sisters, and the rest.

After this comes: “But many who are first will be last, and the last first.” This too has a meaning according to the simpler sense, which can urge those who are just coming to the divine word to hasten to rise, through what is commanded, above many of those thought to have grown old in the faith, to the life and teaching that is above them; since neither time hinders those who believe later, nor wicked parents those who have shown themselves contending blamelessly. And it is a contest also to put down the conceit of those who are proud because they were brought up in Christianity from their fathers’ time, especially when one happens to boast of fathers and ancestors who were thought worthy of presiding in the church on the bishop’s throne, or of the honour of the presbyterate, or of the diaconate for the people of God. For both of you, having been taught, “Many who are first will be last, and the last first,” be reminded neither to be proud in thinking yourselves first, nor to be dejected and humbled as having less than those before you, because you received the doctrines of Christianity later than they. But the saying has, I think, a meaning that can make us attend all at once to the many before us who were called first from Israel and who became last through their unbelief in Jesus and their betrayal, and to us, the last, who can take the first places if we remain in the faith, “not being high-minded, but associating with the lowly.” What then, if, sharing in the root of the patriarchs and in the fatness that comes from the word of the fathers, we grow together with the intent of the spiritual law and of the prophets understood in a manner corresponding to it? We, the last, shall be first; and they, the first, cut off from the good olive tree through unbelief, have become last. For through the coming of Christ, who came “for judgment into the world, that those who do not see might see”—the nations—“and those who see might become blind”—Israel, through unbelief—we, the proselyte people, have come to be higher and higher, and first; while Israel, which was before us and first, has become last, lower and lower. So also the saying can be understood: “If anyone wishes to be first, he shall be last of all”; as if he said: Since now those from the nations who believe in me, who are thought last in Israel’s eyes, take the first places, while the whole people of those in Israel who did not believe are judged last before God, even if they are thought first because of time, if anyone wishes to take up the true first place, let him be among those thought by present Israel to be last. For so long as he remains among those who think themselves first, he will fall away from the first places, which have passed to the nations, and will be numbered among the last; for those from the nations become the head through faith, and unbelieving Israel, through unbelief, the tail. According to this account, many, though not all, of the first will be last; and again many of the last will be first. Yet if someone has come last, wishing to be numbered among the believers from the nations, he will not for that reason be reckoned among the first; for there are some first of the first, like the apostles of Christ, who were Israelites and of the seed of Abraham; and there are some last of the last, those who live worse than many of those who bear the name of the church.

After this, consider whether you can say that the race of angels is first, as being honoured above that of men, who came into being last—for, as it is written in Job, “When the stars were made, all my angels praised God,” as being older and more honoured, not only than man but also than all the making of the world after them—and dare to declare that many of the angels, who were first compared with men, become last behind some men; and many men, who are by nature last compared with the angels, become, through their life and the word of God, first above some angels who were ranked among the first but for certain causes became last. And taking sayings for this from the First Letter of Peter and from Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians, you will be led on as though this were soundly said. For Peter says: “In whom, though now you do not see him”—clearly Jesus Christ—“yet believing, you rejoice,” and so on, up to “into which angels long to look”; and Paul: “Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more the things of this life?” Consider, then, whether these angels, so long as they “kept their own principality and did not leave their own dwelling,” did not excel many men and were first compared with them—men whose soul had been humbled to the dust, who were in the body of humiliation, and who barely at some point said, “Wretched man that I am, who will deliver me from the body of this death?” And men, though last in comparison with angels, become first above the angels who did not “keep their own principality” but “left their own dwelling,” receiving a principality according to the words, “Have authority over ten cities,” “Have authority over five cities.” And some come into the dwelling that angels have left, when, the kingdom of heaven having been preached to them, they do the things that lead them up to it. For those on earth are last of the heavenly beings, and those in heaven first above those on earth; and many of the heavenly and first become last, “kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day,” while many of the last, who had taken birth on earth, go up, so as to say with confidence, “But our citizenship is in heaven.” And he himself who fell like lightning from heaven was first when he walked blameless in all his ways, until iniquity was found in him; and he became last, going down to Hades, so that those who saw him wondered at him and said: “You too have been taken, as we were; you have been counted among us; your glory has gone down to Hades, your great gladness.” So also everyone was last who was “foolish and disobedient, serving desires and various pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another”; but he became first “when the kindness and love for man of God our Saviour appeared, through the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,” and received the one who said, “Whoever receives me receives him who sent me.” According to these things, we have explained the first as those who will be saved, and the last as those not worthy of such a rank among the saved, but worthy of punishment and of being abandoned, either “until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in,” or until they have fulfilled what is due for their own sins. However, the parable that follows the words, “But many who are first will be last, and the last first,” declares that those in the parable are also saved who worked first but received their wage last, and who are therefore reckoned among the last though they were first. And it says that those who were sent to the work last differ from them, receiving their wage not only first but also equal to those who grumbled against the householder and said, “These last worked one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.” And the last called to the work are said to be first, because they received their wage first. Having prayed to God, and called on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, let us set out the parable, and see what will be given us to examine and say about it, or to dictate. It runs thus. [On the hired labourers.]

“The kingdom of heaven is like a man, a householder, who went out early in the morning to hire labourers,” and so on, up to “For many are called, but few are chosen.” The whole parable may have been given so that we may learn how the last who came to the work received their wage first, as though they had been called first; and in what way those called first were placed by the householder in the last rank, which is why they also received their wage last. But one must know that, as a parable of Jesus, “in whom the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden,” it will be found, when examined, to hint at so many doctrines of the wisdom hidden in a mystery, for those able to find such things, that the Saviour might reasonably have said, especially of this parable: “I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter riddles from the beginning,” and: “I will utter things hidden from the foundation.” For the one who is to understand the parable must see the day indicated in it, and the hours in it, and that it is not by lot that the householder hands over the works of the vineyard to five orders of workers. The one who is able will examine the reason why he hired some workers into the vineyard early in the morning, and after that others, not about the second hour but about the third, and next to this not about the fourth or fifth but about the sixth, then after that about the eleventh. For there ought to be some explanation worthy of Jesus for the three equal intervals after the morning time—of the third, sixth, and ninth hours—and after it the smaller interval for those standing about the eleventh hour, smaller than the interval from early morning to the third hour. One must also attend, and not carelessly, to the fact that the householder agreed on a denarius each with those taken on at dawn, whom he sent into his vineyard; but to those called about the third hour he did not name a definite wage, but said, “Whatever is right I will give you”; and one must attend to the fact that he did likewise with those called about the sixth and ninth hours; and that to those about the eleventh hour, who excused their idleness through the whole day, he said, “You too go into the vineyard.” Further, as one who was outside the vineyard and found the workers there, he sends the first into the vineyard, while to the second he says, “You too go into the vineyard”; and likewise the same words to those called about the eleventh hour: “You too go into the vineyard.” Let the one who is able consider what the marketplace is in which the householder, going out, found the second group standing idle; and so let it be examined who those are who were found standing about the eleventh hour, to whom the householder says, “Why do you stand here all day idle?” Let him consider also the defence of those who stood idle all day and endured the toil of standing through the whole day, who said boldly that they had been eager to work but that no one had hired them, as though many were hiring.

Let one also consider, and not carelessly, that “when evening came, the lord of the vineyard says to his steward, Call the labourers and pay them the wage, beginning from the last up to the first.” For what moved the lord of the vineyard to order his steward to call the labourers and pay the wage beginning from the last, and so to go up to the first, so that those of the eleventh hour receive first, those of the ninth second, those of the sixth third, after them those of the third, and last those of early morning? For this is clearly shown by the words, “Pay the wage, beginning from the last up to the first.” And who, besides the lord of the vineyard, is the lord’s steward, who gives the wage according to the lord’s command? But if those called at the ninth hour did not bear the burden of the day and the scorching heat, clearly it was not these who grumbled against the householder, saying, “These last worked one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.” Nor did those called at the sixth hour bear the burden of the day, but at most of half the day; and those called at the third hour did not bear the burden of the whole day, but, to name it precisely, of a half and a quarter of the day. Only those hired from dawn bore the burden of the day and the scorching heat: the whole of it, those hired from dawn; and the rest, compared with the last, in proportion to the time they worked in the vineyard.

Since there are various parables that name a vineyard, it might be asked whether in each of them the vineyard is taken of different things or of the same thing. I think one must examine … why the householder did not answer all who came first, and thought that they would receive more, and grumbled against the householder, but said to one of them only: “Friend, I do you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius? And I wish to give to this last one as I give to you.” That the parable set before us admits these and similar questions that one might ask about it, I would affirm; and that no one can speak about the parable worthily except one who could say truly, “But we have the mind of Christ,” this too I will confidently declare. Who, then, has known the mind of Christ in this parable, except the one who has given himself over to the Paraclete, of whom the Saviour says, “He will teach you all things, and remind you of all that I have said to you”? For unless the Paraclete teaches all that Jesus said, including this parable, nothing worthy of Jesus would be said about it. And if all who read the Gospel according to John had understood such things about the Paraclete according to the voice of Jesus, some would not have given heed, as …, “to spirits of error and teachings of demons, through the hypocrisy of liars whose own conscience is seared,” so as to proclaim the spirits of error and the demons by the great name of the Paraclete, which the Saviour promised to the apostles and to anyone who is like the apostles. And I am persuaded that Matthew knew mysteries about this parable, just as he knew those about the sower and the tares sown among the wheat; but he did not judge it reasonable to record the explanation of this one as he did the explanations of those, not trusting to writing even a partial clarification of this parable, whereas for those parables they recorded the explanation in full. And if Matthew reasonably kept silent about the explanation of the parable, clearly, even if someone should be able to understand it in part, he would perhaps reasonably hint at the explanation that appears to him, without making clear all that he has grasped, and without entrusting it to writing, keeping clear of the danger that attends the setting out of mysteries

Come, then: let us, who fall very far short of the depth of the matters in the parable, and whose notions of it are very faint, give some things in part, with prayer, and show a little of others that are under inquiry, and so pass on, after dealing fittingly with the parable, to what follows it. First, then, let us look at what concerns the day in the parable under inquiry; and see whether we can call the whole present age a kind of day—great as regards us, but small and of short duration as regards the life of God, and of Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. For perhaps for some of the blessed powers too, who are exalted in comparison with the many created beings below the ruling Trinity, the whole present age bears the same ratio to their life as a day among men bears to the whole time a man can live. Whether some such mystery is shown in Deuteronomy, in the song in which it is written, “Remember the days of the age,” or not, the one who is able will inquire. Then, if the days of the age are of this kind, it would follow to understand in a similar way the words: “I remembered eternal years, and I meditated by night with my heart; I mused, and my spirit searched, and I said, Will the Lord cast off for the ages?” And perhaps, to speak more boldly, the Lord will not cast off for the ages—for it is much that the Lord should cast off even for one age—but perhaps he will cast off also for a second age, when such a sin is forgiven neither in this age nor in the age to come. Who, then, is sufficient to refer to such days the six days and the seventh day of resurrection, and, after the sabbaths, the new moons, and the feasts in the first month, and the Passover on the fourteenth day of the month, and the days of unleavened bread that follow? In the same way one will fall into an abyss of thoughts if he imagines the other feasts in such days, and the whole seventh year, in which God grants to the poor and to proselytes and to the beasts of the earth the fruits that spring up from earlier cultivation, the land not being cultivated at that time. And who can go up to the number of the days of the abyss in the period of fifty years—I say “abyss” because of the depth of the doctrines—so that one may go up and see the fiftieth year and what is legislated for it fulfilled? But in seeking the one day of the parable set before us, and taking it to be the whole present age, we have entered unawares into the depths of God, needing “the Spirit who searches all things, even the depths of God.” I think that, just as it is said that certain things must take place at the going out, at the completion, of the year, so, as it were at the completion of many ages—whether they complete a kind of year or whatever it may be—our Jesus “was manifested for the putting away of sin,” so that after the completion of the ages, like the days of a year, another may follow again, in which “God may show, in the ages to come, the surpassing riches of his kindness,” into which he himself knows what he must show. Let these things be said about the day in the parable. You can establish them also from the Letter of John, which says: “Children, it is the last hour; and as you heard that Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have arisen; from this we know that it is the last hour.” For the last hour comes after the eleventh of the parable before us, since about the eleventh hour the householder in the parable, “going out, found others standing, and says to them, Why do you stand here all day idle?”

After this we inquire how it is not by lot that the householder hands over the works of the vineyard to five orders of workers: to the first, when “he went out early in the morning to hire workers into the vineyard”; to the second, when, “going out about the third hour, he saw others standing idle in the marketplace”; to the third and fourth, when, “going out again about the sixth and the ninth hour, he did likewise”; and to the fifth, about the eleventh hour, when, “going out, he found others standing, and says to them, Why do you stand here all day idle?” And see whether you can call the first order that of Adam, at the very making of the world; for the Householder went out early in the morning and, if I may so name it, hired Adam and Eve to work the vineyard of godliness. The second order is that of Noah and the covenant made with him; the third, that of Abraham, with whom are understood to be included the fathers down to Moses; the fourth, that of Moses and the whole dispensation of Egypt and the giving of the law in the desert; and the last order is that of the coming of Christ Jesus, the one about the eleventh hour. Yet one man, the householder, … in the parable before us, went out five times and came to the affairs here below, so as to send out to the vineyard “workers who need not be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth,” who do his works. For one Christ, coming down to men, has always, many times over, ordered the calling of the workers.

Whether the five times of taking on workers also have some symbolic meaning drawn from the world of the senses, and from those who began to do the works by way of sense-perception, let the one who is able consider. Let it serve as an exercise, even if someone does not wish to accept as doctrine what is about to be said. For someone will say that touch belongs to the first calling; and so the woman said to the serpent what God had said: “You shall not eat of it, nor shall you touch it.” Smell belongs to the second; and so in Noah’s time “the Lord smelled a fragrant odour.” Taste belongs to Abraham; and so, entertaining the angels, he sets before them cakes of fine flour and the tender calf. Hearing belongs to the time of Moses, when the voice of God was heard from heaven. And sight, the most honoured of all the senses, belongs to the coming of Christ, when they saw Christ with blessed eyes. Let these things too be said about the five callings, whether for the sake of rational exercise or, if one wishes, also as doctrine.

I think also that there were works of the vineyard that needed workers at each hour. For works had to be done in the vineyard at dawn, and the householder who calls saw which workers were suited to the works from dawn. Another work, about the third hour, was that in the time of Noah, when God established a covenant with him. Then the ten generations from Noah to Abraham, ending with Abraham, … of the calling; and Abraham was a worker of the vineyard, beginning then; and after him Moses, with those who were with him, was taken into the vineyard. But there remained a last work in the vineyard, which needed a fresh and new calling, one that would work vigorously and all at once, in a short time, what was lacking in the vineyard; and this was the work of the new covenant. Equal, then, are the intervals between those called about the third, the sixth, and the ninth hours; and corresponding to the interval from the beginning to the third hour is that from the ninth hour, the hour of Moses, to the eleventh, that of the coming of Christ Jesus in the flesh. The householder agreed with those taken on at dawn for a denarius. This, I think, is the coin of salvation, the things that belong to glory not being reckoned along with it; for the denarius, I think, will be seen to be a name for salvation, while what is beyond the denarius, wherever it is named, is the coins of the one who made the mina he was given fivefold or tenfold. And in saying to those taken on about the third hour, “Whatever is right I will give you,” he urged the workers of the third hour to work as much as ever they could, but kept for himself the judging of the wage that would be right for the work done. And since he did likewise with those of the sixth and ninth hours, clearly he said to them too, “Whatever is right I will give you.” And those who wish, in a shorter time, to intensify their strength and energy for the work can have done work in the vineyard equal to that of those who worked from dawn, since they have not grown tired beforehand, as happened to those called at dawn. But someone might ask how the householder, going out about the eleventh hour, says to those who were not only idle but standing all day—that is, through all the time before the eleventh hour—“Why do you stand here all day idle?” I suspect that the secret doctrine about the soul is hidden in these words too, since they were idle all day until the eleventh hour, though they wished to work in the vineyard—they who boldly defended themselves, saying, “No one hired us.” We, then, have dared to say some such things, drawing our notions both from many Scriptures and from the parable before us, to show how those called about the eleventh hour stood idle all day because no one had hired them.

Let those who are not pleased with such doctrines tell us what the whole day is, and who are those who stood idle the whole day, wishing to work but not called into the vineyard, and speaking boldly in the words, “No one hired us.” For if the soul was sown together with the body, how had they stood idle the whole day? Or let them tell us what the whole day is, and the different callings of the workers in it, according to the different hours. But whether those hired by the householder in the parable are blessed, while there were also other hired workers, hired either by other householders or by the same one, who are either not blessed or not so blessed, is beyond us to understand worthily, or, as we understand it, to entrust to writing. I inquire also into what lies outside the vineyard, where the workers are found by the one who went out to hire them, and I consider whether the place outside the vineyard is the region of souls before the body; and whether the vineyard is not only the things here but also the things outside the body, where, I think, the workers work. For the souls of workers taken into the householder’s estate that have been freed from the body are not idle. Samuel, at any rate, worked outside the body by prophesying, and Jeremiah by praying for the people. Let us therefore make it our aim to work the vineyard, whether at home or away, so as to receive whatever is right. And no one, so far as the parable goes, is sent into it who will not do the works of the vineyard; for the householder blamed no one as having done the work too deficiently, though he did blame one for hoping for a greater and larger wage. And perhaps the place outside the vineyard is the marketplace, where those standing idle were. Great is the defence, toward their becoming worthy of the whole day’s wage, spoken by those who said, “No one hired us”; therefore he hired them and, so to speak, gave them a wage for standing patiently the whole day and waiting until evening for the one who would hire them. After this, when evening came—that is, the completion of the age, and of the day in the parable—the Lord says to his steward, whether to one of the angels who is set over the wages, or to one of many stewards who have held that office; just as it is said that the heir is under stewards and managers for the time that he is a child. According to the householder’s command, then, the workers are called by the steward, so that the wage may be given to the last first. For the earlier workers, “though attested through their faith, did not receive the promise, since God had foreseen something better concerning us”—those called at the eleventh hour—“that apart from us they should not be made perfect.” And we have received mercy for having stood the whole day, wishing that the one who would hire us might come, and having been idle, yet having been thought worthy of the work along with our defence; and having received mercy, we who are known to Christ expect to receive the wage first. Then, going upward, he will give the wage to those who worked before us, then to those before them, and so up to the first. One who has seen the place where Samuel dwelt, and has considered consistently with it the workers called at the eleventh hour, will see in what way those before bore the burden and the scorching heat of the day; while those called at the eleventh hour did not, like them, bear the burden of the day and the scorching heat, but bore the burden of having stood idle—before the coming to us of the Master, who said to us, “Come to me, all who labour and are burdened, and I will give you rest.” (For idleness was a burden, as was not yet being judged worthy of the works in the vineyard; and those before the eleventh hour bore the scorching heat, each in proportion to his calling.) The first, not knowing the dignity of the householder, and that one must not grumble against him, thought they would receive something more than the salvation which the last receive, and they grumbled against the householder, envying us, the last, who worked one hour, the hour up to the completion, and became equal to those called from the beginning to the divine vineyard. But the householder said to one of them, perhaps to Adam: “Friend, I do you no wrong. Did I not agree with you for a denarius? Take what is yours and go”; for the denarius, salvation, is yours. “For I wish,” he says, “to give to this one too as I give to you.” And he did not say “to these,” but indicated one in particular; to say who he is is rather bold, but one might not implausibly conjecture that he is Paul the apostle, who worked one hour, perhaps more than all those before him. And if we must also say something about the vineyard, taking our starting point from the one who himself interpreted the vineyard in another parable, we shall say that the vineyard is the kingdom of God. For so he himself said in the words, “The kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation producing its fruits.” All, then, who do the works of the vineyard, accomplishing the works of the kingdom of God in a manner worthy of salvation, will receive the denarius.

After dictating these things on the parable set before us, the following also occurred to us about it, which can be useful to those who stumble at the deeper and more secret explanation. Someone will say that the whole life of human beings is the day of the parable. It is shown, then, that those called from childhood and the first stage of life to work the works of the kingdom of God are those hired by the householder at dawn; those who come to godliness after boyhood are those who came from the third hour; those who are already men are those sent into the vineyard about the sixth hour; those brought to godliness as elders are the ninth hour, taken to the Word of God after the scorching heat of youth and the burden of the deeds up to the age of elders; and those who are very old, at the very point of departure, are indicated by those called at the eleventh hour to the works of the vineyard. Since, then, it is the choice, and not the time someone has spent in faith, that is examined, the equal wage of salvation is given to all who have done what fell to them from the time they were called. At this those who have been believers from childhood, who have toiled and kept their youth under constraint, are indignant, if they are to have equal salvation with those who were idle as to godliness until old age, and … a short time to faith and …

According to this explanation, the vineyard would be the church of God, and the marketplace and the things outside the vineyard would be the things outside the church, from which the Word takes those who are called and sends them into the vineyard, the church. According to this explanation, those would not be counted among the workers of the vineyard who were called to godliness earlier but did not keep the things of the faith, and went out, overcome by passions. For even if, after having had their fill of the pleasures of sin, they wish, as penitents, to work the vineyard, they cannot say to the householder, “No one hired us”; for they were hired at the time when they were first called to believe. Nor will it be said to them, “Why do you stand here all day idle?”—especially if, “having begun in the Spirit” and afterwards “ending in the flesh,” they should wish to return once more to the desire to live by the Spirit as at the beginning. And we do not say this to deter those who have fallen from rising again, or those who have strayed from turning back, or those who have squandered the substance of the gospel teaching from running back to their father’s house. For let them have, because of their repentance and because they are found in a converted life, something better than those who are found in their sins; yet one must not suppose of them that they are like those who sinned in their youth only because they had never learned the things of the faith at all. The householder, then, wishes to give the last, as well as the first, the denarius, which is salvation, since he may do what he wishes with what is his own, and may rebuke the one whose eye is evil because the householder is good. Many of the last, then, will be first, and some of those called first will be last; “for many are called, but few are chosen.” It is likely, then, that one wiser than we, and judged by God worthy of a clearer and richer gift of the word of wisdom through the Spirit of God, and of the gift of the word of knowledge according to the Spirit, will find loftier and greater things, with full comprehension, concerning the parable, and will have an abundance of proofs, taking texts for them in a more lofty way. And we, having set out the meaning of the parable as far as we could, ask pardon of our readers if we have not been able to reach worthily the intent of what is written here; for perhaps, for our eagerness and for not having shrunk from the task, we shall be thought to have something worthy of acceptance.

“And as Jesus was about to go up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve aside privately on the way and said to them,” and so on, up to “and on the third day he will rise.” Things equivalent to these are recorded by Mark too, in this way: “They were on the road, going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was going ahead of them,” and so on, up to “and on the third day he will rise.” And Luke too will be seen to agree with these, writing: “And taking the twelve, he said to them,” and so on, up to “and they did not know what was said.” Paul, who urges us to imitate him as he himself imitated Christ, and who said, “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ,” seeing Christ going to meet manifest dangers and going up to Jerusalem, though he knew beforehand that he would be handed over to the chief priests and scribes and condemned to death, and the rest, did something similar. For Agabus, taking his belt, bound his own hands and feet and said: “Thus says the Holy Spirit: The man whose belt this is they will bind in this way when he goes to Jerusalem.” Learning this, Paul, as one imitating the Teacher, went up eagerly to Jerusalem; and when he felt something human because of those who wept out of love for him and tried to prevent him from going up to Jerusalem, he said: “What are you doing, weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be bound when I come to Jerusalem, but also to die for the name of my Lord Jesus.” Considering these things, then, let us sometimes, even when we know that toilsome trials lie ahead, go to meet them for a good reason, taking as our examples in such things first of all the Saviour, and after him his Apostle as well. But do not think that these things, and what we have said about them, conflict with the words, “If they persecute you in this city, flee to the next,” and what follows, or with the fact that Jesus withdrew when he heard that John had been handed over to prison. For we say that it is fitting neither always to avoid dangers nor always to go to meet them; and there is need of someone wise in Christ to discern which occasion calls for withdrawal, and which calls for eagerness for the contest without withdrawal, and much more without flight. Let this be said according to the intent of the Scripture set before us, to urge us to despise death and dangers.

Next we must observe that when Jesus was about to go up to Jerusalem and took the twelve aside privately, Judas was still one of the twelve, and he took Judas aside privately too. For, it is likely, he was still worthy to be taken aside privately with the other eleven. And when on the way he said to them, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem,” and what follows, clearly he judged this man too to be one of those who should hear what the Teacher would suffer, not despairing of him, since Judas did not yet know what he would do, just as none of us does. For it has been said to all of us: “Do not boast about tomorrow; for you do not know what the coming day will bring forth.” And the devil had not yet, I think, put it into the heart of Judas son of Simon Iscariot to betray Jesus. And since the Gospel according to Matthew is now before us for examination, let the one who is able attend more carefully to it from the beginning up to the present passage, and inquire whether Judas has not yet been accused by Matthew, but only, in the list of the twelve, has he said: “Judas son of Simon Iscariot, who also betrayed him.” More has been said by us to establish that Judas too was at first like the other apostles, when we were examining the words, “These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, saying,” and what is recorded there. We must compare what is said here with what is recorded in a similar way above. For there, at such words prophesied by the Saviour, “Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, Mercy on you, Lord; this shall never happen to you”; but here the disciples are not recorded as having said or done anything at the announcement of the gloomier things that would befall him. And I think that the disciples were silent now because above, when “Peter took Jesus aside and began to rebuke him, saying, Mercy on you, Lord; this shall never happen to you, Jesus turned and said to Peter, Get behind me, Satan; you are a stumbling block to me, for you do not think the things of God but the things of men.” It is likely, then, that, remembering what was said to Peter, they were on their guard in these matters, lest they too should hear something worse from the Teacher.

It does no harm to set out the earlier passage that is similar to the one before us, which runs thus: “Then he charged his disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ,” and so on, up to “and on the third day be raised”; for after this it is said, “And Peter took him aside,” and what follows. Moreover, above it is said that the Saviour was to be killed; but here the manner of the killing is written: being crucified. As long, then, as Jesus was not handed over in Jerusalem to the chief priests and scribes, nor condemned to death, nor mocked, scourged, and crucified, Jerusalem stood, and the so-called sanctuary was not thrown down. But when they dared to do these things to Jesus, then those who handed him over were abandoned, and the chief priests ceased to be chief priests, so that after them there were no more chief priests; and then also the scribes who condemned Jesus to death, hardened in mind and blinded in reason, did not see the intent of the holy writings. And all those who condemned Jesus to death were handed over to death, the enemy of Christ; and having mocked Jesus, they became a mockery when Jerusalem was surrounded by armies, when also “its desolation drew near.” And having scourged Jesus, they themselves were scourged, and are scourged “until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in”; for “he who throws a stone on high throws it on his own head.” And all these things have happened so that the divine oversight might depart from them and pass over to those from the Gentiles who are being saved, together with “the remnant chosen by grace”; for “unless the Lord of hosts had left us offspring, we would have become like Sodom and been made like Gomorrah.” I think that, just as the worship long performed as a copy and shadow of the heavenly things was dissolved because of the heavenly things, and when the true high priest came the symbolic high priest ceased, and when the true sacrifices for sins were offered the symbolic ones were abolished; so, when the true Jerusalem received Jesus, who went up mounted on his own body as on a beast of burden—at which “the daughter of Zion rejoiced greatly,” and the daughter of the Jerusalem above made proclamation—then Jerusalem, the shadow, was destroyed, and the temple of dead stones fell because of the temple of living stones; and the altar below was demolished, since the heavenly altar came into use, Jesus having performed its dedication in the true worship. And if, in one of its meanings, the city is the people, then even now in Jerusalem (by which I mean those who have their hopes set on the earthly place) Jesus is handed over; and the Jews who profess the service of God, being as it were chief priests, and the scribes who boast that they explain the divine writings, condemn Jesus to death by the evil they speak of him. And there is no time when they do not hand Jesus over to the Gentiles, mocking him and his teaching among themselves; and they always scourge with their tongues the godliness that comes through Jesus Christ, and they themselves crucify him by their anathemas and by wishing to destroy his teaching. But he, being stronger than they, rises after a short interval and appears living to those who have received their sight. For now, “who is blind,” as Isaiah says in the person of God, “but my servants? And who are deaf, but those who rule them?” For he says, with great prophetic character and spirit: “You deaf, hear; and you blind, look up and see. And who is blind but my servants? And who are deaf but those who rule them? And the servants of God were blinded.” For Jesus came “for judgment into this world, that those who do not see”—these are the nations—“may see, and that those who see”—Israel—“may become blind.” At any rate, when so great a true light had risen, and the Word showed himself and said, “Behold a man whose name is the Dawn,” they did not see the light, since “their wickedness blinded them, and they did not know the mysteries of God.” And something paradoxical has happened to that people and to the nations. The people saw each of the prophets, who was a lamp, but did not know the Sun of righteousness when he rose; therefore whatever lamp they seemed to have was taken from them. But the people of the nations, sitting in darkness, saw a light—not a small one, such as Israel saw, for each of the prophets was a small light—but “the people sitting in darkness saw a great light,” our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, whose greatness appears as he “reaches mightily from one end of the earth to the other and orders” the churches “well,” now that his Spirit has filled the world and the prophecy has been fulfilled which says, “In the last days the mountain of God shall be manifest”; and now “all the nations go to it,” and this is Christ Jesus. [On the sons of Zebedee.]

“Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to him with her sons,” and so on, up to “And when the ten heard it, they were indignant at the two brothers.” Mark too recorded the like, in this way: “And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come to him and say to him,” and so on, up to “they began to be indignant at James and John.” In the passage before us it is worth inquiring now into something not to be despised and truly befitting the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For to the simpler and wholly guileless, who do not know how to search the depths of God and of his Scriptures, the letter shows a simplicity in the request and in Jesus’ answer to it; but to those able to test problems even a little, the sense that appears at once is slight and cheap, and has nothing befitting his greatness of mind, especially when Jesus answers. For as in an earthly kingdom those who sit with the king when he is seated in his royal robes are thought to be advanced in honour, as is anyone who administers any of the affairs of the kingdom, so, according to the letter, the mother of the sons of Zebedee—or, as Mark recorded it, James and John—imagining such glory, asked of the Saviour that one of them might sit at his right when he was in his kingdom, and the other at his left. And there was nothing strange in a woman, out of simplicity and lack of learning, thinking to ask for such things; and let it be granted that the two apostles too, as men still imperfect and understanding nothing deeper about the kingdom of Christ, supposed such things about those who would sit with Jesus. But when Jesus too, as though agreeing that it is a great thing for someone to sit at his right or his left, exalts the request and says, “You do not know what you are asking,” and, “It is not mine to give, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father,” someone who seems to be an intelligent hearer of Scripture might ask what it means to sit at the right or the left of Jesus in his kingdom. And against those who suppose that we inquire into these things too curiously, we must gather what is said about sitting, so that by testing what is gathered for this and comparing the texts with one another, some greatness of doctrine may be able to dawn from a simpler example. For example, in the third book of Kingdoms it is written that Micaiah said: “I saw the God of Israel sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven around him on his right and on his left,” and so on. And in the second book of Chronicles the same Micaiah says something similar in the words: “Hear the word of the Lord. I saw the Lord sitting on the throne of his glory, and all the power of heaven was standing on his right and on his left,” and so on. And in Isaiah it is written: “And it came to pass in the year in which King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up,” and so on. Further, in Daniel such things are written: “I watched until thrones were set, and the Ancient of Days sat,” and so on. Similar things can be found also in Ezekiel at the beginning of his prophecy, when he says: “Above the firmament over their heads”—clearly the cherubim’s—“as the appearance of sapphire stone, the likeness of a throne upon it; and upon the likeness of the throne a likeness as the form of a man above.” Also in the hundred and ninth Psalm the words, “The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand,” show a sitting of the Father, and another of the one who sits at his right. And again in another Psalm the prophet prays and says: “You who sit upon the cherubim, appear”; and again: “God sits upon his holy throne.” And if you wish to take an example from the Gospels as well, hear Matthew recording how Jesus said to the disciples: “Truly I say to you, that you who have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of his glory,” and so on; and: “Hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the power.” And Matthew says this: “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory,” and so on; and: “Hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the power.” Mark says the equivalent in the words: “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the power and coming with the clouds of heaven”; and Luke says the like in the words: “From now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God.” And why must one gather more such texts, wishing to present, in place of the cheap, simpler, and lower interpretation of Christ’s sitting in his kingdom and of those who will sit at his right or his left, a more mystical one, so that it may reasonably be examined by those able to rise to divine thoughts, and something may be found worthy of “the spiritual man who judges all things and is himself judged by no one,” who will speak about the words of the Gospel in a way corresponding to Paul’s words about spiritual things? For as Paul, taking what concerns the manna, the rock, and the water from it according to the spiritual law, says, “And all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink (for they drank from a spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ),” so the spiritual man who stands on this rock, giving thanks to God for it and saying of himself, “He set my feet upon a rock and directed my steps,” would say that God’s sitting on a spiritual throne is spiritual, and Christ’s likewise, and that Christ’s sitting at the right hand of the power is spiritual. For nothing is shown in these texts about a bodily sitting, which they defined as the settling of the haunches upon a seat. For it is laughable, because these things are named in bodily terms, to think that certain thrones have been fashioned, of I know not what material, able to receive the sitting of God, or of Christ, or of those who sit at the right or the left of Christ, for whom the Father has prepared this. I do not know whether it is pious to think it bodily that the host of heaven stands, in a bodily way, at the right and the left of God; or again to suppose that those who are saved and praised are on the bodily right of our King Jesus Christ, and those who are blamed and perish on a corresponding bodily left.

But perhaps Christ’s being restored to the kingdom and receiving back his own rule—when the sin that reigns in the mortal bodies of human beings has been abolished, and every rule and authority and power that rules the wicked—this is his sitting on the throne of his glory; and his making all things right-hand things to God, so that nothing is any longer left-hand toward him, this is what will take place in those who will be at the right hand of the power, who are to see, as their pattern, the right hand of the power, and to sit at his right and his left in the kingdom of Christ the Word. These God restores, having worked together with them and prepared them to come near to the preeminence of Christ, so that the foremost of those who come near is at his right, being as it were … to him and cleaving to the things of the Word, while the one who is lower is near his left. And see whether you can understand as Christ’s right the creatures called invisible, and as his left the visible and bodily ones; yet Christ reigns over all. Already, of those who come near him, some have been allotted the right-hand and intelligible things, others the left-hand and perceptible things. And perhaps the true mother of the sons of Zebedee, whom the Saviour called Boanerges, that is, sons of thunder, is thunder; and she, judging great things of her sons James and John (for they were great), and thinking that they could hold the first places above all created nature, as men who had received her great voice, came and asked the Lord to seat one of them at his right and the other at his left. And the Saviour, reproving even this great-voiced mother of James and John as not knowing who are the preeminent, and that so great a gift is a grace of the God over all, who breathes with, works with, and establishes in such preeminence those whom he knows to be fit, said: “You do not know what you are asking,” and: “To sit at my right or at my left is not mine to give, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.” The one who is able will consider which things are given by the Saviour and which by the Father, seeing that there are some things which the Son would not give, but the Father himself. And if the Gospels too present something of this kind—in some places bringing in the Saviour praying about certain powers, that his requests may be granted him by the Father, and in others acting without prayer, as one who already has what he had asked for—it is bold to inquire into it; nevertheless let the one who is able examine these things too, with reverence. Wishing, I think, to show the mother of the sons of Zebedee, and them, that what they lacked for the completion of what is attainable among men was no ordinary thing, he answered, after “You do not know what you are asking,” with the words: “Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?” or, as Mark recorded it: “Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized, to be bapti-

In these words one will also ask what the cup is and what the baptism is, as being different from one another, and as requiring no ordinary power in the one who is to drink and to be baptized—who is to drink no other cup than the one Jesus was about to drink, and likewise to be baptized with the baptism with which the Lord himself was about to be baptized. Most people, then, refer both to the ordering of martyrdom, without showing whether it has two aspects indicated by the two names while being one in reality, or whether two things too can be indicated by them. We do not reject this interpretation, but we consider whether these two names can indicate something else besides. And since it is a great task to treat them precisely now, we shall set out a few things to establish what appears to us in the passage. To show that martyrdom is indicated by them, one will use not only the words, “Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me”—as a cup that is drunk with toil by the one who takes up the contests of martyrdom, until he drinks it to the end, having endured in the trial of martyrdom all that is brought upon him—but also what is said in the hundred and fifteenth Psalm: “What shall I render to the Lord for all that he has rendered to me? I will take the cup of salvation and call upon the name of the Lord. I will pay my vows to the Lord before all his people. Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his holy ones.” For we can render nothing more to the Lord for the benefits we have received than to take the cup of salvation eagerly, and to call upon the name of the Lord in order to drink it; and in drinking it to the end one pays all his vows to the Lord before all his people. And he taught clearly here what the cup is, by adding to the words about the cup: “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his holy ones.” In concept, martyrdom is two things, one of which is called the cup of salvation and the other baptism. Insofar as one endures the pains, it is a cup, drunk to the end by the one who bears all that is brought upon him, taking up and as it were drinking the pains, and not thrusting them away nor casting them out and vomiting them. And insofar as the one who has endured receives forgiveness of sins, it is baptism. For if baptism promises forgiveness of sins, as we have received concerning the baptism in water and Spirit, and the one who has endured the baptism of martyrdom also receives forgiveness of sins, martyrdom might reasonably be called baptism. And that forgiveness of sins comes to the one who has endured martyrdom is clear from the words: “Everyone who confesses me before men, I too will confess him before my Father in heaven.” The Saviour confesses before the Father in heaven everyone who has confessed, even if before the confession he happened to have sinned in any way whatever; for if he will not confess those who have sinned in any way whatever, the words “Everyone, then, who will confess me,” and what follows, will not be true. But I do not think that the Saviour will confess before the Father in heaven one who remains guilty of any sin whatever; for confession before the Father belongs to one who speaks boldly about the one confessed, as worthy of confession before the Father. And let it not unsettle us that in Mark the Saviour both drinks the cup and is baptized with the baptism. For when John “came into all the region around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins,” Jesus too comes to John to be baptized by him, as though washing away our sins, so that we too may be cleansed by his washing; or rather, our being cleansed is shown by his martyrdom, inasmuch as he was baptized taking up our sins, in order to loose them both from us and from himself. Therefore “the death he died, he died to our sin,” since he died to sin—not his own, but ours—if indeed such a thing seems reasonable to some. And the sons of Zebedee drank the cup and were baptized with the baptism, since Herod killed James the brother of John with the sword, and the king of the Romans, as tradition teaches, condemned John, who bore witness for the word of truth, to the island of Patmos. John teaches about his own martyrdom without saying who condemned him, speaking thus in the Apocalypse: “I John, your brother and partner in the tribulation and the kingdom and the endurance in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God,” and what follows; and he seems to have seen the Apocalypse on the island.

But the one who adds to the explanation given of the cup and the baptism says something like this: Just as there is a food of the Saviour, about which he says, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his work,” so there is a cup corresponding to that food. It is bold to distinguish it from the food and to set it out in concrete terms; nevertheless let the one who is able consider whether the food is the practical life and the drink the contemplative. For corresponding to the eating, which consists in doing the will of the one who sent him and accomplishing his work, is the drinking of the will of the one who sent him and the perfecting of the knowledge of it. Whether the words, “My flesh is truly food, and my blood is truly drink,” can or cannot be referred to this distinction, you too will judge. For someone might say that action is truly food, and contemplation truly drink; and the one who says this will say that it is for this reason that he first gives the bread to the disciples, having blessed and broken it, since action comes first; and after this, “taking a cup and giving thanks, he gave it to them, saying, Drink of it, all of you,” since, when the matters of action have been set in order, one goes on to the contemplation of them. For according to the prophet it is said: “Sow for yourselves unto righteousness, gather the vintage unto the fruit of life,” so that first we may do what is needful; and after this he says: “Light for yourselves the light of knowledge.” For it is by a road, after purifying one’s character, that one would travel to knowledge and be enlightened in it. These things too have been said by way of digression, for the deeper examination of the cup. And in the twenty-second Psalm there is said first, “You have prepared a table before me, over against those who afflict me”; and next, “Your cup, intoxicating me, as the very best.” Let the reader of this writing not reproach us on the ground that we ought somehow to have explained the recorded sittings of God or of Christ; for we answer that our purpose was only to put to shame, by the texts about sitting, the lower interpretation, and to draw the reader away from it. For one would need at another time to make a special inquiry about the sitting, standing, and walking of Christ, which the present explanation does not require; for the digression would have become very great and untimely.

When these things had been said by the Saviour in answer to the request of the mother of John and James, or of the sons of Zebedee themselves, “when the ten heard it,” he says, “they were indignant at the two brothers,” as men who had asked to be preferred to the rest. Notice that Judas too was among those who were indignant; Mark too recorded this. And if he was among those indignant with the other nine, perhaps the devil had not yet put it into his heart to betray our Lord himself, but Judas was still one of the apostles in his choice as well. Having said much about him earlier, we do not now take up again the task of showing that Judas, though of the same choice as the rest, fell, and fell into the snare of the evil one, both loving money and betraying the Saviour. “But Jesus called them to him and said, You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them,” and so on, up to “and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Mark too recorded what is equivalent to these words. We have observed, as in many other cases, that Matthew and Mark keep the order of what is recorded, whether healings or sayings; and so it is here too. For next, everything from “And as Jesus was about to go up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve aside privately,” up to “and he will send them at once,” Mark too has kept in order, from “And they were on the road, going up to Jerusalem,” up to “and he will send it back here at once.” And you, by placing the Gospels side by side at these places and comparing them, will find that what is said is so. Luke, however, recorded the like in part, putting before it the words, “And there arose a dispute among them, which of them was the greatest”; for after these he adds: “And he said to them, The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who have authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you,” and so on. Let this be said so that we may not overlook the equivalence of this passage as kept by Matthew and Mark, and in part by Luke. Now we must examine also the sense of what is said. It has been said already that James and John laid claim to the first places with Jesus and asked to be granted to sit at his right and his left in his kingdom, or that their mother asked this for them; and that at this the other ten, as men who themselves also laid claim to the first places with Jesus, were indignant, if James and John wished to snatch for themselves, as being above the other ten, nearness to Jesus in glory. These things having been said beforehand, as was fitting, Jesus calls either the ten who were indignant or the other two with them as well, and teaches the way by which one will be great and first with God. What was said was this: that the rulers of the Gentiles, or those who think they rule them, not content with being lords of their subjects, but wishing to rule them more violently, lord it over them; and likewise those who are great among the Gentiles in the rank of this life are not content with having authority over their subjects, but rise up against them and exercise authority over them. But among you, my disciples, let these things not be; and let not those who have been entrusted with some rule over those who believe in me, or are thought to have authority in the church of my Father and God, lord it over their own brothers, or exercise authority over those who have taken refuge in the godliness that comes through me. But if anyone wishes to be judged great by my Father, and to excel in comparison with his brothers, let him serve all those than whom he wishes to be greater. And if anyone longs for the first places with me, let him know that he will be first of no one whom he did not serve, when he could, with a service in moderation and praiseworthy humility, able to benefit the one who serves and to profit or refresh those who are served. Luke brings kings and those who have authority over the Gentiles into the saying, turning away the one who wishes to be greater among the brothers from imitating royal authority, or the desire for flattery of those in authority; and he teaches us that the one who is truly greater among us should become as the younger, that is, as a child, for the sake of unpretentiousness and equality; and the one who leads (by which, I think, he names the one called bishop in the churches) as one who serves those who are waited upon. These things the Word of God teaches. But we, either not understanding the intent of Jesus’ teaching in these words, or despising such great counsels of the Saviour, are such that we sometimes surpass even the conceit of the wicked rulers among the Gentiles, and all but seek bodyguards like kings; and making ourselves fearsome and hard of access, especially to the poor, we behave toward those who come to us and ask us for something as not even tyrants and the harsher rulers behave toward suppliants. And one can see in many churches, as they are thought to be, and especially in those of the larger cities, the leaders of the people of God allowing no one, sometimes not even the best of Jesus’ disciples, to speak with them as equals. The Apostle gives a command to masters about their servants, saying, “Masters, grant your slaves what is just and equal, knowing that you too have a Lord in heaven”; and he teaches masters to forbear threatening their servants. But one can see some threatening, sometimes on the pretext of sin, sometimes from contempt for the poor, contrary to the apostolic word in which it is said, “They gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcision; only that we should remember the poor”; and again not even imagining equality toward those under them, nor that it is fitting for Christians above all to live without conceit and in equality, and especially for those who bear some eminence of ecclesiastical name. For it is written: “The greater you are, the more humble yourself, and you will find favour before the Lord.” We ought also to know what is said in Proverbs: “Before ruin a man’s heart is exalted, and before glory it is humbled”; and to avoid falling into thinking or saying the word spoken by the one who wished to justify himself before Jesus when he taught, “You shall love your neighbour as yourself,” and who was not ashamed to say to the Saviour, “And who is my neighbour?” We ought also to have read in Paul: “Though we could have been a burden as apostles of Christ, we became gentle among you, as a nurse cherishes her own children.” We ought to imitate also the words: “Or did I commit a sin in humbling myself so that you might be exalted?” Let the rulers of the Gentiles, then, lord it over them, but let the rulers of the church serve it; and let the great among the Gentiles exercise authority over them, but let those of the faithful hear: “Learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.” And let us be trained not to accept flattery, nor to be glad to be called benefactors by men for whatever good we seem to have done to some. We do not say these things wishing to humble ourselves without understanding “under the mighty hand of God,” and, according to his word, under the church’s ministry. There are times when one must, according to the apostolic word, “reprove those who sin before all, so that the rest also may stand in fear”; and there are times when one must, using one’s authority, “hand someone over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.” But such a thing must be done rarely; for one must “admonish the disorderly, encourage the faint-hearted, help the weak, be patient toward all, and render to no one evil for evil.” And one must not consider the sinner an enemy, but hear the Apostle saying, “Do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.” These things have been said by me because I wish to show, according to the saying, that the ruler of the church must not imitate the ruler of the Gentiles, nor emulate those who lord it over others and exercise authority, or kings; but, as far as possible, one must imitate in these matters too Christ, who …, and who conversed with women and laid his hands on children. And even if Jesus’ pouring water into a basin and cleansing the feet of the disciples has a greater meaning, no less must we hear him, according to the letter too, when he says about these things, “You call me Teacher and Lord, and you say well, for so I am,” and what follows; for by these words he teaches the disciples to become imitators of his praiseworthy humility. And perhaps it is because, being Lord, he served the human race for the salvation of men, that he is said to have taken the form of a servant and to have humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death; and if it was for this that God highly exalted him, let the one who wishes to be exalted do things like those for which one is highly exalted. For the Son of Man, even if he was served—when “angels came and ministered to him,” and again when he was served by Martha—did not come for this, to be served; for he came to dwell among the human race in order to serve, and to go so far in serving our salvation as to give his own life as a ransom for many, those who believed in him; and if, by hypothesis, all had believed in him, he would have given his life as a ransom for all. To whom did he give his life as a ransom for many? Surely not to God. Was it, then, to the evil one? For he held us fast until the ransom for us, the soul of Jesus, should be given to him—he being deceived, as though he could master it, and not seeing that he cannot bear the torment of holding it. Therefore death too, having seemed to master him, no longer masters him, since he became “free among the dead,” and stronger than the authority of death; and so much stronger that all of those held by death who wish to follow him can follow him, death no longer having any power against them; for everyone who is with Jesus is beyond the reach of death. In the words of the Gospel under examination, then, it is written that our Saviour “gave his own life as a ransom for many”; and in Peter it is said that “we were ransomed from our futile way of life inherited from our fathers, not with perishable things, silver and gold, but with precious blood”; and the Apostle says, “You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.” We were bought, then, with the precious blood of Jesus, and the soul of the Son of God was given as a ransom for us—not his spirit, for he had earlier committed it to the Father, saying, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit”; nor his body, for we have found nothing of the kind written about it. And since his soul was given as a ransom for many, but did not remain with the one to whom it was given as a ransom for many, he says in the fifteenth Psalm: “You will not abandon my soul to Hades.” Having once come to this passage, I would remind those who, under an appearance of glorifying Christ, have confused what concerns the Firstborn of all creation with what concerns the soul and the body of Jesus, and perhaps his spirit too, and who think that what was seen and came to dwell in this life is one and wholly uncompounded, that they do not speak soundly. For let us ask them whether the … “of the image of the invisible God,” and the preeminence of “the Firstborn of all creation”—whether he “in whom all things were created, in the heavens and on the earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or lordships or principalities or authorities”—was given as a ransom for many; and to whom that was given as a ransom—to an enemy who held us captive until he should receive the ransom?—and whether that enemy could receive so great and so mighty a ransom for the captives. I do not say these things as despising the soul of Jesus and making it small, but because I hold that this soul was given as a ransom by the whole Saviour, as far as was possible, while that preeminence and divinity could not have been given as a ransom. Yet today I do not separate Jesus from the Christ; much rather I know that Jesus the Christ, and his soul, are one with “the Firstborn of all creation”; and his body too, so that, if one must so name it, this whole is one even more than “he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit.” [On the two …]

“And as they went out from Jericho, a great crowd followed him; and behold, two blind men sitting by the road,” and so on. Let the narrative of the passage be true: that, as Jesus went out from Jericho with his disciples, a great crowd followed him; and that two blind men sitting by the road leading out of Jericho, hearing that Jesus was passing that place, themselves cried out and said, “Have mercy on us, Lord, son of David,” and agreed together in crying out to say what is recorded; and that because of the blind men who asked for mercy Jesus stopped and called them, so as not to call them while passing by and going past. And standing and inquiring, let him have said to them, “What do you want me to do for you?” And let the blind men, now setting out their request more particularly, have said to him that they wanted their eyes to be opened by Jesus. And let our humane and compassionate Saviour, moved with compassion for the blind men—moved, I think, because they had first offered what calls forth, if I may so name it, the mercy of Jesus, namely their crying out, “Have mercy on us, Lord, son of David,” and their asking, in faith, that their eyes be opened—touching their eyes and instilling healing power into them through the touch, have made the blind men see; and let them have followed Jesus with thanksgiving. And let one who believes these things, and knows the words, “Unless you believe, you will not understand,” receive understanding from his having believed, in proportion to his faith; and having received it, let him speak about these things, interpreting them after laying the foundation of faith concerning them, according to the words, “I believed, therefore I spoke.” And let such a one not only believe Jesus and what is recorded in this passage, but also know its meaning; for the one who remains in the truth of faith, and abides in the Word through the works of the word, according to Jesus’ promise, knows the truth and is made free by it. And we too—since if we do not believe we do not understand the intent of what is said, but when we understand, we understand from believing—come, let us set out, as far as we can, what occurs to us on the passage, having prayed to him who delivers us from the gospel’s being veiled to us. And first let us consider what it means that, as the disciples of Jesus went out from Jericho with the Saviour, a great crowd followed him. See, then, whether you can—remembering what we dictated on the parable in the Gospel according to Luke, “A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers”—say, on reflection, that here too Jericho is a symbol of the earthly place commonly called in Scripture the world. The one going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, Adam—that is, man—fell among robbers; and because of the many in Jericho (for a great crowd is in Jericho), let our Jesus, having come into it together with his disciples, go out from it doing his business, and by having entered Jericho, guide those who wish to follow. For those in Jericho do not know how to go out from the worldly mind unless they see not only Jesus going out from Jericho but also his disciples; and seeing this, a great crowd follows him. And by considering those who wish to live according to the word, and to despise the world and earthly things, following Jesus and his disciples and walking in their footsteps as they go out from Jericho, one can see what the passage is about. The great crowd follows Jesus so that, walking behind him and using him as their guide, they may come to Jerusalem.

A little later, then, it is added: “When they drew near to Jerusalem and came to Bethphage, to the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent the disciples,” and so on. But next is written, as though the word were pointing to the blind men who were about to be healed: “And behold, two blind men sitting by the road, hearing that Jesus was passing by, cried out, saying, Have mercy on us, Lord, son of David.” And notice in these words, “And behold, two blind men,” whether the “behold” does not contain a pointing. If, then, we can follow the word that points out the two blind men, and see them, we shall say that Israel and the Jews before the coming of Jesus were blind, yet “sitting by the road,” in that they spent their time in the law and the prophets: blind, because before the coming of Jesus into their souls the true word in the law and the prophets was not seen by them; and crying out, “Have mercy on us, Lord, son of David,” because they were aware that they did not see the intent of the writings, and wished to recover their sight and see the glory in them. As men still blind and imagining nothing great about Jesus, but understanding only what concerned him according to the flesh, they call the one who came from the seed of David according to the flesh “son of David,” since they understood nothing more than this; and all their great voice, which seemed to come from godliness, knew nothing more to say about the Saviour than that he was the son of David. And if I say that the two blind men are Israel and Judah before the coming of Jesus into their soul, lead yourself up to the books of Kingdoms, and consider the people divided in the times of Rehoboam into Israel and Judah; and next see the prophets prophesying sometimes to Israel, sometimes to Judah, and in some places to both together. How they prophesy to each separately you would find by attending to the reading of the prophets; and to Israel and Judah together, when through Jesus God promises “to accomplish for the house of Judah a new covenant, not according to the covenant which God made with the fathers” when they went out from the land of Egypt. And being blind, Israel—which we have often explained, distinguishing it from Israel according to the flesh—and Judah likewise, “hearing that Jesus was passing by, cried out.” Hearing, he says—for, I think, hearing from those who preach the coming of Jesus, and that he is passing by Jericho, which will pass away, coming into it but about to go out from it, they take care lest he pass them by without their receiving mercy; and therefore they cried out to him, saying, “Have mercy on us, Lord, son of David.” And when the Saviour does good he does not pass by but stands still, so that, as he stands, the benefaction may not flow past and pass by, but may come to those who are benefited as from a standing spring.

Jesus, then, standing still, and struck by their cry and their request, calls them to himself, already making the beginning of the benefaction when he called them; for he would not have called in vain, with nothing accomplished in those he called. Would that, when we too cry out to him and say, “Have mercy on us, Lord,” he would call us, as we begin from “son of David,” and would stand still and call us, as one attending to our request. He said, then, to them: “What do you want me to do for you?” This, I think, means: Present what you want, make it plain, so that all who are going out from Jericho and following me may hear and see what happens. And they answered: “Lord, that our eyes may be opened.” This answer is given by those who are well-born, as being from Israel and Judah, but who have been blinded by wickedness and are aware of it, and who, having heard what is said about the Saviour, speak to him and say that they wish their eyes to be opened. And this is said above all by those who, in reading the holy Scripture, are not insensible of their own blindness to the meaning in it; for these say, “Have mercy on us,” and, “We wish our eyes to be opened.” Would that we too, perceiving in what respects we are blind and do not see, sitting beside the very road of the Scriptures, and hearing that Jesus is passing by, might make him stand still by our request, and might say that we wish our eyes to be opened. If we say this from a disposition that longs to see what Jesus grants us to see when he touches the eyes of the soul, our Saviour will be moved with compassion; and, being Power and Word and Wisdom and all that is recorded of him, he will touch our eyes, which did not see before he came; and when he has touched them, darkness and ignorance will flee, and at once we shall not only recover our sight but also follow him—he himself working with our recovered sight, beside him, so that we do nothing else than follow the one who made us see again—so that, always following him, we may be guided by him to God, and may see God with our eyes that have recovered their sight through him, together with those who are blessed for having a pure heart. We have, then, those who go out from Jericho and follow Jesus, a great crowd, who are neither Israel nor Judah; and the two blind men who heard that Jesus was passing by, knew that he is the son of David, were aware of their own blindness, and asked that their eyes be opened—Israel and Judah, as explained, whose eyes were closed and shut, … recover their sight through Jesus. So much according to Matthew.

Since Mark and Luke, according to some, set out the same narrative, but according to others another, similar one, it is worth looking at theirs too. And first we must consider the account in Mark, who recorded the passage thus: “And he comes to Jericho; and as he was going out from there with his disciples and a considerable crowd, behold, the son of Timaeus, Bartimaeus, a blind man,” and so on, up to “and he followed him on the road.” The one who stands by the bare narrative, and does not wish the evangelists to disagree, will say that what is in Matthew and what is in Mark did not happen at the same time, but that the events concerning the two blind men who recovered their sight happened at one visit to Jericho, those concerning this one man, the son of Timaeus, Bartimaeus, at another, and those in Luke at another. For if we believe that the Gospels were recorded accurately, with the Holy Spirit working together with the writers, and that those who wrote them did not err in their recollections, then clearly—since it cannot be true at one and the same visit that two blind men were healed and that one was—one visit is indicated by Matthew, another by Mark, and yet another by Luke, as one who has considered it can confidently declare from the difference between it and the others. And it is nothing surprising that one of those in Jericho, having observed the earlier healing, should have wished to be healed by the same words and a like request, and in the same place. Someone might speak in this way; and he might say also that the blind man healed in Luke is another. But one who seeks a deeper explanation of all these will say that one and the same matter is presented in different words. For there are two blind men, as was explained, Israel and Judah; but the people made up of all these is one, when one blind man is shown being healed. While a considerable crowd from the nations goes out with Jesus and his disciples from worldly things, a certain Israelite remnant, sitting by the road, poor in thoughts and begging for what the soul needs, having heard that it is Jesus the Nazarene, comes crying out loudly, asking the Saviour, as son of David, to grant it mercy. And when you see the faith about the Saviour of those from the Jews who believe in Jesus—sometimes thinking him to be the son of Mary and Joseph, sometimes of Mary alone and the divine Spirit, yet without the theology concerning him—you will see how this blind man says, “Son of David, have mercy on me,” and many rebuke him. For many are those from the nations who go out from Jericho, rebuking the poverty of those from the Jews who seem to believe. And if you refer such things to the noble soul that has become poor and come even to begging, you will not altogether miss the meaning. And since Mark saw fit to record also the name of the blind man’s father, that it was Timaeus, and that of the blind man, that he was called Bartimaeus, we ask whether Mark perceived something deeper in the passage, and perhaps of necessity took the name from the narrative and added it—or, someone might say, made use of it as something useful. And if we shall not seem to be over-subtle in going so far as to examine such things, we inquire into Timaeus, named from honour, and his son Bartimaeus, which means son of Timaeus. Perhaps, because of the honour of the patriarch Jacob and Israel, he, figuratively, is Timaeus; and those who have obtained their good birth from him are Bartimaeus, blind for the reasons stated before, and likewise sitting by the road and begging. Then, since, when he said, “Son of David, have mercy on me,” many rebuked him to be silent, I ask whether you can say that the many who rebuke the Ebionite—who is poor as regards faith in Jesus—to be silent are those from the nations, who, all but a few, have believed that he was born of a virgin, and who rebuke, to silence him, the one who thinks that he is from the seed of a man and a woman tracing their descent from David. But though many rebuked him, he cried out much more, believing in Jesus, but believing in a more human way; and crying out he says, “Son of David, have mercy on me.” But the humane Saviour stopped, and no longer calls him himself, as in Matthew, but said that he should be called; and those who were bidden said to him, “Take heart, rise”; for they say to him, as he sits and has sunk down, “Rise,” and they say, “He is calling you.” After this Mark says that, throwing off his cloak, he leapt up and came to Jesus. Did he, then, record without any thought that he threw off his cloak and leapt up and came to Jesus, and shall we dare to say that these things were thrown into the Gospel in vain? I, for my part, do not believe that one iota or one stroke is empty of divine teachings; but I think that to succeed in interpreting them needs much reasoning, because the matters are hard to interpret. Perhaps, then, the coverings of a blind man and a beggar, in which Bartimaeus was wrapped, are indicated; these the blind man threw off when he heard, “Take heart, rise, he is calling you.” And throwing off the coverings and wraps of begging, he leapt up and rose to come to Jesus; and obtaining from him the answer to his request, “What do you want me to do?”, he too spoke a greater word than “Son of David, have mercy on me.” For something greater is conceived by the one who says “Rabbouni” than “son of David,” and who sets out the kind of mercy he seeks by saying “that I may recover my sight.” And the Saviour does not give the benefaction for “Son of David, have mercy on me,” neither while the cloak of begging was around him, nor while he sat by the road begging; but for “Rabbouni, that I may recover my sight,” he said to him, “Go, your faith has saved you.” And the Saviour said to him, “Go”; but he did something better than this command; for he did not go away, but followed Jesus on the road, since he immediately recovered his sight.

Let us look also at Luke’s account, which runs thus: “And it came to pass, as he drew near to Jericho, a certain blind man was sitting by the road begging,” and so on, up to “And all the people, when they saw it, gave praise to God.” What this has in common with the other accounts, which have already received the explanation that appeared to us, we shall not take up again; but what is timely and peculiar to it we shall set out as well as we can. And first observe that Matthew and Mark recorded that the events concerning the blind men, or the blind man, took place as Jesus was going out from Jericho with the disciples; but Luke says, “And it came to pass, as he drew near to Jericho.” According to Luke, then, he carries out the ordering concerning the blind man as he is entering Jericho and has come near it. And someone might say, according to the mystical sense, that Luke’s account is first, Mark’s second, and Matthew’s third; for one must first draw near to Jericho, then enter it, and then go out from it. Luke, then, recorded, “It came to pass, as he drew near to Jericho”; Mark, “And he comes to Jericho; and as he was going out from there”; while Matthew recorded neither the drawing near to Jericho nor that he comes to Jericho, but only that “as they went out from Jericho, a great crowd followed him.” He can therefore have done what is in Luke as he drew near to Jericho, what is in Mark as he came into Jericho, and what is in Matthew as he went out from it. You see also that the blind man in Luke, “hearing a crowd passing through”—and not, mark you, Jesus—“inquired what this might be”; the one in Mark, “hearing that it is Jesus the Nazarene, began to cry out”; and the two blind men in Matthew, sitting by the road, hearing that Jesus was passing by, cried out. And for the blind men in Matthew he is not “Jesus the Nazarene,” but he is for the others: the one in Mark hears that it is Jesus the Nazarene, and the one in Luke, when he inquired of the crowd what this might be, learned from those who told him that Jesus the Nazarene was passing by. Next to this, observe that when the blind man cried out, saying, “Son of David, have mercy on me,” those who went in front rebuked him, that he should be silent; as if it said: those who believed first rebuked the one who said “son of David,” that he should be silent and not proclaim him by the lesser name, but say, as it were, “Son of God, have mercy on me.” But he cried out much more, “Son of David, have mercy on me.” Then, it says, “Jesus stood still and commanded him to be brought to him.” And see whether, as we have observed, this blind man is not lower than the others; for Jesus neither called him nor said that he should be called, but, since he could not receive these things, commanded that he, who could not come to him by himself, be brought to him. Then, it says, “when he had come near, he asked him, saying, What do you want me to do for you?” And he did not ask him before,

… until the one who was asked had come near to him; and since he had come near, being asked for this reason, he said: “That I may recover my sight, Lord.” Then, it says, “Jesus answered and said to him, Recover your sight; your faith has saved you.” The blind men in Matthew have more, for of them it is written that Jesus, moved with compassion, touched their eyes; but he touched neither the one in Mark nor the one in Luke. Yet again the one in Luke has a certain advantage, since when he immediately recovered his sight he not only followed him but had something more than the others: “he followed him,” it says, “glorifying God”; and the outcome of this, in the man who followed and glorified God, was that all the crowd, when they saw it, gave praise to God. These are the things we have seen for the present on these passages, whether by our own knowledge or by receiving them; but may God give to whom he wills a richer word of wisdom and a clearer word in the light of knowledge, so that these things, compared with what comes from such gifts, may be found to be like a lamp beside the sun. [On the ass and the colt.] “And when they drew near to Jerusalem and came to Bethphage, to the Mount of Olives,” and so on, up to “upon an ass and a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.” And Mark recorded the passage thus: “And when they draw near to Jerusalem and to Bethany, to the Mount of Olives,” and so on, up to “and he will send it at once”; and Luke, saying these things in this way: “He went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem,” and so on, up to “Thus you shall say: The Lord has need of it.” It is worthwhile, especially with such sayings of the Gospel, to attend to the intent and purpose of those who recorded them: with what aim they recorded, besides the wonderful and extraordinary things done by the Saviour, things that show nothing of that kind. For granted that the evangelists treated of the recovery of sight by the blind, the healing of the paralysed, the raising of the dead, and the cleansing of lepers, to build up faith in Jesus in those who would read their writing, what do they mean by the saying before us: that when Jesus drew near to Jerusalem with his disciples and came to Bethphage, near the Mount of Olives, he sent two disciples, commanding them about an ass and a colt, that they should untie them and bring them to him—he who sometimes did not shrink from going a longer way on foot and finishing the journey on his own feet, as when, passing from Jerusalem through Samaria, he reached the well and, wearied from the journey, sat down beside it? And what was Jesus’ own purpose in ordering an ass that was tied with a colt to be untied, and in commanding them to say to anyone who said anything about it that the Lord has need of them, and that he will send them at once? For let so great a Lord, having need of an ass and a colt that had long been tied, show something worthy of his magnificence. The prophet Zechariah, the son of Barachiah, heightens the inquiry on this passage, having prophesied about these things a prophecy worth attention. It is written in these very words: “Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion; proclaim, daughter of Jerusalem; behold, your King comes to you, just and saving; he is meek, and mounted on a beast of burden and a young colt.” And if you wish to learn from the Prophet how the things prophesied are worthy of joy for the daughter of Zion, so that “Rejoice greatly” is said, hear: “And he will destroy chariots from Ephraim and the horse from Jerusalem, and the bow of war will be destroyed, and a multitude, and peace from the nations; and he will rule the waters as far as the sea, and the rivers to the ends of the earth. And you, by the blood of the covenant, have sent out your prisoners from a pit that has no water. You shall dwell in a stronghold, prisoners of the synagogue, and for one day of your sojourning I will repay you double.” And so as not to lengthen the discourse further, let us leave it to anyone who wishes to compare the prophecy with the narrative of the Gospel, and to examine everything in these passages, the text lying at hand. We have noted, as in other cases, that Matthew and John did not set out the prophecy in its very words. For “Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion” is not the same as “Say to the daughter of Zion.” And after “Behold, your King comes to you,” Matthew did not set out the words that precede “meek,” which run, “just and saving is he”; and further, in place of “and a young colt”—or, as in some copies, “a colt of a beast of burden”—he has “and mounted on an ass, and a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.” And John, in place of “mounted on a beast of burden,” has made it, “sitting on an ass’s colt he comes”; and he, showing that the passage needs knowledge, adds: “These things his disciples did not understand at first.”

… how reasonably, according to the Prophet, the daughter of Zion is commanded to rejoice greatly, and the daughter of Jerusalem to proclaim, because of the one mounted on a beast of burden and a young colt, when a little later, seeing Jerusalem, he wept: “You who kill the prophets,” and so on. Consider, then, whether you can say that Zion, now called the daughter of the one who commands her to rejoice, and Jerusalem, called in turn the daughter of the one who bids her proclaim, are the heavenly things, about which it is written in the Letter to the Hebrews: “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels in festal gathering”; and in the Letter to the Galatians: “But the Jerusalem above is free, which is our mother.” For perhaps these things are symbols of the Saviour’s having loosed from their bonds, through his disciples, his own mounts—those who then believed from that people and those from the nations. For the Synagogue of old was bound by sins; and bound with her was the colt, the people from the nations who later became new. And as the Saviour drew near to the ascent to the Jerusalem above, he commanded both of these to be loosed by the disciples through their teaching, giving them the Holy Spirit and saying: “Receive the Holy Spirit; if you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” And the disciples, “whom he made sufficient as ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the spirit,” always loose the tied ass and the colt and lead them to Jesus, who wishes to use as his mount those who have been loosed from their ancient bonds by his true disciples. And it befits the Son of God so to have need—for he loves humankind—of the tied ass and of the colt tied with her; and he has need of them so that, sitting upon them, he may give rest to those on whom he sits rather than take rest himself.

But someone will ask how the words that follow will be consistent with what has been explained; they run: “And he will send them at once,” and, “And he will send it back here at once.” You will solve the difficulty by inquiring into the sending of either the two animals in Matthew or the colt in Mark. That the Lord of the tied animals was none other than our “one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things,” whom none of those who said, “Why are you untying the colt?”, or anything else, was going to oppose at all, is clear. For the Saviour spoke as of people who would not oppose him: “And if anyone says anything to you, you shall say that the Lord has need of them”; or, “If anyone says to you, Why are you untying the colt? say that the Lord has need of it”; and according to Luke, “If anyone asks you,” he says, “Why are you untying it? you shall say thus: The Lord has need of it.” And you will inquire whether, after Jerusalem and after the Saviour had mounted these animals, or this one, there was to be some sending of them to some necessary work in the place, so that the ass and the colt might do some work according to what is left unsaid—implied, but not clearly shown. I gain a notion of such a thing by attending to the order of the beatitudes in Matthew, in which after “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven,” there is written next, “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” For observe in these that first the kingdom of heaven belongs to the blessed, and second they shall inherit the earth—not so as to be on it for every age; for having been comforted, and having been filled with righteousness through their hunger and thirst for it, and having obtained mercy, and seen God, and been called his sons, they are restored again to the kingdom of heaven. And if the ass and colt on which the Saviour mounts are those we have explained, do not stumble at the saying that compares to irrational beasts of burden those who carry Jesus riding upon them. For perhaps the Prophet too, understanding something of this kind, spoke of having become like a beast—not absolutely, but before God or before Christ—in the words: “And I became like a beast before you.” For in comparison with the Word himself and with the majesty of God, we are beasts—not only we, but also those far more rational and wiser than we. So too, in comparison with the reason of the shepherd we are his sheep, since the reason in men, even the most perfect, compared with the Word himself, is further removed from him than the soul of an ass or a sheep is from a man. And perhaps, when Jesus rides into Jerusalem, the beast of burden, or the colt, is such; but having come there, it no longer remains a beast of burden or a colt, but is sent back changed and benefited, having shared in the divinity of the Word and the excellence of knowledge, so that they are sent, to the glory of God, to the place from which they were first loosed, the Lord having transformed them and given them such a change as their wage for having carried him; so that they are sent back to their former place, but no longer to their former works. For our humane Lord, having once received them and honoured them both by releasing them from their bonds and by riding on them, was not going to send them back to their bonds, or to works lesser than the work they had done in receiving the Son of God on their backs. It was fitting, at such a mystery and at the words spoken with it, for God’s daughter Zion to rejoice greatly and to heighten her joy, the fruit of the Spirit, and for his daughter Jerusalem to proclaim. For her King was coming to her, just and saving—but keeping his justice, and saving with righteousness, and preparing for salvation those who are being saved. He came to Zion and Jerusalem meek and mounted on a beast of burden and a young colt, as we have explained, visiting Israel, by destroying the chariots from Ephraim, which were like the chariots of Pharaoh when he cast Pharaoh’s chariots and his army into the sea; and he came also destroying the horse, the animal of war, from Jerusalem, so as to make peace for Israel, turning back his lost sheep, and peace for Jerusalem too, bringing back her children who had fallen away. How should it not be worthy of great joy that the just King, saving and meek, should come thus to Jerusalem, when every bow of war was to be destroyed, so that no longer “do sinners bend the bow, and prepare arrows in the quiver, to shoot in the moonless night at the upright in heart”? And then there was to be a multitude and peace from the nations that believe and are saved, the Saviour ruling the waters as far as the sea, and ruling also the rivers through the outlets of the earth, which make passages through it and water much of it. But the one who wishes to take “daughter of Zion” and “daughter of Jerusalem” more simply, of the people among whom the Saviour dwelt, will say that the word commands the daughter of Zion to rejoice and the daughter of Jerusalem to proclaim; but if some disobeyed, not doing what was worthy of rejoicing nor accepting the command to proclaim, they themselves became the cause of their suffering what they suffered, so that it was said to them: “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you; since you judge yourselves unworthy, behold, we turn to the Gentiles.” One must know this too, that, having come upon five editions of Zechariah, we found in the Seventy and in Aquila, “He is meek, and mounted on a beast of burden and a young colt,” or, “on an ass and a colt, the son of she-asses”; in Theodotion, “He is hearkening, and mounted on an ass and a colt, the son of an ass”; in Symmachus, “He is poor, and mounted on an ass and a colt, the son of a she-ass”; and in the fifth edition, “He is poor, and mounted on a beast of burden and a colt, the son of asses.” And one can fit these to the narrative of the Gospel passage under examination, since the Saviour came to Jerusalem meek, and hearkening, and poor; for though he was rich he became poor, so that those who hear him who hearkens to us might become rich through his poverty.

Let us look at Bethphage in Matthew, Bethany in Mark, and Bethphage and Bethany in Luke. These were near the mount called the Mount of Olives. We say that Bethphage means “house of jaws,” and it was a place belonging to the priests; and Bethany “house of obedience.” To the house of obedience, then, the loosed animals, or the loosed animal, are led, so that from there Jesus may mount them; and to the house of the jaw, about which one may speak, taking a starting point from Judges, where there is a spring called “of the jaw,” from which Samson drank when he was thirsty. Or perhaps, since to the one who strikes us on the jaw we must offer the other also, Bethphage was a symbol of the forbearance of those who are saved, the place where Jesus sat upon the animals loosed by the disciples at his command. And it is the mount of the olive trees, which, bearing fruit, say, being good olive trees, “But I am like a fruitful olive tree in the house of God”; and those who are beginning and being brought in are among them, “like young olive shoots around” the “table” of Christ, being his little children and sons. And if we must also attend to the two disciples whom Jesus sent to the tied ass and the colt with her, so that they might untie them and bring them to him, we should say that perhaps the two disciples are Peter and Paul, who gave each other the right hand of fellowship, so that Peter might go to the circumcision, to the beast of burden that had been under the yoke of the law, and Paul to the nations, the young and untamed colt. And both of them—I mean the beast of burden and the colt—were, before Jesus came, in a village and not a city, where they were tied. But the disciples of Jesus loose them and lead both to Jesus. And further, raising the meaning of the two disciples, you will say that there is one order of those who minister to those of the circumcision and another of those who minister to those from the nations. Yet there is a fellowship in their works, as they loose what Jesus has commanded to be loosed; and while they loose them, if anyone says to them, “Why are you untying the colt?”, or anything else, he says about both: we preach that the Lord has need of these that were bound before. And he has need of them, mounting them when they have been loosed from their sins and have received forgiveness of them; for Jesus does not sit on those who are still bound and “held fast by the cords of their own sins.” According to Mark and Luke, however, “there is a colt tied, on which no one of men has ever sat”; for nothing rational and fittingly done had been done or seated on the colt from the nations; and this colt, on which nothing rational had sat before, had the good fortune that God sat on it, the Word, the Son of God, so that, led by him as he drove it, it might arrive at the Jerusalem of God. So much we have seen on the passage for the present; but let the one who is able, and who receives greater grace for the passage, say greater and better things, and let him rather be heard by those who thirst for the clear meaning of the Gospel.

“And the disciples went and did as Jesus had commanded them, and brought the ass and the colt,” and so on, up to “from Nazareth of Galilee.” Mark set out the passage thus: “And going away, they found a colt tied at the door, outside in the street, and they untie it,” and so on, up to “Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David; peace in the highest.” And Luke says this: “And those who were sent went away and found, as he had told them, the colt standing,” and so on, up to “If these are silent, the stones will cry out.” Consistently with what we explained about the two disciples sent to the tied ass and the colt with her, and with what was said on that passage, we shall explain the passage set before us, in which it is said that the two disciples went, did what the Saviour had commanded them, and brought him the ass and the colt. These they did not leave bare, but put adornment on them, providing seemliness with garments, adorning the ass they had loosed and the colt with her with the garments with which they themselves were adorned and covered, so that the Word of God might rest and be seated upon the ass and the colt, on the clothing of the disciples who taught, being alone above those who had been loosed and were carrying him. Jesus, then, sits on the garments of those who taught, which were placed on the ass and the colt. And since each wished to contribute something to the meek King mounted on a beast of burden and a young colt, and there was a very great crowd going up to Jerusalem with Jesus, … On the road, then, by which he led the ass and the colt to Jerusalem, the very great crowd spread their garments, so that … And third … the very great crowd … the garments on the road … the beauty of the road by which Jesus travelled, riding, to Jerusalem … of the branches cut from the trees and strewn … of the garments spread; unless this is a fourth order. For the disciples who loose are one; the ass and the colt with her another; third, the very great crowd; and fourth, those who cut branches from the trees and strew them on the road. And understand for me from these a fifth and a sixth order as well, of those who go before Jesus and of those who follow him. You will say that those who go before are from among the righteous of the people before his coming, perhaps the prophets too; and those who follow are from among those who, after his coming, follow the Word and go after him, whether the righteous or the apostles of Christ. Yet those who went before did not say one thing and those who followed another; for all cried out together, like a chorus singing in harmony and agreement, and they said, hymning both the humanity of the Saviour in the words, “Hosanna to the son of David,” and his second coming, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord,” and his restoration to the holy places, in the words, “Hosanna in the highest.”

When these three acclamations had been spoken by the harmony of those who went before and followed Jesus, he entered the true Jerusalem; and the heavenly powers, amazed—these are said to be the whole city—said, “Who is this?” This corresponds to what is prophesied in the twenty-third Psalm about the ascension of the Saviour and the amazement of the heavenly powers, amazed at the new sight of the bodily vehicle he bore. It runs thus in the Psalm: “Lift up your gates, O rulers, and be lifted up, everlasting doors, and the King of glory shall come in,” and so on. And in Isaiah similar things are prophesied about the Saviour’s ascent after the dispensation; for it is written: “Who is this who comes from Edom, with crimson garments from Bozrah, this one beautiful in his robe?” And you too, by reading the whole passage, will be able to understand what the amazed powers say at the ascent of the Saviour’s body, and what is answered them. These things I have adduced because I wish to keep the consistency of the figurative reading in Scripture of the words, “When he entered Jerusalem, the whole city was shaken, saying, Who is this?” After this it is written next that many said, “This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth of Galilee,” confessing the one of whom it was prophesied that “he shall be called a Nazarene,” the one who in the proper sense is always devoted to God. But let the passage be bounded by this explanation, and let what follows be the beginning of another section, so that no one may be compelled, by joining the explanation of what follows to what precedes, to look for certain persons who are cast out of the temple of God and rebuked for having made the house of prayer a den of robbers. And I do not know whether, even by forcing it, one can keep the whole consistency of what follows with the passage before us, in line with “Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion.” After this let us also examine what meaning the words have: “Hosanna to the son of David; blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord; hosanna in the highest.” The words “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord” stand clearly, in these very words, in the Psalm that comes before the greatest Psalm, which in some copies is numbered the hundred and seventeenth. And it seems to me that the words that precede “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord,” namely “O Lord, save now,” are set out in Hebrew in the words “Hosanna to the son of David.” And so the Hebrew text also ran: “Anna Adōnai ōseiennan, anna Adōnai asai, anna barouch abboab saim Adōnai.” Then it seems to me that, as the Gospels were constantly copied by Greeks who did not know the language, the copies that have these words at this place, taken from the Psalm mentioned, became confused. If you wish to learn the exact wording, hear Aquila, who translated it thus: “O Lord, save now; O Lord, prosper now; blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.” Now let us sum up the passage again, and say that either Paul and Peter, or the two kinds of teachers, having loosed from their bonds, at Jesus’ command, those from the circumcision and those from the uncircumcision, adorned them and made them fit for the Word to ride on them as he went up to Jerusalem; and the rest will be according to one explanation. According to another, it is always taking place among those who receive Jesus, who spread the road for him with their own garments, adorn it with branches, and go before and follow. And in another way, each person goes before Jesus by what he has already done, and follows him by what he will go on to do, and says what is recorded. On these things we have seen so much; but let one who surpasses us both see and teach more. However, we examined these things to some extent in one of the books on the Gospel according to John, when we had to explain the words, “The next day a great crowd that had come to the feast,” and so on. [On those cast out of the temple.]

“And Jesus entered the temple of God and cast out all who sold and bought in the temple,” and so on. The other three evangelists also set out this passage, but it is not the present occasion to explain how they differ from one another; for it will suffice to make clear, as far as we can, what is in the Gospel under examination. Since all four evangelists recorded the passage, we examined it more fully, as far as we could, when dictating on the Gospel according to John and making clear, as well as was possible, the words, “And he found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves,” and so on. There we show that this act of Jesus is no less than his extraordinary miracles: that he, who was thought to be the son of a carpenter, used such boldness and authority, casting out from the temple at a festival those who are recorded, that not even the ruler of the nation could easily have achieved what Jesus did. And there, having first served the letter, we interpreted John’s meaning figuratively, as far as we could. But since now too the order of our work requires us to speak about what is set out according to Matthew’s wording, let us call on the Father of wisdom and see whether we can say, with boldness, anything on the passage worthy of Jesus’ deed. And first we must say what the temple of God is, which God acknowledged when he said in the Prophet, “My house shall be called a house of prayer.” In correspondence with circumcision according to the flesh, and with the bodily feasts and sacrifices of the law, the structure of lifeless stones built first by Solomon and rebuilt again by Ezra, but destroyed by the Romans after the dispensation of the Saviour, was thought to be the temple of God, and that was supposed to be the house of prayer. Now that it has been destroyed, the Jews, as no longer having a house of prayer, must say that they no longer have the special oversight of God which they thought they had because they prayed in the house of prayer after performing the rites of the legal worship. Let our Saviour, then, who also made symbols of his own spiritual acts, have cast out bodily from that temple those who sold and bought, and have overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold doves, and have said the words set before us, for the conversion of the people of that time—who, instead of a solemn festival kept in the name of God, were busy with selling and buying, not in the proper place where one should sell and buy, but in the temple, where they ought to have come together to pray, as in a house of prayer. But they did in it what is contrary to prayer, selling and buying as in a house of trade, changing money, and sitting on seats to sell doves. And let our Jesus have put down the unseemliness of what was then done among the Jews, reproving those who, instead of keeping the feast according to the law, traded and lived in bodily luxury.

And now too I think that the temple built of living stones is the church, and that there are in it some who live not as in the church but as “waging war according to the flesh,” and who by their wickedness make the house of prayer of living stones a den of robbers. For who, considering the sins committed in some churches by those who think that the godliness of others is a means of gain—who, though they ought to live from the Gospel alone, do not do this, but gather wealth and much property—will not say that so great a mystery as the church has become a den of robbers? So that Jesus might say, about the sins committed in the living temple he built, both the words from the Psalms, “What profit is there in my blood, when I go down to corruption?”, and those from, I think, Hosea, where the soul of Jesus, displeased with the life of those who sin and seem to be in the temple, says: “Alas, for I have become like one gathering straw in the harvest, and like a gleaning in the vintage, when there is no ear of grain to eat the firstfruits. Alas, my soul, for the godly man has perished from the earth, and there is none among men who does right.” And if you stumble at Jesus’ saying these things, and saying, as he mourns our failings, “Alas, my soul,” examine together with them the words from the Gospel, where it is written that “seeing Jerusalem, he wept over it and said.” And all the more: if he reasonably wept over Jerusalem, more reasonably will he weep over the church, which was built to be a house of prayer but has become a den of robbers through the shameful love of gain and the luxury of some—and would that it were not also of the leaders of the people! But then Jesus entered the temple of God and cleansed it, casting out all who sold and bought in the temple, and overturning the tables of the money-changers together with the seats on which those who sold doves sat. And now, as long as those who gather together in assemblies in the name of Jesus Christ are not visited, there are those who sell and buy in the temple and do the rest, and Jesus nowhere appears to them to cast them out and save the rest, or to make even those cast out aware of their sin and enter the temple, no longer selling and buying or doing the rest. But when he visits our sins, and, as one who loves us, comes to scourge us as sons, so that he may receive us, then the power of Jesus will enter as we are gathered together with the Holy Spirit, and, entering, will cast out all who sell and buy in the temple—selling, and as it were bartering away, whatever good they had, and buying wicked things in its place, and doing these things in the temple of God, the church. Would that Jesus, entering the temple of the Father, the church, the house of prayer, might overturn the tables of the money-changers and lovers of money, who break up genuine silver into many cheap and worthless coins, so as to harm those whose money they change, while they themselves do not use the money for what is needful. And there are others in the temple who sell and buy the doves of Christ, and hand over “those who are guileless as doves”—who prayed and said, “Who will give me wings like a dove, and I will fly away and be at rest?” and were heard—to rulers to whom they ought not to be handed over.

And I think that the saying about those who sell doves fits those who hand over the churches to bishops, presbyters, or deacons who are greedy for shameful gain, tyrannical, ignorant, and irreverent; and for this reason Matthew and Mark named only the seats of those who sold doves, saying that they were overturned by Jesus. Would that those who boast of sitting on the seat of Moses, and who sell whole churches of doves and hand them over to such presiding officers, would hear these things with the meaning that befits the divine Scripture! Of such officers might be said what is said by the Lord in Jeremiah: “The leaders of my people did not know me; they are foolish sons and without understanding; they are wise to do evil, but how to do good they did not know”; and what is said, I think, in Micah thus: “The leaders of my people shall be cast out of their houses of luxury.” For if they had heard, they would not have sold the doves of Christ, but would have appointed rulers over them who spare the doves and provide for their salvation, and do not look around for one to sacrifice as a fat dove and feast on. And Jesus says to those who are cast out as sellers and buyers, and to the money-changers, and to those who sell doves, putting them to shame with the prophecies spoken as from the person of the Father, that what is written is: “My house shall be called a house of prayer.” For nothing else ought to be in the church of God than the radiance of every holy action, calling forth the oversight of God and reckoned as prayer before God; in this sense the words “Pray without ceasing” too are possible. “But you, such as you are, have by your wickedness made the house of prayer a den of robbers.” And one can find in many places that the affairs of what is thought to be the church have gradually so gone to ruin that the assembly gathered in the name of Christ differs in nothing from a den of robbers, so that it may be said to them: “Because of you my name is continually blasphemed among the Gentiles.” And if one must contend more earnestly with the letter of Scripture and explain more carefully the three kinds listed here, perhaps those among the people who devote themselves to nothing but the world, spending their time only in selling and buying, and who seldom persevere in prayer and in the works the divine Word requires, are those who sell and buy in the temple of God. And the deacons who do not administer the church’s money well, but are always handling it without managing it well, heaping up … wealth and money so as to grow rich from what is given for the poor—these are the money-changers, who have the tables of money which Jesus overturned. And the bishops and presbyters who have been entrusted with the first seats among the people, and who as it were sell off whole churches to those to whom they ought not, and appoint as rulers those whom they ought not—these are the sellers of doves, whose seats Jesus overturned. Let each, then, of those who sit on an ecclesiastical seat and “love the first seats in the synagogues” take heed lest he so sit on his seat that Jesus, when he comes, overturns it as deserving to be overturned. And let each of those who gather money from a diaconate, understanding the Scripture before us, no longer heap up silver on the tables, lest Jesus overturn them. And let those who are led by the cares and anxieties of this life into buying and selling take care lest Jesus come and cast them out of the temple, when the one cast out has not even the hope of entering again the place from which he was cast out. And it appears to me, as I search the Scripture set before us, that perhaps Jesus will do these things also at his second coming, at the expected divine judgment. For, entering the whole temple of God—the whole church, constituted in the name of Christ from the time the church was constituted until the completion of the age—he will cast out those whom he finds occupied with selling and buying among those thought to be in the temple of God; and those whom he finds to have set up tables and become money-changers he will reprove, overturning their tables and showing by his word how they have sinned with regard to money; and then he will overturn also the seats, as we explained them, of those who sell doves. But if anyone has none of these three kinds of fault and is found in the temple of God, let him take courage; for he will not be cast out by Jesus, nor will anything of his be overturned, nor will he be reproached as a robber for having made the house of prayer a den of robbers, when those are punished who by their robbery and injustice have made the house of prayer a den of robbers.

Having, then, given on the literal text the explanation that occurred to us, and applied it in two ways also to the church, come, let us next see whether the passage can also be understood in this way. No less than the church, every rational nature is by nature a temple of God, made to receive the glory of God—the glory of which it is written in the second book of Chronicles and the third of Kingdoms that it appeared in the temple after the building of it. This temple of God by nature, the soul, we who sin have filled with thoughts that sell and buy, and with other reasonings that look at everything in terms of money; and we who sin have filled it with still other thoughts that sell and barter away whatever holy remnant has come to be in our soul, which was a dove. Jesus, then, says to those who sin and are filled with robber thoughts: “It is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer; but you have made it a den of robbers.” Jesus, then, cast out of the temple the robbers who had made the house of prayer a den of robbers; and those who thought as the robbers did said about Jesus, “Crucify, crucify him,” and about the robber Barabbas, “Release Barabbas to us.” Therefore to this day the Jews do not have Jesus, for they have not believed in the Son of God; but they have with them … Barabbas the robber, from among the spiritual hosts of wickedness, who had already been seized and shut up in prison, and whom they asked to be released to their own hurt. Therefore Barabbas the robber rules the unbelieving Jews. [On the blind and lame healed in the temple.]

“And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple, and he healed them,” and so on, up to “Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes you have perfected praise.” What concerns the letter is clear. But, consistently with the higher interpretations given before, we must say that in the temple of God, the house of prayer, the church, not all are seeing, nor, if I may so name it, walking straight; for some of those gathered are blind and others lame. These, from being aware of their own blindness and lameness, and from knowing that it is the work of none but God and the Word of God to heal them, come to him and are healed.

After this it is written that the chief priests and the scribes, though they saw the wonders that Jesus did, and heard the children glorifying the Son of God in the temple, the church, were indignant, despising the children who hymned Jesus; and in their indignation they say to the Saviour, “Do you hear what these are saying?” And he, putting them to shame, answered, as it were: Though you have occupied yourselves so long with the divine Scriptures, up to this day, have you not read—so that you would not despise the little ones and children in the church who hymn me and my Father in heaven—that “Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes you have perfected praise”? Perhaps, then, as according to the narrative these chief priests and scribes are blameworthy, so also according to the higher sense there are some blameworthy chief priests, who do not adorn the name of the episcopate by their own life, nor are clothed with the “Manifestation and Truth.” These, then, though they see the wonders of God, nonetheless despise those in the church who are little ones and infants but hymn God and his Christ; and they are indignant at their progress, and accuse them before Jesus as sinning when they do not sin, and as disobedient when they keep all good order, and they say to him, “Do you hear what these are saying?” And we shall understand this still better if we consider how often those who are fervent in spirit, who expose themselves even to prison before the unbelievers, despise danger, and with all vigour practise purity and virginity, though they are unlearned in speech, are reproved as disorderly by the blameworthy chief priests, who accuse them before Jesus as though they themselves acted more righteously than such earnest and good children. But Jesus bears witness to the children, and charges the chief priests with ignorance by saying, “Have you never read, Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes you have perfected praise?” And when you see in the church those who, as in the First Letter of Peter, “like newborn babes long for the pure spiritual milk,” and who nurse and are given milk to drink, yet hymn God by their faith and their life, consider that “Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes you have perfected praise” is fulfilled in them. For God perfects praise for himself in such people, for whom Jesus, giving thanks to the Father, says: “I confess to you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for so it was,” and so on. [On the withered fig tree.]

“And leaving them, he went out of the city to Bethany,” and so on, up to “And whatever you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive.” Whom did Jesus leave when he went out of the city of Jerusalem, from which he went out and was in Bethany? Was it not the chief priests and scribes of the people, who saw the wonders that he did, and the children crying out in the temple and saying, “Hosanna to the son of David,” but were nonetheless indignant at those who praised Christ, and were reproved for this as not having understood “Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes you have perfected praise”? And since he left that Jerusalem and went outside it, it has fallen for this reason, and not one stone upon another was to remain, but it was to be thrown down until all was destroyed. He came to Bethany, the house of obedience, the church, where he also lodged and rested, since he had nowhere in Jerusalem to lay his head, such being the chief priests and scribes in it. And when he had rested in Bethany, the house of obedience—after the beginning of the founding of the church and of Christ’s rest in it—then he returns to the city which he had left and outside which he had gone; and as he returns to it he is hungry, and seeing a single fig tree by the road, the tree of the people, he came to it; and he found nothing edible in it, only an appearance of life, for there were leaves without fruit on the fig tree. Then, since this fig tree was living, he speaks to it, as to one that hears, the curse that befitted it. What was said was this: As long as the present age stands, may there be no more fruit in you. For this reason the synagogue of the Jews is fruitless, and this befalls it until the completion of the age, “until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in.” And the fig tree withered while Jesus was still dwelling in human life and living as a man. “And the disciples, when they saw it, marvelled, saying, How did the fig tree wither at once?” For with the eyes of the soul they saw the mystery of the withered fig tree, and they marvelled not so much at its withering as at its withering at once; for they saw that the fig tree, that people Israel, was dry. And to the disciples, who marvelled at having seen the fig tree withered at once, Jesus answered, confirming what had been said: “Truly, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, Be lifted up and cast into the sea, it will happen.” The disciples, then, who believe and do not doubt, also do what was done to the fig tree, saying to it, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you; since you do not judge yourselves worthy, behold, we turn to the Gentiles”; and by leaving it they wither it, so that its life-giving power may pass over to those from the nations, and the spirit that formerly held that people together may pass over to those from the nations. And besides the disciples’ doing what was done to the fig tree, the Word of God promises them that, if they have faith and do not doubt, they will say to the mountain he points out—the opposing power that is lifted up against men—“Be lifted up and cast into the sea,” and it happens. For the heavy mountain of wickedness, Satan, is lifted from each of those who are helped by the disciples of Jesus, being lifted by the one who conquered him, and is cast into the sea, the abyss, as he casts him into the place of punishment he deserves. And about this sea it is said in the Psalms: “This is the sea, great and wide; there ships pass, small creatures with great; this dragon, whom you formed to mock him.” And in another Psalm: “There you crushed the heads of the dragon”—clearly in the sea—and there “you crushed the head of the dragon; you gave him as food to the peoples, the Ethiopians.” The mountain that Jesus sees and points out is lifted, then, from each of those who are being prepared for salvation by the Word, and is cast into the sea at the word of a disciple of Jesus who succeeds in teaching, saying to the mountain in each of his hearers, “Be lifted up and cast into the sea”—saying it with faith and without doubting, so that what is said may happen. And all things whatever that the one who has faith and does not doubt asks in prayer, believing, he will receive.

And this is Bethany, where the friend of Jesus who rose from the dead lived. And everyone who obeys the word of God, and has the word of obedience established in himself, is a house of obedience and a Bethany, in which Jesus lodges and rests. And since we must draw from what is said matters worthy of the wisdom of God, by which the Gospels were written, consider whether, for those who understand more simply, the words “Leaving them, he went out of the city” are not superfluous; for how could he have been outside the city without leaving those with whom he was before? But for those who hear what is said with more understanding, he leaves the former entirely, because after them he comes to be with others, and not with them. Yet, having lodged in Bethany, he returns to the city without leaving Bethany; for he was both in Bethany and returning to the city. And Jesus was hungry, always wishing to partake of the fruits of the Spirit in the righteous; and his figs, if I may so name them, which he eats when hungry, are the love of the one who bears it, which is the first fruit of the Spirit, and joy, and peace, and patience, and the rest. As long as we bear these, we shall not be withered; but when we do not offer fruit to him when he comes upon us and seeks fruit to eat, it will be said to us, “May no fruit ever come from you again.” For apart from the explanation given before of the fig tree as the people, one may also refer the saying to each person as a fig tree, either withering, or bearing fruit, living, and being cultivated so as to bear more fruit. And perhaps, as in the case of the sowing—“the sower went out to sow, and some seeds fell beside the road, and the birds of the air came and devoured them; others on the rocks, others among the thorns, and others on the fine and good soil”—so there are different fig trees. If a fig tree is on the fine and good soil, it both bears fruit and offers it to Jesus when he is hungry; but when it is beside the road, like this one of which it is written, “And seeing a single fig tree by the road,” it gives no fruit to Jesus when he comes. For he finds nothing “on the fig tree beside the road but leaves only”; and so he says to it, since it was beside the road and had only leaves, an appearance of life but without fruit, “May no fruit ever come from you again.” As long, then, as he does not come to the fig tree, nor yet seek its fruit, but is patient, waiting to see whether perhaps the fig tree will bear fruit, it is not withered. But when he who hungers for our fruits stands by, and we are found to have nothing but the bare profession of faith, with no fruits accompanying it, we shall at once be withered, having lost even our seeming to be faithful. And one can find some such people who have borne the name of faith for a long time and have given the appearance of being alive, and yet are wholly dry; and because they bear no fruit, one can see them departing wholly from the Word and withering. Here, then, the fig tree that did not give fruit to the hungry Jesus is withered; another fig tree is ordered to be cut down, so that it may not waste the ground. Then the disciples, when they see someone withered after an appearance of life, marvel, saying, “How did the fig tree wither at once?” We shall understand it still better if we apply the passage to individuals, considering how in temptations Jesus asks for fruits: for example, in persecution, confession and martyrdom; and when a woman is mad with desire for someone, the self-control and chastity of Joseph; and so in each temptation the fruit that corresponds to it. And the one who is not prepared to give confession, or self-control, to Jesus when he hungers and stands by, is at once withered: the one who denies is withered, and likewise the one who commits sexual immorality, even though, in the time before the temptations, he showed a living power and wore, as it were, the leaves of the fig tree. And the disciples marvel at such cases, how Jesus came hungering and seeking fruit, and, not finding it, at once spoke, and it happened, and the fig tree that was not prepared to bear fruit withered at once. And often someone who has been a fig tree for many years does not wither; but when Jesus stands by in the time of temptation and demands the fruit, and he has not given it to him, he is at once withered, and loses the life of so many years. And this happens because, according to the Saviour’s word, “to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from the one who does not have, even what he seems to have will be taken away from him,” so that what he seems to have may not lie idle. And each of the disciples, if he has faith and does not doubt, does both what was done to the fig tree and what is said next.

And it is a task to show how a disciple of Jesus, having sought fruit on a fig tree and not found it, says to it, “May no fruit ever come from you again,” so that at his word too the fig tree withers at once. For this, think of someone who professes the things of the faith, and thinks that he eats and drinks in the name of Jesus, and that Jesus has taught in the streets of his soul. Then let a disciple come, seeking the fruit of wisdom and of the word in him, according to his profession of teaching divine things; and seeking and examining him by the word, let him find no fruit; and by this, showing him to those who look on as empty of Christ, let him show by the word that, harmed as he is by conceit, it is no longer possible for fruit ever to come from him. See, then, whether in such a case the one who has faith and does not doubt does to the fig tree something like what Jesus did. And it is better that the deceitful fig tree, thought to be alive but bearing no fruit, should be shown to be fruitless and appear dry through the words of Jesus’ disciple, than that it should deceive, by its seeming life and pretence, the hearts of the guileless and easily deceived. The withering of the fig tree, then, has appeared a good work both of Jesus and of his disciples. And on each unbelieving and lawless person, I think, a mountain lies, corresponding to his unbelief and lawlessness, which is lifted by the word of Jesus’ disciples and cast into the sea of his punishment. And all things whatever that the disciples of Jesus ask in prayer, believing, they will receive, as disciples who will ask nothing that is not fitting, and as obeying the Teacher, asking for nothing but the great and heavenly things. For Jesus said to his disciples: “Ask for the great things, and the small will be added to you; and ask for the heavenly things, and the earthly will be added to you.”

Mark, in recording this passage, added something that seems incongruous as regards the letter, writing that “Jesus, seeing from afar a fig tree in leaf, came to see whether he would find anything on it; and when he came to it he found nothing but leaves only, for it was not the season for figs; and he answered and said to it, May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” For someone might say: If it was not the season for figs, how did Jesus come to see whether he would find anything on it, and how was it just for him to say to it, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again”? To this it will be said that the fruits of the Spirit listed by the Apostle—love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, gentleness, self-control—are sometimes rendered in their own season; but it is better if, when circumstances call one toward what is contrary to bearing fruit, a person can, because he has been greatly helped by the Word, give the fruits of the Spirit nonetheless, even then. What I mean is this. One of the fruits of the Spirit is love. Its season is when it is not hard to return the fruit of being loved; and to love the one who loves is indeed a fruit of the Spirit, but not out of the season, if I may so name it, for figs. But when someone provokes the believer to hatred, acting and plotting in such a way, and being so corrupted in his character, that he seems to deserve to be hated, and the righteous man does not hate even such a one, but, as a son “of him who makes his sun rise on the evil and the good,” loves him even then—giving the fruit of love, as it were, out of the season for figs—he is blessed. You will understand the like with joy as well. To bear the fruit of the Spirit, joy, when nothing provokes one to grief and displeasure, is not hard; but when circumstances provoke to grief, despondency, and displeasure, and someone advances so far through the help of the Word as to be content in times that seem displeasing, and to rejoice in times of dishonour and scourging, and simply, in every time of trouble, to remember “Rejoice always,” such a one would be blessed, bearing the fruit of joy even out of the season, if I may so name it, for figs. It is not hard to see the like in the other fruits of the Spirit too. For God wishes the one who comes to his Word to be better than human nature, and he demands of him extraordinary things—works, if I may so name them, of God rather than of man. Therefore he says to all whom he calls to blessedness, “I said, You are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High”; and, blaming those who do not wish to be made divine and become sons of the Most High, he says, “But you die like men.” For in each sin, because “we are fleshly and walk according to man,” we do nothing else than die; and it is clear that “if we live according to the flesh, we shall die,” as the Apostle taught. So much on the words, “For it was not the season for figs.” And according to Mark, Peter, “seeing the fig tree withered from the roots,” said to the Saviour, “Look, the fig tree which you cursed has withered”; for the tree that does not bear fruit for the Word when he seeks it is worthy of the curse that comes from the Word. At the end the saying has something that urges us to believe that we shall receive; for we shall not receive otherwise unless we ask. Let our disposition, then, be worthy of obtaining what we ask, and our prayer, sent up with knowledge, worthy of being granted; and let our requests be heavenly and great and worthy of being given by … [On the chief priests and elders who asked the Lord … saying, “By what authority do you do these things?”]

“And when he had come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to him as he was teaching, saying, By what authority are you doing these things?” and so on, down to: “Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things.” Since three evangelists have recorded the present passage, as was necessary, it is worth seeing what the chief priests and the elders of the people had in mind when they questioned the Saviour, putting to him not one question but two: one, “By what authority are you doing these things?” and the other, “And who gave you this authority?”; and what the Saviour intended when, on this point alone, he answered with a counter-question so as not to reply to the question. For he saw that they were not worthy of a reply to their question and of an exposition of the problem. That the contents of this passage are not, as some think, simple and easy to grasp, but mystical and in need of a deep heart, will become plain on close attention. Come then, let us first argue the case for the plausibility of those who take the passage more simply. They will say that the chief priests and the elders of the people, knowing of two general authorities, the better one, God’s, and the worst, the devil’s, asked the Saviour by which of these two authorities he was doing the wonders, and from whom he had received it; then Jesus, so as not to speak in his own defence, asked in return, wishing at the same time to refute his questioners as having acted against right reason in disbelieving John the Baptist; and his counter-question accomplished two things: it refuted their unbelief toward John, and it diverted the questioners, so that he might seem to them to have good reason for not answering. But someone might say in reply that it was ridiculous to ask by what authority Jesus was doing these things, for he would not have answered, “By the devil’s authority.” And I say not only that the Saviour would not have answered this, but that not even “the man of sin, the adversary, who exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship,” would tell his questioners the truth, that he does every power and sign and wonder by the devil’s authority, … and will lead astray, if possible, even the elect. But if not even he would say that he does by the devil’s authority “the signs and lying wonders,” those performed “with all deception of unrighteousness for those who are perishing,” how much more would the Saviour, even if he had not asked in return, have answered nothing else than “By God’s”! When the answer was so obvious, to suppose both that they asked and that the Saviour did not answer seems to me simple-minded.

Perhaps, then, the contents of the passage are of this kind. In the wisdom of God, which contains knowledge of things divine and human and of their causes, there are treasures, such as the treasures of wisdom and knowledge must be; and these are hidden. And if anyone has been counted worthy to know “the unspeakable words which it is not lawful for a man to utter,” he would know “the wisdom hidden in a mystery, which God foreordained before the ages for the glory” of the righteous. In the hidden treasures of wisdom and knowledge, then, there are deep and secret accounts about different authorities: in general two, but in particular several under each of the two, hard to discern. The two general authorities are of this kind. Some belong to the better order: there are men of God, no ordinary ones, and blessed angels of God, and prophets of God borne along by God; so there are certain authorities of God, of which the Apostle, glorifying Christ, speaks in the Letter to the Colossians: “The Saviour is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; in him all things were created in the heavens and on the earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him, and he is before all things.” One kind of the beings under God, then, is the authorities created in Christ, distinct from the principalities and the thrones and the dominions; and each has authority over certain beings, set by God according to some secret worth over those who deserve to be under authority, according to the difference among them, each under one of the authorities. Long and hard to explain would be the account of these authorities and of the things subject to them. And just as there are certain authorities of God, so there are also opposing ones, corresponding to the men of sin and the angels of the devil; and those who no longer wrestle against blood and flesh, but, because they have risen in strength, contend against what lies beyond these, have their wrestling against the authorities that oppose the athletes of godliness. And as there were several orders under God, so also in the opposing region there are not only authorities but also “world-rulers of this darkness” and “spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places,” and perhaps principalities as well. I think that all of them bear the same names as those of God, but in the sense of opposition. The holders of the various titles in Israel, then, that is, the chief priests and the elders of the people, having formed many opinions about authorities, and moved whether by traditions, or by their own conjecture, or by apocryphal writings (I do not know whether reasonably or unreasonably), saw him performing the wonders not without some authority present with him; they wanted, therefore, to learn the nature of this authority from Jesus’ knowledge, or from what seemed to them to be knowledge in him. And if those who questioned the Saviour then had been holy and blessed chief priests, like Aaron, or Eleazar, or Phinehas, or all who carried out their ministry in a praiseworthy way, and elders like those whom Moses chose by God’s commandment, it is likely that the Saviour, treating them as people not testing him but eager to learn, and worthy of such great teachings, would have begun and set out an account that not even the whole world could contain. Having begun, he would have handed on knowledge about the blessed authorities and the difference between them, and the cause of their having come to be authorities, and about the beings under them, whether souls or rational beings of whatever kind; and he would also have gone through the account of the opposing authorities, and set out their differences. And it is likely that he would have taught, in keeping with “The law ordained through angels” and “If the word spoken through angels proved firm” — in keeping, I mean, with the account of the angels who ministered the law — also about authority as found in the Scriptures: for example, by what authority ministering to God, or by what kinds of authority, each of the wonders in Egypt took place; what authority ministered to the staff of Moses when it was changed into a serpent, and what opposing one ministered to the transformation of the Egyptian staffs into serpents; and he would have told the power of the authority by which Aaron’s staff swallowed up those of the Egyptians. He would also have told what was the authority of the change of Moses’ hand to snow, and, on the opposing side, what authority conspired in each case with the enchanters of the Egyptians when they seemed to imitate the signs of God; and so he would have gone through the ten plagues of the Egyptians, and the “sending” against them “by evil angels.” He would also have told what authority served the people’s passage through the Red Sea and the drowning of the Egyptians, and what authority served the change of bitter water into sweetness through the wood; he would also have told the authority that ministered to the water from the rock, and would have shown either the same or another authority ministering to the rain of manna and the coming of the quails; he would also have told what was the authority that turned that same manna into worms and stench on the six days but preserved it on the Sabbath day. And why must I collect the wonders in the wilderness up to the death of Moses to show that the Saviour would have spoken about authority, had the chief priests and the elders of the people been worthy of an answer to their question? You too can see what corresponds, by going through the whole Scripture: what the authority was by which the sun stood still at Gibeon and the moon at the valley of Elom, and, much earlier, by which the river Jordan was crossed and the manna ceased. And in the book of Judges too many such things could be sought and found, for example the marvels concerning Gideon and Samson; and from the Kingdoms the things concerning Samuel, Elijah, Elisha, and Hezekiah. And so the Saviour, after going over this and going through the mystery of the different authorities, would have taught by what authority, and by how surpassing an authority, he was doing the wonders that the people saw, an authority given him not by some angel and minister of God, nor through any of the beings lower than God, but by the Father himself.

But since the chief priests and the elders of the people here were in no way worthy of such contemplations, he does not answer them for this reason, but asks in return, so that, through their failure to answer about John, he too might reasonably persuade the questioners that it was not idly that he answered them, “Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things.” In connection with the passage I ask whether each of those who have done marvels by some authority has done them by one, or whether some did so at first by one, but, having advanced, by some greater one. The Saviour, however, seems to have done these things by one authority, which he received from the Father. For “Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things” was the saying of one who teaches that he has acted by an authority, but did not show them by what kind, nor unfold its particular character and all that he would have defined about it, setting out what distinguishes it from the other authorities by which the prophets before him had acted. And now too Christ is in the temple, the church, and teaches in it; and some people like those chief priests and elders of the people question him, but do not obtain an answer, being unworthy to know what they wish to learn. Someone will ask whether, wishing to shake them off, he asked about John at random, as though he might have asked about anyone else of the kind, or whether he necessarily asked about John, so that, in keeping with their answer about him, he might give the answer that followed about the authority. To me the passage seems not to be at random. But since John was “the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare the way of the Lord,” and this was the one of whom the prophet said, “Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you,” — for this reason, I think, he asks about him, not unaware that, after considering, they would say, “We do not know,” because of what is written; but, supposing they had said, “From heaven,” he would have given the answer that follows from the answer that John’s baptism was from heaven …

“What do you think? A man had two children. He went to the first and said, Child, go, work today in the vineyard,” and so on, down to: “But you, when you saw it, did not change your minds afterward so as to believe in him.” Matthew alone recorded this parable, which, as it seems to me, contains the account of Israel, which disobeyed God, and of the people from the Gentiles, which believed. For these are the two children whom God had, he who, like a man, bears patiently with his son. And he, going to the first, whom he acquired from the beginning, whom he foreknew and foreordained, said to him, “Child, go, work today in my vineyard”; and he put it off, avoiding this place because of the scorching heat in it and the labours, and said, “I will not”; but later, at the consummation, repenting of having said to the father, “I will not,” he came into the vineyard and did the father’s will. When, however, the first had said, “I will not,” the father went to the other and spoke in the same way; then the second answered, “I go, Lord,” but did not come to the vineyard of the word and the father’s field. And it is plain that the one who said, “I will not,” and afterward repented, went away and worked in the vineyard, did the father’s will in deed; for the one who promised in word and did not do it denied by his works that he was doing the father’s will. Consider whether you can apply the parable also to those who promise little or nothing — neither virginity nor any other practice in keeping with the Gospel — but in their works show the opposite of what they did not even promise at the start in words about good deeds; and further to those who promise great things but do nothing in keeping with their promise. For the one says, as it were, “This virginity is beyond me; I do not want it; and to renounce life and devote oneself to the word is better than my worth”; while the other, hearing of each of the great works in the Scripture, says, “I go, Lord.” And one can see some who, as if from repentance, make progress toward the better, and take care of themselves toward what is higher beyond what was expected of them at the start; and others who rashly promised many things but in their works acted against their promises.

After the parable there follows, addressed to the one who said, “I will not,” and afterward repented and went: “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes go ahead of you into the kingdom of God”; and addressed to the one who said, “I go, Lord,” and did not go: “For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him,” and: “But you, when you saw it, did not change your minds afterward so as to believe him.” Whoever considers those who come to the word from a most wretched life and believe in Christ, and those who boast of the law and the prophets yet disbelieve the Son of God, live licentiously, and are rather cruel toward their own people, will see that Jesus’ saying is true, that the tax collectors and the prostitutes go ahead of Israel into the kingdom of God; but that Israel, having seen Jesus, has not repented even to this day so as to believe the truth at least later. But notice also that “They go ahead of you into the kingdom of God” does not shut Israel out from entering the kingdom of God; for no one goes ahead of someone who will never be in the place to which he has gone ahead. See, then, whether it is not indicated that, when the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, then all Israel will be saved. But let Israel be understood not as Israel according to the flesh, but as the one marked by nobility of soul, who has a natural aptitude for understanding and insight, yet has not been brought up in faith and a good life in a way worthy of that aptitude. [On the vineyard that was planted and let out to tenants.]

“Hear another parable. There was a man, a householder, who planted a vineyard and put a hedge around it and dug a winepress in it,” and so on, down to: “and it will be given to a nation producing its fruits.” To one who does not test the details of the parable further, nor examine each word, it will seem quite clear when explained as follows. The people before us, being also God’s portion, was the vineyard planted by the householder of the parable; God’s guard around it was the hedge; the tower was the temple, the winepress the place of the libations; and the tenants were the elders and wise men of the people. The master’s going abroad means that the Lord, who was with them in a cloud by day and a pillar by night until he planted them, bringing them into his holy mountain and into his dwellings, no longer appeared to them in that way. The season of fruits that drew near was the time of the prophets, who demanded the fruit from the tenants and from the vineyard, so that they might now show that they had received the law by having lived according to it. The servants sent to the tenants to receive the fruits were the first prophets, whom the rulers and wise men of the people insulted, beating them; some they even killed, and others they stoned. The other servants after these, more than the first, are the time of the many prophets, whose names are written in the second book of Chronicles, and in Jeremiah, and the Twelve, and Daniel; for one might say that Hananiah, Azariah, and Mishael too were prophets. These too, more numerous than the earlier prophets, they treated in the same way, beating, killing, and stoning them. Last of all the householder sends his own son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who was able to win the respect of the vineyard and the tenants. But the chief priests and the elders and the wise men of the people, seeing the Son, and not being wholly insensible of his superiority, took him to be the heir; and they dare even to kill him, so that they themselves may become masters of the vineyard; and having cast him out, and judged him to be outside the affairs of Israel, they killed him. And at once the Lord of the vineyard, whom they killed, comes, risen from the dead, and destroys the tenants, wretches, wretchedly, and hands over to other tenants, his apostles, those of the people who believed, that is, the vineyard; and they render the fruits to the householder in their seasons. Then, when those who earlier had asked, “By what authority are you doing these things?” had spoken, after the parable, the words beginning, “He will put those wretches to a wretched death,” the Saviour answers, teaching them from the prophecy that he was rejected by them, but is precious with God, the head of the whole building and of what holds it together, and indeed a head marvellous in the eyes of those who know how to see it. Then, prophesying about the calling from the Gentiles, he says to the teachers of the Jews who did not believe in him, “The kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing its fruits.” But, as we said before, such an explanation is rather general and not word by word. A spiritual person, able to discern all things, might raise many difficulties about it, knocking at the door, shut by obscurity, of the thoughts hidden here; and seeking rightly he might find, and asking of God he might receive. We too, according to our modest measure, picture the passage in some such way as this. The householder, the man, is God, about whom it is written, “The Lord your God bore with your ways, as a man would bear with the ways of his son.” For because he bears with our ways and, in helping human beings, takes on a human manner, the one who helps human beings is said in certain parables to be a man. And here he is called a man, a householder, because of the vineyard, the hedge placed around the vineyard, the winepress that he dug, the tower that he built, the servants he has acquired, whom he sends to the tenants, and the second time sends in greater number; and as a householder he let out the vineyard to tenants, from whom he takes it away and gives it to others. Again, in the passages above, a man, a householder, is spoken of in these words: “For the kingdom of heaven is like a man, a householder, who went out early in the morning to hire labourers for his vineyard”; and as a householder he has a vineyard and hires workers; and he also has a steward, to whom he says, “Call the labourers and pay them their wages, beginning from the last up to the first.” But in the parable of the supper, the marriage feast of his son, and the invitation, he is called not a householder but a king; for he is greater than a householder, sending an army as a king, and destroying those who seized his servants, insulted them, and killed them; and with royal authority, not merely as a householder, he told the attendants to bind the feet and hands of the one who came into the wedding without a wedding garment, and to cast him into the outer darkness. But when it says above, “A man had two children,” he is named neither householder nor king, but simply man. As, then, there are many aspects of God according to the divine Scriptures, so there are also differences in his being named man: either simply, or householder, or king. So much for Matthew. According to Luke, the parable similar to the one before us named him a man, in: “A man planted a vineyard and let it out to tenants”; and Mark says: “A certain man planted a vineyard and put a hedge around it.” And again Luke, setting out the parable of the invitation, says: “A certain man gave a great supper and invited many.” And you too, gathering the places where God is named man, comparing spiritual things with spiritual in the discussion of this, and examining the passages rightly, would find, in proportion to your inquiry, more reasons for God’s being called a man. This householder, then, the man, planted a vineyard, which must be investigated more carefully, so as not to pass over so great a parable without testing it.

What, then, is the vineyard, distinct from the first and the second tenants, which the householder, the man, planted? This vineyard is first let out to insolent tenants, and secondly — according to those who answered about the vineyard — let out to other tenants, who will give its fruits in their seasons; but according to the Saviour, who says, “The kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing its fruits.” Must we, then, say that the kingdom of God is the same as the vineyard, taken away from the former and given to a nation producing its fruits? Or is the vineyard one thing and the kingdom of God another? Let us first show from Scripture that the people is called a vineyard, and then see whether everything in the passage can fit such an explanation. Isaiah, then, says: “Let me sing for the beloved a song of the beloved about my vineyard. The beloved had a vineyard on a hill, in a rich place; and I put a hedge around it, and fenced it, and planted a choice vine,” and so on, down to: “but it did lawlessness, and not righteousness, but an outcry.” I have set out the song from Isaiah because I wish to examine it together with the parable, to see whether the vineyard stands for the same thing in each Scripture. And see what likenesses and what unlikenesses the passages set out have, so that, seeing how the like differ from the unlike, you may attend to the meaning of Scripture. Alike, then, are “He planted a vineyard and put a hedge around it and dug a winepress in it and built a tower” and “The beloved had a vineyard on a hill, in a rich place, and I put a hedge around it and fenced it and planted a choice vine and built a tower in the middle of it and dug a wine vat in it.” For set beside “He planted a vineyard” the words “I planted a choice vine”; beside “He put a hedge around it,” “I put a hedge around it”; beside “He dug a winepress in it,” “And I dug a wine vat in it”; and beside “He built a tower,” “And I built a tower in the middle of it.” In both passages something is said about the fruits of the vineyard: in Isaiah, “I waited for … grapes, and it produced thorns”; but in the parable of the Gospel it is plainly not the vineyard that is accused of not giving its fruits when their season drew near, but these tenants, who took the householder’s servants and “beat one, killed another, and stoned another.” And when he sent other servants, more than the first, again the tenants are accused of having done the same to them. And a third time the tenants are accused, “saying, This is the heir; come, let us kill him and have his inheritance,” and casting him out of the vineyard and killing him. In Isaiah the Word threatens the vineyard itself, saying, “I will take away its hedge, and it will be plundered; I will pull down its wall, and it will be trampled. And I will abandon my vineyard, and it will not be pruned or dug; and thorns will come up on it as on waste land”; and also when “he commands the clouds not to rain rain on the vineyard,” he threatens the vineyard, which the prophet said is the house of Israel and the man of Judah, because it did not produce the fruit, judgment and righteousness, but produced thorns, lawlessness and outcry. But in the Gospel we find that the vineyard suffers nothing; rather, if one may put it so, it is cared for so that it may bear its own fruits for the householder. For he, providing for the vineyard, takes it away from the former tenants, who answer the Saviour when he asks, “When, then, the lord of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” And they say — whether compelled by reason and the logic of the story, or unwillingly prophesying, so to speak, about themselves — that the lord of the vineyard will put those wretches, the tenants, to a wretched death, and, providing for the vineyard, will let it out to other tenants, who will render him the fruits in their seasons. In Jeremiah too, consistently with “For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the man of Judah a beloved new planting,” it is said to the sinning people, “But I planted you as a fruitful vine, wholly true”; and, corresponding to “I waited for it to produce grapes, but it produced thorns,” and “I waited for it to do judgment, but it did lawlessness, and not righteousness, but an outcry,” comes “How have you turned to bitterness, a foreign vine?” So do you see that in the prophetic passages the people is said to be the vineyard, and the one who planted it threatens it and says, “I will take away its hedge, and it will be plundered,” and the rest; but in the Gospel passages no blame is brought against the vineyard, but all of it against the tenants? Besides there being no threat to the vineyard, care is even taken of it, so that it may give the householder its fruits in their seasons; and if you wish to preserve the exactness of the Gospel text, you could not show clearly that the vineyard was the people. But perhaps the vineyard of the Gospel is the kingdom of God, which is, I think, the same as the teaching of the Scriptures, given under God’s oversight. For “The kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing its fruits,” added to the parable of the vineyard, clearly shows, I think, that the mysteries of the kingdom of God are said to be the vineyard which the householder, the man, planted. This vineyard, then, which is, as I think, the law and the prophets and the whole divine Scripture, the Lord of the vineyard let out to tenants: first to that people, for they were the first “entrusted with the oracles of God”; and secondly to a nation producing its fruits, the church from the Gentiles. But on this understanding of the vineyard of the Gospel it is a task to make fit the hedge placed around it, which suffers nothing like the hedge in Isaiah, of which it is written, “I will take away its hedge, and it will be plundered”; and the winepress dug in it; and the tower that was built. See, then, whether we can say that the vineyard is the account of nature according to the divine Scripture; that the life in keeping with the true account of nature, bearing fruit in virtue and the finest character, is the fruit of the vineyard; that the rational element and the whole letter of Scripture is the hedge of the vineyard lying around it on the outside, so that the vineyard, and above all its hidden fruit, cannot be spied on by those outside; that the depth of the soul that receives these fruits, casting off everything superficial, is the winepress dug in the vineyard; and that the tower built in the vineyard, which has elevation and loftiness and height above the vineyard, the hedge, and the winepress, is the account about God, being a temple of the divine mind within it. And I think that the Saviour spoke of such a tower in the words, “Which of you, wishing to build a tower, does not first count whether he can lay the foundation and finish it, lest those who see it begin to mock the one who did not finish?” For there too he seems to me to say in a parable: When you are about to speak about God, consider whether, having begun, you can complete all that reason demands of you for speaking about God, so that you do not begin the doctrines of godliness and leave the tower about God unfinished, without building its coping; for if you do not build the coping, someone will fall from the conception of God and will die. This vineyard, as we have explained it, God let out to tenants, the people before us, and went abroad to his own lookout, giving the tenants the means, from what he himself had planted, put around, dug, and built, to bear the fruits in their seasons. The seasons of the fruits drew near, then, for each individual, and I think also for the whole people. To explain exactly the drawing near of the seasons of the fruits belongs to a greater habit of mind than ours, and to a heart far purer and more discerning than ours; yet as far as we can, we shall approach the passage as follows, beginning with individuals.

Let the Word in each soul be understood as a vine planted by the householder, or the vineyard as the starting points for all the questions necessary for salvation. Just as with vines there is a season when they put out leaves, another when they show the beginnings of the fruits, still small, another when what has appeared is in blossom, another when the grapes begin to colour, and another when it is time to gather the fruits, perfected and ready to yield the quality of wine; so let the first season of a person’s life, in infancy, have the vine with nothing on it, but having only the life-force. Then, when reason begins to be filled out, let it be the season of the first flowering. And the more the soul advances under cultivation, the more the cultivated vineyard bears signs of clusters: in blossom at first, and bearing the fragrance of virtue to come, and later already unripe, because there is vice — not the kind that remains, but the kind that necessarily exists, which never inclines toward the worse but always, if one may name it so, travels toward virtue. But if the vice remains, and we do not use it as a passage, so to speak, toward virtue, always leading it on toward progress in virtue, an unripe grape is produced, and whoever eats it, as the prophet says, has his teeth set on edge. One who advances further has the grape as though ripening, but not yet perfected. And after progress there is an excellent state, when the cultivated vine bears its fruit, perfect clusters of love, and joy, and peace, and patience, and the rest that are listed by the Apostle and in countless other Scriptures. For there is a cluster corresponding to “Blessed are the poor in spirit,” another to “Blessed are those who mourn,” another to “Blessed are the meek,” another to “Blessed are the peacemakers,” and another to “Blessed are the pure in heart.” And why must I list the clusters that bring about the beatitudes? I examined these things at some length because I wished to understand and to make clear the words, “When the season of the fruits drew near.”

It belongs to the householder and to his divine knowledge to know each person’s season: when it has drawn near, and when the season of the fruits is still far off. And we too, if we consider more closely, comparing the time since we were called with the whole time of our faith, will be able to see how some, “though by this time they ought to be teachers, need again to be taught what are the elements of the oracles of God.” So some who ought, in proportion to the time of God’s dispensation and of everything connected with their calling, to be bearing fruit already, have none at all, but blossom out of season and grow unripe grapes at the wrong time. If, then, you have understood how “When the season of the fruits drew near” is to be taken of each individual, transfer the account, if you can, to those who received the law through Moses: for them too the season of the fruits once drew near, and he sent his servants to the first tenants, who had been “entrusted with the oracles of God,” to receive the fruits of the vineyard in each of them. It is easy to say that he calls the prophets servants; but we must ask how they are sent to the tenants to receive the fruits of the vineyard. For someone might say that the prophets are sent not to receive the fruits, but rather to cultivate and to help the fruits along. See, then, whether we can say that the spiritual first fruits and the divine offerings are given by those who have cultivated the vineyard to the servants who are sent, so that they, as priests, may bring to God the fruits of the one who offers. But the tenants among the people took the servants sent to receive the fruits of the vineyard, and beat one, as “Zedekiah son of Chenaanah struck Micaiah on the cheek,” when the false prophet also said to him after he had prophesied, “What kind of Spirit of the Lord spoke in you?”; killed another, as Zechariah between the temple and the altar; and stoned another, as Azariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, as is written in the second book of Chronicles: “For when the Spirit of God clothed Azariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, and he stood up above the people and said, Thus says the Lord: Why do you transgress the commandments of the Lord? You will not prosper; because you have forsaken the Lord, he will forsake you, they set upon him and stoned him by command of King Joash in the court of the house of the Lord. And Joash did not remember the kindness that Jehoiada his father had shown him, and he put his son to death. And as he was dying he said, May the Lord see and judge.”

Next in the parable is that “again he sent other servants, more than the first, and they did the same to them.” The Scripture is full of what happened to the prophets whom he sent on behalf of the people, so that, as holy priests, they might offer up the people’s fruit to God through their prayers. Later, after the prophets, he sent his Son, Christ. You will ask how the one who sends the Son says, “They will respect my son,” as though he said this without foreseeing what would happen to him; for according to the letter they plainly did not respect him. To say in this connection that the Father of the Son who was sent did not foreknow the future, but was deceived, saying one thing while another happened, is impious; and again, to say that the tenants respected him is against the plain evidence: “For the tenants, seeing his son, said among themselves, This is the heir,” and so on. One person, then, will say about this that “They will respect my son” had necessarily to come to pass, even if it did not come to pass then. Another will say that the Father, in sending the Son, did not say, “My son will receive the fruit from the tenants,” but that “they will respect him”; and they did respect him, in that they recognized that this was the Son and said among themselves, “This is the heir.” But it does not at all follow that, if they respected him and were struck at the beginning, they also did what people do who respect someone.

At the same time someone will ask who these tenants are who said, “This is the heir; come, let us kill him”; for the Jews do not appear to have killed him as the son of the householder. To this someone will reply that, when they were discussing among themselves who he might be, some said, “This is the Christ,” to whom others answered, “When the Christ comes, no one knows where he is from; but we know where this man is from.” Then, since, struck by the signs and wonders and divine powers, they thought that he was the Christ of God, but did not confess it, both “They will respect my son” was true, and it was also true that, having recognized that he was the Son, they said, “This is the heir; come, let us kill him.” For this reason the Saviour says, “You know me, and you know where I am from.” Whoever considers what is written about Herod, when he learned from the magi that the king of the Jews had been appointed, will see that those who killed the Saviour could have known who he was and nonetheless have plotted against him. For Herod, having learned from the scribes that the Christ is born in Bethlehem, and agreeing that the one who had been born was the Christ, sends them off, saying, “Go and search diligently for the child, so that I too may come and worship him”; and none the less, when they had gone home, he plotted against the child, not disbelieving that he was the Christ. For had he disbelieved altogether, he would not have “killed all the children in Bethlehem and in all its region, from two years old and under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the magi”; but he believed him to be the prophesied Christ, and wished to kill him, and, as far as lay in him, did kill him. So too those who plotted against the Saviour could have said it — though not so that their word reached others, “for they said among themselves, This is the heir” — and none the less have put him to death. For when they had killed Christ, not understanding his resurrection (“for if they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory”), they thought that they themselves would be masters of affairs, since their wickedness had blinded them and they did not know the mysteries of God; and, as not knowing them, “they cast” his Son “out of the vineyard and killed” him. “They cast him out of the vineyard” seems to me to mean this: as far as lay in them, they judged him to be alien both to the vineyard and to the tenants, when they passed against him the sentence of death. Upon this the Saviour asks these same wicked tenants, saying to them, “When, then, the lord of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” And they say to him, to be judged and condemned out of their own mouth, as wretches who would perish wretchedly and would no longer have the oracles of God: “He will put those wretches to a wretched death, and let out the vineyard to other tenants, who will render him the fruits in their seasons.” And they prophesy, as it were, like Caiaphas, the high priest of that year, and from themselves …

Then, upon this, the Saviour puts them to shame from the Scripture, since they thought themselves to be the builders of the people too: he, being a stone rejected by them, the Father will make the head of the whole building, holding together two corners, the Old and the New Testament, and the buildings of two peoples. For this is the meaning of: “Have you never read in the Scriptures: The stone which the builders rejected, this has become the head of the corner; this was from the Lord, and it is marvellous in our eyes?” The text stands in the hundred and seventeenth psalm, which is placed before the psalm with the most verses, and the passage runs thus: “The stone which the builders rejected, this has become the head of the corner. This was from the Lord, and it is marvellous in our eyes. This is the day which the Lord has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it.” And if any other of the prophecies about Christ can put to shame one who examines what is written with fair judgment, this too may be ranked among them. For if the prophet does not say these things about a senseless stone, as a foolish man might claim, it would be plain that Jesus, who was rejected by the wise men of that people, and by the chief priests and elders and scribes, truly became, as head of the church, the head of the corner, uniting the two Testaments and bringing them together. And this head is a gift of the Lord given to the whole building, and a head marvellous in our eyes, since we are able to see it. And for this reason, since the builders rejected this stone, the oracles of God, in which was the kingdom of God, were taken away from those tenants and those builders, and were given to a nation producing its fruits. But if “It will be given to a nation producing its fruits” is true, then plainly the kingdom of God is given to none of those who do not produce the fruits of the kingdom of God; for the kingdom of God is given to no one who is ruled by sin. But someone will say: if the kingdom of God is given to no one who does not produce its fruits, how was the kingdom of God given to those from whom it was taken away, according to the saying, “The kingdom of God will be taken away from you”? Consider whether, in so great a difficulty, a problem not at all easy to resolve, we can solve the question by attending to the difference between what is said first about the vineyard and second about the kingdom of God. What is said about the vineyard is not what is said about the kingdom of God: for about the vineyard it is written, in the first place, that he let it out to tenants, but about the kingdom of God, that it will be given to a nation producing its fruits. The passage would have been insoluble if, as “He let it out to tenants” is written of the first, so it had been said of the second, “It will be let out to a nation producing its fruits”; and if, as it is said of the second, “And it will be given to a nation producing its fruits,” it had also been said of the first that he gave it to tenants. These are the difficulties we have raised about the passage, and we have said what appeared to us; but let one who is better able both to understand and to speak be heard rather than us.

“And when the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they knew that he was speaking about them. And though they sought to seize him, they feared the crowds, because they held him to be a prophet.” The chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables — one of which began, “A certain man had two children,” and the other, “There was a man, a householder, who planted a vineyard” — and knew that he was speaking about them: according to the first parable, because the second son said, “I go, lord,” and did not go; according to the other, because, in keeping with what had been said against the former, sinning tenants, this was said: “The kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing its fruits.” And knowing that he was speaking about them, they sought to seize him and to do to him whatever they could; but they could not, since they were unable to withstand the onrush of the crowds, who held Jesus to be a prophet. And those who wish with treacherous intent to seize the Word, so that, having him in their grip, they may destroy him, could never seize him, since the crowds on his side, who take him to be a prophet of God, draw away those who wish to seize him and to plot against him. Next, it must be known that there are differences among those who seek to seize Jesus. In one way the chief priests and the Pharisees sought to seize him; in another way the bride in the Song of Songs sought him, and rose, and went about in the city, in the marketplaces and in the streets, and at last, with difficulty, found him, when she had gone a little past the watchmen who go about in the city; and having found him she held him fast, when she also says, “I held him and will not let him go, until I have brought him into my mother’s house and into the chamber of her who conceived me.” But this same bride, in the earlier part of the Song of Songs, says, “I held him … into my mother’s house and into the chamber of her who conceived me”; while toward the end of the same book, as one who has made progress and is about to hold him in another and a better way than before, she says, “I said, I will go up into the palm tree, … its heights.” That you may understand that the chief priests and Pharisees who sought to seize him did not seize him, consider that with doctrines other than the word of Christ it is possible to seize and to grasp the meaning of those who have taught anything whatever, and to overturn it with understanding, and, as Scripture has called it, to “instruct” it. For in this way the one who is wise according to the Gospel, as “the spiritual person who discerns all things, but is himself discerned by no one,” discerns and tests and refutes the other doctrines, whether of the wise of this world or of those who seem to excel in the heresies; but the mind of Christ in him is not condemned, nor caught, nor seized by those who set out to overturn it. “For who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to instruct him?” And it is plain that, if anyone is going to instruct someone’s mind, he will first know it, and after this instruct it; “but who will know the mind of the Lord, so as to instruct him?” For it would be caught by him and would yield to him. Let these things be said by me because of the words, “And seeking to seize him, they feared the crowds, because they held him to be a prophet.”

Yet even if the crowds speak well of Jesus, and think something true about him, they do not understand his greatness. For Jesus was indeed also a prophet, as is plain to one who has understood: “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet from among your brothers, like me; you shall listen to him in everything that prophet says. And whoever does not listen to that prophet will be utterly destroyed.” Yet his superiority did not lie 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, visible and invisible,” and so on; and still more did his superiority lie in his being the Wisdom who says, “God created me as the beginning of his ways for his works; before he made anything, and before the age, he founded me in the beginning, before he made the earth,” and so on. And these crowds, who thought thus of him and were ready to fight for him against those who fought him, the chief priests and the Pharisees fear; and, though they wish to seize Jesus in order to plot against him, they cannot seize him. Here, then, it is written, “Because they held him to be a prophet”; but from this you may observe that the crowds, even if they do not hold him to be a prophet in so many words, whatever they hold him to be, hold him to be far less than he is, since they have not yet attained even the partial knowledge of those who know him in part, and state nothing clearly about him. And this I say about those who think truly about him; for those who think falsely about him must not be considered to be on his side, under a pretence of glorifying him. Such are those who confuse the conception of the Father and the Son, and grant that the Father and the Son are one in hypostasis, dividing the one subject by conception alone and by names; and those from the heresies who, under a pretence of thinking great things about him, “speak unrighteousness on high” and speak evil of the Creator, are not on his side; for they are not with him, and for this reason they are against him: “For whoever is not with me,” he says, “is against me.” So too, even if those who do not think truly about the Son gather in the name of Jesus, they scatter rather than gather; for the Saviour says, “And whoever does not gather with me scatters.” And notice that it is not said simply, “Whoever does not gather scatters,” but with the precise addition, “with me”; for the one who gathers must gather with him. You will understand who gathers with him by considering: “When you and my spirit are gathered together with the power of the Lord Jesus, to hand over such a man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh”; for “When you and my spirit are gathered together with the power of the Lord Jesus” shows the one who gathers with him. And you would not say that “When you are gathered in the power of the Lord Jesus” fits those who gather, or are gathered, while living wickedly, or while thinking wickedly and impiously about God or his Christ. I have said these things also because the crowds, who thought about Jesus and were on his side, but thought far less than his worth, are said to have held him to be a prophet. If you examine together with this Luke’s words about similar matters, you will, I think, establish what has been said more clearly. He says: “And he was teaching daily in the temple. But the chief priests and the scribes and the elders of the people sought to destroy him, and could not find what they might do; for all the people hung on his words.” For here too it is shown that those who preside unlawfully over Jewish doctrines, called chief priests and scribes, enemies of Jesus, and elders of the people, seek to destroy Jesus and to blot out from among human beings his name and the faith in him; but they do not find what to do to accomplish what they wish, since the whole people that believed in him had been won over beforehand, and was bound to Jesus in love, and hung on hearing his teaching and his word. And one can see this even to this day: in what way those who put forward the worship of God, as his chief priests, and the divine Scripture, as scribes, and … the ancient, as elders of the people, seek to destroy Jesus and to blot out his glory, doing everything to this end in keeping with the will of their fathers, yet not finding what to do to draw away from him the people bound to Jesus, and to wipe him out of their minds. And perhaps all who hold any opinion whatever about the Divine, and maintain it in a way foreign to the teaching of Jesus, wish to destroy Jesus, but cannot, since the whole crowd hangs on him, listening. And those too who attend to writings of any wisdom whatever, and for this reason are figuratively called scribes, wish to destroy Jesus from among human beings; yet they do not find anything they could do that would accomplish it. And all the doctrines of Greeks and barbarians that are older than the teaching of Jesus wish to destroy Jesus; but they cannot, being overcome by the whole people, which hangs on Jesus the teacher, hearing and perceiving his teaching. And Mark too suggests similar things, saying: “And the chief priests and the scribes heard it, and sought how they might destroy him; for they feared him, because all the people were astonished at his teaching.” For the whole people of Christ is astonished at his teaching, and nothing can be accomplished by the chief priests and scribes just mentioned, who seek to destroy Jesus from among human beings and to dispel the astonishment of his whole people. [On those invited to the wedding.]

“And Jesus answered and spoke to them again in parables, saying: The kingdom of heaven is like a man, a king, who, when he made a marriage feast for his son, sent his servants,” and so on, down to: “For many are called, but few are chosen.” This parable too, understood in a more general way, will seem clear. In it the man, the king, is said figuratively to be the God and Father of Jesus Christ; the marriage of the king’s son is the restoration of the bride, the church of Christ, to Christ her bridegroom; the servants sent to call those invited to the wedding are the prophets in their several times, turning those of the people by their prophecies toward the festivity held at the restoration of the church to Christ; those who would not come, though they had been invited first, were those who did not listen to the words of the prophets; the other servants who were sent are another company of prophets; the dinner prepared, for which the king’s oxen and his fatted animals had been slaughtered, was the solid and rational food of the mysteries of God. So too “all things are ready”: the accounts of all things that exist, which those who have followed the call will eat and drink when the perfect comes. And since, of those invited through the prophets, some merely neglected what was said and busied themselves with the affairs of life, yet did not act wickedly against the prophets, he therefore, wishing to show the difference between them, said: “But they made light of it and went off, one to his own farm, another to his business; and the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them.” Then, in keeping with the more general explanation, the king’s anger is understood, which the Apostle too names when he says of the Jews, “But wrath has come upon them to the end.” Then the war against the Jews is prophesied, and the capture of Jerusalem, and the destruction of the people after Christ’s coming, in the words, “And he sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.”

“Then he says to his servants, The wedding is ready, but those invited were not worthy. Go therefore to the outlets of the roads, and invite to the wedding as many as you find.” This could be referred to the apostles of Jesus Christ, who say to the Jews, “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you; but since you judge yourselves unworthy, behold, we turn to the Gentiles.” The outlets of the roads, then, are the affairs outside Israel, at which those whom the apostles find are called to the wedding, the apostles gathering all whom they find. And they found those who listen, and in calling them did not concern themselves whether those called had been bad or good before the call; for they called all who were found. By “good” here we must take it that the more moderate of those coming to godliness are meant, in a simpler sense; to them you might apply this apostolic saying: “When Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves; they show the work of the law written on their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness.” And the wedding of Christ and the church was filled, the restoration of those whom the apostles had found, reclining to rejoice at the wedding. Then, since both bad and good must be called — not, however, so that the bad remain bad, but so that, changing their clothes and putting off the garments foreign to the wedding, they may put on those of the wedding, “heartfelt compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, patience” (for these are the garments of the wedding) — for this reason the king comes in to look at those reclining, before the prepared dinner is set before them, the oxen, the fatted animals slaughtered, and all things ready, so that, having looked, he may keep and gladden those who have the wedding garment, and condemn their opposites. Coming in, then, he finds one of those who had been invited and had come in response to the call, who had not changed his character nor “put on a wedding garment,” and he says to him, “How did you come in here without a wedding garment?” Then, since the one who has sinned, and has not been renewed nor put on the Lord Jesus Christ, is silenced as having no ground for defence, it is therefore written, “But he was speechless.” And it is not enough that the one who dishonoured the call be cast out of the wedding. He must be bound by those of the king’s attendants who are appointed to the bonds — he who did not use his course as he ought, and did not bring his active power to good action — so that he is not only cast out of the wedding, but also sentenced to the place foreign to light, where there was darkness, as it were the deeper darkness, which is called the outer darkness. And if any of us, coming at the king’s call to the wedding of his son, seems to obey and to come with those invited, but has not put on the wedding garment just described, he will suffer these things, and, bound feet and hands, will be cast into the outer darkness; where, in keeping with “Woe to you who laugh now, for you will weep,” there is weeping for those who have committed sins worthy of weeping and lament; and they will weep, lamenting their own miseries. Then, so that the Word may set forth the fear and the trembling and the grim things and the pains in which those will be who have not put on a wedding garment, he said, “There will be weeping”; and not only weeping, but also “the gnashing of teeth.” And there is added to the whole parable, because it has been shown that many were called but not all came, only few of them: “Many are called, but few are chosen.”

So much, then, for a more general treatment of the parable. But we shall try to go back and search it out according to the power we now have, in case, helped by the Spirit of wisdom, we may be able to find some deeper things in the parable and so build up our readers, and, as reason directs, either keep silent, or hint at them, or set them out. The kingdom of heaven, then, is likened, as regards the one who reigns, to a man, a king; as regards the one who reigns with the king, to his son; and as regards those who are ruled, to the servants and to those invited to the wedding, of whom some would not come in, and others, making light of coming in, “went off, one to his own farm, another to his business, and others seized the servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them.” Also among those who are ruled are the king’s army, and the bad and good gathered from the roads until the wedding was filled with guests reclining, and the one among those reclining who had no wedding garment, and the attendants ordered to bind feet and hands the one who had no wedding garment and to cast him into the outer darkness. It could, however, have been written, “The kingdom of heaven is like a king,” without the addition “man”; but since “man” has been added too, it is necessary to explain this as well. It might, it seems to me, be made clear in this way. One of those before us, who composed books of allegories of the sacred laws, in explaining the passages that present God as if he had human feelings, and those that show his divinity, used one text for God being said to be like a man as he manages human beings, namely: “The Lord your God bore with your ways, as a man would bear with the ways of his son”; and another for God not being like a man, namely: “God is not like a man, to waver.”

We, however, have a great abundance of examples about God from the Gospels, in which he is likened in some parables to a man. We shall use, then, the parables that name God a man in defence of the Scriptures which, as far as their words go, say that the Father of Christ has human feelings. And we shall say to those of other opinions, who, because they have not understood what is said in this way in the Old Writings, take offence at the God of the law and the prophets and of the creation of the world: “If, according to the parables of the Gospel, God is likened to a man, why do you not, in keeping with these parables, accept that the anger, the wrath, the repentance, the turning away of the face, the sitting, the standing, and the walking of God are parable?” For his sleep, recorded in the prophecies, they have either not noticed, or will admit to be parable. And we shall say further to them: “If you will not, in keeping with God’s being called a man in a parable, hear in a parable the Scriptures that speak of him as having human feelings, show how the God of the universe is called a man according to the Gospel, while being said, as you suppose, to have nothing human in himself.” And we shall refute them abundantly as people who have not even examined the writings of the New Testament, in which, according to the parable here, the man, the king who made a marriage feast for his son, was angry with those who would not come to the wedding at his call, and with those who made light of dining at the wedding and went off to their own farm or to their business; and he was angry also with those who seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them. Let them tell us whether this one who was angry, being the one who made a marriage feast for his son, is the Father of Christ, or whether someone other than the one who, as far as the parable goes, was angry is his Father. Either way they will be hard pressed: either they will not want the one who was angry, who made a marriage feast for his son, to be the Father of Christ, because of the anger; or they will be compelled, because of the wedding and the son, to accept that he is the Father of Christ, and that he is angry. And if they try to offer an explanation of his being angry, we shall say to them: “Sirs, what arbitrary choice is this, not to flee from the one in the Gospel who makes a marriage feast for his son because of his anger, nor to look for another …, but in the law and the prophets, because of the same …

Since, then, we are human beings, and it is not to our advantage to look upon the riches of God’s kindness and the great abundance of his kindness hidden by him, lest we be harmed, the kingdom of heaven was necessarily likened to a man, a king, so that he might speak to human beings as a man, and manage human beings who are unable to receive being managed by God, while he remains God in every respect, both in speaking through prophets and in managing human beings. And the kingdom of heaven will cease to be likened to a man when, jealousy and strife and the other passions and sins and walking in a merely human way having ceased, 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 as would lead to the words, “But you die like men.” And I think that not only will the likening of the kingdom of heaven to a man, a king, cease, but also countless other things which a sinful human being needs, as it is written in Hosea, “I am like a panther to Ephraim, and like a lion to the house of Judah”; and in another place, “I will meet them,” he says, “like a bear robbed of her young.” He will then one day cease from being like a panther and a lion and like a bear robbed of her young, when, because those who have done such things no longer need him to be like a panther, like a lion, and like a bear, he himself, no longer having any who need him in such forms, will show himself as he is. So too I understand the words, “Our God is a consuming fire”: for as long as there are things fit to be consumed, so long is our God a fire consuming them; but when the things whose nature is to be consumed by the consuming fire have been consumed, then our God will no longer be a consuming fire, but only, as John said, light, when he says, “God is light.” These things having been raised, consider whether you can take in this way the words from the catholic Epistle of John that run thus: “Beloved, we are now children of God, and it has not yet appeared what we shall be. We know that, when it appears, we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is.” For now, even if we are counted worthy to see God with the mind and heart, we do not see him as he is, but as he becomes for us because of the dispensation on our behalf; but at the end of things, and at 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, what he is not, but as is fitting then, what he is.

Having said these things once and for all about “The kingdom of heaven is like a man, a king,” we can also find the reason why the Saviour continually named himself the Son of Man, or Son of man. He shows that, just as God, when managing human beings, is said in parables to be a man, and perhaps in some way even becomes one, so too the Saviour, being in the first place Son of God, is both God and the son of his love, and “the image of the invisible God”; yet he does not remain in what he is in the first place, but becomes, by dispensation, the Son of man — of the one who in parables is called a man but is God — by imitating, when he manages human beings, God, who is called a man in parables and in some way becomes one. And one must not look for some man and say that the Saviour is his son, but, referring everything to the conception of God and of the parables which say that he is a man, understand intelligently his calling himself the Son of Man. With us human beings, then, “the kingdom of heaven is like a man, a king”; but with those who according to the Scriptures are called gods, among whom “God stands in the congregation, judging gods in the midst,” the kingdom of heaven is like God, a king.

You will ask whether, just as among human beings, who by their own nature are lower than angels, thrones, dominions, principalities, and authorities, the kingdom of heaven is likened to a man, a king, so among thrones the kingdom of heaven is likened to a throne, a king; among dominions, to a dominion, a king; among principalities, to a principality, a king; and among authorities, to an authority, a king. For someone will say: what arbitrary choice would it be that for the lesser beings the kingdom of heaven should be likened to a man, a king, while for those greater than man the corresponding thing should not happen? This one, then, likened to a man, a king, making a marriage feast for his son, sent his servants to call those invited to the wedding. And you will consider whether, just as the bride being married is other than the servants who call and those invited to the wedding, so also in mystical matters some are taken up into the body of the bride, others into the rank of the servants sent to call those invited to the wedding, and a third group besides these, those invited to the wedding. God would know the different orders of souls, or of powers too along with them, and the cause of some being taken up into the body of the bride, others among the servants who minister to the call, and others among those who are called. In spiritual marriages, understand the union of the Word, the bridegroom, who begets offspring in what is good, and of the bride, the soul, married to the Word and not corrupted by him, but at each union with him receiving a share of incorruption, and bearing such rational offspring as might come from such marriages.

In such marriages, understand the dinner prepared from solid food, consisting of spiritual and rational nourishment; and understand the solidity of the food expressed figuratively, as I take it, in the oxen; and the spiritual element of the same contemplation in the fatted animals that are slaughtered; and the other variety, the spiritual contemplation that corresponds to bodily things, in “and all things are ready.” For the king, with royal abundance, worthy of his kingdom and his wealth, makes such a dinner. It seems to me that the first call to the wedding was of certain noble Israelite souls. For in the first place God wishes, through those who call with the word of teaching, those who have the better natural aptitude for understanding to come to this blessed feast; and one can see that such people do not wish to come to the call. For this reason other servants are sent, inviting those who will not come, and promising that, if those invited come, they will share in the dinner prepared by the king, and in oxen — greater, as it were, among clean animals, than all the clean — fattened with the varied and abundant demonstration of the thoughts on each problem. For the one who brings an abundant and full demonstration of the problem in hand sets out, as it were, a fatted word, or one divided up, figuratively called slaughtered; whereas if, by hypothesis, only a few weak things were brought to the demonstration of problems, as seeming to establish them, the slaughtered animals would be thin and lean, and, to name them in the same manner, dry and fleshless. But not such are the things prepared at the king’s dinner, at which he says, “My oxen and fatted animals are slaughtered,” and so “all things are ready,” so that, with the servant boys standing by and the spiritual cupbearers ministering, each of the attendants may bring to the dinner, in due order, especially those things in which he has learned to serve. And urging those who, as I said, come second according to the parable, he said: “Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted animals are slaughtered, and all things are ready; come to the wedding.”

But those called first, being poor and needy in mind, “made light of it and went off,” attending to their own things and delighting in them more than in what the king promised through the servants sent. And see that one of them, having his own farm, did not come to the wedding; while another has a business, wishing in a way to imitate what is said in the parable of the merchant of pearls, who sought fine pearls and, finding one of great value, sold the many to buy the one. But this business is not auspicious, for which the one invited went off, … not of the dinner prepared by the king and of the slaughtered oxen and fatted animals and all that was ready. All those, then, of the discerning who, when called, do not come to the call, yet do not insult and kill the servants sent to call them, are more moderate than those who have dared such things; and they take their rest, one on his own farm, another in his business. Let us see who the rest besides these are. It seems to me that these have fallen into the preparation of contentious and sophistical arguments, by which they overpower the servants who are sent, who are not prepared to resolve sophisms, or seem to overpower them, and so insult those who minister to the call. And one can see those devoted to the practice of the divine words, and wishing to champion it with the divine wisdom, insulted by people who are discerning but do not wish to believe the truth; and some of them even killed by those with whom the king is said to be angry, since the wrath so called has come upon them. The work of the wrath is that the king’s army is sent, either the multitude of the heavenly host, or the angels appointed over punishments. And they destroy the murderers of the ministers of the Word, and the king burns their whole city. For each of the systems of doctrines put together in the wisdom of the rulers of this age is like a city and a body, which the king burns and wipes out, as made up of wretched buildings. And whenever you observe the destruction of “knowledge falsely so called,” or of any doctrines whatever that profess the truth, and their noble overthrow, do not hesitate to say that this has been done by soldiers of God, burning the cities of the enemies of the truth. The city of Jewish teaching too was burned after Christ’s coming; and when it had been burned, the king said to his servants — the apostles of Christ, or the angels of God appointed over the calling of the Gentiles — “The wedding is ready, but those invited were not worthy. Go therefore to the outlets of the roads, and invite to the wedding as many as you find.” And one can see those who are called to the wedding by those commanded to do this, from every road, both of simple people and of doctrines that are not simple, according to the customs of the nations, cities, villages, and places. The servants went out — whether from Judaea and Jerusalem, the apostles of Christ, or from the inner regions where the blessed angels were — and came to the roads, and have gathered, and will gather, all the bad whom they find, so that, having put off their wickedness, the garment foreign to the wedding, and having put on, with those called good, the garment of the wedding, they may fill the wedding feast as they recline.

When, then, “the wedding is filled with guests reclining,” and resting on faith and godliness, then the king will come in to look over and judge those reclining, so that, having convicted the one who has no wedding garment, he may punish him, and may set before the rest the prepared dinner, and the slaughtered fatted animals with the oxen, and all the other things that he prepared. He knows one who has not put on a wedding garment, referring to one genus or species those who have kept the wickedness they had before faith and have not stripped it off. And he blames such a one as having done wrong in daring to enter such a wedding without taking up the garment of the wedding, the woven fabric of virtue, the bright garment about which Solomon gave a command in Ecclesiastes, saying, “At every season let your garments be white.” The one who dared to enter this bright wedding without a wedding garment is silenced and cannot speak; and he is condemned as deserving punishment and judgment by the one who told the attendants — others than the armies mentioned above — to bind his feet and hands, which he did not use as he ought (for he neither walked the course he should, nor performed the actions he ought), and to cast him out not only from the wedding feast but into the outer darkness, wholly unmixed with light; so that, thirsting for light after being in the outer darkness, he may weep … the one able to benefit him, and from there … God, and may gnash the teeth that through wickedness ate the unripe grape and so were set on edge: “For the teeth of the one who eats the unripe grape will be set on edge.” There too the unripe grape must be taken to mean the wickedness of the one who did not stretch forward to what lies ahead, but remained in it, when he ought to have gone on to ripeness and made the grape of virtue sweet. And he adds to the whole parable, on account of the many who were called and did not become worthy, “For many are called”; and on account of those who entered the wedding and were made to recline there, being few, “but few are chosen.” And if anyone considers the populous gatherings of what, to put it simply, are called the churches, and examines how many live more reasonably and “are transformed by the renewal of the mind,” and how many conduct themselves more carelessly “and are conformed to this age,” he would see that the Saviour’s saying is useful: “For many are called, but few are chosen.” 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.” [On those who questioned him about the census tax.]

“Then the Pharisees went and took counsel against him, how they might entrap him in talk,” and so on, down to: “And they left him and went away.” The meaning of the passage before us, according to the letter, seems to me to be this. The Jews, since they had their own teaching according to the law of Moses, and a way of life estranged from the conduct of the Gentiles, and held a precept that says, “Strive for the truth to the death, and the Lord will fight for you,” resisted the Gentiles who ruled them so as not to transgress the law of God. Often they ran the risk of being utterly destroyed when the Romans wished to bring a statue of Caesar into the temple of God, resisting and hindering those who had become stronger than they because the Jews had sinned. We have found in the histories of the time of Tiberius Caesar writings to the effect that under Pontius Pilate the people were in danger, when Pilate tried by force to set up a statue of Caesar in the temple and they resisted even beyond their strength. The like is recorded to have happened also in the times of Gaius Caesar. And we conjecture that, as long as the people was under God’s oversight, and “the vineyard of the Lord, the house of Israel, and the man of Judah, his beloved new planting,” was walled about with the hedge spoken of in the prophets, nothing so serious happened. And most remarkable of all, it was Pilate himself, to whom they handed over Jesus, who first dared to defile the temple of God. In the time of the Saviour, then, when the Jews had been ordered to pay tribute to the Romans, there was inquiry and debate among the Jews whether those dedicated to God, who were his portion, ought to give tribute to the rulers, or to fight for freedom, if they were not permitted to live as they wished, and not give tribute. And it is recorded that Judas the Galilean, whom Luke also mentions in the Acts of the Apostles, led a great number of Jews to revolt and taught that one should not give tribute to Caesar nor proclaim Caesar lord; while the tetrarch of that time wished to persuade the people to yield to the present situation and not to choose of their own accord a war against stronger men, but to pay the tributes. The present passage of the Gospel does not show such things plainly; but to one able to look closely at the text before us, it shows that things were so. For the Pharisees, wishing to entrap Jesus in talk, would have had no room to send their disciples with the Herodians to ask Jesus whether it is lawful to give the census tax to Caesar or not, if it had been agreed that one should not give it, or if it had been agreed that one should give it.

And see whether the facts of the history we have set out are not shown by the Pharisees, who wished to entrap Jesus in talk, sending their own disciples to ask about the census tax not alone but with the Herodians. For it is likely that among the people at that time those who taught that the tribute should be paid to Caesar were called Herodians by those who did not want this to be done, while those who, under a pretence of freedom, hindered the paying of tribute to Caesar were thought to be the Pharisees, who were exact in the teachings of the Jews. If someone does not want things to be so, let him explain how the Pharisees, wishing to entrap him in talk, send their own disciples, and send the Herodians too, to ask about the tribute. For what trap was there in Jesus’ answering whether he wished the census tax to be given to Caesar or not, unless, as we have explained, the Herodians would hand him over to the Romans as teaching revolt if he forbade giving the census tax to Caesar, while, if he permitted it, the Pharisees would accuse Jesus of regarding the person of men rather than teaching the way of God in truth? Test it for yourself: the disciples of the Pharisees, in saying, “Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God in truth, and you care for no one; for you do not regard the person of men,” were provoking him, as it were, by their praise not to show partiality to the Herodians and to those who took Caesar’s side, so that, declaring according to the Pharisees’ wish that tribute should not be given to Caesar, he might be handed over by them to the Herodians. See also the words: “But Jesus, perceiving their craftiness, said, Why do you test me, you hypocrites?” He knew, then, that he was being tested by the Pharisees, who came to him with craftiness so that, whatever he answered, they might plot against him on the strength of his answer. Let these things be said from the present Gospel on the passage, as regards the letter. With them the words of Mark and Luke on the same matters agree, as you can see by setting the Gospels side by side and examining them against one another; for no other meaning than this is stated by Matthew about the matters of the passage, and Mark’s is like Matthew’s. At the same time we are taught by our Saviour not to give heed, under the pretext of piety toward God, to what is said by the many and therefore seems reputable, but to what is established by examination and by the logic of reason. For notice that, when the question was whether one should give the census tax to Caesar or not, he did not simply declare his own opinion, but said, “Show me the coin of the census tax,” and asked whose image and inscription it bore; and when they said, “Caesar’s,” he answered that one must render to Caesar what is his when he asks for it, and not deprive him of his own under a pretence of piety. But surely it is not that one must render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, but not also to God the things that are God’s; and no one who renders to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s is prevented from rendering to God the things that are God’s.

One can interpret the passage figuratively as follows. We consist of soul and body (let it be put off for now to say that we consist also of spirit); and we owe certain things to be given, as a kind of tribute, to the ruler of bodies, who is called Caesar: the things necessary for the body, which bear the bodily image of the ruler of bodies. These are food, clothing, necessary rest, and sleep. And we owe other things, since the soul is by nature according to the image of God, to its king, God: the things that are beneficial and suited to the nature and substance of the soul. These are the ways that lead to virtue and the actions done in virtue. Those, then, who are taught the law of God do not hold the same opinions about the matters of the body and what is owed to it. Some do what corresponds to those who advise not giving the census tax to Caesar, afflicting the body as much as they can with fasts and vigils, and with complete abstinence from what serves the body and its necessary actions. Others besides these do not grasp the matters of the passage clearly, but imagine that the body too should be given its dues. But our Saviour, the Word of God, clearly separating the reasonable dues of the body from the dues 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 bears the image of Caesar and of bodily things, and this alone, and nothing more, we owe to the body.

I also know another interpretation of the passage that is current, of this kind. The ruler of this age is figuratively called Caesar, while the king of the ages, who is under no symbol, is everywhere named God. Since, then, we have certain things belonging to the ruler of this age, that is, the things of wickedness, and we cannot render to God the things that are God’s until we have put off all the things of wickedness and rendered to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, therefore the Saviour, when the coin and the image on it had been shown, says, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Let us consider this too in connection with the passage: if ever we are tested by people who seek occasions against us, who put forward problems not to learn but to accuse us as far as they can, and we hear questions meant to test us, we ought neither to keep wholly silent nor to answer at random, but carefully and with circumspection, so as to cut off, as far as we can, the occasions sought by those who want occasions, and to teach blamelessly the things that save those who wish to be saved by listening. The Pharisees can be taken to stand for the teachers of the various Jewish traditions, and the Herodians for what among the many is considered the royal element of the Jews’ doctrines, as they are rather loosely called. From both, then, they ask the Saviour about the census tax; and he answers them, as we have explained. Yet since they wish not to learn by asking him, but to entrap him in talk and to test him, therefore, having heard his view on their question, and marvelling that he had given them no occasion 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 “they left him and went away.” And such are those who leave the Word, and disbelieve him, and depart from him after hearing him. One will not be wrong in saying of those who, after hearing, have turned away even from listening, that these “left Jesus and went away”; but we shall say the words of the bride: “I held him and did not let him go.” [On the Sadducees, who questioned Jesus about the woman who had had seven husbands.]

“On that day Sadducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection,” and so on, down to: “they were astonished at his teaching.” Things equivalent to these, or the same, are said also in Mark and Luke, in words differing slightly. “On that day” — what day, if not the day when “the Pharisees went and took counsel against him, how they might entrap him in talk,” and asked about the census tax? For it is likely that, when our Saviour had answered about the census tax and said, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s,” and they had marvelled at his answer, the Sadducees, knowing his wise answers, thought either that by raising a difficulty they themselves would show that they, who say there is no resurrection, had a stronger argument than those who hope for it, or perhaps that they would learn how there can be a resurrection according to the writing of Moses, and what the life of those who rise will be. Observe that almost all our Saviour’s teaching at this time was given in response to questions. First, “when he had come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to him as he was teaching, saying, By what authority are you doing these things? And who gave you this authority?” Having asked them in return about John, he seemed with good reason to have declined to give the answer they wanted. Then after this he tells the parable of the two children, the one who promised to work in the vineyard and did not work, and the one who promised but did not work. Then after this he tells the parable of the vineyard and of the tenants who killed the servants and the son, and what follows; another parable about those invited to the wedding; and after this Matthew recorded a second inquiry, that about the census tax, and a third, the difficulty raised by the Sadducees about the resurrection. And after this a fourth question was put by a Pharisee who tested him about “Which commandment is great in the law?” When so many questions had been put to him, he himself, when the Pharisees were gathered together, questioned them about the Christ. The Sadducees, however, saying that there is no resurrection, not only rejected what in the usage of simpler believers is called the resurrection of the flesh, but did away entirely not only with the immortality of the soul but even with its survival, thinking that the life of the soul hereafter is nowhere indicated in the writings of Moses. The same doctrine about the human soul as the Sadducees’ is held to this day by the Samaritans, who consider themselves learned in the law and strive to the death for the law of Moses and circumcision. Some of the Corinthians in the Apostle’s time understood resurrection in this sense — I mean that of the Sadducees and Samaritans, which does away with the life of the soul hereafter — and taught that there is no resurrection; about them he writes: “Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?” That those in Corinth who said there is no resurrection of the dead rejected the resurrection in the Sadducees’ sense, that is, the … of the soul, he makes plain from the words: “If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.” If you examine this carefully, you will see that one who rejects the resurrection of the dead believed in the church, even if he is wrong to reject it, has not in every case hoped in Christ in this life only. For if, by hypothesis, the resurrection believed by the many were not true, the one who rejects it would not have hoped in Christ in this life only, since the soul lives, not receiving back that body, but putting on something ethereal and better; nor “are we of all people most to be pitied” if we were to say that the soul lives and exists, but that this body is not put about it again, and were not to say that it receives it back. Further, to establish that the Apostle in the First Letter to the Corinthians takes his stand chiefly against this sense, we shall also make use of the words, “If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf? And why are we in danger every hour?” and, “If, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus, what do I gain, if the dead are not raised? Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” For suppose that what is thought true by the many about the resurrection of the dead were not true: how does it follow that we run into danger in vain when we strive for the salvation of our souls? And how is there no gain for the one who fought with beasts for Christ, his soul being dealt with according to its worth, though it does not receive back its former body? And how does “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die” follow from there being no resurrection of the flesh? We do not say these things in disbelief of what is written in Isaiah in this way: “All flesh shall see the salvation of God,” or of what is said by Job: “For everlasting is he who is to release me upon the earth, and to raise up my skin that endures these things”; nor do we disbelieve the apostolic voice that says, “He will give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.” Rather, as far as we can, we are clarifying the sense of the word “resurrection” in the passage of the Gospel before us, and for this we have adduced the texts from the First Letter to the Corinthians. “Then Sadducees came to Jesus, who said there was no resurrection” — resurrection, that is, in their sense, as we have explained — “and asked” our Lord, “saying, Moses said, If a man dies having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother.”

It seems to me worth setting out for this purpose the words of Moses to which the Sadducees, as written in the Gospel, referred what they said. The text in Deuteronomy runs thus: “If brothers live together and one of them dies,” and so on, down to: “the house of him whose sandal was loosed.” The Sadducees, having no hope of resurrection, understood this text badly and conceived nothing worthy of God about the law set out; and they thought it followed from there being a resurrection that the husband too will rise again a man, having male organs, and the wife will rise a woman, clothed in a woman’s body. Supposing in this lowly way that what is said about the resurrection is said on the ground that, in their view, these things follow from it, they invented a tale about seven brothers who married one woman, and raised the difficulty whose wife such a woman would be when she rose, having once been called the wife of seven men. They could also have raised the difficulty without such a fiction, from women who had married several times, and perhaps also from men who had married several times. And our Saviour, answering them, did not explain the meaning of the law of Moses, since they were not worthy of knowing so great a mystery; he only declared, saying that the divine Scriptures too proclaim this about 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 as the angels in heaven neither marry nor are given in marriage, so, he says, are those who rise from the dead. I think it is shown by this that those who are counted worthy of the resurrection from the dead become like the angels in heaven not only in not marrying and not being given in marriage, but also in that their bodies of humiliation are transformed and become such as the bodies of the angels are, ethereal and of radiant light. Someone might seek a doctrine strange to most believers — perhaps from many places, but plainly from this one as well — raising the question whether, just as those who rise from the dead are like the angels in heaven, changing from human beings into the order of angels, so also other angels in heaven were once human beings and, having contended well in a human body, have become angels in heaven, as some others did before them. Let whoever seeks this strange doctrine from the present passage, and perhaps from elsewhere, look around the whole of Scripture and the sequence of things, and consider what follows for one who holds these things, and whether one must accept a teaching from which follow such things as are shown by “We shall judge angels,” and by “things into which angels long to look.” And if someone also accepts the Epistle of Jude, let him see what follows for this teaching from the words, “And the angels who did not keep their own position of authority, but abandoned their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloom for the judgment of the great day.” And let the one who dares to inquire into such things see how one must understand what is written in Genesis, that “the sons of God, seeing the daughters of men, that they were beautiful, took wives for themselves from all whom they chose.” To raise the difficulty about the passage plainly, to examine its consequences, and to entrust the clarification of such great matters to paper, is perhaps not safe; for it is enough that we have ventured so far even in what has been said.

Having once set out the words of the law from Deuteronomy, I think it not out of place to see what kind of meaning it has. We must ask, then, who in it is the one wife, and who are the two husbands who are brothers of one another: the first marrying the wife but bearing no fruit from her, and the second, the dead man’s brother, marrying her and begetting a child from her for the one who has died. And after this you will ask who is the one who does not wish to take his brother’s wife, and for this reason has his one sandal loosed before the council of elders, and is spat upon in the face by the woman, who goes up to the gate and says, “My husband’s brother will not raise up his brother’s name in Israel.” One might also ask in the passage what the council of elders is, and the gate to which the woman goes up saying what is written. That every law which professes to be God’s must be believed to be something venerable and worthy of reverence, or, if it is not venerable, not to be a law of God, everyone not wholly without understanding would agree. But whether we find what is venerable and useful in this law or not, God would know first, and his Christ, and after them the approved money-changer according to Scripture, who knows how to “test all things” and to “hold fast what is good, and abstain from every form of evil.” Come, then, since we wish to explain the legal problem before us, let us call upon him who said, “I will utter problems from of old,” and say — well, if it be what is given by him; but if not, what occurs to us about the passage; and the reader will judge what is about to be said. It seems to me, according to one interpretation, that the wife is the human soul, married first to the letter of the law and bearing no children by it, and second to the spiritual law, and bearing fruit and begetting by it, yet not abandoning, in what she has borne, the honour due to the letter of the law that died for her. And perhaps every soul that is to be blessed, and is figuratively a wife, is in every case married first, in its introductory stages, to the letter of the law, which dies as the wife, the soul, advances, so that she may attain the more venerable, child-bearing marriage, when she “will be saved through childbearing, if the children continue in faith and love and holiness with self-control,” not being saved before the childbearing or without it. The children of this wife, the soul, by the second husband, the spiritual law, are the works done according to it. The brothers, born of one mother, the understanding, are the two laws, which also live together; for their house is not separated, the one from the other, but both of them, both interpretations, are in the letter which contains them as in a house. And see whether this can be shown from the words, “If brothers live together”; then next comes, “and one of them dies, and he has no offspring,” which I have explained as I could. Let us also look at the words, “The wife of the dead man shall not be married outside to a man not near of kin,” and ask which wife, that is, soul, transgresses this law, and which keeps it. In such passages I take it that, after the death of the literal interpretation of the law and its overthrow, one soul, which had previously been the wife of the dead man and had trusted him, acts against the divine commandment and comes wholly “outside” the law “to a man not near of kin,” when it accepts a doctrine that is not near to the interpretation of the letter, but wholly alien both to it and to the interpretation of the letter of the law; and such souls did not wish to be married to the spiritual law that lived together with that one, but to unite with some doctrine outside both of these and in no way near of kin. Another soul, living according to God, when the former husband has died and been overthrown, does not wish “to be married outside to a man not near of kin,” but is married to the brother of the deceased, who lived together with him, when her husband’s brother goes in to her, and comes within her soul, and takes her to himself as wife, and lives with her, the soul, to her blessedness, since she is married according to the will of God to the second, the spiritual law. And the child that the soul, the wife, who has lived with the second and spiritual brother, bears and begets, is established in the name of the deceased; it is not from the first husband, yet it bears the name of the first too. For the name of what is begotten of the spiritual law is the name of the deceased, since that one too was called the law of God; and the name of the dead husband must not be blotted out from the discerning and true Israel, even if … is blotted out.

Let this much be said, in part, about the law. But we need God again, or rather even more, enlightening our mind in Christ to contemplate what follows: “For if the man does not wish,” it says, “to take his brother’s wife, his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate, to the elders, and say,” and the words that follow. And first observe that, as long as the wife was doing what was commanded by the law, and the husband went in to her and lived with her and had children by her, he was not called “man,” but the brother of the woman’s husband; but when he does not wish to take his brother’s wife, and will not raise up his brother’s name in Israel, and, when summoned by the elders of the city, says, “I do not wish to take her,” and is dishonoured by having his sandal loosed, and is spat upon in the face by the woman, and is renamed, so that his name is “the house of him whose sandal was loosed,” then he is called “man.” For it is as though, through his keeping the law, the words were said to him, “I said, You are gods”; but through his doing what is contrary to the law, he is as it were convicted by the Word, who says to him, “But you die like men.” And consider whether you can understand that, after the death of the literal interpretation, there is another interpretation of the law that has gone astray, neither spiritual nor blameless, but having its origin in error, though it comes from the starting points of what is written in the law, and does not wish to raise up the name of their brother and to honour the name of the law. Such an interpretation does not wish to take its brother’s wife, the soul; for it does not wish to bear fruit for the glory of the name of the dead brother. Therefore the wife, who is ready to honour her first husband, does not stand below, but goes up to the gate and entrance of her own city, which also has a council of elders. Let these things be understood as happening in the church, and in the introduction and entrance into it. The wife, then, convicts the husband who does not wish to bear fruit — a doctrine of this kind — and says, “My husband’s brother will not raise up his brother’s name in Israel.” Then the elders of that city, examining such a husband, ask whether he truly does not wish it; and when he answers that he does not, she herself comes to the one who would not raise up offspring for his brother, and before the elders convicts him and dishonours him by loosing his one sandal. And in this connection consider, in view of “Remove the sandal from your feet,” said to Moses and to Joshua, and of “I am not worthy to untie the strap of his sandal,” written in Luke and Mark and John, whether to remove the sandal is not the same as to loosen it; for Moses and Joshua are not commanded to loosen it, nor did John speak of loosening with regard to the Saviour. This transgressor, then, has neither been wholly unshod nor fully equipped with footwear, but has each by half; therefore the woman, having convicted him before the elders, spits in his face. For every soul spits on a doctrine that does not beget children or bear fruit, and by overturning it loosens it in the points in which it stumbles. “And she shall answer and say, So shall they do to the man who does not build up his brother’s house.” And note again here that he is named “man” a second time, in the case of the one who sins and now also does not build up his brother’s house. Let everyone, then, who sees this man having his sandal loosed by a woman and being spat upon, and hears her say, “So shall they do to the man who does not build up his brother’s house,” do everything for the building up of his brother; for if he does not build up his brother’s house, his one sandal will be loosed, and he will be spat upon, and the name of every such person in Israel will be called among those who see, “the house of him whose sandal was loosed.” Let us also look at a second interpretation of the law set out. Let the two brothers be two laws, according to which the one who kept the first was not without law toward God, while the one who keeps the second is under the law of Christ. And understand, please, that at the coming of Christ the first law died, the husband of the human soul, since “what was glorified has not been glorified in this respect, because of the glory that surpasses it,” that of the second; and the second law is that of Christ, the brother of the first, given through Moses, and son of the same Word who also begot the first. While these two brothers, then, lived together, especially at the coming, one of them died, and he had no offspring; but the wife of the dead man, the soul under the law, after the death of her first husband does not become “outside, to a man not near of kin”; for a husband is near of kin, the law of the Gospel, as brother of the dead husband, the first law, and he goes in to his brother’s wife. For example, see the soul of Paul under the law, and then, through Christ who redeemed him from the law, come under the Gospel. See whether the husband of Paul’s soul did not die, and yet, when he had died, the wife of the dead man did not become “outside,” as those from the heresies think, nor “to a man not near of kin”; for her husband’s brother went in to her, took her to himself as wife, and lived with her, and the fruit, the offspring, the child, the one born, came to be in the name of the deceased. For according to the spiritual law the Gospel names everything, and the name of the deceased was not blotted out when the law of the Gospel came; for among the true Israel the name of the former too is kept. Who, then, after this, is the man who does not wish to take his brother’s wife, if not the doctrine in the heresies, which does not wish to accept the soul that has honoured its former husband, and the memory of the former husband? Against him his brother’s wife goes up to the gate, of which it is said, “This is the gate of the Lord; the righteous shall enter by it,” and goes up to the elders, and testifies about the one who does not wish to raise up offspring for his brother in Israel, nor to honour the law of God given through Moses. When, then, the elders ask such a man whether the woman speaks the truth about him and he does not wish to raise up offspring for his brother, then the wife of the dead man comes before the elders and loosens the one sandal from his foot, so that, even if he is shod with the name of Christ, he has the name of God loosed, and for this reason does not bear the name of Christ either gloriously or truly. And the woman spits in the face of such a one, and reproaches him as a mere man, who would not be made divine by bearing fruit; and she says that so it will be for everyone who does not build up the house of his brother, the Gospel word, which is also of the law and the prophets; and the one who does not build it up will have no other name among the Israelites than this: that this is the house of him whose sandal was loosed. Everyone, then, who wallows in the heresies, especially those that divide the Godhead and separate the law from the Gospel, “is the house of him whose sandal was loosed,” spat upon in the face and having his one sandal loosed. We have also taken up a third interpretation of this kind for the passage, which we shall state briefly. Wisdom is called a wife because of “I sought to take her as my bride,” and one must love her, according to Solomon, who said, “Love her, and she will guard you”; and her husband is the wise man. If, then, the wise man departs from life without having begotten any from Wisdom, let the brother who lived with him and rested in the same doctrines champion them, so that one may be born from Wisdom who will win glory for the one who departed from their life together by presenting the fruit. But if the brother who is left in the doctrines does not wish to champion them, he will be dishonoured by Wisdom, who loosens him by half; for such a one will neither remain unloosed nor be completely loosed. To establish that, according to Scripture, the law is called the husband of the wife, that is, of the soul, we shall cite …

Let these things, even if they seem to have been said by way of digression, stand as said for the clarification of the law given by Moses, which the Sadducees mentioned when they questioned the Saviour, saying, “Moses said, If a man dies having no children,” and so on. Come, then, after this let us examine the rest of the Gospel passage, from “Now there were seven brothers among us; and the first married and died,” and so on. Isaiah says in his prophecy: “Seven women will take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread and wear our own clothes; only let your name be called upon us; take away our reproach.” But the Sadducees who came to the Saviour speak, the reverse of the prophecy, of seven men who married one woman. Their problem seems to me to be a fiction: they proposed by means of the fiction to set aside the doctrine of the resurrection, thinking that it follows from the resurrection that each of those who rise has the same relation toward those to whom he was related in this life, so that the husband, on attaining the resurrection, also receives back his wife, the father remains in his relation to his son, and the brother to his brother. They did not know, then, that the Creator, who makes all things for usefulness, made such relations of necessity where there is birth and decay: so that a man, through a woman, may minister to the birth of children, and those who are born may have a certain kinship from their birth through the same parents, being brothers. Father and son, and mother and daughter, were the work of birth. If, then, those counted worthy of the prize because of the present age, in which they lived well, will be in that life of blessedness, and no one who has not contended here is counted worthy of the resurrection from the dead, plainly the things that were needed here because of birth will not be there; for God makes nothing superfluous, and nothing is done by him in vain. The Sadducees ought to have seen what follows from their supposition that each will receive back his own wife: that there would again be childbearing there, births of children, and deaths; and if these, diseases; and if births, then infancies, and progress from infancy to the completion of speech and later of reason, and with the completion of reason, wickedness, and virtue found again only rarely, among the few who seek it. What could be more vain than these things? Indeed it is better that there be no resurrection than that it be such as the Sadducees supposed, who took it that each person’s receiving back his wife follows from the resurrection from the dead, from which each of the things mentioned would also have followed. If, then, a new age is hoped for, and a new earth, and, as Isaiah named it, “a new heaven and a new earth,” and, as is written in the Gospel, “the cup of the new covenant,” from a new vine, I think, then all the things of the life there must be of another kind, and truly blessed. And just as, as reason has shown, it followed from there being wife and husband that there would also be children of fathers, and brothers of brothers, and mothers of those born; so perhaps it follows from there being no wife or husband that there will no longer be father and mother, nor some who are brothers of one another — perhaps not only regarding those to come, but also regarding those who have been? For there will no longer be any memory there of descent according to the flesh, among those who rightly hear the words, “Do not remember the former things, nor consider the things of old; behold, I make all things new.” Accordingly, in the age to come Terah will not be called father of Abraham, nor will Abraham be called father of Israel and of those born of Keturah, nor perhaps even of Isaac’s descendants; for … all things are new. But whether there is someone who is a brother in another way than according to the flesh, and a father and son otherwise than in the things of birth — no longer through a woman, nor through the unseemly parts of the body, but in a way analogous to the Saviour’s being the Son of God — the one able to inquire rightly into such great matters will consider, having received “the Spirit who searches all things, even the depths of God.” And I take this other kind, this sameness of name, as it were, not only in these cases — I mean brother, father, and son — but also concerning wife and husband. For in the resurrection of the dead it is true that “they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels in heaven”; and true also is what is said as in a parable about a marriage of another kind than marriages on earth, in, “The kingdom of heaven is like a man, a king, who made a marriage feast for his son,” and so on; and in, “Then the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins, who took their lamps,” and so on. The son of the king, then, in the resurrection of the dead, marries with a marriage beyond every marriage that eye has seen, and ear has heard, and that has entered the heart of man; and that venerable, divine, and spiritual marriage consists in unspeakable words, “which it is not lawful for a man to speak.” Someone will ask whether, corresponding to the bridegroom’s marriage in the resurrection of the dead, there are also other marriages, or whether in the resurrection of the dead the bridegroom alone, having abolished every marriage, marries with a marriage in which the two will not be one flesh, but in which it is more proper to say that the bridegroom and the bride are one spirit. But beware lest, on hearing such words, you slip into accepting the myth-making about the aeons, male and female, according to those who have fabricated their pairs, which are in no way shown by the sacred writings.

Since the Sadducees’ question about the seven brothers who had one wife needs no figurative interpretation, let us consider the Saviour’s words on these matters, in which he says: “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels in heaven.” On this someone will ask questions such as these. In saying to the Sadducees, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God,” the Saviour indicates that it is established according to the Scriptures that in the resurrection of the dead there are no marriages, since those who will rise will be 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 in the law or the prophets do we learn of those who will rise that they will be like the angels in heaven? For we plainly do not find such things in the Old Scripture. According to Luke this question will not arise, since he recorded that the Saviour said, “The children of this age beget and are begotten, marry and are given in marriage,” and so on, and did not say anything to the Sadducees in this passage about these things being shown in the Scriptures; but according to Matthew it might be asked, and rightly also according to Mark. For according to him Jesus answered and said to the Sadducees, “Is not this the reason you are wrong, that you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God? For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels in heaven.” Let each of those who have attended to our difficulty, then, seek from the Scriptures what establishes the Saviour’s words … about those after the resurrection. We, however, shall say this: that the Scriptures contain these things not word for word, nor so as to be understood by just anyone, but figuratively. “For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come,” though it legislated certain things about women and men and narrated righteous marriages, does not speak primarily about these things, as one might take it from the obvious wording, but about the things that we too set out before, when we adduced the passages about the Saviour’s marriage that will be in the age to come. For example, “Abraham 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, the one by the free woman through the promise”: I need not in every respect stop at the sensible marriage of the free woman and the union with the slave woman, “for these things are allegorized.” But even if “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh,” the saying is not to be heard as showing no mystery; “for this mystery is great,” and, as Paul says, refers to Christ and the church. And a little before, setting out the law about the woman married to the brother of her dead husband, we examined as well as we could the meaning of the law. There are also countless other laws about wife and husband, such as the law about the certificate of divorce, and about two wives belonging to one husband, one loved and the other hated, and about the captive woman married to the man who desired her, married after she has shaved her head and wept for her father and her mother in mourning clothes; each of these has its venerable and divine meaning in the true figurative interpretation that is found. If anyone, then, reading the law and going through what concerns the marriage of women and men, thinks that nothing more is shown than what is signified by the letter, “he is wrong, knowing neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.”

One might ask whether “You are wrong, because you do not know the Scriptures,” said to the Sadducees, who accepted no Scripture other than the law, refers also to Scriptures other than the law of Moses. One person will say that the Sadducees are charged with precisely this, that by not accepting the Scriptures that come after the law they are wrong in not knowing them; another will say: to refute the Sadducees’ error it is enough that they did not know the Scriptures of Moses, in that they did not grasp the divine meaning in them. He says, however, that the Sadducees did not know two things: one, the Scriptures, and the other, the power of God, by which power the things of the resurrection come about, and the new life in it. One can also refer to the Saviour himself the saying that the Sadducees did not know the power of God either; since “Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God,” and the Sadducees did not know him, as people who did not know the Scriptures about him, nor what he will minister to the resurrection from the dead of those who will be saved. But one who is not content to resolve by figurative interpretation the difficulty raised about “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God,” will do one of two things: either he will disbelieve the texts before us as not rightly recorded, on the ground that the Saviour would not have spoken of what is not written as written; or he will dare to disbelieve Jesus as not having spoken the truth. And a third might take refuge in the apocryphal writings, where the things about the blessed life seem to be written more clearly, and say that the words here, “You are wrong, because you do not know the Scriptures,” refer to them. See whether he will not fall into absurdities on every side by fleeing figurative interpretation. If he disbelieves the Scripture, he will act against the church’s teaching; if he disbelieves Jesus, he will be doing what a Jew according to the flesh would do; and if he takes refuge in the apocrypha, he will not come to anything agreed upon among believers. Therefore it seems to me that “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God; for in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage” can be explained in no other way than through the corresponding allegory found in the Apostle in the Letter to the Galatians about the slave woman and the free woman, which will also be applied to the other Scriptures where something is said about husband and wife. And just as those err who, because they do not interpret the prophetic writings figuratively, think that after the resurrection we shall eat and drink bodily foods, since the words of the Scriptures contain such things, so also do those who keep to the letter what is written about marriages and husbands and wives, and think that we shall then too engage in sexual intercourse, on account of which it is not possible even to devote oneself to prayer, since those who engage in sexual relations are in a certain defilement and a kind of impurity. After this I ask whether “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God” refers only to “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage,” or also to “but they are like the angels in heaven.” For I do not find where in Scripture those who will be saved are said to be like angels in heaven; unless someone will say that this too is shown in “But you shall go to your fathers in peace, nourished in a good old age,” and “He was added to his people,” or in what is said in Deuteronomy about man as set by God in heaven and on earth; but you will find it if you examine the passage for yourself. Next one can look at the words, “And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.” To this too we shall say that, though the Saviour could have adduced countless passages from the prophets about the future life that awaits human beings, he did not do so, because the Sadducees accepted only the Scripture of Moses. From it he wished to put them to shame with a syllogism that shows something like this: God said to Moses, “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,” when he spoke to him at the bush. Either, then, God is God of those who are, or God of those who are not. But it is absurd to say that God, who said, “He who is: this is my name,” is God of those who in no way are. And if this is absurd, he is God of those who are, and live, and subsist, and perceive the grace that God gave them when he proclaimed himself their God and said, “This is my everlasting memorial.” Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob live, then, perceiving God and his grace, since he is called God of each 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”; and so Matthew, Mark, and Luke recorded it, in order, I think, to show those who attend to the reading that God is God of each of them, granting them this as a special honour. For they were not like the Hebrews, so that God would be called their God collectively, as he is of the Hebrews; for of them it is written, “The God of the Hebrews has sent me,” but of these one by one, so that the Word may show that one Abraham is of equal honour with the whole nation of the Hebrews. For is not God equally God of Abraham and God of the Hebrews? And you will say the same about his being God of Isaac and God of Jacob as about his being God of the Hebrews. I think that Elijah too was counted worthy of such honour, which is why it is written in the fourth book of Kingdoms, “The God of Elijah.” Of Abraham, then, God was only God, and likewise of Isaac and of Jacob; but of our Saviour, who is greater than they, God is not only God but also Father. Therefore 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 true disciples that the same one should be not only their God but also their Father; for, having risen 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.” And I think that he granted this also to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, so that God should no longer be only their God, but now also their Father. Luke added to “He is not God of the dead, but of the living,” which stands also in Matthew and Mark, the words, “for all live to him.” This was no ordinary praise of the patriarchs, since our great Saviour bears witness to them not only that they live, but also that the life they live they live to God, and to no one else. This “for all live to him” it is good to practise in every way and for us to take up, so that we may all live to no one else but to God in Christ. Hearing this brief demonstration from the writings of Moses, given to those who accepted only those writings, that the patriarchs live, “the crowds were astonished,” receiving the Saviour’s teaching as most wise and able to turn to him even those who were slow to believe.